body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2007-08-27,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY- - -AUGUST 27, 2007- - -6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(07-414) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
(54953.9 : Name of Case: Harbor Bay Isle Associates V. City of
Alameda.
(07-415) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of
Section 54956. ;Number of cases: One.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Existing Litigation,
Council provided negotiating parameters to Legal Counsel. regarding
Anticipated Litigation, Council received a briefing from Legal
Counsel on a potential matter of litigation.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
August 27, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-08-27.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2007-08-27,1,"UNAPPROVED
COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
August 27, 2007
TIME
The meeting convened at 6:40 P.M.
PRESENT
Chair Lord-Hausman, Vice-Chair Moore and Commissioners Berger, Fort, Kirola,
and Longley-Cook.
ABSENT
Commissioners Hakanson, Robinson and Kreitz.
MINUTES
The minutes of the July 23, 2007 meeting were approved with the following corrections all noted by
Commissioner Longley-Cook:
Roll Call:
Commissioner Longley-Cook stated that she was present at the July 23, 2007 meeting.
Minutes:
Commissioner Longley-Cook stated that she made the correction to the June 18, 2007 meeting
minutes regarding the SSHRB and not Commissioner Kirola.
Old Business, Item 2:
In the first sentence the word ""met"" should be replaced with the word ""meeting;"" and
Staff Communications:
The word ""Board"" should be replaced with the word ""Commission.""
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Lower Washington Park:
1. Chair Lord-Hausman discussed the response she received from Dale Lillard, AR&PD Director,
regarding Lower Washington Park accessibility issues raised by Commissioner Longley-Cook.
Mr. Lillard indicated that the trail in Lower Washington Park ends at the City property line. The
area in question belongs to the East Bay Regional Park District. Chair Lord-Hausman indicated
that she would contact the East Bay Regional Park Supervisor, Anne Rockwell, for possible
repairs.
2. Commissioner Longley-Cook also expressed concern over trying to find disabled parking as well
as going to visit booths for a disabled person who is not in a motorized wheelchair, during the
July 4th celebration at Rittler Park. Chair Lord-Hausman reviewed Mr. Lillard's written
comments to this concern. He indicated that AR&PD have been experimenting with a number of
different configurations and layouts for the Fun Faire at Rittler Park. During the internal",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-08-27.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2007-08-27,2,"Commission on Disability Issues
August 27, 2007
Minutes
Page 2 of 5
evaluation meeting following this year's event, it was determined that both the ticket selling and
food booth locations need to be together. They have always provided disabled parking but will
make more of an effort to designate the location through the use of directional signs in the
future.
Carnegie Building:
Chair Lord-Hausman discussed a request from the City's Building Official, Greg McFann, regarding
efforts to reopen the Carnegie. Mr. McFann indicated that the City is currently working with a
consultant to develop a plan to reopen the Carnegie and would like to come before the Commission
to receive comments on the proposal. Chair Lord-Hausman will contact Mr. McFann for scheduling
a discussion before the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Brown Act Training (Assistant City Attorney):
Assistant City Attorney Byron Toma conducted a Brown Act Training with the Commissioners.
The three main points of the Training discussed the following key points:
People's business must be conducted in public.
People have a right to participate in their government.
In order to participate, people must receive adequate
Commissioner Kirola requested clarification regarding discussion of agenda items with the
""
majority of members at the same time and place.. during non-meeting
hours.
Assistant Attorney Toma responded that any time a majority of the members are gathered
together at any place, (in this case the majority would be five since there are currently nine
Commissioners) they are prohibited from discussing any action which may be taken by the
collective Commission at a future meeting which may influence the outcome of a decision,
including discussing the item in advance of an open meeting and public discussion.
Assistant Attorney Toma also emphasized that any ceremonial events that the Commission
sponsors, such as the future scheduled tree planting ceremony, must also be agendized since it is
an event being sponsored by the Commission and a majority of the members will be in
attendance.
OLD BUSINESS
G:\Lucretia)CommDisability\Minutes/(2007\Minutes_082707.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-08-27.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2007-08-27,3,"Commission on Disability Issues
August 27, 2007
Minutes
Page 3 of 5
1. Disability Awareness Month (Vice Chair Moore):
Vice-Chair Moore stated that John McDonald, AR&PD, has confirmed that the Commission
may designate one of the redwood trees already planted at Lincoln Park as part of the tree
planting ceremony for Disability Awareness Month, as well as place a placard at the bottom of
the tree. Mr. McDonald also confirmed that the Commission has the permission do this on a
yearly basis.
Chair Lord-Hausman requested that Vice-Chair Moore receive written confirmation concerning
the placard, S the City just passed a new ordinance banning decals and placards on public
property. The Chair then suggested that the Commission pick a date for the actual ceremony.
Commissioner Kirola proposed to kick-off the month of October, beginning with the ceremony.
Vice-Chair Moore proposed Saturday, October 6, 2007.
Commissioner Berger expressed concern over City staffing time for a weekend event.
Vice-Chair Moore responded that she would follow up with Mr. McDonald regarding City
staffing.
The Commission agreed to have the ceremony on Saturday, October 6, 2007.
Chair Lord-Hausman confirmed that she would check with the Mayor's calendar so that the
event may be timed when she is present. The Chair also encouraged the Commissioners to
inform and invite people to the ceremony.
Commissioner Berger stated that in the past, the Council has pushed the date back of the
proclamation for City Council meetings and is concerned that it will happen this year.
Secretary Akil confirmed that the Council meets the first and third Tuesday of every month and
this item should be agendized for the first meeting of the month, which will be October 2, 2007.
Chair Lord-Hausman stated that she would work on not allowing any delays regarding the
proclamation.
2. Commission on Disability Internet Link (Chair Lord-Hausman/Secretary Akil):
Chair Lord-Hausman stated that she met with a website designer who understands the City's
limited budget on getting an accessibility link up and running within the City's website. The
G:\Lucretia)CommDisability\Minutes/2007\Minutes_082707.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-08-27.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2007-08-27,4,"Commission on Disability Issues
August 27, 2007
Minutes
Page 4 of 5
Chair will provide the website designer with an outline of the proposed site and he in return, has
agreed to provide estimates based on the outline he receives.
Commissioner Kirola stated her top three accessible links would include parks,, schools and
housing and that the list of designated sites be located to the left side of the page.
Commissioner Berger stated the need to educate others to emphasize what accessibility
resources are available.
Commissioner Longley-Cook suggested adding a wheelchair rider's guide, which will provide
links to wheelchair accessible places.
Chair Lord-Hausman asked Commissioner Berger to review AR&PD Summer Activity Guide
and the Adult School Guide which might offer some information on what accessibility resources
are currently available in the City.
3. Commissioner Duties (Chair Lord-Hausman):
Chair Lord-Hausman encouraged the members to be mindful of their ongoing duties and
responsibilities to increase disability awareness through the City.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Secretary Akil acknowledged that Ed Sommerauer would be the Interim Secretary during her
maternity leave.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS
1. Crab Cove Concerts:
Commissioner Longley-Cook stated that she and Commissioner Hakanson received many
inquiries regarding the Commission at the last Crab Cove event.
2. Arthritis Expo:
Commissioner Longley-Cook shared a flyer regarding the upcoming Arthritis Expo on
September 15, 2007 in the City of Burlingame at the Hyatt Regency near SFO.
3. Alameda Hospital Health Fair:
Commissioner Berger stated the Alameda Hospital Health Fair is scheduled to occur in October.
Chair Lord-Hausman will contact the hospital for the specific date and request that the CDI be
given a table on the inside during the event. This item will be placed on the September 24, 2007
CDI meeting agenda for continued discussion.
4. October CDI Meeting:
G:\Lucretia)CommDisability\Minutes)2007\Minutes_082707.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-08-27.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2007-08-27,5,"Commission on Disability Issues
August 27, 2007
Minutes
Page 5 of 5
Chair Lord-Hausman requested that the October 22, 2007 CDI meeting date be changed to
October 15, 2007 as she will be out of town. The Commission agreed to the date change and
requested that a notice of the meeting date change be included in the September 24 mailing
packet.
5. Farmers Market (Webster Street):
Chair Lord-Hausman stated that the Public Works Department would designate handicap
parking on Taylor Street next to Farmers Market, since Webster Street has heavier traffic flow.
6. Blanding Avenue Accessibility Issues:
Commissioner Berger questioned if any action had been taken on the pedestrian access issues
along Blanding Avenue. Chair Lord-Hausman stated the issue has been referred to the ADA
Secretary to be addressed through the on-going ADA Transition Plan update.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 8:40 P.M. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, September 24, 2007,
6:30 P.M. in Room 360 at City Hall.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia A. Akil
Commission Secretary
G:\Lucretia)CommDisability\Minutes/2007\Minutes_082707.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-08-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-08-27,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, August 27, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:07 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member McNamara
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Cunningham,
Ezzy Ashcraft, Lynch and McNamara.
Board member Mariani was absent.
Also present were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Assistant City
Attorney Donna Mooney.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of July 23, 2007.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that the last paragraph on page 6 should be changed to
read, ""Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she had met with members of City staff and
the Catellus team earlier in the week, and noted that this street site-was not designed with
parking.""
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that the first paragraph on page 7 should be changed to
be read, ""There had been some question about the driveway for Catellus and future
installation of a right-hand turn. She suggested that if the street had been designed with
parking, that would have been an option for creating some of the parking may be taken
out in order to provide-a turn pocket.""
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that on page 2, the second paragraph under Staff
Communications read, ""Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why this was such a
complicated process, and noted that only-Alameda and Piedmont were the only cities in
Alameda County that had not enacted a green building ordinance.'
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 8, paragraph 2, should be changed to read,
""Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about approval of plans for property not yet
acquired by the City. She also agreed with Board member Mariani's comments about the
lack of visuals available for examination with regard to issues raised by Mariner Square
Athletic Club.""
Vice President Kohlstrand moved approval of the minutes as amended.
Page 1 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-08-27,2,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5.
Abstain - 1 (Cunningham). Absent - 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cook noted that the staff and the applicant continue Item 8-A, the Annual
Review of the Development Agreement for Harbor Bay Business Park so that some
missing pieces of the background documents could be corrected. The item would be
heard on September 10, 2007.
Board member Cunningham moved to continue Item 8-A to September 10, 2007.
Board member Lynch seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Absent - 1
(Mariani). The motion passed.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Future Agendas
Ms. Woodbury provided an update on future agenda items.
President Cook was concerned about delaying the Measure A Subcommittee report until
October 22.
Ms. Woodbury advised that the next step was for the report to come to the Planning
Board to take public comment on the structure of the forum, and to approve it before
moving forward.
President Cook noted that two three-hour-long meetings had been held with a facilitator,
resulting in a failure to reach consensus on any major points. She believed the Planning
Board should still move forward in an appropriate forum.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft shared President Cook's feeling about the Measure A forum
and believed waiting until October 22 would be too long a wait. She would like to move
forward while the issue was fresher in people's minds. She suggested moving that item to
a meeting in September.
Vice President Kohlstrand inquired whether the summary of the meeting had been
prepared. Ms. Woodbury confirmed that the summary was available to send to the
committee before bringing it to the Board.
Ms. Woodbury noted that a special meeting may be scheduled in light of the larger
agenda items scheduled for September.
President Cook suggested agendizing the Measure A subcommittee for September 10,
allowing a certain amount of time for Alameda Towne Centre to start.
Page 2 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-08-27,3,"b.
Zoning Administrator Report
Ms. Woodbury provided the Zoning Administrator report.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the biodiesel storage tank was intended for
City vehicles. Ms. Woodbury replied that it was for private use.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
8-A
Annual Review of Development Agreement - DA89-1 - Harbor Bay Business
Park Association, Harbor Bay Isle Associates and Harbor Bay Entities - Bay
Farm Island (Primarily Harbor Bay Isle)
Board member Cunningham moved to continue Item 8-A to September 10, 2007.
Board member Lynch seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Absent -
1
(Mariani). The motion passed.
8-B
Rezoning R07-0002/Planned Development PD07-0002/Parcel Map PM07-
0004 - Applicant: John & Andrea Medulan - 3236 Briggs Avenue. The applicants
request a Zoning Amendment to add a Planned Development (PD) overlay zoning
designation to the property located at 3236 Briggs Avenue; and a Development
Plan and Parcel Map (PM) approval to divide the existing 203-foot by 48-foot
parcel into two parcels, each with an existing single family residence. The site is
located within an R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. (LA)
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt A draft Planning Board Resolution to
approve a Zoning Amendment to add a Planned Development (PD) overlay zoning
designation to the property located at 3236 Briggs Avenue; and a Development Plan and
Parcel Map (PM) approval to divide the existing 203-foot by 48-foot parcel into two
parcels, each with an existing single family residence.
Vice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Absent: 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A
Workshop to Develop Recommendation for Planning Work Program Priorities
Ms. Woodbury summarized the staff report and detailed the work program priorities,
particular those required by State law.
Page 3 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-08-27,4,"In response to an inquiry by Board member Lynch whether the City would look at the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in addition to the Density Bonus/Second Unit
Ordinance, Ms. Woodbury replied that was not the plan.
President Cook inquired how the City could comply with the Density Bonus Ordinance if
Alameda did not have much density due to Measure A. Ms. Woodbury replied that was
the conundrum, and that going through the process and reconciling City Ordinances with
State law would be challenging.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether the definition of
""condominium conversion"" was converting an existing building into individual
ownership with tenancy in common, Ms. Woodbury confirmed that was the definition
used by the City.
Board member Lynch noted that because the City was not in compliance with the
Subdivision Map Act, he requested that staff bring it to the City Attorney's office to bring
the City into compliance. Ms. Woodbury noted that work had been initiated with the
consultant to go through that process. She added that staff must go through the AMC to
ensure there were no internal inconsistencies.
Board member Lynch noted that he applauded staff's efforts, but was also quite concerned
that the City may be over the edge of compliance with the law.
President Cook noted that the current subdivision ordinance did not provide for open space
dedication, and inquired whether that was just for condo conversions. Ms. Woodbury
replied that was for all subdivisions.
Ms. Woodbury pointed out that according to the status column, the projects were moving
along at the same time, but each additional project slowed everything down.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that this was the same list reviewed with City Council, and
she believed it was important to understand what studies were underway. She agreed with
Board member Lynch that it was also important to understand what City and staff resources
were available to the City, and when the projects were scheduled to be completed. She
would also like to know whether anything would be left over; if not, it was not productive
for the City. She believed it was difficult to go through the priority exercise with the limited
information available.
Ms. Woodbury replied that nearly everything on the list was started, and that a staff member
was assigned to each item. Sometimes, consultants would be available to augment staff,
which was a typical practice. She noted that it was difficult to find enough days to hold the
kinds of public meetings that were needed to receive the input from the community.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed the City should do what was required to get the legal
requirements into compliance. It seemed to her that there were several items that could be
merged, which should remove some of the time pressure. She inquired whether the staffing
Page 4 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-08-27,5,"issue had been solved if some of the work was going out to consultants. Ms. Woodbury
replied that staff people were still required to manage a contract, but the bulk of the work
would be performed by the consultant. She agreed that complying with State law was key,
and suggested that the Planning Board identify the top priority as bringing the codes,
ordinances and the General Plan into compliance with State law.
President Cook recommended that the Planning Board make bringing the City's plans and
ordinances into compliance with State law the top priority. She suggested that if necessary,
additional resources could be requested from City Council to fulfill that priority.
Ms. Woodbury noted that it was important to plan ahead, even if everything could not be
commenced this year. She suggested that staging the projects would make best use of staff
resources SO that everything did not occur at the same time.
Board member McNamara did not believe it was the Planning Board's position to
micromanage the Planning Department, and to identify the resources needed to get the work
done; she added that was the job of the Planning and Building Director and staff. She
encouraged the Board to rely on staff to accomplish that goal.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the only item on the first page of the work program not required
by State law was the Zoning Overlay District. She noted that was an application and
entitlement submitted by City Council, which the Board must move forward.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that a neighborhood meeting was scheduled for the Fall
of 2007, and suggested that waiting for that input may make it less of a priority.
Board member Lynch inquired whether the City Council had considered the financial
impact of that application, and he believed it would cause a tremendous negative impact on
that neighborhood. He inquired whether the neighbors were aware of it. Ms. Woodbury
replied that would be part of the discussion.
Vice President Kohlstrand believed the Mayor brought that issue up during the joint session.
Board member Lynch expressed concern that people may not realize the consequences of
such a petition, and did not want that to be an issue after substantial financial and time
resources have been expended.
Board member Cunningham requested that the impact of parking within the 20-yard front
yard setback be studied. Ms. Woodbury replied that could be added.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the parking study was completed for Webster and Park Streets,
but it did not mean the City could not look at parking regulations for the stations if a change
in ordinance was being considered. She suggested that there may be flexibility for the
stations, as well as parking in the front yard setback. She noted that those items may be
examined at the same time, with a more global solution.
Page 5 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-08-27,6,"Ms. Woodbury noted that the green building ordinance item also includes sustainability, as
well as ordinances to eliminate wood-burning fireplaces in new construction. She noted that
the City would generate an RFP to get a consulting team to assist in that effort. She noted
that there were a number of ordinances in place already, and that they did not want to create
any internal conflicts that would make a new ordinance ineffective. She added that when
requiring LEED certification for remodels and new construction, the historic structures
should also be considered. She noted that while they may be green, they may not meet the
LEED standards.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed the Styrofoam (law) ordinance can go under the
Climate Protection Task Force. She was concerned that with the amount of upcoming new
construction, the City should be up to speed on these sustainability items. She noted that
StopWaste.org moved its headquarters into a historic building on Franklin Street in
downtown Oakland, which had many sustainable elements.
Ms. Woodbury noted that StopWaste.org actually gutted the building because there was
nothing historic about the interior. They also renovated the entire exterior. She had referred
to the Carnegie Building, which was intact inside and out. She noted that taking ducting
through the open building would destroy the interior integrity of the historic structure. She
noted that the National Trust was working on guidelines for similar situations.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft did not believe the City's concern for the historic element
should get in the way of doing a basic green building ordinance, and that add-ons could be
done at a later point. She believed that the priority was getting a green building ordinance
for new construction.
With respect to water conservation, Ms. Woodbury noted that this encompassed Bay-
friendly landscape requirements, tree preservation and design standards. These practices
would help improve the environment and sustainability.
President Cook would like to see more acknowledgement of the City's orientation to the
water as an island, and would like to see more teeth in negotiations with developers.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the Station area Plan for Alameda Point was a grant-funded
project being paid for by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which looked at
different land use alternatives at Alameda Point and their effect on transportation, and on
making it a transit terminal.
Board member McNamara inquired whether that was a time-sensitive item. Ms. Woodbury
replied that was correct, and that it must be completed for grant funding completion. She
added that must be completed by the end of the year.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the Global Sustainability item addressed Alameda doing its part to
be as green as possible, and to implement policies and work with the community to improve
the environment. She noted that a memorandum was available at the dais that addressed the
status of the work being done by the Climate Protection Task Force.
Page 6 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-08-27,7,"Ms. Woodbury noted the possibility of revisiting the Alameda Downtown Vision Plan was a
Development Services project. She identified that as an additional recommendation of the
Planning Board to Development Services to work with the Economic Development
Commission on the quarterly review.
In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara regarding the Improved Service
Delivery item identified in the previous work program, Ms. Woodbury replied that each
Board and Commission that the Department staffed was doing its own work plan. She added
that item was part of the Customer Service Improvement Committee, which was not a
public board; that group worked directly with staff.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the Public Art Commission had developed their work plan, and a
Cultural Arts Grant Program was added after being initiated by the City Council. She added
that the Historical Advisory Board had a committee working with some citizens to develop
an action plan based on the Historic Preservation Element of the General Plan.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that while it was not required by State law, the Station area
Plan for Alameda Point was required by a legal settlement.
A general discussion of placement of priorities ensued.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the Measure A workshop was part of the Housing Element
update, and would need to follow the timing of that Element update.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that workshop had major implications for what would
happen at the Base.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham, Ms. Woodbury wished to clarify
that an amendment to Measure A was not part of the discussion. Board member
Cunningham inquired why the impact of Measure A on the Housing Element was being
examined because the substance of Measure A relative to housing was well-known. Ms.
Woodbury replied that the pros and cons of how Measure A affects the Housing Element
must be discussed. She added that the Housing Element discussed ""governmental
constraints,"" and that Measure A was a governmental constraint. She noted that the
workshop would provide a good platform for public discussion in understanding it.
President Cook noted that the Housing Element was conditionally approved, and had never
received final approval by the State.
Board member Lynch believed that Alameda may be vulnerable in not receiving a certified
Housing Element if they do not tackle the Measure A question. He noted that the Housing
Element directions have changed, and noted that the legislation was constantly being
modified. He noted that not all that was considered to be good in the last round may be
considered positively today. He noted that the requirements for the City were different than
they were previously. He noted the connectivity between the mandated legislation
Page 7 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-08-27,8,"requirement of the Housing Element that was consistent with the Planning documents, and
the analysis of the local ordinances and constraints was now a requirement of the Housing
Element.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the Housing Element discussed development patterns and
neighborhoods, and believed that if it remained as is, it would be sufficient for this exercise.
President Cook wanted to ensure that the Housing Element helped inform the development
of Alameda Point more generally, not just for the sake of the Housing Element by itself.
Ms. Woodbury suggested that the Planning Board prioritize the first three items, and staff
distributed the ""dots"" to the Board members.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the large spreadsheet contained an additional project which
contained the big box retail definition, as well as appropriate policies and regulations.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Lynch whether there was a fast food policy, and
noted that he would like to see a restaurant such as In-and-Out or Sonic, which would
provide more healthful food for the kids.
Board member Cunningham noted that within the Northern Waterfront, it was stipulated
that there be no fast food.
Ms. Woodbury summarized the Board members' priorities:
1.
The Sustainable Ordinances, including the landscape ordinance, received
four #1s, and two #2s;
2.
The Design Guidelines for the waterfront, small lot residential and
commercial areas received one #1, four #2s, and two #3s;
3.
Global Sustainability received one #3;
4.
The Parking Ordinance amendments received one #1 and three #3s.
Ms. Woodbury noted that there was not much interest in defining and developing policies
with respect to big box retail.
""President Cook noted that the Board members only had three dots, and that did not indicate
lack of interest in other planning projects.""
Vice President Kohlstrand wished to note that the big projects (such as Alameda Landing
and South Shore Towne Centre) were not on this list, and were assumed to be continuing.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the items mandated by the State were set aside
from the voting categories by the board.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether the Board would consider
bringing back the Downtown Vision Task Force, Ms. Woodbury replied that the City
Page 8 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-08-27,9,"Council had recalled that was a Development Services project, and that they would be the
lead department before taking it to the EDC.
President Cook requested copies of the quarterly reports, and recalled that there were many
important concepts in the Vision Plan that are probably still relevant.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would like see more business activity on
Webster Street, especially as the development of Alameda Landing continues. She
suggested that may be addressed by EDC and Development Services.
Ms. Woodbury noted that staff would provide updates to the Planning Board when they are
available.
No action was taken.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
10-A Status of Compliance with Conditions of Approval for Bridgeside Shopping
Center
Ms. Woodbury noted that Planner Douglas Vu was working with Bridgeside to complete
compliance with other conditions of approval before signing off on the site. Staff went
through Board member McNamara's memo and responded in writing regarding the status
of Bridgeside. She noted that the Board would take a walk-through of the site once it was
completed.
Board member McNamara noted that after reviewing the response, and that she had
missed the final approval meeting on the project. She believed that some of the responses
to her concerns seems somewhat weak in that when a wooden lattice, one would assume
that plants would be planted under the lattice to cover it. From the response, it seemed
that was not the intent for the landscaping. She did not believe that a lattice was a design
feature; the addition of wisteria or bougainvillea did constitute a design feature. She
found it hard to believe that it had taken so long to get the canopies and fabrics approved
and put it. She would like to meet with Mr. Vu to review the details, and try to learn from
it moving forward. She believed that some of the responses were disheartening.
Ms. Woodbury wished to respond to the Compliance with Conditions, and noted that
staff was charged with ensuring that the Building side worked on all the Building Code
issues, that Planning worked with the approved plans through the permit process, and that
the planners work on resolving any issues with respect to compliance with the conditions
of the discretionary approvals. She noted that on projects of any size, it was the last 10%
that took 90% of the time, which was the nature of the business.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that on page 2, she was concerned about the response
with respect to a driveway that had been designated off of Tilden Way. She understood
Page 9 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-08-27,10,"and realized that Mr. Vu was not the original planner. She noted that there had been a
disconnect between what the Planning Board was looking for, what was in the staff
report, and what ended up being built. She wanted to ensure that the conditions reflected
the stated intentions of the Planning Board. She would like to see more reflection of the
Board members' emotional comments to give the conditions the teeth they expected. She
noted that she had become very frustrated with this project, and added that the staff report
read, ""On August 22, the Board reviewed and approved 6-1, the final waterfront design,
landscaping and building elevations."" She wished to correct that vote, which was 5-1,
because she was opposed to the project at that time; Board member McNamara was
absent.
Ms. Woodbury would like to have this discussion on-site, and that she would be able to
help the Board through this process in articulating their wishes. She agreed with President
Cook that the Board should not have to review every single detail in the conditions. She
noted that the approval was in the resolution, and suggested that the Board ensure that the
appropriate items were captured in the conditions.
President Cook expressed concern that the comments that were carefully documented in
the minutes don't seem to carry much weight over time in the projects. Ms. Woodbury
noted that they must be included in the conditions of approval.
Vice President Kohlstrand cautioned that the Board should not do the staff's job, and
although she understood President Cook's frustration, she did not want to further slow the
process down.
President Cook noted that because staff had little time with the drawings and documents,
the Board members had even less time to review them.
Page 10 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-08-27,11,"11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Vice President
Kohlstrand).
Vice President Kohlstrand advised that there had been no meetings since her last report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board
Member Cunningham).
Board member Cunningham noted that as the report on the dais indicated, the report
would go into a draft local action plan mode, and will return to the Task Force for review.
He believed it would go through the various Boards for their review and comment, which
was not noted in the summary. He noted that it contained a wide range of action plans
and suggestions, and that it would go to City Council for review and possible approval.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft requested information regarding the newly remodeled
Long's on Santa Clara Avenue, which did not appear to have any bike parking outside.
Ms. Woodbury noted that it was not required on the plans, but she would discuss it with
Long's. She felt confident that they would install a bike rack.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
8:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the September 24, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 11 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf