{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2005-04-25", "page": 1, "text": "COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nApril 25, 2005\nPresent: Berger, Bunker, Chadow, Chair Cooney, Fort, Vice-Chair Gwynne, Longley-Cook,\nMcGaughey, Steffens,\nAbsent/Excused: McCoy, Moore\nGuests: Jackie Krause (Mastick Senior Center Senior Services Manager), Barbara Hawkins\n(Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works Department), Anne Steiner\nMINUTES: The minutes of March 28, 2005 where approved.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\n1. Commissioner Adrienne Langley-Cook informed the commission that Crosstown\nCoffee House would have an art, crafts and flower sale to benefit the Community\nCenter on April 30th\nNEW BUSINESS:\n1. Paratransit:\nMs. Jackie Krause, Senior Services Manager Mastick Senior Center, discussed the proposed\nMeasure B Paratransit funding application program for fiscal year 2005/2006 to the\ncommission. Hi-lights of the program will include subsidized taxi services for ADA\nregistered applicants who do not always have effective access to East Bay Paratransit\nServices at certain times of the day or from certain out of reach locations when East Bay\nParatransit is not available. The City will also offer taxi service for those needing immediate\ntransportation services to medical appointments during the 21-day certification period.\nJackie distributed an Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA)\n\"Accessible Transit Services in Alameda County' booklet to the commissioners. She also\ndistributed Paratransit applications and that assistance in completing the applications is\navailable at Mastic Senior Center. In a call to questions regarding improvements to the\nprogram, Commissioner Gina McGaughey stated that route scheduling could be better\ncoordinated between multiple pickups. Jackie suggested that she could arrange for a\nrepresentative from Paratransit to meet with the commission, but that any meeting would\nhave to be during the day, not evening. Vice-Chair James Gwynne informed the commission\nthat there will be a mobility exposition November 18-20 in Santa Clara and asked Jackie if\narrangements could be made for a Paratransit service to the expedition. Jackie stated that\nthat is a possibility but would need to know the time and number of people planning to\nattend.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2005-04-25", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nApril 25, 2005\nMinutes\nPage 2 of 2\nOLD BUSINESS:\n1. Transportation Master Plan Policies:\nMs. Barbara Hawkins, Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works Department, discussed the\nTransportation Master Plan Policies document with the commission as they relate to the\ndisabled community. The commission moved approval of the document with the following\nmodifications: a):\n2. Policy research, writing and implementation:\nChair Ed Cooney recommended that the sub-committee's proposed recommendations for\nADA policies for providing effective communications and reasonable accommodations for\npersons with disabilities be adopted. The commission moved adoption of the\nrecommendations with minor modifications. a) Change I.b. \"\nvision, mobility and\nlanguage impairments\" to \" vision, mobility, language and cognitive impairments.\" b)\nChange II. a. \" language and mobility impairments.' To\nmobility, language and\ncognitive impairments.\" c) Change Procedures, 1st sentence \" this communications and\naccess policy.' to \" this Communications and Access Policy (CAP)\" and d) Procedures, c.,\nchange \" w/c accessibility \"to \"wheelchair accessibility\n\"\n2. Bus Shelters:\nCommissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook informed the commissioners that she and the\nsecretary had inspected the recently installed bus shelters and compiled a list of shelters that\nneeded the benches slightly relocated to the right or left to better facilitate wheelchair users.\nThe list was provided to Public Works.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\n1. The City's CATV channel scrolling has the wrong meeting time listed for the commission.\nSecretary to follow up.\n2. Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook informed the commission on upcoming Alameda\nCollaborative events: a) Alameda Walk in conjunction with Recreation and Parks Dept and\nPedestrian Friendly Alameda on May 7th and b) Festival of Families at South Shore Center\nMay 7th\n3. Commissioner Charles Bunker stated that ACI's trash receptacle is blocking the handicap", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2005-04-25", "page": 3, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nApril 25, 2005\nMinutes\nPage 3 of 3\nramp at McKay Avenue and Central Avenue. Secretary to follow up.\n4. Commissioner Alysa Chadow informed the commission that Adobe Illustrator software has\nthe capability for Braille conversion for embossing printers.\n5.\nCommissioner Toby Burger informed the commission that the Alameda Journal is not listing\nthe commission meeting dates in the calendar. Secretary to follow up.\n6. Chair Edwin Cooney stated that U.S. mailboxes are being removed throughout the City\nmaking it difficult for the disabled and would like to agendize for discussion at the May\ncommissioner's meeting.\n7. The commission would like that meeting agendas and minutes be provided in Braille.\nSecretary to follow up.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, May 23rd 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\\0425min.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2005-04-25", "page": 1, "text": "OF\nof\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nPENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nHELD 4:30 P.M., MONDAY, APRIL 25, 2005\nALAMEDA CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA\nCONFERENCE ROOM 391\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order by Member William Soderlund at 4:32 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL: Present: Trustees Nancy Elzig, William Soderlund and Karen\nWillis. Staff: Juelle-Ann Boyer, Chief Financial Officer and Marsha Merrick,\nExecutive Assistant, Human Resources. Absent: Chair Beverly Johnson and\ntrustee Robert Follrath.\n3.\nMINUTES: The minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 31, 2005 were\nreviewed. Member Elzig motioned to accept the minutes as presented, member\nWillis seconded; all were in favor and passed with a 3-0 vote.\n4.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n4-A.\nPENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2005:\na.\nIn the amount of $ 264,971.06 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.\nb.\nIn the amount of $ 3,258.44 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.\n4-B.\nPENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2005:\na.\nIn the amount of $ 256,786.23 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1067, N.S.\nb.\nIn the amount of $ 3,388.78 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.\n4-C.\nPENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 2005:\na.\nIn the amount of $ 262,438.70 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.\nb.\nIn the amount of $ 3,323.61 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.\n\"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service\"", "path": "PensionBoard/2005-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2005-04-25", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, April 25, 2005\nPage 2\nMember Willis motioned to adopt the consent calendar as presented, Member\nElzig seconded; all were in favor and passed with a 3-0 vote.\n5.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\n5-A. On a motion by Member Elzig and seconded by Member Willis, the Chief\nFinancial Officer's Financial Report for City of Alameda Police and Fire\nPension Funds for the period ending March 31, 2005 was accepted as\npresented; all were in favor and passed with a 3-0 vote.\n5-B. Juelle-Ann Boyer, Chief Financial Officer, spoke about the preliminary\nActuarial Valuation Report for the Police and Fire Retirement System\n(Plan 1079 and Plan 1082). Reiterating that these were merely highlights\nof the preliminary report, Ms. Boyer indicated that the finalized report\nwould go to City Council for their information and to each Pension Board\nmember as well.\n5-C. Cost estimate research results from Public Works for purchasing/erecting\nnew flagpoles at City Hall were distributed to members present. Absent\nmembers will be sent copies of the results, and this item will be continued\non the July 2005 Pension Board agenda.\n5-D.\nMember Willis motioned to accept, with regrets, the memo from Human\nResources notifying of the death of 1079 Pensioner, Patrick McDermott.\nMember Elzig seconded; all were in favor and passed with a 3-0 vote.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no oral communications.\n7.\nPENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)\nThere were no communications from the board.\n8.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThere being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was\nadjourned at 4:50 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nKaren Willis, Human Resources Director\nand Secretary to the Pension Board\n\"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service\"", "path": "PensionBoard/2005-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-04-25", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, April 25, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:02 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMs. McNamara\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani, McNamara and\nPiziali.\nBoard member Cook was absent.\nAlso in attendance were Interim Planning Director Jerry Cormack, Building Official Gregory J.\nMcFann, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Planner II Dennis Brighton, Executive Assistant\nLatisha Jackson, Bruce Knopf Development Services, Barbara Hawkins Public Works.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of April 11, 2005.\nMs. Kohlstrand noted that page 12, Item 9 read, \"Ms. Kohlstrand understood that the Beltway was\nbeing preserved for the light rail line, and inquired whether it would be eliminated.\" She wished to\nclarify that she referred to the policy regarding the light rail preservation of the beltway, not whether\nthe light rail line itself would be eliminated.\nMr. Piziali noted that page 9, third paragraph from the bottom read, \"Mr. Piziali believed the\ndriveway should be narrowed in the front, and did not believe a single curb cut would be legal. He\nwished to clarify that the pavement of the driveway was very wide, and that they were parking two\ncars there. He wanted to see the driveway brought back to Code with respect to the project.\nPresident Cunningham advised that in Item 9-B, he made note that he would like the Transportation\nCommission to identify any areas that would qualify for funding of grants to help implement policies\nwith less of a financial impact to the City.\nM/S Piziali/Kohlstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of April 11, 2005, as\ncorrected.\nAYES - 5; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 2 (Cook, Mariani)\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION: None.\n7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nApril 25, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-04-25", "page": 2, "text": "7-A.\nEndorsement of the Webster Street Strategic Plan (BK) A request for endorsement of the\nWebster Street Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan analyzes retail market opportunities and\nrevitalization goals and strategies for the Webster Street Corridor. (Staff requests a\ncontinuance to the meeting of May 9, 2005.)\nM/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of May 9, 2005.\nAYES - 5; (Cook, Mariani) NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -\n0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nApril 25, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-04-25", "page": 3, "text": "7-B\nDR05-0028 - City of Alameda - 1416 Oak Street (JA/JO). Applicant requests acceptance\nof preliminary Design for a 352-space parking structure, at the corner of Oak Street and\nCentral Avenue, generally on the Video Maniac site. This site is located at 1416 Oak Street\nsite within the C-C-PB Community Commercial, Community Commercial - Planned\nDevelopment Zoning Districts. {(Continued from the meeting of April 11, 2005.) (Staff\nrequests a continuance to the meeting of May 9, 2005.)}\nM/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of May 9, 2005.\nAYES - 5(Cook, Mariani); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nApril 25, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-04-25", "page": 4, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\nRecommendation of the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study (BB). A request\nfor review and recommendation of alignment for the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study.\nThe Cross Alameda Trail would enhance access to destination points along the northern\nportion of Alameda's main island by providing improved bicycling and pedestrian facilities and\nwould also serve as a recreational facility.\nMs. Barbara Hawkins summarized the staff report.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Jon Spangler, Cross Alameda Trail Steering Committee, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in\nfavor of this item, and commended the Public Works staff for their efforts in finding a logistical\nsolution for a difficult trail. He noted that it would provide an east-west transportation link for\npedestrians and bicyclists; it will provide better links to BART; it will provide the possibility of a bus-\nrapid transit or ultralight rail right-of-way. The eventual development of Alameda Point would make\nthose items necessary. He noted that it would be easier to address the section between Main Street\nand Webster Street, which he believed would have a great effect on the Webster/Atlantic intersection,\nif grant money could be obtained.\nMs. Debra Arbuckle, 9th Street, spoke in favor of this item, and noted that the neighborhood had been\nworking on this issue for approximately nine years. She supported the use of alternative\ntransportation, such as electric bikes, and noted that this issue needed a lot of community support.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Ms. Hawkins explained the difference between\ncommuter alignment and recreational alignments #1 and #2. She noted that in the past, Bike Alameda\nhas proposed a bicycle boulevard down Pacific, which would enhance bicycle opportunities by\ncreating less of a desired route for vehicles.\nMr. Lynch did not believe that a bike rider considered a Class 1, 2 or 3, but that they moved to avoid\ntraffic upon perception of that traffic. As bike paths are being created, he suggested that other traffic\ncalming techniques be considered that are not currently in place, and that may mean additional\ninconvenience in terms of travel time for vehicles.\nMs. Hawkins advised that the Transportation Master Plan will feature a grid system for vehicles,\npedestrians, and bicyclists.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nApril 25, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-04-25", "page": 5, "text": "Ms. McNamara did not believe the costs of removing the rails were included in the estimates. Ms.\nHawkins detailed the costs contained in the estimate.\nPresident Cunningham inquired about the aspirations of the trail, and whether the text allowed for\nmodifications or improvements. Ms. Hawkins replied that it was a corridor that would connect\nresidential with commercial, and that surrounding businesses may wish to contribute to it because of\ntheir proximity to the trail.\nPresident Cunningham inquired whether the bike path would be adopted in a landscape strip, and\nwhether that would be a general policy. He referenced the section by Starbucks. Ms. Hawkins replied\nthat was the most difficult section in the whole alignment. In trying to accommodate that option,\nalong with the pedestrians, the landscaping was sacrificed. If that area is not used for the bus rapid\ntransit corridor, it would not be sacrificed. She noted that would not be a typical policy.\nM/S Piziali/Kohlstrand and unanimous to reopen the public hearing.\nThe public hearing was reopened.\nMs. Arbuckle indicated the train museum in Sacramento was given most of the rails from the tracks;\none set of rails was retained along the south side.\nMr. Spangler noted that the Marina waterfront access on the Estuary was very important to many\npeople. He noted that the concerns were: toxic pollution from industrial uses, such as shipyards, the\nownership issues, and the security for all the boat owners, particularly those who reside on\nliveaboards. He noted that Pacific was a Class 1 route, which was signed, and with no extra line or\nstriping on the pavement; stop signs were placed on every block to maintain pedestrian safety and\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nApril 25,2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-04-25", "page": 6, "text": "lower traffic speeds. He noted that those stop signs were obstructions for bicycle commuters, and a\nbicycle boulevard would allow straight-through, non-stop bike traffic. He believed that would\nenhance safety.\nThe public hearing was closed.\nM/S Piziali/ McNamara and unanimous that the Board's comments be passed to the City Council.\nAYES - 6 (Cook); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nApril 25, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-04-25", "page": 7, "text": "8-B.\nUP01-0022/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 March 28, 2005.)\nMr. Bruce Knopf, Redevelopment Manager, Development Services, summarized the staff report,\nwished to correct two errors in the staff report. He noted that the height of the proposed monopole\nwas the same height as existing poles that hold up nets at the field and light standards. The Recreation\n& Park Commission reviewed this proposal on April 14, 2005, and recommended its approval in a 5-1\nvote. Staff recommended that Section 4(b) of the resolution be modified to specify installation of two\npicnic tables and barbecues on a 15 X 40 foot decomposed granite pad in the area that was previously\nproposed for the equipment shelter. Item 4(c) should be modified to state that the approved color the\nequipment shelter is Sherwin Williams Oak Moss SW6180. Item 4(e) should be modified to specify\nthe species of landscaping to be Escalonia five-gallon, two feet on center.\nPresident Cunningham acknowledged the presence of Mr. Lil Arnerich in the audience.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Jay Ingram, Chair, Recreation and Parks Commission, spoke in opposition to this item and noted\nthat the vote was and 4-1 because there were only five members. He added that he was the one \"no\"\nvote. He noted that early discussions were held to consider sinking the pole building five feet into the\nground, which was not followed up on, presumably because of the cost. He was given the impression\nthat fake trees could be used as towers, but the pictures were never provided. He expressed concern\nthat the paint of the maintenance shed would match the fluting on the side; no pictures had been\nprovided. He requested that American Tower be required to pay for the pulling of the electricity and\nany damage to the sprinkler systems when the pole is put up. Recreation and Parks supported the idea\nof a silver pole, and noted that it should be hidden in the body of the pole. He noted that the largest\ncell towers would be placed in the City's showpiece park. He noted that if the cell industry changes\nwhile the ten-year agreement was still in force, that the lease agreement requires American Tower to\nremove the container and pole, and that the park is left the way it was. He expressed concern that the\nbaseball players would be displaced by this use during before or after game time, and hoped that\nAmerican Tower would pay for any associated costs as well.\nMr. Lil Arnerich reviewed the features of the field on the overhead display, and noted that the\nprevious site for the building would have been out of balance and proportion for the park. He noted\nthat in conjunction with the Planning Board and the Recreation Commission, the pole was moved\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nApril 25, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-04-25", "page": 8, "text": "further to the left field line, which would be located farther from the main activities in the park. He\nhad reservations about the Park Department's statement that grass area would die out due to lack of\nsunlight, and would examine that possibility further. He believed that three or four picnic tables and\nbarbecue pits would be warranted because the area was used heavily in the summer; he did not believe\nthat two picnic tables would be sufficient. He suggested that when the permit is resubmitted because a\nparticular group cannot fulfill it obligation, the whole contract should be looked at in its entirety. He\nbelieved the Planning Board should be cognizant of the facts when entering into leases, and believed\nthat a ten-year contract with five-year renewals would be sufficient. He noted that if cell phone\ntechnology did not require poles in the future, the poles would be removed.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMs. McNamara shared Mr. Ingram's concerns about the girth of the pole, whether it would be a tree\nor a pole, maintenance issues, as well as the height of the tower. She inquired about the exit strategy\nwhen technology advancement made this hardware obsolete; the towers would then become an\neyesore.\nWith respect to obsolescence, Mr. Knopf noted that the lease provided that the lessee is responsible\nfor removing all of the above-grade improvements at their own cost within 45 days of termination of\nthe lease, and that it should be restored to its previous condition. He noted that the question of\ndiameter was discussed at the Recreation and Park Commission; poles of this size were generally\nbetween 3 - 4.5 feet wide at the base, and that they taper to 2 feet at the top. The applicant had not\nbeen able to discuss specific design for this pole because construction drawings had not yet been\ndone.\nPresident Cunningham inquired about the price for maintaining the screening, and believed it would\nbe unfair for the City to bear that cost. Mr. Knopf noted that climbing vines were initially discussed;\nRecreation and Parks staff was concerned about fast-growing vines and the need for maintenance. A\nslow-growing species of plant was selected that would require minimum maintenance. American\nTower would be obligated to maintain the facility.\nMr. Lynch suggested that the technology should be examined in the future, because it affected the\nline-of-sight and other technical considerations. He suggested that the carrier submit an annual report\naddressing the condition of the pole, and to ensure the pole is painted.\nMs. Kohlstrand expressed concern about the height and visibility of the pole. Mr. Knopf replied that\nthe photo simulation was shot down the fence line, and noted that the poles were located at the end of\nthat line. He added that cell sites were low-power sites that must be located every half-mile or so to\nprovide adequate coverage, and that they were line-of-sight repeaters; they are placed as low as\npossible to the ground. Regarding cost, he believed the City got the best deal possible with American\nTower. He described the business mission and leasing policies of American Tower. He noted that this\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nApril 25,2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-04-25", "page": 9, "text": "was a good location in the heavily used Washington Park because it was not used at all. While this\nmonopole was larger than the pole approved several years ago, it was a better design in that all of the\nantennas were hidden inside the pole.\nMs. Mariani noted that the City had been in a legally binding contract with American Tower since\n1991.\nMr. Piziali suggested that the additional picnic tables be added if possible.\nMr. Dale Wright, Acting Director, Recreation and Parks, deferred to Mr. Arnerich's experience, and\nwas confident that they could work out three or four tables and barbecue pits. He noted that it was\nthe intent to paint the building to match.\nM/S Mariani/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No.PB-05-14 to approve a renewal of\nexpired Use Permit and Major Design Review for 90 foot tall painted metal monopole\ncommunications tower in place of an existing 47 foot tall light pole along the upper baseball diamond\nleft field fence at Washington Park. Associated ground equipment would be placed in a building of\nup to 825 square feet with screen-fenced ground equipment. A Use Permit is required by AMC\nSections 30-4.1(c)(1) and (2) for any structure and above ground utility installation in the O Open\nSpace Zoning District.\nTo include the items in the email dated 4/25/05, with the following amendments:\na.\nPainting both buildings; and\nb.\nAdditional picnic tables would be added at the selection of the Acting Director of\nRecreation and Parks;\nAYES - 5 (Cook absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN -\n0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nApril 25, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-04-25", "page": 10, "text": "8-C.\nZA05-0003 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment/City-wide (JC) 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 yard\nrequirements for additions to existing residences, provide a definition for \"replacement-in-\nkind\", off-street parking regulations and simplifying reconstruction of non-conforming\nresidential structures.\nMr. Cormack summarized the staff report.\nMr. Piziali noted that the main change would be the additional two-foot setback for a second story.\nMr. Cormack asked whether there was Board consensus to reduce the side yard to five feet.\nPresident Cunningham noted that the key element was the opportunity for review by the neighbors in\nthe future.\nMs. Kohlstrand noted that instead of mandating the two-foot subject, it could be looked at from the\nperspective to ensure there would not be adverse shadow impacts on the neighbors.\nMr. Cormack noted that the second point was to continue to use the K&L findings for encroachments\ninto yards.\nMr. Piziali did not believe that someone with a substandard sideyard should get more of a benefit than\nsomeone who had built within the standard setback. He believed that the two-foot requirement for the\nsecond floor should be deleted, in favor of a five-foot setback.\nMs. Kohlstrand believed there was concurrence within the Board to require a standard five-foot side\nyard setback. The Board concurred that (c) would be acceptable with respect to cantilevering, as long\nas there were no shading problems. The five foot setback would apply to new construction.\nMr. Lynch believed there would be mechanisms that would encourage homeownership and\nmaintaining the highest value of the property. He believed that losing three feet would be a\ndisincentive to those goals.\nMr. Cormack noted that it was uncommon to tear a building down to the ground, rather than doing\nan extensive rebuild from the existing foundation.\nMr. Lynch believed it was important to clarify this issue, and did not agree with manipulation of the\nCode. He inquired whether the setback should be 7 or 5 feet; the Board consensus was 5 feet. He\ninquired whether the Board should take this opportunity to make the Code more uniform. He would\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nApril 25, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-04-25", "page": 11, "text": "like to see a matrix containing what features are included in each kind of lot coverage, and believed\nthat was a major issue.\nMs. Kohlstrand supported a uniform sideyard standard.\nPresident Cunningham supported Mr. Lynch's idea of a matrix.\nMs. McNamara supported 20% or a five foot minimum on all districts.\nPresident Cunningham believed the matrix would help the public.\nMr. Lynch believed this was an opportunity to make certain items in the Code uniform.\nMs. McNamara added that the issue of equitable application of the Code to nonconforming setbacks\nwas allowed for with the building of the additional story straight up, without being required to go\nback two feet.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Piziali to approve a setback of not less than five feet for all interior sideyards and to\nretain the 20% sideyard regulation for wider lots and continue to use the K&L findings for any\nprojects that needed a variation for all districts.\nAYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nRegarding tandem parking, Mr. Carvalho displayed examples of tandem parking on the overhead\nscreen and summarized that part of the staff report.\nMr. Cormack advised that one issue was conversion of existing garages to allow for more tandem\nparking on the property and the second issue was the number of vehicles in tandem.\nMr. Piziali noted that he was not interested in exceeding one car for tandem parking, as cited in the\nregulations. He was not in favor of SK-2 as presented at this meeting, but would consider SK-1. He\nexpressed concern about SK-3, where cars would park within the 20-foot front yard setback; he\nbelieved that would be poison for Alameda. He was especially concerned about people parking on the\nfront lawn.\nMs. Mariani believed that was an unrealistic expectation, and that the third car would end up on the\nstreet.\nMs. Shumaker noted that planning staff were stymied as to what to do at the counter when a resident\nwishes to make an improvement to their house, but cannot conform to the ordinance; she understood\nMr. Piziali's point of view.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nApril 25, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-04-25", "page": 12, "text": "Mr. Lynch did not believe this would be examined in terms of a remodel or anything dealing with\nconstruction. He believed the first question was why the Code penalized individuals for parking in\ntheir driveway, even in the front 20 feet.\nA discussion regarding the pros and cons of tandem parking ensued.\nM/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous to re-open the public hearing.\nMs. Barbara Kerr noted the notion of simplifying the Residential Code by making things more\nuniform, eliminating differences between the different residential zones, which had been referred to as\nZone Compression for the last 15 years. She urged the Board to recognize the differences in\nAlameda, and that she did not wish the characteristics of the neighborhoods and development rights\nto be impinged upon. She did not want the community to be treated as if it were a Monopoly set. She\nopposed simplification of the Codes in such a manner.\nMr. Jon Spangler agreed with Ms. Kerr's comments, and agreed with Mr. Piziali's point that a limit\nshould be placed on the tyranny of the automobile and the oversized box on a tiny lot. He noted that\nMeasure A was implemented to eliminate \"Crackerjack\" apartment houses, which still exist on the\nIsland; he did not wish to see Crackerjack boxes in the R-1 districts. He believed people would be\nallowed to put larger homes on lots within reason of scale, and for the City to be able to waive\nparking requirements if the people will sign an agreement that they will not have six vehicles per\nresidence. He did not believe that parking three cars made sense, and believed the Board should\nrestrict that. He believed on-street parking was ugly, and created a hazard for bicyclists, especially on\nnarrow streets like Sherman.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMr. Lynch noted that after the public comments, there was still conflict, and wished to clarify that he\nhad no desire to restrict or to allow people to build to the maximum limits of their lots. He noted that\nwas an economic issue. For the documents before the Board, he understood but would not support\nSK-5 or SK-4; he would support SK-2. He supported the idea of being flexible based upon zoning.\nHe believed SK-2 would apply to very few lots in Alameda, and that it need not be restricted if they\nwere in conformity in every other sense, constituting a unique benefit to that parcel. He did not\nsuggest opening upon tandem, triple or quadruple parking for all of Alameda.\nMr. Piziali stated that he wanted to leave the requirements as is, with two car tandem parking, no\nparking in the front, and a 20-yard setback.\nPresident Cunningham would rather see more green space in the back than tell a resident to balloon\ntheir driveway out in the back and cover up more green space. He noted that if a resident is prepared\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nApril 25, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-04-25", "page": 13, "text": "to accept the three-car tandem parking, it is a personal choice.\nMs. Mariani suggested continuing this item to a later meeting.\nMr. Lynch agreed that the uniqueness of the neighborhoods and zones should be retained, and\nemphasized that the wording of the text would have a significant impact.\nM/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous not to revise the current Code regulations pertaining to 20 foot\nsetbacks.\nAYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nM/S Piziali/McNamara to retain the language pertaining to two-car tandem parking.\nAYES - 4 (Cook absent); NOES - 2 (Cunningham, Lynch); ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nApril 25, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-04-25", "page": 14, "text": "9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\n10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC (Vice-\nPresident Cook).\nVice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).\nVice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).\nBoard member Piziali advised he had nothing new to report.\nd.\nOral Status Report regarding Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nmember Mariani).\nBoard member Mariani advised that there had been no meetings since her last report.\n11.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n10:02 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJerry Cormack, Interim Secretary\nCity Planning Department\nThese minutes were approved at the May 9, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio\nand video taped.\nG:\\PLANNING\\PB\\Agendas_Minutes\\Minutes.05\\April 25 Minutes.doc\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nApril 25, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf"}