body,date,page,text,path
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2007-02-26,1,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
February 26, 2007
PRESENT: Berger, Bunker, Longley-Cook, Cooney, Fort, Hakanson, Chair Lord-Hausman, and
Kirola
ABSENT/EXCUSED: Vice-Chair Moore
GUESTS: Tom Heinz (Eastbay Innovations), Cathy Nielson (SSHRB), Robbie Kritz
MINUTES: The minutes of January 29, 2007 were approved as submitted.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
NEW BUSINESS:
1. City Needs Assessment:
Social Services Human Relations Board member Ms. Cathy Nielsen distributed copies and
provided a brief overview of the City's 2005-2006 Needs Assessment. The Needs
Assessment evaluated the social service and human relations needs and resources of
Alamedans. The study was comprised of two parts; a survey of Alameda households and a
series of focus groups. Of the 531 residents who completed the survey slightly more than
28% said they or someone in their family has a disability. In response to a question by
Commissioner Ed Cooney, Ms. Nielson informed the Commission that the SSHRB would be
increasing their outreach methods (i.e. Alameda Collaborative). Commissioner Toby Berger
inquired about the results of prior assessments to which Ms. Nielson replied that the
Alameda Food Bank and Alameda Collaborative are two examples of what was achieved
from the prior assessment.
2. East Bay Innovations:
Mr. Tom Heinz, Executive Director, East Bay Innovations (EBI), informed the Commission
EBI is a private non-profit organization which offers a variety of services to help persons
with disabilities live and work independently. The services provided are: 1) supported
living services, 2) independent living services and 3) supported employment. For additional
information East Bay Innovations can be reached at (510) 618-1580 or
www.eastbayInnovations.com",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-02-26.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2007-02-26,2,"Commission on Disability Issues
February 26, 2007
Minutes
Page 2 of 3
OLD BUSINESS:
3)
Commissioner Duties: (Chair Lord-Hausman)
The discussion about the Commissioner's roles in taking responsibility to inform the
Commission of other City Boards and Committees agendas as they relate to ADA was
tabled.
4)
PAPCO:
Chair Audrey Lord-Hausman informed the Commission that the City is still seeking
a
volunteer to serve on the PAPCO Commission. To qualify, volunteers must be eligible for
paratransit.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: none
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Commissioner Charles Bunker informed the Commission that he needs a ride to the
meetings.
2. Chair Audrey Lord-Hausman stated that the City Clerk thus far has not received any
applications for candidacy to fill the two vacant seats on the Commission.
3. Chair Audrey Lord-Hausman informed the Commission that the City Council approved the
solicitation of bids for Audible Traffic Signal at Various Locations and asked that an item be
placed on the March Commission agenda for information purposes.
4.
Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook informed the Commission that this year's Crab Cove
summer concerts would be held on June 8th, July 13th and August 10th",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-02-26.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2007-02-26,3,"Commission on Disability Issues
February 26, 2007
Minutes
Page 3 of 3
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, March 26th, 2007 in
Room 360, City Hall.
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Ed Sommerauer
Associate Civil Engineer
ES:lc
G:\pubworks\LTMMD Disability Committee/2007/226min.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, February 26, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:05 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Mr. Cunningham
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy
Ashcraft, Kohlstrand, and McNamara.
Member Mariani was absent from roll call.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Donna Mooney.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of January 31, 2007.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft motioned to continue the minutes of January 31, 2007, to
the Planning Board meeting of March 12, 2007.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 6. [Absent: Member Mariani - 1.]
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
Member Cunningham suggested that if there were no speaker slips for Item 8-A, it may
be moved to the Consent Calendar.
Vice President Cook noted that she had a question about that item.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,2,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
Use Permit UP06-0019 - Applicant: Harry Hwang for Alameda Grill - 1520
Park Street (LA). The applicant requests a Use Permit to allow an existing 125
square-foot patio space to be used for customer seating. Pursuant to AMC
Subsection 30-4.9A(c)(b), a Use Permit is required for any permitted or
conditional use, which is not conducted within an enclosed structure. The site is
located within the C-C Community Commercial District.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-05 to
approve a Use Permit to allow an existing 125 square-foot patio space to be used for
customer seating. Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A(c)(b), a Use Permit is required
for any permitted or conditional use, which is not conducted within an enclosed structure.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 6. [Absent: Member Mariani - 1.]
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,3,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
Planned Development PD07-001/Parcel Map PM06-005 - Applicant: Will
Harrison - 700 Grand Street (BS). The applicant requests approval of a Planned
Development overlay on an existing R-1 (Single-Family Residential) district and
a Parcel Map to allow the division of an existing 25,000 square foot residential lot
into two parcels: each with an existing single-family dwelling. The property is
located within an R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would recuse herself from this item because of a
personal professional conflict.
Mr. Thomas presented the staff report, and recommended approval of this item.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook why this item was not presented as a
variance, Mr. Thomas replied that the planned development overlay approach provided
the flexibility. Staff did not feel the findings could be made for the variance in this case
because the lot was so large. Staff did not feel the historic location of the existing homes
or the historic quality of the wall qualified the project for a Planned Development.
Vice President Cook expressed concern about the curb cut on Grand because the
sidewalk narrowed in that area, as well as the presence of bike riders and the fact that the
bridge rose slightly. She noted that drivers would be backing in and out, and believed it
would be a risk to pedestrians and bicycle riders. She noted that the proximity of the
school was also a concern. Mr. Thomas noted that staff identified six parking alternatives
in the staff report.
In response to an inquiry by Member McNamara whether the sea wall would be
demolished, Mr. Thomas replied that was not the part that staff would consider historic.
He noted that it did not have structural significance with respect to the water, and that it
was the portion along Grand Street.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Will Harrison, applicant, representing the property owner, noted that they agreed
with the staff's recommendation regarding the tandem parking. Their first choice would
be to do nothing extra, because there was adequate on-street parking. He added that both
buildings had historical significance, and believed the parking design should be addressed
thoroughly. He noted that only the first five feet of the wall would be removed, because
the side yard of the house would be increased.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Member Kohlstrand suggested an additional condition requiring that any changes made
to the property or structures in the future would trigger a reevaluation of the off-street
parking situation.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,4,"Member Cunningham believed that as part of the planned development, the off-street
parking must come back to the Planning Board.
Vice President Cook moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-06 to
approve a Planned Development overlay on an existing R-1 (Single-Family Residential)
district and a Parcel Map to allow the division of an existing 25,000 square foot
residential lot into two parcels: each with an existing single-family dwelling, with the
modifications that Alternative 5 would be examined, and that any future changes made to
the property or structures would trigger a reevaluation of the off-street parking situation.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5. [Absent: Member Mariani - 1. Abstain: Member Ezzy Ashcraft]
Mr. Thomas noted that the PD overlay and the subdivision action required action by City
Council, and staff would revise the resolutions before taking the item to City Council.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,5,"8-B.
Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment GPA 07-0002 - Applicant:
City of Alameda (AT). The City requests a General Plan amendment to designate
approximately 110 acres of industrially designated properties to a specified mixed
use designation. The project area is generally bounded by Sherman Street on the
west, Buena Vista Avenue on the south, and Grand Street on the east. The
Oakland/Alameda Estuary forms the northern border of the area. The Northern
Waterfront project area is within several zoning districts; including R-2 (Two
Family Residence District), R-3 (Garden Residential District), R-4-PD
(Neighborhood Residential District, Special Planned Development District), M-1
(Intermediate Industrial), M-2 (General Industrial), C-M (Commercial-
Manufacturing District), and M-1-PD (Intermediate Industrial, Special Planned
Development District).
Member Ezzy Ashcraft returned to the dais.
Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report.
President Lynch advised that more than five speaker slips had been received.
Vice President Cook believed this was an important issue that justified allowing the full
five minutes for the speakers.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft agreed with Vice President Cook's comment.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Barbara Walker, 1920 Bay Street, noted that the preservation of the community
garden was very important, as was ensuring that Bay Street was not extended.
Ms. Sue McIntire, 1821 Bay Street, echoed the concern about maintaining the community
garden, and was also concerned about the traffic impacts in the neighborhood, especially
given the number of children in the neighborhood. She noted that there was a lot of truck
activity at the Del Monte site, which she believed had a negative impact on the
environment.
Mr. Tom Mills noted that he owned a property on the corner of Bay and Eagle, and that
the speed and volume of the traffic should preclude any building in that area.
Mr. James Bramell, Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee, presented the Board with
a letter asking to reschedule a meeting. He believed there was a Brown Act violation due
to the failure of personnel within the Planning Department who mixed the dates up. He
noted that they had addressed pollutants on the property, as well as what the best use of
the property would be. He understood that the mitigation of the spillage had not been
entirely adequate, and noted that he was concerned about loss of property value from
underground fumes, such as what occurred at Hamilton Air Base. He was concerned that
would be a litigable item. He noted that the Committee was not negligent because it
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,6,"recommended that that site only be used for open-air usage such as boat storage or
maintenance. He believed the discussion of this item should have been in the last
meeting's minutes, which they had requested.
President Lynch requested that Mr. Brammell submit the letter to staff to be entered into
the record. He noted that Planning staff would have a response to his remarks.
Ms. Barbara Kerr, President Northside Association, thanked Mr. Mills for clarifying that
Bay Street was included in the prohibition against the Northwood Extension, and that the
community garden was included in the definition of the park. She prepared amendments
to clarify these items that were not in the existing amendments, and would distribute
those documents to staff. She noted that there was a legal agreement signed by the City
Council that the community garden and the park at Park Village would never be
developed. She noted there should be adequate landscaping on Sherman and Buena Vista
so the surrounding residences do not get a view of asphalt and cars. She noted that the
Marina Village Business Park was a good example of what should be done, using berms
and hedges, as well as well-designed lighting. She believed that Wind River was a good
example of what not to do, including klieg lights that glare into neighboring residents'
bedrooms. She believed that the property owners and residents would be affected by this
project, and thanked Vice President Cook and Member Ezzy Ashcraft for believing they
should have as much time to speak as the developer.
Ms. Debra Arbuckle, 1854 9th Street, Northern Waterfront Specific Plan Committee,
noted that this group was formed to address many issues, including traffic in the beltline,
not having through streets, and trying to mitigate traffic, which she believed was a major
issue, especially with the D and F Levels of Service. She noted that hundreds of people
have invested time and energy in the neighborhood meetings and workshops. They were
concerned about traffic, development, open space. She noted that much of the plan
assumed that Railroad would be open space, and that it had been changed to Industrial
zoning. She detailed the legal background of this project, and inquired how the contract
which had been tied to the deed was no longer tied to it. She also noted that the traffic
reports seemed to have been altered. She was pleased to hear there would be more time to
consider this item.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether an entitlement plan was before the
Planning Board, Mr. Thomas confirmed that it was not at this time. President Lynch
added that the Planning Board would not discuss Mr. Wang's project, but that they were
charged with discussing the Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment.
Mr. Richard Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, noted that he had worked with Christopher
Buckley, who could not attend and had submitted a letter to the Planning Board. He read
the contents of the letter:
""1.
Do not allow future residential development in close proximity to Clement
Avenue, since Clement Avenue will be a truck route. Unfortunately,
residential development was allowed along Clement as part of the Marina
Cove project. This was a mistake that should not be compounded.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,7,"Although a notice was recorded on the Clement Avenue lots within
Marina Cove, informing property purchasers that Clement Avenue was to
be a truck route, I fear that the residents of these houses will experience an
unpleasant surprise when a truck route becomes operational. Prohibiting
residential uses along Clement should be reflected in guiding and
implementing policy group 10.3, policy 10.4(c), the General Plan Use
Diagram, and possibly other provisions.
""2.
Height limits: There are a number of height limits all over town in certain
locations that allow building up to 100 feet. Address height limits in the
General Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment area is now zoned M-2
and R4-PD. The M2 zone has a 100-foot height limit, and the R-4 zones
35 foot height limit is waived under the PD overlay. Maximum building
height within the plan amendment should be somewhere between 35 and
60 feet, depending on the subarea in use. 60 feet should probably be the
maximum height limit citywide. 100 feet is too tall for new development
anywhere in Alameda.
""3.
Design guidelines: Add an implementing policy to Section 10.8, Urban
Design, calling for design guidelines for each subarea, and addressing
such issues as building, siting, architectural style, exterior materials and
landscaping. These guidelines should be fleshed out in Section 10.8. The
City's Guide to Residential Design, although very good as far as it goes, is
primarily focused on existing neighborhoods, and needs to be expanded to
address the production housing that's likely to occur within the Plan
Amendment area.
""4.
Policy ET-5 (Encinal Terminal site): Amend the building height
provisions to express height in feet, as well as number of stories. The four-
story maximum height proposed for this site would be probably translate
to 50 feet.""
Mr. Rutter believed the height limit issues were important, as was the way the City would
plan Clement. He agreed completely with Mr. Buckley's comments.
Ms. Jean Sweeney expressed concern about the benzene plumes moving towards the
water, and believed they should be cleaned up. She noted that the soil should be cleaned
up before any new developments were to be considered. She requested that no through
streets go through the Beltline. She believed there was more housing in this area than was
originally intended. She believed the EDC recommendations were a good idea, and
requested the minutes of the October neighborhood meeting. She agreed with the
previous speakers.
Mr. Nick Cabral, 1544 Buena Vista, spoke in support of this project, and believed there
was a segment in Alameda that opposed every development project. He noted that he lived
across the street from this site, and added that with 250 trucks in general street traffic, he
never heard from anyone from the NWSP Committee regarding this site. He believed this
project would be an asset for the community, and that it would bring residential and
commercial uses to the neighborhood. He believed it would enliven the neighborhood, and
that it would bring in more tax revenue. He encouraged the Board to move forward on this
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,8,"item.
Mrs. Norma Arnerich, 3275 Encinal Avenue, submitted a speaker slip, but was not in
attendance to speak.
Mr. ""Lil"" Arnerich, 3275 Encinal Avenue, spoke in support of this item. He noted that
when he was on the City Council, he believed the Planning Board carried a tremendous
responsibility in determining projects for decades to come.
Ms. Ellen Lou, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, One Front Street, 24th Floor, San
Francisco, representing Mr. Peter Wang, property owner, Encinal Terminal/Grand
Marina, displayed a PowerPoint presentation and described some suggested changes to the
proposal.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Vice President Cook noted that in her waterfront planning experience, the goal had often
to be flexible with respect to land use. She noted that access points, preservation of
historical aspects and the quality of development were all important points. She wanted to
see this item move ahead, but wanted to ensure that the conflicts between the comments
had been resolved first. She wanted further clarification on Ms. Kerr's comments
regarding the pilings, which most of the City was built on.
President Lynch wanted to avoid wordsmithing the document at this meeting, and would
like to discuss reactions to the comments and policy matters.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft commended Mr. Thomas and the Planning staff on the quality
and thoroughness of the staff report. She had questions about how the childcare element
fit into the project. She believed that height restrictions were a major issue, and noted that
the upcoming green building workshop would address Bay-friendly elements. She
wanted to know about the intended green design elements.
President Lynch believed the Board should begin with Attachment A
Mr. Thomas detailed the background of the creation of this set of policies.
Member Kohlstrand stated that she would like to ensure that people had an adequate
opportunity to comment on the childcare policy, and would like it to be noticed as a
separate item.
Mr. Thomas noted that the childcare policies in Attachment B were implemented
Citywide, and believed that Member Kohlstrand's comments were fair. He noted that the
focus on childcare would be separately re-noticed.
Vice President Cook noted that she had many detailed comments that she would provide
separately.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,9,"Mr. Thomas noted that staff could return in a month. He was concerned about the height
limits brought up by AAPS, and noted that there were no Citywide height limits in the
General Plan. Height limits were generally addressed in the zoning or by the Master Plan
applicable to the project.
President Lynch did not believe the height limits should be addressed in the General Plan,
which is a policy document, not a zoning document. He would prefer to see the Planning
Board move towards the policies, and should state that in striving towards a certain
design goal, it may be met without the designs appearing to be cookie-cutter. He believed
those restrictions would belong in a zoning document, such as a PD overlay.
Member Cunningham noted that by setting rigid requirements such as wedding-cake
step-downs, the design would appear to be cookie-cutter, which he could not endorse.
Member McNamara supported the comments about fostering architectural creativity, but
was concerned that the heights of some of the buildings in Towne Centre were excessive.
She would support imposing some kind of height limit on the waterfront, with sensitivity
to the surrounding neighborhoods.
President Lynch did not differ with that opinion, but believed those restrictions were
more appropriate to the design review and zoning rather than a General Plan Amendment.
Vice President Cook was uncomfortable about the waterfront development guidelines
lagging behind, and believed they should be more than guidelines; she would like them to
have more teeth.
Member Cunningham noted that there were several instances the document that used the
word ""consider,"" and inquired whether it may be helpful to provide more concrete
direction. Mr. Thomas noted that it would be helpful for the Planning Board to create a
list of potential requirements with respect to those items. He noted that other items, such
as an assessment district or other concepts that may remain advisory, and that they should
not be forgotten as time passed.
Vice President Cook emphasized that she did not want to see any sound walls or gates.
President Lynch noted that the Board generally agreed on the first section.
Member Kohlstrand believed the traffic mitigation measures, especially with respect to
the striping, was fairly specific for a General Plan. Mr. Thomas noted that these particular
mitigations were called for after analyzing the EIR. He described the approach taken by
staff and the applicant, and noted that better solutions, such as a traffic circle, may be
appropriate. Member Kohlstrand preferred that such specific mitigations not be specified
in the document because of the long-range nature of the General Plan.
President Lynch noted that they seemed to be conditions of approval, and while they had
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,10,"merit and value, he did not feel they belonged in the General Plan Amendment.
Vice President Cook acknowledged Jean Sweeney's contribution to this issue, and noted
that the current traffic grid pattern was an legalitarian pattern, and was reluctant to rule out
one particular street configuration in perpetuity. She noted that the potential for the linear
park would be an incredible asset to the City that she believed should be accessible to the
City.
Mr. Thomas noted that a year ago, staff recommended that the Beltline be removed from
the Northern Waterfront General Plan because the City was trying to acquire the property
and because it was involved in a lawsuit at the time.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that the Transportation Commission be approached
regarding the transit district for the Northern Waterfront, since the City did not yet have
an existing transit district.
Member Kohlstrand requested a staff clarification recommendation for the transit district,
and inquired how this would change the existing EIR. Mr. Thomas replied that so far, the
discussions would not affect the conclusion of the EIR.
Ms. Mooney noted that there was a decision in the trial court in favor of the City last
August, and that it expected an appeal to be filed.
Ms. Mooney noted that there was a decision in the trial court in favor of the City last
August, and that it expected an appeal to be filed.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she strongly supported this concept, as long as it was
understood that it was not an ending point.
Mr. Thomas noted that it was important for future homeowners to be aware that Clement
would be extended, and that it would be a truck route. He noted that Alameda was an
island community with little room, but that Clement could be designed so the trucks
would move through slowly, and so pedestrians would be properly accommodated.
Member Cunningham noted that 10.8.g addressed the gateway enhancement, and would
like to include Grand Street and Fruitvale Bridge.
Mr. Thomas noted that Member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested a Citywide gateway program.
Vice President Cook agreed that it should be the Citywide policy that addressed all
gateways.
Member Cunningham noted that Ms. Kerr brought up a good point about fire services on
the waterfront, and inquired whether the City had fireboats. Mr. Thomas replied that the
City had two fireboats.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,11,"friend who had cited a declining student population because families with young children
could not afford housing in Davis. She noted that the City of Davis experienced student-
housing shortages because of the high price of the housing stock.
Vice President Cook inquired whether there could be a Measure A-compliant houseboat
community in Alameda.
Member Cunningham would like to introduce language to encourage reduction of vehicle
trips. Mr. Thomas noted that the Transportation Commission was working towards that
goal through Catellus and the TDM program to use shuttle services and alternate transit
services. He noted that the City had been meeting with AC Transit and described the
proposed EcoPass project.
Mr. Thomas noted that he would provide a brief presentation with graphics on March 26,
including detailed graphics on the Clement Street alignment, and how it was envisioned
to run through the Northern Waterfront. Staff would also provide information on the
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,12,"Pennzoil property with respect to hazardous materials. The policies addressing the
quality and character of properties at the waterfront would be included, and the item
would be re-noticed to include the childcare policies. The sound walls would be revisited,
and ""discouraged"" should be changed to ""prohibited.""
Member Cunningham noted that with respect to open space on the waterfront, there was a
lot of discussion around the City's ability to purchase open space. He inquired whether
there was a document to address open space development priorities.
Vice President Cook noted that she had recently visited Venice, California, and was
excited to see the improvements on that waterfront. She believed that Alameda should be
respectful of its maritime heritage without being a slave to it.
President Lynch wanted to see an environment that would be welcoming to people, and
did not want a repeat of Bridgeside.
Member Kohlstrand requested a redlined version of the suggested changes made by the
Planning Board.
Board member Cunningham moved to continue this item to the meeting of March 26,
2007.
Vice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,13,"8-C. Planning Board Rules and Procedures. Discussion and action on possible
amendments to the Planning Board Rules and Procedures.
Member Kohlstrand stated that she was very interested in seeing Staff Communications
moved up to follow either Agenda Changes and Discussion or Oral Communications to
receive the Director's report at the beginning of the meeting.
A discussion of the Zoning Administrator's report ensued. Ms. Woodbury noted that the
Zoning Administrator's report would not need to be approved, and that the report was
informational.
Mr. Thomas suggested that the Zoning Administrator's report be included in Staff
Communications.
Member Cunningham suggested that Written Communications be moved up on the
agenda, so that members of the audience could hear and comment on it.
Member McNamara suggested that ""by an applicant or other interested parties"" be
included in the language referring to materials received on behalf of the applicant. Mr.
Thomas wanted to ensure that submission of materials by other members of the public
would not be restricted. He noted that the noticing information requested that
submissions be received by a certain time to be included in the packet.
Member Kohlstrand did not believe it would be possible to restrict written public input
before a hearing.
Member McNamara noted that page 6, number 1 (Conditions) stated that conditions may
only be submitted by staff, and inquired whether Board members may do so as well.
President Lynch noted that the staff report may only be provided as written by staff. Once
the Board sees the staff report, it has the ability to accept, modify or reject the conditions.
Member McNamara noted that with respect to the Method of Documentation, she
inquired whether a CD or DVD may be used to archive the meeting. Mr. Thomas
suggested using best available technology. President Lynch noted that would be under the
purview of City Council and the IT Department.
Board member Cunningham moved to accept the amendments to the Planning Board
Rules and Procedures as amended.
Board member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 6. [Absent: Member Mariani - 1.]
Ms. Mooney noted that the amended rules would return to the Planning Board for a
Resolution, and that they may be changed by motion if the Board so chooses.
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,14,"a.
2007 - 2014 Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Element
Update.
President Lynch noted that some cities were not fulfilling their housing targets, and noted
that the housing numbers in the region were likely to change.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee
(Board Member Mariani).
Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board
Member Kohlstrand).
Member Kohlstrand advised that there was no action.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force
(Board Member Cunningham).
Member Cunningham advised that another meeting would be held in two weeks, and
were generally held on the third Thursday of each month.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATION
a.
Future Agendas and work program
Mr. Thomas described the future agenda items for the next six months.
President Lynch noted that the Northern Waterfront item would be held on March 26, and
that the April 9 meeting would be cancelled due to spring break attendance issues. He did
not see the Measure A Planning Board forum on the schedule. Mr. Thomas noted that
was not placed on the schedule yet. March 29 would be specifically held for Alameda
Point.
Mr. Thomas suggested that the Planning Board may want to form a subcommittee to
address some of the agenda issues.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when the joint meeting between City Council and the
Planning Board would take place.
President Lynch noted that he had previously worked in jurisdictions where the joint
meetings were part of the regular schedule, and the work plans were included in that
discussion. He was surprised that had not happened in Alameda.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,15,"Ms. Woodbury noted that the Recreation and Park Commission and the Utilities Board
had met with the City Council.
Mr. Thomas suggested that the Board advise staff that they would like to have a joint
meeting. He recalled that there had been one joint meeting within the last five years. He
understood the Board wanted to hold one, and staff would begin the process to set it up
after March 12, 2007. He noted that the April 9 meeting should be rescheduled so the
work did not back up. He noted that it would be difficult to address Harbor Bay and
Alameda Landing in the same meeting.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Sécretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the Planning Board meeting of March 26, 2007. This
meeting was audio and videotaped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf