{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-26", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, September 26, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:05 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMr. Lynch\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani, McNamara, and\nPiziali.\nVice President Cook was absent from roll call.\nAlso present were Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman,\nPlanner III Douglas Garrison, Bruce Knopf, Development Services.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of August 8, 2005 (continued from the meeting of\nSeptember 12, 2005.).\nM/S Mariani/McNamara to approve the minutes for the meeting of August 8, 2005, as presented.\nAYES - 4 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 2 (Kohlstrand, Lynch)\nb.\nMinutes for the meeting of September 12, 2005.\nMs. Kohlstrand noted that page 9, paragraph 4 should be changed to read, \"She believed that a\nsmaller group would be more doable. She believed it would be better without a Planning Board\nrepresentative on the committee.\"\nM/S Piziali/Kohlstrand to approve the minutes for the meeting of September 12, 2005, as corrected.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Mariani)\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Cunningham advised that a speaker slip had been received for Item 8-A.\nM/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to remove Item 8-A from the Consent Calendar and to\nplace it on the Regular Agenda.\nAYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nSeptember 26, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-26", "page": 2, "text": "7.\n2005-2006 ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS\n(Continued from the meeting of September 12, 2005.)\nPresident Cunningham advised that it was customary for a full Board to be seated for an election,\nand that it should be continued until then.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nSeptember 26, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-26", "page": 3, "text": "8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8.A.\nDR05-0030, UP05-0013; Italo Calpestri III for Anita Ng; 1305-1311 Park Street (AT).\nThe applicants request approval of Major Design Review to allow construction of a two\nstory 3, ,115 square-foot addition to replace existing additions of 1,300 square feet at the rear\nof a commercial building. The proposed project results in a net gain of 515 square feet of\nground floor commercial space and 1,300 square-feet on the second floor. The second floor,\nultimately comprising 1,500 square feet of floor area, will contain two (2) residential units\neach approximately 750 square feet in size. A Use Permit is required for the dwelling units\npursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.C.1(s) because the units do not comply with off-street\nparking requirements. The site is located within the Park Street C-C T, Community\nCommercial Theatre Combining District.\nMs. Eliason presented the staff report, and staff recommended that of the six existing spaces on the\nsite, two of the spaces be marked for the two new dwelling units. The other four spaces would be for\nthe four existing commercial spaces on the ground floor.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Virginia Chabre, 2420 Marti Rae Court, noted that Ms. Eliason's clarification of the parking\nspace configuration addressed her concerns. She suggested that parking stickers be used in this\nneighborhood, such as those used in San Francisco. She was very pleased that Park Street had\nbecome revitalized, but was very concerned about further competition for parking spaces during the\nweekends and evenings.\nMr. Bruce Knopf, Development Services Department, spoke in support of this project, and believed\nit implemented a policy in the 1990 City General Plan that supported the development of residential\nabove retail in the downtown commercial districts. He believed it added to the mixed use character\nof the area, represented a substantial new investment in the district, and would add to the district's\nvitality.\nMr. Italo Calpestri, project architect, noted that he would be able to answer any questions from the\nBoard.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMs. McNamara inquired whether the one-story unreinforced masonry structure in the back would be\ndemolished in preparation for this project. Ms. Eliason confirmed that was the case, and that the\napplicant had received approval from the Historical Advisory Board to remove the two structures in\nthe back.\nPresident Cunningham echoed Mr. Knopf's comments regarding this project, and supported the\nresidential plan as a strategy. He agreed that parking was in demand in that business area, and did\nnot believe all development on Park Street should be stopped because of parking. He added that was\na problem for the City to wrestle with, and that a compromise should be reached.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nSeptember 26, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-26", "page": 4, "text": "Mr. Piziali suggested that a parking garage would help.\nMs. Kohlstrand inquired about the possibility of stacked parking. Ms. Eliason noted that because the\nUse Permit process allowed the amount of parking to be varied, that neither a Variance process or\nin-lieu fees were included with this application.\nMs. Kohlstrand supported this type of use on Park Street, and would like the City to benefit from the\nin-lieu fees when able.\nMs. McNamara inquired about the nature of the retail businesses, and whether those spaces could be\nused at a reasonable hour by the residents.\nMr. Calpestri noted that the present tenants operated during normal business hours (approximately\n9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.). They planned to change tenants, but expected that the parking would be\navailable to the apartments in the back. He added that the bar on the corner did not use those spaces.\nPresident Cunningham advised that another speaker slip had been received.\nM/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to reopen the public hearing.\nAYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nThe public hearing was reopened.\nMs. Karen Backowksi, 2421 Marti Rae Court, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that she\nrecently moved to Alameda. She believed that more apartments would worsen the parking situation,\nand was concerned that the employees of the businesses would park in the residents' parking spaces.\nShe was also concerned that the property values would be negatively impacted. Her unit did not have\noff-street parking.\nMr. Knopf noted that he sat on the City's Transportation Technical Team, which is charged with\nexamining parking issues. The difficulty of finding parking in residential areas has been a significant\ntopic of discussion, and the Director of Public Works, Matt Neclario, has spoken about residential\nparking permits as being a long-term solution for this type of problem. Parking permits do not\ngenerally cover their costs, which would be a budget issue for the City. The Committee does see the\npermit plan as being a priority for residential neighborhoods. The planned parking structure for\nCentral and Oak was intended to address parking shortfall for the existing businesses in the\ndowntown area, in addition to the parking demand generated by a theater renovation project.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPresident Cunningham noted that parking permits would contribute to the quality of life for the\nneighborhood residents.\nMs. Kohlstrand had spoken with business representatives and downtown employees, who expressed\nconcern that there was no long-term parking in downtown Alameda.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nSeptember 26, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-26", "page": 5, "text": "Mr. Lynch had experience with parking permits and would not support them. He believed that it\npushed the issues further out, and noted that the primary issue was to balance the economic vitality\nof a particular area. He noted that people preferred the ability to walk and congregate in downtown.\nHe strongly suggested that the City not pursue the parking permits, and believed that other solutions\nwould work.\nMs. Mariani expressed concern about the possibility of receiving many more similar requests.\nM/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-38 to\napproval of Major Design Review to allow construction of a two story 3,115 square-foot addition to\nreplace existing additions of 1,300 square feet at the rear of a commercial building. The proposed\nproject results in a net gain of 515 square feet of ground floor commercial space and 1,300 square-\nfeet on the second floor. The second floor, ultimately comprising 1,500 square feet of floor area,\nwill contain two (2) residential units each approximately 750 square feet in size. A Use Permit is\nrequired for the dwelling units pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.C.1(s) because the units do not\ncomply with off-street parking requirements.\nAYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nSeptember 26, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-26", "page": 6, "text": "9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A.\nPDA05-0003 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant proposes a\nPlanned Development Amendment to amend the Harbor Bay Business Park landscaping and\nlot coverage provisions as established in Resolution 1203. This Amendment would affect\nLots 1-6, 8 and 12 of Tentative Parcel Map 8574. These lots are fronting on or southerly of\n1900 and 2000 North Loop Road. The proposed Planned Development Amendment would\nallow a five percent (5%) increase in building coverage for parcels larger than 5.5 acres.\nCurrently, maximum allowed building coverage is thirty five percent (35%) for lots larger\nthan 5.5 acres and forty percent (40%) on lots smaller than 5.5 acres. The maximum lot\ncoverage allowed on lots smaller than 5.5 acres would not be affected. The proposed Planned\nDevelopment Amendment would also decrease the minimum landscape coverage by five to\nten percent (5 to 10%), depending on lot size. Currently, 30% landscaping coverage is\nrequired on lots smaller than 5.5 acres and 25% landscaping coverage is required for parcels\nlarger than 5.5 acres. The proposed Planned Development Amendment would decrease the\nlandscaping requirement to twenty percent (20%) for these lots regardless of size. The\nproperty is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned Development.)\n(Continued from the meeting of August 22, 2005.)\nMr. Garrison summarized the staff report for Items 9-A and 9-B. Staff noted that approval of 9-B\nwas contingent upon approval of 9-A. Staff recommended approved of this item.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThere were no speaker slips.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding overlandscaped parcels, Mr. Garrison\nconfirmed that one parcel fronting on North Loop Road was proposed to have 38% landscaping\nwhere a 30% minimum landscaping was required.\nMs. Kohlstrand noted that a Parking Management Plan was required, and that there were presumably\nTSM requirements they must comply with. Mr. Garrison believed that was a standard condition by\nPublic Works.\nM/S Lynch/Piziali and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-39 to amend the\nHarbor Bay Business Park landscaping and lot coverage provisions as established in Resolution\n1203. This Amendment would affect Lots 1-6, 8 and 12 of Tentative Parcel Map 8574. These lots\nare fronting on or southerly of 1900 and 2000 North Loop Road. The proposed Planned\nDevelopment Amendment would allow a five percent (5%) increase in building coverage for parcels\nlarger than 5.5 acres. Currently, maximum allowed building coverage is thirty five percent (35%) for\nlots larger than 5.5 acres and forty percent (40%) on lots smaller than 5.5 acres. The maximum lot\ncoverage allowed on lots smaller than 5.5 acres would not be affected. The proposed Planned\nDevelopment Amendment would also decrease the minimum landscape coverage by five to ten\npercent (5 to 10%), depending on lot size. Currently, 30% landscaping coverage is required on lots\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nSeptember 26, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-26", "page": 7, "text": "smaller than 5.5 acres and 25% landscaping coverage is required for parcels larger than 5.5 acres.\nThe proposed Planned Development Amendment would decrease the landscaping requirement to\ntwenty percent (20%) for these lots regardless of size.\nAYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nSeptember 26, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-26", "page": 8, "text": "9-B.\nFDP05-0002/DR05-0057 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant\nrequests a Final Development Plan and Design Review for four (4) new flex warehouse,\noffice and light manufacturing facilities ranging in size from 13,900 to 33,272 square feet on\n6.41 acres adjacent to and southerly of 2000 North Loop Road (Parcels 8-12 on Tentative\nParcel Map No. 8574). These facilities will be on one lot of approximately 11.53 acres until\nthe final map is approved. The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing- -\nPlanned Development.) (Continued from the meeting of August 22, 2005.)\nMr. Garrison presented this staff report with the report for Item 9-A.\nM/S Lynch/Piziali and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-40 to approve a\nFinal Development Plan and Design Review for four (4) new flex warehouse, office and light\nmanufacturing facilities ranging in size from 13,900 to 33,272 square feet on 6.41 acres adjacent to\nand southerly of 2000 North Loop Road (Parcels 8-12 on Tentative Parcel Map No. 8574). These\nfacilities will be on one lot of approximately 11.53 acres until the final map is approved.\nAYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nSeptember 26, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-26", "page": 9, "text": "10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).\nVice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).\nMr. Piziali advised there was nothing new to report.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nmember Mariani).\nMs. Mariani advised that the next meeting would be held Thursday, September 29, 2005.\nd.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board member\nKohlstrand).\nMs. Kohlstrand advised that there had been no meetings since her last report.\n12.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATION:\nMs. Eliason advised that the packets for the Special Meeting on Thursday, September 29, 2005, were\nplaced at the Board members' chairs.\n13.\nADJOURNMENT:\n7:41 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nPaul Benoit, Interim Secretary\nPlanning & Building Department\nThese minutes were approved at the October 10, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was\naudio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nSeptember 26, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf"}