body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2007-02-12,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, February 12, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Mr. Cunningham
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy
Ashcraft, Kohlstrand, Mariani and McNamara.
Also present were Cathy Woodbury, Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas,
Assistant City Attorney Donna Mooney, Planner III Doug Vu, Recording Secretary Erin
Garcia.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of January 8, 2007.
Vice President Cook noted that page 14, paragraph 4 should be changed to, ""Vice
President Cook believed the study should go forward and the Measure A study forum
should also go forward.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to approve the minutes of February 12, 2007, as
amended.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 7.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
February 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-12,2,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
Design Review DR05-0041, DR05-0028 and UP05-0008 - Community
Improvement Commission and Alameda Entertainment Associates - 1416
Oak Street and 2305 Central Avenue (CE/JO). Consideration of amendments
to the Design Review and Use Permit conditions for the parking garage and
cineplex. Request is for an amendment to the timing for compliance with
Conditions of Approval from ""prior to issuance of a building permit"" to ""prior to
the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy"" The site is located within
a
C-C-T, Community Commercial - Theater Combining Zoning District. (This item
has been withdrawn from the Planning Board agenda and will be heard by
the City Council.)
Ms. Woodbury noted that this item had been approved by the Planning Board and then
appealed to the City Council. The City Council initially denied the appeal, upheld the
Planning Board's action, and adopted the same action as did the Planning Board. She
noted that this item would be considered by the City Council.
No action was taken.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
February 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-12,3,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
Planned Development PD05-0002 - Francis Collins - 2241 and 2243 Clement
Avenue (AT). The property owner is requesting a Planned Development
to construct 242 dwelling units on two (2) parcels totaling approximately 9.4 acres.
The site is located within the M-2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) Zoning
District (4.6 acres) and the R-2/PD, Two-Family Residence/Planned Development
Combining Zoning District (4.8 acres).
Mr. Thomas presented the staff report, and stated that because the findings could not be
made, staff recommended denial of this planned development approval. The proposed
project was not consistent with the General Plan, which called for a mix of uses on the
site; it was not consistent with the zoning designations on the property; the proposed
development plan did not provide a more efficient use of the site than could be achieved
under the district regulations; and it was not possible to make the finding that the
proposed developed plan would not have a significant impact on the adjacent land uses.
The public hearing was opened.
Robert McGillis, project architect, wished to clarify several items. He noted that the
Housing Element identified the entire property as being suitable and desirable for
housing. He believed the remaining 4.6 acres should be rezoned to allow for housing. He
understands that Mixed Use zoning allowed residential/industrial mix. He noted that that
the staff report did not note that the project met the 25% inclusionary housing, thus
entitling the area to the density bonus. He added that the staff report did not indicate that
they had provided all environmental reviews required, including a traffic report. A study
for the DTSC (Department of Toxic Substance Control) was provided as well, and was
out for comment at this time.
Mr. Joseph Woodard noted that staff did not mention the controversy surrounding this
site, and that the site had been identified in the Master Plan as a site for a park. He did not
want that issue to be forgotten, and believed it would allow that part of the City to be
more livable. He urged the Planning Board to adopt staff's recommendation to deny the
project.
Mr. Christopher Siewald noted that he employed approximately 100 people on Blanding
Avenue. He was pleasantly surprised by the project, which displayed the density of a city.
He liked the small houses, which reminded him of the cottage rows in Alameda. He
believed it lacked a fully interconnected street grid, and believed that cul de sacs and
dead ends were not neighborly. He would trade some of the open space for an open
space square inside the development, rather than its current location. He would support
this proposal if shops were to be located in the square. He opposed this project as
presented.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
February 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-12,4,"Member Kohlstrand noted that the proposal was not consistent with the zoning.
In response to an inquiry by Member McNamara regarding the items raised by the
applicant, Mr. Thomas replied that the site zoning and General Plan conformance was
discussed by staff. He noted that the Housing Element included a number of sites
throughout the City that were appropriate for future housing development. Since 1991,
the General Plan stated that within the general area, between 250-350 housing units, open
space and industrial uses should be included. The updated Housing Element from 1993
included a table identifying future housing development sites, which identified 300
potential housing units. Staff believed that the zoning adopted by City Council was
absolutely consistent with the General Plan.
President Lynch believed the applicant should contact staff, and that the staff response
may be provided to the Board.
Member Mariani suggested that the applicant bring this application to the City Council
because it did not conform with the zoning requirements.
Vice President Cook would welcome a proposal in keeping with the General Plan zoning,
and agreed with many of Mr. Siewald's comments; however, she would like to see some
public access on the site.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed the shoreline access was minimal and not welcoming
because of the lack of the street grid continuing through the development. She noted that
there was little public parking, with the exception of the shopping center at the foot of the
Park Street Bridge. She noted that Blanding and Clement were very busy streets, and that
the new homes would add to the congestion. She expressed concern about the rows of
three-story homes, which may obstruct the view of anyone in the neighborhood with a
smaller house. She hoped the traffic study would closely examine the traffic on Blanding
and Clement.
Board member Mariani moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution PB-07-03 to deny a
Planned Development to construct 242 dwelling units on two (2) parcels totaling
approximately 9.4 acres.
Vice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.
President Lynch called for a two-minute recess.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
February 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-12,5,"8-B.
Amendment to the Sign Program Associated with PD03-004 (Planned
Development) - Steve McCullagh - First Community Bank - 2531 Blanding
Avenue. The applicant requests an amendment to the Bridgeside Sign Program to
increase the maximum total sign area and install one additional panel sign on the
east elevation of the Nob Hill Foods building. The site is located in a C-2-PD,
Central Business District, Planned Development Combining Zoning District.
Mr. Vu presented the staff report, and recommended approval of this application.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Steve McCullagh, applicant, believed that the proposed sign would be a valuable
addition to the site, and would be subdued during the nighttime hours, in keeping with the
other signage. He thanked Mr. Vu for a thorough staff report.
Mr. Adam Garfinkle believed it was important to follow the City standards, and was
concerned about setting a precedent for future applications. He encouraged the applicant
to follow other advertising channels, rather than requesting an amendment to the Sign
Program.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft whether the proposed bank sign had
the same dimensions as Java City, Mr. Vu replied that they were approximately the same
size.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she had visited the site, and believed the sign was quite
attractive. She believed the propose sign would visually balance the existing signs. She
believed the trend toward one-stop shopping was reflected in this center, and believed
this was a good way for people to leave their cars and shop in one place.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook, Mr. Vu replied that no further signage
requests had been received for this development.
In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand, Mr. Vu confirmed that the Bridgeside
Sign Program was more restrictive than the City's signage requirements, and that the sign
would be internally illuminated.
Vice President Cook noted that she was not opposed to this particular sign, and agreed
with the other comments. She was concerned about the signage placed on the windows of
the petfood store. She would like the windows to contribute to the uses spilling out onto
the waterfront. She would like to revisit that issue. Mr. Vu noted that staff had noticed
that as well, and staff had approached the Petfood Express management. They stated that
the banners were meant to be used for grand opening purposes, and that they would be
removed after a certain period of time. He understood that no more than 25% of windows
or glazing may be covered by signs or decals. The development would not receive its
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
February 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-12,6,"final certificate of occupancy until those conditions had been met.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding proposed changes to the
public art in the center, Mr. Vu replied that the project went to the Art Commission, and
that the mast and the sail she referred to were not part of the public art project. The
applicant had applied for the public performance program, and would provide public art
in that manner.
Member Mariani requested a status report or call for review in the future about the
signage in the center, because of past experiences with the developer.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the project was entitled and could not be reviewed again. She
noted that staff would be happy to provide updates and lead a site visit, and added that
Mr. Vu had worked very closely with them with respect to signage.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch regarding opening dates, Ms. Woodbury
replied that Nob Hill Foods should open in about one month, and that temporary
certificates of occupancy may allow individual stores to open for business.
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution PB-07-04 to
approve an amendment to the Bridgeside Sign Program to increase the maximum total
sign area and install one additional panel sign on the east elevation of the Nob Hill Foods
building.
Board member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 7.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
February 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-12,7,"8-C. Workshop to discuss roles and responsibilities of the Planning Board and staff,
improvements in the effectiveness of meetings, and major planning projects and
initiatives in 2007. (Continued from the special meeting of January 31, 2007.)
Ms. Woodbury presented the staff report, and noted that the 2006 calendar had been very
heavy with many items having been continued. Staff would be cognizant of the mix of
controversial items with more routine items. Another idea was to hold special meetings
for workshops, with some of the special meetings being held on-site at a different time.
She noted that following the rules of procedure with respect to agenda order would
enhance efficiency. She added that using the Zoning Administrator to address
administrative use permits and variances, which would lighten the load of the agendas.
She emphasized that the Zoning Administrator hearings would also be publicly noticed
and open to the public.
President Lynch supported the use of Zoning Administrator hearings to enable the
Planning Board to address more detailed items more thoroughly during the regular
Planning Board meetings.
Ms. Woodbury advised that the same timetables for appeals and call for review would
apply to the Zoning Administrator hearings. She noted that a bulletin would be
distributed to the Planning Board regarding upcoming items.
In response to an inquiry by Member McNamara regarding how the agenda order was
determined, Ms. Woodbury replied that was delineated in the Rules and Procedures.
Member McNamara suggested shifting the less time-consuming item to the beginning of
the agenda. Ms. Woodbury noted that it was sometimes difficult to assess that possibility
before it starts, and that it was the Board's prerogative to change the agenda order.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft urged caution in reordering the agenda since some members of the
public plan to arrive at a certain time to hear a particular item. She did not want the
public to miss an item because it was moved up on the agenda.
Member McNamara noted that when the draft minutes were reviewed by the Board, the
Board had agreed to change the minutes to a summary from more detailed minutes. She
noted that when the Board makes corrections and edits to the draft minutes, it often
involves more detailed verbiage. She inquired what the current standard was for the
minutes. Ms. Woodbury replied that the summary minutes do have some level of detail to
ensure the comments and votes were captured correctly. She emphasized that the minutes
are based on what was actually stated during a meeting, not what was intended in
considering the content after the fact. She added that the audiotape and the City's webcast
center on the website were also available to the public. She noted that verbatim minutes
would reflect every word exactly as spoken.
Member Kohlstrand noted that with respect to meeting cancellation, she liked Member
Cunningham's recommendation of having a list of items to address. She believed that it
was awkward to cancel the January 22 meeting, followed by a special meeting on January
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
February 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-12,8,"31.
Member Kohlstrand noted that the staff comments and Board communications were
currently scheduled at the end of the meeting, and inquired whether those items could be
moved to the beginning of the meeting. Ms. Mooney noted that those rules of agenda
order may changed by Board resolution.
Member Mariani noted that when the meetings run very late, it was difficult to address
staff and Board communications at that late hour. She suggested that they be considered
earlier on the agenda.
Vice President Cook noted that when she reviewed the meeting tapes for South Shore,
there were many hours of audiotapes to search through. She suggested that the meeting
audio be available on CD so they could be reviewed in the car or on a home CD player.
Ms. Woodbury replied that was a good point, and added that since the meetings were
available on streaming video, perhaps a CD could be produced.
President Lynch suggested contacting the IT Department to diversify the sources.
Member Mariani noted that the shelf life for videotapes was limited, and agreed that they
be archived on DVD and CD.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the preparation for the Planning Board/City Council joint
meeting continued to move forward. She noted that President Lynch had inquired about
the Planning Board's role in relation to the economic development of a project.
President Lynch inquired about staff's concept of how that meeting would take place.
Ms. Woodbury replied that Planning staff was working with the City Manager's office,
and that previous meetings were not on the City Council regular agenda. She noted that in
the past, member of the public have attended, and that staff preferred that the previous
formats continue. She noted that the meeting may be held at the Library, or other
locations depending on the date and time.
President Lynch noted that members of the public have often commented about their
desire for clarity on issues such as economic development as they relate to land use and
other Planning issues. He suggested that joint meeting with the EDC and other bodies
may focus the discussion in a beneficial manner.
Member Kohlstrand would like to see some follow-up on the parking discussions held in
conjunction with the EDC.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she had been appointed to the Big Box Retail
Committee, and that no meetings had been held yet. Ms. Woodbury noted that would be a
standing item for follow-up on future agendas.
President Lynch suggested considering adding a status report on projects that had
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
February 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-12,9,"received their determination under Staff Communications.
No action was taken.
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-
President Cook).
Vice President Cook noted that there had been no further meetings since her last report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee
(Board Member Mariani).
Member Mariani noted that the next meeting would be held on February 15, 2007.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board
Member Kohlstrand).
Member Kohlstrand noted that there had been no further meetings since her last report.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force
(Board Member Cunningham).
Member Cunningham noted that the next meeting would be held on February 14, 2007.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
February 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-12,10,"11.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
a.
Work Program Status Report
Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report, and noted that Items 11-a and 11-b would be
agendized each meeting. He noted that items could move to different dates because
applicants can change their minds, and there could be changes within staff's involvement
in the items. He noted that this report would give the Board an opportunity to look three
months ahead. The Board would be able to maintain a list of every item being considered
by the Planning Board and that may be brought to City Council. Staff would like to have
a database of every application on file, which generally numbers between 100- 125
projects.
President Lynch noted that there were lingering questions regarding Alameda Town
Centre, and noted that the gas station application may not be addressed because of the
number of questions. He suggested scheduling a status report on the Town Centre before
March 26, 2007, in order to maintain the timeline. Mr. Thomas noted that staff would like
to schedule a study session to examine the Town Centre issues, including a walk around.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the study session could be held on the same
evening. She noted that she was pleased to see the study session for green building
ordinances for March 12, 2007, which she had lobbied for; she did not believe the City
needed to reinvent the wheel in that regard, and noted that many other cities had added
green building ordinances. She would like to see the draft ordinances brought back to the
Board, with a date certain to submit it to the City Council for their approval. She would
also like to see the next steps beyond the initial step.
Member Kohlstrand complimented staff on the list, and noted that the April 9, 2007,
meeting occurred during spring break. She was concerned that may not be a good date to
have major items on the calendar. She also wanted to ensure there was a reasonable
transportation network to support Alameda Landing, which she believed the
Transportation Commission should examine. She noted that Clif Bar needed to move
ahead before further action. Mr. Thomas noted that the approved Master Plan included
many transportation issues, including the street cross-sections, model, and open space
development concept. He noted that the bigger items would be presented for evaluation
before the smaller items such as Clif Bar could be addressed.
Member Kohlstrand noted that the May 29 meeting would address the Transportation
Element Update Study Session, and believed it would be a good idea to revisit those since
the City Council had adopted some transportation policies.
Vice President Cook noted that there was no Measure A forum on the list, and believed
that it should be addressed, or that a discussion why it would not be addressed should be
held. Ms. Woodbury noted that a workshop would be held, and that further workshops
may be spun off if needed. Vice President Cook believed it should be on the agenda, or if
not, that reason should be discussed.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
February 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-12,11,"Vice President Cook believed there should be discussions of continuity of waterfront
access, and a discussion held whether there should be common themes or different design
concepts. She would like to see more emphasis on pedestrian-friendly walkways. She
expressed concern about the City's gateways, and would like to see more gateway
planning efforts. She believed that uses such as food banks and the Salvation Army were
essential to the community but may not be appropriate for gateways. She added that other
uses such as auto uses and cigarette shops might not be appropriate gateway uses as well.
Vice President Cook would like staff's reports to summarize status of developers'
comments to follow up on and strengthen developer promises and commitments.
Member Cunningham inquired about the breadth of subjects that could be covered by
ordinances from a legal point of view. Ms. Mooney replied that it would depend on the
topic, and noted that the City has legal enforcement available to deteriorated buildings.
She noted that there were many factors to take into account, and that it would depend on
the specific subject matter.
President Lynch noted that the Health and Safety Code would address dilapidated
buildings.
Ms. Woodbury advised that the Planning Board typically addressed development
regulations, and staff has occasionally approached the Board to amend development
regulations for a certain purpose, such as K&L findings. She emphasized that she was
committed to using the staff resources as efficiently as possible, and that some items were
required to be performed by state law.
President Lynch believed the public would like to see the Towne Centre and gas station
on the same evening.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Adam Garfield agreed with Member Mariani's request to track developer
commitments.
Ms. Woodbury suggested that he speak with staff regarding any project-specific
comments and questions.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Lynch acknowledged that there was considerable frustration over the Blanding
project, and that a Board member may ask for a scheduled revocation hearing if certain
benchmarks were not met. He understood that the Board wished to avoid that, and that
there were significant differences of opinion. He suggested a site visit where Board
members could gain more information about signage and other items.
Member Mariani noted her disappointment in how the project had developed, after the
many hours of discussion and hearings by the Planning Board. She hoped the situation
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
February 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-02-12,12,"would improve, and that some consequences would follow noncompliance of specific
Board requests.
Member McNamara inquired about the Big Box Retail Study, and noted that she had not
heard anything further. Ms. Woodbury replied that no meeting had been scheduled yet,
and that no funds had been budgeted to hire the consultant. City Council believed that
many retail and leakage studies had already been held, and requested that staff compile
existing information for the committee. After that, it would be determined whether there
were any gaps in the information, and whether further study would be needed.
Member Kohlstrand suggested moving Staff Communication to follow Oral
Communication. Ms. Woodbury noted that could be agendized as an amendment to the
Rules and Procedures.
b.
Future Agenda Items.
None.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Anland
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the March 26, 2007 meeting. This meeting was audio
and videotaped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
February 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf