{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-04-10", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, April 10, 2006\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:06 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMs. Kohlstrand\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice-President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft,\nKohlstrand, Lynch and McNamara.\nBoard member Mariani was absent.\nAlso present were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Douglas Garrison, Planner III,\nContract Planner Chandler Lee, Doug Cole, Development Services, Executive Assistant Latisha\nJackson.\nPresident Cunningham welcomed Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft to the Planning Board.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of February 27, 2006.\nVice President Cook advised that at the bottom of page 8, the motion was not approved unanimously,\nand that it failed. She advised that at the bottom of page 9, the vote was not unanimous.\nPresident Cunningham noted that the motion on page 12 was to deny, and there were two \"Ayes\" and\nthree \"Noes.\" He believed that three people supported the denial, and that he and Mr. Lynch voted\nagainst the denial. Ms. Woodbury stated that the motion was for approval, and it failed. She noted\nthat the language would be changed for clarification.\nM/S Cook/McNamara to approve the minutes for the meeting of February 27, 2006, as amended.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Ashcraft)\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nApril 10, , 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-04-10", "page": 2, "text": "7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A.\nPDA05-0007 - Park Street Landing - 2307 Blanding Avenue (EP). Redesign of the\nexisting monument sign, per the request of the Planning Board. Three signs would be\nestablished on the existing monument sign. The site is located within the Park Street Landing\nShopping Center in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning\nDistrict. (Staff requests continuance to the meeting of April 24, 2006.)\nM/S Kohlstrand/Ashcraf and unanimous to continue Item 7-A to the meeting of April 24, 2006.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nApril 10, , 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-04-10", "page": 3, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\nFDP06-0001 /DR06-0004 - Exchange Support Services, Inc. - 1700 Harbor Bay Parkway\n(DG). The applicant requests approval of Final Development Plan and Major Design Review\napplications allowing the construction of a new 105 room, three-story hotel. Guest rooms will not\ninclude kitchen / cooking facilities. The building includes approximately 59,000 sq. ft. of floor area.\nTypical building height would be approximately 34 ft. with some parapets extending up to a\nmaximum height of 42 ft. The site is located in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned\nDevelopment Zoning District\nMr. Garrison summarized the staff report, and recommended approval of this project.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand whether the future building pad was included in the\n48% landscaping, Mr. Garrison confirmed that was true.\nMember Kohlstrand noted she was disappointed to that there were no plans for development of this\nportion of the site, and that she had asked for amenities on Harbor Bay Parkway. She inquired when\nsome other amenities may be seen on this site. Mr. Garrison noted that the applicants could address\nthat question.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. John Manderfeld, Marin Management, Inc., hotel operator, noted that they planned to assess the\nquestion of amenities following completion of the construction. He noted that they would know what\nthe demands of the area would be, and that they were examining small restaurants, caf\u00e9s, and coffee\nvendor service. He added that they would need to find a suitable tenant. He noted that the Hampton\nInn brand was part of the Hilton Corporation, and that there would be a \"shop,\" which would sell\nsmall food items that guests could prepare in their rooms. Complimentary breakfast is also included,\nand no lunch or dinner service was included.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Lynch whether there were FARs on this site, Mr. Garrison\nreplied that there were not in this part of Harbor Bay Parkway.\nPresident Cunningham noted that the conditions mentioned locating trees in an effort to screen\nasphalted areas. He noted that the neighboring property (1650) instigated a methodology where there\nwas one tree for every two parking spaces. He would be interested to see if some of the trees between\nthe sidewalk and the building be placed in landscaped areas within the parking area instead (one tree\nfor four cars).\nMr. Manderfeld believed that was an option, and that the hotel would have more parking spaces than\nrequired. The inclusion of any restaurant would use all those spaces. He noted that the addition of trees\nwould reduce the number of parking spaces. They examined the sun exposure, and the rear of the building\nwould get most of the sun from the south and the west.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nApril 10, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-04-10", "page": 4, "text": "The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMember Lynch would like more vegetation to be added, and liked the idea of indigenous plants.\nM/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-12 to approve\nFinal Development Plan and Major Design Review applications allowing the construction of a new 105\nroom, three-story hotel. Guest rooms will not include kitchen / cooking facilities. The building includes\napproximately 59,000 sq. ft. of floor area. Typical building height would be approximately 34ft. with some\nparapets extending up to a maximum height of 42 ft. The changes to the landscaping plan would be\nincluded, which would increase the number and/or size of the trees in the parking area to better screen the\nbuilding.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPresident Cunningham called for a five-minute break.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nApril 10, , 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-04-10", "page": 5, "text": "8-B.\nCatellus Study Session (AT). A presentation and discussion of proposed changes to the\nCatellus Mixed Use Development Project. The study session provides an opportunity for\nPlanning Board and public input into the proposed project design early in the project design\nprocess. The project site is located on the north side of the College of Alameda adjacent to\nthe Oakland Estuary. No action will be taken on the proposed project at this meeting.\nMr. Lee presented the staff report. Noted that two community workshops were held, and that the\nsuggestions from the public were summarized in the table distributed to the Board. He introduced the\napplicant team.\nMr. Dan Marcus made a PowerPoint presentation, detailing the project. He noted that amenities such\nas outdoor dining, playgrounds, and bike and walking paths. The January workshop made it apparent\nto them that the waterfront was special for people of all ages. He described the site layout and\nsurrounding uses. Their intention was to create an exciting mixed use development, with a special\nwaterfront use. He noted that both the January and February workshops were well attended and\nproductive. He answered the three predominant questions they answered at the workshop:\n1.\nWhy is Catellus proposing to make this change?\nHe noted that the site was entitled for 1.3 million square feet of office development. There is a lack of\noffice development, and a demand for such; 300-400,000 square feet of office could be absorbed over\nthe next five to ten years, but 1.3 million square feet of office development must be spread out over\ndecades. He added that there was a strong demand for residential and retail development, and noted\nthat the ability for students to have nearby jobs will attract more students. He believed that\nworkplaces near homes will also be beneficial. Catellus also intended to make the waterfront a special\nsite.\n2.\nHow will our proposed retail impact other retail in Alameda?\nHe noted that the City sponsored a citywide retail forum to address this question, and that they met\nwith WABA regularly. They intended to make this project a positive influence on the Webster Street,\nand Alameda as a whole. They hoped to link their project with BART. They have also continued\ndiscussions with APCP, PSBA and GABA to ensure their project fit in well.\n3.\nWhat are the benefits of the proposed development?\nHe noted that they discussed creating a special place on the waterfront, which would be a great\nbenefit to the City. He noted that people who have toured the area, with its old warehouses, were\nsurprised to see the blight. He believed there would be huge economic benefits to the City, and that\nthe new retail would generate sales tax revenues, as well as property tax revenues. They estimated\nthat the annual property and sales tax revenues would be well over $2 million. The City would access\nover $20 million out of the project. In the old arrangement, the City would have been responsible for\nall the building demolition and infrastructure development; in the new arrangement, that risk has been\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nApril 10, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-04-10", "page": 6, "text": "shifted from the City to Catellus.\nMs. Karen Alschuler, SMWM, described the details of the plan and displayed the site plan on the\noverhead screen. She noted that having a waterfront site brought with it the responsibility to treat it\nwith respect.\nMr. Prakash Pintel, SMWM, displayed the plan and described its layout, scope and major\ncomponents. He noted that they intended to connect Alameda to its waterfront. He noted that a\nhealth club would be a good use on the waterfront, with outdoor jogging paths along the waterfront.\nThey favored an integrated transit stop system to serve both the housing and retail uses, and to bring\npeople to the waterfront. He displayed a water taxi system, similar to that used in Vancouver.\nMs. Karen Alschuler, SMWM, discussed the waterfront as a way to bring the mixed uses together.\nShe displayed the proposed plan, including new office buildings, the park and the public spaces as they\nrelate to the water views. Their goal was to change this site from derelict to destination.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. George Phillips, 901 Park Street, spoke in support of this project. He noted that Catellus has\nbeen a good friend and neighbor in Alameda, and believed they worked diligently to be sure the\nnonprofit organizations were involved in this project. He asked the Board to consider the parking\nconsiderations and open space.\nMs. Lucy Gigli, President, Bike Alameda, noted that they had worked closely with the East Bay\nBicycle Coalition in looking at this project. They would like the Board to use this project as a way to\nreduce the demand of auto traffic by closing the current gap for bicycles and pedestrians between the\nWest End of Alameda and Oakland. She noted that the bicycle access for that short distance was in\nthe dirty, noisy Posey Tube with a very dangerous and narrow path. She believed this project would\nopen up the opportunity to take the water taxi concept a step further, and would create transportation\naccess for pedestrians and bicyclists.\nMr. Randy Renthschler expressed his appreciation for the efforts by the Board and the applicant. He\nnoted that other developments in Alameda, such as the theater, had a strong sense of\ncompartmentalization that did not connect to the rest of the town. He believed this project did\nconnect to the rest of Alameda. He believed that Alameda should be for something, and that in the\npast, it had been for the Base. He noted that Alameda was unique because of its flatness, making it\ngood for bicycling. He added that some of the best windsurfing and kiteboarding in the country could\nbe found in Alameda; soccer was also a big draw in Alameda. He believed the theme of outdoors\nactivity was reflected in this plan. He noted that he was part of the Metropolitan Transportation\nCommission, and would be willing to make his offices open to the developers.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nApril 10, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-04-10", "page": 7, "text": "Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why Catellus did not propose this particular project in the first place.\nMr. Manderfeld noted that Catellus competed with a number of developers to look at the\nredevelopment of this overall site. At that time, the focus was on creating a jobs/housing balance and\ncommercial uses; there had been some retail uses sprinkled in the original project. The original\nproposal was before the dot-com crash, and there had been significant interest in office and R&D\nuses. He noted that the past chair of the EDC had commented to him that plans were meant to\nchange. The community has since expressed its interest in more retail.\nMember Kohlstrand disclosed that she reviewed the proposal with the developers.\nMember [Ezzy Ashcraft] disclosed that she met with the developer to review the proposal, but not at\nthe same time as Member Kohlstrand.\nMember Kohlstrand believed there were many positive aspects to this plan, especially the integration\nof varied land uses. She liked the idea of Fifth Street being used as a main spine that oriented towards\nJack London Square in Oakland. She believed that having Mitchell Mosely Avenue and Tinker\nAvenue developed as major east-west streets on the property was a positive aspect. She expressed\nconcern about the uses being spread apart. She noted that the predominant use was parking, and\nbelieved that concern was expressed at the workshops as well. She believed the very low density was\na constraint that resulted in a lot of parking. She would rather see land reserved and not developed\nthan having all the surface parking area. She would like better integration of the uses.\nVice President Cook agreed with Member Kohlstrand's comments, and supported the mixed use\nconcept over the office projects. She would like to see best practices for waterfront development\nimplemented for this project, and complimented SMWM on their involvement in this project. She\nbelieved the site was overly constrained, including the influence of Measure A; she would like to see\nmore diversity in residential uses on this site. She would prefer a greater mix of retail and housing\nalong the waterfront that would enliven the site during non-business hours. She liked the Fifth Street\ndevelopments, and believed it was an exciting notion. She expressed concern that the bioswale was\nnot connected back to the City, and that it seemed to stop at Tinker. She liked the mix of retail, office\nand housing along Fifth Street and would like to see the residential pushed as close to the water as\npossible. She liked the amount of open space in the project. She wished that Alameda had a true civic\nopen space where fireworks could be seen, and other civic gatherings could take place.\nMember McNamara inquired which building was envisioned to be a ferry building. Mr. Manderfeld\nnoted that the building closest to the waterfront could serve in that capacity, and could have an iconic\nstructure to it. He noted that having water in the public space was very important.\nMember McNamara shared the concern about the parking issue, and noted that was a lot of open\nspace for that designation. She would support some sort of parking structure that was visually\nappealing. She was also concerned about the traffic flow onto and off the site, and believed expanding\nMitchell Mosely Avenue would help.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nApril 10, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-04-10", "page": 8, "text": "Mr. Lee noted that the City was responsible for building Tinker Avenue, and that preliminary designs\nhad been created. The EIR for the project examined the site in great detail, and more information\nshould be available by the end of April.\nMember Ashcraft echoed Member McNamara's concern about the many parking spaces. Mr. Lee\nnoted that the Master Plan contained considerable flexibility regarding the parking lot. He noted that\nthe current parking numbers reflected the City's requirements in a typical development.\nMember Lynch agreed with Mr. Lee's comments, and believed the City's planning documents need to\nbe revisited to reflect current conditions. He believed the site could be even denser, and that the City\nshould look at the interpretation and application of Measure A. He believed that should be rethought,\nand believed there was a difference of opinion within the legal community. He complimented the\napplicant on a job well done.\nPresident Cunningham echoed the previous comments on housing and parking, and agreed with the\nother comments. He understood that the current live/work ordinances do not make an allowance for\nthis use. He would like the City to tackle the issue of sustainability, and believed an ordinance\naddressing sustainability should be in place. He noted that such a large development would have a\nlarge impact on the community, which he believed should be mitigated as much as possible. He would\nlike to see the phasing plan for this construction. Mr. Lee noted that the Master Plan contained\nexhaustive detail on this project.\nMember Lynch believed the idea of the health club over a retail space was a terrible idea because it\nwas not children-friendly or user-friendly. He would like to see a more family-friendly health club on\nthis site.\nMember Lynch believed this would be the perfect place for fireworks displays, and noted that the\nMarin Community Foundation, housed at the former Hamilton Air Force Base, was stunning. He\nbelieved it was an excellent example of adaptive use.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the conceptualized site layout and\nrezoning, Mr. Lee replied that the goal was to develop an illustrative site plan where the footprint\nwould be as accurate as possible without knowing the actual occupants.\nVice President Cook would like the Board to have the ability to push for more vertical mixed use.\nMr. Doug Cole, Development Services, described the rationale behind the general layout of the retail\nand residential uses. He noted that the FISC site had a covenant restricting residential uses on it\nbecause of environmental issues.\nMr. Lee noted that staff supported vertical integration, and requested that the Board ask as many\nquestions for suggestions as possible as early in the process as possible.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nApril 10, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-04-10", "page": 9, "text": "Member Kohlstrand would like to see more density on this site, and for the amount of parking surface\nto be reduced. She would like further research into a possible parking structure. She would like a\nbetter connection to the rest of Alameda and further examination of use of the Tubes. She intended\nto convey her belief that the City could make better use of the frontage road, the name of which she\ndid not know, at Mariner Square in terms of providing access to the site.\nVice President Cook agreed with Member Lynch's opinion regarding the health club and would rather\nsee a residential use there. She would like to understand the water taxi issue better, and wanted\nto\nensure they worked well. She expressed concern about the Coast Guard housing on this site, and their\nconcerns for security versus the City's plan for integration into the rest of the City. She believed there\nwas an opportunity with this project to improve the residential access to the waterfront, and to\nimprove the Coast Guard housing.\nMr. Lee noted that they had discussed potential connections into that site.\nVice President Cook was concerned about the schism between affordable housing and the million\ndollars homes, and while the 25% affordable housing allotment for Alameda was commendable, she\nwould like to see a more seamless integration of the different housing types in Alameda. Mr. Lee\nnoted that Measure A allowed for some flexibility for attached homes within a certain limit. In\naddition, part of the term sheet did require 25% affordable housing.\nMember Lynch would like to see a copy of the 2000 Master Plan agreement. He noted that with a\nnew City Manager and Planning Director, he believed that the introduction of a new document such\nas this should be put into context with the past Master Plan. He was not open to reexamining the\npolicy of fiscal neutrality, and believed it should remain a core piece going forward.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Lynch whether a General Plan Amendment would be done, Mr.\nLee replied that the project required a General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, rezoning,\ndevelopment agreement amendment and a DDA amendment.\nMember Lynch noted that he would like to get a variety of housing on the site at different price\npoints.\nPresident Cunningham noted that he would like to continue to get information about the design\ndirection of this project.\nMr. Lee noted that the project website address was www.alamedalanding.co\nMember Lynch noted that this was an expensive endeavor on the planning side, and would not like to\nsee the plans not square with the City Council in the event they were thinking only of the 2000\nagreement. He suggested that staff check in with the City Council based upon what had been said at\nthis meeting.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nApril 10, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-04-10", "page": 10, "text": "Ms. Woodbury noted that would be discussed by the Executive Management Team, and that would\nbe brought to the City Manager to bring that thought forward.\nNo action taken on this item.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nApril 10, , 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-04-10", "page": 11, "text": "9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None\n10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that there were no further meetings since the last report.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember Mariani).\nMember Mariani was not in attendance to present this item.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member\nKohlstrand).\nMember Kohlstrand advised that she was unable to attend the last meeting, and would report to the\nBoard at a later time.\n11.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n9:40 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nCatay Woodbury\nCathy Woodbury Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThese minutes were approved at the May 8, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio\nand video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nApril 10, , 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf"}