{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2007-03-26", "page": 1, "text": "COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nMarch 26, 2007\nPRESENT: Longley-Cook, Cooney, Hakanson, Chair Lord-Hausman, and Kirola\nABSENT/EXCUSED: Berger, Bunker, Fort, Vice-Chair Moore\nGUESTS: Mary Louise Lambert, Barry Bergman (Alameda Public Works)\nMINUTES: The minutes of February 26, 2007 were approved as submitted.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nNEW BUSINESS:\n1. Audible Traffic Signal Project:\nChair Lord-Hausman read a letter from Trung Nguyan Assistant Engineer, Alameda Public\nWorks requesting a training session for the new Countdown Pedestrian Head and Audible\nPedestrian Signals at 25 intersections. Chair Lord-Hausman then read her response\nsupporting the instructional training and agreeing to agendize a regular meeting of the\nCommission to include the training. The proposed new signals will not include tactile plates\nbecause of funding constraints. Commissioner Cooney suggested that Linda Myers would be\na good source for information regarding tactile signals. Mary Louise Lambert was requested\nto send a letter to the Commission suggesting intersections that would be candidates for\ntactile signals.\n2. Paratransit Program Annual Submittal:\nMr. Barry Bergman gave an overview of last year's paratransit funding from measure B and\ndiscussed ideas for expanding the program. The existing program includes purchasing of\nEast Bay Paratransit coupons, providing taxi trips for riders to return home from medical\nfacilities, providing service to areas not served by East Bay Paratransit, offering group trips\nthrough the Mastick Senior Center, and providing transit scholarships for the poor. The\nexpanded program would include opening up the taxi program to all seniors age 75 and\nolder, and those 70 and up without a driver's license. Mr. Bergman then requested any\nsuggestions for new program ideas and for providing additional outreach. The Commission\nsuggested the following: College of Alameda, the Commission's booth at the Concerts at the\nCove, Alameda Hospital Health Fare, Regional Center, Special Olympics, East Bay\nInnovations, City web site, World Institute on Disability (WID) and AP&T. Chair Lord-\nHausman requested that any additional suggestions be sent to her.\nOLD BUSINESS:", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-03-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2007-03-26", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nMarch 26, 2007\nMinutes\nPage 2 of 3\n3. Commissioner Duties: (Chair Lord-Hausman)\nChair Lord-Hausman requested volunteers to monitor other City Boards and Committees.\nCommissioner Longly-Cook volunteered to monitor the Transportation Commission and\nChair Lord-Hausman volunteered to monitor the Planning Board. Commissioner Cooney\nwill review the Agenda of the City Council meetings to see if there are any issues that would\ninterest the Commission.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n4. Acting Secretary showed a model of the intersection of Webster Street and Atlantic Avenue.\nThe Commission requested additional information about the planned changes to the\nintersection. Commissioner Cooney requested that similar models be made of other\nintersections.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\n1. Commissioner Longley-Cook informed the Commission of the Arthritis Expo at the Hyatt\nRegency in Burlingame on September 15 from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.\n2. Commissioner Cooney suggested that planning begin for the Disability Awareness Month\nin October.\n3. Mary Louise Lambert suggested that special Religious Education (SPRED) be contacted for\npossible new Commissioners.\n4. Chair Lord-Hausman informed the Commission that the League of Woman Voters would be\nholding its Meet Your Public Officials event on April 26 and all Commissioners should be\nreceiving invitations.\n5. Chair Lord -Hausman suggested that Mike Corbett from Harsh Management be invited to\nthe April meeting to discuss the improvements to the Towne Centre. Commissioner Cooney\nwould like to review the model of the Centre.\n6. Chair Lord-Hausman stated that the Market Place parking lot on Buena Vista Avenue has 26\nspaces, none of which are marked for the disabled. Parking near the Alameda Marina\nappears to have insufficient disabled parking spaces. The new parking spaces at Alameda\nHigh, Walnut Street entrance, are poorly marked.\n7. Chair Lord-Hausman presented information about the standard Taxi that can accommodate\nwheelchairs and scooters.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-03-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2007-03-26", "page": 3, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nMarch 26, 2007\nMinutes\nPage 3 of 3\n8. Chair Lord-Hausman suggested that there should be Disability Friendly Business Awards.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, April 23, 2007 in\nRoom 360 at City Hall.\nMatthew T. Naclerio\nPublic Works Director\nRobert Claire\nAssociate Civil Engineer\nRC:lc\nG:\\pubworks\\LTMCD Disability Committee/2007/326min.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-03-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-26", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, March 26, 2007\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:06 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMember Cunningham\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Lynch, Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy\nAshcraft, Kohlstrand, Mariani, and McNamara.\nPresident Lynch was absent from roll call and arrived during Item 4.\nAlso present were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Planning Services\nManager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney Donna Mooney, Executive Assistant\nLatisha Jackson.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of January 31, 2007\nMember Cunningham noted that page 5, paragraph 3, should be changed to read, \"Board\nMember Cunningham noted that the community and development had a clear outline of\nthe project goals\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 2, paragraph 6, should be changed to, \"She\nstated that if personal emails were used for Board communications, and if litigation\noccurred, all personal emails could be requested by the person or entity that brought the\nlitigation.\nBoard member Cunningham moved approval of the minutes as amended.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 6. Absent: President Lynch.\nb.\nMinutes for the meeting of February 12, 2007\nBoard member Kohlstrand noted that page 8, second to last paragraph, stated that she had\nbeen appointed to the Big Box Retail Committee, which she noted was not the case. She\nbelieved that it was Board member Ezzy Ashcraft and McNamara as an alternate, and\nadded that she had not said that.\nBoard member Cunningham inquired about the window coverage relative to the First\nCommunity Bank, and requested further information about any impact on leasing as a\nresult of the glazing requirements. Ms. Woodbury noted that she could invite the owner\nof the center to make a presentation. Board member Cunningham noted that would not\nbe necessary.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nMarch 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-26", "page": 2, "text": "Acting President Cook noted that page 4, paragraph 4, should be changed to read, \"Vice\nPresident Cook would welcome a proposal keeping in the General Plan zoning and\nagreed with many of Mr. Siewald's comments..\nActing President Cook noted that on page 5, there were comments about the glazing, and\nher concern that conditions about not covering the glazing so that there would be eyes on\nthe waterfront and thereby enlivening the waterfront. She asked if that issue could be\nrevisited with a staff report, particularly regarding Pet Express. Ms. Woodbury suggested\nthat the subject be discussed during the briefing on the site.\nActing President Cook noted that page 10, second to last paragraph, addressed\ncommitments made by developers and whether they were adequately memorialized in\nconditions and permits. She noted that it should read, \"Vice President Cook would like\nstaff reports to summarize the status of developers' promises and commitments.\" She\nwould like it to be standard with phased developments.\nPresident Lynch arrived at the meeting and joined the Board on the dais.\nBoard member Mariani noted that she had requested a status report on the signage\nregarding Pet Food Express as well.\nBoard member Mariani moved approval of the minutes as amended.\nBoard member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 7.\nc.\nMinutes for the meeting of February 26, 2007\nBoard member Kohlstrand noted that page 10, middle of the page, should read, \"Board\nmember Kohlstrand requested a staff clarification recommendation for the Transit\nDistrict and inquired how this would change the existing EIR.\" She inquired whether\nthere was a general question whether the overall changes to the plan would affect the EIR\nrather than that particular item.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that page 12, paragraph 2, addressed his comments\nwith respect to open space on the waterfront, and that he inquired whether there was a\ndocument to address open space development priorities.\" He noted that some potential\nopen space developments could compete with each other.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 3, Item 8-A, stated that she would recuse\nherself from the item for professional reasons. She noted that she had actually recused\nherself for personal reasons.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 11, third paragraph up, discussed\naffordable housing available for rent and referenced her comment about the City of\nDavis. She did not say there was a student housing shortage, but that she had paraphrased\na conversation with a friend who had cited a declining student population because\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nMarch 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-26", "page": 3, "text": "families with young children could not afford housing in Davis.\nVice President Cook wished to address her comment on page 12, regarding about the\nEncinal Terminal project and improvements in Venice, California. She noted that while\nthe improvements were terrific, she wanted to stress that they reflected Venice's\ndevelopment, but did not think that recreating that type of theme in the Encinal Terminal\nwas not necessarily appropriate. She believed the development in Alameda should be\nrespectful of Alameda's maritime heritage without being a slave to history.\nBoard member Kohlstrand moved approval of the minutes as amended.\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 7.\nd.\nMinutes for the Alameda Towne Centre Workshop of March 12, 2007\nThese minutes were not available for consideration and would be reviewed at a future\nmeeting.\ne.\nMinutes for the Special meeting of March 12, 2007.\nMs. Mooney noted that on page 12, she made comment about the page 5 Deliberations\nand Decisions in the Planning Board Rules and Procedures. She noted that the Board\nmember was not required to indicate a reason, and that it should read, \"The rules\npresently state that the Board member was not required to indicate a reason.' She did not\nwant it to appear that law did not presently require anything to happen if there's a conflict\nof interest or bias.\nVice President Cook noted that page 2, paragraph 1, noted that with respect to the South\nShore project. She was concerned that the apparent scale of the restaurant on the corner\nseemed to be four separate standalone buildings. She wished to clarify that there should\nbe a mix of size and scale of buildings so that people could get a sandwich or coffee and\ngo back to the beach other than fast food in that location.\nVice President Cook noted that on page 10, middle of the page, should be changed to\nread, \"She would like to revisit the Downtown Visioning Plan and follow-up steps to\ninclude in the work program going forward.\"\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that on page 5, Item 8-A, Ms. Ko's name should be\ncorrected to be spelled \"Kho\" throughout the minutes.\nBoard member Kohlstrand moved approval of the minutes as amended,\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 7.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nMarch 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-26", "page": 4, "text": "Board member Mariani inquired about the number of speaker slips for Item 9-C and\nwhether it should be heard first.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft proposed moving 9-B to the top of the Regular Agenda,\nwhich involved an individual applicant.\nPresident Lynch noted that nine speaker slips had been received for Item 9-C, and that\nfive speakers had been received for Item 9-B, and two speaker slips had been received for\nItem 7 (Oral Communications). He proposed that the agenda be ordered as follows: Items\n9-B, 9-C, 9-A, 9-D, 10 and 11.\nVice President Cook moved to hear Item 9-B first, followed by Items 9-C, 9-A, 9-D, 10\nand 11.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 7.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nFuture Agendas\nMs. Woodbury provided a bulleted item in the packet describing the future agendas.\nBoard member Mariani inquired whether the Community Workshop would be televised,\nand believed it should be televised.\nMr. Thomas noted that it would be held at the Mastick Senior Center because the facility\ndid not have television facilities. However, the proceedings would be videotaped to be\nshown at a later date. Board member Mariani believed that it was very important to make\nthe meeting proceedings accessible to the general public.\nBoard member McNamara inquired whether a date had been set for the Bridgeside site\nvisit. Ms. Woodbury noted that the visit would take place after the project was finaled,\nperhaps in early summer.\nBoard member Mariani noted that Long's was a minor design review, with no input from\nthe Planning Board. She would like to keep track of that item, and believed it was a large\nproject.\nMs. Woodbury noted that staff would keep the Board up to date on the progress of that\nitem.\nMr. Thomas noted that staff would present the Harbor Bay Village GPA EIR public\nhearing item at the April 18, 2007, meeting. The Hawthorne Suite item has been delayed\nas a result of changes requested by the applicant, and the 1000 Atlantic commercial\ncondominium has been rescheduled to April 23, 2007. The decision on the Boatworks\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nMarch 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-26", "page": 5, "text": "item had been appealed and would be heard by the City Council on April 3, 2007.\nBoard member McNamara inquired whether the Alameda Point Station Area planning\npresentation on April 18 would be a duplication of the March 29 presentation. Mr.\nThomas replied that it would be summarized for the Board members unable to attend the\nMarch 29, 2007, and that it could be pushed to a later agenda.\nBoard member Mariani thanked staff for placing this item at the beginning of the\nmeeting.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nMarch 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-26", "page": 6, "text": "7.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nMr. Dave Kirwin wished to follow up on Board member Mariani's comments regarding\ntelevising the community meeting being held at Mastick. He hoped that all the meetings\ncould be recorded in a format that could be viewed on the streaming video portion of the\nCity website. He noted that would be the most convenient for people with Internet access\nto see the proceedings of the meeting.\nMs. Barbara Kerr noted that she had been at the Bridgeside Shopping Center recently,\nand recalled her tenure on the City Council when the developer wanted unpainted\ncorrugated iron siding on the building. She noted that she had talked to him about\nwindows on the waterfront, and added that when the developer encountered the Planning\nBoard, he encountered more focused insistence on glass on the waterfront side.\nMr. David Howard concurred with Mr. Kirwin's comments regarding other meetings on\nthe website. He wished to voice his objection to the mindset of some within the\ncommunity and Planning Services that high-density housing was necessary to support\ntransit, and that transit was therefore necessary to support high-density housing He cited\nstudies that stated that transit use ranged from 30- 36%, and that most of the trips would\nbe by automobile. He noted that less than 20% of the transit budget came from the fare\nbox, and stated that Mayor Newsom of San Francisco had requested that fares no longer\nbe collected at the box because of the cost of doing SO. He suggested focusing on low-\ndensity housing, and if a subsidy were to be employed, that low-emissions vehicles or\nbicycles be subsidized instead of high-density housing and transit.\nPresident Lynch suggested that members of the public may also wish to address any\ntransit issues to the Transportation Commission.\nBoard member Mariani suggested that the speaker was promoting high-density housing\nand wrapping it in with transit.\nPresident Lynch noted that the Transportation Commission would be able to address fare\ncollection and subsidies.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nMarch 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-26", "page": 7, "text": "9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-B.\nMDR07-0003 (Minor Design Review) - Applicant: Peter Ekstein - 463 Haight\nAvenue (SW). The applicant requests a Planning Board interpretation regarding\nstaff's finding that an existing parking space of 32 feet and 6 inches constitutes\ntwo compact parking spaces. Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-7.3 existing\nparking spaces must be kept in working order and may not be reduced to less than\nexisting numbers.\nMr. Thomas presented the staff report in Simone Wolter's absence.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Peter Ekstein, project architect, noted that the most important issue was the location\nof the stair inside the home, and believed it was appropriately located to be consistent\nwith the architectural style of the building. He noted that the stair location interfered with\nthe location of the second car, which had never been in that location. He believed\nrequiring a second parking space was not consistent with the architectural style. He noted\nthat many people in the neighborhood park in their front yard, although they have\ngarages; he inquired why the City did not seem to be concerned about that. He noted that\nthe clients would not use that second parking space. He inquired when the unconditioned\nspace would be able to be developed, and noted that there was no written guidance\nregarding that issue.\nMr. Mark Takemoto, applicant, noted that they tried to develop the basement to use the\nspace most efficiently and within the existing footprint of the house. He noted that the\ncurrent space for the parking spot was shorter in length and height than the required\nstandard for a new garage space. He noted that the narrow width of the garage space\nmade it very difficult to park two cars in the garage on a consistent basis.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether the definition of habitable space\nincluded closets, Mr. Thomas replied that they were not included in the UBC definition.\nThe conditioned space may not be heated or cooled, and must be habitable.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the difference in the\nsquare footage numbers cited by staff and the applicant, Mr. Thomas replied that after\nmeeting with the applicant, they agreed to come before the Planning Board and to\nredesign their plan somewhat. The revised plan was submitted, and staff is still in the\nprocess of working out the amount of conditioned space. He noted that the core question\nof parking spaces would determine the amount of conditioned space. He believed that\nhallway space was one of the discussion issues.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether there would be a\nseismic upgrade, Mr. Thomas confirmed that was the case.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nMarch 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-26", "page": 8, "text": "In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether the ground-floor\nbathroom towards the rear of the property would be new, Mr. Ekstein replied that there\nwas a toilet but no tub. The existing ground floor windows would be replaced by the\napplicants, and he noted that the existing windows in the two storage rooms already met\nthe requirement for egress. The setback facing the streets was less than 20 feet.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara whether the home had an existing\ninterior staircase, Mr. Ekstein replied there was not.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara whether the parking in the front\nyard counted as a parking space, Mr. Thomas replied that it did not. Board member\nMcNamara noted that parking was a challenge in this neighborhood, and believed there\nwere case-by-case situations that the Board could not ignore. She believed the interior\nstaircase was essential to the remodel design. Mr. Thomas noted that staff endeavored to\nmake the planning standards consistent, and that case-by-case situations were usually\naddressed by a variance.\nBoard member Kohlstrand noted that it was a disadvantage to not have the existing site\nplan. She was uncomfortable changing the parking standards, but would look at it on a\nvariance basis if the hardship findings could be met.\nVice President Cook noted that she was troubled with respect to parking, which had been\nthe subject of much discussion. She did not believe this would be a unique as people\nwanted to build up or down, and thanked the applicant for his candor regarding his plans.\nShe was not sure this plan would work as a variance, as it may be possible that it would\nbe a common request in this neighborhood.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there would be an exterior ground level\ndoor. Mr. Ekstein replied that had been removed from the plan. She noted that this house\nwas somewhat of a blank slate, and suggested that the interior stairway be placed\nelsewhere in the house to accommodate parking and still retain the historic character of\nthe house.\nPresident Lynch noted that the front yard-parking scheme was not consistent with City\npolicy, and if it were, this would be a conforming use.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether it was staff's position to retain\nthe two parking spaces and relocating the stairwell, Mr. Thomas replied that was correct.\nMr. Ekstein replied that moving the stairwell would probably end the remodeling efforts\nof this home. He noted that there were other alternatives to this question, but they would\nbe very costly. He noted that many residents in the neighborhood would not be able to\npark two cars in the garage.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nMarch 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-26", "page": 9, "text": "President Lynch suggested that a design that would conform to City guidelines would be\nthe most desirable outcome. He suggested that the Board either deny the application or\ncontinue it in order to allow the applicant to redesign it.\nBoard member Cunningham believed there were many issues embedded in this\napplication, including improvement of smaller homes, parking in the first 20 feet of the\nfront yard, and the number of required parking spaces. He did not believe the Board\ncould deviate from that standard.\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Ekstein's question whether the City required two\ncompact cars when a family may have larger cars, President Lynch replied that was not\nthe case and that the City had a definition of required parking.\nMr. Thomas noted that the applicant's choices were to redesign the interior, add a second\nstory, to redesign into the backyard to maintain the space, or to pursue a variance.\nPresident Lynch believed it would be difficult to make the findings for a variance, and\nbelieved a redesign would be probably.\nMs. Woodbury wanted to clarify that the applicant before the Board was to making a\nparking space determination, not to approve or deny the project.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to recommend that 23.5 feet is equivalent to two\nparking spaces in this condition.\nVice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nMarch 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-26", "page": 10, "text": "9-C. Appointment of an Ad Hoc Committee to work with the Planning and\nBuilding Director on a Housing/Measure A Workshop (CW).\nMs. Woodbury presented the staff report, and summarized the background of the\ndevelopment of this workshop.\nPresident Lynch noted that 15 speaker slips had been received for this item, and invited a\nmotion to reduce the speakers' time to three minutes.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to reduce the speakers' time to three minutes.\nVice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Ani Dimusheva inquired about the impulse behind the Committee idea, and noted\nthat there had been a lot of discussion surrounding Alameda Point. She was not sure why\nthe discussion around Measure A needed to be framed, and believed the discussion\nshould be at the grassroots and community level. She inquired who the interested parties\nin this issue were, especially with respect to ABAG and other outside entities. She\ninquired whether the role of the committee would be in addition to facilitating public\ndiscussion. She inquired whether a ballot measure would be in the future.\nMs. Diane Coler-Dark noted that the staff report stated that the Board and community\nmembers had expressed a strong desire for a forum on Measure A, and she had not\nperceived any strong desire to change Measure A. She inquired how many people had\napproached the Planning Board to change it, and recalled the various groups, such as\nARRA, BRAG and the Community Reuse Plan, that had addressed Measure A. She\nbelieved the community goals and standards had been established. She inquired whether\nthis was a method to get Measure A on the ballot again.\nMs. Susan Battaglia was surprised to hear this committee would be forming to discuss\nMeasure A, and supported leaving Measure A in place as it stands. She noted that\nmultiunit buildings had replaced some grand homes, and added that a police position had\nbeen eliminated while the cost of getting Measure A on the ballot was $150,000. She\nnoted that speed limits in Alameda were being violated constantly, and that parking was\nscarce in both commercial and residential neighborhoods. She did not believe that new\nresidents would use public transit, and that the streets would become congested with\nmore multifamily housing.\nChristopher Buckley believed this was an expansion of the scope of the much of the\nprevious Measure A discussions, and supposed that it was part of the Housing Element\ndiscussion with respect to constraints. He noted that AAPS has not had time to review\nthis proposal in detail, and to provide a formal response. He believed that AAPS would\nprobably oppose a wholesale amendment of Measure A throughout Alameda.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nMarch 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-26", "page": 11, "text": "Ms. Helen Sause commended the Planning Board on initiating this committee, and was\ndismayed that previous speakers seemed to have assumed a foregone conclusion. She\nnoted that the Homes organization was only interested in modifying Measure A for\nAlameda Point, and emphasized that they did not intend to destroy Measure A throughout\nthe City.\nMr. Scott Brady believed the framework for this discussion had been laid in staff's\ndevelopment of an Alameda Point Measure A compliant and non-Measure A compliant\nplan. He did not believe that staff should create contingencies not in accordance with the\nCity Charter. He believed that discussion of Measure A, which was a citizen-driven\namendment, should be citizen-driven, not staff-driven. He noted that it was not only\nabout housing and saving old homes - it was also about limiting density, abating\nincreasing traffic congestion and controlling development that was designed by\ndevelopers contrary to public input.\nMr. Jim Sweeney expressed concern about the possibility of mischief regarding Measure\nA, and believed it would skew the purpose of the Planning Board's role as a unit. He\nnoted that the subcommittee would function as an advocate, not an adjudicator. He did\nnot believe there was an imperative to further study Measure A, and believed it had been\ndone. He believed the citizens had to be an important part of this discussion, and wanted\nto retain impartiality and clarity in this discussion.\nMrs. Jean Sweeney provided a history of how ABAG obtained its housing numbers. She\ndid not see a major plan to solve the traffic problem at Alameda Point, and was very\nconcerned about the toxic materials in that area. She noted that the Navy would not\naddress the PAHs or marsh crust on that site. She believed the traffic problem should be\nsolved before any more houses were planned, and she did not believe that Measure A\nneeded to be studied any further.\nMs. Dorothy Freeman believed that reexamining Measure A was a citizen item, not a\nstaff item. She cited a study that concluded that increased density provided only a short-\nterm benefit. She believed that the long-term effects of increased density should be\nstudied further before implementing higher density in Alameda.\nMs. Barbara Kerr did not believe that a Measure A forum was necessary because it had\nalready been voted on. She did not believe that it should be overturned in order to meet a\nbureaucratic deadline. She recalled the 1980 Housing Element had been badly written,\nand that it was subsequently rewritten by citizens on a committee that she chaired. She\nnoted that was the last Housing Element that had been approved by the State. She noted\nthat friends of the developers could get signatures for a ballot measure to overturn\nMeasure A. She believed that until Alameda had more bridges and tubes, that Measure A\nshould not be discussed further.\nMs. Denise Brady concurred with Ms. Kerr's comments, and believed that if the citizens\nof Alameda wanted to overturn Measure A, they could bring it to the ballot box. She\nnoted that when Mayor Johnson ran for reelection, she prominently displayed her support\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nMarch 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-26", "page": 12, "text": "for Measure A. Ms. Brady believed that the Mayor's reelection was an indication of\nAlameda's support for Measure A.\nMs. Selina Faulhaber noted that the current issue was not preserving older homes or\nbuilding many units at Harbor Bay Isle. She believed the issue was to look at 2008 and\nbeyond, and supported a frank discussion of Measure A. She supported the Planning\nBoard's decision to look at this issue, and noted that the public's opinion would be\nsought.\nMr. David Howard believed that if this committee were to be formed, it should be\ncomprised of members of the public, held in open session in Council Chambers to be\ntelevised and videotaped. He did not believe this committee should operate behind closed\ndoors to discuss such a controversial issue.\nMs. Diane Lichtenstein noted that the purpose was not to discuss whether Measure A\nshould exist or not, but that a subcommittee would be formed. She was surprised at some\nof the interpretations of the staff report, and believed the Planning Board had the right to\ndetermine who would be on the subcommittee. She was surprised at the fears expressed\nthat the committee would be held behind closed doors, and that the public would not be\nallowed to attend. She noted that a public forum would be open to the public by its\ndefinition. She supported this subcommittee.\nMr. David Kirwin was surprised at the doggedness of what he believed to be friends of\ndevelopers pushing to repeal Measure A. He noted that one of the reasons Alameda was\nso special was because its density was protected. He was concerned about the framing of\nthe issue and the direction of the workshop. He believed that all of the effects of density\nshould be discussed outside of traffic; he believed that increased crime, social costs and\nuse of City funds should be discussed as well. He noted that access, egress and parking\nat shopping centers and schools should be addressed as well, and believed the City should\nalso have an exit strategy. He did not believe the City could support much more\ninfrastructure.\nMr. Lil Arnerich believed that Measure A made Alameda the livable community it is, and\nhoped that the Planning Board did not have a preconceived notion about it. He did not\nbelieve the dialogue was extraneous, and expressed concern that the Alameda Point-only\nfocus of Measure A would remain as such. He believed that any change to Measure A\nwould eventually spread to the rest of the City. He noted that he welcomed new people to\nAlameda, and has not heard anyone on the street expressing an interesting in overturning\nMeasure A. He noted that the Planning Board's mission was to serve the people, and\nreiterated the Mayor's support of Measure A prior to the election. He did not want the\nPlanning Board or staff to front for the developers' interests. He cited several outspoken\nopponents to Measure A that had since moved out of the City. He urged the Planning\nBoard to vote against this item.\nMs. Barbara Thomas noted that the developments that have been criticized by the\nresidents were approved by Planning staff and previous Planning Boards. She noted that\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nMarch 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-26", "page": 13, "text": "it was possible to have beautifully designed tract homes, and noted that residential homes\ngenerally do not pay for the services they demand. She believed that density did not\ngenerate mass transit, but did generate more congestion and air pollution. She inquired\nwhether staff had requested the formation of this subcommittee, and inquired whether it\nwas now staff, rather than City Council, that set policy for the City. She suggested that\nany Councilmember who supported it would be open to recall, and believed that support\nof this subcommittee may indicate that a new Planning Director may be in order. She\nbelieved that having another police officer on the force was more important than the cost\nof this study and subcommittee. She believed the people had spoken already, and\nsuggested that she and Ms. Kerr be members of the committee instead. She believed this\nsubcommittee would be a waste of the City's time and resources. She noted Ms.\nSweeney's efforts to get more open space in the City.\nMs. Mercedes Milana wished to remind the Planning Board that Alameda was an island\nwith a limited number of entrance and exit points, and recalled the days when it took\nNavy workers half an hour to exit the Island. She was very concerned about parking\nissues, and recalled the previous discussion about people parking on their front yard. She\nnoted that she had lodged complaints about illegal parking, and believed that if Measure\nA were overturned, the parking problems would be worse. She was concerned about the\nfuture desirability of Alameda if Measure A were to be overturned.\nMs. Pat Bail noted that she was the past secretary and chairman of the Keep Measure A\ngroup. She believed the Planning Board's responsibility was to protect current citizens of\nAlameda, not future citizens. She noted that the citizens had spoken about their support of\nMeasure A, and she was very concerned about some Board member opinions that\nconsidered overturning Measure A. She was concerned that the City would not be able to\naccommodate children in parks and sports field if many more families moved in to\nAlameda.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPresident Lynch called for a three-minute break.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that based on public input, he supposed that the\nMeasure A forum should be used to tighten Measure A up. He emphasized that he would\ncome to those discussions with an open mind and without preconceived notions. He\nbelieved that with limited resources, Alamedans owe it to themselves to study how best\nto use them. He encouraged open discussion as much as possible, and believed the ideas\nand comments should be collected and synthesized as much as possible. He did not\nbelieve it was a good idea to remain stuck in the same rut to address the land use\nchallenges.\nVice President Cook would like to apologize to staff for pushing them to the point of\nputting this item on the agenda. She had felt frustrated within the last year to put this\ndiscussion on the agenda, and now understood why staff had been reluctant to do SO. She\nbelieved that staff had taken great personal abuse over this issue, and did not believe it\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nMarch 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-26", "page": 14, "text": "was right. She had heard people speak passionately on both sides of the Measure A issue,\nand believed that some people had misconceptions on what Measure A actually meant.\nShe noted that Measure A could be changed without any greater density, and that more\nopen space could be created; in addition historic resources could be preserved as well\nunder Measure A. She believed it was possible to discuss it without it being an all-or-\nnothing issue. She noted that there was no attempt to hide this discussion and believed\nthat a public discussion about the process going forward was important. She noted that\nshe was a fan of Measure A, appreciated Victorian homes, and would like to see some of\nthe big stucco buildings on her block disappear. She would like to continue to have this\ndiscussion and see where it progressed.\nBoard member McNamara noted that she was disillusioned because she believed the\nintent of this forum was misconstrued during the public hearing. She believed the intent\nwas to educate the community and citizens of Alameda about the history, consequences,\nlegal aspects of Measure A and to put it in context with respect to the current issues. She\nnoted that the Planning staff had not made a decision, and could not unilaterally change\nMeasure A. She noted that it was not even stated that staff or the Planning Board wanted\nMeasure A to change. She believed that having an informed background was essential to\nmaking an informed decision with respect to Measure A.\nBoard member Kohlstrand echoed the previous comments, and noted that staff did not\ninitiate this forum. She had advocated for a forum because she did not grow up in\nAlameda and did not understand all the history; she wished to help the community as a\nwhole become well versed in its history and effect on the community going forward. She\nbelieved that such a forum was important because people had wanted to become better\ninformed as housing and industrial uses evolved over time. She would like to see\nAlameda's main island character move to Alameda Point, and would like the general public\nto have the opportunity to learn about the measure and comment on it as Alameda continues\nto change.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was able to attend the League of California\nCities Planning Institute in San Diego the previous week, and that Ms. Woodbury had\nattended several programs together. She had attended an interesting workshop on how to\nconfigure commercial and residential density in nontraditional ways. She encouraged the\npublic to attend the workshop at Mastick Center on March 29, which would include one of\nthe speakers she heard in San Diego. She acknowledged that density was a hot-button word,\nand noted that there was more common ground than people may think. She noted that she\ngrew up in an apartment on Pearl Street in Alameda. She noted that the building had a big\nbackyard, and added that it would not be Measure A-compliant. She believed that many\nconclusions had been drawn from a very brief staff memo, and wished to assure the public\nthat decisions would not be made in a back room by staff and an ad hoc committee. She\nnoted that the purpose was to bring this public and important issue into a public arena. She\nnoted that to have a public discussion, people may not feel intimidated and attacked; she did\nnot believe that approaching the people involved with such vehemence and personal attacks\nwere an appropriate approach. She urged people to have an open mind, and noted that no\none had all the answers. She believed that if the public's perception of Measure A was clear\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nMarch 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-26", "page": 15, "text": "and strong, there was no threat in undertaking the discussion. She added that looking at\ndifferent facets of Measure A did not mean that Victorians would be torn down. She noted\nthat areas such as Alameda Point, the Boatworks and Alameda Landing that were coming up\nfor development. She believed that people should be able to discuss the issue freely, and she\nbelieved that a better-informed decision would result. She noted that it may be possible to\ndevelop more open space and parks, and added that the discussion was a way to do the best\nfor the community.\nBoard member Mariani noted that she had not pushed for any forums with respect to\nMeasure A, nor had she advocated for it. She recalled asking City Council for guidance on\nthis issue, and suggested that occur again. She believed the presentation by Woody Minor\nwould be very informative. She noted that Ms. Woodbury placed this item on the agenda at\nthe request of some Board members, and added that Alamedans were very protective of\ntheir community. She did not believe it was their intent to behave in a threatening or\nintimidating manner. She noted that there had been numerous discussions of Measure A in\nthe past, and did not feel comfortable advocating for or against it.\nPresident Lynch asked that the individuals in the room speak with those who had since left,\nand noted that it was unfortunate that this issue seems to have been mischaracterized He\nhad yet to hear any Board member advocate for more density at any time, to which many\nspeakers had referred; he wished to emphasize that was not the case. He noted that as part of\nthe land use determination, this Board examined the design elements on Alameda Point. He\nnoted that the desires of various groups in the community must be incorporated into these\nplans. He noted that the design questions addressed how various actions would be taken if\nthe City so chose, and what they would look like, given Measure A. He noted that did not\nmean it must necessarily be done. He emphasized that there had been no advocacy on the\nPlanning Board to repeal Measure A, and added that it may be strengthened. He noted that it\nwas strictly an educational exercise.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that the Planning Board was fairly impartial about this\nissue, and supported having several Board members, as well as members of the public on\nthe Committee.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that the Mayor appoint several people to join the\ncommittee.\nBoard member Mariani believed that the Planning Board should run this appointment by the\nCity Council, and inquired who authorized it.\nPresident Lynch noted that this was not a policy issue, and that others had interpreted it as\nan educational presentation.\nBoard member Mariani proposed that the Planning Board invite people to make\npresentations on Measure A.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nMarch 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-26", "page": 16, "text": "Vice President Cook wanted to know what the constraints on this the Board's discussion\nwould be.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that this would be an informative presentation because\nMeasure A was currently in force.\nBoard member Kohlstrand understood that this was an emotional and heated issue, and\nrelied on staff for guidance with respect to procedure. She did not recall similar instances\nwhere the Planning Board was required to ask City Council for permission to act on an\nagendized item.\nMs. Woodbury clarified that this was a policy issue, and City Council dealt with policy\nissues. She added that when staff analyzed projects, it was under the auspices of existing\npolicy and that Measure A was in the charter; neither staff nor the Planning Board could\nchange that. She noted that staff had a finite amount of resources in the form of time, staff\nand money. She advised that adding more to the work program would further stretch the\nresources, which was a significant issue.\nBoard member Kohlstrand noted that it had been a challenge to have the joint meeting with\nCity Council, and noted that would be helpful in this instance. Ms. Woodbury noted that the\nCity Clerk was still looking at calendars to arrange a joint meeting.\nPresident Lynch inquired whether the ad hoc committee could recommend a workshop. Ms.\nWoodbury noted that would be possible.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that the Planning Board had been approached by\nmembers of the public for some time, and believed that providing an open forum would be\nthe best approach. He did not believe the City Council was the only entity to address\nMeasure A, and recalled a Measure A forum at Kaufmann Auditorium approximately six\nyears ago.\nMr. Thomas suggested that a subcommittee of the Planning Board be established and ask it\nto return to the Board in one month at a public meeting in chambers. Logistics for the forum\nand proposals for the structure would be presented at that time. At that time, it could be\ndecided whether to approach Council.\nVice President Cook strongly believed that this discussion should talk place in a developer-\nfree zone. She disagreed with the characterizations of the Planning Board as being a front for\ndevelopers, and noted that she was quite stringent with developers.\nBoard member Mariani inquired who had actually requested this subcommittee, and added\nthat she had seen the same few people asking for noncompliant Measure A alternative. She\nemphasized that she had never heard that herself, and did not request it herself.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 16\nMarch 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-26", "page": 17, "text": "Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the League of Women Voters was a well-regarded\ngroup locally and statewide, and that they had come before the Planning Board on more than\none occasion.\nPresident Lynch invited volunteers to identify themselves to serve on the subcommittee.\nVice President Cook and Board members Kohlstrand and Ezzy Ashcraft volunteered.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to nominate Vice President Cook and Board members\nKohlstrand and Ezzy Ashcraft to serve on the subcommittee.\nVice President Cook proposed an amendment that the subcommittee return to the\nPlanning Board with a recommendation and further definition of the committee's scope\nafter one month.\nBoard member McNamara seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote - 6. No: Mariani.\nBoard member Mariani left the meeting prior to Item 9-A.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 17\nMarch 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-26", "page": 18, "text": "9-A.\nNorthern Waterfront General Plan Amendment and Citywide Child Care\nPolicies GPA 07-0002 and Final Environmental Impact Report - Applicant:\nCity of Alameda (AT). The proposed General Plan Amendment would amend\nthe City of Alameda General Plan to better guide future development in the\nNorthern Waterfront area to promote and facilitate redevelopment of the area with\na mix of uses that would include residential, commercial, office, maritime, and\nopen space. The Child Care Policies will guide future decisions regarding the\nprovision of childcare facilities throughout the City. The Northern Waterfront\nproject area is generally bounded by Sherman Street on the west, Buena Vista\nAvenue on the south, and Grand Street on the east. The Oakland/Alameda Estuary\nforms the northern border of the area. The Northern Waterfront project area is\nwithin several zoning districts. These districts include R-2 (Two Family\nResidence District), R-3 (Garden Residential District), R-4-PD (Neighborhood\nResidential District, Special Planned Development District), M-1 (Intermediate\nIndustrial), M-2 (General Industrial), C-M (Commercial-Manufacturing District),\nand M-1-PD (Intermediate Industrial, Special Planned Development District). The\nChild Care Policies began development in 2001 by the City of Alameda Social\nService Human Relations Board (SSHRB) and the recommended policies have\nbeen in public circulation since 2003. An Environmental Impact Report has been\nprepared for the General Plan Amendment. The Planning Board will make a\nrecommendation to City Council for final action. (Continued from the meeting\nof February 26, 2007.)\nMr. Thomas summarized the staff report. Staff recommended that the Planning Board\nadopt the resolution attached to the staff report, which recommends that City Council\ncertify the final Environmental Impact Report for this project and adopt the Northern\nWaterfront General Plan Amendment and Citywide Child Care Policies.\nPresident Lynch advised that six speaker slips had been received.\nMember McNamara moved to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote - 6. Absent: Mariani.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nChristopher Buckley noted that he had sent a letter to the Board members on February 22,\nand suggested that a height limit between 33 and 50 feet be considered, and that a height\nlimit Citywide be considered. He believed that a 100 foot height limit was too tall, and\nsuggested a height limit so the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance would clarify that\nissue for developers. If the Board was disinclined at this time, he suggested adding a\nfollow-up direction to study height limits after adoption of the General Plan Amendment.\nHe noted that this had previously been done, when lowering the 100 foot height limit\nalong Park and Webster Streets had been implemented in the 1991 General Plan, leading\nto a zoning amendments that reduced that height. He noted that height limits might\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 18\nMarch 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-26", "page": 19, "text": "include decorative towers, which would be included as an exception. With regard to the\nClement Avenue truck route, he suggested that there be restrictions on residential\ndevelopment along that route. He noted that Mr. Thomas suggested traffic calming\nmeasures to address pedestrian and bicycle traffic. He suggested traffic mitigations along\nClement if the Board was not inclined to reduce residential along that truck route.\nMr. Joseph Woodard, Estuary Park Action Committee, noted that the park had been\npromised for a long time in the site where the Boatworks is being considered. He was\nvery concerned about the possible loss of that park. He was very concerned that the City\nmight be overtaken by developers, and noted that the City of Livermore had a developer\nfee program that had resulted in a very attractive downtown.\nMs. Barbara Kerr, President, Northside Association, noted that a lot of lip service had\nbeen given to the supply of moderate income housing. She noted that the area between\nConstitution and Park had a large supply of moderate income housing, and believed that\nneighborhood should be preserved. She believed that it was directly contrary to\nestablished City policy to considered those neighborhoods disposable, and that they could\nbe destroyed by excessive traffic, bad planning by allowing high buildings on the edge of\nthe neighborhoods. She requested that the Board recognize the need to safeguard the\nNorth Waterfront neighborhoods, which were valuable to the City for the moderate-\nincome housing. She wanted to retain Alameda's small-town feeling and its respect for\nhistory.\nMr. Peter Wang noted that he had attended the February 26 meeting, and hoped the\nPlanning Board would process this amendment to the General Plan. He supported this\nitem, and believed that it was Measure A compatible. He noted that he had performed a\ntraffic study, which found that there were 4.3 truck trips per day. He believed the 100-\nfoot height limit throughout the City should be preserved. He noted that they had hired a\nnew architect to provide more input, and urged the Planning Board to approve this item.\nMr. David Day, Warmington Homes, spoke in support of this amendment and zoning\nchanges, which he believed would clean up the area and improve the neighborhood, as well\nas improve access to the waterfront.\nMr. Stuart Rickard inquired how Item 10, removing the truck route designation from the\nPark Street Bridge affected other routes into and out of Alameda. He believed that any\npossible sea level rise should be an island-wide issue. He noted that they had building\nheights at the advisory committee, and that a tall building with surrounding open space\nhad been proposed; they had preferred a lower rise building. He noted that with respect to\nthe visibility of the West End of Del Monte, Clement Avenue had a big triangle at the\nnorthwest corner of the Del Monte building that is now hidden by a shed. He hoped that\nwould be visible to the neighborhood.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether he agreed with 10.8.b, Mr. Rickard\nreplied that he disagreed with the step-down concept.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 19\nMarch 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-26", "page": 20, "text": "Mr. Lil Arnerich drew an analogy by noting that he had played professional baseball for\nmany years, and that while they played hard and to win, they were able to gather for a\nbeer afterwards. He noted that with respect to a prior issue of Measure A, he wanted to\nreassure that he would never bear a grudge toward any Board member and would enjoy\nthat beer afterwards whether Measure A was lost or not. He has known Mr. Wang for\nover 25 years as a conscientious member of the community, and who had contributed\nheavily to the city in many ways. He believed it was time to approve this benefit to the\nNorthern Waterfront, which had been developed by world-class and prestigious\narchitectural firms. He was concerned that these delays were costing Mr. Wang a\nconsiderable amount of money, and urged the Planning Board to approve this item. He\ncomplimented the Planning staff, particularly Ms. Woodbury and Mr. Thomas, for their\ntime and courtesy extended to him when he requested information.\nMs. Dorothy Freeman believed that Attachment B, Item 8, should more precisely define\nimpact fees.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nBoard member Kohlstrand moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote - 6. Absent: Mariani.\nVice President Cook wished to add language at the end of the sentence of 10.3.b: \"creates\na lively waterfront and pedestrian-friendly environment both day and night.\"\nVice President Cook found that sometimes a longer list of uses is listed, and inquired\nwhether a more consistent list of uses could be used. Mr. Thomas replied that this section\nhad been rewritten after the Planning Board had looked at the detailed table, and\ndetermined that it was too detailed for the General Plan. He noted that there was a fair\namount of discussion at the Advisory Committee, and noted that the intent of the\nAdvisory Committee was that there could be a mix of uses or a single use. The phrase \"a\nmix of\" was stricken because that implied that a mix was required.\nPresident Lynch suggested that be added.\nVice President Cook inquired whether it would be possible to add a tavern to activate the\ngreen. Mr. Thomas noted that the intent was to keep it medium-density residential, and\nthat staff would consider that suggestion during any rezoning discussion.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it was directly across from the Del Monte site,\nwhich would allow a mix of uses. She noted that was not that far away.\nBoard member Kohlstrand was uncomfortable in changing the land uses at this time after\nthe extensive work and discussion.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 20\nMarch 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-26", "page": 21, "text": "Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the property identification at the top of page 3\nshould be placed at the beginning of the paragraph at the bottom of page 2.\nVice President Cook noted that with respect to 10.3.f, the language should be changed to\n.allow for the development of public facilities such as fire stations and public and\nprivate schools.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that 10.6.b should be changed to read, \"eliminate\nreduce-the need for sound walls.\"\nVice President Cook suggested that 10.6.d should be change to read, \"provide docking\nareas to encourage waterborne transportation.\" She noted that there were very few\nopportunities to dock a boat at a restaurant such as Chevy's.\nVice President Cook noted that at the end of the sentence on 10.6.e., the following\nlanguage should be added: design the street to protect the shoreline experience for the\npublic\nVice President Cook suggested that in 10.6.1 the following language be added: \"along the\nshoreline where feasible\" to try to get the separation between bicyclists and auto traffic.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that with respect to 10.6.u, whether \"behind\" meant\nfacing the street or the waterfront. He believed it should be harmonized with the waterfront,\nand integrated with landscaping and public access. Mr. Thomas believed the second half of\nthe sentence worked in that the placement should be carefully considered.\nVice President Cook suggested that on 10.6.b, the following language be added to the end\nof the sentence: or key views to the shoreline.\"\nBoard member Kohlstrand suggested that on 10.6.b, it be clarified that it referred to\nparked cars, not cars traveling along Clement.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the Marina Village Parkway did a nice job of\nscreening the cars.\nVice President Cook noted that with respect to the first 10.8.b, she suggested adding the\nfollowing language at the end of the sentence: .architectural style that respects\nAlameda's unique history and maritime character.'\nBoard member Cunningham suggested that with respect to the second 10.8.b, relative to\nstepping down of buildings to approach the waterfront, include the following language:\n\"heights to generally step down\" to allow other things to occur.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that with respect to 10.8.e., it should read, \"New\ndevelopment shall should be designed and new streets shall should be engineered to\nreduce sound impacts and eliminate the need for sound walls.\"\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 21\nMarch 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-26", "page": 22, "text": "Vice President Cook noted that in 10.8.d should be changed to read, \" required new\nbuildings to face the street and buildings along the shore to face the water 's edge.'\nBoard member Kohlstrand did not believe that would be feasible if the buildings faced\nboth the street and the water.\nPresident Lynch did not believe the word \"required\" would be feasible with respect to\ndouble entrances on all buildings.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether 10.8.h had been relocated to another\nsection of the document, addressing facades. Mr. Thomas replied that was the case.\nPresident Lynch suggested that section be used to cover the issue, and that 10.8.d be\nstricken due to a conflict in language. He suggested that in instances where the new\nbuilding did not face the water, that it be oriented to face the street.\nVice President Cook suggested that wherever feasible, that public access on the\nwaterfront be activated to enhance safety and waterfront access.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft agreed that \"where feasible\" would be an appropriate\nphrase in that item.\nA discussion of dual waterfront and street access ensued.\nMr. Thomas noted that 10.9.d and 10.9.e, Mr. Thomas noted that those policies were\nmoved to Attachment B. He noted that the easiest thing to do would be direct staff to put\nthem in the document.\nBoard member Kohlstrand moved to include 10.9.d. and 10.9.e in the document\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote - 6. Absent: Mariani.\nBoard member McNamara moved to extend the meeting to 11:45 p.m.\nVice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote - 6.\nAbsent: Mariani.\nVice President Cook noted that DM-11 should be changed to read, \"provide allow for a\nshoreline public promenade consistent with the requirements of number 24 in Attachment\nB.\"\nVice President Cook believed that E.2.t. was inadequate in its reference to open space\nrequirements, and that a word stronger than \"adequate\" be used, such as \"ample\" or\n\"generous.\"\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 22\nMarch 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-26", "page": 23, "text": "Mr. Thomas noted that it would be rezoned MX, and that it would come back to the\nPlanning Board and City Council.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that under Landscaping at the bottom of page 12, she\nwould like to see language stating that landscaping within this area would be \"Bay-\nfriendly\" landscaping, as defined by StopWaste.org. She brought their guidelines in for\nthe other Board members to read.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the title in Item 24 should be corrected to:\n\"Adjacent to the Oakland-Alameda Estuary.\"\nVice President Cook noted that the pedestrian/bicycle routes should have the amenities\nsuch as racks and plantings outside the minimum width of the right of way.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a map of the truck routes in Alameda was\navailable.\nVice President Cook noted that on Number 23, the following change should be made:\n\"consider opportunities to create attractive gateways\n\"\nVice President Cook noted that on the first 24 should include the following language:\n\"Provide retail, restaurant and caf\u00e9 uses that open out to the shore to activate the shoreline\nboth night and day where feasible.\"\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that in 29 (Child care system), 6.5.d, whether\nchildcare licensing was done by the State. Mr. Thomas confirmed that was the case, and\nthat in facilities with fewer than six children, a use permit was necessary and could be\nstreamlined.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that in the Resolutions, February 24 should be\nchanged to February 26, and that March 24 should be changed to March 26.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to recommend to City Council to certifying the\nfindings of the EIR and approve a General Plan Amendment as noted.\nBoard member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote - 6. Absent: Mariani.\n9-D.\nPresentation of Broadway and Jackson Street access improvements to\nInterstate 880. No action will be taken on this item.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Lynch, Mr. Thomas advised that the applicant was\nunable to remain at the meeting.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to continue this item.\nVice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 6.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 23\nMarch 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-26", "page": 24, "text": "Absent: Mariani.\nPage 24\nPlanning Board Minutes\nMarch 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-26", "page": 25, "text": "10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nPresident Lynch noted that numerous pieces of correspondence had been received, and\nrequested that the writers confirm their facts before committing them to paper.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee\n(Board Member Mariani).\nPresident Lynch advised that Board member Mariani had left the meeting and would\nreport on this item at the next meeting.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board\nMember Kohlstrand).\nBoard member Kohlstrand noted that no further meetings had been held since her last\nreport.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force\n(Board Member Cunningham).\nBoard member Cunningham noted that the Task Force met the previous Wednesday to\nreview target values for common emission reductions. He noted that the next meeting\nwould be held on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 at the Alameda Free Library.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n11:45 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAndrew\nAndrew Thomas, S\u00e9cretary\nCity Planning Board\nThese minutes were approved at the April 18, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This\nmeeting was audio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 25\nMarch 26, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf"}