pages
2,990 rows where body = "PlanningBoard" sorted by text
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: page
date (date) >30 ✖
- 2005-02-28 26
- 2007-03-26 25
- 2005-06-13 24
- 2005-06-27 24
- 2008-06-23 23
- 2012-03-12 23
- 2006-11-13 22
- 2008-08-11 21
- 2021-07-26 21
- 2005-01-10 20
- 2005-08-22 20
- 2006-07-24 20
- 2006-10-23 19
- 2007-09-24 18
- 2012-02-27 18
- 2021-04-26 18
- 2021-07-12 18
- 2005-05-23 17
- 2006-09-25 17
- 2007-05-29 17
- 2008-04-28 17
- 2008-12-08 17
- 2005-01-24 16
- 2005-09-29 16
- 2006-04-24 16
- 2007-01-08 16
- 2007-03-12 16
- 2005-02-14 15
- 2006-02-27 15
- 2006-12-11 15
- …
Link | body | date | page | text ▼ | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2021-04-26 | 2 | https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4913556&GUID=D03018E1- B78C-4DAE-8B76-1862FE538D8A&FullText=1. President Teague opened the board's clarifying questions. Board Member Rona Rothenberg wanted to know why air conditioning was called out as "baseline" as opposed to other common applications in this climate which was not as intensive in air conditioning as a particular application. Staff Member Mieler said that calling out the air conditioning was standard practice in new development. She also introduced Farhad Farahmand, a consultant, who had been advising the staff on this ordinance. Farhad Farahmand, TRC Energy Consultant, explained the underlining reasons for the air conditioning assumption. Board Member Hanson Hom asked for clarification that this ordinance would only apply to new structures and would not apply to ADU's if the main structure was already gas. Also, if a person were to completely remodel their kitchen (complete tear-out) he assumed this ordinance would not apply as well. Staff Member Mieler said that was correct, this would be for completely new construction. Board Member Ron Curtis was concerned about low-cost housing and wanted to know the total difference in utility cost from a completely electric house vs a gas-powered house. Mr. Farahmand said unfortunately he did not have a complete answer right now. He said they were currently working on that analysis for the utilities. They were seeing it as being around seven dollars a month, couple hundred dollars a year based on surrounding utilities. Board Member Curtis referred to the table in the presentation that showed that the electric dryer was six dollars more than a gas dryer, and the electric stove was a few more dollars a month than the gas stove. Mr. Farahmand explained how these appliances do add increases but several other factors decrease. There was a balancing act between everything. Board Member Curtis asked if a heat pump was more energy efficient than a furnace. Mr. Farahmand said yes absolutely. Board Member Cur… | PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf,17 | PlanningBoard | 2021-07-12 | 17 | https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5015994&GUID=174D0132- 9553-4E86-A703-5637C6E8FF46&FullText=1. No board member wished to pull any item for review. 9-B 2021-1106 Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation Department Projects Staff Member Tai announced that at the Monday, July 26 meeting they would have a full agenda and bring back the 1435 Webster which was the Study Session from today. There would also be a minor planned development amendment to a small setback issue for a building under construction at the Harbor Bay Business Park. The staff would also bring forward an architectural design review approval for the medical respite center at McKay Ave, a draft of the Vision Zero Action Plan, and another General Plan update. He also updated the board that Board Member Ruiz's question about 53 Killybegs had been addressed so she had withdrawn her request for a Design Review. Director Thomas gave an update that at the July 6th City Council meeting they decided to appeal the RHNA numbers on a 3-2 vote. The appeal was submitted on Friday, July 9th. President Teague asked about the other 4 items. Director Thomas said they did not do anything. They debated a bunch of aspects on it and decided not to do anything with the resolution. He explained the next actions for the staff and said they should hear back about the appeal in November. Board Member Hom wanted to know about the rationale for the appeal. Director Thomas explained that between Article 26, sea-level rise, transportation, and seismic safety the council believed that it had a strong argument for appeal. The staff had also introduced the issue of the Navy Cap as an argument. They wanted the region to know about the Cap to get help for it. He explained more about the appeal process and what they had asked for. The staff would be working on two paths, one if the appeal was accepted and the other if it is rejected. Board Member Rothenberg asked about the Encinal Terminals Action that had been bundl… | PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf,13 | PlanningBoard | 2021-07-26 | 13 | https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5031891&GUID=164AODE7- A13A-41FF-9A71-993AE1305D2A&FullText=1. Doug Biggs, the applicant, discussed a few things then introduced the architect for the project, Chris Ebert of Ankrom Moisan and Sarita Govani of Mantle Landscape Architecture. Mr. Ebert presented where he discussed the design intent and goals. Ms. Govani also presented where she discussed how the landscaping would support the building design and programming at the facility. President Teague opened the board clarifying questions. Board Member Ruiz thanked everyone for their presentations. She asked how users and visitors would arrive. She wanted more elaboration on why they turned the front door away from the street. Mr. Biggs discussed the 3 major uses of the center, a respite center for patients requiring aftercare, and those patients would be picked up from the hospital and brought to the site by staff. There would be no walk-in opportunities. The downstairs will be a clinic that would serve the patients in the respite center but also serve residents of the senior living facility. Those patients will get to the clinic by a little walkway. The front area will be a resource center for residents of Alameda only who are at risk of becoming homeless or recently homeless and will be by appointment only. They normally would have an opening at the front but one of the concerns by neighbors was that people would loiter at the front or lines forming on the street. This is why all entrances will be off the street. Board Member Ruiz then wanted clarification on the materiality of the building. Mr. Ebert said the plan was for it to be an Exterior Insulation Finishing System (EIFS) and they were thinking of a standard smooth texture. Board Member Ruiz also asked about the visibility of the vents on the roof. Mr. Ebert said you would be able to see them a bit but this was the least visible he had ever used. Board Member Ruiz asked about the vents and roof design. She also asked if he had thought about using… | PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2022-01-24.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2022-01-24 | 2 | https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5379989&GUID=8240DCA5- 261F-4060-AAE5-444187E64F94&FullText=1. President Saheba opened the board clarifying questions. Board Member Alan Teague asked for clarification on where the four different doors lead to. He wanted to know how the residential entrance was distinguished from the retail entrance. Hillary Dowden, a developer with UDR, explained the layout and the entrances. President Saheba opened public comment. David Israel, the architect, also discussed and explained the difference between retail entrances and residential entrances. Betsy Mathieson, an Alameda resident, had questions about the hanger doors. She wanted to see the South Elevation. President Saheba closed public comment and opened board discussion. Board Member Teague was not totally in favor of this design but he would not stand in the way of its approval. He thought the way it was before made it clear how you were supposed to get into the building, and this way it kinda blends in. President Saheba agreed that there was no clarity of entryway. He thought there needed to be more work, perhaps with the canopy design. Vice President Teresa Ruiz had requested from the applicant the building plan and thought there was no confusion and was in support of this amendment. Board Member Teague made a motion to approve the amendment. Board Member Xiomara Cisneros seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 with Board Member Hom absent. 7-B 2022-1666 A Public Workshop to Review and Comment on the Draft Housing Element Update Zoning Code Amendments Regarding Definitions and Regulations for Residential and Related Land Uses. Director Thomas introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5379991&GUID=F97232D8- E3DF-44D1-9F85-FOEA8FC27926&FullText=1. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 2 of 6 January 24, 2022 | PlanningBoard/2022-01-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2016-10-24.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2016-10-24 | 6 | ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2858659&GUID=A4EF7EBF- EBF-4FC7-B578-1E63AE0E56C9&Options=&Search=&FullText=1 Board Member Sullivan asked if we have looked at starter homes and senior homes for middle class people, not just the rich and very poor. Staff Member Thomas explained what affordability levels would be included. He said they are working on designing projects that will have units that are available for households of all income levels by dictating the size of the units. Board Member Sullivan said that young families cannot live in one bedroom apartments and we need small starter single family homes. Staff Member Ott said 9% of the units would be deed restricted moderate income units. She said the flexibility of building heights and types will make it so that the market rate units are more affordable to middle income buyers. Board Member Curtis said that the boom market helps pay for the affordable housing now, but if the market changes direction, that will not work out for the people who paid top dollar for the market rate units. Staff Member Ott explained that the moderate income buyers would not participate in the upside or downside equity changes that a market rate purchaser would. Staff Member Thomas explained the origin of the 25% inclusionary requirements of building at this site. Board Member Knox White asked what could be built within the Historic Zone within the strict design guidelines. Staff Member McPhee said the guidelines were targeted at the non-contributing buildings in the historic district. Board Member Mitchell asked if limiting heights to three stories instead of four was feasible. Staff Member Ott said they are looking to preserve flexibility in order to make certain product types viable. Board Member Zuppan said we need to be incorporating plans for indoor homework/library spaces for children on this end of town. Approved Minutes Page 6 of 9 Planning Board Meeting October 24, 2016 | PlanningBoard/2016-10-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-05-10.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2021-05-10 | 2 | ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4928037&GUID=63163F6E- A2D6-48B5-A4A5-6CE722E8D07D&FullText=1. President Teague opened public comment. There were no public speakers. President Teague closed public comments and opened the board/commission questions and commentary. Vice President Asheshh Saheba wanted to know if they had looked at the different parking requirements for the different programs offered for the city. Director Thomas said that parking and parking management are going to be a major focus of the city staff's work, and are working on a comprehensive rewrite of the Off-Street Parking Zoning Code. He explained how it would be different from how it had been in the past. Vice President Saheha believed this was critical to a sustainable future. Vice-Chair Alysha Nachtigall wanted to know since the plan is to have paid parking at the ferry terminals if there would also be an increase in transit connections to provide an incentive for commuters. Director Thomas said having additional transit connections were critical and AC transit is working on a plan with WETA (Water Emergency Transportation Authority). He gave a background on the work those organizations had been planning for Alameda and when it is expected to start. He brought up that AC Transit's plan was dependent on Alameda managing and charging for parking at the ferry terminals as an incentive to take the bus. Vice-Chair Nachtigall stated that with equity in mind getting the word out about these services would be critical. Director Thomas agreed. Board Member Rothenberg wanted to know if the climate action elements had been incorporated and if Residential Parking Permits had been addressed and discussed. Director Thomas said they did acknowledge the progress on the green initiatives and the General Plan would keep pushing on what else they can do to deal with Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. For parking management, the General Plan did not talk a lot about the city's existing Residential Permit Parking Program, which is… | PlanningBoard/2021-05-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2007-06-25 | 3 | "Hydrology and Water Quality: contaminated storm water runoffs can have a potentially significant impact due to the potential for petroleum product spills and other debris. The applicant is to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. "Fact: To date there has been no formal study of air quality regarding asbestos, carbon monoxide and gas emissions along the Otis Drive corridor, as well as soil erosion with stormwater runoffs impacting water quality, particularly that of the lagoon opposite of the proposed fuel station. (The lagoon opposite of the Towne Center is already 400% over the upper limit for expected fecal coliform.) "Fact: There was critical facilities (two respite care homes and a hospital) that will be affected by environmental conditions involving air and water quality. "Fact: Alameda is approaching the tipping point of endangering its natural and healthy environment at its south shore for trying to recoup revenue leakages. "Is this best planning practice for a town in such a fragile environment?' 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: 8-A. Use Permit UP07-0010; Minor Design Review MDR 07-0058; Parking In-lieu Fees - Applicant: Gary Parker - 2437 Lincoln (ZS). The applicant is requesting a Use Permit and Design Review approval to establish a dental office and laboratory on the ground floor of an existing building; reconfigure the parking lot to increase the number of parking spaces from seven to thirteen; and pay parking in-lieu fees for five parking spaces. The property is located within a C-C- T (Community Commercial Theater Combining) zoning district. Board member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-23 to approve a Use Permit and Design Review approval to establish a dental office and laboratory on the ground floor of an existing building; reconfigure the parking lot to increase the number of parking spaces from seven to thirteen; and pay parking in-lieu fees for five parking spaces. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6 Absen… | PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-09-11.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2006-09-11 | 3 | "President Lynch noted that the noticing practices were regulated by the State, and that the City may want to consider extending often extended the noticing parameters." He suggested that he leave his contact information with City staff to be including in the noticing. He recommended that he bring the videotapes to City staff as well. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: 7-A. Applicant requests a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to allow five new buildings totaling approximately 100,795 square feet in floor area with a total of 268 parking spaces to be constructed on a 7.7 acre site (CL). The site is located at 1900 - 1980 North Loop Road within the Harbor Bay Business Park in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District. Applicant: SRM Associates (FDP06- 0003 and DR06-0071). M/S Kohlstrand/Member McNamara and unanimous to continue Item 7-A to September 25, 2006. AYES - 5 (Cook, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 7-B. Applicant requests a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to allow a one- story building of approximately 36,899 square feet in floor area with 69 parking spaces to be constructed on a 4.1 acre site (CL). The site is located at 2275 Harbor Bay Parkway within the Harbor Bay Business Park in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District. Applicant: Harbor Bay Acquisition LLC (FDP06-0002 and DR06-0062) M/S Kohlstrand/Member McNamara and unanimous to continue Item 7-B to September 25, 2006. AYES - 5 (Cook, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 7-C. DR06-0027 and V06-0006 - Applicant: Fargo Farnesi Inc. - 2427 Clement Ave. (DG). The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new two-story commercial cabinet shop with a penthouse apartment on the third floor, to be used as a caretaker's unit, and a free-standing single-story wood frame structure to be used as an administrative office for the cabinet shop. The project will provide four full-size parking spaces and one ADA compliant parking space. The applicant proposes to p… | PlanningBoard/2006-09-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2007-10-22 | 7 | "big box" store. The Zoning Code would be further amended to require that the use permit be amended for a large format retail store, in addition to the standard use permit conditions. In that case, the key issues could be addressed in terms of its design, operations and the issue of sale leakage. He noted that this was a new presentation, and that there had not been any community feedback at this point. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Karen Bay noted that she was speaking as an Alameda resident, and was looking forward to the workshop, which she believed was very timely. She supported amending the Zoning Code to define and address large format retail stores, and supported the requirement of a use permit for all large format retail store. She believed the City's retail policy needed some updating because so much had changed since 2004. She believed that the City had more clarity and understanding about the retail development process since then. She had reviewed the DDA as it related to the Alameda Landing project as approved, and believed that the City had approved a lifestyle center, not a hybrid center, and believed the wording should be changed to reflect that. She suggested that the term "lifestyle center" be defined. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Mr. Thomas requested the Planning Board's thoughts on the definition, as well as the idea of requiring a conditional use permit. He noted that there were many people who would be interested in looking at a prohibition on stores over a certain size. He noted that the issues of stopping sales leakage and historic buildings were of concern to the community; he noted that the Del Monte building had been a centerpiece of that debate. Mr. Thomas noted that care should be taken in the definitions and prohibitions, and added that there were many in the community who would like a "big box" prohibition. He noted that it would not be possible to write a zoning ordinance that prohibited a particular retailer, and that naming certain retailers as acceptab… | PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2017-06-12.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2017-06-12 | 2 | #2006012091) in 2006. An Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Master Plan Amendment has been prepared. Staff Member Thomas gave a presentation The staff report and attachments can be found at: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3066059&GUID=783D43D9- ABD6-4E81-B2EC-7E52AF26CCE2&FullText=1 Sean Whiskeman, Catellus, gave a presentation detailing their new master plan application. Leslie and Alan Cameron, Bay Ship and Yacht, said they are excited to partner with Catellus and expand Alameda's working waterfront. Board Member Curtis asked about the change in the staff report from 300 to 600 units. Staff Member Thomas said that the original plan for all of Alameda Landing included 300 units. He said the 600 number includes the 287 nearly completed units at the current phase of Alameda Landing. Board Member Zuppan asked about the size of the park space. Staff Member Thomas said it would be 4.5 acres, including 100 feet from the water along the full length of the residential. Board Member Burton asked how the plan to keep the two warehouses would affect plans to reinforce the shoreline infrastructure. Mr. Whiskeman explained that the Bay Ship portion would have to be repaired if they ever redeveloped their site. Board Member Mitchell opened the public hearing. Brent Aboudara expressed concern about construction and warehouse truck traffic and parking. He said he is glad the hotel is gone from the plan and is sad to see the reduction in park acreage. Nick Ellis said he supports the plan and efforts to develop a blue collar incubator. Diana Maiden Aiken said she looks forward to enjoying the estuary access. She said we need a diversity of homes. Tony Daysog said we should keep the focus on creating jobs. He said Catellus has benefitted from their overall project and we need to conduct a full EIR to evaluate the change in traffic impacts caused by new housing. Approved Minutes Page 2 of 10 June 12, 2017 Planning Board Meeting | PlanningBoard/2017-06-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2011-10-10.pdf,11 | PlanningBoard | 2011-10-10 | 11 | #22- This Conditional Use Permit PLN08-0479, as amended on October 10, 2011 will be reviewed by the Alameda Planning Board in six months from the date of these conditions of approval, as modified and upon the receipt of a verifiable complaint which cannot be resolved by the Community Development Director on an administrative level. [See amended resolution attached.] Motion made to approve the conditions of approval as amended above by Board member Kohlstrand, seconded by Board member Burton. Approved 5-0. 9-B Use Permit Annual Review - PLN09-0184 - Applicant - Chengben Wang for Encinal Terminals - An annual review for compliance with conditions for use of the property located at 1523 Entrance Road/Buena Vista Avenue commonly referred to as "Encinal Terminals". Andrew Thomas, Planning Services gave an overview of the Use Permit. He reported that over the last 18 months there has been some progress on the Master Plan although all three properties are currently in receivership. It is doubtful that there will be any progress on the project until the financial issues get resolved. He reported that the City has received calls inquiring about the properties by potential developers. The City needs to make sure that there is a viable Master Plan in place for who ever develop the sites, which works given the economic times. Board member Zuppan asked if any of the calls regarding the property referenced the Master Plan documents. Mr. Thomas stated that all of the calls have inquired as to what the City is willing to consider on the sites. He also stated that the Chipman site has been zoned for residential and the tentative map was approved, although it has since expired. President Ezzy-Ashcraft asked what protection the City has against someone purchasing the property in foreclosure and developing it as they wish. Farimah Faiz, Assistant City Attorney, responded that the property is zoned MX and any potential developer would need to get a Master Plan approved by the City prior to any development of the sites. Mr. Thomas sta… | PlanningBoard/2011-10-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2017-01-23.pdf,15 | PlanningBoard | 2017-01-23 | 15 | *None* 13. ADJOURNMENT President Köster adjourned the meeting at 11:13pm. Approved Minutes Page 15 of 15 Planning Board Meeting January 23, 2017 | PlanningBoard/2017-01-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2021-07-26 | 16 | *Prescient Teague reminded him to stay on topic and told him to bring up these issues in the Oral Communication section. Mike Van Dine thought it was a beautiful design but felt that the designer had wasted an opportunity to embrace the history of the building. Lis Cox wanted to know what area of the building the homeless would be welcomed into the building to use the resource center on an appointment basis. She also wanted to know if there would be a screening area for the public who did not have an appointment. Harvey Rosenthal, a neighbor, said he had received no notification of this Design Review meeting and thought that was unfortunate. He then discussed how the nature of the program had changed over time. He wanted to know more about how the homeless would be homed. Scott Hamilton thought it was a beautiful building but it did not match the neighborhood or the history of Alameda. He also thought that the designer could have done more to honor the original history of the building and the Merchant Marines. President Teague, before closing public comments, asked Celena Chen, City Attorney's Office, and Staff Counsel, if public notice for this Design Review had been sent out and how far was it noticed. Counsel Chen deferred to the staff for comment on the public noticing of this item. Staff Member Dong answered that public notice was sent out to all properties within 300 feet of the project site. President Teague made a last call for public speakers and asked if the board wanted to hear from Ms. Reid a second time. Board Member Curtis said why not since it was a public hearing and others agreed. Carmen Reid thanked the board for the opportunity to talk. She addressed that there was a violation of public access, the Zoom link for tonight's meeting was broken. She wanted the board to know that the public had not been able to fully access this meeting. In regards to the Design Review, she discussed the goals for the 2040 General Plan, CC-18 "Building Renovation and Reuse" talked about reusing existing buildings. P… | PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2006-11-13 | 8 | 0073 which include redevelopment of the southeast corner of the center (Shoreline area), a new approximately 147,000 square foot retail structure (Target), a three level parking garage, new signage and various other improvements. The purpose of this workshop is for discussion purposes only. No action to approve or deny the project will occur at this meeting. Item 8-B was heard before Item 8-A. Mr. Garrison requested a recess to address a technical issue. President Lynch called for a ten-minute recess. Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report and displayed a PowerPoint presentation. President Lynch noted that on the illustrated plan, a parcel was identified as a gas station at the intersection at Otis Drive. He suggested that the wording be changed to "proposed gas station." Mr. Randy Kite, Harsch Investment Properties, displayed a PowerPoint presentation to describe the actions in Items 8-A and 8-B and the plans for the site. He noted that they were 30% into the construction, and that substantial redevelopment would be accomplished in 2007. Mr. Jan Taylor, project architect, described in detail the building design elements of this redesign and remodel project. He displayed a PowerPoint presentation to illustrate the proposed changes, including vehicle and public transportation circulation Vice President Cook requested visuals of buildings 800 and 900. Mr. Garrison noted that he could look for some. Mr. Taylor noted that the loading dock for building 800 would be removed and tucked into the building. He noted that the metal arcade would be pulled off, and wood trellises and two bump outs would be added to frame the entrance. He noted that building 900 (the former Mervyn's) would be examined in the future for remodeling, and plans had not yet been produced. The public hearing was opened. President Lynch noted that more than five speaker slips had been received. M/S Cunningham/Kohlstrand and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes. AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 The public … | PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2007-07-09 | 4 | 012 and UP06-0013; - Applicant: Safeway, Inc. 2234 Otis Drive (adjacent Alameda Towne Centre) (DG). The applicant requests approval of Planned Development Amendment, Major Design Review and Use Permits allowing the demolition of an existing bank building and redevelopment of the property with a gas station. The project includes three covered pump islands, each containing three pumps, for a total of eighteen pumping stations. Fuel will be stored in three 20,0000 gallon underground storage tanks. In addition to the approximately 7,500 square-foot canopy covering the gasoline pumping facilities, the project includes an approximately 625 square-foot building, housing the cashier's desk, restrooms and retail sales of convenience items. The applicant is proposing twenty-four hour operations and the sale of beer and wine. An Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Mitigation measures have been identified that will reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. The site is located within a, Central Business District with Planned Development overlay Zoning District (C-2-PD). (Continued from the meeting of June 25, 2007.) Mr. Garrison presented the staff report and recommended approval of this item. The public hearing was opened. Dan Goldwin, project architect, noted that on June 23, 2007, the Board requested that the number of pumps be reduced. He noted that they accomplished their goal of keeping the driveway openings to less than 70 feet, and that they were now 62 feet. In response to an inquiry by Board member Mariani regarding peak hours, Mr. Thomas replied that Condition 14 stated that they would be 7:00-9:00 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m. on weekdays. On weekends, peak hours would be 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. No fuel trucks would be allowed to make deliveries between those hours. Dorothy Reid spoke in opposition to this project, and noted that from the beginning of the project, she believed this would be the worst possible location for this gas station. She no… | PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2007-04-23 | 14 | 1. The number of pumps will be reduced to 12; 2. No more than 70 feet be devoted to driveway access on the south side property line, with the rest being raised sidewalk; and 3. Tanker delivery would be limited to non-peak hour periods. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 3. Noes: 1 (Kohlstrand) Absent: President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Board member Mariani. The motion failed. Board member McNamara moved to continue this item to the meeting of May 14, 2007. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which passed with the following voice vote - 4. Absent: President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Board member Mariani. 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member Kohlstrand). Board member Kohlstrand advised that no further meetings had been held. C. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Acting President Cunningham). Acting President Cunningham noted that the next meeting would be May 16, 2007 at which time the draft of the Task Force's findings would be reviewed. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Thomas, Secretary City Planning Board These minutes were approved at the May 14, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 14 April 23, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2020-03-23.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2020-03-23 | 7 | 1. Change reference to 24 parking spots on Clement to zero 2. Page 6, # correct typo 3. Include on page seven the maintenance fees for the HOA 4. Clarify that the Universal Design Ordinance is applicable to the project. 5. All attempts to optimize vertical and horizontal open space must be explored 6. Provide a more uniform distribution of affordable units with the multi-family building should be explored 7. Guest Parking be designated along the waterfront Roll Call vote was taken to approve with these conditions, the motion passed 7-0. 8. MINUTES None 9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS 9-A 2020-7824 Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions ittp://alameda.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?m=l&id=/matter.aspx?key=9525 9-B 2020-7825 Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation Department Projects Director Thomas said they hope to have a meeting on April 13, 2020. However, with Covid- 19 it is unsure what the future holds. These meetings need to be open and available to the public for them to attend. Board Member Teague said he wants to do whatever he can to make this a true digital meeting in the future. 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS Board Member Saheba was pleasantly surprised by an email about Board Member Rothenberg having won the 2020 Thomas Jefferson award for public architecture. 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 13. ADJOURNMENT President Curtis adjourned the meeting. (Recording cut out 9:01pm) Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 7 of 7 March 23, 2020 | PlanningBoard/2020-03-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf,12 | PlanningBoard | 2008-06-23 | 12 | 1. The structure shall not exceed 30 feet in height regardless of the addition of any architectural detail. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it would be impossible for her to consider a guideline that she had not read prior to the meeting. She did not wish to be unfair to the applicant, and wished to do the most responsible job possible in making a determination regarding this application. She noted that if the applicant was comfortable with what the Board has come up with, that was fine; otherwise, they could request a continuance. Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0 Absent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara); Abstain: 0. The motion passed. President Cook called for a recess. 9-D. PLN08-0181 - Grand Marina Village Residential Development Master Plan Amendments. Proposed Master Plan Amendment to reduce the number of affordable housing units required on the site from ten to five, and allow for five slightly larger lots. Applicant is also seeking a finding that the Island High School site, 2437 Eagle Avenue, is suitable for affordable housing, and the purposes of the Affordable Housing Requirements would be better served by construction of at least nine affordable units at the Island High site rather than five affordable units at the Grand Marina site. The Grand Marina site is zoned MX (Mixed Used Zoning District). The Island High site is zoned M- 1 (Intermediate Industrial Manufacturing District). (AT) Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report. An extensive discussion about the details of the staff report ensued. The public hearing was opened. Mr. David Day noted that although he was a member of the Board of Education for the Unified School District, he was speaking on his own behalf rather than that of the District. He could not speak to the merits of below-market-rate housing in the City, but stressed his opinion that this Draft Resolution would be good for the District. He invited any questions related to the School District. Vice President Kohlstrand inquired who initiate… | PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2007-10-22 | 10 | 10-A. Appointment of a Planning Board Member to assist in the selection of a consultant for the North of Lincoln Strategic Plan for the Park Street Business District. Member Mariani suggested that Member McNamara be involved in the selection. Member McNamara replied that she would not be able to perform this duty during the day. Member Ezzy Ashcraft volunteered to assist in the selection of the consultant. Member Cunningham moved to nominate Member Ezzy Ashcraft to assist in the selection of a consultant for the North of Lincoln Strategic Plan for the Park Street Business District. Member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Absent: 1 (Kohlstrand). The motion passed. Mr. Thomas noted that the Planning Board had a plan at the dais that Catellus wanted the Planning Board to approve on September 24, and noted that Attachment 3 had been approved. He described the drawings on the document and stated that as part of Catellus's appeals included a compromise plan. That plan included a sidewalk running along the edge of the parking lot; he displayed that proposal to the Board. Member Mariani did not care for that at first look, and did not want Catellus to sidestep the Planning Board. Mr. Thomas described the tree well, surrounded by the curb, and bisected by the sidewalk at the same level. In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether the City had a definition for a sidewalk, Mr. Thomas replied that it did not, but that a sidewalk must be five feet wide. The City Council may uphold the Planning Board's decision, overturn that decision, or remand it back to the Planning Board. Member Mariani was concerned that Catellus was not honoring the Planning Board's process, and had noted a difference in how the new person handled the interaction. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: None. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Page 10 of 11 | PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-01-23.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2006-01-23 | 9 | 10. BOARD COMMUNICATION a. Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice President Cook). Vice President Cook advised there was nothing new to report. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member Kohlstrand). Board member Kohlstrand advised that there had been no further meetings since her last report. 11. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: a. Update on Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Thomas advised that the EIR would be released within one or two weeks, and that it would be brought before the Board for action after that time. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathy Woodbury, Secretary City Planning Board These minutes were approved at the February 13, 2006 Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and videotaped. Planning Board Minutes Page 9 January 23, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-01-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2007-03-12 | 14 | 10. BOARD COMMUNICATION a. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). Mr. Thomas noted that the next meeting would be held the following Thursday, March 15, 2007. A status report would be received from ACTIA on the Broadway-Jackson Project Study Report (PSR). Staff had invited the Chair of the Alameda Transportation Commission, John Knox-White, to attend the meeting, because the Transportation Commission had taken the lead for the City of Alameda in pressing for a second look at the CEQA thresholds for transportation impact analysis. He noted that the mitigations needed to be examined more closely. They would be looking for consultant teams who could provide good ideas and advice on the CEQA threshold issue. He noted that Chinatown was very excited about that as well. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member Kohlstrand). Member Kohlstrand advised that there was nothing new to report. Mr. Thomas noted that the subcommittee might not exist any more, and added that the Northern Waterfront item had been removed from Board Communications. He noted that he would check with Public Works and the Transportation Commission to find out whether this item should be retained on the agenda. C. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board Member Cunningham). Member Cunningham advised that a meeting had been held two weeks before, and that another one would be held on March 21, 2007. He noted that their packets contained a lost of goals and actions to identify the top priorities. Planning Board Minutes Page 14 March 12, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf,20 | PlanningBoard | 2006-07-24 | 20 | 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION: This item was continued. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding potential future Planning Board Measure A Forum (President Cunningham). This item was continued. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook). This item was continued. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). This item was continued. d. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member Kohlstrand). This item was continued. 12. STAFF COMMUNICATION: This item was continued. 13. ADJOURNMENT: 11:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Caths Woodbury Cathy Woödbury, Secretary Planning & Building Department These minutes were approved at the August 14, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 20 July 24, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf,18 | PlanningBoard | 2021-07-12 | 18 | 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS None. 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chris Buckley requested that notifications for the General Plan get properly sent out. He had some issues with notifications and had not received one for this meeting. Director Thomas said the issue was being looked into. 13. ADJOURNMENT President Teague adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 18 of 18 July 12, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf,13 | PlanningBoard | 2007-06-11 | 13 | 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Thomas advised that the comment period on the Harbor Bay Village VI EIR closed on June 5, 2007, and a public hearing had been held by the Planning Board a month ago. Staff had received several requests to extend the comment period, which was extended for another month. He noted that a very large number of letters, comparable to the Target proposal, had been received. Staff and the consultant team had begun to go through the letters and scoping out the amount of additional work that would be necessary to complete to respond to the comments. Staff will meet with the applicant to establish the budget for that process. President Lynch suggested that in staff's discussions with the applicant, that they strongly consider what they had heard so far. Mr. Thomas confirmed that the applicant would reimburse the City as they go through the process. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member Kohlstrand). Board member Kohlstrand advised that the next meeting of the Pedestrian Task Force would be held June 26, 2007, from 6:00 - 8:00 p.m. She believed it would be held in one of the conference rooms on the third floor of City Hall. In response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether the task force addressed the physical attributes of the crosswalks, Board member Kohlstrand replied that it was more at the General Plan level. She noted that it had been an unusual process, because the update to the Transportation Element was initiated by the Transportation Commission, rather than staff. She noted that Public Works took the process back under its purview, and believed the next task force meeting would examine a work scope that may be adopted for further pedestrian analysis. Mr. Thomas advised that a Draft Transportation Element update had been prepared by the Transportation Commi… | PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-10-10.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2005-10-10 | 8 | 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Ms. Eliason advised that a letter from Carol Ireland regarding the Cineplex was placed on the dais. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook). Vice President Cook noted that there had been no further meetings since her last report. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali). Mr. Piziali noted that there had been no further meetings since his last report. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board member Mariani). Ms. Mariani noted that they had discussed options and ways to improve traffic through Chinatown, and how it affects Alameda, downtown Oakland and Chinatown. They planned to prepare a formal resolution to present to both the Alameda and Oakland Planning Boards. They planned to make concrete suggestions on how to achieve those goals. Mr. Lynch noted that this was a stipulated effort pursuant to filed litigation. He was very concerned with the authority of this body, given the type of development currently taking place in Oakland, has taken place since the body was formed, and will take place. He noted that development has taken place rapidly, and added that focus was primarily placed on Alameda, which he found regretful. He noted that Chinatown was only one community that suffered from the traffic congestion, and wanted the proceedings to be fair to the citizens of Alameda. Ms. Mariani noted that a wide variety of issues were discussed, and believed that the committee was working well together; everyone realized their proper role in the process. She complimented Mr. Thomas on his skills in facilitating. Mr. Lynch was very concerned that the Port of Oakland was not involved in this body, because the Port was the major developer. Ms. Mariani noted she would bring that issue before the Committee. Vice President Cook noted that the Chamber of Commerce would hold a public presentation on the Oak to Ninth Project, and shared Mr. Lynch's concerns … | PlanningBoard/2005-10-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-09-22.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2008-09-22 | 10 | 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: Board members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or make a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a referral to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning a City matter or, through the chair, direct staff to place a request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda. The Board requested staff provide an update on the status of Alameda Landing. Staff responded that negotiations with Clif Bar and Target are continuing. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Thomas, Secretary City Planning Board This meeting was audio and video taped. Page 10 of 10 | PlanningBoard/2008-09-22.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2009-09-10.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2009-09-10 | 4 | 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: None. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:15 p.m. Page 4 of 4 | PlanningBoard/2009-09-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2010-04-26.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2010-04-26 | 5 | 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: None. 12. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. | PlanningBoard/2010-04-26.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf,25 | PlanningBoard | 2007-03-26 | 25 | 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: President Lynch noted that numerous pieces of correspondence had been received, and requested that the writers confirm their facts before committing them to paper. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). President Lynch advised that Board member Mariani had left the meeting and would report on this item at the next meeting. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member Kohlstrand). Board member Kohlstrand noted that no further meetings had been held since her last report. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board Member Cunningham). Board member Cunningham noted that the Task Force met the previous Wednesday to review target values for common emission reductions. He noted that the next meeting would be held on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 at the Alameda Free Library. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Andrew Thomas, Sécretary City Planning Board These minutes were approved at the April 18, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 25 March 26, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2007-05-14 | 14 | 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None 11. BOARD COMMUNICATION a. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). Board member Mariani noted that they would hold the next meeting at 3:30 p.m. on May 17, 2007, at the Asian Health Center in Chinatown. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member Kohlstrand). Board member Kohlstrand noted that there was nothing further to report. C. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board Member Cunningham). Board member Cunningham advised that the next meeting would be held on Wednesday, May 16, at 7 p.m. at the Library. Board member Cunningham noted that many mail notifications of project had been received, and he would be happy to access the notifications on line o save mailing expenses. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested printing materials on both sides of the page to save paper. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Anderson Andrew Thomas, Secretary City Planning Board These minutes were approved at the May 29, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 14 May 14, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2005-08-08 | 10 | 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice President Cook). Vice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali). Mr. Piziali advised that there was nothing new to report. c. Oral Status Report regarding Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board member Mariani). Ms. Mariani advised that there was nothing new to report. 12. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None. Regarding the comments made during Oral Communications regarding big box stores, Ms. McNamara inquired whether the City had a current definition of a big box store. Ms. Eliason advised that the General Plan did not have any differentiation, and did not recognize "big box" as a definition, but the retail strategy report may have some definitions that have not been included in the General Plan. She noted that the definition was usually based on square footage, and staff would research that issue for the Board. 13. ADJOURNMENT: 8:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Paul Benoit, Interim Secretary City of Alameda Planning Board These minutes were approved at the August 22, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 10 August 8, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf,11 | PlanningBoard | 2005-09-12 | 11 | 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali). Mr. Piziali advised there was nothing new to report. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board member Mariani). Ms. Mariani was not in attendance to present this report. d. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board member Kohlstrand). Ms. Kohlstrand advised that a meeting had been held on August 17, 2005, and noted that it was led by the Chair of the Transportation Commission. She believed he was trying to establish a new classification system for the roadways in Alameda. A very useful discussion was held, and people leaned toward a recommendation of using a more multimodal type of classification system; both vehicles, buses, bicycle and pedestrian use would be included. They anticipated presenting a proposal for street classifications at the next meeting. 12. STAFF COMMUNICATION: Ms. Eliason advised that a special meeting would be held on Thursday, September 29, 2005 to hear the Use Permits associated the Alameda theatre and Cineplex. Staff wanted to ensure that everyone could be accommodated, and that the Elks Club was secured for an overflow crowd. 13. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION: 8:31 p.m. 13-A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to (b) of section 54956.9 number of cases: 1 14. ADJOURNMENT: 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Planning Board Minutes Page 11 September 12, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2005-09-26 | 9 | 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook). Vice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali). Mr. Piziali advised there was nothing new to report. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board member Mariani). Ms. Mariani advised that the next meeting would be held Thursday, September 29, 2005. d. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board member Kohlstrand). Ms. Kohlstrand advised that there had been no meetings since her last report. 12. STAFF COMMUNICATION: Ms. Eliason advised that the packets for the Special Meeting on Thursday, September 29, 2005, were placed at the Board members' chairs. 13. ADJOURNMENT: 7:41 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Paul Benoit, Interim Secretary Planning & Building Department These minutes were approved at the October 10, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 9 September 26, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf,17 | PlanningBoard | 2007-05-29 | 17 | 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member Kohlstrand). Board member Kohlstrand advised there was nothing new to report. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board Member Cunningham). Board member Cunningham noted that the previous meeting had been cancelled, and the next meeting would be held in mid-June. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Thomas, Secretary City Planning Board These minutes were approved at the June 25, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 17 May 29, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf,15 | PlanningBoard | 2008-04-28 | 15 | 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. a. Report on Alameda Point Station Area Plan Mr. Biggs presented the staff report, and noted that it was provided to the City Council by the City Manager. He noted that the report was available on the City's website. The public hearing was opened. Mr. David Howard suggested that this study was justified on the basis of having to respond to the Oakland-Chinatown lawsuit against the City of Alameda. He noted that Section 3.3 of the Settlement Agreement called for a study of transportation alternatives, which had been presented by the Planning Director many times that outside money was used to conduct the study to satisfy the requirements of the agreement. He hoped that the Planning Board or Planning staff would refer this study to the Oakland-Chinatown Advisory Committee for review, as part of responding to this agreement. He noted the concerns expressed by the Chinatown Agreement as part of the settlement agreement regarding automobile traffic. He noted that the transit-enhanced third alternative translated to twelve buses per hour coming out of Alameda Point, presumably mostly coming through the Tube. He believed the Advisory would want to review whether they intended to trade automobiles for buses. Mr. Howard addressed Board member Cunningham's previous comments about the balance of jobs and housing at Alameda Point, and noted that the concept was not adequately addressed in the report. He did not observe any efforts in Alameda to attract a big campus user. Regarding the Housing Element, he understood that 71% of Alameda residents left the Island to get to work each day. He noted that the top ten employers in Alameda employed only about 4,000 people out of a day population of 38,000 people. He believed that looking at more housing at Alameda Point would aggravate the current housing/jobs balance. He supported the idea of reusing the buildings, and bringing jobs at a range of pay scales that would not require people to leave the Island; he believed that might solve some of the tr… | PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2016-12-12.pdf,11 | PlanningBoard | 2016-12-12 | 11 | 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS *None* 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS 11-A 2016-3673 Subcommittee with Commission on Disability Issues regarding Universal Design Ordinance Board Member Burton gave an update on their recent meeting and that progress was being made on the draft ordinance. 11-B 2016-3681 Subcommittee for Alameda Marina *None* Board Member Knox White said he met with the owners of Big O. Board Member Köster asked if the color on the projector could be improved as the board's holiday present. 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS *None* 13. ADJOURNMENT President Köster adjourned the meeting at 10:50pm. Approved Minutes Page 11 of 11 Planning Board Meeting December 12, 2016 | PlanningBoard/2016-12-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2017-07-24.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2017-07-24 | 9 | 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS *None* 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS 11-A 2017-4583 Subcommittee for Alameda Marina *None* 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Trish Spencer shared information about the passing of resident Dick Rutter. 13. ADJOURNMENT President adjourned the meeting in memory of Dick Rutter at 10:41 pm. Approved Minutes Page 9 of 9 July 24. 2017 | PlanningBoard/2017-07-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2019-12-09.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2019-12-09 | 7 | 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 10-A 2019-7518 January 13, 2020 Public Forum to Discuss Measure A Land Use Regulations 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS None. 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 13. ADJOURNMENT President Curtis adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 7 of 7 December 9, 2019 | PlanningBoard/2019-12-09.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2012-07-23.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2012-07-23 | 10 | 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS NONE 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS Board member Köster inquired about 1700 Park Street, stating that partial painting has occurred on the rear of the building. Mr. Thomas stated that the applicant is looking at colors, the scaffolding went back up because of the cosmetic work needing to be done, and trim needs to be added to the rear of the building. Board member Köster inquired about the old Wienerschnitzel building. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft responded that the restaurant is now BBQ and the paint scheme is the only façade change. Board member Knox White requested that the Board be notified in advance when an item is going to be continued. 12. ADJOURNMENT 11:07 p.m. Approved Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 10 July 23, 2012 | PlanningBoard/2012-07-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2022-04-11.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2022-04-11 | 9 | 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS Board Member Hom announced that he would be unable to attend the May 9th meeting. Vice Chair Ruiz announced that she had submitted Alameda's ADU Policy to The Urban Land Institute for a leadership award. She also announced that the Housing the Bay Conference was coming up. Board Member Hom believed that Alameda's General Plan should be put forth for an American Planning Association Award and the deadline was coming up. 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 13. ADJOURNMENT Vice President Ruiz adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. Planning Board Minutes Page 9 of 9 April 11 2022 | PlanningBoard/2022-04-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2012-04-23.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2012-04-23 | 8 | 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS Board member Knox White stated that the Target status report was confusing and not clear on Board's purpose with this item. It seemed like a public hearing on the design. Not clear on how to give direction to staff on a status report when the direction is coming from one person not the entire body. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that in the future design review should not be approved until it has met all the Board's standard. Suggested that staff review the pedestrian past at the shopping district on Bay Street in Emeryville, which may give guidance on pedestrian pathway protection. President Zuppan stated that the piecemeal approach is sometimes too isolated and the Board needs to have all the context in order to make decisions. Requests that guidelines for status report be drafted so the Board better understands of what the expectations are. Vice President Burton concurs that bringing items to the Board earlier is the best solution so the Board has a chance to review and change as necessary. Developers and designers would want issues identified as early as possible to help keep projects on track. Board member Köster asked if the Board will review the final site plan that was approved with conditions Mr. Thomas affirmed that the Board will be presented with a final site plan review. Will take Board comments to staff for review to come up with the best approach to receive final approval but keep the project on task. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 9:33 p.m. Approved Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 8 April 23, 2012 | PlanningBoard/2012-04-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2020-01-27.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2020-01-27 | 6 | 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS Board Member Teague said he would be meeting with the Vice Mayor and others regarding paths forward on Article 26. 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 13. ADJOURNMENT President Curtis adjourned the meeting at 8.55 p.m. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 6 of 6 January 27, 2019 | PlanningBoard/2020-01-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2015-04-13.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2015-04-13 | 10 | 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 10-A 2015-1545 Transportation Commission Report on Point-to-Point Car Sharing Policy: None 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: 11-A 2015-1543 Report from the Alameda Point Site A Ad-Hoc Subcommittee President Henneberry said that the subcommittee has not met yet. 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 13. ADJOURNMENT: President Henneberry adjourned the meeting at 11:05 P.M. Approved Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 10 April 13, 2015 | PlanningBoard/2015-04-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2015-01-26.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2015-01-26 | 6 | 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: 11-A. 2015-1235 Report from the Alameda Point Site A-Ad Hoc Sub-Committee President Henneberry announced that the Sub-Committee has not met yet. 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None 13. ADJOURNMENT: President Henneberry adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Approved Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 6 January 26, 2015 | PlanningBoard/2015-01-26.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2013-06-10.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2013-06-10 | 8 | 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: President Burton commented on an Alameda Point Town Center & Waterfront Subcommittee and he would like the committee to be himself, member Knox White and asked member Alvarez-Morroni to be an addition to this group. 11.A. Report from Alameda Landing Residential Design Review Ad-Hoc Sub- Committee - Nothing to report 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None 13. ADJOURNMENT: President Burton adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m. Approved Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 8 June 10, 2013 | PlanningBoard/2013-06-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2008-02-25 | 14 | 109,280 square feet in floor area with a total of 384 parking spaces to be constructed on a 9.22 acre site. Board Member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain - 1 (Cook). The motion passed. 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: Vice President Kohlstrand would like the resolution thanking Gina Mariani for her service on the Planning Board to be presented at the next Planning Board meeting. Mr. Thomas agreed, and noted that would take place. 11-A. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force (Board Members Cook/Kohlstrand) President Cook noted that there had been no further meetings. 11-B. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member McNamara) Mr. Thomas noted there was nothing to report. 11-C. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation Subcommittee (Board Member Kohlstrand) Vice President Kohlstrand noted that there had been no further meetings since her last report. President Cook requested that if there had been no further meetings under Board Communications, that they be removed from that meeting's agenda. Mr. Thomas concurred with that suggestion. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Thomas, Secretary City Planning Board Page 14 of 15 | PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2017-09-11.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2017-09-11 | 9 | 11-A 2017-4657 Subcommittee for Alameda Marina President Mitchell asked for an update on the project. Staff Member Thomas said they are conducting an independent analysis of the costs of rehabilitating the seawall and infrastructure of the site and are working on a number of other issues with the applicant. President Mitchell asked if they still need the subcommittee. Staff Member Thomas said he did not believe so and that the analysis would come back to the full board. 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS *None* 13. ADJOURNMENT President Mitchell adjourned the meeting at 9:34pm. Approved Planning Board minutes Page 9 of 9 September 11, 2017 | PlanningBoard/2017-09-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2019-11-25.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2019-11-25 | 5 | 11-A 2019-7483 Discussion of 2019 New State Housing Laws Andrew Thomas, Planning, Building and Transportation Department Director, introduced the item. Board Member Teague gave a presentation. The presentation can be found at: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4232063&GUID=BDF57CFD 4667-45D4-854F-FEE31409DB12 President Curtis asked if the state laws on tenant protections supersede Alameda's ordinances. Staff Member Thomas said that state laws take priority and that City staff are planning to bring an update to Alameda's policies to bring them in line with state law. [Note: At the 1/27/2020 Planning Board meeting, President Curtis stated that the City Attorney's office has since made clear that the statewide tenant protections would not override local ordinances with stronger tenant protections.] Staff Member Thomas gave a report on the changing landscape of state housing laws. Board Member Teague noted that ADUs do not count towards, nor are they effected by density requirements. President Curtis asked if state law would preempt R-1 zoning within half a mile of a bus stop. Staff Member Thomas said it would not change the zoning, but would allow a JADU and an ADU on the property. President Curtis said it would be helpful to edit the two presentations together and share the video with the community to help understand how the state laws are influencing what happens here. Board Member Rothenberg said people who go "off the grid" and rent out rooms and do not comply with regulations have an impact on density and quality of life. Staff Member Thomas said they would be having a workshop on code enforcement and short term rentals with the City Council. Board Member Ruiz asked when the Planning Board would be reviewing the Objective Design Standards again. Staff Member Thomas said they are targeting January for bringing those standards back to the board. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 5 of 6 November 25, 2019 | PlanningBoard/2019-11-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2017-04-10.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2017-04-10 | 9 | 11-B 2017-4171 Subcommittee with Commission on Disability Issues regarding Universal Design Ordinance *None* 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS *None* 13. ADJOURNMENT President Köster adjourned the meeting at 10:42pm. Approved Minutes Page 9 of 9 April 10, 2017 Planning Board Meeting | PlanningBoard/2017-04-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf,12 | PlanningBoard | 2008-02-11 | 12 | 11-C. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation Subcommittee (Board Member Kohlstrand) Vice President Kohlstrand noted that there had been no further meetings since her last report. 11-D. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board Member Cunningham) Board member Cunningham noted that there had been no further meetings since his last report. The report was presented to City Council the previous week, and they had asked staff to reconsider the format of the next committee. The action plan had been approved. Mr. Thomas noted that the Council would consider whether to set up a permanent Board or Commission for Climate Protection, and that it would have to be reconstituted with different members. Mr. Thomas added that Mayor Johnson had not yet made a nomination for a replacement Planning Board member. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Thomas, Secretary City Planning Board This meeting was audio and video taped. Page 12 of 12 | PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf,19 | PlanningBoard | 2005-08-22 | 19 | 11. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice- President Cook). Vice President Cook advised there had been no further meetings. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali). Mr. Piziali advised there was nothing new to report. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board member Mariani). Ms. Mariani advised that she did not have any further information. She noted that she would speak with President Cunningham and the City Council because she was having some trouble making all of the meetings; there is no backup replacement at this time. She noted that Ms. McNamara had been the backup, and is no longer; in addition, the WABA representative is no longer on the Committee. d. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board member Kohlstrand). Ms. Kohlstrand advised that she was not in attendance at the meeting due to her vacation. She noted that the meeting date was set with very short notice. 12. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Eliason advised that there will be a Transportation Master Plan meeting of the Task Force on Wednesday, August 24, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. The meeting would address streets and circulation plans. 13. ADJOURNMENT: 10:10 p.m. Planning Board Minutes Page 19 August 22, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-08-25.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2008-08-25 | 9 | 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS Board members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or make a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a referral to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning a City matter or, through the chair, direct staff to place a request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda. Board member Lynch requested staff look into options that limit skateboarding in front of the theatre as it can be hazardous to pedestrians. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft suggested signage stating "No skateboarding on sidewalk" be placed near the theatre to address Board member Lynch's concern. She asked staff to provide clarification to the Board on the public misconceptions regarding the Boards action on the Grand Marina housing project. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Thomas, Secretary City Planning Board This meeting was audio and video taped. Page 9 of 9 | PlanningBoard/2008-08-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2013-02-11.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2013-02-11 | 3 | 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: 11-A Planning Board Sub-Committee Statuses Mr. Thomas commented on the difference between Ad-hoc sub committees and permanent sub- committees. The Planning Board currently has 2 Ad Hoc sub- committees for Alameda Point Visioning consisting of President Zuppan, Vice President Burton, and Board Member Henneberry, and Alameda Landing residential design review Ad Hoc sub-committee consisting of Vice President Burton, Board members Knox White, and Köster. President Zuppan gave a brief update of the Alameda Point Visioning Ad Hoc sub-committee meeting. Vice President Burton gave a brief update on the Alameda Landing residential design review Ad Hoc sub-committee meeting. 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None 13. ADJOURNMENT: 8:12 P.M. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 3 of 3 2/11/2013 | PlanningBoard/2013-02-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-10-27.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2008-10-27 | 5 | 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: Board members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or make a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a referral to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning a City matter or, through the chair, direct staff to President Kohlstrand asked that in the future staff provide an update on Del Monte, Conformance Rezoning and the Work Program. She also requested a monthly update on SunCal be provided to the Board. 12. ADJOURNMENT: @ 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Thomas, Secretary City Planning Board This meeting was audio and video taped. Page 5 of 5 | PlanningBoard/2008-10-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2009-03-09.pdf,11 | PlanningBoard | 2009-03-09 | 11 | 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: Board members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or make a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a referral to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning a City matter or, through the chair, direct staff to place a request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda. None 12. ADJOURNMENT: a 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Thomas, Secretary City Planning Board This meeting was audio and video taped. Page 11 of 11 | PlanningBoard/2009-03-09.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2008-03-24 | 8 | 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: President Cook noted that a Preservation Alert from the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society had been received regarding the charrette and community visioning for the North of Lincoln area. She believed their comments were very interesting. President Cook thanked staff for removing the "non-reports" from the Board Communications agenda item. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Biggs, Secretary City Planning Board This meeting was audio and video taped. Page 8 of 8 | PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2007-11-26 | 8 | 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force (Board Members Cook/Kohlstrand) President Cook noted that there had been no further meetings. Mr. Thomas advised that the next meeting would be held December 13, 2007, at the O Club. He noted that practical multiple scenarios would be presented. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). Member Mariani noted that the November meeting had been cancelled. She added that during the October meeting, there had been some discussion about the focus of the Committee, and whether it should address Chinatown alone, or Chinatown and the extended surrounding areas. Mr. Thomas noted that the City of Alameda had taken the lead for seven years on attempting to get the County and Oakland to examine different scenarios on improving the connection between the Webster and Posey Tubes, and the I-880 freeway. He noted that the area was built-up, and that a 2000 study concluded that there was no good solution. He displayed and described the proposed transition from the Tube to I-880 and to Fifth Street. He noted that traffic and speed control issues had been discussed. Member Lynch inquired how many doors and roofs the City of Oakland had approved in the last 10 to 15 years, and how many were currently working their way through the City of Oakland's Planning Department. He would not want to allocate or spend any more funds on further studies on this particular issue. He believed the issue was being talked around, and that the core of the issue was not being addressed; he believed that was a waste of public funds. Mr. Thomas suggested that this item be agendized. He recalled the origins of the traffic study in the Oakland Chinatown area, and noted that because the 880 freeway was constrained other options such as pedestrian and transit must be studied. He believed it was important to bring in other regions to the study as well. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommitt… | PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf,11 | PlanningBoard | 2007-08-27 | 11 | 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Vice President Kohlstrand). Vice President Kohlstrand advised that there had been no meetings since her last report. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board Member Cunningham). Board member Cunningham noted that as the report on the dais indicated, the report would go into a draft local action plan mode, and will return to the Task Force for review. He believed it would go through the various Boards for their review and comment, which was not noted in the summary. He noted that it contained a wide range of action plans and suggestions, and that it would go to City Council for review and possible approval. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft requested information regarding the newly remodeled Long's on Santa Clara Avenue, which did not appear to have any bike parking outside. Ms. Woodbury noted that it was not required on the plans, but she would discuss it with Long's. She felt confident that they would install a bike rack. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 8:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Thomas, Secretary City Planning Board These minutes were approved at the September 24, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Page 11 of 11 | PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-09-11.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2006-09-11 | 8 | 11. STAFF COMMUNICATION: None. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 8:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathy Woodbury - Cathy Woodbury, Secretary Planning & Building Department These minutes were approved at the September 25, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 8 September 11, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-09-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf,15 | PlanningBoard | 2007-03-12 | 15 | 11. STAFF COMMUNICATION: a. Future Agendas and work program Mr. Thomas distributed the list of 106 applications that were currently on file in the Planning & Building Department to the Board members. He noted that many projects did not come to the Planning Board. In terms of upcoming agendas, he noted that they intended to limit the agendas to only one major item, plus other less challenging items. On March 26, the Northern Waterfront EIR and General Plan Amendment would be heard. A design review on Haight Avenue would also be heard. Mr. Thomas noted that the workshop would be held on March 29, which was designed to generate a lot of good information and would focus on two alternatives to the PDC. One alternative would be relieved of the Measure A constraint, and one would not be relieved of the Measure A constraint but would address changing the plan to be more supportive of transportation. Mr. Thomas noted that April 18 would be a special meeting held in lieu of the April 9 meeting cancelled due to vacation schedules. He noted that would conflict with the [ICLEI] Task Force meeting. The major item on that agenda was the EIR public hearing on Harbor Bay Village VI General Plan Amendment, and that a decision would not be made at that meeting. A very large turnout was expected at that meeting. The other three items were expected to be fairly easy, and may be placed on Consent Calendar, with the possible exception of the Hawthorne Suites parking exception. Mr. Thomas noted that the Safeway gas proposal would be held on April 23, 2007, and staff anticipated being ready for the Alameda Landing Phase I development plan. Site planning issues would be discussed, but architectural issues would not be discussed. The shopping center may be discussed. Mr. Thomas noted that the May 29 meeting may contain the Transportation Element update, and that a joint meeting may be held with the Transportation Commission for that item. Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a Zoning Administrator would be hired. Ms. Woodbury noted that t… | PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf,13 | PlanningBoard | 2007-01-08 | 13 | 11. STAFF COMMUNICATION: a. Status Report on upcoming Public Forum related to Measure A and Alameda Point. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Jean Sweeney noted that she was dismayed at the amount of support she has seen for overturning Measure A. She believed that issue should go to the voters, and she would not like to see further public sessions in pursuit of that goal. She believed that overturning Measure A would increase the density in Alameda, which she opposed. She did not want Atlantic Avenue widened to eight lanes, which would greatly impact entrances to the Tube. Ms. Diane Lichtenstein, representing Homes, believed the recommendation was to fold the forum into the station area plan that would come before the public soon. She believed that would not be the best way to approach this issue. She noted that Ms. Woodbury's memo based the station area plan on transportation and transit orientation. She believed the conceptual development plans with and without Measure A would be discussed as well. She believed that if Measure A was folded into the community forums as a discussion point, it would dominate the purpose of what the station area plan was, which was to discuss transportation and transit, not Measure A. She requested that the Board go forward with the proposal to hold a forum, and noted that it had been three years since the last forum at Kaufman Auditorium. She believed it would be fair to hear the public's views on such a hot issue, especially since many things had changed since then. Mr. David Howard objected to the use of MTC funds to explore non-Measure A-compliant alternatives. He also objected to the Measure A forums being combined with the station area plan discussion, and also objected to the existence of the Measure A forums in general. He was concerned that a study of a non-Measure A-compliant alternative as proposed may eventually undermine Measure A. He did not believe that was a good use of funds, and did not want it to become a backdoor way to undermine Measure A. Ms. Helen Sause, rep… | PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2007-02-12 | 10 | 11. STAFF COMMUNICATION: a. Work Program Status Report Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report, and noted that Items 11-a and 11-b would be agendized each meeting. He noted that items could move to different dates because applicants can change their minds, and there could be changes within staff's involvement in the items. He noted that this report would give the Board an opportunity to look three months ahead. The Board would be able to maintain a list of every item being considered by the Planning Board and that may be brought to City Council. Staff would like to have a database of every application on file, which generally numbers between 100- 125 projects. President Lynch noted that there were lingering questions regarding Alameda Town Centre, and noted that the gas station application may not be addressed because of the number of questions. He suggested scheduling a status report on the Town Centre before March 26, 2007, in order to maintain the timeline. Mr. Thomas noted that staff would like to schedule a study session to examine the Town Centre issues, including a walk around. Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the study session could be held on the same evening. She noted that she was pleased to see the study session for green building ordinances for March 12, 2007, which she had lobbied for; she did not believe the City needed to reinvent the wheel in that regard, and noted that many other cities had added green building ordinances. She would like to see the draft ordinances brought back to the Board, with a date certain to submit it to the City Council for their approval. She would also like to see the next steps beyond the initial step. Member Kohlstrand complimented staff on the list, and noted that the April 9, 2007, meeting occurred during spring break. She was concerned that may not be a good date to have major items on the calendar. She also wanted to ensure there was a reasonable transportation network to support Alameda Landing, which she believed the Transportation Commission should examine.… | PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2019-07-22.pdf,11 | PlanningBoard | 2019-07-22 | 11 | 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS *None* 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS *None* 13. ADJOURNMENT President Curtis adjourned the meeting at 9:37 p.m. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 11 of 11 July 22, 2019 | PlanningBoard/2019-07-22.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2016-03-14.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2016-03-14 | 6 | 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS *None* 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS *None* 13. ADJOURNMENT President Knox White adjourned the meeting at 7:16pm. Approved Minutes Page 6 of 6 March 14, 2016 Planning Board Meeting | PlanningBoard/2016-03-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2017-06-26.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2017-06-26 | 8 | 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS 11-A 2017-4461 Subcommittee with Commission on Disability Issues regarding Universal Design Ordinance Did Not Meet. Staff Member Thomas said they could officially disband that subcommittee. 11-B 2017-4462 Subcommittee for Alameda Marina *None* Board Member Knox White shared that the accessory dwelling unit and shared living ordinances were passed by City Council. 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Alan Teague asked what time the tour was and if the public was invited. Staff Member Thomas said it was at 530pm and open to the public. 13. ADJOURNMENT President Köster adjourned the meeting at 9:28pm. Approved Minutes Page 8 of 8 June 26, 2017 Planning Board Meeting | PlanningBoard/2017-06-26.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2019-09-09.pdf,11 | PlanningBoard | 2019-09-09 | 11 | 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 13. ADJOURNMENT President Curtis adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 11 of 11 September 9, 2019 | PlanningBoard/2019-09-09.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2009-05-11.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2009-05-11 | 6 | 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS Board members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or make a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a referral to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning a City matter or, through the chair, direct staff to place a request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda. Board member Cook attended the Climate Action Summit on behalf of the Planning Board and passed on the information collected at the Summit. 12. .ADJOURNMENT: 9:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Thomas, Secretary City Planning Board This meeting was audio and video taped. Page 6 of 6 | PlanningBoard/2009-05-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-10-11.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2021-10-11 | 7 | 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS None. 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 13. ADJOURNMENT President Saheba adjourned the meeting at 8:57 p.m. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 7 of 7 October 11, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-10-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2022-02-14.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2022-02-14 | 10 | 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS Vice President Ruiz brought to the staff's attention practical application challenges with moving to all electrical, especially for Multi-Family. She wanted the staff to plan and work with Public Works and AMP to see how to work out the rules and regulations so that all the departments are ready for the challenges. Staff Member Tai discussed what the city was already doing. 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 13. ADJOURNMENT President Saheba adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Draft Planning Board Minutes Page 10 of 10 February 14, 2022 | PlanningBoard/2022-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2015-03-23.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2015-03-23 | 7 | 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: Board Member Knox White said that employees at Safeway at Alameda Landing are parking their cars near the bike racks, which hinders bicyclists from parking. There are also issues with the shopping carts locking up in the parking lots. Mr. Thomas said that staff will follow up with the store regarding both issues. 11-A 2015-1462 Report from the Alameda Point Site A Ad-Hoc Subcommittee President Henneberry said that the subcommittee has not met. 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None 13. ADJOURNMENT: President Henneberry adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Approved Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 7 March 23, 2015 | PlanningBoard/2015-03-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2014-04-14.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2014-04-14 | 4 | 11.A. Report from Alameda Point Town Center Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee - None 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None 13. ADJOURNMENT: 8:47 p.m. Approved Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 4 April 14, 2014 | PlanningBoard/2014-04-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2014-07-14.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2014-07-14 | 4 | 11.A. Report from Alameda Point Town Center Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee: None 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None 13. ADJOURNMENT: President Burton adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Approved Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 4 July 14, 2014 | PlanningBoard/2014-07-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2014-09-22.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2014-09-22 | 7 | 12 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Thomas said that the study of Del Monte would be ready by the Board meeting on October 27th . 13 ADJOURNMENT: President Burton adjourned the meeting at 10:43 P.M. Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 7 September 22, 2014 | PlanningBoard/2014-09-22.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2020-09-28.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2020-09-28 | 4 | 12 months after opening. Board Member Curtis seconded and the motion passed 4- 0. 7-B 2020-8321 PLN20-0100 - Recommendation to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Rezoning - 2350 Fifth Street - Applicant: City of Alameda. Public Hearing to consider a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and rezone a 0.82-acre site at 2350 Fifth Street from M-X, Mixed-Use to R-4, Neighborhood Residential. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared to analyze the environmental effects of the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning, Building, and Transportation, gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4644330&GUID=9E5D6C6C 240E-4C7B-AEF9-9D883E75AEEO&FullText=1. Board Member Curtis asked if Measure Z passes would they be able to build more units on the lot. Director Thomas said no if Measure A gets removed from the Charter all the existing zoning stays in place. He then explained how Article 26 affected zoning and housing. Board Member Ruiz asked if the City had reached out to City College of Alameda about their opinion on this site. Director Thomas said yes the City had tried to sell this location for years. City College was comfortable with either residential or commercial purposes for the lot. Board Member Hom asked if the tennis courts nearby would create any noise or lighting complaints from residents in the future due to sporting events. Staff Member Thomas talked about how staff had handled past similar situations. Staff would be working closely with the applicant and they do require the applicant to disclose everything to possible residents upfront. Staff Member Tai said that staff had reached out to the school district about an 11 pm cut- off time for outdoor sporting events. Board Member Hom asked if the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) would be incorporated in the resolution. Direc… | PlanningBoard/2020-09-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2007-03-12 | 16 | 12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Thomas, Secretary City Planning Board These minutes were approved at the Planning Board meeting of March 26, 2007. This meeting was audio and videotaped. Planning Board Minutes Page 16 March 12, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,24 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 24 | 12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Paul Benoit, Interim Secretary City Planning Department These minutes were approved at the June 27, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 24 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-07-11.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2005-07-11 | 5 | 12. ADJOURNMENT: 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Paul Benoit, Interim Secretary Planning & Building Department These minutes were approved at the July 25, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 5 July 11, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-07-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2009-01-26.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2009-01-26 | 9 | 12. ADJOURNMENT: 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Thomas, Secretary City Planning Board This meeting was audio and video taped. Page 9 of 9 | PlanningBoard/2009-01-26.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf,17 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-23 | 17 | 12. ADJOURNMENT: 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary City Planning & Building Department These minutes were approved at the June 13, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. :PLANNINGIPB\Agendas_Minutes)Minutes.05\May 23_Minute Planning Board Minutes Page 17 May 23, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2007-01-08 | 16 | 12. ADJOURNMENT: 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathy Woodbury FCathy Woodbury, Secretary City Planning Board These minutes were approved at the February 12, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 16 January 8, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf,15 | PlanningBoard | 2006-02-27 | 15 | 12. STAFF COMMUNICATION: Ms. Woodbury advised that Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft had been nominated to the Planning Board at the last City Council meeting, and would be accepting the nomination at the next City Council meeting. Ms. Woodbury noted that the land tour schedule was still being developed, and that two consecutive Fridays were being considered. She added that two different tours or a Saturday tour were also being considered. President Cunningham noted that this had been Ms. Harryman's last meeting, and thanked her for her service to Alameda. Ms. Woodbury advised that Donna Mooney would be working with the Planning Board in Ms. Harryman's place. In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand whether the Planning Board members were required to go to a work session related to Planning Boards that were compensated for their meetings, Ms. Woodbury advised that she would check into that issue and report back. President Cunningham clarified that none of the Board members were compensated. Ms. McNamara inquired about the status of the Bridgeside project, and added that it was going very slowly. Ms. Woodbury did not have the current status available, but knew that the site was very wet. 13. ADJOURNMENT: 9:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathy Woodbury Secretary Planning & Building Department These minutes were approved at the April 10, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 15 February 27, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2006-07-10 | 14 | 12. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: This item was continued to the next meeting. 13. ADJOURNMENT: 11:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathy Woodbusy - Cathy Woodbury, Secretary Planning & Building Department These minutes were approved at the July 24, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 14 July 10, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf,12 | PlanningBoard | 2009-03-23 | 12 | 12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Thomas, Secretary City Planning Board This meeting was audio and video taped. Page 12 of 12 | PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2016-06-22.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2016-06-22 | 9 | 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS *None* 13. ADJOURNMENT President Knox White adjourned the meeting at 11:34pm. Approved Meeting Minutes June 22, 2016 Page 9 of 9 | PlanningBoard/2016-06-22.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2017-02-13.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2017-02-13 | 10 | 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Al Wright said Andrew Thomas is a real asset to Alameda. He said that we need to find a way to even out our water supply. He said requiring on-demand water heaters for new construction and remodeled building could save a lot of water. President Köster asked if we want to to discuss mandating Zero Net Energy beyond the state requirements. Board Member Mitchell said he would support that. Staff Member Thomas reviewed the ordinances that staff is working on getting back before the board which are taking up much of staff's time. 13. ADJOURNMENT President Köster adjourned the meeting at 10:20pm. Approved Minutes Page 10 of 10 February 13, 2017 Planning Board Meeting | PlanningBoard/2017-02-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2017-06-12.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2017-06-12 | 10 | 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Brian McGuire said housing advocates understand that new housing constructed is expensive, but that all levels of the housing market are connected and new housing at any price level helps alleviate the shortage. 13. ADJOURNMENT Board Member Mitchell adjourned the meeting at 11:38pm. Approved Minutes Page 10 of 10 June 12, 2017 Planning Board Meeting | PlanningBoard/2017-06-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2017-01-09.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2017-01-09 | 7 | 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Brian McGuire said that the board should be mindful of using the term workforce housing and that residents making moderate, low income, and very low income are part of the workforce and should not be left out when describing workforce housing. He said housing for people making 120-150% of median income is upper middle class housing. 13. ADJOURNMENT Board Member Mitchell adjourned the meeting at 9:30pm. Approved Minutes Page 7 of 7 Planning Board Meeting January 9, 2017 | PlanningBoard/2017-01-09.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2019-11-12.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2019-11-12 | 5 | 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 13. ADJOURNMENT President Curtis adjourned the meeting at 8:28 p.m. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 5 of 5 November 12, 2019 | PlanningBoard/2019-11-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf,18 | PlanningBoard | 2021-04-26 | 18 | 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 13. ADJOURNMENT President Teague adjourned the meeting at 10:08 p.m. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 18 of 18 April 26, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-03-08.pdf,12 | PlanningBoard | 2021-03-08 | 12 | 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 13. ADJOURNMENT President Teague adjourned the meeting at 9:51 p.m. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 12 of 12 March 8, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-03-08.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf,18 | PlanningBoard | 2012-02-27 | 18 | 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Thomas and Board member Zuppan thanked President Ashcraft and Vice President Autorino for their work on the Planning Board. 13. ADJOURNMENT: 12:10 AM Approved Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 18 February 27, 2012 | PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-09-13.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2021-09-13 | 9 | 13. ADJOURNMENT President Saheba adjourned the meeting at 10:56 p.m. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 1 of 10 September 13, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-09-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2006-08-14 | 9 | 13. ADJOURNMENT: 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathy Woodbury - Cathy Woodbury, Secretary City Planning Board These minutes were approved at the August 28, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 9 August 14, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2016-10-24.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2016-10-24 | 9 | 13. ADJOURNMENT Board Member Mitchell adjourned the meeting at 11:05pm. Approved Minutes Page 9 of 9 Planning Board Meeting October 24, 2016 | PlanningBoard/2016-10-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2015-10-12.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2015-10-12 | 9 | 13. ADJOURNMENT President Knox White adjourned the meeting at 11:00pm. Page 9 of 9 Approved Minutes October 12, 2015 Planning Board Meeting | PlanningBoard/2015-10-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2015-02-23.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2015-02-23 | 9 | 13. ADJOURNMENT: President Henneberry adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. Approved Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 9 February 23, 2015 | PlanningBoard/2015-02-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2011-10-10.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2011-10-10 | 5 | 17. Security guards shall be provided at events in the following ratios to insure compliance of patrons, caterers, and staff with all mandates of this resolution. Between 100 - 200 attendees - Minimum of one security guard Greater than 200 attendees - Minimum of two security guards Security services and its staff shall be uniformed, and visible during all events held at this facility. Security guards must be on duty at the facility and parking areas before any event commences and be employed to stay on duty during all events and remain on duty until the last patron leaves the immediate common parking area. 18. The applicant shall be responsible for educating patrons and employees to not park vehicles in private residential areas. Staff also suggests using a modified level of review needed to recall use permit to the Planning Board as follows: 22. This Conditional Use Permit PLN08-0479 as amended on October 10, 2011 will be reviewed by the Alameda Planning Board upon the receipt of a verifiable complaint which cannot be resolved by the Community Development Director on an administrative level. 23. Planning staff shall mail a notice indicating the date, time, and location of any review required in condition #22, to all property owners, tenants, and homeowner associations within 500 feet of the project site so interested parties are notified and may to attend these meetings. And condition #25 which states that the Use Permit will expire in two years is removed as it is no longer applicable to the subject property. Board member Kohlstrand asked whether or not the adjacent yacht clubs were allowed to have amplified music. Ms. Kavanaugh-Lynch replied that she had heard from the residents that they do have amplified music. Board member Kohlstrand asked if staff had discussions with the club managers or the adjacent residents during the reworking of the conditions. Ms. Kavanaugh-Lynch replied that she didn't speak to the club managers but spoke to one of the neighbors numerous times regarding the revised conditions. Pres… | PlanningBoard/2011-10-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2006-04-24 | 14 | 1910; he believed it should be upgraded. He discussed the failures of cripple walls, which were part of older buildings. He believed there should be incentives for homeowners to be able to fix those types of conditions. He took exceptions of not having engineers looking at buildings pushing the three-story limit. He expressed concern about poor workmanship by fly-by-night contractors. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Mr. Lynch could not see any work being done without an engineer's and architect's stamp, and believed that was a liability problem. He believed this should be the homeowner's cost, and not the City's He would be open to the Planning & Building Department waiving the plumbing, mechanical and electrical codes, but does not want to see any lessening of the fire codes. He was not sure the parking requirements would help the City reach the objective. President Cunningham echoed Mr. Lynch's comments and agreed with Mr. Rutter. He did not believe the City should give away free parking at the expense of seismic retrofitting. He believed they were two important, but different issues. He noted that it was important for an engineer to look at each building, and that each building was different. Ms. Kohlstrand noted that the Board was not being asked to ultimately take action on the codes. Ms. Woodbury noted that was true, and that any changes in Chapter 30 would eventually come to the Board. The other incentives did not need to come to the Planning Board; the parking and design review requirements would come before the Board. Mr. Lynch believed the parking component should come back before the Board as a separate piece. Ms. Kohlstrand believed it was a positive idea to encourage people to make seismic retrofits. She did not believe that relaxing the parking was a bad idea. She was concerned about relaxing the design review requirements unless there was more structure surrounding those requirements. Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a fast track process could be added for seismic retrofit pro… | PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2011-01-24.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2011-01-24 | 3 | 2. Building Types and Neighborhood Character -- What should new buildings and neighborhoods in Alameda Point look like? 3. Parks and Open Space - How should parks and open space be designed to improve the lives of all Alameda residents? 4. Historic Character, Preservation and Adaptive Reuse -- How should we honor and preserve the history of the former Naval Air Station? 5. Transportation and Access - How should people travel to and from Alameda Point? 6. Community Benefits - Which community benefits are the most important? The City held three community workshops in the fall of 2010. The content and materials presented at the three workshops located at three different locations throughout the City (i.e., East, Central and West Alameda) was identical. This format allowed residents, business owners, and other interested stakeholders from different neighborhoods to provide ideas and feedback on lessons learned and suggest new concepts for Alameda Point. The forums occurred on: November 9, 2010 - East Alameda - Bay Farm Island -- Grand Pavilion November 18, 2010 - Central Alameda - Mastick Senior Center December 8, 2010 - West Alameda - The O'Club The forums were well attended (approximate 70-100 participants at each forum) and discussions were animated. There is also an online interactive workbook. Staff will also be holding an Alameda Point Tenant Forum on February 8, 2011. The results of the forums will be summarized and made available to the public in March 2011. President Ezzy Ashcraft asked how many workbooks have been completed so far. Mr. Thomas did not have an accurate count but said he had two boxes full of the hard copy workbooks completed and had not yet received a tally from the online participants. Mr. Thomas reported that during the months of January and February 2011, City staff is planning to shift the focus of the community engagement process from "community forums" to the City's Boards and Commissions. Staff is requesting that the relevant Boards and Commissions with primary responsibility for plann… | PlanningBoard/2011-01-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2011-10-24.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2011-10-24 | 5 | 3. Construction and operation of 12 acres of active recreational facilities and public sports fields on 12 acres of land located in the Harbor Bay Business Park on North Loop Road. Under the proposal, the 12 acres on North Loop Road will become part of the City's public park system and developed with public sports fields. Also, the City's General Plan would need to be amended to change the Land Use designation of the North Loop Road parcels from "Business Park" to "Parks and Public Open Space," and the City's Zoning Map would be amended to change the Zoning District classification of the North Loop Road parcels from "C-M-PD (Commercial-Manufacturing with a Planned Development Overlay)" to "O - Open Space." Preliminary plans for the site include two soccer fields and two baseball fields and supportive facilities such as public restrooms, a concession stand, and off-street parking areas could be accommodated on the North Loop Road parcels. Mr. Thomas mentioned that the City received over 150 letters of opposition to the land swap project. Board member Zuppan asked how the Park Maintenance Fund was going to pay for the additional sports fields and will there be a tipping point with the traffic study regarding the impact during a lane closure on Island Drive. She also asked who would be paying for the EIR and additional studies concerning the project. Mr. Thomas responded that that one of the unanswered questions regarding the project is how is the City going to fund the maintenance of the new sports fields. He acknowledged that the impacts of a lane closure should be looked at in the traffic study. He reported that all studies and staff expenses will be paid for by the applicant. President Ezzy Ashcraft asked where the number of 130 homes came from. Mr. Thomas responded that HBIA came up with the total. Board member Henneberry asked why the Planning Board was hearing the item if no action was being taken. Mr. Thomas stated that the project has caused a lot of public outcry and the City wanted to get all of the infor… | PlanningBoard/2011-10-24.pdf |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE "pages" ( [body] TEXT, [date] TEXT, [page] INTEGER, [text] TEXT, [path] TEXT, PRIMARY KEY ([path], [page]) );