body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2011-12-12,1,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2011
7:00 p.m.
1. CONVENE:
7:05 P.M.
2. FLAG SALUTE:
Board Member Autorino
3. ROLL CALL:
Present: President Ezzy Ashcraft, Vice-President Autorino, Board
members Burton, Henneberry, Kohlstrand, and Zuppan.
Absent: None
4. MINUTES:
Minutes from the Regular meeting of April 25, 2011.
Motion to approve the minutes by Board member Autorino approved, seconded by Board
member Kohlstrand, and approved 5-0.
Minutes from the Regular meeting of October 10, 2011.
Amendments to minutes made by Board member Zuppan regarding page 6 of 12, 5th
paragraph from the bottom where the business operated without a license. Her
understanding was staff would follow up with the business owner in order to make sure
there were no other outstanding penalties and that was not noted in October's minutes.
President Ezzy Ashcraft explained that she already calendared that to come back for
review, but asked Board member Zuppan if she would like to propose an additional
sentence or clause.
Board member Zuppan stated that the sentence should include a follow up order
regarding the issue.
President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the amendment would be noted.
Board member Zuppan made comments on page 8 of 12, the 2nd paragraph regarding
her problem with inconsistencies about the applicant's statements. She did not want it to
be confused about the closing time.
President Ezzy Ashcraft confirmed the amendment to revise the first sentence of the 2nd
paragraph in order to clarify the inconsistencies of the applicant's statements.
Board member Zuppan further commented on about page 9 of 12, the 2nd paragraph.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 13
December 12, 2011",PlanningBoard/2011-12-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2011-12-12,2,"She stated that her proposal was not for conditions to be removed. She believed the
permit should come back for review and then conditions could be verified or evaluated,
but not be removed.
President Ezzy Ashcraft, asked whether to strike those comments or remove them
altogether.
Board member Zuppan stated that she would like the word ""removed"" replaced with the
word ""evaluated.""
Board member Zuppan made comments to page 10 of 12, the 2nd paragraph regarding
the parking requirements. She meant that parking should be lowered not raised.
President Ezzy Ashcraft confirmed that the initial comments should be amended to say
reduced rather than increased.
Board member Zuppan stated yes and parking should be reduced below 200.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for additional amendments to the minutes.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Motion to
approve by Zuppan, 2nd by Burton and 4-0, 1 abstention (.
Minutes from the Regular meeting of October 24. 2011. (pending)
Minutes from the Regular meeting of November 28. 2011. (pending)
5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Ezzy Ashcraft spoke to the Planning Service Manager Andrew Thomas and
discussed moving Item 9-C, status report to the proposed update to the public art
program, to the consent calendar. Decision was made to keep it on the regular agenda.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Written Report
6-A
Future Agendas
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, provided an overview of upcoming
projects.
7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 13
December 12, 2011",PlanningBoard/2011-12-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2011-12-12,3,"8. CONSENT CALENDAR:
None
9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A. PLN11-0315- Wendell Stewart - 219 Santa Clara Avenue. Design Review of a
single-family residence requesting to stucco over existing wood siding and
shingles on residence.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Services Manager, presented the staff report,
provided a brief summary of the City's design review guidelines and the issues of
interpreting the guideline's language in relation to the project. She further explained to the
Board members that there was a fine line in interpreting the language outlining the fact that
buildings with original wood siding should not have stucco applied in an attempt to
modernize the building. Thus, she came before the Board to review this sentence.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for Board questions or comments.
Board member Kohlstrand asked whether the proposal is to retain the shingles at the very
peak of the roof and place the stucco on the bottom, and would the shutters be retained on
the house.
Ms. Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that the homeowner could explain the process once he is
called to speak. However, she stated most of the building would be covered in stucco.
Board member Autorino stated that his perception of the design review guidelines was
meant to prevent old Victorian homes from being covered with stucco.
Ms. Kavanaugh-Lynch responded by saying that staff struggled with the guidelines
especially since there was a movement within the City years ago to modernize the
appearance of homes. Staff believes given the look of the house with the other neighboring
homes on the street that the stucco will not modernize the house.
Vice President Autorino asked staff if the wood shingles on this house could be rehabbed
and if they could not, would the replacement of the shingles and siding be considered
modernization?
Ms. Kavanaugh-Lynch stated not exactly since as long as the design treatment and
materials are compatible with the house and the neighborhood.
Vice President Autorino replied that there are two opposed ideas: (1) The home must be
compatible with neighborhood, thus stucco would be compatible with the neighborhood and
(2) The design guidelines state that owners cannot modernize their homes.
Ms. Kavanaugh-Lynch stated yes, but the homeowner cannot modernize their home using
stucco. Therefore, there is a challenge with the design review in the City of Alameda. If
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 13
December 12, 2011",PlanningBoard/2011-12-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2011-12-12,4,"homeowners were to replace their wood siding with aluminum siding that would be
acceptable, but homeowners cannot apply stucco.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for public comment.
Wendell Stewart, 219 Santa Clara Avenue property owner, said the siding is dry rotten and
cannot be refurbished, but must be replaced. Furthermore, he went on to say two neighbors
whose houses are identical to his were allowed by the City to replace their wood siding with
Sears Vinyl Siding.
Board member Kohlstrand asked Mr. Stewart if the stucco would go all the way up to the
peak and would he retain the shutters.
Mr. Stewart explained the stucco would go all the way up to the peak and he would replace
the shutters with new waterproof shutters that closely match the old ones. Also, the molding
will closely match the existing molding.
Sonia Christensen Stewart, 219 Santa Clara Avenue property owner, presented the history
of their project to the Board. She explained that the present condition of the house requires
constant maintenance and there were occasional leaks through the paneling during the
rainy seasons. She and her husband conducted a lot of research and reviewed vinyl siding
and stucco, and the findings revealed stucco was the best option.
Ruth Smiler, 221 Santa Clara property owner, explained to the Board that her house
contains stucco and she moved to the property a little over one year ago. According to a
house inspector that was hired, her house was always made of stucco. She further
explained that many houses within the neighborhood are similar in style and they have
stucco material so she supports the project.
Board member Burton, explained that he visited the neighborhood and found the majority of
the houses contain stucco. Therefore, he believes the design guideline's clause to
modernize the house using stucco does not explain the project coming before the Board.
Board member Kohlstrand, Vice President Autorino, and Board member Zuppan agreed
with Board member Burton.
President Ezzy Ashcraft commented on her dissection of the sentence regarding the
stucco, original wood siding, and shingles. She believed that the sentence includes
""should not,"" which is suggestive language and the word ""modernize"" is a relative
concept, meaning World War II dwellings would not necessarily be considered historical.
She also explained that it would be hard to know which houses are in its original state
and which houses contain stucco so, she supports project.
Board member Autorino called to approve the design review, Board member Zuppan
2nd the motion and approved 5-0.
9-B.
Housing Element Workshop - The City of Alameda has prepared a draft update
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 13
December 12, 2011",PlanningBoard/2011-12-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2011-12-12,5,"to the Housing Element of the General Plan pursuant to State Law and Government
Code regulations. The Housing Element provides a seven year plan to address the
housing needs of current and future Alameda citizens. The Planning Board will hold
a public workshop to review and discuss revisions to the Draft Housing Element that
may be necessary to comply with State of California requirements.
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, provided a brief Power Point presentation
about the Draft Housing Element under the City of Alameda's General Plan. He also
outlined the public process and the upcoming schedule to finalize the document.
Jennifer Gastelum, Service Lead for Pacific Municipal Consultants, worked on and
certified 41 housing elements in her career. She presented the remaining Power Point
presentation, which explained the California Department of Housing and Community
Development's (HCD) 8-page response to the City of Alameda's Draft Housing Element
document. The HCD's comments were separated into three categories: 1) Land
Inventory; 2) Constraints and 3) State Law Updates.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked staff to define zoning and allocating land for emergency
shelters.
Jennifer Gastelum, explained that emergency shelters were defined for the homeless not
for natural disasters.
Andrew Thomas explained that he had two requests from the Board. He first wanted to
make sure they understood what staff and the Planning Board were diving into regarding
the schedule and public process. He also, explained that staff is looking for strategies to
make this process as successful as possible.
President Ezzy Ashcraft responded that many people attending the meeting have not
read the staff report, thus she asked staff to give an example of multi-family housing in
the Alameda.
Mr. Thomas explained that in the staff report under attachment 3, there are many
examples of multi-family buildings that the public can recognize, which would help
educate and inform the public. He went on to give an example of the density found at the
221 Clinton Avenue. The building contains 7-units of multi-family rental housing built
many years ago. He found that illustrating various housing types and densities within the
staff report shows HCD that the City has made land available for residential density.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for Board member questions or comments and there
none.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for public comment.
Joy Chin-Malloy, Alameda resident for 32 years, stated that she has four children and
none of her children feel they are welcomed into the City. Her youngest child would like
to live in the City, and he has moved his family into her home. However, her neighbors
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 13
December 12, 2011",PlanningBoard/2011-12-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2011-12-12,6,"City to qualify for more money, especially affordable housing. Furthermore, he stated that
supplying housing will attract businesses and the housing element is part of being a
responsible environmental community in terms of energy consumption. He would like to see
the plan approved so the City has a chance to see how it works and be able remove the
obstacles. So, he would like for the Board and staff to find ways to accelerate the public
process and move the first hearing up to February from March.
Diane Lichtenstein, Vice President of HOMES, congratulated the Planning Board and staff
for their report and advancing planning throughout the year. The Alameda Housing Element
will be a huge advantage for the City and will provide housing opportunities for individuals
and families who cannot afford market rate housing.
Helen Sause, member of HOMES, applauded the staff and the process to achieve HCD
approval of the Alameda Housing Element. She first explained that the housing element is
critical for the City to receive state funding and for the City to avoid lawsuits. Secondly, she
hoped that density will be a non-issue as the City and public move along with the process.
She also wanted to see building diversity rather than monolithic suburban style residential
housing. Lastly, she believed this housing element will give the City a chance for a variety of
housing types. Alameda has successfully provided housing opportunities for low and
moderate residents and workers and this is an important aspect and opportunity.
Doug Biggs, resident of Alameda and member of HOMES, thanked staff for getting the
process started and assembling a good team that knows how to get housing built. He stated
that building housing is the main objective and setting aside land and inclusionary housing
for income types. He appealed to staff and the Board to use this process to showcase City
pride and exhibit the City's accomplishments.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident, commended the Board and staff for moving the housing
element forward and filling a long-term gap within the general plan. He believes the lack of
compliance is important for the city's funding plus legal liability. He stated that the City must
take care of is responsibilities from the state's standpoint and he reaffirmed Doug's
statement regarding City pride. He also noted that the City must accomplish more than what
they have done in the past (aesthetically speaking) before Measure A was passed. He
explained the need for higher density residential developments in the City in order to keep
people out of their cars and utilize public transit services.
Lois Pryor, member of Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, stated she was really gratified
that the City is taking on this difficult task and encouraged the City to have businesses move
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 13
December 12, 2011",PlanningBoard/2011-12-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2011-12-12,7,"here in order to level the job/housing balance. She also asked the City to provide homes for
all residents and to have the housing element done in a timely manner so housing can be
built within a reasonable timeframe.
Lynette Lee, Member of renewed Hope and former executive director for a non-profit
organization that built and managed 1,400 affordable housing units. She asked the Board
members to take a bold approach to get the housing element approved by considering
higher densities of more than 30 units per acre. She went on to say that for the next
meeting, she will bring pictures of affordable housing developments of 60 units and more to
show the Board and staff how affordable housing can be attractive and complement the
neighborhood. She also brought up the demise of California's Redevelopment Agencies and
how the agency's revenue was critical to constructing affordable housing.
Laura Thomas, President of Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, explained that the
organization was formed in 1999 to fight for rehabbing the former navy housing parcel
called East Housing. She stated that the former Planning Board did not welcome their
organization's East Housing proposal. So, she asked staff and the Board to create
residential opportunities for all income levels, working people, and families. She
commended the staff and Board for taking up the housing element finally because the
Board must show leadership as well as accelerate the timeline.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for Board member comments and questions.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called on Board member Henneberry to make comments on
affordable housing and housing for working families.
Board member Henneberry stated that his day job represents mainly grocery store and
butcher union members so workers housing is a critical issue. He felt that being able to
live where one works comes up within the redevelopment agency and this should be
addressed in the housing element.
Board member Zuppan noticed that the illustrations don't show the parking impacts. She
also stated that since current public transit service is so volatile in Alameda County, the
staff and Planning Board should discuss issues regarding traffic impacts, parking, and
public transportation within the housing element. She asked Andrew Thomas to post the
presentation on the City's website. Finally, she was curious about the idea of having to
have 16 units altogether. She felt it was important to spread affordable housing
throughout neighborhoods rather than having them clumped in one dense location.
Mr. Thomas responded by saying that parking concerns are a legitimate concern.
Moreover, he pointed out that staff has to looked at the parking requirements at the
chosen sites. He went on to explain that early this year or end of last year the Planning
Board and community completed a comprehensive review of parking requirements for all
uses including residences on Park and Webster Streets. He also stated that he would
post the presentation on the web absolutely. Lastly, he wanted to point out that the 16
unit requirement made by HCD doesn't mean that affordable housing has to be put on
one site in projects of 16 units or more. HCD defines large sites or by definition, sites
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 13
December 12, 2011",PlanningBoard/2011-12-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2011-12-12,8,"that are large enough to accommodate at least 16 units are zoned at a certain density so
the land can facilitate a range of housing types.
President Ezzy Ashcraft raised an issue regarding residential development and its
proximity to transportation, parking, and density.
Mr. Thomas stated the initial list of sites is to get everyone thinking about the
functionality. As staff goes through the process internally and reviews the sites with the
public, then staff will be able to look at the whole list of sites in order to ask for
recommendations. He reaffirmed the notion that access to public transit is part of the
criteria for selecting sites, especially for higher density multi-family and senior housing
types.
Board member Kohlstrand stated that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission is
implementing the One Bay Area Grant Program where funding is contingent on certain
strategies related to smart growth, adopting a housing element, including affordable
housing, constructing complete streets and a few more. The grant program is being
reviewed at the regional level under designated priority development areas. Therefore,
cities and counties are not sure if transit money is going where development is going.
Vice President Autorino asked staff what level of difficulty does Measure A introduce to
this process.
Mr. Thomas responded by saying that Measure A raises some level of difficulty, but it is
an insurmountable hurdle. Measure A is the citywide requirement, which says that multi-
family housing should not be built and that runs into the face of state law. However, the
City of Alameda does build multi-family housing, through density bonuses and other
ways. As a community, we are building good projects and will continue this effort. He
explained that the current zoning ordinance says maximum density of 21 units per acre
and density bonuses of 29 units per acre are allowed and the City will waive the multi-
family prohibition. Although, technically the City doesn't permit multi-family housing, the
City will waiver the rule on specific sites and density bonuses create considerable
density.
Vice President Autorino reaffirmed the statement that the City recognized the obstacles
created by Measure A, but understood the process of going around the measure to
create residential density. He also commented about the project timeline and whether it
could be expedited without jeopardizing other priority projects.
Mr. Thomas stated the faster we move along the better. The way staff laid the timeline
out staff can't get all the responses drafted before the first meeting in March. He
explained that he wants a good comprehensive set of opinions and once staff receives
the first draft, the Planning Board and residents control the pace entirely.
Vice President Autorino stated it is very important to do things right and not over commit
staff's time.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 13
December 12, 2011",PlanningBoard/2011-12-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2011-12-12,9,"Mr. Thomas replied that he is confident that staff will get the comments and complete the
package for the first meeting in March.
Board member Kohlstrand commended on the handout and she stated that it is
important for the public to understand the density levels within Alameda and different
types of development that occur outside of Alameda. She agreed with those who believe
the process should move along quickly and she urged staff to engage with all community
groups. She also asked staff if they identified locations for mobile homes.
Jennifer Gastelum, replied that if there are mobile homes allowed in the City's zoning
ordinance then staff would look into it. There is a list of things such as residential care
facilities, second units, transitional housing, and more which staff must check off.
Board member Kohlstrand asked if the state published a ratio outlining the number of
homeless shelters required to serve a city's total population.
Jennifer Gastelum, replied that there isn't a state wide ratio, but staff has come up with a
number by meeting with local homeless advocates. The state generally wants to see
how many acres of land are made available for a shelter.
Board member Kohlstrand asked whether the housing element evaluates the City's
jobs/housing balance and integrates an economic development strategy.
Mr. Thomas responded to Linette Lee's density per acre statement, which forces the City
to find lots of acreage. He further explained that the City is opting to create higher
density in select parcels in order for some of the sites identified as residential to be
zoned as commercial.
Board member Kohlstrand asked staff about zoning Alameda Point.
Mr. Thomas replied that the HCD made changes to state law where cities that
overpromise land for residential purposes will be penalized. Therefore, if the City
overpromises residential inventory the supply that was not made available for residential
use will roll over to the next evaluation cycle. Thus, staff has not rezoned Alameda Point
for cycle 2007-2014 for this reason.
Board member Burton stated that the 29 units per acre threshold for density bonuses
should be modified.
Mr. Thomas clarified by explaining that the state does not consider the City's density
bonus ordinance as a measure of density because the density bonus is a discretionary
process. So, staff will zone select sites from the total 25 identified sites and allow the
maximum number of units to be built on the parcel.
Board member Burton stated that the City must have the conversation to amend
Measure A in order to permit the maximum 30 units per acre and construct multi-family
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 13
December 12, 2011",PlanningBoard/2011-12-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2011-12-12,10,"housing. This means the City must have a transparent conversation with the community
and that would include public workshops in order to have community buy-in.
Mr. Thomas stated that staff has conducted workshops throughout the years, but the
issue is how to get a wide range of residents to participate. In the past, the Going
Forward Community Workshop posed great success and was relatively affordable.
Board member Burton asked about development parking requirements and transit usage
paralleling residential density. He implored staff and the Board to consider building a
variety of housing for all income levels.
President Ezzy Ashcraft welcomed the public's feedback. She asked Linette Lee to send
Andrew Thomas examples of high-density developments before the next meeting in
order to incorporate the illustrations into the staff report. She also requested that staff
and the Board continue the conversation about the jobs to housing balance. She
mentioned that public participation was called out as one of the deficiencies in the HCD
comment report at the bottom of page 7, paragraph D. Therefore, workbooks and online
responses using the Moving Forward Workshop template should be used and staff
should consider taking workshops on the road. The City should also capitalize on the
need for smaller square foot housing, which was reported by the Home Builder's
Association and create aesthetically pleasing multifamily housing that works for all
income levels. Finally, the Board must review and modify, if necessary, the proposed
process and sequence described within this report.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for a motion to approve the Alameda Housing Element
process as described.
Board member Henneberry approves the motion, 2nd by Board member Kohlstrand, but
caveat to have some consideration on public outreach, and approved 5-0.
9-C. Hold a Public Hearing to hear a Status Report on the Proposed Update to the
Public Art Program and Review and Accept the Annual Report for the Public Art
Fund as Required by the Public Art Ordinance TIME [2:24:53]
Laura Ajello, Planner Il for the Public Art Commission, spoke about the annual report for
the public art fund. The Planning Board is filling the role for the Public Art Commission
and the meeting is to allow the public to speak about the City's public art and the overall
process.
Vice President Autorino stated that the City would spend $35,000, which was approved
by council last year to have a consultant review the Public Art Commission's process.
There are three or four elements that the consultant will review and he wants to know
what to expect from the findings.
Laura Ajello, explained that the City wants a public art policy that works, and the current
policy is not working. The Public Art Commission did not meet in fiscal years 2009/2010
and the last art project was created for Warmington Homes in Grand Marina in 2008.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 13
December 12, 2011",PlanningBoard/2011-12-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2011-12-12,11,"She stated that developers are not contributing to the fund, given the economic climate
and the Public Art Commission has not received any funding. So, with the City
Manager's urging, staff wants to create an art policy that works.
Vice President Autorino asked if the consultant would work with staff to either restructure
or eliminate the public arts committee and how funds should be spent going forward.
Laura Ajello, replied that the study would allow staff to setup a system to maximize the
use of funds and how to generate of funds.
Board member Kohlstrand stated that $35,000 isn't a large sum for a large study, and
since the City hasn't had public art since 2008, we're not generating enough funds from
large developments. She then asked if developments are required to provide art on site
and/or pay in-lieu fees.
Laura Ajello, stated that there is an option for developers to contribute to the public art
fund in-lieu of having a project on their own site. The last contribution was for a Summer
House, which contributed $7,500 to the commission's fund last fiscal year. The last
public art project was built by Perforce Software on Blanding Avenue.
Board member Kohlstrand asked if Perforce Software paid for the art piece directly.
Laura Ajello, exclaimed yes they did and the project went to the Public Art Commission
for approval.
Board member Kohlstrand, asked if Perforce Software paid an in-lieu fee.
Laura Ajello, answered no, the policy is either to pay to construct an art piece onsite or
pay the amount you would have paid for the art piece to the Public Art Commission. She
also noted that if the developer doesn't spend enough money on the public art then they
would have to pay the difference in-lieu. In this case, Perforce Software went above the
requirement.
Board member Kohlstrand questioned the public art program's performance and the
Board's position going forward.
Laura Ajello, replied that in order to keep the public art program-going staff is looking for
feedback from the Board and the public. One suggestion is to buy art from local artists
and display them in city buildings. Another option is to lower the cap of $150,000 or
lower the threshold from 1/4 million so developers can easily contribute.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked if VF Outdoor, Inc. at Harbor Bay Business Park paid into
a public art fund.
Laura Ajello, explained that Harbor Bay was developed before 2003 and at that time the
public art fund was not created, so they are not accountable.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 11 of 13
December 12, 2011",PlanningBoard/2011-12-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2011-12-12,12,"Mr. Thomas stated that developers pay into a public art fund if it is written into the
development agreements.
Board member Burton stated that staff should reach out to a wide variety of the art
community. He questioned whether the Public Art Commission should make investments
into one gateway project or foster the arts in some creative way by supporting local
artists that benefit the community.
Board member Zuppan asked staff if they looked into public-private partnerships. She
found that in nearly every meeting, especially with the business community there is
strong support for gateway work.
Laura Ajello, stated that option would be considered.
President Ezzy Ashcraft, called for public comment.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident, stated that in 2008 he discovered former Mayor
Beverly Johnson failed to appoint enough members to the Transportation Commission
which did not create a quorum and he soon found out that the Public Art Commission
had a lack of appointment. The consequence was lack of progress and discussion by a
body that was literally non-existent. He trusts that this expenditure will help get things
back on track.
Carol Gottstein, Alameda resident, has friends who are artists and who would like to be
more involved in this process, but they don't know how to do that. They don't realize that
public art projects are presented before the Planning Board. Otherwise, they would have
been here. She requested that the City provide more outreach to local artists so they can
become more involved.
Laura Ajello, responded that staff conducted out reach to art community and had a
workshop last September. She explained that the artists wanted to identify more of their
peers to get public comment. She also retains artists' contacts information and sends
meeting notices and appeals for public comment to bring forth before the Board.
Vice President Autorino asked about the $21,000 received from Perforce Software.
Laura Ajello, stated the $21,000 from Perforce is a running tally from the inception of the
public art program. From the last fiscal year, there were no expenditures and the only
revenue received was from interest and Summer House's $7,500 in-lieu contribution.
The others date back from 2003 so it's difficult to read this.
Vice President Autorino stated that he understood this; he questioned whether the Board
was comfortable enough to approve the study to the City Council.
Laura Ajello, stated if you look at last year's report, included in the attachment to the
Board this is a boilerplate report produced by finance and this format hasn't changed.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 12 of 13
December 12, 2011",PlanningBoard/2011-12-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2011-12-12,13,"Board member Kohlstrand asked if the account balance was correct,
Laura Ajello, responded yes it comes from our finance department.
President Ezzy-Ashcraft stated no motion was necessary to move forward.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Board member Zuppan asked the Board to come back to review the design guidelines at
some point and examine specific areas that are frustrating or difficult for staff.
Mr. Thomas replied that would be an excellent idea and staff talks about that all the time.
Board member Kohlstrand wanted to acknowledge Jean Sweeney's contribution over the
years. She passed away last week or so and she did so much for the City and spent lots
of hours at the Planning Board.
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.
12. ADJOURNMENT:
9:49
PM
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 13 of 13
December 12, 2011",PlanningBoard/2011-12-12.pdf