pages
22 rows where "date" is on date 2008-01-28 sorted by date
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: body, page, path
Link | body | date ▼ | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PensionBoard/2008-01-28.pdf,1 | PensionBoard | 2008-01-28 | 1 | OF of MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD 4:30 P.M., JANUARY 28, 2008 ALAMEDA CITY HALL 2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA CONFERENCE ROOM 391 1. The meeting was called to order by Member Robert Follrath at 4:50 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Trustees Robert Follrath, Nancy Elzig, and Karen Willis. Staff: Juelle Ann Boyer, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Lelia Faapouli, Administrative Technician, Human Resources. Absent: Members Beverly Johnson and William Soderlund 3. MINUTES: The minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 29, 2007 were moved for approval by Member Elzig and seconded by Member Willis. Passed 3-0. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4-A. PENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2007: a. In the amount of $ 237,449.84 for the members under Pension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S. b. In the amount of $ 3,447.71 for the members under Pension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S. 4-B. PENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2007: a. In the amount of $ 231,446.85 for the members under Pension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S. b. In the amount of $ 3,447.71 for the members under Pension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S. 4-C. PENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2007: a. In the amount of $ 231,316.50 for the members under Pension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S. b. In the amount of $ 3,447.71 for the members under Pension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S. | PensionBoard/2008-01-28.pdf |
PensionBoard/2008-01-28.pdf,2 | PensionBoard | 2008-01-28 | 2 | City of Alameda Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Pension Board - Monday, January 28, 2008 Page 2 Member Elzig motioned to adopt the consent calendar and seconded by Member Willis. Passed 3-0 5. AGENDA ITEMS: 5-A. The Chief Financial Officer's Financial Report for City of Alameda Police and Fire Pension Funds for the period ending December 31, 2007 was accepted as presented. Member Willis moved to approve, seconded by Member Elzig. Passed 3-0 5-B. Continuation of discussion on purchasing and erecting new flagpoles at City Hall. Member Follrath spoke with the Chief of Police who said he notified the Union Reps, Mark Landes and Ted Horlbeck regarding donation to this project. Member Follrath contacted the Eagles regarding their donation and found they haven't sent the check yet. Member Follrath wanted a solid figure to give to them, so Ms. Boyer suggested that he use the figure the Public Works Director gave, the estimated cost of $15,000. Member Willis stated she was not able to follow up with the Library Director on researching grant websites, but Member Elzig stated she was able to research the grant websites but has not found anything to report. She will continue researching. 5-C. Memo from Human Resources Director notifying of death of 1079 Pensioner, Harold Miller, Fire Lieutenant, was accepted with regrets on a motion by Member Elzig and seconded by Member Willis. Passed 3-0. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) There were no oral communications. 7. PENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD) There were no communications from the board. | PensionBoard/2008-01-28.pdf |
PensionBoard/2008-01-28.pdf,3 | PensionBoard | 2008-01-28 | 3 | City of Alameda Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Pension Board - Monday, January 28, 2008 Page 3 8. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Karen Willis, Human Resources Director and Secretary to the Pension Board | PensionBoard/2008-01-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2008-01-28 | 1 | Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Monday, January 28, 2008 1. CONVENE: 7:01 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE: Board Member Cunningham. 3. ROLL CALL: President Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Board Members Cunningham, and Ezzy Ashcraft. Board Members Lynch and McNamara were absent from roll call. Also present were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney Farimah Faiz, Planner III Doug Garrison, Planner III Dennis Brighton. 4. MINUTES: a. Minutes for the meeting of November 13, 2007 (Not available) b. Minutes for the meeting of November 26, 2007 (continued from 1/14/08). Board member Cunningham moved to approve the minutes of November 26, 2007, as amended. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4. Absent: 2 (Lynch, Mariani) c. Minutes for the meeting of December 10, 2007. There was not a quorum for these minutes. d. Minutes for the meeting of January 14, 2008. There was not a quorum for these minutes. 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None. 6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: a. Future Agendas Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items. b. Zoning Administrator Report - Meeting of January 22, 2008. Page 1 of 15 | PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2008-01-28 | 2 | Mr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report. 7. ORAL COMMUNICATION: None. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: 8-A. PLN-0076 - Yi Lim Han - 2323 Santa Clara Avenue. The applicant proposes to use the existing commercial space on the second floor at 2323 Santa Clara Avenue, Unit A-2, for a Day Spa. The proposed Day Spa will offer pedicures and manicures, facials, and foot and whole body massage as an accessory use. The Day Spa will likely have thirteen to nineteen customers a day and approximately five employees. The Day Spa will have two nail (pedicure & manicure) stations, two massage stations and two facial stations, one office, and one restroom. Pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code 30-4.9A.c(q) a Use Permit is required for a Day Space in a C-C-T, Community Commercial Theater District. (SW) Board member Cunningham moved to adopt Draft Planning Board Resolution to approve the use of the existing commercial space on the second floor at 2323 Santa Clara Avenue, Unit A-2, for a Day Spa. The proposed Day Spa will offer pedicures and manicures, facials, and foot and whole body massage as an accessory use. The Day Spa will likely have thirteen to nineteen customers a day and approximately five employees. The Day Spa will have two nail (pedicure & manicure) stations, two massage stations and two facial stations, one office, and one restroom. Pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code 30- 4.9A.c(q) a Use Permit is required for a Day Space in a C-C-T, Community Commercial Theater District. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4. Absent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara). The motion passed. 9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 9-A. Approve a Change in the Format for a Future Public Forum Regarding the Housing Element and Measure A (Continued from January 14, 2008) (CW) Ms. Woodbury presented the staff report. The public hearing was opened. There were no speakers. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Page 2 of 15 | PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2008-01-28 | 3 | Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that one condition directed staff to provide a list of four to six panelists for each panel. She would be comfortable to leave the number of panelists to the discretion of staff and the consultants. She was neutral on whether breakout groups would be included or not. Vice President Kohlstrand agreed with Board member Ezzy Ashcraft's comments, and was open to having between four to six panelists; four panelists should be a minimum. She was also open to having the small group forums. Board member Cunningham inquired how the panelists were coached toward a discussion, and believed that the panel discussion should be structured correctly to get the most out of the discussion. He believed there should be a minimum of four panelists. He wished to emphasize that there would be ample opportunity for the public to provide input at this forum. He believed it would be useful to have data on the existing housing stock in the City in order to have baseline data. Ms. Woodbury believed that staff would be able to provide that information. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that 50 percent of both panels would be composed of community members. She believed it would be a well-rounded discussion with sufficient time for public comment. In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether there would be a formal role for the Planning Board, Ms. Woodbury replied that she would return to the Board with that information. She will pose that question to the consultant team. Board member Cunningham noted that he was not looking for any active participation. President Cook wished to clarify that there would be an opportunity for both public questioning of the panelists, and an hour-and-a-half at the end of the forum for public comment. She noted that the small group format was an additional way to generate public comment. Ms. Woodbury noted that this forum would be noticed as a special meeting of the Planning Board since a quorum would be present. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstran… | PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2008-01-28 | 4 | Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4. Absent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara). The motion passed. 9-B. V07-0006 (Variances) and DR07-0056 (Major Design Review) - Donna Talbot and James Rauk - 3327 Fernside Blvd. The applicant requests variances to allow the following exceptions to the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC): 1) Proposed main building exceeds maximum permitted building height (AMC, Subsection 30- 4.3(d)(4)); 2) Proposed boathouse/accessory building exceeds maximum height, required rear yard coverage, and building area standards (AMC, Subsection 30- 5.7(f); 3) Proposed driveway exceeds maximum permitted driveway width (AMC, Subsection 30-7.9(f)(1)(b)). The Major Design Review addresses: 1) Raising the residential structure by three feet to create a third story and providing an addition at the rear of the residence; 2) Constructing a two-story boathouse/accessory building. The site is located within an R-2, Two-family Residential Zoning District. (DB). Mr. Brighton summarized the staff report. Staff noted that it was not able to find any extraordinary circumstances applying to the property, physical constraints to the parcel, unnecessary hardship or deprivation of a property right because there were other design options that were permitted. Staff was unable to make the finding that granting the variance would not be a detriment to the neighborhood. Because staff was unable to make the findings for a variance and design review approval, and recommended that Planning Board deny the proposed variance application and design review application. In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether the construction of the dock was part of the application, Mr. Brighton replied that it was on City right of way, and that the provision of a dock was approved at the building permit level, providing they meet BCDC and Army Corps of Engineers Requirements. He noted that was not under discussion this evening. Staff recommended that the clients go to BCDC and the Army Corps of Engineer… | PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2008-01-28 | 5 | was also meant to be low to the ground. They believed it was a bad precedent to allow exceptions to the Golden Mean and to the Guide to Residential Design. Ms. Joanne Chandler spoke in support of this project. She noted that she owned the property adjacent to the subject site. She did not believe there would be an adverse impact on her property, and supported the variance. Ms. Seth Amalian spoke in support of this project, and noted that he and his wife lived two doors to the southeast from the subject site. He did not believe they needed protection from the proposed project, and believed it was consistent with the already existing scale and mass of the home. He noted that it was already in imposing structure, but in a positive way; he believed it was attractive. He noted that it already had three stories, and that the increase was three feet, which would make it a more usable space. He noted that the peak of the roof barely crept over the height limit. He noted that this house already had mass, and that the proposed changes would be consistent. He believed that in his neighborhood, investment by the property owners would be necessary as the homes age. He believed that when the changes were thoughtful and in keeping with the home's character, it would be acceptable. He noted that this house was not a low-slung bungalow. Ms. Patricia Plowman spoke in support of this project. She noted that she lived next door to the applicants, and noted that she had two single-family homes on her lot. She noted that many of the homes in the neighborhood had been built in the 1930s, and that many needed updating and upgrading. She noted that she submitted a letter to the Planning Board. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft disclosed that she visited the property. Ms. Donna Talbot, applicant, distributed an exhibit to the Board and noted that their home was not on the historic list. She added that they endeavored to include as many Craftsman elements as possible. She was very disturbed by what she had read in the staff report and the AAPS le… | PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2008-01-28 | 6 | one foot so that the variance for the peak of the roof would be 9 inches. They would like to recharacterize the boat house as a second home so that the boat house would not be an accessory structure; she noted that the Alameda Municipal Code did not have any regulations with respect to boat houses. She noted that they would shift it back three feet to meet the requirements, and to meet the side setback requirements of five feet. She noted that they would like to put all their vehicles into garage, so they would not be on the street. With respect to the dock, she noted that before they approached BCDC, she understood that they must get the approval from the Planning Board. In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham regarding the impetus behind adding the extra 9 inches of height, Ms. Talbot replied that their driveway was not below the street grade. She noted that there was no drainage along the street, and if they excavated rather than going up, the water from the street will drain towards their house. Mr. Rauk added that they were almost level with the street at this time. President Cook noted that it was unusual for the Planning Board to be asked to review a project that they did not have before them. She noted that it was unusual to have so many changes, and not have the project to review. Mr. Thomas noted that staff did not have the plans, but believed their description of changing the boat house to a main dwelling, and to meet those setbacks, would avoid the variances related to the boat house. He believed staff could revisit the driveway variance. He noted the height variance was still unresolved, and would like more feedback from the Planning Board whether the findings for that variance could be made. He suggested that the Board direct the applicants to redesign the drawings along the lines of what had been discussed. If the Board was comfortable with the 9-inch variance, staff would bring revised plans and a revised resolution with appropriate findings back to the Planning Board for reconsiderat… | PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2008-01-28 | 7 | President Cook suggested that 1,000 square feet should be the dividing line between a boat house and an actual dwelling. Mr. Thomas noted that may be an argument for the applicants' approach, which was to call it a main house. He noted that the parcel was large enough, the setback requirements could be made, and it remained to be seen whether the open space and parking requirements could be met. The applicants could request that the Board initiate a Zoning Text Amendment along those lines, which would then be considered by the City Council. Vice President Kohlstrand believed the rear structure was consistent with everything else in the area, and she had seen many two-story boat houses all along the waterfront. She believed a Code Amendment may not be finished in time to solve the applicants' problem, but that it was something that could be considered. Mr. Thomas noted that there were many Code violations along the waterfront, which had been very problematic to enforce. President Cook generally agreed with staff's analysis about variances, which are difficult to make the findings for. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that some of the nicest homes she has seen have had some kind of renovation that displayed a seamless look. She wanted to ensure that the regulations would not penalize people or prevent them from doing things that would be to the betterment of the entire community, not just their property. She would be open to dealing with the existence of boat houses from a Code point of view. She supposed people being able to improve their properties, but believed there should be some reward for undertaking a project such as this that would improve the entire street. With respect to the center porch being more welcoming, most of the entrances along that stretch of Fernside were off-center as well. She noted that the cover of the City's Guide to Residential Design did not show a single centered entrance. She submitted that an off-center porch could be welcoming as well. Mr. Thomas invited Board comments regarding th… | PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2008-01-28 | 8 | architectural relief to the front elevation and the high wall in front. He liked the changes to the garage door. He did not believe the boat house design was objectionable; he believed it was more of a Code issue. He was mindful of trying to get too much density on the lot, as well as pushing the dock too far toward the water. Board member Cunningham liked the use of boats in a waterfront area, which should be encouraged because it activated the waterfront. He was concerned about people building too far into the Estuary. Vice President Kohlstrand encouraged staff to include more detail in the staff report because of the complexity of this project. She echoed Board member Cunningham's comments, and she did not have an issue with the boat house; she wanted to take into account the two-story structures on the rear of the property. She understood that the legal requirements of the variance, but did not think the proposed scale in the rear of the property was out of scale with the adjacent structures. She had some concerns about a height variance, and had not seen one in her three years on the Board. She agreed that the blank façade on the front of the house was overwhelming, and would like that to be treated. She liked the design of the garage doors. With respect to the boat house, Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it was important to remember that the applicants bought a waterfront property, and that it was not unreasonable to expect that they would want to make use of the waterfront behind their home. She agreed that the structure as designed would be one of the more attractive structures on the back of Fernside Blvd. President Cook generally agreed with the Board's comments, and commended the applicants on the amount of work they had done on their home. Her main concern about the design was that the area around the garage felt heavy to her. She would like the amount of concrete to be limited, and for the massing to be broken up. She believed the issue of height was more critical than the number of floors, and … | PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2008-01-28 | 9 | 9-C. City of Alameda General Plan Retail Policy Amendments - Applicant - City of Alameda. The Planning Board will consider a General Plan Amendment to amend Section 2.5 Retail Business and Services, to add and modify policies as recommended by the Alameda Citywide Retail Policy Report. The proposed amendments would affect all properties in non-residential zoning districts and mixed use zoning districts. Mr. Thomas presented the staff report, noting that Item 9-D was the companion item to Item 9-C. He noted that no additional community comment had been received on this item since the last meeting. Staff referenced the need to balance the needs of adjacent residential areas with respect to reduced parking requirements, which could be stated in the policy or the explanatory text. The public hearing was opened. There were no speakers slips. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Board member Cunningham noted that the minutes from the previous meeting referenced discussion about the concept of parking at the side of retail areas, as well as the pros and cons of pushing the parking to the back. He found that items 2.5.e and 2.5.s were in conflict with each other, regarding the use of the ground floor for office space. Board member Cunningham noted that 2.5.1, reading "New commercial retail development on the waterfront should be consistent with best practices for waterfront orientated development," and inquired whether there was a definition of those best practices. Mr. Thomas replied that in the Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment, which was adopted in the General Plan, there was more specific guidance on public access along the waterfront, attractive façades from the street and waterfront sides, and activities both day and night. This was moved to the Urban Design section of the General Plan, so it would apply to all development. Staff could amend the language by referencing that language. He agreed that there should be more specificity. Board member Cunningham referenced 2.5.n, which discussed bu… | PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2008-01-28 | 10 | Board member Cunningham concurred with that suggestion. Board member Cunningham noted that 2.5.o, which would "reduce the extent of neighborhood business districts by redesignating residential parcel zone for commercial use to residential use," and inquired whether that was counter to the Board's efforts to introduce local neighborhood stores and encourage pedestrian retail, rather than turning commercial space back into residential space. Mr. Thomas noted that had been unchanged since the 1991 General Plan, and noted that much of that had been done already. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed it was important to maintain the balance of the housing and commercial uses because it would preserve the housing stock, and it would reduce auto trips. She did not want to see an area where every former house became some form of a business, which would eliminate the neighborhood business district. She believed the wording was cumbersome, verging on misleading. Mr. Thomas noted that the Board could direct staff to rewrite that policy to reflect Board member Ezzy Ashcraft's comments, which would ensure that the Zoning Map and the General Plan reflected the land uses and building types. He noted that staff could also remove that section of text. Board member Cunningham suggested that with respect to 2.5.u, that an item be introduced that discussed the integration of utility and trash enclosures to these types of environments in a positive way. He would like those uses to be screened form public view, and kept out of main pedestrian pathways. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that recycling enclosures be included. Vice President Kohlstrand complimented staff on integrating the Board's extensive comments into the document. She noted that 2.5.b contained an extra word. She noted that the extra "be" should be deleted. Vice President Kohlstrand shared the other Board members' concerns about 2.5.o. She noted that the second sentence in 2.5.r should read, "Encourage construction of multilevel parking and shared parking in shoppin… | PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf,11 | PlanningBoard | 2008-01-28 | 11 | Board member Cunningham noted that the contradictory language he had been searching for was "Transit use can be encouraged by providing bus shelters by locating store entrances on the street with parking at the side and rear, and by charging for parking," and "the retail frontage should not be interrupted." Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the concept of in lieu fees was to use the funds to improve the business districts, as opposed to going back into the general fund. She realized it was allowed by using the word "could," but would prefer using the word "should." She commended Mr. Thomas and staff in integrating the volume of detail into this document. Board member Cunningham moved to adopt Draft Planning Board Resolution to approve a General Plan Amendment to amend Section 2.5 Retail Business and Services, to add and modify policies as recommended by the Alameda Citywide Retail Policy Report. The proposed amendments would affect all properties in non-residential zoning districts and mixed use zoning districts. The following modifications and clarification would be included: 1. "New commercial retail development should be consistent with best practices of waterfront oriented developments, such as public access along the water, attractive architecture facing the water, and to the extent feasible, a mix of uses oriented to the water."; 2. The noted typos would be corrected; 3. 2.5.1 will be revised as noted; 4. 2.5.n (parking structure height) will be revised as noted; 5. 2.5.o will be stricken entirely; 6. Parking would be added to 2.5.r; 7. Language addressing minimizing the potential negative impacts of overflow parking on neighbors will be added; 8. The reference to side parking will be stricken; and language recommending the minimizing of curb cuts should be added; and 9. 2.5.u.3: The last phrase will be stricken. Vice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4. Absent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara). The motion passed. 9-D. Large Format Retail Store Zoning Text Amendments - Applica… | PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf,12 | PlanningBoard | 2008-01-28 | 12 | The public hearing was opened. There were no speakers slips. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she was comfortable with staff's recommendations regarding the size limit in maintaining the 30,000 square feet. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that Mike Corbett raised the point that three small tenants should not be subject to the size limit of 30,000 square feet. Mr. Thomas asked whether the Planning Board intended to regulate tenant size or every project that was over 30,000 square feet of gross retail floor area. President Cook asked whether that should be a conditional use permit rather than a series of smaller tenants. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed that it should be a conditional use permit, because the large tenant could potentially have more impact on the surrounding neighborhood, in terms of traffic and other factors. Mr. Thomas noted that the definition could be changed to "tenant floor area of 30,000 square feet or more requires a use permit." President Cook noted that she was not swayed by the notion that because a use may have an existing planned development that the Planning Board should let it go. Mr. Thomas did not believe it should be "let go," but that it would be nonconforming; when any change would be brought to the Planning Board through a Planned Unit Development, it would be subject to the requirements. President Cook inquired whether it would be significant to the City if a number of tenants consolidated the spaces into one big box-sized space. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed it would be significant. Mr. Garrison stated that the City could, with some minor editing, add some language to the amendment to clarify that if a number of smaller tenants were to be consolidated to one large tenant over 30,000 square feet it would require a use permit. Mr. Garrison noted that a 25% increase in floor area would be another trigger. Also, if the Planning Director determined there was a potential for substantial impacts, a Planned Development A… | PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf,13 | PlanningBoard | 2008-01-28 | 13 | Mr. Thomas added that the City did not want a warehouse owner informing the City that a big box use would be moving in, and that the only discretion the City would have would be over the signage. Vice President Kohlstrand agreed with staff's point that a lot of things slip through the cracks, and would like those issues to be dealt with as part of the PD, rather than putting another use permit on top of it. Mr. Thomas noted that would be possible. Vice President Kohlstrand continued to say that the Planning Board was interested not only in the design, but also with operational considerations. Mr. Thomas agreed that was what Mr. Garrison had suggested, Vice President Kohlstrand stated she would like the consolidation scenario to be a trigger for a use permit. Mr. Garrison noted that the Alameda Towne Centre's existing entitlement contained triggers for a Planned Development Amendment, which were not written very clearly and contained some conflicting language. Staff's goal was to clarify those issues, and they planned to go beyond the Zoning Ordinance's PDA triggers with a higher level of specificity. Mr. Thomas noted that there seemed to be consensus that staff should look at tenant space, and that 30,000 square feet would be the trigger. The Board members concurred. Mr. Thomas requested the Board members' thoughts on whether there should be an exemption for historic buildings. Staff's recommendation was that if it were to be done, it should be for designated City monuments. President Cook believed the conditional use permit allowed the City to preserve historical resources while maintaining a practical gbalance with the community. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that her major concern was if an applicant had to get a conditional use permit, that was one thing, but if they had to do a conditional use permit and a PD, that was another scenario. She did not want them to be subjected to both. Mr. Thomas responded that would not occur. In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether a Home Depot would be consider… | PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2008-01-28 | 14 | Board member Cunningham noted that there was Board consensus that it be brought back under the Consent Calendar. Vice President Kohlstrand moved to continue this item to February 11, 2008, in order to revise and bring back for adoption the Large Format Retail Store Zoning Text Amendments with the revisions summarized by staff. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4. Absent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara). The motion passed. 9-E. Appointment of Board Member as Representative on the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee. (AT) Mr. Thomas noted that former Board member Mariani was the appointee, and Board member McNamara is the alternate representative. Board member McNamara agreed to become the designee. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would be willing to serve as the alternate. Board member Cunningham moved to nominate Board member McNamara to be the primary representative, and for Board member Ezzy Ashcraft to be the alternate representative. Vice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4. Absent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara). The motion passed. 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force (Board Members Cook/Kohlstrand) President Cook noted that there were no further meetings. She added that the packet included the presentations. Mr. Thomas noted that it was a good meeting, and that SunCal received a great deal of extra information. Staff anticipated that they would request an extension on the schedule. They have concerns about the financial feasibility of the preliminary development concept, flooding, and a number of other issues. The community has expressed significant interest in a non-Measure A alternative. Their preliminary design concept is due by March. Page 14 of 15 | PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf,15 | PlanningBoard | 2008-01-28 | 15 | b. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). There was no report. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Vice President Kohlstrand). There was no report. d. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board Member Cunningham). Board member Cunningham noted that they came to consensus over what would be presented to the City Council. Mr. Thomas presented an update at the last meeting. Board member Cunningham noted that they rationalized and consolidated 30 recommendations to five recommendations: 1. Minimize waste/have a zero target for waste; 2. Introduce a Green Building Ordinance; 3. Examine alternative transportation methodologies within the City; 4. Promote education within the City, both within the schools and to the general public; and 5. Encourage AP&T to strive for 100% carbon-free power. An additional recommendation was to set up a task force or committee as a regulatory body to review the implementation of the plan. Staff had recommended a two-year check- in. The Task Force disagreed, and wished to see more rigor to the review process; they would advise other Boards, similar to some of the other advisory boards in the community. This proposal would be brought before the City Council on February 5, 2008. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Thomas, Secretary City Planning Board This meeting was audio and video taped. Page 15 of 15 | PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf |
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-01-28.pdf,1 | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities | 2008-01-28 | 1 | UNAPPROVED COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES MEETING MINUTES OF January 28, 2008 TIME The meeting convened at 6:40 P.M. PRESENT Chair Lord-Hausman, Commissioners Berger, Kirola, Kreitz and Longley-Cook. ABSENT Vice-Chair Moore, Commissioners Hakanson, Robinson and Fort. MINUTES The November 2007 minutes were approved as presented. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS There was no written communication. NEW BUSINESS 1. CDI Meeting Dates (Chair Lord-Hausman): Chair Lord-Hausman stated that she would not be able to attend the February 25, 2008 meeting and polled the Commissioners for their availability for February 26, 2008, to which those Commissioners present agreed to the date change, if necessary. The Chair indicated that she would check with Vice-Chair Moore to confirm her availability to chair the February 25 meeting in the event that the meeting date does not change. The Commission also agreed to move the May 26, 2008 meeting to May 27, 2008 in observance of the Memorial Day Holiday. Secretary Akil stated that she would provide the Commission with a 2008 meeting schedule. 2. 2007 CDI Accomplishments (Chair Lord-Hausman): Chair Lord-Hausman distributed a draft list of accomplishments by the Commission for the 2007 calendar meeting year. The Commission asked that the list be revised to include any accomplishments from the 2006 meeting year and requested that the final list of accomplishments be distributed to Council under cover memo. | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-01-28.pdf |
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-01-28.pdf,2 | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities | 2008-01-28 | 2 | Commission on Disability Issues January 28, 2008 Minutes Page 2 of 4 3. Atlantic Avenue/Webster/Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway Street Intersection Improvements (Chair Lord-Hausman): Chair Lord-Hausman met with Ed Sommerauer and Virendra Patel of the Public Works Department regarding an update on the Atlantic/Webster/Appezzato Street Intersection Improvement project. The bids are in for re-design of the Intersection. The specifics of the design include audibles and countdown signals, and the crosswalks will be basic stripped. The Chair may invite Ed Sommerauer to return to the Commission once bids come in. OLD BUSINESS 1. Temporary Disabled Parking at Community Events (Chair Lord-Hausman): Chair Lord-Hausman met with Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer in the Public Works Department regarding accessibility parking at City-wide events. Mr. Khan indicated that he would review adding a line-item in applications that addresses "disabled parking/access" during big City events. He prepared a list of possible events, which Chair Lord-Hausman read to the Commission. Commissioner Kreitz asked about accessibility concerns regarding Thompson Field. Secretary Akil indicated the field is owned and managed by the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) and any accessibility concerns should be directed to AUSD under individual concerns. The Chair stated she would contact AUSD for possible attendance at a future Commission meeting. Secretary Akil reminded the Commission that the City does not have any say with accessibility issues concerning AUSD or any other agency, jurisdiction or along private property and these concerns should be addressed on an individual basis directly with the respective agency or property owner. 2. Alameda Landing Development (Chair Lord-Hausman): Chair Lord-Hausman suggested inviting Andrew Thomas, Planning Manager in the Planning and Building Department to another meeting. The Chair stated that she would check Mr. Thomas' availability for either February 25 or 26 and get back to the Commission once … | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-01-28.pdf |
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-01-28.pdf,3 | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities | 2008-01-28 | 3 | Commission on Disability Issues January 28, 2008 Minutes Page 3 of 4 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS 1. Yearly Events Calendar: Commissioner Kreitz requested the specific summer concert dates for inclusion in the calendar. The dates will be the second Friday of June, July and August 2008. The Chair suggested that Commissioner Kreitz check the Park and Recreation website for additional information. Commissioner Kreitz suggested including the Art and Wine Festival on the calendar for Commission attendance, which was agreed by everyone present. Commissioner Longley-Cook stated that space would have to be donated. Commissioner Kreitz will contact the owners of Tucker's Ice Cream for donating space for the Commission during this event. 2. Commissioner Kreitz voiced concern about accessibility issues along Harbor Bay. Secretary Akil stated that it is private property and suggested that contact be made directly with Harbor Bay property owners or homeowners association. Commissioner Berger also stated it is private property and that the issue should be directed to the main home owners association that over sees the entire Harbor Bay. 3. Commissioner Berger asked if the City Council receives a copy of the Commission minutes to which Secretary Akil responded that the Council does not; however, they can receive correspondence from the Commission under cover memo at any time. 4. Chair Lord-Hausman attended the Special Bowling Olympics and presented awards. 5. Lower Washington Park: Chair Lord-Hausman stated that the asphalt path between Crown Memorial Beach and Washington Park would be completed by March 15th. The Chair met with Anne Rockwell, EBRPD and the Park and Recreation Department to resolve this issue. 6. Bus Stops at Tilden Way & Eighth & Central Chair Lord-Hausman stated that she spoke to Barry Bergman, Transportation Specialist in the Public Works Department who indicated that they are in the middle of the CIP process and are working on this accessibility issue. 7. Commissioner Longley-Cook stated that the gr… | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-01-28.pdf |
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-01-28.pdf,4 | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities | 2008-01-28 | 4 | Commission on Disability Issues January 28, 2008 Minutes Page 4 of 4 ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:10 P.M. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, February 25, 2008, at 6:00 P.M. in Room 360 at City Hall. Respectfully submitted, Lucretia A. Akil Commission Secretary G:\LucretialCommDisability\Minutes\2008\Minutes_Jan 2 | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-01-28.pdf |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE "pages" ( [body] TEXT, [date] TEXT, [page] INTEGER, [text] TEXT, [path] TEXT, PRIMARY KEY ([path], [page]) );