{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-02-12", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, February 12, 2007\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:03 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMr. Cunningham\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Lynch, Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy\nAshcraft, Kohlstrand, Mariani and McNamara.\nAlso present were Cathy Woodbury, Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas,\nAssistant City Attorney Donna Mooney, Planner III Doug Vu, Recording Secretary Erin\nGarcia.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of January 8, 2007.\nVice President Cook noted that page 14, paragraph 4 should be changed to, \"Vice\nPresident Cook believed the study should go forward and the Measure A study forum\nshould also go forward.\nBoard member Kohlstrand moved to approve the minutes of February 12, 2007, as\namended.\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 7.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nNone.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nFebruary 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-02-12", "page": 2, "text": "7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A.\nDesign Review DR05-0041, DR05-0028 and UP05-0008 - Community\nImprovement Commission and Alameda Entertainment Associates - 1416\nOak Street and 2305 Central Avenue (CE/JO). Consideration of amendments\nto the Design Review and Use Permit conditions for the parking garage and\ncineplex. Request is for an amendment to the timing for compliance with\nConditions of Approval from \"prior to issuance of a building permit\" to \"prior to\nthe issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy\" The site is located within\na\nC-C-T, Community Commercial - Theater Combining Zoning District. (This item\nhas been withdrawn from the Planning Board agenda and will be heard by\nthe City Council.)\nMs. Woodbury noted that this item had been approved by the Planning Board and then\nappealed to the City Council. The City Council initially denied the appeal, upheld the\nPlanning Board's action, and adopted the same action as did the Planning Board. She\nnoted that this item would be considered by the City Council.\nNo action was taken.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nFebruary 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-02-12", "page": 3, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\nPlanned Development PD05-0002 - Francis Collins - 2241 and 2243 Clement\nAvenue (AT). The property owner is requesting a Planned Development\nto construct 242 dwelling units on two (2) parcels totaling approximately 9.4 acres.\nThe site is located within the M-2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) Zoning\nDistrict (4.6 acres) and the R-2/PD, Two-Family Residence/Planned Development\nCombining Zoning District (4.8 acres).\nMr. Thomas presented the staff report, and stated that because the findings could not be\nmade, staff recommended denial of this planned development approval. The proposed\nproject was not consistent with the General Plan, which called for a mix of uses on the\nsite; it was not consistent with the zoning designations on the property; the proposed\ndevelopment plan did not provide a more efficient use of the site than could be achieved\nunder the district regulations; and it was not possible to make the finding that the\nproposed developed plan would not have a significant impact on the adjacent land uses.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nRobert McGillis, project architect, wished to clarify several items. He noted that the\nHousing Element identified the entire property as being suitable and desirable for\nhousing. He believed the remaining 4.6 acres should be rezoned to allow for housing. He\nunderstands that Mixed Use zoning allowed residential/industrial mix. He noted that that\nthe staff report did not note that the project met the 25% inclusionary housing, thus\nentitling the area to the density bonus. He added that the staff report did not indicate that\nthey had provided all environmental reviews required, including a traffic report. A study\nfor the DTSC (Department of Toxic Substance Control) was provided as well, and was\nout for comment at this time.\nMr. Joseph Woodard noted that staff did not mention the controversy surrounding this\nsite, and that the site had been identified in the Master Plan as a site for a park. He did not\nwant that issue to be forgotten, and believed it would allow that part of the City to be\nmore livable. He urged the Planning Board to adopt staff's recommendation to deny the\nproject.\nMr. Christopher Siewald noted that he employed approximately 100 people on Blanding\nAvenue. He was pleasantly surprised by the project, which displayed the density of a city.\nHe liked the small houses, which reminded him of the cottage rows in Alameda. He\nbelieved it lacked a fully interconnected street grid, and believed that cul de sacs and\ndead ends were not neighborly. He would trade some of the open space for an open\nspace square inside the development, rather than its current location. He would support\nthis proposal if shops were to be located in the square. He opposed this project as\npresented.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nFebruary 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-02-12", "page": 4, "text": "Member Kohlstrand noted that the proposal was not consistent with the zoning.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member McNamara regarding the items raised by the\napplicant, Mr. Thomas replied that the site zoning and General Plan conformance was\ndiscussed by staff. He noted that the Housing Element included a number of sites\nthroughout the City that were appropriate for future housing development. Since 1991,\nthe General Plan stated that within the general area, between 250-350 housing units, open\nspace and industrial uses should be included. The updated Housing Element from 1993\nincluded a table identifying future housing development sites, which identified 300\npotential housing units. Staff believed that the zoning adopted by City Council was\nabsolutely consistent with the General Plan.\nPresident Lynch believed the applicant should contact staff, and that the staff response\nmay be provided to the Board.\nMember Mariani suggested that the applicant bring this application to the City Council\nbecause it did not conform with the zoning requirements.\nVice President Cook would welcome a proposal in keeping with the General Plan zoning,\nand agreed with many of Mr. Siewald's comments; however, she would like to see some\npublic access on the site.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft believed the shoreline access was minimal and not welcoming\nbecause of the lack of the street grid continuing through the development. She noted that\nthere was little public parking, with the exception of the shopping center at the foot of the\nPark Street Bridge. She noted that Blanding and Clement were very busy streets, and that\nthe new homes would add to the congestion. She expressed concern about the rows of\nthree-story homes, which may obstruct the view of anyone in the neighborhood with a\nsmaller house. She hoped the traffic study would closely examine the traffic on Blanding\nand Clement.\nBoard member Mariani moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution PB-07-03 to deny a\nPlanned Development to construct 242 dwelling units on two (2) parcels totaling\napproximately 9.4 acres.\nVice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.\nPresident Lynch called for a two-minute recess.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nFebruary 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-02-12", "page": 5, "text": "8-B.\nAmendment to the Sign Program Associated with PD03-004 (Planned\nDevelopment) - Steve McCullagh - First Community Bank - 2531 Blanding\nAvenue. The applicant requests an amendment to the Bridgeside Sign Program to\nincrease the maximum total sign area and install one additional panel sign on the\neast elevation of the Nob Hill Foods building. The site is located in a C-2-PD,\nCentral Business District, Planned Development Combining Zoning District.\nMr. Vu presented the staff report, and recommended approval of this application.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Steve McCullagh, applicant, believed that the proposed sign would be a valuable\naddition to the site, and would be subdued during the nighttime hours, in keeping with the\nother signage. He thanked Mr. Vu for a thorough staff report.\nMr. Adam Garfinkle believed it was important to follow the City standards, and was\nconcerned about setting a precedent for future applications. He encouraged the applicant\nto follow other advertising channels, rather than requesting an amendment to the Sign\nProgram.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft whether the proposed bank sign had\nthe same dimensions as Java City, Mr. Vu replied that they were approximately the same\nsize.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she had visited the site, and believed the sign was quite\nattractive. She believed the propose sign would visually balance the existing signs. She\nbelieved the trend toward one-stop shopping was reflected in this center, and believed\nthis was a good way for people to leave their cars and shop in one place.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook, Mr. Vu replied that no further signage\nrequests had been received for this development.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand, Mr. Vu confirmed that the Bridgeside\nSign Program was more restrictive than the City's signage requirements, and that the sign\nwould be internally illuminated.\nVice President Cook noted that she was not opposed to this particular sign, and agreed\nwith the other comments. She was concerned about the signage placed on the windows of\nthe petfood store. She would like the windows to contribute to the uses spilling out onto\nthe waterfront. She would like to revisit that issue. Mr. Vu noted that staff had noticed\nthat as well, and staff had approached the Petfood Express management. They stated that\nthe banners were meant to be used for grand opening purposes, and that they would be\nremoved after a certain period of time. He understood that no more than 25% of windows\nor glazing may be covered by signs or decals. The development would not receive its\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nFebruary 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-02-12", "page": 6, "text": "final certificate of occupancy until those conditions had been met.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding proposed changes to the\npublic art in the center, Mr. Vu replied that the project went to the Art Commission, and\nthat the mast and the sail she referred to were not part of the public art project. The\napplicant had applied for the public performance program, and would provide public art\nin that manner.\nMember Mariani requested a status report or call for review in the future about the\nsignage in the center, because of past experiences with the developer.\nMs. Woodbury noted that the project was entitled and could not be reviewed again. She\nnoted that staff would be happy to provide updates and lead a site visit, and added that\nMr. Vu had worked very closely with them with respect to signage.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Lynch regarding opening dates, Ms. Woodbury\nreplied that Nob Hill Foods should open in about one month, and that temporary\ncertificates of occupancy may allow individual stores to open for business.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution PB-07-04 to\napprove an amendment to the Bridgeside Sign Program to increase the maximum total\nsign area and install one additional panel sign on the east elevation of the Nob Hill Foods\nbuilding.\nBoard member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 7.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nFebruary 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-02-12", "page": 7, "text": "8-C. Workshop to discuss roles and responsibilities of the Planning Board and staff,\nimprovements in the effectiveness of meetings, and major planning projects and\ninitiatives in 2007. (Continued from the special meeting of January 31, 2007.)\nMs. Woodbury presented the staff report, and noted that the 2006 calendar had been very\nheavy with many items having been continued. Staff would be cognizant of the mix of\ncontroversial items with more routine items. Another idea was to hold special meetings\nfor workshops, with some of the special meetings being held on-site at a different time.\nShe noted that following the rules of procedure with respect to agenda order would\nenhance efficiency. She added that using the Zoning Administrator to address\nadministrative use permits and variances, which would lighten the load of the agendas.\nShe emphasized that the Zoning Administrator hearings would also be publicly noticed\nand open to the public.\nPresident Lynch supported the use of Zoning Administrator hearings to enable the\nPlanning Board to address more detailed items more thoroughly during the regular\nPlanning Board meetings.\nMs. Woodbury advised that the same timetables for appeals and call for review would\napply to the Zoning Administrator hearings. She noted that a bulletin would be\ndistributed to the Planning Board regarding upcoming items.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member McNamara regarding how the agenda order was\ndetermined, Ms. Woodbury replied that was delineated in the Rules and Procedures.\nMember McNamara suggested shifting the less time-consuming item to the beginning of\nthe agenda. Ms. Woodbury noted that it was sometimes difficult to assess that possibility\nbefore it starts, and that it was the Board's prerogative to change the agenda order.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft urged caution in reordering the agenda since some members of the\npublic plan to arrive at a certain time to hear a particular item. She did not want the\npublic to miss an item because it was moved up on the agenda.\nMember McNamara noted that when the draft minutes were reviewed by the Board, the\nBoard had agreed to change the minutes to a summary from more detailed minutes. She\nnoted that when the Board makes corrections and edits to the draft minutes, it often\ninvolves more detailed verbiage. She inquired what the current standard was for the\nminutes. Ms. Woodbury replied that the summary minutes do have some level of detail to\nensure the comments and votes were captured correctly. She emphasized that the minutes\nare based on what was actually stated during a meeting, not what was intended in\nconsidering the content after the fact. She added that the audiotape and the City's webcast\ncenter on the website were also available to the public. She noted that verbatim minutes\nwould reflect every word exactly as spoken.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that with respect to meeting cancellation, she liked Member\nCunningham's recommendation of having a list of items to address. She believed that it\nwas awkward to cancel the January 22 meeting, followed by a special meeting on January\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nFebruary 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-02-12", "page": 8, "text": "31.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that the staff comments and Board communications were\ncurrently scheduled at the end of the meeting, and inquired whether those items could be\nmoved to the beginning of the meeting. Ms. Mooney noted that those rules of agenda\norder may changed by Board resolution.\nMember Mariani noted that when the meetings run very late, it was difficult to address\nstaff and Board communications at that late hour. She suggested that they be considered\nearlier on the agenda.\nVice President Cook noted that when she reviewed the meeting tapes for South Shore,\nthere were many hours of audiotapes to search through. She suggested that the meeting\naudio be available on CD so they could be reviewed in the car or on a home CD player.\nMs. Woodbury replied that was a good point, and added that since the meetings were\navailable on streaming video, perhaps a CD could be produced.\nPresident Lynch suggested contacting the IT Department to diversify the sources.\nMember Mariani noted that the shelf life for videotapes was limited, and agreed that they\nbe archived on DVD and CD.\nMs. Woodbury noted that the preparation for the Planning Board/City Council joint\nmeeting continued to move forward. She noted that President Lynch had inquired about\nthe Planning Board's role in relation to the economic development of a project.\nPresident Lynch inquired about staff's concept of how that meeting would take place.\nMs. Woodbury replied that Planning staff was working with the City Manager's office,\nand that previous meetings were not on the City Council regular agenda. She noted that in\nthe past, member of the public have attended, and that staff preferred that the previous\nformats continue. She noted that the meeting may be held at the Library, or other\nlocations depending on the date and time.\nPresident Lynch noted that members of the public have often commented about their\ndesire for clarity on issues such as economic development as they relate to land use and\nother Planning issues. He suggested that joint meeting with the EDC and other bodies\nmay focus the discussion in a beneficial manner.\nMember Kohlstrand would like to see some follow-up on the parking discussions held in\nconjunction with the EDC.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she had been appointed to the Big Box Retail\nCommittee, and that no meetings had been held yet. Ms. Woodbury noted that would be a\nstanding item for follow-up on future agendas.\nPresident Lynch suggested considering adding a status report on projects that had\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nFebruary 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-02-12", "page": 9, "text": "received their determination under Staff Communications.\nNo action was taken.\n9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATION:\nNone.\n10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-\nPresident Cook).\nVice President Cook noted that there had been no further meetings since her last report.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee\n(Board Member Mariani).\nMember Mariani noted that the next meeting would be held on February 15, 2007.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board\nMember Kohlstrand).\nMember Kohlstrand noted that there had been no further meetings since her last report.\nd.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force\n(Board Member Cunningham).\nMember Cunningham noted that the next meeting would be held on February 14, 2007.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nFebruary 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-02-12", "page": 10, "text": "11.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATION:\na.\nWork Program Status Report\nMr. Thomas summarized the staff report, and noted that Items 11-a and 11-b would be\nagendized each meeting. He noted that items could move to different dates because\napplicants can change their minds, and there could be changes within staff's involvement\nin the items. He noted that this report would give the Board an opportunity to look three\nmonths ahead. The Board would be able to maintain a list of every item being considered\nby the Planning Board and that may be brought to City Council. Staff would like to have\na database of every application on file, which generally numbers between 100- 125\nprojects.\nPresident Lynch noted that there were lingering questions regarding Alameda Town\nCentre, and noted that the gas station application may not be addressed because of the\nnumber of questions. He suggested scheduling a status report on the Town Centre before\nMarch 26, 2007, in order to maintain the timeline. Mr. Thomas noted that staff would like\nto schedule a study session to examine the Town Centre issues, including a walk around.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the study session could be held on the same\nevening. She noted that she was pleased to see the study session for green building\nordinances for March 12, 2007, which she had lobbied for; she did not believe the City\nneeded to reinvent the wheel in that regard, and noted that many other cities had added\ngreen building ordinances. She would like to see the draft ordinances brought back to the\nBoard, with a date certain to submit it to the City Council for their approval. She would\nalso like to see the next steps beyond the initial step.\nMember Kohlstrand complimented staff on the list, and noted that the April 9, 2007,\nmeeting occurred during spring break. She was concerned that may not be a good date to\nhave major items on the calendar. She also wanted to ensure there was a reasonable\ntransportation network to support Alameda Landing, which she believed the\nTransportation Commission should examine. She noted that Clif Bar needed to move\nahead before further action. Mr. Thomas noted that the approved Master Plan included\nmany transportation issues, including the street cross-sections, model, and open space\ndevelopment concept. He noted that the bigger items would be presented for evaluation\nbefore the smaller items such as Clif Bar could be addressed.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that the May 29 meeting would address the Transportation\nElement Update Study Session, and believed it would be a good idea to revisit those since\nthe City Council had adopted some transportation policies.\nVice President Cook noted that there was no Measure A forum on the list, and believed\nthat it should be addressed, or that a discussion why it would not be addressed should be\nheld. Ms. Woodbury noted that a workshop would be held, and that further workshops\nmay be spun off if needed. Vice President Cook believed it should be on the agenda, or if\nnot, that reason should be discussed.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nFebruary 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-02-12", "page": 11, "text": "Vice President Cook believed there should be discussions of continuity of waterfront\naccess, and a discussion held whether there should be common themes or different design\nconcepts. She would like to see more emphasis on pedestrian-friendly walkways. She\nexpressed concern about the City's gateways, and would like to see more gateway\nplanning efforts. She believed that uses such as food banks and the Salvation Army were\nessential to the community but may not be appropriate for gateways. She added that other\nuses such as auto uses and cigarette shops might not be appropriate gateway uses as well.\nVice President Cook would like staff's reports to summarize status of developers'\ncomments to follow up on and strengthen developer promises and commitments.\nMember Cunningham inquired about the breadth of subjects that could be covered by\nordinances from a legal point of view. Ms. Mooney replied that it would depend on the\ntopic, and noted that the City has legal enforcement available to deteriorated buildings.\nShe noted that there were many factors to take into account, and that it would depend on\nthe specific subject matter.\nPresident Lynch noted that the Health and Safety Code would address dilapidated\nbuildings.\nMs. Woodbury advised that the Planning Board typically addressed development\nregulations, and staff has occasionally approached the Board to amend development\nregulations for a certain purpose, such as K&L findings. She emphasized that she was\ncommitted to using the staff resources as efficiently as possible, and that some items were\nrequired to be performed by state law.\nPresident Lynch believed the public would like to see the Towne Centre and gas station\non the same evening.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Adam Garfield agreed with Member Mariani's request to track developer\ncommitments.\nMs. Woodbury suggested that he speak with staff regarding any project-specific\ncomments and questions.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPresident Lynch acknowledged that there was considerable frustration over the Blanding\nproject, and that a Board member may ask for a scheduled revocation hearing if certain\nbenchmarks were not met. He understood that the Board wished to avoid that, and that\nthere were significant differences of opinion. He suggested a site visit where Board\nmembers could gain more information about signage and other items.\nMember Mariani noted her disappointment in how the project had developed, after the\nmany hours of discussion and hearings by the Planning Board. She hoped the situation\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nFebruary 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-02-12", "page": 12, "text": "would improve, and that some consequences would follow noncompliance of specific\nBoard requests.\nMember McNamara inquired about the Big Box Retail Study, and noted that she had not\nheard anything further. Ms. Woodbury replied that no meeting had been scheduled yet,\nand that no funds had been budgeted to hire the consultant. City Council believed that\nmany retail and leakage studies had already been held, and requested that staff compile\nexisting information for the committee. After that, it would be determined whether there\nwere any gaps in the information, and whether further study would be needed.\nMember Kohlstrand suggested moving Staff Communication to follow Oral\nCommunication. Ms. Woodbury noted that could be agendized as an amendment to the\nRules and Procedures.\nb.\nFuture Agenda Items.\nNone.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n9:40 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAnland\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThese minutes were approved at the March 26, 2007 meeting. This meeting was audio\nand videotaped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nFebruary 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf"}