body,date,page,text,path
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2007-03-26,1,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
March 26, 2007
PRESENT: Longley-Cook, Cooney, Hakanson, Chair Lord-Hausman, and Kirola
ABSENT/EXCUSED: Berger, Bunker, Fort, Vice-Chair Moore
GUESTS: Mary Louise Lambert, Barry Bergman (Alameda Public Works)
MINUTES: The minutes of February 26, 2007 were approved as submitted.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Audible Traffic Signal Project:
Chair Lord-Hausman read a letter from Trung Nguyan Assistant Engineer, Alameda Public
Works requesting a training session for the new Countdown Pedestrian Head and Audible
Pedestrian Signals at 25 intersections. Chair Lord-Hausman then read her response
supporting the instructional training and agreeing to agendize a regular meeting of the
Commission to include the training. The proposed new signals will not include tactile plates
because of funding constraints. Commissioner Cooney suggested that Linda Myers would be
a good source for information regarding tactile signals. Mary Louise Lambert was requested
to send a letter to the Commission suggesting intersections that would be candidates for
tactile signals.
2. Paratransit Program Annual Submittal:
Mr. Barry Bergman gave an overview of last year's paratransit funding from measure B and
discussed ideas for expanding the program. The existing program includes purchasing of
East Bay Paratransit coupons, providing taxi trips for riders to return home from medical
facilities, providing service to areas not served by East Bay Paratransit, offering group trips
through the Mastick Senior Center, and providing transit scholarships for the poor. The
expanded program would include opening up the taxi program to all seniors age 75 and
older, and those 70 and up without a driver's license. Mr. Bergman then requested any
suggestions for new program ideas and for providing additional outreach. The Commission
suggested the following: College of Alameda, the Commission's booth at the Concerts at the
Cove, Alameda Hospital Health Fare, Regional Center, Special Olympics, East Bay
Innovations, City web site, World Institute on Disability (WID) and AP&T. Chair Lord-
Hausman requested that any additional suggestions be sent to her.
OLD BUSINESS:",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-03-26.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2007-03-26,2,"Commission on Disability Issues
March 26, 2007
Minutes
Page 2 of 3
3. Commissioner Duties: (Chair Lord-Hausman)
Chair Lord-Hausman requested volunteers to monitor other City Boards and Committees.
Commissioner Longly-Cook volunteered to monitor the Transportation Commission and
Chair Lord-Hausman volunteered to monitor the Planning Board. Commissioner Cooney
will review the Agenda of the City Council meetings to see if there are any issues that would
interest the Commission.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
4. Acting Secretary showed a model of the intersection of Webster Street and Atlantic Avenue.
The Commission requested additional information about the planned changes to the
intersection. Commissioner Cooney requested that similar models be made of other
intersections.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Commissioner Longley-Cook informed the Commission of the Arthritis Expo at the Hyatt
Regency in Burlingame on September 15 from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.
2. Commissioner Cooney suggested that planning begin for the Disability Awareness Month
in October.
3. Mary Louise Lambert suggested that special Religious Education (SPRED) be contacted for
possible new Commissioners.
4. Chair Lord-Hausman informed the Commission that the League of Woman Voters would be
holding its Meet Your Public Officials event on April 26 and all Commissioners should be
receiving invitations.
5. Chair Lord -Hausman suggested that Mike Corbett from Harsh Management be invited to
the April meeting to discuss the improvements to the Towne Centre. Commissioner Cooney
would like to review the model of the Centre.
6. Chair Lord-Hausman stated that the Market Place parking lot on Buena Vista Avenue has 26
spaces, none of which are marked for the disabled. Parking near the Alameda Marina
appears to have insufficient disabled parking spaces. The new parking spaces at Alameda
High, Walnut Street entrance, are poorly marked.
7. Chair Lord-Hausman presented information about the standard Taxi that can accommodate
wheelchairs and scooters.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-03-26.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2007-03-26,3,"Commission on Disability Issues
March 26, 2007
Minutes
Page 3 of 3
8. Chair Lord-Hausman suggested that there should be Disability Friendly Business Awards.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, April 23, 2007 in
Room 360 at City Hall.
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Robert Claire
Associate Civil Engineer
RC:lc
G:\pubworks\LTMCD Disability Committee/2007/326min.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, March 26, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:06 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member Cunningham
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy
Ashcraft, Kohlstrand, Mariani, and McNamara.
President Lynch was absent from roll call and arrived during Item 4.
Also present were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Planning Services
Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney Donna Mooney, Executive Assistant
Latisha Jackson.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of January 31, 2007
Member Cunningham noted that page 5, paragraph 3, should be changed to read, ""Board
Member Cunningham noted that the community and development had a clear outline of
the project goals
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 2, paragraph 6, should be changed to, ""She
stated that if personal emails were used for Board communications, and if litigation
occurred, all personal emails could be requested by the person or entity that brought the
litigation.
Board member Cunningham moved approval of the minutes as amended.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 6. Absent: President Lynch.
b.
Minutes for the meeting of February 12, 2007
Board member Kohlstrand noted that page 8, second to last paragraph, stated that she had
been appointed to the Big Box Retail Committee, which she noted was not the case. She
believed that it was Board member Ezzy Ashcraft and McNamara as an alternate, and
added that she had not said that.
Board member Cunningham inquired about the window coverage relative to the First
Community Bank, and requested further information about any impact on leasing as a
result of the glazing requirements. Ms. Woodbury noted that she could invite the owner
of the center to make a presentation. Board member Cunningham noted that would not
be necessary.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,2,"Acting President Cook noted that page 4, paragraph 4, should be changed to read, ""Vice
President Cook would welcome a proposal keeping in the General Plan zoning and
agreed with many of Mr. Siewald's comments..
Acting President Cook noted that on page 5, there were comments about the glazing, and
her concern that conditions about not covering the glazing so that there would be eyes on
the waterfront and thereby enlivening the waterfront. She asked if that issue could be
revisited with a staff report, particularly regarding Pet Express. Ms. Woodbury suggested
that the subject be discussed during the briefing on the site.
Acting President Cook noted that page 10, second to last paragraph, addressed
commitments made by developers and whether they were adequately memorialized in
conditions and permits. She noted that it should read, ""Vice President Cook would like
staff reports to summarize the status of developers' promises and commitments."" She
would like it to be standard with phased developments.
President Lynch arrived at the meeting and joined the Board on the dais.
Board member Mariani noted that she had requested a status report on the signage
regarding Pet Food Express as well.
Board member Mariani moved approval of the minutes as amended.
Board member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 7.
c.
Minutes for the meeting of February 26, 2007
Board member Kohlstrand noted that page 10, middle of the page, should read, ""Board
member Kohlstrand requested a staff clarification recommendation for the Transit
District and inquired how this would change the existing EIR."" She inquired whether
there was a general question whether the overall changes to the plan would affect the EIR
rather than that particular item.
Board member Cunningham noted that page 12, paragraph 2, addressed his comments
with respect to open space on the waterfront, and that he inquired whether there was a
document to address open space development priorities."" He noted that some potential
open space developments could compete with each other.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 3, Item 8-A, stated that she would recuse
herself from the item for professional reasons. She noted that she had actually recused
herself for personal reasons.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 11, third paragraph up, discussed
affordable housing available for rent and referenced her comment about the City of
Davis. She did not say there was a student housing shortage, but that she had paraphrased
a conversation with a friend who had cited a declining student population because
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,3,"families with young children could not afford housing in Davis.
Vice President Cook wished to address her comment on page 12, regarding about the
Encinal Terminal project and improvements in Venice, California. She noted that while
the improvements were terrific, she wanted to stress that they reflected Venice's
development, but did not think that recreating that type of theme in the Encinal Terminal
was not necessarily appropriate. She believed the development in Alameda should be
respectful of Alameda's maritime heritage without being a slave to history.
Board member Kohlstrand moved approval of the minutes as amended.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 7.
d.
Minutes for the Alameda Towne Centre Workshop of March 12, 2007
These minutes were not available for consideration and would be reviewed at a future
meeting.
e.
Minutes for the Special meeting of March 12, 2007.
Ms. Mooney noted that on page 12, she made comment about the page 5 Deliberations
and Decisions in the Planning Board Rules and Procedures. She noted that the Board
member was not required to indicate a reason, and that it should read, ""The rules
presently state that the Board member was not required to indicate a reason.' She did not
want it to appear that law did not presently require anything to happen if there's a conflict
of interest or bias.
Vice President Cook noted that page 2, paragraph 1, noted that with respect to the South
Shore project. She was concerned that the apparent scale of the restaurant on the corner
seemed to be four separate standalone buildings. She wished to clarify that there should
be a mix of size and scale of buildings so that people could get a sandwich or coffee and
go back to the beach other than fast food in that location.
Vice President Cook noted that on page 10, middle of the page, should be changed to
read, ""She would like to revisit the Downtown Visioning Plan and follow-up steps to
include in the work program going forward.""
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that on page 5, Item 8-A, Ms. Ko's name should be
corrected to be spelled ""Kho"" throughout the minutes.
Board member Kohlstrand moved approval of the minutes as amended,
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 7.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,4,"Board member Mariani inquired about the number of speaker slips for Item 9-C and
whether it should be heard first.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft proposed moving 9-B to the top of the Regular Agenda,
which involved an individual applicant.
President Lynch noted that nine speaker slips had been received for Item 9-C, and that
five speakers had been received for Item 9-B, and two speaker slips had been received for
Item 7 (Oral Communications). He proposed that the agenda be ordered as follows: Items
9-B, 9-C, 9-A, 9-D, 10 and 11.
Vice President Cook moved to hear Item 9-B first, followed by Items 9-C, 9-A, 9-D, 10
and 11.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 7.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Future Agendas
Ms. Woodbury provided a bulleted item in the packet describing the future agendas.
Board member Mariani inquired whether the Community Workshop would be televised,
and believed it should be televised.
Mr. Thomas noted that it would be held at the Mastick Senior Center because the facility
did not have television facilities. However, the proceedings would be videotaped to be
shown at a later date. Board member Mariani believed that it was very important to make
the meeting proceedings accessible to the general public.
Board member McNamara inquired whether a date had been set for the Bridgeside site
visit. Ms. Woodbury noted that the visit would take place after the project was finaled,
perhaps in early summer.
Board member Mariani noted that Long's was a minor design review, with no input from
the Planning Board. She would like to keep track of that item, and believed it was a large
project.
Ms. Woodbury noted that staff would keep the Board up to date on the progress of that
item.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff would present the Harbor Bay Village GPA EIR public
hearing item at the April 18, 2007, meeting. The Hawthorne Suite item has been delayed
as a result of changes requested by the applicant, and the 1000 Atlantic commercial
condominium has been rescheduled to April 23, 2007. The decision on the Boatworks
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,5,"item had been appealed and would be heard by the City Council on April 3, 2007.
Board member McNamara inquired whether the Alameda Point Station Area planning
presentation on April 18 would be a duplication of the March 29 presentation. Mr.
Thomas replied that it would be summarized for the Board members unable to attend the
March 29, 2007, and that it could be pushed to a later agenda.
Board member Mariani thanked staff for placing this item at the beginning of the
meeting.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,6,"7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Mr. Dave Kirwin wished to follow up on Board member Mariani's comments regarding
televising the community meeting being held at Mastick. He hoped that all the meetings
could be recorded in a format that could be viewed on the streaming video portion of the
City website. He noted that would be the most convenient for people with Internet access
to see the proceedings of the meeting.
Ms. Barbara Kerr noted that she had been at the Bridgeside Shopping Center recently,
and recalled her tenure on the City Council when the developer wanted unpainted
corrugated iron siding on the building. She noted that she had talked to him about
windows on the waterfront, and added that when the developer encountered the Planning
Board, he encountered more focused insistence on glass on the waterfront side.
Mr. David Howard concurred with Mr. Kirwin's comments regarding other meetings on
the website. He wished to voice his objection to the mindset of some within the
community and Planning Services that high-density housing was necessary to support
transit, and that transit was therefore necessary to support high-density housing He cited
studies that stated that transit use ranged from 30- 36%, and that most of the trips would
be by automobile. He noted that less than 20% of the transit budget came from the fare
box, and stated that Mayor Newsom of San Francisco had requested that fares no longer
be collected at the box because of the cost of doing SO. He suggested focusing on low-
density housing, and if a subsidy were to be employed, that low-emissions vehicles or
bicycles be subsidized instead of high-density housing and transit.
President Lynch suggested that members of the public may also wish to address any
transit issues to the Transportation Commission.
Board member Mariani suggested that the speaker was promoting high-density housing
and wrapping it in with transit.
President Lynch noted that the Transportation Commission would be able to address fare
collection and subsidies.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,7,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-B.
MDR07-0003 (Minor Design Review) - Applicant: Peter Ekstein - 463 Haight
Avenue (SW). The applicant requests a Planning Board interpretation regarding
staff's finding that an existing parking space of 32 feet and 6 inches constitutes
two compact parking spaces. Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-7.3 existing
parking spaces must be kept in working order and may not be reduced to less than
existing numbers.
Mr. Thomas presented the staff report in Simone Wolter's absence.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Peter Ekstein, project architect, noted that the most important issue was the location
of the stair inside the home, and believed it was appropriately located to be consistent
with the architectural style of the building. He noted that the stair location interfered with
the location of the second car, which had never been in that location. He believed
requiring a second parking space was not consistent with the architectural style. He noted
that many people in the neighborhood park in their front yard, although they have
garages; he inquired why the City did not seem to be concerned about that. He noted that
the clients would not use that second parking space. He inquired when the unconditioned
space would be able to be developed, and noted that there was no written guidance
regarding that issue.
Mr. Mark Takemoto, applicant, noted that they tried to develop the basement to use the
space most efficiently and within the existing footprint of the house. He noted that the
current space for the parking spot was shorter in length and height than the required
standard for a new garage space. He noted that the narrow width of the garage space
made it very difficult to park two cars in the garage on a consistent basis.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether the definition of habitable space
included closets, Mr. Thomas replied that they were not included in the UBC definition.
The conditioned space may not be heated or cooled, and must be habitable.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the difference in the
square footage numbers cited by staff and the applicant, Mr. Thomas replied that after
meeting with the applicant, they agreed to come before the Planning Board and to
redesign their plan somewhat. The revised plan was submitted, and staff is still in the
process of working out the amount of conditioned space. He noted that the core question
of parking spaces would determine the amount of conditioned space. He believed that
hallway space was one of the discussion issues.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether there would be a
seismic upgrade, Mr. Thomas confirmed that was the case.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,8,"In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether the ground-floor
bathroom towards the rear of the property would be new, Mr. Ekstein replied that there
was a toilet but no tub. The existing ground floor windows would be replaced by the
applicants, and he noted that the existing windows in the two storage rooms already met
the requirement for egress. The setback facing the streets was less than 20 feet.
In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara whether the home had an existing
interior staircase, Mr. Ekstein replied there was not.
In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara whether the parking in the front
yard counted as a parking space, Mr. Thomas replied that it did not. Board member
McNamara noted that parking was a challenge in this neighborhood, and believed there
were case-by-case situations that the Board could not ignore. She believed the interior
staircase was essential to the remodel design. Mr. Thomas noted that staff endeavored to
make the planning standards consistent, and that case-by-case situations were usually
addressed by a variance.
Board member Kohlstrand noted that it was a disadvantage to not have the existing site
plan. She was uncomfortable changing the parking standards, but would look at it on a
variance basis if the hardship findings could be met.
Vice President Cook noted that she was troubled with respect to parking, which had been
the subject of much discussion. She did not believe this would be a unique as people
wanted to build up or down, and thanked the applicant for his candor regarding his plans.
She was not sure this plan would work as a variance, as it may be possible that it would
be a common request in this neighborhood.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there would be an exterior ground level
door. Mr. Ekstein replied that had been removed from the plan. She noted that this house
was somewhat of a blank slate, and suggested that the interior stairway be placed
elsewhere in the house to accommodate parking and still retain the historic character of
the house.
President Lynch noted that the front yard-parking scheme was not consistent with City
policy, and if it were, this would be a conforming use.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether it was staff's position to retain
the two parking spaces and relocating the stairwell, Mr. Thomas replied that was correct.
Mr. Ekstein replied that moving the stairwell would probably end the remodeling efforts
of this home. He noted that there were other alternatives to this question, but they would
be very costly. He noted that many residents in the neighborhood would not be able to
park two cars in the garage.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,9,"President Lynch suggested that a design that would conform to City guidelines would be
the most desirable outcome. He suggested that the Board either deny the application or
continue it in order to allow the applicant to redesign it.
Board member Cunningham believed there were many issues embedded in this
application, including improvement of smaller homes, parking in the first 20 feet of the
front yard, and the number of required parking spaces. He did not believe the Board
could deviate from that standard.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Ekstein's question whether the City required two
compact cars when a family may have larger cars, President Lynch replied that was not
the case and that the City had a definition of required parking.
Mr. Thomas noted that the applicant's choices were to redesign the interior, add a second
story, to redesign into the backyard to maintain the space, or to pursue a variance.
President Lynch believed it would be difficult to make the findings for a variance, and
believed a redesign would be probably.
Ms. Woodbury wanted to clarify that the applicant before the Board was to making a
parking space determination, not to approve or deny the project.
Board member Cunningham moved to recommend that 23.5 feet is equivalent to two
parking spaces in this condition.
Vice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,10,"9-C. Appointment of an Ad Hoc Committee to work with the Planning and
Building Director on a Housing/Measure A Workshop (CW).
Ms. Woodbury presented the staff report, and summarized the background of the
development of this workshop.
President Lynch noted that 15 speaker slips had been received for this item, and invited a
motion to reduce the speakers' time to three minutes.
Board member Cunningham moved to reduce the speakers' time to three minutes.
Vice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Ani Dimusheva inquired about the impulse behind the Committee idea, and noted
that there had been a lot of discussion surrounding Alameda Point. She was not sure why
the discussion around Measure A needed to be framed, and believed the discussion
should be at the grassroots and community level. She inquired who the interested parties
in this issue were, especially with respect to ABAG and other outside entities. She
inquired whether the role of the committee would be in addition to facilitating public
discussion. She inquired whether a ballot measure would be in the future.
Ms. Diane Coler-Dark noted that the staff report stated that the Board and community
members had expressed a strong desire for a forum on Measure A, and she had not
perceived any strong desire to change Measure A. She inquired how many people had
approached the Planning Board to change it, and recalled the various groups, such as
ARRA, BRAG and the Community Reuse Plan, that had addressed Measure A. She
believed the community goals and standards had been established. She inquired whether
this was a method to get Measure A on the ballot again.
Ms. Susan Battaglia was surprised to hear this committee would be forming to discuss
Measure A, and supported leaving Measure A in place as it stands. She noted that
multiunit buildings had replaced some grand homes, and added that a police position had
been eliminated while the cost of getting Measure A on the ballot was $150,000. She
noted that speed limits in Alameda were being violated constantly, and that parking was
scarce in both commercial and residential neighborhoods. She did not believe that new
residents would use public transit, and that the streets would become congested with
more multifamily housing.
Christopher Buckley believed this was an expansion of the scope of the much of the
previous Measure A discussions, and supposed that it was part of the Housing Element
discussion with respect to constraints. He noted that AAPS has not had time to review
this proposal in detail, and to provide a formal response. He believed that AAPS would
probably oppose a wholesale amendment of Measure A throughout Alameda.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,11,"Ms. Helen Sause commended the Planning Board on initiating this committee, and was
dismayed that previous speakers seemed to have assumed a foregone conclusion. She
noted that the Homes organization was only interested in modifying Measure A for
Alameda Point, and emphasized that they did not intend to destroy Measure A throughout
the City.
Mr. Scott Brady believed the framework for this discussion had been laid in staff's
development of an Alameda Point Measure A compliant and non-Measure A compliant
plan. He did not believe that staff should create contingencies not in accordance with the
City Charter. He believed that discussion of Measure A, which was a citizen-driven
amendment, should be citizen-driven, not staff-driven. He noted that it was not only
about housing and saving old homes - it was also about limiting density, abating
increasing traffic congestion and controlling development that was designed by
developers contrary to public input.
Mr. Jim Sweeney expressed concern about the possibility of mischief regarding Measure
A, and believed it would skew the purpose of the Planning Board's role as a unit. He
noted that the subcommittee would function as an advocate, not an adjudicator. He did
not believe there was an imperative to further study Measure A, and believed it had been
done. He believed the citizens had to be an important part of this discussion, and wanted
to retain impartiality and clarity in this discussion.
Mrs. Jean Sweeney provided a history of how ABAG obtained its housing numbers. She
did not see a major plan to solve the traffic problem at Alameda Point, and was very
concerned about the toxic materials in that area. She noted that the Navy would not
address the PAHs or marsh crust on that site. She believed the traffic problem should be
solved before any more houses were planned, and she did not believe that Measure A
needed to be studied any further.
Ms. Dorothy Freeman believed that reexamining Measure A was a citizen item, not a
staff item. She cited a study that concluded that increased density provided only a short-
term benefit. She believed that the long-term effects of increased density should be
studied further before implementing higher density in Alameda.
Ms. Barbara Kerr did not believe that a Measure A forum was necessary because it had
already been voted on. She did not believe that it should be overturned in order to meet a
bureaucratic deadline. She recalled the 1980 Housing Element had been badly written,
and that it was subsequently rewritten by citizens on a committee that she chaired. She
noted that was the last Housing Element that had been approved by the State. She noted
that friends of the developers could get signatures for a ballot measure to overturn
Measure A. She believed that until Alameda had more bridges and tubes, that Measure A
should not be discussed further.
Ms. Denise Brady concurred with Ms. Kerr's comments, and believed that if the citizens
of Alameda wanted to overturn Measure A, they could bring it to the ballot box. She
noted that when Mayor Johnson ran for reelection, she prominently displayed her support
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,12,"for Measure A. Ms. Brady believed that the Mayor's reelection was an indication of
Alameda's support for Measure A.
Ms. Selina Faulhaber noted that the current issue was not preserving older homes or
building many units at Harbor Bay Isle. She believed the issue was to look at 2008 and
beyond, and supported a frank discussion of Measure A. She supported the Planning
Board's decision to look at this issue, and noted that the public's opinion would be
sought.
Mr. David Howard believed that if this committee were to be formed, it should be
comprised of members of the public, held in open session in Council Chambers to be
televised and videotaped. He did not believe this committee should operate behind closed
doors to discuss such a controversial issue.
Ms. Diane Lichtenstein noted that the purpose was not to discuss whether Measure A
should exist or not, but that a subcommittee would be formed. She was surprised at some
of the interpretations of the staff report, and believed the Planning Board had the right to
determine who would be on the subcommittee. She was surprised at the fears expressed
that the committee would be held behind closed doors, and that the public would not be
allowed to attend. She noted that a public forum would be open to the public by its
definition. She supported this subcommittee.
Mr. David Kirwin was surprised at the doggedness of what he believed to be friends of
developers pushing to repeal Measure A. He noted that one of the reasons Alameda was
so special was because its density was protected. He was concerned about the framing of
the issue and the direction of the workshop. He believed that all of the effects of density
should be discussed outside of traffic; he believed that increased crime, social costs and
use of City funds should be discussed as well. He noted that access, egress and parking
at shopping centers and schools should be addressed as well, and believed the City should
also have an exit strategy. He did not believe the City could support much more
infrastructure.
Mr. Lil Arnerich believed that Measure A made Alameda the livable community it is, and
hoped that the Planning Board did not have a preconceived notion about it. He did not
believe the dialogue was extraneous, and expressed concern that the Alameda Point-only
focus of Measure A would remain as such. He believed that any change to Measure A
would eventually spread to the rest of the City. He noted that he welcomed new people to
Alameda, and has not heard anyone on the street expressing an interesting in overturning
Measure A. He noted that the Planning Board's mission was to serve the people, and
reiterated the Mayor's support of Measure A prior to the election. He did not want the
Planning Board or staff to front for the developers' interests. He cited several outspoken
opponents to Measure A that had since moved out of the City. He urged the Planning
Board to vote against this item.
Ms. Barbara Thomas noted that the developments that have been criticized by the
residents were approved by Planning staff and previous Planning Boards. She noted that
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,13,"it was possible to have beautifully designed tract homes, and noted that residential homes
generally do not pay for the services they demand. She believed that density did not
generate mass transit, but did generate more congestion and air pollution. She inquired
whether staff had requested the formation of this subcommittee, and inquired whether it
was now staff, rather than City Council, that set policy for the City. She suggested that
any Councilmember who supported it would be open to recall, and believed that support
of this subcommittee may indicate that a new Planning Director may be in order. She
believed that having another police officer on the force was more important than the cost
of this study and subcommittee. She believed the people had spoken already, and
suggested that she and Ms. Kerr be members of the committee instead. She believed this
subcommittee would be a waste of the City's time and resources. She noted Ms.
Sweeney's efforts to get more open space in the City.
Ms. Mercedes Milana wished to remind the Planning Board that Alameda was an island
with a limited number of entrance and exit points, and recalled the days when it took
Navy workers half an hour to exit the Island. She was very concerned about parking
issues, and recalled the previous discussion about people parking on their front yard. She
noted that she had lodged complaints about illegal parking, and believed that if Measure
A were overturned, the parking problems would be worse. She was concerned about the
future desirability of Alameda if Measure A were to be overturned.
Ms. Pat Bail noted that she was the past secretary and chairman of the Keep Measure A
group. She believed the Planning Board's responsibility was to protect current citizens of
Alameda, not future citizens. She noted that the citizens had spoken about their support of
Measure A, and she was very concerned about some Board member opinions that
considered overturning Measure A. She was concerned that the City would not be able to
accommodate children in parks and sports field if many more families moved in to
Alameda.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Lynch called for a three-minute break.
Board member Cunningham noted that based on public input, he supposed that the
Measure A forum should be used to tighten Measure A up. He emphasized that he would
come to those discussions with an open mind and without preconceived notions. He
believed that with limited resources, Alamedans owe it to themselves to study how best
to use them. He encouraged open discussion as much as possible, and believed the ideas
and comments should be collected and synthesized as much as possible. He did not
believe it was a good idea to remain stuck in the same rut to address the land use
challenges.
Vice President Cook would like to apologize to staff for pushing them to the point of
putting this item on the agenda. She had felt frustrated within the last year to put this
discussion on the agenda, and now understood why staff had been reluctant to do SO. She
believed that staff had taken great personal abuse over this issue, and did not believe it
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,14,"was right. She had heard people speak passionately on both sides of the Measure A issue,
and believed that some people had misconceptions on what Measure A actually meant.
She noted that Measure A could be changed without any greater density, and that more
open space could be created; in addition historic resources could be preserved as well
under Measure A. She believed it was possible to discuss it without it being an all-or-
nothing issue. She noted that there was no attempt to hide this discussion and believed
that a public discussion about the process going forward was important. She noted that
she was a fan of Measure A, appreciated Victorian homes, and would like to see some of
the big stucco buildings on her block disappear. She would like to continue to have this
discussion and see where it progressed.
Board member McNamara noted that she was disillusioned because she believed the
intent of this forum was misconstrued during the public hearing. She believed the intent
was to educate the community and citizens of Alameda about the history, consequences,
legal aspects of Measure A and to put it in context with respect to the current issues. She
noted that the Planning staff had not made a decision, and could not unilaterally change
Measure A. She noted that it was not even stated that staff or the Planning Board wanted
Measure A to change. She believed that having an informed background was essential to
making an informed decision with respect to Measure A.
Board member Kohlstrand echoed the previous comments, and noted that staff did not
initiate this forum. She had advocated for a forum because she did not grow up in
Alameda and did not understand all the history; she wished to help the community as a
whole become well versed in its history and effect on the community going forward. She
believed that such a forum was important because people had wanted to become better
informed as housing and industrial uses evolved over time. She would like to see
Alameda's main island character move to Alameda Point, and would like the general public
to have the opportunity to learn about the measure and comment on it as Alameda continues
to change.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was able to attend the League of California
Cities Planning Institute in San Diego the previous week, and that Ms. Woodbury had
attended several programs together. She had attended an interesting workshop on how to
configure commercial and residential density in nontraditional ways. She encouraged the
public to attend the workshop at Mastick Center on March 29, which would include one of
the speakers she heard in San Diego. She acknowledged that density was a hot-button word,
and noted that there was more common ground than people may think. She noted that she
grew up in an apartment on Pearl Street in Alameda. She noted that the building had a big
backyard, and added that it would not be Measure A-compliant. She believed that many
conclusions had been drawn from a very brief staff memo, and wished to assure the public
that decisions would not be made in a back room by staff and an ad hoc committee. She
noted that the purpose was to bring this public and important issue into a public arena. She
noted that to have a public discussion, people may not feel intimidated and attacked; she did
not believe that approaching the people involved with such vehemence and personal attacks
were an appropriate approach. She urged people to have an open mind, and noted that no
one had all the answers. She believed that if the public's perception of Measure A was clear
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,15,"and strong, there was no threat in undertaking the discussion. She added that looking at
different facets of Measure A did not mean that Victorians would be torn down. She noted
that areas such as Alameda Point, the Boatworks and Alameda Landing that were coming up
for development. She believed that people should be able to discuss the issue freely, and she
believed that a better-informed decision would result. She noted that it may be possible to
develop more open space and parks, and added that the discussion was a way to do the best
for the community.
Board member Mariani noted that she had not pushed for any forums with respect to
Measure A, nor had she advocated for it. She recalled asking City Council for guidance on
this issue, and suggested that occur again. She believed the presentation by Woody Minor
would be very informative. She noted that Ms. Woodbury placed this item on the agenda at
the request of some Board members, and added that Alamedans were very protective of
their community. She did not believe it was their intent to behave in a threatening or
intimidating manner. She noted that there had been numerous discussions of Measure A in
the past, and did not feel comfortable advocating for or against it.
President Lynch asked that the individuals in the room speak with those who had since left,
and noted that it was unfortunate that this issue seems to have been mischaracterized He
had yet to hear any Board member advocate for more density at any time, to which many
speakers had referred; he wished to emphasize that was not the case. He noted that as part of
the land use determination, this Board examined the design elements on Alameda Point. He
noted that the desires of various groups in the community must be incorporated into these
plans. He noted that the design questions addressed how various actions would be taken if
the City so chose, and what they would look like, given Measure A. He noted that did not
mean it must necessarily be done. He emphasized that there had been no advocacy on the
Planning Board to repeal Measure A, and added that it may be strengthened. He noted that it
was strictly an educational exercise.
Board member Cunningham noted that the Planning Board was fairly impartial about this
issue, and supported having several Board members, as well as members of the public on
the Committee.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that the Mayor appoint several people to join the
committee.
Board member Mariani believed that the Planning Board should run this appointment by the
City Council, and inquired who authorized it.
President Lynch noted that this was not a policy issue, and that others had interpreted it as
an educational presentation.
Board member Mariani proposed that the Planning Board invite people to make
presentations on Measure A.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,16,"Vice President Cook wanted to know what the constraints on this the Board's discussion
would be.
Board member Cunningham noted that this would be an informative presentation because
Measure A was currently in force.
Board member Kohlstrand understood that this was an emotional and heated issue, and
relied on staff for guidance with respect to procedure. She did not recall similar instances
where the Planning Board was required to ask City Council for permission to act on an
agendized item.
Ms. Woodbury clarified that this was a policy issue, and City Council dealt with policy
issues. She added that when staff analyzed projects, it was under the auspices of existing
policy and that Measure A was in the charter; neither staff nor the Planning Board could
change that. She noted that staff had a finite amount of resources in the form of time, staff
and money. She advised that adding more to the work program would further stretch the
resources, which was a significant issue.
Board member Kohlstrand noted that it had been a challenge to have the joint meeting with
City Council, and noted that would be helpful in this instance. Ms. Woodbury noted that the
City Clerk was still looking at calendars to arrange a joint meeting.
President Lynch inquired whether the ad hoc committee could recommend a workshop. Ms.
Woodbury noted that would be possible.
Board member Cunningham noted that the Planning Board had been approached by
members of the public for some time, and believed that providing an open forum would be
the best approach. He did not believe the City Council was the only entity to address
Measure A, and recalled a Measure A forum at Kaufmann Auditorium approximately six
years ago.
Mr. Thomas suggested that a subcommittee of the Planning Board be established and ask it
to return to the Board in one month at a public meeting in chambers. Logistics for the forum
and proposals for the structure would be presented at that time. At that time, it could be
decided whether to approach Council.
Vice President Cook strongly believed that this discussion should talk place in a developer-
free zone. She disagreed with the characterizations of the Planning Board as being a front for
developers, and noted that she was quite stringent with developers.
Board member Mariani inquired who had actually requested this subcommittee, and added
that she had seen the same few people asking for noncompliant Measure A alternative. She
emphasized that she had never heard that herself, and did not request it herself.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,17,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the League of Women Voters was a well-regarded
group locally and statewide, and that they had come before the Planning Board on more than
one occasion.
President Lynch invited volunteers to identify themselves to serve on the subcommittee.
Vice President Cook and Board members Kohlstrand and Ezzy Ashcraft volunteered.
Board member Cunningham moved to nominate Vice President Cook and Board members
Kohlstrand and Ezzy Ashcraft to serve on the subcommittee.
Vice President Cook proposed an amendment that the subcommittee return to the
Planning Board with a recommendation and further definition of the committee's scope
after one month.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote - 6. No: Mariani.
Board member Mariani left the meeting prior to Item 9-A.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 17
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,18,"9-A.
Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment and Citywide Child Care
Policies GPA 07-0002 and Final Environmental Impact Report - Applicant:
City of Alameda (AT). The proposed General Plan Amendment would amend
the City of Alameda General Plan to better guide future development in the
Northern Waterfront area to promote and facilitate redevelopment of the area with
a mix of uses that would include residential, commercial, office, maritime, and
open space. The Child Care Policies will guide future decisions regarding the
provision of childcare facilities throughout the City. The Northern Waterfront
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. These districts include 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). The
Child Care Policies began development in 2001 by the City of Alameda Social
Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) and the recommended policies have
been in public circulation since 2003. An Environmental Impact Report has been
prepared for the General Plan Amendment. The Planning Board will make a
recommendation to City Council for final action. (Continued from the meeting
of February 26, 2007.)
Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report. Staff recommended that the Planning Board
adopt the resolution attached to the staff report, which recommends that City Council
certify the final Environmental Impact Report for this project and adopt the Northern
Waterfront General Plan Amendment and Citywide Child Care Policies.
President Lynch advised that six speaker slips had been received.
Member McNamara moved to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote - 6. Absent: Mariani.
The public hearing was opened.
Christopher Buckley noted that he had sent a letter to the Board members on February 22,
and suggested that a height limit between 33 and 50 feet be considered, and that a height
limit Citywide be considered. He believed that a 100 foot height limit was too tall, and
suggested a height limit so the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance would clarify that
issue for developers. If the Board was disinclined at this time, he suggested adding a
follow-up direction to study height limits after adoption of the General Plan Amendment.
He noted that this had previously been done, when lowering the 100 foot height limit
along Park and Webster Streets had been implemented in the 1991 General Plan, leading
to a zoning amendments that reduced that height. He noted that height limits might
Planning Board Minutes
Page 18
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,19,"include decorative towers, which would be included as an exception. With regard to the
Clement Avenue truck route, he suggested that there be restrictions on residential
development along that route. He noted that Mr. Thomas suggested traffic calming
measures to address pedestrian and bicycle traffic. He suggested traffic mitigations along
Clement if the Board was not inclined to reduce residential along that truck route.
Mr. Joseph Woodard, Estuary Park Action Committee, noted that the park had been
promised for a long time in the site where the Boatworks is being considered. He was
very concerned about the possible loss of that park. He was very concerned that the City
might be overtaken by developers, and noted that the City of Livermore had a developer
fee program that had resulted in a very attractive downtown.
Ms. Barbara Kerr, President, Northside Association, noted that a lot of lip service had
been given to the supply of moderate income housing. She noted that the area between
Constitution and Park had a large supply of moderate income housing, and believed that
neighborhood should be preserved. She believed that it was directly contrary to
established City policy to considered those neighborhoods disposable, and that they could
be destroyed by excessive traffic, bad planning by allowing high buildings on the edge of
the neighborhoods. She requested that the Board recognize the need to safeguard the
North Waterfront neighborhoods, which were valuable to the City for the moderate-
income housing. She wanted to retain Alameda's small-town feeling and its respect for
history.
Mr. Peter Wang noted that he had attended the February 26 meeting, and hoped the
Planning Board would process this amendment to the General Plan. He supported this
item, and believed that it was Measure A compatible. He noted that he had performed a
traffic study, which found that there were 4.3 truck trips per day. He believed the 100-
foot height limit throughout the City should be preserved. He noted that they had hired a
new architect to provide more input, and urged the Planning Board to approve this item.
Mr. David Day, Warmington Homes, spoke in support of this amendment and zoning
changes, which he believed would clean up the area and improve the neighborhood, as well
as improve access to the waterfront.
Mr. Stuart Rickard inquired how Item 10, removing the truck route designation from the
Park Street Bridge affected other routes into and out of Alameda. He believed that any
possible sea level rise should be an island-wide issue. He noted that they had building
heights at the advisory committee, and that a tall building with surrounding open space
had been proposed; they had preferred a lower rise building. He noted that with respect to
the visibility of the West End of Del Monte, Clement Avenue had a big triangle at the
northwest corner of the Del Monte building that is now hidden by a shed. He hoped that
would be visible to the neighborhood.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether he agreed with 10.8.b, Mr. Rickard
replied that he disagreed with the step-down concept.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 19
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,20,"Mr. Lil Arnerich drew an analogy by noting that he had played professional baseball for
many years, and that while they played hard and to win, they were able to gather for a
beer afterwards. He noted that with respect to a prior issue of Measure A, he wanted to
reassure that he would never bear a grudge toward any Board member and would enjoy
that beer afterwards whether Measure A was lost or not. He has known Mr. Wang for
over 25 years as a conscientious member of the community, and who had contributed
heavily to the city in many ways. He believed it was time to approve this benefit to the
Northern Waterfront, which had been developed by world-class and prestigious
architectural firms. He was concerned that these delays were costing Mr. Wang a
considerable amount of money, and urged the Planning Board to approve this item. He
complimented the Planning staff, particularly Ms. Woodbury and Mr. Thomas, for their
time and courtesy extended to him when he requested information.
Ms. Dorothy Freeman believed that Attachment B, Item 8, should more precisely define
impact fees.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote - 6. Absent: Mariani.
Vice President Cook wished to add language at the end of the sentence of 10.3.b: ""creates
a lively waterfront and pedestrian-friendly environment both day and night.""
Vice President Cook found that sometimes a longer list of uses is listed, and inquired
whether a more consistent list of uses could be used. Mr. Thomas replied that this section
had been rewritten after the Planning Board had looked at the detailed table, and
determined that it was too detailed for the General Plan. He noted that there was a fair
amount of discussion at the Advisory Committee, and noted that the intent of the
Advisory Committee was that there could be a mix of uses or a single use. The phrase ""a
mix of"" was stricken because that implied that a mix was required.
President Lynch suggested that be added.
Vice President Cook inquired whether it would be possible to add a tavern to activate the
green. Mr. Thomas noted that the intent was to keep it medium-density residential, and
that staff would consider that suggestion during any rezoning discussion.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it was directly across from the Del Monte site,
which would allow a mix of uses. She noted that was not that far away.
Board member Kohlstrand was uncomfortable in changing the land uses at this time after
the extensive work and discussion.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 20
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,21,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the property identification at the top of page 3
should be placed at the beginning of the paragraph at the bottom of page 2.
Vice President Cook noted that with respect to 10.3.f, the language should be changed to
.allow for the development of public facilities such as fire stations and public and
private schools.
Board member Cunningham noted that 10.6.b should be changed to read, ""eliminate
reduce-the need for sound walls.""
Vice President Cook suggested that 10.6.d should be change to read, ""provide docking
areas to encourage waterborne transportation."" She noted that there were very few
opportunities to dock a boat at a restaurant such as Chevy's.
Vice President Cook noted that at the end of the sentence on 10.6.e., the following
language should be added: design the street to protect the shoreline experience for the
public
Vice President Cook suggested that in 10.6.1 the following language be added: ""along the
shoreline where feasible"" to try to get the separation between bicyclists and auto traffic.
Board member Cunningham noted that with respect to 10.6.u, whether ""behind"" meant
facing the street or the waterfront. He believed it should be harmonized with the waterfront,
and integrated with landscaping and public access. Mr. Thomas believed the second half of
the sentence worked in that the placement should be carefully considered.
Vice President Cook suggested that on 10.6.b, the following language be added to the end
of the sentence: or key views to the shoreline.""
Board member Kohlstrand suggested that on 10.6.b, it be clarified that it referred to
parked cars, not cars traveling along Clement.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the Marina Village Parkway did a nice job of
screening the cars.
Vice President Cook noted that with respect to the first 10.8.b, she suggested adding the
following language at the end of the sentence: .architectural style that respects
Alameda's unique history and maritime character.'
Board member Cunningham suggested that with respect to the second 10.8.b, relative to
stepping down of buildings to approach the waterfront, include the following language:
""heights to generally step down"" to allow other things to occur.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that with respect to 10.8.e., it should read, ""New
development shall should be designed and new streets shall should be engineered to
reduce sound impacts and eliminate the need for sound walls.""
Planning Board Minutes
Page 21
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,22,"Vice President Cook noted that in 10.8.d should be changed to read, "" required new
buildings to face the street and buildings along the shore to face the water 's edge.'
Board member Kohlstrand did not believe that would be feasible if the buildings faced
both the street and the water.
President Lynch did not believe the word ""required"" would be feasible with respect to
double entrances on all buildings.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether 10.8.h had been relocated to another
section of the document, addressing facades. Mr. Thomas replied that was the case.
President Lynch suggested that section be used to cover the issue, and that 10.8.d be
stricken due to a conflict in language. He suggested that in instances where the new
building did not face the water, that it be oriented to face the street.
Vice President Cook suggested that wherever feasible, that public access on the
waterfront be activated to enhance safety and waterfront access.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft agreed that ""where feasible"" would be an appropriate
phrase in that item.
A discussion of dual waterfront and street access ensued.
Mr. Thomas noted that 10.9.d and 10.9.e, Mr. Thomas noted that those policies were
moved to Attachment B. He noted that the easiest thing to do would be direct staff to put
them in the document.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to include 10.9.d. and 10.9.e in the document
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote - 6. Absent: Mariani.
Board member McNamara moved to extend the meeting to 11:45 p.m.
Vice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote - 6.
Absent: Mariani.
Vice President Cook noted that DM-11 should be changed to read, ""provide allow for a
shoreline public promenade consistent with the requirements of number 24 in Attachment
B.""
Vice President Cook believed that E.2.t. was inadequate in its reference to open space
requirements, and that a word stronger than ""adequate"" be used, such as ""ample"" or
""generous.""
Planning Board Minutes
Page 22
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,23,"Mr. Thomas noted that it would be rezoned MX, and that it would come back to the
Planning Board and City Council.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that under Landscaping at the bottom of page 12, she
would like to see language stating that landscaping within this area would be ""Bay-
friendly"" landscaping, as defined by StopWaste.org. She brought their guidelines in for
the other Board members to read.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the title in Item 24 should be corrected to:
""Adjacent to the Oakland-Alameda Estuary.""
Vice President Cook noted that the pedestrian/bicycle routes should have the amenities
such as racks and plantings outside the minimum width of the right of way.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a map of the truck routes in Alameda was
available.
Vice President Cook noted that on Number 23, the following change should be made:
""consider opportunities to create attractive gateways
""
Vice President Cook noted that on the first 24 should include the following language:
""Provide retail, restaurant and café uses that open out to the shore to activate the shoreline
both night and day where feasible.""
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that in 29 (Child care system), 6.5.d, whether
childcare licensing was done by the State. Mr. Thomas confirmed that was the case, and
that in facilities with fewer than six children, a use permit was necessary and could be
streamlined.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that in the Resolutions, February 24 should be
changed to February 26, and that March 24 should be changed to March 26.
Board member Cunningham moved to recommend to City Council to certifying the
findings of the EIR and approve a General Plan Amendment as noted.
Board member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote - 6. Absent: Mariani.
9-D.
Presentation of Broadway and Jackson Street access improvements to
Interstate 880. No action will be taken on this item.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch, Mr. Thomas advised that the applicant was
unable to remain at the meeting.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to continue this item.
Vice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 6.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 23
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,24,"Absent: Mariani.
Page 24
Planning Board Minutes
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,25,"10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
President Lynch noted that numerous pieces of correspondence had been received, and
requested that the writers confirm their facts before committing them to paper.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee
(Board Member Mariani).
President Lynch advised that Board member Mariani had left the meeting and would
report on this item at the next meeting.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board
Member Kohlstrand).
Board member Kohlstrand noted that no further meetings had been held since her last
report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force
(Board Member Cunningham).
Board member Cunningham noted that the Task Force met the previous Wednesday to
review target values for common emission reductions. He noted that the next meeting
would be held on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 at the Alameda Free Library.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew
Andrew Thomas, Sécretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the April 18, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 25
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf