{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2005-03-28", "page": 1, "text": "COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nMarch 28, 2005\nPresent: Berger, Chadow, Chair Cooney, Fort, Gwynne, Longley-Cook, McGaughey,\nAbsent/Excused: McCoy, Steffens, Bunker\nGuests: Michele Bevel\n1.\nMINUTES: The minutes of February 28, 2005 where approved.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\n1. The Secretary listed the locations for the pedestrian lighting grants. They are; Park Street\nat\nWebb Avenue, Park Street at Central Avenue; Park Street at Santa Clara Avenue, Park Street\nat mid-block between Santa Clara Avenue and Central Avenue, Park Street at San Antonio\nAvenue, Webster Street at Taylor Avenue, Buena Vista Avenue at Chestnut Street, Otis\nDrive at Sandcreek Way, Pacific Avenue at 4th Street and Fernside Boulevard at San Jose\nAvenue.\n2. Members expressed concerns about the following items; signs in the City Hall elevator\nshould also be in Braille, the handicap door post to City Hall at Oak Street is not functioning\nproperly, the sign to Alameda on the Ron Cowen Parkway is missing and should be reset\nwhere it can't be damaged.\n3. There was general consensus that commission members should be given identification\nbadges.\n4. Commissioner Chadow reported that Adobe Illustrator could produce plans with raised lines.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\n1. Chairman Edwin Cooney presented a letter he received from the Interim City Manager\nresponding to his concerns about providing Braille and interpreter assistance at City\nmeetings.\n2. Commissioner Longley-Cook presented a list of real time captioning service providers and\nonsite interpreting service providers that are used by the City of San Francisco.\n3. Commissioner Longley-Cook presented a letter from Pedestrian Friendly Alameda\nexpressing concern about the proposed State Senate Bill, No. 810.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2005-03-28", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nMarch 28, 2005\nMinutes\nPage 2 of 2\nNEW BUSINESS:\n1. Bridgeside Shopping Center:\nThe Secretary described the planned development for the Bridgeside Shopping Center.\n2. Southshore Shopping Center;\nThe secretary described the status of the construction of the shopping center and plans for\nfuture development.\nOLD BUSINESS:\n1. Policy research, writing and implementation:\n3.\nCommissioner Toby Berger presented to the commission the sub-committee's proposed\nrecommendations for ADA policies for providing effective communications and reasonable\naccommodations for persons with disabilities. The commission will consider adoption of the\nrecommendations at the next scheduled meeting.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, April 25th in Room\n391, City Hall.\nSincerely,\nMatthew T. Naclerio\nPublic Works Director\nBy:\nRobert Claire\nAssociate Civil Engineer\nRC:lc\nG:\\PUBWORKS\\LT\\MCD Disability Committee/2005\\0328min.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-28", "page": 1, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nMinutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, March 28, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:01 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMs. Mariani\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Mariani, and Piziali.\nBoard members Lynch, Kohlstrand, and McNamara were absent.\nAlso present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler,\nPlanner III Allen Tai, Planner II Dennis Brighton, Jennifer Ott, Development Services.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of March 14, 2005.\nMs. Altschuler advised that there was not a quorum to approve these minutes, and suggested\ncontinuing this item to the Planning Board meeting of April 11, 2005.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Cunningham advised that speaker slips had been received for Item 7-b.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-b from the Consent Calendar and place it on the\nRegular Agenda.\nAYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPresident Cunningham advised that speaker slips had been received for Item 7-a.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-a from the Consent Calendar and place it on the\nRegular Agenda.\nAYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION None.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nMarch 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-28", "page": 2, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\n7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nNone.\n7-A.\nUse Permit UP05-0003 1510 Encinal Avenue Applicant: Tali Risse/ Fuzzy Caterpillar\nPreschool (AT). The applicants request Use Permit approval to operate a daycare center with\ncapacity for forty-five students and eight employees with hours of operation between 7:00\na.m. to 6:00 p.m. The site was previously occupied by the Peter Pan Preschool between 1974-\n2002 and is located at 1510 Encinal Avenue, within an R-4, Neighborhood\nResidential District.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-a from the Consent Calendar and place it on the\nRegular Agenda.\nAYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMr. Tai presented the staff report. In order to reduce congestion related to pickup and dropoff, staff\nrecommended a condition of approval which would required the applicants to coordinate with the\nPublic Works Department to devise a schedule for dropoff and pickup. There would be a six-month\nmonitoring period by staff.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. John Faris, 1417 San Antonio Avenue, noted that he had been a neighbor of the subject site for\nnine years, and expressed concern about the larger scale of the proposed project and its effect on\nparking in the neighborhood.\nMs. Sharon Barnhart, 1413 San Antonio, noted that she lived directly behind the school and wished\nto ensure there would be no construction changes in the area. She requested that the same\nsummertime hours were kept, as well as a two-hour quiet time as was practiced by the Peter Pan Day\nCare. She noted that the caregivers were the noisiest element of the Peter Pan use.\nMr. Arie Cohen, applicant, introduced Ms. Tali Cohen and Ms. Julie Cohen, the directors of the\nschool. He noted that Code allowed a maximum of 45 children, but they did not expect to have more\nthan 40 children on-site; they intended to keep a smaller child-to-teacher ratio than required. They\nplanned to implement a two-hour quiet time, and keep the operational hours at 7 a.m.-6 p.m. In\nresponse to Mr. Piziali's question, he assured the Board that the teachers would not yell at the\nchildren. He emphasized that they wished to be good neighbors, and in response to Vice President\nCook's question, would be willing to restrict the number of children to 40; they would not suffer any\neconomic impact from that restriction.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nMarch 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-28", "page": 3, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 05- to approve a Use\nPermit to operate a daycare center with capacity for forty-five students and eight employees with\nhours of operation between 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., with the following modifications:\n1.\nThe enrollment would be restricted to 40 children; and\n2.\nA\ntwo-hour quiet time would be implemented daily.\nAYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nMarch 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-28", "page": 4, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\n7-B.\nInterim Use Permit UP05-0001: Antiques Fair (Auto Show and Auto Parts Fair),\nGerald Goldman, 2001 Ferry Point (near Seaplane Lagoon site), Alameda Point (DB).\nThe applicant requests an Interim Use Permit to allow vintage auto and motorcycle sales at\nAlameda Point, for autos manufactured in 1975 or earlier, parts and memorabilia with\nsubstantially the same size, scale, access, parking and conditions/requirements as the Antiques\nFair. Operation would occur one Sunday per month plus setup and teardown times. This use\nwould include approximately 2,000 booths, 7,000 on-site parking spaces, over 40 acres near\nformer Navy hangers, Bladium and other Alameda Point neighbors. The site is located in the\nM-2-G (General Industry/Manufacturing Zoning District/Government Combining District).\nMr. Brighton summarized the staff report.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Gerald Goldman, applicant, noted that the Antiques Fair had become nationally renowned, and\nhad brought significant business and sales tax revenue to the City. He noted that this proposed event\nwas a clone of the very large Pasadena Swap Meet.\nMr. Piziali noted that he supported the Antiques Fair, and wished to support this item as well; he\nwould like to include the following language: \"Beer may only be sold subject to approval of the\nAlameda Police Department, and subject to issuance of the required ABC licenses.\" Mr. Goldman\nagreed with that request, and noted that while they were not committed to selling beer, they wanted\nto allow for it if so desired.\nMr. Piziali expressed concern about amplified sound. Mr. Goldman noted that they did not have a\npublic address system at the Antiques Fair, and the staff members communicated by two-way radio.\nTwo police officers would be on-site.\nIn response to Mr. Piziali's question about overnight parking on-site, Ms. Altschuler replied that the\nvehicles would be parked on the taxiway.\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali regarding parking fees, Mr. Goldman agreed to get City\napproval.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding hours of approval, Mr. Goldman\nconfirmed that the earliest time for vendor set-up would be 4 a.m., rather than 2 a. .m. He noted that\nthey would follow the guidelines for the Antiques Fair. He did not believe that semi trucks would ever\nuse the site.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nMarch 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-28", "page": 5, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 05- to approve an\nInterim Use Permit to allow vintage auto and motorcycle sales at Alameda Point, for autos\nmanufactured in 1975 or earlier, parts and memorabilia with substantially the same size, scale, access,\nparking and conditions/requirements as the Antiques Fair. Operation would occur one Sunday per\nmonth plus setup and teardown times. This use would include approximately 2,000 booths, 7,000 on-\nsite parking spaces, over 40 acres near former Navy hangers, Bladium and other Alameda Point\nneighbors. The language regarding a start time of 4 a.m. instead of 2 a.m. would be changed in the\nconditions of approval.\nAYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -\n0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nMarch 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-28", "page": 6, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\n7-C. UP01-0022/DR01-0089: American Tower Corporation. Washington Park, 740 Central\nAvenue (DB). Renewal of expired Use Permit and Major Design Review for 90 foot tall\npainted metal monopole communications tower in place of an existing 47 foot tall light pole\nalong the upper baseball diamond left field fence at Washington Park. Associated ground\nequipment would be placed in a building of up to 825 square feet with screen-fenced ground\nequipment. A Use Permit is required by AMC Sections 30-4.1(c)(1) and (2) for any structure\nand above ground utility installation in the O Open Space Zoning District. (Continued from\nthe meeting of February 14, 2005. Staff recommends continuance to the meeting of\nApril 25, 2005.)\nM/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of April 25, 2005.\nAYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nMarch 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-28", "page": 7, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\n7-D.\nTM04-0005 SRM Associates 1851 Harbor Bay Parkway (JA/MG). Applicant requests\napproval of Parcel Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels in to sixteen parcels. The\nparcels are located within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are zoned C-M-PD, Commercial\nManufacturing, Planned Development District. (Continued from the meeting of March 14,\n2005.)\nM/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 05- to approve Parcel\nMap 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels in to sixteen parcels, including the following\nmodification:\n\"Prior to the recordation of the final map, SRM Associates, the applicant, will provide written\nevidence to City staff that they have received the approval of Parcel Map 8574 from the\ndeclarant and Harbor Bay Architectural Review Committee.\"\nAYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nMarch 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-28", "page": 8, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\n8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\nDR05-0028 - City of Alameda - 1416 Oak Street (JA/JO). Applicant Requests a Design\nReview for a 352 space, 6 level parking structure, open Public Hearing, provide comments\nand continue item to the meeting of April 11, 2005. The site is within the C-C Community\nCommercial, Zoning District.\nMs. Altschuler summarized the staff report, and noted that the Board would be asked to approve the\nPreliminary Design Review on April 11, 2005.\nMs. Jennifer Ott, Development Services, noted that the design was the culmination of a great deal of\nwork and feedback from the Planning Director, AAPS, PSBA, and the public at large. She noted that\nthe Planning Board's and HAB's comments would be incorporated into their final design presentation\non April 11, 2005. She noted that there were two alternatives for the fa\u00e7ade, featuring either shallow\nvine pockets or window casings. She displayed the boards and neighboring buildings on the overhead\nscreen.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham, Ms. Ott replied that this was a City project.\nMr. Michael Stanton, Michael Stanton Associates, described the design and signage, and displayed\nthe design and materials boards. He noted that the movie posters would be changed on a regular\nbasis.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Rosemary McNally, 2145 San Antonio, inquired whether the rush to restore the theater and build\nthe parking structure had given short shrift to consideration of the historical aspects. She noted that\nan independent historical consultant had been hired by the City to work with this project, and had not\nbeen aware of that position before. She believed that Alameda artists would be willing and able to\ncontribute to the mural choices.\nMr. Chuck Millar, 2829 San Jose Avenue, inquired about the historic review and the required\nmitigating measures for the project.\nMr. Robb Ratto, PSBA, spoke in support of this application and was excited about the overall\nconcept. He noted that staff would make a presentation to the PSBA Board on April 6, 2005. He\nnoted that many business owners on Park Street had waited for many years for a downtown parking\ngarage, and believed that it would be a high-quality structure.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nMarch 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-28", "page": 9, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nMr. Richard Rutter, AAPS, 2329 Santa Clara Avenue, #204, believed the current Oak Street fa\u00e7ade\nseemed jumbled and heavy, particularly in the distribution of materials, the handling of the openings,\nand the parapet design. He believed the paneled spandrels above and below the openings appeared to\nbe visually heavy, and suggested that larger openings be used, with dropped spandrels. He suggested\nthat the stairwells be glazed in order to enhance security and to bring in natural light. AAPS agreed\nwith City staffthat buff-colored brick, rather than red brick, could be very effective on this building.\nMs. Mary Jacak, PSBA member, 1330 Caroline Street, noted that she was pleased by the progress on\nthe parking garage, and added that the architect had worked with significant constraints to great\neffect. She would like the garage to look more like a building to accentuate the vertical elements,\nsimilar to the sketch that was presented; she believed the horizontal elements should be minimized.\nShe preferred the buff-colored brick. She was reluctant to use stairwells, particularly in parking\ngarages, and liked the idea of a glazed stairwell for enhanced security. She was unsure of the purpose\nof the curved element on top of the stairway.\nMr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, believed that the design was an eyesore and somewhat\njumbled. He did not like the exterior color, and did not believe the landscaping would be easy to\nmaintain. He inquired whether the garage would be a pay garage, or if flocal businesses would provide\nvalidation. He preferred AAPS's design to the current design.\nJay Justice, 3027 Linda Vista, spoke in support of this application and complimented the design. He\nnoted that it reminded him of the parking structure near the Fruitvale BART station. He encouraged\nthe City to ensure that the garage has sufficient spaces for non-compact cars.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham whether the parking structure fell under the\nhistorical review, Ms. Altschuler replied that the Cineplex and the parking garage were separate\nbuildings, and that the historic theater required a certificate of approval from the HAB for structural\nalterations. The HAB would examine the parking structure and would hold a public hearing. The\nproject would be reviewed to ensure its compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's standards.\nMs. Ott noted that the garage would be a pay garage with validation during the daytime, and will\noffer free parking during the evenings.\nMs. Doreen Soto, Development Services, advised that the garage payment hours would mirror the\nmeters and public parking lots; it will be free after 5 p.m. Parking will be free on Sunday. She noted\nthat parking patrons will be able to pay with parking tokens, their cell phone, and credit cards, and\nthat they wished to make the process easy.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nMarch 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-28", "page": 10, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nIn response to Vice President Cook's inquiry, Mr. Stanton described the exit paths of the garage.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the future of the parking garage if the\nCineplex could not be built, Ms. Soto replied that it would proceed regardless of the Cineplex's\nfuture. It had always been the City's intention to build a downtown parking garage.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the landscaping maintenance, Ms. Ott\nreplied that the City would maintain the landscaping because this is a public project.\nMs. Ott replied to Mr. Frederick's question regarding the exit through the cinema to the sidewalk,\nand stated that was an emergency exit not open to the public.\nMs. Mariani expressed concern that the feedback from the HAB would not leave enough time to\nmake substantive changes, if needed.\nMs. Soto noted that it was the City's goal to have the final design approved on April 11, in order to\ninclude it in the RFP package for the contractor.\nMr. Stanton noted that when the design comes back to the Planning Board on April 11, he could\ninclude the package that would go to the contractors in the meeting package.\nPresident Cunningham noted that the Board had been very concerned about the parking structure's\nappearance, and would not like to compromise the finer details by fast-tracking the process.\nMs. Altschuler noted that a member of the Planning Board may be part of the oversight team if so\ndesired.\nPresident Cunningham noted that he would be willing to serve in that capacity.\nMs. Altschuler noted that the comments from the HAB will be provided to the Board on April 11.\nVice President Cook requested the HAB's comments before the weekend of April 9 in order to\nreview them. Ms. Altschuler noted that she would make every effort to do so, and invited the Board\nmembers to attend the HAB meeting on Thursday, April 7, 7-10 p.m. She added that the meeting\nwould not be televised.\nMs. Mariani supported the idea of a glazed elevator, for safety and aesthetic purposes. She also\nfavored the use of movie posters as described by Mr. Ratto.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nMarch 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-28", "page": 11, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nVice President Cook liked the glazing suggestion for safety purposes. She believed the base of the\nstructure appeared somewhat weak, and would like to see more solidity. Regarding the use of vines\nversus movie posters, she noted that use of posters did give ownership of that space to the Cineplex\noperator. However, she did not support the idea of broadcasting Hollywood's message to the City's\nyouth, especially since a high school and church were located across the street from the movie\nposters. She would like the lower doors to look more like a door than a solid mass. She liked the\nproposed illuminated signage, as well as the understated nature of the remainder of the signage. She\ndid not object to the varying parapet, and believed it broke up the massing. She did not believe the\nbuilding design appeared to be jumbled; she also liked the arch.\nMr. Piziali noted that he preferred to trellis to the display cases, which could be susceptible to graffiti.\nHe believed the marquee would appear messy and cluttered. He liked the idea of widening the\nsidewalk, adding a bike lane and trees, and pulling the parking off the street. He was pleased with Mr.\nStanton's building design.\nPresident Cunningham believed that if the parapet were to be articulated, it should be a strong\nstatement. He strongly supported the glazed stairwells, and supported increasing the capacity of the\nstructure. He suggested increased the height of the shear wall in the parapet area. He was troubled by\nthe size of the punch windows, and understood the intent of breaking up the massing with the\nconcrete. He concurred with Mr. Piziali's comments regarding the artwork, and believed some\nartwork should be on the wall; he suggested continuing the verticality of the wall. He supported the\nuse of landscaping versus posters if its maintenance could be guaranteed; otherwise, movie posters\nwould be acceptable. He believed the shear wall should be accentuated as a solid area, with open\npieces between the shear wall and the stairwell.\nMr. Stanton noted that they had a full design development package for the garage that was not yet\nfleshed out. He anticipated that there would be enough rigor in the package by April 11.\nMs. Mariani volunteered to participate in the subcommittee.\nMs. Ott suggested that the subcommittee meet after the HAB meeting of April 7, 2005.\nPresident Cunningham volunteered to participate in the subcommittee.\nMr. Stanton requested President Cunningham's comments about Vice President Cook's preference\nfor a lighter palette. President Cunningham would support a lighter palette, given the proximity of the\nlibrary and Twin Towers church.\nM/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of April 11,\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nMarch 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-28", "page": 12, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\n2005.\nAYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\n10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION\na. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice\nPresident Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that the APAC cohosted a well-attended meeting with the\nTransportation Commission on March 23, 2005. The purpose was to address transportation issues,\nfocusing on the most likely transportation and parking improvements, particularly the shuttles, and\nEco-Pass. A range of transit improvements were examined, including new shuttles to be paid for by\nthe project, an aerial tram to Jack London Square and bus expediting procedures through the Tube.\nConnections to the 12th Street BART station were more important to the participants than to the\nFruitvale BART station; crosstown connections were also very important. The connection between\nland use, density and transportation was also discussed.\nb. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that there was nothing to report since the last meeting.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).\nBoard Member Piziali advised that newspaper reports stated that new buildings and clubhouses were\nbeing looked at, but added that there was no new information from the Committee.\nd. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember Mariani).\nBoard Member Mariani advised that her committee was collaborating with the APAC, and was\nincorporating the issues of downtown Oakland and Jack London Square as well. Four alternatives for\nnew on-ramps and off-ramps to I-880 were being considered. Traffic between Alameda and Oakland\nwas discussed, as well as one-way streets and delivery truck parking congestion. Creative financing\nfor various projects were discussed, and one member suggested a toll into Alameda, although that\nwas considered to be an unlikely option. The next meeting will be held in April.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nMarch 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-28", "page": 13, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\n10.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\nPresident Cunningham noted that this was Ms. Altschuler's last official meeting, although she would\nattend the next meeting to follow up on the parking structure item. He thanked Ms. Altschuler for her\nhard work over the years.\n11.\nADJOURNMENT:\n9:25 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJerry Cormack, Interim Secretary\nCity Planning Department\nThese minutes were approved at the April 11, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio\nand video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nMarch 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf"}