{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-06-23", "page": 1, "text": "UNAPPROVED\nCOMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nJune 23, 2008\nTIME\nThe meeting convened at 6:40 p.m.\nPRESENT\nChair Lord-Hausman, Vice-Chair Moore, Commissioners Longley-Cook, Fort, Kirola\nand Kreitz.\nABSENT\nCommissioners Berger and Robinson\nMINUTES\nThe May 27, 2008 minutes were approved with the following corrections: under New Business, Item\nNumber 1: changed question regarding Tinker Avenue from Commissioner Kirola to Commissioner\nLongley-Cook; and Changed \"Motion Seconded\" from Commissioner Kirola to Commissioner\nLongley-Cook.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nThere was no written communication.\nNEW BUSINESS\n1. Alameda Landing Development (Andrew Thomas, Planning Dept.):\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Manager, provided updated information on the Alameda Landing\nProject and addressed items concerning disability issues as they relate to the Project's\ndevelopment. The Project is approved; however, it is being developed on a phased planning\ndesign so input can be received for each design review portion of the project.\nCommissioner Kreitz asked if there would be connectors at Alameda Point to which Mr. Thomas\nreplied yes, and that there would be no more sound walls similar to the Bayport Housing Project.\nTinker Avenue will connect and extend from College of Alameda to Webster Street, as will\nFifth Street.\nCommissioner Kreitz asked if there would be transportation to which Mr. Thomas responded\nthere would be a water shuttle transporting people from Alameda Landing to Broadway in\nOakland.\nChair Lord-Hausman asked if there will be single-level homes and transportation designs for\naccessibility issues such as wheel walks and would these items be included in the retail portion\nof the project? Mr. Thomas responded that he is aware that the design of open space and retail\nwill be fully accessible for the disabled and that the housing portion is not being worked on at", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-06-23", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nJune 23, 2008\nMinutes\nPage 2 of 5\nthis point of the project. There are more concerns being expressed by elderly for single-level,\nsmaller homes. Mr. Thomas encouraged the Commission to make recommendations to the\nCouncil regarding these housing issues.\nVice-Chair Moore asked what is the percentage of housing for the low-income to which Mr.\nThomas responded 25%. Vice-Chair Moore stated low-income housing should include families\nwith disabilities.\nMr. Thomas stated that the Commission on Disability Issues should be added to the distribution\nlist for all things concerning Catellus and Alameda Landing. Secretary Akil stated that Chair\nLord-Hausman's name should be added to that list.\nMr. Thomas thanked the Commission for their input and indicated he would return with future\nupdates.\nOLD BUSINESS\n1. Alameda Point Curb Cut Project (Terri Wright, Development Services Dept.):\nTerri Wright, Development Services Dept., gave a presentation on the AP Curb Cut Project's\ngoals, overview, limitations, summary and all ADA ramps and reasonable accommodations in\nconnection with the project.\nChair Lord-Hausman asked clarification regarding the Alameda Pont Collaborative (APC). Ms.\nWright stated that APC was formed based on the McKinney Act, which recognizes that surplus\nmilitary housing be designated for the homeless.\nCommissioner Kirola asked about the location of the Food Bank to which Ms. Wright stated that\nthe main sight is located on Webster and Constitution Streets, and the site at AP is their\nwarehouse, although they do distribute food from there.\nVice-Chair Moore stated that this project shows value to the community and lets people living at\nAlameda Point know that there is a commitment by the City to improve living conditions until\nthe property is fully developed. Ms. Wright responded that this project is about service to the\npeople.\nCommissioner Kirola asked if bus service is available for school children since approximately\nhalf of the 200 individuals at AP are children, to which Ms. Wright replied that there is a 63 Bus\nLine that travels through AP and most of the children located there attend Ruby Bridges\nElementary School which is within walking distance.\nG:\\LucretialCommDisability\\Minutes2008\\Minutes_June 23 2008.00", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-06-23", "page": 3, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nJune 23, 2008\nMinutes\nPage 3 of 5\nMs. Wright thanked the Commission for their questions and input and indicated that she will\nreturn to provide an update for Phase II of the project.\n2.\nConcerts at the Cove (Chair Lord-Hausman):\nDates for the remaining concerts were confirmed by Commissioner Longley-Cook who\nindicated she would attend on June 13; Chair Lord-Hausman will attend on July 11; and\nCommissioners Berger and Kreitz who will attend on August 8.\nCommissioner Longley-Cook stated that one individual from a nursing home came to the table\nduring the June 13 concert. There were a couple of individuals who stopped by requesting\ninformation regarding the Regional Center. Vice-Chair Moore responded that she would get\nmore information to hand out about the Regional Center.\n3.\nCDI Attendance (Chair Lord-Hausman):\nChair Lord-Hausman emphasized the importance of attendance requirements of the\nCommissioners and reminded everyone to call Secretary Akil if unable to attend.\n4. Commission Disability Internet Link (Chair Lord-Hausman/Secretary Akil):\nSecretary Akil stated there were no new updates to the disability internet link since the last\nmeeting. Commissioners Kreitz and Moore suggested some additional website possibilities and\noptions once the City's redesigned website up and running.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nSecretary Akil provided information regarding Commissioner Berger's request to address the\ninoperable gate button in the back of the Main Library and the limited amount of disabled bathroom\nstalls that include diaper-changing tables. Secretary Akil stated that she and Chair Lord-Hausman\nspoke to Jane Chisaki, Library Director, who indicated that the button at the back of the building is\nonly operable during business hours and that she would have a sign posted next to that button with\nthat information. Ms. Chisaki also agreed to look into purchasing disabled symbols or signs to place\non the door of each of the disabled stalls to remind individuals that these bathrooms are priority for\nthose with accessibility needs. These signs will be placed on the front of the bathroom stalls as\nfunding becomes available within the Library budget.\nCommissioner Longley-Cook described additional access issues once being buzzed in at the back\ndoor to the outside patio area and still requiring to be let into the actual library as well as space\nissues. Chair Lord-Hausman stated the library had to work with the space they have.\nG:\\LucretialCommDisability\\Minutes\\2008\\Minutes_June", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-06-23", "page": 4, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nJune 23,2008\nMinutes\nPage 4 of 5\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS\n1. Commissioner Kreitz distributed the draft Commission on Disability Issues Calendar covering\nJune 2008 - May 2009. Changes and recommendations were made for calendar editing. She\nwill send a revised draft to Chair Lord-Hausman for review.\nAs part of that discussion, the Commission agreed to combine the November and December\nmeetings to December 8, 2008.\n2. Chair Lord-Hausman informed the Commission that she spoke with Jackie Krause, Senior\nServices Manager at Mastick Senior Center, regarding possible joint efforts at various City-wide\nevents. Ms. Krause indicated that they do not have sufficient staff available, however, they will\ndistribute information provided to them about the Commission at events they participate in.\n3.\nCommissioner Longley-Cook distributed a flyer about an event sponsored by The Arthritis\nFoundation, Bone and Joint Expo, which is Saturday, October 18, 2008, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.\nat the Concord Hilton Hotel.\n4. Vice-Chair Moore stated that she is willing to organize another tree planting event as part of\nDisability Awareness Month, October 2008 that the Commission supports. Vice-Chair Moore\nalso indicated that she would like to acknowledge April as National Autism Awareness month.\n5.\nChair Lord-Hausman informed the Commission that the removal of parking spaces along Central\nAvenue in front of Alameda High School was due to the redesign of the street. Following the\nremoval of the parallel parking along Central Avenue, AUSD reverted these spaces back to the\noriginal disabled parking spaces at the Oak Street parking lot. Chair Lord-Hausman stated that\nPublic Works would discuss better signage with AUSD regarding these changes.\n6. Chair Lord-Hausman stated that the Federal Government is coming out with new ADA\nlegislation and suggested Secretary Akil check with Jim Fruit, Project Manager from Sally\nSwanson Architects who assisted the City in its ADA Transition Update, regarding any\ninformation on how it may affect the City.\n7. Commissioner Kreitz stated the Bike Plan Task Force Committee had a meeting but she was\nunable to attend.\nG:\\LucretialCommDisability\\Minutes\\2008\\Minutes_June", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-06-23", "page": 5, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nJune 23, 2008\nMinutes\nPage 5 of 5\nADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, July 28, 2008, at 6:30\np.m. in Room 360 at City Hall.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAucusia Akil\nLucfetia A. Akil\nCommission Secretary\nG:\\Lucretia\\CommDisability\\Minutes\\2008\\Minutes_June 232008.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-06-23", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, June 23, 2008\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:05 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Cunningham.\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Board Members\nAutorino, Cunningham, and Ezzy Ashcraft.\nBoard members Lynch and McNamara were absent from roll call.\nAlso present were Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, Assistant City Attorney\nFarimah Faiz; Planner III Dennis Brighton; Planner Simone Walter; Obaid Khan, Public\nWorks; Executive Assistant Althea Carter.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Cook suggested that because of the full agenda, that the items be reordered so that the\nConsent Calendar and Regular Agenda immediately follow Oral Communications.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to move Items 4, 5 and 6 to the end of the agenda.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0\nAbsent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara); Abstain: 0. The motion passed.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATION: None.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8-A.\nDA-99-01 - Catellus Development Corporation. The applicant requests a Periodic\nReview of Development Agreement, DA-99-01, for the period from January 2005\nthrough December 2007.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham regarding the old Clif Bar location, Mr.\nThomas replied that Catellus was still working with Clif Bar. The Letter of Intent with Clif Bar\nhad expired approximately one year ago, and that negotiations continued between Catellus and\nClif Bar.\nPresident Cook moved to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to accept the Periodic\nReview of Development Agreement, DA-99-01, for the period from January 2005 through\nDecember 2007.\nPage 1 of 23", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-06-23", "page": 2, "text": "Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes:\n0\nAbsent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara); Abstain: 0. The motion passed.\n8-B.\nDA89-01 - Harbor Bay Business Park Association, Harbor Bay Isle Associates and\nHarbor Bay Entities - Bay Farm Island (Primarily Harbor Bay Isle). A request for a\nPeriodic Review of Development Agreement DA89-01, for the period through April 4,\n2008, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1. The properties are zoned R-\n1-PD (One Family Residence/Planned Development Zoning District); C-M-PD\n(Commercial Manufacturing Planned Development Zoning District); O (Open Space\nZoning District), and R-1-A-H (One Family Residence with Special Agricultural and\nHeight Limit Combining Zoning District). (Code Enforcement)\nPresident Cook moved to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to accept a Periodic Review\nof Development Agreement DA89-01, for the period through April 4, 2008, as required under\nZoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1.\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0\nAbsent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara); Abstain: 0. The motion passed.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A.\nPLN07-0031 and DR07-0086 - RHP Design Group - 2424 Encinal Avenue (KFC\nRestaurant). The project entails the complete demolition of the existing 2,366 square\nfoot restaurant and a Design Review for the construction of an approximately 2,016\nsquare foot new restaurant. The restaurant will contain a drive-through, which requires a\nUse Permit pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A.c.l(r A parking exception is required for this\nproject, because the eight parking spaces provided for this project are less than the\nrequired 20 parking spaces pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A.g.8. The project is located in a C-\nC-T, Community Commercial Theatre District. (SW)\nMs. Wolter summarized the staff report and displayed a PowerPoint presentation, and noted that\nthere was no parking exception required at this project location, and that reference should be\nstruck. Staff recommended approval of this project as stated in the revised resolution.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cook whether the signs would be part of this approval, Ms.\nWolter replied that signs would be approved separately.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding odors, Ms. Wolter replied\nthat because new mechanical equipment would be installed, the applicant has advised that the\ncurrent odors would not be emitted. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft added that she would like to\nsee the trash picked up on a daily basis.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, PSBA, spoke in support of this project. He was happy to see\nthat the applicant, the City and the residents had worked together to craft this agreement. He\nPage 2 of 23", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-06-23", "page": 3, "text": "noted that PSBA supported the demolition of the current building. He was happy to hear that a\nparking exception was not needed. He noted that the new building would be better-looking and\nbetter-functioning.\nMr. Christopher Buckley, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, agreed that the new design would be a big\nimprovement over the current building. He was surprised that the signage would not be\nconsidered at this meeting, and he believed it was an integral part of the overall design. He noted\nthat the existing pole sign was 12 feet tall, which he believed was too tall. He believed a\nmonument sign should be placed on a base, not a pole. He suggested that the sign be six feet tall,\nrather than 12 feet tall. He noted that the drive-through signs were also pole-type signs, and\nsuggested that they be converted to a monument sign with a solid base.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she liked the new design, which was much more\nharmonious with the neighborhood. She was concerned with the drive-through effect on the\nenvironment and air quality. She noted that a car idling for two minutes uses the same amount of\nfuel as it took to drive one mile, and that idling cars cause a negative impact on health. She noted\nthat an alternative to idling is to park the car, order, and return to the car. She understood that the\nrestaurant was set up more as a take-out restaurant. She believed that the City should be a good\nsteward of the environment. She would like to see a slight redesign to provide on-site parking\ninstead of the drive-through.\nVice President Kohlstrand shared Board member Ezzy Ashcraft's concerns with respect to the\ndrive-through and trash cleanup. She endorsed a daily cleanup. She agreed the building design\nhad improved, and she was concerned that the restaurant rested up against the sidewalk. She\ninquired about the limitations on drive-through restaurants in any zoning area in the City.\nMr. Brighton noted that drive-through restaurants were prohibited in some areas on Webster\nStreet, but not on Park Street.\nMr. Thomas believed the current drive-through was done with permits, although staff had not\nlocated those records.\nBoard member Cunningham would like to hear from the applicant regarding the drive-through\nelement. He inquired about employee break areas. Mr. Thomas noted that they were not\ndiscussed in reviewing the application.\nBoard member Cunningham inquired whether the Police Department had reviewed the security of\nthis project. Mr. Thomas confirmed that they had, and that they were satisfied.\nBoard member Cunningham inquired if wood windows had been considered to blend with the\nhistorical elements.\nBoard member Autorino shared the concerns regarding the trash pickup, and believed that daily\npickups were significantly better. He believed the design was significantly improved over the\nPage 3 of 23", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-06-23", "page": 4, "text": "previous design, and noted that it was already a drive-through. He believed that the applicant had\nthe ability to continue that use.\nPresident Cook shared the concerns about a drive-through, as well as how it got there. She was\nconcerned about the queuing for cars, and inquired whether there would be more cars than could\nbe handled.\nMs. Wolter noted that in order to have the drive-through, the parking must be arranged in such a\nway so that the back-up would meet the development code, thus facing the building. She noted\nthat Public Works had examined this item, and added that Obaid Khan would be available for\nquestions.\nMr. Thomas noted that if the queue got to be 10 to 12 cars long, people in the parking area would\nhave a difficult time getting out. He noted that based on the current sales figures, staff did not\nbelieve the line would get long enough to extend into the public right of way on Encinal; which\nwas staff's primary concern. He noted that a use permit could be revoked, and that the conditions\nrequiring management of the auto queue, monitoring, and review were an important part of this\napplication.\nPresident Cook wished to be clear about the possibility of revoking the use permit for the drive-\nthrough if it did not work.\nBoard member Cunningham inquired whether Public Works had a comment on the distances\nbetween curb cuts.\nObaid Khan, Public Works, noted that they examined the driveway's location, and added that\nputting the driveway exit onto Park Avenue would increase traffic circulation onto a residential\nstreet. Staff considered that it would be a better solution to provide an exit and entrance at the\nsame site. He noted that there was considerable traffic on Encinal, and staff's concerns were the\nreason for placing a nine-month review. He noted that staff wished to keep the exiting driveway\nas far away as possible from an intersection.\nBoard member Cunningham noted there was a balance between pedestrian safety and vehicular\nmovement.\nMr. Khan noted that any queue on Encinal should be kept away from the intersection.\nPresident Cook believed that if the restaurant's traffic was queuing onto Encinal, there should not\nbe a drive-through. She noted that between the bus traffic, the Fire Department, the gas station\nand the high school foot traffic, she did not believe any queuing should be allowed onto Encinal,\nor that the drive-through should not be operated unless it could be done safely. She suggested\nthat Condition 15 be tightened, and would like to hear from the applicant.\nKaren [Gutke], Harmon Management, explained the operations of the company, noting that it\nwas the first franchisee of KFC. She added that the store managers had an ownership interest in\nthe restaurant, which enabled them to be run better than the national average. Their goal was to\nPage 4 of 23", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-06-23", "page": 5, "text": "never have cars queued into the street, and that they had a seven-car stack. She noted that it was\nimperative that they have the drive-through, and that the majority of the food that went home\nwith the customer did so at the drive-through. She agreed that the trash should be picked up more\nfrequently, and would be happy to ensure that would happen.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that she was not generally in favor of drive-throughs, but she\nappreciated the applicant's efforts to improve the circulation on-site and get the queuing on-site.\nShe was sensitive to the fact that the existing drive-through did not work very well. She liked\nPresident Cook's comment that if a problem with queuing on Encinal occurred, then it may be an\nissue of the site being too small for a drive-through. She supported the idea of monitoring this\nsite for a nine-month period, and ensuring that the studies be performed during the school year\nrather than the summer in order to get a good sense of the implications for the afternoon activity\nduring the school year. She suggested considering the broader issue of allowing future drive-\nthroughs in the Park Street vicinity.\nPresident Cook proposed that the conditions be changed so that if necessary, the use permit may\nbe revoked in order to ensure safe street and pedestrian operations, and that the item may be\nbrought back before the Planning Board.\nMr. Thomas noted that a condition could be added, making it very clear that the use permits can\nbe revoked after a noticed public hearing. Staff will monitor the conditions, and if a problem has\nbeen found, it will be brought before the Board; staff did not wish to set the item for a fixed\nreview.\nPresident Cook suggested that be included in Condition 15. She further suggested that Condition\n8 be changed to require that the site be cleaned of trash on a daily basis. She noted that Condition\n9 discussed the applicant's need to get the necessary encroachment permit from CalTrans for the\nmain driveway.\nMr. Thomas noted that Encinal was a state highway, and that if CalTrans did not approve it, they\nwould not want the project to move forward. He added that the Fire Department has examined\nthis project as well.\nPresident Cook would like an additional condition that wood windows and doors be added where\nappropriate.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she liked the wood-clad doors.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that wood doors were more residential, and that most businesses\nhad metal-framed doors.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that there were some wood doors on Park Street.\nPresident Cook suggested the use of a wood door, or a door that was compatible with the window\ntreatment.\nPage 5 of 23", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-06-23", "page": 6, "text": "Board member Cunningham to move to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to approve the\ncomplete demolition of the existing 2,366 square foot restaurant and a Design Review for the\nconstruction of an approximately 2,016 square foot new restaurant. The restaurant will contain a\ndrive-through, which requires a Use Permit pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A.c.l(r A parking exception\nis required for this project, because the eight parking spaces provided for this project are less\nthan the required 20 parking spaces pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A.g.8. The following modifications\nwill be included:\n1.\nWood windows and a door to match;\n2.\nThe use permit may be revoked if the conditions have not been complied with;\n3.\nThe trash will be picked up daily; and\n4.\nTraffic monitoring will occur during the school year.\nBoard member Autorino seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4. Noes: 1 (Ezzy\nAshcraft) Absent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara); Abstain: 0. The motion passed.\nPresident Cook invited comment on signage, and agreed with Mr. Buckley's comment that the\nold-fashioned pole signs were inappropriate. She requested staff's comments on the signage.\nMs. Wolter replied that the overall square footage as presented in the design review was currently\ntoo large, and that the wall signs would be reduced. In addition, the directional signs may be\napproved by the Planning & Building Director. She noted that the pole sign would not be\napproved as it stood, and that concern may be alleviated.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cook regarding the presence of \"The Colonel\" on the sign,\nMs. Gutke replied that was always a part of the company's identity.\nPresident Cook noted that the improvements were very much appreciated.\n9-B.\nPLN08-0153 - General Plan Amendment - 2400 Mariner Square Drive. The\napplicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment for the MU2 Mariner Square Specific\nMixed Use Area to permit additional office use. The site is located at 2400 Mariner\nSquare Drive within M-2-PD General Industrial (Manufacturing) Planned Development\nZoning District. (Code Enforcement). (The applicant has requested this item be\ncontinued to the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting of August 11, 2008.)\nThis item was continued to the Planning Board meeting of August 11, 2008.\n9-C.\nDR07-0056 - Major Design Review - 3327 Fernside Blvd. The applicant is requesting\na Major Design Review approval, which addresses: 1) Raising the residential structure to\ncreate a third story and providing an addition at the rear of the residence; 2)\nReconfiguring the front staircase and front porch and expanding the garage door; 3)\nConstructing a detached two-story structure in the rear yard that would serve as an\nPage 6 of 23", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-06-23", "page": 7, "text": "additional dwelling unit. The site is located within an R-2 (Two-family Residential\nZoning District). (DB)\nMr. Brighton presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this item.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Joanne Chandler noted that she owned the property north of and adjacent to the applicants'\nproperty, and spoke in support of this project. She had no objection to the applicants' plans to\nimprove their home, and had been assured that the work would not be too disruptive. She noted\nthat the applicants' had elderly parents whom they would like to bring into the home. She could\nsee nothing detrimental about this project.\nMs. Tracy Cot\u00e9 believed such additions compromised the integrity of the neighborhood\naesthetic, and believed that too few of the additions, which she considered to be poorly thought-\nthrough, were noticed or debated. She believed the proposed changes would negatively impact\nthe historic fa\u00e7ade. She was concerned about the double-wide garage, which was not typical for\nthis neighborhood. She expressed concern that the addition would not fit in with the area, and\nwould degrade the surrounding historic residences. She requested that the applicants be directed\nto redesign an addition that would suit their needs, but would not negatively impact the\nsurrounding neighborhood.\nMs. Donna Talbot, applicant, noted that pursuant to the last Planning Board meeting, all of the\ncriteria for the approval had been met. She noted that they no longer needed any variances, were\nin compliance with all Alameda Municipal Codes, resolved the height problem with the house,\nand had incorporated the Planning Board's recommendations. She believed the photographs were\nbiased, and noted that they preferred to follow the Board's recommendations and move forward\nrather than start the project again. She noted that the public hearing had been closed at the last\nmeeting. She noted that the new elevations incorporated the suggestions from the January 28,\n2008, meeting, as well as suggestions made by Planning Services Manager Jon Biggs. She noted\nthat the front elevation on page 1 eliminated the massive stucco at the front and opened up the\nporch. She believed staff's suggestion of adding an open porch was excellent, and that it\nimproved the look of the project.\nMs. Talbot noted that the driveway did not cut down, did not look out of place with the rest of\nthe neighborhood, and the front yard had a nice flow to it. She noted that the two-car garage had\na single-car entrance off the street, which was similar to many properties off Fernside Blvd. She\nbelieved the driveway was attractively incorporated into the design. They redesignated the\nboathouse as a second dwelling unit, and that they no longer needed any variances. She noted\nthat at the last Planning Board meeting, they discussed the height of the structure, and noted that\npage 4 explained the changes in the height from the existing to the proposed height. She noted\nthat they reduced the height from 31'9\" to 30' to meet the AMC requirement. She noted that the\nredesigned the front roof to a gabled style in order to reduce the roof height by the nine inches.\nHowever, design review staff did not like that concept and upon further reflection, neither did she\nand the co-applicant. They agreed to maintain the gable-style roof at the front of the house\nduring the March 5 meeting with Jon Biggs and Dennis Brighton. Mr. Biggs had suggested that\nPage 7 of 23", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-06-23", "page": 8, "text": "since the nine-inch roof ridge was not a living space or attic, that it could be considered an\narchitectural element, and extend beyond the 30-foot maximum. She and her husband agreed\nwith that suggestion, and stated that they would incorporate that design into the design of the\nproject. They displayed the new roof angle on the overhead screen.\nMs. Talbot noted that Board member Cunningham stated at the last Planning Board meeting that\nthey were well within their rights to raise the height of the structure to 30 feet. They believed that\nbased on Mr. Biggs' suggestion, that the height and design issue of the front roof was resolved.\nWith respect to Mr. Brighton's comments relating to the new roof at the rear of the structure, she\nnoted that was the first time that Mr. Brighton had voiced that recommendation, and they did not\nbelieve this was an appropriate time to bring new suggestions to the table. She noted that none of\nthe neighbors she or the co-applicant had spoken to voiced any concern about the project. She\nnoted that the only opponents to the project that she was aware of were the Alameda\nArchitectural Preservation Society, Mr. Brighton and Ms. Cot\u00e9. She believed the proposed\nproject met the objective and the intent of Chapter 13s and 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code,\nand represented a reasonable balance between their development objectives as the owner of the\nproperty, including handicapped accessibility and the community's desire to preserve its\narchitectural quality and historic identity.\nMr. Christopher Buckley displayed several slides on the overhead screen, and noted that a letter\nthe AAPS had addressed to the Historical Advisory Board was included in the packet. They had\nnot seen the revised design, and expressed appreciation to the applicant for their efforts to reduce\nthe building heights and improve the front elevation. AAPS agreed with staff that the building\nshould not be lifted at all, and that the building was already significantly higher than other\nbuildings in the neighborhood. They believed that lifting the building further would distort its\nproportions, and did not see why it needed to be lifted because there was an extra two feet of\nheadroom in the garage. AAPS agreed with staff that excavating would be the preferred\napproach. The appearance was boxy and not consistent with the Craftsman style. They believed if\nthe eave were to be reduced and cross gables or dormers were introduced to handle the upstairs\nwindows, as was done on the front elevation, the building would have a much more integrated\nCraftsman design. He noted that the six-foot addition consisting of the porch over the garage\nbroke the setback line and introduced a significant new building mass which projected into the\nstreet. He noted that the double-wide garage became a dominating element, although it was\nbroken up by the Craftsman doors.\nMs. Nancy Hurd noted that she lived two blocks away from this house, and believed that his\nhouse was bigger than other houses on the street. She favored the excavation to reduce the\namount of height, but questioned the changes that would take it away from the Craftsman style.\nShe did not believe the house looked symmetrical in the drawings, and would like to see the\noriginal design of the house retained as much as possible, and not raising it any further.\nMr. Seth Hamalian noted that he lived two doors down from the applicants' home, and had often\nheard comments from people that the homes in this neighborhood had character. He liked the\nuniqueness of the homes in Fernside, and noted that one style did not dominate the\nneighborhood. He strongly favored allowing the applicants to go forward with their proposed\ndesign, and believed the message being sent by this process should be considered. He did not\nPage 8 of 23", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-06-23", "page": 9, "text": "believe this process should be so arduous for the applicants, and that their home should not be\nplaced under a magnifying glass. He urged approval of this item.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that she had taken issue with the height, the fa\u00e7ade and the fact\nthat the variance was being sought when this item was first heard. She believed the revisions\naddressed those issues. She noted that Mr. Buckley's letter mentioned the Golden Mean, and was\nconcerned that it was not discussed in the staff report.\nMr. Brighton noted that the Golden Mean issue was a general issue discussed with respect to\nhistoric homes, generally Victorians and revival homes. He noted that Craftsman homes received\nspecial treatment in the design guidelines. In this case, Craftsman had certain proportionality,\nincluding a lower proportional base which meant they stayed low and wide. He noted that staff\nwas critical of popping up Victorians and creating front staircases that were inconsistent with the\nscale of the structure, as well as the architectural integrity of the structure. Staff believed it was\ncritical to maintain the integrity of the Craftsman structure.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that this kind of discussion made a better community, and\nthat it returned to the drawing board by mutual agreement of the applicant and staff. She\nrequested that Mr. Brighton explain the difference between a bungalow and a Craftsman home,\nwhich he did. She was concerned about the relocation of the stairway, and noted that most of the\nhomes in the neighborhood did not have center porches and center walkways. She liked the\nporch treatment, and believed the double-wide garage doors were in proportion to the rest of the\nhouse. She was concerned with an item brought up by the AAPS, and did not want to see a home\ntower over its neighbors. She believed the 30-foot height limit was fine, and inquired about the\n9-inch architectural element. She did not believe the roof in the front added enough detail, and\nliked the back of the house. She agreed with Mr. Buckley's comment that the sides of the house\nthat they would be made to look more authentic in the Craftsman style with bay windows.\nHowever, the only people who would see the side of the house would be the adjacent neighbors.\nMr. Cunningham believed that a lot of progress had been made since the last hearing, and that\nthe appearance of the front of the house looked much better. He believed the excavation would\nbe a detriment, and would like to maintain the 30-foot height limit. He believed the appearance\nwould be improved if some relief were to be added to the roof. He would like to see\nimprovements to the side of the house visible from the street, rather than encumbering the\napplicant with architectural gyrations on the back of the house. He believed the design looked\nmuch better than it had before.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Autorino regarding the details of the excavation the\napplicant, displayed and described the method by which the excavation would be accomplished.\nHe noted that they planned a very expensive installation of an elevator so their parents would\nhave access to the entire house.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cook why the extra nine inches would be necessary, and\nwhy the ceiling height could not be 8'6\", the applicant replied that he would not be certain the\nPage 9 of 23", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-06-23", "page": 10, "text": "handicapped vans in the garage. He noted that he could research that issue and added that it was\ndifficult to get his pickup truck in the garage at this time.\nMs. Talbot added that there were substantial support beams in the garage, so the effective ceiling\nwould be lower.\nPresident Cook noted that there was a slippery slope, and that the current height limit was 30 feet.\nShe noted that it was difficult to treat one case differently.\nMs. Talbot noted that was the reason that Mr. Biggs came up with the architectural element, so\nthey would be in compliance with the Alameda Municipal Code, and so that a variance would\nnot be needed.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that no variance was involved in this case, and that the staff\ninterpretation was that it did meet the height requirement.\nMr. Brighton stated that the staff interpretation was that it would meet the height requirements if the\nhouse was not raised. However, if the Board decided to change the condition to raise the house, then\nthe proposal of using the architectural element was acceptable to staff.\nMs. Talbot described the orientation of the house towards the water, and that no one looked at it\nfrom behind. She added that it was not strictly a Craftsman style house in the back, and that an\naddition in the back was constructed in 2000.\nPresident Cook noted that the structure behind the house was very nice.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she did not see the discussion with Mr. Biggs reflected in\nthe staff report.\nMs. Talbot noted that she was surprised by that issue, and stated that they left the meeting with the\ndesign review staff, believing that the issues had been resolved. She believed that their appearance\nbefore the Planning Board was more of a courtesy to tell them how they had incorporated the\nBoard's suggestions.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if nine inches was all that kept the Board from be able to\nfind in the applicants' favor, and whether there was any way to shave nine inches off. Ms. Talbot\nreplied that they came forward with the proposal for the gable roof, which they did not particularly\nlike, in an attempt to shave nine inches off the roof. She had not realized how difficult that would\nbe, and added that the height of the garage was very important to them.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she understood what the applicants intended to do with the\ngarage. She also felt strongly about the 30-foot height limit, and added that the Planning Board was\nnot aware of the nine-inch architectural detail.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that they would be able to have up to a 5% slope for\nhandicapped access, and that a berm at the street would keep the water out.\nPage 10 of 23", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-06-23", "page": 11, "text": "Ms. Talbot believed that Condition 1 addressed the back roof, which was a new roof that was not\npart of the old Craftsman house.\nBoard member Cunningham believed that was open to opinion, but that the 30-foot line was clear\nfrom the Planning Board's point of view. He shared President Cook's concern that if this height\nextension were to be allowed, then other residents would ask for the same allowance or greater.\nThe applicant inquired whether the project would be able to move forward if the nine-inch\narchitectural feature were to be removed. Board member Cunningham believed that would be the\ncase if the roof ridge were to go down nine inches.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand whether the pitch of the roof would need\nto be changed in that case, Board member Cunningham replied that would not be the case.\nMs. Talbot noted that they were trying to preserve the look of the roof, but if the 30-foot height\nlimit was more important, that would be fine with them.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that the Planning Board must either follow the Alameda\nMunicipal Code, or make finding that there was a unique characteristic about the property that\nwould allow the height to be increased. He noted that the Board could not do that, and must\nfollow the AMC; he added that the Board was not trying to single the applicants out, and\nintended to find a way to make the project work for them.\nPresident Cook noted that the Planning Board had decided that the total height of the house was\nmore important than the number of stories, particularly with respect to having a third story.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that it was clear to her that the applicants were trying to\ncomplete this project in a way that would enhance the neighborhood, to have a house that was\narchitecturally representative of the area, and in a way that could accommodate their needs and\nthose of their parents.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested a second condition:\n\"The structure shall not exceed 30 feet in height regardless of the addition of any\narchitectural detail.\"\nShe believed that condition would allow the applicant to determine how to work within the 30-\nfoot height limit.\nVice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to approve a\nMajor Design Review approval, which addresses: 1) Raising the residential structure to create a\nthird story and providing an addition at the rear of the residence; 2) Reconfiguring the front\nstaircase and front porch and expanding the garage door; 3) Constructing a detached two-story\nstructure in the rear yard that would serve as an additional dwelling unit. The two special\nconditions will be removed, replaced by the following modification:\nPage 11 of 23", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-06-23", "page": 12, "text": "1. The structure shall not exceed 30 feet in height regardless of the addition of any\narchitectural detail.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it would be impossible for her to consider a guideline\nthat she had not read prior to the meeting. She did not wish to be unfair to the applicant, and\nwished to do the most responsible job possible in making a determination regarding this\napplication. She noted that if the applicant was comfortable with what the Board has come up\nwith, that was fine; otherwise, they could request a continuance.\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0\nAbsent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara); Abstain: 0. The motion passed.\nPresident Cook called for a recess.\n9-D. PLN08-0181 - Grand Marina Village Residential Development Master Plan\nAmendments. Proposed Master Plan Amendment to reduce the number of affordable\nhousing units required on the site from ten to five, and allow for five slightly larger lots.\nApplicant is also seeking a finding that the Island High School site, 2437 Eagle Avenue,\nis suitable for affordable housing, and the purposes of the Affordable Housing\nRequirements would be better served by construction of at least nine affordable units at\nthe Island High site rather than five affordable units at the Grand Marina site. The Grand\nMarina site is zoned MX (Mixed Used Zoning District). The Island High site is zoned M-\n1 (Intermediate Industrial Manufacturing District). (AT)\nMr. Thomas summarized the staff report.\nAn extensive discussion about the details of the staff report ensued.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. David Day noted that although he was a member of the Board of Education for the Unified\nSchool District, he was speaking on his own behalf rather than that of the District. He could not\nspeak to the merits of below-market-rate housing in the City, but stressed his opinion that this\nDraft Resolution would be good for the District. He invited any questions related to the School\nDistrict.\nVice President Kohlstrand inquired who initiated moving the affordable units off-site. Mr. Day\nreplied that the School District first heard about this issue the previous Friday evening, and asked\nfor more notice from City staff in the future. He noted that the City and District had been\ndiscussing affordable housing on the Island High site for many years, and that the site had been\nvacant. He believed this project would increase their opportunities.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was in favor of affordable housing at the old Island\nHigh School site. She noted that was something that other cities such as Santa Clara and San Jose\nhad done for school district employees. She understood that the site was not currently zoned\nPage 12 of 23", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-06-23", "page": 13, "text": "residential, but was across the street from a residential neighborhood. She understood that the\noff-site inclusionary housing option was supported by legal precedent. She did not understand\nwhy the proposal to move the five of the 10 affordable housing units from the Grand Marina site\nto Island High School were the low- and very low-income homes, and why it could not be a mix\nof all three income-level qualified homes.\nMr. Day replied that in their discussions with City staff, staff preferred that they kept the\nmoderate homes on-site. He noted that Warmington preferred that they be put off-site, because\nthat would allow them to use other non-profit builders who required moderate-income homes in\ntheir mix; the City did not want that, and preferred that the low- and very-low-income moved\noff-site.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the report and attachments referenced the possibility that\nif Warmington were allowed to build more than the proposed nine affordable units at Island High\nSchool, where there may be room for as many as 18 units, the proposal would be for credit to be\ngiven toward off-site inclusionary housing for projects not yet built by Warmington that they\nmay contemplate. She was concerned with that possibility, and while she supported affordable\nhousing and understood the 25% developer contributions toward affordable housing in\nredevelopment, Attachment 2 stated that the City wished to retain an \"economically balanced\ncommunity.\" She did not want to see all the affordable housing bunched together in one area.\nShe had been impressed with the previous Warmington design, which did a good job in\nintegrating the affordable units with the market-rate units.\nPresident Cook noted that she noticed an item in the affordable housing agreement which read,\n\"Developer has requested that it be allowed to meet the project inclusionary requirement by\ndeveloping five ownership units that will be affordable to moderate-income households on the\nproperty, and nine ownership for rental units that will be affordable to low- and very-low-income\nhouseholds off-site.\" She inquired whether they preferred to mix the housing up more. Mr. Day\nreplied that they agreed with the model of Bayport, which has moderate-, for-sale and low-\nincome units dispersed throughout the project. The low- and very-low units were the for-rent\nunits.\nPresident Cook would like clarification on which policy would be utilized with respect to\ninclusionary housing. She noted that there were a lot of good reasons to put affordable housing\ndowntown because of the number of services, grocery stores, and transit, but there were no\nprojects to look at that even the School District has had a chance to consider.\nMr. Thomas noted that in terms of the timing, this item contained the finding about Island High\nSchool and the merits of the proposed amendments to the Master Plan.\nMr. Day noted that there was language that referred to \"Island High or other equivalent sites.\n\"\nHe noted that he had already looked for other sites and had not found any. He noted that Island\nHigh School was the only feasible choice, and that time was of the essence.\nVice President Kohlstrand believed there was some benefit to the City to looking at this site. She\nnoted that because this was on a School District site, it seemed that there may be more potential\nPage 13 of 23", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-06-23", "page": 14, "text": "units, and that the development seemed intended to provide affordable housing for school\nemployees. She believed it would be very difficult for the school to mix the housing upon\ndifferent sites. She believed that putting the units on one site was a very rational approach to\ntrying to deliver these units. She would like Warmington to be able to have some flexibility in\ntrying to accomplish this.\nMr. Thomas noted that the agreement and the amendments state that Warmington Homes would\nbe able to try to make this project work. If they failed, it would be because they could not get the\nland from the School District, or the District would decide they did not want to develop housing\non that site. He noted that this agreement would allow Warmington to get started with the\nphasing. He noted that they needed the ground lease from the school district.\nVice President Kohlstrand believed that Warmington was taking all the risk in this project.\nMr. Thomas noted that (F) on page 9 stated, \"Developer shall secure all necessary discretionary\nCity and other governmental agency permits and approvals to allow development of the off-site\naffordable development to proceed upon issuance of a building permit by the City.\nMr. Day noted that this was brought forth to create goodwill with the City, and added that they\nwere willing to take the time to entitle this project.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that he originally had reservations about this item, but after\nreading the staff report, he saw a lot of merit to the idea of putting the housing in this location,\nwhich would help rejuvenate downtown and the schools. He wished to discuss the modifications\nto the Grand Marina Plan, and the idea of putting three-story buildings in, instead of two-story\nbuildings.\nMr. Thomas noted that Warmington's proposal was to replace five of the affordable units with\nfive market-rate units at Grand Marina. Under the original approvals, the market-rate units were\nall three-story buildings, and the affordable units were all two-story buildings. He believed the\nchange was for financial reasons.\nMr. Day noted that there were many costs involved with doing the all-affordable off-site\nprojects, such as the shortfall between the tax credits for the non-profit organization and the\nactual cost, which Warmington Homes funded. He noted that the density was still the same.\nBoard member Cunningham believed the units were too dense in their previous iteration, and\nsupported taking the inclusionary housing to another site. He did have problems with the\nexchange of making this a denser development.\nPresident Cook believed the tradeoff with the park parcels was a good one, but was concerned\nabout losing the sidewalk.\nMr. Thomas noted that a sidewalk in an alley seemed odd, so it was not an issue for staff.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPage 14 of 23", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-06-23", "page": 15, "text": "Vice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt draft Planning Board Resolution to approve the staff\nrecommendation to accept the Master Plan Amendment to reduce the number of affordable\nhousing units required on the site from ten to five, and allow for five slightly larger lots.\nApplicant is also seeking a finding that the Island High School site, 2437 Eagle Avenue, is\nsuitable for affordable housing, and the purposes of the Affordable Housing Requirements would\nbe better served by construction of at least nine affordable units at the Island High site rather\nthan five affordable units at the Grand Marina site.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft proposed an amendment to the resolution to move the five\naffordable housing units moved off-site to the Island High site to be moderate- to below-income,\nand for one unit to be very-low-income.\nMr. Day noted that the pro forma was based on having the five moderate-income units on-site.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that Attachment 1 discussed approving additional affordable\nhousing for future credit, and would like to take one project at a time. She liked the idea of the\naffordable housing being located on the Island High site, which would be a benefit to the school\ndistrict.\nMr. Thomas noted that the Planning Board's point about the housing mix may be made as a\nrecommendation to the City Council. The Master Plan and the finding about Island High do not\nspecifically discuss that issue, but the proposed amendment to the motion could be included as a\nrecommendation to the Council.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft whether the finances would not be\nfeasible if the low- and very-low-income units were placed on the Grand Marina site, Mr. Day\nconfirmed that was correct because there was a considerable amount of funding from their\npocket to do the off-site placement. She noted that the second full sentence of Attachment 1\n(page 2 of 3) read, \"Furthermore, the Planning Board's recommendation regarding the Island\nHigh site constitutes a finding about the potential benefits of a potential future project for the\nCity's affordable housing program.\" She believed it was a great location for affordable housing\nfor qualified school district employees, but did not want to get into approving moving affordable\nhousing off-site for future developments that the City had not even seen yet.\nVice President Kohlstrand did not want to hamstring the site so that only a portion of the project's\ngoals could be accomplished. She noted that the goal of the project was to provide affordable\nhousing for school district employees.\nMr. Day noted that they would put in as many units in as possible, and that there would be more\nthan nine units.\nPresident Cook noted that the Planning Board would like to maximize the mix of types of\naffordable housing units, certainly on the Island High site and possibly on the other site. She\nrequested that Ms. Faiz ensure that the Planning Board did not abdicate its right if the Island\nHigh site did not work out, and that alternative sites would be brought forth.\nPage 15 of 23", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-06-23", "page": 16, "text": "Mr. Thomas noted that the following modifications would be added:\n1. The Planning Board recommended to City Council to consider that some moderate-\nincome housing and some low- and very low-income housing move off-site and some\nstay on-site;\n2. If Warmington Homes pursues another market-rate project at some other location, the\nsuitability of the Island High site as the off-site location for that project should have\nto return to the Planning Board for the same finding that is being examined for the\nGrand Marina site.\nVice President Kohlstrand expressed concern about the second modification, because it gave no\nincentive to Warmington Homes to maximize the development on the Island High site.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she did not want to look at every new project come along\nin a redevelopment area with a 25% inclusionary housing requirement, and that the units would\nall be taken off-site. She understood that this effort was a balancing act. She inquired whether\nthere would be a way to achieve a mix of different income levels and housing sites.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that would be a financial issue, and why the applicant should be\nobligated to pay for an additional nine units out of their pockets.\nMr. Day noted that they wanted the right to use those units on future projects, but that they were\nwilling to examine in on a case-by-case basis to make sure it was appropriate for each individual\nproject.\nMr. Thomas noted that Section 3.7 on page 9 of the agreement stated that in the reduced off-site\nalternative, \"Offsets for future development: Subject to all City, Commission and other\ndiscretionary approvals, including any required Planning Board findings, for a period of ten years\nfollowing issuance of certificate of occupancy for the Island High site, subject to extension\n\"\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the section only applied to low- and very-low-income\nhouseholds: \"There shall be no offset allowed under this section for offsite additional units that\nare rented or sold to moderate income households.\"\nMr. Thomas noted that the first point to be made to City Council was that the moderates should\nbe mixed up with the low- and very-low income units.\nMr. Thomas noted that the other issue was whether Island High would return to the Planning\nBoard as the offsite alternative for some future project. He believed that under the ordinance, and\nunder the agreement, it would be required to do SO. He believed the working assumption for the\nPlanning Department and the Development Services Department was that the Island High site\nwould be a very good affordable housing project, and was the eastmost site of the projects the\nCity envisioned.\nPage 16 of 23", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-06-23", "page": 17, "text": "Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the language would return to the Planning Board for\nItem 2, but would still like the recommendation to go to the CIC that all three levels of\naffordable housing be put in the mix for the off-site project.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion as amended, with the following voice vote - 5.\nNoes: 0 Absent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara); Abstain: 0. The motion passed.\n9-E.\nV07-0008 and Design Review, DR07-0048 - 1607 Pearl Street/2622 Edison Court.\nThe applicant is seeking Variance and Design Review approval for adjacent properties. A\nsecond building to be built 5 feet from the rear property line, where a 20-foot required\nrear yard is usually required and 3 feet from the side property line, where a 5-foot side\nyard setback is usually required. Encroachment into the rear and side yard setbacks\nrequires a Variance. The proposed new structure is an 868 sq. ft. hobby woodworking\nworkshop. The project will also require a lot line adjustment to transfer a portion of 1609\nPearl Street to 1607 Pearl Street. The property is located within the R-1, one family\nresidence, zoning district. (LA)\nMr. Garrison presented the staff report, and noted that staff was unable to make two of three\nrequired findings for the variance. Staff was able to make the finding that the project would not\nbe detrimental to the public welfare, or adversely affect the neighboring properties. If the\nvariance was not approved, the design review would be considered a moot point. Staff\nrecommended denial of the variance and the design review at this time.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nPresident Cook noted that there were no speaker slips, but that she had been asked to read a\npublic comment into the record:\n\"The property owner at 2620 Edison Court, Mary Liley, called to voice her disapproval\nof the proposed project. Her concern was that the building would like house a commercial\nwoodworking shop that would create a lot of noise. She was unable to attend the meeting\ntonight.\"\nMr. Bob Rollins, applicant, disagreed with staff's assessment that there was no unique situation\nwith respect to this project. He requested this project because he was disabled from his previous\njob as a 28-year veteran of the Berkeley Police Department. He was unable to do any other jobs\nbecause of his disability, and added that the building was as high as it was because he wanted to\ninstall a hoist in the building. He proposed putting solar panels on the roof with the intention to\nmake it a zero-use residence. He noted that required the installation of fairly large trusses to\nsupport the weight of 39 panels, to produce a 5.5- to 6-kilowatt system, with a three-day battery\nbackup system. He intended to install a water reclamation system for stormwater. He noted that\nwith respect to the solar panels, the Fire Department required a three-foot space around the\noutside, and three feet between each row to enable access for inspection or emergencies. He\nnoted that the parapets were three feet high in order to screen the mechanics from the neighbors'\nsight. He believed the size and shape of the building were exceptional, and that the findings\nPage 17 of 23", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-06-23", "page": 18, "text": "could be made. He noted that the rules for lots were written for 50' x 100' rectangular lots, which\naccounted for two-thirds of the lots in the City. He noted that he could build the proposed\nbuilding with a minor footprint change using the same square footage without requesting any\nvariances. He noted that half the block was R-4 zoning, and half was zoned R-1; the lots in the\nR-1 zone could accommodate this size building with a minor footprint change without requesting\nany variances, and that they could meet all the setbacks. He noted that the lot was actually Z-\nshaped. He submitted four letters of support from neighbors who were unable to attend the\nmeeting.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nBoard member Autorino asked the applicant whether he could build the structure to a height of\n15 feet, so he could place it wherever he wanted. Mr. Rollins replied that he could, and that he\nwould have to call it a garage/storage building rather than a workshop. However, he would not\nbe able to put the hoist in, but could get the trusses in for the solar panels. He noted that he\nneeded the hoist to pick materials and projects up because of his disability. He noted that he\nwished to screen the solar panels and braces from the neighbors' view. He noted that a power\npole went through the lot, and he had negotiated with his neighbors and AP&T to get it removed.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that many people used their basements and garages for\nwoodworking. She was concerned that this activity was being treated as a commercial activity,\nwhich she did not believe was the case for this applicant.\nMr. Thomas noted that the Accessory Structure Ordinance stated that the use should be a U-\nOccupancy. He assumed the amendment was made in the past to prevent illegal conversions to\nsecond units. In this case, the Building Code classified it as an F-Occupancy. The second issue\nwas the height.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 3 of the staff report discussed the definition of an\naccessory structure, and inquired whether this could be considered two lots. Mr. Garrison replied\nthat it was considered part of the next-door neighbor's lot.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft whether the building could be\nconsidered incidental because it provided solar power for the main building, Mr. Garrison replied\nthat it would not be a U-Occupancy building in either case.\nMr. Garrison noted that the Building Code was clear in defining this use as a factory occupancy,\nand not subject to interpretation because of the proposed use of woodworking.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft whether this proposed use could be\nconsidered a hobby, Mr. Garrison replied that had been discussed with the Building Official, and\nthat it was not relevant to the Building Code whether it was commercial or non-commercial;\nwoodworking was a listed use.\nPresident Cook inquired whether a driveway could reach the garage.\nPage 18 of 23", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-06-23", "page": 19, "text": "Mr. Garrison noted that it could be called a storage building.\nPresident Cook noted that she would not be able to make the findings, and was not sure she could\nmake the finding that it would be detrimental to the neighborhood. She was aware of the noise\nmade by a planer, and that this property adjoined six different properties.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that he could not make the findings, either, and suggested that\nthe applicant resubmit the application under a different use. He would have an issue with design\nreview, and noted that it was a big box in the backyard. He appreciated the use for the parapet to\nhide the mechanicals, but added that it made the structure even higher.\nVice President Kohlstrand moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion as mended, with the following voice vote - 5.\nNoes: 0 Absent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara); Abstain: 0. The motion passed.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that he was concerned about open space and hardscape, and\nwould like to see the entire site plan.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that she would like to approve this project, but could not make\nthe findings.\nVice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt draft Planning Board Resolution to deny a Variance\nand Design Review approval for adjacent properties. A second building to be built 5 feet from\nthe rear property line, where a 20-foot required rear yard is usually required and 3 feet from the\nside property line, where a 5-foot side yard setback is usually required. Encroachment into the\nrear and side yard setbacks requires a Variance. The proposed new structure is an 868 sq. ft.\nhobby woodworking workshop. The project will also require a lot line adjustment to transfer a\nportion of 1609 Pearl Street to 1607 Pearl Street.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion as amended, with the following voice vote - 5.\nNoes: 0 Absent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara); Abstain: 0. The motion passed.\n9-F.\nPLN07-0301 - Zoning Text Amendment. Applicant: City of Alameda. The City of\nAlameda is considering an amendment to the Alameda Municipal Code to prohibit retail\nstores larger than 90,000 square feet in size that include more than ten percent (10%)\nfloor area devoted to the sale of non-taxable items. The proposed prohibition would apply\nin all zoning districts in the city. (DG)\nMr. Garrison summarized the staff report.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Mike Hennebury, 2811 Otis Drive, noted that he was a union representative for the Union\nFood and Commercial Workers Local 5. He noted that Local 5 had been involved with big box\nPage 19 of 23", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-06-23", "page": 20, "text": "Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the table contained in page 4 of the staff report. She\ninquired whether the purpose of the text amendment was simply to prevent K-Mart, WalMart\nand similar stores, and whether the smaller retailers would also suffer if a Costco or Home Depot\ncame into Alameda. She suggested prohibiting retail establishments that exceed 90,000 square\nfeet.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the proposed square footage\nfor the Target that had been proposed for the Aalmeda Towne Centre, Mr. Garrison replied that it\nwas 147,000 square feet, and that the Safeway in Town Centre was approximately 60,000 square\nfeet. She noted that Home Depot may exceed 90,000 square feet, but would not include the floor\narea for nontaxable goods. She would be more comfortable prohibiting retail establishments that\nexceed 90,000 square feet in size.\nPage 20 of 23", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-06-23", "page": 21, "text": "Mr. Autorino noted that prohibiting any retail use over 90,000 square feet cut down a great deal\nof the economic development opportunity for the area, and that there may be a use of that size\nthat the City would want to have. He did not want the City to enter into any prohibitions that\nwould invite legal trouble.\nPresident Cook noted that there were both planning and economic development aspects of such\nan ordinance that should also be discussed at the Economic Development Commission. She\nnoted that she shopped at Target on occasion, and while there were many groceries at Target, she\ndid not buy them there.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the square footage of the\nlarge hangars at Alameda Point as they relate to adaptive reuse, Mr. Thomas noted that the large\nhangars were over 100,000 square feet, and the smaller hangars were approximately 60,000\nsquare feet. He noted that the City proposed creating a Master Plan for Alameda Point, which\nessentially writes a zoning code for that portion of the City. He noted that theoretically, an\nexception to a big box prohibition could be included in the Master Plan for a specific area. He\nnoted that several studies done over the years have revealed significant sales leakage from\nAlameda, and that staff believed that to avoid sales leakage, control of the retail development\nwas necessary.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that Building A was the largest building in the Alameda\nLanding retail center at 55,000 square feet.\nMr. Thomas noted that Catellus was currently working with Target, and would propose a\ndifferent site plan.\nBoard member Cunningham believed it was important to have a safety valve in place to control\nthe retail projects that come before the Planning Board.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested sending some recommendations to City Council to\nclarify the Board's position and to provide direction for their action.\nMr. Autorino noted that the Economic Development Commission was adamant in not wanting to\ndo things that limited the economic development opportunities of the community. The EDC did\nnot want to send the message that Alameda did not want to consider retail opportunities larger\nthan a certain size. He supported measures to manage and control large format retail, but not to\ndiscourage it.\nMr. Thomas noted that the Planning Board may pass along a recommendation at this time, or\ncontinue it to allow staff to return with more specific information. Staff could bring the item\nback to the EDC, and that they had not received their input on this item.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that there had been much discussion about wanting to see a\nhigher level of retail at Alameda Towne Center, but that the Board had been disappointed by\nsome of the offerings. She noted that Kohl's did not appear to be as much of an improvement\nfrom Mervyn's as it could have been. She inquired whether there should be some safeguard in\nPage 21 of 23", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-06-23", "page": 22, "text": "place to temper very large projects. She believed the City should be able to maintain some\ncontrol over quality of retail issues to the extent possible.\nPresident Cook noted that there would be some large projects that the Planning Board would like,\nand others that it would not, regardless of the percentage of food items. She believed the 10% of\nfloor area dedicated to food sales was a union issue. She noted that while she generally supported\nunions, she did not believe it would be a good planning issue. She believed that it would be very\nimportant to define the planning issues.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that the community would likely be happy to see a 95,000\nsquare foot Macy's in Alameda, but that under this ordinance, it could not be approved.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that it seemed that the Planning Board liked what it originally\nsaid, and that it would be important for EDC to weigh in on this ordinance before the City\nCouncil heard it.\nPresident Cook agreed with Vice President Kohlstrand's assessment, and believed it was very\nimportant to have the EDC's opinion, and that it was ultimately a City Council issue.\nWith respect to the 90,000 square foot issue, Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would\nlike to see more negotiation on the City staff level in working out acceptable square footage\nlevels with Developers.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the trigger for a use permit,\nMr. Thomas confirmed that everything over 30,000 square feet would require a use permit, and\nwould require the Planning Board to make the findings for a use permit approval.\nVice President Kohlstrand moved to confirm the Planning Board's original recommendation of\ndefining a large format retail as one or more stores totaling 30,000 square feet and subject to use\npermit or planned development approval, and to recommend such to City Council. The Planning\nBoard recommends that the Economic Development Commission weigh in on this matter.\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0\nAbsent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara); Abstain: 0. The motion passed.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of April 14, 2008.\nThese minutes will be considered at a later meeting.\nb.\nMinutes for the meeting of May 12, 2008.\nPage 22 of 23", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-06-23", "page": 23, "text": "These minutes will be considered at a later meeting.\nc.\nMinutes for the meeting of May 27, 2008.\nThese minutes will be considered at a later meeting.\n6.\nPRESENTATIONS:\na.\nStaff Communications - Future Agendas\nMr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.\nb.\nZoning Administrator Report\nThere was no report.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS: None.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n11:34 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThis meeting was audio and video taped.\nPage 23 of 23", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf"}