{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-27", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL\nAND PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD MEETING\nMONDAY- - -FEBRUARY 27, 2006- -6:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:41 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : louncilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore\nMatarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nBoard members Bangert, Holmes, McCahan,\nCity Manager and President McCormick - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(06-098) A Study Session was held to discuss Alameda Power\n&\nTelecom's telecommunication business.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 8:15 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nPublic Utilities Board\nFebruary 27, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2006-02-27", "page": 1, "text": "COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nFebruary 27, 2006\nPresent: Chair Cooney, Berger, Bunker, Fort, Longley-Cook, Lord-Hausman, Moore\nAbsent/Excused: Vice-Chair Gwynne, Steffens\nGuests: Barry Bergman (Alameda Public Works), Susan Decker (Alameda Transit Advocates)\nRob Bonta (Social Services Human Relations Board), Alex Plumb (Bike Alameda)\nMINUTES: The minutes of December 12, 2005 where approved with the following\ncorrection: Change Old Business Item No. 1 by capitalizing Commission and change Oral\nCommunications Item No. 3 \"A youth film festival will be held on February 25, 2006 at the\nBay\nTheatre, Alameda Pointe.' to \"A youth film festival will be held on February 25, 2006\nat the Auctions by the Bay, Bay Theatre, Alameda Point.\"\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: none\nNEW BUSINESS:\n1. Alameda Transit Advocates:\nMs. Susan Decker, a member of Alameda Transit Advocates (ATA), stated that the aims\nof ATA were convenient, reliable Public Transportation. Other aims are to get more bus\nshelters and more red curbs at bus stops. The ATA has quarterly meetings, the next one\nbeing next month. She handed out flyers describing their next meeting.\n2. Potential Project Locations for Pedestrian Plan:\nBarry Bergman, Program Specialist, Described the pedestrian plan that is just getting started\nand solicited input from the Commission on problem intersections. The Commission\nidentified the following intersections; 1- - Atlantic and Webster, 2- Central and Webster, 3-\nTaylor and Webster, 4- Lincoln and Park St., 5- Otis and Park St., 6- Central and Chestnut,\n7- Central and Page, 8- Broadway and Blanding, 9- Island Drive at the Safeway exit, 10-\nMcCartney and Ironwood, 11 - Webster and Buena Vista, 12- Atlantic between Webster and\nConstitution, 13- - Pacific and Constitution, 14 8th and Lincoln, 15- Constitution and Marina\nVillage Parkway.\n3. Social Services Human Relations Board:\nRob Bonta, President of the Social Services Human Relations Board, described the purpose\nof the Board. The Board communicates to the Council, public needs and interacts with\npublic programs. They work with Alameda Hospital, Recreation and Parks, police and the\nMastick", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2006-02-27", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nFebruary 27,\n2006 Minutes\nPage 2 of2\nSenior Center. He presented the results of a recent survey about percentages of families that\nhave members with disabilities and people that have stress anxieties and suffer depression.\nOLD BUSINESS:\nStatus of Accommodation Recommendations:\nChair Cooney will present report on providing costs of various Braille\ntranscription/sign language interpreters at the next Commission meeting.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS: none\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\n1. Commissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman read a courtesy notice that can be placed on cars that\npark on the sidewalks.\n2. Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook reported on the Alameda Point Collaborative\nmeeting and their plans for a bicycle repair program.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, March 27, 2006 in\nRoom 360, City Hall.\nSincerely,\nMatthew T. Naclerio\nPublic Works Director\nRobert Claire\nAssociate Civil Engineer\nRC:lc\nG:\\pubworks\\LT\\MCD Disability Committee/2006/227min.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-02-27", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, February 27, 2006\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:02 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMs. McNamara\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch, and\nMcNamara.\nMr. Lynch was absent from roll call, and arrived at the beginning of Item 4.\nMs. Mariani was absent.\nAlso present were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Supervising Planner Andrew\nThomas, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner II Emily\nPudell, Planning Intern Stefanie Hom, Acting Recreation and Parks Directors Dale Lillard.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of February 13, 2006.\nVice President Cook advised that page 7, paragraph 3, should be changed to read, \"Vice President\nCook believed there was beautiful public access along the shoreline.\"\nM/S Kohlstrand/McNamara to approve the minutes for the meeting of February 13, 2006, as\namended.\nAYES - 4 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (McNamara)\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Cunningham advised that he had received requests from the Board to pull the entire\nConsent Calendar and place it on the Regular Agenda.\nM/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to remove Items 7-A, 7-B and 7-C from the Consent Calendar\nand place them on the Regular Agenda.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nMs. Woodbury noted that a speaker had arrived after the item had been closed.\nM/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to reopen the public hearing.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nFebruary 27, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-02-27", "page": 2, "text": "AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMr. Jon Spangler invited the Board members to a forum on open government sponsored by the\nLeague of Women Voters and the other seven Leagues of Alameda County, to be held on Friday,\nMarch 17, in San Lorenzo. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of the State of California, would be the\nkeynote speaker. Sunshine laws and open government would be addressed during this forum.\nOn a personal note, Mr. Spangler noted that the bus shelter installed on Santa Clara did not shelter\nthe occupants during a driving rain earlier in the day. He added that people waiting for the bus were\nhuddled under the awning of the nearby church, and that the shelter desperately needed sides. He\nnoted that the metal bench was very cold, and the wind and rain went through the shelter. He hoped\nthose problems could be remedied.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nFebruary 27, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-02-27", "page": 3, "text": "7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A.\nPDA05-0007/MDR05-0350 - Park Street Landing - 2307 Blanding Avenue (EP).\nApplicant requests a Planned Development Amendment and Minor Design Review to\nmodify the existing sign program to allow for a change in the location of existing building\nsignage, including installation and establishment of three additional signs on an existing\nmonument sign. The site is located within the Park Street Landing Shopping Center in the\nC-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District. (Continued\nfrom the meeting of February 13, 2006.)\nM/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to remove Item 7-A from the Consent Calendar and place it\non the Regular Agenda.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMs. Pudell summarized the staff report, and recommended approval of this item.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThere were no speakers.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nVice President Cook noted that she had requested that this item be removed, and was concerned\nabout adding further signs on the pylon sign for this project. She believed that the pylon sign was not\nan attractive gateway sign, and had always found it to be unattractive. She also objected to the\nCigarettes Cheaper sign at that location.\nMs. McNamara concurred with Vice President Cook's comments and noted that the clock did not\nwork. She believed that contributed to the sign being an eyesore, and inquired whether it could be\nfixed and maintained.\nMs. Pudell noted that the conditions of approval state that the clock shall be repaired and maintained\nin operable condition; that would be enforceable through the resolution. She noted that the\nCigarettes Cheaper sign was not approved by staff, and that it could be brought to the applicant's\nattention to be removed. The allotment of the three signs on the pylon would only be allowable to\ntenants who lease more than 4800 square feet of floor area.\nPresident Cunningham echoed the concerns about the main pylon at the City's entrance, and would\nlike to limit the amount of signage at that location without penalizing the retail units.\nMr. Foley, applicant, agreed with the Board's concerns about the Alameda gateway. He noted that\nhe would be happy to update the sign, and agreed it was dated; he would also repair and maintain the\nclock. He did not like the sandwich board signs. He noted that Kragen would not go in the center\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nFebruary 27, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-02-27", "page": 4, "text": "unless the sign faced Park Street. He believed the signage program was dated.\nPresident Cunningham inquired whether approval of the pylon sign could be deleted and returned at\na later date. Ms. Pudell agreed with that request.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-08 to approve\na Planned Development Amendment and Minor Design Review to modify the existing sign program\nto allow for a change in the location of existing building signage. The approval of the pylon sign\nwould be withdrawn from this resolution, and staff would bring it before the Planning Board after\nworking further with the applicant.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nFebruary 27, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-02-27", "page": 5, "text": "7-B.\nFDP05-0004/DR05-0129- Barry Vial - 1951 Harbor Bay Parkway (DG). The applicant\nrequests approval of Final Development Plan and Major Design Review applications allowing\nthe construction of two new commercial buildings. Building 1 is a 28,392 sq. ft., approximately\n28 ft. high, two-story building. Building 2 is a 15,178 sq. ft., approximately 25 feet high single-\nstory building. The proposed use of these buildings is a mix of light industrial and professional\noffices. The two buildings would contain up to 13 separate units. Specific businesses that would\noccupy the buildings have not been identified at this time. The project site is zoned C-M-PD\nCommercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District.\nM/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to remove Item 7-B from the Consent Calendar and place it\non the Regular Agenda.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -\n0\nMr. Garrison summarized the staff report and recommended approval of this item.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThere were no speakers.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMs. Kohlstrand noted that she had requested that this item be pulled from the Consent Calendar. She\nhad visited the site and was concerned about the change in the character in the buildings and their\nrelationship to the street over a period of time. She believed that the original design concepts for\nHarbor Bay were being left behind, and that it was becoming more critical to maintain the public\nrelationship with the street and waterfront area. She noted that she had attended a workshop at the O\nClub with several other Board members that addressed design features for the FISC property. The\nmain comment was that there was too much parking surrounding that site. She did not want that kind\nof building and relationship of the buildings to the site plan at the other end of Alameda. She\nbelieved a better approach was required for this site.\nVice President Cook agreed with Ms. Kohlstrand's comments.\nPresident Cunningham believed that bringing the buildings closer to the sidewalk created an\noppressive feeling; he preferred a larger setback as long as there was a sufficient setback.\nMr. Garrison noted that this business park was approved in the 1980s, with the design philosophies\nof that time; he added that was the genesis of the broad setbacks. He noted that the landscaping was\nquite mature and other areas were more sparse. Staff would follow up with that situation through the\nPlanning Department; landscaping requirements would be used to provide a smooth transition from\nthe open space to the business park.\nMr. Steve McKeem, project architect, described the site layout and believed the visual relief of the\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nFebruary 27, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-02-27", "page": 6, "text": "setback was functional.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand whether the eleven parking spaces above the Code\nrequirement could be eliminated, Mr. McKeem noted that Harbor Bay had different parking\nrequirements than the City.\nMr. Garrison noted that the development agreement with the Harbor Bay Business Park had a\nrequirement that the regulations in effect at the time it was signed apply. The parking standards from\nthe 1980s would be the standards in effect, which in some cases require more parking standards than\nthe current standards. He believed it made sense to use the current parking standards, as stated in the\nstaff report.\nMs. Kohlstrand would be comfortable with the current standards, and would like the applicant to\nexplore replacing the additional parking spaces with landscaping.\nMs. Woodbury noted that she would be happy to work with the applicant in that regard. She added\nthat the Fire Department's EVA requirements must be included in the revised plan.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-09 to approve\napproval of Final Development Plan and Major Design Review applications allowing the construction of\ntwo new commercial buildings. Building 1 is a 28,392 sq. ft., approximately 28 ft. high, two-story\nbuilding. Building 2 is a 15,178 sq. ft., approximately 25 feet high single-story building. The proposed\nuse of these buildings is a mix of light industrial and professional offices. The two buildings would\ncontain up to 13 separate units. Specific businesses that would occupy the buildings have not been\nidentified at this time.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nFebruary 27, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-02-27", "page": 7, "text": "7-C.\nUse Permit UP06-0002, Major Design Review DR06-0007 - City of Alameda Recreation\nand Parks; 740 Central Avenue (SH). The applicant requests Use Permit and Design\nReview approval to allow the construction of a permanent 1,920 square-foot (40' by 48')\nrecreation building that will replace an existing temporary structure. Pursuant to AMC\nSubsection 30-4.19.b(3), a Use Permit is required for structures located on public and private\nland in the O (Open Space) District. The site is located at Washington Park within the O,\nOpen Space Zoning District.\nMs. Hom summarized the staff report and recommended approval of this item.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThere were no speakers.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nVice President Cook noted that she had pulled this item from the Consent Calendar, and was very\nconcerned about the design of this building. She did not believe it blended well with the beauty of\nthe parks, and the building looked like a temporary modular building.\nMs. Hom confirmed that it was a modular building, but that landscaping would surround the\nbuilding and that it would be setback 113 feet from the street.\nDale Lillard, Acting Recreation and Parks Director, noted that the Recreation Commission echoed\nBoard member Cook's concern about the design, and that they were very conscious of making it\nblend into the neighborhood and that it be similar to the other buildings in the area. A stucco exterior\nand pitched roof would dress the building up, and he confirmed that cost issues drove the modular\ndesign. The project is funded by a $300,000 State grant. He noted that the original rec. center had\nburned to the ground, and that it was not cost-effective to replace the original design.\nMs. McNamara was concerned about the design as seen from the street, and requested that it be\ndressed up. Mr. Lillard replied that the landscaping could be enhanced so it would not be as visible\nfrom the street.\nPresident Cunningham noted that this building lacked the usual articulation of structures in the area,\nand suggested wooden trellises or other embellishments without losing its functionality to the public.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding the life of such a building, Mr. Lillard replied\nthat properly maintained, it should last approximately 25 years. He noted that Bayport would not\ncontain modular buildings.\nMs. McNamara expressed concern that cost issues would drive the use of additional modular\nbuildings. Mr. Lillard replied that the joint use agreement with the School District would require\nmeeting their criteria, and that there were no plans to include modular buildings at Bayport.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nFebruary 27, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-02-27", "page": 8, "text": "Mr. Lynch noted that he did not care for this design, but that the needs of the community must be\nbalanced. He would have liked to see a stone fa\u00e7ade over cinderblock, and noted that this was an\nindictment of the City's financial status.\nVice President Cook believed the City Council should balance the expenditures of the funds, and\nthat the Planning Board's concerns should beg the question of design versus public services.\nMr. Lynch noted that there was similar discussion by Rec. and Parks, and that there was a\ntremendous need for services in the City. He agreed with Vice President Cook's concerns, but would\ndefer to the Rec. and Parks Commission with respect to the need for the functionality.\nMs. Kohlstrand agreed with Mr. Lynch's assessment, and believed additional landscaping treatment\nwould be helpful.\nPresident Cunningham believed this was a unique situation in that this was a City building, and\nadded that the City Council was the ultimate client. He suggested giving the City Council a chance\nto do a better job on this design.\nMs. Woodbury noted that she would work with the Rec. and Parks Department in achieving the\nBoard's design suggestions.\nM/S Kohlstrand/McNamara to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-10 to approve Use\nPermit and Design Review approval to allow the construction of a permanent 1,920 square-foot (40'\nby 48') recreation building that will replace an existing temporary structure. Pursuant to AMC\nSubsection 30-4.19.b(3), a Use Permit is required for structures located on public and private land in\nthe O (Open Space) District. Additional landscaping would be added around the building, and the\napplicant would work with the Planning Director to improve the design.\nAYES - 3 (Mariani absent); NOES - 2 (Cunningham, Cook); ABSTAIN - 0\nThe motion failed.\nVice President Cook noted that she would like to get more funding for a building with a 25-year life\ncycle.\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding the grant cycle, Mr. Lillard replied that the funded\nneed to be expended by 2008. He added that there was a demand for reasonable after-school care,\nwhich this building would help provide.\nPresident Cunningham would support the addition of other built structures to embellish the design,\nsuch as a trellis.\nMs. Woodbury noted that color and different window styles would add to the building. In response\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nFebruary 27, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-02-27", "page": 9, "text": "to Vice President Cook's question whether there would be time for bringing new drawings to the\nBoard, Ms. Woodbury believed that would be difficult.\nMr. Lillard noted that they hoped to use the building in the summer.\nM/S Kohlstrand/McNamara to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-10 to approve Use\nPermit and Design Review approval to allow the construction of a permanent 1,920 square-foot (40'\nby 48') recreation building that will replace an existing temporary structure. Pursuant to AMC\nSubsection 30-4.19.b(3), a Use Permit is required for structures located on public and private land in\nthe O (Open Space) District. The applicant would work with the Planning and Building Director\nregarding landscaping and additional articulation, and would return to the Planning Board if that\ncould not be achieved.\nAYES - 4 (Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (Cook); ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nFebruary 27, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-02-27", "page": 10, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\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\nbuildings would range in size from 13,946 to 16,952 sq. ft. in size, with a maximum height of 34\nft. The proposed use of these buildings is a mix of research and development facilities and\nprofessional offices. The three buildings would contain up to 24 separate units. Specific\nbusinesses that would occupy the buildings have not been identified at this time. The applicant\nalso requests approval of a Tentative Parcel Map/Condominium Plan allowing the conveyance\nof the 24 units to separate owners. (Continued from the meeting of February 13, 2006.)\nMr. Garrison presented the staff report, and recommended approval of this item.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Lynch regarding location of the parking, Ms. Harryman\nconfirmed that the language stated that the parking \"should be located at the rear or side of the\nproperty.\"\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Stuart Scheinholtz, Development Manager, Venture Corporation, 600 Miller Avenue, Mill\nValley, applicant, updated the Board on the progress of the project and noted that Phase I of this\nproject had 15 properties, 14 of which have been sold; 13 of those properties had closed. He noted\nthat these small businesses had previously been shut out of the Alameda real estate market and wish\nto have an ownership share in Alameda. He noted that the architecture was meant to blend into the\ncommunity, and wished to put Phase II into context.\nMr. Brock Grayson, project architect, Ware Malcomb, 5000 Executive Parkway, San Ramon,\ndisplayed the proposed project on the overhead screen and described its features. He noted that the\nview to the Bay was a very important component of the design.\nMr. Jason Cheng, 346 Anderson Road, Alameda, spoke in support of this project. He noted that he\nwas a co-owner of one of the units in Phase I, and added that the ability to own their own property\ngives him freedom and evidence of an increased level of success in the business community. He was\nhappy to not be under the control of a landlord, and added that the views were very attractive. He\nbelieved the applicant has tried to maximize the views and give the owners something to be proud of.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara how the mature landscaping and the bay views could be\nreconciled, Mr. Grayson replied that while it was tricky, they tried to achieve both by determining\nthe value to the buyers. They wished to make sure they were welcome in the City and followed the\ndesign guidelines. All owners have a second floor with unobstructed views, and landscaping\nscreened the first floor.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that during her site visit, most of the ground floor blinds were drawn,\nwhile the second floor blinds were open; she wondered if the business owners tried to provide their\nown screening from the parking lot. Mr. Grayson noted that parking at the front of the building was\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nFebruary 27, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-02-27", "page": 11, "text": "an important element in getting people into the building.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that while the applicant stated the design was a compromise, she did not\nnotice a difference from the last design. Mr. Grayson noted that it was a compromise between the\nsome Board Members' wishes that the buildings face the street, and others' wishes to face the back.\nHe added that they sold the parking spaces, which were identified for the buyers; he noted that was a\nmajor marketing advantages for the buyers.\nVice President Cook noted that this project was very good for the buyers, but was unsure whether\nthis was the best project for the City of Alameda. She complimented the applicant on the\npresentation, but did believe that changes could be made to reflect the Planning Board's comments.\nShe would like the site plan to be less intensive, and did not see any changes since the last meeting.\nShe noted that the location of the employee area was of concern to her, and she was unmoved from\nher previous position.\nMr. Grayson displayed the slide identifying the sitting area on the southwest side of Building C, and\nadded that a secondary area could be added closer to Harbor Bay.\nMr. Scheinholtz stated that this was the 20th iteration of this design. He noted that some of the issues\nraised by the Board could not be accommodated according to the Fire Department.\nMember Lynch believed the bigger issue was the City's concern about a work plan as it relates to\ndesign review for the business park.\nPresident Cunningham noted that his comments on the previous project stand, and he preferred the\ncurrent proposal. He could support this proposal, and noted that Phase I was a pre-existing condition.\nHe noted that in Scheme D, it was better to have an environment captured by all the buildings than\ntrying to have a hodge-podge of buildings with no relationship between Phase I and Phase II. He\nbelieved that approach produced a more cohesive master plan. He added that the view of Alameda\nfrom Oakland was of a greenbelt of trees, and that a green tree-lined shoreline would be the view of\nthis part of Alameda. He understood the applicant's concerns about emergency access and the Fire\nDepartment's reservations about outlets at North Loop and Harbor Bay.\nMember Kohlstrand supported Vice President Cook's statements, and could not support the site plan\nas proposed.\nVice President Cook believed that further work could be done with the relationship between the two\nphases to reach a true compromise.\nMr. Grayson noted that people using the promenade would see parking when looking at the building,\nand understood that was one of the Board's main objections. He believed the contextual evidence\nprovided at this meeting showed the lanes of Harbor Bay Parkway, the greenbelt and the building's\nlandscaping. He believed it was unlikely that a pedestrian along the waterfront would not be\nparticularly upset about seeing the building's parking because of the berm and the hedging. They\nwished to maximize the use for the buyers, who would spend 10-12 hours a day in this building. He\nunderstood Vice President Cook's concerns about the waterfront views.\nPresident Cunningham believed pitched roofs and more articulation would improve the appearance\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nFebruary 27, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-02-27", "page": 12, "text": "of the buildings, especially in relation to the waterfront.\nMr. Grayson noted that while people use the waterfront for amenities, he emphasized that this was a\nbusiness park, albeit an attractive one. He noted that this was not a retail center.\nMember Kohlstrand expressed concern that there were no other amenities for the employees, and did\nnot intend to require the applicant to add retail. She noted that how the site relates to the waterfront,\nand how the site itself functions, were very important. She compared this site with the previous\nHarbor Bay project discussed by the Planning Board, and added that there was more of a landscape\ntreatment, with parking tucked around the back. She noted that this was a suburban environment for\nthe business park, and believed there was a better SO in providing building surrounded by parking.\nShe believed there could be a more harmonious relationship between the buildings and the green\nspace.\nMr. Grayson respectfully disagreed with Member Kohlstrand's last comment.\nMs. Woodbury suggested that if more landscaping around the lower floor offices would help the\nBoard approve the project, staff could work with the applicant in achieving that goal.\nVice President Cook encouraged the applicants to strike a compromise with respect to the areas of\nconcern expressed by the Board. She preferred Plan C, but would like more frontage along Harbor\nBay Parkway; she liked the setback on that plan.\nMember Lynch noted that he liked Plans C and D, and added that this was not a retail space. He\nacknowledged that this item may need to go to City Council to be resolved.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Lynch regarding the required quorum, Ms. Harryman replied\nthat if one of the Board members brought a motion to approve the project, and it was defeated 2-3,\nthe applicant would have the ability to appeal to Council within 10 days.\nM/S Lynch/Cunningham to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-11 to deny Final\nDevelopment Plan and Major Design Review applications allowing the construction of three new two-\nstory commercial buildings. The buildings would range in size from 13,946 to 16,952 sq. ft. in size, with\na maximum height of 34 ft. The proposed use of these buildings is a mix of research and development\nfacilities and professional offices. The three buildings would contain up to 24 separate units. Specific\nbusinesses that would occupy the buildings have not been identified at this time. The applicant also\nrequests approval of a Tentative Parcel Map/Condominium Plan allowing the conveyance of the 24 units\nto separate owners.\nAYES - 2 (Mariani absent); NOES - 3 (Cook, Kohlstrand, McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0\nThe motion failed.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nFebruary 27, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-02-27", "page": 13, "text": "8-B.\nNorthern Waterfront General Plan Amendment (AT). A public hearing to obtain public\ncomments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluating the potential\nenvironmental impacts of the proposed Northern Waterfront General Plan amendments. The\nNorthern Waterfront area includes a number of properties generally located along the\nOakland/Alameda Estuary between Sherman Street, Grand Street, and Buena Vista Avenue.\nMr. Thomas summarized this staff report, and noted that comments were being received on the Draft\nEIR circulated on February 1, 2006. The public comment period will close on March 30, 2006.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Barbara Kerr, President, Northside Association, 1822 Bay, wished to address the areas adjacent\nto her residential area. She expressed concern about the Pacific Storage site, and added that the\nconcentrated housing as envisioned by the Northern Waterfront Specific Plan committee had become\nthe site for the storage company. She noted that senior housing had been envisioned for that area,\nand added that a major transportation hub was located at the corner of Webster and Atlantic. She\nrequested a copy of the final minutes of the Northern Waterfront Specific Plan meeting. She added\nthat the Association strongly supported the development of streets allowing for parking on both\nsides. She advised that she would submit her written comments.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that on page 4B-1, the paragraph relating to population should be re-\nexamined. She noted that it stated, \"Between 1990 and 2000, the number of households in Alameda\ndecreased by 1,148, or by less than 4% when compared to the 1990 base of 29,078 households.\" She\nnoted that it also stated that the 2000 year base was 30,226; she believed that was an increase, rather\nthan a decline. She noted that under the Noise Element, the noise mitigation will be taken into\naccount on an individual project basis. She knew there were recommended guidelines in the Plan\nthat discourage sound walls unless absolutely necessary; she wanted to leave room for other options\nand design treatments such as expanded setbacks.\nMr. Thomas anticipated that there would be considerable discussion about this proposed policy. He\nnoted that the City had run into problems in the past (such as the Catellus project on Atlantic), based\non the current General Plan policy, it was interpreted that front yards were active recreational spaces\nand can be exposed to a certain amount of noise, but backyards should not be. He noted that the City\nhoped to make design decisions to protect yard spaces, and to put the sound wall issue to rest.\nMember Lynch noted that he did not agree with the last section of the Employment Section B, and\nadded that he did not fault ABAG for the numbers provided by the City, although he may not agree\nwith the methodology. He believed that there should be a statement that the employment numbers\nwere not close to reality, and did not want them to affect the jobs-housing numbers in the future.\nPresident Cunningham agreed with Member Lynch's statement, especially with regard to the median\nhome price being listed as $332,000; he wished that would be true. He did not know what the impact\nthese incorrect numbers would have on requirements placed on the City with respect to affordable\nhousing; he advised that current numbers be used.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding additional marinas, Mr. Thomas\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nFebruary 27, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-02-27", "page": 14, "text": "replied that two additional marinas were being proposed on the other two sides of the Encinal\nTerminal site. An additional marina plan was approved by the Planning Board about four years ago\njust for the Alaska Packers. That permit has since expired, and Mr. Wong was considering\nresubmitting with a different configuration. He noted that the Board will hear the recommendation\nby the Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee (Policy ET-11, page 12), stating that there should\nnot be any berths along the northern edge of Encinal Terminals.\nMember Lynch believed that the City did need marinas, and that they were a tremendous asset to the\nCity. He noted that there were many vistas around the Island with unobstructed views, and that\nmarinas at this location would enhance the experience in Alameda.\nNo action was taken.\n9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nMs. Woodbury advised that the League of Women Voters communication had been distributed to\nthe Board members.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that there had been no further meetings.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nmember Mariani).\nMs. Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board member\nKohlstrand).\nMs. Kohlstrand advised that there had been no further meetings.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nFebruary 27, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-02-27", "page": 15, "text": "12.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATION:\nMs. Woodbury advised that Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft had been nominated to the Planning Board at the\nlast City Council meeting, and would be accepting the nomination at the next City Council meeting.\nMs. Woodbury noted that the land tour schedule was still being developed, and that two consecutive\nFridays were being considered. She added that two different tours or a Saturday tour were also being\nconsidered.\nPresident Cunningham noted that this had been Ms. Harryman's last meeting, and thanked her for\nher service to Alameda.\nMs. Woodbury advised that Donna Mooney would be working with the Planning Board in Ms.\nHarryman's place.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand whether the Planning Board members were\nrequired to go to a work session related to Planning Boards that were compensated for their\nmeetings, Ms. Woodbury advised that she would check into that issue and report back.\nPresident Cunningham clarified that none of the Board members were compensated.\nMs. McNamara inquired about the status of the Bridgeside project, and added that it was going very\nslowly. Ms. Woodbury did not have the current status available, but knew that the site was very wet.\n13.\nADJOURNMENT:\n9:37 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nCathy Woodbury Secretary\nPlanning & Building Department\nThese minutes were approved at the April 10, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and\nvideo taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nFebruary 27, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf"}