{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-08-14", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, August 14, 2006\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:07 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Lynch, Vice-President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft, Kohlstrand,\nLynch, Mariani and McNamara.\nBoard member Cunningham was absent.\nAlso present were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Assistant City Attorney Donna\nMooney, and Planner III Douglas Garrison.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of July 24, 2006\nMember Kohlstrand requested that under Item 9-A (Catellus) the minutes reflect a discussion\nregarding the retail development block framed by public streets with crosswalks. She noted that Dan\nMarcus, the developer, had indicated he was willing to incorporate that into the design.\nVice President Cook advised that the last full paragraph on page 13 should include the following\nlanguage: \" requiring a shopping center in Subarea 3. In fact, Subarea 3 could include 370,000\nsquare feet of R&D instead of retail, which seemed inconsistent with many of the speakers'\nperceptions and desires.\"\nMember Mariani noted that page 18, paragraph 5 read, \"Member Mariani noted that she did not want\nto see a lot of RVs and parking areas,\" but that she was not the Member to make that statement.\nM/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Kohlstrand to approve the minutes for the meeting of July 24, 2006, as amended.\nAYES - 6 (Cunningham absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nAugust 14, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-08-14", "page": 2, "text": "6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nPresident Lynch noted that a speaker slip had been received from Karen Butter regarding Item 10-A,\nand inquired when it should be heard. Ms. Woodbury advised that it may be heard earlier in the\nagenda if so desired.\nPresident Lynch noted that he would not object to doing that one time, but did not want to set a\nprecedent that would leave the public without a sense of certainty of when a particular item would be\nheard. He wished to retain the historical precedent of Oral Communications being reserved for items\nnot on the agenda.\nMember Kohlstrand would like the discussion of Measure A to be held during Item 10-A, and to\nallow the public to make comments at that time.\nMs. Mooney noted that with respect to Board Communications, the Rules and Procedures of the City\nPlanning Board permitted any Board member to speak on any matter, and \"limited action may be\ntaken by the Board, such as asking staff for further information, there would typically not be\ndeliberation or action taken by the Board, and that public comments on an agenda item typically\nimmediately precede something to be discussed and acted upon. If the comments were kept to Oral\nCommunications, and Board members spoke during Board Communications, that would be consistent\nwith the Agenda's intent.\nPresident Lynch suggested that both speakers be taken during Oral Communications, and Board\ncomments would be heard during Board Communications.\nMs. Diane Lichtenstein hoped there would be time for public discussion regarding Measure A.\nMs. Karen Butter, League of Women Voters, urged the Board to move forward and hold a public\nforum on a possible exemption of Measure A for Alameda Point. She believed this was a critical issue\nfor Alameda citizens to discuss and understand the implications of that possibility.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nAugust 14, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-08-14", "page": 3, "text": "7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A.\nUse Permit UP06-0010 - N. Saidian & L. Zekster - 1310 Central Avenue (DV). The\napplicant requests a Use Permit pursuant to Section 30-20.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code\nto extend the hours of operation for the Alameda Gasoline - Valero Station, an existing legal\nnonconforming service station facility. The current hours of operation are 9:00 am-6:00 pm\nMonday through Friday, 9:00 am-4:00 pm on Saturday, and closed on Sunday. The auto\nrepair hours would be eliminated on Saturday. The Alameda Gasoline-Valero Station is\nlocated in the R-4 (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District. (Applicant requests\ncontinuance.)\nM/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft to continue this item.\nAYES - 6 (Cunningham absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nAugust 14, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-08-14", "page": 4, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\nPD06-0001 and DR06-0054 - Habitat for Humanity - 626 Buena Vista Ave. (DG). The\napplicant requests approval of Planned Development and Major Design Review applications\nallowing the construction of eight new dwelling units consisting of four two-story duets on a lot\npreviously used as a carwash. The project site is zoned R4-PD Neighborhood Residential\nDistrict-Planned Development Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of July 24,\n2006).\nPresident Lynch congratulated Mr. Garrison on his impending promotion to Supervising Planner.\nMr. Garrison presented this staff report, and recommended approval of this item.\nMs. Doreen Soto, Development Services, presented the rest of the staff report, and displayed a\nPowerPoint presentation describing the scope and layout of the project.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Virginia Jhang noted that she lived near the proposed site, and thanked the City for holding the\nneighborhood meetings. She noted that there were not many neighbors in attendance because many of\nthem did not receive notice, and also because they supported affordable housing on this vacant site.\nShe noted that it was difficult to afford home ownership, and that this project was a great help. She\nexpressed concern about density, traffic safety and accountability. She noted that the developers did\nnot propose to have a homeowners association with CC&Rs to maintain the project. She noted that\nthe project met the Measure A criteria, but was still too dense for its location and lot size.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether her own development had CC&Rs, Ms. Jhang\nconfirmed that it did, and that it was very helpful to her and her neighbors. She noted that it was an\nentry-level community, and that there was a playground in the common area for the children. She\ndescribed some of the surrounding businesses, and believed the area was already too dense. She\nwould like to see more open space and visitor parking on [Paramus].\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMember McNamara noted that she was very familiar with this area, and noted that Ms. Jhang's points\nabout traffic congestion were valid, and she hoped they could be addressed and corrected. She\nsupported this project and believed it was a good use of the current lot, while helping Alameda meet\nthe affordable housing requirements. She believed it would be an asset to the neighborhood, and\nwould be a good opportunity for increased home ownership.\nMember Mariani expressed concern that when all the Catellus units are rented out, the street will be\nbecome more congested and that perhaps traffic calming measures would be needed. She supported\nthis project.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nAugust 14, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-08-14", "page": 5, "text": "Vice President Cook recognized the traffic problems, and believed that Public Works would be able\nto find a way to mitigate them. She supported this project, and believed that it would be an asset to\nthe community. She had been a previous volunteer for Habitat for Humanity, and supported the pride\nof ownership it created. She was not concerned about adding CC&Rs to this site.\nMember Kohlstrand supported this project, and was reluctant to put additional burdens on this parcel,\nparticularly for parking. She noted that this project already met Code in that regard. She would like to\nsee The staff report noted that the City would like continuous sidewalks for trash traffic removal and\nshe also felt they should be there for pedestrians to use. She added that the lots were so small that she\nbelieved it would be difficult to get all the landscaping in.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft supported this project, but did not find the designs to be attractive. She did\nnot believe they blended well with the rest of the community. She did not see any mention of green\nbuilding elements in this report, and hoped that it would be included.\nPresident Lynch inquired whether the Board wished to add Member Kohlstrand's request about\ncontinuous sidewalks and landscaping to the conditions. Mr. Garrison noted that would be agreeable.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to add continuous sidewalks and landscaping to the conditions\nof approval.\nAYES - 6 (Cunningham absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the explanation of the cost delta for the\nproject, Mr. Craig Meltzner, contract project manager for Alameda Development Corporation, noted\nthat the City funds were actually writing down the total development cost of the project. The actual\nproduction cost of the units would be in excess of $400,000 each, and that the City funds would write\ndown the costs to make them affordable to the targeted groups. The very low income units will sell\nbelow $200,000; the low income units will sell at $225,000, and the moderate income units will sell at\n$300,000. The total development costs would reflect the market conditions, before the application of\nthe City funds.\nMs. Soto noted that Habitat would bring their donations, volunteers and equity into the project to\nfund the other portion of the project.\nMr. Jim Bergdahl, housing development director for Habitat for Humanity, East Bay, noted that the\ncommunity can help by donating building materials to the project. With respect to green building\nelements, they had been using sustainable features in recent projects, including PV panels for all eight\npanels units and advanced framing techniques. He noted that durability was part of sustainability, and\nthey did not use cheap materials.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand regarding maintenance, Mr. Bergdahl replied that\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nAugust 14, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-08-14", "page": 6, "text": "these were privately owned homes, and that the mortgage documents had requirements to require\nappearances to be maintained.\nWith respect to the exterior design, Mr. Kirk Peterson, Peterson & Associates Architects, noted that\nthey looked at many designs, and wished they could have had more parking. He noted that this block\ndid not have the typical charm of Alameda, and noted that he tried to follow the 19th century models\nfor their simplicity. HardiPlank siding, corner details, double-hung windows and leaves were used to\nfollow that design palette.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft respected the historical aspect of the buildings and wanted to see the project\nnoted that the City moved forward as well.\nMember Mariani liked the simplicity of the design when surrounded by the commercial clutter.\nMember Kohlstrand believed the existing courtyard developments in Alameda were more attractive,\nbut she accepted the fact that 16 off-street parking spaces must be provided. She believed the design\nshould be accepted as presented.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it would be preferable not to look at the development from the street\nand see rows of parked cars have a row of cars parked on the street if possible.\nPresident Lynch was confident in the designers' capabilities, and believed that they addressed as many\ndesign features as possible before adding the City's requirements.\nM/S Mariani/Kohlstrand and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-31 to\napprove a Planned Development and Major Design Review applications allowing the construction of eight\nnew dwelling units consisting of four two-story duets on a lot previously used as a carwash, with the\nadditional modifications as noted by the Board.\nAYES - 6 (Cunningham absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nAugust 14, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-08-14", "page": 7, "text": "8-B.\nAppointment of Planning Board member to the Climate Protection Task Force.\nM/S Mariani/Kohlstrand and unanimous to nominate Board member Andrew Cunningham to the\nClimate Protection Task Force.\nAYES - 6 (Cunningham absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATION:\nPresident Lynch noted that a letter was received from Housing Opportunities Makes Economic\nSense, signed by Helen Sause, regarding Measure A.\nMember Mariani noted that the reference to City Council taking action on Measure A on the 1991\nballot was to define Measure A.\n10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding potential future Planning Board Measure A Forum\n(Board member Cunningham).\nMember Kohlstrand recalled that the Board had asked for this item to come to the Planning Board to\nreview the history of Measure A, and for members of the public to give their perspective on it. She\nrequested a report from the Planning and Building Director regarding that progress.\nVice President Cook agreed with Member Kohlstrand's comments, and believed that this issue should\nbe addressed sooner rather than later. She noted that historic preservation and open space planning\nwere important issues, and that a civil community discussion would be needed.\nMember Mariani believed there was a full forum on Measure A with the Planning Board and City\nCouncil in the 1990s. While it was important for discussion to take place, she did not believe the\nPlanning Board should take a political view on an item to be considered for the ballot. She would feel\nmore comfortable if a separate group or person would drive that discussion.\nPresident Lynch noted that Measure A was the purview of City Council and the public, not the\nPlanning Board. He agreed that it was important for the public to be aware of the genesis of Measure\nA. Part of that discussion included how Measure A was consistent with existing design guidelines as\nprojects come before the Planning Board. He would like to define the appropriate forum for this\ndiscussion.\nVice President Cook perceived the City Council's role as political, and the Planning Board's role as\nanalytical.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nAugust 14, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-08-14", "page": 8, "text": "Ms. Woodbury generally agreed with Vice President Cook's description of the Planning Board's role,\nand that the Board must abide by the regulations set forth in the law.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft believed the Board would serve the City better by acting proactively, and\nnoted that the deadline for the November ballot had passed. She would like to see a proposed ballot\nmeasure to understand the issue more completely.\" \"We have not even seen a ballot measure on this\nissue.\" She would like to hear from some outside authorities regarding this issue for more\nperspective, and cited attractive developments in other cities. She would like to hear more substantive\ncomments than a series of anecdotal events. She believed an outside facilitator would be a valuable\naddition to the process.\nMember Kohlstrand suggested forming a task force comprised of people with a range of perspectives,\nas well as City representatives and the EDC.\nVice President Cook believed a less structured forum would be ideal for the problem-solving needed\nin this issue. She noted that the EDC had interesting perspectives. She would be interested in working\nwith a highly skilled facilitator who could focus the discussion on the fundamental, underlying issues.\nMember Mariani suggested consulting with the Mayor and City Council on the Board's role in this\nmatter. She supported an outside forum.\nMember McNamara supported using an outside forum to clarify the issues, and acknowledged the\nemotional component of Measure A in the community. She believed the forum should be televised.\nPresident Lynch noted that he and Ms. Woodbury would develop a plan of action and report back to\nthe Planning Board.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).\nVice President Cook noted that no further meetings had been held.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember Mariani).\nMember Mariani noted that no further meetings had been held, and that the next meeting would be\nheld on Tuesday, August 22, at the Asian Health Center.\nd.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member\nKohlstrand).\nMember Kohlstrand noted that no further meetings had been held.\n12.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATION\nNone.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nAugust 14, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-08-14", "page": 9, "text": "13.\nADJOURNMENT:\n8:55 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nCathy Woodbury\n-\nCathy Woodbury, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThese minutes were approved at the August 28, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was\naudio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nAugust 14, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf"}