{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-04-28", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nCOMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nApril 28, 2008\nTIME\nThe meeting convened at 6:32 P.M.\nPRESENT\nChair Lord-Hausman, Commissioners Berger, Longley-Cook, Fort, Kirola, Robinson\nand Kreitz.\nABSENT\nVice-Chair Moore\nMINUTES\nThe March 24, 2008 minutes were approved with the following correction: under Old Business,\nitem number two, the last two sentences were deleted, as that was not reflected in the discussions.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nThere was no written communication.\nNEW BUSINESS\n1. Draft Pedestrian Plan (Gail Payne, PW):\nGail Payne, Transportation Coordinator, gave a presentation on the Draft Pedestrian Plan, which\nincluded the executive summary, vision goals and policies, outreach, existing conditions and\nimplementation.\nCommissioner Berger asked if the number of residents with disabled license plate placards were\nincluded in the update, to which Ms. Payne replied they were not, however, they will get that\ninformation from DMV. Chair Lord-Hausman suggested checking with the Census Bureau.\nCommissioner Berger asked what the multi-modal plan includes, to which Ms. Payne responded\nit includes all different types of transit operations.\nCommissioner Kirola asked if the timing at pedestrian signals could be adjusted to extend\nwalking times within the crosswalks, to which Ms. Payne replied yes, and signal timing issues\nare addressed under the Implementation Section.\nCommissioner Berger suggested looking at more recent data under Bus Stop Boards, as the\ncurrent data is two years old, to which Ms. Payne agreed to do.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-04-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-04-28", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nApril 28, 2008\nMinutes\nPage 2 of 4\nChair Lord-Hausman asked if the updated information would be implemented over years, to\nwhich Ms. Payne responded yes, as the Plan would not be updated again for another five to ten\nyears. Chair Lord-Hausman requested that PW provide another update to the Commission in the\nfall.\nCommissioner Kirola asked if funding would come from tax and grants, to which Ms. Payne\nresponded that all monies are strictly from transportation funding and not being drawn from the\nGeneral Fund of the City.\nCommissioner Berger asked that the material for the walkway improvements not be slippery, to\nwhich Ms. Payne replied that process will be addressed within the Public Walkway Project and\nPedestrian Guidelines.\nChair Lord-Hausman asked if the proposed improvements along Shoreline Drive be addressed\nsooner than later, to which Ms. Payne replied that Shoreline Drive is not identified as high\npriority due to lack of funding, however, it is considered an important improvement as part of\nthe overall Plan update.\nMs. Payne thanked the Commission for their input.\n2. Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study Update (Gail Payne, PW):\nGail Payne, Transportation Coordinator handed out information regarding the feasibility study\ncurrently underway. The City has selected a consultant to assist in that effort. There is a public\nmeeting scheduled for May 17, 2008 and anticipated it will be completed in the fall.\nCommissioner Berger stated that if Oakland is only contributing $10,000 to the study, is the City\n(Oakland) committed to the project, to which Ms. Payne replied yes. Oakland has the study\nranked as a high priority project in its redevelopment and Bicycle Master Plans. The City has a\ngood relationship with Oakland and, in terms of the estuary study, it is more of Alameda's issue\nas the City (Alameda) is the lead agency.\nOLD BUSINESS\n1. 2007 CDI Accomplishments (Chair Lord-Hausman):\nChair Lord-Hausman distributed the updated list of CDI accomplishments from 2006-2007\nand suggested that the Commission review it and provide any further comments to her. The\n2008 accomplishments continue to be worked on.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-04-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-04-28", "page": 3, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nApril 28, 2008\nMinutes\nPage 3 of 4\n2. Path Between Crown & Washington Parks (Chair Lord-Hausman):\nChair Lord-Hausman stated the accessibility improvements along the pathway are done and\nlook nice.\n3. Disability Parking at City Events (Chair Lord-Hausman):\nChair Lord-Hausman stated that, as part of the agreement with the City, the Earth Day event\nwould include accessible temporary parking.\n4. Commission Recruitment (Chair Lord-Hausman):\nChair Lord-Hausman stated she had not received any new applications from prospective\napplicants and encouraged everyone to spread the word about open vacancies on the\nCommission.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n1. Secretary Akil stated the presentation of the draft ADA Transition Plan would be presented to\nthe Commission at the May 27, 2008 meeting and would also be noticed as a community-wide\nmeeting. A printed version of the draft Plan would be available for review in several City\noffices prior to the meeting date. More information will be mailed to the Commission in\nadvance as well. Secretary Akil explained that the delay of the presentation to the CDI was due\nto internal approval and presentation to affected City departments.\n2. Secretary Akil provided information from Barry Bergman, PW Transportation Coordinator,\nrequesting that a representative from the CDI join the Bike Plan Task Force as they begin to\nupdate the Plan.\nCommissioner Longley-Cook asked about the frequency of the meetings, to which Chair Lord-\nHausman responded that it is similar to the Pedestrian Plan Task Force, which does not meet on\na weekly basis, only as needed.\nCommissioner Kreitz agreed to join the Task Force as the CDI representative, to which Secretary\nAkil indicated that she would inform Mr. Bergman.\nORAL OMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS\n1. Cathy Nielsen, SSHRB member, stated she had received the letter that the CDI had sent to the\nSocial Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB) regarding County medical funding for low-\nincome/disabled individuals and wanted to discuss those items.\nChair Lord-Hausman responded that she was not aware if the letter was distributed to all of the\nSSHRB members and requested that she return to a future meeting to discuss that issue, to which\nMs. Nielsen agreed.\nG:\\Lucretia)CommDisability\\Minutes)2008\\Minutes_Apr 28 2008.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-04-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-04-28", "page": 4, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nApril 28, 2008\nMinutes\nPage 4 of 4\n2. Buena Vista Commons:\nChair Lord-Hausman stated that one of the low-income homes would be accessible for a disabled\nhousehold.\n3. Chair Lord-Hausman read and distributed a news article on the California Chamber of\nCommerce regarding the Chamber's urging its members to join its Advancing Disability Access\nCoalition in support of statewide efforts to achieve better compliance with disability access laws.\n4.\nCommissioner Berger stated that there is no buzzer located at the back of the Alameda Free\nLibrary building under the outside handicap placard for assistance. Also, there needs to be\nanother changing table installed in one of the library restrooms to allow more space for the\ndisabled.\nSecretary Akil stated she would send an email to Jane Chisaki regarding these two issues and\nget back to the Commission with the findings.\nADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M. The next scheduled meeting is Tuesday, May 27, 2008, at 6:30\nP.M. in Room 360 at City Hall.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLucretia A. Akil\nCommission Secretary\nG:\\Lucretia)CommDisability\\Minutes)2008\\Minutes_Apr 28 8 2008.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-04-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2008-04-28", "page": 1, "text": "OF\nof\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nPENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nHELD 4:30 P.M., APRIL 28, 2008\nALAMEDA CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA\nCONFERENCE ROOM 391\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order by Member William Soderlund at 4:40 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL: Present: Trustees Nancy Elzig, and Karen Willis. Staff: Juelle Ann\nBoyer, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Lelia Faapouli, Administrative\nTechnician, Human Resources.\nAbsent: Members Beverly Johnson and Robert Follrath\n3.\nMINUTES: The minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 28, 2008 were\nmoved for approval by Member Elzig and seconded by Member Willis. Passed\n3-0.\n4.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n4-A.\nPENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2008:\na.\nIn the amount of $ 227,562.44 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.\nb.\nIn the amount of $ 3,516.67 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.\n4-B.\nPENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2008:\na.\nIn the amount of $ 226,147.76 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.\nb.\nIn the amount of $ 3,516.67 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.\n4-C.\nPENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 2008:\na.\nIn the amount of $ 225,987.43 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.\nb.\nIn the amount of $ 3,516.67 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.", "path": "PensionBoard/2008-04-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2008-04-28", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, April 28, 2008\nPage 2\nMember Elzig motioned to adopt the consent calendar and seconded by Member Willis.\nPassed 3-0\n5.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\n5-A. The Chief Financial Officer's Financial Report for City of Alameda Police\nand Fire Pension Funds for the period ending March 31, 2008 was\naccepted as presented. Member Elzig moved to approve, seconded by\nMember Willis. Passed 3-0\n5-B.\nContinuation of discussion on purchasing and erecting new flagpoles at\nCity Hall.\nMember Willis had nothing new to report regarding grants. Member Elzig\nalso reported researching grants on the internet but could not find\nanything to report.\nJuelle-Ann Boyer suggested a company called eCIVIS that sell their\nservices to research grants for you. Member Willis will look into it.\n5-C.\nMemo from Human Resources Director notifying of death of 1079\nPensioners, Alice Aspinall, widow of Battalion Chief - Warren Aspinall,\nRobert Nunes, Firefighter and Leonard Engstrom, Police Officer was\naccepted with regrets on a motion by Member Elzig and seconded by\nMember Willis. Passed 3-0.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no oral communications.\n7.\nPENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)\nThere were no communications from the board.\n8.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThere being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was\nadjourned at 4:46 p.m.", "path": "PensionBoard/2008-04-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2008-04-28", "page": 3, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, April 28, 2008\nPage 3\nRespectfully submitted,\nKaren Willis, Human Resources Director\nand Secretary to the Pension Board", "path": "PensionBoard/2008-04-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-04-28", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, April 28, 2008\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:06 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member McNamara.\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Board\nMembers Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, Lynch and\nMcNamara.\nAlso present were Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager, Assistant City Attorney\nFarimah Faiz.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of November 13, 2007 (continued from April 14,\n2008).\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that on pages 1 and 2, the Assistant City Attorney's\nlast name was misspelled \"Faz,\" and should be corrected to read \"Faiz.\"\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the first bullet point in the second-to-last\nparagraph on page 2 should be changed to read: \"1. The square footage from the prior\napproval would be reduced because the Target store was not-no longer needed because\nTarget had withdrawn its application.\"\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 5, paragraph 6, read, \"Board member Lynch\nstated it was important to understand the current parking configuration versus the new\nconfiguration. He noted that he had spoken with the City Manager's office to apprise\nthem that the applicant was willing to work with the City to address the sidewalk issue on\nPark Street.\" She inquired whether Board member Lynch had received a response to his\ndiscussion. Board member Lynch replied that he would provide the information when it\nwas available.\nPresident Cook noted that page 6, paragraph 2, because she agreed with some aspects of\nthe plan, but not others, the language should be changed to read: \"Prosident Cook noted\nthat she generally agreed with the plan.-She noted that she was fine with the increased\nheight on the Mervyn's building, but that it seemed lopsided,-because without the\nadditional height, the center would now look lopsided because some heights had been\nincreased on the new, improved parts of the center.\"\nPresident Cook noted that further into the same paragraph, the following language \"She\nbelieved the deck could be made more attractive... \" referred to her comment that she was\nnot sure about the parking structure yet, and would need to give it more thought.\nPage 1 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-04-28", "page": 2, "text": "President Cook noted that the next sentence in the same paragraph should be changed to\nread, \"She inquired about Dr. Perry's corner, and was concerned about circulation and\npedestrian safety.'\nPresident Cook noted that the last several sentences in the same paragraph\n\"She believed the elevation for the Mervyn's building looked good, and would like\nupdated traffic counts. She agreed with Board member Ezzy Ashcraft about the crosswalk,\nand was very concerned that the crosswalks at Shoreline Drive did not connect with the\npedestrian walkways at the center and did not like the current crosswalk at Shoreline.'\nShe noted that was not an issue so much for the center, as it was for the Public Works\nDepartment. She added that the crosswalks led right into iceplant and did not connect.\nBoard Member Cunningham moved to approve the minutes of November 13, 2007, as\namended.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4.\nNoes: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 2 (Kohlstrand, McNamara). The motion passed.\nb.\nMinutes for the meeting of March 24, 2008 (pending).\nThese minutes will be considered at a later meeting.\nc.\nMinutes for the meeting of April 14, 2008 (pending).\nThese minutes will be considered at a later meeting.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nMr. Biggs suggested that Items 9-A and 9-B be reversed in order on the agenda at the\nrequest of the Public Works Department.\n6.\nPRESENTATIONS:\na.\nStaff Communications - Future Agendas\nMr. Biggs provided an update on future agenda items.\nBoard member Lynch requested that given the volume of information that would be\nrequired for the May 12, 2008, public hearing of the Harbor Bay Village VI Project GPA\nand EIR, that the following meeting have a light agenda to handle overflow from that\nhearing. He anticipated that there would be a great deal of public interest in that item, and\ndid not believe the Planning Board would be able to make a determination that evening.\nMr. Biggs noted that staff would do its best to make the documentation available to the\nBoard as early as possible, and that it would be made available at the Planning\nDepartment as early as possible for the public as well.\nPage 2 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-04-28", "page": 3, "text": "Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she had a similar request for the following meeting\nfor the Draft Pedestrian Plan. She noted that City staff's Gail Payne had done a lot of\nwork on that document, and that it may take two meetings to cover it.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that for future agenda scheduling, whenever an\nitem had a voluminous amount of reading, that staff could determine when the documents\nwould be ready, and give the Planning Board members a longer window of time to\nreview the documents before the meeting.\nPresident Cook noted that the office condominium project at Harbor Bay went to City\nCouncil on appeal, and the appeal was rejected, so project approval was upheld. She\nnoted that she had spoken to an appellant, who expressed concern about the lack of\nsufficient notice. She had told President Cook that over 1,300 had signed a petition.\nPresident Cook believed that there should be more time to inform the public, as well as\ntime to review the materials.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that the 300-foot radius noticing had been complied with,\nand added that there were a number of homeowners associations within Harbor Bay Isle,\nas well as a Master Association. She suggested that the Association put themselves on the\nlist to receive the packet online.\nBoard member Lynch noted that about two years ago, the Board held a discussion\nregarding revising how it interacted with the public in terms of noticing. They believed\nthat given the staff needs, that a break in the schedule be taken, and a Planning Board\nagenda projecting forward a month was suggested. He believed it would be simple to do,\nand would not take any additional dollars or staff resources; he noted that management\nscheduling would be able to accomplish that goal.\nb.\nZoning Administrator Report - Meeting of April 15, 2008.\nMr. Biggs provided an update on the latest Zoning Administrator Report, and noted that\nthe Action Agenda was also included in the packet.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATION: None.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nNone.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-B.\nCapital Improvement Projects Fiscal Year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010\nThe Planning Board will review the proposed Capital Improvement Projects\nProposal for the next two year City Budget. The Planning Board will consider\nwhether the proposed expenditure plan is consistent with the City of Alameda\nGeneral Plan.\nPage 3 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-04-28", "page": 4, "text": "Ms. Kozisek, Public Works, summarized the staff report. The next public hearing will be\nheld at 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 30, 2008, and will also be available on the City\nwebsite. The following meetings will be noted on the website as well.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Helen Sause noted that she hoped the 27 projects reduced the 101 projects. She inquired\nwhen the Sewer Master Plan would be completed. She inquired where the Estuary Crossing\nstudy would occur, and wondered what the study was about. She inquired whether the Tree\nMaster Plan fell under this work, and whether there would be implementation from it.\nMs. Kozisek replied that the 27 projects were not taken out of the 101 projects, which were\nanticipated for the future. She noted that Public Works planned to finish the Sewer Master\nPlan by the end of 2008. She noted that the Estuary Crossing study was in response to the\nproblems encountered by pedestrians and bicyclists when traveling through the Tubes. The\nstudy was intended to find other possible ways to get across the Estuary, and the\nenvironmental phase was intended to examine all possibilities before picking one that had\nthe least adverse impact. She noted that the Tree Master Plan was underway, and that the\ntrees were being measured. She added that had already been funded, and was not included in\nthis project. She expected that would be completed in several months.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the genesis of the\nPublic Benefit Score, Ms. Kozisek replied that it was a concept that had been around for a\nfew years. The score was looked at, but is not the final score upon which a determination\nwas made. A higher score has more benefits, such as economic or visual benefits,\ncultural/historic/recreation potential or preservation, or environmental impacts.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the City Hall Tower retrofit was given a score of\n76, which is higher than either bridge maintenance, storm drain repair or water taxi vessel\nprocurement. She added that the cost would be $430,000, and noted that the City's budget\nrestrictions were well-known. She understood it was a private funding effort, and that it was\nlisted in the unfunded list, and inquired why it received a score of 76.\nMs. Kozisek replied that the complete list was not available at this time, but added that\nprivate funding gave the project a higher score. The project on City Hall would benefit all\ncitizens, while the storm drains were not noticed unless they flooded onto someone's\nproperty.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cook whether the Board would like to continue this\nitem in order to allow sufficient time to read the material, Board member Ezzy Ashcraft\nreplied that would be helpful.\nBoard member Lynch inquired about the acronyms and the presentation of the data with\nrespect to fees received and projected expenditures. Ms. Kozisek replied that they were\nPage 4 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-04-28", "page": 5, "text": "conservative estimates developed by the Finance Department. He inquired whether staff\nwould share the information from the public meetings as they are conducted; Ms. Kozisek\nreplied that would occur.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that she would look forward to receiving the background\ninformation. She requested that Ms. Kozisek comment on the gas tax, which was being\nraided by the State and used on the State level. She inquired whether $240,000 was the\namount being received by the City. Ms. Kozisek replied that was only the part that went\ntoward Capital Improvements; the remainder went to the operating budget.\nVice President Kohlstrand inquired about Bicycle and Pedestrian projects, Ms. Kozisek\ndiscussed the budget allocation for those uses and noted that the details on the prioritizations\nwould be available mid-year.\nBoard member Lynch complimented Ms. Kozisek on her thorough and methodical approach\nto this project.\nBoard member McNamara noted that for 2008-09, $24 million was approved, with $16\nmillion for the Stargell Extension, a one-time project, and 2009-10 identified $6 million for\nPublic Works. She inquired whether the $2 million differential would change, or whether\nthe City should expect dwindling funds over the next few years.\nMs. Kozisek noted that the funds may decrease, and that staff took a more conservative\napproach. She added that there were frequently mid-year appropriations to address, and that\nsome of the Measure B funds were held in reserve to act as a local match for potential\ngrants.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft encouraged Ms. Kozisek to provide explanations for technical\nacronyms for the public. Ms. Kozisek replied that the Board received a shortened version of\nthe document that would be seen by the public, which would explain the technical terms.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether any Climate Protection\nTask Force findings were included in the document, Ms. Kozisek replied that buildings over\n3 million square feet should be LEED-rated. Board member Cunningham added that the\nfindings of the Task Force were valuable, and believed that they should be reflected in some\nfollow-through. He noted that there were a number of recommendations that would benefit\nthe community, such as the reduction of solid waste through the green building ordinance.\nShe noted that she would look further into that matter.\nBoard member Cunningham believed that future projects identified by the Planning Board\nshould be detailed in the CIP, and would like to see more details. Ms. Kozisek noted that\nCity Council would have a workshop on this issue in a month, and was unsure whether there\nwould be enough time to include this discussion. She noted that it was better for the entire\nCity's funding to have a complete list of wish-list projects, and encouraged the Planning\nBoard to submit these to the Unfunded Projects List as a planning tool.\nPage 5 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-04-28", "page": 6, "text": "Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the StopWaste.org version of the green building\nordinance had been approved at the last meeting, and had been sent to City Council. She\nwas concerned that the Task Force had not been consulted for the wish list. Board member\nCunningham replied that the green building ordinance contained only one of the findings.\nVice President Kohlstrand would like more information on the Estuary study. She noted that\nDirector Woodbury had attended the joint meeting with the City Council, and returned to the\nPlanning Board for a mid-year discussion. She hoped that would become a regular\noccurrence to discuss how projects fit into the CIP. She noted that she would abstain\nbecause there was nothing in the document that discussed conformance to the General Plan.\nPresident Cook agreed with Vice President Kohlstrand, and would like further clarification\nof the Planning Board's role in this plan. She was not prepared to say it was consistent with\nthe General Plan, but that it was no reflection on the work done by Public Works. Ms.\nKozisek noted that there was almost no new construction in the CIP, and that it was\ngenerally reconstructing or repairing existing items.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether it would be possible to bifurcate the CIP\nreport so the Planning Board may have more time to consider the full information.\nMr. Biggs inquired whether the Plan would go to the City Council for approval. Ms.\nKozisek replied that they would begin to hold workshops in late May; there will be one or\ntwo meetings to discuss the CIP, followed by a vote.\nPresident Cook requested that the Board be allowed the time to examine the unfunded\nprojects and decide on a course of action.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with that suggestion, and inquired about the other\nBoards and Commissions that may want to weigh in.\nMr. Biggs suggested continuing this item to May 12, 2008, and given the time constraint, he\ndid not know whether they would be able to distribute the CIP to the Boards and\nCommissions in time.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that the Climate Protection Task Force be made a\npriority in examining the unfunded projects.\nPresident Cook inquired whether the Planning Board had the authority to recommend that\na\nproject be placed on the funded or unfunded list for review. Ms. Kozisek noted that staff\nwould put any request on the unfunded list, including proposals from the general public. To\nget on the proposed list, it must go through the City Manager and Public Works, and money\nmust be available for it.\nPresident Cook suggested that this item be deferred, and that a meeting be held with the\nPlanning Director to explain how the Board may have meaningful input into the capital\nbudgeting process.\nPage 6 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-04-28", "page": 7, "text": "Vice President Kohlstrand would like to go further, and facilitate the Board's input into the\nprocess.\nBoard member McNamara suggested that the Board adhere to the letter of the law and\ndetermine whether it was consistent with the General Plan or not.\nBoard member Cunningham agreed with Board member McNamara's suggestion.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft was comfortable voting because she had read the entire\npacket. She expressed concern about the $430,000 proposed expenditure of the clocktower\nat City Hall, and she believed that was somewhat out of priority. She could make the finding\nthat the CIP was consistent with the General Plan.\nBoard Member Cunningham moved to find that the CIP list for the Fiscal Year\n2008/2009 and 2009/2010 was in conformance with the General Plan.\nBoard member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4. Noes:\n0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 2 (Cook, Kohlstrand). The motion passed.\n9-A. PLN08-0155 - 2201 South Shore Center - Applicant - Harsch Investment\nRealty. Permit includes the renovation of Building 900 and site improvements in\nthe area immediately adjacent to the building. Current review is limited to the\narchitecture design and does not include the use or operational aspects of this\nbuilding. Building 900 currently contains a single retail store (Mervyn's) and two\nsmaller tenant spaces. A portion of the existing retail store will be converted into\nfive smaller shops. The existing building height ranges from approximately 25 feet\nto 28 feet. After renovation, the typical building height would range from 25 feet\nto 29 feet with parapets over the entranceways extending up to a maximum height\nof 33.5 feet. Site improvements include extensive landscaping, new benches and\nbicycle parking facilities. (JB/DG).\nMr. Biggs presented the staff report and displayed a PowerPoint presentation.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that the staff report did not mention the PDA, and the\nability to raise the height of the structure. He acknowledged that was not part of the\napproval.\nMr. Biggs noted that the Planning Board will look at the PDA in the future, and if the\nsecond story was confined with the architecture of the building, it would be defined within\nthe building permit process. The height could not be increased without a design review.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that his comments had been addressed, and that he was\nhappy with what he saw.\nPage 7 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-04-28", "page": 8, "text": "Board member Lynch concurred.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cook about the process, Mr. Biggs replied that the\namendment would need to come before the applicant could add the second floor space. Any\nmodifications to the exterior of the building would be subject to design review.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that when she went to Town Centre, she was\ncontinually impressed and pleased with how beautiful it looked. She would recommend\npeople visit it to see the spring flowers. She also liked the building materials and the design.\nShe was pleased to see people strolling through the courtyard. She did not find the design of\nthe Kohl's building to be consistent with the high level of design of the other buildings. She\nwill be happy to see the old Mervyn's building gone. She believed the long, uninterrupted\nexpanses of walls be replaced with some windows, although she understood that retail\nwindows could be problematic because the retailer would lose display space. She believed\nwindows would make walking along this area a more interesting experience for the\npedestrian. She inquired why there was no entrance on the west elevation, and noted that\ncreated an even longer blank expanse on that side. She believed the south elevation facing\nthe interior mall also needed some glass window displays to look in, to break up the expanse\nof building material. She liked the east elevation.\nVice President Kohlstrand echoed Board member Ezzy Ashcraft's concerns regarding the\nblank wall and lack of access to the store on the west side.\nPresident Cook echoed Board member Ezzy Ashcraft's concerns.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft believed the lettering of the Kohl's sign looked very large,\nand inquired how big it was.\nBoard member McNamara inquired about bike racks, and would like more to be installed at\nthe center.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nRandy [Kytes], applicant, was pleased that this had been a very collaborative process, and\nthat the series of challenging meetings had been productive. He noted that much of the\nwall space was needed by the store for internal display. He noted that Kohl's typically\noperated with a single entry into the store, and he noted that they would be able to make\nan accommodation for two entries. The entrances were originally on the west and north\nsides, and the applicant was asked to move them to the mall side. The owner of the\ncompany held an impassioned meeting with the Centre architects and Kohl's architects,\nand requested a number of upgrades and further articulation in the building. He noted that\nit was difficult to express a three-dimensional view in the elevations, and added that the\ntrellises would step off the building substantially.\nMr. Kytes suggested that Kohl's be allowed to do what they do, in order to for them to\ncontinue to be successful. They discussed adding a layer of pedestrian amenity, such as\nPage 8 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-04-28", "page": 9, "text": "art plaques. He noted that Kohl's did not merchandise show windows, and he believed\nthe center could install fountains or art in lieu of putting in a show window that would\nlikely be covered by a graphic. He believed the current design was sufficiently articulated\nand followed the flavor of the center. He was confident that a more interesting walk\nwould be possible. They would also maintain shop space along the mall with a strong\npedestrian walkway. He noted that the height of the sign was 12 inches taller than\nSafeway, and added that he would find out the total square footage of the sign. He noted\nthat Kohl's originally wanted an entryway on the west, but Harsch felt that it would be\nmore valuable on the mall.\nMonique Lee, Harsch, displayed and described the bike rack area.\nPresident Cook requested that the applicant address the color schemes of the building, and\nnoted that there was a lot of beige in the elevations.\nJeff [Stohl], Shrader and Holt, Kohl's project architect, noted that they originally had the\nentrance plan to make it pedestrian friendly. The developer requested that the entrance\nface the pedestrian mall, and Kohl's has since added trellis elements, landscaping and\npilasters to break it up. He noted that they had been working with Field Paoli on the color\nscheme, and the elevations presented muted earth tones. They would like to keep that\ngeneral scheme, and added that they could pop out some more true to life colors.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft whether color and material\nboards had been brought, Mr. [Stohl] replied that they used materials consistent with the\nexisting Towne Centre buildings. They were refacing the aggregate with new wood\npaneling and arbors, as well as a tile selection near the entrance that also featured glazing.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that the positive transition of Towne Centre had featured\na lot more transparency, and noted that Harsch captured that concept where the small-\nscale buildings were being added in the corner. She was concerned that the warehouse\nlook would interrupt the existing Center visuals.\nMr. Stohl noted that Kohl's used the interior of the walls to display merchandise from\nwithin the store. He noted that the store needed as much inside wall space as possible to\nfollow the merchandising plans.\nJeff Pool, Manager of New Store Development, Kohl's Department Store, noted that four\nof the five Kohl's stores that would be developed in 2008 would be 88,000 square feet.\nHe noted that sometimes there was a gap regarding the nature of Kohl's business. He\nnoted that there were 15 stores within the San Francisco metropolitan area, and that they\nwere publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange with annual sales of $16 billion.\nTheir mission statement was to be a family-focused, family-oriented specialty department\nstore for the nation. He noted that Mervyn's was 84,000 square feet. He noted that their\nplan for the interior wall displays created a struggle in 2006 as the developer's needs\nwere set against the store's need to create sufficient revenue. He noted that they have\nrecently found ways to accommodate form and function. He noted that they had no show\nPage 9 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-04-28", "page": 10, "text": "windows in a normal prototype store, and that there were store windows at the store\nentrance, as well as within the store, containing mannequins. He did not believe it would\nbe possible to create additional store windows. He noted that they wished to put their best\nfoot forward in the Centre, and did not believe the PowerPoint presentation did justice to\nthe colors and articulation that had been presented. He assured the Board that they would\nbe able to present what the Board needed to make a decision.\nBoard member McNamara expressed concern about the massing and bland color of the\nbuilding, which she believed was already an eyesore. She liked the landscaping efforts\nthroughout the center, and believed that it would be continued in this part of the project.\nMr. Kyte noted that Harsch was very protective and critical of the center's design. He\nbelieved that the landscaping and the trellises on the south side of Bed, Bath & Beyond\nwould have sufficed. He noted that they knew how to create a pedestrian amenity, and\nthat they knew how to get people to flow through the shopping center, as well as to stay,\nlinger and enjoy the experience. He noted that they would make every piece of this center\nright before it was completed.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft believed there was a solution to the Board's desire for\ndisplay windows, as well as landscaping and the trellis. She believed that the Board's\nexpectations were placed very high by the previous phases of the center. She did not want\nto see long expanses of wall, and that the public wanted a beautiful place to shop. She did\nnot want to see a warehouse on the corner of the development. She inquired whether\nthere were restrictions on the truck hours.\nMr. Pool noted that Mervyn's had the same width with a recessed dock, and described the\nshift of the dock area in order to increase the sales area. He noted that the Mervyn's door\naccommodated two trucks. Mr. Kyte added that trash compactors were also included.\nMr. Pool expressed concern that the posters that were initially very attractive in an initial\npresentation before the City may become yellowed and curled in the window. He noted\nthat it may be a function of training of managers for poster maintenance. He noted that\nthey wanted to put the entrance on the west side, but that Harsch did not allow it. He\nbelieved that the illumination and the trellises would improve the presentation than\ndepending on Kohl's to use existing design programs. He was concerned that the lack of\na national, regional or local program for shop windows would lead to a shopworn look\nover time.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding truck hours, Mr. Pool\nreplied that they would probably be less than Safeway's. Kohl's had two or three\ndeliveries weekly, with the exception of the holiday season.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand regarding the concrete, Mr. Pool\ndescribed the transition from colored concrete to the asphalt in that area.\nPage 10 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-04-28", "page": 11, "text": "In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether they had looked at brick-like\nsurfaces, Board member Cunningham replied that the weight of the truckloads required\nthat the surface be made of concrete. Mr. Kyte replied they had looked at stamped\nconcrete, but they were problematic with the weight of the truckloads.\nPresident Cook noted that she shares some of the same concerns as Board member Ezzy\nAshcraft. She added that while she normally abstained from a piecemeal development, she\nwas in favor of this item moving forward, particularly in light of the CIP moving\nforward. She noted that sales tax revenue was very important to the City, and had seen\nthat Mervyn's had not done as good a job in that area. She shared the concerns regarding\nthe windows, and trusted that the developer would keep it on a human scale. She\nappreciated any design additions that could enliven the colors. She was initially very\nconcerned about not having a west-facing door, but understood that would be a concern\nwith respect to shoplifting.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there were any overhangs above the\ntrellises between the loading dock and the Kohl's sign. She would like to see the Kohl's\nletter in a smaller size, particularly given the flatness of the fa\u00e7ade. She requested that the\nletters be the same size as Safeway. Mr. Pool noted that the traffic flow along Otis was\nsignificantly blocked, and they had asked for Kohl's identification as the largest store in\nthe center; Harsch had denied that request. He noted that Kohl's square footage was\nlarger than Safeway, and that the sign was intended to be seen by passing traffic on Otis\nDrive.\nMike Corbitt, Harsch Development, noted that the letters on the Mervyn's sign were six\nand five feet, respectively. He noted that it was important for the store to be seen.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft would like there to be more visual interest on the exterior.\nShe inquired where the art panels and fountains would be located. Mr. Kyte replied that\nhistory panels would be mounted on the building on the west side. Board member Ezzy\nAshcraft did not believe she could support this unless there was a window or some other\npoint of interest on the blank wall. Mr. Kyte replied that the Board had not approved\nlocations for other panels, and that they had installed many of them. He added that the art\npanels have been purchased already, and that they intended to include an appropriate\nlevel of pedestrian amenities and landscape. He assured the Board that they would create\na pedestrian-friendly appearance, and estimated that two panels would be placed on the\nwest elevation in a yet-to-be-determined location, and two on the south elevation between\nthe Kohl's entry and the West End of the mall. He noted that they had other pieces of art\nthat had not been sited yet, and that those pieces exceeded the City's requirements.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to adopt Draft Planning Board Resolution to approve\na permit that includes the renovation of Building 900 and site improvements in the area\nimmediately adjacent to the building. Current review is limited to the architecture design\nand does not include the use or operational aspects of this building. Building 900\nPage 11 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-04-28", "page": 12, "text": "currently contains a single retail store (Mervyn's) and two smaller tenant spaces. A\nportion of the existing retail store will be converted into five smaller shops. The existing\nbuilding height ranges from approximately 25 feet to 28 feet. After renovation, the typical\nbuilding height would range from 25 feet to 29 feet with parapets over the entranceways\nextending up to a maximum height of 33.5 feet. Site improvements include extensive\nlandscaping, new benches and bicycle parking facilities.\nPresident Cook requested an amendment to add the following language in Condition 3:\n\"This area shall not be used for vehicle parking, loading or unloading, staging or material\nstorage\nThe amendment was acceptable to the maker and seconder of the motion.\nBoard member Lynch seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 1\n(Ezzy Ashcraft). The motion passed.\n9-C.\nHousing Element/Measure A Forum Summary\nFor Planning Board review and discussion. This item is for discussion purposes\nonly.\nMr. Biggs summarized the staff report.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThere were none.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nVice President Kohlstrand believed the summary accurately reflected what had happened\nat the forum, and hoped that there would be more of a summary from the staff\nperspective.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 1, paragraph 4, of the Preface did not seem\nto be accurate, which read: \"In March 2007, the Planning Board appointed an ad hoc\ncommittee.\nA group of Alameda residents appealed the Planning Board's committee\nappointment to the City Council, reflecting the community's passion about preserving\nMeasure A.\" She did not believe that sentence belonged in the document, and stated that\nan appeal made by seven people could not be extrapolated to speak for the City's\npopulation of 75,000. She believed the process was accurate.\nBoard member Lynch noted that this item was prepared by Planning Director Cathy\nWoodbury, and asked how the comment made by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft could be\nintegrated. He believed it reflected an opinion and should be struck.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft believed the sentence she quoted was a conclusionary\nstatement, and should be removed from the document.\nPage 12 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-04-28", "page": 13, "text": "Mr. Biggs replied that the sentence could be stricken from the document.\nBoard member Lynch advised that that was a direction to staff, rather than a request, and\ninquired about the process to make a correction.\nBoard member Cunningham inquired where this process would go in the future. Mr.\nBiggs described the general process, and noted that SunCal would take the input and\nbring it back in a summary to the City\nPresident Cook did not want this discussion to continue if SunCal were not to be in the\npicture. She believed further discussion of this matter was very important, particularly the\ntradeoffs faced on Alameda Point.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft would like to hear more about forum-based codes, which\nwould not supplant the discussion about Measure A, but she believed it was a timely\ntopic. She would like to agendize that topic for a future meeting.\nPresident Cook noted that developers liked certainty, and this discussion would help in\nfuture development. She noted that a bright side of an economic downturn allowed the\nCity time to refine these items.\nVice President Kohlstrand inquired about the status of the Housing Element; she noted\nthat it was important to have the forum summary as a record, but believed that the\nultimate meaning for the community was missing from the document.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the event cost $41,500, and hoped that covered\nthe entire process, not just that day.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that it included the preparation and organization time, as\nwell as presentations and lunch.\nPresident Cook would like to hear back from the Planning Director to discuss the work\nprogram issues and the policy issues, particularly as they relate to the Housing Element.\nBoard member Lynch would like a response from the Planning Director on this item, and\nsuggested that a Director's Report be placed on the agenda. He expressed concern that\nthe Planning Director did not attend the meeting, which he believed was significant. He\nbelieved the Director's Report would fall into the policy category that would enable the\nDirector to clarify the policy issues to the Board.\nBoard member Lynch inquired whether this had been circulated as a draft document. Mr.\nBiggs replied that he did not know. Board member Lynch believed that staff should\nconsider circulating this document as a draft to the individuals who participated for\naccuracy, and then produce the document.\nPage 13 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-04-28", "page": 14, "text": "Board member Lynch moved that the document be returned to the Planning Board in\ndraft form with a presentation by the Planning Director.\nVice President Kohlstrand wished to amend the motion to state that the Planning Director\nwould be able to address the issues brought forward during the Board's discussion.\nPresident Cook wished to further amend the motion to include a document to forward to\nCity Council.\nVice President Kohlstrand seconded the amended motion, with the following voice vote -\n6. Noes: 0. The motion passed.\nPage 14 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-04-28", "page": 15, "text": "10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\na.\nReport on Alameda Point Station Area Plan\nMr. Biggs presented the staff report, and noted that it was provided to the City Council by\nthe City Manager. He noted that the report was available on the City's website.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. David Howard suggested that this study was justified on the basis of having to\nrespond to the Oakland-Chinatown lawsuit against the City of Alameda. He noted that\nSection 3.3 of the Settlement Agreement called for a study of transportation alternatives,\nwhich had been presented by the Planning Director many times that outside money was\nused to conduct the study to satisfy the requirements of the agreement. He hoped that the\nPlanning Board or Planning staff would refer this study to the Oakland-Chinatown\nAdvisory Committee for review, as part of responding to this agreement. He noted the\nconcerns expressed by the Chinatown Agreement as part of the settlement agreement\nregarding automobile traffic. He noted that the transit-enhanced third alternative\ntranslated to twelve buses per hour coming out of Alameda Point, presumably mostly\ncoming through the Tube. He believed the Advisory would want to review whether they\nintended to trade automobiles for buses.\nMr. Howard addressed Board member Cunningham's previous comments about the\nbalance of jobs and housing at Alameda Point, and noted that the concept was not\nadequately addressed in the report. He did not observe any efforts in Alameda to attract\na\nbig campus user. Regarding the Housing Element, he understood that 71% of Alameda\nresidents left the Island to get to work each day. He noted that the top ten employers in\nAlameda employed only about 4,000 people out of a day population of 38,000 people. He\nbelieved that looking at more housing at Alameda Point would aggravate the current\nhousing/jobs balance. He supported the idea of reusing the buildings, and bringing jobs at\na range of pay scales that would not require people to leave the Island; he believed that\nmight solve some of the traffic and transit considerations.\nMr. Howard expressed concern that the report continued to promulgate the notion which\nhe did not believe had been substantiated or justified, that Measure A precluded any\nhistoric buildings from being reused. He spoke specifically of the Bachelor Executive\nQuarters and the Bachelor Officer Quarters. He cited Article 3 of Chapter 30 of the\nAlameda Municipal Code (Development Regulations): Multiple Dwelling Units\n-\nRehabilitation, remodeling or alteration of existing structures provides that existing\nmultiple dwelling units may be rehabilitated or remodeled, provided they comply with\nthe provisions of the chapter, and no building shall be altered to increase the number of\nmultiple dwelling units contained therein.\" He believed that legislation has been\nconveniently ignored by every study of what to do with the BEQ and the BOQ. He\nbelieved it was not substantiated that the BEQ and the BOQ could not be reused through\nthat legislation. He believed that should be studied, and has heard Planning staff and\nPage 15 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-04-28", "page": 16, "text": "President Cook requested that Mr. Thomas update the Board at the next meeting.\nBoard member Lynch inquired whether a motion would be needed for this item, because\nit\nwas the byproduct of a settlement. He requested that staff return with an answer to the\nBoard, and suggested that if it was the product of a settlement agreement, he believed\nthere was some duty to deliver it. If not, he inquired whether the Board should deliver it\nin the spirit of neighborliness.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that it was the summary of the first hearing in a process\nthat has not concluded. Mr. Biggs noted that Mr. Thomas could report to the Board on\nthat item.\nNo action was taken.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft hoped that Alameda was not the only body performing\nstudies on this issue, and that there was reciprocity on Oakland's part.\nPresident Cook suggested that this follow-up be included in Staff Communications for the\nnext meeting.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that a meeting of the Pedestrian Task Force had been\nheld; the Task Force included members of the Planning Board, the Transportation\nCommission, the Housing Commission and the Accessibility Commission. She noted that\ninformation will come to the Planning Board at the end of May. She encouraged the\nBoard and the public to look at the work performed by the Task Force in documenting\nexisting facilities in Alameda. She noted that there was considerable detail, and that their\nchallenge would be to figure out how to implement the plans to improve pedestrian\namenities in Alameda.\nPage 16 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-04-28", "page": 17, "text": "Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that Thursday, May 15, would be Bike to Work Day.\nShe added that May 21 would be the grand opening of the Alameda Theater, and that it\nwould be a black-tie event.\nPresident Cook noted that Saturday, May 24, would be Family Day at the theater.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n10:05 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThis meeting was audio and video taped.\nPage 17 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf"}