{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-11-24", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, November 24, 2008\nCONVENE:\n7:03 p.m.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Autorino led the flag salute.\nROLL CALL:\nPRESENT: President Kohlstrand, Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft, Board\nmembers Autorino, Cook, and Cunningham\nBoard Member Lynch arrived at 7:06\nABSENT:\nBoard Member McNamara\nSTAFF PRESENT: Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager; Andrew Thomas,\nPlanning Services Manager; Tony Ebster, Permit Technician/Recording\nSecretary.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes from the meeting of August 25, 2008 (continued from October 27, 2008)\nApproved with changes\nM/S/C (Lynch/Ashcraft) to accept the minutes\nApproved 4-0-1 (Cook abstained)\nMinutes from the meeting of September 8, 2008 (continued from October 27, 2008)\nM/S/C (Cunningham/Cook) to accept the minutes\nApproved 4-0-1 (Autorino abstained)\nMinutes from the meeting of September 22, 2008\nBoard Member Cook requested staff check the vote on the item at 2400 Mariner\nSquare. She was not sure that she seconded the motion.\nBoard Member Cunningham asked about the status of the Alameda Towne Centre and\nwhen it was coming back before the Board.\nM/S/C (Cunningham/Cook) to accept the minutes with changes\nApproved with changes 6-0-0\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\nPage 1 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-11-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-11-24", "page": 2, "text": "STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n(6-A.) Future Agendas\nStaff reported on upcoming items for future meetings.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft asked about an item that was on the agenda for\ncontinuation and also on the agenda for December 8, 2008\n(6-B.) Zoning Administrator Report - Meeting of October 30 and November 18, 2008\nStaff provided the results of the past two Zoning Administrator meetings, which included\na Use Permit Application and Variance approvals.\nOral Report\nStaff updated the Board on the status of the Del Monte project and informed the Board\nthat it is on hold until future uses can be examined.\nBoard member Cook asked if Use Permits would be needed for future uses and how\nparking and traffic circulation would be reviewed.\nPresident Kohlstrand announced that Assistant City Attorney Farimah Faiz will be going\nout on maternity leave and Assistant City Attorney Mohammad Hill will be attending\nPlanning Board meetings.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nMr. David Kirwin advised the Board about an upcoming informational meeting at the\nlibrary on environmentally harmonious buildings and sustainable construction practices.\nPresident Kohlstrand requested additional information from Mr. Kirwin including the time\nand location of the meeting as well as who is involved.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nPresident Kohlstrand asked that Item 8-A be moved to the Regular Agenda because\nmembers of the audience had submitted speaker slips.\nM/S/C (Cunningham/Cook) to move item 8-A to Regular Agenda items and approval to\ncontinue items 8-B and 8-C to a future meeting date. Approved 6-0-0.\nPage 2 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-11-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-11-24", "page": 3, "text": "REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n(8-A.) Use Permit - UP006-0010 - 1310 Central Avenue - Valero Gas Station. Review\nof Use Permit for the extended hours of operation for the Alameda Valero Gasoline\nStation, an existing legal nonconforming service station. (DV)\nMr. Biggs presented the staff report.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft pointed out that a letter had been received and that one of\nthe pages of the letter was not included.\nStaff read the second page of the letter.\nThe public comment was opened.\nMs. Patricia Kinzel spoke in support of the applicant and stated that the owners of the\ngas station have complied with the conditions of the Use Permit.\nMs. Rose Ryan stated that she had no complaints about the gas station. She pointed\nout that no notification was given for the cancellation of the meeting of November 10,\n2008.\nStaff explained the notification process when a meeting is canceled.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft appreciated the 6-month review report and wanted to\nremove the requirement to bring a review of the Use Permit back to the Planning Board\nevery six months.\nBoard member Cook confirmed that if the owner does not comply with the conditions of\napproval they might be subject to revocation of the Use Permit\nM/S/C (Cunningham/Lynch) to accept the six-month review of the Use Permit for the\nValero Gas Station and noted that further reviews of the use permit were not necessary.\nApproved 6-0-0.\n(9-A.) Second Unit Ordinance. Proposed amendment to the Alameda Municipal Code\nto allow attached or detached secondary housing units to be constructed on sites with a\nsingle-family dwelling. In compliance with State Secondary Housing Unit law, the\nproposed ordinance provides for the administrative review and approval of secondary\nunits meeting the development standards contained in the code. (JB)\nMr. Biggs presented the staff report.\nBoard member Cook asked about building on a vacant lot in an R-4 zone district.\nPage 3 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-11-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-11-24", "page": 4, "text": "Staff clarified that an owner would need to determine how best to develop the lot. They\nwould need to choose between being limited to a single family dwelling with a second\nunit, or develop the site with the number of residential units allowed by the zoning code.\nBoard member Lynch addressed building a second unit and stated that some owners\ncannot afford to build two units at the same time. Therefore, the owner builds one unit\nthen the second.\nBoard member Cunningham asked about the 10,000 square foot lot size requirement\nand why it was not included as a standard.\nStaff pointed out that the intent of the States' laws was to facilitate construction of\nsecond units and that with so few 10,000 square foot lots in Alameda, the adoption of\nan ordinance with a 10,000 square foot lot size minimum could be viewed as not\nfacilitating second units.\nMr. Christopher Buckley of the Alameda Architecture Preservation Society (AAPS)\nmentioned items outlined in the letter sent to the Board from the AAPS. He believes\nthat the state is being too intrusive. He wanted to emphasize that no review will be\nrequired to build the second unit if all the requirements are met. He also expressed\nconcern about the parking requirement being met. He had suggestions to firm up the\nordinance, such as having a minimum lot size, having the unit owner occupied, lot\ncoverage maximums, discouraging over-concentration, having design controls, and\nlimiting demolition.\nMs. Valerie Turpen stressed a few points such as limiting density and maintaining\narchitectural integrity, having a minimum lot size, and having design review.\nMs. Corinne Lambden expressed concern about the second unit ordinance, specifically\nthe single-family dwelling neighborhoods. She is concerned about lot size and\nexcessive lot coverage, and the adverse effects to the design of existing buildings. She\nalso expressed concern with the parking requirements and a change in the overall feel\nof Alameda.\nMr. David Kirwin stated he appreciated the difficulty of addressing housing in Alameda.\nHe is concerned that the State is trying to get too involved in dictating what happens on\nthe local level. He also mentioned Measure A and asked if it protects Alameda from the\nadverse effects of the Second Unit Ordinance.\nThe public comment was closed.\nPresident Kohlstrand requested staff to address how Measure A affects the new\nordinance.\nPage 4 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-11-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-11-24", "page": 5, "text": "Staff replied that second units are not counted towards the residential density of a site.\nRegarding parking and set backs, the builder would still be required to comply with the\nrequirements of the R-1 Zone District.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft asked about the parking requirement and noted it is less\nfor a second unit. She would like to preserve the character of the neighborhoods but\nunderstands the code for second units must comply with State law. She mentioned a\nproject on Morton that would be a good example of a second unit being built.\nBoard member Cook expressed concern that cars will fill the streets instead of being\nparked off-street.\nBoard member Lynch asked Mr. Buckley about the AAPS letter and the\nowner/occupancy requirement and how a property owned in trust would be dealt with.\nHe believes that at least one owner should live on the property.\nMr. Buckley deferred to the City Attorney for legal guidance.\nIt was clarified that the requirement that an owner occupy the unit is not part of the\nordinance.\nCity Attorney Faiz clarified that it is permissible to require owner occupancy of one of\nthe units on the site.\nBoard member Cook addressed the 10,000 square foot requirement and stated that it\nwas a first step in implementing the second unit ordinance. She said that it was a way\nto protect the integrity of the R-1 districts.\nBoard member Cunningham asked if there had been any applications for a second unit\nand asked if there was a definition for an attached unit. He supports a minimum lot size\nfor second units.\nBoard member Cook asked what was preventing someone from building a second unit\nand converting both units into one single-family unit. She expressed concern that\ndesign review would not be required.\nStaff clarified that if an applicant wants to convert the units, it would have to be\narchitecturally compatible and the kitchen in the second unit would have to be removed.\nBoard member Lynch asked about the lot size and the minimum requirements. He\nsuggested that parking and setbacks be looked at carefully.\nStaff provided the Board with the number of lots in the 'R' zoning districts and the\ndifferent sizes.\nPage 5 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-11-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-11-24", "page": 6, "text": "President Kohlstrand addressed the suggestion requiring a 300-foot distance between\nlots that have the second unit built on them. She also talked about restrictions and felt\nthat there should be a minimum lot size. She also noted that there should be\nconsideration regarding the street facades and the percentage of landscaping coverage.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft would like to see a minimum lot size and a landscaping\nrequirement. She also wants parking and where it would be provided to be considered.\nShe asked about the design guidelines and what standards apply to the review. She\nasked if the requirements could be the same as the City of Alameda's design\nguidelines.\nStaff stated that some of the design guidelines are too broad and the architectural\ncompatibility standards in the draft ordinance provided more specific design\nrequirements and added that the code could include wording stating that units will be\ncompatible with the Golden Mean.\nBoard member Cunningham said that they might be opening the floodgates if the\nrequirements are not set in stone regarding the second units. He also asked that if it\nwere an historic structure, would it need to be reviewed by the Historical Advisory Board\n(HAB).\nPresident Kohlstrand suggested going through each change to the ordinance that the\nBoard would like to consider.\nStaff read the list of changes to the draft code based on the Board's discussion. Those\nsuggestions included providing a minimum lot size, requiring owner occupancy,\nprohibiting changes to walls facing the street, integrating coverage maximums, and\nparking requirements.\nBoard member Cunningham clarified what is meant by the Golden Mean.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked about the timing and if staff could develop some\nsuggestions and bring the item back for Board consideration\nStaff stated that a review of the Boards comments and suggestions would be conducted\nand a revised draft ordinance would be brought back to the Board at a future meeting.\nBoard member Lynch said that staff was on the right track given what was discussed by\nthe Board.\nBoard member Autorino asked about the percentage of the second unit and that there is\na 600 square foot restriction on the of the second unit.\nBoard member Lynch pointed out that there might be potential code compliance issues\nif the ordinance is not written carefully. He stated that the Board needs to balance the\nPage 6 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-11-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-11-24", "page": 7, "text": "unintended consequences and the need to be cautious with what the Board wants to\ninclude in the requirements.\nBoard member Autorino commented on the regulations relating to condominium\nconversions and asked if the second unit could be divided and sold.\nThe Board provided input and guidance to staff on the standards they would like\nincluded in the ordinance.\nM/S/C (Cook/Cunningham) to continue the item to the meeting of December 8, 2008.\nApproved 6-0-0\n(9-B.) Draft Transportation Element General Plan Amendment and Final Environmental\nImpact Report - Recommendation to Council. A General Plan amendment to update\nand amend the Transportation Element of the General Plan. The proposed\nTransportation Element Policies would apply citywide. (AT)\nMr. Andrew Thomas presented the staff report and pointed out some of the issues\npertaining to the Transportation Element and Final Environmental Impact Report.\nBoard member Cook asked about amendment number five regarding new\nclassifications for school and recreation zones.\nPresident Kohlstrand requested John Knox White and Michael Krueger from the\nTransportation Commission discuss issues in the Transportation Element.\nMr. White spoke about road widening and intersections and said that it is important to\nmitigate future development impacts on traffic. He asked if travel times are really\nreduced from road widening. He said that most traffic issues are just being pushed off\nto the future. He wants to see less traffic instead of mitigated traffic issues from new\ndevelopment. He also spoke about TDM and how it can be used to mitigate overall\nimpacts.\nMichael Krueger addressed the Board and reiterated the comments in the letters on the\nEIR. He spoke about items in the Transportation Element such as the widening of\nsome streets, implementation of the Transportation Master Plan, and the approval of\nnew developments and the traffic associated with them. He also stated that the\nPlanning Board has the ability to not approve a project if the negative impacts outweigh\nthe positive impacts.\nMr. David Kirwin addressed the Board. He said that he is concerned because the\nTransportation Element suggests that the City will just have to deal with the extra traffic,\nlonger back ups, and lower levels of service. He suggested that every street is a shared\nstreet and less emphasis should be put on the marking of streets. He also expressed\nconcern with the implementation of elements of the plan and how they will be paid for.\nPage 7 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-11-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-11-24", "page": 8, "text": "The public comment was closed.\nBoard member Lynch asked if after all the work that had been done and time and\nmoney spent, there was a philosophical difference. He asked what the purpose was for\nthe meeting.\nPresident Kohlstrand said that they are supposed to provide feedback, suggestions, and\nguidance to better the Transportation Element. She asked if any Board members had\ncomments regarding the certification of the EIR. She was concerned that the responses\nto comments about the element were not adequate. She wants staff to respond to them\nin some way.\nStaff clarified that the responses to comments pertain to the adequacy of the\nenvironmental analysis, not the merit of the project. Staff is willing to reconsider how to\nprovide written responses in the future.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated that it is important to summarize all comments. She wants\nall major issues pointed out so the Board and public are aware of them.\nMr. Kirwin said that the public would be better served if it were explained more clearly,\nas to how questions are framed.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft thanked the Transportation Commission and staff for their\nwork on the Transportation Element. She likes the overall theme of not being able to\nbuild their way out of traffic issues. She asked about some of the wording regarding\nuse of infrastructure. She takes issue with the word \"etcetera\" as being too vague. She\nis concerned about the flexibility issue and staff's recommendation. Another concern is\nmoving traffic further down the line and not really solving the traffic problem. She asked\nstaff if the Transportation Element was too restrictive.\nStaff responded by saying that once the policy is in place, it must be followed. Staff\nprovided other options depending on the situation and clarified the intent behind the\npolicy.\nBoard member Cunningham asked how to address the issue of Levels of Service (LOS)\nfor all modes of travel.\nStaff pointed out that there are thresholds of significance that are used to gauge how\nand when an impact needs to be addressed. The thresholds are quantitative for\nautomobiles and qualitative for other modes.\nMr. Obaid Kahn addressed the Board and stated that the goal is to have the public right\nof way shared equally by all modes of transportation.\nBoard member Cunningham asked how the LOS is determined noting there is no clear\ncriteria.\nPage 8 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-11-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-11-24", "page": 9, "text": "of transportation. She referred to the City of Davis that was mentioned by a public\nspeaker stating they have many bicycle riders and many streets in Alameda are not\nbicycle-friendly. She also asked about bike parking near Alameda Theater and when it\nwill be available. Another improvement she noted was the east/west sidewalk at\nAlameda Towne Centre.\nBoard member Autorino agrees and added he wants to maximize alternative forms of\ntransportation and avoid putting the Board members into a box. He wants more\nflexibility in the policy. He is not sure how negative impacts are being measured.\nBoard member Cook's main concern is that they don't know how they are measuring\nthe service levels. She is concerned about being boxed in as well.\nStaff clarified that there are two types of road widening. One is re-striping the road and\nthe second is tearing out curbs to make more lanes. He added that there are few\nstreets that would need curb removal for widening.\nMr. Kahn stated that the right turn lane is the easiest turn for motorists to make.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft asked about other departments and commissions and if\nthey have any sense of how they could tell if the alternative modes are being impacted\nby widening and re-striping of roads to create more traffic and turn lanes.\nPage 9 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-11-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-11-24", "page": 10, "text": "Mr. Kahn said that they are using guidelines from AC Transit to measure the potential\nimpacts of automobile traffic on the pedestrian, bicycle, transit modes.\nBoard member Cook stated that a drastic measure must be taken to get people out of\ntheir cars and into alternative modes of transportation and if necessary, a statement of\noverriding consideration may be used to approve a project with significant traffic\nimpacts.\nBoard member Autorino asked if they would have the ability to approve a project even if\nthere are significant traffic impacts and if it goes against the approved Transportation\nElement. He also asked how that project would come before the Planning Board. He\nexpressed concern that this policy would discourage development in the City.\nStaff stated that the project would come before the Planning Board through\nconsideration of an EIR. The only way to approve the project would be to find that the\npositive benefits would outweigh the negative impacts. This is known as a statement of\noverriding consideration.\nBoard member Lynch would like to see a community with fewer vehicles. He also\nstated that the departments that have created the document would like to be able to\nmove forward. He stated that for developers, money is an issue when it comes to\npreparing EIRs.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the item could be continued to gather more\ninformation to make a better assessment of the levels of service.\nMr. Kahn reiterated that they are depending on approval of the EIR so they can approve\nthe Pedestrian Plan to secure grant funding. He also said that the matters at hand have\nbeen submitted to the Transportation Commission and are ready to move forward.\nMr. White added that with large developments, they do not want to be responsible for\nhaving to pay fees later down the road for something that they have no control over,\nmainly traffic mitigation. He suggested that there are ways to amend the General Plan\nso it reflects what they want to see. He wants to reduce congestion instead of\naccommodating more traffic in the community.\nPresident Kohlstrand wanted to add language that would account for exceptions and\nallow improvements if an acceptable level of service can be maintained. She wants the\nstandards in place.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft asked what would happen if they put standards in place\nand a developer comes in that might not be able to meet the standards. She is less\nconcerned about developers who might slip through, than her concern for what will\nhappen to the city. She wants more specificity built in to the policy.\nPage 10 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-11-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-11-24", "page": 11, "text": "Staff suggested that the Board could sever amendment number four, vote on it\nseparately, and then vote on the rest.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft wanted some of the language changed to be more\nspecific as to what the guidelines would be. She also asked what alternative\nconnections would be implemented. She asked what a traffic toolbox is.\nBoard member Cook wanted to include some language regarding public obstacles, such\nas transformers, and improving sidewalk dining and the pedestrian environment. She\nasked about the map and where it lists the secondary transit corridor and what it means.\nMr. Kahn replied by saying that these are potential streets that could provide east/west\nand north/south connectivity in Alameda.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft mentioned that the bus used to go down Willow to Otis.\nWhen it was taken out, it created a hardship for people.\nM/S/C (Cook/Autorino) to Certify the EIR\nApproved 6-0-0\nM/S/C (Ezzy Ashcraft/Lynch) to approve the Draft Transportation Element with all staff\nrecommendations except for amendment number four.\nApproved 6-0-0\nM/S/C (Autorino/Lynch) to approve amendment number four with changes.\nApproved 6-1-0 (Cook no)\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\n(10-A.) Report to ARRA Regarding SunCal Redevelopment Plan\nMr. Thomas updated the Board and reported that SunCal is working on their draft\nmaster plan for presentation in December and is developing ballot language for the\nNovember 2009 election.\nA staff report on parking was distributed to the Board.\nBoard member Cook asked if there had been any surveys done since the parking\ngarage had opened.\nBoard member Lynch expressed appreciation for the work done regarding the historic\ntheater and Alameda Towne Centre.\nPage 11 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-11-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-11-24", "page": 12, "text": "BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft updated the Board on the Safeway gas station and their\nefforts to sell biodiesel.\nADJOURNMENT: 10:48 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJon Biggs, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThis meeting was audio and video taped.\nPage 12 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-11-24.pdf"}