{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-27", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nMONDAY- - -AUGUST 27, 2007- - -6:00 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(07-414) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation\n(54953.9 : Name of Case: Harbor Bay Isle Associates V. City of\nAlameda.\n(07-415) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;\nSignificant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of\nSection 54956. ;Number of cases: One.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Existing Litigation,\nCouncil provided negotiating parameters to Legal Counsel. regarding\nAnticipated Litigation, Council received a briefing from Legal\nCounsel on a potential matter of litigation.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 9:30 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 27, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2007-08-27", "page": 1, "text": "UNAPPROVED\nCOMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nAugust 27, 2007\nTIME\nThe meeting convened at 6:40 P.M.\nPRESENT\nChair Lord-Hausman, Vice-Chair Moore and Commissioners Berger, Fort, Kirola,\nand Longley-Cook.\nABSENT\nCommissioners Hakanson, Robinson and Kreitz.\nMINUTES\nThe minutes of the July 23, 2007 meeting were approved with the following corrections all noted by\nCommissioner Longley-Cook:\nRoll Call:\nCommissioner Longley-Cook stated that she was present at the July 23, 2007 meeting.\nMinutes:\nCommissioner Longley-Cook stated that she made the correction to the June 18, 2007 meeting\nminutes regarding the SSHRB and not Commissioner Kirola.\nOld Business, Item 2:\nIn the first sentence the word \"met\" should be replaced with the word \"meeting;\" and\nStaff Communications:\nThe word \"Board\" should be replaced with the word \"Commission.\"\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nLower Washington Park:\n1. Chair Lord-Hausman discussed the response she received from Dale Lillard, AR&PD Director,\nregarding Lower Washington Park accessibility issues raised by Commissioner Longley-Cook.\nMr. Lillard indicated that the trail in Lower Washington Park ends at the City property line. The\narea in question belongs to the East Bay Regional Park District. Chair Lord-Hausman indicated\nthat she would contact the East Bay Regional Park Supervisor, Anne Rockwell, for possible\nrepairs.\n2. Commissioner Longley-Cook also expressed concern over trying to find disabled parking as well\nas going to visit booths for a disabled person who is not in a motorized wheelchair, during the\nJuly 4th celebration at Rittler Park. Chair Lord-Hausman reviewed Mr. Lillard's written\ncomments to this concern. He indicated that AR&PD have been experimenting with a number of\ndifferent configurations and layouts for the Fun Faire at Rittler Park. During the internal", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2007-08-27", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nAugust 27, 2007\nMinutes\nPage 2 of 5\nevaluation meeting following this year's event, it was determined that both the ticket selling and\nfood booth locations need to be together. They have always provided disabled parking but will\nmake more of an effort to designate the location through the use of directional signs in the\nfuture.\nCarnegie Building:\nChair Lord-Hausman discussed a request from the City's Building Official, Greg McFann, regarding\nefforts to reopen the Carnegie. Mr. McFann indicated that the City is currently working with a\nconsultant to develop a plan to reopen the Carnegie and would like to come before the Commission\nto receive comments on the proposal. Chair Lord-Hausman will contact Mr. McFann for scheduling\na discussion before the Commission.\nNEW BUSINESS\n1. Brown Act Training (Assistant City Attorney):\nAssistant City Attorney Byron Toma conducted a Brown Act Training with the Commissioners.\nThe three main points of the Training discussed the following key points:\nPeople's business must be conducted in public.\nPeople have a right to participate in their government.\nIn order to participate, people must receive adequate\nCommissioner Kirola requested clarification regarding discussion of agenda items with the\n\"\nmajority of members at the same time and place.. during non-meeting\nhours.\nAssistant Attorney Toma responded that any time a majority of the members are gathered\ntogether at any place, (in this case the majority would be five since there are currently nine\nCommissioners) they are prohibited from discussing any action which may be taken by the\ncollective Commission at a future meeting which may influence the outcome of a decision,\nincluding discussing the item in advance of an open meeting and public discussion.\nAssistant Attorney Toma also emphasized that any ceremonial events that the Commission\nsponsors, such as the future scheduled tree planting ceremony, must also be agendized since it is\nan event being sponsored by the Commission and a majority of the members will be in\nattendance.\nOLD BUSINESS\nG:\\Lucretia)CommDisability\\Minutes/(2007\\Minutes_082707.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2007-08-27", "page": 3, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nAugust 27, 2007\nMinutes\nPage 3 of 5\n1. Disability Awareness Month (Vice Chair Moore):\nVice-Chair Moore stated that John McDonald, AR&PD, has confirmed that the Commission\nmay designate one of the redwood trees already planted at Lincoln Park as part of the tree\nplanting ceremony for Disability Awareness Month, as well as place a placard at the bottom of\nthe tree. Mr. McDonald also confirmed that the Commission has the permission do this on a\nyearly basis.\nChair Lord-Hausman requested that Vice-Chair Moore receive written confirmation concerning\nthe placard, S the City just passed a new ordinance banning decals and placards on public\nproperty. The Chair then suggested that the Commission pick a date for the actual ceremony.\nCommissioner Kirola proposed to kick-off the month of October, beginning with the ceremony.\nVice-Chair Moore proposed Saturday, October 6, 2007.\nCommissioner Berger expressed concern over City staffing time for a weekend event.\nVice-Chair Moore responded that she would follow up with Mr. McDonald regarding City\nstaffing.\nThe Commission agreed to have the ceremony on Saturday, October 6, 2007.\nChair Lord-Hausman confirmed that she would check with the Mayor's calendar so that the\nevent may be timed when she is present. The Chair also encouraged the Commissioners to\ninform and invite people to the ceremony.\nCommissioner Berger stated that in the past, the Council has pushed the date back of the\nproclamation for City Council meetings and is concerned that it will happen this year.\nSecretary Akil confirmed that the Council meets the first and third Tuesday of every month and\nthis item should be agendized for the first meeting of the month, which will be October 2, 2007.\nChair Lord-Hausman stated that she would work on not allowing any delays regarding the\nproclamation.\n2. Commission on Disability Internet Link (Chair Lord-Hausman/Secretary Akil):\nChair Lord-Hausman stated that she met with a website designer who understands the City's\nlimited budget on getting an accessibility link up and running within the City's website. The\nG:\\Lucretia)CommDisability\\Minutes/2007\\Minutes_082707.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2007-08-27", "page": 4, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nAugust 27, 2007\nMinutes\nPage 4 of 5\nChair will provide the website designer with an outline of the proposed site and he in return, has\nagreed to provide estimates based on the outline he receives.\nCommissioner Kirola stated her top three accessible links would include parks,, schools and\nhousing and that the list of designated sites be located to the left side of the page.\nCommissioner Berger stated the need to educate others to emphasize what accessibility\nresources are available.\nCommissioner Longley-Cook suggested adding a wheelchair rider's guide, which will provide\nlinks to wheelchair accessible places.\nChair Lord-Hausman asked Commissioner Berger to review AR&PD Summer Activity Guide\nand the Adult School Guide which might offer some information on what accessibility resources\nare currently available in the City.\n3. Commissioner Duties (Chair Lord-Hausman):\nChair Lord-Hausman encouraged the members to be mindful of their ongoing duties and\nresponsibilities to increase disability awareness through the City.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nSecretary Akil acknowledged that Ed Sommerauer would be the Interim Secretary during her\nmaternity leave.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS\n1. Crab Cove Concerts:\nCommissioner Longley-Cook stated that she and Commissioner Hakanson received many\ninquiries regarding the Commission at the last Crab Cove event.\n2. Arthritis Expo:\nCommissioner Longley-Cook shared a flyer regarding the upcoming Arthritis Expo on\nSeptember 15, 2007 in the City of Burlingame at the Hyatt Regency near SFO.\n3. Alameda Hospital Health Fair:\nCommissioner Berger stated the Alameda Hospital Health Fair is scheduled to occur in October.\nChair Lord-Hausman will contact the hospital for the specific date and request that the CDI be\ngiven a table on the inside during the event. This item will be placed on the September 24, 2007\nCDI meeting agenda for continued discussion.\n4. October CDI Meeting:\nG:\\Lucretia)CommDisability\\Minutes)2007\\Minutes_082707.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2007-08-27", "page": 5, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nAugust 27, 2007\nMinutes\nPage 5 of 5\nChair Lord-Hausman requested that the October 22, 2007 CDI meeting date be changed to\nOctober 15, 2007 as she will be out of town. The Commission agreed to the date change and\nrequested that a notice of the meeting date change be included in the September 24 mailing\npacket.\n5. Farmers Market (Webster Street):\nChair Lord-Hausman stated that the Public Works Department would designate handicap\nparking on Taylor Street next to Farmers Market, since Webster Street has heavier traffic flow.\n6. Blanding Avenue Accessibility Issues:\nCommissioner Berger questioned if any action had been taken on the pedestrian access issues\nalong Blanding Avenue. Chair Lord-Hausman stated the issue has been referred to the ADA\nSecretary to be addressed through the on-going ADA Transition Plan update.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThe meeting adjourned at 8:40 P.M. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, September 24, 2007,\n6:30 P.M. in Room 360 at City Hall.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLucretia A. Akil\nCommission Secretary\nG:\\Lucretia)CommDisability\\Minutes/2007\\Minutes_082707.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-08-27", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, August 27, 2007\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:07 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMember McNamara\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Cunningham,\nEzzy Ashcraft, Lynch and McNamara.\nBoard member Mariani was absent.\nAlso present were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Assistant City\nAttorney Donna Mooney.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of July 23, 2007.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that the last paragraph on page 6 should be changed to\nread, \"Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she had met with members of City staff and\nthe Catellus team earlier in the week, and noted that this street site-was not designed with\nparking.\"\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that the first paragraph on page 7 should be changed to\nbe read, \"There had been some question about the driveway for Catellus and future\ninstallation of a right-hand turn. She suggested that if the street had been designed with\nparking, that would have been an option for creating some of the parking may be taken\nout in order to provide-a turn pocket.\"\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that on page 2, the second paragraph under Staff\nCommunications read, \"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why this was such a\ncomplicated process, and noted that only-Alameda and Piedmont were the only cities in\nAlameda County that had not enacted a green building ordinance.'\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 8, paragraph 2, should be changed to read,\n\"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about approval of plans for property not yet\nacquired by the City. She also agreed with Board member Mariani's comments about the\nlack of visuals available for examination with regard to issues raised by Mariner Square\nAthletic Club.\"\nVice President Kohlstrand moved approval of the minutes as amended.\nPage 1 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-08-27", "page": 2, "text": "Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5.\nAbstain - 1 (Cunningham). Absent - 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Cook noted that the staff and the applicant continue Item 8-A, the Annual\nReview of the Development Agreement for Harbor Bay Business Park so that some\nmissing pieces of the background documents could be corrected. The item would be\nheard on September 10, 2007.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to continue Item 8-A to September 10, 2007.\nBoard member Lynch seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Absent - 1\n(Mariani). The motion passed.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\na. Future Agendas\nMs. Woodbury provided an update on future agenda items.\nPresident Cook was concerned about delaying the Measure A Subcommittee report until\nOctober 22.\nMs. Woodbury advised that the next step was for the report to come to the Planning\nBoard to take public comment on the structure of the forum, and to approve it before\nmoving forward.\nPresident Cook noted that two three-hour-long meetings had been held with a facilitator,\nresulting in a failure to reach consensus on any major points. She believed the Planning\nBoard should still move forward in an appropriate forum.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft shared President Cook's feeling about the Measure A forum\nand believed waiting until October 22 would be too long a wait. She would like to move\nforward while the issue was fresher in people's minds. She suggested moving that item to\na meeting in September.\nVice President Kohlstrand inquired whether the summary of the meeting had been\nprepared. Ms. Woodbury confirmed that the summary was available to send to the\ncommittee before bringing it to the Board.\nMs. Woodbury noted that a special meeting may be scheduled in light of the larger\nagenda items scheduled for September.\nPresident Cook suggested agendizing the Measure A subcommittee for September 10,\nallowing a certain amount of time for Alameda Towne Centre to start.\nPage 2 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-08-27", "page": 3, "text": "b.\nZoning Administrator Report\nMs. Woodbury provided the Zoning Administrator report.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the biodiesel storage tank was intended for\nCity vehicles. Ms. Woodbury replied that it was for private use.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nNone.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nNone.\n8-A\nAnnual Review of Development Agreement - DA89-1 - Harbor Bay Business\nPark Association, Harbor Bay Isle Associates and Harbor Bay Entities - Bay\nFarm Island (Primarily Harbor Bay Isle)\nBoard member Cunningham moved to continue Item 8-A to September 10, 2007.\nBoard member Lynch seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Absent -\n1\n(Mariani). The motion passed.\n8-B\nRezoning R07-0002/Planned Development PD07-0002/Parcel Map PM07-\n0004 - Applicant: John & Andrea Medulan - 3236 Briggs Avenue. The applicants\nrequest a Zoning Amendment to add a Planned Development (PD) overlay zoning\ndesignation to the property located at 3236 Briggs Avenue; and a Development\nPlan and Parcel Map (PM) approval to divide the existing 203-foot by 48-foot\nparcel into two parcels, each with an existing single family residence. The site is\nlocated within an R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. (LA)\nBoard member Cunningham moved to adopt A draft Planning Board Resolution to\napprove a Zoning Amendment to add a Planned Development (PD) overlay zoning\ndesignation to the property located at 3236 Briggs Avenue; and a Development Plan and\nParcel Map (PM) approval to divide the existing 203-foot by 48-foot parcel into two\nparcels, each with an existing single family residence.\nVice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.\nAbsent: 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A\nWorkshop to Develop Recommendation for Planning Work Program Priorities\nMs. Woodbury summarized the staff report and detailed the work program priorities,\nparticular those required by State law.\nPage 3 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-08-27", "page": 4, "text": "In response to an inquiry by Board member Lynch whether the City would look at the\nInclusionary Housing Ordinance in addition to the Density Bonus/Second Unit\nOrdinance, Ms. Woodbury replied that was not the plan.\nPresident Cook inquired how the City could comply with the Density Bonus Ordinance if\nAlameda did not have much density due to Measure A. Ms. Woodbury replied that was\nthe conundrum, and that going through the process and reconciling City Ordinances with\nState law would be challenging.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether the definition of\n\"condominium conversion\" was converting an existing building into individual\nownership with tenancy in common, Ms. Woodbury confirmed that was the definition\nused by the City.\nBoard member Lynch noted that because the City was not in compliance with the\nSubdivision Map Act, he requested that staff bring it to the City Attorney's office to bring\nthe City into compliance. Ms. Woodbury noted that work had been initiated with the\nconsultant to go through that process. She added that staff must go through the AMC to\nensure there were no internal inconsistencies.\nBoard member Lynch noted that he applauded staff's efforts, but was also quite concerned\nthat the City may be over the edge of compliance with the law.\nPresident Cook noted that the current subdivision ordinance did not provide for open space\ndedication, and inquired whether that was just for condo conversions. Ms. Woodbury\nreplied that was for all subdivisions.\nMs. Woodbury pointed out that according to the status column, the projects were moving\nalong at the same time, but each additional project slowed everything down.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that this was the same list reviewed with City Council, and\nshe believed it was important to understand what studies were underway. She agreed with\nBoard member Lynch that it was also important to understand what City and staff resources\nwere available to the City, and when the projects were scheduled to be completed. She\nwould also like to know whether anything would be left over; if not, it was not productive\nfor the City. She believed it was difficult to go through the priority exercise with the limited\ninformation available.\nMs. Woodbury replied that nearly everything on the list was started, and that a staff member\nwas assigned to each item. Sometimes, consultants would be available to augment staff,\nwhich was a typical practice. She noted that it was difficult to find enough days to hold the\nkinds of public meetings that were needed to receive the input from the community.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft believed the City should do what was required to get the legal\nrequirements into compliance. It seemed to her that there were several items that could be\nmerged, which should remove some of the time pressure. She inquired whether the staffing\nPage 4 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-08-27", "page": 5, "text": "issue had been solved if some of the work was going out to consultants. Ms. Woodbury\nreplied that staff people were still required to manage a contract, but the bulk of the work\nwould be performed by the consultant. She agreed that complying with State law was key,\nand suggested that the Planning Board identify the top priority as bringing the codes,\nordinances and the General Plan into compliance with State law.\nPresident Cook recommended that the Planning Board make bringing the City's plans and\nordinances into compliance with State law the top priority. She suggested that if necessary,\nadditional resources could be requested from City Council to fulfill that priority.\nMs. Woodbury noted that it was important to plan ahead, even if everything could not be\ncommenced this year. She suggested that staging the projects would make best use of staff\nresources SO that everything did not occur at the same time.\nBoard member McNamara did not believe it was the Planning Board's position to\nmicromanage the Planning Department, and to identify the resources needed to get the work\ndone; she added that was the job of the Planning and Building Director and staff. She\nencouraged the Board to rely on staff to accomplish that goal.\nMs. Woodbury noted that the only item on the first page of the work program not required\nby State law was the Zoning Overlay District. She noted that was an application and\nentitlement submitted by City Council, which the Board must move forward.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that a neighborhood meeting was scheduled for the Fall\nof 2007, and suggested that waiting for that input may make it less of a priority.\nBoard member Lynch inquired whether the City Council had considered the financial\nimpact of that application, and he believed it would cause a tremendous negative impact on\nthat neighborhood. He inquired whether the neighbors were aware of it. Ms. Woodbury\nreplied that would be part of the discussion.\nVice President Kohlstrand believed the Mayor brought that issue up during the joint session.\nBoard member Lynch expressed concern that people may not realize the consequences of\nsuch a petition, and did not want that to be an issue after substantial financial and time\nresources have been expended.\nBoard member Cunningham requested that the impact of parking within the 20-yard front\nyard setback be studied. Ms. Woodbury replied that could be added.\nMs. Woodbury noted that the parking study was completed for Webster and Park Streets,\nbut it did not mean the City could not look at parking regulations for the stations if a change\nin ordinance was being considered. She suggested that there may be flexibility for the\nstations, as well as parking in the front yard setback. She noted that those items may be\nexamined at the same time, with a more global solution.\nPage 5 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-08-27", "page": 6, "text": "Ms. Woodbury noted that the green building ordinance item also includes sustainability, as\nwell as ordinances to eliminate wood-burning fireplaces in new construction. She noted that\nthe City would generate an RFP to get a consulting team to assist in that effort. She noted\nthat there were a number of ordinances in place already, and that they did not want to create\nany internal conflicts that would make a new ordinance ineffective. She added that when\nrequiring LEED certification for remodels and new construction, the historic structures\nshould also be considered. She noted that while they may be green, they may not meet the\nLEED standards.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft believed the Styrofoam (law) ordinance can go under the\nClimate Protection Task Force. She was concerned that with the amount of upcoming new\nconstruction, the City should be up to speed on these sustainability items. She noted that\nStopWaste.org moved its headquarters into a historic building on Franklin Street in\ndowntown Oakland, which had many sustainable elements.\nMs. Woodbury noted that StopWaste.org actually gutted the building because there was\nnothing historic about the interior. They also renovated the entire exterior. She had referred\nto the Carnegie Building, which was intact inside and out. She noted that taking ducting\nthrough the open building would destroy the interior integrity of the historic structure. She\nnoted that the National Trust was working on guidelines for similar situations.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft did not believe the City's concern for the historic element\nshould get in the way of doing a basic green building ordinance, and that add-ons could be\ndone at a later point. She believed that the priority was getting a green building ordinance\nfor new construction.\nWith respect to water conservation, Ms. Woodbury noted that this encompassed Bay-\nfriendly landscape requirements, tree preservation and design standards. These practices\nwould help improve the environment and sustainability.\nPresident Cook would like to see more acknowledgement of the City's orientation to the\nwater as an island, and would like to see more teeth in negotiations with developers.\nMs. Woodbury noted that the Station area Plan for Alameda Point was a grant-funded\nproject being paid for by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which looked at\ndifferent land use alternatives at Alameda Point and their effect on transportation, and on\nmaking it a transit terminal.\nBoard member McNamara inquired whether that was a time-sensitive item. Ms. Woodbury\nreplied that was correct, and that it must be completed for grant funding completion. She\nadded that must be completed by the end of the year.\nMs. Woodbury noted that the Global Sustainability item addressed Alameda doing its part to\nbe as green as possible, and to implement policies and work with the community to improve\nthe environment. She noted that a memorandum was available at the dais that addressed the\nstatus of the work being done by the Climate Protection Task Force.\nPage 6 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-08-27", "page": 7, "text": "Ms. Woodbury noted the possibility of revisiting the Alameda Downtown Vision Plan was a\nDevelopment Services project. She identified that as an additional recommendation of the\nPlanning Board to Development Services to work with the Economic Development\nCommission on the quarterly review.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara regarding the Improved Service\nDelivery item identified in the previous work program, Ms. Woodbury replied that each\nBoard and Commission that the Department staffed was doing its own work plan. She added\nthat item was part of the Customer Service Improvement Committee, which was not a\npublic board; that group worked directly with staff.\nMs. Woodbury noted that the Public Art Commission had developed their work plan, and a\nCultural Arts Grant Program was added after being initiated by the City Council. She added\nthat the Historical Advisory Board had a committee working with some citizens to develop\nan action plan based on the Historic Preservation Element of the General Plan.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that while it was not required by State law, the Station area\nPlan for Alameda Point was required by a legal settlement.\nA general discussion of placement of priorities ensued.\nMs. Woodbury noted that the Measure A workshop was part of the Housing Element\nupdate, and would need to follow the timing of that Element update.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that workshop had major implications for what would\nhappen at the Base.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham, Ms. Woodbury wished to clarify\nthat an amendment to Measure A was not part of the discussion. Board member\nCunningham inquired why the impact of Measure A on the Housing Element was being\nexamined because the substance of Measure A relative to housing was well-known. Ms.\nWoodbury replied that the pros and cons of how Measure A affects the Housing Element\nmust be discussed. She added that the Housing Element discussed \"governmental\nconstraints,\" and that Measure A was a governmental constraint. She noted that the\nworkshop would provide a good platform for public discussion in understanding it.\nPresident Cook noted that the Housing Element was conditionally approved, and had never\nreceived final approval by the State.\nBoard member Lynch believed that Alameda may be vulnerable in not receiving a certified\nHousing Element if they do not tackle the Measure A question. He noted that the Housing\nElement directions have changed, and noted that the legislation was constantly being\nmodified. He noted that not all that was considered to be good in the last round may be\nconsidered positively today. He noted that the requirements for the City were different than\nthey were previously. He noted the connectivity between the mandated legislation\nPage 7 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-08-27", "page": 8, "text": "requirement of the Housing Element that was consistent with the Planning documents, and\nthe analysis of the local ordinances and constraints was now a requirement of the Housing\nElement.\nMs. Woodbury noted that the Housing Element discussed development patterns and\nneighborhoods, and believed that if it remained as is, it would be sufficient for this exercise.\nPresident Cook wanted to ensure that the Housing Element helped inform the development\nof Alameda Point more generally, not just for the sake of the Housing Element by itself.\nMs. Woodbury suggested that the Planning Board prioritize the first three items, and staff\ndistributed the \"dots\" to the Board members.\nMs. Woodbury noted that the large spreadsheet contained an additional project which\ncontained the big box retail definition, as well as appropriate policies and regulations.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Lynch whether there was a fast food policy, and\nnoted that he would like to see a restaurant such as In-and-Out or Sonic, which would\nprovide more healthful food for the kids.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that within the Northern Waterfront, it was stipulated\nthat there be no fast food.\nMs. Woodbury summarized the Board members' priorities:\n1.\nThe Sustainable Ordinances, including the landscape ordinance, received\nfour #1s, and two #2s;\n2.\nThe Design Guidelines for the waterfront, small lot residential and\ncommercial areas received one #1, four #2s, and two #3s;\n3.\nGlobal Sustainability received one #3;\n4.\nThe Parking Ordinance amendments received one #1 and three #3s.\nMs. Woodbury noted that there was not much interest in defining and developing policies\nwith respect to big box retail.\n\"President Cook noted that the Board members only had three dots, and that did not indicate\nlack of interest in other planning projects.\"\nVice President Kohlstrand wished to note that the big projects (such as Alameda Landing\nand South Shore Towne Centre) were not on this list, and were assumed to be continuing.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the items mandated by the State were set aside\nfrom the voting categories by the board.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether the Board would consider\nbringing back the Downtown Vision Task Force, Ms. Woodbury replied that the City\nPage 8 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-08-27", "page": 9, "text": "Council had recalled that was a Development Services project, and that they would be the\nlead department before taking it to the EDC.\nPresident Cook requested copies of the quarterly reports, and recalled that there were many\nimportant concepts in the Vision Plan that are probably still relevant.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would like see more business activity on\nWebster Street, especially as the development of Alameda Landing continues. She\nsuggested that may be addressed by EDC and Development Services.\nMs. Woodbury noted that staff would provide updates to the Planning Board when they are\navailable.\nNo action was taken.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\n10-A Status of Compliance with Conditions of Approval for Bridgeside Shopping\nCenter\nMs. Woodbury noted that Planner Douglas Vu was working with Bridgeside to complete\ncompliance with other conditions of approval before signing off on the site. Staff went\nthrough Board member McNamara's memo and responded in writing regarding the status\nof Bridgeside. She noted that the Board would take a walk-through of the site once it was\ncompleted.\nBoard member McNamara noted that after reviewing the response, and that she had\nmissed the final approval meeting on the project. She believed that some of the responses\nto her concerns seems somewhat weak in that when a wooden lattice, one would assume\nthat plants would be planted under the lattice to cover it. From the response, it seemed\nthat was not the intent for the landscaping. She did not believe that a lattice was a design\nfeature; the addition of wisteria or bougainvillea did constitute a design feature. She\nfound it hard to believe that it had taken so long to get the canopies and fabrics approved\nand put it. She would like to meet with Mr. Vu to review the details, and try to learn from\nit moving forward. She believed that some of the responses were disheartening.\nMs. Woodbury wished to respond to the Compliance with Conditions, and noted that\nstaff was charged with ensuring that the Building side worked on all the Building Code\nissues, that Planning worked with the approved plans through the permit process, and that\nthe planners work on resolving any issues with respect to compliance with the conditions\nof the discretionary approvals. She noted that on projects of any size, it was the last 10%\nthat took 90% of the time, which was the nature of the business.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that on page 2, she was concerned about the response\nwith respect to a driveway that had been designated off of Tilden Way. She understood\nPage 9 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-08-27", "page": 10, "text": "and realized that Mr. Vu was not the original planner. She noted that there had been a\ndisconnect between what the Planning Board was looking for, what was in the staff\nreport, and what ended up being built. She wanted to ensure that the conditions reflected\nthe stated intentions of the Planning Board. She would like to see more reflection of the\nBoard members' emotional comments to give the conditions the teeth they expected. She\nnoted that she had become very frustrated with this project, and added that the staff report\nread, \"On August 22, the Board reviewed and approved 6-1, the final waterfront design,\nlandscaping and building elevations.\" She wished to correct that vote, which was 5-1,\nbecause she was opposed to the project at that time; Board member McNamara was\nabsent.\nMs. Woodbury would like to have this discussion on-site, and that she would be able to\nhelp the Board through this process in articulating their wishes. She agreed with President\nCook that the Board should not have to review every single detail in the conditions. She\nnoted that the approval was in the resolution, and suggested that the Board ensure that the\nappropriate items were captured in the conditions.\nPresident Cook expressed concern that the comments that were carefully documented in\nthe minutes don't seem to carry much weight over time in the projects. Ms. Woodbury\nnoted that they must be included in the conditions of approval.\nVice President Kohlstrand cautioned that the Board should not do the staff's job, and\nalthough she understood President Cook's frustration, she did not want to further slow the\nprocess down.\nPresident Cook noted that because staff had little time with the drawings and documents,\nthe Board members had even less time to review them.\nPage 10 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-08-27", "page": 11, "text": "11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember Mariani).\nBoard member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Vice President\nKohlstrand).\nVice President Kohlstrand advised that there had been no meetings since her last report.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board\nMember Cunningham).\nBoard member Cunningham noted that as the report on the dais indicated, the report\nwould go into a draft local action plan mode, and will return to the Task Force for review.\nHe believed it would go through the various Boards for their review and comment, which\nwas not noted in the summary. He noted that it contained a wide range of action plans\nand suggestions, and that it would go to City Council for review and possible approval.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft requested information regarding the newly remodeled\nLong's on Santa Clara Avenue, which did not appear to have any bike parking outside.\nMs. Woodbury noted that it was not required on the plans, but she would discuss it with\nLong's. She felt confident that they would install a bike rack.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n8:42 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThese minutes were approved at the September 24, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This\nmeeting was audio and video taped.\nPage 11 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf"}