{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-07-14", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING\nMONDAY, JULY 14, 2008\nCOUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM\nPresident Cook called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Cunningham\nROLL CALL:\nPRESENT:\nPresident Cook, Vice-President Kohlstrand, Board\nmembers Autorino, Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, and\nMcNamara. Board member Lynch arrived at 7:10 p.m.\nABSENT:\nNone\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager/Secretary to\nthe Planning Board; Assistant City Attorney Farimah Faiz,\nPlanner III Doug Garrison; Planner I Laura Ajello; Althea J.\nCarter, Executive Assistant/Recording Secretary\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of April 14, 2008.\nMotion (Cook)/Second (McNamara) to approve as amended.\nAyes: 4; Noes: 0; Abstain: 3 (Cunningham, Kohlstrand, Autornio). Motion passed.\nMinutes for the meeting of May 12, 2008.\nMotion (Cunningham)/Second (Ezzy Ashcraft) to approve as amended.\nAyes: 6; Noes: 0; Abstain 1 (Autorino). Motion passed.\nMinutes for the meeting of May 27, 2008.\nMotion (Cunningham)/Second (Kohlstrand) to approve as amended.\nAyes: 5; Noes: 0; Abstain: 2 (Cook, Lynch). Motion passed.\nMinutes for the meeting of June 23, 2008.\nContinued to the meeting of July 28, 2008.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n6-A. Future Agendas\nStaff provided an update on future agenda items.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted the Board had requested Staff to provide an educational\noverview discussion on form based codes at a future meeting. She inquired whether this\ndiscussion could take place at the meeting of July 28, 2008.\nPage 1 of 13", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-07-14", "page": 2, "text": "Board member Lynch requested that changes in the Housing Element law and the\nmethodology used by ABAG to compute the City's numbers be included in staff's Housing\nElement Update report to the Board on July 28, 2008. He also asked that a schedule of the\ntimeline be included.\nStaff informed the Board that the timeline for bringing the Housing Element Update to the City\nCouncil for approval is spring 2009.\nStaff inquired whether the Board would consider a joint meeting on August 25, 2008 with the\nTransportation Commission to discuss amendments to the commercial district parking\nregulations ordinance and to the draft transportation element General Plan Amendment\n(GPA) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR).\nPresident Cook asked if the Board would approve the ordinance amendments, transportation\nelement GPA and EIR.\nStaff stated that amendments to the EIR must come through the Planning Board for review\nand recommendation to the City Council.\nThe Board agreed to a joint meeting with the Transportation Commission on August 25,\n2008.\nBoard member Kohlstrand requested that staff provide large documents two weeks in\nadvance of meetings and that the documents are made available to the public at the same\ntime.\n6-B. Zoning Administrator Report\nStaff provided the Zoning Administrator report.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone\nAnyone may address the Board on a topic not on the agenda under this item by\nsubmitting a speaker's information slip, subject to the 5-minute time limit.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nConsent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or\nadopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is\nreceived from the Planning Board or a member of the public by submitting a speaker\nslip for that item.\nNone\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\nPage 2 of 13", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-07-14", "page": 3, "text": "9-A. 2008-2009 Election of Planning Board Officers. The Planning Board will elect a\nnew President and Vice President for the upcoming year, as required by the Planning\nBoard\nPresident Cook moved to nominate Vice-President Kohlstrand for the position of Board\nPresident.\nBoard member Lynch seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 7, Noes: 0;\nAbsent: 0; Abstain: 0, the motion passed.\nVice President Kohlstrand moved to nominate Board member Ezzy Ashcraft for the position\nof Board Vice-President.\nBoard member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 7, Noes: 0;\nAbsent: 0; Abstain: 0, the motion passed.\n9-B. Variance and Design Review - PLN08-0086 - 1532 Santa Clara Avenue. The\napplicant is seeking Variance and Design Review approval for the addition of a second\nstory, 440-square-foot master bedroom suite and 117 square foot deck to an existing\none-story single-family residence. A 24-square-foot addition to the lower floor is also\nproposed; this addition requires a Variance to exceed maximum main building\ncoverage. The proposed deck requires a Variance for building in the side yard\nsetback. An existing side entry stair will also be rebuilt to comply with current building\ncode standards. The property is located within the R-4, Neighborhood Residential\nZoning District. (LA)\nMs. Ajello presented the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the project.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nNorman Sanchez, architect, spoke in support of the project. He discussed some of the\noptions that he explored with the applicants through the design process. The focus of the\nproject was to keep the overall height of the house as low as possible and to keep the profile\nof the addition as seamless as possible. One of the main goals of the project was to provide\nthe homeowners with viable outdoor open space, a privilege other homeowners in the\nneighborhood enjoy.\nSushma and Austin Lundd, applicants, spoke in favor of the project and stated that they are\nwilling to arrange the construction schedule to best accommodate the neighbors' needs.\nJacki L. Reed spoke in favor of specific elements of the design. She is concerned about\nprivacy as well as access to light. She would be okay with the addition of the bedroom but is\nopposed to the deck.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft disclosed that she had visited the property. She agreed that\nthe site is unique with a triangular shape. She stated her belief that variances should not be\ngranted lightly but there are situations when it is appropriate, referring to state law. She\nbelieved she could make the findings and grant the variance request. She believed the\ndesign is consistent with the neighborhood and the 24-square-foot addition is small enough to\nPage 3 of 13", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-07-14", "page": 4, "text": "lessen the impact on the neighbors. She would be in favor of granting a variance that\nmitigates the privacy issue - suggesting privacy screens for the deck. She believed the\napplicants were willing to work with the neighbors regarding their concerns.\nBoard member McNamara approved of the design for the addition, felt it was appropriate and\nwould enhance the home and the neighborhood. She expressed her concerns about the\nprivacy issue with the apartment building next door and found it difficult to weigh the right to\nsunlight. She would be open to reducing the size of the second floor deck to address the\nneighbors concerns. She asked if the second story addition, at six feet higher than the\ncurrent roofline, would have a cathedral ceiling.\nMr. Sanchez replied that it would.\nBoard member Lynch stated he would consider a conclusion that takes into consideration the\ncurrent zoning code and how to overlay that within the parcel size. He would like to know the\nrationale for not considering the size of the lot, the square footage, and the shape of the lot\nas mitigating circumstances. He supports the position of the other Board members and\nwould like to know the delta between the smaller deck that would comply with the zoning\ncode and the deck as it is proposed.\nA discussion ensued between staff and the Board regarding the encroachment portion of the\ndeck.\nMr. Sanchez stated that the deck would be 85 sf and indicated that narrowing the deck on\neach side would reproduce the existing funnel shape, which is what they are trying to avoid.\nBoard member Cunningham asked if the option of not including the 24 sf expansion, keeping\nthe existing profile, and putting the deck on top of it had been considered by the applicant.\nMr. Sanchez responded that option had been considered and explained that the model for\nsize was whether two lounge chairs and a table could fit on the deck.\nBoard member Cunningham inquired whether the applicant had considered using sliding\ndoors.\nMr. Sanchez affirmed that they had but the slope of the roof limited the options and a sliding\ndoor could not be accommodated.\nVice President Kohlstrand asked why the applicant chose not to go up using the existing\nbuilding footprint. She liked the design and concurred that this is a difficult site. She is\nconcerned about the close proximity of the next-door property and the expansion of the\nfootprint being detrimental to the occupants of the adjacent property. She inquired whether a\nprivacy screen was required and if the addition went up above the existing office would a\nvariance still be required.\nStaff explained that a variance would not be required but a K&L finding would be. Staff made\na K&L finding for the second story addition but it is not applicable to decks.\nPage 4 of 13", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-07-14", "page": 5, "text": "President Cook believes findings 1 and 2 could be argued either way but was in support of\nfinding 3 - detrimental effect to residents - in relationship to the deck. She stated if a\ncompromise were reached on the size of the deck, she could support the project. She\nbelieved there were legitimate concerns by the neighbors regarding privacy.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that finding 3 and the staff report state the addition\nwould not be detrimental to the neighbors or surrounding properties but the proposed\nexpansion would further increase the nonconforming lot coverage. She believed that a\nsolution could be reached by incorporation of a privacy screen. She believed the increased\nnoise was not any louder than the current bus noise and traffic.\nPresident Cook inquired whether a privacy screen would interfere with the views.\nStaff stated that the Board could require the privacy screen to preserve the neighbor's\nprivacy, but noted it would further affect access to light and views.\nA Board discussion on privacy screens ensued.\nPresident Cook stated that the Board was supportive of the proposal, agreed that the lot was\nof an unusual shape but had concerns about the deck. She suggested the Board either vote\non the application or inquire whether the applicant would like to work on the deck issue and\nbring the proposal back to the Board.\nStaff stated the options the Board had discussed: Direct staff to approve the project under\ndesign review, denying the two variances for the ground floor 24-foot expansion and the\nsecond floor deck, or approve the design review and make the findings for one or both of the\nvariances.\nPresident Cook stated another option would be for the applicant to return with a proposal for\na conforming deck.\nStaff stated that a conforming deck could be approved through design review if it met all the\nzoning requirements.\nMr. Sanchez stated his understanding of whether a variance would be required if the size of\nthe deck were reduced.\nBoard member Lynch stated that if the Board proposed a motion that would give the applicant\nwhat they had requested but omitted the upper deck, they would design a deck that was\nconforming.\nVice President Kohlstrand recommended approval of the expansion at the ground floor, and\nthe design review with the modification that the deck stay within the footprint of the existing\nhouse.\nStaff asked for clarification on whether the Board was approving a three-foot setback on both\nsides.\nPage 5 of 13", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-07-14", "page": 6, "text": "Vice President Kohlstrand responded that the deck could go over three feet on the west side\nonly.\nBoard member Autorino stated there was still the issue with the 30 inches and the screening\nand asked if a deck of any size would still require privacy screening.\nPresident Cook stated that privacy screening is required. She suggested the applicants\ndecide, before a motion is voted upon, whether they would like to revise the proposal and\nreturn to a future board meeting for review.\nThe applicants responded that if bringing the deck in two feet from the side where the\napartment buildings are would result in project approval, they would agree to that. They\nstated their understanding that as long as it remains five feet away from the neighboring\nbuildings, they can build the deck without a variance, but they would still prefer three feet on\nthe other side.\nVice President Kohlstrand moved and Board member Cunningham seconded the motion to\napprove design review, make the findings for the ground floor 24-foot variance and\nexceptional circumstances. The circumstance is depriving the applicant of the right enjoyed\nby others and will not create any detriment on the ground floor. Approve a variance for an\nupstairs deck that can encroach three feet on one side but must maintain the five feet on the\nside of the apartment building. The motion passed with the following voice vote - 7. Noes: 0\nAbsent: 0 Abstain: 0. The motion passed.\nBoard member Cunningham moved and Board member Lynch seconded the motion to waive\nthe privacy screen. The motion passed with the following voice vote - 7. Noes: 0 Absent: 0\nAbstain: 0.\n9-C. Major Design Review Approval - PLN08-0090 - 2230 South Shore Center\n(Building 1000, former Safeway Building). Proposed renovation of an existing\nbuilding located at the Alameda Towne Centre. The building footprint will increase by\napproximately 1,575 square feet, and the average building height will increase to 30 feet,\nwith decorative parapets at the east side of the building, at 35 feet in height. Loading\ndocks will be relocated to the north side of the building. The proposed tenant, Orchard\nSupply Hardware, also proposes an outdoor garden supply area. Exterior materials\ninclude horizontal wood siding; concrete panels at the base of walls and cement\nplaster trim. The project also includes wooden trellises, new landscaping, and bicycle\nand pedestrian amenities. (DG)\nMr. Garrison presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the project.\nPresident Cook inquired if this building was included in 2003 when the Board approved\nphases of the project.\nStaff responded that the Board did not approve a 90,000 sf building proposed for the site in\n2003. The environmental document for the project was approved, but not expansion of the\nbuilding. Under the existing PDA, some increase in floor area is allowed during renovation,\nand the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) allows for 25% expansion. There are conditions in\nPage 6 of 13", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-07-14", "page": 7, "text": "the 2003 entitlement that contain different numbers. In some cases, there are two or three\nconditions that address expansion and they have different numbers also.\nPresident Cook inquired what the different numbers are and asked if a development\nagreement (DA) takes it outside the typical regulations.\nStaff responded that there is not a DA for this project. The PDA has three different conditions\nand each condition has three different numbers. The largest is 25%, which matches the\nAMC.\nPresident Cook asked what number staff had been using. Staff replied there has not been an\nincrease that triggered a PDA under any of the interpretations.\nPresident Cook clarified that the Board had not approved any expansion up to this point and\nasked about the existing size. Staff stated it is approximately 35-36,000 sf.\nPresident Cook asked staff to confirm that all conditions have been met. Staff stated that all\nmitigation measures had been met.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nEugenie Thomson spoke in opposition to the project. She requested that an economic\nimpact study be conducted and stated she believed there were also traffic ramifications.\nPhilip Jaber, part owner of Encinal Hardware, spoke in opposition to the project. He asked\nthat a community impact study be conducted.\nHolly Sellers spoke in favor of the project with some concerns. She asked that the Board not\napprove the zoning until the parking, cart corrals, and traffic analysis are sorted out.\nClaire Risley spoke in opposition to the project. If the Board approved the application, she\nasked that the square footage of the proposed outdoor garden space be included in the\nGross Leasable Area (GLA).\nThe public hearing was closed.\nPresident Cook stated the applicant would install a signal to improve the traffic operations\nand assume financial responsibility. She inquired whether the Board was being asked to\napprove more than design review and whether the Board was being asked to approve a\nsignificant amount of square footage in the project.\nStaff stated the issue of square footage is in regards to the garden center. The applicant's\nproposal does not treat the outdoor sales area as an expansion of floor area. Outdoor use of\nspace has not been treated as gross leasable area for example outdoor seating for\nrestaurants and outdoor displays of goods. The Board could sever the garden area from the\napplication, approve the design review for the building, make the approval of the expansion of\nthe garden center a condition, and require that the applicant get a PDA, which is the next\nitem on the agenda.\nPage 7 of 13", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-07-14", "page": 8, "text": "President Cook inquired as to why the Board could not address the whole issue within the\nnext agenda item.\nStaff stated if the Board approved the next item as recommended; it included the expansion\nfor this building, as well as the garden center. Retail hardware is permitted in this zone and\non this site. Staff has conducted citywide retail studies, as part of the Alameda Landing, as\nwell as a sales impact analysis. Based on those studies, staff believed there would not be a\nsignificant impact on local businesses.\nIn response to Board member Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding the square footage of the\nproposed garden center, staff stated it is approximately 6-8,000 sf.\nPresident Cook asked how OSH merchandise and its size differ from a Paganos or Home\nDepot.\nAnita Haws, Orchard Real Estate, and Ken Lucas, OSH Operations provided the Board with\ninformation about the history of OSH and its merchandise.\nBoard member McNamara asked about the size of the garden area.\nMs. Haws responded that they are working on the plans, but are planning for between 6,000-\n8,000 sf.\nBoard member Cunningham asked the OSH representatives to address security of the\noutdoor area.\nGreg Chargin, Director of Construction for OSH, stated that the nursery would be enclosed\nwith a shade cloth on top that emits light but prevents anything from being thrown over the\nfence, and surrounded by a metal railing.\nA discussion on the height of the metal railing ensued.\nBoard member Cunningham asked if there would be racking in the exterior yard, to which Mr.\nChargin responded no. The proposal is to create a totally enclosed pick up and receiving\narea so that nothing was outside except for the exterior nursery, which is enclosed.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the entrance to the nursery was near the east\nelevation and if the garden area could be accessed from the front of the building.\nMr. Chargin replied that there would be a door on the side. The door leads towards the front\nentrance and is only used during heavy selling seasons.\nBoard member Cunningham asked if there was a point of sale in the garden area.\nMr. Chargin replied only in heavy selling seasons when it is more of a convenience for\ncustomers.\nBoard member Cunningham asked if the tall red brick on the front elevation extends further\nout than the existing Safeway building relative to the curb.\nPage 8 of 13", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-07-14", "page": 9, "text": "Randy Kyte, Harsch Investment, replied that Paoli did the base building redesign and OSH's\nown architect did the inner workings of the facility. Regarding the nursery area, this is the\nfirst time an open-air concept has been used at Alameda Towne Centre (ATC). The design\nwas a collaboration between the two architectural firms to keep the area open, light, and\nsecure.\nBoard member Kohlstrand stated she thought the overall increase in square footage was\n1,500 sf, but it excludes the garden center. She asked if it was being picked up by extending\nthe west wall.\nMr. Kyte responded yes. When the loading dock is relocated an area will be reconfigured,\nthe building pushed back slightly, and the former large deep loading dock will be infilled.\nBoard member Kohlstrand asked if there was an extension towards the Willows, to which Mr.\nKyte responded no.\nPresident Cook asked if the square footage included the 35,000 sf building currently located\nthere plus 1,500 sf and staff responded that the building is 37,200 sf and the additional\nsquare footage is 1,575.\nBoard member Kohlstrand stated that she liked the design of the building. She expressed\nconcerns about the additional square footage of the garden center and the sidewalk along the\nnorth/south driveway, which disappeared with the new design. She also expressed concern\nabout the lack of landscaping on the west elevation given that it is closer to residential uses.\nShe would like landscaping in this area similar to what is being done inside the Centre.\nThe Board members asked questions about the landscaping for the project and staff\nresponded.\nBoard member Autorino believed it was a good use of the property and it would be good to\nhave OSH in Alameda. He does not believe OSH would have a significant impact on local\nbusinesses. He agreed that some additional landscaping would be nice, but that he liked the\nproposal as it was presented.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she generally liked the proposal. Her concern is the\ndelivery truck route, and the impact on other businesses. Staff responded that deliveries are\naddressed in the next agenda item.\nBoard member McNamara approved of the design and believed it was consistent with the\nother buildings in the Centre.\nBoard member Lynch agreed that the design was harmonious. He acknowledged that\nmoving the loading dock inside was a great idea. He stated that the area is zoned for this\ntype of use, and the Alameda Economic Development Commission approved of this type of\nbusiness.\nPresident Cook stated that she was comfortable with the design along with the landscaping\nimprovements. She believed the outdoor area was additional GLA. She expressed concerns\nPage 9 of 13", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-07-14", "page": 10, "text": "about site improvements not being included with the project. She was troubled by another\nexpansion of a use in the absence of more sidewalks, more safety, particularly in relation to\nthe medical buildings and more sidewalks near the post office. She was uncomfortable\nincreasing square footage until some of the site improvements were implemented. She was\nconcerned about the impact on smaller businesses, but did not believe the Board could\ndictate use. She believed when approving square footage, consideration should be given for\nthe carrying capacity of the land.\nA discussion about the expansion ensued.\nBoard member Autorino stated that OSH customers would not include general contractors, or\nconstruction companies with one-ton pick-ups and flat bed trucks. He does not believe there\nwill be a huge impact on traffic. He believed there were higher traffic levels for Safeway than\nthere will be for OSH.\nBoard member Cunningham stated the design review looked great and had no further\ncomments.\nBoard member Autorino moved and Board member Cunningham seconded the motion\nto approve Major Design Review allowing renovation of Building 1000 in Alameda\nTowne Centre with conditions.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to specify that it is the west elevation referred to\nregarding the added landscaping.\nThe motion passed with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 2, Absent: 0, Abstain: 0.\n9-D. Planned Development Amendment, Major Design Review - PDA05-0004, DR05-\n0073 - 523 South Shore Center - Harsch Investment Corp. The applicant requests\napproval of Planned Development Amendment and Major Design Review entitlements\nand certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for redevelopment and\nexpansion of Alameda Towne Centre. The project includes redevelopment of the site,\nresulting in full build-out of up to approximately 706,650 square feet of gross leasable\nfloor area, construction of a new parking structure, pedestrian, bicycle and transit\nimprovements, new signage and other minor site improvements. (DG)\nMr. Garrison presented the staff report. Staff is recommending approval of the project.\nPresident Cook asked what the square footage was for phase two and three. Staff responded\n600,000 sf for phase two and 681,000 sf for phase three. Phase 2 is proposed to be\nimplemented between now and 2010 and phase 3 from 2010 to 2012. The sidewalks and the\nOSH proposal are part of phase two.\nStaff discussed the new sign program and stated there are currently two sign programs valid\nfor ATC. This proposal would supersede all earlier documents. The new program includes\nguidelines for monument signs, directional signs, and way finding signs.\nPresident Cook asked if the traffic study was done before or after the gas station. Staff\nreplied that the study did consider the gas station traffic.\nPage 10 of 13", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-07-14", "page": 11, "text": "The public hearing was opened.\nBoard member McNamara made a motion to limit public comments to three minutes. Board\nmember Autorino seconded the motion. The motion passed with the following voice vote: 6;\nNoes: 1.\nChristine Healey spoke in opposition to the project. She was concerned about delivery hours\nand maintenance activities. She asked that the board remove the 200-foot qualifier and\nrestrict deliveries to normal business hours.\nDorothy Reid spoke in opposition to the project. She asked that the Board not certify the\nFEIR and not approve the PDA as it is presented.\nHolly Sellers spoke in opposition to the project. She expressed concern about the proposed\ngarage\nClaire Risley spoke in opposition to the project. She did not believe the EIR contained the\ncongestion management plan requested by both the Alameda County Congestion\nManagement Agency and AC Transit.\nEugenie Thomson spoke in opposition to the project: She believed the DEIR was incomplete\nand the traffic study was technically inadequate and asked that the Board certify it.\nKaren Bey spoke in favor of the project: She believed the expansion of ATC was great. She\nbelieved this was an opportunity to assess what went right, what went wrong, and what would\nbe done going forward.\nBill Smith commented on the project.\nThe public hearing was closed.\nVice President Kohlstrand asked Staff if copies of the document were made available to the\npublic. Staff responded that CEQA requires any responsible agency that submitted\ncomments be provided with the FEIR. The city under state law is required to have a ten-day\nnotice before the hearing in which the EIR would be certified and the project approved. In\nthis case, a twenty-day notice was mailed.\nBoard member Lynch asked if the technical appendices were substantially modified for the\nFEIR. Staff responded no.\nBoard member Lynch asked if the traffic engineer modified, altered or changed any of the\nmethodology between the draft and the final EIR.\nPeter Galloway with Omni Means Engineers & Planners responded no.\nBoard member Autorino inquired about the need for business hours between 6 am to 12 am.\nStaff responded that there were many requests for varying hours from individual tenants in\nATC and this made the hours for the center uniform.\nPage 11 of 13", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-07-14", "page": 12, "text": "A discussion between the Board and the applicant ensured regarding the expansion and\nparking.\nBoard member Cunningham would prefer a more prudent approach toward the expansion\nand have it proceed incrementally. He expressed reservations about approving a document\nthat would allow construction of the parking structure and an additional second level over\nKohls. He also expressed concerns regarding the development at the waterfront. He would\nprefer a conservative approach to the development process and would like to understand\nwhat the current entitled expansion, potential congestion, and impacts are.\nA discussion ensued between the Board and staff regarding the total square footage of the\ncenter and the build out with the expansion. Staff explained that 706,000 sf is the cap. The\nbuilding on the plans shows a 10,000 sf building on the waterfront if it comes in at 12,500,\n25% larger, it could still be approved without going through a PDA as long as the overall size\nof all the footprints together are still within the 706,000 total.\nPresident Cook noted that the Board had two decisions to make, certify the EIR and approve\nthe project.\nStaff stated that one resolution and one master plan were being requested for this site so\neverything can be in one document.\nBoard member McNamara moved to continue the item to the August 11 meeting. Board\nmember Lynch seconded the motion.\nPresident Cook stated she would be unable to attend the meeting of August 11 but would\nsubmit written comments to staff for submission to the Board.\nA discussion between the Board and staff ensued regarding significant impacts, mitigation\nmeasures, monitoring, and the public notification process.\nThe motion passed with the following voice vote - 6. Noes:1, Absent: 0. Abstain: 0. The item\nwas continued to August 11.\n9-E. Appeal of Major Design Review Approval - PLN08-0178 - 1633 Clinton Avenue.\nAn appeal of staff's approval of the Major Design Review application for exterior\nalterations, including the installation of a door and windows, and addition of a second-\nstory roof dormer to the single-family dwelling at 1633 Clinton Avenue. The site is\nlocated within an R-1, One-Family Residential Zoning District. (SW) (The appellant\nhas withdrawn the appeal. No further action by the Planning Board is required.)\nWithdrawn by the appellant.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nNONE.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or\nmake a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a\nPage 12 of 13", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-07-14", "page": 13, "text": "referral to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to\nthe body at a subsequent meeting concerning a City matter or, through the chair,\ndirect staff to place a request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda.\nBoard member McNamara reminded staff she had previously requested an update on\nBridgeside and would like to schedule a follow up and field trip.\nStaff responded that the item would be placed on the September agenda.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated she had attended the Meals on Wheels fundraiser at the\nRosenblum winery and was notified that on August 2 at 9:30 a.m. there will be a bicycle\nmaster plan update ride. The meeting place is to be determined but information can be\nobtained at www.bikealameda.org\n.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft mentioned that queuing near the theatre has become a\nproblem. Staff replied that contact has been made with the theatre operator to adjust the\nqueuing plan.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft mentioned the recently installed containment area in front of\nPappos restaurant seemed a bit awkward\nStaff replied that when outdoor seating is requested on public streets an encroachment\npermit is required and staff's responsibility is to ensure there is ADA access. There is no\ndesign review or use permit required.\nPresident Cook mentioned the groundbreaking ceremony for Shinsei Gardens on\nWednesday morning at 9.\nThe meeting was adjourned.\n12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:10 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThis meeting was audio and video taped.\nPage 13 of 13", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf"}