{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-10-10", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, October 10, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:06 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nVice President Cook\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,\nMariani, McNamara, and Piziali.\nAlso present were Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman,\nSupervising Planner Andrew Thomas, Bruce Knopf, Development Services, Planner II Dennis\nBrighton.\n4.\nMINUTES: Minutes for the meeting of September 26, 2005.\nMs. Mariani noted that the following votes indicated that she was absent when she was in fact in\nattendance, and that they should be changed to reflect her presence and Vice President Cook's\nabsence: Page 1, Item 4 (Minutes); Items 8-A, 9-A and 9-B.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Piziali to approve the minutes for the meeting of September 26, 2005, as corrected.\nAYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Cook)\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Cunningham advised that a speaker slip had been received for Item 8-A.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 8-A from the Consent Calendar and to place it\non the Regular Agenda.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n7.\n2005-2006 ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS:\n(Continued from the meeting of September 26, 2005.)\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to nominate Andrew Cunningham for President of the Planning\nBoard.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nM/S Cunningham/Piziali and unanimous to nominate Anne Cook for Vice President of the Planning\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nOctober 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-10-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-10-10", "page": 2, "text": "Board.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8-A. Annual Report on General Plan (ATh). A report regarding implementation of policies and\nobjectives of the 1991 General Plan pursuant to the California Government Code.\nM/S Kohlstrand/ Cook and unanimous to remove Item 8-A from the Consent Calendar and to place\nit on the Regular Agenda.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMr. Thomas summarized the staff report.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Ani Dimusheva, 2911 Calhoun Street, spoke in favor of a Civic Center Specific Plan, called for\nby the General Plan but has not been developed in the past 14 years. She had objected to the Use\nPermits granted to the theater and parking garage, which she believed was contradictory to the\nGeneral Plan. She noted that the City Council adopted the Citywide Retail Policy and Strategy,\nwhich she believed included the Cineplex and garage. She was concerned that these policies will\ncontinue to outweigh the importance of other elements in the General Plan, such as the unaddressed\nCivic Center Plan. She believed that the configuration of the theater and parking garage left no room\nfor identifiable Civic Center, and cannot imagine where a half-acre urban pocket park would go. If\nthe Cineplex project did not go through, she encouraged the Planning Board to consider developing\na City Center plan. She acknowledged the importance of economic interests, but was also concerned\nwith open areas in public spaces.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding the current status of a Civic Center Plan, Mr.\nThomas replied that there was nothing currently in the works. He noted that Ms. Dimusheva was\ncorrect in that there was a policy recommending a Civic Center Specific Plan in the 1991 General\nPlan. He added that had not been a priority for the City over the last 14 years, and that it was\ncommon for General Plans to have many very good ideas but that they sometimes conflicted with\neach other. He noted that the implementation of these plans is decided in the annual budget process.\nHe added that the Civic Center Specific Plan had not been a budget priority, and noted that did not\npreclude its inclusion in the future.\nMs. Kohlstrand inquired whether noted that the public plaza discussion had been part of the Park\nStreet Revitalization discussion, and whether it could be placed-there had been any further\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nOctober 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-10-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-10-10", "page": 3, "text": "discussion about placing that plaza across the street from City Hall\nMs. Eliason noted that the small structure was a historic structure.\nMr. Thomas advised that the 1991 General Plan discussed the linkage of spaces, design and uses,\nand that there were several visions of a civic center area. He added that not every civic center must\nbe organized around a large open space.\nVice President Cook noted that there was some desire to have an outside public meeting area that\ncreated a public presence in the area. There had also been discussion in incorporate public spaces in\nthe City's alleyways, such as Park Street. She noted that the waterfront public access studies had\nbeen halted midway through the process. She believed the Planning Board should be more\nstrategically involved, and realized the budgeting process directed these processes. She\nacknowledged that the staffing situation was also a constraint on accomplishing these goals.\nMr. Lynch would not advocate a Specific Plan in this case, and noted that they had been\nrecommendations in the 1980s. He added that the development of a Specific Plan was very arduous,\nsimilar to adopting a minor General Plan. He agreed with the efforts that the City has taken thus far,\nespecially the committees and task forces. He suggested that as those documents come forward, the\nCity seek ways to incorporate those documents in the community's initiatives. He added that a\nSpecific Plan would be time-, money- and staff-intensive, as well as legally intensive. He noted that\nthere were substantive differences between \"recommended\" and \"required,\" as well as \"should\" and\n\"shall.\"\nMs. Mariani noted that she attended several Downtown Vision meetings as a Greater Alameda\nBusiness Association (GABA) member, and that she recalled seeing the picture of the downtown\nCity Center. She inquired whether that was in the Downtown Vision report, and added that she\nwould like to see those documents resurface.\nPresident Cunningham recalled that the top ten priorities were agreed upon following that process,\nand were considered to be policy directives.\nMs. Eliason noted that she could make those documents available.\nMs. Kohlstrand noted that the City was more than 50% towards its housing goals in the Very Low\nIncome category, but that the other categories hadn't fared so well. She inquired how the City\nintended to achieve those goals, and what strategies and programs were in place to do SO. Mr.\nThomas replied that Alameda Point and Catellus were the major pieces of the program, and that\nAlameda Point alone had 612 affordable housing units, spread from Very Low to Moderate. He\nanticipated that a proposal from Catellus would come forward in the next year to re-entitle a portion\nof the office portion for residential, including a variety of affordable housing. From a Housing\nElement perspective, the land must be available, and the land at Alameda Point is not currently\navailable.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nOctober 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-10-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-10-10", "page": 4, "text": "In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding ABAG's letter to the City stating the next round of\nhousing numbers, Mr. Thomas replied that they were in the final negotiations, and were 90% sure\nthe timeframe would be extended but the deal was not finalized.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the timeframe of the Planning Board\nhearing the Alameda Point issue, Mr. Thomas replied that the preliminary concept would be taken to\nARRA first. The negotiations with the Navy are the critical element, and staff has been meeting with\nthe Navy several times a week.\nPresident Cunningham noted that there had been a presentation about sustainable design several\nyears ago, and would like a discussion with the Board and public addressing stewardship of the\nIsland and its resources.\nM/S McNamara/Cook to recommend acceptance of the status report regarding implementation of\npolicies and objectives of the 1991 General Plan pursuant to the California Government Code.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nOctober 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-10-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-10-10", "page": 5, "text": "8-B.\nDR05-0045, PF05-0001, V05-0008; John Knowles - 2416 Central Avenue (AT).\nApplicant requests Major Design Review approval for the construction of a new 5,800\nsquare foot two-story commercial building in a portion of an existing parking lot located\nbetween the buildings occupied by the Starbucks cafe and Gallagher and Lindsey offices.\nThe applicant also requests the payment of parking in-lieu fees for sixteen off-street parking\nspaces; the existing parking lot will be re-striped to maintain all of the existing parking\nspaces. The proposal also requires Variances to AMC Subsection 30-7.10(a). 1 and 30-\n7.10(a). 2 for reductions to required landscaped setbacks between unenclosed parking spaces\nnext to public sidewalks, buildings, and property lines. The property is located within a C-C\nT, Community Commercial Theatre Combining District. (Staff requests a continuance to\nthe meeting of October 24, 2005.)\nM/S Piziali/Mariani and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of October 24, 2005.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nOctober 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-10-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-10-10", "page": 6, "text": "9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A.\nUP05-0015/MDR05-0178 - Pamela Nobel for Cingular Wireless - 3001 Otis Drive\n(Krusi Park) (DB). A request to approve a Use Permit and Minor Design Review to replace\nthree light poles with three 50 foot high light pole/antennas for a total of six painted metal\nmonopoles. The antennas would encircle the existing tennis courts within Krusi Park. The\napplication also includes a 13-foot by 16-foot utility enclosure surrounded by a 6 foot fence\nand landscaping. A Use Permit and Minor Design Review is required by AMC Sections 30-\n4.19 (c) and (d) for any structure and above ground utility installation in an O, Open Space,\nZoning District.\nMr. Brighton summarized this staff report. Staff recommended approval of this item.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThere were no speaker slips.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMs. McNamara inquired how the proposed equipment enclosure building compared to the existing\nstructure.\nMr. Bruce Knopf, Development Services, replied that the existing enclosure on the westerly side of\nthe tennis courts was approximately 9 by 16 feet. The proposed structure is slightly larger (13 by 16\nfeet), and would be located at the edge of the park in a redwood-fenced enclosure that will be\nscreened with landscaping; it would be located adjacent to the maintenance shed. He noted that a\npublic meeting had been held on August 30, 2005, attended by six residents, two of whom were\nmembers of the Recreation & Park Commission. The attendees had questions about safety, and\ninformation about the radio frequency and emissions report was presented. One person believed the\ncellular companies should get together and share facilities; the other members did not share any\nopinions in particular. It was suggested that sports netting be installed over the redwood fenced\nequipment enclosure it catch Frisbees and balls; he agreed that could be added to the resolution. It\nwas also suggested that the light poles be painted black to blend in with the surroundings; staff\nagreed that the existing galvanized light pole would blend in better than a painted pole. Staff\nbelieved the cables that run into the poles should be screened.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand regarding consolidated service, Mr. Knopf displayed\nthe map of existing cell sites in town, with the exception of the two new sites at the Mastick Senior\nCenter and the subject site at Krusi Park. He added that there were technical reasons for separate\nservice sites, and consolidated service in one location or on one pole would provide poorer coverage\nas the antennas were located lower on the pole. He added that even cell phones were low-power\nradio transmitters, and that these were low-powered sites.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nOctober 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-10-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-10-10", "page": 7, "text": "Ms. McNamara expressed concern about the encroachment of these equipment pieces on open space.\nShe believed this example illustrated that concern because there were two locations on this site, and\nnoted that protection of park space was very important.\nMr. Knopf noted that park space was protected on an individual basis, and cited Lincoln Park as an\nexample; that site was never brought to the public or the Board because the use of the park did not\nrespect its space and layout. He added that the Recreation and Park Commission deliberated very\ncarefully about these issues, and voted in support of this recommendation. Staff believed this\nproposal represented an improvement in service in the area, added revenue, as well as added cell\nphone coverage, which can be a safety issue.\nM/S Mariani/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-42 to approve a Use Permit\nand Minor Design Review to replace three light poles with three 50 foot high light pole/antennas\nfor a total of six painted metal monopoles. The antennas would encircle the existing tennis\ncourts within Krusi Park. The application also includes a 13-foot by 16-foot utility enclosure\nsurrounded by a 6 foot fence and landscaping. A Use Permit and Minor Design Review is\nrequired by AMC Sections 30-4.19 (c) and (d) for any structure and above ground utility\ninstallation in an O, Open Space, Zoning District. The following modifications will be added:\n1.\nA netted enclosure over the equipment space;\n2.\nThe cable lines will be screened from view.\nAYES - 6; NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nOctober 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-10-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-10-10", "page": 8, "text": "10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nMs. Eliason advised that a letter from Carol Ireland regarding the Cineplex was placed on the dais.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).\nVice President Cook noted that there had been no further meetings since her last report.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).\nMr. Piziali noted that there had been no further meetings since his last report.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nmember Mariani).\nMs. Mariani noted that they had discussed options and ways to improve traffic through Chinatown,\nand how it affects Alameda, downtown Oakland and Chinatown. They planned to prepare a formal\nresolution to present to both the Alameda and Oakland Planning Boards. They planned to make\nconcrete suggestions on how to achieve those goals.\nMr. Lynch noted that this was a stipulated effort pursuant to filed litigation. He was very concerned\nwith the authority of this body, given the type of development currently taking place in Oakland, has\ntaken place since the body was formed, and will take place. He noted that development has taken\nplace rapidly, and added that focus was primarily placed on Alameda, which he found regretful. He\nnoted that Chinatown was only one community that suffered from the traffic congestion, and wanted\nthe proceedings to be fair to the citizens of Alameda.\nMs. Mariani noted that a wide variety of issues were discussed, and believed that the committee was\nworking well together; everyone realized their proper role in the process. She complimented Mr.\nThomas on his skills in facilitating.\nMr. Lynch was very concerned that the Port of Oakland was not involved in this body, because the\nPort was the major developer.\nMs. Mariani noted she would bring that issue before the Committee.\nVice President Cook noted that the Chamber of Commerce would hold a public presentation on the\nOak to Ninth Project, and shared Mr. Lynch's concerns regarding the effect of Oakland's buildout\non traffic in Alameda.\nMs. Eliason noted that Mr. Thomas would be able to provide the details to answer Vice President\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nOctober 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-10-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-10-10", "page": 9, "text": "Cook's question. She noted that while all of Alameda's access was through Oakland, Oakland could\nalso object to Alameda's development, and added that there was a delicate balance between the two\nmunicipalities.\nd.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board member\nKohlstrand).\nMs. Kohlstrand advised that there had been no meetings since her last report, and that the next\nmeeting would be held Wednesday, October 12, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. in Council Chambers. The street\nsystem classification would be discussed.\nMs. Kohlstrand noted that a letter from Marilyn Schumacher had been received regarding Mr.\nEdwards, and requested clarification. Ms. Eliason replied that Mr. Edwards had applied for a Design\nReview for an art studio behind an existing duplex on property that he owns. He had expressed\nfrustration to Ms. Schumacher, who was a member of the Customer Service Initiative (CSI). His\nplans were shown to the CSI to demonstrate how the process had not worked in this case; changes\nwere made in the project each time it was brought forward, requiring new staff review.\nMs. McNamara expressed concern about the lack of planning staff, and had not seen any movement\nin that direction. She inquired whether the Board could do anything to bring the staffing levels up.\nMs. Eliason noted that the City was recruiting for a new Planning and Building Director.\nAuthorization was received to hire a Planner I on a temporary basis to assist with the counter work\nand minor Design Reviews, freeing the more senior planners up for more challenging projects. The\nposition previously held by Jerry Cormack was frozen, and Judith Altschuler's position has been\neliminated.\nMr. Lynch noted that it has recently been difficult to hire experienced planners statewide, and that\nthe market was currently very competitive. He agreed that the Planning Department was woefully\nunderstaffed. He noted that the method by which Alameda receives funds has been affected by the\nrelative lack of development in the commercial sector. Municipalities who have done SO are more\nable to compete economically for planners and other staff members, including safety and\nrecreational services.\nA discussion of the budget and staffing process ensued.\nMs. Kohlstrand requested a presentation before the Board addressing the staffing needs. In response\nto the Planning Board's request, Ms. Eliason noted that she would prepare some permit information\nfor the Board. She noted that the Design Review loads were often cyclical.\nThe Board also wanted a discussion with the City Manager or the appropriate representative about\nthe staffing needs and shortage, to which Ms. Eliason responded that a discussion would be\narranged.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nOctober 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-10-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-10-10", "page": 10, "text": "Mr. Piziali noted that it was difficult for the City to generate revenue without staff to handle the\nincoming business.\n12.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATION:\nMs. Eliason noted that an appeal was received for the Cineplex Use Permit, which would be brought\nbefore the City Council on November 1, 2005.\n13.\nADJOURNMENT:\n8:32 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nGregory J. McFann, Acting Secretary\nPlanning & Building Department\nThese minutes were approved at the October 24, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was\naudio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nOctober 10, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-10-10.pdf"}