body,date,page,text,path
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2009-01-26,1,"APPROVED
COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
January 26, 2009
TIME
The meeting convened at 7:05 P.M.
PRESENT
Chair Lord-Hausman, Vice-Chair Moore, Commissioners Berger, Longley-Cook,
Kirola, Fort, Kreitz and Krongold.
ABSENT
None.
MINUTES
The December 8, 2008 minutes were approved as presented.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
1. Secretary Akil distributed a ""Pamphlet for Intellectual and Development Disabilities"" to the
Commission.
2. Secretary Akil distributed the draft 2009 CDI meeting calendar, to which the Commission
agreed to combine the November and December meetings, to be held on December 7, 2009.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair (Secretary Akil):
Secretary Akil received the completed the confidential nomination forms from the
Commissioners regarding the election of Chair and Vice-Chair. The Commission voted to re-
elect Audrey Lord-Hausman as Chair, and Jody Moore as Vice-Chair.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Community Outreach / Fair (Commissioners Krongold/Kreitz):
Secretary Akil distributed and read notes from the December 8, 2008 meeting regarding
discussion of the Community Outreach Fair.
Commissioner Krongold distributed and reviewed an outline of the proposed resources fair,
which has been renamed to ""Special Needs - Special Services."" Commissioner Krongold
emphasized that the event will not conflict with the Alameda Hospital Fair in the fall.
Commissioner Berger suggested looking at other non-profits that provide free resources as well.
Commissioner Berger also suggested removing the word ""free"" under Purpose on the outline of
the event.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2009-01-26.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2009-01-26,2,"Commission on Disability Issues
January 26,
2009 Minutes
Page 2 of 3
Commissioner Fort stated that ""free"" can be misinterpreted.
Vice-Chair Moore asked that if each organization offers free services, why not list them to which
Commissioner Berger responded that not all of them provide free services, but instead work on a
sliding scale.
Commissioner Kreitz stated the next work group meeting is February 9 at which time the group
will brain storm the matter further.
Vice-Chair Moore suggested removing the use of the word ""free"" on the outline under Purpose.
Vice-Chair Moore stated that the Commission should consider Starbucks for donations as they
do a lot locally for the community.
Chair Lord-Hausman stated that John McCahan from the Fair Steering Committee said that
possibly food could be donated and there are other service organizations in Alameda that do in-
kind monetary donations.
Vice-Chair Moore agreed to remove the CDI out of the Sponsorship portion of the outline and to
allow the American Red Cross to accept all in-kind monetary contributions.
Chair Lord-Hausman suggested removing the word ""monetary"" from the outline under
Sponsorship
Commissioner Berger stated that the Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB) held the
same kind of fair and someone should get a list of all of the participants from that fair.
Commissioner Berger also suggested including the SSHRB in this event.
Chair Lord-Hausman responded that the Development Services Department (DSD) recently
hired a person to staff the SSHRB and Youth Collaborative and that she will talk with that
individual about this issue.
Commissioner Krongold stated that the Hospital is interested and she plans to meet with Jackie
Krause, Services Manager of the Mastick Senior Center to receive their input.
2. Commission Disability Internet Webpage (Chair Lord-Hausman/Secretary Akil):
Secretary Akil met with the City's Information Technology Manager and consultant regarding
the draft webpage and has received the consultant's proposed draft and other information for the
proposed webpage. Secretary Akil will forward that information to Chair Lord-Hausman to
review for consideration.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
G:\Lucretia)CommDisability\Minutes/(2009\Minutes_Jan 26 2009.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2009-01-26.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2009-01-26,3,"Commission on Disability Issues
January 26,
2009 Minutes
Page 3 of 3
In response to Commissioner Berger's question regarding accessibility for mini-bus parking at the
Ferry Terminal, Secretary Akil stated that the Ferry Services Manager from Public Works confirmed
that there are plans being included for mini-bus parking at the Alameda Ferry on Main Street.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS
There were no oral communications.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:58 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, February 23, 2009 at
7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia A. Akil
Commission Secretary
G:\Lucretia)CommDisability\Minutes\2009\Minutes_Jan 26 2009.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2009-01-26.pdf
PensionBoard,2009-01-26,1,"OF
of
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
PENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD 4:30 P.M., JANUARY 26, 2009
ALAMEDA CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA
CONFERENCE ROOM 391
1.
The meeting was called to order by Chair Beverly Johnson at 4:38 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL: Present: Trustees William Soderlund, Robert Follrath, Nancy Elzig,
and Susan Freeman, Senior Management Analyst for Trustee Karen Willis.
Staff: Lelia Faapouli, Administrative Technician, Human Resources.
3.
MINUTES: The minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 27, 2008 were
moved for approval by Member Follrath and seconded by Member Elzig with
amendment to Agenda item 5B. Passed 4-0.
4.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
4-A.
PENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2008:
a.
In the amount of $ 242,220.46 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.
b.
In the amount of $ 3,516.67 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.
4-B.
PENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2008:
a.
In the amount of $ 204,146.75 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.
b.
In the amount of $ 3,516.67 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.
4-C. PENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2008:
a.
In the amount of $ 208,569.64 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.
b.
In the amount of $ 3,516.67 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.
Member Elzig moved to adopt the consent calendar, with a second by Member Follrath.
Passed 4-0",PensionBoard/2009-01-26.pdf
PensionBoard,2009-01-26,2,"City of Alameda
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Pension Board - Monday, January 26, 2009
Page 2
5.
AGENDA ITEMS:
5-A.
The Chief Financial Officer's Financial Report for City of Alameda Police
and Fire Pension Funds for the period ending December 31 2008 was
accepted as presented. Member Follrath moved to approve, seconded by
Member Elzig. Passed 4-0
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no oral communications.
7.
PENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)
Susan Freeman (for Member Willis) passed out a listing of the current 1079 and
1082 pensioners as requested by the Board at the last meeting.
8.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was
adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Willis, Human Resources Director
and Secretary to the Pension Board",PensionBoard/2009-01-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-01-26,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING
MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 2009
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
President Kohlstrand called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Autorino
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
President Kohlstrand, Board members Autorino,
Cunningham. and Cook were present upon roll call.
Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft and Board member
McNamara arrived during the meeting.
ABSENT:
Board member Lynch.
STAFF PRESENT:
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services
Manager/Secretary to the Planning Board; Assistant
City Attorney Mohammed Hill; Planner Dennis
Brighton; Nancy McPeak, Executive
Assistant/Recording Secretary
MINUTES:
Minutes from the meeting of December 8, 2008 (pending)
Minutes from the meeting of January 12, 2009 (pending)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
NONE
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Written Report
6-A. Future Agendas
Staff provided an update on upcoming Planning Board agenda items.
6-B Zoning Administrator Report
The Zoning Administrator meeting of January 20, 2009 was canceled.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Page 1 of 9",PlanningBoard/2009-01-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-01-26,2,"Anyone may address the Board on a topic not on the agenda under this item by
submitting a speaker's information slip, subject to the 5-minute time limit.
NONE
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or
adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or
explanation is received from the Planning Board or a member of the public by
submitting a speaker slip for that item.
NONE
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
Boatworks Project - 2229 Clement - Environmental Review Scoping
Session - The City of Alameda Planning Board will be holding a scoping session
to provide an opportunity for the public and responsible agencies to comment on
the issues that should be considered in the environmental evaluation for the
proposed Boatworks Project located at 2229 Clement Avenue, Alameda California.
(AT).
This item is for discussion purposes only. No action will be taken at this
meeting.
Staff presented a Power Point presentation outlining the major points of the project and
the scoping session.
President Kohlstrand asked staff to give a brief explanation of the Density Bonus
Ordinance.
Staff responded that the State of California statutes require all cities and counties to
adopt density bonus ordinances. The law provides that local government shall grant
density bonuses to housing developers who agree to construct units affordable to lower
income households. The City of Alameda is currently drafting a Density Bonus
Ordinance. The incentives or concessions are not monetary but could be exceptions to
certain zoning requirements.
Board member Cook asked what incentives the City of Alameda is required to allow.
Staff responded that the developer gets to decide what the concessions will be and
the
City needs to grant the request although monetary payment is not available. Should the
project need a height exception or set back exception those types of items could be
granted.
Page 2 of 9",PlanningBoard/2009-01-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-01-26,3,"Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that there are exceptions to the granting of
concessions to the developer if you can show specific adverse impact upon public
health and safety or physical environment. Another exception exists if the property is
listed in the California Registry of Historical Resources.
Staff stated that the goal is to get the EIR process scoped out tonight and started and
return to the Planning Board in early March with the Draft Density Bonus.
Board member Cunningham asked staff if the Density Bonus Ordinance would apply to
this project.
Staff responded that it could.
Board member Autorino asked what area the specific site encompasses.
Staff responded that the site is on Clement Avenue between Oak Street and Elm Street
and down to the estuary.
Board member Cook noticed that there are boats and docks on the site plan and
wondered it that is part of the project or just added to the plan for aesthetics.
Staff responded that it was originally proposed as part of the project but was removed
from the plans.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft requested staff address the issues down along the water
regarding the Army Corps. of Engineers.
Staff responded that there are some issues that need to be investigated and clarified
along the waterfront that will be done through the project review and EIR process. The
property line is back from the waters edge and the Army Corps. of Engineers owns the
waters edge and there are a number of structures and facilities that are crumbling into
the water. The clean up of the waters edge is a priority. When it gets done and how it
gets done and whom the responsibility lies on is an important issue.
Board member Cunningham moved and Board member McNamara seconded the
motion to limit speaker time to three minutes. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated she
believed the five-minute time limit was more appropriate for this item. The motion
passed with the following voice vote Ayes: 4; Noes: 2; Absent: 1 Abstain: 0 (Ezzy
Ashcraft, Cook).
The public hearing was opened.
Joseph Woodard, Estuary Park Action Committee (EPAC) member, spoke against the
project. He is concerned with the zoning of the area. One half of the site is zoned for
housing and the other half for a park. The proposed project takes the entire site for
housing. There are clean up issues at the site and a portion of the property is
Page 3 of 9",PlanningBoard/2009-01-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-01-26,4,"of the existing buildings and the new building could possibly pollute the estuary. Mr.
Woodard is concerned with the extent of traffic and pedestrian safety in the area and
would like to see the site used for public recreation citing it would compliment the
downtown area that is very park poor. He wonders how the project will mesh with the
General Plan and the North of Lincoln Plan. The project would deny access to the
shoreline and should involve the Bay Conservation and Development Commission
(BCDC). He mentioned that height of the structures has not been discussed. The
economic impact with the loss of developer fees and concessions could total $7.5
million dollars. He suggested that the City of Alameda contact the Bay Area Open
Space Council to see about funding for a park/open space project. Mr. Woodard
questioned where the $1 million dollars set aside for the park project has gone.
Dan Smith allocated his time to Joseph Woodard.
Dorothy Freeman, Estuary Park Action Committee (EPAC) member, spoke against the
project stating that she is pleased that the developer is proposing to put single family
homes and duplexes on the site. Although she is not pleased that the housing plan
includes the 4.5 acres zoned for the park and the over all density of the project. The
City of Alameda has planned the Oak St Estuary Park since 1991 General Plan. She
stated that her neighborhood is in need of a park and the parks at Alameda Point do not
help the residents in this area. The park would serve all Alameda resident and is the
last open space on the estuary to build a park aside from Alameda Point. She is
against the developer's proposal to use the Density Bonus Ordinance to secure
concessions and funding for the project and believes the City of Alameda should initiate
the Quimby Law that would require the developer to donate land to the City for the park.
EPAC would like to remind the City of the 2002 preliminary geotechnical investigation
that reported high levels of contamination on the Fox portion of the property and there is
not reason to believe that the pollution is not all over the site. She concurred with Mr.
Woodard on the traffic issues in the area. Requested that the scenic view be listed as
an issue and how the buildings will affect the current residents views.
Shirley Smith spoke against the project stating that the neighborhood is made up of
Victorian and Craftsman style homes and this high density project would adversely
affect property values in the area. She is concerned that the City of Alameda does not
have adequate city services to accommodate the additional residents and suggested
the City look for other uses for the site, possibly a trade school or athletic club. She
would like the owner of the property to tear down the buildings and fence the property to
keep vandals out.
Chris Lundeen is undecided on the project and lives in the immediate area. He believes
that a housing development on the site will make the area nicer although is not certain if
this project is the best choice due to the density. He mentioned that there is a lot of
noise that comes from the processing plant across the estuary and hopes a disclosure
Page 4 of 9",PlanningBoard/2009-01-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-01-26,5,"regarding that will be given to potential homeowners. He agrees that the project needs
more open space and is concerned with the pollution to the estuary caused by the
parking area.
Leonard Goode of Ron Goode Motors, spoke in support of the project. He is the owner
of property at Park Street and Clement Avenue that he is planning on developing in to a
retail business and is concerned over the lack of population density in the area and the
vacant retail spaces on Part Street. He believes that approval of the project would
greatly benefit in the redevelopment of the vacant properties in the area. Lastly he
commended the developer for building the project.
Sue Field spoke against the project lives in the immediate area and is concerned about
the traffic citing that there are only going to be two ways out of the complex, Clement
Avenue and Blanding Avenue. Ms. Field mentioned that currently it takes her five
minutes in the morning to get on to Clement Avenue from Elm Street and cannot
imagine how the project will affect the traffic. She is concerned with the parking in the
area also fearing that the proposal doesn't address the issue properly. She would like
to see the site turned into an area similar to Union Point Park along the Estuary in
Oakland which has walking trails and wildlife.
Woody Minor, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society member spoke against the
project. He stated that the building is the oldest large industrial building still on the
estuary. He suggested that the Planning Board and other interested parties tour the
buildings and the site. He believes that the building is a hidden landmark and
magnificent inside.
Staff responded that the building is private property and a visit would need to be cleared
with the owner. Staff will contact the owner with the request.
Robert McGillis, applicant, spoke in support of the project. He stated that as the project
moves forward in the EIR process will be identifying the issues and working to mitigate
them. He thanked the audience for their interest in the project and made himself
available for any questions.
Katie Stewart is undecided on the project although looks forward to the development of
the site because it is such an eyesore. She is concerned with levels of contamination at
the site and the potential for pollution during the demolition phase. She would like to
see the construction site as green and sustainable as possible and that the neighbors
be kept involved in the decision process for the site.
Dong Kim is undecided on the project he is glad to see the site developed as a neighbor
and agrees with the previously mentioned traffic issues and is concerned with the DEIR
and whether it will address the impact the project will have on the school district and the
City of Alameda infrastructure. He believes that the site is technically a Brownsfield
Development and should be treated as such in respect to testing and clean up. He
requested that the public be keep informed of the agencies involved in the project and
Page 5 of 9",PlanningBoard/2009-01-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-01-26,6,"provided a list so that citizens can find out first hand the test results. He would like to
see a ""Best Management"" approach be used during construction with respect to noise
and dust. He believes that design and aesthesis are key to the project and would like to
see the public access change to be more inviting. Also mentioned was that the General
Plan conformance calls for park use and medium density development and the
developer should not be allowed to step away from that goal.
Jean Sweeney Estuary Park Action Committee (EPAC) member spoke against the
project. She objects to the density of the project. She would like to find out who she
should get in touch with in the City of Alameda to write a Grant to try and get funding for
the Estuary Park project.
Jim Sweeney Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) member spoke against the project and
agrees with the previously voiced concerns. He urges the City of Alameda to be as
thorough as possible with the investigation of the contamination and make the
developer follow through with the clean up.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Board member Cook commended the public for their interest in the project. She is
concerned with the circulation of the site and would like alternatives looked at that would
conform better with the grid that Alameda has possibly extending Oak Street and Elm
Street down to the estuary and have Blanding Avenue go through the site. The
extensions would help spread the traffic and give the residents of the City a visual and
physical access to the water. She stated that the site plan is very constricting and not
keeping with the neighborhood. She expressed her concern about the integrity of the
sea wall and the toxicity levels of the estuary water. She agrees that there is a need for
a park in the civic core of Alameda. She sees a need to look into the impact of the
lights at the football field down the street from the project. She commented that it is
going to be difficult to analyze the impact the project will have on traffic due to the fact
that it is so bad in the area already. She is concerned with the affect of the Park Street
Bridge noise on the future residents. She stated that she would like to take a tour of the
existing buildings and the site area.
Board member McNamara stated that she shares the concerns that the citizens and
Board member Cook have voiced. She would like to see more waterfront access and
open space on the site. She requested staff to address the status of the contamination
on the site.
Staff responded that there would need to be a complete understanding on what the
former conditions of the property are. It has been mentioned that the Department of
Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) has an approved clean up plan for the site and it is
substantially complete although it has not been forwarded to staff. Staff will need to go
back and investigate what DTSC and the Water Quality Board have done and then go
forward to complete what needs to be done such as performing soil and ground water
Page 6 of 9",PlanningBoard/2009-01-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-01-26,7,"testing. The City of Alameda will not approve a project without all of those issues
resolved.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she shares the concerns that have been
previously voiced. She mentioned that even though the site is not included in the Park
Street North of Lincoln Strategic Plan she would like the developer to work with that
project to ensure cohesiveness with that plan. She stated that the pedestrian walkway
could be better. She would like the design of the homes to fit in with the current
residences in the area and not ""neo moderne"" as referred to in the architect's letter.
She is concerned that there are not many amenities in the immediate area, which would
possibly require residents to drive more frequently. She wants the low-income
exclusionary housing dispersed throughout the development and not segregated in one
specific area.
Board member Cunningham agreed with the public's concern over increased traffic in
the area. He also sees the contamination and clean up as a very important issue with
the site. He agrees that the property needs to be improved and would like to see
alternative uses for the site with less density.
Staff responded that talks have been taking place with the developer to look at
alternative ways to plan the site such as reconfiguring the open space to make it larger
and orient it so there is access from Clement Avenue.
Board member Cunningham voiced concern that the City of Alameda may get restricted
by their own policies concerning the density bonus and would like to see the City work
with the developer to design the site so it works for everyone. He is wondering if there
is a way to stay with the General Plan and put in a park and restrict the number of units
thus saving the City money through a decrease in residents and a decrease in the cost
of city services then that money saved could be redirected to build a park. The
community wants to see items in the General Plan come to reality and the City needs to
work towards that.
Staff commented that it would be very difficult to determine the cost savings.
Board member Cook asked if there could be an economic analysis included in the EIR.
President Kohlstrand responded that it doesn't necessarily need to be done in the EIR
but could be done independently and then inform the environmental process.
Staff is looking at alternatives and at least one is a no project alternative with two
scenarios. The first being a no build alternative. The other is a no project meaning it
develops under the current General Plan and zoning and to look at the financial
feasibility of the alternative.
Board member Cunningham is also concerned with the impact on the character of the
neighborhood.
Page 7 of 9",PlanningBoard/2009-01-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-01-26,8,"Board member Autorino shares the concerns brought up by the board members. He
sees this project as an opportunity to get rid of the industrial buildings and get people
and houses on the water. He feels that whatever is on the property it must maximize
the waterfront.
President Kohlstrand stated that the members of the public and the board members
have articulated the issues that need to be addressed in the EIR. She would like to see
the City work with the property owner and the community to ensure that something
happens on the site. She suggested that a community workshop be held to discuss
alternatives for the site. She stated that something does need to happen to the site to
revitalize the neighborhood.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft mentioned that the City and residents need to realize that
the property is owned by an individual and there needs to be a balance between the
owners interest and the City's interest. She believes there will be a better overall
outcome if everyone works together. She agreed that it would be nice if it could be
parkland but the City does not have the resources at this time to make that a reality and
someone other than the City owns the property.
Board member Autorino stated that he has taken a boundary tour of the site and would
be very interested to see the inside of the building because it may help with suggesting
alternatives for the site.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft reported that the City of Alameda will be holding a
workshop on Green Building/Bay Friendly Landscape on Tuesday, January 27, 2009 at
the Library from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or
make a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a referral
to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body
at a subsequent meeting concerning a City matter or, through the chair, direct staff to
place a request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda.
Board member Cook asked if anyone knew what was going to be build on the property
in Oakland just over the High Street Bridge. The site was once covered with large
containers, which have been removed. Board member McNamara stated that she had
heard that it was a restaurant supply distribution center. Staff will look into the question.
President Kohlstrand mentioned she has the brochure for the upcoming 2009 National
Planners Conference if anyone is interested. She also acknowledged the passing of
former Planning Board President Mel Sanderson for his contributions to the City of
Alameda.
Page 8 of 9",PlanningBoard/2009-01-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-01-26,9,"12.
ADJOURNMENT:
8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
This meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 9 of 9",PlanningBoard/2009-01-26.pdf