{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-12-08", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nCOMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nDecember 8, 2008\nTIME\nThe meeting convened at 7:05 P.M.\nPRESENT\nChair Lord-Hausman, Vice-Chair Moore, Commissioners Berger, Longley-Cook,\nKirola, Fort and Kreitz.\nABSENT\nCommissioner Krongold.\nMINUTES\nThe October 27, 2008 minutes were approved with corrections to Agenda Item Two under Oral\nCommunications/Non-Agenda Items.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nThere was no written communication.\nNEW BUSINESS\nThere was no new business.\nOLD BUSINESS\n1. AB 1234 Mandatory Ethics Training (Secretary Akil):\nSecretary Akil distributed information and testing material for the AB 1234 ethics training. The\nCommission completed the training and testing. Secretary Akil will submit all of the tests to the\nInstitute of Local Government for certificates of completion.\n2. Commission Disability Internet Webpage (Chair Lord-Hausman/Secretary Akil):\nChair Lord-Hausman informed the Commission that she and Secretary Akil met with the City's\nInformation Technology Manager and consultant regarding the draft webpage and provided all\nof the draft material. Secretary Akil stated that the City's website consultant will prepare the\nfinal drafts and costs to the City for consideration. Funding will be an issue in the coming\nmonths due to the downturn in the economy, so there may be some delay with jumpstarting the\nwebpage.\nCommissioner Berger suggested that the Commission consider a name change in the future to\nthe Commission on Disability Access.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nThere was no staff communication.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-12-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-12-08", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nDecember 8,\n2008 Minutes\nPage 2 of 2\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS\n1. Commissioner Berger stated that she contacted both local newspapers to inform them of the\nrevised meeting start time of the CDI to 7:00 P.M.\n2. Chair Lord-Hausman commended Vice-Chair Moore for the tree-planting event and\nacknowledged that multiple Council Members and newspapers showed up to share in the event.\n3. Chair Lord-Hausman stated that with assistance of Pedestrian Alameda, they successfully had\nsidewalks installed at Alameda Towne Centre from Walgreen's to Office Max.\n4. Chair Lord-Hausman reminded the Commission that a notice would be included in the next\npacket regarding the election of officers, which is required for the annual meeting. Secretary\nAkil will send a nomination ballot to each Commissioner, which should be completed prior to\nthe meeting and handed to her for a tally of the vote during that meeting.\nADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, January 26, 2009 at\n7:00 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLucretia A. Akil\nCommission Secretary\nG:\\Lucretia)CommDisability\\Minutes/2008\\Minutes_Dec 8 2008.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-12-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-12-08", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING\nMONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2008\nCOUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM\nPresident Kohlstrand called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft led the flag salute.\nROLL CALL:\nPRESENT:\nPresident Kohlstrand, Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft,\nBoard members Autorino and McNamara.\nABSENT:\nBoard members Cook, Cunningham and Lynch\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services\nManager/Secretary to the Planning Board; Jon Biggs,\nPlanning Services Manager, Assistant City Attorney\nMohammed Hill, Douglas Vu, Planner III, Althea\nCarter, Executive Assistant/Recording Secretary,\nElizabeth Cook and Eric Fonstein, Development\nServices Department (DSD), Obaid Khan, Public\nWorks.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes from the meeting of August 11, 2008. Continued to the meeting of\nJanuary 12, 2009.\nMinutes from the meeting of October 27, 2008. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft\nmoved and Board member Autorino seconded the motion to approve the minutes\nof October 27, 2008.\nThe motion passed with the following voice vote - 4, Noes: 0, Absent: 3.\nMinutes from the meeting of November 24, 2008 (pending)\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Kohlstrand moved Items 8-A and 8-B from Consent to Regular\nAgenda.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nWritten Report\n6-A. Future Agendas. Staff presented the report on future agenda items.\n6-B. Zoning Administrator Report - Meeting of December 2, 2008. Staff presented the\nreport on the Zoning Administrator meeting.\nPage 1 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-12-08", "page": 2, "text": "Oral Report\nDel Monte Update - nothing new since the last update.\nAlameda Point Update - nothing new since the last update.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked that the items under Oral Report be removed from future\nagendas when there is no update from staff.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nAnyone may address the Board on a topic not on the agenda under this item by\nsubmitting a speaker's information slip, subject to the 5-minute time limit.\nJ. Reynolds, representing Earthship.org, advised the Board of a presentation by\nthis organization scheduled for December 9, 2008, 6 p.m. at the Alameda Free\nlibrary. Earthship has been building sustainable homes from recycled materials\nworldwide for 40 years. Board members and citizens are encouraged to attend.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nConsent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or\nadopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or\nexplanation is received from the Planning Board or a member of the public by\nsubmitting a speaker slip for that item.\nConsent Calendar items moved to Regular Agenda.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A. Adopt 2009 Planning Board Meeting Calendar\nPresident Kohlstrand proposed the meeting scheduled for December 28, 2009 be\ncanceled. Board member Autorino moved/Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the\nmotion to adopt the revised 2009 Planning Board meeting calendar canceling the\nmeeting of December 28, 2009.\nThe motion passed with the following voice vote - 4, Noes: 0, Absent: 3.\n8-B. Reuse Plan Amendment Recommendation. Recommended amendments to\nthe Community Reuse Plan for the North Housing Parcel. The North Housing\nParcel is located north of Singleton Avenue. The site was declared surplus by the\nNavy in November 2007. The property is proposed to be conveyed for public and\nprivate uses. It is anticipated that the existing vacant housing may be demolished\nand new market rate and affordable housing, parks, open space, and civic uses\nmay be constructed consistent with the City of Alameda General Plan.\nContinued from November 24, 2008. (DP/EC)\nPage 2 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-12-08", "page": 3, "text": "In response to an inquiry by President Kohlstrand Development Services Department\n(DSD) staff responded that during public discussions three schemes were presented\nwhich would guide the lay out of future housing and new roads. These discussions\nproduced six overarching guidelines. Most important were the guiding principles\ndetailed on pages seven through twelve in the proposed amendment to the Community\nReuse Plan. The purpose of the Plan is to provide the Planning Board with guidelines\nfor the area once a master developer and non-profit are selected for the project.\nBoard member McNamara referred to the layout on page 12 and asked if this\nincorporates all previous direction provided by the Planning Board.\nStaff responded that guideline number six (page 12) focuses on connecting the\nresidential use to other public amenities in the neighborhood. This approach is focused\non pathways to the waterfront for bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as active and\npassive access to parks.\nVice-President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to the second page of Attachment 2 which states\n\"Is there an opportunity to increase neighborhood commercial\" she inquired whether the\nretail referred to is the Alameda Landing project.\nStaff responded affirmative.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the proposed miracle league field referred\nto in Attachment 2 page two. She asked if the location for this field is the same as\ndiscussed in phase 3 of Alameda Landing.\nStaff responded that a deal for a field between the developer and the Miracle League\nhad not been finalized. The Miracle League has approached the Recreation and Park\nDepartment about the possibility of another site on the eight acres proposed for Rec\nand Park. This is a proposed idea for a potential location and is not the same site\npreviously proposed to the developer.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to page six of the proposed draft amendment,\nwhich states \"Emphasize sustainable community design\". She would prefer substituting\nthe word \"employ\" for \"emphasize\". The second sentence in the paragraph states,\n\"explore green building techniques\". She would prefer to substitute the word \"employ\"\nfor \"explore\". She stated that the same language used on page 15 of the draft\namendment would be applicable in this section.\nPresident Kohlstrand referred to page six, second paragraph, second sentence\n\"Residential neighborhoods should not be gated\". She wants to add \"or walled\" to this\nsentence. In the next paragraph: \"De-emphasize the automobile she referred to the\nlast sentence: \"Locate higher-density residential uses along or near major transit\nlines \" she would prefer this to read \"open space, sidewalks, and trails\". On page 14\npolicy 2-18 states: \"Improve accessibility via alternative modes of transit by\nencouraging. \" She would like \"major arterial corridors\" changed to \"major transit\nPage 3 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-12-08", "page": 4, "text": "corridors\". She is not supportive of policy 2-20 which discourages driveways on all\nmajor arterials.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated she recognizes the challenges associated with\nliving on a major street. She envisioned a development similar to Bayport where\ndriveway access is provided through a back alley.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated she would be comfortable with inserting the word\n\"minimize\" instead of \"discourage\" the number of driveways.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to a typo on page 14 2-16. Change \"hosing\" to\n\"housing\".\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to page 15, 2-25. She asked if the term lower\nincomes refers to low and very-low incomes.\nStaff responded yes.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are two paragraphs referred to as 2-25.\nUnder 2-25 under Community Design Policies she suggests removing the word\n\"outstanding\" as it refers to the street tree system. She asked for clarification on\nparagraph 2-26.\nStaff responded it is included to continue the scale and variety of architectural styles\nthat exist throughout Alameda.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to page 19, Section 9.0 Implementation Strategy.\nShe inquired what remediation would take place in areas where the soil has not been\nexcavated should a future decision be made to remove these buildings.\nStaff responded that the developer would work with the regulatory body, the Department\nof Toxic Substance Control. If there was a limited demolition a decision may be made to\ntest the structure and the soil while the demolition occurs with targeted off hauling of\nany found contaminants. Another option is to assume two feet of soil would be pulled off\nthroughout the portions of North housing that were not dealt with previously.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Navy is responsible for clean up of the\ngroundwater. She asked if the Navy is also responsible for clean up of the soil.\nStaff responded negative. The Navy is not responsible for future development costs.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the developer or the city would be\nresponsible for soil contamination.\nStaff responded that costs associated with soil contamination are the responsibility of\nthe developer.\nPage 4 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-12-08", "page": 5, "text": "Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft asked if this information would be disclosed to future\nhomebuyers.\nStaff responded affirmative.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to page 21 number 6 and asked how removal of\ntwo feet of soil beneath buildings would occur.\nStaff responded that if existing housing were demolished or roads were re-routed,\nstructural demolition would occur, then two feet of soil would be removed.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft requested that it be made clear in this paragraph that\nbuildings and hardscape would be demolished and not lifted.\nStaff advised the Board that an additional policy on fiscal neutrality would be added to\nthe Plan.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft moved/Board member McNamara seconded the motion to\napprove the recommended amendments to the Community Reuse Plan for the North\nHousing Parcel with changes.\nThe motion passed with the following voice vote - 4, Noes: 0, Absent: 3.\n9-A.\nSecond Unit Ordinance. Proposed amendment to the Alameda Municipal Code\nto allow attached or detached secondary housing units to be constructed on sites\nwith a single-family dwelling. In compliance with State Secondary Housing Unit\nlaw, the proposed ordinance provides for the administrative review and approval\nof secondary units meeting the development standards contained in the code.\nContinued from November 24, 2008. (JB)\nStaff presented the report. Five changes were made to the ordinance since it was last\npresented to the Board. The changes were to provide for an aggregate lot coverage.\nStaff has recommended 60% aggregate lot coverage, sidewalks, parking spaces and\ndriveways would be included. A minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet has been\nincluded. The principal place of residence of the building owner shall be either the\nprincipal residence or the second unit on the site. Creation of a second unit shall not\ninvolve any changes to existing street facing walls nor existing floor and roof elevations.\nRequirement for parking space for second unit and it must function independently of\nother parking spaces on the site. The location of the parking space must meet all\nrequirements of parking space locations contained in the Alameda Municipal Code\n(AMC).\nStaff is concerned about defining principal place of residence as well as enforcement of\nthe requirement that the building owner live in one of the residences. Staff requested\nfeedback from the Board on the 60% lot coverage. Staff stated that the purpose of the\nPage 5 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-12-08", "page": 6, "text": "State requiring cities to provide secondary housing unit regulations is to encourage\ndevelopment of second units. The regulations developed should facilitate rather than\ndiscourage the creation of second units.\nEzzy asked for staff input on info provided by AAPS concerning owner occupancy.\nThe public hearing was opened:\nC. Buckley stated that the ordinance will permit second units by right as long as\nstandards are met. Neither public review or design review is required. Alameda\nArchitectural Preservation Society (AAPS) suggests using the City of Berkeley's\nordinance as a guideline for incorporating owner occupancy requirement. To avoid\nfuture disputes AAPS would like the Historic Preservation Ordinance cited specifically\nwithin this ordinance. Requests that second units which do not conform to the standards\nrequire design review.\nThe public hearing was closed.\nStaff requested feedback from the Board for the purpose of the owner occupancy\nrequirement.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated the difficulty of reviewing the second unit ordinance\nindependently of the housing element. She inquired whether there was a goal of\nhousing production to be generated as a result of this ordinance.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated the purpose of the City creating the secondary unit\nordinance was to tailor it to meet existing housing criteria.\nBoard member McNamara inquired whether second units would count towards\naffordable housing requirement.\nStaff stated that since there is no income limitation on who can rent the units on these\nsites it will not count towards the affordable housing goals. The units will count towards\nthe overall production of housing in Alameda. Based on existing regulations Staff stated\nit will be difficult for a property owner to meet the requirements for a second unit given\nthe restrictions in Alameda. There are not many sites in Alameda that will be able to\nprovide a second unit in compliance with all the regulations without getting an\nexception, for example a use permit.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated there is a concern in the community with protecting the\ncharacter and integrity of the residential neighborhoods. She inquired if staff was stating\nthat the 7,500 square foot minimum lot size along with the 60% lot coverage puts\ngreater restrictions on an owners' ability to create a second unit.\nStaff responded the 60% coverage does not present a major problem but the location of\nwhere the buildings are positioned on the site (near or at the required front yard\nPage 6 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-12-08", "page": 7, "text": "setback) present obstacles. A second unit would need to be constructed behind the\nprincipal residence requiring a driveway be built to access parking where not enough\nroom exists to create a driveway.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcrafts asked if there is a requirement that the second unit be\ndetached or could it be an addition to the principal residence. She referred to California\ngovernment statute code number 65852.150 which states in part: second units are a\nvaluable form of housing in California, second units provide housing for family\nmembers, students, the elderly, in home health care providers, the disabled and others\nat below market prices within existing neighborhoods. Homeowners who create second\nunits benefit from added income and an increased sense of security. She interprets this\nto mean there is some financial gain to homeowners who create second units. In the\nLos Angeles area the units are used primarily for extended families. She supports the\nowner occupied requirement and leans towards using the City of Berkeley's guidelines.\nStaff responded there is no requirement that the second unit be detached.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated there is statutory law that allows the stipulation that a\nunit be owner occupied. There is case law to support both sides. Monitoring and\nenforcement are concerns of staff.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft suggests deed restriction be added to account for\nmonitoring and enforcement of regulation. This ordinance allows homeowners to create\nsecond units which they would otherwise be unable to do. This ordinance is an\nadvantage to those homeowners and it does not seem unreasonable to require owner\noccupancy of one of the units.\nThe Assistant City Attorney clarified that State law does allow the creation of second\nunits.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked for Board input on the owner occupancy requirement.\nBoard member McNamara is comfortable incorporating the City of Berkeley's approach\ninto the ordinance which provides the owner and the City some flexibility to account for\nunexpected situations. The assumption is that if the owner occupies a unit on the\nproperty it will be well maintained which is not necessarily the case. She supports owner\noccupancy of one of the units.\nBoard member Autorino favors Berkeley's ordinance but is concerned that it allows the\nowner to be gone for up to three years at a time. There is no restriction on how many\ntimes the owner can be away from the property and there is no mention of what\nhappens to the property when the owner is away. The assumption is both units can be\nrented during this time.\nA Board discussion ensued on allowing the owner to be away from the property for a\nspecified period of time.\nPage 7 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-12-08", "page": 8, "text": "President Kohlstrand stated that since there are only four Board members in attendance\ndecisions taken must be unanimous.\nStaff prepared a hybrid ordinance containing staff's recommendations as well as those\nproposed by AAPS for the Board's consideration.\nA Board discussion ensued on the hybrid ordinance presented by Staff.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the easiest enforcement option is to issue citations\nfor non-compliance.\nPresident Kohlstrand referred to AAPS' request to include language stating that the\nsecond unit ordinance does not preempt the demolition controls in the historic\npreservation ordinance and AAPS's reference for clarification to section 9-R of the\nrevised draft ordinance. If not all requirements of the second unit ordinance are met\ndesign review is required.\nStaff clarified that ministerial approval is granted only if all standards in the ordinance\nare met. If a use permit is required design review could be permitted.\nThe Board concurs with the recommendations by AAPS being stated in the ordinance.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked if any member of the Board wanted changes to the\nminimum lot size or the 60% lot size requirement. No Board member requested\nchanges to these aspects of the ordinance.\nBoard member McNamara stated her hesitation to including specific reasons in the\nordinance for a homeowners absence. She asked what options exist for a homeowner\nthat has a legitimate reason that is not specifically stated in the ordinance.\nStaff stated that only the specific reasons stated in the ordinance would apply without\nexception.\nBoard member McNamara asked if a homeowner in this situation could appeal?\nStaff stated a homeowner could appeal the interpretation that their reasons are not\nlegitimate or apply for a use permit. Staff does not expect the findings could be made to\ngrant a use permit to allow the homeowner not to live on the site.\nBoard member McNamara asked if the State's ordinance has a requirement of owner\noccupancy.\nStaff responded that the State does not require owner occupancy to be an element of\na\ncity's ordinance nor is it prohibited.\nPage 8 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-12-08", "page": 9, "text": "Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft is in favor of using the language suggested by Staff\nregarding owner occupancy:\nPresident Kohlstrand asked for input from staff on whether specific reasons for an\nowners' absence should be stipulated in the ordinance.\nBoard member McNamara stated the reasons listed, health, family issues, military, are\ngeneral enough to cover most possibilities for an owners' absence.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that if specific reasons are not listed the onus is on\nthe Planning Director to determine whether an owners' absence would be allowed.\nPresident Kohlstrand read the Board's recommendation regarding owner occupancy\n\"The principal place of residence of the building site owner shall be either the second\nunit or the primary unit. If neither unit is owner occupied only one of the units on the site\ncan be rented. However, an owner may be absent from their principal place of\nresidence on the site for up to twelve consecutive months. The Planning and Building\nDirector may grant two twelve month extensions to the initial twelve months at the\nrequest of the owner. Each unit on the site may be rented when the owner is absent\nfrom the site during this time period\".\nBoard member Autorino moved/Board member McNamara seconded the motion to\nrecommend the Second Unit Ordinance with changes to the City Council for approval.\nThe motion passed with the following voice vote - 4, Noes: 0, Absent: 3.\n9-B. Design Review and Variance - PLN008-0035 - 1150 Bay Street. The\napplicant requests Design Review approval to remodel a single-family residence.\nA Variance is required to reconstruct a shed roof over the north facing entrance\nof the house, which will extend the existing 3-foot side yard setback to a 2-foot\nside yard setback, where a minimum 5-foot side yard setback is required. (DV)\nStaff presented the report and stated a correction on the title for this item. The existing\nside yard setback is 2 feet not 3 feet as stated in the title.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked based on the correction how the side yard setback is\naffected by the proposal.\nStaff stated that there is no change to the side yard setback. The existing 2 foot setback\nwould be maintained. This proposal was presented to the Historical Advisory Board\n(HAB). The Board was supportive of the proposal with the exception of the front porch\nand requested the applicant return with a modified porch design. The HAB approved the\nrevised design and granted a Certificate of Approval. Staff is recommending approval of\nthe proposal.\nPage 9 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-12-08", "page": 10, "text": "Board member McNamara asked for confirmation from Staff that the existing 2 foot\nsetback would not change.\nStaff confirmed the 2 foot setback will not change.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft asked Staff whether the encroachment into the side year\nsetback was attributed to the roof.\nStaff stated yes the edge of the eave would be two feet away from the property\nboundary.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nC. Coombs, spoke on behalf of the applicants. He is their son-in-law. The applicants\nhave been working with the City for over three years on this project. The project has\nbeen approved by the HAB and endorsed by the former Executive Director of the state\nof California Department of Historical Preservation. The variance is not being requested\nfor the front porch. The variance is being requested to restore several historic elements\nthat currently exist within the side yard setback.\nB. Woolley spoke in opposition to the project. The significant work being done on the\nhome is an opportunity to eliminate the existing encroachment not preserve it.\nR. Ramos spoke in opposition to the proposed encroachment. The existing design does\nnot provide enough walk space and visitors walk onto his driveway to access this\nproperty. He suggested a smaller porch to eliminate the encroachment issue. Letters\nfrom neighbors in opposition to the proposed setbacks have been provided to the\nBoard.\nJ. Wilkins, owner of Custom Kitchens, spoke in support of the project. His company is\nworking on the remodel and states that the applicant is working hard to restore the\nproperty.\nD. Keltner spoke in opposition to the project. She agreed that the proposed home would\nbe beautiful but she does not feel it is comparable to the size of the lot. She is in\nopposition to the proposed encroachment and the size of the porch.\nThe public hearing was closed.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft disclosed that she visited the property earlier. She stated\nthe existing brick walkway extends 31/2 feet beyond the front of the house. She asked\nstaff how far the proposed porch entrance would extend out from the front of the house.\nStaff responded that the gabled portion of the proposal would extend from the door\napproximately 22 feet. The support columns would be setback four feet from the\nproperty boundary.\nPage 10 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-12-08", "page": 11, "text": "Board member Autorino clarified the Boards' question as being how much is the front\nsetback reduced by the new construction.\nStaff clarified that the proposed porch would extend seven feet beyond the house and\nthe stairs would extend 31/2 feet beyond the porch.\nPresident Kohlstrand inquired if the applicant had stated that originally access to the\nhouse was provided by a side entrance and whether the applicant is attempting to\nrestore this original design. She asked if the new design of the porch is also an attempt\nto restore the original design.\nC. Coombs replied that they have no direct evidence to the original size of the porch. He\ndoes believe the existing columns are the original columns of the house. His best\nevidence that originally there was a side entrance to the home is the design of the other\nhomes in the neighborhood.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated she would support the setback encroachments to restore\nthe property to its original design. She inquired whether this could be accomplished\nwithout adding seven feet to the front and extending it forward.\nC. Coombs stated the design plans are supported by the Historical Advisory Board. He\nsupports the design because it provides a covered walkway for the homeowners.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked about a previous speakers' comment that numerous letters\nin opposition to the project had been submitted by neighbors. She stated that the Board\ndid not receive these letters.\nStaff responded that letters referenced by the speaker were submitted to the Historical\nAdvisory Board. No opposition letters were submitted to the Planning Board.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft likes the proposed design. She is concerned that the only\nproponents of the project are the applicant's son-in-law and the kitchen contractor. She\nquestioned whether, with the proposed design, it would be necessary for visitors' to\naccess the site through the neighbors' property.\nIn response to a Board inquiry Staff and the applicants' representative clarified the\npositioning of the front door and the wall on the proposed design.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to page 5 of the staff report and the reference to\nAlameda Municipal Code section 30-5.7. She believes there is more of an impact for a\nwalled addition as opposed to a porch. She is concerned with the neighbor's objections\nto the project.\nBoard member Autorino stated the design was excellent but he has reservations based\non the neighbor's opposition.\nPage 11 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-12-08", "page": 12, "text": "Board member McNamara has some concerns but believes the design will enhance the\nhome and the neighborhood. Her concern is the seven foot porch extension\nencroachment on the front yard. She asked if the porch could be scaled back without\nrunning the design intent.\nThe applicant responded that the seven feet is the minimum depth architecturally for the\nfront porch.\nIn response to a Board inquiry, the applicant responded that originally the depth was\ncloser to eight feet but has been reduced to seven feet. He expressed concern that only\nthe neighbors who oppose the project are present tonight. He stated that there are\nseveral neighbors who support the project.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated her initial concern about additional encroachment into the\nside yard setback but now understands, based on Staff's explanation, that the setback\nwill be one foot further back than it is now. She has been swayed by the applicant's\ndesire to restore original design features to the house. She understands the neighbor's\nconcerns about the extension into the front yard but the Board is not being asked to\nmake a decision on this aspect of the design. The criteria for this area of the design is\nwithin the code requirement unless the Board has an issue with the design and this\ndoes not appear to be the case.\nBoard member McNamara stated that the project appears to meet all the findings\nrequired for design review. The applicant has done quite a few revisions to the design to\naccommodate the neighbors as well as the desire to restore/retain original architectural\ndesigns.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked if any member of the Board had any issues with any of the\nfindings stated in the staff report. The Board responded no.\nBoard member McNamara moved/Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion to\napprove the design review and variance for the remodel of the residence at 1150 Bay\nStreet based upon the findings in the draft resolution.\nThe motion passed with the following voice vote - 4, Noes: 0, Absent: 3.\n9-C. Recommendation to Endorse the Parking Management Plan for the Park\nStreet and West Alameda Business Districts. The applicant, the City of\nAlameda, is requesting that the Planning Board review and endorse a parking\nmanagement plan for the Park Street and West Alameda Business Districts. The\nparking management plan outlines a series of actions that the City could take in\nthe future to improve the supply and management of on and off street parking to\nsupport the business areas. (AT/EF)\nEric Fonstein from DSD presented the report. The report is a result of a collaboration\nbetween Development Services, Planning and Building, and Public Works. The two\nPage 12 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-12-08", "page": 13, "text": "primary goals of the project were to enhance management of existing supply by\ndiscouraging use of on street parking and encouraging use of private and public off\nstreet parking and to lower barriers to private investment in business expansion.\nIn response to a Board inquiry regarding in lieu fees staff stated the current fee is\napproximately $6,000 per space. Staff stated the cost per stall could be organized\naround the cost of a parking lot as opposed to a parking structure, which would reduce\nthe numbers stated in the report.\nStaff informed the Board that the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) has\nunanimously endorsed the proposed parking plan. The plan will be presented to the\nPark Street Business Association (PSBA) in January. The plan will be presented to the\nEDC in January since there was not a quorum at the November meeting. The plan will\nbe presented to the Transportation Commission on Wednesday and to the City Council\nin February 2009.\nIn response to a Board inquiry Staff stated the ordinance for off street parking will be\npresented to the Planning Board in January 2009.\nNo speaker slips were received.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated she was looking for more specifics and would like to review\nthe parking study more thoroughly. She believes staff is going in the right direction. She\nwould like to see more specific recommendations on pricing. She stated the burden for\nproviding parking seemed to be solely on new development and it may be more\nequitable to find a strategy where the costs are borne by new as well as existing\nbusinesses through an establishing an assessment district. She likes the idea of shared\nparking and would like more detail on this strategy. She was hoping to see more of a\nplan on future parking needs/requirements as it relates to land use including a public\nparking lot. She would like to see more discussion on how in-lieu fees are used and how\nshould these monies be expended in the future. She would have liked to hear more\nabout existing conditions since the new parking garage was opened. She stated there\nappears to be more not less of a financial burden on smaller businesses with regards to\nthe proposed parking in-lieu fee structure.\nIn response to a Board inquiry Staff stated if a residential neighborhood in a business\ndistrict felt impacted by the lack of on street parking it can petition to assess itself to\ncover the costs of a parking district. Parking for two hours would be permitted for non-\nresidents. This is to encourage parking off street in a garage or parking lot. All costs\nassociated with a residential parking program including enforcement are included in the\nprogram.\nStaff is proposing a minimum size of six blocks for a residential parking program. There\nare some initial costs the City would absorb for example review of the site and the\nstudy. Some funds in the in-lieu parking fee account may be used for the initial set-up. A\nPage 13 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-12-08", "page": 14, "text": "majority of the residents must agree to the program. If enacted all residents will be\nassessed the fee.\nIn response to a Board inquiry staff stated the survey referenced in the staff report was\nnot done to achieve any scientific data, it was used as an additional form of public\noutreach. Staffs focus in preparing the report was on creating attractive pricing that\nwould move employee parking off streets and into parking garages or lots thereby\ncreating on street parking for residents.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated she was in support of neighborhoods having the option to\ncreate an assessment for a residential parking program.\nStaff stated preparing the ordinances is an ongoing project and feedback from the\nBoard would provide direction to Staff in crafting the ordinances. Staff is looking for\nBoard direction on the in-lieu fees. In-lieu fees can become a large financial part of a\nproject. Staff has proposed some waivers. A demand waiver would apply to a business\nthat can show the demand for parking created by the business is less that what is stated\nin the code and the calculation would be based on that number. Required parking could\nbe provided entirely on site or a combination of on site parking and in-lieu fees would\nsuffice. To qualify for this option a business must be in close proximity to one of the\ngarages or on a transit route.\nPresident Kohlstrand inquired whether a traffic engineer is required to prepare the\ndemand waiver.\nStaff responded this was required to ensure standard practices and proper methods are\nbeing followed.\nStaff asked for Board input on a historic resource waiver. In the current code if a\nbuilding is over ten years old upgrading parking for a new or more intense use is not\nrequired. Staff is proposing, for Park Street and Webster Street, if it is an historic\nbuilding and providing parking would require alterations to the building that would affect\nits historic character then parking requirements could be waived. Staff discussions\nincluded continuing to require in-lieu fees for these types of projects and provide the\nPlanning Board with the option to waive in-lieu fees if requiring the fee would make the\nproject infeasible. Staff is requesting Board input on whether this scenario should also\napply to a business located in a non-historic building.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated that from a land use perspective removing the minimum\nrequirement altogether makes sense. Not factored in is The design guidelines state that\nnot to disrupt the continuous frontage on Park and Webster streets. This is not reflected\nin the Plan. By eliminating a min parking req is a way to achieve this design guideline\nbut this approach eliminates funding sources.\nPage 14 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-12-08", "page": 15, "text": "Staff stated if a waiver is granted a condition of the waiver would require any off street\nparking to become communal parking. This would contribute to the pool of shared\nparking spaces.\nBoard member Autorino asked ff a private business has a lot with ten spaces but all of\nthe spaces are not being used, is the business permitted the option of renting them out.\nStaff responded that for employee shared parking the 1,000-foot requirement would not\napply.\nA Board discussion ensued on the amount of parking required for a business and\noptions should not all spaces be needed by the business.\nStaff stated that this situation currently exists in some areas of Park Street.\nPresident Kohlstrand would like to move the shared parking program forward starting\nwith existing parking lots that are not being fully utilized.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft asked whether the Wilbur Smith study included\ninformation on the need for employee parking.\nStaff responded that was not part of the scope of the project.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft asked whether the Park Street and Webster Street\nBusiness Associations could survey members to determine need.\nPres Kohlstrand stated she is encouraged that business owners are behind this Plan.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Plan should include strategies that get people\nout of their cars. Providing additional parking spaces for City employees on the top floor\nof the garage is great but she asked if bicycle lockers would be provided also. She\nwould like to see spaces in the civic center garage allocated for Zip cars. She asked\nthat staff plan to provide the Board with an update on the civic center garage usage.\nShe stated that merchants of a certain size should provide adjacent bicycle parking.\nStaff responded that negotiations are ongoing with a company to provide Zip type cars\nand Staff plans to use one or two spaces in the garage for this purpose. The City has\nreceived some grant funding for bicycle parking and Staff is planning for bicycle racks at\nCity Hall and other city buildings as well as at some business locations that requested\nbicycle parking. The City of Oakland is allowing bicycle parking at old meter poles.\nStaff requested input from the Board on removing the rolling ten in the Park and\nWebster districts. Staff also asked the Board to provide input on whether there should\nbe a distinction on if the building is historic or not.\nPage 15 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-12-08", "page": 16, "text": "Board member Autorino agreed with President Kohlstrand that businesses of a certain\nsize should be excluded from the parking requirement. He stated that buildings should\nin fact have historic significance and not just ten years old.\nA Board discussion ensued on whether a distinction between historic or non-historic is\nimportant, contributions to off street parking and street design, protection of continuous\nstreet fa\u00e7ade, fee structure and establishing minimum thresholds, more criteria to apply\nfor a fee waiver, and eliminating the minimum parking requirement.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to the staff report which states that many\nplanners are recommending only maximum not minimum parking requirements. This is\na good time for the Board to consider this option.\nStaff stated that during discussions with the consultant, based on supply and demand in\nAlameda it is a matter of management not supply. The goal is to retain parking in the\nPark Street district. There are residential areas in this area suffering spillover.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated there are advocates for changing parking policies\nnationwide. Alameda is an older city where much of the older character has been\nmaintained. If parking is limited, alternatives must be provided.\nStaff stated that implementing no minimums removes contributions to the in-lieu fund,\nwhich reduces funding sources.\nIn response to a Board inquiry staff responded that WABA is supportive of the\nrecommendations and relaxed on site parking requirements. WABA had no comment on\nthe minimums.\nPresident Kohlstrand suggested staff get input from PSBA on these issues as currently\nthere is more of a parking issue in the Park Street district.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated she was interested in new technology for replacing\nparking meters. She suggested reconfiguration of parking spaces in the parking lot on\nCentral near the theatre. The spaces do not accommodate larger SUVs.\nStaff will return to the Board at a future date with information on the following: in-lieu\nfees and waiver program (size, threshold), parking in the Park Street area since the\ngarage and statistics on parking in the garage, how are in-lieu fees being generated and\nspent, more specifics on Redwood City ordinance, information on options for\nestablishing assessment districts (commercial parking district), information on a shared\nparking clearinghouse, next steps for future parking lots or structures in the North Park\nStreet and North Webster Street areas, employee parking demand, information on the\nsurvey and how to incorporate facilities for alternative modes (car share, bicycle\nracks/lockers),\nPage 16 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-12-08", "page": 17, "text": "Board member McNamara stated staff should consider alternatives for in-lieu fees other\nthan parking structures or lots.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated the Board would like to know how much is being generated\nfrom the in-lieu fees.\nPresident Kohlstrand thanked Staff for all the hard work done on the Plan.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft moved/Board member McNamara seconded the motion to\ncontinue this item to the meeting of January 12, 2009.\nThe motion passed with the following voice vote - 4, Noes: 0, Absent: 3.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nBoard members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement\nor make a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a\nreferral to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to\nthe body at a subsequent meeting concerning a City matter or, through the chair, direct\nstaff to\nNone.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT: @ 11:00 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJon Biggs, Secretary\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nCity Planning Board\nThis meeting was audio and video taped.\nPage 17 of 17", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf"}