body,date,page,text,path
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2005-01-24,1,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
January 24, 2005
Present: Berger, Bunker, Chair Cooney, Fort, Gwynne, Longley-Cook, McCoy, McGaughey,
Absent/Excused: Chadow, McCoy
Guests: Anne Steiner
1.
MINUTES: The minutes of December 6, 2004 where approved with the following
corrections: 1) Oral Communications, Item #3 - change ""Commissioner Ed Cooney stated
that AC transit buses are not able to align with the bus stop location due to the existing
metered parking space."" to ""Commissioner Ed Cooney stated that AC transit buses are not
able to align with the bus stop location on Santa Clara Avenue fronting City Hall due to the
existing metered parking space."" and 2) Oral Communications, Item #5 - change
""Commissioner Steffens stated that a chair should be provided in the City Clerk's Office
front counter area for refuge if needed."" to ""Commissioner Elaine McCoy stated that a chair
should be provided in the City Clerk's Office front counter area for refuge if needed.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1. February agenda item - Commissioner Charles Bunker will inform the Commission on the
status of the Disaster Plan.
2. February agenda item - Commissioner Gina McGaughey would like a status on the Webster
Street Renaissance project. It was requested that temporary sidewalk relocations and barrier
locations during construction take into consideration the visually impaired. Secretary to
follow up.
3. Commissioner Angela Steffens asked if the City has a policy on sidewalk solicitation policy
as in one instance it resulted in accessibility problem.
4. A motion carried that Old Business, Item #1, Election of Vice-Chair be taken out of order.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. Election of Vice-Chair: Commissioner James Gwynne was elected Vice-Chair.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-01-24.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2005-01-24,2,"Commission on Disability Issues
January 24, 2005
Minutes
Page 2 of 2
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Audible Signal Grant:
The secretary informed the Commission that the Public Works Department is applying for a
grant application for audible traffic signal equipment and requested the Commissions'
backing. A letter supporting the grant application was approved. Commissioner Gina
McGaughey expressed her concern that push buttons be located at the curb crosswalk, not
distant from the crossing, so as not to impede the visually impaired or wheelchair/walker
users. Guest Anne Steiner suggested that the grant application make reference to inter-model
transportation. Should the City obtain the grant, the Commission would like to review any
proposed locations and design.
2. Committee Bylaw Change:
A motion failed to change the current bylaw term limits for the Chair and Vice-Chair from
""one (1) year term or until successors are appointed"" to ""two (2) consecutive one (1) year
terms. It was mentioned that officers are elected, not appointed as stated in the bylaws.
Secretary will follow up.
3.
Policy Research, Writing and Implementation:
A motion carried to establish a sub-committee to address policy. Sub-committee members
are Commissioners Ed Cooney, Charles Bunker, James Gwynne, Steve Fort, and Gina
McGaughey. The Commission approved a letter from Chair Ed Cooney to Mayor Johnson
on the City's ability to procure accessibility assistance to disabled citizens attending City
meetings and hearings (i.e. Braille, speech/hearing impaired interpreters). Secretary
informed the Commission that the Public Works staff is meeting with other City staff to
establish a plan and would welcome any information from the Commissioners (i.e. Braille
transcriber, interpreter contacts).
OLD BUSINESS:
2. Alameda Journal Calendar:
Secretary informed the Commissioners that agenda's are provided to the Alameda Journal.
A
Commissioner stated that the City's CATV channel has Room 360 listed for meetings and
should be changed to Room 391. Secretary will follow up.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-01-24.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2005-01-24,3,"Commission on Disability Issues
January 24, 2005
Minutes
Page 3 of 3
3. Oak Street City Hall Entrance: Secretary informed the Committee that the kick plate door
openers at the Oak Street Alameda City Hall door are functioning. A Commissioner stated
that the toe kick plate only operates if pressed at a certain location. Secretary will follow up.
4. City Hall Bus Stop: Secretary informed the Commission that Public Works is continuing to
resolve the accessibility to the bus stop in front of City Hall (blockage by a metered parking
space). A Commissioner stated that the existing bench location might also hinder
accessibility.
5. Breakers at Bayport 64-unit development Secretary will provide status on the Breakers
at Bayport 64-unit development. Secretary has not seen any plans. Will report at February
meeting.
6. Lower Washington Park Parking Accessible Parking Stall: Secretary informed the
Commission that the addition of a disabled parking stall at lower Washington Park adjacent
to the dog park will need to go before the Transportation Technical Team (TTT), possible on
February agenda. Commissioner James Gwynne stated that the existing two disabled spaces
need to be restriped to conform to the latest ADA standards. Secretary is aware.
7. City Clerk's Office Reception Area Seating: The secretary investigated Commissioner
Stephen's observation of the need for a chair in the reception area of the City Clerk's office.
Due to space limitation in the reception area, at the secretary's request, the Public Works
Maintenance staff fabricated a sign ""seating available upon request"" which will be displayed
at the front counter. The Commission found this to be an acceptable solution and suggested
that similar signs be placed in other departments where permanent guest seating cannot be
provided.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:20p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, February 28th in Room
391, City Hall.
Sincerely,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By:
Ed Sommerauer
Associate Civil Engineer
ES:lc
G:\PUBWORKS\LT\MCD Disability Committee/2005/0124min.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, January 24, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:06 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Vice President Cook
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand,
Lynch and Piziali.
Board members Mariani and McNamara were absent.
Also present were Development Review Manager Jerry Cormack, Deputy City Attorney
Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Planner II Allen Tai, Barbara
Hawkins, Public Works.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of January 10, 2005.
Ms. Kolhstrand advised that she left after Item 9, not Item 11, as indicated on page 18.
Vice President Cook advised that page 9, paragraph 5, should be changed to read, ""Vice
President Cook noted in San Francisco, the existing piers were left intact and new so that
new structures were proposed to could be built independent of the existing piers-it. She
noted that the cost of removing the old buildings were structures was high.""
Vice President Cook advised that page 10, paragraph 11, should be changed to read,
""Vice President Cook would like a better understanding of the height of the proposed
project in relation to the Extended Stay America building to the west and the office
building to the east, as well as to the buildings located across the Estuary.""
M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of January
10, 2005, as amended.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Mr. Mark Irons, 835 Oak, noted that because of family time issues, he may not be able to
speak about Item 8-b and may submit a written comment. He noted that he was a strong
proponent of work/live. He believed that the current ordinance may be improved, but
noted that the risk of a ballot initiative was having no ordinance at all.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,2,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
TM04-0005 SRM Associates Harbor Bay Parkway (MG). Applicant requests
approval of Tentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels in to nine
parcels. The parcels are located within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are
zoned C-M-PD. Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development District.
(Applicant is requesting a continuance to the February 14, 2005 meeting.)
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board of February
14, 2005.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,3,"7-B.
DR04-0111/V04-0020, 836 Oak Street, Applicant: Richard Vaterlaus for
Michael Rich (AT). The proposal is a request for Major Design Review to
legalize the unauthorized raising of a single-family residence one foot to create
habitable space in the basement. The building height was increased from
approximately 23'-0"" to 24'-0"", where 35'-0"" is the maximum permitted height.
The construction also requires a variance to AMC Subsection 30-5.7(e) to allow a
rear staircase to extend 7'-6"" into the required rear yard, where the maximum
encroachment permitted is 6'-0"". The project site is located within an R-4,
Neighborhood Residential District.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution PB-05-04 to
approve a request for Major Design Review to legalize the unauthorized raising of a
single-family residence one foot to create habitable space in the basement. The building
height was increased from approximately 23'-0"" to 24'-0"", where 35'-0"" is the maximum
permitted height. The construction also requires a variance to AMC Subsection 30-5.7(e)
to allow a rear staircase to extend 7'-6"" into the required rear yard, where the maximum
encroachment permitted is 6'-0"".
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,4,"7-C. UP01-0022/DR01-0089: American Tower Corporation. Washington Park,
740 Central Avenue (DV). Renewal of expired Use Permit and Major Design
Review for 90 foot tall painted metal monopole communications tower in place of
an existing 47 foot tall light pole along the upper baseball diamond left field fence
at Washington Park. Associated ground equipment would be placed in a building
of up to 825 square feet with screen-fenced ground equipment. A Use Permit is
required by AMC Sections 30-4.1(c)(1) and (2) for any structure and above
ground utility installation in the O Open Space Zoning District. (Applicant is
requesting a continuance to the February 14, 2005 meeting.)
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board of February
14, 2005.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,5,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
PD04-0004/DR04-0113, 433 Buena Vista Avenue, Applicant: Alameda
Multifamily Ventures, LLC (AT). The applicant requests a second Study
Session before the Planning Board to review a proposal for the construction of a
two-story 6,000 square foot community building, four 16-car garages, façade
changes to existing apartment buildings, and other improvements at the Harbor
Island Apartments site. The site is located at 433 Buena Vista Avenue, within an
R-4 PD, Neighborhood Residential Planned Development District.
Mr. Tai summarized the staff report.
Mr. Chris Auxier, project manager, Alameda Multifamily Ventures, distributed additional
information that was not included in the first set of drawings. He noted that they had tried
to be responsive to the feedback received by the Board and the public.
Mr. Shaun Alexander, Axis Architecture, project architect, displayed a PowerPoint
presentation that detailed the project overview, improvement of the property's physical
appearance, the pedestrian experience, residential amenities, public safeties, on-site
parking, and transparency with the community. He noted that the existing site limitations
were considerable, and that while was not much room to expand the parking facilities,
they could create a more pleasant environment around the buildings for the residents. He
noted that the interior common hallways, bathrooms and kitchens would be redone, and
that the landscaping would be upgraded and transformed. The carports would be
eliminated except for certain sections along the East of the property, and the parking
would be restriped to meet current standards. A new clubhouse, and four garage buildings
would be constructed; trash enclosures would be upgraded.
Mr. Alexander noted that new lower fences would be installed around the ground floor
patios to provide greater transparency. Because of the proximity to the adjacent street,
some units would feature a more solid fence look. Additional landscaping would buffer
all the buildings, and a substantial number of the trees would be added. A large amount of
concrete would be removed in the walkways and plaza space that the applicants
considered to be unnecessary. Alternative designs addressing the height and style of the
tower element were presented; the size of the tower would be reduced, and the
architecture would be simplified. They considered the gable form to be most consistent
with Alameda's existing architecture features and Craftsman detail in town; however, a
hip roof design was also presented to address the Mediterranean style elements in
Alameda. Another roof form would be added to the tower to the west, previously shown
to the Board as a flat roof.
Mr. Alexander displayed the center part of the site, which they considered to be very
important to the project. A tot lot was proposed directly north of the clubhouse, and a
child's play area would be placed to the south of the clubhouse. A group picnic area
would be placed at the east side of the pool, with a play lawn and volleyball court
adjacent to that. Each quadrant of the property would have its own minipark, off the main
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,6,"spine of activity. The resident activities would take place on the lower floor of the
clubhouse for the tenants' convenience. The plans were changed to eliminate the office
area, and to include a coffee area. The 2nd level patio of the community center was
expanded after one set of stairs was eliminated and a new terrace is proposed as
a
transition spaces between the community center and swimming pool. He noted that the
goal of the landscape plan was to create a greener environment on the site, to beautify the
property with increased foliage, and to reduce concrete paving between the buildings.
Mr. Alexander noted that the carports would be removed, as well as some of the
perimeter fencing to open up the property. He noted that the fence along Appezzato
Parkway would be made more pleasant, with increased connections to the neighborhood.
Additional parking spaces, trees and security lighting would be placed in the parking lots.
He noted that they worked with Carol Beaver and Michael Smiley to better understand
the West Alameda Neighborhood Improvement Plan; they proposed to include two gates
along the Appezzato Parkway fence to allow access to the future greenbelt and other parts
of the community. He described the new location for the trash enclosure, which would
not block other activities on the site and would entail minimal disturbance to the
residents. He noted that approximately half of the carports on the east side would be
eliminated. The vaulted roofs on the remaining carports would be removed, which would
be replaced by a trellis element for a softer look and a smaller visual impact on the
adjacent neighborhood. He noted that the main feature of Quadrant 3 was the connection
to the adjacent neighborhood; the neighborhood plan called for a connection to
Woodstock Park. For that to occur, the City would need to gain control of 25 feet of the
existing Chipman Middle School property.
Mr. Alexander noted that the applicant was concerned about the impact of the Poggi
Street/Buena Vista Ave. curb bulb out proposed in the West Alameda Neighborhood
Improvement Plan on the traffic flow from the site, and would like the City to take that
into account as the Plan is studied. He noted that the applicant's goal was to bring new
life to an older apartment complex, provide a more attractive design and added amenities
for the residents, to increase parking, to upgrade security systems, and to improve site
safety for the residents and the City. The project would be more pedestrian-friendly with
reduced perimeter fencing, more residential design character, increased landscaping, and
more responsive to the West Alameda Neighborhood Plan.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speakers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Carol Beaver, Community Development Manager, recalled the meeting with Sean
Alexander and Michael Smiley of BMS Design to discuss the proposed changes to the
renovation plan. She was pleased with their willingness to consider the suggested
changes. Because the Neighborhood Plan was a conceptual plan, she understood there
would be opportunities to discuss specific site plan changes.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,7,"President Cunningham believed that was a counterintuitive practice in a community
where pedestrian access was encouraged.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,8,"In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding an alternative to this practice, Mr.
Alexander replied that trash enclosures throughout the property would be the alternative.
Mr. Lynch believed that conformity with City Code should be the overriding factor,
followed by design.
In response to Vice President Cook's question regarding parking, Mr. Tai confirmed that
the site was underparked according to Code. Current parking standards require two
parking spaces per dwelling unit, and this property would need 1230 spaces, where
approximately 670 currently exist. The applicants proposed to increase the number of
parking spaces to approximately 699 spaces by restriping the lots and by using compact
spaces.
Ms. Barbara Hawkins, Public Works Department, distributed a photo of a trash
compactor and the access route. She noted that the new NEPDS requirements called for a
roof on the trash compactor to accommodate the truck, which would be two stories. The
compactor must be operated with a key, which would be a safety issue. The third issue
with the compactor is that it did not comply with the City recycling standards. City staff
met with ACI to determine the best solution to the trash issue. ACI had performed a
study, finding that people usually took their trash out when they went to their cars, and
that placing trash containers near the parking areas was the best practice. In addition, the
trash enclosures must be high enough to keep children from playing on them.
With respect to circulation, Ms. Kohlstrand believed that the constraints of the existing
site must be recognized, and that the applicant was going in the right direction by
removing the concrete. She was encouraged to see the connections to Appezzato
Parkway. In response to her question regarding the nature of the breaks in the wall, Chris
Auxier replied that they would be primarily used by the residents. A discussion of the
physical attributes of the fence and the gates ensued.
In response to Ms. Kohlstrand's question regarding pedestrian access at Fifth Street and
Buena Vista, Mr. Auxier replied that was an area where they did not have the intention to
create a public path through the property; it was intended for use by residents.
Vice President Cook noted that there was a broad visual corridor at Fifth Street and
Buena Vista, especially through the pool area. She was concerned that the proposed
garages would impair those visual sightlines.
President Cunningham suggested that the location of the gable ends of the proposed
garages may be changed to help direct sightlines in a particular direction.
Architectural Design Comments
President Cunningham invited comment on the three design solutions for the stair tower.
He concurred with Mr. Alexander that Option 1 would be the preferred scheme.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,9,"Mr. Alexander noted that they could reduce the scale of the entry somewhat, and would
be concerned about making it too short, when juxtaposed against the taller buildings.
Community Center Comments
In response to Mr. Piziali's question regarding the rest rooms, Mr. Alexander replied that
there were two bathrooms to serve the pool, another two on the ground floor, and another
two on the second floor.
President Cunningham noted that a speaker slip was received, and requested a vote to
reopen the public hearing.
M/S Lynch/Piziali to reopen the public hearing.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,10,"AYES - 5 (McNamara, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Mr. Reginald James noted that he was a former resident of Harbor Island, and noted that
the location for the trash enclosure at Fifth and Appezzato Parkway would have to be
moved to accommodate the pathway through Fifth. He believed the northeast corner
would be a good place for the trash enclosure. He did not know whether the concept of
valet trash pickup would be workable. He believed that a recycling location would be a
positive feature on the site. He supported a reduced amount of fencing. He did not
support a high sound wall on Appezzato Parkway, and was not sure how a low wall
would work. He expressed concern about the proposed private walkway. He suggested
placing a walkway between Building 11 (rental office) and Building 12, which already
had a visual connection from Woodstock on Brush.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook, Mr. Alexander confirmed that the
ground floor restrooms would be available to residents. He added that the Code required
outdoor showers for by pool users, and they intended to provide that kind of shower.
Site Amenities
President Cunningham complimented the addition of amenities as requested by the Board
at the last meeting.
Mr. Alexander noted that the inclusion of amenities in each quadrant was at the
suggestion of Reggie James, which he supported.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham, Mr. Tai confirmed that as part of the
conditions of approval, a landscape maintenance agreement would be required. The
agreement would specifically require the applicants to maintain the landscaping; any
neglect would enable the City to improve the landscaping at the applicants' cost.
Mr. Piziali would like to see a condition that all the construction trucks would stay off
Buena Vista and Fifth Street (because of Longfellow School).
Mr. Tai noted that if the applicants needed a construction trailer, its approval would be
subject to a use permit. The operation and functions of the construction trailer would be
reviewed at that time.
President Cunningham noted that the Board would like an indication of the phasing as
well.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding satellite dishes, Mr.
Alexander noted that FCC requirements call for the building owner to place a satellite
dish on the roof for resident accessibility, or that the residents must be allowed to place
dishes on their balconies. They are currently working with a cable consultant (CSI) to
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,11,"negotiate contracts for them, and he added that their current contract was particular
difficult.
Miscellaneous Comments
Mr. Lynch complimented Axis Architecture on its design work, and inquired whether
they would have more design flexibility if they started from a clean site. Mr. Auxier
confirmed that would be the case, but that it was prohibited by Measure A.
Vice President Cook noted that this site was an important part in creating a community.
for the 21st century, and hoped that dialogue about sensible planning can continue in a
constructive way.
Mr. Auxier introduced Michael Lee, the on-site construction and project manager, and
noted that he would be based locally.
Mr. Lee noted that the Board's comments about density were well-taken, and noted that
recent projects he worked on have incorporated the higher density into the designs. He
noted that they have used four-story parking garages surrounded by four-story residential
buildings, as well as three-story buildings surrounding a courtyard. He noted that it was
possible to keep the parking garages out of sight, and that there was no need for off-street
parking. In addition, retail and commercial space could be incorporated as well.
Mr. Lynch believed the remodel should be just as beautiful as the new residences across
the street, and that high-quality design elements were very important in getting the
project right the first time.
Mr. Lee noted that because the foundations and frames were already in place, this project
would be a relatively simple one to manage.
The Board comments were noted. No action was taken. A public hearing will be
scheduled for a future agenda.
President Cunningham called for a ten-minute recess.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,12,"8-B.
Work/Live Regulations (JA). Review and consider possible modifications of
Section 30-15 of the Alameda Municipal Code regulating Work Live Studios.
(Continued from the meeting of January 10, 2005.)
Ms. Altschuler summarized the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Mark Irons, 835 Oak, noted that he lived in a work/live space in Oakland for 10
years, which he enjoyed very much. He expressed concern about placing this complex
issue on the ballot because of possible misunderstanding of the deeper issues. He noted
that any legal issues may delay or indefinitely postpone any work/live spaces. He
believed the current ordinance fell short of its potential, and would like to see it upgraded
to be more accommodating. He hoped the Board would be slow and methodical in
considering the work/live uses.
Mr. Richard Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, spoke in support of work/live uses with
qualifications, and noted that he had been an architect for over 25 years. He noted that
artists and architects were usually the first occupants of a redeveloped neighborhood,
which eventually became upgraded for the use of other white-collar professionals. He
believed that flexibility in planning the larger spaces along the Northern Waterfront and
Alameda Point was appropriate for the community in the long run. He suggested that
Measure A be modified to accommodate a work/live situation within appropriate zones.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Lynch noted that he supported Measure A, and inquired how Measure A and
work/live lofts were in conflict. Ms. Altschuler replied that the conflict did not arise so
much from the legal standing, because work/live studios were defined by both the State
and local ordinances as industrial uses, as opposed to residential uses. She did not believe
there was a conflict from a legal standpoint, although she believed the conflict would
arise from the perception that people still live in those spaces. She added that was the
basis for the argument against the uses as a Measure A conflict.
Mr. Lynch recalled the opposition to the demolition of Victorians in favor of multifamily
housing as being a basis for Measure A. He saw work/live as a reuse of existing
structures because the economics of a formerly light industrial/commercial space had
changed. He did not believe there was a conflict between work/live uses and Measure A.
Ms. Altschuler noted that there would be considerable resistance to any alteration to
Measure A, and that its proponents would not want to risk a slippery slope.
Mr. Lynch suggested that the residential VS. industrial nature of work/live units be
brought directly to a judge to define it once and for all.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,13,"Ms. Harryman noted that the current lawsuit was not the first time the City had been sued
on work/live and how it applied to Measure A. She could not communicate the exact
status of the litigation, and noted that it would probably not be the last lawsuit. She
believed that the existence of the two lawsuits (Edward Murphy and Ms. [Kowicki])
would probably bring the issue before a judge. She believed that Ms. [Kowicki] could
build, because she had the approval of the City, but because there was pending litigation,
it would be at her own risk. She did not believe Mr. Murphy had requested a retraining
order, and believed the judge may be able to overturn the City's approval. She noted that
Mr. Murphy had sued the City on this issue before, and did was not sure whether there
had been a clear ruling one way or the other. She noted that previous cases had either
been dismissed, or the parties had come to an agreement.
President Cunningham inquired what the benefit would be of bringing the work/live issue
to the voters if there was existing case law that would prove the two ordinances were
working against each other.
Ms. Harryman noted that there were pros and cons to bringing an issue to the people
versus before a judge.
Mr. Lynch believed that if a judge invalidated an ordinance, they would provide some
instruction regarding the conflicts contained in the ordinance so that it may be rewritten.
Ms. Harryman noted that judges often rule on other grounds, such as procedural grounds
or standing.
Mr. Piziali believed the ordinance should be left as is, and it may be brought up on a
ballot initiative. He was not interested in changing it at this time.
Ms. Kohlstrand believed the Board was being asked to debate the validity of the
work/live ordinance, when the larger question was Measure A. She was unsure whether
people were ready to engage in debate on Measure A yet.
Ms. Altschuler noted that the ordinance limits a geographic area, addresses zoning within
that area, and then is limited to existing buildings, particularly historic buildings.
Mr. Piziali noted that he would not want to see work/live as new construction; he
supported work/live as adaptive reuse, which was the current basis of the ordinance.
Mr. Lynch believed the voters of Alameda will recognize the common-sense purpose of
the ordinance.
Ms. Altschuler believed that the Board's consensus was that the current ordinance was
appropriate. She inquired whether the Board would be interested in addressing the
geographic limitation.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,14,"President Cunningham noted that he would like to see work/live branch out to Alameda
Point and Park Street. However, he did not want such a step to jeopardize the existence of
the ordinance.
Mr. Piziali believed the residents of Alameda would be able to see that work/live uses
were controlled, attractive and appropriate.
Vice President Cook believed this ordinance was a baby step toward a discussion of the
broader implications of Measure A. She believed this ordinance brought up very
important issues for historic preservation and adaptive reuse at the Base. She did not want
to see the work/live ordinance put at risk by addressing more complex and overarching
issues too soon.
Vice President Cook noted that Alameda's citizens had stopped public processes before
when it became apparent that it would be not be beneficial. She believed that Alamedans
would exercise the same common sense in this case.
President Cunningham noted that an additional speaker slip had been received.
M/S Lynch/Cook to reopen the public hearing.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was reopened.
Mr. Mark Irons, 835 Oak, noted that he was pleased by the Board's discussion, although
he did not disagree that work/live could be successfully extended throughout Alameda
Point. He understood the delicacy of this issue.
The public hearing was closed.
No action was taken.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,15,"9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC.
(Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that the next meeting would be hosted by the Planning
Board in Council Chambers, so that the Board may be brought up to speed and to televise
the meeting. The City Council has voted to disband the APAC at the end of the
community meeting, and had asked the APAC to pass on the information gathered over
its lifetime to the appropriate boards. She suggested that a series of meetings be held to
pass that information on, on a topic-by-topic basis. She suggested that the first meeting be
held before the first community hearing to discuss regulatory issues, in order to bring the
Board up to speed on that information.
Vice President Cook noted that there had been considerable discussion at the first
community meeting about re-examining Measure A as it relates to Alameda Point. She
noted that there was some communication at the second meeting, suggesting that the staff
should not consider a non-Measure A alternative. She noted that a possible scenario at the
Base was being considered that would include some discussion or possible changes to
Measure A for the Base. She noted that was a very controversial issue.
Mr. Cormack advised that Andrew Thomas would make that presentation to the Board,
either on February 14th or 28th, 2005; the 14th was preferable.
b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice
President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there had been no further meetings since her last report.
c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member
Piziali).
Board Member Piziali advised that he had confirmed the continuing existence of the
Committee, although the meetings were on hold at this time, possibly due to a funding
issue.
d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member
Mariani).
Board Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
Ms. Kohlstrand inquired whether it would be possible to receive the Board packets earlier
than the Friday before the meeting. Mr. Cormack noted that the packet had been delayed
to receive late information on Harbor Island.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,16,"President Cunningham recalled that there had been a move to post the packet on the website.
Mr. Lynch noted that staff transition had been discussed during the previous meeting, and
requested that it be agendized for a future meeting, so that the City Manager be able to take
part in the discussion. He believed that a discussion within the next month would be most
beneficial.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Altschuler noted that the continued staffing levels affected the ability to distribute an
email packet, and that they were attempting to maintain the same work product with a smaller
staff. She noted that statutory requirements such as noticing were the first priority of the staff.
Ms. Altschuler advised that the support staff requested that she discuss the issue of Roberts
Rules of Order as they related to meeting minutes. She noted that the Planning Board minutes
were considerably more detailed than what is required, and added that the Council minutes
were shorter and did not provide as much information. In order to provide additional time for
support staff to perform other duties, she requested the Board's input regarding more limited
meeting minutes. She noted that the meeting was recorded on audio and videotape, and added
that lengthy minutes must be reviewed and amended by staff. In addition, there was a
tremendous amount of paper used in the distribution of the minutes.
President Cunningham believed that for study sessions, that a list of bullet points would be
sufficient. Routine items would still be well-served by briefer minutes.
Ms. Altschuler noted that more important or controversial items would still need detail
appropriate to their complexity.
Ms. Kohlstrand supported that suggestion.
Ms. Altschuler noted that if the condensed minutes were not useful, the extended minutes
could be reinstated.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Altschuler confirmed that Building Inspectors
generally dropped the packets off while on their rounds in the field.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:27 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane
Jetry Cormack, Interim Secretary
City Planning Department
These minutes were approved at the February 14, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf