{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-01-12", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING\nMONDAY, JANUARY 12, 2009\nCOUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM\nPresident Kohlstrand called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Cunningham led the flag salute.\nROLL CALL:\nPRESENT:\nPresident Kohlstrand, Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft,\nBoard members Autorino, Cook, Cunningham, Lynch\nand McNamara\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nCathy Woodbury, Planning & Building Director,\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services\nManager/Secretary to the Planning Board; Assistant\nCity Attorney Mohammed Hill, Simone Wolter,\nPlanner I, Althea Carter, Executive\nAssistant/Recording Secretary\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes from the meeting of August 11, 2008. Board member Cunningham moved/Vice\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion to approve the minutes from August 11,\n2008.\nApproved 5-0-2 (Autorino and Cook abstained).\nMinutes from the meeting of November 24, 2008. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft\nmoved/Board member Cunningham seconded the motion to approve the minutes from\nNovember 24, 2008.\nApproved 6-0-1 (McNamara abstained).\nMinutes from the meeting of December 8, 2008 (pending)\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft requested Item 8-A be moved from Consent to\nRegular Agenda.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n6-A.\nFuture Agendas- Staff presented the report.\n6-B.\nZoning Administrator Report - Meeting of January 6, 2009\nPage 1 of 8", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-01-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-01-12", "page": 2, "text": "Oral Report\nAlameda Point Update. Staff informed the Board that on December 19, 2008 SunCal\nsubmitted a Draft Redevelopment Master Plan containing SunCal's vision for the\nredevelopment of Alameda Point including design guidelines and transportation\nstrategies. Last week SunCal presented the plan to ARRA for public comments. No\naction was taken by ARRA at the meeting. The draft plan submitted on December 19,\n2008 is inconsistent with the City Charter and therefore Staff expects SunCal to pursue\na ballot measure. Staff does not know the language the ballot measure will contain. In\nJune 2009 SunCal must complete a new term sheet for conveyance of the land with the\nNavy. There was an existing term sheet with the previous master developer. If a ballot\nmeasure does not pass the draft plan as written cannot be implemented.\nPresident Kohlstrand inquired about preliminary dates for Planning Board discussion on\nthe draft plan.\nStaff suggested March or April when there will be a better idea of whether or not there\nwill be a ballot measure.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to a presentation by the Veterans Administration\n(VA) and the Navy regarding plans for locating a one-stop VA facility at Alameda Point.\nShe asked how this proposal fits in with SunCal's development plans.\nStaff responded that when a federal agency disposes of land other federal agencies are\ngiven first choice. This specific portion of Alameda Point was originally scheduled to be\ntransferred from the Navy to the Department of Fish and Wildlife but an agreement was\nnot reached. The Department of Veterans Affairs stated an interest in using a portion of\nthis area for a cemetery, hospital, offices and a number of other veteran services. Prior\nto conveying the land to the VA a number of federal procedures must be adhered to.\nThe City has several concerns regarding this site including the birds, the additional\ntransportation pressure on the City, and the need for municipal services. As a Federal\nagency the City has no permitting authority with the VA, which is another concern.\nCouncil has adopted a fiscal neutral policy for Alameda Point and staff is unsure how\nthis project will affect this policy.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked if the VA and the Navy have been open to City input.\nStaff stated that both federal agencies have listened to staff's concerns.\nBoard member McNamara asked for clarification on the ballot timeline.\nStaff stated that a draft of the ballot measure must be submitted to the City Attorney's\noffice for summary and title preparation. Signatures must be collected and are due by\nApril. SunCal will confirm whether there are enough signatures and whether the ballot\nmeasure will move forward.\nPage 2 of 8", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-01-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-01-12", "page": 3, "text": "In response to a Board inquiry staff stated that the City would make a case about the\nimpact this type of project would have on municipal services and transportation.\nBoard member Cook suggested that a thorough alternative site analysis could include\nOak Knoll as an alternative site for the VA facility.\nBoard member Cunningham asked why the deal with the VA had only recently come up.\nStaff responded that the Navy is interested in an all or nothing proposition. Either the VA\ntakes all the proposed land or none of it. This proposal between the Navy and the VA\nhas been in the works for several years.\nBoard member Cunningham asked how many signatures SunCal would need in order to\nget the measure on the ballot.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that a percentage of the number of voters who\nturned out in the last general election would be required.\nBoard member Lynch stated that a VA facility is needed in the community and in the\nBay Area. He approves of the site for this purpose. He would not support the VA\nbecoming a tenant of the developer.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked if the VA was proposing a below ground cemetery.\nStaff stated the proposal is for a columbarium not a cemetery. Staff asked if the Board\nwould like a presentation on the VA facility at a future meeting.\nThe Board responded affirmative.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\n*\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.\nB. Smith commented on solar power.\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\nexplanation is received from the Planning Board or a member of the public by\nsubmitting a speaker slip for that item.\nPage 3 of 8", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-01-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-01-12", "page": 4, "text": "8-B.\nRecommendation to Endorse the Parking Management Plan for the Park\nStreet and West Alameda Business Districts. The applicant, the City of\nAlameda, is requesting that the Planning Board review and endorse a parking\nmanagement plan for the Park Street and West Alameda Business Districts. The\nparking management plan outlines a series of actions that the City could take in\nthe future to improve the supply and management of on and off street parking to\nsupport the business areas. (AT/EF). Continued from December 8, 2008.\nStaff is requesting a continuance of this item to the meeting of January 26,\n2009.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft moved/Board member Cunningham seconded the\nmotion to continue Item 8-B to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 26,\n2009. The motion carried 7-0.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\nResidential Condominium Conversion - PLN08-0264 -3215 Fernside. The\napplicant is requesting a subdivision of ownership to condominium form for two\ndetached single-family dwellings on one site. The site is located within an R-2,\nTwo Family Residence Zoning District. (SW)\nStaff presented the report.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft disclosed that she had visited the site. She expressed\nconcerned with the applicant's compliance regarding tenant relocation. She was\nconcerned that the relocation plan submitted by the applicant was inadequate.\nIn response to a Board inquiry Directory Woodbury stated the City has bilingual and\nmultilingual employees to assist with communicating with citizens in the Planning and\nBuilding department.\nBoard member Autorino asked how this project fits with previous Board discussions on\nthe second unit ordinance.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated that the second unit ordinance is not applicable to this\nproject.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft moved/Board member Cunningham seconded the motion\nto approve the condominium conversion with the condition that the applicant comply\nwith all applicable municipal code sections including but not limited to sections 30-8.3,\n30-8.4, and 30-8.6. The motion passed 7-0.\nB. Smith spoke on the housing market.\n9-A. Workshop Regarding the Planning and Building Department Work Program\nfor Fiscal Year 2009/2010. A presentation and discussion of Planning and\nPage 4 of 8", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-01-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-01-12", "page": 5, "text": "Building Department work program priorities, resources, and items for future\nPlanning Board consideration. (CW)\nDirector Woodbury reviewed projects completed last year. She presented the current\nwork program report and asked for Board input on proposed projects.\nBoard member Cunningham asked if the Planning & Building department's move to the\nCarnegie building was still being planned.\nDirector Woodbury stated plans for the building have gone through design development\nbut given the current economic climate, moving the department is not feasible at this\ntime.\nIn response to a Board inquiry Director Woodbury stated that projects on the work\nprogram are scheduled for completion in fiscal year June 2010.\nBoard member Lynch asked if the City was conducting midyear budget revisions. He\nsuggested that after the 09/10 budget is approved Staff overlay the approved budget\nwith the work program and circulate an updated work program to the Planning Board\nthat shows what projects are funded based on council prioritization.\nIn response to a Board inquiry Director Woodbury stated that certain projects listed on\nthe work program would be completed by staff rather than consultants. Building projects\nare currently on the decline and this is an opportunity for Staff to work on advanced\nplanning projects. Staff will advise the Planning Board once the budget has been\nadopted.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked staff to clarify that some work program items would be\naccomplished with existing staff.\nDirector Woodbury responded affirmative.\nPresident Kohlstrand appreciated the opportunity for the Planning Board to provide\ninput on priorities and what projects can be accomplished with current resources. She\nasked if the land use element had a timeline.\nDirectory Woodbury responded that it is a project being proposed to Council. Land use\nis the biggest element affecting planning and development.\nBoard member Cook stated that as projects become more complicated and more\nmixed-use projects come before the Board it is a good opportunity for the Board to\nconsider priorities. She would like to see a distinction made between typical mixed use\nand waterfront mixed use projects. She wants waterfront design guidelines given a high\npriority in the work program.\nPage 5 of 8", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-01-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-01-12", "page": 6, "text": "Director Woodbury stated that this item is already on the work program for 2009/2010\nand will be given priority.\nBoard member McNamara stated that at previous meetings when the Board discussed\nthe work program, legal responsibilities were identified and given high priority. She\nasked beyond legal obligations what were other driving forces for identifying priorities.\nDirector Woodbury stated that projects where the City was not in compliance with state\nlaw were given priority. Projects related to sustainability, for example the green\nordinance, were given priority. Waterfront and commercial design guidelines were\nconsidered important. She stated that when the economy turns around and\ndevelopment projects increase Staff wants to be prepared. If the Board has certain\nitems that are perceived as a high priority Staff would appreciate receiving this\ninformation.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated she would like the Bay Friendly Ordinance\nexpanded to include elements of green infrastructure. She asked if the historic\npreservation ordinance amendment would be presented to the Board.\nDirectory Woodbury stated that the historic preservation ordinance is in a different\nsection of the code and the ordinance will be presented to the Historical Advisory Board\n(HAB) then to Council. Staff could organize a workshop for the Board or members can\nattend the HAB workshop as private citizens.\nBoard member Lynch suggested the Board consider sending a representative to the\nHAB workshop.\nA Board discussion ensued on a public art ordinance.\nBoard member Cook asked who in the City was responsible for fee policy and when did\nthe last update occur.\nDirectory Woodbury stated that a nexus study was done a few years ago for Planning\nand Building, Fire, and Public Works that led to an overhaul of the master fee schedule.\nA Consumer Price Index (CPI) escalator was also put in place. Every year in June the\nCity Council adopts a resolution that includes the CPI increase.\nBoard member Cook asked if the school district was handled separately.\nDirector Woodbury stated she was not aware of the process for the school board.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated that the last item on the work program has to do with the\nNorth of Lincoln strategic plan. She stated that Directory Woodbury had mentioned\nlooking at form based code amendments for this project but is not stated in the work\nprogram. She asked if it was an ongoing project listed elsewhere.\nPage 6 of 8", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-01-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-01-12", "page": 7, "text": "Directory Woodbury responded yes, it is shown under the Park Street district.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated her priority is to incorporate green building structure codes\ninto the green building codes. She asked if it was possible to accomplish with the new\nmitigation requirements proposed by CEQA. She stated that the design guidelines for\nthe waterfront are a very high priority and the work program should reflect that. She\nmentioned legislation SB375 and AB32 which are related to sustainable communities,\nand asked if CEQA significant thresholds are incorporated into the work program.\nDirector Woodbury responded yes. She stated that Public Works and the Planning\ndepartment are working on CEQA thresholds of significance for transportation. Staff will\nbe attending a workshop on the two bills mentioned and will provide the Board with an\nupdate.\nBoard member Cunningham asked if the study included data on level of service (LOS).\nPresident Kohlstrand stated that there is a proposal to eliminate LOS thresholds. A\nhearing on this issue has been scheduled. The proposal is to look at average daily\ntraffic as a measure of transportation significance.\nBoard member Lynch suggested staff create a document listing pending legislation that\nimpacts planning.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated that MTC had identified priority development areas (PDA)\nand funding is being linked to these areas. She stated that Alameda is not listed as a\nPDA.\nDirectory Woodbury stated that Alameda Point has been designated as a PDA. The\narea has to be at least 100 acres.\nPresident Kohlstrand would like staff to give a presentation to the Board on this topic\nand how it fits into funding, projections and the housing element.\nA Board discussion ensued on potential funding sources and the relation to density.\nDirectory Woodbury stated that Staff could provide the Board with the council report on\nthe Alameda Point PDA.\nBoard member McNamara asked how she could get information on continuing\neducation for a non-planner.\nDirectory Woodbury responded that if there are subject areas the board would like\npresentations on or training in to let Staff know. She suggested ABAG could appear\nbefore the Board to discuss priority development areas.\nBoard member McNamara stated industry newsletters and magazines would be helpful.\nPage 7 of 8", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-01-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-01-12", "page": 8, "text": "Directory Woodbury stated Staff would provide the Board with information on upcoming\nseminars and conferences.\nA Board discussion ensued on continuing education sources.\nPresident Kohlstrand thanked Staff for providing the work program report.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement\nor make a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a\nreferral 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, direct\nstaff to\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft provided an update on biodiesel fuel storage.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\na 8:56 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nCathy Woodbury, Planning and Building Director\nCity Planning Board\nThis meeting was audio and video taped.\nPage 8 of 8", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-01-12.pdf"}