{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-11-28", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2011\n7:00 p.m.\nCity Hall Council Chambers\n2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor\n(Corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street)\nALAMEDA, CA\nDoors will open at 6:45 p.m.\nPlease file a speaker's slip if you wish to address the Board. Anyone wishing to address the\nBoard on agenda items or Oral Communications may speak for a maximum of 5 minutes per\nagenda item when the subject is before the Board. The Board may limit the speaker's time\nto 3 minutes when five or more speaker's slips are submitted.\n1. CONVENE:\n7:05 P.M.\n2. FLAG SALUTE:\nBoard Member Autorino\n3. ROLL CALL:\nPresent: President Ezzy Ashcraft, Vice-President Autorino, Board\nmembers Burton, Henneberry, Kohlstrand, and Zuppan.\nAbsent: None\n4. MINUTES:\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of April 25, 2011\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of October 10, 2011, (Pending)\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of October 24. 2011. (Pending)\nNo Action\n5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\n6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nWritten Report\n6-A\nFuture Agendas\nMargaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Services Manager, provided an overview of upcoming\nprojects.\nThe Zoning Administrator approved projects at 1630 Park Street for a use permit to\ntemporarily establish an ice rink with ancillary uses at the November 22, 2011 hearing and\nApproved Meeting Minutes\n11/28/11\nPage 1 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-11-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-11-28", "page": 2, "text": "at 815 Atlantic Avenue for a use permit to place a 1,500 gallon liquid oxygen tank to serve\nthe hyperbaric therapy areas within the Alameda Wound Clinic at the November 28, 2011\nhearing.\n7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nMary Anderson, resident, spoke on the Mif land swap proposal.\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager reported on the current status of the proposal\nand mentioned that the item is slated to be heard by the City Council on January 23, 2012.\nKen Peterson, resident, spoke on the cost to the City of the Mif land swap proposal.\n8. CONSENT CALENDAR:\n8-A\n2012 Planning Board Meeting Schedule The Planning Board will consider and\napprove a Planning Board meeting schedule for 2012.\nBoard member Kohlstrand moved approval of the consent calendar.\nVice President Autorino seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous voice vote-6-0\n9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A\nMaster Street Tree Plan. A public workshop to review the Master Street Plan in\nresponse to public concerns about recent actions to remove trees on Park Street for\nthe Park Street Improvement Plan.\nMatt Naclerio, Public Works Director, gave an overview of the Master Street Tree Plan\nMSTP). He mentioned that currently the plan does not require public posting for trees that\nare dead, a threat to public safety, or infected with rapidly spreading disease. He also\nstated that streetscape projects or capital improvement projects that have previously been\napproved by the City Council which entail tree removal are exempt from public posting.\nStaff is recommending that these exceptions be revised to require any Capital Improvement\nProjects (CIP)that will remove more than 5% of the street trees in any given block face and\nhave been reviewed by the Planning Board and approved by the City Council will be posted\nat least two weeks prior to removal. He stated that tree removal is permissible only after all\npractical and reasonable alternatives have been considered. Additional recommended\nmodifications include the following minimum posting requirements: one day for trees that are\ndead and present an imminent threat to public safety, as determined by a certified Arborist\n(currently no posting is required); three days for trees that are dead but do not pose an\nimminent threat to public safety, as determined by a certified Arborist (currently no posting is\nrequired), and three days for trees that are diseased with a rapidly spreading pathogen that\npose a hazard to other trees, as determined by a certified Arborist (currently no posting is\nrequired). The only time a tree will not be subject to the posting requirement is when it is\nsignificantly damaged and its immediate removal is required for the safety of the general\npublic. In addition, because of safety concerns associated with dead or diseased trees,\nApproved Meeting Minutes\n11/28/11\nPage 2 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-11-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-11-28", "page": 3, "text": "these tree removals, which are not appealable in the current MSTP, are proposed to remain\nnon-appealable. Mr. Naclerio also stated that the City Council's approval to remove any\ntree(s) is final, provided the project commences within two years of the City Council\napproval. This is the standard effective approval period for planning projects. Furthermore,\nshould construction of the project occur after one year of the City Council approval, an\ninformational community meeting is to be held prior to commencement of the project.\nBoard member Kohlstrand mentioned that the staff report states that the tree will be posted\nthree weeks prior to removal and the proposed revisions state that it will be posted two\nweeks prior.\nMr. Naclerio stated that the correct time frame is three weeks.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked that when a CIP goes before the City Council for approval\nthat it not be placed on the Consent Calendar.\nMr. Naclerio stated that the projects will not be on the Consent Calendar.\nBoard member Zuppan asked why if the City Council approval is good for two years why a\ninformational community meeting will be held in one year regarding the removal.\nMr. Naclerio stated that the meeting is a way to refresh everyone's memory that the project\nwas previously approved.\nBoard member Zuppan asked that the informational community meeting be held an\nappropriate amount of time before the removal to allow for any City Council action if\nnecessary.\nMr. Naclerio stated that the project is still approved for the two year period and the meeting\nis just a courtesy reminder but saw no reason that the meeting can't be held three weeks\nprior to the removal.\nVice President Autorino stated that three weeks notice of the pre approved project is more\nthan generous.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked that when these projects are brought for approval that the\nPlanning Board and City Council be given renderings of the projects. She also asked to see\na rendering of the Park Street Streetscape project. She also suggested that the Public\nWorks take a look at the City of Oakland site which describes all of the projects going on in\nOakland for the public's information.\nMr. Naclerio stated that the Public Works Department is working on a contract to do a\nrendering of the Park Street project.\nVice President Autorino stated that once a project is approved it should not have to be open\nto everyone coming back and opposing the project unless a significant change has been\nmade.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\n11/28/11\nPage 3 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-11-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-11-28", "page": 4, "text": "Board member Zuppan stated that it would be fruitless to have a meeting if it has no impact.\nShe also questioned the statement in the staff report referring to Streetscape and other\nprojects that have already received public input and City Council approval for tree removal\nbeing exempt from the tree removal and non-appealable asking if there were a list of such\nprojects to review.\nMr. Naclerio stated that they are not grandfathering any projects and all projects including\ntree removal will be brought to the Planning Board.\nBoard member Zuppan suggested that when a project such as the Park Street one that\nactually clear cuts all of the trees it should be noted somehow to the public.\nMr. Naclerio stated that in the future they can state if and when all of the trees are being\nremoved\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the merchants on Park Street were given a notice\nstating that site preparation was about begin and no mention of the tree removal was\nincluded.\nMr. Naclerio stated that the noticing could have been much clearer and will be in the future.\nMotion made by Board member Henneberry to allow for 5 minutes for the speaker time,\nseconded by Board member Burton. Motion passed 6-0\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft opened the public comment period.\nChristopher Buckley, resident, requested that a similar policy be applied to the removal of\nthe City's park trees.\nDee Keltner, resident, suggested that the City look at planting Red Maples or October Glory\ntrees instead of the planned Ginkgos on Park Street.\nJon Spangler, resident, spoke against the planned removal of the parking meters on Park\nStreet.\nLucy Gigli, Bike Alameda, spoke against the Phase II streetscape stating it is not consistent\nwith the original plans from 2002.\nKen Peterson, resident, stated that he had worked on the Master Tree Plan and it is a very\nextensive document, covering a lot of the issues being discussed at the meeting.\nSusan Gallymore, resident, stated that there needs to be more of an effort to notice the\nresidents through the news papers and other ways.\nBrian Hatoff, resident, stated that he has a street tree at his resident that is old and declining\nand would like a time line for replacement once it is removed.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\n11/28/11\nPage 4 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-11-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-11-28", "page": 5, "text": "President Ezzy-Ashcraft closed the public comment period.\nMr. Naclerio stated that they can look at revisions to include the removal of trees that are\ndeclining rapidly.\nVice President Autorino stated that in the City of Alameda it becomes almost impossible to\ncomplete projects because there is always someone who has a problem with the project for\nsome reason. He stated that if a project has had major changes it should be reviewed\nagain.\nBoard member Kohlstrand state that she agrees with the proposed changes. She believes\nthat the Park Street Streetscape Plans should have been brought back to a City Board to re-\nreview it.\nMr. Naclerio stated that the Park Street Streetscape Plan can be brought back to the\nPlanning Board although the project has already been awarded and contracted so major\nchanges to it could jeopardize the entire project.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she also believes that there are not enough bike parking\nspots on Park Street. She suggested that a bike rack be located in Redwood Square.\nBoard member Zuppan reiterated her concerns regarding revisiting projects after one year\nof the original approval if the project has not been started yet or if significant changes are\nmade to the plan and that adequate time for public response are given.\nMr. Naclerio suggested the following wording be added:\n\"Significant changes to an approved project shall require a new public hearing at the\nPlanning Board and City Council.\"\nVice President Autorino stressed that it needs to be a large enough change to cause it to be\nre-reviewed.\nMr. Naclerio stated that his department will bring the Park Street Streetscape plan to a\nPlanning Board meeting in the future for information only. He mentioned that he will try to\nget the renderings completed prior to bringing it to the Planning Board.\nBoard member Burton concurred on the prior remarks concerning the public process for this\nproject. He also agrees that there is a lack of bike parking in the Park Street district.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked about the remark made by Mr. Naclerio that the City does\nnot have in the budget any money to maintain the trees. She asked why the Park Street\nBusiness Association (PSBA) couldn't contribute funds from the landscaping funds to\nmaintain the trees.\nBoard member Zuppan reiterated Vice President Autorino's comments regarding\nconsistencies in noticing policies for all City properties and incorporating those into the\nMaster Street Tree Plan. She also would like a commitment by the City have clearer\nApproved Meeting Minutes\n11/28/11\nPage 5 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-11-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-11-28", "page": 6, "text": "communication regarding projects in the future and state that you are removing all of the\ntrees and no removing 30 and adding 60.\nBoard member Henneberry made the motion to approve the staff recommendations as\namended by the Planning Board. Motion seconded by Board member Kohlstrand. Motion\npassed 6-0.\n9-B\nRecommend Adoption of An Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code\nSections 6-27.4, 6-52.1 and 22-8.1 to allow Sale of Goods from a Rolling Store with\nApproval of a Special Event Permit, Conditional Use Permit, or Encroachment\nPermit; and Adoption of Food Truck Program Guidelines, including Standard\nConditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit or Encroachment Permit for\nRolling Stores.\nEric Fonstein, Development Manager, Economic Development Division, gave a presentation\nhighlighting the Food Truck Program Guidelines. At the request of the West Alameda\nBusiness Association (WABA) and Park Street Business Association (PSBA), permanent or\nreoccurring food truck uses on private property will be restricted to specific underserved\ncommercial areas in Alameda. The following describes this three-prong permitting process:\nA Special Event Permit (SEP) for one-time events or up to three individual events\n(such as block parties or street festivals occurring on consecutive days) on private\nproperty or in the public Right-of-Way;\nA Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for permanent or recurring food truck uses on\nprivate property; or an Encroachment Permit (EP) for permanent or recurring food\ntruck uses in the public Right-of-Way. A CUP for permanent or reoccurring food\ntruck use would be restricted to the following locations: the former Naval Air Station\nat Alameda Point, the College of Alameda property, the South Shore Shopping\nCenter, and the Marina Village and Harbor Bay Business Parks.\nStaff proposes revising the following Sections of the AMC to be consistent with the\nCalifornia Vehicle Code, to encourage food trucks in appropriate locations, and to be\nconsistent with the City's existing practice\nVice President Autorino asked how the public or neighbors are allowed to provide opposition\nto a Special Events Permit for a food truck.\nMargaret Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that some Special Event Permits are not noticed and\nothers are required to be noticed by the applicant.\nBoard member Henneberry questioned why a Special Events permit is required for the\ntrucks within a block of a park.\nMr. Fonstein answered that it was because of children in the area and pedestrian safety.\nBoard member Burton asked to what extent other cities were consulted regarding their\nprograms and ways to make the program successful.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\n11/28/11\nPage 6 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-11-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-11-28", "page": 7, "text": "Mr. Fonstein stated that staff consulted many local jurisdictions which allow the food trucks.\nHe mentioned that what makes them successful are the local restaurants and business\nassociations.\nBoard member Burton stated that he has heard the biggest complaint from operators of the\ntrucks is the onerous process that cities put them through both costly and lengthy. He\nasked how the City of Alameda's process addresses that concern.\nMr. Fonstein stated that the City has spoken to Off the Grid, a San Francisco-based\ncompany that specializes in organizing regular and special food truck events to look at the\nprocess and advise on how to streamline it.\nJennifer Ott, Chief Financial Officer for Alameda Point, stated that the fees are consistent or\nbelow that of other jurisdictions.\nBoard member Kohlstrand inquired how the food trucks are going to work at South Shore\nCenter with all of the current restaurants on the property.\nBrad Witt, General Manager of South Shore Center stated that they have brought in food\ntrucks in the past and it is restricted so that the trucks do not compete with the existing\nrestaurants.\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft opened the public comment period.\nKen Dorrance, resident and local restaurant owner, spoke in opposition of the Food Trucks\nstating that he is concerned that the trucks will take business away from his establishments.\nMary Anderson, resident, spoke in opposition of the Food Trucks because she feels that the\ntrucks will hurt the existing businesses in Alameda. She feels that all of the businesses\naffected by this should be consulted. She also was concerned with the waste generated at\nthe trucks.\nBoard member Zuppan stated that the only business associations consulted on the program\nwere West Alameda Business Association (WABA) and Park Street Business Association\n(PSBA) and she is concern that the other business associations were not\nJon Spangler, resident, spoke in favor of the Food Trucks citing that as a bicyclist the trucks\nAre very convenient.\nCarol Gottstein, resident, spoke in favor of the Food Trucks citing that the events being held\nin the Bay Area attract people from all over. She also stated that with limited mobility the\ntrucks are very convenient.\nJim Strehlow, resident, stated that he believes the local restaurants should be given top\npriority to have trucks in Alameda.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\n11/28/11\nPage 7 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-11-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-11-28", "page": 8, "text": "President Ezzy-Ashcraft closed the public comment period.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft mentioned that in a recent newspaper article stated the following\nconcerns regarding the Food Trucks:\n1. The law does not limit the number of trucks that can operate in a specific location.\n2. Authorities are not enforcing time limits for how long a truck can park or prohibiting\nthe trucks from selling in front of existing restaurants.\nShe stated that it seems that it is easier for the trucks to open and operate than brick and\nmortar restaurants. She asked if suggested renewal process is the same as applied to the\nrestaurants.\nMs. Ott stated that it is a completely different process because generally Use Permits do not\nhave a time limit or renewal. The City feels that if there are no problems with a certain\nvendor they should not have to go through the entire process every year.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the City should regulate the number of trucks that can be\nat a particular location at one time.\nMs. Ott stated that should that become an issue the program can be revisited and amended.\nShe also stated that currently under state law the trucks can legally operate in the public\nright away and the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) is inconsistent with that law and if the\nCity doesn't regulate the trucks they can, by law, park in public spaces.\nBoard member Zuppan stated that she is concerned that the other business associations\nwere not consulted. She also stated that she actually spoke to the Harbor Bay Business\nPark and they didn't know about their area being slated as a Food Truck area.\nVice President Autorino stated that there are currently food trucks out at the business park\non a daily basis.\nBoard member Burton stated that it appears the reason for the introduction of the trucks is\nto service under served areas in the City. He also sees them as a way to attract new\ncustomers to an existing commercial area in need of patronage and for the local restaurants\nand businesses to test out a new market in a new area. He feels that having the trucks\nbanned on Webster Street and Park Street should be removed because they are missing a\ngreat opportunity to bring people to those districts.\nMs. Ott stated that it is not a ban because vendors can still park in the public areas. The\nban on private property in those districts was due to concerns by WABA and PSBA.\nMs. Ott summarized the Planning Board recommendations:\nReview the restrictions regarding parks and schools.\nReturn to the Planning Board in a year to review the program.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\n11/28/11\nPage 8 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-11-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-11-28", "page": 9, "text": "Meet with the remaining Business Associations about the program prior to going to\nCity Council.\nEncourage existing local businesses to become involved in the program\nBoard member Kohlstrand made the motion and it was seconded by Board member\nHenneberry, to recommend adoption of an Ordinance amending Alameda Municipal Code\nSections 6-27.4, 6-52.1 and 22-8.1 with the Planning Board recommendations to allow the\nSale of Goods from a Rolling Store with Approval of a Special Event Permit, Conditional Use\nPermit, or Encroachment Permit; and\nAdopt Food Truck Program Guidelines, including Standard Conditions of Approval, for a\nConditional Use Permit and Encroachment Permit for Rolling Stores. Motion passed 6-0.\n9-C\nAlameda Landing. A public workshop to review and discuss the new site plan for\nthe Alameda Landing Commercial Center that includes plans for a new Alameda\nTarget Store on lands just to the north of Willie Stargell Avenue and the College of\nAlameda.\nMr. Thomas gave an overview of the project. He mentioned that staff is interested in\nreceiving comments regarding the plan so that staff can come back to the Board in January\nwith a final design. He stated that one of the main concerns is how to get pedestrian and\nbicycle traffic to flow through the site.\nMotion to extend the meeting to 12:00 a.m. was made and seconded. Approved 6-0.\nKaren Bey, resident, spoke in opposition regarding the large format retail center design of\nthe project and she doesn't believe that this large of a center is appropriate for this site and\nwould like to see a smaller format.\nJon Spangler, resident, spoke in favor of the project citing that he prefers the design over\nthe 2007 plan. He stated that he would like to see solar power integrated into the project.\nLucy Gigli, Bike Alameda, asked why the waterfront is not being developed first. She also\nwould like to see large bike stations for customers and employees.\nBoard member Henneberry asked if any other tenants have been identified other than\nTarget.\nSean Wiskeman of Catellus stated that the only retailer publicly discussed is Target. He\nstated that the categories that they are looking at are apparel, electronics, home\nimprovement, restaurants, and specially foods.\nBoard member Henneberry mentioned that Alameda's Big Box Ordinance does not apply to\nthe Alameda landing site but he asked what format of store was Target planning on bringing\nto Alameda a super center or discount center.\nMr. Thomas gave an overview of the Big Box Ordinance stating that the ordinance prohibits\nApproved Meeting Minutes\n11/28/11\nPage 9 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-11-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-11-28", "page": 10, "text": "any store larger than over 90,000 square feet with 10% of the floor area dedicated to non\ntaxable products and groceries.\nMr. Wiskeman stated that the store will be approximately 140,000 square feet including the\nstorage areas.\nBoard member Zuppan stated that she likes the improvements to the bike and pedestrian\npaths and realizes that the development is necessary to stop the tax dollar leakage from the\nCity.\nVice President Autorino stated that he feels that the development is a great opportunity for\nAlameda. He is excited about the project but would like to see more detail.\nBoard member Kohlstrand stated she would like the site to feel more like an urban street\ncharacter than a big shopping center. She agrees with staff's conclusions on what still\nneeds to be reviewed concerning the project. She is also concerned about the loading bay\nat Building A which crosses the pedestrian right of way.\nBoard member Burton asked how it was anticipate that customers will drive to the site.\nThe applicant stated that off island customers will get to the site from Webster Street turning\nat Willie Stargell. He mentioned that there will be new streets running along the site.\nBoard member Burton stated that he feels that a turn lane is needed at the Target entrance.\nHe questioned certain areas where there is no pedestrian access and the elimination of the\nbike lane on Willie Stargell. He asked where the bike parking is located and feels that bikes\nneed to be able to ride around the site without competing with the vehicles.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she hopes Target will come in with a good design that\nfits with the neighborhood. She questioned how the Board can be sure that the plans they\nare seeing and approving it actually gets built that way. She stated that she feels that the\nlocation suits a Target store more so than South Shore Center so the trucks and traffic do\nnot have to crisscross the city. She asked about the term 'Power Center\".\nThe applicant stated that a \"Power Center\" is basically made up predominately of tenants in\n30,000 to 50,000 square foot spaces. Although the site does have a large format store it is\nmore of a hybrid design with more of a mixture of neighborhood uses.\nMr. Thomas stated that the City of Alameda's Community Improvement Commission (CIC)\nreviewed and approved the tenant strategy for the center. He stated that if the developer\nwanted to change that they would need to go back to the CIC for approval.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nApproved Meeting Minutes\n11/28/11\nPage 10 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-11-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-11-28", "page": 11, "text": "Board member Kohlstrand reported that she received a notice from Custom Kitchens that\nthe National Association of the Remodeling Industry selected the project at 1150 Bay Street\nas their Historic Preservation award winner for 2011.\n12. ADJOURNMENT: 12:07 a.m.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\n11/28/11\nPage 11 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-11-28.pdf"}
{"body": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard", "date": "2011-11-28", "page": 1, "text": "CITY COUNCIL/AUSD SCHOOL BOARD\nSPECIAL MEETING OF AUSD SUBCOMMITTEE\nNovember 28, 2011\n2263 Santa Clara Ave - Room 360\nAlameda, CA 94501\nUNADOPTED MINUTES\nSPECIAL SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING: The special sub-committee meeting of the AUSD City/School joint sub-\ncommittee was held on the date and place mentioned above.\nCALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by President Mooney and Mayor Gilmore at 9:00 AM.\nPRESENT for AUSD BOARD: Members Mooney and Sherratt\nABSENT: None\nPRESENT for CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Gilmore and Councilman Bonta\nABSENT: None\nCALL TO ORDER / GENERAL INTRODUCTION: City Council Members, Board Members and their respective\nstaff introduced themselves.\nPURPOSE OF SUBCOMMITTEE & MEETING SCHEDULE: Subcommittee members provided a brief background\nof the subcommittee's work and purpose and noted the next meeting would be tentatively scheduled sometime in\nFebruary.\nORAL COMMUNICATION: none.\nCITY/SCHOOL DISTRICT ISSUES - CITY PRIORITIES:\nAlameda Point - Next Steps\nStaff members from the City and the District noted there is a meeting scheduled in December to discuss the process\nmoving forward and the existing agreement on the 12-acre parcel. Next steps include drafting initial revisions. Staff\nfurther noted the City agreed to limitations regarding housing; housing never pays for itself; demand for services increases\nwhile\nthe rise in property tax decreases; current number of new houses to be added; and both entities working together on\nthe generation rates.\nRedevelopment Funds\nStaff noted this issue relates to housing, specifically with the pass-through arrangement agreed-upon over 13 years ago.\nSince that time, the pass-through fund has accumulated almost $4M for affordable housing. There is interest from both\nentities in exploring strategies for use of these funds. District staff noted the District's interest in obtaining the funds\nwithout having to serve as landlords as originally intended. The District may have an interest in selling that land. Both\nentities further discussed the inability to do a rider. The City will share legal opinions with District staff prior to their\nmeeting on December 7th. if at that meeting an agreement cannot be reached, the suggested course of action is to have\nSuperintendent Vital and City Manager Russo sit down and see how this issue can be resolved. If not, this item will be\nbrought back for further group discussion at the next Subcommittee meeting.\nTidelands\nCity staff proposed resolving the Alameda Point issue discussed earlier prior to discussing strategies to deal with the\nTidelands property issue. Scoping of the Tidelands issue will also be part of the discussion when staff members meet on\nDecember 7th.", "path": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2011-11-28.pdf"}
{"body": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard", "date": "2011-11-28", "page": 2, "text": "Joint Use Agreements - Pools Update\nThe pools are still open, with the current agreement set to expire in June. District staff noted there have been\nconversations with community members interested in some kind of long-term conversation regarding pool facilities in\nAlameda. Staff also has to consider lead abatement at Emma Hood with an estimated cost of $120K. The District is\nlooking at our facilities plan and will be evaluating all of our school facilities. City staff noted interest in perhaps\nacquiring land somewhere central in Alameda in order to build a City Swim Center. Another option would be the use of a\nhangar on the former naval base for a private, for-profit swim center concept.\nAlameda City Emergency Readiness\nCity Evacuation Sites/School Facilities/Student Management: District staff asked if the Board should expect to take a\nrole as part of emergency readiness measures, and commended City emergency services staff for the joint drill held at\nAlameda High School. City staff clarified that Board Members have no specifically defined roles, but would be providing\ncopies of the City's Disaster Plan to the District Office and would invite the Board Members to future disaster\npreparedness training. Subcommittee Members noted that in the event of a real emergency, both entities would work\ntogether to reassure and communicate to parents with a singular message.\nCity staff noted they would be seeking feedback from the Principal about the drill in general and to solicit staff and\nstudent feedback. Both entities agreed that a refresher course at the beginning of every school year would be helpful for\nnew principals and staff.\nNEW BUSINESS\nNone at this time.\nAdjournment\nPresident Mooney and Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:06 AM.", "path": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2011-11-28.pdf"}