{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2010-02-22", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nCOMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nFebruary 22, 2010\nTIME\nThe meeting convened at 6:35 P.M.\nPRESENT\nChair Krongold, Commissioners Fort, Kirola, Lord-Hausman, Tam and Warren.\nABSENT\nVice-Chair Moore\nMINUTES\nThe January 25, 2010 minutes were approved with changes.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nChair Krongold stated that Jackie Krause will have two groups present to Mastick Senior Center,\nincluding California Telephone Access and Steven Beard with Accessible Home Ownership, both\nconnections which she made at the Resource Fair.\nChair Krongold discussed the Annual Transition Program Fair for young adults transitioning from\nschool to college and requested the CDI's participation on March 27th. Chair Krongold will follow\nup with Commissioners Moore and Warren.\nNEW BUSINESS\n1. CDI Vision Planning (Chair Krongold)\nChair Krongold requested that the Commissioners think about future goals and presentations to\nthe Commission and distributed a proposed draft list of 2010 CDI Goals.\nCommissioner Tam discussed his concern about reaching out to ESL students and families to\nwhich Commissioner Lord-Hausman suggested following up with SSHRB and Alameda Family\nLiteracy Program.\nCommissioner Lord-Hausman stated the CDI should be cautious with the goals due to\neveryone's time and availability of members.\nCommissioner Warren liked the idea of an etiquette brochure and suggested reaching out to the\nfirst lady of the state (Maria Shriver) given the family history of disability.\nCommissioner Lord-Hausman would like to see more speakers.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2010-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2010-02-22", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nFebruary 22,\n2010 Minutes\nPage 2 of 3\nCommissioner Kirola stated change is difficult but you have to be persistent She will seek input\nfrom her daughter for more perspective.\nChair Krongold requested CDI members follow up on chair suggestions and provide more\ninformation for the next meeting.\nOLD BUSINESS\n1.\nAlameda Multicultural Community Center (Zoe Holder, Exce. Director)\nMs. Zoe Holder distributed information on the Multicultural Center located at Longfellow\nwhich has been around for ten years. Ms. Holder stated that she would like to co-sponsor films\non disability on April 16th and requested that the CDI co-sponsor a film. Chair Krongold and\nCommissioner Lord-Hausman previously viewed several films with Ms. Holder. Commissioner\nLord-Hausman stated the challenge would be deciding on which films to show due to the\nlength, although it would be a great partnering opportunity to reach out to many in the disabled\ncommunity.\nThe CDI agreed to co-sponsor the April 16th film event with the Multicultural Center located in\nthe Longfellow multi-purpose Room, from 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM. The event will include films,\npanel and a moderator. Chair Krongold booked a second event, to acknowledge Autism\nAwareness Month, at the Main Library for April 24, from 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM.\nCommissioner Tam thanked those commissioners who went to Berkeley to view some of the\nfilms.\nChair Krongold, Commissioner Lord-Hausman, Vice-Chair Tam and Ms. Holder agreed to\ncreate a sub-committee to discuss the timelines for both events.\n2.\nADA/CDI Website (Secretary Akil):\nSecretary Akil confirmed that the City is redoing is website and that no new link would be\navailable before the next six months.\n3. Paratransit Advisory Planning Committee (PAPCO) (Commissioner Lord-Hausman):\nChair Lord-Hausman stated that AC Transit is cutting the 19 Bus and recommended that the\nCDI review the fixed-route shuttles in the city to accommodate those with disabilities. Alameda\nTransit Advocates and the person in charge of disabilities from AC Transit could speak to the\nCDI on the issue.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nG:\\Lucretia)CommDisability\\Minutes\\2010\\Minutes_Feb 22 2010.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2010-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2010-02-22", "page": 3, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nFebruary 22,\n2010 Minutes\nPage 3 of 3\nSecretary Akil advised the CDI that the next meeting will include completion of the Annual\nConflict of Interest Form 700 and requested that all CDI members be present.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS\nThere were no oral communications.\nADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 7:59 PM. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, March 22, 2010 at 6:30\nPM.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLucretia Akil\nBoard Secretary\nG:\\Lucretia)CommDisability\\Minutes/2010\\Minutes_Feb 222010.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2010-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-02-22", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2010\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:08 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard Member Cook\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresent: President Ezzy Ashcraft, Vice-President Autorino,\nBoard members, Cook, Cunningham, Lynch, and Zuppan.\nAbsent: Board Member Kohlstrand\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes from the meeting of February 8, 2010\nBoard member Cook moved, seconded by Board Member Cunningham to approve the\nminutes as amended. Motion passes 5-1-1. (Lynch abstained)\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nWritten Report\n6-A\nFuture Agendas\nStaff presented an overview of future Planning Board hearings.\n6-B\nZoning Administrator Report\nStaff reported that on February 16, 2010 the Zoning Administrator approved with conditions\na Variance and Major Design Review for a duplex at 1514 Minturn Street.\nOral Report\nNone\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nResident Pauline Miller complained about the parking situation in the 2500 block of Lincoln\nAvenue. She requested that the area be set up as a permit parking area. The Planning\nServices Manager will contact Ms. Miller to discuss the request\nDraft Meeting Minutes February 22, 2010\nPage 1 of 4", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-02-22", "page": 2, "text": "8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8-A\nTransportation Thresholds of Significance - Applicant - City of Alameda. The\nPlanning Board will hold a hearing to consider an amendment to the City of\nAlameda thresholds of significance for use in the environmental review process for\nnew projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff is\nrequesting a continuance of this item to the Regular Planning Meeting of\nMarch 22, 2010.\nBoard member Cunningham motioned, seconded by Board Member Lynch, Motion to\napproved the consent agenda passes 6-0.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A\nReview and Discussion of the City of Alameda Code Enforcement Program.\nThe Building Official provided an overview of Alameda's Code Enforcement Program.\nVice President Autorino asked what the oldest case on the books is.\nThe Building Official responded six to seven years. He explained that the process is to look\nat each case in as short a time period to determine its validity and urgency. Cases that\ninterfere with life safety are given first priority.\nBoard member Zuppan asked if the fees generated from code enforcement pay for the\nStaff.\nThe Building Official responded yes.\nBoard member Lynch asked how the lower priority cases are generally resolved.\nThe Building Official responded that the cases are usually rectified after the second letter\nis sent to the property owner.\nBoard member Cook asked how the City of Alameda's code enforcement staff levels\ncompare to other cities.\nThe Building Official responded that the staffing is low compared to other cities of a size\nsimilar to Alameda's.\nBoard member Cook asked if more Code Enforcement Officers would result in additional\nrevenue\nThe Building Official stated that in theory it would.\nThe Board recommended that staff request that the City Manager consider whether\nDraft Meeting Minutes February 22, 2010\nPage 2 of 4", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-02-22", "page": 3, "text": "potential fees could be generated from the immense backlog of Code Enforcement cases\nthat could be used to cover the cost of more Code Enforcement positions. It was also\nsuggested that the City consider payment of overtime for Code Enforcement Officers as\nnecessary to enforce use permit violations related to operational hours of businesses.\n9-B\nWorkshop Regarding the Community Development Department Work Program\nfor Fiscal Year 2010/2011. A presentation and discussion of Community\nDevelopment Department work program priorities, resources, and items for future\nPlanning Board consideration.\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a report on the Work Program for Fiscal Year\n2010/2011.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Community Development Department realized\nreductions in staff and resources this past year and given these reductions, there is an on-\ngoing need to evaluate projects and demands on staff time and amend priorities and adjust\nthe allocation of resources. She mentioned that a lot of the same items remain from\nprevious work programs and there was need to prioritize projects in light of resource\nreductions.\nBoard member Cunningham stated that the items that had legal time lines should be top\npriority. He suggested that the Board look at long term planning and put some goals and\nguidelines in place for when the economy picks up. He stated that with future\ndevelopments such as the Waterfront Development Design Guidelines, the Civic Center\nMaster Plan, and Alameda Point, the City should start looking at ways to incorporate zero\nnet energy developments and look at opportunities for sustainable development.\nBoard member Cook mentioned the amendments to the General Plan and believes that\nthey are very important. She stated that the discussion on the Waterfront Design\nGuidelines should not be limited to the Mixed-Use designations and should cover\neverything on the waterfront. She agrees that the Climate Protection Element will be very\nimportant in future developments. She asked about the Public Art Ordinance Amendment\nand why that items has gained such priority this year.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated that the item was brought up by the City Council\nwhen they received the annual report on the Public Art Fund. The Council's concern was\nthat the funds be used for development of public art and not spent on staff time.\nBoard member Cook voiced concern over the lack of funding for long range planning and\nbelieves that General Fund monies could be used to keep these plans moving forward.\nShe feels that a lot of the long range planning has been taken away from the Planning\nBoard and handled by other departments. She believes that it is important for the\nCommunity Development Department to have a Planning Director.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the Climate Protection Element had a deadline.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated that it did not. He stated that the only item on the\nDraft Meeting Minutes February 22, 2010\nPage 3 of 4", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-02-22", "page": 4, "text": "list with a deadline is the Housing Element, which gets changed by the State constantly.\nHe stated that even though the items don't have deadlines they need to be dealt with\nbecause the City will wind up with projects proposals that are not in line with the\ncommunities vision.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft mentioned that by not being in compliance with the Housing\nElement the City is kept from applying for grants available through the State. She\nquestioned the reasoning behind having the Historical Preservation Ordinance Amendment\nfall under the Planning Board and not the Historical Advisory Board.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated that the ordinance now resides as a part of the\nBuilding Code and they should be transferred to the Development Code. Since the item is\na change to the Development Code the recommendation to the City Council needs to come\nfrom the Planning Board.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked how long a building can stay on the Historic Building Study\nList.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated that the list actually represents a list of buildings\nwith historic significance. He believes that the historic inventory list needs to be revamped\nand that there is a lot of room for improvement. The buildings on the list do stay on\nindefinitely.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that certain items on the list can be grouped together\nsuch as the Climate Protection Element, and Green Building Code including the ban on\nwood burning fireplaces. Also the Housing Element needs to stay as a top priority along\nwith the Waterfront Design Guidelines. She made the suggestion for staff to look into\nhaving college graduate students help with some of the long range projects.\nBoard member Cunningham suggested that staff look at ordinances passed by local Cities\nto help streamline the process.\nThe Board stated that the Housing Element, Climate Protection Element, Green Building\nCode, Waterfront Design Guidelines, and the Land Use Element be top priority items on the\nWork Program.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft requested that upgrades to the infrastructure of City buildings be\ndone using green materials.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT: 8:40 p.m.\nDraft Meeting Minutes February 22, 2010\nPage 4 of 4", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-02-22.pdf"}