{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-03-14", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, MARCH 14, 2011\n7: 00 p.m.\n1. CONVENE:\n7:08 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Kohlstrand\n3. ROLL CALL:\nPresent: President Ezzy Ashcraft, Vice-President Autorino, Board\nmembers Ibsen, Kohlstrand, and Zuppan.\nAbsent: Board member Lynch and Wallis\n4. MINUTES:\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of November 8, 2010. Kohlstrand moved, seconded by\nAutorino to approve the minutes. Approved 4-0-1 Zuppan abstained.\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of January 24, 2011. Autorino moved, seconded by Ibsen\nto approve the minutes. Approved 5-0.\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of February 28, 2011 (Pending)\n5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None.\n6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nWritten Report\n6-A Future Agendas\nMargaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Services Manager, provided an update on future\nagenda items.\n6-B Zoning Administrator Report\nMargaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Services Manager, summarized the approved\nprojects at 1417 Broadway (Use Permit) and 1246 Saint Charles (Use Permit & Major\nDesign Review & Certificate of Demolition) on the meeting of 3/1/2011.\n7.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.\n8. CONSENT CALENDAR: None.\n9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A 2010-2011 Election of Planning Board Officers. The Planning Board will elect a\nAPPROVED MEETING MINUTES\n1 of 10\nPLANNING BOARD 3/14/2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-03-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-03-14", "page": 2, "text": "new President and Vice President for the upcoming (remaining) year, as required by\nthe Planning Board By-Laws.\nContinued until full Board present\n9-B\nMajor Design Review - Islander Motel-2428 Central Ave- City of Alameda -\nHousing Authority. The applicant requests approval of a Major Design Review for\nthe rehabilitation of a 62-unit affordable (workforce) housing project The site is\ncurrently the location of the Islander Motel, within the C-C, Community Commercial\nDistrict zoning district. The project is exempt from the California Environmental\nQuality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the CEQA guideline section 15332 (In-fill\nDevelopment Projects) and Public Resources Code (PRC) section 21159.21\n(Affordable Housing Project Exemption).\nMargaret Kavanaugh-Lynch provided a summary of the project.\nMs Lisa Motoyama, Housing Resources Development Director for Resources for\nCommunity Development, presented the company developing the project.\nAnne Phillips, Architect, provided an overview of the project components and the design\nfeatures.\nBoard member Ibsen commended the project. He asked about the security features\nsurrounding the access points.\nMs Motoyama explained the security aspects of all access points and how the on-site\nmanager would monitor access.\nBoard member Ibsen asked about the landscaping features.\nMs Motoyama explained that edible landscaping and gardens in other developments are\nregularly maintained by residents. She anticipated that this would also occur at this location.\nBoard member Ibsen asked about the use of photovoltaics on site.\nMs Kavanaugh-Lynch explained that the site is being wired for photovoltaics and that as\nadditional funding becomes available photovoltaics would be added.\nBoard member Kohlstrand asked about the traffic circulation on site and asked how the\nphotovoltaic slats shown on the materials boards would be applied.\nMs. Phillips explained the traffic circulation and explained the material choice.\nVice-president Autorino asked for clarification on the material selection of the tower\nstaircase element.\nAPPROVED MEETING MINUTES\n2 of 10\nPLANNING BOARD 3/14/2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-03-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-03-14", "page": 3, "text": "Ms. Phillips explaned that the translucent material choice, allows light and air circulation,\nwhile also allowing obscured visible access to the interior of the structure from the outside.\nThe idea was to create visual access from the neighborhood.\nVice-president Autorino asked for clarification on the number of units and proposed interior\nremodeling.\nMs Kavanaugh-Lynch explained that the number of units will remain, but that all the interior\nis being replaced.\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft asked for the number of ADA accessible units and what features\nthese units will have.\nMs Phillips explained that ADA accessible units would have lower fixtures, countertops, as\nwell as wider doorways. 26 units tentatively planned.\nBoard member Zuppan asked for clarification on the use of tile on the exterior surfaces.\nMs Phillips explained that no tile will be used on the exterior, but that the exterior concrete\nblock masonry would receive some staining to color the exterior.\nBoard member Zuppan asked how the future tenants would be selected.\nMs Motoyama explained that the on-site management would ensure that future tenants\nundergo strict screening.\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft asked for a clarification on whether the building is a soft-story\nbuilding or not and how it seismic stability would be ensured on this site.\nMs Phillips explained that the building is not a soft-story building and that is cement masonry\nwith rebar enforcement. It is a high functioning structure that could withstand a 300 year\nearthquake experience.\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft was concerned about a shared parking agreement that would share\nthe on-site parking spaces with the commercial uses surrounding the space.\nMs Kavanaugh-Lynch explained that this sharing agreement is an effort to mitigate on-street\nparking demand and would be monitored closely.\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft asked for clarification on what \"work-force housing\" means.\nMs Motoyama explained that this term denotes that this development would serve those\nindividuals and families with a 50 percent of median area income and below. For example,\nfor a family of four that income level would be $50,000. Rents would be assessed at 30\npercent of that income level.\nAPPROVED MEETING MINUTES\n3 of 10\nPLANNING BOARD 3/14/2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-03-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-03-14", "page": 4, "text": "4 of 10\nPLANNING BOARD 3/14/2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-03-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-03-14", "page": 5, "text": "President Ezzy-Ashcraft asked staff to look into whether the Use Permit for Scobies should\nbe looked at again given the ongoing nuisance complaints at that location.\nMr. Coustier, neighbor, asked that the trash receptacle enclosure be looked at again to\nminimize noise. He said that the south side of the building is continually under sun impact.\nThe proposed plans do not show any method how the tenants could shade their units. He\nalso asked that the landscaping be revised to locate landscaping in an area that actually\nreceives adequate amounts of sun to grow plants. He also urged that the material selections\nbe evaluated for long-term impacts of sun and wear and tear to ensure that the site will\nalways look like the proposed drawings show it to be.\nMs. Debbie Potter, Housing Development Manager, acknowledges that this site has been a\nproblem riddled site, and the City of Alameda was targeting this site for redevelopment, to\naddress the issues on the site. She also explained that the housing management group had\nbeen extensively vetted for their management experience.\nMs. Motoyama explained that the structure of the building will be modified and will have a\ncontrolled access point for residents only with gated parking. This property will have\npermanent long-term housing, opposed to the transient population on site at this time, with\ntenants that have gone through criminal background checks and are carefully selected for\nthis location. Professional management will enforce formal house rules and remove tenants\nfor non-compliance with the house rules.\nBoard member Ibsen asked whether the neighborhood has any opportunity to provide input\non the house rules or other property management issues.\nMs Kavanaugh-Lynch reminded the board Ms Motoyama suggested that the south-facing\nstairwell could be redesigned to address any possible noise concerns.\nBoard member Kohlstrand asked if the street tree selection could be revised to find a more\nsuitable tree for the sidewalk. She also asked if shading will be provided for sun exposure\non the south side and that down-facing of lighting be included in the resolution. She also\nasked when the project would start. She asked how the stairway would be illuminated at\nnight.\nMs Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that horizontal shading over the windows will allow for shading.\nThe tree selection and lighting issues would be amended in the resolution. The financing of\nthe project would likely be in place by the end of the year.\nMs Potter stated that financing is subject to a competitive bidding process for this project\nwith the State. If funding is secured, the project can move forward. Relocation of all tenants\nwill occur prior to renovation. If existing tenants are eligible then they could return to the\nhousing as new tenants.\nMs Phillips stated that the lighting may have a lantern effect.\nAPPROVED MEETING MINUTES\n5 of 10\nPLANNING BOARD 3/14/2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-03-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-03-14", "page": 6, "text": "Board member Kohlstrand voiced her support for the project and supported the color\nscheme.\nBoard member Zuppan questioned whether the landscaping choices will be sustained over\ntime. She urged for a more suitable plant palette.\nBoard member Ibsen supports the project design, site development and agrees with board\nmember Kohlstrand to revisit the lighting to avoid off-site glare in the tower or staircase\nelement.\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft is favorable to the design, but would like to see the mustard yellow\ncolor be toned down to allow for a better transition into the neighborhood. She\nrecommended that the shades include photovoltaics if the budget allows. As a bike\nadvocate, she would like to see that the bicycle parking be increased and recommended the\nbike advocacy group Bike Alameda recommendations.\nMs Kavanaugh-Lynch read the revised conditions of approval in the resolution regarding\nlighting, trees, bike parking, colors, and stairwell lighting.\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft requested that the project return to the board for a review 6 months\nafter occupation to allow the neighbors an opportunity to provide feedback about how the\nneighborhood's concerns are being addressed.\nBoard member Kohlstrand seconded that idea.\nMs Potter suggested that the Housing Authority Board would be the appropriate board to\nhear the project and to iron out the neighbors' concerns.\nBoard member Zuppan reiterated her concern whether the plants would be sustained by the\nsite access to light and any urban impacts.\nMs Phillips confidently stated that the plant selection will be sustainable.\nThe Planning Board added the following conditions to the resolution:\n1. The architect shall work with planning staff to address the proposed stairwell on the\nsoutheastern side of the building. Modifications shall be added to decrease noise\ngenerated on the stairway by persons utilizing this structure. Additional modifications\nshould be made to the screening of the staircase to ensure that light spill out onto\nadjacent residential uses.\n2. All exterior lights shall be screened or otherwise directed downwards to ensure no\noverspray of light onto adjacent residential uses.\nAPPROVED MEETING MINUTES\n6 of 10\nPLANNING BOARD 3/14/2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-03-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-03-14", "page": 7, "text": "3. Staff shall work to identify if Plane Trees are the best choice for street trees for the\nsubject property. This includes attempting to find species of Plane Trees that are\nmore resistant to disease.\n4. The architect will investigate the possibility of adding solar collection panels that can\nbe installed on top of the shade structures on the building's south elevation. These\npanels shall be added to the project, if feasible.\n5. The staff of the property management company, (Resources for Community\nDevelopment, RCD) will create a report six months after issuance of the Certificate of\nOccupancy, describing the status of the project, as well as issues of concern\nregarding the interface of the tenants and the surrounding community. This report will\nbe given to City of Alameda Housing Staff for review and comment.\nBoard member Kohlstrand moved to approve the project as amended above,\nseconded by board member Ibsen. Approved as Amended (5-0).\n9-C\n29th Avenue/23rd Avenue/l-880 Improvements. The Planning Board will receive a\npresentation on the proposed improvements to the 23rd Avenue and 29th Avenue on\nand off ramps to Interstate 880. The presentation is for informational purposes. No\naction by the Planning Board is required.\nDiscussion only no action taken\nMr. Matt Todd, Alameda County Transportation Commission representative, explained the\noverhead freeway replacement project between 23rd and 29th Avenue. The project\naddresses the height of several overpasses, on- and off-ramp alignments, and sound wall\nproofing to protect the adjacent neighborhood.\nMr. Wrights, project designer, showcased the reconfiguration of 23rd and 29th Avenues over\n880 freeway, as well as alterations on Clement Avenue in Alameda and the Park Street\ntriangle with images and graphics. The phased project will have detours that will lead\nthrough Oakland. Construction will start in late 2012.\nBoard member Zuppan asked what the level of service will be during the construction\nperiod.\nMr. Wright, stated that there will be a reduction in service in the 23rd Avenue corridor during\nam/pm peak hours by 2035. He also elaborated on the analysis undertaken to evaluate\ntraffic impacts.\nBoard member Kohlstrand asked why this project is going forward, if it causes long-term\nreductions of level of service for Alamedans. She also asked for clarification on whether\nthere is a net reduction of ramps.\nAPPROVED MEETING MINUTES\n7 of 10\nPLANNING BOARD 3/14/2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-03-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-03-14", "page": 8, "text": "Mr. Wright stated that the overriding consideration was to reduce travel times on 880\ntowards Oakland. There was not a reduction of access points, but there would be a\nconsolidation of ramps.\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft opened the public comment period.\nMr. Ratto, Park Street Business Association, recommended that the Park Street bridge\nreceive additional signage to redirect traffic to the Fruitvale bridge, which he considers the\nleast utilized bridge of all bridges. He was also concerned about traffic impacts on Park\nStreet during the construction periods. Lastly, he stated that signage on the freeway needs\nto be greatly improved so that traffic is better directed to Alameda.\nBoard member Kohlstrand supports adding more signage on the freeway showing the way\nto Alameda, but she is concerned about the realignment of the overpasses causing more\nimpacts than benefits on the Oakland and Alameda neighborhoods. She is concerned that\nthe Park Street triangle, as proposed, does not show any pedestrian pathways across the\ntriangle. She is uncertain that the proposed realignments will really create a project that is a\nbenefit to the communities it is supposed to serve.\n9-D\nPresentation of the Draft North Park Street Regulating Code. The presentation is\nfor informational purposes. No action by the Planning Board is required.\nDiscussion only no action taken\nMr. Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, gave a brief overview of this planning\neffort to develop form-based code for the North of Park Street Regulating Code and asked\nthe board for their comments on the Draft Code.\nMr. lan Ross, City Design Collective, presented the web-based development code that\nwould allow a developer to easily grasp the development regulations.\nKohlstrand motioned, seconded by board member Zuppan to limit the speaker time to 3\nminutes per speaker.\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft opened the public comment period.\nMr. Garfinkel, resident in the subject area, liked the web-based form, but is very concerned\nabout the classifications on the land use map. He is concerned that the existing residences\nwould be reclassified to commercial or office uses, when they should be retained as\nresidential uses to protect existing owner's property rights. He also recommended that a\npublic park be included in this area to serve this area.\nMs. Paul, resident in the Wedge neighborhood, stressed that this neighborhood is primarily\nresidential and she would like to see height limits no higher than 3 stories in the Park Street\narea, and two stories for the residential areas. She also made recommendations on the land\nuse map that makes residential buildings subject to demolition and replacement by\ncommercial development.\nAPPROVED MEETING MINUTES\n8 of 10\nPLANNING BOARD 3/14/2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-03-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-03-14", "page": 9, "text": "Ms. Burdick, resident in the Wedge neighborhood, also stressed that this neighborhood is\nreally residential in nature and not commercial. She also supports the development of a park\nfor this area and the limitation of height on Park Street and residential neighborhoods. She\nalso supports Alameda Architectural Preservation Society's (AAPS) comments on the land\nuse changes.\nMr. Ratto, Executive Director of Park Street Business Association, commented that it is\nhighly unfavorable to submit significant amount of comments on projects at 4 pm on the\ndates on which a project is heard.\nMs. Turpen, resident of Alameda, spoke about the land use map. She requested that the\nnotation \"could be commercially developed\" be taken off residentially developed properties\nbacking up against Park Street.\nMr. K\u00f6ster, resident of Alameda, feels strongly that an open space for park, urban farming,\nor community garden is necessary in the Wedge neighborhood. He suggests placing such a\npark or garden on the former Island High School site.\nMs. Miles, Alameda resident, supports the recommendations made by AAPS. She is\nconcerned that residential structures will become targets for demolition. She would like to\nsee the map changed to accurately reflect the actual uses of the neighborhoods. She also\nseconds previous comments made about gardens or a park for that neighborhood.\nMr. Fokas, Alameda resident, seconds AAPS comments.\nMr. Rutter, Alameda resident, supports returning residential structures to residential uses,\nand minimizing commercial redevelopment in this neighborhood.\nMs. Lambden, Alameda resident, supports the AAPS comments. She would like to see the\nresidential structures on Lyle, Eagle, Blanding, Clement and Everett rezoned as residential\nuses.\nMr. Buckley, AAPS representative, supports the planning effort. He elaborated on the\ncomments provided in the letter submitted to the Board. He apologized for submitting a\nvoluminous comment letter with such short time to review the comments.\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft closed the public comment period and asked for clarification on the\nrecent demolition of the historic residence on Buena Vista Avenue.\nMs Kavanaugh-Lynch explained the project history and the demolition process referenced\nearlier by other speakers.\nMr. Thomas requested that the board provide comments on the draft code.\nAPPROVED MEETING MINUTES\n9 of 10\nPLANNING BOARD 3/14/2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-03-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-03-14", "page": 10, "text": "Vice-President Autorino thanked the speakers for their concise comments. He asked how\nthe areas had received their land use designations.\nMr. Thomas explained that field observations had informed the map. Mixed-use areas\nreceived the mixed-use draft zoning designations. He advises against zoning parcels based\non their existing uses, because it parcelizes a neighborhood. However, the mixed-use\nzoning designation would allow both residential and commercial uses housed in buildings\nthat are tailored to fit the aesthetic of the neighborhood.\nVice-President Autorino asked for the possibility of locating a park in that neighborhood.\nMr. Thomas explained that the City does not have funds to purchase the surplus Island High\nsite from the School District, nor does the city have funding to maintain a park in the future.\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft asked how the existing residential uses could be maintained but\nbalanced with Park Street development.\nMr. Thomas explained the land use map and suggested that staff would return with\na\nrevised map addressing the comments of the neighborhood and the board.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: None\n12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:37 p.m.\nAPPROVED MEETING MINUTES\n10 of 10\nPLANNING BOARD 3/14/2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-03-14.pdf"}