{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-01-09", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, January 9, 2006\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:03 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMs. Mariani\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,\nMariani, and McNamara.\nAlso in attendance were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason,\nPlanner III Allen Tai, Planner Stefanie Hom.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of November 14, 2005.\n(Continued from the meeting of December 12, 2005.)\nBoard member Kohlstrand advised that page 5, paragraph 1, should clarify her point with respect to\nmanaging the parking lot. The lot could be restricted to tenants and their visitors, but it was not her\nintention to suggest the way it should be operated. She had suggested that a more open approach to\nparking use on that facility would allow more efficient use of the parking.\nBoard member Kohlstrand advised that page 5, paragraph 2, should be changed to read: \"She stated\nthat she advocated that there were issues associated with it such as liability, safety and lighting.'\nBoard member Kohlstrand advised that page 7, paragraph 3, should be changed to read: \"She stated\nshe was in a quandary because ofthe code requirements were too high for this particular use, and she\nfelt that is where the Board should be focusing.\"\nBoard member Kohlstrand noted that on page 9, following the vote, she had made a clarification\nwhen she voted No on this particular project, that the record should indicate she was against it\nbecause she supported the Variance that the applicant had requested.\nM/S McNamara/Kohlstrand to approve the minutes for the meeting of November 14, 2005, as\namended.\nAYES - 5; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Mariani)\nb.\nMinutes for the meeting of December 12, 2005.\nBoard member Kohlstrand advised that on page 3, paragraph 11, her inaudible comments were meant\nto clarify that the last meeting for the Transportation Committee was held on December 7, 2005, and\nthat pedestrian issues were dealt with at that meeting. She also noted that there would be additional\nmeetings after the first of the year.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nJanuary 9, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-01-09", "page": 2, "text": "President Cunningham noted that the Resolution numbers were missing from the minutes.\nM/S Kohlstrand/McNamara to approve the minutes for the meeting of December 12, 2005, as\namended.\nAYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nJanuary 9, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-01-09", "page": 3, "text": "5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Cunningham advised that there was a request from the Board to move Item 8-A to the\nRegular Agenda.\nM/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to remove Item 8-A from the Consent Calendar and place it on\nthe Regular Agenda.\nAYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPresident Cunningham advised that no speaker slips had been received for Item 9-A.\nM/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to remove Item 9-A from the Regular Agenda and place it on\nthe Consent Calendar.\nAYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nNone.\n7.\nResolution and Commendation for Board member John Piziali.\nPresident Cunningham read the following Resolution of Farewell and Commendation for John A.\nPiziali into the record:\nWHEREAS John A. Piziali was appointed as a member of the Planning Board on July 15,\n1997, to complete an unexpired term; and\nWHEREAS John A. Piziali was reappointed as a member of the Planning Board on July 1,\n1999; and\nWHEREAS John A. Piziali was again reappointed as a member of the Planning Board on July\n1, 2003; and\nWHEREAS John A. Piziali was elected Vice President of the Planning Board on August 13,\n2001; and served as Vice President until October 13, 2004; and\nWHEREAS John A. Piziali was elected President of the Planning Board on October 13, 2003;\nand\nWHEREAS John A. Piziali has also served Alameda by his involvement on behalf of the\nPlanning Board in the Golf Course Committee; and\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nJanuary 9, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-01-09", "page": 4, "text": "WHEREAS John A. Piziali has earned the respect of his fellow Board members and City Staff\nfor his clear and consistent contributions to numerous development projects throughout his tenure;\nand\nWHEREAS the Planning Board and City Staff wishes to thank John A. Piziali for his constant\nsupport. His experience and expertise were invaluable on projects such as the Bay Port Development\nand the recent development of Alameda's \"Guide to Residential Design\"; and\nWHEREAS his concern for the welfare of the Citizens of Alameda and the future\ndevelopment of our City were always apparent when balancing neighborhood issues with the\neconomic goals of the City.\nTHEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda\nacknowledges his valuable contributions to the City of Alameda, and wishes him all future happiness\nand continued involvement in community issues.\nPASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Board of the City of Alameda on the 9th day of\nJanuary 2006.\nPresident Cunningham noted that as long as he was on the Board, Mr. Piziali had been on the Board\nas well. He added that his knowledge, level-headedness and approach to the issues would be missed.\nHe thanked Mr. Piziali for his hard work.\nMr. Piziali thanked President Cunningham and the Board for their kind words, and noted that the\nBoard had done an outstanding job on development issues. He urged the Board to remember that\nwhen the average citizen went through the planning process, that they were not only a Planning\nBoard, but that they were their neighbors, trying to help them.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nJanuary 9, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-01-09", "page": 5, "text": "8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8-A.\nUP05-0023; Frank Krauland for Grandview Pavilion; 300 Island Drive (SH). The\napplicant requests a Use Permit approval to allow the construction of a 1750 square-foot (35'\nby 50') tent structure over an existing outdoor patio. Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-\n4.19.b(3), a Use Permit is required for structures located on public and private land in the O\n(Open Space) District. The site is located on the Chuck Corica Golf Complex within the O,\nOpen Space Zoning District.\nM/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to remove Item 8-A from the Consent Calendar and place it on\nthe Regular Agenda.\nAYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMs. Hom presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this item.\nVice President Cook expressed concern about the height and permanence of this structure. She noted\nthat the building was charming, with interesting rooflines and character. She did not believe anything\nsimilar had been approved in the City, and believed that better landscaping would help its appearance.\nShe believed it would be a big change to the outdoor area, and did not know whether this tent had\nsides that could roll up.\nPresident Cunningham echoed Vice President Cook's concerns, and inquired whether a Design\nReview would be presented at a later date.\nMs. Eliason noted that tents are normally temporary structures, and that the applicants were\nrequesting that it be made a permanent structure. This request would normally be within the Board's\npurview because this was a Use Permit. A time limit on the Use Permit may be placed by the Board.\nThe height is lower than the existing building. An additional condition could be placed regarding the\nsides.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand whether a permanent structure would qualify\nas an expansion of the use, and whether new parking requirements must be considered, Ms. Eliason\nreplied that staff did not require additional parking because it was an outdoor patio. Also, the tent\ncould be removed at any time; staff did not believe it was an expansion of the structure in that way\nbecause the applicant was already using the outdoor area. The tent would make the outdoor area\nmore functional in all seasons.\nPresident Cunningham noted that he would be hesitant to limit the time that it was up. He had been\nconcerned about the aesthetics.\nBoard member Kohlstrand noted that Scott's in Jack London Square had a similar structure that\ncould be used for weddings and other special events.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nJanuary 9, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-01-09", "page": 6, "text": "The public hearing was opened.\nMr. Frank Krauland, applicant, noted that he had been thinking about this addition for several years,\nand noted that the Vincenza Winery in Napa had the same tent, which he described as gorgeous. He\nplanned to use the same interior pleating, and surround it with Italian cypress, blooming flowers in\nbetween the cypress. He guaranteed the Board that it would be a first-class presentation, and noted\nthat they cannot host weddings on an uncovered patio. He noted that the existing landscaping would\nremain, and added that the sides could be rolled up or removed in the summer. He added that there\nwould be planting inside the tent as well.\nBoard member Lynch was sensitive to the growth of trees over the long term, given the deterioration\nof the hardscape. He noted that while replanting trees was the first thought, it was not always the best\nthought. He suggested that there be flexibility in the landscaping plan, and that they may be planted in\nportable planter boxes.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the lifespan of this structure, Mr.\nKrauland replied that the metal framework would last virtually forever, and that fabric would be\nreplaced every five to seven years to keep it fresh and white.\nBoard member Mariani believed this would be a beautiful addition to the site.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nM/S Mariani/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution PB-06-01 to approve a Use\nPermit to allow the construction of a 1750 square-foot (35' by 50') tent structure over an existing\noutdoor patio. Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.19.b(3), a Use Permit is required for structures\nlocated on public and private land in the O (Open Space) District. The following modifications to the\nResolution would be included:\n1.\nThe tent shall be replaced upon deterioration, as determined by the Planning &\nBuilding Director; and\n2.\nLandscaping shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Planning & Building Director.\nAYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nJanuary 9, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-01-09", "page": 7, "text": "9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A.\nDR05-0128, PDA05-0006; 900 Otis Drive; Applicant: Clifford Mapes (AT).\nApplicant requests Planned Development Amendment and Major Design Review approvals to\nmodify a previously approved design for the construction of a new single family residence on\na vacant lot at 900 Otis Drive. The changes primarily involve replacing the angular style house\ndesign with a traditional rectangular plan. As a result of the redesign, the building footprint\nincreases from approximately 2,700 square feet to 3,000 square feet, and the floor area of the\nresidence will increase from 3,750 square feet to 4,360 square feet. The project is located\nwithin a R-1PD, One-Family Residence Planned Development District.\nM/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to remove Item 9-A from the Regular Agenda and place it on\nthe Consent Calendar.\nAYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nM/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-02 to approve\na Planned Development Amendment and Major Design Review approvals to modify a previously\napproved design for the construction of a new single family residence on a vacant lot at 900 Otis\nDrive. The changes primarily involve replacing the angular style house design with a traditional\nrectangular plan. As a result of the redesign, the building footprint increases from approximately\n2,700 square feet to 3,000 square feet, and the floor area of the residence will increase from 3,750\nsquare feet to 4,360 square feet.\nAYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nJanuary 9, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-01-09", "page": 8, "text": "9-B.\nDR04-0075; 301 Spruce Street; Applicants: Bill Wong for Hai Ky Lam; Appellants:\nPatrick Lynch and Jeanne Nader (AT). Public hearing to consider an appeal of the\nPlanning and Building Director's approval of a Major Design Review to construct a new 2-\nstory single family residence on a vacant lot at 301 Spruce Street. The site is located within an\nR-4, Neighborhood Residential District.\nPresident Cunningham advised that more than five speaker slips had been received.\nM/S Lynch/McNamara and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.\nAYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - - 0\nMr. Tai summarized the staff report. The appellants claim that staff has not complied with the\nconditions of approval established by previous City Council and Historical Advisory Board actions.\nHe emphasized that these conditions stand separate from the Design Review process, and that they\nare parallel; they would be in place prior to Building Permit approval. Staff recommended that the\nPlanning & Building Director's approval be upheld by the Planning Board.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Patrick Lynch, appellant, 305 Spruce Street, noted that his property was adjacent to the subject\nvacant lot. He distributed written comments to the Planning Board, and noted that a copy of an article\nfrom the August 28-31, 1998 Alameda Journal was included in that packet. The article referenced a\nUse Permit for Alameda Point, and the level of contamination on the site. In this particular case, the\nPlanning Board decided to go against staff's recommendation, and did not approve the Use Permit.\nHe noted that subsequent testing at this site proved that the Planning Board made the proper decision.\nHe noted that the staff report stated that soil samples collected from illegal fill placed at the site in\n2002 are free form chemical contaminants. He included a table with the results of two samples\nperformed for Vanadium, a Proposition 65 chemical. The May 2005 sample exceeded the preliminary\nremediation goal, as well as an environmental screening level established by the Regional Water\nQuality Control Board. He believed this information meant that the site was not safe for residential\nuse until a more thorough investigation was done into the source and contamination levels in the\nillegal fill.\nMr. Lynch noted that the City Council resolution also required specific analytical methods be used to\ntest the soil. The soil report was required to be submitted prior to Design Review approval, and he\nbelieved it did not comply with the criteria established in the City Council resolution. The analytical\nmethods used was Method 620A, and the City Council resolution specified that Method 610C be\nused. In addition, the lab must also be accredited to perform the analysis; the lab used was not\naccredited to perform Method 610C. The City Council resolution also required that a minimum\nnumber of samples be collected for different analysis based upon the volume of the stockpile. The\ngrading permit was issued for 100 cubic yards of soil after the fact with an enforcement penalty. He\nnoted that there was over 100 cubic yards of soil at the site.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nJanuary 9, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-01-09", "page": 9, "text": "Ms. Jeanne Nader, appellant, 305 Spruce Street, noted that they had two young children and were\nvery concerned that they lived next to a property with contaminated soil. They had been told the soil\nwould be removed, but it has not been removed because of the unpermitted grading performed by the\nowner. She noted that there were serious flooding problems, and they did not know how much\ncontamination is in the soil. She did not agree with staff's representation of their appeals, and noted\nthat she and Mr. Lynch have spent considerable time on this issue. They have lived next to this site\nsince 1997, and have had to deal with various owners not maintaining the property, violating\nMunicipal ordinances. She took issue with the staff report claim that they had opposed development\nin 1998, when there was no development in 1998; they were opposed to the owner cutting down a\nCoastal Live Oak, which was a protected historic monument in Alameda. She noted that because of\ntheir appeal to the Historic Advisory Board, the ordinance that protected that species of tree was\nstrengthened. She stated that staff also excluded some information from 2002 when they approached\nthe Planning Board about problems with the design by the second owner. At that time, staff told the\nPlanning Board that their testimony had been inaccurate, and they appealed to the City Council. The\nthen-Planning & Building Director Greg Fuz decided that their testimony was indeed accurate, and\nthe owner was asked to withdraw his plan at that time. Another plan was submitted, and the property\nwas sold to the current owner. She believed the Residential Design Guidelines did apply to their\nneighborhood. She inquired whether the same standards had been applied to any other neighborhood\nin Alameda. She noted that staff said there was an increased setback; she noted that there was no\nincreased setback at their house, and that it remained at seven feet.\nMr. Dana Sack, applicant, noted that the three other applicants were Hai Lam, 1107 Buena Vista; Bill\nWong, 373 Ninth Street #301, Oakland; and Ivan Chic, 373 Ninth Street #301, Oakland. He added\nthat they did not wish to speak, and that they asked him to speak on their behalf. He noted that the\nappellants addressed events regarding prior owners, and that Mr. Lam was a local resident who\nwished to take over the property in compliance with the City Council and Planning Board. He added\nthat he had done everything the City has asked for to protect the trees, take care of the hazardous\nmaterial concerns, and had complied with every requirement. He noted that Mr. Lam paid to have a\nsecond test done by an appropriate lab, using the appropriate standard; that test showed that the piles\nand the land in general complied with the City and EPA standards, with the exception of arsenic. He\nadded that arsenic is present in land that has come from the Valley in alluvial silt, and is present in\nmost parcels in the area. He believed the piles and the hazardous materials were red herrings, and\nnoted that the existing house on the neighboring lot has virtually no setback.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nBoard member Lynch noted that based on the document submitted by the appellant and the staff\nreport, there were some inconsistencies; however, he believed the inconsistencies were motivated by\ndifferent reasons. He believed the item was straightforward, and in his experience with grading\npermits, a 100 cubic yards plus or minus was a nominal difference. He believed there was some\nmisinterpretation of the Regional Water Quality Control Board standards. He believed the staff report\nwas very thorough, and found the neighbors' comments to be anecdotal. He believed the\nrequirements placed on the property should be applied to the project before the Board today, which\nwas for a single-family home. He was most concerned with the process followed by City staff, and\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nJanuary 9, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-01-09", "page": 10, "text": "was very comfortable with that process.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara whether the current owners had complied\nwith all the conditions placed upon it by the City to date, Mr. Tai confirmed that was correct. He\nadded that staff would like to remind the property owners that they should perform more due\ndiligence on maintaining weeds and clearing the property to make sure it is clean. He noted that the\nproperty owners had been very responsive whenever staff had asked them to clear the property. He\nadded that the soil would probably be removed when construction commences.\nPresident Cunningham agreed with the staff report, and believed the proposed project may mitigate or\neliminate some of the issues were reported to pertain to this particular site. He commended the\napplicant for proceeding in earnest to do the right thing.\nM/S Cook/Lynch and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-03 to uphold the\nPlanning and Building Director's approval of a Major Design Review to construct a new 2-story\nsingle family residence on a vacant lot at 301 Spruce Street.\nAYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPresident Cunningham noted that this would be Mr. Tai's last meeting with the City, and commended\nhim for his insights and hard work during his tenure. He noted that he had been a great resource to\nthe Board, and had been impressed with his swift rise in the Planning & Building Department.\nMr. Tai thanked the Planning Board and the City, and noted that it had been a great pleasure working\nin Alameda. He added that he had accepted a position as an Advance Planner with the City of San\nJose.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nJanuary 9, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-01-09", "page": 11, "text": "9-C. Appointment of Planning Board member to the Golf Course Committee.\nBoard member McNamara inquired whether this appointment was necessary at this time, given the\nfact that there had been no meetings during her two-year tenure on the Board.\nMs. Eliason advised that it had been formed for the Alameda Point Golf Course, which is not an\nactive proposal at this time. She advised that the Board may wait to appoint another representative,\nwhich became vacant upon Mr. Piziali's departure.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATION:\nNone.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice President Cook).\nVice President Cook advised there was nothing new to report.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee.\nPresident Cunningham noted that there had been no meetings.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember Mariani).\nBoard member Mariani advised that she brought the Planning Board's concerns from the previous\nmeeting before the Committee, particularly regarding the increased construction and development.\nShe agreed with Board member Lynch's assessment that the development was heading up, instead of\nout. She noted that Oakland did not have a Transportation Commission, and another member of the\nCommittee who worked for the City of Oakland had been surprised that there was no Transportation\nCommission. She noted that they were working on a recommendation to the Oakland Planning\nCommission and the Alameda Planning Board for a comprehensive transportation planning document\nfor Chinatown, prepared by the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee.\nBoard member Kohlstrand noted that this would be an issue that the new Planning & Building\nDirector would be able to address with the Planning Director of the City of Oakland, in order to\ncoordinate the issues; the Public Works Directors may wish to become involved as well.\nBoard member Lynch advised that he was not a naysayer, nor was he taking a position against any\ndevelopment in Oakland; he strongly encouraged development for a variety of reasons. He raised the\nquestions because he would like to see the same amount of deference paid to Alameda. He noted that\nwhen Alameda chose to develop, he found it extraordinarily hypocritical for anyone in Oakland to\nsuggest that Alameda lacked sensitivity traffic or other needs, when Oakland is developing at full-tilt.\nHe believed that was a primary issue, which he believed should be addressed by the Alameda County\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nJanuary 9, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-01-09", "page": 12, "text": "Board of Supervisors, and for the elected officials. He would like to see consistency and reciprocity in\nthe relationship between Alameda and Oakland.\nd.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member\nKohlstrand).\nBoard member Kohlstrand advised that there had been no further meetings since her last report.\n12.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n13.\nADJOURNMENT:\n8:03 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nGregory J. McFann, Acting Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThese minutes were approved at the January 23, 2006 Planning Board meeting. This meeting was\naudio and videotaped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nJanuary 9, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf"}