{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2009-01-26", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nCOMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nJanuary 26, 2009\nTIME\nThe meeting convened at 7:05 P.M.\nPRESENT\nChair Lord-Hausman, Vice-Chair Moore, Commissioners Berger, Longley-Cook,\nKirola, Fort, Kreitz and Krongold.\nABSENT\nNone.\nMINUTES\nThe December 8, 2008 minutes were approved as presented.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n1. Secretary Akil distributed a \"Pamphlet for Intellectual and Development Disabilities\" to the\nCommission.\n2. Secretary Akil distributed the draft 2009 CDI meeting calendar, to which the Commission\nagreed to combine the November and December meetings, to be held on December 7, 2009.\nNEW BUSINESS\n1. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair (Secretary Akil):\nSecretary Akil received the completed the confidential nomination forms from the\nCommissioners regarding the election of Chair and Vice-Chair. The Commission voted to re-\nelect Audrey Lord-Hausman as Chair, and Jody Moore as Vice-Chair.\nOLD BUSINESS\n1. Community Outreach / Fair (Commissioners Krongold/Kreitz):\nSecretary Akil distributed and read notes from the December 8, 2008 meeting regarding\ndiscussion of the Community Outreach Fair.\nCommissioner Krongold distributed and reviewed an outline of the proposed resources fair,\nwhich has been renamed to \"Special Needs - Special Services.\" Commissioner Krongold\nemphasized that the event will not conflict with the Alameda Hospital Fair in the fall.\nCommissioner Berger suggested looking at other non-profits that provide free resources as well.\nCommissioner Berger also suggested removing the word \"free\" under Purpose on the outline of\nthe event.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2009-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2009-01-26", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nJanuary 26,\n2009 Minutes\nPage 2 of 3\nCommissioner Fort stated that \"free\" can be misinterpreted.\nVice-Chair Moore asked that if each organization offers free services, why not list them to which\nCommissioner Berger responded that not all of them provide free services, but instead work on a\nsliding scale.\nCommissioner Kreitz stated the next work group meeting is February 9 at which time the group\nwill brain storm the matter further.\nVice-Chair Moore suggested removing the use of the word \"free\" on the outline under Purpose.\nVice-Chair Moore stated that the Commission should consider Starbucks for donations as they\ndo a lot locally for the community.\nChair Lord-Hausman stated that John McCahan from the Fair Steering Committee said that\npossibly food could be donated and there are other service organizations in Alameda that do in-\nkind monetary donations.\nVice-Chair Moore agreed to remove the CDI out of the Sponsorship portion of the outline and to\nallow the American Red Cross to accept all in-kind monetary contributions.\nChair Lord-Hausman suggested removing the word \"monetary\" from the outline under\nSponsorship\nCommissioner Berger stated that the Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB) held the\nsame kind of fair and someone should get a list of all of the participants from that fair.\nCommissioner Berger also suggested including the SSHRB in this event.\nChair Lord-Hausman responded that the Development Services Department (DSD) recently\nhired a person to staff the SSHRB and Youth Collaborative and that she will talk with that\nindividual about this issue.\nCommissioner Krongold stated that the Hospital is interested and she plans to meet with Jackie\nKrause, Services Manager of the Mastick Senior Center to receive their input.\n2. Commission Disability Internet Webpage (Chair Lord-Hausman/Secretary Akil):\nSecretary Akil met with the City's Information Technology Manager and consultant regarding\nthe draft webpage and has received the consultant's proposed draft and other information for the\nproposed webpage. Secretary Akil will forward that information to Chair Lord-Hausman to\nreview for consideration.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nG:\\Lucretia)CommDisability\\Minutes/(2009\\Minutes_Jan 26 2009.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2009-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2009-01-26", "page": 3, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nJanuary 26,\n2009 Minutes\nPage 3 of 3\nIn response to Commissioner Berger's question regarding accessibility for mini-bus parking at the\nFerry Terminal, Secretary Akil stated that the Ferry Services Manager from Public Works confirmed\nthat there are plans being included for mini-bus parking at the Alameda Ferry on Main Street.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS\nThere were no oral communications.\nADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 7:58 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, February 23, 2009 at\n7:00 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLucretia A. Akil\nCommission Secretary\nG:\\Lucretia)CommDisability\\Minutes\\2009\\Minutes_Jan 26 2009.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2009-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2009-01-26", "page": 1, "text": "OF\nof\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nPENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nHELD 4:30 P.M., JANUARY 26, 2009\nALAMEDA CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA\nCONFERENCE ROOM 391\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order by Chair Beverly Johnson at 4:38 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL: Present: Trustees William Soderlund, Robert Follrath, Nancy Elzig,\nand Susan Freeman, Senior Management Analyst for Trustee Karen Willis.\nStaff: Lelia Faapouli, Administrative Technician, Human Resources.\n3.\nMINUTES: The minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 27, 2008 were\nmoved for approval by Member Follrath and seconded by Member Elzig with\namendment to Agenda item 5B. Passed 4-0.\n4.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n4-A.\nPENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2008:\na.\nIn the amount of $ 242,220.46 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 NOVEMBER 2008:\na.\nIn the amount of $ 204,146.75 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. PENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2008:\na.\nIn the amount of $ 208,569.64 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.\nMember Elzig moved to adopt the consent calendar, with a second by Member Follrath.\nPassed 4-0", "path": "PensionBoard/2009-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2009-01-26", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, January 26, 2009\nPage 2\n5.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\n5-A.\nThe Chief Financial Officer's Financial Report for City of Alameda Police\nand Fire Pension Funds for the period ending December 31 2008 was\naccepted as presented. Member Follrath moved to approve, seconded by\nMember Elzig. Passed 4-0\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no oral communications.\n7.\nPENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)\nSusan Freeman (for Member Willis) passed out a listing of the current 1079 and\n1082 pensioners as requested by the Board at the last meeting.\n8.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThere being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was\nadjourned at 4:50 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nKaren Willis, Human Resources Director\nand Secretary to the Pension Board", "path": "PensionBoard/2009-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-01-26", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING\nMONDAY, JANUARY 26, 2009\nCOUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM\nPresident Kohlstrand called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Autorino\nROLL CALL:\nPRESENT:\nPresident Kohlstrand, Board members Autorino,\nCunningham. and Cook were present upon roll call.\nVice-President Ezzy Ashcraft and Board member\nMcNamara arrived during the meeting.\nABSENT:\nBoard member Lynch.\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services\nManager/Secretary to the Planning Board; Assistant\nCity Attorney Mohammed Hill; Planner Dennis\nBrighton; Nancy McPeak, Executive\nAssistant/Recording Secretary\nMINUTES:\nMinutes from the meeting of December 8, 2008 (pending)\nMinutes from the meeting of January 12, 2009 (pending)\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNONE\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nWritten Report\n6-A. Future Agendas\nStaff provided an update on upcoming Planning Board agenda items.\n6-B Zoning Administrator Report\nThe Zoning Administrator meeting of January 20, 2009 was canceled.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nPage 1 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-01-26", "page": 2, "text": "Anyone may address the Board on a topic not on the agenda under this item by\nsubmitting a speaker's information slip, subject to the 5-minute time limit.\nNONE\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nConsent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or\nadopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or\nexplanation is received from the Planning Board or a member of the public by\nsubmitting a speaker slip for that item.\nNONE\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A.\nBoatworks Project - 2229 Clement - Environmental Review Scoping\nSession - The City of Alameda Planning Board will be holding a scoping session\nto provide an opportunity for the public and responsible agencies to comment on\nthe issues that should be considered in the environmental evaluation for the\nproposed Boatworks Project located at 2229 Clement Avenue, Alameda California.\n(AT).\nThis item is for discussion purposes only. No action will be taken at this\nmeeting.\nStaff presented a Power Point presentation outlining the major points of the project and\nthe scoping session.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked staff to give a brief explanation of the Density Bonus\nOrdinance.\nStaff responded that the State of California statutes require all cities and counties to\nadopt density bonus ordinances. The law provides that local government shall grant\ndensity bonuses to housing developers who agree to construct units affordable to lower\nincome households. The City of Alameda is currently drafting a Density Bonus\nOrdinance. The incentives or concessions are not monetary but could be exceptions to\ncertain zoning requirements.\nBoard member Cook asked what incentives the City of Alameda is required to allow.\nStaff responded that the developer gets to decide what the concessions will be and\nthe\nCity needs to grant the request although monetary payment is not available. Should the\nproject need a height exception or set back exception those types of items could be\ngranted.\nPage 2 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-01-26", "page": 3, "text": "Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that there are exceptions to the granting of\nconcessions to the developer if you can show specific adverse impact upon public\nhealth and safety or physical environment. Another exception exists if the property is\nlisted in the California Registry of Historical Resources.\nStaff stated that the goal is to get the EIR process scoped out tonight and started and\nreturn to the Planning Board in early March with the Draft Density Bonus.\nBoard member Cunningham asked staff if the Density Bonus Ordinance would apply to\nthis project.\nStaff responded that it could.\nBoard member Autorino asked what area the specific site encompasses.\nStaff responded that the site is on Clement Avenue between Oak Street and Elm Street\nand down to the estuary.\nBoard member Cook noticed that there are boats and docks on the site plan and\nwondered it that is part of the project or just added to the plan for aesthetics.\nStaff responded that it was originally proposed as part of the project but was removed\nfrom the plans.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft requested staff address the issues down along the water\nregarding the Army Corps. of Engineers.\nStaff responded that there are some issues that need to be investigated and clarified\nalong the waterfront that will be done through the project review and EIR process. The\nproperty line is back from the waters edge and the Army Corps. of Engineers owns the\nwaters edge and there are a number of structures and facilities that are crumbling into\nthe water. The clean up of the waters edge is a priority. When it gets done and how it\ngets done and whom the responsibility lies on is an important issue.\nBoard member Cunningham moved and Board member McNamara seconded the\nmotion to limit speaker time to three minutes. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated she\nbelieved the five-minute time limit was more appropriate for this item. The motion\npassed with the following voice vote Ayes: 4; Noes: 2; Absent: 1 Abstain: 0 (Ezzy\nAshcraft, Cook).\nThe public hearing was opened.\nJoseph Woodard, Estuary Park Action Committee (EPAC) member, spoke against the\nproject. He is concerned with the zoning of the area. One half of the site is zoned for\nhousing and the other half for a park. The proposed project takes the entire site for\nhousing. There are clean up issues at the site and a portion of the property is\nPage 3 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-01-26", "page": 4, "text": "of the existing buildings and the new building could possibly pollute the estuary. Mr.\nWoodard is concerned with the extent of traffic and pedestrian safety in the area and\nwould like to see the site used for public recreation citing it would compliment the\ndowntown area that is very park poor. He wonders how the project will mesh with the\nGeneral Plan and the North of Lincoln Plan. The project would deny access to the\nshoreline and should involve the Bay Conservation and Development Commission\n(BCDC). He mentioned that height of the structures has not been discussed. The\neconomic impact with the loss of developer fees and concessions could total $7.5\nmillion dollars. He suggested that the City of Alameda contact the Bay Area Open\nSpace Council to see about funding for a park/open space project. Mr. Woodard\nquestioned where the $1 million dollars set aside for the park project has gone.\nDan Smith allocated his time to Joseph Woodard.\nDorothy Freeman, Estuary Park Action Committee (EPAC) member, spoke against the\nproject stating that she is pleased that the developer is proposing to put single family\nhomes and duplexes on the site. Although she is not pleased that the housing plan\nincludes the 4.5 acres zoned for the park and the over all density of the project. The\nCity of Alameda has planned the Oak St Estuary Park since 1991 General Plan. She\nstated that her neighborhood is in need of a park and the parks at Alameda Point do not\nhelp the residents in this area. The park would serve all Alameda resident and is the\nlast open space on the estuary to build a park aside from Alameda Point. She is\nagainst the developer's proposal to use the Density Bonus Ordinance to secure\nconcessions and funding for the project and believes the City of Alameda should initiate\nthe Quimby Law that would require the developer to donate land to the City for the park.\nEPAC would like to remind the City of the 2002 preliminary geotechnical investigation\nthat reported high levels of contamination on the Fox portion of the property and there is\nnot reason to believe that the pollution is not all over the site. She concurred with Mr.\nWoodard on the traffic issues in the area. Requested that the scenic view be listed as\nan issue and how the buildings will affect the current residents views.\nShirley Smith spoke against the project stating that the neighborhood is made up of\nVictorian and Craftsman style homes and this high density project would adversely\naffect property values in the area. She is concerned that the City of Alameda does not\nhave adequate city services to accommodate the additional residents and suggested\nthe City look for other uses for the site, possibly a trade school or athletic club. She\nwould like the owner of the property to tear down the buildings and fence the property to\nkeep vandals out.\nChris Lundeen is undecided on the project and lives in the immediate area. He believes\nthat a housing development on the site will make the area nicer although is not certain if\nthis project is the best choice due to the density. He mentioned that there is a lot of\nnoise that comes from the processing plant across the estuary and hopes a disclosure\nPage 4 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-01-26", "page": 5, "text": "regarding that will be given to potential homeowners. He agrees that the project needs\nmore open space and is concerned with the pollution to the estuary caused by the\nparking area.\nLeonard Goode of Ron Goode Motors, spoke in support of the project. He is the owner\nof property at Park Street and Clement Avenue that he is planning on developing in to a\nretail business and is concerned over the lack of population density in the area and the\nvacant retail spaces on Part Street. He believes that approval of the project would\ngreatly benefit in the redevelopment of the vacant properties in the area. Lastly he\ncommended the developer for building the project.\nSue Field spoke against the project lives in the immediate area and is concerned about\nthe traffic citing that there are only going to be two ways out of the complex, Clement\nAvenue and Blanding Avenue. Ms. Field mentioned that currently it takes her five\nminutes in the morning to get on to Clement Avenue from Elm Street and cannot\nimagine how the project will affect the traffic. She is concerned with the parking in the\narea also fearing that the proposal doesn't address the issue properly. She would like\nto see the site turned into an area similar to Union Point Park along the Estuary in\nOakland which has walking trails and wildlife.\nWoody Minor, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society member spoke against the\nproject. He stated that the building is the oldest large industrial building still on the\nestuary. He suggested that the Planning Board and other interested parties tour the\nbuildings and the site. He believes that the building is a hidden landmark and\nmagnificent inside.\nStaff responded that the building is private property and a visit would need to be cleared\nwith the owner. Staff will contact the owner with the request.\nRobert McGillis, applicant, spoke in support of the project. He stated that as the project\nmoves forward in the EIR process will be identifying the issues and working to mitigate\nthem. He thanked the audience for their interest in the project and made himself\navailable for any questions.\nKatie Stewart is undecided on the project although looks forward to the development of\nthe site because it is such an eyesore. She is concerned with levels of contamination at\nthe site and the potential for pollution during the demolition phase. She would like to\nsee the construction site as green and sustainable as possible and that the neighbors\nbe kept involved in the decision process for the site.\nDong Kim is undecided on the project he is glad to see the site developed as a neighbor\nand agrees with the previously mentioned traffic issues and is concerned with the DEIR\nand whether it will address the impact the project will have on the school district and the\nCity of Alameda infrastructure. He believes that the site is technically a Brownsfield\nDevelopment and should be treated as such in respect to testing and clean up. He\nrequested that the public be keep informed of the agencies involved in the project and\nPage 5 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-01-26", "page": 6, "text": "provided a list so that citizens can find out first hand the test results. He would like to\nsee a \"Best Management\" approach be used during construction with respect to noise\nand dust. He believes that design and aesthesis are key to the project and would like to\nsee the public access change to be more inviting. Also mentioned was that the General\nPlan conformance calls for park use and medium density development and the\ndeveloper should not be allowed to step away from that goal.\nJean Sweeney Estuary Park Action Committee (EPAC) member spoke against the\nproject. She objects to the density of the project. She would like to find out who she\nshould get in touch with in the City of Alameda to write a Grant to try and get funding for\nthe Estuary Park project.\nJim Sweeney Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) member spoke against the project and\nagrees with the previously voiced concerns. He urges the City of Alameda to be as\nthorough as possible with the investigation of the contamination and make the\ndeveloper follow through with the clean up.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nBoard member Cook commended the public for their interest in the project. She is\nconcerned with the circulation of the site and would like alternatives looked at that would\nconform better with the grid that Alameda has possibly extending Oak Street and Elm\nStreet down to the estuary and have Blanding Avenue go through the site. The\nextensions would help spread the traffic and give the residents of the City a visual and\nphysical access to the water. She stated that the site plan is very constricting and not\nkeeping with the neighborhood. She expressed her concern about the integrity of the\nsea wall and the toxicity levels of the estuary water. She agrees that there is a need for\na park in the civic core of Alameda. She sees a need to look into the impact of the\nlights at the football field down the street from the project. She commented that it is\ngoing to be difficult to analyze the impact the project will have on traffic due to the fact\nthat it is so bad in the area already. She is concerned with the affect of the Park Street\nBridge noise on the future residents. She stated that she would like to take a tour of the\nexisting buildings and the site area.\nBoard member McNamara stated that she shares the concerns that the citizens and\nBoard member Cook have voiced. She would like to see more waterfront access and\nopen space on the site. She requested staff to address the status of the contamination\non the site.\nStaff responded that there would need to be a complete understanding on what the\nformer conditions of the property are. It has been mentioned that the Department of\nToxic Substance Control (DTSC) has an approved clean up plan for the site and it is\nsubstantially complete although it has not been forwarded to staff. Staff will need to go\nback and investigate what DTSC and the Water Quality Board have done and then go\nforward to complete what needs to be done such as performing soil and ground water\nPage 6 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-01-26", "page": 7, "text": "testing. The City of Alameda will not approve a project without all of those issues\nresolved.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she shares the concerns that have been\npreviously voiced. She mentioned that even though the site is not included in the Park\nStreet North of Lincoln Strategic Plan she would like the developer to work with that\nproject to ensure cohesiveness with that plan. She stated that the pedestrian walkway\ncould be better. She would like the design of the homes to fit in with the current\nresidences in the area and not \"neo moderne\" as referred to in the architect's letter.\nShe is concerned that there are not many amenities in the immediate area, which would\npossibly require residents to drive more frequently. She wants the low-income\nexclusionary housing dispersed throughout the development and not segregated in one\nspecific area.\nBoard member Cunningham agreed with the public's concern over increased traffic in\nthe area. He also sees the contamination and clean up as a very important issue with\nthe site. He agrees that the property needs to be improved and would like to see\nalternative uses for the site with less density.\nStaff responded that talks have been taking place with the developer to look at\nalternative ways to plan the site such as reconfiguring the open space to make it larger\nand orient it so there is access from Clement Avenue.\nBoard member Cunningham voiced concern that the City of Alameda may get restricted\nby their own policies concerning the density bonus and would like to see the City work\nwith the developer to design the site so it works for everyone. He is wondering if there\nis a way to stay with the General Plan and put in a park and restrict the number of units\nthus saving the City money through a decrease in residents and a decrease in the cost\nof city services then that money saved could be redirected to build a park. The\ncommunity wants to see items in the General Plan come to reality and the City needs to\nwork towards that.\nStaff commented that it would be very difficult to determine the cost savings.\nBoard member Cook asked if there could be an economic analysis included in the EIR.\nPresident Kohlstrand responded that it doesn't necessarily need to be done in the EIR\nbut could be done independently and then inform the environmental process.\nStaff is looking at alternatives and at least one is a no project alternative with two\nscenarios. The first being a no build alternative. The other is a no project meaning it\ndevelops under the current General Plan and zoning and to look at the financial\nfeasibility of the alternative.\nBoard member Cunningham is also concerned with the impact on the character of the\nneighborhood.\nPage 7 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-01-26", "page": 8, "text": "Board member Autorino shares the concerns brought up by the board members. He\nsees this project as an opportunity to get rid of the industrial buildings and get people\nand houses on the water. He feels that whatever is on the property it must maximize\nthe waterfront.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated that the members of the public and the board members\nhave articulated the issues that need to be addressed in the EIR. She would like to see\nthe City work with the property owner and the community to ensure that something\nhappens on the site. She suggested that a community workshop be held to discuss\nalternatives for the site. She stated that something does need to happen to the site to\nrevitalize the neighborhood.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft mentioned that the City and residents need to realize that\nthe property is owned by an individual and there needs to be a balance between the\nowners interest and the City's interest. She believes there will be a better overall\noutcome if everyone works together. She agreed that it would be nice if it could be\nparkland but the City does not have the resources at this time to make that a reality and\nsomeone other than the City owns the property.\nBoard member Autorino stated that he has taken a boundary tour of the site and would\nbe very interested to see the inside of the building because it may help with suggesting\nalternatives for the site.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft reported that the City of Alameda will be holding a\nworkshop on Green Building/Bay Friendly Landscape on Tuesday, January 27, 2009 at\nthe Library from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nBoard members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or\nmake a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a referral\nto staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body\nat a subsequent meeting concerning a City matter or, through the chair, direct staff to\nplace a request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda.\nBoard member Cook asked if anyone knew what was going to be build on the property\nin Oakland just over the High Street Bridge. The site was once covered with large\ncontainers, which have been removed. Board member McNamara stated that she had\nheard that it was a restaurant supply distribution center. Staff will look into the question.\nPresident Kohlstrand mentioned she has the brochure for the upcoming 2009 National\nPlanners Conference if anyone is interested. She also acknowledged the passing of\nformer Planning Board President Mel Sanderson for his contributions to the City of\nAlameda.\nPage 8 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-01-26", "page": 9, "text": "12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n8:50 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThis meeting was audio and video taped.\nPage 9 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-01-26.pdf"}