{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-06-11", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, JUNE 11, 2012\n1. CONVENE:\n7:03 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Knox White\n3. ROLL CALL:\nPresent: President Zuppan, Vice-President Burton, Board members\nEzzy Ashcraft, Henneberry, Knox White, and K\u00f6ster (arrived at 7:05)\n4. MINUTES:\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of May 14, 2012 (Pending)\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of May 30, 2012 (Pending)\n5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\n6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n6-A. Future Agendas\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, gave brief presentation\n7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nPhilip Gravem, resident on Sherman Street, speaking on behalf of himself and his\nneighbors, requested that the board carefully review the Valero Gas Station Application to\nextend hours including the history of the applicant.\nDavid Eck, President of Crown Harbor Home Owners Association, wanted to inform the\nboard that the fence on the Neptune Point property was built without a survey and is off\nby 10-20 feet. He stated that the fence on the property that is being sold has not been\ncorrected and the HOA would like to work with the Developer in relocating it. He also\nrequested that the landscaped area between the two properties be preserved and\nmaintained.\nBarbara Kerr stated that the free standing signs at the corner of Buena Vista and\nSherman violate Code 30-16 (D) and (G). According to code free standing signs are not\nallowed on City property, nor are they allowed to face residential properties closer than\n1000 feet. She requested that the signs be removed.\nBoard member Knox White motioned to call the Valero Gas Station Application for review\nand discussion at a future Board meeting.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 1 of 10\nPlanning Board Mtg.\nJune 11, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-06-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-06-11", "page": 2, "text": "Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nMotion carried 6-0\n8. CONSENT 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. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A.\nDraft General Plan Housing Element, Land Use Diagram, accompanying Zoning\nOrdinance Amendments and Addendum. - A public hearing to consider draft\namendments to the General Plan and Alameda Municipal Code to comply with State\nof California Government Code requirements related to the provision and regulation\nof housing.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster recused himself.\nAndrew Thomas gave a brief presentation of the proposed amendments.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked if surplus units can be applied to future requirements.\nJennifer Gastelum, PMC consultant, stated that up to 25% of previously built units can be\napplied to current requirements.\nBoard member Henneberry asked about the consequences for not passing the plan at this\nmeeting.\nMr. Thomas replied that if the City Council does not approve the amendments, there will not\nbe a certified Housing Element, which means the General Plan is incomplete. If the General\nPlan is incomplete then the City is not eligible for state funding, the City can be sued, and\npotentially all decisions and permit approval authority can be taken away until the General\nPlan is complete.\nPresident Zuppan opened the public comment period.\nAngela Fawcett, representing Park Webster Home Owners Association, stated that\nadditional housing will affect traffic and wants to know what plans are in place to repave and\nwiden McKay Street.\nMr. Thomas acknowledged that the City is aware of the problems with McKay Street, which\nis actually owned by the State.\nBarbara Kerr stated she is concerned about the Multi-family district overlay and said that a\nPage 2 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-06-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-06-11", "page": 3, "text": "separate Public Hearing should have been held for such a drastic new zoning district. She\nexpressed concern about not requiring open space (yards, decks, and usable rooftops), not\nrequiring setbacks, the increase in traffic, and inadequate parking.\nMr. Thomas stated that every property/home owner within 300 feet of every property being\nrezoned received notice as required by state and local law and notices were posted at all\nsites.\nFarimah Faiz, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the City met and exceeded state law in\nterms of notification.\nDarin Lounds, Executive Director of the Housing Consortium of the East Bay and President\nof East Bay Housing Organizations, spoke in support of the multi-family housing overlay.\nDiane Lichtenstein, Vice President of H.O.M.E.S, concurred with Mr. Lounds. She\nrequested that as much flexibility as possible be built into every phase to allow for flexibility\nin future years.\nKristoffer K\u00f6ster, resident, stated he supports the Housing Element but would like to see the\nAlameda Unified School District (AUSD) site developed in a sustainable way. He said the\nsite is not maintained and serves as a dumping ground for AUSD. He said he would like to\nsee the site developed in such as way to repair some of the zoning issues. He concluded\nstating that he would like to see open/green space developed in the neighborhood.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft said she sent photos of the AUSD site to Public Works and\nThe City Manager's Office and was told by the Deputy City Manager that Public works will\nclear the weeds this week, and will contact AUSD to better maintain the property.\nHelen Sause, President of HOMES, spoke in favor of the Housing Element, stating that the\nmany will benefit from the approved Housing Element, including tax revenue and eligibility\nfor state funding. She said that this provides a map for future housing development and\nprotect the vulnerability of the City from potential law suits.\nLaura Thomas, President of Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, spoke in favor of the\nHousing Element and expressed the importance of building new, comfortable, efficient and\naffordable housing.\nBill Smith, Vice President of Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, spoke in favor of the\nHousing Element stating that passing of the Housing Element will jump start the\nredevelopment of Alameda Point which will directly affect the budget crisis, citing Bay Farm\nIsland development.\nLynette Lee spoke in favor of the Housing Element. She addressed comment regarding\nadditional traffic impact on the City stating that flexibility and possibility to require less\nparking will encourage more people to walk and bike while reducing the carbon footprint.\nShe stated that it is a great opportunity to ensure different types of housing for a variety of\nincomes.\nPage 3 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-06-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-06-11", "page": 4, "text": "Deni Adaniya, member of East Bay Housing Organizations and resident, spoke in support of\nthe Housing Element. She stated that affordable housing units are very well designed and\nenriches the lives of all Alameda residents.\nGary Struthers, member of East Bay Housing Organization and resident, spoke in favor of\nthe Housing Element and encouraged the Board to make this a priority to the benefit of the\ncommunity.\nSean Svendsen, owner of Alameda Marina, spoke in favor of the Housing Element, stating\nthat a change from M2 to MU with multi family overlay will allow maximum flexibility for\nfuture land use planning. He expressed the importance of maintaining eligibility for state\ntransportation funding.\nLois Pryor, East Bay Housing Organization, spoke in favor of the Housing Element and\nurged the Board to approve the plans.\nPresident Zuppan closed the public comment period.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft commented favorably on the proposed amendments.\nBoard member Henneberry stated he will support the plans.\nVice President Burton, concurred with previous Board member comments. He asked if the\nplan needs to be revised to exclude the reference to the use of redevelopment funds\nbecause of recent State actions regarding redevelopment agencies.\nMr. Thomas clarified that staff was addressing specific HCD comments from 2009 and will\npresent a new Housing Element in 2014.\nBoard member Knox White stated that the placement of the Land Availability Chart within\nthe report is confusing and pointed out inconsistencies in the references to locations within\nthe Zoning Ordinances Map Amendments and the Housing Element; one refers by site\nnumber and the other by name. He suggested that the CVS description should include the\naddress number to minimize confusion surrounding their possible relocation. He stated that\nthe word \"new\" should be removed from the titles, because of the confusion the word will\ngenerate once the plans are adopted. He said that the site description of the Good Toyota\nlocation should be revised to focus on the location, not the owner of the building.\nPresident Zuppan commended staff on proposed amendments and echoed Board\ncomments.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft motioned to adopt the draft resolution recommending the\nproposed general plan and AMC amendments exhibit 2 and 3.\nBoard member Henneberry seconded the motion.\nMotion carries 5-0 (K\u00f6ster recused himself)\nPage 4 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-06-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-06-11", "page": 5, "text": "9-B. Alameda Landing Retail Center Sign Program - Applicant: Catellus LLC- A public\nhearing to consider a Sign Program for the future Alameda Landing Retail Center.\nEnvironmental Determination: Categorically Exempt pursuant to CEQA Section\n15301 (g) new copy on and off premise signs.\nScott Cuyler, Square Peg Design, gave brief presentation\nPresident Zuppan opened the public comment period.\nDiane Lichtenstein, resident, objected to the tenant signs stating that they are not\nwelcoming.\nPresident Zuppan closed the public comment period.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster spoke in overall favor of the signs and likes the use of recycled\nmaterials. He stated that the Target Sign in the square box is not attractive.\nBoard member Knox White echoed the previous comments and expressed concerns with\nthe tenant signs stating they detract from the building and he questioned their necessity.\nVice President Burton stated that he is pleased with the overall sign program and the\ncomposition of the signs work well. He expressed concern with the readability of the\nAlameda Landing sign as well as the illumination of the signs. He inquired about the\nbrightness of the signs and if there would be a limit on the hours per day that the signs will\nbe illuminated.\nMr. Cuyler, responded that the signs are sized appropriately according to site lines and that\nthe graphic is the only part of the sign that will be illuminated.\nMr. Thomas responded that a diagram showing the range of illumination the sign will cast\ncan be required as part of the building permit application. He also stated that the Board can\nattach a condition regarding nighttime illumination to the permit.\nSean Whiskeman, Catellus, stated that the signs illumination is adjustable and suggested\nthat they be turn down to \"security level\" lighting, when the shopping center closes for the\nnight. He said the store hours change during holiday and the hours of operation differ\nbetween retail and restaurant.\nVice President Burton suggested that a condition of approval be drafted, directing staff to\nwork with the developer to refine light levels and develop a light schedule so lights are not\non 24/7.\nMr. Whiskeman clarified that the tenant signs, with the exception of Target, are\nrepresentative images and could look a little different. He clarified that the size of the \"entry\"\nsigns has been modified to be more subtle.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that since residential units on 5th Street will not be\ncompleted for at least a year, that the Board approve the plans and revisit the lighting at a\nPage 5 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-06-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-06-11", "page": 6, "text": "later date. She stated that she is generally pleased with the plans and likes the seagull.\nShe questioned the placement of the Alameda Landing text stating it seem illogical to read\nfrom bottom to top, and suggested that it be changed to read from top to bottom. She\nrequested a materials board.\nMr. Thomas stated that the Board can approve the plans with a condition that the materials\nboard is presented prior to approval of the building permit.\nBoard member Henneberry said he likes the design of the Alameda Landing Shopping\nCenter signs but does not like the tenant signs, stating the additional Target signs are\nexcessive and unnecessary. He suggested that the 67 square foot sign is large and should\nbe reduced in size or completely removed.\nBoard member Knox White concurred with Board member Henneberry regarding the size of\nthe sign and suggested smaller or narrower signs.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she doesn't have a problem with advertising the\nstores by the signs. She stated that the signs are directional and will assist people in\ndirecting them into the shopping center.\nPresident Zuppan stated that she finds the sizes of the signs acceptable and the signs\nappear to her to be proportional.\nBoard member Knox White clarified with the Assistant City Attorney that the directional sign\nat the corner of Stargell and Mariner's Square Loop is off site and therefore requires a Use\nPermit.\nAssistant City Attorney Farimah Faiz, stated that for the time being the directional sign at the\ncorner of Stargell and Mariners Square Loop should be severed from the discussion.\nBoard member Henneberry clarified that the sign is generic and similar signs can be viewed\nanywhere. He stated that the city does not want a generic sign of that magnitude.\nBoard member Knox White motioned to exclude the off-site sign from the program and\napprove the sign design with a condition that staff work with Catellus on the lighting issues,\nspecifically the brightness, light cast, and hours of operation, and the materials board with\ncorrect colors be brought back to the Board for design review, and the primary tenant sign\nbe reduced in size to no more than 50 square feet.\nBoard member Henneberry seconded the motion.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that since the size of the sign is changing perhaps\nthe Board should just ask for new designs.\nVice President Burton suggested that the motion be worded to state that as long as the sign\ndoes not exceed 50 square feet and then the Board would not have to review the changes.\nBoard member Knox White stated that the Board is approving the \"massing\" of the signs\nPage 6 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-06-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-06-11", "page": 7, "text": "and that the motion only requires that the \"massing\" of the largest sign be reduced.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the Board is approving the sign program. She\nstated that she is concerned with how the sign proportions will be affected by limiting the\nsigns surface area and not the height. She stated of the sign is going to be redesigned\nthen she would like to review the materials board and color samples at the same time. She\nreiterated her hesitancy to limit the lighting until the Board and City are aware of those\nimpacts on residential areas. She asked how critical the time is.\nMr. Thomas stated that this sign is for Target and time is of the essence. He said the\nmaterials board and lighting can be brought back prior to the sign's actual construction.\nPresident Zuppan stated she has concerns with limiting the size of on-premise signs\nVice President Burton stated that there is only one sign of this magnitude on site, that the\nsign's target audience is people driving in from the tube, and that the sign is actually\nproportional and appropriate for its context. He stated he is ok with the size of the sign.\nBoard member Ezzy Aschraft inquired about the City's billboard ban.\nMr. Thomas clarified that the signs under discussion are all on site and are not considered\nbillboards.\nMotion carried, 4-2; AYES: K\u00f6ster, Knox White, Burton, Henneberry; NOES: Zuppan, Ezzy\nAshcraft\n9-C. I-880/BroadwaylJackson Multimodal Transportation and Circulation\nImprovements for Alameda Point, Oakland Chinatown, Downtown\nOakland and Jack London Square.\nObaid Khan, Public Works Engineer, gave brief presentation.\nBoard member Knox White asked how the traffic exiting the 880 North at Webster will get to\nBroadway and the traffic signals.\nMr. Khan replied that drivers can make a right turn from the main street. He stated that the\nsignal operations are still under discussion; however they would be separate traffic signals.\nPresident Zuppan asked what process was used to determine that the travel time from\nadditional \"jump lanes\" minimal compared to the cost and therefore deemed not worthwhile.\nShe asked how traffic in the Tube would be affected by the elimination of the right turn lane\nfor drivers on Atlantic.\nMr. Khan answered that a computer model was used to determine travel time. He stated\nthat Public Works found in 2009 while working on the Transportation Element that the right\nturn lane is not critical.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked how many automobiles use the Broadway Exit, how\ntraffic will be directed onto the surface streets, and what the realistic speeds will be. She\nexpressed concern regarding the amount of traffic and the speed that the automobiles are\nPage 7 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-06-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-06-11", "page": 8, "text": "traveling at.\nMr. Khan answered that a lot of traffic exiting from Broadway are making several turns to get\nback onto Webster Street. He stated that he will forward that information to the Board.\nVice President Burton stated the Market Street on-ramp access via 6th Street is a weakness\nin the plan, and asked how drivers are going to be enticed to utilize that on-ramp. He stated\nthat the slow street concept is in direct opposition of the people trying to access the freeway.\nBoard member Knox White clarified with Mr. Khan that Alameda is the project sponsor for\nACTC which means the City directs ACTC when to move forward with projects.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster asked about the BRT timing.\nMr. Khan answered that BRT is scheduled for FY 2017-18 and the development of Alameda\nPoint is critical to BRT.\nPresident Zuppan opened the public comment period.\nJim Strehlow, expressed confusion why the project is not being presented in a joint special\nmeeting with the Planning Board and the Transportation Commission. He stated that the\nplan fails the goal of the Deficiency Plan and said that the shorter ramp will cause back up\non the freeway.\nRandy Rentschler, resident, stated that this is a great project and very much needed\nespecially for the development of the base. He encouraged the Board to support the plan.\nTony Daysog, stated that the plan disperses traffic which helps alleviate traffic.\nHe\nsuggested that staff consider the feasibility of a road be constructed that immediately links\ndrivers turning left onto 6th Street to the 880.\nPresident Zuppan closed the public comment period.\nBoard member Knox White commented that Deficiency Plan was based on 1950 freeway\ndesign engineering and part of the Transportation Master Plan includes changing the way\nproject benefits are reviewed/proposed. He suggested that an analysis be performed to\ndetermine that the benefits are worth the cost of the project.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft motioned to extend the meeting to 11:15\nBoard member Henneberry seconded the motion.\nMotion carried 6-0\nVice President Burton concurred with Board member Knox White regarding the benefits and\ncost. He cited the 6th Street projected and stated that it doesn't appear to provide enough\nbenefits to Alameda and further cuts off Chinatown from Jack London Square.\nPage 8 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-06-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-06-11", "page": 9, "text": "Board member Ezzy Ashcraft cited the settlement agreement between the City and the\nOakland-Chinatown Chamber and Asian Health Services, and stated that traffic heading\nthrough Chinatown from the Tube is Alameda's problem. She expressed concern for\npedestrian safety in Chinatown.\nBoard member Henneberry stated that Alameda should not benefit to the detriment of\nOakland and that projects should be agreed upon by both cities. He stated that\nreconfiguring 6th Street to mimic Octavia and Fell in San Francisco would work well.\nPresident Zuppan concurred with Board member Knox White, stating she has concerns with\nthe lack of close connection to the freeway; the lack of data based analysis of the impact of\ncosts, and would like to ensure that an analysis is performed.\nBoard member Knox White addressed Mr. Strehlow's comments stating that the\nTransportation Commission was scheduled to review the plan in May, but the item was\npulled due to an illness. He reiterated that there is a commitment to building a project that\nsolves the problems.\nMr. Khan confirmed that the plans will be presented to the Transportation Commission on\nJune 27, 2012.\n9-D. Grand Marina Village Sidewalks - A report by City staff recommending a change to\na Planning Board recommendation of approval for the Grand Marina Village\ndevelopment related to the width of the existing pedestrian path along the waterfront.\nAndrew Thomas Planning Services Manager gave brief presentation.\nBoard member Henneberry asked why the Board required a 10 foot wide path\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft responded that at the time, a board member was concerned\nwith access for all pedestrians and bicycles. She stated that she has no qualms leaving the\npath at its existing width as long as the trash receptacles are moved and no longer impede\nthe path.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster asked if the path's width remains at 9 feet if it will still be considered\npart of the Bay Trail. He stated that he has found the trail to be adequate in size.\nMr. Thomas replied that it will still be part of the Bay Trail.\nBoard member Knox White motioned to modify the width of the path with the condition that\nthe trash receptacles be moved so as not to impede traffic.\nVice President Burton reiterated concern with the placement of the trash receptacles. He\nstated that the path is not continuous and is interrupted by a curb at Grand Street and needs\nto be conditioned.\nBoard member Knox White amended his motion to include the condition that continuity be\nprovided between the two sections of trail.\nPage 9 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-06-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-06-11", "page": 10, "text": "Board member K\u00f6ster seconded the motion.\nMotion carried 6-0, no abstentions.\n9-E. Update on 1700 Park Street Project. A status report the retail building under\nconstruction at 1700 Park Street at the corner of Buena Vista.\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, gave brief presentation.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster asked when the mock-ups for the stucco banding around windows in\nthe rear of the building would be provided.\nMr. Thomas replied that he will notify the board of a projected date.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that this situation is a teachable moment. She\nsuggested that a discussion take place at a future meeting to ensure that this situation does\nnot happen again. She recommends that a color board come back to the Board for review.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nBoard member Knox White design review provided copies of the Fresno's Downtown Vision\nPlan as an example of how Alameda should pursue and present their plans for Alameda\nPoint. He stated that in developing Alameda Point that the City first define their goals and\nexplain their goals then pursue issues such as zoning. He stated that design review was\nconfusing with the speakers addressing the Board during public comment. He proposed\nthat all design reviews be moved to the consent calendar where they can be pulled if\nsomeone wishes to discuss a particular item.\n12.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone\n13.\nADJOURNMENT:\n11:13 p.m.\nPage 10 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-06-11.pdf"}