Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> . . . o. <br /> n . . - <br /> By Motion approve the purchase of one (2) Altec 35-foot aerial trucks in the <br /> - amount of $153,076.32 from the State of California Office of Procurement under <br /> the California Multiple Award Schedule (CMAS) #4-02-23-0013A. <br /> MINUTE ORDER 04-81 <br /> 5.2 ';e::tion - Warrants <br /> A. Approve warrants dated through May 3, 2004 and usual and necessary payments <br /> through May 1O, 2004; MINUTE ORDER 04-82 <br /> 7:15 p.m. - City Council left the dais and joined the Planning Commission and <br /> Architectural Revie!(V Committee for the joint study session. <br /> 6. STUDY SESSION <br /> A. Courthouse Square Conceptual Designs <br /> Redevelopment Manager Moeller explained that the topic of discussion is the <br /> design concepts for the Courthouse Plaza. Over the past several months, there <br /> have been three public meetings that have been held and were well attended with <br /> the intent of formulating a recommendation on a single design concept. By the <br /> end of the third meeting, it was unclear whether there was a clearly defined <br /> alternative. The plan was to share a course on plaza making, principles discussed <br /> in the public meetings about what it takes to make a plaza that people will want to <br /> '- use and be in, as well as to share the input from the public and the three <br /> alternatives as of the close of the third meeting. <br /> Michael Freedman, of Freedman, Tung and Bottomley, explained that the <br /> purpose of the study session was to choose a single design from the three being <br /> presented, or to be sent back to the drawing board should none of the three be <br /> desirable. The presentation reported on the results of the workshops, what was <br /> presented and what the community response was. The second charge was to <br /> display the three recommended alternatives that came out of the workshop <br /> process so far and receive input. <br /> 8:45 - 9:15 p.m. - Recess <br /> Comments from the Council, Planning Commission and Architectural Review <br /> Committee members asked questions and gave comment that included focusing <br /> on Option "C", incorporating more of a garden effect, deciduous trees for shade, <br /> the idea of a restaurant in the museum is good, if pavilions are used they should <br /> be placed back toward the courthouse away from Broadway for unobstructed sight <br /> line, with some Members not being in favor of the water feature. The desire was to <br /> make strong connections to the Fox, utilizing the grid lighting, but not using paving <br /> running across Broadway. The plan should allow for shade or sun, consideration <br /> --- JOINT MEETING MINUTES <br /> CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCYI <br /> JOINT STUDY SESSION with PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 3, 2004 <br /> & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE PAGE 3 <br />