body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2007-11-13,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -NOVEMBER 13, 2007- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:21 p.m.
Councilmember Gilmore led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present : louncilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Management Partners report on the workshop is hereto attached
and made part of the minutes by reference.
AGENDA ITEM
(07-539) Workshop on City Priority-Setting Project.
The agenda for the workshop was: finalize objectives and purpose
statement, discuss progress reporting on highest priorities;
develop procedure for adding to or modifying the work plan; and
wrap up and next steps.
***
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 7:46 p.m. and reconvened the
Special Meeting at 8:02 p.m.
***
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:45 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
November 13, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-11-13,2,"CITY
OF
CITY OF ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA
SUMMARY OF CITY COUNCIL AND
EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT TEAM
PRIORITY SETTING WORKSHOP HELD ON
NOVEMBER 13, 2007
December 2007
MANAGEMENT PARTNERS
I
N C o R P o R A T E D",CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-11-13,3,"City of Alameda
Summary of Priority Setting Workshop - November 13, 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NOVEMBER 13, 2007 PRIORITY SETTING WORKSHOP
1
PRIORITY SETTING PROCESS PURPOSE
1
NOVEMBER 13 WORKSHOP AGENDA
1
WORKSHOP GROUND RULES
2
RECAP OF SEPTEMBER 11 WORKSHOP:
2
BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 12 AND NOVEMBER 13
2
REVISED CITY PURPOSE STATEMENT
2
CITYWIDE POLICY OBJECTIVES
3
CURRENT PROJECT/WORK PLAN REPORTING FORMATS
3
DISCUSSION OF HIGHEST CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES
4
CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PROCEDURES
5
ISSUE BIN
6
NEXT STEPS
6
ATTACHMENT A - LIST OF HIGHEST AND HIGH COUNCIL
PRIORITIES
7",CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-11-13,4,"City of Alameda
Summary of Priority Setting Workshop - November 13, 2007
NOVEMBER 13, 2007 PRIORITY SETTING WORKSHOP
On November 13, 2007, the City Council and Executive Management Team met from 6 - 10
p.m. in the Library for a priority setting workshop. Jan Perkins and Nancy Hetrick of
Management Partners facilitated the workshop.
The workshop was the second of two sessions planned. The priority setting process began
with staff creating work plans to articulate the special projects of City departments. This
process is timely because of the start of the next two-year budget cycle in early 2008, and
the addition of new members to the Executive Management Team.
Priority Setting Process Purpose
The purpose of the entire priority setting process is to:
Provide Council direction on priorities for the work plan for the next 2-3 years
Provide an opportunity to strengthen Council understanding of staff's current work plans
and resources available to carry them out
Create mutual understanding and agreement between the Council and Executive
Management Team on a process of reporting progress on work plans
Create mutual understanding and agreement between the Council and Executive
Management Team on a process of modifying priorities once adopted (adding/deleting
projects to meet changing needs) that includes adjusting existing priorities or adding
resources to ensure new projects can be completed and Council priorities met
The focus of the workshop held on September 11, 2007, was the following:
Identification of factors affecting the City over the next several years
Confirmation or modification of draft citywide objectives
Understanding of current work plans for City departments
Initial understanding of Council priorities
November 13 Workshop Agenda
1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Finalize objectives and purpose statement
3. Discuss progress reporting on highest priorities
4. Develop procedure for adding to or modifying the work plan
5. Public comment
6. Wrap up and next steps
Management Partners, Inc.
1",CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-11-13,5,"City of Alameda
Summary of Priority Setting Workshop - November 13, 2007
Workshop Ground Rules
The ground rules for the September 11th workshop, set by the Council and staff, were used
for the November 13th workshop. The ground rules were:
Keep a sense of humor
Be direct and diplomatic
One person speak at a time
Everyone participate - have an open dialogue
Listen
Respect the work that went into this
Recap of September 11 workshop:
Discussed Alameda's recent successes
Presented and discussed an Environmental Scan prepared by staff
Conducted Strengths, Weaknesses/Limitations Opportunities, Threats brainstorm
Reviewed and modified citywide policy objectives
Reviewed departmental work plans (programs/projects)
Council members identified highest and high priorities
Between September 12 and November 13
Management Partners prepared report summarizing work accomplished at the 9/11
workshop, including next steps
Staff discussed progress reporting format to ensure Council is informed
Management Partners provided information about how cities address new initiatives, and
staff brainstormed how such a process might work in Alameda
Management Partners prepared agenda for 11/13 workshop
Revised City Purpose Statement
The Council reviewed the proposed purpose statement and made the following revision:
The City of Alameda focuses its resources on providing services that enhance
the quality of life for its residents and promote the prosperity of its business
community.
Management Partners, Inc.
2",CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-11-13,6,"on the work plan. The three methods are:
1. Off Agenda Reporting
2. Detailed Quarterly Reports
3. Formal Council Reports
She then presented the staff's suggested new method of reporting on Council priorities:
CMO Quarterly Report: Updates on the highest priorities reported-align to citywide
policy objectives (referred to as the ""Lisa Report"")
Department quarterly reports: Will sequence order of update by level of priority
(highest priorities first, high priorities next, all remaining items to follow) and will
include information on Hot Topics/ Emerging issues
Council feedback on reporting formats:
Use the ""reasonableness rule"" for how much information to include
Need to discuss/consider the timing and schedule - streamline with other reporting
cycles
""Lisa's report"" could be in bullet format - keep it easy to read
Departmental quarterly reports are informative but lack context (in terms of
departmental or city priorities); context will make more useful
Goals and time lines are very important and need to be incorporated into quarterly
reports
Management Partners, Inc.
3",CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-11-13,7,"City of Alameda
Summary of Priority Setting Workshop - November 13, 2007
Consider modifying the current work plan template to make it a tool to provide
updates rather than the quarterly reports-standardize the format
Need to identify impacts/trade-offs of work plan activities
A punch list approach to the status pending in process would be useful (and context
will be helpful)
Current quarterly reports are read or at least skimmed regularly and are helpful
Provide info on the origin of the request (i.e. council directive) - either in the work
plan template or in the quarterly report format
The quarterly report is a ""newsy report"" - lots of narrative (some Councilmembers like
that)
Don't want to lose the lower priorities/ info by focusing on only highest/high priorities
Possible to provide single packet to Council?
Continue to provide easy to ready information
Interest in keeping it as report
Staff input on reporting process and formats:
Bullets/outline approach would be good; staff receptive to summary format
Would like a format that fits and meets more than one purpose; streamline it
If ok to provide more of a summary approach, Council can ask for additional info
Headings and bullet points
Like idea of aligning to goals, objectives and timelines
Final Council Direction on Work Plan Reporting:
Report format will be created by EMT, and it will evolve
Use the ""reasonableness rule"" for how much information to include
Discussion of Highest City Council Priorities
The Council had a short discussion of the highest priorities as identified at the September
11th Council/EMT workshop. The Council decided to discuss the priorities at a future Council
meeting in order to refine them.
Address telecom financial issue-implement plans/recommendations
Work with the Housing Commission to develop an acquisition and development plan for
expanding affordable housing opportunities using the remaining Measure A Guyton
exemption (Alameda Hotel, Islander)
Former Navy base redevelopment-secure conveyance of Alameda Point from Navy and
negotiate development entitlements with Suncal
Transportation Element update (General Plan) - Transportation master plan, pedestrian
plan
Customer Service Improvement Committee work items (project ADD)
Transportation/traffic planning (transportation master plan, pedestrian plan)
Disaster preparedness/update Disaster Mitigation Plan and the ECO plan
Soft-story seismic retrofit incentive program
Prepare and implement comprehensive review of Golf Course operations
Deliver high-quality public safety services.
Council members offered the following comments on the priorities:
#8 delete ""incentive""
Add something regarding protecting fiscal health of the City
Management Partners, Inc.
4",CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-11-13,8,"City of Alameda
Summary of Priority Setting Workshop - November 13, 2007
Combine #4 and #6
Add something about workforce
Planning and development
Concern about the items being too specific
Department VS. citywide (Council) priorities - currently seems disproportionately a few
depts.
Need to clarify structure of objectives to priorities/work plan; what is the framework;
are the ""City Objectives"" actually ""policy objectives""
Tie priorities back to budget
City Council Referral Procedures
The purpose of this discussion was to create an orderly process through which Council
members and staff can be clear about work that is being requested, whether the work can be
done in a reasonable period of time, and whether it is consistent with Council direction. There
are times where one Councilmember will have an interest in the staff exploring something or
preparing a report on an issue; staff is not always clear about whether the one
Councilmember is representing the interests of the entire Council. Since staff has a full work
program, it means re-directing staff from existing priorities and Council direction. This can
inadvertently re-arrange Council priorities. Additionally, during the year, needs will emerge,
requiring new attention, and it means we need to be able to modify our priorities.
Therefore, the purpose of this portion of the agenda was to create a process that Council and
staff can follow. Management Partners prepared a memo, which described the process used
by several cities that have created methods of handling Council requests. The memo was
reviewed at the workshop and a discussion then took place. The question posed for
discussion was: ""When new issues arise from a Councilmember, what are our options for
dealing with them?""
Several methods are used by other cities to determine Council direction on a Council
member's request, including:
1. If the request can be handled in approximately one hour, and it is consistent with
current Council policy and direction, the City Manager can assign it to be done. This
is referred to as the ""one-hour rule.""
2. A Councilmember prepares a ""Council referral"" which is written in advance and
placed on Council Agenda for discussion.
3. The City Manager gives a verbal or written report on what would be required to
handle the request.
4. There is no change in policy or practices without Council direction.
5. Copies of information provided to one Council member goes to all Council members
Council and EMT Comments:
Management needs to better clarify the impact or time involved to respond to a request.
The impact of a request needs to be part of the Council's consideration of the request
from a Councilmember. What are the costs in staff time, dollars, impact on other
priorities, other costs?
Routine operational items should not be affected by a new process (i.e. citizen
complaints). A new process should only apply to special requests or new initiatives,
since we're talking about impacts on or shifting of priorities or resources.
Management Partners, Inc.
5",CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-11-13,9,"City of Alameda
Summary of Priority Setting Workshop - November 13, 2007
City Manager needs to clarify or provide input if what is involved to fulfill a request is
more than was expected or is not feasible (i.e., cruise line research too many hours of
work, impacting other priorities). Give Council the information needed to make an
informed decision about whether the request is important enough to pursue. Use the
""reasonableness test.""
Staff asks that the Council be clear about the direction; staff does not feel comfortable
asking if all other Councilmembers are interested in pursuing something (seems
disrespectful), and assume if a Council member requested it then staff must do it. This is
the reason for a need for a clear procedure so everyone understands the request and
what is involved.
New Council Referral Process
A consensus of all 5 council members resulted in the following process:
1. Apply ""One Hour"" Rule, but expand the timeframe to a few hours (does not refer to
constituent complaints or routine operations; only special requests)
2. Use Fremont Model of ""Council Referrals."" Councilmembers agendize information
requests or new assignments for Council consideration and staff inform as to what will
be involved in responding and impacts on other work.
3.
If changes in priorities or information requests come out at Council meetings, Council
will give specific direction to staff, and staff will seek clarification when needed, as
well as providing information on impacts.
4. If no clear direction is given, then it's not direction from the Council.
Clarify direction at end of an item-with consensus (through the City Clerk)
5. If more time is needed, the item has to go back to Council for direction:
Use the Council referral process (agendize)
Requests first go through City Manager or Assistant City Manager
Issue Bin
During the course of the workshop, various items were raised to be handled at another time
and place. Those items were:
Would like to have a 2nd discussion of priorities - will be placed on a Council agenda
Consider a document retrieval database
Review Palo Alto protocols
Next Steps
At the end of the workshop, the next steps in the priority setting process were reviewed, as
follows:
EMT will create and implement a revised reporting format, to be further revised as useful
improvements are identified.
Council discussion of priorities will be set for a future Council meeting.
Council referral process will be written up and implemented.
Objectives and priorities (once agreed to at a Council meeting) will be incorporated into
the decision-making process for the next two-year budget.
Management Partners, Inc.
6",CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-11-13,10,"City of Alameda
Summary of Priority Setting Workshop - November 13, 2007
ATTACHMENT A - LIST OF HIGHEST AND HIGH COUNCIL PRIORITIES
The following projects are listed in order of the number of votes given by Council members at
the 9/11/07 Council/EMT Priority Setting Workshop. The bold items are those receiving at
least 3 ""highest priority"" dots on 9/11/07. All projects receiving at least one dot (either
""highest"" or ""high"" priority) on 9/11/07 are listed below. These will be reviewed, modified
and/or confirmed at a future Council meeting.
Some of the items have been modified in response to comments made by Council members
at the 11/13/07 Council/EMT workshop. Those changes. are noted below in italics.
9/11/07
Lead Department
Project
Priority
1.
AP&T
Address Telecom financial issue - implement
5 highest
plans/recommendations
2.
Housing Authority
Work with the Housing Commission to
3 highest
develop an acquisition and development plan
1 high
for expanding affordable housing
opportunities using the remaining Measure A
Guyton exemption (Alameda Hotel; Islander)
3.
Development
Former Navy Base Redevelopment - Secure
3 highest
Services
Conveyance of Alameda Point from Navy and
negotiate development entitlements with
SunCal
4.
Planning & Building
Transportation Element Update (General
3 highest
Public Works
Plan) Transportation/Traffic Planning
[Note: two projects
(Transportation master plan; pedestrian plan)
have been combined
2 highest
into this one]
1 high
5.
Planning & Building
Customer Service Improvement Committee
3 highest
work items (project ADD)
6.
Public Safety
Disaster Preparedness/Update Disaster
1 highest
Mitigation Plan and the EOC Plan
3 high
7.
Planning & Building
Soft-story seismic retrofit program
1 highest
[Note: the word
2 high
""incentive"" was
eliminated between
""retrofit"" and
""program""]
8.
Recreation, Parks
Prepare and implement comprehensive
3 high
and Golf
operation review of Golf Course operations
9.
Planning & Building
Housing Element Update (General Plan)
2 highest
10.
Recreation, Parks and
Renovate Godfrey Field; Rittler Field; Lincoln
2 highest
Golf
Park Field
Replace Krusi Park Recreation Building
11.
Library
Develop a long range plan for library service
1 highest
(includes Measure O funds allocation for branch
1 high
improvements)
Management Partners, Inc.
7",CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-11-13,11,"City of Alameda
Summary of Priority Setting Workshop - November 13, 2007
ecar Departmer
Proter
12.
Development Services
Former Navy property development - Conduct
1 highest
homeless/PBC screening for Coast Guard
1 high
Housing and related Community Reuse Plan
amendment. Includes lease of ball field/park
area and coast guard housing
13.
Administrative/Support
Review web hosting, design and maintenance
1 highest
Services
services and conduct needs assessment of
1 high
current contributors
14.
Administrative/Support
Review compensation system (broadened to
1 highest
Services
include review of full system)
1 high
15.
Planning & Building
Prepare Local Action Plan for Climate Protection
1 highest
1 high
Environmental Protection
Public Works
1 high
[Note: two projects
were combined into
one]
16.
Public Works
Continuous improvement of systems (Street tree
1 highest
master plan; sewer master plan; storm drainage
1 high
master plan)
17.
Administrative/Support
Explore options to generate revenue for
1 highest
Services
infrastructure improvements
18.
Administrative/Support
Budget review and tracking (project ADD)
1 highest
Services
19.
Planning & Building
Land Use Element - Retail and Business
1 highest
Services Section Update (General Plan)
20.
Planning & Building
Develop a Facilities Master Plan: identify
1 highest
funding and prepare master plans for building
infrastructure improvements
21.
Library
Provide facility and service improvements to
2 high
both Bay Farm Island and West End Libraries
22.
AP&T
Enhance Energy/Environmental Sustainability -
2 high
evaluate alternatives for reducing carbon
footprint
23.
Administrative/Support
Develop Succession Planning and Workforce
2 high
Services
Strategy (including youth outreach component)
[Note: ""and Workforce
Strategy"" was added to
this project]
24.
Public Works
Transportation planning
2 high
25.
Fire
Conduct Fire Station 3 feasibility study
1 high
26.
Development Services
CDBG-funded project to implement the ""West
1 high
Alameda: Woodstock to Webster Neighborhood
Improvement Plan""
27.
Recreation, Parks and
Implementation of a Youth Advisory Commission
1 high
Golf
to advise Council on youth-related issues
Management Partners, Inc.
8",CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-11-13,12,"City of Alameda
Summary of Priority Setting Workshop - November 13, 2007
e almen
28.
Recreation, Parks and
Review business and financial plan of the
1 high
Golf
Alameda Museum
29.
Recreation, Parks and
Estuary Park Task Force - initiate meetings with
1 high
Golf
Task Force to identify potential funding
30.
Administrative/Support
Develop a compliance plan for GASB-45
1 high
Services
regulations by performing an actual study and
reviewing options with Council
31.
Administrative/Support
Labor agreement negotiations with public safety
1 high
Services
bargaining units
32.
Public Works
Transportation - Safe Routes to School
1 high
(Implement innovative approach to encourage
walk/bike/carpool to school
Management Partners, Inc.
9",CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-13,1,"Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Planning Board
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:08 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft.
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cook, Board Members Cunningham, Ezzy
Ashcraft, and Lynch.
Vice President Kohlstrand, and Board Members Mariani and McNamara were absent from
roll call.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Donna Mooney, Assistant City Attorney Farimah Faiz and Supervising Planner Doug
Garrison.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Meeting of September 24, 2007.
There was not a quorum to vote on these minutes.
b.
Meeting of October 8, 2007.
Cunningham moved to adopt the minutes of October 8, 2007, as amended with changes to
page 7 paragraph 3 and page 11 third line from the bottom as requested by President
Cook.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote -Ayes:
4. Noes: 0 Absent: 3 (Kohlstrand, Mariani, McNamara). The motion passed.
c.
Meeting of October 22, 2007
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt the minutes of October 22, 2007, as
presented.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - Ayes:
4. Noes: 0 Absent: 3 (Kohlstrand, Mariani, McNamara). The motion passed.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Future Agendas
Page 1 of 8",PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-13,2,"Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.
b.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.
Ms. Mooney introduced newly hired Assistant City Attorney Farimah Faiz and welcomed
her to the City of Alameda.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A. Crosstown Coffee House six-month review of Use Permit UP07-0005.
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to renew
Use Permit UP07-0005.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - Ayes:
4. Noes: 0 Absent: 3 (Kohlstrand, Mariani, McNamara). The motion passed.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
Alameda Towne Centre - Planning Workshop - The purpose of this workshop
is to review and discuss revisions to the proposed redevelopment plans for the
Alameda Towne Centre. (Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0004 and
Design Review DR05-0073). No action to approve or deny the project will
occur at this meeting.
Mr. Garrison presented the staff report.
Mr. Randy Kyte, applicant, Harsch Investment Properties, continued the presentation and
displayed the proposed revisions and reconfiguration of Alameda Towne Centre on the
overhead screen. He summarized the changes:
1. The square footage from the prior approval would be reduced because Target
store was not needed;
2. The Safeway building would be renovated by the same architectural team
involved in the other buildings; and
3. An additional 73,000 square feet would be added at the Mervyn's building
site. It would be a department store expansion but Target was no longer
involved with the project.
Mr. Kyte noted that Borders was complete and would be turned over to that company on
December 3, 2007, anticipating an opening in late February or early March, 2008. Bed,
Page 2 of 8",PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-13,3,"Bath & Beyond held its grand opening on November 9, 2007. The Beverly and Old Navy
buildings were complete; the TJ Maxx building was a few days away from completion.
He noted that Building 1900 would have a tenant who would take the old warehouse
space, and the construction was expected to start within a few days. He noted that a
smaller parking garage would be built.
Mr. Jan Paoli, Field Paoli, project architect, displayed and detailed the proposed
architectural changes in the project.
Monique Lee, Field Paoli, project architect, provided an update on the sidewalks and
circulation, and summarized the issues brought forward by the Planning Board. She
noted that one bike lane had already been striped on the site, and that several other bike
lanes had been planned.
Mr. Paoli described the restaurant spaces, their views and the landscaping possibilities.
Mr. Kyte described the building redesigns that accommodated the east-west sidewalk.
He noted that the easement documents were underway, and that the construction
documents associated with the sidewalk, as well as modifications to the buildings,
landscaping and graphics were nearing completion. He noted that the timeline of late
spring was still in force, given the complexity of the situation, and that the east-west
sidewalk would be put in as soon as possible. He noted that the amount of pavement was
adequate to install the sidewalk. He would like the board to consider the issue of the
parking ratio, and added that they had been in discussion with City staff for some time on
the ratio at this site. He believed the opportunity existed to limit the amount of additional
parking by using shared parking strategies.
Mr. Kyte noted that through shared parking, they were optimistic that they would be able
to reduce the 4:1 parking ratio on the site. He noted that there was about 40,000 square
feet of office, as well as retail and restaurants. By using the ULI/ITE methodology for
shared parking, they saw some good opportunities to justify the reduction. He noted that
the progress at the beach area included additional language in the leases about the parking
fields within their lease areas, and the ability to reconfigure the parking lots when the car
wash was removed. He believed that would allow the addition of the kinds of densities
and uses that would make good sense along the beach area. He noted that the car wash
drove the timing on this phase, and he assured the Board that those discussions were
underway, and that they were encouraged by their progress.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Dorothy Reid inquired about the change in the parking garage plan, and was
concerned about the visual aspects. She would like to see how much more parking
spaces would be needed, and did not believe the Centre was short by many spaces. She
recalled that there had been problems with the parking study methodology, and would
like further clarification on that matter before further expansions were approved.
Page 3 of 8",PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-13,4,"Ms. Vivian Ford noted that she was pleased that Target was no longer part of the
Alameda Towne Centre plan, and that she would be more inclined to shop there. She
believed the landscaping plan was a positive addition. She asked about the location of
the truck delivery access, and requested confirmation that the exits would be onto
Franciscan Way. She noted that she was confused about the storefront locations. She
expressed concern about outdoor usage because of the number of outdoor creatures that
live near the Centre.
Mr. Jon Spangler expressed strong concern about the renovation. He was pleased by the
sidewalk near the post office, and supported the shared parking plan. He believed that
the 4:1 parking ratio was unrealistic. He believed the EIR was a piecemeal document,
and did not believe there had been a concurrently accurate EIR and Master Plan for the
shopping center that reflected what was going on. He would like to see an updated EIR
and traffic study that reflected current data. He would like to see more bike racks in front
of Trader Joe's, as well as more transit access, which was still compromised because of
the circulation patterns in the shopping center. He would like a status update on
Mervyn's. He requested more information on the green building standards and methods
that would be used for the new buildings. He inquired whether solar water heating,
passive solar building cooling and heating methods, and increased natural lighting would
be used to increase the center's sustainability. He inquired about the beach dropoff issue,
and noted that there was a similar situation at Jack London Square. He did not believe
that the cars belonged so close to the beach, and suggested the use of golf carts or similar
shuttle vehicles.
Ms. Audrey Housman complimented the design and look of Alameda Towne Centre, and
added that she was pleased with the sidewalks. She suggested more disabled parking in
the garage for the garage and the storefront that was closer to the stores. She noted that
Park Street had a narrow entrance between Walgreens and Big 5.
Ms. Cathy Wolfe noted that she was thrilled with the design, and the thoughtfulness
shown to the pedestrians. She voiced her full support of the project.
Mr. Kyte responded to the public comments, and displayed the net gain in parking spaces
in the garage. He and noted that the traffic study would be updated. He noted that the
truck delivery area and Safeway truck dock would remain because the store was being
renovated. He noted that it would no longer be a 24/7 use, with trucks arriving and
departing throughout the day and night, with their coolers running throughout the night
and with their lights shining into the condominiums. He noted that the architect stated
that there would be some screening with the use of landscaping in that area, and added
that the entry to Safeway would be on the east side. He noted that the storefront would
be glass. He noted that with respect to possible outdoor sales areas, rollup doors would
allow more transparency, and that they may be located on the north side. He noted that
the access from the parking lot to Franciscan Way would remain. Mr. Kyte noted that
Mervyn's was still in the chase for the building, but that they were not the front-runner.
He agreed that it would be a very good idea to separate the cars from the waterfront
environment. He noted that it would be very important to create a wonderful outdoor
Page 4 of 8",PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-13,5,"space. He noted that they would take the suggestion of moving the disabled parking in
the garage closer to the stores under consideration, and added that there was also covered
disabled parking as well. He noted that they had discussed the narrow sidewalks on Park
Street for the past 15 years, and added that they had offered to help the City in that
regard. He believed that something would be done about that issue.
President Cook noted that she would like to see more bike racks.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that there be larger spaces for the bikes with
trailers for small children.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook regarding the Post Office sidewalk, Mr. Kyte
described the proposed changes to that sidewalk. He noted that they had done a walk
around, and believed that the sidewalk could be fixed. He believed the presence of
sidewalks on both sides would be safer.
President Cook noted that the drawings were somewhat small.
Board Member Lynch stated it was important to understand the current parking
configuration versus the new configuration. He noted that he had spoken with the City
Manager's office to apprise them that the applicant was willing to work with the City to
address the sidewalk issue on Park Street.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft recalled previous conversations regarding the east-west
walkway, and inquired when the applicant planned to move forward with the easement.
Mr. Kyte replied that the easement should be in place within 30 days, and that work
would start in early 2008.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she had heard comments from residents stating
that there were enough discount stores in the community, and that they would like better
stores and for the bar to be raised in that regard. She noted that she liked the outdoor
garden space, as well as the parking structure and that parking ratio. She favored more
walkable, livable, healthy communities. She believed the applicant was approaching her
vision of this center and commended them for their efforts. She would like to see a
striped crosswalk near the post office, and would like to see one on the other side, as well
as by the carwash. She believed a three-foot-wide sidewalk was a negative addition, and
that it was an inconsistent feature of what should be a walkabout center. She was
concerned about the placement of the bike paths where the buses traveled. She believed
there should be a bike lane to the center from Park Street. She expressed concern about
the long Safeway trailers that took up 15 parking spots, and noted that they looked
terrible and impacted the parking. She was also concerned about the piles of trash left on
the ground, which was unsightly and attracted rodents. She inquired who was
responsible for the cleanup of that area. She did not want to see any beachfront parking.
Mr. Kyte displayed the parking lot site plan, and discussed the future of the design. He
noted that the parking lots would be shifted north, and that the area near the restaurant
Page 5 of 8",PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-13,6,"court would be reconfigured and consolidated. He added that there would no longer be
parking near the beach.
President Cook noted that she was fine with the increased height on the Mervyn's
building because without the additional height the center would now look lopsided
because some heights had been increased on the new, improved parts of the center. She
expressed concern about the parking and its effects on pedestrian safety. She supported
further exploring the reduced parking requirements, and would like further clarification
on what was approved, and what the driving requirements would be for more parking.
She is not at all sure about the parking structure and believed the loading docks were ugly
and dangerous. She inquired about Dr. Perry's corner, and was concerned about
circulation and pedestrian safety. She requested a firm condition to address the
waterfront issues, and agreed with the applicant that a circular drive was not necessary.
She would like that space to be used for pedestrians. She was concerned that there was
no connection back to the center from the waterfront, and would also like the beachfront
corner to be connected to the rest of the center. She believed the design for Applebee's
was dated, and looked forward to its renovation. She believed the elevations for the
Mervyns building looked good, and would like updated traffic counts. She agreed with
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft about the crosswalk, and was very concerned that the
newly painted crosswalks at Shoreline Drive did not connect with the pedestrian
walkways at the center. She noted that was not an issue so much for the center, as it was
for the Public Works Department. She added that the crosswalks led right into iceplant
and did not connect.
Mr. Kyte noted that he hoped the McDonald's and courthouse would be renovated, but
that was not within their control.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she had a problem with the parking on the Otis
side, and believed that diagonal spaces were easier to get into and out of. She noted that
the Safeway parking spaces were straight, 90-degree spaces. She inquired whether the
Safeway parking lot could be restriped with diagonal spaces. Mr. Kyte replied that while
he did not disagree with her assessment, at this point it would change the entire layout
and geometry of the lot.
Board Member Lynch noted that the 90-degree spaces were the safest, most efficient
parking layout.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft about the CEQA standard, and
whether a new EIR would be required, Mr. Thomas replied that the City was halfway
through the EIR process. The City would review the original work, and see how it
compared to the current proposal. The changes in the project would be assessed to see
whether a new EIR would be required. He noted that the total square footage had been
reduced since Target was removed from the center, and the location of the expansion area
was generally the same relative to driveways and access to the center. He noted that the
City would respond to all comments and would make any additional changes to the Draft
EIR so that the EIR addressed the current plan. He noted that the City intended to return
Page 6 of 8",PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-13,7,"with two comprehensive documents: the Master Plan that showed the applicants' long-
term plans for the site, and a comprehensive up to date EIR.
No action was taken.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was copied on a letter from StopWaste.org
to the Planning Director with respect to the pursuit of green building ordinances. She
requested that the City follow up on this issue at the next meeting.
Mr. Thomas advised that an RFQ had been released to advise staff how to proceed with
various ordinances, which would help staff return to the Planning Board with as many
options as possible. Staff was considering the full range of options, such as requirements
for new civic buildings and changes to the Building Code. Staff would provide a more
formal update at the next meeting. He assured Board member Ezzy Ashcraft that staff
would move as expeditiously as possible.
President Cook noted that she had received literature about APA publications and APA
membership. Mr. Thomas noted that staff would look into that issue.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch noted that because there were more buildings along harbor Bay
Parkway, he had noticed a great deal more trash. He suggested that the City consider
more trash cans, and inquired who managed the trash collection in that area. Mr. Thomas
noted that he would find out.
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force (Board
Members Cook/Kohlstrand)
Mr. Thomas provided an update on this item, and noted that the last meeting on October
24, 2007, had been well-attended. SunCal had made the same presentation that had been
made before the Planning Board; they presented the project's history and the consultants
presented their thoughts. The geotechnical consultant emphasized the Bay mud issue, and
the flooding constraints were discussed. The topo maps were in the process of being
revised because they were outdated. The consultant stated that Alameda Point had sunk
somewhat. He noted that the audience received Peter Calthorpe's presentation very well.
He had emphasized sustainability and regionalism for Alameda Point, and kept future
generations in mind. He noted that there was no interaction after the presentation. He
noted that the next meeting would be held at the O Club on December 13, 2007, and they
planned to address a range of development scenarios.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Page 7 of 8",PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-13,8,"Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report. Mr. Thomas noted
that there was nothing to report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Vice President
Kohlstrand).
Vice President Kohlstrand was not in attendance to present this report.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board
Member Cunningham).
Board member Cunningham noted that a meeting had been held, but he did not attend.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
This meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 8 of 8",PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf