body,date,page,text,path
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