{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2006-04-24", "page": 1, "text": "COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nApril 24, 2006\nPresent: Chair Cooney, Berger, Bunker, Fort, Longley-Cook, Lord-Hausman, Vice Chair Moore\nAbsent/Excused: Gwynne, Steffens\nGuests: Ed Sommerauer (Alameda Public Works), Paullina Kirola\nMINUTES: The minutes of February 27, 2006 were approved.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None\nNEW BUSINESS:\n1. Paratransit Advisory Meeting:\nChair Cooney reported on the April 24th meeting of the Paratransit Advisory Planning\nCommittee (PAPCo) held in Hayward. PAPCo was agreeable to use grant monies for signal\ncountdowns and sidewalk accessibility but were less favorable to using paratransit monies\nfor audible crossings since it was considered a secondary issue. However, ACTEA was\nmore agreeable for using grant monies for audibles.\n2. Paratrasit Annual Program:\nEd Sommerauer, Associate Civil Engineer, presented to the Commission on Disability Issues\na proposed modification to the City of Alameda Paratransit Program. The City is proposing\na taxi scrip program to augment the existing program. There will be approximately $60,000\nper year for this program. The Commission agreed to support a program that would\nmaximize the mobility of persons with disabilities.\nThe Commission also agreed that the program should consider the following:\n-The program should serve seniors and persons with disabilities\n-People over the age of 70 and disabled persons that qualify for East Bay Paratransit\nService would also qualify for the taxi scrip program.\n-There should be no restrictions on the types of trips.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-04-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2006-04-24", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nApril 24, 2006\nMinutes\nPage 2 of 3\n- There should no restrictions on the number of trips.\n-\nThe rider should pay on a 1:4 ratio (25%) of the fare, similar to the BART program.\n- The current MRTIP program that provides trips to passengers free of charge should\ncontinue unchanged.\nA motion to have Chairman Cooney write a letter describing the Commission's\nrecommendations was proposed by Charles Bunker and second by Adrienne Longly-Cook\nThe motion passed unanimously.\nOLD BUSINESS:\n1. Status of Accommodation Recommendations:\nChair Cooney will present report on providing costs of various Braille transcriptions/sign\nlanguage interpreters at the next Commission meeting.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n1. Ed Sommerauer discussed accessibility to the newly opened Ortez Restaurant on Webster\nStreet. The main entrance to the restaurant is from the parking lot off Pacific Street.\nCurrently there is a decal on the door opening onto Webster Street directing people to the\naccessible entrance of the parking lot. The Commission recommended a sign, not a decal,\nwould be used to direct disabled people to the main entrance.\n2. Ed Sommerauer handed out a flyer describing the theater project. The Commission's\ncontributions to the project were acknowledged in the flyer\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\n1. Chairman Ed Cooney received a phone call from a woman who requested that the curb in\nfront of her residence be painted blue. The item will be placed on the agenda for the next\nmeeting.\n2. Commissioner Jody Moore volunteered to man a booth at the Festival of Families on May\n13.\n3. Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook said construction during the renovation of the\nTowne Center has created accessibility problems.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-04-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2006-04-24", "page": 3, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nApril 24, 2006\nMinutes\nPage 3 of 3\n4. Commissioner Toby Berger mentioned that the first Concert at the Cove for this year would\nbe held on June 9. The commission will have a booth. Additional concerts will be in July\nand August.\n5. Commissioner Charles Bunker mentioned that the Pier 29 Restaurant would relocate to the\nformer Wale's Tail Restaurant located on Bellina Boulevard.\n6.\nCommissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman reminded the Commission that Meet Your Public\nOfficials event will occur on April 28th between 5:30 and 7:30 p.m.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, May 22, 2006 in\nRoom 360, City Hall.\nSincerely,\nMatthew T. Naclerio\nPublic Works Director\nRobert Claire\nAssociate Civil Engineer\nRC:lc\nG:\\pubworks\\LT\\MCD Disability Committee/2006/424min.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-04-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-04-24", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, April 24, 2006\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:06 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMs. Mariani\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, Kohlstrand, Lynch and\nMariani.\nMs. Ezzy Ashcraft was absent from roll call.\nVice-President Cook and Board Member McNamara were absent.\nAlso in attendance were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Building Official Greg\nMcFann, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner II Dennis Brighton, Planner II Emily Pudell,\nExecutive Assistant Latisha Jackson.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of April 10, 2006\nMs. Kohlstrand noted that the discussion on page 9 read, \"She would like a better connection to the\nrest of Alameda and further examination of the use of the Tubes.' She intended to convey her belief\nthat the City could make better use of the frontage road, the name of which she did not know, at\nMariner Square in terms of providing access to the site.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Lynch to approve the minutes for the meeting of April 10, 2006, as amended.\nAYES - 3 (Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Mariani)\nA quorum was not present. The minutes will be considered at the meeting of May 8, 2006.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None\nPresident Cunningham advised that there was a request from the Board to move Item 8-C from the\nRegular Agenda to the Consent Calendar.\nM/S Lynch/Kohlstrand and unanimous to move Item 8-C from the Regular Agenda to the Consent\nCalendar.\nAYES - 4 (Ezzy Ashcraft, Cook and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nApril 24, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-04-24", "page": 2, "text": "6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nMr. Brian Gardner wished to speak on behalf of John Russo, the City Attorney of Oakland who is\nrunning for State Assembly. He noted that Mr. Russo led the fight to keep the casino out of the City\nof Oakland, and conducted an eight-year legal fight to shut down the medical waste incinerator in the\nCity of Oakland. He would fight for full health care, education and for Alameda to receive its full\nshare of taxes, as well as to stop urban sprawl. He has also served as head of League of Cities.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nApril 24, , 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-04-24", "page": 3, "text": "7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A.\nTM06-0001- - Barry Vial - 1951 Harbor Bay Parkway (DG). The applicant requests\napproval of Tentative Parcel Map 8980, allowing the conveyance of up to 13 separate\ncommercial spaces located within two buildings to separate owners. The project site is zoned\nC-M-PD Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District.\nMs. Kohlstrand noted that the Board requested consideration for removing parking spaces in front of\nthe building along Harbor Bay Parkway. She noticed that there were still parking spaces there, and\nrequested clarification of the changes and how they would affect the subdivision of the parcels.\nMr. Garrison advised that there were originally 11 parking spaces in front, which had been reduced to\nseven spaces, with the four extra spaces moved to the side and to the rear. Additional landscaping had\nbeen installed in front. The parking allocation would be addressed through the CC&Rs.\nMs. Kohlstrand was uncomfortable with any parking in front of this development, which would be\nreflected in her vote.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham on whether Item 7-A should be placed on the\nRegular Agenda because of the lengthy discussion, Ms. Woodbury replied that it should be pulled in\nthe affirmative.\nMs. Kohlstrand stated she would like the parking to be eliminated from the front of the site. Ms.\nWoodbury replied that staff looked at the circulation issues with other departments, which was the\nreason the parking could not be eliminated. The area must be maintained for emergency circulation\nand circulation for the site as a whole.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Mariani and unanimous to move Item 7-A from the Consent Calendar to the Regular\nAgenda.\nAYES - 4 (Ezzy Ashcraft, Cook and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Barry Vial, applicant, noted that the project contained individual units for sale to small business\nowners, and the project as approved called for a middle unit with reasonably close parking to those\nfacilities. He did not believe it was a good amenity for an owner to walk up to 100 feet to their own\nbusiness. He believed that the loss of those additional seven spaces would hurt his chances to sell the\nunits.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMs. Kohlstrand noted that she would set aside her objections to the parking, since City Council had\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nApril 24, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-04-24", "page": 4, "text": "overruled similar Planning Board actions.\nM/S Lynch/Mariani and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-13 to approve\nTentative Parcel Map 8980, allowing the conveyance of up to 13 separate commercial spaces located\nwithin two buildings to separate owners.\nAYES - 4 (Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nApril 24, , 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-04-24", "page": 5, "text": "7-B.\nUse Permit UP06-0001 - Sam & Michelle Koka - 650 Pacific Avenue (DB). The\napplicant requests a Use Permit renewal to allow the operation of an automotive repair use to\ncontinue for an additional five-year period. A Use Permit is required for automobile repair\nshops in specific locations within the CC (Community Commercial) Zoning District. (Staff\nrequests a continuance to the meeting of May 8, 2006.)\nM/S Lynch/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of May 8, 2006.\nAYES - 4 (Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nApril 24, , 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-04-24", "page": 6, "text": "7-C.\nDP05-0001/DR05-0116/PM06-0002 - William De Mar - 471 Pacific Avenue (EP). The\napplicant is requesting Development Plan and Major Design Review approvals to establish a\nnew single family home and zero lot-line duplex in an existing R-4-PD (Neighborhood\nResidential Planned Development) district, and a Parcel Map approval to allow the division of\nthe existing 14,400 square foot residential lot into four parcels, where one is developed with\nan existing, single family home. The property is located within an R-4-PD (Neighborhood\nResidential Planned Development) Zoning District. (Staff requests a continuance to the\nmeeting of May 8, 2006.)\nM/S Lynch/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of May 8, 2006.\nAYES - 4 (Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nApril 24, , 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-04-24", "page": 7, "text": "8.\nRegular Agenda Items\n8-A. PDA05-0007 - Park Street Landing - 2307 Blanding Avenue (EP). Redesign of the\nexisting monument sign, per the request of the Planning Board. Three signs would be\nestablished on the existing monument sign. The site is located within the Park Street Landing\nShopping Center in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning\nDistrict. (Continued from the meeting of April 10, 2006.)\nMs. Pudell summarized the staff report and recommended approval of this item.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThere were no speakers.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the building color, it was noted that the\ncolor would be beige. There would be a maximum of three tenant signs on the pylon, and corporate\ncolors would be allowed.\nMs. Mariani expressed concern about the appearance of the gateway sign.\nMs. Kohlstrand noted that this was a retrofit of an existing sign.\nMs. Mariani noted that a pylon sign in Fremont was designed to show the company names with the\nsame font, and that the companies were able to compromise to have their names on the signs.\nMs. Ezzy Ashcraft arrived at 7:30 p.m.\nMr. Lynch was not enthusiastic about this or any signage at this site, but understood the limitations.\nHe noted that Alameda had a sign ordinance, which this business worked within. He believed that\nunless the sign ordinance was reopened, elimination of the sign could not be an issue.\nMs. Mariani believed this sign was different because it was a gateway monument sign, and that it\nshould be more visually appealing.\nMr. Tom Foley, property manager, noted that he welcomed the Board's input and agreed with Mr.\nLynch's assessment that the existing sign was not very attractive. He noted that corporation logos and\ncolors did not have much flexibility, but that the local tenants were more flexible. He would be happy\nto change the text if the Board and staff requested it.\nMr. Lynch noted that he liked the sailboat image at the top, which was more appropriate and\nrecognizable to drivers.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nApril 24, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-04-24", "page": 8, "text": "In response to an inquiry by Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft whether the edges of the sign could be softened, Mr.\nFoley replied that it was designed by the City. She requested that the top of sign feature the word\n\"Alameda.\" Mr. Foley noted that would be possible. Mr. Lynch withdrew his comments about\npreferring the sailboat at the top of the sign. He liked the current design but would go along with the\nrest of the Board.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-14 to approve redesign of the\nexisting monument sign, per the request of the Planning Board. Three signs would be established on\nthe existing monument sign. An additional condition would require the addition of some unifying\nelement, such as a border, brought from the primary sign to the secondary sign.\nAYES - 4 (Cook and McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nApril 24, , 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-04-24", "page": 9, "text": "8-B.\nUP06-0004 - Italo Calpestri, AIA for Dwight Jennings - 776 Lincoln Avenue (EP). The\napplicant is requesting approval of a Use Permit to establish a dental office in an existing\nsingle family home and to add approximately 500 square feet of office space. The property is\nlocated within an R-5 (General Residential) Zoning District.\nMs. Pudell summarized the staff report, and noted that staff requested continuation to the meeting of\nMay 8, 2006. She noted that the area was generally in support of this item.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Peter Colinberg noted that he lived several doors down from this property, and spoke in\nopposition to this item. He expressed concern about the staff report's statement that mature\nlandscaping would buffer the office use. He believed the term \"buffer zone\" implied something\nobjectionable to be buffered from. He did not believe that on-street parking on Lincoln was actually\navailable. He was concerned that this project would impact their property values negatively. He\ninquired whether this site would remain zoned commercial if this owner sold the business in the\nfuture.\nMr. Brian Stewart noted that his property was adjacent to the subject site. He disagreed with staff's\nassessment that the area supported this project, and noted that a petition in opposition to this project\nhad been circulated. He believed their home resale values would be negatively impacted.\nDwight and Carmen Jennings, owners, 776 Lincoln, understood that there were neighborhood\nconcerns about the proposed project. She noted that they spoke to as many neighbors as possible\nabout their concerns, and discussed their proposed mitigations to address those concerns.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the number of dentist chairs in the use, Dr.\nJennings replied that his practice was orthodontic in nature, and that he had one room with three\nchairs, and a second room with one chair. He would be the only practitioner in the office, with a\nsupport staff of three people. He normally sees approximately three people per hour.\nMs. Jennings noted that in response to the expressed concerns about safety and security, they would\nhave a sophisticated security alarm system that would go directly to a security agency that would\nnotify them and the Alameda Police if there were any issues. They had plans to put a gate across the\ndriveway that would be locked in the evening; the design would be compatible with the 1940s\narchitecture of the house. There were issues about off-street parking, and they had been told that they\nmust have seven off-street parking spaces. She stated that this is not a general dentistry practice, and\nthat the State mandated that any chemicals be picked up on-site. She believed they addressed the\ncommercial versus residential concerns.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMs. Mariani disclosed that she lived around the corner from the subject site, and did not believe she\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nApril 24, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-04-24", "page": 10, "text": "was biased in her decision. She was very familiar with this area, and noted that the check cashing\nbusiness and the car dealership were in the Webster Street business district. She noted that the area\nwas mostly residential, with the exception of Ralph's Market. She was surprised that more residents\nwere not in attendance, and believed this would be a dramatic alteration to this neighborhood. She did\nnot know whether this was an appropriate location for a dental practice.\nPresident Cunningham noted that the use permit ran with the property, and would remain in force if\nthe current owners were to sell the property. Ms. Pudell added that the use permit would be good\nonly for the specific use proposed.\nMs. Kohlstrand noted that most of the nearby commercial uses were on corner sites near Webster\nor\nin a cluster of similar uses; this would be the first introduction of this kind of frontage. She was\nconcerned about introducing a commercial use at this site.\nMs. Ezzy Ashcraft disclosed that she had visited the site and spoke with Mr. Stewart about this site.\nShe noted that the subject traffic would occur during business hours, and that the greatest demand\nwas during the evening hours. She noted that three patients per hour day did not mean that they\nwould be parked there all day.\nMr. Lynch noted that Alameda was an urban environment, and would like more detail with respect to\ncomplaints about the \"noise problem.\" He noted that there were many medical facilities located\nthroughout Alameda, and he has yet to see any devalued property prices. He added that another\ncomplaint addressed decreased privacy. He believed that if a resident did not want this business as\ntheir neighbor, they should just say that.\nPresident Cunningham noted that the property is currently vacant, and inquired whether there was a\ncurrent problem with the property not being occupied at night. He would like further information on\ntraffic impacts. He would like to hear comments from the other neighbors.\nM/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Mariani and unanimous to reopen the public hearing.\nAYES - 4 (Cook and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN- -\n0\nMr. Stewart noted that no one has addressed the salability of the homes in the future, and agreed with\nMs. Mariani's concerns. He noted that many neighbors were opposed to this project.\nMr. Colinberg wished to clarify the definition of \"buffer,\" which meant being protected from\nsomething. He was not convinced by the Jennings' statement that many neighbors had changed their\nminds from opposition to support.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nThis item was continued to the meeting of May 8, 2006.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nApril 24, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-04-24", "page": 11, "text": "Page 11\nPlanning Board Minutes\nApril 24, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-04-24", "page": 12, "text": "8-C.\nVariance, V06-0001, and Major Design Review, DR06-0015 - Bob Allegrotti for Kevin\nGorham and Katherine Kenny - 1517 Pacific Avenue (DB). The applicant requests\nVariances for: (1) The removal of a conforming parking space without providing a\nconforming equivalent parking space; and (2) The establishment of two unenclosed compact\nparking spaces not meeting minimum landscaping standards. The project proposes two\ncompact parking spaces where not more than one compact space is permitted and both spaces\nwould not incorporate the required 3-foot wide landscaping separating them from abutting\nproperty lines and structures. A Major Design Review approval is requested to add\napproximately 421-square feet of gross floor area, plus a covered porch to the rear of the\nexisting single-family residence. Because the project would extend a wall an additional 7-feet\ntoward the rear with a nonconforming westerly side yard setback of 3.5-feet, where a\nminimum 5-foot side yard setback is required, a finding must be made that no adverse effects\nsuch as shading, view blockage, or privacy reduction would occur on adjoining properties.\nThe site is located within an R-4, (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District.\nM/S Lynch/Kohlstrand and unanimous to move Item 8-C from the Regular Agenda to the Consent\nCalendar.\nAYES - 4 (Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nM/S Lynch/Kohlstrand and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-15 to approve\nVariances for: (1) The removal of a conforming parking space without providing a conforming\nequivalent parking space; and (2) The establishment of two unenclosed compact parking spaces not\nmeeting minimum landscaping standards. The project proposes two compact parking spaces where\nnot more than one compact space is permitted and both spaces would not incorporate the required 3-\nfoot wide landscaping separating them from abutting property lines and structures. A Major Design\nReview approval is requested to add approximately 421-square feet of gross floor area, plus a\ncovered porch to the rear of the existing single-family residence. Because the project would extend a\nwall an additional 7-feet toward the rear with a nonconforming westerly side yard setback of .5-feet,\nwhere a minimum 5-foot side yard setback is required, a finding must be made that no adverse effects\nsuch as shading, view blockage, or privacy reduction would occur on adjoining properties.\nAYES - 4 (Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -\n0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nApril 24, , 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-04-24", "page": 13, "text": "8-D.\nSeismic Retrofit Workshop (GM). Voluntary Seismic Retrofit Program with incentives For\nExisting One to Three Story Residential Structures.\nMr. McFann summarized the staff report, and displayed a PowerPoint presentation.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Ken Gutleben noted that he informed City Manager Bill Norton of a project involving the\ninstallation of a basement and seismic retrofit of a historic residence in Alameda. He noted that the\npermit for the project was denied due to AMC 30, regarding offstreet parking section. He noted that\nthe habitable space was to be in the basement, similar to that in Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft's and President\nCunningham's homes. This particular lot size did not meet the offstreet parking requirement, and the\nproject was terminated, leaving the home vulnerable to earthquakes. Mr. Norton agreed that this\nsection of the Code should be changed. Mr. Gutleben believed the Planning Board placed design\nreview over safety, and that retrofits should be placed as a high priority. He noted that Alameda's\ngeographical placement and location on sandy soil left Alameda vulnerable to earthquake damage. He\nurged adoption of this program.\nMr. David Baker, 939 Taylor, agreed that seismic retrofits were important but believed that this\nordinance was a political gimmick to solve a serious issue. He did not believe that exempting\nhistorical structures from design review and exempting parking requirements would solve this\nproblem. He respected Mr. McFann and Mr. Gutleben but did not agree with their support of this\nprogram. He believed the relaxation of plumbing and electrical upgrades was unwise.\nMs. Kevis Brownson, 1554 Everett Street, noted that she was a member of Alameda Architectural\nPreservation Society, and thanked Mr. Gutleben for bringing this issue to the City's attention. She\nsupported this program, but objected to exempting homeowners from design review. She believed\nthat design review also protected the historic resources. She disagreed with exempting the front space\nfrom the setback limitations, which she believed may result in paved front yards and would be a\ndetriment to Alameda. She agreed with facilitating low interest loans to perform the retrofit.\nMr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, agreed with the last two\nspeakers, and had concerns about a design review exemption. He noted that he did not hear Mr.\nMcFann's and Mr. Gutleben's presentations. He noted that a design review was much less expensive\nthan a seismic retrofit. He noted that the past discussion of lifting buildings and the Golden Mean was\nvaluable. He was inclined to discourage exempting design review as an incentive.\nMr. Bob Allegrotti believed that a severe earthquake is due, and that when the Hayward Fault is hit, a\nlot of Alameda would be damaged. He was somewhat concerned about design review, and believed\nthat a fast track rather than exemptions would be more realistic. He believed that guidelines for the\nhistoric buildings would be appropriate. He suggested preinspections for habitable space.\nMr. Dick Rutter noted that he was an architect and lived in a nonseismically upgraded home built in\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nApril 24, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-04-24", "page": 14, "text": "1910; he believed it should be upgraded. He discussed the failures of cripple walls, which were part of\nolder buildings. He believed there should be incentives for homeowners to be able to fix those types\nof conditions. He took exceptions of not having engineers looking at buildings pushing the three-story\nlimit. He expressed concern about poor workmanship by fly-by-night contractors.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMr. Lynch could not see any work being done without an engineer's and architect's stamp, and\nbelieved that was a liability problem. He believed this should be the homeowner's cost, and not the\nCity's He would be open to the Planning & Building Department waiving the plumbing, mechanical\nand electrical codes, but does not want to see any lessening of the fire codes. He was not sure the\nparking requirements would help the City reach the objective.\nPresident Cunningham echoed Mr. Lynch's comments and agreed with Mr. Rutter. He did not believe\nthe City should give away free parking at the expense of seismic retrofitting. He believed they were\ntwo important, but different issues. He noted that it was important for an engineer to look at each\nbuilding, and that each building was different.\nMs. Kohlstrand noted that the Board was not being asked to ultimately take action on the codes. Ms.\nWoodbury noted that was true, and that any changes in Chapter 30 would eventually come to the\nBoard. The other incentives did not need to come to the Planning Board; the parking and design\nreview requirements would come before the Board.\nMr. Lynch believed the parking component should come back before the Board as a separate piece.\nMs. Kohlstrand believed it was a positive idea to encourage people to make seismic retrofits. She did\nnot believe that relaxing the parking was a bad idea. She was concerned about relaxing the design\nreview requirements unless there was more structure surrounding those requirements.\nMs. Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a fast track process could be added for seismic retrofit projects.\nMs. Woodbury did not believe that was realistic, and that it would be more logical to waive fees\nassociated with these projects.\nMs. Kohlstrand noted that San Francisco had a low interest loan program, and that they had a difficult\ntime getting people to take them out. Mr. McFann noted that he had examined that program, and that\ntheir only incentive was financial, which led to the program difficulties.\nMr. Lynch inquired whether the City reviewed engineering structural documents. Mr. McFann\nconfirmed that it did, and that it was not the primary issue of this matter. He added that it was\ndifficult to find an engineer and architect to do small projects such as these, which were expensive. He\nbelieved that was a disincentive to do retrofits.\nMr. Lynch believed that a piecemeal approach would not be the answer, and he believed this was a\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nApril 24, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-04-24", "page": 15, "text": "process issue.\nPresident Cunningham wished to ensure that the City did not incur liability for private contractors'\nwork.\nMr. McFann advised that staff would craft some Code changes to bring back to the Board.\nMr. Lynch suggested that staff meet with the various groups interested in this process.\nNo action was taken.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nApril 24, , 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-04-24", "page": 16, "text": "9.\nWritten Communications:\nNone.\n10.\nBoard Communications\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).\nVice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember Mariani).\nMs. Mariani advised that the next meeting would be held on April 27, 2006, at 2 p.m. Her committee\nwas working on a proposal to bring to both Planning Boards.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member\nKohlstrand).\nMs. Kohlstrand advised that there had been no further meetings.\nMs. Mariani noted that she had been approached by two people, stating that the Alameda Journal\nreported that she was in favor of a parking structure at the Catellus project. She was not present at\nthat meeting, did not say that, and she contacted the Journal to correct the report. It was in fact Ms.\nMcNamara who mentioned a parking structure.\n11.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n9:07 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nCatary Woodbury\nCathy Wootbbury, Secretary\nPlanning and Building Department\nThese minutes were approved at the May 8, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio\nand video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 16\nApril 24, , 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf"}