body,date,page,text,path
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