{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-04-11", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, April 11, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:02 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMr. Lynch\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,\nMariani, and Piziali.\nAlso present were Interim Planning & Building Director Jerry Cormack, Deputy City Attorney Julie\nHarryman, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Planner III Allen Tai, Planner II Dennis Brighton,\nExecutive Assistant Latisha Jackson.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the Special meeting of March 3, 2005.\nMs. Kohlstrand advised that page 7, last paragraph, stated that she supported that the non-Measure A\noption be evaluated, not the non-Measure A option itself at this point.\nM/S Kohstrand/Cook to approve the minutes for the Special meeting of March 3, 2005, as corrected.\nAYES - 4; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 3 (Lynch, Mariani, Piziali)\nb. Minutes for the meeting of March 14, 2005 (continued from the meeting of March 28,\n2005.)\nM/S Cook/Kohstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of March 14, 2005, as\npresented.\nAYES - 4; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 3 (Lynch, Mariani, Piziali)\nc.\nMinutes for the meeting of March 28, 2005.\nPresident Cunningham advised that page 11, paragraph 3, should be changed from, \"President\nCunningham believed that if the parapet were to be articulated and supported increasing the capacity\nopacity of the structure.\"\nPresident Cunningham advised that the resolutions on page 3 and page 5 need to have a resolution\nnumber attached.\nM/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of March 28, 2005, as\ncorrected.\nAYES - 4; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 3 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, Mariani)\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nApril 11, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-04-11", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n7.\nSPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY\n7-A.\nResolution and Commendation for Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler.\nPresident Cunningham read the following resolution into the record:\nWHEREAS, Judith Altschuler accepted the position of Assistant Planner for the City of Alameda on\nJune 1, 1988; and\nWHEREAS, Judith Altschuler was promoted to Planner III for the City of Alameda on December\n10, 1995; and\nWHEREAS, Judith Altschuler was promoted to Supervising Planner for the City of Alameda on\nFebruary 24, 2002; and\nWHEREAS, Judith Altschuler has assisted in the planning process of numerous projects including\nthe renovation of the Historic Alameda City Hall, construction and renovation of St. Joseph's High\nSchool gym and campus, the construction of the Lucent Campus, the construction of California\nHeritage Bay and Bayport and the completion of Harbor Bay Isle Village V; and\nWHEREAS, Judith Altschuler has most recently assisted the Library Building Team in the planning\nprocess of the construction of our New Alameda Library, and in the planning process of the\nrenovation of our Historic Alameda Theatre and new Cineplex and parking garage, and the planning\nprocess for the development of the Breakers at Bayport.\nWHEREAS, Judith Altschuler has assisted in creating the new City-wide Guide to Residential\nDesign and numerous development code amendments; and\nWHEREAS, Judith Altschuler has assisted staff in a countless number of daily projects with her\nknowledge of the Zoning Ordinance and Alameda Municipal Code; and\nWHEREAS, Judith Altschuler has been Secretary to the Historical Advisory Board since 1992 and\nhas been instrumental in revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance, in implementing the Historic\nBuilding Study List, and the overall historic preservation of Alameda homes, monuments and\nlandmarks; and\nWHEREAS, Judith Altschuler has, during her tenure, provided clear and consistent information to\nthe City Council, Planning Board, Historical Advisory Board, staff and the citizens of Alameda; and\nWHEREAS, Judith Altschuler will officially retire from her position as Supervising Planner for the\nCity of Alameda on May 12, 2005.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nApril 11, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-04-11", "page": 3, "text": "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda extends\ntheir thanks for her \"Dedication to Excellence and Commitment to Service\" to the City of Alameda\non behalf of the City, staff and the citizens of Alameda.\nPresident Cunningham noted that Ms. Altschuler's knowledge and expertise will be missed.\nMs. Altschuler thanked the Board for making her tenure so memorable and wonderful, and\ncomplimented them on their hard work and commitment to the City. As a citizen of Alameda, she was\nglad that she was leaving the City in such good hands. She thanked staff for its terrific work, and will\nmiss them.\nMr. Piziali thanked Ms. Altschuler for her clarity in Planning Board and City Council meetings, and\nwould miss her greatly.\nMs. McNamara thanked Ms. Altschuler for her expertise and patience.\nVice President Cook complimented Ms. Altschuler on her clarity and talent for explaining difficult\nissues, as well as her patience through changing Boards. She complimented Ms. Altschuler on her\nexcellent staff reports, and hoped they would be a model for future staff members.\nMr. Lynch and Ms. Mariani thanked Ms. Altschuler for her excellent service.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nApril 11, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-04-11", "page": 4, "text": "8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8-A.\nMajor Design Review, DR04-0106, and Variance, V05-0001 - Corey Verka - 2825 Van\nBuren Street (DB) The applicant requests a Major Design Review approval to add habitable\nfloor area in the basement, enclose the rear stairwell to the basement, and alter the rear deck.\nBecause the enclosed stairwell extends a nonconforming westerly side yard setback of 3-feet,\nwhere a minimum 7-foot side yard setback is required, a finding must be made pursuant to\nAMC 30-5.7 (k) & (1), that no adverse effects such as shading, view blockage, or privacy\nreduction would occur on adjoining properties. A Variance is also required because the\nproposed expansion of habitable floor area into the basement would structurally expand the\nuse of a nonconforming third story. The site is located within an R-1, Single-Family\nResidential Zoning District.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-12 to approve a\nMajor Design Review approval to add habitable floor area in the basement, enclose the rear stairwell\nto the basement, and alter the rear deck. Because the enclosed stairwell extends a nonconforming\nwesterly side yard setback of 3-feet, where a minimum 7-foot side yard setback is required, a finding\nmust be made pursuant to AMC 30-5.7 (k) & (1), that no adverse effects such as shading, view\nblockage, or privacy reduction would occur on adjoining properties. A Variance is also required\nbecause the proposed expansion of habitable floor area into the basement would structurally expand\nthe use of a nonconforming third story.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nApril 11, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-04-11", "page": 5, "text": "8-B\nZA05-0002, 842 Central Avenue, Central Cinema, Applicant: Mark Haskett (JC). 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 as \"A\ntheater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of\nmotion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater\" is sufficiently similar to what is\nallowed pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code section 30-4.8(c)(7) which allows by use\npermit \"Theaters with live performances that are in combination with other permitted uses.\" If\nthe Planning Board 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 a future\nmeeting; or\n2) Consideration of an Amendment to Section 30-4.8 (c) to add \"Boutique Theater\" as a use\nregulated by Use Permit in the C-1 zoning district. \"Boutique Theater would be defined as \"A\ntheater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of\nmotion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater.\" If the Planning Board\ndetermines that a \"Boutique Theater\" could be an appropriate use in the C-1 zoning district,\nthe zoning amendment 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 amendment\nby Council. (Continued from the meeting of February 28, 2005. Applicant and staff are\nrequesting a continuance to the meeting of May 23, 2005.)\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of May 23, 2005.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nApril 11, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-04-11", "page": 6, "text": "8-C.\nDR05-0028 - City of Alameda - 1416 Oak Street (JA/JO) Applicant Requests a Design\nReview for a 352 space, 6 level parking structure, open Public Hearing, provide comments\nand continue item to the meeting of April 11, 2005. The site is within the C-C Community\nCommercial, Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of March 28, 2005. Applicant\nrequests continuance to the meeting of April 25, 2005.)\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of May 23, 2005.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nApril 11, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-04-11", "page": 7, "text": "9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n9-A.\nMajor Design Review, DR04-0093 Wei Liang for 2019 Buena Vista Avenue: Appellant:\nMercedes Milana of 2019 Buena Vista Avenue (DB). Mercedes Milana is appealing staff's\nconditional approval of this Major Design Review which permits the structural expansion of a\nsingle family residence by converting the basement into habitable space. This residential\nexpansion would provide a total of approximately 3,226-square feet of floor area. The\nappellant is requesting that the Major Design Review application be denied because of\npotential detriments to the neighborhood including, but not limited to an increased demand for\non-street parking resulting from the increase in residents at the property. The site is located\nwithin an R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.\nMr. Brighton summarized the staff report, and noted that the basis of appeal was issues associated\nwith the number of people who may live in the residence due to this approval, as well as ongoing\nenforcement actions. Staff recommended that the project be approved conditionally, and that\nadditional conditions be required, including:\n1.\nA\ndeed restriction stating that the building is a single-family residence until otherwise\napproved by the City;\n2.\nThe internal stairwell connecting the basement with the main floor must be opened as\nmuch as possible to the floor above;\n3.\nThe installation of the proposed wet bar should be disallowed; and\n4.\nAdditional stairway access into the basement area from the side of the house will be\ndisallowed.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Tonya Parker, 2023 Buena Vista, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that there had been\nnumerous family members and others living in the building. She expressed concern that they are\nplacing pressure on parking and the schools, and that more families would be added. She believed the\napplicants' actions were detracting from the nature of the neighborhood.\nMr. Kirk Ling, 2012 Buena Vista, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that the applicant had\nadded units numerous times, and he had seen people crawling out of windows in the morning. He was\nvery concerned the deed restriction would be disregarded, and that the schools were being pressured\nby nonresidents of Alameda. He believed this building would turn into an apartment building.\nMs. Mercedes Milana, 2027 Buena Vista Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. She did not\nbelieve this dwelling space was appropriate for so many people, and recalled the past history of this\nbuilding's occupants. She expressed concern that the additional space would double the number of\nresidents from 13 to 26, and noted that parking shortages would become worse. She understood that\nthis was an R-4 zone, but believed that the situation was excessive. She noted that people in similar\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nApril 11, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-04-11", "page": 8, "text": "buildings cemented over their lawn and parked there following the amnesty. She believed this would\nsignificantly impact the neighborhood.\nMr. Chau, project engineer, understood the neighbors' concerns about parking and has been working\nwith staff. He was not aware of the history of the neighboring buildings, but knew that their family\nwas growing and must be accommodated. He did not believe the number of 26 residents was justified.\nPresident Cunningham noted the neighbors would like a guarantee regarding the number of people on\nan individual property, and suggested that they work together to craft an answer to limit the number\nof people who could live within the residence.\nMr. Chau noted that the garage was no longer there, and that they needed storage space. Mr. Piziali\nnoted that in Alameda, the garage was meant to park cars, not for storage.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Mr. Chau stated that they had three cars.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand regarding the number of people living in a home as a\nfamily, Ms. Harryman noted that the number of people in a dwelling unit cannot be limited. Deed\nrestrictions may be imposed and stairwells reviewed for integrated internal access so that the building\nmay retain its single-family nature.\nMr. Piziali believed that this house was overbuilt for the neighborhood.\nMr. Brighton noted that the resolution contained a typographical error, and that the design review\nwould be valid for one year.\nMr. Lynch believed the applicant should start this process over again, and that the applicant should\nconsider the City guidelines; the new application should be submitted according to those City\nguidelines in the Code. He believed there was significant inconsistency in the history of this\napplication.\nMs. Harryman noted that the Board members should look at this application as it is, notwithstanding\npast Code enforcement actions, and that they may make a determination based on significant adverse\nimpacts.\nMr. Piziali could not support this application because of the lack of a garage, and believed it would\nimpact the neighborhood negatively.\nMs. McNamara noted that she could not make the findings, and that this neighborhood was\nsignificantly impacted by the large amount of traffic and parking congestion.\nMs. McNamara did not believe that this address was solely responsible for the street's parking\nsuggestion.\nMs. Mariani noted that was not the assumption.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nApril 11, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-04-11", "page": 9, "text": "Mr. Piziali noted that the type of window material should be specified in the plans. Mr. Brighton\nreplied that people were able to install any kind of window consistent with the style of architecture,\nbut aluminum windows were prohibited under the Design Guidelines.\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch whether a garage existed on the property, Mr. Chau stated\nthat it was extended with permits and approvals. He did not know whether the garage was being used\nfor parking. The owner stated that it was used for parking and minor storage. He recommended that\nthe garage be removed.\nMr. Lynch believed the addition square footage being sought should incorporate the parking for the\nresidents to the extent possible. He strongly suggested that the applicants discuss this issue with staff,\nincorporate those discussions into a document to submit to the Planning Board for approval or denial.\nMr. Piziali believed the driveway should be narrowed in the front, and did not believe a single curb\ncut would be legal. He requested further information on the driveway. \"Mr. Piziali wished to clarify\nthat the pavement of the driveway was very wide, and that they were parking two cars there. He\nwanted to see the driveway brought back to Code with respect to the project.'\nVice President Cook commended staff on the work it did under the current conditions, and would like\nit reflected in the plans that it would be a single-family home. She believed the interior staircase\nshould be decidedly open and not easy to close up.\nM/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No.PB-05-13 to uphold the appeal and deny\nthe Major Design Review and remand it to staff.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nApril 11, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-04-11", "page": 10, "text": "Transportation Commission appropriately said that sound walls were not a good idea. He noted that\nobjective A-7 can contain Public Works' staff frecommendation and still maintain the original wording.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nVice President Cook believed that pedestrian uses had been shortchanged, and did not agree with\nprivatizing streets.\nPresident Cunningham believed that the grid of streets should be broken up with variations in design,\nincluding the use of cul de sacs.\nMs. Hawkins noted that the next step would be to examine the grid network.\nMr. Lynch noted that he liked cul de sacs because they were safe places for children to play, and that\nthey were a physical place in an urban setting that allows for that safe area. He noted that the cul de\nsacs were needed in Alameda, but that they should not be too long.\nMr. Cormack inquired whether bicycle and pedestrian linkages would be favored by the Board at the\nend of cul de sacs.\nRegarding A-1, Vice President Cook believed that truck routes affect the neighborhood, and agreed\nwith Mr. Spangler.\nMs. Kohlstrand wished to make it clear that all modes of transportation should be accommodated.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nApril 11, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-04-11", "page": 11, "text": "Mr. Lynch believed the planning should engage agencies as they affect circulation. A working group\nwould be a good solution.\nMs. Kohlstrand believed that providing directions with respect to bridge crossings, etc. would be a\npositive addition to this document.\nMr. John Knox White noted that this was a general policy, and that the next step would provide more\ndetail.\nMs. Mariani believed that issues with Oakland should be addressed in subcommittees.\nMr. Piziali noted that he did not like speed bumps, lumps or humps, and requested clarification from\nstaff. Ms. Hawkins provided the distinctions. Mr. Piziali believed they had a negative impact on\nemergency response vehicles, and impacted response times.\nMr. Lynch believed the traffic calming measures providing greater safety for children.\nRegarding A-5, President Cunningham believed the policies of the ADA were the standard to base\ntransportation policies upon. Mr. Knox White noted that because it was federal law, it would take\nprecedence; pre-ADA crossings were called out in the document.\nRegarding livability, President Cunningham noted that parking relative to parcels was an important\nissue, and would like the Transportation Commission's opinion.\nMr. Knox White noted that they planned to examine concerns about on-street programs, especially\nthe costs.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Mr. Knox White described various traffic calming tools,\nincluding bulbouts and increasing the curve of a street.\nMr. Lynch believed a legend should be included to identify the responsible parties for comments, and\nadded that he was appalled at the Housing Authority's comments. He found it highly disrespectful to\nthe community of Alameda, to suggest the idea of increasing the speed limit on the streets, with more\nvehicles, while trying to increase pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Mr. Knox White noted that the\ncomment was made by City staff. Mr. Lynch noted that it was an unprofessional suggestion. Ms.\nKohlstrand noted that was a standard approach for traffic engineers.\nPresident Cunningham noted that the residents had spoken loud and clear regarding their opposition\nto sound walls.\nVice President Cook believed the General Plan should specifically state that there should be no sound\nwalls in Alameda.\nMs. Kohlstrand supported shared parking in the Mixed Commercial areas.\nVice President Cook noted that the LOS was affected when high-occupancy vehicles were given\npriority over low-occupancy vehicles; the single car drivers would be made so uncomfortable that\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nApril 11, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-04-11", "page": 12, "text": "they would take transit. She believed that bicycles should be more completely addressed as a mode of\ntransportation.\nMs. Kohlstrand noted that Objective D-3, which reads, \"Impacts to traffic operations, including all\nmodes of transportation did not sound right, and that an expression of multimodal\naccommodations should be included.\nMs. Kohlstrand understood that the Beltway was being preserved for the light rail line, and inquired\nwhether it would be eliminated. Ms. Hawkins replied that it was in the current General Plan. Ms.\nKohlstrand believed that other solutions besides light rail should be examined. \"Ms. Kohlstrand\nwished to clarify that she was referring to the policy regarding the light rail preservation of the\nBeltway, not whether the light rail line itself would be eliminated.\"\n\"President Cunningham made note that he would like the Transportation Commission to identify\nany areas that would qualify for funding of grants to help implement policies with less of a financial\nimpact to the City.\nNo action was taken.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice\nPresident Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that she had nothing new to report.\nb. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that there was nothing to report since the last meeting.\nc. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).\nBoard Member Piziali advised that there was nothing to report.\nd. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani).\nBoard Member Mariani advised that there was nothing to report.\n12.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nMr. Cormack advised that the staff report on the West End Retail Implementation Strategy was\nprovided for information only.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nApril 11, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-04-11", "page": 13, "text": "Mr. Cormack advised that at the last City Council meetings, Harbor Island and the veterinarian clinic\nwere approved; the Planning Board was supported on both items.\nVice President Cook inquired about the 100,000 square foot store planned. Mr. Piziali noted that kind\nof store would only be built at total build-out.\nMr. Cormack advised that it would be a food store, at build-out only.\nMr. Lynch did not see a discussion on how land use decisions impact the general fund, and believed it\nwould be short-sighted not to do SO.\n13.\nADJOURNMENT:\n9:42 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJerry Cormack, Interim Secretary\nCity Planning & Building Department\nThese minutes were approved at the April 25, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio\nand video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nApril 11, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf"}