{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-12-12", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2011\n7:00 p.m.\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.\nMotion to approve the minutes by Board member Autorino approved, seconded by Board\nmember Kohlstrand, and approved 5-0.\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of October 10, 2011.\nAmendments to minutes made by Board member Zuppan regarding page 6 of 12, 5th\nparagraph from the bottom where the business operated without a license. Her\nunderstanding was staff would follow up with the business owner in order to make sure\nthere were no other outstanding penalties and that was not noted in October's minutes.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft explained that she already calendared that to come back for\nreview, but asked Board member Zuppan if she would like to propose an additional\nsentence or clause.\nBoard member Zuppan stated that the sentence should include a follow up order\nregarding the issue.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the amendment would be noted.\nBoard member Zuppan made comments on page 8 of 12, the 2nd paragraph regarding\nher problem with inconsistencies about the applicant's statements. She did not want it to\nbe confused about the closing time.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft confirmed the amendment to revise the first sentence of the 2nd\nparagraph in order to clarify the inconsistencies of the applicant's statements.\nBoard member Zuppan further commented on about page 9 of 12, the 2nd paragraph.\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 1 of 13\nDecember 12, 2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-12-12", "page": 2, "text": "She stated that her proposal was not for conditions to be removed. She believed the\npermit should come back for review and then conditions could be verified or evaluated,\nbut not be removed.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft, asked whether to strike those comments or remove them\naltogether.\nBoard member Zuppan stated that she would like the word \"removed\" replaced with the\nword \"evaluated.\"\nBoard member Zuppan made comments to page 10 of 12, the 2nd paragraph regarding\nthe parking requirements. She meant that parking should be lowered not raised.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft confirmed that the initial comments should be amended to say\nreduced rather than increased.\nBoard member Zuppan stated yes and parking should be reduced below 200.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft called for additional amendments to the minutes.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft called a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Motion to\napprove by Zuppan, 2nd by Burton and 4-0, 1 abstention (.\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of October 24. 2011. (pending)\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of November 28. 2011. (pending)\n5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft spoke to the Planning Service Manager Andrew Thomas and\ndiscussed moving Item 9-C, status report to the proposed update to the public art\nprogram, to the consent calendar. Decision was made to keep it on the regular agenda.\n6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nWritten Report\n6-A\nFuture Agendas\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, provided an overview of upcoming\nprojects.\n7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 2 of 13\nDecember 12, 2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-12-12", "page": 3, "text": "8. CONSENT CALENDAR:\nNone\n9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A. PLN11-0315- Wendell Stewart - 219 Santa Clara Avenue. Design Review of a\nsingle-family residence requesting to stucco over existing wood siding and\nshingles on residence.\nMargaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Services Manager, presented the staff report,\nprovided a brief summary of the City's design review guidelines and the issues of\ninterpreting the guideline's language in relation to the project. She further explained to the\nBoard members that there was a fine line in interpreting the language outlining the fact that\nbuildings with original wood siding should not have stucco applied in an attempt to\nmodernize the building. Thus, she came before the Board to review this sentence.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft called for Board questions or comments.\nBoard member Kohlstrand asked whether the proposal is to retain the shingles at the very\npeak of the roof and place the stucco on the bottom, and would the shutters be retained on\nthe house.\nMs. Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that the homeowner could explain the process once he is\ncalled to speak. However, she stated most of the building would be covered in stucco.\nBoard member Autorino stated that his perception of the design review guidelines was\nmeant to prevent old Victorian homes from being covered with stucco.\nMs. Kavanaugh-Lynch responded by saying that staff struggled with the guidelines\nespecially since there was a movement within the City years ago to modernize the\nappearance of homes. Staff believes given the look of the house with the other neighboring\nhomes on the street that the stucco will not modernize the house.\nVice President Autorino asked staff if the wood shingles on this house could be rehabbed\nand if they could not, would the replacement of the shingles and siding be considered\nmodernization?\nMs. Kavanaugh-Lynch stated not exactly since as long as the design treatment and\nmaterials are compatible with the house and the neighborhood.\nVice President Autorino replied that there are two opposed ideas: (1) The home must be\ncompatible with neighborhood, thus stucco would be compatible with the neighborhood and\n(2) The design guidelines state that owners cannot modernize their homes.\nMs. Kavanaugh-Lynch stated yes, but the homeowner cannot modernize their home using\nstucco. Therefore, there is a challenge with the design review in the City of Alameda. If\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 3 of 13\nDecember 12, 2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-12-12", "page": 4, "text": "homeowners were to replace their wood siding with aluminum siding that would be\nacceptable, but homeowners cannot apply stucco.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft called for public comment.\nWendell Stewart, 219 Santa Clara Avenue property owner, said the siding is dry rotten and\ncannot be refurbished, but must be replaced. Furthermore, he went on to say two neighbors\nwhose houses are identical to his were allowed by the City to replace their wood siding with\nSears Vinyl Siding.\nBoard member Kohlstrand asked Mr. Stewart if the stucco would go all the way up to the\npeak and would he retain the shutters.\nMr. Stewart explained the stucco would go all the way up to the peak and he would replace\nthe shutters with new waterproof shutters that closely match the old ones. Also, the molding\nwill closely match the existing molding.\nSonia Christensen Stewart, 219 Santa Clara Avenue property owner, presented the history\nof their project to the Board. She explained that the present condition of the house requires\nconstant maintenance and there were occasional leaks through the paneling during the\nrainy seasons. She and her husband conducted a lot of research and reviewed vinyl siding\nand stucco, and the findings revealed stucco was the best option.\nRuth Smiler, 221 Santa Clara property owner, explained to the Board that her house\ncontains stucco and she moved to the property a little over one year ago. According to a\nhouse inspector that was hired, her house was always made of stucco. She further\nexplained that many houses within the neighborhood are similar in style and they have\nstucco material so she supports the project.\nBoard member Burton, explained that he visited the neighborhood and found the majority of\nthe houses contain stucco. Therefore, he believes the design guideline's clause to\nmodernize the house using stucco does not explain the project coming before the Board.\nBoard member Kohlstrand, Vice President Autorino, and Board member Zuppan agreed\nwith Board member Burton.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft commented on her dissection of the sentence regarding the\nstucco, original wood siding, and shingles. She believed that the sentence includes\n\"should not,\" which is suggestive language and the word \"modernize\" is a relative\nconcept, meaning World War II dwellings would not necessarily be considered historical.\nShe also explained that it would be hard to know which houses are in its original state\nand which houses contain stucco so, she supports project.\nBoard member Autorino called to approve the design review, Board member Zuppan\n2nd the motion and approved 5-0.\n9-B.\nHousing Element Workshop - The City of Alameda has prepared a draft update\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 4 of 13\nDecember 12, 2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-12-12", "page": 5, "text": "to the Housing Element of the General Plan pursuant to State Law and Government\nCode regulations. The Housing Element provides a seven year plan to address the\nhousing needs of current and future Alameda citizens. The Planning Board will hold\na public workshop to review and discuss revisions to the Draft Housing Element that\nmay be necessary to comply with State of California requirements.\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, provided a brief Power Point presentation\nabout the Draft Housing Element under the City of Alameda's General Plan. He also\noutlined the public process and the upcoming schedule to finalize the document.\nJennifer Gastelum, Service Lead for Pacific Municipal Consultants, worked on and\ncertified 41 housing elements in her career. She presented the remaining Power Point\npresentation, which explained the California Department of Housing and Community\nDevelopment's (HCD) 8-page response to the City of Alameda's Draft Housing Element\ndocument. The HCD's comments were separated into three categories: 1) Land\nInventory; 2) Constraints and 3) State Law Updates.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked staff to define zoning and allocating land for emergency\nshelters.\nJennifer Gastelum, explained that emergency shelters were defined for the homeless not\nfor natural disasters.\nAndrew Thomas explained that he had two requests from the Board. He first wanted to\nmake sure they understood what staff and the Planning Board were diving into regarding\nthe schedule and public process. He also, explained that staff is looking for strategies to\nmake this process as successful as possible.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft responded that many people attending the meeting have not\nread the staff report, thus she asked staff to give an example of multi-family housing in\nthe Alameda.\nMr. Thomas explained that in the staff report under attachment 3, there are many\nexamples of multi-family buildings that the public can recognize, which would help\neducate and inform the public. He went on to give an example of the density found at the\n221 Clinton Avenue. The building contains 7-units of multi-family rental housing built\nmany years ago. He found that illustrating various housing types and densities within the\nstaff report shows HCD that the City has made land available for residential density.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft called for Board member questions or comments and there\nnone.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft called for public comment.\nJoy Chin-Malloy, Alameda resident for 32 years, stated that she has four children and\nnone of her children feel they are welcomed into the City. Her youngest child would like\nto live in the City, and he has moved his family into her home. However, her neighbors\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 5 of 13\nDecember 12, 2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-12-12", "page": 6, "text": "City to qualify for more money, especially affordable housing. Furthermore, he stated that\nsupplying housing will attract businesses and the housing element is part of being a\nresponsible environmental community in terms of energy consumption. He would like to see\nthe plan approved so the City has a chance to see how it works and be able remove the\nobstacles. So, he would like for the Board and staff to find ways to accelerate the public\nprocess and move the first hearing up to February from March.\nDiane Lichtenstein, Vice President of HOMES, congratulated the Planning Board and staff\nfor their report and advancing planning throughout the year. The Alameda Housing Element\nwill be a huge advantage for the City and will provide housing opportunities for individuals\nand families who cannot afford market rate housing.\nHelen Sause, member of HOMES, applauded the staff and the process to achieve HCD\napproval of the Alameda Housing Element. She first explained that the housing element is\ncritical for the City to receive state funding and for the City to avoid lawsuits. Secondly, she\nhoped that density will be a non-issue as the City and public move along with the process.\nShe also wanted to see building diversity rather than monolithic suburban style residential\nhousing. Lastly, she believed this housing element will give the City a chance for a variety of\nhousing types. Alameda has successfully provided housing opportunities for low and\nmoderate residents and workers and this is an important aspect and opportunity.\nDoug Biggs, resident of Alameda and member of HOMES, thanked staff for getting the\nprocess started and assembling a good team that knows how to get housing built. He stated\nthat building housing is the main objective and setting aside land and inclusionary housing\nfor income types. He appealed to staff and the Board to use this process to showcase City\npride and exhibit the City's accomplishments.\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident, commended the Board and staff for moving the housing\nelement forward and filling a long-term gap within the general plan. He believes the lack of\ncompliance is important for the city's funding plus legal liability. He stated that the City must\ntake care of is responsibilities from the state's standpoint and he reaffirmed Doug's\nstatement regarding City pride. He also noted that the City must accomplish more than what\nthey have done in the past (aesthetically speaking) before Measure A was passed. He\nexplained the need for higher density residential developments in the City in order to keep\npeople out of their cars and utilize public transit services.\nLois Pryor, member of Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, stated she was really gratified\nthat the City is taking on this difficult task and encouraged the City to have businesses move\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 6 of 13\nDecember 12, 2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-12-12", "page": 7, "text": "here in order to level the job/housing balance. She also asked the City to provide homes for\nall residents and to have the housing element done in a timely manner so housing can be\nbuilt within a reasonable timeframe.\nLynette Lee, Member of renewed Hope and former executive director for a non-profit\norganization that built and managed 1,400 affordable housing units. She asked the Board\nmembers to take a bold approach to get the housing element approved by considering\nhigher densities of more than 30 units per acre. She went on to say that for the next\nmeeting, she will bring pictures of affordable housing developments of 60 units and more to\nshow the Board and staff how affordable housing can be attractive and complement the\nneighborhood. She also brought up the demise of California's Redevelopment Agencies and\nhow the agency's revenue was critical to constructing affordable housing.\nLaura Thomas, President of Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, explained that the\norganization was formed in 1999 to fight for rehabbing the former navy housing parcel\ncalled East Housing. She stated that the former Planning Board did not welcome their\norganization's East Housing proposal. So, she asked staff and the Board to create\nresidential opportunities for all income levels, working people, and families. She\ncommended the staff and Board for taking up the housing element finally because the\nBoard must show leadership as well as accelerate the timeline.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft called for Board member comments and questions.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft called on Board member Henneberry to make comments on\naffordable housing and housing for working families.\nBoard member Henneberry stated that his day job represents mainly grocery store and\nbutcher union members so workers housing is a critical issue. He felt that being able to\nlive where one works comes up within the redevelopment agency and this should be\naddressed in the housing element.\nBoard member Zuppan noticed that the illustrations don't show the parking impacts. She\nalso stated that since current public transit service is so volatile in Alameda County, the\nstaff and Planning Board should discuss issues regarding traffic impacts, parking, and\npublic transportation within the housing element. She asked Andrew Thomas to post the\npresentation on the City's website. Finally, she was curious about the idea of having to\nhave 16 units altogether. She felt it was important to spread affordable housing\nthroughout neighborhoods rather than having them clumped in one dense location.\nMr. Thomas responded by saying that parking concerns are a legitimate concern.\nMoreover, he pointed out that staff has to looked at the parking requirements at the\nchosen sites. He went on to explain that early this year or end of last year the Planning\nBoard and community completed a comprehensive review of parking requirements for all\nuses including residences on Park and Webster Streets. He also stated that he would\npost the presentation on the web absolutely. Lastly, he wanted to point out that the 16\nunit requirement made by HCD doesn't mean that affordable housing has to be put on\none site in projects of 16 units or more. HCD defines large sites or by definition, sites\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 7 of 13\nDecember 12, 2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-12-12", "page": 8, "text": "that are large enough to accommodate at least 16 units are zoned at a certain density so\nthe land can facilitate a range of housing types.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft raised an issue regarding residential development and its\nproximity to transportation, parking, and density.\nMr. Thomas stated the initial list of sites is to get everyone thinking about the\nfunctionality. As staff goes through the process internally and reviews the sites with the\npublic, then staff will be able to look at the whole list of sites in order to ask for\nrecommendations. He reaffirmed the notion that access to public transit is part of the\ncriteria for selecting sites, especially for higher density multi-family and senior housing\ntypes.\nBoard member Kohlstrand stated that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission is\nimplementing the One Bay Area Grant Program where funding is contingent on certain\nstrategies related to smart growth, adopting a housing element, including affordable\nhousing, constructing complete streets and a few more. The grant program is being\nreviewed at the regional level under designated priority development areas. Therefore,\ncities and counties are not sure if transit money is going where development is going.\nVice President Autorino asked staff what level of difficulty does Measure A introduce to\nthis process.\nMr. Thomas responded by saying that Measure A raises some level of difficulty, but it is\nan insurmountable hurdle. Measure A is the citywide requirement, which says that multi-\nfamily housing should not be built and that runs into the face of state law. However, the\nCity of Alameda does build multi-family housing, through density bonuses and other\nways. As a community, we are building good projects and will continue this effort. He\nexplained that the current zoning ordinance says maximum density of 21 units per acre\nand density bonuses of 29 units per acre are allowed and the City will waive the multi-\nfamily prohibition. Although, technically the City doesn't permit multi-family housing, the\nCity will waiver the rule on specific sites and density bonuses create considerable\ndensity.\nVice President Autorino reaffirmed the statement that the City recognized the obstacles\ncreated by Measure A, but understood the process of going around the measure to\ncreate residential density. He also commented about the project timeline and whether it\ncould be expedited without jeopardizing other priority projects.\nMr. Thomas stated the faster we move along the better. The way staff laid the timeline\nout staff can't get all the responses drafted before the first meeting in March. He\nexplained that he wants a good comprehensive set of opinions and once staff receives\nthe first draft, the Planning Board and residents control the pace entirely.\nVice President Autorino stated it is very important to do things right and not over commit\nstaff's time.\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 8 of 13\nDecember 12, 2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-12-12", "page": 9, "text": "Mr. Thomas replied that he is confident that staff will get the comments and complete the\npackage for the first meeting in March.\nBoard member Kohlstrand commended on the handout and she stated that it is\nimportant for the public to understand the density levels within Alameda and different\ntypes of development that occur outside of Alameda. She agreed with those who believe\nthe process should move along quickly and she urged staff to engage with all community\ngroups. She also asked staff if they identified locations for mobile homes.\nJennifer Gastelum, replied that if there are mobile homes allowed in the City's zoning\nordinance then staff would look into it. There is a list of things such as residential care\nfacilities, second units, transitional housing, and more which staff must check off.\nBoard member Kohlstrand asked if the state published a ratio outlining the number of\nhomeless shelters required to serve a city's total population.\nJennifer Gastelum, replied that there isn't a state wide ratio, but staff has come up with a\nnumber by meeting with local homeless advocates. The state generally wants to see\nhow many acres of land are made available for a shelter.\nBoard member Kohlstrand asked whether the housing element evaluates the City's\njobs/housing balance and integrates an economic development strategy.\nMr. Thomas responded to Linette Lee's density per acre statement, which forces the City\nto find lots of acreage. He further explained that the City is opting to create higher\ndensity in select parcels in order for some of the sites identified as residential to be\nzoned as commercial.\nBoard member Kohlstrand asked staff about zoning Alameda Point.\nMr. Thomas replied that the HCD made changes to state law where cities that\noverpromise land for residential purposes will be penalized. Therefore, if the City\noverpromises residential inventory the supply that was not made available for residential\nuse will roll over to the next evaluation cycle. Thus, staff has not rezoned Alameda Point\nfor cycle 2007-2014 for this reason.\nBoard member Burton stated that the 29 units per acre threshold for density bonuses\nshould be modified.\nMr. Thomas clarified by explaining that the state does not consider the City's density\nbonus ordinance as a measure of density because the density bonus is a discretionary\nprocess. So, staff will zone select sites from the total 25 identified sites and allow the\nmaximum number of units to be built on the parcel.\nBoard member Burton stated that the City must have the conversation to amend\nMeasure A in order to permit the maximum 30 units per acre and construct multi-family\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 9 of 13\nDecember 12, 2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-12-12", "page": 10, "text": "housing. This means the City must have a transparent conversation with the community\nand that would include public workshops in order to have community buy-in.\nMr. Thomas stated that staff has conducted workshops throughout the years, but the\nissue is how to get a wide range of residents to participate. In the past, the Going\nForward Community Workshop posed great success and was relatively affordable.\nBoard member Burton asked about development parking requirements and transit usage\nparalleling residential density. He implored staff and the Board to consider building a\nvariety of housing for all income levels.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft welcomed the public's feedback. She asked Linette Lee to send\nAndrew Thomas examples of high-density developments before the next meeting in\norder to incorporate the illustrations into the staff report. She also requested that staff\nand the Board continue the conversation about the jobs to housing balance. She\nmentioned that public participation was called out as one of the deficiencies in the HCD\ncomment report at the bottom of page 7, paragraph D. Therefore, workbooks and online\nresponses using the Moving Forward Workshop template should be used and staff\nshould consider taking workshops on the road. The City should also capitalize on the\nneed for smaller square foot housing, which was reported by the Home Builder's\nAssociation and create aesthetically pleasing multifamily housing that works for all\nincome levels. Finally, the Board must review and modify, if necessary, the proposed\nprocess and sequence described within this report.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft called for a motion to approve the Alameda Housing Element\nprocess as described.\nBoard member Henneberry approves the motion, 2nd by Board member Kohlstrand, but\ncaveat to have some consideration on public outreach, and approved 5-0.\n9-C. Hold a Public Hearing to hear a Status Report on the Proposed Update to the\nPublic Art Program and Review and Accept the Annual Report for the Public Art\nFund as Required by the Public Art Ordinance TIME [2:24:53]\nLaura Ajello, Planner Il for the Public Art Commission, spoke about the annual report for\nthe public art fund. The Planning Board is filling the role for the Public Art Commission\nand the meeting is to allow the public to speak about the City's public art and the overall\nprocess.\nVice President Autorino stated that the City would spend $35,000, which was approved\nby council last year to have a consultant review the Public Art Commission's process.\nThere are three or four elements that the consultant will review and he wants to know\nwhat to expect from the findings.\nLaura Ajello, explained that the City wants a public art policy that works, and the current\npolicy is not working. The Public Art Commission did not meet in fiscal years 2009/2010\nand the last art project was created for Warmington Homes in Grand Marina in 2008.\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 10 of 13\nDecember 12, 2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-12-12", "page": 11, "text": "She stated that developers are not contributing to the fund, given the economic climate\nand the Public Art Commission has not received any funding. So, with the City\nManager's urging, staff wants to create an art policy that works.\nVice President Autorino asked if the consultant would work with staff to either restructure\nor eliminate the public arts committee and how funds should be spent going forward.\nLaura Ajello, replied that the study would allow staff to setup a system to maximize the\nuse of funds and how to generate of funds.\nBoard member Kohlstrand stated that $35,000 isn't a large sum for a large study, and\nsince the City hasn't had public art since 2008, we're not generating enough funds from\nlarge developments. She then asked if developments are required to provide art on site\nand/or pay in-lieu fees.\nLaura Ajello, stated that there is an option for developers to contribute to the public art\nfund in-lieu of having a project on their own site. The last contribution was for a Summer\nHouse, which contributed $7,500 to the commission's fund last fiscal year. The last\npublic art project was built by Perforce Software on Blanding Avenue.\nBoard member Kohlstrand asked if Perforce Software paid for the art piece directly.\nLaura Ajello, exclaimed yes they did and the project went to the Public Art Commission\nfor approval.\nBoard member Kohlstrand, asked if Perforce Software paid an in-lieu fee.\nLaura Ajello, answered no, the policy is either to pay to construct an art piece onsite or\npay the amount you would have paid for the art piece to the Public Art Commission. She\nalso noted that if the developer doesn't spend enough money on the public art then they\nwould have to pay the difference in-lieu. In this case, Perforce Software went above the\nrequirement.\nBoard member Kohlstrand questioned the public art program's performance and the\nBoard's position going forward.\nLaura Ajello, replied that in order to keep the public art program-going staff is looking for\nfeedback from the Board and the public. One suggestion is to buy art from local artists\nand display them in city buildings. Another option is to lower the cap of $150,000 or\nlower the threshold from 1/4 million so developers can easily contribute.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked if VF Outdoor, Inc. at Harbor Bay Business Park paid into\na public art fund.\nLaura Ajello, explained that Harbor Bay was developed before 2003 and at that time the\npublic art fund was not created, so they are not accountable.\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 11 of 13\nDecember 12, 2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-12-12", "page": 12, "text": "Mr. Thomas stated that developers pay into a public art fund if it is written into the\ndevelopment agreements.\nBoard member Burton stated that staff should reach out to a wide variety of the art\ncommunity. He questioned whether the Public Art Commission should make investments\ninto one gateway project or foster the arts in some creative way by supporting local\nartists that benefit the community.\nBoard member Zuppan asked staff if they looked into public-private partnerships. She\nfound that in nearly every meeting, especially with the business community there is\nstrong support for gateway work.\nLaura Ajello, stated that option would be considered.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft, called for public comment.\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident, stated that in 2008 he discovered former Mayor\nBeverly Johnson failed to appoint enough members to the Transportation Commission\nwhich did not create a quorum and he soon found out that the Public Art Commission\nhad a lack of appointment. The consequence was lack of progress and discussion by a\nbody that was literally non-existent. He trusts that this expenditure will help get things\nback on track.\nCarol Gottstein, Alameda resident, has friends who are artists and who would like to be\nmore involved in this process, but they don't know how to do that. They don't realize that\npublic art projects are presented before the Planning Board. Otherwise, they would have\nbeen here. She requested that the City provide more outreach to local artists so they can\nbecome more involved.\nLaura Ajello, responded that staff conducted out reach to art community and had a\nworkshop last September. She explained that the artists wanted to identify more of their\npeers to get public comment. She also retains artists' contacts information and sends\nmeeting notices and appeals for public comment to bring forth before the Board.\nVice President Autorino asked about the $21,000 received from Perforce Software.\nLaura Ajello, stated the $21,000 from Perforce is a running tally from the inception of the\npublic art program. From the last fiscal year, there were no expenditures and the only\nrevenue received was from interest and Summer House's $7,500 in-lieu contribution.\nThe others date back from 2003 so it's difficult to read this.\nVice President Autorino stated that he understood this; he questioned whether the Board\nwas comfortable enough to approve the study to the City Council.\nLaura Ajello, stated if you look at last year's report, included in the attachment to the\nBoard this is a boilerplate report produced by finance and this format hasn't changed.\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 12 of 13\nDecember 12, 2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-12-12", "page": 13, "text": "Board member Kohlstrand asked if the account balance was correct,\nLaura Ajello, responded yes it comes from our finance department.\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft stated no motion was necessary to move forward.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard member Zuppan asked the Board to come back to review the design guidelines at\nsome point and examine specific areas that are frustrating or difficult for staff.\nMr. Thomas replied that would be an excellent idea and staff talks about that all the time.\nBoard member Kohlstrand wanted to acknowledge Jean Sweeney's contribution over the\nyears. She passed away last week or so and she did so much for the City and spent lots\nof hours at the Planning Board.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nBoard members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement\nor make a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide\na referral to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report\nback to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning a City matter or, through\nthe chair, direct staff to place a request to agendize a matter of business on a\nfuture agenda.\n12. ADJOURNMENT:\n9:49\nPM\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 13 of 13\nDecember 12, 2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-12-12.pdf"}