{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-02-13", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, February 13, 2006\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:03 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMs. Mariani\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch, and\nMariani.\nBoard member McNamara was absent.\nAlso in attendance were Planning & Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Deputy City Attorney Julie\nHarryman, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner Andrew Thomas, Planner III\nDouglas Garrison.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of January 23, 2006.\nM/S Cook/Kohlstrand to approve the minutes for the meeting of January 23, 2006, as presented.\nAYES - 4 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - (Mariani)\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Cunningham noted that there was a request to remove Item 8-C from the Regular Agenda\nand place it on the Consent Calendar.\nM/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to move this item from the Regular Agenda to the Consent\nCalendar.\nAYES - 5 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nMr. David Kirwin noted that he would be unable to stay for Item 8-B, and wished to voice his\nconcern that this application may be used as an end run around Measure A.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nFebruary 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-02-13", "page": 2, "text": "7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A.\nPD05-0001/R05-0002/PM06-0001 - Janice Graham - 1810 & 1812 Clinton Avenue\n(EP). The applicant requests a rezoning to add a Planned Development overlay to the\nexisting R-4 (Neighborhood Residential) district, and Planned Development and Parcel Map\napprovals to allow the division of an existing 14,602 square foot residential lot into two\nparcels, each with an existing, detached duplex. As part of the project, the applicant will\nrestore the duplex on the front parcel to a single family residence. The property is located\nwithin an R-4 (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District.\nM/S Lynch/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-05 to approve a\nrezoning to add a Planned Development overlay to the existing R-4 (Neighborhood Residential)\ndistrict, and Planned Development and Parcel Map approvals to allow the division of an existing\n14,602 square foot residential lot into two parcels, each with an existing, detached duplex. As part of\nthe project, the applicant will restore the duplex on the front parcel to a single family residence.\nAYES - 5 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nFebruary 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-02-13", "page": 3, "text": "7-B.\nPDA05-0007/MDR05-0350 - Park Street Landing - 2307 Blanding Avenue (EP).\nApplicant requests a Planned Development Amendment and Minor Design Review to modify\nthe existing sign program to allow for a change in the location of existing building signage,\nincluding installation and establishment of three additional signs on an existing monument\nsign. The site is located within the Park Street Landing Shopping Center in the C-M-PD,\nCommercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District. (Applicant requests\ncontinuance to the meeting of February 27, 2006.)\nM/S Lynch/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of February 27, 2006.\nAYES - 5 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nFebruary 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-02-13", "page": 4, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\nPM05-0002/PM05-0003 - Alameda Real Estate Investments - 1090 & 1350 Marina\nVillage Parkway (AT). The applicant is requesting the approval of two parcel maps creating\na total of four parcels and the conversion of existing berths, within these four parcels, from\nrental to condominium ownership. These parcels cover existing marina facilities only. No new\nresidential or commercial uses are proposed. No new construction or alteration of existing\nfacilities is proposed. All existing easements and permit requirements concerning, but not\nlimited to, open space, public access and vehicular access will remain in effect. (Continued\nfrom the meeting of January 23, 2006)\nSupervising Planner Andrew Thomas presented the staff report. Staff `recommended approval of this\nitem.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Thomas Charrone noted that he was a property owner of a townhouse at Marina Village, as well\nas a director of the Oakland Yacht Club. He believed that while he had no opinion of the proposed\nproject, it was well conceived and legal. He expressed concern about the long-term maintenance of\nthe common properties and the accumulation of trash near the gates. He was also concerned about\nthe maintenance of the parking areas, and did not want it to suffer because of conflicts within the\nhomeowners association or other parties. He expressed concern about access from the parking lots\nfor users of the marina. He would like the tenants of liveaboards to have right of first refusal for\nmarina slips as they come up for sale, as well as the opportunity to move into rented slips. He would\nlike renters of slips to be protected from eviction if the slip is sold to anyone but the owner/user or\nblood relative of the owner.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand regarding Mr. Charrone's concerns regarding slip\ntenants, Ms. Harryman replied that this issue had not come up before and that she would research the\nlegal implications and bring that information back to the Planning Commission.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nBoard member Lynch noted that he did not believe the Board should become involved in slip rental\nissues, and that it should be left to the homeowners association and other private parties. He did not\nbelieve the maintenance of trash by Gates 8 and 9 were the purview of the Planning Board, and that it\nwas a marina management issue.\nMr. Thomas noted that the current system of CC&Rs and cross-access easements seems to be\nworking for the maintenance of the common areas, and for access to the shared facilities. He noted\nthat the easements and provisions in the CC&Rs would remain as they currently are. Regarding the\nissue on the liveaboards, whether the marina remains in its current status or records a condo plan, the\nMarina would always be limited by the BCDC restriction of 10% liveaboards.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nFebruary 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-02-13", "page": 5, "text": "In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook, Mr. Thomas explained how a condominium\nassociation would operate.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the ability to expand the number of\nberths, Mr. Thomas replied that any such application would be an amendment to the original Master\nPlan community for Marina Village. The Master Plan Amendment process requires both Planning\nBoard and City Council approval.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding mitigation of pollution and cross-\ncontamination between berths, Diane Eisley, Harbormaster, Emery Cove Yacht Harbor, replied that\nthey had never had any problems.\nM/S Cook/Lynch and unanimous to reopen the public hearing.\nAYES - 5 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMr. Charrone stated that he believed that the organization that owns the property did a good job of\nmaintaining it, as did the harbormaster. He asked that the Board consider that a maximum 10% of\nslips are liveaboards and that means 71 people in this marina could live there and contribute to the\ncommunity. He asked that those individuals be made aware of the City's policies with respect to their\nrental liveaboard status.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nM/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-06 to approve\ntwo parcel maps creating a total of four parcels and the conversion of existing berths, within these\nfour parcels, from rental to condominium ownership. These parcels cover existing marina facilities\nonly. No new residential or commercial uses are proposed. No new construction or alteration of\nexisting facilities is proposed. All existing easements and permit requirements concerning, but not\nlimited to, open space, public access and vehicular access will remain in effect, with the following\nmodification under Condition 3: \"Parcel maps shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City\nEngineer and the City's consultants. Particular attention shall be given to ensure the maintenance\nand the quality of the existing landscape and parking areas.\"\nAYES - 5 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -\n0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nFebruary 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-02-13", "page": 6, "text": "8-B.\nFDP05-0003/DR05-0127/TM05-0003- - Venture Corporation - 2201 Harbor Bay Parkway\n(DG). The applicant requests approval of Final Development Plan and Major Design Review\napplications allowing the construction of three new two-story commercial buildings The buildings\nwould range in size from 13,946 to 16,952 sq. ft. in size, with a maximum height of 34 ft. The\nproposed use of these buildings is a mix of research and development facilities and professional\noffices. The three buildings would contain up to 24 separate units. Specific businesses that would\noccupy the buildings have not been identified at this time. The applicant also requests approval of a\nTentative Parcel Map/Condominium Plan allowing the conveyance of the 24 units to separate\nowners.\nMr. Garrison presented the staff report.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThere were no speaker slips.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMember Kohlstrand did not believe it was particularly unusual for the Harbor Bay area, expressed concern\nthat the way the buildings were situated on the site did not bear a positive relationship to the adjacent\npublic streets. She would like to see the focus shifted, and could not support the site plan as presented. She\nwould like to see the buildings come closer to the street, and parking areas moved to the rear of the site.\nMember Kohlstrand did not have a problem with mixed use, but was concerned about the sort of services,\nsuch as restaurants, that were being provided for the employees in that area.\nVice President Cook agreed with Member Kohlstrand's comments, and had been disturbed by the amount\nof parking that would be empty on weekends. She noted that there was beautiful public access along the\nshoreline, and that the shore was an amenity that did not have a relationship to the buildings.\nPresident Cunningham did not believe that encumbering one particular owner with having to build a\nrestaurant, and inquired about the future plans. Mr. Garrison noted that a future project included a\nHampton Inn in the area; their long-term plans included a conference room and a restaurant. He\nunderstood the comments regarding the alignment of the buildings, and suggested that the applicant detail\nthe options.\nVice President Cook expressed concern about the planned development requirements for comfortable\nfacilities for the workers to be outdoors, and did not believe the space was well-used.\nMr. Brock Grayson, project architect, displayed the site plan and discussed details of the building\nplacement. He noted that the views of the Bay played an important part in its design.\nMember Kohlstrand believed that a different approach to the layout would provide a balanced perspective\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nFebruary 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-02-13", "page": 7, "text": "to the street and to the water.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Lynch regarding the height limitation, Mr. Grayson replied that in\nHarbor Bay, buildings could be constructed up to 35 feet. This particular site would be 34 feet.\nMember Lynch believed that a 34 foot height limit was a limiting factor, and forced several parameters. He\nwould not mind having a three-story building on this site with proper massing. He believed that this project\nwas needed, and suggested that a second-floor entrance be considered. Mr. Grayson noted that one project\nwith that arrangement did not work as well as anticipated. He noted that his clients did not favor larger\nbuildings.\nMr. Stuart Sheinholtz, Venture Corporation, project developer, noted that they generally sold to small\nbusinesses, and that the first project in Alameda was very successful. He noted that a very diverse group of\nbusinesses were buying properties in the site. He agreed with Vice President Cook's comments. He noted\nthat this site was fully landscaped, and that they maximized their views; they made successful use of flex-\nspace.\nMember Mariani would like to see a second, more creative submission by the architect, and that the space\ncould be used in a more accessible way on the weekends. Mr. Sheinholtz noted that this was primarily a\nbusiness park, and that when people used it on the weekends, they were able to enjoy the Bay. He noted\nthat if the buildings were swapped, there would be a view of the empty parking lot.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that she did not have an issue regarding condominiums, and was concerned\nabout the site layout.\nMember Lynch believed this use was needed, and believed the ability for the business owner to own the\nreal estate was very positive. He would like to see an alternative way for this site to be designed.\nPresident Cunningham would like to see the design address the street.\nMr. Grayson noted that they took a very conservative approach to provide sufficient parking. President\nCunningham did not want architectural context to be sacrificed for a few parking spaces that may not be\nused.\nMr. Grayson noted that the Harbor Bay Architectural Committee endorsed this project, as did City staff.\nMember Lynch suggested that the applicant consider the height limitations, parking issues, rearticulating\nthe design and approaching the Board at the next meeting. He emphasized that the project itself was\nsupported, and that the design should be revised to reflect the Board's comments. He added that the\napplicant could take better advantage of what the Bay has to offer. He noted that if the applicant could\nprovide a design rationale for altering the setbacks slightly, he would we willing to hear that.\nMs. Woodbury noted that the planning standards could not be abandoned, and that setbacks needed to\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nFebruary 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-02-13", "page": 8, "text": "work with the project as a whole. Staff would be happy to work with the applicant in this regard.\nVice President Cook wished to ensure that the applicant did not take a design that worked well in a\ndifferent setting and insert it into a waterfront setting that may not be as appropriate as it could be. She\nwould like the Board's comments to be addressed without compromising the building standards set by the\nCity.\nPresident Cunningham noted that the Board could vote on this item as presented, and the applicant could\nappeal it to the City Council, or that the project could be continued and brought back to the Board at the\nnext meeting. Mr. Grayson requested a continuance.\nMs. Woodbury noted that the Board would hear comments on the Draft EIR on the Northern Waterfront\nat the next meeting. President Cunningham requested that this be the first item on the agenda; Mr. Garrison\nconfirmed that as a continued item, it would be the first item on the agenda.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of February 27,\n2006.\nAYES - 5 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nFebruary 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-02-13", "page": 9, "text": "8-C.\nZA06-0001 - City of Alameda (CE). A Zoning Text Amendment to add an administrative\nheight variance process for additions to existing dwellings. Citywide.\nM/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to move this item from the Regular Agenda to the Consent\nCalendar.\nAYES - 5 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nM/S Lynch/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-07 to approve a\nZoning Text Amendment to add an administrative height variance process for additions to existing\ndwellings.\nAYES - 5 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -\n0\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, and that the EIR was in circulation.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember Mariani).\nBoard member Mariani noted that there had been no meetings since her last report.\nc.\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:\nMs. Woodbury distributed a handout regarding the Brown Act to follow up on questions posed at the\nlast meeting.\nMs. Woodbury noted that several staff members suggested a tour of higher density housing, especially\nin San Jose. Board member Mariani noted that there was similar housing in San Lorenzo.\nMs. Woodbury noted that if there was a quorum of the Board, it would be a noticed meeting.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nFebruary 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-02-13", "page": 10, "text": "City Planning Board\nThese minutes were approved at the February 27, 2006 Planning Board meeting. This meeting was\naudio and videotaped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nFebruary 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-02-13.pdf"}