body,date,page,text,path
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