{"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"}