{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-05-08", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, May 8, 2006\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:03 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nVice President Cook\n3.\nROLL CALL: President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft,\nKohlstrand, Lynch and McNamara.\nBoard member Mariani was absent.\nAlso present were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Assistant City\nAttorney Donna Mooney, Planner II Dennis Brighton, Planner II Emily Pudell.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of April 10, 2006\n(Continued from the meeting of April 24, 2006.)\nVice President Cook noted that during the discussion of Item 8-B (Catellus), she\nexpressed her concern that the row of offices acted in some sense as a wall to the\nwaterfront, and that it was important to have a range of types of uses and a different\nconfiguration.\nVice President Cook advised that on page 8, paragraph 1, she would like to clarify her\nstatement, \"She liked the amount of open space in the project.\" She liked the overall\namount of open space in the project, but had a question about the appropriate size for the\nplaza at the foot of 5th Street. She anticipated seeing examples of different public plazas\nand public spaces in order to understand the size of that plaza in relation to the rest of the\nsite.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Ezzy Ashcraft to approve the minutes for the meeting of April 10, 2006,\nas amended.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMinutes for the meeting of April 24, 2006.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 10, paragraph 5, should be changed to\nread: \"She noted that three patients per hour day did not mean they would be parked there\nall day.\"\nM/S Kohlstrand/Lynch and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of April\n24, 2006, as amended.\nAYES - 4 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 2 (Cook, McNamara)\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nMay 8, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-05-08", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A.\nUse Permit UP06-0001 - Sam & Michelle Koka - 650 Pacific Avenue (DB).\nThe applicant requests a Use Permit renewal to allow the operation of an\nautomotive repair use. A Use Permit is required for automobile repair shops in\nspecific locations within the CC (Community Commercial) Zoning District.\n(Continued from the meeting of April 24, 2006.)\nM/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-\n16 to approve a Use Permit renewal to allow the operation of an automotive repair use. A\nUse Permit is required for automobile repair shops in specific locations within the CC\n(Community Commercial) Zoning District.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nMay 8, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-05-08", "page": 3, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\nUP06-0004 - Italo Calpestri, AIA for Dwight Jennings - 776 Lincoln Avenue\n(EP). The applicant is requesting approval of a Use Permit to establish a dental\noffice in an existing single family home and to add approximately 500 square feet\nof office space. The property is located within an R-5 (General Residential)\nZoning District. (Continued from the meeting of April 24, 2006.)\nMs. Pudell summarized the staff report, and wished to clarify that the use was for an\northodontic office. Staff recommended approval of this item.\nPresident Cunningham advised that nine speaker slips had been received.\nM/S Lynch/McNamara to reduce the speakers' time to three minutes.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nThe public hearing was opened.\nDwight and Carmen Jennings, applicants, noted that they received a copy of the petition and\ntried to contact as many signers as possible. Mrs. Jennings noted that they tried to address\ntheir concerns about parking, hazardous waste, security and property value. They had\nconsulted a long-time real estate appraiser in Alameda, who wrote a letter regarding R-5\nzones and whether the mixed uses in those zones negatively affects property values. She\ndistributed that letter to the Board.\nMr. Steve Gibson, 1531 A Eighth Street, spoke in opposition to this project. He noted that\nhe worked nights and like to relax quietly in his backyard. He believed this proposed use\nwould disturb his quiet use of his property. He expressed concern about the traffic impacts\nfrom the proposed use.\nMr. David Ammo spoke on behalf of his grandmother, who owns four parcels near the\nproject site. He expressed concern about the generated medical waste, as well as storage of\nflammable and nonflammable gases used. He noted that the parking on the street was\nalready severely impacted.\nMr. Mark Severs, 766 Haight, expressed concern about the parking impacts on the street and\nnoted that it was already difficult to park. He did not believe a mixed use neighborhood\nwould retain its value.\nMr. Brian Stewart noted that an additional petition had been signed, and did not agree with\nstaff's rendition of the staff report, which favored this project. He spoke with many people\nwithin 300 feet of the site, and stated that almost no one wanted this project. He added that\nthey wanted this area to remain residential. He noted that he had left the petition at the\nPlanning Department, and was concerned that it had not been seen by the Planning Board.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nMay 8, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-05-08", "page": 4, "text": "capacity, especially when repair or sales and service people came to this office. He noted\nthat several Internet listings identified Dr. Jennings as a dentist, not an orthodontist. He\nexpressed concern about security during the evening and weekend hours. He was concerned\nabout the precedent this zoning change would set. He submitted a letter written by his wife,\nwho could not attend.\nMr. Italo Calpestri, project architect, noted that he picked up a change suggested by Board\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft to make a connecting pathway from the handicapped accessible\nspace through the terrace to the handicapped ramp. He noted that the residential character of\nthe building would change, and that a maintenance contractor would take care of the\nlandscaping. He noted that security was important for the owners and neighbors, and that\nelectronic surveillance would be employed. He noted that changing the building zoning\nwould not involve changes in the building that would be apparent from the street. The\nproposal including providing off-street parking spaces in accordance with the ordinance. He\nnoted that nearby market would be open on the weekends. He believed the amount of traffic\ngenerated by the applicant's use would be minuscule, and asked the Board to support this\napplication.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that Dr. Jennings practiced alone, had three office\nassistants, and saw an average of three patients per hour. With some overlap of patients and\nthe occasional emergency, she believed there would be one or two cars searching for other\nparking. She recalled one resident stating that riders of the \"O\" bus parked on their street,\nand did not believe that seemed fair. She suggested that Parking Enforcement investigate\nthose occurrences, and believed this use had a minimal parking impact. She believed this\nwas a fairly noisy location to begin with, with respect to traffic noise. She noted that\ndecreased privacy had been cited on several occasions, and one speaker stated that he slept\nduring the day because of his night work. She noted that landscaping and fencing was\nintended to soften the noise. She was concerned about the decrease of property values, and\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nMay 8, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-05-08", "page": 5, "text": "spoke with two experienced Realtors in Alameda about this issue. She was told that in\ngeneral, locating a nonresidential use in a residential area could lower property values, but it\ndepended on the type of use and the neighborhood. Each Realtor cited examples of many\nmedical uses located on Santa Clara Avenue, and that property values in those areas were\nvery strong. She believed that maintenance of the property was more important that the\nlocation of the use. She complimented the body of work created by the project architect, and\nbelieved it would be performed to a high standard. She noted that patients would not\npatronize a medical use that was not well maintained.\nMember McNamara noted that it was important to respect the current homeowners and\nresidents in this neighborhood, and that they had a major intersection to deal with.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that she, along with Member Mariani, had expressed concerns\nabout introducing a commercial or office use on this particular block. She noted that she\ndrove along Santa Clara, Central and Lincoln earlier in the day, and was concerned about\nadditional traffic in this area. She had always advocated for mixed use, but did not believe\nthis was an appropriate site for this use.\nVice President Cook did not generally have a problem with mixed use, and added that she\nlived in an R-4 zone. She expressed concern about traffic in and out of the site, and\nsuggested that locating this use in a neighborhood with wider streets and less existing noise\nand congestion; for that reason, she opposed this project.\nMember Lynch commended Ms. Pudell on her staff report, which followed the law, had\nthorough analysis, and accurate and correct citations. He suggested that critics of the staff\nreport look more deeply into planning law and what the role of the planners are. He stated\nthat planners did not support or not support a particular project, but to follow a specific\nformat and to apply the law correctly.\nPresident Cunningham wished to identify what an R-5 zone allowed, and noted that it was\nthe Board's job to hear the public's concerns. He did not hear support from the neighbors for\nthis project.\nMember Lynch noted that this use had been contemplated by previous Boards and City\nCouncil, which was why it was in the City Codes and planning documents. He noted that in\nthis regard, the neighbors asserted the sense of the neighborhood that did not square with the\nplanning documents.\nVice President Cook complimented Ms. Pudell on the staff report, and added that she was\nnot in favor of this project.\nMs. Jennings noted that she understood the neighbors' and Board members' concerns; she\nnoted that the General Plan identified the R-5 as not being strictly residential. She noted that\na variety of permitted uses within the R-5 zone that could impact residences, such as noise\nand security. She believed the staff report identified the mitigations for the impacts, and\nadded that the property had been vacant since December 15, 2005. She noted that there had\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nMay 8, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-05-08", "page": 6, "text": "been no security issues. She noted that there would be no radioactive waste materials,\nbecause it was an orthodontic/TMJ practice. She listed a number of commercial uses within\none block of the subject site, and believed that their practice would be appropriate to the\narea. She was dismayed by the personal comments that had been made regarding their\nincome level and their goals in the neighborhood. She emphasized that their intent had only\nbeen to increase and enhance the property value.\nM/S Kohlstrand/McNamara to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-17 to deny\napproval approve of a Use Permit to establish a dental office in an existing single family\nhome and to add approximately 500 square feet of office space.\nAYES - 4 (Mariani absent); NOES - 2 (Ezzy Ashcraft, Lynch); ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nMay 8, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-05-08", "page": 7, "text": "8-B.\nDP05-0001/DR05-0116/PM06-0002 - William De Mar - 471 Pacific Avenue\n(EP). The applicant is requesting Development Plan and Major Design Review\napprovals to establish a new single family home and two attached single-family\nhomes in an existing R-4-PD (Neighborhood Residential Planned Development)\ndistrict, and a Parcel Map approval to allow the division of the existing 14,400\nsquare foot residential lot into four parcels, where one is developed with an\nexisting, single family home. The property is located within an R-4-PD\n(Neighborhood Residential Planned Development) Zoning District. (Continued\nfrom the meeting of April 24, 2006.)\nMs. Pudell presented the staff report, and recommended approval of this item.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. William De Mar, applicant, noted that he and his wife Kelly were available for\nquestions.\nMr. Sam Koka, 650 Pacific Avenue, spoke in support of this item, and believed the\napplicants would be a positive addition to the neighborhood.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Lynch why he would not divide the site into two\nlots that conformed with existing codes, Mr. De Mar replied that at first, he and his wife\nhad to move out of Alameda to buy a home. They were trying to provide entry-level\nhousing for two families, and that he and his family would live in the third lot.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPresident Cunningham expressed concern about the potential for every lot in this district\nbeing subdivided, and noted that it was already densely developed.\nMs. Pudell could not speak to every lot in the district, but believed that some other lots\ncould be similarly subdivided.\nMember McNamara noted that she could not support the parceling with the proposed\nnumber of units with the current measurements. She believed there would be too many\nVariances proposed for her to consider.\nMs. Pudell noted that the Planned Development Overlay allowed for this type of\ndevelopment, as well as for the creation of smaller lots to obtain the General Plan policies\nregarding affordable housing. Staff noted that this particular project was well within the\ndensity range of 8.8 to 22.8 units per acre based on the General Plan Medium Density\nOverlay. This project was consistent with the General Plan and the zoning regulations.\nMember Kohlstrand supported the addition of affordable units, even with additional\ndensity. She was concerned that there were four parking spaces at the front of the house,\nand wondered whether two parcels would be better than three for that reason.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nMay 8, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-05-08", "page": 8, "text": "Ms. Pudell noted that the entryway to the homes was on the side elevation, so the\nresidents would not exit directly into a parking space.\nMember Lynch noted that he supported the Housing Element policies, and complimented\nMs. Pudell on her creative approach in applying them. He believed that when Housing\nElement policies were applied with respect to the regulatory body of HCD, looking at\ncosts associated with median incomes, a publicly funded project may be maintained\nwithin a certain band. Privately funded projects such as this, they would increase in\nvalue. He suggested that the project be approved or disapproved on the merits of the\nproject, not how it would impact Housing Element policies, either positively or\nadversely.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the size of the rear fenced\nprivate areas behind each dwelling, Ms. Pudell replied that Parcel 2 had a 180 square foot\narea, and Parcels 3 and 4 would have areas of ax 15 by 26 feet, or 396 square feet for\neach unit.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft echoed the concerns expressed by the other Board Members, and\nhad walked the neighborhood. She noted that the other multiple dwelling sites had more\nopenness on their sites.\nMr. Will Harrison, project designer, addressed President Cunningham's concern relating\nto the zero lot line between Lots 3 and 4, and noted that the intention was so there could\nbe ownership of each individual unit. The double wall drawn on the floor plans has an\nairspace between them, through which the lot line runs. He noted that there would be no\nconflict if the project was developed in a clear and concise way; the applicant intended to\nencourage entry-level ownership or rental in Alameda.\nVice President Cook noted that while Measure A worked well to protect Victorians, when\nit came to housing for regular people, it had become very difficult to find a way to\nprovide the middle range of housing for people who don't meet affordability\nrequirements, but cannot afford a million-dollar house. She believed this project met that\nneed.\nPresident Cunningham noted that the site plan appeared to have very intense planning,\nbut noted that when he visited the site, it appeared to be in character with the existing\nhomes in the neighborhood.\nMs. Pudell displayed the plans on the overhead to clarify that the portion of the lot behind\n471 Pacific Avenue would remain open and vacant.\nM/S Cook/Kohlstrand to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-18 to approve a\nDevelopment Plan and Major Design Review approvals to establish a new single family\nhome and two attached single-family homes in an existing R-4-PD (Neighborhood\nResidential Planned Development) district, and a Parcel Map approval to allow the\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nMay 8, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-05-08", "page": 9, "text": "division of the existing 14,400 square foot residential lot into four parcels, where one is\ndeveloped with an existing, single family home.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nMay 8, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-05-08", "page": 10, "text": "8-C.\nDR06-0002 - Jenny Wong - 3292 Washington Street (EP). Public Hearing to\nconsider a Call for Review of a decision of the Planning and Building Director\napproving Major Design Review, DR06-0002, to allow construction of an\napproximately 1,350 square foot second story addition, new deck and patio. The\nproperty is located in a R-1, One Family Residence Zoning District. [Planning\nBoard President Andrew Cunningham].\nMs. Pudell summarized the staff report, and noted that staff conducted comprehensive\nreview of this project during the initial phases of the project. As a result of the Call for\nReview, staff worked with the applicant to obtain a shade study, attached to the staff\nreport. Staff continued to stand by its recommendation that the Planning Board approve\nthis project based on the fact that minimal shading impacts will occur as part of the\nproposed addition.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Steven Lau noted that he was a property owner on the same block as this project, and\nexpressed concern about parking. He noted that the expansion would nearly double the\nsize of the house. He did not know whether there were plans to expand the garage or\nother parking accommodations. He believed this expansion would change the face of the\nneighborhood, and would not be fair to homeowners who could not expand their own\nhomes.\nMr. David McCarver, 3288 Washington Street, expressed dismay that staff never\ninformed him that the privacy/shade report had been done because that was one of his\nconcerns. He noted that his home was immediately adjacent to this project, which he\nbelieved would have a negative effect on his own quality of life. He disagreed with staff's\nassessment that the project would have no significant adverse effects on his home. He\ncited the Residential Design Guidelines, and believed the physical changes being\nproposed to the subject site would not blend into the context of this street. He believed\nthe expansion would loom over his side yard. He did not believe the project would not\nrelate in form or mass with the existing buildings, and believed it would overwhelmingly\nclash with the dominant verticality of this neighborhood. He noted that the neighborhood\nwas primarily ranch-style single-level homes. He did not believe this project was\ncompatible with any adjacent building in the neighborhood, and that it would not provide\nharmonious transitions in scale and character. He noted that it was twice the size of any\nother home in the neighborhood. He believed that it would be detrimental to existing\nproperty values, as well as the growth of property values in the neighborhood. He\ndisagreed with staff's assessment in favor of this project. He submitted a petition\nopposing this project, which was signed by all but two residents, whom he was unable to\nreach.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nMay 8, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-05-08", "page": 11, "text": "Member McNamara noted that the shading report was difficult to read and understand.\nMs. Pudell described the details of the shading study, and noted that second generation\nphotocopies were difficult to read.\nMember Kohlstrand suggested postponing a decision on this item until the original\nshading report could be brought to the Board. She noted that information from the\nneighbors had been received before the meeting, and noted that she would like more time\nto review it.\nMs. Pudell noted that the shading study was received only a few days before the packets\nwere issued.\nM/S Lynch/Kohlstrand to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of May 22,\n2006, in order for the Board to have more time to review the information.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nMay 8, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-05-08", "page": 12, "text": "and noted that the City Council's and EDC's views on these elements were the ultimate\ndecision-makers. She requested more input from those bodies.\nMs. Woodbury advised that when the item is brought forward, staff will provide a\nbriefing as to what will be asked at the meeting, as well as the Board's opportunity to\nmake comments, and receive comments from the public.\nMember Lynch would rather have a discussion about the alternatives, rather than to see\nthe Draft EIR, so they could be decided upon before a public body. The scope of the EIR\nwould be based upon those alternatives, and he noted that the Board did not have that. He\ndid not believe the public process had been integrated into the final decision, and\nbelieved there was a disconnect between the various entities with respect to this project.\n10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-\nPresident Cook).\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nMay 8, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-05-08", "page": 13, "text": "Vice President Cook advised that there were no further meetings since the last report.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee\n(Board Member Mariani).\nMember Mariani was not in attendance to present this item.\nC.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board\nMember Kohlstrand).\nMember Kohlstrand advised that there had been no further meetings since the last report.\n11.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nMs. Woodbury advised that the Final EIR for the Alameda Point Golf Course had been\nreleased, and that it would go to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority at the\nfirst meeting in June. Staff would initiate negotiations with the Army Corps of Engineers\nto obtain dredge materials for future construction of the golf course.\nMs. Woodbury noted that Andrew Thomas had been promoted to Planning Services\nManager.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member McNamara regarding the special Planning meeting\nfor May 18, 2006, Ms. Woodbury replied that Latisha Jackson had polled the Board to\nsee if a joint meeting with the EDC would be possible, with regard to the scope of the\nparking study for the Park Street and Webster Street areas.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n9:13 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nCather Woodbury\n-\nCathy Woodbury, Secretary\nPlanning and Building Department\nThese minutes were approved at the May 22, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This\nmeeting was audio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nMay 8, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf"}