{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-09-11", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, September 11, 2006\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:06 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMember Kohlstrand\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Lynch, Ezzy Ashcraft, Cunningham, Kohlstrand, Lynch, and\nMcNamara.\nVice-President Cook and Board member Mariani were absent.\nAlso present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney Donna\nMooney, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason and Supervising Planner Douglas Garrison.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of August 14, 2006\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 6, paragraph 1, should be changed to read: \"With respect to green\nbuilding elements, they had been using sustainable features in recent projects, including PV panels for all\neight panels units \" She believed that Mr. Bergdahl indicated that the Alameda project would include\nphotovoltaic panels for all eight units, and advanced framing techniques to save lumber.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 6, paragraph 4, should be changed to read: \"Member Ezzy\nAshcraft respected the historical aspect of the buildings and wanted to see the project noted that the\nCity moved forward as well.\"\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 6, paragraph 7, should be changed to read: \"Member Ezzy\nAshcraft noted that it would be preferable not to look at the development from the street and see rows of\nparked cars have a row of cars parked on the street if possible.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she did not make the statement on page 8, paragraph 3: \"She would\nlike to see a proposed ballot measure to understand the issue more completely. She had said, \"We\nhave not even seen a ballot measure on this issue.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that page 5, paragraph 3, should be changed to read \"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.'\nMember Cunningham noted that he was not present at the meeting, but noted that he was recorded as\nhaving spoken on page 7.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Ezzy Ashcraft to approve the minutes for the meeting of August 14, 2006, as\namended.\nAYES - 4 (Cook, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Cunningham)\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nSeptember 11, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-09-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-09-11", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nMr. Thomas advised that the applicant for Item 7-C requested that the item be continued to\nSeptember 25, 2006, and added that because of incomplete noticing, staff requested that Items 7-A\nand 7-B be continued to September 25, 2006.\nRegarding Items 7-A and 7-B, Member Kohlstrand expressed concern with the layout and design of\nthe proposals the Board has seen for the Harbor Bay Business Park. She had seen very major\ndevelopments coming in the Harbor Bay area, and while the activity was good, she was concerned\nabout the way the buildings were laid out with the parking in front of the structures adjacent to\nHarbor Bay Parkway. She could not support that type of parking configuration any more. She\nbelieved the buildings should have been oriented differently, and believed that this should be the case\nin these and future applications. She also believed the buildings were functional but very pedestrian in\nterms of their architecture. She was concerned about the lack of services in this area.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft believed that green building practices should be a consideration in every new\nproject considered by the Board, and did not see much mention of sustainable design in reading the reports.\nMember McNamara expressed concern over the designs in 7-A and 7-B, which seemed to repeat the boxy\nappearances of the other structures in the area. She would like to see more creative architectural design at\nHarbor Bay.\nPresident Lynch requested that staff engage the applicant in the issues and concerns raised by the Board.\nHe noted that the design elements should reflect environmentally conscious practices, including materials,\ninfrastructure, plumbing, mechanical and electrical systems. The site layout, pedestrian access and general\nservices were also an important consideration in relation to the Bay.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nPresident Lynch noted that three speaker slips had been received for oral communication regarding\nItem 8-A, and that those speakers may speak at that time.\nMr. Keith Dines noted that they had spoken with the representative from SRM Associates. They\nhoped to be in agreement with the applicant at the September 25 meeting. He was concerned about\nthe lack of notice for this project.\nMr. Dines believed that in Venture Corporation's development of the office condominiums, the\ncontractors violated the regulations in the Municipal Code and the conditions of approval regarding\nnoise limits and hours of construction work. He noted that they had time and date stamped video\nshowing when the contractors started work and his complaints to the vice president of Venture\nCorporation did not result in any change. He requested that the requirements be enforced, and noted\nthat the Board of Directors was considering legal action.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nSeptember 11, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-09-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-09-11", "page": 3, "text": "\"President Lynch noted that the noticing practices were regulated by the State, and that the City may\nwant to consider extending often extended the noticing parameters.\" He suggested that he leave his\ncontact information with City staff to be including in the noticing. He recommended that he bring the\nvideotapes to City staff as well.\n7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A.\nApplicant requests a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to allow five\nnew buildings totaling approximately 100,795 square feet in floor area with a total of\n268 parking spaces to be constructed on a 7.7 acre site (CL). The site is located at 1900 -\n1980 North Loop Road within the Harbor Bay Business Park in the C-M-PD, Commercial\nManufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District. Applicant: SRM Associates (FDP06-\n0003 and DR06-0071).\nM/S Kohlstrand/Member McNamara and unanimous to continue Item 7-A to September 25, 2006.\nAYES - 5 (Cook, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n7-B.\nApplicant requests a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to allow a one-\nstory building of approximately 36,899 square feet in floor area with 69 parking spaces\nto be constructed on a 4.1 acre site (CL). The site is located at 2275 Harbor Bay Parkway\nwithin the Harbor Bay Business Park in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned\nDevelopment Zoning District. Applicant: Harbor Bay Acquisition LLC (FDP06-0002 and\nDR06-0062)\nM/S Kohlstrand/Member McNamara and unanimous to continue Item 7-B to September 25, 2006.\nAYES - 5 (Cook, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n7-C.\nDR06-0027 and V06-0006 - Applicant: Fargo Farnesi Inc. - 2427 Clement Ave. (DG).\nThe applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new two-story commercial\ncabinet shop with a penthouse apartment on the third floor, to be used as a caretaker's unit,\nand a free-standing single-story wood frame structure to be used as an administrative office\nfor the cabinet shop. The project will provide four full-size parking spaces and one ADA\ncompliant parking space. The applicant proposes to pay parking in lieu fees pursuant to\nAlameda Municipal Code Section 30-7.13 for any additional spaces that may be required by\nthe City. The applicant is also applying for a Variance to the City onsite vehicle backup\ndistance and minimum driveway and parking area perimeter landscaping requirements. The\nsite is located at 2427 Clement Ave. within an M-2, General Industrial, (Manufacturing)\nDistrict. (Applicant requests continuance to the meeting of September 25, 2006.)\nM/S Kohlstrand/Member McNamara and unanimous to continue Item 7-C to September 25, 2006.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nSeptember 11, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-09-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-09-11", "page": 4, "text": "AYES - 5 (Cook, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\nDR06-0002 - Jenny Wong - 3292 Washington Street (CE). Public Hearing to consider a\nCall for Review of a decision of the Planning and Building Director approving Major Design\nReview, DR06-0002, to allow construction of an approximately 1,350 square foot second\nstory addition, new deck and patio. The property is located in an R-1, One Family Residence\nZoning District. [Former Planning Board President Andrew Cunningham]. (Continued from\nthe meeting of May 8, 2006.)\nMs. Eliason summarized the staff report, described the shading study, and recommend action to\napprove this item.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. William Weir, 3279 Washington Street, requested a correction on page 3 of the staff report (Staff\nAnalysis), which should be changed to read, \"This will be the first second-story addition on the\nblock.\" He requested that the applicant's request to add a second story be denied, and believed the\nneighborhood should remain a single-story neighborhood. He noted that three other vacant houses on\nthe street were for sale, including one across the street from the subject site. He opposed setting a\nprecedent which would allow any new owner to add a second story. He believed that if the applicant\nwanted a two-story home, she should have purchased one in Alameda, which would not disrupt a\nsingle-story neighborhood.\nMr. David McCarver spoke in opposition to this project, and commented on the shade study. He noted\nthat the previous shade study did not contain a side by side comparison for 8:00 a.m. He then included his\nown evidence showing that there was indeed a difference in his home at 8:00 a.m. He noted that the homes\nwere designed to take advantage of the morning sun in the kitchen, and if this addition were to be built, he\nwould be the only home on the street to not have that benefit. He was very concerned that he was now\nunable to park in front of his house because of the numerous vehicles from the subject site. He believed this\naddition would have a substantial negative effect on his family's quality of life. He believed that the addition\nwould completely transform the building and clash with the dominant verticality of the neighborhood by\ndominating the neighborhood. He believed this addition would be a detriment to the property values in the\nneighborhood.\nMr. Charles Wolf, 3284 Washington Street, spoke in opposition to this project. He believed that the\naesthetics of this neighborhood would be ruined by a two-story home on the corner. He expressed concern\nabout toxic materials that may be buried under the homes.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nSeptember 11, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-09-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-09-11", "page": 5, "text": "Member McNamara was pleased that the applicant had made changes to address Mr. McCarver's\nconcerns about shading and his quality of life in the main area of the house. She respected the\napplicant's property rights, as well as the feedback from the neighborhood. She was inclined to deny\nthis project as presented at this time.\nMember Cunningham did not believe the Municipal Code restricted a two-story extension, and was\nsimilarly compelled by property rights and the concerns of the neighbors. He did not believe the\nelevations had been drawn correctly. He noted that when the bedroom was pulled back, the roof pitch\nwas pulled back as well, affecting the stair. He noted that the shading study for the morning of\nFebruary 28, the side of Mr. McCarver's house showed two shaded areas, including by the stairs.\n\"The eave ridge line of the main roof had been incorrectly drawn, and was about three feet higher\nthan it should have been above the grade level at that point.\" He had considered ways to eliminate\nthe shadow cast by the stair. He described the details of his suggestion and displayed them on the\noverhead screen.\nMember Kohlstrand agreed with Member Cunningham's assessment, and also understood the\ninterests of the neighbors as well as the property owner. She was uncomfortable with the idea of\nrestricting the ability of anyone on the street from adding a second story to their house in the future.\nShe was encouraged to see redesign of the structure to address the shading issues, and would like to\nsee a solution to further reduce the shading impacts. She did not feel comfortable denying this project\nbecause it caused additional shadow on the adjacent property.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft appreciated staff's responsiveness to the Planning Board's concerns, and\nexpressed concern about parking. In response to her inquiry about parking, Ms. Eliason confirmed\nthat two off-street parking spaces were required for this property because it is less than 3000 square\nfeet total; it met Code with respect to parking. Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that while it met the letter\nof the law, it may not meet the spirit of the law. She appreciated staff meeting with the involved\nparties, but was concerned that there was no mention of communication between the applicant and\nthe homeowners. She was very concerned that the Board had not heard from the applicant. She did\nnot know whether the driveway could be made larger to address parking congestion on this street.\nShe understood the property owners' concerns, and added that it was more economical to add on to\nthe existing house than to buy new for more space. She was mindful of balancing the needs of\nproperty owners and their neighbors. She wondered if another solution for Mr. McCarver's house\ncould be found, and was not persuaded that this was a street of homes that should always remain one-\nstory; this was not a historically designated neighborhood.\nPresident Lynch did not believe it was appropriate to revisit documents that have already been\nadopted by City Council. He noted that if the neighborhood would like to be known as a historical\nneighborhood, there was a process to accomplish that goal. He noted that property changes because\npeople change; he noted that this design legally fit within the City's guiding documents. He suggested\nallowing the applicant and the design team to look at Member Cunningham's architectural suggestions,\nand possibly incorporating them with an eye towards voting the project up or down at that time. In\nresponse to an inquiry by President Lynch whether the Board had that option, Mr. Thomas noted that\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nSeptember 11, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-09-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-09-11", "page": 6, "text": "staff would prefer to explore the ideas regarding shading and parking. He would rather have the\noption to explore the ideas and then bring it back to the Board. President Lynch noted that he was\ninclined to support this project, and was very reluctant to place a condition about parking in addition\nto something that was outside the purview of the Code. He did not want to step onto a slippery slope\nabout numbers of cars allowed.\nMember Kohlstrand expressed concern about the Board advocating for additional off-street parking,\nand also had issues about scale with respect to the garage and paving in front of the house, which may\ndominate the house. She did not want the street view of the house to be adversely affected, and\nwould not recommend additional parking on the site.\nMember McNamara noted that the nearby Lincoln School parking lot was heavily utilized, and did\nnot know how the Board could control parking for school events as it related to this matter.\nMember Cunningham believed that a benefit of cutting the roof back would increase privacy, by\neliminating the windows on the side property face, looking into Mr. McCarver's property. He\nsuggested using a skylight instead for natural daylight, which would reduce the cost of construction.\nMr. Thomas suggested that the item be continued in order to incorporate these design ideas.\nM/S Cunningham/ Ezzy Ashcraft to continue this item to the meeting of September 25, 2006.\nAYES - 5 (Cook, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nSeptember 11, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-09-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-09-11", "page": 7, "text": "9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATION\nMr. Thomas noted that the Board received the AB 1234 Mandatory Ethics Training Requirement\npacket, and added that the Board members were required to comply with this requirement. He noted\nthat Ms. Woodbury encouraged the Board members to contact her with any questions.\nMember Cunningham received several communications in his packet from the Alameda and Islandia\nhomeowners association, stating their displeasure at, and encourage the Board to reject, the proposal\nto build over 100 homes in Harbor Bay Business Park on North Loop Road.\nMr. Thomas noted that the Draft EIR on that project had not been released for public review yet. He\nestimated that the earliest the Board may see that would be the second meeting in October or the first\nmeeting in November. He added that the public hearing on the Target EIR would be held at the next\nmeeting, as well as the Grand Marina project.\n10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).\nVice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember Mariani).\nMember Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member\nKohlstrand).\nMember Kohlstrand noted that there had been no activity since the last meeting.\nd.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board\nMember Cunningham).\nMember Cunningham noted that he did not have a status report at this time.\nMs. Eliason noted that staff was working with ICLEI, the body that was doing the modeling with\nStopWaste.com Staff would provide the data that would enable them to create a picture of the City's\nenergy usage. They were still in the data collection phase, and hoped to run the model by the end of\nthe week. Data from PG&E on gas had not been received yet. Following that step, the Task Force\nwould meet, and goals and objectives to create a local action plan would be examined.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nSeptember 11, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-09-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-09-11", "page": 8, "text": "11.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATION:\nNone.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n8:37 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nCathy Woodbury\n- Cathy Woodbury, Secretary\nPlanning & Building Department\nThese minutes were approved at the September 25, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was\naudio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nSeptember 11, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-09-11.pdf"}