body,date,page,text,path
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2008-12-08,1,"APPROVED
COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
December 8, 2008
TIME
The meeting convened at 7:05 P.M.
PRESENT
Chair Lord-Hausman, Vice-Chair Moore, Commissioners Berger, Longley-Cook,
Kirola, Fort and Kreitz.
ABSENT
Commissioner Krongold.
MINUTES
The October 27, 2008 minutes were approved with corrections to Agenda Item Two under Oral
Communications/Non-Agenda Items.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
There was no written communication.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
OLD BUSINESS
1. AB 1234 Mandatory Ethics Training (Secretary Akil):
Secretary Akil distributed information and testing material for the AB 1234 ethics training. The
Commission completed the training and testing. Secretary Akil will submit all of the tests to the
Institute of Local Government for certificates of completion.
2. Commission Disability Internet Webpage (Chair Lord-Hausman/Secretary Akil):
Chair Lord-Hausman informed the Commission that she and Secretary Akil met with the City's
Information Technology Manager and consultant regarding the draft webpage and provided all
of the draft material. Secretary Akil stated that the City's website consultant will prepare the
final drafts and costs to the City for consideration. Funding will be an issue in the coming
months due to the downturn in the economy, so there may be some delay with jumpstarting the
webpage.
Commissioner Berger suggested that the Commission consider a name change in the future to
the Commission on Disability Access.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
There was no staff communication.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-12-08.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2008-12-08,2,"Commission on Disability Issues
December 8,
2008 Minutes
Page 2 of 2
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS
1. Commissioner Berger stated that she contacted both local newspapers to inform them of the
revised meeting start time of the CDI to 7:00 P.M.
2. Chair Lord-Hausman commended Vice-Chair Moore for the tree-planting event and
acknowledged that multiple Council Members and newspapers showed up to share in the event.
3. Chair Lord-Hausman stated that with assistance of Pedestrian Alameda, they successfully had
sidewalks installed at Alameda Towne Centre from Walgreen's to Office Max.
4. Chair Lord-Hausman reminded the Commission that a notice would be included in the next
packet regarding the election of officers, which is required for the annual meeting. Secretary
Akil will send a nomination ballot to each Commissioner, which should be completed prior to
the meeting and handed to her for a tally of the vote during that meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, January 26, 2009 at
7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia A. Akil
Commission Secretary
G:\Lucretia)CommDisability\Minutes/2008\Minutes_Dec 8 2008.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-12-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-12-08,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2008
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
President Kohlstrand called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
FLAG SALUTE:
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft led the flag salute.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
President Kohlstrand, Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft,
Board members Autorino and McNamara.
ABSENT:
Board members Cook, Cunningham and Lynch
STAFF PRESENT:
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services
Manager/Secretary to the Planning Board; Jon Biggs,
Planning Services Manager, Assistant City Attorney
Mohammed Hill, Douglas Vu, Planner III, Althea
Carter, Executive Assistant/Recording Secretary,
Elizabeth Cook and Eric Fonstein, Development
Services Department (DSD), Obaid Khan, Public
Works.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes from the meeting of August 11, 2008. Continued to the meeting of
January 12, 2009.
Minutes from the meeting of October 27, 2008. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft
moved and Board member Autorino seconded the motion to approve the minutes
of October 27, 2008.
The motion passed with the following voice vote - 4, Noes: 0, Absent: 3.
Minutes from the meeting of November 24, 2008 (pending)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Kohlstrand moved Items 8-A and 8-B from Consent to Regular
Agenda.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Written Report
6-A. Future Agendas. Staff presented the report on future agenda items.
6-B. Zoning Administrator Report - Meeting of December 2, 2008. Staff presented the
report on the Zoning Administrator meeting.
Page 1 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-12-08,2,"Oral Report
Del Monte Update - nothing new since the last update.
Alameda Point Update - nothing new since the last update.
President Kohlstrand asked that the items under Oral Report be removed from future
agendas when there is no update from staff.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Anyone may address the Board on a topic not on the agenda under this item by
submitting a speaker's information slip, subject to the 5-minute time limit.
J. Reynolds, representing Earthship.org, advised the Board of a presentation by
this organization scheduled for December 9, 2008, 6 p.m. at the Alameda Free
library. Earthship has been building sustainable homes from recycled materials
worldwide for 40 years. Board members and citizens are encouraged to attend.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or
adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or
explanation is received from the Planning Board or a member of the public by
submitting a speaker slip for that item.
Consent Calendar items moved to Regular Agenda.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A. Adopt 2009 Planning Board Meeting Calendar
President Kohlstrand proposed the meeting scheduled for December 28, 2009 be
canceled. Board member Autorino moved/Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the
motion to adopt the revised 2009 Planning Board meeting calendar canceling the
meeting of December 28, 2009.
The motion passed with the following voice vote - 4, Noes: 0, Absent: 3.
8-B. Reuse Plan Amendment Recommendation. Recommended amendments to
the Community Reuse Plan for the North Housing Parcel. The North Housing
Parcel is located north of Singleton Avenue. The site was declared surplus by the
Navy in November 2007. The property is proposed to be conveyed for public and
private uses. It is anticipated that the existing vacant housing may be demolished
and new market rate and affordable housing, parks, open space, and civic uses
may be constructed consistent with the City of Alameda General Plan.
Continued from November 24, 2008. (DP/EC)
Page 2 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-12-08,3,"In response to an inquiry by President Kohlstrand Development Services Department
(DSD) staff responded that during public discussions three schemes were presented
which would guide the lay out of future housing and new roads. These discussions
produced six overarching guidelines. Most important were the guiding principles
detailed on pages seven through twelve in the proposed amendment to the Community
Reuse Plan. The purpose of the Plan is to provide the Planning Board with guidelines
for the area once a master developer and non-profit are selected for the project.
Board member McNamara referred to the layout on page 12 and asked if this
incorporates all previous direction provided by the Planning Board.
Staff responded that guideline number six (page 12) focuses on connecting the
residential use to other public amenities in the neighborhood. This approach is focused
on pathways to the waterfront for bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as active and
passive access to parks.
Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to the second page of Attachment 2 which states
""Is there an opportunity to increase neighborhood commercial"" she inquired whether the
retail referred to is the Alameda Landing project.
Staff responded affirmative.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the proposed miracle league field referred
to in Attachment 2 page two. She asked if the location for this field is the same as
discussed in phase 3 of Alameda Landing.
Staff responded that a deal for a field between the developer and the Miracle League
had not been finalized. The Miracle League has approached the Recreation and Park
Department about the possibility of another site on the eight acres proposed for Rec
and Park. This is a proposed idea for a potential location and is not the same site
previously proposed to the developer.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to page six of the proposed draft amendment,
which states ""Emphasize sustainable community design"". She would prefer substituting
the word ""employ"" for ""emphasize"". The second sentence in the paragraph states,
""explore green building techniques"". She would prefer to substitute the word ""employ""
for ""explore"". She stated that the same language used on page 15 of the draft
amendment would be applicable in this section.
President Kohlstrand referred to page six, second paragraph, second sentence
""Residential neighborhoods should not be gated"". She wants to add ""or walled"" to this
sentence. In the next paragraph: ""De-emphasize the automobile she referred to the
last sentence: ""Locate higher-density residential uses along or near major transit
lines "" she would prefer this to read ""open space, sidewalks, and trails"". On page 14
policy 2-18 states: ""Improve accessibility via alternative modes of transit by
encouraging. "" She would like ""major arterial corridors"" changed to ""major transit
Page 3 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-12-08,4,"corridors"". She is not supportive of policy 2-20 which discourages driveways on all
major arterials.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated she recognizes the challenges associated with
living on a major street. She envisioned a development similar to Bayport where
driveway access is provided through a back alley.
President Kohlstrand stated she would be comfortable with inserting the word
""minimize"" instead of ""discourage"" the number of driveways.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to a typo on page 14 2-16. Change ""hosing"" to
""housing"".
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to page 15, 2-25. She asked if the term lower
incomes refers to low and very-low incomes.
Staff responded yes.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are two paragraphs referred to as 2-25.
Under 2-25 under Community Design Policies she suggests removing the word
""outstanding"" as it refers to the street tree system. She asked for clarification on
paragraph 2-26.
Staff responded it is included to continue the scale and variety of architectural styles
that exist throughout Alameda.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to page 19, Section 9.0 Implementation Strategy.
She inquired what remediation would take place in areas where the soil has not been
excavated should a future decision be made to remove these buildings.
Staff responded that the developer would work with the regulatory body, the Department
of Toxic Substance Control. If there was a limited demolition a decision may be made to
test the structure and the soil while the demolition occurs with targeted off hauling of
any found contaminants. Another option is to assume two feet of soil would be pulled off
throughout the portions of North housing that were not dealt with previously.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Navy is responsible for clean up of the
groundwater. She asked if the Navy is also responsible for clean up of the soil.
Staff responded negative. The Navy is not responsible for future development costs.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the developer or the city would be
responsible for soil contamination.
Staff responded that costs associated with soil contamination are the responsibility of
the developer.
Page 4 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-12-08,5,"Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft asked if this information would be disclosed to future
homebuyers.
Staff responded affirmative.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to page 21 number 6 and asked how removal of
two feet of soil beneath buildings would occur.
Staff responded that if existing housing were demolished or roads were re-routed,
structural demolition would occur, then two feet of soil would be removed.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft requested that it be made clear in this paragraph that
buildings and hardscape would be demolished and not lifted.
Staff advised the Board that an additional policy on fiscal neutrality would be added to
the Plan.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft moved/Board member McNamara seconded the motion to
approve the recommended amendments to the Community Reuse Plan for the North
Housing Parcel with changes.
The motion passed with the following voice vote - 4, Noes: 0, Absent: 3.
9-A.
Second Unit Ordinance. Proposed amendment to the Alameda Municipal Code
to allow attached or detached secondary housing units to be constructed on sites
with a single-family dwelling. In compliance with State Secondary Housing Unit
law, the proposed ordinance provides for the administrative review and approval
of secondary units meeting the development standards contained in the code.
Continued from November 24, 2008. (JB)
Staff presented the report. Five changes were made to the ordinance since it was last
presented to the Board. The changes were to provide for an aggregate lot coverage.
Staff has recommended 60% aggregate lot coverage, sidewalks, parking spaces and
driveways would be included. A minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet has been
included. The principal place of residence of the building owner shall be either the
principal residence or the second unit on the site. Creation of a second unit shall not
involve any changes to existing street facing walls nor existing floor and roof elevations.
Requirement for parking space for second unit and it must function independently of
other parking spaces on the site. The location of the parking space must meet all
requirements of parking space locations contained in the Alameda Municipal Code
(AMC).
Staff is concerned about defining principal place of residence as well as enforcement of
the requirement that the building owner live in one of the residences. Staff requested
feedback from the Board on the 60% lot coverage. Staff stated that the purpose of the
Page 5 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-12-08,6,"State requiring cities to provide secondary housing unit regulations is to encourage
development of second units. The regulations developed should facilitate rather than
discourage the creation of second units.
Ezzy asked for staff input on info provided by AAPS concerning owner occupancy.
The public hearing was opened:
C. Buckley stated that the ordinance will permit second units by right as long as
standards are met. Neither public review or design review is required. Alameda
Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) suggests using the City of Berkeley's
ordinance as a guideline for incorporating owner occupancy requirement. To avoid
future disputes AAPS would like the Historic Preservation Ordinance cited specifically
within this ordinance. Requests that second units which do not conform to the standards
require design review.
The public hearing was closed.
Staff requested feedback from the Board for the purpose of the owner occupancy
requirement.
President Kohlstrand stated the difficulty of reviewing the second unit ordinance
independently of the housing element. She inquired whether there was a goal of
housing production to be generated as a result of this ordinance.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated the purpose of the City creating the secondary unit
ordinance was to tailor it to meet existing housing criteria.
Board member McNamara inquired whether second units would count towards
affordable housing requirement.
Staff stated that since there is no income limitation on who can rent the units on these
sites it will not count towards the affordable housing goals. The units will count towards
the overall production of housing in Alameda. Based on existing regulations Staff stated
it will be difficult for a property owner to meet the requirements for a second unit given
the restrictions in Alameda. There are not many sites in Alameda that will be able to
provide a second unit in compliance with all the regulations without getting an
exception, for example a use permit.
President Kohlstrand stated there is a concern in the community with protecting the
character and integrity of the residential neighborhoods. She inquired if staff was stating
that the 7,500 square foot minimum lot size along with the 60% lot coverage puts
greater restrictions on an owners' ability to create a second unit.
Staff responded the 60% coverage does not present a major problem but the location of
where the buildings are positioned on the site (near or at the required front yard
Page 6 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-12-08,7,"setback) present obstacles. A second unit would need to be constructed behind the
principal residence requiring a driveway be built to access parking where not enough
room exists to create a driveway.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcrafts asked if there is a requirement that the second unit be
detached or could it be an addition to the principal residence. She referred to California
government statute code number 65852.150 which states in part: second units are a
valuable form of housing in California, second units provide housing for family
members, students, the elderly, in home health care providers, the disabled and others
at below market prices within existing neighborhoods. Homeowners who create second
units benefit from added income and an increased sense of security. She interprets this
to mean there is some financial gain to homeowners who create second units. In the
Los Angeles area the units are used primarily for extended families. She supports the
owner occupied requirement and leans towards using the City of Berkeley's guidelines.
Staff responded there is no requirement that the second unit be detached.
The Assistant City Attorney stated there is statutory law that allows the stipulation that a
unit be owner occupied. There is case law to support both sides. Monitoring and
enforcement are concerns of staff.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft suggests deed restriction be added to account for
monitoring and enforcement of regulation. This ordinance allows homeowners to create
second units which they would otherwise be unable to do. This ordinance is an
advantage to those homeowners and it does not seem unreasonable to require owner
occupancy of one of the units.
The Assistant City Attorney clarified that State law does allow the creation of second
units.
President Kohlstrand asked for Board input on the owner occupancy requirement.
Board member McNamara is comfortable incorporating the City of Berkeley's approach
into the ordinance which provides the owner and the City some flexibility to account for
unexpected situations. The assumption is that if the owner occupies a unit on the
property it will be well maintained which is not necessarily the case. She supports owner
occupancy of one of the units.
Board member Autorino favors Berkeley's ordinance but is concerned that it allows the
owner to be gone for up to three years at a time. There is no restriction on how many
times the owner can be away from the property and there is no mention of what
happens to the property when the owner is away. The assumption is both units can be
rented during this time.
A Board discussion ensued on allowing the owner to be away from the property for a
specified period of time.
Page 7 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-12-08,8,"President Kohlstrand stated that since there are only four Board members in attendance
decisions taken must be unanimous.
Staff prepared a hybrid ordinance containing staff's recommendations as well as those
proposed by AAPS for the Board's consideration.
A Board discussion ensued on the hybrid ordinance presented by Staff.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the easiest enforcement option is to issue citations
for non-compliance.
President Kohlstrand referred to AAPS' request to include language stating that the
second unit ordinance does not preempt the demolition controls in the historic
preservation ordinance and AAPS's reference for clarification to section 9-R of the
revised draft ordinance. If not all requirements of the second unit ordinance are met
design review is required.
Staff clarified that ministerial approval is granted only if all standards in the ordinance
are met. If a use permit is required design review could be permitted.
The Board concurs with the recommendations by AAPS being stated in the ordinance.
President Kohlstrand asked if any member of the Board wanted changes to the
minimum lot size or the 60% lot size requirement. No Board member requested
changes to these aspects of the ordinance.
Board member McNamara stated her hesitation to including specific reasons in the
ordinance for a homeowners absence. She asked what options exist for a homeowner
that has a legitimate reason that is not specifically stated in the ordinance.
Staff stated that only the specific reasons stated in the ordinance would apply without
exception.
Board member McNamara asked if a homeowner in this situation could appeal?
Staff stated a homeowner could appeal the interpretation that their reasons are not
legitimate or apply for a use permit. Staff does not expect the findings could be made to
grant a use permit to allow the homeowner not to live on the site.
Board member McNamara asked if the State's ordinance has a requirement of owner
occupancy.
Staff responded that the State does not require owner occupancy to be an element of
a
city's ordinance nor is it prohibited.
Page 8 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-12-08,9,"Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft is in favor of using the language suggested by Staff
regarding owner occupancy:
President Kohlstrand asked for input from staff on whether specific reasons for an
owners' absence should be stipulated in the ordinance.
Board member McNamara stated the reasons listed, health, family issues, military, are
general enough to cover most possibilities for an owners' absence.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that if specific reasons are not listed the onus is on
the Planning Director to determine whether an owners' absence would be allowed.
President Kohlstrand read the Board's recommendation regarding owner occupancy
""The principal place of residence of the building site owner shall be either the second
unit or the primary unit. If neither unit is owner occupied only one of the units on the site
can be rented. However, an owner may be absent from their principal place of
residence on the site for up to twelve consecutive months. The Planning and Building
Director may grant two twelve month extensions to the initial twelve months at the
request of the owner. Each unit on the site may be rented when the owner is absent
from the site during this time period"".
Board member Autorino moved/Board member McNamara seconded the motion to
recommend the Second Unit Ordinance with changes to the City Council for approval.
The motion passed with the following voice vote - 4, Noes: 0, Absent: 3.
9-B. Design Review and Variance - PLN008-0035 - 1150 Bay Street. The
applicant requests Design Review approval to remodel a single-family residence.
A Variance is required to reconstruct a shed roof over the north facing entrance
of the house, which will extend the existing 3-foot side yard setback to a 2-foot
side yard setback, where a minimum 5-foot side yard setback is required. (DV)
Staff presented the report and stated a correction on the title for this item. The existing
side yard setback is 2 feet not 3 feet as stated in the title.
President Kohlstrand asked based on the correction how the side yard setback is
affected by the proposal.
Staff stated that there is no change to the side yard setback. The existing 2 foot setback
would be maintained. This proposal was presented to the Historical Advisory Board
(HAB). The Board was supportive of the proposal with the exception of the front porch
and requested the applicant return with a modified porch design. The HAB approved the
revised design and granted a Certificate of Approval. Staff is recommending approval of
the proposal.
Page 9 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-12-08,10,"Board member McNamara asked for confirmation from Staff that the existing 2 foot
setback would not change.
Staff confirmed the 2 foot setback will not change.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft asked Staff whether the encroachment into the side year
setback was attributed to the roof.
Staff stated yes the edge of the eave would be two feet away from the property
boundary.
The public hearing was opened.
C. Coombs, spoke on behalf of the applicants. He is their son-in-law. The applicants
have been working with the City for over three years on this project. The project has
been approved by the HAB and endorsed by the former Executive Director of the state
of California Department of Historical Preservation. The variance is not being requested
for the front porch. The variance is being requested to restore several historic elements
that currently exist within the side yard setback.
B. Woolley spoke in opposition to the project. The significant work being done on the
home is an opportunity to eliminate the existing encroachment not preserve it.
R. Ramos spoke in opposition to the proposed encroachment. The existing design does
not provide enough walk space and visitors walk onto his driveway to access this
property. He suggested a smaller porch to eliminate the encroachment issue. Letters
from neighbors in opposition to the proposed setbacks have been provided to the
Board.
J. Wilkins, owner of Custom Kitchens, spoke in support of the project. His company is
working on the remodel and states that the applicant is working hard to restore the
property.
D. Keltner spoke in opposition to the project. She agreed that the proposed home would
be beautiful but she does not feel it is comparable to the size of the lot. She is in
opposition to the proposed encroachment and the size of the porch.
The public hearing was closed.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft disclosed that she visited the property earlier. She stated
the existing brick walkway extends 31/2 feet beyond the front of the house. She asked
staff how far the proposed porch entrance would extend out from the front of the house.
Staff responded that the gabled portion of the proposal would extend from the door
approximately 22 feet. The support columns would be setback four feet from the
property boundary.
Page 10 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-12-08,11,"Board member Autorino clarified the Boards' question as being how much is the front
setback reduced by the new construction.
Staff clarified that the proposed porch would extend seven feet beyond the house and
the stairs would extend 31/2 feet beyond the porch.
President Kohlstrand inquired if the applicant had stated that originally access to the
house was provided by a side entrance and whether the applicant is attempting to
restore this original design. She asked if the new design of the porch is also an attempt
to restore the original design.
C. Coombs replied that they have no direct evidence to the original size of the porch. He
does believe the existing columns are the original columns of the house. His best
evidence that originally there was a side entrance to the home is the design of the other
homes in the neighborhood.
President Kohlstrand stated she would support the setback encroachments to restore
the property to its original design. She inquired whether this could be accomplished
without adding seven feet to the front and extending it forward.
C. Coombs stated the design plans are supported by the Historical Advisory Board. He
supports the design because it provides a covered walkway for the homeowners.
President Kohlstrand asked about a previous speakers' comment that numerous letters
in opposition to the project had been submitted by neighbors. She stated that the Board
did not receive these letters.
Staff responded that letters referenced by the speaker were submitted to the Historical
Advisory Board. No opposition letters were submitted to the Planning Board.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft likes the proposed design. She is concerned that the only
proponents of the project are the applicant's son-in-law and the kitchen contractor. She
questioned whether, with the proposed design, it would be necessary for visitors' to
access the site through the neighbors' property.
In response to a Board inquiry Staff and the applicants' representative clarified the
positioning of the front door and the wall on the proposed design.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to page 5 of the staff report and the reference to
Alameda Municipal Code section 30-5.7. She believes there is more of an impact for a
walled addition as opposed to a porch. She is concerned with the neighbor's objections
to the project.
Board member Autorino stated the design was excellent but he has reservations based
on the neighbor's opposition.
Page 11 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-12-08,12,"Board member McNamara has some concerns but believes the design will enhance the
home and the neighborhood. Her concern is the seven foot porch extension
encroachment on the front yard. She asked if the porch could be scaled back without
running the design intent.
The applicant responded that the seven feet is the minimum depth architecturally for the
front porch.
In response to a Board inquiry, the applicant responded that originally the depth was
closer to eight feet but has been reduced to seven feet. He expressed concern that only
the neighbors who oppose the project are present tonight. He stated that there are
several neighbors who support the project.
President Kohlstrand stated her initial concern about additional encroachment into the
side yard setback but now understands, based on Staff's explanation, that the setback
will be one foot further back than it is now. She has been swayed by the applicant's
desire to restore original design features to the house. She understands the neighbor's
concerns about the extension into the front yard but the Board is not being asked to
make a decision on this aspect of the design. The criteria for this area of the design is
within the code requirement unless the Board has an issue with the design and this
does not appear to be the case.
Board member McNamara stated that the project appears to meet all the findings
required for design review. The applicant has done quite a few revisions to the design to
accommodate the neighbors as well as the desire to restore/retain original architectural
designs.
President Kohlstrand asked if any member of the Board had any issues with any of the
findings stated in the staff report. The Board responded no.
Board member McNamara moved/Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion to
approve the design review and variance for the remodel of the residence at 1150 Bay
Street based upon the findings in the draft resolution.
The motion passed with the following voice vote - 4, Noes: 0, Absent: 3.
9-C. Recommendation to Endorse the Parking Management Plan for the Park
Street and West Alameda Business Districts. The applicant, the City of
Alameda, is requesting that the Planning Board review and endorse a parking
management plan for the Park Street and West Alameda Business Districts. The
parking management plan outlines a series of actions that the City could take in
the future to improve the supply and management of on and off street parking to
support the business areas. (AT/EF)
Eric Fonstein from DSD presented the report. The report is a result of a collaboration
between Development Services, Planning and Building, and Public Works. The two
Page 12 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-12-08,13,"primary goals of the project were to enhance management of existing supply by
discouraging use of on street parking and encouraging use of private and public off
street parking and to lower barriers to private investment in business expansion.
In response to a Board inquiry regarding in lieu fees staff stated the current fee is
approximately $6,000 per space. Staff stated the cost per stall could be organized
around the cost of a parking lot as opposed to a parking structure, which would reduce
the numbers stated in the report.
Staff informed the Board that the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) has
unanimously endorsed the proposed parking plan. The plan will be presented to the
Park Street Business Association (PSBA) in January. The plan will be presented to the
EDC in January since there was not a quorum at the November meeting. The plan will
be presented to the Transportation Commission on Wednesday and to the City Council
in February 2009.
In response to a Board inquiry Staff stated the ordinance for off street parking will be
presented to the Planning Board in January 2009.
No speaker slips were received.
President Kohlstrand stated she was looking for more specifics and would like to review
the parking study more thoroughly. She believes staff is going in the right direction. She
would like to see more specific recommendations on pricing. She stated the burden for
providing parking seemed to be solely on new development and it may be more
equitable to find a strategy where the costs are borne by new as well as existing
businesses through an establishing an assessment district. She likes the idea of shared
parking and would like more detail on this strategy. She was hoping to see more of a
plan on future parking needs/requirements as it relates to land use including a public
parking lot. She would like to see more discussion on how in-lieu fees are used and how
should these monies be expended in the future. She would have liked to hear more
about existing conditions since the new parking garage was opened. She stated there
appears to be more not less of a financial burden on smaller businesses with regards to
the proposed parking in-lieu fee structure.
In response to a Board inquiry Staff stated if a residential neighborhood in a business
district felt impacted by the lack of on street parking it can petition to assess itself to
cover the costs of a parking district. Parking for two hours would be permitted for non-
residents. This is to encourage parking off street in a garage or parking lot. All costs
associated with a residential parking program including enforcement are included in the
program.
Staff is proposing a minimum size of six blocks for a residential parking program. There
are some initial costs the City would absorb for example review of the site and the
study. Some funds in the in-lieu parking fee account may be used for the initial set-up. A
Page 13 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-12-08,14,"majority of the residents must agree to the program. If enacted all residents will be
assessed the fee.
In response to a Board inquiry staff stated the survey referenced in the staff report was
not done to achieve any scientific data, it was used as an additional form of public
outreach. Staffs focus in preparing the report was on creating attractive pricing that
would move employee parking off streets and into parking garages or lots thereby
creating on street parking for residents.
President Kohlstrand stated she was in support of neighborhoods having the option to
create an assessment for a residential parking program.
Staff stated preparing the ordinances is an ongoing project and feedback from the
Board would provide direction to Staff in crafting the ordinances. Staff is looking for
Board direction on the in-lieu fees. In-lieu fees can become a large financial part of a
project. Staff has proposed some waivers. A demand waiver would apply to a business
that can show the demand for parking created by the business is less that what is stated
in the code and the calculation would be based on that number. Required parking could
be provided entirely on site or a combination of on site parking and in-lieu fees would
suffice. To qualify for this option a business must be in close proximity to one of the
garages or on a transit route.
President Kohlstrand inquired whether a traffic engineer is required to prepare the
demand waiver.
Staff responded this was required to ensure standard practices and proper methods are
being followed.
Staff asked for Board input on a historic resource waiver. In the current code if a
building is over ten years old upgrading parking for a new or more intense use is not
required. Staff is proposing, for Park Street and Webster Street, if it is an historic
building and providing parking would require alterations to the building that would affect
its historic character then parking requirements could be waived. Staff discussions
included continuing to require in-lieu fees for these types of projects and provide the
Planning Board with the option to waive in-lieu fees if requiring the fee would make the
project infeasible. Staff is requesting Board input on whether this scenario should also
apply to a business located in a non-historic building.
President Kohlstrand stated that from a land use perspective removing the minimum
requirement altogether makes sense. Not factored in is The design guidelines state that
not to disrupt the continuous frontage on Park and Webster streets. This is not reflected
in the Plan. By eliminating a min parking req is a way to achieve this design guideline
but this approach eliminates funding sources.
Page 14 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-12-08,15,"Staff stated if a waiver is granted a condition of the waiver would require any off street
parking to become communal parking. This would contribute to the pool of shared
parking spaces.
Board member Autorino asked ff a private business has a lot with ten spaces but all of
the spaces are not being used, is the business permitted the option of renting them out.
Staff responded that for employee shared parking the 1,000-foot requirement would not
apply.
A Board discussion ensued on the amount of parking required for a business and
options should not all spaces be needed by the business.
Staff stated that this situation currently exists in some areas of Park Street.
President Kohlstrand would like to move the shared parking program forward starting
with existing parking lots that are not being fully utilized.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft asked whether the Wilbur Smith study included
information on the need for employee parking.
Staff responded that was not part of the scope of the project.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft asked whether the Park Street and Webster Street
Business Associations could survey members to determine need.
Pres Kohlstrand stated she is encouraged that business owners are behind this Plan.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Plan should include strategies that get people
out of their cars. Providing additional parking spaces for City employees on the top floor
of the garage is great but she asked if bicycle lockers would be provided also. She
would like to see spaces in the civic center garage allocated for Zip cars. She asked
that staff plan to provide the Board with an update on the civic center garage usage.
She stated that merchants of a certain size should provide adjacent bicycle parking.
Staff responded that negotiations are ongoing with a company to provide Zip type cars
and Staff plans to use one or two spaces in the garage for this purpose. The City has
received some grant funding for bicycle parking and Staff is planning for bicycle racks at
City Hall and other city buildings as well as at some business locations that requested
bicycle parking. The City of Oakland is allowing bicycle parking at old meter poles.
Staff requested input from the Board on removing the rolling ten in the Park and
Webster districts. Staff also asked the Board to provide input on whether there should
be a distinction on if the building is historic or not.
Page 15 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-12-08,16,"Board member Autorino agreed with President Kohlstrand that businesses of a certain
size should be excluded from the parking requirement. He stated that buildings should
in fact have historic significance and not just ten years old.
A Board discussion ensued on whether a distinction between historic or non-historic is
important, contributions to off street parking and street design, protection of continuous
street façade, fee structure and establishing minimum thresholds, more criteria to apply
for a fee waiver, and eliminating the minimum parking requirement.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to the staff report which states that many
planners are recommending only maximum not minimum parking requirements. This is
a good time for the Board to consider this option.
Staff stated that during discussions with the consultant, based on supply and demand in
Alameda it is a matter of management not supply. The goal is to retain parking in the
Park Street district. There are residential areas in this area suffering spillover.
President Kohlstrand stated there are advocates for changing parking policies
nationwide. Alameda is an older city where much of the older character has been
maintained. If parking is limited, alternatives must be provided.
Staff stated that implementing no minimums removes contributions to the in-lieu fund,
which reduces funding sources.
In response to a Board inquiry staff responded that WABA is supportive of the
recommendations and relaxed on site parking requirements. WABA had no comment on
the minimums.
President Kohlstrand suggested staff get input from PSBA on these issues as currently
there is more of a parking issue in the Park Street district.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated she was interested in new technology for replacing
parking meters. She suggested reconfiguration of parking spaces in the parking lot on
Central near the theatre. The spaces do not accommodate larger SUVs.
Staff will return to the Board at a future date with information on the following: in-lieu
fees and waiver program (size, threshold), parking in the Park Street area since the
garage and statistics on parking in the garage, how are in-lieu fees being generated and
spent, more specifics on Redwood City ordinance, information on options for
establishing assessment districts (commercial parking district), information on a shared
parking clearinghouse, next steps for future parking lots or structures in the North Park
Street and North Webster Street areas, employee parking demand, information on the
survey and how to incorporate facilities for alternative modes (car share, bicycle
racks/lockers),
Page 16 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-12-08,17,"Board member McNamara stated staff should consider alternatives for in-lieu fees other
than parking structures or lots.
President Kohlstrand stated the Board would like to know how much is being generated
from the in-lieu fees.
President Kohlstrand thanked Staff for all the hard work done on the Plan.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft moved/Board member McNamara seconded the motion to
continue this item to the meeting of January 12, 2009.
The motion passed with the following voice vote - 4, Noes: 0, Absent: 3.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement
or make a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a
referral to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to
the body at a subsequent meeting concerning a City matter or, through the chair, direct
staff to
None.
12.
ADJOURNMENT: @ 11:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Biggs, Secretary
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
City Planning Board
This meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 17 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf