{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -JANUARY 4, 2005 - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:53 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent :\nCouncilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n( 05-003 - ) Presentation on the basic requirements for an Indian\nTribe to operate a Casino in California.\nThe Assistant City Attorney provided a brief report on the basic\nrequirements to conduct tribal gaming.\nMayor Johnson stated that the purpose of the presentation was to\ninform the public on the required process for the Koi Tribe to\nobtain approval for a casino; stated that presentation tapes would\nbe available for public review and that the public should direct\nquestions to the City Attorney's office.\nMichael Scholtes, Bay Isle Pointe Home Owners Association, stated\nthat he opposes the proposed casino.\nMayor Johnson requested staff to place a resolution opposing the\nproposed casino on the next City Council agenda.\nRosemary Cambra, Mowekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay\nArea, submitted a handout and cautioned the Council on taking a\nstance against the proposed casino.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that Council would need to exert\npressure and fight on behalf of the City.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to approve\nAgreement between the Alameda Unified School District and the City\nof Alameda [paragraph no. 05-010], the Resolution Authorizing Open\nMarket Purchase [paragraph no. 05-012], and the Ordinance Amending\nthe Alameda Municipal Code [paragraph no. 05-016] were removed from\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 2, "text": "the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*05-004) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on December 21, 2004. Approved.\n(*05-005) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,037,089.03\n(*05-006) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of\n$127,102.65 to Stewart & Stevenson for Ferry Vessel Reduction\nGears, No. P.W. 10-04-15. Accepted.\n(*05-007) Recommendation to terminate the Contract with J.W. Riley\n& Son, Inc. for Alameda Point Multi Use Field, No. P.W. 12-02-18\nand authorize project completion. Accepted.\n(*05-008 - ) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $45,000\nto Maze and Associates for Financial Modeling Services. Accepted.\n( *05-009) Recommendation to accept Annual Review of the Affordable\nHousing Ordinance. Accepted.\n(05-010) Recommendation to approve Agreement between the Alameda\nUnified School District and the City of Alameda for Use and\nDevelopment of Real Property at the K-8 School and Park site in the\nBayport Residential Development Project.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Agreement facilitates the goal for\nhaving the school and the park built near the Bayport residential\narea.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there is funding for the\nPreschool and Tiny Tots at the Community Building, to which the\nRecreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n(*05-011) - Recommendation to accept the Bayport Residential Interim\n115Kv overhead power line improvements and authorize recording a\nNotice of Completion. Accepted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 3, "text": "(05-012) - Resolution No. 13807, , \"Authorizing Open Market Purchase\nfrom Allied Sweepers, Inc., Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda\nCity Charter, of Green Machine Sidewalk Cleaning Equipment. \"\nAdopted.\nSherri Stieg, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) thanked the\nCouncil for their efforts with the Webster Street project.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that she was happy to see the project\nprogressing; she would like to see the trees replaced as soon as\npossible.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he is pleased with the progress;\nrequested periodic progress reports on the Streetscape Project.\nMayor Johnson stated schedule updates should continue to be\nprovided.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n( *05-013 - ) Resolution No. 13808, \"Approving Parcel Map No. 8401\n(2340 and 2350 North Loop Road). \" Adopted.\n(*05-014) Resolution No. 13809, \"Reappointing T. David Edwards as\nTrustee of the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District.\n\"\nAdopted.\n(05-015) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode by Amending Subsection 3-28.9 (Payment In-Lieu of Taxes -\nPILOT) ; Adding a New Subsection 3-28.10 (Return on Investment in\nEnterprise Funds) of Section 3-28 (Payment of Taxes) of Chapter III\n(Finance and Taxation) and Adding a New Subsection 18-4.10\n(Exemptions) of Section 18-4 (Sewer Service Charge) of Article I\n(Sewers) of Chapter XVIII (Sewer and Water) . Introduced.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that increasing the Return on\nInvestment (ROI) to 3% could cause some impacts; encouraged the\nCouncil not to vote tonight and place the matter as an action item\nfor the next City Council meeting; $782,000 would be received from\nAlameda Power & Telecom (AP&T) by staying at the original proposal\nof 1% ROI; if the $782,000 is relayed back to the rate payer, the\nmonthly bill could be increased from $1.53 to $2.03.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 4, "text": "Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance with\ndirection that the matter be brought back to Council if there would\nbe any cause for rate increases.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*05-016 - ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode by Adding a New Section 3-91 (City of Alameda Community\nBenefit Assessment Procedure Code) to Article VI (City of Alameda\nImprovement Procedure Code) of Chapter III (Finance and Taxation)\n.\nIntroduced.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(05-017) Recommendation to reappoint Mary Rudge as Alameda's Poet\nLaureat.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director outlined the nomination process.\nLisa Piatetsky, Executive Director Alameda City Art Council, stated\nthat she looks forward to having Ms. Rudge continue as Alameda's\nPoet Laureat.\nMary Rudge, Alameda, submitted a handout i outlined poet activities;\nthanked the Council for acknowledging and encouraging poetry.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 5, "text": "Nina Serrano, Alameda County Arts Commission, commended the Council\nfor having a Poet Laureat.\nMosetta Rose London, Alameda, thanked the Council for the\ndedication of the O'Club to Al DeWitt and for placing her poem on a\nplaque at the O 'Club; read a poem that she wrote.\nNanette Bradley Deetz, Alameda Island Poets, read a poem that she\nwrote about Alameda.\nKen Peterson, Vice President, Alameda Island Poets, stated the\nprogram has been a tremendous success for poetry and for the City.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(05-018 ) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning\nBoard's denial of Major Design Review DR04-0013 and Variances V04-\n0005, V04-0015, V04-0016, V04-0017 to permit the construction of a\nrear deck and garage addition that was completed without City\npermits. The rear deck measures thirty inches in height from grade\nto the top surface of the deck and is built up to the south (left\nside) and west (rear) property lines. The garage addition is an\nexpansion of the existing single-family dwelling up to the north\n(right side) and west (rear) property lines. The Applicant is\nrequesting four (4) Variances to permit the construction of the\nwork completed without permit including: 1) Variance to Alameda\nMunicipal Code (AMC) Subsection 30-5.7(c) (2) (6) to construct a rear\ndeck that measures thirty inches in height and is constructed up to\nthe south side and rear property line with zero setback, where a\nminimum three foot setback is required for decks measuring twelve\nto thirty inches in height; 2) Variance to AMC Subsection 30-\n5. 7 (e) (1) to construct an unenclosed stair and landing up to the\nsouth side property line with zero setback, where a minimum three\nfoot setback is required for unenclosed stairs and landings 3)\nVariance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d) (7) to construct an attached\ngarage addition that extends the main dwelling up to the rear\nproperty line with zero setback where a minimum twenty foot setback\nis required for rear yards 4) Variance to AMC Subsection 30-\n4. 4 (d) (6) to construct an attached garage addition that extends the\nmain dwelling up to the north side property line with zero setback\nwhere a minimum five foot setback is required for side yards. The\nsite is located at 913 Oak Street within an R-4, Neighborhood\nResidential Zoning District. Applicant/Appellant: Fred and Ursula\nHoggenboom and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 6, "text": "(05-018A) Resolution No. 13810, \"Upholding the Planning Board's\nDenial of Major Design Review DR04-0013 and Variances, V04-005,\nV04-0015, V04-0016, V04-0017 for the Structural Expansion of a\nSingle-Family Residence and Construction of Rear Deck at 913 Oak\nStreet. \" Adopted.\nThe Supervising Planner provided a presentation on the background\nof the project.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the garage was a two-story\nstructure connected to the house, to which the Supervising Planner\nresponded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the garage was intended to be\nmore than a one-car garage, to which the Supervising Planner\nresponded that the plans indicate a one-car garage with storage on\nthe left side.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there was a proposal for the\nupstairs portion of the garage, to which the Supervising Planner\nresponded the photographs show an attic with a couple of chairs and\ntable.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated the garage doors are smaller than the\nwidth of the driveway there is a vent pipe that comes down along\nthe side of the house and protrudes into the driveway which would\nmake it very difficult for a car to enter the garage.\nThe Supervising Planner stated many driveways are challenging in\nterms of access.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that she is concerned with the intent of\nusing the garage for the proposed use.\nThe Supervising Planner stated that the Parking Ordinance requires\nthat garages be kept free of structures to accommodate a vehicle.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that the garage could abut the property\nline if detached from the house; once the garage is attached to the\nhouse, there are side and backyard setback issues.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the Code allows for garages to abut\nboth the side and rear property lines under certain circumstances\nthe front of the garage needs to be 75 feet from the front property\nline and there needs to be a 5-foot separation between the main\nhouse and the garage a detached garage could comply with the 75-\nfoot regulation; she is not sure about compliance with the 5-foot\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 7, "text": "separation because there is a small addition at the rear of the\nhouse which might result in less than a 5-foot separation; a\nsmaller detached garage might require a modest variance.\nMayor Johnson inquired what was the square footage of the garage,\nto which the Supervising Planner responded approximately 300 square\nfeet.\nMayor Johnson inquired what was the square footage of a typical\ngarage, to which the Supervising Planner responded a one-car garage\nwould be approximately 200 square feet.\nMayor Johnson inquired why the garage was larger than a typical\ngarage, to which the Supervising Planner responded that the\nresidents wanted storage.\nMayor Johnson inquired when the original garage was demolished, to\nwhich the Supervising Planner responded possibly a few years ago.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was a deck variance\ninvolved.\nThe Supervising Planner responded that the deck required a variance\nbecause it is 28 inches from the grade decks 12 inches from the\ngrade or less are allowed to encroach into yards decks between 12\nand 30 inches require a -foot separation from the side and rear\nproperty line; there is an opportunity to modify the deck by either\nreducing the height, which would result in a deck that is not level\nwith the house, or by reducing the size of the deck to provide the\nrequired set back.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there was a height limit on backyard\nfences, to which the Supervising Planner responded the limit is 6\nfeet for a solid fence and 8 feet for a fence with 2 feet of\nlattice on top.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there was an 11-foot fence in the\nyard, to which the Supervising Planner responded that staff is not\nclear who owns the fences that surround the property.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the fence issue would be pursued\nregardless of tonight's decision, to which the Supervising Planner\nresponded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.\nProponents (In favor of appeal) : Fred Hogenboom, Alameda, and\nUrsula Hogenboom, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 8, "text": "Opponents (Opposed to appeal) : Raymond A. Pacovsky, Sr., Alameda;\nRaymond S. Pacovsky, Jr., Alameda, and Barbara Kerr, Alameda.\nMayor Johnson stated the initiation of construction without permits\nmakes the permitting process difficult; inquired whether the\nAppellant informed the Planning Board that the structure was over\nhis property line.\nThe Appellant responded in the negative; stated that the structure\nis well within the property line; the structure was moved 2 inches\ninward from the original garage.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired how tall the spa was from the floor of\nthe deck to the top of the spa, to which the Appellant responded\nthree and a half feet at the most.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Planning staff recommended\ndropping the deck approximately 12 inches; inquired whether the 12\ninches would equate to two steps.\nThe Appellant stated that he would need to put in three steps to\nlower the deck 12 inches.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether accommodating his wife was part\nof the reason for having the deck the same level as the house.\nThe Appellant responded that his wife has had two back surgeries\nand three hip replacements; stairs are difficult for her.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated there is a two-foot hop to get into the\nspa which appears to be more difficult to navigate than the stairs\nout of the house.\nMayor Johnson stated that one of the reasons for deck height limits\nis because high decks and spas are an intrusion into neighbors'\nbackyards inquired how the footprint of the original garage was\nestablished.\nThe Supervising Planner responded that the Appellant submitted\nplans in 1991 for foundation work at the front of the house which\nindicate that there is a separation between the back of the house;\nthe then existing garage did not seem to be as close as the current\nplans show.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Appellant put siding on the\nneighbors' structures, to which the Appellant responded that he put\nsheet metal up to prevent rotting.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 9, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Appellant asked the neighbors\nbefore putting up the sheet metal, to which the Appellant responded\nin the negative.\nMayor Johnson inquired what would happen if the variances are\ndenied, to which the Supervising Planner responded that two things\ncould happen; the Appellant could work with staff for a solution\nthat would allow a garage and deck that is either fully in\ncompliance or would require a more modest variance or the Appellant\ncould file a lawsuit against the City.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Appellant has paid fines, to\nwhich the Supervising Planner responded investigative fees and fees\nfor working without the proper planning permits have been charged.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the Hearing.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution upholding the\nPlanning Board's decision and denying the Appeal.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated there was only one\ndecision that the Planning Board could have made given the\ncircumstances; encouraged the owner to work with the Planning\nDepartment to salvage the intent of the project within the\nrequirements of the Code.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that she assumes that the Appellants had\nthe best of intentions; the Code clearly specifies detached garage\nand addition requirements; the project is attempting to be both an\naddition to the house and a garage stated future owners could\nconvert the garage into a living space.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(05-019) - Discussion regarding assistance for tenants at Harbor\nIsland Apartments.\nMayor Johnson stated that rent control issues are not on the agenda\ntonight but that the public is free to speak under Oral\nCommunications\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director gave a brief presentation\nregarding the assistance provided to the Harbor Island Apartment\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 10, "text": "tenants.\nSpeakers John Sullivan, San Leandro, Mark Harney, Fifteen Asset\nManagement Group; Kathy Lautz, Apartment Owners' Association;\nLorraine Lilley, Harbor Island Tenant Association; Eve Bach, Arc\nEcology Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope; Steve Edrington, Renal Housing\nAssociation; Delores Wells, Harbor Island Tenant Association\n(submitted letter) ; Modessa Henderson, Harbor Island Tenant\nAssociation; Mary Green-Parks, Alameda; Gen Fujioka, Asian Law\nCaucus; Reginald James, Alameda; Michael Yoshii, Alamedal; and Bill\nSmith, Alameda.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there are a total of 17 units\ncurrently occupied, to which Mr. Harney responded there are 17\nunits that are occupied by tenants with leases; there are 9 units\noccupied by tenants who have stopped paying rent.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether relocation assistance would still be\navailable to the remaining tenants with leases, to which Mr. Harney\nresponded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired how many Harbor Island Apartment\ntenants remained in Alameda, to which Mr. Harney responded that he\nwas not certain; not all tenants provided forwarding information.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested information on the number of Section\n8\ntenants that remained in Alameda.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that Council wants to know what the\nimmediate issues are in dealing with individuals who are still\noccupying units at the Harbor Island Apartments and what assistance\ncan be provided; inquired whether there are housing assistance\nopportunities for the remaining tenants through Community\nDevelopment programs or Sentinel Fair Housing.\nThe Community Development Manager responded that the Community\nDevelopment Block Grant (CDBG) Program contracts with Sentinel Fair\nHousing and the Red Cross; Sentinel Fair Housing has been involved\nwith a number of the tenants; CDBG funds are also being used to\nproduce new affordable housing units through the Substantial\nRehabilitation Program; several of the units would be available to\napplicants who previously resided at the Harbor Island Apartments\nsecurity deposit assistance programs have been funded in the past\nwhich allowed Housing Authority tenants to borrow money from the\nrevolving loan fund and repay over time; the fund was depleted as a\nresult of earlier Section 8 problems; another funding cycle would\nbecome available in July.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was a way to work\nwith the Apartment Owners' Association to help the remaining\ntenants.\nThe Community Development Manager responded there could be some\ncoordination for specific interventions that may help the tenants\nthe cash to provide deposits is a longer-term consideration and\nmight be more difficult without reprogramming of funds.\nMayor Johnson requested staff to review loan possibilities.\nThe City Manager stated that he would work with staff to find\nsolutions.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated aggressive action is needed to help\nthe remaining tenants.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that most families would like to remain\nat the Harbor Island Apartments but the courts have ruled otherwise\nand they must move; the City needs to see what can be done to\nfacilitate the situation in a manner that dignifies the tenants.\nthe Council needs to pursue the best policy that prevents the\nHarbor Island Apartment situation from happening again.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(05-020 - ) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated that the Webster\nStreet construction has posed a danger to bus passengers at the bus\nstops.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated that the construction work has\nbeen delayed because of the rain; stated he would discuss the\nsituation with the Public Works Director.\n(05-021) Reginald James, Alameda, encouraged the reappointment of\nMary Rudge as Alameda's Poet Laureat; stated that he was concerned\nabout a sign stating that there may be a possible reproductive\nharmful environment at the Harbor Island Apartments ; stated that\nthere should be another meeting of the Harbor Island Task Force.\n(05-022) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed earthquakes.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(05-023) Councilmember Matarrese welcomed Interim City Manager,\nBill Norton.\nMayor Johnson welcomed the Interim City Manager to his first\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 12, "text": "Council Meeting.\nADJOURNMEN'T\n(05-024) - There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned\nthe Regular City Council meeting at 11:15 in a moment of silence\nand sympathy for the tsunami victims in Southeast Asia.\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\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 13, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -JANUARY 4, 2005- - -6:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:30 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(05-001) Public Employment; Title: City Manager.\n(05-002) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City\nAttorney.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed Public\nEmployment and recruitment of the new City Manager, and Public\nEmployee Performance Evaluation of 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 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2005-01-05", "page": 1, "text": "CITY\nor\nTERBAL\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nWEDNESDAY, JANUARY 5, 2005\n1.\nMeeting called to order at 5:15 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL: Members NakMin Oddie, Michael Robles-Wong, William J. Smith, and Executive\nSecretary Karen Willis. A welcome was extended to new member Michael Rich.\nABSENT:\nMember Roberto Rocha.\nSTAFF PRESENT: Marsha Merrick, Executive Assistant, Human Resources.\n3.\nMINUTES:\nThe minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 6, 2004, were discussed briefly by Member\nSmith, who then moved to accept, seconded by Member Oddie and carried by a 3-0 vote. Member Rich\nabstained, as he was not present at the October 2004 meeting.\n4.\nCONSENT CALENDAR: Member Rich asked that wording be clarified in the Video Production Artist job\nspecification. Staff, without further need of approval by the Board, will make a minor change. Member\nOddie made a motion to accept the Consent Calendar as presented, along with the wording change on the\njob specification. The motion was seconded by Member Smith and carried by a 4-0 vote.\nSUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE\nMONTHS OF OCTOBER, NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER 2004:\n4-A\nELIGIBLE LISTS ESTABLISHED:\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nAdministrative Services Coordinator\n12/07/04\nAssistant Line Superintendent\n11/17/04\nAssociate Civil Engineer - Plan Check Review Engineer\n12/09/04\nCATV Line Technician (Cable Technician III)\n11/17/04\nCity Engineer\n12/02/04\nData Technician\n11/18/04\nElectrical Helper\n11/20/04\nEngineering and Planning Manager (Utility Services Manager)\n10/26/04\nExecutive Assistant\n10/22/04\nFinancial Services Supervisor\n11/09/04\nFirefighter/Paramedic\n12/21/04\nJourney Lineworker\n10/08/04\nLine Working Supervisor\n11/09/04\nOperations Manager\n10/26/04\nPolice Officer - Lateral\n10/21/04\nPolice Officer - Lateral\n12/01/04\nPolice Technician II - Dispatcher\n11/04/04\nPolice Technician Il - Dispatcher\n12/22/04\nProgram Specialist I - Alternative Modes\n11/03/04\nRisk Manager\n10/13/04\nUtility Analyst\n12/16/04\nVideo Production Artist\n12/07/04\n\"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service\"", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2005-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2005-01-05", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 2\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the Civil Service Board\nWednesday, January 5, 2005\n4-B\nELIGIBLE LISTS EXTENDED:\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nFire Apparatus Operator (Promotional)\n10/01/03\nIntermediate Clerk\n04/12/04\nOffice Assistant\n10/17/03\nPolice Captain (Promotional)\n12/08/03\nProgram Specialist I - Solid Waste/Recycling Services\n11/03/03\nPublic Works Maintenance Foreperson (Promotional)\n11/19/03\nPublic Works Superintendent\n11/26/03\nSenior Fleet Mechanic\n12/10/03\n4-C\nELIGIBLE LISTS EXPIREDICANCELLED:\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nAdministrative Management Analyst - Environmental\n10/25/02\nAdministrative Services Manager\n04/29/04\nApprentice Lineworker\n06/24/04\nAssociate Civil Engineer - Project Manager\n11/26/02\nConstruction Inspection & Survey Supervisor\n11/21/02\nCustomer Service Representative\n05/20/04\nEngineering Supervisor\n04/16/04\nLineworking Supervisor\n11/21/02\nPlans Examiner\n06/28/04\nPolice Officer - Recruit\n12/16/03\nProgram Specialist I - Alternative Modes\n12/29/02\nPublic Works Maintenance Worker I\n11/19/03\n4-D\nLIST OF SPECIFICATIONS:\nVideo Production Artist\n5.\nACTIVITY REPORT:\nThe report for the period of September 1, 2004 through November 30, 2004 was reviewed.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nReggie James, long-time West-End resident, was present and spoke about his life experiences\nin Alameda.\n7.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)\nMember Robles-Wong suggested that we add language to the Civil Service Rules under\nArticle VII. Section 1 Establishment of Lists to include National Guard members in our\ndefinition of candidates with active military service who are eligible for an award of\nveteran preference points in our examination scoring process. Language will be revised\nby staff and presented at the April 2005 Civil Service meeting for approval by the Board.\nMember Smith commented on his review of the oral board questions for Police, Fire and\nPlanning Department positions. The outcome was favorable, although he felt that rating\ndimensions for these positions could be expanded to include determination of a\ncandidate's ability to interact effectively with the public.\nMember Smith read from the City Charter Article XIII Civil Service Board Sec. 13-1 to\nbetter define the Board's role in making recommendations to the City Council for\nchanges in the Civil Service System policies. After much discussion, Chair Robles-\nWong suggested that a member of the City Attorney's office be invited to the April 2005\nmeeting to more clearly define the Board's role in making such recommendations to the\nCity Council. The Board welcomed this suggestion, and Executive Secretary Willis will\nbe following up with the City Attorney's office.\n\"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service\"", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2005-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2005-01-05", "page": 3, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 3\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the Civil Service Board\nWednesday, January 5, 2005\n8.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)\nNone\n9.\nADJOURNMENT:\nA motion was made by Chair Robles-Wong that the meeting be adjourned in memory of\nMember Rocha's mother who had passed away over the New Years' weekend. Member Smith\nseconded and the motion was carried by a 4-0 vote. There being no further business to come\nbefore the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:38 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nKaren Willis\nHuman Resources Director &\nExecutive Secretary of the Civil Service Board\n\"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service\"", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2005-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-05", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, AND\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING\nWEDNESDAY - - - JANUARY 5, 2005\n-\n-\n-\n5:31\nP.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:05 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent :\nCouncilmembers / Commissioners / Authority\nMembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to\nconsider :\n(05-025CC/05-001CIC Conference with Real Property Negotiators;\nProperty : Alameda Naval Air Station, Fleet Industrial Supply\nCenter; Negotiating Parties City of Alameda, Community Improvement\nCommission, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, Alameda\nPoint Collaborative; Under Negotiations Price and terms.\nFollowing the Closed session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Council/Commission/\nAuthority gave direction to follow the negotiating approach\nrecommended by the real property negotiator.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned\nthe Special Meeting at 7:10 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\nImprovement Commission and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJanuary 5, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-01-05", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\n2-A\nWednesday, January 5, 2005\nThe meeting convened at 5:46 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBeverly Johnson, Mayor, City of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nDoug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nAbsent:\nNone.\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A.\nRecommendation to approve an amendment to Consultant Agreement with LFR, Inc. For\nenvironmental consulting services at Alameda Point in the amount of $175,130 for a total\nagreement amount of $249,000.\n2-B.\nRecommendation to authorize the Executive Director to execute sublease(s) at Alameda\nPoint.\nMember Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was\nseconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0;\nAbstentions - 0.\n3.\nPRESENTATION\n3-A.\nPresentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.\nNone.\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n1\nY:\\Comdev\\Base Reuse& Redevp\\ARRA\\MINUTES\\2005\\01-05-05 Regular. ARRA minutes.doc", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-01-05", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nORAL REPORTS\n5-A. Oral report from APAC.\nChair Lee Perez noted that they did not hold a business meeting during December, although a\nvery nice social gathering was held. He noted that there was no discussion, and that the next\nmeeting would be held on January 19, 2005. He noted that they would decide how to carry out\nthe ARRA's wishes at that time.\nMember DeHaan noted that while he was not part of the decision made at the last ARRA\nmeeting, he supported that decision. He was concerned that the process took much longer than\nanyone could have anticipated, and that when he was Chair of EDC, he ensured that they were up\nto speed on Alameda Point issues. He recalled several team members (Al Clooney and Dan\nMeyers) who had passed away during this process.\nMayor Johnson noted that she and Member Daysog had been members of the BRAG as well.\nChair Perez noted that three active former BRAG members sat on the City Council, and that\nhoped that their dedication would reach Sacramento and Washington, D.C. He noted that it had\nbeen an honor to serve in this capacity, and acknowledged that change was necessary.\n5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nThere was no report.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n7.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember Matarrese recalled previous discussions to bring the redevelopment of the Point to the\nmainstream consciousness of Alameda. He noted that the very light turnout at the ARRA\nmeetings did not meet that goal. He requested that the regular meeting time be changed to 7:30\np.m. in order to encourage more community participation. He noted that the closed session could\nbe held before the regular meeting.\nMayor Johnson suggested agendizing that item for the next meeting, and noted that a 7:00 start\ntime could be tried. A special meeting would be held on Thursday, January 20, 2005, at 7:30 p.m.\nMember DeHaan requested an update on the Consultant Agreement to be placed on the next\nagenda.\nChair Perez did not anticipate that there would be any further amendments to current consultant\ncontracts. He added that they could make an updated budget presentation at the next regular\nmeeting. They had anticipated some changes to the consultant contracts, and that they did not\n2\nY:\\Comdev\\Base Reuse& Redevp\\ARRA\\MINUTES\\2005\\01-05-05 Regular. ARRA minutes.doc", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-01-05", "page": 3, "text": "impact their contingency or any other line items contained in the ARRA-led predevelopment\nbudget.\n8.\nADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:\n8-A. Property:\nAlameda Naval Air Station\nNegotiating parties:\nARRA, Navy, and Alameda Point Community Partners\nUnder negotiation:\nPrice and Terms\nAnnouncement of Action Taken in Closed Session: The ARRA received a briefing\nfrom the Real Property Negotiator; no action was taken.\n9. ADJOURNMENT\nMayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 6:11 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Frankel\nARRA Secretary\n3\nY:\\Comdev\\Base Reuse& Redevp\\ARRA\\MINUTES\\2005\\01-05-05 Regular. ARRA minutes.doc", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2005-01-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD\nREGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JANUARY 6, 2005\nCOUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM\nVice Chair McPherson called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Secretary Altschuler called\nthe roll.\nMEMBERS PRESENT:\nBoard Members McPherson, Anderson, Lynch, & Tilos\nMEMBERS ABSENT:\nBoard member Miller arrived at 7:20 p.m.\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nSecretary Altschuler, Elizabeth Johnson, Development Services\nDepartment, Recording Secretary Debbie Gremminger.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:\nStaff is requesting Item #2 be continued to a future meeting.\nApproval of minutes and Election of Officers will move to the end of the Agenda when full\nBoard is present.\nMINUTES:\nMoved to the end of the Agenda. (see Agenda Changes and Discussions).\nELECTION OF OFFICERS:\nMoved to the end of the Agenda (see Agenda Changes and Discussions).\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)\nNone.\nACTION ITEMS: (Discussion/Action)\n1.\nAdoption of 2005 Historical Advisory Board Calendar.\nM/S to adopt the 2005 Historical Advisory Board Calendar. Anderson/Lynch 4-0-1..\nAyes: 4;\nNoes:\n0;\nAbsent:\n1 (Miller); Motion carries.\nACTION ITEMS: (Discussion/Action)\n2.\nCertificate of Approval CA04-0013- Helena Liang - 1104 Oak Street. The applicant\nrequests a Certificate of Approval for an unauthorized demolition of a one-story residential\nstructure built prior to 1942. A two-story residence in the same style was approved by Design\nMinutes of January 6, 2005\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\n1", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2005-01-06", "page": 2, "text": "Review (DR04-0003). The site is located within the R-5, General Residence District. (continued\nfrom 9-9-04) Applicant & staff request a continuance to future meeting.\nM/S (Anderson/Tilos) to continue this item to a future meeting. 4-0-1.\nAyes:\n4;\nNoes:\n0;\nAbsent:\n1\n(Miller); Motion carries.\nBoardmember Miller arrived.\n3.\nAlameda Point Update. Presentation of the ongoing planning process for Alameda Point.\nElizabeth Johnson, Development Services Department, summarized the information provided in\nthe staff report. Ms. Johnson indicated that there had been two community workshops and that\nthere will be three more. Staff will give the Board regular up-dates of the planning process after\neach Community Workshop. The next workshop will be held on March 3, 2005 which will be\nhosted by the Planning Board. Staff would also like the Board to consider co-hosting one of the\nremaining Community Workshops with the Alameda Point Advisory Committee.\nMelissa Gaudreau and Chris VerPlanck from Page and Turnbull gave a presentation giving a\nbrief history of the site, and outlined the Historcal District at NAS. Mr. Plank stated that the\nbuildings and structures within Alameda Point reflect three distinct periods of development: Pre-\nwar, War and Post-war. Most of the Pre-war buildings were constructed during 1940-1941 of\nreinforced concrete in a styling typical of commercial and industrial design from the 1930's.\nThis style is known as \"Moderne\".\nA comprehensive inventory of pre-1946 buildings and structures was done in 1992 by S.B.\nWoodbridge, which focused on determining whether any buildings at Alameda Point qualified\nfor listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The report concluded that while\nno individual building qualified for listing in the NRHP, an area in the Civic Core sub-area\nappeared to qualify for listing as a historic district. The identified area includes 87 buildings and\nstructures that contribute to the area's historic significance, 35 non-contributing major buildings\nand many temporary or minor buildings, which do not contribute to the Historical District.\nVice-Chair McPherson opened the floor for public comment.\nBirgitt Evans, AAPS, stated that AAPS is very interested in the 86 buildings. She encourages\nthe Board to become involved in the planning process. She is also concerned why the Tower\nBldg was not included in the 86 buildings.\nRichard Rutter, 2329 Santa Clara Ave., informed the Board that he once lived on the base and is\nalso surprised that the Tower Bldg. is not included. He felt that Bldg. 400 was also worth taking\nanother look at. He wants the Board to be cautious when approving buildings for demolition.\nVice-Chair McPherson closed public comment.\nElizabeth Johnson stated that at the time that the inventory was done, there was an addition to the\nControl Tower that has since been removed.\nMinutes of January 6, 2005\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\n2", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2005-01-06", "page": 3, "text": "Ms. Altschuler asked the Board if they would be interested in hosting a community workshop?\nThere will be more opportunities in the future for the Board to give their comments. This will\nbe a standing agenda item, so staff can give the Board updates and also allow the public to have\naccess to the Board if they have any questions. The next community workshop is scheduled for\nMarch 3, 2005. Staff will reschedule the Regular March meeting so the Board may attend the\nworkshop.\nStaff will provide the Board with a copy of the Historical Architectural Resources Inventory for\nNAS, and the Guide to Preserving the Character of the Naval Air Station Alameda Historic\nDistrict.\nMINUTES\nMinutes of the Special Meeting of October 28, 2004. (continued from 12-02-04).\nM/S (Tilos/Anderson) to approve minutes as corrected; 3-0-2.\nAyes: 3;\nNoes:\n0;\nAbsent:\n2\n(Lynch, Miller);\nMotion carries.\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of December 2, 2004.\nM/S (Tilos/Miller) to approve minutes as corrected; 3-0-2.\nAyes: 3;\nNoes:\n0;\nAbstain: 2 (Anderson,Lynch); Motion carries\nELECTION OF OFFICERS:\nM/S (Lynch/Anderson) to nominate Vice-Chair McPherson as Chair. 5-0-0.\nAyes: 5; Noes: 0; Absent: 0.; Motion carries.\nM/S (Lynch/Miller) to nominate Boardmember Anderson as Vice-Chair. 5-0-0.\nAyes:\n5;\nNoes:\n0;\nAbsent:\n0.;\nMotion carries.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nRosemary McNally asked why Item 2, 1104 Oak was continued. She also thanked the Board and\nStaff for all of their hard work on this item. Ms. Altschuler advised that staff was continuing to\nwork with property owner to resolve issues.\nBoardmember Tilos will be on vacation until March 17, 2005.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATION:\nMs. Altschuler informed the Board that the Planning & Building Director has resigned. Staff is\nnot certain when that position will be filled but will update the Board as needed. Ms. Altschuler\nMinutes of January 6, 2005\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\n3", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2005-01-06", "page": 4, "text": "also stated that she would be training another member of staff to take over her position as\nSecretary.\nADJOURNMENT:\nMeeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.\nRespectfully Submitted by:\nJudith Altschuler, Secretary\nHistorical Advisory Board\nG:\\PLANNING\\HAB\\AGENMIN\\Agemin.04\\12-2-04 MIN.doc\nMinutes of January 6, 2005\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\n4", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2005-01-06", "page": 1, "text": "Social Service Human Relations Board\nMinutes of the Special Meeting - Thursday, January 6, 2005\n1. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL - 6:33 p.m. Vice President Chen called the meeting to order. Also\npresent were members Wasko, Flores-Witt, Bonta, Currie, and Hollinger Jackson, President Franz was\nabsent. Staff present was Beaver and Brown.\n4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Taken out of order to permit Annalisa Moore, AUSD, Woodchip\nProgram coordinator an opportunity to address the Board regarding housing and community\ndevelopment needs. She thanked the Board and staff for the support. The Woodchip / RISE program\nwas able to continue and increased in attendance from 120 to 396 students as a result of CDBG funding\nthat sustained the Program during a \"dry spell\". This program provides a safe place for students and\nparents, and promotes a sense of feeling good and doing better. Daisy, a student in RISE for the past 2\nyears stated she was disrespectful at first then realized it was a better place and feels great about where\nshe is and how this program has helped her with bringing her grades up. Shaaquile, a student in RISE\nsince 4th grade, (she is now in 7th grade) stated the program has not only helped her, but also her parents.\nThey are able to help with homework and her Dad is now the President of Chipman PTA.\nMs. Moore reported that the Woodchip Afterschool Program recently received a federal \"21st Century\"\ngrant in the amount of $400,000 annually through 2009-2010. Thanks to this funding they will not have\nclosed in March. There are waitlists at all three schools sites. With the extra funding they could expand\nif they had another instructor, which could in turn serve more students. Grades served are 1st through\n8th. the program operates Monday through Fridays 3-6 p.m. They collaborate with several other\nprograms and handle many referrals that filter through.\n2. CONTIUNUED DISCUSSION REGARDING HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\nNEEDS - Staff reviewed that most of the December meeting was hearing from community based\norganizations regarding needs. Staff provided recent information regarding public service funding,\nwhich has dropped approximately $54,000 from the current year. It was further explained what the\nCDBG funds can and cannot be spent on, and where the remaining funds get spent. It was also reported\nthat the Request For Proposal process is going to be for a 1-year period, rather than the 2-year period\njust ending. There was discussion on how the CDBG formula works in determining the amount we\nreceive and how if the overall federal funds stay the same we receive less because new Entitlement cities\ncome into the program.\nThe Board determined that focus areas would be addressed but not prioritized. Due to the funding\nreduction the Board had determined that there is a greater need to increase the capacity of service\nproviders to deliver services efficiently and without duplicating these efforts. Emphasis for funding\nshould go toward strengthening Alameda's safety net, better access to affordable housing in Alameda,\nempowering Alamedans to become self-sufficient and stable, and to support capacity building for\nservice providers.\nMotion to request staff to draft a letter to reflect the consensus of this meeting. Two Members will\nreview and approve and/or edit the letter (Wasko, Currie). Member Currie was designated to represent\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Excellence", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2005-01-06", "page": 2, "text": "Special Meeting Minutes from Thurs, January 6, 2005\nPage 2\nthe Board at the January 18th City Council meeting with member Bonta as a back-up. M/S Wasko,\nCurrie and unanimous.\nMember Hollinger Jackson was excused from the meeting at 8:00 p.m. due to a prior commitment.\n3. BOARD / STAFF COMMUNICATIONS - None\n4. ORAL COMMUNICATION - Taken out of Order (2)\n5. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned by Vice President Chen at 8:45 p.m. M/S Bonta,\nCurrie and unanimous.\nRespectfully submitted,\nCarol Beaver\nSecretary of the SSHRB\nCB:sb\nG:SSHRB\\Packets\\2005VJan05\\SpecialMinutes0106.doc\nF:SSHRB\\Agenda & Minutes\\200\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, January 10, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:08 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMr. Lynch\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Cook, Lynch, Kohlstrand,\nMcNamara and Piziali.\nBoard Member Mariani was not present for roll call, and arrived during Item 9-A.\nAlso present were Planning & Building Director Greg Fuz, Development Review\nManager Jerry Cormack, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner\nJudith Altschuler, Planner II Dennis Brighton.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of December 13, 2004.\nVice President Cook noted that page 14, paragraph 2, should be changed to read: \"She\nnoted that in past site visits to walled-off developments, that the-play yards were was\ndeserted, which she believed was unsafe for anyone who did use the area.\"\nVice President Cook noted that page 14, paragraph 5, should be changed to read:\n\"\nshowers for use after swimming, and should open onto the pool area. She believed\nthat the multitude of angular pathways of the landscape plan seemed very frenetic to her.\nShe did not believe there was a sense of continuity and flow with respect to the\nlandscaping and circulation plan.\"\nMs. Kohlstrand advised that page 12, paragraph 7, should be changed to read: \"She was\ndisappointed to see a wall along across-Appezzato Parkway.\n\"\nMs. Kohlstrand advised that pages 17-18 did not indicate the details of the discussion\nabout the reflectivity of the glass, and noted that she inquired as to whether the reflective\nglass was required functionally for the project; the project sponsor indicated that it was\nnot required. In addition, the conditions of approval included a recommendation that\nthere would be no reflective glass on the building.\nPresident Cunningham advised that on page 1, the roll call should indicate \"President\nCunningham,\" rather than President Piziali.\nPresident Cunningham advised that page 15, paragraph 5, should be changed to reflect\nthat he urged the developer to respond to the comments made by the Planning Board in\nan effort to clarify their position and stance on the critical elements for success of the\nproject. He believed that Allen Tai's letter communicated the Planning Department's\npoint of view.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 2, "text": "M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of\nDecember 13, 2004, as amended.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Lynch)\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Cunningham advised that no speaker slips had been received for Item 9-C, and\nproposed that it be moved to the Consent Calendar.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 9-C from the Regular Agenda and to\nplace it on the Consent Calendar.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nNone.\n7.\nResolution and Commendation for Planning and Building Director Gregory L.\nFuz.\nPresident Cunningham noted that Mr. Fuz had accepted a position as Development\nServices Director for El Dorado County, and would be leaving the City of Alameda. He\nread the following resolution and commendation into the record:\n\"Acknowledging Planning and Building Director Gregory L. Fuz for his\ncontributions to the City of Alameda, whereas Gregory L. Fuz accepted\nthe position of Planning and Building Director for the City of Alameda on\nFebruary 25, 2002, and\nWhereas Gregory L. Fuz has accepted a position as the Development\nServices Director of El Dorado County, and is leaving the employment of\nthe City of Alameda, and\nWhereas, as Planning and Building Director, he assisted in the planning\nprocess of numerous projects, including the completion of the General\nPlan Amendment for Alameda Point, and initiation of the Master Planning\nProcess, the adoption and conditional certification of the 2001-2006\nHousing Element, redevelopment of the Bridgeside and South Shore\nshopping centers, adoption of new Citywide design guidelines and\ndevelopment code amendments, and\nWhereas he provided clear and complete advice to the Planning Board,\nand\nNow therefore be it resolved that the Planning Board of the City of\nAlameda extends their thanks for his dedication to his work on behalf of\nthe City, his staff, and citizens of Alameda.\"\nPresident Cunningham added a personal note of thanks to Mr. Fuz for his work on behalf\nof the City.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 3, "text": "Mr. Fuz thanked the Board, and said that it was his pleasure to serve the community of\nAlameda, and that it had been a wonderful experience. He thanked the members of the\ncommunity that he worked with. He thanked the Board for its dedication and\nprofessionalism, and added that it was the best Board he had ever worked with in more\nthan 20 years in the field. He thanked the Planning and Building Department staff for\ntheir help, expertise and professionalism, and for making his tenure pleasant and\nsuccessful.\nVice President Cook thanked Mr. Fuz and noted that she had looked forward to working\nwith him for a longer time. She noted that she would miss working with him, and added\nthat she admired his unflappable nature and his ability to maintain calm and a sense of\nhumor. She added that his analytical mind enabled him to accomplish so much during his\ntenure.\nMr. Lynch looked forward to working with Mr. Fuz whenever the chance arose in El\nDorado County, and said that Alameda was a much better place for his work in the City.\nHe noted that Mr. Fuz set a positive tone for the City's professional representatives\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 4, "text": "8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8-A.\nAdoption of 2005 Planning Board Calendar.\nM/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt the 2005 Planning Board Calendar.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 5, "text": "8-B. ZC04-0013: Christ Episcopal Church of Alameda - 1700 Santa Clara\nAvenue (DB). A request has been received to construct a 38-niche columbarium\nwall within the interior of the Christ Episcopal Church. Columbarium use is not\nspecifically listed as a regulated use within the R-5 (General Residential Zoning\nDistrict) where the church is located. This zoning determination for the\ninstallation of a 38-niche columbarium within one interior wall of the church is\nbeing referred to the Planning Board to review the staff recommendation that the\nprimary use remains the church use and the columbarium will be secondary to the\nprimary use.\nM/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to approve a request to construct a 38-niche\ncolumbarium wall within the interior of the Christ Episcopal Church. Columbarium use is\nnot specifically listed as a regulated use within the R-5 (General Residential Zoning\nDistrict) where the church is located. This zoning determination for the installation of a\n38-niche columbarium within one interior wall of the church is being referred to the\nPlanning Board to review the staff recommendation that the primary use remains the\nchurch use and the columbarium will be secondary to the primary use.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 6, "text": "8-C.\nReview and consider possible modifications of Section 30-15 of the Alameda\nMunicipal Code regulating Work Live Studios (JA). (Continued from the\nmeeting of December 13, 2004.) Staff is requesting a continuance to the\nPlanning Board meeting of January 24, 2005.\nM/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board\nmeeting of January 24, 2005.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -\n0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 7, "text": "8-D. ZA04-0002 - Zoning Text Amendment for Design Review Regulations\n(JC/JA). Update the current Design Review practices by clarifying the previously\nadopted Webster Street Design Review Guidelines.\nM/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-01\nto update the current Design Review practices by clarifying the previously adopted\nWebster Street Design Review Guidelines.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 8, "text": "9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A. Study Session (JA/JL). GPA04-0004, DPA04-0002, IS04-0003, DR04-0114 -\nWarmington Homes - 1270 Marina Village Parkway (Shipways Site)\n(JA/JL). Applicant requests a General Plan Amendment to amend the General\nPlan to designate the Shipways site as MU-7; a Development Plan Amendment to\namend the approved Development Plan for a 143,000 square foot office building\nand permit the construction of 64 residential units with associated parking and\nlandscaping; an Initial Study to address the environmental effects; and a Design\nReview for the project. The site is zoned M-X, Mixed-Use Planned Development\nDistrict.\nMs. Altschuler summarized this staff report, and noted that the design team would make a\nPowerPoint presentation. She noted that no Board action would be taken, and that the\nproject would require a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the site an MU-7 (Mixed\nUse) area. She added that an office use already existed on the site; staff requested the\naddition of a residential component to the site, as well as an amendment to the\ndevelopment plan. The current development plan approval was for a 143,000 square foot\noffice building; it would be changed from an office use to a residential use. An initial\nstudy and a design review for a general configuration of the houses, landscaping and\nparking areas would be done as well. The staff report requested that the discussion relate\nto the site design, the parking plan, the pedestrian access through the site, public\namenities, amenities for the residence, the conceptual architectural style, and the fact that\nthere was a proposal for three-story dwellings, which is not unusual in this area. She\nrequested that the Board provide guidance to the applicant to bring back with the design\nteam, and to incorporate the Board's comments into the proposal. The proposal would be\nbrought before the Board at a later date for action.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Joan Lamphier, Lamphier Gregory, noted that she worked for the City on this\nproject, and has been a project planner on this site since 1983. She noted that the primary\nquestion that Marina Village was concerned about was to get a reading from the Board as\nto whether it would approve the change office use to a residential use on the site. She\nnoted that the Marina Village site had always been designated as a Mixed Use\ndevelopment.\nMr. Don Parker, representing project owner, noted that his involvement in this project\nstarted in 1979. He noted that the mile of shoreline had been developed with public\naccess and improvements; this would be the last remaining piece connecting the public\naccess with the overall public access running throughout the rest of the project. He\nprovided some history of the site development. He noted that the site was constrained by\nthe fact that it had an existing structure; they planned to leave most of the structure in\nplace. They also dedicated the public access around the perimeter of the site.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 9, "text": "Mr. Kevin Levesque, Randall Planning and Design, displayed a PowerPoint presentation\nof the site and described the site layout. He noted that there would be in-garage parking\nand storage for the homeowners, with 55 parking stalls proposed in the garage, and 46\nguest parking stalls on the podium. In addition, there would be 72 parking spots in the\nunit garages. The parking ratio would be 2.7:1. He noted that 86% of the homes would be\non the water, with a small group in the center, clustered around the Rec Center and the\npool. He noted that at the front, the underground parking would eliminate the need for\ngarages on the podium deck, allowing the creation of a central pedestrian plaza running\nfrom the front of the project at the pool, to the back of the project, where the public plaza\nspace would be created.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether the amphitheatre area would be\npublicly accessible, Mr. Levesque confirmed that it would be accessible at all times.\nPresident Cunningham commented about the methodology of building a podium, which\nwould be a complex process, and inquired why the podium would be elevated to\naccommodate the parking underneath. He noted that the parking on the other two sides\ncould be maximized, and noted that a second podium would probably need to be built. He\ninquired whether an analysis had been performed to remove the current sloping\nrampways to sink it back down to grade level.\nMr. Parker noted that President Cunningham's suggestion would involve a tremendous\namount of demolition. One of their concerns was that the existing Shipway offices were\nnext door, which they planned to keep occupied as office space. The demolition would be\nvery disruptive to the existing uses, and may render the project economically infeasible.\nVice President Cook noted in San Francisco, the existing piers were left intact and new so\nthat a new structures were proposed to could be built independent of the existing piers-it.\nShe noted that the cost of removing the old buildings were structures was high.\nMr. Parker noted that the podium would be approximately 9 feet over the flat area of the\nsite.\nPresident Cunningham requested a physical model of the project, given the complexity of\nthe project elevations. He believed the treatment of the podium edge relative to the lower\nlevel was a critical element.\nMr. Parker noted that they created planters along the base of the wall and around the\nperimeter near the seating areas. They wished to avoid a large, blank wall in that area,\nVice President Cook noted that she was pleased that there would be residential uses on\nthis site, rather than another office use. She believed a mix of uses would create a more\nactive waterfront. She wanted to ensure a good relationship between the waterfront and\nthe public area, and to be sure that pedestrians felt safe by the waterfront.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 10, "text": "Mr. Parker believed the separation worked well, because the entrance into the project was\nin the middle of the Shipways, and the entrance to the public areas were on either end. He\nnoted that the layout was seamless in relation to the trails, and understood Vice President\nCook's concerns.\nVice President Cook liked the idea that much of the parking was hidden, either above or\nbelow.\nPresident Cunningham inquired whether the applicants had considered using vertical\ncirculation between Shipways 1 and 2, and 3 and 4. Mr. Parker replied that they had not\nexamined that option, and that they were focused on creating views onto the water. He\nbelieved that idea made sense.\nIn response to Mr. Piziali's question about the flats, Mr. Parker replied that there would\nbe parking on the first floor, then a flat and a flat above it. The units on the large wings of\nthe project on either side had garages included in the plan.\nVice President Cook noted that the use of the podium was an urban landform, and noted\nthat high-rises in San Francisco brought the question of whether a blank face along the\nstreet would be present. Mr. Parker noted that they used open metal along the fa\u00e7ade, and\nwished to avoid a blank wall.\nVice President Cook suggested the use of interpretive signage or public art to provide\nmore information for the public.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara for more detail on the amenities for the\nresidents, Mr. Parker replied that there would be a community building with a pool and a\nwhirlpool.\nPresident Cunningham appreciated the conceptual drawings, and believed that a three-\ndimensional model would enable the Board to better understand the intent of the\narchitecture.\nMr. Piziali agreed with President Cunningham's request for a three-dimensional model.\nMs. Kohlstrand concurred with Mr. Piziali's comments, and would like a better idea of\nthe orientation of the residential units, as well as the landscaping treatment and how the\npodium wall would be softened. She also believed that a residential use was fine for this\nsite, but noted that it was a somewhat isolated location, and it was necessary to travel\nthrough office sites and parking lots to get to the residential units. The relationship to the\nstreet for cars and pedestrians was an important issue for her.\nVice President Cook would like a better understanding of the height of the proposed\nproject in relation to the Extended Stay America building to the west and the office\nbuilding to the east, as well as to the buildings located across the Estuary. She believed\nthe scale between the Oakland uses and the Alameda uses on the estuary should be\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 11, "text": "consistent. She wanted to ensure that the parking requirements were consistent, and\ninquired where the public would park in order to use the public access area of the\namphitheatre.\nMr. Levesque responded that the office building parking lots on either side of the\nShipways were virtually vacant during the weekends. He added that reserved parking\nstalls for the public were also located in the parking lots, and that quite a few spaces were\navailable in the office parking lots.\nPresident Cunningham inquired whether any potential uses had been considered for the\nbodies of water between the fingers. Mr. Levesque replied that they had not looked at the\nability to get access in that area yet. He noted that the concrete structure was essentially\none big block, and displayed the area on the screen. He noted that a retaining wall would\nbe built and filled in to provide the lawn area in front of the residential units.\nMs. McNamara noted that she did not see any railings, and inquired whether there were\nany plans to install them along the waterfront. Mr. Parker confirmed there would be\nsafety railings installed along the entire perimeter.\nVice President Cook believed a site tour would be very helpful on this project.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the schedule for this\nproject, Mr. Parker replied that they would like to enter the housing market in its current\ncondition and that they hoped to meet a timely schedule. He noted that this was a\ncomplex site to work with regarding cost and structural issues. He encouraged the Board\nmembers to visit the site.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand, Ms. Altschuler replied that there was\ncurrently no requirement for guest parking in the Zoning Ordinance, and that there was a\nrequirement for two spaces for each unit. She added that the 0.7 parking ratio was slightly\nlarger than most projects the Board has approved over the last 15 years; the guest parking\nratio is normally 0.5.\nMr. Parker advised that they viewed the parking as being self-contained within the\nproject, and not dependent on using any of the office parking. The perception of the high\nratio came from the space provided by the garage.\nThe Board comments were noted. No action was taken. A public hearing will\nbe\nscheduled for a future agenda.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 12, "text": "9-B.\nZA04-0001-Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment/City-wide. Review and\nrevision of Section 30-6 of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), Sign\nRegulations (JS/JA). The purpose of this amendment is to clarify current\nregulations and establish internal consistency with various sections of the AMC\nwith the primary focus on regulations pertaining to Window Signs.\nMr. Cormack summarized the staff report.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, PSBA, noted that they wanted the district to look as\nattractive as possible during the revitalization process. PSBA did not want businesses\njamming their windows with posters obscuring the business, and which made the\nstorefronts look junky. He expressed concern about the proliferation of grand opening\nsigns, and the length of time that they are left up. He believed this ordinance would put\nan end to that practice. He noted that PSBA and WABA were in agreement that a grand\nopening would last 30 days, and that a permit would be necessary for that signage to\nremain up. He supported the Planning Board's recommendation to the City Council to\nenact this ordinance.\nMs. Sherry Stieg, WABA, supported the proposed ordinance, and noted that it was the\nresult of a lengthy collaboration between PSBA, WABA and the Planning & Building\nDepartment.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali regarding enforcement, Mr. Cormack confirmed\nthat the Code Enforcement Division would be responsible. There was currently one full-\ntime Code Enforcement officer, and a planner working part-time in that capacity. He\nnoted that the Planning and Building Department made a commitment to PSBA and\nWABA for increased enforcement along Park Street and Webster Street and the revised\nordinance would assist with that effort.\nMr. Piziali believed that the merchants would police themselves.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding window signs, Mr. Cormack\nreplied that a business would be in conformance provided no more than 25% of the\nwindow was covered by signage. The content would not be examined. He noted that\nmany windows had more than 25% coverage, and that the merchants in violation would\nfirst receive a letter, and then the fine system would go into practice. He anticipated that\nsome businesses would not be happy with the new ordinance, however, with the\nassistance of PSBA and WABA compliance could be achieved.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham, Ms. Altschuler, replied that the fee\nfor a sign permit was upward of $200. She noted that it was necessary to put language in\nplace to address some of the proliferation of the temporary window signs. She noted this\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 13, "text": "AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 14, "text": "9-C.\nUse Permit, UP04-0012/Major Design Review, DR04-0099; Tasha Skinner,\nTetra Tech, Inc. For the Alameda Unified School District (Will C. Wood\nMiddle School), 420 Grand Street (DB). The applicant requests a Use Permit\nand Major Design Review to install twelve cellular telecommunication antennae\n(4-foot panel antennas) to be located around the top of the school building at the\ntop perimeter/parapet, plus the installation of a utility shed at the rear of the\nbuilding. A Use Permit is required by AMC, Section 30-4.1(b)(3) for approval of\nabove-ground utility installations for local service in an R-1 (Single-Family\nResidential) Zoning District.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 9-C from the Regular Agenda and to\nplace it on the Consent Calendar.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nM/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-02\nto approve a Use Permit and Major Design Review to install twelve cellular\ntelecommunication antennae (4-foot panel antennas) to be located around the top of the\nschool building at the top perimeter/parapet, plus the installation of a utility shed at the\nrear of the building. A Use Permit is required by AMC, Section 30-4.1(b)(3) for approval\nof above-ground utility installations for local service in an R-1 (Single-Family\nResidential) Zoning District.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 15, "text": "9-D.\nDesign Review, DR04-0014: Linda Cortez, 1514 Pacific Avenue. Ms. Cortez\nis appealing staff's denial of this Major Design Review application (DB). This\napplication requesting design review approval to raise the existing building one\nfoot, six inches (1'-6\") and relocate the building two feet (2'-0\") toward the south\n(rear) property line to accommodate the elongation of the front stair. The proposal\nto raise the building will create approximately 1,618 square feet of new living\nspace in the basement, resulting in a total completed conditioned floor area of\napproximately 3,236 square feet. Staff denied this project because of the\nfollowing reasons: 1. The proposal to raise the building approximately one foot,\nsix inches exceeds the proportionality relative to the upper and lower floors (i.e.,\nGolden Mean) by three feet, three inches (3'-3\"); 2. The proposal will create an\nundesirable massing of the building in relation to neighboring buildings which\nappear to be of the same design; and 3. The proposal will elongate the front stair\nand create an undesirable massing of the stair in relation to the building. The site\nis located within an R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.\nMr. Brighton summarized the staff report, and noted that the appellants had not presented\nany new information since the last hearing when the Board had provided general parking\ndirection on implementation of proportionality issue, (i.e. the Golden Mean) during\nDesign Review. Staff recommended that the Board uphold the original denial of the\nMajor Design Review.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Linda Cortez, appellant, 1514 Pacific Avenue, noted that they were attempting to\npreserve their house and maintain the inherent architecture of the house during the\nremodeling process. Although raising of the house did not conform to the Golden Mean,\nshe did not believe it would change or detract from the inherent architecture of the house\nin a perceptible manner. She noted that the two adjoining houses next to her house were\nnot identical to hers, and there were slope differences; she distributed photos of those\nhouses to the Board. She did not agree with staff's assessment that the addition of two\nrisers would create an undesirable elongation of the stairs.\nMr. Ian Ordinaria, appellant, 1514 Pacific Avenue, requested the Board's reversal of\nstaff's denial of raising the house. He noted that the Golden Mean did not necessarily\naddress the connection between proportionality and beauty, and did not believe it should\nbe a rule. He did not believe the Golden Mean should be applied to the whole structure,\nalthough it was applicable to elements such as doors and windows. It also was not clear\nthat it should be the sole standard for a horizontal or vertical measurement, and he noted\nthat the whole structure of the Cathedral at Notre Dame was not in conformance with the\nGolden Mean, although sections of it were. He noted that regarding the neighboring\nbuildings, they were not meant to be tract homes. He noted that there were more than 20\nhomes with visually longer stairways than their home within a two-block radius of their\nhome, including the Alameda Fire House. He requested that the Planning Board reverse\nstaff's denial of their application.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 16, "text": "Mr. Walter McQuesten, 1416 Pacific Avenue, supported the applicant's project, and\nbelieved their plans would be an improvement for the entire block. He noted that he\nhoped to undertake a similar project in the future. He believed the raising of the house\nwould provide safety from flooding. He supported the reversal of staff's denial.\nMr. Richard Rutter noted that he was an architect, and supported staff's denial of this\napplication. He noted that in the past, neighbors came to agreements regarding roof lines\nand design proportions.\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali, Mr. Rutter replied that 16 stairs were the limit\nbefore a landing must be included, and that the applicants were not close to that limit.\nMs. Janelle Spatz, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, spoke in support of\nstaff's recommendation. AAPS believed that staff's points were valid, and that in the past\ncontractor Ken Gutlaben had spoken before the Planning Board to say that digging down\nwas as easy as building up. She believed that should suffice for this project, and believed\nthe applicants' plans would be visually disruptive.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara whether the neighboring house had a full\nunit on the basement level, Mr. Brighton replied that he did not have that information. He\naddressed the simple aesthetics of the structures, and the future use of the interior was not\npart of the decision. Ms. McNamara noted that there was more than one separate address\non the neighboring home.\nMs. McNamara expressed concern that this house was used in the Planning Board's\ndiscussion of the Golden Mean; this existing architecture already exceeds the Golden\nMean by a significant amount. She was concerned about imposing the Golden Mean on\nthis applicant given the existing architecture, and did not believe that was the applicants'\nfault.\nVice President Cook did not believe there was a reason to make the architecture\nproportionality worse, and believed the number of existing houses exceeding the Golden\nMean was one of the reasons for adopting that guideline. She sympathized with the\napplicants, but wished to stem the tide of losing Alameda's architectural heritage. She did\nnot see a unique circumstance to warrant raising the house in this case, and agreed that\ndigging down was a workable solution.\nMs. Mariani agreed with Vice President Cook's comments. Although she sympathized\nwith the owners, 1512 Pacific Avenue was a sister house built by the same builder, and is\non the registry. She believed the architectural integrity of this house should be\nmaintained.\nMr. Piziali noted that he felt for the applicants, and noted that the Board directed staff\nthat they wished to follow the Golden Mean wherever possible. He agreed with Mr.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 16\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 17, "text": "Gutlaben's assessment that going down for the additional square footage would be\nworkable and cost-effective.\nPresident Cunningham noted that the design guidelines utilized the Golden Mean to aid\nstaff in regulating houses being raised.\nMs. McNamara inquired whether the Board would issue a blanket rejection, or to use the\nGolden Mean in a case-by-case assessment.\nPresident Cunningham noted that context in the buildings was very important in order to\npreserve the character of Alameda. He believed that the number of houses being raised\nwas beginning to erode that character. He did not believe the Board would issue blanket\nrejections.\nMr. Lynch believed that excavating down would be a workable solution for the\napplicants, and believed there was a difference between how the Board applied the\nGolden Mean as a guideline for individual homes. He noted that for the other individuals\nwho spoke, he would examine every case separately, and would not issue a blanket\nrejection.\nM/S Mariani/Cook to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-03 to support staff's\nrecommendation to deny this appeal.\nAYES - 6; NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0\nMs. McNamara wished to bring staff's attention to the changes made in Ms. Cortez's\ncomments for the minutes of the November 8, 2004, meeting in which this item was\nheard. She wanted to ensure that those changes were made; the excerpt of those minutes\ndid not reflect that change. Ms. Cortez's original comments were reflected, not the\namended comments. The correct wording should be: \"She believed that families\nattempting to increase square footage to accommodate a growing family should not be\nlumped in with houses with many illegal residences.\"\nMs. Altschuler noted that the changes had been made, and that the draft minutes had been\nincluded in the packet. She noted that the correct comments by Ms. Cortez would be\nreflected in the packet.\nMs. Kohlstrand left the meeting following this item.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 17\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 18, "text": "Page 18\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 19, "text": "Ms. Altschuler noted that she and Mr. Cormack would be retiring within the next three\nand six months, depending upon a variety of factors. The City is currently recruiting for a\nSupervising Planner to replace her position, and there was a position open for a Planner\nIII. She added that City Manager Jim Flint has left, and that Bill Norton was acting as\ninterim City Manager. He had previously been a City Manager in Alameda.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook, Ms. Altschuler replied that Melodie\nBounds had taken a position in West Hollywood. Currently, the Planning and Building\nDepartment planner staff consisted of Dennis Brighton, Allen Tai, and David Valeska\n(part-time).\nMr. Lynch believed that the hiring of any planners and the City Manager would best be\naccomplished following the hiring of Mr. Fuz's replacement. He noted that contract\nplanners were useful, but that their training often took time away from already\noverworked staff planners.\nMs. Altschuler noted that waiting to hire planners may cause stress on existing planners\nand other staff members.\nMr. Cormack noted that the Board members' comments were well-taken and was\nconfident that the positions would be filled in a reasonable amount of time.\nMs. Altschuler noted that she was most concerned about the public information counter,\nand that the planners' efforts were split between working at the counter and writing staff\nreports. She noted that the contract planners could work with use permits and variances,\nand the staff planners could work the counter. She noted that she recently spent a day at\nthe counter.\nPresident Cunningham noted that a problem with contract staff was the consistency of\ninformation given to the public.\nMr. Lynch supported enhancing the staffing levels.\nMs. Harryman suggested that the Board agendize this subject for a future meeting.\nMs. McNamara noted that the photos in the Webster Street Design Guidelines were all\nblack.\nMs. Altschuler noted that staff would review the document and provide more legible\ncopies for the Planning Board, City Council and the public.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n9:40 p.m.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 19\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 20, "text": "Respectfully submitted,\nJefry Cormack, Interim Secretary\nCity Planning Department\nThese minutes were approved at the January 24, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This\nmeeting was audio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 20\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2005-01-12", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the\nALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD\nJanuary 12, 2005\nThe regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 7:01 p.m.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nLeslie Krongold, President\nRuth Belikove, Vice President\nKaren Butter, Board Member\nMark Schoenrock, Board Member\nAbsent:\nAlan Mitchell, Board Member\nStaff:\nLibrary Director Susan Hardie, Secretary\nJenna Gaber, Recording Secretary\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nBoard member Butter MOVED approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice President\nBelikove SECONDED the motion which carried by a unanimous voice vote.\nAn asterisk indicates items so enacted and adopted on the Consent Calendar.\nA.\n*Report from Library Director highlighting Library Department activities for the\nmonth of January 2005. Accepted.\nB.\n*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board meeting of December 8, 2004.\nApproved with 2 corrections.\nC.\n*Library Services Report for the month of November 2004. Accepted.\nD.\n*Report from Finance Department reflecting FY 2003-04 Library expenditures\n(by fund) through December 2004. Accepted.\nE.\n*Bills for ratification. Approved.\nUNFINISHED BUSINESS\nA.\nMain Library Project Update\nBoard member Butter asked when Project Manager Bob Haun would be available to give\nthe members of the Library Board an updated report on the main library project. Director\nHardie stated that in an effort to make the best use of everyone's time, we are hoping that\nBob's monthly report to Council will serve to inform the Board as well. She also\ncommented that the Board receives the Construction Report each month. She stated that\nBob Haun is very willing to answer questions directly, and is available by phone or\nemail. Board members indicated that this arrangement is fine for now.\nThe Library Director reported that on February 28th a Notice to Proceed will be given\nto\nthe contractor. The groundbreaking ceremony will be in early March. The Steering\nCommittee will have representatives from Alameda's library and business community.\nVice President Belikove asked if there was a list of changes from Value Engineering that\nthe Board could review. Library Director Hardie reported that there is a list of items and\nrecapped some of the items for the Board. She noted that the City Council decided to\nproceed with LEED Certification.\nVice President Belikove asked if donations could be solicited to help keep the curved\nstaircase that was eliminated during Value Engineering. Board member Butter stated\nthat\n1", "path": "LibraryBoard/2005-01-12.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2005-01-12", "page": 2, "text": "the construction contract has already been approved. To change the stair again would\nincur substantial additional cost. Director Hardie mentioned the concern that additional\nfundraising may be needed for the branches.\nNEW BUSINESS\nA.\nLibrary Building Team (M. Hartigan)\nThe Library Building Team did not meet during December.\nB.\nAlameda Free Library Foundation (R. Belikove)\nVice President Belikove stated that the Foundation did not meet in December. The\nFoundation will be meeting later this month. The Foundation sent out a year-end\nfundraising letter which had some success.\nC\nFriends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Skeen)\nMolly Skeen reported that the Junior Friends will host a themed storytime at the Main\nLibrary on January 22nd. On February 10th the members of the Friends will attend a\nbenefit screening and reception for Leslie Krongold's documentary My Rabbi. On\nFebruary 18th, 19th and 20th the Friends will host a mid-winter book sale at the Al DeWitt\nOfficers' Club at Alameda Point.\nD.\nLibrary Building Watch (L. Krongold)\nPresident Krongold reported that the newsletter will be sent out this week. The logo team\nmet this week and they decided not to move forward on the logo for awhile.\nF.\nPatron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)\nNone.\nLIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nVice President Belikove commented on the 20th anniversary of Alameda Reads. She\nsuggested that everyone in Alameda read the same book as a way to celebrate this\noccasion. She also noted articles on Library Closures in Salinas, Reading at Risk and\nTime Running Out for Libraries.\nBoard member Butter distributed an article on Literacy and immigrants.\nBoard member Schoenrock asked if the City is still having a budget deficit. Library\nDirector Hardie replied in the affirmative and stated that the new Interim City Manager is\nmeeting with Council and staff to discuss this issue. The City Council wants to maintain\nservices and to date no budget cuts have been approved.\nDIRECTOR'S COMMENTS\nLibrary Director Hardie stated that she has not yet received her appointment for Day in\nthe District but will keep the Board informed. She reported that there was a theft of 5\ncomputer monitors at the Bay Farm Library. The police department is investigating. The\nlibrary received a bequest that will be used to purchase materials for the opening of the\nnew library.\n2", "path": "LibraryBoard/2005-01-12.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2005-01-12", "page": 3, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\nBoard member Schoenrock MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 7:53 p.m. Board member\nButter SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by a unanimous voice vote.\nRespectfully submitted,\nSusan Hardie, Secretary\n3", "path": "LibraryBoard/2005-01-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2005-01-13", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF\nRECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION\nALAMEDA\nRECREATION & PARKS\nMEETING OF JANUARY 13, 2005\n1327 Oak St., Alameda, CA 94501\n(510)747-7529\nDATE:\nThursday, January 13, 2005\nTIME:\n7:00 p.m.\nPLACE:\nCity Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Third Floor, Room 360\nAlameda, CA 94501\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Jay Ingram, Vice Chair Jo Kahuanui, Commissioners Christine\nJohnson, Georg Oliver, and Bruce Reeves\nStaff:\nDale Lillard, Recreation Services Manager (RSM)\nPatrick Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)\nAbsent:\nSuzanne Ota, Recreation & Parks Director\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nApprove Minutes of November 4, 2004 Recreation and Park Commission Meeting.\nM/S/C\nREEVES/KAHUANUI\n(approved)\n\"That the Minutes of November 4, 2004 be approved.\" \"\nIn Favor (5) - Ingram, Kahuanui, Johnson, Oliver, Reeves\nAbsent (0) -\n3.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA\n(Any person may address the Commission in regard to any matter over which the\nCommission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda.)\nPat Colburn, Alameda Arts Center President, discussed with the Commission their request\nto amend the Public Art Ordinance (2892) and encourage developers to provide aid to the\nestablished arts venues in Alameda. They will be taking their request to the Public Art\nAdvisory Committee (PAAC). Depending on the decision of the PAAC, this item may\ncome forward to the Recreation and Park Commission. RSM Lillard stated that staff is\nwaiting for a legal interpretation from the City Attorney's Office. In the meantime, this\nrequest will go before the PAAC the week of January 17.\n1\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, January 1, 20055\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2005-01-13.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2005-01-13", "page": 2, "text": "4.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nLetter from Pat Colburn, Alameda Arts Center President, requesting an amendment\nto Ordinance 2892 and encourage developers to provide aid to the established arts\nvenues in Alameda.\n5.\nNEW BUSINESS\nNone.\n6.\nUNFINISHED BUSINESS\nA.\nContinued Discussion and Consideration of Request from Mayor and City\nCouncil to Develop a Park Use Policy - (Discussion Item)\nDiscussion was held regarding what to include in the Park Use Policy.\nKahuanui requested a listing of equipment (sheds, etc.) at the parks. So the Commission\nwill know what is existing to begin the process of developing a policy. The list should be\nanything that is not ARPD's. Acreage for each park should also be included on the list.\nOliver stated that individuals selling balloons and ice cream in the parks should have City of\nAlameda permits and a permit from ARPD. He also suggested not allowing\ndemonstrations. RSM Lillard stated that if they are doing business in the City of Alameda\nthey should have a City of Alameda Business License.\nJohnson suggested obtaining park use policies from other cities so that the Commission\ndoes not have to reinvent the wheel. The Commission could then apply points that are\nwhat Alameda needs. Ms. Johnson provided some copies of other cities (e.g., Midland,\nPortland) as examples.\nChair Ingram stated that there are other cities that we can borrow from when generating the\npolicy. RSM Lillard stated that some ideas from other cities could be used.\nChair Ingram suggested not putting anything in a park when the park is less than three (3)\nacres. Councilmember Kerr's comment regarding incorporating traffic should also be\nconsidered.\nRSM Lillard stated that staff will put together a draft policy with the sample policies from\nother cities and recommendations by the Commission.\nGeorge Phillips, Boys and Girls Club Executive Director, stated that he was at the meeting\nto be aware of the process. Mr. Phillips stated that he hopes the Commission will look at\nthe following:\n2\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, January 13, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2005-01-13.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2005-01-13", "page": 3, "text": "-\nDuring deliberations the Commission will make the distinction between protecting\npark property and keeping it as an integral part of the community.\n-\nService issues to the community.\n-\nDo not discount size or anything else in terms of evaluating what benefits non-park\nand recreation programs in the neighborhood. Neighborhoods should not be\ndeprived of potential services just because of park size.\nChair Ingram asked Mr. Phillips if he knew that Alameda is way underserved as far park\nacreage in the community, more so than a lot of other cities. Mr. Philips stated that he is\nvery well aware.\nChair Ingram asked Mr. Phillips the status of rebuilding the Boys and Girls Club. Mr.\nPhillips stated that they have prepared a proposal for the School District. Everything\nseems acceptable with the School District. The proposal needs to go before the School\nBoard.\nB.\nDiscussion and Selection of Joint Meeting Dates with City Council -\n(Discussion/Action Item)\nRSM Lillard stated that the staff and City Clerk are still trying to confirm a date for the Joint\nMeeting with Council.\nC.\nDiscussion of Annual Commission Goals, Objectives, and Accomplishments\nIncluding Park Master Plan - (Discussion/Action Item)\nChair Ingram stated that he would like to have the list of Goals, Objectives, and\nAccomplishments for the Joint Meeting with Council.\nSuggested list of accomplishments were:\n-\nMarina Waterfront Park\n-\nDeWitt Officers' Club has been fully utilized. Is booked six months to one year in\nadvance.\n-\nSmall Dog Park - Development of Small Dog Park Website/installation of bulletin\nboard.\n-\nDog Park Drainage\n-\nCreation of Sport Advisory Committee\n-\nUse of Coast Guard park field easing shortage of athletic fields.\n-\nCollaborated with Friends of Franklin Park for funding additional improvements to\nFranklin Park Playground Renovation.\n-\nDesign and Renovation of Littlejohn and McKinley Park Play Areas as well as the\nAlameda Point Multi-Purpose Field.\n-\nInitiated discussion with the Peralta Community College District (PCCD) for use of\nthe soccer field and track at the College of Alameda.\n3\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, January 13, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2005-01-13.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2005-01-13", "page": 4, "text": "-\nMade significant progress in cost recovery.\n7.\nREPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK\nDIRECTOR\nA.\nPark Division\nAlameda Point Gymnasium: Community use of the gymnasium by Alameda sponsored\norganizations has increased 20 percent this year. Beginning in January, Encinal High\nSchool and St. Joseph Notre Dame High School will share court time after school for\nbasketball practices through March. FUTSAL (indoor soccer) will begin its 5th season at\nthe gym commencing in January. Approximately 40 teams participate in this league. All\ngames are scheduled on weekends and are open to the public.\nAlso, the Golden State Warriors will be holding a basketball camp at the gymnasium from\nDecember 20-23, for boys and girls between the ages of 8-16. The focus of this camp is\nindividual skill development, learning proper fundamental skills, and development of a\nhealthy team attitude. This camp will also feature appearances by current and former\nWarriors players and coaches.\nFranklin Park: Friends of Franklin Park purchased three beautiful Victorian picnic tables\nwith benches which have been installed. The Park Division staff worked with the\nRecreation Division and Friends of Franklin Park to find the best location for the tables.\nAlso, a new driveway was installed at the entrance to Franklin Park. This work has\nenhanced the appearance as well as the safety of the location.\nVeteran's Building: Meetings are continuing between a local Veteran's Committee and\nCity staff to develop plans to renovate the kitchen. Staff has been informed by the\nAlameda County Health Department that a commercial kitchen will be required and an\nonsite meeting with the Health Department is scheduled for Thursday, December 16. This\nproject will be financed by the Veteran's Committee, who plan to hold fundraising events\nand obtain donations from local businesses.\nLeydecker Playground Renovation: A Request for Proposal (RFP) for the relocation of\nthe Leydecker Playground was recently completed and is being reviewed. This project will\ninclude relocating the existing playground to the volleyball court area and removal of the old\nplay equipment once the project is completed. This project will be funded by the 2002\nResources Bond Act-Per Capita Block Grant (Proposition 40) and is expected to be\ncompleted by May 2005.\nAlameda Point Multi-Purpose Field: The Public Works Engineering Department has\nhired a new contractor to finish the park. The Park is still under construction and\nEngineering is working hard to have the new contractor complete the project. The park is\nalready looking better and should be ready for limited baseball use in March 2005.\n4\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, January 13, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2005-01-13.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2005-01-13", "page": 5, "text": "Field renovation work: At this time each year we complete renovation work to our turf\nareas to ready them for the upcoming season. The work completed this month includes\nreplacement of 14,000 square feet of sod at Lincoln Park, aeration and fertilization of all\nParks, and over seeding of all fields.\nB.\nRecreation Division\nAll youth from ages of 8-13 years have been participating in the National Elks Hoop\nShoot at all of our parks. The City Finals will be held on January 8 at the Old Alameda\nGym at 3:00 p.m. Please feel free to drop by the parks and check out the fun.\nMore than 500 residents attended the Annual Mayor's Holiday Tree Lighting Ceremony,\nheld this year under clear skies. This year's ceremony featured performances by the\nCommunity Band, Dancing Christmas Trees (who actually competed in the Macy's\nThanksgiving Day Parade), music by the Mistletones, and an appearance by Santa Clause.\nOn December 11, Breakfast with Santa took place at the newly dedicated Albert H. Dewitt\nO' Club. More than 55 parents and children enjoyed a special breakfast with Santa. The\nchildren also wrote letters to Santa, made a special reindeer door hanger, colored Holiday\npictures, and took a photo with jolly old Santa Claus.\nOn the weekend of December 18 & 19 Santa made a special visit to Alameda by personally\ngoing to 33 homes and spreading the Holiday cheer. Our Santa's Visits Program offers\nAlameda citizens the opportunity to have Santa and his helper makes a visit to your home\nand personally talks with your children.\nThe Winter Wonderland Camp at Harrison Center in Lincoln Park takes place from\nDecember 20-24 and December 27-31. Wonderland Camp provides opportunities for the\ncamper to experience special Holiday crafts, drama, games, cooking projects, and loads of\nfun. During the first week, there are 51 youth (Grades K-5) enjoying the Camp while for the\nsecond week there are 40 registered so far. The Camp runs from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.\neveryday and extended care is available before and after camp from 7:30 -9:00 a.m. and\n3:00 -5:30 p.m.\nOther news, the ARPD \"Blues News\" Gazette, second edition, was published to promote\nall of our programs and special events for the winter 2004-2005. The \"Blue News\" Gazette\nis a handy quick reference guide to all of Alameda Recreation and Parks youth division\nprograms. The \"Blue News\" Gazette was distributed to all Kindergarten through 8th Grade\nchildren in Alameda as well as at the libraries and local parks.\nAnother upcoming special event at the Al DeWitt O' Club is the ever popular\nFather/Daughter Valentine Dance. The Dance will take place on February 10 & 11 from\nthe hours of 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. Sign-ups will begin January 10, 2005. This is usually a sold\nout event with over 200 Fathers/Daughters in attendance.\n5\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, January 13, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2005-01-13.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2005-01-13", "page": 6, "text": "Attendance at both teen centers remains high. The Teen Underground had 320 drop-ins,\nand the Chipman Teen Program had 410 drop-ins during the month of December (while\nschool was in session). During the winter break, the Teen Underground is open from\nMonday through Thursday from 12:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. We will also be going on some\nspecial Holiday trips which include bowling, ice skating in San Francisco, and a trip to\nBoomers in Livermore for games during winter break. Chipman Teen site is closed during\nthe break.\nThe Teen Program is getting ready for a new and exciting 2005. We are sponsoring a 3-\nOn-3 Teen Hoop Tournament which starts from middle January through March. The\ntournament will be at Encinal High School Gym and times will vary.\nThe Alameda Youth Committee (AYC) has been busy being good helpers during this\nHoliday season. They were busy with the Mayor's Tree Lighting Ceremony on December\n4th, by selling warm beverages and treats and assisting regular staff with the event. They\nbrought in $119 from snack sales due to their hard work and dedication. Another event in\nwhich AYC helped out was the Albert H. DeWitt Officers' Club Dedication which was held\non December 18, 2005, and assisted staff with serving beverages to guests. In other news,\nAYC board has been discussing going to Boomers as an AYC outing, bonding activity, and\nyear-end (mid year) celebration for their work and commitment.\nThis years Teen Spring Break Trip will be traveling down to Southern California which\nincludes; Magic Mountain, Universal Studios, Medieval Times (Dinner and Show), then\nDisneyland. Sign ups are currently underway.\nRecreation After school Program (RAP) for K-5th Graders, continues to help parents by\nproviding the youth of Alameda with an after school recreation program at selected park\nsites throughout Alameda. Participants may sign up for either 5, 3, or 2 days a week and\nthe hours are from after school until 5:30 p.m. each day.\nParks and Playgrounds, our free drop-in recreation program, has continued to thrive at\nour 10 sites (Franklin, Krusi, Leydecker, Lincoln, Littlejohn, Longfellow, McKinley, Miller,\nTillman, and Woodstock).\nThe Public Art Policy Guidelines have been adopted by the Recreation & Park\nCommission. The Public Art Advisory Committee (PAAC) has been gearing up for several\nnew projects that will be starting after the first of the year. The PAAC will be meeting about\ninfusing public art into the Webster Street Renaissance Project and the Park Street\nStreetscape & Town Center Projects. A formal Public Art plan should also be coming\ntogether for the South Shore Shopping Center project. Staff has met with Tad Savinar, art\nconsultant, for the project and a formal plan should be implemented into the new year.\nHarsch Investment Properties has provided the City with a $150,000 performance bond to\ninsure they will complete public art for the Center.\n6\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, January 13, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2005-01-13.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2005-01-13", "page": 7, "text": "We are taking registration for the Junior Warriors Basketball program for K-5 Grades.\nThe program will run on Saturdays at the Larry Patton Gym. The program will start on\nJanuary 22 and run until March. The fee is $65 which includes jersey, tickets and\ninstruction.\nThe Hoop Shoot Contest is currently taking place at all park sites. The City finals will be\nheld on January 8th at 3:00 p.m. at the Larry Patton Gym.\nBoth the Adult Softball and Adult Flag football has come to an end. Both leagues had a\ngreat turn out and all players where really happy.\nC.\nMastick Senior Center\nNovember 2004 Statistics (Statistics are two months behind):\nVolunteers: 114\nVolunteer Hours: 1,830 (1830 X $8.51= = $15,573)\nNew Members: 128\nTotal Membership to Date (July 1, 2004 to present): 2,199\n(Note: Membership renewal is tied to the new Fiscal Year)\nAverage Number of Lunches Served Daily: 52\nMonthly Sign-ins: 12,277\nHoliday Closures at Mastick: Mastick Senior Center will be closed for the following\nholidays:\nNew Year's Day Holiday, Saturday, January 1, 2005.\nMartin Luther King, Jr. Day\nMonday, January 17, 2005.\nNote: Meals on Wheels is available to provide meal service on the days Mastick is closed.\nTo reserve a meal, please call 865-6131.\nMedical Return Trip Improvement Program (MRTIP) is designed to provide a more\nresponsive system for getting home after/from medical appointments. The City of Alameda\nhas contracted with Friendly Transportation to provide transportation services after/from\nmedical appointments. On Friday, December 17, 2004, a letter with five (5) complimentary\nvouchers was sent to 251 interested Paratransit users. The program is made available\nthrough Measure B funding. This program is being administered at Mastick Senior Center.\nStart the year off right by getting your affairs in order! Join Mary Widenor, Attorney and\nAlameda Adult School instructor, for her five-week class on Will and Estate Planning.\nThis class is scheduled for Friday, January 21 & 28 and February 4 & 11, between 10:00\nand 11:30 a.m. in second dining room. Please pre-register in the office, or call 747-7506.\nJoin us for the New Member Orientation on Thursday, January 13, 2005, at 10:30 a.m. in\nthe Lobby. The New Member Orientation familiarizes new members with the Center\n7\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, January 13, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2005-01-13.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2005-01-13", "page": 8, "text": "providing information on the various activities, programs, and services; a guided tour of the\nCenter, and a complimentary lunch prepared by Bay Area Community Services (BACS)!\nPre-registration is required. To make a reservation, please stop by the office or call 747-\n7506. You will be amazed at what we have to offer!\nMonthly dance moves to new date in January! Mastick Swingers\nPresents \"Winter Wonderland\" on Monday, January 24, 2005, 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm (Doors\nopen at 12:30 pm). Dance to the music of Manny Gutierrez, socialize with friends, and\nenjoy refreshments in the Mastick Social Hall. Cost: $3 per person w/ membership card or\n$4 per person w/out membership card.\nMastick \"Pool\" Team Wins 8-Ball Tournament! Mastick & Ruggieri (Union City) Senior\nCenters competed in an 8-Ball Pool Tournament on Friday, November 19, 2004. Two\nrounds of 8-Ball were played resulting in a tie. In the play-off game, Team Captain Chuck\n\"Stroker\" Young won the final game, giving Mastick a final victory of 9 to 8, retaining their\nundefeated streak for the last three years! The Mastick Pool Players are very appreciative\nfor the thrilling and fun tournament, delightful refreshments and lunch hosted by Union City.\nThe Mastick Pool Players graciously donated their cash prize, $20, to Mastick Senior\nCenter! Hip Hip Hooray for Mastick's Pool Players!\nBook Donation Policy: Thanks to your generous donations, the Mastick library continues\nto burst at the seams! In November 2004, additional shelving was added to accommodate\nthe overflow! The Mastick library is now accepting books copyrighted 1995 through 2005,\n\"classics,\" and current month magazines ONLY. The Friends of the Library accepts books\non behalf of the Alameda Free Library for their semi-annual books sale. For small to\nmoderate donations, please contact the Alameda Free Library at 747-7777. For moderate\nto large donations, please call 521-7745. Again, thanks for making the Mastick library a\nwonderful resource within our community!\nOn Thursday, January 13, 2005, AC Transit representatives will be in Room D between\n10:00 and 11:00 am to process applications and take photographs for senior and disabled\nAC Transit I.D. cards. A new card is $3 and a replacement card is $5. Seniors, 65 and\nolder, are eligible with proof of age (e.g., DMV I.D., Passport, Alien I.D., or Visa).\nIndividuals, 65 years and under, can apply for a disabled discount card with proof of\ndisability (e.g., DMV Placard receipt or Medicare card) and Medical Certification Form\n(available in the Mastick office) completed by your doctor. If you have any questions,\nplease call Norman Davis, AC Transit, at (510) 891-4709. To register, please come to the\nMastick office.\nTrips! Trips! Trips! - Join us on Tuesday, January 25, 2005, at 1:00 p.m. in the Media\nRoom for a slide show of the 2005-2006 Extended Trip Travel Packages presented by\nCollette Tours. Preview the June trip to South Dakota Black Hills and Badlands, the\nNovember trip to Costa Rica, as well as a sneak preview of the 2006 Australia & New\nZealand Trip. Don't miss this opportunity to walk through fantastic vacations. Also, ask\nMariel about 2005 Overnight Trips to Sacramento and LA/ Palm Springs.\n8\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, January 13, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2005-01-13.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2005-01-13", "page": 9, "text": "How Respond to a Power Outage and Other Disasters: Living in earthquake country,\nwe experience infrequent, yet disrupting events such as power outages. We now face new\nchallenges in the forms of hazardous material and terrorism. Do you know what to do and\nare you prepared to \"ride out\" a minor to disastrous event? Alameda Power & Telecom\n(AP&T), the Alameda Fire Department, the American Red Cross, and Mastick Senior\nCenter have joined together to offer a one hour disaster preparedness training to help you\nface the challenge on Tuesday, January 25, 2005, at 1:00 pm in Room D. Learn how to:\nmake a disaster plan, build a disaster kit, take advantage of opportunities for additional\ntraining such as CPR, First Aid, and AED, take advantage of opportunities in disaster relief\nareas, and give blood. There will be an emphasis on unique challenges faced by seniors\nand resources available to help relieve these challenges. To reserve a seat, please call\n747-7506. However, we will gladly accommodate those that \"drop-in!\"\nD.\nOther Reports and Announcments\n1.\nStatus Report on Northern Waterfront Committee (Commissioner Oliver)\nCommissioner Oliver will see if the Committee is being disbanded.\n2.\nStatus Report on Alameda Point Golf Course Design Committee (Vice Chair\nReeves)\nNo report at this time.\n3.\nStatus Report on Alameda Point Advisory Committee (APAC) (Chair Ingram)\nNo report at this time.\n4.\nStatus Report on Transportation Master Plan Committee (Commissioner\nJohnson)\nNo Report at this time.\n8.\nSTATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS\nNone.\n9.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL\nNone.\n10.\nITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA\nContinued Discussion and Consideration of Request from Mayor and City Council to\nDevelop a Park Use Policy\n9\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, January 13, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2005-01-13.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2005-01-13", "page": 10, "text": "Discussion and Selection of Joint Meeting Dates with City Council\nDiscussion of Annual Commission Goals, Objectives, and Accomplishments\nIncluding Park Master Plan\n11.\nSET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING\nThursday, February 10, 2005\n12.\nADJOURNMENT 8:39 p.m.\n10\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, January 13, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2005-01-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 1, "text": "CITT\nOF\nMINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF\nJANUARY 18, 2005\n(Revised 3/16/05)\nDATE:\nTuesday, January 18, 2005\nTIME:\n7:00 p.m.\nPLACE:\nCity Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, First Floor, Room 160\nAlameda, CA 94501\n1.\nRoll Call:\nThe meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m.\nPresent:\nChair (C) Huston (late), Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Committee Members\n(CM) Cecilia Cervantes, K.C. Rosenberg, and Peter Wolfe\nAbsent:\nSuzanne Ota, ARPD Director\nStaff:\nDale Lillard, Recreation Services Manager (RSM)\nPat Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)\nChristina Bailey, Cultural Arts Specialist (CAS)\n2.\nApproval of Minutes\nA.\nMinutes of Meeting on December 15, 2004\nM/S/C\nRosenberg/Cervantes\n(approved)\n\"That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on December 15,\n2004 be approved.'\nApproved (3) - Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg\nAbsent (1) - Huston\nAbstain (1) - Wolfe\n3.\nOral Communications\n(Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the\nCommission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the\nagenda.)\nNone.\n4.\nWritten Communications\n-\nLetter from Pat Colburn regarding the funding of art centers through the\nPublic Art Allocation\n-\nStaff report from RSM Lillard regarding the Webster Renaissance Project\nPublic Art and the Park Streetscape & Town Center Project\n5.\nOld Business\nPAAC Meeting\n1\nMinutes Revised\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 2, "text": "A.\nConsideration of 2005 Meeting Dates - (Discussion/Action Item)\nRS Russi inquired about the fourth Thursday of the month as a possible\nmeeting date. C Huston stated that this would fit her schedule, at least\nthrough June; PAAC members agreed. CAS Bailey will send out the\ndates and meeting locations via e-mail.\nB.\nContinued discussion of Public Art Annual Plan - (Discussion/Action\nItem)\nCM Rosenberg shared that she would like to see the program goals, from\nthe Guidelines, worked into a Mission Statement. RSM Lillard stated that\nif the PAAC chose a couple of goals, then staff could draft a short Mission\nStatement.\nC Huston asked that each member choose the goals they'd want to see in\nthe Mission. CM Cervantes shared that \"supporting the promotion of arts\nin Alameda; in order to provide the Community with art opportunities\" is\nimportant. CM Rosenberg shared that \"promoting a diverse and\nstimulating cultural environment, and strengthening cultural awareness,\ninnovative thinking, lifelong learning and the City's sense of community\"\nshould be highlighted. VC Lee chose \"Public art integrates the vision of\nartists and design professionals in planning and designing the urban\nlandscape.\"\nVC Lee asked whether the PAAC would be dealing with physical objects\nor contributing to the operating costs and salaries of local non-profits. RS\nRussi stated that it would be up to the PAAC. C Huston stated that she\nwould be more inclined to have more interesting art pieces throughout the\nCity, rather than supporting the existing non-profits.\nCM Rosenberg stated that it would be difficult to monitor funds provided\nto non-profit organizations for the purposes of supporting ongoing\noperation and staff costs. RSM Lillard shared that a number of\norganizations that provide grants have strict guidelines detailing how the\nfunding may be used. Most tend to emphasize the program or service to\nbe provided while attempting to avoid evaluating the particular non-profit\nthemselves. Physical pieces of art can be enjoyed by everyone when\nplaced throughout the City.\nC Huston asked about the legality of issuing Public Art Fund monies to\nlocal non-profits. RSM Lillard stated that the way he understood the\nordinance, funding could not be provided to non-profits for ongoing\noperating expenses such as staff salaries but that funding could be\nutilized to provide a performance, exhibition or special event.\nCM Cervantes inquired about using monies for appropriate exhibits. RSM\nLillard stated that the in-lieu fund could be amended. CM Rosenberg\nasked about the possibility of deciding on a specific defined event and\noffering a competition for non-profits. RSM Lillard stated that PAAC could\nPAAC Meeting\n2\nMinutes Revised\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 3, "text": "move to do that, but would need to specify funds go only towards\nexhibits/events. CM Rosenberg suggested that the PAAC take a look at\nlocal non-profits on an annual basis for the purpose of assessing\ncommunications.\nC Huston inquired as to whether the permits are being written in a way\nthat is minimizing the one percent. She wanted to add this to the Annual\nPlan under Political.\nC Huston asked PAAC if they wanted to have data collection maps. VC\nLee stated that it would be a good idea to have specific sites and goals in\nmind. C Huston also inquired about having a project calendar. RSM\nLillard stated that the Planning/Building Department lists projects in terms\nof seasons.\nRS Russi explained that he has been working on a generic RFP and\nPublic Art application. Each RFP will have different details and a unique\ncover letter. RSM Lillard stated that PAAC would receive a draft by the\nFebruary meeting.\nC.\nDiscussion of Art Donation - (Discussion Item)\nRSM Lillard explained that Emily Lewis, a St. Joseph Notre Dame\nstudent, approached Alameda Recreation & Parks and she would like to\npaint a mural on or in one of our buildings. Director Ota and RS Russi\nmet with Emily, her mother, and high school art teacher. The project will\nbe no cost to the City. The Department proposed that the mural be\npainted on three panels for easy mobility.\nC Huston suggested that the student-artist use canvas and Velcro; this\nprocess makes displaying, moving, and storing the piece easier. CM\nRosenberg added that a sona tube could be used to store the piece, if\ncanvas and Velcro are used.\nCM Rosenberg also stated that if one of her students came to her about\npainting a mural, she would suggest that they look into past murals from\nthe City where they are doing the piece. This way, they could better their\nown work.\n6.\nNew Business\nA.\nWebster Renaissance Project Public Art and the Park Streetscape &\nTown Center Project - (Discussion Item)\nSue Russell from City Development Services attended the meeting to\nshare the progress of the Park & Webster Streetscape Projects. She\nmentioned that both streets would be under construction simultaneously.\nShe also expressed a desire to have a representative from the PAAC sit\non each project's subcommittee. CM Wolfe mentioned that he had been\npart of the Webster Street Design Committee, as well as the Downtown\nPAAC Meeting\n3\nMinutes Revised\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 4, "text": "Commission Taskforce. VC Lee stated that she would be willing to\nvolunteer also.\nM/S/C\nRosenberg/Huston\n(approved)\n\"That Peter Wolfe be appointed as the liaison between the Public Art\nAdvisory Committee and the Webster and Park Streetscape\nProjects.\"\nApproved (5) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg, and Wolfe\nM/S/C\nRosenberg/Huston\n(approved)\n\"That Karen Lee be appointed as the substitute liaison between the\nPublic Art Advisory Committee and the Webster and Park\nStreetscape Projects.'\nApproved (5) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg, and Wolfe\nB.\nConsideration of funding of art centers by the Public Art Allocation -\n(Discussion Item)\nPat Colburn, President and founder of the Alameda Art Center,\naddressed PAAC members on behalf of the AAC. She stated that the\nCenter has been open for eight months and has 160 members. She\nexpressed the Center's struggle to obtain funding as a non-profit 501 (c) 3.\nShe inquired as to whether or not Public Art Fund monies could be\nallocated to local non-profits. She also mentioned that she had contacted\nHarsch Development about their one percent.\nMeeting attendee, Marilyn Pomeroy, was part of the group that drafted\nthe original Public Art Ordinance. She thought that the in-lieu fund was\nmeant to go towards grant proposals, and that the PAAC was developed\nto handle these grants. CM Rosenberg stated that the role of the PAAC\nis to see that the quality of artwork meets a certain quality level.\nMs. Pomeroy inquired as to what the PAAC thought about local non-\nprofits writing proposals directly to developers. C Huston stated that their\nproposals would inevitably end up in front of the PAAC for approval. VC\nLee expressed concerns over non-profits being pitted against each other\nfor limited funds. In addition, it could also lead to friends and relatives of\nthe developers unfairly lobbying for funds.\nMs. Pomeroy asked if Harsch Development had already set aside its one\npercent for onsite art. RSM Lillard stated that they have an art consultant\nand plan to exceed the one percent. The developer sees public art as\nadding to the Center's appeal.\nC Huston shared that it might be helpful for local non-profits to submit a\none-page \"wish list\" to the PAAC. Those submissions would help the\nPAAC make changes to the Guidelines in the future.\nPAAC Meeting\n4\nMinutes Revised\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 5, "text": "C Huston expressed her hesitation in rushing to use money from the\nFund. CM Rosenberg echoed her sentiment that the Committee would\nnot want to make hasty decisions about the money. CM Wolfe stated that\nthere are so many organizations and so few developers; the developers\nmight become antagonized by all the groups seeking money. VC Lee\nalso expressed her concern over how the PAAC would establish an\norganization's value, if they were to offer grants for non-profits.\nC.\nRole of Committee Members serving as representatives to public art\nprojects - (Discussion Item)\nRSM Lillard stated that PAAC members, serving on other subcommittees,\nwould report to PAAC at their next scheduled meeting (e.g., CM Wolfe will\nattend the Park and Webster Streetscape Project meeting, and will then\nreport to the PAAC).\n7.\nOral Communications, General\nCM Wolfe inquired about the concept of gifts and donations. RSM Lillard\nstated that this was the first time in 17 years that a citizen had\napproached the Department about donating art and PAAC could look at\nthis at a later date. CAS Bailey shared that a file on Gifts and Donations\nis being compiled.\nRS Russi updated the PAAC on Tad Savinar, Art Consultant for Harsch\nDevelopment. Due to a setback in the developer's conceptual plan, the\ndevelopment and placement of art has been delayed. Despite this setback,\nMr. Savinar is familiarizing himself with local artists.\n8.\nAdjournment:\nThe meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.\nPAAC Meeting\n5\nMinutes Revised\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JANUARY 18, 2005 - -7:30 P.M.\nActing Mayor Gilmore convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\n[Note: Mayor Johnson was present via teleconference from The\nCapital Hilton, 16th and K Street NW, Washington DC only for the\nResolution Opposing the Proposed Casino paragraph no. 05-037].\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(05-027) Councilmember Matarrese moved that the Public Hearing to\nconsider an Appeal of J. Barni [paragraph no. 05-034]; the Public\nHearing to consider amendment to Zoning Map [paragraph no. 05-035];\nand the Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of Rita Mohlen\n[paragraph no. 05-036] be moved to the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes: Louncilmembers Daysog, deHaan,\nMatarrese and Acting Mayor Gilmore - 4. [Absent Mayor Johnson -\n1. ]\n(05-028) - Councilmember deHaan moved that discussion regarding\noptions for relocation assistance legislation [paragraph no. 05- -\n040] be heard first on the Regular Agenda.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which FAILED by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes Councilmembers Daysog and deHaan -2.\nNoes : Councilmember Matarrese and Acting Mayor Gilmore - 2.\n[Absent : Mayor Johnson - 1. ]\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(05-029 ) Proclamation declaring January as Blood Donor Month in\nthe City of Alameda.\nActing Mayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Beth\nWren, Donor Recruitment Account Manager.\nMs. Wren thanked the Council for their support of the Red Cross and\nannounced that there will be a blood drive on Friday in San Leandro\nat the Creekside Community Church.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 2, "text": "Michael John Torrey, Alameda, commented on the importance of\ndonating blood.\n(05-030) Presentation by Peter Simon, Dean, College of Alameda and\nLiz Sullivan, Organizer with Oakland Community Organizations\nregarding the proposed Oakland Aviation High School at the Oakland\nAirport. Withdrawn by presenters.\n(05-031) Presentation of letters of appreciation to members of the\nAlameda Police Department by NC1 Danielle Carter, Recruiter, Naval\nReserve Recruiting Area Pacific.\nNC1 Randy Montrose, Recruiter in Charge, Naval Reserve Recruiting\nArea Pacific, presented letters of appreciation to members of the\nAlameda Police Department ; Sergeant Jill Ottaviano, Alameda Police\nDepartment, accepted the letters of appreciation on behalf of the\nAlameda Police Department.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar,\nincluding continuing the Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of J.\nBarni to February 1; continuing the Public Hearing to consider\nAmendment to Zoning Map to February 1; and noticing the Public\nHearing to consider an Appeal of Rita Mohlen for a later date.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Mayor Johnson - 1. ]\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number. ]\n(*05-032) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community\nImprovement Commission (CIC) Meeting of December 21, 2004; the\nSpecial and Regular City Council Meetings held on January 4, 2005;\nand the Special Joint City Council, CIC and Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority Meeting of January 5, 2005. Approved.\n(*05-033) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,049,755.31.\n(05-034) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning\nBoard's approval of Design Review, DR04-0101, to allow a 5,300\nsquare foot new commercial building (veterinary hospital) to\nreplace approximately 2,000 square feet of commercial buildings,\nwith a parking lot expansion to 23 spaces; and adoption of related\nresolution. The property is located at 1410 Everett Street in the\nC-C Community Commercial and R-5 Hotel Residential Zoning\nDistricts. Appellant: J. Barni. Continued to February 1, 2005.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 3, "text": "(*05-035) Public Hearing to consider Amendment to Zoning Map to\nrezone approximately 7,800 square feet (1/5 acre) at 1410 Everett\nStreet, APN 070-170-15, from R-5 Hotel Residential to C-C Community\nCommercial and\n(*05-035A) - Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map to\nDesignate APN 070-170-15, Approximately One-Fifth Acre, from R-5\nHotel Residential to C-C Community Commercial, on Central Avenue at\nEverett Street. Continued to February 1, 2005.\n(*05-036 - ) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning\nBoard's denial of Variances, V04-0006, 0007, 0008 and 0010, and\ndenial of Major Design Review, DR04-0026, for all development\nprojects at 3017 Marina Drive; and adoption of related resolution.\nThe site is located within an R-1, Single-Family Residential Zoning\nDistrict. The development project includes expansion of the\nresidence into the estuary and installation of rear yard decks.\nApproval is being sought for the following: 1) Variance to AMC\nSubsection 30-4.1(d) (3) (Maximum Main Building Coverage exceeding\n48%) i 2) Variance to AMC Subsection 30-4.1(d) (7) and Section 30-2\n(Rear Yard) because the building extends across the rear property\nline into the estuary 3) Variance to AMC Subsection 30-5.7(a)\n(Roof Eaves) and 30-5.7(d) (Bay Windows) because the roof leaves\nabove the bay windows encroach to within 3 feet from the side\nproperty line and bay windows are not permitted to encroach into\nside yards; 4) Variance to AMC Subsection 30-5.7(c) (1) (Rear Yard) ,\nSubsection 30-2 (Definitions) (Yard-Rear) and Subsection 30-\n4. 1 (d) (7) (Rear Yard) because decks over 36-inches in height extend\ninto the required side and rear yard setbacks 5) Variance to AMC\nSubsection 30-5.14(c) (Barrier Heights) because the windscreens\naround the patios exceed the maximum permitted - -foot height. The\nPlanning Board found that the Variance for the bay window\nencroachment be withdrawn because encroachment is in compliance,\nsubject to Design Review approval. Applicant/Appellant: Rita\nMohlen. To be noticed for a later date.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n( (05-037) Resolution No. 13811, \"Opposing the Proposed Lower Lake\nRancheria-Koi Nation Casino in the City of Oakland. \" Adopted.\nMichael John Torrey, Alameda, stated that it is important to make\nsure that the Rancheria-Koi Nation does not get the land trust.\nMelody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber\nsupports the Resolution; submitted a packet of information from the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 4, "text": "Chamber's Town Hall Meeting.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Council needs to send a strong\nmessage in support of the Resolution opposing the Rancheria-Koi -\nNation proposed casino; Alameda's vote, along with the City of San\nLeandro, Alameda County, and the City of Oakland, will send a\nstrong message to the Bureau of Indian Affairs stated she had the\nopportunity to speak with Congressman Stark and that he will\nsupport Alameda in their efforts.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the casino proposal is not good\nfor Alameda, the adjoining wildlife refuge, the City of Oakland and\nis a false economy that he would oppose any casino by any tribe in\nany urban area; he hopes that there is unanimous support of the\nResolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he joins his\ncolleagues in opposing the casino; Council should consider joining\nthe City of Oakland in pursuing legal issues.\nMayor Johnson stated that she has spoken to the Interim City\nManager and meetings have already taken place Alameda is working\nwith San Leandro to jointly respond to the environmental documents;\nstaff is working with the City of Oakland; Alameda County should be\nincluded in pooling resources to save money in the battle opposing\nthe casino.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that there should be an amendment to\nthe Resolution which would include directing the City Attorney to\nwork with colleagues in the surrounding jurisdictions to actively\noppose the proposed casino.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Resolution should be very strong,\nclear and precise regarding Alameda's position on the casino; that\nshe would prefer to give separate direction to staff to work with\nthe surrounding communities and Alameda County.\nActing Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember Daysog was\namicable to giving staff direction, to which Councilmember Daysog\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he commends the Council in taking\nthe lead; the matter will be an uphill push involving federal\nregulations.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 5, "text": "Counci lmember Daysog stated that he opposes the proposed casino for\na number of reasons, including crime and the urban planning impacts\non Alameda and other cities. the proposed casino is only one of a\nwave of casinos to come which are inappropriate for the area.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the Oakland City Council wanted to\nensure that Alameda has no desire to have a casino.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n( 05-038) Public Hearing on Housing and Community Development needs\nfor Community Development Block Grant Annual and Five-Year Plans.\nThe Community Development Manager gave a brief presentation on the\nhousing and community development needs.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested an Off Agenda Report update on the\nSection 8 funding.\nJim Franz, American Red Cross, urged the Council to encourage the\ncontinuation of a balance of service provisions that provide a\nsafety net in the community.\nHugh Cavanaugh, Alameda Food Bank, stated there has been a 50%\ngrowth in the past three years and that he expects the growth to\ncontinue over the next few years.\nSteven Currie, Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB), read\na letter from SSHRB encouraging the Council to continue the safety\nnet services and programs that empower and support residents'\nefforts toward self-sufficiency.\nCouncilmember Matarrese thanked the Social Services Human Relations\nBoard for their work; stated that he looked forward to receiving\nthe Board's recommendations.\n(05-039) Report regarding Corrective and Preventive Plan in\nresponse to the Memorandum on Internal Control Structure.\nActing Mayor Gilmore stated that the matter was being discussed\nbecause Council requested staff to respond to questions resulting\nfrom the City's annual audit.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested information on the amount of the\nfund balance deficit ; inquired whether the list of items in the\naudit recommendation regarding the budget represents surplus or\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 6, "text": "deficit.\nThe Finance Director responded that she would provide the\ninformation to Council.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have the\nrequested information coordinated with the budget information\nprovided in the first week of February.\nActing Mayor Gilmore stated that the City has become dependant on\nInformation Technology services system failure would result in\ncountless hours of lost productivity; Council should carefully\nreview the costs of addressing the issue and prioritize\naccordingly.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that the Plan makes a lot of the\ninternal mechanisms of the City transparent; requested information\non the debt reserve compliance issues.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether bonds are typically\nrefinanced without the qualification process.\nThe Finance Director responded there would be a competitive bid\nprocess if a bond is straight forward and uncomplicated;\ncomplicated bonds would be negotiated; the underwriters would\nrespond to the Request for Proposal (RFP) stating what could be\ndone at what price; staff would then recommend a selection to the\ngoverning body.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested that the bond bidding process be\nplaced on a future agenda for discussion; stated that it is\nimportant for Council to be involved in the bidding of bonds and in\nthe decision not to bid.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the City's retirement and\nhealth benefit costs have increased dramatically; the City's Public\nEmployee Retirement System (PERS) contribution increased 615% from\n2002 to 2004.\n(05-040) Discussion regarding options for relocation assistance\nlegislation and a temporary moratorium on all new construction,\ndemolition and condominium conversion in the \"West End Atlantic\nCorridor Area\" (bounded by Webster Street, Main Street, Pacific\nAvenue and Ralph J. Appezzato Memorial Parkway).\nThe Interim City Manager provided a brief outline of the Harbor\nIsland Apartment eviction process and staff's coordinating efforts\nto financially help the remaining tenants move.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 7, "text": "Acting Mayor Gilmore stated that the Council would not be taking\naction tonight; public testimony would be taken and the matter\nwould be continued to the February 1, 2005 City Council Meeting\n;\nthe two meeting nights constitute one meeting; stated speakers can\nspeak at tonight's meeting or on February 1, but not at both.\nProponents: Regina Tillman, Alameda; Steven Garner, Alameda; Frank\nSkiles, Alameda Gretchen Lipow, Alameda; Ron Salsig, Alameda;\nWendy Horikoshi, Alameda; Janet Gibson, Alameda Unified School\nDistrict; Reginald James, Alameda; Eve Bach, Alameda; Carl Halpern,\nAlameda;Mary Green Parks, Alameda.\nOpponents: Dominic Pasanisi, Alameda; Barbara Kerr, Alameda; Fern\nWallace, Alameda; Bernie Fitzgerald, Alameda; Melinda Samuelson,\nAlameda; Steven Edrington, Alameda [submitted handout] ; Carol\nMartino, Realty World Martino Associates; John Sullivan, San\nLeandro; Kathy Lautz, Apartment Owners Association; Thomas S.\nCooke, Manager, Bonanza Apartments; Carmen Lasar, Alameda: and,\nMonica Getten, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that the City Attorney provide an\nanalysis of existing State law which might overlap with the\nproposed ordinance, particularly landlord and tenant relationships\nstated that there is plenty of State law protecting individual\ntenants in contracts with landlords; he is concerned that there is\nnot much protection for the community; there is significant impact\non the community and the schools when owners choose to wipe out a\nlarge complex; the matter is not about rent control he has never\nsupported rent control, which has always been a failure; there has\nnever been a complaint about rent being too high, only complaints\nthat rent is too high for the services not being delivered.\nActing Mayor Gilmore requested information on how many properties\nhave 40 units or more and the total number of units in the \"West\nEnd Atlantic Corridor Area\", and requested staff to provide\ninformation on how the ordinance would work in the absence of rent\ncontrol.\n(05-041) Ordinance No. 2934, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code\nby Amending Subsection 3-28.9 (Payment In-Lieu of Taxes -PILOT) ;\nAdding a New Subsection 3-28.10 (Return on Investment in Enterprise\nFunds) of Section 3-28 (Payment of Taxes) of Chapter III (Finance\nand Taxation) and Adding a New Subsection 18-4.10 (Exemptions) of\nSection 18-4 - (Sewer Service Charge) of Article I (Sewers\nof\nChapter XVIII ( Sewer and Water) \" Finally passed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Ordinance provides some hope to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 8, "text": "close the gap in the budget shortfall; moved final passage of the\nOrdinance.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion Councilmember Daysog, stated that he was concerned\nabout the possibility of a charge on either cable or electric\nbills; it is important to be upfront with the public regarding the\n$750,000 and the possibility of recouping the money through rate\ncharges.\nThe Interim City Manager stated impacts would be determined through\nthe Alameda Power and Telecom (AP&T) budget processi stated that\nthere are always trade offs in the budget.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he supports the Ordinance, which\nis the more conservative approach given the different options\npresented.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that there is a good likelihood that\nsomething would need to be massaged; AP&T should not go through a\ndisproportionate adjustment.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Johnson - 1. ]\n(05-042) Ordinance No. 2935, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code\nby Adding a New Section 3-91 (City of Alameda Community Benefit\nAssessment Procedure Code) to Article VI (City of Alameda\nImprovement Procedure Code) of Chapter III (Finance and Taxation) . \"\nFinally passed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the Ordinance.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Johnson - 1.\n]\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(05-043 - ) Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the budget review\nprocess would take two months.\nThe Interim City Manager outlined the budget adoption process and\nstated the mid-year budget review addresses expenditures and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 9, "text": "revenues through the end of December and should be addressed at the\nfirst or second meeting in February.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Acting Mayor Gilmore adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 10:02 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\n9\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 10, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JANUARY 18, 2005 - -6:30 P.M.\nActing Mayor Gilmore convened the Special Meeting at 6:33 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese,\nand Acting Mayor Gilmore - 4.\nAbsent :\nMayor Johnson - 1.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(05-026) - Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators :\nHuman Resources Director and Craig Jory; Employee Organizations :\nManagement and Confidential Employees Association and Police\nAssociation Non-Sworn.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Acting Mayor Gilmore announced that the Council gave directions\nto labor negotiators.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Acting Mayor Gilmore adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:15 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 18, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 11, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY - JANUARY 18, 2005 - - - 6:55 P. M.\nActing Chair Gilmore convened the Special Meeting at 7:15 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese,\nand Acting Chair Gilmore - 4.\nAbsent :\nChair Johnson - 1.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(05-002) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;\nInitiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section\n54956.91 Number of cases: One.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Acting Chair Gilmore announced that the Commission obtained\nbriefing from staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Acting Chair Gilmore adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:32 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\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 12, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY - JANUARY 18, 2005 - - - 7:25 P. M.\nActing Chair Gilmore convened the Special Meeting at 7:42 p.m.\nCommissioner Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese,\nand Acting Chair Gilmore - 4.\nAbsent :\nChair Johnson - 1.\nMINUTES\n(05-003) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission\n(CIC) Meetings of December 7, 2004; the Special Joint City Council\nand CIC Meeting of December 21, 2004; and the Special Joint City\nCouncil, CIC and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting\nof January 5, 2005. Approved.\nCommissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes.\nCommissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 4. [Absent : Chair Johnson - 1. ] Note: Commissioner\ndeHaan abstained from voting on the December 7 and 21, 2004\nMinutes.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(05-004) Recommendation to approve a contract with Michael Stanton\nArchitecture for design review services for the proposed Historic\nAlameda Theatre, Parking Structure and Cinema Multiplex Project in\nan amount not to exceed $92,500.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated the contract is one step closer to\ngetting the theatre; moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCommissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 4. [Absent Chair Johnson - 1.\n]\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Acting Chair Gilmore adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:45 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary\nAgenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2005-01-19", "page": 1, "text": "ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION\nMINUTES OF MEETING\nWednesday, January 19, 2005\n1.\nCALL TO ORDER\nChair Sandr\u00e9 Swanson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in Room\n#360, Alameda City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue.\n1-A.\nRoll Call\nRoll call was taken and members present were: Chair Sandr\u00e9 Swanson,\nVice Chair Tony Santare, Commissioner Anthony Corica and\nCommissioner Bob Wood. Absent: Secretary Betsy Gammell. Also\npresent were General Manager Dana Banke and Head Golf Professional\nMatt Plumlee.\n1-B\nApproval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of November 17, 2004 (December\nmeeting canceled).\nThe Commission approved the minutes unanimously.\n1-C\nAdoption of Agenda\nThe Commission approved the agenda unanimously.\n2.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n3.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\n3-A\nDiscussion on Management Practice for Golf Complex Volunteer Marshal\nProgram.\nThe General Manager reported that the agenda item was the request of Chair\nSwanson to clarify the Chuck Corica Golf Complex marshal Program. The\nComplex currently has ten (10) Management Practices in place to explain various\npolicies. The Head Golf Professional contacted Bay Area golf courses to inquire\nabout the Marshal Programs and policies at their facilities to determine how they\ncompare to the program at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex. The General\nManager passed out the information packet containing a draft of the Management\nPractice on the Volunteer Marshal Work Program and the comparison policies\nfrom the other golf courses. The comparison shows that the marshal policies at\nthe Chuck Corica Golf Complex are comparable if not superior to those at other\ncourses. A marshal meeting was held in December to discuss the current policies.\nMike Winkenbach has been assigned to oversee the Marshal Program and has\nbeen marshaling the golf courses on the weekends to ensure that everything is", "path": "GolfCommission/2005-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2005-01-19", "page": 2, "text": "going smoothly. Monday through Thursday the marshals are able to book a tee\ntime, while on the weekends and holidays they can play as business allows after\ntwilight. The questions were raised as how the number of marshals on our crew\ncompares with the other courses. The number of marshal's the Complex has is\ndetermined by the season and there are currently twenty-seven (27). During\n\"peak season\" more marshals are brought on. The marshals keep track of one\ngroups finishing time per hour in a log book in the Pro Shop to record the pace of\nplay. The marshals continually pass by the shop so it is not an inconvenience to\ndo SO. The introduction of the cart marshal was due to carts being taken by\ncustomers without paying. The cart marshals check the customer's receipts and\nwrite the starting times on the carts, which help to keep track of the pace of play.\n3-B\nUpdate on Golf Complex Clubhouse Capital Improvement Project (CIP).\nThe General Manager reported that back in November 2004 the design contract\napproval for the project was pulled off the City Council Agenda. The General\nManager has met with Interim City Manager, Bill Norton, to discuss the project.\nThe General Manager explained the drop in revenue over the past few years and\nthe problems getting approval for the project. The Interim City Manager is\nenthusiastic about the project and does understand the problems with the\ndeclining revenues. They discussed possibly scaling down the project to lower\nthe cost. They are planning to go and look at the clubhouse at Poplar Creek in\nSan Mateo, which was a very successful project, and not as expensive as most.\n3-C\nDiscussion on Practice Area for the Golf Complex Driving Range.\nThe General Manager reported that the Driving Range revenue has steadily\ndecreased since the opening of the Metropolitan in Oakland. The General\nManager has been considering placing a practice facility adjacent to the Driving\nRange. The thought is to use the first and ninth holes on the Mif Albright Course\nand redesign that course. The area would be lit up at night and a synthetic putting\ngreen placed in the area. The General Manager also met with a fencing contractor\nto get a bid on placing a windbreak behind the canopy section of the Driving\nRange and possibly some propane heaters for additional warmth. The idea is to\nkeep the Driving Range open longer hours and run specials in the evening. The\nGolf Commissioners mentioned that it would be beneficial to have plans for the\nidea and visit the area to get a better prospective of the plans. Another thought\nwas to allow the electric carts on the Mif Albright Course.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A\nReport on maintenance activities of the Golf Course.\nThe report covered in the General Manager's report.\n4-B\nGolf Shop and Driving Range activities report by Head Golf Professional", "path": "GolfCommission/2005-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2005-01-19", "page": 3, "text": "Matt Plumlee.\nThe Head Golf Professional reported that calling the tournament groups\nabout the Friday tournament rate of $39 has been beneficial and the\ngolf707 rounds are continuing to sell well.\n4-C\nGeneral Manager Dana Banke's report highlighting activities for the\nmonth at the Golf Complex.\nThe General Manager reported that the golf courses are very wet right\nnow. The Sand Channel Green Drainage System project done on #1 of the\nEarl Fry Course seems to be working well. The wooden benches were\nlooked at and will be replaced. The Complex is putting together a number\nof golf packages to help increase play. The staff is calling tournament\ngroups to encourage them to set up events on Fridays for a rate of $39.\nThe sale of annual passes is going very well. The cost of the passes are\n$850 for Seniors, $1,000 for Residents and $1,300 for the Non Resident\nwhich calculates to 10 months of monthly tickets. The Driving Range has\nnew debit card specials also, $120 for $100, $60 for $50 and $35 for $30.\n4-D\nBeautification Program by Mrs. Norma Arnerich.\nIt was reported that a dedication ceremony at the Complex would be held\nto honor J. D. Grady. Mr. Grady was a longtime golfer and the former\nMarshal Coordinator. The ceremony will be on January 28, 2005.\n5.\nCOMMISSIONERS' REPORTS\n5-A\nLong-Range Planning and Government Liaison, Chair Swanson.\nNo report given.\n5-B\nBuildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range, Secretary\nGammell.\nThe General Manager reported that the have been no current breaches in\nsecurity.\n5-C\nMaintenance Status of Golf Complex and Capital Improvements, Vice\nChair Santare.\nSecretary Santare reported that the Courses are still wet.\n5-D\nGolf Complex Financial Report, Commissioner Corica.\nCommissioner Corica reported that total revenue from golf on the three (3)", "path": "GolfCommission/2005-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2005-01-19", "page": 4, "text": "courses was up 28% for the month of December 2004 as compared to\nDecember 2003, with play up by 12%. This is in spite of the severity of\nthe rain days during the month. For fiscal year 2004-2005, revenue and\nplay were down 10% as compared to fiscal year 2003-2004. Most Bay\nArea courses have experienced similar or larger declines in play. All\nancillary services were down from last December except Pro Shop Sales,\ncart rentals and lessons. The Golf Complex showed a loss for the month\nof $175,371 for the month and a net profit of $211,573 for the first half of\nfiscal year 2004/2005, down about $45,000 from the last fiscal year.\n5-E\nNew Clubhouse, Complex Entry and General Design and Construction\nIssues, Commissioner Wood.\nCommissioner Wood stated that the report was previously discussed.\n5-F\nGolf Complex Restaurant Report, Legends & Heroes.\nNone to report.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON AGENDA (Public Comment)\nNone to report.\n7.\nOLD BUSINESS\nNone to report.\n8.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nIncluded in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance\nDepartment showing the surcharge payment for November 2004 of\n$10,247 and $9,830 for December 2004. The year-to-date total is $92,011\nfor the fiscal year 2004/2005 to the General Fund.\n9.\nANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.\nThe agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the\nBrown Act.", "path": "GolfCommission/2005-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-01-20", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\n2-B\nThursday, January 20, 2005\nThe meeting convened at 8:19 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBeverly Johnson, Mayor, City of Alameda\nDoug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nPublic Comment on Non-Agenda Items Only\nThere were no speaker slips.\n3.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n3-A. Amending Resolution No. 010 establishing rules and procedures for Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority meetings by amending the starting time of regular meetings from 5:30 p.m.\nto 7:00 p.m. (requested by Boardmember Matarrese)\nMember Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was\nseconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0;\nAbstentions - 0.\nMember Matarrese noted that this item is approved with the intent to increase public participation.\n4.\nADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:\n4-A. Property:\nAlameda Naval Air Station\nNegotiating parties:\nARRA and Navy\nUnder negotiation:\nPrice and Terms\nThe ARRA received a briefing from the Real Property Negotiator; no action was taken.\n5.\nADJOURNMENT\nMayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 8:21 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Frankel,\nARRA Secretary\n1\nY:\\Comdev\\Base Reuse& Redevp\\ARRA\\MINUTES\\2005\\1-20-05 Special.ARRA minutes.doc", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 1, "text": "COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nJanuary 24, 2005\nPresent: Berger, Bunker, Chair Cooney, Fort, Gwynne, Longley-Cook, McCoy, McGaughey,\nAbsent/Excused: Chadow, McCoy\nGuests: Anne Steiner\n1.\nMINUTES: The minutes of December 6, 2004 where approved with the following\ncorrections: 1) Oral Communications, Item #3 - change \"Commissioner Ed Cooney stated\nthat AC transit buses are not able to align with the bus stop location due to the existing\nmetered parking space.\" to \"Commissioner Ed Cooney stated that AC transit buses are not\nable to align with the bus stop location on Santa Clara Avenue fronting City Hall due to the\nexisting metered parking space.\" and 2) Oral Communications, Item #5 - change\n\"Commissioner Steffens stated that a chair should be provided in the City Clerk's Office\nfront counter area for refuge if needed.\" to \"Commissioner Elaine McCoy stated that a chair\nshould be provided in the City Clerk's Office front counter area for refuge if needed.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\n1. February agenda item - Commissioner Charles Bunker will inform the Commission on the\nstatus of the Disaster Plan.\n2. February agenda item - Commissioner Gina McGaughey would like a status on the Webster\nStreet Renaissance project. It was requested that temporary sidewalk relocations and barrier\nlocations during construction take into consideration the visually impaired. Secretary to\nfollow up.\n3. Commissioner Angela Steffens asked if the City has a policy on sidewalk solicitation policy\nas in one instance it resulted in accessibility problem.\n4. A motion carried that Old Business, Item #1, Election of Vice-Chair be taken out of order.\nOLD BUSINESS:\n1. Election of Vice-Chair: Commissioner James Gwynne was elected Vice-Chair.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nJanuary 24, 2005\nMinutes\nPage 2 of 2\nNEW BUSINESS:\n1. Audible Signal Grant:\nThe secretary informed the Commission that the Public Works Department is applying for a\ngrant application for audible traffic signal equipment and requested the Commissions'\nbacking. A letter supporting the grant application was approved. Commissioner Gina\nMcGaughey expressed her concern that push buttons be located at the curb crosswalk, not\ndistant from the crossing, so as not to impede the visually impaired or wheelchair/walker\nusers. Guest Anne Steiner suggested that the grant application make reference to inter-model\ntransportation. Should the City obtain the grant, the Commission would like to review any\nproposed locations and design.\n2. Committee Bylaw Change:\nA motion failed to change the current bylaw term limits for the Chair and Vice-Chair from\n\"one (1) year term or until successors are appointed\" to \"two (2) consecutive one (1) year\nterms. It was mentioned that officers are elected, not appointed as stated in the bylaws.\nSecretary will follow up.\n3.\nPolicy Research, Writing and Implementation:\nA motion carried to establish a sub-committee to address policy. Sub-committee members\nare Commissioners Ed Cooney, Charles Bunker, James Gwynne, Steve Fort, and Gina\nMcGaughey. The Commission approved a letter from Chair Ed Cooney to Mayor Johnson\non the City's ability to procure accessibility assistance to disabled citizens attending City\nmeetings and hearings (i.e. Braille, speech/hearing impaired interpreters). Secretary\ninformed the Commission that the Public Works staff is meeting with other City staff to\nestablish a plan and would welcome any information from the Commissioners (i.e. Braille\ntranscriber, interpreter contacts).\nOLD BUSINESS:\n2. Alameda Journal Calendar:\nSecretary informed the Commissioners that agenda's are provided to the Alameda Journal.\nA\nCommissioner stated that the City's CATV channel has Room 360 listed for meetings and\nshould be changed to Room 391. Secretary will follow up.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 3, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nJanuary 24, 2005\nMinutes\nPage 3 of 3\n3. Oak Street City Hall Entrance: Secretary informed the Committee that the kick plate door\nopeners at the Oak Street Alameda City Hall door are functioning. A Commissioner stated\nthat the toe kick plate only operates if pressed at a certain location. Secretary will follow up.\n4. City Hall Bus Stop: Secretary informed the Commission that Public Works is continuing to\nresolve the accessibility to the bus stop in front of City Hall (blockage by a metered parking\nspace). A Commissioner stated that the existing bench location might also hinder\naccessibility.\n5. Breakers at Bayport 64-unit development Secretary will provide status on the Breakers\nat Bayport 64-unit development. Secretary has not seen any plans. Will report at February\nmeeting.\n6. Lower Washington Park Parking Accessible Parking Stall: Secretary informed the\nCommission that the addition of a disabled parking stall at lower Washington Park adjacent\nto the dog park will need to go before the Transportation Technical Team (TTT), possible on\nFebruary agenda. Commissioner James Gwynne stated that the existing two disabled spaces\nneed to be restriped to conform to the latest ADA standards. Secretary is aware.\n7. City Clerk's Office Reception Area Seating: The secretary investigated Commissioner\nStephen's observation of the need for a chair in the reception area of the City Clerk's office.\nDue to space limitation in the reception area, at the secretary's request, the Public Works\nMaintenance staff fabricated a sign \"seating available upon request\" which will be displayed\nat the front counter. The Commission found this to be an acceptable solution and suggested\nthat similar signs be placed in other departments where permanent guest seating cannot be\nprovided.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:20p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, February 28th in Room\n391, City Hall.\nSincerely,\nMatthew T. Naclerio\nPublic Works Director\nBy:\nEd Sommerauer\nAssociate Civil Engineer\nES:lc\nG:\\PUBWORKS\\LT\\MCD Disability Committee/2005/0124min.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, January 24, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:06 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nVice President Cook\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand,\nLynch and Piziali.\nBoard members Mariani and McNamara were absent.\nAlso present were Development Review Manager Jerry Cormack, Deputy City Attorney\nJulie Harryman, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Planner II Allen Tai, Barbara\nHawkins, Public Works.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of January 10, 2005.\nMs. Kolhstrand advised that she left after Item 9, not Item 11, as indicated on page 18.\nVice President Cook advised that page 9, paragraph 5, should be changed to read, \"Vice\nPresident Cook noted in San Francisco, the existing piers were left intact and new so that\nnew structures were proposed to could be built independent of the existing piers-it. She\nnoted that the cost of removing the old buildings were structures was high.\"\nVice President Cook advised that page 10, paragraph 11, should be changed to read,\n\"Vice President Cook would like a better understanding of the height of the proposed\nproject in relation to the Extended Stay America building to the west and the office\nbuilding to the east, as well as to the buildings located across the Estuary.\"\nM/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of January\n10, 2005, as amended.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nMr. Mark Irons, 835 Oak, noted that because of family time issues, he may not be able to\nspeak about Item 8-b and may submit a written comment. He noted that he was a strong\nproponent of work/live. He believed that the current ordinance may be improved, but\nnoted that the risk of a ballot initiative was having no ordinance at all.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 2, "text": "7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A.\nTM04-0005 SRM Associates Harbor Bay Parkway (MG). Applicant requests\napproval of Tentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels in to nine\nparcels. The parcels are located within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are\nzoned C-M-PD. Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development District.\n(Applicant is requesting a continuance to the February 14, 2005 meeting.)\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board of February\n14, 2005.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 3, "text": "7-B.\nDR04-0111/V04-0020, 836 Oak Street, Applicant: Richard Vaterlaus for\nMichael Rich (AT). The proposal is a request for Major Design Review to\nlegalize the unauthorized raising of a single-family residence one foot to create\nhabitable space in the basement. The building height was increased from\napproximately 23'-0\" to 24'-0\", where 35'-0\" is the maximum permitted height.\nThe construction also requires a variance to AMC Subsection 30-5.7(e) to allow a\nrear staircase to extend 7'-6\" into the required rear yard, where the maximum\nencroachment permitted is 6'-0\". The project site is located within an R-4,\nNeighborhood Residential District.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution PB-05-04 to\napprove a request for Major Design Review to legalize the unauthorized raising of a\nsingle-family residence one foot to create habitable space in the basement. The building\nheight was increased from approximately 23'-0\" to 24'-0\", where 35'-0\" is the maximum\npermitted height. The construction also requires a variance to AMC Subsection 30-5.7(e)\nto allow a rear staircase to extend 7'-6\" into the required rear yard, where the maximum\nencroachment permitted is 6'-0\".\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 4, "text": "7-C. UP01-0022/DR01-0089: American Tower Corporation. Washington Park,\n740 Central Avenue (DV). Renewal of expired Use Permit and Major Design\nReview for 90 foot tall painted metal monopole communications tower in place of\nan existing 47 foot tall light pole along the upper baseball diamond left field fence\nat Washington Park. Associated ground equipment would be placed in a building\nof up to 825 square feet with screen-fenced ground equipment. A Use Permit is\nrequired by AMC Sections 30-4.1(c)(1) and (2) for any structure and above\nground utility installation in the O Open Space Zoning District. (Applicant is\nrequesting a continuance to the February 14, 2005 meeting.)\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board of February\n14, 2005.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 5, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\nPD04-0004/DR04-0113, 433 Buena Vista Avenue, Applicant: Alameda\nMultifamily Ventures, LLC (AT). The applicant requests a second Study\nSession before the Planning Board to review a proposal for the construction of a\ntwo-story 6,000 square foot community building, four 16-car garages, fa\u00e7ade\nchanges to existing apartment buildings, and other improvements at the Harbor\nIsland Apartments site. The site is located at 433 Buena Vista Avenue, within an\nR-4 PD, Neighborhood Residential Planned Development District.\nMr. Tai summarized the staff report.\nMr. Chris Auxier, project manager, Alameda Multifamily Ventures, distributed additional\ninformation that was not included in the first set of drawings. He noted that they had tried\nto be responsive to the feedback received by the Board and the public.\nMr. Shaun Alexander, Axis Architecture, project architect, displayed a PowerPoint\npresentation that detailed the project overview, improvement of the property's physical\nappearance, the pedestrian experience, residential amenities, public safeties, on-site\nparking, and transparency with the community. He noted that the existing site limitations\nwere considerable, and that while was not much room to expand the parking facilities,\nthey could create a more pleasant environment around the buildings for the residents. He\nnoted that the interior common hallways, bathrooms and kitchens would be redone, and\nthat the landscaping would be upgraded and transformed. The carports would be\neliminated except for certain sections along the East of the property, and the parking\nwould be restriped to meet current standards. A new clubhouse, and four garage buildings\nwould be constructed; trash enclosures would be upgraded.\nMr. Alexander noted that new lower fences would be installed around the ground floor\npatios to provide greater transparency. Because of the proximity to the adjacent street,\nsome units would feature a more solid fence look. Additional landscaping would buffer\nall the buildings, and a substantial number of the trees would be added. A large amount of\nconcrete would be removed in the walkways and plaza space that the applicants\nconsidered to be unnecessary. Alternative designs addressing the height and style of the\ntower element were presented; the size of the tower would be reduced, and the\narchitecture would be simplified. They considered the gable form to be most consistent\nwith Alameda's existing architecture features and Craftsman detail in town; however, a\nhip roof design was also presented to address the Mediterranean style elements in\nAlameda. Another roof form would be added to the tower to the west, previously shown\nto the Board as a flat roof.\nMr. Alexander displayed the center part of the site, which they considered to be very\nimportant to the project. A tot lot was proposed directly north of the clubhouse, and a\nchild's play area would be placed to the south of the clubhouse. A group picnic area\nwould be placed at the east side of the pool, with a play lawn and volleyball court\nadjacent to that. Each quadrant of the property would have its own minipark, off the main\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 6, "text": "spine of activity. The resident activities would take place on the lower floor of the\nclubhouse for the tenants' convenience. The plans were changed to eliminate the office\narea, and to include a coffee area. The 2nd level patio of the community center was\nexpanded after one set of stairs was eliminated and a new terrace is proposed as\na\ntransition spaces between the community center and swimming pool. He noted that the\ngoal of the landscape plan was to create a greener environment on the site, to beautify the\nproperty with increased foliage, and to reduce concrete paving between the buildings.\nMr. Alexander noted that the carports would be removed, as well as some of the\nperimeter fencing to open up the property. He noted that the fence along Appezzato\nParkway would be made more pleasant, with increased connections to the neighborhood.\nAdditional parking spaces, trees and security lighting would be placed in the parking lots.\nHe noted that they worked with Carol Beaver and Michael Smiley to better understand\nthe West Alameda Neighborhood Improvement Plan; they proposed to include two gates\nalong the Appezzato Parkway fence to allow access to the future greenbelt and other parts\nof the community. He described the new location for the trash enclosure, which would\nnot block other activities on the site and would entail minimal disturbance to the\nresidents. He noted that approximately half of the carports on the east side would be\neliminated. The vaulted roofs on the remaining carports would be removed, which would\nbe replaced by a trellis element for a softer look and a smaller visual impact on the\nadjacent neighborhood. He noted that the main feature of Quadrant 3 was the connection\nto the adjacent neighborhood; the neighborhood plan called for a connection to\nWoodstock Park. For that to occur, the City would need to gain control of 25 feet of the\nexisting Chipman Middle School property.\nMr. Alexander noted that the applicant was concerned about the impact of the Poggi\nStreet/Buena Vista Ave. curb bulb out proposed in the West Alameda Neighborhood\nImprovement Plan on the traffic flow from the site, and would like the City to take that\ninto account as the Plan is studied. He noted that the applicant's goal was to bring new\nlife to an older apartment complex, provide a more attractive design and added amenities\nfor the residents, to increase parking, to upgrade security systems, and to improve site\nsafety for the residents and the City. The project would be more pedestrian-friendly with\nreduced perimeter fencing, more residential design character, increased landscaping, and\nmore responsive to the West Alameda Neighborhood Plan.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThere were no speakers.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMs. Carol Beaver, Community Development Manager, recalled the meeting with Sean\nAlexander and Michael Smiley of BMS Design to discuss the proposed changes to the\nrenovation plan. She was pleased with their willingness to consider the suggested\nchanges. Because the Neighborhood Plan was a conceptual plan, she understood there\nwould be opportunities to discuss specific site plan changes.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 7, "text": "President Cunningham believed that was a counterintuitive practice in a community\nwhere pedestrian access was encouraged.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 8, "text": "In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding an alternative to this practice, Mr.\nAlexander replied that trash enclosures throughout the property would be the alternative.\nMr. Lynch believed that conformity with City Code should be the overriding factor,\nfollowed by design.\nIn response to Vice President Cook's question regarding parking, Mr. Tai confirmed that\nthe site was underparked according to Code. Current parking standards require two\nparking spaces per dwelling unit, and this property would need 1230 spaces, where\napproximately 670 currently exist. The applicants proposed to increase the number of\nparking spaces to approximately 699 spaces by restriping the lots and by using compact\nspaces.\nMs. Barbara Hawkins, Public Works Department, distributed a photo of a trash\ncompactor and the access route. She noted that the new NEPDS requirements called for a\nroof on the trash compactor to accommodate the truck, which would be two stories. The\ncompactor must be operated with a key, which would be a safety issue. The third issue\nwith the compactor is that it did not comply with the City recycling standards. City staff\nmet with ACI to determine the best solution to the trash issue. ACI had performed a\nstudy, finding that people usually took their trash out when they went to their cars, and\nthat placing trash containers near the parking areas was the best practice. In addition, the\ntrash enclosures must be high enough to keep children from playing on them.\nWith respect to circulation, Ms. Kohlstrand believed that the constraints of the existing\nsite must be recognized, and that the applicant was going in the right direction by\nremoving the concrete. She was encouraged to see the connections to Appezzato\nParkway. In response to her question regarding the nature of the breaks in the wall, Chris\nAuxier replied that they would be primarily used by the residents. A discussion of the\nphysical attributes of the fence and the gates ensued.\nIn response to Ms. Kohlstrand's question regarding pedestrian access at Fifth Street and\nBuena Vista, Mr. Auxier replied that was an area where they did not have the intention to\ncreate a public path through the property; it was intended for use by residents.\nVice President Cook noted that there was a broad visual corridor at Fifth Street and\nBuena Vista, especially through the pool area. She was concerned that the proposed\ngarages would impair those visual sightlines.\nPresident Cunningham suggested that the location of the gable ends of the proposed\ngarages may be changed to help direct sightlines in a particular direction.\nArchitectural Design Comments\nPresident Cunningham invited comment on the three design solutions for the stair tower.\nHe concurred with Mr. Alexander that Option 1 would be the preferred scheme.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 9, "text": "Mr. Alexander noted that they could reduce the scale of the entry somewhat, and would\nbe concerned about making it too short, when juxtaposed against the taller buildings.\nCommunity Center Comments\nIn response to Mr. Piziali's question regarding the rest rooms, Mr. Alexander replied that\nthere were two bathrooms to serve the pool, another two on the ground floor, and another\ntwo on the second floor.\nPresident Cunningham noted that a speaker slip was received, and requested a vote to\nreopen the public hearing.\nM/S Lynch/Piziali to reopen the public hearing.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 10, "text": "AYES - 5 (McNamara, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMr. Reginald James noted that he was a former resident of Harbor Island, and noted that\nthe location for the trash enclosure at Fifth and Appezzato Parkway would have to be\nmoved to accommodate the pathway through Fifth. He believed the northeast corner\nwould be a good place for the trash enclosure. He did not know whether the concept of\nvalet trash pickup would be workable. He believed that a recycling location would be a\npositive feature on the site. He supported a reduced amount of fencing. He did not\nsupport a high sound wall on Appezzato Parkway, and was not sure how a low wall\nwould work. He expressed concern about the proposed private walkway. He suggested\nplacing a walkway between Building 11 (rental office) and Building 12, which already\nhad a visual connection from Woodstock on Brush.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook, Mr. Alexander confirmed that the\nground floor restrooms would be available to residents. He added that the Code required\noutdoor showers for by pool users, and they intended to provide that kind of shower.\nSite Amenities\nPresident Cunningham complimented the addition of amenities as requested by the Board\nat the last meeting.\nMr. Alexander noted that the inclusion of amenities in each quadrant was at the\nsuggestion of Reggie James, which he supported.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham, Mr. Tai confirmed that as part of the\nconditions of approval, a landscape maintenance agreement would be required. The\nagreement would specifically require the applicants to maintain the landscaping; any\nneglect would enable the City to improve the landscaping at the applicants' cost.\nMr. Piziali would like to see a condition that all the construction trucks would stay off\nBuena Vista and Fifth Street (because of Longfellow School).\nMr. Tai noted that if the applicants needed a construction trailer, its approval would be\nsubject to a use permit. The operation and functions of the construction trailer would be\nreviewed at that time.\nPresident Cunningham noted that the Board would like an indication of the phasing as\nwell.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding satellite dishes, Mr.\nAlexander noted that FCC requirements call for the building owner to place a satellite\ndish on the roof for resident accessibility, or that the residents must be allowed to place\ndishes on their balconies. They are currently working with a cable consultant (CSI) to\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 11, "text": "negotiate contracts for them, and he added that their current contract was particular\ndifficult.\nMiscellaneous Comments\nMr. Lynch complimented Axis Architecture on its design work, and inquired whether\nthey would have more design flexibility if they started from a clean site. Mr. Auxier\nconfirmed that would be the case, but that it was prohibited by Measure A.\nVice President Cook noted that this site was an important part in creating a community.\nfor the 21st century, and hoped that dialogue about sensible planning can continue in a\nconstructive way.\nMr. Auxier introduced Michael Lee, the on-site construction and project manager, and\nnoted that he would be based locally.\nMr. Lee noted that the Board's comments about density were well-taken, and noted that\nrecent projects he worked on have incorporated the higher density into the designs. He\nnoted that they have used four-story parking garages surrounded by four-story residential\nbuildings, as well as three-story buildings surrounding a courtyard. He noted that it was\npossible to keep the parking garages out of sight, and that there was no need for off-street\nparking. In addition, retail and commercial space could be incorporated as well.\nMr. Lynch believed the remodel should be just as beautiful as the new residences across\nthe street, and that high-quality design elements were very important in getting the\nproject right the first time.\nMr. Lee noted that because the foundations and frames were already in place, this project\nwould be a relatively simple one to manage.\nThe Board comments were noted. No action was taken. A public hearing will be\nscheduled for a future agenda.\nPresident Cunningham called for a ten-minute recess.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 12, "text": "8-B.\nWork/Live Regulations (JA). Review and consider possible modifications of\nSection 30-15 of the Alameda Municipal Code regulating Work Live Studios.\n(Continued from the meeting of January 10, 2005.)\nMs. Altschuler summarized the staff report.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Mark Irons, 835 Oak, noted that he lived in a work/live space in Oakland for 10\nyears, which he enjoyed very much. He expressed concern about placing this complex\nissue on the ballot because of possible misunderstanding of the deeper issues. He noted\nthat any legal issues may delay or indefinitely postpone any work/live spaces. He\nbelieved the current ordinance fell short of its potential, and would like to see it upgraded\nto be more accommodating. He hoped the Board would be slow and methodical in\nconsidering the work/live uses.\nMr. Richard Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, spoke in support of work/live uses with\nqualifications, and noted that he had been an architect for over 25 years. He noted that\nartists and architects were usually the first occupants of a redeveloped neighborhood,\nwhich eventually became upgraded for the use of other white-collar professionals. He\nbelieved that flexibility in planning the larger spaces along the Northern Waterfront and\nAlameda Point was appropriate for the community in the long run. He suggested that\nMeasure A be modified to accommodate a work/live situation within appropriate zones.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMr. Lynch noted that he supported Measure A, and inquired how Measure A and\nwork/live lofts were in conflict. Ms. Altschuler replied that the conflict did not arise so\nmuch from the legal standing, because work/live studios were defined by both the State\nand local ordinances as industrial uses, as opposed to residential uses. She did not believe\nthere was a conflict from a legal standpoint, although she believed the conflict would\narise from the perception that people still live in those spaces. She added that was the\nbasis for the argument against the uses as a Measure A conflict.\nMr. Lynch recalled the opposition to the demolition of Victorians in favor of multifamily\nhousing as being a basis for Measure A. He saw work/live as a reuse of existing\nstructures because the economics of a formerly light industrial/commercial space had\nchanged. He did not believe there was a conflict between work/live uses and Measure A.\nMs. Altschuler noted that there would be considerable resistance to any alteration to\nMeasure A, and that its proponents would not want to risk a slippery slope.\nMr. Lynch suggested that the residential VS. industrial nature of work/live units be\nbrought directly to a judge to define it once and for all.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 13, "text": "Ms. Harryman noted that the current lawsuit was not the first time the City had been sued\non work/live and how it applied to Measure A. She could not communicate the exact\nstatus of the litigation, and noted that it would probably not be the last lawsuit. She\nbelieved that the existence of the two lawsuits (Edward Murphy and Ms. [Kowicki])\nwould probably bring the issue before a judge. She believed that Ms. [Kowicki] could\nbuild, because she had the approval of the City, but because there was pending litigation,\nit would be at her own risk. She did not believe Mr. Murphy had requested a retraining\norder, and believed the judge may be able to overturn the City's approval. She noted that\nMr. Murphy had sued the City on this issue before, and did was not sure whether there\nhad been a clear ruling one way or the other. She noted that previous cases had either\nbeen dismissed, or the parties had come to an agreement.\nPresident Cunningham inquired what the benefit would be of bringing the work/live issue\nto the voters if there was existing case law that would prove the two ordinances were\nworking against each other.\nMs. Harryman noted that there were pros and cons to bringing an issue to the people\nversus before a judge.\nMr. Lynch believed that if a judge invalidated an ordinance, they would provide some\ninstruction regarding the conflicts contained in the ordinance so that it may be rewritten.\nMs. Harryman noted that judges often rule on other grounds, such as procedural grounds\nor standing.\nMr. Piziali believed the ordinance should be left as is, and it may be brought up on a\nballot initiative. He was not interested in changing it at this time.\nMs. Kohlstrand believed the Board was being asked to debate the validity of the\nwork/live ordinance, when the larger question was Measure A. She was unsure whether\npeople were ready to engage in debate on Measure A yet.\nMs. Altschuler noted that the ordinance limits a geographic area, addresses zoning within\nthat area, and then is limited to existing buildings, particularly historic buildings.\nMr. Piziali noted that he would not want to see work/live as new construction; he\nsupported work/live as adaptive reuse, which was the current basis of the ordinance.\nMr. Lynch believed the voters of Alameda will recognize the common-sense purpose of\nthe ordinance.\nMs. Altschuler believed that the Board's consensus was that the current ordinance was\nappropriate. She inquired whether the Board would be interested in addressing the\ngeographic limitation.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 14, "text": "President Cunningham noted that he would like to see work/live branch out to Alameda\nPoint and Park Street. However, he did not want such a step to jeopardize the existence of\nthe ordinance.\nMr. Piziali believed the residents of Alameda would be able to see that work/live uses\nwere controlled, attractive and appropriate.\nVice President Cook believed this ordinance was a baby step toward a discussion of the\nbroader implications of Measure A. She believed this ordinance brought up very\nimportant issues for historic preservation and adaptive reuse at the Base. She did not want\nto see the work/live ordinance put at risk by addressing more complex and overarching\nissues too soon.\nVice President Cook noted that Alameda's citizens had stopped public processes before\nwhen it became apparent that it would be not be beneficial. She believed that Alamedans\nwould exercise the same common sense in this case.\nPresident Cunningham noted that an additional speaker slip had been received.\nM/S Lynch/Cook to reopen the public hearing.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nThe public hearing was reopened.\nMr. Mark Irons, 835 Oak, noted that he was pleased by the Board's discussion, although\nhe did not disagree that work/live could be successfully extended throughout Alameda\nPoint. He understood the delicacy of this issue.\nThe public hearing was closed.\nNo action was taken.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 15, "text": "9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\n10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC.\n(Vice President Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that the next meeting would be hosted by the Planning\nBoard in Council Chambers, so that the Board may be brought up to speed and to televise\nthe meeting. The City Council has voted to disband the APAC at the end of the\ncommunity meeting, and had asked the APAC to pass on the information gathered over\nits lifetime to the appropriate boards. She suggested that a series of meetings be held to\npass that information on, on a topic-by-topic basis. She suggested that the first meeting be\nheld before the first community hearing to discuss regulatory issues, in order to bring the\nBoard up to speed on that information.\nVice President Cook noted that there had been considerable discussion at the first\ncommunity meeting about re-examining Measure A as it relates to Alameda Point. She\nnoted that there was some communication at the second meeting, suggesting that the staff\nshould not consider a non-Measure A alternative. She noted that a possible scenario at the\nBase was being considered that would include some discussion or possible changes to\nMeasure A for the Base. She noted that was a very controversial issue.\nMr. Cormack advised that Andrew Thomas would make that presentation to the Board,\neither on February 14th or 28th, 2005; the 14th was preferable.\nb. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice\nPresident Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that there had been no further meetings since her last report.\nc. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member\nPiziali).\nBoard Member Piziali advised that he had confirmed the continuing existence of the\nCommittee, although the meetings were on hold at this time, possibly due to a funding\nissue.\nd. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member\nMariani).\nBoard Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.\nMs. Kohlstrand inquired whether it would be possible to receive the Board packets earlier\nthan the Friday before the meeting. Mr. Cormack noted that the packet had been delayed\nto receive late information on Harbor Island.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 16, "text": "President Cunningham recalled that there had been a move to post the packet on the website.\nMr. Lynch noted that staff transition had been discussed during the previous meeting, and\nrequested that it be agendized for a future meeting, so that the City Manager be able to take\npart in the discussion. He believed that a discussion within the next month would be most\nbeneficial.\n11.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nMs. Altschuler noted that the continued staffing levels affected the ability to distribute an\nemail packet, and that they were attempting to maintain the same work product with a smaller\nstaff. She noted that statutory requirements such as noticing were the first priority of the staff.\nMs. Altschuler advised that the support staff requested that she discuss the issue of Roberts\nRules of Order as they related to meeting minutes. She noted that the Planning Board minutes\nwere considerably more detailed than what is required, and added that the Council minutes\nwere shorter and did not provide as much information. In order to provide additional time for\nsupport staff to perform other duties, she requested the Board's input regarding more limited\nmeeting minutes. She noted that the meeting was recorded on audio and videotape, and added\nthat lengthy minutes must be reviewed and amended by staff. In addition, there was a\ntremendous amount of paper used in the distribution of the minutes.\nPresident Cunningham believed that for study sessions, that a list of bullet points would be\nsufficient. Routine items would still be well-served by briefer minutes.\nMs. Altschuler noted that more important or controversial items would still need detail\nappropriate to their complexity.\nMs. Kohlstrand supported that suggestion.\nMs. Altschuler noted that if the condensed minutes were not useful, the extended minutes\ncould be reinstated.\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Altschuler confirmed that Building Inspectors\ngenerally dropped the packets off while on their rounds in the field.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n10:27 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJane\nJetry Cormack, Interim Secretary\nCity Planning Department\nThese minutes were approved at the February 14, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This\nmeeting was audio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 16\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}