body,date,page,text,path
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2008-03-24,1,"UNAPPROVED
COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
March 24, 2008
TIME
The meeting convened at 6:40 P.M.
PRESENT
Chair Lord-Hausman, Commissioners Berger, Longley-Cook, and Fort.
ABSENT
Vice-Chair Moore, Commissioners Kirola, Robinson and Kreitz.
MINUTES
The February 25, 2008 minutes were approved with the following corrections: under Oral
Communications, item number two, Commissioner Longley-Cook stated that she attended and
represented the Commission at the Alameda Collaborative for Children, Youth and Families monthly
meeting; and under item number four, there was one grammatical correction.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
There was no written communication.
NEW BUSINESS
1. 2008/09 Paratransit Service (Gail Payne, Public Works):
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator, presented information regarding the annual program
review of the City's Paratransit service. Jackie Krause, Mastick Sr. Center Manager, is working
with PW during this review period. Ms. Payne reviewed the services offered, objectives,
consumer satisfaction survey results, needs identification, planning, marketing and overall
funding processes.
Commissioner Berger asked if there were costs associated with medical return trips, to which
Ms. Payne responded, there is no additional cost.
Commissioner Longley-Cook asked if the taxi service is available to individuals younger than 50
years of age, to which Ms. Payne responded no, as they had just reduced the age limit from 75 to
50 years of age in an effort to increase ridership.
Commissioner Berger asked why out of 100 registrants, only 32 responded to the survey, to
which Ms. Payne replied that these responses are not significantly statistical results and they are
looking at other ways to increase responses with the forthcoming Consumer Survey.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-03-24.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2008-03-24,2,"Commission on Disability Issues
March 24, 2008
Minutes
Page 2 of 5
Chair Lord-Hausman asked how are the surveys being conducted, to which Ms. Payne replied
that (paper) copies are being mailed to homes.
Chair Lord-Hausman asked if taxi company training included sensitivity to the disabled, to which
Ms. Payne responded yes, but it takes time based on cultural and generation issues.
Commissioner Fort asked if there had been any feedback from people with disabilities with guide
dogs, to which Ms. Payne responded it was not a question included in the previous survey, but
will be added within the forthcoming one.
Commissioner Berger asked how many vehicles are there in the program, are the cabs big enough
for motorized scooters and are there any additional charges for these type of items? Ms. Payne
replied that there are approximately six accessible vans and that there is an extra $20.00 charge
for wheelchairs, however the City subsidizes that amount.
Chair Lord-Hausman requested an update in the fall regarding the outcome of the next survey
and number of reported changes.
Ms. Payne thanked the Commission for their input.
2. Presentation Regarding New Accessible For-Sale Unit at Buena Vista Commons
(Dan Lachman, Executive Director, Alameda Development Corporation):
Mr. Dan Lachman discussed the current progress of the new affordable/accessible unit
development. Mr. Lachman stated that the project is under construction and will be finished this
summer. It is a joint venture with Habitat for Humanity East Bay and applicant selection will be
conducted based on a lottery format and all individuals must qualify within the stated mandated
income guidelines.
Commissioner Berger asked if any of the family members must be disabled, to which Mr.
Lachman responded no, but one of the units is ADA accessible. There will be a separate lottery
for that unit and the selected applicant will be required to provide proof of disability.
Chair Lord-Hausman asked if the downstairs bathroom was accessible, to which Mr. Lachman
responded yes, both the upstairs and downstairs bathrooms are equally accessible.
Mr. Lachman requested that the Commission provide suggestions regarding community outreach
and increased awareness of the project.
Chair Lord-Hausman suggested that they check with the Mastick Senior Center, Cardinal Point,
Ministerial Association, publicity journals, fliers and posting of various ads.
G:\Lucretia\CommDisability\Minutes\2008\Minutes_Mar 242008.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-03-24.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2008-03-24,3,"Commission on Disability Issues
March 24, 2008
Minutes
Page 3 of 5
Commissioner Berger suggested they advertise with the AUSD, College of Alameda, Red Cross,
any fraternal organizations, the Food Bank, City channels 15 and 31, PSBA, WABA and
Farmers' Market.
Commissioner Berger asked if City residency is a requirement, to which Mr. Lachman responded
that preference is given to applicants who live or work in the City of Alameda.
Commissioner Berger asked if there are any future housing projects, to which Mr. Lachman
replied it depends on availability of funding and location, as both HUD and the CIC have heavily
subsidized the current project.
Mr. Lachman thanked the Commission for its input.
OLD BUSINESS
1. 2007 CDI Accomplishments (Chair Lord-Hausman):
Chair Lord-Hausman stated that she continues to update the draft list of accomplishments for
future consideration by the Commission.
2. Path Between Crown & Washington Parks (Chair Lord-Hausman):
Chair Lord-Hausman stated the work is not yet complete per Dale Lillard, AR&PD Director, as
they are waiting for the weather to improve. Commissioner Longley-Cook stated that she
observed. That work had not yet begun.
3.
Disability Parking at City Events (Chair Lord-Hausman):
Chair Lord-Hausman stated that during key events, Public Works would provide accessible
space and signs and that number will depend upon the event, as each requirement will be
tailored for the event. There are approximately 15 major City events.
4.
Commission Recruitment (Chair Lord-Hausman):
Chair Lord-Hausman announced that Commissioner Margaret Hakanson has resigned from the
Commission as of February 2008.
Commissioner Berger asked if there was a leave of absence in the by-laws, to which Secretary
Akil replied she would check and get back to the Commission.
G:\LucretialCommDisability\Minutes)2008\Minutes_Mar 24 2008.do",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-03-24.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2008-03-24,4,"Commission on Disability Issues
March 24, 2008
Minutes
Page 4 of 5
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
1. Secretary Akil reminded the Commissioners that the draft ADA Transition Plan would be
presented to the Commission at the April 28, 2008 meeting, which would include discussion
of
the Commission's 2006 ADA recommendations. A printed version of the draft Plan would be
available for review in several City offices prior to the meeting date. More information will be
mailed to the Commission several weeks prior to the April meeting date.
2. Secretary Akil distributed a draft version of the letter prepared by Commissioner Berger, which
addresses State Budget cuts to local agencies that provide preventive healthcare services
currently offered by the County. Chair Lord-Hausman suggested that the letter be addressed to
the Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB) as it is currently reviewing health care
services in the City of Alameda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS
1. Eric Pung and a group of students from San Francisco State University stated they wanted to
shoot a film at Alameda Point about a disabled student. They were notified by Mike Hampen,
PM Realty (representing on behalf of the City), that they would be required to take out a permit
for such a project, which would cost around $1,000.00. Mr. Pung stated that this is not a
professional project, they are a crew between 15 to 20 people and there is no profit involved.
They wanted to know if the CDI could offer any input on how they might proceed in light of the
permit costs and other license agreement fees that would be imposed if filmed at Alameda Point.
Secretary Akil stated that Mr. Hampen's notification was proper, as all requests for use of City
property or facilities at Alameda Point must be conducted by an agreement. Chair Lord-
Hausman suggested they contact Sue Russell with DSD as she is the City staff person in charge
of the Film Commission. The USS Hornet is also an option for the student-group.
2. Commissioner Berger stated that she would like Public Works to require more accessible parking
on Central Avenue between Oak and Walnut Streets for people attending performances at
Kaufman Auditorium. Chair Lord-Hausman stated that the Alameda Civic light Opera (ACLO)
should write a letter to Public Works and the City Council for this request.
3. Commissioner Longley-Cook stated that the accessible button on the doors at City Hall at the
Oak Street entrance is not working. Secretary Akil responded that she would inform the
Maintenance Division of the Public Works Department of this issue.
4. Chair Lord-Hausman stated that there will be an update on the progress of a potential
accessibility web-page to the City's website on the next CDI agenda.
G:\LucretialCommDisability\Minutes(2008\Minutes_Mar 24 2008.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-03-24.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2008-03-24,5,"Commission on Disability Issues
March 24, 2008
Minutes
Page 5 of 5
5. Chair Lord-Hausman stated that the League of Women Voters is sponsoring a ""Meet Your Public
Officials"" event on April 24, 2008, 5:30 to 7:30 P.M. at the Harbor Bay Community Center.
Commission members will receive complimentary tickets in the mail.
6. Chair Lord-Hausman read information from Virendra Patel, Engineer in the Public Works
Department, regarding an email from a visually impaired citizen regarding audible signals. The
Chair indicated that she would request some feedback from PW regarding the citizens concerns.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:15P.M. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, April 28, 2008, at 6:30
P.M. in Room 360 at City Hall.
Lucidia Respectfully skil
submitted.
Lúcretia A. Akil
Commission Secretary
G:\LucretialCommDisability\Minutes\2008\Minutes_Mar 24",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-03-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-03-24,1,"FINAL
Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, March 24, 2008
1.
CONVENE:
7:00 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member McNamara.
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand,
Board
Members Cunningham and McNamara.
Board members Ezzy Ashcraft and Lynch were absent from roll call.
Also present were Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager, Assistant City Attorney
Farimah Faiz, and Zach Seal, Planner I.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of November 13, 2007.
President Cook noted that the first full paragraph of page 6 should be changed to read
""President Cook noted that she generally agreed with the increased height on the
Mervyn's building plan. She expressed concern about the parking garage and its effects
on pedestrian safety."" She noted that a new second-to-last paragraph should be added:
""President Cook agreed with Board member Ezzy Ashcraft that the current crosswalks at
Shoreline do not connect with the sidewalks into South Shore and believed that the
current crosswalks should line up with the crosswalks on the other side.""
President Cook believed the crosswalks were very important, and noted that articles on
South Shore rarely, if ever, mentioned the proposed garage. She believed it was important
for the public to be aware of the proposed parking structure.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member McNamara whether the parking garage was
on the table now that Target was no longer in the picture, Mr. Biggs replied that he would
check on that issue and return to the Board.
Board member Cunningham noted that in the minutes, Board Member McNamara was
indicated as being present and absent at the same time.
President Cook noted that there was not a quorum to vote on the minutes, and that they
would be voted upon at the meeting of April 14, 2008.
b.
Minutes for the meeting of February 11, 2008.
Board member Cunningham noted that page 1, third paragraph from the bottom, should
be changed to read, "" President Cook she was concerned.
""
Page 1 of 8",PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-03-24,2,"Board member Cunningham noted that page 3, the middle paragraph should be changed
to read, ""Board Member Cunningham moved to adopt the minutes of January 28, 2008
December 10, 2007.'
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that on page 9, the vote taken on Marina Village
Parkway indicated that it was a unanimous ""Aye"" vote. She wished to correct the vote to
reflect that she voted against that item.
President Cook noted that page 7, paragraph 2, should be changed to reflect that she had
used some of the day care centers behind Marina Village, and found that people cut
through the area in many different ways, and that it felt very unsafe to drive in that area.
Board Member Lynch arrived during this item.
Board Member Lynch noted that page 4 discussed the MTC dollars, and inquired when it
would be appropriate to discuss that item further.
President Cook suggested that it be discussed under Item 6.
Board Member Cunningham moved to approve the minutes of February 11, 2008, as
amended.
Board Member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes:
0 Absent: 1 (Ezzy Ashcraft). The motion passed.
c.
Minutes for the meeting of February 25, 2008.
Board member Cunningham noted that page 8, in the middle of the page, the phrase ""the
following conditions will be added:"" before the list of conditions.
President Cook requested that these minutes be considered at the next meeting because
she would like to review the audio regarding her concerns about the project. She added
that there were some citizen concerns regarding the project, and she would like her
comments to be fully reflected.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that page 11, paragraph 2, should be changed to read,
""She suggested that a bike lane be added, and cited Portland and Emeryville as examples
of using narrower wide-bioswale treatments in more urban settings, where much less
space was used to provide drainage."" She noted that the point was to narrow it down to
create more space on the roadway for bicycles and pedestrians.
President Cook noted that there was not a quorum to vote on the minutes.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
Page 2 of 8",PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-03-24,3,"6.
PRESENTATIONS:
a.
Resolution of Appreciation for former Board Member Gina Mariani.
President Cook noted that Ms. Mariani was not in attendance but wished to read the
commendation into the record:
""A Resolution of Farewell and Commendation for Gina Mariani""
Whereas, Gina Mariani, was appointed as a member of the Planning Board on November
4, 2003; and
Whereas, Gina Mariani, has also served Alameda as a member of the Oakland Chinatown
Advisory Committee; and
Whereas, Gina Mariani, has earned the respect of her fellow Board members and City
Staff for her clear and consistent contributions to numerous development projects
throughout her tenure; and
Whereas, the Planning Board and City Staff wishes to thank Gina Mariani for her
constant support, experience, expertise, invaluable insight and good humor; and
Whereas, her concern for the welfare of the Citizens of Alameda and the future
development of our City were always apparent when balancing neighborhood issues with
the economic goals of the City.
Therefore be it resolved that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda acknowledges
her valuable contributions to the City of Alameda, and wishes her future happiness and
continued involvement in community issues.
Passed and adopted by the Planning Board of the City of Alameda on the 10th day of
March, 2008.
b.
Staff Communications - Future Agendas
Mr. Biggs provided an update on future agenda items.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand whether the Fernside project
would return to the Planning Board, Mr. Biggs replied that the project had been revised to
eliminate the need for any variances. He noted that it would go to the Historical Advisory
Board, and that staff would update the Board on the progress.
Board member Lynch noted that on page 4 of 13 of the February 11, 2008, Draft
Minutes, the Planning Board received a report from Barbara Hawkins, which identified a
Page 3 of 8",PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-03-24,4,"number of options that would affect traffic throughout Chinatown in Oakland,
particularly how the circulation patterns would affect Oakland and Alameda residents. He
noted that funding was identified, and another public agency stepped forward to provide
funds for the study. He noted that a separate branch of government in Oakland was
moving forward on an entitlement project on the same site that another branch of
government, using public funds. He believed that it was odd that various departments
within the City of Oakland worked at cross-purposes with public funds. He requested a
status report on that situation, what the City of Alameda's role was in that, and whether
Alameda wished to continue moving forward.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
8-A.
PM07-0003 - 717 Paru Street. The applicant is requesting a parcel map to divide
a 92,053.03-square-foot parcel into two parcels. One parcel with an existing
single-family residence would be 17,051.13-square-feet, and the remaining parcel
would be 75,001.9 square feet. The 75,001.9-square foot parcel would contain an
existing cabana, with the majority of the parcel located within the lagoon. The site
is located within an R-1, Single-Family Residential Zoning District (DB).
Recommended for continuance to a future meeting.
President Cook noted that one speaker slip had been received.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Lisa Zenner, 1612 Dayton Avenue, noted that she had been noticed for this item, and
would like to be notified if an item would not be heard. She noted that it had been
continued twice, and she would like to know so she did not show up.
In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara whether the agenda was available
on the City's website, Mr. Biggs confirmed that the Planning Board agendas were available
on the site.
Ms. Zenner requested that she be emailed if an item was continued. Mr. Biggs invited her to
leave her email with staff.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand whether new construction was
proposed, and if not, why there were environmental concerns, Mr. Biggs replied that it was
not. The site was listed as a Historic Resource, and staff felt that appropriate environmental
review was necessary so it did not have significant impact on the resource. Historians and
other experts were being consulted to gather appropriate documentation.
President Cook apologized on behalf of the City that Ms. Zenner had to attend when the
item was continued, and noted that there was not sufficient staff to make those calls.
Page 4 of 8",PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-03-24,5,"Board member Cunningham moved to continue this item to a future meeting.
Vice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes:
0 Absent: 1 (Ezzy Ashcraft). The motion passed.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A. PLN07-0020 - 2243 Santa Clara Avenue. The applicant requests a Major
Design Review and Variance to attach a two-story covered deck. A Variance is
required for this project because both decks will be closer to the rear property line
than permitted by the Zoning code. The property is located within the R-6 )Hotel
Residential) zoning district (ZS).
Mr. Seal presented the staff report. Staff recommended that the Planning Board find that
the project will not cause significant adverse effects to the physical environment, is
Categorically Exempt from environmental review, and approve Major Design Review
and Variance PLN07-0020, with conditions, based on the findings contained in the Draft
Resolution.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Italo Calpestri, project architect, noted that the upper drawings illustrated the existing
conditions, and that the lower drawings illustrated the proposed conditions. He noted that
the two citrus trees had been on the property for many years, and added that the applicant
had taken good care of the strip of land for many years. He noted that the windowless
wall of the Elks Lodge was windowless and painted white, which would provide reflected
sun to the units. He added that the decks were a good amenity for the units.
Mr. Falkner noted that he was a trustee of the Elk's Lodge and spoke in opposition to this
project. They opposed the variance because they believed it would prejudice future plans
for building in the existing Elks parking lot to raze and convert their gym so they could
serve their female membership. The gym was built in 1921, and the lodge was built in
1913. The Lodge itself is very underpowered, and as an electrical engineer, he noted that
they had developed a proposal for an upgrade to the building, including a new entrance.
They did not want to jeopardize the placement of the transformer, which would provide
service to the site. He also wanted to ensure that emergency access would be available in
the future. He did not believe this project would be compatible with the Lodge's future
plans until they were able to undertake future review.
Mr. Ed Hershberg, applicant, noted that this property had been in his family for 20 years,
and added that the tenants in the lower unit, Unit D, have asked him if they could access
the rear yard from their unit to plant a small garden, and enjoy the outdoors. He received
initial positive feedback from Mr. Calpestri. He believed the access to the rear yard
would encourage increased maintenance of the backyard and enable the tenants to enjoy
the back yard. He did not believe this proposed project would negatively impact the Elks
Page 5 of 8",PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-03-24,6,"Lodge, and could not speak to potential impacts to future plans for the Lodge. He noted
that they had been friendly neighbors for 40 years, that his own father had been a
member, and that 25% of their tenants had been Elks as well.
Dr. Healey noted that he is a 47-year member of the Elks Lodge, and that they had been
working hard to increase their membership, and to implement needed improvements. He
understood the Lodge's position, and also understood the applicant's position.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Seal noted that the legal nonconforming use was legal, but could not be expanded.
Without a variance, this would be considered to be an expansion of a legal
nonconforming use, which would not be allowed. He noted that the City did not consider
a deck to be an expansion of a legal nonconforming use if the footprint was the same. It
was considered to be an accessory use to the legal nonconforming use.
In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara whether there had been any effort
to get the two parties together to gain resolution, Mr. Seal replied that there was, in an
effort to reach a compromise, but that was not resolved.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand where the proposed transformer
would be placed, Mr. Falkner replied that it would be in the first handicapped slot going into
the property. The transformer would be approximately four-feet-six-inches. Vice President
Kohlstrand did not believe that was the best location for a transformer, but it was not under
discussion at this time.
President Cook believed there should be a discussion between the Planning Board, APT and
staff regarding view corridors during design reviews and the subsequent placement of
transformers in those view corridors. She was dismayed that the time and care put into those
design reviews was undone by the placement of a transformer. She would like some
guidelines to be developed to address that issue.
Mr. Falkner noted that was the only location available for the transformer.
Board member Cunningham believed the addition of a deck would improve the quality of
life for the tenants. He would like to find a way to make the use more legal, and believed the
addition would impact the density and open space of the use. He believed the property
should be examined in its current state, without considering potential future changes. He
was unable to make the first finding of extraordinary circumstances, and that while the
property was developed in the 1940s, before the AMC was put in place, the circumstances
of the property were not very unique. He noted that a deck did not provide habitable space
by Code, but that it would increase the amount of usable space by the tenants. He could not
support this variance in its current state.
Vice President Kohlstrand expressed concern about equity, and that the four units did not all
have access to the backyard. She noted that by providing access to the backyard for the rear
Page 6 of 8",PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-03-24,7,"two apartments, the open space for the front two apartments was diminished. She believed
this created an inequitable situation.
Board member Lynch noted that several of the issues were not under consideration by the
Planning Board at this point. He noted that the procedural issues of a nonconforming use
were addressed by Board member Cunningham. He believed that zoning and General Plan
processes were a broad-brush effort, as is the nature of a public body. As the zoning texts are
updated, he believed this property fit into the category of a building constructed during an
earlier time period, which was not recognized by the existing zoning codes beyond being a
legal nonconforming use. He hoped this property would be with the applicant's family for
40 more years.
Board member McNamara expressed concern about the citrus tree in the backyard. Mr. Seal
noted that the tree was planted on the Elks property, but that the branches reached over the
applicant's property; the applicant would be able to cut the branches that encroached over
his property, but would not be able to do anything to the tree itself.
Board member McNamara did not support the argument from the applicant that the lighting
would be affected, and believed that the reflection from the building would improve the
lighting.
President Cook agreed with the Board members' comments, and did not consider this
property to be unique. She noted that many larger apartment buildings did not have private
decks, and did not want to enter a slippery slope of the expectation of a deck. She was
concerned that the back yard would be restricted because of private decks.
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt Draft Planning Board Resolution to deny a
Major Design Review and Variance to attach a two-story covered deck. A Variance is
required for this project because both decks will be closer to the rear property line than
permitted by the Zoning code.
Vice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes:
0 Absent: 1 (Ezzy Ashcraft). The motion passed.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
a.
Shinsei Gardens Apartments - 401 Wilver ""Willie"" Stargell Avenue
-
Description of proposed changes to project entrance design (AT).
Mr. Biggs noted that a letter had been provided to the Planning Board, which included
elevations showing the original approval and the revised design of the project.
Page 7 of 8",PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-03-24,8,"11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
President Cook noted that a Preservation Alert from the Alameda Architectural
Preservation Society had been received regarding the charrette and community visioning
for the North of Lincoln area. She believed their comments were very interesting.
President Cook thanked staff for removing the ""non-reports"" from the Board
Communications agenda item.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Biggs, Secretary
City Planning Board
This meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 8 of 8",PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf