body,date,page,text,path
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2006-04-24,1,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
April 24, 2006
Present: Chair Cooney, Berger, Bunker, Fort, Longley-Cook, Lord-Hausman, Vice Chair Moore
Absent/Excused: Gwynne, Steffens
Guests: Ed Sommerauer (Alameda Public Works), Paullina Kirola
MINUTES: The minutes of February 27, 2006 were approved.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Paratransit Advisory Meeting:
Chair Cooney reported on the April 24th meeting of the Paratransit Advisory Planning
Committee (PAPCo) held in Hayward. PAPCo was agreeable to use grant monies for signal
countdowns and sidewalk accessibility but were less favorable to using paratransit monies
for audible crossings since it was considered a secondary issue. However, ACTEA was
more agreeable for using grant monies for audibles.
2. Paratrasit Annual Program:
Ed Sommerauer, Associate Civil Engineer, presented to the Commission on Disability Issues
a proposed modification to the City of Alameda Paratransit Program. The City is proposing
a taxi scrip program to augment the existing program. There will be approximately $60,000
per year for this program. The Commission agreed to support a program that would
maximize the mobility of persons with disabilities.
The Commission also agreed that the program should consider the following:
-The program should serve seniors and persons with disabilities
-People over the age of 70 and disabled persons that qualify for East Bay Paratransit
Service would also qualify for the taxi scrip program.
-There should be no restrictions on the types of trips.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-04-24.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2006-04-24,2,"Commission on Disability Issues
April 24, 2006
Minutes
Page 2 of 3
- There should no restrictions on the number of trips.
-
The rider should pay on a 1:4 ratio (25%) of the fare, similar to the BART program.
- The current MRTIP program that provides trips to passengers free of charge should
continue unchanged.
A motion to have Chairman Cooney write a letter describing the Commission's
recommendations was proposed by Charles Bunker and second by Adrienne Longly-Cook
The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. Status of Accommodation Recommendations:
Chair Cooney will present report on providing costs of various Braille transcriptions/sign
language interpreters at the next Commission meeting.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Ed Sommerauer discussed accessibility to the newly opened Ortez Restaurant on Webster
Street. The main entrance to the restaurant is from the parking lot off Pacific Street.
Currently there is a decal on the door opening onto Webster Street directing people to the
accessible entrance of the parking lot. The Commission recommended a sign, not a decal,
would be used to direct disabled people to the main entrance.
2. Ed Sommerauer handed out a flyer describing the theater project. The Commission's
contributions to the project were acknowledged in the flyer
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Chairman Ed Cooney received a phone call from a woman who requested that the curb in
front of her residence be painted blue. The item will be placed on the agenda for the next
meeting.
2. Commissioner Jody Moore volunteered to man a booth at the Festival of Families on May
13.
3. Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook said construction during the renovation of the
Towne Center has created accessibility problems.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-04-24.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2006-04-24,3,"Commission on Disability Issues
April 24, 2006
Minutes
Page 3 of 3
4. Commissioner Toby Berger mentioned that the first Concert at the Cove for this year would
be held on June 9. The commission will have a booth. Additional concerts will be in July
and August.
5. Commissioner Charles Bunker mentioned that the Pier 29 Restaurant would relocate to the
former Wale's Tail Restaurant located on Bellina Boulevard.
6.
Commissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman reminded the Commission that Meet Your Public
Officials event will occur on April 28th between 5:30 and 7:30 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, May 22, 2006 in
Room 360, City Hall.
Sincerely,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Robert Claire
Associate Civil Engineer
RC:lc
G:\pubworks\LT\MCD Disability Committee/2006/424min.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, April 24, 2006
1.
CONVENE:
7:06 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. Mariani
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, Kohlstrand, Lynch and
Mariani.
Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft was absent from roll call.
Vice-President Cook and Board Member McNamara were absent.
Also in attendance were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Building Official Greg
McFann, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner II Dennis Brighton, Planner II Emily Pudell,
Executive Assistant Latisha Jackson.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of April 10, 2006
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that the discussion on page 9 read, ""She would like a better connection to the
rest of Alameda and further examination of the use of the Tubes.' She intended to convey her belief
that the City could make better use of the frontage road, the name of which she did not know, at
Mariner Square in terms of providing access to the site.
M/S Kohlstrand/Lynch to approve the minutes for the meeting of April 10, 2006, as amended.
AYES - 3 (Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Mariani)
A quorum was not present. The minutes will be considered at the meeting of May 8, 2006.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None
President Cunningham advised that there was a request from the Board to move Item 8-C from the
Regular Agenda to the Consent Calendar.
M/S Lynch/Kohlstrand and unanimous to move Item 8-C from the Regular Agenda to the Consent
Calendar.
AYES - 4 (Ezzy Ashcraft, Cook and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
April 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,2,"6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Mr. Brian Gardner wished to speak on behalf of John Russo, the City Attorney of Oakland who is
running for State Assembly. He noted that Mr. Russo led the fight to keep the casino out of the City
of Oakland, and conducted an eight-year legal fight to shut down the medical waste incinerator in the
City of Oakland. He would fight for full health care, education and for Alameda to receive its full
share of taxes, as well as to stop urban sprawl. He has also served as head of League of Cities.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
April 24, , 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,3,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
TM06-0001- - Barry Vial - 1951 Harbor Bay Parkway (DG). The applicant requests
approval of Tentative Parcel Map 8980, allowing the conveyance of up to 13 separate
commercial spaces located within two buildings to separate owners. The project site is zoned
C-M-PD Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that the Board requested consideration for removing parking spaces in front of
the building along Harbor Bay Parkway. She noticed that there were still parking spaces there, and
requested clarification of the changes and how they would affect the subdivision of the parcels.
Mr. Garrison advised that there were originally 11 parking spaces in front, which had been reduced to
seven spaces, with the four extra spaces moved to the side and to the rear. Additional landscaping had
been installed in front. The parking allocation would be addressed through the CC&Rs.
Ms. Kohlstrand was uncomfortable with any parking in front of this development, which would be
reflected in her vote.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham on whether Item 7-A should be placed on the
Regular Agenda because of the lengthy discussion, Ms. Woodbury replied that it should be pulled in
the affirmative.
Ms. Kohlstrand stated she would like the parking to be eliminated from the front of the site. Ms.
Woodbury replied that staff looked at the circulation issues with other departments, which was the
reason the parking could not be eliminated. The area must be maintained for emergency circulation
and circulation for the site as a whole.
M/S Kohlstrand/Mariani and unanimous to move Item 7-A from the Consent Calendar to the Regular
Agenda.
AYES - 4 (Ezzy Ashcraft, Cook and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Barry Vial, applicant, noted that the project contained individual units for sale to small business
owners, and the project as approved called for a middle unit with reasonably close parking to those
facilities. He did not believe it was a good amenity for an owner to walk up to 100 feet to their own
business. He believed that the loss of those additional seven spaces would hurt his chances to sell the
units.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that she would set aside her objections to the parking, since City Council had
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
April 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,4,"overruled similar Planning Board actions.
M/S Lynch/Mariani and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-13 to approve
Tentative Parcel Map 8980, allowing the conveyance of up to 13 separate commercial spaces located
within two buildings to separate owners.
AYES - 4 (Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
April 24, , 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,5,"7-B.
Use Permit UP06-0001 - Sam & Michelle Koka - 650 Pacific Avenue (DB). The
applicant requests a Use Permit renewal to allow the operation of an automotive repair use to
continue for an additional five-year period. A Use Permit is required for automobile repair
shops in specific locations within the CC (Community Commercial) Zoning District. (Staff
requests a continuance to the meeting of May 8, 2006.)
M/S Lynch/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of May 8, 2006.
AYES - 4 (Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
April 24, , 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,6,"7-C.
DP05-0001/DR05-0116/PM06-0002 - William De Mar - 471 Pacific Avenue (EP). The
applicant is requesting Development Plan and Major Design Review approvals to establish a
new single family home and zero lot-line duplex in an existing R-4-PD (Neighborhood
Residential Planned Development) district, and a Parcel Map approval to allow the division of
the existing 14,400 square foot residential lot into four parcels, where one is developed with
an existing, single family home. The property is located within an R-4-PD (Neighborhood
Residential Planned Development) Zoning District. (Staff requests a continuance to the
meeting of May 8, 2006.)
M/S Lynch/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of May 8, 2006.
AYES - 4 (Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
April 24, , 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,7,"8.
Regular Agenda Items
8-A. PDA05-0007 - Park Street Landing - 2307 Blanding Avenue (EP). Redesign of the
existing monument sign, per the request of the Planning Board. Three signs would be
established on the existing monument sign. The site is located within the Park Street Landing
Shopping Center in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning
District. (Continued from the meeting of April 10, 2006.)
Ms. Pudell summarized the staff report and recommended approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speakers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the building color, it was noted that the
color would be beige. There would be a maximum of three tenant signs on the pylon, and corporate
colors would be allowed.
Ms. Mariani expressed concern about the appearance of the gateway sign.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that this was a retrofit of an existing sign.
Ms. Mariani noted that a pylon sign in Fremont was designed to show the company names with the
same font, and that the companies were able to compromise to have their names on the signs.
Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft arrived at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. Lynch was not enthusiastic about this or any signage at this site, but understood the limitations.
He noted that Alameda had a sign ordinance, which this business worked within. He believed that
unless the sign ordinance was reopened, elimination of the sign could not be an issue.
Ms. Mariani believed this sign was different because it was a gateway monument sign, and that it
should be more visually appealing.
Mr. Tom Foley, property manager, noted that he welcomed the Board's input and agreed with Mr.
Lynch's assessment that the existing sign was not very attractive. He noted that corporation logos and
colors did not have much flexibility, but that the local tenants were more flexible. He would be happy
to change the text if the Board and staff requested it.
Mr. Lynch noted that he liked the sailboat image at the top, which was more appropriate and
recognizable to drivers.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
April 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,8,"In response to an inquiry by Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft whether the edges of the sign could be softened, Mr.
Foley replied that it was designed by the City. She requested that the top of sign feature the word
""Alameda."" Mr. Foley noted that would be possible. Mr. Lynch withdrew his comments about
preferring the sailboat at the top of the sign. He liked the current design but would go along with the
rest of the Board.
M/S Kohlstrand/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-14 to approve redesign of the
existing monument sign, per the request of the Planning Board. Three signs would be established on
the existing monument sign. An additional condition would require the addition of some unifying
element, such as a border, brought from the primary sign to the secondary sign.
AYES - 4 (Cook and McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
April 24, , 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,9,"8-B.
UP06-0004 - Italo Calpestri, AIA for Dwight Jennings - 776 Lincoln Avenue (EP). The
applicant is requesting approval of a Use Permit to establish a dental office in an existing
single family home and to add approximately 500 square feet of office space. The property is
located within an R-5 (General Residential) Zoning District.
Ms. Pudell summarized the staff report, and noted that staff requested continuation to the meeting of
May 8, 2006. She noted that the area was generally in support of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Peter Colinberg noted that he lived several doors down from this property, and spoke in
opposition to this item. He expressed concern about the staff report's statement that mature
landscaping would buffer the office use. He believed the term ""buffer zone"" implied something
objectionable to be buffered from. He did not believe that on-street parking on Lincoln was actually
available. He was concerned that this project would impact their property values negatively. He
inquired whether this site would remain zoned commercial if this owner sold the business in the
future.
Mr. Brian Stewart noted that his property was adjacent to the subject site. He disagreed with staff's
assessment that the area supported this project, and noted that a petition in opposition to this project
had been circulated. He believed their home resale values would be negatively impacted.
Dwight and Carmen Jennings, owners, 776 Lincoln, understood that there were neighborhood
concerns about the proposed project. She noted that they spoke to as many neighbors as possible
about their concerns, and discussed their proposed mitigations to address those concerns.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the number of dentist chairs in the use, Dr.
Jennings replied that his practice was orthodontic in nature, and that he had one room with three
chairs, and a second room with one chair. He would be the only practitioner in the office, with a
support staff of three people. He normally sees approximately three people per hour.
Ms. Jennings noted that in response to the expressed concerns about safety and security, they would
have a sophisticated security alarm system that would go directly to a security agency that would
notify them and the Alameda Police if there were any issues. They had plans to put a gate across the
driveway that would be locked in the evening; the design would be compatible with the 1940s
architecture of the house. There were issues about off-street parking, and they had been told that they
must have seven off-street parking spaces. She stated that this is not a general dentistry practice, and
that the State mandated that any chemicals be picked up on-site. She believed they addressed the
commercial versus residential concerns.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Mariani disclosed that she lived around the corner from the subject site, and did not believe she
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
April 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,10,"was biased in her decision. She was very familiar with this area, and noted that the check cashing
business and the car dealership were in the Webster Street business district. She noted that the area
was mostly residential, with the exception of Ralph's Market. She was surprised that more residents
were not in attendance, and believed this would be a dramatic alteration to this neighborhood. She did
not know whether this was an appropriate location for a dental practice.
President Cunningham noted that the use permit ran with the property, and would remain in force if
the current owners were to sell the property. Ms. Pudell added that the use permit would be good
only for the specific use proposed.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that most of the nearby commercial uses were on corner sites near Webster
or
in a cluster of similar uses; this would be the first introduction of this kind of frontage. She was
concerned about introducing a commercial use at this site.
Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft disclosed that she had visited the site and spoke with Mr. Stewart about this site.
She noted that the subject traffic would occur during business hours, and that the greatest demand
was during the evening hours. She noted that three patients per hour day did not mean that they
would be parked there all day.
Mr. Lynch noted that Alameda was an urban environment, and would like more detail with respect to
complaints about the ""noise problem."" He noted that there were many medical facilities located
throughout Alameda, and he has yet to see any devalued property prices. He added that another
complaint addressed decreased privacy. He believed that if a resident did not want this business as
their neighbor, they should just say that.
President Cunningham noted that the property is currently vacant, and inquired whether there was a
current problem with the property not being occupied at night. He would like further information on
traffic impacts. He would like to hear comments from the other neighbors.
M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Mariani and unanimous to reopen the public hearing.
AYES - 4 (Cook and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN- -
0
Mr. Stewart noted that no one has addressed the salability of the homes in the future, and agreed with
Ms. Mariani's concerns. He noted that many neighbors were opposed to this project.
Mr. Colinberg wished to clarify the definition of ""buffer,"" which meant being protected from
something. He was not convinced by the Jennings' statement that many neighbors had changed their
minds from opposition to support.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
This item was continued to the meeting of May 8, 2006.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
April 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,11,"Page 11
Planning Board Minutes
April 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,12,"8-C.
Variance, V06-0001, and Major Design Review, DR06-0015 - Bob Allegrotti for Kevin
Gorham and Katherine Kenny - 1517 Pacific Avenue (DB). The applicant requests
Variances for: (1) The removal of a conforming parking space without providing a
conforming equivalent parking space; and (2) The establishment of two unenclosed compact
parking spaces not meeting minimum landscaping standards. The project proposes two
compact parking spaces where not more than one compact space is permitted and both spaces
would not incorporate the required 3-foot wide landscaping separating them from abutting
property lines and structures. A Major Design Review approval is requested to add
approximately 421-square feet of gross floor area, plus a covered porch to the rear of the
existing single-family residence. Because the project would extend a wall an additional 7-feet
toward the rear with a nonconforming westerly side yard setback of 3.5-feet, where a
minimum 5-foot side yard setback is required, a finding must be made that no adverse effects
such as shading, view blockage, or privacy reduction would occur on adjoining properties.
The site is located within an R-4, (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District.
M/S Lynch/Kohlstrand and unanimous to move Item 8-C from the Regular Agenda to the Consent
Calendar.
AYES - 4 (Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
M/S Lynch/Kohlstrand and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-15 to approve
Variances for: (1) The removal of a conforming parking space without providing a conforming
equivalent parking space; and (2) The establishment of two unenclosed compact parking spaces not
meeting minimum landscaping standards. The project proposes two compact parking spaces where
not more than one compact space is permitted and both spaces would not incorporate the required 3-
foot wide landscaping separating them from abutting property lines and structures. A Major Design
Review approval is requested to add approximately 421-square feet of gross floor area, plus a
covered porch to the rear of the existing single-family residence. Because the project would extend a
wall an additional 7-feet toward the rear with a nonconforming westerly side yard setback of .5-feet,
where a minimum 5-foot side yard setback is required, a finding must be made that no adverse effects
such as shading, view blockage, or privacy reduction would occur on adjoining properties.
AYES - 4 (Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
April 24, , 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,13,"8-D.
Seismic Retrofit Workshop (GM). Voluntary Seismic Retrofit Program with incentives For
Existing One to Three Story Residential Structures.
Mr. McFann summarized the staff report, and displayed a PowerPoint presentation.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Ken Gutleben noted that he informed City Manager Bill Norton of a project involving the
installation of a basement and seismic retrofit of a historic residence in Alameda. He noted that the
permit for the project was denied due to AMC 30, regarding offstreet parking section. He noted that
the habitable space was to be in the basement, similar to that in Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft's and President
Cunningham's homes. This particular lot size did not meet the offstreet parking requirement, and the
project was terminated, leaving the home vulnerable to earthquakes. Mr. Norton agreed that this
section of the Code should be changed. Mr. Gutleben believed the Planning Board placed design
review over safety, and that retrofits should be placed as a high priority. He noted that Alameda's
geographical placement and location on sandy soil left Alameda vulnerable to earthquake damage. He
urged adoption of this program.
Mr. David Baker, 939 Taylor, agreed that seismic retrofits were important but believed that this
ordinance was a political gimmick to solve a serious issue. He did not believe that exempting
historical structures from design review and exempting parking requirements would solve this
problem. He respected Mr. McFann and Mr. Gutleben but did not agree with their support of this
program. He believed the relaxation of plumbing and electrical upgrades was unwise.
Ms. Kevis Brownson, 1554 Everett Street, noted that she was a member of Alameda Architectural
Preservation Society, and thanked Mr. Gutleben for bringing this issue to the City's attention. She
supported this program, but objected to exempting homeowners from design review. She believed
that design review also protected the historic resources. She disagreed with exempting the front space
from the setback limitations, which she believed may result in paved front yards and would be a
detriment to Alameda. She agreed with facilitating low interest loans to perform the retrofit.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, agreed with the last two
speakers, and had concerns about a design review exemption. He noted that he did not hear Mr.
McFann's and Mr. Gutleben's presentations. He noted that a design review was much less expensive
than a seismic retrofit. He noted that the past discussion of lifting buildings and the Golden Mean was
valuable. He was inclined to discourage exempting design review as an incentive.
Mr. Bob Allegrotti believed that a severe earthquake is due, and that when the Hayward Fault is hit, a
lot of Alameda would be damaged. He was somewhat concerned about design review, and believed
that a fast track rather than exemptions would be more realistic. He believed that guidelines for the
historic buildings would be appropriate. He suggested preinspections for habitable space.
Mr. Dick Rutter noted that he was an architect and lived in a nonseismically upgraded home built in
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
April 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,14,"1910; he believed it should be upgraded. He discussed the failures of cripple walls, which were part of
older buildings. He believed there should be incentives for homeowners to be able to fix those types
of conditions. He took exceptions of not having engineers looking at buildings pushing the three-story
limit. He expressed concern about poor workmanship by fly-by-night contractors.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Lynch could not see any work being done without an engineer's and architect's stamp, and
believed that was a liability problem. He believed this should be the homeowner's cost, and not the
City's He would be open to the Planning & Building Department waiving the plumbing, mechanical
and electrical codes, but does not want to see any lessening of the fire codes. He was not sure the
parking requirements would help the City reach the objective.
President Cunningham echoed Mr. Lynch's comments and agreed with Mr. Rutter. He did not believe
the City should give away free parking at the expense of seismic retrofitting. He believed they were
two important, but different issues. He noted that it was important for an engineer to look at each
building, and that each building was different.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that the Board was not being asked to ultimately take action on the codes. Ms.
Woodbury noted that was true, and that any changes in Chapter 30 would eventually come to the
Board. The other incentives did not need to come to the Planning Board; the parking and design
review requirements would come before the Board.
Mr. Lynch believed the parking component should come back before the Board as a separate piece.
Ms. Kohlstrand believed it was a positive idea to encourage people to make seismic retrofits. She did
not believe that relaxing the parking was a bad idea. She was concerned about relaxing the design
review requirements unless there was more structure surrounding those requirements.
Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a fast track process could be added for seismic retrofit projects.
Ms. Woodbury did not believe that was realistic, and that it would be more logical to waive fees
associated with these projects.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that San Francisco had a low interest loan program, and that they had a difficult
time getting people to take them out. Mr. McFann noted that he had examined that program, and that
their only incentive was financial, which led to the program difficulties.
Mr. Lynch inquired whether the City reviewed engineering structural documents. Mr. McFann
confirmed that it did, and that it was not the primary issue of this matter. He added that it was
difficult to find an engineer and architect to do small projects such as these, which were expensive. He
believed that was a disincentive to do retrofits.
Mr. Lynch believed that a piecemeal approach would not be the answer, and he believed this was a
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
April 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,15,"process issue.
President Cunningham wished to ensure that the City did not incur liability for private contractors'
work.
Mr. McFann advised that staff would craft some Code changes to bring back to the Board.
Mr. Lynch suggested that staff meet with the various groups interested in this process.
No action was taken.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
April 24, , 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,16,"9.
Written Communications:
None.
10.
Board Communications
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Ms. Mariani advised that the next meeting would be held on April 27, 2006, at 2 p.m. Her committee
was working on a proposal to bring to both Planning Boards.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that there had been no further meetings.
Ms. Mariani noted that she had been approached by two people, stating that the Alameda Journal
reported that she was in favor of a parking structure at the Catellus project. She was not present at
that meeting, did not say that, and she contacted the Journal to correct the report. It was in fact Ms.
McNamara who mentioned a parking structure.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:07 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Catary Woodbury
Cathy Wootbbury, Secretary
Planning and Building Department
These minutes were approved at the May 8, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio
and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
April 24, , 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf