{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-03-24", "page": 1, "text": "UNAPPROVED\nCOMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nMarch 24, 2008\nTIME\nThe meeting convened at 6:40 P.M.\nPRESENT\nChair Lord-Hausman, Commissioners Berger, Longley-Cook, and Fort.\nABSENT\nVice-Chair Moore, Commissioners Kirola, Robinson and Kreitz.\nMINUTES\nThe February 25, 2008 minutes were approved with the following corrections: under Oral\nCommunications, item number two, Commissioner Longley-Cook stated that she attended and\nrepresented the Commission at the Alameda Collaborative for Children, Youth and Families monthly\nmeeting; and under item number four, there was one grammatical correction.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nThere was no written communication.\nNEW BUSINESS\n1. 2008/09 Paratransit Service (Gail Payne, Public Works):\nGail Payne, Transportation Coordinator, presented information regarding the annual program\nreview of the City's Paratransit service. Jackie Krause, Mastick Sr. Center Manager, is working\nwith PW during this review period. Ms. Payne reviewed the services offered, objectives,\nconsumer satisfaction survey results, needs identification, planning, marketing and overall\nfunding processes.\nCommissioner Berger asked if there were costs associated with medical return trips, to which\nMs. Payne responded, there is no additional cost.\nCommissioner Longley-Cook asked if the taxi service is available to individuals younger than 50\nyears of age, to which Ms. Payne responded no, as they had just reduced the age limit from 75 to\n50 years of age in an effort to increase ridership.\nCommissioner Berger asked why out of 100 registrants, only 32 responded to the survey, to\nwhich Ms. Payne replied that these responses are not significantly statistical results and they are\nlooking at other ways to increase responses with the forthcoming Consumer Survey.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-03-24", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nMarch 24, 2008\nMinutes\nPage 2 of 5\nChair Lord-Hausman asked how are the surveys being conducted, to which Ms. Payne replied\nthat (paper) copies are being mailed to homes.\nChair Lord-Hausman asked if taxi company training included sensitivity to the disabled, to which\nMs. Payne responded yes, but it takes time based on cultural and generation issues.\nCommissioner Fort asked if there had been any feedback from people with disabilities with guide\ndogs, to which Ms. Payne responded it was not a question included in the previous survey, but\nwill be added within the forthcoming one.\nCommissioner Berger asked how many vehicles are there in the program, are the cabs big enough\nfor motorized scooters and are there any additional charges for these type of items? Ms. Payne\nreplied that there are approximately six accessible vans and that there is an extra $20.00 charge\nfor wheelchairs, however the City subsidizes that amount.\nChair Lord-Hausman requested an update in the fall regarding the outcome of the next survey\nand number of reported changes.\nMs. Payne thanked the Commission for their input.\n2. Presentation Regarding New Accessible For-Sale Unit at Buena Vista Commons\n(Dan Lachman, Executive Director, Alameda Development Corporation):\nMr. Dan Lachman discussed the current progress of the new affordable/accessible unit\ndevelopment. Mr. Lachman stated that the project is under construction and will be finished this\nsummer. It is a joint venture with Habitat for Humanity East Bay and applicant selection will be\nconducted based on a lottery format and all individuals must qualify within the stated mandated\nincome guidelines.\nCommissioner Berger asked if any of the family members must be disabled, to which Mr.\nLachman responded no, but one of the units is ADA accessible. There will be a separate lottery\nfor that unit and the selected applicant will be required to provide proof of disability.\nChair Lord-Hausman asked if the downstairs bathroom was accessible, to which Mr. Lachman\nresponded yes, both the upstairs and downstairs bathrooms are equally accessible.\nMr. Lachman requested that the Commission provide suggestions regarding community outreach\nand increased awareness of the project.\nChair Lord-Hausman suggested that they check with the Mastick Senior Center, Cardinal Point,\nMinisterial Association, publicity journals, fliers and posting of various ads.\nG:\\Lucretia\\CommDisability\\Minutes\\2008\\Minutes_Mar 242008.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-03-24", "page": 3, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nMarch 24, 2008\nMinutes\nPage 3 of 5\nCommissioner Berger suggested they advertise with the AUSD, College of Alameda, Red Cross,\nany fraternal organizations, the Food Bank, City channels 15 and 31, PSBA, WABA and\nFarmers' Market.\nCommissioner Berger asked if City residency is a requirement, to which Mr. Lachman responded\nthat preference is given to applicants who live or work in the City of Alameda.\nCommissioner Berger asked if there are any future housing projects, to which Mr. Lachman\nreplied it depends on availability of funding and location, as both HUD and the CIC have heavily\nsubsidized the current project.\nMr. Lachman thanked the Commission for its input.\nOLD BUSINESS\n1. 2007 CDI Accomplishments (Chair Lord-Hausman):\nChair Lord-Hausman stated that she continues to update the draft list of accomplishments for\nfuture consideration by the Commission.\n2. Path Between Crown & Washington Parks (Chair Lord-Hausman):\nChair Lord-Hausman stated the work is not yet complete per Dale Lillard, AR&PD Director, as\nthey are waiting for the weather to improve. Commissioner Longley-Cook stated that she\nobserved. That work had not yet begun.\n3.\nDisability Parking at City Events (Chair Lord-Hausman):\nChair Lord-Hausman stated that during key events, Public Works would provide accessible\nspace and signs and that number will depend upon the event, as each requirement will be\ntailored for the event. There are approximately 15 major City events.\n4.\nCommission Recruitment (Chair Lord-Hausman):\nChair Lord-Hausman announced that Commissioner Margaret Hakanson has resigned from the\nCommission as of February 2008.\nCommissioner Berger asked if there was a leave of absence in the by-laws, to which Secretary\nAkil replied she would check and get back to the Commission.\nG:\\LucretialCommDisability\\Minutes)2008\\Minutes_Mar 24 2008.do", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-03-24", "page": 4, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nMarch 24, 2008\nMinutes\nPage 4 of 5\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n1. Secretary Akil reminded the Commissioners that the draft ADA Transition Plan would be\npresented to the Commission at the April 28, 2008 meeting, which would include discussion\nof\nthe Commission's 2006 ADA recommendations. A printed version of the draft Plan would be\navailable for review in several City offices prior to the meeting date. More information will be\nmailed to the Commission several weeks prior to the April meeting date.\n2. Secretary Akil distributed a draft version of the letter prepared by Commissioner Berger, which\naddresses State Budget cuts to local agencies that provide preventive healthcare services\ncurrently offered by the County. Chair Lord-Hausman suggested that the letter be addressed to\nthe Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB) as it is currently reviewing health care\nservices in the City of Alameda.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS\n1. Eric Pung and a group of students from San Francisco State University stated they wanted to\nshoot a film at Alameda Point about a disabled student. They were notified by Mike Hampen,\nPM Realty (representing on behalf of the City), that they would be required to take out a permit\nfor such a project, which would cost around $1,000.00. Mr. Pung stated that this is not a\nprofessional project, they are a crew between 15 to 20 people and there is no profit involved.\nThey wanted to know if the CDI could offer any input on how they might proceed in light of the\npermit costs and other license agreement fees that would be imposed if filmed at Alameda Point.\nSecretary Akil stated that Mr. Hampen's notification was proper, as all requests for use of City\nproperty or facilities at Alameda Point must be conducted by an agreement. Chair Lord-\nHausman suggested they contact Sue Russell with DSD as she is the City staff person in charge\nof the Film Commission. The USS Hornet is also an option for the student-group.\n2. Commissioner Berger stated that she would like Public Works to require more accessible parking\non Central Avenue between Oak and Walnut Streets for people attending performances at\nKaufman Auditorium. Chair Lord-Hausman stated that the Alameda Civic light Opera (ACLO)\nshould write a letter to Public Works and the City Council for this request.\n3. Commissioner Longley-Cook stated that the accessible button on the doors at City Hall at the\nOak Street entrance is not working. Secretary Akil responded that she would inform the\nMaintenance Division of the Public Works Department of this issue.\n4. Chair Lord-Hausman stated that there will be an update on the progress of a potential\naccessibility web-page to the City's website on the next CDI agenda.\nG:\\LucretialCommDisability\\Minutes(2008\\Minutes_Mar 24 2008.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-03-24", "page": 5, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nMarch 24, 2008\nMinutes\nPage 5 of 5\n5. Chair Lord-Hausman stated that the League of Women Voters is sponsoring a \"Meet Your Public\nOfficials\" event on April 24, 2008, 5:30 to 7:30 P.M. at the Harbor Bay Community Center.\nCommission members will receive complimentary tickets in the mail.\n6. Chair Lord-Hausman read information from Virendra Patel, Engineer in the Public Works\nDepartment, regarding an email from a visually impaired citizen regarding audible signals. The\nChair indicated that she would request some feedback from PW regarding the citizens concerns.\nADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 8:15P.M. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, April 28, 2008, at 6:30\nP.M. in Room 360 at City Hall.\nLucidia Respectfully skil\nsubmitted.\nL\u00facretia A. Akil\nCommission Secretary\nG:\\LucretialCommDisability\\Minutes\\2008\\Minutes_Mar 24", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-03-24", "page": 1, "text": "FINAL\nMinutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, March 24, 2008\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:00 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member McNamara.\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand,\nBoard\nMembers Cunningham and McNamara.\nBoard members Ezzy Ashcraft and Lynch were absent from roll call.\nAlso present were Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager, Assistant City Attorney\nFarimah Faiz, and Zach Seal, Planner I.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of November 13, 2007.\nPresident Cook noted that the first full paragraph of page 6 should be changed to read\n\"President Cook noted that she generally agreed with the increased height on the\nMervyn's building plan. She expressed concern about the parking garage and its effects\non pedestrian safety.\" She noted that a new second-to-last paragraph should be added:\n\"President Cook agreed with Board member Ezzy Ashcraft that the current crosswalks at\nShoreline do not connect with the sidewalks into South Shore and believed that the\ncurrent crosswalks should line up with the crosswalks on the other side.\"\nPresident Cook believed the crosswalks were very important, and noted that articles on\nSouth Shore rarely, if ever, mentioned the proposed garage. She believed it was important\nfor the public to be aware of the proposed parking structure.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board Member McNamara whether the parking garage was\non the table now that Target was no longer in the picture, Mr. Biggs replied that he would\ncheck on that issue and return to the Board.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that in the minutes, Board Member McNamara was\nindicated as being present and absent at the same time.\nPresident Cook noted that there was not a quorum to vote on the minutes, and that they\nwould be voted upon at the meeting of April 14, 2008.\nb.\nMinutes for the meeting of February 11, 2008.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that page 1, third paragraph from the bottom, should\nbe changed to read, \" President Cook she was concerned.\n\"\nPage 1 of 8", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-03-24", "page": 2, "text": "Board member Cunningham noted that page 3, the middle paragraph should be changed\nto read, \"Board Member Cunningham moved to adopt the minutes of January 28, 2008\nDecember 10, 2007.'\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that on page 9, the vote taken on Marina Village\nParkway indicated that it was a unanimous \"Aye\" vote. She wished to correct the vote to\nreflect that she voted against that item.\nPresident Cook noted that page 7, paragraph 2, should be changed to reflect that she had\nused some of the day care centers behind Marina Village, and found that people cut\nthrough the area in many different ways, and that it felt very unsafe to drive in that area.\nBoard Member Lynch arrived during this item.\nBoard Member Lynch noted that page 4 discussed the MTC dollars, and inquired when it\nwould be appropriate to discuss that item further.\nPresident Cook suggested that it be discussed under Item 6.\nBoard Member Cunningham moved to approve the minutes of February 11, 2008, as\namended.\nBoard Member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes:\n0 Absent: 1 (Ezzy Ashcraft). The motion passed.\nc.\nMinutes for the meeting of February 25, 2008.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that page 8, in the middle of the page, the phrase \"the\nfollowing conditions will be added:\" before the list of conditions.\nPresident Cook requested that these minutes be considered at the next meeting because\nshe would like to review the audio regarding her concerns about the project. She added\nthat there were some citizen concerns regarding the project, and she would like her\ncomments to be fully reflected.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that page 11, paragraph 2, should be changed to read,\n\"She suggested that a bike lane be added, and cited Portland and Emeryville as examples\nof using narrower wide-bioswale treatments in more urban settings, where much less\nspace was used to provide drainage.\" She noted that the point was to narrow it down to\ncreate more space on the roadway for bicycles and pedestrians.\nPresident Cook noted that there was not a quorum to vote on the minutes.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\nPage 2 of 8", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-03-24", "page": 3, "text": "6.\nPRESENTATIONS:\na.\nResolution of Appreciation for former Board Member Gina Mariani.\nPresident Cook noted that Ms. Mariani was not in attendance but wished to read the\ncommendation into the record:\n\"A Resolution of Farewell and Commendation for Gina Mariani\"\nWhereas, Gina Mariani, was appointed as a member of the Planning Board on November\n4, 2003; and\nWhereas, Gina Mariani, has also served Alameda as a member of the Oakland Chinatown\nAdvisory Committee; and\nWhereas, Gina Mariani, has earned the respect of her fellow Board members and City\nStaff for her clear and consistent contributions to numerous development projects\nthroughout her tenure; and\nWhereas, the Planning Board and City Staff wishes to thank Gina Mariani for her\nconstant support, experience, expertise, invaluable insight and good humor; and\nWhereas, her concern for the welfare of the Citizens of Alameda and the future\ndevelopment of our City were always apparent when balancing neighborhood issues with\nthe economic goals of the City.\nTherefore be it resolved that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda acknowledges\nher valuable contributions to the City of Alameda, and wishes her future happiness and\ncontinued involvement in community issues.\nPassed and adopted by the Planning Board of the City of Alameda on the 10th day of\nMarch, 2008.\nb.\nStaff Communications - Future Agendas\nMr. Biggs provided an update on future agenda items.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand whether the Fernside project\nwould return to the Planning Board, Mr. Biggs replied that the project had been revised to\neliminate the need for any variances. He noted that it would go to the Historical Advisory\nBoard, and that staff would update the Board on the progress.\nBoard member Lynch noted that on page 4 of 13 of the February 11, 2008, Draft\nMinutes, the Planning Board received a report from Barbara Hawkins, which identified a\nPage 3 of 8", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-03-24", "page": 4, "text": "number of options that would affect traffic throughout Chinatown in Oakland,\nparticularly how the circulation patterns would affect Oakland and Alameda residents. He\nnoted that funding was identified, and another public agency stepped forward to provide\nfunds for the study. He noted that a separate branch of government in Oakland was\nmoving forward on an entitlement project on the same site that another branch of\ngovernment, using public funds. He believed that it was odd that various departments\nwithin the City of Oakland worked at cross-purposes with public funds. He requested a\nstatus report on that situation, what the City of Alameda's role was in that, and whether\nAlameda wished to continue moving forward.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATION: None.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nNone.\n8-A.\nPM07-0003 - 717 Paru Street. The applicant is requesting a parcel map to divide\na 92,053.03-square-foot parcel into two parcels. One parcel with an existing\nsingle-family residence would be 17,051.13-square-feet, and the remaining parcel\nwould be 75,001.9 square feet. The 75,001.9-square foot parcel would contain an\nexisting cabana, with the majority of the parcel located within the lagoon. The site\nis located within an R-1, Single-Family Residential Zoning District (DB).\nRecommended for continuance to a future meeting.\nPresident Cook noted that one speaker slip had been received.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Lisa Zenner, 1612 Dayton Avenue, noted that she had been noticed for this item, and\nwould like to be notified if an item would not be heard. She noted that it had been\ncontinued twice, and she would like to know so she did not show up.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara whether the agenda was available\non the City's website, Mr. Biggs confirmed that the Planning Board agendas were available\non the site.\nMs. Zenner requested that she be emailed if an item was continued. Mr. Biggs invited her to\nleave her email with staff.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand whether new construction was\nproposed, and if not, why there were environmental concerns, Mr. Biggs replied that it was\nnot. The site was listed as a Historic Resource, and staff felt that appropriate environmental\nreview was necessary so it did not have significant impact on the resource. Historians and\nother experts were being consulted to gather appropriate documentation.\nPresident Cook apologized on behalf of the City that Ms. Zenner had to attend when the\nitem was continued, and noted that there was not sufficient staff to make those calls.\nPage 4 of 8", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-03-24", "page": 5, "text": "Board member Cunningham moved to continue this item to a future meeting.\nVice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes:\n0 Absent: 1 (Ezzy Ashcraft). The motion passed.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A. PLN07-0020 - 2243 Santa Clara Avenue. The applicant requests a Major\nDesign Review and Variance to attach a two-story covered deck. A Variance is\nrequired for this project because both decks will be closer to the rear property line\nthan permitted by the Zoning code. The property is located within the R-6 )Hotel\nResidential) zoning district (ZS).\nMr. Seal presented the staff report. Staff recommended that the Planning Board find that\nthe project will not cause significant adverse effects to the physical environment, is\nCategorically Exempt from environmental review, and approve Major Design Review\nand Variance PLN07-0020, with conditions, based on the findings contained in the Draft\nResolution.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Italo Calpestri, project architect, noted that the upper drawings illustrated the existing\nconditions, and that the lower drawings illustrated the proposed conditions. He noted that\nthe two citrus trees had been on the property for many years, and added that the applicant\nhad taken good care of the strip of land for many years. He noted that the windowless\nwall of the Elks Lodge was windowless and painted white, which would provide reflected\nsun to the units. He added that the decks were a good amenity for the units.\nMr. Falkner noted that he was a trustee of the Elk's Lodge and spoke in opposition to this\nproject. They opposed the variance because they believed it would prejudice future plans\nfor building in the existing Elks parking lot to raze and convert their gym so they could\nserve their female membership. The gym was built in 1921, and the lodge was built in\n1913. The Lodge itself is very underpowered, and as an electrical engineer, he noted that\nthey had developed a proposal for an upgrade to the building, including a new entrance.\nThey did not want to jeopardize the placement of the transformer, which would provide\nservice to the site. He also wanted to ensure that emergency access would be available in\nthe future. He did not believe this project would be compatible with the Lodge's future\nplans until they were able to undertake future review.\nMr. Ed Hershberg, applicant, noted that this property had been in his family for 20 years,\nand added that the tenants in the lower unit, Unit D, have asked him if they could access\nthe rear yard from their unit to plant a small garden, and enjoy the outdoors. He received\ninitial positive feedback from Mr. Calpestri. He believed the access to the rear yard\nwould encourage increased maintenance of the backyard and enable the tenants to enjoy\nthe back yard. He did not believe this proposed project would negatively impact the Elks\nPage 5 of 8", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-03-24", "page": 6, "text": "Lodge, and could not speak to potential impacts to future plans for the Lodge. He noted\nthat they had been friendly neighbors for 40 years, that his own father had been a\nmember, and that 25% of their tenants had been Elks as well.\nDr. Healey noted that he is a 47-year member of the Elks Lodge, and that they had been\nworking hard to increase their membership, and to implement needed improvements. He\nunderstood the Lodge's position, and also understood the applicant's position.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMr. Seal noted that the legal nonconforming use was legal, but could not be expanded.\nWithout a variance, this would be considered to be an expansion of a legal\nnonconforming use, which would not be allowed. He noted that the City did not consider\na deck to be an expansion of a legal nonconforming use if the footprint was the same. It\nwas considered to be an accessory use to the legal nonconforming use.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara whether there had been any effort\nto get the two parties together to gain resolution, Mr. Seal replied that there was, in an\neffort to reach a compromise, but that was not resolved.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand where the proposed transformer\nwould be placed, Mr. Falkner replied that it would be in the first handicapped slot going into\nthe property. The transformer would be approximately four-feet-six-inches. Vice President\nKohlstrand did not believe that was the best location for a transformer, but it was not under\ndiscussion at this time.\nPresident Cook believed there should be a discussion between the Planning Board, APT and\nstaff regarding view corridors during design reviews and the subsequent placement of\ntransformers in those view corridors. She was dismayed that the time and care put into those\ndesign reviews was undone by the placement of a transformer. She would like some\nguidelines to be developed to address that issue.\nMr. Falkner noted that was the only location available for the transformer.\nBoard member Cunningham believed the addition of a deck would improve the quality of\nlife for the tenants. He would like to find a way to make the use more legal, and believed the\naddition would impact the density and open space of the use. He believed the property\nshould be examined in its current state, without considering potential future changes. He\nwas unable to make the first finding of extraordinary circumstances, and that while the\nproperty was developed in the 1940s, before the AMC was put in place, the circumstances\nof the property were not very unique. He noted that a deck did not provide habitable space\nby Code, but that it would increase the amount of usable space by the tenants. He could not\nsupport this variance in its current state.\nVice President Kohlstrand expressed concern about equity, and that the four units did not all\nhave access to the backyard. She noted that by providing access to the backyard for the rear\nPage 6 of 8", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-03-24", "page": 7, "text": "two apartments, the open space for the front two apartments was diminished. She believed\nthis created an inequitable situation.\nBoard member Lynch noted that several of the issues were not under consideration by the\nPlanning Board at this point. He noted that the procedural issues of a nonconforming use\nwere addressed by Board member Cunningham. He believed that zoning and General Plan\nprocesses were a broad-brush effort, as is the nature of a public body. As the zoning texts are\nupdated, he believed this property fit into the category of a building constructed during an\nearlier time period, which was not recognized by the existing zoning codes beyond being a\nlegal nonconforming use. He hoped this property would be with the applicant's family for\n40 more years.\nBoard member McNamara expressed concern about the citrus tree in the backyard. Mr. Seal\nnoted that the tree was planted on the Elks property, but that the branches reached over the\napplicant's property; the applicant would be able to cut the branches that encroached over\nhis property, but would not be able to do anything to the tree itself.\nBoard member McNamara did not support the argument from the applicant that the lighting\nwould be affected, and believed that the reflection from the building would improve the\nlighting.\nPresident Cook agreed with the Board members' comments, and did not consider this\nproperty to be unique. She noted that many larger apartment buildings did not have private\ndecks, and did not want to enter a slippery slope of the expectation of a deck. She was\nconcerned that the back yard would be restricted because of private decks.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to adopt Draft Planning Board Resolution to deny a\nMajor Design Review and Variance to attach a two-story covered deck. A Variance is\nrequired for this project because both decks will be closer to the rear property line than\npermitted by the Zoning code.\nVice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes:\n0 Absent: 1 (Ezzy Ashcraft). The motion passed.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\na.\nShinsei Gardens Apartments - 401 Wilver \"Willie\" Stargell Avenue\n-\nDescription of proposed changes to project entrance design (AT).\nMr. Biggs noted that a letter had been provided to the Planning Board, which included\nelevations showing the original approval and the revised design of the project.\nPage 7 of 8", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-03-24", "page": 8, "text": "11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nPresident Cook noted that a Preservation Alert from the Alameda Architectural\nPreservation Society had been received regarding the charrette and community visioning\nfor the North of Lincoln area. She believed their comments were very interesting.\nPresident Cook thanked staff for removing the \"non-reports\" from the Board\nCommunications agenda item.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n8:15 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJon Biggs, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThis meeting was audio and video taped.\nPage 8 of 8", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf"}