{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 1, "text": "COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nFebruary 28, 2005\nPresent: Berger, Bunker, Chadow, Chair Cooney, Fort, Gwynne, Longley-Cook, McGaughey,\nAbsent/Excused: McCoy, Steffens\nGuests: Anne Steiner\n1. MINUTES: The minutes of January 24, 2004 where approved with the following\ncorrections: 1) Attendance - change Commissioner McCoy from present to absent, add\nCommissioner Steffens as present, and 2) Oral Communications, Item #1 - change\n\"Commissioner Charles Bunker will inform the Commission on the status of the Disaster\nPlan\" to \"\nDisaster Registry.\"\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\n1. Commissioner Toby Berger shared an article that appeared in the Oakland Tribune that Mark\nBreimhorst had been named the executive director of the World Institute on Disability\n(WID). WID is an Oakland based nonprofit research and public policy center promoting the\ncivil rights and full societal inclusion of people with disabilities. She suggested the\ncommission might want to have Mr. Breimhorst make a presentation.\n2. Commissioner Toby Berger informed the commission on the proposed school parcel tax per\nan article in the Alameda Journal. Currently there is a senior citizen exclusion on the\nexisting parcel tax and would like that there be an exclusion for disabled persons.\n3.\nCommissioner Jody Moore informed the commission that the month of February is Autism\nAwareness Month and that next year the commission or City could recognize this with some\nkind of activity. Commissioner Toby Berger stated that the commission promotes the month\nof October as Disability Awareness Month and that this year 's activities could include\nautism.\n4. Commissioner Gina McGaughey will provide the commission with written copies of\nDisability Rights Advocates open door pamphlet.\n5. Secretary received a note from Mayor Beverly Johnson requesting that a commissioner\nvolunteer to serve on the Alameda County Commission on Aging. Commissioner Adrienne\nLongley-Cook volunteered.\n6. Secretary informed the commission that there will be a groundbreaking ceremony for the\nNew Library and that two temporary disabled parking spaces will be provided.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nFebruary 28,\n2005 Minutes\nPage 2 of 2\nNEW BUSINESS:\n1. Bus Shelter (Buena Vista Avenue fronting Marina Cove):\nChair Ed Cooney and secretary Ed Sommerauer briefed the commission on the new bus\nshelter at Buena Vista Avenue in front of the Marina Cove development (between Paru\nStreet and Ohlone Street). The location was acceptable.\n2. Disaster Registry Program:\nCommissioner Charles Bunker briefed the new members about the disaster registry program.\nCurrently there are 16 disabled citizens registered in the program. Additional participants\nwill be sought through advertising (i.e. Meals on Wheels, AP&T Flash newsletter, etc.).\n3. Webster Street Renaissance Construction Status:\nCommissioners Gina McGaughey and Charles Bunker briefed the commission on their\nmeeting with the City construction inspector and contractor in maintaining sidewalk\naccessibility for the visually impaired and wheelchair/walker users along Webster Street and\nthe side streets during construction of the Webster Street Renaissance project.\nCommissioner Alysa Chadow stated that a guide dog is trained to walk perpendicular across\nthe street and that any sidewalk detouring which is parallel to and within the street pavement\narea creates confusion to the dog. Guest Anne Steiner informed the commission that the\nCity of Berkeley has guidelines for pedestrian detouring. Secretary informed the\ncommission that pedestrian accessibility is required at all times during construction and it is\nthe contractors' responsibility to maintain access to the approval of the City. Secretary will\ncontact Berkeley.\n4. Solicitation Policy:\nIn response to Commissioner Angela Steffens' question at the January meeting \"Does the\nCity have a solicitation policy on distribution of flyers within public sidewalk areas\", the\nsecretary informed the commission that City's Municipal Code Sections 6-2-2 and 6-2-3\nprohibits distribution of handbills and advertising material unless the recipient is asked and\nwilling to accept the handbill.\nOLD BUSINESS:\n1. Policy research, writing and implementation:\n3.\nChair Ed Cooney briefed the commission on the sub-committee's progress in developing\npolicy consideration for procedures and resources on providing alternate auxiliary aids for\nthe visually impaired and/or hearing impaired. The commission viewed limiting aids to the", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 3, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nFebruary 28,\n2005 Minutes\nPage 3 of 3\nvisually impaired and/or hearing impaired as to narrow and that the language should be\nbroadened to cover all areas of disability. A motion carried to disband the sub-committee\nand create a new sub-committee consisting of commissioners Toby Berger, Adrienne\nLongley-Cook, Gina McGauhey and Alysa Chadow. Secretary asked the commissioners if\nthey could assist in updating the City's contact resource list. Commissioner Gina McGauhey\nvolunteered.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, March 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\\0228min.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, February 28, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:08 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMs. McNamara\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,\nMariani, and McNamara.\nBoard member Piziali was absent.\nAlso present were Interim Planning Director Jerry Cormack, Assistant City Attorney David Brandt,\nSupervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Planner III Allen Tai, Leslie Little, Development Services,\nEric Fonstein, Development Services.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of February 14, 2005.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of February 14, 2005,\nas presented.\nAYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Cunningham advised that a speaker slip had been received for Item 7-C.\nMr. Chuck Millar, 2829 San Jose Avenue, stated that he was in favor of Item 7-C., and did not\nwish to speak.\nPresident Cunningham stated that because of the length of the agenda, and the fact that the March 14,\n2005, agenda did not have any items, there was a general consensus to continue Item 8-D to the\nMarch 14, 2005, meeting.\nM/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to continue Item 8-D to the Planning Board meeting of March 14,\n2005.\nAYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nNone.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 2, "text": "7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A.\nTM04-0005 SRM Associates Harbor Bay Parkway (MG). Applicant requests approval of\nTentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels into sixteen parcels. The parcels are\nlocated within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are zoned C-M-PD, Commercial\nManufacturing, Planned Development District. (Continued from the meeting of January\n24, 2005.)\nM/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-06 to approve\nTentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels into sixteen parcels.\nAYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 3, "text": "7-B.\nTheater Overlay District Designation (CE). Recommendation to the City Council to adopt\nan ordinance establishing a Theater Overlay District and rezoning certain properties in the\nTheater Overlay District designation. (Continued from the meeting of February 14, 2005.)\nM/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-07 to approve\na recommendation to the City Council to adopt an ordinance establishing a Theater Overlay District\nand rezoning certain properties in the Theater Overlay District designation.\nAYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 4, "text": "7-C. ZA05-0002, 842 Central Avenue, Central Cinema, Applicant: Mark Haskett (DV). The\nApplicant seeks approval to continue to operate a movie theater with up to 49 seats in the C-\n1, Neighborhood Business District where a movie theater use is not currently allowed as a\npermitted use or as a use regulated by Use Permit. The Planning Board will review and take\naction on the following options associated with continued use of this movie theater:\n1) Consideration of a Zoning Use Determination that a \"Boutique Theater\" defined\nas \"A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for\nthe screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater\" is\nsufficiently similar to what is allowed pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code\nsection 30-4.8(c)(7) which allows by Use Permit \"Theaters with live\nperformances that are in combination with other permitted uses.\" If the Planning\nBoard determines that a \"Boutique Theater\" is consistent with what is allowed\nby A.M.C. section 30-4.8(c)(7), then the applicant will apply for a Use Permit at\na future meeting; or\n2) Consideration of an Amendment to Section 30-4.8 (c) to add \"Boutique Theater\"\nas a use regulated by Use Permit in the C-1 zoning district. \"Boutique Theater\nwould be defined as \"A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live\nperformances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one\nscreen in the theater.\" If the Planning Board determines that a \"Boutique\nTheater\" could be an appropriate use in the C-1 zoning district, the zoning\namendment will be forwarded to Council for adoption and the applicant would\nneed to return to the Planning Board for a Use Permit following adoption of the\namendment by Council. {Staff requests a continuance to the meeting of April\n11, 2005 pending an Initial Study as required by the California\nEnvironmental Quality act (CEQA)}\nM/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of April\n11, 2005.\nAYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 5, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\nStudy Session Theater (DSD/JA). Study Session to review revisions for Design Guidelines\nto construct a new 7-screen Cineplex and 352-space parking structure on the Video Maniac\nsite. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the CC - CCPD, Community\nCommercial and Special Planned Development Districts. (Continued from the meeting of\nFebruary 14, 2005.)\nMs. Kohlstrand advised that she would recuse herself from this item because she was a principal\nwith the firm of EnviroTrans Solutions, which performed the traffic analysis for the combined\nparking garage/theater analysis.\nMs. Leslie Little, Development Services, advised that the theater's design would be addressed at this\nstudy session, and that they would present revised guidelines. She advised that Michael Stanton\ncould not attend this session, and that Brian Lyles would speak on behalf of the project developer.\nPresident Cunningham advised that eight speaker slips had been received.\nM/S Mariani/McNamara to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.\nAYES - 3 (Piziali absent); NOES - 2 (Cunningham, Cook); ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand)\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue,\nrequested to speak after the letter from AAPS had been distributed to the Board members.\nMr. Richard Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, advised that he had distributed a letter to the Board. He\nnoted that there was considerable detail on the exterior, but that there was less information regarding\nthe interior of the project. If it was a partial package, he believed it should be not as such; if not, he\nrequested an explanation regarding the missing information. He believed the developer's architect\nshould be given maximum design creativity within a set of design guidelines.\nMr. Scott Brady, 1812 Encinal Avenue, former chairman of the Historic Advisory Board, noted that\nhe was an architect. He believed the guidelines were unnecessarily restrictive, and that the wording\nin the draft guideline would lead the designer to a design very similar to the elevations in the packet.\nHe noted that those elevations were labeled for reference only, and should be eliminated from the\npacket; the reference design was not compatible with the guidelines and featured a large blank walls.\nHe believed the addition to the theater should remain secondary to the existing theater; the art deco\narchitecture were the primary elements on the short block, and any contemporary design would\ncomplicate and detract from the main element of the original theater.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 6, "text": "Ms. Rosemary McNally, 2145 San Antonio, believed that the corner where the theater is located is a\nmajor feature of Alameda; she expressed concern about excessive massing and blank walls with\nrespect to the theater. She suggested that the large blank wall adjacent to Long's be covered with a\nmural duplicating the view of what would be lost. She would like to see the round corner included in\nthe structure. She did not believe that three-minute speaking time was sufficient for speakers with\ndetailed presentations.\nMr. Chuck Millar, 2829 San Jose Avenue, believed the massing model made the building look as if it\nwere bursting at the seams, and that it pushed out in all directions. He believed that community\nopinion was overwhelmingly against the \"big box\" look. He supported some reference to the old\nbuilding in the new design, and did not see that in this design.\nMs. Annie Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, spoke in opposition to this design, and did not believe it\nwas beautiful enough for Alameda. She would prefer to see the design created by Timothy Flueger to\nbe restored to its former glory. She believed the upstairs balcony should be restored, like the Grand\nLake Theater in Oakland. She expressed concern about the amount of parking that would be needed,\nand did not believe the proposed parking garage would be sufficient.\nMs. Elizabeth Krase, 2520 Chester Street, AAPS, generally supported this item. She expressed\nconcern about the two-foot and three-foot projections of the second floor, particularly the projection\nat the lobby which she believed would seriously detract from the rounded corner. She did not support\nthe idea of notching the building back so that people in the lobby could see the round perforated\ndecorative screen. She did not like the use of metal can letters in the signage; she suggested that neon\nsignage would be in keeping with the Deco design of the original building.\nMr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, did not believe the design of the proposed theater was at\nall attractive, and believed that there were other good examples of contemporary architecture in\nAlameda.\nMr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue,\nnoted that he had submitted a 12-page letter to the Board. He thanked staff for making the two-foot\nprojection an option, and expressed concern that the guidelines as written could lead to a building\nthat would resemble the building shown during preliminary studies. He believed that the guidelines\nwere too specific in some cases. He detailed the redlined text changes to the guidelines from\nAttachment A of his letter, and displayed the examples on the overhead projector. He would like to\nsee the parking garage broken up to appear as if they were individual buildings, as in Walnut Creek;\nthe guidelines discouraged this approach for the theater. He suggested the addition of text stating that\n\"the actual design will require approval of the City of Alameda pursuant to the City's design review\nprocedure, and shall include approval by the Planning Board and Historic Advisory Board.\"\nMr. Buckley suggested that the reference to contemporary design be edited, which suggested only\ntwo design approaches; he believed the architect should have more flexibility in drawing elements\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 7, "text": "from surrounding buildings. He believed that the guidelines meant a modernist building rather than\ncontemporary. He suggested that the overly strong horizontal proportions be toned down for visual\nbalance with respect to the surrounding buildings; the two-foot projection should be deleted. The\nthree-foot project should be incorporated as an option to be considered by the architect. He did not\nbelieve the Oak Street side of the Cineplex should be notched to show the parking garage; it should\nbe a continuous fa\u00e7ade. He did not believe this project should have internally illuminated signs, box\nsigns or individually canned letters; the sidewalk along Oak Street should be at least 12 feet wide to\naccommodate any large crowds.\nMr. Arthur Lipow spoke in opposition to this item. He believed that the public funds could be put to\nbetter use than the theater and parking structure, given the current economy of the State and the City.\nHe believed the East Bay already had too many movie screens, and did not believe it was an\neconomically viable project.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMs. Little noted that the vertical elements that would require ADA access were in the new building,\nnot the historic building.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the seating capacity, Ms. Little replied\nthat approximately 1,100 seats would be installed.\nVice President Cook believed that it was important to be aware of the flexibility of the development\ndeal, and that the tradeoffs would be reflected in design accommodations in the new building.\nMs. Little noted that the developer and the architect were anxious to proceed with the project, and\nadded that the comments were very valuable. She noted that the design guidelines were not intended\nto become complicated, but were an attempt to get good qualitative comments in the beginning of the\nprocess.\nMr. Lynch agreed with a number of items presented during the public hearing. He did not believe the\nallocation of public dollars was within his purview as a Board member; the elected leadership of the\nCity Council made that determination. He noted that some ideas will not be incorporated, given the\neconomics of the deal; he noted that the comments presented would be difficult to digest at one time.\nHe suggested that this brainstorming process would have worked well on the department level, to be\nculminated with a session before the Planning Board.\nMs. Mariani agreed with Mr. Lynch's assessment regarding the amount of information to distill.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani regarding the interior design, Ms. Little replied that it\nwould be presented during the design review.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 8, "text": "Mr. Lynch believed that it was very important to discuss this project at the front end.\nPresident Cunningham believed that a great deal of valuable comments had been made, and that\nwould be sufficient to start crafting a more developed design. He expressed concern about the corner,\nas well as the seam between the new cinema and the old theater.\nVice President Cook expressed concern that the new design would interfere with the rounded nature\nof the old architecture evident on existing theater.\nMs. McNamara agreed with Vice President Cook's comments, and believed strongly that Mr.\nBuckley's ideas should be seriously considered. She believed the new architecture should reflect the\nsurrounding architecture that appears in the neighborhood.\nReferring to Mr. Buckley's photos, Mr. Lynch liked the manner in which the massing was broken up,\nparticularly with the parking garage within the City of Walnut Creek.\nMs. Mariani agreed with the other Board members' comments, and cautioned against the building\nbecoming a large, protruding box on the corner. She requested redlined versions of future documents\nso revisions could be easily noted.\nPresident Cunningham summarized the comments by the Board and the public:\n1.\nA large monolithic box on the corner are not acceptable, whether or not the\ntwo-foot projection was included;\n2.\nThe rosette on the front corners of the existing theater is a very important\nelement of the existing architecture;\n3.\nInternally illuminated box signage or individual can letters should be\navoided;\n4.\nThe design guidelines don't give clear direction as to how the signage would\nrelate in the retail area;\n5.\nSome language should be added regarding the parking garage and the big\nwall, to ensure the designer and contractor are aware of the community's\naversion to a large blank wall; and\n6.\nProvisions for a mural or some articulation of this blank wall should be\nincluded, as suggested by Ms. McNally.\nPresident Cunningham noted that Mr. Buckley's comments were very valuable, particularly with\nrespect to eliminating the elevations.\nMs. Little noted that Mr. Buckley's comments and photographs were appreciated.\nNo action was taken.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 9, "text": "M/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of March 14,\n2005.\nAYES - 5 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand)\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 10, "text": "8-B.\nR04-0002, UP04-0013, V04-0018, DR04-0101: 1410 Everett-Mary Applegate (DV).\nPublic hearing to reconsider a Design Review (DR04-0101) for the construction of a new\n5,300 sq. ft. veterinary clinic on a lot currently developed with a vacant bank building which\nwould be demolished located at 2501 Central Avenue. The existing veterinary clinic located\nat 1410 Everett Street would be demolished and developed as a parking lot. The proposed 23\nspace parking lot can be accessed from either Central Avenue or Everett Street. The project\nalso requires the rezoning of an approximately 7,800 square foot lot currently developed as a\nparking lot located between the bank building and the adjacent condominium building. The\nlot would be rezoned from R-5, General Residential Zoning District, to C-C, Community\nCommercial Zoning District to establish consistency with the General Plan. The lots at 2501\nCentral Avenue and 1410 Everett Street are zoned C-C, Community Commercial Zoning\nDistrict.\nMs. Altschuler summarized the staff report. Four separate actions are sought by the Planning Board:\n1.\nA recommendation on a conformance rezoning;\n2.\nA decision on a Use Permit;\n3.\nA decision on a Variance for a second driveway; and\n4.\nA decision on a Design Review for the new building being proposed.\nMs. Altschuler advised that this item had been appealed to the City Council, who returned the case to\nthe Planning Board for second review in response to expressed concerns related to the wording of the\npublic notice. She advised that the original notice was listed as 1410 Everett, the address for the\noriginal clinic. However, the expansion would occur on a site that is addressed off of Central\nAvenue. City Council directed staff to bring this item back before the Board as a de novo hearing,\nand all four items will be heard as if they were new items. She reviewed the items for the Board, and\nemphasized that the rezoning was intended to conform to the intent of the General Plan for that site.\nThe conformance rezoning was separate from any expansion intended for the veterinary clinic;\nrezonings do not run with a use, and are legislative actions that affects all future uses.\nPresident Cunningham advised that numerous speaker slips had been received.\nM/S Mariani/Kohlstrand and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.\nAYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN- O\nThe public hearing was opened.\nDr. Mary Applegate, DVM, applicant, summarized the background of her business and the\napplication. She emphasized that the clinic was not open 24 hours a day, and noted that a new facility\nwas essential to maintain their services and level of care. She stated that they made every effort to\ndesign a beautiful and functional building, and added that they employed approximately 15 Alameda\nresidents.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 11, "text": "Mr. Steve Busse, operations manager for Park Center Animal Hospital, noted that Dr. Applegate is\nhis wife. He summarized the history of this application, and displayed a presentation of the design on\nthe overhead screen. He noted that he spoke with Tom Matthews, who lives across the street from\nthe property; as a result of the discussion, he presented City Council with a modified signage plan\nthat featured a backlit sign and a change in the elevation on Central Avenue. He also attempted to\ncontact the individuals who spoke at the Council meeting to get their feedback, clarify any\nmisunderstandings, and better understand their concerns. He noted that only one person (Joe Meylor)\nagreed to meet with him; his primary concern was with the noticing, and he was also concerned\nabout the building's design. He believed that the neighborhood alert that had been distributed to the\nneighbors was a major reason why no one wished to meet with him, and added that it was\ninflammatory and inaccurate. He stated that the allegations of criminal activity in the neighborhood\nwas completely without foundation. The clinic was not open 24/7, and the staff report clearly stated\nthe hours of operation.\nMr. Busse noted that the square footage of the building requires 22 parking spaces, and 23 spaces\nhave been included. A large curb cut would be removed, which would replace 2 to 3 on-street\nparking spaces. He noted that most of the animals they treated would be in the hospital for a few\nhours, and they did not operate a boarding facility; customers would be able to allow their pets to\nstay at the facility only if they were existing veterinary customers, and usually because they had\nmedical concerns about their pet. They will continue to observe their written dog-walking policy,\nwhich includes maintain dogs on-leash, walking only on public sidewalks, and maintaining the dog\non public property. They will pick up their droppings, as well as other droppings that they see while\nwalking; he noted that their efforts resulted in fewer droppings, not more waste. He strongly\ndisagreed with the allegation that they posed a public nuisance, and stated that in 13 years, the\npractice has been under their management; they received no complaints about noise, smell, or other\naspects of their business practices. The Better Business Bureau report states that no complaints about\ntheir business practices had been filed; no police reports had been filed complaining about their\nbusiness operation; the Building Department shows no legitimate complaints about their business\noperation.\nDr. Cathy Wydner, DVM, co-owner, described the proposed project and noted that the original\nbuilding was not designed as a veterinary hospital. She noted that the dramatic changes in veterinary\nmedicine necessitate changes in hospital design; 95% of their 3,000 clients live in Alameda, and all\ntheir staff lives in the City as well. She stated that the density was fairly low for the block, and that\nthe condo across the street had a far higher density; parking was more than what was required. She\nnoted that the outdoor fenced area will contain most of the dog walking, resulting in a lower\nneighborhood impact from walking the dogs.\nMr. Brandon Stanford, noted that he owned a hair salon at 1422 Everett, and leased space at 1414\nEverett. He spoke in support of this application, and had never been disturbed by the applicants or\nthe use in 15 years. Many of his customers had looked at the plans and supported them as well.\nMr. Lawrence Henderson, spoke in support of this project, and believed it would be beneficial for the\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 12, "text": "Mr. Jim Miller, 2508 Crist Street, noted that he was originally opposed to this project; after hearing\nthe applicants' response to the neighborhood concerns, he is now in support of this project and\nrescinded his stated opposition to the project.\nMr. George Borikas, 1500 Gibbons Drive, noted that he owned the four-unit apartment building\ndisplayed by the applicant. He inquired what his rights as a landlord would be if a tenant sued him\nfor failing to provide \"quiet enjoyment\" because of any excessive noise from the clinic; he inquired\nwhether the City would pay for his defense should he have a problem with a tenant.\nMr. Erin Beales, 2452 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that he was the\nauthor of the neighborhood alert. He emphasized that he was not trying to close the clinic down, and\nread his written statement into the record:\n\"I'm here to ask you to deny the Use Permit for this project. You sent out\napproximately 175 notices to the people in the neighborhood. These notices were to\ninform people that there is going to be a decision made by the Planning Board that\ncan negatively affect their way of life. In essence, you're asking these people how\nthey feel about this project, and that their opinions would drive the decision of the\nPlanning Board. In two short weeks, my neighbors and Iknocked on a few doors and\nexplained to the residents what was being proposed on the corner of Central and\nEverett. In the short time, we gathered a list of signatures, almost 50 people that are\nwithin the notification boundary. The other 10 on this list are on the close outskirts of\nthis boundary. If we had more time, this list would be a lot bigger. This is almost\n25% of the notification list that have spoken out with some concern about this\nproject. The concerns range from obviously my concerns of the dogs being exercised\nin the neighborhood, the scale and size of the actual building that close to the\nresidential neighborhood. And although there are 23 parking spaces, it is going to\nhave an impact on the parking in the neighborhood, no matter what you say.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 13, "text": "When there are 50 neighbors against an applicant, I would hope that you would see\nthe light and deny this Use Permit. Let's remember the intended use of this actual\nplot is not approved in its zone. That is why they need a Conditional Use Permit;\nthat's why they're here for that permit. We are here to discuss whether that would be\nokay, and clearly, I think it is not. Furthermore, if you decide to give them this Use\nPermit, at the very least, there should be a condition written into it that says they must\nconduct all business, specifically the dog walking, in a commercial zone, not in the\nresidential zone next door. So, if they're going to be doing business in a commercial\nzone, all of their business should take place there. This new facility, although they\nsay it does not exercise dogs in the neighborhood, on the layout of the actual facility\nthat was given to you before, there are 21 kennels in this facility for dogs. Out of 21\ndogs at full capacity, I think quite a few of these dogs are going to be exercised every\nday. IfI had my dog there, Iwould hope that it got out at least once a day. Currently, I\nview this all day long out my front window. They walk the dogs, right in front of my\nhouse and down Regent. And whether they say they do or do not, they do. They pick\nup after the dogs, but you cannot extract urine from my lawn. It is detrimental and a\nhealthy hazard.\"\nMs. Heather Beales, 2452 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. She was concerned that\nmost of the supporters of this application did not live directly across the street from the site, as she\ndid. She expressed concern that the activities and lighted sign of the hospital encroached on the quiet\nenjoyment of her home; she was also concerned about the potential noise of the exercise area, as well\nas the increased traffic on Central Avenue. She did not question the character of the applicants, but\ndid not believe this was the appropriate location for this use.\nMr. Gene Oh, Alameda Bicycle, 1522 Park Street, spoke in support of this application, and noted\nthat it was difficult to balance business needs with the needs of a neighborhood, especially in the\nPark Street area. He believed the applicant needed to expand in order to properly serve their\ncustomers.\nMr. John Barni, 1023 Auburn Court, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that he built the\ncondominium next door to the project site and recalled the background of this use. He noted that the\nsidewalk corners reeked of urine, and recently discovered that the clinic boarded dogs. He requested\nthat the rezoning of the lot as CC be denied, and was concerned that it would allow many uses that\nhe did not believe were appropriate to the neighborhood. He believed that it should be zoned\nProfessional Offices instead.\nMr. Justin Louw, 908-A San Antonio Street, spoke in support of this project, and noted that he could\nsee the staff walking the dogs from his apartment window. He has also seen the staff pick up after\ntheir dogs and other peoples' dogs as well. He believed the odor came from the ivy on the corner,\nbecause the foliage made it difficult to pick up the dog waste. He noted that the hospital had taken\ngood care of his dog when it was hit by a car.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 14, "text": "Ms. Shelley Dunn, 1322 Regent Street, noted that she was not opposed to the presence of the\nhospital, but was concerned about parking and dog urine on her lawn. She noted that the urine may\nnot be the responsibility of the hospital staff. She inquired what would happen to the cars current\nrenting space on that site.\nMs. Kate Pryor, 2063 Eagle Avenue, spoke in support of this application. She noted that she was a\nbusiness owner, and believed that the mixed use made the district more vibrant.\nMs. Nancy Matthews, 2450 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and expressed concern\nabout the impact of this use on the residences. She described the traffic flow in the neighborhood,\nand expressed concern about the potential increase in traffic. She did not believe that customers of\nthe clinic should be able to urge approval of a project they did not have to live with.\nMr. Tom Matthews, 2450 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that 50 local\nresidents were also opposed to this application. He doubted that the merchants on Park Street would\nallow this use. He did not believe this building had any residential character, and that the expansion\nwas too large for the area. He believed a condition should be added that would require pets to be\nwalked in the commercial zones only, and that the use to limited to care of sick pets only, with no\nboarding. He believed the setback was inadequate, with a one-foot setback from Central Avenue; he\nbelieved the small setback made it incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood. He would like to\nsee architectural changes that would be more compatible with the transitional residential part of the\nneighborhood.\nMr. Joe Meylor, 1361 Regent Street, spoke in opposition to all facets of this project, including the\nuse, the design and the Variance because the use fundamentally changed the business model of the\nbusiness. He noted that a small business would become a larger, wider-ranging facility with many\nmore uses. He noted that dogs urinated on his private property, which was impossible to clean up. He\nstressed that he harbored no ill will toward the applicants, and added that his two cats had received\nexcellent care at the clinic for the last five years. He understood that he lived in a transitional\nneighborhood, but asked that the Planning Board ensured that the residential voice was heard. He\nexpressed concern about the noise impacts from the use. He noted that the applicants had\nmisinterpreted his concerns incorrectly following their meeting.\nMs. Monica Pe\u00f1a, 1361 Regent Street, spoke in opposition to this application, and believed it would\nnegatively impact her quiet enjoyment of her property. She expressed concern that the dogs being\nwalked in her neighborhood would pose a safety threat to her children.\nMr. John Gruntfest noted that he did not live in the subject neighborhood, and spoke in support of\nthis application. He noted that all residents had to make compromises. He noted that he was the CFO\nof San Francisco Veterinary Specialists, and been in the veterinary business for 20 years; there were\nno communicable diseases between animals and people through urine or feces. He had visited the\nneighborhood, and believed that the business was very orderly and well-kept; the improved facility\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 15, "text": "was important for the health care of the animals. He noted that the business was located in a\ncommercial area with surrounding homes.\nDr. Genevieve Manchester-Johnson, DVM, Associate Veterinarian, Park Center Animal Hospital,\n16863 Los Banos Street, San Leandro, wished to respond to the residents who believed the\napplicants would act in an irresponsible manner. She read the oath taken by all veterinarians:\n\"Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, Isolemnly swear to use my\nscientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of\nanimal health, the relief of animal suffering, the conservation of animal resources,\nthe promotion of public health and the advancement of medical knowledge.\nI will practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity and in keeping with the\nprinciples of veterinary medical ethics. I accept as a lifelong obligation the continual\nimprovement of my professional knowledge and competence.\"\nDr. Manchester-Johnson stated that everyone at Park Center took their oath very seriously, and added\nthat keeping the neighborhood clean was a very large part of that commitment. She stated they would\nnever consider walking an animal that would pose a health risk to other animals or people; to suggest\nso would be utterly against their oath.\nMs. Helen Mohr Thomas, 3011 Thompson Avenue, spoke in support of this project; she had taken\nher pets to the center for 10 years and received excellent care. She believed the business was an asset\nto Alameda. She believed the expansion would greatly improve the physical appearance at Everett\nand Central, especially the elimination of the long-abandoned minibank. She believed the expansion\nwould also provide a valuable service to the community.\nMr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, Park Street Business Association, spoke in support of this\napplication, and was pleased that the project offered more parking than was required. He noted that\nthe rezoning would bring the parcel into compliance with the General Plan, as well as its intent for\ncommercial zoning in that area. He added that had been overlooked in the past, and that the rezoning\nwould correct the oversight. He believed this would be an appropriate use, and that the expansion\nwas an improvement. He emphasized that this design and application met the needs of neighborhood,\nand it would be welcomed on Park Street without reservation. He did not believe that any dog under\nthe care of the hospital staff had urinated on private property; he suggested that the residents call the\nPolice Department if they see someone trespassing on their property.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMs. Mariani wished to disclose that she received calls from Mr. Matthews and Mr. Barni; she also\nowns three dogs.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding the nature of any boarding services provided,\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 16, "text": "Mr. Busse stated that the business was a veterinary hospital, and that boarding was an ancillary use.\nOnly medical clients were able to use the boarding services, such as for diabetic dogs that need\nmedical oversight. Presently, they allow only two spots for boarding, and that boarding was not\navailable for non-clients; the other four slots were reserved for hospitalized animals. He estimated\nthat six to eight boarding spaces would be available at peak periods for their medical clients; their\nbusiness was not a kennel.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding the exercise area, Mr. Busse confirmed that it\nwas not a dog run or play area, but an enclosed area where staff members will walk dogs on-leash\none at a time. He emphasized that dogs would not be fenced in unattended in that area all day; it may\ntake 10-15 minutes for staff to walk each dog.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand regarding the setbacks, Mr. Busse stated that the\nbuilding setback at the closest point would be one foot from the property line on Central Avenue.\nThe property line is 4'2\" from the existing sidewalk, allowing five feet of landscape space at the\nclosest point; it would expand to a range of 7-14 feet in other areas.\nVice President Cook stated that she had no concerns about the proposed rezoning or about the\ndesign. She expressed concern about the impact of the lighted sign on the residences, and added that\nthe business hours were generally confined to daylight hours. She was not concerned about the\ndriveway, but was concerned about the expansion of the use next to residential uses. She noted that\nthe Use Permit ran with the land, not the business, and did not believe this was an appropriate use so\nclose to a residential neighborhood.\nMr. Lynch advised that he did not have any concerns with the business operations at this site, largely\ndue to their business model.\nMs. Mariani noted that this use should blend as much as possible into the neighborhood, and\nsuggested that mature landscaping be a condition of appeal.\nMr. Busse advised that all the mature trees along the boundary between the property and the\ncondominiums would be retained; the street trees on Central Avenue will remain as well. He stated\nthat 24-inch box Chinese elms and Sweet Bay trees, as well as 36-inch box Maidenhair trees were\namong the trees being proposed.\nMs. McNamara believed it was important to be more sensitive to the residential design in the\nimmediate neighborhood.\nMs. Altschuler noted that this was a very contemporary building, and that the reference to Craftsman\nstyle was with respect to the building materials. The condominium immediately adjacent was also a\nvery modern building, as was the former Central Market across the street. She noted that the Board\nmay recommend the rezoning without approving any other parts of the application.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 16\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 17, "text": "M/S Cook/Lynch and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-08 to rezone the\napproximately 7,800 square foot lot currently developed as a parking lot located between the bank\nbuilding and the adjacent condominium building property from R-5, General Residential Zoning\nDistrict, to C-C, Community Commercial Zoning District to establish consistency with the General\nPlan.\nAYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN- 0\nPresident Cunningham stated that he believed this was a very good project, and supported it wholly.\nHe understood the neighbors' concerns, and suggested that conditions be crafted to help mitigate the\nissues of dog exercise and waste in the neighborhood. He did not believe the veterinary hospital\nshould be held accountable for other dog owners' actions in the neighborhood.\nMs. Altschuler advised that she had spoken with the business owners regarding that issue, and\nsuggested that the Board discuss that point with the applicants. She suggested that a compromise be\nreached on whether the dogs may be walked only in the commercial areas. She noted that it would be\ndifficult to distinguish between an employment of the hospital and another person walking a dog\nunless some identifying garb were to be worn.\nMr. Lynch noted that he was a strong proponent of the revitalization of Park Street, and\nacknowledged that many people walked their dogs in that area. He would not support a restriction\nrequiring the dogs be walked only in a commercial district because of the number of dogs in the area;\nit would be an unenforceable restriction. He suggested that the pets being cared for wore a band that\nwould identify them as patients of the facility.\nMs. Kohlstrand noted that the other veterinary hospitals in Alameda were adjacent to residential\nuses, with the exception of the facility on Webster Street. She noted that this neighborhood must\naccommodate both residential and commercial uses, and that both uses need to co-exist; she did not\nbelieve the design should be a residential design. She would like responsiveness towards the\nneighbors regarding the treatment along Central Avenue, although the existing setback was adequate.\nPresident Cunningham advised that he liked the building design, and believed that the scale of the\ndesign was appropriate for the neighborhood. The parking was supported on-site, and the zoning was\nnow in conformance with the General Plan. He appreciated the sensitivities of the neighbors.\nM/S Lynch/Kohlstrand to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-08 to approve the Use Permit\nto construct a new 5,300 square foot veterinary clinic and 23 space parking lot on a lot currently\ndeveloped with a vacant bank building which would be demolished at 2501 Central Avenue.\nAYES - 5 (Piziali absent); NOES - 1 (Cook); ABSTAIN - 0\nM/S Kohlstrand/Lynch and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-08 to approve\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 17\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 18, "text": "a Variance to allow two driveways to provide ingress/egress to the proposed 23 space parking lot to\nserve the vet clinic use.\nAYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nDr. Applegate advised that they did not plan to have an internally illuminated sign, and added that it\ngot dark before 5 p.m. in the winter. She would like to have a backlit sign on Everett Street so that\nthe sign may be read, but that they did not want to have bright lights in the neighborhood.\nM/S Cook/Mariani to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-08 to change Condition 10 to\nrequire that the sign along Central Avenue will not be illuminated; site illumination would be\nacceptable.\nAYES - 5 (Piziali absent); NOES - 1 (Kohlstrand); ABSTAIN - 0\nM/S Lynch/Kohlstrand to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-08 to approve the Design\nReview (DR04-0101) for the construction of a new 5,300 sq. ft. veterinary clinic on a lot currently\ndeveloped with a vacant bank building which would be demolished located at 2501 Central Avenue.\nThe existing veterinary clinic located at 1410 Everett Street would be demolished and developed as\na parking lot. The proposed 23 space parking lot can be accessed from either Central Avenue or\nEverett Street.\nAYES - 5 (Piziali absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0\nPresident Cunningham called for a five-minute recess.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 18\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 19, "text": "8-C.\nPD04-0004/DR04-0113, 433 Buena Vista Avenue, Applicant: Alameda Multifamily\nVentures, LLC (AT). The applicant seeks Design Review and Planned Development\napproval for the construction of a two-story 6,000 square foot community building, four 16-\ncar garages, facade changes to existing apartment buildings, and other improvements at the\nHarbor Island Apartments site. The site is located at 433 Buena Vista Avenue, within an R-4\nPD, Neighborhood Residential Planned Development District.\nMr. Tai summarized the staff report, and described the modifications to the design and elevations.\nSince the packet had been sent to the Planning Board, the applicants and staff met to revise some of\nthe conditions related to the trash enclosures. He advised that on page 4, the first sentence of\nCondition 12 should be deleted and substituted with, \"The applicants shall comply with AMC\nSubsection 20-2.1, which currently requires the owner or occupant of any premise is to subscribe and\npay for all integrated waste collection..\nMr. Tai advised that Condition 13 was revised to state that \"the applicants shall comply with Section\n21-2.1, which currently requires that collection of solid waste from residential areas... \"\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Chris Auxier, applicant, stated that they would be available to respond to questions.\nMr. Michael Yoshii, Pastor, Buena Vista United Methodist Church, and Renewed Hope Housing\nAdvocates, noted that he attended the West End Community Improvement Project. He noted that the\nmass evictions highlighted the need to coordinate the social impact on the community, with respect\nto the intent to make physical improvements in the neighborhood. He noted that the impact on the\nschools was very important, particularly regarding the anticipation of new residents and new\nstudents. He believed the community needed to be mended following these difficulties.\nMs. Lorraine Lilly wished to address the human factors following the actions of the 15 Group and\nthe Harbor Island apartment complex, and stated that the mass evictions were dehumanizing for the\n400 families impacted by them. She did not believe the human impact was being adequately\naddressed by the proposed renovation plan, particularly regarding the disabled population. She\ndisagreed with the lighting plan, and noted that the visually impaired would not have adequate visual\nclarity with the 25-foot lighting plan. She believed the standards of visual accessibility should be in\ncompliance with the ADA standards. She noted that the planned development did not address\nhandicapped accessibility for the elevators; no phones were included in the elevator cars for\nassistance. She stated that the fire suppression equipment should be adequate for the entire complex.\nShe expressed concern about the parking plan, and did not believe it addressed the needs of the\ndisabled tenants; even when they requested parking spaces close to their units, they were not\nassigned. She noted that the drinking water was often brown, and inquired whether it was\ncontaminated.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 19\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 20, "text": "Ms. Modessa Henderson, 465 Buena Vista #105, spoke in opposition to this item and noted that she\nhad lived at the site for 30 years. She inquired what kind of tenants would live at the complex, and\nstated that it had been a family-oriented complex. She believed that there was a great need for\nactivities for children, if families were to return to the complex. She would like some design\naccommodations for the disabled, such as first-floor apartments.\nMs. C. Landry, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted that she had lived in Harbor Island for a\nnumber of years, and was displaced following the evictions. She believed the improvements were\nsuperficial, and believed the plumbing system and sprinklers should be fixed. She noted that several\nunits had not been repaired following fires.\nPresident Cunningham requested a motion to extend the meeting to a time certain.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani whether this item could be continued to the following\nBoard meeting, Mr. Brandt replied that if continued, the project would be deemed approved if no\naction were taken under the time limits of State law.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to extend the meeting hours to 11:30 p.m.\nAYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMr. Reginald James, 1501 Grand Street #E, expressed concern about the physical conditions of the\nsite, and did not believe the site was up to code. He noted that one woman had been boarded up in\nher apartment. He was pleased to see an alternative to the valet garbage plan, and suggested that a\nhalf-court basketball court be installed. He believed the parking should be addressed more\nthoroughly, and would like to see a rooftop terrace; he expressed concern about the state of the fire\nsprinklers.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding how the ADA regulations related to\nthis project, Mr. Shaun Alexander, project architect, replied that any existing project had issues to\ngrapple with, and added that this project was exempt from ADA compliance and upgrades because it\nwas built and occupied prior to 1991. The new clubhouse must be in compliance.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding Code violations, Mr. Tai confirmed\nthat there were no outstanding Code violations registered for this property.\nMr. Alexander noted that there was a condition in the approval related to sewer testing; the major\nproblems addressed by the speakers had been addressed, and most of the mains had been repaired.\nThey were working with the Public Works Department to video the remainder of the lines, and to\nmake repairs as necessary.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 20\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 21, "text": "In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding recourse available to tenants if a\nproperty falls into disrepair (such as following a repair in an existing apartment), Mr. Brandt advised\nthat would be a violation of the Housing Code.\nMr. Alexander noted that many of the fires in recent history were the result of arson, not of electrical\nproblems.\nMs. Kohlstrand noted that she had difficulty reconciling the complaints of the residents with the\nstatements that the buildings were up to Code.\nMr. Brandt advised that there were extensive site visits to the property in November 2004.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani regarding the interior of the building, Mr. Alexander noted\nthat they were in for permit for interior improvements on the project and that they must conform to\nall Alameda and State codes.\nMr. Lynch believed the City was missing a tremendous opportunity to benefit many families in\nAlameda, and did not believe this was a Measure A issue. He noted that the remodel did not speak to\npossible physical changes that could provide a more live able environment to families, which he\nbelieved was a gross oversight by the City.\nVice President Cook appreciated some of the changes made to the design in response to the Board's\ncomments. She expressed concern that the use of architectural elements were not fully utilized to\ncreate more individuality in the buildings; some of the structures still looked monolithic. She noted\nthat the use of entry pylons still connoted the gated effect, which she had opposed in the earlier\nsessions. She was still uncomfortable with the design, and did not believe sufficient changes had\nbeen made since December 2004.\nMs. McNamara believed some of the wording in the staff report could be improved, and noted that\npage 4, Items 6 and 7, stated that \"The applicant shall coordinate with the Police Department as an\neffort to try and improve public safety in the facility.\" She did not believe that wording held the\napplicant accountable for not complying, and believed that stronger language should be used to\nensure compliance.\nMr. Auxier noted that he spoke to Officer Hisher, and did not object to the letter; the flexible\nwording was meant to allow further discussion by the Police Department and the applicant. He noted\nthat they had not yet found a solution to the trash enclosures.\nMr. Tai advised that staff and the applicants had been in ongoing coordination with the Police\nDepartment with respect to the Police Department's specific recommendations, such as size of\naddressing, and location of \"No Trespassing\" signs.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 21\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 22, "text": "Ms. McNamara wanted to ensure that the relationship between the Police Department and the\napplicant did benefit the citizens of Alameda, and would rebuild the credibility for public safety in\nthat area.\nMr. Tai advised that that condition stated that it would be to the \"satisfaction to the Chief of Police\nand the Planning and Building Director,\" and there would be sufficient flexibility to require\ncompliance on these recommendations.\nMr. Lynch believed that Ms. McNamara referred to the property management aspects of this project.\nMs. McNamara believed that staff's condition of approval requiring a landscape and common area\nmaintenance agreement between the property owners and the City to ensure diligent maintenance\nshould be an ongoing effort. She believed the ongoing maintenance of the property was critical to the\nsuccess of the project and the surrounding area.\nPresident Cunningham suggested the addition of a maintenance agreement for the swimming pool,\nand believed that was central to the development.\nMr. Tai advised that page 5 contained a condition relating to the landscape and common area\nmaintenance agreement, which is recorded with the property at the County Recorder's office. The\napplicants would be required to maintain the property; if that did not happen, the City would have the\nright to make the improvements at the applicants' cost. The common area included the swimming\npool, the proposed tot lots and other play areas, and all the other open space.\nMs. Mariani noted that she was not prepared to approve this project.\nMs. Kohlstrand believed that changing the approach towards trash containment was generally a good\nchange, but that it was unfortunate to see the huge trash container at the end of the walkway near\nFifth Street. She would like to see that container relocated to a less visible area. She believes that the\nproject sponsor had made some compromises, and added that there were still residents in the\ncomplex. She believed it was extremely important to ensure the buildings were not in disrepair.\nMr. Tai advised that he had spoken with the Code Compliance Division earlier in the day; they\nadvised that a complaint had been filed on February 18, 2005. The complaint was vague, and it was\nnot logged and registered as a specific complaint. Technically, there were no outstanding violations.\nMr. David Blackwell, representing the applicant, wished to give credit to City staff for their tireless\nwork on this application, as well as the Planning Board. He had discussed the conditions of approval\nwith staff, and believed that they were now in accordance. He emphasized that the interior\nimprovements had nothing to do with the application before the Board at this time. He requested that\nCondition 25 (Public Art fee) be removed, and added that Mr. McFann estimated it would come to\napproximately $6,000. He believed that this project did not fall within 30-65 because it was not a\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 22\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 23, "text": "new commercial, industrial, or municipal project; because it only addressed the community center.\nHe spoke with the City Attorney regarding Condition 27 (\"hold harmless\"), and understood that it\nmeant that if the application were to be approved, and someone sued the City stating that the\napproval was wrong, the applicant would pay for the defense. That indemnification did not relate to\nany other issues not related to this approval.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-09 to approve a Design\nReview and Planned Development for the construction of a two-story 6,000 square foot community\nbuilding, four 16-car garages, facade changes to existing apartment buildings, and other\nimprovements at the Harbor Island Apartments site.\nAYES - 4 (Piziali absent); NOES - 2 (Cook, Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 23\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 24, "text": "8-D.\nZA05-0003 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment/City-wide (JC/JA) Phase II of proposed\nrevisions to the Development Regulations (ZA05-0003) contained within Chapter XXX of\nthe Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance\nwith respect to building height limits and number of stories; exceptions to minimum side\nyard requirements for additions to existing residences, provide a definition for \"replacement-\nin-kind\", off-street parking regulations and simplifying reconstruction of non-conforming\nresidential structures.\nM/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to continue Item 8-D to the Planning Board meeting of March 14,\n2005.\nAYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 24\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 25, "text": "9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\n10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice\nPresident Cook).\nM/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of\nMarch 14, 2005.\nAYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nb. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).\nM/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of\nMarch 14, 2005.\nAYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nc. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).\nM/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of\nMarch 14, 2005.\nAYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nd. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani).\nM/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of\nMarch 14, 2005.\nAYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n10.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n11.\nADJOURNMENT:\n11:34 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJerry Cormack, Interim Secretary\nCity Planning Department\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 25\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 26, "text": "These minutes were approved at the March 14, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was\naudio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 26\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}