{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-13", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -NOVEMBER 13, 2007- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:21 p.m.\nCouncilmember Gilmore led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL - Present : louncilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Management Partners report on the workshop is hereto attached\nand made part of the minutes by reference.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(07-539) Workshop on City Priority-Setting Project.\nThe agenda for the workshop was: finalize objectives and purpose\nstatement, discuss progress reporting on highest priorities;\ndevelop procedure for adding to or modifying the work plan; and\nwrap up and next steps.\n***\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 7:46 p.m. and reconvened the\nSpecial Meeting at 8:02 p.m.\n***\nPUBLIC COMMENT\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 9:45 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\nNovember 13, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-13", "page": 2, "text": "CITY\nOF\nCITY OF ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA\nSUMMARY OF CITY COUNCIL AND\nEXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT TEAM\nPRIORITY SETTING WORKSHOP HELD ON\nNOVEMBER 13, 2007\nDecember 2007\nMANAGEMENT PARTNERS\nI\nN C o R P o R A T E D", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-13", "page": 3, "text": "City of Alameda\nSummary of Priority Setting Workshop - November 13, 2007\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\nNOVEMBER 13, 2007 PRIORITY SETTING WORKSHOP\n1\nPRIORITY SETTING PROCESS PURPOSE\n1\nNOVEMBER 13 WORKSHOP AGENDA\n1\nWORKSHOP GROUND RULES\n2\nRECAP OF SEPTEMBER 11 WORKSHOP:\n2\nBETWEEN SEPTEMBER 12 AND NOVEMBER 13\n2\nREVISED CITY PURPOSE STATEMENT\n2\nCITYWIDE POLICY OBJECTIVES\n3\nCURRENT PROJECT/WORK PLAN REPORTING FORMATS\n3\nDISCUSSION OF HIGHEST CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES\n4\nCITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PROCEDURES\n5\nISSUE BIN\n6\nNEXT STEPS\n6\nATTACHMENT A - LIST OF HIGHEST AND HIGH COUNCIL\nPRIORITIES\n7", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-13", "page": 4, "text": "City of Alameda\nSummary of Priority Setting Workshop - November 13, 2007\nNOVEMBER 13, 2007 PRIORITY SETTING WORKSHOP\nOn November 13, 2007, the City Council and Executive Management Team met from 6 - 10\np.m. in the Library for a priority setting workshop. Jan Perkins and Nancy Hetrick of\nManagement Partners facilitated the workshop.\nThe workshop was the second of two sessions planned. The priority setting process began\nwith staff creating work plans to articulate the special projects of City departments. This\nprocess is timely because of the start of the next two-year budget cycle in early 2008, and\nthe addition of new members to the Executive Management Team.\nPriority Setting Process Purpose\nThe purpose of the entire priority setting process is to:\nProvide Council direction on priorities for the work plan for the next 2-3 years\nProvide an opportunity to strengthen Council understanding of staff's current work plans\nand resources available to carry them out\nCreate mutual understanding and agreement between the Council and Executive\nManagement Team on a process of reporting progress on work plans\nCreate mutual understanding and agreement between the Council and Executive\nManagement Team on a process of modifying priorities once adopted (adding/deleting\nprojects to meet changing needs) that includes adjusting existing priorities or adding\nresources to ensure new projects can be completed and Council priorities met\nThe focus of the workshop held on September 11, 2007, was the following:\nIdentification of factors affecting the City over the next several years\nConfirmation or modification of draft citywide objectives\nUnderstanding of current work plans for City departments\nInitial understanding of Council priorities\nNovember 13 Workshop Agenda\n1. Welcome and Introductions\n2. Finalize objectives and purpose statement\n3. Discuss progress reporting on highest priorities\n4. Develop procedure for adding to or modifying the work plan\n5. Public comment\n6. Wrap up and next steps\nManagement Partners, Inc.\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-13", "page": 5, "text": "City of Alameda\nSummary of Priority Setting Workshop - November 13, 2007\nWorkshop Ground Rules\nThe ground rules for the September 11th workshop, set by the Council and staff, were used\nfor the November 13th workshop. The ground rules were:\nKeep a sense of humor\nBe direct and diplomatic\nOne person speak at a time\nEveryone participate - have an open dialogue\nListen\nRespect the work that went into this\nRecap of September 11 workshop:\nDiscussed Alameda's recent successes\nPresented and discussed an Environmental Scan prepared by staff\nConducted Strengths, Weaknesses/Limitations Opportunities, Threats brainstorm\nReviewed and modified citywide policy objectives\nReviewed departmental work plans (programs/projects)\nCouncil members identified highest and high priorities\nBetween September 12 and November 13\nManagement Partners prepared report summarizing work accomplished at the 9/11\nworkshop, including next steps\nStaff discussed progress reporting format to ensure Council is informed\nManagement Partners provided information about how cities address new initiatives, and\nstaff brainstormed how such a process might work in Alameda\nManagement Partners prepared agenda for 11/13 workshop\nRevised City Purpose Statement\nThe Council reviewed the proposed purpose statement and made the following revision:\nThe City of Alameda focuses its resources on providing services that enhance\nthe quality of life for its residents and promote the prosperity of its business\ncommunity.\nManagement Partners, Inc.\n2", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-13", "page": 6, "text": "on the work plan. The three methods are:\n1. Off Agenda Reporting\n2. Detailed Quarterly Reports\n3. Formal Council Reports\nShe then presented the staff's suggested new method of reporting on Council priorities:\nCMO Quarterly Report: Updates on the highest priorities reported-align to citywide\npolicy objectives (referred to as the \"Lisa Report\")\nDepartment quarterly reports: Will sequence order of update by level of priority\n(highest priorities first, high priorities next, all remaining items to follow) and will\ninclude information on Hot Topics/ Emerging issues\nCouncil feedback on reporting formats:\nUse the \"reasonableness rule\" for how much information to include\nNeed to discuss/consider the timing and schedule - streamline with other reporting\ncycles\n\"Lisa's report\" could be in bullet format - keep it easy to read\nDepartmental quarterly reports are informative but lack context (in terms of\ndepartmental or city priorities); context will make more useful\nGoals and time lines are very important and need to be incorporated into quarterly\nreports\nManagement Partners, Inc.\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-13", "page": 7, "text": "City of Alameda\nSummary of Priority Setting Workshop - November 13, 2007\nConsider modifying the current work plan template to make it a tool to provide\nupdates rather than the quarterly reports-standardize the format\nNeed to identify impacts/trade-offs of work plan activities\nA punch list approach to the status pending in process would be useful (and context\nwill be helpful)\nCurrent quarterly reports are read or at least skimmed regularly and are helpful\nProvide info on the origin of the request (i.e. council directive) - either in the work\nplan template or in the quarterly report format\nThe quarterly report is a \"newsy report\" - lots of narrative (some Councilmembers like\nthat)\nDon't want to lose the lower priorities/ info by focusing on only highest/high priorities\nPossible to provide single packet to Council?\nContinue to provide easy to ready information\nInterest in keeping it as report\nStaff input on reporting process and formats:\nBullets/outline approach would be good; staff receptive to summary format\nWould like a format that fits and meets more than one purpose; streamline it\nIf ok to provide more of a summary approach, Council can ask for additional info\nHeadings and bullet points\nLike idea of aligning to goals, objectives and timelines\nFinal Council Direction on Work Plan Reporting:\nReport format will be created by EMT, and it will evolve\nUse the \"reasonableness rule\" for how much information to include\nDiscussion of Highest City Council Priorities\nThe Council had a short discussion of the highest priorities as identified at the September\n11th Council/EMT workshop. The Council decided to discuss the priorities at a future Council\nmeeting in order to refine them.\nAddress telecom financial issue-implement plans/recommendations\nWork with the Housing Commission to develop an acquisition and development plan for\nexpanding affordable housing opportunities using the remaining Measure A Guyton\nexemption (Alameda Hotel, Islander)\nFormer Navy base redevelopment-secure conveyance of Alameda Point from Navy and\nnegotiate development entitlements with Suncal\nTransportation Element update (General Plan) - Transportation master plan, pedestrian\nplan\nCustomer Service Improvement Committee work items (project ADD)\nTransportation/traffic planning (transportation master plan, pedestrian plan)\nDisaster preparedness/update Disaster Mitigation Plan and the ECO plan\nSoft-story seismic retrofit incentive program\nPrepare and implement comprehensive review of Golf Course operations\nDeliver high-quality public safety services.\nCouncil members offered the following comments on the priorities:\n#8 delete \"incentive\"\nAdd something regarding protecting fiscal health of the City\nManagement Partners, Inc.\n4", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-13", "page": 8, "text": "City of Alameda\nSummary of Priority Setting Workshop - November 13, 2007\nCombine #4 and #6\nAdd something about workforce\nPlanning and development\nConcern about the items being too specific\nDepartment VS. citywide (Council) priorities - currently seems disproportionately a few\ndepts.\nNeed to clarify structure of objectives to priorities/work plan; what is the framework;\nare the \"City Objectives\" actually \"policy objectives\"\nTie priorities back to budget\nCity Council Referral Procedures\nThe purpose of this discussion was to create an orderly process through which Council\nmembers and staff can be clear about work that is being requested, whether the work can be\ndone in a reasonable period of time, and whether it is consistent with Council direction. There\nare times where one Councilmember will have an interest in the staff exploring something or\npreparing a report on an issue; staff is not always clear about whether the one\nCouncilmember is representing the interests of the entire Council. Since staff has a full work\nprogram, it means re-directing staff from existing priorities and Council direction. This can\ninadvertently re-arrange Council priorities. Additionally, during the year, needs will emerge,\nrequiring new attention, and it means we need to be able to modify our priorities.\nTherefore, the purpose of this portion of the agenda was to create a process that Council and\nstaff can follow. Management Partners prepared a memo, which described the process used\nby several cities that have created methods of handling Council requests. The memo was\nreviewed at the workshop and a discussion then took place. The question posed for\ndiscussion was: \"When new issues arise from a Councilmember, what are our options for\ndealing with them?\"\nSeveral methods are used by other cities to determine Council direction on a Council\nmember's request, including:\n1. If the request can be handled in approximately one hour, and it is consistent with\ncurrent Council policy and direction, the City Manager can assign it to be done. This\nis referred to as the \"one-hour rule.\"\n2. A Councilmember prepares a \"Council referral\" which is written in advance and\nplaced on Council Agenda for discussion.\n3. The City Manager gives a verbal or written report on what would be required to\nhandle the request.\n4. There is no change in policy or practices without Council direction.\n5. Copies of information provided to one Council member goes to all Council members\nCouncil and EMT Comments:\nManagement needs to better clarify the impact or time involved to respond to a request.\nThe impact of a request needs to be part of the Council's consideration of the request\nfrom a Councilmember. What are the costs in staff time, dollars, impact on other\npriorities, other costs?\nRoutine operational items should not be affected by a new process (i.e. citizen\ncomplaints). A new process should only apply to special requests or new initiatives,\nsince we're talking about impacts on or shifting of priorities or resources.\nManagement Partners, Inc.\n5", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-13", "page": 9, "text": "City of Alameda\nSummary of Priority Setting Workshop - November 13, 2007\nCity Manager needs to clarify or provide input if what is involved to fulfill a request is\nmore than was expected or is not feasible (i.e., cruise line research too many hours of\nwork, impacting other priorities). Give Council the information needed to make an\ninformed decision about whether the request is important enough to pursue. Use the\n\"reasonableness test.\"\nStaff asks that the Council be clear about the direction; staff does not feel comfortable\nasking if all other Councilmembers are interested in pursuing something (seems\ndisrespectful), and assume if a Council member requested it then staff must do it. This is\nthe reason for a need for a clear procedure so everyone understands the request and\nwhat is involved.\nNew Council Referral Process\nA consensus of all 5 council members resulted in the following process:\n1. Apply \"One Hour\" Rule, but expand the timeframe to a few hours (does not refer to\nconstituent complaints or routine operations; only special requests)\n2. Use Fremont Model of \"Council Referrals.\" Councilmembers agendize information\nrequests or new assignments for Council consideration and staff inform as to what will\nbe involved in responding and impacts on other work.\n3.\nIf changes in priorities or information requests come out at Council meetings, Council\nwill give specific direction to staff, and staff will seek clarification when needed, as\nwell as providing information on impacts.\n4. If no clear direction is given, then it's not direction from the Council.\nClarify direction at end of an item-with consensus (through the City Clerk)\n5. If more time is needed, the item has to go back to Council for direction:\nUse the Council referral process (agendize)\nRequests first go through City Manager or Assistant City Manager\nIssue Bin\nDuring the course of the workshop, various items were raised to be handled at another time\nand place. Those items were:\nWould like to have a 2nd discussion of priorities - will be placed on a Council agenda\nConsider a document retrieval database\nReview Palo Alto protocols\nNext Steps\nAt the end of the workshop, the next steps in the priority setting process were reviewed, as\nfollows:\nEMT will create and implement a revised reporting format, to be further revised as useful\nimprovements are identified.\nCouncil discussion of priorities will be set for a future Council meeting.\nCouncil referral process will be written up and implemented.\nObjectives and priorities (once agreed to at a Council meeting) will be incorporated into\nthe decision-making process for the next two-year budget.\nManagement Partners, Inc.\n6", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-13", "page": 10, "text": "City of Alameda\nSummary of Priority Setting Workshop - November 13, 2007\nATTACHMENT A - LIST OF HIGHEST AND HIGH COUNCIL PRIORITIES\nThe following projects are listed in order of the number of votes given by Council members at\nthe 9/11/07 Council/EMT Priority Setting Workshop. The bold items are those receiving at\nleast 3 \"highest priority\" dots on 9/11/07. All projects receiving at least one dot (either\n\"highest\" or \"high\" priority) on 9/11/07 are listed below. These will be reviewed, modified\nand/or confirmed at a future Council meeting.\nSome of the items have been modified in response to comments made by Council members\nat the 11/13/07 Council/EMT workshop. Those changes. are noted below in italics.\n9/11/07\nLead Department\nProject\nPriority\n1.\nAP&T\nAddress Telecom financial issue - implement\n5 highest\nplans/recommendations\n2.\nHousing Authority\nWork with the Housing Commission to\n3 highest\ndevelop an acquisition and development plan\n1 high\nfor expanding affordable housing\nopportunities using the remaining Measure A\nGuyton exemption (Alameda Hotel; Islander)\n3.\nDevelopment\nFormer Navy Base Redevelopment - Secure\n3 highest\nServices\nConveyance of Alameda Point from Navy and\nnegotiate development entitlements with\nSunCal\n4.\nPlanning & Building\nTransportation Element Update (General\n3 highest\nPublic Works\nPlan) Transportation/Traffic Planning\n[Note: two projects\n(Transportation master plan; pedestrian plan)\nhave been combined\n2 highest\ninto this one]\n1 high\n5.\nPlanning & Building\nCustomer Service Improvement Committee\n3 highest\nwork items (project ADD)\n6.\nPublic Safety\nDisaster Preparedness/Update Disaster\n1 highest\nMitigation Plan and the EOC Plan\n3 high\n7.\nPlanning & Building\nSoft-story seismic retrofit program\n1 highest\n[Note: the word\n2 high\n\"incentive\" was\neliminated between\n\"retrofit\" and\n\"program\"]\n8.\nRecreation, Parks\nPrepare and implement comprehensive\n3 high\nand Golf\noperation review of Golf Course operations\n9.\nPlanning & Building\nHousing Element Update (General Plan)\n2 highest\n10.\nRecreation, Parks and\nRenovate Godfrey Field; Rittler Field; Lincoln\n2 highest\nGolf\nPark Field\nReplace Krusi Park Recreation Building\n11.\nLibrary\nDevelop a long range plan for library service\n1 highest\n(includes Measure O funds allocation for branch\n1 high\nimprovements)\nManagement Partners, Inc.\n7", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-13", "page": 11, "text": "City of Alameda\nSummary of Priority Setting Workshop - November 13, 2007\necar Departmer\nProter\n12.\nDevelopment Services\nFormer Navy property development - Conduct\n1 highest\nhomeless/PBC screening for Coast Guard\n1 high\nHousing and related Community Reuse Plan\namendment. Includes lease of ball field/park\narea and coast guard housing\n13.\nAdministrative/Support\nReview web hosting, design and maintenance\n1 highest\nServices\nservices and conduct needs assessment of\n1 high\ncurrent contributors\n14.\nAdministrative/Support\nReview compensation system (broadened to\n1 highest\nServices\ninclude review of full system)\n1 high\n15.\nPlanning & Building\nPrepare Local Action Plan for Climate Protection\n1 highest\n1 high\nEnvironmental Protection\nPublic Works\n1 high\n[Note: two projects\nwere combined into\none]\n16.\nPublic Works\nContinuous improvement of systems (Street tree\n1 highest\nmaster plan; sewer master plan; storm drainage\n1 high\nmaster plan)\n17.\nAdministrative/Support\nExplore options to generate revenue for\n1 highest\nServices\ninfrastructure improvements\n18.\nAdministrative/Support\nBudget review and tracking (project ADD)\n1 highest\nServices\n19.\nPlanning & Building\nLand Use Element - Retail and Business\n1 highest\nServices Section Update (General Plan)\n20.\nPlanning & Building\nDevelop a Facilities Master Plan: identify\n1 highest\nfunding and prepare master plans for building\ninfrastructure improvements\n21.\nLibrary\nProvide facility and service improvements to\n2 high\nboth Bay Farm Island and West End Libraries\n22.\nAP&T\nEnhance Energy/Environmental Sustainability -\n2 high\nevaluate alternatives for reducing carbon\nfootprint\n23.\nAdministrative/Support\nDevelop Succession Planning and Workforce\n2 high\nServices\nStrategy (including youth outreach component)\n[Note: \"and Workforce\nStrategy\" was added to\nthis project]\n24.\nPublic Works\nTransportation planning\n2 high\n25.\nFire\nConduct Fire Station 3 feasibility study\n1 high\n26.\nDevelopment Services\nCDBG-funded project to implement the \"West\n1 high\nAlameda: Woodstock to Webster Neighborhood\nImprovement Plan\"\n27.\nRecreation, Parks and\nImplementation of a Youth Advisory Commission\n1 high\nGolf\nto advise Council on youth-related issues\nManagement Partners, Inc.\n8", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-13", "page": 12, "text": "City of Alameda\nSummary of Priority Setting Workshop - November 13, 2007\ne almen\n28.\nRecreation, Parks and\nReview business and financial plan of the\n1 high\nGolf\nAlameda Museum\n29.\nRecreation, Parks and\nEstuary Park Task Force - initiate meetings with\n1 high\nGolf\nTask Force to identify potential funding\n30.\nAdministrative/Support\nDevelop a compliance plan for GASB-45\n1 high\nServices\nregulations by performing an actual study and\nreviewing options with Council\n31.\nAdministrative/Support\nLabor agreement negotiations with public safety\n1 high\nServices\nbargaining units\n32.\nPublic Works\nTransportation - Safe Routes to School\n1 high\n(Implement innovative approach to encourage\nwalk/bike/carpool to school\nManagement Partners, Inc.\n9", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-11-13", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Planning Board\nTuesday, November 13, 2007\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:08 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft.\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cook, Board Members Cunningham, Ezzy\nAshcraft, and Lynch.\nVice President Kohlstrand, and Board Members Mariani and McNamara were absent from\nroll call.\nAlso present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney\nDonna Mooney, Assistant City Attorney Farimah Faiz and Supervising Planner Doug\nGarrison.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMeeting of September 24, 2007.\nThere was not a quorum to vote on these minutes.\nb.\nMeeting of October 8, 2007.\nCunningham moved to adopt the minutes of October 8, 2007, as amended with changes to\npage 7 paragraph 3 and page 11 third line from the bottom as requested by President\nCook.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote -Ayes:\n4. Noes: 0 Absent: 3 (Kohlstrand, Mariani, McNamara). The motion passed.\nc.\nMeeting of October 22, 2007\nBoard member Cunningham moved to adopt the minutes of October 22, 2007, as\npresented.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - Ayes:\n4. Noes: 0 Absent: 3 (Kohlstrand, Mariani, McNamara). The motion passed.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nFuture Agendas\nPage 1 of 8", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-11-13", "page": 2, "text": "Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.\nb.\nZoning Administrator Report\nMr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.\nMs. Mooney introduced newly hired Assistant City Attorney Farimah Faiz and welcomed\nher to the City of Alameda.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nNone.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8-A. Crosstown Coffee House six-month review of Use Permit UP07-0005.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to renew\nUse Permit UP07-0005.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - Ayes:\n4. Noes: 0 Absent: 3 (Kohlstrand, Mariani, McNamara). The motion passed.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A.\nAlameda Towne Centre - Planning Workshop - The purpose of this workshop\nis to review and discuss revisions to the proposed redevelopment plans for the\nAlameda Towne Centre. (Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0004 and\nDesign Review DR05-0073). No action to approve or deny the project will\noccur at this meeting.\nMr. Garrison presented the staff report.\nMr. Randy Kyte, applicant, Harsch Investment Properties, continued the presentation and\ndisplayed the proposed revisions and reconfiguration of Alameda Towne Centre on the\noverhead screen. He summarized the changes:\n1. The square footage from the prior approval would be reduced because Target\nstore was not needed;\n2. The Safeway building would be renovated by the same architectural team\ninvolved in the other buildings; and\n3. An additional 73,000 square feet would be added at the Mervyn's building\nsite. It would be a department store expansion but Target was no longer\ninvolved with the project.\nMr. Kyte noted that Borders was complete and would be turned over to that company on\nDecember 3, 2007, anticipating an opening in late February or early March, 2008. Bed,\nPage 2 of 8", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-11-13", "page": 3, "text": "Bath & Beyond held its grand opening on November 9, 2007. The Beverly and Old Navy\nbuildings were complete; the TJ Maxx building was a few days away from completion.\nHe noted that Building 1900 would have a tenant who would take the old warehouse\nspace, and the construction was expected to start within a few days. He noted that a\nsmaller parking garage would be built.\nMr. Jan Paoli, Field Paoli, project architect, displayed and detailed the proposed\narchitectural changes in the project.\nMonique Lee, Field Paoli, project architect, provided an update on the sidewalks and\ncirculation, and summarized the issues brought forward by the Planning Board. She\nnoted that one bike lane had already been striped on the site, and that several other bike\nlanes had been planned.\nMr. Paoli described the restaurant spaces, their views and the landscaping possibilities.\nMr. Kyte described the building redesigns that accommodated the east-west sidewalk.\nHe noted that the easement documents were underway, and that the construction\ndocuments associated with the sidewalk, as well as modifications to the buildings,\nlandscaping and graphics were nearing completion. He noted that the timeline of late\nspring was still in force, given the complexity of the situation, and that the east-west\nsidewalk would be put in as soon as possible. He noted that the amount of pavement was\nadequate to install the sidewalk. He would like the board to consider the issue of the\nparking ratio, and added that they had been in discussion with City staff for some time on\nthe ratio at this site. He believed the opportunity existed to limit the amount of additional\nparking by using shared parking strategies.\nMr. Kyte noted that through shared parking, they were optimistic that they would be able\nto reduce the 4:1 parking ratio on the site. He noted that there was about 40,000 square\nfeet of office, as well as retail and restaurants. By using the ULI/ITE methodology for\nshared parking, they saw some good opportunities to justify the reduction. He noted that\nthe progress at the beach area included additional language in the leases about the parking\nfields within their lease areas, and the ability to reconfigure the parking lots when the car\nwash was removed. He believed that would allow the addition of the kinds of densities\nand uses that would make good sense along the beach area. He noted that the car wash\ndrove the timing on this phase, and he assured the Board that those discussions were\nunderway, and that they were encouraged by their progress.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Dorothy Reid inquired about the change in the parking garage plan, and was\nconcerned about the visual aspects. She would like to see how much more parking\nspaces would be needed, and did not believe the Centre was short by many spaces. She\nrecalled that there had been problems with the parking study methodology, and would\nlike further clarification on that matter before further expansions were approved.\nPage 3 of 8", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-11-13", "page": 4, "text": "Ms. Vivian Ford noted that she was pleased that Target was no longer part of the\nAlameda Towne Centre plan, and that she would be more inclined to shop there. She\nbelieved the landscaping plan was a positive addition. She asked about the location of\nthe truck delivery access, and requested confirmation that the exits would be onto\nFranciscan Way. She noted that she was confused about the storefront locations. She\nexpressed concern about outdoor usage because of the number of outdoor creatures that\nlive near the Centre.\nMr. Jon Spangler expressed strong concern about the renovation. He was pleased by the\nsidewalk near the post office, and supported the shared parking plan. He believed that\nthe 4:1 parking ratio was unrealistic. He believed the EIR was a piecemeal document,\nand did not believe there had been a concurrently accurate EIR and Master Plan for the\nshopping center that reflected what was going on. He would like to see an updated EIR\nand traffic study that reflected current data. He would like to see more bike racks in front\nof Trader Joe's, as well as more transit access, which was still compromised because of\nthe circulation patterns in the shopping center. He would like a status update on\nMervyn's. He requested more information on the green building standards and methods\nthat would be used for the new buildings. He inquired whether solar water heating,\npassive solar building cooling and heating methods, and increased natural lighting would\nbe used to increase the center's sustainability. He inquired about the beach dropoff issue,\nand noted that there was a similar situation at Jack London Square. He did not believe\nthat the cars belonged so close to the beach, and suggested the use of golf carts or similar\nshuttle vehicles.\nMs. Audrey Housman complimented the design and look of Alameda Towne Centre, and\nadded that she was pleased with the sidewalks. She suggested more disabled parking in\nthe garage for the garage and the storefront that was closer to the stores. She noted that\nPark Street had a narrow entrance between Walgreens and Big 5.\nMs. Cathy Wolfe noted that she was thrilled with the design, and the thoughtfulness\nshown to the pedestrians. She voiced her full support of the project.\nMr. Kyte responded to the public comments, and displayed the net gain in parking spaces\nin the garage. He and noted that the traffic study would be updated. He noted that the\ntruck delivery area and Safeway truck dock would remain because the store was being\nrenovated. He noted that it would no longer be a 24/7 use, with trucks arriving and\ndeparting throughout the day and night, with their coolers running throughout the night\nand with their lights shining into the condominiums. He noted that the architect stated\nthat there would be some screening with the use of landscaping in that area, and added\nthat the entry to Safeway would be on the east side. He noted that the storefront would\nbe glass. He noted that with respect to possible outdoor sales areas, rollup doors would\nallow more transparency, and that they may be located on the north side. He noted that\nthe access from the parking lot to Franciscan Way would remain. Mr. Kyte noted that\nMervyn's was still in the chase for the building, but that they were not the front-runner.\nHe agreed that it would be a very good idea to separate the cars from the waterfront\nenvironment. He noted that it would be very important to create a wonderful outdoor\nPage 4 of 8", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-11-13", "page": 5, "text": "space. He noted that they would take the suggestion of moving the disabled parking in\nthe garage closer to the stores under consideration, and added that there was also covered\ndisabled parking as well. He noted that they had discussed the narrow sidewalks on Park\nStreet for the past 15 years, and added that they had offered to help the City in that\nregard. He believed that something would be done about that issue.\nPresident Cook noted that she would like to see more bike racks.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that there be larger spaces for the bikes with\ntrailers for small children.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cook regarding the Post Office sidewalk, Mr. Kyte\ndescribed the proposed changes to that sidewalk. He noted that they had done a walk\naround, and believed that the sidewalk could be fixed. He believed the presence of\nsidewalks on both sides would be safer.\nPresident Cook noted that the drawings were somewhat small.\nBoard Member Lynch stated it was important to understand the current parking\nconfiguration versus the new configuration. He noted that he had spoken with the City\nManager's office to apprise them that the applicant was willing to work with the City to\naddress the sidewalk issue on Park Street.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft recalled previous conversations regarding the east-west\nwalkway, and inquired when the applicant planned to move forward with the easement.\nMr. Kyte replied that the easement should be in place within 30 days, and that work\nwould start in early 2008.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she had heard comments from residents stating\nthat there were enough discount stores in the community, and that they would like better\nstores and for the bar to be raised in that regard. She noted that she liked the outdoor\ngarden space, as well as the parking structure and that parking ratio. She favored more\nwalkable, livable, healthy communities. She believed the applicant was approaching her\nvision of this center and commended them for their efforts. She would like to see a\nstriped crosswalk near the post office, and would like to see one on the other side, as well\nas by the carwash. She believed a three-foot-wide sidewalk was a negative addition, and\nthat it was an inconsistent feature of what should be a walkabout center. She was\nconcerned about the placement of the bike paths where the buses traveled. She believed\nthere should be a bike lane to the center from Park Street. She expressed concern about\nthe long Safeway trailers that took up 15 parking spots, and noted that they looked\nterrible and impacted the parking. She was also concerned about the piles of trash left on\nthe ground, which was unsightly and attracted rodents. She inquired who was\nresponsible for the cleanup of that area. She did not want to see any beachfront parking.\nMr. Kyte displayed the parking lot site plan, and discussed the future of the design. He\nnoted that the parking lots would be shifted north, and that the area near the restaurant\nPage 5 of 8", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-11-13", "page": 6, "text": "court would be reconfigured and consolidated. He added that there would no longer be\nparking near the beach.\nPresident Cook noted that she was fine with the increased height on the Mervyn's\nbuilding because without the additional height the center would now look lopsided\nbecause some heights had been increased on the new, improved parts of the center. She\nexpressed concern about the parking and its effects on pedestrian safety. She supported\nfurther exploring the reduced parking requirements, and would like further clarification\non what was approved, and what the driving requirements would be for more parking.\nShe is not at all sure about the parking structure and believed the loading docks were ugly\nand dangerous. She inquired about Dr. Perry's corner, and was concerned about\ncirculation and pedestrian safety. She requested a firm condition to address the\nwaterfront issues, and agreed with the applicant that a circular drive was not necessary.\nShe would like that space to be used for pedestrians. She was concerned that there was\nno connection back to the center from the waterfront, and would also like the beachfront\ncorner to be connected to the rest of the center. She believed the design for Applebee's\nwas dated, and looked forward to its renovation. She believed the elevations for the\nMervyns building looked good, and would like updated traffic counts. She agreed with\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft about the crosswalk, and was very concerned that the\nnewly painted crosswalks at Shoreline Drive did not connect with the pedestrian\nwalkways at the center. She noted that was not an issue so much for the center, as it was\nfor the Public Works Department. She added that the crosswalks led right into iceplant\nand did not connect.\nMr. Kyte noted that he hoped the McDonald's and courthouse would be renovated, but\nthat was not within their control.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she had a problem with the parking on the Otis\nside, and believed that diagonal spaces were easier to get into and out of. She noted that\nthe Safeway parking spaces were straight, 90-degree spaces. She inquired whether the\nSafeway parking lot could be restriped with diagonal spaces. Mr. Kyte replied that while\nhe did not disagree with her assessment, at this point it would change the entire layout\nand geometry of the lot.\nBoard Member Lynch noted that the 90-degree spaces were the safest, most efficient\nparking layout.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft about the CEQA standard, and\nwhether a new EIR would be required, Mr. Thomas replied that the City was halfway\nthrough the EIR process. The City would review the original work, and see how it\ncompared to the current proposal. The changes in the project would be assessed to see\nwhether a new EIR would be required. He noted that the total square footage had been\nreduced since Target was removed from the center, and the location of the expansion area\nwas generally the same relative to driveways and access to the center. He noted that the\nCity would respond to all comments and would make any additional changes to the Draft\nEIR so that the EIR addressed the current plan. He noted that the City intended to return\nPage 6 of 8", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-11-13", "page": 7, "text": "with two comprehensive documents: the Master Plan that showed the applicants' long-\nterm plans for the site, and a comprehensive up to date EIR.\nNo action was taken.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was copied on a letter from StopWaste.org\nto the Planning Director with respect to the pursuit of green building ordinances. She\nrequested that the City follow up on this issue at the next meeting.\nMr. Thomas advised that an RFQ had been released to advise staff how to proceed with\nvarious ordinances, which would help staff return to the Planning Board with as many\noptions as possible. Staff was considering the full range of options, such as requirements\nfor new civic buildings and changes to the Building Code. Staff would provide a more\nformal update at the next meeting. He assured Board member Ezzy Ashcraft that staff\nwould move as expeditiously as possible.\nPresident Cook noted that she had received literature about APA publications and APA\nmembership. Mr. Thomas noted that staff would look into that issue.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nBoard Member Lynch noted that because there were more buildings along harbor Bay\nParkway, he had noticed a great deal more trash. He suggested that the City consider\nmore trash cans, and inquired who managed the trash collection in that area. Mr. Thomas\nnoted that he would find out.\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force (Board\nMembers Cook/Kohlstrand)\nMr. Thomas provided an update on this item, and noted that the last meeting on October\n24, 2007, had been well-attended. SunCal had made the same presentation that had been\nmade before the Planning Board; they presented the project's history and the consultants\npresented their thoughts. The geotechnical consultant emphasized the Bay mud issue, and\nthe flooding constraints were discussed. The topo maps were in the process of being\nrevised because they were outdated. The consultant stated that Alameda Point had sunk\nsomewhat. He noted that the audience received Peter Calthorpe's presentation very well.\nHe had emphasized sustainability and regionalism for Alameda Point, and kept future\ngenerations in mind. He noted that there was no interaction after the presentation. He\nnoted that the next meeting would be held at the O Club on December 13, 2007, and they\nplanned to address a range of development scenarios.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember Mariani).\nPage 7 of 8", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-11-13", "page": 8, "text": "Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report. Mr. Thomas noted\nthat there was nothing to report.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Vice President\nKohlstrand).\nVice President Kohlstrand was not in attendance to present this report.\nd.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board\nMember Cunningham).\nBoard member Cunningham noted that a meeting had been held, but he did not attend.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n9:55 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThis meeting was audio and video taped.\nPage 8 of 8", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf"}