{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-09", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, October 9, 2006\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:10 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMember Cunningham\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Lynch, Vice President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft,\nCunningham, Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani and McNamara.\nAlso present were Assistant City Attorney Donna Mooney, Planning Services Manager\nAndrew Thomas, and Planner III Douglas Garrison.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of September 25, 2006\nMember Cunningham noted that the resolution on page 8, paragraph 4, should be\nchanged to read, \" and enhancement of the southeast corner exterior elevation and\nlandscaping.\"\nMember Kohlstrand noted that page 8, paragraph 1, should be changed to read, \"In\nresponse to Member Kohlstrand's concerns, Mr. Thomas suggested that staff work with\nthe applicant regarding the southeast corner of Stargell Avenue.. \"\nVice President Cook noted that page 19, paragraph 7, read, \"Ms. Kris Murray, 1738\nAlameda Avenue, spoke in support of this item.\" She noted that while Ms. Murray\nindicated her support of the item on her speaker slip, she was not in attendance toward\nthe end of the meeting.\nPresident Lynch noted that he had received written comments from Ms. Judith Kissinger\nas a clarification of her public comments during Item 8-C. He noted that he would submit\nthe comments into the public record, and added that the video and audiotapes were the\nofficial public record of the meeting, and that the minutes were a summary of those\nproceedings.\nM/S Cunningham/Ezzy Ashcraft to approve the minutes for the meeting of September 25,\n2006, as amended.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Lynch noted that speaker slips had been received for Items 7-A and 7-B.\nM/S Cook/Cunningham and unanimous to move Items 7-A and 7-B to the Regular\nAgenda.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nOctober 9, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-09", "page": 2, "text": "AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPresident Lynch suggested that Item 8-D be heard second on the Regular Agenda.\nM/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Cook and unanimous to move Item 8-D to the second item on the\nRegular Agenda.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMember Mariani expressed concern about the length of the agenda and the amount of time it\nwould take to address each one properly. She believed that by the time 11:00 p.m. arrived,\nthe Board might not be close to the end of the agenda. She also expressed concern that the\npackets had been received on Friday.\nPresident Lynch noted that he had spoken to Mr. Thomas about the issue of packets received\nlate, and that the idea would be entertained to cancel a Board meeting. However, staff would\ncontinue to prepare and notice the documents as if there were to be a meeting, which would\nbe available to the Board and the public two weeks in advance of the next meeting.\nMember McNamara noted that was a good idea. She added that it was difficult to read a\nlarge amount of documentation on the same night.\nPresident Lynch noted that it was within the Board's purview to continue a matter if there\nwas a concern about addressing an item at a late hour. He requested that a meeting be\nskipped sometime during the calendar year to give staff a chance to catch up.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that the public needed time to catch up and read the\ndocumentation as well.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nDr. Beuna Pichey, California Naturopathic Association, 500 Park Street, expressed\nconcern about the three-deck parking garage and the Target, and inquired what would\nhappen to her building. She inquired what was being built on the old Walgreen's side of\nPark Street, at South Shore Center. Mr. Doug Garrison noted that all the plans were\navailable in the Planning Department, and invited her to inspect the plans at her\nconvenience.\nMr. David Kirwin inquired why the end of Maitland on the airport end had been moved.\nMr. Garrison noted that he would contact Mr. Kirwin to provide that information.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nOctober 9, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-09", "page": 3, "text": "7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n7-A.\nDR06-0002 - Jenny Wong - 3292 Washington Street (CE). 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 an R-1, One Family Residence Zoning District. [Former\nPlanning Board President Andrew Cunningham] (Continued from the meeting\nof September 11, 2006.)\nMr. Thomas summarized the staff report.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. David McCarver, 3288 Washington Court, spoke in opposition to this project. He\nnoted that he would have liked to see the new shade studies listed in the application, and\nhad distributed the May 2000 newsletter from the Alameda Architectural Society, which\ncovered the City's revised Design Review manual. He noted that the manual was the key\ndocument which established what should be approved or not. He expressed concern about\nthe mass and height of this project, and believed that the applicant could not build the front\nbedroom according to the Design Guidelines.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMember Mariani noted that she was opposed to this project, and agreed with Mr.\nMcCarver's citation of the Design Guidelines with respect to the project.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that as long as this was a legal use, it was not germane to\nconsider whether this use was for an extended family.\nMember Cunningham reiterated his comments regarding not allowing someone to make\nmodifications to their house when they were fully entitled to do so under the zoning\nordinance. He noted that the Planning Board's job was to mitigate the impacts of those\ndesign improvements on the neighbors. He wished to clarify the intent of the article\ncirculated by Mr. McCarver, which he believed intended to maintain the historic\nsignificance of older buildings versus nonhistoric (post-World War II) homes. He noted\nthat Ms. Wong's house fell well out of the pre-World War II time period. He supported\nthis application.\nMember McNamara noted that she had not discussed her opinion with any other Board\nmember. She challenged the finding that was made in the staff report about the project\nbeing compatible to the neighboring buildings, and that it promoted a harmonious\ntransition, scale and character in areas between different designated land uses. Although\nthe other requirements and codes had been met for this particular property, she did not\nunderstand how the first finding could have been made.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nOctober 9, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-09", "page": 4, "text": "Member Ezzy Ashcraft was satisfied that the applicant and her architect have worked and\nbeen responsive to staff's suggestions. She would have voted against the first design, but\nbelieved this design was considerably better. She believed it was sufficiently compatible\nwith the area, and was satisfied with this staff report. She noted that this was a legal use in\nan appropriate zone.\nMember Mariani understood that this was not an historic home, but believed that the\nDesign Guidelines should be applied to other homes. She believed this neighborhood had\na\nunique charm, and did not believe that a homeowner's building rights must always\ntrump the rights of the neighbors.\nVice President Cook agreed with Members Ezzy Ashcraft and Cunningham, and believed\nthat the Board has had to balance the issue of change and growth with the needs of\nneighborhoods over the years. She believed that unilaterally saying that someone could\nnot build a second story effectively downzoned the entire City. She complimented the\napplicant and architect on their hard work with staff in revising this design.\nPresident Lynch noted that the Design Review Manual was used as a subjective guide,\nand that the Planning Board must consider the Alameda Municipal Code as a regulatory\nitem. He emphasized that this was not an historic neighborhood, and that the homeowners\nmay follow a certain process to make the neighborhood historic. This zoning was set by\nthe zoning text that was consistent, under CEQA, with the General Plan. The Planning\nBoard did not have the authority to change that language. He believed the changes in the\ndesign more than adequately addressed the Board's concerns since the first iteration. He\nwas mindful that there was a difference of opinion within the Planning Board.\nM/S Cunningham/Kohlstrand to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-34 to\napprove a Major Design Review, DR06-0002, to allow construction of an approximately\n1,350 square foot second story addition, new deck and patio.\nAYES - 5; NOES - 2 (Mariani, McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nOctober 9, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-09", "page": 5, "text": "7-B.\nDR06-0027 and V06-0006 - Applicant: Fargo Farnesi Inc. - 2427 Clement\nAve. (DG). The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new\ntwo-story commercial cabinet shop with a penthouse apartment on the third floor,\nto be used as a caretaker's unit, and a free-standing single-story wood frame\nstructure to be used as an administrative office for the cabinet shop. The project\nwill provide four full-size parking spaces and one ADA compliant parking space.\nThe applicant proposes to pay parking in lieu fees pursuant to Alameda Municipal\nCode Section 30-7.13 for any additional spaces that may be required by the City.\nThe applicant is also applying for a Variance to the City onsite vehicle backup\ndistance and minimum driveway and parking area perimeter landscaping\nrequirements. The site is located at 2427 Clement Ave. within an M-2, General\nIndustrial, (Manufacturing) District. (Continued from the meeting of\nSeptember 25, 2006.)\nMr. Garrison summarized the staff report.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Holly Sellers, 1624 San Antonio, inquired whether this was an existing,\nnonconforming building, and what the Municipal Code had to say about this situation.\nMs. Theresa Long, 339 Borica Place, Danville, spoke in opposition to this project and\nnoted that she owned the property at 2431 Clement Avenue. She remained concerned about\nprotecting her right of ingress and egress from the property, and did not have any\ndocumentation to address this concern.\nMr. Shawn Smith, project architect, noted that the drawings showed a one-foot easement,\nand the applicant had agreed with that. They intended to file that easement before getting a\npermit for construction.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMr. Garrison noted that the original staff report stated that the existing building fronted\nonto the sidewalk. Under the current zoning code, there is a required setback of five feet\nfrom the front property line; the building is nonconforming on the front setback. It was\nproposed to keep the building in the same place, but constructing a separate building that\nmet all AMC development standards.\nMember Cunningham noted that he did not want automobile lifts anywhere in Alameda.\nVice President Cook agreed with that assessment.\nPresident Lynch noted that he did not support a lift in this project, and was not a\nproponent of this kind of zoning text change because of the workload that would be\nimposed on staff and the City budget. He suggested that staff add this question to its \"to-\ndo\" list so that the task may be eventually funded.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nOctober 9, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-09", "page": 6, "text": "Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed this was an outstanding design, and that the building had\nbeen in industrial use since 1917. She believed the applicant was responsive to the\nBoard's concerns.\nMr. Thomas noted that there was a typo in the fourth \"Whereas\" in the Resolution, and\nclarified that the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on October 9,\n2006, as opposed to September 25, 2006.\nM/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Kohlstrand and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No.\nPB-06-35 to approve a Design Review to construct a new two-story commercial cabinet\nshop with a penthouse apartment on the third floor, to be used as a caretaker's unit, and a\nfree-standing single-story wood frame structure to be used as an administrative office for\nthe 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\nby the City. The applicant is also applying for a Variance to the City onsite vehicle\nbackup distance and minimum driveway and parking area perimeter landscaping\nrequirements.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nOctober 9, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-09", "page": 7, "text": "7-C.\nV06-0005/DR06-0052 - Christopher Seiwald - 2320 Blanding Avenue (CE).\nThe applicant requests approval of Variance and Major Design Review\napplications to allow the construction of a 17,058 square foot addition to an\nexisting 27,300 square foot commercial building. The total building square\nfootage of the proposed three-story structure is 44,358 square feet. A Variance to\nthe parking requirements is requested to allow the provision of 111 parking spaces\nwhere 120 parking spaces are required by the Alameda Municipal Code. The\nproject site is zoned M-2 General Industrial (Manufacturing). (Staff requests\ncontinuance to the meeting of October 23, 2006.)\nM/S Cunningham/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to continue Item 7-C to the meeting of\nOctober 23, 2006.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\nAlameda Towne Centre Expansion Project Draft Environmental Impact\nReport (DG). Planning Board consideration of the draft Environmental Impact\nReport that evaluates proposed changes and expansion of the Alameda Towne\nCentre (formerly South Shore Center). The project includes modifications to an\nearlier Planned Development Amendment proposed in 2002 / 2003. These include\n49,650 square feet of floor area above the 112,000 square feet expansion proposed\nin 2002/ 2003, the construction of a new 145,000 sq. ft. Target department store,\ninstead of the previously proposed 90,000 square feet building, construction of a\nnew parking structure and improvements to the southeast corner of the South\nShore Shopping Center. No action to approve or deny the project will occur at this\nmeeting. The project site is zoned C-2- PD (Central Business--Specia Planned\nDevelopment District). (Continued from the meeting of September 25, 2006.)\n-SEE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT FOR THIS ITEM -\nNo action was taken.\n8-B.\nApplicant requests a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to\nallow five new buildings totaling approximately 100,795 square feet in floor\narea with a total of 268 parking spaces to be constructed on a 7.7 acre site\n(CL). The site is located at 1900 - 1980 North Loop Road within the Harbor Bay\nBusiness Park in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development\nZoning District. Applicant: SRM Associates (FDP06-0003 and DR06-0071).\n(Continued from the meeting of September 25, 2006.)\nM/S Cunningham/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of October\n23, 2006.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nOctober 9, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-09", "page": 8, "text": "8-C. GPA05-02, R05-04, MP05-02, DP05-02, TM05-02, IS05-03 -Grand Marina\nVillage Residential Development (AT). The applicant requests approval of a\nGeneral Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Development Plan, Master Plan and Vesting\nTentative Map and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration to allow the\ndevelopment of forty (40) new detached single family homes. Development of the\nresidential project would involve the reconfiguration of the existing marina\nparking lot and improvements to the existing waterfront path and open space areas\nwithin the 8.36 acre Master Plan area. The site is located in the M2 (Heavy\nIndustrial) Zoning District at the intersection of Grand Street and Fortman Way to\nthe south of the Oakland Estuary and recreational marina facilities, north of the\nPennzoil property and City of Alameda Animal Shelter and Corporation Yard,\nand west of Grand Avenue.\nM/S Cunningham/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of October\n23, 2006.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n8-D.\nGP05-0001/R05-003 - Francis Collins d/b/a/Boatworks LLC, Applicant -\n2241 & 2243 Clement Avenue (AT). The applicant requests a General Plan\nAmendment from os (Open Space) to MU-5 (Specified Mixed Use - Northern\nWaterfront, Willow Street to Oak Street) on a 4.6-acre portion of the 10-acre\nplanned Estuary Park, and Rezone properties located at 2241 and 2243 Clement\nStreet from M-2 General Industrial (Manufacturing) District to R-4/PD\nNeighborhood Residential/Planned Development Combining District in order to\nallow for residential development of up to 242 dwelling units. The properties are\nlocated north of Clement Street, west of Oak Street, and adjacent to the Oakland-\nAlameda Estuary.\nM/S Ezzy Ashcraft/McNamara to hear this item after Item 8-A.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMember Mariani wished to correct the reference of Clement Street to Clement Avenue.\nMr. Thomas summarized the staff report.\nPresident Lynch requested that the Board close discussion of this item at this time to\naddress continuance of Items 8-A and 8-B.\nPresident Lynch noted that more than five speaker slips had been received for this item.\nM/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Cunningham and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three\nminutes.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nOctober 9, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-09", "page": 9, "text": "AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, was not in attendance to speak, but had\nindicated that he was not in favor of this item. He wanted to know the impact of Bayport\nAlameda Landing and other growth in this area before making changes.\nMs. Debra Arbuckle, Alameda Open Space, 1854 9th Street, spoke in opposition to this\nproject and would like the open space to remain. She noted that while this project\nconformed Measure A, she believed it was still too dense for the area and would not be\nsuitable to be adjacent to open space. She would like to find a less dense, more compatible\nuse for this site, and was very concerned about toxic materials from previous businesses on\nthis site.\nMr. Jim Sweeney believed this location was very strategic because it was close to\ndowntown.\nMs. Dorothy Freeman, Estuary Park Action Committee, 2050 Eagle Avenue #4, spoke in\nopposition to this project. She read the following statement and submitted it into the record:\n\"I am a member of Estuary Park Action Committee. I would like to\nreference page 21 of the package we have given you, titled Estuary Park\nInformation Resource. Under the paragraph titled \"Why is the Estuary\nPark site safer to develop as open space than as housing?\" is the reference\nto an environmental study commissioned by Stewart Gruendl, an architect\nfor BayRock, the 2002 developers. The study refers to the Fox property\nwhich has now been purchased by Mr. Collins and is part of his new\ndevelopment plan. Mr. Gruendl spoke before this committee in 2002 so a\ncopy of that study should be available to this commission. It's known that\nthe Fox property is polluted with Creosote and other pollutions are likely\non these properties. I didn't see a reference to pollution in the staff report.\nThe study dated June 17, 2002, titled \"Preliminary Geotechnical\nInvestigation, 2199 and 2229 Clement Ave., Alameda, CA\" concluded the\nland was so badly contaminated that it would have to be cleaned by \"an\nextensive dig and dump operation going below the ground water level and\nrefilling and compacting the soils every 9 inches.' Refilling could then\ncreate a possible liquefaction problem for any structures (homes) on the\nproperty during an earthquake.\nWhen EPac last worked with Susan Ota, during the writing for the grant\nrequest for Prop 40 Parks money, Ms. Ota remarked that the parking lot\nfor the proposed park would extend onto the Fox property because the\npollution was so bad, the land should not be used for anything other than\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nOctober 9, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-09", "page": 10, "text": "parking. She also remarked that the pollution was known to be traveling\ninto the soils of the adjacent properties.\nWhen EPac meet with Mr. Banta, at his request, to review the new\nproposal, I asked him if Mr. Collins was prepared to do the remediation\nnecessary to remove the polluted soil. Mr. Banta responded that there was\nno way they would be removing the soil because it was way too\nexpensive. Mr. Banta stated that Mr. Collins was looking for a different\nway to do the remediation.\nI have also provided the Commissioners with a copy of an EPA Report\ntitled, \"Federal Creosote-New Jersey.\" This report documents a site\nwhere housing and a mall were built on a creosote-contaminated site\nsimilar to the Fox contamination although a much larger development.\nSome highlights from this study: 93 residential properties had to be\nremediated, sometimes to a depth of 35 feet, a shopping mall is being\ncleaned in a project that extends into 2008. Some properties required\npermanent and temporary relocation of the residents, 280,000 tons of\ncreosote-contaminated soil have been excavated from the residential\nproperties and shipped off site.\nNowhere in this EPA report is there reference to another method of\nremoving creosote from the soil. The Fox Collins properties should not be\nused for residential or permanent business development. Open space,\nparking lots, and park space where visiting is temporary, are the only uses\nI recommend for this land. I suggest researching this issue before\nrezoning.\nSince the developer of Alameda Point has pulled out of the project,\nAlameda is presently looking for new developers. I would like to suggest\nthe city work a land swap with Mr. Collins and let him develop elsewhere.\nOn another point: Oak Street is sure getting busy. With traffic off the Park\nStreet Bridge going to the new parking structure and theater, the planned\nbike across Alameda path and the Bay Trails path being added to Oak\nStreet, the corner of Clement and Oak is already scheduled to be\ncongested. North end traffic to the new Bridgeside Center will also use\nthese streets. Where is regional oversight for Oak, Clement, and\nBlanding. Adding a residential development will just add more\ncongestion to a very tight intersection.\"\nMr. Joseph Woodard, Estuary Park Action Committee, spoke in opposition to this project,\nand submitted petitions with more than 200 neighbors opposing the project. He believed that\nthis park-poor area should have high-density housing blocking the view and eliminating\nproperty usage of this open space along the Estuary,\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nOctober 9, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-09", "page": 11, "text": "Ms. Sue Field, Elm Street, spoke in opposition to this project and noted that the project\nwould affect her. She would like the park to remain, and did not want the acres to be\nrezoned to R-4. She opposed dense housing at this site. She was very concerned about the\ntraffic becoming more congested, and believed that her quality of life would decline if the\nview were to be taken away.\nMs. Rebecca Redfield, EPAC, 2210 Clement Avenue, spoke in opposition to this project.\nHer major concerns addressed the vision for the development of the area, the type of access\nshe would like to see, and the type of traffic load experienced in that area. She would like to\nsee a park where there was sufficient room to play ball. She believed this neglected\nwaterfront area should be an asset for the whole community, and not just for the exclusive\nuse of one development. She noted that Clement Avenue was an important alternative route\nto the Park Street Bridge. She read the following paragraph into the record:\n\"Since the developer of Alameda Point has pulled out of the project,\nAlameda is presently looking for new developers. I would like to suggest the\nCity work a land swap with Mr. Collins and let Mr. Collins develop\nelsewhere.\"\nMr. Byron Lively, 1851 Elm Street, spoke in opposition to this project. He liked the idea\nof a park, but not for a lot of apartments.\nMs. Tammy Lively, 1851 Elm Street, spoke in opposition to this project. She would like to\nsee a park rather than a high-density apartment building.\nMs. Jean Sweeney noted the area was deficient in waterfront access. She would like the\narea to be changed to open space and parks.\nMr. Dong Kim, 1824 Elm Street, noted that development in this area may be exciting,\nand would be better than a parking lot, but he was concerned about the density of the\nproject. He liked the 300 feet of public access, but was concerned about how the public\ncould actually get to the waterfront. He was concerned about the interaction with Park\nStreet area. He did not believe the City would benefit from the R-4 zoning with 300 units.\nMr. Uwe Springborn, 2057 Eagle Avenue, spoke in opposition to this project. As a parent\nof triplets, he was very concerns about the environmental impacts on the park, and\nwondered whether a more in-depth environmental study would be needed. He understood\nthe balance between financial pressures and rights and freedoms in this country. He\nbelieved that in this case, park access was as important as the profit margin to the\ndeveloper. He did not support the recommendation for no further environmental impact\nstudies, and believed that would be necessary to see what has happened on the site in the\npast decades. He supported the recommendation to deny the General Plan Amendment,\nand he did not support the rezoning to R-4/PD. He would like to see a lower density plan.\nMr. Greg Harper, applicant's attorney, Hollis Street, Emeryville, detailed the background\nof this project. He noted that in the past 15 years, there have been no plans to acquire any\nmoney, develop any funds, or levy any bonds necessary to acquire the park. Their\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nOctober 9, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-09", "page": 12, "text": "position was that 15 years was a long time to be held in limbo, but with respect to the\nGeneral Plan Amendment, the Housing Element did recognize that fact and amended the\nGeneral Plan (MU-5), which purported to allow housing all the way to the waterfront.\nThey did not request a General Plan Amendment, but that was staff's position. They\nrequested that the land be zoned in accordance with the General Plan. He inquired\nwhether the City intended to put a park on the site or not. He noted that their position to\nthe court was that the City must rezone their property in accordance with the law.\nMr. Robert McGillis, project architect, Philip Banta Associates, 6050 Hollis Street,\nEmeryville, wished to clarify some items with respect to the documents distributed to the\nPlanning Board. He noted that the page after the aerial photograph of the site identified\nthe MU-5 area, and noted that the green swath through the site was the park. He noted\nthat the General Plan was amended in 2003 to accommodate the new Housing Element,\nand a map for Site 20 was not included in the staff report. He noted that the staff report\ndid not include the fact that the 242 was the result of the density bonus being invoked in\nthis case, and was the sum of the base units plus the density bonus. He noted the entire\nsite was zoned M-2, not open space. He noted that the net density calculation was\nseparate from Measure A. He noted that the issue of toxic material was being handled,\nand that the DTSC was very strict with their criteria.\nPresident Lynch believed the Housing Element was intended to consider changing sites\ndesignated for housing to zoning that allows for zoning, versus a \"must change.\"\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand, Mr. Thomas noted that the project was\nsplit into two halves, and staff wanted the Planning Board and City Council to take action\non the first half until the General Plan and zoning issues were resolved. He explained the\ndetails of the zoning designations as defined by the General Plan, as well as the intent of\nthe Housing Element with respect to this matter. Staff disagreed with the applicants'\nassertion that the Housing Element shows housing all the way out to the waterfront. He\nnoted that during the adoption of the Housing Element, it was never the intent to imply\nthat by showing where the MU-5 was on the map that all the open space policies would\nvanish.\nPresident Lynch noted the time was 10:59 and entertained a motion from the Board to\nextend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Ezzy Ashcraft to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.\nAYES - 6; NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0\nMr. Thomas described the City's zoning history with this project.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether the applicant had submitted\napplications to do anything on the property during this 15-year period, Mr. Thomas\nreplied that he believed the City had issued at least one use permit to do expansion of\nexisting industrial uses on the site.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nOctober 9, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-09", "page": 13, "text": "President Lynch noted that there had been activity on that property in 15 years, which he\ndid not perceive as being a long time. He noted that the owner has not abandoned the\nproperty.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Cunningham whether the City would recommend\nthe parcel's rezoning to open space, Mr. Thomas confirmed that staff is not\nrecommending rezoning the front portion to open space. He noted that with the\nconstraints of Measure A, staff struggled to find enough land in Alameda, and added that\nevery site was critical. If the site was zoned at a lower density, 300 units would not fit in\nthe MU-5; the City would have to find land elsewhere. He noted that every bit of land on\nthe island was committed with respect to housing allocation.\nM/S Mariani/Kohlstrand to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-36 to move that\nthe staff recommended project is categorically exempt from environmental review; to\ndeny the General Plan Amendment from os (Open Space) to MU-5 (Specified Mixed\nUse - Northern Waterfront, Willow Street to Oak Street) on a 4.6-acre portion of the 10-\nacre planned Estuary Park; and adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-37 to\napprove the rezoning of properties located at 2241 and 2243 Clement Street from M-2\nGeneral Industrial (Manufacturing) District to R-4/PD Neighborhood Residential/Planned\nDevelopment Combining District in order to allow for residential development of up to\n242 dwelling units.\nAYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (McNamara)\n8-E.\nAppointment of Two Planning Board Members to the Big Box Retail Working\nCommittee.\nM/S Cunningham/Ezzy Ashcraft to continue this item to the meeting of October 23,\n2006.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATION:\nMr. Thomas advised that staff distributed a Transmittal of Proposed Six Amendment\nCommunity Improvement Plan for the Business Waterfront and Improvement Project to\nthe Board. He noted that it was a proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan,\nwhich would come before the Board on October 23, 2006. He added that the staff report\nwould provide more detail about this matter.\n10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-\nPresident Cook).\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nOctober 9, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-09", "page": 14, "text": "Vice President Cook noted that there had been no activity since the last meeting.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee\n(Board Member Mariani).\nMember Mariani noted that there had been no activity since the last meeting.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board\nMember Kohlstrand).\nMember Kohlstrand noted that there had been no activity since the last meeting.\nd.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force\n(Board Member Cunningham).\nMember Cunningham noted that he did not have a status report at this time.\n11.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATION:\nNone.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n11:20 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nCaths Woodbury\nCathy Woodbury, Secretary\nPlanning & Building Department\nThese minutes were approved at the October 23, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This\nmeeting was audio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nOctober 9, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf"}