{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-27", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -MAY 27, 2008- - -6:00 P. M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:12 p.m.\nCouncilmember Gilmore led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\n(08-228) Workshop on the City's Two-year Financial Plan and\nCapital Improvement Projects for Fiscal Years 2008-10.\nThe City Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Johnson raised questions about the decline in housing sales.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what is the surcharge for Alameda\nPower & Telecom (AP&T), to which the City Manager responded the\namount would be provided.\nThe City Manager continued the presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there is a portion of the Public\nWorks' budget, such as the sewer fund, that should be removed from\nthe General Fund, similar to Planning and Building.\nThe City Manager responded portions of the Public Works' budget\nthat come from other funds are incorporated in the General Fund;\nstated staff keeps track of said funds.\nMayor Johnson stated including the funds makes the General Fund\nlook larger.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the funds cannot be spent on other\nthings.\nThe City Manager stated the matter could be explored.\nMayor Johnson requested that the suggestion be reviewed.\nVice Mayor Tam raised questions about revenues from parking and\nspeeding tickets.\nThe City Manager continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there is a breakdown of the\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMay 27, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-27", "page": 2, "text": "transfers from other departments, to which the Finance Director\nresponded the amount could be provided.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated AP&T has the Utility Users Tax and\nfranchise fees; inquired whether the total amount of what AP&T\nbrings in is available.\nThe Finance Director responded that she could provide said amount.\nThe City Manager continued the presentation.\nMayor Johnson requested information on whether Police Department\novertime is due to the five unfilled positions.\nVice Mayor Tam requested an explanation of the disparity between\nthe cost to run the animal shelters at San Leandro and Alameda.\nquestioned whether there is the same level of service and whether\nthe one time donation will offset a significant portion of the\ncost.\nCouncil requested information on trends and projections of animal\nshelter donations.\nRegarding the animal shelter donation, Councilmember deHaan\nrequested information on investing the $270,000.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested staff to review whether there is\nany capacity in the animal shelter for people outside the City to\ncontract for the City's service.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired exactly how much is being saved by\nreducing one Senior Dispatcher position; stated that before she\nagrees to cut the position, she would like information about where\nthe City was and is now, and what trade-offs are involved.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the presentation talked about\nguiding principles; in the past when the City was squeezed, the\nCouncil said that it wanted to flatten the organization as a\npolicy; he would like the Council to consider said direction;\ninstead of taking from the point of service delivery, upper\nmanagement should be reviewed; people still would be supervised but\nmanagement would be consolidated; the delivery of internal versus\nexternal services should be reviewed; the tip should go to\nprotecting external delivery of service; the City can live with\ninternal delivery of service slowing down; that he wants to ensure\nthat the Council reviews giving said direction as a policy or\nprinciple; police and fire are delivering services on the street ;\nhe does not believe in across the board reductions if services\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMay 27, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-27", "page": 3, "text": "delivered to the street are impacted.\nMayor Johnson stated a city in Alameda County has a contract to\nprovide jail services [to other cities ] ; inquired whether the City\ncould look at doing the same.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the Council should identify priority issues\nthat should be restored if additional savings can be found in other\nparts of the budget, such as the Golf rebate on the ROI (Return on\nInvestments), the animal shelter, the Meyer's House, furloughing\nduring the holidays, or some of the other revenue enhancement\nproposals that will be discussed; a way should be found to restore\ndirect services.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he has concerns about overtime\nreduction; the past record has been flat; inquired how much the\npercentage will be brought down from 4.3% and the amount that will\nbe saved.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he wants to be told if the\nPolice Chief recommends funding police officer and dispatch\npositions; Council can figure out what has to go if positions\nshould be funded; that he would like to hear from department heads\nif the City cannot do without positions the experts responsible\nfor the department need to inform Council what positions are really\nneeded and the budget needs to be worked back from that.\nMayor Johnson stated the cuts assume a 0% pay increase. ; said\nassumption might not be what occurs; the issue should be considered\nunless staff is confident that a 0% pay increase is a correct\nassumption.\nThe City Manager continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested a description of the two Fire\nDepartment workforce changes.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated overtime varies from day to day; that\nshe wants to know how it is managed under the scenario and how\nmutual aid works under the scenario; that she is going to have to\nsee how the proposal works.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated more in depth information on call back\novertime is needed; inquired whether other municipalities have\nadopted something similar [rotating fire station closures]\nThe City Manager responded other cities have done it on a short-\nterm basis.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMay 27, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-27", "page": 4, "text": "Councilmember deHaan stated response time would be impacted\ninquired whether there would be an active truck at each station.\nThe City Manager stated the information would be provided by the\nFire Chief; continued the presentation.\nFollowing Council discussion regarding retaining Park Directors,\nthe City Manager stated the issue would be placed on the issue bin.\nMayor Johnson stated the tennis court light issue needs to be\naddressed a lit court is needed on the eastern part of Alameda.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she objects to eliminating the Senior\nClerk position which provides direct service to the community;\ninquired whether costs of other programs could be reduced; raised\nquestions about the Meyer's House.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested staff to explore relinquishing\nthe Meyer's House back to the trust.\nMayor Johnson stated the Council should adopt a resolution saying\nthat City money will not be used to subsidize the Meyer's House ;\nfurther stated the Meyer's House should be moved out of\nRecreation's budget and the funds should remain in Recreation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore clarified Mayor Johnson is suggesting the\namount [$25,000] that the City is subsidizing the Meyer's House\nshould remain in the Recreation and Parks Department's budget.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested staff to provide the total amount\nspent on special events.\nMayor Johnson stated elimination of the Golf surcharge and Return\non Investment (ROI) needs to be discussed; stated not continuing\nthe surcharge in some form is seriously impacting the budget.\nCouncilmember deHaan questioned why staffing levels cannot get back\nto the level five years ago; stated all departments should look at\nwhy growth occurred.\nThe City Manager stated the matter was captured on the issue bin;\ncontinued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese questioned whether not funding two Public\nWorks maintenance workers really saves money; inquired whether\nmaintenance would be impacted and whether the City would be adding\nto its deferred maintenance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMay 27, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-27", "page": 5, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated funds that are not discretionary should be\nremoved from the General Fund or shown as discretionary and non-\ndiscretionary.\nThe City Manager continued the presentation.\nMayor Johnson requested staff to provide information on how much\nthe refinancing would save per year and how much it would cost the\nCity; stated the net amount should be provided.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated some bonds have been previously\nrefinanced he would like to know when the bonds were refinanced\nand the cost.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the issue strikes him as a guiding\nprinciple; that he does not mind refinancing debt for hard assets;\nthat he objects to borrowing money for operations; he would like\nCouncil to consider said policy.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated staffing increased proportionally\nthrough all departments in 1997 when the City took over the former\nNaval Air Station; he would like the numbers reviewed more in\ndepth.\nMayor Johnson stated a formal request should be made to the Navy to\nrequest payment for police and fire service at the Base; the City\ncannot afford to pay for the service.\nFollowing Vice Mayor Tam's questions regarding redevelopment funds,\nthe City Manager stated information would be provided.\nVice Mayor Tam requested the information be posted on the City's\nwebsite.\nThe City Manager continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan raised questions about the Planning and\nBuilding Department moving into the Carnegie Building.\nFollowing discussion of uses of permit fees, the City Manager\nstated additional information would be provided.\nMayor Johnson requested when changes for window permits are made,\nthe matter should be placed on a Council agenda.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested more detailed information on the\namount of General Fund reserves available and loaned out.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMay 27, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-27", "page": 6, "text": "Mayor Johnson and Councilmember deHaan requested a formal policy\nrestricting use of the General Fund reserve for one-time purposes.\nThe City Manager continued the presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated there is not a real reserve because there are\noutstanding obligations are not being paid for; the budget needs to\nacknowledge said obligations.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he would like to know the current\namount of deferred maintenance what the City is facing should be\nincluded in the budget.\nThe City Manager continued the presentation.\nMayor Johnson questioned whether there is more that can be done now\nto balance the Golf budget requested a report on the status of\nusing the reserves for operating expenses; stated there should be a\nreport to the Council; further stated direction should be given to\nthe Golf Commission that the Council expects the Commission to come\nup with a short-term - plan.\nCouncilmember Gilmore suggested holding another joint meeting with\nthe Golf Commission.\nMayor Johnson stated two Councilmembers could work with the Golf\nCommission if scheduling a meeting is difficult.\nThe City Manager suggested that the Golf Commission could be\ninvited to attend the Council meeting when the Master Plan is\npresented stated staff would provide suggestions and ideas about\nhow to move forward.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Golf Commission reports to\nCouncil; the matter should be placed on an agenda and the Council\nshould vote to give direction for the Golf Commission to establish\na short-term plan by a certain time.\nMayor Johnson requested that the Golf Commission be informed that\nthe matter is being placed on a Council agenda; stated the matter\nneeds to be brought to the Council very soon; stated giving\ndirection should be placed on the second meeting in June.\nThe City Manager stated the matter would be put on the issue bin;\nstaff would determine the best way to follow up; continued the\npresentation.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMay 27, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-27", "page": 7, "text": "Domenick Weaver, Alameda Firefighters Local 689 President, stated\nthat he is in strong opposition of the Fire Department budget cuts;\nurged Council to hire full staff to control overtime.\nRobb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, challenged Council to\nmake the cuts as minimal as possible; stated the Police and Fire\nDepartment are essential to the business community Council should\nfind a way to fund positions and have the Police and Fire\nDepartment at full strength in three years; urged the City to look\ninto corporate sponsorships.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 10:05 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\n7\nMay 27, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-05-27", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nCOMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nMay 27, 2008\nTIME\nThe meeting convened at 6:40 P.M.\nPRESENT\nChair Lord-Hausman, Commissioners Longley-Cook, Fort, Kirola, Kreitz, Berger\nand Robinson.\nABSENT\nVice-Chair Moore\nMINUTES\nThe April 28, 2008 minutes were approved with the following correction: under Oral\nCommunications/Nor Agenda Items, item number four was edited to indicate that the non-working\ndisabled handicap button is located outside and that additional changing tables should be installed in\nmore than one of the library bathrooms to allow more space for the disabled.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nThere was no written communication.\nNEW BUSINESS\n1. Draft ADA Transition Plan Update (Lucretia Akil, ADA Coordinator; Jim Fruit, Project\nManager, Sally Swanson Architects):\nLucretia Akil, ADA Coordinator/Board Secretary provided the introduction and overview of the\nCity's draft ADA Transition Plan Update. Darrell Handy, Risk Manager, also participated in the\npresentation, informing the Commission of the goal and purpose of the community meeting,\nwhich was to address the access and facility improvements within the content of the plan and\nthat specific questions or concerns regarding disability issues may be addressed and responded\nto separate form the meeting. Jim Fruit, Project Manager, Sally Swanson Architects (SSA),\nconcluded the presentation of the Transition Plan with detailed review of the technical data\ncontained in the facilities and public intersections reports of the Plan, as well as Federal and\nState laws of Title II ADA compliance with public agencies.\nSecretary Akil informed the Commission that following tonight's community meeting and\nreceiving specific input from the Commission, the Transition Plan Update would be taken to the\nCity Council for final adoption based on recommendation from the Commission on Disability\nIssues.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-05-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-05-27", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nMay 27, 2008\nMinutes\nPage 2 of 6\nCommissioner Berger asked what defines an individual with a qualified disability, to which Mr.\nFruit replied that any person who has a physical or apparent disability would be considered to\nhave a qualified disability.\nCommissioner Berger asked if the same consulting firm (SSA) could be used for future updates\nto the Transition Plan to which Mr. Handy responded that the computer software that SSA offers\nwould enable the City to update the Transition Plan on an annual basis via the ADA Coordinator\n(Lucretia Akil). The ADA Coordinator will attend the yearly Capital Improvement Program\n(CIP) kick-off meeting to ensure that ADA updates are included within future CIP projects.\nCommissioner Berger asked about the sampling and new projects identified within the\nTransition Plan to which Secretary Akil responded that the City's Public Works Department staff\nare the managers of the CIP program and that she would ensure that those items identified be\nincluded with the annual CIP updated project lists.\nCommissioner Longley-Cook asked if Tinker Avenue extension is part of the Transition Plan\nupdate to which Mr. Handy responded that Tinker is part of the future Planning of Alameda\nPoint and is not included in the Plan update.\nCommissioner Berger raised the inoperability of the Main Library disabled handicap button at\nthe rear of the building to which Secretary Akil replied that particular item will be addressed\ndirectly with the Library Director and all other ADA accessible items identified in the Transition\nPlan have been repaired in the Main Library.\nCommissioner Berger asked how are all accessibility issues handled such as ramps that may not\nwork for everyone, to which Mr. Fruit replied that architectural accessibility is modeled on\nindividuals who have moderate strength and are mobile. Architectural features do address\ncertain linear feet issues; however, it becomes a personal choice of the individual in terms of\ntraveling certain paths or distances across things such as ramps. Most of the population is\ncovered through these architectural features based on the ADA.\nMr. Handy responded that many ramps are less taxing and more up to code than past years, but it\ndoes not always affect the length of the ramp and that is where personal choice would occur on\nwhether or not one is willing to travel the distance of the ramp.\nCommissioner Berger stated that hidden disabilities need to be addressed such as arthritis, to\nwhich Mr. Fruit responded that comes with aging. Commissioner Berger responded that perhaps\nmore signage would be helpful to which Mr. Fruit replied that he could offer the ADA\nCoordinator information on \"way-finding\" to assist those with hidden disabilities.\n G:\\Lucretia)CommDisability\\Minutes(2008\\Minutes_May 27 2008.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-05-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-05-27", "page": 3, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nMay 27, 2008\nMinutes\nPage 3 of 6\nChair Lord-Hausman asked if there is one individual in the Public Works Department for the\nADA Coordinator to work with to which Secretary Akil replied yes, Laurie Kozisek, Associate\nCivil Engineer who works directly with the Capital Improvement Project program in the City.\nCommissioner Berger stated that since there is great detail in the Plan, what is the method of\nselecting a project, to which Mr. Fruit replied that the data consists of specific detail of each\nfacility, so any decision to select a project would be based on the information and level of\npriority identified in the Transition Plan.\nCommissioner Berger asked if any furnishings are included within the facilities reports of the\nTransition Plan update to which Mr. Fruit replied that only if the furnishing is fixed within the\nstructure. Only then is the item addressed within each report of the Transition Plan. If the item\nis loose or not affixed to the facility, then there is no reasonable accommodation that needs to be\naddressed under any disability issue as the item can be moved from one place to another.\nCommissioner Kirola thanked City staff and the consultant for all the work that went into the\nproject recognizing that it was a difficult task. The finished project is much appreciated.\nChair Lord-Hausman confirmed that the Public Works Department also participated in the\nTransition Plan update.\nChair Lord-Hausman asked what type of Federal and grant funding would the City be able to\ndraw upon in order to fund the various ADA improvements to which Mr. Fruit replied that it\nwould probably consist of road and gas tax, which is apportioned by population. Those funds\nmust be used for specific earmarks such as street surfacing, curb ramp improvements,\nintersection, etc. as they are obligated by the State. Other possible funding could be\nredevelopment funding, which could include street, electrical and sidewalk improvements.\nCommissioner Robinson asked about receiving fees from developers to which Mr. Fruit replied\nthat if an agency chooses to tax a developer, it becomes difficult and the City may not attract\ndevelopers to work on projects within the City, or the costs could actually be offset onto the City\nunder construction costs.\nMr. Handy stated that the ADA Transition Plan projects are integrated within the CIP program.\nADA projects will get done as other projects are completed within the City's CIP program, such\nas sidewalk and street repairs, which must be ADA compliant with any improvements.\nEverything that is built and designed will be ADA compliant as the City's overall commitment\nto the Transition Plan is a priority for the City Council. As the ADA Coordinator, Ms. Akil will\nensure that this happens as often as the CIP program is updated.\nChair Lord-Hausman stated that the ADA Transition Plan is a good living document and that any\nhidden disability resulting from aging will evolve with the Plan and be addressed over years.\nG:\\Lucretia)CommDisability\\Minutes(2008\\Minutes_May 27 2008.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-05-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-05-27", "page": 4, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nMay 27, 2008\nMinutes\nPage 4 of 6\nCommissioner Berger sated that she is very impressed with the Plan.\nThere were no other comments received from the public or commission.\nChair Lord-Hausman motioned to recommend that the Commission forward the draft ADA\nTransition Plan Update to the City Council for final adoption. The motion was seconded by\nCommissioner Longley-Cook and passed with the following vote: Ayes - 6; Nay - 0; Abstain -\n0.\nSecretary Akil, Mr. Handy and Mr. Fruit thanked the Commission for their input and\nrecommendation.\nOLD BUSINESS\nThere was no old business for discussion.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nCommission on Disability Internet Link (Chair Lord-Hausman/Secretary Akil):\nSecretary Akil provided updated information to the Commission regarding the addition of an\naccessibility link onto the City's website. The City is in the process of putting out an RFQ to re-\nvamp the current website and that process will not be finalized before fall. With costs escalating and\nthe current budget problems facing the City, these factors will delay the start-up of this project along\nwith the delay in overhauling the entire website. Secretary Akil stated that following the adoption of\nthe City's budget, this item will be re-agendized for future discussion.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS\n1. Chair Lord-Hausman confirmed that the 2008 dates for the summer Concert at the Cove events\nare June 13, July 11 and August 8. Commissioner Longley-Cook will represent the Commission\non June 13 and Commissioner Berger, August 8. Chair Lord-Hausman stated that she would\nconfirm who would be in attendance for the July 11 event.\n2.\nCommissioner Kreitz provided information regarding the Bike Plan Task Force committee. The\ncommittee has not yet formally met as the first meeting had to be rescheduled, but she will keep\nthe Commission updated as they meet.\n3. Commissioner Berger requested that the members of the CDI be given another tour of the\nAlameda Theatre now that it is open to the public. Secretary Akil stated that she would check\nG:\\Lucretia)CommDisability\\Minutes/2008\\Minutes_May 27 2008.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-05-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-05-27", "page": 5, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nMay 27, 2008\nMinutes\nPage 5 of 6\nwith the former Project Manager to determine if the request can be accommodated.\n4. Commissioner Berger asked that Vice-Chair Jodi Moore's absence from the Commission be\naddressed at a future meeting. Chair Lord-Hausman responded that Jodi has had some personal\nchallenges, however, she will contact her to discuss going forward with the Commission.\n5. Commissioner Longley-Cook stated that the Peanut Butter and Jam Festival and Alameda\nHospital Health Fair's are approaching and wanted to confirm the Commission's participation.\nChair Lord-Hausman stated that she will contact the hospital regarding the date and follow up\nwith Commissioner Kreitz regarding her progress on the Master Calendar of events for the\nCommission.\nCommissioner Kirola suggested the CDI's participation in the Art and Wine Fair on Park Street\nto which Chair Lord-Hausman responded that the Commission should agree to participate in\nevents with the most chance of exposure. The Chair will contact Jackie Krause, Manager of the\nMastick Senior Center regarding a possibility of co-partnering with the CDI for community\nevents.\n6. Chair Lord-Hausman stated that the disabled spot on Everett and Park Street has been painted.\n7. Chair Lord-Hausman read an article from the National Federation of the Blind concerning the\nconsequence of operating the energy-saving hybrid and electric cars that are so quiet, pedestrians\noften cannot hear their approach. The Federation is proposing legislation.\n8. Chair Lord-Hausman requested that the parking/re-stripping along Central Avenue in front of the\nAUSD office and high school be agendized for future discussion since up to three disabled\nparking spaces are gone due to the elimination of diagonal parking to parallel parking.\n9. Commissioner Berger stated that she had not received a response from the Alameda Civic\nLighthouse Opera (ACLO) regarding the removal of disabled parking.\n10. Chair Lord-Hausman stated that she received an invitation for the Commission to participate on\nthe Alameda County Developmental Disability Council. The Chair acknowledged that this is\npositive recognition for the Commission to be on their distribution list.\n11. Commissioner Berger stated that she would like for the Commission to invite a representative\nfrom the College of Alameda to discuss parking for students with disabilities.\nADJOURNMENT", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-05-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-05-27", "page": 6, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nMay 27, 2008\nMinutes\nPage 6 of 6\nThe meeting adjourned at 8:20 P.M. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, June 23, 2008, at 6:30\nP.M. in Room 360 at City Hall.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLucretia A. Akil\nCommission Secretary", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-05-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-05-27", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nTuesday, May 27, 2008\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:01 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft.\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nActing President Kohlstrand, Board Members Autorino,\nCunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, and McNamara.\nAlso present were Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, City Attorney Donna Mooney;\nGail Payne, Public Works; Althea Carter.\nPresident Cook and Board member Lynch were absent from roll call.\nActing President Kohlstrand welcomed Art Autorino to the Planning Board.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of April 14, 2008 (pending).\nThese minutes will be considered at a later meeting.\nb.\nMinutes for the meeting of April 28, 2008.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 13, paragraph 4, should be changed to read, \"Board\nmember Ezzy Ashcraft would like to hear more about forum- form-based codes.\n\"\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to approve the minutes of April 28, 2008, as amended.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4. Noes:\n0\nAbsent: 2 (Cook/Lynch); Abstain: 1 (Autorino). The motion passed.\nc.\nMinutes for the meeting of May 12, 2008 (pending).\nThese minutes will be considered at a later meeting.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nActing President Kohlstrand noted that speaker slips had been received for Item 8-A, and suggested\nthat it be moved to the Regular Agenda.\nActing President Kohlstrand recommended that 8-C be pulled from the Consent Calendar and be\nplaced on the Regular Agenda.\n6.\nPRESENTATIONS:\na.\nStaff Communications - Future Agendas\nPage 1 of 6", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-05-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-05-27", "page": 2, "text": "Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.\nb.\nZoning Administrator Report\nThere was no report.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATION: None.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8-A.\nUP06-0010 - 1310 Central Avenue. Required Six Month Review of Use Permit for the\nextended hours of operation for the Alameda Valero Gas Station. The subject property is\nlocated in the R-4 (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District. (DV)\nMr. Thomas presented the staff report. Staff recommended that the Planning Board accept the\nSix-Month Review and find that Alameda Valero Gasoline was in conformance with the\nconditions of the Use Permit. The station would continue under the terms of the Use Permit, and\nno further reviews would be required. Any violations would initiate Code Enforcement actions,\nup to and including revocation of the Use Permit.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Phil Gravem, 1344 Sherman Street, spoke in support of this project. He noted that he lived\nacross the street from this gas station. He noted that the shortened hours had been beneficial, and\nadded that he was concerned about cars that were parked outside the bays and on the streets. He\nstated that things had generally been going well.\nMs. Patricia Kinzel, 1307 Central Avenue, noted that she was undecided about this issue. She\nthanked Barbara Price of Public Works for changing the timing on the lights.\nMr. Luon Zergser, applicant, Alameda Valero, 1310 Central Avenue, noted that some customers'\ncars were parked on the street when they did not come to pick them up before the station closed.\nHe did not want to lock the cars in the garage in the event the customers came after hours for\ntheir cars.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara why some of the cars were parked\npartially out of the garage, Mr. Zergser replied that because of the configuration of the smog\ncheck testing equipment, the rear of the cars being tested must be outside the garage. He noted\nthat other than the smog check, no servicing of the cars was performed outside the garage.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft whether he could post a sign asking\nthe customers not to park on the street, Mr. Zergser replied that he could do that.\nActing President Kohlstrand noted that the condition prohibiting any cars being parked outside\nwas almost impossible to meet.\nPage 2 of 6", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-05-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-05-27", "page": 3, "text": "Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it would be preferable for a customer to pick up their car\non the parking lot after hours, as opposed to on the street.\nBoard member McNamara noted that the applicant performed a public service by allowing the\nnearby church to use their parking lot.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she understood the applicant's comments about the cars\nbeing outside the bay. She wanted the \"no street parking\" requirement to be followed, and\nbelieved it was reasonable for the owner to ask the customers not to park on the street.\nBoard member McNamara understood that the nature of smog check work required that part of\nthe car be outside the garage. With respect to Condition 8, she believed that the Board should\nconsider allowing some parking on the lot in an overnight situation, but not on the street.\nBoard member Cunningham suggested that another six-month review be implemented, in order to\naddress the neighbors' concerns.\nBoard member Autorino noted that the requirement to not allow parked cars on the lot overnight\nwas put in place for a reason, and believed that more input would be needed before making such\na change.\nActing President Kohlstrand noted that any changes to the conditions had not been noticed, and\nbelieved it would be inappropriate to change the conditions at this time.\nMr. Thomas suggested that direction be given to staff and the applicant that another six-month\nreview be implemented. The applicant should keep track of this specific situation, and that it be\nmade clear that the preference was to not leave cars on the lot overnight. In six months, staff\nwould return with that information for discussion, and a new resolution which would be noticed\nif the condition were to be changed.\nActing President Kohlstrand suggested that a condition be added to address the work being done\ninside the bays.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara regarding overnight parking, Mr. Thomas\nstated that if a customer's car was not picked up in time, that it was preferred that it be parked on\nthe lot rather than on the street. Any complaints should be directed to the City's Code\nEnforcement department, which would also keep track of the calls.\nMs. Mooney noted that with the information gathered, it could be decided whether any changed\nin conditions would be agendized.\nActing President Kohlstrand noted that she was uncomfortable directing staff not to enforce a\ncondition. She would be more comfortable implementing a six-month review, when additional\nreporting on conditions 6 and 8 would be available. If the Board intended to change the\nconditions at that time, the neighbors would have a chance to speak up. She added that any\ncomplaints would be fully investigated, and that\nPage 3 of 6", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-05-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-05-27", "page": 4, "text": "Board member Autorino noted that if a customer did not show up, it should be considered as a\ncontingency only, and that the owner should keep track of those incidents. He noted that would\ngive better data for the next review.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to accept the Required Six Month Review of Use Permit\nfor the extended hours of operation for the Alameda Valero Gas Station, and that the owner be\ndirected to track how many cars were stored overnight on-site; that information will be\nincorporated into a future review to occur within 6 months.\nBoard member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0\nAbsent: 2 (Cook/Lynch); Abstain: 0. The motion passed.\n8-B. PLN07-0031 and DR07-0086 - RHP Design Group - 2424 Encinal Avenue (KFC\nRestaurant). The project entails the complete demolition of the existing 2,366 square\nfoot restaurant and a Design Review for the construction of an approximately 2,016\nsquare foot new restaurant. The restaurant will contain a drive-through, which requires a\nUse Permit pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A.c.l(r) A parking exception is required for this\nproject, because the eight parking spaces provided for this project are less than the\nrequired 20 parking spaces pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A.g.8. The project is located in a C-\nC-T, Community Commercial Theatre District.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft requested that this item be presented on the Regular Agenda when\nit has been re-agendized.\nBoard Member Cunningham moved to continue this item to a future meeting date.\nBoard member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0\nAbsent: 2 (Cook/Lynch); Abstain: 0. The motion passed.\n8-C.\nFinding of Consistency for 860 Atlantic. A proposed finding of the consistency for the\nuse of the property and buildings at 860 Atlantic Avenue in the Marina Village Master\nPlan area for use by the Peralta Community College District for educational purposes.\n(AT)\nMr. Thomas presented the staff report, and recommended approval of this item.\nBoard Member Cunningham moved to approve the item.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0\nAbsent: 2 (Cook/Lynch); Abstain: 0. The motion passed.\n8-D.\nGreen Building Guidelines - City of Alameda, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue.\nRecommendation to the City Council to approve a resolution providing, as official City\nreference documents, the Alameda County Residential Green Building Guidelines, U.S.\nPage 4 of 6", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-05-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-05-27", "page": 5, "text": "Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEEDTM)\nRating System, and Bay Friendly Landscape Guidelines.\nBoard Member Cunningham moved to recommend to the City Council to approve a resolution\nproviding, as official City reference documents, the Alameda County Residential Green Building\nGuidelines, U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design\n(LEEDTM) Rating System, and Bay Friendly Landscape Guidelines.\nBoard member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes:\n0\nAbsent: 2 (Cook/Lynch); Abstain: 0. The motion passed.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A.\nDraft Pedestrian Plan. A request for Planning Board review and recommendation on the\nCity of Alameda Pedestrian Plan. The Pedestrian Plan establishes improvement and\nfunding priorities for improvements for pedestrian facilities throughout the City to make\nAlameda a more walkable community and encourage walking as an alternative to the\nautomobile. The draft plan was prepared by the City of Alameda Pedestrian Task Force\nand the City of Alameda Pubic Works Department. (GP).\nMs. Payne, Public Works, summarized the staff report and described the components of the\nPedestrian Plan in detail.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThere were no speakers.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nActing President Kohlstrand noted that she had served on the Pedestrian Task Force, and\ncommended Ms. Payne on the incredible amount of work that she did on this study. She noted that\nthere was concern about the possible funding, and that it was good to see the list of outside funding\nsources identified in the report.\nBoard member Autorino noted that this was an extremely impressive document.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that this was a very thorough document, and inquired whether\nthere was language or direction to develop the pieces of land. Ms. Payne noted that would be\npresented in the fall.\nBoard member McNamara complimented Ms. Payne on the thoroughness of this report.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that times had changed, and that not every child could walk to\nschool. She supported education about pedestrian and crossing issues, and encouraged people to\nwalk more. She supported incentives to increase pedestrian uses.\nBoard Member Cunningham moved to support a recommendation on the City of Alameda\nPedestrian Plan that child safety be reviewed for all schools not just public schools. The\nPage 5 of 6", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-05-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-05-27", "page": 6, "text": "Pedestrian Plan establishes improvement and funding priorities for improvements for pedestrian\nfacilities throughout the City to make Alameda a more walkable community and encourage\nwalking as an alternative to the automobile..\nBoard member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0\nAbsent: 2 (Cook/Lynch). The motion passed.\n9-B. Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study Update. A presentation and update on the City of\nAlameda Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study. The study examines alternatives for\nimproving pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access across the Oakland Alameda Estuary on\nthe West End of Alameda in the vicinity of the Webster and Posey Tubes. The\npresentation is for informational purposes. No action by the Planning Board is being\nrequested at this time. The City of Alameda Public Works Department is preparing for\nthe study. (GP)\nMs. Payne presented the staff report.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThere were no speakers.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nNo action was taken\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n8:53 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThis meeting was audio taped.\nPage 6 of 6", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-05-27.pdf"}