body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, January 10, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:08 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Mr. Lynch
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Cook, Lynch, Kohlstrand,
McNamara and Piziali.
Board Member Mariani was not present for roll call, and arrived during Item 9-A.
Also present were Planning & Building Director Greg Fuz, Development Review
Manager Jerry Cormack, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner
Judith Altschuler, Planner II Dennis Brighton.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of December 13, 2004.
Vice President Cook noted that page 14, paragraph 2, should be changed to read: ""She
noted that in past site visits to walled-off developments, that the-play yards were was
deserted, which she believed was unsafe for anyone who did use the area.""
Vice President Cook noted that page 14, paragraph 5, should be changed to read:
""
showers for use after swimming, and should open onto the pool area. She believed
that the multitude of angular pathways of the landscape plan seemed very frenetic to her.
She did not believe there was a sense of continuity and flow with respect to the
landscaping and circulation plan.""
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that page 12, paragraph 7, should be changed to read: ""She was
disappointed to see a wall along across-Appezzato Parkway.
""
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that pages 17-18 did not indicate the details of the discussion
about the reflectivity of the glass, and noted that she inquired as to whether the reflective
glass was required functionally for the project; the project sponsor indicated that it was
not required. In addition, the conditions of approval included a recommendation that
there would be no reflective glass on the building.
President Cunningham advised that on page 1, the roll call should indicate ""President
Cunningham,"" rather than President Piziali.
President Cunningham advised that page 15, paragraph 5, should be changed to reflect
that he urged the developer to respond to the comments made by the Planning Board in
an effort to clarify their position and stance on the critical elements for success of the
project. He believed that Allen Tai's letter communicated the Planning Department's
point of view.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,2,"M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of
December 13, 2004, as amended.
AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Lynch)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cunningham advised that no speaker slips had been received for Item 9-C, and
proposed that it be moved to the Consent Calendar.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 9-C from the Regular Agenda and to
place it on the Consent Calendar.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None.
7.
Resolution and Commendation for Planning and Building Director Gregory L.
Fuz.
President Cunningham noted that Mr. Fuz had accepted a position as Development
Services Director for El Dorado County, and would be leaving the City of Alameda. He
read the following resolution and commendation into the record:
""Acknowledging Planning and Building Director Gregory L. Fuz for his
contributions to the City of Alameda, whereas Gregory L. Fuz accepted
the position of Planning and Building Director for the City of Alameda on
February 25, 2002, and
Whereas Gregory L. Fuz has accepted a position as the Development
Services Director of El Dorado County, and is leaving the employment of
the City of Alameda, and
Whereas, as Planning and Building Director, he assisted in the planning
process of numerous projects, including the completion of the General
Plan Amendment for Alameda Point, and initiation of the Master Planning
Process, the adoption and conditional certification of the 2001-2006
Housing Element, redevelopment of the Bridgeside and South Shore
shopping centers, adoption of new Citywide design guidelines and
development code amendments, and
Whereas he provided clear and complete advice to the Planning Board,
and
Now therefore be it resolved that the Planning Board of the City of
Alameda extends their thanks for his dedication to his work on behalf of
the City, his staff, and citizens of Alameda.""
President Cunningham added a personal note of thanks to Mr. Fuz for his work on behalf
of the City.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,3,"Mr. Fuz thanked the Board, and said that it was his pleasure to serve the community of
Alameda, and that it had been a wonderful experience. He thanked the members of the
community that he worked with. He thanked the Board for its dedication and
professionalism, and added that it was the best Board he had ever worked with in more
than 20 years in the field. He thanked the Planning and Building Department staff for
their help, expertise and professionalism, and for making his tenure pleasant and
successful.
Vice President Cook thanked Mr. Fuz and noted that she had looked forward to working
with him for a longer time. She noted that she would miss working with him, and added
that she admired his unflappable nature and his ability to maintain calm and a sense of
humor. She added that his analytical mind enabled him to accomplish so much during his
tenure.
Mr. Lynch looked forward to working with Mr. Fuz whenever the chance arose in El
Dorado County, and said that Alameda was a much better place for his work in the City.
He noted that Mr. Fuz set a positive tone for the City's professional representatives
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,4,"8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A.
Adoption of 2005 Planning Board Calendar.
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt the 2005 Planning Board Calendar.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,5,"8-B. ZC04-0013: Christ Episcopal Church of Alameda - 1700 Santa Clara
Avenue (DB). A request has been received to construct a 38-niche columbarium
wall within the interior of the Christ Episcopal Church. Columbarium use is not
specifically listed as a regulated use within the R-5 (General Residential Zoning
District) where the church is located. This zoning determination for the
installation of a 38-niche columbarium within one interior wall of the church is
being referred to the Planning Board to review the staff recommendation that the
primary use remains the church use and the columbarium will be secondary to the
primary use.
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to approve a request to construct a 38-niche
columbarium wall within the interior of the Christ Episcopal Church. Columbarium use is
not specifically listed as a regulated use within the R-5 (General Residential Zoning
District) where the church is located. This zoning determination for the installation of a
38-niche columbarium within one interior wall of the church is being referred to the
Planning Board to review the staff recommendation that the primary use remains the
church use and the columbarium will be secondary to the primary use.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,6,"8-C.
Review and consider possible modifications of Section 30-15 of the Alameda
Municipal Code regulating Work Live Studios (JA). (Continued from the
meeting of December 13, 2004.) Staff is requesting a continuance to the
Planning Board meeting of January 24, 2005.
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board
meeting of January 24, 2005.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,7,"8-D. ZA04-0002 - Zoning Text Amendment for Design Review Regulations
(JC/JA). Update the current Design Review practices by clarifying the previously
adopted Webster Street Design Review Guidelines.
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-01
to update the current Design Review practices by clarifying the previously adopted
Webster Street Design Review Guidelines.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,8,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A. Study Session (JA/JL). GPA04-0004, DPA04-0002, IS04-0003, DR04-0114 -
Warmington Homes - 1270 Marina Village Parkway (Shipways Site)
(JA/JL). Applicant requests a General Plan Amendment to amend the General
Plan to designate the Shipways site as MU-7; a Development Plan Amendment to
amend the approved Development Plan for a 143,000 square foot office building
and permit the construction of 64 residential units with associated parking and
landscaping; an Initial Study to address the environmental effects; and a Design
Review for the project. The site is zoned M-X, Mixed-Use Planned Development
District.
Ms. Altschuler summarized this staff report, and noted that the design team would make a
PowerPoint presentation. She noted that no Board action would be taken, and that the
project would require a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the site an MU-7 (Mixed
Use) area. She added that an office use already existed on the site; staff requested the
addition of a residential component to the site, as well as an amendment to the
development plan. The current development plan approval was for a 143,000 square foot
office building; it would be changed from an office use to a residential use. An initial
study and a design review for a general configuration of the houses, landscaping and
parking areas would be done as well. The staff report requested that the discussion relate
to the site design, the parking plan, the pedestrian access through the site, public
amenities, amenities for the residence, the conceptual architectural style, and the fact that
there was a proposal for three-story dwellings, which is not unusual in this area. She
requested that the Board provide guidance to the applicant to bring back with the design
team, and to incorporate the Board's comments into the proposal. The proposal would be
brought before the Board at a later date for action.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Joan Lamphier, Lamphier Gregory, noted that she worked for the City on this
project, and has been a project planner on this site since 1983. She noted that the primary
question that Marina Village was concerned about was to get a reading from the Board as
to whether it would approve the change office use to a residential use on the site. She
noted that the Marina Village site had always been designated as a Mixed Use
development.
Mr. Don Parker, representing project owner, noted that his involvement in this project
started in 1979. He noted that the mile of shoreline had been developed with public
access and improvements; this would be the last remaining piece connecting the public
access with the overall public access running throughout the rest of the project. He
provided some history of the site development. He noted that the site was constrained by
the fact that it had an existing structure; they planned to leave most of the structure in
place. They also dedicated the public access around the perimeter of the site.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,9,"Mr. Kevin Levesque, Randall Planning and Design, displayed a PowerPoint presentation
of the site and described the site layout. He noted that there would be in-garage parking
and storage for the homeowners, with 55 parking stalls proposed in the garage, and 46
guest parking stalls on the podium. In addition, there would be 72 parking spots in the
unit garages. The parking ratio would be 2.7:1. He noted that 86% of the homes would be
on the water, with a small group in the center, clustered around the Rec Center and the
pool. He noted that at the front, the underground parking would eliminate the need for
garages on the podium deck, allowing the creation of a central pedestrian plaza running
from the front of the project at the pool, to the back of the project, where the public plaza
space would be created.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether the amphitheatre area would be
publicly accessible, Mr. Levesque confirmed that it would be accessible at all times.
President Cunningham commented about the methodology of building a podium, which
would be a complex process, and inquired why the podium would be elevated to
accommodate the parking underneath. He noted that the parking on the other two sides
could be maximized, and noted that a second podium would probably need to be built. He
inquired whether an analysis had been performed to remove the current sloping
rampways to sink it back down to grade level.
Mr. Parker noted that President Cunningham's suggestion would involve a tremendous
amount of demolition. One of their concerns was that the existing Shipway offices were
next door, which they planned to keep occupied as office space. The demolition would be
very disruptive to the existing uses, and may render the project economically infeasible.
Vice President Cook noted in San Francisco, the existing piers were left intact and new so
that a new structures were proposed to could be built independent of the existing piers-it.
She noted that the cost of removing the old buildings were structures was high.
Mr. Parker noted that the podium would be approximately 9 feet over the flat area of the
site.
President Cunningham requested a physical model of the project, given the complexity of
the project elevations. He believed the treatment of the podium edge relative to the lower
level was a critical element.
Mr. Parker noted that they created planters along the base of the wall and around the
perimeter near the seating areas. They wished to avoid a large, blank wall in that area,
Vice President Cook noted that she was pleased that there would be residential uses on
this site, rather than another office use. She believed a mix of uses would create a more
active waterfront. She wanted to ensure a good relationship between the waterfront and
the public area, and to be sure that pedestrians felt safe by the waterfront.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,10,"Mr. Parker believed the separation worked well, because the entrance into the project was
in the middle of the Shipways, and the entrance to the public areas were on either end. He
noted that the layout was seamless in relation to the trails, and understood Vice President
Cook's concerns.
Vice President Cook liked the idea that much of the parking was hidden, either above or
below.
President Cunningham inquired whether the applicants had considered using vertical
circulation between Shipways 1 and 2, and 3 and 4. Mr. Parker replied that they had not
examined that option, and that they were focused on creating views onto the water. He
believed that idea made sense.
In response to Mr. Piziali's question about the flats, Mr. Parker replied that there would
be parking on the first floor, then a flat and a flat above it. The units on the large wings of
the project on either side had garages included in the plan.
Vice President Cook noted that the use of the podium was an urban landform, and noted
that high-rises in San Francisco brought the question of whether a blank face along the
street would be present. Mr. Parker noted that they used open metal along the façade, and
wished to avoid a blank wall.
Vice President Cook suggested the use of interpretive signage or public art to provide
more information for the public.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara for more detail on the amenities for the
residents, Mr. Parker replied that there would be a community building with a pool and a
whirlpool.
President Cunningham appreciated the conceptual drawings, and believed that a three-
dimensional model would enable the Board to better understand the intent of the
architecture.
Mr. Piziali agreed with President Cunningham's request for a three-dimensional model.
Ms. Kohlstrand concurred with Mr. Piziali's comments, and would like a better idea of
the orientation of the residential units, as well as the landscaping treatment and how the
podium wall would be softened. She also believed that a residential use was fine for this
site, but noted that it was a somewhat isolated location, and it was necessary to travel
through office sites and parking lots to get to the residential units. The relationship to the
street for cars and pedestrians was an important issue for her.
Vice President Cook would like a better understanding of the height of the proposed
project in relation to the Extended Stay America building to the west and the office
building to the east, as well as to the buildings located across the Estuary. She believed
the scale between the Oakland uses and the Alameda uses on the estuary should be
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,11,"consistent. She wanted to ensure that the parking requirements were consistent, and
inquired where the public would park in order to use the public access area of the
amphitheatre.
Mr. Levesque responded that the office building parking lots on either side of the
Shipways were virtually vacant during the weekends. He added that reserved parking
stalls for the public were also located in the parking lots, and that quite a few spaces were
available in the office parking lots.
President Cunningham inquired whether any potential uses had been considered for the
bodies of water between the fingers. Mr. Levesque replied that they had not looked at the
ability to get access in that area yet. He noted that the concrete structure was essentially
one big block, and displayed the area on the screen. He noted that a retaining wall would
be built and filled in to provide the lawn area in front of the residential units.
Ms. McNamara noted that she did not see any railings, and inquired whether there were
any plans to install them along the waterfront. Mr. Parker confirmed there would be
safety railings installed along the entire perimeter.
Vice President Cook believed a site tour would be very helpful on this project.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the schedule for this
project, Mr. Parker replied that they would like to enter the housing market in its current
condition and that they hoped to meet a timely schedule. He noted that this was a
complex site to work with regarding cost and structural issues. He encouraged the Board
members to visit the site.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand, Ms. Altschuler replied that there was
currently no requirement for guest parking in the Zoning Ordinance, and that there was a
requirement for two spaces for each unit. She added that the 0.7 parking ratio was slightly
larger than most projects the Board has approved over the last 15 years; the guest parking
ratio is normally 0.5.
Mr. Parker advised that they viewed the parking as being self-contained within the
project, and not dependent on using any of the office parking. The perception of the high
ratio came from the space provided by the garage.
The Board comments were noted. No action was taken. A public hearing will
be
scheduled for a future agenda.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,12,"9-B.
ZA04-0001-Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment/City-wide. Review and
revision of Section 30-6 of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), Sign
Regulations (JS/JA). The purpose of this amendment is to clarify current
regulations and establish internal consistency with various sections of the AMC
with the primary focus on regulations pertaining to Window Signs.
Mr. Cormack summarized the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, PSBA, noted that they wanted the district to look as
attractive as possible during the revitalization process. PSBA did not want businesses
jamming their windows with posters obscuring the business, and which made the
storefronts look junky. He expressed concern about the proliferation of grand opening
signs, and the length of time that they are left up. He believed this ordinance would put
an end to that practice. He noted that PSBA and WABA were in agreement that a grand
opening would last 30 days, and that a permit would be necessary for that signage to
remain up. He supported the Planning Board's recommendation to the City Council to
enact this ordinance.
Ms. Sherry Stieg, WABA, supported the proposed ordinance, and noted that it was the
result of a lengthy collaboration between PSBA, WABA and the Planning & Building
Department.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali regarding enforcement, Mr. Cormack confirmed
that the Code Enforcement Division would be responsible. There was currently one full-
time Code Enforcement officer, and a planner working part-time in that capacity. He
noted that the Planning and Building Department made a commitment to PSBA and
WABA for increased enforcement along Park Street and Webster Street and the revised
ordinance would assist with that effort.
Mr. Piziali believed that the merchants would police themselves.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding window signs, Mr. Cormack
replied that a business would be in conformance provided no more than 25% of the
window was covered by signage. The content would not be examined. He noted that
many windows had more than 25% coverage, and that the merchants in violation would
first receive a letter, and then the fine system would go into practice. He anticipated that
some businesses would not be happy with the new ordinance, however, with the
assistance of PSBA and WABA compliance could be achieved.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham, Ms. Altschuler, replied that the fee
for a sign permit was upward of $200. She noted that it was necessary to put language in
place to address some of the proliferation of the temporary window signs. She noted this
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,13,"AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,14,"9-C.
Use Permit, UP04-0012/Major Design Review, DR04-0099; Tasha Skinner,
Tetra Tech, Inc. For the Alameda Unified School District (Will C. Wood
Middle School), 420 Grand Street (DB). The applicant requests a Use Permit
and Major Design Review to install twelve cellular telecommunication antennae
(4-foot panel antennas) to be located around the top of the school building at the
top perimeter/parapet, plus the installation of a utility shed at the rear of the
building. A Use Permit is required by AMC, Section 30-4.1(b)(3) for approval of
above-ground utility installations for local service in an R-1 (Single-Family
Residential) Zoning District.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 9-C from the Regular Agenda and to
place it on the Consent Calendar.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-02
to approve a Use Permit and Major Design Review to install twelve cellular
telecommunication antennae (4-foot panel antennas) to be located around the top of the
school building at the top perimeter/parapet, plus the installation of a utility shed at the
rear of the building. A Use Permit is required by AMC, Section 30-4.1(b)(3) for approval
of above-ground utility installations for local service in an R-1 (Single-Family
Residential) Zoning District.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,15,"9-D.
Design Review, DR04-0014: Linda Cortez, 1514 Pacific Avenue. Ms. Cortez
is appealing staff's denial of this Major Design Review application (DB). This
application requesting design review approval to raise the existing building one
foot, six inches (1'-6"") and relocate the building two feet (2'-0"") toward the south
(rear) property line to accommodate the elongation of the front stair. The proposal
to raise the building will create approximately 1,618 square feet of new living
space in the basement, resulting in a total completed conditioned floor area of
approximately 3,236 square feet. Staff denied this project because of the
following reasons: 1. The proposal to raise the building approximately one foot,
six inches exceeds the proportionality relative to the upper and lower floors (i.e.,
Golden Mean) by three feet, three inches (3'-3""); 2. The proposal will create an
undesirable massing of the building in relation to neighboring buildings which
appear to be of the same design; and 3. The proposal will elongate the front stair
and create an undesirable massing of the stair in relation to the building. The site
is located within an R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Mr. Brighton summarized the staff report, and noted that the appellants had not presented
any new information since the last hearing when the Board had provided general parking
direction on implementation of proportionality issue, (i.e. the Golden Mean) during
Design Review. Staff recommended that the Board uphold the original denial of the
Major Design Review.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Linda Cortez, appellant, 1514 Pacific Avenue, noted that they were attempting to
preserve their house and maintain the inherent architecture of the house during the
remodeling process. Although raising of the house did not conform to the Golden Mean,
she did not believe it would change or detract from the inherent architecture of the house
in a perceptible manner. She noted that the two adjoining houses next to her house were
not identical to hers, and there were slope differences; she distributed photos of those
houses to the Board. She did not agree with staff's assessment that the addition of two
risers would create an undesirable elongation of the stairs.
Mr. Ian Ordinaria, appellant, 1514 Pacific Avenue, requested the Board's reversal of
staff's denial of raising the house. He noted that the Golden Mean did not necessarily
address the connection between proportionality and beauty, and did not believe it should
be a rule. He did not believe the Golden Mean should be applied to the whole structure,
although it was applicable to elements such as doors and windows. It also was not clear
that it should be the sole standard for a horizontal or vertical measurement, and he noted
that the whole structure of the Cathedral at Notre Dame was not in conformance with the
Golden Mean, although sections of it were. He noted that regarding the neighboring
buildings, they were not meant to be tract homes. He noted that there were more than 20
homes with visually longer stairways than their home within a two-block radius of their
home, including the Alameda Fire House. He requested that the Planning Board reverse
staff's denial of their application.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,16,"Mr. Walter McQuesten, 1416 Pacific Avenue, supported the applicant's project, and
believed their plans would be an improvement for the entire block. He noted that he
hoped to undertake a similar project in the future. He believed the raising of the house
would provide safety from flooding. He supported the reversal of staff's denial.
Mr. Richard Rutter noted that he was an architect, and supported staff's denial of this
application. He noted that in the past, neighbors came to agreements regarding roof lines
and design proportions.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali, Mr. Rutter replied that 16 stairs were the limit
before a landing must be included, and that the applicants were not close to that limit.
Ms. Janelle Spatz, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, spoke in support of
staff's recommendation. AAPS believed that staff's points were valid, and that in the past
contractor Ken Gutlaben had spoken before the Planning Board to say that digging down
was as easy as building up. She believed that should suffice for this project, and believed
the applicants' plans would be visually disruptive.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara whether the neighboring house had a full
unit on the basement level, Mr. Brighton replied that he did not have that information. He
addressed the simple aesthetics of the structures, and the future use of the interior was not
part of the decision. Ms. McNamara noted that there was more than one separate address
on the neighboring home.
Ms. McNamara expressed concern that this house was used in the Planning Board's
discussion of the Golden Mean; this existing architecture already exceeds the Golden
Mean by a significant amount. She was concerned about imposing the Golden Mean on
this applicant given the existing architecture, and did not believe that was the applicants'
fault.
Vice President Cook did not believe there was a reason to make the architecture
proportionality worse, and believed the number of existing houses exceeding the Golden
Mean was one of the reasons for adopting that guideline. She sympathized with the
applicants, but wished to stem the tide of losing Alameda's architectural heritage. She did
not see a unique circumstance to warrant raising the house in this case, and agreed that
digging down was a workable solution.
Ms. Mariani agreed with Vice President Cook's comments. Although she sympathized
with the owners, 1512 Pacific Avenue was a sister house built by the same builder, and is
on the registry. She believed the architectural integrity of this house should be
maintained.
Mr. Piziali noted that he felt for the applicants, and noted that the Board directed staff
that they wished to follow the Golden Mean wherever possible. He agreed with Mr.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,17,"Gutlaben's assessment that going down for the additional square footage would be
workable and cost-effective.
President Cunningham noted that the design guidelines utilized the Golden Mean to aid
staff in regulating houses being raised.
Ms. McNamara inquired whether the Board would issue a blanket rejection, or to use the
Golden Mean in a case-by-case assessment.
President Cunningham noted that context in the buildings was very important in order to
preserve the character of Alameda. He believed that the number of houses being raised
was beginning to erode that character. He did not believe the Board would issue blanket
rejections.
Mr. Lynch believed that excavating down would be a workable solution for the
applicants, and believed there was a difference between how the Board applied the
Golden Mean as a guideline for individual homes. He noted that for the other individuals
who spoke, he would examine every case separately, and would not issue a blanket
rejection.
M/S Mariani/Cook to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-03 to support staff's
recommendation to deny this appeal.
AYES - 6; NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0
Ms. McNamara wished to bring staff's attention to the changes made in Ms. Cortez's
comments for the minutes of the November 8, 2004, meeting in which this item was
heard. She wanted to ensure that those changes were made; the excerpt of those minutes
did not reflect that change. Ms. Cortez's original comments were reflected, not the
amended comments. The correct wording should be: ""She believed that families
attempting to increase square footage to accommodate a growing family should not be
lumped in with houses with many illegal residences.""
Ms. Altschuler noted that the changes had been made, and that the draft minutes had been
included in the packet. She noted that the correct comments by Ms. Cortez would be
reflected in the packet.
Ms. Kohlstrand left the meeting following this item.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 17
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,18,"Page 18
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,19,"Ms. Altschuler noted that she and Mr. Cormack would be retiring within the next three
and six months, depending upon a variety of factors. The City is currently recruiting for a
Supervising Planner to replace her position, and there was a position open for a Planner
III. She added that City Manager Jim Flint has left, and that Bill Norton was acting as
interim City Manager. He had previously been a City Manager in Alameda.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook, Ms. Altschuler replied that Melodie
Bounds had taken a position in West Hollywood. Currently, the Planning and Building
Department planner staff consisted of Dennis Brighton, Allen Tai, and David Valeska
(part-time).
Mr. Lynch believed that the hiring of any planners and the City Manager would best be
accomplished following the hiring of Mr. Fuz's replacement. He noted that contract
planners were useful, but that their training often took time away from already
overworked staff planners.
Ms. Altschuler noted that waiting to hire planners may cause stress on existing planners
and other staff members.
Mr. Cormack noted that the Board members' comments were well-taken and was
confident that the positions would be filled in a reasonable amount of time.
Ms. Altschuler noted that she was most concerned about the public information counter,
and that the planners' efforts were split between working at the counter and writing staff
reports. She noted that the contract planners could work with use permits and variances,
and the staff planners could work the counter. She noted that she recently spent a day at
the counter.
President Cunningham noted that a problem with contract staff was the consistency of
information given to the public.
Mr. Lynch supported enhancing the staffing levels.
Ms. Harryman suggested that the Board agendize this subject for a future meeting.
Ms. McNamara noted that the photos in the Webster Street Design Guidelines were all
black.
Ms. Altschuler noted that staff would review the document and provide more legible
copies for the Planning Board, City Council and the public.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:40 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 19
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,20,"Respectfully submitted,
Jefry Cormack, Interim Secretary
City Planning Department
These minutes were approved at the January 24, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 20
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, January 24, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:06 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Vice President Cook
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand,
Lynch and Piziali.
Board members Mariani and McNamara were absent.
Also present were Development Review Manager Jerry Cormack, Deputy City Attorney
Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Planner II Allen Tai, Barbara
Hawkins, Public Works.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of January 10, 2005.
Ms. Kolhstrand advised that she left after Item 9, not Item 11, as indicated on page 18.
Vice President Cook advised that page 9, paragraph 5, should be changed to read, ""Vice
President Cook noted in San Francisco, the existing piers were left intact and new so that
new structures were proposed to could be built independent of the existing piers-it. She
noted that the cost of removing the old buildings were structures was high.""
Vice President Cook advised that page 10, paragraph 11, should be changed to read,
""Vice President Cook would like a better understanding of the height of the proposed
project in relation to the Extended Stay America building to the west and the office
building to the east, as well as to the buildings located across the Estuary.""
M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of January
10, 2005, as amended.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Mr. Mark Irons, 835 Oak, noted that because of family time issues, he may not be able to
speak about Item 8-b and may submit a written comment. He noted that he was a strong
proponent of work/live. He believed that the current ordinance may be improved, but
noted that the risk of a ballot initiative was having no ordinance at all.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,2,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
TM04-0005 SRM Associates Harbor Bay Parkway (MG). Applicant requests
approval of Tentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels in to nine
parcels. The parcels are located within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are
zoned C-M-PD. Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development District.
(Applicant is requesting a continuance to the February 14, 2005 meeting.)
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board of February
14, 2005.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,3,"7-B.
DR04-0111/V04-0020, 836 Oak Street, Applicant: Richard Vaterlaus for
Michael Rich (AT). The proposal is a request for Major Design Review to
legalize the unauthorized raising of a single-family residence one foot to create
habitable space in the basement. The building height was increased from
approximately 23'-0"" to 24'-0"", where 35'-0"" is the maximum permitted height.
The construction also requires a variance to AMC Subsection 30-5.7(e) to allow a
rear staircase to extend 7'-6"" into the required rear yard, where the maximum
encroachment permitted is 6'-0"". The project site is located within an R-4,
Neighborhood Residential District.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution PB-05-04 to
approve a request for Major Design Review to legalize the unauthorized raising of a
single-family residence one foot to create habitable space in the basement. The building
height was increased from approximately 23'-0"" to 24'-0"", where 35'-0"" is the maximum
permitted height. The construction also requires a variance to AMC Subsection 30-5.7(e)
to allow a rear staircase to extend 7'-6"" into the required rear yard, where the maximum
encroachment permitted is 6'-0"".
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,4,"7-C. UP01-0022/DR01-0089: American Tower Corporation. Washington Park,
740 Central Avenue (DV). Renewal of expired Use Permit and Major Design
Review for 90 foot tall painted metal monopole communications tower in place of
an existing 47 foot tall light pole along the upper baseball diamond left field fence
at Washington Park. Associated ground equipment would be placed in a building
of up to 825 square feet with screen-fenced ground equipment. A Use Permit is
required by AMC Sections 30-4.1(c)(1) and (2) for any structure and above
ground utility installation in the O Open Space Zoning District. (Applicant is
requesting a continuance to the February 14, 2005 meeting.)
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board of February
14, 2005.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,5,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
PD04-0004/DR04-0113, 433 Buena Vista Avenue, Applicant: Alameda
Multifamily Ventures, LLC (AT). The applicant requests a second Study
Session before the Planning Board to review a proposal for the construction of a
two-story 6,000 square foot community building, four 16-car garages, façade
changes to existing apartment buildings, and other improvements at the Harbor
Island Apartments site. The site is located at 433 Buena Vista Avenue, within an
R-4 PD, Neighborhood Residential Planned Development District.
Mr. Tai summarized the staff report.
Mr. Chris Auxier, project manager, Alameda Multifamily Ventures, distributed additional
information that was not included in the first set of drawings. He noted that they had tried
to be responsive to the feedback received by the Board and the public.
Mr. Shaun Alexander, Axis Architecture, project architect, displayed a PowerPoint
presentation that detailed the project overview, improvement of the property's physical
appearance, the pedestrian experience, residential amenities, public safeties, on-site
parking, and transparency with the community. He noted that the existing site limitations
were considerable, and that while was not much room to expand the parking facilities,
they could create a more pleasant environment around the buildings for the residents. He
noted that the interior common hallways, bathrooms and kitchens would be redone, and
that the landscaping would be upgraded and transformed. The carports would be
eliminated except for certain sections along the East of the property, and the parking
would be restriped to meet current standards. A new clubhouse, and four garage buildings
would be constructed; trash enclosures would be upgraded.
Mr. Alexander noted that new lower fences would be installed around the ground floor
patios to provide greater transparency. Because of the proximity to the adjacent street,
some units would feature a more solid fence look. Additional landscaping would buffer
all the buildings, and a substantial number of the trees would be added. A large amount of
concrete would be removed in the walkways and plaza space that the applicants
considered to be unnecessary. Alternative designs addressing the height and style of the
tower element were presented; the size of the tower would be reduced, and the
architecture would be simplified. They considered the gable form to be most consistent
with Alameda's existing architecture features and Craftsman detail in town; however, a
hip roof design was also presented to address the Mediterranean style elements in
Alameda. Another roof form would be added to the tower to the west, previously shown
to the Board as a flat roof.
Mr. Alexander displayed the center part of the site, which they considered to be very
important to the project. A tot lot was proposed directly north of the clubhouse, and a
child's play area would be placed to the south of the clubhouse. A group picnic area
would be placed at the east side of the pool, with a play lawn and volleyball court
adjacent to that. Each quadrant of the property would have its own minipark, off the main
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,6,"spine of activity. The resident activities would take place on the lower floor of the
clubhouse for the tenants' convenience. The plans were changed to eliminate the office
area, and to include a coffee area. The 2nd level patio of the community center was
expanded after one set of stairs was eliminated and a new terrace is proposed as
a
transition spaces between the community center and swimming pool. He noted that the
goal of the landscape plan was to create a greener environment on the site, to beautify the
property with increased foliage, and to reduce concrete paving between the buildings.
Mr. Alexander noted that the carports would be removed, as well as some of the
perimeter fencing to open up the property. He noted that the fence along Appezzato
Parkway would be made more pleasant, with increased connections to the neighborhood.
Additional parking spaces, trees and security lighting would be placed in the parking lots.
He noted that they worked with Carol Beaver and Michael Smiley to better understand
the West Alameda Neighborhood Improvement Plan; they proposed to include two gates
along the Appezzato Parkway fence to allow access to the future greenbelt and other parts
of the community. He described the new location for the trash enclosure, which would
not block other activities on the site and would entail minimal disturbance to the
residents. He noted that approximately half of the carports on the east side would be
eliminated. The vaulted roofs on the remaining carports would be removed, which would
be replaced by a trellis element for a softer look and a smaller visual impact on the
adjacent neighborhood. He noted that the main feature of Quadrant 3 was the connection
to the adjacent neighborhood; the neighborhood plan called for a connection to
Woodstock Park. For that to occur, the City would need to gain control of 25 feet of the
existing Chipman Middle School property.
Mr. Alexander noted that the applicant was concerned about the impact of the Poggi
Street/Buena Vista Ave. curb bulb out proposed in the West Alameda Neighborhood
Improvement Plan on the traffic flow from the site, and would like the City to take that
into account as the Plan is studied. He noted that the applicant's goal was to bring new
life to an older apartment complex, provide a more attractive design and added amenities
for the residents, to increase parking, to upgrade security systems, and to improve site
safety for the residents and the City. The project would be more pedestrian-friendly with
reduced perimeter fencing, more residential design character, increased landscaping, and
more responsive to the West Alameda Neighborhood Plan.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speakers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Carol Beaver, Community Development Manager, recalled the meeting with Sean
Alexander and Michael Smiley of BMS Design to discuss the proposed changes to the
renovation plan. She was pleased with their willingness to consider the suggested
changes. Because the Neighborhood Plan was a conceptual plan, she understood there
would be opportunities to discuss specific site plan changes.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,7,"President Cunningham believed that was a counterintuitive practice in a community
where pedestrian access was encouraged.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,8,"In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding an alternative to this practice, Mr.
Alexander replied that trash enclosures throughout the property would be the alternative.
Mr. Lynch believed that conformity with City Code should be the overriding factor,
followed by design.
In response to Vice President Cook's question regarding parking, Mr. Tai confirmed that
the site was underparked according to Code. Current parking standards require two
parking spaces per dwelling unit, and this property would need 1230 spaces, where
approximately 670 currently exist. The applicants proposed to increase the number of
parking spaces to approximately 699 spaces by restriping the lots and by using compact
spaces.
Ms. Barbara Hawkins, Public Works Department, distributed a photo of a trash
compactor and the access route. She noted that the new NEPDS requirements called for a
roof on the trash compactor to accommodate the truck, which would be two stories. The
compactor must be operated with a key, which would be a safety issue. The third issue
with the compactor is that it did not comply with the City recycling standards. City staff
met with ACI to determine the best solution to the trash issue. ACI had performed a
study, finding that people usually took their trash out when they went to their cars, and
that placing trash containers near the parking areas was the best practice. In addition, the
trash enclosures must be high enough to keep children from playing on them.
With respect to circulation, Ms. Kohlstrand believed that the constraints of the existing
site must be recognized, and that the applicant was going in the right direction by
removing the concrete. She was encouraged to see the connections to Appezzato
Parkway. In response to her question regarding the nature of the breaks in the wall, Chris
Auxier replied that they would be primarily used by the residents. A discussion of the
physical attributes of the fence and the gates ensued.
In response to Ms. Kohlstrand's question regarding pedestrian access at Fifth Street and
Buena Vista, Mr. Auxier replied that was an area where they did not have the intention to
create a public path through the property; it was intended for use by residents.
Vice President Cook noted that there was a broad visual corridor at Fifth Street and
Buena Vista, especially through the pool area. She was concerned that the proposed
garages would impair those visual sightlines.
President Cunningham suggested that the location of the gable ends of the proposed
garages may be changed to help direct sightlines in a particular direction.
Architectural Design Comments
President Cunningham invited comment on the three design solutions for the stair tower.
He concurred with Mr. Alexander that Option 1 would be the preferred scheme.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,9,"Mr. Alexander noted that they could reduce the scale of the entry somewhat, and would
be concerned about making it too short, when juxtaposed against the taller buildings.
Community Center Comments
In response to Mr. Piziali's question regarding the rest rooms, Mr. Alexander replied that
there were two bathrooms to serve the pool, another two on the ground floor, and another
two on the second floor.
President Cunningham noted that a speaker slip was received, and requested a vote to
reopen the public hearing.
M/S Lynch/Piziali to reopen the public hearing.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,10,"AYES - 5 (McNamara, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Mr. Reginald James noted that he was a former resident of Harbor Island, and noted that
the location for the trash enclosure at Fifth and Appezzato Parkway would have to be
moved to accommodate the pathway through Fifth. He believed the northeast corner
would be a good place for the trash enclosure. He did not know whether the concept of
valet trash pickup would be workable. He believed that a recycling location would be a
positive feature on the site. He supported a reduced amount of fencing. He did not
support a high sound wall on Appezzato Parkway, and was not sure how a low wall
would work. He expressed concern about the proposed private walkway. He suggested
placing a walkway between Building 11 (rental office) and Building 12, which already
had a visual connection from Woodstock on Brush.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook, Mr. Alexander confirmed that the
ground floor restrooms would be available to residents. He added that the Code required
outdoor showers for by pool users, and they intended to provide that kind of shower.
Site Amenities
President Cunningham complimented the addition of amenities as requested by the Board
at the last meeting.
Mr. Alexander noted that the inclusion of amenities in each quadrant was at the
suggestion of Reggie James, which he supported.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham, Mr. Tai confirmed that as part of the
conditions of approval, a landscape maintenance agreement would be required. The
agreement would specifically require the applicants to maintain the landscaping; any
neglect would enable the City to improve the landscaping at the applicants' cost.
Mr. Piziali would like to see a condition that all the construction trucks would stay off
Buena Vista and Fifth Street (because of Longfellow School).
Mr. Tai noted that if the applicants needed a construction trailer, its approval would be
subject to a use permit. The operation and functions of the construction trailer would be
reviewed at that time.
President Cunningham noted that the Board would like an indication of the phasing as
well.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding satellite dishes, Mr.
Alexander noted that FCC requirements call for the building owner to place a satellite
dish on the roof for resident accessibility, or that the residents must be allowed to place
dishes on their balconies. They are currently working with a cable consultant (CSI) to
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,11,"negotiate contracts for them, and he added that their current contract was particular
difficult.
Miscellaneous Comments
Mr. Lynch complimented Axis Architecture on its design work, and inquired whether
they would have more design flexibility if they started from a clean site. Mr. Auxier
confirmed that would be the case, but that it was prohibited by Measure A.
Vice President Cook noted that this site was an important part in creating a community.
for the 21st century, and hoped that dialogue about sensible planning can continue in a
constructive way.
Mr. Auxier introduced Michael Lee, the on-site construction and project manager, and
noted that he would be based locally.
Mr. Lee noted that the Board's comments about density were well-taken, and noted that
recent projects he worked on have incorporated the higher density into the designs. He
noted that they have used four-story parking garages surrounded by four-story residential
buildings, as well as three-story buildings surrounding a courtyard. He noted that it was
possible to keep the parking garages out of sight, and that there was no need for off-street
parking. In addition, retail and commercial space could be incorporated as well.
Mr. Lynch believed the remodel should be just as beautiful as the new residences across
the street, and that high-quality design elements were very important in getting the
project right the first time.
Mr. Lee noted that because the foundations and frames were already in place, this project
would be a relatively simple one to manage.
The Board comments were noted. No action was taken. A public hearing will be
scheduled for a future agenda.
President Cunningham called for a ten-minute recess.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,12,"8-B.
Work/Live Regulations (JA). Review and consider possible modifications of
Section 30-15 of the Alameda Municipal Code regulating Work Live Studios.
(Continued from the meeting of January 10, 2005.)
Ms. Altschuler summarized the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Mark Irons, 835 Oak, noted that he lived in a work/live space in Oakland for 10
years, which he enjoyed very much. He expressed concern about placing this complex
issue on the ballot because of possible misunderstanding of the deeper issues. He noted
that any legal issues may delay or indefinitely postpone any work/live spaces. He
believed the current ordinance fell short of its potential, and would like to see it upgraded
to be more accommodating. He hoped the Board would be slow and methodical in
considering the work/live uses.
Mr. Richard Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, spoke in support of work/live uses with
qualifications, and noted that he had been an architect for over 25 years. He noted that
artists and architects were usually the first occupants of a redeveloped neighborhood,
which eventually became upgraded for the use of other white-collar professionals. He
believed that flexibility in planning the larger spaces along the Northern Waterfront and
Alameda Point was appropriate for the community in the long run. He suggested that
Measure A be modified to accommodate a work/live situation within appropriate zones.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Lynch noted that he supported Measure A, and inquired how Measure A and
work/live lofts were in conflict. Ms. Altschuler replied that the conflict did not arise so
much from the legal standing, because work/live studios were defined by both the State
and local ordinances as industrial uses, as opposed to residential uses. She did not believe
there was a conflict from a legal standpoint, although she believed the conflict would
arise from the perception that people still live in those spaces. She added that was the
basis for the argument against the uses as a Measure A conflict.
Mr. Lynch recalled the opposition to the demolition of Victorians in favor of multifamily
housing as being a basis for Measure A. He saw work/live as a reuse of existing
structures because the economics of a formerly light industrial/commercial space had
changed. He did not believe there was a conflict between work/live uses and Measure A.
Ms. Altschuler noted that there would be considerable resistance to any alteration to
Measure A, and that its proponents would not want to risk a slippery slope.
Mr. Lynch suggested that the residential VS. industrial nature of work/live units be
brought directly to a judge to define it once and for all.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,13,"Ms. Harryman noted that the current lawsuit was not the first time the City had been sued
on work/live and how it applied to Measure A. She could not communicate the exact
status of the litigation, and noted that it would probably not be the last lawsuit. She
believed that the existence of the two lawsuits (Edward Murphy and Ms. [Kowicki])
would probably bring the issue before a judge. She believed that Ms. [Kowicki] could
build, because she had the approval of the City, but because there was pending litigation,
it would be at her own risk. She did not believe Mr. Murphy had requested a retraining
order, and believed the judge may be able to overturn the City's approval. She noted that
Mr. Murphy had sued the City on this issue before, and did was not sure whether there
had been a clear ruling one way or the other. She noted that previous cases had either
been dismissed, or the parties had come to an agreement.
President Cunningham inquired what the benefit would be of bringing the work/live issue
to the voters if there was existing case law that would prove the two ordinances were
working against each other.
Ms. Harryman noted that there were pros and cons to bringing an issue to the people
versus before a judge.
Mr. Lynch believed that if a judge invalidated an ordinance, they would provide some
instruction regarding the conflicts contained in the ordinance so that it may be rewritten.
Ms. Harryman noted that judges often rule on other grounds, such as procedural grounds
or standing.
Mr. Piziali believed the ordinance should be left as is, and it may be brought up on a
ballot initiative. He was not interested in changing it at this time.
Ms. Kohlstrand believed the Board was being asked to debate the validity of the
work/live ordinance, when the larger question was Measure A. She was unsure whether
people were ready to engage in debate on Measure A yet.
Ms. Altschuler noted that the ordinance limits a geographic area, addresses zoning within
that area, and then is limited to existing buildings, particularly historic buildings.
Mr. Piziali noted that he would not want to see work/live as new construction; he
supported work/live as adaptive reuse, which was the current basis of the ordinance.
Mr. Lynch believed the voters of Alameda will recognize the common-sense purpose of
the ordinance.
Ms. Altschuler believed that the Board's consensus was that the current ordinance was
appropriate. She inquired whether the Board would be interested in addressing the
geographic limitation.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,14,"President Cunningham noted that he would like to see work/live branch out to Alameda
Point and Park Street. However, he did not want such a step to jeopardize the existence of
the ordinance.
Mr. Piziali believed the residents of Alameda would be able to see that work/live uses
were controlled, attractive and appropriate.
Vice President Cook believed this ordinance was a baby step toward a discussion of the
broader implications of Measure A. She believed this ordinance brought up very
important issues for historic preservation and adaptive reuse at the Base. She did not want
to see the work/live ordinance put at risk by addressing more complex and overarching
issues too soon.
Vice President Cook noted that Alameda's citizens had stopped public processes before
when it became apparent that it would be not be beneficial. She believed that Alamedans
would exercise the same common sense in this case.
President Cunningham noted that an additional speaker slip had been received.
M/S Lynch/Cook to reopen the public hearing.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was reopened.
Mr. Mark Irons, 835 Oak, noted that he was pleased by the Board's discussion, although
he did not disagree that work/live could be successfully extended throughout Alameda
Point. He understood the delicacy of this issue.
The public hearing was closed.
No action was taken.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,15,"9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC.
(Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that the next meeting would be hosted by the Planning
Board in Council Chambers, so that the Board may be brought up to speed and to televise
the meeting. The City Council has voted to disband the APAC at the end of the
community meeting, and had asked the APAC to pass on the information gathered over
its lifetime to the appropriate boards. She suggested that a series of meetings be held to
pass that information on, on a topic-by-topic basis. She suggested that the first meeting be
held before the first community hearing to discuss regulatory issues, in order to bring the
Board up to speed on that information.
Vice President Cook noted that there had been considerable discussion at the first
community meeting about re-examining Measure A as it relates to Alameda Point. She
noted that there was some communication at the second meeting, suggesting that the staff
should not consider a non-Measure A alternative. She noted that a possible scenario at the
Base was being considered that would include some discussion or possible changes to
Measure A for the Base. She noted that was a very controversial issue.
Mr. Cormack advised that Andrew Thomas would make that presentation to the Board,
either on February 14th or 28th, 2005; the 14th was preferable.
b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice
President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there had been no further meetings since her last report.
c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member
Piziali).
Board Member Piziali advised that he had confirmed the continuing existence of the
Committee, although the meetings were on hold at this time, possibly due to a funding
issue.
d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member
Mariani).
Board Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
Ms. Kohlstrand inquired whether it would be possible to receive the Board packets earlier
than the Friday before the meeting. Mr. Cormack noted that the packet had been delayed
to receive late information on Harbor Island.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,16,"President Cunningham recalled that there had been a move to post the packet on the website.
Mr. Lynch noted that staff transition had been discussed during the previous meeting, and
requested that it be agendized for a future meeting, so that the City Manager be able to take
part in the discussion. He believed that a discussion within the next month would be most
beneficial.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Altschuler noted that the continued staffing levels affected the ability to distribute an
email packet, and that they were attempting to maintain the same work product with a smaller
staff. She noted that statutory requirements such as noticing were the first priority of the staff.
Ms. Altschuler advised that the support staff requested that she discuss the issue of Roberts
Rules of Order as they related to meeting minutes. She noted that the Planning Board minutes
were considerably more detailed than what is required, and added that the Council minutes
were shorter and did not provide as much information. In order to provide additional time for
support staff to perform other duties, she requested the Board's input regarding more limited
meeting minutes. She noted that the meeting was recorded on audio and videotape, and added
that lengthy minutes must be reviewed and amended by staff. In addition, there was a
tremendous amount of paper used in the distribution of the minutes.
President Cunningham believed that for study sessions, that a list of bullet points would be
sufficient. Routine items would still be well-served by briefer minutes.
Ms. Altschuler noted that more important or controversial items would still need detail
appropriate to their complexity.
Ms. Kohlstrand supported that suggestion.
Ms. Altschuler noted that if the condensed minutes were not useful, the extended minutes
could be reinstated.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Altschuler confirmed that Building Inspectors
generally dropped the packets off while on their rounds in the field.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:27 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane
Jetry Cormack, Interim Secretary
City Planning Department
These minutes were approved at the February 14, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, February 14, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. Mariani
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,
Mariani, McNamara and Piziali.
Also present were Interim Planning Director Jerry Cormack, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman,
Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Supervising Planner Andrew Thomas, Planner III David
Valeska, Bruce Knopf, Development Services, Leslie Little, Development Services, Eric Fonstein,
Development Services.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of January 24, 2005.
M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of January 24, 2005, as
presented.
AYES - 5; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 2 (Mariani, McNamara)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cunningham advised that a speaker slip had been received for Item 7-B.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-B from the Consent Calendar and to place it
on the Regular Agenda.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Mr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue,
noted that the AAPS submitted written comments for the Alameda Theater proposal. He apologized
for the lengthy comments presented so close to the meeting, and requested email addresses for the
Board members to provide written comments sooner.
Mr. Lynch noted that Mr. Buckley's comments raised the larger question of adhering to the noticing
requirements and the challenges presented by overworked and understaffed Planning Departments.
He noted that some Planning Departments publish their meeting notices two meetings out in order to
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,2,"invite communication and participation from the public.
Vice President Cook noted that it was important for members of the public to have access to meeting
materials, especially prior to high-interest items such as the Alameda Theatre.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,3,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
TM04-0005 SRM Associates Harbor Bay Parkway (MG). Applicant requests approval of
Tentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels into nine parcels. The parcels are
located within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are zoned C-M-PD: Commercial
Manufacturing, Planned Development District. (Continued from the meeting of January
24, 2005.)
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that the number of parcels in the subdivision was listed differently in the
resolution and on the agenda.
Ms. Harryman advised that this item would be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar and renoticed
due to the discrepancy.
M/S Piziali/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue this item so that it may be renoticed.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,4,"7-B.
UP01-0022/DR01-0089: American Tower Corporation. Washington Park, 740 Central
Avenue (DV). Renewal of expired Use Permit and Major Design Review for 90 foot tall
painted metal monopole communications tower in place of an existing 47 foot tall light pole
along the upper baseball diamond left field fence at Washington Park. Associated ground
equipment would be placed in a building of up to 825 square feet with screen-fenced ground
equipment. A Use Permit is required by AMC Sections 30-4.1(c)(1) and (2) for any structure
and above ground utility installation in the O Open Space Zoning District. (Continued from
the meeting of January 24, 2005.)
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-B from the Consent Calendar and to place it on
the Regular Agenda.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Mr. Bruce Knopf, Development Services Department, requested that this item be continued to the
March 28, 2005, meeting to give staff additional time to address comments made recently.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Lil Arnerich, 3275 Encinal, noted that the proposed building was very large, and would encroach
on the park's recreational activities. He noted that the current Board contained five members who did
not approve the original application in 2001; he believed the item should have been discussed
publicly.
Mr. Jay Ingram, noted that while he was the Chair of the Recreation & Parks Commission, he was
speaking as an individual. He distributed packets containing information about the towers. He noted
that since the original agreement was created, several cellphone companies had merged. He inquired
whether a monopole capable of accommodating six cellphone providers was still needed. He hoped
that American Tower would be willing to move the fence and move the container away from the
softball field; the applicant stated that the hum from the container would be muffled. A member of
the public had suggested that the 10-foot container be sunk five feet in order to minimize the visual
impact.
Mr. Jason Peary, project manager, American Tower, noted that they would address the suggestions
made in the comments and that they would work with Mr. Arnerich and Mr. Ingram.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Piziali noted that he spoke with Mr. Ingram the previous week. He agreed that the building's
visual impact should be minimized.
Vice President Cook expressed concern about the visual impact of the container.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,5,"Mr. Lynch would like to see the applicant's business model, including the wave repeater, various
technologies, and the FCC requirements as they relate to the Planning Board. He would also like to
know why this site is critical to the applicant's operation.
Ms. Kohlstrand requested that the applicant respond to the height issues raised by Mr. Ingram at the
next hearing.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board of March 28, 2005.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,6,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
Study Session Theater (DSD/JA). Study Session for a proposal to rehabilitate the Alameda
Theatre and construct a new 7 screen Cineplex and 350 space parking structure on the Video
Maniac site. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the CC-CCPD, Community
Commercial and Special Planned Development Districts.
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that she would recuse herself from this item because she was a principal
with the firm of EnviroTrans Solutions, which performed the traffic analysis for the combined
parking garage/theater analysis.
Ms. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, summarized the history of this project and noted
that the environmental review for this project had been completed. She noted that this project had
three components: 1) the restoration of the historic Alameda Theater; 2) the construction of a new
seven-screen cineplex that would be integral to the historic theater; and 3) the construction of a 352-
space parking garage along Oak Street. The comments of the Board regarding significant design
elements were sought in this study session; a three-dimensional model of the theater was presented to
show the massing elements of the building. She emphasized the importance of the components
working in an integral manner, rather than independently of one another. She introduced the
members of the development team.
Mr. Michael Stanton, project developer, presented a detailed PowerPoint presentation on the
proposed Alameda Theater renovation construction and project site. The presentation included a
variety of buildings in the historic commercial district of varying architectural styles.
Ms. Naomi [Morolio], Architectural Resources Group, gave a presentation detailing the history,
approach and proposed renovation of the Alameda Theater. She described the interior design and
layout features of the theater, and noted that full ADA access would be provided throughout the
theater, as well as structural and mechanical upgrades.
Mr. Stanton noted that this would be one of the most important buildings in town, and added that the
design guidelines included a clear differentiation between the historic portion of the building and the
new construction. He described the layout of the theater and the disabled access, as well as the
supporting functions of the project. He requested Board comment on five principle aspects of the
design guidelines as sent by staff:
1.
Bulk and massing;
2.
Architectural form and articulation;
3.
Lighting;
4.
Signage; and
5.
Materials and colors.
The design team believed that the massing should be oriented toward Oak and Center. They believed
that both facades were equally important in terms of design significance. While the ground level
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,7,"retail, the auditoriums, the second-level lobby, and multilevel connection to the historic theater
should be expressed as individual elements, the team believed the Cineplex should be designed to
read as a single structure. The building also should acknowledge the garage presence at Oak Street.
The design team had six recommendations for the Board to consider under Architectural Form and
Articulation:
1.
The second-level lobby will project three feet beyond the property line at Central to
bring the activity of the lobby into the public domain, and to animate the street.
2.
The strong horizontal line created by the existing marquees will be acknowledged in
the new design;
3.
The design should have continuous fixed glass, metal or concrete canopies to shelter
the pedestrians in the street;
4.
The frontage should have consistent transparent retail (80% of the retail space should
be left open), and the activity of the shops should spill onto the street;
5.
All mechanical equipment should be fully screened from view; and
6.
The individual cinema at Oak and Central should project two feet beyond the
property line to improve the general massing of the theater.
The lighting recommendations were:
1.
The overall lighting should be subdued and indirect;
2.
The canopies over the retail spaces should have continuous downlights onto the
public sidewalk;
3.
Concealed lighting will be employed to illuminate the rosette and the curved section;
4.
Exterior lighting will be controlled on a photocell or a timer; and
5.
Lighting will be available in a vacant retail space.
The signage should be subdued. Materials and colors will use a broad palette that will be consistent
with the range found in the downtown district, and will be of high quality. Metal panels, glass panels,
glass block, architecturally treated and painted concrete, ornamental stone, and masonry units will be
available to the developers.
Mr. Stanton described the parking garage, which will be brought before the Board in more detail at
the next meeting. He noted that gates should not be necessary; there will be six levels, with the
greatest massing in the middle of the block.
President Cunningham advised that seven speaker slips had been received.
M/S Mariani/Piziali and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,8,"Page 8
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,9,"speak.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. McNamara inquired how many seats the theater would have; Ms. Little replied that the main
auditorium would seat 450 people, and that it would not always be filled; it would be able to
accommodate blockbuster films if needed. She believed that the historic feel of the theater would be
evoked through the new design. She described the refinishing and stabilizing processes planned for
the renovation; the estimated cost for the renovation of the historic theater was $5.1-5.2 million for
construction, plus associated soft costs of up to $2 million; these figures do not include the cost of
acquisition; the new construction costs were not included in this estimate.
President Cunningham inquired about the seismic upgrades; Ms. Little replied that ARG had
integrated the upgrades in such a way that it would not detract from the design.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook, Ms. Little replied that there was considerable
original fabric inside the theater; she described the original finishes and previous renovations.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani, Ms. Little confirmed that the study session was to focus on
the exterior of the building. Ms. Mariani supported Mr. Buckley's input, particularly the removal of
the big box and emphasizing the vertical elements.
Vice President Cook wished to ensure that there was easy pedestrian access from the garage towards
the library. Mr. Stanton stated that the garage was planned to be expandable should Long's become
available to the City; the parking would then be available in the center of the block; a second lobby
with a separate elevator and staircase would enable people to exit at the center of the block.
Ms. McNamara expressed concern about traffic impacts on the narrow street and the parking garage
exits; Ms. Little noted that their environmental impact studies would address those concerns.
Vice President Cook expressed concern about the blank exterior walls.
Regarding public art, Ms. Little noted that the historic theater itself would be an art piece; she
described the ""phantom gallery"" program, in which community artists rotate displays of their artwork
in a single venue. Vice President Cook believed the north side of the building would be a good
location for a mural or similar art piece. Ms. Little noted that staff was concerned about a mural
because the project may be expanded and the mural would be blocked.
President Cunningham believed the blank wall should have some modulation.
Vice President Cook did not object to the horizontal nature of the new theater; she liked the idea of
the interior public space along Central Avenue being part of the street scene; she did not like the
large square edifice on the corner. Mr. Stanton suggested that the Board direct the developer's team
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,10,"to present a handsome articulation of the wall so it is not an urban eyesore.
President Cunningham suggested that some articulation be written into the design guidelines to craft
protection of the visibility of the marquee; he did not want to block of the view of the Twin Towers
Church, and believed that scale of the intersection should be respected; he believed this was a golden
opportunity to create an attractive and understated contemporary building that would blend into the
existing community; the lighting plan of the project would be very important.
Mr. Stanton advised that the historic theater can function by itself; however, the Cineplex cannot
function without the historic theater.
Vice President Cook would like the architecture team and the developer to address the corner; she
suggested striking the language in 6-c that stated it ""shall project two feet over the sidewalk""; Mr.
Stanton replied that #6 could be stricken completely, or the wording could be strengthened so that
the false brick materials could only be used after a public hearing before the Planning Board. Vice
President Cook would like more specific language in the materials list; Mr. Stanton detailed some of
the exterior materials.
President Cunningham requested that the applicants speak to City staff to provide specific definitions
as they pertain to the project.
Ms. Altschuler noted that the size of the Cineplex sign was not yet clear; the developers were aware
of the signage requirements in Alameda.
Mr. Stanton described the ticket windows, and noted that purchasing tickets online would be used
more often in the future; Ms. Little noted that they would endeavor to reduce the impact of ticket
queuing as much as possible; bicycle parking would be in the garage.
Mr. Stanton noted that they would incorporate comments from the public and the Board, and return
for another hearing; the garage design would be considered in a separate study session in more detail;
No action was taken.
President Cunningham called for a five-minute recess.
Board members Lynch and Mariani left the dais following the recess.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,11,"8-B.
Theater Overlay District Designation (CE). Recommendation to the City Council to adopt
an ordinance establishing a Theater Overlay District and rezoning certain properties in the
Theater Overlay District designation.
Mr. Eric Fonstein, management analyst, Development Services Department, summarized the staff
report. Staff recommended that the Planning Board recommend that the City Council approve the
zoning text amendment and the reclassification based on the findings contained in the Draft
Resolution.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speakers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Vice President Cook advised that some text of the amendment was not included in her packet.
Ms. Harryman advised that the attached ordinance was included when she saw it the previous week.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of
February 28, 2005 to allow staff to re-circulate the report with all attachments.
AYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,12,"8-C. Design Review DR04-0082; Variance V04-0014; Peter Braun for Michele and Frank
Mulligan; 1608 Santa Clara Avenue (AT/MG). The project involves Code Enforcement
action on an unauthorized conversion of a two car garage in the rear yard into a dwelling
unit. The applicants are requesting approval of a Major Design Review and seven variances
to legalize the conversion. The variances required to legalize the dwelling unit include:
a. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d)(6), for the eight-inch side yard, where five feet is
required for the first story and seven feet is required for the second story.
b. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d)(7), for the eight-inch rear yard, where twenty
feet is required.
c.
Variance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d)(8), for the approximate 15' separation between
the main building and the proposed cottage, where a twenty foot separation is required.
d. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.10(a)(2), for not having a landscaped separation
between the proposed parking spaces and buildings/property lines, where a three foot
landscaped separation is required.
e.
Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.9(f)(1), for the proposed driveway, which is
approximately twenty feet wide, where residential driveways are limited to a maximum
of ten feet.
f. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.10(a)(3), for not having a landscaped separation
between the proposed driveway and the property line, where a one foot landscaped
separation is required.
g. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.6(a)(1), for the proposed three parking spaces, where
a minimum of four off-street parking spaces is required for two dwelling units.
Mr. Valeska summarized the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the Variances and Major
Design Review, and recommended that the applicant explore other solutions as part of the Code
Enforcement.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Frank Mulligan, applicant, detailed the history of this application and stated that he was
surprised to find that the cottage was permitted for a garage. He emphasized that the structure was
never a garage, and distributed an appraisal form to the Board members. He noted that the cottage
was intended to house his mother following surgery, and added that the cottage had always been
there. He noted that he intended to appeal any denial.
Mr. Leo Beaulieu, 1430 Paru Street, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that when his
neighbor built the cottage, it was never intended to be a garage; the builder originally called it a
workshop.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Piziali noted that there were no permits for a house to be built on that site; the permits were for a
garage. He did not believe the structure was built with good workmanship, as stated on the appraisal.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,13,"President Cunningham advised that the Board must act on the Variances and the findings as they
conform to the Alameda Municipal Code.
Ms. Kohlstrand expressed concern about the residential structure not meeting the building code; Mr.
Piziali noted that even in 1984, a house could not be built on a zero property line. He emphasized
that the Board was severely limited in their ability to help the applicant without making the required
findings.
M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to uphold staff's recommendation to deny the Variance and
Major Design Review.
AYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,14,"9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice
President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that they continued to meet monthly, and were preparing for the
workshop on March 3, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in Chambers; community participation was strongly
encouraged.
b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report since her last report.
c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Board Member Piziali advised that there was nothing new to report since his last report.
d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani).
Board Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Presentation in preparation for March 3 Alameda Point Community Workshop.
Mr. Thomas displayed a PowerPoint presentation to provide the Planning Board with a preview of
the issues associated with development of Alameda Point, which will be discussed at the workshop
to be held March 3, 2005. He distributed a hard copy of the PowerPoint presentation and advised
that the presentation and other materials can be found on www.alamedapoint.com. He anticipated
having a preliminary land use concept and a conveyance strategy accomplished with the Navy by
summer. He noted that the four key issues to be addressed at the March 3 workshop were: financial
feasibility, historic preservation, Measure A and transportation. The following workshop at the end
of March will be co-hosted by the Transportation Commission and the APAC, and will focus on the
Estuary crossing issues. He emphasized that the project must pay for itself, and not rely on the City's
General Fund; it must also be fiscally neutral in the long run.
Mr. Thomas detailed the policy background, environmental constraints, land use constraints,
challenges and opportunities of the site. He summarized the issues to be covered during the March 3
workshop, including the Officer's Club, Big Whites, BOQ, historic preservation, transportation
constraints.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,15,"M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to extend the meeting to 11:15 p.m.
AYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Ms. Kohlstrand believed the issue of transportation constraints should be linked to the land use
discussion.
Mr. Thomas noted that no decisions would be made at the end of the workshop.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary
City Planning Department
These minutes were approved at the February 28, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, February 28, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:08 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. McNamara
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,
Mariani, and McNamara.
Board member Piziali was absent.
Also present were Interim Planning Director Jerry Cormack, Assistant City Attorney David Brandt,
Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Planner III Allen Tai, Leslie Little, Development Services,
Eric Fonstein, Development Services.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of February 14, 2005.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of February 14, 2005,
as presented.
AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cunningham advised that a speaker slip had been received for Item 7-C.
Mr. Chuck Millar, 2829 San Jose Avenue, stated that he was in favor of Item 7-C., and did not
wish to speak.
President Cunningham stated that because of the length of the agenda, and the fact that the March 14,
2005, agenda did not have any items, there was a general consensus to continue Item 8-D to the
March 14, 2005, meeting.
M/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to continue Item 8-D to the Planning Board meeting of March 14,
2005.
AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,2,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
TM04-0005 SRM Associates Harbor Bay Parkway (MG). Applicant requests approval of
Tentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels into sixteen parcels. The parcels are
located within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are zoned C-M-PD, Commercial
Manufacturing, Planned Development District. (Continued from the meeting of January
24, 2005.)
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-06 to approve
Tentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels into sixteen parcels.
AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,3,"7-B.
Theater Overlay District Designation (CE). Recommendation to the City Council to adopt
an ordinance establishing a Theater Overlay District and rezoning certain properties in the
Theater Overlay District designation. (Continued from the meeting of February 14, 2005.)
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-07 to approve
a recommendation to the City Council to adopt an ordinance establishing a Theater Overlay District
and rezoning certain properties in the Theater Overlay District designation.
AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,4,"7-C. ZA05-0002, 842 Central Avenue, Central Cinema, Applicant: Mark Haskett (DV). The
Applicant seeks approval to continue to operate a movie theater with up to 49 seats in the C-
1, Neighborhood Business District where a movie theater use is not currently allowed as a
permitted use or as a use regulated by Use Permit. The Planning Board will review and take
action on the following options associated with continued use of this movie theater:
1) Consideration of a Zoning Use Determination that a ""Boutique Theater"" defined
as ""A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for
the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater"" is
sufficiently similar to what is allowed pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code
section 30-4.8(c)(7) which allows by Use Permit ""Theaters with live
performances that are in combination with other permitted uses."" If the Planning
Board determines that a ""Boutique Theater"" is consistent with what is allowed
by A.M.C. section 30-4.8(c)(7), then the applicant will apply for a Use Permit at
a future meeting; or
2) Consideration of an Amendment to Section 30-4.8 (c) to add ""Boutique Theater""
as a use regulated by Use Permit in the C-1 zoning district. ""Boutique Theater
would be defined as ""A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live
performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one
screen in the theater."" If the Planning Board determines that a ""Boutique
Theater"" could be an appropriate use in the C-1 zoning district, the zoning
amendment will be forwarded to Council for adoption and the applicant would
need to return to the Planning Board for a Use Permit following adoption of the
amendment by Council. {Staff requests a continuance to the meeting of April
11, 2005 pending an Initial Study as required by the California
Environmental Quality act (CEQA)}
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of April
11, 2005.
AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,5,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
Study Session Theater (DSD/JA). Study Session to review revisions for Design Guidelines
to construct a new 7-screen Cineplex and 352-space parking structure on the Video Maniac
site. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the CC - CCPD, Community
Commercial and Special Planned Development Districts. (Continued from the meeting of
February 14, 2005.)
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that she would recuse herself from this item because she was a principal
with the firm of EnviroTrans Solutions, which performed the traffic analysis for the combined
parking garage/theater analysis.
Ms. Leslie Little, Development Services, advised that the theater's design would be addressed at this
study session, and that they would present revised guidelines. She advised that Michael Stanton
could not attend this session, and that Brian Lyles would speak on behalf of the project developer.
President Cunningham advised that eight speaker slips had been received.
M/S Mariani/McNamara to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 3 (Piziali absent); NOES - 2 (Cunningham, Cook); ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand)
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue,
requested to speak after the letter from AAPS had been distributed to the Board members.
Mr. Richard Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, advised that he had distributed a letter to the Board. He
noted that there was considerable detail on the exterior, but that there was less information regarding
the interior of the project. If it was a partial package, he believed it should be not as such; if not, he
requested an explanation regarding the missing information. He believed the developer's architect
should be given maximum design creativity within a set of design guidelines.
Mr. Scott Brady, 1812 Encinal Avenue, former chairman of the Historic Advisory Board, noted that
he was an architect. He believed the guidelines were unnecessarily restrictive, and that the wording
in the draft guideline would lead the designer to a design very similar to the elevations in the packet.
He noted that those elevations were labeled for reference only, and should be eliminated from the
packet; the reference design was not compatible with the guidelines and featured a large blank walls.
He believed the addition to the theater should remain secondary to the existing theater; the art deco
architecture were the primary elements on the short block, and any contemporary design would
complicate and detract from the main element of the original theater.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,6,"Ms. Rosemary McNally, 2145 San Antonio, believed that the corner where the theater is located is a
major feature of Alameda; she expressed concern about excessive massing and blank walls with
respect to the theater. She suggested that the large blank wall adjacent to Long's be covered with a
mural duplicating the view of what would be lost. She would like to see the round corner included in
the structure. She did not believe that three-minute speaking time was sufficient for speakers with
detailed presentations.
Mr. Chuck Millar, 2829 San Jose Avenue, believed the massing model made the building look as if it
were bursting at the seams, and that it pushed out in all directions. He believed that community
opinion was overwhelmingly against the ""big box"" look. He supported some reference to the old
building in the new design, and did not see that in this design.
Ms. Annie Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, spoke in opposition to this design, and did not believe it
was beautiful enough for Alameda. She would prefer to see the design created by Timothy Flueger to
be restored to its former glory. She believed the upstairs balcony should be restored, like the Grand
Lake Theater in Oakland. She expressed concern about the amount of parking that would be needed,
and did not believe the proposed parking garage would be sufficient.
Ms. Elizabeth Krase, 2520 Chester Street, AAPS, generally supported this item. She expressed
concern about the two-foot and three-foot projections of the second floor, particularly the projection
at the lobby which she believed would seriously detract from the rounded corner. She did not support
the idea of notching the building back so that people in the lobby could see the round perforated
decorative screen. She did not like the use of metal can letters in the signage; she suggested that neon
signage would be in keeping with the Deco design of the original building.
Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, did not believe the design of the proposed theater was at
all attractive, and believed that there were other good examples of contemporary architecture in
Alameda.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue,
noted that he had submitted a 12-page letter to the Board. He thanked staff for making the two-foot
projection an option, and expressed concern that the guidelines as written could lead to a building
that would resemble the building shown during preliminary studies. He believed that the guidelines
were too specific in some cases. He detailed the redlined text changes to the guidelines from
Attachment A of his letter, and displayed the examples on the overhead projector. He would like to
see the parking garage broken up to appear as if they were individual buildings, as in Walnut Creek;
the guidelines discouraged this approach for the theater. He suggested the addition of text stating that
""the actual design will require approval of the City of Alameda pursuant to the City's design review
procedure, and shall include approval by the Planning Board and Historic Advisory Board.""
Mr. Buckley suggested that the reference to contemporary design be edited, which suggested only
two design approaches; he believed the architect should have more flexibility in drawing elements
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,7,"from surrounding buildings. He believed that the guidelines meant a modernist building rather than
contemporary. He suggested that the overly strong horizontal proportions be toned down for visual
balance with respect to the surrounding buildings; the two-foot projection should be deleted. The
three-foot project should be incorporated as an option to be considered by the architect. He did not
believe the Oak Street side of the Cineplex should be notched to show the parking garage; it should
be a continuous façade. He did not believe this project should have internally illuminated signs, box
signs or individually canned letters; the sidewalk along Oak Street should be at least 12 feet wide to
accommodate any large crowds.
Mr. Arthur Lipow spoke in opposition to this item. He believed that the public funds could be put to
better use than the theater and parking structure, given the current economy of the State and the City.
He believed the East Bay already had too many movie screens, and did not believe it was an
economically viable project.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Little noted that the vertical elements that would require ADA access were in the new building,
not the historic building.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the seating capacity, Ms. Little replied
that approximately 1,100 seats would be installed.
Vice President Cook believed that it was important to be aware of the flexibility of the development
deal, and that the tradeoffs would be reflected in design accommodations in the new building.
Ms. Little noted that the developer and the architect were anxious to proceed with the project, and
added that the comments were very valuable. She noted that the design guidelines were not intended
to become complicated, but were an attempt to get good qualitative comments in the beginning of the
process.
Mr. Lynch agreed with a number of items presented during the public hearing. He did not believe the
allocation of public dollars was within his purview as a Board member; the elected leadership of the
City Council made that determination. He noted that some ideas will not be incorporated, given the
economics of the deal; he noted that the comments presented would be difficult to digest at one time.
He suggested that this brainstorming process would have worked well on the department level, to be
culminated with a session before the Planning Board.
Ms. Mariani agreed with Mr. Lynch's assessment regarding the amount of information to distill.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani regarding the interior design, Ms. Little replied that it
would be presented during the design review.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,8,"Mr. Lynch believed that it was very important to discuss this project at the front end.
President Cunningham believed that a great deal of valuable comments had been made, and that
would be sufficient to start crafting a more developed design. He expressed concern about the corner,
as well as the seam between the new cinema and the old theater.
Vice President Cook expressed concern that the new design would interfere with the rounded nature
of the old architecture evident on existing theater.
Ms. McNamara agreed with Vice President Cook's comments, and believed strongly that Mr.
Buckley's ideas should be seriously considered. She believed the new architecture should reflect the
surrounding architecture that appears in the neighborhood.
Referring to Mr. Buckley's photos, Mr. Lynch liked the manner in which the massing was broken up,
particularly with the parking garage within the City of Walnut Creek.
Ms. Mariani agreed with the other Board members' comments, and cautioned against the building
becoming a large, protruding box on the corner. She requested redlined versions of future documents
so revisions could be easily noted.
President Cunningham summarized the comments by the Board and the public:
1.
A large monolithic box on the corner are not acceptable, whether or not the
two-foot projection was included;
2.
The rosette on the front corners of the existing theater is a very important
element of the existing architecture;
3.
Internally illuminated box signage or individual can letters should be
avoided;
4.
The design guidelines don't give clear direction as to how the signage would
relate in the retail area;
5.
Some language should be added regarding the parking garage and the big
wall, to ensure the designer and contractor are aware of the community's
aversion to a large blank wall; and
6.
Provisions for a mural or some articulation of this blank wall should be
included, as suggested by Ms. McNally.
President Cunningham noted that Mr. Buckley's comments were very valuable, particularly with
respect to eliminating the elevations.
Ms. Little noted that Mr. Buckley's comments and photographs were appreciated.
No action was taken.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,9,"M/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of March 14,
2005.
AYES - 5 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand)
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,10,"8-B.
R04-0002, UP04-0013, V04-0018, DR04-0101: 1410 Everett-Mary Applegate (DV).
Public hearing to reconsider a Design Review (DR04-0101) for the construction of a new
5,300 sq. ft. veterinary clinic on a lot currently developed with a vacant bank building which
would be demolished located at 2501 Central Avenue. The existing veterinary clinic located
at 1410 Everett Street would be demolished and developed as a parking lot. The proposed 23
space parking lot can be accessed from either Central Avenue or Everett Street. The project
also requires the rezoning of an approximately 7,800 square foot lot currently developed as a
parking lot located between the bank building and the adjacent condominium building. The
lot would be rezoned from R-5, General Residential Zoning District, to C-C, Community
Commercial Zoning District to establish consistency with the General Plan. The lots at 2501
Central Avenue and 1410 Everett Street are zoned C-C, Community Commercial Zoning
District.
Ms. Altschuler summarized the staff report. Four separate actions are sought by the Planning Board:
1.
A recommendation on a conformance rezoning;
2.
A decision on a Use Permit;
3.
A decision on a Variance for a second driveway; and
4.
A decision on a Design Review for the new building being proposed.
Ms. Altschuler advised that this item had been appealed to the City Council, who returned the case to
the Planning Board for second review in response to expressed concerns related to the wording of the
public notice. She advised that the original notice was listed as 1410 Everett, the address for the
original clinic. However, the expansion would occur on a site that is addressed off of Central
Avenue. City Council directed staff to bring this item back before the Board as a de novo hearing,
and all four items will be heard as if they were new items. She reviewed the items for the Board, and
emphasized that the rezoning was intended to conform to the intent of the General Plan for that site.
The conformance rezoning was separate from any expansion intended for the veterinary clinic;
rezonings do not run with a use, and are legislative actions that affects all future uses.
President Cunningham advised that numerous speaker slips had been received.
M/S Mariani/Kohlstrand and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN- O
The public hearing was opened.
Dr. Mary Applegate, DVM, applicant, summarized the background of her business and the
application. She emphasized that the clinic was not open 24 hours a day, and noted that a new facility
was essential to maintain their services and level of care. She stated that they made every effort to
design a beautiful and functional building, and added that they employed approximately 15 Alameda
residents.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,11,"Mr. Steve Busse, operations manager for Park Center Animal Hospital, noted that Dr. Applegate is
his wife. He summarized the history of this application, and displayed a presentation of the design on
the overhead screen. He noted that he spoke with Tom Matthews, who lives across the street from
the property; as a result of the discussion, he presented City Council with a modified signage plan
that featured a backlit sign and a change in the elevation on Central Avenue. He also attempted to
contact the individuals who spoke at the Council meeting to get their feedback, clarify any
misunderstandings, and better understand their concerns. He noted that only one person (Joe Meylor)
agreed to meet with him; his primary concern was with the noticing, and he was also concerned
about the building's design. He believed that the neighborhood alert that had been distributed to the
neighbors was a major reason why no one wished to meet with him, and added that it was
inflammatory and inaccurate. He stated that the allegations of criminal activity in the neighborhood
was completely without foundation. The clinic was not open 24/7, and the staff report clearly stated
the hours of operation.
Mr. Busse noted that the square footage of the building requires 22 parking spaces, and 23 spaces
have been included. A large curb cut would be removed, which would replace 2 to 3 on-street
parking spaces. He noted that most of the animals they treated would be in the hospital for a few
hours, and they did not operate a boarding facility; customers would be able to allow their pets to
stay at the facility only if they were existing veterinary customers, and usually because they had
medical concerns about their pet. They will continue to observe their written dog-walking policy,
which includes maintain dogs on-leash, walking only on public sidewalks, and maintaining the dog
on public property. They will pick up their droppings, as well as other droppings that they see while
walking; he noted that their efforts resulted in fewer droppings, not more waste. He strongly
disagreed with the allegation that they posed a public nuisance, and stated that in 13 years, the
practice has been under their management; they received no complaints about noise, smell, or other
aspects of their business practices. The Better Business Bureau report states that no complaints about
their business practices had been filed; no police reports had been filed complaining about their
business operation; the Building Department shows no legitimate complaints about their business
operation.
Dr. Cathy Wydner, DVM, co-owner, described the proposed project and noted that the original
building was not designed as a veterinary hospital. She noted that the dramatic changes in veterinary
medicine necessitate changes in hospital design; 95% of their 3,000 clients live in Alameda, and all
their staff lives in the City as well. She stated that the density was fairly low for the block, and that
the condo across the street had a far higher density; parking was more than what was required. She
noted that the outdoor fenced area will contain most of the dog walking, resulting in a lower
neighborhood impact from walking the dogs.
Mr. Brandon Stanford, noted that he owned a hair salon at 1422 Everett, and leased space at 1414
Everett. He spoke in support of this application, and had never been disturbed by the applicants or
the use in 15 years. Many of his customers had looked at the plans and supported them as well.
Mr. Lawrence Henderson, spoke in support of this project, and believed it would be beneficial for the
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,12,"Mr. Jim Miller, 2508 Crist Street, noted that he was originally opposed to this project; after hearing
the applicants' response to the neighborhood concerns, he is now in support of this project and
rescinded his stated opposition to the project.
Mr. George Borikas, 1500 Gibbons Drive, noted that he owned the four-unit apartment building
displayed by the applicant. He inquired what his rights as a landlord would be if a tenant sued him
for failing to provide ""quiet enjoyment"" because of any excessive noise from the clinic; he inquired
whether the City would pay for his defense should he have a problem with a tenant.
Mr. Erin Beales, 2452 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that he was the
author of the neighborhood alert. He emphasized that he was not trying to close the clinic down, and
read his written statement into the record:
""I'm here to ask you to deny the Use Permit for this project. You sent out
approximately 175 notices to the people in the neighborhood. These notices were to
inform people that there is going to be a decision made by the Planning Board that
can negatively affect their way of life. In essence, you're asking these people how
they feel about this project, and that their opinions would drive the decision of the
Planning Board. In two short weeks, my neighbors and Iknocked on a few doors and
explained to the residents what was being proposed on the corner of Central and
Everett. In the short time, we gathered a list of signatures, almost 50 people that are
within the notification boundary. The other 10 on this list are on the close outskirts of
this boundary. If we had more time, this list would be a lot bigger. This is almost
25% of the notification list that have spoken out with some concern about this
project. The concerns range from obviously my concerns of the dogs being exercised
in the neighborhood, the scale and size of the actual building that close to the
residential neighborhood. And although there are 23 parking spaces, it is going to
have an impact on the parking in the neighborhood, no matter what you say.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,13,"When there are 50 neighbors against an applicant, I would hope that you would see
the light and deny this Use Permit. Let's remember the intended use of this actual
plot is not approved in its zone. That is why they need a Conditional Use Permit;
that's why they're here for that permit. We are here to discuss whether that would be
okay, and clearly, I think it is not. Furthermore, if you decide to give them this Use
Permit, at the very least, there should be a condition written into it that says they must
conduct all business, specifically the dog walking, in a commercial zone, not in the
residential zone next door. So, if they're going to be doing business in a commercial
zone, all of their business should take place there. This new facility, although they
say it does not exercise dogs in the neighborhood, on the layout of the actual facility
that was given to you before, there are 21 kennels in this facility for dogs. Out of 21
dogs at full capacity, I think quite a few of these dogs are going to be exercised every
day. IfI had my dog there, Iwould hope that it got out at least once a day. Currently, I
view this all day long out my front window. They walk the dogs, right in front of my
house and down Regent. And whether they say they do or do not, they do. They pick
up after the dogs, but you cannot extract urine from my lawn. It is detrimental and a
healthy hazard.""
Ms. Heather Beales, 2452 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. She was concerned that
most of the supporters of this application did not live directly across the street from the site, as she
did. She expressed concern that the activities and lighted sign of the hospital encroached on the quiet
enjoyment of her home; she was also concerned about the potential noise of the exercise area, as well
as the increased traffic on Central Avenue. She did not question the character of the applicants, but
did not believe this was the appropriate location for this use.
Mr. Gene Oh, Alameda Bicycle, 1522 Park Street, spoke in support of this application, and noted
that it was difficult to balance business needs with the needs of a neighborhood, especially in the
Park Street area. He believed the applicant needed to expand in order to properly serve their
customers.
Mr. John Barni, 1023 Auburn Court, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that he built the
condominium next door to the project site and recalled the background of this use. He noted that the
sidewalk corners reeked of urine, and recently discovered that the clinic boarded dogs. He requested
that the rezoning of the lot as CC be denied, and was concerned that it would allow many uses that
he did not believe were appropriate to the neighborhood. He believed that it should be zoned
Professional Offices instead.
Mr. Justin Louw, 908-A San Antonio Street, spoke in support of this project, and noted that he could
see the staff walking the dogs from his apartment window. He has also seen the staff pick up after
their dogs and other peoples' dogs as well. He believed the odor came from the ivy on the corner,
because the foliage made it difficult to pick up the dog waste. He noted that the hospital had taken
good care of his dog when it was hit by a car.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,14,"Ms. Shelley Dunn, 1322 Regent Street, noted that she was not opposed to the presence of the
hospital, but was concerned about parking and dog urine on her lawn. She noted that the urine may
not be the responsibility of the hospital staff. She inquired what would happen to the cars current
renting space on that site.
Ms. Kate Pryor, 2063 Eagle Avenue, spoke in support of this application. She noted that she was a
business owner, and believed that the mixed use made the district more vibrant.
Ms. Nancy Matthews, 2450 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and expressed concern
about the impact of this use on the residences. She described the traffic flow in the neighborhood,
and expressed concern about the potential increase in traffic. She did not believe that customers of
the clinic should be able to urge approval of a project they did not have to live with.
Mr. Tom Matthews, 2450 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that 50 local
residents were also opposed to this application. He doubted that the merchants on Park Street would
allow this use. He did not believe this building had any residential character, and that the expansion
was too large for the area. He believed a condition should be added that would require pets to be
walked in the commercial zones only, and that the use to limited to care of sick pets only, with no
boarding. He believed the setback was inadequate, with a one-foot setback from Central Avenue; he
believed the small setback made it incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood. He would like to
see architectural changes that would be more compatible with the transitional residential part of the
neighborhood.
Mr. Joe Meylor, 1361 Regent Street, spoke in opposition to all facets of this project, including the
use, the design and the Variance because the use fundamentally changed the business model of the
business. He noted that a small business would become a larger, wider-ranging facility with many
more uses. He noted that dogs urinated on his private property, which was impossible to clean up. He
stressed that he harbored no ill will toward the applicants, and added that his two cats had received
excellent care at the clinic for the last five years. He understood that he lived in a transitional
neighborhood, but asked that the Planning Board ensured that the residential voice was heard. He
expressed concern about the noise impacts from the use. He noted that the applicants had
misinterpreted his concerns incorrectly following their meeting.
Ms. Monica Peña, 1361 Regent Street, spoke in opposition to this application, and believed it would
negatively impact her quiet enjoyment of her property. She expressed concern that the dogs being
walked in her neighborhood would pose a safety threat to her children.
Mr. John Gruntfest noted that he did not live in the subject neighborhood, and spoke in support of
this application. He noted that all residents had to make compromises. He noted that he was the CFO
of San Francisco Veterinary Specialists, and been in the veterinary business for 20 years; there were
no communicable diseases between animals and people through urine or feces. He had visited the
neighborhood, and believed that the business was very orderly and well-kept; the improved facility
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,15,"was important for the health care of the animals. He noted that the business was located in a
commercial area with surrounding homes.
Dr. Genevieve Manchester-Johnson, DVM, Associate Veterinarian, Park Center Animal Hospital,
16863 Los Banos Street, San Leandro, wished to respond to the residents who believed the
applicants would act in an irresponsible manner. She read the oath taken by all veterinarians:
""Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, Isolemnly swear to use my
scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of
animal health, the relief of animal suffering, the conservation of animal resources,
the promotion of public health and the advancement of medical knowledge.
I will practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity and in keeping with the
principles of veterinary medical ethics. I accept as a lifelong obligation the continual
improvement of my professional knowledge and competence.""
Dr. Manchester-Johnson stated that everyone at Park Center took their oath very seriously, and added
that keeping the neighborhood clean was a very large part of that commitment. She stated they would
never consider walking an animal that would pose a health risk to other animals or people; to suggest
so would be utterly against their oath.
Ms. Helen Mohr Thomas, 3011 Thompson Avenue, spoke in support of this project; she had taken
her pets to the center for 10 years and received excellent care. She believed the business was an asset
to Alameda. She believed the expansion would greatly improve the physical appearance at Everett
and Central, especially the elimination of the long-abandoned minibank. She believed the expansion
would also provide a valuable service to the community.
Mr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, Park Street Business Association, spoke in support of this
application, and was pleased that the project offered more parking than was required. He noted that
the rezoning would bring the parcel into compliance with the General Plan, as well as its intent for
commercial zoning in that area. He added that had been overlooked in the past, and that the rezoning
would correct the oversight. He believed this would be an appropriate use, and that the expansion
was an improvement. He emphasized that this design and application met the needs of neighborhood,
and it would be welcomed on Park Street without reservation. He did not believe that any dog under
the care of the hospital staff had urinated on private property; he suggested that the residents call the
Police Department if they see someone trespassing on their property.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Mariani wished to disclose that she received calls from Mr. Matthews and Mr. Barni; she also
owns three dogs.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding the nature of any boarding services provided,
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,16,"Mr. Busse stated that the business was a veterinary hospital, and that boarding was an ancillary use.
Only medical clients were able to use the boarding services, such as for diabetic dogs that need
medical oversight. Presently, they allow only two spots for boarding, and that boarding was not
available for non-clients; the other four slots were reserved for hospitalized animals. He estimated
that six to eight boarding spaces would be available at peak periods for their medical clients; their
business was not a kennel.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding the exercise area, Mr. Busse confirmed that it
was not a dog run or play area, but an enclosed area where staff members will walk dogs on-leash
one at a time. He emphasized that dogs would not be fenced in unattended in that area all day; it may
take 10-15 minutes for staff to walk each dog.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand regarding the setbacks, Mr. Busse stated that the
building setback at the closest point would be one foot from the property line on Central Avenue.
The property line is 4'2"" from the existing sidewalk, allowing five feet of landscape space at the
closest point; it would expand to a range of 7-14 feet in other areas.
Vice President Cook stated that she had no concerns about the proposed rezoning or about the
design. She expressed concern about the impact of the lighted sign on the residences, and added that
the business hours were generally confined to daylight hours. She was not concerned about the
driveway, but was concerned about the expansion of the use next to residential uses. She noted that
the Use Permit ran with the land, not the business, and did not believe this was an appropriate use so
close to a residential neighborhood.
Mr. Lynch advised that he did not have any concerns with the business operations at this site, largely
due to their business model.
Ms. Mariani noted that this use should blend as much as possible into the neighborhood, and
suggested that mature landscaping be a condition of appeal.
Mr. Busse advised that all the mature trees along the boundary between the property and the
condominiums would be retained; the street trees on Central Avenue will remain as well. He stated
that 24-inch box Chinese elms and Sweet Bay trees, as well as 36-inch box Maidenhair trees were
among the trees being proposed.
Ms. McNamara believed it was important to be more sensitive to the residential design in the
immediate neighborhood.
Ms. Altschuler noted that this was a very contemporary building, and that the reference to Craftsman
style was with respect to the building materials. The condominium immediately adjacent was also a
very modern building, as was the former Central Market across the street. She noted that the Board
may recommend the rezoning without approving any other parts of the application.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,17,"M/S Cook/Lynch and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-08 to rezone the
approximately 7,800 square foot lot currently developed as a parking lot located between the bank
building and the adjacent condominium building property from R-5, General Residential Zoning
District, to C-C, Community Commercial Zoning District to establish consistency with the General
Plan.
AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN- 0
President Cunningham stated that he believed this was a very good project, and supported it wholly.
He understood the neighbors' concerns, and suggested that conditions be crafted to help mitigate the
issues of dog exercise and waste in the neighborhood. He did not believe the veterinary hospital
should be held accountable for other dog owners' actions in the neighborhood.
Ms. Altschuler advised that she had spoken with the business owners regarding that issue, and
suggested that the Board discuss that point with the applicants. She suggested that a compromise be
reached on whether the dogs may be walked only in the commercial areas. She noted that it would be
difficult to distinguish between an employment of the hospital and another person walking a dog
unless some identifying garb were to be worn.
Mr. Lynch noted that he was a strong proponent of the revitalization of Park Street, and
acknowledged that many people walked their dogs in that area. He would not support a restriction
requiring the dogs be walked only in a commercial district because of the number of dogs in the area;
it would be an unenforceable restriction. He suggested that the pets being cared for wore a band that
would identify them as patients of the facility.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that the other veterinary hospitals in Alameda were adjacent to residential
uses, with the exception of the facility on Webster Street. She noted that this neighborhood must
accommodate both residential and commercial uses, and that both uses need to co-exist; she did not
believe the design should be a residential design. She would like responsiveness towards the
neighbors regarding the treatment along Central Avenue, although the existing setback was adequate.
President Cunningham advised that he liked the building design, and believed that the scale of the
design was appropriate for the neighborhood. The parking was supported on-site, and the zoning was
now in conformance with the General Plan. He appreciated the sensitivities of the neighbors.
M/S Lynch/Kohlstrand to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-08 to approve the Use Permit
to construct a new 5,300 square foot veterinary clinic and 23 space parking lot on a lot currently
developed with a vacant bank building which would be demolished at 2501 Central Avenue.
AYES - 5 (Piziali absent); NOES - 1 (Cook); ABSTAIN - 0
M/S Kohlstrand/Lynch and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-08 to approve
Planning Board Minutes
Page 17
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,18,"a Variance to allow two driveways to provide ingress/egress to the proposed 23 space parking lot to
serve the vet clinic use.
AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Dr. Applegate advised that they did not plan to have an internally illuminated sign, and added that it
got dark before 5 p.m. in the winter. She would like to have a backlit sign on Everett Street so that
the sign may be read, but that they did not want to have bright lights in the neighborhood.
M/S Cook/Mariani to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-08 to change Condition 10 to
require that the sign along Central Avenue will not be illuminated; site illumination would be
acceptable.
AYES - 5 (Piziali absent); NOES - 1 (Kohlstrand); ABSTAIN - 0
M/S Lynch/Kohlstrand to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-08 to approve the Design
Review (DR04-0101) for the construction of a new 5,300 sq. ft. veterinary clinic on a lot currently
developed with a vacant bank building which would be demolished located at 2501 Central Avenue.
The existing veterinary clinic located at 1410 Everett Street would be demolished and developed as
a parking lot. The proposed 23 space parking lot can be accessed from either Central Avenue or
Everett Street.
AYES - 5 (Piziali absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0
President Cunningham called for a five-minute recess.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 18
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,19,"8-C.
PD04-0004/DR04-0113, 433 Buena Vista Avenue, Applicant: Alameda Multifamily
Ventures, LLC (AT). The applicant seeks Design Review and Planned Development
approval for the construction of a two-story 6,000 square foot community building, four 16-
car garages, facade changes to existing apartment buildings, and other improvements at the
Harbor Island Apartments site. The site is located at 433 Buena Vista Avenue, within an R-4
PD, Neighborhood Residential Planned Development District.
Mr. Tai summarized the staff report, and described the modifications to the design and elevations.
Since the packet had been sent to the Planning Board, the applicants and staff met to revise some of
the conditions related to the trash enclosures. He advised that on page 4, the first sentence of
Condition 12 should be deleted and substituted with, ""The applicants shall comply with AMC
Subsection 20-2.1, which currently requires the owner or occupant of any premise is to subscribe and
pay for all integrated waste collection..
Mr. Tai advised that Condition 13 was revised to state that ""the applicants shall comply with Section
21-2.1, which currently requires that collection of solid waste from residential areas... ""
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Chris Auxier, applicant, stated that they would be available to respond to questions.
Mr. Michael Yoshii, Pastor, Buena Vista United Methodist Church, and Renewed Hope Housing
Advocates, noted that he attended the West End Community Improvement Project. He noted that the
mass evictions highlighted the need to coordinate the social impact on the community, with respect
to the intent to make physical improvements in the neighborhood. He noted that the impact on the
schools was very important, particularly regarding the anticipation of new residents and new
students. He believed the community needed to be mended following these difficulties.
Ms. Lorraine Lilly wished to address the human factors following the actions of the 15 Group and
the Harbor Island apartment complex, and stated that the mass evictions were dehumanizing for the
400 families impacted by them. She did not believe the human impact was being adequately
addressed by the proposed renovation plan, particularly regarding the disabled population. She
disagreed with the lighting plan, and noted that the visually impaired would not have adequate visual
clarity with the 25-foot lighting plan. She believed the standards of visual accessibility should be in
compliance with the ADA standards. She noted that the planned development did not address
handicapped accessibility for the elevators; no phones were included in the elevator cars for
assistance. She stated that the fire suppression equipment should be adequate for the entire complex.
She expressed concern about the parking plan, and did not believe it addressed the needs of the
disabled tenants; even when they requested parking spaces close to their units, they were not
assigned. She noted that the drinking water was often brown, and inquired whether it was
contaminated.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 19
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,20,"Ms. Modessa Henderson, 465 Buena Vista #105, spoke in opposition to this item and noted that she
had lived at the site for 30 years. She inquired what kind of tenants would live at the complex, and
stated that it had been a family-oriented complex. She believed that there was a great need for
activities for children, if families were to return to the complex. She would like some design
accommodations for the disabled, such as first-floor apartments.
Ms. C. Landry, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted that she had lived in Harbor Island for a
number of years, and was displaced following the evictions. She believed the improvements were
superficial, and believed the plumbing system and sprinklers should be fixed. She noted that several
units had not been repaired following fires.
President Cunningham requested a motion to extend the meeting to a time certain.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani whether this item could be continued to the following
Board meeting, Mr. Brandt replied that if continued, the project would be deemed approved if no
action were taken under the time limits of State law.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to extend the meeting hours to 11:30 p.m.
AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Mr. Reginald James, 1501 Grand Street #E, expressed concern about the physical conditions of the
site, and did not believe the site was up to code. He noted that one woman had been boarded up in
her apartment. He was pleased to see an alternative to the valet garbage plan, and suggested that a
half-court basketball court be installed. He believed the parking should be addressed more
thoroughly, and would like to see a rooftop terrace; he expressed concern about the state of the fire
sprinklers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding how the ADA regulations related to
this project, Mr. Shaun Alexander, project architect, replied that any existing project had issues to
grapple with, and added that this project was exempt from ADA compliance and upgrades because it
was built and occupied prior to 1991. The new clubhouse must be in compliance.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding Code violations, Mr. Tai confirmed
that there were no outstanding Code violations registered for this property.
Mr. Alexander noted that there was a condition in the approval related to sewer testing; the major
problems addressed by the speakers had been addressed, and most of the mains had been repaired.
They were working with the Public Works Department to video the remainder of the lines, and to
make repairs as necessary.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 20
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,21,"In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding recourse available to tenants if a
property falls into disrepair (such as following a repair in an existing apartment), Mr. Brandt advised
that would be a violation of the Housing Code.
Mr. Alexander noted that many of the fires in recent history were the result of arson, not of electrical
problems.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that she had difficulty reconciling the complaints of the residents with the
statements that the buildings were up to Code.
Mr. Brandt advised that there were extensive site visits to the property in November 2004.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani regarding the interior of the building, Mr. Alexander noted
that they were in for permit for interior improvements on the project and that they must conform to
all Alameda and State codes.
Mr. Lynch believed the City was missing a tremendous opportunity to benefit many families in
Alameda, and did not believe this was a Measure A issue. He noted that the remodel did not speak to
possible physical changes that could provide a more live able environment to families, which he
believed was a gross oversight by the City.
Vice President Cook appreciated some of the changes made to the design in response to the Board's
comments. She expressed concern that the use of architectural elements were not fully utilized to
create more individuality in the buildings; some of the structures still looked monolithic. She noted
that the use of entry pylons still connoted the gated effect, which she had opposed in the earlier
sessions. She was still uncomfortable with the design, and did not believe sufficient changes had
been made since December 2004.
Ms. McNamara believed some of the wording in the staff report could be improved, and noted that
page 4, Items 6 and 7, stated that ""The applicant shall coordinate with the Police Department as an
effort to try and improve public safety in the facility."" She did not believe that wording held the
applicant accountable for not complying, and believed that stronger language should be used to
ensure compliance.
Mr. Auxier noted that he spoke to Officer Hisher, and did not object to the letter; the flexible
wording was meant to allow further discussion by the Police Department and the applicant. He noted
that they had not yet found a solution to the trash enclosures.
Mr. Tai advised that staff and the applicants had been in ongoing coordination with the Police
Department with respect to the Police Department's specific recommendations, such as size of
addressing, and location of ""No Trespassing"" signs.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 21
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,22,"Ms. McNamara wanted to ensure that the relationship between the Police Department and the
applicant did benefit the citizens of Alameda, and would rebuild the credibility for public safety in
that area.
Mr. Tai advised that that condition stated that it would be to the ""satisfaction to the Chief of Police
and the Planning and Building Director,"" and there would be sufficient flexibility to require
compliance on these recommendations.
Mr. Lynch believed that Ms. McNamara referred to the property management aspects of this project.
Ms. McNamara believed that staff's condition of approval requiring a landscape and common area
maintenance agreement between the property owners and the City to ensure diligent maintenance
should be an ongoing effort. She believed the ongoing maintenance of the property was critical to the
success of the project and the surrounding area.
President Cunningham suggested the addition of a maintenance agreement for the swimming pool,
and believed that was central to the development.
Mr. Tai advised that page 5 contained a condition relating to the landscape and common area
maintenance agreement, which is recorded with the property at the County Recorder's office. The
applicants would be required to maintain the property; if that did not happen, the City would have the
right to make the improvements at the applicants' cost. The common area included the swimming
pool, the proposed tot lots and other play areas, and all the other open space.
Ms. Mariani noted that she was not prepared to approve this project.
Ms. Kohlstrand believed that changing the approach towards trash containment was generally a good
change, but that it was unfortunate to see the huge trash container at the end of the walkway near
Fifth Street. She would like to see that container relocated to a less visible area. She believes that the
project sponsor had made some compromises, and added that there were still residents in the
complex. She believed it was extremely important to ensure the buildings were not in disrepair.
Mr. Tai advised that he had spoken with the Code Compliance Division earlier in the day; they
advised that a complaint had been filed on February 18, 2005. The complaint was vague, and it was
not logged and registered as a specific complaint. Technically, there were no outstanding violations.
Mr. David Blackwell, representing the applicant, wished to give credit to City staff for their tireless
work on this application, as well as the Planning Board. He had discussed the conditions of approval
with staff, and believed that they were now in accordance. He emphasized that the interior
improvements had nothing to do with the application before the Board at this time. He requested that
Condition 25 (Public Art fee) be removed, and added that Mr. McFann estimated it would come to
approximately $6,000. He believed that this project did not fall within 30-65 because it was not a
Planning Board Minutes
Page 22
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,23,"new commercial, industrial, or municipal project; because it only addressed the community center.
He spoke with the City Attorney regarding Condition 27 (""hold harmless""), and understood that it
meant that if the application were to be approved, and someone sued the City stating that the
approval was wrong, the applicant would pay for the defense. That indemnification did not relate to
any other issues not related to this approval.
M/S Kohlstrand/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-09 to approve a Design
Review and Planned Development for the construction of a two-story 6,000 square foot community
building, four 16-car garages, facade changes to existing apartment buildings, and other
improvements at the Harbor Island Apartments site.
AYES - 4 (Piziali absent); NOES - 2 (Cook, Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 23
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,24,"8-D.
ZA05-0003 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment/City-wide (JC/JA) Phase II of proposed
revisions to the Development Regulations (ZA05-0003) contained within Chapter XXX of
the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance
with respect to building height limits and number of stories; exceptions to minimum side
yard requirements for additions to existing residences, provide a definition for ""replacement-
in-kind"", off-street parking regulations and simplifying reconstruction of non-conforming
residential structures.
M/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to continue Item 8-D to the Planning Board meeting of March 14,
2005.
AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 24
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,25,"9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice
President Cook).
M/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of
March 14, 2005.
AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).
M/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of
March 14, 2005.
AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
M/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of
March 14, 2005.
AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani).
M/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of
March 14, 2005.
AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
10.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
11.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:34 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary
City Planning Department
Planning Board Minutes
Page 25
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,26,"These minutes were approved at the March 14, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 26
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-03,1,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting
Monday, March 3, 2005 - 6:30 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
6:30 p.m.
2.
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Mayor Beverly Johnson, President Andrew Cunningham and Chair Lee Perez welcomed
everyone to the workshop.
3.
ROLL CALL: Mayor Beverly Johnson, Andrew Cunningham, Anne Cook,
Rebecca Kohlstrand, Lee Perez, Diane Lowenstein, Elizabeth Johnson.
Also present were Andrew Thomas, Steven Proud, Project Manager, Jim Adams, ROMA
Design Group, Walter Rask, ROMA Design Group, Frederick Knapp, Page & Turnbull,
Melissa Boudreau, Page & Turnbull (Project Manager), Jim Musbach, Economic
Planning Systems, Andrew Barnes, Economic Real Estate Consultant, Matthew
Ridgeway, Fehr & Peers, Seleta Reynolds, Fehr & Peers, Peter Russell, Russell
Resources.
4.
PRESENTATION OF PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS FOR
ALAMEDA POINT
Mr. Andrew Thomas noted that ROMA Design Group would make a presentation, and
public comment would be taken after the presentation. He noted that the results of the
community discussions held at the previous two workshops were available on the City
website. He noted that a Preliminary Draft Development Concept would be developed
soon, based on a financially feasible development concept for the Base. Development
alternatives would also be explored. He described the future timeline of the development
and environmental review process, and encouraged public feedback regarding the
information on the website. He encouraged residents to take advantage of the Base tours
provided by the City.
Mr. Walter Rask, ROMA Design Group, presented a PowerPoint presentation.
5.
COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION
A community member noted that the O Club was a beautiful building that needed
upgrading, and that it had historic value. He believed it was worth keeping, and believed
the Big Whites were more trouble than they were worth.
Mr. Thomas noted that the O Club served as a functioning social center in Alameda.
A community member thanked staff for the additional options, and inquired whether the
non-Measure A-compliant option would be affected by the groundwater contamination.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
March 3, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-03,2,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
He inquired whether a constrained view of the economic viability of the project was
being presented.
Mr. Stephen Proud noted that they were concentrating on the Phase I plan, but that there
was flexibility in the later phases. The timing of the property delivery was an important
part of the economic analysis.
A community member favored the non-Measure A-compliant options, and believed that
increasing the density and value of the options would be positive. He inquired about the
effect of the number of parkland acreage on the acres-per-thousand-population. He
inquired about the $22 million deficit.
Mr. Thomas noted that the Citywide analysis had not been performed, although a similar
open space analysis in the 2003 General Plan Amendment EIR had been performed.
Mr. Proud noted that there was no $22 million slush fund attached to the project, and
explained the expenditures needed to service the project.
A community member appreciated the contrasts between the Measure A and non-
Measure A options. She favored seamless integration, vibrant new neighborhoods,
establishing neighborhood centers, and did not see those items in either options. She
would like to see a design that worked with the mitigations that would also be
economically feasible. She did not believe that Phase I followed good planning
principles, and was disappointed in the design.
A community member thanked staff for the illustrations of how the project would look if
Measure A was modified. She preferred single-story residence designs.
Mr. Proud noted that the City would acquire all the buildings when the Navy completes
the ownership transfer; they are currently being leased, which is the chief source of
revenue to offset the costs.
A community member inquired about the time lag between property expenses and
property sales, and how the money was made up.
Mr. Proud noted that was the reason for having a Master Developer, who was responsible
for putting in the backbone infrastructure and preparing for later property owners.
A community member inquired about transportation on the Base, and inquired whether
there would be bike trails. She inquired whether the parking would be maintained, and
suggested that one of the large hangars could be used to accommodate large events.
Mr. Thomas noted that bike routes were planned and that the site would be bike-friendly.
The transportation program would be examined at the March 23, 2005 workshop.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
March 3, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-03,3,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
A community member inquired about the Phase I development, and the housing density
in that phase. She inquired whether there would be any innovative or eco-friendly
architecture.
Mr. Walter Rask noted that the density would be approximately 12 units per acre, which
was roughly comparable to Bayport. He noted that there would be no walls, and that the
blocks would be exterior-oriented; there would be no gated portions of the neighborhood.
The buildings would feel very public and friendly in nature. There was an overall goal of
the project to achieve sustainability objectives; green building measures and recycling
would be used.
A community member supported retaining the Enlisted Men's Quarters, and believed that
turning them into condos may bring more diverse populations into Alameda. She inquired
about the contamination on sites for non-Measure A and commercial uses. Mr. Rask
displayed the mixed use areas, and noted that conventional housing would not be possible
in that area if there was groundwater contamination.
A community member inquired about the groundwater and soil contamination, and
suggested that those areas not be developed until the contamination was cleaned up.
Mr. Russell noted that the contamination in the Phase I area was relatively minor, and
described its nature in detail. A non-Measure A-compliant design would allow for
podium parking on the ground, with the residences on top; the chemicals would never
reach the residences. Among the chemicals were dry cleaning solvent, nail polish
remover, gasoline.
A community member inquired whether PAHs were in the ground water. Mr. Thomas
replied that they were not water-soluble and were not a groundwater issue.
A community member inquired about how malleable the wildlife refuse was to being
moved.
Mr. Proud noted that the issue of wildlife transfer is an issue of property transfer between
agencies, to the Veterans Administration rather than Fish & Wildlife.
A community member noted that he was a real estate consultant, and noted that a
relatively good job had been done in this project. He noted that the lagoon was a
significant amenity. He believed that plan was biased toward single-family housing, and
noted that high-rise residences had been built successfully in San Diego. He believed the
commercial land sale figures were optimistic. He expressed concern about the
transportation linkages. He proposed that the lagoon and the golf course be linked.
A community member noted that the main advantage of Measure A was the greater
diversity of housing, including middle-level housing.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
March 3, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-03,4,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
A community member inquired what kind of planning overview was used to create
community activity hubs, and did not see those hubs in this plan.
Mr. Adams described the 1400 housing units, and noted that a series of smaller retail
center could not be supported.
Mr. Christopher Buckley noted that there was an assumption that the grade must be
raised due to the 100-year flood, and suggested the use of a levee. He inquired how
115,000 square feet of retail was derived, and how much of the anticipated retail demand
from the residential uses would be absorbed by that retail.
Mr. Thomas noted that the levee question was examined, and that they decided to raise
the level instead, rather than create a seawall along the edge of the site. He noted that
would create a visual barrier to the water.
Mr. Proud noted that they had to compact the bay mud to accept more load.
Mr. Rask noted that they did not wish to overbuild the retail spaces, nor did they wish to
cannibalize other retail areas in Alameda.
A community member noted that the new residents would also need libraries, schools and
youth centers, and inquired where they were included in the plan.
Mr. Thomas replied that community centers were programmed into the project, including
the O Club and the original Navy Mess Hall. Police and fire services were included in the
financial pro forma, as well as a small library. He noted that once the planning became
more solidified, they would address the impact on the school district in more detail.
A community member noted that the Big Whites would involve an expensive process,
and inquired why they were included in the non-Measure A option if they would
handicap the option.
Mr. Rask noted that they had not reconciled all the elements of that plan yet, and they
were working with the first version of the financial details.
A community member noted that she was recently appointed to the HAB, and had taken
the tour, which she believed was very illuminating. She believed that the air traffic
control tower should be retained on the site. She believed it was emblematic of the
purpose of the Naval Air Station and should be added. She noted that there were
discussions to extend the live/work boundaries to Alameda Point, which would give more
flexibility to the reuse of the site.
Tim Royal, Pastor, All Nations Fellowship, would like the character of Alameda to carry
on to Alameda Point. He noted a lack of churches on Alameda Point.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
March 3, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-03,5,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
Mr. Adams noted that several sites were identified for being suitable for churches, and
pointed them out on the site plan.
A community member thanked staff for exploring Measure A and mixed use possibilities.
He expressed concern about the phrase ""less clean housing,"" and took offense to the
concept and the language.
Mr. Proud reassured the audience that that wording was not intended to cause offense,
and described the Restoration Advisory Board's role in site remediation. He added that
they did not blindly follow the Navy's directives. He noted that part of the cleanup
process may be privatized, and that unsuitable sites would not be used to residential
reuse.
Mr. Adams noted that lead paint had historically been used at Alameda Point, and that
demolition of such buildings and remediation was very closely regulated. He noted that
lead was not easily water-soluble, and that it could easily be scraped from the surface of
the soil.
A community member inquired how they determined the value from the sale of the land.
Mr. Proud described how the residential land values were determined, and added that the
master plan developer was instrumental in that determination.
Mr. Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope, inquired why the $54 million for the affordable
housing component was a public cost, and believed that should be the developer's
responsibility.
Mr. Thomas noted that was a developer cost and part of the overall financing of the
project. Mr. Rask noted that it was a project cost, not a public cost.
A community member inquired about the different traffic scenarios and whether the cost
of traffic was figured into the project costs; he inquired whether the low traffic scenario
would lead to increased savings. He inquired whether any information was available on
the price ranges for the market-rate units.
Mr. Rask noted that the typical single- and multi-family house trip generation analysis
was used.
Mr. Bill Smith noted that he had information about a potential investor in the
Brownfields project.
Reverend Pamela Kerst, Twin Towers United Methodist Church, apologized for her
earlier flippant remarks regarding the churches on Alameda Point. She inquired how
economic diversity was measured for moderate- and low-income public employees, and
how they fit into Measure A and affordable housing. She inquired whether the minimum
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
March 3, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-03,6,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
required by law would be provided, or if more would be provided. She inquired about
Mr. Adams' definition of ""eco-friendly."" She recalled Mr. Proud's comments about
landfill on the flood plain, and whether that would be eco-friendly.
Mr. Thomas noted that the actual affordable housing breakdown would be provided at the
next workshop.
Mr. Adams noted that much work must still be done in terms of defining the standards
that will be put in place for green building and eco-friendly design. He noted that this
piece of land was being recycled, and that they were exploring the idea of transit-oriented
development. Their goal was to create a development that would depend on
transportation means other than the automobile. He noted that the standards for building
materials and energy use were still being developed.
Ms. Eve Bach inquired whether there was an assumed reduced income expectation on the
affordable housing, and whether that amount to a double accounting.
Mr. Rask replied that it was shown as a cost because the revenues do not cover the cost of
building the unit. He noted that they were being sold for less than what they cost.
Ms. Bach inquired about the estimated acreage and cost of parking would be, and
whether the supporting studies would be available online.
Mr. Adams, ROMA, replied that there was a vast amount of information, and noted that
requests for backup information could be made at his email address. He noted that the
project required parking for the viability of each land use was used in the analysis. Each
unit had its own parking, whether in garages or parking structures.
A community member inquired whether institutional controls and land use restrictions
would be attached to Phase I. He found it difficult to believe that the impact to the school
district was not included.
Mr. Peter Russell replied that Alameda's Marsh Crust Ordinance already applied to all of
Alameda Point. There may be additional institutional controls is specific areas, and there
may be no residential planned for other areas. There may also be prohibition against
digging below a certain depth. He added that the need for another school will be
analyzed, and that millions of dollars of school impact fees were included.
A community member inquired whether the income from the affordable housing was
included in the assumptions.
A community member whether it would be possible for individuals to buy lots. Mr.
Adams replied that it was managed by a master developer because of the very large
infrastructure cost, approximating $100 million; it was not the kind of project that would
lend itself to individual lot sales.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
March 3, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-03,7,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
A community member inquired whether there would be any further delay in the transfer
of the Base, and noted that in 1997, the Big Whites were sold to them as a major part of
the project. He believed the project was too packed together, and added that he had
served on the Base during his military career. He was shocked at the state of several
historic buildings that had been vandalized before the property was taken over.
Mr. Proud noted that the delay in the conveyance would have a significant impact on
project economics. They had worked very cooperatively with the Navy with respect to
Alameda Point, and their open approach during negotiations would be beneficial to the
conveyance transfer.
A community member inquired whether the 1% for public art was included in the overall
cost. Mr. Thomas indicated that it was.
A community member expressed concern about the middle-income units, and noted that
the Warmington Homes were no longer middle-income homes.
Ms. Lucy Gigli inquired about the comparison of the value of the difference properties on
the site. She expressed concern that the multifamily units were all bunched together,
which increased the density of those blocks. She would like to see pockets of multifamily
housing, as well as an evaluation of the mixing of the retail uses, and noted that Bayport
and Coast Guard Island don't have any corner stores or cafes.
Mr. Thomas noted that there were combination duplex/small retail possibilities.
A community member inquired what an in-law unit was. Mr. Thomas replied that it was a
small unit on the same lot, usually a loft or one-bedroom unit. She suggested that the
name be changed because in-law unit implied a non-approved unit. Mr. Thomas noted
that the in-law terminology would be changed to ""secondary unit.'
PUBLIC COMMENT WAS CLOSED.
President Cunningham noted that it was important to clearly identify the goals of the land
use, and that there were some misunderstandings about the use. He suggested that use of
a ""laundry list"" to identify what will be provided. He believed it was important to
understand the fiscal impacts of the existing structures on the final picture. He believed
that social and ecological responsibility was important, and that a sustainable ordinance
should be examined if the community wished to engage in sustainable design.
Ms. Kohlstrand believed that a Measure A-compliant option should be examined, and
that the density and patterns of development on the Island as a whole should be examined
as well. She believed that mixed use and the mix of patterns on the blocks should be
looked at, and that the density should be served by transit. She supported the non-
Measure A-compliant option, and examining how the transportation network fit in.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
March 3, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-03,8,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
Ms. Konrad expressed concern that the Community Reuse Plan and the General Plan both
call for walkable neighborhoods on Alameda Point, and did not see that in this plan. She
believed that neighborhood centers should be developed so residents could walk to them.
She believed the open space should be usable.
Mr. Lee Perez thanked the audience for their comments, and noted that the web page
contained a great deal of information on the project. He encouraged the residents to
remain proactive in communicating with staff and commissioners during this process.
Mr. Thomas invited additional public comments to be addressed to the City by phone,
mail or email. He noted that the entire presentation and maps would be posted on the
website. He noted that the Navy always attended the RAB meetings.
6.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary
City Planning Department
These minutes were approved at the April 11, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
G:\PLANNING\PB\Agendas_Minutes\Minutes.05\March 3_Spec.dod
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
March 3, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-14,1,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, March 14, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:05 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. McNamara
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, and
McNamara.
Board members Lynch, Mariani and Piziali were absent.
Also present were Interim Planning Director Jerry Cormack, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman,
Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Planner III David Valeska, Leslie Little, Development
Services.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of February 28, 2005.
Mr. Cormack advised that staff distributed revised pages of the minutes to the Board; page 3, Item 7-
A reflected the change of number of parcels from nine to 16 parcels. Pages 19 and 20 contained
corrected wording for the motions to more accurately reflect the Board's intentions.
M/S McNamara/Cook and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of February 28, 2005,
as presented.
AYES - 4 (Lynch, Mariani, Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION None.
Mr. Sam Caponio, 1316 Hanson Street, expressed concern about the limited ingress and egress from
the Island and the state of the infrastructure. He noted that the traffic congestion had been serious for
some time, and would like to see the issue of Island access and infrastructure be agendized for Board
discussion.
President Cunningham noted that there would be a Transportation Commission public hearing on
March 23, 2005.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
March 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-14,2,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
TM04-0005 SRM Associates Harbor Bay Parkway (MG). Applicant requests approval of
Tentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels into nine parcels. The parcels are
located within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are zoned C-M-PD, Commercial
Manufacturing, Planned Development District. (Continued from the meeting of January
24, 2005.)
President Cunningham advised that the applicant requested continuance of this item, and that the
motion from the last meeting must be rescinded because it did not reflect the applicant's request of
the City.
Mr. Cormack advised that the item was readvertised for this meeting.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to rescind the prior action taken by the Planning Board at the
meeting of February 28, 2005, and to continue this item to the meeting of March 28, 2005.
AYES - 4 (Lynch, Mariani, Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
March 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-14,3,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
Study Session Theater (DSD/JA). Study Session to review revisions for Design Guidelines
to construct a new 7-screen Cineplex and 352-space parking structure on the Video Maniac
site. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the CC - CCPD, Community
Commercial and Special Planned Development Districts. (Continued from the meeting of
February 28, 2005.)
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that she would recuse herself from this item because she was a principal with
the firm of EnviroTrans Solutions, which prepared the traffic analysis for the combined parking
garage/theater analysis.
Ms. Leslie Little, Development Services, advised that with Ms. Kohlstrand's absence from the
discussion, there would not be sufficient Board members to act on this item at this time.
Ms. Cormack advised that because Mr. Lynch had not yet arrived, there would not be quorum for this
item, and suggested that Item 8-B be heard before Item 8-A.
President Cunningham advised that public testimony would be heard, and that no action would be
taken by the Board. The item would be heard by City Council on Tuesday, March 15, 2005.
Ms. Little provided a status update on the theatre design following the last public testimony and
Board comments. She noted that concerned parties would like the word ""contemporary"" to be
removed from any description of the building; the balance of the definition came from the Secretary of
the Interior's standards, including the word ""contemporary."" Item C-3 specified a general vertical
emphasis, and she did not believe that there was community consensus regarding that design element.
Item C-4 addressed the lobby projection on the second floor, and she believed that element has
engaged people's imaginations about the additional activity at the theater. Other issues included
studying the public space along Oak Street, widening the sidewalks; public parking and a bike route
would be accommodated along the street. Bike racks would be included in the parking garage.
Mr. Michael Stanton, project architect, provided an update on the parking structure.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Carl Minns, 1820 Hibbard Street, would like to see a more pragmatic approach for a theater,
with no more than three screens. He would like to see an emphasis on the restoration and
preservation of the existing theater.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
March 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-14,4,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
Mr. Richard Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, noted that he was not speaking for the AAPS at this time,
and noted that Oak Street was very narrow. He believed that Oak Street was overloaded with
pedestrians and bicycle traffic, and that the traffic on Oak Street would become more congested. He
suggested that the City pick up an underdeveloped strip of land from Video Maniacs to Santa Clara in
order to widen the public right-of-way on the street.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, AAPS, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, noted that they submitted comments to
the Board and summarized the significant issues. He did not want the design to be too modernistic.
Regarding his discussion with Cynthia Eliason regarding the Secretary of Interior standards, Ms.
Eliason raised the question whether the Cineplex and the parking garage were actually subject to
those standards; she would check with the City Attorney regarding that question. He suggested that
all references to those standards be deleted. He suggested that the reference to the 20-inch projection
continue to be deleted in the document. AAPS believed the upper-level lobby was a potentially
intrusive element that would upstage and block views of the historic theater. He suggested that the
sidewalk be at least 12 feet wide. He noted that Attachment 3 addressed a parking garage in Stanton,
Virginia, and would be a good model for the subject garage.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, agreed with Mr. Buckley's comments. He would like
Oak Street to be changed into a pedestrian mall by removing the parking; this would be necessary for
bike safety. He supported lockable bike lockers in the garage,
Ms. McNamara left the meeting at this time.
Ms. Elizabeth Krase, 2520 Chester Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and believed that the
Secretary of Interior's standards applied to the Cineplex, but not the garage. She believed the
projections on Central Street did not comply with those standards. She believed the rosette design
element was very important. She believed the glazed lobby would obscure the pedestrian's view of
the historic portion of the building.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Cunningham did not believe it would be negative to have a contemporary piece of
architecture in the City, if it was included in the HBS guidelines.
Vice President Cook did not object to a contemporary design, or the inclusion of the word in the
guidelines. She believed that a very vertical design detracted from the verticality of the theater.
President Cunningham suggested that the inclusion of a vertical emphasis be optional, rather than
mandatory. He would like to see a design developed, and then discuss the rationale behind it to make
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
March 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-14,5,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
progress on the project.
Vice President Cook agreed, and would like the architecture team to solve the issues of the
projections. She agreed with Ms. Krase that the rosette was very important. She would like more
information on the view impact of the projection. She did not favor design by committee, which
would result in a hodge-podge design.
No action was taken.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
March 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-14,6,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
8-B.
ZA05-0003 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment/City-wide (JC/JA) Phase II of proposed
revisions to the Development Regulations (ZA05-0003) contained within Chapter XXX of the
Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance with
respect to building height limits and number of stories; exceptions to minimum side yard
requirements for additions to existing residences, provide a definition for ""replacement-in-
kind"", off-street parking regulations and simplifying reconstruction of non-conforming
residential structures. (Continued from the meeting of February 28, 2005.)
Mr. Cormack advised that this item had been before the Board previously when Phase I of the
Development Code revisions were reviewed. Five items were deferred to Phase II at that time. He
noted that before the Phase II items were taken before the City Council, a Customer Service
Committee for the Permit Center had been organized; they identified the Code Amendments as being
important and requested time to address the Board. The parking issue would be the primary focus; the
Mayor suggested that tandem parking be examined during Phase II review. He advised that Council
had not yet seen the Board's previous recommendations on Phase II.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue,
advised that the Customer Service Improvement Group included two AAPS members who had
submitted comments. AAPS requested that the changes be amended to modify the off-street parking
requirements for single-family houses only to allow any parking, including tandem parking within the
first 20 feet of existing driveways, as measured from the front property line. Such parking is currently
prohibited, but rarely enforced. The second change requested by AAPS is to delete the existing
required one- to five-foot-wide landscaping strips between driveways and property lines, fences,
buildings and streets; many existing driveways do not have such landscaping at this time because it is
difficult to maintain. Those landscaping provisions make it difficult to provide off-street parking, and
additional areas often must be paved. AAPS reviewed the proposals and found them to be acceptable.
Ms. Marilyn Schumacher, 1829 Clinton Avenue, Customer Service Improvement Committee, noted
that she was a real estate broker. She noted that many people who wished to make additions to their
property were unable to meet the requirement for an additional parking space. AAPS suggested that
the first 20 feet of the driveway be allowed to be used as parking; the current ordinance dated from
the 1950s and was no longer practical for current-day Alameda. She displayed several examples of
parking scenarios on the overhead screen. She supported an effective parking ordinance that allows
people to improve their homes.
Mr. Italo Calpestri, 1504 Park Street, supported the work performed by the Customer Service
Committee and had written a letter to the Planning Board to bring the issue to the Board's attention.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
March 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-14,7,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
He requested that wording be changed to extend the time from six months from the date of
destruction to be completed within one year of a permit being issued. He noted that homeowners who
had suffered a catastrophic loss due to fire or flood need additional time to settle with the insurance
company and obtain funding for rebuilding. Responding to Ms. Kohlstrand's request, he explained the
structural implications of the (k) & (1) findings as it relates to this item.
President Cunningham believed that the (k) & (1) findings advocate a two-foot setback.
Mr. Cormack advised that the Board's previous recommendation to the City Council under this
proposal was to still require the 7'-0"" setback for the second floor and two-story structures. Mr.
Calpestri noted that he did not agree with that.
Mr. Ken Gutleben, 3021 Thompson, spoke in support of the two proposed amendments to the
Zoning and Development Standards, particularly with respect to the building height definitions. He
believed this change would encourage residents to retrofit and strengthen their older homes, replace
foundations and install basements. He supported the Building Department's Customer Service
Committee's proposed amendment regarding residential parking. He offered examples of the
problems associated with the current ordinance, and believed that it obstructed retrofits that could
improve the seismic and structural safety of Alameda's older homes. He noted that the hazardous
Hayward Fault was the closest fault to Alameda. He requested that the Board reconsider the priority
given to cars and parking over retrofitting and protecting Alameda's architectural heritage and its
citizens.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham whether Mr. Calpestri's letter regarding the time
frame prior to rebuilding was within the Board's purview for discussion, Mr. Cormack advised that
this item would have to be advertised for public hearing. Ms. Altschuler confirmed that this item was
included in Phase II and could be acted on by the Planning Board.
Regarding projections and encroachments, Ms. Kohlstrand expressed concern about requiring the
second story additions to be set back two feet; she was also concerned about the resulting aesthetics
of that setback. She noted that some earlier second story additions had been unattractive, but that
many more recent additions were more sensitive and responsive to the original character of the house.
She was uncomfortable supporting that particular text amendment, requiring that all houses have the
second story two-foot setback. President Cunningham advised that of a house had an existing seven-
foot setback, the wall could go straight up. A general discussion of the setback requirements as they
relate to the (k) & (1) findings ensued.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
March 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-14,8,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
Mr. Cormack inquired whether the Board would consider amending the section of the Code which
required two additional feet of sideyard for two stories. The five-foot minimum sideyard for one story
could also be the standard for a two-story building. Anything less than five feet that was
nonconforming would be allowed to use the (k) & (1).
Vice President Cook believed that a conforming sideyard that is to be built higher is not as much of a
problem as a nonconforming sideyard to be increased in height, which would create a very narrow
setback; the additional setback would allow adequate light at the property line.
Ms. Altschuler stated that would allow for the shading study to prove whether or not the second story
would impact the neighbors.
Ms. Kohlstrand would like the setback requirements to be more equitable, and would support a
second-story setback that matched the first-story setback.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding shading, Ms. Altschuler replied that
shading would not be as critical for a bathroom as for a living room. She noted that design solutions
were available to neighbors to mitigate shading effects. A house with a conforming setback would not
require shadow studies. She added that staff would create a summary of the Board comments to be
included the next time the Development Code is examined. She noted that most (k) & (1) issues
brought before staff were generally resolved equitably between the neighbors, and she expected that
trend to continue; very few issues have been brought before the Board.
The Board had no concerns regarding Building Height Limits and the Definition of Replacement-in-
Kind.
Regarding parking, Ms. McNamara did not support deleting the 20-foot parking restriction
requirement, but was open to reducing it to a 10-foot requirement in order to increase parking.
President Cunningham advised that he advocated tandem parking, and believed it would relieve the
City's parking pressures and minimize the amount of hardscape on a lot.
Ms. Altschuler advised required parking may not be developed in a front yard, and believed the Board
supported parking in a driveway that led to the rear of the lot.
President Cunningham suggested that new construction not be allowed to utilize this parking scheme.
Ms. Altschuler advised that tandem parking was currently allowed to serve one unit, but the parking
space must be developed in accordance with the ordinance with respect to landscaping and setbacks.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
March 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-14,9,"is appropriate, which he believed was onerous. He believed that a one-foot strip was sufficient.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to adopt the Building Height Limits, and the Definition of
Replacement-in-Kind as recommended by staff. The remaining items would be brought back to the
Planning Board after further review by the Customer Service Committee.
AYES - 4 (Lynch, Mariani, Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Ms. Kohlstrand left the meeting after Item 8-B.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
March 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-14,10,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice
President Cook).
b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.
c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Board Member Piziali was not in attendance to present this report.
d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani).
Board Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
10.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
11.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:47 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary
City Planning Department
These minutes were approved at the March 28, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
G:\PLANNING\PB\Agendas_Minutes\Minutes.05\March 14_Minutes.DO
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
March 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-28,1,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, March 28, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:01 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. Mariani
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Mariani, and Piziali.
Board members Lynch, Kohlstrand, and McNamara were absent.
Also present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler,
Planner III Allen Tai, Planner II Dennis Brighton, Jennifer Ott, Development Services.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of March 14, 2005.
Ms. Altschuler advised that there was not a quorum to approve these minutes, and suggested
continuing this item to the Planning Board meeting of April 11, 2005.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cunningham advised that speaker slips had been received for Item 7-b.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-b from the Consent Calendar and place it on the
Regular Agenda.
AYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
President Cunningham advised that speaker slips had been received for Item 7-a.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-a from the Consent Calendar and place it on the
Regular Agenda.
AYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
March 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-28,2,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
7-A.
Use Permit UP05-0003 1510 Encinal Avenue Applicant: Tali Risse/ Fuzzy Caterpillar
Preschool (AT). The applicants request Use Permit approval to operate a daycare center with
capacity for forty-five students and eight employees with hours of operation between 7:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The site was previously occupied by the Peter Pan Preschool between 1974-
2002 and is located at 1510 Encinal Avenue, within an R-4, Neighborhood
Residential District.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-a from the Consent Calendar and place it on the
Regular Agenda.
AYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Mr. Tai presented the staff report. In order to reduce congestion related to pickup and dropoff, staff
recommended a condition of approval which would required the applicants to coordinate with the
Public Works Department to devise a schedule for dropoff and pickup. There would be a six-month
monitoring period by staff.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. John Faris, 1417 San Antonio Avenue, noted that he had been a neighbor of the subject site for
nine years, and expressed concern about the larger scale of the proposed project and its effect on
parking in the neighborhood.
Ms. Sharon Barnhart, 1413 San Antonio, noted that she lived directly behind the school and wished
to ensure there would be no construction changes in the area. She requested that the same
summertime hours were kept, as well as a two-hour quiet time as was practiced by the Peter Pan Day
Care. She noted that the caregivers were the noisiest element of the Peter Pan use.
Mr. Arie Cohen, applicant, introduced Ms. Tali Cohen and Ms. Julie Cohen, the directors of the
school. He noted that Code allowed a maximum of 45 children, but they did not expect to have more
than 40 children on-site; they intended to keep a smaller child-to-teacher ratio than required. They
planned to implement a two-hour quiet time, and keep the operational hours at 7 a.m.-6 p.m. In
response to Mr. Piziali's question, he assured the Board that the teachers would not yell at the
children. He emphasized that they wished to be good neighbors, and in response to Vice President
Cook's question, would be willing to restrict the number of children to 40; they would not suffer any
economic impact from that restriction.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
March 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-28,3,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 05- to approve a Use
Permit to operate a daycare center with capacity for forty-five students and eight employees with
hours of operation between 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., with the following modifications:
1.
The enrollment would be restricted to 40 children; and
2.
A
two-hour quiet time would be implemented daily.
AYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
March 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-28,4,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
7-B.
Interim Use Permit UP05-0001: Antiques Fair (Auto Show and Auto Parts Fair),
Gerald Goldman, 2001 Ferry Point (near Seaplane Lagoon site), Alameda Point (DB).
The applicant requests an Interim Use Permit to allow vintage auto and motorcycle sales at
Alameda Point, for autos manufactured in 1975 or earlier, parts and memorabilia with
substantially the same size, scale, access, parking and conditions/requirements as the Antiques
Fair. Operation would occur one Sunday per month plus setup and teardown times. This use
would include approximately 2,000 booths, 7,000 on-site parking spaces, over 40 acres near
former Navy hangers, Bladium and other Alameda Point neighbors. The site is located in the
M-2-G (General Industry/Manufacturing Zoning District/Government Combining District).
Mr. Brighton summarized the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Gerald Goldman, applicant, noted that the Antiques Fair had become nationally renowned, and
had brought significant business and sales tax revenue to the City. He noted that this proposed event
was a clone of the very large Pasadena Swap Meet.
Mr. Piziali noted that he supported the Antiques Fair, and wished to support this item as well; he
would like to include the following language: ""Beer may only be sold subject to approval of the
Alameda Police Department, and subject to issuance of the required ABC licenses."" Mr. Goldman
agreed with that request, and noted that while they were not committed to selling beer, they wanted
to allow for it if so desired.
Mr. Piziali expressed concern about amplified sound. Mr. Goldman noted that they did not have a
public address system at the Antiques Fair, and the staff members communicated by two-way radio.
Two police officers would be on-site.
In response to Mr. Piziali's question about overnight parking on-site, Ms. Altschuler replied that the
vehicles would be parked on the taxiway.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali regarding parking fees, Mr. Goldman agreed to get City
approval.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding hours of approval, Mr. Goldman
confirmed that the earliest time for vendor set-up would be 4 a.m., rather than 2 a. .m. He noted that
they would follow the guidelines for the Antiques Fair. He did not believe that semi trucks would ever
use the site.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
March 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-28,5,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 05- to approve an
Interim Use Permit to allow vintage auto and motorcycle sales at Alameda Point, for autos
manufactured in 1975 or earlier, parts and memorabilia with substantially the same size, scale, access,
parking and conditions/requirements as the Antiques Fair. Operation would occur one Sunday per
month plus setup and teardown times. This use would include approximately 2,000 booths, 7,000 on-
site parking spaces, over 40 acres near former Navy hangers, Bladium and other Alameda Point
neighbors. The language regarding a start time of 4 a.m. instead of 2 a.m. would be changed in the
conditions of approval.
AYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
March 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-28,6,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
7-C. UP01-0022/DR01-0089: American Tower Corporation. Washington Park, 740 Central
Avenue (DB). Renewal of expired Use Permit and Major Design Review for 90 foot tall
painted metal monopole communications tower in place of an existing 47 foot tall light pole
along the upper baseball diamond left field fence at Washington Park. Associated ground
equipment would be placed in a building of up to 825 square feet with screen-fenced ground
equipment. A Use Permit is required by AMC Sections 30-4.1(c)(1) and (2) for any structure
and above ground utility installation in the O Open Space Zoning District. (Continued from
the meeting of February 14, 2005. Staff recommends continuance to the meeting of
April 25, 2005.)
M/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of April 25, 2005.
AYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
March 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-28,7,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
7-D.
TM04-0005 SRM Associates 1851 Harbor Bay Parkway (JA/MG). Applicant requests
approval of Parcel Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels in to sixteen parcels. The
parcels are located within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are zoned C-M-PD, Commercial
Manufacturing, Planned Development District. (Continued from the meeting of March 14,
2005.)
M/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 05- to approve Parcel
Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels in to sixteen parcels, including the following
modification:
""Prior to the recordation of the final map, SRM Associates, the applicant, will provide written
evidence to City staff that they have received the approval of Parcel Map 8574 from the
declarant and Harbor Bay Architectural Review Committee.""
AYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
March 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-28,8,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
DR05-0028 - City of Alameda - 1416 Oak Street (JA/JO). Applicant Requests a Design
Review for a 352 space, 6 level parking structure, open Public Hearing, provide comments
and continue item to the meeting of April 11, 2005. The site is within the C-C Community
Commercial, Zoning District.
Ms. Altschuler summarized the staff report, and noted that the Board would be asked to approve the
Preliminary Design Review on April 11, 2005.
Ms. Jennifer Ott, Development Services, noted that the design was the culmination of a great deal of
work and feedback from the Planning Director, AAPS, PSBA, and the public at large. She noted that
the Planning Board's and HAB's comments would be incorporated into their final design presentation
on April 11, 2005. She noted that there were two alternatives for the façade, featuring either shallow
vine pockets or window casings. She displayed the boards and neighboring buildings on the overhead
screen.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham, Ms. Ott replied that this was a City project.
Mr. Michael Stanton, Michael Stanton Associates, described the design and signage, and displayed
the design and materials boards. He noted that the movie posters would be changed on a regular
basis.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Rosemary McNally, 2145 San Antonio, inquired whether the rush to restore the theater and build
the parking structure had given short shrift to consideration of the historical aspects. She noted that
an independent historical consultant had been hired by the City to work with this project, and had not
been aware of that position before. She believed that Alameda artists would be willing and able to
contribute to the mural choices.
Mr. Chuck Millar, 2829 San Jose Avenue, inquired about the historic review and the required
mitigating measures for the project.
Mr. Robb Ratto, PSBA, spoke in support of this application and was excited about the overall
concept. He noted that staff would make a presentation to the PSBA Board on April 6, 2005. He
noted that many business owners on Park Street had waited for many years for a downtown parking
garage, and believed that it would be a high-quality structure.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
March 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-28,9,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
Mr. Richard Rutter, AAPS, 2329 Santa Clara Avenue, #204, believed the current Oak Street façade
seemed jumbled and heavy, particularly in the distribution of materials, the handling of the openings,
and the parapet design. He believed the paneled spandrels above and below the openings appeared to
be visually heavy, and suggested that larger openings be used, with dropped spandrels. He suggested
that the stairwells be glazed in order to enhance security and to bring in natural light. AAPS agreed
with City staffthat buff-colored brick, rather than red brick, could be very effective on this building.
Ms. Mary Jacak, PSBA member, 1330 Caroline Street, noted that she was pleased by the progress on
the parking garage, and added that the architect had worked with significant constraints to great
effect. She would like the garage to look more like a building to accentuate the vertical elements,
similar to the sketch that was presented; she believed the horizontal elements should be minimized.
She preferred the buff-colored brick. She was reluctant to use stairwells, particularly in parking
garages, and liked the idea of a glazed stairwell for enhanced security. She was unsure of the purpose
of the curved element on top of the stairway.
Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, believed that the design was an eyesore and somewhat
jumbled. He did not like the exterior color, and did not believe the landscaping would be easy to
maintain. He inquired whether the garage would be a pay garage, or if flocal businesses would provide
validation. He preferred AAPS's design to the current design.
Jay Justice, 3027 Linda Vista, spoke in support of this application and complimented the design. He
noted that it reminded him of the parking structure near the Fruitvale BART station. He encouraged
the City to ensure that the garage has sufficient spaces for non-compact cars.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham whether the parking structure fell under the
historical review, Ms. Altschuler replied that the Cineplex and the parking garage were separate
buildings, and that the historic theater required a certificate of approval from the HAB for structural
alterations. The HAB would examine the parking structure and would hold a public hearing. The
project would be reviewed to ensure its compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's standards.
Ms. Ott noted that the garage would be a pay garage with validation during the daytime, and will
offer free parking during the evenings.
Ms. Doreen Soto, Development Services, advised that the garage payment hours would mirror the
meters and public parking lots; it will be free after 5 p.m. Parking will be free on Sunday. She noted
that parking patrons will be able to pay with parking tokens, their cell phone, and credit cards, and
that they wished to make the process easy.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
March 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-28,10,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
In response to Vice President Cook's inquiry, Mr. Stanton described the exit paths of the garage.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the future of the parking garage if the
Cineplex could not be built, Ms. Soto replied that it would proceed regardless of the Cineplex's
future. It had always been the City's intention to build a downtown parking garage.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the landscaping maintenance, Ms. Ott
replied that the City would maintain the landscaping because this is a public project.
Ms. Ott replied to Mr. Frederick's question regarding the exit through the cinema to the sidewalk,
and stated that was an emergency exit not open to the public.
Ms. Mariani expressed concern that the feedback from the HAB would not leave enough time to
make substantive changes, if needed.
Ms. Soto noted that it was the City's goal to have the final design approved on April 11, in order to
include it in the RFP package for the contractor.
Mr. Stanton noted that when the design comes back to the Planning Board on April 11, he could
include the package that would go to the contractors in the meeting package.
President Cunningham noted that the Board had been very concerned about the parking structure's
appearance, and would not like to compromise the finer details by fast-tracking the process.
Ms. Altschuler noted that a member of the Planning Board may be part of the oversight team if so
desired.
President Cunningham noted that he would be willing to serve in that capacity.
Ms. Altschuler noted that the comments from the HAB will be provided to the Board on April 11.
Vice President Cook requested the HAB's comments before the weekend of April 9 in order to
review them. Ms. Altschuler noted that she would make every effort to do so, and invited the Board
members to attend the HAB meeting on Thursday, April 7, 7-10 p.m. She added that the meeting
would not be televised.
Ms. Mariani supported the idea of a glazed elevator, for safety and aesthetic purposes. She also
favored the use of movie posters as described by Mr. Ratto.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
March 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-28,11,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
Vice President Cook liked the glazing suggestion for safety purposes. She believed the base of the
structure appeared somewhat weak, and would like to see more solidity. Regarding the use of vines
versus movie posters, she noted that use of posters did give ownership of that space to the Cineplex
operator. However, she did not support the idea of broadcasting Hollywood's message to the City's
youth, especially since a high school and church were located across the street from the movie
posters. She would like the lower doors to look more like a door than a solid mass. She liked the
proposed illuminated signage, as well as the understated nature of the remainder of the signage. She
did not object to the varying parapet, and believed it broke up the massing. She did not believe the
building design appeared to be jumbled; she also liked the arch.
Mr. Piziali noted that he preferred to trellis to the display cases, which could be susceptible to graffiti.
He believed the marquee would appear messy and cluttered. He liked the idea of widening the
sidewalk, adding a bike lane and trees, and pulling the parking off the street. He was pleased with Mr.
Stanton's building design.
President Cunningham believed that if the parapet were to be articulated, it should be a strong
statement. He strongly supported the glazed stairwells, and supported increasing the capacity of the
structure. He suggested increased the height of the shear wall in the parapet area. He was troubled by
the size of the punch windows, and understood the intent of breaking up the massing with the
concrete. He concurred with Mr. Piziali's comments regarding the artwork, and believed some
artwork should be on the wall; he suggested continuing the verticality of the wall. He supported the
use of landscaping versus posters if its maintenance could be guaranteed; otherwise, movie posters
would be acceptable. He believed the shear wall should be accentuated as a solid area, with open
pieces between the shear wall and the stairwell.
Mr. Stanton noted that they had a full design development package for the garage that was not yet
fleshed out. He anticipated that there would be enough rigor in the package by April 11.
Ms. Mariani volunteered to participate in the subcommittee.
Ms. Ott suggested that the subcommittee meet after the HAB meeting of April 7, 2005.
President Cunningham volunteered to participate in the subcommittee.
Mr. Stanton requested President Cunningham's comments about Vice President Cook's preference
for a lighter palette. President Cunningham would support a lighter palette, given the proximity of the
library and Twin Towers church.
M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of April 11,
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
March 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-28,12,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
2005.
AYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION
a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice
President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that the APAC cohosted a well-attended meeting with the
Transportation Commission on March 23, 2005. The purpose was to address transportation issues,
focusing on the most likely transportation and parking improvements, particularly the shuttles, and
Eco-Pass. A range of transit improvements were examined, including new shuttles to be paid for by
the project, an aerial tram to Jack London Square and bus expediting procedures through the Tube.
Connections to the 12th Street BART station were more important to the participants than to the
Fruitvale BART station; crosstown connections were also very important. The connection between
land use, density and transportation was also discussed.
b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing to report since the last meeting.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Board Member Piziali advised that newspaper reports stated that new buildings and clubhouses were
being looked at, but added that there was no new information from the Committee.
d. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Board Member Mariani advised that her committee was collaborating with the APAC, and was
incorporating the issues of downtown Oakland and Jack London Square as well. Four alternatives for
new on-ramps and off-ramps to I-880 were being considered. Traffic between Alameda and Oakland
was discussed, as well as one-way streets and delivery truck parking congestion. Creative financing
for various projects were discussed, and one member suggested a toll into Alameda, although that
was considered to be an unlikely option. The next meeting will be held in April.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
March 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-28,13,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
10.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
President Cunningham noted that this was Ms. Altschuler's last official meeting, although she would
attend the next meeting to follow up on the parking structure item. He thanked Ms. Altschuler for her
hard work over the years.
11.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary
City Planning Department
These minutes were approved at the April 11, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio
and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
March 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-11,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, April 11, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:02 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Mr. Lynch
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,
Mariani, and Piziali.
Also present were Interim Planning & Building Director Jerry Cormack, Deputy City Attorney Julie
Harryman, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Planner III Allen Tai, Planner II Dennis Brighton,
Executive Assistant Latisha Jackson.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the Special meeting of March 3, 2005.
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that page 7, last paragraph, stated that she supported that the non-Measure A
option be evaluated, not the non-Measure A option itself at this point.
M/S Kohstrand/Cook to approve the minutes for the Special meeting of March 3, 2005, as corrected.
AYES - 4; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 3 (Lynch, Mariani, Piziali)
b. Minutes for the meeting of March 14, 2005 (continued from the meeting of March 28,
2005.)
M/S Cook/Kohstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of March 14, 2005, as
presented.
AYES - 4; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 3 (Lynch, Mariani, Piziali)
c.
Minutes for the meeting of March 28, 2005.
President Cunningham advised that page 11, paragraph 3, should be changed from, ""President
Cunningham believed that if the parapet were to be articulated and supported increasing the capacity
opacity of the structure.""
President Cunningham advised that the resolutions on page 3 and page 5 need to have a resolution
number attached.
M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of March 28, 2005, as
corrected.
AYES - 4; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 3 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, Mariani)
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
April 11, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-11,2,"5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
7.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
7-A.
Resolution and Commendation for Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler.
President Cunningham read the following resolution into the record:
WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler accepted the position of Assistant Planner for the City of Alameda on
June 1, 1988; and
WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler was promoted to Planner III for the City of Alameda on December
10, 1995; and
WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler was promoted to Supervising Planner for the City of Alameda on
February 24, 2002; and
WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler has assisted in the planning process of numerous projects including
the renovation of the Historic Alameda City Hall, construction and renovation of St. Joseph's High
School gym and campus, the construction of the Lucent Campus, the construction of California
Heritage Bay and Bayport and the completion of Harbor Bay Isle Village V; and
WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler has most recently assisted the Library Building Team in the planning
process of the construction of our New Alameda Library, and in the planning process of the
renovation of our Historic Alameda Theatre and new Cineplex and parking garage, and the planning
process for the development of the Breakers at Bayport.
WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler has assisted in creating the new City-wide Guide to Residential
Design and numerous development code amendments; and
WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler has assisted staff in a countless number of daily projects with her
knowledge of the Zoning Ordinance and Alameda Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler has been Secretary to the Historical Advisory Board since 1992 and
has been instrumental in revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance, in implementing the Historic
Building Study List, and the overall historic preservation of Alameda homes, monuments and
landmarks; and
WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler has, during her tenure, provided clear and consistent information to
the City Council, Planning Board, Historical Advisory Board, staff and the citizens of Alameda; and
WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler will officially retire from her position as Supervising Planner for the
City of Alameda on May 12, 2005.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
April 11, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-11,3,"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda extends
their thanks for her ""Dedication to Excellence and Commitment to Service"" to the City of Alameda
on behalf of the City, staff and the citizens of Alameda.
President Cunningham noted that Ms. Altschuler's knowledge and expertise will be missed.
Ms. Altschuler thanked the Board for making her tenure so memorable and wonderful, and
complimented them on their hard work and commitment to the City. As a citizen of Alameda, she was
glad that she was leaving the City in such good hands. She thanked staff for its terrific work, and will
miss them.
Mr. Piziali thanked Ms. Altschuler for her clarity in Planning Board and City Council meetings, and
would miss her greatly.
Ms. McNamara thanked Ms. Altschuler for her expertise and patience.
Vice President Cook complimented Ms. Altschuler on her clarity and talent for explaining difficult
issues, as well as her patience through changing Boards. She complimented Ms. Altschuler on her
excellent staff reports, and hoped they would be a model for future staff members.
Mr. Lynch and Ms. Mariani thanked Ms. Altschuler for her excellent service.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
April 11, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-11,4,"8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A.
Major Design Review, DR04-0106, and Variance, V05-0001 - Corey Verka - 2825 Van
Buren Street (DB) The applicant requests a Major Design Review approval to add habitable
floor area in the basement, enclose the rear stairwell to the basement, and alter the rear deck.
Because the enclosed stairwell extends a nonconforming westerly side yard setback of 3-feet,
where a minimum 7-foot side yard setback is required, a finding must be made pursuant to
AMC 30-5.7 (k) & (1), that no adverse effects such as shading, view blockage, or privacy
reduction would occur on adjoining properties. A Variance is also required because the
proposed expansion of habitable floor area into the basement would structurally expand the
use of a nonconforming third story. The site is located within an R-1, Single-Family
Residential Zoning District.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-12 to approve a
Major Design Review approval to add habitable floor area in the basement, enclose the rear stairwell
to the basement, and alter the rear deck. Because the enclosed stairwell extends a nonconforming
westerly side yard setback of 3-feet, where a minimum 7-foot side yard setback is required, a finding
must be made pursuant to AMC 30-5.7 (k) & (1), that no adverse effects such as shading, view
blockage, or privacy reduction would occur on adjoining properties. A Variance is also required
because the proposed expansion of habitable floor area into the basement would structurally expand
the use of a nonconforming third story.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
April 11, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-11,5,"8-B
ZA05-0002, 842 Central Avenue, Central Cinema, Applicant: Mark Haskett (JC). The
Applicant seeks approval to continue to operate a movie theater with up to 49 seats in the C-
1, Neighborhood Business District where a movie theater use is not currently allowed as a
permitted use or as a use regulated by use permit. The Planning Board will review and take
action on the following options associated with continued use of this movie theater:
1) Consideration of a Zoning Use Determination that a ""Boutique Theater"" defined as ""A
theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of
motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater"" is sufficiently similar to what is
allowed pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code section 30-4.8(c)(7) which allows by use
permit ""Theaters with live performances that are in combination with other permitted uses."" If
the Planning Board determines that a ""Boutique Theater"" is consistent with what is allowed
by A.M.C. section 30-4.8(c)(7), then the applicant will apply for a use permit at a future
meeting; or
2) Consideration of an Amendment to Section 30-4.8 (c) to add ""Boutique Theater"" as a use
regulated by Use Permit in the C-1 zoning district. ""Boutique Theater would be defined as ""A
theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of
motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater."" If the Planning Board
determines that a ""Boutique Theater"" could be an appropriate use in the C-1 zoning district,
the zoning amendment will be forwarded to Council for adoption and the applicant would
need to return to the Planning Board for a use permit following adoption of the amendment
by Council. (Continued from the meeting of February 28, 2005. Applicant and staff are
requesting a continuance to the meeting of May 23, 2005.)
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of May 23, 2005.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
April 11, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-11,6,"8-C.
DR05-0028 - City of Alameda - 1416 Oak Street (JA/JO) Applicant Requests a Design
Review for a 352 space, 6 level parking structure, open Public Hearing, provide comments
and continue item to the meeting of April 11, 2005. The site is within the C-C Community
Commercial, Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of March 28, 2005. Applicant
requests continuance to the meeting of April 25, 2005.)
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of May 23, 2005.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
April 11, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-11,7,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
9-A.
Major Design Review, DR04-0093 Wei Liang for 2019 Buena Vista Avenue: Appellant:
Mercedes Milana of 2019 Buena Vista Avenue (DB). Mercedes Milana is appealing staff's
conditional approval of this Major Design Review which permits the structural expansion of a
single family residence by converting the basement into habitable space. This residential
expansion would provide a total of approximately 3,226-square feet of floor area. The
appellant is requesting that the Major Design Review application be denied because of
potential detriments to the neighborhood including, but not limited to an increased demand for
on-street parking resulting from the increase in residents at the property. The site is located
within an R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Mr. Brighton summarized the staff report, and noted that the basis of appeal was issues associated
with the number of people who may live in the residence due to this approval, as well as ongoing
enforcement actions. Staff recommended that the project be approved conditionally, and that
additional conditions be required, including:
1.
A
deed restriction stating that the building is a single-family residence until otherwise
approved by the City;
2.
The internal stairwell connecting the basement with the main floor must be opened as
much as possible to the floor above;
3.
The installation of the proposed wet bar should be disallowed; and
4.
Additional stairway access into the basement area from the side of the house will be
disallowed.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Tonya Parker, 2023 Buena Vista, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that there had been
numerous family members and others living in the building. She expressed concern that they are
placing pressure on parking and the schools, and that more families would be added. She believed the
applicants' actions were detracting from the nature of the neighborhood.
Mr. Kirk Ling, 2012 Buena Vista, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that the applicant had
added units numerous times, and he had seen people crawling out of windows in the morning. He was
very concerned the deed restriction would be disregarded, and that the schools were being pressured
by nonresidents of Alameda. He believed this building would turn into an apartment building.
Ms. Mercedes Milana, 2027 Buena Vista Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. She did not
believe this dwelling space was appropriate for so many people, and recalled the past history of this
building's occupants. She expressed concern that the additional space would double the number of
residents from 13 to 26, and noted that parking shortages would become worse. She understood that
this was an R-4 zone, but believed that the situation was excessive. She noted that people in similar
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
April 11, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-11,8,"buildings cemented over their lawn and parked there following the amnesty. She believed this would
significantly impact the neighborhood.
Mr. Chau, project engineer, understood the neighbors' concerns about parking and has been working
with staff. He was not aware of the history of the neighboring buildings, but knew that their family
was growing and must be accommodated. He did not believe the number of 26 residents was justified.
President Cunningham noted the neighbors would like a guarantee regarding the number of people on
an individual property, and suggested that they work together to craft an answer to limit the number
of people who could live within the residence.
Mr. Chau noted that the garage was no longer there, and that they needed storage space. Mr. Piziali
noted that in Alameda, the garage was meant to park cars, not for storage.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Mr. Chau stated that they had three cars.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand regarding the number of people living in a home as a
family, Ms. Harryman noted that the number of people in a dwelling unit cannot be limited. Deed
restrictions may be imposed and stairwells reviewed for integrated internal access so that the building
may retain its single-family nature.
Mr. Piziali believed that this house was overbuilt for the neighborhood.
Mr. Brighton noted that the resolution contained a typographical error, and that the design review
would be valid for one year.
Mr. Lynch believed the applicant should start this process over again, and that the applicant should
consider the City guidelines; the new application should be submitted according to those City
guidelines in the Code. He believed there was significant inconsistency in the history of this
application.
Ms. Harryman noted that the Board members should look at this application as it is, notwithstanding
past Code enforcement actions, and that they may make a determination based on significant adverse
impacts.
Mr. Piziali could not support this application because of the lack of a garage, and believed it would
impact the neighborhood negatively.
Ms. McNamara noted that she could not make the findings, and that this neighborhood was
significantly impacted by the large amount of traffic and parking congestion.
Ms. McNamara did not believe that this address was solely responsible for the street's parking
suggestion.
Ms. Mariani noted that was not the assumption.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
April 11, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-11,9,"Mr. Piziali noted that the type of window material should be specified in the plans. Mr. Brighton
replied that people were able to install any kind of window consistent with the style of architecture,
but aluminum windows were prohibited under the Design Guidelines.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch whether a garage existed on the property, Mr. Chau stated
that it was extended with permits and approvals. He did not know whether the garage was being used
for parking. The owner stated that it was used for parking and minor storage. He recommended that
the garage be removed.
Mr. Lynch believed the addition square footage being sought should incorporate the parking for the
residents to the extent possible. He strongly suggested that the applicants discuss this issue with staff,
incorporate those discussions into a document to submit to the Planning Board for approval or denial.
Mr. Piziali believed the driveway should be narrowed in the front, and did not believe a single curb
cut would be legal. He requested further information on the driveway. ""Mr. Piziali wished to clarify
that the pavement of the driveway was very wide, and that they were parking two cars there. He
wanted to see the driveway brought back to Code with respect to the project.'
Vice President Cook commended staff on the work it did under the current conditions, and would like
it reflected in the plans that it would be a single-family home. She believed the interior staircase
should be decidedly open and not easy to close up.
M/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No.PB-05-13 to uphold the appeal and deny
the Major Design Review and remand it to staff.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
April 11, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-11,10,"Transportation Commission appropriately said that sound walls were not a good idea. He noted that
objective A-7 can contain Public Works' staff frecommendation and still maintain the original wording.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Vice President Cook believed that pedestrian uses had been shortchanged, and did not agree with
privatizing streets.
President Cunningham believed that the grid of streets should be broken up with variations in design,
including the use of cul de sacs.
Ms. Hawkins noted that the next step would be to examine the grid network.
Mr. Lynch noted that he liked cul de sacs because they were safe places for children to play, and that
they were a physical place in an urban setting that allows for that safe area. He noted that the cul de
sacs were needed in Alameda, but that they should not be too long.
Mr. Cormack inquired whether bicycle and pedestrian linkages would be favored by the Board at the
end of cul de sacs.
Regarding A-1, Vice President Cook believed that truck routes affect the neighborhood, and agreed
with Mr. Spangler.
Ms. Kohlstrand wished to make it clear that all modes of transportation should be accommodated.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
April 11, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-11,11,"Mr. Lynch believed the planning should engage agencies as they affect circulation. A working group
would be a good solution.
Ms. Kohlstrand believed that providing directions with respect to bridge crossings, etc. would be a
positive addition to this document.
Mr. John Knox White noted that this was a general policy, and that the next step would provide more
detail.
Ms. Mariani believed that issues with Oakland should be addressed in subcommittees.
Mr. Piziali noted that he did not like speed bumps, lumps or humps, and requested clarification from
staff. Ms. Hawkins provided the distinctions. Mr. Piziali believed they had a negative impact on
emergency response vehicles, and impacted response times.
Mr. Lynch believed the traffic calming measures providing greater safety for children.
Regarding A-5, President Cunningham believed the policies of the ADA were the standard to base
transportation policies upon. Mr. Knox White noted that because it was federal law, it would take
precedence; pre-ADA crossings were called out in the document.
Regarding livability, President Cunningham noted that parking relative to parcels was an important
issue, and would like the Transportation Commission's opinion.
Mr. Knox White noted that they planned to examine concerns about on-street programs, especially
the costs.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Mr. Knox White described various traffic calming tools,
including bulbouts and increasing the curve of a street.
Mr. Lynch believed a legend should be included to identify the responsible parties for comments, and
added that he was appalled at the Housing Authority's comments. He found it highly disrespectful to
the community of Alameda, to suggest the idea of increasing the speed limit on the streets, with more
vehicles, while trying to increase pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Mr. Knox White noted that the
comment was made by City staff. Mr. Lynch noted that it was an unprofessional suggestion. Ms.
Kohlstrand noted that was a standard approach for traffic engineers.
President Cunningham noted that the residents had spoken loud and clear regarding their opposition
to sound walls.
Vice President Cook believed the General Plan should specifically state that there should be no sound
walls in Alameda.
Ms. Kohlstrand supported shared parking in the Mixed Commercial areas.
Vice President Cook noted that the LOS was affected when high-occupancy vehicles were given
priority over low-occupancy vehicles; the single car drivers would be made so uncomfortable that
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
April 11, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-11,12,"they would take transit. She believed that bicycles should be more completely addressed as a mode of
transportation.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that Objective D-3, which reads, ""Impacts to traffic operations, including all
modes of transportation did not sound right, and that an expression of multimodal
accommodations should be included.
Ms. Kohlstrand understood that the Beltway was being preserved for the light rail line, and inquired
whether it would be eliminated. Ms. Hawkins replied that it was in the current General Plan. Ms.
Kohlstrand believed that other solutions besides light rail should be examined. ""Ms. Kohlstrand
wished to clarify that she was referring to the policy regarding the light rail preservation of the
Beltway, not whether the light rail line itself would be eliminated.""
""President Cunningham made note that he would like the Transportation Commission to identify
any areas that would qualify for funding of grants to help implement policies with less of a financial
impact to the City.
No action was taken.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice
President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that she had nothing new to report.
b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing to report since the last meeting.
c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Board Member Piziali advised that there was nothing to report.
d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani).
Board Member Mariani advised that there was nothing to report.
12.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Cormack advised that the staff report on the West End Retail Implementation Strategy was
provided for information only.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
April 11, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-11,13,"Mr. Cormack advised that at the last City Council meetings, Harbor Island and the veterinarian clinic
were approved; the Planning Board was supported on both items.
Vice President Cook inquired about the 100,000 square foot store planned. Mr. Piziali noted that kind
of store would only be built at total build-out.
Mr. Cormack advised that it would be a food store, at build-out only.
Mr. Lynch did not see a discussion on how land use decisions impact the general fund, and believed it
would be short-sighted not to do SO.
13.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary
City Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the April 25, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio
and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
April 11, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, April 25, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:02 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. McNamara
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani, McNamara and
Piziali.
Board member Cook was absent.
Also in attendance were Interim Planning Director Jerry Cormack, Building Official Gregory J.
McFann, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Planner II Dennis Brighton, Executive Assistant
Latisha Jackson, Bruce Knopf Development Services, Barbara Hawkins Public Works.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of April 11, 2005.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that page 12, Item 9 read, ""Ms. Kohlstrand understood that the Beltway was
being preserved for the light rail line, and inquired whether it would be eliminated."" She wished to
clarify that she referred to the policy regarding the light rail preservation of the beltway, not whether
the light rail line itself would be eliminated.
Mr. Piziali noted that page 9, third paragraph from the bottom read, ""Mr. Piziali believed the
driveway should be narrowed in the front, and did not believe a single curb cut would be legal. He
wished to clarify that the pavement of the driveway was very wide, and that they were parking two
cars there. He wanted to see the driveway brought back to Code with respect to the project.
President Cunningham advised that in Item 9-B, he made note that he would like the Transportation
Commission to identify any areas that would qualify for funding of grants to help implement policies
with less of a financial impact to the City.
M/S Piziali/Kohlstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of April 11, 2005, as
corrected.
AYES - 5; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 2 (Cook, Mariani)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None.
7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
April 25, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,2,"7-A.
Endorsement of the Webster Street Strategic Plan (BK) A request for endorsement of the
Webster Street Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan analyzes retail market opportunities and
revitalization goals and strategies for the Webster Street Corridor. (Staff requests a
continuance to the meeting of May 9, 2005.)
M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of May 9, 2005.
AYES - 5; (Cook, Mariani) NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
April 25, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,3,"7-B
DR05-0028 - City of Alameda - 1416 Oak Street (JA/JO). Applicant requests acceptance
of preliminary Design for a 352-space parking structure, at the corner of Oak Street and
Central Avenue, generally on the Video Maniac site. This site is located at 1416 Oak Street
site within the C-C-PB Community Commercial, Community Commercial - Planned
Development Zoning Districts. {(Continued from the meeting of April 11, 2005.) (Staff
requests a continuance to the meeting of May 9, 2005.)}
M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of May 9, 2005.
AYES - 5(Cook, Mariani); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
April 25, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,4,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
Recommendation of the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study (BB). A request
for review and recommendation of alignment for the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study.
The Cross Alameda Trail would enhance access to destination points along the northern
portion of Alameda's main island by providing improved bicycling and pedestrian facilities and
would also serve as a recreational facility.
Ms. Barbara Hawkins summarized the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Jon Spangler, Cross Alameda Trail Steering Committee, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in
favor of this item, and commended the Public Works staff for their efforts in finding a logistical
solution for a difficult trail. He noted that it would provide an east-west transportation link for
pedestrians and bicyclists; it will provide better links to BART; it will provide the possibility of a bus-
rapid transit or ultralight rail right-of-way. The eventual development of Alameda Point would make
those items necessary. He noted that it would be easier to address the section between Main Street
and Webster Street, which he believed would have a great effect on the Webster/Atlantic intersection,
if grant money could be obtained.
Ms. Debra Arbuckle, 9th Street, spoke in favor of this item, and noted that the neighborhood had been
working on this issue for approximately nine years. She supported the use of alternative
transportation, such as electric bikes, and noted that this issue needed a lot of community support.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Ms. Hawkins explained the difference between
commuter alignment and recreational alignments #1 and #2. She noted that in the past, Bike Alameda
has proposed a bicycle boulevard down Pacific, which would enhance bicycle opportunities by
creating less of a desired route for vehicles.
Mr. Lynch did not believe that a bike rider considered a Class 1, 2 or 3, but that they moved to avoid
traffic upon perception of that traffic. As bike paths are being created, he suggested that other traffic
calming techniques be considered that are not currently in place, and that may mean additional
inconvenience in terms of travel time for vehicles.
Ms. Hawkins advised that the Transportation Master Plan will feature a grid system for vehicles,
pedestrians, and bicyclists.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
April 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,5,"Ms. McNamara did not believe the costs of removing the rails were included in the estimates. Ms.
Hawkins detailed the costs contained in the estimate.
President Cunningham inquired about the aspirations of the trail, and whether the text allowed for
modifications or improvements. Ms. Hawkins replied that it was a corridor that would connect
residential with commercial, and that surrounding businesses may wish to contribute to it because of
their proximity to the trail.
President Cunningham inquired whether the bike path would be adopted in a landscape strip, and
whether that would be a general policy. He referenced the section by Starbucks. Ms. Hawkins replied
that was the most difficult section in the whole alignment. In trying to accommodate that option,
along with the pedestrians, the landscaping was sacrificed. If that area is not used for the bus rapid
transit corridor, it would not be sacrificed. She noted that would not be a typical policy.
M/S Piziali/Kohlstrand and unanimous to reopen the public hearing.
The public hearing was reopened.
Ms. Arbuckle indicated the train museum in Sacramento was given most of the rails from the tracks;
one set of rails was retained along the south side.
Mr. Spangler noted that the Marina waterfront access on the Estuary was very important to many
people. He noted that the concerns were: toxic pollution from industrial uses, such as shipyards, the
ownership issues, and the security for all the boat owners, particularly those who reside on
liveaboards. He noted that Pacific was a Class 1 route, which was signed, and with no extra line or
striping on the pavement; stop signs were placed on every block to maintain pedestrian safety and
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
April 25,2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,6,"lower traffic speeds. He noted that those stop signs were obstructions for bicycle commuters, and a
bicycle boulevard would allow straight-through, non-stop bike traffic. He believed that would
enhance safety.
The public hearing was closed.
M/S Piziali/ McNamara and unanimous that the Board's comments be passed to the City Council.
AYES - 6 (Cook); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
April 25, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,7,"8-B.
UP01-0022/DR01-0089: American Tower Corporation. Washington Park, 740 Central
Avenue (DB). Renewal of expired Use Permit and Major Design Review for 90 foot tall
painted metal monopole communications tower in place of an existing 47 foot tall light pole
along the upper baseball diamond left field fence at Washington Park. Associated ground
equipment would be placed in a building of up to 825 square feet with screen-fenced ground
equipment. A Use Permit is required by AMC Sections 30-4. 1(c)(1) and (2) for any structure
and above ground utility installation in the O Open Space Zoning District. (Continued from
the meeting of March 28, 2005.)
Mr. Bruce Knopf, Redevelopment Manager, Development Services, summarized the staff report,
wished to correct two errors in the staff report. He noted that the height of the proposed monopole
was the same height as existing poles that hold up nets at the field and light standards. The Recreation
& Park Commission reviewed this proposal on April 14, 2005, and recommended its approval in a 5-1
vote. Staff recommended that Section 4(b) of the resolution be modified to specify installation of two
picnic tables and barbecues on a 15 X 40 foot decomposed granite pad in the area that was previously
proposed for the equipment shelter. Item 4(c) should be modified to state that the approved color the
equipment shelter is Sherwin Williams Oak Moss SW6180. Item 4(e) should be modified to specify
the species of landscaping to be Escalonia five-gallon, two feet on center.
President Cunningham acknowledged the presence of Mr. Lil Arnerich in the audience.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Jay Ingram, Chair, Recreation and Parks Commission, spoke in opposition to this item and noted
that the vote was and 4-1 because there were only five members. He added that he was the one ""no""
vote. He noted that early discussions were held to consider sinking the pole building five feet into the
ground, which was not followed up on, presumably because of the cost. He was given the impression
that fake trees could be used as towers, but the pictures were never provided. He expressed concern
that the paint of the maintenance shed would match the fluting on the side; no pictures had been
provided. He requested that American Tower be required to pay for the pulling of the electricity and
any damage to the sprinkler systems when the pole is put up. Recreation and Parks supported the idea
of a silver pole, and noted that it should be hidden in the body of the pole. He noted that the largest
cell towers would be placed in the City's showpiece park. He noted that if the cell industry changes
while the ten-year agreement was still in force, that the lease agreement requires American Tower to
remove the container and pole, and that the park is left the way it was. He expressed concern that the
baseball players would be displaced by this use during before or after game time, and hoped that
American Tower would pay for any associated costs as well.
Mr. Lil Arnerich reviewed the features of the field on the overhead display, and noted that the
previous site for the building would have been out of balance and proportion for the park. He noted
that in conjunction with the Planning Board and the Recreation Commission, the pole was moved
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
April 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,8,"further to the left field line, which would be located farther from the main activities in the park. He
had reservations about the Park Department's statement that grass area would die out due to lack of
sunlight, and would examine that possibility further. He believed that three or four picnic tables and
barbecue pits would be warranted because the area was used heavily in the summer; he did not believe
that two picnic tables would be sufficient. He suggested that when the permit is resubmitted because a
particular group cannot fulfill it obligation, the whole contract should be looked at in its entirety. He
believed the Planning Board should be cognizant of the facts when entering into leases, and believed
that a ten-year contract with five-year renewals would be sufficient. He noted that if cell phone
technology did not require poles in the future, the poles would be removed.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. McNamara shared Mr. Ingram's concerns about the girth of the pole, whether it would be a tree
or a pole, maintenance issues, as well as the height of the tower. She inquired about the exit strategy
when technology advancement made this hardware obsolete; the towers would then become an
eyesore.
With respect to obsolescence, Mr. Knopf noted that the lease provided that the lessee is responsible
for removing all of the above-grade improvements at their own cost within 45 days of termination of
the lease, and that it should be restored to its previous condition. He noted that the question of
diameter was discussed at the Recreation and Park Commission; poles of this size were generally
between 3 - 4.5 feet wide at the base, and that they taper to 2 feet at the top. The applicant had not
been able to discuss specific design for this pole because construction drawings had not yet been
done.
President Cunningham inquired about the price for maintaining the screening, and believed it would
be unfair for the City to bear that cost. Mr. Knopf noted that climbing vines were initially discussed;
Recreation and Parks staff was concerned about fast-growing vines and the need for maintenance. A
slow-growing species of plant was selected that would require minimum maintenance. American
Tower would be obligated to maintain the facility.
Mr. Lynch suggested that the technology should be examined in the future, because it affected the
line-of-sight and other technical considerations. He suggested that the carrier submit an annual report
addressing the condition of the pole, and to ensure the pole is painted.
Ms. Kohlstrand expressed concern about the height and visibility of the pole. Mr. Knopf replied that
the photo simulation was shot down the fence line, and noted that the poles were located at the end of
that line. He added that cell sites were low-power sites that must be located every half-mile or so to
provide adequate coverage, and that they were line-of-sight repeaters; they are placed as low as
possible to the ground. Regarding cost, he believed the City got the best deal possible with American
Tower. He described the business mission and leasing policies of American Tower. He noted that this
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
April 25,2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,9,"was a good location in the heavily used Washington Park because it was not used at all. While this
monopole was larger than the pole approved several years ago, it was a better design in that all of the
antennas were hidden inside the pole.
Ms. Mariani noted that the City had been in a legally binding contract with American Tower since
1991.
Mr. Piziali suggested that the additional picnic tables be added if possible.
Mr. Dale Wright, Acting Director, Recreation and Parks, deferred to Mr. Arnerich's experience, and
was confident that they could work out three or four tables and barbecue pits. He noted that it was
the intent to paint the building to match.
M/S Mariani/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No.PB-05-14 to approve a renewal of
expired Use Permit and Major Design Review for 90 foot tall painted metal monopole
communications tower in place of an existing 47 foot tall light pole along the upper baseball diamond
left field fence at Washington Park. Associated ground equipment would be placed in a building of
up to 825 square feet with screen-fenced ground equipment. A Use Permit is required by AMC
Sections 30-4.1(c)(1) and (2) for any structure and above ground utility installation in the O Open
Space Zoning District.
To include the items in the email dated 4/25/05, with the following amendments:
a.
Painting both buildings; and
b.
Additional picnic tables would be added at the selection of the Acting Director of
Recreation and Parks;
AYES - 5 (Cook absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
April 25, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,10,"8-C.
ZA05-0003 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment/City-wide (JC) Phase II of proposed
revisions to the Development Regulations (ZA05-0003) contained within Chapter XXX of
the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance
with respect to building height limits and number of stories; exceptions to minimum side yard
requirements for additions to existing residences, provide a definition for ""replacement-in-
kind"", off-street parking regulations and simplifying reconstruction of non-conforming
residential structures.
Mr. Cormack summarized the staff report.
Mr. Piziali noted that the main change would be the additional two-foot setback for a second story.
Mr. Cormack asked whether there was Board consensus to reduce the side yard to five feet.
President Cunningham noted that the key element was the opportunity for review by the neighbors in
the future.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that instead of mandating the two-foot subject, it could be looked at from the
perspective to ensure there would not be adverse shadow impacts on the neighbors.
Mr. Cormack noted that the second point was to continue to use the K&L findings for encroachments
into yards.
Mr. Piziali did not believe that someone with a substandard sideyard should get more of a benefit than
someone who had built within the standard setback. He believed that the two-foot requirement for the
second floor should be deleted, in favor of a five-foot setback.
Ms. Kohlstrand believed there was concurrence within the Board to require a standard five-foot side
yard setback. The Board concurred that (c) would be acceptable with respect to cantilevering, as long
as there were no shading problems. The five foot setback would apply to new construction.
Mr. Lynch believed there would be mechanisms that would encourage homeownership and
maintaining the highest value of the property. He believed that losing three feet would be a
disincentive to those goals.
Mr. Cormack noted that it was uncommon to tear a building down to the ground, rather than doing
an extensive rebuild from the existing foundation.
Mr. Lynch believed it was important to clarify this issue, and did not agree with manipulation of the
Code. He inquired whether the setback should be 7 or 5 feet; the Board consensus was 5 feet. He
inquired whether the Board should take this opportunity to make the Code more uniform. He would
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
April 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,11,"like to see a matrix containing what features are included in each kind of lot coverage, and believed
that was a major issue.
Ms. Kohlstrand supported a uniform sideyard standard.
President Cunningham supported Mr. Lynch's idea of a matrix.
Ms. McNamara supported 20% or a five foot minimum on all districts.
President Cunningham believed the matrix would help the public.
Mr. Lynch believed this was an opportunity to make certain items in the Code uniform.
Ms. McNamara added that the issue of equitable application of the Code to nonconforming setbacks
was allowed for with the building of the additional story straight up, without being required to go
back two feet.
M/S Kohlstrand/Piziali to approve a setback of not less than five feet for all interior sideyards and to
retain the 20% sideyard regulation for wider lots and continue to use the K&L findings for any
projects that needed a variation for all districts.
AYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Regarding tandem parking, Mr. Carvalho displayed examples of tandem parking on the overhead
screen and summarized that part of the staff report.
Mr. Cormack advised that one issue was conversion of existing garages to allow for more tandem
parking on the property and the second issue was the number of vehicles in tandem.
Mr. Piziali noted that he was not interested in exceeding one car for tandem parking, as cited in the
regulations. He was not in favor of SK-2 as presented at this meeting, but would consider SK-1. He
expressed concern about SK-3, where cars would park within the 20-foot front yard setback; he
believed that would be poison for Alameda. He was especially concerned about people parking on the
front lawn.
Ms. Mariani believed that was an unrealistic expectation, and that the third car would end up on the
street.
Ms. Shumaker noted that planning staff were stymied as to what to do at the counter when a resident
wishes to make an improvement to their house, but cannot conform to the ordinance; she understood
Mr. Piziali's point of view.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
April 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,12,"Mr. Lynch did not believe this would be examined in terms of a remodel or anything dealing with
construction. He believed the first question was why the Code penalized individuals for parking in
their driveway, even in the front 20 feet.
A discussion regarding the pros and cons of tandem parking ensued.
M/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous to re-open the public hearing.
Ms. Barbara Kerr noted the notion of simplifying the Residential Code by making things more
uniform, eliminating differences between the different residential zones, which had been referred to as
Zone Compression for the last 15 years. She urged the Board to recognize the differences in
Alameda, and that she did not wish the characteristics of the neighborhoods and development rights
to be impinged upon. She did not want the community to be treated as if it were a Monopoly set. She
opposed simplification of the Codes in such a manner.
Mr. Jon Spangler agreed with Ms. Kerr's comments, and agreed with Mr. Piziali's point that a limit
should be placed on the tyranny of the automobile and the oversized box on a tiny lot. He noted that
Measure A was implemented to eliminate ""Crackerjack"" apartment houses, which still exist on the
Island; he did not wish to see Crackerjack boxes in the R-1 districts. He believed people would be
allowed to put larger homes on lots within reason of scale, and for the City to be able to waive
parking requirements if the people will sign an agreement that they will not have six vehicles per
residence. He did not believe that parking three cars made sense, and believed the Board should
restrict that. He believed on-street parking was ugly, and created a hazard for bicyclists, especially on
narrow streets like Sherman.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Lynch noted that after the public comments, there was still conflict, and wished to clarify that he
had no desire to restrict or to allow people to build to the maximum limits of their lots. He noted that
was an economic issue. For the documents before the Board, he understood but would not support
SK-5 or SK-4; he would support SK-2. He supported the idea of being flexible based upon zoning.
He believed SK-2 would apply to very few lots in Alameda, and that it need not be restricted if they
were in conformity in every other sense, constituting a unique benefit to that parcel. He did not
suggest opening upon tandem, triple or quadruple parking for all of Alameda.
Mr. Piziali stated that he wanted to leave the requirements as is, with two car tandem parking, no
parking in the front, and a 20-yard setback.
President Cunningham would rather see more green space in the back than tell a resident to balloon
their driveway out in the back and cover up more green space. He noted that if a resident is prepared
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
April 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,13,"to accept the three-car tandem parking, it is a personal choice.
Ms. Mariani suggested continuing this item to a later meeting.
Mr. Lynch agreed that the uniqueness of the neighborhoods and zones should be retained, and
emphasized that the wording of the text would have a significant impact.
M/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous not to revise the current Code regulations pertaining to 20 foot
setbacks.
AYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
M/S Piziali/McNamara to retain the language pertaining to two-car tandem parking.
AYES - 4 (Cook absent); NOES - 2 (Cunningham, Lynch); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
April 25, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,14,"9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC (Vice-
President Cook).
Vice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Board member Piziali advised he had nothing new to report.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
member Mariani).
Board member Mariani advised that there had been no meetings since her last report.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary
City Planning Department
These minutes were approved at the May 9, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio
and video taped.
G:\PLANNING\PB\Agendas_Minutes\Minutes.05\April 25 Minutes.doc
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
April 25, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-09,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, May 9, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:04 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. Mariani
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Lynch, Mariani,
McNamara, and Piziali.
Board member Kohlstrand was absent.
Also present were Building Official Gregory J. McFann, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman,
Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, and Jennifer Ott, Development Manager, Development
Services.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of April 25, 2005.
M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of April 25, 2005, as
presented.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Cook)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cunningham advised that staff requested that Item 8-B be heard before Item 8-A.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
May 9, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-09,2,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
Endorsement of the Webster Street Strategic Plan (BK). A request for endorsement of
the Webster Street Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan analyzes retail market opportunities and
revitalization goals and strategies for the Webster Street Corridor.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to endorse the Webster Street Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan
analyzes retail market opportunities and revitalization goals and strategies for the Webster Street
Corridor.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Cook)
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
May 9, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-09,3,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
DR05-0041 - City of Alameda (CE/JO). Acceptance of preliminary design for the Cineplex
generally at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue on the Video Maniac site. This site
is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the C-C and C-C-PD (Community Commercial and
Community Commercial - Planned Development) Districts.
This item was presented after Item 8-B.
Ms. Ott presented the staff report, and noted that the DDA (Development Disposition Agreement)
was approved by the City Council on May 3, 2005.
Mr. Kyle Connors, Alameda Entertainment Associates, developer, presented an overview of the site
plan, and noted that the project architect was very experienced in theater design.
Mr. Rob Henry, Henry Architects, project architect, presented the project in detail on the overhead
display.
M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 6 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, noted that the project architect did a good job in fitting
a lot of function into a small space, which he also believed was part of the problem. He believed there
was too much energy in the site, and suggested that one theater be dropped from the project. He
suggested that the corner adjacent to the rosette be curved to mirror the historic theater's curve. He
noted that the lines did not flow from one theater to the other.
Mr. Kevin Frederick did not like the design of this theater, and did not like the fact that no major
changes had been considered by the Board since the inception of this project. He did not agree with
the inclusion of the retail spaces, and did not believe they blended with the overall layout of the
theater.
Ms. Debbie George disagreed with Mr. Frederick's stated belief that the Planning Board did not listen
to proposed changes and noted that PSBA's comments and input had been incorporated into the
project. She complimented the architect in meeting the challenge of maintaining the integrity of the
neighborhood.
Ms. Annie Rutter, 2329 Santa Clara Avenue, #204, noted that there had been many improvements
since the beginning of the project, but did not like the 20-inch overhang. She would like to remove
the 26 seats and the four-foot screen, but realized that the project needed to move forward. She liked
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
May 9, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-09,4,"the bow window, and believed the signage should be on the front to identify the building.
Mr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, PSBA, commended the architect for taking the economic issues
into account with this project, and for placing the retail space in the area. He liked the inclusion of the
public's comments into this design. He believed the 20-inch overhang on the Central Avenue side
would be softened by the canopies; on the Oak Street side, the plan for the extension of the sidewalk
was unanimously approved by the PSBA Board of Directors. Regarding the number of screens, the
DDA was already in effect between Movietex and the City. He liked the design, and realized it would
be tweaked somewhat.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, AAPS, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, noted that they would have preferred a
less modernistic design, but would address the other concerns such as the integration of different
building masses and design elements. He noted that he would submit comments regarding the design
elements. He recommended that the vertical columns be made more consistent from the street level to
the top to reinforce the established rhythm, and to tie in with the vertical elements of the established
theater.
Mr. Dick Rutter, AAPS, 2329 Santa Clara #204, noted that he had been against the 20-inch
projection, but agreed that they should be consistent. He believed that fine-tuning could be done, and
that the 20-inch depth on the two sides of the corner should be reduced.
Ms. Elizabeth Krase, 3520 Chester Street, noted that she was an architectural historian, and
expressed concern about compliance with the Secretary of State standards regarding additions to
historic properties. She believed the historic color scheme and finishes should be identified now in
order to guide the choices of the colors and finishes on the Cineplex, so it will be compatible with the
old theater. She expressed concern that the Planning Board and the HAB may not be able to make an
informed decision about whether the project may meet the Secretary's standards until the City has
requested the architectural resources group to identify the original exterior colors and finishes of the
historic theater. She supported the extension of the pilasters up the front of the Cineplex to suggest
the pilasters on the old theater.
Mr. Chuck Millar, believed there was a missed opportunity in that he had not seen any members of
the general public without any commercial interest in the theater say that they loved the design. He
hoped the actual theater would look better than the design. It bothered him that the design was not
site-specific, with the exception of the massing.
Mr. Robert Wood, 259 Oyster Pond, spoke in support of this project, and noted that he was a citizen
with no vested interest in the project. He believed the seven theaters were necessary to make the
project financially feasible. He believed the 20-inch overhang was a positive aspect by modulating the
façade of the building.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
May 9, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-09,5,"In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook, Ms. Ott confirmed that there would not be any
painting on the exterior of the historic theater.
Mr. Piziali wished to emphasize that this was a separate project on a separate parcel from the historic
theater, and was not a historic addition.
Ms. Mariani noted that she did not have a problem with the canopies or the extension any more, and
believed it would all blend in together. She would like to see more vertical elements. She believed it
was a good project and would like to move forward.
Ms. McNamara asked what elements resulting from the subcommittee meetings were included in the
design.
President Cunningham noted that there had been an effort to erode the strong horizontal and vertical
lines at the corner. The articulation of the corner was also addressed by adding a dome. He
commended the project architect on his work given the budget. The 20-inch setback had been
discussed in the subcommittee, which added more shadow; without the setback, the sheer wall would
have detracted from the project.
Vice President Cook noted that she was not comfortable with the additional vertical elements. She
agreed with Ms. Krase's comments about the color scheme. She agreed that the columns were busy.
She noted that the original concept of the project included retail space on the ground floor to enliven
the street. Although she did not favor the ball on top, she appreciated the improvements in the corner
elements. She liked the increase in size of the Oak Street sidewalk. She requested that the architects
do whatever they can to step the new building down with respect to the old theater to soften the
connection.
President Cunningham expressed concern about the dark glazing on the upper level, and understood
the concerns about the heat gain. He encouraged the use of low-e double-pane glass instead.
Mr. Connors noted that they chose the bronze glass to avoid the reflection inherent in the low-e glass.
Mr. Piziali suggested the use of dark anodized aluminum glass.
A discussion of the dome element ensued.
M/S McNamara/Lynch and unanimous to accept the preliminary design for the Cineplex generally at
the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue on the Video Maniac site. The following modifications
would be included:
1.
The dome would be eliminated;
2.
The aluminum storefront would have dark anodized frames glazing;
3.
The angles on the right-hand side of the building would be softened;
4.
The original exterior color would be researched by staff,
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
May 9, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-09,6,"5.
There would be no uplight wash on the exterior wall; and
6.
Possible improvements where the buildings meet would be considered.
AYES - 6 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
May 9, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-09,7,"8-B.
City of Alameda - 1416 Oak Street (CE/JO). Applicant requests acceptance of preliminary
Design for a 352-space parking structure, at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue,
generally on the Video Maniac site. This site is located at 1416 Oak Street site within the C-
C-PB Community Commercial, Community Commercial - Planned Development Zoning
Districts.
This item was heard before Item 8-A.
Ms. Ott presented the staff report
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding change in the width of Oak Street, and
providing more space for bicycles, Ms. Ott replied that was brought up during the Transportation
Commission meeting. It was important that the possibility be maintained for Class II bike lanes to be
included; the current plan was to place stenciling on the ground identifying it as a shared bike lane.
Public Works agreed with this plan.
Ms. Ott introduced Michael Stanton, project architect. Mr. Stanton summarized the proposal,
displayed the site plan on the overhead screen, addressed the modified items since the last
presentation, and presented the concepts for the exterior lighting.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, AAPS, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, noted that he wrote a brief letter to the
Board, and distributed a handout to the Board. He commented on the displayed elevation, and
suggested carrying the molding above the open bays along the tops of the solid brick walls to provide
more continuity to the top. He believed that would relieve the undifferentiated wall masses of the
shear walls. He suggested adding a belt course or sill course that ran along the base of the openings to
break up the massing into a three-part vertical composition: the base, the shaft and the top, with more
focus to the top as the culmination of the design. He suggested enlarging the movie poster boxes to a
storefront size. He suggested that artwork or posters for special Park Street events could be displayed
in those boxes as well. He suggested that the arch pattern be extended to the stairwell to maintain
continuity with the other openings. He suggested that the spandrels between the opening be lightened
by using a different material such as delicate or ribbed metal. He suggested that the brick on the
bottom level be a slightly lighter buff color.
Ms. Debbie George, treasurer of Park Street Business Association (PSBA), and representing a 30-
year business property owner on Park Street, spoke in support of this application. She had waited for
many years for this addition to the district.
Mr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, PSBA, spoke in support of this application. He noted that their
Board of Directors supported this design as presented by staff. He believed the public has had
sufficient opportunity to comment on this design, and noted that some of their ideas had been
incorporated. He believed it was time for this project to go forward, and noted that the additions to
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
May 9, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-09,8,"the parking structure must be weighed against the total budget of the project.
Mr. Robert Wood, 259 Oyster Pond, noted that he would reluctantly criticize the design because the
parking garage had been anticipated by the area for decades. He believed this structure had the most
minimal of design aspirations of almost any structure in the area. He supposed the garage was
mechanically ventilated, and was afraid that the massing and scale of the building would be
oppressive. He believed a massing study should be done, and that the top two floors of the garage
should be set back; he believed that 15 parking spaces would be lost in that scenario. He would like to
see a Specific Plan for this area, and was concerned that Long's may develop a 60-foot-high building
on the block because the City did not take the initiative to study and provide limitations on such
structures.
Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, spoke in opposition to this item and believed the structure
was extremely unattractive and uninspired.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio, noted that in his seven years of residence in Alameda, he's
never had a problem parking on Park Street, partly because he rode a bicycle often, and partly
because he did not mind walking a few blocks. He endorsed Mr. Buckley's comments. He agreed
with Mr. Woods' comments about the massing, and believed the sunlight would be blocked in the
morning. He did not believe the massing would be appropriate, and expressed concern about the
visual pollution that would be caused by the uplighting. He believed planters should be interspersed
between the storefront-size poster displays. He did not believe artwork and vinyl were compatible; he
suggested that a bas relief mural would be appropriate. He believed bike logo signs and bike text signs
that specify that bikes are allowed to enter at the bike logo area, and in the main driveway. He noted
that this was not the first design choice, and would like the design to be redone so that it is the first
choice. He urged the Board to take Mr. Buckley's and Mr. Woods' comments into account.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding parking, Mr. Stanton confirmed that the sixth
floor would contain parking on the whole floor. He displayed the façade and stated that the rationale
behind the vinyl art wall was that it was a property line wall that required significant four-hour
construction. The Building Official believed that penetrations would be inconsistent with safety
standards for the City, particularly with a relatively high hazard occupancy like a garage. Given the
limited budget for the project, they tried to invest in the best quality materials and desirable on the
permanent Oak Street façade. It was hoped that the Long's site will eventually be redeveloped in a
way more consistent with downtown Alameda; a corner parking lot on a major intersection was not
the standard pattern of Alameda's commercial districts. He noted that vines had been considered, but
the north facing façade and height of the building made that impractical. A reciprocal easement with
Long's for trees had been explored, but did not pan out. He noted that any art may stay on the façade
for up to three years, but that the form and medium was in the preliminary stage.
Ms. Ott described the Public Art Ordinance, and noted that they were making a good faith effort to
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
May 9, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-09,9,"include public art in the project. She noted that it would not contain advertisements.
Ms. McNamara supported public art in this project.
In response to Ms. McNamara's request, Mr. Stanton described the shear wall and entrances in detail.
He stated the garage was mechanically ventilated, because of the lack of adequate opening to the
outdoors prevented natural ventilation. He noted that the mechanical ventilation would activate only
when the carbon monoxide sensors detected a buildup; this would be safe and energy efficient.
Mr. Lynch believed the extra costs should be borne by the project. At his request, Mr. Stanton
described the different colors and materials of the façade, and how it would relate to long-term
maintenance of light colors at the base, moving up the structure. He noted that the sample board
represented the original color choices. He preferred a honed finish, which discouraged some forms of
graffiti and abuse. He believed a darker, warmer red at the base of the building would be appropriate,
and would like further Board feedback.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Ott confirmed that the garage would not be costed out
until after the final design approval.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether cars would be visible from the outside, Mr.
Stanton replied that the cars should not be visible from the street. He noted that the lighting would be
visible, but anticipated that the lighting fixtures would be as inconspicuous as possible. He added that
he would create the view angles from across the street, but did not believe they would be visible.
Vice President Cook believed the time had come to have a parking garage in Alameda, and added that
the parking availability had become more limited. She was not happy that an appropriate solution
could not be worked out with Long's She noted that with planning, nothing was ever perfect and
believed that it was time to move forward. She believed the architect had been responsive to the
severe constraints of the site. She agreed with Mr. Buckley's comments, although she did not believe
they were all feasible. She liked the idea of arching the area in the tower to match the other arches, as
well as having a darker shade at the base to create grounding. She appreciated what the architect did
with the doors closest to City Hall. She believed the poster size insets were too small, but did not
believe they should be storefront-sized; the poster casing should be framed, perhaps similar to the
treatment around the doors. She appreciated the architect's responsiveness on the stair tower.
Mr. Stanton agreed with Vice President Cook's assessment that the posters did indeed look ""dinky,""
and would be happy to bring an alternative back to the Board.
Mr. Piziali agreed that the posters should not be larger, but that they should be framed.
President Cunningham noted that there was an additional speaker due to the reverse order of the
items.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
May 9, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-09,10,"M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to reopen the public hearing.
Ms. Annie Rutter, 2329 Santa Clara Avenue, #204, did not believe tearing down the design at this
point would be very constructive. She believed the project would move forward, and would like to
give Mr. Stanton some ideas to work with. She supported the underground vault, and was concerned
about the inexpensive materials on the large exterior wall. She liked the color palette and the darker
base. She believed the lighting as represented on the drawing looked inaccurate, particular with
respect to the upthrow from the fixtures. She hoped the lighting fixtures would be integral throughout
the design, and that they would not be removed because of cost concerns. She noted that there was
not much design on the façade, and the lighting should be very important. She expressed concern
about property and personal security inside the garage, and was disappointed that there would not be
a security kiosk in the garage. She believed the handicapped spaces could be closer to the elevators.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Mariani would like see the Cineplex in relation to the parking garage.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Ms. Ott replied that a shading study had not been
performed on this structure. Mr. Stanton noted that this placement of the parking garage was ideal
with respect to minimal shading impact. There may be some morning shade onto the Oak Street right-
of-way, but for the most part, the rising sun would be screened by the historic cinema.
Mr. Piziali liked the lighting, and believed they would wash on the building façade more than
indicated on the drawing. He supported this project, and believed it would be beneficial for Park
Street. He noted that the design could be tweaked forever, and that it may never get built.
President Cunningham fully supported this project, and believed it would be good for Alameda. He
agreed with Mr. Piziali's assessment. His biggest concern was the control of the design/build process,
and the budget concerns.
Ms. Ott advised that with respect to the design/build team, the Board's specifications would be
included in the contract. If the bids exceeded the anticipated budget, and no funding sources could be
found or moved around, she advised that it was very likely that a floor of the parking garage would be
removed.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding the performance of the construction management
work, Ms. Ott replied that staff was in the process of completing an internal draft of an RFP for those
services. She anticipated it would be released in the next few weeks. Mr. Lynch noted that parking
garage construction was a specialty field, and that this bifurcated process would force a firm to figure
out how to bid on the project. He suggested that staff consider that possibility before sending the
RFP.
President Cunningham agreed that the arches on the stair tower should be left as is, and would like to
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
May 9, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-09,11,"retain the ability to detail the brick around the posters. He supported the darker base.
In response to Vice President Cook concern about pedestrian safety if a pay booth were to be used,
Ms. Ott noted that there would be no pay booth, and there would be two stations at the two exits.
M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution to provide acceptance of
preliminary Design for a 352-space parking structure, near the corner of Oak Street and Central
Avenue, generally on the Video Maniac site. The following modifications would be included:
1.
The darker base as recommended by the architect;
2.
No additional arches on the tower building;
3.
Framing or detailing around the posters; and
4.
Where possible, a change in the brick courses to add interest to the large facades.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Cook)
President Cunningham called for a five-minute recess before Item 8-A.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
May 9, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-09,12,"9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice
President Cook).
Vice President Cook noted that there was much to discuss, and would like to agendize the item to
give a complete report.
b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.
c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Board Member Piziali advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.
d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani).
Board Member Mariani noted that the last meeting had been canceled, and that another meeting
would be held in two weeks.
Vice President Cook requested that the current staffing situation in the Planning & Building
Department be agendized for discussion.
10.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
11.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:21 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gregory J. McFann, Interim Secretary
City Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the May 23, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio
and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
May 9, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
May 23, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Vice President Cook
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,
McNamara, and Piziali.
Board member Mariani was absent from roll call and arrived during Oral Communications.
Also present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason,
Supervising Planner Andrew Thomas, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner III Allen Tai.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of May 9, 2005.
Mr. Piziali advised that page 6, paragraph 1, should be changed to read, ""Mr. Piziali suggested the
use of dark anodized aluminum glass.""
Mr. Piziali advised that page 6, bullet 2, should be changed to read, ""2. The aluminum storefront
would have dark anodized frames glazing.'
Vice President Cook advised that on page 1, regarding the minutes for April 25, 2005, she did not
believe she seconded the minutes, and indicated that she abstained.
Ms. Eliason advised that staff would confirm that item.
M/S Piziali/Cook to approve the minutes for the meeting of May 9, 2005, as amended.
AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cunningham advised that staff had received a letter regarding Items 8-B and 8-C, and that
while public comment would be taken, there would be no Board discussion or action on the item until
staff had a chance to address the issues raised by the letter. Board discussion would be continued until
the Planning Board meeting of June 13, 2005.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,2,"Ms. Barbara Nemer expressed concern about a sign to be erected at Donald Lum School on Otis
Drive, and that the sign is to be over eight feet tall. She noted that it was larger than any other sign in
Alameda schools, and expressed concern that it would be plastic and illuminated. She believed it
would be a safety hazard because of its location at a crosswalk and a corner, and believed it would be
hideous. She would like to see a wooden sign, illuminated by plant lights. She noted that this school
was one of the nicest on the Island.
Mr. Piziali noted that this sign was not the purview of the Planning Board, and that the Board of
Education would be the property entity to address. The Planning Board has no control over this sign.
Mr. Lynch advised that the designs, plans, building inspections and contracts for schools go through
the school board of the local jurisdiction, including design review.
Ms. Diane Voss, 1815 Otis Drive, expressed concern about the Donald Lum School sign, which
would cost over $8,000, and the monthly cost would also be at taxpayer expense. She would consider
a ""No"" vote on the taxpayer-funded school assistance if her money were to be spent this way.
Ms. Liz Cleves, 1815 Otis Drive, spoke in opposition to this sign, and expressed concern about safety
at the corner and the crosswalk with respect to the proximity of the sign.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
May 23, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,3,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
Use Permit, UP05-005; John Kienoski, John's Bargain Imports, 1770 Viking Street,
Alameda, CA. (Alameda Point) (ATh). The applicant requests a Use Permit modification to
allow retail sales at an existing wholesale facility. The site is located in the M-2-G, General
Industry/Manufacturing Zoning District/Government Combining District.
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-15 to approve
a Use Permit modification to allow retail sales at an existing wholesale facility.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
May 23, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,4,"7-B.
Interim Use Permit UP05-0004: Alameda Point Collaborative/Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, 2580/2700 Barbera Point Road Near Main Street at
Singleton Avenue, Parcel 99, Alameda Point (ATh). The applicant requests an Interim Use
Permit to allow establishment of a 4-acre retail plant nursery. The site is located in the M-2-G
General Industry/Manufacturing Zoning District/Government Combining District.
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-16 to approve
an Interim Use Permit to allow establishment of a 4-acre retail plant nursery.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
May 23, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,5,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A. Variance V05-0003.Major Design Review DR04-0109 - KDArchitects, Inc. for Kwan Li
- 2411 Webb Avenue (AT). Applicants request a Major Design Review and two Variances
to construct a two-story residential/commercial mixed use building on a vacant parcel. The
project proposes two ground floor retail spaces approximately 800-860 square feet in size and
two residential units on the second floor with approximately 700-1,000 square feet of floor
area for a total gross floor area of 3,383 square feet. The design of the building resembles a
streamlined moderne appearance with a combination of stucco exterior siding and clear
anodized aluminum trim. Access to parking located at the rear of the building is through a
driveway located along the right side of the building under a portion of the second story. The
project requires a total of twelve parking spaces, and the plans provide eight total spaces with
residential parking in the form of stacked parking lifts. Two variances are requested for the
deficiency of four parking spaces and a reduced landscaping separation between one parking
space and the north and east property lines, where three feet is required. The site is located at
2411 Webb Avenue, within the Park Street C-C, Community Commercial Zoning District.
Mr. Tai presented the staff report, and recommended approval of this application.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speakers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand whether this site would qualify for the in lieu parking fee,
Ms. Eliason confirmed that it would.
Ms. Kohlstrand liked the traditional, old-downtown look of Park Street, which provided a continuous
street frontage. She expressed concern about providing required parking on-site, particularly when
there was public parking available across the street at the Bank of America site. The possibility of
stacked parking concerned her, and would rather see a Variance for six parking spaces.
President Cunningham inquired how much the stacking devices cost, and whether it would be better
to put the money into the in lieu fund instead.
Mr. Piziali noted that he liked the stacking device at first, given the Board discussion of open space
and tandem parking. He agreed with the idea of putting the money intended for the lifts into the in
lieu fund instead, and to grant the applicant a Variance.
Mr. Lynch complimented the applicant on a beautiful architectural design and layout.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,6,"President Cunningham did not want the lifts to be used all over the City as an unintended
consequence.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that she would normally prefer continuous store frontage, but she would accept
a driveway through the building. She agreed that the design was very nice, and was a positive mixed-
use proposal.
Mr. Piziali noted that he would not object to stacked parking if it were inside a structure elsewhere in
the City.
Mr. Lynch would be willing to entertain the Variance that reflects the withdrawal of the lift, and those
funds being placed into the City in-lieu fund.
Ms. Harryman suggested that the Board give direction to staff as to what it would like to see, and
continue the item to the next meeting so it may be placed on the Consent Calendar.
At Vice President Cook's request, Mr. Tai summarized the changes in the design.
President Cunningham suggested that taller landscaping be planted in the back, instead of the
boxwood. She noted that several other buildings had a view to the back of the site.
Ms. McNamara expressed concern about the architectural design of this building that seemed to have
been designed without regard for the adjacent building.
President Cunningham noted that the trashcans as illustrated were shown to be half the size of real
trash cans, and suggested that the space under the stairs be used to house the trash containers.
Ms. Eliason summarized the Board's direction: a Variance for six spaces rather than providing the
stacked units and payment of an in lieu. Four parking spaces would be for the residential units, and
would be dedicated for residential use.
Mr. Tai noted that there may be required handicapped accessible spaces for the commercial spaces,
and added that two spaces each may be for the residential units; the remaining two spaces may be
devoted to handicapped accessible parking for the commercial use.
M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of June 13,
2005.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
May 23, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,7,"8-B.
Zoning Text Amendment ZA05-0002, Applicant: Alameda Theatre Project Inc., - All
Neighborhood Business Districts (C-1) within the City of Alameda (DG/CE). The
applicant requests an Amendment to Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-4.8(c) to add
""Boutique Theater"" as an allowable use in the C-1 zoning district, subject to Use Permit
approval. ""Boutique Theater"" would be defined as ""A theater with audiences of 49 persons or
less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one
screen in the theater.' (Continued from the meeting of April 11, 2005.)
Mr. Piziali noted that many speaker slips were for both Items 8-B and 8-C.
Mr. Lynch requested that staff clarify the distinctions between Items 8-B and 8-C for the public; Ms.
Eliason explained the difference for the audience.
Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report.
President Cunningham advised that public comment would be taken, but that no Board discussion or
action would be taken.
President Cunningham advised that more than five speaker slips had been received
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Mark Haskett, applicant, noted that he had acutely aware of the absence of a movie theater
in
Alameda; he described the background of this application and noted that his intent was to create a
positive influence on the community. He noted that this theater was the smallest commercial movie
theater in the country. He presented a petition in opposition to closing the theater which was signed
by 1,500 people; he noted that he did not initiate the petition.
Mr. Peter MacDonald, attorney for the applicant, noted that he would like to present the response
regarding CEQA at the next meeting. He noted that the General Plan presented the ideal of a less
automobile-oriented city with mixed uses and a traditional ambience, also known as the ""new
urbanism."" He noted that included pedestrian orientation with places worth patronizing within the
city, as opposed to megaplexes at the edge of the city center or further. He noted that the seats were
low-density seating featuring couches and easy chairs, as opposed to airline-type seating. He did not
believe that many boutique theaters would be created, and that this zoning amendment would indicate
the City's commitment to entrepreneurs. He noted that the applicant often found available parking
space in the vicinity when his theater has sold out. He surveyed his customers, and found that only 15
cars were driven by customers on a Friday night, and 13 cars on a Saturday night, which was less than
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,8,"projected by staff. On both nights, about 40% of his customers walked to the theater. He believed this
theater was an asset to the community. He noted that the movie could not be heard from the
neighbor's fence. He noted that he would respond to Ms. Barbara Thomas' comments in opposition
to the theater at the next meeting. He expressed concern about the condition requiring a 20-minute
gap between movies, and did not believe it was necessary during the day when there were seldom
more than 15 people during those showings. He suggested that that condition be applicable only after
6 p.m.
Mr. David Penney, 1620 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and noted that he
lived a half mile away from the theater. He believed this business was a good fit for the neighborhood,
and would like to see a few more throughout the City.
Mr. David Hart, 712 Taylor, spoke in support of this application, and believed that the cinema was an
unqualified positive feature for the neighborhood. He liked the family-friendly atmosphere of the
theater, and had never found parking to be a problem. He noted that most of the patrons walked to
the theater.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and noted that he
lived within walking distance of the theater. He believed this was an excellent and creative solution to
the conflicts that arose earlier, and supported local ownership. He believed this size and type of
business ownership should be encouraged.
Ms. Chantal Currid, 834 Taylor Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and would like to see
the City encourage this type of business.
Mr. Richard Archuleta, 1406 9th Street, spoke in support of this application. He noted that he had
seen many people walking and riding their bicycles, which has brought a good atmosphere to the
neighborhood. He would like to see a stop light near the cinema for safety. He believed this use
would be a good activity for families and children in a small-town atmosphere, and would not cause
any spending leakage to off-island cities.
Mr. Matthew Callahan, 1822¹/² Clinton Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and believed that
the Central Cinema was a jewel in the City. He would like to see more boutique theaters in Alameda.
He supported the zoning change, and noted that there were many members of the audience who
supported it as well.
Ms. Eve Abrahams Shutt, 927 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and enjoyed
walking to the theater. She liked the friendly atmosphere of the theater, and added that there had
never been any parking problems.
Mr. Ethan Rafferty, 1217 Central Avenue, spoke in support of this application. He discussed the
economic benefit of this theater to other small businesses in the surrounding neighborhoods. He noted
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,9,"that the small theaters often showed family-friendly movies that may not be supported by the
megaplex theaters.
Ms. Nancy Sewell, 11709th Street, #23, spoke in support of this application, and noted that she lived
three blocks away from the theater.
Ms. Allison Martin, 1519 St. Charles, spoke in support of this application. She noted that there had
been a lot more traffic when the site housed a mortuary. She noted that she had been able to bring her
elderly father to the theater easily. She agreed that a crosswalk would be a good addition for safety.
Ms. Barbara Thomas, PO Box 1381, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted that she represented
clients in opposition to the application, and that she would reserve her specific comments until after
the Planning Board has been able to review her letter. She believed that the theater was a wonderful
idea, but that it was in the wrong place. She recalled several permitted Alameda theaters that had
closed, and that they all had sufficient parking. She asked the Board to look at this application from a
macro view, rather than from a micro view. She noted that the General Plan and the Alameda
Municipal Code encourage businesses that draw traffic to go to the major C-C zones, such as
Webster Street. She noted that the transportation plans also support those goals, and believed lack of
parking had contributed to failure on Webster Street and Park Street. She noted that good businesses
were spread out in that zone and that they bought parking lots for their clientele, which she believed
should be dissuaded under the General Plan.
Mr. Allen Rawl, 48 Invincible Court, spoke in support of this application, and had moved here
because of the small-town character of Alameda. He agreed with the other speakers who supported
this application. He hoped the residents did not take the ability to walk to the theater for granted.
Mr. Don Coughlan, 2008B Clinton, spoke in support of this application and noted that he grew up in
the West End; he appreciated the small-town neighborhood feel and businesses. He noted that when
he worked at the mortuary as a young man, there were many cars parked in the neighborhood without
complaint.
Ms. Holly Ackley, 3015 San Jose Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and appreciated being
able to stay on the Island for dinner and a movie. She noted that she often walked there, but never
had trouble finding a parking space even when the movie was sold out. She liked the non-rowdy
nature of the patrons.
Ms. Louise Elsea, 470 Lincoln Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and noted that
Alameda's small-town atmosphere was very different than the rest of the Bay Area. She believed this
theater helped neighbors get to know each other.
Mr. Robert Lundy Paine, 2056 Pacific, spoke in support of this application and introduced his
daughters Bridget and Jessica. He believed that Central Cinema was a small and comfortable addition
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,10,"to a unique community.
Mr. Richard Archuleta, 1406 9th Street, spoke again in support of this application. He did not believe
this theater could be compared to the theater on Alameda Point, and that this was a neighborhood
theater that people could walk to. He noted that there was sufficient parking for theater patrons.
Mr. Robert Todd spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern that this business may
expand its services as it became more successful, and would not want to see additional uses, such as
a
restaurant that may serve alcohol. He expressed concern about the actions of patrons as they leave,
causing noise or hazards on the road. He inquired whether this use would have the same noise
restrictions as residential districts, and was concerned that it would become a nuisance in the future.
He expressed concern about the operation of the Building Department.
Dr. Carol Gerdes noted that she was an obstetrician and spoke in support of this application. She
noted that the theater held a Baby Brigade evening on Tuesdays. She appreciated Alameda's family
community, and believed it was important to support this use. She noted that the mortuary use was
more intense.
Ms. Karya Lustig, 838 Central Avenue, spoke in support of this application and noted that she lived
next door to the theater. She and her family appreciated the family atmosphere, and added that their
initial noise and traffic concerns had not been borne out. She complimented the applicant on the way
in which he kept the property up.
Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1282 Caroline Street, spoke in support of this application and believed this was
a good use of the site. He liked the design of the theater.
Ms. Michele Bealhimer, PO Box 2933, noted that she lived three blocks away from the theater, and
liked the small-town feel that was particular to Alameda. She added that there was no adverse noise
impact from the theater.
Mr. Ronald Pineda, 748 Lincoln, noted that he liked the theater, but was concerned that Alameda
might emulate the character from other towns rather than be a unique community. He believed
Central Cinema was an important component of Alameda's character.
The public hearing was closed.
There was no Board discussion.
M/S Kohlstrand/Piziali and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of June
13, 2005.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,11,"Page 11
Planning Board Minutes
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,12,"8-C.
Use Permit UP05-0009, Applicant: Mark Haskett (Alameda Theatre Project Inc.), - 842
Central Ave. (DG/CE). The applicant requests the granting of a Use Permit allowing the
operation of a Boutique Theater located in a C-1 Zoning District. (Continued from the
meeting of April 11, 2005.)
Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report, and recommended that this item be continued to the
Planning Board meeting of June 13, 2005.
President Cunningham advised that public comment would be taken, but that no Board discussion or
action would be taken.
President Cunningham advised that more than five speaker slips had been received
M/S Kohlstrand/Piziali and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN- - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Mark Haskett, applicant, declined to speak again.
Ms. Mallory Penney, 1620 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in support of this application. She stated that
she often walked to the theater with her friends, and often saw people at the theater that she knew.
She liked the welcoming atmosphere of the theater. She liked the theater on Alameda Point, but
preferred the smaller theater.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in support of this application. He recalled the
amount of emotional opposition to the Multicultural Center, which had turned out to be a valuable
addition to the community. He believed this use was a good response to local needs, and that it would
be more widely use. He believed that every request by the Building Department for Code upgrades to
the building should be met as soon as possible. He worked on the pilot program for the Safe Routes
to School program at Franklin Elementary School, and noted that the crosswalk in question would be
included in that program for Washington Elementary at Taylor and 8th, as well as Grand Avenue and
other intersections.
Ms. Darnell Arniola, 3039 Fernside, spoke in support of this application, and complimented the
applicant's service to the community.
Mr. David Little, 2046 San Antonio, spoke in support of this application, and noted that Alameda has
had very few theaters to choose from. He believed the Central Theater had enhanced the cultural
atmosphere in Alameda. He did not want to spend his film dollars off the Island.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,13,"Mr. Dean Ironside, 1206 Ninth Street, spoke in support of this application. He had not noticed any
change in the traffic patterns in the 43 years he had lived in the neighborhood.
Ms. Barbara Thomas, PO Box 1381, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed that the applicant
took it upon himself to open this business, obtained a business license that did not construe Use
Permits. She stated that the applicant was cited by Planning Staff on December 17, 2004, as
committing a misdemeanor for operating an illegal use. She noted that on January 18, 2005, the
Building Official and the Fire Marshall posted a notice on the door that the building was unsafe, and
recorded that notice with the County Recorder. She noted that Mr. MacDonald, the applicant's
attorney, removed the sign. She inquired whether the applicant had liability insurance. She believed
there would have been no opposition to the use had he appeared before the Planning Board at the
beginning of the process. She noted that the patrons parked in the residents' parking spaces.
Ms. Nancy Sewell, 1170 9th Street, #23, spoke in support of this application, and noted that the
Alameda Cultural Club did not have any parking for five blocks away. She noted that the noise, traffic
and harassment from that use had been difficult to bear. She noted that this use did not cause noise,
parking problems or harassment, and that the neighborhood was generally supported.
Mr. Dren McDonald, 740 Santa Clara, spoke in support of this application and noted that there were
not many movie theaters that a toddler could attend. He added that this theater was very different
from the average multiplex, and did not believe it was comparable to other theaters that had been in
Alameda in the past. He did not find the building to be unsafe, and did not believe the applicant would
bring his own children to the building if it were.
Ms. Antoinette Lajoie, 1170 9th Street, #18, spoke in support of this application, and added that she
walked to the theater from her home, as do her neighbors. She liked the friendly atmosphere of the
theater, and believed it was child-friendly. She had never noticed any traffic problems.
The public hearing was closed.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani regarding other courses of action regarding this application,
Ms. Harryman advised that there were two ways that this particular business could be allowed in the
Alameda Municipal Code: as of right, and with a Use Permit. The Zoning Code currently only
allowed theaters in the Central Business District (C-C). The Use Permit would be the more restrictive
of the two methods, and there was no means of getting a Variance for this use.
M/S Mariani/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of June 13,
2005.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
May 23, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,14,"9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC (Vice
President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that she had requested regular updates on the APAC's work (see Item
11-A).
b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.
c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Board Member Piziali advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.
d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani).
Board Member Mariani advised that Mr. Thomas had made a presentation, which she would defer
until the next meeting. The Chinatown group was very pleased with the planning so far, resulting
from the Alameda Point proposed development.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Staff update on status of Planning for Alameda Point.
Mr. Andrew Thomas advised that he had distributed a flier for the sixth and final workshop regarding
the preliminary development concept. The final draft of the preliminary development concept and
transportation program would be presented at the June 8 community workshop, and the written
documents would be presented at that time. The land use plans and the associated development
principles would be presented, as would the transportation program and all its phases, and the historic
preservation program. An infrastructure plan that supported the preliminary development concept
would be presented, as well as other documents. Staff would take community comment on June 8,
and would get a sense from the community in terms of work to date, and what would need further
work. Those comments would be brought to the ARRA Board on July 14, 2005. Mr. Lynch
expressed concern about the type of partners sought by the City as build out approaches. He inquired
whether the agreement structure was such that the Master Developer reserves the right to move
forward with the development, whether they can request an extension, and what the triggers in the
agreement were. Mr. Thomas recalled the background of the project, and noted that a Conditional
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,15,"conveyance. He believed that the decision to move forward with the business plan was an internal
decision of the organization.
Vice President Cook commended staff on an excellent job in conducting the workshops, which have
been very informative. She asked the Planning Board to become more involved in the community
workshops. She noted that transportation on/off and within the Island was a critical issue, and there
was expertise on the Board regarding that issue. She noted that Measure A was a critical issue as
well, and believed that staff had been given the direction to look at only Measure A-compliant
alternatives. Many members of the community believed that Measure A should be examined more
carefully, and that non- Measure A-compliant alternatives should be examined as well. She believed
that the community wanted Alameda Point to ""look like Alameda,' but there may not be consensus
about what that means, especially with respect to single-family homes or a fine-grained mixed use
seen throughout Alameda. She believed there was a tendency to not look at both alternatives in an
equal capacity.
President Cunningham requested the City Attorney's perspective on the possibility of a non-Measure
A-compliant alternative being preferred. Ms. Harryman advised that Mr. Brandt and Mr. Thomas
were the most knowledgeable about that issue.
Mr. Thomas noted that they had started the workshop process 12 months ago, and staff had been
very straight-forward detailing the constraints, including Measure A. Because Measure A is in the
City Charter, it would require a ballot measure to change; staff would not spend an excess amount of
time exploring a non-Measure A-compliant alternative. He noted that the City, through the
Chinatown agreement, had agreed to look at a higher density alternative in the EIR, and to give it a
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,16,"full analysis.
Mr. Lynch noted that a number of communities have gone forward with the environmental documents
first, then the plan. The voters would then be provided with the alternatives and an idea of the general
concept as it related to the baseline data.
Ms. Kohlstrand believed that Alameda Point provided the perfect opportunity to have a meaningful
community debate about whether Measure A should prevail, or whether another development
approach should be considered for that area.
Mr. Thomas believed that the last meeting would be productive if it could be devoted to evaluating
the two plans that had been developed through the process. He added that this would not be the end
of the planning process.
Mr. Lynch noted that he would be out of the country on June 8, but suggested that the City election
schedule be presented to the public at that time; a special election would be very costly. He noted that
would help structure the planning timeline so that any possible ballot issues may be considered.
Mr. Piziali suggested that issue be considered at a separate meeting.
Ms. Eliason noted that it may be best to hold the discussion after the Navy's decision was known.
b.
Staff update on current stafflevels in the Planning Division of the Planning & Building
Department.
Ms. Eliason advised that Mr. Cormack would retire in mid-June, and his position was slated to be
frozen. In the next budget cycle, Ms. Altschuler's position would be eliminated. She noted that
staffing would be thin for the time being, and that the recruitment effort for a Planning & Building
Director was underway. Greg McFann and Jerry Cormack shared the Interim Planning & Building
Director position.
The entire Planning & Building Department was in the process of conducting a fee study and
evaluation of staffing. Those results will be available in the next month or two; it was hoped that it
would show that the staffing levels were too low, given the volume of work on both the Planning
&
Building sides, allowing the Development Review Manager position to be unfrozen.
Mr. Lynch noted that because of the time lags involved, some of the fees may not be recovered during
the current fiscal year. He noted that the expectations of processing applications must be considered.
Mr. Lynch inquired how many city and county jurisdictions in the State were fully funded and staffed.
Ms. Mariani suggested that point be brought before City Council.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,17,"12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary
City Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the June 13, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio
and video taped.
:PLANNINGIPB\Agendas_Minutes)Minutes.05\May 23_Minute
Planning Board Minutes
Page 17
May 23, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
June 13, - p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:14 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Mr. Lynch
3.
ROLL CALL:
Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani, and
Piziali.
President Cunningham and Board Member Gina Mariani were absent.
Also present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Assistant City Manager Paul
Benoit, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler,
Contract Planner Chandler Lee, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner III Allen Tai,
Planner II Dennis Brighton, Jennifer Ott, Development Manager, Development Services
Department, Leslie Little, Development Services Department.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of May 23, 2005.
M/S Kohlstrand/Piziali and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of May 23,
2005, as presented.
AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
Ms. Eliason suggested that Item 7-C be moved from the Regular Agenda to the Consent
Calendar so that it may be continued.
M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to move Item 7-C from the Regular Agenda
to the Consent Calendar.
AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,2,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Ms. McNamara advised that she would vote ""No"" on the Consent Calendar because she
still had concerns about the design of the approved residence in Item 7-D; she continued
to voice her opposition to the design review.
Ms. Harryman advised that she and Ms. McNamara had discussed this issue before the
meeting.
7-A.
DA-99-01 -- Catellus Development Corporation (CL). The applicant requests a
Periodic Review of Development Agreement, DA-99-01, for the period from
January through December 2004, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-
95.1. The properties are zoned MX (Mixed Use Planned Development District).
M/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-17 to approve a
Periodic Review of Development Agreement, DA-99-01, for the period from January
through December 2004, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1.
AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,3,"7-B. DA89-1 -- Harbor Bay Business Park Association, Harbor Bay Isle
Associates and Harbor Bay Entities -- Bay Farm Island (Primarily Harbor
Bay Isle) (CE). A request for a Periodic Review of Development Agreement
DA89-01, for the period through April 4, 2005, as required under Zoning
Ordinance Section 30-95.1. The properties are zoned R-1-PD, One Family
Residence/Planned Development Zoning District; C-M-PD, Commercial
Manufacturing Planned Development Zoning District; O, Open Space Zoning
District and R-1-A-H, One Family Residence with Special Agricultural and
Height Limit Combining Zoning District.
M/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-18 to approve a
Periodic Review of Development Agreement DA89-01, for the period through April 4,
2005, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1.
AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,4,"7-C.
UP05-0007 - West Alameda Business Association (WABA) and City of
Alameda - Public Parking Lot at Taylor Avenue and Webster Street (DB).
Applicants request approval of an amendment to Use Permit UP-98-53 to allow
an extension of operation of the existing farmers' market which currently operates
on Tuesday morning to include late Thursday afternoons/evenings, from 4:00
p.m. through 8:00 p.m., during the summer and early fall. This would be located
in City Public Parking Lot D. The site is located within the CC (Community
Commercial) Zoning District and is located within the boundaries of the Business
and Waterfront Improvement Project.
M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to move Item 7-C from the Regular Agenda
to the Consent Calendar.
AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
M/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-19 to approve an
amendment to Use Permit UP-98-53 to allow an extension of operation of the
existing farmers' market which currently operates on Tuesday morning to include
late Thursday afternoons/evenings, from 4:00 p.m. through 8:00 p.m., during the
summer and early fall. This would be located in City Public Parking Lot D. The
site is located within the CC (Community Commercial) Zoning District and is
located within the boundaries of the Business and Waterfront Improvement
Project.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,5,"7-D.
Variance V05-0003/Major Design Review DR04-0109 - KD Architects, Inc.
for Kwan Li - 2411 Webb Avenue (AT). Applicants request a Major Design
Review and two Variances to construct a two-story residential/commercia mixed
use building on a vacant parcel. The project proposes two ground floor retail
spaces approximately 800-860 square feet in size and two residential units on the
second floor with approximately 700 - 1,000 square feet of floor area for a total
gross floor area of 3,383 square feet. The design of the building resembles
a streamlined Moderne style with a combination of stucco exterior siding and
clear anodized aluminum trim. Access to parking located at the rear of the
building is through a driveway located along the right side of the building under a
portion of the second story. The project requires a total of twelve parking spaces,
and the project will provide six spaces with a variance and in-lieu fees paid to the
City for six deficient spaces. A variance is requested for a reduced landscaping
separation between one parking space and the north and east property lines, where
three feet is required. The site is located within the Park Street C-C, Community
Commercial Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of May 23, 2005.)
M/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-20 to approve a Major
Design Review and two Variances to construct a two-story residential/commercial mixed
use building on a vacant parcel. The project proposes two ground floor retail spaces
approximately 800-860 square feet in size and two residential units on the second floor
with approximately 700 - 1,000 square feet of floor area for a total gross floor area of
3,383 square feet. The design of the building resembles a streamlined Moderne style
with a combination of stucco exterior siding and clear anodized aluminum trim. Access
to parking located at the rear of the building is through a driveway located along the right
side of the building under a portion of the second story. The project requires a total of
twelve parking spaces, and the project will provide six spaces with a variance and in-lieu
fees paid to the City for six deficient spaces. A variance is requested for a reduced
landscaping separation between one parking space and the north and east property lines,
where three feet is required.
AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,6,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
8-A. Zoning Text Amendment ZA05-0002, Applicant: Alameda Theatre Project
Inc., - All Neighborhood Business Districts (C-1) within the City of Alameda
(DG/CE). The applicant requests an Amendment to Alameda Municipal Code
Section 30-4.8(c) to add ""Boutique Theater"" as an allowable use in the C-1 zoning
district, subject to Use Permit approval. ""Boutique Theater"" would be defined as
""A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the
screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater.""
(Continued from the meeting of May 23, 2005.)
Vice President Cook advised that there were more than five speaker slips submitted for
this item.
M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Robert Gavrich noted that it appeared that there was support for boutique theaters,
and that the Planning Board should rethink the City's strategy to build big box, megaplex
theaters in Alameda. He noted that Alameda's small town atmosphere should promote
family businesses, and believed that Central Cinema should not be the only boutique
theater on the Island. He noted that the support for such a neighborhood cinema was
heavily supported in Alameda, versus the Cineplex. He believed the City would rely on
the Cineplex to replace the lost tax revenues previously received from Ron Goode
Toyota. He noted that Central Cinema would not use any tax dollars, and that the
entrepreneur would take all the financial risk.
Mr. Peter MacDonald, attorney for the applicant, believed that the 164 pages submitted
by Barbara Thomas were adequately responded to in the Negative Declaration and the
staff report. He noted that the applicant was comfortable with that response, and added
that a neighborhood with no impacts was a neighborhood with no life. He believed that
the scale of the impacts was the main issue, and he believed the staff report demonstrated
that. He asked the supporters of the Central Cinema to stand up.
Ms. Lisa Griffith noted that she and her husband owned the home next to Central
Cinema, and were not opposed to the idea of a boutique theater itself. She was concerned
about the parking impact on her home, and noted that many evenings, cars had been
parked in front of her driveway, some belonging to theater patrons, and some not. She
was opposed to this particular use because of its impacts on her home; she noted that
many supporters of the theater either lived elsewhere or had a usable driveway.
Ms. Barbara Thomas, PO Box 1381, spoke in opposition to this item, and wished to
ensure that the 16-page letter had been received by the Board. She had not seen a
response to that letter. She noted that the first letter she wrote was submitted after staff
stated that CEQA did not apply; staff reread the letter and then stated that CEQA did
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,7,"apply. She noted that staff stated that CEQA did not apply in terms of a full-scale
environmental impact report because each subsequent conversion requested by the
applicant would be subject to that categorical exemption. She stated that staff asserted
that it would be subject to discretionary review. She believed that if the applicant wished
to have a similar use elsewhere on the Island, staff would state that it was categorically
exempt under CEQA, which she believed would subvert the intent of CEQA. She
believed a complete CEQA analysis would be required. She noted that the Alameda
Municipal Code stated that parking for commercial purposes could not be places in
residential zones, which was what happened with respect to this use. She noted that the
Webster Street plan included a theater, and suggested that a theater in that district would
be sufficient. She noted that the movie industry released films on DVD within three
months of theatrical release to take advantage of advertising, and did not believe this
theater would be financially feasible. She advised that the General Plan stated that
commercial parking in residential areas should be dissuaded, and believed that should be
taken at its meaning. She noted that movie attendance has been declining, and did not
believe that boutique theaters would be able to succeed.
Mr. David Hart, 712 Taylor, spoke in support of this application, and agreed with Mr.
Gavrich's comments. He noted that he was familiar with parking challenges for a
homeowner in a retail district. The residents supported positive businesses coming into
the neighborhood, and against negative businesses. He believed the neighbors were
supportive of positive businesses in the area, and he believed that public's opinion had
been heard clearly. He recalled Ms. Thomas' statements regarding the possibility of the
theater failing, and noted that in America, an entrepreneur had the right to try and to fail.
He noted that the applicant has been succeeding so far, and he supported the applicant's
efforts to succeed in other districts. He noted that the applicant was not using any public
dollars or City funds, and that he was risking his own dollars. He noted that there was
overwhelming neighborhood support for Central Cinema and boutique theaters in
Alameda.
Mr. Chuck Millar noted that the boutique theater was in keeping with the other charming
aspects of Alameda. He noted that any ordinance should include parking guidelines, and
believed that the patrons should be considerate of the neighbors.
Mr. Kirwin agreed with the other supporters of boutique theaters in Alameda, and
believed that the free market would prevent oversaturation of boutique theaters in
Alameda. He lives next to a park, and understands the parking problems inherent; he did
not want to eliminate soccer games in Alameda because of the inconvenience of a
homeowner. He did understand residents' concerns about parking, and has found that
Alamedans generally respect one another. He suggested that the applicant post a sign
asking the patrons to respect the adjacent neighbors with respect to parking.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali, Ms. Eliason confirmed that the residential
properties within the 17 C-1 districts, as well as the residential areas within 100 feet of
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,8,"those districts were given notices by mail, legal notices in the newspaper and posted ads.
All responses were provided to the Board.
Mr. Piziali noted that he had not noticed any strong reaction to the proposed zoning
language change.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Eliason confirmed that this use would be a
conditional use in all C-1 districts. She confirmed that it would not allow this commercial
use within a residential zone.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand regarding retail and other parking within the
C-1 districts, Ms. Eliason replied that the C-1 District was subject to the City's overall
parking standards within the Zoning Ordinance. There were special provisions for new
uses; buildings over ten years old with uses that do not change substantially according to
the Zoning Ordinance, parking is not required to be provided.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding the validity of the CEQA findings, Mr.
Garrison stated that everything under CEQA may be challenged. If it was determined to
be categorically exempt, the City must prove that.
Vice President Cook advised that a speaker slip had been received from the applicant.
Mr. Mark Haskett, applicant, wished to address the parking issue and noted that they
were trying to get cars off the street. He noted that he lived a block from the theater, and
the population density in Alameda was such that people could walk to the theater. He did
not believe there was a serious parking problem, and recalled that an adjacent neighbor
spoke at the last meeting and stated that on one occasion, they had to park a block away.
He noted that he did not advertise because the theater was intended for the neighbors'
use.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding avenues for challenging this use if
parking was determined to be a problem, Ms. Eliason replied that each individual
boutique theater would come before the Planning Board for a discretionary review. A use
permit would be associated with it, and individual cases would be considered by the
Board.
Vice President Cook advised that periodic review for a variety of parking issues had been
attached to use permits in the past.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that she supported this kind of activity in neighborhood areas, and
that it was a positive contribution to neighborhood commercial districts.
Vice President Cook noted that she was in favor of this amendment.
M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution PB-05-21 to
recommend approval of an Amendment to Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-4.8(c) to
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,9,"add ""Boutique Theater"" as an allowable use in the C-1 zoning district, subject to Use
Permit approval. ""Boutique Theater"" would be defined as ""A theater with audiences of
49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where
there is only one screen in the theater.""
AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,10,"8-B.
Use Permit UP05-0009, Applicant: Mark Haskett (Alameda Theater Project,
Inc.), - 842 Central Ave. (DG/CE). The applicant requests the granting of a Use
Permit allowing the operation of a Boutique Theater located in a C-1 Zoning
District. (Continued from the meeting of May 23, 2005.)
Mr. Piziali noted that there were more than five speaker slips on every item on the
agenda.
M/S Piziali/Ms. McNamara and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes
throughout the remainder of the meeting.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. David Hart, 712 Taylor, spoke in support of this application. He noted that he had
taken a terminally ill family member who lived three houses from the theater to a movie,
and that they were able to walk. He noted that he walked through the neighborhood
frequently, and did not see any crowding in the neighborhood. He believed that Central
Cinema was an unqualified positive feature for the neighborhood.
Mr. Robert Gavrich spoke in support of this application, and noted that he lived near a
theater on High Street. He noted that it was not even a minor nuisance, and that it was a
feature in neighborhoods in support of culture. He had patronized Central Cinema six or
seven times, and had never had a problem parking on Central Avenue. He suggested
assessing a dollar per ticket to mitigate the parking impacts on the neighborhood.
Mr. Lisa Griffith noted that she did not have a parkable driveway, and has never parked
her car in front of that driveway. She appreciated that the theater was quaint, but did not
want to drive around for half an hour looking for a place to park. She had experienced
people parking in front of her driveway, sometimes by patrons of the theater.
Mr. Dave Kirwin wished to reiterate his opinion that this is a positive feature for the
neighborhood. He noted that he would not be able to stay for Items 8-D and 8-E, and was
happy to hear that the historic theater would be revitalized. He did not believe the scale of
the Cineplex would fit Alameda, and suggested that it be downscaled.
Ms. Barbara Thomas noted that there was a parking requirement (AMC 30-7.2), and
noted that offstreet parking was intended to protect neighborhoods from parking and
vehicular traffic congestion generated by adjacent nonresidential district. She noted that
theaters require one space per 350 square feet in a C-1 zone, and was dismayed to find
that information was not in the staff report. She noted that she had served Mr. Haskett at
his house, which was not one block from the theater.
Mr. Chuck Millar believed this use should be made conditional, to be reviewed from time
to time, and that the City should proceed with caution. He believed it could be the start of
a wonderful use in Alameda.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,11,"Ms. Valerie Ruma, 1610 Willow, spoke in support of this application. She wished to
address the parking issues, and noted that she had attended the Central Cinema on the
weekends. She had never had a problem with parking, even five minutes from showtime.
Ms. Janin Von Furst, 917B Santa Clara, noted that she was a renter, and was very
concerned about not being able to park near her home. She believed that Alameda should
have residential parking permits. She was in favor of the Central Cinema, but would like
the owner to take the onus of ensuring that neighborhood parking is not made more
difficult for the residents.
Mr. Kopps noted that he enjoyed going to Central Cinema because his mother was
comfortable with him attending on his own. He noted that he had his tenth birthday party
there, and enjoyed the family atmosphere. He promised to walk to the Cinema if it were
allowed to remain open.
Mr. Kevin Frederick noted that he had lived in the neighborhood for 20 years, and
preferred to bicycle and walk around the Island. He supported the Central Cinema, and
believed it was a great neighborhood use.
Mr. Peter Macdonald, attorney for the applicant, noted that he had performed an informal
parking survey on two nights, and noted that on both nights, 40% of the patrons walked
to the theater. He added that 15 and 13 cars, respectively, were driven by patrons. He did
not believe it would be viable or necessary to put a parking lot in this neighborhood when
street parking was available. He believed the existing parking should be used. He noted
that the 15 minute intervals between shows was not a problem during the day with an
audience size of five to 10 people. He noted that the applicant had spent $7,400 to
process this case to date, and suggested that the amount of fees should be capped for
certain types of cases. He was concerned that smaller businesses may not be able to get
through the process. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali whether fines were included
in those fees, Mr. Macdonald replied that they were planning processing fees.
Mr. Mark Haskett, applicant, noted that he kept track of spaces available during sellout
nights, and added that there were often spaces available during those times. He corrected
Ms. Thomas' assertion that he did not live near the theater, and added that he had moved
to a house one block from the theater during the past week. He noted that businesses that
draw pedestrians serve to enliven the neighborhood and make it a safer place to live.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding intervals between shows, Ms.
Eliason replied that the 20-minute interval was staff's recommendation in order for the
theater to clear out and for the new patrons to arrive; the parking would be cleared
between the shows.
Mr. Haskett noted that some people will arrive 30-45 minutes early because the theater
only have 45 seats. The parking capacity will sometimes accommodate two shows.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,12,"Mr. Piziali noted that Condition 8 called for a 20-minute interval between screenings, and
suggested that a 15-minute interval would be sufficient.
Vice President Cook noted that she had visited the site three times, including an evening
show and a morning show. The theater was not crowded either time. She also attended a
sold-out show on a weekend evening, and had no problem parking. She had enjoyed her
visits, and noted that it was a good place for teens to attend. She noticed there were no
bike racks, and strongly suggested that a bike rack be included in the conditions of
approval. She noted that the audiences cleared the theater very quickly, and believed that
a 15-minute interval would be sufficient. She believed it was important for the patrons to
realize that they were in a district bordering a residential neighborhood. She believed the
small district businesses would support each other.
Ms. Kohlstrand supported this use, but believed that an interval of one year to bring the
building up to code was excessive.
Mr. Douglas Garrison, project planner, noted that was a combination of an existing
standard condition of approval for such projects. He noted that could be changed to six
months.
Ms. Kohlstrand agreed with Ms. Thomas' assertion that the staff reports should be more
specific regarding the parking requirements for particular projects, and how they relate to
the Code requirements. She did not believe that substantial new parking requirements
should be introduced in such uses, and believe they could exist with available on-street
parking.
Mr. Piziali noted that traffic and parking would always be a problem in compressed urban
areas.
Ms. Harryman advised that the prime broker may have this item come back directly for a
hearing, or it may request a staff report as an item under ""Staff Communications."" If the
Board decided to hear the item further, it may agendized. She noted that the Building
Code violations were being handled by the Building Division on a separate track; the
planning issues were being separated from the building issues.
Mr. Haskett advised that everything requested by the Building Division had been
submitted to them.
Ms. McNamara noted that she had not attended Central Cinema, but was impressed by
the outpouring of support from the neighborhood. She was very sensitive to the parking
issues, and noted that her neighborhood would be affected by the zoning changes. She
noted that sensitivity to the neighborhoods was a very important component to those
changes. She supported the idea of an analysis report. She believed this was a good
business.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,13,"Mr. Lynch believed the Planning fees were reasonable, and noted that the items on this
agenda reflected an evolving community, in an evolving world. He noted the mixed uses
had a long tradition in this country, particularly before the end of World War II. He noted
that the City would be facing the question of merging uses constantly. He commended
the applicant in beginning to merge commercial uses in a residential community.
M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-22 to grant a
Use Permit allowing the operation of a Boutique Theater located in a C-1 Zoning District.
The following modifications would be included:
1. Condition 8 - Parking requirements would be minimized by allowing the
theater to provide a minimum of 15 minutes between movie screenings before
6:00 p.m., and 20 minutes after 6:00 p.m.;
2. A compliance report would be required to be submitted to Planning staff one
year after the approval of this resolution. If needed, staff would bring it before
the Planning Board; and
3. A bicycle rack would be installed.
AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Vice President Cook called for a five-minute recess.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,14,"8-C.
DR04-0051, 616 Pacific Avenue, Applicant: Erwin Roxas (AT/EP). The
proposal is an appeal of the code enforcement action which determined that the
demolition of a single-family residence, located at the above address, is in
violation of the AMC $13-21-10 b (removal or demolition of an historic structure
without proper permits) and is, therefore, subject to the five (5) year stay that
prevents the issuance of any building or construction-related permits for the
property. The applicant had received Major Design Review approval in July 2004
for proposed 1st and 2nd story additions, enlargement of the detached garage,
interior remodel, porch additions, etc. that would add approximately 1,562 square
feet to the dwelling and 225 square feet to the garage and storage shed. The
property is within the R-4, Neighborhood Residential District.
M/S Piziali/Lynch to continue Item 8-C to the meeting of June 27, 2005.
AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,15,"8-D.
DR05-0041 - Final Design Review of the Proposed New Cineplex - City of
Alameda (CE/JO). Final design review, including consideration of Section 106
findings for the proposed Cineplex at the corner of Oak Street and Central
Avenue, generally on the Video Maniacs site. This site is located at 2305 Central
Avenue within the C-C and C-C-PD (Community Commercial and Community
Commercial -- Planned Development) Districts.
Ms. Kohlstrand advised she would recuse herself from Items 8-D and 8-E because she
was involved in the analysis for the parking garage and the theater.
Ms. Jennifer Ott summarized the staff report, and noted that the Planning Board
preliminarily accepted the Cineplex design on May 9, 2005, to serve as a basis for
Section 106 findings. The findings were brought before the Historic Advisory Board;
those draft minutes were included in the packet. Staff recommended approval of the
design of this project.
Mr. Rob Henry, Henry Architects, project architect, displayed and discussed the changes
made to the project design since the last meeting. Input from the Planning Board and the
HAB led to the following changes:
1.
The corner sign was replaced by additional detailing, continuing the
horizontal band element in the corner for a more Art Deco feeling on the
corner;
2.
HAB believed that there should be a more continuous feel in the columns;
the white element was replaced by brick;
3.
The dome was eliminated from the corner element (Oak and Central), and
was replaced by a flat corner element;
4.
The roofline was notched down to provide softening to the corner; a
recessed element was placed further from the face of the building;
5.
The mechanical screens were reduced in size, and would not be visible
from the street level;
6.
The historic theater mezzanine level would be connected to the elevator in
the new facility; and
7.
The aluminum window and door systems were changed to clear anodized
aluminum to match the retail spaces of the Alameda Theater.
Mr. Henry discussed the materials and colors, and noted that a colors and materials board
was available.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Ott confirmed that this item was to discuss
the design review of the new theater. No restoration issues would be discussed.
Vice President Cook confirmed that all comments would be three minutes long as
previously voted upon. She advised that City Council agreed with the developer through
Disposition and Development Agreement to proceed with this project. She noted that the
Planning Board's job was to provide the best design for this project, which was located
on a small site.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,16,"The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Janin Von Furst, 917B Santa Clara, spoke in opposition to this item. She expressed
concern about the environmental impact that such projects have on a city the size of
Alameda, particularly with respect to parking. She noted that the design reminded her of
Jack London Square, but that Alameda could not handle that amount of traffic from
outside the city. She noted that the bridges and tubes would be busier, bringing more
traffic through the residential neighborhoods. She was concerned that people would park
in the neighborhoods to avoid paying for parking in the parking garage. She suggested
the use of residential parking permits for neighborhoods near projects of this size.
Ms. Nancy Hird, 1519 East Shore Drive, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that
she was not speaking on behalf of AAPS. She believed that the massing of this building
was excessive although it was improved. She believed that a three-screen theater would
be sufficient, and did not want to bring more traffic into Alameda from outside the City.
She noted that the success of the Central Cinema disproved the theater that multiple
screens were necessary to be economically feasible.
Ms. Paula Rainey, 556 Palace Court, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed this
project was too big for this district, which was pedestrian-oriented and too crowded with
traffic. She believed the new design had been improved, but did not believe this design
would enhance the neighborhood. She noted that the design was not pedestrian-friendly,
and was too close to the street without softening. She suggested that the old theater be
restored, but that the new Cineplex be eliminated. She believed this was a megaplex, and
the lack of freeway frontage roads made the situation more difficult.
Ms. Pat Bail, 825 Paru, believed the design had improved since the beginning, but that
the residents were unprepared for the scope of this project and its impact on the
neighborhood. She believed this design was overpowering and inappropriate for the area.
She supported the garage, and believed there should be more land area for the garage.
She believed this design was too massive for the area, and suggested rethinking the
Cineplex.
Ms. Ani Dimusheva, 2911 Calhoun Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She
supported the elimination of the Cineplex from the site, and did not believe that Alameda
wanted or needed a Cineplex. She would like an open, walkable, sunny area in that
district without excessive traffic.
Ms. Valerie Ruma, 1610 Willow, spoke in opposition to this item. She submitted
petitions signed by residents who opposed the Cineplex on this site, and believed that the
restoration of the historic theater had been lost in the design of the Cineplex. They were
concerned about the traffic impacts, and that opposition to the Cineplex design had not
been fully heard. The petition called for the immediate halt of this process, and to discuss
the alternatives with the Mayor, City Council and the Planning Board. She believed the
historic theater rehabilitation had been a ""bait and switch,"" with the Cineplex.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,17,"Mr. Bill Woodle spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that he had also circulated a
petition against this design. He had also heard from people who supported a large
Cineplex, and had been called a ""Nimby"" by one person.
Ms. Linda Hanson, 1816 Wood Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and believed that
the design as published in the newspaper wad presented as a fait accompli. She noted that
hundreds of people had signed the petition, asking that the project be put on hold. She
believed the scale and design conflicted with the unique historic character of Alameda,
and that traffic would be impacted. She was concerned that there was no open area for
people to gather, and that it ignored the green building principles. She believed that this
design was more reminiscent of Fisherman's Wharf, and was not convinced that it would
be financially successful. She urged the Planning Board and City Council to reconsider
this project.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 17
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,18,"Mr. Carl Lasagna spoke in opposition to this item, and believed that the design was
slightly less offensive than the last design. He compared the design to an electric razor.
He supported alternatives to this project, which he believed was overwhelming and
unattractive, and did not believe that the use of eminent domain was unethical. He
supported the combination of live performing arts with the historic theater. He suggested
that the Planning Board work with the community to redesign this project, so that the
parking structures needed for downtown be built, and that the historic theater be left
intact. He believed that the negotiations should be held ethically.
Mr. Jim Strela noted that his family had previously owned the Neptune Theater in the
1930s, and added that to get first-run films, multiple screens were necessary. He believed
the historic theater was being lost in this design.
Mr. Rich Tester noted that he owned a business on Santa Clara, and noted that their
business would be in the shade of this structure. He expressed concern about the impact
on his business by traffic congestion.
Ms. Jennifer Van Arsdale spoke in opposition to this item, and agreed that the Cineplex
should be eliminated. She noted that the renderings had improved, but that the
combination of the Cineplex and the garage dwarfed the historic theater. She expressed
concern that the only way the historic theater could be renovated was to include the
Cineplex as well.
Mr. Michael Cote spoke in opposition to this item, and added that this project began as
the restoration of the historic theater. He noted that the historic theater was dwarfed by
the garage and the Cineplex, and that the historic theater was reduced to a façade through
which people would walk to the Cineplex. He expressed concern about the installation of
new stadium seating, which would gut the interior of the theater. He was concerned about
cost overruns, and the possibility of public service positions being cut to fund this project.
Mr. Lee expressed concern about this design, and believed it was too large for the site.
He believed the Cineplex would be an eyesore, and was very concerned about the traffic
impacts. He believed the financial risk to Alameda in funding the project was too big.
Mr. Vern Marsh spoke in opposition to this item, and did not approve of the plan; he did
not like the design of the building. He would support a theater on the scale of the Grand
Lake Theater, with three or four screens. He believed this was excessive and was too
expensive.
Mr. George Hubbard noted that he had previously worked for Skywalker Sound, and
worked in the industry. He suggested that the Planning Board consider alternate uses for
this theater, and was concerned that this theater would fail without freeway access.
Mr. Robert Van Der Wall spoke in opposition to this item, and believed that Alameda
was the antidote to sprawl. He did not believe that massive parking garages and
Planning Board Minutes
Page 18
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,19,"megaplexes were compatible with Alameda's character and scale. He displayed his own
design for a scaled-down theater.
Ms. Joan Boucher noted that in her household, they called Alameda ""Ala-Mayberry."" She
enjoyed the neighborliness and pedestrian access in Alameda. She looked forward to
walking to the historic theater, with three screens. She noted that many Alamedans did
not know about this plan that far in advance, and had been taken by surprise; many of her
neighbors did not like the new design. She believed this design would be a mistake for
the Island.
Morgan spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that Alameda was the only city that
she felt comfortable in. She believed this design was wrong for the Island, and noted that
walking and bicycling in the City was already hazardous.
Ms. Nancy Kerns, 1175 Regent Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed this
design has far exceeded the original vision, but did not believe this project was
appropriate for the Island. She had not found anyone in town who believed that this many
screens would be a good idea. She was very concerned about the traffic impacts, and
believed that critical mass on this theater proposal had been reached very quickly. She
did not believe anyone in town wanted this complex in town.
Ms. Birgitt Evans, AAPS, 2829 San Jose Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and
noted that AAPS had been involved in this project for a long time. She had spoken with
Christopher Buckley, who was very concerned about staff's report that this design was
""highly responsive"" to AAPS' concerns. Neither he, Dick Rutter, nor she believed this
design reflected their concerns. They did support Bruce Anderson's Section 106 review,
as well as the HAB's comments at their June 2 meeting, in which four out of five HAB
members stated that the design should be returned to the drawing board. She noted that
the Henry Architects had created a very nice design for an Art Deco theater in Livermore
that featured vertical elements. She believed the current design was a cacophony. She
was very concerned that the big box look and the second story gallery window would
overwhelm the buildings next door.
Mr. Rob Ratto, PSBA, noted that the Board of Directors of PSBA had reviewed this
design and approved it unanimously. He commended Kyle Connors (architect) for taking
so much community feedback, dealing with the Secretary of the Interior's guidelines, and
integrating the comments by the Planning Board and City Council to design a workable
theater. PSBA believed this design would work, and believed the downstairs retail would
be a good addition. He urged the Planning Board to accept the final design.
Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, spoke in opposition to this item. He believed
that the design was offensive and did not believe the architecture was compatible with
Alameda's vision for a theater design that would be appropriate to the neighborhood. He
noted that there was considerable opposition to this design in town, and that it would be a
financial disaster for the City.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 19
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,20,"The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Harryman advised that the Bylaws required that the meeting adjourn at 11:00 p.m.,
but that the Board may make a motion to adjourn it at a later time certain.
Mr. Lynch suggested that Items 8-D and 8-E be continued to the next meeting because of
the lateness of the hour. He did not believe it would be possible to properly consider both
items in a timely fashion.
M/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous to continue the meeting to 11:30 p.m.
AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand)
Mr. Piziali preferred to have the public comment all at one meeting.
Ms. Eliason noted that Items 8-D and 8-E would be the first items on the next agenda.
Vice President Cook expressed concern about moving forward with this item without a
full Board.
Mr. Lynch wished to discuss the issue of eminent domain, and noted that when the
property has not been maintained by the owner, it is incumbent upon the public body to
do so. He noted that the question of eminent domain is the right vehicle may be
addressed, but believed that the suggestion that the City may not exercise it was a gross
overstatement.
Ms. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, noted that this project had been much
larger in its earlier forms, and that it had been downsized considerably. She noted that
there had been a lot of discussion about the new theater component at this meeting, and
emphasized that the idea of the project was to utilize the historic theater in the grandest
way possible. She noted that it was important to bring as many people into the historic
theater as possible; there would be no separate entrance for the new theater. She noted
that the concerns about the stadium seating gutting the historic theater; she noted that the
original seating had been gone for some time, and that the theater had other uses for
many years, including as a roller rink. She noted that the ceiling would be patched, and
that the holes had been made by previous tenants to install lighting. She noted that as
conceived, parking on the street would be as it is now; it would be free in the evenings,
and metered during the day. She advised that all of the theater parking would be validated
by the theater operator, and there should be no concern for incursions into the
neighborhoods for parking. She noted that the General Plan required that all new
construction in the commercial district be constructed right on the street so that it
repeated the same pattern of the historic district. The tools of the General Plan, including
the economic development strategy and the Downtown Vision Plan, have been used to
help guide this design.
Ms. Little wished to address the size of the new Cineplex, and the suggested that it be
eliminated to gain more parking. She noted that the new Cineplex structure would be
only 35,000 square feet on two stories; the footprint would be 17,000 square feet. Parking
Planning Board Minutes
Page 20
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,21,"structures require a certain size to be workable, and that 17,000 square feet may
accommodate 43 extra spaces. The new complex did not sit on a large site. She noted that
the operator, Kyle Connor, was not a large corporate entity, and was an independent
operator; he knows the community and the residents. She noted that this theater never did
have the 2,200 seats that had been discussed. She noted that the $25 million price tag
included the $10 million for acquisition and seismic upgrades and stabilization to meet
Code requirement. Another $10 million of public money would go into the parking
structure, which had been identified by PSBA as being a priority for the business
association and downtown. She noted that a shade analysis would be performed; she did
not believe it would cast a shadow onto Santa Clara Street because of the location of
Long's. Staff would follow up on that item at the next meeting. She noted that other retail
uses, such as restaurants, already provided patrons on the street; those patrons would be
drawn to the theater as well. She did not expect the theater to be patronized by all new
people, and that there would be some crossover trips.
Mr. Piziali understood that there was concern in the City about this project, but that he
had not been approached by anyone who has expressed that opinion. He emphasized that
this project has been discussed for five years, starting with the Downtown Visioning
Process. He noted that he listened very carefully to people in the City about this and other
projects.
Vice President Cook believed it was important to take into account all the comments
throughout the process. She noted that she had been Chair of the Visioning Process, was
on the EDC six years ago, and knew how important this project has been over the years to
enliven downtown. She acknowledged this was not the perfect project on the perfect site.
She stated that the people working for the City had the City's best interests in mind. She
wanted to make it clear throughout the process that full restoration of the historic theater
had not been possible, and had stated that on the record in the past.
Ms. McNamara noted that her concerns were regarding the financial nature of the
restoration. She noted that the City budget was in a critical state right now, and
questioned whether this was the time to spend the money on the restoration of the historic
theater.
Ms. Little advised that the project used tax increment dollars, as well as Section 108
dollars, neither of which can be used to pay for services, salaries, or overhead. She added
that they were economic development dollars that were specifically intended to create
new revenues in communities. She noted that they could be used in other capital interest
projects within a certain period of time, but could not be used for fire, police, or social
services.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Ms. Little stated that it was not the case that
the only choices were to build a seven-screen theater or to tear it down.
Ms. Little stated that staff went through six public meetings about setting the ultimate
design criteria regarding what would be dealt with, to identify the major issues for
Planning Board Minutes
Page 21
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,22,"Alameda regarding what this project should or should not do. She noted that was
performed before the DDA, and before the City entered into a contractual arrangement.
Vice President Cook stated that the Board was happy that was the sequence of events for
this project, and that other projects had a DDA before design discussions took place. She
noted that months of design discussions had taken place before the DDA was put in place
for this project.
Mr. Lynch requested that staff detail the parameters of the funding mechanism at a future
meeting. He noted that some members of the public did not want a garage, and noted that
would affect the DDA. He noted that the Planning Board had specific authority, and
could not modify the project outside those parameters.
Mr. Piziali noted that it was the City Council's job to decide whether this project was
done or not, and that it was not the Planning Board's charge to do SO.
Ms. Eliason advised that the speaker slips would be maintained in the Planning file.
M/S McNamara /Lynch and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board
meeting of June 27, 2005.
AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand)
Planning Board Minutes
Page 22
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,23,"8-E.
UP05-0008/DR05-0028 - Use Permit and Final Design Review of the
Proposed New Civic Center Parking Garage - City of Alameda (DSD).
Consideration of a Use Permit and Final design review, including consideration of
Section 106 findings, for a new 352-space parking structure at the corner of Oak
Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video Maniacs site. This site is
located at 1416 Oak Street within the C-C and C-C-PD (Community Commercial
and Community Commercial -- Planned Development) Districts.
M/S McNamara/Lynch and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board
meeting of June 27, 2005.
AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand)
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC
(Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that the final community meeting was held the previous
week, at which time the staff presented the preferred development concept, as well as the
Non-Measure A alternatives to that in greater detail. Staff will work on a final copy of
that report, which would be available in several weeks. That report would be the subject
of hearings with the ARRA Board and the Planning Board over the next 12 to 18 months.
She noted that the community hearings had been well-attended.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President
Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there had been no further meetings.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member
Piziali).
Board member Piziali advised that there was nothing to report at this time.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee
(Board member Mariani).
Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 23
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,24,"12.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Benoit, Interim Secretary
City Planning Department
These minutes were approved at the June 27, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 24
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
June 27, 2005-7:00 - p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:13 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. Mariani
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Lynch, Mariani, and
Piziali.
Board members Kolhstrand and McNamara were absent.
Also present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason,
Leslie Little, Development Services Director, Jennifer Ott, Development Manager, Development
Services Department, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner III Allen Tai.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005.
Vice President Cook advised that page 8, paragraph 9, should be changed to read, ""Vice President
Cook advised that periodic review for a variety of parking issues had been attached to use permits in
the past.""
M/S Piziali/Cook to approve the minutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005, as corrected.
A quorum for a vote on the minutes was not present. They will be carried over to the next meeting.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cunningham advised that the Board had requested that all Consent Calendar items with the
exception of Item 7-E, be placed on the regular agenda.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,2,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
PDA05-0003 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant proposes a
Planned Development Amendment to amend the Harbor Bay Business Park landscaping and
lot coverage provisions as established in Resolution 1203. This Amendment would affect
Lots 1-6, 8-12 and14 of Tentative Parcel Map 8574. These lots are fronting on or southerly
of 1900 and 2000 North Loop Road. The proposed Planned Development Amendment
would allow a five percent (5%) increase in building coverage for parcels larger than 5.5
acres. Currently, maximum allowed building coverage is thirty five percent (35%) for lots
larger than 5.5 acres and forty percent (40%) on lots smaller than 5.5 acres. The maximum
lot coverage allowed on lots smaller than 5.5 acres would not be affected. The proposed
Planned Development Amendment would also decrease the minimum landscape coverage by
five to ten percent (5 to 10%), depending on lot size. Currently, 30% landscaping coverage
is required on lots smaller than 5.5 acres and 25% landscaping coverage is required for
parcels larger than 5.5 acres. The proposed Planned Development Amendment would
decrease the landscaping requirement to twenty percent (20%) for these lots regardless of
size. The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned
Development.)
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.
Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern
that this item would chip away at the rules established for building on Bay Farm Island. He had not
heard any good reasons for allowing slightly less landscaping or more construction density of
warehouse structures on these parcels. He inquired whether further subdivision would then be
allowed.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Garrison noted that this business park was originally conceived as a campus-like setting with
larger office buildings, and some high-rise office buildings as well, with open space between the
buildings. He noted that kind of development has not materialized, and the developer found a market
for somewhat smaller buildings that focused more on warehousing, distribution and light
manufacturing. From their perspective, it was not feasible for convey a larger lot to an individual
business owner, and then require extensive landscaping. This item was proposed to make things
economically feasible for the developer, and to balance that against the public interest.
Ms. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, stated that it was important to note that the
developer was not just trying to make an economical development, but to respond to a drastic change
in the office market in the Bay Area. She noted that more density had originally been planned for
this park vertically; the floor plate was spread over a greater area, but the buildings would be lower.
She added that the applicant overlandscaped in other parts of the park.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,3,"In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the future possibility of building up, Ms.
Eliason noted that the Final Development Plans would preclude that choice because the applicant
would have to meet parking requirements; parking was based on a partial warehouse-type use, which
was less dense than office. She noted that the entire lot would have to be redeveloped entirely; they
would not be able to just add a second story.
Vice President Cook expressed concern about having a balance in the public interest, including
safety for children and traffic. She had been uncomfortable approving these speculative projects
without more information about traffic, parking and other issues. She suggested a potential
mitigation by allowing 7-B to be approved without also approving all the parcelization and changing
the landscaping requirements.
Ms. Eliason noted that the PDA could be limited to only Parcel 14 (Ettore). That would not allow 7-
C (four flex warehouses) to move forward at this time. The Parcel Map referenced was already
approved by the Planning Board and will be heard by City Council in July.
Vice President Cook did not feel she had enough information, and needed more environmental
analysis and examination of the schools and roads. She believed the business park as a whole was
excellent quality.
Mr. Lynch suggested that the 15 parcels be brought back for discussion of circulation, landscaping,
and building design, and to move the Tentative Map forward.
Ms. Eliason noted that the Tentative Map had been approved, and that the entire business park was
under a development agreement, which specified the land uses that may be included in the business
park. Those uses included Office, R&D, as well as any use in the C-M District, which also included
warehouse/light manufacturing. She noted that the Board had limited ability to change the uses.
Vice President Cook would like the parcels, except for Ettore, to return for further analysis and
discussion of compatibility of uses with schools and future plans for the other side of North Loop
Road, as well as the impacts associated with trucks and related uses.
Mr. Joe Ernst, applicant, SRM Associates, would like to avoid putting the entire Parcel Map on hold
because portions of that Map would not be affected by the PDA. He noted that transactions were tied
to those portions that were conforming uses with respect to current development standards.
M/S Lynch/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-23 to continue
this item with the exception of Lot 14.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,4,"7-B. FDP05-0001/DR05-0050 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates for Ettore Products
(DG). 2100 North Loop Road. The applicant requests a Final Development Plan and
Design Review for a new 88,630 square foot warehouse, office and light manufacturing
facility located at 2100 N. Loop Road (Parcel No. 14 on Tentative Parcel Map No 8574).
The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned Development.)
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.
This item was discussed under Item 7-A.
M/S Lynch/Mariani and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-24 to approve a
Final Development Plan and Design Review for a new 88,630 square foot warehouse, office and
light manufacturing facility located at 2100 N. Loop Road (Parcel No. 14 on Tentative Parcel Map
No 8574).
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,5,"7-C.
FDP05-0002/DR05-0057 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant
requests a Final Development Plan and Design Review for four (4) new flex warehouse,
office and light manufacturing facilities ranging in size from 13,900 to 33,272 square feet on
6.41 acres adjacent to and southerly of 2000 North Loop Road (Parcels 8-12 on Tentative
Parcel Map No. 8574). These facilities will be on one lot of approximately 11.53 acres until
the final map is approved. The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing- -
Planned Development.)
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.
This item was discussed under Item 7-A.
M/S Lynch/Cook and unanimous to continue this item, which will be renoticed following discussion
with the applicants.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,6,"7-D.
TM05-0001 - Regency Realty Group, Inc. 2599 Blanding Avenue (AT). Applicants
request approval of Parcel Map 8725 to reconfigure four parcels of land at the Bridgeside
Shopping Center. The site is located within the C-2 PD, Central Business Planned
Development District.
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.
Mr. Tai summarized the staff report
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speakers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the timing of this action, Mr. Tai replied
that it was appropriate because before the public access easements can be recorded on the site, the
parcels must be recorded first. He noted that should not be affected by any change in public access
easements. Those easements would be recorded by a separate instrument at a later time. The Broadway
Street right of way through the site would be permanently abandoned.
Vice President Cook noted that she was concerned about the current proposed location for the
transformers in the view corridors and welcoming area.
Mr. Tai noted that staff was reviewing those issues, which were unrelated to this item.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-25 to approve Parcel
Map 8725 to reconfigure four parcels of land at the Bridgeside Shopping Center.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,7,"7-E.
DR04-0051, 616 Pacific Avenue, Applicant: Erwin Roxas (AT/EP). The proposal is an
appeal of the code enforcement action which determined that the demolition of a single-
family residence, located at the above address, is in violation of the AMC $13-21-10 b
(removal or demolition of an historic structure without proper permits) and is, therefore,
subject to the five (5) year stay that prevents the issuance of any building or construction-
related permits for the property. The applicant had received Major Design Review approval
in July 2004 for proposed 1st and 2nd story additions, enlargement of the detached garage,
interior remodel, porch additions, etc. that would add approximately 1,562 square feet to the
dwelling and 225 square feet to the garage and storage shed. The property is within the R-4,
Neighborhood Residential District. (Continued from the meeting of June 13, 2005.)
M/S Mariani/Piziali and unanimous to schedule this item for the City Council.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,8,"7-F.
UP05-0012 - Regency Realty Group, Inc. 2523 Blanding Avenue (AT). Applicants request
approval of an amendment to Use Permit UP03-0016 to allow operation of the Service Station
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. No changes are proposed to the car wash. The
site is located within the C-2 PD, Central Business Planned Development District.
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.
Mr. Tai summarized the staff report. He noted that the extension of hours would apply only to the
service station, not the car wash, and added that there would be no alcoholic beverage sales
associated with the gas station. Delivery trucks would be prohibited from idling their engines during
delivery. Staff recommended approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Jim Strehlow, 3122 Gibbons Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that a service
station was needed, but not on a 24-hour basis. He believed that Bridgeside should be a good
neighbor to the Fernside homeowners. He would agree to hours from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.
Mr. Rich Bennett, Windsor Drive, spoke in opposition to this item, and believed a 24-hour operation
could become an attractive nuisance. He expressed concern about automotive and noise pollution
from cars with loud stereos. He was also concerned about loitering late at night, and did not want
extra traffic in the neighborhoods at that time of night. He was very concerned about the potential
for increased crime.
Mr. Harold MacKenzie, 3263 Thompson Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item and expressed
concern about noise, traffic and the potential for increased crime in their neighborhood. He opposed
a 24-hour operation, but would support a moderated schedule. He suggested the use of a sound wall.
Mr. Doug Wiele, applicant, noted that their existing conditions of approval allowed for a 24-hour
operation for the supermarket, with a limitation on the car wash and gas station. He noted that this
application was a request for modification for the operating hours allowed for the gas station. He
noted that the notion of a sound wall was interesting, and added that the gas station faced into the
project, not out onto the street. He noted that many residential gas stations operated 24 hours a day,
and because the grocery store was open 24 hours, there would be eyes on the gas station. They
would adopt security monitoring, and a teller window would be open for after-hours operation.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Mariani noted that she did not feel comfortable with a 24-hour gas station in this center.
President Cunningham noted that he would not favor a sound wall, but that a landscaped berm might
work.
Mr. Piziali noted that he could not support a 24-hour gas station use, and noted that Park Street had
24-hour gas stations. He did not want homes to view the 24-hour use. He would favor a minor
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,9,"change in hours, such as 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.
Mr. Tai advised that the applicant would be willing to set the hours from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-26 to approve an
amendment to Use Permit UP03-0016 to allow operation of the Service Station between the hours of
6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. No changes are proposed to the car wash.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,10,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
DR05-0041 - Final Design Review of the Proposed New Cineplex - City of Alameda
(CE/JO). Final design review, including consideration of Section 106 findings for the
proposed Cineplex at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video
Maniacs site. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the C-C and C-C-PD
(Community Commercial and Community Commercial -- Planned Development) Districts.
(Continued from the meeting of June 13, 2005.)
Ms. Ott summarized the staff report. The changes proposed during public and Board comment were:
1.
The dome element was eliminated;
2.
The aluminum system was changed from clear to dark; and
3.
The roof lines were set back as much as possible on the walls closest to the Alameda
Theater.
Ms. Ott noted that the dome element was eliminated, but that staff recommended that the clear
aluminum system be retained. The project architect was able to set back the corner slightly at the
joining of the Cineplex and the historic theater. She noted that the architect, Rob Henry, was not able
to attend this meeting.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Kyle Connor, Alameda Entertainment Associates, displayed the revised plans for the proposed
Cineplex on the overhead screen.
President Cunningham advised that more than five speaker slips had been received.
M/S Mariani/Piziali and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Wilbur Richards, 2235 Clement Street, spoke in support of this item. He noted that the island
would continue to change, and that it could not return to the past. He noted that the parking lot
would be difficult to change to another use, and hoped the proper street trees would be chosen.
Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, spoke in opposition to this item. He believed this project
was too massive for this corner and should be scaled down. He did not believe the Cineplex would
be financially viable.
Ms. Ani Dimusheva, 2911 Calhoun Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She would miss the view
of the Oakland Hills, and did not want that kind of change in Alameda. She noted that the design in
people's environment was very important. She suggested building retail uses and incorporating it
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,11,"into the parking structure. She did not believe the Cineplex would be financially feasible in five
years.
Ms. Linda Hansen spoke in opposition to this item, and displayed photographs of the site with
projected massing superimposed on the existing site. She noted that while the Twin Towers Church
is taller than the proposed structure, the massing of the Cineplex overwhelmed them. She suggested
building an open plaza at the Video Maniacs corner with a two-story retail space and a gathering
place. She displayed her sketch, and noted this was more in line with contemporary design theory.
She believed this would be more pedestrian-oriented.
Ms. Debbie George, speaking as AN individual, not PSBA, spoke in support of this item. She noted
that there had been at least ten public meetings on this subject, and noted that the designers had been
responsive to public and Board requests.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that he was a
business owner and a member of the Chamber of Commerce. He did not believe this project
belonged on this particular corner, and believed that the building was too massive. He noted that
over 1,500 signatures had been gathered in opposition to this project. He believed that Alameda
deserved a better fit than this design, and would like to see alternatives that fit Alameda's character
better.
Ms. Barbara Marchand, spoke in support of this item. She believed that no matter how many
meetings are held, that there would not be 100 percent agreement on this project. She believed the
retail establishments and the people of Alameda would benefit from this project.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue,
noted that AAPS has gone on record supporting the project concept, but had some concerns about
the design. He read an excerpt of the report (page 9, item 2) written by the consultant, Bruce
Anderson, expressing concerns about the design, and suggesting that refinements of the design
should be made. He believed this report had been glossed over by staff. He displayed an illustration
of the project, and noted that the transom windows were misaligned.
Mr. Chuck Millar, 2829 San Jose Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that he has
been very critical of the design from the beginning. He was very concerned that the City would be
saddled with a regrettable design. He believed that Bruce Anderson's comments had been treated on
the same level as public comment, and added that HAB had been very critical of the design, which
was also not apparent. He noted the walls made of precast concrete would be very suitable for Art
Deco. He strongly urged that more design elements be included in this project so that it would not be
so plain.
Ms. Holly Rose, spoke in opposition to this item, and believed that this project overwhelmed the
intersection in a claustrophobic manner. She did not like the aesthetics of the building.
Ms. Melody Marr, CEO Chamber of Commerce, noted that the community had been waiting a long
time for this theater. She noted that the visitors and tax revenue were needed badly in Alameda,
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,12,"particularly to support police and fire services.
Mr. Gene Oh, Alameda Bicycle, spoke in support of this item, and believed the parking structure
was also necessary to create a viable and vibrant outdoor downtown.
Ms. Deborah Overfield, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that she had discussed her
concerns with Mayor Johnson. She would like to see a two level parking structure, and only one
screen instead of multiple screens. She realized this project had been going on for a long time, but
did not believe the current design fit Alameda's character. She was very concerned that the new
structure would block the Twin Towers Church, which had just installed new stained glass. She
believed that more people should walk in town and not worry so much about parking. She did not
like the design at all.
Ms. Valerie Ruma, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that she would speak on Items 8-A
and 8-B simultaneously. She realized that a lot of work had gone into this project, and believed that
many Alameda citizens were not aware of the reality of the designs. She noted that some of the
recipients of the RFP were not in an appropriate position to do the work, and was not surprised that
there were so few responses. She believed the height of the buildings were excessive, and while they
did not exceed the decorative structures of the nearby buildings, the structure did overwhelm the
main adjacent structures. She suggested that there be sensitive renovation of the Alameda Theater to
its original three screens, elimination of the Cineplex building, which would allow for a more
distributed parking solution, and public open spaces or smaller scale retail included in the design.
Ms. Rosemary McNally, 2145 San Antonio, spoke in opposition to this item. She had attended or
watched many HAB and Planning Board meetings, and believed that the general public had only
recently understood what was happening. She opposed the 20-inch overhang, and to it being SO close
to the street. She suggested building a big theater in Harbor Bay if the City wanted the revenue. She
did not believe the decision must be made at this time, and believed that there was more information
to be heard.
Ms. Birgitt Evans, 2829 San Jose, spoke in opposition to this item, and complimented staff on
summarizing her comments on June 13, 2005. She agreed with Bruce Anderson's Section 106
review, as well as HAB's comments on the design of the Cineplex. She noted that four out five
members of the HAB recommended that the architects ""go back to the drawing board."" She
complimented the project architects on their Deco-style cinema in Livermore, and would like to see
a design like that in Alameda. She particularly liked the strong vertical elements. She noted that
most proponents of the Cineplex had a vested financial interest in it. She believed that Alameda
should have a better design for such a major project.
Mr. Anders Lee spoke in opposition to this item. He believed this could be a much better design, and
stated that there was considerable public opposition to this design.
Mr. Vern Marsh spoke in opposition to this item. He did not like the proposed design, and would
favor the designs suggested by the other speakers. He would like a smaller-scale theater such as the
Orinda Theater. He believed the transit congestion on and off the Island would not attract visitors
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,13,"from other communities.
Mr. Don Grappo, spoke in opposition to this item. He did not oppose the concept of a theater and
parking structure, and did not believe it was a good design. He suggested valet parking, and inquired
whether the changing technology of movies would make this theater obsolete. He suggested a
smaller and more aesthetically pleasing design.
Mr. Harry Hartman, 1100 Peach Street, spoke in support of this application. He believed the design
was a positive compromise, and noted that the City did not have the financial resources to fund an
elaborate design at this time. He noted that the business district was set up to benefit from a draw
such as this theater. He noted that 352 new spaces in the parking structure would take a lot of
pressure off the downtown streets. He believed the cost-benefit analysis showed clearly that the
benefits of the Cineplex far outweighed the detriments.
Rose, P.O. Box 640353, San Francisco, noted that she was an Alameda resident. She supported the
restoration of the theater, and believed that this type of theater could be a model for other specialized
movie theaters.
Mr. Rudy Rubago spoke in opposition to this item and noted that this was the first time he had seen
this design, and inquired about what had happened to the South Shore movie theater. He expressed
concern that this theater might not last very long, and what would happen to the building. He did not
like the design. He believed the evolving movie technologies for in-home viewing may make
theaters obsolete. He inquired whether the owners or employees of this theater live in Alameda. He
expressed concern that the money generated from this use would be spent off the Island. He
expressed concern about potential crime in the parking structure. He would like to see a cultural
center for the performing arts in Alameda.
Mr. Rich Tester, 2020 Pacific Avenue, noted that he was a Park Street business owner, and spoke in
opposition to this item. He expressed concern about the size and shading of the structure; he inquired
about the shade study. He was concerned that there would be an alleyway feel to the side of the
parking garage, and noted that there were no businesses on that side. He expressed concern about the
traffic congestion on Oak Street, which many people used to traverse Alameda.
Ms. Ott advised that right after the June 13 meeting, staff contacted a firm to do a shading analysis,
which had a two to three week turnaround time. Staff will report on the results of the shade analysis
when it is complete. She noted that the revised HAB minutes were available.
Ms. Pat Pane spoke in opposition to this item, and did not believe the construction of the building in
the middle of a historic district was appropriate. She pointed out that the economics of movies was
changing, and did not believe that spending money on an outmoded structure and technology would
be appropriate. She did not like the design.
Ms. Scott Corkens spoke in opposition to this item, and believed the Cineplex was grossly out of
scale. He believed this use would spur more development in the district, and would add to traffic
congestion. He was very concerned about danger to pedestrians due to increased traffic. He believed
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,14,"this building was grossly out of scale for the street, and did not believe anyone would want to
renovate the proposed design in the future.
Mr. Jim Strehlow, 3122 Gibbons Street, did not understand the pedestrian flow from the parking
garage, which forced customers to walk outside before entering the theater. He did not see much
detail for the historic theater portion, and would like to see more information. He wished to ensure
the historic theater was not dwarfed. He would like to see live performances in that theater, and
would like the Planning Board to plan accordingly.
Mr. Robert Gavrich, 1517 Fountain, spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern about
the design and the financial details of this project with respect to the developer.
President Cunningham suggested that the financial questions be directed to the City Council, and
that the design issues be addressed at this hearing.
Mr. Gavrich noted that the elevation was drawn from a distance of 200 feet, and noted that
perspective would not be available in reality. He was concerned about the canyon and wind effect on
the street, as well as the noise from the cars driving in the parking garage.
Mr. Richard Rutter noted that the staff report for the parking garage stated that the site survey raised
questions regarding the property line along Oak Street and the associated width of the public right-
of-way. He noted that there would be a ripple effect into the right-of-way or the building. He
complimented historical consultant Bruce Anderson on a good and reasoned analysis. He believed
the staff report was at odds with his findings. He would be hesitant to support this project at this
point before such open issues were resolved.
Mr. Jerrold Connors, 2531 San Jose Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, but would favor a
more modest three-screen theater like Piedmont Cinema or the Grand Lake. He would like a theater
with more character befitting Alameda, and believed it should be scaled back.
Ms. Judith Lynch, 1372 Versailles Avenue, noted that she was a member of the HAB but was
speaking as an individual. At the June 13 meeting, she had been concerned that the staff report was
based on inaccurate HAB minutes. She thanked staff for making those corrections, but believed that
the staff report was still inaccurate with respect to Bruce Anderson's comments on page 9. She
generally supported the project, but would like it to look better; she did not believe it was compatible
or harmonious in its present state. She believed the Art Deco heritage of Alameda should be
celebrated in this design. She displayed an example of a Deco theater, and urged the Board to
consider changing the design.
Ms. Paula Rainey spoke in opposition to this item and didn't believe this project met the needs of
Alameda. She believed it was too big, and believed that Ms. Hanson's sketch demonstrated how
good design can bring people together.
Mr. Mike Corbitt, Harsch Investments, 523 South Shore Center, spoke in support of this application.
He noted that this theater would help stop leakage to Oakland, San Leandro and surrounding
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,15,"communities. He noted this was a catalyst site, and believed the developer was trying to respond to
the community's concerns as much as possible. He believed the parking structure was critical to the
success of downtown businesses.
Mr. Robb Ratto, Director, Park Street Business Association, spoke in support of this item. He noted
that the Board of Directors voted unanimously in favor of the design, and that the majority of PSBA
business owners support the design. He noted that this has been a difficult process, and commended
the architect for his design and responsiveness to the comments received.
Mr. Frank George, 1419 Park Street, spoke in support of this item. He noted that there was a 10-
screen cinema in Twain Harte, a smaller town than Alameda, and that they had no problem filling it.
He noted that economic diversity was a critical element of financial success, and that there had been
eight theaters in Alameda that functioned at the same time. He noted that this was a centrally-located
and oriented parking structure and theater, and that the crossover traffic would benefit the other
businesses. He originally thought the building was too massive, but believed it would be a benefit to
Alameda.
Mr. Harvey Brook, 2515 Santa Clara Avenue, #208, spoke in support of this application, and noted
that he was a Park Street business owner. He was aware of the petitions circulating against the
project, with approximately 1,800 signatures, 2.4% of Alameda's 75,000 residents. He noted that
there would be impacts on property tax revenues if this project did not go forward. He was very
concerned that if this project were to be delayed, the City would no longer be able to afford the
project.
Mr. Walt Jacobs, President, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of this item. He
noted that this project has been going on for a long time, and that there had been considerable public
input. He believed that it was needed to make Alameda more vibrant and attractive to downtown
businesses. He believed the design was acceptable, and complimented staff on incorporating the
requested changes.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Cunningham called for a five-minute recess.
President Cunningham thanked the public for its comments, and noted that financial issues were
within the City Council's purview, not the Planning Board's. Because a quorum of four Board
members was required for an up-or-down vote, he requested a straw poll of the Board members to
determine whether they wished to move the discussion forward.
Mr. Lynch noted that a number of different ideas regarding the value and design of this project had
been heard. He was not inclined to deny this project because he believed the City was getting close
to a workable project. He respected the emotions felt by members of the public, and was ready to
move forward with this project. He encouraged Alameda citizens to continue to be involved with the
process.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,16,"Mr. Piziali echoed Mr. Lynch's comment, and added that he was ready to move forward with the
project. He supported the project at this point.
Ms. Mariani noted that she rejected the design as it stands, and agreed with the HAB's opinion of
starting again with the design.
Vice President Cook noted that she would like to continue the discussion, and added that scale was
one of the fundamental issues she heard from the public. She noted that City Hall, the new Library
and the Twin Towers church were also large-scale projects. She believed it was time to make a final
decision. She noted that someone would probably appeal the decision and to bring it to City
Council, which would open up further dialogue about the details of the project. She strongly
believed that the project should be sent forward with very clear design direction. She would have
liked to have had the agreement with Long's, allowing a larger site. She encouraged the residents to
revisit the Long's issue with City Council.
President Cunningham agreed with Vice President Cook's comments, and believed the 106 findings
should be reviewed to help improve the project. He believed the design of the project had progressed
considerably, and noted that some projects can take many years to design. He requested staff's
response to the 106 findings.
Mr. Lynch agreed with the speakers who wanted the architect and owner to work with the HAB and
PSBA to fill in some Art Deco features along the Central Avenue and Oak Street elevation.
Vice President Cook expressed concern about including faux historic elements in the design, which
may dilute the genuine historic design. She believed that a theater similar to the Livermore example
may overwhelm the historic theater. She believed the architecture should reflect the constant
evolution of the City.
Mr. Lynch noted that some of the speakers had modified their comments, and he would incorporate
that increased acceptance into his decision-making process.
Mr. Piziali would prefer to send the design to City Council with the Planning Board's comments,
and if the Council wished to redirect it to the Board, that would be fine.
President Cunningham believed the aversion to the blank panels would be a major part of the
Board's comments to the Council.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham, Ms. Eliason confirmed that the HAB has
already provided their comments and given a certificate of approval for the historic Alameda
Theater; that element would not be within the Planning Board's purview.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani, Mr. Lynch replied that the Board did not have the ability
to scale the project back; the Board may either approve or deny the project.
Ms. Harryman advised that if the Board approved this item, it would only go to Council if someone
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,17,"appealed it. She noted that the Council may send it back to the Board.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the changed color of the aluminum and
glass on the upstairs element, President Cunningham replied that he agreed with the HAB's
recommendation to use the clear aluminum. He wished to clarify that low-E glazing was available in
many tints; the Board would prefer the clear low-E glazing.
President Cunningham noted that with respect to page 3, Item 2.2, regarding the base along the
theater, a spandrel would provide a base in accordance with the findings. He would like the wording
to be modified to provide for a base.
President Cunningham noted that with respect to Item 6, he would not recommend 6-inch aluminum
clad element depths in the doors; there should not be any recessed openings.
Vice President Cook agreed with President Cunningham's assessment; although historic buildings
had an increased depth, the narrowness of the retail spaces would not accommodate that depth; she
would prefer that be changed to enliven the retail space. The Board agreed that item would be
deleted.
President Cunningham noted that with respect to Items 8 and 9, a professional lighting designer
should be employed for the Cineplex, rather than an electric subcontractor. That design and the
signage should come back to the Board. Ms. Eliason advised that Condition 4 of the Draft
Resolution already stated that the signage and lighting programs be brought back to the Board.
Vice President Cook liked the addition of the brick veneer, which broke up the larger planes.
President Cunningham noted that the stucco column caps could be eliminated.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham whether the color of the brick veneer would be
monotone or variegated, Ms. Ott replied that it would be variegated.
President Cunningham noted that the sunlight/shading study should be included in the conditions.
Vice President Cook noted that she was not extremely concerned about the shading study, and
believed that the shade should fall on the Long's parking lot; she believed it was important to
respond to the public's concerns.
Ms. Eliason noted that because the Cineplex was a permitted use, the Board would not be asked to
consider any operational limitations. However, the Board will consider operational limitations for
the parking garage.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding how questions and concerns regarding operational
issues for the theater could be voiced, Ms. Eliason suggested that could be expressed before the City
Council; those concerns will also be reflected in the record.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 17
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,18,"Mr. Lynch noted that after the theater opens, it may be necessary for the police to direct traffic at the
owner's expense, as they did after the Jack London Square Theater opened.
Ms. Ott noted that there were provisions to handle large crowds for a blockbuster presentation at
various times during the year. There would be some education programs so the public could become
accustomed to the operation.
Vice President Cook fully agreed with Bike Alameda's comments regarding the bike path on Central
Avenue, especially with respect to their call to remove the diagonal parking on Central, and having a
bike lane.
Ms. Eliason noted that City Council had made the commitment to remove the diagonal parking, and
to have parallel parking and a bike lane in its place.
Vice President Cook was concern about losing the landscaping along the Oak Street façade; she
noted that a landscaping plan would soften the large scale of the building. She would like the
detailed landscaping plan to return to the Board, addressing both the Cineplex and the garage. Ms.
Ott recommended that be conditioned for the garage, because the funding for the landscaping plan is
part of the garage contract. She noted the project would have to comply with the City's ordinance,
and that there would be street trees for Oak Street. Central Avenue will have street trees along
Central as part of the City's ordinance.
Mr. Lynch noted that he had concerns about the large DBH; he would like to see trees that were tall
enough to soften the building.
M/S Piziali/Cook to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-27 to approve the Final design
review, including consideration of Section 106 findings for the proposed Cineplex at the corner of
Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video Maniacs site, with the following
modifications:
1.
The blank panels will be resolved;
2.
Clear aluminum storefronts will be acceptable;
3.
Low-E clear glass will be used;
4.
A base for retail spaces will be provided;
5.
There will not be recessed openings on retail spaces;
6.
The lighting plan prepared by a lighting designer will be returned to the Planning
Board;
7.
The added brick veneer will be retained;
8.
The brick veneer will be variegated as specified on the material board;
9.
The end caps will be deleted;
10.
The shading study will be returned to the Planning Board if there will be shading on
Santa Clara; and
11.
A sign program will be brought to the Planning Board.
12.
The additional brick detail around the movie poster boxes.
AYES - 4 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 18
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,19,"8-B.
UP05-0008/DR05-0028 - Use Permit and Final Design Review of the Proposed New
Civic Center Parking Garage - City of Alameda (DSD). Consideration of a Use Permit
and Final design review, including consideration of Section 106 findings, for a new 352-
space parking structure at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the
Video Maniacs site. This site is located at 1416 Oak Street within the C-C and C-C-PD
(Community Commercial and Community Commercial -- Planned Development) Districts.
(Continued from the meeting of June 13, 2005.)
M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to continue the meeting to 11:30 p.m.
AYES - 4 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0
Ms. Ott summarized the staff report.
M/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 4 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, suggested revisiting the idea of removing the garage
from Oak Street to an earlier proposed location behind the Elks' Lodge, which would be a bigger
site. He noted that a more efficient garage could be built there, next to a four-lane road. He
expressed concern that a six-story garage could invite trouble, and that a smaller garage would
reduce that risk.
Ms. Melody Marr, CEO, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of this application, and
noted that this garage was badly needed in Alameda. She noted that there was no place in Alameda
where people could park for a long time without getting parking tickets.
Ms. Nancy Hird was not in attendance to speak.
Mr. Robb Ratto, Director, PSBA, spoke in support of this application, and noted that their Board of
Directors had voted unanimously in favor of this design.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, noted that he was speak as an individual. He
noted that the Board requested a design change to include stronger framing around the posters on the
lower level. He had gotten the impression that the Board wanted some sort of depression in the wall
so the posters could be inserted in them. He suggested the use of opaque spandrel glass around the
perimeter, with the movie posters exposed inside. He believed the use of variegated brick on the
Cineplex would be an improvement, and suggested that it be used on the parking garage as well.
Mr. Noel Folsom spoke in opposition to this item. He did not believe this was a true Art Deco
design, and believed that it was too large for the site. He did not like the design of the parking
garage.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 19
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,20,"Mr. Harold McKenzie, 3263 Thompson Avenue, spoke in support of this item. He would like the
garage to be constructed in such a way that would make it work for the City.
Mr. Eric Strimlin noted that there was an increasing public groundswell against this structure
because of its massiveness. He believed it was out of scale with Alameda, and did not understand
why the size of the garage could not be reduced. He asked the Board to inspire, not to compromise.
He expressed concern that this garage could weigh the downtown down, and requested that the
design be reduced.
Mr. Harry Hartman noted that he had a business on Oak Street, and added that parking garages were
primarily about functionality. He believed this garage would be an improvement, and that it was not
a nondescript structure. He suggested that some work be done to the panels, or that cornices be
added for some visual interest. He believed that if the garage were to be well-designed, the ingress
and egress would be easy for people.
Mr. Jim Strehlow, 3122 Gibbons Street, noted that he supported the project, but was concerned
about its size. He requested information about free parking, and hoped the plans for the garage were
fiscally sound so that it could be self-sustaining. He suggested that fewer levels would enable to City
to reach that goal, and that there should be subsidized parking validation for the Cineplex, to be paid
back by the theater owner. He suggested that there should be parking validation for the library as
well. He encouraged monthly parking rental revenue, and some methodology to determine how
many people would buy monthly passes for the garage.
Mr. Robert Gavrich, 1517 Fountain, believed this parking garage was not big enough and was
concerned that it would be inadequate for evenings when the Cineplex was at capacity. He believed
that would be a parking and traffic nightmare, and did not believe the current plan was unworkable.
He noted that the City estimated the creation of 300 new jobs, but that many of them would be in
construction. He inquired where the employees would park. He noted that the City was invoking
eminent domain against the owner of the Alameda Theater, and inquired why that could not be
invoked against Long's for the portion of their parking lot that would make this garage publicly
acceptable.
Ms. Ani Dimusheva, 2911 Calhoun Street, read an excerpt from the Alameda Journal entitled ""More
Parking is Not Always the Answer:""
""Oak Street between Central and Lincoln Avenue should be Alameda's civic center.
That was the advice to Mayor Ralph Appezzato from his counterparts in other cities
and urban design professionals during last week's seminar of the Mayors' Institute
on City Design. The area from historic Alameda High School to the new main library
to be built at Oak Street and Lincoln Avenue could be a vibrant area that will bring
residents together.
""Alameda doesn't have the land for a civic plaza, but the City could improvise to get
the feeling of an open gathering space into the existing compact area, the group told
Planning Board Minutes
Page 20
June 27, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,21,"Appezzato. Probably the most controversial thing was they strongly recommended
not building a parking garage in the Long's lot. Both mayors and design
professionals said that a garage, especially one without retail on the ground level will
destroy the Civic Center.'
Ms. Dimusheva did not want to suggest that there be no parking garage, but she requested that the
Board to pay attention to the fact that this area is the civic center, which should be designed on open
space, not a canyon. She encouraged the addition of retail on the ground level. She read an excerpt
from The Whole Building Design Guide:
""Parking has often been reduced to the construction of the most minimal standalone
structure or parking lot, without human, aesthetic or integrative considerations. This
has given parking a poor public perception, and frequently disturbs or disrupts the
existing urban fabric.
""However, many architects, engineers and planners have envisioned and constructed
far more complex, aesthetic and integrated structures. This should be the goal of
good parking design
""Aesthetics of garage design has become very important to communities across the
country. Recently, garage design has become part of an architectural style of the
surrounding architecture. It becomes part of the architectural style of the surrounding
architecture, respecting the language of design and using the design process.""
Ms. Dimusheva believed that the City did not need a Cineplex, but did need a parking garage. She
suggested that the parking garage be built with two or three levels of retail space on the bottom, with
the addition of a garden and coffee shops on the top, and a cutout corner for public gathering.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio, noted that he had expected more from the Planning Board with
respect to the design of the parking garage and that he usually respected their work. He suggested
that people use bicycles for transportation more often, and added that parking structures were not
generally beautiful. He was not sure that this was the right place for the parking garage. He would
rather see the garage without a Cineplex than a Cineplex without a parking garage. He inquired what
the City would do when the parking structure is declared obsolete, perhaps before the bonds were
paid off. He inquired about the City's exit strategy regarding what would be done with an empty
Cineplex when technology makes it obsolete in the future.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Leslie Little noted that a number of years ago, a parking assessment was performed in the
central business district in which a number of different locations were analyzed to accommodate
future parking. A number of public lots were examined, but they did not have the dimensions to
accommodate that use. The three top sites were prioritized, and the site was identified as the single
greatest priority; it included the Long's parking lot at the time, which yielded 508 parking spaces.
She noted that after 6 p.m., the parking structure would be free. She described the payment method
Planning Board Minutes
Page 21
June 27, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,22,"proposed for the garage. She noted that it would not staff-intensive, and that there would be no pay
gate to queue up for at the end of the evening.
Vice President Cook noted that there had been more opposition to the theater than the garage, and
added that the Board listened carefully to each public speaker. She noted that some items had been
addressed previously, such as retail on the ground floor.
Mr. Piziali supported the use of variegated brick to add more detail to the façade.
Ms. Ott noted that Michael Stanton believed that the symmetry of the pattern with respect to the
horizontal openings would look better with a more subtle brick design.
President Cunningham believed that the header courses should be fixed, and he was very concerned
about the current brick detail design.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Ott confirmed that one of the criteria was that the
exterior façade would be consistent with whatever the Planning Board approves. She noted that
Michael Stanton specified the quality of the materials in a very detailed way, based on the sample
board provided.
Vice President Cook noted that the DDA discussed the City's parking operations plan, which would
be submitted in a timely manner and examined in detail by the City Council.
President Cunningham addressed Mr. Spangler's comment regarding an exit strategy, and noted that
there was no way to tell what would happen in the future. He believed the floor-to-floor heights
could be adjusted, and that the conversion of a parking garage was problematic. He noted that
designing structures with an eye towards adaptive reuse before the intended use has begun will
compromise the project from the beginning. He hoped that Park Street business would require this
volume of parking.
Vice President Cook believed that without the Cineplex, this parking structure would appear too
massive on its own.
Mr. Lynch requested the inclusion of the financials at the next presentation. He suggested that with
the recent Supreme Court decision regarding eminent domain, that the City Council and City
Attorney provide information with respect to potential litigation.
Ms. Mariani noted that she agreed with the modifications suggested by the Board. She did not agree
with the scale of the parking garage, and agreed that the City needed parking.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-28 to approve a
Use Permit and Final design review, including consideration of Section 106 findings, for a new 352-
space parking structure at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video
Maniacs site, with the following modifications:
1.
The size of the poster boxes would be enhanced with contrasting brick detail and
Planning Board Minutes
Page 22
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,23,"accents;
2.
The header courses would be corrected;
3.
A lighting consultant would be utilized;
4.
A landscaping plan would be included, and returned to the Planning Board.
AYES - 4 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN -
0
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
President Cunningham advised that a letter from Sarah [Unavolta], commenting that she was not in
favor of Item 8-A.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice
President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that their last meeting was held the previous week. Staff will make a
presentation before the Planning Board to discuss the future of the project, and what kind of regular
review the Board would like.
b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.
c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Board Member Piziali advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.
d. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Board Member Mariani advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Eliason advised that the preliminary concept for Alameda Point was distributed to the Board
members. There will be a meeting on that subject in July.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Benoit, Interim Secretary
Planning Board Minutes
Page 23
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,24,"Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the July 11, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio
and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 24
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-11,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Regular Meeting - July 11, 2005
1.
CONVENE:
7:02 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. Kohlstrand
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani, McNamara and
Piziali.
Vice President Cook was absent.
Also present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Assistant City Manager Paul Benoit,
Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Planner III Douglas Garrison,
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005 (continued from the meeting of June 27,
2005.).
M/S McNamara/Piziali to approve the minutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005, as presented.
A quorum for a vote on the minutes was not present. They will be carried over to the next meeting.
b.
Minutes for the meeting of June 27, 2005.
President Cunningham advised that the conditions listed on page 21 should include item 12: ""The
additional brick detail around the movie poster boxes.""
President Cunningham advised that page 25, paragraph 7, should be changed to read: ""President
Cunningham believed that the header courses should be fixed, and he was very concerned about the
current brick detail design.""
M/S McNamara/Piziali to approve the minutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005, as corrected.
AYES - 4 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 2 (Kohlstrand, McNamara)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
July 11, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-11,2,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
8-A.
DR04-0096 - Appeal of Major Design Review 1024 Chestnut St. (DG). Appeal of Major
Design Review allowing remodeling and the addition of a Communications Arts Center and
classrooms to the existing Gymnasium located at 1024 Chestnut St. The zoning is R-4-PD
(Neighborhood Residential-Planned Development).
Planner III Douglas Garrison summarized the staff report. Staff recommended denial of this appeal.
He noted that page 3 of the staff report, under Recommendations, contained an error, reading, ""Staff
recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing.. He noted that should read,
""Staff
recommends that the Planning Board
""
President Cunningham welcomed the City's new City Manager, Debra Kurita, to the meeting.
In response to Mr. Piziali's request, Mr. Garrison displayed the layout of the portion of the site in
question.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Mr. Garrison replied that the projected height of the
trees in between the two doors would be 10 to 20 feet.
In response to Mr. Lynch's request, Mr. Garrison displayed the proposed remodeling project, and
noted that the locker room windows would be removed. The only new windows would be located on
the second floor, where the chemistry classrooms would be located, 5.5 feet above the finished floor
of those classrooms to provide additional privacy. The windows in the second floor hallway that had
been proposed were removed. The remaining window by the exit door was changed to a fixed
window to remove noise. The exterior staircases are now enclosed, and will be stuccoed to match the
exterior of the buildings.
Ms. Altschuler advised that she was the original planner on this item, and was available to answer
questions. She described the new orientation of the courtyard to reduce privacy intrusions.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Susan Jaber, speaking for her father, Mr. Jawad Jaber, appellant, noted that only one item had
not been addressed, and thanked the applicant in working with them to alleviate the privacy
concerns. She distributed a letter provided by Mr. Garrison, addressing the appellant's concerns. Mr.
Jabber had requested a limitation in the hours of the Arts Center, which were adjacent to the
appellant's property. She requested a reasonable time limitation for use of the fire doors (8 a.m. to 6
p.m.), and noted that after an evening performance, the sound of the doors opening and closing
would provide a noise problem for them.
Mr. Lynch suggested that the appellant consider a time limit of 45 minutes after a performance, and
noted that maintenance staff would need to break down chairs, etc. and use those doors.
Ms. Jaber noted that she was concerned about the privacy and noise issues that affected their tenants.
She suggested that the breakdown of chairs may be done the next morning.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
July 11, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-11,3,"Mr. Tony Aiello, applicant, St. Joseph's High School principal, noted that the time limits had been
discussed with the appellant in November 2004, and January 2005. He believed the appellants'
requests regarding the Arts Center doors were not reasonable as they apply to a school use. Students
and staff would not use those doors, but would use the main doors Chestnut Street. He noted that the
maintenance staff need to use the doors in question, and added that they would be sensitive to the
neighbors. He noted that the janitorial staff did not commence work until 4 p.m. He noted that the
school had been very responsive to the concerns of the appellants.
Mr. Andrew Reed, applicant, noted that he was the project manager for the renovation, and
emphasized that it was important that the school be able to run in a normal fashion. It had been his
understanding in January that there would be no appeal, but that they hired an architect, made the
requested changes, and met with the neighbors. He did not wish the performance of the school to be
hindered, and added that there were normally two school plays a year for a total of six evenings. The
school did not have total control over the janitorial staff, and would not want to promise something
they could not guarantee. He requested that the Board uphold staff's recommendation, and to allow
the school to exercise common sense. He noted that many accommodations had been reached for the
appellants, particularly the removal of the windows in the boys' locker room.
Mr. Jawad Jaber, appellant, expressed concern about potential noise and privacy impacts on his
tenants. He was also concerned about the items that changed during their negotiations, and had no
issues with the emergency doors. He had been a neighbor of St. Joseph's for 20 years, and added that
his children attended the school as well. He requested that alternatives be found for the janitorial
staff to avoid privacy impacts on his tenants.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Cunningham complimented both parties on the substantial work that had been done, and
noted that the applicant had been very responsive to the appellant's concerns. He noted that the
design changes that had been made were extensive and costly.
Ms. McNamara supported President Cunningham's comments. She believed the applicant had
demonstrated meeting the concerns of Mr. Jaber, as well as the community at large.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding noise, Ms. Altschuler replied that staff had
not received any complaints regarding noise. There had been complaints filed previous to that
regarding the parking issues, particularly with respect to basketball championship games.
Ms. McNamara believed the school had been very sensitive to the community's need regarding the
noise level, and had no reason to believe that would change. She believed the 6 p.m. restriction was
unreasonable, and believed the school would continue to be a positive force in the community.
Ms. Kohlstrand believed that the 6 p.m. limit was too restrictive, and that noise after 10 p.m. would
be more disturbing to neighbors than after 6 p.m. She suggested that a later time limit be
implemented.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
July 11, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-11,4,"Mr. Lynch was reluctant to enforce a compliance issue when there had been no demonstrated need in
the past.
Mr. Piziali agreed with Mr. Lynch's comments, and believed that the appellant had done well to get
five out of six items on their list of concerns. He supported staff's recommendation.
Ms. Mariani appreciated the appellants' point of view, and noted that there had been no complaints
until the present time.
Ms. Harryman noted that this was a Design Review application, and if there were to be any problems
in the future, that could be addressed in a Use Permit revocation hearing.
M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution PB-05-2_ to deny the
appeal of a Major Design Review allowing remodeling and the addition of a Communications Arts
Center and classrooms to the existing Gymnasium located at 1024 Chestnut St.
AYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC
(Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Board member Piziali advised that there was nothing to report at this time.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
member Mariani).
Board member Mariani noted there was nothing new to report at this time.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Benoit noted that the Planning Board bylaws normally scheduled elections during the first
meeting of July.
President Cunningham noted that was normally deferred until a full Board was present.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
July 11, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-11,5,"12.
ADJOURNMENT:
7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Benoit, Interim Secretary
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the July 25, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio
and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
July 11, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-25,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, July 25, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:07 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. McNamara
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,
McNamara and Piziali.
Board Member Mariani was absent.
Also present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Assistant City Manager Paul Benoit,
Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Planner II Dennis Brighton, and Executive Assistant Latisha
Jackson.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005 (continued from the meeting of June 27,
2005).
M/S Cook/Piziali to approve the minutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005, as presented.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Cunningham)
b.
Minutes for the meeting of July 11, 2005.
M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara to approve the minutes for the meeting of July 11, 2005, as presented.
AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Cook)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
Item seven (7) was moved to the end of the agenda as Board Member Mariani was not in attendance
at the start of the meeting.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
7.
2005-2006 ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS:
This item was continued to the next meeting when a full board is present
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
July 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-25,2,"8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A.
PDA05-0003 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant proposes a
Planned Development Amendment to amend the Harbor Bay Business Park landscaping and
lot coverage provisions as established in Resolution 1203. This Amendment would affect Lots
1-6, 8 and 12 of Tentative Parcel Map 8574. These lots are fronting on or southerly of 1900
and 2000 North Loop Road. The proposed Planned Development Amendment would allow a
five percent (5%) increase in building coverage for parcels larger than 5.5 acres. Currently,
maximum allowed building coverage is thirty five percent (35%) for lots larger than 5.5 acres
and forty percent (40%) on lots smaller than 5.5 acres. The maximum lot coverage allowed on
lots smaller than 5.5 acres would not be affected. The proposed Planned Development
Amendment would also decrease the minimum landscape coverage by five to ten percent (5 to
10%), depending on lot size. Currently, 30% landscaping coverage is required on lots smaller
than 5.5 acres and 25% landscaping coverage is required for parcels larger than 5.5 acres. The
proposed Planned Development Amendment would decrease the landscaping requirement to
twenty percent (20%) for these lots regardless of size. The property is zoned C-M - PD
(Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned Development.) (Applicant requests a continuance
to the meeting of August 22, 2005.)
M/S Cook/McNamara to continue this item to the meeting of August 22, 2005.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
July 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-25,3,"8-B.
FDP05-0002/DR05-0057 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant
requests a Final Development Plan and Design Review for four (4) new flex warehouse, office
and light manufacturing facilities ranging in size from 13,900 to 33,272 square feet on 6.41
acres adjacent to and southerly of 2000 North Loop Road (Parcels 8-12 on Tentative Parcel
Map No. 8574). These facilities will be on one lot of approximately 11.53 acres until the final
map is approved. The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned
Development.) (Applicant requests a continuance to the meeting of August 22, 2005.)
M/S Cook/McNamara to continue this item to the meeting of August 22, 2005.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
July 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-25,4,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
9-A.
Variance, V04-0002, and Major Design Review, DR03-0146 - Alvin Wong - 2708
Lincoln Avenue (DB). The applicant requests a Major Design Review approval for the
partial demolition of an approximately 842-square foot, two-bedroom, single-story cottage
and reconstruction to provide approximately 1, 114-square feet, four-bedroom, two-story,
single-family residence, which includes partially covered off-street parking for two-tandem
vehicles. Variances are required to permit the following: 1) The structure would be built to
within 3-feet from the northwesterly side property line, where a minimum 5-foot setback is
required; 2) The structure would cover approximately 51-percent of the site, where the
maximum permitted main building coverage is 48-percent for residences with attached
garages; and 3) The front porch would be relocated and covered and would be setback
approximately 7-feet from the front property line, where 20-feet is the minimum required
front yard setback. The site is located within an R-1 (Single-Family Residence) Zoning
District.
Staff member Dennis Brighton summarized the staff report and recommended approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
There being no speaker's slips for this item the public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member Kohlstrand regarding a discrepancy in the square footage
stated on the public notice, Mr. Brighton responded that staff used the initial application which
requested an addition of roughly 1100 square feet of space. He explained that the proper wording
should have been a total of roughly 1800 square feet. The acting Planning & Building Director,
Gregory J. McFann, was aware of the discrepancy and determined that the item should be able to go
forward with the minor alteration.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member McNamara regarding the second variance for lot
coverage, Mr. Brighton stated that the difference in lot coverage related to the provision of covered
parking which allowed for a higher lot coverage. He explained that the proposed parking is partially
covered and the building forms somewhat of a carport over the parking area. Board Member
McNamara then asked whether a carport constituted covered parking. Mr. Brighton responded in the
affirmative.
In response to second inquiry by Board Member McNamara regarding the proposed height of this
building relative to surrounding buildings, Mr. Brighton responded that the garages on both sides are
one story structures. The surrounding structures are two stories and one on Pearl Street has a two
story high gable, so they're compatible in story height. The maximum height allowed in the R-1 zone
in 30 ft.
Board Member Piziali advised that the window schedule called for wood and the plans indicated a
fiberglass frame window by integrity, Mr. Brighton responded that either window type is allowed.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
July 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-25,5,"Staff does not make a design distinction between the two materials. Clad wood is preferred, but vinyl
is permissible and only aluminum windows are prohibited.
In response to an inquiry by Vice-President Cook regarding garage requirements, Mr. Brighton
responded that there is no distinction between covered parking, carports and garages. They are all
types of covered parking. Ms. Eliason further explained that there is no City requirement to have
covered parking, as parking can all be unenclosed.
In response to a concern by Vice-President Cook regarding use of parking for storage, Mr. Brighton
responded that in some multiple family homes it has been required that carports or garage doors be
removed in order to restrict the ability to utilize their garage for storage. He explained that
unenclosed parking tends to be used more for parking rather than storage.
Vice President Cook noted that it seems like a really big house for such a small lot. She understands
the constraints of the site, but was concerned there was a potential third story and this addition may
overdevelop such a small lot. She noted the fact that she could see continuing the pre-existing
substandard set backs, but she still didn't see where that requires you to have 51% coverage; you
could make the back of the house smaller and still come in under the required building coverage.
Board Member Lynch requested clarification on the third story item addressed by Vice President
Cook and her concern that the applicant would exceed 30 ft. Vice President Cook responded she
recalled the story requirements had been removed.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member Piziali regarding parking in the front yard, Ms. Eliason
noted that the parking in the front yard was a pre-existing condition.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member Kohlstrand regarding reduction of the front yard, Mr.
Brighton stated the front yard is not being reduced and the front of the house is not being changed.
The actual parking configuration is not being changed except it's being partially covered now.
In response to Vice-President Cook regarding the location of the porch, Ms. Eliason stated that the
porch is in a new location, but the parking situation is an existing parking situation. We are simply
allowing them to partially cover the parking with the carport.
Board Member Kohlstrand informed the Board that after visiting the site, she feels that although the
house is big for this lot, given the circumstances of the setting, this proposal is not an unreasonable
request.
Board Member Piziali commented that the front of the building, where the porch is, goes straight up
with flat windows. He would prefer if there was some sort of cutback from the porch or the roof
could be set back to reduce massing visible from the street.
Board Member Lynch agreed that the drawings on the paper don't give it any depth; he noted that
because it's a narrow lot you must go up. He feels that once it is built, it will actually look better than
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
July 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-25,6,"the way it's drawn. Secondly, if the landing can continue across the front of the building it might
break up some of the massing.
Board Member McNamara stated on the proposed north elevation drawing, there are two sets of
recessed elevations that the drawing doesn't do justice.
President Cunningham advised the Board that he received a speaker's slip to speak on the item.
M/S (McNamara/Piziali) and unanimous to re-open the public hearing.
Ms. Dian McPherson, 1539 Versailles Ave., spoke in favor of this item. She stated that Mr. Wong
and his family were wonderful neighbors and strongly suggested that the Board approve the Variance
for their home.
The public hearing was closed.
Julie Harryman addressed two questions the Board had. The first one she wanted to clarify with staff
in reference to the parking and if there were two existing legal non-conforming parking spaces already
at the property, so no variances would be needed on those parking spaces to which Mr. Brighton
responded in the affirmative. The second was the discrepancy in the noticing question posed by the
Board, where Ms. Harryman suggested that Board would vote to continue this item until the next
meeting, and have staff re-notice the item with the correct square footage and it would come back to
the next meeting as a consent calendar item.
M/S (McNamara/Kohlstrand) and unanimous to have staff re-notice this item with the correct square
footage and continue it to the next meeting as a consent calendar item.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC (Vice
President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that this item could be removed from the agenda, as the APAC no
longer exists. Staff noted her request.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing to report at this time.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
July 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-25,7,"Board member Piziali advised that there was nothing to report at this time.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
member Mariani).
Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this item.
12.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Transportation Sub-Committee Member Appointment.
Ms. Eliason informed the Board that even though the APAC will be taken off the agenda, there would
be a need for a Board member for the transportation committee to which Board Member Kohlstrand
volunteered to be the representative.
b.
Discussion of rolling stores.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member Lynch on what the definition of a rolling store is, Ms.
Eliason read the Alameda Municipal Code definition and description and stated that at the last City
Council meeting, the Council directed that the Planning Board look at the City's rolling store
provisions even though they are not in the Development Code.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member Lynch regarding why this was an issue, Assistant City
Manager Paul Benoit responded that there is a citizen of Alameda who owns a business where he
makes espresso and coffee drinks in a van/truck. The owner approached the city with an interest in
parking the vehicle on city property at the dog park by Washington Park. There was an issue on
whether the vehicle was allowed to use a city park while vending goods. He explained that the owner
filed for a business license and the Finance Department referred to the Municipal Code and explained
to the applicant that this use was considered a ""rolling store"" and the City of Alameda does not allow
this type of business. The matter was further researched and it was discovered that one could obtain
a Use Permit for a ""concession"" in parks and this business could be considered a concession on
wheels. The matter was then referred to the Parks Commission which is now in the process of
developing park rules and regulations for use. They are not considering this item until the rules and
regulations have been established which won't be until approximately 2006.
Mr. Benoit continued that the only other way the citizen could operate this type of business is if the
section of the Municipal Code regarding rolling stores be amended. He also explained that this section
of the code is dated decades ago. The Council referred this item to the Planning Board for their input
on how the City of Alameda should go about amending this section of the Municipal Code and what
items may be of concern if the amendment goes forward. He explained that the applicant has worked
on this issue for a number of months and would like resolution on the matter, but the City has to look
at the bigger picture. He acknowledged that there are businesses that currently operate in this manner
such as catering trucks that operate routinely around the City. Although people appreciate the goods
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
July 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-25,8,"that they vend, technically, these types of businesses are not allowed.
In response to a point of clarification by Board Member Piziali about a vending booth or mobile
building that used to operate in Washington Park that sold different types of consumable items, Ms.
Eliason responded that such a facility would be considered a concession stand which requires a use
permit and is allowed. She explained that rolling stores are allowed on private property with the
property owner's permission and are not allowed to sell goods on city streets. These trucks are
common at Alameda Point, off of the street. The other way these rolling stores are allowed are with
use permits at the parks. She explained that staff is researching how other communities handle these
types of businesses. The City wants to be careful on how these types of uses are permitted, where
these businesses may be permitted to sell their goods. This is a delicate issue, so the City wants to be
clear on what kinds of merchandise can be sold and how this will be approached.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding whether or not there is a time limit on
how long one of these businesses could stay in one location, Ms. Eliason responded not at this time.
Mr. Benoit added that at this point, at least for rolling stores, they would have to respect the
regulations that are posted on the right of way. Beyond that, there aren't any special rules.
Ms. Susan Potter, 1717 5th Street, distributed copies of the proposal that was submitted to the City
for her ""rolling store"" business and pictures of the competition. She explained these types of business
are not all on private property, they are all over Alameda Point and the entire City. She explained
that she was the mother of the gentlemen who wished to open a rolling store. She would like an
answer as to why they could not find a way of changing the ordinance to allow people to legally do
business in the city. She explained that there were numerous trucks coming to the Island to do
business and not contribute any monies to the City. She explained that she was told the mistake her
son made was asking permission to run his business, where other vendors have not been granted
permission, but still does business in the City. She feels the other vendors don't care about the city
and they don't contribute any finances except for purchasing gasoline. She hopes that the ordinance
can change so the people who already have these types of businesses can blatantly stop ignoring the
ordinances and the people who want to run legal businesses in the City won't be told no.
In response to Board Member McNamara's inquiry regarding whether the photo's submitted to the
Board are current examples of these types of businesses, Ms. Potter responded in the affirmative. Ms.
Potter also explained that these businesses are not solely operating at the base, but also on different
streets throughout the City.
Board Member Piziali acknowledged that he has seen these types of businesses on the base.
In response to President Cunningham's inquiry about whether these types of businesses are at
construction sites as well, Ms. Potter responded in the affirmative.
The public hearing was closed.
Board Member Lynch expressed his concerns on this type of use. He explained that while he
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
July 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-25,9,"appreciated the comments made by the speaker, he first must focus on the need to enforce the existing
ordinance. This is not a Planning & Building or Code Enforcement Department issue, but a Police
Department issue. He did agree that two wrongs don't make it right. He explained he worked in a
jurisdiction where these types of business are an issue and you have to involve law enforcement to
enforce the ordinance. Secondly he stated that this is a complex issue, in that not all vehicles are
made the same in terms of their waste and water regulations. He felt this was a slippery slope and
urged staff to gather more information to address the current issue but to be sure, if the ordinance is
amended, it must be place specific and time specific.
President Cunningham noted that there are a number of issues related to this item that need to be
addressed and staff should look closely at this ordinance before any changes are proposed.
After much Board discussion Ms. Eliason informed the board that this item would come back to the
Planning Board when all of the research has been addressed and a new ordinance has been drafted.
At that point, the item would be advertised for public comment.
13.
ADJOURNMENT:
7:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Benoit, Interim Secretary
Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the August 22, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
July 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-08,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, August 8, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. Mariani
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Mariani, McNamara and Piziali.
Board Members Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch were absent.
Also present were Assistant City Attorney David Brandt, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason,
Planner III Allen Tai, Planner II Dennis Brighton, Planning Intern Stefanie Hom.
4.
MINUTES: Minutes for the meeting of July 25, 2005.
A quorum to consider these minutes was not present They will be considered at the next meeting.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Dorothy Reid, Citizens Opposed to SS Target, 2101 Shoreline #276, wished to address
comments made by Elizabeth Humstone, on behalf of the American Planning Association, to the
Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works. She stated that ""planning was essential to
achieving smart growth. Plans help a community establish a common vision of development, and a
means of realizing that vision.
The plan is the foundation of smart growth agenda, various smart
growth policies from open space acquisition to urban revitalization, are only effectively realized in the
context of a plan.' She noted that the City's retail policy had been developed as a result of four public
forums. She believed that any big box retail in South Shore Center conflicted with those goals. She
commended Doug Garrison in working with her. She believed that Harsch Investments had
extraordinary access to planning staff and elected officials that the average citizen did not have. She
believed that some of Harsch's plans were very good, but also that the homeowners deserved
consideration. She urged the Planning Board to keep the residents' interests in mind.
Mr. Piziali noted that he had been on the Planning Board for eight years, and he had never seen a
developer who had any unusual access to himself or any other Planning Board member. He stated that
not one City staff member had mentioned anything to him, or sent any information, about the Target
Store. He advised that he had no more information on that subject than Ms. Reid did.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the project timeline, Ms. Eliason
advised that a public workshop would be held within the next month, which would be a presentation
by the developer about their proposal before the item is heard.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
August 8, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-08,2,"7.
2005-2006 ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS:
(Continued from the meeting of July 25, 2005.)
Mr. Brandt advised that it was customary for a full Board to be seated for an election, and that it
should be continued until then.
M/S Piziali/Mariani and unanimous to continue this item until a full Board is present.
AYES - 4 (Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
August 8, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-08,3,"8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8.A.
Variance, V04-0002, and Major Design Review, DR03-0146 - Alvin Wong - 2708
Lincoln Avenue (DB). The applicant requests a Major Design Review approval for the partial
demolition of an approximately 842-square foot, two-bedroom, single-story cottage and
reconstruction to provide approximately 1,870-square feet, four-bedroom, two-story, single-family
residence, which includes partially covered off-street parking for two-tandem vehicles. Variances are
required to permit the following: 1) The structure would be built to within 3-feet from the
northwesterly side property line, where a minimum 5-foot setback is required; 2) The structure would
cover approximately 51-percent of the site, where the maximum permitted main building coverage is
48-percent for residences with attached garages; and 3) The front porch would be relocated and
covered and would be setback approximately 7-feet from the front property line, where 20-feet is the
minimum required front yard setback. The site is located within an R-1 (Single-Family Residence)
Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of July 25, 2005; item was re-advertised.)
Ms. Eliason advised that a letter of support of this item was received by staff.
President Cunningham read a letter of opposition into the record:
""Dear Planning Board and Reviewing Board,
""I think it is ridiculous to even consider letting Mr. Wong build his new home. What is the use
of going to the effort of setting limits for size and setbacks, etc., if you are going to let people be
exception to the rule? What makes Mr. Wong so special? Will he be allowed to drive 40 miles an hour
around town? Do the regulations belong to everyone except Mr. Wong? If he wants this house that
he has designed, then let him buy the proper size lot.
Signed, M.B.""
President Cunningham read a letter of support into the record:
""We'd like to say that we support Mr. and Mrs. Wong in their efforts to build a new and
larger home. We have felt that for many years, this home was smaller than all others in the
neighborhood. We would like for Mr. and Mrs. Wong to be able to build in order to increase the
comfort for their family and need that the rest of us in the neighborhood recognize should be fulfilled.
Signed, Lillian and Bob Rolens""
M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-30 to approve
a Major Design Review approval for the partial demolition of an approximately 842-square foot, two-
bedroom, single-story cottage and reconstruction to provide approximately 1,870-square feet, four-
bedroom, two-story, single-family residence, which includes partially covered off-street parking for
two-tandem vehicles. Variances are required to permit the following: 1) The structure would be built
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
August 8, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-08,4,"to within 3-feet from the northwesterly side property line, where a minimum 5-foot setback is
required; 2) The structure would cover approximately 51-percent of the site, where the maximum
permitted main building coverage is 48-percent for residences with attached garages; and3) The front
porch would be relocated and covered and would be setback approximately 7-feet from the front
property line, where 20-feet is the minimum required front yard setback.
AYES - 4 (Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
August 8, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-08,5,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A. Appointment of a Planning Board member to the Transportation subcommittee.
President Cunningham advised that at the last meeting, Ms. Kohlstrand indicated she would be willing
to serve on this subcommittee.
Mr. Piziali nominated Ms. Kohlstrand to the Transportation subcommittee.
Ms. Mariani seconded the nomination.
AYES - 4 (Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
August 8, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-08,6,"9-B.
UP05-0010, James & John Costello- 1645 Park Street (AT). The applicants request
approval of a Use Permit to allow outdoor dining at the rear of the property at McGee's Bar
& Grill. The proposed outdoor dining area is approximately 300 square feet in size and will
be used between the hours of 10 p.m. and 2 a.m. Wednesday through Saturday. The site is
located within a C-M, Commercial-Manufacturing District.
Ms. Eliason introduced Planning Intern Stefanie Hom, who presented the staff report. Staff
recommended a condition limiting the extended hours of the outdoor dining area to Fridays and
Saturdays only. Staff recommended approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, Park Street Business Association, spoke in support of this
application, with the new condition, which the applicant accepted. He noted that the applicant was a
long-time member of PSBA, and was in his opinion the most responsible tavern/bar owner in the
district. He noted that the management staff was exceptional as well. He had no doubt that they
would comply to all conditions of the Use Permit.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Cunningham believed this would be a good addition to the Park Street district, which would
take some smokers to the back of the building, rather than the sidewalk.
Mr. Piziali noted that the same use had been allowed with the Island Club, Kroll's, Scobie's and
Lucky 13, and he was not aware of any problems with the other uses. He concurred with staff's
recommendation.
Ms. Mariani agreed with staff's recommendation and noted that the only opponent was not in
attendance.
Ms. McNamara wished clarification that no music or amplified sound would be allowed in the
outdoor areas. Ms. Eliason confirmed that was the case.
Mr. Tai noted that according to the Police Department, most incidents were related to speeding and
other traffic offenses on Park Street. No noise complaints had been received.
M/S McNamara/Piziali and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-31 to approve
a
Use Permit to allow outdoor dining at the rear of the property at McGee's Bar & Grill. The
proposed outdoor dining area is approximately 300 square feet in size and will be used between the
hours of 10 p.m. and 2 a.m. Wednesday through Saturday.
AYES - 4 (Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
August 8, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-08,7,"9-C.
MDR05-0216 - Regency Centers, LLC. - 2599 Blanding Ave (AT). The applicant
requests sign program approval for the Bridgeside Shopping Center. The site is located within
a C-2 PD Central Business Planned Development District.
Mr. Tai presented the staff report, and displayed the various signage options. Staff recommended
approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speakers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. McNamara inquired why the signs needed to be so large. She expressed concern about the
lighting of the tower sign.
Mr. Bruce Qualls, representing Regency Centers, stated that good signage was critical to the success
of a retailer. He noted that the size of the monument could be bigger and in a more prominent
location. He noted that the Nob Hill sign was 30 square feet, and that the architectural element added
cohesiveness and an attractive common element to the center.
Mr. Jerry Weiman, sign consultant, gave a brief background of his involvement in this project, and
described his rationale in designing each signage element. He felt that a large panel sign would be
inappropriate for the tower signage; using letters were a better method for this element. He noted that
would be a visible and bright sign; they still appear to be an open-channel letter. He noted that he
used the concept of marine architecture as inspiration for this project. He described each signage
element in detail.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the color of the materials and colors of
the bridge arch figure, Mr. Weiman replied that it would be either aluminum or steel, either powder-
coated or painted with a polyurethane enamel. The width of the monument sign would be
approximately 12 feet wide, and the columns would be two feet thick.
Ms. McNamara expressed concern that the sign placed at the end of the canvas awning ends up
overwhelming the proposed softness, as opposed to putting the sign above the canvas awning. Mr.
Weiman noted that was where the roof started, and that was problematic to the placement of the sign.
Ms. McNamara noted that she would not favor roof-mounted signs.
President Cunningham noted that the Board was very concerned about open visibility with respect to
window signs, and he was concerned that there were no restrictions or criteria to define how much
window signage can actually occur.
Mr. Tai advised that staff included the exact language currently in the latest sign ordinance, specifying
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
August 8, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-08,8,"that ""signs cannot exceed or cover more than 25% of the glazing area. He added that the glazing
area was defined in the ordinance, and that any window sign cannot exceed ten square feet each.
Ms. McNamara believed that the purpose of a sign ordinance was to control the size of retail signs,
and was very concerned that the size had been doubled and tripled for retail advertising purposes. She
believed the sign ordinance should be adhered to more closely. She believed the current signage was
disproportionate to signage in the rest of the city.
Mr. Piziali noted that the Walgreen's sign did exceed the normal signage in the City, after go to City
Council. He would not support the Nob Hill gasoline sign being the same size as the monument sign.
President Cunningham agreed with Mr. Piziali's sentiments regarding the monument sign.
Mr. Piziali did not see any need for both signs to match physically in height, and added that the
service station sign was huge.
Ms. Mariani agreed that the signs, especially the gas station sign, should be scaled down, and
suggested continuing the item.
President Cunningham concurred with the Board members regarding the gas station sign, and
suggested that the mass be reduced by removing some of the arched elements on top. He would like
further discussions regarding the window signs, and believe that 25% window coverage contradicted
the intentions of the Design direction ordinance.
Mr. Qualls noted that this center faced Tilden, which was a fairly major thoroughfare, and that there
were not many homes adjacent to it. He did not feel there was quite as much friction as the Board
members perceived. With regard to the window signage, he noted that he respected the Board's
perspective and preferred to focus the in-window signage to the parking lot side, as opposed to the
water side. He would like to see a more open perspective to the water.
Ms. McNamara noted that it would be helpful to have a conceptual drawing of how the signs were
proportional to the buildings that surrounded them; she believed that would put the project more
in
context.
Mr. Piziali would like to see an option with slightly smaller signs, and did not believe that people
would miss the shopping center without them.
President Cunningham would support concentrating the estuary-side signage more to the parking lot
side.
Ms. McNamara emphasized her belief that the bright illumination and very large signs were not
necessary.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
August 8, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-08,9,"Ms. Eliason advised that staff would examine other sign programs, and present information on South
Shore and Walgreen's signs.
Ms. McNamara requested a summary of the discussion with respect to windows.
M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of August
22, 2005.
AYES - 4 (Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
August 8, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-08,10,"10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Mr. Piziali advised that there was nothing new to report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
member Mariani).
Ms. Mariani advised that there was nothing new to report.
12.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
Regarding the comments made during Oral Communications regarding big box stores, Ms.
McNamara inquired whether the City had a current definition of a big box store.
Ms. Eliason advised that the General Plan did not have any differentiation, and did not recognize ""big
box"" as a definition, but the retail strategy report may have some definitions that have not been
included in the General Plan. She noted that the definition was usually based on square footage, and
staff would research that issue for the Board.
13.
ADJOURNMENT:
8:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Benoit, Interim Secretary
City of Alameda Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the August 22, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
August 8, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, August 22, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Vice President Cook
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand,
Lynch, and Piziali.
Board members Mariani and McNamara were absent from roll call. Board member
Mariani arrived during the Board discussion of Item 8-D.
Also present were Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Deputy City Attorney Julie
Harryman, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner III Allen Tai, Planner II Dennis
Brighton.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of July 25, 2005 (continued from the meeting of
August 8, 2005.).
M/S Piziali/Lynch to approve the minutes for the meeting of July 25, 2005, as presented.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
b.
Minutes for the meeting of August 8, 2005.
President Cunningham advised that page 10, paragraph 8 should be changed to read, ""He
would like further discussions regarding the window signs, and believe that 25% window
coverage contradicted the intentions of the Design direction ordinance.""
A quorum for a vote on the minutes was not present. They will be carried over to the next
meeting.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
7.
2005-2006 ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS
President Cunningham advised that it was customary for a full Board to be seated for an
election, and that it should be continued until then.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,2,"8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8.A.
PDA05-0003 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant
proposes a Planned Development Amendment to amend the Harbor Bay Business
Park landscaping and lot coverage provisions as established in Resolution 1203.
This Amendment would affect Lots 1-6, 8 and 12 of Tentative Parcel Map 8574.
These lots are fronting on or southerly of 1900 and 2000 North Loop Road. The
proposed Planned Development Amendment would allow a five percent (5%)
increase in building coverage for parcels larger than 5.5 acres. Currently,
maximum allowed building coverage is thirty five percent (35%) for lots larger
than 5.5 acres and forty percent (40%) on lots smaller than 5.5 acres. The
maximum lot coverage allowed on lots smaller than 5.5 acres would not be
affected. The proposed Planned Development Amendment would also decrease
the minimum landscape coverage by five to ten percent (5 to 10%), depending on
lot size. Currently, 30% landscaping coverage is required on lots smaller than 5.5
acres and 25% landscaping coverage is required for parcels larger than 5.5 acres.
The proposed Planned Development Amendment would decrease the landscaping
requirement to twenty percent (20%) for these lots regardless of size. The
property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned
Development.) (Continued from the meeting of July 25, 2005.)
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to September 26, 2005.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,3,"8-B.
FDP05-0002/DR05-0057 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The
applicant requests a Final Development Plan and Design Review for four (4) new
flex warehouse, office and light manufacturing facilities ranging in size from
13,900 to 33,272 square feet on 6.41 acres adjacent to and southerly of 2000
North Loop Road (Parcels 8-12 on Tentative Parcel Map No. 8574). These
facilities will be on one lot of approximately 11.53 acres until the final map is
approved. The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing -
Planned Development.) (Continued from the meeting of July 25, 2005.)
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to September 26, 2005.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,4,"8.C.
Variance, V05-0006, and Major Design Review, DR05-0063 - Mary Claire &
Robert Neumann - 2504 San Jose Avenue (DG). The applicants request a
Major Design Review approval for the construction of a 117-square foot detached
accessory structure and an approximately 180-square foot deck at the rear of the
single-family residence. A Variance approval is requested because the proposed
detached structure would be built to within 6-inches from the westerly side and
rear property lines, where minimum 5-foot setbacks are required because the
structure would be located less than 75-feet from the front property line. The site
is located within an R-4 (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-32 to
approve a Major Design Review approval for the construction of a 117-square foot
detached accessory structure and an approximately 180-square foot deck at the rear of the
single-family residence. A Variance approval is requested because the proposed detached
structure would be built to within 6-inches from the westerly side and rear property lines,
where minimum 5-foot setbacks are required because the structure would be located less
than 75-feet from the front property line.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,5,"8-D. Status Report and request for extension of time for construction allowed under
Planned Development Amendment PDA02-0003 and Major Design Review
DR02-0095, located at 2160 Otis Drive, South Shore Shopping Center (DG).
Vice President Cook advised that she had questions about this item.
Ms. Mariani arrived during the discussion of this item.
Vice President Cook noted that the Board had been asked for an extension of construction
until 2010, which seemed to her to be a very long time. She understood that the
construction would proceed with all due haste.
Ms. Eliason advised that the Walgreen's was in plan check. She noted that it was unusual
to have a completion requirement, and that a vesting requirement was usually part of the
conditions. Staff attempted to pick a date in the future so that all of Phase I could be
completed, rather than bringing this item back to the Board every year.
Vice President Cook noted that the Board did not want construction to go on forever.
Mr. Lynch noted that he had some suggestions regarding this item, and remarked that it
should be placed on the Regular Agenda.
M/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous to remove Item 8-D from the Consent Calendar and
place it on the Regular Agenda.
AYES - 6 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Ms. Eliason summarized the staff report, and reviewed the history of this item. She noted
that because of the hazmat cleanup and mitigation, it had taken longer than anticipated.
Mr. Lynch noted that the goal was to have less construction disturbance for the least
amount of time, which led to the completion condition. Given the complexity of the
construction, given with the staff resources required, he suggested that the Board look
forward on a timeline, versus backwards. He noted that the vesting in the planning
terminology was the using of the permit. He believed the applicant could demonstrate
that, which would address the first hurdle. He noted that the second hurdle was the
submittal of building plans, which must be reviewed by staff. When the permit is to be
pulled, the Code requires the diligent exercise of the Building Permit to keep it active. He
requested that the Board receive a bullet point list of every phase of this project, and that
the significant milestones be attached to specific dates based on staff resources. He
inquired whether the plan checking could be outsourced in order to keep the project on
track.
Ms. Eliason advised that there was only on plan checker on staff, and that they were
using outside resources as much as possible. She noted that Walgreen's submitted their
plans in June, and she could check with the Building Official to confirm the length of
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,6,"time that plan checking would take. She noted that it depended on whether there were any
issues or problems.
Mr. Lynch suggested continuing the item so the Board could hear from the Department in
terms of a realistic timeline.
Ms. Kohlstrand expressed concern about a jump in the extension from six months to five
years without any background.
M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue Item 8-D to the Planning Board
meeting of September 12, 2006.
AYES - 6 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,7,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
MDR05-0216, Regency Centers - 2599 Blanding Ave (AT). The applicant
requests sign program approval for the Bridgeside Shopping Center. The site is
located within a C-2 PD, Central Business Planned Development District.
(Continued from the meeting of August 8, 2005.)
Mr. Tai summarized the staff report and displayed the proposed signage designs on the
overhead screen.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand, Mr. Jerry Weiman, sign consultant,
described the lighting and channel letter identification of the signage.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Matthew Hoffman, 2800 Marina Drive, spoke in support of this application and
noted that he recently moved to Alameda from Antioch. He hoped the project could be
completed quickly so the sand dunes could be replaced.
Mr. Dave Needle, 2981 Northwood Drive, spoke in support of this application, and was
happy that the signs were smaller. He had not heard any objections from the neighbors.
Ms. Barbara Price, PK Consultants, 1047 Tahiti, noted that she was speaking on behalf of
the development team. She noted that representatives from Raley's, Regency Centers and
Foothill Partners were also in attendance.
Mr. Hadi Monsef, PO Box 1355, spoke in support of this application and agreed with the
staff report.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Piziali recalled that the Board did not want the view of the water from inside the
stores to be blocked by window signs. He suggested creating a clear band of a certain
height to allow the water view.
Mr. Lynch agreed with Mr. Piziali's suggestion, and noted that the clean lines should be
maintained.
In response to Mr. Lynch's question, Mr. Piziali confirmed that he did not want to see
additional signage by the merchants blocking the view. He noted that the developer's
signage was fine.
President Cunningham cautioned against placing the signs so high that they could not be
read without stepping back, or so low that they interfere with merchandising.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,8,"Ms. Kohlstrand requested a presentation to clarify the location of the signs. Mr. Tai noted
that the four signs applied to Buildings B, C, D and F, and that individual standards were
established for the market (Building A) and the gas station (Building E). He noted that
page 6 in the Revised Sign Program contained the standards for the gasoline station signs.
M/S Kohlstrand/Mariani and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-
33 to approve the sign program for the Bridgeside Shopping Center.
AYES - 6 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,9,"9-B.
PD03-0004; DR03-0108, Regency Centers - 2599 Blanding Avenue (AT).
Review of waterfront design, landscaping, and building elevation plans for
compliance with project conditions of approval for the Bridgeside Shopping
Center per Planning Board Resolution PB-04-64. The site is located within a C-2
PD, Central Business Planned Development District.
Mr. Tai summarized the staff report, and displayed the revised project site plans that
addressed the Planning Board's previously stated concerns. Staff recommended approval
of this item.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether the transformers had been
previously approved by the Planning Board, Mr. Tai replied that previous discussions did
not involve transformers, nor the details of their appearance. They were shown as
symbols on the plans, and the approximate locations were approved. Vice President Cook
stated that she did not believe she approved any transformers before, and inquired why
they could not be placed underground.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Hadi Monsef, PO Box 1355, spoke in support of this application and noted that the
staff report indicates the Board's requirements were met. He noted that he served on the
Public Utilities Board for eight years, three years as president, and stated that it was very
difficult to place transformers underground.
Mr. Matthew Hoffman, 2800 Marina Drive, spoke in support of this application. He
noted that the transformer in this project would not bother him or some of the neighbors
that he had spoken with. He looked forward to the completion of the project.
Ms. Barbara Price, PK Consultants, 1047 Tahiti, noted that she was speaking on behalf of
the development team, and would be available to answer any questions.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Vice President Cook commended Mr. Tai for presenting such a detailed report. She noted
that she had some concerns that made it difficult for her to support this item.
President Cunningham noted he was generally happy with the responses made by the
applicant following Board discussions. He believed the seating area of the amphitheatre
could be improved by introducing some earth berms.
Mr. Piziali was pleased to see a new handrail would be placed all the way across the front
of the project. He liked the two steps in front of the Nob Hill stores, where the tables
would be placed, which would separate the area from the walkway. He was generally
pleased by the project.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,10,"Ms. Mariani noted she was happily surprised by the current plans, and complimented
Raley's on the compromises they made. She stated that she found it difficult to notice
transformers, and did not believe they would be burdensome in this project; she preferred
them to a big box along the waterway. She believed they could be camouflaged by
landscaping.
Ms. Kohlstrand advised she had no major concerns.
Vice President Cook noted that she had concerns regarding the changes that were not
made, particularly the fact that the buildings were treated as having a back door instead of
two front doors. The landscape plan did not change her perspective with respect to the
orientation between the waterside of the buildings and the waterfront. She saw very few
amenities, except for those required by BCDC. She saw very few benches and amenities,
and would like people to be able to walk alongside the north side of the building to go
shop to shop. She noted that would not be possible because of the grass breaking up the
pavement between shopping entrances. She did not see any doors leading out to the
waterside from Building B. She was pleased to see the coffee shop tenant would provide
tables and chairs, and believed the landlord should also provide tables and chairs that
would be permanently affixed outside for people to use for waterside picnics. She wanted
to see more articulation and recessed door fronts along the waterside of the building to
create a more interesting pedestrian environment. She was strongly opposed to the
transformers, and did not believe they were inconspicuous. She expressed concern that
the grading necessary for the amphitheatre was not included, although the Board had
requested that condition. She was generally dissatisfied with this plan, and believed it did
not adequately relate to the waterfront in a manner that would do justice to this unique
site.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali regarding the trees, Mr. Tai confirmed that since
the staff report was written, the applicant has agreed to move the trees toward Blanding.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding Vice President Cook's comments
regarding the grading, Mr. Tai responded that the original amphitheatre proposed did not
have specific grading details that would indicate how it would be sloped. When staff
received the construction documents, they realized that the amphitheatre area as shown
on the plans could be improved upon so it would have more amphitheatre character and
more lighting. Staff discovered that the grade difference between the front and the back
end of the amphitheatre was only two feet, making it impossible to terrace the
amphitheatre to create an actual staging area. Staff decided to place trees along the back
and create a wedge-shaped public area that focused on the stage.
President Cunningham suggested that the developer bring in some dirt to make more of a
grade.
Mr. Doug Weile, Foothill Partners, stated that it would not be a problem to bring
additional fill material into the site. The issues had to do with the surrounding properties;
there was a fence line on the property line separating the site from Union Pacific, and
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,11,"they cannot get permission from Union Pacific to fill on their property. There is a fixed
elevation along the boundary. The developers may make public health and safety
improvements to Corps property, but not other improvements (under the moratorium of
the Army Corps of Engineers). They cannot get permission from the Corps to lower the
grade on the waterfront edge, and they cannot get permission from the railroad to raise
the grade on the railroad edge. The project planner did not have any other workable
design solutions other than those included in the plan.
Vice President Cook did not believe the space should be called an amphitheatre if it
cannot function as such, and suggested that the space be may be used for chess and picnic
tables.
Mr. Lynch noted that the value of this space may not be known until the project has been
completed. He suggested that since the space would be landscaped, that a condition be
placed that one year after the Final Certificate of Occupancy has been issued, the issue of
the public space be revisited.
Ms. Eliason stated that staff could look at the landscape maintenance agreement, and
could require that this part of the project be brought back to the Board as a condition of
that agreement. Mr. Lynch agreed with that suggestion. Ms. Eliason stated that she was
aware of several locations that had flat spaces in front of the amphitheatre; people would
bring their own chairs if there was a concert or other performance.
Mr. Lynch would like to see some drawings to accompany the text document of the
landscape maintenance agreement.
Ms. Eliason suggested that a condition be added, stating that prior to Final Occupancy of
the last building, to have that space reviewed for its use.
Mr. Weile noted that the staff of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission
now calls that space a ""glade"" instead of an amphitheatre because it was not sloped.
Mr. Lynch suggested that it be called ""open public space"" that is landscaped. He did not
believe the specific activities needed to be itemized.
Vice President Cook advised that her vote against this project was primarily based on the
interrelationship of the buildings with the waterfront.
Ms. Mariani noted that she was not excited about the transformers, and noted that they
had not been specifically presented previously. She believed the present transformer
placement was the lesser of two evils.
President Cunningham advised that he had spoken to a representative at Alameda Power
& Telecom, and they did not recommend placing the transformers underground given its
location. The transformer would require more maintenance when placed underground.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,12,"Vice President Cook noted that this site was a clean slate, and believed that the
transformer placement could have been thought out more carefully. She strongly believed
the transformer placement treated the waterfront side as a back door.
M/S Mariani/Piziali to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-34 to approve the
waterfront design, landscaping, and building elevation plans for compliance with project
conditions of approval for the Bridgeside Shopping Center per Planning Board
Resolution PB-04-64.
AYES - 5 (McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Cook); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,13,"9-C.
Presentation to the Planning Board concerning proposed 49,650 sq. ft.
expansion of retail floor area, allowing the construction of a new 145,000 sq.
ft. Target Department Store, construction of a new parking structure and
improvements to the southeast corner of the South Shore Shopping Center
under Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0004 (DG). The purpose of
this meeting is for discussion purposes only. No action to approve or deny
PDA05-0004 will occur at this meeting.
Ms. Eliason advised there would be no staff report, and that the applicant would provide
a presentation. No action would be taken at this time.
Mr. Randy Kite, Harsch Investment Properties, 523 South Shore Center West, reviewed
the history of this project, and made a slide presentation to give the Board some
perspective on the progress of the project, the current status and the future plans of the
project.
Mr. Jan Taylor, project architect, Field Paoli, displayed the site plan and described the
proposed phased improvements to the site. He noted that the use of stained wood would
add a unique look to the property. He displayed current photographs of the site, and
added that the use of unique and colorful signage, as well as awnings, would enliven the
center. He noted the design changes would be a radical departure from the current
appearance, and that the buildings would not appear to be cookie cutter buildings seen in
other retail centers. He noted that the creation of the three beachfront restaurants would
take advantage of the views across the Bay. He stated that one of the center owners,
Jordan Snitzer, was very interested in implementing an art program that would exceed the
City's mandates, such as a commemorative bronze statue of Alamedan Nell Schmidt, the
first woman to swim across the Bay. He noted that a strong commercial western end that
would activate the walkway between Mervyn's and the back of Albertson's would be
desirable. He advised that Target was a tenant that paid attention to its surroundings, and
created its architecture to suit. He noted that was the subject of a recent article in the San
Francisco Chronicle. The firm believed that Target would be able to fit into the desired
look and feel. He noted that the loading dock behind Safeway facing the apartment
building to the south would be relocated to face the retail to the north. He displayed the
proposed elevations of the Target store. Most of the building would be 37 feet high, with
an additional six feet at the raised corner element. He stated that this Target would not
look like the typical store, and would be tailored to this center.
Mr. Mike Corbitt noted that from a leasing point of view, Target would present an
opportunity to build a unique store. He stated that Target was the number one tenant
attractor in the retail marketplace.
Mr. Taylor noted that the majority of the parking would be underneath the store, and that
the bottom floor of the store would be approximately ten feet above grade. He stated
there would be a small additional surface-level parking lot adjacent to the store. They
would investigate narrowing the street between the Willows and Target, providing a 20-
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,14,"foot wide landscaping buffer. There could be a one-way-only entrance to the center to
reduce traffic along the northern edge of the Willows.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether a garden center would be
included, Mr. Corbitt noted that he did not know, but would find out.
President Cunningham called for a five-minute break.
President Cunningham advised that more than five speaker slips had been received.
M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 6 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Hector Medina, 2101 Shoreline Drive, #258, spoke in opposition to this item. He
noted that the new bus route generated more noise near his home, and he was concerned
that this development would bring even more noise. He believed the design was
beautiful, but that it would bring more traffic congestion, crime and noise to the
neighborhood.
Mr. Tim Erway, President, Willows Homeowners Association, 2101 Shoreline Drive,
spoke in opposition to this item. He believed the design and plans through Phase 7 were
attractive, and he was pleased with them. He expressed concern that the there would be
less control over the site after the developer sells the land to Target. He was very
concerned that the underground parking would attract crime and require more security.
He agreed with Mr. Medina's concerns about the negative impact on the neighborhood
following the bus route change. He wished to address traffic congestion and noise
impacts.
Mr. Jon Spangler noted that he was speaking as a private citizen, and inquired whether
access to all of the stores would be as convenient, or more convenient, for transit patrons
and bicyclists as it will be for automobile drivers. He inquired whether Harsch would be
willing to include mitigations such as shuttles running between the bridges, across the
Island and from the tubes to South Shore up Doolittle. He suggested that the developer
fund electric shuttles so that the noise to the adjacent residents would be reduced. He
noted that AC Transit had discussed that option, and that it was in the Transit Master Plan
for the City. He noted that equivalent access would be necessary, and those mitigations
cannot be accomplished on a one-way street. He inquired about the impact Target would
have on Mervyn's, and what would happen to that space once its lease is over and moves
out. He believed the City was not doing enough to have effective and intelligent transit
and transportation on the Island.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,15,"Mr. Blake Brydon, 1033 Camino Del Valle, spoke in support of this application. He
believed the design would enhance South Shore, and that the addition of Target would be
a benefit to the community. He believed that it would add diversity in shopping and retail
that the Island did not have at this time.
Ms. Susan Pieper, 2101 Shoreline Drive #299, spoke in opposition to this item. She
expressed concern about delivery trucks. She stated that all large, modern retailers used
delivery of goods sold, which would increase the volume and impact of truck traffic, as
well as noise and air pollution. She expressed concern about seismic safety of the
underground parking structure, and believed that a building built on landfill in a major
earthquake would be a hazard.
Ms. Valerie Ruma, 1610 Willow Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and expressed
concern about traffic congestion and impacts from off-Island traffic.
Ms. Vivian Leigh Forde, 2101 Shoreline Drive #148, spoke in opposition to this item.
She noted that she was generally happy with the progress at South Shore and the
amenities being realized. She was strongly opposed to a 145,000 square foot edifice. She
noted that this use would lead to more construction and pile-driving to support the
structure, and that the lights and traffic noise would have a negative impact on the
neighbors.
Ms. Joan DiStefano, 2101 Shoreline Drive #145, spoke in opposition to this item. She
believed narrowing the space between the Willows and the shopping center would create
more traffic jams. She noted that three residents of the Willows had been hit by cars in
the last year in that area. She estimated a community of 70,000 people would not support
this kind of retail use, and that 200,000 people would support it; the store would rely on
people driving to Alameda via the tubes and the bridges, leading to gridlock. She was
concerned that the independent merchants in town would be negatively impacted, and
that sense of community would be eroded.
Ms. Dorothy Reid, 2101 Shoreline Drive, #276, spoke in opposition to this item and
noted that she represented over 300 citizens who had written letters or signed petitions
against this Target store. She noted that the Target profiled in the newspaper article was
located in a mall, not in a smaller shopping center with limited access. She was
concerned about the height, width and proximity of this building to the nearby homes.
She believed there should be a full Environmental Impact Review performed on this site,
and that this project would affect the health, safety and welfare of the residents in the
area. She did not agree that this project met with the terms of the agreement, which stated
that the buildings in the center should be low profile. She added that this store would
need intensive outside services. She believed there should be an economic impact review
as well. She did not believe this project should disrupt the lives of the area homeowners.
She asked why the public notice to this request only stated it was for an additional 49,650
square feet, and asked when an additional 90,000 square feet for this building was
approved. The current Safeway is only 34,000 square feet, so the additional square
footage is actually 111,000 square feet. She presented pictures that showed the Safeway'.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,16,"building's height, which she believed is misrepresented in the architectural drawings
presented by the applicant.
Mr. Don Patterson, 1256 Sherman Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and thanked
Mr. Garrison for meeting with him. He believed South Shore should submit a separate,
detailed landscape and signage plan, based on the developer not complying with Trader
Joe's landscape plan. He added that Trader Joe's has been open 35 months. He inquired
how an Occupancy Permit can be issued without signoffs. He believed Alameda deserved
better landscaping and signage than what was approved 40 years ago. He believed there
should be five to eight feet of landscaping provided on each of the building walls,
especially parking structures and Walgreen's. He believed the Master Plan, landscaping
and signage plans should be submitted and approved before any additional permits are
issued, and Trader Joe's landscaping should be completed.
Mr. Keith Wells was called to speak, but was not in attendance.
Ms. Ani Dimusheva, 2911 Calhoun Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted
that the drawings were shown out of context, and that the convalescent homes or Willow
Street were not shown. She believed the Target store was too tall, and that it would be too
massive; its proximity overwhelmed the Mervyn's building. She was concerned that
when Mervyn's closed, it would be replaced with an even larger building. She would like
to see its replacement moved back and built smaller. She was concerned about traffic
congestion. She believed smaller stores would serve Alameda better.
Ms. Alice Cleveland, 2101 Shoreline Drive #484, spoke in opposition to this item. She
was concerned that the placement of this big box store would negatively impact her
quality of life. She noted that the large tractor-trailers trucks currently drove past her
home while servicing Safeway, and that they were noisy and dirty. She was very
concerned about the potential truck traffic if Target were to open, and the traffic
congestion surrounding the center. She saw Alameda as an upscale community, and did
not see why it would want a Target store; she suggested that it be placed near the freeway
or on Alameda Point.
Ms. Kris Murray, 1738 Alameda Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and added
that, as a business owner herself, that public comment regarding businesses was generally
from the opponents. She noted that she had spoken with more than 100 people in the past
48 hours who supported the idea of a Target store in Alameda. She acknowledged that
Alameda was an upscale community, and that she had disposable income that she would
like to spend in Alameda. However, she found that she often shopped off the Island to
visit a Target store specifically. She believed a Target store would provide a shopping
experience that's appropriate for the community's diversity, and that there were many
residents who do need a discount marketer. She would like to spend her tax dollars in the
community.
Ms. Jan Young, 2101 Shoreline Drive, noted that she was pleased with the progress at
South Shore, and that it was beautiful. She did not like the idea of a Target in her
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,17,"backyard. She liked the idea of the small storefronts. She lived across from the Safeway
loading dock, and was concerned about the current and future noise and air pollution. She
was concerned about her property value, and agreed that Alameda did not need a big box
store.
Mr. Jon Brooks, 2101 Shoreline Drive #230, spoke in opposition to this item. He had not
heard anything from City staff about the requirement for an EIR in this circumstance, and
believed there would be a cumulative effect from the traffic and air quality. He did not
want Alameda to become homogeneous, and would rather see a mixed use retail store,
perhaps with lofts upstairs from smaller boutiques.
Mr. Brian McDonald noted that he lived at the Willows, and that he agreed with his
neighbors regarding traffic, noise and pollution. He did not like the prospect of having
a
Target in his back yard, and found the overall size and footprint of the store to be
excessive. He believed the developer employed bait-and-switch tactics in seeking
approval for this store. He was concerned that the traffic impacts would put the entire
East End into gridlock.
Mr. Kevin Frederick spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that this store was
gigantic and would interrupt the flow of traffic. He believed the Target store would create
urban sprawl, which he was strongly opposed to. He hoped the Board would listen to the
majority in this matter.
Ms. Aulette Floris noted that she was a business owner, but was opposed to a big box
store. She was very concerned about traffic congestion and noise. She noted this was so
close to a residential area, and was concerned about a potential increase in crime and
decrease in the quality of life.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Mariani would like to see the approval for the 90,000 square feet with the conditions.
Ms. Eliason noted that staff would provide a copy. Ms. Kolhstrand concurred with the
request.
Ms. Eliason advised that the last Planned Development Amendment performed in 2003
was adopted on a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff would provide a copy of that
document to the Board. No environmental review had been circulated for this project yet;
a new environmental review would be done for this project, updating the traffic numbers
and other areas of concern.
Vice President Cook would like to look at this project more closely, especially in view of
the City's work in retail strategy and increasing its tax base. She realized that there was
considerable retail leakage off the Island that could be captured for the benefit of the
schools, police and fire departments. She would like to have a better understanding of the
typical Target patron. She believed that many residents did want more retail
opportunities, and acknowledged that environmental review was a huge concern. One of
Planning Board Minutes
Page 17
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,18,"her continuing concerns about the Center was the lack of pedestrian connections, as well
as bicycle access. She believed that the pedestrian and bicycle environments in the center
must change. She was concerned about the cumulative impacts of the piecemeal nature of
the center. She believed a parking structure would not only break up the expanse of
pavement in front of Mervyn's, and would also be more attractive if landscaped properly.
Mr. Piziali noted that he would like to see this item come back before the Board in the
form of a workshop before any action is taken. He was concerned about the large amount
of square footage, and while he did not want retail leakage going off the Island, he did
not want floods of people coming from off-Island to shop, either.
Mr. Lynch noted that he agreed with the comments made by the other Board members.
He would be interested in examining the environmental documents. He was interested to
hear comments about a possible mixed use at the center. He would like to see a larger
view of the City operation as a whole, from an economic development perspective, as
well as other perspectives. He noted this was not a stand alone issue, and that it should be
integrated into other commissions.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that she agreed with Vice President Cook's comments, and
believed that scale was an important consideration. She noted that the safety of sidewalks
and bicycle paths near Safeway were paramount.
President Cunningham noted that some parts of the policy document fit with the Target
store, and other parts are in opposition to what the community wants. The report
acknowledged that the leakage data would present opportunities to bring retail solutions
into the community. It also went on to say that it was up to the community and the private
sector to decide what kind of retail should be included, as well as what type of retail did
not fit the community character. He noted that Target did respond to the community
needs, and are serious about providing a store that would fit in with the community; he
applauded those efforts. He noted that other Target stores have demonstrated the
company's willingness to buy into sustainability. He was very interested in possible
traffic mitigations. He would like further insight into the impact that this store would
have on the existing tenants in the community, particularly the smaller stores.
Vice President Cook noted that she spoke with a woman who managed a small retail
shop, who did not object to the Target store. The manager stated that she would shift the
items in her inventory to carry what Target did not.
President Cunningham recalled that Ms. Mariani requested a definition of a big box store,
and agreed with Mr. Piziali's suggestion of holding a workshop. He recommended giving
the matter more time before making a decision.
Ms. Mariani inquired how the square footage increased from 90,000 to 145,000 square
feet. She expressed concern about the direction the City is taking, given the approval of
the Cineplex and the consideration of this Target store. She did not believe the addition of
Planning Board Minutes
Page 18
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,19,"11.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-
President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised there had been no further meetings.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member
Piziali).
Mr. Piziali advised there was nothing new to report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee
(Board member Mariani).
Ms. Mariani advised that she did not have any further information. She noted that she
would speak with President Cunningham and the City Council because she was having
some trouble making all of the meetings; there is no backup replacement at this time. She
noted that Ms. McNamara had been the backup, and is no longer; in addition, the WABA
representative is no longer on the Committee.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board
member Kohlstrand).
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that she was not in attendance at the meeting due to her vacation.
She noted that the meeting date was set with very short notice.
12.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Eliason advised that there will be a Transportation Master Plan meeting of the Task
Force on Wednesday, August 24, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. The meeting would address streets
and circulation plans.
13.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:10 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 19
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,20,"Respectfully submitted,
Paul Benoit, Acting Secretary
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the September 12, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 20
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-12,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, September 12, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:06 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Mr. Lynch
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,
McNamara, and Piziali.
Board member Mariani was absent.
Also present were Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Assistant City Attorney David Brandt,
Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Contract Planner Chandler Lee, Planner III Douglas Garrison.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of August 8, 2005 (continued from the meeting of August
22, 2005.).
M/S Piziali/McNamara to approve the minutes for the meeting of August 8, 2005, as presented.
A quorum for a vote on the minutes was not present. They will be carried over to the next meeting.
b.
Minutes for the meeting of August 22, 2005.
President Cunningham advised a member of the public, Ms. Dorothy Reid, requested that page 15,
paragraph 6, re the Target store, be changed to read: ""She did not believe this project should disrupt
the lives of the area homeowners. She asked why the public notice to this request only stated it was
for an additional 49,650 square feet, and asked when an additional 90,000 square feet for this
building was approved. The current Safeway is only 34,000 square feet, so the additional square
footage is actually 111,000 square feet. She presented pictures that showed the Safeway's building 's
height, which she believed is misrepresented in the architectural drawings presented by the
applicant.' He did not have any objection to entering this additional language into the minutes.
M/S Cook/Kohlstrand to approve the minutes for the meeting of August 22, 2005, as corrected.
AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (McNamara)
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
September 12, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-12,2,"5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cunningham advised that a speaker slip had been received for Item 8-A. Mr. Piziali
requested that Item 8-C be pulled from the Consent Calendar.
M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to remove Items 8-A and 8-C from the Consent Calendar, and
to place them on the Regular Agenda.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
7.
2005-2006 ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS
(Continued from the meeting of August 22, 2005.)
President Cunningham advised that it was customary for a full Board to be seated for an election,
and that it should be continued until then.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
September 12, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-12,3,"8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8.A.
Status Report and request for extension of time for construction allowed under Planned
Development Amendment PDA02-0003 and Major Design Review DR02-0095, located at
2160 Otis Drive, South Shore Shopping Center (DG). (Continued from the meeting of
August 22, 2005.)
Mr. Garrison presented the staff report, and noted that while the applicant has met all the vesting
requirements, they have not completed the construction. The applicant requested two additional
years to complete construction.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Dorothy Reid, 2101 Shoreline Drive #201, distributed a chart to illustrate her comments, and
noted that there was confusion over what PDA-02-A2-03 was for. She noted that PDA-02 only
approved the four yellow highlighted buildings, as well as the July 2003 site plan; Trader Joe's was
already built. She was concerned about approving construction for two more years on one-and-a-half
buildings, and that whether there would be a clear understanding regarding the PDA. She believed
there was confusion between building square footage and GLA, which were two very different
numbers. She noted that the current construction did not expire until January 28, 2006, and would
like to wait to approve this item until there was more clarity regarding the entire site. She believed
that specific numbers should be cited, and was also concerned about the proposed amendment to
Paragraph 2: ""Any substantial alteration will require a new PDA and Design Review."" She believed
that the word ""substantial"" should be clarified. She did not understand the purpose of Paragraph 21,
even in the original PDA. Rather than modifying this paragraph, she believed it should be struck
entirely.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Garrison noted that the only language addressed by staff specifically dealt with the construction
timeline; the other comments are outside of the scope addressed by staff at this time. In terms of the
square footage questions and the map, the construction was approved for the area where Walgreen's
and Beverly's are located. He would have to look at the current Safeway building permit plans to
clarify the apparent square footage discrepancy.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Mr. Garrison noted that the reason the entire PDA
proposed at that time was not approved. The Planning Board wanted to get additional information
on the shoreline area, as well as some other areas. The applicant was directed to return with a
proposal for a new gas station and to redo the shoreline area; that was where the current PDA
application was relevant and is being reviewed by the City. He noted that it was not critical to the
resolution, and could be deleted.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Eliason replied that the Walgreen's was in plan check.
Mr. Lynch noted that the timeline was created with the expectation of a certain type of performance.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
September 12, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-12,4,"M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-36 to
approve an extension of time for construction allowed under Planned Development Amendment
PDA02-0003 and Major Design Review DR02-0095, located at 2160 Otis Drive, South Shore
Shopping Center.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
September 12, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-12,5,"8-B.
Applicant requests approval of a Use Determination that coffee roasting and ancillary
uses are similar to other uses permitted in the C-M, Commercial-Manufacturing
District (CL). C-M Districts are located City-wide. Applicant: City of Alameda.
M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-36 to approve
a
Use Determination that coffee roasting and ancillary uses are similar to other uses permitted in
the C-M, Commercial-Manufacturing District (CL).
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
September 12, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-12,6,"8.C.
Use Permit No. UP-05-0009 - Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority/Area 51
Productions, Inc. - Northwest Territories, Alameda Point (ATh). The Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority requests an Interim Use Permit revision to allow the lease of
the Northwest Territories to hold temporary trade show festivals, for up to two weeks in
length. The site is located in the M-2-G, General Industry (Manufacturing) Special
Government Combining Zoning District.
Ms. Eliason summarized the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. John Walker, applicant, noted that he had worked with these shows for the last eight years, and
that the City requested that he revise his Use Permit because of the success of the shows. He noted
that his client base was largely composed of Fortune 500 companies, including General Motors.
Mr. Piziali noted that he had gotten the impression that the Planning Board was handing over the
choice of what type of shows would be there to the ARRA, and that he was concerned about that
possibility. He did not have a problem with Area 51 Productions.
Ms. Eliason noted that the Board should consider this a Master Use Permit for the Northwest
Territories for the temporary trade shows, so that each trade show did not have to come back to the
Board each time. Staff has found that over the years, the conditions placed on the trade shows were
fairly standard, and that it was often difficult to hold the hearings in time for the trade show.
Mr. Piziali noted that the resolution states that the Board members examined maps, drawings and
documents, and noted he did not have those items. He was aware that the events were fine, but
would like more information. He emphasized that he did not want to micromanage these events, and
relied on staff to ensure that ARRA did not allow events that would upset the residents.
Ms. Eliason confirmed that the only events would be trade shows in the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Walker noted that he has managed events all over the world since 1967, and that he was a San
Francisco native. He added that he was very protective of the Base, and noted that for every show he
produced, he turned down ten.
Vice President Cook noted that Use Permits ran with the land, rather than the tenant, and noted that
while the applicant was an excellent tenant, future tenants may not meet that standard. She was
concerned with the breadth of the types of uses and the potential length.
Ms. Eliason advised that Interim Use Permits were different than regular Use Permits because this
was an agreement between the ARRA and Area 51 Productions in this case. This Interim Use Permit
does not grant anyone else the ability to hold trade shows, and they would still have to go through a
separate Use Permit process. This temporary Use Permit expires after five years, which was the
reason this permit was brought back to the Board.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
September 12, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-12,7,"Mr. Walker advised that the trucks used for loading were generally staged the evening before so they
did not impact peak traffic. He added that there were very few venues for public trade shows in the
Bay Area, and that the Cow Palace was antiquated and inadequate.
Ms. Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Redevelopment Manager, noted that the City had a contract with
PM Realty Group, which acts as the City's property management agent. PM Realty Group collects
leases on behalf of the ARRA. The revenue went directly to the ARRA, and the master developer is
not involved in the ARRA's interim leasing program. She added that PM Realty Group was strictly
the ARRA's agent; all of the funds collected by them on behalf of the ARRA are deposited into the
ARRA's account.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Piziali noted that he was largely interested in the appropriateness of the event, rather than
the economics of how the Base was run. He noted that his question had been answered.
M/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-37 to approve an Interim Use
Permit revision to allow the lease of the Northwest Territories to hold temporary trade show
festivals, for up to two weeks in length.
AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (Cook); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
September 12, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-12,8,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
Nomination of two Planning Board members to the South Shore Shopping Center working
group.
There was no staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Dorothy Reid, 2101 Shoreline Drive #201, supported going forward with this process and
believed it would help everyone understand the history and process of this project. She hoped that
solutions could be reached.
Ms. Susan Pieper, 2101 Shoreline Drive #299, applauded the City for establishing the workshop
process, and noted that she had considerable experience in dealing with land use issues, from
different points of view. She noted that the best results came from putting the interested parties
together to listen to each other, to try to negotiate a win/win situation in their recommendations. She
urged the Board to take this process seriously.
Mr. Tim Erway, President, Willows Homeowners Association, 2101 Shoreline Drive, thanked the
City for establishing this workgroup, and reviewed the background of their involvement in this
project.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding the makeup of the group, Ms. Eliason replied
that two Board members would be included, which would not be a Brown Act issue.
Mr. Piziali expressed concern about too many cooks ruining the soup, and inquired about the size of
the working group.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Garrison noted that the idea was to accomplish project goals, so a manageable size was
essential. The immediate neighbors have been contacted, as well as the medical facilities. He
believed that a couple of representatives from each group would be ideal. He believed that
representatives from Public Works may be included to answer specific questions about traffic, and
anticipated several representatives from the applicant as well. He noted that a representative from
Target may be included.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding the objective of the group, Mr. Garrison
replied that immediate neighbors had raised concerns and the City hoped to get them together with
the applicant to address those issues before decision was required from the Board.
Mr. Lynch believed that the workgroup would be productive if the individual groups could exchange
ideas and come to a common understanding. He supported this idea.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
September 12, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-12,9,"President Cunningham supported this kind of dialogue, but was concerned about potential
circumnavigation of the public process.
Ms. Kohlstrand thanked staff for the information, and noted that she believed that this kind of
working group was important to understand the concerns. She recalled concerns expressed by Board
members during the Bridgeside workgroups that they felt as if they had to buy into a decision before
it came back to the full Board. She believed that a smaller group would be more doable. She
believed it would be better without a Planning Board representative on the committee.
Ms. Eliason noted that the full Board and public workshops and hearings would be still be held.
Vice President Cook supported a workshop model that was more open and interactive. She had
found the Bridgeside process to be very frustrating, and added that members of the public spoke in
different capacities. She wanted to know who was accountable to whom. She was hesitant to start a
new workgroup model without more information and consensus.
Mr. Garrison did not anticipate this process to be a lengthy one.
A discussion regarding time commitment and workgroup structure ensued.
Mr. Piziali believed it was very important for the public to attend these workshops, but was not sure
it was necessary for Board members to attend. He would be willing to have staff, the applicant, and
representatives of the neighboring properties to attend these workgroups.
Vice President Cook was concerned about the notion of participants believing they would be
negotiating during these meetings, and added that there was no accountability.
Mr. Lynch noted that these meetings dealt with the City Council' constituency, and that for the
Board to take an active role at this stage would be problematic.
Ms. Kohlstrand agreed with Mr. Lynch's concerns, and emphasized that while it was important for
staff, the applicant and the public to meet, she did not believe the Planning Board needed to sanction
it at this point.
Vice President Cook requested more information about specific workshop details, such as number of
workshops, accommodation for different schedules, and what kind of facilitator would be used.
Mr. Piziali agreed that a neutral facilitator was crucial to the success of these workgroups.
Ms. Kohlstrand suggested that staff also meet with the members of the Willows Homeowners
Association to discuss their concerns.
Mr. Lynch noted that it was important to redefine what the applicant wants, and added that not every
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
September 12, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-12,10,"point would have agreement.
Ms. Eliason advised that the Board's concerns had been noted, and that they would be passed on to
the applicant.
No action was taken.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
September 12, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-12,11,"10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Mr. Piziali advised there was nothing new to report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
member Mariani).
Ms. Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board member
Kohlstrand).
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that a meeting had been held on August 17, 2005, and noted that it was led
by the Chair of the Transportation Commission. She believed he was trying to establish a new
classification system for the roadways in Alameda. A very useful discussion was held, and people
leaned toward a recommendation of using a more multimodal type of classification system; both
vehicles, buses, bicycle and pedestrian use would be included. They anticipated presenting a
proposal for street classifications at the next meeting.
12.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Eliason advised that a special meeting would be held on Thursday, September 29, 2005 to hear
the Use Permits associated the Alameda theatre and Cineplex. Staff wanted to ensure that everyone
could be accommodated, and that the Elks Club was secured for an overflow crowd.
13.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION:
8:31 p.m.
13-A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to (b) of section 54956.9 number of cases: 1
14.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
September 12, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-12,12,"Paul Benoit, Interim Secretary
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the September 26, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
September 12, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-26,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, September 26, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:05 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Mr. Lynch
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani, McNamara, and
Piziali.
Vice President Cook was absent from roll call.
Also present were Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman,
Planner III Douglas Garrison, Bruce Knopf, Development Services.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of August 8, 2005 (continued from the meeting of
September 12, 2005.).
M/S Mariani/McNamara to approve the minutes for the meeting of August 8, 2005, as presented.
AYES - 4 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 2 (Kohlstrand, Lynch)
b.
Minutes for the meeting of September 12, 2005.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that page 9, paragraph 4 should be changed to read, ""She believed that a
smaller group would be more doable. She believed it would be better without a Planning Board
representative on the committee.""
M/S Piziali/Kohlstrand to approve the minutes for the meeting of September 12, 2005, as corrected.
AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Mariani)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cunningham advised that a speaker slip had been received for Item 8-A.
M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to remove Item 8-A from the Consent Calendar and to
place it on the Regular Agenda.
AYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
September 26, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-26,2,"7.
2005-2006 ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS
(Continued from the meeting of September 12, 2005.)
President Cunningham advised that it was customary for a full Board to be seated for an election,
and that it should be continued until then.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
September 26, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-26,3,"8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8.A.
DR05-0030, UP05-0013; Italo Calpestri III for Anita Ng; 1305-1311 Park Street (AT).
The applicants request approval of Major Design Review to allow construction of a two
story 3, ,115 square-foot addition to replace existing additions of 1,300 square feet at the rear
of a commercial building. The proposed project results in a net gain of 515 square feet of
ground floor commercial space and 1,300 square-feet on the second floor. The second floor,
ultimately comprising 1,500 square feet of floor area, will contain two (2) residential units
each approximately 750 square feet in size. A Use Permit is required for the dwelling units
pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.C.1(s) because the units do not comply with off-street
parking requirements. The site is located within the Park Street C-C T, Community
Commercial Theatre Combining District.
Ms. Eliason presented the staff report, and staff recommended that of the six existing spaces on the
site, two of the spaces be marked for the two new dwelling units. The other four spaces would be for
the four existing commercial spaces on the ground floor.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Virginia Chabre, 2420 Marti Rae Court, noted that Ms. Eliason's clarification of the parking
space configuration addressed her concerns. She suggested that parking stickers be used in this
neighborhood, such as those used in San Francisco. She was very pleased that Park Street had
become revitalized, but was very concerned about further competition for parking spaces during the
weekends and evenings.
Mr. Bruce Knopf, Development Services Department, spoke in support of this project, and believed
it implemented a policy in the 1990 City General Plan that supported the development of residential
above retail in the downtown commercial districts. He believed it added to the mixed use character
of the area, represented a substantial new investment in the district, and would add to the district's
vitality.
Mr. Italo Calpestri, project architect, noted that he would be able to answer any questions from the
Board.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. McNamara inquired whether the one-story unreinforced masonry structure in the back would be
demolished in preparation for this project. Ms. Eliason confirmed that was the case, and that the
applicant had received approval from the Historical Advisory Board to remove the two structures in
the back.
President Cunningham echoed Mr. Knopf's comments regarding this project, and supported the
residential plan as a strategy. He agreed that parking was in demand in that business area, and did
not believe all development on Park Street should be stopped because of parking. He added that was
a problem for the City to wrestle with, and that a compromise should be reached.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
September 26, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-26,4,"Mr. Piziali suggested that a parking garage would help.
Ms. Kohlstrand inquired about the possibility of stacked parking. Ms. Eliason noted that because the
Use Permit process allowed the amount of parking to be varied, that neither a Variance process or
in-lieu fees were included with this application.
Ms. Kohlstrand supported this type of use on Park Street, and would like the City to benefit from the
in-lieu fees when able.
Ms. McNamara inquired about the nature of the retail businesses, and whether those spaces could be
used at a reasonable hour by the residents.
Mr. Calpestri noted that the present tenants operated during normal business hours (approximately
9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.). They planned to change tenants, but expected that the parking would be
available to the apartments in the back. He added that the bar on the corner did not use those spaces.
President Cunningham advised that another speaker slip had been received.
M/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to reopen the public hearing.
AYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was reopened.
Ms. Karen Backowksi, 2421 Marti Rae Court, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that she
recently moved to Alameda. She believed that more apartments would worsen the parking situation,
and was concerned that the employees of the businesses would park in the residents' parking spaces.
She was also concerned that the property values would be negatively impacted. Her unit did not have
off-street parking.
Mr. Knopf noted that he sat on the City's Transportation Technical Team, which is charged with
examining parking issues. The difficulty of finding parking in residential areas has been a significant
topic of discussion, and the Director of Public Works, Matt Neclario, has spoken about residential
parking permits as being a long-term solution for this type of problem. Parking permits do not
generally cover their costs, which would be a budget issue for the City. The Committee does see the
permit plan as being a priority for residential neighborhoods. The planned parking structure for
Central and Oak was intended to address parking shortfall for the existing businesses in the
downtown area, in addition to the parking demand generated by a theater renovation project.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Cunningham noted that parking permits would contribute to the quality of life for the
neighborhood residents.
Ms. Kohlstrand had spoken with business representatives and downtown employees, who expressed
concern that there was no long-term parking in downtown Alameda.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
September 26, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-26,5,"Mr. Lynch had experience with parking permits and would not support them. He believed that it
pushed the issues further out, and noted that the primary issue was to balance the economic vitality
of a particular area. He noted that people preferred the ability to walk and congregate in downtown.
He strongly suggested that the City not pursue the parking permits, and believed that other solutions
would work.
Ms. Mariani expressed concern about the possibility of receiving many more similar requests.
M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-38 to
approval of Major Design Review to allow construction of a two story 3,115 square-foot addition to
replace existing additions of 1,300 square feet at the rear of a commercial building. The proposed
project results in a net gain of 515 square feet of ground floor commercial space and 1,300 square-
feet on the second floor. The second floor, ultimately comprising 1,500 square feet of floor area,
will contain two (2) residential units each approximately 750 square feet in size. A Use Permit is
required for the dwelling units pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.C.1(s) because the units do not
comply with off-street parking requirements.
AYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
September 26, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-26,6,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
PDA05-0003 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant proposes a
Planned Development Amendment to amend the Harbor Bay Business Park landscaping and
lot coverage provisions as established in Resolution 1203. This Amendment would affect
Lots 1-6, 8 and 12 of Tentative Parcel Map 8574. These lots are fronting on or southerly of
1900 and 2000 North Loop Road. The proposed Planned Development Amendment would
allow a five percent (5%) increase in building coverage for parcels larger than 5.5 acres.
Currently, maximum allowed building coverage is thirty five percent (35%) for lots larger
than 5.5 acres and forty percent (40%) on lots smaller than 5.5 acres. The maximum lot
coverage allowed on lots smaller than 5.5 acres would not be affected. The proposed Planned
Development Amendment would also decrease the minimum landscape coverage by five to
ten percent (5 to 10%), depending on lot size. Currently, 30% landscaping coverage is
required on lots smaller than 5.5 acres and 25% landscaping coverage is required for parcels
larger than 5.5 acres. The proposed Planned Development Amendment would decrease the
landscaping requirement to twenty percent (20%) for these lots regardless of size. The
property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned Development.)
(Continued from the meeting of August 22, 2005.)
Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report for Items 9-A and 9-B. Staff noted that approval of 9-B
was contingent upon approval of 9-A. Staff recommended approved of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speaker slips.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding overlandscaped parcels, Mr. Garrison
confirmed that one parcel fronting on North Loop Road was proposed to have 38% landscaping
where a 30% minimum landscaping was required.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that a Parking Management Plan was required, and that there were presumably
TSM requirements they must comply with. Mr. Garrison believed that was a standard condition by
Public Works.
M/S Lynch/Piziali and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-39 to amend the
Harbor Bay Business Park landscaping and lot coverage provisions as established in Resolution
1203. This Amendment would affect Lots 1-6, 8 and 12 of Tentative Parcel Map 8574. These lots
are fronting on or southerly of 1900 and 2000 North Loop Road. The proposed Planned
Development Amendment would allow a five percent (5%) increase in building coverage for parcels
larger than 5.5 acres. Currently, maximum allowed building coverage is thirty five percent (35%) for
lots larger than 5.5 acres and forty percent (40%) on lots smaller than 5.5 acres. The maximum lot
coverage allowed on lots smaller than 5.5 acres would not be affected. The proposed Planned
Development Amendment would also decrease the minimum landscape coverage by five to ten
percent (5 to 10%), depending on lot size. Currently, 30% landscaping coverage is required on lots
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
September 26, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-26,7,"smaller than 5.5 acres and 25% landscaping coverage is required for parcels larger than 5.5 acres.
The proposed Planned Development Amendment would decrease the landscaping requirement to
twenty percent (20%) for these lots regardless of size.
AYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
September 26, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-26,8,"9-B.
FDP05-0002/DR05-0057 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant
requests a Final Development Plan and Design Review for four (4) new flex warehouse,
office and light manufacturing facilities ranging in size from 13,900 to 33,272 square feet on
6.41 acres adjacent to and southerly of 2000 North Loop Road (Parcels 8-12 on Tentative
Parcel Map No. 8574). These facilities will be on one lot of approximately 11.53 acres until
the final map is approved. The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing- -
Planned Development.) (Continued from the meeting of August 22, 2005.)
Mr. Garrison presented this staff report with the report for Item 9-A.
M/S Lynch/Piziali and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-40 to approve a
Final Development Plan and Design Review for four (4) new flex warehouse, office and light
manufacturing facilities ranging in size from 13,900 to 33,272 square feet on 6.41 acres adjacent to
and southerly of 2000 North Loop Road (Parcels 8-12 on Tentative Parcel Map No. 8574). These
facilities will be on one lot of approximately 11.53 acres until the final map is approved.
AYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
September 26, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-26,9,"10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Mr. Piziali advised there was nothing new to report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
member Mariani).
Ms. Mariani advised that the next meeting would be held Thursday, September 29, 2005.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board member
Kohlstrand).
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that there had been no meetings since her last report.
12.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Eliason advised that the packets for the Special Meeting on Thursday, September 29, 2005, were
placed at the Board members' chairs.
13.
ADJOURNMENT:
7:41 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Benoit, Interim Secretary
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the October 10, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
September 26, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,1,"Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting
Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Mr. Piziali
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Lynch, Mariani,
McNamara, and Piziali.
Ms. Kohlstrand was absent.
Also present were Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman,
Development Services Director Leslie Little, Public Works Director Matt Naclerio, Bruce Knopf,
Jennifer Ott and Dorene Soto all of Development Services, Executive Assistant Latisha Jackson.
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Irene Dieter wished to discuss parking in the downtown area, and noted that consultants were
hired by the City to study a parking structure. She recounted the background of that study, and stated
that the Elks Lodge was the first choice for a site, followed by Long's Drugs. After the Long's deal
fell through, the City did not reinvestigate the Elk's site but instead chose to develop a parking
garage, which she did not believe was the best land use in the downtown area. She believed this
garage promoted parking in the garage, seeing the movie and driving away. She would like to
encourage walking through the neighborhood by using smaller parking lots, dispersed through the
City. She believed that shared parking would be economical, and listed several sites. She identified
265 spaces that were not used in the evening hours, and encouraged the City to approach those
companies. She requested that the Planning Board to encourage the City to vacate its Negative
Declaration and reconsider dispersed parking.
Mr. Richard Bangert noted that he was not a critic of the theater project, but would like to obtain
more facts from the City; his concern was growing due to the lack of facts. Midway through the
development process, the theater and garage projects had combined into one project and that he had
not seen any public notice stating they had combined. He believed that contributed to the level of
public controversy.
Ms. Victoria Ashley strongly objected to the theater project, and added that she had degrees in
architecture and psychology. She believed there was a social impact of this project on the
community. She was disappointed with the last several meetings, and that of 70 people, there was an
approximately five-to-one ratio of speakers opposed to the project. She believed their opinions had
been ignored.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,2,"Ms. Alice Ray and her husband Lew Brentano spoke on child safety and the importance of not
building the parking structure to breed criminal activity towards and by children. She implored the
Board to look at solutions to keep children safe to help the community.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,3,"6.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
6-A.
UP05-0018 - Kyle Conner/Alameda Entertainment Associates, L.P. - 2305, 2317
Central Avenue (JO). The applicant requests a Use Permit approval for the following: 1)
multi-screen theatre, live theatre, and public assembly use in the C-C T district pursuant to
AMC Subsection 30-4.22; b) fifty-eight (58') foot building height for the Cineplex pursuant
to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.g.2; and c) extended hours of operation until 3:00 AM for the
theatre pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.c.1( for occasional special events and
screenings. The site is located within the Park Street C-C T, Community Commercial
Theatre Combining District.
Ms. Eliason summarized this staff report.
Mr. Kyle Conner, developer, gave a presentation. He was aware of the public feedback, and stated
that he was willing to make changes in order to get the Use Permit approved, including retracting the
game room. He noted that he requested the extended hours in order to play blockbuster films such as
""Star Wars"" to be screened at 12:01 AM according to the licensing agreements.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding the average number of blockbuster films
released each year, Mr. Conner replied that there may be 15-18 blockbusters this year. On average,
there may be 15-30 films with licensing agreements that would allow a 12:01 showing.
M/S McNamara/Cook and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 6 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Linda Hansen, 1816 Wood Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She suggested that story
poles be erected to show the size of this building. She displayed pictures on the overhead screen to
illustrate the views that would no longer be visible if the building were to be constructed. She
believed the 58-foot height limit was excessive.
Mr. Karva Sales, 1719 Pacific Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. He agreed with Ms.
Hansen's opinion of the garage's appearance and believed that it was out of character with the rest of
the neighborhood. He agreed that dispersed parking would be a good idea.
Mr. Rick Tabor, 1821 Santa Clara Avenue, spoke in support of this application. He believed this was
a good use for an underused site, and added that he was associated with the Alameda Civic Light
Opera, which has a youth internship program. He was offended by the previous speaker's statement
that the parking garage would invite gang rapes. He believed that with the proper judgment in
finding appropriate and rewarding youth activities, this project would be a positive influence.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,4,"suggested restoring the theater to only three screens.
Ms. Kristi Koenen, 1360 Pearl Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed the proposed
Cineplex would overwhelm the parking garage capacity, and cited the parking study that projects the
garage capacity being up to 200 spaces short of satisfying peak demand. She noted that the study
recommended parking capacity of 450-550 spaces, and expressed concern about a parking nightmare
during blockbuster openings. She believed the planned parking capacity would violate the Alameda
Municipal Code, and urged the matter to be sent back to the City Council.
Mr. Dick Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that he submitted
a letter to the Board, and that he had no objections to Item A, proposing a Cineplex on the site.
Regarding Item C, extended hours of operation, he understood the applicant's reasoning for the
extension. He understood the game room had been pulled from the Use Permit. Regarding Item B
(height and bulk considerations), he believed the building height should be dropped as it gets farther
away from Park Street. He noted there was a legal loophole for height limits for the parking
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,5,"structures, and that they were not as stringent. He believed the 40-foot height limit on this parcel was
justified. He believed the height and bulk restrictions were being ignored on the Oak Street side.
Ms. Jasmine Tokuda was called to speak, but was not in attendance.
Mr. Ron Schaeffer was called to speak, but was not in attendance.
Ms. Hanna Fry, 1507-A Chestnut Street, spoke in support of this application, and believed it would
be beneficial to Alameda.
Mr. Court Summerfield, 1507 Park Street, spoke in support of this application. He noted that he was
a merchant on Park Street and would be happy to see additional parking in the district.
Ms. Jan Schaeffer, 1184 Regent Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted that she had
previously been the Director of Theater Operations for Alan Michaan's Renaissance Rialto Theaters.
She disagreed with those who believed that a smaller house would not be financially feasible, and
noted that the Grand Lake Theater, a four-screen house, was very successful because of low
overhead and a quality project. She noted that people traveled long distances to attend that theater,
and believed that a scaled-down theater could be successful without eight screens. She urged the
applicant to restore the interior of the theater.
Ms. Pat Payne, 2121 Alameda Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted that the
surrounding neighborhoods were already short of parking, and did not believe the City needed this
theater.
Mr. Vern Marsh, P.O. Box 800, spoke in opposition to this item. He did not believe the cineplex
should be built at all. He believed that a majority of people did not want it, and that the Planning
Board and the City Council passed the project through despite their wishes.
Mr. Anders Lee, PO Box 800, spoke in opposition to this item, and was concerned about the series
of events that led to this meeting. He believed the building was too massive for Alameda. He
believed the parking demand would exceed the capacity.
Ms. Carol Fairweather, 920 Walnut Street, spoke in support of this application. She noted that she
and her husband would be able to walk to the theater.
Ms. Pauline Kelley, 1121 Sherman Street, spoke in support of this application. She did not wish to
go out of town to attend movies.
Mr. Frank George, 2600 Otis Drive, spoke in support of this application. He noted that he was a Park
Street merchant and a member of Property Owners on Park Street (POPS), which had approximately
100 members. He noted that there were approximately 400 merchants on Park Street, and has spoken
with many merchants who strongly supported this project.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,6,"Ms. Debbie George, 2600 Otis Drive, spoke in support of this application. She noted that the current
Alameda Theater was 58 feet height, and that this project would balance that building out with a 58-
foot building. She noted that the developer would allow the community to use the theater 12 days a
year for community events, and looked forward to those events.
Ms. Irene Dieter spoke in opposition to this item. She believed this project ran counter to the
Downtown Visioning process, and added that the theater restoration and parking garage had been on
separate tracks until summer 2004. Following the demise of the Long's deal, they coalesced into one
project, and she did not believe there was any publicity in the local newspaper for the November
2004 scoping meeting. She expressed concern that the balcony will not show movies, and asked why
it was not included. She was concerned that if the developer backed out of the deal, the theater may
never be restored. She encouraged the Board to maintain the goal of a fully restored theater. She
believed that full restoration should be a requirement, not an option.
Mr. Robert Gavrich, Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda, 1517 Fountain Street, spoke in
opposition to this item. He opposed the height and the extension of the hours. He expressed concern
that the theater attendance would overwhelm the parking capacity, and noted that this ran contrary to
the City Ordinance requiring that parking is sufficient for the use. He believed that the proposed
project, regardless of height, violated Standard 9 of the Secretary of Interior's standards for
rehabilitation according to the City's hired consultant, Robert Bruce Anderson. He quoted Tony's
Daysog's concerns about financial feasibility vis-à-vis incoming revenue.
Ms. Deborah Overfield spoke in opposition to this item, and was concerned that the Planning Board
had already made up its mind regarding this project. She believed the mix of apartments around the
theater was tacky. She did not believe a six-level parking structure on this site was a good idea, and
that it did not comply with the Alameda Municipal Code.
Ms. Sally Rudloff, 1828 Clinton Avenue, spoke in support of this application. She believed it would
be a good diversion for the youth of Alameda.
Ms. Judith Altschuler, 3015 Bayview Drive, spoke in support of this application. She noted that the
City had worked on this project since 1994 with a considerable amount of public speaking and
outreach. She noted that the cineplex carried all the ADA requirements for the Alameda Theater. She
believed the restoration of the Alameda Theater would be more magnificent and significant because
of that; any intrusion of an elevator would diminish the restoration of the theater. She noted that
some speakers had referred to the theater as a façade, and she did not recall that on the plans at all;
the Alameda Theater would be a fully integrated part of the project, and the main lobby would be the
lobby for the entire theater.
Mr. John Rossilon, 1525 Park, spoke in support of this application. He did not believe there would
be investors for two movie theaters, and added that it would not be reasonable to put kids on a bus to
Jack London Square. He strongly believed that kids and families should have a theater on the Island
they can attend easily.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,7,"Mr. Dwayne Watson spoke in support of this item, and echoed Mr. Rossilon's comments. He noted
that he had worked on the Parking Committee, and believed this was the best arrangement that was
feasible. He believed the design for the two theaters was fantastic, and that it had been falling apart
for years.
Ms. Ani Dimusheva, 2911 Calhoun, spoke in opposition to this item, and believed it was contrary to
the City's General Plan because it did not fit into Alameda's small-town character. She believed the
City's historic architecture should be preserved. She urged the City to start again with the design.
Ms. Michelle Misino deLuca, 1506 Lincoln Avenue, spoke in support of this item. She disagreed
with the characterization of this project as a megaplex, and supported the benefit to Park Street
businesses. She said it would be a good source of revenue to the City.
Ms. Monica Pena, 1361 Regent Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed the 3 AM
closing time would be a safety hazard, both on the streets and in the parking garage; it would also
place a burden on the City's law enforcement officers. She expressed concern that Board member
Piziali had signed and circulated a pro-theater petition.
Mr. Harvey Brook spoke in support of this item, and noted that he was a consultant who worked
with other theater restorations in the state. He disagreed with the opponents' assessment of the
parking capacity, and noted that there were approximately 578 spaces available, which would be
sufficient for a busy Saturday night.
Ms. Pamela McBride, 909 Shorepoint Court, indicated she was in favor of this project but was not in
attendance to speak.
Mr. Gail Wertzork, 3452 Capella Lane, spoke in support of this item. He believed this was a
marquee project for the City, and noted that he had been involved with this project since its
inception. He had spoken to many small business owners surrounding Park Street whose customers
had a difficult time finding a place to park. He believed the parking garage would be a benefit to the
City.
Mr. Fritz Mayer, 146 Purcell Drive, spoke in support of this item, and believed it would be critical to
the vibrance of the City. He read into the record a letter from Walt Jacobs, president of the Chamber
of Commerce.
Ms. Kathy Shaughnessy, 619 Willow Street, spoke in support of the Use Permit and the extended
hours of operation.
Ms. Barbara Marchand, Marchand and Associates, 1212 Regent Street, spoke in support of this item,
and believed that it would help the City's economic condition.
Mr. Blake Brydon, 1033 Camino del Valle, spoke in support of this item. He supported the multiple
screens, height requirements and the extended hours of operation for occasional special events and
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,8,"screenings. He believed the multiple screen configuration was the only way to make the theater
financially feasible. He did not believe the height was out of scale to other, taller nearby structures.
He believed the extended hours of operation would be appropriate for special releases or community
events.
Mr. Harry Hartman, 1100 Peach Street, spoke in support of this item. He agreed there would be
some mitigation with this project, and believed the quality of life in Alameda would be enhanced by
this theater.
Mr. Robert McKean, 46 Steuben Bay, spoke in support of this item, and noted that he had published
Alameda Magazine for the past four years. He believed this project would be an enhancement to
Alameda.
Ms. Angela Lazear, President of Board of Directors, Alameda Civic Light Opera, spoke in support
of this item.
Mr. Burny Matthews, 556 Kines Road, spoke in support of this item. He believed that the City
should be run like a business to enhance the use of the retail tax revenue to benefit the City as a
whole. He noted that well-staffed police and fire departments, and other staff positions are
dependent on tax revenue. He believed that visitors would be drawn to the theater, which is located
in a safe community. With respect to the concerns about crime connected with the theater, he noted
that the Alameda Police Department can handle any crowd situation generated by the theater.
Ms. Doree Miles spoke in support of this item, and noted that she has always wanted to walk to a
restored Alameda Theater. She believed this project can make that dream come true, and believed
the design would blend well with the historic theater.
Ms. Jackie Green, 1109 Park Avenue, indicated she was in favor of this project, but was not in
attendance to speak.
Ms. Kathleen Woulfe, 3208 Monte Vista Avenue, spoke in support of this item. She looked forward
to walking to the theater, having dinner and attending a movie.
Mr. Lars Hansson, PSBA President, spoke in support of this item and noted that PSBA completely
supported this project. He believed the restoration of the theater and use of the theater for first-run
movies was a worthy goal. He recalled the closure of the Lafayette Theater and the impending
closure of the Orinda Theater, and emphasized that financial feasibility was essential for its long-
term success. He believed it would act as an economic catalyst for downtown Alameda.
Ms. Janice Gatewood, 2029 Alameda Avenue, spoke in support of this item. She believed that the
young people of Alameda would benefit from this project, including employment. She recently
moved from Southern California, and looked forward to attending a movie with her granddaughter in
town.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,9,"Mr. Lew Brentano expressed concern about the business plan of the development, which had not
been revised since 2003 to reflect current trends in the movie industry. He did not have any
problems with an elevator in the historic theater, and noted that would prevent him from attending
the restored theater. He encouraged the Planning Board to reject this Use Permit because the current
ADA plans did not meet the spirit of the ADA.
Mr. Daniel Pollart, 127 Capetown Drive, indicated he was in favor of this project but was not in
attendance to speak.
Ms. Debbie Pollart, 127 Capetown Drive, spoke in support of this item. She noted that she had been
a planning professional for 20 years, and generally had to travel outside Alameda to attend a movie.
She supported the extended hours and height limit, and noted that the theater could bring social and
economic benefits to the community. She believed this building was in context with its surroundings
with a cohesive visual pattern and sense of place. She supported the limited late-night showings,
allowing City oversight. She noted that if the applicant did not comply with the conditions of
approval, or unforeseen problems arise later, the City always has the option of reviewing the Use
Permit, and either adding additional conditions of approval or revoking it. She agreed with the
withdrawal of the video game component, and that in the city where she works, that is a constant
enforcement issue with respect to loitering regulations.
Mr. Bruce Reeves, 2527 Santa Clara, spoke in support of this item, and noted that he was the past
chair of the Housing Commission and currently on the Recreation and Parks Commission. He noted
that the Board had the benefit of 27 years of meetings, consultant reports and other information
regarding this project. He believed that this was the best alternative for the crumbling theater.
Ms. Pat Colburn, 1340 Park Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that she was the
founder and former president of the Alameda Arts Center. She believed the current project was out
of scale in Alameda, and hoped the City would consider the installation of solar panels on the roof of
the building.
President Cunningham called for a ten-minute recess.
Ms. Minnie Patino, 1513 Paris Street, Alameda Taqueria, indicated she was in favor of this project
but was not in attendance to speak.
Mr. John Grigsby, 1566 Pacific Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and drew a parallel
between the theater complex project in San Jose and this project. He noted that the San Jose theater
closed down four years later, and inquired why City money was needed if it was a good economic
idea. He urged the Board to reject the Use Permit and the subsidy.
Ms. Dawna Dondell, 960 Shorepoint Court, indicated she was in favor of this project but was not in
attendance to speak.
Mr. John Jacobs, 2130 Otis Drive, did want wish to speak, but indicated his support of this item.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,10,"Ms. Ana Rojas, 1129B Regent Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and recalled the last City
Council hearing of this item. She did not wish the small-town character of Alameda to drastically
change with the addition of a Cineplex and parking garage. She noted that the view of the Twin
Towers Church would be lost. She expressed concern that this would be a white elephant.
Mr. Douglas Mitchell, 2922 Gibbons Drive, indicated he was in favor of this project but was not in
attendance to speak.
Ms. Abigail Wagg spoke in support of this item, and noted that she was a Park Street merchant. She
recalled the small downtown theaters in Sacramento during her youth, and would like to see a
similar small-town community unifier in Alameda. She believed that theaters were an asset to any
community, and would be a good tax benefit to the city. She did not wish to go off the Island to
attend a movie.
Mr. Mel Waldorf, 1715 Otis Drive, spoke in support of this item. He noted that he had to work
outside the city, and would like to attend a movie with his family in town. He noted that there were
many busy families in Alameda who supported this project.
Mr. David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. He wished to protect
the small-town qualities of Alameda, and would like to see a three-screen theater. He did not believe
this theater would generate revenues for the City, and that it would lose its historic status as a
building.
Ms. Susan Battaglia, 1351 Burbank Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She did not agree with
the height of the building, and was concerned that if the theater failed, the garage would turn into a
skateboard park. She would like to see a three-screen theater instead. She did not agree with the
proposed site, and suggested that Harbor Bay Parkway would be a better site.
Ms. Rosemary McNally, 2145 San Antonio, spoke in opposition to this item. She recalled seeing the
massing model and was immediately concerned with the mass of the building. She was pleased that
the game room had been deleted, and hoped that it was not reintroduced. She was concerned that the
video game idea was introduced at the last minute, and that a late-night permit 45 nights a year
would invite customers from off the Island, contrary to the developer's letter to the newspaper. She
did not believe this use would be compatible with the General Plan.
Ms. Valerie Ruma, 1610 Willow Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted that this was not
the result of a unanimous agreement of the Visioning process. She preferred to the see the complete
restoration of the historic theater without a Cineplex. She noted that the movie business was
declining already, and would rather see a smaller, three-screen theater.
Mr. Joe Cloren, 1245 Tahiti, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that Alameda was a unique
city, and did not want to add more cars to the traffic mix. He was concerned about the impact on
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,11,"traffic if there was a fire, or even if the drawbridge went up with an extra 500 cars on the street. He
expressed concern about emergency vehicle access in such an event.
Ms. Karen Bay, 2911 Santa Clara, spoke in support of this item, and noted that she had taken part in
the Downtown Visioning process.
Mr. Jim Strehlow, 3122 Gibbons Drive, spoke in support of this item, and noted that he frequently
walked and biked within Alameda. He recommended that a projectionist technician be required to be
available within 15 minutes of a failure. He suggested that a website complaint number within an
onsite kiosk be available for feedback. He would like to see the number of days with allowable after-
hours operation reduced from 45 to 24 days.
Ms. Reyla Graber, 3120 La Cresla Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed this project
was wrong for Alameda, and added that the scale of the garage and footprint of the project was too
large. She was not confident of this use of public funds, and did not agree with the 3 AM extension
of hours. She would not like to see the developer return with a request for a game room and for 15
screens. She noted that the Marina Theater was being restored in San Francisco, and suggested that
be a model for Alameda.
Mr. Douglas Mitchell submitted a speaker slip, but was not in attendance to speak.
Ms. Melody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, 1416 Park Street, spoke in support of this item
on behalf of the Board of Directors. She asked that the 45 days of extended hours be reduced to 24
days. She supported the live theater proposal, and did not want to see dollars leaving Alameda for
movies and associated activities. She read the following names of members who supported this
project, but could not attend: Debbie McBride, Barbara Johnson, Allison Bliss, Pamela
Christiansen, Cathy Leong, Kevin Leong, Kathy Moehring, Terrence Brewer, Cathy Brewer, Chuck
Bianchi, Julia Park, Lorre Zuppan, Josh Lipps, Jennifer George, Renee Tripprudeen of 3235 Central
Avenue.
Mr. Bill Smith, PO Box 2009, spoke in opposition to this item and expressed concern about parking
and traffic congestion.
Ms. Norma Henning, 1361 Park Street, spoke in support of this item and noted that she was a Park
Street merchant.
Ms. Lorna Dowell submitted a speaker slip but was not in attendance to speak.
Mr. Harry Singh, 12 Shepardson Lane, spoke in support of this item, and noted that he would like to
keep his dollars on the Island.
Ms. Lisa Jasper submitted, 117 Chinaberry Lane, a speaker slip but was not in attendance to speak.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,12,"Ms. Jasmine Tokuda, 867 Cedar Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She would support a
smaller-scale theater similar to the Grand Avenue Theater in Oakland. She noted that market
changes in the oil and the movie businesses may not point to off-Island business coming to this
theater. She believed the size of this project would be an issue following those changes.
Mr. Elijah Moore noted that he had been a resident of Oakland and Alameda, and had been stationed
at the Coast Guard base.
Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, spoke in opposition to this item and believed there were
many flaws in this project. He encouraged the Board to present their opinions frankly and clearly.
He believed the business owners were presenting their support of this project in an emotional
framework, and would like to see a logical presentation. He encouraged the widening of Oak Street,
and suggested that the Elks Lodge location would be a better location for the parking garage.
Ms. Alice Ray, 2808 Bayview Drive, believed there could be a solution to bring the community
together to meet the goals of community safety and keeping Alameda dollars on the Island.
Mr. Ivan Rudenko, 727 Haight Avenue, #7, submitted a speaker slip in opposition to this item but
was not in attendance to speak.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Vice President Cook proposed that the Board discuss each issue separately.
Ms. McNamara requested that the developer address the live theater portion of the project, and
added that she supported a live theater component. Mr. Conner explained the alterations that would
take place to accommodate live performances, and added that he planned to return the auditorium to
its original condition.
Ms. Ott noted that the old orchestra pit was not standard in a movie theater, but that it could be used.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani's regarding the balcony, Ms. Ott noted that there were no
seats in the first balcony at this time, and that the second balcony had already been compromised and
turned into two additional theaters. The old theatre walls would be demolished per Building Code
requirements, but may be rebuilt some time in the future.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding the renovation cost, Ms. Ott advised that it was
projected to cost $9.6 million.
Regarding Item A, Vice President Cook believed that this use was consistent with the General Plan's
goal of revitalizing the downtown district, as well as the Downtown Visioning process. She believed
this use was consistent with the General Plan, and would be adequately served by the City's
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,13,"transportation system. She believed the traffic impact would be staggered because of the theater
show times, and did not believe there would be 500 cars pouring in simultaneously.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding ADA access, Ms. Eliason replied that
the historic theater restrooms would not be ADA accessible, and that the new theater would be fully
accessible. The movie theater itself would be accessible and ADA compliant. The women's restroom
in the historic theater would be able to accommodate a handicapped stall, but the men's room would
not. There would also be a unisex bathroom on the first floor.
Mr. Lynch noted that the suppositions put forth by some speakers opposing the project that this
project was not legally consistent with the General Plan were incorrect. He noted that the General
Plan was a statement of goals and policies, but in order for the Board to take an affirmative action,
there must be findings created. He believed there was consistency, and that the findings may be
made to support those policies and goals.
Mr. Piziali agreed with the comments made by Vice President Cook and Mr. Lynch.
President Cunningham agreed with Vice President Cook's statements. He believed the new theater
would revitalize the historic theater and conformed with uses elsewhere in the district.
Regarding Item B (Extended Hours of Operation), President Cunningham inquired about the criteria
and plans for blockbuster showings. Mr. Conner noted that there were many factors involved,
including staggering show times to minimize traffic congestion occurring at one time. He added that
was also the benefit of having multiple screens. He added that the historic theater would be the
catalyst for those showings, unless it was a major blockbuster release such as ""Star Wars.""
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch whether he would agree with a condition that only the
blockbuster releases be shown at 12:01 AM, Mr. Conner replied that would be limiting, but it would
be acceptable to him.
Mr. Piziali expressed concern about police coverage when a show lets out at 3 AM, and inquired
whether the Police Department had weighed in on this issue. He believed that extra staffing should
be borne by the theater.
Ms. Eliason noted that no comment had been received by the Police Department, but that the Use
Permit could be conditioned so that the applicant paid for extra police services.
Ms. McNamara inquired about queuing control in the event of a major blockbuster, and did not want
people camping out for tickets days in advance. Ms. Eliason advised that the operator must provide a
queuing plan, including provisions for crowd control and police coverage.
Mr. Piziali believed there were City ordinances against camping overnight.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,14,"Vice President Cook noted that she often bought her tickets online in order to avoid long lines. She
suggested that camping be restricted.
Mr. Lynch acknowledged that people may line up for tickets at 10 AM, but opposed people sleeping
over in front of the theater. He suggested that the applicant hire a private security guard for such
events.
President Cunningham noted that St. Joseph's was required to hire private security to monitor excess
parking for special events.
Mr. Piziali wished to ensure that there was no additional taxpayer expense on police services for
such an event.
Vice President Cook suggested the following language: ""The queuing plan shall be viewed by the
Public Works Director, Planning & Building Director and the Chief of Police, and shall specifically
address overnight queuing, and the cost of extra police services, if and when necessary, shall be
borne by the applicant.""
Mr. Lynch and President Cunningham agreed with that language.
Ms. Mariani inquired about inside and outside surveillance, and the specifics of the security.
Ms. McNamara believed that 10 extended hour events per year would be sufficient, and added that
after the first night, it was no longer a special event for a blockbuster movie. She was also concerned
about the impact on the neighborhoods by attendees leaving the late movies at 3 AM
Vice President Cook noted that if the 10 days per year went well, the Board could consider adding
more dates.
Mr. Lynch suggested reviewing the extended hours every six months, rather than projecting a
negative.
Vice President Cook suggested making that interval slightly longer to accommodate a learning
curve, but supported the general idea. She suggested 24 events in a year, and reviewing the extended
hours after a year.
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.
AYES - 6 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Vice President Cook believed it would be useful to cap the number of theaters being used on a late-
night showing.
President Cunningham did not want to place unreasonable economic restrictions on the applicant.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,15,"Mr. Conner suggested using only the ground level theaters on those evenings. He noted that there
may be 400-500 people on a very full night.
Mr. Lynch would like specific information on impacts on public services.
Regarding Item C (Building Height), Vice President Cook noted that had always been her greatest
concern. She had preferred the Long's parking lot project, but that project did not go forward. She
noted that there were not many opportunities for the City to find a developer willing to take on such
a project. She noted that public funds were often used for projects with a public benefit. She was
willing to strike a balance and approve the height limit.
Ms. Mariani had no comment on this item.
Mr. Lynch noted that the cost of a project was the overall driving factor for this project, and
appreciated and respected the passion of the public speakers. He noted that $10 million of debt to
restore this building must be offset by revenue generated by the business. He was comfortable with
the discussion regarding the design and operations, and added that the financial aspect of this project
was the driving factor for him. He noted that a three-screen theater cannot satisfy a $10 million debt.
Mr. Piziali agreed with Mr. Lynch's comments, and noted that this project was necessary to support
the restoration.
Ms. Mariani noted that she would like to see a movie theater in Alameda, and added that she would
prefer the three or four-screen idea.
M/S Cook/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-41 to approve a Use Permit
approval for the following: a) multi-screen theatre, live theatre, and public assembly use in the C-C
T district pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.22; b) fifty eight (58') foot building height for the
Cineplex pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.g.2; and c) extended hours of operation until 3:00
AM for the theatre pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.c.1 (a) for occasional special events and
screenings. The following modifications will be added:
1. Additional queuing shall be specifically addressed. The cost of extra police service and
security, if and when necessary, shall be borne by the applicant.
2. The third paragraph will be revised from ""45 days"" to ""24 days per year,"" and a
provision will be added for a report back to the Planning Board after one full year of
operation. The late-night showings will be limited to screens on the ground floor of the
theater.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Mariani)
7.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,16,"9.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Greg McFann, Acting Secretary
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the October 24, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-10-10,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, October 10, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:06 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Vice President Cook
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,
Mariani, McNamara, and Piziali.
Also present were Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman,
Supervising Planner Andrew Thomas, Bruce Knopf, Development Services, Planner II Dennis
Brighton.
4.
MINUTES: Minutes for the meeting of September 26, 2005.
Ms. Mariani noted that the following votes indicated that she was absent when she was in fact in
attendance, and that they should be changed to reflect her presence and Vice President Cook's
absence: Page 1, Item 4 (Minutes); Items 8-A, 9-A and 9-B.
M/S Kohlstrand/Piziali to approve the minutes for the meeting of September 26, 2005, as corrected.
AYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Cook)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cunningham advised that a speaker slip had been received for Item 8-A.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 8-A from the Consent Calendar and to place it
on the Regular Agenda.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
7.
2005-2006 ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS:
(Continued from the meeting of September 26, 2005.)
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to nominate Andrew Cunningham for President of the Planning
Board.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
M/S Cunningham/Piziali and unanimous to nominate Anne Cook for Vice President of the Planning
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
October 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-10-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-10-10,2,"Board.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A. Annual Report on General Plan (ATh). A report regarding implementation of policies and
objectives of the 1991 General Plan pursuant to the California Government Code.
M/S Kohlstrand/ Cook and unanimous to remove Item 8-A from the Consent Calendar and to place
it on the Regular Agenda.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Ani Dimusheva, 2911 Calhoun Street, spoke in favor of a Civic Center Specific Plan, called for
by the General Plan but has not been developed in the past 14 years. She had objected to the Use
Permits granted to the theater and parking garage, which she believed was contradictory to the
General Plan. She noted that the City Council adopted the Citywide Retail Policy and Strategy,
which she believed included the Cineplex and garage. She was concerned that these policies will
continue to outweigh the importance of other elements in the General Plan, such as the unaddressed
Civic Center Plan. She believed that the configuration of the theater and parking garage left no room
for identifiable Civic Center, and cannot imagine where a half-acre urban pocket park would go. If
the Cineplex project did not go through, she encouraged the Planning Board to consider developing
a City Center plan. She acknowledged the importance of economic interests, but was also concerned
with open areas in public spaces.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding the current status of a Civic Center Plan, Mr.
Thomas replied that there was nothing currently in the works. He noted that Ms. Dimusheva was
correct in that there was a policy recommending a Civic Center Specific Plan in the 1991 General
Plan. He added that had not been a priority for the City over the last 14 years, and that it was
common for General Plans to have many very good ideas but that they sometimes conflicted with
each other. He noted that the implementation of these plans is decided in the annual budget process.
He added that the Civic Center Specific Plan had not been a budget priority, and noted that did not
preclude its inclusion in the future.
Ms. Kohlstrand inquired whether noted that the public plaza discussion had been part of the Park
Street Revitalization discussion, and whether it could be placed-there had been any further
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
October 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-10-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-10-10,3,"discussion about placing that plaza across the street from City Hall
Ms. Eliason noted that the small structure was a historic structure.
Mr. Thomas advised that the 1991 General Plan discussed the linkage of spaces, design and uses,
and that there were several visions of a civic center area. He added that not every civic center must
be organized around a large open space.
Vice President Cook noted that there was some desire to have an outside public meeting area that
created a public presence in the area. There had also been discussion in incorporate public spaces in
the City's alleyways, such as Park Street. She noted that the waterfront public access studies had
been halted midway through the process. She believed the Planning Board should be more
strategically involved, and realized the budgeting process directed these processes. She
acknowledged that the staffing situation was also a constraint on accomplishing these goals.
Mr. Lynch would not advocate a Specific Plan in this case, and noted that they had been
recommendations in the 1980s. He added that the development of a Specific Plan was very arduous,
similar to adopting a minor General Plan. He agreed with the efforts that the City has taken thus far,
especially the committees and task forces. He suggested that as those documents come forward, the
City seek ways to incorporate those documents in the community's initiatives. He added that a
Specific Plan would be time-, money- and staff-intensive, as well as legally intensive. He noted that
there were substantive differences between ""recommended"" and ""required,"" as well as ""should"" and
""shall.""
Ms. Mariani noted that she attended several Downtown Vision meetings as a Greater Alameda
Business Association (GABA) member, and that she recalled seeing the picture of the downtown
City Center. She inquired whether that was in the Downtown Vision report, and added that she
would like to see those documents resurface.
President Cunningham recalled that the top ten priorities were agreed upon following that process,
and were considered to be policy directives.
Ms. Eliason noted that she could make those documents available.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that the City was more than 50% towards its housing goals in the Very Low
Income category, but that the other categories hadn't fared so well. She inquired how the City
intended to achieve those goals, and what strategies and programs were in place to do SO. Mr.
Thomas replied that Alameda Point and Catellus were the major pieces of the program, and that
Alameda Point alone had 612 affordable housing units, spread from Very Low to Moderate. He
anticipated that a proposal from Catellus would come forward in the next year to re-entitle a portion
of the office portion for residential, including a variety of affordable housing. From a Housing
Element perspective, the land must be available, and the land at Alameda Point is not currently
available.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
October 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-10-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-10-10,4,"In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding ABAG's letter to the City stating the next round of
housing numbers, Mr. Thomas replied that they were in the final negotiations, and were 90% sure
the timeframe would be extended but the deal was not finalized.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the timeframe of the Planning Board
hearing the Alameda Point issue, Mr. Thomas replied that the preliminary concept would be taken to
ARRA first. The negotiations with the Navy are the critical element, and staff has been meeting with
the Navy several times a week.
President Cunningham noted that there had been a presentation about sustainable design several
years ago, and would like a discussion with the Board and public addressing stewardship of the
Island and its resources.
M/S McNamara/Cook to recommend acceptance of the status report regarding implementation of
policies and objectives of the 1991 General Plan pursuant to the California Government Code.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
October 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-10-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-10-10,5,"8-B.
DR05-0045, PF05-0001, V05-0008; John Knowles - 2416 Central Avenue (AT).
Applicant requests Major Design Review approval for the construction of a new 5,800
square foot two-story commercial building in a portion of an existing parking lot located
between the buildings occupied by the Starbucks cafe and Gallagher and Lindsey offices.
The applicant also requests the payment of parking in-lieu fees for sixteen off-street parking
spaces; the existing parking lot will be re-striped to maintain all of the existing parking
spaces. The proposal also requires Variances to AMC Subsection 30-7.10(a). 1 and 30-
7.10(a). 2 for reductions to required landscaped setbacks between unenclosed parking spaces
next to public sidewalks, buildings, and property lines. The property is located within a C-C
T, Community Commercial Theatre Combining District. (Staff requests a continuance to
the meeting of October 24, 2005.)
M/S Piziali/Mariani and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of October 24, 2005.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
October 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-10-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-10-10,6,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
UP05-0015/MDR05-0178 - Pamela Nobel for Cingular Wireless - 3001 Otis Drive
(Krusi Park) (DB). A request to approve a Use Permit and Minor Design Review to replace
three light poles with three 50 foot high light pole/antennas for a total of six painted metal
monopoles. The antennas would encircle the existing tennis courts within Krusi Park. The
application also includes a 13-foot by 16-foot utility enclosure surrounded by a 6 foot fence
and landscaping. A Use Permit and Minor Design Review is required by AMC Sections 30-
4.19 (c) and (d) for any structure and above ground utility installation in an O, Open Space,
Zoning District.
Mr. Brighton summarized this staff report. Staff recommended approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speaker slips.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. McNamara inquired how the proposed equipment enclosure building compared to the existing
structure.
Mr. Bruce Knopf, Development Services, replied that the existing enclosure on the westerly side of
the tennis courts was approximately 9 by 16 feet. The proposed structure is slightly larger (13 by 16
feet), and would be located at the edge of the park in a redwood-fenced enclosure that will be
screened with landscaping; it would be located adjacent to the maintenance shed. He noted that a
public meeting had been held on August 30, 2005, attended by six residents, two of whom were
members of the Recreation & Park Commission. The attendees had questions about safety, and
information about the radio frequency and emissions report was presented. One person believed the
cellular companies should get together and share facilities; the other members did not share any
opinions in particular. It was suggested that sports netting be installed over the redwood fenced
equipment enclosure it catch Frisbees and balls; he agreed that could be added to the resolution. It
was also suggested that the light poles be painted black to blend in with the surroundings; staff
agreed that the existing galvanized light pole would blend in better than a painted pole. Staff
believed the cables that run into the poles should be screened.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand regarding consolidated service, Mr. Knopf displayed
the map of existing cell sites in town, with the exception of the two new sites at the Mastick Senior
Center and the subject site at Krusi Park. He added that there were technical reasons for separate
service sites, and consolidated service in one location or on one pole would provide poorer coverage
as the antennas were located lower on the pole. He added that even cell phones were low-power
radio transmitters, and that these were low-powered sites.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
October 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-10-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-10-10,7,"Ms. McNamara expressed concern about the encroachment of these equipment pieces on open space.
She believed this example illustrated that concern because there were two locations on this site, and
noted that protection of park space was very important.
Mr. Knopf noted that park space was protected on an individual basis, and cited Lincoln Park as an
example; that site was never brought to the public or the Board because the use of the park did not
respect its space and layout. He added that the Recreation and Park Commission deliberated very
carefully about these issues, and voted in support of this recommendation. Staff believed this
proposal represented an improvement in service in the area, added revenue, as well as added cell
phone coverage, which can be a safety issue.
M/S Mariani/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-42 to approve a Use Permit
and Minor Design Review to replace three light poles with three 50 foot high light pole/antennas
for a total of six painted metal monopoles. The antennas would encircle the existing tennis
courts within Krusi Park. The application also includes a 13-foot by 16-foot utility enclosure
surrounded by a 6 foot fence and landscaping. A Use Permit and Minor Design Review is
required by AMC Sections 30-4.19 (c) and (d) for any structure and above ground utility
installation in an O, Open Space, Zoning District. The following modifications will be added:
1.
A netted enclosure over the equipment space;
2.
The cable lines will be screened from view.
AYES - 6; NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
October 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-10-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-10-10,8,"10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Eliason advised that a letter from Carol Ireland regarding the Cineplex was placed on the dais.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook noted that there had been no further meetings since her last report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Mr. Piziali noted that there had been no further meetings since his last report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
member Mariani).
Ms. Mariani noted that they had discussed options and ways to improve traffic through Chinatown,
and how it affects Alameda, downtown Oakland and Chinatown. They planned to prepare a formal
resolution to present to both the Alameda and Oakland Planning Boards. They planned to make
concrete suggestions on how to achieve those goals.
Mr. Lynch noted that this was a stipulated effort pursuant to filed litigation. He was very concerned
with the authority of this body, given the type of development currently taking place in Oakland, has
taken place since the body was formed, and will take place. He noted that development has taken
place rapidly, and added that focus was primarily placed on Alameda, which he found regretful. He
noted that Chinatown was only one community that suffered from the traffic congestion, and wanted
the proceedings to be fair to the citizens of Alameda.
Ms. Mariani noted that a wide variety of issues were discussed, and believed that the committee was
working well together; everyone realized their proper role in the process. She complimented Mr.
Thomas on his skills in facilitating.
Mr. Lynch was very concerned that the Port of Oakland was not involved in this body, because the
Port was the major developer.
Ms. Mariani noted she would bring that issue before the Committee.
Vice President Cook noted that the Chamber of Commerce would hold a public presentation on the
Oak to Ninth Project, and shared Mr. Lynch's concerns regarding the effect of Oakland's buildout
on traffic in Alameda.
Ms. Eliason noted that Mr. Thomas would be able to provide the details to answer Vice President
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
October 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-10-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-10-10,9,"Cook's question. She noted that while all of Alameda's access was through Oakland, Oakland could
also object to Alameda's development, and added that there was a delicate balance between the two
municipalities.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board member
Kohlstrand).
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that there had been no meetings since her last report, and that the next
meeting would be held Wednesday, October 12, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. in Council Chambers. The street
system classification would be discussed.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that a letter from Marilyn Schumacher had been received regarding Mr.
Edwards, and requested clarification. Ms. Eliason replied that Mr. Edwards had applied for a Design
Review for an art studio behind an existing duplex on property that he owns. He had expressed
frustration to Ms. Schumacher, who was a member of the Customer Service Initiative (CSI). His
plans were shown to the CSI to demonstrate how the process had not worked in this case; changes
were made in the project each time it was brought forward, requiring new staff review.
Ms. McNamara expressed concern about the lack of planning staff, and had not seen any movement
in that direction. She inquired whether the Board could do anything to bring the staffing levels up.
Ms. Eliason noted that the City was recruiting for a new Planning and Building Director.
Authorization was received to hire a Planner I on a temporary basis to assist with the counter work
and minor Design Reviews, freeing the more senior planners up for more challenging projects. The
position previously held by Jerry Cormack was frozen, and Judith Altschuler's position has been
eliminated.
Mr. Lynch noted that it has recently been difficult to hire experienced planners statewide, and that
the market was currently very competitive. He agreed that the Planning Department was woefully
understaffed. He noted that the method by which Alameda receives funds has been affected by the
relative lack of development in the commercial sector. Municipalities who have done SO are more
able to compete economically for planners and other staff members, including safety and
recreational services.
A discussion of the budget and staffing process ensued.
Ms. Kohlstrand requested a presentation before the Board addressing the staffing needs. In response
to the Planning Board's request, Ms. Eliason noted that she would prepare some permit information
for the Board. She noted that the Design Review loads were often cyclical.
The Board also wanted a discussion with the City Manager or the appropriate representative about
the staffing needs and shortage, to which Ms. Eliason responded that a discussion would be
arranged.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
October 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-10-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-10-10,10,"Mr. Piziali noted that it was difficult for the City to generate revenue without staff to handle the
incoming business.
12.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Eliason noted that an appeal was received for the Cineplex Use Permit, which would be brought
before the City Council on November 1, 2005.
13.
ADJOURNMENT:
8:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gregory J. McFann, Acting Secretary
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the October 24, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
October 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-10-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-10-24,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, October 24, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:05 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. McNamara
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,
McNamara, and Piziali.
Ms. Mariani was absent.
Also present were Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman,
Douglas Garrison, Planner III, Bruce Knopf, Redevelopment Manager, Development Services.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the Special meeting of September 29, 2005.
M/S McNamara/Cook to approve the minutes for the meeting of September 29, 2005, as presented.
AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand)
b.
Minutes for the meeting of October 10, 2005.
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that page 3, paragraph 2, should read, ""Ms. Kohlstrand inquired whether
noted that the public plaza discussion had been part of the Park Street Revitalization discussion, and
whether it could be placedthere had been any further discussion about placing that plaza across the
street from City Hall.""
Vice President Cook noted that with respect to page 10, paragraph 1, she wanted to ensure that it
was understood that the Board also wanted a discussion with the City Manager or the appropriate
representative about the staffing needs and shortage, and that the information received was not in
lieu of that discussion.
M/S Cook/Kohlstrand to approve the minutes for the meeting of October 10, 2005, as corrected.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Dorothy Reid, Willows Homeowners, 2101 Shoreline, noted that ten community members had
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
October 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-10-24,2,"met with Target and some staff members, and thanked Mr. Garrison for arranging the meeting. She
noted that they agreed on some items, and that the store cannot be made smaller, nor can it be
reoriented in the shopping center. They agreed that traffic still needed to be studied, and were
assured that seismic studies would be guided by Planning codes. She added that there were some
areas where compromise could not be reached.
7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
UP05-0014/MDR05-0217 - Li-Sheng Fu & Jim Hom - 2320 Lincoln Avenue (EP). A
Use Permit to allow outdoor dining at the rear of the building located adjacent to Gim's
Chinese Kitchen. The proposed outdoor dining area is approximately 975 square feet in size
and will be utilized during normal business hours (between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.) 7 days a
week. Only minor changes are proposed to rehabilitate the exterior of the building. The site
is located within a C-C-T, Community Commercial Theater Zoning District. (Applicant
requests continuance to the meeting of November 14, 2005.)
M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of November 14, 2005.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
October 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-10-24,3,"7-B.
DR05-0045, PF05-0001, V05-0008; John Knowles - 2416 Central Avenue (AT).
Applicant requests Major Design Review approval for the construction of a new 5,850
square foot two-story commercial retail/office building in the northeast quadrant of an
existing parking lot located between the buildings occupied by the Starbucks cafe and
Gallagher and Lindsey offices. The applicant also requests the payment of in-lieu
fees and Variance for the additional required parking spaces. The property is located within
a
C-C T, Community Commercial Theatre Combining District. (Continued from the
meeting of October 10, 2005.) (Staff requests continuance to the meeting of November
14, 2005.)
M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of November 14, 2005.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
October 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-10-24,4,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
DPA05-0001 and DR05-0089; Bay Ship and Yacht, 2900 Main Street (DG). The
Applicant requests approval of a Development Plan Amendment and Major Design Review.
Previous approvals include Development Plan DP85-2, Development Plan Amendment
PDA03-005, Use Permit UP03-017 and Major Design Review DR03-0119. The current
application includes modifications to some of these earlier approvals. These modifications
include: replacement of a proposed fabric covered steel frame structure with a metal
building, expansion of this structure by 900 sq. ft.; the construction of a second building of
similar design, in an area previously approved as an outdoor work area, that will be used as a
boat refit bay; and the construction of a new building housing a lunchroom, supply room and
production office. The new buildings would replace other existing facilities, consequently
there would not be an increase in project capacity or intensity of use. The project site is
zoned General Industrial (Manufacturing) District (M-2).
Ms. Garrison presented the staff report, and noted that no further environmental or mitigation
measures would be required. Staff recommended approval of this project.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Cris Kraft, Bay Ship and Yacht, 2900 Main Street, applicant, noted that he would be available to
answer questions from the Board.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding public access at the west end of the site,
public art and landscaping, Mr. Garrison noted that the landscaping plan did not have all the trees on
it. Additional trees would be planted in the southernmost part of the parking lot, as well as around
the recently constructed administrative building to provide screening and softening between that
building and the public areas.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding trees by Building A, Mr. Kraft replied
that there would be trees along that area, but they were new. He added that ground cover had been
added along the side of the building. He did not believe the ground cover looked adequate, so shrubs
would be added.
Vice President Cook wished to ensure that there would be a logical and clear public access and bike
route, so that it connected to future improvements at Alameda Point.
M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-43 to approve a
Development Plan Amendment and Major Design Review. Previous approvals include Development
Plan DP85-2, Development Plan Amendment PDA03-005, Use Permit UP03-017 and Major Design
Review DR03-0119. The current application includes modifications to some of these earlier
approvals. These modifications include: replacement of a proposed fabric covered steel frame
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
October 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-10-24,5,"structure with a metal building, expansion of this structure by 900 sq. ft.; the construction of a
second building of similar design, in an area previously approved as an outdoor work area, that will
be used as a boat refit bay; and the construction of a new building housing a lunchroom, supply
room and production office. The new buildings would replace other existing facilities, consequently
there would not be an increase in project capacity or intensity of use.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
October 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-10-24,6,"8-B.
Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0004 (DG). Presentation to the Planning
Board concerning proposed expansion of the South Shore Center. The presentation and
discussion will focus on project consistency with existing City economic and retail
development plans and policies. The purpose of this meeting is for discussion purposes only.
Ms. Eliason noted that the economic consultant was delayed following an airline flight, and
suggested that the staff report be heard first.
Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report, and noted that the Planning Board wanted additional
information on economic impacts and how this project fit into the overall Citywide economic
development strategy for retail development. The environmental review was ongoing, including
traffic studies and visual simulations. He noted that this presentation would focus on economics,
rather than traffic and noise.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand regarding the release of a draft of the environmental
review, Mr. Garrison replied that the traffic study must be finalized first, and that preliminary traffic
data was sent to Public Works for their review; they submitted comments to the traffic engineer, who
would revise his study to incorporate their comments. He expected that a final traffic study would be
available in approximately a month; the rest of the environmental study could be completed at that
time. If a mitigated negative declaration is the appropriate document, it would be available within a
few months; a full EIR would take longer.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding the environment consultant, Mr. Garrison replied
that it was Lamphier Gregory; the traffic, noise and air sections were on hold.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham whether the Economic Development
Commission had reviewed this application, Mr. Knopf replied that they had heard a draft
presentation the previous Thursday night by Linda Congleton, who was hired by the City to produce
a focused analysis of this proposal. The next EDC meeting would be scheduled for November 11;
the full presentation would be made at that time. He noted that it was very important to the EDC that
existing businesses, retail and commercial uses be supported. He discussed retail opportunities and
leakage, and noted that Trader Joe's has become a destination retail space for Alamedans. He
reviewed the background of South Shore development and the analysis of retail needs on the western
part of the Island.
Mr. Lynch noted that he would like the EDC and Development Services to remain open to other
types of retail experiences as the City develops its underdeveloped parcels. He noted that sales tax
revenues funded public services, and that it was important to maintain a vital and appropriate
revenue flow.
Mr. Knopf noted that there has been general public concern about big box stores, and added that big
boxes historically came about with freestanding stores like Costco, Sam's Club and other minimally
staffed warehouses where customer service was not the priority. He noted that this proposal was not
a big box, although that term was used in a general way where it did not technically apply. He noted
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
October 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-10-24,7,"that big box stores typically had negative economic and design impacts on the community. The EDC
tried to generalize from those two points when significantly large new retail proposals came forth.
The two questions surrounding this concern were: Whether it primarily serves the community, and
does it meet an unmet need in Alameda. The EDC believed that the shoppers would maintain its
existence; it was not desirable for one store to cannibalize the rest of the retail stores. In terms of
design, some retailers require large floor plates for their designs, such as new, larger supermarkets.
The City wished to craft a policy that is able to respond to changes in the marketplace, and that the
retail uses should be pedestrian-friendly.
M/S Piziali/Kohlstrand and unanimous to hear Items 9 and 10 before the remainder of Item 8-B.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Linda Congleton, Linda Congleton & Associates, had prepared a focused economic analysis of
the Target proposal for South Shore Center. She summarized her background, and presented an
extensive PowerPoint presentation of the economic analysis. She noted that a Target would not need
to rely on off-Island customers, and that it was an attractive magnet for other retailers. She found
that Target's merchandising was compatible with the upscale economic demographic of Alameda.
She estimated that Target would generate annual sales of $44-50 million, bringing in sales tax
revenues of nearly $500,000 per year; over a ten-year period, approximately $5 million in sales tax
revenues would be generated for City services. She noted that Target was not dependent on freeway
access, and that the South Shore location was so well-known that the company was confident it
would thrive there. She added that Target was very community-oriented, and was a highly
philanthropic company. She displayed slides of various Target store designs.
President Cunningham noted that more than five speaker slips had been received.
M/S McNamara/Piziali and unanimous to limit the speaker times to three minutes.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Mr. Jack Easterday, owner, Alameda Care Center, 1150 Ballene Blvd. #210, spoke in support of this
application. He believed that Target would be a vitalizing element in South Shore Center. He noted
that he had lived next door to a Target in Southern California, and now lives in Alameda. He had
reviewed the plans given to him by Target and South Shore, and believed they were positive for
Alameda Care. He noted that the Safeway store had become tired-looking, and added that their
delivery trucks parked behind his back door.
Ms. Joan Ruiz, 2101 Shoreside #145, spoke in opposition to this item, and distributed photos to the
Board. She was very concerned about traffic impacts on and off the Island, which was already
congested without a Target. She believed that South Shore Center was intended to be a convenience
shopping center, and did not believe this was an appropriate use for the area.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
October 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-10-24,8,"Ms. Pat Gannon, 1019 Tobago Lane, expressed concern about the potential impact a Target would
have on Willows residents, including traffic congestion and delivery truck noise and fumes. She was
concerned that their property values may be negatively affected. She did not believe a Target would
prevent off-Island retail leakage.
Ms. Susan Pieper, 2101 Shoreline, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed that the Target
proposal was not as good as it looked economically, and that it may be short-sighted. She believed
Target's presence would prevent the presence of mid-sized businesses (smaller than 145,000 square
feet) such as the Gap, Banana Republic, Pottery Barn and Crate & Barrel. She urged the Board to
take its time in considering this option.
Mr. Robert Matz, 2101 Shoreline Drive #204, spoke in opposition to this item. He believed that both
reports misapplied CRP #1 to this project, and that their conclusion that this project will not
duplicate existing retail was unsupported by the facts. He believed there were economic effects not
addressed by this report, and that there was a lack of objectivity in both reports. He believed CRP #1
was designed to complement, not duplicate, and that this report concerned anchor stores. The report
conceded that Mervyn's is an anchor store. He believed that Mr. Garrison's report was false in its
statement that Target did not duplicate existing retail, and that it did duplicate Mervyn's use. He
believed that the Congleton report was inaccurate because he did not believe the issue was about
shopping at Target, or whether or not Alameda residents traveled off-Island to shop at Target. He
noted that both reports identified sales tax as the primary economic benefit of this project, and added
that the October 13, 2005, report identified a sales tax increase of $165,000, not $500,000 as
reported by Ms. Congleton. He noted that neither report acknowledged any property tax decrease
from impacted property values. He disagreed with Ms. Congleton's assessment of the project as an
upgrade of the South Shore Center anchor store position.
Ms. Dorothy Reid, 2101 Shoreline, spoke in opposition to this item. She did not believe there was
any data support the conclusions in the report, and added that much of the data provided came from
Target. She believed that Target was a big box store because of its size and merchandise, and that
other research studies identified it as a big box store. She was very concerned about the traffic
impacts of this store.
Mr. Mark Irons, 835 Oak, submitted a speaker slip, but was not in attendance to speak.
Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, spoke in opposition to this item. He objected to the
massive size of this store, and believed it was a big box store despite the design of the façade. He
disagreement with Mr. Lynch's opinion of development and redevelopment, and would like
Alameda to be somewhat underdeveloped so it did not contribute to urban sprawl. He objected to the
proposed store's impact on traffic. He inquired whether any workshops had taken place yet. He
believed this project should be scaled back or not built at all.
Ms. Lucy Gigli, 849 Laurel Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that she shopped at
South Shore Center frequently. She was very concerned about the potential changes in the
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
October 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-10-24,9,"to speak.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Congleton noted that the sales tax revenue estimation was based on her professional assessment
of the number of households and amount of affluence adequate to support this store. She added that
if Target needed off-Island customers, they would not be so enthusiastic about this central Alameda
location. She did not see the traffic issues as significant, and noted that intra-Alameda traffic would
also reduce the number of trips off-Island to Targets in other cities. She noted that she was not a
traffic engineer.
President Cunningham would like to see more detailed information to support the report. Ms.
Congleton advised that she could provide a detailed demand analysis.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand whether off-Island shopped would be attracted to this
store, Ms. Congleton replied that Alameda residents would not go to Target stores off-Island if there
was a local Target. She believed that the South Shore location would not attract off-Island shoppers,
as it would if it has easy freeway access. She added that the resident base in Alameda has increased
in income and shopping sophistication, and that the very low discount stores that had been in South
Shore were not attractive to the current demographic.
Vice President Cook would like to see more objective data, and noted that there were no easy
Targets to get to from Alameda and Oakland and traffic from Oakland may therefore be greater than
anticipated.
Ms. Congleton noted that while there had been some negative press about Wal-Mart, she was
unaware of anywhere in the nation where a Target has caused closures of small businesses. She
believed a Target strengthened local retail by meeting shopping needs, resulting in less retail
leakage.
President Cunningham echoed the Board's requests for more data to support that assertion.
Mr. Lynch noted that he liked shopping on the Island, and inquired how merchants' goals had been
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
October 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-10-24,10,"met with the existing changes from development along Park Street.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch how this potential development would impact leakage, Mr.
Knopf replied that a separate report addressed leakage, and used sales tax data from five years ago.
He noted that the most vulnerable areas were those that had not been touched by the resurgence on
Park Street. He discussed retail characteristics based on demographics and geography. He noted that
the Gap was not interested in Alameda, and added that retailers were extremely conservative and
wanted to go into a market where they were sure to succeed, and where they would find neighbors
that they are used to having. He believed that Target would serve as an anchor that would attract
other medium-sized retailers such as William Sonoma or Gap. He had not seen any readiness on the
part of Banana Republic to place a store in Alameda. He believed that while Target could attract the
Wal-Mart shoppers, he did not believe that Wal-Mart could attract the Target shoppers.
Ms. Kohlstrand liked the Target shown in an urban setting, but added that most Targets she was
familiar with were not like that. She would like to go through this process in a rational way with
quantifiable data, rather than taking a leap of faith.
Ms. Congleton noted that she would respond to the Board's concerns. Ms. Congleton noted that she
could provide a quantification analysis. Mr. Lynch suggested that a demand analysis also be
performed.
Vice President Cook would like to understand who some of the other potential tenants would be, and
an idea of the center at full buildout. Ms. Congleton noted that she could look at some co-tenants,
and the kinds of shops that generally surround Target. Vice President Cook would also like to see
what would be a reasonable capacity for the center.
Ms. McNamara supported the need for the Board to have more substantial financial data. She
believed that an 85%/15% split was a cookie-cutter marketing approach to Alameda's particular
situation. She believed that there would be a greater influx of people coming in to Alameda to shop
because of the increasing amount of development in the Port of Oakland area and along the Oakland
Estuary area. She noted that there was a huge upscale development on the other side of Park Street
that was nearly completed. She believed the potential impact of inbound customers from affluent
surrounding areas. Ms. Congleton replied that would be able to provide that information, and that
she would examine the quantity of those homes as well.
Ms. McNamara expressed concern about the traffic impact in that area, which was congested even
without a Target.
Ms. Eliason emphasized that the economic consultant was not a traffic consultant. Ms. McNamara
noted that she would bring that issue up at a later time.
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that her main issues were traffic, design, and the scale issue. She would like
to discuss the size of the store further, which Target should respond to.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
October 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-10-24,11,"Ms. Congleton advised that this store was Target's smallest format of 127,000 square feet, placed on
a podium. She noted that with the podium design there would be additional parking space inside, and
that it would be more pedestrian-friendly and more appropriate for an urban setting. She added that
unless Target would be able to build the 127,000 square foot building with a lower design, they
would not come to Alameda.
President Cunningham noted that another solution would be place the store on the ground, with the
parking on the top floor with ramps. Ms. Congleton noted that might affect the aesthetics of the
roofline.
A discussion of the store's pedestrian orientation ensued.
President Cunningham would support a smart growth development.
Mr. Piziali inquired whether there was any other option beside the podium design. Ms. Congleton
noted that parking was always the toughest issue for her clients, and that they tried to find attractive
solutions to hide the cars without requiring more asphalt area for parking.
Ms. Congleton reviewed the requests for information by the Board members, and noted that she
would be pleased to present them:
1.
Developing additional quantifications;
2.
Addressing issues regarding potential tenants around Target;
3.
Addressing the fiscal impact on the Island;
4.
Discuss the Port of Oakland and the impact of the number of housing units and;
5.
The scale of the overall development.
Mr. Knopf noted that the Board requested supporting data behind the assertions made by the
economic consultant, especially that Target would rely on 80% of its clientele from Alameda. He
noted that Ms. Congleton's report did not address that issue in more depth was because of an
analysis performed in 2003 by Strategic Economics.
Ms. Lynch advised that he would also like that data to be delivered to the public.
Mr. Knopf discussed retail capture patterns, and noted that this report assumed a 30-40% capture
rate for sporting goods, and between 60-75% in general merchandise capture due to proximity.
With respect to duplication of anchors, Mr. Piziali inquired how many years remained in Mervyn's
lease. Mr. Corbett replied that was proprietary information.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham, Ms. Eliason replied that the next step would be
staff working with the applicant on design, and that a design workshop may be held. The economic
information would be brought to the Board when the environmental and traffic information is
available, which she anticipated to occur in approximately two months.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
October 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-10-24,12,"No action was taken.
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Eliason advised that an email in support of the Target store from Kathy Moehring was received.
An off-agenda item related to future development was also distributed.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there had been no further meetings.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Mr. Piziali advised there was nothing new to report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
member Mariani).
Ms. Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board member
Kohlstrand).
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that a meeting had been held on Wednesday, October 19, and that it had
been featured on the front page of the Alameda Journal, resulting in good attendance and feedback.
Another meeting had been scheduled for November to address street classification by auto, bicycle
and pedestrian functions, and how the land use provisions interact with it.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Eliason advised that a discussion of the CIP program would be discussed at the next meeting,
which would be explained by Public Works.
In
response to a question by Mr. Lynch regarding fees, Ms. Eliason replied that the Planning
Division was not yet at cost recovery, but it was moving towards it. Mr. Lynch noted that the
Planning fees were very reasonable, and hoped there was some room for adjustment.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
October 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-10-24,13,"Gregory J. McFann, Acting Secretary
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the November 14, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
October 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-11-14,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Regular Meeting - November 14, 2005
1.
CONVENE:
7:06 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Mr. Piziali
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,
McNamara and Piziali.
Board Member Mariani was absent.
Also present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason,
Planner II Emily Pudell, Dorene Soto, Development Services Department, Executive Assistant
Latisha Jackson.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of October 24, 2005.
Vice President Cook advised that she had one correction on page 10, paragraph 2 should read Vice
President Cook would like to see more objective data, and noted that there were no easy Targets to
get to from Alameda and Oakland and traffic from Oakland may therefore be greater than
anticipated.
M/S Kohlstrand/Piziali to approve the minutes for the meeting of October 24, 2005, as amended.
AYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
M/S Cook/McNamara to move item 8-B to the consent calendar as no speaker's slips were
submitted.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
November 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-11-14,2,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A. UP05-0014/MDR05-0217 - Li-Sheng Fu & Jim Hom - 2320 Lincoln Avenue (EP). A
Use Permit to allow outdoor dining at the rear of the building located adjacent to Gim's
Chinese Kitchen. The proposed outdoor dining area is approximately 975 square feet in size
and will be utilized during normal business hours (between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.) 7 days a week.
Only minor changes are proposed to rehabilitate the exterior of the building. The site is
located within a C-C-T, Community Commercial Theater Zoning District. (Continued from
the meeting of October 24, 2005. Applicant has withdrawn request.)
M/S McNamara/Cook to approve the applicant's request to withdraw this item.
AYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
November 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-11-14,3,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
8-A.
DR05-0045, PF05-0001, V05-0008; John Knowles - 2416 Central Avenue (AT).
Applicant requests Major Design Review approval for the construction of a new 5,850 square
foot two-story commercial retail/office building in the northeast quadrant of an existing
parking lot located between the buildings occupied by the Starbucks cafe and Gallagher and
Lindsey offices. The applicant also requests the payment of in-lieu fees and Variance for the
additional required parking spaces. The property is located within a C-C T, Community
Commercial Theatre Combining District. (Continued from the meeting of October 24,
2005.)
Board member Lynch arrived during this item.
Staff member Allen Tai summarized the staff report.
Dorene Soto of the Development Services Department commented on the Variance and economic
aspects of the project. She explained that the City of Alameda does not currently have a parking plan
policy for Park Street or Webster Street, where retail businesses could be built out and accommodate
historic structures to encourage development. She noted that the City is currently working on a
scope of services for a parking consultant to assist in this matter as potential business owners have
decided not to do business in Alameda due to the costly parking in-lieu fees. She also noted that the
Development Services Department would like to support the applicant in his request for a Variance of
five parking spaces.
President Cunningham inquired on the calculation of how the in-lieu fees are paid in reference to the
code. Ms. Soto responded that the City needed to look at the overall picture. She stated the City
would hire someone to review the code as the two downtown streets are different and their needs are
different. She stated that she has met with several business owners about coming into the downtown;
however, when parking in-lieu fees were discussed, they have stated that they are not willing to pay
the fees.
Board member McNamara inquired if this project was a new construction. Ms. Soto responded in the
affirmative. She noted that the new construction was in the historical district, and was located behind
the historic building. Ms. Eliason made a point of clarification to the Board that the project was a
new building.
Vice-President Cook inquired on the history of the site, if there was some office space added as part
of that project in the back of the building. Mr. Tai responded in the affirmative. He noted that office
spaces were added to this building in 2001; however, as a result of that project there was a net loss in
floor area due to elimination of mezzanine spaces upstairs.
Vice-President Cook inquired if the new building that was already approved had parking requirements
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
November 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-11-14,4,"waved. Mr. Tai noted that when that work was done, no new parking spaces were triggered because
there was a loss in floor area.
Board member McNamara inquired if the approval of last year's construction occurred. Mr. Tai
responded that that project was approved on a separate parcel and that the addition also did not
trigger extra parking spaces.
Vice-President Cook inquired why that request did not trigger additional parking spaces. Mr. Tai
responded that the code specifies that only an expansion to a commercial building that is 25% of the
existing floor area or equivalent to five parking spaces would trigger the parking. The office space
that Board member McNamara referred to was a demolition of an existing addition and
reconstruction, so the net gain floor area was not sufficient to trigger additional parking.
John Knowles, the applicant, addressed the Board explaining the history of this project, which began
six years ago and informed the Board that part of the confusion was that this was an ongoing project
and from his point of view the project is actually four separate parcels. He noted that Mr. Tai was
referring to the net loss of leaseable area in the original building and then 1,000 sq. ft. of new space
was added. At the same time they demolished the entire ground floor, which had a net loss of roughly
1,000 sq. ft. thus leaving no parking requirements. He felt the project accrued a credit towards in-lieu
parking fees. This office space would match the façade of the Starbucks building. He stated the
parking lot would be re-landscaped. He felt the in-lieu fees were extraordinarily high and were
financially difficult for him. He then noted that this is the first new building to be in down town Park
Street in the past 20-25 years. He felt that the services provided in the building would be good for
the City at large. He felt these fees on top of all the other fees were excessive. He reiterated that he
thought it would be a great project for keeping momentum going in the Park Street area.
Board member Kohlstrand inquired how many spaces the applicant thought were accrued on accrued
deficit from the previous parcel. Mr. Knowles responded five spaces.
Board member Kohlstrand inquired on how the current parking lot is managed and if the applicant
reserves spaces for businesses in the area. Mr. Knowles stated he is reserving spaces for certain
individual business in the area. He noted that they have spaces leased out on a monthly basis.
However, he noted that retail parking spaces are not leased out, just spaces for offices. Board
member Kohlstrand made a point of clarification on parking spaces for employees versus client
parking to which Mr. Knowles responded employees are not supposed to park in the lot as the spaces
are supposed to be for clients only. He also noted that the parking lot has not been tightly managed
over the last year and they have gotten very sloppy with managing the parking lot in anticipation of
these projects. He noted that once the projects are completed, he is obligated to strictly enforce the
parking space management.
Board member Kohlstrand stated that when the firm she worked for looked at the different locations
of parking lots in the down town area, they realized not all parking lots were used effectively and
were reserved for individual businesses. She noted pieces of the lots had spaces that were not being
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
November 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-11-14,5,"used. She understood one of the challenges is to accommodate long-term parking; however, when
commercial lots are not managed, parking gets pushed into residential areas. She stated one way of
managing the parking lot is the applicant could restrict lots to tenants and their visitors, and have a
little more flexibility and efficiency on how existing parking is utilized. She pointed out another
factor they uncovered was existing land uses in downtown Alameda and how the uses were being
used for parking right now. She also noted an estimate was performed on the demand for parking in
the downtown area using the standard rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
She noted her group found that if you use those standard rates and look at all uses individually, the
amount of parking required in downtown Alameda would be four times as much as is available right
now so that definitely argues for the fact that you get ""link trips"" that are not accounted for when you
look at all the individual parking requirements. She then noted she knew there were some provisions
in the planning code for recognizing joint uses of activity or parking spaces going on downtown, but
she feels the City needs to be a little more specific on how that is administered. This might help some
of these businesses that are trying to locate in downtown and can not meet the parking requirements
or are having trouble financially dealing with the parking requirements even if the trouble is with in-
lieu fees.
President Cunningham requested a point of clarification on whether the traffic study was with a view
of opening up to a public use. Board member Kohlstrand responded in the affirmative. She stated
she advocated that there were issues associated with it such as liability, safety and lighting. She was
not aware if the City had pursued this point. She stated the City has been doing parking studies down
town for years and fortunately at this point, is closer to getting a parking garage, but if other
businesses develop, then the parking demand is going to increase if surface lots are eliminated.
President Cunningham inquired if Board member Kohlstrand had seen situations in other jurisdictions
where parking areas on private land has been used for public benefit, to which she responded in the
affirmative. She noted it is happening on the Bank of America lot, and that lot is one of the biggest
lots in down town. She felt the Bank of America parking lot has gone a long way toward alleviating
the problem.
Board member Kohlstrand inquired if the applicant's lot was used after hours. Mr. Knowles
responded in the affirmative. He noted it is mostly offices that have leases, but noted that residential
tenants use it at night and after hours as well as restaurant diners.
Board member Kohlstrand noted people use parking lots after hours for uses that are unsanctioned.
Board member Piziali inquired if the five spaces were originally credited to the applicant. Mr. Tai
responded that the 2001 renovation resulted in a loss of floor area. He noted that the Alameda
Municipal Code specifically states that within a five-year period if the commercial building is
expanded to 25% or floor area equivalent to five parking spaces, it triggers additional parking, but in
the case of Mr. Knowles' project, the floor area experienced a reduction.
President Cunningham inquired if there was also a fact that it is a different property, which does not
apply to this project. Mr. Tai responded this does not apply to this project, as this is a new building,
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
November 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-11-14,6,"whereas the code applies to expansions of existing buildings within a certain time period.
Mr. Knowles noted the credit was not generated by the 25% rule, but by the loss of space. Mr. Tai
concurred.
President Cunningham inquired where the $26.00 per sq. ft. and the 250 multiplier originated. Mr. Tai
responded that it derived from averaging real estate transactions over a period of time and was
prepared by the Development Services Department. He noted the rate of $26.00 was looking at
transactions that occurred after 2003, but staff was recently told this figure may increase significantly
prices and transactions of real estate are looked at in recent times.
President Cunningham inquired where the 250 multiplier derived from. Mr. Tai responded that it is a
flat figure that is embedded in the code requirement and noted that it is the area of land required for
each parking space.
Board member Kohlstrand inquired if the color palette for the building would be the same as the other
building. Mr. Tai responded in the affirmative. He noted that the building would look almost
identical with the exception of the parapet at the top.
President Cunningham inquired if Public Works had any comments on the layout of the parking since
it is one directional. Mr. Tai responded in the affirmative.
President Cunningham inquired if this is in keeping with trash collecting since it was a previous
concern on this parcel. Mr. Tai responded in the affirmative.
President Cunningham noted he was concerned about granting this Variance, as it would compound
the problem. He noted the residents stated there was no parking downtown and the whole idea of
having in-lieu fees was to help the city pay for a parking structure. He noted if the City is not
collecting revenue, this would encumber the City more. He also noted it would put the goal of
building a parking structure further away from being achieved.
Board member McNamara noted the issue she is having is if the intent of having the in-lieu fee
available is to look for either a replacement or some other way to make parking available. She stated
$143,000 or $110,000 does not go far enough to make that a possibility as an alternative. She noted
that whole area is so impacted with parking and even if the bigger garage does go up, she did not
believe it would satisfy the parking need. She noted she liked the construction and the design, but
was concerned about the amount of spaces it will take up.
Vice-President Cook echoed the concerns of Board member McNamara. She noted she felt a little
differently about waiving the parking requirement when it is an existing building being rehabbed, a
smaller project or brand new building. She noted she wanted to approve it to encourage this type of
project, but she felt the 22-space shortfall seemed substantial for this particular area. She stated she
would not feel that way if the new parking structure construction were underway. She felt she would
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
November 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-11-14,7,"be willing to take that leap of faith, but was concerned about the lawsuit filed against the new parking
structure and will lead to delay. She noted delay raises cost that can be a potential snowballing effect
in terms of completing projects as currently planned. She noted she was struggling with it because
she wanted to encourage the type of project Mr. Knowles has done so well, but feels this sort of
slippery slope in terms of the parking impact in the down town area.
Board member Piziali stated when he goes to Park Street he never has a problem parking. He noted
he sometimes parks within a block or two of where he is going and this does not present a problem.
He felt this idea of being able to pull up in front of the building you are patronizing is not likely to
happen each time. He understands there is a parking need but felt people do not like to walk that
much. He noted the Board continually mentions parking and traffic in Alameda. He recommended
going to neighboring cities and compare their parking and traffic to the Alameda downtown area. He
stated he understood the need for more parking and he knows it is critical, but when he frequents
Park Street he does not have to park blocks away. He stated he could not make the first finding on
the Variance and would not be able to support Mr. Knowles on that request.
Board member Kohlstrand echoed Board member Piziali's concerns. She stated she was in a
quandary because of the code requirements were too high for this particular use, and she felt that is
where the board should be focusing.
Board member Lynch stated he would err on the side of revitalizing downtown and economic
development because this particular owner has helped to create synergy on Park Street. He felt this
project would benefit the community as a whole.
President Cunningham echoed Board member Lynch's comments.
Board member Lynch inquired on the parking cost and if the city has any flexibility on when the
payment is due or a pro-rating over a period of time. Mr. Knowles replied $143,000. Mr. Tai
responded the payment is due prior to issuance of the building permit.
Board member Lynch inquired if the City was expecting to receive funds from this project to do the
aforementioned traffic study. Ms. Soto responded in the negative.
Board member Lynch inquired if the applicant had a preliminary construction schedule or
construction build out in terms of, months or years. Mr. Knowles responded in the negative. Mr.
Knowles stated he hoped to come to market within a year.
Board member Lynch inquired if the code recognizes the amount due of $143,000 at the pulling of
building permits, would the City or staff consider collecting half the amount at the pulling of the
building permit and the other half at the final. Mr. Tai responded that would be a possibility. He
noted the maximum amount of time the City could provide applicants to pay fees would be at final
building occupancy without requiring additional staff time to administer legal requirements.
Ms. Harryman made a point of clarification noting before Board member Lynch's question was
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
November 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-11-14,8,"answered that it may be an issue that is set forth in the code as opposed to policy and how it has been
previously practiced and should be researched. She noted if the code does state that fees should be
paid before building permits are issued then that is not something that can change.
In response to a question by President Cunningham, Ms. Harryman replied there is precedence.
President Cunningham stated he was concerned about precedence. He stated if the Board were to
grant the Variance, future developments would then come back with projects requesting dispensation.
He noted there has to be guidelines.
Board member Lynch stated Government Code is very clear when it comes to fees and fee studies.
Board member Piziali inquired if the City determines the fee or the state. Board member Lynch
replied the fee comes from the California Government Code. Board member Piziali commented if the
parking requirements were not so obscured, the fees would most likely be lower.
Board member Kohlstrand noted the Board should not state the fee is not correct, but should look at
why so many parking spaces are required downtown, when there is this synergy of activity that goes
on.
Board member Piziali echoed Board member Kohlstrand's comments.
Vice-President Cook inquired about the fourth resolution condition, which states ""pursuant to the
code for any change of use, employees or seating capacity occurring within ten years from the date of
the building completion additional on-site parking shall be provided."" She noted she does not see
how additional on-site parking can be provided as it appears to be ""parked"" out, so the resolution
should say ""on-site parking or in-lieu fees."" However, it also led her to believe that it is referring to a
restaurant, which has higher parking requirements than a retail store and if that is where the 22 spaces
came from. Mr. Tai responded in the affirmative. He noted that condition is specifically to address
restaurant uses, which require additional parking or more parking than standard general retail uses.
He explained retail uses require parking at the rate of one space per every 200 sq. ft., whereas
restaurants are under a certain floor area required to have approximately 40 spaces.
Board member McNamara inquired if a restaurant use can ever go in this space. Mr. Tai responded
that the parking need was currently calculated based on floor area for general retail and office uses,
which would require 22 spaces. A similar sized restaurant would require 40 spaces.
Board member Piziali stated the Board's only option appeared to be granting the Variance; however,
he could not make the first finding. Board member Piziali inquired if the City's requirement for 22
spaces would be increased to 40 spaces if the project became a restaurant. Ms. Eliason responded in
the affirmative. She noted it would trigger the need for additional in-lieu fees, as there is no parking
available.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
November 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-11-14,9,"Vice-President Cook stated she felt willing to support the project but could not find for the Variance.
She felt it raised a valuable issue on the need to complete the parking study.
Board member Kohlstrand inquired on the possibility of acting on the design review and approving
the project but bringing the Variance back after further study. Ms. Eliason responded that parking
study and an amendment to the zoning ordinance could take several months.
President Cunningham stated the Board needed more information. He noted Mr. Knowles and Ms.
Soto made comments about the financial adversity with bringing developers the Park Street and
Webster Street areas. He felt it would be useful for the Board to understand what would be
considered appropriate. He stated there are costs and parking requirements involved in development
and the requirement is its own resolution as it generates in-lieu fees. He stated if the in-lieu fee was
reduced where the development becomes realistic.
In response to a question by Vice-President Cook, Mr. Tai responded that the developer would be
responsible for driveway removal. Ms. Harryman noted Vice President Cook's comments on the
resolution and suggested modification to condition 11 by adding the words ""and pay"" after Public
Works Department so the sentence would read: ""Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant
shall coordinate with the Public Works Department and pay for the removal of curb cut and
compensate for the relocation,"" and amending condition number 4 on the resolution by adding
""additional onsite parking or in-lieu fees shall be provided.'
M/S Piziali/Cook to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-44 to approve the payment of in-
lieu fees and a Major Design Review for the construction of a new 5,850 square foot two-story
commercial retail/office building in the northeast quadrant of an existing parking lot located between
the buildings occupied by the Starbucks cafe and Gallagher and Lindsey offices and denial of the
Variance for the additional required parking spaces. The property is located within a C-C T,
Community Commercial Theatre Combining District.
AYES - 4 (Mariani absent); NOES - 2; ABSTAIN- - 0
After the vote, a lengthy discussion ensued regarding the Planning Board members' views on the
parking requirements in the downtown Park Street area and the fees required for businesses to locate
in Alameda. Board member Kohlstrand made a clarification that when she voted no on this
particular project, that she was against it because she supported the Variance the applicant
requested.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
November 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-11-14,10,"8-B. UP04-0008; Julie Baron - 1223 Park Street (EP). Review of Use Permit approved
November 22, 2004 for the outdoor dining and retail sales display area associated with a coffee and
tea garden. The property is located within a C-C-T, Community Commercial Theatre Combining
District.
M/S McNamara/Cook to approve the review of Use Permit approved November 22, 2004 for the
outdoor dining and retail sales display area associated with a coffee and tea garden.
AYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
November 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-11-14,11,"8-C.
Discussion of 2006-2008 Capital Improvement Projects (CE).
Ms. Eliason summarized this item and informed the Board that these projects are administered by the
Public Works Department. She stated Capital Improvements are physical improvements that the City
performs which are generally large scale, multi-year projects, the Library being a perfect example.
This year Public Works asked for the various Boards and Commissions to give recommendations for
funding priorities. The Planning & Building Department does not have any Capital Improvement
projects except for the One-Stop Permit Center. She noted there are annual funds for the General
Plan and Zoning, but these are not considered Capital Improvements. She advised the Board that the
Capital Improvement Program would come before the Board again in March 2006 and at that time
the Board will be asked to make a consistency determination with the General Plan.
In response to a question by President Cunningham, Ms. Eliason replied that rank is the numerical
system related to the various aspects of each project. She also noted that ranking was combined with
funding, so a project that may have a lower rank, but has funding, may move over a project that has
no ability to be funded. In a response to a question by Board member Piziali, Ms. Eliason responded
that projects are ranked by a ranking sheet which is prepared by the department whose project it is.
The sheets are all accumulated and reviewed by staff and the Department Heads.
In response to questions by Board member McNamara and Vice-President Cook, Ms. Eliason
clarified that carryover projects that were funded would be completed. If the projects are based on
grant funding that was anticipated, but did not receive the grant, then it would not have the complete
funds.
President Cunningham inquired about how Planning policy or ordinances will be addressed. Ms.
Eliason replied the Department has annual funds for the Housing Element, General Plan update and
the Development Code. She also noted there is a community planning fee that should fund some of
the Department's annual projects.
Board member Kohlstrand inquired if the Capital Improvement Program funded these program. Ms.
Eliason responded in the negative. She noted they are annual allocations and not Capital
Improvements. She pointed out they are itemized because the money is carried over year to year but
they are not part of the Capital Improvement Program.
President Cunningham stated there should be money assigned to developing a citywide sustainable
ordinance. Ms. Eliason replied staff member Andrew Thomas was looking into some of the policies
in the Community Reuse Plan and planned to incorporate them into the Master Plan for Alameda
Point.
Vice President Cook inquired how the sustainable ordinance or waterfront design and access
guidelines would be completed if there were no staff or money to complete them. Ms. Eliason
responded that planning programming is done through the budgeting process. She clarified that Vice
President Cook was referring to adding to the Planning &Building Department's work program,
which is different from a Capital Improvement. Vice President Cook requested a list of
the
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
November 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-11-14,12,"Department's priorities.
Board member Lynch stated he has never seen planning work plans in a Capital Improvement budget
and felt it was questionable. Ms. Eliason explained the reason these items were put into Capital
Improvements originally was that the projects are multi-year. She stated under previous
administrations any money that was not expended during a year was swept back into the General
Fund. So in order to secure monies, Departments created a Capital Improvement Program for their
multi-year projects. Board member Lynch stated that method clearly was the wrong way to go and
the wrong way to do it. He noted every jurisdiction runs studies, projects and consultants on multi-
year projects and simply encumbered the funds because the California Code allows you to keep those
encumbered funds.
Board member Kohlstrand requested Planning Board input into the Planning and Building
Department work program priorities. She inquired if the work program has traditionally come before
the Planning Board. Ms. Eliason responded she did not believe any of the previous Planning &
Building Directors have done that, but felt the Board's input into the work program is important.
Board member Kohlstrand inquired if there was any restriction for the Boards or Commissions from
providing some advisory input. Ms. Eliason responded the budget is a public document and the work
program is something that the Board is obviously very interested in.
Board member Lynch stated some jurisdictions have a joint meeting between their Board of
Supervisors or their City Council and the Planning Commission. He noted the meeting provides an
open discussion about work program priorities with community input. President Cunningham stated if
nothing else the Board is looking for some intervention with the City Council and some discussion
time. Ms. Eliason stated she would relay that to the City Manager's office. Board member Lynch
stated this Board might even consider allocating some of its agenda time to meet with the City
Council.
In response to a question by Board member McNamara, Ms. Eliason explained the review process.
Board member McNamara stated she felt the Board needed to know more about projects and their
ranking before discussion.
Vice President Cook stated she felt more attention should be given to the Civic Center Plaza as that is
something the community is interested in.
Board member Kohlstrand inquired if there was any progress on the City Manager attending a
Planning Board meeting. Ms. Eliason responded a request was provided to the Assistant City
Manager.
Board member Lynch stated given the demand in the Bay Area for open space he was concerned that
the Alameda Point projects were not self-funded. Ms. Eliason stated she believed the funding is
deferred because the City does not own the property. Board member Lynch further inquired about
golf course revenue for improvements. Ms. Eliason responded she would have to research that. She
stated the Golf Department is considering a new clubhouse.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
November 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-11-14,13,"Board member Piziali stated he felt it was a shame the City doesn't do something about the Golf
Course entryway.
Board member Kohlstrand stated that the new Main Library should not be on the un-funded project
list. She stated that many of these projects have special funds that are set aside just for their particular
use. They should be ranked within that special fund.
Board member Lynch reminded the Board that this system was created by the previous administration
in terms of the structure.
Board member McNamara inquired if the Webster Street renaissance project is complete since it is
labeled as 44 ranked un-funded project. Ms. Eliason responded she would research that.
Board member McNamara questioned the CIP process. Ms. Eliason stated this is a new process and
advised the Board that Public Works will be hosting several public meetings on this topic and urged
the Board to attend. Staff will forward the Board's comments and concerns to the Public Works
Department. By the time the CIP list returns to the Planning Board in March, it will be a finalized
list.
Board member Kohlstrand thanked Ms. Eliason for her patience.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
November 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-11-14,14,"9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION: None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there had been no further meetings.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Mr. Piziali advised there was nothing new to report.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Ms. Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
e.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that the transportation subcommittee did have its last and final meeting on
November 2, 2005 and received additional input on their recommended classification system for the
street network in Alameda. It has gone to staff for comment and will come before the Planning Board
in the future.
Vice President Cook informed the Board that on November 16, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. the League of
Women Voters would be sponsoring a forum about Alameda Point at the Church on the corner of
Grand and Santa Clara. She pointed out staff member Andrew Thomas had all the details.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
There will not be a meeting on November 28, 2005.
12.
ADJOURNMENT: 9:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gregory J. McFann, Acting Secretary
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the January 9, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
November 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-12-12,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, December 12, 2005
1.
CONVENE:
7:00 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Mr. Piziali
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,
Mariani, McNamara and Piziali.
Also present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason,
Planner III Allen Tai, Planner II Emily Pudell, Planner Stefanie Hom.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of November 14, 2005.
Ms. Eliason advised that the minutes for November 14, 2005, would be considered at the next
meeting.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Dorothy Reid wished to provide an update on Target and distributed a summary document to the
prime broker. She noted that many similar cities had tried to increase revenues by bringing in retail,
with a net result being a net loss in revenue for a variety of reasons. She was concerned about that
occurrence in Alameda, and encouraged the Board to consider that was a real possibility.
7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
Adoption of 2006 Planning Board Calendar.
Ms. McNamara inquired whether the November 27, 2006, would be held given its proximity to
Thanksgiving.
Mr. Lynch inquired whether a minimum number of meetings were required, and suggested that it be
canceled. Ms. Eliason replied that a minimum number of meetings were not required.
M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 05- - to adopt
the 2006 Planning Board Calendar.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
7-B.
UP05-0021; Andrew Alatorre and Lloyd Phraner; 1301 Lincoln Avenue (SH). The
applicants request a Use Permit approval to allow the conversion of retail space into office
use. Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.8C.(2), a Use Permit is required for office uses",PlanningBoard/2005-12-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-12-12,2,"occupying the front 50% of a retail space adjoining a public street. The site is located in the
C-1, Neighborhood Business District.
M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 05-___
to
approve a Use Permit approval to allow the conversion of retail space into office use. Pursuant to
AMC Subsection 30-4.8C.(2), a Use Permit is required for office uses occupying the front 50% of a
retail space adjoining a public street.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
7-C.
V05-0010; Maxine Gottesman, 2032/2032 1/2 Clinton Avenue (AT). The applicant
requests a Variance, pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-7.8(a)(1), to legalize construction of
one unenclosed parking space in the required front yard of a residential duplex, where no
on-site parking is currently available. The site is located within a R-4, Neighborhood
Residential Zoning District.
M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 05-
to
approve a Variance, pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-7.8(a)(1), to legalize construction of one
unenclosed parking space in the required front yard of a residential duplex, where no on-site parking
is currently available.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
7-D.
V05-0009/DR05-0096; Mark and Laurie Wagner - 27 Powers Court (EP). Variance and
Major Design Review for a first and second floor residential addition of approximately 450
square feet. The applicant is seeking a Variance from the 20-foot rear yard setback to 3-feet
for an expansion along the same plane as the existing building. The property is located
within an R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 05-
to
approve a Variance and Major Design Review for a first and second floor residential addition of
approximately 450 square feet. The applicant is seeking a Variance from the 20-foot rear yard
setback to 3-feet for an expansion along the same plane as the existing building.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
None.
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Eliason advised that the project list for the past month had been distributed to the Board
members.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice President Cook).",PlanningBoard/2005-12-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-12-12,3,"Vice President Cook advised that there had been no further meetings.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Mr. Piziali advised that there had been no further meetings.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Ms. Mariani advised that November meeting had been canceled, and that the next meeting would be
held on Thursday, December 15, 2005.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand regarding the Broadway/Jacksor proposal, Ms. Mariani
replied that their Committee was developing a comment to that proposal. She added that Andrew
Thomas spearheaded their group and would be able to provide more information.
Vice President Cook noted that there was been considerable discussion about the project south of the
existing Jack London Square area, including the big residential towers. She inquired whether the
committee was examining the cumulative traffic impacts that would affect the traffic around
Chinatown and the tunnels.
Ms. Mariani advised that it had been brought up, and that she would inquire whether a group had
been formed to address that issue.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that the last meeting was held on Wednesday, December 7, 2005, and that
the traffic issue was raised with respect to movement around the Island and into Oakland. She noted
that there would be additional meetings. [[Her mike was off and her comments inaudible]]
Mr. Piziali noted that this would be his last meeting, and that he would resign from the Planning
Board. He believed that after eight-and-a-half years of being on the Board, it was time for him to
leave.
Ms. McNamara thanked Mr. Piziali for his valuable guidance and expertise, and added that he would
be missed.
Mr. Lynch echoed Ms. McNamara's comments.
Vice President Cook thanked Mr. Piziali for all the work he's done, and the practical advice and
experience that he had brought to the Board as a contractor and long-time Alamedan. She respected
his ability to deliberate, and to discuss the pros and cons of an issue.
Mr. Piziali noted that he would miss this Board, and knew that there were citizens who appreciate",PlanningBoard/2005-12-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-12-12,4,"the Board's work.
President Cunningham noted that Mr. Piziali had three years more experience than he did, and added
that he would be missed.
Mr. Lynch wished to comment about the waterfront development, particularly the 3,000 homes that
would be going in. He believed the Board should be mindful that development in urban areas would
intensify, and that they should be cognizant that is strongly supported at the legislative level and by
environmental groups because of the urban infill component. He noted that building higher did
protect the surrounding hillsides, and added that the need for housing necessitated more infill
housing.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara whether the City Manager had acknowledged the
communication from the Board regarding staffing concerns, Ms. Eliason replied that she had met
with some of the individual Planning Board members, and is setting up a schedule for next year for
Boards and Commissions to meet with the City Council. She did not know when the Planning Board
would be scheduled for a joint meeting, and added that several other Boards had requested meetings
as well.
President Cunningham advised that he had met with the City Manager and addressed some of the
Board's comments regarding staffing of the Planning and Building Department. He noted that there
was activity to fill the position of Planning and Building Director, and some interviews had been
held. They also discussed guidelines and booklets, as well as waterside development guidelines, as
well as green sustainable ordinances. He noted that the City Manager had to balance the
requirements of other Boards within the budget. He encouraged the Board members to write to the
City Manager to support the Planning Board's concerns.
Vice President Cook advised that she had a meeting scheduled for that morning with the City
Manager, but was unable to attend for family reasons. She echoed President Cunningham's
comments, and noted that she was particularly interested in the coordination between the
redevelopment and planning branches of the City.
Mr. Lynch noted that he met with the Assistant City Manager as well.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
None.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
7:24 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gregory McFann, Interim Secretary
City Planning Board",PlanningBoard/2005-12-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-12-12,5,"These minutes were approved at the January 9, 2006 Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and videotaped.",PlanningBoard/2005-12-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-01-09,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, January 9, 2006
1.
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. Mariani
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,
Mariani, and McNamara.
Also in attendance were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason,
Planner III Allen Tai, Planner Stefanie Hom.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of November 14, 2005.
(Continued from the meeting of December 12, 2005.)
Board member Kohlstrand advised that page 5, paragraph 1, should clarify her point with respect to
managing the parking lot. The lot could be restricted to tenants and their visitors, but it was not her
intention to suggest the way it should be operated. She had suggested that a more open approach to
parking use on that facility would allow more efficient use of the parking.
Board member Kohlstrand advised that page 5, paragraph 2, should be changed to read: ""She stated
that she advocated that there were issues associated with it such as liability, safety and lighting.'
Board member Kohlstrand advised that page 7, paragraph 3, should be changed to read: ""She stated
she was in a quandary because ofthe code requirements were too high for this particular use, and she
felt that is where the Board should be focusing.""
Board member Kohlstrand noted that on page 9, following the vote, she had made a clarification
when she voted No on this particular project, that the record should indicate she was against it
because she supported the Variance that the applicant had requested.
M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand to approve the minutes for the meeting of November 14, 2005, as
amended.
AYES - 5; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Mariani)
b.
Minutes for the meeting of December 12, 2005.
Board member Kohlstrand advised that on page 3, paragraph 11, her inaudible comments were meant
to clarify that the last meeting for the Transportation Committee was held on December 7, 2005, and
that pedestrian issues were dealt with at that meeting. She also noted that there would be additional
meetings after the first of the year.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
January 9, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-01-09,2,"President Cunningham noted that the Resolution numbers were missing from the minutes.
M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara to approve the minutes for the meeting of December 12, 2005, as
amended.
AYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
January 9, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-01-09,3,"5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cunningham advised that there was a request from the Board to move Item 8-A to the
Regular Agenda.
M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to remove Item 8-A from the Consent Calendar and place it on
the Regular Agenda.
AYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
President Cunningham advised that no speaker slips had been received for Item 9-A.
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to remove Item 9-A from the Regular Agenda and place it on
the Consent Calendar.
AYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None.
7.
Resolution and Commendation for Board member John Piziali.
President Cunningham read the following Resolution of Farewell and Commendation for John A.
Piziali into the record:
WHEREAS John A. Piziali was appointed as a member of the Planning Board on July 15,
1997, to complete an unexpired term; and
WHEREAS John A. Piziali was reappointed as a member of the Planning Board on July 1,
1999; and
WHEREAS John A. Piziali was again reappointed as a member of the Planning Board on July
1, 2003; and
WHEREAS John A. Piziali was elected Vice President of the Planning Board on August 13,
2001; and served as Vice President until October 13, 2004; and
WHEREAS John A. Piziali was elected President of the Planning Board on October 13, 2003;
and
WHEREAS John A. Piziali has also served Alameda by his involvement on behalf of the
Planning Board in the Golf Course Committee; and
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
January 9, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-01-09,4,"WHEREAS John A. Piziali has earned the respect of his fellow Board members and City Staff
for his clear and consistent contributions to numerous development projects throughout his tenure;
and
WHEREAS the Planning Board and City Staff wishes to thank John A. Piziali for his constant
support. His experience and expertise were invaluable on projects such as the Bay Port Development
and the recent development of Alameda's ""Guide to Residential Design""; and
WHEREAS his concern for the welfare of the Citizens of Alameda and the future
development of our City were always apparent when balancing neighborhood issues with the
economic goals of the City.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda
acknowledges his valuable contributions to the City of Alameda, and wishes him all future happiness
and continued involvement in community issues.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Board of the City of Alameda on the 9th day of
January 2006.
President Cunningham noted that as long as he was on the Board, Mr. Piziali had been on the Board
as well. He added that his knowledge, level-headedness and approach to the issues would be missed.
He thanked Mr. Piziali for his hard work.
Mr. Piziali thanked President Cunningham and the Board for their kind words, and noted that the
Board had done an outstanding job on development issues. He urged the Board to remember that
when the average citizen went through the planning process, that they were not only a Planning
Board, but that they were their neighbors, trying to help them.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
January 9, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-01-09,5,"8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A.
UP05-0023; Frank Krauland for Grandview Pavilion; 300 Island Drive (SH). The
applicant requests a Use Permit approval to allow the construction of a 1750 square-foot (35'
by 50') tent structure over an existing outdoor patio. Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-
4.19.b(3), a Use Permit is required for structures located on public and private land in the O
(Open Space) District. The site is located on the Chuck Corica Golf Complex within the O,
Open Space Zoning District.
M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to remove Item 8-A from the Consent Calendar and place it on
the Regular Agenda.
AYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Ms. Hom presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this item.
Vice President Cook expressed concern about the height and permanence of this structure. She noted
that the building was charming, with interesting rooflines and character. She did not believe anything
similar had been approved in the City, and believed that better landscaping would help its appearance.
She believed it would be a big change to the outdoor area, and did not know whether this tent had
sides that could roll up.
President Cunningham echoed Vice President Cook's concerns, and inquired whether a Design
Review would be presented at a later date.
Ms. Eliason noted that tents are normally temporary structures, and that the applicants were
requesting that it be made a permanent structure. This request would normally be within the Board's
purview because this was a Use Permit. A time limit on the Use Permit may be placed by the Board.
The height is lower than the existing building. An additional condition could be placed regarding the
sides.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand whether a permanent structure would qualify
as an expansion of the use, and whether new parking requirements must be considered, Ms. Eliason
replied that staff did not require additional parking because it was an outdoor patio. Also, the tent
could be removed at any time; staff did not believe it was an expansion of the structure in that way
because the applicant was already using the outdoor area. The tent would make the outdoor area
more functional in all seasons.
President Cunningham noted that he would be hesitant to limit the time that it was up. He had been
concerned about the aesthetics.
Board member Kohlstrand noted that Scott's in Jack London Square had a similar structure that
could be used for weddings and other special events.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
January 9, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-01-09,6,"The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Frank Krauland, applicant, noted that he had been thinking about this addition for several years,
and noted that the Vincenza Winery in Napa had the same tent, which he described as gorgeous. He
planned to use the same interior pleating, and surround it with Italian cypress, blooming flowers in
between the cypress. He guaranteed the Board that it would be a first-class presentation, and noted
that they cannot host weddings on an uncovered patio. He noted that the existing landscaping would
remain, and added that the sides could be rolled up or removed in the summer. He added that there
would be planting inside the tent as well.
Board member Lynch was sensitive to the growth of trees over the long term, given the deterioration
of the hardscape. He noted that while replanting trees was the first thought, it was not always the best
thought. He suggested that there be flexibility in the landscaping plan, and that they may be planted in
portable planter boxes.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the lifespan of this structure, Mr.
Krauland replied that the metal framework would last virtually forever, and that fabric would be
replaced every five to seven years to keep it fresh and white.
Board member Mariani believed this would be a beautiful addition to the site.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
M/S Mariani/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution PB-06-01 to approve a Use
Permit to allow the construction of a 1750 square-foot (35' by 50') tent structure over an existing
outdoor patio. Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.19.b(3), a Use Permit is required for structures
located on public and private land in the O (Open Space) District. The following modifications to the
Resolution would be included:
1.
The tent shall be replaced upon deterioration, as determined by the Planning &
Building Director; and
2.
Landscaping shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Planning & Building Director.
AYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
January 9, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-01-09,7,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
DR05-0128, PDA05-0006; 900 Otis Drive; Applicant: Clifford Mapes (AT).
Applicant requests Planned Development Amendment and Major Design Review approvals to
modify a previously approved design for the construction of a new single family residence on
a vacant lot at 900 Otis Drive. The changes primarily involve replacing the angular style house
design with a traditional rectangular plan. As a result of the redesign, the building footprint
increases from approximately 2,700 square feet to 3,000 square feet, and the floor area of the
residence will increase from 3,750 square feet to 4,360 square feet. The project is located
within a R-1PD, One-Family Residence Planned Development District.
M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to remove Item 9-A from the Regular Agenda and place it on
the Consent Calendar.
AYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-02 to approve
a Planned Development Amendment and Major Design Review approvals to modify a previously
approved design for the construction of a new single family residence on a vacant lot at 900 Otis
Drive. The changes primarily involve replacing the angular style house design with a traditional
rectangular plan. As a result of the redesign, the building footprint increases from approximately
2,700 square feet to 3,000 square feet, and the floor area of the residence will increase from 3,750
square feet to 4,360 square feet.
AYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
January 9, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-01-09,8,"9-B.
DR04-0075; 301 Spruce Street; Applicants: Bill Wong for Hai Ky Lam; Appellants:
Patrick Lynch and Jeanne Nader (AT). Public hearing to consider an appeal of the
Planning and Building Director's approval of a Major Design Review to construct a new 2-
story single family residence on a vacant lot at 301 Spruce Street. The site is located within an
R-4, Neighborhood Residential District.
President Cunningham advised that more than five speaker slips had been received.
M/S Lynch/McNamara and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - - 0
Mr. Tai summarized the staff report. The appellants claim that staff has not complied with the
conditions of approval established by previous City Council and Historical Advisory Board actions.
He emphasized that these conditions stand separate from the Design Review process, and that they
are parallel; they would be in place prior to Building Permit approval. Staff recommended that the
Planning & Building Director's approval be upheld by the Planning Board.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Patrick Lynch, appellant, 305 Spruce Street, noted that his property was adjacent to the subject
vacant lot. He distributed written comments to the Planning Board, and noted that a copy of an article
from the August 28-31, 1998 Alameda Journal was included in that packet. The article referenced a
Use Permit for Alameda Point, and the level of contamination on the site. In this particular case, the
Planning Board decided to go against staff's recommendation, and did not approve the Use Permit.
He noted that subsequent testing at this site proved that the Planning Board made the proper decision.
He noted that the staff report stated that soil samples collected from illegal fill placed at the site in
2002 are free form chemical contaminants. He included a table with the results of two samples
performed for Vanadium, a Proposition 65 chemical. The May 2005 sample exceeded the preliminary
remediation goal, as well as an environmental screening level established by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board. He believed this information meant that the site was not safe for residential
use until a more thorough investigation was done into the source and contamination levels in the
illegal fill.
Mr. Lynch noted that the City Council resolution also required specific analytical methods be used to
test the soil. The soil report was required to be submitted prior to Design Review approval, and he
believed it did not comply with the criteria established in the City Council resolution. The analytical
methods used was Method 620A, and the City Council resolution specified that Method 610C be
used. In addition, the lab must also be accredited to perform the analysis; the lab used was not
accredited to perform Method 610C. The City Council resolution also required that a minimum
number of samples be collected for different analysis based upon the volume of the stockpile. The
grading permit was issued for 100 cubic yards of soil after the fact with an enforcement penalty. He
noted that there was over 100 cubic yards of soil at the site.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
January 9, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-01-09,9,"Ms. Jeanne Nader, appellant, 305 Spruce Street, noted that they had two young children and were
very concerned that they lived next to a property with contaminated soil. They had been told the soil
would be removed, but it has not been removed because of the unpermitted grading performed by the
owner. She noted that there were serious flooding problems, and they did not know how much
contamination is in the soil. She did not agree with staff's representation of their appeals, and noted
that she and Mr. Lynch have spent considerable time on this issue. They have lived next to this site
since 1997, and have had to deal with various owners not maintaining the property, violating
Municipal ordinances. She took issue with the staff report claim that they had opposed development
in 1998, when there was no development in 1998; they were opposed to the owner cutting down a
Coastal Live Oak, which was a protected historic monument in Alameda. She noted that because of
their appeal to the Historic Advisory Board, the ordinance that protected that species of tree was
strengthened. She stated that staff also excluded some information from 2002 when they approached
the Planning Board about problems with the design by the second owner. At that time, staff told the
Planning Board that their testimony had been inaccurate, and they appealed to the City Council. The
then-Planning & Building Director Greg Fuz decided that their testimony was indeed accurate, and
the owner was asked to withdraw his plan at that time. Another plan was submitted, and the property
was sold to the current owner. She believed the Residential Design Guidelines did apply to their
neighborhood. She inquired whether the same standards had been applied to any other neighborhood
in Alameda. She noted that staff said there was an increased setback; she noted that there was no
increased setback at their house, and that it remained at seven feet.
Mr. Dana Sack, applicant, noted that the three other applicants were Hai Lam, 1107 Buena Vista; Bill
Wong, 373 Ninth Street #301, Oakland; and Ivan Chic, 373 Ninth Street #301, Oakland. He added
that they did not wish to speak, and that they asked him to speak on their behalf. He noted that the
appellants addressed events regarding prior owners, and that Mr. Lam was a local resident who
wished to take over the property in compliance with the City Council and Planning Board. He added
that he had done everything the City has asked for to protect the trees, take care of the hazardous
material concerns, and had complied with every requirement. He noted that Mr. Lam paid to have a
second test done by an appropriate lab, using the appropriate standard; that test showed that the piles
and the land in general complied with the City and EPA standards, with the exception of arsenic. He
added that arsenic is present in land that has come from the Valley in alluvial silt, and is present in
most parcels in the area. He believed the piles and the hazardous materials were red herrings, and
noted that the existing house on the neighboring lot has virtually no setback.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Board member Lynch noted that based on the document submitted by the appellant and the staff
report, there were some inconsistencies; however, he believed the inconsistencies were motivated by
different reasons. He believed the item was straightforward, and in his experience with grading
permits, a 100 cubic yards plus or minus was a nominal difference. He believed there was some
misinterpretation of the Regional Water Quality Control Board standards. He believed the staff report
was very thorough, and found the neighbors' comments to be anecdotal. He believed the
requirements placed on the property should be applied to the project before the Board today, which
was for a single-family home. He was most concerned with the process followed by City staff, and
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
January 9, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-01-09,10,"was very comfortable with that process.
In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara whether the current owners had complied
with all the conditions placed upon it by the City to date, Mr. Tai confirmed that was correct. He
added that staff would like to remind the property owners that they should perform more due
diligence on maintaining weeds and clearing the property to make sure it is clean. He noted that the
property owners had been very responsive whenever staff had asked them to clear the property. He
added that the soil would probably be removed when construction commences.
President Cunningham agreed with the staff report, and believed the proposed project may mitigate or
eliminate some of the issues were reported to pertain to this particular site. He commended the
applicant for proceeding in earnest to do the right thing.
M/S Cook/Lynch and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-03 to uphold the
Planning and Building Director's approval of a Major Design Review to construct a new 2-story
single family residence on a vacant lot at 301 Spruce Street.
AYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
President Cunningham noted that this would be Mr. Tai's last meeting with the City, and commended
him for his insights and hard work during his tenure. He noted that he had been a great resource to
the Board, and had been impressed with his swift rise in the Planning & Building Department.
Mr. Tai thanked the Planning Board and the City, and noted that it had been a great pleasure working
in Alameda. He added that he had accepted a position as an Advance Planner with the City of San
Jose.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
January 9, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-01-09,11,"9-C. Appointment of Planning Board member to the Golf Course Committee.
Board member McNamara inquired whether this appointment was necessary at this time, given the
fact that there had been no meetings during her two-year tenure on the Board.
Ms. Eliason advised that it had been formed for the Alameda Point Golf Course, which is not an
active proposal at this time. She advised that the Board may wait to appoint another representative,
which became vacant upon Mr. Piziali's departure.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised there was nothing new to report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee.
President Cunningham noted that there had been no meetings.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Board member Mariani advised that she brought the Planning Board's concerns from the previous
meeting before the Committee, particularly regarding the increased construction and development.
She agreed with Board member Lynch's assessment that the development was heading up, instead of
out. She noted that Oakland did not have a Transportation Commission, and another member of the
Committee who worked for the City of Oakland had been surprised that there was no Transportation
Commission. She noted that they were working on a recommendation to the Oakland Planning
Commission and the Alameda Planning Board for a comprehensive transportation planning document
for Chinatown, prepared by the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee.
Board member Kohlstrand noted that this would be an issue that the new Planning & Building
Director would be able to address with the Planning Director of the City of Oakland, in order to
coordinate the issues; the Public Works Directors may wish to become involved as well.
Board member Lynch advised that he was not a naysayer, nor was he taking a position against any
development in Oakland; he strongly encouraged development for a variety of reasons. He raised the
questions because he would like to see the same amount of deference paid to Alameda. He noted that
when Alameda chose to develop, he found it extraordinarily hypocritical for anyone in Oakland to
suggest that Alameda lacked sensitivity traffic or other needs, when Oakland is developing at full-tilt.
He believed that was a primary issue, which he believed should be addressed by the Alameda County
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
January 9, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-01-09,12,"Board of Supervisors, and for the elected officials. He would like to see consistency and reciprocity in
the relationship between Alameda and Oakland.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
Board member Kohlstrand advised that there had been no further meetings since her last report.
12.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
13.
ADJOURNMENT:
8:03 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gregory J. McFann, Acting Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the January 23, 2006 Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and videotaped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
January 9, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-01-23,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, January 23, 2006
1.
CONVENE:
7:01 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Vice President Cook
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch, and
McNamara.
Board member Mariani was absent.
Also in attendance were Planning & Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Deputy City Attorney Julie
Harryman, Supervising Planner Andrew Thomas, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Contract Planner
Chandler Lee.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of January 9, 2006.
M/S Cook/McNamara to approve the minutes for the meeting of January 9, 2006, as presented.
AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
January 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-01-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-01-23,2,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
FDP05-0006/DR05-013 - Peet's Coffee - 2001 Harbor Bay Parkway (CL). Applicant
requests a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to allow a one-story building of
approximately 138,000 square feet in floor area including a 14,300 square foot two-story
office component, with 128 parking spaces and over two and one-half acres of landscaped
area, to be constructed on a 8.85 acre site. The site is located within the Harbor Bay Business
Park in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution PB-06-04 to approve a
Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to allow a one-story building of approximately
138,000 square feet in floor area including a 14,300 square foot two-story office component, with
128 parking spaces and over two and one-half acres of landscaped area, to be constructed on a 8.85
acre site.
AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
January 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-01-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-01-23,3,"7-B.
PM05-0002 & PM05-0003; 1090 and 1350 Marina Village Parkway (ATh). Applicant:
Alameda Real Estate Investments. The applicant is requesting the approval of two parcel
maps creating a total of four parcels and the conversion of existing berths, within these four
parcels, from rental to condominium ownership. These parcels cover existing marina facilities
only. No new residential or commercial uses are proposed. No new construction or alteration
of existing facilities is proposed. All existing easements and permit requirements concerning,
but not limited to open space, public access and vehicular access will remain in effect.
(Applicant requests continuance to the meeting of February 13, 2006.)
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of February 13, 2006.
AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
January 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-01-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-01-23,4,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A. Grand Marina Study Session (ATh). Study Session on proposed 40-unit residential
development located at the intersection of Grand Street and Fortmann Way in the Northern
Waterfront area.
Supervising Planner Andrew Thomas presented the staff report.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham whether an EIR or a negative declaration would
be needed, Mr. Thomas did not anticipate any significant unavoidable impacts from the 40-unit. He
noted that some mitigations would be needed, but he believed that everything could be mitigated to a
level of ""Less Than Significant.""
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. David Day, applicant, Warmington Homes, presented the proposed site plan on the overhead
screen.
Mr. Jason Nearing, civil engineer, Carlson Barbie & Gibson, described the features of the master plan,
including parking, landscaping, pedestrian corridors, and open space areas. He emphasized that the
view corridors were maintained to the waterfront, including a pedestrian corridor in several locations
to maintain easy pedestrian access to the existing open space along the waterfront.
Mr. Don Rickey, architect, Dahlin Group, discussed the architectural features of the homes. The
square footage would range from 1300 to 2308 sq. ft. for the various plans. The architectural would
be coastal, reminiscent of that found in Santa Cruz or Sausalito, using materials like stucco, metal
roofing for accents, shingle siding and vertical siding.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Lynch regarding the economics of reducing the number of
homes and making them larger, Mr. Day replied that it would become difficult to make the project
economically feasible if the number of homes was reduced below 30 homes.
In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara regarding apparent inconsistencies within the
presentation regarding parking spaces, Mr. Day clarified the parking scheme, pointing out the
conceptual land plan idea for the Pennzoil City site, which included the perpendicular parking. A
discussion of the pedestrian pathways ensued.
Board member Lynch noted that he liked the attempt to separate pedestrian and automobile traffic,
but also appreciated staff's concern that they may cause issues with both drivers and pedestrians. He
suggested a paving pattern or cobblestone design element could suggest a pedestrian way.
President Cunningham believed that the landscape plan lent itself to a terrace scheme, which he
realized may be contrary to Alameda's goals. He noted that if a lifestyle environment were to be
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
January 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-01-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-01-23,5,"created, he did not want see a series of individual dwelling houses on very small lots. He suggested
investigating semi-detached homes with a zero lot line. He did not want to create a series of wind
tunnels with narrow alleys between houses.
Board member Kohlstrand requested clarification of the reciprocal easements. Mr. Day replied that
they were very similar to a zero lot line concept; a reciprocal easement placed the property line
equidistant between the two homes. Through the CC&Rs, a borrowed easement provided for an eight
foot side yard.
Board member Kohlstrand noted that because of Measure A, some creative solutions for the site are
not being implemented and some strange-looking developments were resulting from Measure A
limitations.
Mr. Day noted that with Measure A, duets could be implemented, but that only two units could be
attached.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand regarding the zoning for the Pennzoil site, Mr.
Thomas replied that it was zoned Manufacturing The Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment
would recommend that it be rezoned for residential.
President Cunningham supported the alley approach, and noted that it worked well in Bayport. He did
not want to see a PDA with a street lined with garage doors, and believed that the proposed
streetscape was very attractive. He would like to see a three-dimensional model of this project.
Board member Lynch believed that this project would be viewed best as a blank slate. He would have
liked to consider other models, regardless of some of the local limitations faced by the Board. He was
not sure that Measure A could withstand a challenge, and suggested that the applicants look at the
Playa Vista development, which had won many awards. He would like to see a similar development
in Alameda. He believed that terracing could be included, and that a mix of condo-style and single-
family homes could be included in the development. He added that there was open space where
concerts could be held, and that the entire effect of that development was stunning.
Vice President Cook noted that marina occupancy were cyclical, and asked about vacancies at the
Marina. Mr. Day confirmed that the occupancy rate was at 98% at the Marina.
Board member Lynch would be in favor of additional open space and less parking. He inquired why
gates and permit parking would even be considered. He believed that residents of other
neighborhoods would want to have permit parking, which may be a slippery slope.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff originally had a negative reaction to the gates, and noted that permit
parking and the gates were not staff-initiated ideas.
Board member McNamara inquired whether the outside restroom would be maintained by the
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
January 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-01-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-01-23,6,"harbormaster, and suggested that the current restroom be torn down or re-faced to match the
residential design more closely.
Vice President Cook expressed concern about the design of the development, and noted that she
supported residential waterfront use. She noted that a resident of a nearby development had
commented that the proposed lots were even smaller than his. She did not see the tradeoff for the
public in return for the density. She did not agree with the narrowing and privatizing of the streets,
and believed the streets should remain in the public realm.
Board member Kohlstrand agreed with Vice President Cook's comments regarding public streets and
the view corridors. She did not have a problem with the number of units, but was concerned about the
size of the units in the limited amount of space. She noted that was a challenge to accomplish within
the limitations of Measure A.
President Cunningham noted that a three-dimension massing model would be valuable in assessing the
mix of architectural styles on the streetscape. He inquired whether like styles should be grouped
together to accomplish a larger picture. He noted that the third story bothered him, and would like to
see it integrated in a more pleasing way. He expressed concern about the massing of the development.
He liked the articulation of the design, and how it picked up details from the surrounding
neighborhoods.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding this project's economics, Mr. Thomas
replied that the project is privately financed and no City funds are being contributed to the project.
This project will pay Citywide development impact fees, which help fund a variety of services, such as
traffic improvements to park maintenance and improvements. Staff anticipated that it would pay a fair
share of improvements within the Northern Waterfront to allow the area to build out. It would be
subject to the public art requirements. President Cunningham requested that the amount committed be
identified and integrated into the design. He encouraged residential development.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff would review the Board's comments with the applicants, and would
focus on the changes to the site plan to respond to the comments. Staff will also complete the
environmental document for this project.
Ms. Woodbury complimented the Board on the depth and detail of their comments.
No action was taken.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
January 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-01-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-01-23,7,"9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
a.
Update on Catellus Mixed Use Project
Supervising Planner Andrew Thomas presented this report, and noted that the Bayport project, which
had approximately 500 units, was a portion of a larger master plan approved in 2000. In addition to
the residential portion, there were plans for a 1.3 million square foot office/R&D park, which has not
moved forward since its original approval due to the Bay Area office market conditions and the dot-
com bust. Catellus and the City agreed to investigate the possibilities of changing that portion of the
plan to another conceptual program. The larger use would be included in the environmental document
to act as a maximum envelope, and the use could be made smaller within that document. The new
proposal would include 300 housing units, 300,000 square feet of retail, and 400,000 square feet of
office. He noted that would require a series of amendments to documents, including a General Plan
Amendment, zoning amendments, a Master Plan Amendment, and a supplemental EIR. He noted that
page 3 of the memorandum outlined the community engagement strategy for this process, which was
designed to keep the community involved throughout the design and entitlement process. Staff also
intended to incorporate the boards and commissions, particularly the Planning Board, into this
process as often and as early as possible. He noted that there was a successful open house/community
meeting the previous Saturday, January 21, 2006. A scoping session has been scheduled for February
9, 2006, at 6:30 p.m., to be held in Council Chambers before the Zoning Administrator.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the Zoning Administrator, Mr. Thomas
replied that at this time, Cynthia Eliason would serve as the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Thomas noted that the second major workshop would be held on February 15, 2006, which he
encouraged the Board members to attend. A study session with the Planning Board would be held on
March 13, 2006, during a regularly schedule meeting. The EIR would be released approximately a
month after that meeting, and transportation issues would be a major part of that discussion. A study
session with the Transportation Commission would be held in late April; transportation, the project
layout and Measure A issues would be part of that discussion. The first official hearing on the EIR
would be held before the Planning Board in May, which would be widely noticed. There would be a
presentation before the Economic Development Commission in May. The official hearing where the
Planning Commission would make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed General
Plan Amendment, rezoning and Master Plan Amendments would be held in June and July.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Lynch regarding the number of people who lived and
worked on the old Alameda Naval Air Station, Mr. Thomas replied that it was approximately 17,000-
18,000. Mr. Lynch noted that his father had worked there, and that there was always traffic.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Lynch regarding water taxis, Mr. Thomas replied that
Alameda had its own ferry service now and were partially funded by MTC. The City also worked
closely with the Water Transit Authority, with the idea of transitioning the ferry service from an
Alameda-run service to a regional water transit service. He noted that a water taxi between this site
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
January 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-01-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-01-23,8,"and Jack London Square would have to be funded by this project, perhaps in combination with
Alameda Point.
Board member Kohlstrand noted that a better pedestrian environment should be created in this area,
and that there should be coordination between the department heads in the cities of Alameda and
Oakland.
Board member Lynch noted that there was a significant financial impact to the Board's decisions, and
that there was a tradeoff between retail and residential. He believed this was the time to address that
issue because of the planning process that leads to a determining vote. He believed that a General
Plan Amendment would be needed, and that the financial implications to the City's General Fund
would be significant. He added that some jurisdictions ask for a financial feasibility study, which he
did not see as part of this package.
President Cunningham believed that Board member Lynch's point regarding financial feasibility was
well taken. Mr. Thomas advised he would bring that concern to the team, and believed it would be
doable.
Board member Lynch noted that he was not a retail expert, nor was the general public, and did not
believe he should get involved in the discussion regarding the type of retail. He wanted the tax
revenue from the General Fund to pay for services.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
January 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-01-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-01-23,9,"10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised there was nothing new to report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
Board member Kohlstrand advised that there had been no further meetings since her last report.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Update on Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact
Report.
Mr. Thomas advised that the EIR would be released within one or two weeks, and that it would be
brought before the Board for action after that time.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy Woodbury, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the February 13, 2006 Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and videotaped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
January 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-01-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-13,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, February 13, 2006
1.
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. Mariani
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch, and
Mariani.
Board member McNamara was absent.
Also in attendance were Planning & Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Deputy City Attorney Julie
Harryman, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner Andrew Thomas, Planner III
Douglas Garrison.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of January 23, 2006.
M/S Cook/Kohlstrand to approve the minutes for the meeting of January 23, 2006, as presented.
AYES - 4 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - (Mariani)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cunningham noted that there was a request to remove Item 8-C from the Regular Agenda
and place it on the Consent Calendar.
M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to move this item from the Regular Agenda to the Consent
Calendar.
AYES - 5 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Mr. David Kirwin noted that he would be unable to stay for Item 8-B, and wished to voice his
concern that this application may be used as an end run around Measure A.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
February 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-13,2,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
PD05-0001/R05-0002/PM06-0001 - Janice Graham - 1810 & 1812 Clinton Avenue
(EP). The applicant requests a rezoning to add a Planned Development overlay to the
existing R-4 (Neighborhood Residential) district, and Planned Development and Parcel Map
approvals to allow the division of an existing 14,602 square foot residential lot into two
parcels, each with an existing, detached duplex. As part of the project, the applicant will
restore the duplex on the front parcel to a single family residence. The property is located
within an R-4 (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District.
M/S Lynch/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-05 to approve a
rezoning to add a Planned Development overlay to the existing R-4 (Neighborhood Residential)
district, and Planned Development and Parcel Map approvals to allow the division of an existing
14,602 square foot residential lot into two parcels, each with an existing, detached duplex. As part of
the project, the applicant will restore the duplex on the front parcel to a single family residence.
AYES - 5 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
February 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-13,3,"7-B.
PDA05-0007/MDR05-0350 - Park Street Landing - 2307 Blanding Avenue (EP).
Applicant requests a Planned Development Amendment and Minor Design Review to modify
the existing sign program to allow for a change in the location of existing building signage,
including installation and establishment of three additional signs on an existing monument
sign. The site is located within the Park Street Landing Shopping Center in the C-M-PD,
Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District. (Applicant requests
continuance to the meeting of February 27, 2006.)
M/S Lynch/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of February 27, 2006.
AYES - 5 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
February 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-13,4,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
PM05-0002/PM05-0003 - Alameda Real Estate Investments - 1090 & 1350 Marina
Village Parkway (AT). The applicant is requesting the approval of two parcel maps creating
a total of four parcels and the conversion of existing berths, within these four parcels, from
rental to condominium ownership. These parcels cover existing marina facilities only. No new
residential or commercial uses are proposed. No new construction or alteration of existing
facilities is proposed. All existing easements and permit requirements concerning, but not
limited to, open space, public access and vehicular access will remain in effect. (Continued
from the meeting of January 23, 2006)
Supervising Planner Andrew Thomas presented the staff report. Staff `recommended approval of this
item.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Thomas Charrone noted that he was a property owner of a townhouse at Marina Village, as well
as a director of the Oakland Yacht Club. He believed that while he had no opinion of the proposed
project, it was well conceived and legal. He expressed concern about the long-term maintenance of
the common properties and the accumulation of trash near the gates. He was also concerned about
the maintenance of the parking areas, and did not want it to suffer because of conflicts within the
homeowners association or other parties. He expressed concern about access from the parking lots
for users of the marina. He would like the tenants of liveaboards to have right of first refusal for
marina slips as they come up for sale, as well as the opportunity to move into rented slips. He would
like renters of slips to be protected from eviction if the slip is sold to anyone but the owner/user or
blood relative of the owner.
In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand regarding Mr. Charrone's concerns regarding slip
tenants, Ms. Harryman replied that this issue had not come up before and that she would research the
legal implications and bring that information back to the Planning Commission.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Board member Lynch noted that he did not believe the Board should become involved in slip rental
issues, and that it should be left to the homeowners association and other private parties. He did not
believe the maintenance of trash by Gates 8 and 9 were the purview of the Planning Board, and that it
was a marina management issue.
Mr. Thomas noted that the current system of CC&Rs and cross-access easements seems to be
working for the maintenance of the common areas, and for access to the shared facilities. He noted
that the easements and provisions in the CC&Rs would remain as they currently are. Regarding the
issue on the liveaboards, whether the marina remains in its current status or records a condo plan, the
Marina would always be limited by the BCDC restriction of 10% liveaboards.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
February 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-13,5,"In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook, Mr. Thomas explained how a condominium
association would operate.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the ability to expand the number of
berths, Mr. Thomas replied that any such application would be an amendment to the original Master
Plan community for Marina Village. The Master Plan Amendment process requires both Planning
Board and City Council approval.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding mitigation of pollution and cross-
contamination between berths, Diane Eisley, Harbormaster, Emery Cove Yacht Harbor, replied that
they had never had any problems.
M/S Cook/Lynch and unanimous to reopen the public hearing.
AYES - 5 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Mr. Charrone stated that he believed that the organization that owns the property did a good job of
maintaining it, as did the harbormaster. He asked that the Board consider that a maximum 10% of
slips are liveaboards and that means 71 people in this marina could live there and contribute to the
community. He asked that those individuals be made aware of the City's policies with respect to their
rental liveaboard status.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
M/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-06 to approve
two parcel maps creating a total of four parcels and the conversion of existing berths, within these
four parcels, from rental to condominium ownership. These parcels cover existing marina facilities
only. No new residential or commercial uses are proposed. No new construction or alteration of
existing facilities is proposed. All existing easements and permit requirements concerning, but not
limited to, open space, public access and vehicular access will remain in effect, with the following
modification under Condition 3: ""Parcel maps shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and the City's consultants. Particular attention shall be given to ensure the maintenance
and the quality of the existing landscape and parking areas.""
AYES - 5 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
February 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-13,6,"8-B.
FDP05-0003/DR05-0127/TM05-0003- - Venture Corporation - 2201 Harbor Bay Parkway
(DG). The applicant requests approval of Final Development Plan and Major Design Review
applications allowing the construction of three new two-story commercial buildings The buildings
would range in size from 13,946 to 16,952 sq. ft. in size, with a maximum height of 34 ft. The
proposed use of these buildings is a mix of research and development facilities and professional
offices. The three buildings would contain up to 24 separate units. Specific businesses that would
occupy the buildings have not been identified at this time. The applicant also requests approval of a
Tentative Parcel Map/Condominium Plan allowing the conveyance of the 24 units to separate
owners.
Mr. Garrison presented the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speaker slips.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Member Kohlstrand did not believe it was particularly unusual for the Harbor Bay area, expressed concern
that the way the buildings were situated on the site did not bear a positive relationship to the adjacent
public streets. She would like to see the focus shifted, and could not support the site plan as presented. She
would like to see the buildings come closer to the street, and parking areas moved to the rear of the site.
Member Kohlstrand did not have a problem with mixed use, but was concerned about the sort of services,
such as restaurants, that were being provided for the employees in that area.
Vice President Cook agreed with Member Kohlstrand's comments, and had been disturbed by the amount
of parking that would be empty on weekends. She noted that there was beautiful public access along the
shoreline, and that the shore was an amenity that did not have a relationship to the buildings.
President Cunningham did not believe that encumbering one particular owner with having to build a
restaurant, and inquired about the future plans. Mr. Garrison noted that a future project included a
Hampton Inn in the area; their long-term plans included a conference room and a restaurant. He
understood the comments regarding the alignment of the buildings, and suggested that the applicant detail
the options.
Vice President Cook expressed concern about the planned development requirements for comfortable
facilities for the workers to be outdoors, and did not believe the space was well-used.
Mr. Brock Grayson, project architect, displayed the site plan and discussed details of the building
placement. He noted that the views of the Bay played an important part in its design.
Member Kohlstrand believed that a different approach to the layout would provide a balanced perspective
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
February 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-13,7,"to the street and to the water.
In response to an inquiry by Member Lynch regarding the height limitation, Mr. Grayson replied that in
Harbor Bay, buildings could be constructed up to 35 feet. This particular site would be 34 feet.
Member Lynch believed that a 34 foot height limit was a limiting factor, and forced several parameters. He
would not mind having a three-story building on this site with proper massing. He believed that this project
was needed, and suggested that a second-floor entrance be considered. Mr. Grayson noted that one project
with that arrangement did not work as well as anticipated. He noted that his clients did not favor larger
buildings.
Mr. Stuart Sheinholtz, Venture Corporation, project developer, noted that they generally sold to small
businesses, and that the first project in Alameda was very successful. He noted that a very diverse group of
businesses were buying properties in the site. He agreed with Vice President Cook's comments. He noted
that this site was fully landscaped, and that they maximized their views; they made successful use of flex-
space.
Member Mariani would like to see a second, more creative submission by the architect, and that the space
could be used in a more accessible way on the weekends. Mr. Sheinholtz noted that this was primarily a
business park, and that when people used it on the weekends, they were able to enjoy the Bay. He noted
that if the buildings were swapped, there would be a view of the empty parking lot.
Member Kohlstrand noted that she did not have an issue regarding condominiums, and was concerned
about the site layout.
Member Lynch believed this use was needed, and believed the ability for the business owner to own the
real estate was very positive. He would like to see an alternative way for this site to be designed.
President Cunningham would like to see the design address the street.
Mr. Grayson noted that they took a very conservative approach to provide sufficient parking. President
Cunningham did not want architectural context to be sacrificed for a few parking spaces that may not be
used.
Mr. Grayson noted that the Harbor Bay Architectural Committee endorsed this project, as did City staff.
Member Lynch suggested that the applicant consider the height limitations, parking issues, rearticulating
the design and approaching the Board at the next meeting. He emphasized that the project itself was
supported, and that the design should be revised to reflect the Board's comments. He added that the
applicant could take better advantage of what the Bay has to offer. He noted that if the applicant could
provide a design rationale for altering the setbacks slightly, he would we willing to hear that.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the planning standards could not be abandoned, and that setbacks needed to
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
February 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-13,8,"work with the project as a whole. Staff would be happy to work with the applicant in this regard.
Vice President Cook wished to ensure that the applicant did not take a design that worked well in a
different setting and insert it into a waterfront setting that may not be as appropriate as it could be. She
would like the Board's comments to be addressed without compromising the building standards set by the
City.
President Cunningham noted that the Board could vote on this item as presented, and the applicant could
appeal it to the City Council, or that the project could be continued and brought back to the Board at the
next meeting. Mr. Grayson requested a continuance.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the Board would hear comments on the Draft EIR on the Northern Waterfront
at the next meeting. President Cunningham requested that this be the first item on the agenda; Mr. Garrison
confirmed that as a continued item, it would be the first item on the agenda.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of February 27,
2006.
AYES - 5 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
February 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-13,9,"8-C.
ZA06-0001 - City of Alameda (CE). A Zoning Text Amendment to add an administrative
height variance process for additions to existing dwellings. Citywide.
M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to move this item from the Regular Agenda to the Consent
Calendar.
AYES - 5 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
M/S Lynch/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-07 to approve a
Zoning Text Amendment to add an administrative height variance process for additions to existing
dwellings.
AYES - 5 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised there was nothing new to report, and that the EIR was in circulation.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Board member Mariani noted that there had been no meetings since her last report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
Board member Kohlstrand advised that there had been no further meetings since her last report.
12.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Woodbury distributed a handout regarding the Brown Act to follow up on questions posed at the
last meeting.
Ms. Woodbury noted that several staff members suggested a tour of higher density housing, especially
in San Jose. Board member Mariani noted that there was similar housing in San Lorenzo.
Ms. Woodbury noted that if there was a quorum of the Board, it would be a noticed meeting.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
February 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-13,10,"City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the February 27, 2006 Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and videotaped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
February 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-27,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, February 27, 2006
1.
CONVENE:
7:02 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. McNamara
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch, and
McNamara.
Mr. Lynch was absent from roll call, and arrived at the beginning of Item 4.
Ms. Mariani was absent.
Also present were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Supervising Planner Andrew
Thomas, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner II Emily
Pudell, Planning Intern Stefanie Hom, Acting Recreation and Parks Directors Dale Lillard.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of February 13, 2006.
Vice President Cook advised that page 7, paragraph 3, should be changed to read, ""Vice President
Cook believed there was beautiful public access along the shoreline.""
M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara to approve the minutes for the meeting of February 13, 2006, as
amended.
AYES - 4 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (McNamara)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cunningham advised that he had received requests from the Board to pull the entire
Consent Calendar and place it on the Regular Agenda.
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to remove Items 7-A, 7-B and 7-C from the Consent Calendar
and place them on the Regular Agenda.
AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Woodbury noted that a speaker had arrived after the item had been closed.
M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to reopen the public hearing.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
February 27, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-27,2,"AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Mr. Jon Spangler invited the Board members to a forum on open government sponsored by the
League of Women Voters and the other seven Leagues of Alameda County, to be held on Friday,
March 17, in San Lorenzo. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of the State of California, would be the
keynote speaker. Sunshine laws and open government would be addressed during this forum.
On a personal note, Mr. Spangler noted that the bus shelter installed on Santa Clara did not shelter
the occupants during a driving rain earlier in the day. He added that people waiting for the bus were
huddled under the awning of the nearby church, and that the shelter desperately needed sides. He
noted that the metal bench was very cold, and the wind and rain went through the shelter. He hoped
those problems could be remedied.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
February 27, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-27,3,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
PDA05-0007/MDR05-0350 - Park Street Landing - 2307 Blanding Avenue (EP).
Applicant requests a Planned Development Amendment and Minor Design Review to
modify the existing sign program to allow for a change in the location of existing building
signage, including installation and establishment of three additional signs on an existing
monument sign. The site is located within the Park Street Landing Shopping Center in the
C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District. (Continued
from the meeting of February 13, 2006.)
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to remove Item 7-A from the Consent Calendar and place it
on the Regular Agenda.
AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Ms. Pudell summarized the staff report, and recommended approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speakers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Vice President Cook noted that she had requested that this item be removed, and was concerned
about adding further signs on the pylon sign for this project. She believed that the pylon sign was not
an attractive gateway sign, and had always found it to be unattractive. She also objected to the
Cigarettes Cheaper sign at that location.
Ms. McNamara concurred with Vice President Cook's comments and noted that the clock did not
work. She believed that contributed to the sign being an eyesore, and inquired whether it could be
fixed and maintained.
Ms. Pudell noted that the conditions of approval state that the clock shall be repaired and maintained
in operable condition; that would be enforceable through the resolution. She noted that the
Cigarettes Cheaper sign was not approved by staff, and that it could be brought to the applicant's
attention to be removed. The allotment of the three signs on the pylon would only be allowable to
tenants who lease more than 4800 square feet of floor area.
President Cunningham echoed the concerns about the main pylon at the City's entrance, and would
like to limit the amount of signage at that location without penalizing the retail units.
Mr. Foley, applicant, agreed with the Board's concerns about the Alameda gateway. He noted that
he would be happy to update the sign, and agreed it was dated; he would also repair and maintain the
clock. He did not like the sandwich board signs. He noted that Kragen would not go in the center
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
February 27, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-27,4,"unless the sign faced Park Street. He believed the signage program was dated.
President Cunningham inquired whether approval of the pylon sign could be deleted and returned at
a later date. Ms. Pudell agreed with that request.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-08 to approve
a Planned Development Amendment and Minor Design Review to modify the existing sign program
to allow for a change in the location of existing building signage. The approval of the pylon sign
would be withdrawn from this resolution, and staff would bring it before the Planning Board after
working further with the applicant.
AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
February 27, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-27,5,"7-B.
FDP05-0004/DR05-0129- Barry Vial - 1951 Harbor Bay Parkway (DG). The applicant
requests approval of Final Development Plan and Major Design Review applications allowing
the construction of two new commercial buildings. Building 1 is a 28,392 sq. ft., approximately
28 ft. high, two-story building. Building 2 is a 15,178 sq. ft., approximately 25 feet high single-
story building. The proposed use of these buildings is a mix of light industrial and professional
offices. The two buildings would contain up to 13 separate units. Specific businesses that would
occupy the buildings have not been identified at this time. The project site is zoned C-M-PD
Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District.
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to remove Item 7-B from the Consent Calendar and place it
on the Regular Agenda.
AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report and recommended approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speakers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that she had requested that this item be pulled from the Consent Calendar. She
had visited the site and was concerned about the change in the character in the buildings and their
relationship to the street over a period of time. She believed that the original design concepts for
Harbor Bay were being left behind, and that it was becoming more critical to maintain the public
relationship with the street and waterfront area. She noted that she had attended a workshop at the O
Club with several other Board members that addressed design features for the FISC property. The
main comment was that there was too much parking surrounding that site. She did not want that kind
of building and relationship of the buildings to the site plan at the other end of Alameda. She
believed a better approach was required for this site.
Vice President Cook agreed with Ms. Kohlstrand's comments.
President Cunningham believed that bringing the buildings closer to the sidewalk created an
oppressive feeling; he preferred a larger setback as long as there was a sufficient setback.
Mr. Garrison noted that this business park was approved in the 1980s, with the design philosophies
of that time; he added that was the genesis of the broad setbacks. He noted that the landscaping was
quite mature and other areas were more sparse. Staff would follow up with that situation through the
Planning Department; landscaping requirements would be used to provide a smooth transition from
the open space to the business park.
Mr. Steve McKeem, project architect, described the site layout and believed the visual relief of the
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
February 27, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-27,6,"setback was functional.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand whether the eleven parking spaces above the Code
requirement could be eliminated, Mr. McKeem noted that Harbor Bay had different parking
requirements than the City.
Mr. Garrison noted that the development agreement with the Harbor Bay Business Park had a
requirement that the regulations in effect at the time it was signed apply. The parking standards from
the 1980s would be the standards in effect, which in some cases require more parking standards than
the current standards. He believed it made sense to use the current parking standards, as stated in the
staff report.
Ms. Kohlstrand would be comfortable with the current standards, and would like the applicant to
explore replacing the additional parking spaces with landscaping.
Ms. Woodbury noted that she would be happy to work with the applicant in that regard. She added
that the Fire Department's EVA requirements must be included in the revised plan.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-09 to approve
approval of Final Development Plan and Major Design Review applications allowing the construction of
two new commercial buildings. Building 1 is a 28,392 sq. ft., approximately 28 ft. high, two-story
building. Building 2 is a 15,178 sq. ft., approximately 25 feet high single-story building. The proposed
use of these buildings is a mix of light industrial and professional offices. The two buildings would
contain up to 13 separate units. Specific businesses that would occupy the buildings have not been
identified at this time.
AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
February 27, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-27,7,"7-C.
Use Permit UP06-0002, Major Design Review DR06-0007 - City of Alameda Recreation
and Parks; 740 Central Avenue (SH). The applicant requests Use Permit and Design
Review approval to allow the construction of a permanent 1,920 square-foot (40' by 48')
recreation building that will replace an existing temporary structure. Pursuant to AMC
Subsection 30-4.19.b(3), a Use Permit is required for structures located on public and private
land in the O (Open Space) District. The site is located at Washington Park within the O,
Open Space Zoning District.
Ms. Hom summarized the staff report and recommended approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speakers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Vice President Cook noted that she had pulled this item from the Consent Calendar, and was very
concerned about the design of this building. She did not believe it blended well with the beauty of
the parks, and the building looked like a temporary modular building.
Ms. Hom confirmed that it was a modular building, but that landscaping would surround the
building and that it would be setback 113 feet from the street.
Dale Lillard, Acting Recreation and Parks Director, noted that the Recreation Commission echoed
Board member Cook's concern about the design, and that they were very conscious of making it
blend into the neighborhood and that it be similar to the other buildings in the area. A stucco exterior
and pitched roof would dress the building up, and he confirmed that cost issues drove the modular
design. The project is funded by a $300,000 State grant. He noted that the original rec. center had
burned to the ground, and that it was not cost-effective to replace the original design.
Ms. McNamara was concerned about the design as seen from the street, and requested that it be
dressed up. Mr. Lillard replied that the landscaping could be enhanced so it would not be as visible
from the street.
President Cunningham noted that this building lacked the usual articulation of structures in the area,
and suggested wooden trellises or other embellishments without losing its functionality to the public.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding the life of such a building, Mr. Lillard replied
that properly maintained, it should last approximately 25 years. He noted that Bayport would not
contain modular buildings.
Ms. McNamara expressed concern that cost issues would drive the use of additional modular
buildings. Mr. Lillard replied that the joint use agreement with the School District would require
meeting their criteria, and that there were no plans to include modular buildings at Bayport.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
February 27, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-27,8,"Mr. Lynch noted that he did not care for this design, but that the needs of the community must be
balanced. He would have liked to see a stone façade over cinderblock, and noted that this was an
indictment of the City's financial status.
Vice President Cook believed the City Council should balance the expenditures of the funds, and
that the Planning Board's concerns should beg the question of design versus public services.
Mr. Lynch noted that there was similar discussion by Rec. and Parks, and that there was a
tremendous need for services in the City. He agreed with Vice President Cook's concerns, but would
defer to the Rec. and Parks Commission with respect to the need for the functionality.
Ms. Kohlstrand agreed with Mr. Lynch's assessment, and believed additional landscaping treatment
would be helpful.
President Cunningham believed this was a unique situation in that this was a City building, and
added that the City Council was the ultimate client. He suggested giving the City Council a chance
to do a better job on this design.
Ms. Woodbury noted that she would work with the Rec. and Parks Department in achieving the
Board's design suggestions.
M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-10 to approve Use
Permit and Design Review approval to allow the construction of a permanent 1,920 square-foot (40'
by 48') recreation building that will replace an existing temporary structure. Pursuant to AMC
Subsection 30-4.19.b(3), a Use Permit is required for structures located on public and private land in
the O (Open Space) District. Additional landscaping would be added around the building, and the
applicant would work with the Planning Director to improve the design.
AYES - 3 (Mariani absent); NOES - 2 (Cunningham, Cook); ABSTAIN - 0
The motion failed.
Vice President Cook noted that she would like to get more funding for a building with a 25-year life
cycle.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding the grant cycle, Mr. Lillard replied that the funded
need to be expended by 2008. He added that there was a demand for reasonable after-school care,
which this building would help provide.
President Cunningham would support the addition of other built structures to embellish the design,
such as a trellis.
Ms. Woodbury noted that color and different window styles would add to the building. In response
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
February 27, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-27,9,"to Vice President Cook's question whether there would be time for bringing new drawings to the
Board, Ms. Woodbury believed that would be difficult.
Mr. Lillard noted that they hoped to use the building in the summer.
M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-10 to approve Use
Permit and Design Review approval to allow the construction of a permanent 1,920 square-foot (40'
by 48') recreation building that will replace an existing temporary structure. Pursuant to AMC
Subsection 30-4.19.b(3), a Use Permit is required for structures located on public and private land in
the O (Open Space) District. The applicant would work with the Planning and Building Director
regarding landscaping and additional articulation, and would return to the Planning Board if that
could not be achieved.
AYES - 4 (Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (Cook); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
February 27, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-27,10,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
FDP05-0003/DR05-0127/TM05-0003- - Venture Corporation - 2201 Harbor Bay Parkway
(DG). The applicant requests approval of Final Development Plan and Major Design Review
applications allowing the construction of three new two-story commercial buildings. The
buildings would range in size from 13,946 to 16,952 sq. ft. in size, with a maximum height of 34
ft. The proposed use of these buildings is a mix of research and development facilities and
professional offices. The three buildings would contain up to 24 separate units. Specific
businesses that would occupy the buildings have not been identified at this time. The applicant
also requests approval of a Tentative Parcel Map/Condominium Plan allowing the conveyance
of the 24 units to separate owners. (Continued from the meeting of February 13, 2006.)
Mr. Garrison presented the staff report, and recommended approval of this item.
In response to an inquiry by Member Lynch regarding location of the parking, Ms. Harryman
confirmed that the language stated that the parking ""should be located at the rear or side of the
property.""
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Stuart Scheinholtz, Development Manager, Venture Corporation, 600 Miller Avenue, Mill
Valley, applicant, updated the Board on the progress of the project and noted that Phase I of this
project had 15 properties, 14 of which have been sold; 13 of those properties had closed. He noted
that these small businesses had previously been shut out of the Alameda real estate market and wish
to have an ownership share in Alameda. He noted that the architecture was meant to blend into the
community, and wished to put Phase II into context.
Mr. Brock Grayson, project architect, Ware Malcomb, 5000 Executive Parkway, San Ramon,
displayed the proposed project on the overhead screen and described its features. He noted that the
view to the Bay was a very important component of the design.
Mr. Jason Cheng, 346 Anderson Road, Alameda, spoke in support of this project. He noted that he
was a co-owner of one of the units in Phase I, and added that the ability to own their own property
gives him freedom and evidence of an increased level of success in the business community. He was
happy to not be under the control of a landlord, and added that the views were very attractive. He
believed the applicant has tried to maximize the views and give the owners something to be proud of.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara how the mature landscaping and the bay views could be
reconciled, Mr. Grayson replied that while it was tricky, they tried to achieve both by determining
the value to the buyers. They wished to make sure they were welcome in the City and followed the
design guidelines. All owners have a second floor with unobstructed views, and landscaping
screened the first floor.
Member Kohlstrand noted that during her site visit, most of the ground floor blinds were drawn,
while the second floor blinds were open; she wondered if the business owners tried to provide their
own screening from the parking lot. Mr. Grayson noted that parking at the front of the building was
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
February 27, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-27,11,"an important element in getting people into the building.
Member Kohlstrand noted that while the applicant stated the design was a compromise, she did not
notice a difference from the last design. Mr. Grayson noted that it was a compromise between the
some Board Members' wishes that the buildings face the street, and others' wishes to face the back.
He added that they sold the parking spaces, which were identified for the buyers; he noted that was a
major marketing advantages for the buyers.
Vice President Cook noted that this project was very good for the buyers, but was unsure whether
this was the best project for the City of Alameda. She complimented the applicant on the
presentation, but did believe that changes could be made to reflect the Planning Board's comments.
She would like the site plan to be less intensive, and did not see any changes since the last meeting.
She noted that the location of the employee area was of concern to her, and she was unmoved from
her previous position.
Mr. Grayson displayed the slide identifying the sitting area on the southwest side of Building C, and
added that a secondary area could be added closer to Harbor Bay.
Mr. Scheinholtz stated that this was the 20th iteration of this design. He noted that some of the issues
raised by the Board could not be accommodated according to the Fire Department.
Member Lynch believed the bigger issue was the City's concern about a work plan as it relates to
design review for the business park.
President Cunningham noted that his comments on the previous project stand, and he preferred the
current proposal. He could support this proposal, and noted that Phase I was a pre-existing condition.
He noted that in Scheme D, it was better to have an environment captured by all the buildings than
trying to have a hodge-podge of buildings with no relationship between Phase I and Phase II. He
believed that approach produced a more cohesive master plan. He added that the view of Alameda
from Oakland was of a greenbelt of trees, and that a green tree-lined shoreline would be the view of
this part of Alameda. He understood the applicant's concerns about emergency access and the Fire
Department's reservations about outlets at North Loop and Harbor Bay.
Member Kohlstrand supported Vice President Cook's statements, and could not support the site plan
as proposed.
Vice President Cook believed that further work could be done with the relationship between the two
phases to reach a true compromise.
Mr. Grayson noted that people using the promenade would see parking when looking at the building,
and understood that was one of the Board's main objections. He believed the contextual evidence
provided at this meeting showed the lanes of Harbor Bay Parkway, the greenbelt and the building's
landscaping. He believed it was unlikely that a pedestrian along the waterfront would not be
particularly upset about seeing the building's parking because of the berm and the hedging. They
wished to maximize the use for the buyers, who would spend 10-12 hours a day in this building. He
understood Vice President Cook's concerns about the waterfront views.
President Cunningham believed pitched roofs and more articulation would improve the appearance
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
February 27, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-27,12,"of the buildings, especially in relation to the waterfront.
Mr. Grayson noted that while people use the waterfront for amenities, he emphasized that this was a
business park, albeit an attractive one. He noted that this was not a retail center.
Member Kohlstrand expressed concern that there were no other amenities for the employees, and did
not intend to require the applicant to add retail. She noted that how the site relates to the waterfront,
and how the site itself functions, were very important. She compared this site with the previous
Harbor Bay project discussed by the Planning Board, and added that there was more of a landscape
treatment, with parking tucked around the back. She noted that this was a suburban environment for
the business park, and believed there was a better SO in providing building surrounded by parking.
She believed there could be a more harmonious relationship between the buildings and the green
space.
Mr. Grayson respectfully disagreed with Member Kohlstrand's last comment.
Ms. Woodbury suggested that if more landscaping around the lower floor offices would help the
Board approve the project, staff could work with the applicant in achieving that goal.
Vice President Cook encouraged the applicants to strike a compromise with respect to the areas of
concern expressed by the Board. She preferred Plan C, but would like more frontage along Harbor
Bay Parkway; she liked the setback on that plan.
Member Lynch noted that he liked Plans C and D, and added that this was not a retail space. He
acknowledged that this item may need to go to City Council to be resolved.
In response to an inquiry by Member Lynch regarding the required quorum, Ms. Harryman replied
that if one of the Board members brought a motion to approve the project, and it was defeated 2-3,
the applicant would have the ability to appeal to Council within 10 days.
M/S Lynch/Cunningham to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-11 to deny Final
Development Plan and Major Design Review applications allowing the construction of three new two-
story commercial buildings. The buildings would range in size from 13,946 to 16,952 sq. ft. in size, with
a maximum height of 34 ft. The proposed use of these buildings is a mix of research and development
facilities and professional offices. The three buildings would contain up to 24 separate units. Specific
businesses that would occupy the buildings have not been identified at this time. The applicant also
requests approval of a Tentative Parcel Map/Condominium Plan allowing the conveyance of the 24 units
to separate owners.
AYES - 2 (Mariani absent); NOES - 3 (Cook, Kohlstrand, McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0
The motion failed.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
February 27, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-27,13,"8-B.
Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment (AT). A public hearing to obtain public
comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed Northern Waterfront General Plan amendments. The
Northern Waterfront area includes a number of properties generally located along the
Oakland/Alameda Estuary between Sherman Street, Grand Street, and Buena Vista Avenue.
Mr. Thomas summarized this staff report, and noted that comments were being received on the Draft
EIR circulated on February 1, 2006. The public comment period will close on March 30, 2006.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Barbara Kerr, President, Northside Association, 1822 Bay, wished to address the areas adjacent
to her residential area. She expressed concern about the Pacific Storage site, and added that the
concentrated housing as envisioned by the Northern Waterfront Specific Plan committee had become
the site for the storage company. She noted that senior housing had been envisioned for that area,
and added that a major transportation hub was located at the corner of Webster and Atlantic. She
requested a copy of the final minutes of the Northern Waterfront Specific Plan meeting. She added
that the Association strongly supported the development of streets allowing for parking on both
sides. She advised that she would submit her written comments.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Member Kohlstrand noted that on page 4B-1, the paragraph relating to population should be re-
examined. She noted that it stated, ""Between 1990 and 2000, the number of households in Alameda
decreased by 1,148, or by less than 4% when compared to the 1990 base of 29,078 households."" She
noted that it also stated that the 2000 year base was 30,226; she believed that was an increase, rather
than a decline. She noted that under the Noise Element, the noise mitigation will be taken into
account on an individual project basis. She knew there were recommended guidelines in the Plan
that discourage sound walls unless absolutely necessary; she wanted to leave room for other options
and design treatments such as expanded setbacks.
Mr. Thomas anticipated that there would be considerable discussion about this proposed policy. He
noted that the City had run into problems in the past (such as the Catellus project on Atlantic), based
on the current General Plan policy, it was interpreted that front yards were active recreational spaces
and can be exposed to a certain amount of noise, but backyards should not be. He noted that the City
hoped to make design decisions to protect yard spaces, and to put the sound wall issue to rest.
Member Lynch noted that he did not agree with the last section of the Employment Section B, and
added that he did not fault ABAG for the numbers provided by the City, although he may not agree
with the methodology. He believed that there should be a statement that the employment numbers
were not close to reality, and did not want them to affect the jobs-housing numbers in the future.
President Cunningham agreed with Member Lynch's statement, especially with regard to the median
home price being listed as $332,000; he wished that would be true. He did not know what the impact
these incorrect numbers would have on requirements placed on the City with respect to affordable
housing; he advised that current numbers be used.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding additional marinas, Mr. Thomas
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
February 27, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-27,14,"replied that two additional marinas were being proposed on the other two sides of the Encinal
Terminal site. An additional marina plan was approved by the Planning Board about four years ago
just for the Alaska Packers. That permit has since expired, and Mr. Wong was considering
resubmitting with a different configuration. He noted that the Board will hear the recommendation
by the Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee (Policy ET-11, page 12), stating that there should
not be any berths along the northern edge of Encinal Terminals.
Member Lynch believed that the City did need marinas, and that they were a tremendous asset to the
City. He noted that there were many vistas around the Island with unobstructed views, and that
marinas at this location would enhance the experience in Alameda.
No action was taken.
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Woodbury advised that the League of Women Voters communication had been distributed to
the Board members.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there had been no further meetings.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
member Mariani).
Ms. Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board member
Kohlstrand).
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that there had been no further meetings.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
February 27, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-27,15,"12.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Woodbury advised that Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft had been nominated to the Planning Board at the
last City Council meeting, and would be accepting the nomination at the next City Council meeting.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the land tour schedule was still being developed, and that two consecutive
Fridays were being considered. She added that two different tours or a Saturday tour were also being
considered.
President Cunningham noted that this had been Ms. Harryman's last meeting, and thanked her for
her service to Alameda.
Ms. Woodbury advised that Donna Mooney would be working with the Planning Board in Ms.
Harryman's place.
In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand whether the Planning Board members were
required to go to a work session related to Planning Boards that were compensated for their
meetings, Ms. Woodbury advised that she would check into that issue and report back.
President Cunningham clarified that none of the Board members were compensated.
Ms. McNamara inquired about the status of the Bridgeside project, and added that it was going very
slowly. Ms. Woodbury did not have the current status available, but knew that the site was very wet.
13.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy Woodbury Secretary
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the April 10, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and
video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
February 27, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-10,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, April 10, 2006
1.
CONVENE:
7:06 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. Kohlstrand
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice-President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft,
Kohlstrand, Lynch and McNamara.
Board member Mariani was absent.
Also present were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Douglas Garrison, Planner III,
Contract Planner Chandler Lee, Doug Cole, Development Services, Executive Assistant Latisha
Jackson.
President Cunningham welcomed Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft to the Planning Board.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of February 27, 2006.
Vice President Cook advised that at the bottom of page 8, the motion was not approved unanimously,
and that it failed. She advised that at the bottom of page 9, the vote was not unanimous.
President Cunningham noted that the motion on page 12 was to deny, and there were two ""Ayes"" and
three ""Noes."" He believed that three people supported the denial, and that he and Mr. Lynch voted
against the denial. Ms. Woodbury stated that the motion was for approval, and it failed. She noted
that the language would be changed for clarification.
M/S Cook/McNamara to approve the minutes for the meeting of February 27, 2006, as amended.
AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Ashcraft)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
April 10, , 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-10,2,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
PDA05-0007 - Park Street Landing - 2307 Blanding Avenue (EP). Redesign of the
existing monument sign, per the request of the Planning Board. Three signs would be
established on the existing monument sign. The site is located within the Park Street Landing
Shopping Center in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning
District. (Staff requests continuance to the meeting of April 24, 2006.)
M/S Kohlstrand/Ashcraf and unanimous to continue Item 7-A to the meeting of April 24, 2006.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
April 10, , 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-10,3,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
FDP06-0001 /DR06-0004 - Exchange Support Services, Inc. - 1700 Harbor Bay Parkway
(DG). The applicant requests approval of Final Development Plan and Major Design Review
applications allowing the construction of a new 105 room, three-story hotel. Guest rooms will not
include kitchen / cooking facilities. The building includes approximately 59,000 sq. ft. of floor area.
Typical building height would be approximately 34 ft. with some parapets extending up to a
maximum height of 42 ft. The site is located in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned
Development Zoning District
Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report, and recommended approval of this project.
In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand whether the future building pad was included in the
48% landscaping, Mr. Garrison confirmed that was true.
Member Kohlstrand noted she was disappointed to that there were no plans for development of this
portion of the site, and that she had asked for amenities on Harbor Bay Parkway. She inquired when
some other amenities may be seen on this site. Mr. Garrison noted that the applicants could address
that question.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. John Manderfeld, Marin Management, Inc., hotel operator, noted that they planned to assess the
question of amenities following completion of the construction. He noted that they would know what
the demands of the area would be, and that they were examining small restaurants, cafés, and coffee
vendor service. He added that they would need to find a suitable tenant. He noted that the Hampton
Inn brand was part of the Hilton Corporation, and that there would be a ""shop,"" which would sell
small food items that guests could prepare in their rooms. Complimentary breakfast is also included,
and no lunch or dinner service was included.
In response to an inquiry by Member Lynch whether there were FARs on this site, Mr. Garrison
replied that there were not in this part of Harbor Bay Parkway.
President Cunningham noted that the conditions mentioned locating trees in an effort to screen
asphalted areas. He noted that the neighboring property (1650) instigated a methodology where there
was one tree for every two parking spaces. He would be interested to see if some of the trees between
the sidewalk and the building be placed in landscaped areas within the parking area instead (one tree
for four cars).
Mr. Manderfeld believed that was an option, and that the hotel would have more parking spaces than
required. The inclusion of any restaurant would use all those spaces. He noted that the addition of trees
would reduce the number of parking spaces. They examined the sun exposure, and the rear of the building
would get most of the sun from the south and the west.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
April 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-10,4,"The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Member Lynch would like more vegetation to be added, and liked the idea of indigenous plants.
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-12 to approve
Final Development Plan and Major Design Review applications allowing the construction of a new 105
room, three-story hotel. Guest rooms will not include kitchen / cooking facilities. The building includes
approximately 59,000 sq. ft. of floor area. Typical building height would be approximately 34ft. with some
parapets extending up to a maximum height of 42 ft. The changes to the landscaping plan would be
included, which would increase the number and/or size of the trees in the parking area to better screen the
building.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
President Cunningham called for a five-minute break.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
April 10, , 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-10,5,"8-B.
Catellus Study Session (AT). A presentation and discussion of proposed changes to the
Catellus Mixed Use Development Project. The study session provides an opportunity for
Planning Board and public input into the proposed project design early in the project design
process. The project site is located on the north side of the College of Alameda adjacent to
the Oakland Estuary. No action will be taken on the proposed project at this meeting.
Mr. Lee presented the staff report. Noted that two community workshops were held, and that the
suggestions from the public were summarized in the table distributed to the Board. He introduced the
applicant team.
Mr. Dan Marcus made a PowerPoint presentation, detailing the project. He noted that amenities such
as outdoor dining, playgrounds, and bike and walking paths. The January workshop made it apparent
to them that the waterfront was special for people of all ages. He described the site layout and
surrounding uses. Their intention was to create an exciting mixed use development, with a special
waterfront use. He noted that both the January and February workshops were well attended and
productive. He answered the three predominant questions they answered at the workshop:
1.
Why is Catellus proposing to make this change?
He noted that the site was entitled for 1.3 million square feet of office development. There is a lack of
office development, and a demand for such; 300-400,000 square feet of office could be absorbed over
the next five to ten years, but 1.3 million square feet of office development must be spread out over
decades. He added that there was a strong demand for residential and retail development, and noted
that the ability for students to have nearby jobs will attract more students. He believed that
workplaces near homes will also be beneficial. Catellus also intended to make the waterfront a special
site.
2.
How will our proposed retail impact other retail in Alameda?
He noted that the City sponsored a citywide retail forum to address this question, and that they met
with WABA regularly. They intended to make this project a positive influence on the Webster Street,
and Alameda as a whole. They hoped to link their project with BART. They have also continued
discussions with APCP, PSBA and GABA to ensure their project fit in well.
3.
What are the benefits of the proposed development?
He noted that they discussed creating a special place on the waterfront, which would be a great
benefit to the City. He noted that people who have toured the area, with its old warehouses, were
surprised to see the blight. He believed there would be huge economic benefits to the City, and that
the new retail would generate sales tax revenues, as well as property tax revenues. They estimated
that the annual property and sales tax revenues would be well over $2 million. The City would access
over $20 million out of the project. In the old arrangement, the City would have been responsible for
all the building demolition and infrastructure development; in the new arrangement, that risk has been
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
April 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-10,6,"shifted from the City to Catellus.
Ms. Karen Alschuler, SMWM, described the details of the plan and displayed the site plan on the
overhead screen. She noted that having a waterfront site brought with it the responsibility to treat it
with respect.
Mr. Prakash Pintel, SMWM, displayed the plan and described its layout, scope and major
components. He noted that they intended to connect Alameda to its waterfront. He noted that a
health club would be a good use on the waterfront, with outdoor jogging paths along the waterfront.
They favored an integrated transit stop system to serve both the housing and retail uses, and to bring
people to the waterfront. He displayed a water taxi system, similar to that used in Vancouver.
Ms. Karen Alschuler, SMWM, discussed the waterfront as a way to bring the mixed uses together.
She displayed the proposed plan, including new office buildings, the park and the public spaces as they
relate to the water views. Their goal was to change this site from derelict to destination.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. George Phillips, 901 Park Street, spoke in support of this project. He noted that Catellus has
been a good friend and neighbor in Alameda, and believed they worked diligently to be sure the
nonprofit organizations were involved in this project. He asked the Board to consider the parking
considerations and open space.
Ms. Lucy Gigli, President, Bike Alameda, noted that they had worked closely with the East Bay
Bicycle Coalition in looking at this project. They would like the Board to use this project as a way to
reduce the demand of auto traffic by closing the current gap for bicycles and pedestrians between the
West End of Alameda and Oakland. She noted that the bicycle access for that short distance was in
the dirty, noisy Posey Tube with a very dangerous and narrow path. She believed this project would
open up the opportunity to take the water taxi concept a step further, and would create transportation
access for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Mr. Randy Renthschler expressed his appreciation for the efforts by the Board and the applicant. He
noted that other developments in Alameda, such as the theater, had a strong sense of
compartmentalization that did not connect to the rest of the town. He believed this project did
connect to the rest of Alameda. He believed that Alameda should be for something, and that in the
past, it had been for the Base. He noted that Alameda was unique because of its flatness, making it
good for bicycling. He added that some of the best windsurfing and kiteboarding in the country could
be found in Alameda; soccer was also a big draw in Alameda. He believed the theme of outdoors
activity was reflected in this plan. He noted that he was part of the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, and would be willing to make his offices open to the developers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
April 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-10,7,"Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why Catellus did not propose this particular project in the first place.
Mr. Manderfeld noted that Catellus competed with a number of developers to look at the
redevelopment of this overall site. At that time, the focus was on creating a jobs/housing balance and
commercial uses; there had been some retail uses sprinkled in the original project. The original
proposal was before the dot-com crash, and there had been significant interest in office and R&D
uses. He noted that the past chair of the EDC had commented to him that plans were meant to
change. The community has since expressed its interest in more retail.
Member Kohlstrand disclosed that she reviewed the proposal with the developers.
Member [Ezzy Ashcraft] disclosed that she met with the developer to review the proposal, but not at
the same time as Member Kohlstrand.
Member Kohlstrand believed there were many positive aspects to this plan, especially the integration
of varied land uses. She liked the idea of Fifth Street being used as a main spine that oriented towards
Jack London Square in Oakland. She believed that having Mitchell Mosely Avenue and Tinker
Avenue developed as major east-west streets on the property was a positive aspect. She expressed
concern about the uses being spread apart. She noted that the predominant use was parking, and
believed that concern was expressed at the workshops as well. She believed the very low density was
a constraint that resulted in a lot of parking. She would rather see land reserved and not developed
than having all the surface parking area. She would like better integration of the uses.
Vice President Cook agreed with Member Kohlstrand's comments, and supported the mixed use
concept over the office projects. She would like to see best practices for waterfront development
implemented for this project, and complimented SMWM on their involvement in this project. She
believed the site was overly constrained, including the influence of Measure A; she would like to see
more diversity in residential uses on this site. She would prefer a greater mix of retail and housing
along the waterfront that would enliven the site during non-business hours. She liked the Fifth Street
developments, and believed it was an exciting notion. She expressed concern that the bioswale was
not connected back to the City, and that it seemed to stop at Tinker. She liked the mix of retail, office
and housing along Fifth Street and would like to see the residential pushed as close to the water as
possible. She liked the amount of open space in the project. She wished that Alameda had a true civic
open space where fireworks could be seen, and other civic gatherings could take place.
Member McNamara inquired which building was envisioned to be a ferry building. Mr. Manderfeld
noted that the building closest to the waterfront could serve in that capacity, and could have an iconic
structure to it. He noted that having water in the public space was very important.
Member McNamara shared the concern about the parking issue, and noted that was a lot of open
space for that designation. She would support some sort of parking structure that was visually
appealing. She was also concerned about the traffic flow onto and off the site, and believed expanding
Mitchell Mosely Avenue would help.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
April 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-10,8,"Mr. Lee noted that the City was responsible for building Tinker Avenue, and that preliminary designs
had been created. The EIR for the project examined the site in great detail, and more information
should be available by the end of April.
Member Ashcraft echoed Member McNamara's concern about the many parking spaces. Mr. Lee
noted that the Master Plan contained considerable flexibility regarding the parking lot. He noted that
the current parking numbers reflected the City's requirements in a typical development.
Member Lynch agreed with Mr. Lee's comments, and believed the City's planning documents need to
be revisited to reflect current conditions. He believed the site could be even denser, and that the City
should look at the interpretation and application of Measure A. He believed that should be rethought,
and believed there was a difference of opinion within the legal community. He complimented the
applicant on a job well done.
President Cunningham echoed the previous comments on housing and parking, and agreed with the
other comments. He understood that the current live/work ordinances do not make an allowance for
this use. He would like the City to tackle the issue of sustainability, and believed an ordinance
addressing sustainability should be in place. He noted that such a large development would have a
large impact on the community, which he believed should be mitigated as much as possible. He would
like to see the phasing plan for this construction. Mr. Lee noted that the Master Plan contained
exhaustive detail on this project.
Member Lynch believed the idea of the health club over a retail space was a terrible idea because it
was not children-friendly or user-friendly. He would like to see a more family-friendly health club on
this site.
Member Lynch believed this would be the perfect place for fireworks displays, and noted that the
Marin Community Foundation, housed at the former Hamilton Air Force Base, was stunning. He
believed it was an excellent example of adaptive use.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the conceptualized site layout and
rezoning, Mr. Lee replied that the goal was to develop an illustrative site plan where the footprint
would be as accurate as possible without knowing the actual occupants.
Vice President Cook would like the Board to have the ability to push for more vertical mixed use.
Mr. Doug Cole, Development Services, described the rationale behind the general layout of the retail
and residential uses. He noted that the FISC site had a covenant restricting residential uses on it
because of environmental issues.
Mr. Lee noted that staff supported vertical integration, and requested that the Board ask as many
questions for suggestions as possible as early in the process as possible.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
April 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-10,9,"Member Kohlstrand would like to see more density on this site, and for the amount of parking surface
to be reduced. She would like further research into a possible parking structure. She would like a
better connection to the rest of Alameda and further examination of use of the Tubes. She intended
to convey her belief that the City could make better use of the frontage road, the name of which she
did not know, at Mariner Square in terms of providing access to the site.
Vice President Cook agreed with Member Lynch's opinion regarding the health club and would rather
see a residential use there. She would like to understand the water taxi issue better, and wanted
to
ensure they worked well. She expressed concern about the Coast Guard housing on this site, and their
concerns for security versus the City's plan for integration into the rest of the City. She believed there
was an opportunity with this project to improve the residential access to the waterfront, and to
improve the Coast Guard housing.
Mr. Lee noted that they had discussed potential connections into that site.
Vice President Cook was concerned about the schism between affordable housing and the million
dollars homes, and while the 25% affordable housing allotment for Alameda was commendable, she
would like to see a more seamless integration of the different housing types in Alameda. Mr. Lee
noted that Measure A allowed for some flexibility for attached homes within a certain limit. In
addition, part of the term sheet did require 25% affordable housing.
Member Lynch would like to see a copy of the 2000 Master Plan agreement. He noted that with a
new City Manager and Planning Director, he believed that the introduction of a new document such
as this should be put into context with the past Master Plan. He was not open to reexamining the
policy of fiscal neutrality, and believed it should remain a core piece going forward.
In response to an inquiry by Member Lynch whether a General Plan Amendment would be done, Mr.
Lee replied that the project required a General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, rezoning,
development agreement amendment and a DDA amendment.
Member Lynch noted that he would like to get a variety of housing on the site at different price
points.
President Cunningham noted that he would like to continue to get information about the design
direction of this project.
Mr. Lee noted that the project website address was www.alamedalanding.co
Member Lynch noted that this was an expensive endeavor on the planning side, and would not like to
see the plans not square with the City Council in the event they were thinking only of the 2000
agreement. He suggested that staff check in with the City Council based upon what had been said at
this meeting.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
April 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-10,10,"Ms. Woodbury noted that would be discussed by the Executive Management Team, and that would
be brought to the City Manager to bring that thought forward.
No action taken on this item.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
April 10, , 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-10,11,"9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there were no further meetings since the last report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this item.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
Member Kohlstrand advised that she was unable to attend the last meeting, and would report to the
Board at a later time.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
None
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Catay Woodbury
Cathy Woodbury Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the May 8, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio
and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
April 10, , 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, April 24, 2006
1.
CONVENE:
7:06 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. Mariani
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, Kohlstrand, Lynch and
Mariani.
Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft was absent from roll call.
Vice-President Cook and Board Member McNamara were absent.
Also in attendance were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Building Official Greg
McFann, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner II Dennis Brighton, Planner II Emily Pudell,
Executive Assistant Latisha Jackson.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of April 10, 2006
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that the discussion on page 9 read, ""She would like a better connection to the
rest of Alameda and further examination of the use of the Tubes.' She intended to convey her belief
that the City could make better use of the frontage road, the name of which she did not know, at
Mariner Square in terms of providing access to the site.
M/S Kohlstrand/Lynch to approve the minutes for the meeting of April 10, 2006, as amended.
AYES - 3 (Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Mariani)
A quorum was not present. The minutes will be considered at the meeting of May 8, 2006.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None
President Cunningham advised that there was a request from the Board to move Item 8-C from the
Regular Agenda to the Consent Calendar.
M/S Lynch/Kohlstrand and unanimous to move Item 8-C from the Regular Agenda to the Consent
Calendar.
AYES - 4 (Ezzy Ashcraft, Cook and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
April 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,2,"6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Mr. Brian Gardner wished to speak on behalf of John Russo, the City Attorney of Oakland who is
running for State Assembly. He noted that Mr. Russo led the fight to keep the casino out of the City
of Oakland, and conducted an eight-year legal fight to shut down the medical waste incinerator in the
City of Oakland. He would fight for full health care, education and for Alameda to receive its full
share of taxes, as well as to stop urban sprawl. He has also served as head of League of Cities.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
April 24, , 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,3,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
TM06-0001- - Barry Vial - 1951 Harbor Bay Parkway (DG). The applicant requests
approval of Tentative Parcel Map 8980, allowing the conveyance of up to 13 separate
commercial spaces located within two buildings to separate owners. The project site is zoned
C-M-PD Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that the Board requested consideration for removing parking spaces in front of
the building along Harbor Bay Parkway. She noticed that there were still parking spaces there, and
requested clarification of the changes and how they would affect the subdivision of the parcels.
Mr. Garrison advised that there were originally 11 parking spaces in front, which had been reduced to
seven spaces, with the four extra spaces moved to the side and to the rear. Additional landscaping had
been installed in front. The parking allocation would be addressed through the CC&Rs.
Ms. Kohlstrand was uncomfortable with any parking in front of this development, which would be
reflected in her vote.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham on whether Item 7-A should be placed on the
Regular Agenda because of the lengthy discussion, Ms. Woodbury replied that it should be pulled in
the affirmative.
Ms. Kohlstrand stated she would like the parking to be eliminated from the front of the site. Ms.
Woodbury replied that staff looked at the circulation issues with other departments, which was the
reason the parking could not be eliminated. The area must be maintained for emergency circulation
and circulation for the site as a whole.
M/S Kohlstrand/Mariani and unanimous to move Item 7-A from the Consent Calendar to the Regular
Agenda.
AYES - 4 (Ezzy Ashcraft, Cook and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Barry Vial, applicant, noted that the project contained individual units for sale to small business
owners, and the project as approved called for a middle unit with reasonably close parking to those
facilities. He did not believe it was a good amenity for an owner to walk up to 100 feet to their own
business. He believed that the loss of those additional seven spaces would hurt his chances to sell the
units.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that she would set aside her objections to the parking, since City Council had
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
April 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,4,"overruled similar Planning Board actions.
M/S Lynch/Mariani and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-13 to approve
Tentative Parcel Map 8980, allowing the conveyance of up to 13 separate commercial spaces located
within two buildings to separate owners.
AYES - 4 (Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
April 24, , 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,5,"7-B.
Use Permit UP06-0001 - Sam & Michelle Koka - 650 Pacific Avenue (DB). The
applicant requests a Use Permit renewal to allow the operation of an automotive repair use to
continue for an additional five-year period. A Use Permit is required for automobile repair
shops in specific locations within the CC (Community Commercial) Zoning District. (Staff
requests a continuance to the meeting of May 8, 2006.)
M/S Lynch/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of May 8, 2006.
AYES - 4 (Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
April 24, , 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,6,"7-C.
DP05-0001/DR05-0116/PM06-0002 - William De Mar - 471 Pacific Avenue (EP). The
applicant is requesting Development Plan and Major Design Review approvals to establish a
new single family home and zero lot-line duplex in an existing R-4-PD (Neighborhood
Residential Planned Development) district, and a Parcel Map approval to allow the division of
the existing 14,400 square foot residential lot into four parcels, where one is developed with
an existing, single family home. The property is located within an R-4-PD (Neighborhood
Residential Planned Development) Zoning District. (Staff requests a continuance to the
meeting of May 8, 2006.)
M/S Lynch/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of May 8, 2006.
AYES - 4 (Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
April 24, , 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,7,"8.
Regular Agenda Items
8-A. PDA05-0007 - Park Street Landing - 2307 Blanding Avenue (EP). Redesign of the
existing monument sign, per the request of the Planning Board. Three signs would be
established on the existing monument sign. The site is located within the Park Street Landing
Shopping Center in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning
District. (Continued from the meeting of April 10, 2006.)
Ms. Pudell summarized the staff report and recommended approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speakers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the building color, it was noted that the
color would be beige. There would be a maximum of three tenant signs on the pylon, and corporate
colors would be allowed.
Ms. Mariani expressed concern about the appearance of the gateway sign.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that this was a retrofit of an existing sign.
Ms. Mariani noted that a pylon sign in Fremont was designed to show the company names with the
same font, and that the companies were able to compromise to have their names on the signs.
Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft arrived at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. Lynch was not enthusiastic about this or any signage at this site, but understood the limitations.
He noted that Alameda had a sign ordinance, which this business worked within. He believed that
unless the sign ordinance was reopened, elimination of the sign could not be an issue.
Ms. Mariani believed this sign was different because it was a gateway monument sign, and that it
should be more visually appealing.
Mr. Tom Foley, property manager, noted that he welcomed the Board's input and agreed with Mr.
Lynch's assessment that the existing sign was not very attractive. He noted that corporation logos and
colors did not have much flexibility, but that the local tenants were more flexible. He would be happy
to change the text if the Board and staff requested it.
Mr. Lynch noted that he liked the sailboat image at the top, which was more appropriate and
recognizable to drivers.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
April 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,8,"In response to an inquiry by Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft whether the edges of the sign could be softened, Mr.
Foley replied that it was designed by the City. She requested that the top of sign feature the word
""Alameda."" Mr. Foley noted that would be possible. Mr. Lynch withdrew his comments about
preferring the sailboat at the top of the sign. He liked the current design but would go along with the
rest of the Board.
M/S Kohlstrand/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-14 to approve redesign of the
existing monument sign, per the request of the Planning Board. Three signs would be established on
the existing monument sign. An additional condition would require the addition of some unifying
element, such as a border, brought from the primary sign to the secondary sign.
AYES - 4 (Cook and McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
April 24, , 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,9,"8-B.
UP06-0004 - Italo Calpestri, AIA for Dwight Jennings - 776 Lincoln Avenue (EP). The
applicant is requesting approval of a Use Permit to establish a dental office in an existing
single family home and to add approximately 500 square feet of office space. The property is
located within an R-5 (General Residential) Zoning District.
Ms. Pudell summarized the staff report, and noted that staff requested continuation to the meeting of
May 8, 2006. She noted that the area was generally in support of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Peter Colinberg noted that he lived several doors down from this property, and spoke in
opposition to this item. He expressed concern about the staff report's statement that mature
landscaping would buffer the office use. He believed the term ""buffer zone"" implied something
objectionable to be buffered from. He did not believe that on-street parking on Lincoln was actually
available. He was concerned that this project would impact their property values negatively. He
inquired whether this site would remain zoned commercial if this owner sold the business in the
future.
Mr. Brian Stewart noted that his property was adjacent to the subject site. He disagreed with staff's
assessment that the area supported this project, and noted that a petition in opposition to this project
had been circulated. He believed their home resale values would be negatively impacted.
Dwight and Carmen Jennings, owners, 776 Lincoln, understood that there were neighborhood
concerns about the proposed project. She noted that they spoke to as many neighbors as possible
about their concerns, and discussed their proposed mitigations to address those concerns.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the number of dentist chairs in the use, Dr.
Jennings replied that his practice was orthodontic in nature, and that he had one room with three
chairs, and a second room with one chair. He would be the only practitioner in the office, with a
support staff of three people. He normally sees approximately three people per hour.
Ms. Jennings noted that in response to the expressed concerns about safety and security, they would
have a sophisticated security alarm system that would go directly to a security agency that would
notify them and the Alameda Police if there were any issues. They had plans to put a gate across the
driveway that would be locked in the evening; the design would be compatible with the 1940s
architecture of the house. There were issues about off-street parking, and they had been told that they
must have seven off-street parking spaces. She stated that this is not a general dentistry practice, and
that the State mandated that any chemicals be picked up on-site. She believed they addressed the
commercial versus residential concerns.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Mariani disclosed that she lived around the corner from the subject site, and did not believe she
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
April 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,10,"was biased in her decision. She was very familiar with this area, and noted that the check cashing
business and the car dealership were in the Webster Street business district. She noted that the area
was mostly residential, with the exception of Ralph's Market. She was surprised that more residents
were not in attendance, and believed this would be a dramatic alteration to this neighborhood. She did
not know whether this was an appropriate location for a dental practice.
President Cunningham noted that the use permit ran with the property, and would remain in force if
the current owners were to sell the property. Ms. Pudell added that the use permit would be good
only for the specific use proposed.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that most of the nearby commercial uses were on corner sites near Webster
or
in a cluster of similar uses; this would be the first introduction of this kind of frontage. She was
concerned about introducing a commercial use at this site.
Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft disclosed that she had visited the site and spoke with Mr. Stewart about this site.
She noted that the subject traffic would occur during business hours, and that the greatest demand
was during the evening hours. She noted that three patients per hour day did not mean that they
would be parked there all day.
Mr. Lynch noted that Alameda was an urban environment, and would like more detail with respect to
complaints about the ""noise problem."" He noted that there were many medical facilities located
throughout Alameda, and he has yet to see any devalued property prices. He added that another
complaint addressed decreased privacy. He believed that if a resident did not want this business as
their neighbor, they should just say that.
President Cunningham noted that the property is currently vacant, and inquired whether there was a
current problem with the property not being occupied at night. He would like further information on
traffic impacts. He would like to hear comments from the other neighbors.
M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Mariani and unanimous to reopen the public hearing.
AYES - 4 (Cook and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN- -
0
Mr. Stewart noted that no one has addressed the salability of the homes in the future, and agreed with
Ms. Mariani's concerns. He noted that many neighbors were opposed to this project.
Mr. Colinberg wished to clarify the definition of ""buffer,"" which meant being protected from
something. He was not convinced by the Jennings' statement that many neighbors had changed their
minds from opposition to support.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
This item was continued to the meeting of May 8, 2006.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
April 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,11,"Page 11
Planning Board Minutes
April 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,12,"8-C.
Variance, V06-0001, and Major Design Review, DR06-0015 - Bob Allegrotti for Kevin
Gorham and Katherine Kenny - 1517 Pacific Avenue (DB). The applicant requests
Variances for: (1) The removal of a conforming parking space without providing a
conforming equivalent parking space; and (2) The establishment of two unenclosed compact
parking spaces not meeting minimum landscaping standards. The project proposes two
compact parking spaces where not more than one compact space is permitted and both spaces
would not incorporate the required 3-foot wide landscaping separating them from abutting
property lines and structures. A Major Design Review approval is requested to add
approximately 421-square feet of gross floor area, plus a covered porch to the rear of the
existing single-family residence. Because the project would extend a wall an additional 7-feet
toward the rear with a nonconforming westerly side yard setback of 3.5-feet, where a
minimum 5-foot side yard setback is required, a finding must be made that no adverse effects
such as shading, view blockage, or privacy reduction would occur on adjoining properties.
The site is located within an R-4, (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District.
M/S Lynch/Kohlstrand and unanimous to move Item 8-C from the Regular Agenda to the Consent
Calendar.
AYES - 4 (Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
M/S Lynch/Kohlstrand and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-15 to approve
Variances for: (1) The removal of a conforming parking space without providing a conforming
equivalent parking space; and (2) The establishment of two unenclosed compact parking spaces not
meeting minimum landscaping standards. The project proposes two compact parking spaces where
not more than one compact space is permitted and both spaces would not incorporate the required 3-
foot wide landscaping separating them from abutting property lines and structures. A Major Design
Review approval is requested to add approximately 421-square feet of gross floor area, plus a
covered porch to the rear of the existing single-family residence. Because the project would extend a
wall an additional 7-feet toward the rear with a nonconforming westerly side yard setback of .5-feet,
where a minimum 5-foot side yard setback is required, a finding must be made that no adverse effects
such as shading, view blockage, or privacy reduction would occur on adjoining properties.
AYES - 4 (Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
April 24, , 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,13,"8-D.
Seismic Retrofit Workshop (GM). Voluntary Seismic Retrofit Program with incentives For
Existing One to Three Story Residential Structures.
Mr. McFann summarized the staff report, and displayed a PowerPoint presentation.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Ken Gutleben noted that he informed City Manager Bill Norton of a project involving the
installation of a basement and seismic retrofit of a historic residence in Alameda. He noted that the
permit for the project was denied due to AMC 30, regarding offstreet parking section. He noted that
the habitable space was to be in the basement, similar to that in Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft's and President
Cunningham's homes. This particular lot size did not meet the offstreet parking requirement, and the
project was terminated, leaving the home vulnerable to earthquakes. Mr. Norton agreed that this
section of the Code should be changed. Mr. Gutleben believed the Planning Board placed design
review over safety, and that retrofits should be placed as a high priority. He noted that Alameda's
geographical placement and location on sandy soil left Alameda vulnerable to earthquake damage. He
urged adoption of this program.
Mr. David Baker, 939 Taylor, agreed that seismic retrofits were important but believed that this
ordinance was a political gimmick to solve a serious issue. He did not believe that exempting
historical structures from design review and exempting parking requirements would solve this
problem. He respected Mr. McFann and Mr. Gutleben but did not agree with their support of this
program. He believed the relaxation of plumbing and electrical upgrades was unwise.
Ms. Kevis Brownson, 1554 Everett Street, noted that she was a member of Alameda Architectural
Preservation Society, and thanked Mr. Gutleben for bringing this issue to the City's attention. She
supported this program, but objected to exempting homeowners from design review. She believed
that design review also protected the historic resources. She disagreed with exempting the front space
from the setback limitations, which she believed may result in paved front yards and would be a
detriment to Alameda. She agreed with facilitating low interest loans to perform the retrofit.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, agreed with the last two
speakers, and had concerns about a design review exemption. He noted that he did not hear Mr.
McFann's and Mr. Gutleben's presentations. He noted that a design review was much less expensive
than a seismic retrofit. He noted that the past discussion of lifting buildings and the Golden Mean was
valuable. He was inclined to discourage exempting design review as an incentive.
Mr. Bob Allegrotti believed that a severe earthquake is due, and that when the Hayward Fault is hit, a
lot of Alameda would be damaged. He was somewhat concerned about design review, and believed
that a fast track rather than exemptions would be more realistic. He believed that guidelines for the
historic buildings would be appropriate. He suggested preinspections for habitable space.
Mr. Dick Rutter noted that he was an architect and lived in a nonseismically upgraded home built in
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
April 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,14,"1910; he believed it should be upgraded. He discussed the failures of cripple walls, which were part of
older buildings. He believed there should be incentives for homeowners to be able to fix those types
of conditions. He took exceptions of not having engineers looking at buildings pushing the three-story
limit. He expressed concern about poor workmanship by fly-by-night contractors.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Lynch could not see any work being done without an engineer's and architect's stamp, and
believed that was a liability problem. He believed this should be the homeowner's cost, and not the
City's He would be open to the Planning & Building Department waiving the plumbing, mechanical
and electrical codes, but does not want to see any lessening of the fire codes. He was not sure the
parking requirements would help the City reach the objective.
President Cunningham echoed Mr. Lynch's comments and agreed with Mr. Rutter. He did not believe
the City should give away free parking at the expense of seismic retrofitting. He believed they were
two important, but different issues. He noted that it was important for an engineer to look at each
building, and that each building was different.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that the Board was not being asked to ultimately take action on the codes. Ms.
Woodbury noted that was true, and that any changes in Chapter 30 would eventually come to the
Board. The other incentives did not need to come to the Planning Board; the parking and design
review requirements would come before the Board.
Mr. Lynch believed the parking component should come back before the Board as a separate piece.
Ms. Kohlstrand believed it was a positive idea to encourage people to make seismic retrofits. She did
not believe that relaxing the parking was a bad idea. She was concerned about relaxing the design
review requirements unless there was more structure surrounding those requirements.
Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a fast track process could be added for seismic retrofit projects.
Ms. Woodbury did not believe that was realistic, and that it would be more logical to waive fees
associated with these projects.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that San Francisco had a low interest loan program, and that they had a difficult
time getting people to take them out. Mr. McFann noted that he had examined that program, and that
their only incentive was financial, which led to the program difficulties.
Mr. Lynch inquired whether the City reviewed engineering structural documents. Mr. McFann
confirmed that it did, and that it was not the primary issue of this matter. He added that it was
difficult to find an engineer and architect to do small projects such as these, which were expensive. He
believed that was a disincentive to do retrofits.
Mr. Lynch believed that a piecemeal approach would not be the answer, and he believed this was a
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
April 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,15,"process issue.
President Cunningham wished to ensure that the City did not incur liability for private contractors'
work.
Mr. McFann advised that staff would craft some Code changes to bring back to the Board.
Mr. Lynch suggested that staff meet with the various groups interested in this process.
No action was taken.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
April 24, , 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,16,"9.
Written Communications:
None.
10.
Board Communications
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Ms. Mariani advised that the next meeting would be held on April 27, 2006, at 2 p.m. Her committee
was working on a proposal to bring to both Planning Boards.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that there had been no further meetings.
Ms. Mariani noted that she had been approached by two people, stating that the Alameda Journal
reported that she was in favor of a parking structure at the Catellus project. She was not present at
that meeting, did not say that, and she contacted the Journal to correct the report. It was in fact Ms.
McNamara who mentioned a parking structure.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:07 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Catary Woodbury
Cathy Wootbbury, Secretary
Planning and Building Department
These minutes were approved at the May 8, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio
and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
April 24, , 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-05-08,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, May 8, 2006
1.
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Vice President Cook
3.
ROLL CALL: President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft,
Kohlstrand, Lynch and McNamara.
Board member Mariani was absent.
Also present were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Assistant City
Attorney Donna Mooney, Planner II Dennis Brighton, Planner II Emily Pudell.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of April 10, 2006
(Continued from the meeting of April 24, 2006.)
Vice President Cook noted that during the discussion of Item 8-B (Catellus), she
expressed her concern that the row of offices acted in some sense as a wall to the
waterfront, and that it was important to have a range of types of uses and a different
configuration.
Vice President Cook advised that on page 8, paragraph 1, she would like to clarify her
statement, ""She liked the amount of open space in the project."" She liked the overall
amount of open space in the project, but had a question about the appropriate size for the
plaza at the foot of 5th Street. She anticipated seeing examples of different public plazas
and public spaces in order to understand the size of that plaza in relation to the rest of the
site.
M/S Kohlstrand/Ezzy Ashcraft to approve the minutes for the meeting of April 10, 2006,
as amended.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Minutes for the meeting of April 24, 2006.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 10, paragraph 5, should be changed to
read: ""She noted that three patients per hour day did not mean they would be parked there
all day.""
M/S Kohlstrand/Lynch and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of April
24, 2006, as amended.
AYES - 4 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 2 (Cook, McNamara)
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
May 8, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-05-08,2,"5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
Use Permit UP06-0001 - Sam & Michelle Koka - 650 Pacific Avenue (DB).
The applicant requests a Use Permit renewal to allow the operation of an
automotive repair use. A Use Permit is required for automobile repair shops in
specific locations within the CC (Community Commercial) Zoning District.
(Continued from the meeting of April 24, 2006.)
M/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-
16 to approve a Use Permit renewal to allow the operation of an automotive repair use. A
Use Permit is required for automobile repair shops in specific locations within the CC
(Community Commercial) Zoning District.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
May 8, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-05-08,3,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
UP06-0004 - Italo Calpestri, AIA for Dwight Jennings - 776 Lincoln Avenue
(EP). The applicant is requesting approval of a Use Permit to establish a dental
office in an existing single family home and to add approximately 500 square feet
of office space. The property is located within an R-5 (General Residential)
Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of April 24, 2006.)
Ms. Pudell summarized the staff report, and wished to clarify that the use was for an
orthodontic office. Staff recommended approval of this item.
President Cunningham advised that nine speaker slips had been received.
M/S Lynch/McNamara to reduce the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Dwight and Carmen Jennings, applicants, noted that they received a copy of the petition and
tried to contact as many signers as possible. Mrs. Jennings noted that they tried to address
their concerns about parking, hazardous waste, security and property value. They had
consulted a long-time real estate appraiser in Alameda, who wrote a letter regarding R-5
zones and whether the mixed uses in those zones negatively affects property values. She
distributed that letter to the Board.
Mr. Steve Gibson, 1531 A Eighth Street, spoke in opposition to this project. He noted that
he worked nights and like to relax quietly in his backyard. He believed this proposed use
would disturb his quiet use of his property. He expressed concern about the traffic impacts
from the proposed use.
Mr. David Ammo spoke on behalf of his grandmother, who owns four parcels near the
project site. He expressed concern about the generated medical waste, as well as storage of
flammable and nonflammable gases used. He noted that the parking on the street was
already severely impacted.
Mr. Mark Severs, 766 Haight, expressed concern about the parking impacts on the street and
noted that it was already difficult to park. He did not believe a mixed use neighborhood
would retain its value.
Mr. Brian Stewart noted that an additional petition had been signed, and did not agree with
staff's rendition of the staff report, which favored this project. He spoke with many people
within 300 feet of the site, and stated that almost no one wanted this project. He added that
they wanted this area to remain residential. He noted that he had left the petition at the
Planning Department, and was concerned that it had not been seen by the Planning Board.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
May 8, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-05-08,4,"capacity, especially when repair or sales and service people came to this office. He noted
that several Internet listings identified Dr. Jennings as a dentist, not an orthodontist. He
expressed concern about security during the evening and weekend hours. He was concerned
about the precedent this zoning change would set. He submitted a letter written by his wife,
who could not attend.
Mr. Italo Calpestri, project architect, noted that he picked up a change suggested by Board
Member Ezzy Ashcraft to make a connecting pathway from the handicapped accessible
space through the terrace to the handicapped ramp. He noted that the residential character of
the building would change, and that a maintenance contractor would take care of the
landscaping. He noted that security was important for the owners and neighbors, and that
electronic surveillance would be employed. He noted that changing the building zoning
would not involve changes in the building that would be apparent from the street. The
proposal including providing off-street parking spaces in accordance with the ordinance. He
noted that nearby market would be open on the weekends. He believed the amount of traffic
generated by the applicant's use would be minuscule, and asked the Board to support this
application.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that Dr. Jennings practiced alone, had three office
assistants, and saw an average of three patients per hour. With some overlap of patients and
the occasional emergency, she believed there would be one or two cars searching for other
parking. She recalled one resident stating that riders of the ""O"" bus parked on their street,
and did not believe that seemed fair. She suggested that Parking Enforcement investigate
those occurrences, and believed this use had a minimal parking impact. She believed this
was a fairly noisy location to begin with, with respect to traffic noise. She noted that
decreased privacy had been cited on several occasions, and one speaker stated that he slept
during the day because of his night work. She noted that landscaping and fencing was
intended to soften the noise. She was concerned about the decrease of property values, and
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
May 8, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-05-08,5,"spoke with two experienced Realtors in Alameda about this issue. She was told that in
general, locating a nonresidential use in a residential area could lower property values, but it
depended on the type of use and the neighborhood. Each Realtor cited examples of many
medical uses located on Santa Clara Avenue, and that property values in those areas were
very strong. She believed that maintenance of the property was more important that the
location of the use. She complimented the body of work created by the project architect, and
believed it would be performed to a high standard. She noted that patients would not
patronize a medical use that was not well maintained.
Member McNamara noted that it was important to respect the current homeowners and
residents in this neighborhood, and that they had a major intersection to deal with.
Member Kohlstrand noted that she, along with Member Mariani, had expressed concerns
about introducing a commercial or office use on this particular block. She noted that she
drove along Santa Clara, Central and Lincoln earlier in the day, and was concerned about
additional traffic in this area. She had always advocated for mixed use, but did not believe
this was an appropriate site for this use.
Vice President Cook did not generally have a problem with mixed use, and added that she
lived in an R-4 zone. She expressed concern about traffic in and out of the site, and
suggested that locating this use in a neighborhood with wider streets and less existing noise
and congestion; for that reason, she opposed this project.
Member Lynch commended Ms. Pudell on her staff report, which followed the law, had
thorough analysis, and accurate and correct citations. He suggested that critics of the staff
report look more deeply into planning law and what the role of the planners are. He stated
that planners did not support or not support a particular project, but to follow a specific
format and to apply the law correctly.
President Cunningham wished to identify what an R-5 zone allowed, and noted that it was
the Board's job to hear the public's concerns. He did not hear support from the neighbors for
this project.
Member Lynch noted that this use had been contemplated by previous Boards and City
Council, which was why it was in the City Codes and planning documents. He noted that in
this regard, the neighbors asserted the sense of the neighborhood that did not square with the
planning documents.
Vice President Cook complimented Ms. Pudell on the staff report, and added that she was
not in favor of this project.
Ms. Jennings noted that she understood the neighbors' and Board members' concerns; she
noted that the General Plan identified the R-5 as not being strictly residential. She noted that
a variety of permitted uses within the R-5 zone that could impact residences, such as noise
and security. She believed the staff report identified the mitigations for the impacts, and
added that the property had been vacant since December 15, 2005. She noted that there had
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
May 8, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-05-08,6,"been no security issues. She noted that there would be no radioactive waste materials,
because it was an orthodontic/TMJ practice. She listed a number of commercial uses within
one block of the subject site, and believed that their practice would be appropriate to the
area. She was dismayed by the personal comments that had been made regarding their
income level and their goals in the neighborhood. She emphasized that their intent had only
been to increase and enhance the property value.
M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-17 to deny
approval approve of a Use Permit to establish a dental office in an existing single family
home and to add approximately 500 square feet of office space.
AYES - 4 (Mariani absent); NOES - 2 (Ezzy Ashcraft, Lynch); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
May 8, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-05-08,7,"8-B.
DP05-0001/DR05-0116/PM06-0002 - William De Mar - 471 Pacific Avenue
(EP). The applicant is requesting Development Plan and Major Design Review
approvals to establish a new single family home and two attached single-family
homes in an existing R-4-PD (Neighborhood Residential Planned Development)
district, and a Parcel Map approval to allow the division of the existing 14,400
square foot residential lot into four parcels, where one is developed with an
existing, single family home. The property is located within an R-4-PD
(Neighborhood Residential Planned Development) Zoning District. (Continued
from the meeting of April 24, 2006.)
Ms. Pudell presented the staff report, and recommended approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. William De Mar, applicant, noted that he and his wife Kelly were available for
questions.
Mr. Sam Koka, 650 Pacific Avenue, spoke in support of this item, and believed the
applicants would be a positive addition to the neighborhood.
In response to an inquiry by Member Lynch why he would not divide the site into two
lots that conformed with existing codes, Mr. De Mar replied that at first, he and his wife
had to move out of Alameda to buy a home. They were trying to provide entry-level
housing for two families, and that he and his family would live in the third lot.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Cunningham expressed concern about the potential for every lot in this district
being subdivided, and noted that it was already densely developed.
Ms. Pudell could not speak to every lot in the district, but believed that some other lots
could be similarly subdivided.
Member McNamara noted that she could not support the parceling with the proposed
number of units with the current measurements. She believed there would be too many
Variances proposed for her to consider.
Ms. Pudell noted that the Planned Development Overlay allowed for this type of
development, as well as for the creation of smaller lots to obtain the General Plan policies
regarding affordable housing. Staff noted that this particular project was well within the
density range of 8.8 to 22.8 units per acre based on the General Plan Medium Density
Overlay. This project was consistent with the General Plan and the zoning regulations.
Member Kohlstrand supported the addition of affordable units, even with additional
density. She was concerned that there were four parking spaces at the front of the house,
and wondered whether two parcels would be better than three for that reason.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
May 8, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-05-08,8,"Ms. Pudell noted that the entryway to the homes was on the side elevation, so the
residents would not exit directly into a parking space.
Member Lynch noted that he supported the Housing Element policies, and complimented
Ms. Pudell on her creative approach in applying them. He believed that when Housing
Element policies were applied with respect to the regulatory body of HCD, looking at
costs associated with median incomes, a publicly funded project may be maintained
within a certain band. Privately funded projects such as this, they would increase in
value. He suggested that the project be approved or disapproved on the merits of the
project, not how it would impact Housing Element policies, either positively or
adversely.
In response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the size of the rear fenced
private areas behind each dwelling, Ms. Pudell replied that Parcel 2 had a 180 square foot
area, and Parcels 3 and 4 would have areas of ax 15 by 26 feet, or 396 square feet for
each unit.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft echoed the concerns expressed by the other Board Members, and
had walked the neighborhood. She noted that the other multiple dwelling sites had more
openness on their sites.
Mr. Will Harrison, project designer, addressed President Cunningham's concern relating
to the zero lot line between Lots 3 and 4, and noted that the intention was so there could
be ownership of each individual unit. The double wall drawn on the floor plans has an
airspace between them, through which the lot line runs. He noted that there would be no
conflict if the project was developed in a clear and concise way; the applicant intended to
encourage entry-level ownership or rental in Alameda.
Vice President Cook noted that while Measure A worked well to protect Victorians, when
it came to housing for regular people, it had become very difficult to find a way to
provide the middle range of housing for people who don't meet affordability
requirements, but cannot afford a million-dollar house. She believed this project met that
need.
President Cunningham noted that the site plan appeared to have very intense planning,
but noted that when he visited the site, it appeared to be in character with the existing
homes in the neighborhood.
Ms. Pudell displayed the plans on the overhead to clarify that the portion of the lot behind
471 Pacific Avenue would remain open and vacant.
M/S Cook/Kohlstrand to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-18 to approve a
Development Plan and Major Design Review approvals to establish a new single family
home and two attached single-family homes in an existing R-4-PD (Neighborhood
Residential Planned Development) district, and a Parcel Map approval to allow the
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
May 8, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-05-08,9,"division of the existing 14,400 square foot residential lot into four parcels, where one is
developed with an existing, single family home.
AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
May 8, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-05-08,10,"8-C.
DR06-0002 - Jenny Wong - 3292 Washington Street (EP). Public Hearing to
consider a Call for Review of a decision of the Planning and Building Director
approving Major Design Review, DR06-0002, to allow construction of an
approximately 1,350 square foot second story addition, new deck and patio. The
property is located in a R-1, One Family Residence Zoning District. [Planning
Board President Andrew Cunningham].
Ms. Pudell summarized the staff report, and noted that staff conducted comprehensive
review of this project during the initial phases of the project. As a result of the Call for
Review, staff worked with the applicant to obtain a shade study, attached to the staff
report. Staff continued to stand by its recommendation that the Planning Board approve
this project based on the fact that minimal shading impacts will occur as part of the
proposed addition.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Steven Lau noted that he was a property owner on the same block as this project, and
expressed concern about parking. He noted that the expansion would nearly double the
size of the house. He did not know whether there were plans to expand the garage or
other parking accommodations. He believed this expansion would change the face of the
neighborhood, and would not be fair to homeowners who could not expand their own
homes.
Mr. David McCarver, 3288 Washington Street, expressed dismay that staff never
informed him that the privacy/shade report had been done because that was one of his
concerns. He noted that his home was immediately adjacent to this project, which he
believed would have a negative effect on his own quality of life. He disagreed with staff's
assessment that the project would have no significant adverse effects on his home. He
cited the Residential Design Guidelines, and believed the physical changes being
proposed to the subject site would not blend into the context of this street. He believed
the expansion would loom over his side yard. He did not believe the project would not
relate in form or mass with the existing buildings, and believed it would overwhelmingly
clash with the dominant verticality of this neighborhood. He noted that the neighborhood
was primarily ranch-style single-level homes. He did not believe this project was
compatible with any adjacent building in the neighborhood, and that it would not provide
harmonious transitions in scale and character. He noted that it was twice the size of any
other home in the neighborhood. He believed that it would be detrimental to existing
property values, as well as the growth of property values in the neighborhood. He
disagreed with staff's assessment in favor of this project. He submitted a petition
opposing this project, which was signed by all but two residents, whom he was unable to
reach.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
May 8, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-05-08,11,"Member McNamara noted that the shading report was difficult to read and understand.
Ms. Pudell described the details of the shading study, and noted that second generation
photocopies were difficult to read.
Member Kohlstrand suggested postponing a decision on this item until the original
shading report could be brought to the Board. She noted that information from the
neighbors had been received before the meeting, and noted that she would like more time
to review it.
Ms. Pudell noted that the shading study was received only a few days before the packets
were issued.
M/S Lynch/Kohlstrand to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of May 22,
2006, in order for the Board to have more time to review the information.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
May 8, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-05-08,12,"and noted that the City Council's and EDC's views on these elements were the ultimate
decision-makers. She requested more input from those bodies.
Ms. Woodbury advised that when the item is brought forward, staff will provide a
briefing as to what will be asked at the meeting, as well as the Board's opportunity to
make comments, and receive comments from the public.
Member Lynch would rather have a discussion about the alternatives, rather than to see
the Draft EIR, so they could be decided upon before a public body. The scope of the EIR
would be based upon those alternatives, and he noted that the Board did not have that. He
did not believe the public process had been integrated into the final decision, and
believed there was a disconnect between the various entities with respect to this project.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-
President Cook).
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
May 8, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-05-08,13,"Vice President Cook advised that there were no further meetings since the last report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee
(Board Member Mariani).
Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this item.
C.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board
Member Kohlstrand).
Member Kohlstrand advised that there had been no further meetings since the last report.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Woodbury advised that the Final EIR for the Alameda Point Golf Course had been
released, and that it would go to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority at the
first meeting in June. Staff would initiate negotiations with the Army Corps of Engineers
to obtain dredge materials for future construction of the golf course.
Ms. Woodbury noted that Andrew Thomas had been promoted to Planning Services
Manager.
In response to an inquiry by Member McNamara regarding the special Planning meeting
for May 18, 2006, Ms. Woodbury replied that Latisha Jackson had polled the Board to
see if a joint meeting with the EDC would be possible, with regard to the scope of the
parking study for the Park Street and Webster Street areas.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cather Woodbury
-
Cathy Woodbury, Secretary
Planning and Building Department
These minutes were approved at the May 22, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
May 8, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-05-22,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, May 22, 2006
1.
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member Kohlstrand
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Ezzy
Ashcraft, Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani and McNamara.
Also present were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Assistant City
Attorney Donna Mooney, Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Planner III
Douglas Garrison, Planner II Emily Pudell, Executive Assistant Latisha Jackson.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of May 8, 2006
(Continued from the meeting of April 24, 2006.)
Member Kohlstrand noted that the Board Resolution on page 7 should be changed to
deny approval of the Use Permit, not to adopt the Planning Board Resolution.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that pages 4 and 5 of the minutes, ""Mr. Steve Gibson, 1531
""A"" Street"" should read ""Eighth Street."" She noted that Mr. Wilton Fike's address should
read ""1524 Eighth Street.""
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the language on page 5 should be changed: ""Mr. Italo
Calpestri, project architect, noted that he picked up a change suggested by Board Member
Ezzy Ashcraft to make a connecting pathway from the handicapped accessible space
through the terrace to the handicapped ramp.""
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the last sentence on page 9, ""Ms. Pudell displayed the
plans on the overhead, and noted that"" should be completed with Ms. Pudell's comments.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 13, paragraph 5, should be changed to read,
""Member Ezzy Ashcraft agreed that the Planning Board should not operate in a vacuum,
and noted that the City Council's and EDC's views on these elements were the ultimate
decision-makers."" She noted that she did not intend to say that, and that she intended to
say that it would be important to know what the EDC's views were on these elements
since they came from a difference perspective from the Planning Board.
Vice President Cook noted that the first sentence on page 13 should be changed to read,
""Vice President Cook noted that she received a letter from Helen Sause Soss,"" to correct
the spelling.
M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Cook to approve the minutes for the meeting of April 10, 2006, as
amended.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
May 22, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-05-22,2,"AYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Mariani)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
May 22, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-05-22,3,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
Initiation of a Zoning Text Amendment: Parking Exception Process (CE).
M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to accept Initiation of a Zoning Text
Amendment: Parking Exception Process.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
May 22, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-05-22,4,"7-B.
Use Permit UP05-0020 - Monica Martinez for Amelia Cueva - 2071 San
Antonio Avenue (SH). The applicants request Use Permit approval to increase
the capacity of an existing residential care facility from twelve to thirteen
residents on site. Pursuant to AMC 30-4.1.b.(8), Use Permit approval is required
for residential care facilities providing care for more than six residents on site.
The property is located within an R-4, Neighborhood Residential District.
M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-
06-19 to approve a Use Permit to increase the capacity of an existing residential care
facility from twelve to thirteen residents on site. Pursuant to AMC 30-4.1.b.(8), Use
Permit approval is required for residential care facilities providing care for more than six
residents on site.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
May 22, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-05-22,5,"7-C.
Interim Use Permit, UP 06-0009 - Daniel Ayala for Model Aeronautics Club
(AT). The applicant requests an interim use permit to establish a model airplane
club on Taxiway H adjacent to 650 West Tower Avenue and the Seaplane Lagoon
at Alameda Point. The site is zoned M-2-G (General Industrial).
M/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-
20 to approve an interim use permit to establish a model airplane club on Taxiway H
adjacent to 650 West Tower Avenue and the Seaplane Lagoon at Alameda Point.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
May 22,2006",PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-05-22,6,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
DR06-0002 - Jenny Wong - 3292 Washington Street (EP). Public Hearing to
consider a Call for Review of a decision of the Planning and Building Director
approving Major Design Review, DR06-0002, to allow construction of an
approximately 1,350 square foot second story addition, new deck and patio. The
property is located in a R-1, One Family Residence Zoning District. (Continued
from the meeting of May 8, 2006.)
Ms. Pudell summarized the staff report, and noted that a revised shadow study was included
as requested by the Board. She displayed the slides of the shadow study results.
In response to an inquiry by Member McNamara whether anyone on Washington Street
objected to this project, Ms. Pudell replied that two people on Washington Street did not
sign the petition.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. David McCarver, 3288 Washington Street, described his conclusions about the
shading study, and noted that he discarded the 5 p.m. images. He noted that he was not
concerned about shadows on his garage, but was concerned about how the project's
shadows affected the back half of his house. He noted that in February at 10 a.m., the
new structure caused 100% shading on his kitchen; by 12 p.m., the existing structure
allows for kitchen, family room window and glass door, as well as the entire side of the
house to have full sun exposure. He described that on April 30, his home would be 100%
clocked off by the new structure. He was concerned that in May and June, his morning
sun would be fully blocked off. He disagreed with staff's assessment of the shadow
study, and believed that the effect of the new structure would constitute a substantial
impact on his house. He requested that the Board reject this proposal.
Mr. Charles Wolff expressed concern not about the proposed project, per se, but noted all
ten homes on the block were built as one-story homes. He was concerned about the effect
of a two-story house, on traffic circulation and safety and he was concerned about the
parking in that area.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham if the proposed office at the rear of the
project had been removed from the development, Ms. Pudell replied that the office was not
removed from the plans, to reduce shadowing on the rear of the neighbor's property.
Member McNamara agreed with Mr. McCarver's interpretation of the shade study with
regard to the main part of his house being affected by the proposed addition. She inquired
why there had not been some open dialogue in terms of seeing what could be done to the
plan to minimize the impacts on the neighbor's property or scaling back the plans for the
house.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
May 22, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-05-22,7,"Ms. Pudell replied that staff met with the applicant and Mr. McCarver, but did not reach a
resolution.
Member Lynch noted that the in this particular neighborhood, there were homes with second
stories, and he interpreted this impasse as an inability of the neighbors to discuss the issues
and develop a modified plan. He cautioned the speakers from using the term ""takings,""
which is a legal term that has very specific meanings with respect to case law. He did not
believe that term applied in this case. He believed this was a design issue, and he would like
to continue this item to allow the neighbors to come to an understanding about a modified
plan before the Board makes a decision. He believed the applicant was within her rights to
add a second story, which was a normal part of urban living. He added that the neighbors
had a right to comment on that design, to question it and to try to come to an agreement.
President Cunningham agreed with Member Lynch's comments, and would like the
neighbors to attempt to resolve this issue.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Member Lynch's comments. She added that she
was troubled by the statement in the staff report that this project was compatible with
neighboring homes, across a four-lane street. She noted that every house on Washington
Court was a two one-story house, so there was a difference in scale. In walking and driving
this street, she believed the expansion was a substantial one.
Member Mariani noted that she was very familiar with this area, and did not believe the
project fit well in the neighborhood. She understood Mr. McCarver's frustration and
believed that it was overwhelming that there were only two people on the street who did not
oppose the addition. She hoped the applicant would modify the design.
Member Kohlstrand agreed with Member Lynch's comments, and acknowledged that there
were additional shadows cast on the back of the property during morning hours. She noted
that it was unfortunate that the two property owners had not been able to work their
differences out. She would recommend that the property owners try to reach a compromise.
Member McNamara agreed with Member Kohlstrand's views on this issue, and believed the
project as designed would not conform to the findings necessary for approval. She noted that
there would be significant shading on the living part of Mr. McCarver's home. She hoped
the two parties could reach a workable compromise.
Vice President Cook agreed with the previous comments, and would like to see a
compromise reached. She was not in favor of effectively downzoning the property by saying
a second story could not be built unless the whole block was willing to do the same.
President Cunningham noted that Vice President Cook had touched on a vital point
regarding the rights of property owners to expand their homes, and did not believe the Board
should deny an application just because a group of neighbors rebelled against the applicant's
desire to expand their home. He would like to see a compromise between the two parties.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
May 22, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-05-22,8,"Member Mariani believed that the neighbors had legitimate concerns, and that the rights of
the owners should be balanced against the rights of the neighbors.
M/S Lynch/Member McNamara to continue this item so that the applicant and the
neighboring property owner could resolve their issues.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Ms. Woodbury noted that because this item was not continued to a date and time certain,
that staff would renotice this item.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
May 22, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-05-22,9,"M/S Mariani/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-
21 to approve a use permit allowing twenty-four hour operation of a retail drug store
(Walgreens) with a drive-thru pharmacy window and sign permit, with an additional
condition for the addition of vines on the west facing and trellises.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
May 22,2006",PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-05-22,10,"8-C. Catellus Mixed Use Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report (SCH #2006012091) (AT). A public hearing to receive public comment
on the draft Environmental Impact Report evaluating proposed revisions to the
Catellus Mixed Use Development Master Plan to allow additional retail and
residential uses and reduce the amount of office and research and development
uses currently allowed. The project site is zoned MX (Mixed Use Planned
Development District).
Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report, and noted that comments would be taken until
June 19, 2006. The comments would be consolidated and responses and additional
information would be provided in the Final EIR. He described the details of the plan and
displayed the site on the overhead screen. No action from the Board was requested.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Harry Hartman, 1100 Peach Street, spoke in support of this item. He stated that he
supported the change from office use to mixed use and housing in the area, and believed
that this project would be an enhancement for Alameda.
Mr. Sam Faye, Executive Director, Cardinal Point, 2431 Mariner Square Drive, spoke as
an advocate for their residents, and spoke in support of this item. He believed this would
be a positive impact for the seniors to have access to the amenities and the water. He
believed this was a quality project.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Member McNamara noted that there was a difference of approximate 120,000 square feet
between the two variants, and requested clarification of the square footage allotment. Mr.
Thomas replied that Variant A replaced 1.3 million square feet currently approved for office
R&D with 400,000 square feet of office, 300 housing units, 300,000 square feet of retail,
and 20,000 square feet of health club use. He noted that Variant B included 400,000 square
feet of office, 50,000 square feet of retail and 370,000 square feet of R&D. He explained
that Variant B was designed to have similar or less traffic impacts than Variant A. Member
McNamara believed staff developed a creative way to address the traffic issues.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the determination of
residential units in the R-4 PD area, Mr. Thomas replied that staff determined that the
absolute maximum that could be fit within the Measure A constraint came to 300 units.
Vice President Cook expressed concern that the specific spots for residential have been
chosen, and that more residential density may be desired in the future. She did not wish to
constrain the City's choices unnecessarily by not looking at different densities at a higher
level at a policy level.
Vice President Cook noted that Alameda nearly lost the ferry service to Harbor Bay because
of lack of riders due to low density. Other transportation alternatives such as water taxis
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
May 22, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-05-22,11,"require rider ship to be feasible, and she would like to see further study of the density
required to support transit rider ship.
Member Kohlstrand noted that it was very important to make the transportation mitigation
measures actually work in Alameda, which relate to Vice President Cook's point about
density. She expressed concern about the level of parking being provided. She noted that
shared parking was not discussed in the document, and did not believe there should be the
assumption that everyone would use their own cars which required a separate parking place
for each car.
Mr. Thomas noted that transportation funding is becoming increasingly linked to land use,
and that the City must be careful and thoughtful in that regard. He understood that the Board
would like more specifics about the TDM program and what density or other methods
would be needed to make it successful; also, the parking strategy must be identified in terms
of standards, shared parking and other factors such as density that would make transit
successful. He noted that the issue of splitting out the residential use was a significant part of
the land use proposal. He noted that staff would be meeting with the Transportation
Commission regarding the TDM program.
Vice President Cook stated that she would like to see a greater density alternative in the EIR
so the City could evaluate potential benefits on transit from a different mix of residential,
office and retail uses. She wanted to ensure enough analysis would be done to create the
proper mix of use, and create the type of neighborhood where it was not necessary to drive.
She believed people would trade some density to create a mix that would allow people to get
out of their cars. She believed a good EIR was an analytic tool that enabled the City to make
wise policy choices, and she would like the informational document to be as broad and
robust as possible.
Mr. Thomas understood that the Board wishes to see a higher density alternative to evaluate
whether such an alternative would reduce environmental impacts related to transit,
transportation and open space.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft understood that the Tinker Avenue extension was a major
component of the traffic flow, and inquired how realistic that extension was in terms of a
timeframe. Mr. Thomas replied that the traffic section states that the Tinker extension is an
important connection to move traffic in and around the site, however it is a mitigation that
requires land acquisition from another agency that is somewhat out of the City's control.
Mr. Thomas stated that the EIR assumed all background growth in Alameda, full buildout of
the Housing Element, the General Plan, as well as Oakland's projections for their buildout in
2025. The full Alameda Landing project plus full buildout of Alameda Point in 2025 were
included in the traffic projections.
In response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the financial impact of the
retail development on Alameda Point, Mr. Thomas replied that there was an extensive list of
retail studies done over the past few years, which can be provided to the Planning Board.
He added that those studies provided the information used by staff, and noted that the
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
May 22, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-05-22,12,"CEQA threshold addressed whether the development could create blight. The EIR
determined that the project was unlikely to create blight because the project is designed to
include retail categories and types that would be compatible with existing retail uses in
Alameda.
Ms. Woodbury advised that the EDC would meet on June 15, 2006.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the timeline of revision of the
Master Plan guidelines, Mr. Thomas replied that their goal was to have it available for
public circulation well ahead of the June 26, 2006, study session.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was pleased to read in the staff report that the public's
comments could also be submitted by fax or email.
Ms. Woodbury noted that members of the public can also examine the document in the
Planning and Building office and submit their comments at that time.
No action was taken.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
May 22, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-05-22,13,"9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Woodbury noted that a memo was distributed, clarifying the Board's responsibilities,
as excerpted from the Board and Commissions Handbook. A legal opinion was also
distributed regarding a joint meeting between the Planning Board and the City Council,
with respect to referring to specific projects. The City Council has met with different
boards and commissions regarding future goals.
President Cunningham noted that he had only seen one since he had been on the Board in
the last five years, and would like it to be pushed up.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice President
Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there were no further meetings since the last report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee
(Board Member Mariani).
Member Mariani advised that there were no further meetings since the last report, and the
May meeting had been cancelled.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board
Member Kohlstrand).
Member Kohlstrand advised that there had been no further meetings since the last report.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Woodbury wished to introduce Doug Vu, who had joined the Planning and Building
staff.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
FOR
Cathy Woodbury, Secretary
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the July 10, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
May 22, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, July 10, 2006
1.
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member Lynch
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft,
Kohlstrand, Lynch, and McNamara.
Member Mariani was absent.
Also present were Assistant City Attorney Donna Mooney, Planning Services Manager Andrew
Thomas, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of May 22, 2006
Member Ezzy Ashcraft advised that page 7 should be changed to read, ""She noted that every house on
Washington Court was a two one story house, so there was a difference in scale.""
Vice President Cook advised that page 9 should be changed to read, ""In response to an inquiry by
Vice President Cook why there was no landscaping on the trellises, but also on the faces of some of
the buildings
""
M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Cook to approve the minutes for the meeting of May 22, 2006, as amended.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
President Cunningham noted that more than five speaker slips had been received for this item.
M/S Lynch/McNamara and unanimous to reduce the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - - 0
Ms. Susan Decker, 2145 Santa Clara Avenue, Apt. E, wished to address the recent controversy
regarding Measure A. She believed it was important to have a public discussion of the unintended
negative consequences of Measure A. She noted that Measure A addressed one type of undesirable
development, but did not address other, more desirable development. She cited the City of FPetaluma's
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,2,"Smart Codes as an example of addressing and simplifying redevelopment that met the functional and
aesthetic goals of that city. She suggested a similar approach in Alameda.
Mr. Doug Biggs, 608 Haight Avenue, requested that the Planning Board take up the issue of Measure
A and exempting Alameda Point, and to recommend the City Council put it on the November ballot.
He realized that Measure A was an emotional issue, and believed that it constrained the diversity of
the community by constraining development. He believed changing Measure A would encourage the
use of public transit in Alameda.
Mr. Scott Brady, 1812 Encinal Avenue, noted that Measure A has done a good job in keeping
development in check, and noted that increased development increased traffic. He expressed concern
that an exemption of Measure A at Alameda Point would create an undesirable precedent for other
development elsewhere in the City.
Ms. Helen Sause, 816 Grand Street, submitted a letter to the Board and read it into the record. She
noted that Measure A was initiated to preserve Victorian homes, not to prohibit living in
condominiums and other multiple units. She believed that neighborhood vitality would be a result of
this exemption of Measure A. She would like the City Council to place this issue on the ballot in
November.
Ms. Joan Konrad, 42 Invincible Court, noted that there was a disconnect between what was
envisioned for Alameda Point and the FISC property, and how it is being developed under Measure
A. She noted that because of Measure A's constraints, development at Bayport has been built as a
monoculture of large homes, which was different than the transit-oriented, mixed-use environment
that de-emphasized the automobile as called for in the General Plan. She believed that Measure A was
an untouchable policy in Alameda, but it has resulted in nondiverse neighborhoods. She encouraged
this issue to be put on the November ballot.
Ms. Gretchen Lipow, 2242 San Antonio, noted that if the City Council put Measure A regarding
Alameda Point on the ballot, it would be a Council initiative, not a voter initiative. She noted that
Measure A was initially put on the ballot by a massive grassroots effort, and believed that changing it
should be a similar effort. She noted that Oakland's Oak-to-Ninth project should be watched
carefully, which would put 3,100 units across the Estuary from Alameda. She opposed putting
Measure A on the ballot.
Mr. Tom Mathews, president, Renewed Hope, noted that there would be problems at Alameda Point
if Measure A is not modified to allow multiple family dwelling of four to five stories, and densities not
to exceed 40 units per acre. He noted that transportation and traffic would be a major problem
without having more density to support public transit. He requested that the Planning Board
recommend that the City Council place this issue on the ballot.
Ms. Diane Lichtenstein, 633 Sand Hook Isle, spoke in support of placing the Measure A issue on the
ballot. She believed it would create a more diverse neighborhood mix, and would support public
transit. She believed that a higher density, mixed use and attractive development would help replace
the jobs lost by the closure of the Navy base.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,3,"Ms. Allegra O'Donoghue noted that as an Alameda native, her college-age peers will not be able to
afford to live in Alameda. She believed that careful planning at Alameda Point would create the City's
own growth and enable more people to live in the city. She noted that there were no Victorian homes
on Alameda Point, and believed that Measure A did not apply to Alameda Point in practice.
Ms. Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope, believed that Alameda should be committed to provide for future
generations in Alameda. She believed that exempting Measure A on Alameda Point would enable
Alameda to continue to thrive, and to allow the next generation to live in Alameda. She believed that
Measure A should be vetted again with the development of Alameda Point in mind, and believed that
Measure A kept the City in a virtual development lockdown.
Mr. David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, spoke in opposition to the City Council putting Measure A
on the ballot, rather than by public initiative. He noted that Measure A was not just to save Victorians, but
to prevent overdevelopment and high density in Alameda. He noted that Alameda Point development has
been in development for ten years, and inquired why Measure A was being revisited at this late date. He
noted that traffic should be limited, and did not believe that density was needed to support transit. He
believed that transit supported existing neighborhoods.
Ms. Dorothy Reid, 2101 Shoreline, did not believe all the facts of this issue were known yet. She noted
that the staff report pointed out a downturn in retail activity, which may not support the labor and transit
from Alameda Point. She noted that existing rents in Alameda were already out of reach for moderate- and
low-income households. She noted that Alameda already has sufficient high density and multifamily
housing, and that there were constraints on Alameda Point. She did not believe it was within the purview of
the City Council or the Planning Board to change Measure A.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, strongly supported public transit and bicycling within
Alameda, using high density and mass transit to keep the lowest possible impacts at Alameda Point. He
supported as many green measures as possible for development on Alameda Point. He noted that his own
life has changed and has been re-examined in the last 33 years, and believed that Measure A should receive
the same consideration.
Ms. Janet Gibson expressed concern that a ballot initiative would become a political issue where monies
would be spent on behalf of public and private interests. She noted that her own children have been unable
to afford to live in Alameda, but believed that other affordable housing measures have been unexplored.
She believed that multifamily dwellings may still be very expensive per unit.
President Cunningham believed this issue should be addressed by the Planning Board members, and
noted that the Board was required to act within the City Charter. He did not believe that it was within
the Planning Board's purview to act directly on Measure A.
Vice President Cook noted the Board discussed Measure A many times in relationship to projects
before us, and believed that the issue was being brought forth by the citizens because City leadership
was not discussing it at this time. Vice President Cook noted that the Board has dealt with Measure
A many times, and believed that this issue was too controversial for City leadership to touch at this
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,4,"time. She would like to find a way to discuss Measure A. She believed that Alameda Point presented
a good opportunity to weave itself into the grid of the rest of the City. As a Victorian owner, she
supports Measure A wholeheartedly, but believed that matters were different on Alameda Point. She
would like to have a thorough discussion of the pros and cons of Measure A, as well as the meaning
of density.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft Kohlstrand noted that the City Charter stated that the Planning Board may
shall have power to investigate and recommend plans for future development, location of public
buildings and works, and subdivision of land. She inquired when this dialogue could take place, and
did not believe that any topic germane to the City's current and future development should be off-
limits.
Ms. Mooney noted that for public comments regarded off-agenda topics, the Board may not have
discussion beyond brief responses by Board members and staff, references to further information,
and/or direction to staff to agendize the topic.
Member Kohlstrand noted that the Catellus item would address Measure A, and that August 11 was
the date to place an item on the November ballot.
Member Lynch was neither an opponent nor proponent of Measure A, but was troubled by the sense
that the question may not be raised. He believed that in order for the City to look forward, a
discussion of such issues must be held.
President Cunningham requested that a discussion of Measure A be agendized.
Member Lynch stated that he would prefer that the discussion focus on the merits of the current City
Charter as it related to the planning process and possible buildout of Alameda Point, rather than
various infill issues that may cloud the discussion.
President Cunningham believed that a special meeting may be warranted to hear the public's input.
Vice President Cook was concerned about the timing of this discussion, and would like to hear the
pros and cons of this item being placed on the ballot sooner rather than later.
Board member McNamara expressed the need for a forum for a healthy discussion on Measure A
since it has not happened yet. She was not aware of any planned events by the City Council to
provide an opportunity for an open discussion on Measure A, but she felt there should be one. She
noted this would give the community an opportunity to voice their opinions on Measure A.
Mr. Thomas stated that he would work with the President of the Board to identify options for Board
consideration at the next regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,5,"7.
2006-2007 ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS
President Cunningham advised that it was customary to hold the elections with a full Board, and
the item would be continued until that time.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A.
DA89-1 -- Harbor Bay Business Park Association, Harbor Bay Isle Associates and
Harbor Bay Entities -- Bay Farm Island (Primarily Harbor Bay Isle) (CE). A request for
a Periodic Review of Development Agreement DA89-01, for the period through April 4,
2006, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1. The properties are zoned R-1-
PD, One Family Residence/Planned Development Zoning District; C-M-PD, Commercial
Manufacturing Planned Development Zoning District; O, Open Space Zoning District and R-
1-A-H, One Family Residence with Special Agricultural and Height Limit Combining Zoning
District.
M/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-22 to
approve a request for a Periodic Review of Development Agreement DA89-01, for the period
through April 4, 2006, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,6,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
ZA06-000X Zoning Text Amendment - Citywide (CE). Zoning Text Amendment to
amend Subsection 30-4.9Ag.8. Off-street Parking and Loading Space of the C-C Community
Commercial Zone of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to add a process for parking
exceptions.
Ms. Eliason summarized the staff report, and recommended adoption of this amendment.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Michael Krueger, 2145 Santa Clara Avenue, Apt. E, spoke in support of this item. He believed
that many of the City's parking requirements were developed in suburban areas with no public transit,
developed to handle a worst-case scenario. He believed that other cities copied those standards, and
suggested that they be changed to reflect the use and location of a retail establishment. He noted that
Portland, Oregon, had exceptions for sites well-served by public transit (within 500 feet of the site).
He noted that both Park and Webster Streets met those criteria. He added that the parking structure
would also merit reexamination of the off-street parking requirements.
Mr. David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, noted that one bus pullout has been lost on Park Street,
leading to auto and delivery truck congestion. He noted that uses may change and that auto-
dependence related to that business may change.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, agreed with Mr. Krueger's comments. He noted that he
shopped on Park Street by bike frequently. He strongly supported using alternative methods of
transportation, and was very concerned about the environmental effects of driving cars.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Vice President Cook believed the parking requirements should be applied intelligently, taking the
retail use into account.
In response to an inquiry by Member McNamara on whether the parking exemptions would be
defined by the applicant or the traffic study, Ms. Eliason replied that detailed guidelines from Public
Works and Development Services would be sought by staff. She noted that a mixed-use office
(office/residential), assisted care and hotel facilities would be likely candidates for this policy.
Member Lynch noted that parking in lieu fees are a way for communities to generate fees to develop a
nexus for that project. He added that government is also reticent to relinquish a revenue source, and
noted that a balance between a revenue stream and such a parking policy must be struck. He was
reluctant to require each applicant to produce a costly parking demand study, especially in a C-C
district that was already described in a City map.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about the timing of this issue, and noted that she had
attended the EDC meeting where the parking and traffic study was introduced. She was reluctant
to
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,7,"take further steps before the results were present, and she believed that some of the information may
be very useful for new businesses. She inquired whether there were certain businesses that staff was
imminently concerned with.
Ms. Eliason confirmed that there were specific businesses that were very interested.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft was concerned about losing the revenue from the lost parking in-lieu fees. She
also supported use of alternate transportation, but was dismayed at the paucity of bicycle parking in
Alameda.
Member Kohlstrand noted that because of the mix of uses, it was not reasonable to expect each
business to provide independent parking spaces, which would provide too much parking. She
supported looking at shared parking opportunities, which she believed was a more rational approach
to downtown parking.
M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-23 to
approve a Zoning Text Amendment to amend Subsection 30-4.9Ag.8 Off-street Parking and Loading
Space of the C-C Community Commercial Zone of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to add
a process for parking exceptions.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
President Cunningham called for a five-minute recess.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,8,"9-B.
Study Session - Master Plan Amendment - Catellus Mixed Use Development (AT). The
proposed revisions to the Catellus Mixed Use Development would allow the project sponsor
to replace approximately 900,000 square feet of planned commercial office and R&D space
with a mix of office, research and development, retail and residential uses. The propose
revision includes two variants of the proposed land use plan in order to provide the flexibility
to respond to future market conditions. Both variations would provide 400,000 square feet of
previously entitled office spaces with supporting retail in the northwest portion of the site
(north of Mitchell Avenue); approximately 50,000 square feet of waterfront retail; and a
20,000 square foot health club on the waterfront north of Mitchell Avenue. Approximately
21.3 acres west of 5th Street and approximately 4.3 acres of land north of Mitchell Avenue
would be re-designated in the General Plan for approximately 300 housing units. East of 5th
Street between Mitchell Avenue and Tinker Avenue, Variant A envisions an approximately
250,000 square foot shopping center on the 21 acres; and Variant B envisions 370,000 square
feet of currently entitled R&D space. The project would require a General Plan Amendment.
Mr. Thomas presented the staff report, and displayed a PowerPoint presentation to illustrate the
project.
Ms. Karen Auschler, SMWM, design consultant, continued the PowerPoint presentation and
discussed the amendments to the Master Plan.
President Cunningham noted that more than five speaker slips had been received.
M/S Kohlstrand/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Jim McPhee, Cushman & Wakefield, 560 S. Winchester Blvd., Ste. 200, San Jose, noted that
they had worked with Clif Bar & Company to relocate that company to Alameda from Berkeley. He
noted that there were many potential lessors for this company, and urged the Board to approve this
item.
Mr. Richard Lyons, attorney, Clif Bar/Wendel Rosen Black LLP, 1111 Broadway, 24th floor,
Oakland, noted that Clif Bar was a quality company that would be an asset to Alameda. He noted that
Clif Bar managed to the ""triple bottom line,"" to the benefit of the shareholders, the employees and the
community. He noted that the company was very profitable, and that the employees were highly
involved in the community. He noted that ClifBar was also a green-oriented business that would be a
magnet to other nationally known businesses.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,9,"Ms. Sandy Berry, Cornish & Carey, 2804 Mission College Blvd., #20, Santa Clara, spoke in support
of this item.
Ms. Susan Decker, 2145 Santa Clara Avenue, Apt. E, noted that the pedestrian routes should be
pleasant and safe. She supported direct walkways located near the waterfront.
Mr. Jon Spangler, Bike Alameda, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, noted that Bike Alameda president
Lucy Gigli submitted a letter to the Planning Board, which expressed support for the Alameda
Landing development project. He noted that Catellus has gone overboard to solicit community input
at its own expense and on its own time. Ms. Gigli wished to state that Bike Alameda did not want any
changes or mitigations to this development that will in any way impinge on current or future bike,
pedestrian or handicapped access, or put more automobile traffic on the streets of Alameda,
regardless of the presence of bike lanes.
Ms. Helen Sause, 816 Grand Street, spoke in support of this item as a private citizen. She believed
this project was a significant example of a seriously constrained site. The change in market conditions
has enabled Alameda to have a different project than originally envisioned. She believed this project
took true advantage of the Alameda waterfront. She applauded Dan Marcus and the architectural team
in making the most of such a constrained site and in working with the community.
Mr. David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, believed this was a beautiful plan and had concerns about
the mixed use taking the final plan and design decision away from the City. He did not want this
project to change the way Alameda thinks about development.
Mr. Hadi Monsef, PO Box 1353, spoke in support of this item. He believed that the best use of the
waterfront is for a mixed-use development.
Mr. Michael Krueger, 2145 Santa Clara Ave., Apt. E, noted that he was impressed with the continual
improvement of this plan. He agreed with the mixed-use concept for this project. He would like to see
more detail with respect to the residential section. He did not want to see any walls near the
residential developments, which is forced by high-speed traffic on adjacent streets. He did not support
private streets, and would like them to be accessible to everyone.
Mr. Michael Sullivan, 1842 Nason Street, spoke in support of this item, with the added condition that
there be a bike ferry to Oakland. He noted that a ferry would not be impacted by traffic or Tube
maintenance issues, and that it would be more scenic.
Ms. Roberta Rockwell, President, Miracle League Baseball, 1322 Sherman Street, spoke in support
of this item. She noted that Dan Marcus and Catellus had donated land and initial funding for the first
Miracle League baseball in Northern California.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,10,"Ms. Gretchen Lipow, 2242 San Antonio, noted that she was also a Special Olympics mother, and
hoped to see the park used for their organization as well. She inquired what would be done differently
on this site without Measure A.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Cunningham noted that the first section of the report would be addressed (General/Land
Use).
Vice President Cook noted that she was very pleased with the progress of this project since it was last
before the Board. She would like to see the level of progress and detail spread out across the site. She
was very excited about the presence of Clif Bar on this site, and especially about a recreation-oriented
waterfront. She believed it was important to have a first user that was a significant presence.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft complimented staff and the designers for being so responsive to the Board's
comments and concerns.
Member Kohlstrand commended staff and Catellus for their work, and believed the project was
getting to the point where it was close to being a fairly good Measure A-compliant project for this
site. This would be one of the best Measure A-compliant proposals Alameda had seen. She
appreciated the public's input over the years that was incorporated into the final design. She believed
this plan did not reflect reflected what the citizens of Alameda desired because it did not address the
land use and density issues. She continued to advocate that an alternative for the purposes of
advancing the land use and parking discussion with respect to Measure A, especially as it relates to a
more transit-oriented density.
President Cunningham believed that pulling the density of the business uses in would create more
recreation fields and parking. He believed it would be beneficial to the public discussion to understand
what Measure A restricts at this time.
Member Lynch echoed the other Board members' comments in thanking staff and the development
team for their responsiveness to the Board's and the public's comments. He believed that the number
of units was not necessarily the issue with respect to Measure A, but the design of the units was very
important.
President Cunningham noted that on page 8, relative to the TDM, he believed it would be useful to be
cognizant of park-and-ride facilities, and that it should be stated in the document. He added that there
was a lot of comment with respect to the size of parks, and noted that the Board has had many
discussions about parks that were too small to be used. He would like to see language on active and
passive recreational parks. He noted there was a mention of sustainability, and cited a newspaper
article about sustainability guidelines being adopted in Vallejo. Since Alameda did not have a
sustainability ordinance, he would like to see Catellus make a commitment to a minimum of a Bronze
LEED rating. He requested more information from staff regarding the storm water retention ponds.
He would like to see a phasing diagram.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,11,"Vice President Cook agreed with President Cunningham's request for a phasing plan, especially in
relation to other uses. She noted that on page 9, the language should be changed to specifically state a
certain amount of retail that must be included. She also believed there should be more mixed use on
the waterfront, and that the requirements should have more teeth. She noted that the last paragraph
on page 15 stated that variations in the project would go to the Planning Director and the Public
Works Director; she would like to understand more about that statement. Mr. Thomas noted that
staff could provide more information to the Board.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding parking on Fifth Street, Mr. Thomas
replied that would be a good idea, particularly north of Tinker. They have required the tenant spaces
to have public entries onto Fifth Street, and a guideline in the current Master Plan was deleted that
stated there would be no parking at all on Fifth Street and Tinker.
Member Kohlstrand noted that the specific dimensions regarding the width of sidewalks and travel
lanes do not add to up to the width of the right of way, and were not consistent in all cases. In
addition, a continuous turn lane on Fifth Street was proposed as the center lane, with a three-lane
street and two five-foot bicycle lanes and no parking. With the change in concept providing access at
limited points, she did not believe that turn lane made particular sense. Also, she believed it was
advisable to consider parking at that location, which would add character to the street rather than
detracting from it. She did not agree with the concept of public streets with no street parking, with
requirements for off-street parking, though she understands that there was a maintenance benefit to
private streets, she still preferred the public streets. She agreed with Mr. Krueger's comment about
standards for public versus private streets.
Mr. Thomas agreed, and noted that every street should have at least a five-foot wide sidewalk.
Member Kohlstrand noted that she preferred public streets, and that there was a maintenance benefit.
Mr. Thomas noted that this project would have a municipal services agreement.
M/S McNamara/Cook to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Vice President Cook expressed that the wrong kind of screening would create a visual barrier to the
water.
In response to an inquiry by Member McNamara whether a parking structure could be built that could
be shared between residential and office uses, Mr. Marcus replied that density was the major issue
with respect to a parking structure. He noted that approximate 15-20% of the 77 acres was open
space, between the waterfront park, the village green and the smaller pocket parks.
Member McNamara noted that the paved parking lots were potential open areas.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,12,"In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham, Mr. Thomas replied that the current work/live
ordinance did not apply to this area, and that a new ordinance would have to be written to allow
work/live, but ""shop homes"" with only two units could be done under Measure A and without a
work/live ordinance.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,13,"Vice President Cook inquired whether the agreement with WABA was a separate agreement. She
very supportive of the progress on Webster Street. She was unsure whether the waterfront should be
sold short because of the agreement with WABA.
Mr. Thomas replied that staff could provide the Retail Impact Analysis performed for this project.
Vice President Cook would like to push the envelope further on the waterfront parcel, and would like
to get a finer grain of retail and residential pushed out into that area. She would also like to have a
discussion about building heights, as well as the size of parking structures and buildings.
In response to an inquiry by Member Lynch regarding the possibility of forming a subcommittee to
discuss the issues, Mr. Thomas replied that could be considered if the Board so wished.
Member Lynch suggested that since the meeting of July 24 has been noticed, that at that meeting, the
document incorporate some of the items heard during this meeting. He believed there would be a few
remaining items, at which time the subcommittee could be formed to get to the end of the process, if
necessary.
No action was taken.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
This item was continued to the next meeting.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice President Cook).
This item was continued to the next meeting.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
This item was continued to the next meeting.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
This item was continued to the next meeting.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,14,"12.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
This item was continued to the next meeting.
13.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy Woodbusy
- Cathy Woodbury, Secretary
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the July 24, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio
and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, July 24, 2006
1.
CONVENE:
7:07 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member Mariani
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice-President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft,
Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani and McNamara.
Also present were Assistant City Attorney Donna Mooney, Planning Services Manager Andrew
Thomas, Planner III Douglas Garrison and Executive Assistant Latisha Jackson.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of July 10, 2006
Member McNamara noted that in Oral Communications at the beginning of the meeting, the
comments she made supporting a public forum to discuss the pros and cons of putting Measure A on
the ballot were not referenced in the minutes. She would like to have those comments inserted in the
minutes.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 4, paragraph 3, should be changed to read, ""Member Ezzy
Ashcraft Kohlstrand-noted that the City Charter stated that the Planning Board may have power to
investigate and recommend.
""
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the Charter was more specific than that, and stated that the
""Planning Board shall have such powers and duties. ""
Member Kohlstrand noted that page 11, paragraph 6, should be changed to read, ""Member
Kohlstrand commended staff and commended Catellus for their work, and believed the project was
getting to the point where it was close to being a fairly good Measure A-compliant project for this
site. This would be one of the best Measure A-compliant proposals Alameda had seen.
Member Kohlstrand noted that page 11, paragraph 6, should be changed to read, ""She believed this
plan did not reflect reflected what the citizens of Alameda desired because it did not address the land
use and density issues.'
Member Kohlstrand noted that page 11, paragraph 6, should be changed to read, ""She continued to
advocate the alternative for the purposes of advancing the land use and parking discussion with
respect to Measure A.""
Member Kohlstrand noted that page 12, paragraph 4, should be changed to read, ""Member
Kohlstrand noted that she preferred public streets, and though she understand that there was a
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,2,"maintenance benefit to private streets, she still preferred the public streets.""
Vice President Cook noted that page 4, paragraph 2, should be changed to read, ""Vice President
Cook noted the Board discussed Measure A many times in relationship to projects before us, and
believed that the issue was being brought forth by the citizens because City leadership was not
discussing it at this time.""
M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Kohlstrand to approve the minutes for the meeting of July 10, 2006, as amended.
AYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Mariani)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cunningham advised that a speaker slip had been received for Item 8-B.
M/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to move item 8-B to the regular agenda.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,3,"6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Mr. Michael Krueger, 2145 Santa Clara Avenue, Apt. E, spoke in reference to more affluent families
using public transportation and provided statistical data gathered by National Resources Defense
Council to prove that these families use public transportation if alternative modes were available. He
hoped that with civil and thoughtful discussion would bring possible sensible modifications to
Measure A and further exploration of improved development in the future may come about.
Member Mariani noted that if the citizens of Alameda wanted Measure A to be placed on the ballot,
there were procedures in place to reach that goal.
Mr. Karen Butter, 1027 Foster Street, League of Women Voters, noted that the League had
presented a letter, copying the Planning Board, requesting that Measure A be put on the ballot. She
noted that the League had no position on whether Alameda Point should be exempt from Measure A,
but believed that the public conversation regarding this issue should be encouraged.
7.
2006-2007 ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS:
M/S Cunningham/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to nominate Member Lynch as President.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
M/S Lynch/Cunningham and unanimous to nominate Vice President Cook as Vice President.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,4,"8-A
Proposed Recommendation to Rename Tinker Avenue to Willie Stargell Avenue (DV).
President Cunningham advised that a speaker slip in favor of Item 8-A had been received.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Diane Lichtenstein, 633 Sand Hook, spoke in support of renaming Tinker Avenue to Willie
Stargell Avenue. She noted that streets available for renaming had been included in the staff report,
and she suggested that in keeping with community street name conventions (flowers on Bay Farm
Island, and bird names in Harbor Bay), the residential streets in the grid be considered to be renamed
in a similar fashion.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed that the Historical Advisory Board was responsible for street naming,
rather than the Planning Board.
Mr. Thau noted that the Historic Advisory Board could place street names on the list, and the
Planning Board could recommend to City Council whether the name was appropriate for the street.
M/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-24 to
recommend to Council to rename Tinker Avenue to Willie Stargell Avenue.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,5,"8-B.
PD06-0001 and DR06-0054 - Habitat for Humanity - 626 Buena Vista Ave. (DG). The
applicant requests approval of Planned Development and Major Design Review applications
allowing the construction of eight new dwelling units consisting of four two-story duets on a lot
previously used as a carwash. The project site is zoned R4-PD Neighborhood Residential
District-Planned Development Zoning District. (Applicant requests continuance to the
meeting of August 14, 2006).
M/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to move item 8-B to the regular agenda.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Jackie Keenan, 617 Pacific Avenue, noted that several neighbors had concerns about this project,
and inquired about a neighborhood meeting. Mr. Garrison stated that he believed it would be held
Monday, July 31, 2006. Ms. Keenan supported a neighborhood meeting so the neighbors may discuss
their concerns.
The public hearing was closed.
Item continued to the meeting of August 14, 2006.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,6,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
GPA06-01, MPA06-01, DP06-01, EIR06-01-Catellus Mixed Use Development (AT). The
applicant requests approval of a General Plan, Master Plan and Development Agreement
Amendments and certification of an EIR to replace 1,300,000 square feet of approved but not yet
constructed office and research and development uses with 400,000 square feet of office use,
300,000 square feet of retail shopping use, 20,000 square feet of health club, and up to 300
residential units. The site is located in the MX (Mixed Use) Zoning District which is located
south of the Oakland Alameda Estuary, north of the College of Alameda and the Bayport
Residential Project, east of Coast Guard Housing, and west of Webster Street.
Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report, thanked the Planning Board members for the edits and
changes that they provided and recommended that the Planning Board hold a public hearing, review
pertinent information and forward this item to the City Council.
Ms. Karen Auschler, SMWM, design consultant, continued the presentation and discussed the
amendments to the Master Plan.
Mr. Marcus addressed the Board and thanked them for their time and impact and reiterated that the
plan is Measure A-compliant and CEQA-compliant. He explained why a vote was needed at this
Planning Board meeting.
President Cunningham noted that more than five speaker slips had been received.
M/S Kohlstrand/Lynch and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. John Knox White, Chair, Transportation Commission, distributed a document to the Board and
summarized its contents. The memo requested that streets and intersections not be widened, that
speed limits be limited to 25 mph, all EIRs include an analysis of the effects of the project on the
City's transit, pedestrian and bicycle environment, including the surrounding areas.
Mr. Thomas advised that the Public Works Department had submitted comments on the
Transportation Commission's recommendations.
Mr. Ed Clark. President, Board of Directors, West Alameda Business Association (WABA), 1553
Webster Street, spoke in favor of this item, and complimented the applicants in working with
residents and businesspeople in the surrounding neighborhood. He emphasized that because the
provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) are consistent with City goals, they asked
the Planning Board and City Council to continue to incorporate the terms of the MOU in the Master
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,7,"Plan and other agreements negotiated by the City with respect to the development of Alameda
Landing.
Mr. Sandip Jariwala, WABA, 1628 Webster Street, spoke in favor of this item, and believed the
project provided good visibility for West Alameda. He believed it was critical that the terms that had
been agreed to would be enforced in the future.
Mr. Michael Krueger, 2145 Santa Clara Avenue, Apt. E, was pleased to see the Planning Board's
recommendations included in the staffreport. He addressed the issue of the staff report (page 13, Part
K, #4) regarding landscaping, and did not want the shade to be sacrificed. He noted that the larger
long-term issue is consistency with Alameda Point transportation strategy and addressed the
possibility of a lift bridge for pedestrians and bicyclist.
Mr. Jermaine Garrett and Ronald (Luhar), Alameda Boys and Girls Club, both spoke in favor of this
item, and noted that Alameda Landing would provide the opportunity for part-time jobs for students.
He was in favor of being able to walk to work.
Ms. Roberta Rockwell, Miracle League, 1322 Sherman Street, spoke in favor of this item, and
described the Miracle League baseball team. She noted that Dan Marcus and Catellus had donated an
acre of land for use by the Miracle League team that is near parking and the waterfront. She invited
the Board to attend their opening day.
Mr. George Phillips, Director, Alameda Boys and Girls Club, PO Box 1069, spoke in favor of this
item, and suggested that the buildings have air conditioning. He noted that the original Boys and Girls
Club had a presence in this area of Alameda Landing for many years. He noted that the Club members
needed jobs within walking distance of the Club and encouraged the Board to keep that in mind going
forward. He noted that he had a previous career in retail, and had a sense of the challenge faced by
Catellus to nail down commitments from desirable retailers.
Mr. Jim McPhee, Cushman & Wakefield, 924 Grosvenor, Oakland, representing Clif Bar, spoke in
favor of this item. He noted that he had reviewed several attractive proposals for Clif Bar and added
that the Catellus proposal was very compelling, particularly with respect to sustainability. He noted
that the LEED-certified building was very attractive, and complimented the applicants on their
environmental sustainability.
Mr. Barry Cohn, BT Commercial, 555 - 12th Street, Oakland, spoke in favor of this item and noted
that he had worked on this project with Catellus for about 10 years.
Mr. Italo Calpestri, 1504 Park Street, spoke in favor of this item. He believed this project improved
the retail emphasis at the north end of Webster Street, making a waterfront destination on the Estuary
a very important part of this concept. He supported the additional retail for Alameda residents in this
area, and noted that it should reduce retail leakage in Alameda.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,8,"Mr. Jim Franz, 1320 Walnut, spoke in favor of this item. He believed this project would be a
wonderful opportunity for the West End residents, both as a destination for Bay Area residents and
for an opportunity for jobs in the retail sector.
Ms. Alice Garvin, 1717 Dayton, spoke in favor of this item and was pleased to see the City and the
Navy moving forward.
Ms. Cathy Leong, 48 Kara Road, spoke in favor of this item and supported the previous speakers'
statements. She noted that Catellus had been very responsive to the Planning Board's concerns
throughout this project. She believed this project would attract new residents and shoppers to the
West
End, and should prevent further retail leakage. She noted that the waterfront as it currently
stands is blighted, and believed this project would change that.
Mr. Glen Schimelpeenig spoke in favor of this item, and believed this project would alleviate the
current blight on the West End.
Mr. Bill Garvine, 2828 Marina Drive, spoke in favor of this item as a resident. He thanked Catellus
for the many opportunities he and his family had enjoyed to provide public input into this process and
final design. He supported the opportunity for retail leakage to be reduced. As a youth baseball coach,
he was particularly grateful for the inclusion of Miracle League.
President Cunningham noted that his family members had been recipients of Mr. Garvine's coaching
skills.
Mr. Irv Hamilton, 420 Cola Ballena, spoke in favor of this item. He noted that Catellus was a public
relations client of his, but was speaking on behalf of a friend, Victor Jin. Mr. Jin had submitted a letter
to the Planning Board, which he read into the record:
""To All Members of the Planning Board:
Please support the proposed revisions to the Catellus Mixed Use development project known
as Alameda Landing. The original plan was ideal for that time period and real estate market.
However, the real estate market has changed dramatically, especially the demand for office
space. The proposed revisions make more economic sense and bring more of a balance of
what the City and its citizens need, with a better mix of office, retail and more housing. Your
""yes"" vote on the proposed revisions will be greatly appreciated.""
Mr. Ashley Jones, 1040 Fair Oaks Avenue, asked if there were limits on square footage on the big
buildings at the project site. He expressed concern that if there was no square footage limit, a big box
store such as a WalMart may be placed there.
Ms. Gail Wetlork, submitted a speaker slip, but did not speak.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,9,"Ms. Diane Lichtenstein, 633 Sand Hook, spoke in favor of this item, and applauded Catellus on its
proposal. She echoed the other comments, and reminded the board of the Webster Street linkage, and
of the West End's importance.
Mr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, Park Street Business Association, spoke in favor of this item.
He described the background of this project, and supported moving forward with this process.
Ms. Barbara Mooney, business owner, 1421 San Antonio, spoke in favor of this item and noted she
was very impressed with Catellus' proposal. She believed Clif Bar was the kind of corporate citizen
Alameda should be working with.
Ms. Kathy Wagner, Mariner Square Athletic Club/Spotlight on the Square, business owner, 2227
Mariner Square Loop, spoke in favor of this item. She looked forward to being able to shop at
Alameda Landing, and noted that she was looking forward to opening a new club at that location. She
noted that Catellus had met nearly all of the City's requests.
Ms. Diana Thomas, Acting General Manager Mariner Square Athletic Club, 2227 Mariner Square
Loop, spoke in favor of this item, and noted that Catellus had treated them as a true partner. She
supported Catellus' environmental responsibility.
Ms. Sandy Berry, Cornish & Carey Commercial, 2804 Mission College Blvd. #120, Santa Clara,
spoke in favor of this item and noted the were the leasing agent for this Catellus project. She noted
that they were passionate about the vision of the proposed project and the retail activity; she believed
this was a truly visionary project that the City could be proud of. She described the live/work/play
nature of this mixed used project that would be a gathering place in Alameda.
Ms. Gretchen Lipow, 2242 San Antonio, inquired about the buildings listed in the plan on Fifth and
Moseley and wanted to make sure big structures weren't going in. She was quite concerned about the
aesthetic impacts of that possibility, which only used the first floor for functionality. She was
concerned about the traffic and aesthetic issues.
Ms. Pat Bail hoped the applicant planned to plant all the trees mentioned in the presentation. She
wished to discuss the issue of the open space where it appears Tinker Ave. is encroaching on the open
space near the College of Alameda baseball field. She hoped that while the final contract with the
College is being worked out, that the Alameda Youth Football League use that practice field, along
with the new artificial turf field. She believed that the College's open space was an important asset.
She suggested that the project contain two soccer fields, two baseball fields and one football field.
She inquired whether this project would be redone because of the lowered residential demand. She
noted that if this was a walled community, she suggested that be re-examined due to the negative
impact of Bayport being walled off from the rest of the community. She noted that this item is
Measure A compliant, and she urged the Planning Board to consider that was a Charter amendment
passed in 1973 to protect the Victorians and prevent high density in town. She inquired about the
extra space that remained when the number of homes was reduced.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,10,"Ms. Helen Sause, 816 Grand Street, spoke in favor of this project. She wished to address the
circulation of the shuttle, and did not believe the shuttle should just bring people to bus stops; she
believed the shuttle should run the length of Webster Street, which would enliven the retail shops. She
hoped that the ongoing dialogue between the public, the Planning Board, the Developer and staff
would continue for a project this size.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in favor of this item. He echoed the comments of
Mr. Knox White, Mr. Krueger and Ms. Sause. He supported placing showers in each office building
for those who bike to work. He inquired whether the TDM manager would be a full-time, permanent
job. He inquired whether there would be wake control and protection for the waterfront plaza. He
emphasized the importance of a zero net energy use design throughout the project for the LEED
certification.
Mr. Hadi Monsef, Alameda Association of Realtors, PO Box 1353, spoke in favor of this item and
noted that the AAR unanimously endorsed this project.
Mr. Walt Jacobs, 28 Balleybay, immediate past president of Alameda Chamber of Commerce, spoke
in favor of this item, which he believed would be a great asset to the City.
Ms. Anita Ng, 1529 Webster Street, spoke in favor of this item and hoped this project would bring
more shoppers to the West End of Alameda.
Ms. Melody Marr, CEO, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, 1416 Park Avenue, noted that the
Chamber supported this project wholeheartedly. She appreciated the applicant's willingness to listen
carefully to the residents and surrounding business owners. She noted that the Chamber of Commerce
president could not attend, and she read the comments into the record:
""Dear Members of the Planning Board,
As a representative of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, I would like to express our strong
support for the Alameda Landing project in its current form. We believe this project offers
tremendous benefits to the people of Alameda, as well as an attractive site for new businesses.
The project is already bringing commercial tenants that will offer a substantial positive
economic impact to the City of Alameda. This type of waterfront development is a giant step
in developing our blighted waterfront areas into multiuse spaces that will benefit the entire
community. I urge you to vote your approval of the project now to avoid any further delays in
the development process. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Rich Warren, President
Alameda Chamber of Commerce""
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,11,"She noted that she also had an email from Patty Jacobs, a member who could not be present at this
meeting, who as a member of GABA wholeheartedly supported this project. She noted the names of
other members who did not wish to speak: Bruce Reeves (Reeves & Seidler), Barbara Marchand
(Marchand & Associates), Gale Wetlork, Allison Bliss (Allison Bliss Consulting), Renée Kellogg (RK
Promotions) and Bernie Matthews (a retired police chief). She and the aforementioned people urged
the Planning Board to certify the EIR and to grant all necessary approvals for this project in order to
forward it to the City Council.
Ms. Marilyn Schumacher, 1829 Clinton, spoke in favor of this item. She wished to bring the
""freeway"" of the Estuary to the Board's attention, and noted that an effective town dock, such as in
Sausalito, could be an economic boon to the City.
Ms. Barbara Price, PK Consultants, spoke in favor of this item, and noted that she worked with
Catellus on this project. She read the following letter into the record in favor of this item:
""Honorable Planning Board members:
I am writing as a resident and homeowner in Alameda for the last five years. During this time,
I have observed the tedious process required for some projects to receive approval, and speak
with others through out governmental approval process. I would like to suggest that the
degree of rigor with which projects are recommended and approved related to the factors
independent of whether there is a community concern, and whether it fits into Alameda's
plans and goals.
I have just finished reading the draft EIR for the Alameda Landing project. The project has
changed due to the market conditions, and the changes will generate more housing and
commercial space, more recreation areas and additional revenues to Alameda through the sale
of acreage to afford the additional housing. All projects respond to the best knowledge
available for the future. If they did not, many more would fail. It appears consistent with the
City's goals and additional housing, in particular affordable housing, and provides additional
jobs, as well as a semi-self-contained community, like what is being planned for at Alameda
Point. I would provide more retail and commercial options for current residents of Alameda,
as well as making our City more robust economically.
We all know that the longer the planning process, the more expensive the project, and
frequently, the end result is less than originally projected and planned. In time, we are
competing internationally for building materials, additional time, costs, money, and we have
seen every major project undertaken.
As someone who is deeply concerned about the environment, it appears that the
environmental issues are handled well. New State standards establish requirements for news
buildings and the conservation of energy, or to put it in the other way, require less energy use.
Let us put an underused asset to work in the near future. I am encouraging you to give this
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,12,"project your approval.
Yours truly,
Stanley M. Shipman
Norwich Road""
Ms. Price read the following letter into the record:
""Ladies and gentlemen:
I am a real estate broker who has worked in the Bay Area for almost 20 years. I have watched
with interest these last few years the development of new retail in Alameda. In fact, Bruce
Knopf invited me to be a speaker for a presentation on retail in Alameda citywide retail
strategy a few years ago. I believed at the time, and still do, that Alameda can have it all. In
our business there is a thing called synergy. Because of retail's organic nature, the synergy
created within a shopping center and/or retail center is an important component in what
makes shopping interesting and exciting.
I urge the Planning Board and City Council to support Alameda Landing EIR. This will afford
an opportunity for additional quality retail to be built in conjunction with the other shopping
areas of Alameda will offer citizens a quality of life than can become the highlight of the Bay
Area.
Christine Furstenberg
Metrovation Brokerage""
Ms. Tracy Jensen, 3112 Gibbons Drive, spoke in favor of this item. She complimented the Board's
oversight of this process, and Catellus on its responsiveness and commitment to green building
standards. She believed this project would give children a good chance to see Alameda's heritage as
an island city.
Ms. Lorre Zuppan, 2986 Southwood Drive, spoke in favor of this item. She noted she was a member
of the Economic Development Commission, and was also speaking as a private citizen. She had voted
for this project as a member of the EDC, and lauded Catellus for the concessions it made on behalf of
public spaces. She believed Clif Bar would be an excellent tenant, and did not wish to lose them to
delays.
Mr. David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern
that the artist renderings would not resemble the project when built. He was hesitant about the
classification of Mixed Use, and inquired why each area was not classified separately (Residential,
Office, Open Space, etc.). He was concerned that the Mixed Use classification would become a grab
bag. He didn't believe the green space would be big enough for children to play.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,13,"Mr. Richard Lyons, Wordel Rosen Black & Dean on behalf of Clif Bar, 18 Shannon Circle, spoke in
favor of this item. Clif Bar liked the concept of reusing a building, and that its LEED certification was
an important aspect of the design. He noted that the Mixed Use zoning was a critical aspect of the
project would give employees things to do before and after work. He appreciated the general
community support, and added that it would be important to Clif Bar to move forward on this
project.
Mr. Seth Hamalian, 3333 Fernside Blvd., spoke in favor of this item. He complimented Catellus on
their quality as a partner with the City as a result of partnerships in other cities that he has
experienced. He acknowledged residents' concerns about moving forward before every detail has
been finalized, and believed that Catellus has provided a great deal of interaction and positive
reflection of residents' feedback in developing this project.
Mr. Sam Koka, 802 Pacific, submitted a speaker slip, but was not in attendance to speak.
Ms. Sherri Steig, Executive Director, West Alameda Business Association, PO Box 215, spoke in
favor of this item. She asked that the WABA MOU with Catellus be integrated into the project.
WABA believed that the BART shuttle should be included in the Master Plan. She noted that new
retail should strengthen existing retail; that the City should strengthen the role of Alameda's main
street districts as the City's concentration of specialty shops; and that new retail should not have
significant long-term deleterious affects on existing retail.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Cunningham called a five-minute recess.
President Cunningham wished to address certain questions and asked staff to address conditions of
retail. He noted that it had been the City's preference not to have walled communities, and added that
the walls in Bayport were required by an EIR.
Mr. Thomas noted that there were no sound walls planned for the project. He noted that there was a
limit on the total amount of retail in the project to minimize impacts on Webster Street.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the Board's role in the Tinker project,
Mr. Thomas replied that the first two lanes of the Tinker Extension Project had been built already.
The City's plan was to continue that extension so that a new intersection at Webster Street would be
created. He described the layout of the extension and noted that it was a separate project than the
Catellus project before the Board.
Vice President Cook noted that she had provided very detailed comments to staff and that some of
her comments were not included. She noted that the Master Plan did not include the Miracle League
field, nor did it include anything requiring a water taxi. She added that there was nothing requiring a
shopping center in Subarea 3. She wanted to ensure that all the details were included in the document.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,14,"She believed there was some retreat from the language requiring a mix of uses, and noted that page 9
should include ""residential uses"" along the water's edge. She would like ""up to 50,000 square feet of
additional waterfront retail uses in the commercial area"" to read 'a minimum of 50,000 square feet of
additional waterfront retail uses in the commercial area.""
Dan Marcus addressed Vice President Cook's concerns, and noted that they were concerned about
making a specific commitment regarding specific numbers of residential uses along the waterfront.
Based on working with their waterfront consultant, months of work within the community and with
staff, and listening respectfully to Vice President Cook's request for a specific number of residential
units on the waterfront, they believed that the Master Plan's language to allow residential on the
waterfront in the future, but not require a specific number of units was the most appropriate
compromise.
President Cunningham suggested that the ability to permit residential should be included in the
language.
Member Lynch suggested adding the wording ""commercial and residential"" without specifying a
certain number of residential units.
Member Kohlstrand noted that she had been overwhelmed by the amount of documentation
accompanying this project, and was impressed by the favorable public testimony. She expressed
concern about the street cross sections, and hoped for an extension to the other streets. She would
like to have a forum where the transportation issues in the Master Plan could be addressed in more
detail.
Member McNamara's expressed concern about the parking issue. She would like to see some sort of
parking structure, or would like to make some open space as an option if the parking spaces were not
required. She expressed concern about the circulation or transportation flow, and how it will integrate
with current Webster Street traffic.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that this was a very exciting project, but added that the project should
not be rushed because of Clif Bar's deadline without ensuring it was the highest quality project
possible. She was strongly concerned about parking, and did not believe the design team had been as
responsive to the Board's concerns as in other areas. She would like a better solution to the parking
issue. She did not want the parking areas to resemble an asphalt jungle, and was very concerned about
the aesthetic elements of this project. She noted that if there were a modification in Measure A, there
could be more residential over retail incorporated into the current plan.
Vice President Cook shared the concerns about parking, and how the project could be a true mixed
use project. She believed Subareas 2 and 3 should have 100% second story mixed use, as opposed to
50 percent. She was also concerned about the height of the project, especially the 85-foot office
buildings, which would be higher than anything in the mainland of Alameda.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,15,"Member Mariani noted that she was impressed with the support of this project by both the residents
and the business organizations. She had long wanted to this kind of project to come to the West End
to bring vibrance and life back to that area, and would like to see the blight in the area to be replaced
with positive uses.
Given the late hour, Member Lynch believed it would be detrimental to wordsmith the document, and
that the larger issues should be addressed and resolved.
President Cunningham noted that he had concerns about the heights of the buildings, and would like
further information in that regard. He emphasized that this Master Plan was a framework, and that it
was important to build flexibility into the plan. He would like to see some residential on the
waterfront, but would like to know more about its implications.
Member Mariani did not believe that the waterfront would be an appropriate place for residential,
given the noise level from the Oakland ports.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed that the language should be inclusive rather than exclusive, allowing
the issues to be revisited at a later time.
With respect to street cross-sections, Member Kohlstrand wanted to ensure the relationship between
the transit and bike lanes were clarified.
Member Lynch appreciated the work done by WABA, and appreciated Member Kohlstrand's
comments. He believed care should be taken when specific numbers are mentioned, and that the
overall goal should be kept in mind; he did not want the goals to compete, and for them to enhance
each other.
Mr. Thomas noted that the plan did not currently require parking structures.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the location of the parking areas were not yet known, and that not
every allotted space needs to be a structure. She noted that where the view mattered, she would
prefer to see a parking structure rather than a parking lot. President Cunningham noted that the
design requirement was to reduce the amount of asphalted area; he did not want to advocate parking
structures to the exclusion of other options.
Member Lynch noted that retailers and office tenants would have certain parking requirements, which must
be addressed. He believed that having the parking area more fractured would be a more desirable solution.
Mr. Thomas confirmed the Board's request for guidelines regarding the review of parking in the final
Development Review, and strengthening the guidelines on spreading the parking lots out.
Mr. Marcus thanked the Board members for their comments, and agreed with Member McNamara's
suggestion to turn uncommitted parking areas into open space. He proposed that the current section in the
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,16,"Master Plan regarding the street plans remain the same, but suggested conditions be added as follows:
""these conditions are subject to refinements of the sidewalks or additional street parking based on further
study.
Member Lynch stated that the Board would like to explore the opportunity of putting housing above all
retail, which he believed was a legitimate question, not a Measure A debate. He noted that it would change
the look of the project dramatically, and would affect the required parking.
Member Mariani agreed with Mr. Marcus' statement that some tenants may want only a one-story
building, such as PF Chang's
Member Kohlstrand appreciated what Vice President Cook was trying to achieve, but would feel more
comfortable with more flexibility in the goals with respect to at least 50 percent second story mixed use.
President Cunningham suggested that language be included to encourage as much mixed use as possible.
M/S Lynch/Cook and unanimous to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Mr. Thomas noted that with respect to the 100-foot height limit for waterfront buildings, it had been
reduced to 85 feet. Mr. Marcus noted that the current Master Plan stated that buildings up to five stories
could be built, and they had no intent to do more than that. The 85-foot limit was stated because some
tenants may want to have a raised floor building.
Member Kohlstrand believed it was important to frame the open space.
With respect to R&D, Mr. Thomas noted that the Tinker Extension was crucial for the lower 250,000
square foot retail center. If the City could not complete the extension, Variant B would be explored, which
would include plans for some retail and some R&D or a complete swap-out of R&D in that subarea.
Mr. Thomas noted Vice President Cook's comments regarding the 50% requirement, and noted that it was
always staff's intent that in the nodes, at least 50% of the buildings had second floor uses. He added that
more could be added, but that the City wished to have a required minimum.
Vice President Cook noted that while she appreciated all the public comments, she would not vote to
approve this item. She did not feel comfortable that the required details were in place with respect to the
qualitative character of this project at this time. She did not question Mr. Marcus' level of commitment, but
was uneasy about possible change in developers over time that may then result in changes to the project.
M/S Mariani/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No.'s, PB-06-25, PB-06-26, PB-06-27, PB-
06-28, PB-06-29 and PB-06-30, to approve GPA06-01, MPA06-01, DP06-01, EIR06-01 for the
Catellus Mixed Use Development including a General Plan, Master Plan and Development Agreement
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,17,"Amendments and certification of an EIR to replace 1,300,000 square feet of approved but not yet
constructed office and research and development uses with 400,000 square feet of office use, 300,000
square feet of retail shopping use, 20,000 square feet of health club, and up to 300 residential units.
AYES - 6; NOES - 1 (Cook); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 17
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,18,"9-B.
R06-0001, FDP05-0005, UP05-0022 and DR - Harbor Bay, Storage LLC - 500
Maitland Drive (DG). The applicant requests approval of Rezoning, Final Development
Plan, Use Permit and Major Design Review applications allowing the expansion of an existing
recreational vehicle and self-storage facility. The existing facility includes 115 recreational
vehicle parking spaces, 48,510 square feet of self-storage space and a 2,100 square foot office
and manager's unit. The proposed expansion would add 4.41 acres and include 70 additional
recreational vehicle parking spaces and 30,756 additional square feet of self-storage space.
The entire project site is designated as Commercial Recreation on the City of Alameda
General Plan. The existing facility is zoned CM-PD Commercial Manufacturing-Planned
Development District. The expansion area is currently zoned O Open Space. The rezoning
request to CM-PD Commercial Manufacturing-Planned Development District, is consistent
with the General Plan and current land use patterns.
Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report and recommended approval of this item.
Member Lynch noted that this project was a good example of what the industrial lands were intended
for, and added that he would have some difficulty in rezoning industrial land for residential purposes
here.
Member McNamara noted that she had concerns about screening of the site and noted that she did
not want to see a lot of RVs and big parking lots, but aesthetically pleasing to the business park
area. Member Mariani noted that she did not want to see a lot of RVs and parking areas.
The public hearing was opened.
David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, noted that he did not want to see an RV park at the corner of
the neighborhood.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Garrison noted that there were extensive setbacks: 50 feet from Harbor Bay Parkway and 20 feet
from Maitland. The expansion area was inside of that area, and a landscaped eight-foot high fence
would be built around the perimeter of the facility.
Vice President Cook did not believe the landscaping was landscaped well enough, and that the
screening on Viewpoint 3 looked like fabric on a fence. Mr. Garrison noted that it was not mature and
dense enough yet.
Member Lynch suggested that the language requiring maintenance of the mature landscaping be
changed to specify ""within three years, premiere landscaping will be maintained at the height of 10
feet, such that from Viewpoint 2, per the photos, the landscaping is at that 10-foot height in three
years.""
Planning Board Minutes
Page 18
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,19,"M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Cook to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-31to approve the
Rezoning, Final Development Plan, Use Permit and Major Design Review applications allowing the
expansion of an existing recreational vehicle and self-storage facility. The existing facility includes 115
recreational vehicle parking spaces, 48,510 square feet of self-storage space and a 2, 100 square foot
office and manager's unit. The proposed expansion would add 4.41 acres and include 70 additional
recreational vehicle parking spaces and 30,756 additional square feet of self-storage space. The entire
project site is designated as Commercial Recreation on the City of Alameda General Plan.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 19
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,20,"10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
This item was continued.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding potential future Planning Board Measure A Forum
(President Cunningham).
This item was continued.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).
This item was continued.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
This item was continued.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
This item was continued.
12.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
This item was continued.
13.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Caths Woodbury
Cathy Woödbury, Secretary
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the August 14, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 20
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-08-14,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, August 14, 2006
1.
CONVENE:
7:07 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member Ezzy Ashcraft
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Lynch, Vice-President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft, Kohlstrand,
Lynch, Mariani and McNamara.
Board member Cunningham was absent.
Also present were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Assistant City Attorney Donna
Mooney, and Planner III Douglas Garrison.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of July 24, 2006
Member Kohlstrand requested that under Item 9-A (Catellus) the minutes reflect a discussion
regarding the retail development block framed by public streets with crosswalks. She noted that Dan
Marcus, the developer, had indicated he was willing to incorporate that into the design.
Vice President Cook advised that the last full paragraph on page 13 should include the following
language: "" requiring a shopping center in Subarea 3. In fact, Subarea 3 could include 370,000
square feet of R&D instead of retail, which seemed inconsistent with many of the speakers'
perceptions and desires.""
Member Mariani noted that page 18, paragraph 5 read, ""Member Mariani noted that she did not want
to see a lot of RVs and parking areas,"" but that she was not the Member to make that statement.
M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Kohlstrand to approve the minutes for the meeting of July 24, 2006, as amended.
AYES - 6 (Cunningham absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
August 14, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-08-14,2,"6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
President Lynch noted that a speaker slip had been received from Karen Butter regarding Item 10-A,
and inquired when it should be heard. Ms. Woodbury advised that it may be heard earlier in the
agenda if so desired.
President Lynch noted that he would not object to doing that one time, but did not want to set a
precedent that would leave the public without a sense of certainty of when a particular item would be
heard. He wished to retain the historical precedent of Oral Communications being reserved for items
not on the agenda.
Member Kohlstrand would like the discussion of Measure A to be held during Item 10-A, and to
allow the public to make comments at that time.
Ms. Mooney noted that with respect to Board Communications, the Rules and Procedures of the City
Planning Board permitted any Board member to speak on any matter, and ""limited action may be
taken by the Board, such as asking staff for further information, there would typically not be
deliberation or action taken by the Board, and that public comments on an agenda item typically
immediately precede something to be discussed and acted upon. If the comments were kept to Oral
Communications, and Board members spoke during Board Communications, that would be consistent
with the Agenda's intent.
President Lynch suggested that both speakers be taken during Oral Communications, and Board
comments would be heard during Board Communications.
Ms. Diane Lichtenstein hoped there would be time for public discussion regarding Measure A.
Ms. Karen Butter, League of Women Voters, urged the Board to move forward and hold a public
forum on a possible exemption of Measure A for Alameda Point. She believed this was a critical issue
for Alameda citizens to discuss and understand the implications of that possibility.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
August 14, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-08-14,3,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
Use Permit UP06-0010 - N. Saidian & L. Zekster - 1310 Central Avenue (DV). The
applicant requests a Use Permit pursuant to Section 30-20.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code
to extend the hours of operation for the Alameda Gasoline - Valero Station, an existing legal
nonconforming service station facility. The current hours of operation are 9:00 am-6:00 pm
Monday through Friday, 9:00 am-4:00 pm on Saturday, and closed on Sunday. The auto
repair hours would be eliminated on Saturday. The Alameda Gasoline-Valero Station is
located in the R-4 (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District. (Applicant requests
continuance.)
M/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft to continue this item.
AYES - 6 (Cunningham absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
August 14, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-08-14,4,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
PD06-0001 and DR06-0054 - Habitat for Humanity - 626 Buena Vista Ave. (DG). The
applicant requests approval of Planned Development and Major Design Review applications
allowing the construction of eight new dwelling units consisting of four two-story duets on a lot
previously used as a carwash. The project site is zoned R4-PD Neighborhood Residential
District-Planned Development Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of July 24,
2006).
President Lynch congratulated Mr. Garrison on his impending promotion to Supervising Planner.
Mr. Garrison presented this staff report, and recommended approval of this item.
Ms. Doreen Soto, Development Services, presented the rest of the staff report, and displayed a
PowerPoint presentation describing the scope and layout of the project.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Virginia Jhang noted that she lived near the proposed site, and thanked the City for holding the
neighborhood meetings. She noted that there were not many neighbors in attendance because many of
them did not receive notice, and also because they supported affordable housing on this vacant site.
She noted that it was difficult to afford home ownership, and that this project was a great help. She
expressed concern about density, traffic safety and accountability. She noted that the developers did
not propose to have a homeowners association with CC&Rs to maintain the project. She noted that
the project met the Measure A criteria, but was still too dense for its location and lot size.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether her own development had CC&Rs, Ms. Jhang
confirmed that it did, and that it was very helpful to her and her neighbors. She noted that it was an
entry-level community, and that there was a playground in the common area for the children. She
described some of the surrounding businesses, and believed the area was already too dense. She
would like to see more open space and visitor parking on [Paramus].
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Member McNamara noted that she was very familiar with this area, and noted that Ms. Jhang's points
about traffic congestion were valid, and she hoped they could be addressed and corrected. She
supported this project and believed it was a good use of the current lot, while helping Alameda meet
the affordable housing requirements. She believed it would be an asset to the neighborhood, and
would be a good opportunity for increased home ownership.
Member Mariani expressed concern that when all the Catellus units are rented out, the street will be
become more congested and that perhaps traffic calming measures would be needed. She supported
this project.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
August 14, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-08-14,5,"Vice President Cook recognized the traffic problems, and believed that Public Works would be able
to find a way to mitigate them. She supported this project, and believed that it would be an asset to
the community. She had been a previous volunteer for Habitat for Humanity, and supported the pride
of ownership it created. She was not concerned about adding CC&Rs to this site.
Member Kohlstrand supported this project, and was reluctant to put additional burdens on this parcel,
particularly for parking. She noted that this project already met Code in that regard. She would like to
see The staff report noted that the City would like continuous sidewalks for trash traffic removal and
she also felt they should be there for pedestrians to use. She added that the lots were so small that she
believed it would be difficult to get all the landscaping in.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft supported this project, but did not find the designs to be attractive. She did
not believe they blended well with the rest of the community. She did not see any mention of green
building elements in this report, and hoped that it would be included.
President Lynch inquired whether the Board wished to add Member Kohlstrand's request about
continuous sidewalks and landscaping to the conditions. Mr. Garrison noted that would be agreeable.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to add continuous sidewalks and landscaping to the conditions
of approval.
AYES - 6 (Cunningham absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
In response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the explanation of the cost delta for the
project, Mr. Craig Meltzner, contract project manager for Alameda Development Corporation, noted
that the City funds were actually writing down the total development cost of the project. The actual
production cost of the units would be in excess of $400,000 each, and that the City funds would write
down the costs to make them affordable to the targeted groups. The very low income units will sell
below $200,000; the low income units will sell at $225,000, and the moderate income units will sell at
$300,000. The total development costs would reflect the market conditions, before the application of
the City funds.
Ms. Soto noted that Habitat would bring their donations, volunteers and equity into the project to
fund the other portion of the project.
Mr. Jim Bergdahl, housing development director for Habitat for Humanity, East Bay, noted that the
community can help by donating building materials to the project. With respect to green building
elements, they had been using sustainable features in recent projects, including PV panels for all eight
panels units and advanced framing techniques. He noted that durability was part of sustainability, and
they did not use cheap materials.
In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand regarding maintenance, Mr. Bergdahl replied that
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
August 14, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-08-14,6,"these were privately owned homes, and that the mortgage documents had requirements to require
appearances to be maintained.
With respect to the exterior design, Mr. Kirk Peterson, Peterson & Associates Architects, noted that
they looked at many designs, and wished they could have had more parking. He noted that this block
did not have the typical charm of Alameda, and noted that he tried to follow the 19th century models
for their simplicity. HardiPlank siding, corner details, double-hung windows and leaves were used to
follow that design palette.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft respected the historical aspect of the buildings and wanted to see the project
noted that the City moved forward as well.
Member Mariani liked the simplicity of the design when surrounded by the commercial clutter.
Member Kohlstrand believed the existing courtyard developments in Alameda were more attractive,
but she accepted the fact that 16 off-street parking spaces must be provided. She believed the design
should be accepted as presented.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it would be preferable not to look at the development from the street
and see rows of parked cars have a row of cars parked on the street if possible.
President Lynch was confident in the designers' capabilities, and believed that they addressed as many
design features as possible before adding the City's requirements.
M/S Mariani/Kohlstrand and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-31 to
approve a Planned Development and Major Design Review applications allowing the construction of eight
new dwelling units consisting of four two-story duets on a lot previously used as a carwash, with the
additional modifications as noted by the Board.
AYES - 6 (Cunningham absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
August 14, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-08-14,7,"8-B.
Appointment of Planning Board member to the Climate Protection Task Force.
M/S Mariani/Kohlstrand and unanimous to nominate Board member Andrew Cunningham to the
Climate Protection Task Force.
AYES - 6 (Cunningham absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
President Lynch noted that a letter was received from Housing Opportunities Makes Economic
Sense, signed by Helen Sause, regarding Measure A.
Member Mariani noted that the reference to City Council taking action on Measure A on the 1991
ballot was to define Measure A.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding potential future Planning Board Measure A Forum
(Board member Cunningham).
Member Kohlstrand recalled that the Board had asked for this item to come to the Planning Board to
review the history of Measure A, and for members of the public to give their perspective on it. She
requested a report from the Planning and Building Director regarding that progress.
Vice President Cook agreed with Member Kohlstrand's comments, and believed that this issue should
be addressed sooner rather than later. She noted that historic preservation and open space planning
were important issues, and that a civil community discussion would be needed.
Member Mariani believed there was a full forum on Measure A with the Planning Board and City
Council in the 1990s. While it was important for discussion to take place, she did not believe the
Planning Board should take a political view on an item to be considered for the ballot. She would feel
more comfortable if a separate group or person would drive that discussion.
President Lynch noted that Measure A was the purview of City Council and the public, not the
Planning Board. He agreed that it was important for the public to be aware of the genesis of Measure
A. Part of that discussion included how Measure A was consistent with existing design guidelines as
projects come before the Planning Board. He would like to define the appropriate forum for this
discussion.
Vice President Cook perceived the City Council's role as political, and the Planning Board's role as
analytical.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
August 14, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-08-14,8,"Ms. Woodbury generally agreed with Vice President Cook's description of the Planning Board's role,
and that the Board must abide by the regulations set forth in the law.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed the Board would serve the City better by acting proactively, and
noted that the deadline for the November ballot had passed. She would like to see a proposed ballot
measure to understand the issue more completely."" ""We have not even seen a ballot measure on this
issue."" She would like to hear from some outside authorities regarding this issue for more
perspective, and cited attractive developments in other cities. She would like to hear more substantive
comments than a series of anecdotal events. She believed an outside facilitator would be a valuable
addition to the process.
Member Kohlstrand suggested forming a task force comprised of people with a range of perspectives,
as well as City representatives and the EDC.
Vice President Cook believed a less structured forum would be ideal for the problem-solving needed
in this issue. She noted that the EDC had interesting perspectives. She would be interested in working
with a highly skilled facilitator who could focus the discussion on the fundamental, underlying issues.
Member Mariani suggested consulting with the Mayor and City Council on the Board's role in this
matter. She supported an outside forum.
Member McNamara supported using an outside forum to clarify the issues, and acknowledged the
emotional component of Measure A in the community. She believed the forum should be televised.
President Lynch noted that he and Ms. Woodbury would develop a plan of action and report back to
the Planning Board.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook noted that no further meetings had been held.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Member Mariani noted that no further meetings had been held, and that the next meeting would be
held on Tuesday, August 22, at the Asian Health Center.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
Member Kohlstrand noted that no further meetings had been held.
12.
STAFF COMMUNICATION
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
August 14, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-08-14,9,"13.
ADJOURNMENT:
8:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy Woodbury
-
Cathy Woodbury, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the August 28, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
August 14, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-11,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, September 11, 2006
1.
CONVENE:
7:06 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member Kohlstrand
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Lynch, Ezzy Ashcraft, Cunningham, Kohlstrand, Lynch, and
McNamara.
Vice-President Cook and Board member Mariani were absent.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney Donna
Mooney, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason and Supervising Planner Douglas Garrison.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of August 14, 2006
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 6, paragraph 1, should be changed to read: ""With respect to green
building elements, they had been using sustainable features in recent projects, including PV panels for all
eight panels units "" She believed that Mr. Bergdahl indicated that the Alameda project would include
photovoltaic panels for all eight units, and advanced framing techniques to save lumber.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 6, paragraph 4, should be changed to read: ""Member Ezzy
Ashcraft respected the historical aspect of the buildings and wanted to see the project noted that the
City moved forward as well.""
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 6, paragraph 7, should be changed to read: ""Member Ezzy
Ashcraft noted that it would be preferable not to look at the development from the street and see rows of
parked cars have a row of cars parked on the street if possible.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she did not make the statement on page 8, paragraph 3: ""She would
like to see a proposed ballot measure to understand the issue more completely. She had said, ""We
have not even seen a ballot measure on this issue.
Member Kohlstrand noted that page 5, paragraph 3, should be changed to read ""She would like to
see The staff report noted that the City would like continuous sidewalks for trash traffic removal and
she also felt they should be there for pedestrians to use.'
Member Cunningham noted that he was not present at the meeting, but noted that he was recorded as
having spoken on page 7.
M/S Kohlstrand/Ezzy Ashcraft to approve the minutes for the meeting of August 14, 2006, as
amended.
AYES - 4 (Cook, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Cunningham)
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
September 11, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-11,2,"5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
Mr. Thomas advised that the applicant for Item 7-C requested that the item be continued to
September 25, 2006, and added that because of incomplete noticing, staff requested that Items 7-A
and 7-B be continued to September 25, 2006.
Regarding Items 7-A and 7-B, Member Kohlstrand expressed concern with the layout and design of
the proposals the Board has seen for the Harbor Bay Business Park. She had seen very major
developments coming in the Harbor Bay area, and while the activity was good, she was concerned
about the way the buildings were laid out with the parking in front of the structures adjacent to
Harbor Bay Parkway. She could not support that type of parking configuration any more. She
believed the buildings should have been oriented differently, and believed that this should be the case
in these and future applications. She also believed the buildings were functional but very pedestrian in
terms of their architecture. She was concerned about the lack of services in this area.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed that green building practices should be a consideration in every new
project considered by the Board, and did not see much mention of sustainable design in reading the reports.
Member McNamara expressed concern over the designs in 7-A and 7-B, which seemed to repeat the boxy
appearances of the other structures in the area. She would like to see more creative architectural design at
Harbor Bay.
President Lynch requested that staff engage the applicant in the issues and concerns raised by the Board.
He noted that the design elements should reflect environmentally conscious practices, including materials,
infrastructure, plumbing, mechanical and electrical systems. The site layout, pedestrian access and general
services were also an important consideration in relation to the Bay.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
President Lynch noted that three speaker slips had been received for oral communication regarding
Item 8-A, and that those speakers may speak at that time.
Mr. Keith Dines noted that they had spoken with the representative from SRM Associates. They
hoped to be in agreement with the applicant at the September 25 meeting. He was concerned about
the lack of notice for this project.
Mr. Dines believed that in Venture Corporation's development of the office condominiums, the
contractors violated the regulations in the Municipal Code and the conditions of approval regarding
noise limits and hours of construction work. He noted that they had time and date stamped video
showing when the contractors started work and his complaints to the vice president of Venture
Corporation did not result in any change. He requested that the requirements be enforced, and noted
that the Board of Directors was considering legal action.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
September 11, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-11,3,"""President Lynch noted that the noticing practices were regulated by the State, and that the City may
want to consider extending often extended the noticing parameters."" He suggested that he leave his
contact information with City staff to be including in the noticing. He recommended that he bring the
videotapes to City staff as well.
7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
Applicant requests a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to allow five
new buildings totaling approximately 100,795 square feet in floor area with a total of
268 parking spaces to be constructed on a 7.7 acre site (CL). The site is located at 1900 -
1980 North Loop Road within the Harbor Bay Business Park in the C-M-PD, Commercial
Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District. Applicant: SRM Associates (FDP06-
0003 and DR06-0071).
M/S Kohlstrand/Member McNamara and unanimous to continue Item 7-A to September 25, 2006.
AYES - 5 (Cook, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
7-B.
Applicant requests a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to allow a one-
story building of approximately 36,899 square feet in floor area with 69 parking spaces
to be constructed on a 4.1 acre site (CL). The site is located at 2275 Harbor Bay Parkway
within the Harbor Bay Business Park in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned
Development Zoning District. Applicant: Harbor Bay Acquisition LLC (FDP06-0002 and
DR06-0062)
M/S Kohlstrand/Member McNamara and unanimous to continue Item 7-B to September 25, 2006.
AYES - 5 (Cook, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
7-C.
DR06-0027 and V06-0006 - Applicant: Fargo Farnesi Inc. - 2427 Clement Ave. (DG).
The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new two-story commercial
cabinet shop with a penthouse apartment on the third floor, to be used as a caretaker's unit,
and a free-standing single-story wood frame structure to be used as an administrative office
for the cabinet shop. The project will provide four full-size parking spaces and one ADA
compliant parking space. The applicant proposes to pay parking in lieu fees pursuant to
Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-7.13 for any additional spaces that may be required by
the City. The applicant is also applying for a Variance to the City onsite vehicle backup
distance and minimum driveway and parking area perimeter landscaping requirements. The
site is located at 2427 Clement Ave. within an M-2, General Industrial, (Manufacturing)
District. (Applicant requests continuance to the meeting of September 25, 2006.)
M/S Kohlstrand/Member McNamara and unanimous to continue Item 7-C to September 25, 2006.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
September 11, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-11,4,"AYES - 5 (Cook, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
DR06-0002 - Jenny Wong - 3292 Washington Street (CE). Public Hearing to consider a
Call for Review of a decision of the Planning and Building Director approving Major Design
Review, DR06-0002, to allow construction of an approximately 1,350 square foot second
story addition, new deck and patio. The property is located in an R-1, One Family Residence
Zoning District. [Former Planning Board President Andrew Cunningham]. (Continued from
the meeting of May 8, 2006.)
Ms. Eliason summarized the staff report, described the shading study, and recommend action to
approve this item.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. William Weir, 3279 Washington Street, requested a correction on page 3 of the staff report (Staff
Analysis), which should be changed to read, ""This will be the first second-story addition on the
block."" He requested that the applicant's request to add a second story be denied, and believed the
neighborhood should remain a single-story neighborhood. He noted that three other vacant houses on
the street were for sale, including one across the street from the subject site. He opposed setting a
precedent which would allow any new owner to add a second story. He believed that if the applicant
wanted a two-story home, she should have purchased one in Alameda, which would not disrupt a
single-story neighborhood.
Mr. David McCarver spoke in opposition to this project, and commented on the shade study. He noted
that the previous shade study did not contain a side by side comparison for 8:00 a.m. He then included his
own evidence showing that there was indeed a difference in his home at 8:00 a.m. He noted that the homes
were designed to take advantage of the morning sun in the kitchen, and if this addition were to be built, he
would be the only home on the street to not have that benefit. He was very concerned that he was now
unable to park in front of his house because of the numerous vehicles from the subject site. He believed this
addition would have a substantial negative effect on his family's quality of life. He believed that the addition
would completely transform the building and clash with the dominant verticality of the neighborhood by
dominating the neighborhood. He believed this addition would be a detriment to the property values in the
neighborhood.
Mr. Charles Wolf, 3284 Washington Street, spoke in opposition to this project. He believed that the
aesthetics of this neighborhood would be ruined by a two-story home on the corner. He expressed concern
about toxic materials that may be buried under the homes.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
September 11, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-11,5,"Member McNamara was pleased that the applicant had made changes to address Mr. McCarver's
concerns about shading and his quality of life in the main area of the house. She respected the
applicant's property rights, as well as the feedback from the neighborhood. She was inclined to deny
this project as presented at this time.
Member Cunningham did not believe the Municipal Code restricted a two-story extension, and was
similarly compelled by property rights and the concerns of the neighbors. He did not believe the
elevations had been drawn correctly. He noted that when the bedroom was pulled back, the roof pitch
was pulled back as well, affecting the stair. He noted that the shading study for the morning of
February 28, the side of Mr. McCarver's house showed two shaded areas, including by the stairs.
""The eave ridge line of the main roof had been incorrectly drawn, and was about three feet higher
than it should have been above the grade level at that point."" He had considered ways to eliminate
the shadow cast by the stair. He described the details of his suggestion and displayed them on the
overhead screen.
Member Kohlstrand agreed with Member Cunningham's assessment, and also understood the
interests of the neighbors as well as the property owner. She was uncomfortable with the idea of
restricting the ability of anyone on the street from adding a second story to their house in the future.
She was encouraged to see redesign of the structure to address the shading issues, and would like to
see a solution to further reduce the shading impacts. She did not feel comfortable denying this project
because it caused additional shadow on the adjacent property.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft appreciated staff's responsiveness to the Planning Board's concerns, and
expressed concern about parking. In response to her inquiry about parking, Ms. Eliason confirmed
that two off-street parking spaces were required for this property because it is less than 3000 square
feet total; it met Code with respect to parking. Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that while it met the letter
of the law, it may not meet the spirit of the law. She appreciated staff meeting with the involved
parties, but was concerned that there was no mention of communication between the applicant and
the homeowners. She was very concerned that the Board had not heard from the applicant. She did
not know whether the driveway could be made larger to address parking congestion on this street.
She understood the property owners' concerns, and added that it was more economical to add on to
the existing house than to buy new for more space. She was mindful of balancing the needs of
property owners and their neighbors. She wondered if another solution for Mr. McCarver's house
could be found, and was not persuaded that this was a street of homes that should always remain one-
story; this was not a historically designated neighborhood.
President Lynch did not believe it was appropriate to revisit documents that have already been
adopted by City Council. He noted that if the neighborhood would like to be known as a historical
neighborhood, there was a process to accomplish that goal. He noted that property changes because
people change; he noted that this design legally fit within the City's guiding documents. He suggested
allowing the applicant and the design team to look at Member Cunningham's architectural suggestions,
and possibly incorporating them with an eye towards voting the project up or down at that time. In
response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether the Board had that option, Mr. Thomas noted that
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
September 11, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-11,6,"staff would prefer to explore the ideas regarding shading and parking. He would rather have the
option to explore the ideas and then bring it back to the Board. President Lynch noted that he was
inclined to support this project, and was very reluctant to place a condition about parking in addition
to something that was outside the purview of the Code. He did not want to step onto a slippery slope
about numbers of cars allowed.
Member Kohlstrand expressed concern about the Board advocating for additional off-street parking,
and also had issues about scale with respect to the garage and paving in front of the house, which may
dominate the house. She did not want the street view of the house to be adversely affected, and
would not recommend additional parking on the site.
Member McNamara noted that the nearby Lincoln School parking lot was heavily utilized, and did
not know how the Board could control parking for school events as it related to this matter.
Member Cunningham believed that a benefit of cutting the roof back would increase privacy, by
eliminating the windows on the side property face, looking into Mr. McCarver's property. He
suggested using a skylight instead for natural daylight, which would reduce the cost of construction.
Mr. Thomas suggested that the item be continued in order to incorporate these design ideas.
M/S Cunningham/ Ezzy Ashcraft to continue this item to the meeting of September 25, 2006.
AYES - 5 (Cook, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
September 11, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-11,7,"9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Mr. Thomas noted that the Board received the AB 1234 Mandatory Ethics Training Requirement
packet, and added that the Board members were required to comply with this requirement. He noted
that Ms. Woodbury encouraged the Board members to contact her with any questions.
Member Cunningham received several communications in his packet from the Alameda and Islandia
homeowners association, stating their displeasure at, and encourage the Board to reject, the proposal
to build over 100 homes in Harbor Bay Business Park on North Loop Road.
Mr. Thomas noted that the Draft EIR on that project had not been released for public review yet. He
estimated that the earliest the Board may see that would be the second meeting in October or the first
meeting in November. He added that the public hearing on the Target EIR would be held at the next
meeting, as well as the Grand Marina project.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
Member Kohlstrand noted that there had been no activity since the last meeting.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board
Member Cunningham).
Member Cunningham noted that he did not have a status report at this time.
Ms. Eliason noted that staff was working with ICLEI, the body that was doing the modeling with
StopWaste.com Staff would provide the data that would enable them to create a picture of the City's
energy usage. They were still in the data collection phase, and hoped to run the model by the end of
the week. Data from PG&E on gas had not been received yet. Following that step, the Task Force
would meet, and goals and objectives to create a local action plan would be examined.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
September 11, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-11,8,"11.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
None.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
8:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy Woodbury
- Cathy Woodbury, Secretary
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the September 25, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
September 11, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, September 25, 2006
1.
CONVENE:
7:10 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member Mariani
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft, Cunningham,
Mariani, Kohlstrand, Lynch, and McNamara.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney Donna
Mooney, Supervising Planner Douglas Garrison, Debbie Potter, Development Services, Elizabeth
Cook, Development Services, Contract Planner Chandler Lee.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of September 11, 2006.
Member Cunningham noted that on page 2, he had requested clarification of the 45-foot-high green
bean, and what it looked like.
Member Cunningham noted that page 6, paragraph 2, should be changed to read, ""The eave ridge
line of the main roof had been incorrectly drawn, and was about three feet higher than it should
have been above the grade level at that point.'
Member Cunningham wished to clarify the following statement on page 7, paragraph 4: ""He
suggested using a skylight for natural daylight, which would reduce the cost of construction."" He
noted that combining that with roof modifications, which could potentially reduce the cost of
construction.
President Lynch noted that page 3, paragraph 3, should be changed to read, ""President Lynch noted
that the noticing practices were regulated by the State, and that the City may want to consider
extending often extended the noticing parameters.""
M/S Cunningham/Ezzy Ashcraft to approve the minutes for the meeting of September 11, 2006, as
amended.
AYES - 5; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 2 (Cook, Mariani)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Lynch noted that the applicants for 8-A had been delayed, and suggested that the order of
Items 8-A and 8-B be switched.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,2,"M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to hear Item 8-B before Item 8-A.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None.
7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
Use Permit, UP06-0011 - West Alameda Business Association (WABA) and City of
Alameda - Public Parking Lot at Taylor Avenue and Webster Street (DB). Applicants
request approval of an amendment to Use Permit, UP05-007 to allow additional hours of
operation for the existing farmers' market every Thursday from 4:00 p.m. through midnight,
from May 1 through the end of September. Specific changes to the scope of the previously
approved Use Permit would include additions of barbeque (outdoor cooking and food sales),
children's activities, guest chef demonstrations, movies, and music presentations provided
after dusk until midnight. This activity would be located in the City Public Parking Lot D and
would expand into Taylor Avenue. The site is located within the CC (Community
Commercial) Zoning District and is located within the boundaries of the Business and
Waterfront Improvement Project. (Applicant has withdrawn application.)
M/S Cunningham/Cook and unanimous accept the withdrawal of this application.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
7-B.
GPA05-02, R05-04, MP05-02, DP05-02, TM05-02, IS05-03 -Grand Marina Village
Residential Development (AT). The applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment,
Rezoning, Development Plan, Master Plan and Vesting Tentative Map and adoption of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration to allow the development of forty (40) new detached single family homes.
Development of the residential project would involve the reconfiguration of the existing marina
parking lot and improvements to the existing waterfront path and open space areas within the 8.36
acre Master Plan area. The site is located in the M2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning District at the
intersection of Grand Street and Fortmann Way to the south of the Oakland Estuary and
recreational marina facilities, north of the Pennzoil property and City of Alameda Animal Shelter
and Corporation Yard, and west of Grand Avenue. (Applicant and Staff request a continuance
to the meeting of October 9, 2006.)
M/S Cunningham/Cook and unanimous to continue Item 7-B to the meeting of October 9, 2006.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,3,"7-C.
Applicant requests a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to allow five
new buildings totaling approximately 100,795 square feet in floor area with a total of
268 parking spaces to be constructed on a 7.7 acre site (CL). The site is located at 1900 -
1980 North Loop Road within the Harbor Bay Business Park in the C-M-PD, Commercial
Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District. Applicant: SRM Associates (FDP06-
0003 and DR06-0071). (Continued from the meeting of September 11, 2006. Applicant
requests a continuance to the meeting of October 9, 2006.)
M/S Cunningham/Cook and unanimous to continue Item 7-C to the meeting of October 9, 2006.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,4,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-B.
Applicants request a Development Plan and Major Design Review for a 39 unit,
multiple-family affordable housing project, internal driveway, off-street parking,
landscaping and associated improvements on an approximately 2.5 acre site (CL). An
addendum to the Catellus Mixed Use Development EIR has been prepared. The site is located
at 401 Willie Stargell Avenue (formerly Tinker Avenue) in the southwest corner of the former
FISC Site (Tract 7179) within the M-X, Mixed Use Planned Development District.
Applicants: Resources for Community Development & City of Alameda (FDP06-0004 and
DR06-0080).
Mr. Thomas summarized the affreport, and noted that this proposal was consistent with the General
Plan, Master Plan and EIR. He noted that a subslab depressurization (SSDS) system, which would
prevent gases from the benzene plume from entering the living spaces of the buildings. This would be
an interim solution because the Navy is pursuing full cleanup of the benzene plume.
Mr. Eric Mikiten, project architect, described and displayed the site plan, landscaping design, and
architectural design of the project. He noted that the plan called for a sustainable green building. He added
that 15 of the 39 units will be fully accessible, and the remainder will be adaptable units; and all site
amenities will be fully accessible. The planting scheme focused on drought-tolerant and native plants, with
a bioswale along the side of the parking area and other areas to collect and filter the runoff from the
project. He displayed and described the materials and the design, and noted that the inspiration for the
design was from the Japanese origins of Craftsman design. The color scheme was a palette of muted and
sophisticated colors that were reminiscent of natural materials. The low sloping roof reflected the Japanese
aesthetic as well. The clear story windows would allow more light into the units, and reduce the need for
artificial lighting.
President Lynch complimented the architect on the design.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Alex McElree, Executive Director, Operation Dignity, 2243 San Jose, spoke in support of this
item. He noted that this project had been delayed for several years because of negotiations, and the
funding was finally secured to build these units. He noted that this development was service-enriched
permanent housing, which included onsite counseling services for the residents, including money
management and domestic services. He noted that Operation Dignity had a great deal of faith in RCD
and in Mr. Mikiten's staff; he believed these homes would be something people would be proud to
live in.
Mr. Joe Cloren, expressed concern about building on toxic land, and requested clarification of that
plan.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,5,"Mr. Aron Sogor, 2137 Otis, Apt 208, expressed concern about the mediation of the contaminated
soils, and inquired how this project would be different from past projects in that regard.
Ms. Debbie Potter, Base Reuse Manager, addressed the speakers' concerns, and noted that the
cleanup of the benzene plume was the Navy's responsibility. She added that the Navy's cleanup
schedule did not match with the City's building efforts, and that City staff and the developer met with
the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). An interim solution would be implemented,
including the SSDS, which includes a vapor barrier between the soil and the indoor spaces, a common
practice to deal with radon gas. The active system vents the gases to the exterior, with no chance that
the gases would be trapped within the enclosed spaces.
A discussion of the remediation techniques ensued. Ms. Potter noted that following the remediation,
long-term monitoring would occur.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft complimented the developer on a nicely designed project.
Vice President Cook liked the courtyard idea, as well as the kitchen areas that face the courtyard. She
expressed concern about the fencing on one side of the pathways. Mr. Mikiten agreed with Vice
President Cook's concerns, and noted that the fences and barriers were already there. He would like
to open those areas up to the neighborhood areas.
Ms. Potter noted that after 9/11, the Coast Guard became very focused on security, and noted that
North Village has been vacated and will be auctioned off in the future. She noted that would open the
site up, and added that Miller School would not longer be a school.
In response to an inquiry by Member McNamara regarding parking regulation, Mr. Thomas replied
the residents would register their cars to monitor whether the cars in the lot belonged to residents,
and whether any residents had an unusual number of cars.
In response to an inquiry by Member Cunningham whether there was a maintenance agreement for
the landscaping, Mr. Thomas replied that a standard condition could be added. Member Cunningham
complimented staff and the applicant on this project.
Member Kohlstrand supported this project, and was glad to see it move ahead. She acknowledged the
effort expended in making the building compatible with green design, as well as making it a beautiful
project. She expressed concern about the visual interest along Willie Stargell Avenue, and noted that
the project was intended to be a gateway to the West End of Alameda. She noted that it would be
easy to miss the main entrance to the building, and inquired whether the public part of the project
could be made more visible to the street at the entrance.
In response to Member Kohlstrand's concerns, Mr. Thomas suggested that staff work with the
applicant regarding the corner of Stargell Avenue as a condition of approval, to put more focus at the
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,6,"southeast corner of the building. Member Kohlstrand noted that would be agreeable to her.
Member Mariani agreed with Member Kohlstrand's comments, and added that this was a good
project. Her concerns about the plume had been answered, and she liked the concept of the courtyard.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the transit would be adequate, Mr. Thomas noted that AC
Transit service to west Alameda was not excellent, but there would be a bus stop at the development.
He noted that the West End transportation programs would make a difference in providing
supplemental services. Once Tinker is put in place, and the queue jumpers are operational, Tinker may
become an excellent transit route.
M/S Cunningham/Mariani and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-33 to
approve an addendum to the Catellus mixed use EIR and approve a Development Plan and Major
Design Review for a 39 unit, multiple-family affordable housing project, internal driveway, off-street
parking, landscaping and associated improvements on an approximately 2.5 acre site, with additional
conditions to require a landscape maintenance agreement, and enhancement of the southeast corner
elevation landscaping.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,7,"8-A.
DR06-0027 and V06-0006 - Applicant: Fargo Farnesi Inc. - 2427 Clement Ave. (DG).
The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new two-story commercial
cabinet shop with a penthouse apartment on the third floor, to be used as a caretaker's unit,
and a free-standing single-story wood frame structure to be used as an administrative office
for the cabinet shop. The project will provide four full-size parking spaces and one ADA
compliant parking space. The applicant proposes to pay parking in lieu fees pursuant to
Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-7.13 for any additional spaces that may be required by
the City. The applicant is also applying for a Variance to the City onsite vehicle backup
distance and minimum driveway and parking area perimeter landscaping requirements. The
site is located at 2427 Clement Ave. within an M-2, General Industrial, (Manufacturing)
District. (Continued from the meeting of September 11, 2006.)
Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report.
President Lynch noted that more than five speaker slips had been received.
M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to reduce the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN- 0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Shawn Smith, project architect, noted that he and the applicant tried to be sensitive to the
neighbors' needs and had met with the residents. A concern was raised about noise from the
woodworking shop, and he noted that 8-inch-thick insulated concrete forms with insulated foam on
the outside; its sound transfer rating would be 50, the equivalent of a movie theater. Reclaimed bricks
would be used for the building façade, to give it the appearance of being an older building. The client
would like to use the caretaker unit in the penthouse for his own unit, and would like a more modern
look for his unit. They had discussed a one-foot side setback from the current property line, and that
they would like a minimum residential driveway of 8""6"".
Ms. Theresa Long, 2431 Clement, noted that they had a shared driveway, and expressed concern
about this project because they would lose their access to the back of the property, as well as the nine
off-street parking spaces if the fence went up. She distributed pictures of their property to the Board.
Mr. Kirby Long, 2431 Clement, noted that they would not be able to get their full-size Expedition
(7'6"" long) in the proposed driveway.
Ms. Long noted that they would not be able to use their warehouse in the back as proposed.
Mr. Robert Reed, applicant, noted that he used the building as an office and light manufacturing He
would like to consolidate his business, and would like the space and height to accommodate his
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,8,"business.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether he had come to an agreement with his
neighbors regarding the easements, Mr. Reed replied that there was 18 feet between the properties,
and that 8'6"" was a legal driveway; they were trying to split the difference at this time. He estimated
that he was giving them 12 inches of free land, and that he did not envision ever getting a semi truck
into the back. He tried to curtail the liabilities of the business by keeping his operations fenced within
his property.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch regarding the City's historical perspective on easements,
Ms. Mooney replied that in a potential dispute over a right of access, the City sees fencing disputes as
private matters to be resolved among the parties. If they reach an agreement regarding an easement
that would typically be recorded.
President Lynch cautioned the Board not to condition an easement, which was a private matter
between two parties.
Member McNamara noted that the front part of the building would be reserved for office use, and
expressed concern about the hydraulic lift parking as an alternative to fulfilling the parking
requirements. She inquired whether the administrative office could be incorporated into the new
building to create more room for parking.
Mr. Garrison noted that one of the factors when looking at demolition was the potential historic value
and concerns that the building would be too tall for the neighborhood if the office was added to the
new building.
Mr. Smith noted that the original design had half of a floor that was dedicated to the office space, as
well as other administration functions; they had to remove that part to make the building shorter. He
noted that the building was in bad shape, and that the HAB had given permission to tear the building
down. He noted that the hydraulic lifts were not his first choice, but they were concerned about
parking capacity. He noted that they would be open to suggestions regarding parking.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that since HAB approved demolition, she was concerned with the lack
of off street parking spaces. She inquired whether the old building could be demolished, the new
building moved closer to the front of the property, with parking in the back. Mr. Smith noted that
they wanted to have enough maneuvering room for vehicles, which would be difficult under those
circumstances.
Vice President Cook shared the concerns about hydraulic parking, and was concerned about having
heavy vehicles above people's heads.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,9,"Mr. Smith noted that they would be amicable to in-lieu fees if the Board agreed. They could also
modify or remove the front building, and work out a way to add two more parking spaces.
Vice President Cook noted that she liked the smaller building on the street.
Member Kohlstrand believed the proposed building was a good design, but seemed to be discordant
with the building in the front. She inquired about the noise of the hydraulic lifts.
Mr. Smith noted that the lifts were operated by an electric motor; he was unsure of the decibel rating,
and estimated that it made less noise than an idling car. He noted that he could provide the noise
ratings to the Board members.
Member Cunningham noted that parking was always a delicate concern, and that the architectural
solutions were sound. He had been concerned about the noise generated from its facility, but believed
those issues had been addressed. He was pleased with the current proposal, with the exception of the
hydraulic lifts.
Mr. Smith requested direction on parking, and inquired whether the Board preferred a parking
alternative or in lieu fees.
Member Mariani noted that she was in favor of in lieu fees.
President Lynch suggested that the Board provide clear guidelines to the staff, and that staff
incorporate that information into a report, and continue the item until that time.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to encourage this kind of mixed use, and noted that
it was aesthetically pleasing. She commended the architect, and supported in lieu fees for the parking.
Mr. Garrison noted that staff would continue to work with the applicant, and the applicant would
continue to work with his neighbor. The item would come back to the Board at the next meeting,
with a resolution to the easement question and a revised recommendation on the parking situation.
Staff would double-check the parking calculations, and examine the use of variances without lifts. The
number of in lieu spaces would also be examined.
M/S Cunningham/ Ezzy Ashcraft to continue this item to the meeting of October 9, 2006.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
President Lynch called for a five-minute recess.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,10,"8-C.
Alameda Towne Centre Expansion Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DG). A
public hearing to receive comments on the draft Environmental Impact Report that evaluates
proposed changes and expansion of the Alameda Towne Centre (formerly South Shore Center).
The project includes modifications to an earlier Planned Development Amendment proposed in
2002 / 2003. These include 49,650 square feet of floor area above the 112,000 square feet
expansion proposed in 2002/2003, the construction of a new 145,000 sq. ft. Target department
store, instead of the previously proposed 90,000 square feet building, construction of a new
parking structure and improvements to the southeast corner of the South Shore Shopping
Center. The purpose of this meeting is to receive comments on the draft EIR only. No action
to approve or deny the project will occur at this meeting. The project site is zoned C-2- PD
(Central Business-Specia Planned Development District).
Mr. Garrison presented the staff report.
President Lynch noted that more than five speaker slips had been received.
M/S Cook/McNamara to reduce the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Winston Chu, 1143 Otis Drive, expressed concerns about the traffic impact of this project. He
noted that there were limited entrances and exits in Alameda, and was concerned about emergency
evacuation of Alameda. He noted that it would be very difficult to build more roads without
exercising eminent domain. He believed the Target would draw people into the City, which would
congest the entrances and exits to the City.
Mr. Ashley Jones noted that the impact of a store this large would be felt by the nearby residents, and
agreed with the previous speaker's comments about traffic.
Ms. Reyla Graber, 178 Basinside Way, spoke in opposition to this project and read an excerpt from a
newspaper article about a proposed Target in Davis. It addressed the impact on local stores by
Target, as well as health care policies and economic concerns.
Ms. Alice Cleveland, 2101 Shoreline, spoke in opposition to this project. She noted that her condo
unit in the Willows faced the road directly in front of the main post office at Shoreline, and her
windows overlook the narrow, two-lane street. She noted that there were no bicycle lanes and no
sidewalk. She was very concerned about pedestrian safety, and believed the street should be widened
to accommodate the cars and delivery trucks.
Ms. Holly Sellers, 1624 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in opposition to this project. She noted that her
comments she submitted about the DEIR had not been addressed; her concerns were air quality and
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,11,"noise. She believed the air quality within homes should be measured as affected by 18-wheel trucks;
she was concerned that the noise rating for those trucks were not included in the chart. She noted that
some of the trucks would be only 20 feet away from homes. She believed the truck traffic would
negatively impact the residents' quality of life. She submitted her comments to staff.
Ms. Kimberly Miner, 1004 Camellia Drive, indicated she supported the project but did not speak.
Mr. Terry Miner, 3214 Bayo Vista Avenue, spoke in support for this project and the EIR. He
disagreed that Target is the same kind of discount store as a WalMart or K-Mart. He believed that
many car trips would be generated to go to a Target off-island.
Ms. Eugenie Thompson requested that the City redo the traffic study. She had been asked by some
citizens to review the traffic study who wondered why a project of this magnitude could have zero
impacts. She did not believe the EIR evaluated the traffic impacts of a Target as proposed by the
developers. She noted that generic shopping was examined instead. She noted that Target would be a
major regional draw, from three to five miles. As a civil engineer and a traffic engineer, she did not
believe this EIR was reality-based. She supported controlled growth, and believed that 700,000
square feet was a very large shopping center. She would like alternative sites to be examined more
closely. She noted that traffic impacted people and the quality of life, not just roads. She urged the
City to do a new traffic study.
Ms. Jill Reed, 2101 Shoreline Drive #146, spoke in opposition to this project. She echoed the other
speakers' concerns, and did not believe the project would have no traffic impact. She did not believe a
store of this size should be at that side of the Island, and that it was a long drive for people to shop.
Ms. Mary Tigh, 2137 Otis Drive #223, spoke in opposition to this project, and spoke on behalf of Rich
Perranan who was out of town. She read his letter into the record:
""I arrived in Alameda in 1927, and remember when going to school that we had four bridges and
the Posey Tube. We still have four bridges and the Posey Tube for access to Alameda. All the
streets from those bridges are either one lane or become one land before Otis Drive. The side
streets are also one lane:"" Versailles, Broadway, Willow and Grand. Otis becomes one lane before
Park Street. Otis has become the truck route to the shopping center. Otis currently has 12 exits and
ten entrances to the center before Willow and Park Street. Only two each on Broadway, Shoreline
Drive and Willow Street. Shoppers not living in the general area of the center have no clue what
the traffic is like 24/7. At the St. Francis condo, we have 108 vehicles that use our driveway for
access to Otis Drive. At times we have a hard time getting onto Otis because of the traffic backed
up at the signal at Willow. There are backups from Versailles to Park Street also. Target's traffic
figures on the 112,000 square foot store of 30% and the 300,000 shoppers from off-island are way
off base. It would be more like 40% due to the increase in footage of 49,000 feet. Our streets
cannot handle this increase. They are having problems now. Our property values will decrease, and
will likely have more crime as more people come on to our island each day. Many are not against
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,12,"Target, but they would like a smaller store, not a big box store.""
Ms. Patricia Gannon, 1019 Tobago Lane, spoke in opposition to this project and noted that she had sent
two letters in strong opposition to this project. She believed the store was grossly out of scale for Alameda,
and cited studies that when big box stores open in a city, family-owned stores go out of business, housing
values decrease, and the local streets are clogged with traffic, thus degrading the quality of life.
Ms. Beverly DeWolfe spoke in opposition to this project, and expressed concern about traffic congestion.
She was concerned about building a garage under the store, where there would be water. She believed
Target should be located on a freeway, not a shoreline.
Mr. Tim Erway, 2101 Shoreline Dr #224, spoke in opposition to this project and noted that he was on
the Willows Board. He was very concerned about the one-lane approaches to the vicinity of the store, and
believed that the traffic would be very congested. He believed the traffic study was flawed and should be
redone.
Mr. Blake Brydon, Vice President, Alameda Civic Light Opera, 1033 Camino Del Valle, spoke in
support of this item, as well as the EIR as submitted by the developer. He believed the issues of traffic
and noise had been sufficiently addressed. He noted that Target had been an outstanding community
partner in supporting the Alameda Civic Light Opera in their funding projects.
Ms. Judith Kissinger, 2101 Shoreline Dr. #428, spoke in opposition to this project. She believed the
EIR did not provide mitigating factors for the environmental impact that the proposed Target would
have on her neighborhood. She had attended a neighborhood meeting, where the latest design was
presented; she believed it was basically the same design that she felt ignored the neighbors' previous
concerns, such as the blockage of views and light because of the size of the building. She was very
concerned about the impact on her property value. She believed it should be redesigned, and the
impact reports reconsidered.
Mr. Aron Sogor, St. Francis, spoke in opposition to this project. He noted that he was very concerned
about the safety of the schoolchildren, which will include his children, in crossing the street to go to
school. He was concerned about the environmental impact on the beaches.
Ms. Susan Peiper, 2101 Shoreline Drive, echoed the comments about traffic and believed both the
traffic study and EIR were both flawed in scope and in their conclusions. She believed the study area,
starting at Grand, was too narrow and largely ignored the major and minor thoroughfares which
would be impacted by a far greater flow of cars to the proposed store. She believed that all of Park,
Webster and Constitution would bear much heavier traffic. She noted that the impact on Franciscan
Way was not adequately addressed in the DEIR. She pointed out several inconsistencies between the
DEIR's conclusion and the 2003 Planning Board's conclusions, where a 93,000 sq. ft. store was
considered to be unacceptably large.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,13,"Mr. Robb Ratto, PSBA, spoke in support of this item and wished to address the impact on existing
businesses. The PSBA Board of Directors unanimously approved this project, citing the Kaizen-
Marsden report, who estimated that 3% of current sales may be lost to Target, but that the overall
impact would be minor. He noted that some retailers near the site wanted the Target, as well as Bed,
Bath & Beyond and other stores, to open up, which PSBA believed would continue to improve the
numbers for those stores.
Ms. Sonia Scott, 2442 Otis Dr., noted that the retail community supposed to support the residents.
She did not think the types of products carried by Target would compete with the smaller businesses,
and she would be happy to have a Target in Alameda. She noted that there had been safety concerns
about traffic, and wondered where the store could be placed on Fruitvale to ease the traffic. She
believed it was too large a store for South Shore Center.
Ms. Susan Battaglia, 1351 Burbank Street, noted that her concern about traffic has continued to
grow. Although Target may be a good neighbor, she did not believe it was a good fit for Alameda.
She believed the traffic study was flawed and should be discarded. She believed crime would be an
issue with a big box store.
Mr. Red Wetherill, 28 Cove Road, spoke in opposition to this project. He agreed with Ms. Thompson's
comments. He noted that he was a professional architect, and did not believe the placement of this store on
an island did not make sense.
Mr. Jim Strehlow, 3122 Gibbons Drive, spoke in support of this item with some concerns about the
egress portion of the EIR. He made suggestions on how to improve the shopping center with a three-
lane egress plan. He challenged the City to plan for traffic problems in advance of the development,
and for it to admit its mistakes during the DEIR phase for the good of the community as a whole. He
believed the development should be redesigned for a smaller footprint.
Ms. Dorothy Reid, Willows Homeowners, 2101 Shoreline #276, recalled that she had asked that this
project be approached in a different way, and for the community to be involved throughout the
project. She noted that she had read the EIR three times, which she believed to be inadequate. She
believed that the DEIR ignored the General Plan, which discussed residential streets and not creating
nuisances. She believed the traffic data was wrong, and noted that while the public views had been
addressed, she did not believe the impact of a five-fold increase in store size was not addressed.
Mr. Harry Dahlberg, 729 Bay Wood Road, Economic Development Commission, spoke in support of
the EIR and requested that the Board accept it in its present state. He noted that the EDC conducted
a number of hearings to consider the impact of such a store in Alameda, and the EDC endorsed it
unanimously after considering traffic and related implications. They also found that the majority of
Alamedans do want this store.
Ms. Cathy Leong, 48 Kara Road, spoke in support to this item. She noted that as a past president of
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,14,"the Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber was in favor of the EIR and smart business development
She believed that while Alameda was a residential community, without retail activity, there would be
no residents. She noted that there would be more on- and off-island traffic to go to stores in other
cities. She noted that many people were concerned about the opening of Trader Joe's, but that it had
become a good neighbor.
Mr. Gail Wetzork, Chair, Economic Development Commission, 3452 Calecca Lane, spoke in support
to this item and echoed the previous two speakers' comments. He noted that when this item came
before the EDC, the Commissioners endorsed it unanimously. He believed the impacts could be
mitigated, and he agreed with the EIR.
Mr. William McAleer, 420 Kitty Hawk Rd., spoke in opposition to this item, and expressed concern
about traffic. He noted that the majority of people don't walk, bicycle or carpool to Target, and
estimated 900,000 trips to and 900,000 away from Target per year. He noted that the area was full of
residential neighborhoods, and he did not believe it was an appropriate use for the neighborhood.
Mr. Chris Kovach, 2101 Shoreline Drive, spoke in opposition to this item. He did not believe the EIR
addressed the impact of expansion on the Island by Target. He was concerned about the impact of
traffics on the community, and believed the congestion would be a safety hazard.
Mr. Mark Linde, 2830 Central Avenue #B, spoke in opposition to this item. He believed the traffic
study should be redone and noted that the delivery trucks driving down the residential streets would
be a safety hazard.
Mr. Bob Feinbaum, Oakland, spoke in support to this item. He believed the Target store would
provide more variety of goods and services in Alameda. He believed that by improving the public
transit access to the center, the traffic impacts would be mitigated. He encouraged Target to use the
best design possible for this store.
Ms. Susan Sperry, 2101 Shoreline #355, spoke in opposition to this item and noted that she had been
hit by a car earlier in the year. She was very concerned about the pedestrian safety in the shopping
center, where she had been hit. She noted there were missing stop signs, speed limit signs and
sidewalks. She would like the Planning Board to address pedestrian safety in that.
Mr. Walt Jacobs, 28 Balleybay, spoke in support to this item and noted that he was immediate past
president of the Chamber of Commerce. He understood people's fear of change and growth, but
believed the benefits outweighed the challenges of the EIR.
Mr. Eric Scheuermann spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that Target had projected an annual
gross revenue of $50 million; of that, $38 million will come from Alameda residents, which is $500
per year for every person in Alameda. He was unsure whether that was a realistic figure. He
acknowledged the City staff's estimate of retail leakage to off-Island Targets. He was very concerned
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,15,"about traffic congestion to Target, and noted that there was more to quality of life than tax revenues.
He believed this use would be too big, would generate too much traffic and did not fit in Alameda.
Mr. Noel Folsom spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern about the traffic congestion
surrounding this use, and its impacts on the residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Scott Brady, 1812 Encinal Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. He was very concerned
about the traffic portion in the EIR, and noted that the level of service figures would be meaningless
to readers without the number of vehicles per hour included in the correlation. He believed this EIR
was a piecemeal document, and that it was a recipe for disaster.
Mr. Andrew DuBois, 2101 Shoreline Drive #438, spoke in opposition to this item. He was concerned
about the adequacy of the traffic study, and sometimes had to wait for three green lights to get across
Park Street at Otis.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, spoke as a member of Bike Alameda. He supported
Lucy Gigli's comments on the inadequacy of pedestrian and bicycle comments in the EIR, and the
provisions for them. He was disappointed that this continued a trend that pedestrians, bicyclists and
transit riders had not been adequately accounted for and taken care of in the South Shore traffic
pattern. He would be willing to accept Target as a good neighbor in the right location. He noted that
many low-income families needed a store like Target in Alameda, and did not believe they should
have to go to San Leandro. He noted that Target was a big supporter of community programs. He
believed that it should be located in the right place, supported by a developer that is willing to pay the
freight on the development, and to adequately provide for all the needs to support Target and South
Shore being a good neighbor. He did not believe that standard had yet been met, and did not believe it
had been met in 2003 with the EIR at that time. He believed this DEIR could be improved.
Ms. Lucy Gigli, President, Bike Alameda, PO Box 2732, noted that Bike Alameda had been waiting
for this most recent proposal. They believed that there had been no meaningful analysis of walking or
bicycling had been made in and around the project area. She believed the additional cars on the road
warranted safer facilities for bikes and pedestrians. She noted that secure long-term and employee
bike parking needs were not met. They believed that the bike lanes being placed on the main access
roads of Otis, Park and Shoreline would create safer access with the new intersections. She believed
the Target area would have increase turning movements on Whitehall, and the sidewalks should be
made much safer. There would be added pedestrian traffic between Walgreen's and Office Max, and
should require an east-west parallel sidewalk along the inside of Otis to get between those stores and
Target. She noted there would be an increased amount of pedestrians along the Park Street area near
Walgreen's and the Sushi House would warrant an enlarged sidewalk.
M/S Cunningham/McNamara and unanimous to extend the meeting to 11:15 p.m.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,16,"Mr. Mike Corbitt. Alameda Towne Center, 523 South Shore Center, spoke in support to this item.
He thanked the speakers for their opinions, and noted that he shared their wishes for safe and
manageable traffic patterns for the project. He submitted 520 names of people who want Target at the
center.
Ms. Elizabeth Flanagan agreed with the other speakers who mentioned their concerns about the
flawed traffic study. She would like the local schools to be included in the traffic safety with respect
to safety.
Ms. Mary Jacak, 1330 Caroline Street, believed the EIR was inadequate and felt very strongly that
there should be no street without sidewalks on both sides.
Ms. Kris Murray, 1738 Alameda Avenue, spoke in support to this item.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Lynch entertained Board comments on how to proceed with this item.
Member Kohlstrand believed it would be appropriate to continue the discussion to the next meeting.
She noted that it would be helpful to hear all the comments, and then absorb them before
commenting.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch regarding the timeline going forward, Mr. Thomas
replied that the final date of the comment period was October 12, 2006. Staff heard a number of
important comments and concerns raised, and expected to receive more letters and emails. He
believed the best option would be for the Board to continue its discussion to October 9, 2006. He
believed it would take one to two months to prepare the final EIR. The Board must wait to take any
action until the Final EIR has been in circulation for at least 15 days. He requested that staff provide
the public with a timeline and milestones of goals to guide public comment.
Vice President Cook requested the comments made by the Transportation Commission as soon as
possible. Mr. Thomas noted that staff would provide their minutes by October 9, 2006.
M/S Kohlstrand/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to continue Board discussion of this item to the
meeting of October 9, 2006.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,17,"a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there had been no meetings since her last report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
C.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
Member Kohlstrand advised that there had been no meetings since her last report.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board
Member Cunningham).
Member Cunningham advised that there had been no meetings since his last report.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Mr. Thomas advised that for October 9, 2006, a number of items had been brought to the next
meeting's agenda, and Grand Marina had requested that they be moved to that agenda.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Catalog Woodbresy
Cathy-Woodbury,Secretdry
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the October 9, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 17
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-09,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, October 9, 2006
1.
CONVENE:
7:10 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member Cunningham
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft,
Cunningham, Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani and McNamara.
Also present were Assistant City Attorney Donna Mooney, Planning Services Manager
Andrew Thomas, and Planner III Douglas Garrison.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of September 25, 2006
Member Cunningham noted that the resolution on page 8, paragraph 4, should be
changed to read, "" and enhancement of the southeast corner exterior elevation and
landscaping.""
Member Kohlstrand noted that page 8, paragraph 1, should be changed to read, ""In
response to Member Kohlstrand's concerns, Mr. Thomas suggested that staff work with
the applicant regarding the southeast corner of Stargell Avenue.. ""
Vice President Cook noted that page 19, paragraph 7, read, ""Ms. Kris Murray, 1738
Alameda Avenue, spoke in support of this item."" She noted that while Ms. Murray
indicated her support of the item on her speaker slip, she was not in attendance toward
the end of the meeting.
President Lynch noted that he had received written comments from Ms. Judith Kissinger
as a clarification of her public comments during Item 8-C. He noted that he would submit
the comments into the public record, and added that the video and audiotapes were the
official public record of the meeting, and that the minutes were a summary of those
proceedings.
M/S Cunningham/Ezzy Ashcraft to approve the minutes for the meeting of September 25,
2006, as amended.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Lynch noted that speaker slips had been received for Items 7-A and 7-B.
M/S Cook/Cunningham and unanimous to move Items 7-A and 7-B to the Regular
Agenda.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
October 9, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-09,2,"AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
President Lynch suggested that Item 8-D be heard second on the Regular Agenda.
M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Cook and unanimous to move Item 8-D to the second item on the
Regular Agenda.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Member Mariani expressed concern about the length of the agenda and the amount of time it
would take to address each one properly. She believed that by the time 11:00 p.m. arrived,
the Board might not be close to the end of the agenda. She also expressed concern that the
packets had been received on Friday.
President Lynch noted that he had spoken to Mr. Thomas about the issue of packets received
late, and that the idea would be entertained to cancel a Board meeting. However, staff would
continue to prepare and notice the documents as if there were to be a meeting, which would
be available to the Board and the public two weeks in advance of the next meeting.
Member McNamara noted that was a good idea. She added that it was difficult to read a
large amount of documentation on the same night.
President Lynch noted that it was within the Board's purview to continue a matter if there
was a concern about addressing an item at a late hour. He requested that a meeting be
skipped sometime during the calendar year to give staff a chance to catch up.
Member Kohlstrand noted that the public needed time to catch up and read the
documentation as well.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Dr. Beuna Pichey, California Naturopathic Association, 500 Park Street, expressed
concern about the three-deck parking garage and the Target, and inquired what would
happen to her building. She inquired what was being built on the old Walgreen's side of
Park Street, at South Shore Center. Mr. Doug Garrison noted that all the plans were
available in the Planning Department, and invited her to inspect the plans at her
convenience.
Mr. David Kirwin inquired why the end of Maitland on the airport end had been moved.
Mr. Garrison noted that he would contact Mr. Kirwin to provide that information.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
October 9, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-09,3,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR
7-A.
DR06-0002 - Jenny Wong - 3292 Washington Street (CE). Public Hearing to
consider a Call for Review of a decision of the Planning and Building Director
approving Major Design Review, DR06-0002, to allow construction of an
approximately 1,350 square foot second story addition, new deck and patio. The
property is located in an R-1, One Family Residence Zoning District. [Former
Planning Board President Andrew Cunningham] (Continued from the meeting
of September 11, 2006.)
Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. David McCarver, 3288 Washington Court, spoke in opposition to this project. He
noted that he would have liked to see the new shade studies listed in the application, and
had distributed the May 2000 newsletter from the Alameda Architectural Society, which
covered the City's revised Design Review manual. He noted that the manual was the key
document which established what should be approved or not. He expressed concern about
the mass and height of this project, and believed that the applicant could not build the front
bedroom according to the Design Guidelines.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Member Mariani noted that she was opposed to this project, and agreed with Mr.
McCarver's citation of the Design Guidelines with respect to the project.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that as long as this was a legal use, it was not germane to
consider whether this use was for an extended family.
Member Cunningham reiterated his comments regarding not allowing someone to make
modifications to their house when they were fully entitled to do so under the zoning
ordinance. He noted that the Planning Board's job was to mitigate the impacts of those
design improvements on the neighbors. He wished to clarify the intent of the article
circulated by Mr. McCarver, which he believed intended to maintain the historic
significance of older buildings versus nonhistoric (post-World War II) homes. He noted
that Ms. Wong's house fell well out of the pre-World War II time period. He supported
this application.
Member McNamara noted that she had not discussed her opinion with any other Board
member. She challenged the finding that was made in the staff report about the project
being compatible to the neighboring buildings, and that it promoted a harmonious
transition, scale and character in areas between different designated land uses. Although
the other requirements and codes had been met for this particular property, she did not
understand how the first finding could have been made.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
October 9, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-09,4,"Member Ezzy Ashcraft was satisfied that the applicant and her architect have worked and
been responsive to staff's suggestions. She would have voted against the first design, but
believed this design was considerably better. She believed it was sufficiently compatible
with the area, and was satisfied with this staff report. She noted that this was a legal use in
an appropriate zone.
Member Mariani understood that this was not an historic home, but believed that the
Design Guidelines should be applied to other homes. She believed this neighborhood had
a
unique charm, and did not believe that a homeowner's building rights must always
trump the rights of the neighbors.
Vice President Cook agreed with Members Ezzy Ashcraft and Cunningham, and believed
that the Board has had to balance the issue of change and growth with the needs of
neighborhoods over the years. She believed that unilaterally saying that someone could
not build a second story effectively downzoned the entire City. She complimented the
applicant and architect on their hard work with staff in revising this design.
President Lynch noted that the Design Review Manual was used as a subjective guide,
and that the Planning Board must consider the Alameda Municipal Code as a regulatory
item. He emphasized that this was not an historic neighborhood, and that the homeowners
may follow a certain process to make the neighborhood historic. This zoning was set by
the zoning text that was consistent, under CEQA, with the General Plan. The Planning
Board did not have the authority to change that language. He believed the changes in the
design more than adequately addressed the Board's concerns since the first iteration. He
was mindful that there was a difference of opinion within the Planning Board.
M/S Cunningham/Kohlstrand to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-34 to
approve a Major Design Review, DR06-0002, to allow construction of an approximately
1,350 square foot second story addition, new deck and patio.
AYES - 5; NOES - 2 (Mariani, McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
October 9, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-09,5,"7-B.
DR06-0027 and V06-0006 - Applicant: Fargo Farnesi Inc. - 2427 Clement
Ave. (DG). The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new
two-story commercial cabinet shop with a penthouse apartment on the third floor,
to be used as a caretaker's unit, and a free-standing single-story wood frame
structure to be used as an administrative office for the cabinet shop. The project
will provide four full-size parking spaces and one ADA compliant parking space.
The applicant proposes to pay parking in lieu fees pursuant to Alameda Municipal
Code Section 30-7.13 for any additional spaces that may be required by the City.
The applicant is also applying for a Variance to the City onsite vehicle backup
distance and minimum driveway and parking area perimeter landscaping
requirements. The site is located at 2427 Clement Ave. within an M-2, General
Industrial, (Manufacturing) District. (Continued from the meeting of
September 25, 2006.)
Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Holly Sellers, 1624 San Antonio, inquired whether this was an existing,
nonconforming building, and what the Municipal Code had to say about this situation.
Ms. Theresa Long, 339 Borica Place, Danville, spoke in opposition to this project and
noted that she owned the property at 2431 Clement Avenue. She remained concerned about
protecting her right of ingress and egress from the property, and did not have any
documentation to address this concern.
Mr. Shawn Smith, project architect, noted that the drawings showed a one-foot easement,
and the applicant had agreed with that. They intended to file that easement before getting a
permit for construction.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Garrison noted that the original staff report stated that the existing building fronted
onto the sidewalk. Under the current zoning code, there is a required setback of five feet
from the front property line; the building is nonconforming on the front setback. It was
proposed to keep the building in the same place, but constructing a separate building that
met all AMC development standards.
Member Cunningham noted that he did not want automobile lifts anywhere in Alameda.
Vice President Cook agreed with that assessment.
President Lynch noted that he did not support a lift in this project, and was not a
proponent of this kind of zoning text change because of the workload that would be
imposed on staff and the City budget. He suggested that staff add this question to its ""to-
do"" list so that the task may be eventually funded.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
October 9, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-09,6,"Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed this was an outstanding design, and that the building had
been in industrial use since 1917. She believed the applicant was responsive to the
Board's concerns.
Mr. Thomas noted that there was a typo in the fourth ""Whereas"" in the Resolution, and
clarified that the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on October 9,
2006, as opposed to September 25, 2006.
M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Kohlstrand and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No.
PB-06-35 to approve a Design Review to construct a new two-story commercial cabinet
shop with a penthouse apartment on the third floor, to be used as a caretaker's unit, and a
free-standing single-story wood frame structure to be used as an administrative office for
the cabinet shop. The project will provide four full-size parking spaces and one ADA
compliant parking space. The applicant proposes to pay parking in lieu fees pursuant to
Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-7.13 for any additional spaces that may be required
by the City. The applicant is also applying for a Variance to the City onsite vehicle
backup distance and minimum driveway and parking area perimeter landscaping
requirements.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
October 9, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-09,7,"7-C.
V06-0005/DR06-0052 - Christopher Seiwald - 2320 Blanding Avenue (CE).
The applicant requests approval of Variance and Major Design Review
applications to allow the construction of a 17,058 square foot addition to an
existing 27,300 square foot commercial building. The total building square
footage of the proposed three-story structure is 44,358 square feet. A Variance to
the parking requirements is requested to allow the provision of 111 parking spaces
where 120 parking spaces are required by the Alameda Municipal Code. The
project site is zoned M-2 General Industrial (Manufacturing). (Staff requests
continuance to the meeting of October 23, 2006.)
M/S Cunningham/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to continue Item 7-C to the meeting of
October 23, 2006.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
Alameda Towne Centre Expansion Project Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DG). Planning Board consideration of the draft Environmental Impact
Report that evaluates proposed changes and expansion of the Alameda Towne
Centre (formerly South Shore Center). The project includes modifications to an
earlier Planned Development Amendment proposed in 2002 / 2003. These include
49,650 square feet of floor area above the 112,000 square feet expansion proposed
in 2002/ 2003, the construction of a new 145,000 sq. ft. Target department store,
instead of the previously proposed 90,000 square feet building, construction of a
new parking structure and improvements to the southeast corner of the South
Shore Shopping Center. No action to approve or deny the project will occur at this
meeting. The project site is zoned C-2- PD (Central Business--Specia Planned
Development District). (Continued from the meeting of September 25, 2006.)
-SEE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT FOR THIS ITEM -
No action was taken.
8-B.
Applicant requests a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to
allow five new buildings totaling approximately 100,795 square feet in floor
area with a total of 268 parking spaces to be constructed on a 7.7 acre site
(CL). The site is located at 1900 - 1980 North Loop Road within the Harbor Bay
Business Park in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development
Zoning District. Applicant: SRM Associates (FDP06-0003 and DR06-0071).
(Continued from the meeting of September 25, 2006.)
M/S Cunningham/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of October
23, 2006.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
October 9, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-09,8,"8-C. GPA05-02, R05-04, MP05-02, DP05-02, TM05-02, IS05-03 -Grand Marina
Village Residential Development (AT). The applicant requests approval of a
General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Development Plan, Master Plan and Vesting
Tentative Map and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration to allow the
development of forty (40) new detached single family homes. Development of the
residential project would involve the reconfiguration of the existing marina
parking lot and improvements to the existing waterfront path and open space areas
within the 8.36 acre Master Plan area. The site is located in the M2 (Heavy
Industrial) Zoning District at the intersection of Grand Street and Fortman Way to
the south of the Oakland Estuary and recreational marina facilities, north of the
Pennzoil property and City of Alameda Animal Shelter and Corporation Yard,
and west of Grand Avenue.
M/S Cunningham/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of October
23, 2006.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
8-D.
GP05-0001/R05-003 - Francis Collins d/b/a/Boatworks LLC, Applicant -
2241 & 2243 Clement Avenue (AT). The applicant requests a General Plan
Amendment from os (Open Space) to MU-5 (Specified Mixed Use - Northern
Waterfront, Willow Street to Oak Street) on a 4.6-acre portion of the 10-acre
planned Estuary Park, and Rezone properties located at 2241 and 2243 Clement
Street from M-2 General Industrial (Manufacturing) District to R-4/PD
Neighborhood Residential/Planned Development Combining District in order to
allow for residential development of up to 242 dwelling units. The properties are
located north of Clement Street, west of Oak Street, and adjacent to the Oakland-
Alameda Estuary.
M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/McNamara to hear this item after Item 8-A.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Member Mariani wished to correct the reference of Clement Street to Clement Avenue.
Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report.
President Lynch requested that the Board close discussion of this item at this time to
address continuance of Items 8-A and 8-B.
President Lynch noted that more than five speaker slips had been received for this item.
M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Cunningham and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three
minutes.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
October 9, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-09,9,"AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, was not in attendance to speak, but had
indicated that he was not in favor of this item. He wanted to know the impact of Bayport
Alameda Landing and other growth in this area before making changes.
Ms. Debra Arbuckle, Alameda Open Space, 1854 9th Street, spoke in opposition to this
project and would like the open space to remain. She noted that while this project
conformed Measure A, she believed it was still too dense for the area and would not be
suitable to be adjacent to open space. She would like to find a less dense, more compatible
use for this site, and was very concerned about toxic materials from previous businesses on
this site.
Mr. Jim Sweeney believed this location was very strategic because it was close to
downtown.
Ms. Dorothy Freeman, Estuary Park Action Committee, 2050 Eagle Avenue #4, spoke in
opposition to this project. She read the following statement and submitted it into the record:
""I am a member of Estuary Park Action Committee. I would like to
reference page 21 of the package we have given you, titled Estuary Park
Information Resource. Under the paragraph titled ""Why is the Estuary
Park site safer to develop as open space than as housing?"" is the reference
to an environmental study commissioned by Stewart Gruendl, an architect
for BayRock, the 2002 developers. The study refers to the Fox property
which has now been purchased by Mr. Collins and is part of his new
development plan. Mr. Gruendl spoke before this committee in 2002 so a
copy of that study should be available to this commission. It's known that
the Fox property is polluted with Creosote and other pollutions are likely
on these properties. I didn't see a reference to pollution in the staff report.
The study dated June 17, 2002, titled ""Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation, 2199 and 2229 Clement Ave., Alameda, CA"" concluded the
land was so badly contaminated that it would have to be cleaned by ""an
extensive dig and dump operation going below the ground water level and
refilling and compacting the soils every 9 inches.' Refilling could then
create a possible liquefaction problem for any structures (homes) on the
property during an earthquake.
When EPac last worked with Susan Ota, during the writing for the grant
request for Prop 40 Parks money, Ms. Ota remarked that the parking lot
for the proposed park would extend onto the Fox property because the
pollution was so bad, the land should not be used for anything other than
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
October 9, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-09,10,"parking. She also remarked that the pollution was known to be traveling
into the soils of the adjacent properties.
When EPac meet with Mr. Banta, at his request, to review the new
proposal, I asked him if Mr. Collins was prepared to do the remediation
necessary to remove the polluted soil. Mr. Banta responded that there was
no way they would be removing the soil because it was way too
expensive. Mr. Banta stated that Mr. Collins was looking for a different
way to do the remediation.
I have also provided the Commissioners with a copy of an EPA Report
titled, ""Federal Creosote-New Jersey."" This report documents a site
where housing and a mall were built on a creosote-contaminated site
similar to the Fox contamination although a much larger development.
Some highlights from this study: 93 residential properties had to be
remediated, sometimes to a depth of 35 feet, a shopping mall is being
cleaned in a project that extends into 2008. Some properties required
permanent and temporary relocation of the residents, 280,000 tons of
creosote-contaminated soil have been excavated from the residential
properties and shipped off site.
Nowhere in this EPA report is there reference to another method of
removing creosote from the soil. The Fox Collins properties should not be
used for residential or permanent business development. Open space,
parking lots, and park space where visiting is temporary, are the only uses
I recommend for this land. I suggest researching this issue before
rezoning.
Since the developer of Alameda Point has pulled out of the project,
Alameda is presently looking for new developers. I would like to suggest
the city work a land swap with Mr. Collins and let him develop elsewhere.
On another point: Oak Street is sure getting busy. With traffic off the Park
Street Bridge going to the new parking structure and theater, the planned
bike across Alameda path and the Bay Trails path being added to Oak
Street, the corner of Clement and Oak is already scheduled to be
congested. North end traffic to the new Bridgeside Center will also use
these streets. Where is regional oversight for Oak, Clement, and
Blanding. Adding a residential development will just add more
congestion to a very tight intersection.""
Mr. Joseph Woodard, Estuary Park Action Committee, spoke in opposition to this project,
and submitted petitions with more than 200 neighbors opposing the project. He believed that
this park-poor area should have high-density housing blocking the view and eliminating
property usage of this open space along the Estuary,
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
October 9, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-09,11,"Ms. Sue Field, Elm Street, spoke in opposition to this project and noted that the project
would affect her. She would like the park to remain, and did not want the acres to be
rezoned to R-4. She opposed dense housing at this site. She was very concerned about the
traffic becoming more congested, and believed that her quality of life would decline if the
view were to be taken away.
Ms. Rebecca Redfield, EPAC, 2210 Clement Avenue, spoke in opposition to this project.
Her major concerns addressed the vision for the development of the area, the type of access
she would like to see, and the type of traffic load experienced in that area. She would like to
see a park where there was sufficient room to play ball. She believed this neglected
waterfront area should be an asset for the whole community, and not just for the exclusive
use of one development. She noted that Clement Avenue was an important alternative route
to the Park Street Bridge. She read the following paragraph into the record:
""Since the developer of Alameda Point has pulled out of the project,
Alameda is presently looking for new developers. I would like to suggest the
City work a land swap with Mr. Collins and let Mr. Collins develop
elsewhere.""
Mr. Byron Lively, 1851 Elm Street, spoke in opposition to this project. He liked the idea
of a park, but not for a lot of apartments.
Ms. Tammy Lively, 1851 Elm Street, spoke in opposition to this project. She would like to
see a park rather than a high-density apartment building.
Ms. Jean Sweeney noted the area was deficient in waterfront access. She would like the
area to be changed to open space and parks.
Mr. Dong Kim, 1824 Elm Street, noted that development in this area may be exciting,
and would be better than a parking lot, but he was concerned about the density of the
project. He liked the 300 feet of public access, but was concerned about how the public
could actually get to the waterfront. He was concerned about the interaction with Park
Street area. He did not believe the City would benefit from the R-4 zoning with 300 units.
Mr. Uwe Springborn, 2057 Eagle Avenue, spoke in opposition to this project. As a parent
of triplets, he was very concerns about the environmental impacts on the park, and
wondered whether a more in-depth environmental study would be needed. He understood
the balance between financial pressures and rights and freedoms in this country. He
believed that in this case, park access was as important as the profit margin to the
developer. He did not support the recommendation for no further environmental impact
studies, and believed that would be necessary to see what has happened on the site in the
past decades. He supported the recommendation to deny the General Plan Amendment,
and he did not support the rezoning to R-4/PD. He would like to see a lower density plan.
Mr. Greg Harper, applicant's attorney, Hollis Street, Emeryville, detailed the background
of this project. He noted that in the past 15 years, there have been no plans to acquire any
money, develop any funds, or levy any bonds necessary to acquire the park. Their
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
October 9, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-09,12,"position was that 15 years was a long time to be held in limbo, but with respect to the
General Plan Amendment, the Housing Element did recognize that fact and amended the
General Plan (MU-5), which purported to allow housing all the way to the waterfront.
They did not request a General Plan Amendment, but that was staff's position. They
requested that the land be zoned in accordance with the General Plan. He inquired
whether the City intended to put a park on the site or not. He noted that their position to
the court was that the City must rezone their property in accordance with the law.
Mr. Robert McGillis, project architect, Philip Banta Associates, 6050 Hollis Street,
Emeryville, wished to clarify some items with respect to the documents distributed to the
Planning Board. He noted that the page after the aerial photograph of the site identified
the MU-5 area, and noted that the green swath through the site was the park. He noted
that the General Plan was amended in 2003 to accommodate the new Housing Element,
and a map for Site 20 was not included in the staff report. He noted that the staff report
did not include the fact that the 242 was the result of the density bonus being invoked in
this case, and was the sum of the base units plus the density bonus. He noted the entire
site was zoned M-2, not open space. He noted that the net density calculation was
separate from Measure A. He noted that the issue of toxic material was being handled,
and that the DTSC was very strict with their criteria.
President Lynch believed the Housing Element was intended to consider changing sites
designated for housing to zoning that allows for zoning, versus a ""must change.""
In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand, Mr. Thomas noted that the project was
split into two halves, and staff wanted the Planning Board and City Council to take action
on the first half until the General Plan and zoning issues were resolved. He explained the
details of the zoning designations as defined by the General Plan, as well as the intent of
the Housing Element with respect to this matter. Staff disagreed with the applicants'
assertion that the Housing Element shows housing all the way out to the waterfront. He
noted that during the adoption of the Housing Element, it was never the intent to imply
that by showing where the MU-5 was on the map that all the open space policies would
vanish.
President Lynch noted the time was 10:59 and entertained a motion from the Board to
extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.
M/S Kohlstrand/Ezzy Ashcraft to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.
AYES - 6; NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0
Mr. Thomas described the City's zoning history with this project.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether the applicant had submitted
applications to do anything on the property during this 15-year period, Mr. Thomas
replied that he believed the City had issued at least one use permit to do expansion of
existing industrial uses on the site.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
October 9, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-09,13,"President Lynch noted that there had been activity on that property in 15 years, which he
did not perceive as being a long time. He noted that the owner has not abandoned the
property.
In response to an inquiry by Member Cunningham whether the City would recommend
the parcel's rezoning to open space, Mr. Thomas confirmed that staff is not
recommending rezoning the front portion to open space. He noted that with the
constraints of Measure A, staff struggled to find enough land in Alameda, and added that
every site was critical. If the site was zoned at a lower density, 300 units would not fit in
the MU-5; the City would have to find land elsewhere. He noted that every bit of land on
the island was committed with respect to housing allocation.
M/S Mariani/Kohlstrand to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-36 to move that
the staff recommended project is categorically exempt from environmental review; to
deny the General Plan Amendment from os (Open Space) to MU-5 (Specified Mixed
Use - Northern Waterfront, Willow Street to Oak Street) on a 4.6-acre portion of the 10-
acre planned Estuary Park; and adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-37 to
approve the rezoning of properties located at 2241 and 2243 Clement Street from M-2
General Industrial (Manufacturing) District to R-4/PD Neighborhood Residential/Planned
Development Combining District in order to allow for residential development of up to
242 dwelling units.
AYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (McNamara)
8-E.
Appointment of Two Planning Board Members to the Big Box Retail Working
Committee.
M/S Cunningham/Ezzy Ashcraft to continue this item to the meeting of October 23,
2006.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
Mr. Thomas advised that staff distributed a Transmittal of Proposed Six Amendment
Community Improvement Plan for the Business Waterfront and Improvement Project to
the Board. He noted that it was a proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan,
which would come before the Board on October 23, 2006. He added that the staff report
would provide more detail about this matter.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-
President Cook).
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
October 9, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-09,14,"Vice President Cook noted that there had been no activity since the last meeting.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee
(Board Member Mariani).
Member Mariani noted that there had been no activity since the last meeting.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board
Member Kohlstrand).
Member Kohlstrand noted that there had been no activity since the last meeting.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force
(Board Member Cunningham).
Member Cunningham noted that he did not have a status report at this time.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
None.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Caths Woodbury
Cathy Woodbury, Secretary
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the October 23, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
October 9, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, October 23, 2006
1.
CONVENE:
7:04 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member Mariani
3.
ROLL CALL:
Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft,
Kohlstrand, Mariani and McNamara.
President Lynch was absent.
Also present were Assistant City Attorney Donna Mooney, Planning Services Manager
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, and Planner III Douglas
Garrison.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of October 9, 2006
Member Kohlstrand noted that in the vote at the bottom of page 12 to extend the meeting,
Member Mariani is listed as abstaining. She recalled that she voted against the motion,
and noted that the vote should read: ""AYES - 6; NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0.""
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of October
9, 2006, as amended.
AYES - 6 (Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
Acting President Cunningham noted that staff requested that Item 8-C be heard after Item
8-A.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to hear Item 8-C after Item 8-A.
AYES - 6 (Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Susan Pieper noted that she had received a notice about proposed exterior
modifications for part of Alameda Towne Centre, referring to the old Walgreen's to Ross
and Petco. She noted that it had been reviewed by the Planning & Building Department
for architectural design prior to building permit approval. She urged the City to bring this
issue before the Planning Board for discussion, in order to avoid a piecemeal approach to
Alameda Towne Centre.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,2,"Ms. Dorothy Reid noted that she wished to discuss the permit to make the changes on
Buildings 300 (former Walgreen's), 400 and 500 in Alameda Town Centre. She noted
that was the corner that residents were concerned about with respect to bus traffic. She
requested clarification on the plans for that area of the center. She expressed concern
about the 37-foot-high tower, which she believed was unnecessary. She was very
concerned that this project may get out of control, and appreciated staff's efforts in
working on this project.
Mr. Thomas noted that there had been many changes at South Shore over the years, and
that there were periodic amendments that come before the Planning Board. In this case,
staff sent out a notice to the neighbors, as is customary with all design reviews. If the
neighbors have concerns about what staff was considering, staff has the ability to bring it
to the Planning Board. Staff anticipated having a study session on the South Shore project
at the November 13, 2006, meeting. The gas station proposal will also be discussed.
In response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft whether the Planning Board members
could receive the same notices received by the neighbors regarding the proposed
developments, Mr. Thomas confirmed that would be possible. He believed that should be
part of the normal noticing procedure, and would ensure that took place.
7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A. Applicant: Harbor Bay Acquisition LLC (FDP06-0002 and DR06-0062)
(CL). Applicant requests a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to
allow a one-story building of approximately 36,899 square feet in floor area with
69 parking spaces to be constructed on a 4.1 acre site. The site is located at 2275
Harbor Bay Parkway within the Harbor Bay Business Park in the C-M-PD,
Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District. (Applicant
requests continuance.)
M/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to continue this item.
AYES - 6 (Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN- - 0
7-B. Applicant: City of Alameda (BB). Review the bus shelter survey results and
recommend City bus shelter design standards for future bus shelter locations in
Alameda.
M/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to continue this item.
AYES - 6 (Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - - 0
In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand whether one particular bus shelter had
been recommended, Mr. Thomas replied staff would need more time to coordinate with
Public Works with respect to a recommended shelter.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,3,"7-C.
Applicant: City of Alameda Community Improvement Commission (RS).
Applicant requests a finding that the proposed Sixth Amendment to the
Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement
Project conforms to the City of Alameda's General Plan as it exists and is
currently being amended.
M/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-
38 to make a finding that the proposed Sixth Amendment to the Community
Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project conforms to the
City of Alameda's General Plan as it exists and is currently being amended.
AYES - 6 (Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,4,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
Applicant requests a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to
allow five new buildings totaling approximately 100,795 square feet in floor
area with a total of 268 parking spaces to be constructed on a 7.7 acre site
(CL). The site is located at 1900 - 1980 North Loop Road within the Harbor Bay
Business Park in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development
Zoning District. Applicant: SRM Associates (FDP06-0003 and DR06-0071).
(Continued from the meeting of October 9, 2006.)
Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this project.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Joe Ernst, applicant, SRM Associates, displayed the site plan and described SRM's
efforts on sustainable design and attracting more business services to the park. He noted
that they were an Alameda-certified green business, and that every building they own
implement green programs, including cleaning and carbon-offset programs. He noted that
they have four LEED-rated projects, I process.
Mr. Stephen Fee, project architect, noted that as a former member of the Planning Board,
he understood the challenges faced by the Board with respect to large projects. He
presented the refinements that had been made to the parking plan and the architectural
design for the project.
There were no speaker slips.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether there were any incentives for
the tenants to buy into a green building, Mr. Ernst replied that was not necessary because
every prospective tenant he has spoken with wanted to ""go green."" He did find it
necessary to provide education on the costs and benefits of green building, which he
found to be an effective way for the tenants to incorporate green elements into their
designs. He described how the tenant improvement program can help the building gain
LEED points.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft Member Kohlstrand noted that the 75% recycling rate of
construction materials was impressive.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook how the applicant planned to make
changes at the Master Plan level that would facilitate getting more services on the site,
Mr. Ernst noted that they had given thought to that issue, and that it was a challenge for
them. He noted that 30 acres close to the Ferry terminal were available, including 10
acres right on the water; he believed that was their best opportunity. He noted that the
residents must embrace services such as a restaurant, which would be difficult to be
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,5,"supported only by the business park.
In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand whether the proposed parking was 268
spaces, where the minimum required was 189 spaces, Mr. Ernst noted that they did not
want to oversize the parking. He added that while the parking ratios on the footprints
alone may look high when adding the mezzanine component to the office, they will come
back in line; he noted that every buyer wanted mezzanine space because of the cost of
real estate.
Member Kohlstrand believed that if the applicant kept everything the way it was, but
removed the parking spaces in the front, she would be very comfortable with the project.
She would like to see less parking in front of all the buildings, and appreciated the
applicant's responsiveness. Mr. Ernst noted that these buildings have a very well defined
front for the office component, and a back for the manufacturing/warehouse components.
The applicants believed that it was very important to separate those functions, which
added to the long-term value of the project. They tried to break up the parking by added
street trees and breaking up the parking with a hedgerow, which blocked the rows of cars.
He noted that the presence of cars was a positive factor, which indicated there was
activity on this formerly sleepy parcel.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was very pleased and impressed impressive with
the environmentally friendly design elements incorporated into this project, and she
believed this was a responsible design. She believed the buildings were attractive, and
understood the challenges of leasing buildings in such a site. She believed that SRM had
made a good-faith effort to attract businesses. Mr. Ernst noted that they had a 30%
vacancy rate, which was still relatively high. Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed the City
should encourage the applicant's efforts to encourage occupancy.
Member Mariani noted that she was also pleased with the project, and would like to see
all of the architectural enhancements in Phase I.
Member McNamara noted that she had been concerned about the architectural design, and
was very pleased with the changes that were proposed, especially with the change of
textures and three-foot recesses to add interest. She supported the addition of those
features to Phase I where possible.
M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/McNamara to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-39 to
approve a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to allow five new buildings
totaling approximately 100,795 square feet in floor area with a total of 268 parking
spaces to be constructed on a 7.7 acre site, with the modification of adding trees and sun
louvers in Phase I.
AYES - 5 (Lynch absent); NOES - 1 (Kohlstrand); ABSTAIN - 0
8-C. GPA05-02, R05-04, MP05-02, DP05-02, TM05-02, IS05-03 -Grand Marina
Village Residential Development (AT). The applicant requests approval of a
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,6,"General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Development Plan, Master Plan and Vesting
Tentative Map and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration to allow the
development of forty (40) new detached single family homes. Development of the
residential project would involve the reconfiguration of the existing marina parking
lot and improvements to the existing waterfront path and open space areas within the
8.36 acre Master Plan area. The site is located in the M2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning
District at the intersection of Grand Street and Fortmann Way to the south of the
Oakland Estuary and recreational marina facilities, north of the Pennzoil property
and City of Alameda Animal Shelter and Corporation Yard, and west of Grand
Avenue. (Continued from the meeting of October 9, 2006.)
Mr. Thomas presented the staff report. Staff recommended that the Planning Board
recommend to the City Council approval of the mitigated negative declaration, a General
Plan Amendment to specific mixed use consistent with the Northern Waterfront General
Plan Amendment, rezoning to the MX zone, the Master Plan, the Tentative Map, the
development plan and design review.
Mr. Don Ricci, Dahlin Group, displayed and described in detail the project's architectural
design and landscaping plan. He described the features of the homes and the sites, and
displayed the elevations. They proposed Craftsman, cottage and coastal-style elevations,
which they believed were appropriate for a waterfront location. The elevations were
articulated, and the massing stepped back in the front to add interest to the street. The
porches would be five feet deep on all of the plans, and two of the three styles have
second-floor verandas; both the porches and the verandas would be deep enough to
furnish, encouraging people to use them, and interacts with passersby on the street.
Stucco, board and batten siding, and shingle siding would be proposed for all four sides
of the homes, not just the fronts. They also hoped to use a rich and varied color palette for
the entire project, bringing vibrancy to the streetscape. He described the various plans in
detail, and displayed a video simulation of the streetscape and elevations.
There were no speaker slips.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Member McNamara noted that she was very impressed by the presentation and the
designs. She was pleased with the revisions, and believed that many of the issues raised
in January had been addressed. She inquired about the maintenance of the open space and
the parks. Mr. Ricci confirmed that they would be maintained by the homeowners.
Mr. David Day, Warmington Homes, addressed Member McNamara's question and
noted that the CC&Rs contained the details. The part of the BCDC parks where the
homes were fronted would be maintained by the HOA. The 20-foot paseo would be
maintained through the association. She liked the fact that the amount of parking was
reduced, and that the open space was maximized.
Vice President Cook noted that she liked the old wood pier, which she believed was more
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,7,"appropriate than the asphalt pier. She inquired whether the applicant had considered
taking the asphalt off. Mr. Day noted that they were open to the idea, and did not know
the condition of whatever was under the asphalt, which is in poor shape. He noted that
they had planned to put a sign before the pier, warning drivers, rather than bollards, but
added that was still open for discussion. He noted that there were bollards across the way,
going into the boatyard to stop traffic from going into the park.
Mr. Thomas believed that BCDC staff and City staff were on the same page, in that they
did not want the wood pier used as a parking lot. They would need to develop a way to
allow vehicle access, and then manage it so that people do not use it as a parking lot.
Staff would need to do research on the asphalt issue, especially with respect to the water
quality issue raised by Vice President Cook. He noted that the broken asphalt was unsafe
and in very bad shape.
Vice President Cook believed a wooden pier would have a more authentic appearance.
She also suggested appropriate signage and safeguards to protect pedestrians and
bicyclists from automobile traffic.
Acting President Cunningham noted that Christopher Buckley had submitted a speaker slip,
and requested a motion to reopen the public hearing.
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to reopen the public hearing.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda resident, noted that with respect to circulation, he agreed
with having Hibbard cut through to the shoreline; the connection between Hibbard and
Grand would be converted to open space. He had looked at the traffic counts and the
estimated parking use of the marina function, both on weekdays and the weekends; it
seemed to him that the cars would then be directed through the middle of the residential
development on Hibbard Street; the connection between Hibbard and Grand that might
reduce the impact of the traffic on the development. He requested a response from the
developer or staff to that observation.
Mr. Thomas noted that there were currently two ways into that parking lot, and that many
people enter on Fortmann, or can go to the end of Grand Street. With the recent change in
the circulation at the end of Grand Street, drivers would have to go through parking area
where the boat trailers are left before cutting into the parking lot. He noted that most of the
users of the parking lot have already shifted their patterns to taking Fortmann. Staff and the
traffic engineers have examined the traffic flow which currently goes to the marina and
which could go to the new development, and determined that the flow would be very small;
this area was at the end of a cul de sac. Staff was not at all concerned about the loss of the
access to the parking lot by the boat ramp.
Mr. Buckley suggested that staff consider measures to encourage traffic to use Fortmann
rather than Hibbard if they want to leave the parking area. Mr. Thomas replied that until the
new site develops, Fortmann was the only street to use. He added that bulbouts and
landscaping were used to make Hibbard into more of a neighborhood street. Staff believed
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,8,"that using Fortmann would be a more natural movement.
With respect to the design of the buildings, particularly the three-story buildings, Mr.
Buckley inquired whether they could be redesigned so the third floor could be better
integrated to the rest of the building. He noted that the Guide to Residential Design
specifically discouraged popups as additions to existing historic buildings; he believed these
buildings were attempting to reflect the historic architectural character of Alameda, and that
this design principle might apply to these buildings. He wished to call attention to the
detailing of these buildings, and while looking on the City website, could not find the
Planning Board resolution for a permanent Planned Development in the design review. He
would like more information on window selection, trim, porch elements, which he believed
were very important. He knew that Warmington Homes generally handled these elements
very well.
Mr. Thomas noted that the packet in the staff report contained the resolution approving the
Planned Development and design review. The Master Plan also contained some details, and
there were conditions of approval requiring that prior to the issuance of a building permit,
there would be a final landscape plan and final architectural detail to be submitted to the
Planning Director for final approval. He noted that the Planning Board may add specifics to
those conditions.
Member Kohlstrand wished to compliment the project sponsor for their enhancements to the
project, and believed it had improved greatly. She shared Mr. Buckley's concerns, and
suggested that signage be included showing marina access was via Fortmann. She noted that
12 spaces along Hibbard were assigned to BCDC.
Mr. Thomas noted that there were 12 guest spaces on one side of the triangular parks.
However, within the large public parking area for the marina, BCDC wanted the City to
assign 10 spaces for public users of the waterfront so boat users don't park there.
Mr. Jason Neary, CBG Engineers, addressed the parking issue, and noted that under the
permit, BCDC identified 10 parking spaces to be available for BCDC's use. He noted that
those 10 spots would be allocated somewhere along the marina parking area for BCDC use.
In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand regarding concerns about the borrowed
easement and shadowing, Mr. Day replied that they had not had any negative feedback
about the borrowed easement. He noted that there was a lot of light in the third story during
the day, and noted that the third story can only be 500 square feet by code. He added that
would result in shadowing of a very small percentage of the house next door, and added that
the homeowners like the private sideyard for barbeques and other social activities.
Member Kohlstrand noted the condition recommending that all the sidewalks be a minimum
of five feet wide, and inquired whether the sidewalk along Grand could be wider. Mr.
Thomas believed that would be an acceptable condition for Grand, and described several
landscaping possibilities near the sidewalks and alleys.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,9,"In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand whether the City had a long-term plan for
dealing with the end of Grand Street, Mr. Thomas replied that the applicants had proposed
curb and landscaping to replace the temporary solution with the flip-up barriers.
Acting President Cunningham complimented the applicants on their progress in refining this
application, and believed it could be further improved. He believed that some living
standards were being compromised in this design, and believed the density of this project
could be reduced. He believed there were many small compromises within the project and
added that the general project was very good.
Vice President Cook commended the applicants on how far the design has come, and was
excited about the paseo and the grid. She was happy that several of the units directly fronted
the waterfront, and liked the grass in front of the houses. She would like grass instead of
some of the shrubs in other landscaped areas near the other landscaping, such as the low
shrubs. She expressed concern about the heights of the houses, and that there would be 30
three-story homes. She did not want the affordable units to stand out. She believed that the
market has changed somewhat with respect to the economic feasibility of this project, but
would like to reduce the number of units somewhat to allow the owners to have a little more
room. She noted that while this project would be consistent with Measure A, she also was
hesitant about having a somewhat shaded eight-foot side yard.
Acting President Cunningham noted that while this project may be compliant with Measure
A, he wondered whether this particular density would be desirable in this case.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she could support wider alleyways and more moving
space for pedestrians and cars, but she also wanted to note that Alameda needs a variety of
housing stock to meet the needs of different kinds of people. She noted that there were many
busy working families that would like to have a smaller yard to reduce the amount of
maintenance, and believed there were many creative ways to landscape a home. She
believed this kind of project could offer a good housing choice for certain lifestyles and
household types.
Member Mariani did not feel that this project was too dense because of the presence of the
waterfront. She complimented the developer on the progress made on this design, and noted
that she did not prefer the three-story design, especially if the two-story homes were
designated as the affordable units. She liked the way the different styles interacted, as well
as the historic perspective put on the designs. She believed the designs were very appealing.
Member McNamara recalled that the Clement Street project had a density of 24 units per
acre, whereas this project was 11 units per acre. She noted that she had once lived in a zero-
lot home, and understood the lifestyle choices with respect to home maintenance.
Member Kohlstrand noted that she did not have an issue with the density, and agreed with
comments made by Members Mariani and Ezzy Ashcraft indicating that it did have a certain
open feel to it. She believed the City needed to provide different types of housing in
Alameda, and that not everyone wants or can afford single-family homes with big yards.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,10,"In response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft whether any of the units could be
considered disable accessible, Mr. Ricci replied that they were not, and that the porches
were purposely elevated for the design purposes. He noted that there were no downstairs
bedrooms in these homes.
In response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft whether there were any green building
elements built into these homes, Mr. Ricci replied that with the exception of the standard
Title XXIV practice, there was no requirement for LEED certification in this residential
segment. He noted that they did include dual-pane windows, wall insulation, and noted that
it was very difficult to design for solar orientation in a subdivision environment. He noted
that Warmington Homes did what they could with respect to green construction techniques,
using recycled materials, recycling construction debris, and using crushed concrete as
a
base.
In response to an inquiry by Acting President Cunningham whether they intended to have
air conditioning in these homes, Mr. Ricci believed that was the case.
Mr. Day wished to address the issue of affordable units, and noted that on the Bayport
project, the affordable units were smaller and attached. Architecturally, they have a similar
amount of detail, and they had not heard any complaints about the BMR units being
recognizable at all.
Member Mariani noted that she did not like the two-story/three-story distinction. She
believed that the affordable housing plan should be fair.
Acting President Cunningham did not care for the visual impact of the third story on top of
the main part of the house, and did not believe it was as well-integrated as it could be. He
believed the two-story design was very nice. He suggested eliminating some of the three-
story homes in the project.
After a discussion describing the affordable units and criteria, Member Kohlstrand noted
that she would support maintaining the number of affordable units, and suggested that the
square footage be varied.
Member McNamara agreed with Member Kohlstrand's comments, and added that the
number of variable designs helped the neighborhood environment. She did not believe the
two-story homes should be strictly affordable units.
In response to an inquiry by Member McNamara whether a one-story home would be an
option, Mr. Ricci replied that would not be feasible, resulting in a 600-square foot home.
Mr. Thomas advised that the City Council, acting as the Community Improvement
Commission, will have to approve the affordable housing program for this site. The
Planning Board would make a recommendation as to the distribution of affordable housing
units for consideration by the Community Improvement Commission.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,11,"Member Mariani believed this site presented a major opportunity for Alameda, and that the
designs were beautiful and colorful; she noted that the high price for the market-rate homes
made the disparity between the market-rate and affordable units that much more noticeable.
Mr. Thomas acknowledged her concern, which he said ran through all of the City's projects.
Vice President Cook suggested that the landscaping near the Alaska Packers building be
reconsidered, and that some of the ground cover, grasses and shrubs be replaced with lawn
that would allow people to have sit and have lunch.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolutions
recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration, adopt the General
Plan Amendment and adopt the Zoning Amendment.
AYES - 6 (Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Mr. Thomas described several conditions of approval by the Planning Board that the
Planning Board would need to decide on whether to add to the Master Plans Tentative
Map and Final Development Plan.
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt the following conditions of approval:
1. The applicant will study the feasibility of exposing the underlying wood planks
and provide a consistent cosmetically appealing walking and bicycling surface. If
upon further study by the applicant, it is determined by the Planning and Building
Director that exposing the existing wood planks is financially infeasible, unsafe,
or contrary to water quality standards, the Planning and Building Director may
approve an asphalt resurfacing plan.
2. To provide a continuous waterfront promenade with consistent materials
throughout the Northern Waterfront, the existing asphalt pedestrian path from
Grand Street to the Alaska Packers building will be replaced with a concrete path
to match the concrete path provided along the Marina Cove waterfront.
3. The applicant shall provide signage to direct traffic down Fortmann to the marina
parking lot to discourage use of Hibbard by marina-bound traffic.
4. The Grand Street sidewalk shall be widened to facilitate pedestrian access to the
waterfront.
5. The waterfront open space landscaping plan between Hibbard and Alaska Packers
should be revised to include larger areas of turf for informal seating.
6. The final architectural submittal to the Planning and Building Director shall
include revisions to the third story elements to ensure compatibility with the City
of Alameda Residential Design Guidelines for third stories.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,12,"M/S Cook/Cunningham to adopt a condition of approval to widen the front porches to
eight feet.
AYES - 2 (Lynch absent); NOES - 3 (Ezzy Ashcraft, Kohlstrand, McNamara);
ABSTAIN - 1 (Mariani)
The motion failed.
M/S Cook/Cunningham to adopt a condition of approval to revise the elevations and
designs of the third story to better reflect the City's design guidelines.
AYES - 6 (Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - - 0
M/S Cunningham/Cook to adopt a condition of approval to extend the paseo to the
triangular park, with the understanding that two units may be eliminated.
AYES - 4 (Lynch absent); NOES - 2 (Ezzy Ashcraft, Kohlstrand); ABSTAIN - 0
M/S Mariani/Cunningham to adopt a condition of approval to require that distribution of
the ten affordable units will be adjusted so that a minimum of two of the ten units shall be
three story units and two of the two story units be available at market rate.
AYES - 5 (Lynch absent); NOES - 1 (Kohlstrand); ABSTAIN - 0
M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 06- to
approve the Master Plan, Final Development Plan, and design review with the added
conditions.
AYES - 6 (Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Member Mariani left the meeting after this item.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,13,"8-B.
V06-0005/DR06-0052- Christopher Seiwald - 2320 Blanding Avenue (CE).
The applicant requests approval of Variance and Major Design Review applications
to allow the construction of a 17,058 square foot addition to an existing 27,300
square foot commercial building. The total building square footage of the proposed
three-story structure is 44,358 square feet. A Variance to the parking requirements is
requested to allow the provision of 111 parking spaces where 120 parking spaces are
required by the Alameda Municipal Code. The project site is zoned M-2 General
Industrial (Manufacturing). (Continued from the meeting of October 9, 2006.)
Ms. Eliason summarized the staff report, and recommended approval of this proposed
project.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Richard Hornberger, project architect, summarized the background of the project,
and introduced the property owner.
Mr. Christopher Seiwald, applicant, noted that his company, Perforce Software, was
started in Alameda and added that they were rapidly running out of room; he estimated
that the current building could accommodate another year or two of growth.
Mr. Hornberger noted that in the new layout, two curb cuts were deleted, resulting in 3
parking spaces.
Vice President Cook believed this was a good use, and expressed concern about
intensifying what she perceived to be a very dangerous corner. She hoped that Public
Works would look at that corner. Mr. Hornberger noted that the applicant was very
sensitive to that corner. Vice President Cook added that the corner should be striped, that
it should be clear where people should be when they turn the corner, and that there
probably should be a stop sign at that corner.
Ms. Eliason noted that staff would pass that information to Public Works.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft realized that this block did not contain the most attractive
buildings in the City, and while she believed the proposed building was generally
attractive, she was concerned about the color renderings in the back of the packet that
illustrated the conspicuous three-story buildings. She inquired whether the roof line could
be changed to add some visual interest. Mr. Hornberger noted that they could re-examine
the design, and believed that the combination of the banding at the top and the bottom
helped the building blend in. He added that the strong vertical element and a stepped
planter also helped. He believed the introduction of another element would add to the
visual busyness.
Member McNamara believed this building would be an enhancement to the current area,
which she believed was currently blighted. She did not object to the nine-parking-space
variance out of 111 parking spaces. She did not believe there was any room on Oak Street
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,14,"for on-street parking, but believed that there would be room on Blanding and on Clement
for an additional nine cars if needed. She understood Member Ezzy Ashcraft's design
concerns, and believed the current design of the new building should be compatible with
what was already there.
Member Kohlstrand believed it was exciting to have an office building in downtown
Alameda, where the workers could support the existing businesses and a new café. She
would like to see more buildings like that, and she was comfortable with the variance.
She was concerned about the consistency of the application of the in lieu fees, and she
tended to act in favor of the variances over the in lieu fee. She agreed with Member
McNamara's comments about the design in terms of integrating it with the existing
structures.
Acting President Cunningham noted that he did not object to the parking variances, and
inquired whether there was a shear wall in the parking area under the building. Mr.
Hornberger confirmed that it was a shear wall and a support structure for the structure
above. Acting President Cunningham inquired whether removal of the two end spaces in
the middle aisle would ease circulation. Mr. Hornberger replied that more spaces would
be lost, but added that there was already an adequate 24 feet for backing up. He added
that they discussed adding a three-foot backup at the end wall at both sides, and that they
would probably convert the three spaces next to the stairway into compact spaces.
Acting President Cunningham commented that the existing entrance and the awnings
worked very well, and suggested de-emphasizing the two finger maroon elements that
protruded into the air, or to bring them in line with the parapet. He also suggested
reducing the height of the building in the center element to reduce the visual impact. Mr.
Hornberger agreed with that suggestion.
Acting President Cunningham inquired what would replace the parking that would be
temporarily lost, Mr. Ken Carvalho, Buestad Construction, noted that they planned to
park along Oak Street.
M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/McNamara and unanimous to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.
AYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Member Kohlstrand would like the street frontage along Blanding enhanced to avoid
continuous building massing, and to add pedestrian interest and articulation.
In response to Vice President Cook's inquiry regarding the café parking, Mr. Hornberger
replied that it would be adjacent to the café itself. He added that there would be two
handicapped spaces for the café in the back, and noted that the seating area would face a
patio area with a trellis.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,15,"Member Kohlstrand supported the variance and would like to see more work on the
façade.
M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-40 to
approve Variance and Major Design Review applications to allow the construction of an
addition to an existing 27,300 square foot commercial building. A Variance to the parking
requirements is requested to allow the provision of 111 parking spaces where 120 parking
spaces are required by the Alameda Municipal Code. The following modifications will be
added:
1.
The height of the glazed element of the parapet on the addition would be
reduced, and the awning level would be brought down;
2.
Pathways to the parking area would be created; and
3.
The street frontage on Blanding would be enhanced with planters and/or
setbacks.
AYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,16,"8-D.
Major Design Review - DR06-0034 - Applicant: Mohamed Elhashash - 1530
& 1532 Ninth Street (CE). The applicant requests a Major Design Review for
alteration of three single-family homes, each into a duplex, for a total of six units.
The site is located at 1530 and 1532 Ninth Street within an R-4, Neighborhood
Residential Zoning District.
Ms. Eliason summarized the staff report, and recommended approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Thomas Touhy, project architect, described the background of this application, and
noted that they had reviewed comments received by the Alameda Architectural
Preservation Society (AAPS), the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) and City Council.
They worked with the applicant to address those comments, and developed some
recommendations. In the meeting, they worked through the accessibility issues for the
lower units for the two front buildings, as well as the relative benefits and costs of raising
the buildings versus digging down. During that meeting, they decided to leave the
buildings exactly where they were, which seemed to solve a lot of problems with respect
to proportions and the Golden Mean. He noted that Christopher Buckley had provided
additional comments, which he believed were generally supportive of the changes in the
project. He noted that the existing porch railing may have been boxed in, and if so, the
existing railing will stay. If the existing railing is missing, it would be a more difficult
issue with respect to adding a new element to meet the building code. He noted that the
applicant would install all wood windows, and will consider the hipped roof line for the
rear additions. With respect to moving the house, the applicants had decided not to lift the
buildings up at all; they were in their historic locations, and they preferred to leave them
there. He noted that with respect to siding, the applicant will be able to show what areas
would be retained. He noted that much more would be able to be retained since the
buildings would not be raised. He believed it would be fair that the applicant would
prefer that the control of the design stay within the purview of the City.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, AAPS, noted that they had submitted a letter on October 23,
2006, with their comments. They believed the design detail showing the bay window was
very good, but it was only a partial elevation; he would prefer a fully detailed elevation
for the whole front elevation. AAPS was especially concerned about the handrail
treatment, which Mr. Touhy referred to. He noted that the handrail tops should form a
strong horizontal alignment with windowsills in Victorian buildings to form an
architectural base to the main floor. The heights of the existing handrail was 29 inches,
below the Building Code height of 36 inches. Rather than using an extension, they would
rather see the stairway design have a continuous rail that went down to a fairly substantial
newel post. Alternatively, the existing lower rails in front of the building could be kept,
with a simple supplemental railing to achieve the necessary Code height. He appreciated
the use of wood windows. He wished to clarify Item 6 of the letter, requesting the
additional details of the rest of the front elevation, including the porch column and rail
treatments in a complete set of details for consideration by the Planning and Building
Director prior to the issuance of the building permits and allowing AAPS and interested
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,17,"members of the public to comment on those details before a decision was made.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Member Kohlstrand complimented the improvements and enhancements of these historic
structures, and believed the return to the historic character would be a positive change.
Acting President Cunningham noted that the applicant generally agreed with Mr.
Buckley's comments, and that he was in tune with the handrail; he believed that sticking
with Mr. Buckley's recommendation would be beneficial. He was concerned about
getting neighborhood input, and had not heard any comments.
Member McNamara noted that this project was re-noticed to the neighbors, and added
that Mr. Buckley was not originally noticed because he lived more than 300 feet away
from the project. She stated she was very interested in hearing the neighborhood
concerns, and supported the project design.
Acting President Cunningham supported the City maintaining control of the project, as
well as garnering comment from AAPS.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was excited about this project, and believed that
HAB's input had been very beneficial. She liked the proximity to public transportation,
as well as the disabled access for the unit in the back. She was concerned about the 29-
inch rail, when Code calls for 36 inches, and believed that was a safety and liability issue.
Vice President Cook liked this project and agreed with Mr. Buckley's comments. She
expressed concern about the landscaping in the staff report, and hoped the Planning &
Building Director would consider fast-growing hedges.
M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-
45 to approve a Major Design Review for alteration of three single-family homes, each
into a duplex, for a total of six units, with the following modifications:
1. The proposed windows on 1530 and 1532 Ninth Street will be double-glazed
wood clad fiberglass.
2. The railings and newel posts on 1530 and 1532 Ninth Street will be uncovered
and restored. If they do not exist, appropriate replacements meeting historical
designs shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building
Director.
3. Complete elevation drawings will be prepared once the shingles have been
removed and will be approved the satisfaction of the Planning and Building
Director.
AYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
8-E.
Appointment of Two Planning Board Members to the Big Box Retail
Working Committee.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 17
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,18,"M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand to extend the meeting to 11:40 p.m.
AYES - 5 (Lynch absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0
Ms. Doreen Soto noted that they were anxious to commence with this committee, and
noted that representatives had been selected from the Economic Development
Commission and the Transportation Commission. She requested two nominees from the
Planning Board to schedule an initial meeting and look at the scope of work from the
consultant. They hoped to have an initial meeting before the end of the year, if the
holiday schedule allows; they hoped to complete the study within six months. The final
product would be an analysis of all of the issues surrounding big box stores, starting with
a definition. Ms. Eliason noted that zoning amendments or policies may result from these
meetings.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft volunteered to sit on the Committee.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to nominate Member McNamara to the
Committee.
AYES - 6 (Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
This item was continued to the next meeting.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-
President Cook).
This item was continued to the next meeting.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee
(Board Member Mariani).
This item was continued to the next meeting.
C.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board
Member Kohlstrand).
This item was continued to the next meeting.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force
(Board Member Cunningham).
Planning Board Minutes
Page 18
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,19,"This item was continued to the next meeting.
12.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
This item was continued to the next meeting.
13.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:39 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy Woodbusy
Cathy Woodbury; Secretary
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the November 13, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 19
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-11-13,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, November 13, 2006
1.
CONVENE:
7:05 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member Kohlstrand
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft, Cunningham,
Kohlstrand.
Members Mariani and McNamara were absent.
Also present were Planning and Building Services Director Cathy Woodbury, Assistant City
Attorney Donna Mooney, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner II Dennis Brighton, Barry
Bergman, Public Works.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of October 23, 2006.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 5, paragraph 3, should be changed to read, ""Member Ezzy
Ashcraft noted that she was very pleased and impressed impressive with the environmentally
friendly design elements incorporated into this project...
Member Kohlstrand believed the statement on page 4, second to last paragraph, which read,
""Member Kohlstrand noted that the 75% recycling rate of construction materials was impressive""
was made by another member rather than her. Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed that she made that
statement.
Vice President Cook noted that page 9, paragraph 4, should be changed to read, ""She would like
grass instead of some of the shrubs in other landscaped areas.
""
Vice President Cook noted that on page 11, four conditions of approval were listed, and she wished
to ensure that the sidewalk width was not obstructed or narrowed by the wells for street trees or by
the bus stops, so that the pedestrian ways are a clear five feet. Ms. Woodbury suggested, ""facilitate
pedestrian access without obstruction."" Vice President Cook agreed with that additional language.
Vice President Cook noted that page 13, she had commented that there should be a stop sign at the
corner, and she would like to leave that to the discretion of Public Works. She would like the
language changed to indicate that she believed there ""probably should be a stop sign at that corner.""
M/S Cunningham/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of October
23, 2006, as amended.
AYES - 4 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
1
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
November 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-11-13,2,"Member Ezzy Ashcraft requested moving Item 7-A from the Consent Calendar to the Regular
Agenda.
M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Kohlstrand and unanimous to move Item 7-A from the Consent Calendar to the
Regular Agenda.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Vice President Cook inquired whether it would be possible to consider Item 8-B before 8-A, because
she believed that one of the findings related to compatibility of design review with the rest of the
center.
M/S Cook/Cunningham and unanimous to hear Item 8-B before Item 8-A.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
President Lynch noted that a speaker slip had been submitted for Item 7-A.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Clare Risley wished to comment on the extensive modeling of the Albertson's and Noah's
Bagels building at Alameda Towne Centre with building permits. She did not believe there was any
authority for issuing those permits, and believed their issuance appeared to be expressly prohibited
under Planning Board Resolution 03-40, adopted on July 28, 2003. She noted that resolution
specifically disapproved Phases III, IV-B and later phases. She believed the Albertson's remodel
replacement was Phase V, and the Noah's Bagels remodel was Phase IV-B. The resolution stated on
page 3, ""Phase III, IV-B, and later phases are specifically not approved."" She believed the resolution
language was clear, while the construction proceeded. She stated that the language also stated that
the developer may seek approval of the specifically disapproved phases at a later time by submittal
of ""a new environmental review with a traffic study conforming to California Environmental Quality
Act guidelines, a new Planned Development Amendment and Major Design Review."" She did not
believe that had been done. She requested that no further building permits be issued for the Alameda
Towne Centre, and to the extent possible, stop work on the projects until requirements for their
approval as set forth in that resolution have been met, and the necessary approvals have been given.
President Lynch noted that Ms. Risley's concerns would be forwarded to the appropriate department,
which would provide a response.
Ms. Woodbury advised that staff would report back, and was confident that everything was in order.
Ms. Holly Sellers expressed concern about the public hearing notice for this meeting, dated October
24, 2006, which stated at the bottom of page 2, ""To assure delivery to Board members prior to the
public hearing, please submit any written comments before April 3, 2006."" She noted that date was
obviously an error. She noted that she and her neighbor had delivered their written comments one
week before the meeting (November 6, 2006), had pointed out the error to staff and inquired whether
they had submitted their comments in time to be included. Mr. Garrison had confirmed that they had
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
November 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-11-13,3,"met the deadline, but that they were not included in the staff report or passed along to the Board. She
noted that they copied the Board, but she was disappointed that their comments were not available to
other interested parties.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
November 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-11-13,4,"Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
November 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-11-13,5,"Mr. Edward Cuney, Chair, Commission on Disability Issues, expressed concern about the shelter at
the corner of Santa Clara and Willow. He demonstrated the challenge he faced when approaching
that shelter with a cane, and noted that he could be struck in the face by the post. He suggested that
something be placed between the post and the back of the shelter so the cane could come in contact
with it, but not low enough to trip the pedestrian. Alternatively, the shelter could be moved back so
there would be sufficient area to walk down the center of the sidewalk. He was concerned that he
had brought this to the City's attention nearly a year and a half ago.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Lynch wished to like to see some discussion in the staff report as it relates to the benefits of
various materials and design. He realized there was a balancing act in terms of aesthetics, budgetary
constraints and maintenance, as well as a cost-benefit to certain materials over a period of time. He
would like to continue this item to address those concerns, and would like a more complete staff
analysis of the information provided, e.g., the initial and ongoing maintenance costs of tempered
glass. He also would like more analysis of the shelters that were discussed by Mr. Cuney.
Mr. Bergman noted that there were only two of those shelters in the City, with four posts but no side
walls. He noted that those shelters met ADA requirements, but that did not mean that the City could
not go beyond ADA requirements.
Vice President Cook expressed concern about the width and usability of sidewalks, and
encroachment on them with various items that may not be useful any more.
Member Kohlstrand understood how Park and Webster Streets had their own unique shelters
designs, and how flexibility in terms of materials would be necessary.
Mr. Bergman noted that there were different right of way constraints at different locations, and they
generally placed the shelter back into the sidewalk near the property line. He noted that there was
one exception at Park and Otis, which was designed many years ago.
President Lynch noted that more detailed discussion of constraints and rationales would be very
helpful to the Board members and to the public.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft requested that this be placed on a fast track, so the commuters could have
some relief during the rainy season.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch, Mr. Bergman noted that the current year's CIP did not
have this item in the budget.
Acting President Cunningham noted that the public would be able to comment on this item before
City Council.
Member Kohlstrand did not feel the need to bring this item back to the Planning Board, as long as
staff understood the Board's concerns.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
November 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-11-13,6,"M/S Kohlstrand/Cunningham and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-47 to
recommend City bus shelter design standards for future bus shelter locations in Alameda, with the
modification requesting staff to examine the Board's suggestions before bringing the item to City
Council, and adding a proposed schedule of implementation.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
November 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-11-13,7,"7-B.
V06-0007 (Variance) and DR06-0090 (Major Design Review) - 1331 Sherman Street -
Applicant: Casey Deshong (DB). The applicant requests a Major Design Review approval
for approximately a 198-square foot, single-story addition to the single-family dwelling and
a Variance from the 20-foot rear yard setback and 40-percent lot coverage requirements
pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.1(d)(7) and 30-4.1(d)(3). The site is located within a R-1,
One-Family Residence Zoning District.
M/S Cook/Cunningham and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-46 to
approve a Major Design Review for approximately a 198-square foot, single-story addition to the
single-family dwelling and a Variance from the 20-foot rear yard setback and 40-percent lot
coverage requirements pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.1 (d)(7) and 30-4.1(d)(3)
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Following the vote, President Lynch received a speaker slip regarding this item, and invited a motion
to withdraw the approval of Item 7-B.
Ms. Mooney suggested a motion to rescind, and to open the public hearing.
M/S Cunningham/Kohlstrand to rescind the approval of Item 7-B, and to open the public hearing.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. David Maxie, 1330 Bay Street, noted that the owner of the property behind him, with a St.
Charles Street address, recently requested a variance in order to add a bedroom and a bathroom. He
noted that all the garages along the line backing up between St. Charles and Bay Street were
probably all within six inches of the property line. He noted that the garages would be the only view
from the back of the property. He noted that the house adjacent to the property was approximately
four feet from the property line. He believed the owner should have his variance because the view
was not different from what was already there.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
M/S Cook/Cunningham and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-46 to
approve a Major Design Review for approximately a 198-square foot, single-story addition to the
single-family dwelling and a Variance from the 20-foot rear yard setback and 40-percent lot
coverage requirements pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.1(d)(7) and 30-4.1(d)(3)
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
8-B.
Proposed expansion and redevelopment of the Alameda Towne Centre (DG). The focus
of this workshop will be on site and building design. Information will be provided
concerning applications submitted by Harsch Investment Properties. These include Planned
Development Amendments PDA05-0004, PDA06-0002 and Major Design Review DR05-
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
November 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-11-13,8,"0073 which include redevelopment of the southeast corner of the center (Shoreline area), a
new approximately 147,000 square foot retail structure (Target), a three level parking
garage, new signage and various other improvements. The purpose of this workshop is for
discussion purposes only. No action to approve or deny the project will occur at this
meeting.
Item 8-B was heard before Item 8-A.
Mr. Garrison requested a recess to address a technical issue.
President Lynch called for a ten-minute recess.
Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report and displayed a PowerPoint presentation.
President Lynch noted that on the illustrated plan, a parcel was identified as a gas station at the
intersection at Otis Drive. He suggested that the wording be changed to ""proposed gas station.""
Mr. Randy Kite, Harsch Investment Properties, displayed a PowerPoint presentation to describe the
actions in Items 8-A and 8-B and the plans for the site. He noted that they were 30% into the
construction, and that substantial redevelopment would be accomplished in 2007.
Mr. Jan Taylor, project architect, described in detail the building design elements of this redesign
and remodel project. He displayed a PowerPoint presentation to illustrate the proposed changes,
including vehicle and public transportation circulation
Vice President Cook requested visuals of buildings 800 and 900. Mr. Garrison noted that he could
look for some. Mr. Taylor noted that the loading dock for building 800 would be removed and
tucked into the building. He noted that the metal arcade would be pulled off, and wood trellises and
two bump outs would be added to frame the entrance. He noted that building 900 (the former
Mervyn's) would be examined in the future for remodeling, and plans had not yet been produced.
The public hearing was opened.
President Lynch noted that more than five speaker slips had been received.
M/S Cunningham/Kohlstrand and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Claire Risley expressed concern the Planning Department has recommended approval of items
that had been specifically disapproved by the Planning Board. She believed that Planning Board
Resolution 03-40 specifically disapproved Phases 3, 4-B and later phases. Buildings 400 and 500
were included in Phase 4-B, and she believed that resolution did not allow for this phase. She
believed that a new Environmental Impact Report and traffic study, new Planned Development
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
November 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-11-13,9,"Amendment and a major design review must be submitted. She believed that unless those steps had
been followed, the building permits for buildings 400 and 500 may not be pulled. She noted that the
staff report suggested that because permits had already been mistakenly issued for buildings 700 and
800, that there should be no complaints about more permits being issued for construction in phases
that have already been specifically disapproved by the Planning Board.
President Lynch gave documents to Ms. Risley for her review regarding her assertions; he noted that
if the documents were incorrect, she would be able to communicate that directly to City staff.
Mr. Kite noted that Ms. Risley's commented regarded Item 8-A, and wished to respond. He noted
that their counsel was unable to attend this meeting, but that she submitted a letter which reinforced
staff's position on why there was authority in place to approve building 300, as well as 400 and 500
under the Alameda Municipal Code.
Ms. Melinda Reising, Park Street, expressed concern about traffic and did not believe the
Environmental Impact Report addressed those concerns in terms of how the traffic on Park Street
would be impacted. She was concerned that Park Street would become an off ramp once Target
opened.
Ms. Jill Reed noted that she lived at the Willows, and was concerned that the plans seemed to be
piecemeal and scattered about the site. She believed there should be one EIR that addressed all the
modifications. She would like to know the height of the Target store, and was concerned about
traffic impacts on the side streets such as Franciscan Street. She did not believe that street should be
a main artery out of the shopping center. She echoed the previous concerns voiced by the other
speakers.
Mr. Michael Krueger noted that as a Transportation Commissioner, he wished to call the Planning
Board to the Commission's recommendations that had not been included in the original packet. He
noted that the mitigation on the left-turning bicyclists was addressed by relocating the bike path. He
was pleased to see that the issue of widening the sidewalk on Park Street had been addressed. He
noted that the issue on the transit mitigations was partially addressed by configuring the intersection
to allow for a better turn for the buses. During the TC discussion, they discussed working with AC
Transit to explore a more optimum route for the buses through the center, particularly with the
potential addition of Target and a parking garage, which could add a lot of traffic congestion. He
was pleased to see the addition of a sidewalk on one side of Whitehall Place, but was concerned
about pedestrian accommodation and would like to see sidewalks on both sides if possible. The TC
also passed a recommendation that every internal roadway should have a continuous sidewalk on at
least one side. He strongly disagreed with the assessment that there was no treatment needed for the
full east-west sidewalk along where the banks are located. He suggested that the parking ratio may
be adjusted if parking spaces needed to be removed in order to get more pedestrian accommodations.
Ms. Alice Cleaveland, 2101 Shoreline Drive, echoed Mr. Krueger's comments about the narrow
sidewalks on one side of the road. She was very concerned about the large trucks that drive through
that area. She described a pedestrian-car near-miss that she had witnessed due to the lack of a
sidewalk, as well as teenage pedestrians walking in the middle of the streets.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
November 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-11-13,10,"Ms. Dorothy Reid was concerned that the appearance of building 900 was still unknown, and that at
25 feet, the store was very close to the road. The traffic from Target would not be able to drive
through the back. She added that the store was proposed at 90,000 square feet, which was reduced to
66,000 square feet by the mitigated negative declaration. She was concerned that the square footage
kept changing. She would like the Board to give clear instructions to the applicant going forward
while waiting for the EIR. She did not understand the assumption that Target would be built. She
noted that the original proposal was to sell the land, and she would like to see alternative plans for
the site. She was very concerned about the proposed 48-foot height of the building.
Mr. David Geshi, Gray Cliffs owner, spoke in support of this item. He believed that the small
businesses in the vicinity would be benefited by the proposed Target. He noted that his business had
suffered slightly from the remodeling, but believed the Target customers would also become his
customers. He depended on the larger stores in the center to bring foot traffic to his business, and
disagreed with those who believed construction should be stopped altogether.
Mr. Gary Blanick spoke in support of this item. He noted that he often traveled to San Leandro to
shop and would rather spend the tax dollars in Alameda. He believed the traffic issues could be
resolved, and believed Target would benefit Alameda and the Town Centre.
Ms. Vivian Forte was very concerned about the amount of growth the proposed buildings on this site
have undergone, as well as with the pylons to be put into the ground. She would like to see more
information on color treatments for the proposed project, and would prefer an earth-tone color
scheme.
Mr. John Selbach spoke in support of this item and would like the project to go forward. He noted
that he shops at off-Island Targets about twice a week, and that he would rather shop in Alameda.
Mr. David Perry noted that he was a pediatric dentist in the shopping center, and supported this
project. He noted that his patients enjoy shopping in the improved shopping center. At this time,
there is a vacant lot near the Willows facing his business, and some of his patients have experienced
car break-ins. He believed the risk would be lessened with the Target in his vicinity.
Ms. Susan Pieper noted that the Willows residents did not want to face a vacant lot either, but that
there were alternatives to a Target store. She did not want piecemeal development on this site, and
needed to see a better EIR.
Ms. Kathleen von Martins, Powell Street, noted that she lived across the street from the shopping
center, and added that she approved of the architectural improvement and addition of Target to the
shopping center. She was very concerned about the traffic, security and quality of life implications
for the surrounding residents.
Mr. Richard Peranon expressed concern about traffic congestion and pollution, and noted that
children walking to Lum and Wood Schools and the nearby patients would be affected by the
pollution. He did not object to Target itself, but would like a more appropriately sized and located
store. He was concerned that the shopping center was not near a freeway, which would be more
appropriate for a Target.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
November 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-11-13,11,"Mr. David Kirwin noted that many of the comments made on the Draft EIR had not been addressed,
and he would like to see an overall plan before moving forward. He disagreed with using a
piecemeal plan for such a large project. He was concerned about the addition of second stories in the
shopping center. He was concerned about the potential increase in vandalism and graffiti, and added
that he had observed that when he worked with Target in a maintenance capacity. He wanted to
ensure that an unmanageable traffic situation did not develop from this project.
Mr. Tim Erway noted that he did not object to Target as a store, but added that all the Target stores
he has seen are on large boulevards or off freeway exits. He commended Harsch for their work on
the center so far, and believed that it looked very good. He was concerned about the increase in
building heights, as well as the traffic. He did not believe this location was appropriate for a Target
store. He had attended several Traffic Commission meetings, and believed the entrances should be
made into real driveways with a barrier between traffic and pedestrians.
Ms. Rela Graber would like the developer to discuss pedestrian safety in addition to bicycle traffic.
She had heard of two serious pedestrian accidents in the center, and believed the left-hand turn was
too piecemeal to be safe. She would like the access past the Post Office to be closed off and turned
into a minipark.
Ms. Lucy Gigli, Bike Alameda, was pleased to see the changes that had been made, and would
comment on the bike/pedestrian items upon further examination of the plans. She was concerned
about pedestrian safety at the east-west sidewalk parallel to Otis between Trader Joe's and Safeway,
and would like pedestrian habits to be integrated into that plan.
Ms. Susan Decker echoed the previous speakers' compliments regarding the center, and expressed
concern about pedestrian safety through the corridor cited by Ms. Gigli. She noted that she was
neutral on the placement of a Target in the center, but expressed some concern that the Craftsman
design might be more appropriate for smaller buildings. She submitted some design options to the
Board.
Mr. James Leach, Global Perspectives Engineering Services, supported bringing more revenue into
Alameda, and recognized that there would be tradeoffs. He believed the traffic leaving the Island
going to other Targets would be reduced. He commended the developers for going to the extra effort
of putting the parking structure below the main service. He would like the 9-foot-wide parking
spaces to be widened to 10 feet from the center, and to double-stripe them.
Mr. Aron Sober noted that he was concerned about living so close to a Target store, as well as
pedestrian safety for the children going to school and the beach. He was concerned about traffic
congestion, pollution and noise. He was unsure how much shoppers the new center would attract.
Ms. Marilyn Schumacher noted that she would rather ride her bike to shop at a local Target rather
than drive off-island. She wanted to ensure the scale would be adjusted, and noted that riding her
bike to the center via Otis was a scary event for her. She inquired how the bike traffic would be
routed, and asked the Board to consider pedestrian and bike safety. She requested that the shopping
carts be trapped on the Target lot so they would not be left in the surrounding neighborhoods.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
November 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-11-13,12,"Ms. Bobbi [Centurion] spoke in support of this item, and believed that Target offered a retail option
that Alameda needed. She did not want to spend her time driving to surrounding cities to shop at
Target, and would rather spend her retail dollars in town. She supported the upgrades that have been
made so far.
Dr. Linda Rickerts concurred with the speakers who wish to spend their retail dollars in Alameda,
but would like to see the Target store elsewhere on the Island. She believed the traffic and safety
impacts would be too much for the neighborhood, and believed the Target should be located closer
to the freeway. She was concerned about the target demographic for the Target stores with respect to
potential crime and vandalism in the neighborhood.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Member Kohlstrand commended the developer and the architect on their responsiveness to the
Planning Board and Transportation Commission's concerns regarding this project. She was pleased
in general with the design. With respect to 8-A, she understood that it was within the Planning &
Building Director's discretion to approve the design review. She noted that this was a high-profile,
often controversial project and as a Planning Board member, she felt somewhat blindsided when she
read about these approvals, tucked into another subsection for Buildings 300 and 400. While she
understood the need for expediency, she also wanted the public to feel they had input in these
decisions; as a Planning Board member, she wanted input as well. She had been following the Target
project in Davis, California, and noted that their proposed Target store was similar in size to this
proposed size on a single level. She found it very attractive and was pleased to see it would be
LEED certified. She would like the architect to explore a LEED design, and inquired whether a
single-story store, rather than a podium design, would be possible. She believed the current design
was somewhat large and out of scale for the area.
In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand when the final EIR would be available, Mr.
Garrison replied that all of the comments had been taken on the Draft EIR. Staff was currently
working on the document, and he estimated that it may be available in about a month.
President Lynch noted that staff may wish to respond to the comments regarding the podium design.
Mr. Kyte noted that a typical one-level Target would be about 127,000 square feet; the podium
configuration was used because of the vertical transportation and loading areas, increasing the
square footage to 145,000 square feet. To do a 127,000-square foot store, between 10 to 12 acres
would be needed depending on landscape percentages. He noted that this site was 5.6 acres, and in
order to accommodate the parking, a podium store was the only option.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether a larger site had been considered for a
one-story store, Mr. Kyte replied that they did, and because of the number of leases, it was not
possible. He noted that a podium store was a relatively new concept for Target, and that about a
dozen had been built for urban settings with limited parking.
Vice President Cook noted that it was important to address the larger question of shopping center
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
November 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-11-13,13,"density in Alameda.
Member Kohlstrand expressed concern about the coverage on the site as it related to the extension
and the elderly care facilities. She noted that it was appropriate to develop an existing shopping
center with retail uses, but the question was how intense should the development and traffic be.
Mr. Kyte noted that they had put forth an application consistent with what Target wanted, and did
not believe the project was being forced on anyone. They had listened very carefully to the concerns
of the Board and the public with respect to the design and massing of the store, as well as what may
be more appealing.
Member Kohlstrand noted that Target had not compromised on the square footage; Mr. Kyte
responded that Target had inherited the 90,000 square foot stores, which have since been phased out.
He noted that Target had a certain square footage in their prototype designs to serve their customer
base as they deemed necessary. He added that the overall density on the site was the result of
blending anchor stores and shop space.
Vice President Cook expressed concern about the density that made a two- to three-level parking
structure in order to meet the parking capacity. She was less concerned about a particular tenant or
the size of an individual building than the overall site plan.
Member Cunningham echoed Vice President Cook's concerns about the appropriate density for the
site, and was not as concerned about having a large or small store, but rather the total GLA for the
site. He also believed the public's concerns about the density and traffic impacts were a critical part
of the decision-making process. He inquired about the definition of a ""destination mall"" was, as
referred to by the developer.
Mr. Kyte noted that in his presentation, he identified the pieces that were complete and then worked
around the center. He suggested that the types of users for each piece of the center being completed
should be defined. He noted that the hardscape was being installed in the center court center, and
that in a year, they envisioned that whole section of the mall being fully tenanted; they had
commitments on a majority of the space. They had been in ongoing discussions with Mervyn's for
the past few years; he believed that they appear to be solidifying their balance sheet and were ready
for an economic resurgence in this region. They had approached the developers regarding a long-
term commitment, as well as Harsch's expectations of them to stay; he noted that the store must be
substantially upgraded. He did not believe it would be practical to reposition existing tenants
elsewhere, and invited the Board and members of the public to examine the large model of the
shopping center they had displayed at the center.
Member Cunningham noted that he supported the site, but was still concerned about the GLA for the
site.
Mr. Kyte noted that they had tried to be responsive and open with the Board and the community with
respect to their concerns and issues; they intended to work to find a solution to address those
concerns.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
November 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-11-13,14,"Member Cunningham inquired whether a traffic review of the ingress and egress points along Otis
Drive. Mr. Garrison replied that it did concern staff and had been addressed; they had examined
queuing on Otis I their analysis. Member Cunningham expressed concern about pedestrian and
bicycle safety in that area.
Vice President Cook expressed concern that some of the original 1993 conditions were not being
met, and inquired about their legal status. She was hesitant to make any more approvals until the
status of the previous approvals was clarified.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft shared Vice President Cook's concerns regarding the previous approvals.
Ms. Woodbury advised that staff would examine the rest of the conditions closely to ensure that
everything went forward as it should.
Ms. Garrison noted that Building 600 West, 700 and 800 were publicly noticed extensively, and staff
received fewer than six people showing any interest; the people who examined the plans at the
Planning Department said they were fine. He personally called several members of the Planning
Board to invite them to examine the plans, and they said it seemed routine.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that all Planning Board members receive the same notice as the
members of the public receive. She would like to be made aware of those items.
Ms. Woodbury concurred, and noted that Board notification should be part of the process in the
event of a staff-level design review. She noted that staff would rectify that situation, and apologized
to the Board members who had not received notices.
Member Kohlstrand wished to revisit the east-west connector, which had been a condition of
approval. She was also concerned about Whitehall Place and Franciscan Way, and recalled a
comment by the architect that the streets were not wide enough to accommodate sidewalks on both
sides. She understood that they were private roads, and that the parking bays could be bumped back
to accommodate sidewalks on both sides; she would like that possibility to be considered. Because
the truck loading would be accessed off of Whitehall, she inquired whether the trucks would enter on
Willow because of the width of the internal streets. She inquired about the latest iteration of that
design, and believed there should be a continuous sidewalk along the north side of Franciscan Way.
She noted that the intersection of Franciscan Way and South Shore Center Drive had not been
mentioned, and mentioned that the developer seemed to improve that intersection through the
Albertson's redesign but had not seen it.
President Lynch noted that because of the lateness of the hour, a motion to continue the meeting
would be needed.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cunningham to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
President Lynch noted that if it was the Board planned to prioritize pedestrian walkways, that should
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
November 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-11-13,15,"be specifically stated. He believed there must be a balance struck in that case, which may be a
reduction in parking or square footage. He noted that it was the developer's business to understand
the economics of a project, and suggested that as the developer discusses the plan for the site, that
was the point where the Board and the community ask for clarification. He understood that a balance
must be struck.
Member Kohlstrand believed the presentation about the pedestrian enhancements were very positive,
and she was most concerned that the intersection at Whitehall Place and Franciscan Way would be
addressed. She recalled the comment made during the public hearing regarding the appropriateness
of the Craftsman style, and noted that she liked the articulation presented in the design, although it
was a huge structure. She was unsure about the design solution, but believed the developer should
take that design comment to heart in deciding what the best design solution would be. She recalled
the comments about the color schemes, and inquired whether it would be red or another color
scheme more in keeping with Alameda.
Member Kohlstrand expressed concern with respect to the Transportation Commission's
recommendation of establishing three lanes with a bidirectional turn lane on Park and Shoreline. She
was concerned that this mitigation measure implied a loss of parking and treatment along the street
that would make it even harder for pedestrians to cross those streets. She realized that would be
clarified with the environmental document, and would like more emphasis on alternative modes of
transportation. She believed that turning lanes should be more focused at the area where they would
be needed, rather than a continuous treatment of the whole street.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft reflected on the public comments expressing concern about crime and
vandalism, and wondering why Alamedans flocked to out-of-town Targets if there was a problem in
that area. She noted that Alamedans were not known for leaving the Island to an unsafe destination.
Vice President Cook concurred with Member Ezzy Ashcraft's comment, and believed that Target
appealed to a wide range of shoppers. She believed it would be a benefit to have a Target in the City.
President Lynch believed that the discussions within the development team should begin with
improvements in the infrastructure.
A discussion of circulation in the internal roads ensued.
Mr. Kyte noted that they would consider the many comments and return with an in-depth session.
He invited the public to see their large model as a prelude to a study session. He would like to
resolve the issues and work towards the remaining key issues such as the size of the Target.
No action was taken.
President Lynch noted that 10 speaker slips for Item 8-C had been received.
President Lynch noted that Member Ezzy Ashcraft temporarily left Chambers, and added that Item
8-C would be heard before Item 8-A.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
November 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-11-13,16,"8-C. UP06-0015 and UP06-0016 - Harsch Investments Realty LLC - 2215 South Shore Center
(BS/DG). The applicant requests approval of Use Permits allowing operation of a Health Studio
(Fit-Lite) between the hours of 6 am and 10 pm in an existing retail space in Alameda Towne
Centre (formerly South Shore Center). The Use Permits are required for health studios in the
Central Business (C-2) District and for the extended hours of operation.
Vice President Cook noted that a staff report would not be necessary.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speaker slips.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
M/S Cunningham/Kohlstrand to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. P-06-49 and PB-06-50
to
approve Use Permits allowing operation of a Health Studio (Fit-Lite) between the hours of 6 am and
10 pm in an existing retail space in Alameda Towne Centre (formerly South Shore Center). The Use
Permits are required for health studios in the Central Business (C-2) District and for the extended hours
of operation.
AYES - 4 (Ezzy Ashcraft, Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
M/S Kohlstrand/Cunningham to extend the meeting to 12:00 midnight.
AYES - 4 (Ezzy Ashcraft, Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
Member Kohlstrand advised that there had been no further meetings since the last report.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
November 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-11-13,17,"d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board
Member Cunningham).
Member Cunningham noted that no meetings had been held.
12.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
President Lynch noted that the Planning Board meeting of November 27, 2006, had been cancelled.
President Lynch noted that mandatory ethics training must be completed by the end of 2006.
Ms. Woodbury noted that free ethics training was available on the Internet.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 17
November 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-11-13,18,"8-A.
2245 S. Shore Center (old Walgreen's Building) Major Design Review File No. DR06-
0081; 2246 S. Shore Center (old Ross building): Major Design Review File No. DR06-
0096; 2293 South Shore Center (Petco building) Major Design Review File No. DR06-
0096. (DG).
Mr. Garrison presented the staff report and recommended approval of this item.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch why the tower needed to be at its design height, Mr.
Jan Taylor, project architect, noted that Building 300 in front of Walgreen's was approved and the
design was changed to add a mezzanine. He noted that the building was six to eight feet higher than
Trader Joe's and that the interior allowed greater flexibility. The tower was intended to establish the
identity of the shopping center in a positive way, and that it was comparable to the tallest portions of
the Willows.
President Lynch noted that 10 speakers slips had been received
M/S Cunningham/Kohlstrand and unanimous to reduce the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Tim Erway noted that his question about the height had been answered, and believed the parking
arrangement in front of Trader Joe's was unsafe. He suggested that future parking schemes not
incorporate the ""direct-in"" parking.
Mr. Michael Carr noted that he would have preferred to hear Item 8-A before 8-B. He believed it
was important to keep the architectural elements intact on the topic discussed, and believed it was
important to keep the discussion point of the center of the mall separate from the Target portion of
the shopping center. He believed the rest of the shopping center should not be drawn into the
contentiousness of the Target segment, which he also favored.
Mr. Michael Krueger did not believe any part of the shopping center could be considered
unimportant, and believed the last drawings showed the buildings increasing in height towards
Safeway. He believed the tower on one side of the center begged the question of what element would
match it on the other end. He did not support approaching the design of the shopping center in a
piecemeal fashion.
Ms. Holly Sellers noted that she had read the meeting minutes from 2003 that led up to Resolution
PB-03-40, which showed that the Board worked long and thoughtfully to craft the resolution. She
believed the Board wanted to be involved as the project progressed, and provided checks and
balances so that the development would not get out of control, as she believed it was doing. She
urged the Board not to approve this design review because she believed that that Resolution Page 4,
only Phases 1-A, 2-B an 4-A may be constructed. She did not believe the architect's site
modifications to the Park Street North Drive should be included.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 18
November 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-11-13,19,"Ms. Dorothy Reid noted that she understood the resolutions in 2003 would direct the process as
written. She believed that when a redevelopment plan was submitted, that trumped any existing
entitlement if they planned to do the development. She believed this was a different design, and
inquired what could be expected with this PDA. She was concerned that building a 48-foot-tower
might set a precedent, and was not convinced that South Shore needed a marker for identification.
She would like to see some options that were not as tall.
Ms. Cathy Leong noted that she was former president of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, and
urged the Planning Board to allow Harsch to move forward with the plans for buildings 300, 400 and
500 as designed. She was concerned that if the plans continued to be delayed, the City would not
reap the benefits of the tax revenues and that the tenants would not wait indefinitely for resolution of
this issue. She noted that a piecemeal approach was a common reality of retail centers. She believed
this shopping center was finally making a log-awaited turnaround, and urged the Board to support
smart business development. She believed Target's underground parking would not be a security
issue, and noted that she grew up near Target's headquarters. She concurred that Alamedans do not
go to where there was trouble. She believed that the silent residents of Alameda that do not attend
the meetings spoke during the election and would support this project.
Mr. Randy Kyte, Harsch Development, noted that this was a redevelopment of an existing shopping
center, and was not a ground-up development; he noted that a piecemeal approach was normal for
such a situation. He noted that the tower could be lowered, but did not believe that would be the
proper design approach to take for that building; he disagreed with the ""piecemeal"" label, and noted
that in a year, a design would be available for the Board to examine with the exception of Building
900.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Lynch wished to address the assertions made by some speakers that the resolutions
approved in 2003 should be adhered to by this Board. He advised that the staff report included the
new resolutions that would become the resolutions of record if this item were to be approved.
Member Cunningham agreed with the architect that a corner element would be a benefit to the
center. He believed the scale and size matched the larger stores in the center such as Safeway.
Member Kohlstrand noted that there were quite a few one-story buildings in the center that are
between 33 to 38 feet high, and expressed concern about the increasing height in the center.
Vice President Cook shared the concerns about the bootstrapping of the compatibility of the scale of
the existing center, and believed the project had become even bigger than what had been just built.
She was unsure whether she could make the finding that the project was compatible with the rest of
the site and neighboring properties. She would need to hear from the City Attorney and Planning
Director regarding the PDA.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there was a specific condition in the previous resolution
that was problematic. Vice President Cook noted that condition about the internal circulation was a
significant for her, as well as the number of bus stops and parking space locations. She liked the
Planning Board Minutes
Page 19
November 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-11-13,20,"design and was excited about the new tenant. She inquired why the corner tower must be 10 feet
taller than the highest point of the Safeway building. She suggested imposing height limits to
safeguard against newer phases becoming higher and higher. She was not wedded to the earlier
resolution suggesting that a unified style and theme fitting the 1950s - 1970s period.
President Lynch understood the challenges faced in taking over an existing shopping center and the
resulting piecemeal approach. He noted that change was an important element of planning, and
given the scale of the structures, these three buildings were consistent with what was already in
place. He agreed that the tower was a prominent visual statement, and that within a retail complex,
this plan was consistent with land use, the adopted design for the site and zoning. He was concerned
with some of Vice President Cook's comments as they relate to some of the already-approved
conditions, which he perceived as a separate item.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the appearance of much of the center is known, which would
supply a design standard for the rest of the center. She believed the overall design was attractive.
Member Cunningham noted that he could support buildings 400 and 500, which he believed fit the
existing character; he was concerned about the massing of building 300. He suggested setting
building 300 back to mitigate the height.
President Lynch noted that it was 11:58 p.m.
M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue the meeting to 12:30 a.m.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Mr. Kyte noted that the tower was 38-feet-4-inches, the low parapet was 37-feet-4 inches and the
next step was 40-feet-4-inches, as opposed to Safeway at 38 feet 9 inches and 33 feet 8 inches. He
believed the tower could be reduced by several feet, and added that the equipment could be screened
by leaving the center section a bit taller while the main body of the parapet could be lowered about
two feet and four feet on the tower.
Member Cunningham believed that reducing the parapets would accentuate the tower; he was more
concerned about the parapets than the tower.
A discussion of the tower height and number of floors ensued.
Vice President Cook expressed concern about the safety of the internal circulation at Whitehall to
Park Street, and added that it was already dangerous at Safeway and Trader Joe's. She did not wish
to continue the circulation problems in this center. She would prefer to see a walkway between
Safeway and the old Walgreen's building.
Member Kohlstrand believed the design of building 500 could be improved, and was concerned with
the blank facades in the east and south sides.
M/S Cunningham/Ezzy Ashcraft to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-48 to approve
Planning Board Minutes
Page 20
November 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-11-13,21,"DR06-0092 related to building 400.
AYES - 4 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Cook); ABSTAIN -
0
Mr. Kyte described the walkways that had been included in the center. He believed the parapet could
be reduced to roughly match the height of the Trader Joe's building.
President Lynch was not comfortable in redesigning the center's walkways during the hearing, and
urged the Board to vote the application up or down, and allow the applicant to appeal the decision if
needed.
Vice President Cook believed the 2003 Board intended for the center to have connections to the
shore at the corner, and believed that buildings 400 and 500 would preclude that from happening.
M/S Cunningham/Ezzy Ashcraft to approve DR06-0096 regarding building 500.
AYES - 3 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 2 (Ashcraft, Cook); ABSTAIN - 0
The motion failed.
M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/[None] to approve DR06-0081 regarding building 300.
There was no second.
Member Cunningham noted that he would support a tower at the corner, and would like the parapet
height and the visual mass of the building to be reduced.
Member Cunningham believed the other items should be considered with a full Board.
Vice President Cook would like a better understanding of the circulation on Whitehall all the way to
Park.
M/S Cunningham/
to reconsider DR06-0096 regarding building 500.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
M/S Cunningham/Ezzy Ashcraft to continue DR06-0081 and DR06-0096 to the meeting of
December 11, 2006.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
13.
ADJOURNMENT:
12:41 a.m
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Board Minutes
Page 21
November 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-11-13,22,"Cathy Woodbury
Secretary, Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the December 11, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 22
November 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-12-11,1,"Hale he
Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, December 11, 2006
1.
CONVENE:
7:05 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member McNamara
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft, Kohlstrand,
McNamara.
Members Cunningham and Mariani were absent.
Also present were Assistant City Attorney Donna Mooney, Supervising Planner Andrew Thomas,
Planner III Douglas Garrison.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of November 13, 2006.
Member Kohlstrand noted that page 5, paragraph 7, read, ""Member Kohlstrand understood how Park
and Webster Streets had their own unique shelter designs, and how flexibility in terms of materials
would be necessary.' She noted that the main point she tried to convey was that aside from unique
shelter designs on Park and Webster, that there should be a consistent design treatment throughout
the rest of the city. She believed Member Ezzy Ashcraft also made that comment.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Member Kohlstrand's statement.
Member Kohlstrand noted that on page 12, the last statement attributed to Member Kohlstrand
should be attributed to Member Ezzy Ashcraft.
Member Kohlstrand noted that on page 22, the vote on Item DR006-0096, regarding Building 500,
Member Ezzy Ashcraft was listed as a ""No."" She noted that Member Kohlstrand should be listed as a
""No"" vote, instead of Member Ezzy Ashcraft.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the first sentence in the last paragraph on page 9 should read, ""Mr.
Michael Kruger noted that as a Transportation Commissioner, he wished to direct the Planning
Board 's attention to the Commission's recommendation that had not been included in the original
packet.""
She also wished to commend Cory Emberson for a superlative job on the minutes for a very long and
complex meeting.
Vice President Cook noted that page 5, should be changed to read, ""Vice President Cook expressed
concern about the width and usability of sidewalks and wanted to ensure that there were no
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
December 11, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-12-11,2,"encroachments made on that width with various items that may not be useful any more."" She wanted
to make sure that tree wells, benches and bus shelters, and other items on the sidewalk that was meant
to be walked on.
Vice President Cook noted that page 13, paragraph 6, should read, ""Vice President Cook noted that
it was important to address the overall density of retail at South Shore Center on a planwide basis,
and not project by project as they come in.
Vice President Cook noted that page 21, paragraph 1, should be changed to read, ""Vice President
Cook shared the concerns about the scale of the existing center, and believed that the project that had
been built was becoming even bigger than what was approved in 2003. She wished to add the
following sentence: ""She was particularly interested in advice from City staff regarding how the
Board could look at the project in the context of the overall site, as opposed to how it could be done
building by building, as discussed in the developer's attorney's letter."" She was looking for the City
attorney and staff to address the issue of how it could be looked at as a PDA, as was done in 2003.
M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of November 13, 2006,
as amended.
AYES - 4 (Mariani, Cunningham McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION
Ms. Diane Lichtenstein, Homes, recalled an active discussion in the July meeting regarding a
community forum to discuss Measure A. She noted that the staff report was to have been made
available at that time, and she urged the Planning Board to put it on the agenda for community
discussion.
Ms. Karen Butter, representing the League of Women Voters of Alameda, echoed Ms. Lichtenstein's
comments, and added that there was a need for public meetings to consider the advantages and
disadvantages of exempting Measure A from Alameda Point. She encouraged the Planning Board to
move forward in scheduling such a meeting in a timely fashion. She noted that during one of the
summer meetings, there was also a suggestion from the staff on that issue.
President Lynch noted that the Board had heard from individuals and organizations in Alameda that
would want to entertain a discussion. He believed the question before the City was how to facilitate
that process. He did not personally advocate one way or the other, but suggested that it was
incumbent upon the Board to respond to the responsibility to consider that particular item. He
believed the question before the Board was how to respond to that item.
Member McNamara inquired whether it was realistic to expect a response by the next meeting.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
December 11, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-12-11,3,"President Lynch did not believe this was a difficult item to process, but believed it was challenging
because of its possible scope.
A discussion of the process choices ensued.
Member Kohlstrand noted that staff has had six months to consider this item, and that the public and
Board has requested a response. She would like to see a response from staff regarding the layout of
the plan by the end of January.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft echoed President Lynch's comments, and added that no matter how
challenging an issue was, they had to start somewhere. She believed that because the Planning Board
advised the City Council on planning matters, and recalled that while the Board did not wish to be the
convening body, they did want to be part of the process, including calling in outside professionals
regarding environment issues and land use law.
President Lynch noted that he had discussed that matter with Planning and Building Director Cathy
Woodbury, and he agreed that it would be reasonable to request a report by the end of January.
Vice President Cook noted that this was an ideal time to discuss this issue because there was currently
no developer at Alameda Point.
President Lynch agreed with the previous comments, and noted that the Board would be able to
contemplate planning issues without the pressure of an ongoing development.
Mr. Thomas advised that staff was starting work with a grant received from MTC to examine transit-
oriented development at Alameda Point. The first task would be an analysis of the different
alternatives. The report to be presented in January would outline the scope of the work and the
community process. He believed it would be very helpful for the Planning Board to comment on how
to interface with that process, as well as work to be done beyond that point.
7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
Adoption of 2007 Planning Board Calendar.
Mr. Thomas noted that the 2007 Calendar had been revised to reflect staff's recommendation that the
first meeting in November not be cancelled at this time.
President Lynch noted that the Board may want to consider canceling the July 9, 2007, meeting. It
had been his experience that was a popular vacation time with the Planning Department, and that it
was close to July 4th
Vice President Cook concurred with President Lynch's suggestion.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
December 11, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-12-11,4,"Member Kohlstrand noted that she was comfortable with the existing calendar, and found that
meetings were cancelled if there were no agenda items.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to adopted the revised 2007 Planning Board Calendar.
AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
December 11, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-12-11,5,"7-B.
DR06-0043 (Major Design Review) and V06-0003 (Variance) - Sebastian Martinez -
1534 Buena Vista Avenue (DV). The applicant requests Major Design Review approval to
re-construct a single-family residence that was substantially destroyed by two separate fires.
A Variance is requested because the lot has a width of 25-feet and the proposed residence will
have side yard setbacks of 3-feet, where a minimum 5-foot side yard setback is required, and a
front yard setback of 15-feet, where a minimum of 20-feet is required. The site is located
within an R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-51 to approve
a Major Design Review approval to re-construct a single-family residence that was substantially
destroyed by two separate fires. A Variance is requested because the lot has a width of 25-feet and
the proposed residence will have side yard setbacks of 3-feet, where a minimum 5-foot side yard
setback is required, and a front yard setback of 15-feet, where a minimum of 20-feet is required.
AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
7-C.
TM06-0006 (Tentative Map) - Alameda Development Corporation - 626 Buena Vista
Avenue (DV). The applicant requests approval of Tentative Parcel Map 7846, consisting of
8 new lots. The site is located within the R-4-PD Neighborhood Residential Planned
Development Zoning District.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-52 to approve
Tentative Parcel Map 7846, consisting of 8 new lots.
AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
7-D.
TM06-0005 (Tentative Map) - SRM Associates - 1900 - 1980 North Loop Road (DB).
The applicant requests Tentative Parcel Map approval to merge six existing parcels into five
parcels with each parcel accommodating a new flexible use building (warehouse, distribution,
light manufacturing and administrative office). The site is located within the Harbor Bay
Business Park in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning
District.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-53 to approve
a Tentative Parcel Map to merge six existing parcels into five parcels with each parcel
accommodating a new flexible use building (warehouse, distribution, light manufacturing and
administrative office).
AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
December 11, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-12-11,6,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
FDP06-0002 (Final Development Plan) and DR06-0062 (Major Design Review)
-
Harbor Bay Acquisition LLC - 2275 Harbor Bay Parkway (AT). The applicant requests
a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to allow a one-story building of
approximately 36,899 square feet in floor area with 69 parking spaces to be constructed on a
4.1 acre site. The site is located within the Harbor Bay Business Park in the C-M-PD,
Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District. (Continued from the
meeting of September 11, 2006.)
Mr. Thomas presented the staff report, and noted that five conditions had been added to address the
neighborhood concerns. He noted that the additional conditions had been added since the September
11, 2006, version of the resolution. Staff recommended approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Joe Ernst, SRM Associates, presented the proposal and noted that Zephyr was a leading designer
and manufacturer of high-end kitchen range hoods, and was a $27 million company founded in 1997.
He noted that SRM was committed to sustainable design, and added that they currently had four
LEED facilities underway, including the Peet's roasting facility at Harbor Bay.
Mr. Ernst described the new site orientation and the plans for noise management and mitigation, as
well as the grading and landscaping plans.
Mr. Stephen Fee, project architect, displayed the site plan and elevation of this project and described
the massing and design elements of the showroom.
Mr. Ernst noted that they would be available to answer any questions.
There were no Public speakers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Member McNamara whether page 3 of the Draft Resolution was
misnumbered, or whether items were missing, Mr. Thomas noted that the items had been
misnumbered by the automatic numbering system in Microsoft Word. He noted that the conditions
were complete and would need to renumbered.
Member Kohlstrand commended Mr. Ernst and his team for time they spent meeting with the
neighborhood group, as well as for their responsiveness in addressing the Board's issues. She believed
this was an exciting business, and that the design features and enhancements that had been
incorporated into the project were very positive. She believed they were losing an opportunity by
putting parking adjacent to the waterfront, and would not feel comfortable voting for this project.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
December 11, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-12-11,7,"Member Ezzy Ashcraft commended the design team, and would like to see more environmentally
friendly design through the City. She believed they had been very responsive and put together a
beautiful design. She was mindful of the business park's 70% occupancy rate, and believed Zephyr
was an innovative company. She was impressed by how the parking in front had been minimized, and
believed that because this business park was approved many years ago in this area, she did not expect
it to read the same way as a beachfront resort. She liked the wider walkways, the trees, and the
removal of several parking spaces.
President Lynch echoed the previous positive comments. He believed the City erred in the design of
this business park because it looked like a business park. While it was functional as a business park, the
design elements were not too far from his perception of tilt-ups. He noted that while the interiors
were uniform and uninteresting, the exterior was attractive. He cited a building in the Napa Business
Park at the intersection of Highway 12 and 29 that was unidentifiable as a warehouse.
A discussion of parking configurations ensued.
""Vice President Cook agreed with much of Member Kohlstrand's comments, but also and understood
the need for this project to have a specific front function. She challenged the applicant to treat the
waterfront differently with future projects and attract future tenants that do not require parking in
front of the buildings, and that can conform to the design challenge.""
M/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-54 to approve a Final
Development Plan and Major Design Review to allow a one-story building of approximately 36,899
square feet in floor area with 69 parking spaces to be constructed on a 4.1 acre site. He suggested
that the applicant may be able to offer that kind of design as well, by breaking up the massing with the
materials and various design elements. He emphasized that he was not suggesting that the building be
redesigned at this time.
AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (Kohlstrand); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
December 11, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-12-11,8,"8-B.
2245 S. Shore Center (old Walgreen's Building) Major Design Review File No. DR06-
0081; 2246 S. Shore Center (old Ross building): Major Design Review File No. DR06-
0096; 2293 South Shore Center (Petco building) Major Design Review File No. DR06-
0096. (DG). (Continued from the meeting of November 13, 2006.)
Mr. Garrison summarized this staff report. He noted that the project design was consistent with the
nearby buildings in the center, as well as the residential area. No Planned Development Amendment
or additional CEQA review would be required, and construction of the two buildings would not
preclude site improvements that may be required under Planned Development Amendment 05-004
(Target). Staff recommended approval of both design reviews.
""Vice President Cook noted that the minutes did not discussed concerns raised about the status of the
conditions of the 2003 PDA.' She noted that the staff report discussed what was going well, but did
not sufficiently address what was not done; she believed that was the more interesting discussion. She
requested further information from the staff in that regard.
Mr. Garrison noted that the only condition at this point that seemed to be an issue was the condition
for the east-west sidewalk behind the bank on the north part of the property. Staff believed that the
applicant had met with City staff and pointed out the engineering problems resulting from the creation
of the sidewalk. They developed an alternative plan, which included several north-south sidewalks
which were designed to serve the function of the east west sidewalk which is to facilitate pedestrian
access to and through the shopping center. He understood that staff, in consultation with Public
Works, administratively decided that the alternative was acceptable. In hindsight, he believed that was
a condition that may not have been an appropriate item to approve on an administrative level. ""He
believed it was a moot point, because once the Planned Development Amendment application was
acted upon, everyone including the applicant acknowledged that everything was back on the table""
and the Planning Board could require that sidewalk. As noted in the staff report, they intended to return
in January with a comprehensive site plan that showed the sidewalk plan prior to Planning Board
determination.
Vice President Cook noted that there were a number of current Board and staff members who were
involved in this matter. She did not believe it would be difficult to reconstruct their thoughts on the
sidewalk issue. She noted that the Board was passionate on the issue of sidewalks, and she believed their
viewpoints were clear on the tapes of the meeting.
Mr. Thomas noted that the resolution itself was where the conditions are officially documented.
A discussion of the conditions and determination on which the permit was originally affirmed ensued.
Vice President Cook noted that originally, the building heights were not discussed because they were lower
at that time. She noted that height was a concern because of the redesign; the second stories would change
the square footage and parking requirements. She noted that the developer had told her that more
pedestrian and bicycle usage would reduce parking. ""She believed the real issue was how much square
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
December 11, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-12-11,9,"footage could be supported on this site without sacrificing the pedestrian bicycle access, and number of
trees,landscaping and other amenities-the Board desired. She believed that the developers did not get
approval for most of the center in the 2003 much of what they wanted from the PDA, and noted that
because the Board wanted the developers to improve the project's the Board s desire for -waterfront
orientation. would force the developers to return and show increased waterfront orientation. She noted that
the developers did not appeal the 2003 Planning Board decision that direction-to the City Council, and
returned with the project. She believed that at this point, the Board was being asked to approve buildings
on a piecemeal basis without regard for the overall site and water orientation of the project design, with
some buildings having been approved, and some buildings that have been all but demolished except for
their shells-She believed the intent of the Planning Board had been extremely clear, and she was concerned
that their intent had not been carried out forward.""
Mr. Garrison stated that a comprehensive site plan would be presented in January, and that it would
address every question raised by Vice President Cook. He noted that the Board would have all the
information and authority to make changes to the site plan and add sidewalks.
""Vice President Cook expressed concern that this approach would weaken the City's leverage with
the developer. She asked whether the Planning Board could look at the overall site plan as it was
allowed to examined in 2003, including the intentions stated at that time.""
President Lynch noted that if an earlier determination was believed to be inappropriate, there could be
a recision of that condition.
In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand regarding Vice President Cook's concerns, President
Lynch replied that she had requested a status report on the conditions as they were placed in the PDA
in 2003.
""In response to Member Ezzy Ashcraft's request for the specific examples, Vice President Cook replied
that she was concerned about the status of they were:""
1.
The east-west sidewalk;
2.
The 120-foot transit stop near Walgreen's, and a transit area/center provided near
Albertson's;
3.
The water orientation of the site as a whole.
4.
One tree for every four parking spots, but some credit given for the palm trees that
shaded the parking hardscape;
5.
Credits given for office space that was never developed;
6.
Angled parking versus perpendicular parking to be addressed in three to five years
when the other unimproved phases returned to the Board;
7.
Bike access;
8.
Whether the second floors would be built out, and if so, whether there would be
enough parking;
9.
A second restroom in future phases;
10.
A gas station, which the Board wanted to ensure was somewhere on the plans;
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
December 11, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-12-11,10,"She stated that she was very concerned about the clarity of the Board's intent with respect to
approval of various phases, and the Board's accountability to the community.
""Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was passionate about the issue of the sidewalk, and disclosed
that she did a walkthrough of the property with Harsch, and also with Field Paoli, and representatives
from the Alameda Transportation Commission, Bike Alameda and Pedestrian Friendly Alameda.""
Mr. Garrison reviewed the applicant's compliance with all of the Condition of Approval from the
2003 PDA. He added that there was an existing application for the gas station, and that a mitigated
negative declaration would be released for that project in the next week.
Vice President Cook wanted to ensure this suburban mall could become an outward-looking mall
with a respect for the waterfront. Mr. Garrison noted that the applicant's presentation would show an
interim plan for that area, how it will be connected to the center, and a final plan showing its
connection.
Ms. Mooney requested clarification from Vice President Cook regarding a range of items.
Vice President Cook stated that the Board received a letter from the developer's attorney explaining
how they could proceed with the approval of the separate buildings, as proposed by the developer.
She had inquired at the last meeting how the Board could look at the PDA for the entire site, as they
did in 2003. ""She also expressed her concern that the Planning Board had approved a PDA for this
site with conditions, and that a at least one major condition had not been met. She inquired what the
Board's options were at this point. She inquired how the developer could proceed in this way by first
building under the PDA, and b then-returning on a building-by-building basis for approval outside of
the PDA; she would appreciate a response from staff that addressed her concerns."" She would like
those concerns to be addressed in a subsequent taffreport. She would especially like detailed follow
up in staff reports that describe why and how items were addressed, or were not able to be carried out.
She believed that Alameda should aspire to higher planning standards.
Mr. Thomas noted that stafftried to answer most of those questions in the November 13 staff report,
He noted that the resolution, not the tapes from the meeting, delineated what was approved or not
approved. The resolution that acknowledges that there may be changes in the areas outside of the
approved area. It was based on those conditions and limitations that City staff believed that they
could proceed with design review and with making changes to buildings outside the approved area of
the originally approved planned development.
Mr. Garrison noted that this was an existing shopping center, and although there were proposed
changes within the shopping center that the Board did not specifically approve through the 2003
PDA, they were existing legal uses. The applicant is allowed to replace, repair and renovate those
buildings.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
December 11, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-12-11,11,"President Lynch suggested that if the resolution was not clear in identifying the amount of the square
footage inside versus outside the PDA, he suggested that in January, staff prepare a data sheet that
identifies the date, the square footage on the site, the buildings and administrative approvals. At that
time, the Board could come to an agreement for a starting point, and then overlay what has been
approved.
Member McNamara noted her appreciation of Vice President Cook's research and analysis of the past
documentation for this project, and noted that it was critical to identify the requirements for this
project.
President Lynch did not want to be part of a process that revisits City code that disallows the
Planning Director the ability to administratively approve changes. He believed that was crucial to the
ability to streamline applications in the City.
Mr. Randy Kyte, project architect, described the background of this application. He noted that every
condition detailed from the initial meetings with staff has either been met or in the process of being
met on a phase-by-phase basis. He noted that the additional sidewalks have been installed already, and
he believed that they had met the necessary conditions. He noted that because this was an existing
project, there was urgency associated with its redevelopment, including the repositioning of certain
tenants. They had revised their plans to a certain degree from the 2003 PDA, and they retained,
renovated and retenanted many of the existing structures instead of tearing them down. Their main
focus was to set a consistent design theme, as detailed by their architect, at the last meeting. He
displayed a PowerPoint presentation that displayed the history of this center's development. He
described the site design, as well as lighting and landscaping plans; he also described several tenant
plans as they related to the center as a whole.
Mr. Kyte noted that they considered the tower element to be an important element in this project, and
believed it was an identifying feature on a critical corner of the project. They strongly believe it should
be maintained in the design. He also described the circulation patterns surrounding the center.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Member McNamara inquired when the model would be available to see. Mr. Kyte noted that they
would meet with the owners and the design team on December 19 and at that point, the model will be
available to review.
""Vice President Cook was disappointed that a waterfront site would have only ""peekaboo"" views of
the Bay from a second floor deck."" Mr. Kyte noted that Petco had a very long lease that would make
any change in that regard a challenge.
Member McNamara noted that she did not understand why the building height had to be much higher
than Trader Joe's, and added that an additional eight feet was significant. Mr. Kyte noted that the
tower was the only part that was higher, and added that a strong tower element would create a strong
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
December 11, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-12-11,12,"statement. He noted that a 46-foot-high tower was not very high, and the apartment buildings were
substantially higher.
Member Kohlstrand noted that she met with the project sponsor after the last Planning Board meeting
and looked at the model. She noted that the timing of approvals were a complex balance with other
issues, and would like further discussion of that item. She acknowledged that better waterfront views
would be possible if the tower were to be moved, but she noted that the property owner and business
owners should have some flexibility in terms of where their tenants were located. She supported the
changes that had been incorporated. She had spoken with the Chair of the Transportation
Commission, and believed that they were beginning to move towards the access solutions.
Mr. Kyte noted that staff has been acutely aware of the implications of this piece of the project, long
before it was appealed to the Planning Board by community members under the design review
submittal. They re-examined the conditions for this phase of the development, including what should
be done to meet the conditions of the 2003 PDA as it related to this phase, including parking layout,
ratio and landscaping. They believed all those conditions for this phase had been met.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern that this project may be stopped at this point while awaiting
clarification of the issues addressing previous approvals. She believed that for years, Alameda
residents wanted to see this deteriorating shopping center improved. She hoped that there would be a
chance for a walk-through. She noted that some of the concerns regarding waterfront views had been
met in different ways besides having a tower that faced directly on the water. ""She liked the cut-
throughs, and did not want to see the issues swept under the rug, and inquired whether the Board
could request a date certain for completion of incomplete items once the questions have been
clarified."" She was concerned that the retail leases could not be held open indefinitely, because retail
openings are time-sensitive. She believed the design was attractive. She wanted the center to be
pedestrian-friendly, with an emphasis on their safety, particularly on the walkway in front of Building
300.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft liked the improvements in Building 500, but believed that it needed a south-
facing entrance. She understood that the current tenant did not want to have people looking out on
the car wash property, but noted that it may not always be a carwash. She believed that would aid the
waterfront view.
Mr. Thomas suggested that before the EIR for Target was finalized, staff should return before the
Board in January with the 2003 resolution, the map, the matrix, the adopted conditions and an
explanation of how the sidewalk condition was handled.
Mr. Kyte noted that when they approached staff regarding the sidewalk and the conflicts regarding the
driveways and stormwater systems, the north-south orientation became an obvious solution. They
believed that if there was a condition with a long-term Master Plan or strategy in place to control
sidewalks throughout the shopping center, some would be achievable and others would be more
difficult where other owners' property was involved. Regarding the building's design and the Bed
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
December 11, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-12-11,13,"Bath & Beyond's access point, the layout was a function of where their entry point was, and he noted
that tenant was relatively inflexible, and they were satisfied with the solution that connected them
to
the parking lot and to the mall.
""Vice President Cook complimented the applicant on their design details for the part of the project
approved and built pursuant to the 2003 PDA work, especially the fine details. She expressed
concern that the tinting on the interior windows was very dark. Mr. Kyte noted that was specified for
the Low-E coating. She believed to date the center was well-done and greatly improved, but and
added that it could be much better from a waterfront planning perspective."" She was concerned that
the 2003 conditions did not address all of the issues, and that the Board would not get what it wanted
if it did not approve Target.
Mr. Kyte believed that they had been in Alameda for a long time, and hoped there was a certain
level
of trust that had been established.
Member Kohlstrand noted that with the exception of Target, the retail areas had not been examined,
and that they had the ability to control the square footage.
M/S Kohlstrand/Ezzy Ashcraft to adopt Planning Board Resolution No.'s PB-06-55 and PB-06-56
to approve Building 300 with the design revisions, and Building 500 with the understanding that a full
staff report would be presented in January 2007 on the issues brought forward by Vice President
Cook.
AYES - 3 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (Cook); ABSTAIN - 1 (McNamara)
The motion failed.
President Lynch noted that the applicant could appeal to the City Council.
Mr. Garrison noted that the most of the questions that have been raised were being addressed through
ongoing work on site improvements, sidewalks, transit operations, pedestrians, bicycles, vehicle
circulation and landscaping; and those items would come to the Planning Board in January.
Member McNamara noted that she was not comfortable voting on this item without that information.
Mr. Mike Corbitt, Harsch Investment, noted that another delay would push the leasing deals into
2008, and that they would not be able to open in 2007.
President Lynch appreciated the applicant's comments and noted that this was a design review issue.
He added that within a PDA, the case law and planning principles were very clear. He believed that
mechanisms, including code compliance, status report and other avenues, were in place to address the
items heard during this meeting.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would not like to see the applicant pay the price if there was a
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
December 11, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-12-11,14,"shortcoming within the Planning Department. She would not let the issue of the east-west sidewalks
fall through the cracks, and had spoken with the Transportation Commission and Bike Friendly
Alameda about it as well. Following her walkthrough with the transportation advocates, she believed
they were pleased with the transit, bike and pedestrian access at the site.
President Lynch noted that in Alameda, members of the community clearly communicated their
disagreements with proposed projects. He believed it was significant that there were no public
speakers to voice their disapproval. To the design review as it related to Buildings 300 and 500.
Vice President Cook wanted to ensure that the promised amenities materialized for this project, and
would like those items to be documented.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed the applicant had been very responsive to the community and to the
Planning Board.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the transportation and bicycle advocates were complimentary of the
access in this project.
Mr. Kyte did not believe that good design needed to be regulated Target. He believed that if the PDA
had not been on the table, the Design Review would not have been appealed to this Board. He
inquired whether a motion could be put on the floor that would allow them to continue with Buildings
300 and 500 with a condition in terms of a timeline and follow-up regarding a future PDA.
President Lynch believed that once clarity was received about the sidewalk, and that it could be
remedied, he was satisfied with it. He did not believe that the ability to modify additional conditions,
or to insert or delete other items should be done within the design review process; it should be done
in the PDA
Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a special meeting could be convened to further address this
application.
President Lynch expressed concern about proper noticing for an additional December meeting.
Vice President Cook suggested a special meeting of the City Council.
President Lynch suggested that Vice President Cook communicate her concerns to staff in order to
notice and prepare for a possible special meeting.
A
discussion about meeting dates and logistics ensued, which determined that a special meeting
would not be feasible due to the holidays.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the City's legal opinion whether there
would be another opportunity to address these issues, Ms. Mooney replied that she had not seen what
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
December 11, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-12-11,15,"would be brought before the Board in the form of the Target PDA.
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised there was nothing new to report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
Member Kohlstrand noted that there had been no meetings since her last report.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board
Member Cunningham).
Member Cunningham was not in attendance to present this report.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Mr. Thomas reviewed recent City Council action on Development Projects.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:28 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Anlable
Andrew Thomas
Secretary, City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the January 8, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
December 11, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, January 8, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:05 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member Kohlstrand
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft, Cunningham,
Kohlstrand, Mariani, McNamara.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney Donna
Mooney, Planner III Dennis Brighton, Planner Brian Stanke.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of December 11, 2006.
Member Cunningham inquired about the finalized calendar for 2007 meetings. Mr. Thomas noted
that the approved calendar had been modified from the calendar in the packet. The packet had
suggested canceling the first meeting in November, and it was decided not to cancel that meeting.
Vice President Cook noted that page 2, paragraph 1, should be changed to read, "" to make sure that
tree wells, benches and bus shelters, and other items did not encroach on the sidewalk that was meant
to be walked on.""
Vice President Cook noted that page 7, paragraph 4, should be changed to read, ""Vice President
Cook agreed with much of Member Kohlstrand's comments, but also and understood the need for
this project to have a specific front function. She challenged the applicant to treat the waterfront
differently with future projects and attract future tenants that do not require parking in front of the
buildings, and that can conform to the design challenge.""
Vice President Cook noted that page 8, paragraph 3, should be changed to read, ""Vice President
Cook noted that the minutes did not discussed concerns raised about the status of the conditions of
the 2003 PDA.""
Vice President Cook noted that page 9, paragraph 1, should be changed to read, ""She believed the real
issue was how much square footage could be supported on this site without sacrificing the pedestrian
bicycle access, d number of trees, landscaping and other amenities -the Board desired. She believed that
the developers did not get approval for most of the center in the 2003 much of what they wanted from the
PDA, and noted that because the Board wanted the evelopers to improve the project 's the Board'sdesire
for waterfront orientation. would force the developers to return and show increased waterfront orientation.
She noted that the developers did not appeal the 2003 Planning Board decision that direction to the City
Council, and returned with the project. She believed that at this point, the Board was being asked to
approve buildings on a piecemeal basis without regard for the overall site and water orientation of the
project. design, with some buildings having been approved, and some buildings that have been all but
demolished except for their shells.-Sh believed the intent of the Planning Board had been extremely clear,
and she was concerned that their intent had not been carried out forward.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,2,"Vice President Cook noted that page 9, paragraph 3, should be changed to read, ""Vice President
Cook expressed concern that this approach would weaken the City's leverage with the developer. She
asked whether the Planning Board could look at the overall site plan as it was allowed to examined in
2003, including the intentions stated at that time.
Vice President Cook noted that page 9, paragraph 6, should be changed to read, ""In response to
Member Ezzy Ashcraft's request for the specific examples, Vice President Cook replied that she was
concerned about the status of they were:
Vice President Cook noted that page 10, paragraph 5, should be changed to read, ""She also expressed
her concern that the Planning Board had approved a PDA for this site with conditions, and that a at
least one major condition had not been met. She inquired what the Board's options were at this point.
She inquired how the developer could proceed in this way by first building under the PDA, and-but
then-returning on a building-by-building basis for approval outside of the PDA; she would appreciate a
response from staff that addressed her concerns.""
Vice President Cook noted that page 11, paragraph 7, should be changed to read, ""Vice President
Cook was disappointed that a waterfront site would have only ""peekaboo"" views of the Bay from a
second floor deck.""
Vice President Cook noted that page 13, paragraph 1, should be changed to read, ""Vice President
Cook complimented the applicant on their design details for the part of the project approved and
built pursuant to the 2003 PDA work, especially the fine details.
She believed to date the center
was well-done and greatly improved, but and added that it could be much better from a waterfront
planning perspective.""
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 2, paragraph 5, should be changed to read, ""AYES - 4
(Mariani, Cunningham McNamara-absent)
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that on page 6, she believed the Board had been addressed by the owner
of the Zephyr company.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 8, paragraph 4, should be changed to read, ""He believed it was
a moot point, because once the Planned Development Amendment application was acted upon,
everyone including the applicant acknowledged that everything was back on the table.""
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 10, paragraph 1, should be changed to read, ""Member Ezzy
Ashcraft noted that she was passionate about the issue of the sidewalk, and disclosed that she did a
walkthrough of the property with Harsch, and also with Field Paoli, and representatives from the
Alameda Transportation Commission, Bike Alameda and Pedestrian Friendly Alameda.""
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 12, paragraph 3, should be changed to read, ""She liked the
cut-throughs, and did not want to see the issues swept under the rug, and inquired whether the Board
could request a date certain for completion of incomplete items once the questions have been
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,3,"clarified.""
Vice President Cook moved approval of the minutes.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Board
members Ezzy Ashcraft, Kohlstrand and President Lynch - 5. Abstentions: Board members
Cunningham and Mariani - 2.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Lynch noted that no speaker slips had been received for Item 8-B.
Board member Cunningham motioned to move Item 8-B from the Regular Agenda to the Consent
Calendar.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Mr. David Howard noted that he had spoken with a woman circulating a petition for a deepwater port
at Alameda Point for a cruise ship terminal. He believed that would be worth exploring, and was
shocked and dismayed at what he believed to be City staff's lack of imagination for anything that did
not involve building higher density homes and building upward on Alameda Point. He believed that
the effort to build a cruise ship terminal could be married to an effort to bring more wineries to
Alameda, and replicate the success that Rosenblum Wineries enjoys at Alameda Point. He believed
that water taxis to Jack London Square and San Francisco could be added to the services, and that
more tax dollars could be spent in Alameda.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,4,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-B.
Variance - V06-0010/Minor Design Review MDR06-0237 - Applicant/Appellant:
Carrie Blanche 1821 Grand Street (BS). The property owner is requesting a Variance and
Minor Design Review for a 4 foot side yard setback where either a zero or a 12 foot setback
is required to add a 60 square foot addition to an existing single-family house. The site is
located within a C-] M, Commercial - Manufacturing Zoning District.
Board member Cunningham motioned to move Item 8-B from the Regular Agenda to the Consent
Calendar.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-01 to approve a
Variance and Minor Design Review for a 4 foot side yard setback where either a zero or a 12 foot
setback is required to add a 60 square foot addition to an existing single-family house.
Board member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,5,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee (AT). A presentation by representatives of the
Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee describing efforts between Alameda and Oakland to
improve existing transportation systems serving Chinatown and Alameda and reduce
transportation impacts on pedestrians and the quality of life in Oakland's Chinatown and
Alameda.
Mr. Thomas presented the staff report. He introduced the presenting members of the Oakland
Chinatown Advisory Committee.
Mr. Alan Yee, Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee, thanked City staff and the Board for hosting
this presentation and Board Member Mariani for her invaluable input on the Committee.
Ms. Lynette Lee recognized Oakland Planning Commission Suzy Lee, who served on the Committee
and was in attendance. She provided a brief history of Oakland Chinatown and described the
transportation and traffic challenges faced by both Oakland Chinatown and Alameda. She noted that
the one-way street system was a particular traffic and pedestrian safety challenge.
Jenny Ong - Executive Director, Chinatown Chamber of Commerce, noted that Oakland Chinatown
had grown tremendously during its history, and added that the 600 small businesses contributed
significantly to the City's tax base. She noted that regional transportation connections converged in
Chinatown, creating significant traffic congestion. She noted that there were many senior centers,
schools and community centers in Chinatown, which made pedestrian safety a particular concern. She
noted that Chinatown had the highest rate of vehicle and pedestrian collisions, and most of the victims
were seniors; one-third of Chinatown's population consists of seniors. She described the efforts to
improve transportation systems and pedestrian safety.
Julia Liao, staff, Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee, noted that one of their goals was to
enhance pedestrian safety in an area that was near a major junction of freeways. They also hoped to
enhance mobility for the seniors and disabled, as well as to improve the attractiveness of the shopping
district. They also hoped to involve the community in the process, and to unify the diverse groups to
seek the long-term solutions.
Mr. Yee described the Committee's involvement in the regional perspective, and noted that they
would develop proposals to supplement the CEQA and EIR process currently in place. They would
study alternatives and would work on the proposal made to both Alameda and Oakland for alternative
analysis and guidelines to address the issues. They intended to explore the issue of impact fees, and
hoped that Oakland would be able to follow Alameda's example of using impact fees to address
Chinatown. They intended to revive the planning studies and implementation of the proposals,
especially as the Webster and Posey Tubes affect traffic in and out of Alameda. They hoped to bring
those recommendations to the Planning Board going forward.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the proposed Oak to Ninth Street project impacted the
Committee's plans. Mr. Yee replied that Oak to Ninth would impact the Jackson Street on-ramp.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,6,"Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there would be any response on the state or federal level
regarding funding for the Broadway/Jackson proposal. Mr. Yee replied that they had worked with the
State and made recommendations; he hoped they would help seek funds and implement one of the
recommendations
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether they were working with MTC and ABAG to
prioritize some of their goals for access via the Tube and 880, Ms. Ong replied that they had spoken
with the developer of the Oak to Ninth property, and they had signed an agreement with the
Chinatown Chamber and Asian Health Services to contribute funds to improve traffic congestion in
Chinatown.
Mr. Thomas noted that the Alameda/Oakland subregion should be better at advocating for state and
federal money. He noted that other cities have joined together to get priority for transportation funds
for regional improvements. He noted that they were working with ACTIA and CalTrans to prepare a
Project Study Report (PSR), and that the Chinatown Committee was very effective in getting the
Oakland City Councilmembers to attend the meeting with the City of Alameda and ACTIA so that the
Oakland Councilmembers would emphasize the need to make the ramp system the priority in the
study.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that Ron Dellums, Oakland's new mayor, had significant experience in
Washington, D.C., and she hoped that would assist in getting federal funds.
Member Kohlstrand complimented the Committee on their cooperative efforts, and believed that
traffic improvements would be part of the solution. She would like a briefing on the
Broadway/Jackson proposal. She believed that transit in both cities would also be part of the solution,
because of the constraint at the Tube. She noted that the development in Jack London Square and
west of the freeway would place increasing demand on the road network; she added that area was
somewhat isolated from the transit service. She inquired whether the City of Oakland had looked at
other traffic inbound into Oakland; she noted that many of the broad, wide Oakland streets have not
used their capacity. She encouraged creative ways of lessening the impact on Chinatown, and would
encourage traffic calming methods on the most impacted streets.
Member Kohlstrand inquired whether the City was working with a consultant. Ms. Ong replied that
they were, and that they had received an MTC grant for Chinatown improvements; bulbouts were
part of that plan.
Vice President Cook stated that she viewed the Estuary as a positive and unifying element between
Oakland and Alameda, rather than a dividing force. She shared the concerns about Oak to Ninth, and
noted that it was a huge project. She noted that the larger projects were connected with the Port,
which did not always see eye-to-eye with the City of Oakland from a planning perspective. She would
recommend some planning and real estate representation from the Port on the committee.
Member Cunningham believed it was interesting how two communities could work to affect the
other. He believed it would be beneficial to discover the lessons that would be learned from this study
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,7,"as some potentially larger developments are examined. He thought the analysis of the CEQA
shortcomings was interesting, and that developers coming into Alameda would be asked to do similar
studies.
Mr. Thomas noted that the City's thresholds for analyzing projects focused on the car, which was
discussed by the Chinatown representatives in 2002-3 when discussing some of Alameda's and
Oakland's EIRs. He noted that many felt that the impact on pedestrians, transit and bicyclists needed
to be addressed more thoroughly. He noted that the Transportation Commission and then the
Planning Board had also been raising the same concerns that the analysis had been centered on cars.
He noted that the two cities could work together in developing a common methodology to benefit
both cities.
Member Kohlstrand noted that as a transportation planner, she knew that many cities were grappling
with that issue, and that it was intended for applications in suburban environments where lanes could
be added. She noted that the resulting wide streets became very difficult for pedestrians to cross. She
noted that San Francisco was still struggling with that issue, and believed it would be beneficial to
examine the measures being implemented by San Francisco.
President Lynch inquired whether there was any response provided to the Oakland Mayor's office or
City Council when they suspended the cumulative impact analysis for developments in Oakland.
Mr. Thomas replied that that legislation was passed just before this committee was established.
President Lynch noted that the Mayor requested a waiver from the cumulative impact analysis within
the documents for the City of Oakland and their projects; that was approved by the State legislature.
He believed that creative thinking would be necessary in the design aspects of streets and questions
raised about the social impacts, social interaction, air quality and quality of life.
Member Mariani noted that it had been a pleasure serving on this committee, and that she would
continue to do SO.
No action was taken.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,8,"8-C.
Appeal of Major Design Review Approval - DR06-0064 - Applicant/Appellant: Grace
Villa 1811 Eighth Street (DB). The property owner is appealing a condition of Design
Review approval that requires the removal of a driveway gate that reduces access to required
parking in a detached two-car garage. The site is located within an R-2, Two-Family
Residential Zoning District.
Mr. Brighton summarized the staff report, and noted that he had distributed a letter from a neighbor
who opposed any proposal that would inhibit off street parking.
The public hearing was opened.
Italo Calpestri, project architect, noted that the applicant believed the gate was a necessity because of
a
number of security breaches that had occurred. The plan shown had more bedrooms added to the
lower floor, and the security of those bedrooms was paramount to the applicant. Mr. Brighton had
recommended that the gate be placed at the back of the building, which would make access to
unauthorized people along the driveway very easy. The applicant filed the appeal because having the
gate at the rear did not meet their security needs.
President Lynch suggested that this item be suspended to allow a sidebar conversation to take place
between staff and the applicant to discuss gate alternatives.
Board member Cunningham moved to continue the item until later in the meeting.
Board member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,9,"9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that no further meetings had been held since her last report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
There was no additional information following the agenda item.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
Member Kohlstrand advised that there was nothing new to report. She had been invited to participate
in a meeting with Planning staff and a representative from the Transportation Commission to discuss
transportation issues as they relate to Alameda Point and Catellus.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board
Member Cunningham).
Member Cunningham noted that their first meeting would be held January 10, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. in
the new library.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would like to see the City adopt some green building
ordinances to add to the building codes. She had conducted some research at the Waste Management
Authority for Alameda County on other municipalities that already had green building ordinances. She
met with Karen Smith, the Executive Director of WMA, who attended the ribbon cutting ceremony
for the LEED-certified library. She noted that the new Zephyr building would have some green
building elements, as would the Habitat for Humanity homes. She applauded those entities for their
voluntary application of green building elements, but believed the City had a responsibility to the
community and the environment to have these ordinances on the books. There were only two cities in
Alameda County without some sort of green building ordinance on the books: Alameda and
Piedmont. She would like the Planning Board to make a recommendation to the City Council to
adopt green building requirements.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff was working on these issues, and believed the green building initiative
could be brought to the Climate Protection Committee, and the Planning Board for consideration.
Member Cunningham noted that previous discussions of a green building ordinance had been
sidelined due to funding and staffing constraints.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,10,"A discussion of building codes and building practices ensued as it related to applying a green building
ordinance.
Mr. Thomas noted that his tour of the Peet's Coffee building during the inspection was enlightening,
and added that the Clif Bar building was attempting to achieve a LEED platinum certification.
Board member Cunningham moved to reopen Item 8-C.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,11,"8-C. Appeal of Major Design Review Approval - DR06-0064 - Applicant/Appellant: Grace
Villa 1811 Eighth Street (DB). The property owner is appealing a condition of Design
Review approval that requires the removal of a driveway gate that reduces access to required
parking in a detached two-car garage. The site is located within an R-2, Two-Family
Residential Zoning District.
The public hearing was reopened.
Mr. Calpestri noted that he and Mr. Brighton had agreed to disagree, and that the sticking point was
the need for an automatic opener or operator on the gate. He resisted the idea of an operator due to
its expense, which could approach $2,500, and another $1,000 for installation. He requested that the
Board support the first alternative given in the staff report, without providing an operator.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch regarding the necessity of an operator, Mr. Brighton
replied that it encouraged the use of the on-site parking.
Ms. Susan Villa, noted that she was representing her mother Grace Villa (the applicant). She noted
that her mother was 82 years old, and has become increasingly frail. She had lived in this home since
1947, and it was her hope to stay there. She and her eight siblings would like this expansion to be
approved SO that caregivers and other family members may be accommodated there in order to care
for their mother. Her mother had experienced several frightening incidents when people came up the
driveway. This, combined with her age and decreasing sight, had made her quite fearful, and she was
adamant that she would like a gate. She noted that her mother did not own a vehicle, and noted that
there would be one vehicle at the house from either a caregiver or a family member. She did not
believe it would be a problem to use the gate and gain access to the garage. She understood
the
concern about offstreet parking, and believed this would not contribute to the problem.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether she would agree to the alternative which called
for a five-foot-high iron/steel fence, Ms. Villa replied that she would not be opposed to that
alternative.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the public policy or rationale requiring the gate to be see-
through She believed that it would be a common-sense solution to have the gate swing toward the
front of the house, rather toward the side of the house, which would impede the driveway. She
believed that people should be encouraged to improve their homes, especially the older homes. She
also wanted to support older residents in being able to stay in their homes as long as possible.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch regarding the idea that having an operator was an
onerous condition, Mr. Brighton replied that the floor area was being doubled with more bedrooms
and bathrooms. He believed the additional $2,500-$3,000 in light of the major construction
investment was a minor consideration for the long-term use of the property, and the long-term benefit
of the community to have offstreet parking.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,12,"Member Mariani thanked staff for the additional information, and noted that the Board had been
concerned about offstreet parking. She noted that with the increase in square footage, up to six
people could potentially live in this house. She believed that an additional $2,500 when compared
with the cost of the construction was relatively minor, and she agreed with staff's assessment.
Vice President Cook agreed with the staff report She understood the security concerns, but had also
seen a thief jump a neighbor's fence when a gate had been installed. She believed the number of
bedrooms, number of cars, and accessibility to the garage were the Board's main concerns.
Member Kohlstrand believed it was an onerous requirement to have the automatic gate opener, and
she did not know whether it had been required before for a residential property. She agreed with
Member Ezzy Ashcraft's assessment, and would support the condition of a new gate, but without the
opener on it.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City would continue to require mechanical gate
operators on all driveways that were less than stated in the Code. She noted that a neighbor had such
an operator, and added that it was very noisy when it worked; it was also expensive to repair the
motor. She appreciated the thoroughness of staff's report, as well as the addition of the Code
sections. She did not see any reference to mechanical openers in the Code.
In response to an inquiry by Member Cunningham regarding the definition of ""see-through,"" Mr.
Brighton replied that 50% of the volume must be unobscured.
Board member Cunningham moved to uphold the appeal, and to suggest the installation of a five-foot
see-through fence on the southeast corner without an electric operator.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which failed by the following voice vote: Board
member Kohlstrand - 3. Noes: Vice President Cook, President Lynch, Board member Mariani - 3.
(Absent: Board member McNamara - 1.)
President Lynch suggested that this item be suspended for further discussion between staff and the
applicant.
Board member Mariani moved to suspend discussion of this item in order to resolve the outstanding
issue of the mechanical gate.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by a unanimous voice vote - 6.
(Absent: Board member McNamara - 1.)
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,13,"11.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
a.
Status Report on upcoming Public Forum related to Measure A and Alameda Point.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Jean Sweeney noted that she was dismayed at the amount of support she has seen for overturning
Measure A. She believed that issue should go to the voters, and she would not like to see further
public sessions in pursuit of that goal. She believed that overturning Measure A would increase the
density in Alameda, which she opposed. She did not want Atlantic Avenue widened to eight lanes,
which would greatly impact entrances to the Tube.
Ms. Diane Lichtenstein, representing Homes, believed the recommendation was to fold the forum into
the station area plan that would come before the public soon. She believed that would not be the best
way to approach this issue. She noted that Ms. Woodbury's memo based the station area plan on
transportation and transit orientation. She believed the conceptual development plans with and
without Measure A would be discussed as well. She believed that if Measure A was folded into the
community forums as a discussion point, it would dominate the purpose of what the station area plan
was, which was to discuss transportation and transit, not Measure A. She requested that the Board go
forward with the proposal to hold a forum, and noted that it had been three years since the last forum
at Kaufman Auditorium. She believed it would be fair to hear the public's views on such a hot issue,
especially since many things had changed since then.
Mr. David Howard objected to the use of MTC funds to explore non-Measure A-compliant
alternatives. He also objected to the Measure A forums being combined with the station area plan
discussion, and also objected to the existence of the Measure A forums in general. He was concerned
that a study of a non-Measure A-compliant alternative as proposed may eventually undermine
Measure A. He did not believe that was a good use of funds, and did not want it to become a
backdoor way to undermine Measure A.
Ms. Helen Sause, representing Homes, complimented the Board's plans to schedule a hearing on the
impacts of Measure A across the City, not just Alameda Point. She believed it was important to
separate this hearing from the work that will be done by WRT in analyzing the transportation
development alternative for Alameda Point. She noted that it was encouraging to allow people to
speak about the impacts of Measure A. She was concerned that linking it with the transportation
study, that polarized positions would result, and added that no one was suggesting eliminating it. She
believed that citywide, people deserved to have the chance to speak their minds about the possibility
of modifying Measure A. She hoped the issue could be discussed civilly.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Member Mariani believed that while the speakers had opposite points of view, they did agree that the
discussions should not be held together in a combined forum.
Member Cunningham did not believe the issues could be examined effectively without considering
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,14,"both options. He agreed that whether the MTC funds were used to study Measure A, it would take
more money than that to complete the study. He suggested doing a noncompliant Measure A scheme
to see the implications, and believed that would be prudent planning.
Mr. Thomas provided background information regarding the settlement agreement that led to this
study, as well as the Oakland-Chinatown Advisory Committee and the MTC grant money.
Member Mariani thanked Mr. Thomas for the clarification, because the memo distributed to the
Planning Board did not contain that information.
Vice President Cook believed that the study should go forward, and that the Measure A study forum
should also occur. She was also interested in other aspects of the Measure A debate besides only
transportation. She was very concerned about ensuring that there was a middle ground between
housing for the very rich and the very poor. She inquired whether the ferry would be viable when it is
moved. She supported looking at a policy such as Measure A objectively, and would like to hear all
the perspectives on the issue. She was concerned about urban design issues that flowed from urban
design and density. She had felt that there were places in the City where Measure A should be
tightened up, and other places where it did not make sense. She supported an informational forum
with a skilled facilitator.
Member Kohlstrand agreed with Vice President Cook's comments, and supported having the MTC
study, as well as an independent forum on Measure A.
President Lynch appreciated the public comments, but was somewhat disappointed in the
characterization of some of the comments that he had heard during his time on the Planning Board in
that Measure A is not just about density. He noted that it was also about design, and when some
people become demonized for wanting to have a public discussion, that does not mean the next step
would be to overturn Measure A. He believed a discussion about an existing ordinance was entirely
within the public purview.
In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand, Mr. Thomas replied that the intent of the MTC
scope of work was to gather resources and information that the City could use to inform the work
that would be done by the master developer.
President Lynch noted that part of the discussion was how to design the 1800 new residences, and
what kind of homes they would be. He noted that the impacts on open space must also be examined
with respect to placement of the homes, bike paths and transportation schemes. He noted that the
answer would not be known until the possible scenarios could be laid out. He did not believe that
examining these questions would necessarily lead to overturning Measure A.
Member Kohlstrand believed that the standards for block sizes should be followed regardless of
Measure A compliance, and that obtaining more information would be helpful. She suggested using
the AC Transit guide that addressed transit-oriented design. She also met with the general manager of
the Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton last week, who noted that 93% of their users arrived by
car. He noted that they built the development with four parking spaces per thousand square feet, and
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,15,"he added that they had ""way too much parking.""
Member Kohlstrand noted that the MTC study, undertaken through the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Agency, stated that the Planning Board members could participate as Alamedans.
While she believed that was positive that all Alamedans had an opportunity to participate in this
process, it seemed strange that a fundamental planning issue would not come before the Planning
Board, nor was there a mention of the Planning Board having a special presentation on this issue.
Mr. Thomas apologized for that information not being included in the memo. He noted that the
products of the MTC scope of work included the recommendation for new designs for parking
standards, block sizes and other public improvement standards and parking standards. He noted that
these findings would be implemented as zoning text amendments, which would come to the Planning
Board for recommendation to the City Council. He noted that the parking studies and other tasks
were designed to inform the Planning Board and the City Council.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft agreed that the City needed additional expertise from people who have
worked on outside projects in different communities. She noted that she recently spent five days in
Vancouver, British Columbia, which was a vibrant water-oriented community.
Vice President Cook agreed with Member Ezzy Ashcraft that this should not be viewed as strictly a
Measure A forum.
President Lynch noted that it would be one of the vehicles where the public could speak about
Measure A as it applied to a particular area and different design concepts.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the workshops could be televised. Mr. Thomas noted that
the venue had not been selected yet.
Vice President Cook noted that some people cannot watch the telecast because they already had
schedule conflicts.
Mr. Thomas noted that it may be videotaped and reshown on the cable channel.
President Lynch requested an update on Item 8-C. Mr. Thomas advised that staff and applicants had
met, and the applicant understood that the appeal failed. The applicant would live with the current
requirement, which was to remove the gate. They would work with staff to examine some of the
options in the staff report, which can be approved without coming back to the Planning Board.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,16,"12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy Woodbury
FCathy Woodbury, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the February 12, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-31,1,"Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:05 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member Cunningham
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft,
Kohlstrand, Mariani, McNamara.
Also present were Planning & Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Planning Services Manager
Andrew Thomas and Executive Assistant Latisha Jackson
4.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Dorothy Reid proposed posting the Planning Board agenda two weeks prior to meetings. She also
requested more communication with Board members through email. She felt the amount and/or
importance of items in any given meeting should be more evenly divided to avoid long meetings and
pressure to decide on important issues. She stated staff should be able to gather information from all
interested parties without having to weigh validity of information. She felt staff should be neutral in
their decisions and not make recommendations on one side of projects going to the Planning Board.
She felt staff should serve the public.
Helen Sause expressed interest in an informational forum on Measure A at the Board's earliest
convenience. She also expressed concern over Alameda Point.
Diane Lichtenstein, HOMES, Inc. echoed Ms. Sause's interest on the forum regarding Measure A.
She noted that HOMES Inc. is in favor of modifying Measure A for Alameda Point.
Cathy Woodbury discussed roles and responsibilities for Planning Board members, staff, and others
involved.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft on why the meeting had to end at 9:00
p.m., Ms. Woodbury noted that staff would research that information and bring the findings back to
the Board.
Board member Mariani followed up on Ms. Reid's comments where it appears the City is advocating
and not taking all comments into consideration with respect to projects. She inquired why city staff
could not be designated to assist groups who may be opposed to projects as well. Ms. Woodbury
noted staff does not represent developers but presents an analysis in conjunction with the City's
codes, rules and regulations.
Board member McNamara noted that one of the roles of the Board is to communicate with staff and
make sure there is an open line of communication; she expressed concern with the communication
significant breakdown between staff and the Board. She encouraged staff and the Planning Board to
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
January 31, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-31.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-31,2,"enhance their communication.
Board member Kohlstrand noted that she felt the role of staff should be to make recommendations to
the Board. She felt the Board should be clear on what the City's position is on projects that are
presented to the Planning Board. She noted that she also felt there was a communication breakdown
between staff and the Board. She encouraged more communication so the Board would be clear on
previous projects and she looked forward to updates on those projects.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft wanted to make sure that items that should come back to the Board
make it back and not be locked up in administrative decision-making. She also mentioned the
Safeway gas station proposal and expressed concern with the East/West sidewalk and the proposed
driveways.
Ms. Woodbury informed the Board that staff would make every effort to prevent those processes
from happening in the future. She noted that items that should come back to the Board make sure
the project is in compliance with conditions set forth in approved resolutions.
Board member McNamara mentioned that the City should provide an email so her personal email
would not be barraged with correspondence.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the City is in the process of establishing a City based e-mail service for the
Planning Board, which would be listed on the Planning & Building Department's homepage of its
website. She explained that all inquiries, comments and concerns received would then be forwarded
to the Planning Board members.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the AB 1234 Mandatory Ethics training stated that there are
legal reasons why Board members personal e-mails should not be used. She stated if personal e-mails
were used for Board communications, and if litigation occurred, all personal emails could be
requested by the person or entity that brought the litigation all personal e-mails could be viewed by
the person/entity that made the request.
Vice President Cook expressed concern with the apparent disconnect between Development Services
and Planning staff.
President Lynch mentioned that there should be more fundamental discussions between the City
Manager and City Council. He also questioned the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and there
purpose.
Ms. Woodbury responded by mentioning that when there are applications that are questionable,
public meetings with the neighborhoods are held.
President Lynch expressed concern with the budget and how it reflects the work plan. He
encouraged a better understanding of parameters of the Planning & Building Department and other
City departments. He also encouraged more communication with other department heads.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
January 31, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-31.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-31,3,"Ms. Woodbury responded by saying that she agrees that it would be a good discussion to talk about
the work plan.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch on which order the work program items should be
viewed in or if the Board should follow the PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Woodbury stated that the
Board should follow the PowerPoint presentation. She also brought up the issue of meeting
management and making the meetings more efficient to accommodate all speakers and to hear
everyone voice their opinions.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Mariani on the feasibility of having a joint meeting with
the City Council, Ms. Woodbury responded in the affirmative. She noted the question of the joint
meeting focusing on a specific project was not feasible.
Board member Cunningham expressed his hesitancy on receiving e-mail on his personal e-mail
account. He inquired about the concern with individual members of the Board receiving e-mails or
having contact with prospective developers that could be viewed as ""back door deals"" on projects.
Ms. Woodbury responded the purpose of setting up this e-mail system was a means for the public to
communicate their concerns to the Planning Board. She noted that the City would provide training
on how to handle e-mail inquiries.
President Lynch expressed concern with receiving and answering emails from the public. He felt at
best this system would be a repository for public comment. He suggested that when the system is in
place, that no Board members respond to comments. He felt responses could tread in an area in
which Board members are rendering a position on something the Board may need to make a
determination on.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft responded by saying that she welcomes public comment via email and is
willing to respond to inquiries. She noted that she would not dialogue with the public but she felt she
should be accessible to the public.
Board member Mariani noted that she felt opposite about releasing her personal e-mail address to the
public. She noted as a volunteer, she felt she should be accessible to the public and did not mind the
public having her personal e-mail address.
Ms. Woodbury responded that all views on e-mail availability could be addressed with this system
provided by the City. She noted the system would be linked to the City's website as a group
specifically designated for the Planning Board.
Ms. Woodbury continued with her presentation and addressed what is expected of the Planning
Board. She noted that if a Board member missed a meeting and an item happened to be continued, it
was the member's responsibility to obtain information from the missed meeting, such as evidence,
minutes, and videos, to be prepared for the discussion at the following meeting.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested getting the packets earlier to allow more time for the Board
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
January 31, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-31.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-31,4,"to read the material and contact the Planning & Building Department with questions or concerns they
may have. She noted it would be helpful if staff continues to move toward the goal of more advanced
time for the Board to review packets and have questions addressed in a timely manner.
Ms. Woodbury mentioned being able to trust staff to enable staff member to give direction and ideas
to a project. She also mentioned adding conditions and making sure they are enforceable.
Board member Mariani requested e-mail addresses, telephone numbers and extensions for staff.
Vice President Cook noted that she has not received more than a handful of electronic e-mail
communications from the public before meetings but she has received hard copy e-mails before
meetings.
Ms. Jackson informed the Board that generally correspondence received from the public comes in the
day of their meeting and is then forwarded to the Planning Board members.
Ms. Woodbury continued with her PowerPoint presentation. She noted that when projects come
before the Board, it is important to remember that no project is perfect when it begins. She also
noted that the Board could potential approve a project in concept and give staff and the applicant
clear direction. She stated to the Board that she understood the only way the Board could do this is if
they really trusted staff. She assured the Board that staff would continue to work with the Board to
improve communication and gain their trust. She noted there is a comprehensive training schedule for
staff to improve their condition of approval writing abilities since new staff has been hired in the last
four months.
In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara regarding what the Planning Department's
role is in policing projects to ensure projects are in compliance with conditions and what the penalties
are for noncompliance, Ms. Woodbury responded it depends on the conditions. She noted that it is
the Planning & Building Department's responsibility to monitor and enforce conditions.
Board member Kohlstrand commented on the packet deliver times and feels that packets and agendas
should be available at least a week in advance for adequate review. She also mentioned approving
projects in concept and providing direction to staff. She would like the City Attorney to take a more
proactive role in meetings. She commended the Planning Services Manager, Andrew Thomas, on his
ability to gather the Board's comments to ensure their conditions are adequately documented on
projects he brings before the Board.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Board member Kohlstrand's comment on having the
City Attorney take more of a proactive role an the meetings. She also suggested that some staff
reports be more clearly written to help everyone have a clear plan of action to approve or deny
projects based on findings.
Vice President Cook concurred with Board member Kohlstrand's comment on more assistance and
guidance from the City Attorney during the meetings. She also suggested follow-ups on projects that
have previously come before the Board to ensure that what the Board approved is what the project
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
January 31, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-31.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-31,5,"Board focus on what they have before them. She also suggested moving the communications up in
the order of the agenda.
Ms Woodbury brought up effective meeting management and how it's the President's responsibility
to maintain order and keep things moving. She also mentioned that anyone wishing to speak should
be recognized by the President to make it easier to compile the public records and connect the
speaker to the right statement. Board members must be able to clearly articulate decisions, especially
when it is different from staff's recommendations. She noted the importance for everyone to respect
one another because all their comments are valuable.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
January 31, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-31.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-31,6,"In response to an inquiry by President Lynch on if a Board member could deny a project just because
they don't like it, Ms. Woodbury responded in the negative. She stated the Board had to make a
finding on why they would deny the project based on the Code.
Board member Maiani noted that Board members not take disagreements personally. She noted it is
okay to disagree respectfully.
5.
ADJOURNMENT:
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the Planning Board meeting of March 26, 2007. This meeting was
audio and videotaped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
January 31, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-31.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-12,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, February 12, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Mr. Cunningham
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy
Ashcraft, Kohlstrand, Mariani and McNamara.
Also present were Cathy Woodbury, Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas,
Assistant City Attorney Donna Mooney, Planner III Doug Vu, Recording Secretary Erin
Garcia.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of January 8, 2007.
Vice President Cook noted that page 14, paragraph 4 should be changed to, ""Vice
President Cook believed the study should go forward and the Measure A study forum
should also go forward.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to approve the minutes of February 12, 2007, as
amended.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 7.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
February 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-12,2,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
Design Review DR05-0041, DR05-0028 and UP05-0008 - Community
Improvement Commission and Alameda Entertainment Associates - 1416
Oak Street and 2305 Central Avenue (CE/JO). Consideration of amendments
to the Design Review and Use Permit conditions for the parking garage and
cineplex. Request is for an amendment to the timing for compliance with
Conditions of Approval from ""prior to issuance of a building permit"" to ""prior to
the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy"" The site is located within
a
C-C-T, Community Commercial - Theater Combining Zoning District. (This item
has been withdrawn from the Planning Board agenda and will be heard by
the City Council.)
Ms. Woodbury noted that this item had been approved by the Planning Board and then
appealed to the City Council. The City Council initially denied the appeal, upheld the
Planning Board's action, and adopted the same action as did the Planning Board. She
noted that this item would be considered by the City Council.
No action was taken.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
February 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-12,3,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
Planned Development PD05-0002 - Francis Collins - 2241 and 2243 Clement
Avenue (AT). The property owner is requesting a Planned Development
to construct 242 dwelling units on two (2) parcels totaling approximately 9.4 acres.
The site is located within the M-2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) Zoning
District (4.6 acres) and the R-2/PD, Two-Family Residence/Planned Development
Combining Zoning District (4.8 acres).
Mr. Thomas presented the staff report, and stated that because the findings could not be
made, staff recommended denial of this planned development approval. The proposed
project was not consistent with the General Plan, which called for a mix of uses on the
site; it was not consistent with the zoning designations on the property; the proposed
development plan did not provide a more efficient use of the site than could be achieved
under the district regulations; and it was not possible to make the finding that the
proposed developed plan would not have a significant impact on the adjacent land uses.
The public hearing was opened.
Robert McGillis, project architect, wished to clarify several items. He noted that the
Housing Element identified the entire property as being suitable and desirable for
housing. He believed the remaining 4.6 acres should be rezoned to allow for housing. He
understands that Mixed Use zoning allowed residential/industrial mix. He noted that that
the staff report did not note that the project met the 25% inclusionary housing, thus
entitling the area to the density bonus. He added that the staff report did not indicate that
they had provided all environmental reviews required, including a traffic report. A study
for the DTSC (Department of Toxic Substance Control) was provided as well, and was
out for comment at this time.
Mr. Joseph Woodard noted that staff did not mention the controversy surrounding this
site, and that the site had been identified in the Master Plan as a site for a park. He did not
want that issue to be forgotten, and believed it would allow that part of the City to be
more livable. He urged the Planning Board to adopt staff's recommendation to deny the
project.
Mr. Christopher Siewald noted that he employed approximately 100 people on Blanding
Avenue. He was pleasantly surprised by the project, which displayed the density of a city.
He liked the small houses, which reminded him of the cottage rows in Alameda. He
believed it lacked a fully interconnected street grid, and believed that cul de sacs and
dead ends were not neighborly. He would trade some of the open space for an open
space square inside the development, rather than its current location. He would support
this proposal if shops were to be located in the square. He opposed this project as
presented.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
February 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-12,4,"Member Kohlstrand noted that the proposal was not consistent with the zoning.
In response to an inquiry by Member McNamara regarding the items raised by the
applicant, Mr. Thomas replied that the site zoning and General Plan conformance was
discussed by staff. He noted that the Housing Element included a number of sites
throughout the City that were appropriate for future housing development. Since 1991,
the General Plan stated that within the general area, between 250-350 housing units, open
space and industrial uses should be included. The updated Housing Element from 1993
included a table identifying future housing development sites, which identified 300
potential housing units. Staff believed that the zoning adopted by City Council was
absolutely consistent with the General Plan.
President Lynch believed the applicant should contact staff, and that the staff response
may be provided to the Board.
Member Mariani suggested that the applicant bring this application to the City Council
because it did not conform with the zoning requirements.
Vice President Cook would welcome a proposal in keeping with the General Plan zoning,
and agreed with many of Mr. Siewald's comments; however, she would like to see some
public access on the site.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed the shoreline access was minimal and not welcoming
because of the lack of the street grid continuing through the development. She noted that
there was little public parking, with the exception of the shopping center at the foot of the
Park Street Bridge. She noted that Blanding and Clement were very busy streets, and that
the new homes would add to the congestion. She expressed concern about the rows of
three-story homes, which may obstruct the view of anyone in the neighborhood with a
smaller house. She hoped the traffic study would closely examine the traffic on Blanding
and Clement.
Board member Mariani moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution PB-07-03 to deny a
Planned Development to construct 242 dwelling units on two (2) parcels totaling
approximately 9.4 acres.
Vice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.
President Lynch called for a two-minute recess.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
February 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-12,5,"8-B.
Amendment to the Sign Program Associated with PD03-004 (Planned
Development) - Steve McCullagh - First Community Bank - 2531 Blanding
Avenue. The applicant requests an amendment to the Bridgeside Sign Program to
increase the maximum total sign area and install one additional panel sign on the
east elevation of the Nob Hill Foods building. The site is located in a C-2-PD,
Central Business District, Planned Development Combining Zoning District.
Mr. Vu presented the staff report, and recommended approval of this application.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Steve McCullagh, applicant, believed that the proposed sign would be a valuable
addition to the site, and would be subdued during the nighttime hours, in keeping with the
other signage. He thanked Mr. Vu for a thorough staff report.
Mr. Adam Garfinkle believed it was important to follow the City standards, and was
concerned about setting a precedent for future applications. He encouraged the applicant
to follow other advertising channels, rather than requesting an amendment to the Sign
Program.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft whether the proposed bank sign had
the same dimensions as Java City, Mr. Vu replied that they were approximately the same
size.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she had visited the site, and believed the sign was quite
attractive. She believed the propose sign would visually balance the existing signs. She
believed the trend toward one-stop shopping was reflected in this center, and believed
this was a good way for people to leave their cars and shop in one place.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook, Mr. Vu replied that no further signage
requests had been received for this development.
In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand, Mr. Vu confirmed that the Bridgeside
Sign Program was more restrictive than the City's signage requirements, and that the sign
would be internally illuminated.
Vice President Cook noted that she was not opposed to this particular sign, and agreed
with the other comments. She was concerned about the signage placed on the windows of
the petfood store. She would like the windows to contribute to the uses spilling out onto
the waterfront. She would like to revisit that issue. Mr. Vu noted that staff had noticed
that as well, and staff had approached the Petfood Express management. They stated that
the banners were meant to be used for grand opening purposes, and that they would be
removed after a certain period of time. He understood that no more than 25% of windows
or glazing may be covered by signs or decals. The development would not receive its
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
February 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-12,6,"final certificate of occupancy until those conditions had been met.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding proposed changes to the
public art in the center, Mr. Vu replied that the project went to the Art Commission, and
that the mast and the sail she referred to were not part of the public art project. The
applicant had applied for the public performance program, and would provide public art
in that manner.
Member Mariani requested a status report or call for review in the future about the
signage in the center, because of past experiences with the developer.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the project was entitled and could not be reviewed again. She
noted that staff would be happy to provide updates and lead a site visit, and added that
Mr. Vu had worked very closely with them with respect to signage.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch regarding opening dates, Ms. Woodbury
replied that Nob Hill Foods should open in about one month, and that temporary
certificates of occupancy may allow individual stores to open for business.
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution PB-07-04 to
approve an amendment to the Bridgeside Sign Program to increase the maximum total
sign area and install one additional panel sign on the east elevation of the Nob Hill Foods
building.
Board member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 7.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
February 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-12,7,"8-C. Workshop to discuss roles and responsibilities of the Planning Board and staff,
improvements in the effectiveness of meetings, and major planning projects and
initiatives in 2007. (Continued from the special meeting of January 31, 2007.)
Ms. Woodbury presented the staff report, and noted that the 2006 calendar had been very
heavy with many items having been continued. Staff would be cognizant of the mix of
controversial items with more routine items. Another idea was to hold special meetings
for workshops, with some of the special meetings being held on-site at a different time.
She noted that following the rules of procedure with respect to agenda order would
enhance efficiency. She added that using the Zoning Administrator to address
administrative use permits and variances, which would lighten the load of the agendas.
She emphasized that the Zoning Administrator hearings would also be publicly noticed
and open to the public.
President Lynch supported the use of Zoning Administrator hearings to enable the
Planning Board to address more detailed items more thoroughly during the regular
Planning Board meetings.
Ms. Woodbury advised that the same timetables for appeals and call for review would
apply to the Zoning Administrator hearings. She noted that a bulletin would be
distributed to the Planning Board regarding upcoming items.
In response to an inquiry by Member McNamara regarding how the agenda order was
determined, Ms. Woodbury replied that was delineated in the Rules and Procedures.
Member McNamara suggested shifting the less time-consuming item to the beginning of
the agenda. Ms. Woodbury noted that it was sometimes difficult to assess that possibility
before it starts, and that it was the Board's prerogative to change the agenda order.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft urged caution in reordering the agenda since some members of the
public plan to arrive at a certain time to hear a particular item. She did not want the
public to miss an item because it was moved up on the agenda.
Member McNamara noted that when the draft minutes were reviewed by the Board, the
Board had agreed to change the minutes to a summary from more detailed minutes. She
noted that when the Board makes corrections and edits to the draft minutes, it often
involves more detailed verbiage. She inquired what the current standard was for the
minutes. Ms. Woodbury replied that the summary minutes do have some level of detail to
ensure the comments and votes were captured correctly. She emphasized that the minutes
are based on what was actually stated during a meeting, not what was intended in
considering the content after the fact. She added that the audiotape and the City's webcast
center on the website were also available to the public. She noted that verbatim minutes
would reflect every word exactly as spoken.
Member Kohlstrand noted that with respect to meeting cancellation, she liked Member
Cunningham's recommendation of having a list of items to address. She believed that it
was awkward to cancel the January 22 meeting, followed by a special meeting on January
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
February 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-12,8,"31.
Member Kohlstrand noted that the staff comments and Board communications were
currently scheduled at the end of the meeting, and inquired whether those items could be
moved to the beginning of the meeting. Ms. Mooney noted that those rules of agenda
order may changed by Board resolution.
Member Mariani noted that when the meetings run very late, it was difficult to address
staff and Board communications at that late hour. She suggested that they be considered
earlier on the agenda.
Vice President Cook noted that when she reviewed the meeting tapes for South Shore,
there were many hours of audiotapes to search through. She suggested that the meeting
audio be available on CD so they could be reviewed in the car or on a home CD player.
Ms. Woodbury replied that was a good point, and added that since the meetings were
available on streaming video, perhaps a CD could be produced.
President Lynch suggested contacting the IT Department to diversify the sources.
Member Mariani noted that the shelf life for videotapes was limited, and agreed that they
be archived on DVD and CD.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the preparation for the Planning Board/City Council joint
meeting continued to move forward. She noted that President Lynch had inquired about
the Planning Board's role in relation to the economic development of a project.
President Lynch inquired about staff's concept of how that meeting would take place.
Ms. Woodbury replied that Planning staff was working with the City Manager's office,
and that previous meetings were not on the City Council regular agenda. She noted that in
the past, member of the public have attended, and that staff preferred that the previous
formats continue. She noted that the meeting may be held at the Library, or other
locations depending on the date and time.
President Lynch noted that members of the public have often commented about their
desire for clarity on issues such as economic development as they relate to land use and
other Planning issues. He suggested that joint meeting with the EDC and other bodies
may focus the discussion in a beneficial manner.
Member Kohlstrand would like to see some follow-up on the parking discussions held in
conjunction with the EDC.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she had been appointed to the Big Box Retail
Committee, and that no meetings had been held yet. Ms. Woodbury noted that would be a
standing item for follow-up on future agendas.
President Lynch suggested considering adding a status report on projects that had
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
February 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-12,9,"received their determination under Staff Communications.
No action was taken.
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-
President Cook).
Vice President Cook noted that there had been no further meetings since her last report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee
(Board Member Mariani).
Member Mariani noted that the next meeting would be held on February 15, 2007.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board
Member Kohlstrand).
Member Kohlstrand noted that there had been no further meetings since her last report.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force
(Board Member Cunningham).
Member Cunningham noted that the next meeting would be held on February 14, 2007.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
February 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-12,10,"11.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
a.
Work Program Status Report
Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report, and noted that Items 11-a and 11-b would be
agendized each meeting. He noted that items could move to different dates because
applicants can change their minds, and there could be changes within staff's involvement
in the items. He noted that this report would give the Board an opportunity to look three
months ahead. The Board would be able to maintain a list of every item being considered
by the Planning Board and that may be brought to City Council. Staff would like to have
a database of every application on file, which generally numbers between 100- 125
projects.
President Lynch noted that there were lingering questions regarding Alameda Town
Centre, and noted that the gas station application may not be addressed because of the
number of questions. He suggested scheduling a status report on the Town Centre before
March 26, 2007, in order to maintain the timeline. Mr. Thomas noted that staff would like
to schedule a study session to examine the Town Centre issues, including a walk around.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the study session could be held on the same
evening. She noted that she was pleased to see the study session for green building
ordinances for March 12, 2007, which she had lobbied for; she did not believe the City
needed to reinvent the wheel in that regard, and noted that many other cities had added
green building ordinances. She would like to see the draft ordinances brought back to the
Board, with a date certain to submit it to the City Council for their approval. She would
also like to see the next steps beyond the initial step.
Member Kohlstrand complimented staff on the list, and noted that the April 9, 2007,
meeting occurred during spring break. She was concerned that may not be a good date to
have major items on the calendar. She also wanted to ensure there was a reasonable
transportation network to support Alameda Landing, which she believed the
Transportation Commission should examine. She noted that Clif Bar needed to move
ahead before further action. Mr. Thomas noted that the approved Master Plan included
many transportation issues, including the street cross-sections, model, and open space
development concept. He noted that the bigger items would be presented for evaluation
before the smaller items such as Clif Bar could be addressed.
Member Kohlstrand noted that the May 29 meeting would address the Transportation
Element Update Study Session, and believed it would be a good idea to revisit those since
the City Council had adopted some transportation policies.
Vice President Cook noted that there was no Measure A forum on the list, and believed
that it should be addressed, or that a discussion why it would not be addressed should be
held. Ms. Woodbury noted that a workshop would be held, and that further workshops
may be spun off if needed. Vice President Cook believed it should be on the agenda, or if
not, that reason should be discussed.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
February 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-12,11,"Vice President Cook believed there should be discussions of continuity of waterfront
access, and a discussion held whether there should be common themes or different design
concepts. She would like to see more emphasis on pedestrian-friendly walkways. She
expressed concern about the City's gateways, and would like to see more gateway
planning efforts. She believed that uses such as food banks and the Salvation Army were
essential to the community but may not be appropriate for gateways. She added that other
uses such as auto uses and cigarette shops might not be appropriate gateway uses as well.
Vice President Cook would like staff's reports to summarize status of developers'
comments to follow up on and strengthen developer promises and commitments.
Member Cunningham inquired about the breadth of subjects that could be covered by
ordinances from a legal point of view. Ms. Mooney replied that it would depend on the
topic, and noted that the City has legal enforcement available to deteriorated buildings.
She noted that there were many factors to take into account, and that it would depend on
the specific subject matter.
President Lynch noted that the Health and Safety Code would address dilapidated
buildings.
Ms. Woodbury advised that the Planning Board typically addressed development
regulations, and staff has occasionally approached the Board to amend development
regulations for a certain purpose, such as K&L findings. She emphasized that she was
committed to using the staff resources as efficiently as possible, and that some items were
required to be performed by state law.
President Lynch believed the public would like to see the Towne Centre and gas station
on the same evening.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Adam Garfield agreed with Member Mariani's request to track developer
commitments.
Ms. Woodbury suggested that he speak with staff regarding any project-specific
comments and questions.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Lynch acknowledged that there was considerable frustration over the Blanding
project, and that a Board member may ask for a scheduled revocation hearing if certain
benchmarks were not met. He understood that the Board wished to avoid that, and that
there were significant differences of opinion. He suggested a site visit where Board
members could gain more information about signage and other items.
Member Mariani noted her disappointment in how the project had developed, after the
many hours of discussion and hearings by the Planning Board. She hoped the situation
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
February 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-12,12,"would improve, and that some consequences would follow noncompliance of specific
Board requests.
Member McNamara inquired about the Big Box Retail Study, and noted that she had not
heard anything further. Ms. Woodbury replied that no meeting had been scheduled yet,
and that no funds had been budgeted to hire the consultant. City Council believed that
many retail and leakage studies had already been held, and requested that staff compile
existing information for the committee. After that, it would be determined whether there
were any gaps in the information, and whether further study would be needed.
Member Kohlstrand suggested moving Staff Communication to follow Oral
Communication. Ms. Woodbury noted that could be agendized as an amendment to the
Rules and Procedures.
b.
Future Agenda Items.
None.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Anland
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the March 26, 2007 meeting. This meeting was audio
and videotaped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
February 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, February 26, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:05 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Mr. Cunningham
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy
Ashcraft, Kohlstrand, and McNamara.
Member Mariani was absent from roll call.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Donna Mooney.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of January 31, 2007.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft motioned to continue the minutes of January 31, 2007, to
the Planning Board meeting of March 12, 2007.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 6. [Absent: Member Mariani - 1.]
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
Member Cunningham suggested that if there were no speaker slips for Item 8-A, it may
be moved to the Consent Calendar.
Vice President Cook noted that she had a question about that item.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,2,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
Use Permit UP06-0019 - Applicant: Harry Hwang for Alameda Grill - 1520
Park Street (LA). The applicant requests a Use Permit to allow an existing 125
square-foot patio space to be used for customer seating. Pursuant to AMC
Subsection 30-4.9A(c)(b), a Use Permit is required for any permitted or
conditional use, which is not conducted within an enclosed structure. The site is
located within the C-C Community Commercial District.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-05 to
approve a Use Permit to allow an existing 125 square-foot patio space to be used for
customer seating. Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A(c)(b), a Use Permit is required
for any permitted or conditional use, which is not conducted within an enclosed structure.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 6. [Absent: Member Mariani - 1.]
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,3,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
Planned Development PD07-001/Parcel Map PM06-005 - Applicant: Will
Harrison - 700 Grand Street (BS). The applicant requests approval of a Planned
Development overlay on an existing R-1 (Single-Family Residential) district and
a Parcel Map to allow the division of an existing 25,000 square foot residential lot
into two parcels: each with an existing single-family dwelling. The property is
located within an R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would recuse herself from this item because of a
personal professional conflict.
Mr. Thomas presented the staff report, and recommended approval of this item.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook why this item was not presented as a
variance, Mr. Thomas replied that the planned development overlay approach provided
the flexibility. Staff did not feel the findings could be made for the variance in this case
because the lot was so large. Staff did not feel the historic location of the existing homes
or the historic quality of the wall qualified the project for a Planned Development.
Vice President Cook expressed concern about the curb cut on Grand because the
sidewalk narrowed in that area, as well as the presence of bike riders and the fact that the
bridge rose slightly. She noted that drivers would be backing in and out, and believed it
would be a risk to pedestrians and bicycle riders. She noted that the proximity of the
school was also a concern. Mr. Thomas noted that staff identified six parking alternatives
in the staff report.
In response to an inquiry by Member McNamara whether the sea wall would be
demolished, Mr. Thomas replied that was not the part that staff would consider historic.
He noted that it did not have structural significance with respect to the water, and that it
was the portion along Grand Street.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Will Harrison, applicant, representing the property owner, noted that they agreed
with the staff's recommendation regarding the tandem parking. Their first choice would
be to do nothing extra, because there was adequate on-street parking. He added that both
buildings had historical significance, and believed the parking design should be addressed
thoroughly. He noted that only the first five feet of the wall would be removed, because
the side yard of the house would be increased.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Member Kohlstrand suggested an additional condition requiring that any changes made
to the property or structures in the future would trigger a reevaluation of the off-street
parking situation.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,4,"Member Cunningham believed that as part of the planned development, the off-street
parking must come back to the Planning Board.
Vice President Cook moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-06 to
approve a Planned Development overlay on an existing R-1 (Single-Family Residential)
district and a Parcel Map to allow the division of an existing 25,000 square foot
residential lot into two parcels: each with an existing single-family dwelling, with the
modifications that Alternative 5 would be examined, and that any future changes made to
the property or structures would trigger a reevaluation of the off-street parking situation.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5. [Absent: Member Mariani - 1. Abstain: Member Ezzy Ashcraft]
Mr. Thomas noted that the PD overlay and the subdivision action required action by City
Council, and staff would revise the resolutions before taking the item to City Council.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,5,"8-B.
Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment GPA 07-0002 - Applicant:
City of Alameda (AT). The City requests a General Plan amendment to designate
approximately 110 acres of industrially designated properties to a specified mixed
use designation. The project area is generally bounded by Sherman Street on the
west, Buena Vista Avenue on the south, and Grand Street on the east. The
Oakland/Alameda Estuary forms the northern border of the area. The Northern
Waterfront project area is within several zoning districts; including R-2 (Two
Family Residence District), R-3 (Garden Residential District), R-4-PD
(Neighborhood Residential District, Special Planned Development District), M-1
(Intermediate Industrial), M-2 (General Industrial), C-M (Commercial-
Manufacturing District), and M-1-PD (Intermediate Industrial, Special Planned
Development District).
Member Ezzy Ashcraft returned to the dais.
Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report.
President Lynch advised that more than five speaker slips had been received.
Vice President Cook believed this was an important issue that justified allowing the full
five minutes for the speakers.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft agreed with Vice President Cook's comment.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Barbara Walker, 1920 Bay Street, noted that the preservation of the community
garden was very important, as was ensuring that Bay Street was not extended.
Ms. Sue McIntire, 1821 Bay Street, echoed the concern about maintaining the community
garden, and was also concerned about the traffic impacts in the neighborhood, especially
given the number of children in the neighborhood. She noted that there was a lot of truck
activity at the Del Monte site, which she believed had a negative impact on the
environment.
Mr. Tom Mills noted that he owned a property on the corner of Bay and Eagle, and that
the speed and volume of the traffic should preclude any building in that area.
Mr. James Bramell, Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee, presented the Board with
a letter asking to reschedule a meeting. He believed there was a Brown Act violation due
to the failure of personnel within the Planning Department who mixed the dates up. He
noted that they had addressed pollutants on the property, as well as what the best use of
the property would be. He understood that the mitigation of the spillage had not been
entirely adequate, and noted that he was concerned about loss of property value from
underground fumes, such as what occurred at Hamilton Air Base. He was concerned that
would be a litigable item. He noted that the Committee was not negligent because it
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,6,"recommended that that site only be used for open-air usage such as boat storage or
maintenance. He believed the discussion of this item should have been in the last
meeting's minutes, which they had requested.
President Lynch requested that Mr. Brammell submit the letter to staff to be entered into
the record. He noted that Planning staff would have a response to his remarks.
Ms. Barbara Kerr, President Northside Association, thanked Mr. Mills for clarifying that
Bay Street was included in the prohibition against the Northwood Extension, and that the
community garden was included in the definition of the park. She prepared amendments
to clarify these items that were not in the existing amendments, and would distribute
those documents to staff. She noted that there was a legal agreement signed by the City
Council that the community garden and the park at Park Village would never be
developed. She noted there should be adequate landscaping on Sherman and Buena Vista
so the surrounding residences do not get a view of asphalt and cars. She noted that the
Marina Village Business Park was a good example of what should be done, using berms
and hedges, as well as well-designed lighting. She believed that Wind River was a good
example of what not to do, including klieg lights that glare into neighboring residents'
bedrooms. She believed that the property owners and residents would be affected by this
project, and thanked Vice President Cook and Member Ezzy Ashcraft for believing they
should have as much time to speak as the developer.
Ms. Debra Arbuckle, 1854 9th Street, Northern Waterfront Specific Plan Committee,
noted that this group was formed to address many issues, including traffic in the beltline,
not having through streets, and trying to mitigate traffic, which she believed was a major
issue, especially with the D and F Levels of Service. She noted that hundreds of people
have invested time and energy in the neighborhood meetings and workshops. They were
concerned about traffic, development, open space. She noted that much of the plan
assumed that Railroad would be open space, and that it had been changed to Industrial
zoning. She detailed the legal background of this project, and inquired how the contract
which had been tied to the deed was no longer tied to it. She also noted that the traffic
reports seemed to have been altered. She was pleased to hear there would be more time to
consider this item.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether an entitlement plan was before the
Planning Board, Mr. Thomas confirmed that it was not at this time. President Lynch
added that the Planning Board would not discuss Mr. Wang's project, but that they were
charged with discussing the Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment.
Mr. Richard Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, noted that he had worked with Christopher
Buckley, who could not attend and had submitted a letter to the Planning Board. He read
the contents of the letter:
""1.
Do not allow future residential development in close proximity to Clement
Avenue, since Clement Avenue will be a truck route. Unfortunately,
residential development was allowed along Clement as part of the Marina
Cove project. This was a mistake that should not be compounded.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,7,"Although a notice was recorded on the Clement Avenue lots within
Marina Cove, informing property purchasers that Clement Avenue was to
be a truck route, I fear that the residents of these houses will experience an
unpleasant surprise when a truck route becomes operational. Prohibiting
residential uses along Clement should be reflected in guiding and
implementing policy group 10.3, policy 10.4(c), the General Plan Use
Diagram, and possibly other provisions.
""2.
Height limits: There are a number of height limits all over town in certain
locations that allow building up to 100 feet. Address height limits in the
General Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment area is now zoned M-2
and R4-PD. The M2 zone has a 100-foot height limit, and the R-4 zones
35 foot height limit is waived under the PD overlay. Maximum building
height within the plan amendment should be somewhere between 35 and
60 feet, depending on the subarea in use. 60 feet should probably be the
maximum height limit citywide. 100 feet is too tall for new development
anywhere in Alameda.
""3.
Design guidelines: Add an implementing policy to Section 10.8, Urban
Design, calling for design guidelines for each subarea, and addressing
such issues as building, siting, architectural style, exterior materials and
landscaping. These guidelines should be fleshed out in Section 10.8. The
City's Guide to Residential Design, although very good as far as it goes, is
primarily focused on existing neighborhoods, and needs to be expanded to
address the production housing that's likely to occur within the Plan
Amendment area.
""4.
Policy ET-5 (Encinal Terminal site): Amend the building height
provisions to express height in feet, as well as number of stories. The four-
story maximum height proposed for this site would be probably translate
to 50 feet.""
Mr. Rutter believed the height limit issues were important, as was the way the City would
plan Clement. He agreed completely with Mr. Buckley's comments.
Ms. Jean Sweeney expressed concern about the benzene plumes moving towards the
water, and believed they should be cleaned up. She noted that the soil should be cleaned
up before any new developments were to be considered. She requested that no through
streets go through the Beltline. She believed there was more housing in this area than was
originally intended. She believed the EDC recommendations were a good idea, and
requested the minutes of the October neighborhood meeting. She agreed with the
previous speakers.
Mr. Nick Cabral, 1544 Buena Vista, spoke in support of this project, and believed there
was a segment in Alameda that opposed every development project. He noted that he lived
across the street from this site, and added that with 250 trucks in general street traffic, he
never heard from anyone from the NWSP Committee regarding this site. He believed this
project would be an asset for the community, and that it would bring residential and
commercial uses to the neighborhood. He believed it would enliven the neighborhood, and
that it would bring in more tax revenue. He encouraged the Board to move forward on this
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,8,"item.
Mrs. Norma Arnerich, 3275 Encinal Avenue, submitted a speaker slip, but was not in
attendance to speak.
Mr. ""Lil"" Arnerich, 3275 Encinal Avenue, spoke in support of this item. He noted that
when he was on the City Council, he believed the Planning Board carried a tremendous
responsibility in determining projects for decades to come.
Ms. Ellen Lou, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, One Front Street, 24th Floor, San
Francisco, representing Mr. Peter Wang, property owner, Encinal Terminal/Grand
Marina, displayed a PowerPoint presentation and described some suggested changes to the
proposal.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Vice President Cook noted that in her waterfront planning experience, the goal had often
to be flexible with respect to land use. She noted that access points, preservation of
historical aspects and the quality of development were all important points. She wanted to
see this item move ahead, but wanted to ensure that the conflicts between the comments
had been resolved first. She wanted further clarification on Ms. Kerr's comments
regarding the pilings, which most of the City was built on.
President Lynch wanted to avoid wordsmithing the document at this meeting, and would
like to discuss reactions to the comments and policy matters.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft commended Mr. Thomas and the Planning staff on the quality
and thoroughness of the staff report. She had questions about how the childcare element
fit into the project. She believed that height restrictions were a major issue, and noted that
the upcoming green building workshop would address Bay-friendly elements. She
wanted to know about the intended green design elements.
President Lynch believed the Board should begin with Attachment A
Mr. Thomas detailed the background of the creation of this set of policies.
Member Kohlstrand stated that she would like to ensure that people had an adequate
opportunity to comment on the childcare policy, and would like it to be noticed as a
separate item.
Mr. Thomas noted that the childcare policies in Attachment B were implemented
Citywide, and believed that Member Kohlstrand's comments were fair. He noted that the
focus on childcare would be separately re-noticed.
Vice President Cook noted that she had many detailed comments that she would provide
separately.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,9,"Mr. Thomas noted that staff could return in a month. He was concerned about the height
limits brought up by AAPS, and noted that there were no Citywide height limits in the
General Plan. Height limits were generally addressed in the zoning or by the Master Plan
applicable to the project.
President Lynch did not believe the height limits should be addressed in the General Plan,
which is a policy document, not a zoning document. He would prefer to see the Planning
Board move towards the policies, and should state that in striving towards a certain
design goal, it may be met without the designs appearing to be cookie-cutter. He believed
those restrictions would belong in a zoning document, such as a PD overlay.
Member Cunningham noted that by setting rigid requirements such as wedding-cake
step-downs, the design would appear to be cookie-cutter, which he could not endorse.
Member McNamara supported the comments about fostering architectural creativity, but
was concerned that the heights of some of the buildings in Towne Centre were excessive.
She would support imposing some kind of height limit on the waterfront, with sensitivity
to the surrounding neighborhoods.
President Lynch did not differ with that opinion, but believed those restrictions were
more appropriate to the design review and zoning rather than a General Plan Amendment.
Vice President Cook was uncomfortable about the waterfront development guidelines
lagging behind, and believed they should be more than guidelines; she would like them to
have more teeth.
Member Cunningham noted that there were several instances the document that used the
word ""consider,"" and inquired whether it may be helpful to provide more concrete
direction. Mr. Thomas noted that it would be helpful for the Planning Board to create a
list of potential requirements with respect to those items. He noted that other items, such
as an assessment district or other concepts that may remain advisory, and that they should
not be forgotten as time passed.
Vice President Cook emphasized that she did not want to see any sound walls or gates.
President Lynch noted that the Board generally agreed on the first section.
Member Kohlstrand believed the traffic mitigation measures, especially with respect to
the striping, was fairly specific for a General Plan. Mr. Thomas noted that these particular
mitigations were called for after analyzing the EIR. He described the approach taken by
staff and the applicant, and noted that better solutions, such as a traffic circle, may be
appropriate. Member Kohlstrand preferred that such specific mitigations not be specified
in the document because of the long-range nature of the General Plan.
President Lynch noted that they seemed to be conditions of approval, and while they had
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,10,"merit and value, he did not feel they belonged in the General Plan Amendment.
Vice President Cook acknowledged Jean Sweeney's contribution to this issue, and noted
that the current traffic grid pattern was an legalitarian pattern, and was reluctant to rule out
one particular street configuration in perpetuity. She noted that the potential for the linear
park would be an incredible asset to the City that she believed should be accessible to the
City.
Mr. Thomas noted that a year ago, staff recommended that the Beltline be removed from
the Northern Waterfront General Plan because the City was trying to acquire the property
and because it was involved in a lawsuit at the time.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that the Transportation Commission be approached
regarding the transit district for the Northern Waterfront, since the City did not yet have
an existing transit district.
Member Kohlstrand requested a staff clarification recommendation for the transit district,
and inquired how this would change the existing EIR. Mr. Thomas replied that so far, the
discussions would not affect the conclusion of the EIR.
Ms. Mooney noted that there was a decision in the trial court in favor of the City last
August, and that it expected an appeal to be filed.
Ms. Mooney noted that there was a decision in the trial court in favor of the City last
August, and that it expected an appeal to be filed.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she strongly supported this concept, as long as it was
understood that it was not an ending point.
Mr. Thomas noted that it was important for future homeowners to be aware that Clement
would be extended, and that it would be a truck route. He noted that Alameda was an
island community with little room, but that Clement could be designed so the trucks
would move through slowly, and so pedestrians would be properly accommodated.
Member Cunningham noted that 10.8.g addressed the gateway enhancement, and would
like to include Grand Street and Fruitvale Bridge.
Mr. Thomas noted that Member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested a Citywide gateway program.
Vice President Cook agreed that it should be the Citywide policy that addressed all
gateways.
Member Cunningham noted that Ms. Kerr brought up a good point about fire services on
the waterfront, and inquired whether the City had fireboats. Mr. Thomas replied that the
City had two fireboats.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,11,"friend who had cited a declining student population because families with young children
could not afford housing in Davis. She noted that the City of Davis experienced student-
housing shortages because of the high price of the housing stock.
Vice President Cook inquired whether there could be a Measure A-compliant houseboat
community in Alameda.
Member Cunningham would like to introduce language to encourage reduction of vehicle
trips. Mr. Thomas noted that the Transportation Commission was working towards that
goal through Catellus and the TDM program to use shuttle services and alternate transit
services. He noted that the City had been meeting with AC Transit and described the
proposed EcoPass project.
Mr. Thomas noted that he would provide a brief presentation with graphics on March 26,
including detailed graphics on the Clement Street alignment, and how it was envisioned
to run through the Northern Waterfront. Staff would also provide information on the
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,12,"Pennzoil property with respect to hazardous materials. The policies addressing the
quality and character of properties at the waterfront would be included, and the item
would be re-noticed to include the childcare policies. The sound walls would be revisited,
and ""discouraged"" should be changed to ""prohibited.""
Member Cunningham noted that with respect to open space on the waterfront, there was a
lot of discussion around the City's ability to purchase open space. He inquired whether
there was a document to address open space development priorities.
Vice President Cook noted that she had recently visited Venice, California, and was
excited to see the improvements on that waterfront. She believed that Alameda should be
respectful of its maritime heritage without being a slave to it.
President Lynch wanted to see an environment that would be welcoming to people, and
did not want a repeat of Bridgeside.
Member Kohlstrand requested a redlined version of the suggested changes made by the
Planning Board.
Board member Cunningham moved to continue this item to the meeting of March 26,
2007.
Vice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,13,"8-C. Planning Board Rules and Procedures. Discussion and action on possible
amendments to the Planning Board Rules and Procedures.
Member Kohlstrand stated that she was very interested in seeing Staff Communications
moved up to follow either Agenda Changes and Discussion or Oral Communications to
receive the Director's report at the beginning of the meeting.
A discussion of the Zoning Administrator's report ensued. Ms. Woodbury noted that the
Zoning Administrator's report would not need to be approved, and that the report was
informational.
Mr. Thomas suggested that the Zoning Administrator's report be included in Staff
Communications.
Member Cunningham suggested that Written Communications be moved up on the
agenda, so that members of the audience could hear and comment on it.
Member McNamara suggested that ""by an applicant or other interested parties"" be
included in the language referring to materials received on behalf of the applicant. Mr.
Thomas wanted to ensure that submission of materials by other members of the public
would not be restricted. He noted that the noticing information requested that
submissions be received by a certain time to be included in the packet.
Member Kohlstrand did not believe it would be possible to restrict written public input
before a hearing.
Member McNamara noted that page 6, number 1 (Conditions) stated that conditions may
only be submitted by staff, and inquired whether Board members may do so as well.
President Lynch noted that the staff report may only be provided as written by staff. Once
the Board sees the staff report, it has the ability to accept, modify or reject the conditions.
Member McNamara noted that with respect to the Method of Documentation, she
inquired whether a CD or DVD may be used to archive the meeting. Mr. Thomas
suggested using best available technology. President Lynch noted that would be under the
purview of City Council and the IT Department.
Board member Cunningham moved to accept the amendments to the Planning Board
Rules and Procedures as amended.
Board member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 6. [Absent: Member Mariani - 1.]
Ms. Mooney noted that the amended rules would return to the Planning Board for a
Resolution, and that they may be changed by motion if the Board so chooses.
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,14,"a.
2007 - 2014 Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Element
Update.
President Lynch noted that some cities were not fulfilling their housing targets, and noted
that the housing numbers in the region were likely to change.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee
(Board Member Mariani).
Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board
Member Kohlstrand).
Member Kohlstrand advised that there was no action.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force
(Board Member Cunningham).
Member Cunningham advised that another meeting would be held in two weeks, and
were generally held on the third Thursday of each month.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATION
a.
Future Agendas and work program
Mr. Thomas described the future agenda items for the next six months.
President Lynch noted that the Northern Waterfront item would be held on March 26, and
that the April 9 meeting would be cancelled due to spring break attendance issues. He did
not see the Measure A Planning Board forum on the schedule. Mr. Thomas noted that
was not placed on the schedule yet. March 29 would be specifically held for Alameda
Point.
Mr. Thomas suggested that the Planning Board may want to form a subcommittee to
address some of the agenda issues.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when the joint meeting between City Council and the
Planning Board would take place.
President Lynch noted that he had previously worked in jurisdictions where the joint
meetings were part of the regular schedule, and the work plans were included in that
discussion. He was surprised that had not happened in Alameda.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-26,15,"Ms. Woodbury noted that the Recreation and Park Commission and the Utilities Board
had met with the City Council.
Mr. Thomas suggested that the Board advise staff that they would like to have a joint
meeting. He recalled that there had been one joint meeting within the last five years. He
understood the Board wanted to hold one, and staff would begin the process to set it up
after March 12, 2007. He noted that the April 9 meeting should be rescheduled so the
work did not back up. He noted that it would be difficult to address Harbor Bay and
Alameda Landing in the same meeting.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Sécretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the Planning Board meeting of March 26, 2007. This
meeting was audio and videotaped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
February 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-12,1,"Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting
Monday, March 12, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:39 p.m.
President Lynch advised that prior to this meeting, a tour and meeting had been held at
Alameda Town Centre. He noted that the Board members would speak to that session,
following by the closing of that session, and the opening of the regular session of the
Planning Board.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member Mariani
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy
Ashcraft, Kohlstrand, Mariani and McNamara.
Also present were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Planning Services
Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney Donna Mooney, Supervising Planner
Douglas Garrison, Planner I Simone Walter.
President Lynch invited comments from the Board regarding the tour at Alameda Town
Centre.
Member McNamara excused herself from this discussion.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft thanked Harsch Investments, Target and the Safeway gas station
for participating in the public dialogue. She had heard concerns about shopping cart
controls within the center and off premises. She noted that Walgreen's had installed
security strips that lock the cart wheels if they were to be taken off the lot. The applicants
indicated those strips could be installed at Safeway. She believed that more cart bays
should be installed within the parking lot.
Member Kohlstrand wished to thank Harsch Development Corporation and the
representatives from the other developments that coordinated the tour. She believed it
was very useful, and wished to reiterate the comments about the work involved in
resolving the circulation issues at the site, particularly those related to bike and pedestrian
access. She believed there should be more focus on trucks at this time. She acknowledged
that there would be challenges, and she looked forward to seeing some resolution on
those items. She believed a sidewalk on the east-west roadway was important. She
believed the Safeway Gas design would create conflicts in including the sidewalks, and
hoped that would be kept in mind. She would like to see more focus on the area by the
waterfront.
Vice President Cook was sorry that they did not get to the waterfront, and did not believe
the water orientation of this project had been properly addressed. She expressed concern
about the improvements taking place to the east of McDonald's. She believed that the
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
March 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-12,2,"four separate stand-alone buildings felt to her like restaurant destinations. She hoped to
see a mix of building scales so a shopper could get a cup of coffee quickly without going
into one of the sit-down restaurants. She would like to see a safer way for people to cross
the street. She expressed concern about the pedestrian and bicycle issues, and was also
concerned about the gas station at such a busy corner. She noted that they had not
discussed the parking garage at Mervyn's, and would like to hear more public discussion
on that subject, especially regarding the circulation dynamics.
Member Cunningham expressed concern about the threshold for the development, as well
as the reasoning behind it and the economic model. With respect to the proposed site plan
at Building 800, there was a service yard at right angles to the main road going past
Target. He would like to know how the traffic flow would work by the service dock at
Building 800.
Member Mariani noted that the visual was very important in being able to take the
features in, and added that many people attended the tour. She was uncomfortable about
part of the tour referring to proposed projects as ""done deals."" She wanted to be
extremely mindful of the residents of the Willows, and hoped they could be
accommodated.
Member Kohlstrand expressed concern about the massing of the proposed Target
building, because of the traffic generated and the size of the store. She added that it
would be surrounded by residential property.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft wished to echo Member Cunningham's comments on green
building design, and noted that the Target in Davis would be LEED certified. She noted
that the Climate Protection Task Force was becoming very active in the City, and that
both Peet's Coffee and Clif Bar had decided to build LEED certified buildings. She was
anxious to see what Target could develop along those lines.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook about the truck route, Mr. Thomas
noted that the truck route would run down Park Street. He explained that there were a
very limited number of roads that could be used as truck routes in Alameda.
Member Mariani noted that the arches, vines and the wildlife expressed a small-town
charm in the center, which was more comfortable than a big Target. She was very
concerned about the massing of the Target in the center.
President Lynch suggested that the Target team provide a matrix to the Board in terms of
the Targets around the Bay Area, with a visual of the store and a description of the store's
dimensions.
The public hearing was closed.
Member McNamara returned to the dais.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
March 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-12,3,"4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the special meeting of January 31, 2007.
Member Cunningham motioned to continue the minutes for the special meeting of
January 31, 2007, to March 26, 2007
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 7.
b.
Minutes for the meeting of February 12, 2007.
Member Cunningham motioned to continue the minutes for the meeting of February 12,
2007, to March 26, 2007
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 7.
C.
Minutes for the meeting of February 26, 2007.
Member Cunningham moved to continue the minutes for the meeting of February 26,
2007, to March 26, 2007
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 7.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Mr. David Howard expressed concern that the Target traffic studies did not do enough
analysis regarding traffic coming across the bridges and in the Tubes en route to Target,
particularly down Constitution Way, past Washington School and Park, and down
Shoreline or Otis, and then back on the way out. He had not seen any studies that
analyzed that traffic pattern. He noted that during the walking tour, people asked
questions during and after the tour, and that there were no speaker's slips available. He
noted that President Lynch closed the public hearing for that item, and noted that Item 8-
C changed the rules and procedures, possibly pushing Oral Communications after Staff
Communications. He hoped this would not mean that this would make it more difficult
for the public to speak in the future.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was there for the entire tour, and while there were
no speaker slips, there were many speakers. She noted that their names and comments
were taken down, and that Mr. Thomas had stated clearly that the comments would be
incorporated into the final record. She estimated that there were over six speakers, and
that some spoke more than once. She did not want the public to be left with the
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
March 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-12,4,"misimpression that public comment was not welcome, and noted that over 50 people
were there.
President Lynch noted that it was never the desire of the Board or staff to curtail any
public comment, and that comments were encouraged.
7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
March 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-12,5,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A. Green Building and Bay-Friendly Landscape Presentation (AT). A
presentation by StopWaste.org regarding Green Building and Bay-Friendly
Landscaping Ordinance. Representatives from StopWaste.org will present
information on the benefits of adopting an ordinance, the areas addressed by the
ordinance, who has adopted and implemented similar ordinances, and technical
resources available from StopWaste.org to help with adoption and
implementation.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Karen Kho, StopWaste.org, introduced herself and noted that their presentation
would address an integrated approach to design, construction and maintenance of
buildings and landscapes. She noted that benefits of green building included more
efficient use of natural resources, greenhouse gas reductions, and social benefits to
residents of buildings, including increased productivity in schools and businesses. These
practices were intended to reduce the level of exposure of both construction and
maintenance workers in terms of toxic materials. The financial benefits of these practices
would include lower energy and water bills, as well as the reduced need for replacement
of materials over the long term because they were more durable and designed better. She
displayed the green building standards on the overhead screen, and provided an overview
of the green building-rating program. She displayed building and commercial and
residential landscaping practices within the green building program. She provided an
overview of the practices involved in the three sets of sustainable programs, including the
site and community, and how well the landscaping connected with its community.
Practices during construction included protecting topsoil and recycling construction
waste to minimize impacts on the community, particularly protecting healthy topsoil,
avoiding the introduction of invasive plant species and maintaining a diverse plant
palette. This would lead to greater plant health and resiliency. Water energy efficiency
would be encouraged by reducing the amounts of wood being used in a building with
more efficient design. Bioswales help increase water efficiency on-site, and help the
project achieve a LEED Gold rating. Plants that tolerate the summer dry climate are
encouraged, and high efficiency irrigation systems are encouraged. More efficient
appliances are available on the market.
Ms. Kho noted that the operations and maintenance aspect of the program would ensure
that the green building practices incorporated into a building or landscape would continue
over the life of the building and landscape. Over-watering and over-fertilizing of plants
would be unhealthy for the plants, and would waste resources. Toxic fertilizers and pest
control would be discouraged in favor of healthier materials. She noted that the following
policies would be included:
1. Lead by example. A model green building ordinance would apply to public
projects and public/private partnerships.
2. Adopt an environmentally preferable purchasing policy for all City operations
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
March 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-12,6,"and maintenance.
3. For private projects with no public money involved, the City would take a role
in educating, motivating and providing incentives to private developers.
4. All applicants would submit a green building checklist appropriate to the type
of project proposed to apply for their entitlements. There was no requirement
for a score, but it was a required part of the submission. A green building
consultation for developers would be encouraged.
5. Staff review and comment on green building and landscaping aspects of the
project.
6. In some communities, completion of the green building checklist was
included as a condition of approval.
She displayed a summary of green building policies of different cities around the Bay
Area. She noted that they would be available for assistance and education to staff and
City officials.
President Lynch requested a copy of the PowerPoint presentation to the Board members,
and inquired whether StopWaste.org served only Alameda County. Ms. Kho confirmed
that they served Alameda County. While other counties have green building assistance,
other programs do not have the extensive training provided by StopWaste.org. President
Lynch thanked Ms. Kho for her thorough presentation.
President Lynch noted that he would be leaving the meeting and turned the meeting over
to Vice President Cook.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Stan Schiffman, Chairman, Alameda Task Force on Climate Protection, noted that he
was delighted that the Planning Board was discussing this topic. He was sure that one of
the Task Force's recommendations would be to encourage the City to adopt a green
building ordinance.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the details of green building certification. Ms. Kho
noted that she did not have that information on hand, but would provide it to the Board
members.
Member McNamara noted that this was a huge effort, and looked forward to
incorporating these policies into City efforts.
Member Kohlstrand inquired whether there was a similar set of guidelines for
commercial development. Ms. Kho noted that they recommended the use of the LEED
rating system, which had an extensive set of guidelines for commercial developments.
She could provide that to the City at a later date, and that they were available online.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
March 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-12,7,"Member Cunningham noted that he was very supportive of this effort. He inquired
whether the demolition ordinance would be separate from the green ordinance or
sustainable ordinance. Ms. Kho noted that they were typically separate ordinances. Ms.
Woodbury noted that the City already had a demolition ordinance, which already had a
Recycling and Waste Reduction requirement.
Member Mariani noted that she supported green building practices, and added that while
it may be more expensive at the front end, the savings had been worth it in her own
home.
Member Cunningham noted that when green practices were designed into a building
design, it saved costs from the beginning as compared with retrofitting the building.
Ms. Kho noted that much of the costs were associated with the learning curve. She noted
that there was a directory of green building professionals at www.apBuildItGreen.org
Member Cunningham suggested using architects that were LEED-certified.
Acting President Cook suggested adding this item to the Work Program discussion for
Item 8-B.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
March 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-12,8,"8-B. Workshop Program Discussion (CW). A presentation and discussion of
Planning and Building Department work program priorities, resources and items
for future Planning Board Consideration.
Ms. Woodbury summarized the staff report and identified the members of Planning staff.
She displayed a PowerPoint presentation, and described the elements of the Strategic
Work Program in detail.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speakers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Member Mariani thanked Ms. Woodbury for the organized outline, and inquired whether
the density bonus plan had a deadline with respect to the Housing Element. Mr. Thomas
replied that State law required that the City adopt certain ordinances and keep them up to
date, including the density bonus and the secondary unit. He noted that the City identified
those as two high-priority actions in the 2003 Housing Element, and that the State
required that they be included in the Housing Element. He noted that those items had
been placed on the back burner even though a lot of work had been accomplished, and
did not want to make the same promises to the State during the next Housing Element
cycle that had not been fulfilled from the last time. Staff had renewed concern about
those outstanding items, and that much of the work had already been performed.
Member Mariani expressed concern about the default position, and added that Alameda's
needs were different than the statewide guidelines.
Member Cunningham noted that it would be beneficial for the City to be mindful of what
other cities were doing with respect to Work/Live and Land Use. He believed there had
been many good discussions with respect to the density bonus, which related to Measure
A.
Acting President Cook inquired how the City could have a Density Bonus without having
density under Measure A. Ms. Woodbury replied that there were many ways to have
density without multiple family units, and believed that a workshop would enable the
Board to explore those possibilities.
Mr. Thomas noted that the City was in the process of developing a Secondary Unit
Ordinance that would be in compliance with State law, because the current ordinance was
not in compliance with State law. State law also required adoption of an ordinance that
explained how the required Density Bonus ordinances would be implemented with
respect to affordable housing.
A discussion of priority-setting ensued.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
March 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-12,9,"Member McNamara inquired what would happen after a consultant is hired for State-
mandated items. Ms. Woodbury noted that they would come to the Planning Board for
their recommendation to City Council. She added that there would be a number of
workshops and other opportunities for the Planning Board to become involved before
they were asked to make a recommendation to Council.
Member Cunningham noted that the many members of the public had requested
a
comprehensive island traffic study, which would involve an understanding of trip
generation and traffic flows within the Island.
Mr. Thomas noted that the Transportation Commission has spent considerable time
working through a set of Citywide policies, which would be packaged into a
Transportation Element update. As part of that, an environmental consultant and traffic
consultant will be hired to do an EIR for that process. The policies would come through
the Planning Board for recommendation to the Council. One task was to examine the
transportation policies in conjunction with the City's land use plans, and to provide
information with respect to how the transportation network would work with the
Citywide development plan, including the major ones on the West End. He noted that the
Transportation Commission has finished a global set of policies for the General Plan, and
that they have begun to tackle more specific policies. The pedestrian policy is completed,
and they have moved to the transportation demand management policies. They have set
up a series of routes throughout the City based on their understanding of transportation
needs and flows throughout the City, and where it was needed to enhance transportation
effectiveness to accommodate those flows. He added that they would test those
assumptions as part of the Transportation Element Update.
Member Kohlstrand noted that she had participated in some of the early workshops, and
added that the Transportation Commission had put a lot of effort into the activity, which
they also initiated. She noted that the Public Works Department had taken over from
there, and she would like to see information following that transition. She believed it was
important to ensure that State-mandated compliance items were met, and noticed that
staff had not mentioned the Land Use Element, as well as compliance with the
Subdivision Map Act. She inquired when those two items would be brought to the
Planning Board.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the Subdivision Map Act should have been listed, because that
addressed housing as well. She noted that it was not at the level of the Density Bonus
Ordinance and the Secondary Unit Ordinance, and that staff would need to bring it up to
speed with the State law. She understood that was in the works. She endeavored to put
related projects together to streamline the information flow.
Member McNamara believed that it would be very beneficial to have a flow chart of the
pending permit process, for residents who wished to do a remodel or other modification
to their home. Ms. Woodbury noted that the kind of flow chart would depend on the kind
of process, which was not as simple as it seemed.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
March 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-12,10,"Member McNamara noted that Line 12 addressed providing articles from the local
newspaper, and noted that had been done several weeks before regarding Alameda
Towne Centre, which she believed was educational for the public.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed the Chamber of Commerce would welcome a
presentation of green building ordinances. She believed the introduction of green building
practices was easier to introduce than had it been when the library was being designed
and built. She noted that with the increasing opening of the waterfront to the public, it
would be important to have increased awareness of green-friendly design and landscape
architecture. She believed it was good for the City, and that it should be implemented as
soon as possible. She requested that any photocopies be double-sided to minimize the
amount of paper consumed.
Acting President Cook agreed with the previous comments, and thanked Ms. Woodbury
for her work. She would like to see a waterfront design and access element, which
addressed gateway treatments in Alameda. She believed it should be broader than the
Northern Waterfront, and should also include Alameda Point. She would like to revisit
the downtown visioning plan, and follow-up steps to include in the work program going
forward, which she believed was an important step forward in Alameda's planning
process.
Member Cunningham noted that he sat on that task force, and when the outgoing City
Manager, Jim Flint, left, he disbanded that group.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft would like to see a drawing of what was happening with Long's
Ms. Woodbury noted that she had just provided that to City Council, and would be happy
to provide it to the Planning Board as well.
Acting President Cook would like a better understanding of the Planning Board's role in
Alameda Point. She noted that she was the Planning Board representative for some of the
Base Reuse Advisory Group's meetings, and when it was disbanded, she understood that
occurred because the work needed to be brought back into the purview of the Planning
Board. She was surprised that there was no presentation by the developers before the
Board, and wanted to understand the Planning Department's and Planning Board's roles
in that project.
Mr. Thomas noted that the City Council, acting as the ARRA, was looking for
a
developer to replace APCP in order to step in where they stepped out. He described the
process of the Conditional Acquisition Agreement, and that they chose not to proceed. If
they had chosen to proceed, they would have begun to fund the process. The new
development team would begin the entitlement process for a Master Plan for Alameda
Point, and they would develop their own proposal for Alameda Point. He described the
two-year entitlement process.
Acting President Cook noted that she did not want to see that process rushed, and that she
would like to ask the developers whether they would agree to the [PDC] or change it. She
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
March 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-12,11,"believed it was given more weight than it otherwise would have been.
Mr. Thomas noted that in order to achieve all the goals in the Alameda Point General
Plan would take some compromise. He added that everyone would not be able to get
everything they wanted, and that tradeoffs were necessary.
No action was taken.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
March 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-12,12,"8-C. Planning Board Rules and Procedures. Resolution amending the Planning
Board Rules and Procedures.
Ms. Mooney noted that the section on page 5 (Deliberations and Decisions) that
discussed a Board member who abstains was outdated, and was at least 17 to 20 years
old. She noted that the rules presently state that the Board member was not required to
indicate a reason, and suggested removing that section altogether. She suggested
substituting language similar to, ""Conflict of interest shall be according to State law.""
Acting President Cook wished to revise the Conflict of Interest section, and did not want
the removal of an outdated section to be misconstrued. She would like it to read that the
policy would be governed by State law.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was uncomfortable voting for something that she
has not seen in writing.
Member Kohlstrand noted that her intent in recommending that the Staff
Communications be moved forward was to allow time to hear a report from staff, but did
not have a preference where it was schedule in relation to Oral Communications. She
believed the public felt more comfortable in having it come after Oral Communications.
Member Cunningham believed it made more sense to keep it where it was scheduled.
Member Mariani noted that City Council held their Oral Communications at the end of
their calendar, which required members of the public to wait many hours to speak. She
preferred to hold it at the beginning of the meeting.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-07 to
amend the Planning Board Rules and Procedures.
Board member Mariani seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
6
(Lynch absent).
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
March 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-12,13,"9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
Acting President Cook noted that a letter had been received from Helen Sause regarding
some possible items for discussion for a Measure A forum. It reminded her that they had
discussed forming a small committee for a Measure A forum; she would like to start that
process soon.
Ms. Woodbury inquired whether the Board would like that item to be placed on the next
agenda in order to appoint an ad hoc committee.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to place discussion of an ad hoc committee for a
Measure A forum on the next agenda.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 6 (Lynch absent).
Ms. Woodbury noted that an agenda item would be placed, allowing the Board to appoint
an ad hoc committee to work with staff on the Measure A forum/workshop.
In response to Member Kohlstrand's inquiry regarding the allowed number of members
to be in compliance with the Brown Act, Mr. Thomas confirmed that there could be three
members.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
March 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-12,14,"10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee
(Board Member Mariani).
Mr. Thomas noted that the next meeting would be held the following Thursday, March 15,
2007. A status report would be received from ACTIA on the Broadway-Jackson Project
Study Report (PSR). Staff had invited the Chair of the Alameda Transportation
Commission, John Knox-White, to attend the meeting, because the Transportation
Commission had taken the lead for the City of Alameda in pressing for a second look at the
CEQA thresholds for transportation impact analysis. He noted that the mitigations needed to
be examined more closely. They would be looking for consultant teams who could provide
good ideas and advice on the CEQA threshold issue. He noted that Chinatown was very
excited about that as well.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board
Member Kohlstrand).
Member Kohlstrand advised that there was nothing new to report.
Mr. Thomas noted that the subcommittee might not exist any more, and added that the
Northern Waterfront item had been removed from Board Communications. He noted that
he would check with Public Works and the Transportation Commission to find out
whether this item should be retained on the agenda.
C.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force
(Board Member Cunningham).
Member Cunningham advised that a meeting had been held two weeks before, and that
another one would be held on March 21, 2007. He noted that their packets contained
a
lost of goals and actions to identify the top priorities.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
March 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-12,15,"11.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
a.
Future Agendas and work program
Mr. Thomas distributed the list of 106 applications that were currently on file in the
Planning & Building Department to the Board members. He noted that many projects did
not come to the Planning Board. In terms of upcoming agendas, he noted that they
intended to limit the agendas to only one major item, plus other less challenging items.
On March 26, the Northern Waterfront EIR and General Plan Amendment would be
heard. A design review on Haight Avenue would also be heard.
Mr. Thomas noted that the workshop would be held on March 29, which was designed to
generate a lot of good information and would focus on two alternatives to the PDC. One
alternative would be relieved of the Measure A constraint, and one would not be relieved
of the Measure A constraint but would address changing the plan to be more supportive
of transportation.
Mr. Thomas noted that April 18 would be a special meeting held in lieu of the April 9
meeting cancelled due to vacation schedules. He noted that would conflict with the
[ICLEI] Task Force meeting. The major item on that agenda was the EIR public hearing
on Harbor Bay Village VI General Plan Amendment, and that a decision would not be
made at that meeting. A very large turnout was expected at that meeting. The other three
items were expected to be fairly easy, and may be placed on Consent Calendar, with the
possible exception of the Hawthorne Suites parking exception.
Mr. Thomas noted that the Safeway gas proposal would be held on April 23, 2007, and
staff anticipated being ready for the Alameda Landing Phase I development plan. Site
planning issues would be discussed, but architectural issues would not be discussed. The
shopping center may be discussed.
Mr. Thomas noted that the May 29 meeting may contain the Transportation Element
update, and that a joint meeting may be held with the Transportation Commission for that
item.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a Zoning Administrator would be hired. Ms.
Woodbury noted that the role of Zoning Administrator was fulfilled by the Planning and
Building Director, or someone designated by the Planning and Building Director.
Member McNamara inquired about the status of Long's Ms. Woodbury noted that it was
a façade renovation, and that an Art Deco theme to the exterior had been developed. She
noted that all the design review letters would be sent to the Planning Board members, and
noted that several parking spaces would be lost.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the street trees in front of the library. Ms.
Woodbury believed there had been a delay in getting the planter boxes.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
March 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-12,16,"12.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the Planning Board meeting of March 26, 2007. This
meeting was audio and videotaped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
March 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, March 26, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:06 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member Cunningham
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy
Ashcraft, Kohlstrand, Mariani, and McNamara.
President Lynch was absent from roll call and arrived during Item 4.
Also present were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Planning Services
Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney Donna Mooney, Executive Assistant
Latisha Jackson.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of January 31, 2007
Member Cunningham noted that page 5, paragraph 3, should be changed to read, ""Board
Member Cunningham noted that the community and development had a clear outline of
the project goals
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 2, paragraph 6, should be changed to, ""She
stated that if personal emails were used for Board communications, and if litigation
occurred, all personal emails could be requested by the person or entity that brought the
litigation.
Board member Cunningham moved approval of the minutes as amended.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 6. Absent: President Lynch.
b.
Minutes for the meeting of February 12, 2007
Board member Kohlstrand noted that page 8, second to last paragraph, stated that she had
been appointed to the Big Box Retail Committee, which she noted was not the case. She
believed that it was Board member Ezzy Ashcraft and McNamara as an alternate, and
added that she had not said that.
Board member Cunningham inquired about the window coverage relative to the First
Community Bank, and requested further information about any impact on leasing as a
result of the glazing requirements. Ms. Woodbury noted that she could invite the owner
of the center to make a presentation. Board member Cunningham noted that would not
be necessary.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,2,"Acting President Cook noted that page 4, paragraph 4, should be changed to read, ""Vice
President Cook would welcome a proposal keeping in the General Plan zoning and
agreed with many of Mr. Siewald's comments..
Acting President Cook noted that on page 5, there were comments about the glazing, and
her concern that conditions about not covering the glazing so that there would be eyes on
the waterfront and thereby enlivening the waterfront. She asked if that issue could be
revisited with a staff report, particularly regarding Pet Express. Ms. Woodbury suggested
that the subject be discussed during the briefing on the site.
Acting President Cook noted that page 10, second to last paragraph, addressed
commitments made by developers and whether they were adequately memorialized in
conditions and permits. She noted that it should read, ""Vice President Cook would like
staff reports to summarize the status of developers' promises and commitments."" She
would like it to be standard with phased developments.
President Lynch arrived at the meeting and joined the Board on the dais.
Board member Mariani noted that she had requested a status report on the signage
regarding Pet Food Express as well.
Board member Mariani moved approval of the minutes as amended.
Board member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 7.
c.
Minutes for the meeting of February 26, 2007
Board member Kohlstrand noted that page 10, middle of the page, should read, ""Board
member Kohlstrand requested a staff clarification recommendation for the Transit
District and inquired how this would change the existing EIR."" She inquired whether
there was a general question whether the overall changes to the plan would affect the EIR
rather than that particular item.
Board member Cunningham noted that page 12, paragraph 2, addressed his comments
with respect to open space on the waterfront, and that he inquired whether there was a
document to address open space development priorities."" He noted that some potential
open space developments could compete with each other.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 3, Item 8-A, stated that she would recuse
herself from the item for professional reasons. She noted that she had actually recused
herself for personal reasons.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 11, third paragraph up, discussed
affordable housing available for rent and referenced her comment about the City of
Davis. She did not say there was a student housing shortage, but that she had paraphrased
a conversation with a friend who had cited a declining student population because
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,3,"families with young children could not afford housing in Davis.
Vice President Cook wished to address her comment on page 12, regarding about the
Encinal Terminal project and improvements in Venice, California. She noted that while
the improvements were terrific, she wanted to stress that they reflected Venice's
development, but did not think that recreating that type of theme in the Encinal Terminal
was not necessarily appropriate. She believed the development in Alameda should be
respectful of Alameda's maritime heritage without being a slave to history.
Board member Kohlstrand moved approval of the minutes as amended.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 7.
d.
Minutes for the Alameda Towne Centre Workshop of March 12, 2007
These minutes were not available for consideration and would be reviewed at a future
meeting.
e.
Minutes for the Special meeting of March 12, 2007.
Ms. Mooney noted that on page 12, she made comment about the page 5 Deliberations
and Decisions in the Planning Board Rules and Procedures. She noted that the Board
member was not required to indicate a reason, and that it should read, ""The rules
presently state that the Board member was not required to indicate a reason.' She did not
want it to appear that law did not presently require anything to happen if there's a conflict
of interest or bias.
Vice President Cook noted that page 2, paragraph 1, noted that with respect to the South
Shore project. She was concerned that the apparent scale of the restaurant on the corner
seemed to be four separate standalone buildings. She wished to clarify that there should
be a mix of size and scale of buildings so that people could get a sandwich or coffee and
go back to the beach other than fast food in that location.
Vice President Cook noted that on page 10, middle of the page, should be changed to
read, ""She would like to revisit the Downtown Visioning Plan and follow-up steps to
include in the work program going forward.""
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that on page 5, Item 8-A, Ms. Ko's name should be
corrected to be spelled ""Kho"" throughout the minutes.
Board member Kohlstrand moved approval of the minutes as amended,
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 7.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,4,"Board member Mariani inquired about the number of speaker slips for Item 9-C and
whether it should be heard first.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft proposed moving 9-B to the top of the Regular Agenda,
which involved an individual applicant.
President Lynch noted that nine speaker slips had been received for Item 9-C, and that
five speakers had been received for Item 9-B, and two speaker slips had been received for
Item 7 (Oral Communications). He proposed that the agenda be ordered as follows: Items
9-B, 9-C, 9-A, 9-D, 10 and 11.
Vice President Cook moved to hear Item 9-B first, followed by Items 9-C, 9-A, 9-D, 10
and 11.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 7.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Future Agendas
Ms. Woodbury provided a bulleted item in the packet describing the future agendas.
Board member Mariani inquired whether the Community Workshop would be televised,
and believed it should be televised.
Mr. Thomas noted that it would be held at the Mastick Senior Center because the facility
did not have television facilities. However, the proceedings would be videotaped to be
shown at a later date. Board member Mariani believed that it was very important to make
the meeting proceedings accessible to the general public.
Board member McNamara inquired whether a date had been set for the Bridgeside site
visit. Ms. Woodbury noted that the visit would take place after the project was finaled,
perhaps in early summer.
Board member Mariani noted that Long's was a minor design review, with no input from
the Planning Board. She would like to keep track of that item, and believed it was a large
project.
Ms. Woodbury noted that staff would keep the Board up to date on the progress of that
item.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff would present the Harbor Bay Village GPA EIR public
hearing item at the April 18, 2007, meeting. The Hawthorne Suite item has been delayed
as a result of changes requested by the applicant, and the 1000 Atlantic commercial
condominium has been rescheduled to April 23, 2007. The decision on the Boatworks
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,5,"item had been appealed and would be heard by the City Council on April 3, 2007.
Board member McNamara inquired whether the Alameda Point Station Area planning
presentation on April 18 would be a duplication of the March 29 presentation. Mr.
Thomas replied that it would be summarized for the Board members unable to attend the
March 29, 2007, and that it could be pushed to a later agenda.
Board member Mariani thanked staff for placing this item at the beginning of the
meeting.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,6,"7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Mr. Dave Kirwin wished to follow up on Board member Mariani's comments regarding
televising the community meeting being held at Mastick. He hoped that all the meetings
could be recorded in a format that could be viewed on the streaming video portion of the
City website. He noted that would be the most convenient for people with Internet access
to see the proceedings of the meeting.
Ms. Barbara Kerr noted that she had been at the Bridgeside Shopping Center recently,
and recalled her tenure on the City Council when the developer wanted unpainted
corrugated iron siding on the building. She noted that she had talked to him about
windows on the waterfront, and added that when the developer encountered the Planning
Board, he encountered more focused insistence on glass on the waterfront side.
Mr. David Howard concurred with Mr. Kirwin's comments regarding other meetings on
the website. He wished to voice his objection to the mindset of some within the
community and Planning Services that high-density housing was necessary to support
transit, and that transit was therefore necessary to support high-density housing He cited
studies that stated that transit use ranged from 30- 36%, and that most of the trips would
be by automobile. He noted that less than 20% of the transit budget came from the fare
box, and stated that Mayor Newsom of San Francisco had requested that fares no longer
be collected at the box because of the cost of doing SO. He suggested focusing on low-
density housing, and if a subsidy were to be employed, that low-emissions vehicles or
bicycles be subsidized instead of high-density housing and transit.
President Lynch suggested that members of the public may also wish to address any
transit issues to the Transportation Commission.
Board member Mariani suggested that the speaker was promoting high-density housing
and wrapping it in with transit.
President Lynch noted that the Transportation Commission would be able to address fare
collection and subsidies.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,7,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-B.
MDR07-0003 (Minor Design Review) - Applicant: Peter Ekstein - 463 Haight
Avenue (SW). The applicant requests a Planning Board interpretation regarding
staff's finding that an existing parking space of 32 feet and 6 inches constitutes
two compact parking spaces. Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-7.3 existing
parking spaces must be kept in working order and may not be reduced to less than
existing numbers.
Mr. Thomas presented the staff report in Simone Wolter's absence.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Peter Ekstein, project architect, noted that the most important issue was the location
of the stair inside the home, and believed it was appropriately located to be consistent
with the architectural style of the building. He noted that the stair location interfered with
the location of the second car, which had never been in that location. He believed
requiring a second parking space was not consistent with the architectural style. He noted
that many people in the neighborhood park in their front yard, although they have
garages; he inquired why the City did not seem to be concerned about that. He noted that
the clients would not use that second parking space. He inquired when the unconditioned
space would be able to be developed, and noted that there was no written guidance
regarding that issue.
Mr. Mark Takemoto, applicant, noted that they tried to develop the basement to use the
space most efficiently and within the existing footprint of the house. He noted that the
current space for the parking spot was shorter in length and height than the required
standard for a new garage space. He noted that the narrow width of the garage space
made it very difficult to park two cars in the garage on a consistent basis.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether the definition of habitable space
included closets, Mr. Thomas replied that they were not included in the UBC definition.
The conditioned space may not be heated or cooled, and must be habitable.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the difference in the
square footage numbers cited by staff and the applicant, Mr. Thomas replied that after
meeting with the applicant, they agreed to come before the Planning Board and to
redesign their plan somewhat. The revised plan was submitted, and staff is still in the
process of working out the amount of conditioned space. He noted that the core question
of parking spaces would determine the amount of conditioned space. He believed that
hallway space was one of the discussion issues.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether there would be a
seismic upgrade, Mr. Thomas confirmed that was the case.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,8,"In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether the ground-floor
bathroom towards the rear of the property would be new, Mr. Ekstein replied that there
was a toilet but no tub. The existing ground floor windows would be replaced by the
applicants, and he noted that the existing windows in the two storage rooms already met
the requirement for egress. The setback facing the streets was less than 20 feet.
In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara whether the home had an existing
interior staircase, Mr. Ekstein replied there was not.
In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara whether the parking in the front
yard counted as a parking space, Mr. Thomas replied that it did not. Board member
McNamara noted that parking was a challenge in this neighborhood, and believed there
were case-by-case situations that the Board could not ignore. She believed the interior
staircase was essential to the remodel design. Mr. Thomas noted that staff endeavored to
make the planning standards consistent, and that case-by-case situations were usually
addressed by a variance.
Board member Kohlstrand noted that it was a disadvantage to not have the existing site
plan. She was uncomfortable changing the parking standards, but would look at it on a
variance basis if the hardship findings could be met.
Vice President Cook noted that she was troubled with respect to parking, which had been
the subject of much discussion. She did not believe this would be a unique as people
wanted to build up or down, and thanked the applicant for his candor regarding his plans.
She was not sure this plan would work as a variance, as it may be possible that it would
be a common request in this neighborhood.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there would be an exterior ground level
door. Mr. Ekstein replied that had been removed from the plan. She noted that this house
was somewhat of a blank slate, and suggested that the interior stairway be placed
elsewhere in the house to accommodate parking and still retain the historic character of
the house.
President Lynch noted that the front yard-parking scheme was not consistent with City
policy, and if it were, this would be a conforming use.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether it was staff's position to retain
the two parking spaces and relocating the stairwell, Mr. Thomas replied that was correct.
Mr. Ekstein replied that moving the stairwell would probably end the remodeling efforts
of this home. He noted that there were other alternatives to this question, but they would
be very costly. He noted that many residents in the neighborhood would not be able to
park two cars in the garage.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,9,"President Lynch suggested that a design that would conform to City guidelines would be
the most desirable outcome. He suggested that the Board either deny the application or
continue it in order to allow the applicant to redesign it.
Board member Cunningham believed there were many issues embedded in this
application, including improvement of smaller homes, parking in the first 20 feet of the
front yard, and the number of required parking spaces. He did not believe the Board
could deviate from that standard.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Ekstein's question whether the City required two
compact cars when a family may have larger cars, President Lynch replied that was not
the case and that the City had a definition of required parking.
Mr. Thomas noted that the applicant's choices were to redesign the interior, add a second
story, to redesign into the backyard to maintain the space, or to pursue a variance.
President Lynch believed it would be difficult to make the findings for a variance, and
believed a redesign would be probably.
Ms. Woodbury wanted to clarify that the applicant before the Board was to making a
parking space determination, not to approve or deny the project.
Board member Cunningham moved to recommend that 23.5 feet is equivalent to two
parking spaces in this condition.
Vice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,10,"9-C. Appointment of an Ad Hoc Committee to work with the Planning and
Building Director on a Housing/Measure A Workshop (CW).
Ms. Woodbury presented the staff report, and summarized the background of the
development of this workshop.
President Lynch noted that 15 speaker slips had been received for this item, and invited a
motion to reduce the speakers' time to three minutes.
Board member Cunningham moved to reduce the speakers' time to three minutes.
Vice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Ani Dimusheva inquired about the impulse behind the Committee idea, and noted
that there had been a lot of discussion surrounding Alameda Point. She was not sure why
the discussion around Measure A needed to be framed, and believed the discussion
should be at the grassroots and community level. She inquired who the interested parties
in this issue were, especially with respect to ABAG and other outside entities. She
inquired whether the role of the committee would be in addition to facilitating public
discussion. She inquired whether a ballot measure would be in the future.
Ms. Diane Coler-Dark noted that the staff report stated that the Board and community
members had expressed a strong desire for a forum on Measure A, and she had not
perceived any strong desire to change Measure A. She inquired how many people had
approached the Planning Board to change it, and recalled the various groups, such as
ARRA, BRAG and the Community Reuse Plan, that had addressed Measure A. She
believed the community goals and standards had been established. She inquired whether
this was a method to get Measure A on the ballot again.
Ms. Susan Battaglia was surprised to hear this committee would be forming to discuss
Measure A, and supported leaving Measure A in place as it stands. She noted that
multiunit buildings had replaced some grand homes, and added that a police position had
been eliminated while the cost of getting Measure A on the ballot was $150,000. She
noted that speed limits in Alameda were being violated constantly, and that parking was
scarce in both commercial and residential neighborhoods. She did not believe that new
residents would use public transit, and that the streets would become congested with
more multifamily housing.
Christopher Buckley believed this was an expansion of the scope of the much of the
previous Measure A discussions, and supposed that it was part of the Housing Element
discussion with respect to constraints. He noted that AAPS has not had time to review
this proposal in detail, and to provide a formal response. He believed that AAPS would
probably oppose a wholesale amendment of Measure A throughout Alameda.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,11,"Ms. Helen Sause commended the Planning Board on initiating this committee, and was
dismayed that previous speakers seemed to have assumed a foregone conclusion. She
noted that the Homes organization was only interested in modifying Measure A for
Alameda Point, and emphasized that they did not intend to destroy Measure A throughout
the City.
Mr. Scott Brady believed the framework for this discussion had been laid in staff's
development of an Alameda Point Measure A compliant and non-Measure A compliant
plan. He did not believe that staff should create contingencies not in accordance with the
City Charter. He believed that discussion of Measure A, which was a citizen-driven
amendment, should be citizen-driven, not staff-driven. He noted that it was not only
about housing and saving old homes - it was also about limiting density, abating
increasing traffic congestion and controlling development that was designed by
developers contrary to public input.
Mr. Jim Sweeney expressed concern about the possibility of mischief regarding Measure
A, and believed it would skew the purpose of the Planning Board's role as a unit. He
noted that the subcommittee would function as an advocate, not an adjudicator. He did
not believe there was an imperative to further study Measure A, and believed it had been
done. He believed the citizens had to be an important part of this discussion, and wanted
to retain impartiality and clarity in this discussion.
Mrs. Jean Sweeney provided a history of how ABAG obtained its housing numbers. She
did not see a major plan to solve the traffic problem at Alameda Point, and was very
concerned about the toxic materials in that area. She noted that the Navy would not
address the PAHs or marsh crust on that site. She believed the traffic problem should be
solved before any more houses were planned, and she did not believe that Measure A
needed to be studied any further.
Ms. Dorothy Freeman believed that reexamining Measure A was a citizen item, not a
staff item. She cited a study that concluded that increased density provided only a short-
term benefit. She believed that the long-term effects of increased density should be
studied further before implementing higher density in Alameda.
Ms. Barbara Kerr did not believe that a Measure A forum was necessary because it had
already been voted on. She did not believe that it should be overturned in order to meet a
bureaucratic deadline. She recalled the 1980 Housing Element had been badly written,
and that it was subsequently rewritten by citizens on a committee that she chaired. She
noted that was the last Housing Element that had been approved by the State. She noted
that friends of the developers could get signatures for a ballot measure to overturn
Measure A. She believed that until Alameda had more bridges and tubes, that Measure A
should not be discussed further.
Ms. Denise Brady concurred with Ms. Kerr's comments, and believed that if the citizens
of Alameda wanted to overturn Measure A, they could bring it to the ballot box. She
noted that when Mayor Johnson ran for reelection, she prominently displayed her support
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,12,"for Measure A. Ms. Brady believed that the Mayor's reelection was an indication of
Alameda's support for Measure A.
Ms. Selina Faulhaber noted that the current issue was not preserving older homes or
building many units at Harbor Bay Isle. She believed the issue was to look at 2008 and
beyond, and supported a frank discussion of Measure A. She supported the Planning
Board's decision to look at this issue, and noted that the public's opinion would be
sought.
Mr. David Howard believed that if this committee were to be formed, it should be
comprised of members of the public, held in open session in Council Chambers to be
televised and videotaped. He did not believe this committee should operate behind closed
doors to discuss such a controversial issue.
Ms. Diane Lichtenstein noted that the purpose was not to discuss whether Measure A
should exist or not, but that a subcommittee would be formed. She was surprised at some
of the interpretations of the staff report, and believed the Planning Board had the right to
determine who would be on the subcommittee. She was surprised at the fears expressed
that the committee would be held behind closed doors, and that the public would not be
allowed to attend. She noted that a public forum would be open to the public by its
definition. She supported this subcommittee.
Mr. David Kirwin was surprised at the doggedness of what he believed to be friends of
developers pushing to repeal Measure A. He noted that one of the reasons Alameda was
so special was because its density was protected. He was concerned about the framing of
the issue and the direction of the workshop. He believed that all of the effects of density
should be discussed outside of traffic; he believed that increased crime, social costs and
use of City funds should be discussed as well. He noted that access, egress and parking
at shopping centers and schools should be addressed as well, and believed the City should
also have an exit strategy. He did not believe the City could support much more
infrastructure.
Mr. Lil Arnerich believed that Measure A made Alameda the livable community it is, and
hoped that the Planning Board did not have a preconceived notion about it. He did not
believe the dialogue was extraneous, and expressed concern that the Alameda Point-only
focus of Measure A would remain as such. He believed that any change to Measure A
would eventually spread to the rest of the City. He noted that he welcomed new people to
Alameda, and has not heard anyone on the street expressing an interesting in overturning
Measure A. He noted that the Planning Board's mission was to serve the people, and
reiterated the Mayor's support of Measure A prior to the election. He did not want the
Planning Board or staff to front for the developers' interests. He cited several outspoken
opponents to Measure A that had since moved out of the City. He urged the Planning
Board to vote against this item.
Ms. Barbara Thomas noted that the developments that have been criticized by the
residents were approved by Planning staff and previous Planning Boards. She noted that
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,13,"it was possible to have beautifully designed tract homes, and noted that residential homes
generally do not pay for the services they demand. She believed that density did not
generate mass transit, but did generate more congestion and air pollution. She inquired
whether staff had requested the formation of this subcommittee, and inquired whether it
was now staff, rather than City Council, that set policy for the City. She suggested that
any Councilmember who supported it would be open to recall, and believed that support
of this subcommittee may indicate that a new Planning Director may be in order. She
believed that having another police officer on the force was more important than the cost
of this study and subcommittee. She believed the people had spoken already, and
suggested that she and Ms. Kerr be members of the committee instead. She believed this
subcommittee would be a waste of the City's time and resources. She noted Ms.
Sweeney's efforts to get more open space in the City.
Ms. Mercedes Milana wished to remind the Planning Board that Alameda was an island
with a limited number of entrance and exit points, and recalled the days when it took
Navy workers half an hour to exit the Island. She was very concerned about parking
issues, and recalled the previous discussion about people parking on their front yard. She
noted that she had lodged complaints about illegal parking, and believed that if Measure
A were overturned, the parking problems would be worse. She was concerned about the
future desirability of Alameda if Measure A were to be overturned.
Ms. Pat Bail noted that she was the past secretary and chairman of the Keep Measure A
group. She believed the Planning Board's responsibility was to protect current citizens of
Alameda, not future citizens. She noted that the citizens had spoken about their support of
Measure A, and she was very concerned about some Board member opinions that
considered overturning Measure A. She was concerned that the City would not be able to
accommodate children in parks and sports field if many more families moved in to
Alameda.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Lynch called for a three-minute break.
Board member Cunningham noted that based on public input, he supposed that the
Measure A forum should be used to tighten Measure A up. He emphasized that he would
come to those discussions with an open mind and without preconceived notions. He
believed that with limited resources, Alamedans owe it to themselves to study how best
to use them. He encouraged open discussion as much as possible, and believed the ideas
and comments should be collected and synthesized as much as possible. He did not
believe it was a good idea to remain stuck in the same rut to address the land use
challenges.
Vice President Cook would like to apologize to staff for pushing them to the point of
putting this item on the agenda. She had felt frustrated within the last year to put this
discussion on the agenda, and now understood why staff had been reluctant to do SO. She
believed that staff had taken great personal abuse over this issue, and did not believe it
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,14,"was right. She had heard people speak passionately on both sides of the Measure A issue,
and believed that some people had misconceptions on what Measure A actually meant.
She noted that Measure A could be changed without any greater density, and that more
open space could be created; in addition historic resources could be preserved as well
under Measure A. She believed it was possible to discuss it without it being an all-or-
nothing issue. She noted that there was no attempt to hide this discussion and believed
that a public discussion about the process going forward was important. She noted that
she was a fan of Measure A, appreciated Victorian homes, and would like to see some of
the big stucco buildings on her block disappear. She would like to continue to have this
discussion and see where it progressed.
Board member McNamara noted that she was disillusioned because she believed the
intent of this forum was misconstrued during the public hearing. She believed the intent
was to educate the community and citizens of Alameda about the history, consequences,
legal aspects of Measure A and to put it in context with respect to the current issues. She
noted that the Planning staff had not made a decision, and could not unilaterally change
Measure A. She noted that it was not even stated that staff or the Planning Board wanted
Measure A to change. She believed that having an informed background was essential to
making an informed decision with respect to Measure A.
Board member Kohlstrand echoed the previous comments, and noted that staff did not
initiate this forum. She had advocated for a forum because she did not grow up in
Alameda and did not understand all the history; she wished to help the community as a
whole become well versed in its history and effect on the community going forward. She
believed that such a forum was important because people had wanted to become better
informed as housing and industrial uses evolved over time. She would like to see
Alameda's main island character move to Alameda Point, and would like the general public
to have the opportunity to learn about the measure and comment on it as Alameda continues
to change.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was able to attend the League of California
Cities Planning Institute in San Diego the previous week, and that Ms. Woodbury had
attended several programs together. She had attended an interesting workshop on how to
configure commercial and residential density in nontraditional ways. She encouraged the
public to attend the workshop at Mastick Center on March 29, which would include one of
the speakers she heard in San Diego. She acknowledged that density was a hot-button word,
and noted that there was more common ground than people may think. She noted that she
grew up in an apartment on Pearl Street in Alameda. She noted that the building had a big
backyard, and added that it would not be Measure A-compliant. She believed that many
conclusions had been drawn from a very brief staff memo, and wished to assure the public
that decisions would not be made in a back room by staff and an ad hoc committee. She
noted that the purpose was to bring this public and important issue into a public arena. She
noted that to have a public discussion, people may not feel intimidated and attacked; she did
not believe that approaching the people involved with such vehemence and personal attacks
were an appropriate approach. She urged people to have an open mind, and noted that no
one had all the answers. She believed that if the public's perception of Measure A was clear
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,15,"and strong, there was no threat in undertaking the discussion. She added that looking at
different facets of Measure A did not mean that Victorians would be torn down. She noted
that areas such as Alameda Point, the Boatworks and Alameda Landing that were coming up
for development. She believed that people should be able to discuss the issue freely, and she
believed that a better-informed decision would result. She noted that it may be possible to
develop more open space and parks, and added that the discussion was a way to do the best
for the community.
Board member Mariani noted that she had not pushed for any forums with respect to
Measure A, nor had she advocated for it. She recalled asking City Council for guidance on
this issue, and suggested that occur again. She believed the presentation by Woody Minor
would be very informative. She noted that Ms. Woodbury placed this item on the agenda at
the request of some Board members, and added that Alamedans were very protective of
their community. She did not believe it was their intent to behave in a threatening or
intimidating manner. She noted that there had been numerous discussions of Measure A in
the past, and did not feel comfortable advocating for or against it.
President Lynch asked that the individuals in the room speak with those who had since left,
and noted that it was unfortunate that this issue seems to have been mischaracterized He
had yet to hear any Board member advocate for more density at any time, to which many
speakers had referred; he wished to emphasize that was not the case. He noted that as part of
the land use determination, this Board examined the design elements on Alameda Point. He
noted that the desires of various groups in the community must be incorporated into these
plans. He noted that the design questions addressed how various actions would be taken if
the City so chose, and what they would look like, given Measure A. He noted that did not
mean it must necessarily be done. He emphasized that there had been no advocacy on the
Planning Board to repeal Measure A, and added that it may be strengthened. He noted that it
was strictly an educational exercise.
Board member Cunningham noted that the Planning Board was fairly impartial about this
issue, and supported having several Board members, as well as members of the public on
the Committee.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that the Mayor appoint several people to join the
committee.
Board member Mariani believed that the Planning Board should run this appointment by the
City Council, and inquired who authorized it.
President Lynch noted that this was not a policy issue, and that others had interpreted it as
an educational presentation.
Board member Mariani proposed that the Planning Board invite people to make
presentations on Measure A.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,16,"Vice President Cook wanted to know what the constraints on this the Board's discussion
would be.
Board member Cunningham noted that this would be an informative presentation because
Measure A was currently in force.
Board member Kohlstrand understood that this was an emotional and heated issue, and
relied on staff for guidance with respect to procedure. She did not recall similar instances
where the Planning Board was required to ask City Council for permission to act on an
agendized item.
Ms. Woodbury clarified that this was a policy issue, and City Council dealt with policy
issues. She added that when staff analyzed projects, it was under the auspices of existing
policy and that Measure A was in the charter; neither staff nor the Planning Board could
change that. She noted that staff had a finite amount of resources in the form of time, staff
and money. She advised that adding more to the work program would further stretch the
resources, which was a significant issue.
Board member Kohlstrand noted that it had been a challenge to have the joint meeting with
City Council, and noted that would be helpful in this instance. Ms. Woodbury noted that the
City Clerk was still looking at calendars to arrange a joint meeting.
President Lynch inquired whether the ad hoc committee could recommend a workshop. Ms.
Woodbury noted that would be possible.
Board member Cunningham noted that the Planning Board had been approached by
members of the public for some time, and believed that providing an open forum would be
the best approach. He did not believe the City Council was the only entity to address
Measure A, and recalled a Measure A forum at Kaufmann Auditorium approximately six
years ago.
Mr. Thomas suggested that a subcommittee of the Planning Board be established and ask it
to return to the Board in one month at a public meeting in chambers. Logistics for the forum
and proposals for the structure would be presented at that time. At that time, it could be
decided whether to approach Council.
Vice President Cook strongly believed that this discussion should talk place in a developer-
free zone. She disagreed with the characterizations of the Planning Board as being a front for
developers, and noted that she was quite stringent with developers.
Board member Mariani inquired who had actually requested this subcommittee, and added
that she had seen the same few people asking for noncompliant Measure A alternative. She
emphasized that she had never heard that herself, and did not request it herself.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,17,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the League of Women Voters was a well-regarded
group locally and statewide, and that they had come before the Planning Board on more than
one occasion.
President Lynch invited volunteers to identify themselves to serve on the subcommittee.
Vice President Cook and Board members Kohlstrand and Ezzy Ashcraft volunteered.
Board member Cunningham moved to nominate Vice President Cook and Board members
Kohlstrand and Ezzy Ashcraft to serve on the subcommittee.
Vice President Cook proposed an amendment that the subcommittee return to the
Planning Board with a recommendation and further definition of the committee's scope
after one month.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote - 6. No: Mariani.
Board member Mariani left the meeting prior to Item 9-A.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 17
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,18,"9-A.
Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment and Citywide Child Care
Policies GPA 07-0002 and Final Environmental Impact Report - Applicant:
City of Alameda (AT). The proposed General Plan Amendment would amend
the City of Alameda General Plan to better guide future development in the
Northern Waterfront area to promote and facilitate redevelopment of the area with
a mix of uses that would include residential, commercial, office, maritime, and
open space. The Child Care Policies will guide future decisions regarding the
provision of childcare facilities throughout the City. The Northern Waterfront
project area is generally bounded by Sherman Street on the west, Buena Vista
Avenue on the south, and Grand Street on the east. The Oakland/Alameda Estuary
forms the northern border of the area. The Northern Waterfront project area is
within several zoning districts. These districts include R-2 (Two Family
Residence District), R-3 (Garden Residential District), R-4-PD (Neighborhood
Residential District, Special Planned Development District), M-1 (Intermediate
Industrial), M-2 (General Industrial), C-M (Commercial-Manufacturing District),
and M-1-PD (Intermediate Industrial, Special Planned Development District). The
Child Care Policies began development in 2001 by the City of Alameda Social
Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) and the recommended policies have
been in public circulation since 2003. An Environmental Impact Report has been
prepared for the General Plan Amendment. The Planning Board will make a
recommendation to City Council for final action. (Continued from the meeting
of February 26, 2007.)
Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report. Staff recommended that the Planning Board
adopt the resolution attached to the staff report, which recommends that City Council
certify the final Environmental Impact Report for this project and adopt the Northern
Waterfront General Plan Amendment and Citywide Child Care Policies.
President Lynch advised that six speaker slips had been received.
Member McNamara moved to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote - 6. Absent: Mariani.
The public hearing was opened.
Christopher Buckley noted that he had sent a letter to the Board members on February 22,
and suggested that a height limit between 33 and 50 feet be considered, and that a height
limit Citywide be considered. He believed that a 100 foot height limit was too tall, and
suggested a height limit so the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance would clarify that
issue for developers. If the Board was disinclined at this time, he suggested adding a
follow-up direction to study height limits after adoption of the General Plan Amendment.
He noted that this had previously been done, when lowering the 100 foot height limit
along Park and Webster Streets had been implemented in the 1991 General Plan, leading
to a zoning amendments that reduced that height. He noted that height limits might
Planning Board Minutes
Page 18
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,19,"include decorative towers, which would be included as an exception. With regard to the
Clement Avenue truck route, he suggested that there be restrictions on residential
development along that route. He noted that Mr. Thomas suggested traffic calming
measures to address pedestrian and bicycle traffic. He suggested traffic mitigations along
Clement if the Board was not inclined to reduce residential along that truck route.
Mr. Joseph Woodard, Estuary Park Action Committee, noted that the park had been
promised for a long time in the site where the Boatworks is being considered. He was
very concerned about the possible loss of that park. He was very concerned that the City
might be overtaken by developers, and noted that the City of Livermore had a developer
fee program that had resulted in a very attractive downtown.
Ms. Barbara Kerr, President, Northside Association, noted that a lot of lip service had
been given to the supply of moderate income housing. She noted that the area between
Constitution and Park had a large supply of moderate income housing, and believed that
neighborhood should be preserved. She believed that it was directly contrary to
established City policy to considered those neighborhoods disposable, and that they could
be destroyed by excessive traffic, bad planning by allowing high buildings on the edge of
the neighborhoods. She requested that the Board recognize the need to safeguard the
North Waterfront neighborhoods, which were valuable to the City for the moderate-
income housing. She wanted to retain Alameda's small-town feeling and its respect for
history.
Mr. Peter Wang noted that he had attended the February 26 meeting, and hoped the
Planning Board would process this amendment to the General Plan. He supported this
item, and believed that it was Measure A compatible. He noted that he had performed a
traffic study, which found that there were 4.3 truck trips per day. He believed the 100-
foot height limit throughout the City should be preserved. He noted that they had hired a
new architect to provide more input, and urged the Planning Board to approve this item.
Mr. David Day, Warmington Homes, spoke in support of this amendment and zoning
changes, which he believed would clean up the area and improve the neighborhood, as well
as improve access to the waterfront.
Mr. Stuart Rickard inquired how Item 10, removing the truck route designation from the
Park Street Bridge affected other routes into and out of Alameda. He believed that any
possible sea level rise should be an island-wide issue. He noted that they had building
heights at the advisory committee, and that a tall building with surrounding open space
had been proposed; they had preferred a lower rise building. He noted that with respect to
the visibility of the West End of Del Monte, Clement Avenue had a big triangle at the
northwest corner of the Del Monte building that is now hidden by a shed. He hoped that
would be visible to the neighborhood.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether he agreed with 10.8.b, Mr. Rickard
replied that he disagreed with the step-down concept.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 19
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,20,"Mr. Lil Arnerich drew an analogy by noting that he had played professional baseball for
many years, and that while they played hard and to win, they were able to gather for a
beer afterwards. He noted that with respect to a prior issue of Measure A, he wanted to
reassure that he would never bear a grudge toward any Board member and would enjoy
that beer afterwards whether Measure A was lost or not. He has known Mr. Wang for
over 25 years as a conscientious member of the community, and who had contributed
heavily to the city in many ways. He believed it was time to approve this benefit to the
Northern Waterfront, which had been developed by world-class and prestigious
architectural firms. He was concerned that these delays were costing Mr. Wang a
considerable amount of money, and urged the Planning Board to approve this item. He
complimented the Planning staff, particularly Ms. Woodbury and Mr. Thomas, for their
time and courtesy extended to him when he requested information.
Ms. Dorothy Freeman believed that Attachment B, Item 8, should more precisely define
impact fees.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote - 6. Absent: Mariani.
Vice President Cook wished to add language at the end of the sentence of 10.3.b: ""creates
a lively waterfront and pedestrian-friendly environment both day and night.""
Vice President Cook found that sometimes a longer list of uses is listed, and inquired
whether a more consistent list of uses could be used. Mr. Thomas replied that this section
had been rewritten after the Planning Board had looked at the detailed table, and
determined that it was too detailed for the General Plan. He noted that there was a fair
amount of discussion at the Advisory Committee, and noted that the intent of the
Advisory Committee was that there could be a mix of uses or a single use. The phrase ""a
mix of"" was stricken because that implied that a mix was required.
President Lynch suggested that be added.
Vice President Cook inquired whether it would be possible to add a tavern to activate the
green. Mr. Thomas noted that the intent was to keep it medium-density residential, and
that staff would consider that suggestion during any rezoning discussion.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it was directly across from the Del Monte site,
which would allow a mix of uses. She noted that was not that far away.
Board member Kohlstrand was uncomfortable in changing the land uses at this time after
the extensive work and discussion.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 20
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,21,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the property identification at the top of page 3
should be placed at the beginning of the paragraph at the bottom of page 2.
Vice President Cook noted that with respect to 10.3.f, the language should be changed to
.allow for the development of public facilities such as fire stations and public and
private schools.
Board member Cunningham noted that 10.6.b should be changed to read, ""eliminate
reduce-the need for sound walls.""
Vice President Cook suggested that 10.6.d should be change to read, ""provide docking
areas to encourage waterborne transportation."" She noted that there were very few
opportunities to dock a boat at a restaurant such as Chevy's.
Vice President Cook noted that at the end of the sentence on 10.6.e., the following
language should be added: design the street to protect the shoreline experience for the
public
Vice President Cook suggested that in 10.6.1 the following language be added: ""along the
shoreline where feasible"" to try to get the separation between bicyclists and auto traffic.
Board member Cunningham noted that with respect to 10.6.u, whether ""behind"" meant
facing the street or the waterfront. He believed it should be harmonized with the waterfront,
and integrated with landscaping and public access. Mr. Thomas believed the second half of
the sentence worked in that the placement should be carefully considered.
Vice President Cook suggested that on 10.6.b, the following language be added to the end
of the sentence: or key views to the shoreline.""
Board member Kohlstrand suggested that on 10.6.b, it be clarified that it referred to
parked cars, not cars traveling along Clement.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the Marina Village Parkway did a nice job of
screening the cars.
Vice President Cook noted that with respect to the first 10.8.b, she suggested adding the
following language at the end of the sentence: .architectural style that respects
Alameda's unique history and maritime character.'
Board member Cunningham suggested that with respect to the second 10.8.b, relative to
stepping down of buildings to approach the waterfront, include the following language:
""heights to generally step down"" to allow other things to occur.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that with respect to 10.8.e., it should read, ""New
development shall should be designed and new streets shall should be engineered to
reduce sound impacts and eliminate the need for sound walls.""
Planning Board Minutes
Page 21
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,22,"Vice President Cook noted that in 10.8.d should be changed to read, "" required new
buildings to face the street and buildings along the shore to face the water 's edge.'
Board member Kohlstrand did not believe that would be feasible if the buildings faced
both the street and the water.
President Lynch did not believe the word ""required"" would be feasible with respect to
double entrances on all buildings.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether 10.8.h had been relocated to another
section of the document, addressing facades. Mr. Thomas replied that was the case.
President Lynch suggested that section be used to cover the issue, and that 10.8.d be
stricken due to a conflict in language. He suggested that in instances where the new
building did not face the water, that it be oriented to face the street.
Vice President Cook suggested that wherever feasible, that public access on the
waterfront be activated to enhance safety and waterfront access.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft agreed that ""where feasible"" would be an appropriate
phrase in that item.
A discussion of dual waterfront and street access ensued.
Mr. Thomas noted that 10.9.d and 10.9.e, Mr. Thomas noted that those policies were
moved to Attachment B. He noted that the easiest thing to do would be direct staff to put
them in the document.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to include 10.9.d. and 10.9.e in the document
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote - 6. Absent: Mariani.
Board member McNamara moved to extend the meeting to 11:45 p.m.
Vice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote - 6.
Absent: Mariani.
Vice President Cook noted that DM-11 should be changed to read, ""provide allow for a
shoreline public promenade consistent with the requirements of number 24 in Attachment
B.""
Vice President Cook believed that E.2.t. was inadequate in its reference to open space
requirements, and that a word stronger than ""adequate"" be used, such as ""ample"" or
""generous.""
Planning Board Minutes
Page 22
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,23,"Mr. Thomas noted that it would be rezoned MX, and that it would come back to the
Planning Board and City Council.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that under Landscaping at the bottom of page 12, she
would like to see language stating that landscaping within this area would be ""Bay-
friendly"" landscaping, as defined by StopWaste.org. She brought their guidelines in for
the other Board members to read.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the title in Item 24 should be corrected to:
""Adjacent to the Oakland-Alameda Estuary.""
Vice President Cook noted that the pedestrian/bicycle routes should have the amenities
such as racks and plantings outside the minimum width of the right of way.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a map of the truck routes in Alameda was
available.
Vice President Cook noted that on Number 23, the following change should be made:
""consider opportunities to create attractive gateways
""
Vice President Cook noted that on the first 24 should include the following language:
""Provide retail, restaurant and café uses that open out to the shore to activate the shoreline
both night and day where feasible.""
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that in 29 (Child care system), 6.5.d, whether
childcare licensing was done by the State. Mr. Thomas confirmed that was the case, and
that in facilities with fewer than six children, a use permit was necessary and could be
streamlined.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that in the Resolutions, February 24 should be
changed to February 26, and that March 24 should be changed to March 26.
Board member Cunningham moved to recommend to City Council to certifying the
findings of the EIR and approve a General Plan Amendment as noted.
Board member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote - 6. Absent: Mariani.
9-D.
Presentation of Broadway and Jackson Street access improvements to
Interstate 880. No action will be taken on this item.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch, Mr. Thomas advised that the applicant was
unable to remain at the meeting.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to continue this item.
Vice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 6.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 23
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,24,"Absent: Mariani.
Page 24
Planning Board Minutes
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,25,"10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
President Lynch noted that numerous pieces of correspondence had been received, and
requested that the writers confirm their facts before committing them to paper.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee
(Board Member Mariani).
President Lynch advised that Board member Mariani had left the meeting and would
report on this item at the next meeting.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board
Member Kohlstrand).
Board member Kohlstrand noted that no further meetings had been held since her last
report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force
(Board Member Cunningham).
Board member Cunningham noted that the Task Force met the previous Wednesday to
review target values for common emission reductions. He noted that the next meeting
would be held on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 at the Alameda Free Library.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew
Andrew Thomas, Sécretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the April 18, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 25
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-18,1,"Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Mariani
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy
Ashcraft, Kohlstrand, Mariani, and McNamara.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Donna Mooney, Executive Assistant Latisha Jackson.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of March 26, 2007.
Vice President Cook noted that page 3, paragraph 1, should be changed to reflect that
while she thought the improvements in Venice, California, were terrific, they were not
necessarily appropriate for Alameda.
Vice President Cook noted that further down on page 3 should reflect that she was
concerned that the four standalone restaurants along the shore were the same scale and
type of restaurant use, and she would prefer to see a mix of size and style of restaurants
so people could bring takeout food to the shore.
Vice President Cook noted that with respect to residential parking on page 8, she wished
to clarify that she did not think it was a unique request and that similar requests would be
made in the future, and that a variance was not appropriate.
Vice President Cook noted that with the Measure A discussion on page 16, she wanted to
know what the constraints on the discussion would be. She wanted to know what the
legal constraints would be on the Board's ability to talk about Measure A on a forum. She
did not intend that to address any legal constraints on the public's discussion of Measure
A.
Vice President Cook noted that the language at the top of page 17 read, ""Vice President
Cook strongly believed that the discussion should take place in a developer-free zone.""
She noted that she intended to say that the discussion should take place before a
developer was selected for Alameda Point.
Board member Cunningham moved approval of the minutes as amended.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 7.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
April 18, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-18.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-18,2,"5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Lynch noted that two speaker slips and two letters had been received for Item
8-A, and proposed that it be moved to the Regular Agenda.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to remove Item 8-A from the Consent Calendar and
place it on the Regular Agenda.
Vice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
6-A.
Future Agendas
Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.
6-B.
Zoning Administrator's Report
None.
6-C.
Alameda Point Station Area Planning Update
None.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
April 18, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-18.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-18,3,"8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A.
PDA07-0002 (Planned Development Amendment) and DR07-0006 (Design
Review) - Alameda Emergency Food Bank - 1900 Thau Way (SW). The
applicant requests a Planned Development Amendment and Design Review to
remove and replace the existing 1,440 sq ft modular building with a 2,016 sq ft
modular building which will be used to warehouse, sort, and distribute free food
to Alameda residents in need. The site is located in an M-1-PD, Intermediate
Industrial, Planned Development Combining Zoning District.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to remove Item 8-A from the Consent Calendar and
place it on the Regular Agenda.
Vice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff recommended approval of this item, subject to the conditions
in the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Paul Russell, Director, Alameda Emergency Food Bank, described the operation of
the food bank, and noted that while the food was free, the cost to the clients was either in
transportation expenses or in personal dignity. Their goal for the project was to restore
dignity to the process in providing food, and he described their proposed changes to
accommodate the clients and to allow them to wait inside, instead of in the elements. The
second goal was to replace their aging building, which would make dramatic visual
improvements to the experience and neighbors. They did not wish to serve more clients,
but to improve the current environment and create a safe work environment for the
volunteers. He noted that one member of the public, who also received services, was the
only attendee of the community meeting; she was in favor of the project.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand, Mr. Russell noted that 400-500
households are served in a month. He noted that a photo I.D. and proof of residency such
as a utility bill were required to receive services. He noted that in his timeframe, there
had been no police activity except a case of a stolen bicycle.
Board member Kohlstrand commended the work of the food bank in Alameda.
President Lynch noted that once the litigation for the Alameda Beltline project has been
concluded, he noted that that a further lease agreement may be crafted, and that the City
would expect the Food Bank to stay until that lease has concluded.
Mr. Thomas noted that an inaccurate reference to the Parking Code Section, and should
be AMC30-7.6(c)2.1
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
April 18, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-18.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-18,4,"be used to warehouse, sort, and distribute free food to Alameda residents in need.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 7.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
April 18, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-18.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-18,5,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A. GPA04-0002/R04-0001/DA04-00001 - Harbor Bay Isle Associates - 1855
North Loop Road (CE). Public comment hearing on the Draft Environmental
Impact Report for a proposed Amendment to the Alameda General Plan Land Use
Diagram from Business Park to Medium Density Residential and to change the
General Plan Land Use Element Text and Tables projecting the City's
development build-out by land use category to the year 2010. To be consistent
with the proposed change in land use designation, the proposed Rezoning would
change the 12.2-acre site from ""C-M-PD"" (Commercial-Manufacturing District
Planned Development) to ""R-2-PD"" (Medium Density Residential Planned
Development). A Development Agreement Amendment will also be considered.
The proposed development involves the eventual construction of approximately
104 new residential units.
Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report and presented an overview of the purpose of the
public hearing, which was to submit comments. He noted that while comments and
questions would be collected, there would be no response to the comments.
Mr. John Torrey, Contract Planner, elaborated on the staff report and noted that no action
would be taken at this time. He described the EIR process, and described the scope of the
proposed project.
Mr. Steve Brimhall, project applicant, introduced himself.
President Lynch wished to hear the Board's opinion on when the applicant could speak.
Board member Kohlstrand noted that this hearing was intended to hear from the public,
and suggested that would be an appropriate time for the project sponsor to come forward.
Mr. Brimhall provided an overview of the background of this project, and described the
various agreements that stated that a residential development could be built if the noise
could be mitigated to a level of 45 dB inside the homes.
President Lynch noted that 15 speaker slips had been received.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 7.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Patricia Gannon expressed concern about building 104 homes in a noise impact zone,
and believed it would be a dangerous precedent to allow this to occur.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
April 18, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-18.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-18,6,"Mr. Ringo Lui expressed concern about the traffic congestion that would be created with
the addition of over 100 residents units.
Ms. Rayla Graber was concerned that there may be a request for further housing units,
and noted that the EIR stated what the cumulative effect on the environment would be;
she believed it would be significant. She was also concerned about emergency vehicle
access and how it would affect the neighborhood. She noted that the document stated that
no neighborhood should be divided by a project, and noted that Village 6 would be
divided. She was concerned that it may be vulnerable to criminal activity. She noted that
trips from the project to Harbor Bay Isle shopping center would affect Maitland Avenue.
Ms. Avis Cherapie has found it more difficult to walk to the Bay because of the
increasing development, and added that the streets have become very crowded. She was
concerned that this development would make it worse, and was concerned about
pollution from cars, the airport, and powered garden equipment. She was also concerned
about increased difficulty in evacuating the island in an emergency.
Mr. Jim Grimes, V.P. Operations, Peet's Coffee and Tea, expressed concern that the
Draft EIR does not address the residential impact on the businesses. He noted that when
residential uses get too close to businesses there can be traffic and safety issues with
tractor-trailer traffic on North Loop Road. He added that there was also a quality of life
consideration, including noise from the trucks backing up in pre-dawn hours.
Ms. Susan Davis, CEO, Don SueMor, noted that her company recently left Emeryville
due to its conversion to a residential city, and came to Alameda because of the industrial
park. She noted that there were significant safety concerns with children and other
pedestrians occupying the same road as the delivery trucks.
Mr. Red Wetherall, Vice President of CLASS, and a Board member of nonoise.org, noted
that he had recently attended a noise conference in New York City. He expressed concern
about the low frequency noise that was very difficult to mask, even with the windows
closed.
Ms. Sharon Gardner expressed concern that airplane noise and pollution would be
significant for the proposed homes, as well as the rest of Alameda. She noted that the
FAA has changed departure and arrival routes to avoid overflight of Alameda. She did
not believe this development should be noncompliant with those efforts and regulations.
She believed that the health and safety of Alameda residents should be the primary
concern.
Ms. Cathy Smith expressed concern about the noise, pollution and additional traffic that
would be created by the new homes.
Mr. Dave Nido noted that CLASS sent a letter to City Council in 2005 stating their strong
objections to this development, and represented over 4000 residents who object to the
development. He expressed concern about the low-frequency noise and the specifics of
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
April 18, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-18.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-18,7,"the project as outlined in the EIR; the FAA has only recently declared the low-frequency
noise to be a negative impact, and there are currently no construction mitigations to
reduce that sleep-disturbing low-frequency noise. He believed that Alameda needed low-
income, not market-rate housing, and that the City jobs/housing balance needed more
jobs, not more housing. He did not believe that an environmentally challenged areas
should be rezoned. He did not believe the City should build homes in a low-frequency
noise area generated by the Port and the airport. He did not believe that the doors and
windows should have to be closed all the time. The City would lose its leverage with
Port and airport with respect to noise it if chose to build homes in this area. He noted that
the City would have to issue a Statement of Overriding Considerations. He requested a
complete discussion of the Southeast Plan of the Airport and low-frequency noise in the
EIR, and noted that this was not a necessary project. He did not believe there was a need
to change the General Plan
Mr. Ron Lappa submitted a speaker slip but was not in attendance to speak.
Ms. Nita Rosen noted that she has lived on Bay Farm Island for 42 years and opposed
changing the zoning of the business park in order to build homes. She noted that Amelia
Earhart and Bay Farm Schools have added so many modular rooms to accommodate
more students that the playgrounds have become much smaller. She expressed concern
about the effects of earthquakes on the fills.
Ms. Leslie Robey believed the home design was very nice, but did not believe they
should be built in this area. She was very concerned about air pollution from the planes
and the cars, as well as the noise.
Ms. Betty Anderson noted that her home faced Catalina, and added that the vibration
noise from the freight planes between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. often knocked her pictures
askew. She was concerned about the carcinogens from the planes, and did not believe this
was an appropriate site for homes. She cited the study from SeaTac regarding pollution
other than noise, and had suggested it be included in the study of this site. She opposed
the rezoning of this business park.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Thomas noted that the Board may submit comments, but that a dialogue would not
be appropriate at this time. He added that they may be provided in writing before May 4,
2007.
Member Mariani supported submitting comments in writing.
Member Kohlstrand noted that the public comments about noise were well made, and
was sure that the noise analysis met the CEQA requirements. She was interested in Mr.
Nido's comments regarding low-frequency studies, and would like to see new
methodologies explored in that area, even though it was not required by the EIR or the
FAA. She was cautious about further contributing to the impacts by the Port and the
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
April 18, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-18.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-18,8,"airport. She noted that the document had a comprehensive noise analysis. She inquired
whether any comments by the Alameda Airport Commission or the Port had been
received. Mr. Thomas replied that those comments had not been received yet, but would
not be surprised if they did submit comments.
Member Kohlstrand believed the level of service numbers in the documents should be
scrutinized further. She expressed concern about the traffic levels at Island Drive and
Doolittle, which often backed up at Lincoln School as a result of people trying to go to
the school so that traffic could not pass through the intersection. She suggested that that
intersection be examined more thoroughly. She was very concerned about circulation,
and understood the residents' concerns about Catalina Drive. She was concerned about
creating a residential community with limited access to the rest of the Island, and that had
to interact with the business park. She would like those limitations to be addressed in the
EIR.
Vice President Cook agreed with Member Kohlstrand's comments, and would submit
many of her comments in writing. Her concerns had to do with safety for pedestrians and
bicyclists. She would like to see those concerns addressed in a staff report if they were
not appropriate for the environmental document. She was concerned about traffic signals
and noise, and believed there were different ways that noise was perceived and studied.
She had questions about the Land Use section regarding the recreational goals for open
space, and wanted to be sure it met the General Plan requirements for parklands.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed that common sense should be exercised in examining
this document, and noted that the developer was proposing a private enclave that would
be cut off from other residential units. She was concerned that isolated, fragmented
neighborhoods would result from this layout. She noted that the stated objective of home
ownership did not also mention the purchase price range for these homes, and did not
know whether they would be entry-level, affordable or market-level homes. She noted
that the business park still had a notable vacancy rate, and was concerned that if the
acreage were to be eliminated to build homes, it would stifle the enlivening of the
business park. She was surprised to see windows that did not open included in the
document.
Member Cunningham noted that the fiscal analysis should be examined carefully, and
believed there should be more in-depth analysis to validate the reasons why this project
was being considered. He believed that the low-density residential and private school
options should also be considered, so that the highest and best use of this land could be
identified. He believed the criteria should be identified more clearly.
Member McNamara was interested in hearing how a mechanical ventilation system
would create quality of life in a residential neighborhood, and could not imagine not
being able to open the windows at home. She also was concerned about compatibility
with an industrial park, and she had hoped to hear from the two child care centers
regarding the impacts construction would have on their operation.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
April 18, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-18.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-18,9,"Member Ezzy Ashcraft Kohlstrand understood that the private high school was not such a
viable option, and inquired whether it was still in the running.
Mr. Thomas noted that the discussion of the alternatives analysis in the EIR could be
expanded in the staff report and the Final EIR.
President Lynch believed the community wanted to hold a more qualitative discussion.
Mr. Thomas noted that the potential change of the General Plan raised many issues and
brought forward many discussions surrounding it. He noted that it would be a challenge
for staff to address all the environmental needs, and that this policy decision would be
carefully considered by the Planning Board and City Council.
President Lynch noted that comment periods were often extended, and that a
supplemental document may also be considered.
No action was taken.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a..
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Member Mariani noted that a meeting would be held on April 19, 2007, and noted that
Transportation Commission Chair John Knox White would make a presentation on
transportation in Alameda.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
Member Kohlstrand understood that this committee was defunct and noted that they
would not hold further meetings until after they received the transportation report. Mr.
Thomas noted that he would follow up on that issue.
C.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board
Member Cunningham).
Member Cunningham noted that a meeting had been held this evening to collect citizen
comments on issues the Task Force should address, in order to cultivate an action plan. It
also planned to address language for a motion to send to City Council relative to the
master developer for Alameda Point being a green developer. He noted that the next
meeting would be held the following month, and that the meetings were held in the new
library and were open to the public.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
April 18, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-18.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-18,10,"Member Ezzy Ashcraft would like to retain the green building ordinances on the front
burner, and inquired whether green building codes would be addressed. Member
Cunningham confirmed that would definitely to addressed, and the Task Force's
recommendations would be brought forth by July.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether bike racks could be added to the newly
renovated Long's building on Santa Clara.
Member Mariani noted that she had previously requested an update for this project, for
which the Planning Board had no input. She noted that it was a major design project, and
would like to see more information on it.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the next meeting would be held May 16, 2007.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
a.
Future Agendas and work program
None.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Anderson
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the May 29, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
April 18, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-18.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, April 23, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:10 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member Kohlstrand
3.
ROLL CALL:
Acting President Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, Kohlstrand,
and McNamara.
President Lynch, Vice President Cook and Board member Mariani were absent.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Donna Mooney, Planner III Douglas Garrison.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the Alameda Towne Centre Workshop of March 12, 2007.
Board member McNamara noted that she was absent from the 4:30 p.m. March 12
meeting because she recused herself.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that on page 2, ""Yawn"" should be spelled ""Yian.""
Acting President Cunningham noted that in the middle of page 2, the sentence reading
""He would also like a bus stop he was happy with a grid of pedestrian sidewalks, that
is"" should be completed.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the minutes as amended.
Board member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 3.
Abstain: 1 (McNamara). Absent: President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Board member
Mariani. The motion failed for lack of a quorum and will be considered at the next
meeting.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Future Agendas
Mr. Thomas provided a handout and a brief presentation of future agenda items.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,2,"Mr. Mark Shepard, Frank Bette Center for the Arts, wished to urge the Planning Board to
consider incorporating the arts community in the planning process while incorporating
green plans. He noted that successful communities incorporated a thriving arts
community broadly supported by civic government and business, and he believed it was
very important to support the creative and artistic populace in Alameda. He believed it
would enhance Alameda's attractiveness to visitors and potential residents, and would
like the City's support in their effort to actively market Alameda.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A.
DP07-0001 - Catellus/Prologis - Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development
(AT). The applicant requests Development Plan approval for the waterfront
promenade, streetscape cross-sections for Fifth Street and Mitchell Mosley
Avenue, and the Alameda Landing Transportation Demand Management
Program. The project area is located south of the Oakland Alameda Estuary,
north of the College of Alameda and the Bayport Residential District, east of
Coast Guard Housing, and west of Webster Street. The site is in the M-X (Mixed
Use) Zoning District. (The applicant requests a continuance to the meeting of
May 14, 2007.)
Board member Kohlstrand moved to recommend continuance of this item to May 14,
2007.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote - 4. Absent: Lynch, Cook, Mariani.
8-B. TM06-0003 - Shane Barber - 1000 Atlantic Avenue (DV). The applicant
requests approval of Tentative Parcel Map 9387, allowing the conveyance of up
to 8 separate commercial spaces located within one building to separate owners.
The project site is located in the M-X (Mixed Use) Zoning District.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-11 to
approve Tentative Parcel Map 9387, allowing the conveyance of up to 8 separate
commercial spaces located within one building to separate owners.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote - 4. Absent: Lynch, Cook, Mariani.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,3,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
PDA02-0004 - 523 South Shore Center (Alameda Towne Centre) (DG). The
applicant is requesting modification of Conditions 1.a and 1.d of Resolution No.
PB-03-40. These conditions require the construction of an east-west sidewalk
along the rear of businesses fronting onto Otis Drive prior to the occupancy of
Phase II-b of shopping center redevelopment. The applicant is requesting the
Planning Board approve a modified sidewalk plan and the timeframe for
implementation. The site is located within a Central Business District with Planned
Development overlay Zoning District (C-2-PD).
Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Randy Kyte, applicant, described the position of Harsch Investments on this issue,
and noted that they preferred Option B. They believed that after much technical analysis
in 2004 with staff and engineers that they came up with the right solution by adding more
north-south sidewalks in order to tie the bank and restaurant pads to the main center. He
noted that not much had changed in terms of technical feasibility associated with 13
driveways interrupting the walkway. They have begun speaking with each property owner
and/or tenant about how to split the sidewalk along the property line.
Mr. Kyte noted that the characterization that they were willing to do either/or was not
completely accurate. They believed that after much technical analysis in 2004 with staff
and engineers that they came up with the right solution by adding more north-south
sidewalks in order to tie to the bank and restaurant pads. He noted that not much had
changed in terms of technical feasibility and liability associated with 13 driveways
interrupting the walkway. They would consider that, and have begun speaking with each
property owner and/or tenant about how to split the sidewalk along the property line. They
believed the alternative plan was a superior plan, and they wished to address the issue
conditioned by City Council on Building 500 and Building 300 that the occupancies be
withheld until the issues are brought back before the Planning Board. They anticipated
opening Bed Bath & Beyond in the next few months.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Dorothy Reid believed the applicant was before the Board to be able to occupy
Buildings 300 and 500. She inquired whether that could be done without having to make
a
decision on the sidewalk, which she believed was premature. She noted that parking was
governed by the total amount of the Gross Lease able Area (GLA), which was unknown
because the PDA was incomplete. She noted that the Safeway side had 528 parking spaces,
which would be enough to compensate for the lost spaces if the sidewalk were to be built on
the other side.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,4,"Ms. Susan Decker appreciated the efforts made by the City and Harsch to make the center
more pedestrian-oriented. She believed that adding north-south walkways would help, but
did not believe it was the best solution. She suggested the use of raised crosswalks in the
parking lot to calm speeding traffic.
Mr. Michael Krueger reiterated Ms. Decker's comments, and did not see the north-south
sidewalks as a substitute for the east-west sidewalk at all. He noted that he had many photos
of pedestrians already walking in the middle of the roadway; he noted that it was already
unsafe and a liability issue. He did not believe the east-west roadway was necessary when
the north-south roadways were already available, and did not believe that inconvenience was
a sufficient reason to add the east-west roadway at the expense of safety.
Mr. Jon Spangler spoke on behalf of Pedestrian-Friendly Alameda, and noted that the
tertiary treatment of pedestrians at South Shore has long concerned him. He believed that
equivalent access for pedestrians was a reasonable request, and noted that four-foot
sidewalks were too narrow. He added that there were no separations of sidewalks from the
traffic lanes. A six-foot sidewalk on both sides of the roadway would be feasible by
removing parking spaces. He did not believe it would be acceptable to reroute pedestrians to
Otis Drive. He suggested making the sidewalks wider, and making vehicle lanes 10 feet
wide, and that rumble strips be added to slow traffic down. He agreed with the suggestion
for raised sidewalks. He added that the use permit was granted four years ago, following
detailed questioning by the Planning Board, and added that Target was not included in these
plans. He urged the developer to follow up on the plans in the right way.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Acting President Cunningham regarding continuing
pedestrian access from Otis into the body of the parking lot, Mr. Kyte replied that the
proposed walks proposed in 2004 addressed the connections through the adjacent
properties to Otis, and that they were sensitive to that. He acknowledged that the signage
could be better.
In response to an inquiry by Acting President Cunningham regarding the history of
pedestrian safety and accidents, Mr. Michael Corbitt, Harsch Investments, replied that
there were no history of accidents specifically on that road.
In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara regarding Ms. Reid's suggestion
of split sidewalks, Mr. Corbitt replied that they had examined that possibility. He noted
that there were 23 driveways in that area, and that the idea of putting a solid sidewalk on
that side, and short-stopping all the drive lanes would reduce the parking in a critical
portion of the shopping center. Also, trying to transplant parking from the new to the old
Safeway lot in terms of expecting people to use it was a concern because of the demand
for parking in front of the Safeway store. He noted that it was a parking requirement in
the anchor leases that a certain parking ratio be maintained. He did not believe that was
viable as the alternative on the north side, and noted that textured pavement and raised
table sidewalks through the driveways, as well as rumble strips, would be feasible.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,5,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft expressed considerable concern that the occupancy
requirement seemed to have been overlooked or ignored. She noted that information
discussed between staff and the applicant was not taken back to the Planning Board. She
noted that there were few areas in the City where a pedestrian could walk down a
sidewalk without crossing a driveway. She inquired whether the additional parking
spaces along Shoreline Drive as a result of the construction could be credited towards the
parking requirements.
Mr. Kyte noted that in 2004, they spent considerable time working through the
conditions, and met with staff several times to address many of the conditions. Their
examination of the safety and liability issues led them to the conclusion that the north-
south walk was a better solution. He noted that the parking ratio was four per 1000, and
that the additional parking on the south side ultimately supported the additional retail that
had been added. Safeway was a major addition to the shopping center, and he added that
the parking should be placed where the need was. They decided that parking should be
placed on the south side of the center to support Bed Bath & Beyond. He noted that it
was written into the leases that the old parking lot would be removed. Once the road is
placed on that parcel, a bike-pedestrian path would be placed there, and the area would be
added to the beachfront area for buildings and parking.
Board member Kohlstrand noted that the Board had been told that north-south sidewalks
could be added, or that the sidewalk requirement could be partially pushed onto the
adjacent property owners. She believed that would put the Board and the City into a very
bad position, and did not want to see that problem repeated. She did not want to see this
situation show up on Whitehall, Franciscan or similar streets. She strongly believed that
when the parking was installed adjacent to a particular building, that the applicant should
not propose a too-large building that required so much parking that could not
accommodate a full-length sidewalk along that roadway. She understood the issue with
the parking leases, and would go with the alternative of pushing it to the north side as a
second option, but did not believe it was the best solution for this particular site. She
would not support the north-south sidewalk, and would rather see a full-sized six-foot-
wide sidewalk on the south side of that driveway. As a secondary option, she would
support Option B.
Mr. Kyte noted that it was determined that the sidewalk would be on the north side,
within the existing roadway right of way. Of the 24 feet, four feet would be taken for the
sidewalk, leaving two 10-foot lanes. He noted that they had received very succinct
direction in 2004 on how to approach this issue, which ran contrary to the Planning
Board's wishes. He noted that they were working hard to develop the right solution, and
came up with the idea to push the sidewalk north. They had discussed the idea of
elevating the crosswalks through the driveways with staff, and they had mutually agreed
to use a colored stamp concrete to clearly delineate the walkway. The walkway would
also have a four-inch raised curb the entire length. He noted that they were comfortable in
that recommendation.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,6,"Mr. Corbitt advised that Bank of America had signed a preliminary letter of
understanding, and that the surveying would also need to be done. Wells Fargo had also
signed the letter, and Washington Mutual had also begun examining the letter. He noted
that the owner of Burger King had indicated he would sign it as well. He noted that they
wanted to have the safest environment possible.
Board member Kohlstrand noted that she could accept Option B, although she did not
believe it was the superior alternative. She wanted to ensure that the development was
sized so that the needed parking and sidewalks would be available on the site without
having to push them off-site.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that on page 2 (paragraph 1-b) of the resolution
covering Option B, the applicants had agreed to complete construction by April 2008.
She noted that this had begun in 2003, and was concerned about the timeframe. She was
particularly concerned about the construction of the east-west walkway, and did not
believe people would be in more peril walking on a sidewalk than sharing a lane with
cars.
Mr. Kyte noted that it would take at least a year to design the parking lots and get them
through the City's permit process. He believed the timeframes were fairly aggressive, and
would pursue them with diligence.
Acting President Cunningham noted that this condition addressed public safety in an east-
west orientation, yet the proposal addressed a north-south orientation, which he found to
be at odds. He did not believe that solution would address the design and safety needs of
the project. He suggested that some traffic calming measures be employed to maintain
additional safety elements, and that any unsafe condition be mitigated. He did not
perceive any Board support for the north-south orientation, and believed the existing east-
west condition was the orientation to be pursued. He believed the timeframe should also
be discussed.
Board member McNamara believed the Board's frustration stemmed from the
presentation of this project in a piecemeal fashion, and believed there were more recent
site plans than those from 2003 to accompany the most recent changes. She supported the
east-west alternative, and although it was not optimal by any means, she believed it was
the best of the two alternatives presented. She suggested that the Board add a condition
with some traffic calming measures, such as speed bumps or raised crosswalks that cross
the access road.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand regarding the timeline, Mr.
Garrison noted that the condition was written to set up definite timelines and milestones;
the first was to get the agreement of the property owners, then the permits and then to
complete the construction. He noted that the three-month interval was an estimate made
by the applicant.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,7,"Board member Kohlstrand requested that in the first stage, the agreement from the
property owners be brought back in concert with the first phase to provide assurance
before the Board considered signing off on Target and the rest of the development.
Mr. Kyte replied that the letters from the property owners could be in place, and that they
would be delivered to the City. He noted that they were very detailed in terms of the
items of agreement.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-12 to
approve Option B, with the following amendments:
1.
Traffic calming measures, such as rumble strips, raised crosswalks and/or
speed humps should be provided to slow traffic along the roadway;
2.
The applicant will provide quarterly status reports to the Planning Board
with the first report to coincide with the review of the Target proposal,
which currently stood at June 25, 2007, or August 23, 2007, whichever
comes first; and
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote - 4. Absent: Lynch, Cook, Mariani.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,8,"9-B.
Initial Study IS05-0001; Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0001;
Major Design Review DR05-0010; Use Permits UP06-0003, UP06-0010, UP06-
012 and UP06-0013; - Applicant: Safeway, Inc. 2234 Otis Drive (adjacent
Alameda Towne Centre) (DG). The applicant requests approval of Planned
Development Amendment, Major Design Review and Use Permits allowing the
demolition of an existing bank building and redevelopment of the property with a
gas station. The project includes three covered pump islands, each containing three
pumps, for a total of eighteen pumping stations. Fuel will be stored in three 20,0000
gallon underground storage tanks. In addition to the approximately 7,500 square-foot
canopy covering the gasoline pumping facilities, the project includes an
approximately 625 square-foot building, housing the cashier's desk, restrooms and
retail sales of convenience items. The applicant is proposing twenty-four hour
operations and the sale of beer and wine. An Initial Study / Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared for this project. Mitigation measures have been
identified that will reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant
level. The site is located within a Central Business District with Planned
Development overlay Zoning District (C-2-PD).
Mr. Garrison presented the staff report, and recommended approval of this application.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Todd Paradise, applicant, Safeway, noted that there were several Safeway fuel
centers in the Bay Area, including Dublin, Livermore and Morgan Hill. He added that the
fuel centers were owned and operated by Safeway, and that they were a vital part of the
program, adding convenience to the grocery operations. He described the background of
the site plan, and displayed a presentation of the proposed project. He noted that
following a community workshop in early March, they dropped the request for alcohol
sales.
Mr. Chris Furcoe, noted that his company had worked on many hundreds of gas stations
across the nations. He summarized the technological advances featured by the proposed
gas station, and noted that California was on the leading edge of regulatory reform. He
stated that the proposed station would be state of the art, and added that the tanks and
piping would feature double-walled fiberglass. The gas station would meet the most
stringent earthquake standard (Category 5 earthquake standard). The air quality would be
aided by a Stage 2 vapor recovery system.
Ms. Debbie Cartegener, land use attorney, Cassidy, Shimko, Dawson & Kawakami,
confirmed the applicant's understanding regarding condition of approval #8, regarding
the monitoring of the driveways for five years. She understood that Safeway would
provide the funding as necessary for that, and the actual monitoring would be performed
by the City. She noted that a gas station project normally did not take two years to
complete, and that the applicant was concerned about moving forward as quickly as
possible. She noted that there was no guarantee that the Target application would be
heard in two months, and requested that the Board consider this project at this time.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,9,"Mr. Garrison noted that Safeway would provide the funding, and that the City would
likely hire a consultant to perform the monitoring.
Ms. Debra Banks noted that she had offered an initiative to have a petition circulated
through the St. Francis condominiums regarding the concerns raised during the early
April meeting. She expressed concern about the mitigated negative declaration, and
whether it was sufficient to cover the environmental concerns of the community. She also
expressed concern about the traffic flow, and noted that it was almost impossible to make
a left-hand turn from St. Francis. She was also concerned about the environmental
integrity, and whether the ground and landfill would support this type of system. She
expressed concern about safe waterways and structural integrity, especially with respect
to earthquakes. She was also concerned about unmanageable traffic on Otis Drive.
Mr. Mark Irons inquired about the mitigated negative declaration. He thought the traffic
would flow in two directions, as is typical for gas stations in Alameda. He understood
that the higher number of pumps would expedite usage, but was concerned that it would
attract even more cars, causing congestion. He understood the urgency, but believed it
may be best to wait. He was concerned about the cumulative effects of this project.
Ms. Dorothy Reid wished to clarify the start of monitoring period, and would like to see
it monitored five years after the shopping center is completely developed through the
PDA. She believed it would take five years to build it up and see that effect. She inquired
why the applicant wanted the gas station on the site at all. She noted that the original plan
was to remove the existing gas station. She questioned whether the center needed a gas
station in this spot at all, regardless of the quality of work that the applicant has done. She
noted that the center has been without a gas station for three years, and that people have
figured out where to go for gas. She noted that people really wanted a service station.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio, noted that he usually bought his gas at a locally
owned full-service Chevron station. He noted that the north side entrance of the gas
station off Webster was not supposed to be used, although people did it all the time. He
suggested that it be redesigned so that a driver could only enter on one side, and exit
through another. Regarding pedestrian safety, he suggested that the exit be on the south
side of the gas station into the shopping center, with a raised safe crosswalk barrier to
slow traffic. He believed the post-completion monitoring period should be at least 10
years rather than five years because most gas tank failures and toxic waste problems
occur long after five years. He emphasized that monitoring and mitigation was a cost of
doing business.
Mr. Randy Kyte noted that they had been working with Safeway gas for two years, and
added that Safeway has been on the Island since 1958. He noted that they also had
concerns about their earlier concerns, and believed they had done a very good job in
revising the plan in conjunction with staff. He believed that the circulation from the
shopping center to Otis made good sense, and added that they would work on their own
mitigation plan to ensure there would be no queuing problems in the east-west drive aisle,
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,10,"which would be detrimental to the shopping center; Safeway agreed with that assessment
as well. They believed the plan has progressed well, and acknowledged their effort to add
the sidewalk.
Mr. Bill Smith, 724 Central #9, noted that he had spent 20 years redesigning bicycles,
and continued to work on alternative vehicles. He discussed charging stations for electric
bikes and automobiles.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft commended the applicant for their decision not to sell
alcohol at the gas station. She appreciated the support of the east-west sidewalk. She did
not believe the gas station for South Shore Center should be supersized, and noted that
the previous gas station had fewer pumping sites. She noted that it was also busier, and
meant more cars in the shopping center. She proposed that there be no more than 12
fueling stations with six pumps, and she liked the biodiesel proposal. She noted that the
Dublin station had 12 fueling positions, and that there were usually fewer than three cars
waiting to fuel. She inquired whether the hours for refueling from the big tanker trucks
could be limited to off-peak hours, and whether the station should be a 24/7 station. She
agreed with Mr. McKay's suggestion in his email that any light generated should be
designed so it did not adversely impact the adjacent neighbors, and that additional
landscaping should be added along the Otis Drive side of the lagoon to further shield
neighbors on the other side of the lagoon.
Board member McNamara noted that she had used the Dublin Safeway fuel center often,
and enjoyed the orderly flow of traffic, which was a one-way flow. She remembered the
gas lines of the 1970s, and noted that similar events may negatively impact the
surrounding streets; she inquired how long the monitoring would continue. She added
that traffic queuing was a serious concern for her. With respect to the emails on lighting
impacts sent by residents of Laurel and Powell, she would like to know which
landscaping view would be supported. Mr. Garrison explained the perspectives and scale
of the illustrations. Mr. Thomas noted that the preliminary landscaping plan was on page
PL-1, which was more reliable and specific than the perspective illustrations.
A discussion of the photometric plan ensued.
Board member McNamara expressed concern about the refueling times, and inquired
about the anticipated refueling timeframe. Mr. Garrison replied that the CEQA document
noted that truck deliveries were generally prohibited during the late night hours by the
AMC (11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.). He noted that the specific truck delivery times had not
been identified.
Mr. Thomas suggested that the applicant be asked whether they would be willing to limit
truck deliveries to early morning hours.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,11,"The applicant noted that with respect to deliveries during early morning hours, there were
physical limitations for deliveries; a full truck was the safest way to deliver fuel, and
most drivers would not leave the site it they could not drop off the entire load because of
the remaining vapors in the truck. They would need some flexibility for that reason, and
he discussed the technical aspects of the fuel delivery process, which he noted was
relatively quiet.
Board member McNamara noted that the concern was regarding conflict with traffic and
respecting the neighbors' noise concerns. Mr. Gold noted that it was important that the
Planning Board and the residents felt comfortable, and invited them to talk with other
cities who have the Safeway fueling stations.
Acting President Cunningham inquired whether a year-long monitoring process would be
acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Gold replied that they would be willing to do so, and to
discuss other items of concern at that time. He noted that they wished to be good
neighbors, and added that they had a good reputation for doing the right thing with
respect to their operations.
Board member Kohlstrand stated that she would like to remove the shopping cart
restrictions between Trader Joe's and Safeway, and noted that they were often abandoned
on the sidewalks. Mr. Kyte replied that the perimeter may have been too narrow, and
added that they had many shopping carts scattered all over the center.
Board member Kohlstrand shared the same concerns as her fellow Board members, and
believed the lighting plan would be respectful of the neighbors across the lagoon. She
believed that there were too many gas pumps on the site, and suggested reducing it by
two or four. She was not comfortable with a continuous curb cut adjacent to the shopping
center, and that it should be narrowed down with the same kind of circulation on the
shopping center side as on Otis, while providing a safer environment for pedestrians. She
noted that the truck traffic should be accommodated from the westernmost driveway as
well. She was not comfortable on the proposal as shown because of its size, and believed
it was too big for the site. She believed the architectural design was very positive, and
liked the proposed treatment; she believed the landscape plan was reasonable.
In response to an inquiry by Acting President Cunningham question regarding the
Category Five earthquake design criteria, Mr. Gold replied that California had seismic
zones one through four, and there were higher zone levels that engineers use as a
multiplied to determine the force of an earthquake. He noted that this site was in Zone 4-
A, and that magnitude of earthquake would be approximately 7.4. He noted that when the
Loma Prieta earthquake hit in 1989, none of the tanks were damaged. He noted that the
tanks were structurally secure sitting either above or below ground, and added that the
piping was flexible. He noted that they had never had any problems with the underground
storage systems because of earthquake activity.
Acting President Cunningham inquired about monitoring in Condition 8, Mr. Gold replied
that the purpose of the condition was to monitor traffic flow at the project driveway at the
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,12,"direction of Public Works over concerns of queuing into the public right of way. He
noted that it was never intended to address other issues as such air quality because that
was well addressed through monitoring and reporting requirements that gas stations go
through.
Mr. Peter Galloway, OmniMeans Traffic Engineers, noted that the queuing issue was put
in as a safeguard. Their analysis indicated that they did not expect a maximum queue of
over two vehicles per island when there was maximum demand at the station. After the
study was completed, Public Works decided they would like to monitor the driveway for
an additional five years as a safeguard to determine if there were any problems of the
driveway traffic spilling onto Otis.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that this was a larger station than the one that was
there before, and noted that this existing shopping center was not an optimal location; she
believed that the Park Street and Otis location was a better location. She noted that this
was a response to the public's request for a fueling station in the center of the island.
Acting President Cunningham noted that he has been concerned about overdevelopment
on this parcel, and believed it would be in the community's best interest to mitigate that.
Board member Kohlstrand would like a raised six-foot-wide sidewalk at the location. She
did not feel comfortable establishing conditions on the project at this time.
Acting President Cunningham called for a five-minute recess to allow staff and the
applicant to confer.
Mr. Dan Gold, Consulting Engineers, project architect, noted that the proposal of limiting
the applicant to one smaller curb cut in the back would not work for the applicant. He
understood that the quantity of pumps was an issue for the Planning Board, and proposed
establishing driveways similar to the current driveways, with two driveway openings
from the bank. They would be willing to maintain those driveway openings, give or take
a few feet, to ensure there was proper truck circulation. They wished to move the kiosk
forward, and demonstrated on the overhead screen one dispenser that would be
eliminated as a compromise. An additional area of transition space would be gain,
reducing the width of the driveway openings to approximately the same width existing
now. He noted that it would be very difficult to make the station work if the driveways
were restricted further. He noted that the opening was currently 23 feet, and that they
would widen it to approximately 40 feet.
A discussion of the proposed measurement changes ensued.
Board member Kohlstrand suggested moving the kiosk all the way forward.
Mr. Gold noted that in that case, the traffic would go through the major queues.
Board member Kohlstrand expressed concern about the presence of a continuous curb
cut, which was not typical in Alameda. She did not believe it was the best solution for
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,13,"Alameda, and believed that too many pumps were being fit onto one site. She did not
believe it was a good design.
Mr. Gold noted that he was most concerned with the circulation, and that it made good
design and business sense to keep them as open and flowing as possible. He was less
concerned about the number of dispensers than making the wrong decision on the access.
Board member Kohlstrand emphasized that the City was trying to accommodate
pedestrians.
Mr. Gold noted that reducing the width to 35 feet may work if the truck were able to pass
through.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand whether the raised, stamped
pavement table would differ in height from the rest of the east-west sidewalk, Mr. Gold
confirmed that it would.
In response to an inquiry by Acting President Cunningham regarding the number of
pumps requested by the Planning Board, Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was
looking for 12 pumps.
Acting President Cunningham noted that the Planning Board wished to maximize the
length of the raised sidewalk to encourage pedestrian safety. He noted that there should
be access to accommodate four lanes.
Board member Kohlstrand noted that she would like to see the final redesign before
approving it, and would like an additional condition that the walkway along the southern
side be a minimum of six feet.
Mr. Thomas noted that would be part of a motion to continue and redesign for Planning
Board final approval.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-13
to adopt the mitigated negative declaration.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, which passed with the following voice
vote - 4. Absent: President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Board member Mariani.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to extend the meeting to 11:15 p.m.
Board member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which passed with the following voice
vote - 4. Absent: President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Board member Mariani.
Board member McNamara moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-13 as
revised on the supplemental staff report and amended by adding conditions 23, 24, and 25
as follows:
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,14,"1.
The number of pumps will be reduced to 12;
2.
No more than 70 feet be devoted to driveway access on the south side
property line, with the rest being raised sidewalk; and
3.
Tanker delivery would be limited to non-peak hour periods.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 3.
Noes: 1 (Kohlstrand) Absent: President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Board member
Mariani. The motion failed.
Board member McNamara moved to continue this item to the meeting of May 14, 2007.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which passed with the following
voice vote - 4. Absent: President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Board member Mariani.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee
(Board Member Mariani).
Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board
Member Kohlstrand).
Board member Kohlstrand advised that no further meetings had been held.
C.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force
(Acting President Cunningham).
Acting President Cunningham noted that the next meeting would be May 16, 2007 at
which time the draft of the Task Force's findings would be reviewed.
12. ADJOURNMENT:
11:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the May 14, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-14,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, May 14, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:08 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Vice President Cook
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy
Ashcraft, Kohlstrand, Mariani and McNamara.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Donna Mooney, Planner I Simone Wolter.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the Alameda Towne Centre Workshop of March 12, 2007.
Board member McNamara noted that she was absent from the 4:30 p.m. March 12
meeting because she recused herself.
Board member Cunningham moved approval of the minutes as presented.
Vice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote - 6.
Abstain: 1 (McNamara).
b.
Minutes for the meeting of April 23, 2007.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 4, paragraph 2, read, ""He did not believe the east-
west roadway was necessary when the north-south roadways were already available She
did not believe that was the substance of Mr. Krueger's comments, because it contradicted
his previous sentence.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 4, paragraph 7, read, ""In response to an inquiry by
Board member McNamara regarding Ms. Reid's suggestion of split sidewalks, Mr. Corbitt
replied that they had examined that possibility. He noted that there were 23 driveways ""
She noted that the previous references on page 3 refer to there being 13 driveways, and
inquired whether that was a typo. Mr. Thomas noted that he was referring to putting the
sidewalk on the south side of that road, where there were 23 parking aisles.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 5, the last sentence of paragraph 3, read, ""Once the
road is placed on that parcel, a bike-pedestrian path would be placed there, and the area
would be added to the beachfront area for buildings and parking."" She noted that her notes
did not reflect that information, and was concerned about whether it would be temporary.
She would like the record to reflect that Mike Corbitt stated it was a temporary parking lot,
and that it was not to be a beachfront area for buildings and parking because that was not the
idea of enlivening the waterfront with parking lots.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
May 14, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-14,2,"Board member Kohlstrand moved approval of the minutes as amended.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote - 4. Abstain: 3 (Cook, Lynch, Mariani).
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Lynch noted that speaker cards had been received for Item 8-A of the Consent
Calendar.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to remove Item 8-A from the Consent Calendar, and to
place it on the Regular Agenda.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
-7. -
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Future Agendas
Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
May 14, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-14,3,"8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A.
Use Permit UP07-0005- Applicant: Bryan Gower for Crosstown Coffee
House - 1303 High Street (SW). The applicant requests Use Permit approval to
have (acoustic and amplified) live music performances within the coffee shop.
Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.8(c)(7), a Use Permit is required for live
performances that are in combination with other allowed uses. The site is located
within the C-1 Neighborhood Business District.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to remove Item 8-A from the Consent Calendar, and to
place it on the Regular Agenda.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 7.
Mr. Wolter summarized the staff report and recommended approval of this item.
President Lynch noted that eight speaker slips had been received.
Board member Cunningham moved to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 7.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Carol Dutra spoke in support of this item as well as live musical performances, and
noted that her son was learning to play the piano.
Mr. Dave Netherhood noted that he was the founder of the Crosstown Coffee House, and
noted that Mr. Gower was unable to attend due to a family medical emergency. He
wished to discuss the hours that music would be allowed, as well as the acoustic study
requirement. He got the impression that staff wanted no sound at all to be emitted from
the building. He did not believe that would be realistic.
Mr. Jack Hickman noted that he volunteered at the coffeehouse, and noted that their
business had dropped significantly since live music was discontinued. He was unsure
how long they could continue serving coffee without live music.
Timothy Runberger distributed a copy of his comments and noted that he was eager to
see this permit granted, and objected to some of the conditions, particularly the condition
stating that prior to any live entertainment being able to play, that a consultant be hired to
make engineering recommendations to reduce noise levels. He noted that would be
expensive and burdensome for the coffeehouse, and would cause a significant delay. He
believed it was inconsistent with the standards set for in the Alameda Municipal Code.
He noted that no one in the City had to comply with the established standard of having no
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
May 14, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-14,4,"believed that Condition 10, requiring a six-month report to the Planning Board, would
cover the noise issues. She did not believe it would be necessary to hire an engineer to
measure the noise levels.
Ms. Amy Wheat noted that the owners of the coffeehouse had canvassed the
neighborhood to solve the noise problems, and that many of the residents' ideas were
incorporated by the applicant. She believed that hiring a sound consultant would be far
beyond the budget of the applicant, and noted that it was not suggested by the residents.
She believed it was an unreasonable condition, and that no one else in the City has had to
comply with that condition.
Louanne Zankey noted that she understood music could only be played until 8 p.m., and
noted that her son could play music in her dining room until 10 without disturbing the
neighbors. She added that if a neighbor complained, that the police would come to the
door. She noted that the coffeehouse did a good job of presenting family-appropriate
music, and thought that 9 p.m. might be a good time to stop the music during the week,
and 10 p.m. during the weekends.
Ms. Anise Jenkins spoke in support of this project, and noted that it was a positive situation
for the neighborhood. She noted that traffic, buses and planes were noticeable in the
neighborhood, and did not believe the music would be a detriment to the neighborhood.
Mr. Jim McWorley noted that his grandmother used to live across the street from the
building occupied by the coffeehouse, and noted that the applicants had vastly improved
the noise situation from the days when the building was occupied by the 19th Hole. He
noted that this was the only place in Alameda that he could bring his kids to hear live
music in the evening.
A speaker spoke on behalf of the kids who played music, and noted that she and her
husband were youth leaders. She noted that a place like Coffeehouse was a positive
influence for kids who perform there.
Mr. David May noted that he was the host of Open Mike Night at the coffeehouse, and
that Open Mike Night was as structured as possible, and was held between 7:00-9:30
p.m. He noted that they wanted to follow the guidelines, would monitor the sound better
and would police themselves in order to be a good neighbor.
A speaker believed that Crosstown Coffeehouse embodied all the positive aspects of
Alameda, and noted that they sponsored a middle school arts night.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
May 14, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-14,5,"The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Lynch described the conditional use permit process, and noted that there was a
difference between a residential use and a commercial use.
Board member Mariani noted that she used to live kitty-corner to the old 19th Hole, and
noted that she used to live above the liquor store. She noted that the current use could not
compare with that use. She believed this was a positive use, and suggested giving the
applicant a chance before requiring the use of a noise consultant. She would not be opposed
to a 9 p.m. cutoff, especially during the summertime, because dance studios and other
businesses that play music were often open until 9 p.m.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft commended Kelly Day for her part in repairing the
communication. She believed that the process could have been simplified if the correct
procedures had been followed. She believed that the rights of the neighbors had to be
balanced with the needs of the coffeehouse, and may not object to 9 p.m. for music
performance.
Board member Kohlstrand was pleased to see the support for this proposal, and was
concerned about the neighbors who lived nearby. She did not want to place untenable
conditions on the coffeehouse.
Vice President Cook suggested that a limit or cap on the number of performances be placed
so a burden would not be placed on the neighborhood. She did not want to put constraints
like requiring closed windows on the use.
Board member McNamara supported the previous comments by the Board members. She
did not believe that keeping the doors and windows closed would be a realistic condition.
She believed it would be reasonable to measure the noise over time, rather than prior to the
first live performance. She was concerned about respecting the time for the music to stop to
accommodate the neighbors. She would support an 8 p.m. time limit during the week. She
questioned whether the live music was necessary to play every night.
Board member Cunningham noted that the use permit rode with the property, and noted that
the Planning Board had always been concerned about uses that may follow this particular
use. He requested that a condition be crafted that state that the use permit may require
certain mitigations should there be neighborhood concern in the future.
Mr. Thomas noted that the Planning Board may modify or add conditions, but there should
be a clear set of conditions that clearly articulate the City's expectations in working with the
neighbors.
President Lynch noted that he was not quite convinced after hearing the testimony, and did
not see this item as a complicated issue. He did not believe the applicant should be required
to submit an acoustical study prior to the action taken. He believed that with respect to
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
May 14, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-14,6,"Condition 3, it would be appropriate to have extend the hours past 8 p.m. given the time of
year. He suggested that the time of year, the type of activity and the individuals participating
in the activity be taken into account.
Vice President Cook suggested deleting Condition 2 (requiring an immediate sound study);
changing Condition 10 from a six-month report to a three-month report; Condition 12 to
state that the use permit approval would expire in one year rather than two years after the
date of approval, unless the above conditions have been met. She would be willing to agree
to limit the number of events during the week.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed it may be too onerous to limit the number of events
per week. She was more concerned about events falling into the amplified music category,
and that the performances did not disturb the neighbors. She believed it would be reasonable
to request a review in three months. She suggested that the requirement for the acoustic
study be removed, and noted that it could be examined at the three-month review period.
She suggested allowing amplified music to end at 9 p.m. on weeknights, and 10 p.m. on
weekends, with a report after three months of operation.
President Lynch cautioned that if the doors were required to be closed, that someone may
also lock them, which would be an unsafe violation of the fire code.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-13 to
approve a Use Permit to have (acoustic and amplified) live music performances within
the coffee shop. Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.8(c)(7), a Use Permit is required for
live performances that are in combination with other allowed uses. The following
modifications were added:
1.
Condition 2 was deleted;
2.
Condition 3: 8 p.m. should be changed to 9 p.m.;
3.
Condition 10: the six-month review should be changed to a three-month
review; and
4.
Condition 12: the two-year vesting period should be changed to one year.
Vice President Cook seconded the motion, with carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
May 14, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-14,7,"8-B.
Design Review DR06-0066, Use Permit UP07-0009 and Parking Exception -
Applicant: Sandip Jariwala - 1628 Webster Street (Hawthorne Suites) (ZS).
The project involves adding a 16-room 8,990 square foot structure to an existing
50-room 30,500 square foot hotel; and a Parking Exception to provide fewer
parking spaces than the number required by City code.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to continue this item to a future date.
Vice President Cook seconded the motion, with carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.
8-C.
Initial Study IS05-0001; Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0001;
Major Design Review DR05-0010; Use Permits UP06-0003, UP06-0010,
UP06-012 and UP06-0013; - Applicant: Safeway, Inc. 2234 Otis Drive
(adjacent Alameda Towne Centre) (AT). The applicant requests approval of
Planned Development Amendment, Major Design Review and Use Permits
allowing the demolition of an existing bank building and redevelopment of the
property with a gas station. The project includes three covered pump islands, each
containing three pumps, for a total of eighteen pumping stations. Fuel will be
stored in three 20,0000 gallon underground storage tanks. In addition to the
approximately 7,500 square-foot canopy covering the gasoline pumping facilities,
the project includes an approximately 625 square-foot building, housing the
cashier's desk, restrooms and retail sales of convenience items. The applicant is
proposing twenty-four hour operations and the sale of beer and wine. An Initial
Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project.
Mitigation measures have been identified that will reduce potentially significant
impacts to a less than significant level. The site is located within a, Central
Business District with Planned Development overlay Zoning District (C-2-PD).
(Continued from the meeting of April 23, 2007. Staff requests continuance to
the meeting of June 11, 2007.)
Board member Kohlstrand moved to continue this item to June 11, 2007.
Vice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
May 14, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-14,8,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
DP07-0001 - Catellus/Prologis - Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development
(AT). The applicant requests Development Plan approval for the waterfront
promenade, streetscape cross-sections for Fifth Street and Mitchell Mosley
Avenue, and the Alameda Landing Transportation Demand Management
Program. The project area is located south of the Oakland Alameda Estuary, north
of the College of Alameda and the Bayport Residential District, east of Coast
Guard Housing, and west of Webster Street. The site is in the M-X (Mixed Use)
Zoning District.
Mr. Thomas presented the staff report, and recommended approval of the Transportation
Demand Management plan for the project, the Mitchell Avenue and 5th Street roadway
design, and the Site-wide Landscaping Development Plan amendment.
Mr. David Tirman, Senior Vice President (California), Catellus Development Group,
noted that he was an architect by training, and detailed his professional background. He
noted that he was an active member of the AIA and was a LEED-accredited professional.
He introduced the design and architecture team, and described their efforts with respect to
sustainable development.
Ms. Karen Alschuler displayed a PowerPoint presentation on the overhead screen, and
described the background, scope and layout of this project.
Mr. Rene Behan, Managing Principal, SWA San Francisco, detailed the components to
the master plan with respect to the landscaping plan, the open space network, public use
spaces and the bioswales.
Mr. Tirman noted that the Clif Bar design documents and the adjacent parking shed
would be brought forward at the May 29 meeting, along with the waterfront promenade
development plan. He noted that at the June 11 meeting, they would return with the retail
plans developed by LPA. The design review for 5th Street, Mitchell Avenue and the
waterfront plaza would be presented.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Lynch called for a five-minute recess.
President Lynch noted that the first topic of discussion would be the TDM.
Board member Kohlstrand believed the outline for the TDM program was good, but she
was concerned that it did not have a lot of teeth to it. She noted that seven to eight hours
of shuttles per day was the only guarantee. She noted that there were no transit services to
the site, and no disincentives for single-occupancy auto trips. She noted that there was no
link to reducing the parking on-site to create any disincentive. She noted there was a lot
of work to provide pedestrian circulation through the site, but much of it was through
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
May 14, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-14,9,"parking areas rather than public streets, which was a concern for her. She noted that the
guaranteed ride home was only for businesses with more than 100 employees, which may
not be the majority of the businesses on this site. She was concerned that the pieces were
there, but there were no guarantees that they would be provided, or that they would be
effective.
Board member Mariani agreed that the transportation piece was very important, but that
people could not be forced to use them. She supported the use of incentives.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft commended the Transportation Commission for their work
in creating a very comprehensive report. She expressed concern about the water shuttle
service, and she would like a stronger commitment to the water taxi, as well as stronger
language. She noted this was a waterfront-oriented project, and believed there should be
better alternatives to get bikes from Alameda to Oakland rather than riding through the
Tube. She strongly believed that public transportation should be subsidized, and that the
dollars should be found to do that. She noted that she would continue to work toward a
stronger commitment to the water taxi.
Vice President Cook shared the concerns about the transportation plan, and noted that she
was underwhelmed by it. She shared Board member Kohlstrand's concerns. Under
""Duties and Deliverables,"" the report never discussed evaluating the landside
requirements for successful operations of a water taxi, which should include links to other
public transportation. She expressed general concern about the funding for the
transportation plan, and noted that it did not seem to be particularly well funded. She
requested further clarification on the developer role, and any funding contingencies if it
failed. She noted that some of the evaluation points were somewhat confusing.
Board member Mariani would like further clarification of the $425,000, which only
seemed to be available at full development.
Board member Cunningham would like more information on how the dollar amounts
were arrived at, and noted that 300 homes were referred to, while there were only 225
homes. He asked whether that would affect the dollar amounts. He noted that with respect
to the onsite amenities, one goal was to reduce traffic trips. He suggested adding daycare
centers to accompany the residential and business uses. He would like more information
about the water shuttle. Page 17 referenced the ride share program, which he would like
more information on.
Mr. Thomas described the background of the TDM program as it developed from the
Alameda transportation strategy, where each project in the West End must contribute
money on an annual basis to transportation. He believed this was the best TDM program
seen by the City so far, but that future TDM programs could be better.
Mr. Thomas noted that the City Council included the five-year evaluation late in their
deliberations of the development agreement. After five years of TDM operations, an
evaluation of the TDM program would take place. If the project is doing very well
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
May 14, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-14,10,"financially, and the TDM program is not doing very well, and if additional funds could
help the TDM program do better, there would be an increase in the annual allocations to
the TDM program.
Board member Kohlstrand would like more assurance for other kinds of service to
compensate for the water taxi if needed, and the level of parking needed given the mix of
uses on the site as a whole.
Mr. Thomas noted that any developer would like to have certainty with respect to
parking. He noted that there were no commercial office developments in Alameda that
charged for parking, and that it was very tough to compete in that arena.
Board member Kohlstrand did not believe it would be feasible to charge for parking, and
suggested that limiting parking would force users into using alternative modes of
transportation; she emphasized that the alternative mode must be available to serve the
project.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a positive incentive for a business could
be created, rather than using a punitive approach. She hoped that some realistic efforts
would be made for a realistic solution. She noted that it took time for new transportation
habits to be formed, and did not want to see more traffic put through the Tube. She would
like to see more emphasis on water transportation, and would like to see a best effort in
developing a workable solution.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the financial aspect of the
project, Mr. Thomas replied that the entitlements were already in place. He recommended
that the Planning Board could consider the annual report on the success of the program,
and if it wanted the parking issue to be addressed in each of the annual reports, it would
provide the opportunity to discuss the TDM plan, the parking strategy, use of parking,
and whether it should be changed.
President Lynch suggested that the areas of the TDM to be addressed in the annual report
be discussed prior to the annual report in a scoping session.
Board member Kohlstrand suggested that the annual report include a parking
management report that assesses the occupancy of the spaces and how they relate to the
achievement of goals of reduction of peak hour uses and there should be another strategy
to pick up the slack if the water shuttle has not proven to be feasible.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the water shuttle pilot period could be
changed from one year to two.
President Lynch noted that was contained in the DA.
Mr. Thomas noted that the City Council wanted to see it run for a year, and that it would
be problematic to change it, because the DA would need to be amended.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
May 14, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-14,11,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to reopen the public hearing.
Vice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.
The public hearing was reopened.
Mr. Bruce Knopf, Catellus, noted that they were very committed to the TDM program,
and saw the TMA program as establishing the beginning of their program, and for other
developments to use in the future. They were committed to the water shuttle, which had a
minimum funding level in the budget. The operation of the water shuttle will require gap
funding from the developer, and he noted that it needed a sufficient level of ridership in
order to succeed. They were working with Bike Alameda to develop a constituency. They
had also spoken with Transportation Commission Chair John Knox White and members
of the TMA about including the TMA itself as an entity within CMA to qualify for
guaranteed ride home programs for smaller employers. They had worked closely with AC
Transit in the last three months to discuss car share programs, and a program like
EcoPass would become a component of their program.
Board member Kohlstrand expressed concern that the information presented by Mr.
Knopf was not included in the TDM report, and that the language should have been less
tentative.
President Lynch did not want to circumvent the authority of the TMA Board, which
should be the body that fleshed out the ideals of the program.
Mr. Knopf noted that the language was accurate, and that he could not guarantee the
continued operation of the water shuttle.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-14 to
approve the Alameda Landing Transportation Demand Management Program, with the
following modifications as noted by staff would be included and;
1.
Parking management strategies would be included in the annual report;
2.
If any part of the water shuttle is started and then de-funded, that decision
and other options would be reviewed by the Transportation Commission
and the City Council.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, with carried by the following voice vote
- 6. Abstain - 1 (Cook).
Vice President Cook did not believe that the planning issues were addressed adequately,
and did not believe it should be before the Planning Board if it was predetermined, and if
the Board could not make meaningful input.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
May 14, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-14,12,"Mr. Thomas described the overall rights-of-way dedicated to the recommended 5th Street
and Mitchell Cross Sections.
Ms. Alschuler noted that the requirements were given specific scale and size in
relationship to the Master Plan.
President Lynch invited comment about 5th Street; there were no comments.
Vice President Cook expressed concern about the narrowness of the sidewalk on the west
side of 5th Street, given that the right of way had been set. She hoped there could be a true
mixed use project on this site.
Mr. Knopf noted that the strategy for that side of the street was to have an 11-foot
section, with a six-foot continuous hardscape and five feet of planting. That planting
could be in a more urbanized condition, with trees being placed in tree grates.
Vice President Cook inquired whether there would be room for café tables. Mr. Knopf
replied that there would be room for the tables.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the narrow townhomes and shop homes.
Mr. Thomas described the homes as a Measure A-compliant duplex sitting on top of a
retail space.
Board member Kohlstrand inquired whether the Board would have an opportunity to
comment on the entire street plan. Mr. Thomas replied that the entire internal street
network would be presented as part of the development plan, including each phase of the
development. The retail center, from Mitchell to Stargell, would be presented on June 11,
2007, as well as building footprints and design review.
Board member Kohlstrand expressed concern that the Board was being asked to approve
sections of 5th Street, and that there did not seem to be city blocks in the plan. It appeared
to be a big shopping center to her, rather than city blocks.
Board member Kohlstrand did not believe there was a street network that connected with
Alameda.
Vice President Cook shared Board member Kohlstrand's concerns, and was also
concerned about the apparent privatizing of the streets.
Board member Kohlstrand noted that the roads in South Shore Center were similar, and
believed this project replicated the problems in South Shore Center, with a roadway in a
mall. She was concerned that all of the traffic was put on one or two main roads.
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-15 to
approve the Mitchell Moseley/5th Street.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
May 14, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-14,13,"Board member Mariani seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote -
4. Noes- 3 (Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft, Kohlstrand).
President Lynch suggested that action on the landscape development plan be continued to
the meeting of May 29, 2007.
Mr. Thomas noted that at the next meeting, staff would present landscape, waterfront
promenade and Clif Bar, in that order.
Board member Mariani moved to continue the landscape development plan to the
meeting of May 29, 2007.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 7.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
May 14, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-14,14,"10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATION
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee
(Board Member Mariani).
Board member Mariani noted that they would hold the next meeting at 3:30 p.m. on May
17, 2007, at the Asian Health Center in Chinatown.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board
Member Kohlstrand).
Board member Kohlstrand noted that there was nothing further to report.
C.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force
(Board Member Cunningham).
Board member Cunningham advised that the next meeting would be held on Wednesday,
May 16, at 7 p.m. at the Library.
Board member Cunningham noted that many mail notifications of project had been
received, and he would be happy to access the notifications on line o save mailing
expenses.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested printing materials on both sides of the page to
save paper.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:56 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Anderson
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the May 29, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
May 14, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-29,1,"Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting
Monday, May 29, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:08 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Mariani
3.
ROLL CALL:
Acting President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft,
Kohlstrand, Mariani and McNamara.
President Lynch was absent from roll call.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Donna Mooney, Planner III Doug Vu.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the Special meeting of April 18, 2007.
Board member Kohlstrand noted that on page 8, paragraph 2, the discussion about
regarding traffic levels at Island Drive and Doolittle, read, "" which often backed up at
Lincoln School so that traffic could not pass through the intersection."" She would like it
to state that ""the traffic at Island Drive and Doolittle backs up as a result of people trying
to get off of Harbor Bay going to Lincoln School and the high school, but it did not back
up at Lincoln at that point.""
Board member Kohlstrand noted that page 9, paragraph 2, should be changed to read,
""Member Ezzy Ashcraft Member Kohlstrand-understoo that the private high school is not
such a viable option, and inquired whether it was still in the running.""
Member Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the minutes as amended.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Absent: 1 (Lynch). The motion passed.
b.
Minutes for the meeting of May 14, 2007.
Board member Kohlstrand moved approval of the minutes as presented.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Absent: 1 (Lynch). The motion passed.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
May 29, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-29,2,"6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
a.
Future Agendas
Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.
b.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. Thomas provided an update on Zoning Administrator actions.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
May 29, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-29,3,"9-A.
DP07-0002 & DR07-0044 Development Plan and Design Review - Applicant:
Catellus Development Corporation - Alameda Landing Mixed Use
Development Project. The applicant requests Development Plan approval for a
Site-Wide Master Landscape Development Plan and a Waterfront Promenade
Plan, and Development Plan and Design Review approval for the Clif Bar & Co.
Headquarters commercial project, parking shed, off-street parking, landscaping,
and associated improvements on an approximately 8.69 acre site. The site is
located along the northern end of the former FISC Site (Tract 7884) within the M-
X Mixed Use Planned Development Zoning District. (AT/DV)
Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the items being
considered: the Site-Wide Master Landscape Development Plan Amendment, the
Waterfront Promenade Plan, and the Development Plan and Design Review. He thanked
David Tierman of Catellus for bringing an excellent team of designers and consultants to
this project.
Acting President Cook disclosed that she had met with Mr. Tierman and several other
consultants on-site the previous week in order to walk around with the plans.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft disclosed that she visited the site, and noted that she was very
pleased to see this area of the waterfront that she had never seen before.
Board member Kohlstrand disclosed that she visited the site, and found the on-site
examination of the plans to be very helpful.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. David Tierman, Vice President, Catellus Development Group, introduced the
development team.
Mr. Mike Engelhart, Development Project Management Team, Catellus Development
Group, noted that their focus in attaining a sustainable design was adaptive reuse of the
existing facility.
Mr. Bruce Lymburn, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean, project manager, detailed the history
and corporate culture of Clif Bar. He noted that Clif Bar demonstrated a commitment to
sustainability in their brands, business, people, the community and the planet, as well as
ethical business practices.
Mr. Rene Behan, SWA, provided an overview of the Landscape Master Plan and
displayed a detailed PowerPoint presentation of the Master Plan.
Ms. Martina Goodman, SMWM Architects, described and displayed the adaptive reuse of
parking behind the Clif Bar building.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
May 29, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-29,4,"Ms. Kathy Berg, project architect, Zimmer, Gunsul, Frasca Architects, described and
displayed the design and site plan for the Clif Bar headquarters facility. She detailed how
the project would support Clif Bar's commitment to both the financial and community
bottom lines.
Acting President Cook called for a five-minute recess.
Mr. Bruce Reeves, 2527 Santa Clara Avenue, noted that he supported the arrival of Clif
Bar to Alameda, and that it would be a benefit to the community.
Mr. Gail Wetzork, 3452 Capella Lane, spoke in support of this project, and noted that he
had been involved with it since its inception. He supported the use of as much existing
property and material as possible, and looked forward to seeing the Northern Waterfront
open up.
Ms. Melody Marr, 1416 Park Avenue, noted that the President of the Alameda Chamber
of Commerce could not attend, and noted that the officers and directors supported this
project. She complimented Catellus for all the work and community outreach they had
performed, and added that they performed their due diligence and used the suggestions
they had received. The Chamber was very pleased with what they had seen over the past
year, and supported parking sheds.
Mr. Dick Lyons, 18 Shannon Circle, spoke in support of this project as a resident and as a
past president of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Acting President Cook suggested addressing the landscape plan first.
Board member Mariani noted that she was very pleased with the plan.
Board member Cunningham believed this was the most exciting project he had seen
during this tenure on the Planning Board, and complimented the excellent work
performed by the team. He inquired whether vehicle access would be available down to
the waterfront for people carrying kayaks and similar watercraft down to the waterfront.
Mr. Behan believed there would be access to the waterfront, and that a gateway entry
would be necessary to gain access to the floating dock. The structural studies would
determine whether vehicle access would be possible.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether any consideration had
been given to the screening of the recreation zone at the turning basin area, Mr. Behan
replied that was the most picturesque piece of the waterfront and noted that it was a
balancing act. He noted that there were not many opportunities to screen it because it was
fully open to the waterfront.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
May 29, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-29,5,"In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham regarding other amenities, Mr.
Engelhart replied that the Master Plan contained a requirement that public access to
restrooms be available in the facilities. He noted that an office building was also planned,
with the possibility of a restaurant in the last office building. He described the overall
vision of the office building, which would anchor the project and capture the views to the
waterfront.
Mr. Thomas noted that the Master Plan limited this project to 400,000 square feet of
office.
Mr. Behan noted that the Clif Bar building will highlight sustainable features, identifying
design elements through graphics that talk about how the bioswales filter water and treat
storm drain runoff. They have been working in conjunction with Alameda Power &
Telecom regarding the project design in order to maximize the impact of renewable
energy sources, produced on-site as well as produced by AP&T. They have discussed
putting a kiosk on the waterfront to exhibit different sources of energy coming to the
project both on-site and from the renewable energy sources from AP&T. He noted that
the entire project was designed to be a discovery center, both in the buildings and the site
development for sustainable development.
Board member McNamara inquired about the children's water garden identified on the
village green. Mr. Engelhart noted that it was intended to be an interactive water piece,
possibly with environmental graphics, that would also be fun for children to play with on
a warm day. He noted that it would be specifically scaled for children.
Board member McNamara expressed concern about filtering requirements for chlorine,
which could become very involved and possibly cost-prohibitive. She suggested a
different kind of educational water element.
Mr. Behan noted that the new health standards require that the pieces be treated not as a
fountain, but as a pool, and brought up to pool standards.
In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara, Mr. Thomas noted that the
comparison of the green space to a soccer field was to illustrate its comparative size. He
added that it was not designed to be a formal recreational soccer field. He noted that it
would be an informal space for gathering, kite flying, and events, and that the western
end of the promenade would have more programmed facilities and spaces.
Board member Kohlstrand believed this project was like a dream come true for the City
of Alameda, and she believed that overall, Catellus has put considerable effort into this
project. She wished to discuss the street lighting on the waterfront, which was to have
several different fixtures with higher standards to attain better coverage. She requested a
discussion of the pedestrian-level scale standard as well, and inquired whether a lower
fixture could be added.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
May 29, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-29,6,"Mr. Engelhart noted that a single-pole/multiheaded fixture was shown as being
approximately 35 feet high, which came with multiple heads that could be oriented in a
number of different ways. He noted that a lower level light could easily be used, and he
noted that the elevation was extremely flat, and they intended to get an emphasis at the
end of the tree rows so that there was a hierarchy to the lights themselves.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand regarding public art, Mr. Thomas
noted that would be addressed at another time. He noted that the development agreement
establishes that the project actually has two public art requirements, $150,000 each. He
noted that the Public Art Commission reviewed those proposals, and the first piece would
be included as part of the first phase of the development. He noted that staff could brief
the Planning Board as the pieces came forward.
Board member Kohlstrand noted that in San Francisco, the public art was well-integrated
into the facilities and the public infrastructure.
Board member Kohlstrand wished to ensure that if the landscape plan was adopted, that
the Planning Board did not preclude the discussions about better development of the
street system, particularly in the retail area as well as the warehouse area. She noted that
they had discussed a strong sense of a public space going between the warehouses,
parking sheds and the actual buildings and would like a little more conventional treatment
of the retail area.
With respect to the public feel, Mr. Thomas noted that the east-west public access was a
unique situation, as well as all the parking surrounding the sheds. Staff concluded that the
team's design was a unique place in Alameda and elsewhere.
Board member Kohlstrand believed the idea of 90-degree parking made the most sense.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she loved the project and complimented Catellus and
Clif Bar for their hard work and inspiration. She was pleased to read that Clif Bar was
helping businesses adopt green practices, as well as StopWaste.org. She was concerned
about the project's contribution to Bay-friendly landscaping, Mr. Behan replied that it
was a balance between creating a landscape that was functional and sustainable. He
added that it was not a suburban lawn that used a lot of resources. The soil and polymer
palette would help retain the soil and prevent runoff; the landscaping was also designed
to be drought-tolerant. The plant palette on the Master Plan was native and drought-
tolerant. He described the irrigation system, and noted that the infrastructure would
accept the reclaimed water system. He noted that products would be used that would have
minimum impact on the Bay.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the Field of Dreams
playground, Mr. Thomas replied that it would return to the Board with the design review
of the final phase of the Promenade.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
May 29, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-29,7,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that because the Field of Dreams would be a
very positive addition to the City's children, that any playground also be universally
accessible to accommodate differing physical abilities.
Acting President Cook noted that she was excited to see this project, which met the
caliber of what she hoped to see in a waterfront development, and commended the
developers. She noted that this site was being changed to become an environmentally
sensitive project. She expressed some discomfort with the bioswale/cottonwood tree
usage, as opposed to a more urban treatment.
Mr. Behan believed that the site's uniqueness was a strength, and brought up Crissy Field
as an urban park. He noted that the circulation brought people out to the water, and that
the wind rows and agricultural landscape was appropriate for the area. He noted that the
site was restricted with respect to how much retail would be allowed. He believed the
landscape responded to the existing structures.
Acting President Cook noted that how the landscape connected back to the residential
arm of this project was of interest to her, and would like to see more of a visual
connection straight through to the waterfront, as detailed on Drawing L1. She noted that
the City had control over the water retention basin, and was concerned that the wind rows
may impact that in the future.
Mr. Behan noted that that the greenway did not necessarily have to be a wind row,
although they would like the linear orientation to connect to the waterfront. The property
line was not orthogonal to the waterfront, but there was a clear and strong pedestrian
connection at that point, which attempted to connect to the waterfront. As that is
developed, they intended to further the clear and direct connection as much as possible.
Acting President Cook suggested using interpretive signage to help people make their
way onto the site, and to make it clear that they have a right to be there. She would like to
discuss that issue with City Council going forward.
Board member Cunningham believed that BCDC would be strong advocates for that
program.
Mr. Engelhart noted that they submitted that plan to BCDC and applied their comments
to this plan. They also planned to make a connection of the Bay Trail along the
waterfront, and that the bike path would be signaled and striped.
Mr. Thomas noted that Condition 3 of the Clif Bar resolution stated that all signs would
be reviewed and approved by the City, which was a standard condition. In this case, the
signage would be very important so that people understood that this was a public area. He
noted that easements will be in place, and the public parking will be shared, and the
signage will be appropriate and will emphasize that.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
May 29, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-29,8,"Acting President Cook wanted to ensure that the interpretive signage would not only
describe the site but also the company, while being respectful of the private nature of the
company. She also believed the interactive fountains would be very welcoming and
exciting, and loved that addition.
She echoed Board member Cunningham's concern about wind screening by the baseball
field so that it would be comfortable.
Acting President Cook believed there should be public restrooms separate from those in
the building. Mr. Thomas replied that staff would return on June 25 with the first piece of
details for the promenade, and that would be a good opportunity to discuss bathroom
facilities.
Mr. Behan noted that this was an extraordinary project for BCDC, and that they were
very favorable toward it.
Board member Mariani noted that she had some concern about the simplicity of this
design being loaded down with interpretative signage and educational features; she did
not want it to be overplanned. She acknowledged the baseball field would be windy, and
did not want people to be overwhelmed to the point of not being able to discover what
was intended to be a simple project.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft recalled some national parks in Hawaii that had self-guided
tours with signs that educated but did not mar the natural beauty of the site. She believed
that the signs would be educational and creative in that manner.
Mr. Thomas noted that an overall sign program was required of the project in the Master
Plan, and he recommended that the Planning Board include a condition that the required
sign program include the plans for interpretive signage and wayfinding, as well as a
requirement that it be brought back to the Planning Board prior to occupancy of the Clif
Bar project.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 07-17 to
approve the Landscape Master Plan Amendment as proposed, with the condition that the
retail landscape plan may vary from the Master Landscape Plan.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Absent: 1 (Lynch). The motion passed.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she felt favorably about the entire concept, and
noted that when she visited the site, she felt the view was very accessible. She expressed
concern about the guardrail for the promenade, and did not want children to climb on the
railings. She noted that her husband had taken photos of the guardrail at the Embarcadero
in San Francisco, which had vertical rather than horizontal rungs; the design work at the
top was attractive but was not something a child could get a foot into. She noted that the
view should be maximized with an eye towards safety. She inquired whether there would
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
May 29, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-29,9,"be intervals of ladders to climb if someone got to the wrong side of the railing, or fell in.
She noted that there were flotation devices at the Embarcadero.
Mr. Behan did not have information on the life safety issue, and noted that there were two
options for the guardrail. He noted that it was not uncommon to see the horizontal rail,
and that a nonclimbable mesh could also be used. They would like to stay away from the
Victorian-era rails, which became ornamental and would be out of character and
nontransparent.
Mr. Thomas suggested that those elements be brought back with the Phase I design
review for the promenade.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand, Mr. Behan described and
displayed the access to the floating docks.
A discussion of the floating dock ensued.
Board member Mariani noted that she was extremely pleased with the plan, and she
looked forward to seeing more details at the next hearing.
Acting President Cook noted that she was very happy with the simplicity of the plan, and
would like the applicant to keep the notion of guest docks on mind so people could sail to
a destination to access restaurants.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 07-18 to
approve the Waterfront Promenade Development Plan.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Absent: 1 (Lynch). The motion passed.
Regarding the Clif Bar design review proposal, Board member Mariani did not like the
parking sign because it did not blend with the aesthetics of the restored warehouse. She
inquired whether the Clif Bar doors would be red in the final design.
Ms. Goodman noted that the area was vast, and a great deal of signage would be required
to direct people into the parking garage. They believed that the large sign would be the
easiest way to accomplish that, and she added that the orange door may end up being
white in the final design.
Board member Cunningham noted that he liked the supergraphics associated with the
garage, and may support making them bigger. He suggested the wording on the sign just
say ""Parking"" rather than ""Parking Garage."" He inquired whether there was any
consideration of harvesting gray water from the very large roof. Ms. Goodman noted that
they had not explored that option, but that solar panels would be explored.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
May 29, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-29,10,"Mr. Engelhart noted that they would not want to harvest more water than they could use,
but they would find the amount of water to balance the system.
Board member Cunningham liked the idea of the beacons coming through the doors. He
requested more information on activating the waterfront with respect to the light wells,
and would like to see a way to blur the line of the north façade of the building relative to
the waterfront promenade.
Ms. Berg noted that there would be openings in the front that would bring people directly
into the building, and that will provide the indoor/outdoor connection. They were looking
at a way to incorporate planters and seating areas up towards the face of the building, so
that Clif Bar can spill out, and the public came come up towards the edge of the building
and sit there. She noted that one of the gardens moved out towards the edge, and that it
will also be used for stretching and aerobics, as well as some gathering near the wellness
facility. She noted that the spine at the water's edge was the circulation path and there
will be seating areas near the edge of the glass.
In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara, Ms. Berg confirmed that the
water tower would be approximately 27 feet tall, and it would be about 25-27 feet above
grade.
Board member McNamara understood the functionality of the water tower, and inquired
whether there was any way to design it with additional screening. Ms. Berg believed the
water tower was within the character of the maritime environment. She added that there
were different options for materials and shaping that would enable it to fit in very well,
and that it would serve as an iconic element.
Mr. Engelhart noted that they would probably bring a precast concrete system into the
site.
Board member Cunningham noted that because of concrete's fluid nature, it could be used
in a very creative manner.
Board member McNamara inquired where the accessible ramp was designed to go. Ms.
Berg replied that there was a 2% slope from the center of the Clif Bar building, within the
building, and that the inside of the building must be flattened to accommodate furniture
systems. She noted that one of the ramps would be used to address the grade transition
between the north-south elevations and the entries on the east and west.
Regarding the red doors, Board member Kohlstrand believed it was important for people
coming through the parking garage and the central spine know where the main entrance
to Clif Bar was. She did not believe people should have to walk around trying to find the
main entrance.
Board member Kohlstrand expressed concern about the wind turbines on the roof.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
May 29, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-29,11,"Acting President Cook did not believe the wind turbine issue should be decided at this
time because it was a major issue.
Mr. Thomas understood that Clif Bar and Catellus were still working out the details on
the wind turbine system, and noted that the Planning Board could condition this item so
the turbines come back for approval with more details and information.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she liked the graphics on the parking shed, as
well as the red door. She inquired whether there would be bike racks in the parking
garage; Ms. Goodman confirmed that there would be bike racks, and that they had not
been drawn in yet. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft wanted to ensure that energy would
come from clean resources.
Ms. Berg noted that they had extensive conversations about telling the stories of how
various projects, such as the wind turbines, contribute to green power. She noted that this
could be done through interpretive signage, or simply through the observation of the
feature itself.
Acting President Cook wanted to ensure there would be sufficient parking not only for
the employees, but also for any members of the public who would visit the site. Mr.
Thomas confirmed there would be sufficient parking, and added that they had made an
effort to put in much more parking than Clif Bar needed, even when it expanded.
Acting President Cook wanted to ensure the parking in the shed was well-lit, and that it
would feel safe. Ms. Goodman replied that they intended to light it well, as well as install
CCTV cameras. She noted that the parking garage will be open 24 hours a day.
Mr. Engelhart noted that using the shared parking concept, the restaurants would use the
parking as well during non-office hours. Acting President Cook emphasized that security
would be a priority in the garage.
In response to an inquiry by Acting President Cook, Mr. Engelhart noted that the Master
Plan included a provision that there will always be a waterfront restaurant use on-site,
although the restaurant use was not controlled by the development; it was a tenant
request.
Mr. Thomas noted that the design review for the waterfront plaza, the design review and
development plan for the waterfront retail, as well as the configuration of the design.
In response to an inquiry by Acting President Cook regarding the difference in language
between the staff report and the resolution, Ms. Mooney noted that the Planning Board
should focus on the language in the resolution and the findings. She added that there
were some findings listed in the staff report that did not appear in the resolution, and that
the Board did not have to address.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
May 29, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-29,12,"Board member Mariani moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-16 to
approve the Waterfront Promenade Development Plan.
1.
Finding 8 (comprehensive coordinated information and directional
signage) should be modified to read, ""The development will provide a
comprehensive, controlled and coordinated system of informational and
directional graphic signage throughout the development"" because a sign
program is required of this project, and will be subject to review and
approval by the Planning Board.
2.
Condition 7 on page 4 of the resolution should be modified to read, ""Prior
to certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall submit a comprehensive
sign program for the Alameda Landing project for Planning Board
review. Assigned programs shall provide a comprehensive and
coordinated and controlled system of informational and directional
graphic signage throughout the development; include descriptions of
wayfinding, public access, graphic signage and tenant signage for the
project."" The following language shall be stricken from the Condition:
""The City shall review and approve all building, parking lot and internal
circulation signage for the project.""
3.
Prior to issuance of building permits for the wind turbines, the design
review should return to the Planning Board for review and approval (new
Condition 12).
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Absent: 1 (Lynch). The motion passed.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
May 29, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-29,13,"9-B. Design Review DR06-0104 - Applicant: Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Entertainment Associates, 1416 Oak Street and
2305 Central Avenue. Consideration of a landscaping, signage and exterior
lighting plan for the cineplex and parking garage and a queuing plan for the
Alameda Theater Complex. The review of the landscaping, signage and exterior
lighting plans by the Planning Board are requirements of Design Reviews DR05-
0041 and DR05-0028. The site is located within a C-C-T, Community
Commercial - Theater Combining Zoning District. (CE/JO)
Ms. Jennifer Ott, Redevelopment Manager, Development Services Department,
summarized the staff report for this project.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, submitted a letter to the Planning
Board encouraging the continuance of the sycamores along Central Avenue within the
Park Street Business District. He believed they would enhance the streetscape, and gave
the street a distinct identity. He did not believe having different street trees for different
projects would be beneficial to the continuity of the streetscape. He noted that the
arborist's report stated that the infrastructure impacts for sycamores were low with
respect to damage. He did not believe the impact of sycamores on signage would not be
an issue because they had relatively transparent canopies, reached higher, and would
provide clearance for storefront signage. He believed the choice of a chanticleer pear
would be good for Oak Street. He recommended 4X4 foot cutouts, and that tree guards
should be used for the streetscape planning to protect the trees from vandals. He would
like to see sidewalk treatments along the frontage of the theatre, and believed the historic
frontage of the theatre should be unobstructed.
Mr. Kyle Conner, applicant, noted that his studies indicated that the sycamores stopped at
the high school, and that there were no particular trees that stood out at Park Street. He
was concerned about the size of sycamores, and that it would be difficult to control the
growth of those trees. They had proposed the pear trees because they were more vertical.
He believed they would be a more appropriate tree for Central Avenue.
Mr. Buckley displayed a photograph of sycamores on a narrow sidewalk, and noted that
they could be adapted for narrow sidewalks.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to extend the meeting to 11:20 p.m.
Board member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Absent: 1 (Lynch). The motion passed.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft favored the staff choice of chanticleer pear, and believed
they would add variety, color and would define the project well. She believed that Oak
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
May 29, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-29,14,"Street sorely needed some trees, and she was happy to see these trees being added. She
inquired about the tree grates and tree guards.
Ms. Ott noted that the tree grates were kept to 3x3 feet on the 10-foot sidewalk, and was
concerned about narrowing that space further so that sidewalk seating and potential
queuing outside for a blockbuster movie may be accommodated. She believed the
omission of tree guards was an oversight, and noted that they would be included.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft echoed a concern raised by a landscape architect friend that the
trees on Park Street would be tied down and bound, which may reduce their strength and
growth. Ms. Ott noted that staff would be amenable to investigating that issue.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft supported staggering the showtimes to mitigate queuing, and
inquired about the intermission length to support exit of the audience. Mr. Conner replied
that referred to the time period between movies, rather than intermission in the middle of
the movie.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about queuing for blockbuster customers inside the
theatre during inclement weather, and asked whether the Art Deco railing would be of
sufficient height to accommodate those customers. Ms. Ott noted that the railing was
subject to the California Historic Building Code, and would not be altered as such; it was
approved as part of the building permit.
Mr. Conner noted that would concern him as well, and that he could use ropes and
stanchions to keep people away from the historic railing.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand whether reversing the queuing
line and purchase line might provide better flow and less crowding, Mr. Conner replied
that may create more traffic with people crossing the ticket holders line to purchase the
tickets, and then return to the ticket holders line. Board member Kohlstrand noted that it
may keep the crowd in front of their facility. Mr. Conner noted that their policies were
geared to not have ticket holder lines that queue for very long, as opposed to what is
found at Jack London Square.
Board member Kohlstrand expressed concern about some of the standards for the
Downtown Vision Plan not being applied to this project. She had further concerns about
trees having too wide of a canopy over a commercial area without a setback for the
building. Mr. Conner agreed with that concern.
Mr. Thomas acknowledged that the Tree Master Plan needed to be updated. He noted that
the Planning staff who were landscape architects felt this was an appropriate
recommendation.
Acting President Cook suggested having the Tree Master Plan updated. Mr. Thomas
noted that the City Council had put that on their ""to do"" list as a result of some issues that
occurred at South Shore.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
May 29, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-29,15,"Board member McNamara expressed her ongoing concern about the line queuing issues
about accommodation for blockbuster movies, and inquired how overnight queuing could
be monitored and prevented.
Board member McNamara noted that the diagram showed a queue going down the
adjacent alleyway, which she felt was a dark and inhospitable environment for their
customers. Mr. Conner noted that the alley was not his first choice, and he would support
not using the alleyway at all.
Board member McNamara would not support using the area in front of the taqueria
because they were not a tenant of the applicant's building, and she did not feel it would
be fair to the taqueria's owners and customers.
Board member Cunningham noted Mr. Buckley's comments about the framework and
continuation of a theme with respect to the street trees. He believed that there was a
precedent in not continuing the sycamores down the street, and added that it was
important to have the understanding of a framework of design that continued through the
street. He inquired about the driver of the spacing of the trees, and suggested adding one
more tree to get the feeling of a green line that he would like to maintain.
Mr. Conner noted that the driver for the tree space was the utilities, and added that there
was a culvert at the west end that they were trying to work around. He noted that there
was a very large grease interceptor from the restaurant, as well as a number of utilities
vaults that must be avoided by the trees and their roots.
Acting President Cook believed the lighting design was much more Art Deco and
supported the architectural details very well. She noted that she was swayed by Mr.
Buckley's letter until she drove down Central Avenue. She was concerned that the
amount of pruning that would make the sycamores work would detract from the natural
form of that tree. She believed the canopy could be more defined, and suggested adding
more trees or choose a similar tree to fill in the tree scheme.
Mr. Conner noted that the pear tree did have a canopy, which would spread to 20 to 25
feet. He noted that they were easier to control than a sycamore. He did not oppose fitting
in another tree, and would be amenable to studying that possibility.
Board member McNamara suggested that because the signage and exterior lighting plans
were not an issue, that the landscaping and queuing issues be revisited.
Acting President Cook suggested adding a condition stating that queuing in the alley be
not recommended, and that the queuing be switched if the lines got too long; also, the
addition of one more tree should be studied.
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution Nos. 07-19 and
07-20 to approve a landscaping, signage and exterior lighting plan for the cineplex and
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
May 29, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-29,16,"parking garage and a queuing plan for the Alameda Theater Complex. The review of the
landscaping, signage and exterior lighting plans by the Planning Board are requirements
of Design Reviews DR05-0041 and DR05-0028. The following modifications will be
added:
1.
Queuing in the alley will not be recommended as part of the queuing plan;
if the lines become too long, the queuing direction will be reversed;
2.
The addition of one more tree will be studied by staff.
Acting President Cook seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Absent: 2
(Lynch, Mariani). The motion passed.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
May 29, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-05-29,17,"10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee
(Board Member Mariani).
Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board
Member Kohlstrand).
Board member Kohlstrand advised there was nothing new to report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force
(Board Member Cunningham).
Board member Cunningham noted that the previous meeting had been cancelled, and the
next meeting would be held in mid-June.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the June 25, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 17
May 29, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-11,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, June 11, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:12 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Cunningham
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy
Ashcraft, and Kohlstrand.
Board members Mariani and McNamara were absent from roll call.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Donna Mooney, Supervising Planner Doug Garrison, Planner III Doug Vu.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the Special meeting of May 29, 2007.
Mr. Thomas advised that the minutes for the Special meeting of May 29, 2007, would be
considered at the meeting of June 25, 2007.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Lynch noted that with respect to Item 8-B, the Board would like to ensure that
the applicant was responding to the open items at the desire of the Planning Board. He
would like to clarify those items for the record.
Board member Cunningham noted that the resolution detailed those items.
Mr. Thomas suggested that the item be pulled from the Consent Calendar, and discuss the
item with the applicant without taking action.
Board member Cunningham would like to follow normal procedure of hearing the staff
report, analyzing the plans and review it as any other application.
Board member Kohlstrand noted that the item was advertised as a continued item, and
did not feel it would be appropriate to pull it off the Consent Calendar.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it had originally been continued to this meeting,
and inquired why it was continued. Mr. Thomas replied that there had since been a Call
for Review on the environmental documentation, which went to City Council on June 5.
on June 6, the Planning packet went out. He noted that there was a communication
problem between staff and the applicants in that they were under the impression they
could return with just the revised site plan. Staff believed the Board would need a full set
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
June 11, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-11,2,"of design review plans, and the applicants did not realize that until too late. Therefore,
staff recommended a continuance to give them time to produce those plans, and give staff
time to review them in order to provide a full staff report. He noted that the notation on
the agenda stating that the item had been continued to June 25 was written as if that
continuation had already occurred, when in fact staff made the recommendation for the
Board to continue it. He noted that in the future, staff should not take that option away
from the Board.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to remove Item 8-B from the Consent Calendar to
the Regular Agenda.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote - 5. Absent: 2 (Mariani, McNamara).
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Future Agendas
Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.
Ms. Mooney noted that for future reference, a motion to remove an item from the
Consent Calendar was not necessary, and that any one Board member may have it
removed.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Susan Battaglia noted that she recently had a discussion about Target, and inquired
whether it would be placed on the agenda in the near future.
Mr. Thomas advised that the application was still active, and that staff has released the
DEIR. He noted that many comments had been received on the DEIR, and added that
staff was still in the process of preparing response and doing additional analysis to
respond to the comments. Staff hoped to have it ready and circulated for public review in
August. The next step would be to return to the Planning Board tentatively on August 13,
2007, for the Planning Board's review of that project.
President Lynch noted that there had not yet been a decision made with respect to Target.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand regarding the public comment
period for the DEIR, Mr. Thomas confirmed that it had closed, and that staff was in the
process of responding to those comments. He added that there will be public hearings
before the Planning Board on the project.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A.
Annual Status Report on Implementation of the General Plan.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
June 11, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-11,3,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 2 of the Report on the Status of the General
Plan, regarding the Climate Protection Task Force implemented in 2006, the last sentence
read, ""The local action plan will possibly create new policies to be incorporated into the
City's General Plan, as well as implement climate and air quality policies related to drought-
resistant landscaping "" She noted that when she tried to get commitments regarding the
implementation of green building ordinances in the City, she often heard the Climate
Protection Task Force would address that. She believed the language was too fuzzy for her
liking, and inquired why it was not more definite.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff intended to say that the local action plan that the Task Force
products will go directly to City Council, and the Council will then establish priorities for
implementing the programs within that plan. He noted that may not entail adopting policies
in the General Plan, and that there may be existing General Plan policies that would enable
the City to directly establish a Green Building Ordinance. He noted that this report went
directly to the State, and through this process, the City may identify additional policies that
should be implemented at the General Plan level to provide the foundation for future
sustainability ordinances or programs.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that Item 7 on the table on page 2 (Action Plan:
Rehabilitation and Neighborhood Preservation) addressed the amnesty plan for
undocumented units, and inquired how that process worked. Mr. Thomas briefly described
the amnesty program, and noted that undocumented units discovered through Code
Enforcement may go through a process of legalizing those units.
Vice President Cook moved to adopt the Annual Status Report on Implementation of the
General Plan.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote - 5. Absent: 2 (Mariani, McNamara).
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
June 11, , 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-11,4,"8-B.
UP07-0002 - S. Fong - 2601 Blanding Avenue #B. The applicant requests
approval of a Use Permit pursuant to Section 30-10.6. of the Alameda Municipal Code to
install five additional game machines at the existing Play N Trade store. The applicant
also requests to hold promotional gaming events once per month. Play N Trade is located
within the Bridgeside Shopping Center in the C-2-PD (Central Business District/Planning
Development Combining) Zoning District.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to remove Item 8-B from the Consent Calendar to
the Regular Agenda.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote - 5. Absent: 2 (Mariani, McNamara).
Mr. Vu presented the staff report, and recommended approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speakers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft disclosed that she visited the applicant's business earlier in
the evening, and complimented the applicant on a beautiful space that was very nicely done.
She noted that all eight of the video gaming stations were already installed. She was
concerned about the lack of discussion about how the adjacent businesses in the Center
would be impacted by the tournaments, although they would be held on early Sunday
evenings. She inquired how the condition requiring participants to not loiter after the
conclusion of the event would be enforced. She noted that the language read, ""If the
applicant fails to comply with this requirement, the Planning Director may require the
applicant to hire additional security to ensure compliance."" She would like that language to
be strengthened to read, .the Planning Director shall require the applicant to hire
additional security to ensure compliance."" She did not want the initial responsibility to fall
on the Alameda Police Department.
Mr. Vu advised that staff contacted the adjacent store owners, who did not express any
initial concerns. Staff had hoped that the shopping center would in essence police itself.
President Lynch noted that in the Code Enforcement area, it was very problematic to
address the ""shalls"" in a practical manner. He discussed the enforcement process within
Alameda, and noted that the language meant different things to staff and the enforcement
agencies as opposed to how the word ""shall"" is used in a design review.
Board member Kohlstrand noted that she felt comfortable leaving some flexibility for the
staff in the language at this time.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
June 11, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-11,5,"Mr. Thomas noted that if any problems should arise at the site, he believed that staff
would hear about it very quickly. He noted that the word ""may"" could be changed to
""shall,"" or remain the same, with the option of review by the Board if the conditions were
not being followed. He added that the option of use permit revocation would also be a
possibility if necessary.
Ms. Mooney noted that the Board had a number of wording options, including adding the
phase ""take equivalent measures.""
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-21 to
approve a Use Permit pursuant to Section 30-10.6. of the Alameda Municipal Code to
install five additional game machines at the existing Play N Trade store. The applicant
also requests to hold promotional gaming events once per month.
Board member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote - 4. Abstain: 1 (Ezzy Ashcraft) Absent: 2 (Mariani, McNamara).
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
June 11, , 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-11,6,"8-C.
Initial Study IS05-0001; Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0001;
Major Design Review DR05-0010; Use Permits UP06-0003, UP06-0010,
UP06-012 and UP06-0013; - Applicant: Safeway, Inc. 2234 Otis Drive
(adjacent Alameda Towne Centre) (DG). The applicant requests approval of
Planned Development Amendment, Major Design Review and Use Permits
allowing the demolition of an existing bank building and redevelopment of the
property with a gas station. The project includes three covered pump islands, each
containing three pumps, for a total of eighteen pumping stations. Fuel will be
stored in the 20,000-gallon underground storage tanks. In addition to the
approximately 7,500-square-foot canopy covering the gasoline pumping facilities,
the project includes an approximately 625-square-foot building, housing the
cashier's desk, restrooms and retail sales of convenience items. The applicant is
proposed twenty-four-hour operations and the sale of beer and wine. An Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project.
Mitigation measures have been identified that will reduce potentially significant
impacts to a less than significant level. The site is located within a Central
Business District with Planned Development overlay Zoning District (C-2-PD).
(Continued to the meeting of June 25, 2007.)
Vice President Cook moved to continue this item to the next Planning Board meeting.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote - 5. Absent: 2 (Mariani, McNamara).
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
June 11, , 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-11,7,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A. UP06-0010 - N. Saidian & L. Zekster - 1310 Central Avenue. The applicant
requests approval of a Use Permit pursuant to Section 30-30.2 of the Alameda
Municipal Code to extend the hours of operation for the Alameda Valero Gasoline
Station, an existing legal nonconforming service station. The current hours of
operation for fuel service and auto repair are 9:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday, 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. on Saturday, and closed on Sunday. The proposed
hours for fuel service and auto repair would be 7:00 a.m.-8:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday, 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. on Saturday, and closed on Sunday. The auto
repair hours would be eliminated on Saturday. The Alameda Valero Gasoline
Station is located in the R-4 (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District.
Mr. Vu summarized the staff report, and detailed the background and scope of this
proposed project. Staff was unable to make the findings necessary, as required by the
Municipal Code, in order to recommend approval of this Use Permit. Staff specifically
found that the proposed use was not compatible with the other land uses in the area, that
it will adversely effect other property in the vicinity, and that it does not relate favorably
to the City's General Plan. Therefore, it was staff's recommendation that the Board deny
the use permit application to extend the fuel service hours of operation in exchange for
the reduced auto repair hours, based upon the findings that were included in the staff
report.
President Lynch advised that more than five speaker slips had been received.
Board member Cunningham moved to reduce the speakers' time to three minutes.
Vice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote - 5.
Absent: 2 (Mariani, McNamara).
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Eric Scheuerman spoke in support of this project, and noted that the staff report stated
the gas station had been in place since 1950, and recalled a newspaper report stated it had
been there in some form since 1926. He believed the gas station was a historical business
at this location, and added that it was changed to a nonconforming use in 1974 because
the owners wanted to have a 24-hour gas-food operation. He did not want the opposition
to drive the owners out of business. He agreed that some businesses should be closed on
Sundays.
Mr. Philip Gravem, 1344 Sherman Street, spoke in opposition to this project and noted that
he lived directly across from the station. He noted that the 1974-75 issue addressed a second
gas station across the street that wanted a 24-hour food operation. He complimented the
owner and said the station was much better than it had been before. He expressed concern
about the station's impact on his family time during the evening hours, and did not want the
hours to be extended.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
June 11, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-11,8,"President Lynch noted that Mr. Gravem had been his vice principal and civics teacher at St.
Joseph's High School.
Ms. Susan Battaglia spoke in favor of extending the hours for the gas station, and did not
like going in the opposite direction to Webster Street in heavy traffic to get gas. She noted
that the other stations frequently had higher prices. She noted the traffic flow at the gas
station was uncomplicated, and distributed a petition with 60 signatures in support of the
extended hours. She believed that operating hours from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. was reasonable, and
did not believe that this use would interfere with family time in the evenings. She would
rather have the sales tax dollars from Alameda gas stations to remain on the island, and was
concerned that leakage was occurring because of gas sales outside the station's current
operating hours. She believed the extended hours would benefit the consumers, the owners
and the City.
Mr. Randall Miller, 1406 Central Avenue, noted that the goal of all the owners since the gas
station opened was to have extended hours. He was concerned that if this use permit were to
be granted, that other requests would be made, up to and including 24-hour operation. He
urged the Planning Board to follow the staff's recommendation of not expanding the hours.
Mr. Craig Coombs noted that he lived two blocks from the site, and while he was affected
by the traffic, he spoke in favor of the expansion of the hours. He noted that this station had
been in operation in some form since 1928, and believed there was a community need to a
business that can sustain itself for 80 years. He noted that there was a tradition of service and
community for this gas station, and that he hoped that would be maintained. He noted that
the neighbors who wanted to buy gas had to drive through the island to another gas station,
which increased congestion and pollution.
Ms. Patricia Kinsel, 1307 Central Avenue, noted that she lived directly across from the
gas station, and expressed concern about the safety of the schoolchildren crossing Encinal
if the station were to be open at that time.
Mr. Myan, 1311 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to the extended hours, and expressed
concern about safety of the schoolchildren, as well as quality of life.
Mr. Robert Drake, 1105 Sherman Street, spoke in support of the extended hours. He noted
that he bought all his gas from this station, and did not want to have to drive across town
to buy gas when it is closed. He noted that the station had been cleaned up since a
previous operator, and did not believe the current operators should be held responsible for
previous operators. He believed the children would be able to cross the street safely.
Mr. Richard Nordyke spoke in opposition of the extended hours, and did not to continue to
reinvent the wheel with this issue. He urged the Planning Board to resolve this issue.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
June 11, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-11,9,"Ms. Rose Ryan noted that she lived towards the back of the gas station, and was opposed
to the extended hours. She expressed concern about the children's safety and the
increased congestion that she believed would result from the extended hours.
Mr. Dale Blaylock noted that he was a 50-year merchant in Alameda, and former
president of Greater Alameda Business Association. He recounted the background of this
gas station, and noted that the applicants were not requesting extended hours for the
repair business, only the gas service. He noted that because of the earlier hours, it was
difficult for the owners to stay in business. He noted that owners have made an effort to
be a good neighbor, and allows the church to use their parking lot on Sunday. He did not
believe that selling gas only between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. would allow them to stay in
business.
Mr. Leon Zektser, 1310 Central Avenue, noted that he was one of the owners of this gas
station. He noted that they had made an error in the application, and had asked to increase
the hours from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., Monday through Friday, close the repair shop on
Saturday and Sunday, and not increase the hours for the repair shop. He understood the
concerns about the children, and noted that the last staff report stated that there would be
no increase in traffic because of the increased hours.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Lynch noted that while the public testimony was compelling, the issue of this
application was a legal issue regarding the expansion of a legal nonconforming use. With
respect to the process by which the applicant wished to have the property recognized, he
encouraged the applicant to pay close attention to the General Plan process and the
Zoning text. Short of that, he did not see how the expansion could take place without
making the three required findings.
Board member Cunningham noted that the testimony given was sometimes passionate,
and echoed the comments made by President Lynch, and noted that this was more of a
legal issue than a passionate issue. He could not make all the findings. He believed the
use was compatible in its existing condition, but he believed that it would become
incompatible by extending the hours as requested. He could not make the finding that the
proposed use would not have an adverse effect on the surrounding areas. He did not
believe this was the right application for this property at this time.
Vice President Cook concurred with the previous comments, and noted that she
frequented this business. She noted that she has been frustrated by pulling into the pump
at 8:45 to pump gas because it was not yet open, and that she was not sure she would be
able to make it to the next gas station in town. She believed that the rules about
nonconforming uses were quite clear, and she could not make the findings that this
application would not negatively impact the other neighborhood uses. She noted that the
owner was aware of the rules when he bought the property, and that the residents
surrounding the use also knew the rules. She concurred with staff's recommendation in
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
June 11, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-11,10,"the staff report, and did not believe there was any leeway around the requirements of this
issue.
Ms. Mooney noted that there had been some clerical difficulties in assembling the packet,
and noted that the resolution had not been included in the packet; staff had distributed the
resolutions during the meeting. She noted that when making the findings, the Planning
Board should make specific findings as they are found in the Alameda Municipal Code.
She recommended that the Board members be specific when stating which findings could
not be made.
Board member Kohlstrand concurred with her fellow Board members. She believed this
was an unfortunate situation because she perceived there was a large population in
Alameda that would like to see expanded hours for this gas station. She understood that
the findings were specific. She also agreed with the speakers who were unable to use the
gas station before and after work hours. She believed the Board members' hands were
tied in terms of making a finding to allow the expansion of hours to occur.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was a regular customer of this gas station,
and found it to be a very nice, well-run business. She had difficulty with some of the
findings, and believed them to be both vague and subjective. With respect to the location
of the use being compatible with surrounding uses, she noted that the Code prohibited the
expansion of non-conforming uses. In terms of the other land uses in the area, she found
it to be a commercial district in a neighborhood that included a coffee shop/café, private
businesses, a children's art center, a pub and a nail salon.
With respect to the finding that the proposed use would not adversely affect other
properties in the vicinity, Board member Ezzy Ashcraft recalled that one speaker stated
that their property values would be lowered. She believed that property values in that area
have remained strong for some time, and added that page 6-7 of the staff report identified
no offending noise coming from the site. She believed the public bus that ran along
Encinal Avenue generated more noise than the car doors or fueling activities. She was
concerned about the safety of schoolchildren, but noted that this interaction was
signalized. If the crossing time was not adequate for parents with strollers to cross the
street, she believed that Public Works should extend the time of the green light across the
intersection. She noted that the crossing guard stood at the corner of Encinal and Paru,
near the playground. She believed the children could be instructed to walk on the one side
of the street leading to the crossing guard. She added that she favored supporting local
neighborhood businesses. She noted that this application had generated 13 pieces of
correspondence in opposition, and 237 pieces of correspondence in support, as well as six
telephone messages and the petition of support provided by Ms. Battaglia. She would like
to find a way to be responsive to the community in support of what seemed to be a
reasonable neighborhood business.
President Lynch agreed with Board member Ezzy Ashcraft's statements, and noted that
paragraph 2 on page 4 of the staff report specifically stated under ""Zoning Use Permit
History"" stated that the first finding could not be made legally. For a legal
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
June 11, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-11,11,"nonconforming use, the findings could not be made for expansion of use and/or service.
He noted that all four findings must be made because of the General Plan consistency
issue to move forward. He suggested that the owner understand the process by which the
zoning may be changed on this property, because he could not make the first finding.
Mr. Zektser requested that this item be continued.
In response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft, Mr. Thomas detailed the history of
this use's previous expansion. He noted that there had been a tradeoff of auto service time
for additional gas service time, with the thought that the auto repair hours had more
impact than the gas service hours. He suggested hearing the applicant's thoughts on
requesting a continuance.
Ms. Mooney advised that the law was clear, as governed by the Alameda Municipal
Code, regarding the findings that must be made by the Planning Board. At the same time,
the Board's decision was also a quasi-judicial decision, and that whether this was the
expansion of a legal nonconforming use was determined by the interpretation of the
factual circumstances. She concurred that the applicant should be able to state his reason
for requesting a continuance.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to reopen the public hearing.
Board member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote - 5. Absent: 2 (Mariani, McNamara).
The public hearing was reopened.
Mr. Zektser, applicant, noted that the Planning Board approved the expansion of the
hours the first time in response to trading repair hours for gas service hours. He
summarized previous Board actions in 2001 and 2002, and noted that they had invested a
considerable amount of money for the Valero brand in order to serve the community
better. He did not believe the traffic would increase, and that the children would remain
safe while crossing the street.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Lynch complimented the applicant on the manner in which he operates his
business, and noted that he had clearly upgraded his service and provided excellent
customer service. However, he noted that none of those items related to the first finding
for him. He did not believe that the findings could be legally made, and would like the
applicant to explore ways to legally accomplish that goal.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested subtracting hours from the repair hours, and adding
them to the gas service hours. She would support continuing this item.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
June 11, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-11,12,"Vice President Cook wished to remind the audience that the risk in use permits was that a
less scrupulous owner may take a use over from a more conscientious owner.
Ms. Mooney explained the details of use permits and conditional use permits, and noted
that it was customary to have conditions on a use permit.
Mr. Thomas noted that any supporter of this project must be able to argue that this would
not be an expansion of use. He believed the only way that could be argued would be do
equate seven hours of auto repair to 20 hours of gas sales, because gas sales have much
less impact on the neighborhood than auto repair. Staff believed it could make that
finding. He noted that the other option, as suggested by President Lynch, was to step
back, resubmit for a rezoning to a Neighborhood Commercial district. In that case, the
project would still require a use permit, but it would not be a nonconforming use any more if
the rezoning was approved. He noted that the hours would run with the land.
Vice President Cook noted that a rezoning would allow her to make Finding 1, and that she
had no problem making Finding 2, but still had problems with Findings 3 and 4.
Board member Cunningham believed that there must be a balance between convenience and
neighborhood compatibility. He noted that a planning document can help guide that process
for the neighborhood.
Board member Kohlstrand recalled the rezoning experienced by her parents' home, which
resulted in three address changes. She noted that a rezoning to commercial would be
consistent with the use that has remained on the site for many years, and found that more
compelling than continually dealing with the nonconforming use issue.
Ms. Mooney noted that the three-year clock would start from the date of any denial, and that
it would be appealable to the City Council.
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-22 to
accept the staff recommendation to deny a Use Permit pursuant to Section 30-30.2 of the
Alameda Municipal Code to extend the hours of operation for the Alameda Valero
Gasoline Station, an existing legal nonconforming service station.
Board member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote - 4. No: 1 (Ezzy Ashcraft) Absent: 2 (Mariani, McNamara).
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
June 11, , 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-11,13,"10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Thomas advised that the comment period on the Harbor Bay Village VI EIR closed
on June 5, 2007, and a public hearing had been held by the Planning Board a month ago.
Staff had received several requests to extend the comment period, which was extended
for another month. He noted that a very large number of letters, comparable to the Target
proposal, had been received. Staff and the consultant team had begun to go through the
letters and scoping out the amount of additional work that would be necessary to
complete to respond to the comments. Staff will meet with the applicant to establish the
budget for that process.
President Lynch suggested that in staff's discussions with the applicant, that they strongly
consider what they had heard so far. Mr. Thomas confirmed that the applicant would
reimburse the City as they go through the process.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
Board member Kohlstrand advised that the next meeting of the Pedestrian Task Force
would be held June 26, 2007, from 6:00 - 8:00 p.m. She believed it would be held in one
of the conference rooms on the third floor of City Hall.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether the task force addressed the
physical attributes of the crosswalks, Board member Kohlstrand replied that it was more
at the General Plan level. She noted that it had been an unusual process, because the
update to the Transportation Element was initiated by the Transportation Commission,
rather than staff. She noted that Public Works took the process back under its purview,
and believed the next task force meeting would examine a work scope that may be
adopted for further pedestrian analysis.
Mr. Thomas advised that a Draft Transportation Element update had been prepared by the
Transportation Commission, which City staff has begun to review. Staff believed it was a
solid first draft, and that a series of subplans for Transportation Demand Management
and the pedestrian and transit aspect of the subplans were also to be addressed. He noted
that he had met with the transportation planners in the Public Works Department, and
they hoped to look at Alameda in two different way: one of the established area of the
Island with good pedestrian facilities, and the problematic areas of those facilities; and
other large areas of Alameda undergoing complete redevelopment, such as the Northern
Waterfront and Alameda Point.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
June 11, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-11,14,"President Lynch noted that he frequently talked to other residents during the course of the
day, and noticed that many people loved the lighted crosswalks and wondered why they
were not installed in other places around town. He noted that he was much more alert
and aware during the day around the lighted crosswalks, and believed that if the City
continued to encourage pedestrian and bicycle traffic, that these enhanced crosswalks
would be a good addition throughout the City.
Vice President Cook noted that a survey was available on the City's website regarding
pedestrian and bicycle issues, and encouraged residents to respond to that survey.
c..
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board
Member Cunningham).
Board member Cunningham noted that a meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, June 20,
2007, which would be rescheduled to June 27, 2007. The mission of that meeting would
be to review the final document of the recommendations.
Vice President Cook noted that she had information for a free public workshop offered
through the UC Berkeley Extension, addressing climate issues and different techniques
for greening cities. She noted that the workshop would be held on Saturday, June 23.
from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., in San Francisco.
Mr. Thomas advised that the Oakland-Chinatown Advisory Committee would meet on
Thursday, June 14, at 3:00 p.m. in Room 360 of City Hall.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the June 25, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
June 11, , 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-25,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, June 25, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:09 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy
Ashcraft, Kohlstrand, and McNamara.
Board member Mariani was absent from roll call.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Donna Mooney, Supervising Planner Doug Garrison.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the Special meeting of May 29, 2007.
Board member Cunningham noted that page 16, Resolution No. 2 should read, ""The
addition of one more tree is required."" Mr. Thomas noted that was being appealed.
Vice President Cook noted that paragraph 6, page 7, read, ""Acting President Cook
suggested using interpretive signage to help people make their way into the site."" She
suggested interpretive signage to help people understand the history of the site, and what
was previously at the site.
Board member Cunningham moved approval of the minutes as amended.
Vice President Cook seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Abstain - 1
(Lynch). Absent: 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.
b.
Minutes for the meeting of June 11, 2007.
Ms. Mooney wished to clarify that on page 5, she was suggesting that the Board had a
number of wording options, including adding the phrase ""take equivalent measures.""
Board member Cunningham moved approval of the minutes as amended.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote -
5.
Abstain - 1 (McNamara). Absent: 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.
Board member Cunningham inquired whether minutes for the Joint City Council/Planning
Board meeting would be available. Mr. Thomas noted that there should be minutes, and
that he would follow up on that request.
Page 1 of 13",PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-25,2,"5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Future Agendas
b. Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items and the Zoning Administrator
actions.
Board member Kohlstrand noted that the Measure A subcommittee recommendation to
the Planning Board may come back to the Planning Board on July 23, 2007, if a decision
was reached on July 13, 2007.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Debra Banks, 2137 Otis Drive, noted that she was very concerned about the tipping
point regarding the MND Submission for Safeway Gas Station and Convenience Store.
She read her written statement into the record:
""We have reached the tipping point for what is needed and what is right
for Alameda. The tipping point is that do we sacrifice our fragile
environment and critical care facilities for a few more dollars to operate
this town.
""I believe that something is not right in the CEQA guideline compliance,
and have great concerns about the ramifications of the traffic congestion
along with the potential hazards impacting the quality of our air, soils and
waters. On April 23, 2007, the Planning staff submitted to the Planning
Board a list of potentially significant impacts of this project on the air, soil
and water with mitigations.
""Air Quality: construction-related dust has a potentially significant quality
impact. The BAAMQD CEQA Guidelines consider potentially significant
construction-related dust impacts to be adequately mitigated with the
implementation of recommended control measures.
""Geology and Soils: construction-related erosion has a potentially
significant impact on water quality the applicant is to submit an erosion
and sediment control plan to the City prior to the issuance of the Building
Permits and the implementation of best management practices during the
construction phase.
Page 2 of 13",PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-25,3,"""Hydrology and Water Quality: contaminated storm water runoffs can
have a potentially significant impact due to the potential for petroleum
product spills and other debris. The applicant is to prepare and implement
a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
""Fact: To date there has been no formal study of air quality regarding
asbestos, carbon monoxide and gas emissions along the Otis Drive
corridor, as well as soil erosion with stormwater runoffs impacting water
quality, particularly that of the lagoon opposite of the proposed fuel
station. (The lagoon opposite of the Towne Center is already 400% over
the upper limit for expected fecal coliform.)
""Fact: There was critical facilities (two respite care homes and a hospital)
that will be affected by environmental conditions involving air and water
quality.
""Fact: Alameda is approaching the tipping point of endangering its natural
and healthy environment at its south shore for trying to recoup revenue
leakages.
""Is this best planning practice for a town in such a fragile environment?'
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A. Use Permit UP07-0010; Minor Design Review MDR 07-0058; Parking In-lieu
Fees - Applicant: Gary Parker - 2437 Lincoln (ZS). The applicant is
requesting a Use Permit and Design Review approval to establish a dental office
and laboratory on the ground floor of an existing building; reconfigure the parking
lot to increase the number of parking spaces from seven to thirteen; and pay
parking in-lieu fees for five parking spaces. The property is located within a C-C-
T (Community Commercial Theater Combining) zoning district.
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-23 to
approve a Use Permit and Design Review approval to establish a dental office and
laboratory on the ground floor of an existing building; reconfigure the parking lot to
increase the number of parking spaces from seven to thirteen; and pay parking in-lieu
fees for five parking spaces.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6
Absent: 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.
Page 3 of 13",PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-25,4,"8-B.
UP07-0004 - Jason Chan - 1707 Lincoln Ave (SW). The applicant requests
approval of a Use Permit to modify an existing retail space into a new restaurant
with a take-out counter and a total of 40 seats. The property is located within a C-
1 Neighborhood Business Zoning District.
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-24 to
approve a Use Permit to modify an existing retail space into a new restaurant with a take-
out counter and a total of 24 seats.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6
Absent: 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
Initial Study IS05-0001; Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0001;
Major Design Review DR05-0010; Use Permits UP06-0003, UP06-0010, UP06-
012 and UP06-0013; - Applicant: Safeway, Inc. 2234 Otis Drive (adjacent
Alameda Towne Centre) (DG). The applicant requests approval of Planned
Development Amendment, Major Design Review and Use Permits allowing the
demolition of an existing bank building and redevelopment of the property with a
gas station. The project includes three covered pump islands, each containing three
pumps, for a total of eighteen pumping stations. Fuel will be stored in three 20,0000
gallon underground storage tanks. In addition to the approximately 7,500 square-foot
canopy covering the gasoline pumping facilities, the project includes an
approximately 625 square-foot building, housing the cashier's desk, restrooms and
retail sales of convenience items. The applicant is proposing twenty-four hour
operations and the sale of beer and wine. An Initial Study / Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared for this project. Mitigation measures have been
identified that will reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant
level. The site is located within a, Central Business District with Planned
Development overlay Zoning District (C-2-PD). (Continued from the meeting of
June 11, 2007.)
President Lynch noted that staff had prepared a set of documents for the Planning Board,
and members of the public had wanted to look at those plans the previous week; for a
variety of reasons, they were unable to do SO.
Mr. Thomas advised that the Planning Board packet contained the staff report, the April
23 staff report, the reduced April 23 plans, and the large set of plans. The website had all
of those documents with the exception of the large plans. The public binders contained all
of the plan sets.
President Lynch invited Board comment with respect to considering this item at this time,
when all members of the public did not have the opportunity to see all of the documents
Page 4 of 13",PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-25,5,"seen by the Planning Board. He noted that the item could be continued to the next
Planning Board meeting since all of the documents were available.
Board member Kohlstrand suggested that it may be a benefit if the applicant made a
presentation to enable the Board to choose whether or not to continue the item.
Board member McNamara supported continuing the item until the next meeting, out of
respect for full opportunity for the public to review the documents. She noted the
applicant presentation would need to be made again at that point.
Board member Cunningham concurred with Board member McNamara's assessment.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft, Mr. Thomas confirmed that
this item was appropriately noticed, and that there was no issue about the availability of
the material for the public. He understood that Clare Risley had been handed the public
binder, and that there was a miscommunication at that point, resulting in her leaving with
the staff report, the old plans, but without a copy of the new plans. He noted that the new,
larger plans should have been posted on the website. Staff believed that the Board may
move forward if so desired this evening, or continue the item to the next meeting.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to continue this item to the meeting of July 9, 2007.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - Aye: 5
Abstain: 1 (Ezzy Ashcraft). Absent: 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.
9-B.
DP07-0003 - Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project - Applicant:
Catellus Development Group, a ProLogis Company (AT/DV). The applicant
requests Development Plan and Design Review approval for Phase 1A and 2A
retail buildings, off-street parking, landscaping, and associated improvements
south of Mitchell Mosely Extension and east of Fifth Street. The site is located
along the western end of the former FISC Site (Tract 7884) within the M-X
Mixed Use Planned Development Zoning District.
Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report.
Mr. David Tiernan, Senior Vice President, Catellus, Development Group, applicant,
introduced the LPA architectural team and described the firm's experience. He believed the
plan was consistent with the approved Master Plan in terms of its layout and building
placement. He noted that it was a pedestrian- and bike-friendly layout that discouraged the
use of the automobile inside the development.
Mr. Rick Damato, Principal design architect, displayed and described the specifics of the
plan. He emphasized that the project was designed to respect the environment and Alameda,
and that it could begin to teach the community about smart and sustainable design.
Page 5 of 13",PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-25,6,"safe place.
Page 6 of 13",PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-25,7,"Board member Cunningham noted that the light towers were an interesting concept that
could be a signature element. He wanted to ensure that all of the site was sufficiently
lighted, and would like further photometric information.
Mr. Tiernan noted the light towers covered the site, with the exception of the two side
parking lots where they would introduce supplemental parking lot light standards. He noted
that they provided better lighting coverage than the pools of light typically produced by
parking lot lighting. He noted that the standard parking lot lighting would be provided at the
edges.
Mr. Sullivan noted that the landscape island adjacent to the ride share program would
include the public waiting space.
Board member Cunningham noted that the activation of Fifth Street had been executed very
well. He noted that on the public parking side, the main service corridor included trash
receptacles and questioned the option to increase total GLA to include retail frontage onto
the parking lot. Mr. Thomas replied that the Master Plan limited the amount of retail at
Alameda Landing as a whole to 300,000 square feet; the idea of limiting the amount of retail
at Alameda Landing was because they wanted to minimize the competition with Webster
Street and to maintain some retail capacity at Alameda Point. After many retail studies, the
City came to 300,000 square feet as the right amount of retail for Alameda Landing.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch regarding the consistency of the amount of
leeway allowed versus what had been approved at Alameda Landing, Mr. Thomas replied
that in terms of the changes of the footprint of the buildings, the design substantially
conformed with what the Planning Board had approved. Staff added a condition of approval
stating that if the footprint varied by more than 20% in terms of the size of the building, it
would be brought back to the Board.
President Lynch noted that he would be open to incorporating the suggestion, and did not
think it would substantially damage the retail at Alameda Point or Webster Street if this
design element were to be picked up.
Board member Cunningham reflected on past experience of the Bridgeside Center, and
did not believe that the goals of the Bridgeside Center were able to be achieved in terms
of the tenant spaces. He noted that the pizza restaurant painted their windows white, and the
pet shop had placed posters over the windows. He did not believe it had worked out at all as
envisioned by the Planning Board, and hoped the Board could learn from trying to be too
stringent in trying to strive for a goal with respect to tenant leasing.
Board member McNamara noted that the Planning Board had pushed for a high-end
shopping center, which was not the objective of the Bridgeside developers. She wanted to
ensure that a solid foundation of office, retail and residential uses would be established in
order to support the high-end uses envisioned at the waterfront plaza.
Page 7 of 13",PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-25,8,"Mr. Sulivan noted that they had developed millions of square feet of retail, and they learned
that smaller retail tenants tend to feed off each other.. He noted that there were no paseos or
pedestrian paths focused on the back of the retail blocks. He noted that the paseos would be
very activated, with entries and dining on them, which would naturally drawn people to
those spaces. He described the circulation patterns as they envisioned them, and noted that it
would much like a typical downtown.
Board member Kohlstrand mentioned Tucker's on Park Street, which also had a courtyard
which served as a secondary entrance; she would like that to be an example of the retail use.
Vice President Cook noted that Fourth Street was also a good example, as it had many
smaller parking lots in back of the buildings.
Board member Cunningham believed the Planning Board should ensure that the plan
supported a strong landscape plan. He would like the detailed planting plan to define how
the area would be activated.
Vice President Cook wanted to ensure there would be understoried foliage, and she wanted
to ensure there would be sufficient landscaping.
Mr. Sullivan noted that it would be incorporated into the site plans; for every fourth palm,
there would be a canopy tree along Fifth Street, as well as in all of the pedestrian plazas and
parking lot trees.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft wanted to ensure that the college students who may work at
the restaurants and the shops were able to get there from the college. She noted that she was
concerned with the retail tenanting, as cited on page 3 of the staff report: ""The retail centers
provides an important market foundation for the future development of the second phase of
retail referred to in the Master Plan as the waterfront plaza retail to attract the quality
restaurants and specialty retail uses that would make the waterfront plaza a truly unique
Alameda location. Alameda Landing needs to first establish a solid foundation of office,
retail and residential uses that can support the future ""high end"" uses envisioned at the
waterfront plaza."" She believed there was a distinction between high-end and other retail
uses in the staff report, and inquired about other high-end retail establishments that may be
supported by lower-end establishments. She cited Santana Row in San Jose and Fourth
Street in Berkeley were two other retail areas.
Mr. Tiernan noted that their strategy was to create a critical mass of retail as a first phase,
and would not characterize it as high-end or low-end. He believed there would be a broad
spectrum of retail uses, either local, regional or national. He believed it would increase the
value of the retail frontage on the site, and that when the successful flagship tenant (Clif
Bar) was established, it would be easier to bring in quality establishments to the site.
Page 8 of 13",PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-25,9,"President Lynch cautioned against using terms such as high-end and low-end retail
establishments, and cited the success of Panda Express, and the fact that Yan Can Cook
restaurants are no longer open. He clarified that some individuals would refer to Panda
Express as high-end, and that some individuals would refer to Panda Express food as
low-end.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding other examples of this
kind of retail mix, Mr. Sullivan noted that the hybrid center was a new concept. Typically,
the large format will bring the entertainment to the center of the development, and building
out. In this case, Fifth Street would be the entertainment district with the larger format
behind it. He cited the Irvine Spectrum Center, as well as downtown Walnut Creek and
Pleasant Hill.
President Lynch believed it was important to be flexible, and that it was a slippery slope
when referring to ""high-end"" or ""low-end."" Mr. Thomas noted that the phrase ""high end""
was in the staff report and inappropriate. He noted that City Council required a retail leasing
strategy before moving forward, which was the plan brought to the EDC for their review
and approval. They also had to meet regularly with the Executive Director of the
Community Improvement Commission to ensure that when they move through with their
leasing, they would be in compliance with that plan and the City's goals.
Vice President Cook expressed concern that there were no midblock crossings to the
College of Alameda, and to the future residential area along the north side, on Mitchell.
Mr. Sulivan noted that there were pedestrian crossings in six locations along Fifth Street. He
noted that there were three opportunities for pedestrian crossings along Mitchell.
Vice President Cook believed that the east-west entry along the south side of Building A
should remain a street, which should feel like something besides a service entry.
Vice President Cook believed that Building D seemed to be significantly longer than the
other buildings, and inquired why it was designed that way.
Mr. Sulivan noted that they were considering splitting that building, depending on the
leasing situation; he noted that square footages would be increased in other areas to
accommodate that change.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the north-south road option, Mr.
Thomas replied that they were in good shape regarding the road between Buildings G and F,
the sidewalks on both sides of E and D. He believed that the applicants were willing to add a
sidewalk on the southern side of that third east-west road between C and D. Regarding the
north-south road in front of Building A, he suggested that the Board ask the team to make
the statement regarding the Board's concerns about the design.
Board member Cunningham suggested that the pedestrian pathway on the side of Building
A be given more width to make it a inviting space.
Page 9 of 13",PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-25,10,"Board member Cunningham wanted to ensure the highest and best use was being addressed,
and that the potential 50 feet of asphalt would not interfere with that.
Vice President Cook would like the public right of way to include the sidewalks, and
believed it would be good to connect the waterfront residential uses with the College of
Alameda at some point in the future.
Board member Kohlstrand resisted the notion of creating more pavement, and noted that
was it already paved; she was arguing for a different use of the paved space.
Mr. Thomas suggested that the Board may continue this item with the request that the
applicant present three alternative ways to deal with the north-south sidewalk.
President Lynch suggested that the Board members' thoughts be taken and incorporated in
order to make a determination.
Mr. Thomas reviewed the conditions of approval to be included. An appropriate place for
the pick-up and drop-off being covered and lighted next to the ride share area should be
added. The rear sidewalk behind Buildings C and D may have an minimum of five feet of
unobstructed space in all places. The landscape plan shall come to the Planning Board for
final review and approval. A condition already existed to address the transformers, and that
the ""big green boxes"" and utilities be placed behind the buildings, not in front on Fifth
Street. The sidewalk on the south side of Building A should be straightened out for
pedestrian use, and a sidewalk would be added on the south side of the road, from Mariners
Square to Fifth Street. The north-south sidewalk would be included down the length of the
project.
Board member Kohlstrand expressed concern about Condition 7 of the new Draft
Resolution and would like to have a representative from Department of Public Works to
respond to the concerns.
Mr. Thomas noted that the Department of Public Works was concerned about a potential
scenario where they may determine at a future date that the situation was dangerous, which
was the reason for the condition as it existed. He noted that any decision to modify this
project in the future would have to come back to the Planning Board for review and
approval. He suggested following Vice President Cook's suggestion to approve the site plan
with the exception of the north-south roadway and the sidewalks, which could be addressed
at a future date with Public Works.
Mr. Tiernan noted that they would return with specific plans for Building A, which was
80% of the frontage on the street. Those specific plans could be coupled with various
options explored for how to handle the north-south street, and could take place later in the
summer.
Page 10 of 13",PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-25,11,"Vice President Cook moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 07- to approve
the development plan with the condition outlined by staff and the condition that:
Buildings A through H must return for design review;
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Absent: 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.
Board member Cunningham believed the building heights should be defined, and some
section profiles should be presented. He expressed concern about the buildings with the
billboards on the roof, and would like the design elements to be further articulated and
placed on the blank walls on the lower levels, where the pedestrians may see them. He
would like to understand more about the significance of the tilt-up elevations from a
material point of view, and would like to see a material boards to see relief to the expanse
of concrete.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham regarding the recycling of
formed concrete, Mr. Sulivan replied that they may cut the concrete into four-foot-wide
sections, and bury 2.5 feet of it for 18-inch seat walls. They may also create bases to
wood benches, as well as wheel stops.
Board member Cunningham believed the wood trusses were a good idea, and suggested
burying them halfway into the ground to allow them to stand up."" He noted that he had
tried to reference the point that the Board should look at how they worked structurally, so
they could stand up without having to bury them halfway into the ground.
Vice President Cook expressed concern about the color boards, and perceived them as
having a very cool palette. She noted that the paseos shown in the slides had brick and a
more warm, California theme. She would like to see a warmer, more vibrant color
scheme.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the modern signage, Mr.
Sulivan replied that employed techniques to highlight the more nostalgic treatments. He
noted that they did not reflect the actual content.
Vice President Cook expressed concern that the water towers looked like a power plant to
her, and that the façade and the water towers seemed somewhat uncomfortable and
ominous.
Board member McNamara agreed with Vice President Cook's comments about the water
towers, and noted that it reminded her of a nuclear reactor.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft recalled that there had been a water tower at the Base. She
noted that in agricultural areas, water towers were prominent features.
Page 11 of 13",PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-25,12,"President Lynch noted that he liked the water tower as well, and noted that while the
colors could be warmed up, this was an industrial reuse.
Board member McNamara liked the proposal, which showed more detail and dimension,
and would support staff's recommendation to continue to work on the design of
Buildings A and B.
Board member Kohlstrand complimented the applicants on the amount of research they
had done, and noted that they made a real effort to be responsive to the community. She
believed the acknowledgement of Alameda's history and future was very positive. She
agreed with Vice President Cook's comments about the color scheme, and would like to
see it warmed up.
Board member Kohlstrand liked the gateway treatment at Stargell and Fifth Street.
A discussion of the site circulation, paseos and the gateway entrance ensued. The
discussion addressed the establishment of public streets in this development, as opposed
to just having driveways as well as public versus private streets and the tradeoffs between
parking and establishing public roads with sidewalks on both sides. The Planning Board
asked for the developer to return with one to three options for the sidewalks including an
option examining a full public street on the north-south roadway, and another redoing it
slightly and establishing sidewalks on both sides.
The Board members generally liked the maritime sense and whimsical feel of the
lighthouse element.
President Lynch noted that in summary, a discussion was held about the preliminary
concepts, with a strong affirmation in some parts, and strong suggestions to do something
different in other parts. He suggested that the Board entertain a motion to incorporate the
concepts shared during the meeting, and bring back to the Board a design concept that
incorporates those ideas as much as possible. He suggested that the Planning Board check
to ensure their incorporation.
Mr. Thomas noted that the original condition of approval would be amended to require
that all eight buildings come back to the Board for Design Review approval.
No further action was taken.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Alameda Towne Center (South Shore) Sidewalk Quarterly Report
Mr. Thomas noted that the applicant submitted letters of preliminary agreement to the
Planning and Building Department. The FEIR is not anticipated to be available until
August.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Page 12 of 13",PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-25,13,"a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
Board member Kohlstrand advised that the next meeting of the Pedestrian Task Force
would be held June 26, 2007, from 6:00 - 7:30 p.m.
c..
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board
Member Cunningham).
Board member Cunningham noted that a meeting would be held on Wednesday, June 27,
2007, at the library for two hours.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the July 9, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This meeting
was audio and video taped.
Page 13 of 13",PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-09,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, July 9, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:07 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Mariani
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy
Ashcraft, Kohlstrand, Mariani and McNamara.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Donna Mooney, Supervising Planner Doug Garrison, Public Works Obeid Khan.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of June 25, 2007.
Board member Cunningham noted that page 7, paragraph 4, should be changed to read,
""Board member Cunningham noted that the activation of the Fifth Street and both sides of
the waterfront-had been executed very well. He noted that on the public parking side, the
main service corridor included trash receptacles and questioned the option to increase
total GLA to include retail frontage onto the parking lot.""
Board member Cunningham noted that page 7, paragraph 7, should be changed to read,
""Board member Cunningham reflected on past experience of the Bridgeside Center, and
did not believe that the goals of the Bridgeside Center were able to be achieved in terms
of the tenant spaces.""
Board member Cunningham noted that page 11, paragraph 5, read, ""Board member
Cunningham believed the wood trusses were a good idea, and suggested burying them
halfway into the ground to allow them to stand up."" He noted that he had tried to
reference the point that the Board should look at how they worked structurally, so they
could stand up without having to bury them halfway into the ground.
Vice President Cook noted that page 10, paragraph 2, should be changed to read, ""Vice
President Cook would like the public right of way to include ise-the sidewalks.
""
Board member Kohlstrand noted that page 12, paragraph 4, read, ""A discussion of the
site circulation, paseos and the gateway entrance ensued."" She believed that lengthy
discussion addressed the establishment of public streets in this development, as opposed
to just having driveways. She requested that the minutes reflect the discussion addressing
public versus private streets, as well as the tradeoffs between parking and establishing
public roads with sidewalks on both sides. She also believed that the Planning Board had
specifically asked for the developer to return with one to three options for the sidewalks.
She believed that one option was examining a full public street on the north-south
roadway, and that another one was redoing it slightly and establishing sidewalks on both
sides.
Page 1 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-09,2,"President Lynch noted that page 9, paragraph 1, read, ""President Lynch cautioned against
using terms such as high-end and low-end retail establishments, and cited the success of
Panda Express, and the fact that Yan Can Cook restaurants are no longer open."" He noted
that the point of his comment was not that Panda Express has been successful, but that
some individuals would refer to Panda Express as high-end, and that some individuals
would refer to Panda Express food as low-end. He emphasized that was why he
recommended caution regarding terms of ""high-end"" or ""low-end"" as it related to food
establishments.
Board member Cunningham moved approval of the minutes as amended.
Board member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Abstain - 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Future Agendas
Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Mr. Kirk Knight, 1316 Regent Street, Gallagher & Lindsey, noted that he was a Realtor,
and noted that he had communicated with Ms. Woodbury and Mr. Thomas, as well as
Mr. Garrison and other Planning staff. He requested clarification whether the City wanted
to attract and retain professional practices in Alameda, such as doctors, dentists, lawyers,
CPAs and other licensed professionals. He expressed concern about a professional
building that was built seven years ago, which he and several other individuals would like
to purchase. He noted that he would like to own only a portion of that building, in the
form of condominium ownership. He noted that he was told this would require a Use
Permit; he added that the building has been solely used for medical, dental and
professional uses for 55 years, and that no aspect of the use would be changed. He noted
that there would be a costly four-month delay in order to find out whether he could
purchase the building in that manner. He noted that his appraiser informed him the
building may be worth several hundred thousand dollars less by that time, and that he
would not know for months whether he would need additional parking or pay in lieu fees.
He did not believe this was an appropriate way to do business. He noted that the City's
transfer tax revenue was greater than property tax, and would like to convert classic
office buildings into office condos.
President Lynch noted that further discussion of this issue could be agendized, and added
that the Board could not have the authority to render a decision as it related to an item
under Oral Communication.
Page 2 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-09,3,"Ms. Mooney advised that the Board may ask a brief question, direct staff to take further
action, or request that an item be agendized for discussion.
Mr. Thomas noted that the building was in a residential zone (R-5), but the City had no
record of any commercial Use Permits for the uses. Staff has advised the applicant that
he should submit for the Use Permit and the commercial condominium at the same time.
Before a commercial condominium may be approved in a residential zone, the Use Permit
would be the mechanism to ensure that a commercial use would be possible and
acceptable.
Board member Cunningham recalled an earlier Use Permit application for a dentist office
in a house, which was denied due to strong opposition from the neighbors.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the four-month time period referred to by
Mr. Knight. Mr. Thomas noted that there were internal actions that needed to be taken,
as well as 20-day noticing requirements.
President Lynch noted that when this kind of project is taken on, he encouraged the
speaker to be mindful of the various Building Codes. He wished the speaker success in
this project.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
2007-2008 Election of Planning Board Officers
Board member Kohlstrand moved to nominate Vice President Cook as President of the
Planning Board.
Board member Mariani nominated Board member Cunningham as Vice Chair of the
Planning Board.
Board member Cunningham thanked Board member Mariani for the nomination, and
respectfully declined.
Board member McNamara nominated Board member Kohlstrand as Vice Chair of the
Planning Board.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motions, with the following voice vote - 7. The
motions passed.
9-B.
Initial Study IS05-0001; Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0001;
Major Design Review DR05-0010; Use Permits UP06-0003, UP06-0010, UP06-
Page 3 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-09,4,"012 and UP06-0013; - Applicant: Safeway, Inc. 2234 Otis Drive (adjacent
Alameda Towne Centre) (DG). The applicant requests approval of Planned
Development Amendment, Major Design Review and Use Permits allowing the
demolition of an existing bank building and redevelopment of the property with a
gas station. The project includes three covered pump islands, each containing three
pumps, for a total of eighteen pumping stations. Fuel will be stored in three 20,0000
gallon underground storage tanks. In addition to the approximately 7,500 square-foot
canopy covering the gasoline pumping facilities, the project includes an
approximately 625 square-foot building, housing the cashier's desk, restrooms and
retail sales of convenience items. The applicant is proposing twenty-four hour
operations and the sale of beer and wine. An Initial Study / Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared for this project. Mitigation measures have been
identified that will reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant
level. The site is located within a, Central Business District with Planned
Development overlay Zoning District (C-2-PD). (Continued from the meeting of
June 25, 2007.)
Mr. Garrison presented the staff report and recommended approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
Dan Goldwin, project architect, noted that on June 23, 2007, the Board requested that the
number of pumps be reduced. He noted that they accomplished their goal of keeping the
driveway openings to less than 70 feet, and that they were now 62 feet.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Mariani regarding peak hours, Mr. Thomas
replied that Condition 14 stated that they would be 7:00-9:00 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m. on
weekdays. On weekends, peak hours would be 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. No fuel trucks
would be allowed to make deliveries between those hours.
Dorothy Reid spoke in opposition to this project, and noted that from the beginning of the
project, she believed this would be the worst possible location for this gas station. She
noted that it backed up into a very narrow roadway, and that traffic jams were already
occurring with the center being 50% leased. She believed the gas station would be better
located in the corner of the center. She inquired how much room for error there was in the
truck turning space, and noted that she was very concerned about the two second left
turns. She inquired how the tanker truck could leave the center without if couldn't turn
into the gas station to get onto Otis Drive. She was also concerned about where the
Safeway.com trucks would be parked. She expressed concern about Mitigation 6 on page
8, which stated that the traffic light would be installed in 10 years. She realized that the
stoplight was included in the CIP, and that the 10-year period would give the City some
leeway, but she did not understand why a mitigation would take 10 years to install.
She requested clarification of Mitigation #7, which stated that the applicant will have Otis
Drive go right in and out if a traffic signal is installed. She understood that a traffic signal
must be installed, and inquired when that would occur. She believed that the five-year
monitoring period in Mitigation #8 was too short a period of time, and believed the
Page 4 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-09,5,"impacts should be monitored for 10 years. She noted that Condition #13 allowed the
applicant 30 days to notify that there biodiesel pump would not be installed, and believed
that should be a longer notice period. She noted that Condition 14 addressed gas station
peak hours, not the shopping center peak hours. She believed there should be
consideration for the shopping center peak hours, and believed that the fuel delivery
should be made in the early morning hours to avoid peak hours. She was concerned about
the turning radius in Condition #19. She noted that Condition #25 reflected the
recommendation from the Police Department, and noted that the police did not state that
24-hour operation would deter crime. She was concerned that it may attract crime, and
would like the 24-hour operation to be reconsidered.
Ms. Claire Risley, 2202 Grand Street, requested that the Planning Board not approve this
project until the ingress and egress to the Safeway fuel station could be designed in a
manner that does not violate the truck route ordinance. Alternatively, she requested that
the approval be condition in order to minimize deviation from established truck routes.
She noted that the entrance and exit were on a part of Otis that was not a truck route, and
displayed a map of the truck routes. She believed the nearest and shortest deviation
would be from the intersection of Otis Drive and Park Street, and requested that any
approval be conditioned to require trucks to follow that route.
Mr. Matt Francois, Cassidy, Shimko, Dawson and Kawakami, land use counsel for
Safeway, noted that the truck routes had been thoroughly reviewed by the City's
engineering staff and determined to meet the requirements of the City Code regulations.
He noted that City Code allowed for minor deviations where it may be impracticable to
use the truck routes. He noted that the Alameda Towne Centre had been the site of two
former gas stations, which likely use the same routes as proposed by Safeway. In order to
minimize the potential for traffic, Condition 14 was imposed; as agreed to by Safeway, it
would limit deliveries to non-peak hours. He noted that Safeway was committed to
providing biodiesel fuel. The applicant requested the flexibility to determine whether or
not there was a demand for this product in the market. He did not believe there would be
a nexus to impose a condition limiting the time limit on that requirement, because no
impacts were indicated that would need to be mitigated through such a condition. He
noted that the queuing impacts had been thoroughly analyzed by an independent traffic
consultant retained by the City to review those impacts, and determine there would be no
adverse impacts. They believed the monitoring conditions were adequate, and did not
believe that 10 years would be reasonable.
The public hearing was closed.
In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara regarding the truck routes, Mr.
Thomas noted that the truck route map showed the designated truck routes. He noted that,
trucks clearly needed to leave truck routes, and cited moving trucks as an example. He
noted that trucks making deliveries to each retailer needed to leave the truck route.
Board member McNamara requested further clarification regarding truck turning radii.
Page 5 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-09,6,"In response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand about the hours and access points
for the trucks, Obeid Khan, Public Works, replied that Condition 19 required that the
final design should incorporate adequate turning radii.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Mariani regarding the peak hours, and the
period of time between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. She noted that Lum School, Wood School and
Alameda High School were very close to this center; she was very concerned about the
safety of children being transported after school. She did not believe that any tanker truck
should be allowed in that area between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. She added that the senior homes
and convalescent hospital were also in close proximity to the center.
Board member Cunningham inquired about the number of deliveries per day. Mr.
Garrison replied that the applicant had stated it would be approximately once per day.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand whether one delivery a day would
pose a hardship to Safeway, Mr. Golwin replied that it would be an inconvenience to
them, and that it would take more planning to get the fuel to the site. He noted that
because Alameda was an island, any delay in allowing the delivery to be made may result
in the gas station running out of fuel. He noted that a fuel truck must deliver an entire
load, and that if the station has not sold enough gas to accommodate a full fuel load, that
entire delivery will have been lost. He was concerned about the impact to consumers if
the gas station were to run out of gas. He noted that there were no better trained drivers
than fuel tanker drivers, and noted that the current hour restrictions were probably
appropriate. He suggested that some flexibility would allow the tankers to make
deliveries while accommodating events such as a parade.
President Lynch was reluctant to impose an all-day restriction on fuel delivery.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand about the increase in size of the
kiosk, Mr. Golwin noted that there was originally a front entrance to the kiosk, allowing
goods to be stacked on either side. He noted that the new design allowed customers to
enter from the side from the pump islands. He noted that the 650 square-foot kiosk has
been reduced to 604 square feet.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the Board recently heard a proposal the Alameda
Landing development, which included various green elements. She added that Clif Bar
would transport its baked goods from Southern California on trucks fueled by biodiesel.
She noted that Safeway's use of B-10 could be run in current diesel engines. She
suggested that Condition 13 be removed altogether, and inquired why Safeway would
want to be associated with biodiesel if it wanted the exit clause within 30 days. She noted
that while there had been news articles about the viability of green fuels in the Pacific
Northwest, she believed that the Bay Area and California in general were equally
environmentally conscious. She noted that Safeway was a California-based corporation,
and that protection of the environment was an important issue to her.
Page 6 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-09,7,"Vice President Cook wished to address Mitigation Measure 8, which addressed accidents
and queues. She was concerned about the area around Wells Fargo, and did not feel
comfortable making Findings 4 and 10, which addressed whether the project would have
negative impacts on the adjacent uses.
Board member Mariani noted that she agreed with Vice President Cook's comments. Her
objections deal with the non-peak hours, which include times when children are just
getting out of school, walking around, or riding bikes; parents were driving children to
Towne Centre for after-school activities during those times. She stated that the gas
station was in close proximity to the hospital and many convalescent homes with patients
walking around the area. She felt this was a major safety concern.
Board member Cunningham noted that he did not want to see the uses in Alameda
intensified so much that traffic would come to a stop; however, he was willing to accept
the fact that there would be some impacts as the Island developed in certain ways. He
noted that he was careful to assess when the impacts would become too severe and
unacceptable. He noted that the City and applicants had come a long way in mitigating
the potential impacts of this development on the area. He noted that a drive-through
restaurant would like to create more traffic through the area than this use. He believed it
would be unrealistic to prohibit gas tankers from driving through the Island.
Board member Cunningham noted that Conditions 22 and 23 relating to stormwater
runoff, recommended runoff into a swale ""if possible."" He inquired whether the Planning
Board could determine at this time whether it was possible rather than leaving the item
open. He would like to tighten the wording up to state that surface drainage would go into
the grassy swale. He would like to filter the contaminants and hydrocarbons from the gas
station.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch, Mr. Khan confirmed that these Regional
Water Quality Act regulates storm water run off operations.
Vice President Cook wished to commend the applicant on their responsiveness to the
Board's comments, and believed this was a very nice-looking gas station. She noted that
her site concerns precluded her from voting for this resolution, but she appreciated the
amount of work the Board has done on this item, and how well the applicant has
responded.
Board member Kohlstrand agreed with Board member Cunningham's comments, and
thanked the applicant the revisions to the project, as well as their patience while the
hearing was rescheduled. She believed that Mitigation 7 should be amended to read, ""The
applicant shall limit the Otis Drive driveway to right-in, right-turn-out when the traffic
signal is installed.""
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the staff report stated that ""Condition 13 was
included in the Draft Resolution to reflect the applicant's commitment to install and
advertise a biodiesel product."" She inquired whether biodiesel would be sold, and noted
that the language in Condition 13 did not reflect much of a commitment to install,
Page 7 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-09,8,"advertise or sell biodiesel. She would like further information from Safeway; otherwise,
this did not seem to be much of a condition at all to her.
President Lynch noted that he was hesitant to mandate a particular item for sale, as the
community evolved, especially with respect to alternative fuels. He believed that
Safeway would sell as much biodiesel as the market is willing to bear. He hoped that a lot
of biodiesel would be sold.
Mr. Thomas advised that the April 23 resolution had no mention of biodiesel, and that it
was initiated by the Board. Safeway had agreed to include it, and it was discussed by
Safeway Gas. Staff initiated the conversation to define and gauge Safeway's commitment
to biodiesel.
Board member Mariani said that she would like to modify the delivery hours to reflect
her safety concerns.
Board member Kohlstrand noted that this was a big shopping center that would have
other truck traffic, and would be more comfortable leaving the restrictions as proposed by
staff.
Board member Ashcraft believed that Condition 13 should be retained as a reminder that
Safeway as a California corporation has a commitment to the Bay Area environment.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 07- to adopt
a Planned Development Amendment, Major Design Review and Use Permits allowing the
demolition of an existing bank building and redevelopment of the property with a gas
station. The project includes three covered pump islands, each containing three pumps, for a
total of twelve pumping stations. Fuel will be stored in three 20,000 gallon underground
storage tanks. In addition to the approximately 7,500 square-foot canopy covering the
gasoline pumping facilities, the project includes an approximately 625 square-foot building,
housing the cashier's desk, restrooms and retail sales of convenience items. The applicant is
proposing twenty-four hour operations. An Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
has been prepared for this project. Mitigation measures have been identified that will reduce
potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. The following modifications
will be added:
1. Condition 7 regarding the traffic light will be changed to replace the words ""if
possible"" with the word ""when possible""; and
2. Condition 22 and 23 will be modified to delete ""where possible"" regarding
swale drainage.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. No:
2 (Cook, Mariani). The motion passed.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Board member McNamara noted that she had submitted an email to staff, expressing her
concern and frustration, in that the Bridgeside Center had been frequently referenced in
Page 8 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-09,9,"negative terms as it relates to current items under review with the Alameda Landing
project.
Board member Mariani thanks Board member McNamara for writing this email, which
reflected her own concerns about the Bridgeside Center.
President Lynch believed this was a compliance issue, and would like staff to respond to
these concerns. He suggested that the staff response be agendized.
Vice President Cook would like the staff report to include the final approval for the
Board's review and reference. She noted that the Planning Board was very painstaking in
the details of this approval. She would like to have a site tour, and believed it was
important to have the facts in order when further addressing the issue.
Board member Cunningham would like to know if the developer had a reason for the
empty spaces in the center.
Board member Ashcraft noted that she had visited the gaming store and met the owner,
and that it was very attractive inside. She recommended that when discussing how the
Bridgeside Center could be made nicer, the Board should emphasize that it is not
criticizing the hard-working individual business owners.
President Lynch believed that it was important for the Board to recognize the public
process, and it was difficult to keep the larger issues in sight while focusing on the
individual issues. He believed it was important to take a step back and lay out the guiding
principals of what the Board would like to see. He would be open to setting up a
subcommittee to allow people to work on this issue. He believed the applicant should
present the plan to the Board, and allot the appropriate time to examine the issues without
being rushed.
Board member McNamara understood that the Board's role did not cover which retailers
went into a center.
Board member Cunningham noted that he was part of the subcommittee formed for the
Bridgeside issues.
Vice President Cook inquired how the Board would be capable of designing the space to
achieve a planning goal, when it would not be allowed to dictate use. She noted that the
Board worked very hard to design the space to have two front doors, with the notion of
placing the Starbucks there. She noted there was some movement in land use planning to
be more specific with respect to the type of use and size. She would like further
clarification on the Board's ability in that regard. She noted that the development
agreement had a list of nonpermissible uses.
Mr. Thomas noted that was an issue staff could explore with future developments. He
noted that the City could zone a site MX, which would require a Master Plan, such as
Page 9 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-09,10,"Grand Marina or Catellus. He noted the Master Plan could allow more specificity with
respect to uses.
Board member Mariani noted that she enjoyed shopping at Nob Hill Foods, and that
Bridgeside was a good center, but she was very concerned about the size and location of
the transformers.
Vice President Cook would like to initiate a conversation between the Planning Board
and the Alameda Bureau of Electricity with respect to the size of transformers and
utilities placed in visible aesthetic locations.
President Lynch believed the City needed to consider structural changes to the process,
and that the City may want to consider a committee to be empowered to do something
outside a Board's normal scope of work. He believed that would be a large undertaking
that would take make years. He did not believe that all authority could be vested with one
body.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Dakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Mr. Thomas noted that the meeting scheduled for the previous week had been cancelled.
It has been rescheduled for August.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
Board member Kohlstrand noted that a meeting had been held on June 26. The
subcommittee reviewed the work scope for the Pedestrian Task Force, and they intended
to take the policies related to pedestrians from the Transportation Element to develop an
implementation plan that could be passed on to the Capital Improvements Program.
Vice President Cook noted that there was still time to submit the Pedestrian/Bicycle
survey on the City's website.
President Lynch noted that he had recently attended a workshop with respect to bus
shelters, and believed that Alameda could take the lead in that regard.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board
Member Cunningham).
Board member Cunningham noted that they would meet on July 10, 2007, at 6:15 p.m. in
Room 360. They would examine transportation and land use elements of the General
Plan. They intended to categorize and prioritize items within those two categories. The
next meeting would be July 18, 2007, to discuss the energy, waste and outreach items.
Page 10 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-09,11,"Vice President Cook wished to thank President Lynch for his tenure as Planning Board
president, and particularly liked his welcoming demeanor and effort to educate the public
during the public.
President Lynch believed that Alameda was a very special place in a positive way, and
that it was his desire to elevate the Planning Board from the mundane.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:27 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the July 25, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 11 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-23,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, July 23, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:10 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member Ezzy Ashcraft
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Ezzy Ashcraft,
Lynch, Mariani and McNamara.
Board member Cunningham was absent.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Donna Mooney, Supervising Planner Doug Garrison, Planner III Dennis Brighton,
Planner I Simone Wolter, Obeid Khan, Public Works.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of July 9, 2007.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 7, paragraph 4, should read, ""Board member
Cunningham noted that he did not want to see the uses in Alameda intensified so much
that traffic would come to a stop."" She noted that while Board member Cunningham was
not present, but she would like to clarify that statement.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the second to last paragraph on page 9 should be changed
to read, ""Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she had visited the gaming store and met
the owner, and that it was very attractive inside. She recommended that when discussing
how the Bridgeside Center could be made nicer, the Board should emphasize that it is not
criticizing the hard-working individual business owners.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that the last paragraph of page 8 addressed the resolution of
adoption for the gas station, and read that the Planning Board had approved a total of 18
pumping stations, and that the applicant proposed 24-hour operations and the sale of beer
and wine. She believed the resolution should read 12 pumping stations; she understood that
the request for the sale of beer and wine had been withdrawn. She requested that staff ensure
that all of the conditions were correct.
Board member Mariani noted that page 7 stated that she agreed with Vice President Cook's
comments. She would like to elaborate specifically that her objection dealt with the non-
peak hours, which include times when children are just getting out of school, walking
around, or riding bikes; parents were driving children to Towne Centre for after-school
activities during those times. She wished to state that the gas station was in close proximity
to the hospital and many convalescent homes with patients walking around the area. She felt
this was a major safety concern.
Page 1 of 9",PlanningBoard/2007-07-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-23,2,"President Cook noted that page 7, should be changed to read, ""She was concerned about the
area around Wells Fargo, and did not feel comfortable making findings 4 and 10 which
addressed whether the project would have negative impacts on the adjacent uses.""
Board member McNamara moved approval of the minutes as amended.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Absent - 1 (Cunningham). The motion passed.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Future Agendas
Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft whether the September 10,
2007, meeting would address green building codes during the review of the local action
plan for the Climate Protection Task Force, Mr. Thomas replied that draft green building
codes will not be available for review at that time. Staff anticipated laying out a ""game
plan"" for getting to those codes, and has drafted a Request for Qualifications for qualified
consultants.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why this was such a complicated process, and
noted that only Alameda and Piedmont were the only cities in Alameda County that have
not enacted a green building ordinance.
Mr. Thomas replied that staff resources and prioritization of time was a major factor in
what projects staff is able to accomplish. He added that the Board may look at the work
program on August 28, 2007.
Vice President Kohlstrand recalled that Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Planning
Department and Planning Board should make some specific recommendations to come to
the City Council.
Board member Lynch recalled Board member Ezzy Ashcraft's original statement about
the green building ordinance and its complexities, and believed he heard a certain amount
of frustration about the process. He suggested that the frustration should not be directed
at staff, given the workload and staffing levels. He noted that he was involved with two
projects in jurisdictions that did not have green building ordinances, but were part of the
City's development guidelines. He noted that even if discussion of the ordinance were to
begin at this meeting, it would not be completed for 2007. He suggested that a policy
paper be produced stating that individuals submitting applications to the Planning
Department should do their best to incorporate green building principles and guidelines.
He suggested that relevant websites be included, and did not think those individuals or
companies should not move to the head of the line.
Page 2 of 9",PlanningBoard/2007-07-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-23,3,"b.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION
None.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A. DP07-0003 - Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project -
Applicant: Catellus Development Group, a ProLogis Company and the City
of Alameda. The applicant requests Development Plan approval for landscaping
and public right-of-way improvements along Mitchell Mosely Avenue, Fifth
Street, and Willie Stargell Avenue. The site is located along the western end of
the former FISC Site (Tract 7884) within the M-X Mixed Use Planned
Development Zoning District. (AT/DV)
Mr. Thomas presented the staff report, and noted that the landscape plans for the three new
major public roads would be addressed during this item. Staff recommended approval of
the landscape plans.
Ms. Linda Gates, Gates and Associates, landscape architect, displayed a PowerPoint
presentation to describe the streetscape plan for this project.
Mr. Rene Behan, SWA Group, landscape architect, continued the presentation of the
master plan.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Diana Thomas, General Manager, Mariner Square Athletic Club, 2227 Mariner
Square Loop, noted that while they were very excited about the project as presented to
the City, and about the Alameda Landing as a whole, they did have some concerns
regarding the landscaping proposal, particularly the extra triangle of land as displayed.
She noted that was part of the property that the club occupied at 2227 Mariner Square
Loop, as well as Bayside Pavilion. She noted that the easement rights were still unclear
after meetings with the City, in addition to the traffic easements. In addition, the current
extension of Willie Stargell, and how it was presented, would prohibit access to the
current property that they occupied, as well as the current businesses. She expressed
concern about the tenants in the property that had a loading dock and loading bay, and
that the access would be lost. She was concerned that the secondary driveway would
increase or reconfigure the traffic through their parking lot.
Page 3 of 9",PlanningBoard/2007-07-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-23,4,"Ms. Kathy Wagner, owner, Mariner Square Athletic Club and Bayside Pavilion, noted
that she was now the owner of the property located at 2203 and 2227 Mariner Square
Loop; her property was adjacent to two sides of the Catellus/ProLogis project. She noted
that she had been excited about this project and had attended most of the meetings. She
had met with staff earlier in the day, and expressed concerns about the plans. She
requested that the Planning Board deny approval of the landscaping plan and site
improvements in its entirety for Fifth Street, Willie Stargell and Mitchell Avenue
extensions. She noted that the plan of the road on Stargell did not allow access into her
existing business, and she had responsibilities to her existing tenants, who had access
through Tinker Avenue, which would become Willie Stargell. She added that large semi
trucks had access to drop off food for Gourmet Rail Services, which provided the food
for Amtrak Trains. She noted that would cause a problem in their parking area if they
were to lose access from Tinker Avenue. She understood that the City had not yet
acquired the property from the College of Alameda, and believed it would be premature
for the City to approve a plan when it did not yet own that property. She was concerned
that things may change dramatically if the City did not acquire that property. She
believed that if the City approved any portion of the street improvements, it would affect
what happens on the Mariner Square property. Therefore, she did not believe the City
should approve any of the landscaping or site improvements on Fifth Street, Willie
Stargell or Mitchell Avenue until more discussion and planning has taken place.
Mr. Gail Wetzork, 3452 Capella Lane, spoke in support of this project, and believed it was
very well done. With respect to the area property owners, he believed this project will
beautify the Northern Waterfront and will economically benefit the City. He believed this
was the best version of the project that had come before the City.
Ms. Melodie Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, 1416 Park Avenue, spoke in support
of this project. She suggested removing Willie Stargell, and approving the other two streets
in order to allow staff to work with Ms. Wagner on Stargell. She had long been concerned
about the lack of facilities in Alameda where events could be held, and would like the
project to move forward.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff brought the three streets forward with one staff report
because they felt it was important to ensure that the landscaping materials were
consistently and logically organized with respect to the planting and landscape plans for
the three separate projects. There was otherwise no real reason why all three streets should
be held up over the concerns of a portion of the landscape plan for one street. He noted that
the Mitchell Extension was a required portion of this project to serve the Clif Bar project. He
noted that Fifth Street was also essential, and that the City must move forward on that street.
Staff was aware of the potential uncertainties with the acquisition of the land for the Tinker
project. Staff did not see the need to hold up all three streets over the issue of the easement.
He noted that the City owned a street easement across Ms. Wagner's property, which was
specifically for the extension and expansion of Tinker/Willie Stargell. He described the
easement, which was used for parking and access; he noted that it was a paved but fairly
Page 4 of 9",PlanningBoard/2007-07-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-23,5,"unimproved area. Under the proposed plan, both properties owned by Ms. Wagner would
have direct access onto Mariner Square Loop; they would not have access from Willie
Stargell. He suggested that while direct access could not be provided, that a joint driveway
or access could be provided from the Stargell driveway for the Alameda Landing project
and to provide a secondary access for Ms. Wagner's properties.
President Cook suggested that the Planning Board discuss Fifth Street and Mitchell Moseley
while staff prepared a displayed for Willie Stargell.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she was fairly comfortable with the landscaping
treatment on both Mitchell Mosely and Fifth Street. Her concerns with Stargell had less to
do with the landscaping plan than the street configuration. She noted that the resolution
stated that the Board should consider both the ""landscape and site improvements for the
public right of way."" She wanted to ensure that whatever was in the public right of way was
adequate to meet everyone's needs.
Board member McNamara stated that she liked the landscaping plan for both Fifth Street
and Mitchell Moseley, and believed they were laid out very well.
President Cook inquired about how the placement of the trees related to any view corridors
between the buildings, which she would like to be as open as possible to the waterfront.
Mr. Behan replied that at every view corridor, there would be cottonwood trees to act as a
formal indicator of pedestrian walkways. The trees would be limbed up high enough so that
would be visually apparent to pedestrians.
President Cook believed the understory of ornamental trees on Fifth Street were spaced far
apart, and inquired about the distance between the trees.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she generally liked the plan, and inquired who was
responsible for the maintenance of the landscaping. Mr. Thomas replied that on the public
rights of way, the project pays the City to maintain the landscaping of the private areas.
In response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft whether anyone used Neptune Park,
and whether staff proposed a redesign for the park to make it more usable, Ms. Gates noted
that it was underutilized and that a senior housing project adjacent to it used it occasionally.
At this time, there are no walkways through the park, and that they planned to clean it up
visually to enhance the existing monumentation/flag area, add new lighting, create an area to
allow maintenance trucks to be parked off-site, and to add the walkway to improve the
connectivity of the circulation.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook regarding the understory trees along Fifth
Street, Mr. Behan replied that there would be two palm trees and an evergreen. He added
that they wished to provide room for the lighting as well. President Cook noted that she
wanted there to be a consistent understory along Fifth Street to provide comfort for
pedestrians and people who wished to sit.
Page 5 of 9",PlanningBoard/2007-07-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-23,6,"Vice President Kohlstrand requested that the understory be increased without jeopardizing
the lighting scheme. Mr. Behan believed that request could be accommodated.
Mr. Thomas displayed the site plan, which illustrated the location of the properties, the City
easement and the circulation on the site.
President Cook noted that the issues surrounding access from Willie Stargell would
probably not be resolved at this meeting.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the purpose of the
plazas at each corner, Mr. Thomas replied that they were basically widened sidewalks, and
that one of the intents for the new intersection at Willie Stargell and Mariner Square Loop
was to create a new entrance to the College of Alameda and to facilitate pedestrian access
between the College and sites north of the College. The plaza on Ms. Wagner's property
was planned to be somewhat larger in order to design a more visually attractive and
noticeable intersection.
In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara whether the replacement of the
medians by landscaping on Webster Street would reduce the street width, Mr. Thomas
replied that it would not.
In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara whether there would be a signal
light at the corner of Webster Street and Willie Stargell, Mr. Thomas confirmed that there
would be a signal at the new intersection. Another signal would be placed at Stargell and
Mariner Square Loop.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether there would be a signal across from
Neptune Park, Ms. Gates replied that there would be a signal at the location.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that as a long-time transportation planner, she was often
cautious about some of the CalTrans standards that are imposed in urban areas, which she
saw occurring here. She was very concerned about that, and noted that much more area was
being devoted to roadway. She believed it was a good idea to have a pedestrian signal at
Stargell. She was very concerned about the access to the adjacent properties, as well as the
realignment of the street. With that realignment, concerns were being raised about the north-
south driveway on the Catellus site and its safety. She was concerned that a problem was
being created.
Vice President Kohlstrand inquired whether there would be a sidewalk on both sides of
Stargell. Mr. Thomas replied that there was a sidewalk on the north side of Stargell from the
College of Alameda to the west. He further discussed the rationale behind the number of
lanes and the street alignment.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she had met with members of City staff and the
Catellus team earlier in the week, and noted that this street was not designed with parking;
Page 6 of 9",PlanningBoard/2007-07-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-23,7,"there had been some question about the driveway for Catellus and future installation of a
right-hand turn. She suggested that if the street had been designed with parking, that would
have been an option for creating a turn pocket. She would rather see something more
similar to Santa Clara Avenue than Tilden Way.
Mr. Obeid Khan, Public Works, noted that while the intersection of Webster and Willie
Stargell was under CalTrans jurisdiction, in order to design the street so that Stargell comes
off Webster, it would not be desirable for a car to exit from the dark Tube into Alameda,
with a queue extending into the Tube.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that the inclination was to build it to the highest standards,
but she would like to hear more debate about the issue.
Board member Mariani acknowledged the frustration of not having a visual illustration, and
believed there should have been more information to address the neighbors' issues.
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to approve
the Development Plan for landscaping and public right-of-way improvements along
Mitchell Mosely Avenue and Fifth Street, with the added condition of re-examining the
understory on Fifth Street to incorporate more pear trees.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft wished to add a condition to incorporate the Bay Friendly
Landscape Guidelines throughout the project, as set forth in the publication Bay Friendly
Landscape Guidelines, available at www.stopwaste.org.
The amendment was acceptable to the maker of the motion.
Mr. Behan noted that he would like to examine the document before agreeing to the
condition. They had discussed using sustainable materials in their project specifications,
as well as using indigenous materials for planting and hardscape.
Board member Lynch suggested modifying the condition to include the words ""where
appropriate"" in incorporating the guidelines in the landscape plan.
Mr. Behan noted that he agreed in spirit, but was concerned that the document may make
recommendations that they could not incorporate, such as using reclaimed water.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she had raised this issue previously, and added that
while the City's green building ordinances were not yet in place, she noted that the website
was related to the Alameda Waste Management Authority. She noted that many Bay-
friendly landscaping guidelines used by other Bay Area communities were delineated, and
would appreciate the applicant reading it with that in mind. She was willing to use the word
""suggested,"" but would like those practices to be adhered to as much as possible.
Page 7 of 9",PlanningBoard/2007-07-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-23,8,"Mr. Thomas noted that Finding 1 contained a typo on page 2, paragraph 1, and that it
should be amended to read, "" and the proposed landscape plans Master Plan will not
result in any new environmental impact.
""
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about approval of plans for property not yet
acquired by the City. She also agreed with Board member Mariani's comments about the
lack of visuals available for examination with regard to issues raised by Mariner Square
Athletic Club.
Board member Lynch inquired about the significance of having the Stargell project
moving forward for the City.
Mr. Thomas replied that there were still major steps to accomplish before construction
could begin.
Board member Lynch noted that because further resolution was needed, that would take
time; there were also City budget implications. He believed a project of this significance
would also work its way through the Transportation Commission, and suggested that
once those items were resolved, that staff inform the Planning Board at that time. Mr.
Thomas noted that staff could not commit to when the retail center would be brought
before the Board, and added that the land had not yet been acquired.
Board member Mariani seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Absent: 1
(Cunningham). The motion passed.
Board member Mariani left the meeting following the vote.
9-B.
General Plan Amendment, GPA07-0003/Rezoning R07-0001- Applicant: City
of Alameda - 201 Mosley Avenue. A General Plan Amendment and Rezoning of
an existing park/open space area of approximately 10.77 acres. The site is
currently listed as Medium Density Residential on the General Plan Diagram and
is zoned R-4-G, Neighborhood Residential (Special Government) Zoning District.
The General Plan Amendment and Rezoning would not change the use of the
existing open space area. The site is located north of Singleton and Mosley
Avenues. (DB)
Mr. Brighton presented the staff report, and recommended approval of this item.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to
recommended that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment and Rezoning of
an existing park/open space area of approximately 10.77 acres. The site is currently listed
as Medium Density Residential on the General Plan Diagram and is zoned R-4-G,
Neighborhood Residential (Special Government) Zoning District. The General Plan
Amendment and Rezoning would not change the use of the existing open space area.
Page 8 of 9",PlanningBoard/2007-07-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-23,9,"Vice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5.
Absent: 2 (Mariani and Cunningham). The motion passed.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report. Mr. Thomas noted
that the next meeting would be held September 20, 2007.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Vice President
Kohlstrand).
Vice President Kohlstrand advised that there had been no meetings since her last report.
c..
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board
Member Cunningham).
Board member Cunningham was not in attendance to present this report.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the August 27, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 9 of 9",PlanningBoard/2007-07-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-08-27,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, August 27, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:07 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member McNamara
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Cunningham,
Ezzy Ashcraft, Lynch and McNamara.
Board member Mariani was absent.
Also present were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Assistant City
Attorney Donna Mooney.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of July 23, 2007.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that the last paragraph on page 6 should be changed to
read, ""Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she had met with members of City staff and
the Catellus team earlier in the week, and noted that this street site-was not designed with
parking.""
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that the first paragraph on page 7 should be changed to
be read, ""There had been some question about the driveway for Catellus and future
installation of a right-hand turn. She suggested that if the street had been designed with
parking, that would have been an option for creating some of the parking may be taken
out in order to provide-a turn pocket.""
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that on page 2, the second paragraph under Staff
Communications read, ""Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why this was such a
complicated process, and noted that only-Alameda and Piedmont were the only cities in
Alameda County that had not enacted a green building ordinance.'
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 8, paragraph 2, should be changed to read,
""Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about approval of plans for property not yet
acquired by the City. She also agreed with Board member Mariani's comments about the
lack of visuals available for examination with regard to issues raised by Mariner Square
Athletic Club.""
Vice President Kohlstrand moved approval of the minutes as amended.
Page 1 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-08-27,2,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5.
Abstain - 1 (Cunningham). Absent - 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cook noted that the staff and the applicant continue Item 8-A, the Annual
Review of the Development Agreement for Harbor Bay Business Park so that some
missing pieces of the background documents could be corrected. The item would be
heard on September 10, 2007.
Board member Cunningham moved to continue Item 8-A to September 10, 2007.
Board member Lynch seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Absent - 1
(Mariani). The motion passed.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Future Agendas
Ms. Woodbury provided an update on future agenda items.
President Cook was concerned about delaying the Measure A Subcommittee report until
October 22.
Ms. Woodbury advised that the next step was for the report to come to the Planning
Board to take public comment on the structure of the forum, and to approve it before
moving forward.
President Cook noted that two three-hour-long meetings had been held with a facilitator,
resulting in a failure to reach consensus on any major points. She believed the Planning
Board should still move forward in an appropriate forum.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft shared President Cook's feeling about the Measure A forum
and believed waiting until October 22 would be too long a wait. She would like to move
forward while the issue was fresher in people's minds. She suggested moving that item to
a meeting in September.
Vice President Kohlstrand inquired whether the summary of the meeting had been
prepared. Ms. Woodbury confirmed that the summary was available to send to the
committee before bringing it to the Board.
Ms. Woodbury noted that a special meeting may be scheduled in light of the larger
agenda items scheduled for September.
President Cook suggested agendizing the Measure A subcommittee for September 10,
allowing a certain amount of time for Alameda Towne Centre to start.
Page 2 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-08-27,3,"b.
Zoning Administrator Report
Ms. Woodbury provided the Zoning Administrator report.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the biodiesel storage tank was intended for
City vehicles. Ms. Woodbury replied that it was for private use.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
8-A
Annual Review of Development Agreement - DA89-1 - Harbor Bay Business
Park Association, Harbor Bay Isle Associates and Harbor Bay Entities - Bay
Farm Island (Primarily Harbor Bay Isle)
Board member Cunningham moved to continue Item 8-A to September 10, 2007.
Board member Lynch seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Absent -
1
(Mariani). The motion passed.
8-B
Rezoning R07-0002/Planned Development PD07-0002/Parcel Map PM07-
0004 - Applicant: John & Andrea Medulan - 3236 Briggs Avenue. The applicants
request a Zoning Amendment to add a Planned Development (PD) overlay zoning
designation to the property located at 3236 Briggs Avenue; and a Development
Plan and Parcel Map (PM) approval to divide the existing 203-foot by 48-foot
parcel into two parcels, each with an existing single family residence. The site is
located within an R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. (LA)
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt A draft Planning Board Resolution to
approve a Zoning Amendment to add a Planned Development (PD) overlay zoning
designation to the property located at 3236 Briggs Avenue; and a Development Plan and
Parcel Map (PM) approval to divide the existing 203-foot by 48-foot parcel into two
parcels, each with an existing single family residence.
Vice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Absent: 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A
Workshop to Develop Recommendation for Planning Work Program Priorities
Ms. Woodbury summarized the staff report and detailed the work program priorities,
particular those required by State law.
Page 3 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-08-27,4,"In response to an inquiry by Board member Lynch whether the City would look at the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in addition to the Density Bonus/Second Unit
Ordinance, Ms. Woodbury replied that was not the plan.
President Cook inquired how the City could comply with the Density Bonus Ordinance if
Alameda did not have much density due to Measure A. Ms. Woodbury replied that was
the conundrum, and that going through the process and reconciling City Ordinances with
State law would be challenging.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether the definition of
""condominium conversion"" was converting an existing building into individual
ownership with tenancy in common, Ms. Woodbury confirmed that was the definition
used by the City.
Board member Lynch noted that because the City was not in compliance with the
Subdivision Map Act, he requested that staff bring it to the City Attorney's office to bring
the City into compliance. Ms. Woodbury noted that work had been initiated with the
consultant to go through that process. She added that staff must go through the AMC to
ensure there were no internal inconsistencies.
Board member Lynch noted that he applauded staff's efforts, but was also quite concerned
that the City may be over the edge of compliance with the law.
President Cook noted that the current subdivision ordinance did not provide for open space
dedication, and inquired whether that was just for condo conversions. Ms. Woodbury
replied that was for all subdivisions.
Ms. Woodbury pointed out that according to the status column, the projects were moving
along at the same time, but each additional project slowed everything down.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that this was the same list reviewed with City Council, and
she believed it was important to understand what studies were underway. She agreed with
Board member Lynch that it was also important to understand what City and staff resources
were available to the City, and when the projects were scheduled to be completed. She
would also like to know whether anything would be left over; if not, it was not productive
for the City. She believed it was difficult to go through the priority exercise with the limited
information available.
Ms. Woodbury replied that nearly everything on the list was started, and that a staff member
was assigned to each item. Sometimes, consultants would be available to augment staff,
which was a typical practice. She noted that it was difficult to find enough days to hold the
kinds of public meetings that were needed to receive the input from the community.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed the City should do what was required to get the legal
requirements into compliance. It seemed to her that there were several items that could be
merged, which should remove some of the time pressure. She inquired whether the staffing
Page 4 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-08-27,5,"issue had been solved if some of the work was going out to consultants. Ms. Woodbury
replied that staff people were still required to manage a contract, but the bulk of the work
would be performed by the consultant. She agreed that complying with State law was key,
and suggested that the Planning Board identify the top priority as bringing the codes,
ordinances and the General Plan into compliance with State law.
President Cook recommended that the Planning Board make bringing the City's plans and
ordinances into compliance with State law the top priority. She suggested that if necessary,
additional resources could be requested from City Council to fulfill that priority.
Ms. Woodbury noted that it was important to plan ahead, even if everything could not be
commenced this year. She suggested that staging the projects would make best use of staff
resources SO that everything did not occur at the same time.
Board member McNamara did not believe it was the Planning Board's position to
micromanage the Planning Department, and to identify the resources needed to get the work
done; she added that was the job of the Planning and Building Director and staff. She
encouraged the Board to rely on staff to accomplish that goal.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the only item on the first page of the work program not required
by State law was the Zoning Overlay District. She noted that was an application and
entitlement submitted by City Council, which the Board must move forward.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that a neighborhood meeting was scheduled for the Fall
of 2007, and suggested that waiting for that input may make it less of a priority.
Board member Lynch inquired whether the City Council had considered the financial
impact of that application, and he believed it would cause a tremendous negative impact on
that neighborhood. He inquired whether the neighbors were aware of it. Ms. Woodbury
replied that would be part of the discussion.
Vice President Kohlstrand believed the Mayor brought that issue up during the joint session.
Board member Lynch expressed concern that people may not realize the consequences of
such a petition, and did not want that to be an issue after substantial financial and time
resources have been expended.
Board member Cunningham requested that the impact of parking within the 20-yard front
yard setback be studied. Ms. Woodbury replied that could be added.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the parking study was completed for Webster and Park Streets,
but it did not mean the City could not look at parking regulations for the stations if a change
in ordinance was being considered. She suggested that there may be flexibility for the
stations, as well as parking in the front yard setback. She noted that those items may be
examined at the same time, with a more global solution.
Page 5 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-08-27,6,"Ms. Woodbury noted that the green building ordinance item also includes sustainability, as
well as ordinances to eliminate wood-burning fireplaces in new construction. She noted that
the City would generate an RFP to get a consulting team to assist in that effort. She noted
that there were a number of ordinances in place already, and that they did not want to create
any internal conflicts that would make a new ordinance ineffective. She added that when
requiring LEED certification for remodels and new construction, the historic structures
should also be considered. She noted that while they may be green, they may not meet the
LEED standards.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed the Styrofoam (law) ordinance can go under the
Climate Protection Task Force. She was concerned that with the amount of upcoming new
construction, the City should be up to speed on these sustainability items. She noted that
StopWaste.org moved its headquarters into a historic building on Franklin Street in
downtown Oakland, which had many sustainable elements.
Ms. Woodbury noted that StopWaste.org actually gutted the building because there was
nothing historic about the interior. They also renovated the entire exterior. She had referred
to the Carnegie Building, which was intact inside and out. She noted that taking ducting
through the open building would destroy the interior integrity of the historic structure. She
noted that the National Trust was working on guidelines for similar situations.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft did not believe the City's concern for the historic element
should get in the way of doing a basic green building ordinance, and that add-ons could be
done at a later point. She believed that the priority was getting a green building ordinance
for new construction.
With respect to water conservation, Ms. Woodbury noted that this encompassed Bay-
friendly landscape requirements, tree preservation and design standards. These practices
would help improve the environment and sustainability.
President Cook would like to see more acknowledgement of the City's orientation to the
water as an island, and would like to see more teeth in negotiations with developers.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the Station area Plan for Alameda Point was a grant-funded
project being paid for by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which looked at
different land use alternatives at Alameda Point and their effect on transportation, and on
making it a transit terminal.
Board member McNamara inquired whether that was a time-sensitive item. Ms. Woodbury
replied that was correct, and that it must be completed for grant funding completion. She
added that must be completed by the end of the year.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the Global Sustainability item addressed Alameda doing its part to
be as green as possible, and to implement policies and work with the community to improve
the environment. She noted that a memorandum was available at the dais that addressed the
status of the work being done by the Climate Protection Task Force.
Page 6 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-08-27,7,"Ms. Woodbury noted the possibility of revisiting the Alameda Downtown Vision Plan was a
Development Services project. She identified that as an additional recommendation of the
Planning Board to Development Services to work with the Economic Development
Commission on the quarterly review.
In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara regarding the Improved Service
Delivery item identified in the previous work program, Ms. Woodbury replied that each
Board and Commission that the Department staffed was doing its own work plan. She added
that item was part of the Customer Service Improvement Committee, which was not a
public board; that group worked directly with staff.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the Public Art Commission had developed their work plan, and a
Cultural Arts Grant Program was added after being initiated by the City Council. She added
that the Historical Advisory Board had a committee working with some citizens to develop
an action plan based on the Historic Preservation Element of the General Plan.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that while it was not required by State law, the Station area
Plan for Alameda Point was required by a legal settlement.
A general discussion of placement of priorities ensued.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the Measure A workshop was part of the Housing Element
update, and would need to follow the timing of that Element update.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that workshop had major implications for what would
happen at the Base.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham, Ms. Woodbury wished to clarify
that an amendment to Measure A was not part of the discussion. Board member
Cunningham inquired why the impact of Measure A on the Housing Element was being
examined because the substance of Measure A relative to housing was well-known. Ms.
Woodbury replied that the pros and cons of how Measure A affects the Housing Element
must be discussed. She added that the Housing Element discussed ""governmental
constraints,"" and that Measure A was a governmental constraint. She noted that the
workshop would provide a good platform for public discussion in understanding it.
President Cook noted that the Housing Element was conditionally approved, and had never
received final approval by the State.
Board member Lynch believed that Alameda may be vulnerable in not receiving a certified
Housing Element if they do not tackle the Measure A question. He noted that the Housing
Element directions have changed, and noted that the legislation was constantly being
modified. He noted that not all that was considered to be good in the last round may be
considered positively today. He noted that the requirements for the City were different than
they were previously. He noted the connectivity between the mandated legislation
Page 7 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-08-27,8,"requirement of the Housing Element that was consistent with the Planning documents, and
the analysis of the local ordinances and constraints was now a requirement of the Housing
Element.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the Housing Element discussed development patterns and
neighborhoods, and believed that if it remained as is, it would be sufficient for this exercise.
President Cook wanted to ensure that the Housing Element helped inform the development
of Alameda Point more generally, not just for the sake of the Housing Element by itself.
Ms. Woodbury suggested that the Planning Board prioritize the first three items, and staff
distributed the ""dots"" to the Board members.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the large spreadsheet contained an additional project which
contained the big box retail definition, as well as appropriate policies and regulations.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Lynch whether there was a fast food policy, and
noted that he would like to see a restaurant such as In-and-Out or Sonic, which would
provide more healthful food for the kids.
Board member Cunningham noted that within the Northern Waterfront, it was stipulated
that there be no fast food.
Ms. Woodbury summarized the Board members' priorities:
1.
The Sustainable Ordinances, including the landscape ordinance, received
four #1s, and two #2s;
2.
The Design Guidelines for the waterfront, small lot residential and
commercial areas received one #1, four #2s, and two #3s;
3.
Global Sustainability received one #3;
4.
The Parking Ordinance amendments received one #1 and three #3s.
Ms. Woodbury noted that there was not much interest in defining and developing policies
with respect to big box retail.
""President Cook noted that the Board members only had three dots, and that did not indicate
lack of interest in other planning projects.""
Vice President Kohlstrand wished to note that the big projects (such as Alameda Landing
and South Shore Towne Centre) were not on this list, and were assumed to be continuing.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the items mandated by the State were set aside
from the voting categories by the board.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether the Board would consider
bringing back the Downtown Vision Task Force, Ms. Woodbury replied that the City
Page 8 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-08-27,9,"Council had recalled that was a Development Services project, and that they would be the
lead department before taking it to the EDC.
President Cook requested copies of the quarterly reports, and recalled that there were many
important concepts in the Vision Plan that are probably still relevant.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would like see more business activity on
Webster Street, especially as the development of Alameda Landing continues. She
suggested that may be addressed by EDC and Development Services.
Ms. Woodbury noted that staff would provide updates to the Planning Board when they are
available.
No action was taken.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
10-A Status of Compliance with Conditions of Approval for Bridgeside Shopping
Center
Ms. Woodbury noted that Planner Douglas Vu was working with Bridgeside to complete
compliance with other conditions of approval before signing off on the site. Staff went
through Board member McNamara's memo and responded in writing regarding the status
of Bridgeside. She noted that the Board would take a walk-through of the site once it was
completed.
Board member McNamara noted that after reviewing the response, and that she had
missed the final approval meeting on the project. She believed that some of the responses
to her concerns seems somewhat weak in that when a wooden lattice, one would assume
that plants would be planted under the lattice to cover it. From the response, it seemed
that was not the intent for the landscaping. She did not believe that a lattice was a design
feature; the addition of wisteria or bougainvillea did constitute a design feature. She
found it hard to believe that it had taken so long to get the canopies and fabrics approved
and put it. She would like to meet with Mr. Vu to review the details, and try to learn from
it moving forward. She believed that some of the responses were disheartening.
Ms. Woodbury wished to respond to the Compliance with Conditions, and noted that
staff was charged with ensuring that the Building side worked on all the Building Code
issues, that Planning worked with the approved plans through the permit process, and that
the planners work on resolving any issues with respect to compliance with the conditions
of the discretionary approvals. She noted that on projects of any size, it was the last 10%
that took 90% of the time, which was the nature of the business.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that on page 2, she was concerned about the response
with respect to a driveway that had been designated off of Tilden Way. She understood
Page 9 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-08-27,10,"and realized that Mr. Vu was not the original planner. She noted that there had been a
disconnect between what the Planning Board was looking for, what was in the staff
report, and what ended up being built. She wanted to ensure that the conditions reflected
the stated intentions of the Planning Board. She would like to see more reflection of the
Board members' emotional comments to give the conditions the teeth they expected. She
noted that she had become very frustrated with this project, and added that the staff report
read, ""On August 22, the Board reviewed and approved 6-1, the final waterfront design,
landscaping and building elevations."" She wished to correct that vote, which was 5-1,
because she was opposed to the project at that time; Board member McNamara was
absent.
Ms. Woodbury would like to have this discussion on-site, and that she would be able to
help the Board through this process in articulating their wishes. She agreed with President
Cook that the Board should not have to review every single detail in the conditions. She
noted that the approval was in the resolution, and suggested that the Board ensure that the
appropriate items were captured in the conditions.
President Cook expressed concern that the comments that were carefully documented in
the minutes don't seem to carry much weight over time in the projects. Ms. Woodbury
noted that they must be included in the conditions of approval.
Vice President Kohlstrand cautioned that the Board should not do the staff's job, and
although she understood President Cook's frustration, she did not want to further slow the
process down.
President Cook noted that because staff had little time with the drawings and documents,
the Board members had even less time to review them.
Page 10 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-08-27,11,"11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Vice President
Kohlstrand).
Vice President Kohlstrand advised that there had been no meetings since her last report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board
Member Cunningham).
Board member Cunningham noted that as the report on the dais indicated, the report
would go into a draft local action plan mode, and will return to the Task Force for review.
He believed it would go through the various Boards for their review and comment, which
was not noted in the summary. He noted that it contained a wide range of action plans
and suggestions, and that it would go to City Council for review and possible approval.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft requested information regarding the newly remodeled
Long's on Santa Clara Avenue, which did not appear to have any bike parking outside.
Ms. Woodbury noted that it was not required on the plans, but she would discuss it with
Long's. She felt confident that they would install a bike rack.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
8:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the September 24, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 11 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-09-24,1,"DRAFT
Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, September 24, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:06 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Vice President Kohlstrand
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Ezzy Ashcraft,
Lynch, Mariani and McNamara.
Board member Cunningham was absent.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Donna Mooney, Obaid Khan, Public Works.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of September 10, 2007.
President Cook noted that page 2, paragraph 6, should be changed to read, ""President Cook
noted that she was concerned about delaying with the October 22 Measure A subcommittee
report until October 22.""
President Cook noted that page 5, paragraph 2, should be changed to read, ""President Cook
recommended that the Planning Board make bringing the City's plans and ordinances take
action to bring into compliance with into State law as the top priority. She suggested that, if
necessary, additional resources could be requested from City Council to fulfill that priority.'
President Cook noted that page 8, third paragraph from the bottom, should be changed to
read, ""President Cook noted that the Board members only had three dots, and that did not
indicate lack of interest in other planning projects.""
President Cook noted that page 9, paragraph 2, should be changed to read, ""She requested
copies of the quarterly reports, and recalled that there were many important concepts in the
Vision Plan that are probably still relevant.'
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Minutes for September 10, 2007, as
amended.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Absent: 1 (Cunningham). The motion passed.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
Page 1 of 18",PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-09-24,2,"President Cook proposed hearing Item 9-B before Item 9-A in the interest of the applicant's
priorities.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Future Agendas
Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.
Member Lynch noted that within the last six months, the Board has met with the City
Council in a joint meeting, and had numerous discussions regarding the efforts that the
individual members bring to bear, as well as the intent of the Planning Board. He noted that
Alameda Point was the largest land use issue within the Planning Board's purview, and
inquired why the development team would not discuss their philosophies before the Board.
He noted that a number of people have commented on the parking garage, and noted that it
was interesting to hear the reactions on the visual aspect of the parking garage although they
were in support of the concept. He noted that it had become a point of contention over the
past few years. It appeared to him that with respect to Alameda Point, that a bifurcated
system had been developed. He believed the land use issue should be discussed with the
Planning Board as well.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff wanted the developers to come before the Board to lay out their
proposed schedule and approach to the planning for Alameda Point, in order to review it
with the Planning Board first. He noted that they had signed an agreement with City Council
affirming that they would have the entire process completed in two years, meaning that the
bulk of the planning effort must be done in the next eight months. He believed the primary
question was how the Planning Board wanted to participate in this process.
Member Lynch believed there were some inconsistencies between what he had heard, and
the scheduled meetings on October 8, November 14, and December 12. He identified the
inconsistencies between a heightened appeal from the community that they want to weigh
in earlier in the process, and that they prefer to approach the project in small bites.
Mr. Thomas noted that Member Lynch's comments were well taken, and would pass
them on to the developers.
President Cook requested that they hold the October 23 meeting during the October 22
Planning Board meeting, so that it would be televised for greater public exposure.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft supported President Cook's suggestion.
b.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None.
Page 2 of 18",PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-09-24,3,"8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
8-A
Development Agreement DA89-1 -- Harbor Bay Business Park Association,
Harbor Bay Isle Associates and Harbor Bay Entities -- Bay Farm Island
(Primarily Harbor Bay Isle). A request for a Periodic Review of Development
Agreement DA89-01, for the period through April 4, 2007, as required under
Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to adopt the Planning Board Resolution to accept the
Periodic Review of Development Agreement DA89-01, for the period through April 4,
2007, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1.
Member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Absent: 1
(Cunningham). The motion passed.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-B.
Alameda Landing Waterfront Promenade, Master Landscape Plan and
Development Agreement Amendment, Project Applicant: Catellus
Development Group, an affiliate of Palmtree Acquisitions Corporation. The
applicant requests a Waterfront Development Plan amendment, a Master
Landscape Plan amendment, and a Development Agreement amendment to revise
the design of the proposed waterfront promenade and open space proposed as part
of the Alameda Landing Project. The site is located along the western end of the
former FISC Site (Tract 7884) within the M-X Mixed Use Planned Development
Zoning District. (AT)
Mr. Thomas presented the staff report. and recommended approval of this item.
Mr. Aidan Berry, applicant, introduced the project team and concept.
Ms. Altschuler, SMWM, displayed a PowerPoint presentation and described the details of
the approach and solutions of the project. She described the landscape plan in detail, as
well as shoreline access and planting.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that in pulling back the promenade, one of the office
buildings was being cut off. She inquired whether the square footage of office was being
reduced, or whether stories would be added to the office building.
Mr. Thomas stated that the entitlement for office use was 400,000 square feet per the
Master Plan, and added that the changes in the promenade would not change the amount
of square footage of allowed office use. The old plan anticipated that the second
warehouse would be retained; under the new plan, it would not be retained, and a new
office building would be included, with half the footprint of the old building. The
additional square footage would be gained by going up. He clarified that the approval of
the development plan for the promenade was an approval of the open space concept, but
Page 3 of 18",PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-09-24,4,"was not an endorsement of a particular footprint. Both buildings will be subject to a
future development plan and design review application to be reviewed by the Planning
Board.
President Cook noted that the siting of the buildings were originally set in place because
the City wanted to retain the warehouse structures. She inquired whether the Planning
Board would have the ability to review the two westernmost new buildings and
reconsider their siting.
Mr. Thomas replied that it would be possible, and noted that the Clif Bar building and
shed were both already approved, and the location was set. The location of every other
building on this site plan was still subject to the Planning Board's review and approval
through the development plan and design review.
Ms. Altschuler added that the revised plan showed a continuous access along the area,
which allowed the Bay Trail to come straight into the site, eliminating the previous jog
around several buildings.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding keeping pedestrians
safe from the bicyclists, Ms. Altschuler replied that a 12-foot minimum area was required
on
most of the Bay Trail, and that there would be sufficient room with 44 feet to
accommodate both uses safely. She added that benches would be added to invite
pedestrians to stop and rest on the trail.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Christopher Buckley noted that he submitted a letter to the Planning Board, and
spoke in support of retaining the second warehouse. He believed one of the more
compelling features of the original project was maintaining the look of a working
waterfront; he believed that the generous length of the two warehouse structures provided
that look. He believed that removing the second warehouse reduced the original visual
context for the working waterfront, and he did not believe it would provide the sense of
place provided by the original concept. He requested clarification of the statement in the
staff report that suggested the possibility that the remaining warehouse may need to be
removed, that the proposed amendments will define and clarify where a new building
would need to be placed if a decision is made in the future to demolish the existing
waterfront would have as currently planned for Clif Bar. He inquired whether the
Planning Board would be asked to preliminarily endorse the idea of removing the Clif
Bar warehouse, and replacing it with a new structure. He suggested using a lighter-
weight, more cost-effective planking for the section of wharf over the pilings, such as the
wood plankings shown in the illustrations on top of the existing pilings. He believed it
was necessary to resolve these issues so that Clif Bar may move ahead on schedule, and
suggested that if the City would like to study the options concerning the second
warehouse, that the Clif Bar phase to move ahead at the same time.
Page 4 of 18",PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-09-24,5,"Mr. Gary Erickson, owner, Clif Bar, noted that he co-owned the company with his wife,
Kit Crawford, and added that they were very excited to move to Alameda. He
complimented the quality of the plans, and noted that they had been set back when they
discovered the wharf issue. He noted that they had been working closely with Catellus
and Prologis, and were very pleased with the redesign. He requested that the Planning
Board approve this item as soon as possible.
Mr. Bill Smith expressed concern about air quality on this site, and would like to see a
diversion of the airflow at the turnaround basin.
Mr. Richard Rutter believed the previous plan was very good, and retained the
monumental scale of the warehouses and pier structure. He believed that the site was
diminished with the removal of one of the warehouses. He noted that the piers were very
heavily built, and recommended that the issue of the piers be reviewed, including cost
estimates, to determine consensus on their retention.
Ms. Ann Rockwell, Alameda East Bay Miracle League, described the Miracle League's
mission and noted that they hoped to be a part of this development. She hoped the field
would be built within two to three years, and urged the Planning Board to support the
project.
Ms. Karen Bey spoke in support of retaining the wharf. She agreed with Mr. Buckley'
assessment that the Clif Bar component of the project move forward. She believed that
the issue of cost-effectiveness should be a primary discussion with respect to keeping the
wharf. She inquired whether the possibility of creating a community facility district had
been explored to fund this part of the infrastructure.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Thomas noted that the promenade would be improved and built by Catellus, and the
maintenance of the public portions of the promenade would be maintained by the City;
however, the cost for the maintenance would be generated by a Municipal Services
District. He noted that all of Fifth Street, Mitchell Mosely Street and the basic public
roads, the landscaping on the public roads and the promenade will be maintained through
the District.
Mr. Thomas noted that with respect to the issue of demolishing the Clif Bar warehouse,
the City originally understood that the wharf extended from the edge of the water back to
just behind the Clif Bar building. Any new structures must be built at the back of the
wharf. He noted that the entire embankment must be reinforced, which would slide
horizontally in the event of an earthquake. He noted that the City had peer reviewed the
studies, and that the City was in total agreement that there was a real problem with the
embankment, which must be stabilized for the earthquake risk.
Page 5 of 18",PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-09-24,6,"President Cook inquired whether different kinds of engineering solutions had been
explored, such as a seismic joint to allow part of the pier to be free in an earthquake
event.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff was continuing to look at a number of different ways to
stabilize the situation, including different technologies. They were confident, based on
the work done so far, that major changes will need to be made to the promenade plan to
address those two issues. He noted that Clif Bar's issues should be addressed
immediately, and a condition on Clif Bar is that everything would be built to the east of
Clif Bar immediately.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed the Board concurred on moving the Clif Bar project
forward. She believed Catellus must have an idea of the cost to do the seismic retrofit and
reinforcement under the Clif Bar warehouse. She believed that would be useful if the
second warehouse were to be preserved. If the equipment would be brought in to do the
work on Clif Bar, it might be cost-effective to do both at the same time.
Member Lynch inquired what the City's role was in terms of providing peer review. Mr.
Thomas replied that the City would peer review the studies and cost estimates, if they
wished to share them. Ultimately, Catellus would decide whether it would move forward
with the project.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was surprised when she read the report because the
Board had heard so many positive things about the project. She had assumed that they
knew what was beneath the wharf. She inquired whether Catellus/Prologis was still
waiting for any other test results or analyses of any of the other three phases of the
project, or whether they anticipate that there will be others. She was very concerned
about maintaining the relationship with Clif Bar, and believed that Alameda was very
fortunate that Clif Bar wanted to do business in the City. She noted that the first
amendment to the development agreement on page 5 (paragraph b), read, ""In the event
that the wharf building is demolished after creation of a reuse parcel. She felt
very
strongly that that wharf building must be preserved for Clif Bar as long as Clif Bar is
interested in being a player in this project. She suggested amending the language to read:
""In the event that Clif Bar elects not to occupy the wharf building, and the building is
demolished after creation of a reuse parcel. She wanted to make it clear that that was
not an option as long as Clif Bar was a part of this project.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the neighborhood LEED certification was still
being pursued. She inquired whether the green space closer to the water would be grass
or Bay-friendly landscaping. Ms. Altschuler replied that it would be a natural landscape
element, and that grass would not be put in that location. She noted that it was called a
transitional marsh area, and added that one of the slides displayed the mix of natural
landscaping found around the Bay.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft commented on the possibility that the Miracle League portion of the
project could take until the year 2016 to complete, and requested that if there was any way
Page 6 of 18",PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-09-24,7,"to move that portion of the project done ahead of time so that the children could use it as
soon as possible. She added that she was encouraged by the letter of September 12, which
described the benefits of the revised plan, and included the biologist's observation that
""overall, the project revisions will result in a net benefit to biological resources and waters
of the San Francisco Bay because of existing hardscape at and over the edge of the Bay
would be removed and replaced with a restored tidal marsh area, establishing a more natural
landscape to the shoreline of the inner Oakland Harbor.""
Member McNamara noted that Catellus was investigating the financial impact of these
revisions, and believed that to split up the shoring up of the wharf, and possibly delaying the
renovation of the area to the west, would not be a cost-effective solution for a developer.
She did not see that as a feasible solution, and believed that the project should be examined
in its entirety. She supported the changes proposed by Catellus, given the structural issues.
She also liked the change that flattened the waterfront plaza, which enhances the use of the
space. She liked the idea of a floating dock, which was a creative solution. She was
concerned about maintenance of the water level landscaping, particularly with respect to
accumulation of litter as the tide comes in.
Mr. Thomas noted that the maintenance would be performed by the City, but paid for by the
project.
President Cook echoed Member McNamara's concern about the maintenance at the
waterfront, and wanted to ensure that the responsibilities were clear.
Member Lynch was confident that the design elements had been vetted, and that he was
comfortable with that. He believed it was an attractive project, and was not concerned with
the viability of maintaining and shoring up the wharf area. He was confident that was vetted
with the City as well. He was comfortable with the EIR, and he did not believe the case had
been made to warrant recirculating the EIR. He noted that he was disappointed about the
placement of the Miracle League field in the third phase, to be completed in 2016, which he
believed was an excessively long time, given its purpose and the need for the field. He
believed the 2016 date was inconsistent with the pace and amount of energy put into the
plans thus far.
Vice President Kohlstrand agreed with Member Lynch's comments regarding the ball field.
She wanted to maintain the relationship with Clif Bar and keep that project moving ahead;
she also wanted the City to maintain its relationship with Catellus and Prologis. She did not
have any issues with the revised promenade, but would like further information about how
the project related to the water's edge. She believed that the loss of the warehouse was an
unfortunate occurrence, and acknowledged that many people were concerned about that.
President Cook inquired whether the Board was at the point of making a decision about
removing that part of the pier, as well as that part of the warehouse. She suggested that the
approval be phased if that were the case. Mr. Thomas replied that the plan may be approved
with direction that when the later phase was presented, that the future of the wharf be re-
evaluated. He understood that demolition of wharf west of Clif Bar would not start until
Page 7 of 18",PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-09-24,8,"Phase 3. He noted that this item would come back to the Board before demolition of that
part of the wharf is planned, and added that it may be five or six years before that phase
returns to the Planning Board.
Mr. Berry noted that the Board question had several pieces. First, has Catellus adequately
analyzed the cost of the impacts from the wharf; he noted the answer was ""yes."" They had
shared their technical studies with the City, from the structural and geotechnical standpoints.
They would be happy to share their construction cost estimates, and he added that they were
working with Public Works and their outside consultant. They determined that the wharf
deck should be pulled back. He added that with respect to the loss the warehouse, the
existing DDA and DA gave them the ability to remove that warehouse, subject to further
design review. He noted that they need to be able to move forward on a promenade plan at
this meeting.
Mr. Berry noted that the Planning Board's wishes regarding the Miracle League ball field
had been made very clear, and that they had a Letter of Agreement with the Miracle League.
He added that the Miracle League loved this site, and that they want them to use that site. He
added that there was a carve-out in the development agreement that identified, in the event
that interim utilities were available, that they could move forward in starting that project in
that location without triggering the takedown of Phase 3. He noted that he met with their full
Board three weeks ago, and he agreed that within 90 days of that meeting, he would return
to their Board, if he received a determination from the City and utilities companies that there
was existing infrastructure, with a proposal that they could provide adequate access. He then
would approach the City to address how they could get the Miracle League to the site as
early as possible. Within that 90-day window, he will have a full feasibility analysis
performed by Catellus that would examine the opportunities on that site. If the first plan is
not feasible, they also had a separate agreement that identifies the contribution of dollars to
find another site for them. This site was the first choice for Miracle League, as well as
Catellus; he assured the Board that Catellus had an ongoing commitment to work with
Miracle League and City staff to find them a site as soon as possible.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook regarding handicapped accessibility, Ms.
Altschuler replied that was part of the design and the reason for the long ramps.
Board member Mariani inquired whether the required demolition of the second warehouse
was actually spelled out in the conditions. She noted that she was very disappointed in that
requirement, and could not approve this item if it meant demolishing the second warehouse.
Her enthusiasm for this project was rooted in the historic content and nature of this project,
and the manner in which it embraced Alameda's working waterfront, as well as the addition
of Clif Bar and their intentions to preserve the area. She believed that language should be
clearly outlined.
President Cook inquired whether a condition could be added SO that before the demolition
decision is made, or before the new office building was approved, that the situation be
revisited. Mr. Thomas confirmed that this could be approved with the condition that when
the Phase 3 buildings come back to the Board for development plan and design review,
Page 8 of 18",PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-09-24,9,"before the warehouse is demolished and before the wharf is modified, that the plan provide
the Board with additional and updated analysis of the feasibility of maintaining the
warehouse, and retrofitting the wharf for the second warehouse. He noted that was a less
expensive option than trying to do a retrofit.
In response to an inquiry by Member Lynch why that course should be taken, Mr. Thomas
replied that it put into the record for the future date so that Catellus and City staff would be
reminded that the community and the Planning Board wanted to save the warehouse.
Member Lynch wanted to ensure the wording was very precise so that the Board's
intentions and expectations were clear to future staff and Board members. Mr. Thomas
noted that Phase 3 contained a similar condition having to do with housing on the
waterfront. He noted that if there was a way to return with a development plan for Phase
3 that included the second warehouse and extended the wharf for the second warehouse,
it would be looked at favorably.
President Cook inquired whether the rail lines and movable benches in front of Clif Bar
were still retained in the plan. Mr. Thomas replied that they most likely would have to be
removed. President Cook added that she liked them, and was sorry to see them go.
President Cook was concerned about retaining the historic building, and believed that
made the project richer historically. She was looking forward to seeing Clif Bar move
into the site, and wanted to ensure the project continued to move forward. She was
concerned about understanding the year-round usability of a floating dock of this size, as
well as the cost of maintaining it. She noted that there was a shortage of docking
capability in the Bay Area, and added that Chevy's in Alameda was now gone. She was
concerned about what kind of plantings could be sustained on the rip-rap, as well as
whether it could withstand the occasional tide coming over it.
President Cook expressed concern about the corner around Clif Bar, and whether bicycle
riders would be safe from injury making that hard left turn. She inquired about fill credits
from BCDC that could be gained when fill was removed. She would like the motion to
include these considerations and concerns, if that was the will of the Board.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Mariani whether the second warehouse would
be torn down even if the Planning Board did not approve the item, Member Lynch
confirmed that was correct.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the recommendation page of the staff report had four
bullet points, and inquired whether one resolution would approve all four bullet points. She
further inquired how the language discussed by Mr. Thomas and Mr. Lynch relating to the
potential demolition of the second warehouse would be incorporated into the resolution.
Mr. Thomas noted that page 3 of the resolution read, ""Now therefore be it resolved that the
Planning Board (a) adopts the first addendum; (b) approves the revised waterfront
promenade. Condition 1: The prior construction of any portion of the waterfront promenade,
Page 9 of 18",PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-09-24,10,"the applicant shall submit a design review application
"" He suggested the addition of a
second condition, reading, ""Prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the Phase 3
development plan for the office buildings or the waterfront promenade design review for the
Phase 3 buildings, the applicant will provide an assessment of the feasibility of retaining all
or a portion of the existing waterfront warehouse for an adaptive reuse.'
The Planning Board generally concurred with that additional condition.
Mr. Thomas added that the later language read, ""Now therefore be it further resolved that
the Planning Board recommends the City Council approve the development agreement
with the following revision: 4.9.2(b)
Member Ezzy Ashcraft would like that sentence to begin, ""In the event that Clif Bar elects
not to occupy the wharf building, and the building is demolished after creation of a reuse
parcel
""
Board member Mariani thanked the applicants for being creative with this project, and
encouraged them to retain the historical character of this site.
Board member Mariani moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 07- to approve
a Waterfront Development Plan amendment, a Master Landscape Plan amendment, and a
Development Agreement amendment to revise the design of the proposed waterfront
promenade and open space proposed as part of the Alameda Landing Project. The
following condition will be added: ""Prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the Phase 3
development plan for the office buildings or the waterfront promenade design review for the
Phase 3 buildings, the applicant will provide an assessment of the feasibility of retaining all
or a portion of the existing waterfront warehouse for an adaptive reuse.""
Mr. Berry wished to emphasize that the buildings were not historic. They were fully
analyzed under the EIR, and the DDA allowed for the demolition. He believed the
additional language would be acceptable, if language similar to that used in the retail
center having to do with substantially similar requirements, or inconsistencies contained
in the conditions of the approval on one hand, and for mitigation monitoring on the other
hand, the development agreement and the DDA shall rule. He did not want to be put in a
position of doing a feasibility analysis, where a DDA amendment would be required. He
wished to clarify that the DDA was the controlling document, and requested assurances
that the condition was not meant to conflict with the DDA.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft was concerned by the preface to Mr. Berry's remarks with respect
to the historical nature of the buildings. She understood that there was a specific
definition of historical, and added that from the beginning of this project, the Planning
Board had heard of adaptive reuse of the site. She noted that the Planning Board would
like the developer to take their concerns into consideration moving forward.
Member Lynch inquired whether the DDA was the controlling document when there
were conflicting conditions throughout the resolutions. Ms. Mooney replied that would
Page 10 of 18",PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-09-24,11,"be the argument made by the developer. If there was a situation with a contract that has
already been agreed to, two different parts of the same city would say different things,
creating a conflict. At that point, the developer's argument will be that the provision in
the development agreement was what they would be bound to, rather than the condition
imposed by the Planning Board.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff understood Mr. Berry's statement that the development
agreement would rule in this case, and that the City has allowed it. He added that an EIR
was performed, and that these were not historic buildings. The City was essentially asking
the applicant to think about this issue one more time upon their return, which may be up
to 10 years.
Mr. Berry understood what the City was asking for, and he believed that would be
possible.
Mr. Thomas noted that a third condition would be added, reading, ""Where there are
substantially similar requirements or inconsistencies containing the conditions of this
approval, on the one hand, or the development agreement or disposition development
agreement on the other hand, the provisions of the development agreement and
disposition agreement and mitigation monitoring reporting program as applicable shall
govern.'
In response to an inquiry by Member Mariani why that condition should be added, Mr.
Thomas replied that it was for clarity. Member Mariani responded that she could not
make the motion if it included that condition.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she would be able to make the motion.
President Cook noted that the original motion should be withdrawn before a substitute
motion may be made.
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 07-
to
approve a Waterfront Development Plan amendment, a Master Landscape Plan
amendment, and a Development Agreement amendment to revise the design of the
proposed waterfront promenade and open space proposed as part of the Alameda Landing
Project. The following conditions will be added:
1. ""Prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the Phase 3 development plan for
the office buildings or the waterfront promenade design review for the Phase
3
buildings, the applicant will provide an assessment of the feasibility of retaining
all or a portion of the existing waterfront warehouse for an adaptive reuse.""
2. ""Where there are substantially similar requirements or inconsistencies
containing the conditions of this approval, on the one hand, or the
development agreement or disposition development agreement on the other
hand, the provisions of the development agreement and disposition agreement
and mitigation monitoring reporting program as applicable shall govern.'
Page 11 of 18",PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-09-24,12,"Member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 1
(Mariani) Absent: 1 (Cunningham). The motion passed.
President Cook called for a recess.
9-A.
Alameda Landing Retail Project Applicant: Catellus Development Group, an
affiliate of Palmtree Acquisitions Corporation. The applicant requests Design
Review approval for eight new retail buildings totaling approximately 250,000
square feet, off-street parking, and landscaping located south of Mitchell Avenue
Extension and east of Fifth Street. The site is located along the western end of the
former FISC Site (Tract 7884) within the M-X Mixed Use Planned Development
Zoning District. (AT)
Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report. He noted that the June 25, 2007 resolution of
approval for the shopping center, including all of the site plans conditions. He noted that
staff only added conditions to the design review draft resolution that would be necessary
relative to architecture and landscape. He noted that the draft resolution supplemented the
approval of June 25, 2007 Planning Board resolution.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Chris Monahan, attorney for Mariner Square, Morgan Miller Blair, noted that they
submitted a letter on September 21, 2007, stating their concerns regarding Catellus's
design review application. The letter expressed the concern that the approval would
adversely affect access to and from their site. They requested that the Planning Board
delay the decision until they have had an opportunity to meet with Catellus and the City
to discuss the access issues associated with Tinker Avenue. He noted that would be
impacted by any decision at this time regarding the access and configuration of the
Catellus. He requested that this item be continued to allow sufficient time to resolve these
issues.
President Cook noted that five speaker slips had been received, and invited Board
comment regarding speaker time.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the previous speaker had not taken the entire five
minutes, and would like to allow the five-minute speaking time.
Mr. Christopher Buckley noted that he had submitted a letter to the Board. With respect
to Building A, which he noted was a very large building at 55 feet tall and 660 feet wide,
he suggested that on the parking lot side, an opportunity for additional differentiation on
the upper level may help mitigate the overall size of the building. On the pedestrian level,
he noted that there was a lot of blank wall areas between the entries to the storefront. He
acknowledged that the rolling doors were necessary, and suggested that more glazing and
display windows be added. He noted that the tiling was not called out on the plans, and
believed that would add more pedestrian interest. He believed Building B was much more
successful with the garden in the parking lot, breaking up the massing. He noted that the
Page 12 of 18",PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-09-24,13,"backsides of the buildings facing Stargell and Mariner Square Loop, it was critical to
avoid the ""back of the building"" look. When he looked at the plans, he had not been
aware of the glazing plans, which seemed to be a promising solution to him. He believed
that storefronts on the backside would add to the building's presence, but may create
functionality problems by the major arterials. He would like to see more glazing at the
back, particularly on Building A. He noted that this was a very important project, and
would like the colors and materials to be presented to the Planning Board at the final
design review stage. He displayed images of a streetscape at the Victoria Plaza shopping
center in Rancho Cucamonga, which was following a similar design scheme.
Mr. Richard Rutter submitted a speaker slip, but did not need to speak. He agreed with
Mr. Buckley's comments.
Mr. Bill Smith noted that sufficient earthquake standards in the site were very important,
particularly on the landfill by the waterfront.
Ms. Karen Bay expressed concern about the large format of this site, and did not want it
to become a big box development, rather than a lifestyle development. She envisioned
mostly smaller specialty stores and one or two-format stores. She would like to see
wording to define a lifestyle center.
President Cook noted that during the community process for this project, considerable
work was done with the Webster Street businesses. They voiced their concerns about
potential negative impacts of this project on Webster Street, and it was decided that this
project should focus more on larger format stores so it did not compete directly with
Webster Street. She shared Ms. Bay's concern about the large format, but noted that this
was the result of the community process in this case.
Member Mariani suggested that a continuance of this item based on the lateness of the
hour and the potential extensiveness of the discussion.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook regarding the size of the businesses in the
center, Mr. Thomas replied that there was a limit on the number of small-footprint stores,
in order to limit the competition with Webster Street.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she generally agreed with the staff's findings, but was
not persuaded by some of the arguments regarding the sidewalk design. She noted that
the staff report identified a detriment of moving the sidewalk to the other side of the street
would result in the reduction of some parking spaces, and might encourage cut-through
traffic between Stargell and Mitchell at higher speeds. She realized that while shoppers
needed their cars to take their purchases home, she did not want to see people driving
from one building to another within the center. She believed that several retailers could
share the four spaces per 1,000 square feet that they were relying on. She would like to
get away from the tendency to create asphalt jungles. She believed that with ground-up
construction such as with this project, that the pedestrians, bicyclists and automobiles
needed to be accommodated. She did not agree with the argument under ""Design"" on
Page 13 of 18",PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-09-24,14,"page 8, that the proposed alternative of the second sidewalk created a physical and visual
separation between Building A and the rest of the retail center. She noted that it was a
sidewalk, not a wall. She noted that the sidewalk in front of the building did not create a
visual separation. She was not willing to let go of the north/south sidewalk.
Member McNamara believed the different types of texture, particularly mixing metal with
wood, would provide good variation. She encouraged more use of canvas or softer
materials to soften the maritime effect. She believed there was an excessive amount of
trees in the landscaping plan, and that when they matured, it would create a problem. She
appreciated the use of the trees to create a neighborhood atmosphere in front of the
Building A. She did not see where the ventilation units would be placed, and would like
that to be addressed, because that would definitely affect the design of the building.
Regarding the north/south sidewalk, she did not like the recommendation that was made
to the Board. She noted that it was important to acknowledge the parking spot issue, and
noted that some of the constraints and logistical issues at Towne Centre may warrant
increased pedestrian traffic. She believed that without the use of sidewalks and the
parking spots, pedestrian safety was placed at risk. She believed there should be an
alternative traffic pattern to help with the overflow of traffic, and she did not see the
traffic flow on Fifth Street as a detriment. She did not have a solution to the north/south
sidewalk, and did not like the current recommendation.
Member Lynch noted that he had recently walked along the rear area of Santana Row,
and noted that the subject site's back parking configuration was extremely similar. He
noted that the configuration worked, and noted that if this site were to be as successful as
Santana Row, it would attract enough people to make a significant difference to the
General Fund. He complimented the applicant for listening to the Board's comments and
integrating them into the design. He added that he had reservations regarding the
configuration and sizing for the retail, but that decision has been made.
President Cook invited a motion to extend the meeting because of the lateness of the
hour, and would like sufficient time to address the questions.
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to extend the meeting until 11:15 p.m.
Board member Lynch seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Absent: 2
(Cunningham, Mariani). The motion passed.
Vice President Kohlstrand expressed concern about the 67-foot height for a one-story
building and the massing of the building for a non-functional reason. She would like the
heights to be reduced considerably throughout the complex. She was also concerned
about the frontage on Stargell and along Mariner Square Loop, and believed the proposed
treatments along the large blank walls were very creative. She liked the historic scenes, as
well as the vegetative walls and backlit glass. She noted that would be a very long
frontage along Stargell with no doors or windows. She liked the pedestrian orientation of
Fifth Street. She believed that one or two light towers would be sufficient, but that five
would be too many. She believed there was additional site improvements to be done on
Page 14 of 18",PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-09-24,15,"Stargell, which appeared to be one of the concerns raised by the Mariner Square
management. She believed that the issues regarding the Stargell intersection and the
north/south roadway needed to be resolved. She agreed with Members Ezzy Ashcraft and
McNamara regarding the north/south roadway, and respectfully but strongly disagreed with
staff's position and the findings that were made. She noted that most shopping centers were
built with autos in mind, and were not built to accommodate pedestrians. She believed that
something better could be done in that regard, and she was not willing to give that
possibility up. She liked the design study, and believed it should be adopted and
implemented.
President Cook shared the comments on the circulation system and liked the alternative
plan, which she believed solved a lot of problems that have occurred at South Shore. She
believed it was unsafe to cross the parking lot at South Shore, and would like to avoid that
problem at this center. She appreciated the work that had been done to increase the variation
of the façades, but was concerned with two of the large blank walls. She believed that the
applicants could make Building A more visually interesting on the façade. She noted that the
façade on Buildings B, E and G look quite large and blank, and suggested a landscaping
solution. She was very concerned about the entrance roadways that are the entrance to
Alameda Point. She was concerned that Building H on the corner had become very squared,
which would not give people the impression of arriving in Alameda Point. She would like
more attention to be given to all the entrances, including the Loop. She would like
vegetation to be placed in front of the screens for the mechanical equipment. She wanted to
ensure the historic billboards retained that historic character.
Mr. Thomas noted that the condition placed on the site plan in June was that the
consolidated sign program would come back for City approval.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether Building A could accommodate two
stories, Mr. Thomas replied that technically, it was feasible, but that Alameda Point was
limited by the Master Plan cap of 300,000 square feet of retail.
The applicant's architect noted that in order to minimize all of the mechanical equipment,
they raised the sides of the building and the parapets so they incorporate the mechanical
screen, which would become part of the mass of the building. He believed that would be a
nicer look, as opposed to having ""hats"" on top of the buildings. He noted that the tower
element reached the 67-foot height, and that could be brought down. He noted that the
lighting towers provided illumination for the parking lots, and reduction of the five towers to
two towers would require the incorporation of parking lot standards, which would give the
shopping center a more typical look instead of the more iconic towers.
President Cook noted that it was 11:15, and inquired where the Planning Board should go
with respect to the rest of this item.
Mr. Thomas noted that the applicant would be going to City Council with the DDA and
the DA amendments. He suggested passing a motion with the condition that they did the
sidewalk, and inquired whether the Board would be comfortable conditioning some of the
Page 15 of 18",PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-09-24,16,"design elements on the project, or to send the item back to staff for the final design
review, taking the comments into consideration. He noted that continuing the item until
October 22 was another option.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she liked the color palette, and supported breaking up
the unarticulated side of Building B. She inquired whether the lighting fixtures on the
buildings would come back to the Board. Mr. Thomas replied that it would not.
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to extend the meeting until 11:30 p.m.
Member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4. Abstain - 1
(Lynch). Absent: 2 (Cunningham, Mariani). The motion passed.
Mr. Thomas noted that the extension of Stargell was a mitigation measure imposed upon
this project, and that the Stargell project was approved by the City Council in 2001. He
noted that it may not happen if the land from the College could not be acquired.
Vice President Kohlstrand believed the issues dealt more with the intersections at Mariner
Square, as well as the alignment of the roadway and its entrance into the north/south
roadway. She wanted to ensure that the Board would still have the opportunity to
comment on and resolve the larger issues. Mr. Thomas noted that the issue before the
Board at this meeting was the architecture at the retail center.
President Cook noted that she was comfortable with Fifth Street, and inquired whether
the outstanding issues could come back while the resolved issues go forward. Mr.
Thomas replied that it would be an option to approve the design review, with the
condition that either specific elevations or specific buildings come back for design
review. He added that staff would take the comments, and the Planning Director would
work with the applicants to develop a revised plan for the elevation based on the
comments. Another option was to bring the revisions back to the Planning Board for final
approval.
In response to President Cook's concerns about the entrance to Alameda Point, Mr.
Thomas replied that a condition could be added to bring back a street elevation for
Stargell, Mitchell Moseley and Mariner Square Loop.
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 07-
to
approve a Design Review for eight new retail buildings totaling approximately 250,000
square feet, off-street parking, and landscaping located south of Mitchell Avenue
Extension and east of Fifth Street. The following conditions would be added:
1. The condition of approval that the north-south driveway be amended to reflect
the alternative study;
2.
The condition about final design will be modified to state that the final
elevations for the Mitchell Moseley, Stargell and Mariner Square Loop
elevations will come back for the Planning Board's final approval;
3. Staff will work with the applicant to reduce the overall height of Building A.
Page 16 of 18",PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-09-24,17,"Mr. Thomas noted that staff was concerned about the driveway and the access to Kathy
Wagner's property, and that the condition should be modified to state that there should be
mutual agreement on all the cross easements, indemnification, liabilities and the standard
legal language, to be worked out to the mutual consent of the parties.
Mr. Thomas noted that Obaid Khan from the Public Works Department was in
attendance, and would like to insert a reference to the MDIP.
Obaid Khan, Public Works Department, wished to address Condition 2 on page 3, which
related to substantially similar requirements and inconsistencies. He noted that Public
Works recommended including a reference to the Master Demolition, Infrastructure,
Grading and Phasing Plan (MDIP). This plan would define the infrastructure grading and
infrastructure plan.
Mr. Barry noted that they would probably go to Council on the sidewalk and north/south
access. He believed the DDA already had the provisions for the protection of the MDIP;
it contained a dispute resolution and opportunities for modification. He noted that if that
condition was added, they would probably take that one to Council as well. He noted that
they had come a long way on the design, and should be able to accommodate the Board's
design comments, as well as bringing the elevations of the public streets back as well.
Mr. Thomas reviewed the proposed changes:
1.
Reference to the MDIP, per Public Works;
2.
Approve the alternative site plan (Page L-1-01)
3.
The final design elevations for Mitchell Mosely, Stargell and Mariner
Square Loop will return to the Planning Board for final approval once they
have been worked out with the applicants;
4.
Building A height and variation in the height will be included in the
design returned to the Planning Board;
5.
Strike the phrase in Condition 3 ""provided that the property owner may
elect to close the driveway"";
6.
Condition 4 will be modified with respect to the driveway and mutually
agreeable insurance and cross-easements.
Mr. Thomas added that the vegetation on all screens would be double-checked.
Member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 1. Noes - 1
(Lynch). Absent: 2 (Cunningham, Mariani). The motion passed.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft wanted to ensure that the complete packets, including
drawings, were being delivered to the main library and the two branch libraries.
Page 17 of 18",PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-09-24,18,"a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Vice President
Kohlstrand).
Vice President Kohlstrand advised that there had been no meetings since her last report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board
Member Cunningham).
Board member Cunningham was not in attendance to present this report.
12. ADJOURNMENT:
11:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
This meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 18 of 18",PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-08,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, October 8, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:10 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Cunningham.
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Ezzy Ashcraft,
Cunningham, Lynch, Mariani and McNamara.
Member Lynch was absent from roll call.
Also present were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Assistant City
Attorney Donna Mooney, Planner III Dennis Brighton, Obaid Khan, Public Works.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of September 24, 2007.
The minutes will be considered at the meeting of October 22, 2007.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
President Cook understood that several people wished to speak about Item 8-A. She noted
that item was proposed to be continued, and inquired whether the Board should hear the
public comments at this time.
Member Cunningham believed it would be better to take comment after receiving and
reviewing further information.
Member McNamara agreed with Board member Cunningham.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that public comments be taken at this time, and that the
Board members may take notes and address the matter when it would be heard again.
Member McNamara believed the item had been noticed as being continued.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether any speaker slips had been
received, Ms. Woodbury replied that staff was still working with the applicant on their
proposal, and that it was not yet ready to come to a hearing. She added that more
information was required, and that it would be renoticed because it was not continued to a
date certain. She noted that if the members of the public who had come to speak on Item 8-
A would leave their contact information, staff would notify them of the hearing date.
1",PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-08,2,"President Cook noted that no speaker slips had been received for Item 8-A, but that the
members of the public may speak during Oral Communications. She apologized for the
miscommunication.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Future Agendas
Ms. Woodbury provided an update on future agenda items.
b.
Zoning Administrator Report
Ms. Woodbury provided the Zoning Administrator report.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Council member Doug DeHaan noted that he spoke as a private citizen, and wished to
address Alameda Landing and the issues and opportunities in developing that site. He
noted that it was a unique site, and reviewed the background of that project. He expressed
concern about the waterfront and the vistas, as well as the scale, size and massing of the
development. He noted that it had been reduced from its former 600,000 square feet to
250,000 square feet. He expressed concern about the billboards placed on easel mounts
and the massive walls in the form of art. He noted that this was a single-story building,
and that the interior space of the retail was approximately 16 to 20 feet. He did not
believe that building should be 65 feet tall, and noted that the Board had expressed
concern about that height. He did not think that given the green building focus of the
City, that the building should be that tall. He noted that the master tree review would be
coming forward soon, and noted that the pear tree species was not desired and should not
be accepted within the City.
Ms. Karen Miller noted that she was not pleased that the applicant for Item 8-A was not
in attendance, while she and other members of the public attended to speak on the item.
She noted that she lived across the street from the subject house, and noted that many
trees and a pond had been removed from the property, purportedly because they were
installing a pool. She noted that did not occur, and recently heard that they intended to
subdivide the property. She noted that the owner lived in Los Angeles, and had bought
the property as an investment; she did not believe he had the same concerns for Alameda
as she and her neighbors did. She noted that he bought and sold another house across the
street. She noted that this property was unique in Alameda, and she was disappointed that
it has been sitting vacant. She noted that because the applicant had received a notice that
the item was continued; she and her neighbors should have been notified as well.
Ms. Sara Chavez, SunCal Companies, noted that their first public meeting would be held
October 24, 2007, 6:30 p.m. at the Mastick Senior Center. They planned to introduce the
team and give an overview of the constraints at Alameda Point.
2",PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-08,3,"Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that at the last Planning Board meeting, the meeting date
had been October 23, and noted that there must have been a date change.
Ms. Chavez noted that it had always been scheduled for October 24.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A
Parcel Map PM07-0003 - Applicant: Jack Cooley, 717 Paru Street. The
applicant is requesting a parcel map to divide a 92,053.03-square foot parcel into
two parcels. One parcel with an existing single-family residence would be
17,051.13-square feet and the remaining parcel would be 75,001.9-square feet.
The 75,001.9-square foot parcel would contain an existing cabana, with the
majority of the parcel located within the lagoon. The site is located within an R-1,
Single-Family Residential Zoning District (DB).
Member Cunningham moved to continue this item.
Vice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Absent: 1 (Lynch). The motion passed.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A. Approval of the format for a future public forum regarding the Housing Element
and Measure A and dissolution of the Expanded Housing Element/Measure A Ad
Hoc Committee
Ms. Woodbury presented the staff report, and provided a brief background of Measure A.
She noted that in July, the ad hoc Housing Element/Measure A Workshop Committee
agreed to disband before they reached an agreement on the workshop format, and before
discussing potential speakers. The last meeting ended with direction to the appellant
members and the Board members to provide their preferred workshop format to the
Planning Board for consideration, along with one prepared by the City's consultant. She
noted that she expanded upon the consultant's comments, which was included in the packet.
Once the Planning Board's comments have been received, staff would work with the
consultant on the administrative details, including the invitations to speakers, the venue,
date, notices and documentation of the workshop. The Planning Board was asked to approve
a format for the public forum, and to dissolve the ad hoc committee because its work has
been completed.
President Cook noted that seven speaker slips had been received.
Member McNamara moved to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
Member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Absent: 1
(Lynch). The motion passed.
3",PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-08,4,"The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Sally Fallhobber noted that she was speaking as an individual on this item. She believed
it was time for the City to closely examine the effects of Measure A, as well as what has and
has not been built. She had voted for Measure a in 1973, hoping it would fail by a narrow
margin in favor of a better way to control growth and preserve the City's architecture and
small-town atmosphere. She still supports those goals, and at that time, there were units that
were more affordable to single-family homes. She cited Bayport, Marina Cove and Heritage
Bay as not filling that niche, which she did not believe met the intent of the original
supporters. She believed that after 34 years, the people of Alameda should revisit this issue
based on current information. She hoped that a forum to address the issues would be made
available.
Mr. John Knox-White was pleased that all six members of the ad hoc subcommittee
supported this forum. He also supported the Planning Board's recommended format as
described in the packet, which expanded upon the staff recommendation.
Ms. Kate Quick, representing League of Women Voters of Alameda, noted that they were in
general agreement with the recommended format for the forum. They believed that such a
discussion should not be on the merits, or lack thereof, of Measure A, but how it impacted
the community, as well as current and future planning decisions. They would like the
following issues to be addressed:
1.
Does it limit choices?
2.
Does it provide the necessary protection to ensure appropriate density,
building and community design and growth control?
3.
Could these be achieved with additional measures, or different measures?
4.
How has it limited the choices?
She believed the residents of Alameda would be able to gain a more comprehensive
knowledge of this part of the City charter, and decide for themselves how they wish to
proceed, whether it be kept in its current forum, or amending it from the vote of the people.
They believed the forum should be professionally facilitated, and that the speakers who
were expert in the field of planning and community development and design, as well as
those who could address the history and local perspective. They believed that even-
handedness in the design of this forum would be key to its outcome. She believed it was
time to put aside the argument that Measure A, as part of the City Charter, could not be
reviewed, discussed, and possibly amended.
Ms. Susan Decker believed that it was important to have a discussion of the ways that the
City can guide development and preserve the City's character. She appreciated the input
from the community and noted that the list of potential speakers looked good. She had
attended one of the ad hoc committee meetings, and noted that there were difficulties in
agreeing how the public input should be formatted. She noted that the proposal incorporated
both major suggestions, which should encourage public input.
Mr. Michael Krueger spoke in support of the community's recognition of the need of a
forum. He was glad that the community had moved beyond the debate about whether it
4",PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-08,5,"should be discussed or not. He believed the recommended format was very well thought-
out, and urged the Planning Board to adopt it. He was pleased to see so many Alameda
residents, and liked the idea of using small groups and speaking before the general audience.
Ms. Helen Sause, President of Homes, thanked everyone involved in bringing the forum
forward. She supported adoption of the Measure A forum, as well as holding the forum as
soon as possible. She supported putting a deadline on when the forum would be held, and
believed that time was of the essence. She believed the results of the forum were essential to
the development of Alameda Point by SunCal.
Ms. Diane Lichtenstein, Homes, recalled the background of the proposed forum, and
thanked the parties involved in moving ahead. She supported the proposed format, as well as
the employment of a thorough, professional, objective discussion of Measure A and how it
has impacted the City. She believed the speakers should be limited to the professionals who
were able to provide that information. She did not want the forum to become a debate on the
merits of Measure A.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the consultant, David Earley, prepared a summary of the two ad
hoc committee meetings to develop the basis for a format as discussed. She then added
further detail to the summary.
A discussion of the process preceding the development of the various formats ensued.
Ms. Woodbury noted that after reading the letter submitted by the other ad hoc committee
members, the one difference she saw was that the appellant members did not like the idea of
breakout groups. She noted that was the only major difference.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that the packet contained a written proposal outlining the
recommendation by the Planning Board members of the ad hoc committee, and the response
to Mr. Earley's report and the staff report. She noted that while a broad consensus was not
reached, there were items where they reached a consensus. She believed there was common
agreement that Woody Minor would be asked to make a presentation on the historic
background of Measure A. They also felt it was important to provide an opportunity for
citizens of Alameda to ask questions, and to make their opinions known. As directed by City
Council, a written record of the proceeding should be made available, and the forum should
be videotaped and televised. They agreed that it would be important to have a mix of
viewpoints on the panels, and that it should not be biased towards one perspective or
another. The Planning Board members of the ad hoc committee generally agreed with the
schedule and the format recommended by Mr. Earley and staff; a general background
presentation would be made, followed by panel discussions, and then small breakout groups.
Vice President Kohlstrand added that there were points regarding the staff proposal that they
felt were slightly mischaracterized, or that the Planning Board members of the ad hoc
committee had a difference perspective on. Because they were not able to reach a consensus,
5",PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-08,6,"she wished to share those points with the Planning Board for consideration. They believed it
would be important to supplement the presentation made by Woody Minor with an objective
presentation on both the legislative history and a summary of how Measure A had been
implemented in the City. The Planning Board members advocated that those presentations
be provided by current or former City staff, particularly the City Attorney for the legislative
history and how it had been implemented by City staff. The first part of the sessions would
be an hour-long session broken into three parts, providing an overview of the events leading
up to Measure A, the language of Measure A, and some perspective on how that has
affected the City's historic structures.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that for the second part of the forum, the Planning Board
members felt that it was very important not to frame this discussion as advocating for or
against Measure A. They believed it would be more important to focus on issues that related
to Measure A for the City, as well as having a mix of viewpoints on the panel. They
recommended that two different sessions be held, one dealing with housing and general
housing issues, and a second session dealing with general issues related to transportation.
They recommended that each panel consist of six members, and made recommendations
from the broad list of speaker recommendations to represent a mix of Alameda residents and
different perspectives on Measure A. They also suggested a series of questions that might be
posed by a moderator to this panel, and responded to with a unique perspective on the topic.
They recommended that the session last for 40 minutes, followed by an open session to take
questions from the public. After a break, that would be repeated with the transportation
forum. The afternoon schedule was similar to that recommended by staff, that the
participants break out into small groups. She noted that the difference was that a working
lunch was not included in the City budget. She believed that if people were expected to
spend their entire day discussing Measure A, that it would be nice to provide lunch, at the
discretion of the City Council. She believed the questions should be available beforehand to
the people being asked to address them in order to give them sufficient time to research
them.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed that with respect to the speakers, there was a wealth of
resources available, from professional planners to those who can speak to the history of
living in this community.
In response to an inquiry by Member Cunningham whether staff would formulate the list of
speakers, Ms. Woodbury replied that staff could do that if it was the Board's direction. Staff
would hire the Housing Element consultant, which would put the list together. Staff would
be glad to ask people if they were interested and willing, and then work on the details.
Member Cunningham noted that an update of the Housing Element was a lengthy and very
involved process, and did not believe this would be the correct forum to discuss the Housing
Element. He believed that the impact of Measure A on the Housing Element was a critical
item to discuss, but wished to clarify that the intention of this forum was not to address the
Housing Element.
6",PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-08,7,"A discussion of the selection of speakers by the appellants and other parties ensued.
Member Cunningham noted that he was not as concerned about who the speakers were as
long as they represented the interest groups and their points of view that give the Planning
Board a broad perspective and the information they need to find. He believed that would be
the most productive direction to staff. He inquired why six people had been chosen.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it was more important to her to have quality speakers than
a larger number of speakers, particularly so across-the-representation could be achieved.
Member Cunningham noted that the timeline was finite, and he believed those involved
should be respectful of that. He believed that having a set agenda would be important to
structure the forum.
President Cook noted that they considered the idea of having one session relation to
housing, and one related to transportation. She added that that idea was not very popular
with many people.
Member Cunningham believed it would be helpful to pose questions with answers, in
response to the City Council's request of having something definable as an outcome of the
meeting.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft did not disagree with Member Cunningham's comments, but would
like to retain the small breakout sessions in the forum. She noted that they should be
voluntary, and added that a different kind of communication resulted from small group
discussions. She added that it would be provide a different mix of communication
opportunities.
Member Cunningham suggested that the Housing Element consultant facilitate the meeting.
7",PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-08,8,"Ms. Woodbury noted that while staff has interviewed consultants, they had not selected a
consultant yet.
Member McNamara thanked the Planning Board members and the appellants for spending
so much time on getting the forum discussion to this point. She inquired whether there was a
budget to pay for the panelists and mediators, and added that the budget could become
significant. She supported the format that Ms. Woodbury refined from David Earley's forum
because she liked non-working breaks; the suggested format had two significant breaks
during the day. She noted that the Housing Element and the transportation component were
combined into one 90-minute session, instead of two one-hour sessions, which she believed
would be easier to absorb and follow. She liked the idea of seeking professional input
outside of Alameda.
President Cook noted that they felt very uncomfortable being labeled as one side, and the
appellants as the other side. She believed the City Council and Planning Board wished to set
up a very objective workshop where people represented a variety of different interests.
Consequently, they resisted an adversarial approach throughout the six hours of meetings
that were held.
Member McNamara agreed with President Cook's comments, and was more interested in
hearing their perspective, which may supplement or complement the Planning Board's
perspective.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the difference between a 90-minute session and two one-
hour sessions to discuss the Housing Element and transportation was 30 minutes. She
believed strongly that it had taken considerable effort to be able to hold this kind of forum.
She believed there were many serious-minded members of the community who have
thought long and hard about this issue, and who wanted in-depth information. She believed
another 30 minutes of substance would be valuable. She noted that both versions would end
at 4 p.m. and believed that a working lunch would be valuable. She hoped that the session
would also be televised.
Member McNamara noted that the morning session was designed to be very structured, with
speakers and an educational and informational approach. She supported that format, and
believed that after the lunch break, she supported the small group breakout sessions as well,
which would give the citizens of Alameda an opportunity to have input and to summarize
additional issues. She noted that the small group members could select a facilitator amongst
themselves, who would report the results of their meeting back to the group. She noted that
Barbara Kerr had expressed concern that the small groups' input would not be reported back
to City Council, but that would be reported and recorded in the public record and brought
back to City Council. She did not believe that would be a concern. She suggested that for
either format option, allowing an hour at the end of the day for more questions by the public
would be valuable. If there were more than 20 speakers, she suggested randomly selecting
speaker slips to fit into the time allotted.
8",PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-08,9,"Ashcraft noted that people going out for lunch would also support local businesses. She also
suggested that the transit session be shorter than the housing session. She did not want to cut
the public comment period short.
9",PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-08,10,"President Cook invited comment on how to handle the question of the public speakers, and
whether the appellants had provided their full list.
Member Cunningham believed it would be imperative to focus on the topics they wished to
discuss, and then find the right people to address those topics.
Ms. Woodbury noted that if she were the consultant hired by the City, she would want some
flexibility. She suggested that staff work with the consultant with respect to appropriate
speakers that have not been included on the list.
President Cook requested that the Planning Board be kept abreast of the progress through
Staff Communications, and believed it would be important for the full Board to hear the
information going forward. Ms. Woodbury replied that would be possible, and that
milestone dates could be included in the scope of work for the consultant. She noted that
emails could be sent, in addition to reporting to the Board during Staff Communications.
Member Cunningham noted that it would be very important for the public to hear the
progress, and inquired about potential timelines. Ms. Woodbury replied that consultants
have been interviewed, and staff intended to determine whether the preferred consultant
would be willing and able to take the responsibility for this forum. The contract would then
be taken to City Council because it exceeded the limit for funding on a staff level. She
anticipated that late January would be a reasonable timeframe for the forum, depending
upon availability.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that they envisioned having a moderator that would field
and read a question, giving the panelists an opportunity to respond from their own
perspective, rather than give a formal presentation. They believed it would be easier for
residents of Alameda to provide their own personal experience, and someone outside
Alameda may need time to consider questions about Alameda in particular.
Member Mariani liked the idea of asking each group appointed by the City Council for
suggestions, and utilizing the equal suggestions. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she
was very comfortable with the idea.
President Cook requested that staff send a letter to the appellants for additional names that
the consultant should examine. She noted that the moderator must be able to call on the
various panelists in an equal manner.
Member Cunningham suggested that a 45-minute lunch would be appropriate, and would
like to see a priority list of topics. He believed that two hours for a small group breakout
plus reporting back would be a long time, and suggested that time for lunch be borrowed
from that time. He noted that if there were eight groups with three minutes to report back,
that would leave enough time for Catellus to make their report.
Vice President Kohlstrand suggested using the timeframe recommended in the staff report
for the small group discussion; Ms. Woodbury recommended 45 minutes for the small
10",PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-08,11,"group exercise, 30 minutes for the reports, and an open forum of 90 minutes. President Cook
agreed with that allocation, from 12:15 to 4:00 p.m. She noted that the committee's
schedule included a morning break.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed that the location would be important, and suggested that it
be held in Council Chambers so that it may be televised. Vice President Kohlstrand believed
it would be difficult to use Chambers for small group breakouts. Member Ezzy Ashcraft
suggested using the library conference room for the small groups. She believed that it would
be difficult to manage a 45-minute lunch break at Alameda Point.
Ms. Woodbury noted that staff would examine venues that would lend themselves to this
kind of forum, and would work with the consultant on that issue; she noted that it would be
important to have food close by.
President Cook inquired whether the Board favored the subcommittee's report before lunch,
and Ms. Woodbury's recommended format for lunch and after lunch.
In response to an inquiry by Member Cunningham whether the report would come back to
the Planning Board regarding the format of the forum, Ms. Woodbury replied that a progress
report of the forum's status would be made to the Planning Board.
President Cook believed it would be very important to work towards a date certain for the
forum. She concurred that everything would not be completed by the holidays, but would
like the consultants to work towards a date in January 2008. she noted that many members
of the public had expressed a desire to hold the forum before the SunCap proposal moves
ahead much more.
Member Mariani agreed that this forum should be taken care of and completed as quickly as
possible. She believed that late January or early February would be a great time to hold the
forum.
Member Cunningham moved to dissolve the Expanded Housing Element/Measure A ad
hoc committee.
Member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Absent:
1
(Lynch). The motion passed.
Member Cunningham moved to accept the format as proposed by the Planning Board ad
hoc committee for the session from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., followed by a 45-minute lunch
break. The forum would reconvene at 1:15 p.m., and the proposed program as suggested by
the staff report per Attachment 4, including small group exercises, reconvening to listen to
reports and an open forum. Further explanation of the small group exercise topics will be
described, and clarity regarding the selection of the panelists would be needed. Panel
members would again be solicited from the appellants, and the consultant would consider
those along with the individuals selected by the Planning Board ad hoc committee. The
resultant names would be circulated through the staff report at future Planning Board
11",PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-08,12,"meetings; a hierarchy of first, second and third choices would be identified. A date certain
for the end of January 2008 would be set, pending availability of location.
Member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Absent: 1
(Lynch). The motion passed.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Woodbury noted that the League of Women Voters submitted a written statement.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Dakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
There was no report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Vice President
Kohlstrand).
There was no report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board
Member Cunningham).
There was no report.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy Woodbury, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the November 13, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
12",PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-22,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, October 22, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:05 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Mariani.
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft, Cunningham, Lynch,
Mariani and McNamara.
Board member Kohlstrand was absent from roll call.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Donna Mooney, Obaid Khan, Public Works.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of September 24, 2007.
b.
Minutes for the meeting of October 8, 2007.
Staff requests a continuation of September 24, 2007 Minutes and October 8, 2007
Minutes.
The minutes will be considered at the meeting of November 13, 2007.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Future Agendas
Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.
Vice President Cook noted that the Planning Board had requested status reports on the
Measure A hearings, and suggested that they be a line item during Staff Communications.
Mr. Thomas noted that would be placed after Item 6-B.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the Board requested that the workshop occur before the
end of January, but on a Saturday. Mr. Thomas noted that they had identified the
preferred consultant, and hoped to bring that contract to the City Council in November.
He noted that January would be a good time to hold that workshop.
b.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None.
Page 1 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-22,2,"8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
Alameda Point Master Plan
An update on recent City actions related to the redevelopment of Alameda Point
and introduction to the SunCal/Calthorpe Planning Team. No action will be taken
by the Planning Board at this meeting to approve or deny any specific projects.
Mr. Thomas introduced the new master developer for Alameda Point as SunCal
Companies, represented by Patrick Kelleher, Peter Calthorpe and Phil Tagami. He noted
that they would discuss their approaches to Alameda Point. He summarized the staff
report and provided a brief background of this project. He noted that the City Council
signed on to an exclusive negotiating agreement, which laid out a very aggressive
schedule for the planning for Alameda Point. He briefly described the two-year schedule
to move from selection to an approved Master Plan for Alameda Point, followed by an
EIR process on the draft document. He noted that the series of community meetings was
described in the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Patrick Kelleher, SunCal Companies, provided an overview of the company and
described the company's ownership and mission as a true master developer. He emphasized
that SunCal did not leave until the last house has been sold.
Mr. Peter Calthorpe, Calthorpe, provided some background of his company, and noted that
he had been involved in sustainability for 30 years, using a whole systems approach. He
discussed the elements of sustainable development, and noted that from the transportation
standpoint, it was important to break away from complete usage of the car, and to create
walkable communities. He noted that the community should be big enough to internalize its
own retail, schools and parks, as well as many destinations and jobs. He added that a good,
healthy mixed use community, even if it is walkable, still needs transit connections to the
region. He noted that the design standards described in LEED have been at the forefront of
their designs, and noted that they should be able to build the best possible building
envelopes that are also energy conserving structures. He described the water systems,
including recycling of gray water as well as the recapture of the nutrient cycle from the
waste material.
Mr. Calthorpe noted that using the economies of scale was very important. He added that the
nature of this community is a political phenomenon, and believed that the community
should be diverse, walkable and should use the best practices of sustainability. In order to be
diverse, there should offer housing and job opportunities for a broad range of people. He did
not believe the Big Whites should be torn down, and that they contained local history that he
would like to see preserved.
Page 2 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-22,3,"Mr. Phil Tagami, Managing Partner, California Capital Group, summarized his involvement
with the site and the team, as well as their plans for this process.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Member Mariani noted that she was impressed with the presentation, and hoped that the
idealistic nature of the presentation materialized.
Mr. Kelleher wished to clarify that as a team, they walk down a path that they know they
can deliver.
Member Lynch noted that their presentation was laudable, but that the numbers still had to
be resolved at the end of the day. He noted that it was important to define the planning terms
so they may be understood by the public. He noted that the end product must be
economically viable.
Mr. Kelleher agreed with Member Lynch, and noted that in community planning, they
present various scenarios that identify various levels of participation by the public sector. He
believed there were different scenarios for this site, with different levels of density with
different attributes such as transit, sustainability elements, community scale and walkability.
He believed it was valuable to offer a broad range of choices.
Member Cunningham believed that it was important for the community to understand what
the developer is trying to achieve, and that it was not just about money. He believed there
were larger community issues to consider as well, and encouraged the developer to continue
to be open with the Planning Board. He noted that they will find polarized opinions at both
ends, and hoped that the City would not have to settle for mediocrity in the process of
striking a balance. He believed the new ideas sounded very exciting, and that a more holistic
approach is being used.
In response to an inquiry by Member Cunningham whether the PDC was being discarded,
Mr. Kelleher replied that they were not doing so, and that they would not be able to execute
their plans without the previous site work being done. Their challenge was to qualify the
assumptions that were made in the PDC, mainly geotechnical, flood plain and hydraulic
work that was assumed in the PDC, but have proven to be not viable. He acknowledged that
they needed to characterize the site better. He noted that it was very important to educate the
public in this project so they can understand the project better.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that SunCal stated that it did not do much vertical
development, and requested further detail of that concept. Mr. Kelleher noted that they
prepared the ground and the infrastructure, and delivered a finished pad to a builder, who
will come in and build the structure.
Member McNamara noted that she had expected more detail of the developer's vision, and
that it was very abstract, conceptual and idealistic. She inquired whether the project was
Page 3 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-22,4,"being started with a blank sheet, and whether the PDC would be discarded or retained in
some form. Mr. Kelleher replied that they were working on the site characteristics, and that
the current information available for the site was not the most accurate. For example, the
PDC used a 25-year-old topo, which must be reordered; he noted that process would take
several months. Without an accurate topo, it would not be possible to proceed with the
hydraulics and flood plain mapping.
Mr. Calthorpe added that they would use the existing armature (framework of access points,
streets and circulation), and would build upon that. He noted that SunCal would find the best
builder for each component, and that they did not carry any bias towards one builder or
another. He noted that where there is no vested interest in one kind of development or
another, the appropriate kind of development can happen. He noted that critical base data
and analysis has not been completed. He noted that with respect to the idealism contained in
their presentation, if people did not agree on principles at the outset, they would not agree
throughout the process. They intended to discuss principles at the public meeting, and to be
very honest and transparent when discussing the project and their planning philosophies.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she attended the California Chapter of the American
Planning Association Annual Conference in San Jose, which Mr. Thomas also attended.
They both attended a workshop entitled ""Transforming Military Bases into Sustainable
Spaces."" She noted that at Fort Ord, the developer was aiming for a Platinum level LEED
certification. She was pleased with the presentation, and agreed that it was important to start
with a vision. She noted that it was important to offer a broad range of housing choices. She
added that she had attended the Solar Power Decathlon in Washington, D.C., which offered
a great variety of practical solar-powered applications.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft appreciated that SunCal offered a blank slate, and inquired how the
toxic cleanup being negotiated with the Navy impacted their plans. Mr. Calthorpe replied
that they will affect the development, which would be a phased development; the
environment cleanup must be phased with the project. He noted that it had an impact at both
the local and federal level.
President Cook thanked SunCal for performing their own due diligence, which may produce
different results than before. She expected that they would also clarify what elements were
different, and why. Mr. Calthorpe confirmed that was part of their project.
President Cook liked the idea of a sustainable community, and would like assurances that it
would be feasible. She noted that it was important to explore what densities were needed to
sustain community schools, retail and new transit system. She would like further
clarification of what the Planning Board's role would be vis-à-vis the task force.
Mr. Thomas noted that the accelerated community process, taking eight months to get to a
Master Plan, would include the Planning Board and a Council appointed Task Force.
Page 4 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-22,5,"Member Mariani believed that this item should be reviewed at every Planning Board
meeting. She believed that it was critically important that the Task Force's roles be defined
in order for its participation to make sense.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft did not have a problem with the Task Force, but it did not address
the repeated concern that the Board must be kept apprised of the developments so that their
input is relevant. She recalled the Bridgeside development as an example of that
involvement not working as well as it could have.
Member Lynch noted that this seemed to be a red herring, and did not see the viability of a
task force because he believed the structure will ill to begin with. He believed that City staff
erred in their suggestion and position that this project should move forward on a particular
timeline, and that certain deliverables be made with respect to that timeline. He noted that in
the end, the developer would need to determine whether to move forward with the project if
it made economic sense. He believed the City should be very careful in approaching this
project to ensure that there were no major disappointments.
Member Mariani wanted to ensure the task force performed effectively so the Planning
Board could make an informed decision at the end of the process.
President Cook noted that the Planning Board would like regular updates and
communication from the developer.
Mr. Thomas noted that the first community workshop would be held on October 24, and
suggested that at the next Planning Board meeting, he and President Cook would report
back on the proceedings.
Member Lynch wished to make it clear that he thought a great deal of Mr. Thomas and the
Planning staff. He also trusted the other Commissions, and believed the vetting should take
place with the Economic Development Commission with respect to the economic uses on
site, and the Transportation Commission. He believed their input was very important as it
applied to the development concepts and overall land use. If the consideration of the land
use were to vary from the schedule, he hoped that the City Council would adhere to its
stated and documented timeline, and then make a decision with respect to moving forward
or not.
Mr. Thomas advised that there would be tradeoffs and compromises throughout the process.
Member Cunningham suggested that the developer not aim for complete buy-in from
everyone, and that strong plans often were the result of compromises.
Member McNamara suggested that an additional Board member be assigned to the Task
Force, citing heavy time commitments which could be shared.
President Cook noted that was the original proposal from staff, and that she had discussed
the possibility with Mr. Thomas. She would try to be at every meeting if possible, but
Page 5 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-22,6,"understood that other responsibilities may intrude; she would not be opposed to having the
attendance move from one person to anything. However, she did not know how that would
serve the needs of the City Council.
Member Mariani suggested that Member McNamara may be a good choice to attend the
meetings, and that her input was always valuable.
A discussion of the details of the Task Force ensued.
Mr. Thomas noted that he would report back to the Planning Commission at the next
meeting, and he would get clarification at the November 7 ARRA meeting with respect to
what would be reported back to the Planning Board.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it was very important to hear the perspectives and ideas
from the other Commissions, which would help inform the Planning Board's decisions more
effectively.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Bill Smith noted that the feedback was valuable, and that it followed the feedback given
at City Council.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Cook noted that she was excited about the proposed work and the team, especially
the emphasis placed on historic preservation and sustainability.
No action was taken.
9-B. Large Format Retail Store Workshop - Applicant - City of Alameda. The
City of Alameda is considering the unique land use, transportation, urban design,
and economic development challenges posed by large-scale retail (big box) stores.
No action will be taken by the Planning Board at this meeting to approve or deny
any specific projects. However, the Planning Board may make recommendations
to the City Council that could result in changes to the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance that would potentially affect all properties in non-residential zoning
districts.
Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report, and requested Planning Board comment on this
proposal. He noted that because retail was a permitted use, the Planning Department
could require a design review, which did not address the appropriateness of the use. Staff
recommended adopting the retail policies into the General Plan, amend the Zoning Code
to include a definition of large format stores, which is proposed in the staff report as a
""single stand-alone store or collection of stores developed and managed as a single project
which includes over 60,000 square feet of retail sales floor area."" The Zoning Code would
be amended to require a use permit for a large format retail store, which is the same as a
Page 6 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-22,7,"""big box"" store. The Zoning Code would be further amended to require that the use permit
be amended for a large format retail store, in addition to the standard use permit conditions.
In that case, the key issues could be addressed in terms of its design, operations and the issue
of sale leakage. He noted that this was a new presentation, and that there had not been any
community feedback at this point.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Karen Bay noted that she was speaking as an Alameda resident, and was looking
forward to the workshop, which she believed was very timely. She supported amending the
Zoning Code to define and address large format retail stores, and supported the requirement
of a use permit for all large format retail store. She believed the City's retail policy needed
some updating because so much had changed since 2004. She believed that the City had
more clarity and understanding about the retail development process since then. She had
reviewed the DDA as it related to the Alameda Landing project as approved, and believed
that the City had approved a lifestyle center, not a hybrid center, and believed the wording
should be changed to reflect that. She suggested that the term ""lifestyle center"" be defined.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Thomas requested the Planning Board's thoughts on the definition, as well as the
idea of requiring a conditional use permit. He noted that there were many people who
would be interested in looking at a prohibition on stores over a certain size. He noted that
the issues of stopping sales leakage and historic buildings were of concern to the
community; he noted that the Del Monte building had been a centerpiece of that debate.
Mr. Thomas noted that care should be taken in the definitions and prohibitions, and added
that there were many in the community who would like a ""big box"" prohibition. He noted
that it would not be possible to write a zoning ordinance that prohibited a particular
retailer, and that naming certain retailers as acceptable, and others as unacceptable, would
not be appropriate.
Member Lynch complimented staff on tackling this complex issue very well. He
cautioned against reinventing the wheel, and did not want any legal troubles to result. He
noted that different ordinances did not need to be created, and that the Planning Board
had the authority to deny a permit. He believed this issue had been over-complicated, and
that the use of the conditional use permit process would generally be adequate. He
preferred to defer to the Economic Development Commission and the previous Boards,
which already had an excellent strategic plan for Alameda.
Member McNamara did not have enough information to move forward on this issue, and
had read information about the model used by Fort Collins, Colorado, with respect to
their very specific and stringent big box retail policy.
Mr. Thomas thanked Doug Garrison for pulling a large amount of information together
for this staff report.
Page 7 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-22,8,"In response to an inquiry by Member McNamara regarding the process envisioned by
staff, Mr. Thomas explained the design review process regarding retail in a commercial
zone. He noted that when retail was permitted by right, a use permit did not apply to
whether a retailer should be located on that particular site; in a conditional use permit, the
requirements would be more restrictive and specific. Traffic at the location would also be
a factor, and the City would have the ability to address traffic impacts as well as design
for larger retail stores.
Member McNamara encouraged a more specific and stringent definition process.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would support the notion of allowing the Board to
be more selective through the conditional use permit process. She believed that Alameda
has long had the attitude that it was fortunate to have any retail at all; she added that
Alamedans deserved to have quality retail in the City.
In response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft, Mr. Thomas described the DA and
DDA processes. He noted that changes to Zoning Ordinances will not affect major
projects that already have a signed development agreement. He noted that Alameda
Landing or the commercial developments at Harbor Bay Business Park would not be
affected. He noted that Alameda Point, South Shore and Del Monte would be affected,
because development agreements have not been signed with those projects.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that Building A at Alameda Landing has been entitled for
over 100,000 square feet, suggested that in addition to square footage, that a height and
limitation should be explored, especially as it related to pedestrian scale. She believed the
wording of the second policy on page 6 could be reworked for clarity: ""The primary
focus of a proposed sizing of tenant space is appropriate to current retailing practice, and
is intended to fill a documented aspect of retail sales leakage for the geographic area to be
served.""
Mr. Thomas responded that staff would bring back all the retail policies, and will go
through them all for the Planning Board's review.
Member Mariani appreciated the comments, especially from the public, and
complimented staff on the staff report.
Member Cunningham agreed with the concept of using a conditional use permit for the
large format retail stores. He believed that the Planning Board needed to control design,
and that development should be functional for its purpose. He was wary of putting so
many restrictions that it restricted the function for potential retail operators. He believed
that there should be options to allow projects and designs to be brought to the table, while
reserving the right to say no. He would like the Board to be able to pass judgment on
each application and evaluate it on its own merits. He did not want the City to miss
opportunities, and suggested keeping the approach balanced between too prescriptive and
too nebulous would be avoid jeopardizing any potential development in Alameda.
Page 8 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-22,9,"President Cook agreed that the conditional use permit should be used, and would consider
a smaller square footage than 60,000 s.f. She cited the newest Whole Foods stores,
particularly the Cupertino store, which is approximately 68,000 s.f. She would like to
strengthen the analysis of the impacts of big box stores on local businesses.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff would go through the document and return with a redlined
version for further review by the Planning Board. He noted that customized findings for
conditional use permit will be developed, and wanted to ensure that a well-designed
building that made sense for its location and context could be achieved. He noted that
addressing retail leakage was very important, and added that a study may be a valuable
tool when developers approach the City for a large retail project.
In response to an inquiry by Member Lynch whether a traffic study was a requirement,
Mr. Thomas replied that it was not, but it was recommended. Member Lynch believed
that could be a slippery slope, and noted that the addition of a business could encourage
healthy competition and diversity of retail choices. He noted that generally, a business
will go out of business because their product was not as good, and the public chose
something else. He did not wish to see a competition restriction in place.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft recalled that when Starbucks and Peet's Coffee opened, the local
coffee shops did not go out of business.
Ms. Mooney noted that it was important to examine what appellate courts have upheld.
She noted that the City of Turlock was sued by WalMart in 2004 because it had
prohibited superstores. She noted that there were shades of that in Livermore's policy that
prohibited ""retail stores greater than 100,000 square feet that devote more than 5% of
floor area to non-taxable items such as groceries."" It also required a conditional use
permit for discount stores and clubs, which was challenged by WalMart on the grounds
that the city was acting in excess of its police power. The court found in favor of the City;
the standard was that the policy must be reasonably related to the ends it was trying to
achieve. The City was concerned about increasing traffic and decreasing air quality, as
well as urban and suburban decay, which was sufficient for the court.
No action was taken.
9-C. Appeal of Use Permit UP07-0015 - Jennifer Raner - 1716 Park Street, for the
installation and operation of a portable outdoor car wash for used and new cars for
the existing car dealership. Pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code, AMC 30-4.10,
a Use Permit is required for car washing establishments in the C-M, Commercial-
Manufacturing District.
(Appeal has been withdrawn)
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
Page 9 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-22,10,"10-A. Appointment of a Planning Board Member to assist in the selection of a
consultant for the North of Lincoln Strategic Plan for the Park Street Business
District.
Member Mariani suggested that Member McNamara be involved in the selection. Member
McNamara replied that she would not be able to perform this duty during the day.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft volunteered to assist in the selection of the consultant.
Member Cunningham moved to nominate Member Ezzy Ashcraft to assist in the selection
of a consultant for the North of Lincoln Strategic Plan for the Park Street Business
District.
Member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Absent: 1
(Kohlstrand). The motion passed.
Mr. Thomas noted that the Planning Board had a plan at the dais that Catellus wanted the
Planning Board to approve on September 24, and noted that Attachment 3 had been
approved. He described the drawings on the document and stated that as part of
Catellus's appeals included a compromise plan. That plan included a sidewalk running
along the edge of the parking lot; he displayed that proposal to the Board.
Member Mariani did not care for that at first look, and did not want Catellus to sidestep
the Planning Board.
Mr. Thomas described the tree well, surrounded by the curb, and bisected by the sidewalk
at the same level.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether the City had a definition for a
sidewalk, Mr. Thomas replied that it did not, but that a sidewalk must be five feet wide.
The City Council may uphold the Planning Board's decision, overturn that decision, or
remand it back to the Planning Board.
Member Mariani was concerned that Catellus was not honoring the Planning Board's
process, and had noted a difference in how the new person handled the interaction.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Page 10 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-22,11,"Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the November 13, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 11 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-13,1,"Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Planning Board
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:08 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft.
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cook, Board Members Cunningham, Ezzy
Ashcraft, and Lynch.
Vice President Kohlstrand, and Board Members Mariani and McNamara were absent from
roll call.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Donna Mooney, Assistant City Attorney Farimah Faiz and Supervising Planner Doug
Garrison.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Meeting of September 24, 2007.
There was not a quorum to vote on these minutes.
b.
Meeting of October 8, 2007.
Cunningham moved to adopt the minutes of October 8, 2007, as amended with changes to
page 7 paragraph 3 and page 11 third line from the bottom as requested by President
Cook.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote -Ayes:
4. Noes: 0 Absent: 3 (Kohlstrand, Mariani, McNamara). The motion passed.
c.
Meeting of October 22, 2007
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt the minutes of October 22, 2007, as
presented.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - Ayes:
4. Noes: 0 Absent: 3 (Kohlstrand, Mariani, McNamara). The motion passed.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Future Agendas
Page 1 of 8",PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-13,2,"Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.
b.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.
Ms. Mooney introduced newly hired Assistant City Attorney Farimah Faiz and welcomed
her to the City of Alameda.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A. Crosstown Coffee House six-month review of Use Permit UP07-0005.
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to renew
Use Permit UP07-0005.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - Ayes:
4. Noes: 0 Absent: 3 (Kohlstrand, Mariani, McNamara). The motion passed.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
Alameda Towne Centre - Planning Workshop - The purpose of this workshop
is to review and discuss revisions to the proposed redevelopment plans for the
Alameda Towne Centre. (Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0004 and
Design Review DR05-0073). No action to approve or deny the project will
occur at this meeting.
Mr. Garrison presented the staff report.
Mr. Randy Kyte, applicant, Harsch Investment Properties, continued the presentation and
displayed the proposed revisions and reconfiguration of Alameda Towne Centre on the
overhead screen. He summarized the changes:
1. The square footage from the prior approval would be reduced because Target
store was not needed;
2. The Safeway building would be renovated by the same architectural team
involved in the other buildings; and
3. An additional 73,000 square feet would be added at the Mervyn's building
site. It would be a department store expansion but Target was no longer
involved with the project.
Mr. Kyte noted that Borders was complete and would be turned over to that company on
December 3, 2007, anticipating an opening in late February or early March, 2008. Bed,
Page 2 of 8",PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-13,3,"Bath & Beyond held its grand opening on November 9, 2007. The Beverly and Old Navy
buildings were complete; the TJ Maxx building was a few days away from completion.
He noted that Building 1900 would have a tenant who would take the old warehouse
space, and the construction was expected to start within a few days. He noted that a
smaller parking garage would be built.
Mr. Jan Paoli, Field Paoli, project architect, displayed and detailed the proposed
architectural changes in the project.
Monique Lee, Field Paoli, project architect, provided an update on the sidewalks and
circulation, and summarized the issues brought forward by the Planning Board. She
noted that one bike lane had already been striped on the site, and that several other bike
lanes had been planned.
Mr. Paoli described the restaurant spaces, their views and the landscaping possibilities.
Mr. Kyte described the building redesigns that accommodated the east-west sidewalk.
He noted that the easement documents were underway, and that the construction
documents associated with the sidewalk, as well as modifications to the buildings,
landscaping and graphics were nearing completion. He noted that the timeline of late
spring was still in force, given the complexity of the situation, and that the east-west
sidewalk would be put in as soon as possible. He noted that the amount of pavement was
adequate to install the sidewalk. He would like the board to consider the issue of the
parking ratio, and added that they had been in discussion with City staff for some time on
the ratio at this site. He believed the opportunity existed to limit the amount of additional
parking by using shared parking strategies.
Mr. Kyte noted that through shared parking, they were optimistic that they would be able
to reduce the 4:1 parking ratio on the site. He noted that there was about 40,000 square
feet of office, as well as retail and restaurants. By using the ULI/ITE methodology for
shared parking, they saw some good opportunities to justify the reduction. He noted that
the progress at the beach area included additional language in the leases about the parking
fields within their lease areas, and the ability to reconfigure the parking lots when the car
wash was removed. He believed that would allow the addition of the kinds of densities
and uses that would make good sense along the beach area. He noted that the car wash
drove the timing on this phase, and he assured the Board that those discussions were
underway, and that they were encouraged by their progress.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Dorothy Reid inquired about the change in the parking garage plan, and was
concerned about the visual aspects. She would like to see how much more parking
spaces would be needed, and did not believe the Centre was short by many spaces. She
recalled that there had been problems with the parking study methodology, and would
like further clarification on that matter before further expansions were approved.
Page 3 of 8",PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-13,4,"Ms. Vivian Ford noted that she was pleased that Target was no longer part of the
Alameda Towne Centre plan, and that she would be more inclined to shop there. She
believed the landscaping plan was a positive addition. She asked about the location of
the truck delivery access, and requested confirmation that the exits would be onto
Franciscan Way. She noted that she was confused about the storefront locations. She
expressed concern about outdoor usage because of the number of outdoor creatures that
live near the Centre.
Mr. Jon Spangler expressed strong concern about the renovation. He was pleased by the
sidewalk near the post office, and supported the shared parking plan. He believed that
the 4:1 parking ratio was unrealistic. He believed the EIR was a piecemeal document,
and did not believe there had been a concurrently accurate EIR and Master Plan for the
shopping center that reflected what was going on. He would like to see an updated EIR
and traffic study that reflected current data. He would like to see more bike racks in front
of Trader Joe's, as well as more transit access, which was still compromised because of
the circulation patterns in the shopping center. He would like a status update on
Mervyn's. He requested more information on the green building standards and methods
that would be used for the new buildings. He inquired whether solar water heating,
passive solar building cooling and heating methods, and increased natural lighting would
be used to increase the center's sustainability. He inquired about the beach dropoff issue,
and noted that there was a similar situation at Jack London Square. He did not believe
that the cars belonged so close to the beach, and suggested the use of golf carts or similar
shuttle vehicles.
Ms. Audrey Housman complimented the design and look of Alameda Towne Centre, and
added that she was pleased with the sidewalks. She suggested more disabled parking in
the garage for the garage and the storefront that was closer to the stores. She noted that
Park Street had a narrow entrance between Walgreens and Big 5.
Ms. Cathy Wolfe noted that she was thrilled with the design, and the thoughtfulness
shown to the pedestrians. She voiced her full support of the project.
Mr. Kyte responded to the public comments, and displayed the net gain in parking spaces
in the garage. He and noted that the traffic study would be updated. He noted that the
truck delivery area and Safeway truck dock would remain because the store was being
renovated. He noted that it would no longer be a 24/7 use, with trucks arriving and
departing throughout the day and night, with their coolers running throughout the night
and with their lights shining into the condominiums. He noted that the architect stated
that there would be some screening with the use of landscaping in that area, and added
that the entry to Safeway would be on the east side. He noted that the storefront would
be glass. He noted that with respect to possible outdoor sales areas, rollup doors would
allow more transparency, and that they may be located on the north side. He noted that
the access from the parking lot to Franciscan Way would remain. Mr. Kyte noted that
Mervyn's was still in the chase for the building, but that they were not the front-runner.
He agreed that it would be a very good idea to separate the cars from the waterfront
environment. He noted that it would be very important to create a wonderful outdoor
Page 4 of 8",PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-13,5,"space. He noted that they would take the suggestion of moving the disabled parking in
the garage closer to the stores under consideration, and added that there was also covered
disabled parking as well. He noted that they had discussed the narrow sidewalks on Park
Street for the past 15 years, and added that they had offered to help the City in that
regard. He believed that something would be done about that issue.
President Cook noted that she would like to see more bike racks.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that there be larger spaces for the bikes with
trailers for small children.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook regarding the Post Office sidewalk, Mr. Kyte
described the proposed changes to that sidewalk. He noted that they had done a walk
around, and believed that the sidewalk could be fixed. He believed the presence of
sidewalks on both sides would be safer.
President Cook noted that the drawings were somewhat small.
Board Member Lynch stated it was important to understand the current parking
configuration versus the new configuration. He noted that he had spoken with the City
Manager's office to apprise them that the applicant was willing to work with the City to
address the sidewalk issue on Park Street.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft recalled previous conversations regarding the east-west
walkway, and inquired when the applicant planned to move forward with the easement.
Mr. Kyte replied that the easement should be in place within 30 days, and that work
would start in early 2008.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she had heard comments from residents stating
that there were enough discount stores in the community, and that they would like better
stores and for the bar to be raised in that regard. She noted that she liked the outdoor
garden space, as well as the parking structure and that parking ratio. She favored more
walkable, livable, healthy communities. She believed the applicant was approaching her
vision of this center and commended them for their efforts. She would like to see a
striped crosswalk near the post office, and would like to see one on the other side, as well
as by the carwash. She believed a three-foot-wide sidewalk was a negative addition, and
that it was an inconsistent feature of what should be a walkabout center. She was
concerned about the placement of the bike paths where the buses traveled. She believed
there should be a bike lane to the center from Park Street. She expressed concern about
the long Safeway trailers that took up 15 parking spots, and noted that they looked
terrible and impacted the parking. She was also concerned about the piles of trash left on
the ground, which was unsightly and attracted rodents. She inquired who was
responsible for the cleanup of that area. She did not want to see any beachfront parking.
Mr. Kyte displayed the parking lot site plan, and discussed the future of the design. He
noted that the parking lots would be shifted north, and that the area near the restaurant
Page 5 of 8",PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-13,6,"court would be reconfigured and consolidated. He added that there would no longer be
parking near the beach.
President Cook noted that she was fine with the increased height on the Mervyn's
building because without the additional height the center would now look lopsided
because some heights had been increased on the new, improved parts of the center. She
expressed concern about the parking and its effects on pedestrian safety. She supported
further exploring the reduced parking requirements, and would like further clarification
on what was approved, and what the driving requirements would be for more parking.
She is not at all sure about the parking structure and believed the loading docks were ugly
and dangerous. She inquired about Dr. Perry's corner, and was concerned about
circulation and pedestrian safety. She requested a firm condition to address the
waterfront issues, and agreed with the applicant that a circular drive was not necessary.
She would like that space to be used for pedestrians. She was concerned that there was
no connection back to the center from the waterfront, and would also like the beachfront
corner to be connected to the rest of the center. She believed the design for Applebee's
was dated, and looked forward to its renovation. She believed the elevations for the
Mervyns building looked good, and would like updated traffic counts. She agreed with
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft about the crosswalk, and was very concerned that the
newly painted crosswalks at Shoreline Drive did not connect with the pedestrian
walkways at the center. She noted that was not an issue so much for the center, as it was
for the Public Works Department. She added that the crosswalks led right into iceplant
and did not connect.
Mr. Kyte noted that he hoped the McDonald's and courthouse would be renovated, but
that was not within their control.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she had a problem with the parking on the Otis
side, and believed that diagonal spaces were easier to get into and out of. She noted that
the Safeway parking spaces were straight, 90-degree spaces. She inquired whether the
Safeway parking lot could be restriped with diagonal spaces. Mr. Kyte replied that while
he did not disagree with her assessment, at this point it would change the entire layout
and geometry of the lot.
Board Member Lynch noted that the 90-degree spaces were the safest, most efficient
parking layout.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft about the CEQA standard, and
whether a new EIR would be required, Mr. Thomas replied that the City was halfway
through the EIR process. The City would review the original work, and see how it
compared to the current proposal. The changes in the project would be assessed to see
whether a new EIR would be required. He noted that the total square footage had been
reduced since Target was removed from the center, and the location of the expansion area
was generally the same relative to driveways and access to the center. He noted that the
City would respond to all comments and would make any additional changes to the Draft
EIR so that the EIR addressed the current plan. He noted that the City intended to return
Page 6 of 8",PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-13,7,"with two comprehensive documents: the Master Plan that showed the applicants' long-
term plans for the site, and a comprehensive up to date EIR.
No action was taken.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was copied on a letter from StopWaste.org
to the Planning Director with respect to the pursuit of green building ordinances. She
requested that the City follow up on this issue at the next meeting.
Mr. Thomas advised that an RFQ had been released to advise staff how to proceed with
various ordinances, which would help staff return to the Planning Board with as many
options as possible. Staff was considering the full range of options, such as requirements
for new civic buildings and changes to the Building Code. Staff would provide a more
formal update at the next meeting. He assured Board member Ezzy Ashcraft that staff
would move as expeditiously as possible.
President Cook noted that she had received literature about APA publications and APA
membership. Mr. Thomas noted that staff would look into that issue.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch noted that because there were more buildings along harbor Bay
Parkway, he had noticed a great deal more trash. He suggested that the City consider
more trash cans, and inquired who managed the trash collection in that area. Mr. Thomas
noted that he would find out.
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force (Board
Members Cook/Kohlstrand)
Mr. Thomas provided an update on this item, and noted that the last meeting on October
24, 2007, had been well-attended. SunCal had made the same presentation that had been
made before the Planning Board; they presented the project's history and the consultants
presented their thoughts. The geotechnical consultant emphasized the Bay mud issue, and
the flooding constraints were discussed. The topo maps were in the process of being
revised because they were outdated. The consultant stated that Alameda Point had sunk
somewhat. He noted that the audience received Peter Calthorpe's presentation very well.
He had emphasized sustainability and regionalism for Alameda Point, and kept future
generations in mind. He noted that there was no interaction after the presentation. He
noted that the next meeting would be held at the O Club on December 13, 2007, and they
planned to address a range of development scenarios.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Page 7 of 8",PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-13,8,"Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report. Mr. Thomas noted
that there was nothing to report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Vice President
Kohlstrand).
Vice President Kohlstrand was not in attendance to present this report.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board
Member Cunningham).
Board member Cunningham noted that a meeting had been held, but he did not attend.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
This meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 8 of 8",PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-26,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, November 26, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:04 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member Lynch.
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Board
Members Ezzy Ashcraft, Cunningham, Lynch, Mariani and
McNamara.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Farimah Faiz.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of September 24, 2007.
Member Cunningham noted that although he was not in attendance at the meeting, he had
noticed that the attached resolution stated that he voted ""Aye"" as well as being absent. He
noted that the vote in the minutes was correct.
President Cook noted that page 4, paragraph 2, should be changed to read, ""President
Cook noted that the siting siding of the buildings were originally set in place because the
City wanted to retain the warehouse structures. She inquired whether the Planning Board
would have the ability to review the two westernmost new buildings and reconsider their
location siding.
President Cook noted that the spelling of the speaker on page 5, paragraph 5, should be
changed to Karen Bey Bay.""
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to approve the minutes of September 24, 2007, as
amended.
Member Mariani seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Abstain: 1
(Cunningham). The motion passed.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Future Agendas
Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.
Page 1 of 10",PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-26,2,"b.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.
c.
Miscellaneous
Member Cunningham noted that he had received an acknowledgement of six years of
tenure on the Planning Board from the APA.
President Cook noted that she had received APA communications addressed to former
President John Piziali.
Mr. Thomas noted that he would update the Board membership information.
Vice President Kohlstrand inquired about the status of the parking study, which she
believed would be presented by the end of the year. Mr. Thomas noted that there had
been concerns about the work, much of which had to be redone. He believed that it was
close to being ready, perhaps by January or February 2008. He added that the Economic
Development Strategic Plan would be presented in December.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook regarding the status of the Paru Street
subdivision, Mr. Thomas replied that was still in process.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A
2008 Meeting Calendar.
Member McNamara inquired whether a meeting would be held on Columbus Day
(October 13).
President Cook recalled that the Columbus Day meeting had been moved for 2007. Mr.
Thomas noted that he would confirm that date.
Member McNamara noted that the meetings scheduled for November 24 and December
22 occurred during the Thanksgiving and Christmas weeks.
President Cook believed that there was typically one meeting held during December.
The Planning Board concurred that the December 22 meeting would be cancelled.
Page 2 of 10",PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-26,3,"Vice President Kohlstrand suggested that the meeting the week of Thanksgiving be
retained, and that it be reconsidered if the agenda was a light one.
Member Lynch inquired why the meeting was noticed from 7:00 to 11:00 p.m. President
Cook believed it was noticed as such to avoid additional motions to extend the meeting.
Mr. Thomas confirmed that staff would check on the October 13 meeting and report back
to the Board.
Member Cunningham moved to approve the 2008 Meeting Calendar as amended,
including the cancellation of the December 22 meeting.
Member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 7. The motion
passed.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
DP07-0003 - Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project - Applicant:
Catellus Development Group, a ProLogis Company. The applicant requests an
amendment to a Design Review approval for a retail center and associated
improvements located south of Mitchell Avenue Extension and east of Fifth Street
Extension. The site is located along the eastern end of the former FISC Site (Tract
7884) within the M-X Mixed Use Planned Development Zoning District
(AT/DV).
Mr. Thomas presented the staff report, and described the background and scope of the
proposed project, including the conditions required by the Planning Board in previous
hearings.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Kevin Sullivan, LPA Design, applicant, presented the plan approved on September 24
on the overhead screen. He described in detail the features and changes to the plans and the
proposed circulation plan. He noted that their target retailers would not accept the land plan
and the inconvenience for the user, both from an auto and pedestrian standpoint. He added
that the plan would also decrease the parking capacity by 120-plus spaces.
Mr. Greg Moore, Vice President of Development, Catellus, noted that he led the leasing
efforts at Alameda Landing. He noted that the first phase of that process was the leasing of
the large format Building A users, and added that they had conducted numerous
conversations with brokers representing large format tenants, as well as large format tenants
themselves. They were able to discuss the plan approved by the Planning Board, as well as
the concerns surrounding that plan. He noted that the retailer opinion was unanimous in their
concern over this plan; they did not see the plan as being workable for any of the large
format users. He cited opinions by a commercial broker, stating their belief that this plan
created a barrier between the retailer and the customer, and that the drive aisle would be an
Page 3 of 10",PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-26,4,"impediment to the shopping experience. He added that this kind of factor was important in
the site being evaluated by the major retailers, which has become very competitive recently.
He noted that most customers would arrive by car, and that the retailers were cognizant of
that fact.
Mr. Steve Kendrick, LPA, described the main drive aisle in front of Building A and noted
that it would be important to take some of the north-south pressure off of the drive aisle
behind the Fifth Street retail area. He displayed the analysis of opening up one of the bays in
the center to take some of the traffic off the drive aisle onto the parking field. He believed
the proposed layout would be detrimental to the retail environment in the center.
Mr. Sullivan described the compromise plan, which they believed addressed the Planning
Board's concerns heard on September 24, and which they believed would work well for the
retailers, the site, the users of the site, and would accomplish the Planning Board's goals of
having a pedestrian-friendly streetlike feeling within the center. He noted that they
understood the Planning Board's concerns clearly, particularly with respect to wanting
sidewalks on the west side. He believed that the sidewalk can be accomplished on the west
side of the north-south street, and noted that was not the issue with the design team. He
noted that the issue was blocking off the parking pods. He noted that landscaping had been
added for a tree-lined feel as a pedestrian would walk the circulation patterns. He noted that
they wanted to enhance the pedestrian movement along the north-south street at the
storefronts. He added that they incorporated Member Cunningham's suggestion about
enhancing the experience by widening the circulation along the front of the large format
retail. He noted that they also straightened out some of the kinks in the circulation patterns,
and that straight 90-degree angles replaced the kinks. They also increased the circulation
along the east sides of all of the Fifth Street retail sites. He believed they accomplished all of
the goals requested by the Planning Board. They felt strongly that the drive aisles must stay
open for the convenient circulation to and from the large format. He noted that it would be
difficult to maintain the landscaping along the parkways when they block the circulation to
the storefronts.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Kim Nicholls, P.O. 1105, expressed concern about conflicts between commercial and
residential developments.
President Cook noted that for future purposes, she would be able to discuss general issues
during Oral Communications.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she had contacted Mr. Thomas about meeting with the
applicant in order to explore a compromise, using the applicant's compromise plan as a
starting point. She noted that her issues with Catellus's compromise plan were that there was
no raised sidewalk or standard curbs, and that the number of curb cuts along the north-south
driveway had not been reduced. She believed they were trying to maximize the amount of
Page 4 of 10",PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-26,5,"parking on the site, and to use a standard approach towards shopping centers, which was
different than what the Planning Board was trying to achieve.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she still had issues with the 26 spaces that would be
backing out directly into the aisles. She was uncomfortable with Catellus's compromise
position, and would like to see something in between the Planning Board's and the
applicant's proposal. She noted that the standard parking requirements for a shopping center
of this size, which indicated that 3.6 spaces per thousand was reasonable for a weekday, and
4 spaces per thousand for a weekend. She believed that if the curb cuts were reduced, that
requirement could be met. She noted that there were parking lots all over the country that
require people to circulate on-site, and did not find that to be a compelling argument.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she perceived Catellus's presentation of the
compromise plan to City Council as an ""end run"" around the Planning Board, and was
surprised to find that it was staff initiated. She inquired whether the Planning Board was
intended to look at the compromise plan.
Mr. Thomas described the background of the compromise plan. He noted that the City
Council was also informed that it could remand the item back to the Planning Board.
Member Lynch noted that he was somewhat disturbed by the comments, and believed the
Planning Department acted correctly. He did not see any procedural issues, and did not
believe they had done an ""end run"" around the Planning Board. He noted it was the
department's responsibility to bring a project to a governing body so that they may make a
determination in upholding the Planning Board's decision, remanding it back to the
Planning Board, or in creating another plan.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that letters dated October 23 and November 2 had been
distributed to the Planning Board during the meeting, and added that she would have liked
to have received them sooner. She recalled the recent status update of Alameda Towne
Centre, and that their general manager asked the Planning Board to allow them to reduce the
parking ratio. She believed that was a good idea, and would be more in keeping with current
environmental concerns. She wanted quality retail to come to Alameda, and was also
concerned about the local air quality because of high levels of particulate matter in the air on
Spare the Air days. She agreed with the goal to make the center pedestrian-friendly, and did
not believe the traditional parking ratio needed to apply in this case. She noted that the
Planning Board concurred that the applicant's plan, which she saw as a strip of retail
surrounded by a sea of parking, was not what they wanted for Alameda. She would like to
see a shared parking concept, and a lower parking space to retail square footage ratio.
Member McNamara noted that she had hoped that a similar solution to reduce some of the
current cutouts could be included in the compromise plan. She had similar concerns and
issues with the applicant's arguments regarding the creation of a pedestrian-friendly
environment. She believed that the retail brokers were exerting pressure on the applicant to
have more of a car-oriented center. She was concerned about pedestrian safety throughout
the entire center, and assumed that there would be a raised curb cutout on the sidewalk with
Page 5 of 10",PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-26,6,"the 20-foot-wide sidewalk in front of the large format. Mr. Sullivan confirmed that would
occur, and that access ramps would be included where the crosswalks were located. He
added that the sidewalks would be at the asphalt level, and the planters would be raised
adjacent to them.
Member McNamara inquired why that plan would be more challenging from a car
perspective than all the current cutouts included in the plan. Mr. Sullivan replied that any
vehicle circulating in this parking lot must decide whether to keep circulating in the parking
lot looking for a space, or to leave the parking field. He displayed the circulation plan and a
discussion of driving and pedestrian circulation options ensued. He noted that from the
retailers' point of view, a compromise must be reached between the cars and the pedestrians.
He added that the retailers like 4.5 spaces per 1000, and that they were already pushing the
limits. He noted that the goal of the plan was to make finding parking space easier for the
shopper. They hoped that people parked once and circulated on foot, and he emphasized that
they needed to create the safest possible environment for pedestrians.
Member Lynch believed the Planning Board and the applicants had a difference of opinion
about the retail environment. He noted that they were trying to mix different types of
shopping styles, and wished to commend the Planning Department and the applicant for
returning with a compromise plan. He believed that while the compromise plan was not
perfect, it was better than the previous plan.
Member Mariani noted that she shared the concerns previously expressed, and that she
concurred with Member Lynch's comments.
Member Cunningham inquired about the primary points of access to the site. Mr. Sullivan
replied that the major points of access were off of Fifth, and displayed the three
intersections. He added that secondary points of access were off of Mitchell, as well as
Stargell.
Member Cunningham expressed concerns about the traffic movement off the west road
along Blocks B, C and D, and that the width of road going into the parking stalls were the
same width as featured in the compromise plan. He believed that was a safety issue, and
believed that the 90-degree parking along the faces of D, E and F could be a potential
problem. He did not believe the users of the handicapped stalls would be able to get out
easily with the traffic flows. He would wholeheartedly support the compromise plan, and
that having open islands at the end would work well. He suggested using the solution for
that quadrant in the approved plan of September 24th, which would have a net loss of 52
spaces and featured an enhanced pedestrian configuration. Mr. Sullivan believed that could
be achieved with a loss of only 26 spaces.
Member Cunningham inquired about the stated flexibility within the agreement for the
Department to allow a variation of 20% of floor area. He inquired what would trigger a
return to the Planning Board. Mr. Thomas replied that the discussion of parking in the
original Master Plan called for a minimum of 5:1000, followed by months of extensive
discussion and negotiation. The discussion of parking then became a discussion of
Page 6 of 10",PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-26,7,"maximums, not minimums. The Master Plan now states that with shared parking for
multiple uses, the maximum shall be 4.5 spaces per thousand square feet of commercial
space including restaurants. He noted that minor adjustments to building footprints of less
than 10% can be approved at the staff level. If the Board wished to lower the parking ratio
by increasing the square footage in that area of the retail center, that would not trigger any
parking problems for staff. He added that a Master Plan Amendment would allow other
changes to be made.
President Cook expressed concern about all the entrances into the parking field that will
conflict with a strong east-west drive. She noted that the September plan did not include the
access into the east-west roadway. She inquired whether the parking field serving Building
B could be retained from the September plan. She added that the compromise plan had
many more parking spaces and fewer trees. She liked the more heavily landscaped plans.
Mr. Aidan Berry, Catellus Development Group, preferred to hear all the comments from the
Planning Board, and requested a break to meet with the team to address the consolidated
comments.
President Cook noted that she liked the widened sidewalk in front of Building A. She
inquired whether there were porticos that reach out in that area, or whether it was a free and
clear walkway. She would like to see the walkway at Building B to act as a public walkway,
and not part of the retail area. She liked the squared-off crossings in the compromise plan.
She was not convinced that anyone would use the crosswalks at Building A, unless they
came from Fifth Street. She believed the project had a split personality, because the
Planning Board stated that it wanted a traditional, grid-pattern, neighborhood-oriented
project, and that many compromises had been made. She believed that a considerable
number of compromises had been made outside of the realm of the Planning Board. She did
not believe it was a true mixed use project, and found it annoying at the Master Plan level
that when there was buy-in for a mixed use project, that a suburban retail shopping center
was the result.
President Cook stated that this item would be suspended while the applicants conferred
outside of chambers, and that the remainder of the agenda would be addressed.
Member Cunningham moved to continue this item until after the remainder of the agenda
has been heard.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 7. The
motion passed.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Thomas noted that when the Planning Board approved 626 Buena Vista Avenue, they
requested notification of volunteer opportunities such as Habitat for Humanity. Member
Lynch noted that had been received by the Board.
Page 7 of 10",PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-26,8,"11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force (Board
Members Cook/Kohlstrand)
President Cook noted that there had been no further meetings.
Mr. Thomas advised that the next meeting would be held December 13, 2007, at the O Club.
He noted that practical multiple scenarios would be presented.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Member Mariani noted that the November meeting had been cancelled. She added that
during the October meeting, there had been some discussion about the focus of the
Committee, and whether it should address Chinatown alone, or Chinatown and the
extended surrounding areas.
Mr. Thomas noted that the City of Alameda had taken the lead for seven years on
attempting to get the County and Oakland to examine different scenarios on improving
the connection between the Webster and Posey Tubes, and the I-880 freeway. He noted
that the area was built-up, and that a 2000 study concluded that there was no good
solution. He displayed and described the proposed transition from the Tube to I-880 and
to Fifth Street. He noted that traffic and speed control issues had been discussed.
Member Lynch inquired how many doors and roofs the City of Oakland had approved in
the last 10 to 15 years, and how many were currently working their way through the City
of Oakland's Planning Department. He would not want to allocate or spend any more
funds on further studies on this particular issue. He believed the issue was being talked
around, and that the core of the issue was not being addressed; he believed that was a
waste of public funds.
Mr. Thomas suggested that this item be agendized.
He recalled the origins of the traffic study in the Oakland Chinatown area, and noted that
because the 880 freeway was constrained other options such as pedestrian and transit
must be studied. He believed it was important to bring in other regions to the study as
well.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Vice President
Kohlstrand).
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that a meeting for the Pedestrian Task Force had been held
two weeks earlier, and added that Gail Payne, who joined the City as the bicycle and
pedestrian coordinator, presented her first draft to the subcommittee. She identified the
missing links in the pedestrian network, and would establish a criteria system to make an
Page 8 of 10",PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-26,9,"evaluation to invest future funds. Potential funding sources would also be identified. The
plan would come back to the Planning Board for review.
c..
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board
Member Cunningham).
Member Cunningham noted that the next meeting would be held on December 19, 2007,
and that they would review the contents of the report at that time.
President Cook invited a motion to reopen Oral Communications.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to reopen Oral Communications.
Member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 7. The
motion passed.
Ms. Kim Nicholls, P.O. 1105, expressed concern about care for the environment within
developments, as well as the use of office spaces and housing developments. She expressed
concern about partial or total vacancies in buildings. She urged consistency in housing
standards that were independent of personality.
President Cook reopened item 9-A. DP07-0003 - Alameda Landing Mixed Use
Development Project - Applicant: Catellus Development Group, a ProLogic
Company.
Mr. Kevin Sullivan, LPA Design, applicant, described the consensus plan the team had
arrived at while the meeting had continued.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether they considered closing the other
entries to the parking field in front of Building B, Mr. Sullivan replied that they did, which
would require another 32 spaces of additional drop; they were able to reduce the parking by
26 with this reconfiguration, but could not create the separate drive aisle. He pointed out the
connection that had been created, which created circulation on either side.
Member Lynch moved to accept the consensus plan and direct the Planning Department to
incorporate the new language into the resolutions, referencing the compromise plans,
including the latest changes seen in this document.
Member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 3. Noes - 4
(Cook, Kohlstrand, Mariani, McNamara). The motion failed.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested discussing the remaining deficiencies.
President Cook stated that she would like to see the east/west sidewalk as featured in the
September plan.
Page 9 of 10",PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-26,10,"Mr. Thomas noted that an alternative motion may be made.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested continuing the discussion.
Member Lynch believed the Board members were clear in their opinions, but would like to
hear from the applicant further.
Member Mariani agreed with Member Lynch.
Mr. Berry noted that they needed a positive decision at this meeting, and noted that they had
a very tight schedule. They had one more approval with City Council on December 4, 2007.
He noted that they were extremely sensitive to the parking ratios, and that they were trying
to enliven the edge along Fifth Street; he added that they would try to get the maximum
number of restaurants along the end caps. He noted that restaurants had a higher demand for
parking than other retailers. He added that they would do everything they could to make this
project work.
Mr. Steve Kendrick, LPA, displayed the changes, and noted that they retained the concept of
the continuous island along the east/west drive aisle, but to provide head-in parking, moving
the drive aisle back to keep the circulation within the parking pod.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she would probably not support this application, but
she believed it was important to the applicant to make a decision.
Member Cunningham moved to approve the consensus plan as currently captured on the
overhead screen, with the parking field in front of Building A modified with a sidewalk as
proposed by Catellus in the Compromise Plan and with the parking field in front of Building
th
B modified with continuous sidewalks as shown in the Planning Board's September 24
approved plan.
Member Lynch seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes - 2
(Kohlstrand, McNamara). The motion passed.
12. ADJOURNMENT:
9:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the January 28, 2008, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 10 of 10",PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-12-10,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, December 10, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:07 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member McNamara.
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Board
Members Ezzy Ashcraft, Lynch, and McNamara.
Board members Cunningham, Mariani were absent from roll call.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Farimah Faz, Planner III Doug Garrison, Planner I Simone Wolter, Dorene Soto,
Economic Development, Miriam Delagrange, Economic Development. Eric Fonstein,
Economic Development.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of November 13, 2007.
b.
Minutes for the meeting of November 26, 2007.
Staff requests a continuation of November 13, 2007 Minutes and November 26, 2007
Minutes.
The minutes will be considered at the meeting of January 14, 2008.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cook requested that Item 8-A be moved to the Regular Agenda.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Future Agendas
Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft when staff estimated a green
building ordinance may be put on the books in Alameda, Mr. Thomas replied that in
February or March 2008, the Planning Board would hear a presentation by the
consultants and staff, outlining alternative approaches to tackling it. One approach would
be to include everything in one package, which would take longer; the second approach
would be to implement green building ordinances step by step, such as establishing green
building standards for City-owned buildings and City projects first. The next step would
be all major commercial projects over a certain size, and finally, residential projects
Page 1 of 12",PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-12-10,2,"would take longer to define. He noted that such changes to the Building Code could take
a long time, following a lot of community discussion.
Board member Lynch suggested that there were avenues available to the leadership of the
City that may be explored in addition to this effort. He noted that some cities that have
adopted green principles and policies without having a green building ordinance. He
suggested that the City leaders explore executive orders, in light of ordinances being
passed, that while moving forward with public buildings, that they shall meet a certain
threshold. He noted that department heads can issue policy papers that as new permits
come forward, that define what they would be looking for that would be consistent with
the Uniform Building Code as the process moves forward.
b.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
8-A.
PLN07-0059 (Use Permit) - BurgerMeister 2315 Central Avenue. The
applicant requests a Use Permit for extended hours of operations from 11 am - 2
am Monday through Sunday pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A(c)(1)(a), and use of an
outdoor patio for up to 24 seats pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A(c)(1)(b). The site is
located within a C-C-T, Community Commercial Theater Zoning District. (SW)
The Zoning Administrator has referred this item to the Planning Board.
This item was moved to the Regular Agenda.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was enthusiastic about the theater project in
general, and believed that this restaurant would be a positive addition. She was concerned
about extending the hours of operation to 2:00 a.m. She noted that the restaurant's
website identified three other San Francisco/Daly City locations, all of which closed by
10 or 11 p.m. She understood the late closing was related to the theater, but was not sure
that families would be out that late; she also inquired how late AC Transit operated in
that area. She suggested that a closing time of 11:00 p.m. or midnight would be more
appropriate for the Park Street district.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand regarding the closing time for La
Pinata, Board Member Lynch replied that it was open until 3:00 a.m.
Ms. Wolter noted that the applicant requested the closing time.
The public hearing was opened.
Page 2 of 12",PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-12-10,3,"Mr. Paul McGann, applicant, noted that they would like to have the option to be open
until 2:00 a.m., which did not mean they would be open that late. He would like to see
what the foot traffic would be like, and what the neighborhood reaction would be. He
noted that if there was no business after 11:00, they would close at that time.
Mr. Eric Reese, applicant, noted that if people came out of the theater after 11:30 or
midnight, that would give them the option to get something to eat. He noted that the other
locations did not dictate a later hour, and added that they had never had any trouble at
those locations.
In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara whether they planned to apply to
a liquor license, Mr. Reese replied that they planned to apply for a liquor license.
In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara regarding the time of the end of
the last movie, Doreen Soto, Development Services, replied that the last showing of the
theater must start by 11:30 p.m. They had the ability to show a midnight show for
blockbuster movies, such as Harry Potter; they must also report to the Planning Board
annually to report on the queuing. She noted that the last people would be out of the
theater by 12:30 - 1:00 a.m.
Mr. Thomas noted that the wine bar use permit allowed them to stay open until midnight.
Board Member Lynch noted that he liked having a choice for late-night eating, and noted
that this was a commercial district that should have a balance of opportunities for
restaurant consumers.
Board member McNamara inquired whether the outdoor seating would be open during
the late hours, which she believed would create a noise issue for the neighborhood. She
inquired whether the outdoor seating could be brought inside for the late-night hours. Mr.
Thomas replied that the use permit could be structured that way, and did not know what
the applicants thought of that option.
Mr. McGann replied that would entail bringing the tables and chairs inside, which may
interfere with the operation of the business because there was no inside storage.
Mr. Reese noted that they could ask the patrons to dine inside, and added that at that late
hour, it would probably be too cold to eat outside.
Vice President Kohlstrand agreed with Board Member Lynch, and did not have an issue
with the extended hours. She noted that this use was in a commercial district, and was not
adjacent to a residential neighborhood, and that the nearest homes were half a block
down.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand whether they planned to use
outdoor heaters, Mr. McGann replied that they did not plan to use them. He added that
they planned to store the tables and chairs inside when the restaurant was closed, and that
Page 3 of 12",PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-12-10,4,"they would probably close by 10 or 11 Sunday through Thursday. They would like to
offer late-night dining on Friday or Saturday nights after the theater.
President Cook inquired whether the use permit would be subject to revocation if it
became a public nuisance. Mr. Thomas replied that Condition 1 could be left as is, with a
2:00 a.m. closing time, and add that a review be performed after six to 12 months, such as
with the coffee house. He noted that the other approach would be to modify the closing
hours by day or time, with the understanding that the applicant could request a
modification.
Board Member Lynch suggested that the Board consider a one-year review to allow the
Board and community to learn about the use and see the cycle through; he believed that a
six-month cycle would be too short a cycle. He was not in favor of restricting the hours at
this time, because the business model was tied to the number of people who attend the
theater.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft expressed some concern that the San Francisco locations
did not warrant a later closing time, and did not want to see other problems created on
Park Street. Mr. Reese noted that he was involved with 15 other restaurants, and noted
that weather would keep people inside; they would like to help Alamedans enjoy their
post-theater dining experience.
Mr. McGann noted that their other locations did not experience any problems with the
neighborhood, and that they would be happy to adjust their hours as required. He noted
that the business volume would dictate the operating hours, and added that his track
record indicated that they operated a family-friend restaurant.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 07-
to
approve a Use Permit for extended hours of operations from 11 am - 2 am Monday
through Sunday pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A(c)(1)(a). and use of an outdoor patio for up to
24 seats pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A(c)(1)(b), with the following modification: The one-
year review will commence on the date of opening.
Board Member Lynch seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0
Absent: 2 (Cunningham, Mariani). The motion passed.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A. Large Format Retail Store Workshop - Applicant - City of Alameda. The
City of Alameda will consider proposed zoning text amendments to the Alameda
Municipal Code related to large format retail stores and the location of retail uses
throughout Alameda. The proposed text amendments include a definition of large
format retail store and proposed provisions requiring a use permit for different
types of retail uses in certain zoning districts. The proposed amendments would
Page 4 of 12",PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-12-10,5,"affect all properties in non-residential zoning districts and mixed use zoning
districts. (DG)
Mr. Garrison presented the staff report.
Board Member Lynch noted that with respect to the language: ""Ensure that adverse
effects on the economic vitality of existing commercial districts are minimized,"" he
would like staff's definition of ""vitality."" He suggested using the word ""viable,"" because
what is vital to one individual may not be to another, nor to the tax rolls.
Mr. Garrison noted that these questions were encountered while writing the General Plan
policies, and that the findings were based on the policies.
Board Member Lynch requested clarification on the terms ""fair"" and ""equitable"" as they
related to existing businesses and their desire to modify, upgrade and expand, and their
desire to say ""noncoforming."" He requested that staff include insurability and financing
of the projects.
Mr. Garrison noted that the businesses became nonconforming because they did not have
a use permit, not in the more traditional sense of not meeting a setback, or a healthy and
safety issue. He noted that they would like to gain the business community's knowledge
so as to not penalize good businesses that have been in business for a long time.
Board Member Lynch noted that he was comfortable with that, and suggested that as staff
moved through the facilitated process of engaging the business community, that someone
address where the community should go, and what it should look like legally 20 to 30
years in the future. Another question would be addressing what the relationship would be
for a viable business to continue with their viability in the community, so that a legal
distinction can be reached for the entire community. He noted that people will patronize a
store if they enjoy the projects, and he believed the City should encourage that. He noted
that business owners should also remain current with the City's guidelines. He suggested
that staff insert those concepts in the conversation.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the Use Permit Requirements at the top of
page 4: ""A single large format retail use permit would be required for shopping centers
consisting of multiple buildings with 30,000 or more square feet of cumulative floor
area."" She inquired whether only one use permit would be required if there were
numerous 30,000 square foot uses. Mr. Garrison replied that they discussed the
possibility of numerous stores of 29,000 square feet that would be exempt, and they
wanted to ensure there would not be a loophole. The idea was to link it to the shopping
center as one large entity, not a specific building in the shopping center.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed that the language, ""The proposed use will be
served by adequate transportation and service facilities, including pedestrian, bicycle and
transit facilities,"" could include more detail such as bike racks, bus stops and pedestrian
Page 5 of 12",PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-12-10,6,"walkways."" Mr. Garrison replied that was in the nature of findings, which summarized all
of the review that had been performed; the finding would be summarized in that way.
Board Member Lynch suggested that specific items were tangible, operational items that
should be included to flesh out the macro findings.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft wanted to ensure there were adequate safeguards to reflect
the work that had been done.
Mr. Garrison noted that the Design Review Manual would be more appropriate to
incorporate that level of detail, including recommended minimum width sidewalks and so
on.
Vice President Kohlstrand believed that staff's work on the guidelines was very positive,
and she was encouraged to see the people from EDC in attendance as well. She believed
that the bigger issues should be addressed first, such as the appropriateness of more
shopping centers. She believed that public opinion seemed to be moving away from the
development of shopping centers.
Vice President Kohlstrand supported staff's plan to go back to the business community, and
inquired whether a month would be adequate, given the upcoming holidays. Mr. Thomas
replied that would not be adequate, but staff and the EDC wanted to move this item forward.
They would like to get the Zoning Amendment and General Plan policies to City Council as
a complete package.
President Cook noted that she had been concerned about the large buildings at South Shore
being changed piece by piece, and would like that level of change to come back to the
Planning Board at one time. She inquired whether there were any instances where a
nonconforming use would be desirable in a neighborhood commercial district.
Mr. Garrison noted that when the City was looking at 60,000 square foot stores, they were
not going to include the C-1 neighborhood districts, because there were already policies in
place requiring the businesses to serve the neighborhoods, as well as other restrictions. He
noted that the 30,000 square foot stores would still have to meet the other policies and
requirements; if they did not, the City had the grounds to deny the use permit, which was a
stronger permit than trying to deny it because of the design review when they were not
changing the building.
Mr. Thomas noted that there were a number of existing nonconforming businesses that did
not have use permits, particularly if they were initiated before the use permit requirement
came into place.
Vice President Kohlstrand believed this would be a good conversation to have with the
businesses.
Page 6 of 12",PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-12-10,7,"Board Member Lynch believed that in this case, the quandary was to either bring the
business into a legal status, or allow the business to continue as is.
Mr. Thomas noted that, for instance, Bridgeside Shopping Center would be a legal,
nonconforming use.
Board Member Lynch believed there should be one policy from the City that would be
consistently applied. He agreed that staff was heading in the right direction with this
document.
Mr. Thomas invited Board comment on whether staff was in the right ballpark with respect
to the 30,000 square foot policy, and whether that made sense.
The Planning Board generally agreed that staff was headed in the right direction.
Board Member Lynch suggested that when staff brought the nonconforming item back to
the Planning Board, that three or four examples be provided and walked through to provide
more detail for the Board and the public.
Board Member Lynch left the meeting following Item 9-A.
9-B. Review and comment on the proposed Economic Development Strategic Plan
- Citywide - Applicant - City of Alameda.
Mr. Eric Fonstein, Economic Development Coordinator, Development Services
Department, presented the staff report.
President Cook complimented the EDC on a well-crafted document. She suggested
addressing each point in order. Mr. Fonstein noted that staff would incorporate the
Board's comments in a document to be presented to City Council.
Strategy 1: Create Industrial and Office Jobs
President Cook noted that there was not much discussion of maritime businesses, which
was a rich part of Alameda's history and a significant part of Alameda's attraction to
visitors. She would like to see those businesses retained.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that the stated goal for business parks to attract more
restaurants and transit facilities was good, but that they were built as single-use
developments, and were not very conducive to people walking around because the uses
were spread out. She noted that the land use patterns were significant to how the uses
were integrated to begin with, to help generate pedestrian uses.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 5 discussed business retention forums, and
added that Mr. Fonstein contributed a significant amount of time and effort to those
forums and meetings. She had read that the City's vacancy rates were higher than others
Page 7 of 12",PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-12-10,8,"along the 880 corridor, which may have to do with freeway access. She noted that Harbor
Bay Business Park was experiencing higher vacancy rates, perhaps because of the lack of
amenities. She believed that the business park employees want places to eat for lunch or
dinner, or do some shopping. She believed that those amenities should be considered, and
suggested surveying the employees at the business parks and large companies such as
Wind River regarding those amenities. Regarding historical rail options for transit
corridors (page 8, initiative 3), she would like bicycles and pedestrians, but not cars, to be
addressed. Regarding a brochure/press kit identifying greenhouse gas reduction impacts,
she suggested that rather than using paper brochures, that the City's web site be used
instead to reduce the use of resources.
President Cook noted that the end of page 7 read, ""Develop and implement a smart
growth ordinance that promotes new transit development."" She inquired whether that
should read ""transit-oriented development."" Mr. Fonstein agreed.
Strategy 2 - Increase the Availability and Quality of Retail Goods and Services
President Cook reflected Vice President Kohlstrand's comments on the need to
coordinate the objectives of the citizens, EDC and the Planning Board. She noted that A-
3 (page 9) read, ""Limiting mall-scale retail to Harbor Bay Landing, Marina Village and
South Shore Center, and other potential sites of appropriate scale."" She added that the
Board struggled with Alameda Landing, and that this item reflected that struggle, and that
the South Shore process had been an example of the Board's focus on staying away from
mall-scale developments.
Vice President Kohlstrand agreed with President Cook's comments, and did not see the
survey reflect people wanting more malls. She inquired whether more traditional business
districts, such as Park Street or 4th Street in Berkeley, would be appropriate in terms of
development patterns, not just specific retail stores. She noted that updated thinking may
work better, leading to a more compact, pedestrian- and transit-friendly mixed use
development.
Board member McNamara supported Vice President Kohlstrand's comments.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Vice President Kohlstrand's comments.
She inquired about the notation of the bottom of page 13, which read ""Promote Retail
Districts at the International Council of Shopping Centers Annual Convention in
Monterey.""
Doreen Soto, Economic Development, replied that the International Council of Shopping
Centers was an organization that followed retail developments and trends, and examined
smart growth and green growth alternatives. The conferences contained training sessions,
and retailers throughout the country attend the convention. Cities also send
representatives to recruit new businesses, and to learn about new trends in retail.
Page 8 of 12",PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-12-10,9,"Mr. Fonstein noted that at the last several conferences, the City has specifically promoted
Webster Street and Park Street with marketing materials and demographic information.
Mr. Thomas noted that Bay Street in Emeryville was not a mall, but had the same acres
of parking, although they were stacked up and generated as many car trips per square foot
as Alameda Landing. He believed they did a better job of hiding the parking from a
design standpoint.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that housing had been added to the top of some retail
uses on Bay Street.
Mr. Thomas added that retail tenants demand parking.
Vice President Kohlstrand believed the parking requirements were changing the face of
the urban area.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft would like to see the bar set higher in Alameda, and noted
that a laudable job had been done on Park Street; she would like to see further progress
on Webster Street. She noted that older districts such as Burlingame and Monterey were
viable. She took exception to the theme of tenant mix including ""larger format chain
restaurants, such as those oriented to the shopper so as to avoid diluting the main street
business district's emphasis on entertainment, and independent and fine dining
restaurants.' She believed that even in the retail centers, Alameda could do better than
large-format chain restaurants, and that quality dining in a shopping center would not
detract from quality dining on Webster Street.
President Cook cited that the new Comerica building, which seemed to be ideal for a
restaurant, but did not have the required parking. She believed it was important to include
the Board's desire to reduce parking in business districts. She did not want to lose the
pedestrian orientation in Alameda Landing.
Strategy 3 - Business Travel, Market and Limited Impact Tourist Attractions
President Cook noted that it would be important to go further than marketing existing
meeting spaces in Alameda, and believed that Alameda needed new meeting spaces. She
was concerned that the large civic events like the annual fundraiser for the boys and girls
club have to meet in Oakland because there were not large enough facilities to
accommodate them in Alameda.
Strategy 4 - Create Recreational Entertainment Facilities
President Cook reflected the Planning Board's stated desire to have better public access
and commercial and recreational uses on the water so that the waterfront is active and
safe. She would like to go further and discuss the need for waterfront design and access
plans in Alameda, which had been supported by the Planning Board and City Council.
Page 9 of 12",PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-12-10,10,"Strategy 5 - Provide for Internal and External Traffic Circulation
Vice President Kohlstrand believed the strategies and accomplishments were multimodal
in orientation, and believed the strategy should be renamed so it did not focus solely on
traffic. She believed it should be identified as a multimodal transportation strategy that
looked at emphasizing pedestrian, transit and bicycle access.
Vice President Kohlstrand believed that it was important to avoid ""mega-blocks,"" and to
keep the scale of city at a more reasonable 400-500 feet in length so that pedestrians can
get from one place to another comfortably.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 21, Item 1, read, ""Develop an action item
list that targets how to spend the collected commercial in-lieu parking fees."" She
supported a proposal that had been accepted to increase the parking meter fees in
Alameda to be more in line with surrounding communities. She noted that the in-lieu fees
were not meant for the general fund, but should be fed back into transit and pedestrian
improvements, which would bring the business owners online with respect to district
improvements.
Strategy 6 - Foster New Enterprises
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the Alameda Beauty College had been in place
for a long time, and believed that Alameda College would be an ideal location for it. She
believed that the Beauty College students might want to take other courses at Alameda
College, and noted that there were day care facilities as well. She added that space would
be freed up on that block for a more appropriate retail/restaurant use.
President Cook would like to see a way to foster new green uses in Alameda, and to find
a market for that goal.
Board member McNamara noted that was listed in the staff report, ""Attracting green
businesses into the City."" President Cook would like that goal to be incorporated into the
plan update.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it was also at the bottom of page 8, ""Develop
fast-tracking or reduced fee permitting for sustainable and green businesses and project to
encourage their relocation of green businesses to Alameda, and the development of
sustainable buildings,""
Mr. Fonstein noted that they would strengthen the presence of green building
opportunities in the document.
Strategy 7 - Promote Affordable Housing
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft recalled a recent report on NPR, which discussed recent
foreclosures. It stated that as developers got into building bigger houses, prospective
Page 10 of 12",PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-12-10,11,"buyers stretched to buy bigger houses. She noted that there was a shortage of reasonably-
sized affordable housing that would allow people to become homeowners without
destroying them financially.
Ms. Soto noted that the City was working with several developers on projects, and that
the current Codes require like-kind affordable homes. For instance, a 2,500-square-foot
home development would require the affordable units to be like-kind.
President Cook noted that if people wanted mixed use and an active waterfront, they need
to be able to look at different housing products and types. She believed it was important
for housing or office above retail uses for a true mixed use to be available.
Vice President Kohlstrand inquired whether the parking strategy was intended to attract
new office uses into the Webster Street business area. She believed that commercial
districts should have on-street parking.
Mr. Fonstein noted that he and Mr. Garrison had taken a walking tour of Park Street
before beginning the process of hiring a consultant. They noted that there were changing
uses of the structures off Park Street, which were becoming more office building uses.
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 07-
to
endorse the Economic Development Strategic Plan, with the stated modifications.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4.
Noes: 0 Absent: 2 (Cunningham, Lynch, Mariani). The motion passed.
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. (AT) (Staff requests continuation to the meeting of
January 14, 2008.)
Mr. Thomas noted that this item has begun to be circulated publicly, and noted that if the
Board did not wish to have mall-style development, the General Plan was the appropriate
place to articulate that wish.
This item was continued to January 14, 2008.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Page 11 of 12",PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-12-10,12,"a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force (Board
Members Cook/Kohlstrand).
President Cook advised that there had been no meeting since the last report, and that the
next meeting would be held December 13, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. at the Officer's Club.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report, and no meetings had
been held.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Vice President
Kohlstrand).
Vice President Kohlstrand advised that no meetings had been held since the last report.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board
Member Cunningham).
Board member Cunningham was not in attendance to present this report.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:51 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the January 28, 2008, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 12 of 12",PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-01-14,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, January 14, 2008
1.
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft.
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Board
Members Ezzy Ashcraft, Lynch and McNamara.
Board Member Cunningham was absent from roll call.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Farimah Faiz.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Meeting of November 13, 2007 (Not available)
b.
Meeting of November 26, 2007.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that on page 3, under the description of 9-A, the
spelling of ProLogis was misspelled as ProLogic.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 6, paragraph 2, should be changed to read,
""He noted that the goal of the plan was to make finding a parking easier for the shopper.'
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the second to last paragraph on page 6 should be
changed to read, ""He did not believe the users of the handicapped stalls would be being
able to get out easily with the traffic flows.""
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 7, paragraph 1, read, ""The Master Plan now
states that for a particular use, the maximum should be 4.5, but shared parking for
multiple uses, the maximum shall be 4.5 per 1000."" She did not believe this sentence was
explanatory, and requested that some clarification be added.
Member McNamara noted that on page 10, the approval date for the minutes were listed
as December 10, 2007, and should be January 14, 2008.
President Cook noted that the summary paragraph after Mr. Berry spoke read, ""Mr. Steve
Kendrick displayed the changes and noted that they retained the concept of the
continuous island along the east-west drive aisle, but to provide head-in parking, moving
the drive aisle back to keep the circulation within the parking pod."" She had difficulty
picturing what had been approved, and requested that a smaller version of that section be
attached so the Board could visualize it before the final approval was made.
Page 1 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-01-14,2,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft agreed, and noted that the approval was based on what was
projected on the overhead screen. She inquired whether the visual could be included.
Mr. Thomas noted that the new drawing was created the next day and attached to the
final resolution.
The minutes of November 26, 2007, will be considered at the meeting of January 28,
2008.
c.
Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Not available)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Future Agendas
Mr. Thomas noted that staff had received a letter of resignation from Board member
Mariani, effective immediately.
Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.
b.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.
c.
Miscellaneous
Vice President Kohlstrand noted there had been some discussion at the Fernside
homeowners association meeting recently, and inquired about the Council's stance and
possible action on the Harbor Bay Isle GPA/EIR. Mr. Thomas replied that the Council had
not taken any action at all on the proposal for the rezoning and the General Plan
Amendment. They did settle a legal dispute about a technical issue regarding the existing
development agreement. He added that the City had been challenged by one of the
opponents on the validity of the legal settlement.
Vice President Kohlstrand inquired when the theater would open.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the committee was waiting for a date certain, but
anticipated it would be in February or March.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
Page 2 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-01-14,3,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
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.
President Cook noted that page 1 identified community centers as being planned for
Alameda Landing, Alameda Point and the Del Monte Building in the Northern Waterfront
area. She inquired who planned the Del Monte Building, and noted that it connoted approval
of a concept that the Planning Board had not yet seen. Mr. Thomas replied that was a valid
concern.
Vice President Kohlstrand inquired whether the City wanted any more community shopping
centers such as South Shore and Marina Village. She believed that while the uses were
desired, the configuration would be more appropriate as a main street type of development.
She did not believe that shopping centers full of private streets and big blocks were very
friendly to pedestrians, and that the City should move away from them as much as possible.
Board Member Lynch noted that the last sentence in the third paragraph, ""Types of Retail
Districts: Main Street Business Districts,"" read: ""These districts are pedestrian-oriented
districts with historical patterns of development that limit building form, and the ability of
individual businesses to provide on-site parking."" He did not understand the last section
about parking, and while that may be the City's desire, he inquired which businesses
contained within the Main Street business district provided on-street parking. Mr. Thomas
noted that it should read, ..and limit the ability of individual businesses to provide on-
street parking.""
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that outlets such as Pottery Barn could be offered in an
urban setting, rather than the traditional suburban setting.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that there was a potential for retail at the three areas
that were mentioned, and suggested adding a paragraph at the end of the section stating
that ""additional retail districts may be located at Alameda Landing and Alameda Point.'
President Cook believed that terminology was important, and that a community shopping
center connoted a suburban shopping malls that are normally reached by car.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that it was important to keep the guiding nature of the
General Plan Amendment in mind throughout the process.
Page 3 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-01-14,4,"President Cook expressed concern that another shopping center was being brought forth
where the pedestrian was not being put first. She did not believe the name ""lifestyle center""
should be used, but suggested that a new style of community shopping might be included.
Board Member Lynch believed the document should be clear.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft re the meaning of ""competitively
priced foods,"" Board Member Lynch responded that competitively priced foods are created
by competition, created by competition and more than one source of foods.
In response to a comment by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding Section 2.5, Mr.
Thomas replied that until 2004, there had been a concern that a great deal of sales tax had
been leaked to neighboring communities. This affected the ability to fund services, and also
affected the transportation situation as people drove off the island to go shopping. Board
member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether that should be included in the document.
Board member McNamara suggested expanding 2.5(a) to read, ""Services [space] to enable
Alameda to realize its full retail sales potential by minimizing the amount of sales leakage to
neighboring community.""
Mr. Thomas suggested providing explanatory text to state that this section addressed sales
leakage. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft agreed.
Regarding 2.5(c), ""discourage offices from ground floor occupancy,"" Board member
McNamara inquired whether mortgage companies and banks were retail uses. Mr. Thomas
noted that the City did permit offices, provided they obtain a use permit. He added that real
estates offices, etc., provided an interesting view from the sidewalk, and that they did not
raise the concern raised by this policy.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she had been disappointed to see the Comerica
Bank use go into the building with many beautiful windows, which would have invited a
restaurant.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that with respect to 2.5(e), ""Maintain full-service
community shopping centers serving all sectors of the City,"" she suggested substituting the
phrase ""community service opportunities."" She noted that the community benefited from
and enjoyed the uses within the districts.
Regarding 2.5(d), Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed there should be a way to prevent
Safeway from continuing to park the large trailer trucks in the parking lot where the cars are
supposed to park. She understood that supermarket needed to receive large deliveries several
times per day, but did not believe the trucks should take up eight parking spaces each,
especially during the construction period.
Mr. Thomas suggested that that issue be addressed in the development plan approvals for
Alameda Towne Centre, but not in this document.
Page 4 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-01-14,5,"Board member McNamara noted that regarding 2.5(k), she would like clarification of the
relevance of the wording ""to minimize automobile trips associated with the redevelopment
of Alameda Point.'
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that 2.5(g) read, ""To encourage retention and addition
of housing in the Main Street business districts.. and inquired how the policy would be
followed.
Board Member Lynch liked the wording as it stood because it was clear and precise.
President Cook suggested removing the word ""new"" and replace ""community shopping
centers"" with the updated language to be determined.
Mr. Thomas noted that this policy could be rewritten to say, ""encourage retention and
addition of housing in retail areas,"" and strike the references to the different types of centers.
He noted that the 1990 General Plan made a point of not saying ""in community shopping
centers,"" and believed that reflected how community attitudes about mixed use development
have changed in the last 15 years.
President Cook agreed, particularly in getting people out of their cars.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that 2.5(j) read, ""Support, encourage and foster new
retail development to serve the west end of Alameda."" She noted that since the studies had
been done in 2003, there had been a lot of growth in the number of residences, and inquired
whether a survey had been done to hear from the residents of that area. She inquired what
the need was for grocery uses in Bayport, and what other shopping needs they had.
Board member McNamara noted that she had been approached by several people, inquiring
about what was happening in the West End. She inquired about the plan, and noted that it
was not on the same levels as Park Street, and did not believe it was receiving the same City
attention as Park Street. She questioned why (h) and (i) should be distinguished from each
other.
Vice President Kohlstrand believed that Park Street was more of a downtown for Alameda,
which was not to diminish Webster Steet, which served more of a neighborhood base; Park
Street drew more people from around the City.
Board Member Lynch noted that as he read 2.5(h), he was encouraged and enlightened, and
valued the property in its current state, as well as what it could become.
Board Member Lynch noted that 2.5(i), he felt limited in his thought because of the
wording, and suggested that 2.5(i) could be bolstered by the kind of language in 2.5(h)
regarding vacated spaces.
President Cook suggested receiving input from WABA.
Page 5 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-01-14,6,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that with respect to 2.5(s), ""Amend Alameda Municipal
Code to reduce off-street parking requirements,"" she wrote ""Yes!""
Vice President Kohlstrand agreed with Board member Ezzy Ashcraft's comments.
Mr. Thomas noted that the use ""consider amending"" acknowledged that nothing could be
amended until the public hearings were held on the specific amendment.
President Cook noted that the parking garage is close to opening, and she believed that the
City should be able to give some relief to allow more restaurant uses downtown.
Board member McNamara inquired about the language ""which exceeds recommendation of
Metropolitan Transportation. and whether the specifics of those recommendations was 5
per 1,000. Mr. Thomas replied that it was closer to 3 or 4 per 1,000. Board member
McNamara inquired whether that should be included. Mr. Thomas replied that the
explanatory text detailed the need and reason for it; staff would return with specific parking
recommendations as part of the ongoing study. He noted that the General Plan policy stated
that it was the City's goal to reduce the parking requirements, and that the decision-marking
of the reductions should be left to the actual Zoning Amendment, which will be brought
back in the future.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that the second sentence of the last item of page 4 should
introduce the idea of shared parking, in addition to multimodal parking.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that in 2.5(m), ""Improve Public Transit Service to
Shopping Areas,"" the next sentence read, ""Transit use can be encouraged by providing bus
shelters "" She believed those were two different things, and that unless it referred to City
transportation, the City did not have much influence over AC Transit funding decisions. She
noted that AC Transit has been cutting services. She believed that a possible use of the
increased parking meter fees on Park Street should go not only into the General Fund, but
uses that support the shopping on Park and Webster Street such as a shopper shuttle.
Regarding 2.5(n)(v), Board member McNamara noted that the second sentence read, ""If
large quantities of off-street parking are necessary to serve the development should be
provided in structures located behind or beside the retail mix,"" which seemed to apply to
Alameda Landing. She inquired whether in future design developments, what happened in
Alameda Landing would not happen with respect to parking behind the use. Mr. Thomas
noted that was his effort to verbalize the Board members' wishes, and that it would not
affect Alameda Landing. He noted that it would affect new construction and new retail
facilities. He noted that the word ""discourage"" was used because Alameda Point was big,
with a lot of land on the site, with large and difficult financial constraints. Staff wished to
convey the intent that the City did not want large parking fields, which should be screened
from view if they did exist.
Page 6 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-01-14,7,"Vice President Kohlstrand noted that when there was a lot of land with low density
development, it was a fact of economics that there would not be a lot of structured parking.
She noted that because of that tradeoff, some of the City's lofty goals may not be realized.
Mr. Thomas noted that it would not be wise to include policies that were not possible to
achieve, but it would be desirable to include policies as goals to move toward.
President Cook noted that the proposed goal stated that if it cannot be achieved, it should be
provided in structures located behind or beside the retail or mixed use buildings, and would
like to further discourage ""beside,"" which she believed interfered with the streetscape and
pedestrian streetscape. She suggested the wording read, .located behind, or if there
is
no
alternative, beside the retail or mixed use building"" to identify a hierarchy of preferences as
a goal, rather than a prescriptive.
Board Member Lynch noted that University Village in Seattle was an outstanding shopping
experience that had very small stores. He noted that the parking was woven through the
development, with some parking beside or behind the stores, with walking paths and paths
throughout. He noted that could not be possible if President Cook's wording was included.
Board member McNamara suggested the following change to the sentence she previously
referenced: ""discourage construction of new large parking areas in order to facilitate
pedestrian, bicycle and other modes..
""
Mr. Thomas noted that he would reword the entire policy.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that 2.5(x) contained some key issues, and acknowledged
Mr. Thomas' effort to distill the Board's concerns. She suggested specifically stating that
there should be sidewalks on both sides of the streets, that the number of curb cuts should be
limited, and that the existing block pattern in Alameda should be replicated. She suggested
limiting the block length to 150 to 250 feet might be too small. She recalled that the Board
had grappled with the public versus private streets, which was a financial issue as well as a
design issue. She believed it was very important to keep streets in the public realm. She
suggested limiting the number of curb cuts and parking area so the uses must provide all the
circulation on-site. She wished to avoid using the blocks as a circulation aisle for the parking
lot.
Board Member Lynch noted that Santana Row in San Jose has become a promenade, and
that parking is no longer allowed on the street.
Mr. Thomas noted that there were two different kinds of streets: Park Street, which had a lot
of through traffic and acted as a buffer for pedestrians; and Santana Row, which was more
of a cul de sac. He cited the portion of Fifth Street north of Mitchell as a similar situation.
Vice President Kohlstrand suggested that on-street parking be provided unless there were
certain small-scale pedestrian retail environments where it may not be appropriate.
Page 7 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-01-14,8,"Board Member Lynch cautioned against creating a policy that would constrain the creativity
of a future use. Mr. Thomas believed that staff could fine-tune the language to acknowledge
the different circumstances.
Vice President Kohlstrand suggested going up to 400 feet for the block lengths.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that Santana Row had a lot of sidewalk dining, and that
was not compatible with a lot of auto traffic.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that with respect to 2.5(x)(d), ""Street Trees and
Landscaping,"" she would like to insert wording from the Landscaping Guidelines. She
would like to include a reference to new construction and design that is energy efficient.
President Cook noted that with respect to 2.5(y), the same language referring to parking
being located behind or beside the building appeared, and suggested that the previous
changes be applied to this section as well; she would like the new language about sidewalk
dining and curb cuts to be included as well.
Board Member Lynch noted that Bay Street in Emeryville had changed; where cars could
drive through near the Elephant Bar, that street had been blocked off to allow more
pedestrian activity and sidewalk dining.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Karen Bey thanked staff for the document, and believed it was good City policy to have
a clear vision on what the community desired in terms of retail. She noted that cities have
been taking the lead in terms of development goals. She strongly believed that in the effort
to encourage development, cities should be flexible but should also have written policy. She
cited the Cities of Ojai and San Francisco as upholding new ordinances regulating new retail
establishments.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
No action was taken.
9-B.
Approve a Change in the Format for a Future Public Forum Regarding the
Housing Element and Measure A.
Mr. Thomas presented the staff report. Staff recommended that the Planning Board
approve a change to the format which would allow staff to expand the time available for
the panel discussions and eliminate the small group discussions.
Mr. Thomas noted that several letters had been received on this item.
The public hearing was opened.
Page 8 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-01-14,9,"Mr. Joseph Woodard submitted a speaker slip but was not longer in attendance to speak.
Ms. Diane Lichtenstein, Homes, noted that she had sent an email to the Board. She had
thought the purpose of the forum was an evaluation by experts and professionals as to the
impact of Measure A over the past 35 years. In reading the staff report, she believed that
was what was intended, and believed this should be a very objective analysis. Homes
supported the recommendation that there be no small groups at this time due to the
informational and analytical nature of the forum. She did not believe there would be
enough time to process the information at one time. She hoped this forum would not
become a pro-and-con discussion of whether Measure A should exist. She believed there
should be a discussion of the impact of Measure A on education under ""Diversity of
Housing/Housing Mix.'
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Cook inquired about the professional speakers that had committed to the forum.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff was working towards a February 2 meeting date, and that
should be published in the next few days.
Board Member Lynch inquired why there were as many as six people to a panel, as he
had seen in some workshops in the past.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft recalled that consultant David Early recommended that
small breakout groups be used to maximize the opportunity for public participation,
because not everyone feels comfortable speaking before a large group. She recalled that
the SunCal Alameda Point workshop was a good example of that format working
extremely well. She believed the forum should be held in a place where it could be
televised.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she spoke with Cathy Woodbury the previous week,
and understood that more time was needed for the forum. She had inquired about the
confirmed panel members, and was noted that there was a reason for setting the deadline
in the first place. She noted that this had been planned since Summer 2007, and the
panels had not been confirmed. She was concerned that the Planning Director had not
made more progress at this point. She would like the forum to be a good one, and was
reluctant to extend the time, and believed it was unrealistic to confirm February 2 at this
point. She was frustrated by the fact that it had taken so long to see so little progress.
Board member McNamara believed that the initial timeframe should be adhered to, and
to move forward with it as best as they can. She suggested contacting alternative
panelists. She believed the breakout sessions were secondary to the panel discussions,
and emphasize that community education was the primary objective.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether more time would provide a better
opportunities for obtaining a better venue and more panelists.
Page 9 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-01-14,10,"Mr. Thomas noted that Board member McNamara's description was in line with the
Planning Director's goals, which included retaining the original date. He noted that it was
crucial for the panelists to be familiar with Measure A. He believed that a panel on land
use could be pulled together to address land use.
President Cook would like to include a discussion of the connection between housing and
transportation.
President Cook recalled a discussion during the summer during which Ms. Woodbury
believed there would be some resources available for this forum and the panelists, as long
as it was in the context of the Housing Element. She noted that these were busy people
whose expertise would be in demand, and she believed it would be good to offer them at
least a stipend. She was concerned that this forum had been placed on the back burner,
and while she supported a February 2 date, she would rather have the forum be strong
and well-organized.
Mr. Thomas replied that the other option was to pick an alternate date, and to request the
full panel to be named for the January 28 Planning Board meeting; following that, the
forum could be advertised.
Board Member Lynch tended to come down on the side of an organized and well-planned
event, given the amount of energy and time. He believed that would yield a more positive
event, and would like to give the organization process more time. He suggested thinking
about the site in a more positive way as it related to people's experience from the event.
He noted that two of the speakers had been keynote speakers at national conferences, and
believed that it would best to offer the speakers at least a stipend. He would not object to
delaying the forum if it was consistent with what the panel thinks it should produce.
Vice President Kohlstrand did not want another delay, which she found frustrating, and
would like the Planning Director to speak to the Planning Board about this forum.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed it would be important to have a high-quality
forum, given the amount of time it had taken to get to this point. By the January 28
meeting, she would like to know the moderator and four panelists for the first panel, as
well as a facility. She would be comfortable with four speakers instead of six.
President Cook agreed with the level of frustration expressed by the Board members,
particularly in being asked to make a decision without all the facts. She was ambivalent
about the small groups, and noted that the public comment period could be moved to the
next Planning Board meeting.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the breakout sessions were scheduled to be 45
minutes long, and that the open forum would be an hour and a half. She suggested
incorporating the breakout groups into the public session, summarizing them, and then
going into public comment. Her main concern was having solid, informed speakers and
an adequate place to have the gathering.
Page 10 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-01-14,11,"In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft whether the forum would be
televised, Mr. Thomas replied that it would be videotaped. He was unsure whether it
could be televised live unless it was held in Council Chambers. He believed that taping
the forum for later broadcast would be the best course.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to continue this item to the meeting of January 28,
2008, with the following conditions:
1. Staff will provide a list of between four to six panelists for each panel, and
that each panel will include professionals from the various disciplines
described in the proposed speaker list;
2. A date and a venue for the forum will have been determined, with sufficient
time to publicly notice the meeting;
3. A decision will be made as to whether or not the breakout sessions will occur;
4. The Planning Director is requested to attend the meeting; and
5. The subject of speaker stipends will be addressed.
Mr. Thomas noted that because February 16 was a long weekend, that February 23 may
be the best alternative date.
Vice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5.
Absent: 1 (Cunningham). The motion passed.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Thomas noted that he had responded to a citizen email sent through the City website
regarding Measure A.
President Cook noted that she had received a full packet about a national planning
conference, and the League of California Cities conference in March 2008. She inquired
about APA membership for the Planning Board members, which were available for $60
per Planning Board member. She noted that membership in the California chapter was
required, and was $30 annually. She believed it was important for the Planning Board
members to have access to this information.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she was already a member of APA.
Board Member Lynch noted that he was already a member of APA, and subscribed to the
journals as well.
Mr. Thomas noted that he would check into the Board memberships.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force (Board
Members Cook/Kohlstrand)
Page 11 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-01-14,12,"Mr. Thomas noted that he would insert the PowerPoint presentation in the packet at the
next meeting, and that the next meeting would be held January 30, 2008.
President Cook noted that it was a well-attended session, and that the general issues for
the community were identified.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Mr. Thomas noted that there was not been a recent meeting, and added that Board
member McNamara was the alternative Planning Board member; Ms. Mariani had
resigned.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Vice President
Kohlstrand).
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that there had been no meetings since the last report.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board
Member Cunningham).
Board member Cunningham was not in attendance to present the report.
Mr. Thomas reported that the Task Force approved the plan with some relatively minor
amendments, and that it would go to the City Council on February 5, 2008, for final report.
The Task Force also recommended that the City Council establish a standing commission to
address these issues.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand whether a green building ordinance
would follow, Mr. Thomas believed that was a strong possibility.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the January 28, 2008, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 12 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf
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,2008-01-28,2,"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,2008-01-28,3,"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 Kohlstrand whether former Planning Director
Colette Meunier would be available for the forum, Ms. Woodbury replied that she would not
be, but that Hanson Hom would be available.
President Cook wanted to ensure that neither Ms. Meunier nor Mr. Hom were strongly in
one camp or another. Ms. Woodbury assured the Board that would not be the case.
Board member Cunningham moved to approve a Change in the Format for a Future Public
Forum Regarding the Housing Element and Measure A.
Page 3 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf
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
Engineers before they start planning for dock expansion. If the Planning Board were to
approve the entire project, it would be a boiler plate condition.
President Cook noted that five speaker slips had been received, and polled the Board
whether comments should be limited to three minutes.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft preferred to keep the comments to five minutes because of the
significance of the subject.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Elizabeth Kraise, AAPS, noted that they had submitted an email on January 24, 2008.
She noted that AAPS opposed granting a variance to allow the house to be jacked up, and
that raising it three feet violated the Golden Mean ratio. They also believed that the house
would loom over most of the adjacent buildings on the street, and be out of proportion with
the neighborhood. The wider garage would mean moving the front steps to the side, which
would further erode the architectural integrity of the Craftsman Bungalow design, which
Page 4 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf
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 letter, which both used the phrase ""Craftsman Bungalow."" She noted that the
Alameda Residential Design Guidelines included a glossary that defined the architecture
styles in Alameda. She noted that the example Craftsman house was somewhat smaller than
their house; the example Craftsman Bungalow was a much smaller one-story home. She
noted that their house was a large Craftsman house, not a bungalow. She noted that the two
examples of Craftsman homes in Alameda were low one-story homes that did not have front
entries. She noted that there were many things that could be done with a Craftsman house,
and that they had worked very hard with their architect to preserve those qualities. She noted
that the AAPS had commented that they planned to reduce the front porch to create a front
stoop; she noted that they would double the size of the porch. She noted that the staff report
and the AAPS letter discussed a side stair, and added that they still had a front step going up
to the house; it was moved to the side and put a turn in it so it would not appear to be one
long staircase.
Ms. Talbot displayed several photos of the site on the overhead screen. She noted that they
had discussed implementing changes from the staff report in order to provide a balance
between their creative desires and what staff requires. They proposed to reduce the height by
Page 5 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf
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
reconsideration.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern that applicants seemed to be forced to
apply for something they did not want; she believed they wanted a boat house. She
appreciated the time and effort put into the staff report, and requested that when numerous
Code sections were cited, that they be attached to the staff report. She would also like the
significant documents to be attached as well, such as the letter from staff from June 28,
2007, which was paraphrased in the applicants' letter. She observed that the definition for an
accessory building did not cover a boat house, and believed that it should be defined,
especially in an island community. Mr. Brighton noted that a boat house is defined in the
Code, and that it is defined as an ""detached accessory structure."" He added that a boat house
was a garage for a boat.
Mr. Thomas noted that the Board could initiate a Zoning Code Amendment to create a
definition for a boat house, which would have a different set of requirements than an
accessory structure.
Page 6 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf
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 their thoughts about a variance on the front
house for height, the overall quality of the architectural design; and the Board's thoughts on
initiating a Zoning Text Amendment to examine boat houses. Staff would then be able to
discuss the phasing of the project with the applicants; perhaps the front house could be
addressed first, while the Text Amendment followed.
Board member Cunningham could not find a compelling reason to raise the building nine
inches, and the existing base slab was still 10 inches above the road. He believed that by
massaging grades on the driveway, it would be possible to mitigate any drainage problems.
He suggested adding a drainage system around the foundation, given the site's proximity to
the Estuary. He did not see any reason to support a variance for a nine-inch height increase.
He did not have a problem with raising it to 30 feet. He appreciated AAPS's comments
about preserving the integrity of the building, but he found the cut-in driveway to be more
oppressive than the open driveway that was proposed. He would like to see some
Page 7 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf
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 encouraged the applicants to stay within the
height limits as much as possible. She noted that the parking requirements would need to be
addressed. She understood the applicants' conflict since they were trying to build a smaller
structure, while the Code seemed to be pushing them towards a larger structure. She noted
that the issues of density and the public rights to the waterfront were important issues.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that there were pavers available that allowed grass to
grow between them.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff would regroup with the applicant and examine the scenarios for
the main house, back house, and parking open space requirements.
Board member Cunningham moved to continue this item to February 25, 2008.
Vice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4.
Absent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara). The motion passed.
Page 8 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf
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 building heights ""to maintain
the historic open form and character of Park Street and Webster Street business districts,
limit building heights on both the streets to three stories above grade, measuring 35 to 40
feet, depending on roof configuration. Parking structure ought to be limited by height only.""
He inquired whether 40 feet was the height limit. Mr. Thomas confirmed that the height
limit was 40 feet, and noted that policy was already in the General Plan.
President Cook suggested that the wording ""40 feet, regardless of the number of levels"" be
included.
Page 9 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf
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 shopping centers.""
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that with respect to the third item in 2.5.u, she was unsure
whether it was appropriate to say that there should be minimum use of the major drive aisles
for internal automobile circulation. She noted that there was no other way for cars to
circulate without using the major drive aisles. She suggested striking the language ""and
minimum use.""
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the word ""isle"" should be corrected to read ""aisle""
at the bottom of page 5. She concurred with the other comments.
Page 10 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf
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 - Applicant - City of
Alameda. The Planning Board will consider proposed zoning text amendments to
the Alameda Municipal Code related to large format retail stores and the location of
retail uses throughout Alameda. The proposed text amendments include a definition
of large format retail store and proposed provisions requiring a use permit for
different types of retail uses in certain zoning districts. The proposed amendments
would affect all properties in non-residential zoning districts and mixed use zoning
districts. (DG)
Mr. Garrison presented the staff report.
Page 11 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf
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 Amendment could be required. The City had the discretion under the existing
PDA to say that the change from numerous small tenants to one large tenant may change the
traffic dynamic substantially, and that a PDA may be required.
Page 12 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf
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 considered for
the Del Monte site, Mr. Thomas replied that they stated it was not in their plans. He added
that staff supported retail, and that Del Monte had agreed not to do big box retail.
President Cook replied that she would like to see the PD changes before it went to Council.
Vice President Kohlstrand did not need to see the changes before it went to Council.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether the issue was time
sensitive, Mr. Thomas replied that it was not time-sensitive.
Page 13 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf
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,2008-01-28,15,"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
PlanningBoard,2008-02-11,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, February 11, 2008
1.
CONVENE:
7:04 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Cunningham.
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Board
Members Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, Lynch, and
McNamara.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Farimah Faz, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason; Supervising Planner Doug Garrison,
Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer; Obaid Khan, Public Works.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of November 13, 2007 (not available).
These minutes will be considered on February 25, 2008.
b.
Minutes for the meeting of December 10, 2007.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that under Item 6 (Future Agendas), the last paragraph
on page 1 should be changed to read, ""In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy
Ashcraft when staff estimated a green building ordinance to be put on the books in
Alameda. ""
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that with respect to that time, she recalled that there was
a
discussion about staff being able to implement a straightforward application process,
and would like that section of the tape to be reviewed and inserted into the minutes.
Mr. Thomas recalled that conversation, and noted that the project submittal checklist for
sustainable elements had been discussed.
Board member Cunningham noted that on page 9, Strategy 3 discussed the lack of space
for larger functions in the City, and should be changed to read, ""She was concerned that
the large civic events like the annual fundraiser for the boys and girls club have to meet
in Oakland because there were not large enough facilities to accommodate them in
Alameda.""
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt the minutes for December 10, 2007, as
amended.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes:
0 Absent: 0; Abstain - 1 (Cunningham). The motion passed.
c.
Minutes for the meeting of January 14, 2008.
Page 1 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-11,2,"Vice President Kohlstrand noted that the bottom of page 3 read, ""Vice President Kohlstrand
noted that it was important to keep the guiding nature of the General Plan Amendment in
mind throughout the process."" She recalled that there was a discussion about whether the
Planning Board should be very prescriptive in the guidelines, and she stated that if they were
to do that, that the General Plan was the appropriate document to do it in, since it set the
guiding principles for the City.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that in the middle of page 6, the following language should
be changed to read, ""Vice President Kohlstrand noted that the second sentence of the last
item on page 4 should introduce the idea of shared parking, in addition to multilevel
parking""
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that page 7, paragraph 7, should be changed to read, ""She
wished to avoid using the streets blocks as a circulation aisle for the parking lot...""
Board Member Lynch advised that page 7, paragraph 4, should be changed to read, ""The
University Village was an outstanding shopping experience that has a mix of very small
and large stores."" He added that there was a two-story Crate & Barrel store in that
center.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to adopt the minutes for December 10, 2007, as
amended.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes:
0
Absent: 0; Abstain - 1 (Cunningham). The motion passed.
d.
Minutes for the meeting of January 28, 2008.
Board member Cunningham noted that with respect to the resolution for Item 9
(referencing Item 2.5.u.3) on page 11, the Planning Board had discussed adding language
referring to control of the location of utility trash recycling enclosures being located out
of the public path, which had been mentioned in the previous minutes; he would like that
wording included in the resolution.
Board member Cunningham noted that on page 15 (Climate Protection Task Force)
should be changed to read, ""Mr. Thomas presented an update of the last Board meeting.
Board member Cunningham noted that they divided the recommendations into two tiers.
The first tier had five items as listed below, and the remaining items were consolidated
into Tier 2.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 4, paragraph 3, should be changed to read,
""Because staff was unable to make the findings for a variance and design review
approval, he recommended the Planning Board deny the proposed variance application.'
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the language in the middle of page 7 should be
changed to read, ""Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that some of the nicest homes she
has seen in applicants' neighborhood had some kind of renovation..
""
Page 2 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-11,3,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 7, paragraph 5, should be changed to read,
""She supported people being able to improve their properties, and believed there should
be some reward for undertaking a project such as this.""
President Cook noted that with respect to the language at the top of page 7, ""President
Cook suggested that the dividing line between a boat house and an actual dwelling
""
she had intended to state that the boat house in this case was larger than many dwellings
in Alameda, and so perhaps the square footage should be examined more carefully. She
noted there was a fine line between a boat house and a residence.
President Cook noted that the language halfway down page 8 should be changed to read,
""She believed the issue of height was more critical than the number of floors, and it
occurred to the applicants to stay within the height limits"". In addition, the following
change should be made, ""She noted that the issues of density and the public right to the
waterfront were important issues to be looked at if Zoning Code amendments are
considered.""
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt the minutes for December 10, 2007, as
amended.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4.
Noes: 0 Absent: 0; Abstain - 2 (Lynch, McNamara). The motion passed.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cook noted that a request had been received to remove Item 8-A from the Consent
Calendar and place it on the Regular Agenda. She noted that two requests to go first had
also been received. She suggested that the items be heard in the following order: 9-B, 9-A,
8-A, and that Staff Communications be heard at the end of the meeting.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-B.
Broadway/Jackson Phase II. A presentation and update on work being
completed by the City of Alameda, City of Oakland, California Department of
Transportation, and Alameda County Transportation Improvement Agency
(ACTIA) to improve automobile, transit, and pedestrian connections and mobility
between the Webster and Posey Tubes and the I-880 Freeway. Barbara Hawkins,
Alameda Public Works Department, will make the presentation. The Planning
Board will take no action on this item at this meeting. This presentation is for
informational purposes only. (AT/BH)
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she would recuse herself from this item because the
Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority was one of her clients, and her
business partner worked on this project. She stepped down from the dais.
Ms. Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer, summarized the staff report, and displayed the
various options on the overhead screen.
The public hearing was opened.
Page 3 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-11,4,"There were no speakers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
With respect to the slide depicting the preferred option, Board Member Lynch inquired
how the project would be funded, Ms. Hawkins replied that it had started with S.T.I.P.
funds, which paid for the CalTrans environmental work and the design. Measure B
funding paid for the feasibility study and the current PSR.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member Lynch whether MTC was involved with any
of the funding decisions, Ms. Hawkins replied that all funding went first through the
CMA for the County, then MTC for all the counties, and finally to the CTC. The City of
Oakland was also involved as an active partner, originally by the Planning branch and
recently by the engineers.
Board Member Lynch strongly urged the organizations working on this project to send a
letter to the City of Oakland, and he believed it was reprehensible that one branch of their
city government was not aware or supportive of what another branch was doing of a
project this nature. He noted that to think an applicant would move forward in their
Planning Department with entitlements of such a major project showed a lack of
leadership from their most senior elected individuals, as well as their Planning
Department. He would like to have a response with respect to that's situation, and he
believed that from a planning perspective, Alameda tried to encourage the ability to work
together. As a taxpayer, he found the situation reprehensible and noted that there were
significant public dollars at work. He believed that the City of Oakland's objectives with
respect to this planning process must be made clear to the public. Otherwise, he would
not support moving forward if the City of Oakland was not clear about their objective.
Ms. Hawkins noted that at the joint meeting between the Alameda and Oakland
Councilmembers, Oakland Public Works and Planning had attended, and that everyone
was supportive of the project. She added that they were aware that it was critical that this
project remain open. She suggested that the City of Alameda send a letter stating its
belief that it be continued, to ensure that the differences were being communicated. She
was not sure whether the new planner had read the feasibility study, which was being
refined.
Board Member Lynch encouraged the City Attorney's office in Oakland to offer its
thoughts, because he believed that it was not a takings case, but the applicant may
suggest that it was. He noted that he would not support any motion moving forward, if
the City of Oakland's Mayor's Office, City Attorney, and Planning Director were not in
favor of this; he believed these decision-making bodies must be involved in an
entitlements case.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft expressed frustration that so many options had been
eliminated. She inquired whether it would be possible to have a written mutual agreement
of understanding, and whether it would be necessary to have a stronger instrument than
meetings between Councilmembers. She believed that the Tube backups were a regional
Page 4 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-11,5,"problem, and that Oakland held considerable influence in the entitlement process. She
noted that there were limited options remaining.
Ms. Faiz replied that a cooperative agreement was a possibility, and added that the City
Attorney's offices in Alameda and Oakland were not involved in policy decisions; they
only gave legal advice.
Ms. Hawkins agreed that a cooperative agreement would be a good idea, and that she and
Mr. Thomas may be able to work with the City Attorney's office in that regard.
No action was taken.
Vice President Kohlstrand rejoined the Planning Board on the dais following this item.
9-A. PLN07-1022 (Master Plan Amendment) - David Hidalgo Architects, Inc. for
Westwood Financial Group - 801 through 951 Marina Village Parkway. The
applicant requests a Master Plan Amendment to the Marina Village Master Plan
to allow the Marina Village Shopping Center to permit up to 25% office use (a
maximum of 31,070 square feet), and to allow the future addition of a 5,000
square foot building pad, an 800 square foot kiosk, and a 500 square foot kiosk.
The shopping center at build out will be 130,729 square feet. The site is located
within an M-X, Mixed-Use Zoning District. (CE)
Ms. Eliason summarized the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this item.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding staff's sense of the
kinds of retail businesses that were needed in the kiosks, Ms. Eliason replied that the
small kiosks could house a small coffee stand or another business that would serve the
office development. She noted that they did not know what the square footage would be
yet. She noted that these locations would not support drive-through businesses.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft whether there would be any
concerns relating to the proximity to the day care center, Ms. Eliason noted that the uses
would be examined at a final development plan or design review stage. At that point, the
Board would have a better idea of the uses.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether the location would be appropriate
for fast food, Ms. Eliason replied that while it would not be appropriate for drive-through
uses, she could not say whether a fast food use would be placed there.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether a restriction against
fast food uses could be placed on this use, Ms. Eliason replied that the percentage of fast
food uses could be restricted, or that there would be no additional fast food uses. She
noted that ""fast food"" must be defined in that case, and she did not believe that ""fast
food"" was defined in the Zoning Ordinance. Board member Cunningham noted that the
Webster Street guidelines may provide some direction regarding a definition of fast food,
and asked staff to provide further definition of the types of office spaces for the project.
Page 5 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-11,6,"Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she supported some flexibility for the manager of
the shopping center, but was troubled by the proposal in that the development originally
was allowed to have 10,000 square feet of office. She noted that was eliminated, but that
the Board did not have any history on that action. She expressed concern that 17,000
square feet of office had been added, but she understood that no office was allowed under
the current regulations. She was also concerned about the increase to 25% for office, and
noted that there was not much discussion regarding that expansion. She would like more
information regarding what would be allowed in the shopping center, and would like to
limit any further drive-through uses.
Board member McNamara noted that she drove around the site, and while she did not
have a problem with the 5,000-square-foot pad site, the current site for the two proposed
kiosks was the site for the only green grass on the site. She would like that space to be a
more pedestrian-friendly environment, and believed it was too intensive a use for that
specific area. She would like that area to remain as a green space.
Board Member Lynch noted that the amount and type of retail, as well as the amount and
type of office space was important, as was the grade of office space. He believed this was
an interesting site for retail, but did not consider this to be an ideal site for retail. He
believed this space was evolving from one use to the other.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she had gone to that shopping center, and that
she did not consider it to be optimal for retail because it resembled a glorified strip mall.
She noted that a shopper may be tempted to drive from one end to the other. She recalled
that a cigarette store had been located there, which she did not consider it to be a
desirable use. She was comfortable increasing the percentage of office space from 17% to
25%. She would like to see uses that enliven the walkways, and noted that this may not
be the kind of place where the Board's energies should be focused on increasing the retail
because there were some exciting possibilities. She would like to see more attention paid
to Webster Street.
President Cook noted that the location of retail in the Citywide retail strategy was very
important. She had used the center before, and found that she was usually glad to be done
driving around the area. She noted that many people used the back area of the center to
get around quickly. She noted that there were many planning issues embedded in it, and
she was hesitant to say yes to it. She agreed with Board member McNamara's concerns
about the lack of green space.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff recommended approval of this project. He added that the
City Council had commissioned a series of retail studies. The studies found that there was
capacity and demand for between 500,000-600,000 square feet of retail on the west end.
The Council then said that Alameda Landing would be limited to 300,000 square feet. He
noted that the City wished to preserve some of that capacity for Webster Street, which
was a priority for the City, as was Alameda Point and Alameda Landing. He recalled that
a business license for a medical office had been turned down; prior to that, the City had
been approving the business licenses until an intern discovered the amendment from
1984. He noted that there had been demand for office space, and that there had been
applications for use permits to put office space in residential zoning districts. He noted
that there had been a demand for the service-related medical offices. He noted that the
Page 6 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-11,7,"last page of the resolution contained the amendment for the Master Plan, and added that it
could be amended to read ""no drive-throughs,"" which would be amenable to the
applicant.
Board Member Lynch would support that addition, and did not see this as a retail site. He
noted that this might be a good location for a dental or urgent care medical office, which
was a growing demand. He would support the amendment, and would not want to tamper
with the plan because the market has determined what has happened on this site over the
years.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft requested that staff address Board member McNamara's
concerns about the green space. Mr. Thomas noted that the Board had the option to allow
the expansion of the center up to a certain amount of square feet, leaving the decision
about the actual location of kiosks up to the development plan approval, similar to
Alameda Landing. He noted that this was a Master Plan amendment, and that the details
of the landscaping, parking and other specific issues may be examined at that time. He
noted that the Board may specify that the existing amount of landscaped area should be
maintained in all future configurations.
President Cook noted that she understood the flexibility argument, but did not see why it
should be expanded. Mr. Thomas noted that the priority for the applicant at this time
would be to resolve the percentage of office use first; the second priority was the
expansion.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. David O'Donegal, O'Donegal Architects, project architect, noted that the applicant
purchased this property in 2004, understanding that the site was a thriving shopping
center at that time. He noted that there had been some turnover and vacancies since that
time. He echoed Board Member Lynch's comment in that they were seeking service-type
users, such as real estate and medical/dental outpatient uses that had to be turned down
because of the current situation. He noted that in October 2007, he and staff had reviewed
the history of this property, and identified some options and opportunities. His goal was
to have at least 25% office use for the center, which they needed to be able to function
and reduce the vacancy of approximately 3,400 square feet. They had leases they wished
to pursue to occupy those spaces. He noted that retail did not work in the back portion of
the center, and requested that the office use be permitted.
Board member Cunningham noted that the current parking was 5 per 1,000, and
suggested reducing it to increase green space. Mr. O ""Donegal agreed with that
suggestion, and added that they had not experienced any parking problems.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft agreed that the parking ratio be reduced.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that the additional language include ""medical,
dental or professional offices, and other service-oriented businesses.""
Page 7 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-11,8,"Board member Cunningham noted that the portion of the Code submitted by staff
identified professional nature offices as including accountants, architects, artists,
attorneys, authors, doctors, dentists, and engineers.
President Cook inquired about the appropriateness of medical clinics, medical labs, rest
homes and sanitariums.
Ms. Eliason advised that all the permitted uses listed under (b) would be included.
President Cook noted that list was too broad for her preference, and inquired whether
there was existing language that has worked in the past. Mr. Thomas noted that staff
could return with revised language at another meeting. He noted that the resolution could
be amended to read, ""The AP (Administrative Professional) District, with the exception
of or not including...' and then delete D through H (medical laboratories through
sanitarium).
Board member Cunningham would like people to be encouraged to get out and use the
center.
President Cook noted that the Board seemed to agree on B-1(a) through L, and B-2(a)
through D.
Board Member Lynch would not delete (F) (radiology), and noted that everything was
done by computer now.
President Cook suggested that B, E, G and H should be included as conditionally
permitted uses. The Board generally agreed.
President Cook was not in favor of the expansion at this point.
Board Member Lynch did not object to the expansion.
President Cook moved to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to approve a Master
Plan Amendment to the Marina Village Master Plan to allow the Marina Village
Shopping Center to permit up to 25% office use (a maximum of 31,070 square feet), to
included the permitted uses as discussed under AP Zoning District, with the conditionally
permitted exceptions of B, E, G and H.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Noes: 0 Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed.
Board Member Lynch moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution to approve the future
addition of a 5,000 square foot building pad, an 800 square foot kiosk, and a 500 square
foot kiosk. The shopping center at build out will be 130,729 square feet. The following
modifications would be included:
1.
The current amount of landscaping would be preserved; and
2.
No drive-through uses would be permitted.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 3.
Noes: 3 (Cook, Kohlstrand, McNamara) Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion failed.
Page 8 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-11,9,"8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
8-A.
Large Format Retail Store Zoning Text Amendments - Applicant - City of
Alameda. The Planning Board will consider proposed zoning text amendments
to the Alameda Municipal Code related to large format retail stores and the
location of retail uses throughout Alameda. The proposed text amendments
include a definition of large format retail store and proposed provisions requiring
a use permit for different types of retail uses in certain zoning districts. The
proposed amendments would affect all properties in non-residential zoning
districts and mixed use zoning districts. (DG) Continued from January 28,
2008.
Mr. Garrison presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this item.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that at the last hearing, Michael Corbitt had raised some
issues, and inquired whether he had a chance to look at the revised language. Mr.
Garrison replied that he had, and that the email received from Mr. Corbitt the previous
Friday stated that it had been reviewed by their management and attorney, and that they
were in agreement with the current language.
Mr. Garrison noted that under the existing entitlements at South Shore, there were
limitations regarding the number of large stores that would be allowed by square feet. He
noted that additions such as new loading docks would trigger a design review, and staff
would still look at it to determine whether it would affect traffic flow in the shopping
center.
Board Member Lynch suggested that this section be reworded for clarity.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand whether the applicant must work
through the Planned Development structure, and that if they combined their space to
exceed 30,000 square feet, they must come before the Planning Board, Mr. Thomas
confirmed that was correct. He suggested that the large format language remain as written
by Mr. Garrison, and that a commercial PD would be automatically triggered. He
suggested the following language: ""Conversion of existing multitenant retail space to a
single retail space greater than 30,000 square feet.""
Board Member Lynch believed that language was close, but was concerned that a tenant
may build up to 29,000 square feet to avoid the trigger.
Board member McNamara noted that 2-B should be changed to ""30,000 square feet.""
Mr. Garrison suggested additional language added to the end of the text discussed by Mr.
Thomas, which stated, ""This shall require a PDA,"" that would state ""unless specifically
allowed in an approved planned development."" He believed there should be more
comprehensive planning up front, and believed that should be addressed the first time
through.
Board Member Lynch agreed with Mr. Garrison's assessment.
Page 9 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-11,10,"Vice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt draft Planning Board Resolution to approve
proposed zoning text amendments to the Alameda Municipal Code related to large format
retail stores and the location of retail uses throughout Alameda. The proposed text
amendments include a definition of large format retail store and proposed provisions
requiring a use permit for different types of retail uses in certain zoning districts. The
proposed amendments would affect all properties in non-residential zoning districts and
mixed use zoning districts. The resolution shall be amended as detailed by staff.
Board Member Lynch seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Noes:
0
Absent: 0. The motion passed.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Future Agendas
Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.
Board Member Lynch inquired about the outcome for the Harbor Bay Village ruling. Ms.
Faiz replied that the judge ruled that the settlement agreement did not mean the project
had been approved, and that it must return to the Planning Board and go through the
process.
Mr. Thomas noted that if the General Plan Zoning Amendment is approved, the housing
could proceed under the terms of the original development agreement.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member Lynch what would happen if the Planning
Board did not certify the EIR, Mr. Thomas replied that the Planning Board was not the
final decision-making body, and that the recommendation to the City Council would be to
not certify.
Board Member Lynch inquired about possible administrative remedies if the City
Council decided not to certify the EIR. Mr. Thomas replied that if the Council determined
it could not certify the EIR, they would have to identify the issue with the EIR. It would
be incumbent upon the City to work to rectify that information. He noted that more
analysis would be required. There would be a certain point where the Council would have
to determine the EIR was sufficient, at which point the merits of the proposal would be
discussed.
Board Member Lynch suggested that questions along those lines would be directed to the
Board from the public. He noted that petitions had been circulating, and that it was
important to be aware of the procedural issues.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook regarding the EIR certification, Mr. Thomas
confirmed that an EIR may be certified, but the project could be denied.
Regarding the smog check item, Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the description
of the application was not specific enough in the report, and that the name of the business
and further detail would be helpful to the public.
Page 10 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-11,11,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed there were some exciting prospects of improving
the stretch of Park Street from Lincoln Avenue to the Park Street Bridge, making it a
more welcoming, attractive entrance to the City. She would have liked to have seen this
item come before the Planning Board, and would like the City to pay special attention to
that section of Park Street.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the City's choices,
Mr. Thomas replied that the use permit for the auto use could be denied, which would not
allow them to expand, and that the expansion would be completely inside the building.
Landscaping along the perimeter would be added, and the sidewalk would be rebuilt
around that half of the block, closing up curb cuts to add on-street parking.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether they were currently out of
compliance with their use permit, Mr. Thomas replied that they were not out of
compliance. They were out of compliance with the sign program, and a condition was
added in that regard.
Vice President Kohlstrand requested that any future changes or expansions of the auto-
oriented uses be brought before the Planning Board.
b.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Mr. Bill Smith discussed the 282-unit townhome project prospectus, as well as the Base
procedure.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
11-A. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force (Board
Members Cook/Kohlstrand)
President Cook noted that there had been no further meetings, and that the Task Force has
been postponed for a short while. Mr. Thomas noted that the developer had requested an
extension in order to move the internal milestones. The development concept was to be
presented in March, and the EIR was to start in May, and the developer requested a six-
month extension.
11-B. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member McNamara)
Board member McNamara noted there was nothing to report.
Page 11 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-11,12,"11-C. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation Subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand)
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that there had been no further meetings since her last
report.
11-D. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board
Member Cunningham)
Board member Cunningham noted that there had been no further meetings since his last
report. The report was presented to City Council the previous week, and they had asked
staff to reconsider the format of the next committee. The action plan had been approved.
Mr. Thomas noted that the Council would consider whether to set up a permanent Board
or Commission for Climate Protection, and that it would have to be reconstituted with
different members.
Mr. Thomas added that Mayor Johnson had not yet made a nomination for a replacement
Planning Board member.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
This meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 12 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, February 25, 2008
1.
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Vice President Kohlstrand.
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Board
Members Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, Lynch, and
McNamara.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Farimah Faiz; Planner III Dennis Brighton.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of November 13, 2007.
These minutes will be considered on March 10, 2008.
b.
Minutes for the meeting of February 11, 2008 (not available).
These minutes will be considered on March 10, 2008.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Future Agendas
Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.
President Cook noted that she left the Measure A meeting considering how it would fit
into the Housing Element, and would like to see a presentation on how the Housing
Element would be updated, and how it fit into the State Density Bonus Ordinance and the
Secondary Unit Ordinance amendments.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she had heard numerous comments on the
educational nature of the Measure A forum, and that they wished to have more
presentations in the future. She believed that a weeknight evening would be good for
most people.
Board Member Lynch wished further clarification on the input requested from the
Planning Board members. He was concerned about the budget and time impacts of
additional work requested of staff; he noted that the budget was set for the current work
Page 1 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,2,"plan and believed there would be unintended consequences from that additional work. He
did not want to micromanage the department.
Board Member Lynch believed it would be helpful to put this project within a critical
path with various milestones, in order to know when the work product must be brought to
the department within the term of the contract. He requested that staff share the schedules
with the Planning Board.
Board Member Cunningham requested that the March 10 meeting include some time to
examine lessons learned from the forum which he believed should be addressed, other
than the Housing Element. He would like to discuss use issues in particular.
Board Member McNamara inquired about the status of the additional Planning Board
member. Mr. Thomas replied that the position had been advertised, and that Mayor
Johnson was considering her options.
b.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Mr. Bill Smith discussed the development opportunities in Alameda.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A. V07-0006 (Variances) and DR07-0056 (Major Design Review) - 3327
Fernside Blvd. the applicant requests Variance and Design Review approval to
enlarge an existing single-family home located within an R-2, Two-family
Residential Zoning District. Continued from January 28, 2008. Recommended
for continuance.
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to continue this item.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Noes: 0 Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
DR07-0080 - 1629 Webster Street. The applicant requests a Major Design
Review approval to construct an approximately 8,274-square foot, two-story,
mixed use building to be located on the southwesterly corner of Webster Street
and Pacific Avenue. The ground floor area would be divided into retail space. The
second floor would be composed of two dwelling units and a separate
Page 2 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,3,"office/storage area. The applicants are also requesting approval to permit the
payment of parking in-lieu fees. The site is located within a C-C, Community
Commercial Zoning District. (DB)
Mr. Brighton summarized the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this item.
WABA had requested that an additional condition of approval be added to require the
installation of awnings at the street frontage buildings prior to occupancy of the building.
Staff concurred with that request.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member McNamara whether the conditions requested
by WABA replaced the conditions previously stipulated, Mr. Brighton replied that was
essentially the case. He added that the previous conditions applied to an earlier plan set
submittal.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it would be helpful to receive the materials
sooner in advance of the meeting, and suggested sending PDF files by email. She would
like additional time to review the materials.
President Cook advised that nine speaker slips had been received.
Board Member Cunningham moved to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
Board Member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Noes:
0 Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. John Piziali, former Planning Board President, spoke in support of this project as a
West End resident and WABA member. He believed this would be a special project,
which he believed to be the first mixed use project on the street. He expressed concern
about the parking requirements and the in lieu fees, which he believed were excessive; he
believed those requirements often stifled new projects. He would like to see the
requirements scaled to the project, which was a strain on smaller projects.
Ms. Doreen Soto, City of Alameda Development Services Department, Alameda County
Improvement Commission, City Hall West, spoke in support of this project. She noted
that they had worked with this applicant for about two years, and noted that it had been a
difficult project with respect to the parking. They hoped that they would be able to bring
new parking regulations forward soon. She believed this was a very good infill project
that maximized the site with a mix of retail and housing uses. She believed this project
would create new jobs, and encouraged the Planning Board to approve this project.
Ms. Kathy Moehring, Executive Director, WABA, spoke in support of this project. She
noted that she had worked on this project with the Webster Street Design Committee. She
noted that the applicant had been gracious and easy to work with in addressing the
Page 3 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,4,"Design Committee's concerns. She believed this project was needed on Webster Street in
order to establish a viable commercial district.
Mr. Thomas Keenan, 617 Pacific, spoke in opposition to this project, and displayed
several photos of the site. He believed that there were several unresolved hazardous
materials occurrences on the site that had not been remediated or placed on the public
record. He noted that with respect to Item 2, the fire station along Webster Street on the
south side had a red curb adjacent to that location, and if cars were to park in that area,
there would not be sufficient space for the fire trucks to exit. He noted that several
months before, Alameda Party and Play, located across the street, had been approved
with no additional required parking because it was an existing building. He believed that
when that building is occupied, the parking problems would increase on the street. He
noted that the closest unmetered parking space was 260 feet west on Pacific Avenue on
the opposite side of the street. He added that there would be no space for the additional
trash receptacles or Dumpsters that would be required.
Ms. Beverly Miranda, 630 Pacific, spoke in opposition to this project. She noted that she
supported progress, and would like to see this project work out; however, she was
concerned about workers from the nearby businesses parking in front of her and her
neighbors' houses. She noted that several times, people had parked in her driveway
because there was no parking available. She would like to see this part of Alameda
improved with the proposed design, but not without sufficient parking.
Mr. Derek Pavlik, WABA Design Committee, 2875 Glascock Street, spoke in support of
this project. He noted that Mr. Koka had invited their input throughout the process in the
four years since he had been on the committee; he noted that he was the most willing
design collaborator he had worked with.
Ms. Tricia Collins-Levi, 634 Eagle Avenue, spoke in support of this project. She believed
this kind of project would move Webster Street in the right direction; she understood the
parking issues, and hoped the issue of the fees would be worked out. She noted that the
applicant had worked very hard on this project, and believed it would have a positive
effect on the neighborhood.
Ms. Jackie Keenan, 617 Pacific, believed that the site still needed to be remediated from
its use as a gas station. She noted that there was existing parking on Webster, and that
there was no place for additional parking. She noted that additional parking on Pacific
could not conflict with the red curb next to the fire station. She noted that it was a
constant problem trying to discourage people from parking in their driveways. She noted
that on several occasions, she had not received notices from the City with respect to this
project.
Mr. Sam Koka, applicant, 802 Pacific Avenue, described the proposed project and noted
that he had worked closely with the Webster Street Design Committee.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Page 4 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,5,"President Cook requested that staff address the hazmat, parking, waste and noticing
issues.
Mr. Brighton noted that this project had a 300-foot notification radius, which extended to
626 Pacific Avenue. He noted that there were two outdoor waste storage areas between
the building and Mr. Koka's property, which would be able to accommodate small waste
bins that would be typical for such a use.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff would craft a condition regarding the red zone, and that the
analysis in the staff report had been discussed extensively with the Public Works
Department. He added that the Design Review Team (DRT) had addressed that issue,
including the fire department. He noted that it could be conditioned to reconfirm that the
two additional spaces would be available on the street, and if not, the project could be
conditioned to provide the two spaces on-site, which he believed would be virtually
impossible. Alternatively, the in-lieu fees would be increased. He recommended that an
additional condition be included with respect to hazmats, that it be confirmed to the effect
that no building permit should be issued that would impede or prevent either the ongoing
monitoring, or if there was a tank that must be removed, that it be taken care of before the
building is built.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it was not just the presence of a tank, but any
leakage or plumes must be properly addressed.
Board Member Lynch believed that the Planning Board must remain mindful of the
requirements originating from regulatory agencies. He added that certain requirements
will have to be met for the property to be insurable.
Board Member Cunningham believed this was an excellent project which would be a
good fit on Webster Street. He believed that the requirement for parking may be adjusted
upon receipt of the permit, and did not know how that would align with the parking
ordinances and the timeline.
Board member Cunningham assumed that with respect to the amendment to the use
permit for SK Auto, they had been consulted and that they were in agreement.
Mr. Thomas noted that Mr. Koka owned that property as well.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member Cunningham, Mr. Thomas replied that a
condition of approval should be added stating that prior to the issuance of building
permits, that the Webster Street treatment would turn the corner to where it would meet
with the Otaez Building. Board Member Cunningham noted that could be worked out by
the design applicant, but wanted to ensure that the materiality was consistent. He wanted
to ensure that the glazing would be clear, and without tint.
Page 5 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,6,"Vice President Kohlstrand echoed Board member Cunningham's comments, and believed
this project would be a good fit for Webster Street. She was excited to see mixed use
projects like this, and that it was able to replicate some of the historic features of
Alameda's commercial streets that had residential units above ground floor retail. She
supported reducing the parking requirements in the business districts, because she did not
think by developing a surface parking lot for each use would provide the most effective
use of the commercial streets in town.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand regarding parking requirements,
Mr. Thomas described the uses for the in-lieu fees, including leasing additional public
parking spaces, expanding existing lots or adding new satellite lots in the area, in addition
to transit improvements. He added that the possibility of a permit parking system was one
alternative that was still unresolved; he noted that the neighbors' input would be gathered
as well.
Board Member McNamara shared the opinions of the other Board members in terms of
supporting this project, and appreciated WABA's input in terms of the detailed
information, criteria and conditions they had provided to staff. She also appreciated the
change to the awnings, acknowledging that they were a very important part of this
element. She also agreed that the certificate of occupancy not be awarded until the
awnings were put up. She believed this was a good use of the street and the space, and
believed the City needed to be very aggressive in providing some off-street public
parking lots. She added that there were no such lots on the same side of Lincoln. She
empathized with the neighbors experiencing the parking problems, and encouraged them
to call a towing company when people parked in their driveways.
President Cook suggested looking into residence parking stickers to protect the residents
of the neighborhood. Mr. Thomas noted that would be possible.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she supported the concept, and believed this
project would be a significant improvement over the existing vacant lot. She sympathized
with the neighbors who lived just outside the 300-foot radius, and requested that they be
included in any further noticing on this project. She suggested that WABA sponsor
further neighborhood meetings. She would condition the approval on having sufficient
proof that the hazardous material issue had been resolved. She noted that Condition 5
read, and location of the transformers to service these loads must be approved by the
Bureau of Electricity before building permit issuance.""
President Cook agreed that the Planning Board needed to have input on the location of
the transformers, and suggested that a condition be added that they be hidden from public
view. Mr. Thomas replied that similar conditions had been modified for Alameda
Landing, stating that the transformers should be screened and not located on the public
right of way. He noted that they may be located behind the building, adjacent to the auto
use, and not on Webster or Pacific.
Page 6 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,7,"Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft agreed with Mr. Piziali's assessment that the parking in
lieu fees of almost $90,000 were excessive. She suggested that an adjustment could be
made retroactively. She noted that the language in the resolution on page 2 read, ""The
City is able to utilize the parking in lieu fees for parking and transit projects within the
Webster Street commercial corridor. She noted that page 4 of the staff report stated
that funds would be used to lease spaces at a satellite lot, or to support transit services and
facilities in the area. She would like to change the language to state on the resolution,
""The City shall utilize the parking in lieu fees She would like to see the in lieu fees
only fund transit projects, transit services and facilities in the area. She noted that shuttles
to BART were needed to get people out of their cars during commute hours.
Board Member Lynch wished to address parking in lieu fees, and based on his own
professional experience, $6,000 was very inexpensive for a parking space. He realized
the developer was not expected to pay the full cost of the parking spaces, but to use
public dollars assist in that project. He would not support any reduction of the parking in
lieu fees because of the greater public good.
President Cook noted that she was not prepared to condition the dollars on transit in this
area, because it was well-served by transit and less well-served by parking spaces. In
general, she would like more information when such a suggestion is made for parking.
She noted that there were a lot of buses running along this route already.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether there were any plans to extend the
treescape up to the project to maintain consistency in the landscaping, Mr. Brighton
replied that there were fresh trees along Webster Street in front of the site. He noted that
there may be one space for a tree; staff would check with Public Works to confirm that
item.
President Cook noted that the 100-foot height limit was in effect for this area, and she
suggested that be examined before a future applicant considered a building of 100 feet in
that location. She inquired whether it was a remainder from the 1970s, and suggested that
it be brought down before it became an issue. She noted that she was in favor of this
project, which addressed a number of issues that Board had discussed. She noted that it
reflected the discussion held at the forum regarding the importance of placing residential
use above retail or office in the business districts. She believed it supported the
businesses, and kept the streets safer because of the 24-hour presence of people in the
vicinity. She understood the neighbors' concerns about parking, and noted that it was the
downside of enjoying a mix of uses in Alameda. She believed the City should work to
find a place for the parking, and to enforce parking violations described by the neighbors.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she supported transit, but would not support the
proposal by Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding transit because she believed the
areas transitioning from low to moderate density needed time to do SO. She noted that
shelters and street furniture had been enhanced in recent years, and believed the City
should look at ways to consolidate the off-street parking. She did not believe the density
was present to propose a structure right away. She believed there should be some off-
Page 7 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,8,"street lots, perhaps along the side streets or on Webster Street that will accommodate a
broad range of uses. She did not believe the in lieu fees should be limited to transit
funding at this point.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft understood Vice President Kohlstrand's concerns, and
suggested that an eventual parking permit system be instituted. She noted that the
enforcement of the parking restrictions were an important part of the process.
Board Member Lynch believed it was very important to examine and clarify the
enforcement policy for the City. He hoped that Parking Enforcement had not been aware
of this issue, and that they become aware of it going forward.
President Cook moved to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to approve a Major
Design Review approval to construct an approximately 8,274-square foot, two-story,
mixed use building to be located on the southwesterly corner of Webster Street and
Pacific Avenue. The ground floor area would be divided into retail space. The second
floor would be composed of two dwelling units and a separate office/storage area. The
applicants are also requesting approval to permit the payment of parking in-lieu fees.
Conditions will be added regarding:
1.
The transformers;
2.
Clear glazing;
3.
The red no-parking zone;
4.
The hazardous materials;
5.
The design details to wrap around the corner, and there will be
coordination between the two façades; and
6.
The awnings will be installed prior to building occupancy; and
7.
Trash enclosures.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff would confirm that the two parking spaces would be
available. If not, they would be added to the parking in lieu fee.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Noes: 0 Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff would work with WABA with respect to the parking issues.
9-B.
PLN07-0061 - SRM Associates - 2800 Harbor Bay Parkway. Applicant
requests a Final Development Plan, Major Design Review, Planned Development
Amendment for reduced parking, and Tentative Map approval for the construction
of ten new office buildings totaling approximately 109,280 square feet in floor
area with a total of 384 parking spaces to be constructed on a 9.22 acre site. The
site is located within the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, and Planned
Development Zoning District. (DV)
Page 8 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,9,"Mr. Thomas presented the staff report on Mr. Vu's behalf. Staff recommended that the
Planning Board approve the Final Development Plan, Major Design Review, Planned
Development Amendment for reduced parking, and that the Planning Board recommend
approval of the Tentative Map to City Council, as shown in the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Joe Ernst, SRM Associates, applicant, displayed a PowerPoint presentation, and
described the background, scope and layout of this proposed project. He displayed the
colors and materials board, and described the canopies on the five buildings. He noted
that the ability to create unit ownership was a unique element, and that a condo map
would be put on each building. He noted that the buildings would be broken into flats,
and the addition of stairs within the units would be very inefficient. He noted that there
would be no middle unit, and that each unit would have three open sides.
Mr. Brian Tremper, President, Freport Homeowners Association, 232 McDonnel Road,
noted that he was speaking as a resident, although this project had been discussed by the
homeowners association. He noted that many of their comments had been addressed with
SRM already, particularly screening the parking lot, with the exception of the view
corridors. He inquired how the landscaping would be maintained once the transfer has
taken place. He believed the lagoon was poorly maintained, and noted that no large trucks
would be allowed. He was concerned about the restaurant, and felt that would be a
difficult location for a restaurant, and compared it to Zazu's, next to KTVU in Oakland.
He was concerned about late-night noise if a restaurant were to operate there, and
requested that limits be placed. He expressed concern about the noise from the bus stop,
which was scheduled to be at the intersection of the access road and Harbor Bay
Parkway.
Mr. Eddie Chin expressed concern about the design for the back access road, which
would flow into the Harbor Bay parking lot.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
""In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether this use was required to be located
at this site, or whether it could be used for other uses such as residential in a business
park, Mr. Thomas replied that the site was office use but there were limits on the allowed
intensity of use; this intensity was well within the upper limit.""
In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether this use was required to be located
at this site or whether it could be used for other uses such as residential, Mr. Thomas
replied that the site was office use but there were limits on the allowed intensity of use,
this intensity was well within the upper limit. With respect to airport noise, he noted that
the newer generations of aircraft were becoming quieter, but that noise was a big issue at
every airport.
Board Member Lynch disagreed with the comments regarding the swapping the parcels,
and believed the amount of signatures of individuals coming forth would be significant.
Page 9 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,10,"He believed the project was stunning, and appreciated the community coming forward;
he believed the City should heed their suggestions. He believed the conditions were
reasonable. He believed this was a beautiful commercial project, which was what the land
use was intended for.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft commended Mr. Vu for a well-written, well-organized and
concise staff report. She noted that she was mindful of the need for revenue coming into
the City to replace the revenue lost by the departure of the car dealerships. She supported
clean, green businesses and appreciated the sustainable design exhibited by the applicant.
She believed this would be an environmentally friendly project. She noted that the 25-
foot-wide access road also had shared bike lane space, and believed that was a minimal
lane. She inquired whether it would be widened. Mr. Thomas replied that the proposal
was to maintain the basic 25-foot width curb to curb.
Mr. Ernst noted that the width varied, and that there was no curb on the west edge. He
noted that there were pinch points that were less than 25 feet. He noted that as the new
road is constructed, the minimum width would be 25 feet; he noted that there would be
several areas where it would be wider than 25 feet. He noted that it was part of the
parking area, and that it was not intended to be a through street. He noted that they
wished to narrow the road somewhat to slow the transit buses down.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she understood the traffic calming provided by a
narrower street, but was concerned about safety and would like to see alternate forms of
transportation encouraged. She liked the presence of the bicycle parking.
Mr. Ernst noted that he was not a traffic engineer, but that the parking at the ferry
terminal, which was denser than this use, did not have any operational problems. He
added that the buses traveled through the parking lot without problems.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft hoped the parking would be screened from the homes on
McDonnell across the lagoon, and from the Bay Trail, and noted that the landscaping
plan seemed to indicate that. In response to her inquiry regarding the current vacancy
rate, Mr. Ernst replied that the business park's vacancy rate was 14%, down from the low
20s several years ago. He noted that it was lower than Marina Village, as well as the City
vacancy rate. He noted that this project evolved from the demand for a commercial site
with lower density and the ability for the business owners to own their space as well.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft strongly suggested that a restaurant be located near the
project. She believed it would make sense to have a Peet's coffee shop in the area as well.
She noted that the nearby trail was well-used during the weekends, and added that the
new hotel's clients would also appreciate those amenities.
Mr. Ernst noted that there were two other restaurant opportunities along the waterfront in
addition to this project, including the hotel. He hoped that critical mass could be reached
so the restaurant would be viable.
Page 10 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,11,"Board Member McNamara noted that Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft had addressed many
of her concerns, including the width of the access road. She believed the applicant had
worked closely with the homeowners and addressed their concerns. She believed the area
would need restaurants, that the project was well-thought out and well-designed, and she
supported this project.
Vice President Kohlstrand echoed the previous statements, and believed this was
a
wonderful project for the site. She was pleased to see the amount of effort put forth in
working with the staff and the residents. She also liked the sensitivity shown towards the
waterfront, as well as incorporating the LEED elements into the project. She liked the design
as well. She did not like the amount of surface parking, but understood that it had to be
there. She believed the roadway was strangely designed, and noted that people use the ferry
parking lot like a through road. However, she did not know whether there were any options
to correct it at this point. She suggested that a bike lane be added, and cited Portland and
Emeryville as examples of using wide bioswale treatments in more urban settings, where
much less space was used to provide drainage. She would like to see more space made
available for bicyclists and pedestrians, and encouraged the applicant to make the parking
lot as safe as possible as the amount of traffic increased.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand whether the BART shuttle stopped
in the business park, Mr. Ernst replied that the business park had its own TSM, including a
BART shuttle, which was added when AC Transit took away the express shuttle. He noted
that the business park sponsored the shuttle. They agreed to increase the size of the bus this
past year, and will go to two buses in July 2008. She liked the fact that the applicant had
provided some flexibility in the site for the restaurant use.
Board member Cunningham complimented the applicant on a job well done, and noted that
he would like to push the bar higher if possible. In response to his inquiry regarding the
LEED rating, Mr. Ernst replied that they currently had LEED certification, and had
identified 28 points, which would place them at the LEED Silver rating.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member Cunningham regarding the site lighting, Mr.
Ernst replied that the lighting would be designed to a LEED standard for residential light
pollution, which was a stricter standard than commercial. He noted that they intended to
maintain a safe level of lighting on the site, but not light up the residents' back yards. He
added that they would use low-voltage landscape lighting.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham regarding the transformers, Mr.
Ernst replied that they had some space constraints. He added that they met with AP&T and
located the transformers; the transformers must be a certain distance away from the
buildings. The location of the transformers took precedence, and the trash enclosures were
placed on the opposite side of the building.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham regarding placing a landscaping
agreement in the development agreement, Mr. Ernst replied that everything east of the
road was maintained by the business park. He added that it was maintained by the
Page 11 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,12,"landscape and lighting district administered by the City, and noted that the irrigation
would be upgraded this year, and that the dead plant material would be replaced with new
plantings.
Board member Cunningham noted that Condition 29 suggested participation in the TSM
program, and recommended that it be strengthened to require participation in the TSM
program.
Mr. Ernst noted that the Harbor Bay Business Park already included participation in the
TSM as part of the development agreement and the PD.
Board Member Lynch noted that the question was whether the City plan was deed-
restricted, as were the CC&Rs. If it was a condition of the CC&Rs, it would be deed-
restricted.
Board member Cunningham inquired whether the applicant had considered natural
ventilation for these buildings, and noted that it would be a good place to have a
showcase in Alameda of a naturally ventilated office park.
Mr. Ernst replied that the mechanical systems will all have economizers to switch to use
natural ventilation. He noted that the window systems will be designed to be operable. He
noted that if the windows were opened, the doors must be closed, because the airplanes
spread noise throughout the space. He noted that had not been designed into the space
yet.
Board member Cunningham inquired whether showers would be provided for bicyclists,
and encouraged the applicant to do SO. Mr. Ernst replied that their green specifications
included that feature as well; he added that several of their buyers had done so in their
own plans. He added that they had a confirmed Silver rating, and may be able to achieve
a Gold LEED rating.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would like to see a copy of the applicant's
green specifications.
A discussion of the road width and right of way ensued.
Vice President Kohlstrand believed the ferry terminal road would be the biggest problem.
Mr. Thomas noted that if the road were to be built to City standards, it would be
significantly wider.
Board Member Lynch noted that if it were a City road, Public Works would not be likely
to want to take on the road's maintenance because of the cost.
President Cook noted that page 13, paragraph 1, should be changed to read,
Page 12 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,13,"President Cook noted that there were many positive aspects to the project, and
appreciated the applicant's willingness to work with the City and the neighborhood over
the course of the project. She was uncomfortable with the first set of findings on pages 1
and 2, that the project would be compatible with the adjacent surroundings, providing
harmonious transitions between different designated land uses. She felt that the site was
more clustered and walled off the water, with an insufficient relationship back to the
community. She believed this project was similar to Alameda Landing in that it was a
waterfront site approved for a lot of commercial office use, but it did not incorporate
significant public access and recreation. She noted that both projects had a sea of parking,
but that Alameda Landing incorporated public access and recreation opportunities in a
way that provides a reason for the public to be there at night and on the weekends, to
keep it safe and active. While she liked the project, she felt it was somewhat disconnected
from the waterfront environment and cut the community off from the shores. She also felt
that there was not a harmonious transition from the parking on the north through the site
to the south. Finally, she felt that there should be a safer and more efficient road for bikes
and cars through the Ferry Terminal rather than the undersized private access road now
there.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft would like to see Condition 13 modified to read, ""The
final landscape plan for the area between the eastern edge of the private ferry access road
and the sidewalk along the lagoon shall comply with Bay-friendly landscaping
guidelines, as set forth by StopWaste.org."" She noted that because the property was on
the waterfront, anything put on the landscaping would be safe to run off into the water.
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt draft Planning Board Resolution to approve a
Final Development Plan, Major Design Review, Planned Development Amendment for
reduced parking for the construction of ten new office buildings totaling approximately
109,280 square feet in floor area with a total of 384 parking spaces to be constructed on a
9.22 acre site. The following modifications will be added:
1. Page 5, Item 13: A reference to Bay Friendly landscaping will be
incorporated;
2. Page 7, Item 29: A modification to the Harbor Bay TSM program will be
incorporated;
3. Prior to issuance of permits, staff will work with the applicant to look at ways
to minimize the width of the bioswale for the purpose of providing more
width for the curb-to-curb for bicycles and pedestrians; underground
mechanical solutions should be avoided. Lane width will not be added for
vehicles;
4. The transformers will be screened; and
5. Showers will be encouraged as part of the TSM program.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5.
Noes: 1 (Cook); Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed.
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt draft Planning Board Resolution to approve
the Tentative Map for the construction of ten new office buildings totaling approximately
Page 13 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,14,"109,280 square feet in floor area with a total of 384 parking spaces to be constructed on a
9.22 acre site.
Board Member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5.
Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain - 1 (Cook). The motion passed.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Vice President Kohlstrand would like the resolution thanking Gina Mariani for her service
on the Planning Board to be presented at the next Planning Board meeting. Mr. Thomas
agreed, and noted that would take place.
11-A. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force (Board
Members Cook/Kohlstrand)
President Cook noted that there had been no further meetings.
11-B. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member McNamara)
Mr. Thomas noted there was nothing to report.
11-C. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation Subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand)
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that there had been no further meetings since her last
report.
President Cook requested that if there had been no further meetings under Board
Communications, that they be removed from that meeting's agenda. Mr. Thomas
concurred with that suggestion.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
Page 14 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,15,"This meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 15 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-03-24,1,"FINAL
Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, March 24, 2008
1.
CONVENE:
7:00 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member McNamara.
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand,
Board
Members Cunningham and McNamara.
Board members Ezzy Ashcraft and Lynch were absent from roll call.
Also present were Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager, Assistant City Attorney
Farimah Faiz, and Zach Seal, Planner I.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of November 13, 2007.
President Cook noted that the first full paragraph of page 6 should be changed to read
""President Cook noted that she generally agreed with the increased height on the
Mervyn's building plan. She expressed concern about the parking garage and its effects
on pedestrian safety."" She noted that a new second-to-last paragraph should be added:
""President Cook agreed with Board member Ezzy Ashcraft that the current crosswalks at
Shoreline do not connect with the sidewalks into South Shore and believed that the
current crosswalks should line up with the crosswalks on the other side.""
President Cook believed the crosswalks were very important, and noted that articles on
South Shore rarely, if ever, mentioned the proposed garage. She believed it was important
for the public to be aware of the proposed parking structure.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member McNamara whether the parking garage was
on the table now that Target was no longer in the picture, Mr. Biggs replied that he would
check on that issue and return to the Board.
Board member Cunningham noted that in the minutes, Board Member McNamara was
indicated as being present and absent at the same time.
President Cook noted that there was not a quorum to vote on the minutes, and that they
would be voted upon at the meeting of April 14, 2008.
b.
Minutes for the meeting of February 11, 2008.
Board member Cunningham noted that page 1, third paragraph from the bottom, should
be changed to read, "" President Cook she was concerned.
""
Page 1 of 8",PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-03-24,2,"Board member Cunningham noted that page 3, the middle paragraph should be changed
to read, ""Board Member Cunningham moved to adopt the minutes of January 28, 2008
December 10, 2007.'
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that on page 9, the vote taken on Marina Village
Parkway indicated that it was a unanimous ""Aye"" vote. She wished to correct the vote to
reflect that she voted against that item.
President Cook noted that page 7, paragraph 2, should be changed to reflect that she had
used some of the day care centers behind Marina Village, and found that people cut
through the area in many different ways, and that it felt very unsafe to drive in that area.
Board Member Lynch arrived during this item.
Board Member Lynch noted that page 4 discussed the MTC dollars, and inquired when it
would be appropriate to discuss that item further.
President Cook suggested that it be discussed under Item 6.
Board Member Cunningham moved to approve the minutes of February 11, 2008, as
amended.
Board Member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes:
0 Absent: 1 (Ezzy Ashcraft). The motion passed.
c.
Minutes for the meeting of February 25, 2008.
Board member Cunningham noted that page 8, in the middle of the page, the phrase ""the
following conditions will be added:"" before the list of conditions.
President Cook requested that these minutes be considered at the next meeting because
she would like to review the audio regarding her concerns about the project. She added
that there were some citizen concerns regarding the project, and she would like her
comments to be fully reflected.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that page 11, paragraph 2, should be changed to read,
""She suggested that a bike lane be added, and cited Portland and Emeryville as examples
of using narrower wide-bioswale treatments in more urban settings, where much less
space was used to provide drainage."" She noted that the point was to narrow it down to
create more space on the roadway for bicycles and pedestrians.
President Cook noted that there was not a quorum to vote on the minutes.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
Page 2 of 8",PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-03-24,3,"6.
PRESENTATIONS:
a.
Resolution of Appreciation for former Board Member Gina Mariani.
President Cook noted that Ms. Mariani was not in attendance but wished to read the
commendation into the record:
""A Resolution of Farewell and Commendation for Gina Mariani""
Whereas, Gina Mariani, was appointed as a member of the Planning Board on November
4, 2003; and
Whereas, Gina Mariani, has also served Alameda as a member of the Oakland Chinatown
Advisory Committee; and
Whereas, Gina Mariani, has earned the respect of her fellow Board members and City
Staff for her clear and consistent contributions to numerous development projects
throughout her tenure; and
Whereas, the Planning Board and City Staff wishes to thank Gina Mariani for her
constant support, experience, expertise, invaluable insight and good humor; and
Whereas, her concern for the welfare of the Citizens of Alameda and the future
development of our City were always apparent when balancing neighborhood issues with
the economic goals of the City.
Therefore be it resolved that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda acknowledges
her valuable contributions to the City of Alameda, and wishes her future happiness and
continued involvement in community issues.
Passed and adopted by the Planning Board of the City of Alameda on the 10th day of
March, 2008.
b.
Staff Communications - Future Agendas
Mr. Biggs provided an update on future agenda items.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand whether the Fernside project
would return to the Planning Board, Mr. Biggs replied that the project had been revised to
eliminate the need for any variances. He noted that it would go to the Historical Advisory
Board, and that staff would update the Board on the progress.
Board member Lynch noted that on page 4 of 13 of the February 11, 2008, Draft
Minutes, the Planning Board received a report from Barbara Hawkins, which identified a
Page 3 of 8",PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-03-24,4,"number of options that would affect traffic throughout Chinatown in Oakland,
particularly how the circulation patterns would affect Oakland and Alameda residents. He
noted that funding was identified, and another public agency stepped forward to provide
funds for the study. He noted that a separate branch of government in Oakland was
moving forward on an entitlement project on the same site that another branch of
government, using public funds. He believed that it was odd that various departments
within the City of Oakland worked at cross-purposes with public funds. He requested a
status report on that situation, what the City of Alameda's role was in that, and whether
Alameda wished to continue moving forward.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
8-A.
PM07-0003 - 717 Paru Street. The applicant is requesting a parcel map to divide
a 92,053.03-square-foot parcel into two parcels. One parcel with an existing
single-family residence would be 17,051.13-square-feet, and the remaining parcel
would be 75,001.9 square feet. The 75,001.9-square foot parcel would contain an
existing cabana, with the majority of the parcel located within the lagoon. The site
is located within an R-1, Single-Family Residential Zoning District (DB).
Recommended for continuance to a future meeting.
President Cook noted that one speaker slip had been received.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Lisa Zenner, 1612 Dayton Avenue, noted that she had been noticed for this item, and
would like to be notified if an item would not be heard. She noted that it had been
continued twice, and she would like to know so she did not show up.
In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara whether the agenda was available
on the City's website, Mr. Biggs confirmed that the Planning Board agendas were available
on the site.
Ms. Zenner requested that she be emailed if an item was continued. Mr. Biggs invited her to
leave her email with staff.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand whether new construction was
proposed, and if not, why there were environmental concerns, Mr. Biggs replied that it was
not. The site was listed as a Historic Resource, and staff felt that appropriate environmental
review was necessary so it did not have significant impact on the resource. Historians and
other experts were being consulted to gather appropriate documentation.
President Cook apologized on behalf of the City that Ms. Zenner had to attend when the
item was continued, and noted that there was not sufficient staff to make those calls.
Page 4 of 8",PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-03-24,5,"Board member Cunningham moved to continue this item to a future meeting.
Vice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes:
0 Absent: 1 (Ezzy Ashcraft). The motion passed.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A. PLN07-0020 - 2243 Santa Clara Avenue. The applicant requests a Major
Design Review and Variance to attach a two-story covered deck. A Variance is
required for this project because both decks will be closer to the rear property line
than permitted by the Zoning code. The property is located within the R-6 )Hotel
Residential) zoning district (ZS).
Mr. Seal presented the staff report. Staff recommended that the Planning Board find that
the project will not cause significant adverse effects to the physical environment, is
Categorically Exempt from environmental review, and approve Major Design Review
and Variance PLN07-0020, with conditions, based on the findings contained in the Draft
Resolution.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Italo Calpestri, project architect, noted that the upper drawings illustrated the existing
conditions, and that the lower drawings illustrated the proposed conditions. He noted that
the two citrus trees had been on the property for many years, and added that the applicant
had taken good care of the strip of land for many years. He noted that the windowless
wall of the Elks Lodge was windowless and painted white, which would provide reflected
sun to the units. He added that the decks were a good amenity for the units.
Mr. Falkner noted that he was a trustee of the Elk's Lodge and spoke in opposition to this
project. They opposed the variance because they believed it would prejudice future plans
for building in the existing Elks parking lot to raze and convert their gym so they could
serve their female membership. The gym was built in 1921, and the lodge was built in
1913. The Lodge itself is very underpowered, and as an electrical engineer, he noted that
they had developed a proposal for an upgrade to the building, including a new entrance.
They did not want to jeopardize the placement of the transformer, which would provide
service to the site. He also wanted to ensure that emergency access would be available in
the future. He did not believe this project would be compatible with the Lodge's future
plans until they were able to undertake future review.
Mr. Ed Hershberg, applicant, noted that this property had been in his family for 20 years,
and added that the tenants in the lower unit, Unit D, have asked him if they could access
the rear yard from their unit to plant a small garden, and enjoy the outdoors. He received
initial positive feedback from Mr. Calpestri. He believed the access to the rear yard
would encourage increased maintenance of the backyard and enable the tenants to enjoy
the back yard. He did not believe this proposed project would negatively impact the Elks
Page 5 of 8",PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-03-24,6,"Lodge, and could not speak to potential impacts to future plans for the Lodge. He noted
that they had been friendly neighbors for 40 years, that his own father had been a
member, and that 25% of their tenants had been Elks as well.
Dr. Healey noted that he is a 47-year member of the Elks Lodge, and that they had been
working hard to increase their membership, and to implement needed improvements. He
understood the Lodge's position, and also understood the applicant's position.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Seal noted that the legal nonconforming use was legal, but could not be expanded.
Without a variance, this would be considered to be an expansion of a legal
nonconforming use, which would not be allowed. He noted that the City did not consider
a deck to be an expansion of a legal nonconforming use if the footprint was the same. It
was considered to be an accessory use to the legal nonconforming use.
In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara whether there had been any effort
to get the two parties together to gain resolution, Mr. Seal replied that there was, in an
effort to reach a compromise, but that was not resolved.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand where the proposed transformer
would be placed, Mr. Falkner replied that it would be in the first handicapped slot going into
the property. The transformer would be approximately four-feet-six-inches. Vice President
Kohlstrand did not believe that was the best location for a transformer, but it was not under
discussion at this time.
President Cook believed there should be a discussion between the Planning Board, APT and
staff regarding view corridors during design reviews and the subsequent placement of
transformers in those view corridors. She was dismayed that the time and care put into those
design reviews was undone by the placement of a transformer. She would like some
guidelines to be developed to address that issue.
Mr. Falkner noted that was the only location available for the transformer.
Board member Cunningham believed the addition of a deck would improve the quality of
life for the tenants. He would like to find a way to make the use more legal, and believed the
addition would impact the density and open space of the use. He believed the property
should be examined in its current state, without considering potential future changes. He
was unable to make the first finding of extraordinary circumstances, and that while the
property was developed in the 1940s, before the AMC was put in place, the circumstances
of the property were not very unique. He noted that a deck did not provide habitable space
by Code, but that it would increase the amount of usable space by the tenants. He could not
support this variance in its current state.
Vice President Kohlstrand expressed concern about equity, and that the four units did not all
have access to the backyard. She noted that by providing access to the backyard for the rear
Page 6 of 8",PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-03-24,7,"two apartments, the open space for the front two apartments was diminished. She believed
this created an inequitable situation.
Board member Lynch noted that several of the issues were not under consideration by the
Planning Board at this point. He noted that the procedural issues of a nonconforming use
were addressed by Board member Cunningham. He believed that zoning and General Plan
processes were a broad-brush effort, as is the nature of a public body. As the zoning texts are
updated, he believed this property fit into the category of a building constructed during an
earlier time period, which was not recognized by the existing zoning codes beyond being a
legal nonconforming use. He hoped this property would be with the applicant's family for
40 more years.
Board member McNamara expressed concern about the citrus tree in the backyard. Mr. Seal
noted that the tree was planted on the Elks property, but that the branches reached over the
applicant's property; the applicant would be able to cut the branches that encroached over
his property, but would not be able to do anything to the tree itself.
Board member McNamara did not support the argument from the applicant that the lighting
would be affected, and believed that the reflection from the building would improve the
lighting.
President Cook agreed with the Board members' comments, and did not consider this
property to be unique. She noted that many larger apartment buildings did not have private
decks, and did not want to enter a slippery slope of the expectation of a deck. She was
concerned that the back yard would be restricted because of private decks.
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt Draft Planning Board Resolution to deny a
Major Design Review and Variance to attach a two-story covered deck. A Variance is
required for this project because both decks will be closer to the rear property line than
permitted by the Zoning code.
Vice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes:
0 Absent: 1 (Ezzy Ashcraft). The motion passed.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
a.
Shinsei Gardens Apartments - 401 Wilver ""Willie"" Stargell Avenue
-
Description of proposed changes to project entrance design (AT).
Mr. Biggs noted that a letter had been provided to the Planning Board, which included
elevations showing the original approval and the revised design of the project.
Page 7 of 8",PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-03-24,8,"11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
President Cook noted that a Preservation Alert from the Alameda Architectural
Preservation Society had been received regarding the charrette and community visioning
for the North of Lincoln area. She believed their comments were very interesting.
President Cook thanked staff for removing the ""non-reports"" from the Board
Communications agenda item.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Biggs, Secretary
City Planning Board
This meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 8 of 8",PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-14,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, April 14, 2008
Council Chambers, City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Avenue - 7:00 PM
President Cook called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
President Cook, Boardmembers Ezzy Ashcraft,
Lynch and McNamara
ABSENT:
Vice-President Kohlstrand and Boardmember
Cunningham
STAFF PRESENT:
Andrew Thomas, Planning Manager/Secretary to the
Planning Board; Farimah Faiz, Assistant City
Attorney; Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner;
Simone Wolter, Planner I; Althea Carter, Executive
Assistant/Recording Secretary
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of November 13, 2007
Continued to April 28, 2008.
Minutes for the meeting of February 25, 2008
Motion (Ezzy Ashcraft)/Second (Cook) to approve as amended.
Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Absent: 2. Motion unanimously approved.
Minutes for the meeting of March 24, 2008 (pending)
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
NONE
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
(6-A.) Future Agendas: Andrew Thomas reviewed future agenda items and
noted the Esplanade appeal will be heard at the City Council meeting scheduled
for April 15, 2008.
(6-B.) Zoning Administrator Report: There was no Zoning Administrator meeting
on April 1, 2008.
(6-C.) Report Re: Status of Broadway/Jacksor Phase II: Andrew Thomas
provided a review and update on the status of this project. The City of Alameda
has been working on this project with Caltrans and the City of Oakland for 10-15
Page 1 of 7",PlanningBoard/2008-04-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-14,2,"years. Many options have been presented regarding modification of the Posey
Tube and freeway exits on 1880. Caltrans has determined that one option, to cut
through the Posey tube and create a ""hard"" right turn upon exiting the tube, is not
feasible and was rejected because the tube is not a tunnel and enabling
motorists to make a hard right turn could result in an increase of rear-end
accidents.
Another option considered was creating a new on-ramp at 6th and Market
Streets. Although not as effective as the previous option this option is good for
transit (bus/BART) connections and provides multiple options for vehicles. This
study has a greater impact on Oakland since some property owners will be
impacted by any proposed solutions. It will probably be 10-20 years before any
construction will begin. It is challenging for cities to continue to rely on ""building""
their way out of traffic problems. Short-term successes in Alameda may be seen
through project development conditions of approval.
City Councilmember's from Alameda and Oakland meet quarterly to discuss
transportation issues. This is an ongoing effort and will be a long process.
Boardmember Ezzy Ashcraft commented that transportation is a regional not just
a local problem. We need to continue to pursue opportunities to get people out
of their cars.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Andrew Thomas advised the Board of a pending design review item for a location
(Kohl's) at Alameda Towne Centre (ATC).
President Cook asked how the design fits in with the Master Plan Amendment.
Andrew Thomas responded by saying Alameda Towne Centre's (ATC) Planned
Development Amendment (PDA) allows for expansion of floor area. ATC can
introduce new tenants through the design review process but cannot increase
tenant space (square footage).
President Cook requested the item be placed on the agenda for the next
Planning Board meeting on April 28, 2008.
President Cook inquired about the status of Clif Bar.
Andrew Thomas responded that Clif Bar was concerned about the lack of food
choice options in the area and their employees' ability to bike to work.
President Cook mentioned the board would like to hear about these concerns
from Staff and not from reading it in the newspaper.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Page 2 of 7",PlanningBoard/2008-04-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-14,3,"NONE
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
(9-A.) Cynthia Eliason presented the City Council approved Local Action Plan for
Climate Protection. This item was for discussion purposes only. No action was
taken.
President Cook asked how zero waste is achieved since there is always
something that doesn't fit in a bin. Staff responded that zero waste is a goal.
Public comment was opened.
Citizen Bill Smith commented on emissions and zero waste.
Public comment was closed.
Boardmember Lynch inquired whether Stopwaste.org assisted with preparation
of the report. Staff responded in the affirmative. Stopwaste.org was instrumental
in putting together this collaborative effort.
Boardmember Lynch commented on initiative #2 page 29. Retail trips account
for the highest use of vehicles. How is this issue addressed? Staff responded
that these issues are considered as individual projects are reviewed.
Boardmember Ezzy Ashcraft referred to the last document in the plan (Appendix
F). She asked whether environmentally preferred purchases (for example
cleaning products used by City maintenance staff) would move forward to
become an ordinance or stay on the back burner. Staff responded that the intent
is to move the document forward as an ordinance. Styrofoam was the first
initiative but others will follow.
Boardmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the steps required to create a new
ordinance. Staff responded by detailing the process involved in establishing an
ordinance from Staff to the Planning Board to the City Council.
Boardmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff would look to other cities for
what they have done in this area. Staff responded in the affirmative.
Boardmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the timeframe for implementation of
the plan. Staff responded that a timeline has not been set.
Boardmember Ezzy Ashcraft acknowledged Simone Wolter (staff) for her
contributions to the plan.
Boardmember Lynch inquired whether bike lockers will be provided outside the
theatre. Staff responded in the affirmative.
Page 3 of 7",PlanningBoard/2008-04-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-14,4,"Boardmember Lynch mentioned riding his bike along Park Street and was
disappointed there was no place for bike parking. He suggested the City may
want to look into places for bike lockers and bike parking. President Cook
concurred with Boardmember Lynch. Staff responded that they will mention bike
parking and lockers to city staff working on the citywide bike plan.
Boardmember Ezzy Ashcraft commended Cynthia Eliason for the bike parking
provided outside Peets and noted there is no bike parking available outside
Long's on Santa Clara and Oak Streets.
Boardmember McNamara said it would be nice to have everything in place but
this is a great first step.
Boardmember Ezzy Ashcraft agreed but commented that Alameda is a bit late
since 10 other cities have already adopted the ordinance.
President Cook thanked staff, Simone Wolter and Boardmember Cunningham for
their work on the project. The Planning Board can take the lead on
transportation and land use initiatives. Work/live ordinances are sensitive topics
in Alameda. The City Council considers whether actions are consistent with the
Local Action Plan. Project consistency with the local action plan should also be
considered by the Planning Board when reviewing projects. Including this
information on staff reports would be helpful. If possible, without creating
additional work, President Cook would like Staff to periodically advise the Board
about the status of these initiatives either annually or semi-annually.
Andrew Thomas responded in the affirmative. Staff will add a section to future
staff reports regarding project support of the Local Action Plan. Priority setting is
key.
Cynthia Eliason mentioned that the City Council asked how monitoring of this
ordinance would occur. This is under discussion. Staff is interested in tracking
implementation not just numbers.
No action was taken.
(9-B.) Cynthia Eliason presented the staff report recommending the City Council
approve Green Building requirements for City building projects, capital
improvement projects, and public-private partnerships.
Staff pointed out that this requirement affects City projects (such as fire stations,
renovations, Carnegie), and public/private partnerships (such as Alameda Point).
Page 4 of 7",PlanningBoard/2008-04-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-14,5,"Boardmember Lynch thanked staff for bringing this item forward. He asked why
the recommendation is for the minimum standards. Staff responded that the
model ordinance was used as the template with minimum requirements.
Boardmember Lynch stated it would be helpful to compare these requirements
with what is stated in the Local Action Plan. President Cook suggested removing
the word ""minimum"".
Boardmember Ezzy Ashcraft distributed copies of information about the
ordinance she retrieved from the Stopwaste.org website. She mentioned the
minimum is a suggestion not a requirement. Cities may choose their level of
participation. By June 2009 Alameda is required to adopt a bay friendly
landscaping ordinance in order to continue to receive funding from
Stopwaste.org. Is there a reason Staff is not implementing this ordinance now?
Boardmember Ezzy Ashcraft would like to incorporate bay friendly landscaping
into the ordinance tonight. In the city of San Francisco it is not uncommon for
applicants to wait six months for building permits. San Francisco expedites
permit processing of LEED certified projects. Would this process work in
Alameda.
Staff responded in the negative. Incentives are difficult to provide in Alameda
since we currently enjoy a ten day turnaround on permit processing.
Boardmember McNamara inquired how staff will assure the Board's direction will
be incorporated into a landscaping ordinance. Staff responded that Build It
Green and LEED principles and suggestions would be used as models.
Boardmember McNamara inquired what the timeline for completion of this
ordinance is. Staff responded there is a six month rollout.
President Cook stated she also would like to see voluntary standards
implemented in the interim and inquired if a continuance of this item would give
staff time to prepare and present voluntary bay friendly landscaping guidelines.
Boardmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there was any reason why
Stopwaste.org's bay friendly landscaping model ordinance could not be applied
in Alameda. Staff responded that it could be used as a stop gap voluntary
program for private developments. Boardmember Ezzy Ashcraft commented that
she would like the bay friendly landscape guidelines incorporated into the
ordinance.
President Cook identified two issues regarding the ordinance. There is no
reference to bay friendly landscaping or voluntary green guidelines for residential
properties. She suggested using the City of Oakland's ordinance as a guide.
Page 5 of 7",PlanningBoard/2008-04-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-14,6,"Boardmember Lynch suggested further study of the available options. He
inquired what Staff wanted to accomplish tonight and in the future. He stated
that implementation costs should be considered as well as what impact
implementation would have on the budget. He would like to see a 5-year plan
and suggests there are things that can be done to move this issue forward.
Cynthia Eliason responded that education of city staff is an important part of this
process. Smaller ordinances will be presented to the Board (fireplaces, etc.).
Staff is not resistant to voluntary compliance. It is simply a matter of available
resources.
Boardmember Lynch requested staff to comment on the last two clauses of the
resolution and inquired whether the Resolution could be modified to include the
Oakland bay friendly landscaping ordinance. Staff responded that the resolution
could be modified to include additional whereas'. President Cook stated the
modifications should be included as ""resolves"" not ""whereas"".
Boardmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested adopting two resolutions with one
mirroring the City of Oakland's civic ordinance that applies to municipal projects.
She commented that page 2, first whereas of the resolution is too vague for the
public.
Cynthia Eliason, Farimah Faiz and Boardmember Ezzy Ashcraft discussed
whether it was appropriate to adopt an ordinance that had not been previously
publicized or if the item should be presented at the next Board meeting.
Andrew Thomas suggested the bay friendly ordinance resolution be presented to
the Board at the April 28, 2008 meeting or as a consent item at the May 12, 2008
meeting.
President Cook suggested Boardmember Ezzy Ashcraft work with Staff on the
wording for the resolution.
The public hearing was opened.
Speaker, Bill Smith, spoke in favor of this item.
The public hearing was closed.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Andrew Thomas mentioned an upcoming meeting of the Alameda Point Task
Force.
Page 6 of 7",PlanningBoard/2008-04-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-14,7,"BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Boardmember McNamara discussed the Bridgeside project and reminded staff
that the Board had previously requested responses to several questions
regarding the project. She would like staff's response at the next Board meeting.
President Cook suggested a site visit. Boardmember Lynch inquired whether a
field trip to the site could be listed on the agenda as ""Item 9-B"" for example.
Andrew Thomas suggested an organized site visit on a Saturday may be more
appropriate.
President Cook inquired about Staff's response to previous questions on the
Measure A Summary Report. Staff responded that it would be on the next
agenda. President Cook inquired whether the overview requested by
Boardmember Cunningham was being provided. Andrew Thomas responded in
the negative and stated that the Planning & Building Director suggested a
summary report should be the first step.
Boardmember Ezzy Ashcraft mentioned the Theatre Gala is being held next
month on Wednesday, May 21st from 6-10 p.m. Tickets are $100 each and
contributions will help restore the theatre mural.
9-B. City of Alameda - 2263 Santa Clara Avenue. President Cook reopened
Item 9-B and asked if there was a motion.
Boardmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved to approve the amended and modified
resolution. Approved as amended 4-0.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
This meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 7 of 7",PlanningBoard/2008-04-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, April 28, 2008
1.
CONVENE:
7:06 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member McNamara.
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Board
Members Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, Lynch and
McNamara.
Also present were Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager, Assistant City Attorney
Farimah Faiz.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of November 13, 2007 (continued from April 14,
2008).
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that on pages 1 and 2, the Assistant City Attorney's
last name was misspelled ""Faz,"" and should be corrected to read ""Faiz.""
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the first bullet point in the second-to-last
paragraph on page 2 should be changed to read: ""1. The square footage from the prior
approval would be reduced because the Target store was not-no longer needed because
Target had withdrawn its application.""
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 5, paragraph 6, read, ""Board member Lynch
stated it was important to understand the current parking configuration versus the new
configuration. He noted that he had spoken with the City Manager's office to apprise
them that the applicant was willing to work with the City to address the sidewalk issue on
Park Street."" She inquired whether Board member Lynch had received a response to his
discussion. Board member Lynch replied that he would provide the information when it
was available.
President Cook noted that page 6, paragraph 2, because she agreed with some aspects of
the plan, but not others, the language should be changed to read: ""Prosident Cook noted
that she generally agreed with the plan.-She noted that she was fine with the increased
height on the Mervyn's building, but that it seemed lopsided,-because without the
additional height, the center would now look lopsided because some heights had been
increased on the new, improved parts of the center.""
President Cook noted that further into the same paragraph, the following language ""She
believed the deck could be made more attractive... "" referred to her comment that she was
not sure about the parking structure yet, and would need to give it more thought.
Page 1 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,2,"President Cook noted that the next sentence in the same paragraph should be changed to
read, ""She inquired about Dr. Perry's corner, and was concerned about circulation and
pedestrian safety.'
President Cook noted that the last several sentences in the same paragraph
""She believed the elevation for the Mervyn's building looked good, and would like
updated traffic counts. She agreed with Board member Ezzy Ashcraft about the crosswalk,
and was very concerned that the crosswalks at Shoreline Drive did not connect with the
pedestrian walkways at the center and did not like the current crosswalk at Shoreline.'
She noted that was not an issue so much for the center, as it was for the Public Works
Department. She added that the crosswalks led right into iceplant and did not connect.
Board Member Cunningham moved to approve the minutes of November 13, 2007, as
amended.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4.
Noes: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 2 (Kohlstrand, McNamara). The motion passed.
b.
Minutes for the meeting of March 24, 2008 (pending).
These minutes will be considered at a later meeting.
c.
Minutes for the meeting of April 14, 2008 (pending).
These minutes will be considered at a later meeting.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
Mr. Biggs suggested that Items 9-A and 9-B be reversed in order on the agenda at the
request of the Public Works Department.
6.
PRESENTATIONS:
a.
Staff Communications - Future Agendas
Mr. Biggs provided an update on future agenda items.
Board member Lynch requested that given the volume of information that would be
required for the May 12, 2008, public hearing of the Harbor Bay Village VI Project GPA
and EIR, that the following meeting have a light agenda to handle overflow from that
hearing. He anticipated that there would be a great deal of public interest in that item, and
did not believe the Planning Board would be able to make a determination that evening.
Mr. Biggs noted that staff would do its best to make the documentation available to the
Board as early as possible, and that it would be made available at the Planning
Department as early as possible for the public as well.
Page 2 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,3,"Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she had a similar request for the following meeting
for the Draft Pedestrian Plan. She noted that City staff's Gail Payne had done a lot of
work on that document, and that it may take two meetings to cover it.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that for future agenda scheduling, whenever an
item had a voluminous amount of reading, that staff could determine when the documents
would be ready, and give the Planning Board members a longer window of time to
review the documents before the meeting.
President Cook noted that the office condominium project at Harbor Bay went to City
Council on appeal, and the appeal was rejected, so project approval was upheld. She
noted that she had spoken to an appellant, who expressed concern about the lack of
sufficient notice. She had told President Cook that over 1,300 had signed a petition.
President Cook believed that there should be more time to inform the public, as well as
time to review the materials.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that the 300-foot radius noticing had been complied with,
and added that there were a number of homeowners associations within Harbor Bay Isle,
as well as a Master Association. She suggested that the Association put themselves on the
list to receive the packet online.
Board member Lynch noted that about two years ago, the Board held a discussion
regarding revising how it interacted with the public in terms of noticing. They believed
that given the staff needs, that a break in the schedule be taken, and a Planning Board
agenda projecting forward a month was suggested. He believed it would be simple to do,
and would not take any additional dollars or staff resources; he noted that management
scheduling would be able to accomplish that goal.
b.
Zoning Administrator Report - Meeting of April 15, 2008.
Mr. Biggs provided an update on the latest Zoning Administrator Report, and noted that
the Action Agenda was also included in the packet.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-B.
Capital Improvement Projects Fiscal Year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010
The Planning Board will review the proposed Capital Improvement Projects
Proposal for the next two year City Budget. The Planning Board will consider
whether the proposed expenditure plan is consistent with the City of Alameda
General Plan.
Page 3 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,4,"Ms. Kozisek, Public Works, summarized the staff report. The next public hearing will be
held at 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 30, 2008, and will also be available on the City
website. The following meetings will be noted on the website as well.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Helen Sause noted that she hoped the 27 projects reduced the 101 projects. She inquired
when the Sewer Master Plan would be completed. She inquired where the Estuary Crossing
study would occur, and wondered what the study was about. She inquired whether the Tree
Master Plan fell under this work, and whether there would be implementation from it.
Ms. Kozisek replied that the 27 projects were not taken out of the 101 projects, which were
anticipated for the future. She noted that Public Works planned to finish the Sewer Master
Plan by the end of 2008. She noted that the Estuary Crossing study was in response to the
problems encountered by pedestrians and bicyclists when traveling through the Tubes. The
study was intended to find other possible ways to get across the Estuary, and the
environmental phase was intended to examine all possibilities before picking one that had
the least adverse impact. She noted that the Tree Master Plan was underway, and that the
trees were being measured. She added that had already been funded, and was not included in
this project. She expected that would be completed in several months.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the genesis of the
Public Benefit Score, Ms. Kozisek replied that it was a concept that had been around for a
few years. The score was looked at, but is not the final score upon which a determination
was made. A higher score has more benefits, such as economic or visual benefits,
cultural/historic/recreation potential or preservation, or environmental impacts.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the City Hall Tower retrofit was given a score of
76, which is higher than either bridge maintenance, storm drain repair or water taxi vessel
procurement. She added that the cost would be $430,000, and noted that the City's budget
restrictions were well-known. She understood it was a private funding effort, and that it was
listed in the unfunded list, and inquired why it received a score of 76.
Ms. Kozisek replied that the complete list was not available at this time, but added that
private funding gave the project a higher score. The project on City Hall would benefit all
citizens, while the storm drains were not noticed unless they flooded onto someone's
property.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether the Board would like to continue this
item in order to allow sufficient time to read the material, Board member Ezzy Ashcraft
replied that would be helpful.
Board member Lynch inquired about the acronyms and the presentation of the data with
respect to fees received and projected expenditures. Ms. Kozisek replied that they were
Page 4 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,5,"conservative estimates developed by the Finance Department. He inquired whether staff
would share the information from the public meetings as they are conducted; Ms. Kozisek
replied that would occur.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she would look forward to receiving the background
information. She requested that Ms. Kozisek comment on the gas tax, which was being
raided by the State and used on the State level. She inquired whether $240,000 was the
amount being received by the City. Ms. Kozisek replied that was only the part that went
toward Capital Improvements; the remainder went to the operating budget.
Vice President Kohlstrand inquired about Bicycle and Pedestrian projects, Ms. Kozisek
discussed the budget allocation for those uses and noted that the details on the prioritizations
would be available mid-year.
Board member Lynch complimented Ms. Kozisek on her thorough and methodical approach
to this project.
Board member McNamara noted that for 2008-09, $24 million was approved, with $16
million for the Stargell Extension, a one-time project, and 2009-10 identified $6 million for
Public Works. She inquired whether the $2 million differential would change, or whether
the City should expect dwindling funds over the next few years.
Ms. Kozisek noted that the funds may decrease, and that staff took a more conservative
approach. She added that there were frequently mid-year appropriations to address, and that
some of the Measure B funds were held in reserve to act as a local match for potential
grants.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft encouraged Ms. Kozisek to provide explanations for technical
acronyms for the public. Ms. Kozisek replied that the Board received a shortened version of
the document that would be seen by the public, which would explain the technical terms.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether any Climate Protection
Task Force findings were included in the document, Ms. Kozisek replied that buildings over
3 million square feet should be LEED-rated. Board member Cunningham added that the
findings of the Task Force were valuable, and believed that they should be reflected in some
follow-through. He noted that there were a number of recommendations that would benefit
the community, such as the reduction of solid waste through the green building ordinance.
She noted that she would look further into that matter.
Board member Cunningham believed that future projects identified by the Planning Board
should be detailed in the CIP, and would like to see more details. Ms. Kozisek noted that
City Council would have a workshop on this issue in a month, and was unsure whether there
would be enough time to include this discussion. She noted that it was better for the entire
City's funding to have a complete list of wish-list projects, and encouraged the Planning
Board to submit these to the Unfunded Projects List as a planning tool.
Page 5 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,6,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the StopWaste.org version of the green building
ordinance had been approved at the last meeting, and had been sent to City Council. She
was concerned that the Task Force had not been consulted for the wish list. Board member
Cunningham replied that the green building ordinance contained only one of the findings.
Vice President Kohlstrand would like more information on the Estuary study. She noted that
Director Woodbury had attended the joint meeting with the City Council, and returned to the
Planning Board for a mid-year discussion. She hoped that would become a regular
occurrence to discuss how projects fit into the CIP. She noted that she would abstain
because there was nothing in the document that discussed conformance to the General Plan.
President Cook agreed with Vice President Kohlstrand, and would like further clarification
of the Planning Board's role in this plan. She was not prepared to say it was consistent with
the General Plan, but that it was no reflection on the work done by Public Works. Ms.
Kozisek noted that there was almost no new construction in the CIP, and that it was
generally reconstructing or repairing existing items.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether it would be possible to bifurcate the CIP
report so the Planning Board may have more time to consider the full information.
Mr. Biggs inquired whether the Plan would go to the City Council for approval. Ms.
Kozisek replied that they would begin to hold workshops in late May; there will be one or
two meetings to discuss the CIP, followed by a vote.
President Cook requested that the Board be allowed the time to examine the unfunded
projects and decide on a course of action.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with that suggestion, and inquired about the other
Boards and Commissions that may want to weigh in.
Mr. Biggs suggested continuing this item to May 12, 2008, and given the time constraint, he
did not know whether they would be able to distribute the CIP to the Boards and
Commissions in time.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that the Climate Protection Task Force be made a
priority in examining the unfunded projects.
President Cook inquired whether the Planning Board had the authority to recommend that
a
project be placed on the funded or unfunded list for review. Ms. Kozisek noted that staff
would put any request on the unfunded list, including proposals from the general public. To
get on the proposed list, it must go through the City Manager and Public Works, and money
must be available for it.
President Cook suggested that this item be deferred, and that a meeting be held with the
Planning Director to explain how the Board may have meaningful input into the capital
budgeting process.
Page 6 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,7,"Vice President Kohlstrand would like to go further, and facilitate the Board's input into the
process.
Board member McNamara suggested that the Board adhere to the letter of the law and
determine whether it was consistent with the General Plan or not.
Board member Cunningham agreed with Board member McNamara's suggestion.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft was comfortable voting because she had read the entire
packet. She expressed concern about the $430,000 proposed expenditure of the clocktower
at City Hall, and she believed that was somewhat out of priority. She could make the finding
that the CIP was consistent with the General Plan.
Board Member Cunningham moved to find that the CIP list for the Fiscal Year
2008/2009 and 2009/2010 was in conformance with the General Plan.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4. Noes:
0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 2 (Cook, Kohlstrand). The motion passed.
9-A. PLN08-0155 - 2201 South Shore Center - Applicant - Harsch Investment
Realty. Permit includes the renovation of Building 900 and site improvements in
the area immediately adjacent to the building. Current review is limited to the
architecture design and does not include the use or operational aspects of this
building. Building 900 currently contains a single retail store (Mervyn's) and two
smaller tenant spaces. A portion of the existing retail store will be converted into
five smaller shops. The existing building height ranges from approximately 25 feet
to 28 feet. After renovation, the typical building height would range from 25 feet
to 29 feet with parapets over the entranceways extending up to a maximum height
of 33.5 feet. Site improvements include extensive landscaping, new benches and
bicycle parking facilities. (JB/DG).
Mr. Biggs presented the staff report and displayed a PowerPoint presentation.
Board member Cunningham noted that the staff report did not mention the PDA, and the
ability to raise the height of the structure. He acknowledged that was not part of the
approval.
Mr. Biggs noted that the Planning Board will look at the PDA in the future, and if the
second story was confined with the architecture of the building, it would be defined within
the building permit process. The height could not be increased without a design review.
Board member Cunningham noted that his comments had been addressed, and that he was
happy with what he saw.
Page 7 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,8,"Board member Lynch concurred.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook about the process, Mr. Biggs replied that the
amendment would need to come before the applicant could add the second floor space. Any
modifications to the exterior of the building would be subject to design review.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that when she went to Town Centre, she was
continually impressed and pleased with how beautiful it looked. She would recommend
people visit it to see the spring flowers. She also liked the building materials and the design.
She was pleased to see people strolling through the courtyard. She did not find the design of
the Kohl's building to be consistent with the high level of design of the other buildings. She
will be happy to see the old Mervyn's building gone. She believed the long, uninterrupted
expanses of walls be replaced with some windows, although she understood that retail
windows could be problematic because the retailer would lose display space. She believed
windows would make walking along this area a more interesting experience for the
pedestrian. She inquired why there was no entrance on the west elevation, and noted that
created an even longer blank expanse on that side. She believed the south elevation facing
the interior mall also needed some glass window displays to look in, to break up the expanse
of building material. She liked the east elevation.
Vice President Kohlstrand echoed Board member Ezzy Ashcraft's concerns regarding the
blank wall and lack of access to the store on the west side.
President Cook echoed Board member Ezzy Ashcraft's concerns.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed the lettering of the Kohl's sign looked very large,
and inquired how big it was.
Board member McNamara inquired about bike racks, and would like more to be installed at
the center.
The public hearing was opened.
Randy [Kytes], applicant, was pleased that this had been a very collaborative process, and
that the series of challenging meetings had been productive. He noted that much of the
wall space was needed by the store for internal display. He noted that Kohl's typically
operated with a single entry into the store, and he noted that they would be able to make
an accommodation for two entries. The entrances were originally on the west and north
sides, and the applicant was asked to move them to the mall side. The owner of the
company held an impassioned meeting with the Centre architects and Kohl's architects,
and requested a number of upgrades and further articulation in the building. He noted that
it was difficult to express a three-dimensional view in the elevations, and added that the
trellises would step off the building substantially.
Mr. Kytes suggested that Kohl's be allowed to do what they do, in order to for them to
continue to be successful. They discussed adding a layer of pedestrian amenity, such as
Page 8 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,9,"art plaques. He noted that Kohl's did not merchandise show windows, and he believed
the center could install fountains or art in lieu of putting in a show window that would
likely be covered by a graphic. He believed the current design was sufficiently articulated
and followed the flavor of the center. He was confident that a more interesting walk
would be possible. They would also maintain shop space along the mall with a strong
pedestrian walkway. He noted that the height of the sign was 12 inches taller than
Safeway, and added that he would find out the total square footage of the sign. He noted
that Kohl's originally wanted an entryway on the west, but Harsch felt that it would be
more valuable on the mall.
Monique Lee, Harsch, displayed and described the bike rack area.
President Cook requested that the applicant address the color schemes of the building, and
noted that there was a lot of beige in the elevations.
Jeff [Stohl], Shrader and Holt, Kohl's project architect, noted that they originally had the
entrance plan to make it pedestrian friendly. The developer requested that the entrance
face the pedestrian mall, and Kohl's has since added trellis elements, landscaping and
pilasters to break it up. He noted that they had been working with Field Paoli on the color
scheme, and the elevations presented muted earth tones. They would like to keep that
general scheme, and added that they could pop out some more true to life colors.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft whether color and material
boards had been brought, Mr. [Stohl] replied that they used materials consistent with the
existing Towne Centre buildings. They were refacing the aggregate with new wood
paneling and arbors, as well as a tile selection near the entrance that also featured glazing.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that the positive transition of Towne Centre had featured
a lot more transparency, and noted that Harsch captured that concept where the small-
scale buildings were being added in the corner. She was concerned that the warehouse
look would interrupt the existing Center visuals.
Mr. Stohl noted that Kohl's used the interior of the walls to display merchandise from
within the store. He noted that the store needed as much inside wall space as possible to
follow the merchandising plans.
Jeff Pool, Manager of New Store Development, Kohl's Department Store, noted that four
of the five Kohl's stores that would be developed in 2008 would be 88,000 square feet.
He noted that sometimes there was a gap regarding the nature of Kohl's business. He
noted that there were 15 stores within the San Francisco metropolitan area, and that they
were publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange with annual sales of $16 billion.
Their mission statement was to be a family-focused, family-oriented specialty department
store for the nation. He noted that Mervyn's was 84,000 square feet. He noted that their
plan for the interior wall displays created a struggle in 2006 as the developer's needs
were set against the store's need to create sufficient revenue. He noted that they have
recently found ways to accommodate form and function. He noted that they had no show
Page 9 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,10,"windows in a normal prototype store, and that there were store windows at the store
entrance, as well as within the store, containing mannequins. He did not believe it would
be possible to create additional store windows. He noted that they wished to put their best
foot forward in the Centre, and did not believe the PowerPoint presentation did justice to
the colors and articulation that had been presented. He assured the Board that they would
be able to present what the Board needed to make a decision.
Board member McNamara expressed concern about the massing and bland color of the
building, which she believed was already an eyesore. She liked the landscaping efforts
throughout the center, and believed that it would be continued in this part of the project.
Mr. Kyte noted that Harsch was very protective and critical of the center's design. He
believed that the landscaping and the trellises on the south side of Bed, Bath & Beyond
would have sufficed. He noted that they knew how to create a pedestrian amenity, and
that they knew how to get people to flow through the shopping center, as well as to stay,
linger and enjoy the experience. He noted that they would make every piece of this center
right before it was completed.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed there was a solution to the Board's desire for
display windows, as well as landscaping and the trellis. She believed that the Board's
expectations were placed very high by the previous phases of the center. She did not want
to see long expanses of wall, and that the public wanted a beautiful place to shop. She did
not want to see a warehouse on the corner of the development. She inquired whether
there were restrictions on the truck hours.
Mr. Pool noted that Mervyn's had the same width with a recessed dock, and described the
shift of the dock area in order to increase the sales area. He noted that the Mervyn's door
accommodated two trucks. Mr. Kyte added that trash compactors were also included.
Mr. Pool expressed concern that the posters that were initially very attractive in an initial
presentation before the City may become yellowed and curled in the window. He noted
that it may be a function of training of managers for poster maintenance. He noted that
they wanted to put the entrance on the west side, but that Harsch did not allow it. He
believed that the illumination and the trellises would improve the presentation than
depending on Kohl's to use existing design programs. He was concerned that the lack of
a national, regional or local program for shop windows would lead to a shopworn look
over time.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding truck hours, Mr. Pool
replied that they would probably be less than Safeway's. Kohl's had two or three
deliveries weekly, with the exception of the holiday season.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand regarding the concrete, Mr. Pool
described the transition from colored concrete to the asphalt in that area.
Page 10 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,11,"In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether they had looked at brick-like
surfaces, Board member Cunningham replied that the weight of the truckloads required
that the surface be made of concrete. Mr. Kyte replied they had looked at stamped
concrete, but they were problematic with the weight of the truckloads.
President Cook noted that she shares some of the same concerns as Board member Ezzy
Ashcraft. She added that while she normally abstained from a piecemeal development, she
was in favor of this item moving forward, particularly in light of the CIP moving
forward. She noted that sales tax revenue was very important to the City, and had seen
that Mervyn's had not done as good a job in that area. She shared the concerns regarding
the windows, and trusted that the developer would keep it on a human scale. She
appreciated any design additions that could enliven the colors. She was initially very
concerned about not having a west-facing door, but understood that would be a concern
with respect to shoplifting.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there were any overhangs above the
trellises between the loading dock and the Kohl's sign. She would like to see the Kohl's
letter in a smaller size, particularly given the flatness of the façade. She requested that the
letters be the same size as Safeway. Mr. Pool noted that the traffic flow along Otis was
significantly blocked, and they had asked for Kohl's identification as the largest store in
the center; Harsch had denied that request. He noted that Kohl's square footage was
larger than Safeway, and that the sign was intended to be seen by passing traffic on Otis
Drive.
Mike Corbitt, Harsch Development, noted that the letters on the Mervyn's sign were six
and five feet, respectively. He noted that it was important for the store to be seen.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft would like there to be more visual interest on the exterior.
She inquired where the art panels and fountains would be located. Mr. Kyte replied that
history panels would be mounted on the building on the west side. Board member Ezzy
Ashcraft did not believe she could support this unless there was a window or some other
point of interest on the blank wall. Mr. Kyte replied that the Board had not approved
locations for other panels, and that they had installed many of them. He added that the art
panels have been purchased already, and that they intended to include an appropriate
level of pedestrian amenities and landscape. He assured the Board that they would create
a pedestrian-friendly appearance, and estimated that two panels would be placed on the
west elevation in a yet-to-be-determined location, and two on the south elevation between
the Kohl's entry and the West End of the mall. He noted that they had other pieces of art
that had not been sited yet, and that those pieces exceeded the City's requirements.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt Draft Planning Board Resolution to approve
a permit that includes the renovation of Building 900 and site improvements in the area
immediately adjacent to the building. Current review is limited to the architecture design
and does not include the use or operational aspects of this building. Building 900
Page 11 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,12,"currently contains a single retail store (Mervyn's) and two smaller tenant spaces. A
portion of the existing retail store will be converted into five smaller shops. The existing
building height ranges from approximately 25 feet to 28 feet. After renovation, the typical
building height would range from 25 feet to 29 feet with parapets over the entranceways
extending up to a maximum height of 33.5 feet. Site improvements include extensive
landscaping, new benches and bicycle parking facilities.
President Cook requested an amendment to add the following language in Condition 3:
""This area shall not be used for vehicle parking, loading or unloading, staging or material
storage
The amendment was acceptable to the maker and seconder of the motion.
Board member Lynch seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 1
(Ezzy Ashcraft). The motion passed.
9-C.
Housing Element/Measure A Forum Summary
For Planning Board review and discussion. This item is for discussion purposes
only.
Mr. Biggs summarized the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
There were none.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Vice President Kohlstrand believed the summary accurately reflected what had happened
at the forum, and hoped that there would be more of a summary from the staff
perspective.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 1, paragraph 4, of the Preface did not seem
to be accurate, which read: ""In March 2007, the Planning Board appointed an ad hoc
committee.
A group of Alameda residents appealed the Planning Board's committee
appointment to the City Council, reflecting the community's passion about preserving
Measure A."" She did not believe that sentence belonged in the document, and stated that
an appeal made by seven people could not be extrapolated to speak for the City's
population of 75,000. She believed the process was accurate.
Board member Lynch noted that this item was prepared by Planning Director Cathy
Woodbury, and asked how the comment made by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft could be
integrated. He believed it reflected an opinion and should be struck.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed the sentence she quoted was a conclusionary
statement, and should be removed from the document.
Page 12 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,13,"Mr. Biggs replied that the sentence could be stricken from the document.
Board member Lynch advised that that was a direction to staff, rather than a request, and
inquired about the process to make a correction.
Board member Cunningham inquired where this process would go in the future. Mr.
Biggs described the general process, and noted that SunCal would take the input and
bring it back in a summary to the City
President Cook did not want this discussion to continue if SunCal were not to be in the
picture. She believed further discussion of this matter was very important, particularly the
tradeoffs faced on Alameda Point.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft would like to hear more about forum-based codes, which
would not supplant the discussion about Measure A, but she believed it was a timely
topic. She would like to agendize that topic for a future meeting.
President Cook noted that developers liked certainty, and this discussion would help in
future development. She noted that a bright side of an economic downturn allowed the
City time to refine these items.
Vice President Kohlstrand inquired about the status of the Housing Element; she noted
that it was important to have the forum summary as a record, but believed that the
ultimate meaning for the community was missing from the document.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the event cost $41,500, and hoped that covered
the entire process, not just that day.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that it included the preparation and organization time, as
well as presentations and lunch.
President Cook would like to hear back from the Planning Director to discuss the work
program issues and the policy issues, particularly as they relate to the Housing Element.
Board member Lynch would like a response from the Planning Director on this item, and
suggested that a Director's Report be placed on the agenda. He expressed concern that
the Planning Director did not attend the meeting, which he believed was significant. He
believed the Director's Report would fall into the policy category that would enable the
Director to clarify the policy issues to the Board.
Board member Lynch inquired whether this had been circulated as a draft document. Mr.
Biggs replied that he did not know. Board member Lynch believed that staff should
consider circulating this document as a draft to the individuals who participated for
accuracy, and then produce the document.
Page 13 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,14,"Board member Lynch moved that the document be returned to the Planning Board in
draft form with a presentation by the Planning Director.
Vice President Kohlstrand wished to amend the motion to state that the Planning Director
would be able to address the issues brought forward during the Board's discussion.
President Cook wished to further amend the motion to include a document to forward to
City Council.
Vice President Kohlstrand seconded the amended motion, with the following voice vote -
6. Noes: 0. The motion passed.
Page 14 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,15,"10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
a.
Report on Alameda Point Station Area Plan
Mr. Biggs presented the staff report, and noted that it was provided to the City Council by
the City Manager. He noted that the report was available on the City's website.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. David Howard suggested that this study was justified on the basis of having to
respond to the Oakland-Chinatown lawsuit against the City of Alameda. He noted that
Section 3.3 of the Settlement Agreement called for a study of transportation alternatives,
which had been presented by the Planning Director many times that outside money was
used to conduct the study to satisfy the requirements of the agreement. He hoped that the
Planning Board or Planning staff would refer this study to the Oakland-Chinatown
Advisory Committee for review, as part of responding to this agreement. He noted the
concerns expressed by the Chinatown Agreement as part of the settlement agreement
regarding automobile traffic. He noted that the transit-enhanced third alternative
translated to twelve buses per hour coming out of Alameda Point, presumably mostly
coming through the Tube. He believed the Advisory would want to review whether they
intended to trade automobiles for buses.
Mr. Howard addressed Board member Cunningham's previous comments about the
balance of jobs and housing at Alameda Point, and noted that the concept was not
adequately addressed in the report. He did not observe any efforts in Alameda to attract
a
big campus user. Regarding the Housing Element, he understood that 71% of Alameda
residents left the Island to get to work each day. He noted that the top ten employers in
Alameda employed only about 4,000 people out of a day population of 38,000 people. He
believed that looking at more housing at Alameda Point would aggravate the current
housing/jobs balance. He supported the idea of reusing the buildings, and bringing jobs at
a range of pay scales that would not require people to leave the Island; he believed that
might solve some of the traffic and transit considerations.
Mr. Howard expressed concern that the report continued to promulgate the notion which
he did not believe had been substantiated or justified, that Measure A precluded any
historic buildings from being reused. He spoke specifically of the Bachelor Executive
Quarters and the Bachelor Officer Quarters. He cited Article 3 of Chapter 30 of the
Alameda Municipal Code (Development Regulations): Multiple Dwelling Units
-
Rehabilitation, remodeling or alteration of existing structures provides that existing
multiple dwelling units may be rehabilitated or remodeled, provided they comply with
the provisions of the chapter, and no building shall be altered to increase the number of
multiple dwelling units contained therein."" He believed that legislation has been
conveniently ignored by every study of what to do with the BEQ and the BOQ. He
believed it was not substantiated that the BEQ and the BOQ could not be reused through
that legislation. He believed that should be studied, and has heard Planning staff and
Page 15 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,16,"President Cook requested that Mr. Thomas update the Board at the next meeting.
Board member Lynch inquired whether a motion would be needed for this item, because
it
was the byproduct of a settlement. He requested that staff return with an answer to the
Board, and suggested that if it was the product of a settlement agreement, he believed
there was some duty to deliver it. If not, he inquired whether the Board should deliver it
in the spirit of neighborliness.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that it was the summary of the first hearing in a process
that has not concluded. Mr. Biggs noted that Mr. Thomas could report to the Board on
that item.
No action was taken.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft hoped that Alameda was not the only body performing
studies on this issue, and that there was reciprocity on Oakland's part.
President Cook suggested that this follow-up be included in Staff Communications for the
next meeting.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that a meeting of the Pedestrian Task Force had been
held; the Task Force included members of the Planning Board, the Transportation
Commission, the Housing Commission and the Accessibility Commission. She noted that
information will come to the Planning Board at the end of May. She encouraged the
Board and the public to look at the work performed by the Task Force in documenting
existing facilities in Alameda. She noted that there was considerable detail, and that their
challenge would be to figure out how to implement the plans to improve pedestrian
amenities in Alameda.
Page 16 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,17,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that Thursday, May 15, would be Bike to Work Day.
She added that May 21 would be the grand opening of the Alameda Theater, and that it
would be a black-tie event.
President Cook noted that Saturday, May 24, would be Family Day at the theater.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
This meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 17 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, May 12, 2008
1.
CONVENE:
7:06 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Lynch.
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Board
Members Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, Lynch and
McNamara.
Also present were Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, Cynthia Eliason,
Planning Manager; City Attorney Donna Mooney; Althea Carter, Executive Assistant.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cook suggested that because of the standing-room-only crowd, that Item 9-A be
heard before the rest of the agenda.
Board member Cunningham moved to hear Item 9-A before the rest of the agenda.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Noes: 0 Absent: 0. The motion passed.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
PA04-0002/R04-0001/DA04-00001 - Harbor Bay Isle Associates - Harbor
Bay Village VI (1855 North Loop Road). Consider the Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR), the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning for the
proposed Harbor Bay Village VI residential development. The FEIR consists of
the Draft Environmental Impact Report and the Response to Comments
document. The project consists of an amendment to the Alameda General Plan
Land Use Diagram from Business Park to Medium Density Residential and a
change to the General Plan Land Use Element Text and Tables for the potential
construction of approximately 104 residential units on the 12.2 acre property. A
rezoning from ""C-M-PD"" (Commercial-Manufacturing District Planned
Development) to ""R-2-PD"" (Medium Density Residential Planned Development)
will also be considered. (AT)
Mr. Thomas presented the staff report, and displayed a PowerPoint presentation on the
overhead screen. Mr. Thomas noted that staff had received significant public comment on
this project, and that the overwhelming majority of the comments have been in opposition to
the project. Staff recommended that the Planning Board hold a public hearing and adopt the
draft Resolution (Attachment E) denying the proposed General Plan and Zoning
amendments. He recommended that the Chair call for final public comments by 10:30 p.m.
so the Board would have a sufficient opportunity to comment on the proposal.
Page 1 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,2,"Mr. Tim Hoppen, applicant, President, Harbor Bay Isle Associates, summarized the
background and layout of this proposed project. He noted that their past projects had been
notable because of their quality, and believed that Harbor Bay Village VI would be no
exception and that it would create a compatible residential neighborhood tucked in between
three existing school sites and adjacent to existing homes.
Mr. Hoppen noted that several concerns and issues had been raised. For example, CLASS
stated that approval of the Village VI project would compromise the settlement agreement
with the Port of Oakland, and create an environment where jet aircraft would fly over
rooftops. He noted that their investigation had determined that would not be the case. He
added that the settlement agreement would stay in full force and effect, and after speaking
with both fixed based operators at Oakland Airport's North Field, Kaiser Air and Business
Jet Center, along with pilots, they learned that Village VI would have no effect on departure
protocols. He noted that they had asked CLASS's representatives to point out to them
exactly where in the two settlement agreements with the Port there were any provision to
make the City's approval of Village VI a violation or breach of those settlement agreements,
or permit the Port to terminate the agreements and walk away from the commitments to
work cooperatively with the City and with CLASS on noise abatement procedures. He noted
that CLASS had never done SO. He noted that they also asked CLASS for evidence that the
jet aircraft operators or pilots were poised to increase flights out of North Field out of
Alameda homes if the City approved Village VI. He noted that, too, had not been furnished.
He asked that the Planning Board request CLASS's representatives for specific evidence to
back up their claims.
Mr. Hoppen noted that Peet's stated that the approval of Village VI will impact their
operations, and added that Peet's was aware of the Village VI development prior to their
decision to come to Harbor Bay. He noted that they created complete disclosure documents
and easements to provide the necessary protections, and agreed to consider additional
protections through a development agreement so that Peet's and all businesses in the park
would not be impacted by this development. He looked forward to hearing detailed
testimony from Peet's experts on how this project will impact their business operations.
Mr. Hoppen noted that a group led by PK Consultants brought forth a variety of concerns
and questions whether the original fiscal impact report was valid. Based on that information,
the applicant had the firm of Economic Planning Systems (EPS) contact the appropriate
people and agencies in order to update their report. He noted that their findings were
highlighted in the applicant's documentation, he would like them to highlight some of the
key points that had been raised that he believed demonstrated a substantial fiscal benefit to
the City, compared to a buildout of business park uses and/or private schools.
Mr. Jason Moody, Economic Planning Systems (EPS), noted that their findings incorporated
market information as of 2008. He noted that they spoke with the Police Department and the
Fire Department to get a better understanding of the impact on their public services. He
noted that both the Police Department and the Fire Department confirmed what they stated
in 2004, that the impact on their services would be relatively neglible. They also saw no
Page 2 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,3,"difference between the impact if the use stayed under the current zoning and developed as a
business park, versus a residential development. He noted there would be no consequential
difference in the cost of services. He believed that the residential use was substantially more
valuable on a per square foot basis for the developer, and therefore, the assessed value will
be higher. He added that the property taxes to the City would also be higher. He noted that
the residential value was enhanced by having higher square footage, which would generate
an assessed value of approximately $87 million, versus $52 million of commercial. Taxed at
1%, the $35 million difference would yield an additional $350,000 in revenues. He noted
that the higher turnover for residential meant the values would continue to keep pace more
than commercial uses. He noted that the residential use would come to market sooner than
industrial use. He noted that residents would spend more in the City than employees who
come to Alameda to work.
Mr. Daniel Reedy, land use attorney for applicant, noted that he had prepared his original
remarks to go through the draft resolution in the staff report, and he now understood that has
since been changed. He had read the new response to comments on the FEIR, and he
understood there would be a hearing on the adequacy of the EIR at this hearing. He noted
that while they did not agree with every word in either the DEIR or the response to
comments, they did concur with staff's recommendation that the FEIR adequately addressed
the environmental impacts of the proposed project, and was reasonably complete. He did not
believe there was an issue of continuing to keep going on the EIR in gathering more
responses or comments. Regarding the merits of the project, they respectfully differed from
staff's analysis of the General Plan policies, and had submitted what they perceived to be the
pertinent General Plan policies. He suggested that some of the policies focused upon by Mr.
Thomas were aimed at the City commenting on the operations of the airport, as opposed to
the City's own business of land use designation. He noted that pages 4 to 6 of their summary
also addressed Policy 7.2.j: ""New or replacement residential development shall be allowed
between the 65 decibel CNEL settlement and the 70 decibel CNEL contour on Bayfarm
Island, if the property is subject to a noise easement.""
Mr. Reedy noted that the City Council acknowledged in the October 9, 2007, settlement
agreement that the Village VI proposed to ""only a minor amendment of the existing and
proposed approvals for the buildout of Harbor Bay Isle permitted under the development
agreement."" He noted that they did not see it as a major challenge to policies in the General
Plan that linked to the development agreement. He noted that draft Finding #2 missed the
General Plan's Table 8.1 (Land Use Compatibility Standards for Community Noise
Environments), and that residential land use was classified as ""conditionally acceptable
between the 65 CNEL and 70 CNEL contours."" He noted that all that was required was a
detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements, and noise insulation features must be
incorporated into the houses. He noted that those conditions will be met in Village VI.
Mr. Reedy noted that the question had been raised whether the Village VI project will
impair the City's ability to attract new businesses to the business park. He noted that the
parcels ringed by North Loop Road were already developed, with the exception of Peet's
Expansion Parcel. He noted that it was significant that in July and August 2005, a majority
of the property owners in the business park, those with existing businesses and the
Page 3 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,4,"partnerships that owned the then-vacant parcels in the North Loop area and all the land from
North Loop westward to the Ferry Terminal, voted in writing in favor of an amendment to
the business park's CC&Rs that allow the deannexation of the project property from the
business park to allow the Village VI project to go forward, subject to certain conditions that
the project sponsor put in, such as the $500,000 designated for road improvements of
Harbor Bay Parkway, a sound wall, a buffer, and noise mitigation easements. He believed
that if those property owners were genuinely concerned about the future land use
compatibility issues, or that they would not be able to sell that land and develop them
commercially in the future, they would not have voted for the amendment to the business
park CC&Rs that allowed Village VI to go forward.
Mr. Reedy noted that the objective, factual findings would be found in the updated EPS
report. He noted that any ridership was important to the Ferry, and that the City Council
made the ongoing protection and enhancement of the ferry service an important City policy.
He believed there would be a special incentive for the homeowners because their
homeowners dues would contain a specific subsidy of the ferry. He noted that was not the
case in any other neighborhood in Harbor Bay Isle, or elsewhere on Bayfarm Island. He
believed the residents who paid that subsidy would be more inclined to use it; the service
and the shuttle service to the ferry would be marketed to them. They listed several housing
benefits in their report, such as the $1 million voluntary contribution to the City. He noted
that ABAG recently gave its allocation for market-rate housing for the City, with 843
market-rate homes. He noted that this project would help contribute to that number. He
noted that it would improve the values of existing nearby homes. He believed it would
increase opportunities for home ownership for Alameda residents, including current renters,
without having to move out of the City.
Mr. Reedy noted that under CEQA, if the Port goes forward with projects that have an
adverse impact on the City, the City would protest those projects, even if it had approved a
housing project on that site. He noted that the February 21, 2006 letter sent from the
President of the Port Commission to Mayor Johnson regarding agreement that the Port
entered into with HBIA regarding Village VI read: ""Residential is the highest and best use
of that parcel, and the process and provision set forth in the agreement would maintain and
improve the compatibility of land uses at Harbor Bay Isle with existing and future operation
and development at the Oakland Airport."" He requested that the Planning Board vote to
recommend to the City Council that the City would approve the General Plan Amendment
and the rezoning.
Board member Lynch pointed out Policy 7.2.j, and requested that Mr. Reedy be specific as it
related to the word ""shall."" He inquired whether Mr. Reedy asserted that there was no
discretionary process in which those homes need to be approved. Mr. Reedy replied that he
was not making such an assertion, and that it did not mean that they ""may"" be allowed, but
that they are allowable. Board member Lynch inquired whether Mr. Reedy understood that
the homes may be built by right; while he could follow the argument, he came to a different
conclusion because it had not been clarified. Mr. Reedy replied that the noise compatibility
issue would be handled by this policy.
Page 4 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,5,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft observed that this would be dependent on any change in
zoning. She inquired about the letter from the Mr. Katzoff, President of the Oakland Board
of Port Commissioners (2/21/06), and was surprised when she read the portion of the letter
which stated that the FAA reached the same conclusion in determining that allowing
residential development on the proposed developmental parcels would not violate the Port's
grant assurances: ""Moreover, I personally believe that residential is the highest and best use
of the parcels, and that the process and provisions set forth in the agreement would maintain
and improve the compatibility of land uses at Harbor Bay Isle with existing and future
operation and development of the Oakland Airport."" She did not think that the personal
opinion of the president of the Port Commission would be the same as saying that the Port
had already taken a position. She noted that she was curious about the statement, and
Googled Mr. Katzoff's name. She found that he was an attorney, and that his firm and his
practice had an emphasis on representing real estate owners, developers, contractors,
architects and other design professionals. She did not believe that his personal perspective
was sufficient to bind the whole Board, and that the attachment to the letter was the Board of
Port Commissioners' Resolution 05-280, titled ""Resolution Authorizing and Approving an
Agreement with Harbor Bay Isle Associates (HBIA) to Neither Object Nor Support Harbor
Bay Isle Associates' Application for Approvals from the City of Alameda and Other
Regulatory Agencies for Residential Development in a Certain Portion of the Harbor Bay
Business Park.' She noted that the title was self-sufficient, and added that Mr. Reedy had
compiled an exhaustive document, but she did not want the Board to get beyond what the
actual document stated explicitly.
President Cook noted that more than five speaker slips had been received.
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Noes: 0 Absent: 0. The motion passed.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Mel Grant, owner, SFX Preferred Resorts, 1900 North Loop, spoke in opposition to this
project. He expressed concern about the negative impact and financial damage of residential
encroachment in Emeryville, and presented a video illustrating the results when
incompatible land uses are mixed. He did not believe the project should be approved. He
noted that the City had no obligation to change the zoning from commercial to residential as
requested by the applicant, but may do so if there were compelling reasons in favor of the
City and community. He opposed the additional traffic flow that would be generated on
Catalina and the adjoining roads by the additional 104 homes. He did not believe a sound
wall would stop the increased operations. He noted that a number of businesses had moved
to Alameda because of residential encroachment, particularly from Emeryville and Oakland.
He believed that further residential encroachment in Alameda would drive businesses away.
He expressed concern that having residents directly across the street would unnecessarily
increase his business' liability and risk. He believed this would create a hostile environment,
dividing the City's economic hub with its residents. He was very concerned about the good
Page 5 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,6,"work done in the business park being reversed by the presence of this development. He
noted that staff estimated that these homes would need to sell for at least $650,000 for the
City to break even on its cost to service the new development. He was not convinced the
homes would sell for that amount, and believed there may be a major financial deficit that
would not favor the City. He did not believe the development would be compatible with the
Master Plan and the zoning, would compromise the City's Master Plan for economic
growth, would drive future business away, would damage existing investors, and would
reduce employment and economy, thus having a negative impact on revenue streams to the
City. He believed this plan would only benefit the developer.
President Cook noted that Seth Kostek, Santa Clara Systems, Inc., 2060 North Loop Road,
and Clinton Abbott, Allergy Research Group, 2300 North Loop, ceded their time to Mr.
Grant.
Ms. Susan Davis, Donsuemor, Inc., 2080 North Loop Road, spoke in opposition to this
project. She noted that they relocated to this business park in February 2007 from
Emeryville, where they had been for more than 20 years. She had witnessed the intrinsic
incompatibilities that came with residential encroachment on businesses, which had been
initiated by that city to create a vibrant live-work community. She noted that she had been
asked to contribute her ideas to the city's vision, which she noted was very supportive of her
business remaining in Emeryville. She noted that in reality, those zoning choices regarding
truck routes, business operation hours, loading/unloading areas, and location of idling trucks
ultimately led to her business leaving Emeryville. She chose Alameda because of this
business park, which provided what her business and employees needed. She noted that
Alameda provided a good quality of life for her employees.
Ms. Diane Smahlik, Ettore Products Co., 2100 North Loop Road, spoke in opposition to this
project. She noted that this business park was the ideal location for their company and its
employees. She believed that Alameda was a wonderful location, but did not believe that
putting housing adjacent to manufacturing was a good idea, and that there could be more
than 400 people in the neighborhood. She noted that while retail and residential may be able
to co-exist, that manufacturing and residential was not a good mix. She was very concerned
about the liability regarding the truck traffic, as well as graffiti and theft.
Mr. Brent Salomon, Allergy Research Group, 2300 North Loop Road, spoke in opposition
to this project. He noted that they had originally been located in an industrial park
in
Hayward, but that the area changed in the mid-90s. They left that environment in 2003,
arriving in Alameda, which was a very good move for them. He was opposed to the
proposed proximity of the residential neighborhood to the manufacturing area. He noted that
the CC&R vote was controlled by the developer, and that the businesses did not have a
voice in that decision.
Mr. Jim Grimes, Peet's Coffee and Tea, 1400 Park Avenue, Emeryville, spoke in opposition
to this project. He noted that Peet's moved into this business park because of what it offered,
and he noted that it was a model business park for other communities. He preferred this
business park because of its proximity to existing transportation, as well as the presence of
Page 6 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,7,"berms and other features. He noted that they had been welcomed by the City, and believed
that this area was well-planned. He was concerned about the lack of compatibility between
the industrial and residential uses, and believed that the truck noise would create complaints
by residents, although they would have moved into the area fully aware of the industrial
activities. He noted that at the time the vote of the business community was taken, in which
two-thirds of the businesses supported this plan, most of the facilities of the 12 people in the
business group had not yet been built or sold. He complimented staff on identifying the key
issues, and did not believe this was an appropriate site for a residential community. He
suggested that this site would become a good business property.
Mr. Allan Moore, land use attorney representing CLASS, Gagen & McCoy, 279 Front
Street, Danville, spoke in opposition to this project. He noted that they had submitted an
extensive legal analysis dated June 1, 2007, which was included in the FEIR and the
administrative record. He noted that it responded to the request Mr. Hoppen on CLASS'
behalf. He noted that he has been a Planning Commissioner for his hometown of Walnut
Creek for 11 years. He believed that staff's response was thorough and responsive. He cited
the staff report, which unequivocally recommended that this proposed project be denied. He
stated that while staff indicated that the EIR could be certified, the significant impacts could
not be mitigated and that the proposed General Plan Amendment would not provide any
significant benefits to the community. Staff confirmed that the developer had refused to add
any affordable housing to the development, and had proposed market rate housing. He did
not believe there was any overriding benefit to the community.
Mr. Brian Mulry, attorney representing CLASS, Gagen & McCoy, 279 Front Street,
Danville, spoke in opposition to this project. He noted that their arguments were outlined in
the letter submitted to the Planning Board.
Mr. Sanford Fidell, 23139 Erwin, Woodland Hills, spoke in opposition to this project. He
noted that he had studied the effects of aircraft noise on communities for over 40 years, and
had been retained by Gagen & McCoy to review the expert report appended to the
applicant's proposal. He found that the report was very narrow and legalistic in its
arguments, and its carefully stated conclusions did confirm that the aircraft noise levels at
the proposed development site were likely to increase over the years as the airport continued
to grow. He added that the most of the aircraft noise exposure could not be mitigated
outdoors at all, and that many of the indoor mitigation measures decrease with age, such as
tight-fitting doors and windows.
Mr. Red Wetherell, Vice President, CLASS, 28 Cove Road, spoke in opposition to this
project. He noted that he was an architect emeritus and a consultant in acoustics and noise
control. He described the standard noise procedures, which did not include low-frequency
rumble, which was very disturbing to residents. He concurred with staff's assessment that
this project was not appropriate for the site, and urged the Planning Board to deny it.
Ms. Barbara Tuleja, co-founder, CLASS, 22 Purcell, spoke in opposition to this project. She
noted that allowing these homes to be built would disturb the noise abatement efforts at the
airport, and noted that she had worked with the noise abatement officers for over 20 years.
Page 7 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,8,"She described the background of their efforts, and urged the Planning Board to deny this
application.
Mr. Dave Needle, CLASS, 2981 Northwood Drive, spoke in opposition to this project. He
noted that as a resident, he would be negatively affected by this proposed project, and urged
denial of the General Plan Amendment. He noted that the adherence to the noise abatement
procedures by the pilots would be put in jeopardy by the proposed project.
Mr. Ron Lappa spoke in opposition to this project. He believed the applicant's choice of
naming the proposed project Village VI was an attempt to convey that it was part of the
existing Harbor Bay Isle community, thereby inferring that this project was a natural
extension of the current five villages. He noted that it was not, and that Harbor Bay Isle had
built other non-Harbor Bay projects, and never attempted to dub them a village. He was very
concerned about the traffic and noise impacts, and did not believe this project was a good fit
for this site.
Ms. Janet Kirk, Islandia/CLASS, 3332 Solomon Lane, spoke in opposition to this project.
She was very concerned that the traffic from the proposed development would come into her
neighborhood.
Mr. Peter Aschwanden, 62 Vista Road, spoke in opposition to this project and noted that he
had a business in the business park.
Mr. Jim Henthorne, 3163 Fiji Lane, spoke in opposition to this project. He did not believe
this would be a compatible use with the business park, and urged the Board to deny the
applicant's request. He would like Harbor Bay Associates to bring more businesses into the
park, and leave the residential uses in a more appropriate area.
Ms. Dianne Emery, 3411 Catalina Avenue, spoke in opposition to this project. She read a
letter written by her neighbor Betty Crowhurst, which referred to Measure H, into the
record:
""Planning Board members, ladies and gentlemen:
It's not their fault. It we who are at fault. We continue to invite families into
Alameda, even though our schools are on the brink of bankruptcy. We are facing a
parcel tax, even school closures, according to the proponents of Measure H. It is not
good planning to generate more crowded classrooms when we can't afford the ones
we already have. Since I live on the street that is scheduled to receive all the new
traffic, I have strong objection to the plan for the so-called Village VI on that
account, also. Apparently, the traffic congestion was measured at Mecartney and
Island. The real bottleneck is at Island and Doolittle. It is very congested during
commute hours. In the event of an earthquake, we would never be able to get past
that horrendous intersection. Adding more traffic reduces still further our chances of
escaping a disaster.
Page 8 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,9,"Ms. Emery noted that she was opposed to the proposed project, and noted that eight
roadways came onto Catalina, and funneled down Island Drive or Holly. She noted that
parking would be extremely difficult, especially on the weekends.
Mr. Lee Harris, former CHBI President and former Planning Board President, spoke in
opposition to this project. He noted that the staff report and comments had addressed most
of the substantive issues that he believed should be addressed. He noted that the greatest
problems that have occurred on the Planning Board over the past 20 years involved an
intersection between residential and commercial uses. He noted that Alameda needed both
businesses and residents, but the closer proximity they had to each other, the greater the
problems were. He urged the Planning Board to follow staff's recommendation to deny this
project.
Mr. Nick Villa, Secretary, Islandia Homeowners Association, 3231 Santa Cruz Lane, spoke
in opposition to this project. He disagreed with the applicant's assertion that the residential
values would increase if this project were to be built, and believed it would be a recipe for
disaster.
Ms. Elizabeth dos Remedios, President, Islandia Homeowners Association, 1002 Easter
Lane, spoke in opposition to this project. She did not believe that having eight streets
dumping onto their street would increase their home values. She believed the peaceful
nature of their neighborhood would be disturbed.
Mr. Avis Cherepy, 3164 Phoenix Lane, spoke in opposition to this project. He did believe
there would be enough tax revenue to support the additional demands on the schools, roads,
police, water and sewer services.
Mr. Ed Downing, 37 Clipper Drive, spoke in opposition to this project. He noted that he was
a retired airline pilot, and was also Chief Pilot of the Oakland pilot base for Southwest
Airlines when he retired in 2004. He believed this project was wrong on many levels, and
that it only benefited a small group of people, the developers. As a pilot, he was accustomed
to aircraft noise, but did not particularly enjoy it over his home. He and his former company
believed that airlines and residential communities could coexist. He did not believe it was
wise to develop so many homes in close proximity to one of the busiest runways in
America, and he believed it would undermine the CLASS agreement. He noted that it took
extra effort and time on the part of both controllers and pilots to comply with noise
abatement procedures. He urged the Planning Board to deny this application.
Mr. Jason Detwiler, Islandia Homeowners Association, 3177 Phoenix Lane, spoke in
opposition to this project. He noted that the addition of even a few cars could have an
exponential effect on a gridlock situation, in terms of time spent at an intersection.
Mr. Michael Scholtes, President, Bay Isle Pointe Homeowners Association, 87 Sable Pointe,
spoke in opposition to this project. He noted that as a pilot, he flew out of North Field, and
added that the airport was anxious to increase the light jet and turboprop operations out of
North Field. He did not want this project to compromise the agreement between the City and
Page 9 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,10,"Oakland Airport pilots. He was very concerned about the increased traffic generated by 104
homes, approximately 300-400 additional cars. He urged the Planning Board to deny the
application.
Ms. Betty Anderson, Islandia/CLASS, 3204 Fiji Lane, was opposed to this project, and
declined to speak.
Mr. Bill Smith noted that the community ran on the investments and taxes of the residents
and business owners. He did not believe this project would increase the nearby house
values. He suggested a park and ride lot.
Mr. Michael Robles Wong, President, Board for Community of Harbor Bay Isle,
representing 20 homeowner associations on Bayfarm Island, with 3,000 houses and 10,000
residents. He spoke in opposition to this project. He was very concerned about the potential
increase in noise and air pollution. He noted that the EIR did not address the impact on
children. He noted that Earhart, Bayfarm and Lincoln Middle Schools were already at
capacity, and that the children of the potential new homeowners would have to be driven to
and from school every day. He did not believe this development would raise the value of the
homes.
Ms. Reyla Graber spoke in opposition to this project, and believed it was a terrible idea that
only benefited the developer. She noted that a General Plan Amendment must promote the
general welfare, have an overriding concern in the general public interest, must be equitable
and have an overriding consideration that the benefits outweighed the negatives. She
believed the negative impacts far outweighed any possible benefits. She was concerned that
the existing businesses would be lost.
Mr. Bob Berges spoke in opposition to this project.
Ms. Pat Gannon, 1019 Tobago, spoke in opposition to this project, and agreed with the
previous comments that had been made about the project. She believed the project would do
a disservice to the Alameda residents.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham why the Board was not voting up
or down on the EIR, Ms. Mooney replied that the original resolution was changed because
there was discussion of the EIR. If the Planning Board were to deny this project, it would be
best to keep the project and EIR together from a procedural aspect, rather than approving the
EIR without a project. She noted that City Council was the only body with the ability to
make the statement of overriding considerations on the EIR.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether this was identified in the
Housing Element as a potential housing site, Mr. Thomas replied that it would have no
impact on the Housing Element, and that it was not identified as a housing site.
Page 10 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,11,"In response to an inquiry by Board member Lynch whether the inclusionary housing
ordinance would come into effect, Mr. Thomas replied that normally it would, but not in this
case.
Board member McNamara noted that the staff report did not reference Island going all the
way through, as well as the eight streets feeding onto Catalina. Mr. Thomas replied that the
application before the Board was a General Plan Amendment to change the zoning from
business to residential, which was analyzed in the EIR. He described the procedures in
determining the street layout and flow.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Lynch whether he cared to move forward on
this application, based on what the public and Planning Board had said during the meeting,
Mr. Hoppen replied that he intended to go forward with the application.
In response to a question, Mr. Thomas noted that the applicant submitted a fiscal impact
study prepared by EPS in 2004. PK Consultants looked at the report, and raised a number of
questions, particularly regarding the age of the report. The applicants agreed that the report
should be updated. The fundamental difference of opinion between staff and the EPS
analysis was the idea that there was no difference in the cost of residential and business use
to the General Fund. It was agreed that the residential use would generate higher land
values, but they disagreed regarding the cost to service the residential use versus the
business use. The report took the position that they were basically the same.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether that assertion was
substantiated, Mr. Thomas replied that EPS identified several sources of information,
including the Police and Fire Departments. Staff was concerned about the calls that they
would receive for Code Enforcement, complaints about businesses, noise and traffic that did
not go to the Police Department. He believed this site would generate a lot of calls, and
believed that the time and economic resources expended would be significant.
President Cook noted that there would be the cost associated with the loss of opportunity
from businesses that may not come to Alameda because it was no longer a desirable
environment in which to do business.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that while the City certainly needed revenues,
residences and businesses, this was not an either/or proposition; she believed there should be
diversification in the City. She noted that the commercial/light industrial/manufacturing use
in the City was very valuable. She disclosed that she met with some business owners from
the North Loop Business Association who had spoken during the public hearing the
previous week. She noted that this business park had grown and progressed, which was
good for Alameda. She noted that Harbor Bay Isle had held this parcel for 20 years, and had
trouble selling it. She noted that there were some business parks where the businesses
owned their own spaces, and that it was important to support both business and residential
uses in the area. She was concerned about the noise issue, and that the mitigation measures
included ""inoperable or closed windows, as well as mechanical ventilation systems that will
meet the Uniform Building Code requirements."" She believed that was a tortured analysis,
Page 11 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,12,"and did not believe it would be workable in the event of a power outage. She believed a
continually operating mechanical ventilation system would be a drain on energy resources,
and that non-operating windows would be a problem in a power outage.
President Cook completely agreed with the staff report. She noted that she had visited
preschools in that area at one time, but did not believe it would be a healthy place for
housing, given the jet traffic and noise. She believed this area should remain a
commercial/industrial use. She noted that this would be a good case study on the necessity
of appropriate zoning.
Board member Cunningham concurred with the staff report, and believed that in this case, if
you build it, they will not come. He agreed that this demonstrated the importance of zoning,
as well as controlling dysfunctional uses coming together.
Vice President Kohlstrand thanked staff and the members of the public, as well as the
applicant, who put a great deal of effort into their presentation. She appreciated the
respectful manner in which the hearing was conducted. She believed that there was
overwhelming opposition in the community, and did not hear one resident speak in support
of this item. She believed that it would invite more problems if a residential neighborhood
were to be established near the runway. She did not believe the monetary benefits were an
issue at all, because the uses were incompatible and that there would be noise complaints,
regardless of any signed waiver. She could not support this request for a zoning change.
Board member Lynch concurred with the staff report. He believed this was very poor land
use planning, and that it was the applicant's right to come forward with such a request. He
would not support this application.
Board member McNamara concurred with the recommendation of the staff report. She
believed the tax revenue benefit would disappear after Year 1, and it would be more
beneficial to allow the business park to be successful in recruiting and developing the land
as it was initially designed. She could not support this application.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that relocating a business was time-consuming and
expensive, and that while there may be a time to make amendments, she did not believe this
was that time.
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to deny
the proposed General Plan Amendment and zoning map amendment.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Noes: 0 Absent: 0. The motion passed.
Mr. Thomas noted that this decision may be appealed within 10 days.
President Cook called for a five-minute recess.
Page 12 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,13,"4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of March 24, 2008.
President Cook noted that page 7, paragraph 5, should be changed to read, ""She was
concerned that the quality of the back yard for the ground floor unit would be restricted
compromised because of private decks.""
Board Member Cunningham moved to approve the minutes of March 24, 2008, as
amended.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes:
0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 1 (Ezzy Ashcraft). The motion passed.
b.
Minutes for the meeting of April 14, 2008 (pending).
These minutes will be considered at a later meeting.
c.
Minutes for the meeting of April 28, 2008 (pending).
These minutes will be considered at a later meeting.
6.
PRESENTATIONS:
a.
Staff Communications - Future Agendas
Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items. He noted that the May 27, 2008,
meeting held on Tuesday because of the holiday, would be held at the Mastick Senior
Center.
Mr. Thomas noted that the June 9, 2008, meeting would be held in the Library.
b.
Zoning Administrator Report - Meeting of April 15, 2008.
Mr. Thomas noted that the May 6 Zoning Administrator meeting had been canceled.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A. Appointment of Planning Board Member to the Bicycle Plan Task Force.
No action was taken.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
Page 13 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,14,"a.
Transmittal of Draft Pedestrian Plan
Mr. Thomas noted that the plan would be agendized for discussion at the next meeting.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board member Cunningham noted that the Climate Protection Task Plan won an award.
Ms. Eliason noted that the award of merit from the Northern California Chapter of the
American Planning Association was presented for Community Green Building.
Board member Cunningham noted that award was a direct result of staff's hard work.
President Cook noted that she had received several calls from Ms. Grabber regarding the
noticing requirements. The Board had discussed the need for noticing greater than 300
feet for the big projects with wide-ranging impact on people.
Mr. Thomas noted that was discussed with City Council when the Esplanade project
came forward. The City has committed to notify a larger area for the Harbor
Bay/Business Park projects, as well as to ensure that every homeowners association
president was noticed of every project. He invited ideas for improving noticing.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested keeping an up-to-date list of neighborhood,
business and other civic organizations that have been interested in planning issues.
Board member Lynch noted that this issue has come forward from time to time, and that
in San Francisco, there were agencies that assist with notifying the public, including
website and email notification. He noted that some cities are adopting ordinances that
expand the notification radius.
President Cook noted that Ms. Graber's concerns included the radius and the timing issue,
and that there was often not enough time to get the community apprised of the issue.
Mr. Thomas noted that the notices went out 20 days before the meeting, as adopted by
City Council.
Ms. Eliason noted that AP&T no longer wants Planning staff to post notices on their new
poles, and that staff now uses A-frame signs.
Mr. Thomas noted that if a resident wished to be on the email list, they would also
receive the staff reports.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Page 14 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,15,"Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
This meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 15 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-27,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
1.
CONVENE:
7:01 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft.
3.
ROLL CALL:
Acting President Kohlstrand, Board Members Autorino,
Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, and McNamara.
Also present were Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, City Attorney Donna Mooney;
Gail Payne, Public Works; Althea Carter.
President Cook and Board member Lynch were absent from roll call.
Acting President Kohlstrand welcomed Art Autorino to the Planning Board.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of April 14, 2008 (pending).
These minutes will be considered at a later meeting.
b.
Minutes for the meeting of April 28, 2008.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 13, paragraph 4, should be changed to read, ""Board
member Ezzy Ashcraft would like to hear more about forum- form-based codes.
""
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to approve the minutes of April 28, 2008, as amended.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4. Noes:
0
Absent: 2 (Cook/Lynch); Abstain: 1 (Autorino). The motion passed.
c.
Minutes for the meeting of May 12, 2008 (pending).
These minutes will be considered at a later meeting.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
Acting President Kohlstrand noted that speaker slips had been received for Item 8-A, and suggested
that it be moved to the Regular Agenda.
Acting President Kohlstrand recommended that 8-C be pulled from the Consent Calendar and be
placed on the Regular Agenda.
6.
PRESENTATIONS:
a.
Staff Communications - Future Agendas
Page 1 of 6",PlanningBoard/2008-05-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-27,2,"Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.
b.
Zoning Administrator Report
There was no report.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A.
UP06-0010 - 1310 Central Avenue. Required Six Month Review of Use Permit for the
extended hours of operation for the Alameda Valero Gas Station. The subject property is
located in the R-4 (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District. (DV)
Mr. Thomas presented the staff report. Staff recommended that the Planning Board accept the
Six-Month Review and find that Alameda Valero Gasoline was in conformance with the
conditions of the Use Permit. The station would continue under the terms of the Use Permit, and
no further reviews would be required. Any violations would initiate Code Enforcement actions,
up to and including revocation of the Use Permit.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Phil Gravem, 1344 Sherman Street, spoke in support of this project. He noted that he lived
across the street from this gas station. He noted that the shortened hours had been beneficial, and
added that he was concerned about cars that were parked outside the bays and on the streets. He
stated that things had generally been going well.
Ms. Patricia Kinzel, 1307 Central Avenue, noted that she was undecided about this issue. She
thanked Barbara Price of Public Works for changing the timing on the lights.
Mr. Luon Zergser, applicant, Alameda Valero, 1310 Central Avenue, noted that some customers'
cars were parked on the street when they did not come to pick them up before the station closed.
He did not want to lock the cars in the garage in the event the customers came after hours for
their cars.
In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara why some of the cars were parked
partially out of the garage, Mr. Zergser replied that because of the configuration of the smog
check testing equipment, the rear of the cars being tested must be outside the garage. He noted
that other than the smog check, no servicing of the cars was performed outside the garage.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft whether he could post a sign asking
the customers not to park on the street, Mr. Zergser replied that he could do that.
Acting President Kohlstrand noted that the condition prohibiting any cars being parked outside
was almost impossible to meet.
Page 2 of 6",PlanningBoard/2008-05-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-27,3,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it would be preferable for a customer to pick up their car
on the parking lot after hours, as opposed to on the street.
Board member McNamara noted that the applicant performed a public service by allowing the
nearby church to use their parking lot.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she understood the applicant's comments about the cars
being outside the bay. She wanted the ""no street parking"" requirement to be followed, and
believed it was reasonable for the owner to ask the customers not to park on the street.
Board member McNamara understood that the nature of smog check work required that part of
the car be outside the garage. With respect to Condition 8, she believed that the Board should
consider allowing some parking on the lot in an overnight situation, but not on the street.
Board member Cunningham suggested that another six-month review be implemented, in order to
address the neighbors' concerns.
Board member Autorino noted that the requirement to not allow parked cars on the lot overnight
was put in place for a reason, and believed that more input would be needed before making such
a change.
Acting President Kohlstrand noted that any changes to the conditions had not been noticed, and
believed it would be inappropriate to change the conditions at this time.
Mr. Thomas suggested that direction be given to staff and the applicant that another six-month
review be implemented. The applicant should keep track of this specific situation, and that it be
made clear that the preference was to not leave cars on the lot overnight. In six months, staff
would return with that information for discussion, and a new resolution which would be noticed
if the condition were to be changed.
Acting President Kohlstrand suggested that a condition be added to address the work being done
inside the bays.
In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara regarding overnight parking, Mr. Thomas
stated that if a customer's car was not picked up in time, that it was preferred that it be parked on
the lot rather than on the street. Any complaints should be directed to the City's Code
Enforcement department, which would also keep track of the calls.
Ms. Mooney noted that with the information gathered, it could be decided whether any changed
in conditions would be agendized.
Acting President Kohlstrand noted that she was uncomfortable directing staff not to enforce a
condition. She would be more comfortable implementing a six-month review, when additional
reporting on conditions 6 and 8 would be available. If the Board intended to change the
conditions at that time, the neighbors would have a chance to speak up. She added that any
complaints would be fully investigated, and that
Page 3 of 6",PlanningBoard/2008-05-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-27,4,"Board member Autorino noted that if a customer did not show up, it should be considered as a
contingency only, and that the owner should keep track of those incidents. He noted that would
give better data for the next review.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to accept the Required Six Month Review of Use Permit
for the extended hours of operation for the Alameda Valero Gas Station, and that the owner be
directed to track how many cars were stored overnight on-site; that information will be
incorporated into a future review to occur within 6 months.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0
Absent: 2 (Cook/Lynch); Abstain: 0. The motion passed.
8-B. PLN07-0031 and DR07-0086 - RHP Design Group - 2424 Encinal Avenue (KFC
Restaurant). The project entails the complete demolition of the existing 2,366 square
foot restaurant and a Design Review for the construction of an approximately 2,016
square foot new restaurant. The restaurant will contain a drive-through, which requires a
Use Permit pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A.c.l(r) A parking exception is required for this
project, because the eight parking spaces provided for this project are less than the
required 20 parking spaces pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A.g.8. The project is located in a C-
C-T, Community Commercial Theatre District.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft requested that this item be presented on the Regular Agenda when
it has been re-agendized.
Board Member Cunningham moved to continue this item to a future meeting date.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0
Absent: 2 (Cook/Lynch); Abstain: 0. The motion passed.
8-C.
Finding of Consistency for 860 Atlantic. A proposed finding of the consistency for the
use of the property and buildings at 860 Atlantic Avenue in the Marina Village Master
Plan area for use by the Peralta Community College District for educational purposes.
(AT)
Mr. Thomas presented the staff report, and recommended approval of this item.
Board Member Cunningham moved to approve the item.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0
Absent: 2 (Cook/Lynch); Abstain: 0. The motion passed.
8-D.
Green Building Guidelines - City of Alameda, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue.
Recommendation to the City Council to approve a resolution providing, as official City
reference documents, the Alameda County Residential Green Building Guidelines, U.S.
Page 4 of 6",PlanningBoard/2008-05-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-27,5,"Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEEDTM)
Rating System, and Bay Friendly Landscape Guidelines.
Board Member Cunningham moved to recommend to the City Council to approve a resolution
providing, as official City reference documents, the Alameda County Residential Green Building
Guidelines, U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEEDTM) Rating System, and Bay Friendly Landscape Guidelines.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes:
0
Absent: 2 (Cook/Lynch); Abstain: 0. The motion passed.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
Draft Pedestrian Plan. A request for Planning Board review and recommendation on the
City of Alameda Pedestrian Plan. The Pedestrian Plan establishes improvement and
funding priorities for improvements for pedestrian facilities throughout the City to make
Alameda a more walkable community and encourage walking as an alternative to the
automobile. The draft plan was prepared by the City of Alameda Pedestrian Task Force
and the City of Alameda Pubic Works Department. (GP).
Ms. Payne, Public Works, summarized the staff report and described the components of the
Pedestrian Plan in detail.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speakers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Acting President Kohlstrand noted that she had served on the Pedestrian Task Force, and
commended Ms. Payne on the incredible amount of work that she did on this study. She noted that
there was concern about the possible funding, and that it was good to see the list of outside funding
sources identified in the report.
Board member Autorino noted that this was an extremely impressive document.
Board member Cunningham noted that this was a very thorough document, and inquired whether
there was language or direction to develop the pieces of land. Ms. Payne noted that would be
presented in the fall.
Board member McNamara complimented Ms. Payne on the thoroughness of this report.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that times had changed, and that not every child could walk to
school. She supported education about pedestrian and crossing issues, and encouraged people to
walk more. She supported incentives to increase pedestrian uses.
Board Member Cunningham moved to support a recommendation on the City of Alameda
Pedestrian Plan that child safety be reviewed for all schools not just public schools. The
Page 5 of 6",PlanningBoard/2008-05-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-27,6,"Pedestrian Plan establishes improvement and funding priorities for improvements for pedestrian
facilities throughout the City to make Alameda a more walkable community and encourage
walking as an alternative to the automobile..
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0
Absent: 2 (Cook/Lynch). The motion passed.
9-B. Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study Update. A presentation and update on the City of
Alameda Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study. The study examines alternatives for
improving pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access across the Oakland Alameda Estuary on
the West End of Alameda in the vicinity of the Webster and Posey Tubes. The
presentation is for informational purposes. No action by the Planning Board is being
requested at this time. The City of Alameda Public Works Department is preparing for
the study. (GP)
Ms. Payne presented the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speakers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
No action was taken
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
8:53 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
This meeting was audio taped.
Page 6 of 6",PlanningBoard/2008-05-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-06-23,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, June 23, 2008
1.
CONVENE:
7:05 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Cunningham.
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Board Members
Autorino, Cunningham, and Ezzy Ashcraft.
Board members Lynch and McNamara were absent from roll call.
Also present were Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, Assistant City Attorney
Farimah Faiz; Planner III Dennis Brighton; Planner Simone Walter; Obaid Khan, Public
Works; Executive Assistant Althea Carter.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cook suggested that because of the full agenda, that the items be reordered so that the
Consent Calendar and Regular Agenda immediately follow Oral Communications.
Board member Cunningham moved to move Items 4, 5 and 6 to the end of the agenda.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0
Absent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara); Abstain: 0. The motion passed.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A.
DA-99-01 - Catellus Development Corporation. The applicant requests a Periodic
Review of Development Agreement, DA-99-01, for the period from January 2005
through December 2007.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham regarding the old Clif Bar location, Mr.
Thomas replied that Catellus was still working with Clif Bar. The Letter of Intent with Clif Bar
had expired approximately one year ago, and that negotiations continued between Catellus and
Clif Bar.
President Cook moved to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to accept the Periodic
Review of Development Agreement, DA-99-01, for the period from January 2005 through
December 2007.
Page 1 of 23",PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-06-23,2,"Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes:
0
Absent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara); Abstain: 0. The motion passed.
8-B.
DA89-01 - Harbor Bay Business Park Association, Harbor Bay Isle Associates and
Harbor Bay Entities - Bay Farm Island (Primarily Harbor Bay Isle). A request for a
Periodic Review of Development Agreement DA89-01, for the period through April 4,
2008, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1. The properties are zoned R-
1-PD (One Family Residence/Planned Development Zoning District); C-M-PD
(Commercial Manufacturing Planned Development Zoning District); O (Open Space
Zoning District), and R-1-A-H (One Family Residence with Special Agricultural and
Height Limit Combining Zoning District). (Code Enforcement)
President Cook moved to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to accept a Periodic Review
of Development Agreement DA89-01, for the period through April 4, 2008, as required under
Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0
Absent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara); Abstain: 0. The motion passed.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
PLN07-0031 and DR07-0086 - RHP Design Group - 2424 Encinal Avenue (KFC
Restaurant). The project entails the complete demolition of the existing 2,366 square
foot restaurant and a Design Review for the construction of an approximately 2,016
square foot new restaurant. The restaurant will contain a drive-through, which requires a
Use Permit pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A.c.l(r A parking exception is required for this
project, because the eight parking spaces provided for this project are less than the
required 20 parking spaces pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A.g.8. The project is located in a C-
C-T, Community Commercial Theatre District. (SW)
Ms. Wolter summarized the staff report and displayed a PowerPoint presentation, and noted that
there was no parking exception required at this project location, and that reference should be
struck. Staff recommended approval of this project as stated in the revised resolution.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether the signs would be part of this approval, Ms.
Wolter replied that signs would be approved separately.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding odors, Ms. Wolter replied
that because new mechanical equipment would be installed, the applicant has advised that the
current odors would not be emitted. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft added that she would like to
see the trash picked up on a daily basis.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, PSBA, spoke in support of this project. He was happy to see
that the applicant, the City and the residents had worked together to craft this agreement. He
Page 2 of 23",PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-06-23,3,"noted that PSBA supported the demolition of the current building. He was happy to hear that a
parking exception was not needed. He noted that the new building would be better-looking and
better-functioning.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, agreed that the new design would be a big
improvement over the current building. He was surprised that the signage would not be
considered at this meeting, and he believed it was an integral part of the overall design. He noted
that the existing pole sign was 12 feet tall, which he believed was too tall. He believed a
monument sign should be placed on a base, not a pole. He suggested that the sign be six feet tall,
rather than 12 feet tall. He noted that the drive-through signs were also pole-type signs, and
suggested that they be converted to a monument sign with a solid base.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she liked the new design, which was much more
harmonious with the neighborhood. She was concerned with the drive-through effect on the
environment and air quality. She noted that a car idling for two minutes uses the same amount of
fuel as it took to drive one mile, and that idling cars cause a negative impact on health. She noted
that an alternative to idling is to park the car, order, and return to the car. She understood that the
restaurant was set up more as a take-out restaurant. She believed that the City should be a good
steward of the environment. She would like to see a slight redesign to provide on-site parking
instead of the drive-through.
Vice President Kohlstrand shared Board member Ezzy Ashcraft's concerns with respect to the
drive-through and trash cleanup. She endorsed a daily cleanup. She agreed the building design
had improved, and she was concerned that the restaurant rested up against the sidewalk. She
inquired about the limitations on drive-through restaurants in any zoning area in the City.
Mr. Brighton noted that drive-through restaurants were prohibited in some areas on Webster
Street, but not on Park Street.
Mr. Thomas believed the current drive-through was done with permits, although staff had not
located those records.
Board member Cunningham would like to hear from the applicant regarding the drive-through
element. He inquired about employee break areas. Mr. Thomas noted that they were not
discussed in reviewing the application.
Board member Cunningham inquired whether the Police Department had reviewed the security of
this project. Mr. Thomas confirmed that they had, and that they were satisfied.
Board member Cunningham inquired if wood windows had been considered to blend with the
historical elements.
Board member Autorino shared the concerns regarding the trash pickup, and believed that daily
pickups were significantly better. He believed the design was significantly improved over the
Page 3 of 23",PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-06-23,4,"previous design, and noted that it was already a drive-through. He believed that the applicant had
the ability to continue that use.
President Cook shared the concerns about a drive-through, as well as how it got there. She was
concerned about the queuing for cars, and inquired whether there would be more cars than could
be handled.
Ms. Wolter noted that in order to have the drive-through, the parking must be arranged in such a
way so that the back-up would meet the development code, thus facing the building. She noted
that Public Works had examined this item, and added that Obaid Khan would be available for
questions.
Mr. Thomas noted that if the queue got to be 10 to 12 cars long, people in the parking area would
have a difficult time getting out. He noted that based on the current sales figures, staff did not
believe the line would get long enough to extend into the public right of way on Encinal; which
was staff's primary concern. He noted that a use permit could be revoked, and that the conditions
requiring management of the auto queue, monitoring, and review were an important part of this
application.
President Cook wished to be clear about the possibility of revoking the use permit for the drive-
through if it did not work.
Board member Cunningham inquired whether Public Works had a comment on the distances
between curb cuts.
Obaid Khan, Public Works, noted that they examined the driveway's location, and added that
putting the driveway exit onto Park Avenue would increase traffic circulation onto a residential
street. Staff considered that it would be a better solution to provide an exit and entrance at the
same site. He noted that there was considerable traffic on Encinal, and staff's concerns were the
reason for placing a nine-month review. He noted that staff wished to keep the exiting driveway
as far away as possible from an intersection.
Board member Cunningham noted there was a balance between pedestrian safety and vehicular
movement.
Mr. Khan noted that any queue on Encinal should be kept away from the intersection.
President Cook believed that if the restaurant's traffic was queuing onto Encinal, there should not
be a drive-through. She noted that between the bus traffic, the Fire Department, the gas station
and the high school foot traffic, she did not believe any queuing should be allowed onto Encinal,
or that the drive-through should not be operated unless it could be done safely. She suggested
that Condition 15 be tightened, and would like to hear from the applicant.
Karen [Gutke], Harmon Management, explained the operations of the company, noting that it
was the first franchisee of KFC. She added that the store managers had an ownership interest in
the restaurant, which enabled them to be run better than the national average. Their goal was to
Page 4 of 23",PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-06-23,5,"never have cars queued into the street, and that they had a seven-car stack. She noted that it was
imperative that they have the drive-through, and that the majority of the food that went home
with the customer did so at the drive-through. She agreed that the trash should be picked up more
frequently, and would be happy to ensure that would happen.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she was not generally in favor of drive-throughs, but she
appreciated the applicant's efforts to improve the circulation on-site and get the queuing on-site.
She was sensitive to the fact that the existing drive-through did not work very well. She liked
President Cook's comment that if a problem with queuing on Encinal occurred, then it may be an
issue of the site being too small for a drive-through. She supported the idea of monitoring this
site for a nine-month period, and ensuring that the studies be performed during the school year
rather than the summer in order to get a good sense of the implications for the afternoon activity
during the school year. She suggested considering the broader issue of allowing future drive-
throughs in the Park Street vicinity.
President Cook proposed that the conditions be changed so that if necessary, the use permit may
be revoked in order to ensure safe street and pedestrian operations, and that the item may be
brought back before the Planning Board.
Mr. Thomas noted that a condition could be added, making it very clear that the use permits can
be revoked after a noticed public hearing. Staff will monitor the conditions, and if a problem has
been found, it will be brought before the Board; staff did not wish to set the item for a fixed
review.
President Cook suggested that be included in Condition 15. She further suggested that Condition
8 be changed to require that the site be cleaned of trash on a daily basis. She noted that Condition
9 discussed the applicant's need to get the necessary encroachment permit from CalTrans for the
main driveway.
Mr. Thomas noted that Encinal was a state highway, and that if CalTrans did not approve it, they
would not want the project to move forward. He added that the Fire Department has examined
this project as well.
President Cook would like an additional condition that wood windows and doors be added where
appropriate.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she liked the wood-clad doors.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that wood doors were more residential, and that most businesses
had metal-framed doors.
Board member Cunningham noted that there were some wood doors on Park Street.
President Cook suggested the use of a wood door, or a door that was compatible with the window
treatment.
Page 5 of 23",PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-06-23,6,"Board member Cunningham to move to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to approve the
complete demolition of the existing 2,366 square foot restaurant and a Design Review for the
construction of an approximately 2,016 square foot new restaurant. The restaurant will contain a
drive-through, which requires a Use Permit pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A.c.l(r A parking exception
is required for this project, because the eight parking spaces provided for this project are less
than the required 20 parking spaces pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A.g.8. The following modifications
will be included:
1.
Wood windows and a door to match;
2.
The use permit may be revoked if the conditions have not been complied with;
3.
The trash will be picked up daily; and
4.
Traffic monitoring will occur during the school year.
Board member Autorino seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4. Noes: 1 (Ezzy
Ashcraft) Absent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara); Abstain: 0. The motion passed.
President Cook invited comment on signage, and agreed with Mr. Buckley's comment that the
old-fashioned pole signs were inappropriate. She requested staff's comments on the signage.
Ms. Wolter replied that the overall square footage as presented in the design review was currently
too large, and that the wall signs would be reduced. In addition, the directional signs may be
approved by the Planning & Building Director. She noted that the pole sign would not be
approved as it stood, and that concern may be alleviated.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook regarding the presence of ""The Colonel"" on the sign,
Ms. Gutke replied that was always a part of the company's identity.
President Cook noted that the improvements were very much appreciated.
9-B.
PLN08-0153 - General Plan Amendment - 2400 Mariner Square Drive. The
applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment for the MU2 Mariner Square Specific
Mixed Use Area to permit additional office use. The site is located at 2400 Mariner
Square Drive within M-2-PD General Industrial (Manufacturing) Planned Development
Zoning District. (Code Enforcement). (The applicant has requested this item be
continued to the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting of August 11, 2008.)
This item was continued to the Planning Board meeting of August 11, 2008.
9-C.
DR07-0056 - Major Design Review - 3327 Fernside Blvd. The applicant is requesting
a Major Design Review approval, which addresses: 1) Raising the residential structure to
create a third story and providing an addition at the rear of the residence; 2)
Reconfiguring the front staircase and front porch and expanding the garage door; 3)
Constructing a detached two-story structure in the rear yard that would serve as an
Page 6 of 23",PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-06-23,7,"additional dwelling unit. The site is located within an R-2 (Two-family Residential
Zoning District). (DB)
Mr. Brighton presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Joanne Chandler noted that she owned the property north of and adjacent to the applicants'
property, and spoke in support of this project. She had no objection to the applicants' plans to
improve their home, and had been assured that the work would not be too disruptive. She noted
that the applicants' had elderly parents whom they would like to bring into the home. She could
see nothing detrimental about this project.
Ms. Tracy Coté believed such additions compromised the integrity of the neighborhood
aesthetic, and believed that too few of the additions, which she considered to be poorly thought-
through, were noticed or debated. She believed the proposed changes would negatively impact
the historic façade. She was concerned about the double-wide garage, which was not typical for
this neighborhood. She expressed concern that the addition would not fit in with the area, and
would degrade the surrounding historic residences. She requested that the applicants be directed
to redesign an addition that would suit their needs, but would not negatively impact the
surrounding neighborhood.
Ms. Donna Talbot, applicant, noted that pursuant to the last Planning Board meeting, all of the
criteria for the approval had been met. She noted that they no longer needed any variances, were
in compliance with all Alameda Municipal Codes, resolved the height problem with the house,
and had incorporated the Planning Board's recommendations. She believed the photographs were
biased, and noted that they preferred to follow the Board's recommendations and move forward
rather than start the project again. She noted that the public hearing had been closed at the last
meeting. She noted that the new elevations incorporated the suggestions from the January 28,
2008, meeting, as well as suggestions made by Planning Services Manager Jon Biggs. She noted
that the front elevation on page 1 eliminated the massive stucco at the front and opened up the
porch. She believed staff's suggestion of adding an open porch was excellent, and that it
improved the look of the project.
Ms. Talbot noted that the driveway did not cut down, did not look out of place with the rest of
the neighborhood, and the front yard had a nice flow to it. She noted that the two-car garage had
a single-car entrance off the street, which was similar to many properties off Fernside Blvd. She
believed the driveway was attractively incorporated into the design. They redesignated the
boathouse as a second dwelling unit, and that they no longer needed any variances. She noted
that at the last Planning Board meeting, they discussed the height of the structure, and noted that
page 4 explained the changes in the height from the existing to the proposed height. She noted
that they reduced the height from 31'9"" to 30' to meet the AMC requirement. She noted that the
redesigned the front roof to a gabled style in order to reduce the roof height by the nine inches.
However, design review staff did not like that concept and upon further reflection, neither did she
and the co-applicant. They agreed to maintain the gable-style roof at the front of the house
during the March 5 meeting with Jon Biggs and Dennis Brighton. Mr. Biggs had suggested that
Page 7 of 23",PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-06-23,8,"since the nine-inch roof ridge was not a living space or attic, that it could be considered an
architectural element, and extend beyond the 30-foot maximum. She and her husband agreed
with that suggestion, and stated that they would incorporate that design into the design of the
project. They displayed the new roof angle on the overhead screen.
Ms. Talbot noted that Board member Cunningham stated at the last Planning Board meeting that
they were well within their rights to raise the height of the structure to 30 feet. They believed that
based on Mr. Biggs' suggestion, that the height and design issue of the front roof was resolved.
With respect to Mr. Brighton's comments relating to the new roof at the rear of the structure, she
noted that was the first time that Mr. Brighton had voiced that recommendation, and they did not
believe this was an appropriate time to bring new suggestions to the table. She noted that none of
the neighbors she or the co-applicant had spoken to voiced any concern about the project. She
noted that the only opponents to the project that she was aware of were the Alameda
Architectural Preservation Society, Mr. Brighton and Ms. Coté. She believed the proposed
project met the objective and the intent of Chapter 13s and 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code,
and represented a reasonable balance between their development objectives as the owner of the
property, including handicapped accessibility and the community's desire to preserve its
architectural quality and historic identity.
Mr. Christopher Buckley displayed several slides on the overhead screen, and noted that a letter
the AAPS had addressed to the Historical Advisory Board was included in the packet. They had
not seen the revised design, and expressed appreciation to the applicant for their efforts to reduce
the building heights and improve the front elevation. AAPS agreed with staff that the building
should not be lifted at all, and that the building was already significantly higher than other
buildings in the neighborhood. They believed that lifting the building further would distort its
proportions, and did not see why it needed to be lifted because there was an extra two feet of
headroom in the garage. AAPS agreed with staff that excavating would be the preferred
approach. The appearance was boxy and not consistent with the Craftsman style. They believed if
the eave were to be reduced and cross gables or dormers were introduced to handle the upstairs
windows, as was done on the front elevation, the building would have a much more integrated
Craftsman design. He noted that the six-foot addition consisting of the porch over the garage
broke the setback line and introduced a significant new building mass which projected into the
street. He noted that the double-wide garage became a dominating element, although it was
broken up by the Craftsman doors.
Ms. Nancy Hurd noted that she lived two blocks away from this house, and believed that his
house was bigger than other houses on the street. She favored the excavation to reduce the
amount of height, but questioned the changes that would take it away from the Craftsman style.
She did not believe the house looked symmetrical in the drawings, and would like to see the
original design of the house retained as much as possible, and not raising it any further.
Mr. Seth Hamalian noted that he lived two doors down from the applicants' home, and had often
heard comments from people that the homes in this neighborhood had character. He liked the
uniqueness of the homes in Fernside, and noted that one style did not dominate the
neighborhood. He strongly favored allowing the applicants to go forward with their proposed
design, and believed the message being sent by this process should be considered. He did not
Page 8 of 23",PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-06-23,9,"believe this process should be so arduous for the applicants, and that their home should not be
placed under a magnifying glass. He urged approval of this item.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she had taken issue with the height, the façade and the fact
that the variance was being sought when this item was first heard. She believed the revisions
addressed those issues. She noted that Mr. Buckley's letter mentioned the Golden Mean, and was
concerned that it was not discussed in the staff report.
Mr. Brighton noted that the Golden Mean issue was a general issue discussed with respect to
historic homes, generally Victorians and revival homes. He noted that Craftsman homes received
special treatment in the design guidelines. In this case, Craftsman had certain proportionality,
including a lower proportional base which meant they stayed low and wide. He noted that staff
was critical of popping up Victorians and creating front staircases that were inconsistent with the
scale of the structure, as well as the architectural integrity of the structure. Staff believed it was
critical to maintain the integrity of the Craftsman structure.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that this kind of discussion made a better community, and
that it returned to the drawing board by mutual agreement of the applicant and staff. She
requested that Mr. Brighton explain the difference between a bungalow and a Craftsman home,
which he did. She was concerned about the relocation of the stairway, and noted that most of the
homes in the neighborhood did not have center porches and center walkways. She liked the
porch treatment, and believed the double-wide garage doors were in proportion to the rest of the
house. She was concerned with an item brought up by the AAPS, and did not want to see a home
tower over its neighbors. She believed the 30-foot height limit was fine, and inquired about the
9-inch architectural element. She did not believe the roof in the front added enough detail, and
liked the back of the house. She agreed with Mr. Buckley's comment that the sides of the house
that they would be made to look more authentic in the Craftsman style with bay windows.
However, the only people who would see the side of the house would be the adjacent neighbors.
Mr. Cunningham believed that a lot of progress had been made since the last hearing, and that
the appearance of the front of the house looked much better. He believed the excavation would
be a detriment, and would like to maintain the 30-foot height limit. He believed the appearance
would be improved if some relief were to be added to the roof. He would like to see
improvements to the side of the house visible from the street, rather than encumbering the
applicant with architectural gyrations on the back of the house. He believed the design looked
much better than it had before.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Autorino regarding the details of the excavation the
applicant, displayed and described the method by which the excavation would be accomplished.
He noted that they planned a very expensive installation of an elevator so their parents would
have access to the entire house.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook why the extra nine inches would be necessary, and
why the ceiling height could not be 8'6"", the applicant replied that he would not be certain the
Page 9 of 23",PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-06-23,10,"handicapped vans in the garage. He noted that he could research that issue and added that it was
difficult to get his pickup truck in the garage at this time.
Ms. Talbot added that there were substantial support beams in the garage, so the effective ceiling
would be lower.
President Cook noted that there was a slippery slope, and that the current height limit was 30 feet.
She noted that it was difficult to treat one case differently.
Ms. Talbot noted that was the reason that Mr. Biggs came up with the architectural element, so
they would be in compliance with the Alameda Municipal Code, and so that a variance would
not be needed.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that no variance was involved in this case, and that the staff
interpretation was that it did meet the height requirement.
Mr. Brighton stated that the staff interpretation was that it would meet the height requirements if the
house was not raised. However, if the Board decided to change the condition to raise the house, then
the proposal of using the architectural element was acceptable to staff.
Ms. Talbot described the orientation of the house towards the water, and that no one looked at it
from behind. She added that it was not strictly a Craftsman style house in the back, and that an
addition in the back was constructed in 2000.
President Cook noted that the structure behind the house was very nice.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she did not see the discussion with Mr. Biggs reflected in
the staff report.
Ms. Talbot noted that she was surprised by that issue, and stated that they left the meeting with the
design review staff, believing that the issues had been resolved. She believed that their appearance
before the Planning Board was more of a courtesy to tell them how they had incorporated the
Board's suggestions.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if nine inches was all that kept the Board from be able to
find in the applicants' favor, and whether there was any way to shave nine inches off. Ms. Talbot
replied that they came forward with the proposal for the gable roof, which they did not particularly
like, in an attempt to shave nine inches off the roof. She had not realized how difficult that would
be, and added that the height of the garage was very important to them.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she understood what the applicants intended to do with the
garage. She also felt strongly about the 30-foot height limit, and added that the Planning Board was
not aware of the nine-inch architectural detail.
Board member Cunningham noted that they would be able to have up to a 5% slope for
handicapped access, and that a berm at the street would keep the water out.
Page 10 of 23",PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-06-23,11,"Ms. Talbot believed that Condition 1 addressed the back roof, which was a new roof that was not
part of the old Craftsman house.
Board member Cunningham believed that was open to opinion, but that the 30-foot line was clear
from the Planning Board's point of view. He shared President Cook's concern that if this height
extension were to be allowed, then other residents would ask for the same allowance or greater.
The applicant inquired whether the project would be able to move forward if the nine-inch
architectural feature were to be removed. Board member Cunningham believed that would be the
case if the roof ridge were to go down nine inches.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand whether the pitch of the roof would need
to be changed in that case, Board member Cunningham replied that would not be the case.
Ms. Talbot noted that they were trying to preserve the look of the roof, but if the 30-foot height
limit was more important, that would be fine with them.
Board member Cunningham noted that the Planning Board must either follow the Alameda
Municipal Code, or make finding that there was a unique characteristic about the property that
would allow the height to be increased. He noted that the Board could not do that, and must
follow the AMC; he added that the Board was not trying to single the applicants out, and
intended to find a way to make the project work for them.
President Cook noted that the Planning Board had decided that the total height of the house was
more important than the number of stories, particularly with respect to having a third story.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that it was clear to her that the applicants were trying to
complete this project in a way that would enhance the neighborhood, to have a house that was
architecturally representative of the area, and in a way that could accommodate their needs and
those of their parents.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested a second condition:
""The structure shall not exceed 30 feet in height regardless of the addition of any
architectural detail.""
She believed that condition would allow the applicant to determine how to work within the 30-
foot height limit.
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to approve a
Major Design Review approval, which addresses: 1) Raising the residential structure to create a
third story and providing an addition at the rear of the residence; 2) Reconfiguring the front
staircase and front porch and expanding the garage door; 3) Constructing a detached two-story
structure in the rear yard that would serve as an additional dwelling unit. The two special
conditions will be removed, replaced by the following modification:
Page 11 of 23",PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-06-23,12,"1. The structure shall not exceed 30 feet in height regardless of the addition of any
architectural detail.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it would be impossible for her to consider a guideline
that she had not read prior to the meeting. She did not wish to be unfair to the applicant, and
wished to do the most responsible job possible in making a determination regarding this
application. She noted that if the applicant was comfortable with what the Board has come up
with, that was fine; otherwise, they could request a continuance.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0
Absent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara); Abstain: 0. The motion passed.
President Cook called for a recess.
9-D. PLN08-0181 - Grand Marina Village Residential Development Master Plan
Amendments. Proposed Master Plan Amendment to reduce the number of affordable
housing units required on the site from ten to five, and allow for five slightly larger lots.
Applicant is also seeking a finding that the Island High School site, 2437 Eagle Avenue,
is suitable for affordable housing, and the purposes of the Affordable Housing
Requirements would be better served by construction of at least nine affordable units at
the Island High site rather than five affordable units at the Grand Marina site. The Grand
Marina site is zoned MX (Mixed Used Zoning District). The Island High site is zoned M-
1 (Intermediate Industrial Manufacturing District). (AT)
Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report.
An extensive discussion about the details of the staff report ensued.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. David Day noted that although he was a member of the Board of Education for the Unified
School District, he was speaking on his own behalf rather than that of the District. He could not
speak to the merits of below-market-rate housing in the City, but stressed his opinion that this
Draft Resolution would be good for the District. He invited any questions related to the School
District.
Vice President Kohlstrand inquired who initiated moving the affordable units off-site. Mr. Day
replied that the School District first heard about this issue the previous Friday evening, and asked
for more notice from City staff in the future. He noted that the City and District had been
discussing affordable housing on the Island High site for many years, and that the site had been
vacant. He believed this project would increase their opportunities.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was in favor of affordable housing at the old Island
High School site. She noted that was something that other cities such as Santa Clara and San Jose
had done for school district employees. She understood that the site was not currently zoned
Page 12 of 23",PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-06-23,13,"residential, but was across the street from a residential neighborhood. She understood that the
off-site inclusionary housing option was supported by legal precedent. She did not understand
why the proposal to move the five of the 10 affordable housing units from the Grand Marina site
to Island High School were the low- and very low-income homes, and why it could not be a mix
of all three income-level qualified homes.
Mr. Day replied that in their discussions with City staff, staff preferred that they kept the
moderate homes on-site. He noted that Warmington preferred that they be put off-site, because
that would allow them to use other non-profit builders who required moderate-income homes in
their mix; the City did not want that, and preferred that the low- and very-low-income moved
off-site.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the report and attachments referenced the possibility that
if Warmington were allowed to build more than the proposed nine affordable units at Island High
School, where there may be room for as many as 18 units, the proposal would be for credit to be
given toward off-site inclusionary housing for projects not yet built by Warmington that they
may contemplate. She was concerned with that possibility, and while she supported affordable
housing and understood the 25% developer contributions toward affordable housing in
redevelopment, Attachment 2 stated that the City wished to retain an ""economically balanced
community."" She did not want to see all the affordable housing bunched together in one area.
She had been impressed with the previous Warmington design, which did a good job in
integrating the affordable units with the market-rate units.
President Cook noted that she noticed an item in the affordable housing agreement which read,
""Developer has requested that it be allowed to meet the project inclusionary requirement by
developing five ownership units that will be affordable to moderate-income households on the
property, and nine ownership for rental units that will be affordable to low- and very-low-income
households off-site."" She inquired whether they preferred to mix the housing up more. Mr. Day
replied that they agreed with the model of Bayport, which has moderate-, for-sale and low-
income units dispersed throughout the project. The low- and very-low units were the for-rent
units.
President Cook would like clarification on which policy would be utilized with respect to
inclusionary housing. She noted that there were a lot of good reasons to put affordable housing
downtown because of the number of services, grocery stores, and transit, but there were no
projects to look at that even the School District has had a chance to consider.
Mr. Thomas noted that in terms of the timing, this item contained the finding about Island High
School and the merits of the proposed amendments to the Master Plan.
Mr. Day noted that there was language that referred to ""Island High or other equivalent sites.
""
He noted that he had already looked for other sites and had not found any. He noted that Island
High School was the only feasible choice, and that time was of the essence.
Vice President Kohlstrand believed there was some benefit to the City to looking at this site. She
noted that because this was on a School District site, it seemed that there may be more potential
Page 13 of 23",PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-06-23,14,"units, and that the development seemed intended to provide affordable housing for school
employees. She believed it would be very difficult for the school to mix the housing upon
different sites. She believed that putting the units on one site was a very rational approach to
trying to deliver these units. She would like Warmington to be able to have some flexibility in
trying to accomplish this.
Mr. Thomas noted that the agreement and the amendments state that Warmington Homes would
be able to try to make this project work. If they failed, it would be because they could not get the
land from the School District, or the District would decide they did not want to develop housing
on that site. He noted that this agreement would allow Warmington to get started with the
phasing. He noted that they needed the ground lease from the school district.
Vice President Kohlstrand believed that Warmington was taking all the risk in this project.
Mr. Thomas noted that (F) on page 9 stated, ""Developer shall secure all necessary discretionary
City and other governmental agency permits and approvals to allow development of the off-site
affordable development to proceed upon issuance of a building permit by the City.
Mr. Day noted that this was brought forth to create goodwill with the City, and added that they
were willing to take the time to entitle this project.
Board member Cunningham noted that he originally had reservations about this item, but after
reading the staff report, he saw a lot of merit to the idea of putting the housing in this location,
which would help rejuvenate downtown and the schools. He wished to discuss the modifications
to the Grand Marina Plan, and the idea of putting three-story buildings in, instead of two-story
buildings.
Mr. Thomas noted that Warmington's proposal was to replace five of the affordable units with
five market-rate units at Grand Marina. Under the original approvals, the market-rate units were
all three-story buildings, and the affordable units were all two-story buildings. He believed the
change was for financial reasons.
Mr. Day noted that there were many costs involved with doing the all-affordable off-site
projects, such as the shortfall between the tax credits for the non-profit organization and the
actual cost, which Warmington Homes funded. He noted that the density was still the same.
Board member Cunningham believed the units were too dense in their previous iteration, and
supported taking the inclusionary housing to another site. He did have problems with the
exchange of making this a denser development.
President Cook believed the tradeoff with the park parcels was a good one, but was concerned
about losing the sidewalk.
Mr. Thomas noted that a sidewalk in an alley seemed odd, so it was not an issue for staff.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Page 14 of 23",PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-06-23,15,"Vice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt draft Planning Board Resolution to approve the staff
recommendation to accept the Master Plan Amendment to reduce the number of affordable
housing units required on the site from ten to five, and allow for five slightly larger lots.
Applicant is also seeking a finding that the Island High School site, 2437 Eagle Avenue, is
suitable for affordable housing, and the purposes of the Affordable Housing Requirements would
be better served by construction of at least nine affordable units at the Island High site rather
than five affordable units at the Grand Marina site.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft proposed an amendment to the resolution to move the five
affordable housing units moved off-site to the Island High site to be moderate- to below-income,
and for one unit to be very-low-income.
Mr. Day noted that the pro forma was based on having the five moderate-income units on-site.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that Attachment 1 discussed approving additional affordable
housing for future credit, and would like to take one project at a time. She liked the idea of the
affordable housing being located on the Island High site, which would be a benefit to the school
district.
Mr. Thomas noted that the Planning Board's point about the housing mix may be made as a
recommendation to the City Council. The Master Plan and the finding about Island High do not
specifically discuss that issue, but the proposed amendment to the motion could be included as a
recommendation to the Council.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft whether the finances would not be
feasible if the low- and very-low-income units were placed on the Grand Marina site, Mr. Day
confirmed that was correct because there was a considerable amount of funding from their
pocket to do the off-site placement. She noted that the second full sentence of Attachment 1
(page 2 of 3) read, ""Furthermore, the Planning Board's recommendation regarding the Island
High site constitutes a finding about the potential benefits of a potential future project for the
City's affordable housing program."" She believed it was a great location for affordable housing
for qualified school district employees, but did not want to get into approving moving affordable
housing off-site for future developments that the City had not even seen yet.
Vice President Kohlstrand did not want to hamstring the site so that only a portion of the project's
goals could be accomplished. She noted that the goal of the project was to provide affordable
housing for school district employees.
Mr. Day noted that they would put in as many units in as possible, and that there would be more
than nine units.
President Cook noted that the Planning Board would like to maximize the mix of types of
affordable housing units, certainly on the Island High site and possibly on the other site. She
requested that Ms. Faiz ensure that the Planning Board did not abdicate its right if the Island
High site did not work out, and that alternative sites would be brought forth.
Page 15 of 23",PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-06-23,16,"Mr. Thomas noted that the following modifications would be added:
1. The Planning Board recommended to City Council to consider that some moderate-
income housing and some low- and very low-income housing move off-site and some
stay on-site;
2. If Warmington Homes pursues another market-rate project at some other location, the
suitability of the Island High site as the off-site location for that project should have
to return to the Planning Board for the same finding that is being examined for the
Grand Marina site.
Vice President Kohlstrand expressed concern about the second modification, because it gave no
incentive to Warmington Homes to maximize the development on the Island High site.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she did not want to look at every new project come along
in a redevelopment area with a 25% inclusionary housing requirement, and that the units would
all be taken off-site. She understood that this effort was a balancing act. She inquired whether
there would be a way to achieve a mix of different income levels and housing sites.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that would be a financial issue, and why the applicant should be
obligated to pay for an additional nine units out of their pockets.
Mr. Day noted that they wanted the right to use those units on future projects, but that they were
willing to examine in on a case-by-case basis to make sure it was appropriate for each individual
project.
Mr. Thomas noted that Section 3.7 on page 9 of the agreement stated that in the reduced off-site
alternative, ""Offsets for future development: Subject to all City, Commission and other
discretionary approvals, including any required Planning Board findings, for a period of ten years
following issuance of certificate of occupancy for the Island High site, subject to extension
""
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the section only applied to low- and very-low-income
households: ""There shall be no offset allowed under this section for offsite additional units that
are rented or sold to moderate income households.""
Mr. Thomas noted that the first point to be made to City Council was that the moderates should
be mixed up with the low- and very-low income units.
Mr. Thomas noted that the other issue was whether Island High would return to the Planning
Board as the offsite alternative for some future project. He believed that under the ordinance, and
under the agreement, it would be required to do SO. He believed the working assumption for the
Planning Department and the Development Services Department was that the Island High site
would be a very good affordable housing project, and was the eastmost site of the projects the
City envisioned.
Page 16 of 23",PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-06-23,17,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the language would return to the Planning Board for
Item 2, but would still like the recommendation to go to the CIC that all three levels of
affordable housing be put in the mix for the off-site project.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion as amended, with the following voice vote - 5.
Noes: 0 Absent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara); Abstain: 0. The motion passed.
9-E.
V07-0008 and Design Review, DR07-0048 - 1607 Pearl Street/2622 Edison Court.
The applicant is seeking Variance and Design Review approval for adjacent properties. A
second building to be built 5 feet from the rear property line, where a 20-foot required
rear yard is usually required and 3 feet from the side property line, where a 5-foot side
yard setback is usually required. Encroachment into the rear and side yard setbacks
requires a Variance. The proposed new structure is an 868 sq. ft. hobby woodworking
workshop. The project will also require a lot line adjustment to transfer a portion of 1609
Pearl Street to 1607 Pearl Street. The property is located within the R-1, one family
residence, zoning district. (LA)
Mr. Garrison presented the staff report, and noted that staff was unable to make two of three
required findings for the variance. Staff was able to make the finding that the project would not
be detrimental to the public welfare, or adversely affect the neighboring properties. If the
variance was not approved, the design review would be considered a moot point. Staff
recommended denial of the variance and the design review at this time.
The public hearing was opened.
President Cook noted that there were no speaker slips, but that she had been asked to read a
public comment into the record:
""The property owner at 2620 Edison Court, Mary Liley, called to voice her disapproval
of the proposed project. Her concern was that the building would like house a commercial
woodworking shop that would create a lot of noise. She was unable to attend the meeting
tonight.""
Mr. Bob Rollins, applicant, disagreed with staff's assessment that there was no unique situation
with respect to this project. He requested this project because he was disabled from his previous
job as a 28-year veteran of the Berkeley Police Department. He was unable to do any other jobs
because of his disability, and added that the building was as high as it was because he wanted to
install a hoist in the building. He proposed putting solar panels on the roof with the intention to
make it a zero-use residence. He noted that required the installation of fairly large trusses to
support the weight of 39 panels, to produce a 5.5- to 6-kilowatt system, with a three-day battery
backup system. He intended to install a water reclamation system for stormwater. He noted that
with respect to the solar panels, the Fire Department required a three-foot space around the
outside, and three feet between each row to enable access for inspection or emergencies. He
noted that the parapets were three feet high in order to screen the mechanics from the neighbors'
sight. He believed the size and shape of the building were exceptional, and that the findings
Page 17 of 23",PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-06-23,18,"could be made. He noted that the rules for lots were written for 50' x 100' rectangular lots, which
accounted for two-thirds of the lots in the City. He noted that he could build the proposed
building with a minor footprint change using the same square footage without requesting any
variances. He noted that half the block was R-4 zoning, and half was zoned R-1; the lots in the
R-1 zone could accommodate this size building with a minor footprint change without requesting
any variances, and that they could meet all the setbacks. He noted that the lot was actually Z-
shaped. He submitted four letters of support from neighbors who were unable to attend the
meeting.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Board member Autorino asked the applicant whether he could build the structure to a height of
15 feet, so he could place it wherever he wanted. Mr. Rollins replied that he could, and that he
would have to call it a garage/storage building rather than a workshop. However, he would not
be able to put the hoist in, but could get the trusses in for the solar panels. He noted that he
needed the hoist to pick materials and projects up because of his disability. He noted that he
wished to screen the solar panels and braces from the neighbors' view. He noted that a power
pole went through the lot, and he had negotiated with his neighbors and AP&T to get it removed.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that many people used their basements and garages for
woodworking. She was concerned that this activity was being treated as a commercial activity,
which she did not believe was the case for this applicant.
Mr. Thomas noted that the Accessory Structure Ordinance stated that the use should be a U-
Occupancy. He assumed the amendment was made in the past to prevent illegal conversions to
second units. In this case, the Building Code classified it as an F-Occupancy. The second issue
was the height.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 3 of the staff report discussed the definition of an
accessory structure, and inquired whether this could be considered two lots. Mr. Garrison replied
that it was considered part of the next-door neighbor's lot.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft whether the building could be
considered incidental because it provided solar power for the main building, Mr. Garrison replied
that it would not be a U-Occupancy building in either case.
Mr. Garrison noted that the Building Code was clear in defining this use as a factory occupancy,
and not subject to interpretation because of the proposed use of woodworking.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft whether this proposed use could be
considered a hobby, Mr. Garrison replied that had been discussed with the Building Official, and
that it was not relevant to the Building Code whether it was commercial or non-commercial;
woodworking was a listed use.
President Cook inquired whether a driveway could reach the garage.
Page 18 of 23",PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-06-23,19,"Mr. Garrison noted that it could be called a storage building.
President Cook noted that she would not be able to make the findings, and was not sure she could
make the finding that it would be detrimental to the neighborhood. She was aware of the noise
made by a planer, and that this property adjoined six different properties.
Board member Cunningham noted that he could not make the findings, either, and suggested that
the applicant resubmit the application under a different use. He would have an issue with design
review, and noted that it was a big box in the backyard. He appreciated the use for the parapet to
hide the mechanicals, but added that it made the structure even higher.
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion as mended, with the following voice vote - 5.
Noes: 0 Absent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara); Abstain: 0. The motion passed.
Board member Cunningham noted that he was concerned about open space and hardscape, and
would like to see the entire site plan.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she would like to approve this project, but could not make
the findings.
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt draft Planning Board Resolution to deny a Variance
and Design Review approval for adjacent properties. A second building to be built 5 feet from
the rear property line, where a 20-foot required rear yard is usually required and 3 feet from the
side property line, where a 5-foot side yard setback is usually required. Encroachment into the
rear and side yard setbacks requires a Variance. The proposed new structure is an 868 sq. ft.
hobby woodworking workshop. The project will also require a lot line adjustment to transfer a
portion of 1609 Pearl Street to 1607 Pearl Street.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion as amended, with the following voice vote - 5.
Noes: 0 Absent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara); Abstain: 0. The motion passed.
9-F.
PLN07-0301 - Zoning Text Amendment. Applicant: City of Alameda. The City of
Alameda is considering an amendment to the Alameda Municipal Code to prohibit retail
stores larger than 90,000 square feet in size that include more than ten percent (10%)
floor area devoted to the sale of non-taxable items. The proposed prohibition would apply
in all zoning districts in the city. (DG)
Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Mike Hennebury, 2811 Otis Drive, noted that he was a union representative for the Union
Food and Commercial Workers Local 5. He noted that Local 5 had been involved with big box
Page 19 of 23",PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-06-23,20,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the table contained in page 4 of the staff report. She
inquired whether the purpose of the text amendment was simply to prevent K-Mart, WalMart
and similar stores, and whether the smaller retailers would also suffer if a Costco or Home Depot
came into Alameda. She suggested prohibiting retail establishments that exceed 90,000 square
feet.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the proposed square footage
for the Target that had been proposed for the Aalmeda Towne Centre, Mr. Garrison replied that it
was 147,000 square feet, and that the Safeway in Town Centre was approximately 60,000 square
feet. She noted that Home Depot may exceed 90,000 square feet, but would not include the floor
area for nontaxable goods. She would be more comfortable prohibiting retail establishments that
exceed 90,000 square feet in size.
Page 20 of 23",PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-06-23,21,"Mr. Autorino noted that prohibiting any retail use over 90,000 square feet cut down a great deal
of the economic development opportunity for the area, and that there may be a use of that size
that the City would want to have. He did not want the City to enter into any prohibitions that
would invite legal trouble.
President Cook noted that there were both planning and economic development aspects of such
an ordinance that should also be discussed at the Economic Development Commission. She
noted that she shopped at Target on occasion, and while there were many groceries at Target, she
did not buy them there.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the square footage of the
large hangars at Alameda Point as they relate to adaptive reuse, Mr. Thomas noted that the large
hangars were over 100,000 square feet, and the smaller hangars were approximately 60,000
square feet. He noted that the City proposed creating a Master Plan for Alameda Point, which
essentially writes a zoning code for that portion of the City. He noted that theoretically, an
exception to a big box prohibition could be included in the Master Plan for a specific area. He
noted that several studies done over the years have revealed significant sales leakage from
Alameda, and that staff believed that to avoid sales leakage, control of the retail development
was necessary.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that Building A was the largest building in the Alameda
Landing retail center at 55,000 square feet.
Mr. Thomas noted that Catellus was currently working with Target, and would propose a
different site plan.
Board member Cunningham believed it was important to have a safety valve in place to control
the retail projects that come before the Planning Board.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested sending some recommendations to City Council to
clarify the Board's position and to provide direction for their action.
Mr. Autorino noted that the Economic Development Commission was adamant in not wanting to
do things that limited the economic development opportunities of the community. The EDC did
not want to send the message that Alameda did not want to consider retail opportunities larger
than a certain size. He supported measures to manage and control large format retail, but not to
discourage it.
Mr. Thomas noted that the Planning Board may pass along a recommendation at this time, or
continue it to allow staff to return with more specific information. Staff could bring the item
back to the EDC, and that they had not received their input on this item.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that there had been much discussion about wanting to see a
higher level of retail at Alameda Towne Center, but that the Board had been disappointed by
some of the offerings. She noted that Kohl's did not appear to be as much of an improvement
from Mervyn's as it could have been. She inquired whether there should be some safeguard in
Page 21 of 23",PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-06-23,22,"place to temper very large projects. She believed the City should be able to maintain some
control over quality of retail issues to the extent possible.
President Cook noted that there would be some large projects that the Planning Board would like,
and others that it would not, regardless of the percentage of food items. She believed the 10% of
floor area dedicated to food sales was a union issue. She noted that while she generally supported
unions, she did not believe it would be a good planning issue. She believed that it would be very
important to define the planning issues.
Board member Cunningham noted that the community would likely be happy to see a 95,000
square foot Macy's in Alameda, but that under this ordinance, it could not be approved.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that it seemed that the Planning Board liked what it originally
said, and that it would be important for EDC to weigh in on this ordinance before the City
Council heard it.
President Cook agreed with Vice President Kohlstrand's assessment, and believed it was very
important to have the EDC's opinion, and that it was ultimately a City Council issue.
With respect to the 90,000 square foot issue, Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would
like to see more negotiation on the City staff level in working out acceptable square footage
levels with Developers.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the trigger for a use permit,
Mr. Thomas confirmed that everything over 30,000 square feet would require a use permit, and
would require the Planning Board to make the findings for a use permit approval.
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to confirm the Planning Board's original recommendation of
defining a large format retail as one or more stores totaling 30,000 square feet and subject to use
permit or planned development approval, and to recommend such to City Council. The Planning
Board recommends that the Economic Development Commission weigh in on this matter.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0
Absent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara); Abstain: 0. The motion passed.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of April 14, 2008.
These minutes will be considered at a later meeting.
b.
Minutes for the meeting of May 12, 2008.
Page 22 of 23",PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-06-23,23,"These minutes will be considered at a later meeting.
c.
Minutes for the meeting of May 27, 2008.
These minutes will be considered at a later meeting.
6.
PRESENTATIONS:
a.
Staff Communications - Future Agendas
Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.
b.
Zoning Administrator Report
There was no report.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: None.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:34 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
This meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 23 of 23",PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-07-14,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING
MONDAY, JULY 14, 2008
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
President Cook called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Cunningham
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
President Cook, Vice-President Kohlstrand, Board
members Autorino, Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, and
McNamara. Board member Lynch arrived at 7:10 p.m.
ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager/Secretary to
the Planning Board; Assistant City Attorney Farimah Faiz,
Planner III Doug Garrison; Planner I Laura Ajello; Althea J.
Carter, Executive Assistant/Recording Secretary
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of April 14, 2008.
Motion (Cook)/Second (McNamara) to approve as amended.
Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Abstain: 3 (Cunningham, Kohlstrand, Autornio). Motion passed.
Minutes for the meeting of May 12, 2008.
Motion (Cunningham)/Second (Ezzy Ashcraft) to approve as amended.
Ayes: 6; Noes: 0; Abstain 1 (Autorino). Motion passed.
Minutes for the meeting of May 27, 2008.
Motion (Cunningham)/Second (Kohlstrand) to approve as amended.
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0; Abstain: 2 (Cook, Lynch). Motion passed.
Minutes for the meeting of June 23, 2008.
Continued to the meeting of July 28, 2008.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
6-A. Future Agendas
Staff provided an update on future agenda items.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted the Board had requested Staff to provide an educational
overview discussion on form based codes at a future meeting. She inquired whether this
discussion could take place at the meeting of July 28, 2008.
Page 1 of 13",PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-07-14,2,"Board member Lynch requested that changes in the Housing Element law and the
methodology used by ABAG to compute the City's numbers be included in staff's Housing
Element Update report to the Board on July 28, 2008. He also asked that a schedule of the
timeline be included.
Staff informed the Board that the timeline for bringing the Housing Element Update to the City
Council for approval is spring 2009.
Staff inquired whether the Board would consider a joint meeting on August 25, 2008 with the
Transportation Commission to discuss amendments to the commercial district parking
regulations ordinance and to the draft transportation element General Plan Amendment
(GPA) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
President Cook asked if the Board would approve the ordinance amendments, transportation
element GPA and EIR.
Staff stated that amendments to the EIR must come through the Planning Board for review
and recommendation to the City Council.
The Board agreed to a joint meeting with the Transportation Commission on August 25,
2008.
Board member Kohlstrand requested that staff provide large documents two weeks in
advance of meetings and that the documents are made available to the public at the same
time.
6-B. Zoning Administrator Report
Staff provided the Zoning Administrator report.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
Anyone may address the Board on a topic not on the agenda under this item by
submitting a speaker's information slip, subject to the 5-minute time limit.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or
adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is
received from the Planning Board or a member of the public by submitting a speaker
slip for that item.
None
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Page 2 of 13",PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-07-14,3,"9-A. 2008-2009 Election of Planning Board Officers. The Planning Board will elect a
new President and Vice President for the upcoming year, as required by the Planning
Board
President Cook moved to nominate Vice-President Kohlstrand for the position of Board
President.
Board member Lynch seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 7, Noes: 0;
Absent: 0; Abstain: 0, the motion passed.
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to nominate Board member Ezzy Ashcraft for the position
of Board Vice-President.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 7, Noes: 0;
Absent: 0; Abstain: 0, the motion passed.
9-B. Variance and Design Review - PLN08-0086 - 1532 Santa Clara Avenue. The
applicant is seeking Variance and Design Review approval for the addition of a second
story, 440-square-foot master bedroom suite and 117 square foot deck to an existing
one-story single-family residence. A 24-square-foot addition to the lower floor is also
proposed; this addition requires a Variance to exceed maximum main building
coverage. The proposed deck requires a Variance for building in the side yard
setback. An existing side entry stair will also be rebuilt to comply with current building
code standards. The property is located within the R-4, Neighborhood Residential
Zoning District. (LA)
Ms. Ajello presented the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the project.
The public hearing was opened.
Norman Sanchez, architect, spoke in support of the project. He discussed some of the
options that he explored with the applicants through the design process. The focus of the
project was to keep the overall height of the house as low as possible and to keep the profile
of the addition as seamless as possible. One of the main goals of the project was to provide
the homeowners with viable outdoor open space, a privilege other homeowners in the
neighborhood enjoy.
Sushma and Austin Lundd, applicants, spoke in favor of the project and stated that they are
willing to arrange the construction schedule to best accommodate the neighbors' needs.
Jacki L. Reed spoke in favor of specific elements of the design. She is concerned about
privacy as well as access to light. She would be okay with the addition of the bedroom but is
opposed to the deck.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft disclosed that she had visited the property. She agreed that
the site is unique with a triangular shape. She stated her belief that variances should not be
granted lightly but there are situations when it is appropriate, referring to state law. She
believed she could make the findings and grant the variance request. She believed the
design is consistent with the neighborhood and the 24-square-foot addition is small enough to
Page 3 of 13",PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-07-14,4,"lessen the impact on the neighbors. She would be in favor of granting a variance that
mitigates the privacy issue - suggesting privacy screens for the deck. She believed the
applicants were willing to work with the neighbors regarding their concerns.
Board member McNamara approved of the design for the addition, felt it was appropriate and
would enhance the home and the neighborhood. She expressed her concerns about the
privacy issue with the apartment building next door and found it difficult to weigh the right to
sunlight. She would be open to reducing the size of the second floor deck to address the
neighbors concerns. She asked if the second story addition, at six feet higher than the
current roofline, would have a cathedral ceiling.
Mr. Sanchez replied that it would.
Board member Lynch stated he would consider a conclusion that takes into consideration the
current zoning code and how to overlay that within the parcel size. He would like to know the
rationale for not considering the size of the lot, the square footage, and the shape of the lot
as mitigating circumstances. He supports the position of the other Board members and
would like to know the delta between the smaller deck that would comply with the zoning
code and the deck as it is proposed.
A discussion ensued between staff and the Board regarding the encroachment portion of the
deck.
Mr. Sanchez stated that the deck would be 85 sf and indicated that narrowing the deck on
each side would reproduce the existing funnel shape, which is what they are trying to avoid.
Board member Cunningham asked if the option of not including the 24 sf expansion, keeping
the existing profile, and putting the deck on top of it had been considered by the applicant.
Mr. Sanchez responded that option had been considered and explained that the model for
size was whether two lounge chairs and a table could fit on the deck.
Board member Cunningham inquired whether the applicant had considered using sliding
doors.
Mr. Sanchez affirmed that they had but the slope of the roof limited the options and a sliding
door could not be accommodated.
Vice President Kohlstrand asked why the applicant chose not to go up using the existing
building footprint. She liked the design and concurred that this is a difficult site. She is
concerned about the close proximity of the next-door property and the expansion of the
footprint being detrimental to the occupants of the adjacent property. She inquired whether a
privacy screen was required and if the addition went up above the existing office would a
variance still be required.
Staff explained that a variance would not be required but a K&L finding would be. Staff made
a K&L finding for the second story addition but it is not applicable to decks.
Page 4 of 13",PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-07-14,5,"President Cook believes findings 1 and 2 could be argued either way but was in support of
finding 3 - detrimental effect to residents - in relationship to the deck. She stated if a
compromise were reached on the size of the deck, she could support the project. She
believed there were legitimate concerns by the neighbors regarding privacy.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that finding 3 and the staff report state the addition
would not be detrimental to the neighbors or surrounding properties but the proposed
expansion would further increase the nonconforming lot coverage. She believed that a
solution could be reached by incorporation of a privacy screen. She believed the increased
noise was not any louder than the current bus noise and traffic.
President Cook inquired whether a privacy screen would interfere with the views.
Staff stated that the Board could require the privacy screen to preserve the neighbor's
privacy, but noted it would further affect access to light and views.
A Board discussion on privacy screens ensued.
President Cook stated that the Board was supportive of the proposal, agreed that the lot was
of an unusual shape but had concerns about the deck. She suggested the Board either vote
on the application or inquire whether the applicant would like to work on the deck issue and
bring the proposal back to the Board.
Staff stated the options the Board had discussed: Direct staff to approve the project under
design review, denying the two variances for the ground floor 24-foot expansion and the
second floor deck, or approve the design review and make the findings for one or both of the
variances.
President Cook stated another option would be for the applicant to return with a proposal for
a conforming deck.
Staff stated that a conforming deck could be approved through design review if it met all the
zoning requirements.
Mr. Sanchez stated his understanding of whether a variance would be required if the size of
the deck were reduced.
Board member Lynch stated that if the Board proposed a motion that would give the applicant
what they had requested but omitted the upper deck, they would design a deck that was
conforming.
Vice President Kohlstrand recommended approval of the expansion at the ground floor, and
the design review with the modification that the deck stay within the footprint of the existing
house.
Staff asked for clarification on whether the Board was approving a three-foot setback on both
sides.
Page 5 of 13",PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-07-14,6,"Vice President Kohlstrand responded that the deck could go over three feet on the west side
only.
Board member Autorino stated there was still the issue with the 30 inches and the screening
and asked if a deck of any size would still require privacy screening.
President Cook stated that privacy screening is required. She suggested the applicants
decide, before a motion is voted upon, whether they would like to revise the proposal and
return to a future board meeting for review.
The applicants responded that if bringing the deck in two feet from the side where the
apartment buildings are would result in project approval, they would agree to that. They
stated their understanding that as long as it remains five feet away from the neighboring
buildings, they can build the deck without a variance, but they would still prefer three feet on
the other side.
Vice President Kohlstrand moved and Board member Cunningham seconded the motion to
approve design review, make the findings for the ground floor 24-foot variance and
exceptional circumstances. The circumstance is depriving the applicant of the right enjoyed
by others and will not create any detriment on the ground floor. Approve a variance for an
upstairs deck that can encroach three feet on one side but must maintain the five feet on the
side of the apartment building. The motion passed with the following voice vote - 7. Noes: 0
Absent: 0 Abstain: 0. The motion passed.
Board member Cunningham moved and Board member Lynch seconded the motion to waive
the privacy screen. The motion passed with the following voice vote - 7. Noes: 0 Absent: 0
Abstain: 0.
9-C. Major Design Review Approval - PLN08-0090 - 2230 South Shore Center
(Building 1000, former Safeway Building). Proposed renovation of an existing
building located at the Alameda Towne Centre. The building footprint will increase by
approximately 1,575 square feet, and the average building height will increase to 30 feet,
with decorative parapets at the east side of the building, at 35 feet in height. Loading
docks will be relocated to the north side of the building. The proposed tenant, Orchard
Supply Hardware, also proposes an outdoor garden supply area. Exterior materials
include horizontal wood siding; concrete panels at the base of walls and cement
plaster trim. The project also includes wooden trellises, new landscaping, and bicycle
and pedestrian amenities. (DG)
Mr. Garrison presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the project.
President Cook inquired if this building was included in 2003 when the Board approved
phases of the project.
Staff responded that the Board did not approve a 90,000 sf building proposed for the site in
2003. The environmental document for the project was approved, but not expansion of the
building. Under the existing PDA, some increase in floor area is allowed during renovation,
and the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) allows for 25% expansion. There are conditions in
Page 6 of 13",PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-07-14,7,"the 2003 entitlement that contain different numbers. In some cases, there are two or three
conditions that address expansion and they have different numbers also.
President Cook inquired what the different numbers are and asked if a development
agreement (DA) takes it outside the typical regulations.
Staff responded that there is not a DA for this project. The PDA has three different conditions
and each condition has three different numbers. The largest is 25%, which matches the
AMC.
President Cook asked what number staff had been using. Staff replied there has not been an
increase that triggered a PDA under any of the interpretations.
President Cook clarified that the Board had not approved any expansion up to this point and
asked about the existing size. Staff stated it is approximately 35-36,000 sf.
President Cook asked staff to confirm that all conditions have been met. Staff stated that all
mitigation measures had been met.
The public hearing was opened.
Eugenie Thomson spoke in opposition to the project. She requested that an economic
impact study be conducted and stated she believed there were also traffic ramifications.
Philip Jaber, part owner of Encinal Hardware, spoke in opposition to the project. He asked
that a community impact study be conducted.
Holly Sellers spoke in favor of the project with some concerns. She asked that the Board not
approve the zoning until the parking, cart corrals, and traffic analysis are sorted out.
Claire Risley spoke in opposition to the project. If the Board approved the application, she
asked that the square footage of the proposed outdoor garden space be included in the
Gross Leasable Area (GLA).
The public hearing was closed.
President Cook stated the applicant would install a signal to improve the traffic operations
and assume financial responsibility. She inquired whether the Board was being asked to
approve more than design review and whether the Board was being asked to approve a
significant amount of square footage in the project.
Staff stated the issue of square footage is in regards to the garden center. The applicant's
proposal does not treat the outdoor sales area as an expansion of floor area. Outdoor use of
space has not been treated as gross leasable area for example outdoor seating for
restaurants and outdoor displays of goods. The Board could sever the garden area from the
application, approve the design review for the building, make the approval of the expansion of
the garden center a condition, and require that the applicant get a PDA, which is the next
item on the agenda.
Page 7 of 13",PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-07-14,8,"President Cook inquired as to why the Board could not address the whole issue within the
next agenda item.
Staff stated if the Board approved the next item as recommended; it included the expansion
for this building, as well as the garden center. Retail hardware is permitted in this zone and
on this site. Staff has conducted citywide retail studies, as part of the Alameda Landing, as
well as a sales impact analysis. Based on those studies, staff believed there would not be a
significant impact on local businesses.
In response to Board member Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding the square footage of the
proposed garden center, staff stated it is approximately 6-8,000 sf.
President Cook asked how OSH merchandise and its size differ from a Paganos or Home
Depot.
Anita Haws, Orchard Real Estate, and Ken Lucas, OSH Operations provided the Board with
information about the history of OSH and its merchandise.
Board member McNamara asked about the size of the garden area.
Ms. Haws responded that they are working on the plans, but are planning for between 6,000-
8,000 sf.
Board member Cunningham asked the OSH representatives to address security of the
outdoor area.
Greg Chargin, Director of Construction for OSH, stated that the nursery would be enclosed
with a shade cloth on top that emits light but prevents anything from being thrown over the
fence, and surrounded by a metal railing.
A discussion on the height of the metal railing ensued.
Board member Cunningham asked if there would be racking in the exterior yard, to which Mr.
Chargin responded no. The proposal is to create a totally enclosed pick up and receiving
area so that nothing was outside except for the exterior nursery, which is enclosed.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the entrance to the nursery was near the east
elevation and if the garden area could be accessed from the front of the building.
Mr. Chargin replied that there would be a door on the side. The door leads towards the front
entrance and is only used during heavy selling seasons.
Board member Cunningham asked if there was a point of sale in the garden area.
Mr. Chargin replied only in heavy selling seasons when it is more of a convenience for
customers.
Board member Cunningham asked if the tall red brick on the front elevation extends further
out than the existing Safeway building relative to the curb.
Page 8 of 13",PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-07-14,9,"Randy Kyte, Harsch Investment, replied that Paoli did the base building redesign and OSH's
own architect did the inner workings of the facility. Regarding the nursery area, this is the
first time an open-air concept has been used at Alameda Towne Centre (ATC). The design
was a collaboration between the two architectural firms to keep the area open, light, and
secure.
Board member Kohlstrand stated she thought the overall increase in square footage was
1,500 sf, but it excludes the garden center. She asked if it was being picked up by extending
the west wall.
Mr. Kyte responded yes. When the loading dock is relocated an area will be reconfigured,
the building pushed back slightly, and the former large deep loading dock will be infilled.
Board member Kohlstrand asked if there was an extension towards the Willows, to which Mr.
Kyte responded no.
President Cook asked if the square footage included the 35,000 sf building currently located
there plus 1,500 sf and staff responded that the building is 37,200 sf and the additional
square footage is 1,575.
Board member Kohlstrand stated that she liked the design of the building. She expressed
concerns about the additional square footage of the garden center and the sidewalk along the
north/south driveway, which disappeared with the new design. She also expressed concern
about the lack of landscaping on the west elevation given that it is closer to residential uses.
She would like landscaping in this area similar to what is being done inside the Centre.
The Board members asked questions about the landscaping for the project and staff
responded.
Board member Autorino believed it was a good use of the property and it would be good to
have OSH in Alameda. He does not believe OSH would have a significant impact on local
businesses. He agreed that some additional landscaping would be nice, but that he liked the
proposal as it was presented.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she generally liked the proposal. Her concern is the
delivery truck route, and the impact on other businesses. Staff responded that deliveries are
addressed in the next agenda item.
Board member McNamara approved of the design and believed it was consistent with the
other buildings in the Centre.
Board member Lynch agreed that the design was harmonious. He acknowledged that
moving the loading dock inside was a great idea. He stated that the area is zoned for this
type of use, and the Alameda Economic Development Commission approved of this type of
business.
President Cook stated that she was comfortable with the design along with the landscaping
improvements. She believed the outdoor area was additional GLA. She expressed concerns
Page 9 of 13",PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-07-14,10,"about site improvements not being included with the project. She was troubled by another
expansion of a use in the absence of more sidewalks, more safety, particularly in relation to
the medical buildings and more sidewalks near the post office. She was uncomfortable
increasing square footage until some of the site improvements were implemented. She was
concerned about the impact on smaller businesses, but did not believe the Board could
dictate use. She believed when approving square footage, consideration should be given for
the carrying capacity of the land.
A discussion about the expansion ensued.
Board member Autorino stated that OSH customers would not include general contractors, or
construction companies with one-ton pick-ups and flat bed trucks. He does not believe there
will be a huge impact on traffic. He believed there were higher traffic levels for Safeway than
there will be for OSH.
Board member Cunningham stated the design review looked great and had no further
comments.
Board member Autorino moved and Board member Cunningham seconded the motion
to approve Major Design Review allowing renovation of Building 1000 in Alameda
Towne Centre with conditions.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to specify that it is the west elevation referred to
regarding the added landscaping.
The motion passed with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 2, Absent: 0, Abstain: 0.
9-D. Planned Development Amendment, Major Design Review - PDA05-0004, DR05-
0073 - 523 South Shore Center - Harsch Investment Corp. The applicant requests
approval of Planned Development Amendment and Major Design Review entitlements
and certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for redevelopment and
expansion of Alameda Towne Centre. The project includes redevelopment of the site,
resulting in full build-out of up to approximately 706,650 square feet of gross leasable
floor area, construction of a new parking structure, pedestrian, bicycle and transit
improvements, new signage and other minor site improvements. (DG)
Mr. Garrison presented the staff report. Staff is recommending approval of the project.
President Cook asked what the square footage was for phase two and three. Staff responded
600,000 sf for phase two and 681,000 sf for phase three. Phase 2 is proposed to be
implemented between now and 2010 and phase 3 from 2010 to 2012. The sidewalks and the
OSH proposal are part of phase two.
Staff discussed the new sign program and stated there are currently two sign programs valid
for ATC. This proposal would supersede all earlier documents. The new program includes
guidelines for monument signs, directional signs, and way finding signs.
President Cook asked if the traffic study was done before or after the gas station. Staff
replied that the study did consider the gas station traffic.
Page 10 of 13",PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-07-14,11,"The public hearing was opened.
Board member McNamara made a motion to limit public comments to three minutes. Board
member Autorino seconded the motion. The motion passed with the following voice vote: 6;
Noes: 1.
Christine Healey spoke in opposition to the project. She was concerned about delivery hours
and maintenance activities. She asked that the board remove the 200-foot qualifier and
restrict deliveries to normal business hours.
Dorothy Reid spoke in opposition to the project. She asked that the Board not certify the
FEIR and not approve the PDA as it is presented.
Holly Sellers spoke in opposition to the project. She expressed concern about the proposed
garage
Claire Risley spoke in opposition to the project. She did not believe the EIR contained the
congestion management plan requested by both the Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency and AC Transit.
Eugenie Thomson spoke in opposition to the project: She believed the DEIR was incomplete
and the traffic study was technically inadequate and asked that the Board certify it.
Karen Bey spoke in favor of the project: She believed the expansion of ATC was great. She
believed this was an opportunity to assess what went right, what went wrong, and what would
be done going forward.
Bill Smith commented on the project.
The public hearing was closed.
Vice President Kohlstrand asked Staff if copies of the document were made available to the
public. Staff responded that CEQA requires any responsible agency that submitted
comments be provided with the FEIR. The city under state law is required to have a ten-day
notice before the hearing in which the EIR would be certified and the project approved. In
this case, a twenty-day notice was mailed.
Board member Lynch asked if the technical appendices were substantially modified for the
FEIR. Staff responded no.
Board member Lynch asked if the traffic engineer modified, altered or changed any of the
methodology between the draft and the final EIR.
Peter Galloway with Omni Means Engineers & Planners responded no.
Board member Autorino inquired about the need for business hours between 6 am to 12 am.
Staff responded that there were many requests for varying hours from individual tenants in
ATC and this made the hours for the center uniform.
Page 11 of 13",PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-07-14,12,"A discussion between the Board and the applicant ensured regarding the expansion and
parking.
Board member Cunningham would prefer a more prudent approach toward the expansion
and have it proceed incrementally. He expressed reservations about approving a document
that would allow construction of the parking structure and an additional second level over
Kohls. He also expressed concerns regarding the development at the waterfront. He would
prefer a conservative approach to the development process and would like to understand
what the current entitled expansion, potential congestion, and impacts are.
A discussion ensued between the Board and staff regarding the total square footage of the
center and the build out with the expansion. Staff explained that 706,000 sf is the cap. The
building on the plans shows a 10,000 sf building on the waterfront if it comes in at 12,500,
25% larger, it could still be approved without going through a PDA as long as the overall size
of all the footprints together are still within the 706,000 total.
President Cook noted that the Board had two decisions to make, certify the EIR and approve
the project.
Staff stated that one resolution and one master plan were being requested for this site so
everything can be in one document.
Board member McNamara moved to continue the item to the August 11 meeting. Board
member Lynch seconded the motion.
President Cook stated she would be unable to attend the meeting of August 11 but would
submit written comments to staff for submission to the Board.
A discussion between the Board and staff ensued regarding significant impacts, mitigation
measures, monitoring, and the public notification process.
The motion passed with the following voice vote - 6. Noes:1, Absent: 0. Abstain: 0. The item
was continued to August 11.
9-E. Appeal of Major Design Review Approval - PLN08-0178 - 1633 Clinton Avenue.
An appeal of staff's approval of the Major Design Review application for exterior
alterations, including the installation of a door and windows, and addition of a second-
story roof dormer to the single-family dwelling at 1633 Clinton Avenue. The site is
located within an R-1, One-Family Residential Zoning District. (SW) (The appellant
has withdrawn the appeal. No further action by the Planning Board is required.)
Withdrawn by the appellant.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
NONE.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or
make a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a
Page 12 of 13",PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-07-14,13,"referral to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to
the body at a subsequent meeting concerning a City matter or, through the chair,
direct staff to place a request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda.
Board member McNamara reminded staff she had previously requested an update on
Bridgeside and would like to schedule a follow up and field trip.
Staff responded that the item would be placed on the September agenda.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated she had attended the Meals on Wheels fundraiser at the
Rosenblum winery and was notified that on August 2 at 9:30 a.m. there will be a bicycle
master plan update ride. The meeting place is to be determined but information can be
obtained at www.bikealameda.org
.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft mentioned that queuing near the theatre has become a
problem. Staff replied that contact has been made with the theatre operator to adjust the
queuing plan.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft mentioned the recently installed containment area in front of
Pappos restaurant seemed a bit awkward
Staff replied that when outdoor seating is requested on public streets an encroachment
permit is required and staff's responsibility is to ensure there is ADA access. There is no
design review or use permit required.
President Cook mentioned the groundbreaking ceremony for Shinsei Gardens on
Wednesday morning at 9.
The meeting was adjourned.
12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
This meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 13 of 13",PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-07-28,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING
MONDAY, JULY 28, 2008
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
President Kohlstrand called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Autorino
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
President Kohlstrand, Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft,
Board members Autorino, Cook, Lynch, and
McNamara.
ABSENT:
Board member Cunningham
STAFF PRESENT:
Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary to
the Planning Board; Assistant City Attorney Farimah
Faiz, Cynthia Eliason, Planner III; Althea J. Carter,
Executive Assistant/Recording Secretary. Also in
attendance, Dyana Anderly, Consultant.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of June 23, 2008.
Motion (Ezzy Ashcarft)/Second (Cook) to approve as amended.
Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Abstain: 2 (Lynch, McNamara). Motion passed.
Minutes for the meeting of July 14, 2008 - pending.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
6-A. Future Agendas
Staff provided an update on future agenda items.
6-B. Zoning Administrator Report
Staff provided the Zoning Administrator report. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft requested
that in the future staff provide the Board with any conditions of approval related to the
Zoning Administrator meeting.
Page 1 of 7",PlanningBoard/2008-07-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-07-28,2,"The public hearing was opened.
Eugenie Thompson requested postponement of the Alameda Towne Centre agenda
item from the Planning Board meeting of August 11, 2008 to the meeting of August 24,
2008. She also inquired whether the public hearing would be reopened and if public
notices would be sent out.
The public hearing was closed.
President Kohlstrand stated the public hearing for Alameda Towne Centre would be
reopened at the next hearing and re-noticing would include those who commented on
the EIR. The item would be heard on August 11, 2008. Interested parties who could
not attend this meeting were encouraged to submit written comments prior to the
meeting.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
*
Anyone may address the Board on a topic not on the agenda under this item by
submitting a speaker's information slip, subject to the 5-minute time limit.
The public hearing was opened.
David Howard addressed the Board regarding his opposition to the proposed Grand
Marina transfer of 36 affordable housing units off-site to Island High. He also submitted
written comments.
Erik Miller spoke in opposition to the proposed Grand Marina transfer of 36 affordable
housing units off-site to Island High. He believes affordable units should not be
clustered together but integrated into ""market rate"" developments.
Joseph Yon spoke in opposition to the proposed Grand Marina transfer of 36 affordable
housing units off-site to Island High. He believes a 36-unit development would be
incompatible with the neighborhood, that parking would be an issue, that concentration
of affordable units at one site is discriminatory, and the proposed units are rentals, not
for-sale homes, which would generate pride of ownership. He does not believe the
proposal is consistent with the City's Housing Element.
In response to a question from the Board, staff clarified the Board's previous decision
regarding the affordable housing units at Grand Marina, approving moving some but not
all of the required units off-site. The Island High site would contain at least nine and up
to 18 units.
The Board clarified that the proposal being commented on is not the project that was
previously approved by the Board.
Page 2 of 7",PlanningBoard/2008-07-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-07-28,3,"Janice Miles spoke in opposition to the proposed Grand Marina transfer of 36 affordable
housing units off-site to Island High.
Brian Kernan spoke in opposition to the proposed Grand Marina transfer of 36
affordable housing units off-site to Island High. He would support home ownership but
believes even nine units is too many at the site.
Melanie Wartenberg spoke in opposition to the proposed Grand Marina transfer of 36
affordable housing units off-site to Island High.
Andy Olveda spoke in opposition to the proposed Grand Marina transfer of 36
affordable housing units off-site to Island High.
Christopher Buckley spoke in opposition to the Grand Marina proposal locating 36 units
in an historic neighborhood.
Tom Antholzer spoke in opposition to 36 units being located at the Island High site.
Nanette Burdick spoke in opposition to a 36-unit high density project on the Island High
site.
The public hearing was closed.
President Kohlstrand reiterated that the Board did not approve a 36-unit project but did
vote to allow the transfer of up to five housing units to the Island High site with the
potential for another four units for a total of nine units. She asked staff to provide the
Board with a briefing on this item at the next Board meeting.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or
adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or
explanation is received from the Planning Board or a member of the public by
submitting a speaker slip for that item.
There were n items on the Consent Calendar/
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A. Public Workshop to Gather Community Input and Share Ideas About the
Future Development of Housing in Alameda. Housing issues workshop for a
discussion on an update to the Housing Element of the General Plan, Density
Bonus regulations, and Secondary Housing Unit regulations. The purpose of this
workshop is to obtain comments and feedback from the community on these
important housing issues.
Page 3 of 7",PlanningBoard/2008-07-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-07-28,4,"delays in development at Alameda Point the Housing Element is not currently in
compliance with State law, therefore it has been conditionally certified by the State. The
current Element may not meet State regulations, but the intent is to meet the needs of
Alameda.
A discussion ensued between the Board and staff on the effect of new State regulations
on the Housing Element.
Staff presented a report on affordable housing and density bonus regulations. The
State provides incentives to encourage developers to build affordable housing. Projects
that would be eligible for a density bonus include affordable housing, senior housing,
land donated for affordable units, condominium conversions and childcare facilities.
Staff discussed density bonus allocations for each type of eligible project, development
concessions, and incentives. Under State regulations a density bonus must be granted
to a qualified development, but concessions or incentives are identified by the
jurisdiction - with the exception of a reduction in parking.
Staff presented a report on secondary units. Current City regulations require a use
permit for secondary housing. Under State regulations, upon meeting certain criteria,
secondary housing units could be approved at the staff level. Staff stated that without
an ordinance in compliance with State law, the State's secondary housing unit
regulations would prevail. Staff requested public and Board feedback, input, and
comments to further refine the ordinances and begin the process of preparing the
ordinances for adoption by the City Council.
The public hearing was opened.
David Howard commented that implementation of the various plans could be achieved
without land use exemptions.
Page 4 of 7",PlanningBoard/2008-07-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-07-28,5,"Christopher Buckley commented that he would prefer restrictive density bonus and
secondary unit ordinances. He provided written comments to the Board.
Eve Bach addressed the link between the Housing Element, density bonus, and
secondary units.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
A discussion ensued between the Board, the consultant, and staff regarding the process
and focus for review.
In response to an inquiry by the Board, staff stated that during discussions with the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), it was communicated that the timeline
for developing housing at Alameda Point was not within the City's control. During the
prior Housing Element update, the City appealed the number of units that were
allocated by ABAG, but the appeal was denied. The State Department of Housing and
Community Development is responsible for certifying the City's Housing Element and
determining whether the City is in compliance. Information presented at the Housing
Element forum will become part of the Housing Element. A non-compliant Housing
Element affects the City's ability to apply for State housing and transportation funds.
A discussion ensued between the Board and staff regarding options for fulfilling the
City's housing requirements. Dyana Anderly advised the Board that State regulations
are specific and specify that a project with five or more units shall be granted a density
bonus.
The Board agreed that an allowance for multi-unit structures should be considered as
an incentive.
The Board considered the following regarding additional concessions or incentives:
Consider increased building height = no
Consider reduced street standards = no
Consider on street parking = no
Consider elimination of landscaping on local streets = no
Consider elimination of common open space requirements for dwelling units located
within 1/4 mile of parks = yes
Consider elimination of private open space requirements = yes
Consider reduced minimum lot setbacks = yes
Consider reduced minimum building separation requirements = yes, from 20ft to 15 ft.
Consider reduction in the curb return radius = yes
Consider priority processing = yes
Consider approval of mixed use zoning in conjunction w/the Residential Dev = no
Consider drafting the Density Bonus ordinance in a manner that provides incentives for
housing on upper commercial buildings in the Park St and Webster St districts = yes
Page 5 of 7",PlanningBoard/2008-07-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-07-28,6,"Consider encouraging work-live units when developed in conjunction w/the
preservation of a historic resource = yes
Consider lowering the existing required percentage of inclusionary units = possibly
Consider lowering affordability timeline for inclusionary housing from 55 years to the
state requirement of 30 years = yes
A Board discussion ensured regarding whether design review is applicable within the
second unit ordinance.
A Board discussion ensued regarding the Second Unit Ordinance and the Board
considered the following elements of the ordinance:
Consider that one unit be owner occupied = yes
Consider all setback, height, and lot coverage should be the same as the zone
district for the site = yes
Consider minimizing visual impacts or appearance of a second unit by having entry
doors not visible from the street = no
Consider whether heritage trees should be removed to accommodate a second unit
= yes
Consider the design of the second unit for consistency with that of the primary
residence = yes
Consider allowing second units in all residential areas that permit single-family
dwellings = more information requested including examples.
A Board discussion about parking requirements for second units ensued.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft moved and Board member Cook seconded the motion to
extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m. The motion passed with the following voice vote - 6.
Noes: 0. Absent: 1. Abstain: 0.
The Board discussion regarding parking requirements continued and considered the
following:
Consider requiring one parking space for a second unit = requested staff to provide
alternatives.
Consider if parking should be counted for second units when that primary space is in
the driveway = requested staff to provide alternatives.
A discussion between the Board, staff, and Ms. Anderly ensued regarding options
for parking and second units.
Consider attached units must be at least 350 sf and no more than 600 sf, but in no
case more than fifty percent of the area of the primary dwelling = yes.
A discussion ensued between the Board and staff regarding the Housing Element
schedule.
Page 6 of 7",PlanningBoard/2008-07-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-07-28,7,"The Board did not take formal action, but requested that staff develop ordinance drafts
based on Board comments and bring them back for consideration by the Board, to
assist them in developing a recommendation to the City Council.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or
make a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a referral
to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body
at a subsequent meeting concerning a City matter or, through the chair, direct staff to
place a request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft announced that on July 30, 2008, there will be a
ceremony at Peet's Coffee and Tea acknowledging the Gold LEED certification the
facility has been awarded. On August 1, 2008 a bicycle plan update ride will take place
beginning in front of City Hall.
12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Biggs, Secretary
City Planning Board
This meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 7 of 7",PlanningBoard/2008-07-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-11,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING
MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 2008
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
President Kohlstrand called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Cunningham led the flag salute.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
President Kohlstrand, Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft,
Board members, Cunningham, Lynch and McNamara.
ABSENT:
Board members Autorino and Cook.
STAFF PRESENT:
Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary to
the Planning Board; Assistant City Attorney Farimah
Faiz, Supervising Planner, Cynthia Eliason; Althea J.
Carter, Executive Assistant/Recording Secretary.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of July 14, 2008 - Pending
Minutes for the meeting of July 28, 2008 - Pending
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
6-A. Future Agendas
Staff provided an update on future agenda items.
6-B. Zoning Administrator Report
The August 5, 2008 Zoning Administrator meeting was canceled.
President Kohlstrand requested that staff report on the status of the project slated for
the Island High site. Staff requested the update be deferred to the next Planning Board
meeting when staff members familiar with the project would be present to provide a
comprehensive report.
Page 1 of 21",PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-11,2,"Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the maximum density for the Island High site is
18 units. She does not understand how the number increased to 36 units. She looks
forward to hearing from staff at the next meeting.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Anyone may address the Board on a topic not on the agenda under this item by
submitting a speaker's information slip, subject to the 5-minute time limit.
None.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or
adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or
explanation is received from the Planning Board or a member of the public by
submitting a speaker slip for that item.
8-A. Grand Marina Village Residential Development Street Names - Warmington
Homes (Applicant). The applicant is requesting approval of proposed street
names for the previously approved Grand Marina Village Residential project.
(AT).
Board member Cunningham moved and Board member McNamara seconded
the motion to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion passed with the
following voice vote: 5-0-0.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A. PLN08-0153 - General Plan Amendment -2400 Mariner Square Drive. The
applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment for the MU2 Mariner Square
Specific Mixed Use Area to permit additional office use. The site is located at
2400 Mariner Square Drive within M-2-PD General Industrial (Manufacturing)
Planned Development Zoning District. (CE). (Continued from June 23, 2008).
Cynthia Eliason presented the staff report. Staff is recommending denial of the
proposal.
In response to a Board inquiry staff responded that the Carriage House was a
restaurant previously located at this site. The restaurant burned and was reconstructed.
Originally, there was office space on the second floor of the building and the restaurant
on the ground floor. After the fire, the building was to be reconstructed as office space
only.
In response to an inquiry by the Board staff responded that this proposal relates to the
old Chevy's restaurant only.
Page 2 of 21",PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-11,3,"The public hearing was opened.
Board member McNamara moved and Board member Lynch seconded the motion to
limit the speakers time to 3 minutes. The motion passed unanimously (5-0-0).
Alfredo Kawas spoke in favor of the proposal.
Ernest Pierucci spoke in favor of the proposal. He is the attorney for a business
currently located in San Leandro, that would move to this location should it be converted
to office space. He previously represented several yacht brokers with businesses in
Mariners Square. Currently there is only one yacht business located at Mariners
Square. The current configuration of Mariners Square prevents small businesses from
establishing locations at this site. The activity that used to take place in this location
provided clients for the restaurant. These clients no longer exist.
Steve Farrand, attorney representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the proposal. The
applicant purchased the restaurant in 1992 and in 1993 the restaurant had its highest
gross sales. In 1996 shortly after the applicant purchased the restaurant the military
announced the closure of the naval base resulting in a loss of 18,000 jobs. The staff
report does not discuss whether a restaurant is viable in this location. On August 31,
2006 Chevy's decided to vacate this location and since that time the current owner has
not received a viable offer to lease the building as a restaurant.
Yola Jurzykowski, applicant, spoke in favor of the proposal. The property has been
vacant for two years and in that time she has not received a financially viable offer to
lease the space as a restaurant. She understands staffs desire to keep a restaurant on
this site but it is not economically feasible. If she is not allowed to convert the building to
office space she believes the building will remain vacant due to the lack of qualified
restaurant lease requests.
Onju Updegrave, architect for the applicant, spoke in favor of the proposal. She wanted
to clarify a misstatement by staff. As of today, the Carriage House has not been rebuilt.
5,000 sf of office space was approved for the Carriage House but the rebuild has not
taken place.
Pauline Kelly spoke in favor of the proposal. She doesn't understand why elder care
facilities and storage are allowed in this area but not the type of use requested by the
applicant.
Lars Hansson spoke in favor of the proposal. He works for a company currently located
in San Leandro that would relocate to Alameda. Economic conditions in this area have
changed making this location no longer viable for a restaurant. The relocation of the
business from San Leandro to Alameda benefits Alameda's tax base.
Christos Marras, owner of Gold Coast Grill in Alameda, spoke in favor of the proposal.
As a 32 year resident of Alameda and local restaurant owner he has observed the
Page 3 of 21",PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-11,4,"changes that have taken place in the restaurant business over the years. He supports
the applicants' request.
Cheryl Canaday, owner of Recovery Resources in San Leandro and Alameda resident,
spoke in favor of the proposal. Should the applicants proposal be approved she would
lease the space. She has 25 employees and is prevented from moving to other
affordable office locations in Alameda because of the parking requirements that are
imposed on a business with this number of employees. She lives and pays taxes in
Alameda and would like to relocate her business here.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Board member Cunningham asked whether the option exists for a conditional use to
allow office space for a specified period of time rather than a wholesale change to the
area.
Staff responded that the General Plan is not a timed document. Office use is permitted
in this area so zoning is not the issue. The General Plan prevents this use in this area.
President Kohlstrand asked if the proposal were approved what percentage of space in
this area would be office space?
Staff did not have that information available.
Board member Cunningham stated the goal of the Planning Board is to activate the
waterfront and he is in support of staff's position to want to retain this site as a
restaurant. He does not believe an office use at this site precludes waterfront access.
He is concerned that the property is vacant and with approval of the proposal, the space
would be occupied. From an economic perspective, it would make sense to put the
space to use. If the proposal were approved, he would like to retain the option to
convert the site to restaurant use.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcarft stated that the Board had often heard comments from
residents regarding limited waterfront access in Alameda. She believes with proper
marketing people would patronize a restaurant in this area. In the Marina Village
Parkway there is a glut of available office space as well as in other parts of Alameda.
She believes with the plans for Alameda Landing this area will generate more foot
traffic. She is concerned about preserving waterfront access.
Board member Lynch stated that he believes this proposal is a good case study of
vacuum planning. This is a case of economics and general plan designations. The
General Plan is a City's guide for future planning. General Plan Amendments are limited
to four a year. In this case he believes a General Plan Amendment is the correct way to
go. A viable business has departed and the use has changed. Development of Alameda
Point opens up residential and commercial opportunities. He would not support a
proposal for residential use at this location but office use would not prevent waterfront
Page 4 of 21",PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf