body,date,page,text,path
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2005-04-25,1,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
April 25, 2005
Present: Berger, Bunker, Chadow, Chair Cooney, Fort, Vice-Chair Gwynne, Longley-Cook,
McGaughey, Steffens,
Absent/Excused: McCoy, Moore
Guests: Jackie Krause (Mastick Senior Center Senior Services Manager), Barbara Hawkins
(Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works Department), Anne Steiner
MINUTES: The minutes of March 28, 2005 where approved.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Commissioner Adrienne Langley-Cook informed the commission that Crosstown
Coffee House would have an art, crafts and flower sale to benefit the Community
Center on April 30th
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Paratransit:
Ms. Jackie Krause, Senior Services Manager Mastick Senior Center, discussed the proposed
Measure B Paratransit funding application program for fiscal year 2005/2006 to the
commission. Hi-lights of the program will include subsidized taxi services for ADA
registered applicants who do not always have effective access to East Bay Paratransit
Services at certain times of the day or from certain out of reach locations when East Bay
Paratransit is not available. The City will also offer taxi service for those needing immediate
transportation services to medical appointments during the 21-day certification period.
Jackie distributed an Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA)
""Accessible Transit Services in Alameda County' booklet to the commissioners. She also
distributed Paratransit applications and that assistance in completing the applications is
available at Mastic Senior Center. In a call to questions regarding improvements to the
program, Commissioner Gina McGaughey stated that route scheduling could be better
coordinated between multiple pickups. Jackie suggested that she could arrange for a
representative from Paratransit to meet with the commission, but that any meeting would
have to be during the day, not evening. Vice-Chair James Gwynne informed the commission
that there will be a mobility exposition November 18-20 in Santa Clara and asked Jackie if
arrangements could be made for a Paratransit service to the expedition. Jackie stated that
that is a possibility but would need to know the time and number of people planning to
attend.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-04-25.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2005-04-25,2,"Commission on Disability Issues
April 25, 2005
Minutes
Page 2 of 2
OLD BUSINESS:
1. Transportation Master Plan Policies:
Ms. Barbara Hawkins, Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works Department, discussed the
Transportation Master Plan Policies document with the commission as they relate to the
disabled community. The commission moved approval of the document with the following
modifications: a):
2. Policy research, writing and implementation:
Chair Ed Cooney recommended that the sub-committee's proposed recommendations for
ADA policies for providing effective communications and reasonable accommodations for
persons with disabilities be adopted. The commission moved adoption of the
recommendations with minor modifications. a) Change I.b. ""
vision, mobility and
language impairments"" to "" vision, mobility, language and cognitive impairments."" b)
Change II. a. "" language and mobility impairments.' To
mobility, language and
cognitive impairments."" c) Change Procedures, 1st sentence "" this communications and
access policy.' to "" this Communications and Access Policy (CAP)"" and d) Procedures, c.,
change "" w/c accessibility ""to ""wheelchair accessibility
""
2. Bus Shelters:
Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook informed the commissioners that she and the
secretary had inspected the recently installed bus shelters and compiled a list of shelters that
needed the benches slightly relocated to the right or left to better facilitate wheelchair users.
The list was provided to Public Works.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1. The City's CATV channel scrolling has the wrong meeting time listed for the commission.
Secretary to follow up.
2. Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook informed the commission on upcoming Alameda
Collaborative events: a) Alameda Walk in conjunction with Recreation and Parks Dept and
Pedestrian Friendly Alameda on May 7th and b) Festival of Families at South Shore Center
May 7th
3. Commissioner Charles Bunker stated that ACI's trash receptacle is blocking the handicap",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-04-25.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2005-04-25,3,"Commission on Disability Issues
April 25, 2005
Minutes
Page 3 of 3
ramp at McKay Avenue and Central Avenue. Secretary to follow up.
4. Commissioner Alysa Chadow informed the commission that Adobe Illustrator software has
the capability for Braille conversion for embossing printers.
5.
Commissioner Toby Burger informed the commission that the Alameda Journal is not listing
the commission meeting dates in the calendar. Secretary to follow up.
6. Chair Edwin Cooney stated that U.S. mailboxes are being removed throughout the City
making it difficult for the disabled and would like to agendize for discussion at the May
commissioner's meeting.
7. The commission would like that meeting agendas and minutes be provided in Braille.
Secretary to follow up.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, May 23rd 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\0425min.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-04-25.pdf
PensionBoard,2005-04-25,1,"OF
of
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
PENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD 4:30 P.M., MONDAY, APRIL 25, 2005
ALAMEDA CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA
CONFERENCE ROOM 391
1.
The meeting was called to order by Member William Soderlund at 4:32 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL: Present: Trustees Nancy Elzig, William Soderlund and Karen
Willis. Staff: Juelle-Ann Boyer, Chief Financial Officer and Marsha Merrick,
Executive Assistant, Human Resources. Absent: Chair Beverly Johnson and
trustee Robert Follrath.
3.
MINUTES: The minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 31, 2005 were
reviewed. Member Elzig motioned to accept the minutes as presented, member
Willis seconded; all were in favor and passed with a 3-0 vote.
4.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
4-A.
PENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2005:
a.
In the amount of $ 264,971.06 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.
b.
In the amount of $ 3,258.44 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.
4-B.
PENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2005:
a.
In the amount of $ 256,786.23 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1067, N.S.
b.
In the amount of $ 3,388.78 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.
4-C.
PENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 2005:
a.
In the amount of $ 262,438.70 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.
b.
In the amount of $ 3,323.61 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.
""Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service""",PensionBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PensionBoard,2005-04-25,2,"City of Alameda
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Pension Board - Monday, April 25, 2005
Page 2
Member Willis motioned to adopt the consent calendar as presented, Member
Elzig seconded; all were in favor and passed with a 3-0 vote.
5.
AGENDA ITEMS:
5-A. On a motion by Member Elzig and seconded by Member Willis, the Chief
Financial Officer's Financial Report for City of Alameda Police and Fire
Pension Funds for the period ending March 31, 2005 was accepted as
presented; all were in favor and passed with a 3-0 vote.
5-B. Juelle-Ann Boyer, Chief Financial Officer, spoke about the preliminary
Actuarial Valuation Report for the Police and Fire Retirement System
(Plan 1079 and Plan 1082). Reiterating that these were merely highlights
of the preliminary report, Ms. Boyer indicated that the finalized report
would go to City Council for their information and to each Pension Board
member as well.
5-C. Cost estimate research results from Public Works for purchasing/erecting
new flagpoles at City Hall were distributed to members present. Absent
members will be sent copies of the results, and this item will be continued
on the July 2005 Pension Board agenda.
5-D.
Member Willis motioned to accept, with regrets, the memo from Human
Resources notifying of the death of 1079 Pensioner, Patrick McDermott.
Member Elzig seconded; all were in favor and passed with a 3-0 vote.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no oral communications.
7.
PENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)
There were no communications from the board.
8.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was
adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Willis, Human Resources Director
and Secretary to the Pension Board
""Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service""",PensionBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, April 25, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:02 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. McNamara
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani, McNamara and
Piziali.
Board member Cook was absent.
Also in attendance were Interim Planning Director Jerry Cormack, Building Official Gregory J.
McFann, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Planner II Dennis Brighton, Executive Assistant
Latisha Jackson, Bruce Knopf Development Services, Barbara Hawkins Public Works.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of April 11, 2005.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that page 12, Item 9 read, ""Ms. Kohlstrand understood that the Beltway was
being preserved for the light rail line, and inquired whether it would be eliminated."" She wished to
clarify that she referred to the policy regarding the light rail preservation of the beltway, not whether
the light rail line itself would be eliminated.
Mr. Piziali noted that page 9, third paragraph from the bottom read, ""Mr. Piziali believed the
driveway should be narrowed in the front, and did not believe a single curb cut would be legal. He
wished to clarify that the pavement of the driveway was very wide, and that they were parking two
cars there. He wanted to see the driveway brought back to Code with respect to the project.
President Cunningham advised that in Item 9-B, he made note that he would like the Transportation
Commission to identify any areas that would qualify for funding of grants to help implement policies
with less of a financial impact to the City.
M/S Piziali/Kohlstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of April 11, 2005, as
corrected.
AYES - 5; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 2 (Cook, Mariani)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None.
7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
April 25, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,2,"7-A.
Endorsement of the Webster Street Strategic Plan (BK) A request for endorsement of the
Webster Street Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan analyzes retail market opportunities and
revitalization goals and strategies for the Webster Street Corridor. (Staff requests a
continuance to the meeting of May 9, 2005.)
M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of May 9, 2005.
AYES - 5; (Cook, Mariani) NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
April 25, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,3,"7-B
DR05-0028 - City of Alameda - 1416 Oak Street (JA/JO). Applicant requests acceptance
of preliminary Design for a 352-space parking structure, at the corner of Oak Street and
Central Avenue, generally on the Video Maniac site. This site is located at 1416 Oak Street
site within the C-C-PB Community Commercial, Community Commercial - Planned
Development Zoning Districts. {(Continued from the meeting of April 11, 2005.) (Staff
requests a continuance to the meeting of May 9, 2005.)}
M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of May 9, 2005.
AYES - 5(Cook, Mariani); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
April 25, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,4,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
Recommendation of the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study (BB). A request
for review and recommendation of alignment for the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study.
The Cross Alameda Trail would enhance access to destination points along the northern
portion of Alameda's main island by providing improved bicycling and pedestrian facilities and
would also serve as a recreational facility.
Ms. Barbara Hawkins summarized the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Jon Spangler, Cross Alameda Trail Steering Committee, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in
favor of this item, and commended the Public Works staff for their efforts in finding a logistical
solution for a difficult trail. He noted that it would provide an east-west transportation link for
pedestrians and bicyclists; it will provide better links to BART; it will provide the possibility of a bus-
rapid transit or ultralight rail right-of-way. The eventual development of Alameda Point would make
those items necessary. He noted that it would be easier to address the section between Main Street
and Webster Street, which he believed would have a great effect on the Webster/Atlantic intersection,
if grant money could be obtained.
Ms. Debra Arbuckle, 9th Street, spoke in favor of this item, and noted that the neighborhood had been
working on this issue for approximately nine years. She supported the use of alternative
transportation, such as electric bikes, and noted that this issue needed a lot of community support.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Ms. Hawkins explained the difference between
commuter alignment and recreational alignments #1 and #2. She noted that in the past, Bike Alameda
has proposed a bicycle boulevard down Pacific, which would enhance bicycle opportunities by
creating less of a desired route for vehicles.
Mr. Lynch did not believe that a bike rider considered a Class 1, 2 or 3, but that they moved to avoid
traffic upon perception of that traffic. As bike paths are being created, he suggested that other traffic
calming techniques be considered that are not currently in place, and that may mean additional
inconvenience in terms of travel time for vehicles.
Ms. Hawkins advised that the Transportation Master Plan will feature a grid system for vehicles,
pedestrians, and bicyclists.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
April 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,5,"Ms. McNamara did not believe the costs of removing the rails were included in the estimates. Ms.
Hawkins detailed the costs contained in the estimate.
President Cunningham inquired about the aspirations of the trail, and whether the text allowed for
modifications or improvements. Ms. Hawkins replied that it was a corridor that would connect
residential with commercial, and that surrounding businesses may wish to contribute to it because of
their proximity to the trail.
President Cunningham inquired whether the bike path would be adopted in a landscape strip, and
whether that would be a general policy. He referenced the section by Starbucks. Ms. Hawkins replied
that was the most difficult section in the whole alignment. In trying to accommodate that option,
along with the pedestrians, the landscaping was sacrificed. If that area is not used for the bus rapid
transit corridor, it would not be sacrificed. She noted that would not be a typical policy.
M/S Piziali/Kohlstrand and unanimous to reopen the public hearing.
The public hearing was reopened.
Ms. Arbuckle indicated the train museum in Sacramento was given most of the rails from the tracks;
one set of rails was retained along the south side.
Mr. Spangler noted that the Marina waterfront access on the Estuary was very important to many
people. He noted that the concerns were: toxic pollution from industrial uses, such as shipyards, the
ownership issues, and the security for all the boat owners, particularly those who reside on
liveaboards. He noted that Pacific was a Class 1 route, which was signed, and with no extra line or
striping on the pavement; stop signs were placed on every block to maintain pedestrian safety and
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
April 25,2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,6,"lower traffic speeds. He noted that those stop signs were obstructions for bicycle commuters, and a
bicycle boulevard would allow straight-through, non-stop bike traffic. He believed that would
enhance safety.
The public hearing was closed.
M/S Piziali/ McNamara and unanimous that the Board's comments be passed to the City Council.
AYES - 6 (Cook); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
April 25, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,7,"8-B.
UP01-0022/DR01-0089: American Tower Corporation. Washington Park, 740 Central
Avenue (DB). 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. (Continued from
the meeting of March 28, 2005.)
Mr. Bruce Knopf, Redevelopment Manager, Development Services, summarized the staff report,
wished to correct two errors in the staff report. He noted that the height of the proposed monopole
was the same height as existing poles that hold up nets at the field and light standards. The Recreation
& Park Commission reviewed this proposal on April 14, 2005, and recommended its approval in a 5-1
vote. Staff recommended that Section 4(b) of the resolution be modified to specify installation of two
picnic tables and barbecues on a 15 X 40 foot decomposed granite pad in the area that was previously
proposed for the equipment shelter. Item 4(c) should be modified to state that the approved color the
equipment shelter is Sherwin Williams Oak Moss SW6180. Item 4(e) should be modified to specify
the species of landscaping to be Escalonia five-gallon, two feet on center.
President Cunningham acknowledged the presence of Mr. Lil Arnerich in the audience.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Jay Ingram, Chair, Recreation and Parks Commission, spoke in opposition to this item and noted
that the vote was and 4-1 because there were only five members. He added that he was the one ""no""
vote. He noted that early discussions were held to consider sinking the pole building five feet into the
ground, which was not followed up on, presumably because of the cost. He was given the impression
that fake trees could be used as towers, but the pictures were never provided. He expressed concern
that the paint of the maintenance shed would match the fluting on the side; no pictures had been
provided. He requested that American Tower be required to pay for the pulling of the electricity and
any damage to the sprinkler systems when the pole is put up. Recreation and Parks supported the idea
of a silver pole, and noted that it should be hidden in the body of the pole. He noted that the largest
cell towers would be placed in the City's showpiece park. He noted that if the cell industry changes
while the ten-year agreement was still in force, that the lease agreement requires American Tower to
remove the container and pole, and that the park is left the way it was. He expressed concern that the
baseball players would be displaced by this use during before or after game time, and hoped that
American Tower would pay for any associated costs as well.
Mr. Lil Arnerich reviewed the features of the field on the overhead display, and noted that the
previous site for the building would have been out of balance and proportion for the park. He noted
that in conjunction with the Planning Board and the Recreation Commission, the pole was moved
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
April 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,8,"further to the left field line, which would be located farther from the main activities in the park. He
had reservations about the Park Department's statement that grass area would die out due to lack of
sunlight, and would examine that possibility further. He believed that three or four picnic tables and
barbecue pits would be warranted because the area was used heavily in the summer; he did not believe
that two picnic tables would be sufficient. He suggested that when the permit is resubmitted because a
particular group cannot fulfill it obligation, the whole contract should be looked at in its entirety. He
believed the Planning Board should be cognizant of the facts when entering into leases, and believed
that a ten-year contract with five-year renewals would be sufficient. He noted that if cell phone
technology did not require poles in the future, the poles would be removed.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. McNamara shared Mr. Ingram's concerns about the girth of the pole, whether it would be a tree
or a pole, maintenance issues, as well as the height of the tower. She inquired about the exit strategy
when technology advancement made this hardware obsolete; the towers would then become an
eyesore.
With respect to obsolescence, Mr. Knopf noted that the lease provided that the lessee is responsible
for removing all of the above-grade improvements at their own cost within 45 days of termination of
the lease, and that it should be restored to its previous condition. He noted that the question of
diameter was discussed at the Recreation and Park Commission; poles of this size were generally
between 3 - 4.5 feet wide at the base, and that they taper to 2 feet at the top. The applicant had not
been able to discuss specific design for this pole because construction drawings had not yet been
done.
President Cunningham inquired about the price for maintaining the screening, and believed it would
be unfair for the City to bear that cost. Mr. Knopf noted that climbing vines were initially discussed;
Recreation and Parks staff was concerned about fast-growing vines and the need for maintenance. A
slow-growing species of plant was selected that would require minimum maintenance. American
Tower would be obligated to maintain the facility.
Mr. Lynch suggested that the technology should be examined in the future, because it affected the
line-of-sight and other technical considerations. He suggested that the carrier submit an annual report
addressing the condition of the pole, and to ensure the pole is painted.
Ms. Kohlstrand expressed concern about the height and visibility of the pole. Mr. Knopf replied that
the photo simulation was shot down the fence line, and noted that the poles were located at the end of
that line. He added that cell sites were low-power sites that must be located every half-mile or so to
provide adequate coverage, and that they were line-of-sight repeaters; they are placed as low as
possible to the ground. Regarding cost, he believed the City got the best deal possible with American
Tower. He described the business mission and leasing policies of American Tower. He noted that this
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
April 25,2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,9,"was a good location in the heavily used Washington Park because it was not used at all. While this
monopole was larger than the pole approved several years ago, it was a better design in that all of the
antennas were hidden inside the pole.
Ms. Mariani noted that the City had been in a legally binding contract with American Tower since
1991.
Mr. Piziali suggested that the additional picnic tables be added if possible.
Mr. Dale Wright, Acting Director, Recreation and Parks, deferred to Mr. Arnerich's experience, and
was confident that they could work out three or four tables and barbecue pits. He noted that it was
the intent to paint the building to match.
M/S Mariani/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No.PB-05-14 to approve a 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.
To include the items in the email dated 4/25/05, with the following amendments:
a.
Painting both buildings; and
b.
Additional picnic tables would be added at the selection of the Acting Director of
Recreation and Parks;
AYES - 5 (Cook absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
April 25, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,10,"8-C.
ZA05-0003 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment/City-wide (JC) Phase II of proposed
revisions to the Development Regulations (ZA05-0003) contained within Chapter XXX of
the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance
with respect to building height limits and number of stories; exceptions to minimum side yard
requirements for additions to existing residences, provide a definition for ""replacement-in-
kind"", off-street parking regulations and simplifying reconstruction of non-conforming
residential structures.
Mr. Cormack summarized the staff report.
Mr. Piziali noted that the main change would be the additional two-foot setback for a second story.
Mr. Cormack asked whether there was Board consensus to reduce the side yard to five feet.
President Cunningham noted that the key element was the opportunity for review by the neighbors in
the future.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that instead of mandating the two-foot subject, it could be looked at from the
perspective to ensure there would not be adverse shadow impacts on the neighbors.
Mr. Cormack noted that the second point was to continue to use the K&L findings for encroachments
into yards.
Mr. Piziali did not believe that someone with a substandard sideyard should get more of a benefit than
someone who had built within the standard setback. He believed that the two-foot requirement for the
second floor should be deleted, in favor of a five-foot setback.
Ms. Kohlstrand believed there was concurrence within the Board to require a standard five-foot side
yard setback. The Board concurred that (c) would be acceptable with respect to cantilevering, as long
as there were no shading problems. The five foot setback would apply to new construction.
Mr. Lynch believed there would be mechanisms that would encourage homeownership and
maintaining the highest value of the property. He believed that losing three feet would be a
disincentive to those goals.
Mr. Cormack noted that it was uncommon to tear a building down to the ground, rather than doing
an extensive rebuild from the existing foundation.
Mr. Lynch believed it was important to clarify this issue, and did not agree with manipulation of the
Code. He inquired whether the setback should be 7 or 5 feet; the Board consensus was 5 feet. He
inquired whether the Board should take this opportunity to make the Code more uniform. He would
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
April 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,11,"like to see a matrix containing what features are included in each kind of lot coverage, and believed
that was a major issue.
Ms. Kohlstrand supported a uniform sideyard standard.
President Cunningham supported Mr. Lynch's idea of a matrix.
Ms. McNamara supported 20% or a five foot minimum on all districts.
President Cunningham believed the matrix would help the public.
Mr. Lynch believed this was an opportunity to make certain items in the Code uniform.
Ms. McNamara added that the issue of equitable application of the Code to nonconforming setbacks
was allowed for with the building of the additional story straight up, without being required to go
back two feet.
M/S Kohlstrand/Piziali to approve a setback of not less than five feet for all interior sideyards and to
retain the 20% sideyard regulation for wider lots and continue to use the K&L findings for any
projects that needed a variation for all districts.
AYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Regarding tandem parking, Mr. Carvalho displayed examples of tandem parking on the overhead
screen and summarized that part of the staff report.
Mr. Cormack advised that one issue was conversion of existing garages to allow for more tandem
parking on the property and the second issue was the number of vehicles in tandem.
Mr. Piziali noted that he was not interested in exceeding one car for tandem parking, as cited in the
regulations. He was not in favor of SK-2 as presented at this meeting, but would consider SK-1. He
expressed concern about SK-3, where cars would park within the 20-foot front yard setback; he
believed that would be poison for Alameda. He was especially concerned about people parking on the
front lawn.
Ms. Mariani believed that was an unrealistic expectation, and that the third car would end up on the
street.
Ms. Shumaker noted that planning staff were stymied as to what to do at the counter when a resident
wishes to make an improvement to their house, but cannot conform to the ordinance; she understood
Mr. Piziali's point of view.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
April 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,12,"Mr. Lynch did not believe this would be examined in terms of a remodel or anything dealing with
construction. He believed the first question was why the Code penalized individuals for parking in
their driveway, even in the front 20 feet.
A discussion regarding the pros and cons of tandem parking ensued.
M/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous to re-open the public hearing.
Ms. Barbara Kerr noted the notion of simplifying the Residential Code by making things more
uniform, eliminating differences between the different residential zones, which had been referred to as
Zone Compression for the last 15 years. She urged the Board to recognize the differences in
Alameda, and that she did not wish the characteristics of the neighborhoods and development rights
to be impinged upon. She did not want the community to be treated as if it were a Monopoly set. She
opposed simplification of the Codes in such a manner.
Mr. Jon Spangler agreed with Ms. Kerr's comments, and agreed with Mr. Piziali's point that a limit
should be placed on the tyranny of the automobile and the oversized box on a tiny lot. He noted that
Measure A was implemented to eliminate ""Crackerjack"" apartment houses, which still exist on the
Island; he did not wish to see Crackerjack boxes in the R-1 districts. He believed people would be
allowed to put larger homes on lots within reason of scale, and for the City to be able to waive
parking requirements if the people will sign an agreement that they will not have six vehicles per
residence. He did not believe that parking three cars made sense, and believed the Board should
restrict that. He believed on-street parking was ugly, and created a hazard for bicyclists, especially on
narrow streets like Sherman.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Lynch noted that after the public comments, there was still conflict, and wished to clarify that he
had no desire to restrict or to allow people to build to the maximum limits of their lots. He noted that
was an economic issue. For the documents before the Board, he understood but would not support
SK-5 or SK-4; he would support SK-2. He supported the idea of being flexible based upon zoning.
He believed SK-2 would apply to very few lots in Alameda, and that it need not be restricted if they
were in conformity in every other sense, constituting a unique benefit to that parcel. He did not
suggest opening upon tandem, triple or quadruple parking for all of Alameda.
Mr. Piziali stated that he wanted to leave the requirements as is, with two car tandem parking, no
parking in the front, and a 20-yard setback.
President Cunningham would rather see more green space in the back than tell a resident to balloon
their driveway out in the back and cover up more green space. He noted that if a resident is prepared
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
April 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,13,"to accept the three-car tandem parking, it is a personal choice.
Ms. Mariani suggested continuing this item to a later meeting.
Mr. Lynch agreed that the uniqueness of the neighborhoods and zones should be retained, and
emphasized that the wording of the text would have a significant impact.
M/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous not to revise the current Code regulations pertaining to 20 foot
setbacks.
AYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
M/S Piziali/McNamara to retain the language pertaining to two-car tandem parking.
AYES - 4 (Cook absent); NOES - 2 (Cunningham, Lynch); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
April 25, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,14,"9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC (Vice-
President Cook).
Vice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Board member Piziali advised he had nothing new to report.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
member Mariani).
Board member Mariani advised that there had been no meetings since her last report.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary
City Planning Department
These minutes were approved at the May 9, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio
and video taped.
G:\PLANNING\PB\Agendas_Minutes\Minutes.05\April 25 Minutes.doc
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
April 25, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf