{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2015-07-27", "page": 1, "text": "COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nMonday, July 27, 2015 6:30 p.m.\n1. ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.\nPresent: Chair Harp, Vice-Chair Kenny, Commissioners Wilkinson, Deutsche, Franco, Fort\nLord-Hausman and Warren.\nAbsent: None\n2.\nMINUTES\nThe April 27, 2015 minutes were approved with no changes.\n3.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\n3-A.\nJackie Johnson-Daly, representative of Ala Costa Center, which serves youth with developmental\ndisabilities, acknowledged the opening of the local Ala Costa Center in Alameda and is partnering\nwith Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD) and would like to continue to collaborate\nwith the City.\n4.\nNEW BUSINESS\n4-A.\nCDI Organization (Amy Wooldridge, Interim Assistant City Manager)\nBoard Secretary Akil stated that the purpose of the topic will be to seek input from the Commission\nand that the goal was to have a productive discussion on how best to move forward with the CDI,\nwhich would be led by Amy Wooldridge, Interim Assistant City Manager.\nMs. Wooldridge stated that the initial discussion started with a brainstorm meeting with staff in\nJune about the reorganization efforts and role of the CDI. This process was started with a desire for\nthe City to better serve the CDI and address issues raised by Commissioners, such as whether to\nadd aging.\nMs. Wooldridge addressed several items including:\nNumber of members: Possibility to reduce the Commission from nine to seven\nmembers. Given that it is the largest member City Commission, she asked for feedback\non why Commissioners feel it should remain with nine members.\nNumber of meetings: The Commission currently meets quarterly and Ms. Wooldridge\nasked for feedback on whether to increase that to every other month. The\nCommissioners all agreed that they preferred bi-monthly or monthly.\nWorkgroups: Ms. Wooldridge recognized that CDI has been holding informal work\ngroup meetings. She clarified that a work group meeting only needs to be formally\nnoticed if there is a quorum or more of Commissioners present. She also offered the\nidea to address the issue of a diversity of perspectives on the Commission by having\nambassadors who are not formally appointed but participate in work groups.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2015-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2015-07-27", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nJuly 27, 2015\nPage 2\nJoint Meetings: Ms. Wooldridge discussed that given the mission of the CDI, it would\nbe beneficial for the Commission to continue to collaborate with other Commissions\nand Boards. This could be as joint meetings and/or assigning a Commissioner to\nvarious other Commissions, such as Recreation and Parks, Planning, Social Service\nHuman Relations Board, and Transportation Commission.\nInclusion of aging: Commission Lord-Hausman recently met with Interim City\nManager Liz Warmerdam to discuss the idea of including aging as part of the mission\nof the CDI. Ms. Wooldridge discussed this with the Commission and whether it was\nan appropriate fit.\nMs. Wooldridge clarified that changes such as the number of Commissioners or change in mission\nto include aging would require approval of the City Council.\nMs. Wooldridge also stated that Board Secretary Lucretia Akil will no longer staff the CDI and the\nCity Manager's Office is finalizing a new staff liaison for the CDI and will have that person in place\nbefore the next CDI regular meeting.\nCommissioner Lord-Hausman stated that the aging population is a general approach similar to those\nwith disabilities, but not specific to just disabilities.\nChair Harp stated it is important to build and maintain relationships with other boards and\ncommissioners. Commissioner Lord-Hausman emphasized the value of joint relationships with\nother boards and commissioners, which is important to the CDI.\nAmy Wooldridge asked about meeting frequency, to which Vice-Chair Kenny believes the CDI\nwould like to every other month.\nCommissioner Warren stated that when she started, the CDI met monthly and it is too long of a\nstretch in between meeting quarterly. Chair Harp stated meeting more frequently helps with getting\nthe minutes more often to keep up with the work of the CDI. Commissioner Franco says that it is a\nbenefit to the public to meet at least every other month, as well. Commissioner Fort also agreed\nwith meeting every other month, which is difficult to stay active and involved when meeting\nquarterly. Vice-Chair Kenny discussed a retreat to go over the Brown Act and the role of the CDI.\nMs. Wooldridge stated that she would develop a new board member orientation packet for the CDI,\nwhich she currently uses for both the Golf and Park and Recreation Commissions.\nMs. Wooldridge asked for input regarding the number of Commissioners quorum from nine to\nseven, noting that it would then be more similar in size to other boards and commissions.\nCommissioner Wilkinson stated that there are a lot of disabilities in the community which is why\nthe CDI should remain at nine. Commissioner Warren stated that the current number at nine\nrepresents a better spectrum of the community.\nMs. Wooldridge asked how they would allocate seats to get their desired range of representation\nand how the Commission would communicate that to the Mayor and City Council for appointments.\nChair Harp stated that prior Chairs/Vice-Chairs of the CDI were allowed to make recommendations\nto the Mayor, over two different mayoral terms. Ms. Wooldridge stated that with each Mayor, the\nprocess may change as the Mayor has prerogative on how their appointments are made. Vice Chair\nKenny suggested that the CDI be allowed to have a one-year trial with nine members. Ms.\nWooldridge responded that she will discuss with the Mayor.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2015-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2015-07-27", "page": 3, "text": "Kenny liked the idea of having ambassadors and there should be workgroup meetings every other\noff month when the CDI is not conducting its regular bi-monthly meeting.\nMs. Wooldridge acknowledged that there is a general consensus to have joint meetings on a variety\nof projects throughout the City. Commissioner Lord-Hausman stated the CDI has addressed and\nparticipated in a number of Public Works projects dealing with infrastructure issues. Chair Harp\nstated both the police and fire department staff have given presentations on safety, hidden\ndisabilities and emergency preparedness.\nMs. Wooldridge discussed the aging population and wanted to know how the Commission felt\nabout inclusion of that segment of the community within the current CDI mission. Commissioner\nLord-Hausman stated she met with City Manager Warmerdam on this issue. Aging is what happens\nand if there is an opportunity to provide accessibility and address aging issues within the CDI it\nwould be appropriate. Commissioner Wilkinson stated that the CDI could partner with the aging\ncommunity and inform them of resources available to them and being part of the CDI could enrich\ntheir life and make them more comfortable.\nTony Lewis, Alameda resident, recommended braille signage on the bathrooms and classrooms at\nMastick Senior Center, to which Jackie Krause thanked him for his recommendation.\nAmy stated that all of the changes do not have to happen all at once. Jackie Krause asked if any of\nthe CDI Commissioners believe if adding the aging aspect to their role, would take away from their\nprimary role of disability and accessibly issues facing the community, to which all agreed there\nwould be no issues.\nDoug Biggs with Alameda Point Collaborative and Chair of the Social Services Human Relations\nBoard (SSHRB), discussed its role with the aging population and the Needs Assessment Survey,\nwhich is conducted on an annual basis by SSHRB. Mr. Biggs also emphasized the nuances between\ndiversity and inclusion and that if the CDI attempted to have individuals with specific disabilities\nappointed to the Commission, it could isolate the individual and take away from the broader work\nof the Commission which is to represent all of the general community disability and accessibility\nissues. He offered to share a recent article that discusses this issue.\nMs. Wooldridge asked when the CDI would like to start meeting every other month, to which the\nCDI agreed to start October 26th. Ms. Wooldridge also requested that Doug Biggs provide the\narticle regarding the diversity role which he mentioned in his comments and assured that CDI that\nshe will report back to the Mayor with all input received from tonight's meeting.\nCarol Gottstein stated that during the previous discussions of restructuring the CDI, cost was a\nfactor back then. Regarding Doug Biggs' comments about isolating members based on appointing\nindividuals with certain disabilities, there should be representation from members with knowledge\nof the various disabilities.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2015-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2015-07-27", "page": 4, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nJuly 27, 2015\nPage 4\nCommissioner Fort stated that having various disabilities represented should not focus on one\nindividual crisis, but rather a larger perspective on the various disabilities.\nMs. Wooldridge asked the CDI how to make that diversity of members a reality, to which Chair\nHarp stated that the application for the CDI should be revisited to include that specific information\nof experience. Chair Harp stated that the CDI could help create more visibility with a better website\nand more information to the community.\n5.\nOLD BUSINESS\nNone.\n6.\nCOMMISSIONER TASK FORCE REPORTS\n6-A.\nCity Council Meeting Report (Commissioner Fort):\nCommissioner Fort stated that last Tuesday's City Council meeting had to do with emergency\noperations and the ability to evacuate. There was also an issue regarding landlord ability to impose\nrent increases. Commissioner Lord-Hausman stated that the City Council approved the Del Monte\nproject and there will be accessible housing included within that project.\n6-B.\nPlanning Board Meeting Report (Chair Lord-Hausman):\nThere was no report given.\n7.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n7-A.\nSecretary Akil acknowledged that she will be no longer staffing the CDI and expressed her\nappreciation of having worked with the Commissioners over the years and wished them well.\n8.\nANNOUNCEMENTS\n8-A.\nChair Kenny requested a special meeting in September, to which Secretary Akil recommended a\nworkgroup meeting. The Commission agreed to meet on August 24th.\n8-B.\nCommissioner Lord-Hausman stated that there are dedicated parking spots for the Farmers' Market\nand she is working with staff and the vendors to obtain four more accessible parking spaces. Liz\nAccord, PW Dept., stated there will be one additional spot on Webster Street.\n8-C.\nCommissioner Lord-Hausman stated that there should be a policy regarding accessible parking for\ndisabled individuals, to which Ms. Acord stated that there will be information presented at the\nOctober 26th CDI meeting\n8-D.\nThe Commissioners thanked Secretary Akil for her work as Board Secretary and expressed their\nappreciation to her for staffing the Commission over the years.\n8-E.\nSecretary Akil called for a moment of silence in memory of Commissioner Niel Tam.\n9.\nADJOURNMENT", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2015-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2015-07-27", "page": 5, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nJuly 27, 2015\nPage 5\nThe meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m.\nRespectfully Submitted,\nLucretia Akil\nBoard Secretary", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2015-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2015-07-27", "page": 1, "text": "en\nS\nS\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nPENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nHELD 4:30 P.M., JULY 27, 2015\nALAMEDA CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA\nCONFERENCE ROOM 391\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order by Chair Trish Herrera Spencer at 4:34 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nPresent: Trustees: Trish Herrera Spencer, William Soderlund, Nancy Elzig, and\nJill Kovacs. Absent: Bruce Edwards\nStaff: Elena Adair, Finance Director; Robin Young, Senior Human Resources\nAnalyst; Sharlene Shikhmuradova, Administrative Technician; and Lelia\nFaapouli, Administrative Technician from Human Resources.\n3.\nMINUTES:\nThe minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 27, 2015 was moved for approval by\nMember Soderlund and seconded by Member Elzig. Passed 4-0.\n4.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\n4-A. Pension Payroll and Financial Reports - Quarter Ending June 30, 2015\nand City of Alameda Police & Fire Pension Funds Financial Reports for the\nPeriod Ending June 30, 2015 were accepted as presented and moved for\napproval by Member Elzig and seconded by Member Soderlund. Passed 4-0.\n4-B. Recommendation to Produce Pension Trust Funds Annual Financial\nReports only in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).\nElimination of the separate 1079 & 1082 Financial report will save the City\n$10,000 per year. Elena Adair, Finance Director, noted that one of the inquiries\nfrom the Board at the last meeting was if we can get written notice from the\nauditors of the reduction in cost of $10,000 with the elimination of this report.", "path": "PensionBoard/2015-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2015-07-27", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, July 27, 2015\nPage 2\nFinance Director Adair made the request to the auditors for written confirmation\nbut has not heard back from them yet. She has a verbal confirmation and is\nawaiting written notice from them.\nThe Mayor inquired if we should wait until we get the written notice. Member\nKovacs said that we want to move forward because there is a timing issue.\nFinance Director Adair said we want to move this issue through because it will be\ntoo late if we wait for Board approval at the next meeting in October. As\nmentioned at the last meeting, the auditors asked if we really need this separate\nreport before the CAFR is produced. City Auditor (elected) Kevin Kearny asked\nas well. That is why this issue was presented at the April meeting in order to\nstop the separate report, since it is already presented in the CAFR.\nSamples of the reports requested at the last meeting were attached to the\nagenda for this meeting, and consist of the separate report currently done by\nauditors with the same information as presented in the CAFR. Also attached\nwere the Ordinances (1079 and 1082). Finance Director Adair first presented\nthe excerpts from the CAFR that shows the Pension funds as of fiscal year\nended June 30, 2014, and explained that this is the report to the City Council\nwhich includes the Pension Funds Reports and shows cash and benefits. It also\nshows the income statement: what was contributed to the General Fund and\ndeductions, and how much was paid out to Pensioners for their pension pay and\ncontractual costs. Besides the actual dollars, this report also provides some\nadditional information about the Police and Fire pension plans with the special\nnotes in the financial statements.\nFinance Director Adair then presented the separate report proposed for\nelimination, \"City of Alameda, California, Police and Fire Retirement System\nPension Plans 1079 and 1082, Basic Financial Statements, for the Years Ended\nJune 30, 2014 and June 30, 2013\". Finance Director Adair explained\nthat\ngenerally all the information is the same in this report as in the CAFR, except the\nauditors issue a separate opinion on the Pension Plan that takes a little more\nwork for them to do. The items that are not included in the CAFR are\ndemographic. Also the report includes 10 years of statistical tables that are\nprovided by the Finance Department. If this information of statistical information\nwas needed from previous years, staff could provide them upon request.\nFinance Director Adair further explained that there is a requirement in the\nOrdinances for financial information to be reported, but from what she has read in\nboth the 1079 and 1082 Ordinances, a separate audited report is not required.\nTherefore, staff is recommending not to have this stand-alone report, because\nthat information is already provided in the CAFR to City Council, and the Pension\nBoard will continue to receive the quarterly reports. She added that this is not\nan effective way to spend City dollars. Finance Director Adair stated that she\nhas a verbal confirmation from the auditors and she is not concerned that there\nare any issues particularly since they brought this to our attention.", "path": "PensionBoard/2015-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2015-07-27", "page": 3, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, July 27, 2015\nPage 3\nThe Mayor asked where the funds come from to pay for the separate report.\nFinance Director Adair replied that it comes from the General Fund, as the entire\nPension Fund is funded by the General Fund. The Mayor replied that the\nquestion is, is this sufficient information to save the City $10,000, and is the\nBoard still doing it's due diligence to keep track of the Pension funds and to\ndisperse it?\nMember Soderland stated that as long as the Board gets financial reports on the\nPension Funds to see that the City is still paying the Pensioners, the Board is\ndoing its job. Finance Director Adair stated that quarterly reports will continue to\nbe provided and that the auditors also check Pensioners to see if they are being\npaid what they should be as part of the random audit picks for the City audit.\nMember Elzig moved that the Board accept staff recommendation that Pension\nreporting only be included in Pension Trust Funds Annual Financials Reports in\nthe Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Motion was seconded by\nMember Soderlund. Passed 4-0.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT):\nThere was no communication from the public.\n6.\nPENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD):\nMember Soderlund stated he was very appreciative to the City for doing a good\njob and is thankful for all the City has done over the years in paying these\nPensions. He noted Police and Fire personnel are very appreciative of what the\nCity has done for them, to have something they can depend on through the years\nto come.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThere being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was\nadjourned at 4:50 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nthis\nJill Koyacs\nSecr\u00e9tary to the Pension Board", "path": "PensionBoard/2015-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-07-27", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, JULY 27, 2015\n1. CONVENE:\n7:02 P.M.\n2. FLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Burton led the flag salute\n3. ROLL CALL:\nPresent: President Henneberry, Vice President Alvarez and\nBoard Members Burton, Knox White, K\u00f6ster, and Zuppan\nAbsent: Tang\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: Staff requested that item 9-B be heard\nbefore the regular agenda items.\n9-B\nPresentation of project under review at 1926 Park Street. No action\nrequired.\nDavid Sablan, Planner I, introduced the project.\nMarcel Sengul, property owner, described his vision for the project. He noted he would\nwant to use residence space for himself.\nBridgett Shank, Timbre Architecture, presented details of the storage container design,\nnoting the green space on project site would be available for the public and the containers\nare a re-use of existing materials.\nPresident Henneberry asked if the tower is an elevator.\nMs. Shank stated it was not an elevator but stairs.\nBoard member Burton stated he would like seeing retail space and not have the caf\u00e9 take\nthe whole space.\nMr. Sengul stated that the lobby breaks up the space, corner is small area. He believes\nan ATM is a good idea for a tenant.\nBoard member Burton asked the reason for the residence to have their entrance on Park\nStreet stating that it is a gateway project and doesn't think having an ATM right at the\ncorner is a great idea and would like to see something more powerful. He feels the project\nis not compliant with the North Park Street guidelines in a couple of ways and feels there\nmust be a strong justification to break these rules with the first gateway project.\nMr. Sengul stated that the project is different than any other and ties to the City's maritime\nhistory.\nPage 1 of 7\nApproved Minutes\nJuly 27, 2015\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-07-27", "page": 2, "text": "Ms. Shank mentioned that they are aware of the zero setbacks and retail space on ground\nfloor.\nBoard member Zuppan stated that there are many proposals for shipping container\nbuildings are for temporary uses and asked if this is a permanent use.\nMr. Sengul stated that the project is being built as permanent.\nBoard member Zuppan asked if heating, cooling, and insulation are possible.\nMs. Shank stated to make it structurally sound it will need to be engineered for a full\nfoundation to minimize cuts into existing walls, but the project will comply with all building\nand safety codes.\nBoard member's Knox-White, K\u00f6ster, and Alvarez had no questions.\nThe Board opened public comment.\nRich Krinks, Harbor Realty, stated he has been in business for 26 years and gets a lot of\ncalls for small spaces adding the site is difficult to develop. He thinks Marcel has come\nup with a great idea for the site.\nKen Carvalho, resident, stated he thinks it is a neat project for the corner, and mentioned\nthat Webster Street was not looking for another gas station but that was approved for the\ngateway. This project would improve the Park Street gateway.\nArthur Mercado reiterated that the project has staff support.\nDonna Layburn, President of Downtown Business Association stated that she has been\nanticipating the project and is pleased the board likes the project. She mentioned that\nthe lot size doesn't lend itself to a large architectural approach and feels that the project\ncreates an attractive statement to the gateway, meets market needs, and aligns with\nwarehouse and maritime history making a statement about the history of Alameda.\nKaren Bey, resident, stated that she is really excited to see a project like this on Park\nStreet feeling it will attract hipsters like other districts in the Bay Area, for example\nTemescel Alley and Hayes Valley.\nTina Blaine, resident lives block away near Rythmix Cultural Center and is excited about\nthe revitalization the project represents. She stated that the area is difficult to revitalize\ndue to past industrial uses and it is an opportunity to beautify the space. She believes\nthis project harkens to Alameda history and will improve an ugly corner. The project be\na wonderful addition as people come over the bridge.\nThe Board closed public comment.\nPage 2 of 7\nApproved Minutes\nJuly 27, 2015\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-07-27", "page": 3, "text": "President Henneberry stated that no action will be taken tonight on the project and asked\nstaff when it is coming back to the board.\nAllen Tai, Planning Services Manager, stated sometime in September or October.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR: None\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n7-A\nBoatworks Tentative Map 8060 Extension Applicant: Phil Banta, Boatworks, LLC.\nA proposed extension for a tentative map approved in 2011 to construct 182\nresidential units, internal roadways and alleys and a waterfront park on a 9.48-acre\nproperty located at 2229 through 2241 Clement Street at the corner of Clement\nStreet and Oak Street commonly referred to as the \"Boatworks Project\".\nMr. Tai gave a description of the extension and recommended approval.\nNo questions from the Board.\nThe Board opened public comment.\nPhil Banta, Applicant, stated he was available to answer questions.\nNo public comment.\nThe Board closed public comment.\nBoard member Knox White stated that the City is encouraging the project move along\nand it is time for project to actually start instead of getting extension after extension, not\nsure why keeps coming back.\nBoard member Zuppan was encouraged by the formation of a subcommittees and feels\na year is enough time.\nBoard member Burton stated he is a member of the subcommittee and although no work\nhas been done yet, he anticipates that if Alameda Point A can be done in 6 months that\nthis project should be completed in 1 year.\nVice President Alvarez asked if the 2-year extension was requested by the applicant or\nstaff.\nMr. Tai stated it was requested by applicant.\nVice President Alvarez asked why a 2 year extension instead of 1 year.\nPage 3 of 7\nApproved Minutes\nJuly 27, 2015\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-07-27", "page": 4, "text": "Mr. Banta stated that he understands project has been here before and he believes that\nlast time they had a bona-fide partner and vision that was not approved by the Board. He\nstated that they have every intention to move forward, but are only one of numerous\nplayers, and he can't account for unforeseen delays outside of their purview.\nThe motion was made to approve a recommendation to the City Council for a one year\nextension to Tentative Map 8060 or until July 19, 2016.\nMotion passed 6-0\n7-B\nProposed Text Amendments to the City of Alameda Zoning Ordinance (AMC\nChapter 30) regarding permit streamlining for residential property improvements\nand other miscellaneous administrative, technical, and clarifying amendments.\nPublic hearing to consider zoning text amendments that would streamline\npermitting for residential property improvements and other minor administrative,\ntechnical and clarifying amendments to improve usability of the zoning regulations.\nThe proposed amendments are categorically exempt from further environmental\nreview pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor Alterations to Land Use\nLimitations.\nMr. Tai presented the staff report and described the primary goal of the amendment is to\nhelp homeowners and the staff in the Permit Center by streamlining the process and\nsimplifying the requirements by codifying existing interpretations and procedural\nalignments. The proposals include streamlining for chimney modifications, front yard\nfences 3 feet tall and minor improvements approved by Harbor Bay Isle Homeowners\nAssociation. He mentioned that Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS)\nwrote a letter with concerns about the proliferation of front yard fences. He stated that\nthere are more code enforcement cases on front yard fences then permits for front yard\nfences, because of convoluted rules and process.\nStaff recommends approval of the text amendments to chapter 30. Additional\namendments will be brought forward during the fall and will be presented to the City\nCouncil as one package of amendments.\nVice President Alvarez asked for clarification regarding parking in front yard setback.\nMr. Tai stated that the driveway can't currently be consider required off-street parking\nspace part of required off-street if it is in the front setback.\nVice President Alvarez asked if the concern over growing houses and that's why parking\nrequirement is in.\nMr. Tai stated that the amendment would allow homeowners to use a long driveway to\ncount toward their off-street parking requirements.\nPage 4 of 7\nApproved Minutes\nJuly 27, 2015\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-07-27", "page": 5, "text": "Board member K\u00f6ster asked about the chimney regulations and wanted to confirm, if\nthere is no design review if an engineer says it is a safety issue.\nMr. Tai replied in the affirmative and noted that a staff check will be performed over the\ncounter.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster asked if Harbor Bay Homeowners approves the design review is\nthe building permit then is issued.\nMr. Tai replied yes, because there is no longer a City noticing process.\nBoard member Burton asked if the design review process for at Harbor Bay Isle (HBI) will\nbe used for the newer developments such as Bayport, Alameda Landing, and Marina\nCove and do they have their own design review committee.\nMr. Tai stated that HBI was picked because of its size of over 2,800 homes and the fact\nthat they already have a robust Design Review and notification process. The HBIA design\nguidelines are exactly those adopted by the City of Alameda. He is unsure if the new\ndevelopments have similar established design guidelines and procedures.\nBoard member Burton asked if there was a front yard fence definition for see-through.\nMr. Tai stated no.\nBoard member Burton asked if barriers located outside of the setback will be allowed up\nto maximum building height in the zoning district.\nMr. Tai stated that the section is simply being reworded so that it is clearer.\nBoard member Knox White asked if the parking requirements are limited to single family\nresidences.\nMr. Tai stated the specific sections referenced are for the single family homes section.\nBoard member Knox-White asked if development outside of the required setbacks means\noff the property.\nMr. Tai clarified that it meant the buildable areas on the lot inside of the perimeter required\nsetbacks.\nBoard member Zuppan asked if the Harbor Bay Isle design review is subject to votes of\ntheir HOA.\nMr. Tai stated yes they have a design review process that is required.\nBoard member Zuppan stated that HOA process may not be the same as the City's.\nMr. Tai stated that is correct.\nPage 5 of 7\nApproved Minutes\nJuly 27, 2015\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-07-27", "page": 6, "text": "The Board opened public comment.\nChristina Hansen, Harbor Bay Isle Architectural committee, answered questions about\nthe process and provided information about the process.\nChristopher Buckley, AAPS, questioned the definition of see-through style, 30-5.14. He\nstated that AAPS has concerns about the Planning Director approval of fences, and\nsuggested bringing back minor design review for fences over five feet, and maybe require\ndesign review for taller fences. Possibly include a new section on fences in the design\nreview manual. He is also concerned with the chimney approval being required only on\nstudy list properties, stating that there are plenty of properties not on the list that are\ncharacter defining. He recommends exempting only roof mounted chimneys.\nThe Board closed public comment.\nBoard member Knox White had the same concerns as AAPS in regards to the fences.\nHe feels 5 foot fences block the houses and creates a visual wall. He also cannot support\nthe removal of Harbor Bay Isle from design review because it hands over an important\ngovernmental function to a non-governmental body and raises the issue of other HOA's\nwithout robust review processes to do the same.\nBoard member Zuppan is also concerned with removing the City from design review. She\nsupports streamlining and lowering cost, but still wants tight City controls. She is also\nconcerned with limiting review of chimney removal, and suggests limiting the exemption\nto rooftop or not visible from the street, and still encourage they be seismically safe. She\nis concerned about walling in the street with taller fences.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster would like to strike the five-foot fence rule and limit it to four feet\nand remove Planning Director review, also limit chimney exemption on peak of the roof,\nwould prefer removal of HOA design review process.\nBoard member Burton agrees with other Board members in regards to chimney roof,\nsupport changing to rooftop or non-visible chimneys. He feels the City is opening up\nPandora's Box by removing the design review for Harbor Bay Isle because they could\nrevise their process. He feels that anything over 4' still needs to have Planning Director\nreview because open front yards are critical to maintain character of neighborhoods. He\nis fine with everything else.\nVice President Alvarez agreed with Board members in regards to chimneys, and\nmaintaining the overview for Harbor Bay Isle.\nPresident Henneberry agrees with fences, chimneys and Harbor Bay Isle. He agrees\nhigh fences in the front yard are unwelcoming.\nPage 6 of 7\nApproved Minutes\nJuly 27, 2015\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-07-27", "page": 7, "text": "Motion to continue for staff to address front yard fence, chimney, narrow to rooftop\nchimney, and no on Harbor Bay Isle.\nMr. Tai stated staff will collect recommendations and bring to Council as one big\namendment.\n7-C\nRequest to Establish an Ad Hoc Planning Board Subcommittee to direct the next\nsteps on the planning and design effort for the Site A development at Alameda\nPoint\nPresident Henneberry assigned himself, and Board members K\u00f6ster, and Burton. Board\nMember Zuppan volunteered.\nAppointed-Henneberry, K\u00f6ster and Zuppan.\n8\nMINUTES: None\n9\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A\nZoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions\nMr. Thomas reported on recent actions and decisions.\n9-B\nPresentation of project under review at 1926 Park Street. No action required.\nMoved to the beginning of the agenda.\n10\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None\n11\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nPresident Henneberry recognized Vice President Alvarez's time spent on the Planning\nBoard.\n12\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS None\n13\nADJOURNMENT: 9:15 p.m.\nPage 7 of 7\nApproved Minutes\nJuly 27, 2015\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-07-27.pdf"}