{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-08-17", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nSPECIAL MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, AUGUST 17, 2020\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Alan Teague convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m.\nThis was a virtual meeting.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Hanson Hom led the flag salute.\n3.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: President Teague and Board Members Curtis, Hom, Rothenberg, Ruiz, and\nSaheba.\nAbsent: None.\n4.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nNone.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNancy Shemick, a resident of Marina Village, wanted to talk about her concerns and\nquestions about Marina Village Inn being turned into a home by the county to house\nhomeless and at-risk individuals. She applauded the need for such a place but wanted to\nmake sure it was managed well. She said that many people would be affected if this place\ndid not have guidelines that had to follow.\nThomas Charron, a resident of Marina Village, echoed the comments made by Ms.\nShemick. He wanted to make sure the county acquired a use permit and wanted the\nplanning board to give them advice on how to make sure the county handles this home\ncorrectly.\nTiffany Lorenz who represents the association for Pacific Marina wanted to make a\nstatement that there are CC&Rs for the shared parking lot and common area. She wanted\nto make sure that the city was aware in case the sale of a hotel goes through.\nSteve Meckfessel, the managing investor of Marina Village Yacht Harbor, wanted to echo\nthe earlier comments. He believed it was a good and much-needed plan but wanted to\nmake sure they followed the CC&Rs and general Good Neighbor policies.\nBob Mischak wanted to reiterate what everyone else was saying. He wanted to make sure\nthat the public was aware of any design reviews and they followed CC&Rs.\nBenjamin Yamanaka, GM of Oakland Yacht Club, wanted to make sure the City of\nAlameda would make sure the county was doing the proper procedures of this\nproject.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 13\nAugust 17, , 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-08-17.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-08-17", "page": 2, "text": "Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning, Building, and Transportation, said that staff had\nrecently heard about the county's plan to purchase the building. The staff also agreed with\nthe speakers. This is a plan that can be done well and will be a benefit to the community.\nThey will act at the conduit between the county and the city.\nBoard Member Rona Rothenberg encouraged the speakers to give the same input at the\npublic meeting at the Board of Supervisors Chambers. If the county buys this location\nthere will be a public meeting.\nDirector Thomas said that when they hear about the public hearing they will share that\ndate.\n6.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\n7.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2020-8212\nPLN20-0099 - North Housing Development Plan and Tentative Map - 501 Mosley Avenue\n- Applicant: Alameda Housing Authority. The Planning Board will hold a public hearing to\nconsider a development plan, density bonus, street naming, and tentative map\napplications (PLN20-0099) for the development of up to 586 housing units on\napproximately 12.19 gross acres of vacant land located at 501 Mosley Avenue. The site\nis located within the R-4-PD-MF, Neighborhood Residential Planned Development District\nwith Multifamily Residential overlay. The proposal is eligible for streamlined ministerial\nreview and is statutorily exempt from further environmental review pursuant to California\nGovernment Code Section 65913.4\nAllen Tai, City Planner, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and\nattachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4608402&GUID=34E6CDBC\nOF5C-4E4B-9B30-064501B32570&FullText=1.\nDanielle Thoe, Alameda Housing Authority, also gave a presentation about this item.\nBoard Member Teresa Ruiz asked the staff about where the five-story buildings would be\nsince she did not see any in the plans.\nStaff Member Tai said they were referencing the ability to go five-story.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked if there would be a pedestrian walkway on the West side of\nBette Street, there was a bike path but no sidewalk.\nMs. Thoe said no that will be a mixed-use path for both bikes and pedestrians.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked how many bike parking spaces there will be per unit.\nMs. Thoe answered since they are creating bike space per square feet that it's difficult to\nanswer how many per unit. She felt confident they would have enough. She said a rough\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 13\nAugust 17, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-08-17.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-08-17", "page": 3, "text": "math answer using the square footage would be half a bike parking space per one and\ntwo bedrooms apartments and one whole bike parking space per larger apartments.\nBoard Member Tai said that demographic will also have a play in the need for bicycle\nparking.\nBoard Member Ron Curtis had questions about rules and CC&Rs on parking and what\nstorage of large vehicles (RVs) that will be made available for tenants.\nMs. Thoe spoke about what determined their parking ratios and what research they did\nwith other similar sites. They will also enforce rules for oversized vehicles and will have a\nset of rules for guest parking.\nStaff Member Tai clarified that as an SB35 eligible project that is within a half-mile of public\ntransit and under state law they are preempted from requiring any off-site parking.\nBoard Member Hom asked if this site would be 100% rental housing.\nMs. Thoe said the Housing Authority site would be 100% rental units that is the type of\nhousing they are permitted to develop, fund, and manage.\nBoard Member Hom asked about the Density Bonus law and other ways the applicant\ncould have asked for the bike parking waiver.\nStaff Member Tai said yes the applicant has other options within the law.\nBoard Member Hom asked what type of bike facilities they are anticipating.\nStaff Member Tai talked about the type of bike parking they would be offering. Possibilities\nfor short term biking would be racks and long term would be bike cages.\nMs. Thoe clarified that the only waiver they are asking for is in regards to the long term\nsecured bike parking.\nBoard Member Hom asked about what on-street bike access improvements they would\nbe offering.\nStaff Member Tai spoke about the multi-use bike trail on Bette St that is already in use.\nVice President Asheshh Saheba asked about the waiver request and if the city was setting\na precedent.\nStaff Member Tai said the translation to square footage might be a first, but since the\nstandard affects the number of units they can build the city should grant that waiver.\nDirector Thomas added that staff is redrafting the parking ordinance, with an amendment\nabout bike parking.\nPresident Teague opened the public comments.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 13\nAugust 17, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-08-17.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-08-17", "page": 4, "text": "Jay Garfinkle was confused as to why they were having this hearing when things are not\nvery clear as to what the applicant is exactly planning to do. He was very concerned that\npedestrians would be sharing a bike path and that very little thought had been put into\nwhere people would store their RVs.\nWilliam Smith stated how excited he is about this project, and said the city needs 100%\nlow-income housing. He was also very pleased with the covered parking and believed the\nbike waivers were fine. He enthusiastically added that there should be more housing like\nthis.\nJosh Geyer called in to support this project and how great it was for the environment,\nsocial responsibility, and the overall betterment of Alameda.\nPresident Teague closed the public comments.\nBoard Member Hom wanted clarification on what plans and what future plans they would\nbe approving.\nStaff Member Tai explained what they would be approving tonight and what future plans\nthey would have.\nBoard Member Hom wanted to know if there would be an opportunity for the public to\ncomment during the ministerial review of the design review.\nStaff Member Tai answered no, there will be an opportunity for public comment but under\nthe definition of ministerial review, the city does not rely on the public comment to tweak\nthe process.\nVanessa Cooper, Alameda Housing Authority, said they would be happy to include their\nneighbors in their planning process as they go forward.\nMs. Thoe pointed out that the public was encouraged to go to the Housing Authority's\nwebsite to sign up for emails about the project.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked about the three variances they have been asked to make, she\ndid not understand the logic of the plan.\nStaff Member Tai clarified that for automobile parking the requirement for this project is\nzero and then explained the staff's recommendation on bike parking.\nBoard Member Ruiz stated that they could increase the bike parking and not need a\nwaiver.\nStaff Member Tai said that the Housing Authority had done a study and it showed that\ngiving each unit two bike parking spots did not work.\nMs. Thoe seconded what Staff Member Tai had said, their calculations showed what they\ncould do.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 13\nAugust 17, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-08-17.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-08-17", "page": 5, "text": "Board Member Curtis asked about what was the purpose of the planning board on this\nproject.\nStaff Member Tai answered that the board had to take action, they have to approve a\ndevelopment plan. He then explained what state law demands of a project like this.\nDirector Thomas pointed out this is the city's first SB35 project and the thought process\nabout how staff had presented it to the board. He went into detail about what the board's\noptions were going forward.\nBoard Member Hom wanted more information on the 80% lot coverage and what thought\nwent into the design.\nDirector Thomas pointed out locations in Alameda that were similar.\nPresident Teague thanked the staff and the Housing Authority for their presentations. He\nwas disappointed that the applicant did not present directly their concessions that were\ngranted by state law. It would have been much shorter and less frustrating.\nBoard Member Rothenberg made a motion to approve the development plan and\ndensity bonus application to construct up to 586 residential units subject to the\nterms in the draft without exception and the tentative maps as well, Board Member\nHom seconded. President Teague asked for a roll call vote and the motion passed\n6-0.\n7-B 2020-8213\nPLN20-0160 - Use Permit and Design Review - 2416 Lincoln Ave - Applicant: Burch\nGreene on behalf of Alameda NUG Shop. Public Hearing to consider a Use Permit to allow\nthe operation of a Cannabis Retail dispensary within the existing commercial building at\n2416 Lincoln Avenue for the on-site sale of Cannabis and Cannabis Products. The project\nalso includes various exterior alterations to the building that require Design Review. The\nproject is located within the C-C-T (Community Commercial, Theatre Combining) Zoning\nDistrict. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)\npursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 - Existing Facilities and 15183 - Projects\nConsistent with General Plan and Zoning.\nDavid Sablan, Planner II, gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be\nfound at\nttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4608423&GUID=EB3218F2-\n023C-45DD-9A82-B046AA01D323&FullText=1.\nDr. John Oram, President of NUG Inc., the applicant, gave a video presentation about\nNUG INC S business model and plans for Alameda NUG Shop.\nVice President Saheba wanted clarification on where the outdoor lighting would be, he\nhad not seen it on the plans.\nBurch Greene, the design engineer for the applicant, said there was no lighting design\nincluded in the application since none were requested at this time. He said that when they\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 13\nAugust 17, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-08-17.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-08-17", "page": 6, "text": "submit the electrical engineered plans they will provide both interior and exterior lighting\ndesigns.\nVice President Saheba asked about where the landscaping would be located.\nMr. Greene pointed out the landscaping on the design.\nBoard Member Rothenberg wanted clarification on the hours of operation.\nDr. Oram clarified that they had applied for 9 am to 10 pm but that staff had recommended\n9 am to 9 pm. The recommended time was acceptable to him.\nBoard Member Rothenberg wanted clarification from the staff on the prohibited distance\nfrom Edison Elementary and the Public Library on Oak St from the dispensary.\nStaff Member Sablan said that the Free Library is not considered part of the sensitive use\nand Edison Elementary was around 1200 to 1300 foot range, past the protected area.\nBoard Member Rothenberg wanted to know if the Good Neighbor Policy for the dispensary\nwas consistent with the other dispensaries that have been approved.\nStaff Member Sablan answered yes.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked about the fence on the south side of the building and if it would\nbe fully enclosed.\nMr. Greene answered if the city wants it they can make that fence fully enclosed.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked if the applicant was opposed to extending the landscaping\ndown to the southern property and fully enclosing the site.\nMr. Greene said the applicant was not opposed.\nBoard Member Curtis wanted to know about the staff's recommendation about the\noperational hours.\nStaff Member Sablan said it was because of uniformity with other dispensaries.\nBoard Member Curtis believed this was \"micro-managing\" the business by the city. If there\nwas no objection and it was allowed by the ordinance, he believed the hours should be\nset by the business owner.\nVice President Saheba asked what the purpose of the area of P5 and why the landscaping\nwas designed the way it was.\nMr. Greene said the width of the landscape area was a recommendation by staff and gave\nhis thoughts about the parking area saying he was very open to other ideas from the\nboard.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 13\nAugust 17, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-08-17.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-08-17", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Hom asked about what parking demands their facility would generate.\nDr. Oram talked about their Sacramento and San Leandro facilities and what the parking\ndemands are generally like. He believed that the parking availability proposed for the\nAlameda location would serve their purposes.\nPresident Teague wanted to know why one tree was not required for the number of parking\nspaces.\nStaff Member Sablan said this was a requirement and it can be added to the list of\nconditions.\nPresident Teague wanted to know what they will do to prevent people from smoking in the\nbathroom.\nDr. Oram said that they, of course, will have smoke detectors throughout the building but\nmainly it will be employees' presence on the store floor.\nPresident Teague asked about their statement \"not being allowed to smoke in the\nneighborhood\" and what neighborhood meant to them and how they planned to enforce\nthat.\nDr. Oram said security guards will monitor the area around the building.\nPresident Teague asked about the rear and right elevations.\nMr. Greene said they did not provide rear or right elevation. He informed the board that\nthe right elevation will have 3 windows that are being infilled, they are along a narrow alley\nand not very visible for public view. Also, the rear elevation has a garage being knocked\ndown and a new wall will be visible and there are no windows on that wall.\nPresident Teague opened the public comments.\nMadlen Saddik, President and CEO of Alameda's Chamber of Commerce, said that NUG\nInc was one of their members and they were very impressed by the business model of\nAlameda Nug Shop. She was also impressed by the level of investment in the community\nthe applicant was making and urged the board to approve this use permit.\nCathay Weber, Director of Downtown Business Association, wanted to express her\nsupport of Alameda Nug Shop and is excited for the business they will bring to downtown\nAlameda.\nBarbara Mooney, the owner of Daisy's, seconded Board Member Curtis's thoughts on the\nhours. She also talked about all the good things Alameda Nug Shop was bringing to\nAlameda and urged the board to approve.\nLinda (Tik) Thurston, Alameda Meals on Wheels, wanted to urge the board to approve the\nuse permit for Alameda Nug Shop. Alameda Wheels on Meals will be the primary recipient\nof Alameda Nug Shop's community benefit fund, they are anticipating the donation to be\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 13\nAugust 17, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-08-17.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-08-17", "page": 8, "text": "in the tens of thousands annually. These significant donations will allow Meals on Wheels\nto continue to support the local community.\nKevin Leong, a resident and a part of the Board of Directors for Alameda Meals on Wheels,\nwanted to voice his support for the Alameda Nug Shop.\nAudra Wright, a resident, is excited to see the Alameda Nug beautify the neighborhood.\nShe believed the changes to the building will be a tasteful improvement.\nPeter Kahl, the owner of Speisekammer, expressed how supportive he is of Alameda Nug\nShop and is happy to see this building in use.\nRon Mooney was in full support of this project and urged to let the operational hours go\nuntil 10 pm.\nEnrico Myer took issue with the choice of the location for the dispensary and thought it\nwas too close to the Public Library. He was also concerned with having a cannabis store\nin his neighborhood.\nCloe Slyvia wanted to know how the Good Neighbor Policy would be enforced and what\nthe penalties would be if they did not enforce them.\nVia text - the residents at 2426 Lincoln Ave are against the project. They believed the\noperational hours from 9 am to 9 pm 7 days a week was very concerning.\nMary Grace Bosco said that the quality of life for the 10 families that live at 2426 would be\nimpacted if this cannabis dispensary is allowed to go to 10 pm. She then suggested the\nAlameda Nug Shop be relocated to the soon to be vacant Walgreens on Park St.\nPresident Teague closed the public comments.\nBoard Members Rothenberg suggested that the project be approved subject to a few\nrevisions. On the design review, a tree needs to be added and crosswalk signage needs\nto be added. For the condition of approval, they need to be enumerated in regards to the\nGood Neighbor Policy and the resolution and include a restriction that parking is for\ncustomers only. She also agreed that the hours should be extended to 9 am to 10 pm.\nBoard Member Curtis agreed with what Board Member Rothenberg stated. He felt very\nstrongly about letting the business stay open until 10 pm.\nBoard Member Ruiz echoed Board Member Rothenberg's comments. She wanted to add\na condition to extend the fence from the western property to the southern property.\nVice President Saheba wanted to echo the comments that had already been stated. He\nwanted to add two conditions: that the staff review the lighting plan and to maximize the\nlandscaping to reduce the amount of asphalt.\nPresident Teague thanked everyone for their time. He was absolutely in favor of this use\npermit and of letting the operational hours be extended to 10 pm. He was very\ndisappointed in the plans for the design review. They were incomplete due to no lighting\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 13\nAugust 17, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-08-17.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-08-17", "page": 9, "text": "plan, landscaping was incomplete, fence and tree needed to be shown, and where\nwindows are being changed is missing. He wanted to continue the design review section\nfor them to revise the plans, then the board could approve at the next meeting. However,\nhe would support if the rest of the board was ready to move forward because he believed\nit was an excellent project.\nBoard Member Ruiz made a motion to approve the project with these conditions:\nadding one tree in the parking area (in the south area near possible bike parking),\nmarking the driveway with signage, establishing a 10 pm closure time, restricting\nthe onsite parking to the public, extending the fence along the left property line, and\nwill ask staff to review the lighting plan in detail and maximizing the landscaping.\nThese conditions will be approved by staff and put on the list of approval that will\nbe sent out to the board for review, at which point this item could be pulled for\ngeneral review. The motion was seconded by Board Member Hom and President\nTeague called for a roll call vote and the motion passed 6-0\n7-C 2020-8216\nPLN16-0587- Design Review, Use Permit, and Parking Reduction - 1820 Park Street\n-\nApplicant: Angie Klein for Mehdi Ravan. Public Hearing to consider Design Review, Use\nPermit, and Parking Reduction to allow the construction of an approximately 2,723-\nsquare-foot three-story addition to an existing 1,750-square-foot one-story commercial\nbuilding at 1820 Park Street. The mixed use building will be approximately 34-feet tall and\ninclude office use on the ground floor with office and one residential unit above. The site\nis within the North Park Street - Gateway District. The project is categorically exempt from\nthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301\n- Existing Facilities.\nHenry Dong, Planner III, gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be\nfound at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4608730&GUID=6023BF49\nD9C9-4F64-B946-552B57BA40E4&FullText=1.\nBoard Member Curtis asked what considerations had gone into the proposed number of\nparking spaces.\nStaff Member Dong said that staff mainly considered the policies in the ordinance and the\ngeneral plan. Since the applicant had joined the TMA (Transportation Management\nAssociation) their employees and tenants would be given AC Transit passes.\nBoard Member Curtis questioned where customers would park.\nStaff Member Dong said that the building is near public transportation and the applicant\nwould provide bike parking as well.\nBoard Member Hom asked if the use permit would allow an office space on the second\nfloor to be converted into another residential unit.\nStaff Member Dong said due to Measure A requirements there is only enough square\nfootage for one residential unit.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 13\nAugust 17, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-08-17.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-08-17", "page": 10, "text": "Mr. Raven said they would have one employee who would check people in the open office\nspace area. They would offer transit passes to all of their customers.\nPresident Teague asked how they choose the color of the stucco on the back of the\nbuilding.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 10 of 13\nAugust 17, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-08-17.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-08-17", "page": 11, "text": "Mr. Raven said they choose it to match their neighbors' color.\nPresident Teague at this time asked his fellow board members if they would continue past\n11\npm.\nBoard Member Curtis made a motion to defer the last item due to time but to take\nup the minutes and item number 9. Board Member Rothenberg seconded and it\npassed 6-0.\nPresident Teague opened the public comments.\nPresident Teague closed public comments.\nBoard Member Rothenberg suggested the project had merit for approval subject to\ncomplete drawings with all the elements for a design review including complete code\nsummary and confirmation that the publicly used spaces comply with Title 24 and city\nordinance, they are accessible to the disabled.\nBoard Member Hom wanted staff to review the actual materials that would be used. He\nalso questioned if the staff was comfortable letting the applicant offer TDM requirements\nto their customers.\nStaff Member Tai offered solutions that they could offer.\nVice President Saheba wanted to leave it to the applicant what they offer their customers\nin concern with the transit passes.\nBoard Member Curtis said he could not support the project, the design is great but he\nbelieved it would put too much of a demand for parking in the area.\nPresident Teague liked the project but said it would be easier if it was just a standard office\nspace. He did not believe they had crossed the bar for reducing the parking demands. He\nsaid the applicant had in no way meet the criteria for reducing the parking requirement.\nStaff Member Tai pointed out the zoning for the area is the North Park Street Gateway\nDistrict and that the intent was that buildings be brought up to the street, losing some\nparking. He also gave an option that staff would work with the applicant after project\napproval on finalizing TDM details.\nDirector Thomas gave a third option of coming back with a zoning code amendment. He\nsaid the way the zone is now it makes it very difficult to build on Park St.\nPresident Teague was open to updating the zoning code but felt it was his duty to follow\nwhat the municipal code says now.\nDirector Thomas felt confident that a business could educate their customers on how to\narrive and the best public transit to use and hoped that was enough of a TDM option to\nsatisfy the board.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 11 of 13\nAugust 17, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-08-17.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-08-17", "page": 12, "text": "Board Member Curtis asked how changing the code helps the lack of parking.\nDirector Thomas spoke about all the successful places on Park St without parking and if\nlimiting parking encourages public transit so be it. He mentioned the city's Climate Action\nPlan that specifically said the city needs to stop generating traffic and the greenhouse\ngasses caused by people driving all the time.\nPresident Teague reminded everyone that tonight's discussion was not about parking and\npushed for a vote on the item.\nBoard Member Rothenberg made a motion to approve the item subject to complete\ndrawings with all the elements for a design review. It must include making sure the\nresidential space is only a residential space, staff must review that the publicly used\nspaces comply with Title 24 and city ordinance, and staff must review the materials\nbeing used. Board Member Hom seconded the motion, President Teague took a roll\ncall vote and the motion passed 4-2, with President Teague and Board Member\nCurtis opposed.\nItem 7-D 2020-8220 was continued to the next meeting due to time.\n8.\nMINUTES\n8-A 2020-8210\nDraft Meeting Minutes - March 9, 2020\nPresident Teague wanted to clarify his wording on the motion for the Waterfront, the\nwording \"we know more now\" is about the palm trees that were planned.\nBoard Member Rothenberg made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member\nCurtis seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.\n9.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2020-8222\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nStaff Member Tai said they had a staff-level decision about tree removal, garage removal,\nand a design review for one commercial building at Southshore.\n9-B 2020-8221\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nDirector Thomas said that at the next meeting they will start a series on the General Plan.\nThe City has gone live with a new General Plan website. The website has some surveys\nand upcoming workshops. They will also organize the meetings for the next 4 months.\nAlso, the staff is working on different zoning amendments and will have those out soon.\nBoard Member Rothenberg voiced her interest in the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan\nand wanted to be included with staff on the draft. She also wanted to include an expert\nshe knew in the discussion.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 12 of 13\nAugust 17, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-08-17.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-08-17", "page": 13, "text": "Director Thomas said yes there would be a workshop on this and the board could take\npart and they would welcome an expert in the discussion.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nPresident Teague asked staff to bring back small pieces of revisions to the zoning code.\nOne zoning code in particular is making it easier for people to build housing. He added\nthat he does not want the staff to bring them ministerial review items for the board to rubber\nstamp. He felt it was a frustrating use of the board's time, the board agreed with him.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked staff to please make sure submittals are complete. She\nstruggled with the cannabis club and the 7-C item, they were good projects but they had\na lot of missing information. She felt that the applicant wasn't prepared to answer\nquestions and wanted the staff to prep the applicant more.\nDirector Thomas said he completely understood.\nVice President Saheba suggested that any applicant's presentation is given a time limit.\nDirector Thomas said that past planning boards have established those types of limits and\nto also consider a limit on staff's presentations.\n12.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nJay Garfinkle wanted to address the process of how the City Council and Planning Board\ndoes things. He was concerned that with the meetings being so long and the applicants\nand the board getting so much time there was very little public engagement. He believed\nthere was a better way to involve and inform the public.\n13.\nADJOURNMENT\nPresident Teague adjourned the meeting at 11:19 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 13 of 13\nAugust 17, , 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-08-17.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2020-08-17", "page": 1, "text": "Final\nMINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION MEETING\nMonday, August 17, 2020\n1. CALL TO ORDER\nChairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:02pm.\n2. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners\nMark Farrell and Kirstin Van Cleef.\nAbsent: Commissioner Sherman Lewis (unexcused).\nLois Butler (PAC Secretary) and Amanda Gehrke present as staff to the\nCommission.\n3. MINUTES\n3-A. 2020-8228 Review and Approve Draft Minutes PAC June 15, 2020\nA motion to approve the minutes was made by Vice Chairperson Rush and\nseconded by Commissioner Farrell. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson\nRush, Commissioners Van Cleef and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 4-0.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENTS\nNone.\n5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n5-A. 2020-8231 Recommendation to: 1) Relocate the Dan Fontes Mural to the\nMcKinley Park Recreation Center and 2) Approve Adding $1,500 to the Grant\nAmount (for a total of $14,000), to Cover the Costs of a New Design\nStaff member Gehrke presented the report, including three\nrecommendations: relocate the mural to McKinley Park Recreation Center,\napprove adding $1,500 to the grant amount, and include public outreach in\nthe re-design of the mural, if the selected site warrants a redesign.\nArtist Dan Fontes shared his feedback on the 1925 Everett location,\nincluding neighborhood and location benefits, and expressed concerns\nabout low pedestrian traffic, visual clutter, and the challenge of painting on\nbrick. He expressed his preference for the relocation to be at McKinley Park,\nbut advised that both locations will work for a mural.\nGehrke welcomed comments and answered any clarifying questions.\nCommissioners discussed the recommendations, including benefits and\nconcerns for each location, the importance of community engagement, and\nsetting a deadline for the Everett location insurance paperwork.\nA motion to set a deadline of September 21st to have the owner's signature\nand insurance for the 1925 Everett location, to default to the McKinley Park\nlocation if no signature is received before the deadline passes, and to", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2020-08-17.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2020-08-17", "page": 2, "text": "Minutes of the Public Art Commission\nMonday, August 17, 2020\nincrease the grant amount by $1,500 was made by Vice Chairperson Rush\nand seconded by Commissioner Farrell. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice\nChairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef and Farrell. Nays: none. The\nmotion carried 4-0.\n5-B. 2020-8232 Consider and Provide Feedback on Proposed Amendments\nto the Public Art Ordinance\nStaff member Gehrke reviewed proposed amendments to the Public Art\nOrdinance, including:\nAllowing the Fund to be used for conservation and maintenance of\npublic art.\nRequiring developers to declare their intention to install on-site\nartwork or contribute to the Fund prior to receiving planning\napprovals.\nRevising the language to clarify that the maintenance agreement\nshall be reflected in the conditions of approval and recorded against\nthe property prior to the issuance of the first certificate of\noccupancy.\nRevising the language to allow grants for $2,000 and lower to go to\nprofit as well as nonprofit businesses.\nSpecifying that City Council approval is needed only for Fund\nexpenditures that exceed the purchase authority of the City\nManager.\nStaff member Gehrke also provided research and recommendations on\ndiscussion topics requested by the PAC at a previous meeting:\nDedicating a portion of the Fund exclusively to maintenance and\nconservation.\nRequiring different program contributions for residential and\ncommercial construction.\nExploring the potential to use public art consultants to enhance the\nquality of on-site public art.\nStaff members Gehrke and Butler answered clarifying questions.\nCommissioners discussed proposed amendments and the requested\nresearch topics. Commissioner Farrell suggested including ARPD in the\ndevelopment of a Public Art map for Alameda, which could be created by a\nlocal graphic artist. Gehrke offered to provide follow up on the use of funds\nfor art promotion as part of the PAC's work plan prioritization.\nCommissioners requested agendizing discussion of Fund contribution rates\nfor in-lieu/on-site and commercial/residential.\nIn summary, Commissioners supported staff recommendations, but\nrequested clarification on Ordinance language regarding location changes\nduring mid-approval process. No vote was taken.\n2", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2020-08-17.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2020-08-17", "page": 3, "text": "Minutes of the Public Art Commission\nMonday, August 17, 2020\n5-C. 2020-8227 Public Art Update\nStaff member Gehrke presented a review of awarded and pending physical\nPublic Art Grants to date, as well as explained the physical art review\nprocess.\nGehrke welcomed comments and answered questions.\nCommissioners discussed and suggested adding QR code at each physical\nart site that directs people to Alameda's Public Art page, adding this\npresentation to the public art page to inform public, and increasing publicity\nfor public art in Alameda, either by leveraging existing publicity channels,\nadding links or project descriptions to existing city pages, or other means.\nCommissioners requested discussing this at the next meeting. Staff\nmember Butler offered to follow up on this item regarding City resources or\nlimitations. Commissioner Gillitt requested an update from the Fire\nDepartment regarding the Fire Station 3 planned public art.\n5-D. 2020-8233 Status Update on the Eligibility of Upcoming Projects for the\nPublic Art Requirement\nStaff member Gehrke briefly presented status updates on the eligibility of\nupcoming projects for the public art requirement.\nGehrke welcomed comments and answered questions.\n6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nStaff member Gehrke advised commissioners that next meeting will have a\nbrainstorming session for the 2021 PAC plan.\nStaff member Butler clarified that new commissioner is expected to be\nselected before the next meeting, and should be in attendance at the next\nmeeting.\n7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nCommissioner Farrell requested staff to research public art opportunities on\nthe new Webster - Alameda Point walking trail.\nCommissioner Rush identified several opportunities at College of Alameda\nfor public art.\nCommissioner Farrell suggested Alameda Library as an opportunity for\npublic art.\n9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nStaff member Butler notified the commission of a temporary art installation\nat Jackson Park in place of the park sign until the park is renamed.\n3", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2020-08-17.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2020-08-17", "page": 4, "text": "Minutes of the Public Art Commission\nMonday, August 17, 2020\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nChairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 8:07pm.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLois Butler\nEconomic Development Manager\nSecretary\nPublic Art Commission\n4", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2020-08-17.pdf"}