{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-08-27", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2012\n1. CONVENE:\n7:08 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member K\u00f6ster\n3. ROLL CALL:\nPresent: President Zuppan (arrived late), Vice-President\nBurton, Board members Ezzy Ashcraft, Henneberry, Knox\nWhite, and K\u00f6ster.\nAbsent: None\n4. MINUTES:\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of June 25, 2012\nBoard member Knox White motioned to approve minutes as amended\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion\nMotion carried, 6-0; no abstentions\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of July 9, 2012\nBoard member Knox White motioned to approve minutes as amended\nBoard member Henneberry seconded the motion\nMotion carried, 4-0; abstentions Vice President Burton and Board member K\u00f6ster\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of July 23, 2012\nBoard member Knox White motioned to continue the minutes\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion\nMotion carried, 6-0; no abstentions\n5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, requested that item 8B be moved from\nthe consent calendar to the regular agenda items.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft motioned to move item 8B from the consent calendar to\nthe regular agenda items.\nBoard member Henneberry seconded the motion.\nMotion carried, 5-0; no abstentions\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 1 of 13\nJuly 23, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-08-27", "page": 2, "text": "Andrew Thomas requested that item 9D be continued to a date yet determined to allow\nstaff more time to prepare the report.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft motioned to continue item 9D to a date yet to be\ndetermined in the future.\nBoard member Knox White seconded the motion\nMotion carried, 5-0; no abstentions\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n6-A\nFuture Agendas\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, provided an overview of upcoming\nprojects.\nPresident Zuppan arrived.\n7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nPresident Zuppan opened Oral Communications.\nKelly Johnston, St. Joseph's Elementary School, stated that the school will issue a\nwritten response to the community comments and concerns. She reiterated that the\nproject is in compliance with the master plan and will result in a net zero population\nincrease. She stated that the financial aspects of the project are outside the Board's\nscope. She invited the board members to tour the campus and see how the project\ncomplies with the school's master plan.\nPresident Zuppan closed Oral Communications\n8. CONSENT CALENDAR.\n8-A\nZoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions. A\nreport of recent actions on minor variances, minor variances, and design\nreview applications.\nItem 8-B was moved to the Regular Agenda Items.\nBoard member Knox White motioned to approve the consent calendar.\nVice President Burton seconded the motion.\nMotion carried, 6-0; no abstentions\n9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 2 of 13\nJuly 23, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-08-27", "page": 3, "text": "8-B\nApprove a Modification to the Master Street Tree Plan to Add Robinia\npseudoacacia (Black Locust) to the Planting Palette for the 1300 Block of\nBay Street.\nPlanning Services Manager gave brief presentation.\nPresident Zuppan opened public comment.\nKaren Flanders, resident, stated that the residents of the street would like the tree-\nscape to remain as is.\nDavid Maxcy, resident, stated that the current trees are pink, and the residents of the\nstreet would like the replacement trees to be the same or at the very least, the same\ncolor.\nPresident Zuppan clarified with staff and informed the residents that the Robinia\npseudoacacia trees are in fact pink and the plan modification is to guarantee that the\ncorrect tree is planted.\nBelinda Ray, resident, stated that the arching trees that meet in the middle make the\nstreet beautiful and create character. She said she would like the trees to remain the\nsame. She referenced the amount of commercials filmed on the street because of the\ntrees.\nTim Rumberger, resident, stated he is not aware of any invasive issues, or sidewalk\ndamage caused by the current trees. He referenced the amount of commercials filmed\non the street and cited economic incentive for keeping the same species of trees; he\nurged the Board to approve the motion as it has been amended to allow for the pink\nversion of the tree.\nPresident Zuppan closed public comment.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft voiced her approval of the amendment and suggested to\nstaff that more of these trees be planted throughout the City because of their economic\nvalue.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft motioned to approve a modification of the Master Street\nTree Plan.\nBoard member Knox White seconded the motion.\nMotioned carried, 6-0; no abstentions.\n9-A\nConditional Use and Design Review Application- - PLN11-0378, 1600 Park\nStreet (Former Good Chevrolet Site) Proposed commercial buildings,\nincluding two one-story structures and a parking lot to be accessed from\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 3 of 13\nJuly 23, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-08-27", "page": 4, "text": "Foley Street, Tilden Way, and Park Street. The applicant is also\nrequesting a conditional use permit for approval of a drive-thru lane and\nwindow and 24 hour operations. The application also requires the removal\nand replacement of up to two existing street trees in the Tilden Way\nmedian.\nVice President Burton recused himself.\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, gave brief presentation.\nPresident Zuppan clarified with staff that the plans have changed and now included\nactual windows facing Tilden.\nGreg Kline, architect, gave brief presentation and corrected staff's presentation stating\nthat CVS prefers the right turn only option from the driveway onto Park Street. He\nclarified that the arched glass above the window boxes is clear glass and allows\npedestrians to see in.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft clarified with Mr. Kline that the glass used in the window\narches on Tilden Way, the arched windows in the rear of Pad A building as well as the\nPad B is spandrel glass, which has a coating that doesn't allow people to see through\nit.\nShe confirmed with staff that the code requires 1 bicycle parking space per every 10\nvehicle spaces.\nObaid Khan, City Traffic Engineer, confirmed that two long term bicycle parking spaces\n(bike lockers) have been included in the conditions (number 61), which is in addition to\nthe regular, short-term bicycle parking.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft clarified with staff that turn-around space according to the\ntraffic study REA has been provided. She clarified that space in the parking lot for a\nholiday tree has also been reserved.\nJosh Eisenhut, Armstrong Development, gave brief presentation.\nBoard member Henneberry clarified with Mr. Einsenhut that by requesting the 24 hour\nuse permit now, before business conditions warrant the need, allows CVS all the\nnecessary permits to quickly implement operational hour changes in the future without\nseeking additional approval.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft clarified with staff that it would take less than two months\nto hold a public hearing and seek approval for CVS to extend operating hours. She\nconfirmed with Mr. Eisenhut that Armstrong Developers have opened several CVS\nstores in urban settings; however those stores were modifications to an existing\nbuilding.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 4 of 13\nJuly 23, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-08-27", "page": 5, "text": "Board member Knox White clarified with Mr. Eisenhut that the addition of a Park Street\nentrance/exit only provides convenience to CVS customers as well as the smaller retail\nstores that will inhabit the other building.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster clarified with staff that any modifications to the driveway will be\napplied to the two parking plans which have been provided, one with an REA and one\nwithout.\nPresident Zuppan opened public comment.\nPatsy Paul, resident, stated that she is against 24-hour use permit because of increased\ntraffic, safety, noise pollution, light intrusion, additional CO2 emissions, and parking\nimpact. She requested that the Board deny the application for the use permit.\nNanette Burdick, resident, expressed concern with the design permit commenting that\nthe Foley Street entrance is problematic, because it is a narrow residential alley with\nlimited residential parking. She expressed concern about additional employee parking\nimpacting already limited residential parking. She suggested that Tilden Way, be\nchanged to a one way street with parking for employees, and Tilden way become the\nmain entrance for CVS. She expressed concerned about safety, noise pollution,\nlighting, trash be placed at least 50 feet away from any resident, 4 foot attractive brick\nwall providing some privacy and proper screening so neighbors aren't looking into a\nparking lot.\nRobb Ratto, Executive Director of PSBA, completely supportive of the project.\nExpressed support of the drive-through pharmacy, which will allow CVS to be\ncompetitive with both Walgreens. He stated the window boxes are imperative for\nrunning a retail business, and asks CVS to incorporate public art into the window\nboxes. He said he liked the diagonal entrance on Park Street because it mirrored the\nbuildings in the core section, and allow a little characteristic, He asked the Board to\nallow for ingress and right turn only egress on Park Street, stating it's imperative for\ntraffic flow and customer ease.\nAudrey Lord-Hausman, resident, expressed concern regarding pedestrian safety\nespecially the Lincoln and Buena Vista intersection and encouraged the Board to design\nthe intersections to be more pedestrian safe. She also requested that one or two\nbenches be installed to allow pedestrians and shoppers to rest.\nColin Herrick, resident, commented on the placement of the garbage bins right against\nthe neighboring house and asked that the bins be relocated. He expressed discontent\nwith the entire project, concurred with Ms. Burdick's comments regarding Foley Street\nand parking. He also commented on the traffic impact the development will have.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 5 of 13\nJuly 23, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-08-27", "page": 6, "text": "Jacqueline Miranda, resident, concurred with previous speakers, and requests that the\nFoley Street entrance and exit be closed and the right turn only exits on both Tilden and\nPark be installed.\nIrene Dieter, resident, expressed surprise with the acceptance of the statement that\nhousing over retail establishments on Park Street doesn't make economic sense, and\nstated that the same thought could be applied to Alameda Point and sets a bad\nprecedence. Requested explanation for allowing one and not the other.\nLear Blitzstein, resident, concurs with Mr. Herrick's statements and is opposed to CVS,\na corporation moving into the neighborhood. Expressed concern with light and noise\npollution, parking impact, traffic congestion and speeding.\nHeath Carlisle, resident, concerned about the extra traffic from the development\nespecially with a 24 hour use permit, and requested that no entrance/exit be allowed on\nFoley Street.\nBrian Kernan, concurred with comments made by Nanette Berdict regarding Foley\nStreet, disagree with 24 hour use permit, and expressed concern with delivery times\nand inadequate amount of parking. He requested that Tilden way be reduced to single\nlanes each way, with metered parking.\nJacqueline Cooper, resident, generally opposes the CVS, concerned with the placement\nof garbage bins, and against the 24 hour drive through. She asked the Board to\nconsider whether a development that includes a CVS pharmacy and Chase bank keeps\nwith the smaller boutique businesses that inhabit Park Street.\nDavid Maxcy, resident, he likes the design and believes it will enhance Park Street. He\nexpressed concern regarding traffic impact on Park Street.\nLorre Zuppan closed public comment.\nAndrew Thomas stated that the zoning is commercial manufacturing, that there is an\nincrease in the parking ratio. He clarified that if the Foley Street entrance/exit is closed\nthere will probably not be an REA with the Market Place, which would impact the\nproposed landscaping and improvements on the Market Place parking lot. He stated\nthat the traffic study doesn't show a significant increase on Foley Street.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft clarified with staff that Tilden Way is an exclusive transit\nright of way and a truck route and traffic can be slowed down by use of medians.\nBoard member Henneberry clarified with staff that lane reduction on Tilden would\nsignificantly impact arterial traffic and the operations of the street and may require a\nGeneral Plan amendment.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 6 of 13\nJuly 23, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-08-27", "page": 7, "text": "Staff expressed a need to maintain lanes for exclusive transit services and bike lane\nrequirements. Staff suggested reviewing the posted speed limit and working with the\npolice department for speed enforcement.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster stated that the sidewalks are not continued onto Tilden Way\nbetween Foley Street and Buena Vista and is a problem with pedestrian access.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft requested that staff look into whether proper signage is\nposted throughout the area. She stated that the conditions address comments\nregarding light and noise pollution. She clarified with staff that truck deliveries would be\nlimited to 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.\nBoard member Henneberry stated the one way entrance and exit on Park Street is a\ngood compromise and is supportive. He stated in terms of fairness that the drive-\nthrough pharmacy should be permitted. He questions the need for the 24 hour\noperating permit and suggested that CVS apply for that permit at a later time, once\nbusiness conditions prove the need. He stated that he would prefer fewer spandrel\nwindows.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that her preference is to allow only for an entrance\ninto the development from Park Street with that customers exit onto Tilden or Foley.\nShe will support the drive-through pharmacy, but questions the actual need for it. She\nis not supportive of the 24-hour use permit stating that there is not a current need, and\nthat there is no point in burdening the residents. She stated that she wants the majority\n(3) of the Park Street windows to be windows and the remaining two could be window\nboxes.\nBoard member Knox White commented that Tilden needs to be changed into a 25 mph\nzone. He stated that he would like the City to find a way to make the current proposed\ndesign on Tilden work temporarily while the City works through the process for\nredesigning Tilden to make sure the City gets what it wants. He recommended that the\none way Park Street entrance be approved and reduce the lane width, which would\nallow Building B expand in size. He stated that parking should not be permitted\nbetween the two buildings. He stated that \"good faith REA\" discussions should be\nrequired and he projects that REA would result in a net loss in vehicles exiting onto\nFoley Street. He stated that he is not supportive of the 24 hour use permit, and stated\nthat CVS can request it at a later date, should they determine a need. He encouraged\nthat the investment group investigate ideas/agreements to allow residential parking\novernight. He would like to condition that the garbage bins be relocated, and a lighting\nplan be approved. He suggested that truck delivery be limited to Tilden Way. He will\nacquiesce on the windows.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft requested that the wording of condition #72 be changed\nfrom \"encouraged\" to \"required.\"\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 7 of 13\nJuly 23, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-08-27", "page": 8, "text": "Board member K\u00f6ster stated that narrowing the street and providing a larger building\nspace in Pad B is a good idea. He stated that Tilden Way should be one way entrance\nand exit and the sidewalk should continue to Buena Vista with turning lanes, truck\nparking access, and a bike path. He concurs with Board comments regarding the 24\nhour use permit. He requests as much screening between the parking lot, drive-\nthrough, and residents as possible. He would prefer regular windows on Park Street\nand referenced a new CVS in San Francisco that has real windows. He also concurred\nwith comments made by Board member Knox White.\nPresident Zuppan clarified with staff that the Newspaper Stand in front of Pad B can be\nmoved if it is in the public right of way. She clarified with staff that the crosswalk from\nPacific currently has crosswalk lights.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft clarified with staff that the in-pavement lights have been\nrepaired and signs have been installed.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster stated that bulb outs assist with pedestrians stepping out and\nallowing motorist to see them before crossing.\nPresident Zuppan clarified with staff that residents have a preferential parking permit\nprogram; however they would have to incur the cost of implementing the program in\ntheir neighborhood. She expressed interest in seeing the condition that the drive-\nthrough be removed in the building changes occupancy, which would require a new\ntenant to request permission to use it. She concurred with Board member Knox White's\nsuggestion to decrease the width of the entrance. She expressed concern with the left\nturn lanes from Park Street and how traffic and pedestrian safety will be impacted\nwithout lights.\nObaid Khan, Public Works, stated that access from Park Street may requires\nemergency vehicle access and Municipal Code requires a driveway width of 20 feet. He\nstated that staff will review the code and try to accommodate the request to reduce the\nwidth. He stated that pedestrians must exercise judgment when crossing streets, and\nthat the City can restrict left turn in the future if needed.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft commented that parking between the two buildings is\nconvenient she likes that the spaces are screened and pushed back, and does not\nobject to keeping the spaces.\nBoard member Knox White motioned to continue the meeting to 11:30 p.m. and hear\nthe remaining two items.\nBoard member Henneberry seconded the motion.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft clarified with staff that they would prefer that the Board\nattempt to review item 9B and if time permit a discussion regarding item 9C can occur.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 8 of 13\nJuly 23, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-08-27", "page": 9, "text": "Motion carried, 5-0; Burton recused.\nBoard member Knox White expressed concern that all the activity generators (ATM,\netc ) are located at the back of the building and suggested that the activity generators\nbe moved to Park Street.\nPresident Zuppan concurred with Board member Knox White and clarified with staff that\nthe current condition regarding Park Street entrances does not orient the front of the\nbuilding to be on Park Street. She inquired if the driveway can be moved and clarified\nwith staff that a condition of approval to review shifting the driveway.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster confirmed with that the exit on Foley Street can be moved to be\ncloser to the end of the street and negating lights from shining into residences.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft clarified with staff that the landscaping space in the\nparking lot is not walkable but just decorative.\nStaff clarified that a condition of the approval for the landscape requires either a wall or\nhedge on Foley Street.\nPresident Zuppan is supportive of the comments from board member Knox White\nregarding the median and sidewalk. She supports the installation of benches, REA\nparking agreement, trying to address employee parking, moving the trash bins, smaller\nPark Street entrance, and limiting truck delivery on Tilden outside of rush hour, and the\nremoval of the drive-thru when occupancy changes. She would prefer to see a higher\nbike parking ratio than 1:10.\nObaid Khan, Public Works, stated that blocking traffic with a loading zone needs to be\nreviewed by the Police Chief and the Public Works Director. He clarified that loading\nzones are usually created in parking spaces, not travel zones.\nJosh Eisenhut, Armstrong Development, clarified that he requests that the operating\nhours be at least the same as the current locations hours of 7 a.m.-11 p.m.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would support the store and drive thru to\noperate between 7 a.m.-11 p.m.\nBoard member Knox White requested that if the drive way width be larger than 14 feet,\ncurb to curb, than it come back to the Board for discussion.\nBoard member Henneberry clarified with staff that the Fire Department is looking for a\nwidth of at least 15 feet. He stated that the project is being delayed by requesting\nthat the width of the driveway be changed and he cannot support that suggestion for\ncondition.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 9 of 13\nJuly 23, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-08-27", "page": 10, "text": "Board member Ezzy Ashcraft clarified with staff that the Fire Department would prefer to\nmaintain fire access on both Tilden and Park Street.\nStaff stated that they will make the driveway as small as possible and report back to the\nBoard with the final measurements and justifications.\nBoard member Henneberry commented that a building on the other side of town was\nrecently approved with very few windows.\nBoard member Knox White stated that he will not hold up approval because of two\nwindows, but he encourages the applicant to increase real windows, and reduce the\nwindow boxes.\nBoth board member K\u00f6ster and Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with board member Knox\nWhites statements.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft motioned to approve the staff resolution as amended.\n(See attached final Resolution)\nBoard member Henneberry seconded the motion.\nMotion carried, 5-0; Vice President Burton recused.\n9-B\nAppeal of Design Review PLN11-0208 - 1333 Broadway - Winslow Holmes &\nRay Butkovich. Appeal approval of a design review project that consists of\nadding a second story to the single-family residence. The height of the home\nwill increase by 8'-4\"; the maximum height of the addition is 28'-11\" (35 feet\npermitted). Grounds given for appeal: shading and loss of privacy\nBoard member K\u00f6ster left the meeting.\nBoard member Henneberry motioned to continue item 9C to the following meeting.\nBoard member Knox White seconded the motion. He also suggested that an ad-hoc\nsub-committee be formed to work with staff and address some minor details of the\namendment.\nPresident Zuppan assigned Vice President Burton, Board member Knox White, and\nherself as members of the ad-hoc committee.\nMotion carried, 5-0; no abstentions.\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, gave brief presentation.\nBoard member Knox White motion to continue the meeting until midnight.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 10 of 13\nJuly 23, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-08-27", "page": 11, "text": "President Zuppan has closed public comment.\nPresident Zuppan clarified with staff that story poles were not part of the requirements,\nand that requirement is not embedded in any city regulations.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 11 of 13\nJuly 23, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-08-27", "page": 12, "text": "Board member Knox White stated that most houses on the block are two stories but the\ndistance between the buildings are much wider. He stated that he is considering\napproving the appeal and denying the addition. He concurred that the lighting will be\nimpacted.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she spoke with Board member Burton and\ndetermined that the design review could be improved. She suggested that the Board\nconsider going back and redesigning the addition.\nMr. Suji, stated that he is going by the recommendation of planning and that although it\nis difficult to consider a redesign, it is something he would consider.\nBoard member Knox White confirmed that if the appeal is upheld then the project is\ndenied and the applicant must start over.\nBoard member Knox White motioned to extend the meeting until 12:15\nBoard member Henneberry seconded the motion\nMotion carried, 5-0; no abstentions.\nBoard member Knox White clarified with the applicant that the applicant is not interested\nin\napplying for new permits when his neighbors are probably going to oppose the\nredesign. He stated that he may be interested in approving something that is consistent\nwith the code, but not necessarily this particular design, stating that if the applicant is\nfollowing the rules it is very difficult for the Board to not approve the permit.\nPresident Zuppan stated that based on the staff report it is clear that the neighbors are\nnot interested in a redesign since they oppose the addition of a second story.\nVice President Burton clarified with staff that a variance is not being asked for. He\nstated that there are no rules against a second story addition, and that there won't make\nmuch difference with the amount of light and air if the leaves height is maintained and\nthe addition is set back two feet. He stated that since the applicant has designed\naccording to the code and he has a hard time upholding the appeal.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the one applicant is concerned with privacy,\nwhile the other neighbor is concerned with lighting.\nBoard member Henneberry stated that he will support staff's recommendation.\nPresident Zuppan stated that she is not inclined to uphold the appeal.\nBoard member Knox White stated that if Board chooses to deny the appeal then the\nmunicipal code needs to be changed due to adverse effects of blocked lighting and\nviews. He stated that there are very specific finding that he cannot make and to. He\nstated that he will be vote to uphold the appeal.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 12 of 13\nJuly 23, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-08-27", "page": 13, "text": "Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that there are adverse effects on shading and\nlighting and if the applicant were to go back and redesign and the neighbors continued\nto object that the Board could overrule the objection. She stated that she cannot in\ngood conscience make the finding.\nBoard member Knox White motioned to continue the meeting to 12:30 a.m.\nVice President Burton seconded the motion.\nMotion carried, 5-0; no abstentions.\nStaff clarified that four votes are need to uphold the appeal.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that by narrowly looking at the findings she cannot\nmake the finding that Mr. Butkovitch's privacy is impacted since the addition is looking in\non the attic which she does not consider living space.\nBoard member Knox White motioned to uphold both appeals.\nBoard member Henneberry seconded the motion.\nMotion does not carry 1-4; no abstentions.\n9-C\nRecommendation to Approve a Zoning Amendment, Design Review Manual,\nand Final EIR for the North Park Street Planning Area. Item Continued to a\nlater date.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNONE\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nBoard member Knox White requested that the Board receive copies of the St. Joseph's\nMaster Plan prior to Board review of the item. He suggested that Harbor Landing send\nan update letter to the Board as an off agenda item. He stated that Otis Street, a priority\nbikeway, was recently and no bike facilities were installed. He questions if proper\nprotocol was followed and would like to find out how ensuring proper protocol is\nfollowed is going to be addressed.\nPresident Zuppan stated the Southshore Center needs to come back for review\nbecause they have not met all compliance requirements (bike lane, sidewalks, etc)\n12.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNONE\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 13 of 13\nJuly 23, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard", "date": "2012-08-27", "page": 1, "text": "RESOLUTION NO. 12-04\nRESOLUTION OF THE OVERSIGHT BOARD FOR THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA ADOPTING\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING, AUGUST 27, 2012\nWHEREAS, the Oversight Board for the Successor Agency to the Community\nImprovement Commission of the City of Alameda organized itself pursuant to Chapter 4\n(commencing with Section 34179) of Part 1.85 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code (the\n\"Board\"); and\nWHEREAS, it is necessary for said Board to adopt minutes of public meetings; and\nNOW, THEREFORE, THE OVERSIGHT BOARD FOR THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY\nTO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nDOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:\nSection 1. The approval of meeting minutes of the special meeting on August 27, 2012,\nof the Oversight Board for the Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission\nof the City of Alameda, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.\nFURTHER RESOLVED: That pursuant to California Health and Safety Code\nSection 34179(h), this action by the Oversight Board for the Successor Agency to the\nCommunity Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda shall be effective five business\ndays from the date of this Resolution, pending a request for review by the California Department\nof Finance\nPASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of October 2012, by the following vote:\n,\nAYES:\n4\nNOES:\nO\nABSENT:\n3\nPerson\nChair\nATTEST:\nPosonary Valesba\nSecr\u00e9tary of the Board", "path": "SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard/2012-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard", "date": "2012-08-27", "page": 2, "text": "EXHIBIT A\nOF\nCity of Alameda\nSuccessor Agency Oversight Board\nSpecial Meeting Minutes\nMonday, August 27, 2012 at 6:30 p.m.\nCity Hall, Conference Room 391\n1.\nCALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL\nChair Russo called the meeting to order at 6:38 p.m. The roll call was taken by\nMember Potter. Present were Chair Russo; Vice-Chair Biggs; and Members Chan,\nMcMahon, Ortiz, Gerhard, and Potter. AC Transit alternate appointee Chris Peeples\nwas also in attendance.\nAt this time, Member Potter introduced City of Alameda Assistant City Attorney\nStephanie Garrabrant-Sierra, who will be assisting the Oversight Board and Successor\nAgency. Other staff members in attendance were City Attorney Janet Kern and\nconsultants Bob Staedler and David Doezema.\n2.\nRESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINUTES - MAY 3, 2012 SPECIAL MEETING\nMotion/Second (Chan, Ortiz) and unanimous to approve the minutes as\nsubmitted.\n3.\nOVERVIEW OF AB1484\nCity Attorney Kern gave a presentation regarding how the changes to AB1484\naffect the Oversight Board.\na. Changes to ROPS\ni.\nMust be adopted 90 days before the time frame they cover. The 3rd\nROPS must be submitted to DOF by September 1.\nii. Added penalties - the successor agency can be fined $10,000 per day\nand have its administrative budget cut by 25 percent if ROPS are not\nsubmitted on time.\niii. DOF review periods have been extended from ten to 40 business\ndays. This allows DOF much more time to review and respond to all\nactions of the Oversight Board. There is a meet and confer process for\nsuccessor agencies to dispute a DOF determination.\nb. Housing Asset List\ni.\nDOF required submittal by August 1. Staff compiled and submitted the\nHousing Asset List to meet the deadline and it is being presented to\nthe Board at this meeting.\nii. The DOF has 30 days to object to any item on the Housing Asset List\nand there is a meet and confer process for any disputes.", "path": "SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard/2012-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard", "date": "2012-08-27", "page": 3, "text": "Successor Agency Oversight Board\nMinutes of Special Meeting, August 27, 2012\nPage 2\nc. Audits\ni. There are a number of audits that are required under AB1484:\n1) Due Diligence Review - Housing 20% funds. Successor\nagencies must hire an independent outside auditor who is\napproved by the County Auditor/Controller. DOF guidelines for\ndue diligence review are expected by August 31.The Housing\nAudit must be completed by October 1, and have Oversight\nBoard approval by October 15. However, the audit cannot be\napproved in one meeting; there has to be a public meeting five\ndays before the final action. If there are unencumbered funds\nidentified by the audit, a check releasing that money will be due\nto DOF by November 28.\n2) Due Diligence Review - Non-Housing 80% funds - Must be\ncompleted by December 15, and have Oversight Board\napproval by January 15. This will also be a two-meeting\napproval process. If there are unencumbered assets uncovered\nby the audit, those funds will be due to DOF by April 10. Unlike\nROPS, there is no financial penalty for each day the Review is\nlate; however, there is a trigger where Alameda's property or\nsales tax could be used to make up the difference DOF believes\nis owed.\n3) The State Controller is conducting an independent audit of all\nassets transferred after January 31, 2012, to see if they were\ninappropriately transferred and if there should be a clawback.\nThis is a change from the original transfer date of January 31,\n2011. Once the audit process is completed, the DOF can issue\na Finding of Completion. Once that finding is issued, the\nsuccessor agency will know that the assets left can be used for\nthe purposes intended. Within six months of the issuance of the\nFinding of Completion, staff will prepare a long term property\nmanagement plan that will be brought to the Oversight Board for\nits approval. Then we will begin to follow that plan with the\nintention of maximizing the value of the assets.\nd. The Oversight Board actions are now even more subject to DOF control:\neverything has to be done by resolution and DOF has more added time to\nreview a board action.\ne. There is now clarification in the statute that the Successor Agency is a\nseparate legal entity. The formation of this separate legal entity for Alameda\nwill be brought before the City Council in September.\nMember Ortiz expressed concern that the Oversight Board does not have\nseparate legal counsel. The Successor Agency's interests may be different from the\ninterests the Oversight Board should be looking at. Two weeks ago in Oakland the\nboard's own attorney challenged what the successor agency was putting forward to", "path": "SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard/2012-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard", "date": "2012-08-27", "page": 4, "text": "Successor Agency Oversight Board\nMinutes of Special Meeting, August 27, 2012\nPage 3\nthem. City Attorney Kern responded that she would recommend that in order to save\nmoney, independent counsel should only be brought in to resolve specific areas of\ndispute between the taxing entities and the Successor Agency. Alameda's situation\nmay not be as complicated as Oakland's. There will be independent audits and final\nreview by DOF. Chair Russo agreed that this was a complex issue and\nrecommended that this item be placed on the agenda for a full discussion at a future\nmeeting. Members could bring their constituency counsel with them for this\ndiscussion. The Chair recommended that City Attorney Kern consult other oversight\nboards to see how they are handling this issue. Member Potter suggested that\nmembers could come back with specific examples of concerns and potential areas\nof conflict to help shape the discussion. The Chair stated that it would be better to\nhave this be a scoping discussion rather than trying to identify potential conflicts.\nCity Attorney Kern stated that she would discuss this with other agencies and bring\nback her findings to the Board.\nThis item was submitted for information, only; no board action was requested.\n4.\nREVIEW OF HOUSING ASSET LIST\nMr. Doezema reported that the list, a requirement of AB1484, had been prepared\nby the housing successor, the Alameda Housing Authority. It documents assets\ntransferred from the successor agency to the housing successor as of August 1, 2012,\nthe date of the list. DOF was provided with this list. DOF has 30 days to review the list\nand object to any item. If DOF has no objections to any of the items, the housing items\nare then protected from clawback to the successor agency.\nExhibit A lists real property. All the real property on this list consists of\naffordability covenants. These are deed restrictions that limit occupancy of affordable\nunits to low- and moderate-income people. There are 95 of them. There was no other\nproperty transferred other than deed restrictions.\nA Board member noted that the date of the transfer is shown as February 12,\n2012. The board did not have its first meeting until April - did the Board see this\ninformation at that meeting? Mr. Doezema responded that it did not - this was a transfer\ndictated by operation of law under ABX1 26. Housing assets went to the entity that\nagreed to accept them.\nA Board member asked if housing is treated differently. Mr. Doezema responded\nyes. Board Member Ortiz asked if DOF is inclined to be more sympathetic to housing.\nMr. Doezema responded that the law provides for transfers of assets that utilize low-\nand moderate-income housing funds. Member Potter stated that once this list is\napproved by DOF, these assets are protected from clawback and it will be left to the\nhousing successor agencies to administer the affordable housing covenants pursuant to\nredevelopment law. A Board member asked if the covenants were in perpetuity.\nMember Potter explained that the covenants are for 59 years. When the homes are\nsold, the covenants are reimposed for another 59 years, so in a way it's like perpetuity.\nThe Community Improvement Commission had no proceeds in this; there was no cash,\njust a requirement to keep the covenant in place. In response to a Board member", "path": "SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard/2012-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard", "date": "2012-08-27", "page": 5, "text": "Successor Agency Oversight Board\nMinutes of Special Meeting, August 27, 2012\nPage 4\nquestion regarding the possibility of buying out a covenant, Member Potter stated that\nour covenants are not drafted that way.\nMr. Doezema continued his presentation. Exhibit B - Personal Property - not\napplicable. Exhibit C - Encumbered Housing Funds for Enforceable Obligations (AUSD\naffordable housing and Jack Capon Villa). Regarding the $4.6 million being held in trust\nfor AUSD affordable housing per the pass-through agreement, Mr. Doezema stated that\nDOF has yet to determine if this is an enforceable obligation or a pass-through. If DOF\ndetermines that this is not a housing asset that's encumbered, it could determine that\nthe money should be returned to the Successor Agency for disbursement to taxing\nentities.\nExhibit D - Loans/Grants Receivables - these are deferred or forgivable loans\nmade in conjunction with the development of affordable housing projects. When and if\nthese loans are repaid to the housing successor, they would go back to the Housing\nAuthority for future affordable housing activities.\nExhibit G - Deferrals - these are two loan receivables (SERAF - BWIP/WECIP\nand SERAF - APIP) for funds borrowed from the low-moderate housing fund. The\nrepayment would go to the housing successor. These items are also shown on the\nROPS.\nThis item was submitted for information, only; no Board action was requested.\n5.\nRESOLUTION APPROVING 3RD RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT\nSCHEDULE (ROPS) - January 1, 2013 to June 30, 2013\nMr. Doezema explained the latest changes to the ROPS from the prior period\nROPS. Motion/Second (Chan, Biggs) to pass the resolution. Motion unanimous\n(Member Gerhard was absent.)\n6.\nSET UPCOMING MEETING SCHEDULE\nMember Potter reported that meetings had been scheduled for October 4 and\nOctober 11; however, the auditor has notified us that the audits will not be completed in\ntime for an October 1 meeting packet. She asked the members about their availability\nfor meetings on October 29 and November 8. The members indicated a preference for\nmeetings to start at 6:00 p.m. instead of 6:30 p.m. Member Potter will confirm dates\nnext week when she learns more about the audit schedule. The members indicated that\nOctober 29 and November 8 would be acceptable reschedule dates if needed.\nThere is also a need to schedule dates for the 80% non-housing fund review.\nThe submittal deadline to DOF is January 15, 2013. Member Potter proposed a first\nmeeting on December 17 or 18 and the second meeting on January 7 or 8. The\nmembers indicated a preference for December 17 and January 7. E-mail appointments\nwill be sent to the members.\n7.\nPUBLIC COMMENT\nMatthew James Fitzgerald read a statement into the record regarding the need to\nkeep money in Alameda County.", "path": "SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard/2012-08-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard", "date": "2012-08-27", "page": 6, "text": "Successor Agency Oversight Board\nMinutes of Special Meeting, August 27, 2012\nPage 5\n8.\nADJOURNMENT\nChair Russo called the meeting adjourned at 7:57 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nCosomany Velector\nRosemary Valeska\nSecretary\nApproved as submitted on October 18, 2012\nResolution 2012-04", "path": "SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard/2012-08-27.pdf"}