{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 1, "text": "COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nJanuary 24, 2005\nPresent: Berger, Bunker, Chair Cooney, Fort, Gwynne, Longley-Cook, McCoy, McGaughey,\nAbsent/Excused: Chadow, McCoy\nGuests: Anne Steiner\n1.\nMINUTES: The minutes of December 6, 2004 where approved with the following\ncorrections: 1) Oral Communications, Item #3 - change \"Commissioner Ed Cooney stated\nthat AC transit buses are not able to align with the bus stop location due to the existing\nmetered parking space.\" to \"Commissioner Ed Cooney stated that AC transit buses are not\nable to align with the bus stop location on Santa Clara Avenue fronting City Hall due to the\nexisting metered parking space.\" and 2) Oral Communications, Item #5 - change\n\"Commissioner Steffens stated that a chair should be provided in the City Clerk's Office\nfront counter area for refuge if needed.\" to \"Commissioner Elaine McCoy stated that a chair\nshould be provided in the City Clerk's Office front counter area for refuge if needed.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\n1. February agenda item - Commissioner Charles Bunker will inform the Commission on the\nstatus of the Disaster Plan.\n2. February agenda item - Commissioner Gina McGaughey would like a status on the Webster\nStreet Renaissance project. It was requested that temporary sidewalk relocations and barrier\nlocations during construction take into consideration the visually impaired. Secretary to\nfollow up.\n3. Commissioner Angela Steffens asked if the City has a policy on sidewalk solicitation policy\nas in one instance it resulted in accessibility problem.\n4. A motion carried that Old Business, Item #1, Election of Vice-Chair be taken out of order.\nOLD BUSINESS:\n1. Election of Vice-Chair: Commissioner James Gwynne was elected Vice-Chair.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nJanuary 24, 2005\nMinutes\nPage 2 of 2\nNEW BUSINESS:\n1. Audible Signal Grant:\nThe secretary informed the Commission that the Public Works Department is applying for a\ngrant application for audible traffic signal equipment and requested the Commissions'\nbacking. A letter supporting the grant application was approved. Commissioner Gina\nMcGaughey expressed her concern that push buttons be located at the curb crosswalk, not\ndistant from the crossing, so as not to impede the visually impaired or wheelchair/walker\nusers. Guest Anne Steiner suggested that the grant application make reference to inter-model\ntransportation. Should the City obtain the grant, the Commission would like to review any\nproposed locations and design.\n2. Committee Bylaw Change:\nA motion failed to change the current bylaw term limits for the Chair and Vice-Chair from\n\"one (1) year term or until successors are appointed\" to \"two (2) consecutive one (1) year\nterms. It was mentioned that officers are elected, not appointed as stated in the bylaws.\nSecretary will follow up.\n3.\nPolicy Research, Writing and Implementation:\nA motion carried to establish a sub-committee to address policy. Sub-committee members\nare Commissioners Ed Cooney, Charles Bunker, James Gwynne, Steve Fort, and Gina\nMcGaughey. The Commission approved a letter from Chair Ed Cooney to Mayor Johnson\non the City's ability to procure accessibility assistance to disabled citizens attending City\nmeetings and hearings (i.e. Braille, speech/hearing impaired interpreters). Secretary\ninformed the Commission that the Public Works staff is meeting with other City staff to\nestablish a plan and would welcome any information from the Commissioners (i.e. Braille\ntranscriber, interpreter contacts).\nOLD BUSINESS:\n2. Alameda Journal Calendar:\nSecretary informed the Commissioners that agenda's are provided to the Alameda Journal.\nA\nCommissioner stated that the City's CATV channel has Room 360 listed for meetings and\nshould be changed to Room 391. Secretary will follow up.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 3, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nJanuary 24, 2005\nMinutes\nPage 3 of 3\n3. Oak Street City Hall Entrance: Secretary informed the Committee that the kick plate door\nopeners at the Oak Street Alameda City Hall door are functioning. A Commissioner stated\nthat the toe kick plate only operates if pressed at a certain location. Secretary will follow up.\n4. City Hall Bus Stop: Secretary informed the Commission that Public Works is continuing to\nresolve the accessibility to the bus stop in front of City Hall (blockage by a metered parking\nspace). A Commissioner stated that the existing bench location might also hinder\naccessibility.\n5. Breakers at Bayport 64-unit development Secretary will provide status on the Breakers\nat Bayport 64-unit development. Secretary has not seen any plans. Will report at February\nmeeting.\n6. Lower Washington Park Parking Accessible Parking Stall: Secretary informed the\nCommission that the addition of a disabled parking stall at lower Washington Park adjacent\nto the dog park will need to go before the Transportation Technical Team (TTT), possible on\nFebruary agenda. Commissioner James Gwynne stated that the existing two disabled spaces\nneed to be restriped to conform to the latest ADA standards. Secretary is aware.\n7. City Clerk's Office Reception Area Seating: The secretary investigated Commissioner\nStephen's observation of the need for a chair in the reception area of the City Clerk's office.\nDue to space limitation in the reception area, at the secretary's request, the Public Works\nMaintenance staff fabricated a sign \"seating available upon request\" which will be displayed\nat the front counter. The Commission found this to be an acceptable solution and suggested\nthat similar signs be placed in other departments where permanent guest seating cannot be\nprovided.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:20p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, February 28th in Room\n391, City Hall.\nSincerely,\nMatthew T. Naclerio\nPublic Works Director\nBy:\nEd Sommerauer\nAssociate Civil Engineer\nES:lc\nG:\\PUBWORKS\\LT\\MCD Disability Committee/2005/0124min.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, January 24, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:06 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nVice President Cook\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand,\nLynch and Piziali.\nBoard members Mariani and McNamara were absent.\nAlso present were Development Review Manager Jerry Cormack, Deputy City Attorney\nJulie Harryman, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Planner II Allen Tai, Barbara\nHawkins, Public Works.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of January 10, 2005.\nMs. Kolhstrand advised that she left after Item 9, not Item 11, as indicated on page 18.\nVice President Cook advised that page 9, paragraph 5, should be changed to read, \"Vice\nPresident Cook noted in San Francisco, the existing piers were left intact and new so that\nnew structures were proposed to could be built independent of the existing piers-it. She\nnoted that the cost of removing the old buildings were structures was high.\"\nVice President Cook advised that page 10, paragraph 11, should be changed to read,\n\"Vice President Cook would like a better understanding of the height of the proposed\nproject in relation to the Extended Stay America building to the west and the office\nbuilding to the east, as well as to the buildings located across the Estuary.\"\nM/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of January\n10, 2005, as amended.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nMr. Mark Irons, 835 Oak, noted that because of family time issues, he may not be able to\nspeak about Item 8-b and may submit a written comment. He noted that he was a strong\nproponent of work/live. He believed that the current ordinance may be improved, but\nnoted that the risk of a ballot initiative was having no ordinance at all.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 2, "text": "7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A.\nTM04-0005 SRM Associates Harbor Bay Parkway (MG). Applicant requests\napproval of Tentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels in to nine\nparcels. The parcels are located within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are\nzoned C-M-PD. Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development District.\n(Applicant is requesting a continuance to the February 14, 2005 meeting.)\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board of February\n14, 2005.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 3, "text": "7-B.\nDR04-0111/V04-0020, 836 Oak Street, Applicant: Richard Vaterlaus for\nMichael Rich (AT). The proposal is a request for Major Design Review to\nlegalize the unauthorized raising of a single-family residence one foot to create\nhabitable space in the basement. The building height was increased from\napproximately 23'-0\" to 24'-0\", where 35'-0\" is the maximum permitted height.\nThe construction also requires a variance to AMC Subsection 30-5.7(e) to allow a\nrear staircase to extend 7'-6\" into the required rear yard, where the maximum\nencroachment permitted is 6'-0\". The project site is located within an R-4,\nNeighborhood Residential District.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution PB-05-04 to\napprove a request for Major Design Review to legalize the unauthorized raising of a\nsingle-family residence one foot to create habitable space in the basement. The building\nheight was increased from approximately 23'-0\" to 24'-0\", where 35'-0\" is the maximum\npermitted height. The construction also requires a variance to AMC Subsection 30-5.7(e)\nto allow a rear staircase to extend 7'-6\" into the required rear yard, where the maximum\nencroachment permitted is 6'-0\".\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 4, "text": "7-C. UP01-0022/DR01-0089: American Tower Corporation. Washington Park,\n740 Central Avenue (DV). Renewal of expired Use Permit and Major Design\nReview for 90 foot tall painted metal monopole communications tower in place of\nan existing 47 foot tall light pole along the upper baseball diamond left field fence\nat Washington Park. Associated ground equipment would be placed in a building\nof up to 825 square feet with screen-fenced ground equipment. A Use Permit is\nrequired by AMC Sections 30-4.1(c)(1) and (2) for any structure and above\nground utility installation in the O Open Space Zoning District. (Applicant is\nrequesting a continuance to the February 14, 2005 meeting.)\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board of February\n14, 2005.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 5, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\nPD04-0004/DR04-0113, 433 Buena Vista Avenue, Applicant: Alameda\nMultifamily Ventures, LLC (AT). The applicant requests a second Study\nSession before the Planning Board to review a proposal for the construction of a\ntwo-story 6,000 square foot community building, four 16-car garages, fa\u00e7ade\nchanges to existing apartment buildings, and other improvements at the Harbor\nIsland Apartments site. The site is located at 433 Buena Vista Avenue, within an\nR-4 PD, Neighborhood Residential Planned Development District.\nMr. Tai summarized the staff report.\nMr. Chris Auxier, project manager, Alameda Multifamily Ventures, distributed additional\ninformation that was not included in the first set of drawings. He noted that they had tried\nto be responsive to the feedback received by the Board and the public.\nMr. Shaun Alexander, Axis Architecture, project architect, displayed a PowerPoint\npresentation that detailed the project overview, improvement of the property's physical\nappearance, the pedestrian experience, residential amenities, public safeties, on-site\nparking, and transparency with the community. He noted that the existing site limitations\nwere considerable, and that while was not much room to expand the parking facilities,\nthey could create a more pleasant environment around the buildings for the residents. He\nnoted that the interior common hallways, bathrooms and kitchens would be redone, and\nthat the landscaping would be upgraded and transformed. The carports would be\neliminated except for certain sections along the East of the property, and the parking\nwould be restriped to meet current standards. A new clubhouse, and four garage buildings\nwould be constructed; trash enclosures would be upgraded.\nMr. Alexander noted that new lower fences would be installed around the ground floor\npatios to provide greater transparency. Because of the proximity to the adjacent street,\nsome units would feature a more solid fence look. Additional landscaping would buffer\nall the buildings, and a substantial number of the trees would be added. A large amount of\nconcrete would be removed in the walkways and plaza space that the applicants\nconsidered to be unnecessary. Alternative designs addressing the height and style of the\ntower element were presented; the size of the tower would be reduced, and the\narchitecture would be simplified. They considered the gable form to be most consistent\nwith Alameda's existing architecture features and Craftsman detail in town; however, a\nhip roof design was also presented to address the Mediterranean style elements in\nAlameda. Another roof form would be added to the tower to the west, previously shown\nto the Board as a flat roof.\nMr. Alexander displayed the center part of the site, which they considered to be very\nimportant to the project. A tot lot was proposed directly north of the clubhouse, and a\nchild's play area would be placed to the south of the clubhouse. A group picnic area\nwould be placed at the east side of the pool, with a play lawn and volleyball court\nadjacent to that. Each quadrant of the property would have its own minipark, off the main\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 6, "text": "spine of activity. The resident activities would take place on the lower floor of the\nclubhouse for the tenants' convenience. The plans were changed to eliminate the office\narea, and to include a coffee area. The 2nd level patio of the community center was\nexpanded after one set of stairs was eliminated and a new terrace is proposed as\na\ntransition spaces between the community center and swimming pool. He noted that the\ngoal of the landscape plan was to create a greener environment on the site, to beautify the\nproperty with increased foliage, and to reduce concrete paving between the buildings.\nMr. Alexander noted that the carports would be removed, as well as some of the\nperimeter fencing to open up the property. He noted that the fence along Appezzato\nParkway would be made more pleasant, with increased connections to the neighborhood.\nAdditional parking spaces, trees and security lighting would be placed in the parking lots.\nHe noted that they worked with Carol Beaver and Michael Smiley to better understand\nthe West Alameda Neighborhood Improvement Plan; they proposed to include two gates\nalong the Appezzato Parkway fence to allow access to the future greenbelt and other parts\nof the community. He described the new location for the trash enclosure, which would\nnot block other activities on the site and would entail minimal disturbance to the\nresidents. He noted that approximately half of the carports on the east side would be\neliminated. The vaulted roofs on the remaining carports would be removed, which would\nbe replaced by a trellis element for a softer look and a smaller visual impact on the\nadjacent neighborhood. He noted that the main feature of Quadrant 3 was the connection\nto the adjacent neighborhood; the neighborhood plan called for a connection to\nWoodstock Park. For that to occur, the City would need to gain control of 25 feet of the\nexisting Chipman Middle School property.\nMr. Alexander noted that the applicant was concerned about the impact of the Poggi\nStreet/Buena Vista Ave. curb bulb out proposed in the West Alameda Neighborhood\nImprovement Plan on the traffic flow from the site, and would like the City to take that\ninto account as the Plan is studied. He noted that the applicant's goal was to bring new\nlife to an older apartment complex, provide a more attractive design and added amenities\nfor the residents, to increase parking, to upgrade security systems, and to improve site\nsafety for the residents and the City. The project would be more pedestrian-friendly with\nreduced perimeter fencing, more residential design character, increased landscaping, and\nmore responsive to the West Alameda Neighborhood Plan.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThere were no speakers.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMs. Carol Beaver, Community Development Manager, recalled the meeting with Sean\nAlexander and Michael Smiley of BMS Design to discuss the proposed changes to the\nrenovation plan. She was pleased with their willingness to consider the suggested\nchanges. Because the Neighborhood Plan was a conceptual plan, she understood there\nwould be opportunities to discuss specific site plan changes.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 7, "text": "President Cunningham believed that was a counterintuitive practice in a community\nwhere pedestrian access was encouraged.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 8, "text": "In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding an alternative to this practice, Mr.\nAlexander replied that trash enclosures throughout the property would be the alternative.\nMr. Lynch believed that conformity with City Code should be the overriding factor,\nfollowed by design.\nIn response to Vice President Cook's question regarding parking, Mr. Tai confirmed that\nthe site was underparked according to Code. Current parking standards require two\nparking spaces per dwelling unit, and this property would need 1230 spaces, where\napproximately 670 currently exist. The applicants proposed to increase the number of\nparking spaces to approximately 699 spaces by restriping the lots and by using compact\nspaces.\nMs. Barbara Hawkins, Public Works Department, distributed a photo of a trash\ncompactor and the access route. She noted that the new NEPDS requirements called for a\nroof on the trash compactor to accommodate the truck, which would be two stories. The\ncompactor must be operated with a key, which would be a safety issue. The third issue\nwith the compactor is that it did not comply with the City recycling standards. City staff\nmet with ACI to determine the best solution to the trash issue. ACI had performed a\nstudy, finding that people usually took their trash out when they went to their cars, and\nthat placing trash containers near the parking areas was the best practice. In addition, the\ntrash enclosures must be high enough to keep children from playing on them.\nWith respect to circulation, Ms. Kohlstrand believed that the constraints of the existing\nsite must be recognized, and that the applicant was going in the right direction by\nremoving the concrete. She was encouraged to see the connections to Appezzato\nParkway. In response to her question regarding the nature of the breaks in the wall, Chris\nAuxier replied that they would be primarily used by the residents. A discussion of the\nphysical attributes of the fence and the gates ensued.\nIn response to Ms. Kohlstrand's question regarding pedestrian access at Fifth Street and\nBuena Vista, Mr. Auxier replied that was an area where they did not have the intention to\ncreate a public path through the property; it was intended for use by residents.\nVice President Cook noted that there was a broad visual corridor at Fifth Street and\nBuena Vista, especially through the pool area. She was concerned that the proposed\ngarages would impair those visual sightlines.\nPresident Cunningham suggested that the location of the gable ends of the proposed\ngarages may be changed to help direct sightlines in a particular direction.\nArchitectural Design Comments\nPresident Cunningham invited comment on the three design solutions for the stair tower.\nHe concurred with Mr. Alexander that Option 1 would be the preferred scheme.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 9, "text": "Mr. Alexander noted that they could reduce the scale of the entry somewhat, and would\nbe concerned about making it too short, when juxtaposed against the taller buildings.\nCommunity Center Comments\nIn response to Mr. Piziali's question regarding the rest rooms, Mr. Alexander replied that\nthere were two bathrooms to serve the pool, another two on the ground floor, and another\ntwo on the second floor.\nPresident Cunningham noted that a speaker slip was received, and requested a vote to\nreopen the public hearing.\nM/S Lynch/Piziali to reopen the public hearing.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 10, "text": "AYES - 5 (McNamara, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMr. Reginald James noted that he was a former resident of Harbor Island, and noted that\nthe location for the trash enclosure at Fifth and Appezzato Parkway would have to be\nmoved to accommodate the pathway through Fifth. He believed the northeast corner\nwould be a good place for the trash enclosure. He did not know whether the concept of\nvalet trash pickup would be workable. He believed that a recycling location would be a\npositive feature on the site. He supported a reduced amount of fencing. He did not\nsupport a high sound wall on Appezzato Parkway, and was not sure how a low wall\nwould work. He expressed concern about the proposed private walkway. He suggested\nplacing a walkway between Building 11 (rental office) and Building 12, which already\nhad a visual connection from Woodstock on Brush.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook, Mr. Alexander confirmed that the\nground floor restrooms would be available to residents. He added that the Code required\noutdoor showers for by pool users, and they intended to provide that kind of shower.\nSite Amenities\nPresident Cunningham complimented the addition of amenities as requested by the Board\nat the last meeting.\nMr. Alexander noted that the inclusion of amenities in each quadrant was at the\nsuggestion of Reggie James, which he supported.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham, Mr. Tai confirmed that as part of the\nconditions of approval, a landscape maintenance agreement would be required. The\nagreement would specifically require the applicants to maintain the landscaping; any\nneglect would enable the City to improve the landscaping at the applicants' cost.\nMr. Piziali would like to see a condition that all the construction trucks would stay off\nBuena Vista and Fifth Street (because of Longfellow School).\nMr. Tai noted that if the applicants needed a construction trailer, its approval would be\nsubject to a use permit. The operation and functions of the construction trailer would be\nreviewed at that time.\nPresident Cunningham noted that the Board would like an indication of the phasing as\nwell.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding satellite dishes, Mr.\nAlexander noted that FCC requirements call for the building owner to place a satellite\ndish on the roof for resident accessibility, or that the residents must be allowed to place\ndishes on their balconies. They are currently working with a cable consultant (CSI) to\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 11, "text": "negotiate contracts for them, and he added that their current contract was particular\ndifficult.\nMiscellaneous Comments\nMr. Lynch complimented Axis Architecture on its design work, and inquired whether\nthey would have more design flexibility if they started from a clean site. Mr. Auxier\nconfirmed that would be the case, but that it was prohibited by Measure A.\nVice President Cook noted that this site was an important part in creating a community.\nfor the 21st century, and hoped that dialogue about sensible planning can continue in a\nconstructive way.\nMr. Auxier introduced Michael Lee, the on-site construction and project manager, and\nnoted that he would be based locally.\nMr. Lee noted that the Board's comments about density were well-taken, and noted that\nrecent projects he worked on have incorporated the higher density into the designs. He\nnoted that they have used four-story parking garages surrounded by four-story residential\nbuildings, as well as three-story buildings surrounding a courtyard. He noted that it was\npossible to keep the parking garages out of sight, and that there was no need for off-street\nparking. In addition, retail and commercial space could be incorporated as well.\nMr. Lynch believed the remodel should be just as beautiful as the new residences across\nthe street, and that high-quality design elements were very important in getting the\nproject right the first time.\nMr. Lee noted that because the foundations and frames were already in place, this project\nwould be a relatively simple one to manage.\nThe Board comments were noted. No action was taken. A public hearing will be\nscheduled for a future agenda.\nPresident Cunningham called for a ten-minute recess.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 12, "text": "8-B.\nWork/Live Regulations (JA). Review and consider possible modifications of\nSection 30-15 of the Alameda Municipal Code regulating Work Live Studios.\n(Continued from the meeting of January 10, 2005.)\nMs. Altschuler summarized the staff report.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Mark Irons, 835 Oak, noted that he lived in a work/live space in Oakland for 10\nyears, which he enjoyed very much. He expressed concern about placing this complex\nissue on the ballot because of possible misunderstanding of the deeper issues. He noted\nthat any legal issues may delay or indefinitely postpone any work/live spaces. He\nbelieved the current ordinance fell short of its potential, and would like to see it upgraded\nto be more accommodating. He hoped the Board would be slow and methodical in\nconsidering the work/live uses.\nMr. Richard Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, spoke in support of work/live uses with\nqualifications, and noted that he had been an architect for over 25 years. He noted that\nartists and architects were usually the first occupants of a redeveloped neighborhood,\nwhich eventually became upgraded for the use of other white-collar professionals. He\nbelieved that flexibility in planning the larger spaces along the Northern Waterfront and\nAlameda Point was appropriate for the community in the long run. He suggested that\nMeasure A be modified to accommodate a work/live situation within appropriate zones.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMr. Lynch noted that he supported Measure A, and inquired how Measure A and\nwork/live lofts were in conflict. Ms. Altschuler replied that the conflict did not arise so\nmuch from the legal standing, because work/live studios were defined by both the State\nand local ordinances as industrial uses, as opposed to residential uses. She did not believe\nthere was a conflict from a legal standpoint, although she believed the conflict would\narise from the perception that people still live in those spaces. She added that was the\nbasis for the argument against the uses as a Measure A conflict.\nMr. Lynch recalled the opposition to the demolition of Victorians in favor of multifamily\nhousing as being a basis for Measure A. He saw work/live as a reuse of existing\nstructures because the economics of a formerly light industrial/commercial space had\nchanged. He did not believe there was a conflict between work/live uses and Measure A.\nMs. Altschuler noted that there would be considerable resistance to any alteration to\nMeasure A, and that its proponents would not want to risk a slippery slope.\nMr. Lynch suggested that the residential VS. industrial nature of work/live units be\nbrought directly to a judge to define it once and for all.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 13, "text": "Ms. Harryman noted that the current lawsuit was not the first time the City had been sued\non work/live and how it applied to Measure A. She could not communicate the exact\nstatus of the litigation, and noted that it would probably not be the last lawsuit. She\nbelieved that the existence of the two lawsuits (Edward Murphy and Ms. [Kowicki])\nwould probably bring the issue before a judge. She believed that Ms. [Kowicki] could\nbuild, because she had the approval of the City, but because there was pending litigation,\nit would be at her own risk. She did not believe Mr. Murphy had requested a retraining\norder, and believed the judge may be able to overturn the City's approval. She noted that\nMr. Murphy had sued the City on this issue before, and did was not sure whether there\nhad been a clear ruling one way or the other. She noted that previous cases had either\nbeen dismissed, or the parties had come to an agreement.\nPresident Cunningham inquired what the benefit would be of bringing the work/live issue\nto the voters if there was existing case law that would prove the two ordinances were\nworking against each other.\nMs. Harryman noted that there were pros and cons to bringing an issue to the people\nversus before a judge.\nMr. Lynch believed that if a judge invalidated an ordinance, they would provide some\ninstruction regarding the conflicts contained in the ordinance so that it may be rewritten.\nMs. Harryman noted that judges often rule on other grounds, such as procedural grounds\nor standing.\nMr. Piziali believed the ordinance should be left as is, and it may be brought up on a\nballot initiative. He was not interested in changing it at this time.\nMs. Kohlstrand believed the Board was being asked to debate the validity of the\nwork/live ordinance, when the larger question was Measure A. She was unsure whether\npeople were ready to engage in debate on Measure A yet.\nMs. Altschuler noted that the ordinance limits a geographic area, addresses zoning within\nthat area, and then is limited to existing buildings, particularly historic buildings.\nMr. Piziali noted that he would not want to see work/live as new construction; he\nsupported work/live as adaptive reuse, which was the current basis of the ordinance.\nMr. Lynch believed the voters of Alameda will recognize the common-sense purpose of\nthe ordinance.\nMs. Altschuler believed that the Board's consensus was that the current ordinance was\nappropriate. She inquired whether the Board would be interested in addressing the\ngeographic limitation.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 14, "text": "President Cunningham noted that he would like to see work/live branch out to Alameda\nPoint and Park Street. However, he did not want such a step to jeopardize the existence of\nthe ordinance.\nMr. Piziali believed the residents of Alameda would be able to see that work/live uses\nwere controlled, attractive and appropriate.\nVice President Cook believed this ordinance was a baby step toward a discussion of the\nbroader implications of Measure A. She believed this ordinance brought up very\nimportant issues for historic preservation and adaptive reuse at the Base. She did not want\nto see the work/live ordinance put at risk by addressing more complex and overarching\nissues too soon.\nVice President Cook noted that Alameda's citizens had stopped public processes before\nwhen it became apparent that it would be not be beneficial. She believed that Alamedans\nwould exercise the same common sense in this case.\nPresident Cunningham noted that an additional speaker slip had been received.\nM/S Lynch/Cook to reopen the public hearing.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nThe public hearing was reopened.\nMr. Mark Irons, 835 Oak, noted that he was pleased by the Board's discussion, although\nhe did not disagree that work/live could be successfully extended throughout Alameda\nPoint. He understood the delicacy of this issue.\nThe public hearing was closed.\nNo action was taken.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 15, "text": "9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\n10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC.\n(Vice President Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that the next meeting would be hosted by the Planning\nBoard in Council Chambers, so that the Board may be brought up to speed and to televise\nthe meeting. The City Council has voted to disband the APAC at the end of the\ncommunity meeting, and had asked the APAC to pass on the information gathered over\nits lifetime to the appropriate boards. She suggested that a series of meetings be held to\npass that information on, on a topic-by-topic basis. She suggested that the first meeting be\nheld before the first community hearing to discuss regulatory issues, in order to bring the\nBoard up to speed on that information.\nVice President Cook noted that there had been considerable discussion at the first\ncommunity meeting about re-examining Measure A as it relates to Alameda Point. She\nnoted that there was some communication at the second meeting, suggesting that the staff\nshould not consider a non-Measure A alternative. She noted that a possible scenario at the\nBase was being considered that would include some discussion or possible changes to\nMeasure A for the Base. She noted that was a very controversial issue.\nMr. Cormack advised that Andrew Thomas would make that presentation to the Board,\neither on February 14th or 28th, 2005; the 14th was preferable.\nb. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice\nPresident Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that there had been no further meetings since her last report.\nc. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member\nPiziali).\nBoard Member Piziali advised that he had confirmed the continuing existence of the\nCommittee, although the meetings were on hold at this time, possibly due to a funding\nissue.\nd. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member\nMariani).\nBoard Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.\nMs. Kohlstrand inquired whether it would be possible to receive the Board packets earlier\nthan the Friday before the meeting. Mr. Cormack noted that the packet had been delayed\nto receive late information on Harbor Island.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 16, "text": "President Cunningham recalled that there had been a move to post the packet on the website.\nMr. Lynch noted that staff transition had been discussed during the previous meeting, and\nrequested that it be agendized for a future meeting, so that the City Manager be able to take\npart in the discussion. He believed that a discussion within the next month would be most\nbeneficial.\n11.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nMs. Altschuler noted that the continued staffing levels affected the ability to distribute an\nemail packet, and that they were attempting to maintain the same work product with a smaller\nstaff. She noted that statutory requirements such as noticing were the first priority of the staff.\nMs. Altschuler advised that the support staff requested that she discuss the issue of Roberts\nRules of Order as they related to meeting minutes. She noted that the Planning Board minutes\nwere considerably more detailed than what is required, and added that the Council minutes\nwere shorter and did not provide as much information. In order to provide additional time for\nsupport staff to perform other duties, she requested the Board's input regarding more limited\nmeeting minutes. She noted that the meeting was recorded on audio and videotape, and added\nthat lengthy minutes must be reviewed and amended by staff. In addition, there was a\ntremendous amount of paper used in the distribution of the minutes.\nPresident Cunningham believed that for study sessions, that a list of bullet points would be\nsufficient. Routine items would still be well-served by briefer minutes.\nMs. Altschuler noted that more important or controversial items would still need detail\nappropriate to their complexity.\nMs. Kohlstrand supported that suggestion.\nMs. Altschuler noted that if the condensed minutes were not useful, the extended minutes\ncould be reinstated.\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Altschuler confirmed that Building Inspectors\ngenerally dropped the packets off while on their rounds in the field.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n10:27 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJane\nJetry Cormack, Interim Secretary\nCity Planning Department\nThese minutes were approved at the February 14, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This\nmeeting was audio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 16\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}