{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, January 10, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:08 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMr. Lynch\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Cook, Lynch, Kohlstrand,\nMcNamara and Piziali.\nBoard Member Mariani was not present for roll call, and arrived during Item 9-A.\nAlso present were Planning & Building Director Greg Fuz, Development Review\nManager Jerry Cormack, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner\nJudith Altschuler, Planner II Dennis Brighton.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of December 13, 2004.\nVice President Cook noted that page 14, paragraph 2, should be changed to read: \"She\nnoted that in past site visits to walled-off developments, that the-play yards were was\ndeserted, which she believed was unsafe for anyone who did use the area.\"\nVice President Cook noted that page 14, paragraph 5, should be changed to read:\n\"\nshowers for use after swimming, and should open onto the pool area. She believed\nthat the multitude of angular pathways of the landscape plan seemed very frenetic to her.\nShe did not believe there was a sense of continuity and flow with respect to the\nlandscaping and circulation plan.\"\nMs. Kohlstrand advised that page 12, paragraph 7, should be changed to read: \"She was\ndisappointed to see a wall along across-Appezzato Parkway.\n\"\nMs. Kohlstrand advised that pages 17-18 did not indicate the details of the discussion\nabout the reflectivity of the glass, and noted that she inquired as to whether the reflective\nglass was required functionally for the project; the project sponsor indicated that it was\nnot required. In addition, the conditions of approval included a recommendation that\nthere would be no reflective glass on the building.\nPresident Cunningham advised that on page 1, the roll call should indicate \"President\nCunningham,\" rather than President Piziali.\nPresident Cunningham advised that page 15, paragraph 5, should be changed to reflect\nthat he urged the developer to respond to the comments made by the Planning Board in\nan effort to clarify their position and stance on the critical elements for success of the\nproject. He believed that Allen Tai's letter communicated the Planning Department's\npoint of view.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 2, "text": "M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of\nDecember 13, 2004, as amended.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Lynch)\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Cunningham advised that no speaker slips had been received for Item 9-C, and\nproposed that it be moved to the Consent Calendar.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 9-C from the Regular Agenda and to\nplace it on the Consent Calendar.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nNone.\n7.\nResolution and Commendation for Planning and Building Director Gregory L.\nFuz.\nPresident Cunningham noted that Mr. Fuz had accepted a position as Development\nServices Director for El Dorado County, and would be leaving the City of Alameda. He\nread the following resolution and commendation into the record:\n\"Acknowledging Planning and Building Director Gregory L. Fuz for his\ncontributions to the City of Alameda, whereas Gregory L. Fuz accepted\nthe position of Planning and Building Director for the City of Alameda on\nFebruary 25, 2002, and\nWhereas Gregory L. Fuz has accepted a position as the Development\nServices Director of El Dorado County, and is leaving the employment of\nthe City of Alameda, and\nWhereas, as Planning and Building Director, he assisted in the planning\nprocess of numerous projects, including the completion of the General\nPlan Amendment for Alameda Point, and initiation of the Master Planning\nProcess, the adoption and conditional certification of the 2001-2006\nHousing Element, redevelopment of the Bridgeside and South Shore\nshopping centers, adoption of new Citywide design guidelines and\ndevelopment code amendments, and\nWhereas he provided clear and complete advice to the Planning Board,\nand\nNow therefore be it resolved that the Planning Board of the City of\nAlameda extends their thanks for his dedication to his work on behalf of\nthe City, his staff, and citizens of Alameda.\"\nPresident Cunningham added a personal note of thanks to Mr. Fuz for his work on behalf\nof the City.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 3, "text": "Mr. Fuz thanked the Board, and said that it was his pleasure to serve the community of\nAlameda, and that it had been a wonderful experience. He thanked the members of the\ncommunity that he worked with. He thanked the Board for its dedication and\nprofessionalism, and added that it was the best Board he had ever worked with in more\nthan 20 years in the field. He thanked the Planning and Building Department staff for\ntheir help, expertise and professionalism, and for making his tenure pleasant and\nsuccessful.\nVice President Cook thanked Mr. Fuz and noted that she had looked forward to working\nwith him for a longer time. She noted that she would miss working with him, and added\nthat she admired his unflappable nature and his ability to maintain calm and a sense of\nhumor. She added that his analytical mind enabled him to accomplish so much during his\ntenure.\nMr. Lynch looked forward to working with Mr. Fuz whenever the chance arose in El\nDorado County, and said that Alameda was a much better place for his work in the City.\nHe noted that Mr. Fuz set a positive tone for the City's professional representatives\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 4, "text": "8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8-A.\nAdoption of 2005 Planning Board Calendar.\nM/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt the 2005 Planning Board Calendar.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 5, "text": "8-B. ZC04-0013: Christ Episcopal Church of Alameda - 1700 Santa Clara\nAvenue (DB). A request has been received to construct a 38-niche columbarium\nwall within the interior of the Christ Episcopal Church. Columbarium use is not\nspecifically listed as a regulated use within the R-5 (General Residential Zoning\nDistrict) where the church is located. This zoning determination for the\ninstallation of a 38-niche columbarium within one interior wall of the church is\nbeing referred to the Planning Board to review the staff recommendation that the\nprimary use remains the church use and the columbarium will be secondary to the\nprimary use.\nM/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to approve a request to construct a 38-niche\ncolumbarium wall within the interior of the Christ Episcopal Church. Columbarium use is\nnot specifically listed as a regulated use within the R-5 (General Residential Zoning\nDistrict) where the church is located. This zoning determination for the installation of a\n38-niche columbarium within one interior wall of the church is being referred to the\nPlanning Board to review the staff recommendation that the primary use remains the\nchurch use and the columbarium will be secondary to the primary use.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 6, "text": "8-C.\nReview and consider possible modifications of Section 30-15 of the Alameda\nMunicipal Code regulating Work Live Studios (JA). (Continued from the\nmeeting of December 13, 2004.) Staff is requesting a continuance to the\nPlanning Board meeting of January 24, 2005.\nM/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board\nmeeting of January 24, 2005.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -\n0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 7, "text": "8-D. ZA04-0002 - Zoning Text Amendment for Design Review Regulations\n(JC/JA). Update the current Design Review practices by clarifying the previously\nadopted Webster Street Design Review Guidelines.\nM/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-01\nto update the current Design Review practices by clarifying the previously adopted\nWebster Street Design Review Guidelines.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 8, "text": "9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A. Study Session (JA/JL). GPA04-0004, DPA04-0002, IS04-0003, DR04-0114 -\nWarmington Homes - 1270 Marina Village Parkway (Shipways Site)\n(JA/JL). Applicant requests a General Plan Amendment to amend the General\nPlan to designate the Shipways site as MU-7; a Development Plan Amendment to\namend the approved Development Plan for a 143,000 square foot office building\nand permit the construction of 64 residential units with associated parking and\nlandscaping; an Initial Study to address the environmental effects; and a Design\nReview for the project. The site is zoned M-X, Mixed-Use Planned Development\nDistrict.\nMs. Altschuler summarized this staff report, and noted that the design team would make a\nPowerPoint presentation. She noted that no Board action would be taken, and that the\nproject would require a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the site an MU-7 (Mixed\nUse) area. She added that an office use already existed on the site; staff requested the\naddition of a residential component to the site, as well as an amendment to the\ndevelopment plan. The current development plan approval was for a 143,000 square foot\noffice building; it would be changed from an office use to a residential use. An initial\nstudy and a design review for a general configuration of the houses, landscaping and\nparking areas would be done as well. The staff report requested that the discussion relate\nto the site design, the parking plan, the pedestrian access through the site, public\namenities, amenities for the residence, the conceptual architectural style, and the fact that\nthere was a proposal for three-story dwellings, which is not unusual in this area. She\nrequested that the Board provide guidance to the applicant to bring back with the design\nteam, and to incorporate the Board's comments into the proposal. The proposal would be\nbrought before the Board at a later date for action.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Joan Lamphier, Lamphier Gregory, noted that she worked for the City on this\nproject, and has been a project planner on this site since 1983. She noted that the primary\nquestion that Marina Village was concerned about was to get a reading from the Board as\nto whether it would approve the change office use to a residential use on the site. She\nnoted that the Marina Village site had always been designated as a Mixed Use\ndevelopment.\nMr. Don Parker, representing project owner, noted that his involvement in this project\nstarted in 1979. He noted that the mile of shoreline had been developed with public\naccess and improvements; this would be the last remaining piece connecting the public\naccess with the overall public access running throughout the rest of the project. He\nprovided some history of the site development. He noted that the site was constrained by\nthe fact that it had an existing structure; they planned to leave most of the structure in\nplace. They also dedicated the public access around the perimeter of the site.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 9, "text": "Mr. Kevin Levesque, Randall Planning and Design, displayed a PowerPoint presentation\nof the site and described the site layout. He noted that there would be in-garage parking\nand storage for the homeowners, with 55 parking stalls proposed in the garage, and 46\nguest parking stalls on the podium. In addition, there would be 72 parking spots in the\nunit garages. The parking ratio would be 2.7:1. He noted that 86% of the homes would be\non the water, with a small group in the center, clustered around the Rec Center and the\npool. He noted that at the front, the underground parking would eliminate the need for\ngarages on the podium deck, allowing the creation of a central pedestrian plaza running\nfrom the front of the project at the pool, to the back of the project, where the public plaza\nspace would be created.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether the amphitheatre area would be\npublicly accessible, Mr. Levesque confirmed that it would be accessible at all times.\nPresident Cunningham commented about the methodology of building a podium, which\nwould be a complex process, and inquired why the podium would be elevated to\naccommodate the parking underneath. He noted that the parking on the other two sides\ncould be maximized, and noted that a second podium would probably need to be built. He\ninquired whether an analysis had been performed to remove the current sloping\nrampways to sink it back down to grade level.\nMr. Parker noted that President Cunningham's suggestion would involve a tremendous\namount of demolition. One of their concerns was that the existing Shipway offices were\nnext door, which they planned to keep occupied as office space. The demolition would be\nvery disruptive to the existing uses, and may render the project economically infeasible.\nVice President Cook noted in San Francisco, the existing piers were left intact and new so\nthat a new structures were proposed to could be built independent of the existing piers-it.\nShe noted that the cost of removing the old buildings were structures was high.\nMr. Parker noted that the podium would be approximately 9 feet over the flat area of the\nsite.\nPresident Cunningham requested a physical model of the project, given the complexity of\nthe project elevations. He believed the treatment of the podium edge relative to the lower\nlevel was a critical element.\nMr. Parker noted that they created planters along the base of the wall and around the\nperimeter near the seating areas. They wished to avoid a large, blank wall in that area,\nVice President Cook noted that she was pleased that there would be residential uses on\nthis site, rather than another office use. She believed a mix of uses would create a more\nactive waterfront. She wanted to ensure a good relationship between the waterfront and\nthe public area, and to be sure that pedestrians felt safe by the waterfront.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 10, "text": "Mr. Parker believed the separation worked well, because the entrance into the project was\nin the middle of the Shipways, and the entrance to the public areas were on either end. He\nnoted that the layout was seamless in relation to the trails, and understood Vice President\nCook's concerns.\nVice President Cook liked the idea that much of the parking was hidden, either above or\nbelow.\nPresident Cunningham inquired whether the applicants had considered using vertical\ncirculation between Shipways 1 and 2, and 3 and 4. Mr. Parker replied that they had not\nexamined that option, and that they were focused on creating views onto the water. He\nbelieved that idea made sense.\nIn response to Mr. Piziali's question about the flats, Mr. Parker replied that there would\nbe parking on the first floor, then a flat and a flat above it. The units on the large wings of\nthe project on either side had garages included in the plan.\nVice President Cook noted that the use of the podium was an urban landform, and noted\nthat high-rises in San Francisco brought the question of whether a blank face along the\nstreet would be present. Mr. Parker noted that they used open metal along the fa\u00e7ade, and\nwished to avoid a blank wall.\nVice President Cook suggested the use of interpretive signage or public art to provide\nmore information for the public.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara for more detail on the amenities for the\nresidents, Mr. Parker replied that there would be a community building with a pool and a\nwhirlpool.\nPresident Cunningham appreciated the conceptual drawings, and believed that a three-\ndimensional model would enable the Board to better understand the intent of the\narchitecture.\nMr. Piziali agreed with President Cunningham's request for a three-dimensional model.\nMs. Kohlstrand concurred with Mr. Piziali's comments, and would like a better idea of\nthe orientation of the residential units, as well as the landscaping treatment and how the\npodium wall would be softened. She also believed that a residential use was fine for this\nsite, but noted that it was a somewhat isolated location, and it was necessary to travel\nthrough office sites and parking lots to get to the residential units. The relationship to the\nstreet for cars and pedestrians was an important issue for her.\nVice President Cook would like a better understanding of the height of the proposed\nproject in relation to the Extended Stay America building to the west and the office\nbuilding to the east, as well as to the buildings located across the Estuary. She believed\nthe scale between the Oakland uses and the Alameda uses on the estuary should be\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 11, "text": "consistent. She wanted to ensure that the parking requirements were consistent, and\ninquired where the public would park in order to use the public access area of the\namphitheatre.\nMr. Levesque responded that the office building parking lots on either side of the\nShipways were virtually vacant during the weekends. He added that reserved parking\nstalls for the public were also located in the parking lots, and that quite a few spaces were\navailable in the office parking lots.\nPresident Cunningham inquired whether any potential uses had been considered for the\nbodies of water between the fingers. Mr. Levesque replied that they had not looked at the\nability to get access in that area yet. He noted that the concrete structure was essentially\none big block, and displayed the area on the screen. He noted that a retaining wall would\nbe built and filled in to provide the lawn area in front of the residential units.\nMs. McNamara noted that she did not see any railings, and inquired whether there were\nany plans to install them along the waterfront. Mr. Parker confirmed there would be\nsafety railings installed along the entire perimeter.\nVice President Cook believed a site tour would be very helpful on this project.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the schedule for this\nproject, Mr. Parker replied that they would like to enter the housing market in its current\ncondition and that they hoped to meet a timely schedule. He noted that this was a\ncomplex site to work with regarding cost and structural issues. He encouraged the Board\nmembers to visit the site.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand, Ms. Altschuler replied that there was\ncurrently no requirement for guest parking in the Zoning Ordinance, and that there was a\nrequirement for two spaces for each unit. She added that the 0.7 parking ratio was slightly\nlarger than most projects the Board has approved over the last 15 years; the guest parking\nratio is normally 0.5.\nMr. Parker advised that they viewed the parking as being self-contained within the\nproject, and not dependent on using any of the office parking. The perception of the high\nratio came from the space provided by the garage.\nThe Board comments were noted. No action was taken. A public hearing will\nbe\nscheduled for a future agenda.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 12, "text": "9-B.\nZA04-0001-Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment/City-wide. Review and\nrevision of Section 30-6 of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), Sign\nRegulations (JS/JA). The purpose of this amendment is to clarify current\nregulations and establish internal consistency with various sections of the AMC\nwith the primary focus on regulations pertaining to Window Signs.\nMr. Cormack summarized the staff report.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, PSBA, noted that they wanted the district to look as\nattractive as possible during the revitalization process. PSBA did not want businesses\njamming their windows with posters obscuring the business, and which made the\nstorefronts look junky. He expressed concern about the proliferation of grand opening\nsigns, and the length of time that they are left up. He believed this ordinance would put\nan end to that practice. He noted that PSBA and WABA were in agreement that a grand\nopening would last 30 days, and that a permit would be necessary for that signage to\nremain up. He supported the Planning Board's recommendation to the City Council to\nenact this ordinance.\nMs. Sherry Stieg, WABA, supported the proposed ordinance, and noted that it was the\nresult of a lengthy collaboration between PSBA, WABA and the Planning & Building\nDepartment.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali regarding enforcement, Mr. Cormack confirmed\nthat the Code Enforcement Division would be responsible. There was currently one full-\ntime Code Enforcement officer, and a planner working part-time in that capacity. He\nnoted that the Planning and Building Department made a commitment to PSBA and\nWABA for increased enforcement along Park Street and Webster Street and the revised\nordinance would assist with that effort.\nMr. Piziali believed that the merchants would police themselves.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding window signs, Mr. Cormack\nreplied that a business would be in conformance provided no more than 25% of the\nwindow was covered by signage. The content would not be examined. He noted that\nmany windows had more than 25% coverage, and that the merchants in violation would\nfirst receive a letter, and then the fine system would go into practice. He anticipated that\nsome businesses would not be happy with the new ordinance, however, with the\nassistance of PSBA and WABA compliance could be achieved.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham, Ms. Altschuler, replied that the fee\nfor a sign permit was upward of $200. She noted that it was necessary to put language in\nplace to address some of the proliferation of the temporary window signs. She noted this\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 13, "text": "AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 14, "text": "9-C.\nUse Permit, UP04-0012/Major Design Review, DR04-0099; Tasha Skinner,\nTetra Tech, Inc. For the Alameda Unified School District (Will C. Wood\nMiddle School), 420 Grand Street (DB). The applicant requests a Use Permit\nand Major Design Review to install twelve cellular telecommunication antennae\n(4-foot panel antennas) to be located around the top of the school building at the\ntop perimeter/parapet, plus the installation of a utility shed at the rear of the\nbuilding. A Use Permit is required by AMC, Section 30-4.1(b)(3) for approval of\nabove-ground utility installations for local service in an R-1 (Single-Family\nResidential) Zoning District.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 9-C from the Regular Agenda and to\nplace it on the Consent Calendar.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nM/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-02\nto approve a Use Permit and Major Design Review to install twelve cellular\ntelecommunication antennae (4-foot panel antennas) to be located around the top of the\nschool building at the top perimeter/parapet, plus the installation of a utility shed at the\nrear of the building. A Use Permit is required by AMC, Section 30-4.1(b)(3) for approval\nof above-ground utility installations for local service in an R-1 (Single-Family\nResidential) Zoning District.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 15, "text": "9-D.\nDesign Review, DR04-0014: Linda Cortez, 1514 Pacific Avenue. Ms. Cortez\nis appealing staff's denial of this Major Design Review application (DB). This\napplication requesting design review approval to raise the existing building one\nfoot, six inches (1'-6\") and relocate the building two feet (2'-0\") toward the south\n(rear) property line to accommodate the elongation of the front stair. The proposal\nto raise the building will create approximately 1,618 square feet of new living\nspace in the basement, resulting in a total completed conditioned floor area of\napproximately 3,236 square feet. Staff denied this project because of the\nfollowing reasons: 1. The proposal to raise the building approximately one foot,\nsix inches exceeds the proportionality relative to the upper and lower floors (i.e.,\nGolden Mean) by three feet, three inches (3'-3\"); 2. The proposal will create an\nundesirable massing of the building in relation to neighboring buildings which\nappear to be of the same design; and 3. The proposal will elongate the front stair\nand create an undesirable massing of the stair in relation to the building. The site\nis located within an R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.\nMr. Brighton summarized the staff report, and noted that the appellants had not presented\nany new information since the last hearing when the Board had provided general parking\ndirection on implementation of proportionality issue, (i.e. the Golden Mean) during\nDesign Review. Staff recommended that the Board uphold the original denial of the\nMajor Design Review.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Linda Cortez, appellant, 1514 Pacific Avenue, noted that they were attempting to\npreserve their house and maintain the inherent architecture of the house during the\nremodeling process. Although raising of the house did not conform to the Golden Mean,\nshe did not believe it would change or detract from the inherent architecture of the house\nin a perceptible manner. She noted that the two adjoining houses next to her house were\nnot identical to hers, and there were slope differences; she distributed photos of those\nhouses to the Board. She did not agree with staff's assessment that the addition of two\nrisers would create an undesirable elongation of the stairs.\nMr. Ian Ordinaria, appellant, 1514 Pacific Avenue, requested the Board's reversal of\nstaff's denial of raising the house. He noted that the Golden Mean did not necessarily\naddress the connection between proportionality and beauty, and did not believe it should\nbe a rule. He did not believe the Golden Mean should be applied to the whole structure,\nalthough it was applicable to elements such as doors and windows. It also was not clear\nthat it should be the sole standard for a horizontal or vertical measurement, and he noted\nthat the whole structure of the Cathedral at Notre Dame was not in conformance with the\nGolden Mean, although sections of it were. He noted that regarding the neighboring\nbuildings, they were not meant to be tract homes. He noted that there were more than 20\nhomes with visually longer stairways than their home within a two-block radius of their\nhome, including the Alameda Fire House. He requested that the Planning Board reverse\nstaff's denial of their application.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 16, "text": "Mr. Walter McQuesten, 1416 Pacific Avenue, supported the applicant's project, and\nbelieved their plans would be an improvement for the entire block. He noted that he\nhoped to undertake a similar project in the future. He believed the raising of the house\nwould provide safety from flooding. He supported the reversal of staff's denial.\nMr. Richard Rutter noted that he was an architect, and supported staff's denial of this\napplication. He noted that in the past, neighbors came to agreements regarding roof lines\nand design proportions.\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali, Mr. Rutter replied that 16 stairs were the limit\nbefore a landing must be included, and that the applicants were not close to that limit.\nMs. Janelle Spatz, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, spoke in support of\nstaff's recommendation. AAPS believed that staff's points were valid, and that in the past\ncontractor Ken Gutlaben had spoken before the Planning Board to say that digging down\nwas as easy as building up. She believed that should suffice for this project, and believed\nthe applicants' plans would be visually disruptive.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara whether the neighboring house had a full\nunit on the basement level, Mr. Brighton replied that he did not have that information. He\naddressed the simple aesthetics of the structures, and the future use of the interior was not\npart of the decision. Ms. McNamara noted that there was more than one separate address\non the neighboring home.\nMs. McNamara expressed concern that this house was used in the Planning Board's\ndiscussion of the Golden Mean; this existing architecture already exceeds the Golden\nMean by a significant amount. She was concerned about imposing the Golden Mean on\nthis applicant given the existing architecture, and did not believe that was the applicants'\nfault.\nVice President Cook did not believe there was a reason to make the architecture\nproportionality worse, and believed the number of existing houses exceeding the Golden\nMean was one of the reasons for adopting that guideline. She sympathized with the\napplicants, but wished to stem the tide of losing Alameda's architectural heritage. She did\nnot see a unique circumstance to warrant raising the house in this case, and agreed that\ndigging down was a workable solution.\nMs. Mariani agreed with Vice President Cook's comments. Although she sympathized\nwith the owners, 1512 Pacific Avenue was a sister house built by the same builder, and is\non the registry. She believed the architectural integrity of this house should be\nmaintained.\nMr. Piziali noted that he felt for the applicants, and noted that the Board directed staff\nthat they wished to follow the Golden Mean wherever possible. He agreed with Mr.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 16\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 17, "text": "Gutlaben's assessment that going down for the additional square footage would be\nworkable and cost-effective.\nPresident Cunningham noted that the design guidelines utilized the Golden Mean to aid\nstaff in regulating houses being raised.\nMs. McNamara inquired whether the Board would issue a blanket rejection, or to use the\nGolden Mean in a case-by-case assessment.\nPresident Cunningham noted that context in the buildings was very important in order to\npreserve the character of Alameda. He believed that the number of houses being raised\nwas beginning to erode that character. He did not believe the Board would issue blanket\nrejections.\nMr. Lynch believed that excavating down would be a workable solution for the\napplicants, and believed there was a difference between how the Board applied the\nGolden Mean as a guideline for individual homes. He noted that for the other individuals\nwho spoke, he would examine every case separately, and would not issue a blanket\nrejection.\nM/S Mariani/Cook to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-03 to support staff's\nrecommendation to deny this appeal.\nAYES - 6; NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0\nMs. McNamara wished to bring staff's attention to the changes made in Ms. Cortez's\ncomments for the minutes of the November 8, 2004, meeting in which this item was\nheard. She wanted to ensure that those changes were made; the excerpt of those minutes\ndid not reflect that change. Ms. Cortez's original comments were reflected, not the\namended comments. The correct wording should be: \"She believed that families\nattempting to increase square footage to accommodate a growing family should not be\nlumped in with houses with many illegal residences.\"\nMs. Altschuler noted that the changes had been made, and that the draft minutes had been\nincluded in the packet. She noted that the correct comments by Ms. Cortez would be\nreflected in the packet.\nMs. Kohlstrand left the meeting following this item.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 17\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 18, "text": "Page 18\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 19, "text": "Ms. Altschuler noted that she and Mr. Cormack would be retiring within the next three\nand six months, depending upon a variety of factors. The City is currently recruiting for a\nSupervising Planner to replace her position, and there was a position open for a Planner\nIII. She added that City Manager Jim Flint has left, and that Bill Norton was acting as\ninterim City Manager. He had previously been a City Manager in Alameda.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook, Ms. Altschuler replied that Melodie\nBounds had taken a position in West Hollywood. Currently, the Planning and Building\nDepartment planner staff consisted of Dennis Brighton, Allen Tai, and David Valeska\n(part-time).\nMr. Lynch believed that the hiring of any planners and the City Manager would best be\naccomplished following the hiring of Mr. Fuz's replacement. He noted that contract\nplanners were useful, but that their training often took time away from already\noverworked staff planners.\nMs. Altschuler noted that waiting to hire planners may cause stress on existing planners\nand other staff members.\nMr. Cormack noted that the Board members' comments were well-taken and was\nconfident that the positions would be filled in a reasonable amount of time.\nMs. Altschuler noted that she was most concerned about the public information counter,\nand that the planners' efforts were split between working at the counter and writing staff\nreports. She noted that the contract planners could work with use permits and variances,\nand the staff planners could work the counter. She noted that she recently spent a day at\nthe counter.\nPresident Cunningham noted that a problem with contract staff was the consistency of\ninformation given to the public.\nMr. Lynch supported enhancing the staffing levels.\nMs. Harryman suggested that the Board agendize this subject for a future meeting.\nMs. McNamara noted that the photos in the Webster Street Design Guidelines were all\nblack.\nMs. Altschuler noted that staff would review the document and provide more legible\ncopies for the Planning Board, City Council and the public.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n9:40 p.m.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 19\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-10", "page": 20, "text": "Respectfully submitted,\nJefry Cormack, Interim Secretary\nCity Planning Department\nThese minutes were approved at the January 24, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This\nmeeting was audio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 20\nJanuary 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, January 24, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:06 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nVice President Cook\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand,\nLynch and Piziali.\nBoard members Mariani and McNamara were absent.\nAlso present were Development Review Manager Jerry Cormack, Deputy City Attorney\nJulie Harryman, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Planner II Allen Tai, Barbara\nHawkins, Public Works.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of January 10, 2005.\nMs. Kolhstrand advised that she left after Item 9, not Item 11, as indicated on page 18.\nVice President Cook advised that page 9, paragraph 5, should be changed to read, \"Vice\nPresident Cook noted in San Francisco, the existing piers were left intact and new so that\nnew structures were proposed to could be built independent of the existing piers-it. She\nnoted that the cost of removing the old buildings were structures was high.\"\nVice President Cook advised that page 10, paragraph 11, should be changed to read,\n\"Vice President Cook would like a better understanding of the height of the proposed\nproject in relation to the Extended Stay America building to the west and the office\nbuilding to the east, as well as to the buildings located across the Estuary.\"\nM/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of January\n10, 2005, as amended.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nMr. Mark Irons, 835 Oak, noted that because of family time issues, he may not be able to\nspeak about Item 8-b and may submit a written comment. He noted that he was a strong\nproponent of work/live. He believed that the current ordinance may be improved, but\nnoted that the risk of a ballot initiative was having no ordinance at all.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 2, "text": "7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A.\nTM04-0005 SRM Associates Harbor Bay Parkway (MG). Applicant requests\napproval of Tentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels in to nine\nparcels. The parcels are located within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are\nzoned C-M-PD. Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development District.\n(Applicant is requesting a continuance to the February 14, 2005 meeting.)\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board of February\n14, 2005.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 3, "text": "7-B.\nDR04-0111/V04-0020, 836 Oak Street, Applicant: Richard Vaterlaus for\nMichael Rich (AT). The proposal is a request for Major Design Review to\nlegalize the unauthorized raising of a single-family residence one foot to create\nhabitable space in the basement. The building height was increased from\napproximately 23'-0\" to 24'-0\", where 35'-0\" is the maximum permitted height.\nThe construction also requires a variance to AMC Subsection 30-5.7(e) to allow a\nrear staircase to extend 7'-6\" into the required rear yard, where the maximum\nencroachment permitted is 6'-0\". The project site is located within an R-4,\nNeighborhood Residential District.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution PB-05-04 to\napprove a request for Major Design Review to legalize the unauthorized raising of a\nsingle-family residence one foot to create habitable space in the basement. The building\nheight was increased from approximately 23'-0\" to 24'-0\", where 35'-0\" is the maximum\npermitted height. The construction also requires a variance to AMC Subsection 30-5.7(e)\nto allow a rear staircase to extend 7'-6\" into the required rear yard, where the maximum\nencroachment permitted is 6'-0\".\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 4, "text": "7-C. UP01-0022/DR01-0089: American Tower Corporation. Washington Park,\n740 Central Avenue (DV). Renewal of expired Use Permit and Major Design\nReview for 90 foot tall painted metal monopole communications tower in place of\nan existing 47 foot tall light pole along the upper baseball diamond left field fence\nat Washington Park. Associated ground equipment would be placed in a building\nof up to 825 square feet with screen-fenced ground equipment. A Use Permit is\nrequired by AMC Sections 30-4.1(c)(1) and (2) for any structure and above\nground utility installation in the O Open Space Zoning District. (Applicant is\nrequesting a continuance to the February 14, 2005 meeting.)\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board of February\n14, 2005.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 5, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\nPD04-0004/DR04-0113, 433 Buena Vista Avenue, Applicant: Alameda\nMultifamily Ventures, LLC (AT). The applicant requests a second Study\nSession before the Planning Board to review a proposal for the construction of a\ntwo-story 6,000 square foot community building, four 16-car garages, fa\u00e7ade\nchanges to existing apartment buildings, and other improvements at the Harbor\nIsland Apartments site. The site is located at 433 Buena Vista Avenue, within an\nR-4 PD, Neighborhood Residential Planned Development District.\nMr. Tai summarized the staff report.\nMr. Chris Auxier, project manager, Alameda Multifamily Ventures, distributed additional\ninformation that was not included in the first set of drawings. He noted that they had tried\nto be responsive to the feedback received by the Board and the public.\nMr. Shaun Alexander, Axis Architecture, project architect, displayed a PowerPoint\npresentation that detailed the project overview, improvement of the property's physical\nappearance, the pedestrian experience, residential amenities, public safeties, on-site\nparking, and transparency with the community. He noted that the existing site limitations\nwere considerable, and that while was not much room to expand the parking facilities,\nthey could create a more pleasant environment around the buildings for the residents. He\nnoted that the interior common hallways, bathrooms and kitchens would be redone, and\nthat the landscaping would be upgraded and transformed. The carports would be\neliminated except for certain sections along the East of the property, and the parking\nwould be restriped to meet current standards. A new clubhouse, and four garage buildings\nwould be constructed; trash enclosures would be upgraded.\nMr. Alexander noted that new lower fences would be installed around the ground floor\npatios to provide greater transparency. Because of the proximity to the adjacent street,\nsome units would feature a more solid fence look. Additional landscaping would buffer\nall the buildings, and a substantial number of the trees would be added. A large amount of\nconcrete would be removed in the walkways and plaza space that the applicants\nconsidered to be unnecessary. Alternative designs addressing the height and style of the\ntower element were presented; the size of the tower would be reduced, and the\narchitecture would be simplified. They considered the gable form to be most consistent\nwith Alameda's existing architecture features and Craftsman detail in town; however, a\nhip roof design was also presented to address the Mediterranean style elements in\nAlameda. Another roof form would be added to the tower to the west, previously shown\nto the Board as a flat roof.\nMr. Alexander displayed the center part of the site, which they considered to be very\nimportant to the project. A tot lot was proposed directly north of the clubhouse, and a\nchild's play area would be placed to the south of the clubhouse. A group picnic area\nwould be placed at the east side of the pool, with a play lawn and volleyball court\nadjacent to that. Each quadrant of the property would have its own minipark, off the main\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 6, "text": "spine of activity. The resident activities would take place on the lower floor of the\nclubhouse for the tenants' convenience. The plans were changed to eliminate the office\narea, and to include a coffee area. The 2nd level patio of the community center was\nexpanded after one set of stairs was eliminated and a new terrace is proposed as\na\ntransition spaces between the community center and swimming pool. He noted that the\ngoal of the landscape plan was to create a greener environment on the site, to beautify the\nproperty with increased foliage, and to reduce concrete paving between the buildings.\nMr. Alexander noted that the carports would be removed, as well as some of the\nperimeter fencing to open up the property. He noted that the fence along Appezzato\nParkway would be made more pleasant, with increased connections to the neighborhood.\nAdditional parking spaces, trees and security lighting would be placed in the parking lots.\nHe noted that they worked with Carol Beaver and Michael Smiley to better understand\nthe West Alameda Neighborhood Improvement Plan; they proposed to include two gates\nalong the Appezzato Parkway fence to allow access to the future greenbelt and other parts\nof the community. He described the new location for the trash enclosure, which would\nnot block other activities on the site and would entail minimal disturbance to the\nresidents. He noted that approximately half of the carports on the east side would be\neliminated. The vaulted roofs on the remaining carports would be removed, which would\nbe replaced by a trellis element for a softer look and a smaller visual impact on the\nadjacent neighborhood. He noted that the main feature of Quadrant 3 was the connection\nto the adjacent neighborhood; the neighborhood plan called for a connection to\nWoodstock Park. For that to occur, the City would need to gain control of 25 feet of the\nexisting Chipman Middle School property.\nMr. Alexander noted that the applicant was concerned about the impact of the Poggi\nStreet/Buena Vista Ave. curb bulb out proposed in the West Alameda Neighborhood\nImprovement Plan on the traffic flow from the site, and would like the City to take that\ninto account as the Plan is studied. He noted that the applicant's goal was to bring new\nlife to an older apartment complex, provide a more attractive design and added amenities\nfor the residents, to increase parking, to upgrade security systems, and to improve site\nsafety for the residents and the City. The project would be more pedestrian-friendly with\nreduced perimeter fencing, more residential design character, increased landscaping, and\nmore responsive to the West Alameda Neighborhood Plan.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThere were no speakers.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMs. Carol Beaver, Community Development Manager, recalled the meeting with Sean\nAlexander and Michael Smiley of BMS Design to discuss the proposed changes to the\nrenovation plan. She was pleased with their willingness to consider the suggested\nchanges. Because the Neighborhood Plan was a conceptual plan, she understood there\nwould be opportunities to discuss specific site plan changes.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 7, "text": "President Cunningham believed that was a counterintuitive practice in a community\nwhere pedestrian access was encouraged.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 8, "text": "In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding an alternative to this practice, Mr.\nAlexander replied that trash enclosures throughout the property would be the alternative.\nMr. Lynch believed that conformity with City Code should be the overriding factor,\nfollowed by design.\nIn response to Vice President Cook's question regarding parking, Mr. Tai confirmed that\nthe site was underparked according to Code. Current parking standards require two\nparking spaces per dwelling unit, and this property would need 1230 spaces, where\napproximately 670 currently exist. The applicants proposed to increase the number of\nparking spaces to approximately 699 spaces by restriping the lots and by using compact\nspaces.\nMs. Barbara Hawkins, Public Works Department, distributed a photo of a trash\ncompactor and the access route. She noted that the new NEPDS requirements called for a\nroof on the trash compactor to accommodate the truck, which would be two stories. The\ncompactor must be operated with a key, which would be a safety issue. The third issue\nwith the compactor is that it did not comply with the City recycling standards. City staff\nmet with ACI to determine the best solution to the trash issue. ACI had performed a\nstudy, finding that people usually took their trash out when they went to their cars, and\nthat placing trash containers near the parking areas was the best practice. In addition, the\ntrash enclosures must be high enough to keep children from playing on them.\nWith respect to circulation, Ms. Kohlstrand believed that the constraints of the existing\nsite must be recognized, and that the applicant was going in the right direction by\nremoving the concrete. She was encouraged to see the connections to Appezzato\nParkway. In response to her question regarding the nature of the breaks in the wall, Chris\nAuxier replied that they would be primarily used by the residents. A discussion of the\nphysical attributes of the fence and the gates ensued.\nIn response to Ms. Kohlstrand's question regarding pedestrian access at Fifth Street and\nBuena Vista, Mr. Auxier replied that was an area where they did not have the intention to\ncreate a public path through the property; it was intended for use by residents.\nVice President Cook noted that there was a broad visual corridor at Fifth Street and\nBuena Vista, especially through the pool area. She was concerned that the proposed\ngarages would impair those visual sightlines.\nPresident Cunningham suggested that the location of the gable ends of the proposed\ngarages may be changed to help direct sightlines in a particular direction.\nArchitectural Design Comments\nPresident Cunningham invited comment on the three design solutions for the stair tower.\nHe concurred with Mr. Alexander that Option 1 would be the preferred scheme.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 9, "text": "Mr. Alexander noted that they could reduce the scale of the entry somewhat, and would\nbe concerned about making it too short, when juxtaposed against the taller buildings.\nCommunity Center Comments\nIn response to Mr. Piziali's question regarding the rest rooms, Mr. Alexander replied that\nthere were two bathrooms to serve the pool, another two on the ground floor, and another\ntwo on the second floor.\nPresident Cunningham noted that a speaker slip was received, and requested a vote to\nreopen the public hearing.\nM/S Lynch/Piziali to reopen the public hearing.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 10, "text": "AYES - 5 (McNamara, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMr. Reginald James noted that he was a former resident of Harbor Island, and noted that\nthe location for the trash enclosure at Fifth and Appezzato Parkway would have to be\nmoved to accommodate the pathway through Fifth. He believed the northeast corner\nwould be a good place for the trash enclosure. He did not know whether the concept of\nvalet trash pickup would be workable. He believed that a recycling location would be a\npositive feature on the site. He supported a reduced amount of fencing. He did not\nsupport a high sound wall on Appezzato Parkway, and was not sure how a low wall\nwould work. He expressed concern about the proposed private walkway. He suggested\nplacing a walkway between Building 11 (rental office) and Building 12, which already\nhad a visual connection from Woodstock on Brush.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook, Mr. Alexander confirmed that the\nground floor restrooms would be available to residents. He added that the Code required\noutdoor showers for by pool users, and they intended to provide that kind of shower.\nSite Amenities\nPresident Cunningham complimented the addition of amenities as requested by the Board\nat the last meeting.\nMr. Alexander noted that the inclusion of amenities in each quadrant was at the\nsuggestion of Reggie James, which he supported.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham, Mr. Tai confirmed that as part of the\nconditions of approval, a landscape maintenance agreement would be required. The\nagreement would specifically require the applicants to maintain the landscaping; any\nneglect would enable the City to improve the landscaping at the applicants' cost.\nMr. Piziali would like to see a condition that all the construction trucks would stay off\nBuena Vista and Fifth Street (because of Longfellow School).\nMr. Tai noted that if the applicants needed a construction trailer, its approval would be\nsubject to a use permit. The operation and functions of the construction trailer would be\nreviewed at that time.\nPresident Cunningham noted that the Board would like an indication of the phasing as\nwell.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding satellite dishes, Mr.\nAlexander noted that FCC requirements call for the building owner to place a satellite\ndish on the roof for resident accessibility, or that the residents must be allowed to place\ndishes on their balconies. They are currently working with a cable consultant (CSI) to\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 11, "text": "negotiate contracts for them, and he added that their current contract was particular\ndifficult.\nMiscellaneous Comments\nMr. Lynch complimented Axis Architecture on its design work, and inquired whether\nthey would have more design flexibility if they started from a clean site. Mr. Auxier\nconfirmed that would be the case, but that it was prohibited by Measure A.\nVice President Cook noted that this site was an important part in creating a community.\nfor the 21st century, and hoped that dialogue about sensible planning can continue in a\nconstructive way.\nMr. Auxier introduced Michael Lee, the on-site construction and project manager, and\nnoted that he would be based locally.\nMr. Lee noted that the Board's comments about density were well-taken, and noted that\nrecent projects he worked on have incorporated the higher density into the designs. He\nnoted that they have used four-story parking garages surrounded by four-story residential\nbuildings, as well as three-story buildings surrounding a courtyard. He noted that it was\npossible to keep the parking garages out of sight, and that there was no need for off-street\nparking. In addition, retail and commercial space could be incorporated as well.\nMr. Lynch believed the remodel should be just as beautiful as the new residences across\nthe street, and that high-quality design elements were very important in getting the\nproject right the first time.\nMr. Lee noted that because the foundations and frames were already in place, this project\nwould be a relatively simple one to manage.\nThe Board comments were noted. No action was taken. A public hearing will be\nscheduled for a future agenda.\nPresident Cunningham called for a ten-minute recess.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 12, "text": "8-B.\nWork/Live Regulations (JA). Review and consider possible modifications of\nSection 30-15 of the Alameda Municipal Code regulating Work Live Studios.\n(Continued from the meeting of January 10, 2005.)\nMs. Altschuler summarized the staff report.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Mark Irons, 835 Oak, noted that he lived in a work/live space in Oakland for 10\nyears, which he enjoyed very much. He expressed concern about placing this complex\nissue on the ballot because of possible misunderstanding of the deeper issues. He noted\nthat any legal issues may delay or indefinitely postpone any work/live spaces. He\nbelieved the current ordinance fell short of its potential, and would like to see it upgraded\nto be more accommodating. He hoped the Board would be slow and methodical in\nconsidering the work/live uses.\nMr. Richard Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, spoke in support of work/live uses with\nqualifications, and noted that he had been an architect for over 25 years. He noted that\nartists and architects were usually the first occupants of a redeveloped neighborhood,\nwhich eventually became upgraded for the use of other white-collar professionals. He\nbelieved that flexibility in planning the larger spaces along the Northern Waterfront and\nAlameda Point was appropriate for the community in the long run. He suggested that\nMeasure A be modified to accommodate a work/live situation within appropriate zones.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMr. Lynch noted that he supported Measure A, and inquired how Measure A and\nwork/live lofts were in conflict. Ms. Altschuler replied that the conflict did not arise so\nmuch from the legal standing, because work/live studios were defined by both the State\nand local ordinances as industrial uses, as opposed to residential uses. She did not believe\nthere was a conflict from a legal standpoint, although she believed the conflict would\narise from the perception that people still live in those spaces. She added that was the\nbasis for the argument against the uses as a Measure A conflict.\nMr. Lynch recalled the opposition to the demolition of Victorians in favor of multifamily\nhousing as being a basis for Measure A. He saw work/live as a reuse of existing\nstructures because the economics of a formerly light industrial/commercial space had\nchanged. He did not believe there was a conflict between work/live uses and Measure A.\nMs. Altschuler noted that there would be considerable resistance to any alteration to\nMeasure A, and that its proponents would not want to risk a slippery slope.\nMr. Lynch suggested that the residential VS. industrial nature of work/live units be\nbrought directly to a judge to define it once and for all.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 13, "text": "Ms. Harryman noted that the current lawsuit was not the first time the City had been sued\non work/live and how it applied to Measure A. She could not communicate the exact\nstatus of the litigation, and noted that it would probably not be the last lawsuit. She\nbelieved that the existence of the two lawsuits (Edward Murphy and Ms. [Kowicki])\nwould probably bring the issue before a judge. She believed that Ms. [Kowicki] could\nbuild, because she had the approval of the City, but because there was pending litigation,\nit would be at her own risk. She did not believe Mr. Murphy had requested a retraining\norder, and believed the judge may be able to overturn the City's approval. She noted that\nMr. Murphy had sued the City on this issue before, and did was not sure whether there\nhad been a clear ruling one way or the other. She noted that previous cases had either\nbeen dismissed, or the parties had come to an agreement.\nPresident Cunningham inquired what the benefit would be of bringing the work/live issue\nto the voters if there was existing case law that would prove the two ordinances were\nworking against each other.\nMs. Harryman noted that there were pros and cons to bringing an issue to the people\nversus before a judge.\nMr. Lynch believed that if a judge invalidated an ordinance, they would provide some\ninstruction regarding the conflicts contained in the ordinance so that it may be rewritten.\nMs. Harryman noted that judges often rule on other grounds, such as procedural grounds\nor standing.\nMr. Piziali believed the ordinance should be left as is, and it may be brought up on a\nballot initiative. He was not interested in changing it at this time.\nMs. Kohlstrand believed the Board was being asked to debate the validity of the\nwork/live ordinance, when the larger question was Measure A. She was unsure whether\npeople were ready to engage in debate on Measure A yet.\nMs. Altschuler noted that the ordinance limits a geographic area, addresses zoning within\nthat area, and then is limited to existing buildings, particularly historic buildings.\nMr. Piziali noted that he would not want to see work/live as new construction; he\nsupported work/live as adaptive reuse, which was the current basis of the ordinance.\nMr. Lynch believed the voters of Alameda will recognize the common-sense purpose of\nthe ordinance.\nMs. Altschuler believed that the Board's consensus was that the current ordinance was\nappropriate. She inquired whether the Board would be interested in addressing the\ngeographic limitation.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 14, "text": "President Cunningham noted that he would like to see work/live branch out to Alameda\nPoint and Park Street. However, he did not want such a step to jeopardize the existence of\nthe ordinance.\nMr. Piziali believed the residents of Alameda would be able to see that work/live uses\nwere controlled, attractive and appropriate.\nVice President Cook believed this ordinance was a baby step toward a discussion of the\nbroader implications of Measure A. She believed this ordinance brought up very\nimportant issues for historic preservation and adaptive reuse at the Base. She did not want\nto see the work/live ordinance put at risk by addressing more complex and overarching\nissues too soon.\nVice President Cook noted that Alameda's citizens had stopped public processes before\nwhen it became apparent that it would be not be beneficial. She believed that Alamedans\nwould exercise the same common sense in this case.\nPresident Cunningham noted that an additional speaker slip had been received.\nM/S Lynch/Cook to reopen the public hearing.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nThe public hearing was reopened.\nMr. Mark Irons, 835 Oak, noted that he was pleased by the Board's discussion, although\nhe did not disagree that work/live could be successfully extended throughout Alameda\nPoint. He understood the delicacy of this issue.\nThe public hearing was closed.\nNo action was taken.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 15, "text": "9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\n10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC.\n(Vice President Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that the next meeting would be hosted by the Planning\nBoard in Council Chambers, so that the Board may be brought up to speed and to televise\nthe meeting. The City Council has voted to disband the APAC at the end of the\ncommunity meeting, and had asked the APAC to pass on the information gathered over\nits lifetime to the appropriate boards. She suggested that a series of meetings be held to\npass that information on, on a topic-by-topic basis. She suggested that the first meeting be\nheld before the first community hearing to discuss regulatory issues, in order to bring the\nBoard up to speed on that information.\nVice President Cook noted that there had been considerable discussion at the first\ncommunity meeting about re-examining Measure A as it relates to Alameda Point. She\nnoted that there was some communication at the second meeting, suggesting that the staff\nshould not consider a non-Measure A alternative. She noted that a possible scenario at the\nBase was being considered that would include some discussion or possible changes to\nMeasure A for the Base. She noted that was a very controversial issue.\nMr. Cormack advised that Andrew Thomas would make that presentation to the Board,\neither on February 14th or 28th, 2005; the 14th was preferable.\nb. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice\nPresident Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that there had been no further meetings since her last report.\nc. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member\nPiziali).\nBoard Member Piziali advised that he had confirmed the continuing existence of the\nCommittee, although the meetings were on hold at this time, possibly due to a funding\nissue.\nd. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member\nMariani).\nBoard Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.\nMs. Kohlstrand inquired whether it would be possible to receive the Board packets earlier\nthan the Friday before the meeting. Mr. Cormack noted that the packet had been delayed\nto receive late information on Harbor Island.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-01-24", "page": 16, "text": "President Cunningham recalled that there had been a move to post the packet on the website.\nMr. Lynch noted that staff transition had been discussed during the previous meeting, and\nrequested that it be agendized for a future meeting, so that the City Manager be able to take\npart in the discussion. He believed that a discussion within the next month would be most\nbeneficial.\n11.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nMs. Altschuler noted that the continued staffing levels affected the ability to distribute an\nemail packet, and that they were attempting to maintain the same work product with a smaller\nstaff. She noted that statutory requirements such as noticing were the first priority of the staff.\nMs. Altschuler advised that the support staff requested that she discuss the issue of Roberts\nRules of Order as they related to meeting minutes. She noted that the Planning Board minutes\nwere considerably more detailed than what is required, and added that the Council minutes\nwere shorter and did not provide as much information. In order to provide additional time for\nsupport staff to perform other duties, she requested the Board's input regarding more limited\nmeeting minutes. She noted that the meeting was recorded on audio and videotape, and added\nthat lengthy minutes must be reviewed and amended by staff. In addition, there was a\ntremendous amount of paper used in the distribution of the minutes.\nPresident Cunningham believed that for study sessions, that a list of bullet points would be\nsufficient. Routine items would still be well-served by briefer minutes.\nMs. Altschuler noted that more important or controversial items would still need detail\nappropriate to their complexity.\nMs. Kohlstrand supported that suggestion.\nMs. Altschuler noted that if the condensed minutes were not useful, the extended minutes\ncould be reinstated.\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Altschuler confirmed that Building Inspectors\ngenerally dropped the packets off while on their rounds in the field.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n10:27 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJane\nJetry Cormack, Interim Secretary\nCity Planning Department\nThese minutes were approved at the February 14, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This\nmeeting was audio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 16\nJanuary 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, February 14, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:03 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMs. Mariani\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,\nMariani, McNamara and Piziali.\nAlso present were Interim Planning Director Jerry Cormack, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman,\nSupervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Supervising Planner Andrew Thomas, Planner III David\nValeska, Bruce Knopf, Development Services, Leslie Little, Development Services, Eric Fonstein,\nDevelopment Services.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of January 24, 2005.\nM/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of January 24, 2005, as\npresented.\nAYES - 5; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 2 (Mariani, McNamara)\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Cunningham advised that a speaker slip had been received for Item 7-B.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-B from the Consent Calendar and to place it\non the Regular Agenda.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nMr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue,\nnoted that the AAPS submitted written comments for the Alameda Theater proposal. He apologized\nfor the lengthy comments presented so close to the meeting, and requested email addresses for the\nBoard members to provide written comments sooner.\nMr. Lynch noted that Mr. Buckley's comments raised the larger question of adhering to the noticing\nrequirements and the challenges presented by overworked and understaffed Planning Departments.\nHe noted that some Planning Departments publish their meeting notices two meetings out in order to\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 2, "text": "invite communication and participation from the public.\nVice President Cook noted that it was important for members of the public to have access to meeting\nmaterials, especially prior to high-interest items such as the Alameda Theatre.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 3, "text": "7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A.\nTM04-0005 SRM Associates Harbor Bay Parkway (MG). Applicant requests approval of\nTentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels into nine parcels. The parcels are\nlocated within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are zoned C-M-PD: Commercial\nManufacturing, Planned Development District. (Continued from the meeting of January\n24, 2005.)\nMs. Kohlstrand noted that the number of parcels in the subdivision was listed differently in the\nresolution and on the agenda.\nMs. Harryman advised that this item would be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar and renoticed\ndue to the discrepancy.\nM/S Piziali/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue this item so that it may be renoticed.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 4, "text": "7-B.\nUP01-0022/DR01-0089: American Tower Corporation. Washington Park, 740 Central\nAvenue (DV). Renewal of expired Use Permit and Major Design Review for 90 foot tall\npainted metal monopole communications tower in place of an existing 47 foot tall light pole\nalong the upper baseball diamond left field fence at Washington Park. Associated ground\nequipment would be placed in a building of up to 825 square feet with screen-fenced ground\nequipment. A Use Permit is required by AMC Sections 30-4.1(c)(1) and (2) for any structure\nand above ground utility installation in the O Open Space Zoning District. (Continued from\nthe meeting of January 24, 2005.)\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-B from the Consent Calendar and to place it on\nthe Regular Agenda.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMr. Bruce Knopf, Development Services Department, requested that this item be continued to the\nMarch 28, 2005, meeting to give staff additional time to address comments made recently.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Lil Arnerich, 3275 Encinal, noted that the proposed building was very large, and would encroach\non the park's recreational activities. He noted that the current Board contained five members who did\nnot approve the original application in 2001; he believed the item should have been discussed\npublicly.\nMr. Jay Ingram, noted that while he was the Chair of the Recreation & Parks Commission, he was\nspeaking as an individual. He distributed packets containing information about the towers. He noted\nthat since the original agreement was created, several cellphone companies had merged. He inquired\nwhether a monopole capable of accommodating six cellphone providers was still needed. He hoped\nthat American Tower would be willing to move the fence and move the container away from the\nsoftball field; the applicant stated that the hum from the container would be muffled. A member of\nthe public had suggested that the 10-foot container be sunk five feet in order to minimize the visual\nimpact.\nMr. Jason Peary, project manager, American Tower, noted that they would address the suggestions\nmade in the comments and that they would work with Mr. Arnerich and Mr. Ingram.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMr. Piziali noted that he spoke with Mr. Ingram the previous week. He agreed that the building's\nvisual impact should be minimized.\nVice President Cook expressed concern about the visual impact of the container.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 5, "text": "Mr. Lynch would like to see the applicant's business model, including the wave repeater, various\ntechnologies, and the FCC requirements as they relate to the Planning Board. He would also like to\nknow why this site is critical to the applicant's operation.\nMs. Kohlstrand requested that the applicant respond to the height issues raised by Mr. Ingram at the\nnext hearing.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board of March 28, 2005.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 6, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\nStudy Session Theater (DSD/JA). Study Session for a proposal to rehabilitate the Alameda\nTheatre and construct a new 7 screen Cineplex and 350 space parking structure on the Video\nManiac site. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the CC-CCPD, Community\nCommercial and Special Planned Development Districts.\nMs. Kohlstrand advised that she would recuse herself from this item because she was a principal\nwith the firm of EnviroTrans Solutions, which performed the traffic analysis for the combined\nparking garage/theater analysis.\nMs. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, summarized the history of this project and noted\nthat the environmental review for this project had been completed. She noted that this project had\nthree components: 1) the restoration of the historic Alameda Theater; 2) the construction of a new\nseven-screen cineplex that would be integral to the historic theater; and 3) the construction of a 352-\nspace parking garage along Oak Street. The comments of the Board regarding significant design\nelements were sought in this study session; a three-dimensional model of the theater was presented to\nshow the massing elements of the building. She emphasized the importance of the components\nworking in an integral manner, rather than independently of one another. She introduced the\nmembers of the development team.\nMr. Michael Stanton, project developer, presented a detailed PowerPoint presentation on the\nproposed Alameda Theater renovation construction and project site. The presentation included a\nvariety of buildings in the historic commercial district of varying architectural styles.\nMs. Naomi [Morolio], Architectural Resources Group, gave a presentation detailing the history,\napproach and proposed renovation of the Alameda Theater. She described the interior design and\nlayout features of the theater, and noted that full ADA access would be provided throughout the\ntheater, as well as structural and mechanical upgrades.\nMr. Stanton noted that this would be one of the most important buildings in town, and added that the\ndesign guidelines included a clear differentiation between the historic portion of the building and the\nnew construction. He described the layout of the theater and the disabled access, as well as the\nsupporting functions of the project. He requested Board comment on five principle aspects of the\ndesign guidelines as sent by staff:\n1.\nBulk and massing;\n2.\nArchitectural form and articulation;\n3.\nLighting;\n4.\nSignage; and\n5.\nMaterials and colors.\nThe design team believed that the massing should be oriented toward Oak and Center. They believed\nthat both facades were equally important in terms of design significance. While the ground level\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 7, "text": "retail, the auditoriums, the second-level lobby, and multilevel connection to the historic theater\nshould be expressed as individual elements, the team believed the Cineplex should be designed to\nread as a single structure. The building also should acknowledge the garage presence at Oak Street.\nThe design team had six recommendations for the Board to consider under Architectural Form and\nArticulation:\n1.\nThe second-level lobby will project three feet beyond the property line at Central to\nbring the activity of the lobby into the public domain, and to animate the street.\n2.\nThe strong horizontal line created by the existing marquees will be acknowledged in\nthe new design;\n3.\nThe design should have continuous fixed glass, metal or concrete canopies to shelter\nthe pedestrians in the street;\n4.\nThe frontage should have consistent transparent retail (80% of the retail space should\nbe left open), and the activity of the shops should spill onto the street;\n5.\nAll mechanical equipment should be fully screened from view; and\n6.\nThe individual cinema at Oak and Central should project two feet beyond the\nproperty line to improve the general massing of the theater.\nThe lighting recommendations were:\n1.\nThe overall lighting should be subdued and indirect;\n2.\nThe canopies over the retail spaces should have continuous downlights onto the\npublic sidewalk;\n3.\nConcealed lighting will be employed to illuminate the rosette and the curved section;\n4.\nExterior lighting will be controlled on a photocell or a timer; and\n5.\nLighting will be available in a vacant retail space.\nThe signage should be subdued. Materials and colors will use a broad palette that will be consistent\nwith the range found in the downtown district, and will be of high quality. Metal panels, glass panels,\nglass block, architecturally treated and painted concrete, ornamental stone, and masonry units will be\navailable to the developers.\nMr. Stanton described the parking garage, which will be brought before the Board in more detail at\nthe next meeting. He noted that gates should not be necessary; there will be six levels, with the\ngreatest massing in the middle of the block.\nPresident Cunningham advised that seven speaker slips had been received.\nM/S Mariani/Piziali and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nThe public hearing was opened.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 8, "text": "Page 8\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 9, "text": "speak.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMs. McNamara inquired how many seats the theater would have; Ms. Little replied that the main\nauditorium would seat 450 people, and that it would not always be filled; it would be able to\naccommodate blockbuster films if needed. She believed that the historic feel of the theater would be\nevoked through the new design. She described the refinishing and stabilizing processes planned for\nthe renovation; the estimated cost for the renovation of the historic theater was $5.1-5.2 million for\nconstruction, plus associated soft costs of up to $2 million; these figures do not include the cost of\nacquisition; the new construction costs were not included in this estimate.\nPresident Cunningham inquired about the seismic upgrades; Ms. Little replied that ARG had\nintegrated the upgrades in such a way that it would not detract from the design.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook, Ms. Little replied that there was considerable\noriginal fabric inside the theater; she described the original finishes and previous renovations.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani, Ms. Little confirmed that the study session was to focus on\nthe exterior of the building. Ms. Mariani supported Mr. Buckley's input, particularly the removal of\nthe big box and emphasizing the vertical elements.\nVice President Cook wished to ensure that there was easy pedestrian access from the garage towards\nthe library. Mr. Stanton stated that the garage was planned to be expandable should Long's become\navailable to the City; the parking would then be available in the center of the block; a second lobby\nwith a separate elevator and staircase would enable people to exit at the center of the block.\nMs. McNamara expressed concern about traffic impacts on the narrow street and the parking garage\nexits; Ms. Little noted that their environmental impact studies would address those concerns.\nVice President Cook expressed concern about the blank exterior walls.\nRegarding public art, Ms. Little noted that the historic theater itself would be an art piece; she\ndescribed the \"phantom gallery\" program, in which community artists rotate displays of their artwork\nin a single venue. Vice President Cook believed the north side of the building would be a good\nlocation for a mural or similar art piece. Ms. Little noted that staff was concerned about a mural\nbecause the project may be expanded and the mural would be blocked.\nPresident Cunningham believed the blank wall should have some modulation.\nVice President Cook did not object to the horizontal nature of the new theater; she liked the idea of\nthe interior public space along Central Avenue being part of the street scene; she did not like the\nlarge square edifice on the corner. Mr. Stanton suggested that the Board direct the developer's team\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 10, "text": "to present a handsome articulation of the wall so it is not an urban eyesore.\nPresident Cunningham suggested that some articulation be written into the design guidelines to craft\nprotection of the visibility of the marquee; he did not want to block of the view of the Twin Towers\nChurch, and believed that scale of the intersection should be respected; he believed this was a golden\nopportunity to create an attractive and understated contemporary building that would blend into the\nexisting community; the lighting plan of the project would be very important.\nMr. Stanton advised that the historic theater can function by itself; however, the Cineplex cannot\nfunction without the historic theater.\nVice President Cook would like the architecture team and the developer to address the corner; she\nsuggested striking the language in 6-c that stated it \"shall project two feet over the sidewalk\"; Mr.\nStanton replied that #6 could be stricken completely, or the wording could be strengthened so that\nthe false brick materials could only be used after a public hearing before the Planning Board. Vice\nPresident Cook would like more specific language in the materials list; Mr. Stanton detailed some of\nthe exterior materials.\nPresident Cunningham requested that the applicants speak to City staff to provide specific definitions\nas they pertain to the project.\nMs. Altschuler noted that the size of the Cineplex sign was not yet clear; the developers were aware\nof the signage requirements in Alameda.\nMr. Stanton described the ticket windows, and noted that purchasing tickets online would be used\nmore often in the future; Ms. Little noted that they would endeavor to reduce the impact of ticket\nqueuing as much as possible; bicycle parking would be in the garage.\nMr. Stanton noted that they would incorporate comments from the public and the Board, and return\nfor another hearing; the garage design would be considered in a separate study session in more detail;\nNo action was taken.\nPresident Cunningham called for a five-minute recess.\nBoard members Lynch and Mariani left the dais following the recess.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 11, "text": "8-B.\nTheater Overlay District Designation (CE). Recommendation to the City Council to adopt\nan ordinance establishing a Theater Overlay District and rezoning certain properties in the\nTheater Overlay District designation.\nMr. Eric Fonstein, management analyst, Development Services Department, summarized the staff\nreport. Staff recommended that the Planning Board recommend that the City Council approve the\nzoning text amendment and the reclassification based on the findings contained in the Draft\nResolution.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThere were no speakers.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nVice President Cook advised that some text of the amendment was not included in her packet.\nMs. Harryman advised that the attached ordinance was included when she saw it the previous week.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of\nFebruary 28, 2005 to allow staff to re-circulate the report with all attachments.\nAYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 12, "text": "8-C. Design Review DR04-0082; Variance V04-0014; Peter Braun for Michele and Frank\nMulligan; 1608 Santa Clara Avenue (AT/MG). The project involves Code Enforcement\naction on an unauthorized conversion of a two car garage in the rear yard into a dwelling\nunit. The applicants are requesting approval of a Major Design Review and seven variances\nto legalize the conversion. The variances required to legalize the dwelling unit include:\na. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d)(6), for the eight-inch side yard, where five feet is\nrequired for the first story and seven feet is required for the second story.\nb. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d)(7), for the eight-inch rear yard, where twenty\nfeet is required.\nc.\nVariance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d)(8), for the approximate 15' separation between\nthe main building and the proposed cottage, where a twenty foot separation is required.\nd. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.10(a)(2), for not having a landscaped separation\nbetween the proposed parking spaces and buildings/property lines, where a three foot\nlandscaped separation is required.\ne.\nVariance to AMC Subsection 30-7.9(f)(1), for the proposed driveway, which is\napproximately twenty feet wide, where residential driveways are limited to a maximum\nof ten feet.\nf. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.10(a)(3), for not having a landscaped separation\nbetween the proposed driveway and the property line, where a one foot landscaped\nseparation is required.\ng. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.6(a)(1), for the proposed three parking spaces, where\na minimum of four off-street parking spaces is required for two dwelling units.\nMr. Valeska summarized the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the Variances and Major\nDesign Review, and recommended that the applicant explore other solutions as part of the Code\nEnforcement.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Frank Mulligan, applicant, detailed the history of this application and stated that he was\nsurprised to find that the cottage was permitted for a garage. He emphasized that the structure was\nnever a garage, and distributed an appraisal form to the Board members. He noted that the cottage\nwas intended to house his mother following surgery, and added that the cottage had always been\nthere. He noted that he intended to appeal any denial.\nMr. Leo Beaulieu, 1430 Paru Street, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that when his\nneighbor built the cottage, it was never intended to be a garage; the builder originally called it a\nworkshop.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMr. Piziali noted that there were no permits for a house to be built on that site; the permits were for a\ngarage. He did not believe the structure was built with good workmanship, as stated on the appraisal.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 13, "text": "President Cunningham advised that the Board must act on the Variances and the findings as they\nconform to the Alameda Municipal Code.\nMs. Kohlstrand expressed concern about the residential structure not meeting the building code; Mr.\nPiziali noted that even in 1984, a house could not be built on a zero property line. He emphasized\nthat the Board was severely limited in their ability to help the applicant without making the required\nfindings.\nM/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to uphold staff's recommendation to deny the Variance and\nMajor Design Review.\nAYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 14, "text": "9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\n10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice\nPresident Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that they continued to meet monthly, and were preparing for the\nworkshop on March 3, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in Chambers; community participation was strongly\nencouraged.\nb. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report since her last report.\nc. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).\nBoard Member Piziali advised that there was nothing new to report since his last report.\nd. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani).\nBoard Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.\n11.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nPresentation in preparation for March 3 Alameda Point Community Workshop.\nMr. Thomas displayed a PowerPoint presentation to provide the Planning Board with a preview of\nthe issues associated with development of Alameda Point, which will be discussed at the workshop\nto be held March 3, 2005. He distributed a hard copy of the PowerPoint presentation and advised\nthat the presentation and other materials can be found on www.alamedapoint.com. He anticipated\nhaving a preliminary land use concept and a conveyance strategy accomplished with the Navy by\nsummer. He noted that the four key issues to be addressed at the March 3 workshop were: financial\nfeasibility, historic preservation, Measure A and transportation. The following workshop at the end\nof March will be co-hosted by the Transportation Commission and the APAC, and will focus on the\nEstuary crossing issues. He emphasized that the project must pay for itself, and not rely on the City's\nGeneral Fund; it must also be fiscally neutral in the long run.\nMr. Thomas detailed the policy background, environmental constraints, land use constraints,\nchallenges and opportunities of the site. He summarized the issues to be covered during the March 3\nworkshop, including the Officer's Club, Big Whites, BOQ, historic preservation, transportation\nconstraints.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 15, "text": "M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to extend the meeting to 11:15 p.m.\nAYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMs. Kohlstrand believed the issue of transportation constraints should be linked to the land use\ndiscussion.\nMr. Thomas noted that no decisions would be made at the end of the workshop.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n11:14 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJerry Cormack, Interim Secretary\nCity Planning Department\nThese minutes were approved at the February 28, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was\naudio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, February 28, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:08 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMs. McNamara\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,\nMariani, and McNamara.\nBoard member Piziali was absent.\nAlso present were Interim Planning Director Jerry Cormack, Assistant City Attorney David Brandt,\nSupervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Planner III Allen Tai, Leslie Little, Development Services,\nEric Fonstein, Development Services.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of February 14, 2005.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of February 14, 2005,\nas presented.\nAYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Cunningham advised that a speaker slip had been received for Item 7-C.\nMr. Chuck Millar, 2829 San Jose Avenue, stated that he was in favor of Item 7-C., and did not\nwish to speak.\nPresident Cunningham stated that because of the length of the agenda, and the fact that the March 14,\n2005, agenda did not have any items, there was a general consensus to continue Item 8-D to the\nMarch 14, 2005, meeting.\nM/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to continue Item 8-D to the Planning Board meeting of March 14,\n2005.\nAYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nNone.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 2, "text": "7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A.\nTM04-0005 SRM Associates Harbor Bay Parkway (MG). Applicant requests approval of\nTentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels into sixteen parcels. The parcels are\nlocated within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are zoned C-M-PD, Commercial\nManufacturing, Planned Development District. (Continued from the meeting of January\n24, 2005.)\nM/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-06 to approve\nTentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels into sixteen parcels.\nAYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 3, "text": "7-B.\nTheater Overlay District Designation (CE). Recommendation to the City Council to adopt\nan ordinance establishing a Theater Overlay District and rezoning certain properties in the\nTheater Overlay District designation. (Continued from the meeting of February 14, 2005.)\nM/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-07 to approve\na recommendation to the City Council to adopt an ordinance establishing a Theater Overlay District\nand rezoning certain properties in the Theater Overlay District designation.\nAYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 4, "text": "7-C. ZA05-0002, 842 Central Avenue, Central Cinema, Applicant: Mark Haskett (DV). The\nApplicant seeks approval to continue to operate a movie theater with up to 49 seats in the C-\n1, Neighborhood Business District where a movie theater use is not currently allowed as a\npermitted use or as a use regulated by Use Permit. The Planning Board will review and take\naction on the following options associated with continued use of this movie theater:\n1) Consideration of a Zoning Use Determination that a \"Boutique Theater\" defined\nas \"A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for\nthe screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater\" is\nsufficiently similar to what is allowed pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code\nsection 30-4.8(c)(7) which allows by Use Permit \"Theaters with live\nperformances that are in combination with other permitted uses.\" If the Planning\nBoard determines that a \"Boutique Theater\" is consistent with what is allowed\nby A.M.C. section 30-4.8(c)(7), then the applicant will apply for a Use Permit at\na future meeting; or\n2) Consideration of an Amendment to Section 30-4.8 (c) to add \"Boutique Theater\"\nas a use regulated by Use Permit in the C-1 zoning district. \"Boutique Theater\nwould be defined as \"A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live\nperformances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one\nscreen in the theater.\" If the Planning Board determines that a \"Boutique\nTheater\" could be an appropriate use in the C-1 zoning district, the zoning\namendment will be forwarded to Council for adoption and the applicant would\nneed to return to the Planning Board for a Use Permit following adoption of the\namendment by Council. {Staff requests a continuance to the meeting of April\n11, 2005 pending an Initial Study as required by the California\nEnvironmental Quality act (CEQA)}\nM/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of April\n11, 2005.\nAYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 5, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\nStudy Session Theater (DSD/JA). Study Session to review revisions for Design Guidelines\nto construct a new 7-screen Cineplex and 352-space parking structure on the Video Maniac\nsite. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the CC - CCPD, Community\nCommercial and Special Planned Development Districts. (Continued from the meeting of\nFebruary 14, 2005.)\nMs. Kohlstrand advised that she would recuse herself from this item because she was a principal\nwith the firm of EnviroTrans Solutions, which performed the traffic analysis for the combined\nparking garage/theater analysis.\nMs. Leslie Little, Development Services, advised that the theater's design would be addressed at this\nstudy session, and that they would present revised guidelines. She advised that Michael Stanton\ncould not attend this session, and that Brian Lyles would speak on behalf of the project developer.\nPresident Cunningham advised that eight speaker slips had been received.\nM/S Mariani/McNamara to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.\nAYES - 3 (Piziali absent); NOES - 2 (Cunningham, Cook); ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand)\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue,\nrequested to speak after the letter from AAPS had been distributed to the Board members.\nMr. Richard Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, advised that he had distributed a letter to the Board. He\nnoted that there was considerable detail on the exterior, but that there was less information regarding\nthe interior of the project. If it was a partial package, he believed it should be not as such; if not, he\nrequested an explanation regarding the missing information. He believed the developer's architect\nshould be given maximum design creativity within a set of design guidelines.\nMr. Scott Brady, 1812 Encinal Avenue, former chairman of the Historic Advisory Board, noted that\nhe was an architect. He believed the guidelines were unnecessarily restrictive, and that the wording\nin the draft guideline would lead the designer to a design very similar to the elevations in the packet.\nHe noted that those elevations were labeled for reference only, and should be eliminated from the\npacket; the reference design was not compatible with the guidelines and featured a large blank walls.\nHe believed the addition to the theater should remain secondary to the existing theater; the art deco\narchitecture were the primary elements on the short block, and any contemporary design would\ncomplicate and detract from the main element of the original theater.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 6, "text": "Ms. Rosemary McNally, 2145 San Antonio, believed that the corner where the theater is located is a\nmajor feature of Alameda; she expressed concern about excessive massing and blank walls with\nrespect to the theater. She suggested that the large blank wall adjacent to Long's be covered with a\nmural duplicating the view of what would be lost. She would like to see the round corner included in\nthe structure. She did not believe that three-minute speaking time was sufficient for speakers with\ndetailed presentations.\nMr. Chuck Millar, 2829 San Jose Avenue, believed the massing model made the building look as if it\nwere bursting at the seams, and that it pushed out in all directions. He believed that community\nopinion was overwhelmingly against the \"big box\" look. He supported some reference to the old\nbuilding in the new design, and did not see that in this design.\nMs. Annie Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, spoke in opposition to this design, and did not believe it\nwas beautiful enough for Alameda. She would prefer to see the design created by Timothy Flueger to\nbe restored to its former glory. She believed the upstairs balcony should be restored, like the Grand\nLake Theater in Oakland. She expressed concern about the amount of parking that would be needed,\nand did not believe the proposed parking garage would be sufficient.\nMs. Elizabeth Krase, 2520 Chester Street, AAPS, generally supported this item. She expressed\nconcern about the two-foot and three-foot projections of the second floor, particularly the projection\nat the lobby which she believed would seriously detract from the rounded corner. She did not support\nthe idea of notching the building back so that people in the lobby could see the round perforated\ndecorative screen. She did not like the use of metal can letters in the signage; she suggested that neon\nsignage would be in keeping with the Deco design of the original building.\nMr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, did not believe the design of the proposed theater was at\nall attractive, and believed that there were other good examples of contemporary architecture in\nAlameda.\nMr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue,\nnoted that he had submitted a 12-page letter to the Board. He thanked staff for making the two-foot\nprojection an option, and expressed concern that the guidelines as written could lead to a building\nthat would resemble the building shown during preliminary studies. He believed that the guidelines\nwere too specific in some cases. He detailed the redlined text changes to the guidelines from\nAttachment A of his letter, and displayed the examples on the overhead projector. He would like to\nsee the parking garage broken up to appear as if they were individual buildings, as in Walnut Creek;\nthe guidelines discouraged this approach for the theater. He suggested the addition of text stating that\n\"the actual design will require approval of the City of Alameda pursuant to the City's design review\nprocedure, and shall include approval by the Planning Board and Historic Advisory Board.\"\nMr. Buckley suggested that the reference to contemporary design be edited, which suggested only\ntwo design approaches; he believed the architect should have more flexibility in drawing elements\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 7, "text": "from surrounding buildings. He believed that the guidelines meant a modernist building rather than\ncontemporary. He suggested that the overly strong horizontal proportions be toned down for visual\nbalance with respect to the surrounding buildings; the two-foot projection should be deleted. The\nthree-foot project should be incorporated as an option to be considered by the architect. He did not\nbelieve the Oak Street side of the Cineplex should be notched to show the parking garage; it should\nbe a continuous fa\u00e7ade. He did not believe this project should have internally illuminated signs, box\nsigns or individually canned letters; the sidewalk along Oak Street should be at least 12 feet wide to\naccommodate any large crowds.\nMr. Arthur Lipow spoke in opposition to this item. He believed that the public funds could be put to\nbetter use than the theater and parking structure, given the current economy of the State and the City.\nHe believed the East Bay already had too many movie screens, and did not believe it was an\neconomically viable project.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMs. Little noted that the vertical elements that would require ADA access were in the new building,\nnot the historic building.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the seating capacity, Ms. Little replied\nthat approximately 1,100 seats would be installed.\nVice President Cook believed that it was important to be aware of the flexibility of the development\ndeal, and that the tradeoffs would be reflected in design accommodations in the new building.\nMs. Little noted that the developer and the architect were anxious to proceed with the project, and\nadded that the comments were very valuable. She noted that the design guidelines were not intended\nto become complicated, but were an attempt to get good qualitative comments in the beginning of the\nprocess.\nMr. Lynch agreed with a number of items presented during the public hearing. He did not believe the\nallocation of public dollars was within his purview as a Board member; the elected leadership of the\nCity Council made that determination. He noted that some ideas will not be incorporated, given the\neconomics of the deal; he noted that the comments presented would be difficult to digest at one time.\nHe suggested that this brainstorming process would have worked well on the department level, to be\nculminated with a session before the Planning Board.\nMs. Mariani agreed with Mr. Lynch's assessment regarding the amount of information to distill.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani regarding the interior design, Ms. Little replied that it\nwould be presented during the design review.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 8, "text": "Mr. Lynch believed that it was very important to discuss this project at the front end.\nPresident Cunningham believed that a great deal of valuable comments had been made, and that\nwould be sufficient to start crafting a more developed design. He expressed concern about the corner,\nas well as the seam between the new cinema and the old theater.\nVice President Cook expressed concern that the new design would interfere with the rounded nature\nof the old architecture evident on existing theater.\nMs. McNamara agreed with Vice President Cook's comments, and believed strongly that Mr.\nBuckley's ideas should be seriously considered. She believed the new architecture should reflect the\nsurrounding architecture that appears in the neighborhood.\nReferring to Mr. Buckley's photos, Mr. Lynch liked the manner in which the massing was broken up,\nparticularly with the parking garage within the City of Walnut Creek.\nMs. Mariani agreed with the other Board members' comments, and cautioned against the building\nbecoming a large, protruding box on the corner. She requested redlined versions of future documents\nso revisions could be easily noted.\nPresident Cunningham summarized the comments by the Board and the public:\n1.\nA large monolithic box on the corner are not acceptable, whether or not the\ntwo-foot projection was included;\n2.\nThe rosette on the front corners of the existing theater is a very important\nelement of the existing architecture;\n3.\nInternally illuminated box signage or individual can letters should be\navoided;\n4.\nThe design guidelines don't give clear direction as to how the signage would\nrelate in the retail area;\n5.\nSome language should be added regarding the parking garage and the big\nwall, to ensure the designer and contractor are aware of the community's\naversion to a large blank wall; and\n6.\nProvisions for a mural or some articulation of this blank wall should be\nincluded, as suggested by Ms. McNally.\nPresident Cunningham noted that Mr. Buckley's comments were very valuable, particularly with\nrespect to eliminating the elevations.\nMs. Little noted that Mr. Buckley's comments and photographs were appreciated.\nNo action was taken.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 9, "text": "M/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of March 14,\n2005.\nAYES - 5 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand)\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 10, "text": "8-B.\nR04-0002, UP04-0013, V04-0018, DR04-0101: 1410 Everett-Mary Applegate (DV).\nPublic hearing to reconsider a Design Review (DR04-0101) for the construction of a new\n5,300 sq. ft. veterinary clinic on a lot currently developed with a vacant bank building which\nwould be demolished located at 2501 Central Avenue. The existing veterinary clinic located\nat 1410 Everett Street would be demolished and developed as a parking lot. The proposed 23\nspace parking lot can be accessed from either Central Avenue or Everett Street. The project\nalso requires the rezoning of an approximately 7,800 square foot lot currently developed as a\nparking lot located between the bank building and the adjacent condominium building. The\nlot would be rezoned from R-5, General Residential Zoning District, to C-C, Community\nCommercial Zoning District to establish consistency with the General Plan. The lots at 2501\nCentral Avenue and 1410 Everett Street are zoned C-C, Community Commercial Zoning\nDistrict.\nMs. Altschuler summarized the staff report. Four separate actions are sought by the Planning Board:\n1.\nA recommendation on a conformance rezoning;\n2.\nA decision on a Use Permit;\n3.\nA decision on a Variance for a second driveway; and\n4.\nA decision on a Design Review for the new building being proposed.\nMs. Altschuler advised that this item had been appealed to the City Council, who returned the case to\nthe Planning Board for second review in response to expressed concerns related to the wording of the\npublic notice. She advised that the original notice was listed as 1410 Everett, the address for the\noriginal clinic. However, the expansion would occur on a site that is addressed off of Central\nAvenue. City Council directed staff to bring this item back before the Board as a de novo hearing,\nand all four items will be heard as if they were new items. She reviewed the items for the Board, and\nemphasized that the rezoning was intended to conform to the intent of the General Plan for that site.\nThe conformance rezoning was separate from any expansion intended for the veterinary clinic;\nrezonings do not run with a use, and are legislative actions that affects all future uses.\nPresident Cunningham advised that numerous speaker slips had been received.\nM/S Mariani/Kohlstrand and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.\nAYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN- O\nThe public hearing was opened.\nDr. Mary Applegate, DVM, applicant, summarized the background of her business and the\napplication. She emphasized that the clinic was not open 24 hours a day, and noted that a new facility\nwas essential to maintain their services and level of care. She stated that they made every effort to\ndesign a beautiful and functional building, and added that they employed approximately 15 Alameda\nresidents.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 11, "text": "Mr. Steve Busse, operations manager for Park Center Animal Hospital, noted that Dr. Applegate is\nhis wife. He summarized the history of this application, and displayed a presentation of the design on\nthe overhead screen. He noted that he spoke with Tom Matthews, who lives across the street from\nthe property; as a result of the discussion, he presented City Council with a modified signage plan\nthat featured a backlit sign and a change in the elevation on Central Avenue. He also attempted to\ncontact the individuals who spoke at the Council meeting to get their feedback, clarify any\nmisunderstandings, and better understand their concerns. He noted that only one person (Joe Meylor)\nagreed to meet with him; his primary concern was with the noticing, and he was also concerned\nabout the building's design. He believed that the neighborhood alert that had been distributed to the\nneighbors was a major reason why no one wished to meet with him, and added that it was\ninflammatory and inaccurate. He stated that the allegations of criminal activity in the neighborhood\nwas completely without foundation. The clinic was not open 24/7, and the staff report clearly stated\nthe hours of operation.\nMr. Busse noted that the square footage of the building requires 22 parking spaces, and 23 spaces\nhave been included. A large curb cut would be removed, which would replace 2 to 3 on-street\nparking spaces. He noted that most of the animals they treated would be in the hospital for a few\nhours, and they did not operate a boarding facility; customers would be able to allow their pets to\nstay at the facility only if they were existing veterinary customers, and usually because they had\nmedical concerns about their pet. They will continue to observe their written dog-walking policy,\nwhich includes maintain dogs on-leash, walking only on public sidewalks, and maintaining the dog\non public property. They will pick up their droppings, as well as other droppings that they see while\nwalking; he noted that their efforts resulted in fewer droppings, not more waste. He strongly\ndisagreed with the allegation that they posed a public nuisance, and stated that in 13 years, the\npractice has been under their management; they received no complaints about noise, smell, or other\naspects of their business practices. The Better Business Bureau report states that no complaints about\ntheir business practices had been filed; no police reports had been filed complaining about their\nbusiness operation; the Building Department shows no legitimate complaints about their business\noperation.\nDr. Cathy Wydner, DVM, co-owner, described the proposed project and noted that the original\nbuilding was not designed as a veterinary hospital. She noted that the dramatic changes in veterinary\nmedicine necessitate changes in hospital design; 95% of their 3,000 clients live in Alameda, and all\ntheir staff lives in the City as well. She stated that the density was fairly low for the block, and that\nthe condo across the street had a far higher density; parking was more than what was required. She\nnoted that the outdoor fenced area will contain most of the dog walking, resulting in a lower\nneighborhood impact from walking the dogs.\nMr. Brandon Stanford, noted that he owned a hair salon at 1422 Everett, and leased space at 1414\nEverett. He spoke in support of this application, and had never been disturbed by the applicants or\nthe use in 15 years. Many of his customers had looked at the plans and supported them as well.\nMr. Lawrence Henderson, spoke in support of this project, and believed it would be beneficial for the\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 12, "text": "Mr. Jim Miller, 2508 Crist Street, noted that he was originally opposed to this project; after hearing\nthe applicants' response to the neighborhood concerns, he is now in support of this project and\nrescinded his stated opposition to the project.\nMr. George Borikas, 1500 Gibbons Drive, noted that he owned the four-unit apartment building\ndisplayed by the applicant. He inquired what his rights as a landlord would be if a tenant sued him\nfor failing to provide \"quiet enjoyment\" because of any excessive noise from the clinic; he inquired\nwhether the City would pay for his defense should he have a problem with a tenant.\nMr. Erin Beales, 2452 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that he was the\nauthor of the neighborhood alert. He emphasized that he was not trying to close the clinic down, and\nread his written statement into the record:\n\"I'm here to ask you to deny the Use Permit for this project. You sent out\napproximately 175 notices to the people in the neighborhood. These notices were to\ninform people that there is going to be a decision made by the Planning Board that\ncan negatively affect their way of life. In essence, you're asking these people how\nthey feel about this project, and that their opinions would drive the decision of the\nPlanning Board. In two short weeks, my neighbors and Iknocked on a few doors and\nexplained to the residents what was being proposed on the corner of Central and\nEverett. In the short time, we gathered a list of signatures, almost 50 people that are\nwithin the notification boundary. The other 10 on this list are on the close outskirts of\nthis boundary. If we had more time, this list would be a lot bigger. This is almost\n25% of the notification list that have spoken out with some concern about this\nproject. The concerns range from obviously my concerns of the dogs being exercised\nin the neighborhood, the scale and size of the actual building that close to the\nresidential neighborhood. And although there are 23 parking spaces, it is going to\nhave an impact on the parking in the neighborhood, no matter what you say.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 13, "text": "When there are 50 neighbors against an applicant, I would hope that you would see\nthe light and deny this Use Permit. Let's remember the intended use of this actual\nplot is not approved in its zone. That is why they need a Conditional Use Permit;\nthat's why they're here for that permit. We are here to discuss whether that would be\nokay, and clearly, I think it is not. Furthermore, if you decide to give them this Use\nPermit, at the very least, there should be a condition written into it that says they must\nconduct all business, specifically the dog walking, in a commercial zone, not in the\nresidential zone next door. So, if they're going to be doing business in a commercial\nzone, all of their business should take place there. This new facility, although they\nsay it does not exercise dogs in the neighborhood, on the layout of the actual facility\nthat was given to you before, there are 21 kennels in this facility for dogs. Out of 21\ndogs at full capacity, I think quite a few of these dogs are going to be exercised every\nday. IfI had my dog there, Iwould hope that it got out at least once a day. Currently, I\nview this all day long out my front window. They walk the dogs, right in front of my\nhouse and down Regent. And whether they say they do or do not, they do. They pick\nup after the dogs, but you cannot extract urine from my lawn. It is detrimental and a\nhealthy hazard.\"\nMs. Heather Beales, 2452 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. She was concerned that\nmost of the supporters of this application did not live directly across the street from the site, as she\ndid. She expressed concern that the activities and lighted sign of the hospital encroached on the quiet\nenjoyment of her home; she was also concerned about the potential noise of the exercise area, as well\nas the increased traffic on Central Avenue. She did not question the character of the applicants, but\ndid not believe this was the appropriate location for this use.\nMr. Gene Oh, Alameda Bicycle, 1522 Park Street, spoke in support of this application, and noted\nthat it was difficult to balance business needs with the needs of a neighborhood, especially in the\nPark Street area. He believed the applicant needed to expand in order to properly serve their\ncustomers.\nMr. John Barni, 1023 Auburn Court, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that he built the\ncondominium next door to the project site and recalled the background of this use. He noted that the\nsidewalk corners reeked of urine, and recently discovered that the clinic boarded dogs. He requested\nthat the rezoning of the lot as CC be denied, and was concerned that it would allow many uses that\nhe did not believe were appropriate to the neighborhood. He believed that it should be zoned\nProfessional Offices instead.\nMr. Justin Louw, 908-A San Antonio Street, spoke in support of this project, and noted that he could\nsee the staff walking the dogs from his apartment window. He has also seen the staff pick up after\ntheir dogs and other peoples' dogs as well. He believed the odor came from the ivy on the corner,\nbecause the foliage made it difficult to pick up the dog waste. He noted that the hospital had taken\ngood care of his dog when it was hit by a car.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 14, "text": "Ms. Shelley Dunn, 1322 Regent Street, noted that she was not opposed to the presence of the\nhospital, but was concerned about parking and dog urine on her lawn. She noted that the urine may\nnot be the responsibility of the hospital staff. She inquired what would happen to the cars current\nrenting space on that site.\nMs. Kate Pryor, 2063 Eagle Avenue, spoke in support of this application. She noted that she was a\nbusiness owner, and believed that the mixed use made the district more vibrant.\nMs. Nancy Matthews, 2450 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and expressed concern\nabout the impact of this use on the residences. She described the traffic flow in the neighborhood,\nand expressed concern about the potential increase in traffic. She did not believe that customers of\nthe clinic should be able to urge approval of a project they did not have to live with.\nMr. Tom Matthews, 2450 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that 50 local\nresidents were also opposed to this application. He doubted that the merchants on Park Street would\nallow this use. He did not believe this building had any residential character, and that the expansion\nwas too large for the area. He believed a condition should be added that would require pets to be\nwalked in the commercial zones only, and that the use to limited to care of sick pets only, with no\nboarding. He believed the setback was inadequate, with a one-foot setback from Central Avenue; he\nbelieved the small setback made it incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood. He would like to\nsee architectural changes that would be more compatible with the transitional residential part of the\nneighborhood.\nMr. Joe Meylor, 1361 Regent Street, spoke in opposition to all facets of this project, including the\nuse, the design and the Variance because the use fundamentally changed the business model of the\nbusiness. He noted that a small business would become a larger, wider-ranging facility with many\nmore uses. He noted that dogs urinated on his private property, which was impossible to clean up. He\nstressed that he harbored no ill will toward the applicants, and added that his two cats had received\nexcellent care at the clinic for the last five years. He understood that he lived in a transitional\nneighborhood, but asked that the Planning Board ensured that the residential voice was heard. He\nexpressed concern about the noise impacts from the use. He noted that the applicants had\nmisinterpreted his concerns incorrectly following their meeting.\nMs. Monica Pe\u00f1a, 1361 Regent Street, spoke in opposition to this application, and believed it would\nnegatively impact her quiet enjoyment of her property. She expressed concern that the dogs being\nwalked in her neighborhood would pose a safety threat to her children.\nMr. John Gruntfest noted that he did not live in the subject neighborhood, and spoke in support of\nthis application. He noted that all residents had to make compromises. He noted that he was the CFO\nof San Francisco Veterinary Specialists, and been in the veterinary business for 20 years; there were\nno communicable diseases between animals and people through urine or feces. He had visited the\nneighborhood, and believed that the business was very orderly and well-kept; the improved facility\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 15, "text": "was important for the health care of the animals. He noted that the business was located in a\ncommercial area with surrounding homes.\nDr. Genevieve Manchester-Johnson, DVM, Associate Veterinarian, Park Center Animal Hospital,\n16863 Los Banos Street, San Leandro, wished to respond to the residents who believed the\napplicants would act in an irresponsible manner. She read the oath taken by all veterinarians:\n\"Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, Isolemnly swear to use my\nscientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of\nanimal health, the relief of animal suffering, the conservation of animal resources,\nthe promotion of public health and the advancement of medical knowledge.\nI will practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity and in keeping with the\nprinciples of veterinary medical ethics. I accept as a lifelong obligation the continual\nimprovement of my professional knowledge and competence.\"\nDr. Manchester-Johnson stated that everyone at Park Center took their oath very seriously, and added\nthat keeping the neighborhood clean was a very large part of that commitment. She stated they would\nnever consider walking an animal that would pose a health risk to other animals or people; to suggest\nso would be utterly against their oath.\nMs. Helen Mohr Thomas, 3011 Thompson Avenue, spoke in support of this project; she had taken\nher pets to the center for 10 years and received excellent care. She believed the business was an asset\nto Alameda. She believed the expansion would greatly improve the physical appearance at Everett\nand Central, especially the elimination of the long-abandoned minibank. She believed the expansion\nwould also provide a valuable service to the community.\nMr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, Park Street Business Association, spoke in support of this\napplication, and was pleased that the project offered more parking than was required. He noted that\nthe rezoning would bring the parcel into compliance with the General Plan, as well as its intent for\ncommercial zoning in that area. He added that had been overlooked in the past, and that the rezoning\nwould correct the oversight. He believed this would be an appropriate use, and that the expansion\nwas an improvement. He emphasized that this design and application met the needs of neighborhood,\nand it would be welcomed on Park Street without reservation. He did not believe that any dog under\nthe care of the hospital staff had urinated on private property; he suggested that the residents call the\nPolice Department if they see someone trespassing on their property.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMs. Mariani wished to disclose that she received calls from Mr. Matthews and Mr. Barni; she also\nowns three dogs.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding the nature of any boarding services provided,\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 16, "text": "Mr. Busse stated that the business was a veterinary hospital, and that boarding was an ancillary use.\nOnly medical clients were able to use the boarding services, such as for diabetic dogs that need\nmedical oversight. Presently, they allow only two spots for boarding, and that boarding was not\navailable for non-clients; the other four slots were reserved for hospitalized animals. He estimated\nthat six to eight boarding spaces would be available at peak periods for their medical clients; their\nbusiness was not a kennel.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding the exercise area, Mr. Busse confirmed that it\nwas not a dog run or play area, but an enclosed area where staff members will walk dogs on-leash\none at a time. He emphasized that dogs would not be fenced in unattended in that area all day; it may\ntake 10-15 minutes for staff to walk each dog.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand regarding the setbacks, Mr. Busse stated that the\nbuilding setback at the closest point would be one foot from the property line on Central Avenue.\nThe property line is 4'2\" from the existing sidewalk, allowing five feet of landscape space at the\nclosest point; it would expand to a range of 7-14 feet in other areas.\nVice President Cook stated that she had no concerns about the proposed rezoning or about the\ndesign. She expressed concern about the impact of the lighted sign on the residences, and added that\nthe business hours were generally confined to daylight hours. She was not concerned about the\ndriveway, but was concerned about the expansion of the use next to residential uses. She noted that\nthe Use Permit ran with the land, not the business, and did not believe this was an appropriate use so\nclose to a residential neighborhood.\nMr. Lynch advised that he did not have any concerns with the business operations at this site, largely\ndue to their business model.\nMs. Mariani noted that this use should blend as much as possible into the neighborhood, and\nsuggested that mature landscaping be a condition of appeal.\nMr. Busse advised that all the mature trees along the boundary between the property and the\ncondominiums would be retained; the street trees on Central Avenue will remain as well. He stated\nthat 24-inch box Chinese elms and Sweet Bay trees, as well as 36-inch box Maidenhair trees were\namong the trees being proposed.\nMs. McNamara believed it was important to be more sensitive to the residential design in the\nimmediate neighborhood.\nMs. Altschuler noted that this was a very contemporary building, and that the reference to Craftsman\nstyle was with respect to the building materials. The condominium immediately adjacent was also a\nvery modern building, as was the former Central Market across the street. She noted that the Board\nmay recommend the rezoning without approving any other parts of the application.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 16\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 17, "text": "M/S Cook/Lynch and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-08 to rezone the\napproximately 7,800 square foot lot currently developed as a parking lot located between the bank\nbuilding and the adjacent condominium building property from R-5, General Residential Zoning\nDistrict, to C-C, Community Commercial Zoning District to establish consistency with the General\nPlan.\nAYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN- 0\nPresident Cunningham stated that he believed this was a very good project, and supported it wholly.\nHe understood the neighbors' concerns, and suggested that conditions be crafted to help mitigate the\nissues of dog exercise and waste in the neighborhood. He did not believe the veterinary hospital\nshould be held accountable for other dog owners' actions in the neighborhood.\nMs. Altschuler advised that she had spoken with the business owners regarding that issue, and\nsuggested that the Board discuss that point with the applicants. She suggested that a compromise be\nreached on whether the dogs may be walked only in the commercial areas. She noted that it would be\ndifficult to distinguish between an employment of the hospital and another person walking a dog\nunless some identifying garb were to be worn.\nMr. Lynch noted that he was a strong proponent of the revitalization of Park Street, and\nacknowledged that many people walked their dogs in that area. He would not support a restriction\nrequiring the dogs be walked only in a commercial district because of the number of dogs in the area;\nit would be an unenforceable restriction. He suggested that the pets being cared for wore a band that\nwould identify them as patients of the facility.\nMs. Kohlstrand noted that the other veterinary hospitals in Alameda were adjacent to residential\nuses, with the exception of the facility on Webster Street. She noted that this neighborhood must\naccommodate both residential and commercial uses, and that both uses need to co-exist; she did not\nbelieve the design should be a residential design. She would like responsiveness towards the\nneighbors regarding the treatment along Central Avenue, although the existing setback was adequate.\nPresident Cunningham advised that he liked the building design, and believed that the scale of the\ndesign was appropriate for the neighborhood. The parking was supported on-site, and the zoning was\nnow in conformance with the General Plan. He appreciated the sensitivities of the neighbors.\nM/S Lynch/Kohlstrand to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-08 to approve the Use Permit\nto construct a new 5,300 square foot veterinary clinic and 23 space parking lot on a lot currently\ndeveloped with a vacant bank building which would be demolished at 2501 Central Avenue.\nAYES - 5 (Piziali absent); NOES - 1 (Cook); ABSTAIN - 0\nM/S Kohlstrand/Lynch and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-08 to approve\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 17\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 18, "text": "a Variance to allow two driveways to provide ingress/egress to the proposed 23 space parking lot to\nserve the vet clinic use.\nAYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nDr. Applegate advised that they did not plan to have an internally illuminated sign, and added that it\ngot dark before 5 p.m. in the winter. She would like to have a backlit sign on Everett Street so that\nthe sign may be read, but that they did not want to have bright lights in the neighborhood.\nM/S Cook/Mariani to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-08 to change Condition 10 to\nrequire that the sign along Central Avenue will not be illuminated; site illumination would be\nacceptable.\nAYES - 5 (Piziali absent); NOES - 1 (Kohlstrand); ABSTAIN - 0\nM/S Lynch/Kohlstrand to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-08 to approve the Design\nReview (DR04-0101) for the construction of a new 5,300 sq. ft. veterinary clinic on a lot currently\ndeveloped with a vacant bank building which would be demolished located at 2501 Central Avenue.\nThe existing veterinary clinic located at 1410 Everett Street would be demolished and developed as\na parking lot. The proposed 23 space parking lot can be accessed from either Central Avenue or\nEverett Street.\nAYES - 5 (Piziali absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0\nPresident Cunningham called for a five-minute recess.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 18\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 19, "text": "8-C.\nPD04-0004/DR04-0113, 433 Buena Vista Avenue, Applicant: Alameda Multifamily\nVentures, LLC (AT). The applicant seeks Design Review and Planned Development\napproval for the construction of a two-story 6,000 square foot community building, four 16-\ncar garages, facade changes to existing apartment buildings, and other improvements at the\nHarbor Island Apartments site. The site is located at 433 Buena Vista Avenue, within an R-4\nPD, Neighborhood Residential Planned Development District.\nMr. Tai summarized the staff report, and described the modifications to the design and elevations.\nSince the packet had been sent to the Planning Board, the applicants and staff met to revise some of\nthe conditions related to the trash enclosures. He advised that on page 4, the first sentence of\nCondition 12 should be deleted and substituted with, \"The applicants shall comply with AMC\nSubsection 20-2.1, which currently requires the owner or occupant of any premise is to subscribe and\npay for all integrated waste collection..\nMr. Tai advised that Condition 13 was revised to state that \"the applicants shall comply with Section\n21-2.1, which currently requires that collection of solid waste from residential areas... \"\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Chris Auxier, applicant, stated that they would be available to respond to questions.\nMr. Michael Yoshii, Pastor, Buena Vista United Methodist Church, and Renewed Hope Housing\nAdvocates, noted that he attended the West End Community Improvement Project. He noted that the\nmass evictions highlighted the need to coordinate the social impact on the community, with respect\nto the intent to make physical improvements in the neighborhood. He noted that the impact on the\nschools was very important, particularly regarding the anticipation of new residents and new\nstudents. He believed the community needed to be mended following these difficulties.\nMs. Lorraine Lilly wished to address the human factors following the actions of the 15 Group and\nthe Harbor Island apartment complex, and stated that the mass evictions were dehumanizing for the\n400 families impacted by them. She did not believe the human impact was being adequately\naddressed by the proposed renovation plan, particularly regarding the disabled population. She\ndisagreed with the lighting plan, and noted that the visually impaired would not have adequate visual\nclarity with the 25-foot lighting plan. She believed the standards of visual accessibility should be in\ncompliance with the ADA standards. She noted that the planned development did not address\nhandicapped accessibility for the elevators; no phones were included in the elevator cars for\nassistance. She stated that the fire suppression equipment should be adequate for the entire complex.\nShe expressed concern about the parking plan, and did not believe it addressed the needs of the\ndisabled tenants; even when they requested parking spaces close to their units, they were not\nassigned. She noted that the drinking water was often brown, and inquired whether it was\ncontaminated.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 19\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 20, "text": "Ms. Modessa Henderson, 465 Buena Vista #105, spoke in opposition to this item and noted that she\nhad lived at the site for 30 years. She inquired what kind of tenants would live at the complex, and\nstated that it had been a family-oriented complex. She believed that there was a great need for\nactivities for children, if families were to return to the complex. She would like some design\naccommodations for the disabled, such as first-floor apartments.\nMs. C. Landry, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted that she had lived in Harbor Island for a\nnumber of years, and was displaced following the evictions. She believed the improvements were\nsuperficial, and believed the plumbing system and sprinklers should be fixed. She noted that several\nunits had not been repaired following fires.\nPresident Cunningham requested a motion to extend the meeting to a time certain.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani whether this item could be continued to the following\nBoard meeting, Mr. Brandt replied that if continued, the project would be deemed approved if no\naction were taken under the time limits of State law.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to extend the meeting hours to 11:30 p.m.\nAYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMr. Reginald James, 1501 Grand Street #E, expressed concern about the physical conditions of the\nsite, and did not believe the site was up to code. He noted that one woman had been boarded up in\nher apartment. He was pleased to see an alternative to the valet garbage plan, and suggested that a\nhalf-court basketball court be installed. He believed the parking should be addressed more\nthoroughly, and would like to see a rooftop terrace; he expressed concern about the state of the fire\nsprinklers.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding how the ADA regulations related to\nthis project, Mr. Shaun Alexander, project architect, replied that any existing project had issues to\ngrapple with, and added that this project was exempt from ADA compliance and upgrades because it\nwas built and occupied prior to 1991. The new clubhouse must be in compliance.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding Code violations, Mr. Tai confirmed\nthat there were no outstanding Code violations registered for this property.\nMr. Alexander noted that there was a condition in the approval related to sewer testing; the major\nproblems addressed by the speakers had been addressed, and most of the mains had been repaired.\nThey were working with the Public Works Department to video the remainder of the lines, and to\nmake repairs as necessary.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 20\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 21, "text": "In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding recourse available to tenants if a\nproperty falls into disrepair (such as following a repair in an existing apartment), Mr. Brandt advised\nthat would be a violation of the Housing Code.\nMr. Alexander noted that many of the fires in recent history were the result of arson, not of electrical\nproblems.\nMs. Kohlstrand noted that she had difficulty reconciling the complaints of the residents with the\nstatements that the buildings were up to Code.\nMr. Brandt advised that there were extensive site visits to the property in November 2004.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani regarding the interior of the building, Mr. Alexander noted\nthat they were in for permit for interior improvements on the project and that they must conform to\nall Alameda and State codes.\nMr. Lynch believed the City was missing a tremendous opportunity to benefit many families in\nAlameda, and did not believe this was a Measure A issue. He noted that the remodel did not speak to\npossible physical changes that could provide a more live able environment to families, which he\nbelieved was a gross oversight by the City.\nVice President Cook appreciated some of the changes made to the design in response to the Board's\ncomments. She expressed concern that the use of architectural elements were not fully utilized to\ncreate more individuality in the buildings; some of the structures still looked monolithic. She noted\nthat the use of entry pylons still connoted the gated effect, which she had opposed in the earlier\nsessions. She was still uncomfortable with the design, and did not believe sufficient changes had\nbeen made since December 2004.\nMs. McNamara believed some of the wording in the staff report could be improved, and noted that\npage 4, Items 6 and 7, stated that \"The applicant shall coordinate with the Police Department as an\neffort to try and improve public safety in the facility.\" She did not believe that wording held the\napplicant accountable for not complying, and believed that stronger language should be used to\nensure compliance.\nMr. Auxier noted that he spoke to Officer Hisher, and did not object to the letter; the flexible\nwording was meant to allow further discussion by the Police Department and the applicant. He noted\nthat they had not yet found a solution to the trash enclosures.\nMr. Tai advised that staff and the applicants had been in ongoing coordination with the Police\nDepartment with respect to the Police Department's specific recommendations, such as size of\naddressing, and location of \"No Trespassing\" signs.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 21\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 22, "text": "Ms. McNamara wanted to ensure that the relationship between the Police Department and the\napplicant did benefit the citizens of Alameda, and would rebuild the credibility for public safety in\nthat area.\nMr. Tai advised that that condition stated that it would be to the \"satisfaction to the Chief of Police\nand the Planning and Building Director,\" and there would be sufficient flexibility to require\ncompliance on these recommendations.\nMr. Lynch believed that Ms. McNamara referred to the property management aspects of this project.\nMs. McNamara believed that staff's condition of approval requiring a landscape and common area\nmaintenance agreement between the property owners and the City to ensure diligent maintenance\nshould be an ongoing effort. She believed the ongoing maintenance of the property was critical to the\nsuccess of the project and the surrounding area.\nPresident Cunningham suggested the addition of a maintenance agreement for the swimming pool,\nand believed that was central to the development.\nMr. Tai advised that page 5 contained a condition relating to the landscape and common area\nmaintenance agreement, which is recorded with the property at the County Recorder's office. The\napplicants would be required to maintain the property; if that did not happen, the City would have the\nright to make the improvements at the applicants' cost. The common area included the swimming\npool, the proposed tot lots and other play areas, and all the other open space.\nMs. Mariani noted that she was not prepared to approve this project.\nMs. Kohlstrand believed that changing the approach towards trash containment was generally a good\nchange, but that it was unfortunate to see the huge trash container at the end of the walkway near\nFifth Street. She would like to see that container relocated to a less visible area. She believes that the\nproject sponsor had made some compromises, and added that there were still residents in the\ncomplex. She believed it was extremely important to ensure the buildings were not in disrepair.\nMr. Tai advised that he had spoken with the Code Compliance Division earlier in the day; they\nadvised that a complaint had been filed on February 18, 2005. The complaint was vague, and it was\nnot logged and registered as a specific complaint. Technically, there were no outstanding violations.\nMr. David Blackwell, representing the applicant, wished to give credit to City staff for their tireless\nwork on this application, as well as the Planning Board. He had discussed the conditions of approval\nwith staff, and believed that they were now in accordance. He emphasized that the interior\nimprovements had nothing to do with the application before the Board at this time. He requested that\nCondition 25 (Public Art fee) be removed, and added that Mr. McFann estimated it would come to\napproximately $6,000. He believed that this project did not fall within 30-65 because it was not a\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 22\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 23, "text": "new commercial, industrial, or municipal project; because it only addressed the community center.\nHe spoke with the City Attorney regarding Condition 27 (\"hold harmless\"), and understood that it\nmeant that if the application were to be approved, and someone sued the City stating that the\napproval was wrong, the applicant would pay for the defense. That indemnification did not relate to\nany other issues not related to this approval.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-09 to approve a Design\nReview and Planned Development for the construction of a two-story 6,000 square foot community\nbuilding, four 16-car garages, facade changes to existing apartment buildings, and other\nimprovements at the Harbor Island Apartments site.\nAYES - 4 (Piziali absent); NOES - 2 (Cook, Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 23\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 24, "text": "8-D.\nZA05-0003 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment/City-wide (JC/JA) Phase II of proposed\nrevisions to the Development Regulations (ZA05-0003) contained within Chapter XXX of\nthe Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance\nwith respect to building height limits and number of stories; exceptions to minimum side\nyard requirements for additions to existing residences, provide a definition for \"replacement-\nin-kind\", off-street parking regulations and simplifying reconstruction of non-conforming\nresidential structures.\nM/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to continue Item 8-D to the Planning Board meeting of March 14,\n2005.\nAYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 24\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 25, "text": "9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\n10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice\nPresident Cook).\nM/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of\nMarch 14, 2005.\nAYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nb. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).\nM/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of\nMarch 14, 2005.\nAYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nc. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).\nM/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of\nMarch 14, 2005.\nAYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nd. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani).\nM/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of\nMarch 14, 2005.\nAYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n10.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n11.\nADJOURNMENT:\n11:34 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJerry Cormack, Interim Secretary\nCity Planning Department\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 25\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-28", "page": 26, "text": "These minutes were approved at the March 14, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was\naudio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 26\nFebruary 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-03", "page": 1, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nMinutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, March 3, 2005 - 6:30 p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n6:30 p.m.\n2.\nWELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS\nMayor Beverly Johnson, President Andrew Cunningham and Chair Lee Perez welcomed\neveryone to the workshop.\n3.\nROLL CALL: Mayor Beverly Johnson, Andrew Cunningham, Anne Cook,\nRebecca Kohlstrand, Lee Perez, Diane Lowenstein, Elizabeth Johnson.\nAlso present were Andrew Thomas, Steven Proud, Project Manager, Jim Adams, ROMA\nDesign Group, Walter Rask, ROMA Design Group, Frederick Knapp, Page & Turnbull,\nMelissa Boudreau, Page & Turnbull (Project Manager), Jim Musbach, Economic\nPlanning Systems, Andrew Barnes, Economic Real Estate Consultant, Matthew\nRidgeway, Fehr & Peers, Seleta Reynolds, Fehr & Peers, Peter Russell, Russell\nResources.\n4.\nPRESENTATION OF PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS FOR\nALAMEDA POINT\nMr. Andrew Thomas noted that ROMA Design Group would make a presentation, and\npublic comment would be taken after the presentation. He noted that the results of the\ncommunity discussions held at the previous two workshops were available on the City\nwebsite. He noted that a Preliminary Draft Development Concept would be developed\nsoon, based on a financially feasible development concept for the Base. Development\nalternatives would also be explored. He described the future timeline of the development\nand environmental review process, and encouraged public feedback regarding the\ninformation on the website. He encouraged residents to take advantage of the Base tours\nprovided by the City.\nMr. Walter Rask, ROMA Design Group, presented a PowerPoint presentation.\n5.\nCOMMUNITY COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION\nA community member noted that the O Club was a beautiful building that needed\nupgrading, and that it had historic value. He believed it was worth keeping, and believed\nthe Big Whites were more trouble than they were worth.\nMr. Thomas noted that the O Club served as a functioning social center in Alameda.\nA community member thanked staff for the additional options, and inquired whether the\nnon-Measure A-compliant option would be affected by the groundwater contamination.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nMarch 3, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-03", "page": 2, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nHe inquired whether a constrained view of the economic viability of the project was\nbeing presented.\nMr. Stephen Proud noted that they were concentrating on the Phase I plan, but that there\nwas flexibility in the later phases. The timing of the property delivery was an important\npart of the economic analysis.\nA community member favored the non-Measure A-compliant options, and believed that\nincreasing the density and value of the options would be positive. He inquired about the\neffect of the number of parkland acreage on the acres-per-thousand-population. He\ninquired about the $22 million deficit.\nMr. Thomas noted that the Citywide analysis had not been performed, although a similar\nopen space analysis in the 2003 General Plan Amendment EIR had been performed.\nMr. Proud noted that there was no $22 million slush fund attached to the project, and\nexplained the expenditures needed to service the project.\nA community member appreciated the contrasts between the Measure A and non-\nMeasure A options. She favored seamless integration, vibrant new neighborhoods,\nestablishing neighborhood centers, and did not see those items in either options. She\nwould like to see a design that worked with the mitigations that would also be\neconomically feasible. She did not believe that Phase I followed good planning\nprinciples, and was disappointed in the design.\nA community member thanked staff for the illustrations of how the project would look if\nMeasure A was modified. She preferred single-story residence designs.\nMr. Proud noted that the City would acquire all the buildings when the Navy completes\nthe ownership transfer; they are currently being leased, which is the chief source of\nrevenue to offset the costs.\nA community member inquired about the time lag between property expenses and\nproperty sales, and how the money was made up.\nMr. Proud noted that was the reason for having a Master Developer, who was responsible\nfor putting in the backbone infrastructure and preparing for later property owners.\nA community member inquired about transportation on the Base, and inquired whether\nthere would be bike trails. She inquired whether the parking would be maintained, and\nsuggested that one of the large hangars could be used to accommodate large events.\nMr. Thomas noted that bike routes were planned and that the site would be bike-friendly.\nThe transportation program would be examined at the March 23, 2005 workshop.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nMarch 3, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-03", "page": 3, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nA community member inquired about the Phase I development, and the housing density\nin that phase. She inquired whether there would be any innovative or eco-friendly\narchitecture.\nMr. Walter Rask noted that the density would be approximately 12 units per acre, which\nwas roughly comparable to Bayport. He noted that there would be no walls, and that the\nblocks would be exterior-oriented; there would be no gated portions of the neighborhood.\nThe buildings would feel very public and friendly in nature. There was an overall goal of\nthe project to achieve sustainability objectives; green building measures and recycling\nwould be used.\nA community member supported retaining the Enlisted Men's Quarters, and believed that\nturning them into condos may bring more diverse populations into Alameda. She inquired\nabout the contamination on sites for non-Measure A and commercial uses. Mr. Rask\ndisplayed the mixed use areas, and noted that conventional housing would not be possible\nin that area if there was groundwater contamination.\nA community member inquired about the groundwater and soil contamination, and\nsuggested that those areas not be developed until the contamination was cleaned up.\nMr. Russell noted that the contamination in the Phase I area was relatively minor, and\ndescribed its nature in detail. A non-Measure A-compliant design would allow for\npodium parking on the ground, with the residences on top; the chemicals would never\nreach the residences. Among the chemicals were dry cleaning solvent, nail polish\nremover, gasoline.\nA community member inquired whether PAHs were in the ground water. Mr. Thomas\nreplied that they were not water-soluble and were not a groundwater issue.\nA community member inquired about how malleable the wildlife refuse was to being\nmoved.\nMr. Proud noted that the issue of wildlife transfer is an issue of property transfer between\nagencies, to the Veterans Administration rather than Fish & Wildlife.\nA community member noted that he was a real estate consultant, and noted that a\nrelatively good job had been done in this project. He noted that the lagoon was a\nsignificant amenity. He believed that plan was biased toward single-family housing, and\nnoted that high-rise residences had been built successfully in San Diego. He believed the\ncommercial land sale figures were optimistic. He expressed concern about the\ntransportation linkages. He proposed that the lagoon and the golf course be linked.\nA community member noted that the main advantage of Measure A was the greater\ndiversity of housing, including middle-level housing.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nMarch 3, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-03", "page": 4, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nA community member inquired what kind of planning overview was used to create\ncommunity activity hubs, and did not see those hubs in this plan.\nMr. Adams described the 1400 housing units, and noted that a series of smaller retail\ncenter could not be supported.\nMr. Christopher Buckley noted that there was an assumption that the grade must be\nraised due to the 100-year flood, and suggested the use of a levee. He inquired how\n115,000 square feet of retail was derived, and how much of the anticipated retail demand\nfrom the residential uses would be absorbed by that retail.\nMr. Thomas noted that the levee question was examined, and that they decided to raise\nthe level instead, rather than create a seawall along the edge of the site. He noted that\nwould create a visual barrier to the water.\nMr. Proud noted that they had to compact the bay mud to accept more load.\nMr. Rask noted that they did not wish to overbuild the retail spaces, nor did they wish to\ncannibalize other retail areas in Alameda.\nA community member noted that the new residents would also need libraries, schools and\nyouth centers, and inquired where they were included in the plan.\nMr. Thomas replied that community centers were programmed into the project, including\nthe O Club and the original Navy Mess Hall. Police and fire services were included in the\nfinancial pro forma, as well as a small library. He noted that once the planning became\nmore solidified, they would address the impact on the school district in more detail.\nA community member noted that the Big Whites would involve an expensive process,\nand inquired why they were included in the non-Measure A option if they would\nhandicap the option.\nMr. Rask noted that they had not reconciled all the elements of that plan yet, and they\nwere working with the first version of the financial details.\nA community member noted that she was recently appointed to the HAB, and had taken\nthe tour, which she believed was very illuminating. She believed that the air traffic\ncontrol tower should be retained on the site. She believed it was emblematic of the\npurpose of the Naval Air Station and should be added. She noted that there were\ndiscussions to extend the live/work boundaries to Alameda Point, which would give more\nflexibility to the reuse of the site.\nTim Royal, Pastor, All Nations Fellowship, would like the character of Alameda to carry\non to Alameda Point. He noted a lack of churches on Alameda Point.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nMarch 3, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-03", "page": 5, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nMr. Adams noted that several sites were identified for being suitable for churches, and\npointed them out on the site plan.\nA community member thanked staff for exploring Measure A and mixed use possibilities.\nHe expressed concern about the phrase \"less clean housing,\" and took offense to the\nconcept and the language.\nMr. Proud reassured the audience that that wording was not intended to cause offense,\nand described the Restoration Advisory Board's role in site remediation. He added that\nthey did not blindly follow the Navy's directives. He noted that part of the cleanup\nprocess may be privatized, and that unsuitable sites would not be used to residential\nreuse.\nMr. Adams noted that lead paint had historically been used at Alameda Point, and that\ndemolition of such buildings and remediation was very closely regulated. He noted that\nlead was not easily water-soluble, and that it could easily be scraped from the surface of\nthe soil.\nA community member inquired how they determined the value from the sale of the land.\nMr. Proud described how the residential land values were determined, and added that the\nmaster plan developer was instrumental in that determination.\nMr. Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope, inquired why the $54 million for the affordable\nhousing component was a public cost, and believed that should be the developer's\nresponsibility.\nMr. Thomas noted that was a developer cost and part of the overall financing of the\nproject. Mr. Rask noted that it was a project cost, not a public cost.\nA community member inquired about the different traffic scenarios and whether the cost\nof traffic was figured into the project costs; he inquired whether the low traffic scenario\nwould lead to increased savings. He inquired whether any information was available on\nthe price ranges for the market-rate units.\nMr. Rask noted that the typical single- and multi-family house trip generation analysis\nwas used.\nMr. Bill Smith noted that he had information about a potential investor in the\nBrownfields project.\nReverend Pamela Kerst, Twin Towers United Methodist Church, apologized for her\nearlier flippant remarks regarding the churches on Alameda Point. She inquired how\neconomic diversity was measured for moderate- and low-income public employees, and\nhow they fit into Measure A and affordable housing. She inquired whether the minimum\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nMarch 3, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-03", "page": 6, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nrequired by law would be provided, or if more would be provided. She inquired about\nMr. Adams' definition of \"eco-friendly.\" She recalled Mr. Proud's comments about\nlandfill on the flood plain, and whether that would be eco-friendly.\nMr. Thomas noted that the actual affordable housing breakdown would be provided at the\nnext workshop.\nMr. Adams noted that much work must still be done in terms of defining the standards\nthat will be put in place for green building and eco-friendly design. He noted that this\npiece of land was being recycled, and that they were exploring the idea of transit-oriented\ndevelopment. Their goal was to create a development that would depend on\ntransportation means other than the automobile. He noted that the standards for building\nmaterials and energy use were still being developed.\nMs. Eve Bach inquired whether there was an assumed reduced income expectation on the\naffordable housing, and whether that amount to a double accounting.\nMr. Rask replied that it was shown as a cost because the revenues do not cover the cost of\nbuilding the unit. He noted that they were being sold for less than what they cost.\nMs. Bach inquired about the estimated acreage and cost of parking would be, and\nwhether the supporting studies would be available online.\nMr. Adams, ROMA, replied that there was a vast amount of information, and noted that\nrequests for backup information could be made at his email address. He noted that the\nproject required parking for the viability of each land use was used in the analysis. Each\nunit had its own parking, whether in garages or parking structures.\nA community member inquired whether institutional controls and land use restrictions\nwould be attached to Phase I. He found it difficult to believe that the impact to the school\ndistrict was not included.\nMr. Peter Russell replied that Alameda's Marsh Crust Ordinance already applied to all of\nAlameda Point. There may be additional institutional controls is specific areas, and there\nmay be no residential planned for other areas. There may also be prohibition against\ndigging below a certain depth. He added that the need for another school will be\nanalyzed, and that millions of dollars of school impact fees were included.\nA community member inquired whether the income from the affordable housing was\nincluded in the assumptions.\nA community member whether it would be possible for individuals to buy lots. Mr.\nAdams replied that it was managed by a master developer because of the very large\ninfrastructure cost, approximating $100 million; it was not the kind of project that would\nlend itself to individual lot sales.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nMarch 3, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-03", "page": 7, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nA community member inquired whether there would be any further delay in the transfer\nof the Base, and noted that in 1997, the Big Whites were sold to them as a major part of\nthe project. He believed the project was too packed together, and added that he had\nserved on the Base during his military career. He was shocked at the state of several\nhistoric buildings that had been vandalized before the property was taken over.\nMr. Proud noted that the delay in the conveyance would have a significant impact on\nproject economics. They had worked very cooperatively with the Navy with respect to\nAlameda Point, and their open approach during negotiations would be beneficial to the\nconveyance transfer.\nA community member inquired whether the 1% for public art was included in the overall\ncost. Mr. Thomas indicated that it was.\nA community member expressed concern about the middle-income units, and noted that\nthe Warmington Homes were no longer middle-income homes.\nMs. Lucy Gigli inquired about the comparison of the value of the difference properties on\nthe site. She expressed concern that the multifamily units were all bunched together,\nwhich increased the density of those blocks. She would like to see pockets of multifamily\nhousing, as well as an evaluation of the mixing of the retail uses, and noted that Bayport\nand Coast Guard Island don't have any corner stores or cafes.\nMr. Thomas noted that there were combination duplex/small retail possibilities.\nA community member inquired what an in-law unit was. Mr. Thomas replied that it was a\nsmall unit on the same lot, usually a loft or one-bedroom unit. She suggested that the\nname be changed because in-law unit implied a non-approved unit. Mr. Thomas noted\nthat the in-law terminology would be changed to \"secondary unit.'\nPUBLIC COMMENT WAS CLOSED.\nPresident Cunningham noted that it was important to clearly identify the goals of the land\nuse, and that there were some misunderstandings about the use. He suggested that use of\na \"laundry list\" to identify what will be provided. He believed it was important to\nunderstand the fiscal impacts of the existing structures on the final picture. He believed\nthat social and ecological responsibility was important, and that a sustainable ordinance\nshould be examined if the community wished to engage in sustainable design.\nMs. Kohlstrand believed that a Measure A-compliant option should be examined, and\nthat the density and patterns of development on the Island as a whole should be examined\nas well. She believed that mixed use and the mix of patterns on the blocks should be\nlooked at, and that the density should be served by transit. She supported the non-\nMeasure A-compliant option, and examining how the transportation network fit in.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nMarch 3, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-03", "page": 8, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nMs. Konrad expressed concern that the Community Reuse Plan and the General Plan both\ncall for walkable neighborhoods on Alameda Point, and did not see that in this plan. She\nbelieved that neighborhood centers should be developed so residents could walk to them.\nShe believed the open space should be usable.\nMr. Lee Perez thanked the audience for their comments, and noted that the web page\ncontained a great deal of information on the project. He encouraged the residents to\nremain proactive in communicating with staff and commissioners during this process.\nMr. Thomas invited additional public comments to be addressed to the City by phone,\nmail or email. He noted that the entire presentation and maps would be posted on the\nwebsite. He noted that the Navy always attended the RAB meetings.\n6.\nADJOURNMENT:\n9:35 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJerry Cormack, Interim Secretary\nCity Planning Department\nThese minutes were approved at the April 11, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This\nmeeting was audio and video taped.\nG:\\PLANNING\\PB\\Agendas_Minutes\\Minutes.05\\March 3_Spec.dod\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nMarch 3, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-14", "page": 1, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nMinutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, March 14, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:05 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMs. McNamara\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, and\nMcNamara.\nBoard members Lynch, Mariani and Piziali were absent.\nAlso present were Interim Planning Director Jerry Cormack, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman,\nSupervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Planner III David Valeska, Leslie Little, Development\nServices.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of February 28, 2005.\nMr. Cormack advised that staff distributed revised pages of the minutes to the Board; page 3, Item 7-\nA reflected the change of number of parcels from nine to 16 parcels. Pages 19 and 20 contained\ncorrected wording for the motions to more accurately reflect the Board's intentions.\nM/S McNamara/Cook and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of February 28, 2005,\nas presented.\nAYES - 4 (Lynch, Mariani, Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION None.\nMr. Sam Caponio, 1316 Hanson Street, expressed concern about the limited ingress and egress from\nthe Island and the state of the infrastructure. He noted that the traffic congestion had been serious for\nsome time, and would like to see the issue of Island access and infrastructure be agendized for Board\ndiscussion.\nPresident Cunningham noted that there would be a Transportation Commission public hearing on\nMarch 23, 2005.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nMarch 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-14", "page": 2, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\n7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A.\nTM04-0005 SRM Associates Harbor Bay Parkway (MG). Applicant requests approval of\nTentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels into nine parcels. The parcels are\nlocated within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are zoned C-M-PD, Commercial\nManufacturing, Planned Development District. (Continued from the meeting of January\n24, 2005.)\nPresident Cunningham advised that the applicant requested continuance of this item, and that the\nmotion from the last meeting must be rescinded because it did not reflect the applicant's request of\nthe City.\nMr. Cormack advised that the item was readvertised for this meeting.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to rescind the prior action taken by the Planning Board at the\nmeeting of February 28, 2005, and to continue this item to the meeting of March 28, 2005.\nAYES - 4 (Lynch, Mariani, Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -\n0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nMarch 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-14", "page": 3, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\n8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\nStudy Session Theater (DSD/JA). Study Session to review revisions for Design Guidelines\nto construct a new 7-screen Cineplex and 352-space parking structure on the Video Maniac\nsite. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the CC - CCPD, Community\nCommercial and Special Planned Development Districts. (Continued from the meeting of\nFebruary 28, 2005.)\nMs. Kohlstrand advised that she would recuse herself from this item because she was a principal with\nthe firm of EnviroTrans Solutions, which prepared the traffic analysis for the combined parking\ngarage/theater analysis.\nMs. Leslie Little, Development Services, advised that with Ms. Kohlstrand's absence from the\ndiscussion, there would not be sufficient Board members to act on this item at this time.\nMs. Cormack advised that because Mr. Lynch had not yet arrived, there would not be quorum for this\nitem, and suggested that Item 8-B be heard before Item 8-A.\nPresident Cunningham advised that public testimony would be heard, and that no action would be\ntaken by the Board. The item would be heard by City Council on Tuesday, March 15, 2005.\nMs. Little provided a status update on the theatre design following the last public testimony and\nBoard comments. She noted that concerned parties would like the word \"contemporary\" to be\nremoved from any description of the building; the balance of the definition came from the Secretary of\nthe Interior's standards, including the word \"contemporary.\" Item C-3 specified a general vertical\nemphasis, and she did not believe that there was community consensus regarding that design element.\nItem C-4 addressed the lobby projection on the second floor, and she believed that element has\nengaged people's imaginations about the additional activity at the theater. Other issues included\nstudying the public space along Oak Street, widening the sidewalks; public parking and a bike route\nwould be accommodated along the street. Bike racks would be included in the parking garage.\nMr. Michael Stanton, project architect, provided an update on the parking structure.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Carl Minns, 1820 Hibbard Street, would like to see a more pragmatic approach for a theater,\nwith no more than three screens. He would like to see an emphasis on the restoration and\npreservation of the existing theater.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nMarch 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-14", "page": 4, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nMr. Richard Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, noted that he was not speaking for the AAPS at this time,\nand noted that Oak Street was very narrow. He believed that Oak Street was overloaded with\npedestrians and bicycle traffic, and that the traffic on Oak Street would become more congested. He\nsuggested that the City pick up an underdeveloped strip of land from Video Maniacs to Santa Clara in\norder to widen the public right-of-way on the street.\nMr. Christopher Buckley, AAPS, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, noted that they submitted comments to\nthe Board and summarized the significant issues. He did not want the design to be too modernistic.\nRegarding his discussion with Cynthia Eliason regarding the Secretary of Interior standards, Ms.\nEliason raised the question whether the Cineplex and the parking garage were actually subject to\nthose standards; she would check with the City Attorney regarding that question. He suggested that\nall references to those standards be deleted. He suggested that the reference to the 20-inch projection\ncontinue to be deleted in the document. AAPS believed the upper-level lobby was a potentially\nintrusive element that would upstage and block views of the historic theater. He suggested that the\nsidewalk be at least 12 feet wide. He noted that Attachment 3 addressed a parking garage in Stanton,\nVirginia, and would be a good model for the subject garage.\nMr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, agreed with Mr. Buckley's comments. He would like\nOak Street to be changed into a pedestrian mall by removing the parking; this would be necessary for\nbike safety. He supported lockable bike lockers in the garage,\nMs. McNamara left the meeting at this time.\nMs. Elizabeth Krase, 2520 Chester Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and believed that the\nSecretary of Interior's standards applied to the Cineplex, but not the garage. She believed the\nprojections on Central Street did not comply with those standards. She believed the rosette design\nelement was very important. She believed the glazed lobby would obscure the pedestrian's view of\nthe historic portion of the building.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPresident Cunningham did not believe it would be negative to have a contemporary piece of\narchitecture in the City, if it was included in the HBS guidelines.\nVice President Cook did not object to a contemporary design, or the inclusion of the word in the\nguidelines. She believed that a very vertical design detracted from the verticality of the theater.\nPresident Cunningham suggested that the inclusion of a vertical emphasis be optional, rather than\nmandatory. He would like to see a design developed, and then discuss the rationale behind it to make\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nMarch 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-14", "page": 5, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nprogress on the project.\nVice President Cook agreed, and would like the architecture team to solve the issues of the\nprojections. She agreed with Ms. Krase that the rosette was very important. She would like more\ninformation on the view impact of the projection. She did not favor design by committee, which\nwould result in a hodge-podge design.\nNo action was taken.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nMarch 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-14", "page": 6, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\n8-B.\nZA05-0003 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment/City-wide (JC/JA) Phase II of proposed\nrevisions to the Development Regulations (ZA05-0003) contained within Chapter XXX of the\nAlameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance with\nrespect to building height limits and number of stories; exceptions to minimum side yard\nrequirements for additions to existing residences, provide a definition for \"replacement-in-\nkind\", off-street parking regulations and simplifying reconstruction of non-conforming\nresidential structures. (Continued from the meeting of February 28, 2005.)\nMr. Cormack advised that this item had been before the Board previously when Phase I of the\nDevelopment Code revisions were reviewed. Five items were deferred to Phase II at that time. He\nnoted that before the Phase II items were taken before the City Council, a Customer Service\nCommittee for the Permit Center had been organized; they identified the Code Amendments as being\nimportant and requested time to address the Board. The parking issue would be the primary focus; the\nMayor suggested that tandem parking be examined during Phase II review. He advised that Council\nhad not yet seen the Board's previous recommendations on Phase II.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue,\nadvised that the Customer Service Improvement Group included two AAPS members who had\nsubmitted comments. AAPS requested that the changes be amended to modify the off-street parking\nrequirements for single-family houses only to allow any parking, including tandem parking within the\nfirst 20 feet of existing driveways, as measured from the front property line. Such parking is currently\nprohibited, but rarely enforced. The second change requested by AAPS is to delete the existing\nrequired one- to five-foot-wide landscaping strips between driveways and property lines, fences,\nbuildings and streets; many existing driveways do not have such landscaping at this time because it is\ndifficult to maintain. Those landscaping provisions make it difficult to provide off-street parking, and\nadditional areas often must be paved. AAPS reviewed the proposals and found them to be acceptable.\nMs. Marilyn Schumacher, 1829 Clinton Avenue, Customer Service Improvement Committee, noted\nthat she was a real estate broker. She noted that many people who wished to make additions to their\nproperty were unable to meet the requirement for an additional parking space. AAPS suggested that\nthe first 20 feet of the driveway be allowed to be used as parking; the current ordinance dated from\nthe 1950s and was no longer practical for current-day Alameda. She displayed several examples of\nparking scenarios on the overhead screen. She supported an effective parking ordinance that allows\npeople to improve their homes.\nMr. Italo Calpestri, 1504 Park Street, supported the work performed by the Customer Service\nCommittee and had written a letter to the Planning Board to bring the issue to the Board's attention.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nMarch 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-14", "page": 7, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nHe requested that wording be changed to extend the time from six months from the date of\ndestruction to be completed within one year of a permit being issued. He noted that homeowners who\nhad suffered a catastrophic loss due to fire or flood need additional time to settle with the insurance\ncompany and obtain funding for rebuilding. Responding to Ms. Kohlstrand's request, he explained the\nstructural implications of the (k) & (1) findings as it relates to this item.\nPresident Cunningham believed that the (k) & (1) findings advocate a two-foot setback.\nMr. Cormack advised that the Board's previous recommendation to the City Council under this\nproposal was to still require the 7'-0\" setback for the second floor and two-story structures. Mr.\nCalpestri noted that he did not agree with that.\nMr. Ken Gutleben, 3021 Thompson, spoke in support of the two proposed amendments to the\nZoning and Development Standards, particularly with respect to the building height definitions. He\nbelieved this change would encourage residents to retrofit and strengthen their older homes, replace\nfoundations and install basements. He supported the Building Department's Customer Service\nCommittee's proposed amendment regarding residential parking. He offered examples of the\nproblems associated with the current ordinance, and believed that it obstructed retrofits that could\nimprove the seismic and structural safety of Alameda's older homes. He noted that the hazardous\nHayward Fault was the closest fault to Alameda. He requested that the Board reconsider the priority\ngiven to cars and parking over retrofitting and protecting Alameda's architectural heritage and its\ncitizens.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham whether Mr. Calpestri's letter regarding the time\nframe prior to rebuilding was within the Board's purview for discussion, Mr. Cormack advised that\nthis item would have to be advertised for public hearing. Ms. Altschuler confirmed that this item was\nincluded in Phase II and could be acted on by the Planning Board.\nRegarding projections and encroachments, Ms. Kohlstrand expressed concern about requiring the\nsecond story additions to be set back two feet; she was also concerned about the resulting aesthetics\nof that setback. She noted that some earlier second story additions had been unattractive, but that\nmany more recent additions were more sensitive and responsive to the original character of the house.\nShe was uncomfortable supporting that particular text amendment, requiring that all houses have the\nsecond story two-foot setback. President Cunningham advised that of a house had an existing seven-\nfoot setback, the wall could go straight up. A general discussion of the setback requirements as they\nrelate to the (k) & (1) findings ensued.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nMarch 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-14", "page": 8, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nMr. Cormack inquired whether the Board would consider amending the section of the Code which\nrequired two additional feet of sideyard for two stories. The five-foot minimum sideyard for one story\ncould also be the standard for a two-story building. Anything less than five feet that was\nnonconforming would be allowed to use the (k) & (1).\nVice President Cook believed that a conforming sideyard that is to be built higher is not as much of a\nproblem as a nonconforming sideyard to be increased in height, which would create a very narrow\nsetback; the additional setback would allow adequate light at the property line.\nMs. Altschuler stated that would allow for the shading study to prove whether or not the second story\nwould impact the neighbors.\nMs. Kohlstrand would like the setback requirements to be more equitable, and would support a\nsecond-story setback that matched the first-story setback.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding shading, Ms. Altschuler replied that\nshading would not be as critical for a bathroom as for a living room. She noted that design solutions\nwere available to neighbors to mitigate shading effects. A house with a conforming setback would not\nrequire shadow studies. She added that staff would create a summary of the Board comments to be\nincluded the next time the Development Code is examined. She noted that most (k) & (1) issues\nbrought before staff were generally resolved equitably between the neighbors, and she expected that\ntrend to continue; very few issues have been brought before the Board.\nThe Board had no concerns regarding Building Height Limits and the Definition of Replacement-in-\nKind.\nRegarding parking, Ms. McNamara did not support deleting the 20-foot parking restriction\nrequirement, but was open to reducing it to a 10-foot requirement in order to increase parking.\nPresident Cunningham advised that he advocated tandem parking, and believed it would relieve the\nCity's parking pressures and minimize the amount of hardscape on a lot.\nMs. Altschuler advised required parking may not be developed in a front yard, and believed the Board\nsupported parking in a driveway that led to the rear of the lot.\nPresident Cunningham suggested that new construction not be allowed to utilize this parking scheme.\nMs. Altschuler advised that tandem parking was currently allowed to serve one unit, but the parking\nspace must be developed in accordance with the ordinance with respect to landscaping and setbacks.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nMarch 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-14", "page": 9, "text": "is appropriate, which he believed was onerous. He believed that a one-foot strip was sufficient.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to adopt the Building Height Limits, and the Definition of\nReplacement-in-Kind as recommended by staff. The remaining items would be brought back to the\nPlanning Board after further review by the Customer Service Committee.\nAYES - 4 (Lynch, Mariani, Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -\n0\nMs. Kohlstrand left the meeting after Item 8-B.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nMarch 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-14", "page": 10, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\n9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\n10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice\nPresident Cook).\nb. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.\nc. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).\nBoard Member Piziali was not in attendance to present this report.\nd. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani).\nBoard Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.\n10.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n11.\nADJOURNMENT:\n9:47 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJerry Cormack, Interim Secretary\nCity Planning Department\nThese minutes were approved at the March 28, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was\naudio and video taped.\nG:\\PLANNING\\PB\\Agendas_Minutes\\Minutes.05\\March 14_Minutes.DO\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nMarch 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-28", "page": 1, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nMinutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, March 28, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:01 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMs. Mariani\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Mariani, and Piziali.\nBoard members Lynch, Kohlstrand, and McNamara were absent.\nAlso present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler,\nPlanner III Allen Tai, Planner II Dennis Brighton, Jennifer Ott, Development Services.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of March 14, 2005.\nMs. Altschuler advised that there was not a quorum to approve these minutes, and suggested\ncontinuing this item to the Planning Board meeting of April 11, 2005.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Cunningham advised that speaker slips had been received for Item 7-b.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-b from the Consent Calendar and place it on the\nRegular Agenda.\nAYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPresident Cunningham advised that speaker slips had been received for Item 7-a.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-a from the Consent Calendar and place it on the\nRegular Agenda.\nAYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION None.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nMarch 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-28", "page": 2, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\n7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nNone.\n7-A.\nUse Permit UP05-0003 1510 Encinal Avenue Applicant: Tali Risse/ Fuzzy Caterpillar\nPreschool (AT). The applicants request Use Permit approval to operate a daycare center with\ncapacity for forty-five students and eight employees with hours of operation between 7:00\na.m. to 6:00 p.m. The site was previously occupied by the Peter Pan Preschool between 1974-\n2002 and is located at 1510 Encinal Avenue, within an R-4, Neighborhood\nResidential District.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-a from the Consent Calendar and place it on the\nRegular Agenda.\nAYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMr. Tai presented the staff report. In order to reduce congestion related to pickup and dropoff, staff\nrecommended a condition of approval which would required the applicants to coordinate with the\nPublic Works Department to devise a schedule for dropoff and pickup. There would be a six-month\nmonitoring period by staff.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. John Faris, 1417 San Antonio Avenue, noted that he had been a neighbor of the subject site for\nnine years, and expressed concern about the larger scale of the proposed project and its effect on\nparking in the neighborhood.\nMs. Sharon Barnhart, 1413 San Antonio, noted that she lived directly behind the school and wished\nto ensure there would be no construction changes in the area. She requested that the same\nsummertime hours were kept, as well as a two-hour quiet time as was practiced by the Peter Pan Day\nCare. She noted that the caregivers were the noisiest element of the Peter Pan use.\nMr. Arie Cohen, applicant, introduced Ms. Tali Cohen and Ms. Julie Cohen, the directors of the\nschool. He noted that Code allowed a maximum of 45 children, but they did not expect to have more\nthan 40 children on-site; they intended to keep a smaller child-to-teacher ratio than required. They\nplanned to implement a two-hour quiet time, and keep the operational hours at 7 a.m.-6 p.m. In\nresponse to Mr. Piziali's question, he assured the Board that the teachers would not yell at the\nchildren. He emphasized that they wished to be good neighbors, and in response to Vice President\nCook's question, would be willing to restrict the number of children to 40; they would not suffer any\neconomic impact from that restriction.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nMarch 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-28", "page": 3, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 05- to approve a Use\nPermit to operate a daycare center with capacity for forty-five students and eight employees with\nhours of operation between 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., with the following modifications:\n1.\nThe enrollment would be restricted to 40 children; and\n2.\nA\ntwo-hour quiet time would be implemented daily.\nAYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nMarch 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-28", "page": 4, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\n7-B.\nInterim Use Permit UP05-0001: Antiques Fair (Auto Show and Auto Parts Fair),\nGerald Goldman, 2001 Ferry Point (near Seaplane Lagoon site), Alameda Point (DB).\nThe applicant requests an Interim Use Permit to allow vintage auto and motorcycle sales at\nAlameda Point, for autos manufactured in 1975 or earlier, parts and memorabilia with\nsubstantially the same size, scale, access, parking and conditions/requirements as the Antiques\nFair. Operation would occur one Sunday per month plus setup and teardown times. This use\nwould include approximately 2,000 booths, 7,000 on-site parking spaces, over 40 acres near\nformer Navy hangers, Bladium and other Alameda Point neighbors. The site is located in the\nM-2-G (General Industry/Manufacturing Zoning District/Government Combining District).\nMr. Brighton summarized the staff report.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Gerald Goldman, applicant, noted that the Antiques Fair had become nationally renowned, and\nhad brought significant business and sales tax revenue to the City. He noted that this proposed event\nwas a clone of the very large Pasadena Swap Meet.\nMr. Piziali noted that he supported the Antiques Fair, and wished to support this item as well; he\nwould like to include the following language: \"Beer may only be sold subject to approval of the\nAlameda Police Department, and subject to issuance of the required ABC licenses.\" Mr. Goldman\nagreed with that request, and noted that while they were not committed to selling beer, they wanted\nto allow for it if so desired.\nMr. Piziali expressed concern about amplified sound. Mr. Goldman noted that they did not have a\npublic address system at the Antiques Fair, and the staff members communicated by two-way radio.\nTwo police officers would be on-site.\nIn response to Mr. Piziali's question about overnight parking on-site, Ms. Altschuler replied that the\nvehicles would be parked on the taxiway.\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali regarding parking fees, Mr. Goldman agreed to get City\napproval.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding hours of approval, Mr. Goldman\nconfirmed that the earliest time for vendor set-up would be 4 a.m., rather than 2 a. .m. He noted that\nthey would follow the guidelines for the Antiques Fair. He did not believe that semi trucks would ever\nuse the site.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nMarch 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-28", "page": 5, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 05- to approve an\nInterim Use Permit to allow vintage auto and motorcycle sales at Alameda Point, for autos\nmanufactured in 1975 or earlier, parts and memorabilia with substantially the same size, scale, access,\nparking and conditions/requirements as the Antiques Fair. Operation would occur one Sunday per\nmonth plus setup and teardown times. This use would include approximately 2,000 booths, 7,000 on-\nsite parking spaces, over 40 acres near former Navy hangers, Bladium and other Alameda Point\nneighbors. The language regarding a start time of 4 a.m. instead of 2 a.m. would be changed in the\nconditions of approval.\nAYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -\n0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nMarch 28, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf"}