{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2007-02-26", "page": 1, "text": "COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nFebruary 26, 2007\nPRESENT: Berger, Bunker, Longley-Cook, Cooney, Fort, Hakanson, Chair Lord-Hausman, and\nKirola\nABSENT/EXCUSED: Vice-Chair Moore\nGUESTS: Tom Heinz (Eastbay Innovations), Cathy Nielson (SSHRB), Robbie Kritz\nMINUTES: The minutes of January 29, 2007 were approved as submitted.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nNEW BUSINESS:\n1. City Needs Assessment:\nSocial Services Human Relations Board member Ms. Cathy Nielsen distributed copies and\nprovided a brief overview of the City's 2005-2006 Needs Assessment. The Needs\nAssessment evaluated the social service and human relations needs and resources of\nAlamedans. The study was comprised of two parts; a survey of Alameda households and a\nseries of focus groups. Of the 531 residents who completed the survey slightly more than\n28% said they or someone in their family has a disability. In response to a question by\nCommissioner Ed Cooney, Ms. Nielson informed the Commission that the SSHRB would be\nincreasing their outreach methods (i.e. Alameda Collaborative). Commissioner Toby Berger\ninquired about the results of prior assessments to which Ms. Nielson replied that the\nAlameda Food Bank and Alameda Collaborative are two examples of what was achieved\nfrom the prior assessment.\n2. East Bay Innovations:\nMr. Tom Heinz, Executive Director, East Bay Innovations (EBI), informed the Commission\nEBI is a private non-profit organization which offers a variety of services to help persons\nwith disabilities live and work independently. The services provided are: 1) supported\nliving services, 2) independent living services and 3) supported employment. For additional\ninformation East Bay Innovations can be reached at (510) 618-1580 or\nwww.eastbayInnovations.com", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-02-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2007-02-26", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nFebruary 26, 2007\nMinutes\nPage 2 of 3\nOLD BUSINESS:\n3)\nCommissioner Duties: (Chair Lord-Hausman)\nThe discussion about the Commissioner's roles in taking responsibility to inform the\nCommission of other City Boards and Committees agendas as they relate to ADA was\ntabled.\n4)\nPAPCO:\nChair Audrey Lord-Hausman informed the Commission that the City is still seeking\na\nvolunteer to serve on the PAPCO Commission. To qualify, volunteers must be eligible for\nparatransit.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS: none\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\n1. Commissioner Charles Bunker informed the Commission that he needs a ride to the\nmeetings.\n2. Chair Audrey Lord-Hausman stated that the City Clerk thus far has not received any\napplications for candidacy to fill the two vacant seats on the Commission.\n3. Chair Audrey Lord-Hausman informed the Commission that the City Council approved the\nsolicitation of bids for Audible Traffic Signal at Various Locations and asked that an item be\nplaced on the March Commission agenda for information purposes.\n4.\nCommissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook informed the Commission that this year's Crab Cove\nsummer concerts would be held on June 8th, July 13th and August 10th", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-02-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2007-02-26", "page": 3, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nFebruary 26, 2007\nMinutes\nPage 3 of 3\nADJOURNMENT:\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, March 26th, 2007 in\nRoom 360, City Hall.\nMatthew T. Naclerio\nPublic Works Director\nEd Sommerauer\nAssociate Civil Engineer\nES:lc\nG:\\pubworks\\LTMMD Disability Committee/2007/226min.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-02-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-02-26", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, February 26, 2007\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:05 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMr. Cunningham\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Lynch, Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy\nAshcraft, Kohlstrand, and McNamara.\nMember Mariani was absent from roll call.\nAlso present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney\nDonna Mooney.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of January 31, 2007.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft motioned to continue the minutes of January 31, 2007, to\nthe Planning Board meeting of March 12, 2007.\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 6. [Absent: Member Mariani - 1.]\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nMember Cunningham suggested that if there were no speaker slips for Item 8-A, it may\nbe moved to the Consent Calendar.\nVice President Cook noted that she had a question about that item.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION\nNone.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nFebruary 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-02-26", "page": 2, "text": "7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A.\nUse Permit UP06-0019 - Applicant: Harry Hwang for Alameda Grill - 1520\nPark Street (LA). The applicant requests a Use Permit to allow an existing 125\nsquare-foot patio space to be used for customer seating. Pursuant to AMC\nSubsection 30-4.9A(c)(b), a Use Permit is required for any permitted or\nconditional use, which is not conducted within an enclosed structure. The site is\nlocated within the C-C Community Commercial District.\nBoard member Kohlstrand moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-05 to\napprove a Use Permit to allow an existing 125 square-foot patio space to be used for\ncustomer seating. Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A(c)(b), a Use Permit is required\nfor any permitted or conditional use, which is not conducted within an enclosed structure.\nBoard member McNamara seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 6. [Absent: Member Mariani - 1.]\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nFebruary 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-02-26", "page": 3, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\nPlanned Development PD07-001/Parcel Map PM06-005 - Applicant: Will\nHarrison - 700 Grand Street (BS). The applicant requests approval of a Planned\nDevelopment overlay on an existing R-1 (Single-Family Residential) district and\na Parcel Map to allow the division of an existing 25,000 square foot residential lot\ninto two parcels: each with an existing single-family dwelling. The property is\nlocated within an R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would recuse herself from this item because of a\npersonal professional conflict.\nMr. Thomas presented the staff report, and recommended approval of this item.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook why this item was not presented as a\nvariance, Mr. Thomas replied that the planned development overlay approach provided\nthe flexibility. Staff did not feel the findings could be made for the variance in this case\nbecause the lot was so large. Staff did not feel the historic location of the existing homes\nor the historic quality of the wall qualified the project for a Planned Development.\nVice President Cook expressed concern about the curb cut on Grand because the\nsidewalk narrowed in that area, as well as the presence of bike riders and the fact that the\nbridge rose slightly. She noted that drivers would be backing in and out, and believed it\nwould be a risk to pedestrians and bicycle riders. She noted that the proximity of the\nschool was also a concern. Mr. Thomas noted that staff identified six parking alternatives\nin the staff report.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member McNamara whether the sea wall would be\ndemolished, Mr. Thomas replied that was not the part that staff would consider historic.\nHe noted that it did not have structural significance with respect to the water, and that it\nwas the portion along Grand Street.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Will Harrison, applicant, representing the property owner, noted that they agreed\nwith the staff's recommendation regarding the tandem parking. Their first choice would\nbe to do nothing extra, because there was adequate on-street parking. He added that both\nbuildings had historical significance, and believed the parking design should be addressed\nthoroughly. He noted that only the first five feet of the wall would be removed, because\nthe side yard of the house would be increased.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMember Kohlstrand suggested an additional condition requiring that any changes made\nto the property or structures in the future would trigger a reevaluation of the off-street\nparking situation.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nFebruary 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-02-26", "page": 4, "text": "Member Cunningham believed that as part of the planned development, the off-street\nparking must come back to the Planning Board.\nVice President Cook moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-06 to\napprove a Planned Development overlay on an existing R-1 (Single-Family Residential)\ndistrict and a Parcel Map to allow the division of an existing 25,000 square foot\nresidential lot into two parcels: each with an existing single-family dwelling, with the\nmodifications that Alternative 5 would be examined, and that any future changes made to\nthe property or structures would trigger a reevaluation of the off-street parking situation.\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5. [Absent: Member Mariani - 1. Abstain: Member Ezzy Ashcraft]\nMr. Thomas noted that the PD overlay and the subdivision action required action by City\nCouncil, and staff would revise the resolutions before taking the item to City Council.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nFebruary 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-02-26", "page": 5, "text": "8-B.\nNorthern Waterfront General Plan Amendment GPA 07-0002 - Applicant:\nCity of Alameda (AT). The City requests a General Plan amendment to designate\napproximately 110 acres of industrially designated properties to a specified mixed\nuse designation. The project area is generally bounded by Sherman Street on the\nwest, Buena Vista Avenue on the south, and Grand Street on the east. The\nOakland/Alameda Estuary forms the northern border of the area. The Northern\nWaterfront project area is within several zoning districts; including R-2 (Two\nFamily Residence District), R-3 (Garden Residential District), R-4-PD\n(Neighborhood Residential District, Special Planned Development District), M-1\n(Intermediate Industrial), M-2 (General Industrial), C-M (Commercial-\nManufacturing District), and M-1-PD (Intermediate Industrial, Special Planned\nDevelopment District).\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft returned to the dais.\nMr. Thomas summarized the staff report.\nPresident Lynch advised that more than five speaker slips had been received.\nVice President Cook believed this was an important issue that justified allowing the full\nfive minutes for the speakers.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft agreed with Vice President Cook's comment.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Barbara Walker, 1920 Bay Street, noted that the preservation of the community\ngarden was very important, as was ensuring that Bay Street was not extended.\nMs. Sue McIntire, 1821 Bay Street, echoed the concern about maintaining the community\ngarden, and was also concerned about the traffic impacts in the neighborhood, especially\ngiven the number of children in the neighborhood. She noted that there was a lot of truck\nactivity at the Del Monte site, which she believed had a negative impact on the\nenvironment.\nMr. Tom Mills noted that he owned a property on the corner of Bay and Eagle, and that\nthe speed and volume of the traffic should preclude any building in that area.\nMr. James Bramell, Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee, presented the Board with\na letter asking to reschedule a meeting. He believed there was a Brown Act violation due\nto the failure of personnel within the Planning Department who mixed the dates up. He\nnoted that they had addressed pollutants on the property, as well as what the best use of\nthe property would be. He understood that the mitigation of the spillage had not been\nentirely adequate, and noted that he was concerned about loss of property value from\nunderground fumes, such as what occurred at Hamilton Air Base. He was concerned that\nwould be a litigable item. He noted that the Committee was not negligent because it\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nFebruary 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-02-26", "page": 6, "text": "recommended that that site only be used for open-air usage such as boat storage or\nmaintenance. He believed the discussion of this item should have been in the last\nmeeting's minutes, which they had requested.\nPresident Lynch requested that Mr. Brammell submit the letter to staff to be entered into\nthe record. He noted that Planning staff would have a response to his remarks.\nMs. Barbara Kerr, President Northside Association, thanked Mr. Mills for clarifying that\nBay Street was included in the prohibition against the Northwood Extension, and that the\ncommunity garden was included in the definition of the park. She prepared amendments\nto clarify these items that were not in the existing amendments, and would distribute\nthose documents to staff. She noted that there was a legal agreement signed by the City\nCouncil that the community garden and the park at Park Village would never be\ndeveloped. She noted there should be adequate landscaping on Sherman and Buena Vista\nso the surrounding residences do not get a view of asphalt and cars. She noted that the\nMarina Village Business Park was a good example of what should be done, using berms\nand hedges, as well as well-designed lighting. She believed that Wind River was a good\nexample of what not to do, including klieg lights that glare into neighboring residents'\nbedrooms. She believed that the property owners and residents would be affected by this\nproject, and thanked Vice President Cook and Member Ezzy Ashcraft for believing they\nshould have as much time to speak as the developer.\nMs. Debra Arbuckle, 1854 9th Street, Northern Waterfront Specific Plan Committee,\nnoted that this group was formed to address many issues, including traffic in the beltline,\nnot having through streets, and trying to mitigate traffic, which she believed was a major\nissue, especially with the D and F Levels of Service. She noted that hundreds of people\nhave invested time and energy in the neighborhood meetings and workshops. They were\nconcerned about traffic, development, open space. She noted that much of the plan\nassumed that Railroad would be open space, and that it had been changed to Industrial\nzoning. She detailed the legal background of this project, and inquired how the contract\nwhich had been tied to the deed was no longer tied to it. She also noted that the traffic\nreports seemed to have been altered. She was pleased to hear there would be more time to\nconsider this item.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether an entitlement plan was before the\nPlanning Board, Mr. Thomas confirmed that it was not at this time. President Lynch\nadded that the Planning Board would not discuss Mr. Wang's project, but that they were\ncharged with discussing the Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment.\nMr. Richard Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, noted that he had worked with Christopher\nBuckley, who could not attend and had submitted a letter to the Planning Board. He read\nthe contents of the letter:\n\"1.\nDo not allow future residential development in close proximity to Clement\nAvenue, since Clement Avenue will be a truck route. Unfortunately,\nresidential development was allowed along Clement as part of the Marina\nCove project. This was a mistake that should not be compounded.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nFebruary 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-02-26", "page": 7, "text": "Although a notice was recorded on the Clement Avenue lots within\nMarina Cove, informing property purchasers that Clement Avenue was to\nbe a truck route, I fear that the residents of these houses will experience an\nunpleasant surprise when a truck route becomes operational. Prohibiting\nresidential uses along Clement should be reflected in guiding and\nimplementing policy group 10.3, policy 10.4(c), the General Plan Use\nDiagram, and possibly other provisions.\n\"2.\nHeight limits: There are a number of height limits all over town in certain\nlocations that allow building up to 100 feet. Address height limits in the\nGeneral Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment area is now zoned M-2\nand R4-PD. The M2 zone has a 100-foot height limit, and the R-4 zones\n35 foot height limit is waived under the PD overlay. Maximum building\nheight within the plan amendment should be somewhere between 35 and\n60 feet, depending on the subarea in use. 60 feet should probably be the\nmaximum height limit citywide. 100 feet is too tall for new development\nanywhere in Alameda.\n\"3.\nDesign guidelines: Add an implementing policy to Section 10.8, Urban\nDesign, calling for design guidelines for each subarea, and addressing\nsuch issues as building, siting, architectural style, exterior materials and\nlandscaping. These guidelines should be fleshed out in Section 10.8. The\nCity's Guide to Residential Design, although very good as far as it goes, is\nprimarily focused on existing neighborhoods, and needs to be expanded to\naddress the production housing that's likely to occur within the Plan\nAmendment area.\n\"4.\nPolicy ET-5 (Encinal Terminal site): Amend the building height\nprovisions to express height in feet, as well as number of stories. The four-\nstory maximum height proposed for this site would be probably translate\nto 50 feet.\"\nMr. Rutter believed the height limit issues were important, as was the way the City would\nplan Clement. He agreed completely with Mr. Buckley's comments.\nMs. Jean Sweeney expressed concern about the benzene plumes moving towards the\nwater, and believed they should be cleaned up. She noted that the soil should be cleaned\nup before any new developments were to be considered. She requested that no through\nstreets go through the Beltline. She believed there was more housing in this area than was\noriginally intended. She believed the EDC recommendations were a good idea, and\nrequested the minutes of the October neighborhood meeting. She agreed with the\nprevious speakers.\nMr. Nick Cabral, 1544 Buena Vista, spoke in support of this project, and believed there\nwas a segment in Alameda that opposed every development project. He noted that he lived\nacross the street from this site, and added that with 250 trucks in general street traffic, he\nnever heard from anyone from the NWSP Committee regarding this site. He believed this\nproject would be an asset for the community, and that it would bring residential and\ncommercial uses to the neighborhood. He believed it would enliven the neighborhood, and\nthat it would bring in more tax revenue. He encouraged the Board to move forward on this\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nFebruary 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-02-26", "page": 8, "text": "item.\nMrs. Norma Arnerich, 3275 Encinal Avenue, submitted a speaker slip, but was not in\nattendance to speak.\nMr. \"Lil\" Arnerich, 3275 Encinal Avenue, spoke in support of this item. He noted that\nwhen he was on the City Council, he believed the Planning Board carried a tremendous\nresponsibility in determining projects for decades to come.\nMs. Ellen Lou, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, One Front Street, 24th Floor, San\nFrancisco, representing Mr. Peter Wang, property owner, Encinal Terminal/Grand\nMarina, displayed a PowerPoint presentation and described some suggested changes to the\nproposal.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nVice President Cook noted that in her waterfront planning experience, the goal had often\nto be flexible with respect to land use. She noted that access points, preservation of\nhistorical aspects and the quality of development were all important points. She wanted to\nsee this item move ahead, but wanted to ensure that the conflicts between the comments\nhad been resolved first. She wanted further clarification on Ms. Kerr's comments\nregarding the pilings, which most of the City was built on.\nPresident Lynch wanted to avoid wordsmithing the document at this meeting, and would\nlike to discuss reactions to the comments and policy matters.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft commended Mr. Thomas and the Planning staff on the quality\nand thoroughness of the staff report. She had questions about how the childcare element\nfit into the project. She believed that height restrictions were a major issue, and noted that\nthe upcoming green building workshop would address Bay-friendly elements. She\nwanted to know about the intended green design elements.\nPresident Lynch believed the Board should begin with Attachment A\nMr. Thomas detailed the background of the creation of this set of policies.\nMember Kohlstrand stated that she would like to ensure that people had an adequate\nopportunity to comment on the childcare policy, and would like it to be noticed as a\nseparate item.\nMr. Thomas noted that the childcare policies in Attachment B were implemented\nCitywide, and believed that Member Kohlstrand's comments were fair. He noted that the\nfocus on childcare would be separately re-noticed.\nVice President Cook noted that she had many detailed comments that she would provide\nseparately.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nFebruary 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-02-26", "page": 9, "text": "Mr. Thomas noted that staff could return in a month. He was concerned about the height\nlimits brought up by AAPS, and noted that there were no Citywide height limits in the\nGeneral Plan. Height limits were generally addressed in the zoning or by the Master Plan\napplicable to the project.\nPresident Lynch did not believe the height limits should be addressed in the General Plan,\nwhich is a policy document, not a zoning document. He would prefer to see the Planning\nBoard move towards the policies, and should state that in striving towards a certain\ndesign goal, it may be met without the designs appearing to be cookie-cutter. He believed\nthose restrictions would belong in a zoning document, such as a PD overlay.\nMember Cunningham noted that by setting rigid requirements such as wedding-cake\nstep-downs, the design would appear to be cookie-cutter, which he could not endorse.\nMember McNamara supported the comments about fostering architectural creativity, but\nwas concerned that the heights of some of the buildings in Towne Centre were excessive.\nShe would support imposing some kind of height limit on the waterfront, with sensitivity\nto the surrounding neighborhoods.\nPresident Lynch did not differ with that opinion, but believed those restrictions were\nmore appropriate to the design review and zoning rather than a General Plan Amendment.\nVice President Cook was uncomfortable about the waterfront development guidelines\nlagging behind, and believed they should be more than guidelines; she would like them to\nhave more teeth.\nMember Cunningham noted that there were several instances the document that used the\nword \"consider,\" and inquired whether it may be helpful to provide more concrete\ndirection. Mr. Thomas noted that it would be helpful for the Planning Board to create a\nlist of potential requirements with respect to those items. He noted that other items, such\nas an assessment district or other concepts that may remain advisory, and that they should\nnot be forgotten as time passed.\nVice President Cook emphasized that she did not want to see any sound walls or gates.\nPresident Lynch noted that the Board generally agreed on the first section.\nMember Kohlstrand believed the traffic mitigation measures, especially with respect to\nthe striping, was fairly specific for a General Plan. Mr. Thomas noted that these particular\nmitigations were called for after analyzing the EIR. He described the approach taken by\nstaff and the applicant, and noted that better solutions, such as a traffic circle, may be\nappropriate. Member Kohlstrand preferred that such specific mitigations not be specified\nin the document because of the long-range nature of the General Plan.\nPresident Lynch noted that they seemed to be conditions of approval, and while they had\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nFebruary 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-02-26", "page": 10, "text": "merit and value, he did not feel they belonged in the General Plan Amendment.\nVice President Cook acknowledged Jean Sweeney's contribution to this issue, and noted\nthat the current traffic grid pattern was an legalitarian pattern, and was reluctant to rule out\none particular street configuration in perpetuity. She noted that the potential for the linear\npark would be an incredible asset to the City that she believed should be accessible to the\nCity.\nMr. Thomas noted that a year ago, staff recommended that the Beltline be removed from\nthe Northern Waterfront General Plan because the City was trying to acquire the property\nand because it was involved in a lawsuit at the time.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that the Transportation Commission be approached\nregarding the transit district for the Northern Waterfront, since the City did not yet have\nan existing transit district.\nMember Kohlstrand requested a staff clarification recommendation for the transit district,\nand inquired how this would change the existing EIR. Mr. Thomas replied that so far, the\ndiscussions would not affect the conclusion of the EIR.\nMs. Mooney noted that there was a decision in the trial court in favor of the City last\nAugust, and that it expected an appeal to be filed.\nMs. Mooney noted that there was a decision in the trial court in favor of the City last\nAugust, and that it expected an appeal to be filed.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she strongly supported this concept, as long as it was\nunderstood that it was not an ending point.\nMr. Thomas noted that it was important for future homeowners to be aware that Clement\nwould be extended, and that it would be a truck route. He noted that Alameda was an\nisland community with little room, but that Clement could be designed so the trucks\nwould move through slowly, and so pedestrians would be properly accommodated.\nMember Cunningham noted that 10.8.g addressed the gateway enhancement, and would\nlike to include Grand Street and Fruitvale Bridge.\nMr. Thomas noted that Member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested a Citywide gateway program.\nVice President Cook agreed that it should be the Citywide policy that addressed all\ngateways.\nMember Cunningham noted that Ms. Kerr brought up a good point about fire services on\nthe waterfront, and inquired whether the City had fireboats. Mr. Thomas replied that the\nCity had two fireboats.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nFebruary 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-02-26", "page": 11, "text": "friend who had cited a declining student population because families with young children\ncould not afford housing in Davis. She noted that the City of Davis experienced student-\nhousing shortages because of the high price of the housing stock.\nVice President Cook inquired whether there could be a Measure A-compliant houseboat\ncommunity in Alameda.\nMember Cunningham would like to introduce language to encourage reduction of vehicle\ntrips. Mr. Thomas noted that the Transportation Commission was working towards that\ngoal through Catellus and the TDM program to use shuttle services and alternate transit\nservices. He noted that the City had been meeting with AC Transit and described the\nproposed EcoPass project.\nMr. Thomas noted that he would provide a brief presentation with graphics on March 26,\nincluding detailed graphics on the Clement Street alignment, and how it was envisioned\nto run through the Northern Waterfront. Staff would also provide information on the\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nFebruary 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-02-26", "page": 12, "text": "Pennzoil property with respect to hazardous materials. The policies addressing the\nquality and character of properties at the waterfront would be included, and the item\nwould be re-noticed to include the childcare policies. The sound walls would be revisited,\nand \"discouraged\" should be changed to \"prohibited.\"\nMember Cunningham noted that with respect to open space on the waterfront, there was a\nlot of discussion around the City's ability to purchase open space. He inquired whether\nthere was a document to address open space development priorities.\nVice President Cook noted that she had recently visited Venice, California, and was\nexcited to see the improvements on that waterfront. She believed that Alameda should be\nrespectful of its maritime heritage without being a slave to it.\nPresident Lynch wanted to see an environment that would be welcoming to people, and\ndid not want a repeat of Bridgeside.\nMember Kohlstrand requested a redlined version of the suggested changes made by the\nPlanning Board.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to continue this item to the meeting of March 26,\n2007.\nVice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nFebruary 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-02-26", "page": 13, "text": "8-C. Planning Board Rules and Procedures. Discussion and action on possible\namendments to the Planning Board Rules and Procedures.\nMember Kohlstrand stated that she was very interested in seeing Staff Communications\nmoved up to follow either Agenda Changes and Discussion or Oral Communications to\nreceive the Director's report at the beginning of the meeting.\nA discussion of the Zoning Administrator's report ensued. Ms. Woodbury noted that the\nZoning Administrator's report would not need to be approved, and that the report was\ninformational.\nMr. Thomas suggested that the Zoning Administrator's report be included in Staff\nCommunications.\nMember Cunningham suggested that Written Communications be moved up on the\nagenda, so that members of the audience could hear and comment on it.\nMember McNamara suggested that \"by an applicant or other interested parties\" be\nincluded in the language referring to materials received on behalf of the applicant. Mr.\nThomas wanted to ensure that submission of materials by other members of the public\nwould not be restricted. He noted that the noticing information requested that\nsubmissions be received by a certain time to be included in the packet.\nMember Kohlstrand did not believe it would be possible to restrict written public input\nbefore a hearing.\nMember McNamara noted that page 6, number 1 (Conditions) stated that conditions may\nonly be submitted by staff, and inquired whether Board members may do so as well.\nPresident Lynch noted that the staff report may only be provided as written by staff. Once\nthe Board sees the staff report, it has the ability to accept, modify or reject the conditions.\nMember McNamara noted that with respect to the Method of Documentation, she\ninquired whether a CD or DVD may be used to archive the meeting. Mr. Thomas\nsuggested using best available technology. President Lynch noted that would be under the\npurview of City Council and the IT Department.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to accept the amendments to the Planning Board\nRules and Procedures as amended.\nBoard member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 6. [Absent: Member Mariani - 1.]\nMs. Mooney noted that the amended rules would return to the Planning Board for a\nResolution, and that they may be changed by motion if the Board so chooses.\n9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATION\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nFebruary 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-02-26", "page": 14, "text": "a.\n2007 - 2014 Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Element\nUpdate.\nPresident Lynch noted that some cities were not fulfilling their housing targets, and noted\nthat the housing numbers in the region were likely to change.\n10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee\n(Board Member Mariani).\nMember Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board\nMember Kohlstrand).\nMember Kohlstrand advised that there was no action.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force\n(Board Member Cunningham).\nMember Cunningham advised that another meeting would be held in two weeks, and\nwere generally held on the third Thursday of each month.\n11.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATION\na.\nFuture Agendas and work program\nMr. Thomas described the future agenda items for the next six months.\nPresident Lynch noted that the Northern Waterfront item would be held on March 26, and\nthat the April 9 meeting would be cancelled due to spring break attendance issues. He did\nnot see the Measure A Planning Board forum on the schedule. Mr. Thomas noted that\nwas not placed on the schedule yet. March 29 would be specifically held for Alameda\nPoint.\nMr. Thomas suggested that the Planning Board may want to form a subcommittee to\naddress some of the agenda issues.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when the joint meeting between City Council and the\nPlanning Board would take place.\nPresident Lynch noted that he had previously worked in jurisdictions where the joint\nmeetings were part of the regular schedule, and the work plans were included in that\ndiscussion. He was surprised that had not happened in Alameda.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nFebruary 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-02-26", "page": 15, "text": "Ms. Woodbury noted that the Recreation and Park Commission and the Utilities Board\nhad met with the City Council.\nMr. Thomas suggested that the Board advise staff that they would like to have a joint\nmeeting. He recalled that there had been one joint meeting within the last five years. He\nunderstood the Board wanted to hold one, and staff would begin the process to set it up\nafter March 12, 2007. He noted that the April 9 meeting should be rescheduled so the\nwork did not back up. He noted that it would be difficult to address Harbor Bay and\nAlameda Landing in the same meeting.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n11:00 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAndrew Thomas, S\u00e9cretary\nCity Planning Board\nThese minutes were approved at the Planning Board meeting of March 26, 2007. This\nmeeting was audio and videotaped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nFebruary 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf"}