{"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advised that the applicant requested continuance of this item, and that the\nmotion from the last meeting must be rescinded because it did not reflect the applicant's request of\nthe City.\nMr.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"}