{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-05-22", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, May 22, 2006\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:03 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMember Kohlstrand\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Ezzy\nAshcraft, Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani and McNamara.\nAlso present were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Assistant City\nAttorney Donna Mooney, Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Planner III\nDouglas Garrison, Planner II Emily Pudell, Executive Assistant Latisha Jackson.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of May 8, 2006\n(Continued from the meeting of April 24, 2006.)\nMember Kohlstrand noted that the Board Resolution on page 7 should be changed to\ndeny approval of the Use Permit, not to adopt the Planning Board Resolution.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that pages 4 and 5 of the minutes, \"Mr. Steve Gibson, 1531\n\"A\" Street\" should read \"Eighth Street.\" She noted that Mr. Wilton Fike's address should\nread \"1524 Eighth Street.\"\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the language on page 5 should be changed: \"Mr. Italo\nCalpestri, project architect, noted that he picked up a change suggested by Board Member\nEzzy Ashcraft to make a connecting pathway from the handicapped accessible space\nthrough the terrace to the handicapped ramp.\"\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the last sentence on page 9, \"Ms. Pudell displayed the\nplans on the overhead, and noted that\" should be completed with Ms. Pudell's comments.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 13, paragraph 5, should be changed to read,\n\"Member Ezzy Ashcraft agreed that the Planning Board should not operate in a vacuum,\nand noted that the City Council's and EDC's views on these elements were the ultimate\ndecision-makers.\" She noted that she did not intend to say that, and that she intended to\nsay that it would be important to know what the EDC's views were on these elements\nsince they came from a difference perspective from the Planning Board.\nVice President Cook noted that the first sentence on page 13 should be changed to read,\n\"Vice President Cook noted that she received a letter from Helen Sause Soss,\" to correct\nthe spelling.\nM/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Cook to approve the minutes for the meeting of April 10, 2006, as\namended.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nMay 22, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-05-22", "page": 2, "text": "AYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Mariani)\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nMay 22, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-05-22", "page": 3, "text": "7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A.\nInitiation of a Zoning Text Amendment: Parking Exception Process (CE).\nM/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to accept Initiation of a Zoning Text\nAmendment: Parking Exception Process.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nMay 22, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-05-22", "page": 4, "text": "7-B.\nUse Permit UP05-0020 - Monica Martinez for Amelia Cueva - 2071 San\nAntonio Avenue (SH). The applicants request Use Permit approval to increase\nthe capacity of an existing residential care facility from twelve to thirteen\nresidents on site. Pursuant to AMC 30-4.1.b.(8), Use Permit approval is required\nfor residential care facilities providing care for more than six residents on site.\nThe property is located within an R-4, Neighborhood Residential District.\nM/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-\n06-19 to approve a Use Permit to increase the capacity of an existing residential care\nfacility from twelve to thirteen residents on site. Pursuant to AMC 30-4.1.b.(8), Use\nPermit approval is required for residential care facilities providing care for more than six\nresidents on site.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nMay 22, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-05-22", "page": 5, "text": "7-C.\nInterim Use Permit, UP 06-0009 - Daniel Ayala for Model Aeronautics Club\n(AT). The applicant requests an interim use permit to establish a model airplane\nclub on Taxiway H adjacent to 650 West Tower Avenue and the Seaplane Lagoon\nat Alameda Point. The site is zoned M-2-G (General Industrial).\nM/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-\n20 to approve an interim use permit to establish a model airplane club on Taxiway H\nadjacent to 650 West Tower Avenue and the Seaplane Lagoon at Alameda Point.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nMay 22,2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-05-22", "page": 6, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\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. (Continued\nfrom the meeting of May 8, 2006.)\nMs. Pudell summarized the staff report, and noted that a revised shadow study was included\nas requested by the Board. She displayed the slides of the shadow study results.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member McNamara whether anyone on Washington Street\nobjected to this project, Ms. Pudell replied that two people on Washington Street did not\nsign the petition.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. David McCarver, 3288 Washington Street, described his conclusions about the\nshading study, and noted that he discarded the 5 p.m. images. He noted that he was not\nconcerned about shadows on his garage, but was concerned about how the project's\nshadows affected the back half of his house. He noted that in February at 10 a.m., the\nnew structure caused 100% shading on his kitchen; by 12 p.m., the existing structure\nallows for kitchen, family room window and glass door, as well as the entire side of the\nhouse to have full sun exposure. He described that on April 30, his home would be 100%\nclocked off by the new structure. He was concerned that in May and June, his morning\nsun would be fully blocked off. He disagreed with staff's assessment of the shadow\nstudy, and believed that the effect of the new structure would constitute a substantial\nimpact on his house. He requested that the Board reject this proposal.\nMr. Charles Wolff expressed concern not about the proposed project, per se, but noted all\nten homes on the block were built as one-story homes. He was concerned about the effect\nof a two-story house, on traffic circulation and safety and he was concerned about the\nparking in that area.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham if the proposed office at the rear of the\nproject had been removed from the development, Ms. Pudell replied that the office was not\nremoved from the plans, to reduce shadowing on the rear of the neighbor's property.\nMember McNamara agreed with Mr. McCarver's interpretation of the shade study with\nregard to the main part of his house being affected by the proposed addition. She inquired\nwhy there had not been some open dialogue in terms of seeing what could be done to the\nplan to minimize the impacts on the neighbor's property or scaling back the plans for the\nhouse.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nMay 22, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-05-22", "page": 7, "text": "Ms. Pudell replied that staff met with the applicant and Mr. McCarver, but did not reach a\nresolution.\nMember Lynch noted that the in this particular neighborhood, there were homes with second\nstories, and he interpreted this impasse as an inability of the neighbors to discuss the issues\nand develop a modified plan. He cautioned the speakers from using the term \"takings,\"\nwhich is a legal term that has very specific meanings with respect to case law. He did not\nbelieve that term applied in this case. He believed this was a design issue, and he would like\nto continue this item to allow the neighbors to come to an understanding about a modified\nplan before the Board makes a decision. He believed the applicant was within her rights to\nadd a second story, which was a normal part of urban living. He added that the neighbors\nhad a right to comment on that design, to question it and to try to come to an agreement.\nPresident Cunningham agreed with Member Lynch's comments, and would like the\nneighbors to attempt to resolve this issue.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Member Lynch's comments. She added that she\nwas troubled by the statement in the staff report that this project was compatible with\nneighboring homes, across a four-lane street. She noted that every house on Washington\nCourt was a two one-story house, so there was a difference in scale. In walking and driving\nthis street, she believed the expansion was a substantial one.\nMember Mariani noted that she was very familiar with this area, and did not believe the\nproject fit well in the neighborhood. She understood Mr. McCarver's frustration and\nbelieved that it was overwhelming that there were only two people on the street who did not\noppose the addition. She hoped the applicant would modify the design.\nMember Kohlstrand agreed with Member Lynch's comments, and acknowledged that there\nwere additional shadows cast on the back of the property during morning hours. She noted\nthat it was unfortunate that the two property owners had not been able to work their\ndifferences out. She would recommend that the property owners try to reach a compromise.\nMember McNamara agreed with Member Kohlstrand's views on this issue, and believed the\nproject as designed would not conform to the findings necessary for approval. She noted that\nthere would be significant shading on the living part of Mr. McCarver's home. She hoped\nthe two parties could reach a workable compromise.\nVice President Cook agreed with the previous comments, and would like to see a\ncompromise reached. She was not in favor of effectively downzoning the property by saying\na second story could not be built unless the whole block was willing to do the same.\nPresident Cunningham noted that Vice President Cook had touched on a vital point\nregarding the rights of property owners to expand their homes, and did not believe the Board\nshould deny an application just because a group of neighbors rebelled against the applicant's\ndesire to expand their home. He would like to see a compromise between the two parties.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nMay 22, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-05-22", "page": 8, "text": "Member Mariani believed that the neighbors had legitimate concerns, and that the rights of\nthe owners should be balanced against the rights of the neighbors.\nM/S Lynch/Member McNamara to continue this item so that the applicant and the\nneighboring property owner could resolve their issues.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMs. Woodbury noted that because this item was not continued to a date and time certain,\nthat staff would renotice this item.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nMay 22, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-05-22", "page": 9, "text": "M/S Mariani/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-\n21 to approve a use permit allowing twenty-four hour operation of a retail drug store\n(Walgreens) with a drive-thru pharmacy window and sign permit, with an additional\ncondition for the addition of vines on the west facing and trellises.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nMay 22,2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-05-22", "page": 10, "text": "8-C. Catellus Mixed Use Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact\nReport (SCH #2006012091) (AT). A public hearing to receive public comment\non the draft Environmental Impact Report evaluating proposed revisions to the\nCatellus Mixed Use Development Master Plan to allow additional retail and\nresidential uses and reduce the amount of office and research and development\nuses currently allowed. The project site is zoned MX (Mixed Use Planned\nDevelopment District).\nMr. Thomas summarized the staff report, and noted that comments would be taken until\nJune 19, 2006. The comments would be consolidated and responses and additional\ninformation would be provided in the Final EIR. He described the details of the plan and\ndisplayed the site on the overhead screen. No action from the Board was requested.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Harry Hartman, 1100 Peach Street, spoke in support of this item. He stated that he\nsupported the change from office use to mixed use and housing in the area, and believed\nthat this project would be an enhancement for Alameda.\nMr. Sam Faye, Executive Director, Cardinal Point, 2431 Mariner Square Drive, spoke as\nan advocate for their residents, and spoke in support of this item. He believed this would\nbe a positive impact for the seniors to have access to the amenities and the water. He\nbelieved this was a quality project.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMember McNamara noted that there was a difference of approximate 120,000 square feet\nbetween the two variants, and requested clarification of the square footage allotment. Mr.\nThomas replied that Variant A replaced 1.3 million square feet currently approved for office\nR&D with 400,000 square feet of office, 300 housing units, 300,000 square feet of retail,\nand 20,000 square feet of health club use. He noted that Variant B included 400,000 square\nfeet of office, 50,000 square feet of retail and 370,000 square feet of R&D. He explained\nthat Variant B was designed to have similar or less traffic impacts than Variant A. Member\nMcNamara believed staff developed a creative way to address the traffic issues.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the determination of\nresidential units in the R-4 PD area, Mr. Thomas replied that staff determined that the\nabsolute maximum that could be fit within the Measure A constraint came to 300 units.\nVice President Cook expressed concern that the specific spots for residential have been\nchosen, and that more residential density may be desired in the future. She did not wish to\nconstrain the City's choices unnecessarily by not looking at different densities at a higher\nlevel at a policy level.\nVice President Cook noted that Alameda nearly lost the ferry service to Harbor Bay because\nof lack of riders due to low density. Other transportation alternatives such as water taxis\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nMay 22, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-05-22", "page": 11, "text": "require rider ship to be feasible, and she would like to see further study of the density\nrequired to support transit rider ship.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that it was very important to make the transportation mitigation\nmeasures actually work in Alameda, which relate to Vice President Cook's point about\ndensity. She expressed concern about the level of parking being provided. She noted that\nshared parking was not discussed in the document, and did not believe there should be the\nassumption that everyone would use their own cars which required a separate parking place\nfor each car.\nMr. Thomas noted that transportation funding is becoming increasingly linked to land use,\nand that the City must be careful and thoughtful in that regard. He understood that the Board\nwould like more specifics about the TDM program and what density or other methods\nwould be needed to make it successful; also, the parking strategy must be identified in terms\nof standards, shared parking and other factors such as density that would make transit\nsuccessful. He noted that the issue of splitting out the residential use was a significant part of\nthe land use proposal. He noted that staff would be meeting with the Transportation\nCommission regarding the TDM program.\nVice President Cook stated that she would like to see a greater density alternative in the EIR\nso the City could evaluate potential benefits on transit from a different mix of residential,\noffice and retail uses. She wanted to ensure enough analysis would be done to create the\nproper mix of use, and create the type of neighborhood where it was not necessary to drive.\nShe believed people would trade some density to create a mix that would allow people to get\nout of their cars. She believed a good EIR was an analytic tool that enabled the City to make\nwise policy choices, and she would like the informational document to be as broad and\nrobust as possible.\nMr. Thomas understood that the Board wishes to see a higher density alternative to evaluate\nwhether such an alternative would reduce environmental impacts related to transit,\ntransportation and open space.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft understood that the Tinker Avenue extension was a major\ncomponent of the traffic flow, and inquired how realistic that extension was in terms of a\ntimeframe. Mr. Thomas replied that the traffic section states that the Tinker extension is an\nimportant connection to move traffic in and around the site, however it is a mitigation that\nrequires land acquisition from another agency that is somewhat out of the City's control.\nMr. Thomas stated that the EIR assumed all background growth in Alameda, full buildout of\nthe Housing Element, the General Plan, as well as Oakland's projections for their buildout in\n2025. The full Alameda Landing project plus full buildout of Alameda Point in 2025 were\nincluded in the traffic projections.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the financial impact of the\nretail development on Alameda Point, Mr. Thomas replied that there was an extensive list of\nretail studies done over the past few years, which can be provided to the Planning Board.\nHe added that those studies provided the information used by staff, and noted that the\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nMay 22, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-05-22", "page": 12, "text": "CEQA threshold addressed whether the development could create blight. The EIR\ndetermined that the project was unlikely to create blight because the project is designed to\ninclude retail categories and types that would be compatible with existing retail uses in\nAlameda.\nMs. Woodbury advised that the EDC would meet on June 15, 2006.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the timeline of revision of the\nMaster Plan guidelines, Mr. Thomas replied that their goal was to have it available for\npublic circulation well ahead of the June 26, 2006, study session.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was pleased to read in the staff report that the public's\ncomments could also be submitted by fax or email.\nMs. Woodbury noted that members of the public can also examine the document in the\nPlanning and Building office and submit their comments at that time.\nNo action was taken.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nMay 22, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-05-22", "page": 13, "text": "9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nMs. Woodbury noted that a memo was distributed, clarifying the Board's responsibilities,\nas excerpted from the Board and Commissions Handbook. A legal opinion was also\ndistributed regarding a joint meeting between the Planning Board and the City Council,\nwith respect to referring to specific projects. The City Council has met with different\nboards and commissions regarding future goals.\nPresident Cunningham noted that he had only seen one since he had been on the Board in\nthe last five years, and would like it to be pushed up.\n10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice President\nCook).\nVice 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 advised that there were no further meetings since the last report, and the\nMay meeting had been cancelled.\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 wished to introduce Doug Vu, who had joined the Planning and Building\nstaff.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n9:20 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nFOR\nCathy Woodbury, Secretary\nPlanning & Building Department\nThese minutes were approved at the July 10, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This\nmeeting was audio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nMay 22, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf"}