body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2006-02-27,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL
AND PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD MEETING
MONDAY- - -FEBRUARY 27, 2006- -6:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:41 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : louncilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Board members Bangert, Holmes, McCahan,
City Manager and President McCormick - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA ITEM
(06-098) A Study Session was held to discuss Alameda Power
&
Telecom's telecommunication business.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Public Utilities Board
February 27, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-27.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2006-02-27,1,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
February 27, 2006
Present: Chair Cooney, Berger, Bunker, Fort, Longley-Cook, Lord-Hausman, Moore
Absent/Excused: Vice-Chair Gwynne, Steffens
Guests: Barry Bergman (Alameda Public Works), Susan Decker (Alameda Transit Advocates)
Rob Bonta (Social Services Human Relations Board), Alex Plumb (Bike Alameda)
MINUTES: The minutes of December 12, 2005 where approved with the following
correction: Change Old Business Item No. 1 by capitalizing Commission and change Oral
Communications Item No. 3 ""A youth film festival will be held on February 25, 2006 at the
Bay
Theatre, Alameda Pointe.' to ""A youth film festival will be held on February 25, 2006
at the Auctions by the Bay, Bay Theatre, Alameda Point.""
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: none
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Alameda Transit Advocates:
Ms. Susan Decker, a member of Alameda Transit Advocates (ATA), stated that the aims
of ATA were convenient, reliable Public Transportation. Other aims are to get more bus
shelters and more red curbs at bus stops. The ATA has quarterly meetings, the next one
being next month. She handed out flyers describing their next meeting.
2. Potential Project Locations for Pedestrian Plan:
Barry Bergman, Program Specialist, Described the pedestrian plan that is just getting started
and solicited input from the Commission on problem intersections. The Commission
identified the following intersections; 1- - Atlantic and Webster, 2- Central and Webster, 3-
Taylor and Webster, 4- Lincoln and Park St., 5- Otis and Park St., 6- Central and Chestnut,
7- Central and Page, 8- Broadway and Blanding, 9- Island Drive at the Safeway exit, 10-
McCartney and Ironwood, 11 - Webster and Buena Vista, 12- Atlantic between Webster and
Constitution, 13- - Pacific and Constitution, 14 8th and Lincoln, 15- Constitution and Marina
Village Parkway.
3. Social Services Human Relations Board:
Rob Bonta, President of the Social Services Human Relations Board, described the purpose
of the Board. The Board communicates to the Council, public needs and interacts with
public programs. They work with Alameda Hospital, Recreation and Parks, police and the
Mastick",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-02-27.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2006-02-27,2,"Commission on Disability Issues
February 27,
2006 Minutes
Page 2 of2
Senior Center. He presented the results of a recent survey about percentages of families that
have members with disabilities and people that have stress anxieties and suffer depression.
OLD BUSINESS:
Status of Accommodation Recommendations:
Chair Cooney will present report on providing costs of various Braille
transcription/sign language interpreters at the next Commission meeting.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: none
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Commissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman read a courtesy notice that can be placed on cars that
park on the sidewalks.
2. Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook reported on the Alameda Point Collaborative
meeting and their plans for a bicycle repair program.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, March 27, 2006 in
Room 360, City Hall.
Sincerely,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Robert Claire
Associate Civil Engineer
RC:lc
G:\pubworks\LT\MCD Disability Committee/2006/227min.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-02-27.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