{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-01-28", "page": 1, "text": "UNAPPROVED\nCOMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nJanuary 28, 2008\nTIME\nThe meeting convened at 6:40 P.M.\nPRESENT\nChair Lord-Hausman, Commissioners Berger, Kirola, Kreitz and Longley-Cook.\nABSENT\nVice-Chair Moore, Commissioners Hakanson, Robinson and Fort.\nMINUTES\nThe November 2007 minutes were approved as presented.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nThere was no written communication.\nNEW BUSINESS\n1. CDI Meeting Dates (Chair Lord-Hausman):\nChair Lord-Hausman stated that she would not be able to attend the February 25, 2008 meeting\nand polled the Commissioners for their availability for February 26, 2008, to which those\nCommissioners present agreed to the date change, if necessary. The Chair indicated that she\nwould check with Vice-Chair Moore to confirm her availability to chair the February 25 meeting\nin the event that the meeting date does not change.\nThe Commission also agreed to move the May 26, 2008 meeting to May 27, 2008 in observance\nof the Memorial Day Holiday. Secretary Akil stated that she would provide the Commission\nwith a 2008 meeting schedule.\n2. 2007 CDI Accomplishments (Chair Lord-Hausman):\nChair Lord-Hausman distributed a draft list of accomplishments by the Commission for the 2007\ncalendar meeting year. The Commission asked that the list be revised to include any\naccomplishments from the 2006 meeting year and requested that the final list of\naccomplishments be distributed to Council under cover memo.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-01-28", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nJanuary 28, 2008\nMinutes\nPage 2 of 4\n3. Atlantic Avenue/Webster/Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway Street Intersection\nImprovements (Chair Lord-Hausman):\nChair Lord-Hausman met with Ed Sommerauer and Virendra Patel of the Public Works\nDepartment regarding an update on the Atlantic/Webster/Appezzato Street Intersection\nImprovement project. The bids are in for re-design of the Intersection. The specifics of the\ndesign include audibles and countdown signals, and the crosswalks will be basic stripped. The\nChair may invite Ed Sommerauer to return to the Commission once bids come in.\nOLD BUSINESS\n1. Temporary Disabled Parking at Community Events (Chair Lord-Hausman):\nChair Lord-Hausman met with Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer in the Public Works\nDepartment regarding accessibility parking at City-wide events. Mr. Khan indicated that he\nwould review adding a line-item in applications that addresses \"disabled parking/access\" during\nbig City events. He prepared a list of possible events, which Chair Lord-Hausman read to the\nCommission. Commissioner Kreitz asked about accessibility concerns regarding Thompson\nField. Secretary Akil indicated the field is owned and managed by the Alameda Unified School\nDistrict (AUSD) and any accessibility concerns should be directed to AUSD under individual\nconcerns. The Chair stated she would contact AUSD for possible attendance at a future\nCommission meeting. Secretary Akil reminded the Commission that the City does not have any\nsay with accessibility issues concerning AUSD or any other agency, jurisdiction or along private\nproperty and these concerns should be addressed on an individual basis directly with the\nrespective agency or property owner.\n2. Alameda Landing Development (Chair Lord-Hausman):\nChair Lord-Hausman suggested inviting Andrew Thomas, Planning Manager in the Planning and\nBuilding Department to another meeting. The Chair stated that she would check Mr. Thomas'\navailability for either February 25 or 26 and get back to the Commission once the date is\nconfirmed.\n3.\nCommission on Disability Internet Link (Chair Lord-Hausman):\nChair Lord-Hausman stated that she would follow up with the web-designer regarding the draft\nthat has already been submitted and will update the Commission with more information at a later\ntime.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nSecretary Akil informed the Commission that the first draft of the ADA Transition Plan is complete\nand currently under review by the Public Works Department. The final draft will be presented to the\nCommission for review and approval within the next two months.\nG:\\Lucretia\\CommDisability\\Minutes\\2008\\Minutes_Jan 28 2008.00", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-01-28", "page": 3, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nJanuary 28, 2008\nMinutes\nPage 3 of 4\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS\n1. Yearly Events Calendar:\nCommissioner Kreitz requested the specific summer concert dates for inclusion in the calendar.\nThe dates will be the second Friday of June, July and August 2008. The Chair suggested that\nCommissioner Kreitz check the Park and Recreation website for additional information.\nCommissioner Kreitz suggested including the Art and Wine Festival on the calendar for\nCommission attendance, which was agreed by everyone present. Commissioner Longley-Cook\nstated that space would have to be donated. Commissioner Kreitz will contact the owners of\nTucker's Ice Cream for donating space for the Commission during this event.\n2. Commissioner Kreitz voiced concern about accessibility issues along Harbor Bay. Secretary Akil\nstated that it is private property and suggested that contact be made directly with Harbor Bay\nproperty owners or homeowners association. Commissioner Berger also stated it is private\nproperty and that the issue should be directed to the main home owners association that over sees\nthe entire Harbor Bay.\n3. Commissioner Berger asked if the City Council receives a copy of the Commission minutes to\nwhich Secretary Akil responded that the Council does not; however, they can receive\ncorrespondence from the Commission under cover memo at any time.\n4. Chair Lord-Hausman attended the Special Bowling Olympics and presented awards.\n5. Lower Washington Park:\nChair Lord-Hausman stated that the asphalt path between Crown Memorial Beach and\nWashington Park would be completed by March 15th. The Chair met with Anne Rockwell,\nEBRPD and the Park and Recreation Department to resolve this issue.\n6. Bus Stops at Tilden Way & Eighth & Central\nChair Lord-Hausman stated that she spoke to Barry Bergman, Transportation Specialist in the\nPublic Works Department who indicated that they are in the middle of the CIP process and are\nworking on this accessibility issue.\n7. Commissioner Longley-Cook stated that the green bars at the bus stops along Webster and Santa\nClara had been removed due to bus drivers running into them and questioned if this is in conflict\nto the grant funding that was awarded to the City for the Webster Streetscape Project? Chair\nLord-Hausman stated that she would visit the site and get back to the Commission.\n8. Chair Lord-Hausman stated the City has requested bids for ADA accessible ramps for 27 curb\ncuts at Alameda Point, specifically around the housing areas.\nG:\\LucretialCommDisability\\Minutes\\2008\\Minutes_Jan 28", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-01-28", "page": 4, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nJanuary 28, 2008\nMinutes\nPage 4 of 4\nADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 8:10 P.M. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, February 25, 2008, at\n6:00 P.M. in Room 360 at City Hall.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLucretia A. Akil\nCommission Secretary\nG:\\LucretialCommDisability\\Minutes\\2008\\Minutes_Jan 2", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2008-01-28", "page": 1, "text": "OF\nof\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nPENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nHELD 4:30 P.M., JANUARY 28, 2008\nALAMEDA CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA\nCONFERENCE ROOM 391\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order by Member Robert Follrath at 4:50 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL: Present: Trustees Robert Follrath, Nancy Elzig, and Karen Willis.\nStaff: Juelle Ann Boyer, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Lelia Faapouli,\nAdministrative Technician, Human Resources.\nAbsent: Members Beverly Johnson and William Soderlund\n3.\nMINUTES: The minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 29, 2007 were\nmoved for approval by Member Elzig and seconded by Member Willis. Passed\n3-0.\n4.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n4-A.\nPENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2007:\na.\nIn the amount of $ 237,449.84 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.\nb.\nIn the amount of $ 3,447.71 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.\n4-B.\nPENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2007:\na.\nIn the amount of $ 231,446.85 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.\nb.\nIn the amount of $ 3,447.71 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.\n4-C.\nPENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2007:\na.\nIn the amount of $ 231,316.50 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.\nb.\nIn the amount of $ 3,447.71 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.", "path": "PensionBoard/2008-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2008-01-28", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, January 28, 2008\nPage 2\nMember Elzig motioned to adopt the consent calendar and seconded by Member Willis.\nPassed 3-0\n5.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\n5-A. The Chief Financial Officer's Financial Report for City of Alameda Police\nand Fire Pension Funds for the period ending December 31, 2007 was\naccepted as presented. Member Willis moved to approve, seconded by\nMember Elzig. Passed 3-0\n5-B.\nContinuation of discussion on purchasing and erecting new flagpoles at\nCity Hall.\nMember Follrath spoke with the Chief of Police who said he notified the\nUnion Reps, Mark Landes and Ted Horlbeck regarding donation to this\nproject.\nMember Follrath contacted the Eagles regarding their donation and found\nthey haven't sent the check yet. Member Follrath wanted a solid figure to\ngive to them, so Ms. Boyer suggested that he use the figure the Public\nWorks Director gave, the estimated cost of $15,000.\nMember Willis stated she was not able to follow up with the Library\nDirector on researching grant websites, but Member Elzig stated she was\nable to research the grant websites but has not found anything to report.\nShe will continue researching.\n5-C.\nMemo from Human Resources Director notifying of death of 1079\nPensioner, Harold Miller, Fire Lieutenant, was accepted with regrets on a\nmotion by Member Elzig and seconded by Member Willis. Passed 3-0.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no oral communications.\n7.\nPENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)\nThere were no communications from the board.", "path": "PensionBoard/2008-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2008-01-28", "page": 3, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, January 28, 2008\nPage 3\n8.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThere being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was\nadjourned at 4:55 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nKaren Willis, Human Resources Director\nand Secretary to the Pension Board", "path": "PensionBoard/2008-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-01-28", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, January 28, 2008\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:01 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard Member Cunningham.\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Board\nMembers Cunningham, and Ezzy Ashcraft.\nBoard Members Lynch and McNamara were absent from roll call.\nAlso present were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Planning Services\nManager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney Farimah Faiz, Planner III Doug\nGarrison, Planner III Dennis Brighton.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of November 13, 2007 (Not available)\nb.\nMinutes for the meeting of November 26, 2007 (continued from 1/14/08).\nBoard member Cunningham moved to approve the minutes of November 26, 2007, as\namended.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4.\nAbsent: 2 (Lynch, Mariani)\nc.\nMinutes for the meeting of December 10, 2007.\nThere was not a quorum for these minutes.\nd.\nMinutes for the meeting of January 14, 2008.\nThere was not a quorum for these minutes.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nFuture Agendas\nMr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.\nb.\nZoning Administrator Report - Meeting of January 22, 2008.\nPage 1 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-01-28", "page": 2, "text": "Mr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nNone.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8-A.\nPLN-0076 - Yi Lim Han - 2323 Santa Clara Avenue. The applicant proposes\nto use the existing commercial space on the second floor at 2323 Santa Clara\nAvenue, Unit A-2, for a Day Spa. The proposed Day Spa will offer pedicures and\nmanicures, facials, and foot and whole body massage as an accessory use. The\nDay Spa will likely have thirteen to nineteen customers a day and approximately\nfive employees. The Day Spa will have two nail (pedicure & manicure) stations,\ntwo massage stations and two facial stations, one office, and one restroom.\nPursuant to Alameda Municipal Code 30-4.9A.c(q) a Use Permit is required for a\nDay Space in a C-C-T, Community Commercial Theater District. (SW)\nBoard member Cunningham moved to adopt Draft Planning Board Resolution to approve\nthe use of the existing commercial space on the second floor at 2323 Santa Clara Avenue,\nUnit A-2, for a Day Spa. The proposed Day Spa will offer pedicures and manicures,\nfacials, and foot and whole body massage as an accessory use. The Day Spa will likely\nhave thirteen to nineteen customers a day and approximately five employees. The Day\nSpa will have two nail (pedicure & manicure) stations, two massage stations and two\nfacial stations, one office, and one restroom. Pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code 30-\n4.9A.c(q) a Use Permit is required for a Day Space in a C-C-T, Community Commercial\nTheater District.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4.\nAbsent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara). The motion passed.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A.\nApprove a Change in the Format for a Future Public Forum Regarding the\nHousing Element and Measure A (Continued from January 14, 2008) (CW)\nMs. Woodbury presented the staff report.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThere were no speakers.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPage 2 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-01-28", "page": 3, "text": "Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that one condition directed staff to provide a list of four\nto six panelists for each panel. She would be comfortable to leave the number of panelists to\nthe discretion of staff and the consultants. She was neutral on whether breakout groups\nwould be included or not.\nVice President Kohlstrand agreed with Board member Ezzy Ashcraft's comments, and was\nopen to having between four to six panelists; four panelists should be a minimum. She was\nalso open to having the small group forums.\nBoard member Cunningham inquired how the panelists were coached toward a discussion,\nand believed that the panel discussion should be structured correctly to get the most out of\nthe discussion. He believed there should be a minimum of four panelists. He wished to\nemphasize that there would be ample opportunity for the public to provide input at this\nforum. He believed it would be useful to have data on the existing housing stock in the City\nin order to have baseline data.\nMs. Woodbury believed that staff would be able to provide that information.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that 50 percent of both panels would be composed of\ncommunity members. She believed it would be a well-rounded discussion with sufficient\ntime for public comment.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether there would be a formal\nrole for the Planning Board, Ms. Woodbury replied that she would return to the Board with\nthat information. She will pose that question to the consultant team.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that he was not looking for any active participation.\nPresident Cook wished to clarify that there would be an opportunity for both public\nquestioning of the panelists, and an hour-and-a-half at the end of the forum for public\ncomment. She noted that the small group format was an additional way to generate public\ncomment.\nMs. Woodbury noted that this forum would be noticed as a special meeting of the Planning\nBoard since a quorum would be present.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand whether former Planning Director\nColette Meunier would be available for the forum, Ms. Woodbury replied that she would not\nbe, but that Hanson Hom would be available.\nPresident Cook wanted to ensure that neither Ms. Meunier nor Mr. Hom were strongly in\none camp or another. Ms. Woodbury assured the Board that would not be the case.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to approve a Change in the Format for a Future Public\nForum Regarding the Housing Element and Measure A.\nPage 3 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-01-28", "page": 4, "text": "Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4.\nAbsent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara). The motion passed.\n9-B.\nV07-0006 (Variances) and DR07-0056 (Major Design Review) - Donna Talbot\nand James Rauk - 3327 Fernside Blvd. The applicant requests variances to allow\nthe following exceptions to the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC): 1) Proposed main\nbuilding exceeds maximum permitted building height (AMC, Subsection 30-\n4.3(d)(4)); 2) Proposed boathouse/accessory building exceeds maximum height,\nrequired rear yard coverage, and building area standards (AMC, Subsection 30-\n5.7(f); 3) Proposed driveway exceeds maximum permitted driveway width (AMC,\nSubsection 30-7.9(f)(1)(b)). The Major Design Review addresses: 1) Raising the\nresidential structure by three feet to create a third story and providing an addition at\nthe rear of the residence; 2) Constructing a two-story boathouse/accessory building.\nThe site is located within an R-2, Two-family Residential Zoning District. (DB).\nMr. Brighton summarized the staff report. Staff noted that it was not able to find any\nextraordinary circumstances applying to the property, physical constraints to the parcel,\nunnecessary hardship or deprivation of a property right because there were other design\noptions that were permitted. Staff was unable to make the finding that granting the variance\nwould not be a detriment to the neighborhood. Because staff was unable to make the\nfindings for a variance and design review approval, and recommended that Planning Board\ndeny the proposed variance application and design review application.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether the construction of the\ndock was part of the application, Mr. Brighton replied that it was on City right of way, and\nthat the provision of a dock was approved at the building permit level, providing they meet\nBCDC and Army Corps of Engineers Requirements. He noted that was not under discussion\nthis evening. Staff recommended that the clients go to BCDC and the Army Corps of\nEngineers before they start planning for dock expansion. If the Planning Board were to\napprove the entire project, it would be a boiler plate condition.\nPresident Cook noted that five speaker slips had been received, and polled the Board\nwhether comments should be limited to three minutes.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft preferred to keep the comments to five minutes because of the\nsignificance of the subject.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Elizabeth Kraise, AAPS, noted that they had submitted an email on January 24, 2008.\nShe noted that AAPS opposed granting a variance to allow the house to be jacked up, and\nthat raising it three feet violated the Golden Mean ratio. They also believed that the house\nwould loom over most of the adjacent buildings on the street, and be out of proportion with\nthe neighborhood. The wider garage would mean moving the front steps to the side, which\nwould further erode the architectural integrity of the Craftsman Bungalow design, which\nPage 4 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-01-28", "page": 5, "text": "was also meant to be low to the ground. They believed it was a bad precedent to allow\nexceptions to the Golden Mean and to the Guide to Residential Design.\nMs. Joanne Chandler spoke in support of this project. She noted that she owned the property\nadjacent to the subject site. She did not believe there would be an adverse impact on her\nproperty, and supported the variance.\nMs. Seth Amalian spoke in support of this project, and noted that he and his wife lived two\ndoors to the southeast from the subject site. He did not believe they needed protection from\nthe proposed project, and believed it was consistent with the already existing scale and mass\nof the home. He noted that it was already in imposing structure, but in a positive way; he\nbelieved it was attractive. He noted that it already had three stories, and that the increase was\nthree feet, which would make it a more usable space. He noted that the peak of the roof\nbarely crept over the height limit. He noted that this house already had mass, and that the\nproposed changes would be consistent. He believed that in his neighborhood, investment by\nthe property owners would be necessary as the homes age. He believed that when the\nchanges were thoughtful and in keeping with the home's character, it would be acceptable.\nHe noted that this house was not a low-slung bungalow.\nMs. Patricia Plowman spoke in support of this project. She noted that she lived next door to\nthe applicants, and noted that she had two single-family homes on her lot. She noted that\nmany of the homes in the neighborhood had been built in the 1930s, and that many needed\nupdating and upgrading. She noted that she submitted a letter to the Planning Board.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft disclosed that she visited the property.\nMs. Donna Talbot, applicant, distributed an exhibit to the Board and noted that their home\nwas not on the historic list. She added that they endeavored to include as many Craftsman\nelements as possible. She was very disturbed by what she had read in the staff report and the\nAAPS letter, which both used the phrase \"Craftsman Bungalow.\" She noted that the\nAlameda Residential Design Guidelines included a glossary that defined the architecture\nstyles in Alameda. She noted that the example Craftsman house was somewhat smaller than\ntheir house; the example Craftsman Bungalow was a much smaller one-story home. She\nnoted that their house was a large Craftsman house, not a bungalow. She noted that the two\nexamples of Craftsman homes in Alameda were low one-story homes that did not have front\nentries. She noted that there were many things that could be done with a Craftsman house,\nand that they had worked very hard with their architect to preserve those qualities. She noted\nthat the AAPS had commented that they planned to reduce the front porch to create a front\nstoop; she noted that they would double the size of the porch. She noted that the staff report\nand the AAPS letter discussed a side stair, and added that they still had a front step going up\nto the house; it was moved to the side and put a turn in it so it would not appear to be one\nlong staircase.\nMs. Talbot displayed several photos of the site on the overhead screen. She noted that they\nhad discussed implementing changes from the staff report in order to provide a balance\nbetween their creative desires and what staff requires. They proposed to reduce the height by\nPage 5 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-01-28", "page": 6, "text": "one foot so that the variance for the peak of the roof would be 9 inches. They would like to\nrecharacterize the boat house as a second home so that the boat house would not be an\naccessory structure; she noted that the Alameda Municipal Code did not have any\nregulations with respect to boat houses. She noted that they would shift it back three feet to\nmeet the requirements, and to meet the side setback requirements of five feet. She noted that\nthey would like to put all their vehicles into garage, so they would not be on the street. With\nrespect to the dock, she noted that before they approached BCDC, she understood that they\nmust get the approval from the Planning Board.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham regarding the impetus behind\nadding the extra 9 inches of height, Ms. Talbot replied that their driveway was not below the\nstreet grade. She noted that there was no drainage along the street, and if they excavated\nrather than going up, the water from the street will drain towards their house. Mr. Rauk\nadded that they were almost level with the street at this time.\nPresident Cook noted that it was unusual for the Planning Board to be asked to review a\nproject that they did not have before them. She noted that it was unusual to have so many\nchanges, and not have the project to review.\nMr. Thomas noted that staff did not have the plans, but believed their description of\nchanging the boat house to a main dwelling, and to meet those setbacks, would avoid the\nvariances related to the boat house. He believed staff could revisit the driveway variance. He\nnoted the height variance was still unresolved, and would like more feedback from the\nPlanning Board whether the findings for that variance could be made. He suggested that the\nBoard direct the applicants to redesign the drawings along the lines of what had been\ndiscussed. If the Board was comfortable with the 9-inch variance, staff would bring revised\nplans and a revised resolution with appropriate findings back to the Planning Board for\nreconsideration.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern that applicants seemed to be forced to\napply for something they did not want; she believed they wanted a boat house. She\nappreciated the time and effort put into the staff report, and requested that when numerous\nCode sections were cited, that they be attached to the staff report. She would also like the\nsignificant documents to be attached as well, such as the letter from staff from June 28,\n2007, which was paraphrased in the applicants' letter. She observed that the definition for an\naccessory building did not cover a boat house, and believed that it should be defined,\nespecially in an island community. Mr. Brighton noted that a boat house is defined in the\nCode, and that it is defined as an \"detached accessory structure.\" He added that a boat house\nwas a garage for a boat.\nMr. Thomas noted that the Board could initiate a Zoning Code Amendment to create a\ndefinition for a boat house, which would have a different set of requirements than an\naccessory structure.\nPage 6 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-01-28", "page": 7, "text": "President Cook suggested that 1,000 square feet should be the dividing line between a boat\nhouse and an actual dwelling.\nMr. Thomas noted that may be an argument for the applicants' approach, which was to call\nit a main house. He noted that the parcel was large enough, the setback requirements could\nbe made, and it remained to be seen whether the open space and parking requirements could\nbe met. The applicants could request that the Board initiate a Zoning Text Amendment\nalong those lines, which would then be considered by the City Council.\nVice President Kohlstrand believed the rear structure was consistent with everything else in\nthe area, and she had seen many two-story boat houses all along the waterfront. She believed\na Code Amendment may not be finished in time to solve the applicants' problem, but that it\nwas something that could be considered.\nMr. Thomas noted that there were many Code violations along the waterfront, which had\nbeen very problematic to enforce.\nPresident Cook generally agreed with staff's analysis about variances, which are difficult to\nmake the findings for.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that some of the nicest homes she has seen have had\nsome kind of renovation that displayed a seamless look. She wanted to ensure that the\nregulations would not penalize people or prevent them from doing things that would be to\nthe betterment of the entire community, not just their property. She would be open to\ndealing with the existence of boat houses from a Code point of view. She supposed people\nbeing able to improve their properties, but believed there should be some reward for\nundertaking a project such as this that would improve the entire street. With respect to the\ncenter porch being more welcoming, most of the entrances along that stretch of Fernside\nwere off-center as well. She noted that the cover of the City's Guide to Residential Design\ndid not show a single centered entrance. She submitted that an off-center porch could be\nwelcoming as well.\nMr. Thomas invited Board comments regarding their thoughts about a variance on the front\nhouse for height, the overall quality of the architectural design; and the Board's thoughts on\ninitiating a Zoning Text Amendment to examine boat houses. Staff would then be able to\ndiscuss the phasing of the project with the applicants; perhaps the front house could be\naddressed first, while the Text Amendment followed.\nBoard member Cunningham could not find a compelling reason to raise the building nine\ninches, and the existing base slab was still 10 inches above the road. He believed that by\nmassaging grades on the driveway, it would be possible to mitigate any drainage problems.\nHe suggested adding a drainage system around the foundation, given the site's proximity to\nthe Estuary. He did not see any reason to support a variance for a nine-inch height increase.\nHe did not have a problem with raising it to 30 feet. He appreciated AAPS's comments\nabout preserving the integrity of the building, but he found the cut-in driveway to be more\noppressive than the open driveway that was proposed. He would like to see some\nPage 7 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-01-28", "page": 8, "text": "architectural relief to the front elevation and the high wall in front. He liked the changes to\nthe garage door. He did not believe the boat house design was objectionable; he believed it\nwas more of a Code issue. He was mindful of trying to get too much density on the lot, as\nwell as pushing the dock too far toward the water.\nBoard member Cunningham liked the use of boats in a waterfront area, which should be\nencouraged because it activated the waterfront. He was concerned about people building too\nfar into the Estuary.\nVice President Kohlstrand encouraged staff to include more detail in the staff report because\nof the complexity of this project. She echoed Board member Cunningham's comments, and\nshe did not have an issue with the boat house; she wanted to take into account the two-story\nstructures on the rear of the property. She understood that the legal requirements of the\nvariance, but did not think the proposed scale in the rear of the property was out of scale\nwith the adjacent structures. She had some concerns about a height variance, and had not\nseen one in her three years on the Board. She agreed that the blank fa\u00e7ade on the front of the\nhouse was overwhelming, and would like that to be treated. She liked the design of the\ngarage doors.\nWith respect to the boat house, Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it was important to\nremember that the applicants bought a waterfront property, and that it was not unreasonable\nto expect that they would want to make use of the waterfront behind their home. She agreed\nthat the structure as designed would be one of the more attractive structures on the back of\nFernside Blvd.\nPresident Cook generally agreed with the Board's comments, and commended the\napplicants on the amount of work they had done on their home. Her main concern about the\ndesign was that the area around the garage felt heavy to her. She would like the amount of\nconcrete to be limited, and for the massing to be broken up. She believed the issue of height\nwas more critical than the number of floors, and encouraged the applicants to stay within the\nheight limits as much as possible. She noted that the parking requirements would need to be\naddressed. She understood the applicants' conflict since they were trying to build a smaller\nstructure, while the Code seemed to be pushing them towards a larger structure. She noted\nthat the issues of density and the public rights to the waterfront were important issues.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that there were pavers available that allowed grass to\ngrow between them.\nMr. Thomas noted that staff would regroup with the applicant and examine the scenarios for\nthe main house, back house, and parking open space requirements.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to continue this item to February 25, 2008.\nVice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4.\nAbsent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara). The motion passed.\nPage 8 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-01-28", "page": 9, "text": "9-C. City of Alameda General Plan Retail Policy Amendments - Applicant - City\nof Alameda. The Planning Board will consider a General Plan Amendment to\namend Section 2.5 Retail Business and Services, to add and modify policies as\nrecommended by the Alameda Citywide Retail Policy Report. The proposed\namendments would affect all properties in non-residential zoning districts and\nmixed use zoning districts.\nMr. Thomas presented the staff report, noting that Item 9-D was the companion item to Item\n9-C. He noted that no additional community comment had been received on this item since\nthe last meeting. Staff referenced the need to balance the needs of adjacent residential areas\nwith respect to reduced parking requirements, which could be stated in the policy or the\nexplanatory text.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThere were no speakers slips.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that the minutes from the previous meeting referenced\ndiscussion about the concept of parking at the side of retail areas, as well as the pros and\ncons of pushing the parking to the back. He found that items 2.5.e and 2.5.s were in conflict\nwith each other, regarding the use of the ground floor for office space.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that 2.5.1, reading \"New commercial retail development\non the waterfront should be consistent with best practices for waterfront orientated\ndevelopment,\" and inquired whether there was a definition of those best practices.\nMr. Thomas replied that in the Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment, which was\nadopted in the General Plan, there was more specific guidance on public access along the\nwaterfront, attractive fa\u00e7ades from the street and waterfront sides, and activities both day\nand night. This was moved to the Urban Design section of the General Plan, so it would\napply to all development. Staff could amend the language by referencing that language. He\nagreed that there should be more specificity.\nBoard member Cunningham referenced 2.5.n, which discussed building heights \"to maintain\nthe historic open form and character of Park Street and Webster Street business districts,\nlimit building heights on both the streets to three stories above grade, measuring 35 to 40\nfeet, depending on roof configuration. Parking structure ought to be limited by height only.\"\nHe inquired whether 40 feet was the height limit. Mr. Thomas confirmed that the height\nlimit was 40 feet, and noted that policy was already in the General Plan.\nPresident Cook suggested that the wording \"40 feet, regardless of the number of levels\" be\nincluded.\nPage 9 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-01-28", "page": 10, "text": "Board member Cunningham concurred with that suggestion.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that 2.5.o, which would \"reduce the extent of\nneighborhood business districts by redesignating residential parcel zone for commercial use\nto residential use,\" and inquired whether that was counter to the Board's efforts to introduce\nlocal neighborhood stores and encourage pedestrian retail, rather than turning commercial\nspace back into residential space.\nMr. Thomas noted that had been unchanged since the 1991 General Plan, and noted that\nmuch of that had been done already.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft believed it was important to maintain the balance of the\nhousing and commercial uses because it would preserve the housing stock, and it would\nreduce auto trips. She did not want to see an area where every former house became some\nform of a business, which would eliminate the neighborhood business district. She believed\nthe wording was cumbersome, verging on misleading.\nMr. Thomas noted that the Board could direct staff to rewrite that policy to reflect Board\nmember Ezzy Ashcraft's comments, which would ensure that the Zoning Map and the\nGeneral Plan reflected the land uses and building types. He noted that staff could also\nremove that section of text.\nBoard member Cunningham suggested that with respect to 2.5.u, that an item be introduced\nthat discussed the integration of utility and trash enclosures to these types of environments\nin a positive way. He would like those uses to be screened form public view, and kept out of\nmain pedestrian pathways.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that recycling enclosures be included.\nVice President Kohlstrand complimented staff on integrating the Board's extensive\ncomments into the document. She noted that 2.5.b contained an extra word. She noted that\nthe extra \"be\" should be deleted.\nVice President Kohlstrand shared the other Board members' concerns about 2.5.o. She\nnoted that the second sentence in 2.5.r should read, \"Encourage construction of multilevel\nparking and shared parking in shopping centers.\"\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that with respect to the third item in 2.5.u, she was unsure\nwhether it was appropriate to say that there should be minimum use of the major drive aisles\nfor internal automobile circulation. She noted that there was no other way for cars to\ncirculate without using the major drive aisles. She suggested striking the language \"and\nminimum use.\"\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the word \"isle\" should be corrected to read \"aisle\"\nat the bottom of page 5. She concurred with the other comments.\nPage 10 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-01-28", "page": 11, "text": "Board member Cunningham noted that the contradictory language he had been searching for\nwas \"Transit use can be encouraged by providing bus shelters by locating store entrances\non the street with parking at the side and rear, and by charging for parking,\" and \"the\nretail frontage should not be interrupted.\"\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the concept of in lieu fees was to use the funds to\nimprove the business districts, as opposed to going back into the general fund. She realized\nit was allowed by using the word \"could,\" but would prefer using the word \"should.\" She\ncommended Mr. Thomas and staff in integrating the volume of detail into this document.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to adopt Draft Planning Board Resolution to approve\na General Plan Amendment to amend Section 2.5 Retail Business and Services, to add\nand modify policies as recommended by the Alameda Citywide Retail Policy Report. The\nproposed amendments would affect all properties in non-residential zoning districts and\nmixed use zoning districts. The following modifications and clarification would be\nincluded:\n1. \"New commercial retail development should be consistent with best practices\nof waterfront oriented developments, such as public access along the water,\nattractive architecture facing the water, and to the extent feasible, a mix of\nuses oriented to the water.\";\n2. The noted typos would be corrected;\n3. 2.5.1 will be revised as noted;\n4. 2.5.n (parking structure height) will be revised as noted;\n5. 2.5.o will be stricken entirely;\n6. Parking would be added to 2.5.r;\n7. Language addressing minimizing the potential negative impacts of overflow\nparking on neighbors will be added;\n8. The reference to side parking will be stricken; and language recommending\nthe minimizing of curb cuts should be added; and\n9. 2.5.u.3: The last phrase will be stricken.\nVice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4.\nAbsent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara). The motion passed.\n9-D.\nLarge Format Retail Store Zoning Text Amendments - Applicant - City of\nAlameda. The Planning Board will consider proposed zoning text amendments to\nthe Alameda Municipal Code related to large format retail stores and the location of\nretail uses throughout Alameda. The proposed text amendments include a definition\nof large format retail store and proposed provisions requiring a use permit for\ndifferent types of retail uses in certain zoning districts. The proposed amendments\nwould affect all properties in non-residential zoning districts and mixed use zoning\ndistricts. (DG)\nMr. Garrison presented the staff report.\nPage 11 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-01-28", "page": 12, "text": "The public hearing was opened.\nThere were no speakers slips.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that she was comfortable with staff's recommendations\nregarding the size limit in maintaining the 30,000 square feet.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that Mike Corbett raised the point that three small tenants\nshould not be subject to the size limit of 30,000 square feet.\nMr. Thomas asked whether the Planning Board intended to regulate tenant size or every\nproject that was over 30,000 square feet of gross retail floor area.\nPresident Cook asked whether that should be a conditional use permit rather than a series of\nsmaller tenants.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft believed that it should be a conditional use permit, because\nthe large tenant could potentially have more impact on the surrounding neighborhood, in\nterms of traffic and other factors.\nMr. Thomas noted that the definition could be changed to \"tenant floor area of 30,000\nsquare feet or more requires a use permit.\"\nPresident Cook noted that she was not swayed by the notion that because a use may have an\nexisting planned development that the Planning Board should let it go. Mr. Thomas did not\nbelieve it should be \"let go,\" but that it would be nonconforming; when any change would\nbe brought to the Planning Board through a Planned Unit Development, it would be subject\nto the requirements.\nPresident Cook inquired whether it would be significant to the City if a number of tenants\nconsolidated the spaces into one big box-sized space. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed\nit would be significant.\nMr. Garrison stated that the City could, with some minor editing, add some language to the\namendment to clarify that if a number of smaller tenants were to be consolidated to one\nlarge tenant over 30,000 square feet it would require a use permit.\nMr. Garrison noted that a 25% increase in floor area would be another trigger. Also, if the\nPlanning Director determined there was a potential for substantial impacts, a Planned\nDevelopment Amendment could be required. The City had the discretion under the existing\nPDA to say that the change from numerous small tenants to one large tenant may change the\ntraffic dynamic substantially, and that a PDA may be required.\nPage 12 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-01-28", "page": 13, "text": "Mr. Thomas added that the City did not want a warehouse owner informing the City that a\nbig box use would be moving in, and that the only discretion the City would have would be\nover the signage.\nVice President Kohlstrand agreed with staff's point that a lot of things slip through the\ncracks, and would like those issues to be dealt with as part of the PD, rather than putting\nanother use permit on top of it. Mr. Thomas noted that would be possible.\nVice President Kohlstrand continued to say that the Planning Board was interested not only\nin the design, but also with operational considerations. Mr. Thomas agreed that was what\nMr. Garrison had suggested,\nVice President Kohlstrand stated she would like the consolidation scenario to be a trigger for\na use permit.\nMr. Garrison noted that the Alameda Towne Centre's existing entitlement contained triggers\nfor a Planned Development Amendment, which were not written very clearly and contained\nsome conflicting language. Staff's goal was to clarify those issues, and they planned to go\nbeyond the Zoning Ordinance's PDA triggers with a higher level of specificity.\nMr. Thomas noted that there seemed to be consensus that staff should look at tenant space,\nand that 30,000 square feet would be the trigger. The Board members concurred.\nMr. Thomas requested the Board members' thoughts on whether there should be an\nexemption for historic buildings. Staff's recommendation was that if it were to be done, it\nshould be for designated City monuments.\nPresident Cook believed the conditional use permit allowed the City to preserve historical\nresources while maintaining a practical gbalance with the community.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that her major concern was if an applicant had to get\na\nconditional use permit, that was one thing, but if they had to do a conditional use permit and\na PD, that was another scenario. She did not want them to be subjected to both. Mr. Thomas\nresponded that would not occur.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cook whether a Home Depot would be considered for\nthe Del Monte site, Mr. Thomas replied that they stated it was not in their plans. He added\nthat staff supported retail, and that Del Monte had agreed not to do big box retail.\nPresident Cook replied that she would like to see the PD changes before it went to Council.\nVice President Kohlstrand did not need to see the changes before it went to Council.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether the issue was time\nsensitive, Mr. Thomas replied that it was not time-sensitive.\nPage 13 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-01-28", "page": 14, "text": "Board member Cunningham noted that there was Board consensus that it be brought back\nunder the Consent Calendar.\nVice President Kohlstrand moved to continue this item to February 11, 2008, in order to\nrevise and bring back for adoption the Large Format Retail Store Zoning Text\nAmendments with the revisions summarized by staff.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4.\nAbsent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara). The motion passed.\n9-E.\nAppointment of Board Member as Representative on the Oakland Chinatown\nAdvisory Committee. (AT)\nMr. Thomas noted that former Board member Mariani was the appointee, and Board\nmember McNamara is the alternate representative. Board member McNamara agreed to\nbecome the designee.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would be willing to serve as the alternate.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to nominate Board member McNamara to be the\nprimary representative, and for Board member Ezzy Ashcraft to be the alternate\nrepresentative.\nVice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4.\nAbsent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara). The motion passed.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force (Board\nMembers Cook/Kohlstrand)\nPresident Cook noted that there were no further meetings. She added that the packet\nincluded the presentations.\nMr. Thomas noted that it was a good meeting, and that SunCal received a great deal of\nextra information. Staff anticipated that they would request an extension on the schedule.\nThey have concerns about the financial feasibility of the preliminary development\nconcept, flooding, and a number of other issues. The community has expressed\nsignificant interest in a non-Measure A alternative. Their preliminary design concept is due\nby March.\nPage 14 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-01-28", "page": 15, "text": "b.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember Mariani).\nThere was no report.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Vice President\nKohlstrand).\nThere was no report.\nd.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board\nMember Cunningham).\nBoard member Cunningham noted that they came to consensus over what would be\npresented to the City Council. Mr. Thomas presented an update at the last meeting. Board\nmember Cunningham noted that they rationalized and consolidated 30 recommendations\nto five recommendations:\n1.\nMinimize waste/have a zero target for waste;\n2.\nIntroduce a Green Building Ordinance;\n3.\nExamine alternative transportation methodologies within the City;\n4.\nPromote education within the City, both within the schools and to the\ngeneral public; and\n5.\nEncourage AP&T to strive for 100% carbon-free power.\nAn additional recommendation was to set up a task force or committee as a regulatory\nbody to review the implementation of the plan. Staff had recommended a two-year check-\nin. The Task Force disagreed, and wished to see more rigor to the review process; they\nwould advise other Boards, similar to some of the other advisory boards in the\ncommunity. This proposal would be brought before the City Council on February 5,\n2008.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n10:21 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThis meeting was audio and video taped.\nPage 15 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf"}