pages
2,990 rows where body = "PlanningBoard"
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
date (date) >30 ✖
- 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
- 2005-08-22 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
- 2005-09-29 16
- 2006-04-24 16
- 2007-01-08 16
- 2007-03-12 16
- 2006-02-27 15
- 2006-12-11 15
- 2007-02-26 15
- 2008-01-28 15
- 2008-02-25 15
- 2008-05-12 15
- …
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-28 | 6 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board 7-C. UP01-0022/DR01-0089: American Tower Corporation. Washington Park, 740 Central Avenue (DB). Renewal of expired Use Permit and Major Design Review for 90 foot tall painted metal monopole communications tower in place of an existing 47 foot tall light pole along the upper baseball diamond left field fence at Washington Park. Associated ground equipment would be placed in a building of up to 825 square feet with screen-fenced ground equipment. A Use Permit is required by AMC Sections 30-4.1(c)(1) and (2) for any structure and above ground utility installation in the O Open Space Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of February 14, 2005. Staff recommends continuance to the meeting of April 25, 2005.) M/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of April 25, 2005. AYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 6 March 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-28 | 7 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board 7-D. TM04-0005 SRM Associates 1851 Harbor Bay Parkway (JA/MG). Applicant requests approval of Parcel Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels in to sixteen parcels. The parcels are located within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are zoned C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development District. (Continued from the meeting of March 14, 2005.) M/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 05- to approve Parcel Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels in to sixteen parcels, including the following modification: "Prior to the recordation of the final map, SRM Associates, the applicant, will provide written evidence to City staff that they have received the approval of Parcel Map 8574 from the declarant and Harbor Bay Architectural Review Committee." AYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 7 March 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-28 | 8 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 8-A. DR05-0028 - City of Alameda - 1416 Oak Street (JA/JO). Applicant Requests a Design Review for a 352 space, 6 level parking structure, open Public Hearing, provide comments and continue item to the meeting of April 11, 2005. The site is within the C-C Community Commercial, Zoning District. Ms. Altschuler summarized the staff report, and noted that the Board would be asked to approve the Preliminary Design Review on April 11, 2005. Ms. Jennifer Ott, Development Services, noted that the design was the culmination of a great deal of work and feedback from the Planning Director, AAPS, PSBA, and the public at large. She noted that the Planning Board's and HAB's comments would be incorporated into their final design presentation on April 11, 2005. She noted that there were two alternatives for the façade, featuring either shallow vine pockets or window casings. She displayed the boards and neighboring buildings on the overhead screen. In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham, Ms. Ott replied that this was a City project. Mr. Michael Stanton, Michael Stanton Associates, described the design and signage, and displayed the design and materials boards. He noted that the movie posters would be changed on a regular basis. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Rosemary McNally, 2145 San Antonio, inquired whether the rush to restore the theater and build the parking structure had given short shrift to consideration of the historical aspects. She noted that an independent historical consultant had been hired by the City to work with this project, and had not been aware of that position before. She believed that Alameda artists would be willing and able to contribute to the mural choices. Mr. Chuck Millar, 2829 San Jose Avenue, inquired about the historic review and the required mitigating measures for the project. Mr. Robb Ratto, PSBA, spoke in support of this application and was excited about the overall concept. He… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-28 | 9 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board Mr. Richard Rutter, AAPS, 2329 Santa Clara Avenue, #204, believed the current Oak Street façade seemed jumbled and heavy, particularly in the distribution of materials, the handling of the openings, and the parapet design. He believed the paneled spandrels above and below the openings appeared to be visually heavy, and suggested that larger openings be used, with dropped spandrels. He suggested that the stairwells be glazed in order to enhance security and to bring in natural light. AAPS agreed with City staffthat buff-colored brick, rather than red brick, could be very effective on this building. Ms. Mary Jacak, PSBA member, 1330 Caroline Street, noted that she was pleased by the progress on the parking garage, and added that the architect had worked with significant constraints to great effect. She would like the garage to look more like a building to accentuate the vertical elements, similar to the sketch that was presented; she believed the horizontal elements should be minimized. She preferred the buff-colored brick. She was reluctant to use stairwells, particularly in parking garages, and liked the idea of a glazed stairwell for enhanced security. She was unsure of the purpose of the curved element on top of the stairway. Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, believed that the design was an eyesore and somewhat jumbled. He did not like the exterior color, and did not believe the landscaping would be easy to maintain. He inquired whether the garage would be a pay garage, or if flocal businesses would provide validation. He preferred AAPS's design to the current design. Jay Justice, 3027 Linda Vista, spoke in support of this application and complimented the design. He noted that it reminded him of the parking structure near the Fruitvale BART station. He encouraged the City to ensure that the garage has sufficient spaces for non-compact cars. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. In response to an inquiry by Presi… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-28 | 10 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board In response to Vice President Cook's inquiry, Mr. Stanton described the exit paths of the garage. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the future of the parking garage if the Cineplex could not be built, Ms. Soto replied that it would proceed regardless of the Cineplex's future. It had always been the City's intention to build a downtown parking garage. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the landscaping maintenance, Ms. Ott replied that the City would maintain the landscaping because this is a public project. Ms. Ott replied to Mr. Frederick's question regarding the exit through the cinema to the sidewalk, and stated that was an emergency exit not open to the public. Ms. Mariani expressed concern that the feedback from the HAB would not leave enough time to make substantive changes, if needed. Ms. Soto noted that it was the City's goal to have the final design approved on April 11, in order to include it in the RFP package for the contractor. Mr. Stanton noted that when the design comes back to the Planning Board on April 11, he could include the package that would go to the contractors in the meeting package. President Cunningham noted that the Board had been very concerned about the parking structure's appearance, and would not like to compromise the finer details by fast-tracking the process. Ms. Altschuler noted that a member of the Planning Board may be part of the oversight team if so desired. President Cunningham noted that he would be willing to serve in that capacity. Ms. Altschuler noted that the comments from the HAB will be provided to the Board on April 11. Vice President Cook requested the HAB's comments before the weekend of April 9 in order to review them. Ms. Altschuler noted that she would make every effort to do so, and invited the Board members to attend the HAB meeting on Thursday, April 7, 7-10 p.m. She added that the meeting would not be televised. Ms. Mariani supporte… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf,11 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-28 | 11 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board Vice President Cook liked the glazing suggestion for safety purposes. She believed the base of the structure appeared somewhat weak, and would like to see more solidity. Regarding the use of vines versus movie posters, she noted that use of posters did give ownership of that space to the Cineplex operator. However, she did not support the idea of broadcasting Hollywood's message to the City's youth, especially since a high school and church were located across the street from the movie posters. She would like the lower doors to look more like a door than a solid mass. She liked the proposed illuminated signage, as well as the understated nature of the remainder of the signage. She did not object to the varying parapet, and believed it broke up the massing. She did not believe the building design appeared to be jumbled; she also liked the arch. Mr. Piziali noted that he preferred to trellis to the display cases, which could be susceptible to graffiti. He believed the marquee would appear messy and cluttered. He liked the idea of widening the sidewalk, adding a bike lane and trees, and pulling the parking off the street. He was pleased with Mr. Stanton's building design. President Cunningham believed that if the parapet were to be articulated, it should be a strong statement. He strongly supported the glazed stairwells, and supported increasing the capacity of the structure. He suggested increased the height of the shear wall in the parapet area. He was troubled by the size of the punch windows, and understood the intent of breaking up the massing with the concrete. He concurred with Mr. Piziali's comments regarding the artwork, and believed some artwork should be on the wall; he suggested continuing the verticality of the wall. He supported the use of landscaping versus posters if its maintenance could be guaranteed; otherwise, movie posters would be acceptable. He believed the shear wall should be accentuated as a solid area, with open … | PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf,12 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-28 | 12 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board 2005. AYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 10. BOARD COMMUNICATION a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that the APAC cohosted a well-attended meeting with the Transportation Commission on March 23, 2005. The purpose was to address transportation issues, focusing on the most likely transportation and parking improvements, particularly the shuttles, and Eco-Pass. A range of transit improvements were examined, including new shuttles to be paid for by the project, an aerial tram to Jack London Square and bus expediting procedures through the Tube. Connections to the 12th Street BART station were more important to the participants than to the Fruitvale BART station; crosstown connections were also very important. The connection between land use, density and transportation was also discussed. b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing to report since the last meeting. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali). Board Member Piziali advised that newspaper reports stated that new buildings and clubhouses were being looked at, but added that there was no new information from the Committee. d. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). Board Member Mariani advised that her committee was collaborating with the APAC, and was incorporating the issues of downtown Oakland and Jack London Square as well. Four alternatives for new on-ramps and off-ramps to I-880 were being considered. Traffic between Alameda and Oakland was discussed, as well as one-way streets and delivery truck parking congestion. Creative financing for various projects were discussed, and one member suggested a toll into Alameda, although that was c… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf,13 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-28 | 13 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board 10. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None. President Cunningham noted that this was Ms. Altschuler's last official meeting, although she would attend the next meeting to follow up on the parking structure item. He thanked Ms. Altschuler for her hard work over the years. 11. ADJOURNMENT: 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary City Planning Department These minutes were approved at the April 11, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 13 March 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-11 | 1 | Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Monday, April 11, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. 1. CONVENE: 7:02 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE: Mr. Lynch 3. ROLL CALL: President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani, and Piziali. Also present were Interim Planning & Building Director Jerry Cormack, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Planner III Allen Tai, Planner II Dennis Brighton, Executive Assistant Latisha Jackson. 4. MINUTES: a. Minutes for the Special meeting of March 3, 2005. Ms. Kohlstrand advised that page 7, last paragraph, stated that she supported that the non-Measure A option be evaluated, not the non-Measure A option itself at this point. M/S Kohstrand/Cook to approve the minutes for the Special meeting of March 3, 2005, as corrected. AYES - 4; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 3 (Lynch, Mariani, Piziali) b. Minutes for the meeting of March 14, 2005 (continued from the meeting of March 28, 2005.) M/S Cook/Kohstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of March 14, 2005, as presented. AYES - 4; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 3 (Lynch, Mariani, Piziali) c. Minutes for the meeting of March 28, 2005. President Cunningham advised that page 11, paragraph 3, should be changed from, "President Cunningham believed that if the parapet were to be articulated and supported increasing the capacity opacity of the structure." President Cunningham advised that the resolutions on page 3 and page 5 need to have a resolution number attached. M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of March 28, 2005, as corrected. AYES - 4; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 3 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, Mariani) Planning Board Minutes Page 1 April 11, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-11 | 2 | 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. 7. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 7-A. Resolution and Commendation for Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler. President Cunningham read the following resolution into the record: WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler accepted the position of Assistant Planner for the City of Alameda on June 1, 1988; and WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler was promoted to Planner III for the City of Alameda on December 10, 1995; and WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler was promoted to Supervising Planner for the City of Alameda on February 24, 2002; and WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler has assisted in the planning process of numerous projects including the renovation of the Historic Alameda City Hall, construction and renovation of St. Joseph's High School gym and campus, the construction of the Lucent Campus, the construction of California Heritage Bay and Bayport and the completion of Harbor Bay Isle Village V; and WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler has most recently assisted the Library Building Team in the planning process of the construction of our New Alameda Library, and in the planning process of the renovation of our Historic Alameda Theatre and new Cineplex and parking garage, and the planning process for the development of the Breakers at Bayport. WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler has assisted in creating the new City-wide Guide to Residential Design and numerous development code amendments; and WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler has assisted staff in a countless number of daily projects with her knowledge of the Zoning Ordinance and Alameda Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler has been Secretary to the Historical Advisory Board since 1992 and has been instrumental in revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance, in implementing the Historic Building Study List, and the overall historic preservation of Alameda homes, monuments and landmarks; and WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler has, during her tenure, provided clear and consistent information to the City Council, Planning Board, Historical Advisory Board, staff… | PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-11 | 3 | NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda extends their thanks for her "Dedication to Excellence and Commitment to Service" to the City of Alameda on behalf of the City, staff and the citizens of Alameda. President Cunningham noted that Ms. Altschuler's knowledge and expertise will be missed. Ms. Altschuler thanked the Board for making her tenure so memorable and wonderful, and complimented them on their hard work and commitment to the City. As a citizen of Alameda, she was glad that she was leaving the City in such good hands. She thanked staff for its terrific work, and will miss them. Mr. Piziali thanked Ms. Altschuler for her clarity in Planning Board and City Council meetings, and would miss her greatly. Ms. McNamara thanked Ms. Altschuler for her expertise and patience. Vice President Cook complimented Ms. Altschuler on her clarity and talent for explaining difficult issues, as well as her patience through changing Boards. She complimented Ms. Altschuler on her excellent staff reports, and hoped they would be a model for future staff members. Mr. Lynch and Ms. Mariani thanked Ms. Altschuler for her excellent service. Planning Board Minutes Page 3 April 11, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-11 | 4 | 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: 8-A. Major Design Review, DR04-0106, and Variance, V05-0001 - Corey Verka - 2825 Van Buren Street (DB) The applicant requests a Major Design Review approval to add habitable floor area in the basement, enclose the rear stairwell to the basement, and alter the rear deck. Because the enclosed stairwell extends a nonconforming westerly side yard setback of 3-feet, where a minimum 7-foot side yard setback is required, a finding must be made pursuant to AMC 30-5.7 (k) & (1), that no adverse effects such as shading, view blockage, or privacy reduction would occur on adjoining properties. A Variance is also required because the proposed expansion of habitable floor area into the basement would structurally expand the use of a nonconforming third story. The site is located within an R-1, Single-Family Residential Zoning District. M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-12 to approve a Major Design Review approval to add habitable floor area in the basement, enclose the rear stairwell to the basement, and alter the rear deck. Because the enclosed stairwell extends a nonconforming westerly side yard setback of 3-feet, where a minimum 7-foot side yard setback is required, a finding must be made pursuant to AMC 30-5.7 (k) & (1), that no adverse effects such as shading, view blockage, or privacy reduction would occur on adjoining properties. A Variance is also required because the proposed expansion of habitable floor area into the basement would structurally expand the use of a nonconforming third story. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 4 April 11, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-11 | 5 | 8-B ZA05-0002, 842 Central Avenue, Central Cinema, Applicant: Mark Haskett (JC). The Applicant seeks approval to continue to operate a movie theater with up to 49 seats in the C- 1, Neighborhood Business District where a movie theater use is not currently allowed as a permitted use or as a use regulated by use permit. The Planning Board will review and take action on the following options associated with continued use of this movie theater: 1) Consideration of a Zoning Use Determination that a "Boutique Theater" defined as "A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater" is sufficiently similar to what is allowed pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code section 30-4.8(c)(7) which allows by use permit "Theaters with live performances that are in combination with other permitted uses." If the Planning Board determines that a "Boutique Theater" is consistent with what is allowed by A.M.C. section 30-4.8(c)(7), then the applicant will apply for a use permit at a future meeting; or 2) Consideration of an Amendment to Section 30-4.8 (c) to add "Boutique Theater" as a use regulated by Use Permit in the C-1 zoning district. "Boutique Theater would be defined as "A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater." If the Planning Board determines that a "Boutique Theater" could be an appropriate use in the C-1 zoning district, the zoning amendment will be forwarded to Council for adoption and the applicant would need to return to the Planning Board for a use permit following adoption of the amendment by Council. (Continued from the meeting of February 28, 2005. Applicant and staff are requesting a continuance to the meeting of May 23, 2005.) M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of May 23, 2005. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 5 April 11, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-11 | 6 | 8-C. DR05-0028 - City of Alameda - 1416 Oak Street (JA/JO) Applicant Requests a Design Review for a 352 space, 6 level parking structure, open Public Hearing, provide comments and continue item to the meeting of April 11, 2005. The site is within the C-C Community Commercial, Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of March 28, 2005. Applicant requests continuance to the meeting of April 25, 2005.) M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of May 23, 2005. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 6 April 11, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-11 | 7 | 9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 9-A. Major Design Review, DR04-0093 Wei Liang for 2019 Buena Vista Avenue: Appellant: Mercedes Milana of 2019 Buena Vista Avenue (DB). Mercedes Milana is appealing staff's conditional approval of this Major Design Review which permits the structural expansion of a single family residence by converting the basement into habitable space. This residential expansion would provide a total of approximately 3,226-square feet of floor area. The appellant is requesting that the Major Design Review application be denied because of potential detriments to the neighborhood including, but not limited to an increased demand for on-street parking resulting from the increase in residents at the property. The site is located within an R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. Mr. Brighton summarized the staff report, and noted that the basis of appeal was issues associated with the number of people who may live in the residence due to this approval, as well as ongoing enforcement actions. Staff recommended that the project be approved conditionally, and that additional conditions be required, including: 1. A deed restriction stating that the building is a single-family residence until otherwise approved by the City; 2. The internal stairwell connecting the basement with the main floor must be opened as much as possible to the floor above; 3. The installation of the proposed wet bar should be disallowed; and 4. Additional stairway access into the basement area from the side of the house will be disallowed. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Tonya Parker, 2023 Buena Vista, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that there had been numerous family members and others living in the building. She expressed concern that they are placing pressure on parking and the schools, and that more families would be added. She believed the applicants' actions were detracting from the nature of the neighborhood. Mr. Kirk Ling, 2012 Buena Vista, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that the applicant had added … | PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-11 | 8 | buildings cemented over their lawn and parked there following the amnesty. She believed this would significantly impact the neighborhood. Mr. Chau, project engineer, understood the neighbors' concerns about parking and has been working with staff. He was not aware of the history of the neighboring buildings, but knew that their family was growing and must be accommodated. He did not believe the number of 26 residents was justified. President Cunningham noted the neighbors would like a guarantee regarding the number of people on an individual property, and suggested that they work together to craft an answer to limit the number of people who could live within the residence. Mr. Chau noted that the garage was no longer there, and that they needed storage space. Mr. Piziali noted that in Alameda, the garage was meant to park cars, not for storage. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Mr. Chau stated that they had three cars. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand regarding the number of people living in a home as a family, Ms. Harryman noted that the number of people in a dwelling unit cannot be limited. Deed restrictions may be imposed and stairwells reviewed for integrated internal access so that the building may retain its single-family nature. Mr. Piziali believed that this house was overbuilt for the neighborhood. Mr. Brighton noted that the resolution contained a typographical error, and that the design review would be valid for one year. Mr. Lynch believed the applicant should start this process over again, and that the applicant should consider the City guidelines; the new application should be submitted according to those City guidelines in the Code. He believed there was significant inconsistency in the history of this application. Ms. Harryman noted that the Board members should look at this application as it is, notwithstanding past Code enforcement actions, and that they may make a determination based on significant adverse impacts. Mr. Pizi… | PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-11 | 9 | Mr. Piziali noted that the type of window material should be specified in the plans. Mr. Brighton replied that people were able to install any kind of window consistent with the style of architecture, but aluminum windows were prohibited under the Design Guidelines. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch whether a garage existed on the property, Mr. Chau stated that it was extended with permits and approvals. He did not know whether the garage was being used for parking. The owner stated that it was used for parking and minor storage. He recommended that the garage be removed. Mr. Lynch believed the addition square footage being sought should incorporate the parking for the residents to the extent possible. He strongly suggested that the applicants discuss this issue with staff, incorporate those discussions into a document to submit to the Planning Board for approval or denial. Mr. Piziali believed the driveway should be narrowed in the front, and did not believe a single curb cut would be legal. He requested further information on the driveway. "Mr. Piziali wished to clarify that the pavement of the driveway was very wide, and that they were parking two cars there. He wanted to see the driveway brought back to Code with respect to the project.' Vice President Cook commended staff on the work it did under the current conditions, and would like it reflected in the plans that it would be a single-family home. She believed the interior staircase should be decidedly open and not easy to close up. M/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No.PB-05-13 to uphold the appeal and deny the Major Design Review and remand it to staff. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 9 April 11, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-11 | 10 | Transportation Commission appropriately said that sound walls were not a good idea. He noted that objective A-7 can contain Public Works' staff frecommendation and still maintain the original wording. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Vice President Cook believed that pedestrian uses had been shortchanged, and did not agree with privatizing streets. President Cunningham believed that the grid of streets should be broken up with variations in design, including the use of cul de sacs. Ms. Hawkins noted that the next step would be to examine the grid network. Mr. Lynch noted that he liked cul de sacs because they were safe places for children to play, and that they were a physical place in an urban setting that allows for that safe area. He noted that the cul de sacs were needed in Alameda, but that they should not be too long. Mr. Cormack inquired whether bicycle and pedestrian linkages would be favored by the Board at the end of cul de sacs. Regarding A-1, Vice President Cook believed that truck routes affect the neighborhood, and agreed with Mr. Spangler. Ms. Kohlstrand wished to make it clear that all modes of transportation should be accommodated. Planning Board Minutes Page 10 April 11, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf,11 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-11 | 11 | Mr. Lynch believed the planning should engage agencies as they affect circulation. A working group would be a good solution. Ms. Kohlstrand believed that providing directions with respect to bridge crossings, etc. would be a positive addition to this document. Mr. John Knox White noted that this was a general policy, and that the next step would provide more detail. Ms. Mariani believed that issues with Oakland should be addressed in subcommittees. Mr. Piziali noted that he did not like speed bumps, lumps or humps, and requested clarification from staff. Ms. Hawkins provided the distinctions. Mr. Piziali believed they had a negative impact on emergency response vehicles, and impacted response times. Mr. Lynch believed the traffic calming measures providing greater safety for children. Regarding A-5, President Cunningham believed the policies of the ADA were the standard to base transportation policies upon. Mr. Knox White noted that because it was federal law, it would take precedence; pre-ADA crossings were called out in the document. Regarding livability, President Cunningham noted that parking relative to parcels was an important issue, and would like the Transportation Commission's opinion. Mr. Knox White noted that they planned to examine concerns about on-street programs, especially the costs. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Mr. Knox White described various traffic calming tools, including bulbouts and increasing the curve of a street. Mr. Lynch believed a legend should be included to identify the responsible parties for comments, and added that he was appalled at the Housing Authority's comments. He found it highly disrespectful to the community of Alameda, to suggest the idea of increasing the speed limit on the streets, with more vehicles, while trying to increase pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Mr. Knox White noted that the comment was made by City staff. Mr. Lynch noted that it was an unprofessional suggestion. Ms. Kohlstrand noted that was a standard approach for traffic engineers. Presiden… | PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf,12 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-11 | 12 | they would take transit. She believed that bicycles should be more completely addressed as a mode of transportation. Ms. Kohlstrand noted that Objective D-3, which reads, "Impacts to traffic operations, including all modes of transportation did not sound right, and that an expression of multimodal accommodations should be included. Ms. Kohlstrand understood that the Beltway was being preserved for the light rail line, and inquired whether it would be eliminated. Ms. Hawkins replied that it was in the current General Plan. Ms. Kohlstrand believed that other solutions besides light rail should be examined. "Ms. Kohlstrand wished to clarify that she was referring to the policy regarding the light rail preservation of the Beltway, not whether the light rail line itself would be eliminated." "President Cunningham made note that he would like the Transportation Commission to identify any areas that would qualify for funding of grants to help implement policies with less of a financial impact to the City. No action was taken. 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that she had nothing new to report. b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing to report since the last meeting. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali). Board Member Piziali advised that there was nothing to report. d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani). Board Member Mariani advised that there was nothing to report. 12. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Cormack advised that the staff report on the West End Retail Implementation Strategy was provided for information only. Planning Board Minutes Page 12 April 11, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf,13 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-11 | 13 | Mr. Cormack advised that at the last City Council meetings, Harbor Island and the veterinarian clinic were approved; the Planning Board was supported on both items. Vice President Cook inquired about the 100,000 square foot store planned. Mr. Piziali noted that kind of store would only be built at total build-out. Mr. Cormack advised that it would be a food store, at build-out only. Mr. Lynch did not see a discussion on how land use decisions impact the general fund, and believed it would be short-sighted not to do SO. 13. ADJOURNMENT: 9:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary City Planning & Building Department These minutes were approved at the April 25, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 13 April 11, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-25 | 1 | Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Monday, April 25, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. 1. CONVENE: 7:02 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE: Ms. McNamara 3. ROLL CALL: President Cunningham, Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani, McNamara and Piziali. Board member Cook was absent. Also in attendance were Interim Planning Director Jerry Cormack, Building Official Gregory J. McFann, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Planner II Dennis Brighton, Executive Assistant Latisha Jackson, Bruce Knopf Development Services, Barbara Hawkins Public Works. 4. MINUTES: Minutes for the meeting of April 11, 2005. Ms. Kohlstrand noted that page 12, Item 9 read, "Ms. Kohlstrand understood that the Beltway was being preserved for the light rail line, and inquired whether it would be eliminated." She wished to clarify that she referred to the policy regarding the light rail preservation of the beltway, not whether the light rail line itself would be eliminated. Mr. Piziali noted that page 9, third paragraph from the bottom read, "Mr. Piziali believed the driveway should be narrowed in the front, and did not believe a single curb cut would be legal. He wished to clarify that the pavement of the driveway was very wide, and that they were parking two cars there. He wanted to see the driveway brought back to Code with respect to the project. President Cunningham advised that in Item 9-B, he made note that he would like the Transportation Commission to identify any areas that would qualify for funding of grants to help implement policies with less of a financial impact to the City. M/S Piziali/Kohlstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of April 11, 2005, as corrected. AYES - 5; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 2 (Cook, Mariani) 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATION: None. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: Planning Board Minutes Page 1 April 25, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-25 | 2 | 7-A. Endorsement of the Webster Street Strategic Plan (BK) A request for endorsement of the Webster Street Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan analyzes retail market opportunities and revitalization goals and strategies for the Webster Street Corridor. (Staff requests a continuance to the meeting of May 9, 2005.) M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of May 9, 2005. AYES - 5; (Cook, Mariani) NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 2 April 25, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-25 | 3 | 7-B DR05-0028 - City of Alameda - 1416 Oak Street (JA/JO). Applicant requests acceptance of preliminary Design for a 352-space parking structure, at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video Maniac site. This site is located at 1416 Oak Street site within the C-C-PB Community Commercial, Community Commercial - Planned Development Zoning Districts. {(Continued from the meeting of April 11, 2005.) (Staff requests a continuance to the meeting of May 9, 2005.)} M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of May 9, 2005. AYES - 5(Cook, Mariani); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 April 25, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-25 | 4 | 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 8-A. Recommendation of the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study (BB). A request for review and recommendation of alignment for the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study. The Cross Alameda Trail would enhance access to destination points along the northern portion of Alameda's main island by providing improved bicycling and pedestrian facilities and would also serve as a recreational facility. Ms. Barbara Hawkins summarized the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Jon Spangler, Cross Alameda Trail Steering Committee, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in favor of this item, and commended the Public Works staff for their efforts in finding a logistical solution for a difficult trail. He noted that it would provide an east-west transportation link for pedestrians and bicyclists; it will provide better links to BART; it will provide the possibility of a bus- rapid transit or ultralight rail right-of-way. The eventual development of Alameda Point would make those items necessary. He noted that it would be easier to address the section between Main Street and Webster Street, which he believed would have a great effect on the Webster/Atlantic intersection, if grant money could be obtained. Ms. Debra Arbuckle, 9th Street, spoke in favor of this item, and noted that the neighborhood had been working on this issue for approximately nine years. She supported the use of alternative transportation, such as electric bikes, and noted that this issue needed a lot of community support. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Ms. Hawkins explained the difference between commuter alignment and recreational alignments #1 and #2. She noted that in the past, Bike Alameda has proposed a bicycle boulevard down Pacific, which would enhance bicycle opportunities by creating less of a desired route for vehicles. Mr. Lynch did not believe that a bike rider considered a Class 1, 2 or 3, but that they moved to avoid traffic upon perception of that traffic… | PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-25 | 5 | Ms. McNamara did not believe the costs of removing the rails were included in the estimates. Ms. Hawkins detailed the costs contained in the estimate. President Cunningham inquired about the aspirations of the trail, and whether the text allowed for modifications or improvements. Ms. Hawkins replied that it was a corridor that would connect residential with commercial, and that surrounding businesses may wish to contribute to it because of their proximity to the trail. President Cunningham inquired whether the bike path would be adopted in a landscape strip, and whether that would be a general policy. He referenced the section by Starbucks. Ms. Hawkins replied that was the most difficult section in the whole alignment. In trying to accommodate that option, along with the pedestrians, the landscaping was sacrificed. If that area is not used for the bus rapid transit corridor, it would not be sacrificed. She noted that would not be a typical policy. M/S Piziali/Kohlstrand and unanimous to reopen the public hearing. The public hearing was reopened. Ms. Arbuckle indicated the train museum in Sacramento was given most of the rails from the tracks; one set of rails was retained along the south side. Mr. Spangler noted that the Marina waterfront access on the Estuary was very important to many people. He noted that the concerns were: toxic pollution from industrial uses, such as shipyards, the ownership issues, and the security for all the boat owners, particularly those who reside on liveaboards. He noted that Pacific was a Class 1 route, which was signed, and with no extra line or striping on the pavement; stop signs were placed on every block to maintain pedestrian safety and Planning Board Minutes Page 5 April 25,2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-25 | 6 | lower traffic speeds. He noted that those stop signs were obstructions for bicycle commuters, and a bicycle boulevard would allow straight-through, non-stop bike traffic. He believed that would enhance safety. The public hearing was closed. M/S Piziali/ McNamara and unanimous that the Board's comments be passed to the City Council. AYES - 6 (Cook); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 6 April 25, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-25 | 7 | 8-B. UP01-0022/DR01-0089: American Tower Corporation. Washington Park, 740 Central Avenue (DB). Renewal of expired Use Permit and Major Design Review for 90 foot tall painted metal monopole communications tower in place of an existing 47 foot tall light pole along the upper baseball diamond left field fence at Washington Park. Associated ground equipment would be placed in a building of up to 825 square feet with screen-fenced ground equipment. A Use Permit is required by AMC Sections 30-4. 1(c)(1) and (2) for any structure and above ground utility installation in the O Open Space Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of March 28, 2005.) Mr. Bruce Knopf, Redevelopment Manager, Development Services, summarized the staff report, wished to correct two errors in the staff report. He noted that the height of the proposed monopole was the same height as existing poles that hold up nets at the field and light standards. The Recreation & Park Commission reviewed this proposal on April 14, 2005, and recommended its approval in a 5-1 vote. Staff recommended that Section 4(b) of the resolution be modified to specify installation of two picnic tables and barbecues on a 15 X 40 foot decomposed granite pad in the area that was previously proposed for the equipment shelter. Item 4(c) should be modified to state that the approved color the equipment shelter is Sherwin Williams Oak Moss SW6180. Item 4(e) should be modified to specify the species of landscaping to be Escalonia five-gallon, two feet on center. President Cunningham acknowledged the presence of Mr. Lil Arnerich in the audience. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Jay Ingram, Chair, Recreation and Parks Commission, spoke in opposition to this item and noted that the vote was and 4-1 because there were only five members. He added that he was the one "no" vote. He noted that early discussions were held to consider sinking the pole building five feet into the ground, which was not followed up on, presumably because of the cost. He was given the impression that fake… | PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-25 | 8 | further to the left field line, which would be located farther from the main activities in the park. He had reservations about the Park Department's statement that grass area would die out due to lack of sunlight, and would examine that possibility further. He believed that three or four picnic tables and barbecue pits would be warranted because the area was used heavily in the summer; he did not believe that two picnic tables would be sufficient. He suggested that when the permit is resubmitted because a particular group cannot fulfill it obligation, the whole contract should be looked at in its entirety. He believed the Planning Board should be cognizant of the facts when entering into leases, and believed that a ten-year contract with five-year renewals would be sufficient. He noted that if cell phone technology did not require poles in the future, the poles would be removed. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Ms. McNamara shared Mr. Ingram's concerns about the girth of the pole, whether it would be a tree or a pole, maintenance issues, as well as the height of the tower. She inquired about the exit strategy when technology advancement made this hardware obsolete; the towers would then become an eyesore. With respect to obsolescence, Mr. Knopf noted that the lease provided that the lessee is responsible for removing all of the above-grade improvements at their own cost within 45 days of termination of the lease, and that it should be restored to its previous condition. He noted that the question of diameter was discussed at the Recreation and Park Commission; poles of this size were generally between 3 - 4.5 feet wide at the base, and that they taper to 2 feet at the top. The applicant had not been able to discuss specific design for this pole because construction drawings had not yet been done. President Cunningham inquired about the price for maintaining the screening, and believed it would be unfair for the City to bear that cost. Mr. Knopf noted that climbing vines were initially discussed… | PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-25 | 9 | was a good location in the heavily used Washington Park because it was not used at all. While this monopole was larger than the pole approved several years ago, it was a better design in that all of the antennas were hidden inside the pole. Ms. Mariani noted that the City had been in a legally binding contract with American Tower since 1991. Mr. Piziali suggested that the additional picnic tables be added if possible. Mr. Dale Wright, Acting Director, Recreation and Parks, deferred to Mr. Arnerich's experience, and was confident that they could work out three or four tables and barbecue pits. He noted that it was the intent to paint the building to match. M/S Mariani/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No.PB-05-14 to approve a renewal of expired Use Permit and Major Design Review for 90 foot tall painted metal monopole communications tower in place of an existing 47 foot tall light pole along the upper baseball diamond left field fence at Washington Park. Associated ground equipment would be placed in a building of up to 825 square feet with screen-fenced ground equipment. A Use Permit is required by AMC Sections 30-4.1(c)(1) and (2) for any structure and above ground utility installation in the O Open Space Zoning District. To include the items in the email dated 4/25/05, with the following amendments: a. Painting both buildings; and b. Additional picnic tables would be added at the selection of the Acting Director of Recreation and Parks; AYES - 5 (Cook absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 9 April 25, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-25 | 10 | 8-C. ZA05-0003 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment/City-wide (JC) Phase II of proposed revisions to the Development Regulations (ZA05-0003) contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance with respect to building height limits and number of stories; exceptions to minimum side yard requirements for additions to existing residences, provide a definition for "replacement-in- kind", off-street parking regulations and simplifying reconstruction of non-conforming residential structures. Mr. Cormack summarized the staff report. Mr. Piziali noted that the main change would be the additional two-foot setback for a second story. Mr. Cormack asked whether there was Board consensus to reduce the side yard to five feet. President Cunningham noted that the key element was the opportunity for review by the neighbors in the future. Ms. Kohlstrand noted that instead of mandating the two-foot subject, it could be looked at from the perspective to ensure there would not be adverse shadow impacts on the neighbors. Mr. Cormack noted that the second point was to continue to use the K&L findings for encroachments into yards. Mr. Piziali did not believe that someone with a substandard sideyard should get more of a benefit than someone who had built within the standard setback. He believed that the two-foot requirement for the second floor should be deleted, in favor of a five-foot setback. Ms. Kohlstrand believed there was concurrence within the Board to require a standard five-foot side yard setback. The Board concurred that (c) would be acceptable with respect to cantilevering, as long as there were no shading problems. The five foot setback would apply to new construction. Mr. Lynch believed there would be mechanisms that would encourage homeownership and maintaining the highest value of the property. He believed that losing three feet would be a disincentive to those goals. Mr. Cormack noted that it was uncommon to tear a building down to the ground, rather than doing a… | PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf,11 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-25 | 11 | like to see a matrix containing what features are included in each kind of lot coverage, and believed that was a major issue. Ms. Kohlstrand supported a uniform sideyard standard. President Cunningham supported Mr. Lynch's idea of a matrix. Ms. McNamara supported 20% or a five foot minimum on all districts. President Cunningham believed the matrix would help the public. Mr. Lynch believed this was an opportunity to make certain items in the Code uniform. Ms. McNamara added that the issue of equitable application of the Code to nonconforming setbacks was allowed for with the building of the additional story straight up, without being required to go back two feet. M/S Kohlstrand/Piziali to approve a setback of not less than five feet for all interior sideyards and to retain the 20% sideyard regulation for wider lots and continue to use the K&L findings for any projects that needed a variation for all districts. AYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Regarding tandem parking, Mr. Carvalho displayed examples of tandem parking on the overhead screen and summarized that part of the staff report. Mr. Cormack advised that one issue was conversion of existing garages to allow for more tandem parking on the property and the second issue was the number of vehicles in tandem. Mr. Piziali noted that he was not interested in exceeding one car for tandem parking, as cited in the regulations. He was not in favor of SK-2 as presented at this meeting, but would consider SK-1. He expressed concern about SK-3, where cars would park within the 20-foot front yard setback; he believed that would be poison for Alameda. He was especially concerned about people parking on the front lawn. Ms. Mariani believed that was an unrealistic expectation, and that the third car would end up on the street. Ms. Shumaker noted that planning staff were stymied as to what to do at the counter when a resident wishes to make an improvement to their house, but cannot conform to the ordinance; she understood Mr. Piziali's point of view. Planning Board… | PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf,12 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-25 | 12 | Mr. Lynch did not believe this would be examined in terms of a remodel or anything dealing with construction. He believed the first question was why the Code penalized individuals for parking in their driveway, even in the front 20 feet. A discussion regarding the pros and cons of tandem parking ensued. M/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous to re-open the public hearing. Ms. Barbara Kerr noted the notion of simplifying the Residential Code by making things more uniform, eliminating differences between the different residential zones, which had been referred to as Zone Compression for the last 15 years. She urged the Board to recognize the differences in Alameda, and that she did not wish the characteristics of the neighborhoods and development rights to be impinged upon. She did not want the community to be treated as if it were a Monopoly set. She opposed simplification of the Codes in such a manner. Mr. Jon Spangler agreed with Ms. Kerr's comments, and agreed with Mr. Piziali's point that a limit should be placed on the tyranny of the automobile and the oversized box on a tiny lot. He noted that Measure A was implemented to eliminate "Crackerjack" apartment houses, which still exist on the Island; he did not wish to see Crackerjack boxes in the R-1 districts. He believed people would be allowed to put larger homes on lots within reason of scale, and for the City to be able to waive parking requirements if the people will sign an agreement that they will not have six vehicles per residence. He did not believe that parking three cars made sense, and believed the Board should restrict that. He believed on-street parking was ugly, and created a hazard for bicyclists, especially on narrow streets like Sherman. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Mr. Lynch noted that after the public comments, there was still conflict, and wished to clarify that he had no desire to restrict or to allow people to build to the maximum limits of their lots. He noted that was an economic issue. For the documents before the Boar… | PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf,13 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-25 | 13 | to accept the three-car tandem parking, it is a personal choice. Ms. Mariani suggested continuing this item to a later meeting. Mr. Lynch agreed that the uniqueness of the neighborhoods and zones should be retained, and emphasized that the wording of the text would have a significant impact. M/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous not to revise the current Code regulations pertaining to 20 foot setbacks. AYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 M/S Piziali/McNamara to retain the language pertaining to two-car tandem parking. AYES - 4 (Cook absent); NOES - 2 (Cunningham, Lynch); ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 13 April 25, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-25 | 14 | 9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 10. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC (Vice- President Cook). Vice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report. b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook). Vice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali). Board member Piziali advised he had nothing new to report. d. Oral Status Report regarding Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board member Mariani). Board member Mariani advised that there had been no meetings since her last report. 11. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary City Planning Department These minutes were approved at the May 9, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. G:\PLANNING\PB\Agendas_Minutes\Minutes.05\April 25 Minutes.doc Planning Board Minutes Page 14 April 25, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-09 | 1 | Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Monday, May 9, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. 1. CONVENE: 7:04 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE: Ms. Mariani 3. ROLL CALL: President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Lynch, Mariani, McNamara, and Piziali. Board member Kohlstrand was absent. Also present were Building Official Gregory J. McFann, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, and Jennifer Ott, Development Manager, Development Services. 4. MINUTES: Minutes for the meeting of April 25, 2005. M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of April 25, 2005, as presented. AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Cook) 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: President Cunningham advised that staff requested that Item 8-B be heard before Item 8-A. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATION None. Planning Board Minutes Page 1 May 9, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-09 | 2 | 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: 7-A. Endorsement of the Webster Street Strategic Plan (BK). A request for endorsement of the Webster Street Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan analyzes retail market opportunities and revitalization goals and strategies for the Webster Street Corridor. M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to endorse the Webster Street Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan analyzes retail market opportunities and revitalization goals and strategies for the Webster Street Corridor. AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Cook) Planning Board Minutes Page 2 May 9, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-09 | 3 | 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 8-A. DR05-0041 - City of Alameda (CE/JO). Acceptance of preliminary design for the Cineplex generally at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue on the Video Maniac site. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the C-C and C-C-PD (Community Commercial and Community Commercial - Planned Development) Districts. This item was presented after Item 8-B. Ms. Ott presented the staff report, and noted that the DDA (Development Disposition Agreement) was approved by the City Council on May 3, 2005. Mr. Kyle Connors, Alameda Entertainment Associates, developer, presented an overview of the site plan, and noted that the project architect was very experienced in theater design. Mr. Rob Henry, Henry Architects, project architect, presented the project in detail on the overhead display. M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes. AYES - 6 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 The public hearing was opened. Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, noted that the project architect did a good job in fitting a lot of function into a small space, which he also believed was part of the problem. He believed there was too much energy in the site, and suggested that one theater be dropped from the project. He suggested that the corner adjacent to the rosette be curved to mirror the historic theater's curve. He noted that the lines did not flow from one theater to the other. Mr. Kevin Frederick did not like the design of this theater, and did not like the fact that no major changes had been considered by the Board since the inception of this project. He did not agree with the inclusion of the retail spaces, and did not believe they blended with the overall layout of the theater. Ms. Debbie George disagreed with Mr. Frederick's stated belief that the Planning Board did not listen to proposed changes and noted that PSBA's comments and input had been incorporated into the project. She complimented the architect in meeting the challenge of maintaining the in… | PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-09 | 4 | the bow window, and believed the signage should be on the front to identify the building. Mr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, PSBA, commended the architect for taking the economic issues into account with this project, and for placing the retail space in the area. He liked the inclusion of the public's comments into this design. He believed the 20-inch overhang on the Central Avenue side would be softened by the canopies; on the Oak Street side, the plan for the extension of the sidewalk was unanimously approved by the PSBA Board of Directors. Regarding the number of screens, the DDA was already in effect between Movietex and the City. He liked the design, and realized it would be tweaked somewhat. Mr. Christopher Buckley, AAPS, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, noted that they would have preferred a less modernistic design, but would address the other concerns such as the integration of different building masses and design elements. He noted that he would submit comments regarding the design elements. He recommended that the vertical columns be made more consistent from the street level to the top to reinforce the established rhythm, and to tie in with the vertical elements of the established theater. Mr. Dick Rutter, AAPS, 2329 Santa Clara #204, noted that he had been against the 20-inch projection, but agreed that they should be consistent. He believed that fine-tuning could be done, and that the 20-inch depth on the two sides of the corner should be reduced. Ms. Elizabeth Krase, 3520 Chester Street, noted that she was an architectural historian, and expressed concern about compliance with the Secretary of State standards regarding additions to historic properties. She believed the historic color scheme and finishes should be identified now in order to guide the choices of the colors and finishes on the Cineplex, so it will be compatible with the old theater. She expressed concern that the Planning Board and the HAB may not be able to make an informed decision about whether the project may meet the Secretary's standard… | PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-09 | 5 | In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook, Ms. Ott confirmed that there would not be any painting on the exterior of the historic theater. Mr. Piziali wished to emphasize that this was a separate project on a separate parcel from the historic theater, and was not a historic addition. Ms. Mariani noted that she did not have a problem with the canopies or the extension any more, and believed it would all blend in together. She would like to see more vertical elements. She believed it was a good project and would like to move forward. Ms. McNamara asked what elements resulting from the subcommittee meetings were included in the design. President Cunningham noted that there had been an effort to erode the strong horizontal and vertical lines at the corner. The articulation of the corner was also addressed by adding a dome. He commended the project architect on his work given the budget. The 20-inch setback had been discussed in the subcommittee, which added more shadow; without the setback, the sheer wall would have detracted from the project. Vice President Cook noted that she was not comfortable with the additional vertical elements. She agreed with Ms. Krase's comments about the color scheme. She agreed that the columns were busy. She noted that the original concept of the project included retail space on the ground floor to enliven the street. Although she did not favor the ball on top, she appreciated the improvements in the corner elements. She liked the increase in size of the Oak Street sidewalk. She requested that the architects do whatever they can to step the new building down with respect to the old theater to soften the connection. President Cunningham expressed concern about the dark glazing on the upper level, and understood the concerns about the heat gain. He encouraged the use of low-e double-pane glass instead. Mr. Connors noted that they chose the bronze glass to avoid the reflection inherent in the low-e glass. Mr. Piziali suggested the use of dark anodized aluminum glass. A discussion of … | PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-09 | 6 | 5. There would be no uplight wash on the exterior wall; and 6. Possible improvements where the buildings meet would be considered. AYES - 6 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 6 May 9, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-09 | 7 | 8-B. City of Alameda - 1416 Oak Street (CE/JO). Applicant requests acceptance of preliminary Design for a 352-space parking structure, at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video Maniac site. This site is located at 1416 Oak Street site within the C- C-PB Community Commercial, Community Commercial - Planned Development Zoning Districts. This item was heard before Item 8-A. Ms. Ott presented the staff report In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding change in the width of Oak Street, and providing more space for bicycles, Ms. Ott replied that was brought up during the Transportation Commission meeting. It was important that the possibility be maintained for Class II bike lanes to be included; the current plan was to place stenciling on the ground identifying it as a shared bike lane. Public Works agreed with this plan. Ms. Ott introduced Michael Stanton, project architect. Mr. Stanton summarized the proposal, displayed the site plan on the overhead screen, addressed the modified items since the last presentation, and presented the concepts for the exterior lighting. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Christopher Buckley, AAPS, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, noted that he wrote a brief letter to the Board, and distributed a handout to the Board. He commented on the displayed elevation, and suggested carrying the molding above the open bays along the tops of the solid brick walls to provide more continuity to the top. He believed that would relieve the undifferentiated wall masses of the shear walls. He suggested adding a belt course or sill course that ran along the base of the openings to break up the massing into a three-part vertical composition: the base, the shaft and the top, with more focus to the top as the culmination of the design. He suggested enlarging the movie poster boxes to a storefront size. He suggested that artwork or posters for special Park Street events could be displayed in those boxes as well. He suggested that the arch pattern be extended to the stairwe… | PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-09 | 8 | the parking structure must be weighed against the total budget of the project. Mr. Robert Wood, 259 Oyster Pond, noted that he would reluctantly criticize the design because the parking garage had been anticipated by the area for decades. He believed this structure had the most minimal of design aspirations of almost any structure in the area. He supposed the garage was mechanically ventilated, and was afraid that the massing and scale of the building would be oppressive. He believed a massing study should be done, and that the top two floors of the garage should be set back; he believed that 15 parking spaces would be lost in that scenario. He would like to see a Specific Plan for this area, and was concerned that Long's may develop a 60-foot-high building on the block because the City did not take the initiative to study and provide limitations on such structures. Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, spoke in opposition to this item and believed the structure was extremely unattractive and uninspired. Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio, noted that in his seven years of residence in Alameda, he's never had a problem parking on Park Street, partly because he rode a bicycle often, and partly because he did not mind walking a few blocks. He endorsed Mr. Buckley's comments. He agreed with Mr. Woods' comments about the massing, and believed the sunlight would be blocked in the morning. He did not believe the massing would be appropriate, and expressed concern about the visual pollution that would be caused by the uplighting. He believed planters should be interspersed between the storefront-size poster displays. He did not believe artwork and vinyl were compatible; he suggested that a bas relief mural would be appropriate. He believed bike logo signs and bike text signs that specify that bikes are allowed to enter at the bike logo area, and in the main driveway. He noted that this was not the first design choice, and would like the design to be redone so that it is the first choice. He urged the Board to take M… | PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-09 | 9 | include public art in the project. She noted that it would not contain advertisements. Ms. McNamara supported public art in this project. In response to Ms. McNamara's request, Mr. Stanton described the shear wall and entrances in detail. He stated the garage was mechanically ventilated, because of the lack of adequate opening to the outdoors prevented natural ventilation. He noted that the mechanical ventilation would activate only when the carbon monoxide sensors detected a buildup; this would be safe and energy efficient. Mr. Lynch believed the extra costs should be borne by the project. At his request, Mr. Stanton described the different colors and materials of the façade, and how it would relate to long-term maintenance of light colors at the base, moving up the structure. He noted that the sample board represented the original color choices. He preferred a honed finish, which discouraged some forms of graffiti and abuse. He believed a darker, warmer red at the base of the building would be appropriate, and would like further Board feedback. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Ott confirmed that the garage would not be costed out until after the final design approval. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether cars would be visible from the outside, Mr. Stanton replied that the cars should not be visible from the street. He noted that the lighting would be visible, but anticipated that the lighting fixtures would be as inconspicuous as possible. He added that he would create the view angles from across the street, but did not believe they would be visible. Vice President Cook believed the time had come to have a parking garage in Alameda, and added that the parking availability had become more limited. She was not happy that an appropriate solution could not be worked out with Long's She noted that with planning, nothing was ever perfect and believed that it was time to move forward. She believed the architect had been responsive to the severe constraints of the site. She agreed with Mr… | PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-09 | 10 | M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to reopen the public hearing. Ms. Annie Rutter, 2329 Santa Clara Avenue, #204, did not believe tearing down the design at this point would be very constructive. She believed the project would move forward, and would like to give Mr. Stanton some ideas to work with. She supported the underground vault, and was concerned about the inexpensive materials on the large exterior wall. She liked the color palette and the darker base. She believed the lighting as represented on the drawing looked inaccurate, particular with respect to the upthrow from the fixtures. She hoped the lighting fixtures would be integral throughout the design, and that they would not be removed because of cost concerns. She noted that there was not much design on the façade, and the lighting should be very important. She expressed concern about property and personal security inside the garage, and was disappointed that there would not be a security kiosk in the garage. She believed the handicapped spaces could be closer to the elevators. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Ms. Mariani would like see the Cineplex in relation to the parking garage. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Ms. Ott replied that a shading study had not been performed on this structure. Mr. Stanton noted that this placement of the parking garage was ideal with respect to minimal shading impact. There may be some morning shade onto the Oak Street right- of-way, but for the most part, the rising sun would be screened by the historic cinema. Mr. Piziali liked the lighting, and believed they would wash on the building façade more than indicated on the drawing. He supported this project, and believed it would be beneficial for Park Street. He noted that the design could be tweaked forever, and that it may never get built. President Cunningham fully supported this project, and believed it would be good for Alameda. He agreed with Mr. Piziali's assessment. His biggest concern was the control of the design/build process, and th… | PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf,11 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-09 | 11 | retain the ability to detail the brick around the posters. He supported the darker base. In response to Vice President Cook concern about pedestrian safety if a pay booth were to be used, Ms. Ott noted that there would be no pay booth, and there would be two stations at the two exits. M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution to provide acceptance of preliminary Design for a 352-space parking structure, near the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video Maniac site. The following modifications would be included: 1. The darker base as recommended by the architect; 2. No additional arches on the tower building; 3. Framing or detailing around the posters; and 4. Where possible, a change in the brick courses to add interest to the large facades. AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Cook) President Cunningham called for a five-minute recess before Item 8-A. Planning Board Minutes Page 11 May 9, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf,12 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-09 | 12 | 9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 10. BOARD COMMUNICATION a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice President Cook). Vice President Cook noted that there was much to discuss, and would like to agendize the item to give a complete report. b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali). Board Member Piziali advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting. d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani). Board Member Mariani noted that the last meeting had been canceled, and that another meeting would be held in two weeks. Vice President Cook requested that the current staffing situation in the Planning & Building Department be agendized for discussion. 10. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None. 11. ADJOURNMENT: 10:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gregory J. McFann, Interim Secretary City Planning & Building Department These minutes were approved at the May 23, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 12 May 9, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-23 | 1 | Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 23, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. 1. CONVENE: 7:03 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE: Vice President Cook 3. ROLL CALL: President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch, McNamara, and Piziali. Board member Mariani was absent from roll call and arrived during Oral Communications. Also present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner Andrew Thomas, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner III Allen Tai. 4. MINUTES: Minutes for the meeting of May 9, 2005. Mr. Piziali advised that page 6, paragraph 1, should be changed to read, "Mr. Piziali suggested the use of dark anodized aluminum glass." Mr. Piziali advised that page 6, bullet 2, should be changed to read, "2. The aluminum storefront would have dark anodized frames glazing.' Vice President Cook advised that on page 1, regarding the minutes for April 25, 2005, she did not believe she seconded the minutes, and indicated that she abstained. Ms. Eliason advised that staff would confirm that item. M/S Piziali/Cook to approve the minutes for the meeting of May 9, 2005, as amended. AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand) 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: President Cunningham advised that staff had received a letter regarding Items 8-B and 8-C, and that while public comment would be taken, there would be no Board discussion or action on the item until staff had a chance to address the issues raised by the letter. Board discussion would be continued until the Planning Board meeting of June 13, 2005. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATION: Planning Board Minutes Page 1 May 23, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-23 | 2 | Ms. Barbara Nemer expressed concern about a sign to be erected at Donald Lum School on Otis Drive, and that the sign is to be over eight feet tall. She noted that it was larger than any other sign in Alameda schools, and expressed concern that it would be plastic and illuminated. She believed it would be a safety hazard because of its location at a crosswalk and a corner, and believed it would be hideous. She would like to see a wooden sign, illuminated by plant lights. She noted that this school was one of the nicest on the Island. Mr. Piziali noted that this sign was not the purview of the Planning Board, and that the Board of Education would be the property entity to address. The Planning Board has no control over this sign. Mr. Lynch advised that the designs, plans, building inspections and contracts for schools go through the school board of the local jurisdiction, including design review. Ms. Diane Voss, 1815 Otis Drive, expressed concern about the Donald Lum School sign, which would cost over $8,000, and the monthly cost would also be at taxpayer expense. She would consider a "No" vote on the taxpayer-funded school assistance if her money were to be spent this way. Ms. Liz Cleves, 1815 Otis Drive, spoke in opposition to this sign, and expressed concern about safety at the corner and the crosswalk with respect to the proximity of the sign. Planning Board Minutes Page 2 May 23, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-23 | 3 | 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: 7-A. Use Permit, UP05-005; John Kienoski, John's Bargain Imports, 1770 Viking Street, Alameda, CA. (Alameda Point) (ATh). The applicant requests a Use Permit modification to allow retail sales at an existing wholesale facility. The site is located in the M-2-G, General Industry/Manufacturing Zoning District/Government Combining District. M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-15 to approve a Use Permit modification to allow retail sales at an existing wholesale facility. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 May 23, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-23 | 4 | 7-B. Interim Use Permit UP05-0004: Alameda Point Collaborative/Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, 2580/2700 Barbera Point Road Near Main Street at Singleton Avenue, Parcel 99, Alameda Point (ATh). The applicant requests an Interim Use Permit to allow establishment of a 4-acre retail plant nursery. The site is located in the M-2-G General Industry/Manufacturing Zoning District/Government Combining District. M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-16 to approve an Interim Use Permit to allow establishment of a 4-acre retail plant nursery. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 4 May 23, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-23 | 5 | 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 8-A. Variance V05-0003.Major Design Review DR04-0109 - KDArchitects, Inc. for Kwan Li - 2411 Webb Avenue (AT). Applicants request a Major Design Review and two Variances to construct a two-story residential/commercial mixed use building on a vacant parcel. The project proposes two ground floor retail spaces approximately 800-860 square feet in size and two residential units on the second floor with approximately 700-1,000 square feet of floor area for a total gross floor area of 3,383 square feet. The design of the building resembles a streamlined moderne appearance with a combination of stucco exterior siding and clear anodized aluminum trim. Access to parking located at the rear of the building is through a driveway located along the right side of the building under a portion of the second story. The project requires a total of twelve parking spaces, and the plans provide eight total spaces with residential parking in the form of stacked parking lifts. Two variances are requested for the deficiency of four parking spaces and a reduced landscaping separation between one parking space and the north and east property lines, where three feet is required. The site is located at 2411 Webb Avenue, within the Park Street C-C, Community Commercial Zoning District. Mr. Tai presented the staff report, and recommended approval of this application. The public hearing was opened. There were no speakers. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand whether this site would qualify for the in lieu parking fee, Ms. Eliason confirmed that it would. Ms. Kohlstrand liked the traditional, old-downtown look of Park Street, which provided a continuous street frontage. She expressed concern about providing required parking on-site, particularly when there was public parking available across the street at the Bank of America site. The possibility of stacked parking concerned her, and would rather see a Variance for six parking spaces. President Cunningham inquir… | PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-23 | 6 | President Cunningham did not want the lifts to be used all over the City as an unintended consequence. Ms. Kohlstrand noted that she would normally prefer continuous store frontage, but she would accept a driveway through the building. She agreed that the design was very nice, and was a positive mixed- use proposal. Mr. Piziali noted that he would not object to stacked parking if it were inside a structure elsewhere in the City. Mr. Lynch would be willing to entertain the Variance that reflects the withdrawal of the lift, and those funds being placed into the City in-lieu fund. Ms. Harryman suggested that the Board give direction to staff as to what it would like to see, and continue the item to the next meeting so it may be placed on the Consent Calendar. At Vice President Cook's request, Mr. Tai summarized the changes in the design. President Cunningham suggested that taller landscaping be planted in the back, instead of the boxwood. She noted that several other buildings had a view to the back of the site. Ms. McNamara expressed concern about the architectural design of this building that seemed to have been designed without regard for the adjacent building. President Cunningham noted that the trashcans as illustrated were shown to be half the size of real trash cans, and suggested that the space under the stairs be used to house the trash containers. Ms. Eliason summarized the Board's direction: a Variance for six spaces rather than providing the stacked units and payment of an in lieu. Four parking spaces would be for the residential units, and would be dedicated for residential use. Mr. Tai noted that there may be required handicapped accessible spaces for the commercial spaces, and added that two spaces each may be for the residential units; the remaining two spaces may be devoted to handicapped accessible parking for the commercial use. M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of June 13, 2005. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 6 May 23, … | PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-23 | 7 | 8-B. Zoning Text Amendment ZA05-0002, Applicant: Alameda Theatre Project Inc., - All Neighborhood Business Districts (C-1) within the City of Alameda (DG/CE). The applicant requests an Amendment to Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-4.8(c) to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use in the C-1 zoning district, subject to Use Permit approval. "Boutique Theater" would be defined as "A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater.' (Continued from the meeting of April 11, 2005.) Mr. Piziali noted that many speaker slips were for both Items 8-B and 8-C. Mr. Lynch requested that staff clarify the distinctions between Items 8-B and 8-C for the public; Ms. Eliason explained the difference for the audience. Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report. President Cunningham advised that public comment would be taken, but that no Board discussion or action would be taken. President Cunningham advised that more than five speaker slips had been received M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 The public hearing was opened. Mr. Mark Haskett, applicant, noted that he had acutely aware of the absence of a movie theater in Alameda; he described the background of this application and noted that his intent was to create a positive influence on the community. He noted that this theater was the smallest commercial movie theater in the country. He presented a petition in opposition to closing the theater which was signed by 1,500 people; he noted that he did not initiate the petition. Mr. Peter MacDonald, attorney for the applicant, noted that he would like to present the response regarding CEQA at the next meeting. He noted that the General Plan presented the ideal of a less automobile-oriented city with mixed uses and a traditional ambience, also known as the "new urbanism." He noted that included pedestrian orientation with places worth patronizing within the … | PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-23 | 8 | projected by staff. On both nights, about 40% of his customers walked to the theater. He believed this theater was an asset to the community. He noted that the movie could not be heard from the neighbor's fence. He noted that he would respond to Ms. Barbara Thomas' comments in opposition to the theater at the next meeting. He expressed concern about the condition requiring a 20-minute gap between movies, and did not believe it was necessary during the day when there were seldom more than 15 people during those showings. He suggested that that condition be applicable only after 6 p.m. Mr. David Penney, 1620 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and noted that he lived a half mile away from the theater. He believed this business was a good fit for the neighborhood, and would like to see a few more throughout the City. Mr. David Hart, 712 Taylor, spoke in support of this application, and believed that the cinema was an unqualified positive feature for the neighborhood. He liked the family-friendly atmosphere of the theater, and had never found parking to be a problem. He noted that most of the patrons walked to the theater. Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and noted that he lived within walking distance of the theater. He believed this was an excellent and creative solution to the conflicts that arose earlier, and supported local ownership. He believed this size and type of business ownership should be encouraged. Ms. Chantal Currid, 834 Taylor Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and would like to see the City encourage this type of business. Mr. Richard Archuleta, 1406 9th Street, spoke in support of this application. He noted that he had seen many people walking and riding their bicycles, which has brought a good atmosphere to the neighborhood. He would like to see a stop light near the cinema for safety. He believed this use would be a good activity for families and children in a small-town atmosphere, and would not cause any spending l… | PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-23 | 9 | that the small theaters often showed family-friendly movies that may not be supported by the megaplex theaters. Ms. Nancy Sewell, 11709th Street, #23, spoke in support of this application, and noted that she lived three blocks away from the theater. Ms. Allison Martin, 1519 St. Charles, spoke in support of this application. She noted that there had been a lot more traffic when the site housed a mortuary. She noted that she had been able to bring her elderly father to the theater easily. She agreed that a crosswalk would be a good addition for safety. Ms. Barbara Thomas, PO Box 1381, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted that she represented clients in opposition to the application, and that she would reserve her specific comments until after the Planning Board has been able to review her letter. She believed that the theater was a wonderful idea, but that it was in the wrong place. She recalled several permitted Alameda theaters that had closed, and that they all had sufficient parking. She asked the Board to look at this application from a macro view, rather than from a micro view. She noted that the General Plan and the Alameda Municipal Code encourage businesses that draw traffic to go to the major C-C zones, such as Webster Street. She noted that the transportation plans also support those goals, and believed lack of parking had contributed to failure on Webster Street and Park Street. She noted that good businesses were spread out in that zone and that they bought parking lots for their clientele, which she believed should be dissuaded under the General Plan. Mr. Allen Rawl, 48 Invincible Court, spoke in support of this application, and had moved here because of the small-town character of Alameda. He agreed with the other speakers who supported this application. He hoped the residents did not take the ability to walk to the theater for granted. Mr. Don Coughlan, 2008B Clinton, spoke in support of this application and noted that he grew up in the West End; he appreciated the small-town neighborhood fee… | PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-23 | 10 | to a unique community. Mr. Richard Archuleta, 1406 9th Street, spoke again in support of this application. He did not believe this theater could be compared to the theater on Alameda Point, and that this was a neighborhood theater that people could walk to. He noted that there was sufficient parking for theater patrons. Mr. Robert Todd spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern that this business may expand its services as it became more successful, and would not want to see additional uses, such as a restaurant that may serve alcohol. He expressed concern about the actions of patrons as they leave, causing noise or hazards on the road. He inquired whether this use would have the same noise restrictions as residential districts, and was concerned that it would become a nuisance in the future. He expressed concern about the operation of the Building Department. Dr. Carol Gerdes noted that she was an obstetrician and spoke in support of this application. She noted that the theater held a Baby Brigade evening on Tuesdays. She appreciated Alameda's family community, and believed it was important to support this use. She noted that the mortuary use was more intense. Ms. Karya Lustig, 838 Central Avenue, spoke in support of this application and noted that she lived next door to the theater. She and her family appreciated the family atmosphere, and added that their initial noise and traffic concerns had not been borne out. She complimented the applicant on the way in which he kept the property up. Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1282 Caroline Street, spoke in support of this application and believed this was a good use of the site. He liked the design of the theater. Ms. Michele Bealhimer, PO Box 2933, noted that she lived three blocks away from the theater, and liked the small-town feel that was particular to Alameda. She added that there was no adverse noise impact from the theater. Mr. Ronald Pineda, 748 Lincoln, noted that he liked the theater, but was concerned that Alameda might emulate the character from other t… | PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf,11 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-23 | 11 | Page 11 Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf,12 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-23 | 12 | 8-C. Use Permit UP05-0009, Applicant: Mark Haskett (Alameda Theatre Project Inc.), - 842 Central Ave. (DG/CE). The applicant requests the granting of a Use Permit allowing the operation of a Boutique Theater located in a C-1 Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of April 11, 2005.) Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report, and recommended that this item be continued to the Planning Board meeting of June 13, 2005. President Cunningham advised that public comment would be taken, but that no Board discussion or action would be taken. President Cunningham advised that more than five speaker slips had been received M/S Kohlstrand/Piziali and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN- - 0 The public hearing was opened. Mr. Mark Haskett, applicant, declined to speak again. Ms. Mallory Penney, 1620 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in support of this application. She stated that she often walked to the theater with her friends, and often saw people at the theater that she knew. She liked the welcoming atmosphere of the theater. She liked the theater on Alameda Point, but preferred the smaller theater. Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in support of this application. He recalled the amount of emotional opposition to the Multicultural Center, which had turned out to be a valuable addition to the community. He believed this use was a good response to local needs, and that it would be more widely use. He believed that every request by the Building Department for Code upgrades to the building should be met as soon as possible. He worked on the pilot program for the Safe Routes to School program at Franklin Elementary School, and noted that the crosswalk in question would be included in that program for Washington Elementary at Taylor and 8th, as well as Grand Avenue and other intersections. Ms. Darnell Arniola, 3039 Fernside, spoke in support of this application, and complimented the applicant's service to the community. Mr. David Little, 2046 San Antonio, spoke in suppo… | PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf,13 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-23 | 13 | Mr. Dean Ironside, 1206 Ninth Street, spoke in support of this application. He had not noticed any change in the traffic patterns in the 43 years he had lived in the neighborhood. Ms. Barbara Thomas, PO Box 1381, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed that the applicant took it upon himself to open this business, obtained a business license that did not construe Use Permits. She stated that the applicant was cited by Planning Staff on December 17, 2004, as committing a misdemeanor for operating an illegal use. She noted that on January 18, 2005, the Building Official and the Fire Marshall posted a notice on the door that the building was unsafe, and recorded that notice with the County Recorder. She noted that Mr. MacDonald, the applicant's attorney, removed the sign. She inquired whether the applicant had liability insurance. She believed there would have been no opposition to the use had he appeared before the Planning Board at the beginning of the process. She noted that the patrons parked in the residents' parking spaces. Ms. Nancy Sewell, 1170 9th Street, #23, spoke in support of this application, and noted that the Alameda Cultural Club did not have any parking for five blocks away. She noted that the noise, traffic and harassment from that use had been difficult to bear. She noted that this use did not cause noise, parking problems or harassment, and that the neighborhood was generally supported. Mr. Dren McDonald, 740 Santa Clara, spoke in support of this application and noted that there were not many movie theaters that a toddler could attend. He added that this theater was very different from the average multiplex, and did not believe it was comparable to other theaters that had been in Alameda in the past. He did not find the building to be unsafe, and did not believe the applicant would bring his own children to the building if it were. Ms. Antoinette Lajoie, 1170 9th Street, #18, spoke in support of this application, and added that she walked to the theater from her home, as do her neighbors.… | PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-23 | 14 | 9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 10. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC (Vice President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that she had requested regular updates on the APAC's work (see Item 11-A). b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali). Board Member Piziali advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting. d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani). Board Member Mariani advised that Mr. Thomas had made a presentation, which she would defer until the next meeting. The Chinatown group was very pleased with the planning so far, resulting from the Alameda Point proposed development. 11. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: a. Staff update on status of Planning for Alameda Point. Mr. Andrew Thomas advised that he had distributed a flier for the sixth and final workshop regarding the preliminary development concept. The final draft of the preliminary development concept and transportation program would be presented at the June 8 community workshop, and the written documents would be presented at that time. The land use plans and the associated development principles would be presented, as would the transportation program and all its phases, and the historic preservation program. An infrastructure plan that supported the preliminary development concept would be presented, as well as other documents. Staff would take community comment on June 8, and would get a sense from the community in terms of work to date, and what would need further work. Those comments would be brought to the ARRA Board on July 14, 2005. Mr. Lynch expressed concern about the type of partners sought by the City as build out approaches. He inquired whether the agreement structure was such that the Master Developer reserves the right… | PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf,15 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-23 | 15 | conveyance. He believed that the decision to move forward with the business plan was an internal decision of the organization. Vice President Cook commended staff on an excellent job in conducting the workshops, which have been very informative. She asked the Planning Board to become more involved in the community workshops. She noted that transportation on/off and within the Island was a critical issue, and there was expertise on the Board regarding that issue. She noted that Measure A was a critical issue as well, and believed that staff had been given the direction to look at only Measure A-compliant alternatives. Many members of the community believed that Measure A should be examined more carefully, and that non- Measure A-compliant alternatives should be examined as well. She believed that the community wanted Alameda Point to "look like Alameda,' but there may not be consensus about what that means, especially with respect to single-family homes or a fine-grained mixed use seen throughout Alameda. She believed there was a tendency to not look at both alternatives in an equal capacity. President Cunningham requested the City Attorney's perspective on the possibility of a non-Measure A-compliant alternative being preferred. Ms. Harryman advised that Mr. Brandt and Mr. Thomas were the most knowledgeable about that issue. Mr. Thomas noted that they had started the workshop process 12 months ago, and staff had been very straight-forward detailing the constraints, including Measure A. Because Measure A is in the City Charter, it would require a ballot measure to change; staff would not spend an excess amount of time exploring a non-Measure A-compliant alternative. He noted that the City, through the Chinatown agreement, had agreed to look at a higher density alternative in the EIR, and to give it a Planning Board Minutes Page 15 May 23, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-23 | 16 | full analysis. Mr. Lynch noted that a number of communities have gone forward with the environmental documents first, then the plan. The voters would then be provided with the alternatives and an idea of the general concept as it related to the baseline data. Ms. Kohlstrand believed that Alameda Point provided the perfect opportunity to have a meaningful community debate about whether Measure A should prevail, or whether another development approach should be considered for that area. Mr. Thomas believed that the last meeting would be productive if it could be devoted to evaluating the two plans that had been developed through the process. He added that this would not be the end of the planning process. Mr. Lynch noted that he would be out of the country on June 8, but suggested that the City election schedule be presented to the public at that time; a special election would be very costly. He noted that would help structure the planning timeline so that any possible ballot issues may be considered. Mr. Piziali suggested that issue be considered at a separate meeting. Ms. Eliason noted that it may be best to hold the discussion after the Navy's decision was known. b. Staff update on current stafflevels in the Planning Division of the Planning & Building Department. Ms. Eliason advised that Mr. Cormack would retire in mid-June, and his position was slated to be frozen. In the next budget cycle, Ms. Altschuler's position would be eliminated. She noted that staffing would be thin for the time being, and that the recruitment effort for a Planning & Building Director was underway. Greg McFann and Jerry Cormack shared the Interim Planning & Building Director position. The entire Planning & Building Department was in the process of conducting a fee study and evaluation of staffing. Those results will be available in the next month or two; it was hoped that it would show that the staffing levels were too low, given the volume of work on both the Planning & Building sides, allowing the Development Review Manager position … | PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.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/2005-06-13.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 1 | Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 13, - p.m. 1. CONVENE: 7:14 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE: Mr. Lynch 3. ROLL CALL: Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani, and Piziali. President Cunningham and Board Member Gina Mariani were absent. Also present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Assistant City Manager Paul Benoit, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Contract Planner Chandler Lee, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner III Allen Tai, Planner II Dennis Brighton, Jennifer Ott, Development Manager, Development Services Department, Leslie Little, Development Services Department. 4. MINUTES: Minutes for the meeting of May 23, 2005. M/S Kohlstrand/Piziali and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of May 23, 2005, as presented. AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: Ms. Eliason suggested that Item 7-C be moved from the Regular Agenda to the Consent Calendar so that it may be continued. M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to move Item 7-C from the Regular Agenda to the Consent Calendar. AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. Planning Board Minutes Page 1 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 2 | 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: Ms. McNamara advised that she would vote "No" on the Consent Calendar because she still had concerns about the design of the approved residence in Item 7-D; she continued to voice her opposition to the design review. Ms. Harryman advised that she and Ms. McNamara had discussed this issue before the meeting. 7-A. DA-99-01 -- Catellus Development Corporation (CL). The applicant requests a Periodic Review of Development Agreement, DA-99-01, for the period from January through December 2004, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30- 95.1. The properties are zoned MX (Mixed Use Planned Development District). M/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-17 to approve a Periodic Review of Development Agreement, DA-99-01, for the period from January through December 2004, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1. AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 2 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 3 | 7-B. DA89-1 -- Harbor Bay Business Park Association, Harbor Bay Isle Associates and Harbor Bay Entities -- Bay Farm Island (Primarily Harbor Bay Isle) (CE). A request for a Periodic Review of Development Agreement DA89-01, for the period through April 4, 2005, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1. The properties are zoned R-1-PD, One Family Residence/Planned Development Zoning District; C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing Planned Development Zoning District; O, Open Space Zoning District and R-1-A-H, One Family Residence with Special Agricultural and Height Limit Combining Zoning District. M/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-18 to approve a Periodic Review of Development Agreement DA89-01, for the period through April 4, 2005, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1. AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 4 | 7-C. UP05-0007 - West Alameda Business Association (WABA) and City of Alameda - Public Parking Lot at Taylor Avenue and Webster Street (DB). Applicants request approval of an amendment to Use Permit UP-98-53 to allow an extension of operation of the existing farmers' market which currently operates on Tuesday morning to include late Thursday afternoons/evenings, from 4:00 p.m. through 8:00 p.m., during the summer and early fall. This would be located in City Public Parking Lot D. The site is located within the CC (Community Commercial) Zoning District and is located within the boundaries of the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project. M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to move Item 7-C from the Regular Agenda to the Consent Calendar. AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 M/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-19 to approve an amendment to Use Permit UP-98-53 to allow an extension of operation of the existing farmers' market which currently operates on Tuesday morning to include late Thursday afternoons/evenings, from 4:00 p.m. through 8:00 p.m., during the summer and early fall. This would be located in City Public Parking Lot D. The site is located within the CC (Community Commercial) Zoning District and is located within the boundaries of the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project. Planning Board Minutes Page 4 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 5 | 7-D. Variance V05-0003/Major Design Review DR04-0109 - KD Architects, Inc. for Kwan Li - 2411 Webb Avenue (AT). Applicants request a Major Design Review and two Variances to construct a two-story residential/commercia mixed use building on a vacant parcel. The project proposes two ground floor retail spaces approximately 800-860 square feet in size and two residential units on the second floor with approximately 700 - 1,000 square feet of floor area for a total gross floor area of 3,383 square feet. The design of the building resembles a streamlined Moderne style with a combination of stucco exterior siding and clear anodized aluminum trim. Access to parking located at the rear of the building is through a driveway located along the right side of the building under a portion of the second story. The project requires a total of twelve parking spaces, and the project will provide six spaces with a variance and in-lieu fees paid to the City for six deficient spaces. A variance is requested for a reduced landscaping separation between one parking space and the north and east property lines, where three feet is required. The site is located within the Park Street C-C, Community Commercial Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of May 23, 2005.) M/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-20 to approve a Major Design Review and two Variances to construct a two-story residential/commercial mixed use building on a vacant parcel. The project proposes two ground floor retail spaces approximately 800-860 square feet in size and two residential units on the second floor with approximately 700 - 1,000 square feet of floor area for a total gross floor area of 3,383 square feet. The design of the building resembles a streamlined Moderne style with a combination of stucco exterior siding and clear anodized aluminum trim. Access to parking located at the rear of the building is through a driveway located along the right side of the building under a portion of the second story. The project requires a total… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 6 | 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 8-A. Zoning Text Amendment ZA05-0002, Applicant: Alameda Theatre Project Inc., - All Neighborhood Business Districts (C-1) within the City of Alameda (DG/CE). The applicant requests an Amendment to Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-4.8(c) to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use in the C-1 zoning district, subject to Use Permit approval. "Boutique Theater" would be defined as "A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater." (Continued from the meeting of May 23, 2005.) Vice President Cook advised that there were more than five speaker slips submitted for this item. M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Robert Gavrich noted that it appeared that there was support for boutique theaters, and that the Planning Board should rethink the City's strategy to build big box, megaplex theaters in Alameda. He noted that Alameda's small town atmosphere should promote family businesses, and believed that Central Cinema should not be the only boutique theater on the Island. He noted that the support for such a neighborhood cinema was heavily supported in Alameda, versus the Cineplex. He believed the City would rely on the Cineplex to replace the lost tax revenues previously received from Ron Goode Toyota. He noted that Central Cinema would not use any tax dollars, and that the entrepreneur would take all the financial risk. Mr. Peter MacDonald, attorney for the applicant, believed that the 164 pages submitted by Barbara Thomas were adequately responded to in the Negative Declaration and the staff report. He noted that the applicant was comfortable with that response, and added that a neighborhood with no impacts was a neighborhood with no life. He believed that the scale of the impacts was the main issue, and he believed the staff report demonstrated that. He asked the supporters of the Central Cinema to stand up.… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 7 | apply. She noted that staff stated that CEQA did not apply in terms of a full-scale environmental impact report because each subsequent conversion requested by the applicant would be subject to that categorical exemption. She stated that staff asserted that it would be subject to discretionary review. She believed that if the applicant wished to have a similar use elsewhere on the Island, staff would state that it was categorically exempt under CEQA, which she believed would subvert the intent of CEQA. She believed a complete CEQA analysis would be required. She noted that the Alameda Municipal Code stated that parking for commercial purposes could not be places in residential zones, which was what happened with respect to this use. She noted that the Webster Street plan included a theater, and suggested that a theater in that district would be sufficient. She noted that the movie industry released films on DVD within three months of theatrical release to take advantage of advertising, and did not believe this theater would be financially feasible. She advised that the General Plan stated that commercial parking in residential areas should be dissuaded, and believed that should be taken at its meaning. She noted that movie attendance has been declining, and did not believe that boutique theaters would be able to succeed. Mr. David Hart, 712 Taylor, spoke in support of this application, and agreed with Mr. Gavrich's comments. He noted that he was familiar with parking challenges for a homeowner in a retail district. The residents supported positive businesses coming into the neighborhood, and against negative businesses. He believed the neighbors were supportive of positive businesses in the area, and he believed that public's opinion had been heard clearly. He recalled Ms. Thomas' statements regarding the possibility of the theater failing, and noted that in America, an entrepreneur had the right to try and to fail. He noted that the applicant has been succeeding so far, and he supported the applicant's efforts t… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 8 | those districts were given notices by mail, legal notices in the newspaper and posted ads. All responses were provided to the Board. Mr. Piziali noted that he had not noticed any strong reaction to the proposed zoning language change. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Eliason confirmed that this use would be a conditional use in all C-1 districts. She confirmed that it would not allow this commercial use within a residential zone. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand regarding retail and other parking within the C-1 districts, Ms. Eliason replied that the C-1 District was subject to the City's overall parking standards within the Zoning Ordinance. There were special provisions for new uses; buildings over ten years old with uses that do not change substantially according to the Zoning Ordinance, parking is not required to be provided. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding the validity of the CEQA findings, Mr. Garrison stated that everything under CEQA may be challenged. If it was determined to be categorically exempt, the City must prove that. Vice President Cook advised that a speaker slip had been received from the applicant. Mr. Mark Haskett, applicant, wished to address the parking issue and noted that they were trying to get cars off the street. He noted that he lived a block from the theater, and the population density in Alameda was such that people could walk to the theater. He did not believe there was a serious parking problem, and recalled that an adjacent neighbor spoke at the last meeting and stated that on one occasion, they had to park a block away. He noted that he did not advertise because the theater was intended for the neighbors' use. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding avenues for challenging this use if parking was determined to be a problem, Ms. Eliason replied that each individual boutique theater would come before the Planning Board for a discretionary review. A use permit would be associated with it, and individual cases would be considered by… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 9 | add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use in the C-1 zoning district, subject to Use Permit approval. "Boutique Theater" would be defined as "A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater." AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 9 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 10 | 8-B. Use Permit UP05-0009, Applicant: Mark Haskett (Alameda Theater Project, Inc.), - 842 Central Ave. (DG/CE). The applicant requests the granting of a Use Permit allowing the operation of a Boutique Theater located in a C-1 Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of May 23, 2005.) Mr. Piziali noted that there were more than five speaker slips on every item on the agenda. M/S Piziali/Ms. McNamara and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes throughout the remainder of the meeting. The public hearing was opened. Mr. David Hart, 712 Taylor, spoke in support of this application. He noted that he had taken a terminally ill family member who lived three houses from the theater to a movie, and that they were able to walk. He noted that he walked through the neighborhood frequently, and did not see any crowding in the neighborhood. He believed that Central Cinema was an unqualified positive feature for the neighborhood. Mr. Robert Gavrich spoke in support of this application, and noted that he lived near a theater on High Street. He noted that it was not even a minor nuisance, and that it was a feature in neighborhoods in support of culture. He had patronized Central Cinema six or seven times, and had never had a problem parking on Central Avenue. He suggested assessing a dollar per ticket to mitigate the parking impacts on the neighborhood. Mr. Lisa Griffith noted that she did not have a parkable driveway, and has never parked her car in front of that driveway. She appreciated that the theater was quaint, but did not want to drive around for half an hour looking for a place to park. She had experienced people parking in front of her driveway, sometimes by patrons of the theater. Mr. Dave Kirwin wished to reiterate his opinion that this is a positive feature for the neighborhood. He noted that he would not be able to stay for Items 8-D and 8-E, and was happy to hear that the historic theater would be revitalized. He did not believe the scale of the Cineplex would fit Alameda, and suggested that it be… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,11 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 11 | Ms. Valerie Ruma, 1610 Willow, spoke in support of this application. She wished to address the parking issues, and noted that she had attended the Central Cinema on the weekends. She had never had a problem with parking, even five minutes from showtime. Ms. Janin Von Furst, 917B Santa Clara, noted that she was a renter, and was very concerned about not being able to park near her home. She believed that Alameda should have residential parking permits. She was in favor of the Central Cinema, but would like the owner to take the onus of ensuring that neighborhood parking is not made more difficult for the residents. Mr. Kopps noted that he enjoyed going to Central Cinema because his mother was comfortable with him attending on his own. He noted that he had his tenth birthday party there, and enjoyed the family atmosphere. He promised to walk to the Cinema if it were allowed to remain open. Mr. Kevin Frederick noted that he had lived in the neighborhood for 20 years, and preferred to bicycle and walk around the Island. He supported the Central Cinema, and believed it was a great neighborhood use. Mr. Peter Macdonald, attorney for the applicant, noted that he had performed an informal parking survey on two nights, and noted that on both nights, 40% of the patrons walked to the theater. He added that 15 and 13 cars, respectively, were driven by patrons. He did not believe it would be viable or necessary to put a parking lot in this neighborhood when street parking was available. He believed the existing parking should be used. He noted that the 15 minute intervals between shows was not a problem during the day with an audience size of five to 10 people. He noted that the applicant had spent $7,400 to process this case to date, and suggested that the amount of fees should be capped for certain types of cases. He was concerned that smaller businesses may not be able to get through the process. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali whether fines were included in those fees, Mr. Macdonald replied that they were plannin… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,12 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 12 | Mr. Piziali noted that Condition 8 called for a 20-minute interval between screenings, and suggested that a 15-minute interval would be sufficient. Vice President Cook noted that she had visited the site three times, including an evening show and a morning show. The theater was not crowded either time. She also attended a sold-out show on a weekend evening, and had no problem parking. She had enjoyed her visits, and noted that it was a good place for teens to attend. She noticed there were no bike racks, and strongly suggested that a bike rack be included in the conditions of approval. She noted that the audiences cleared the theater very quickly, and believed that a 15-minute interval would be sufficient. She believed it was important for the patrons to realize that they were in a district bordering a residential neighborhood. She believed the small district businesses would support each other. Ms. Kohlstrand supported this use, but believed that an interval of one year to bring the building up to code was excessive. Mr. Douglas Garrison, project planner, noted that was a combination of an existing standard condition of approval for such projects. He noted that could be changed to six months. Ms. Kohlstrand agreed with Ms. Thomas' assertion that the staff reports should be more specific regarding the parking requirements for particular projects, and how they relate to the Code requirements. She did not believe that substantial new parking requirements should be introduced in such uses, and believe they could exist with available on-street parking. Mr. Piziali noted that traffic and parking would always be a problem in compressed urban areas. Ms. Harryman advised that the prime broker may have this item come back directly for a hearing, or it may request a staff report as an item under "Staff Communications." If the Board decided to hear the item further, it may agendized. She noted that the Building Code violations were being handled by the Building Division on a separate track; the planning issues were being se… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,13 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 13 | Mr. Lynch believed the Planning fees were reasonable, and noted that the items on this agenda reflected an evolving community, in an evolving world. He noted the mixed uses had a long tradition in this country, particularly before the end of World War II. He noted that the City would be facing the question of merging uses constantly. He commended the applicant in beginning to merge commercial uses in a residential community. M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-22 to grant a Use Permit allowing the operation of a Boutique Theater located in a C-1 Zoning District. The following modifications would be included: 1. Condition 8 - Parking requirements would be minimized by allowing the theater to provide a minimum of 15 minutes between movie screenings before 6:00 p.m., and 20 minutes after 6:00 p.m.; 2. A compliance report would be required to be submitted to Planning staff one year after the approval of this resolution. If needed, staff would bring it before the Planning Board; and 3. A bicycle rack would be installed. AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Vice President Cook called for a five-minute recess. Planning Board Minutes Page 13 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 14 | 8-C. DR04-0051, 616 Pacific Avenue, Applicant: Erwin Roxas (AT/EP). The proposal is an appeal of the code enforcement action which determined that the demolition of a single-family residence, located at the above address, is in violation of the AMC $13-21-10 b (removal or demolition of an historic structure without proper permits) and is, therefore, subject to the five (5) year stay that prevents the issuance of any building or construction-related permits for the property. The applicant had received Major Design Review approval in July 2004 for proposed 1st and 2nd story additions, enlargement of the detached garage, interior remodel, porch additions, etc. that would add approximately 1,562 square feet to the dwelling and 225 square feet to the garage and storage shed. The property is within the R-4, Neighborhood Residential District. M/S Piziali/Lynch to continue Item 8-C to the meeting of June 27, 2005. AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 14 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,15 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 15 | 8-D. DR05-0041 - Final Design Review of the Proposed New Cineplex - City of Alameda (CE/JO). Final design review, including consideration of Section 106 findings for the proposed Cineplex at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video Maniacs site. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the C-C and C-C-PD (Community Commercial and Community Commercial -- Planned Development) Districts. Ms. Kohlstrand advised she would recuse herself from Items 8-D and 8-E because she was involved in the analysis for the parking garage and the theater. Ms. Jennifer Ott summarized the staff report, and noted that the Planning Board preliminarily accepted the Cineplex design on May 9, 2005, to serve as a basis for Section 106 findings. The findings were brought before the Historic Advisory Board; those draft minutes were included in the packet. Staff recommended approval of the design of this project. Mr. Rob Henry, Henry Architects, project architect, displayed and discussed the changes made to the project design since the last meeting. Input from the Planning Board and the HAB led to the following changes: 1. The corner sign was replaced by additional detailing, continuing the horizontal band element in the corner for a more Art Deco feeling on the corner; 2. HAB believed that there should be a more continuous feel in the columns; the white element was replaced by brick; 3. The dome was eliminated from the corner element (Oak and Central), and was replaced by a flat corner element; 4. The roofline was notched down to provide softening to the corner; a recessed element was placed further from the face of the building; 5. The mechanical screens were reduced in size, and would not be visible from the street level; 6. The historic theater mezzanine level would be connected to the elevator in the new facility; and 7. The aluminum window and door systems were changed to clear anodized aluminum to match the retail spaces of the Alameda Theater. Mr. Henry discussed the materials and colors, and noted th… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 16 | The public hearing was opened. Ms. Janin Von Furst, 917B Santa Clara, spoke in opposition to this item. She expressed concern about the environmental impact that such projects have on a city the size of Alameda, particularly with respect to parking. She noted that the design reminded her of Jack London Square, but that Alameda could not handle that amount of traffic from outside the city. She noted that the bridges and tubes would be busier, bringing more traffic through the residential neighborhoods. She was concerned that people would park in the neighborhoods to avoid paying for parking in the parking garage. She suggested the use of residential parking permits for neighborhoods near projects of this size. Ms. Nancy Hird, 1519 East Shore Drive, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that she was not speaking on behalf of AAPS. She believed that the massing of this building was excessive although it was improved. She believed that a three-screen theater would be sufficient, and did not want to bring more traffic into Alameda from outside the City. She noted that the success of the Central Cinema disproved the theater that multiple screens were necessary to be economically feasible. Ms. Paula Rainey, 556 Palace Court, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed this project was too big for this district, which was pedestrian-oriented and too crowded with traffic. She believed the new design had been improved, but did not believe this design would enhance the neighborhood. She noted that the design was not pedestrian-friendly, and was too close to the street without softening. She suggested that the old theater be restored, but that the new Cineplex be eliminated. She believed this was a megaplex, and the lack of freeway frontage roads made the situation more difficult. Ms. Pat Bail, 825 Paru, believed the design had improved since the beginning, but that the residents were unprepared for the scope of this project and its impact on the neighborhood. She believed this design was overpowering and inappropri… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,17 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 17 | Mr. Bill Woodle spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that he had also circulated a petition against this design. He had also heard from people who supported a large Cineplex, and had been called a "Nimby" by one person. Ms. Linda Hanson, 1816 Wood Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and believed that the design as published in the newspaper wad presented as a fait accompli. She noted that hundreds of people had signed the petition, asking that the project be put on hold. She believed the scale and design conflicted with the unique historic character of Alameda, and that traffic would be impacted. She was concerned that there was no open area for people to gather, and that it ignored the green building principles. She believed that this design was more reminiscent of Fisherman's Wharf, and was not convinced that it would be financially successful. She urged the Planning Board and City Council to reconsider this project. Planning Board Minutes Page 17 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,18 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 18 | Mr. Carl Lasagna spoke in opposition to this item, and believed that the design was slightly less offensive than the last design. He compared the design to an electric razor. He supported alternatives to this project, which he believed was overwhelming and unattractive, and did not believe that the use of eminent domain was unethical. He supported the combination of live performing arts with the historic theater. He suggested that the Planning Board work with the community to redesign this project, so that the parking structures needed for downtown be built, and that the historic theater be left intact. He believed that the negotiations should be held ethically. Mr. Jim Strela noted that his family had previously owned the Neptune Theater in the 1930s, and added that to get first-run films, multiple screens were necessary. He believed the historic theater was being lost in this design. Mr. Rich Tester noted that he owned a business on Santa Clara, and noted that their business would be in the shade of this structure. He expressed concern about the impact on his business by traffic congestion. Ms. Jennifer Van Arsdale spoke in opposition to this item, and agreed that the Cineplex should be eliminated. She noted that the renderings had improved, but that the combination of the Cineplex and the garage dwarfed the historic theater. She expressed concern that the only way the historic theater could be renovated was to include the Cineplex as well. Mr. Michael Cote spoke in opposition to this item, and added that this project began as the restoration of the historic theater. He noted that the historic theater was dwarfed by the garage and the Cineplex, and that the historic theater was reduced to a façade through which people would walk to the Cineplex. He expressed concern about the installation of new stadium seating, which would gut the interior of the theater. He was concerned about cost overruns, and the possibility of public service positions being cut to fund this project. Mr. Lee expressed concern about this de… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,19 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 19 | megaplexes were compatible with Alameda's character and scale. He displayed his own design for a scaled-down theater. Ms. Joan Boucher noted that in her household, they called Alameda "Ala-Mayberry." She enjoyed the neighborliness and pedestrian access in Alameda. She looked forward to walking to the historic theater, with three screens. She noted that many Alamedans did not know about this plan that far in advance, and had been taken by surprise; many of her neighbors did not like the new design. She believed this design would be a mistake for the Island. Morgan spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that Alameda was the only city that she felt comfortable in. She believed this design was wrong for the Island, and noted that walking and bicycling in the City was already hazardous. Ms. Nancy Kerns, 1175 Regent Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed this design has far exceeded the original vision, but did not believe this project was appropriate for the Island. She had not found anyone in town who believed that this many screens would be a good idea. She was very concerned about the traffic impacts, and believed that critical mass on this theater proposal had been reached very quickly. She did not believe anyone in town wanted this complex in town. Ms. Birgitt Evans, AAPS, 2829 San Jose Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that AAPS had been involved in this project for a long time. She had spoken with Christopher Buckley, who was very concerned about staff's report that this design was "highly responsive" to AAPS' concerns. Neither he, Dick Rutter, nor she believed this design reflected their concerns. They did support Bruce Anderson's Section 106 review, as well as the HAB's comments at their June 2 meeting, in which four out of five HAB members stated that the design should be returned to the drawing board. She noted that the Henry Architects had created a very nice design for an Art Deco theater in Livermore that featured vertical elements. She believed the current design w… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,20 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 20 | The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Ms. Harryman advised that the Bylaws required that the meeting adjourn at 11:00 p.m., but that the Board may make a motion to adjourn it at a later time certain. Mr. Lynch suggested that Items 8-D and 8-E be continued to the next meeting because of the lateness of the hour. He did not believe it would be possible to properly consider both items in a timely fashion. M/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous to continue the meeting to 11:30 p.m. AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand) Mr. Piziali preferred to have the public comment all at one meeting. Ms. Eliason noted that Items 8-D and 8-E would be the first items on the next agenda. Vice President Cook expressed concern about moving forward with this item without a full Board. Mr. Lynch wished to discuss the issue of eminent domain, and noted that when the property has not been maintained by the owner, it is incumbent upon the public body to do so. He noted that the question of eminent domain is the right vehicle may be addressed, but believed that the suggestion that the City may not exercise it was a gross overstatement. Ms. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, noted that this project had been much larger in its earlier forms, and that it had been downsized considerably. She noted that there had been a lot of discussion about the new theater component at this meeting, and emphasized that the idea of the project was to utilize the historic theater in the grandest way possible. She noted that it was important to bring as many people into the historic theater as possible; there would be no separate entrance for the new theater. She noted that the concerns about the stadium seating gutting the historic theater; she noted that the original seating had been gone for some time, and that the theater had other uses for many years, including as a roller rink. She noted that the ceiling would be patched, and that the holes had been made by previous tenants to install lighting. She noted… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,21 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 21 | structures require a certain size to be workable, and that 17,000 square feet may accommodate 43 extra spaces. The new complex did not sit on a large site. She noted that the operator, Kyle Connor, was not a large corporate entity, and was an independent operator; he knows the community and the residents. She noted that this theater never did have the 2,200 seats that had been discussed. She noted that the $25 million price tag included the $10 million for acquisition and seismic upgrades and stabilization to meet Code requirement. Another $10 million of public money would go into the parking structure, which had been identified by PSBA as being a priority for the business association and downtown. She noted that a shade analysis would be performed; she did not believe it would cast a shadow onto Santa Clara Street because of the location of Long's. Staff would follow up on that item at the next meeting. She noted that other retail uses, such as restaurants, already provided patrons on the street; those patrons would be drawn to the theater as well. She did not expect the theater to be patronized by all new people, and that there would be some crossover trips. Mr. Piziali understood that there was concern in the City about this project, but that he had not been approached by anyone who has expressed that opinion. He emphasized that this project has been discussed for five years, starting with the Downtown Visioning Process. He noted that he listened very carefully to people in the City about this and other projects. Vice President Cook believed it was important to take into account all the comments throughout the process. She noted that she had been Chair of the Visioning Process, was on the EDC six years ago, and knew how important this project has been over the years to enliven downtown. She acknowledged this was not the perfect project on the perfect site. She stated that the people working for the City had the City's best interests in mind. She wanted to make it clear throughout the process that full restorat… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,22 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 22 | Alameda regarding what this project should or should not do. She noted that was performed before the DDA, and before the City entered into a contractual arrangement. Vice President Cook stated that the Board was happy that was the sequence of events for this project, and that other projects had a DDA before design discussions took place. She noted that months of design discussions had taken place before the DDA was put in place for this project. Mr. Lynch requested that staff detail the parameters of the funding mechanism at a future meeting. He noted that some members of the public did not want a garage, and noted that would affect the DDA. He noted that the Planning Board had specific authority, and could not modify the project outside those parameters. Mr. Piziali noted that it was the City Council's job to decide whether this project was done or not, and that it was not the Planning Board's charge to do SO. Ms. Eliason advised that the speaker slips would be maintained in the Planning file. M/S McNamara /Lynch and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of June 27, 2005. AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand) Planning Board Minutes Page 22 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,23 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 23 | 8-E. UP05-0008/DR05-0028 - Use Permit and Final Design Review of the Proposed New Civic Center Parking Garage - City of Alameda (DSD). Consideration of a Use Permit and Final design review, including consideration of Section 106 findings, for a new 352-space parking structure at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video Maniacs site. This site is located at 1416 Oak Street within the C-C and C-C-PD (Community Commercial and Community Commercial -- Planned Development) Districts. M/S McNamara/Lynch and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of June 27, 2005. AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand) 9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 10. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC (Vice-President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that the final community meeting was held the previous week, at which time the staff presented the preferred development concept, as well as the Non-Measure A alternatives to that in greater detail. Staff will work on a final copy of that report, which would be available in several weeks. That report would be the subject of hearings with the ARRA Board and the Planning Board over the next 12 to 18 months. She noted that the community hearings had been well-attended. b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that there had been no further meetings. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali). Board member Piziali advised that there was nothing to report at this time. d. Oral Status Report regarding Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board member Mariani). Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report. 11. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None. Planning Board Minutes Page 23 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.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/2005-06-27.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-27 | 1 | Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 27, 2005-7:00 - p.m. 1. CONVENE: 7:13 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE: Ms. Mariani 3. ROLL CALL: President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Lynch, Mariani, and Piziali. Board members Kolhstrand and McNamara were absent. Also present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Leslie Little, Development Services Director, Jennifer Ott, Development Manager, Development Services Department, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner III Allen Tai. 4. MINUTES: Minutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005. Vice President Cook advised that page 8, paragraph 9, should be changed to read, "Vice President Cook advised that periodic review for a variety of parking issues had been attached to use permits in the past." M/S Piziali/Cook to approve the minutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005, as corrected. A quorum for a vote on the minutes was not present. They will be carried over to the next meeting. 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: President Cunningham advised that the Board had requested that all Consent Calendar items with the exception of Item 7-E, be placed on the regular agenda. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATION:None. Planning Board Minutes Page 1 June 27, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-27 | 2 | 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: 7-A. PDA05-0003 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant proposes a Planned Development Amendment to amend the Harbor Bay Business Park landscaping and lot coverage provisions as established in Resolution 1203. This Amendment would affect Lots 1-6, 8-12 and14 of Tentative Parcel Map 8574. These lots are fronting on or southerly of 1900 and 2000 North Loop Road. The proposed Planned Development Amendment would allow a five percent (5%) increase in building coverage for parcels larger than 5.5 acres. Currently, maximum allowed building coverage is thirty five percent (35%) for lots larger than 5.5 acres and forty percent (40%) on lots smaller than 5.5 acres. The maximum lot coverage allowed on lots smaller than 5.5 acres would not be affected. The proposed Planned Development Amendment would also decrease the minimum landscape coverage by five to ten percent (5 to 10%), depending on lot size. Currently, 30% landscaping coverage is required on lots smaller than 5.5 acres and 25% landscaping coverage is required for parcels larger than 5.5 acres. The proposed Planned Development Amendment would decrease the landscaping requirement to twenty percent (20%) for these lots regardless of size. The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned Development.) This item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda. Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this item. The public hearing was opened. Mr. David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern that this item would chip away at the rules established for building on Bay Farm Island. He had not heard any good reasons for allowing slightly less landscaping or more construction density of warehouse structures on these parcels. He inquired whether further subdivision would then be allowed. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Mr. Garrison noted that this business park was originally conceived as a campus-like set… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-27 | 3 | In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the future possibility of building up, Ms. Eliason noted that the Final Development Plans would preclude that choice because the applicant would have to meet parking requirements; parking was based on a partial warehouse-type use, which was less dense than office. She noted that the entire lot would have to be redeveloped entirely; they would not be able to just add a second story. Vice President Cook expressed concern about having a balance in the public interest, including safety for children and traffic. She had been uncomfortable approving these speculative projects without more information about traffic, parking and other issues. She suggested a potential mitigation by allowing 7-B to be approved without also approving all the parcelization and changing the landscaping requirements. Ms. Eliason noted that the PDA could be limited to only Parcel 14 (Ettore). That would not allow 7- C (four flex warehouses) to move forward at this time. The Parcel Map referenced was already approved by the Planning Board and will be heard by City Council in July. Vice President Cook did not feel she had enough information, and needed more environmental analysis and examination of the schools and roads. She believed the business park as a whole was excellent quality. Mr. Lynch suggested that the 15 parcels be brought back for discussion of circulation, landscaping, and building design, and to move the Tentative Map forward. Ms. Eliason noted that the Tentative Map had been approved, and that the entire business park was under a development agreement, which specified the land uses that may be included in the business park. Those uses included Office, R&D, as well as any use in the C-M District, which also included warehouse/light manufacturing. She noted that the Board had limited ability to change the uses. Vice President Cook would like the parcels, except for Ettore, to return for further analysis and discussion of compatibility of uses with schools and future plans f… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-27 | 4 | 7-B. FDP05-0001/DR05-0050 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates for Ettore Products (DG). 2100 North Loop Road. The applicant requests a Final Development Plan and Design Review for a new 88,630 square foot warehouse, office and light manufacturing facility located at 2100 N. Loop Road (Parcel No. 14 on Tentative Parcel Map No 8574). The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned Development.) This item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda. This item was discussed under Item 7-A. M/S Lynch/Mariani and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-24 to approve a Final Development Plan and Design Review for a new 88,630 square foot warehouse, office and light manufacturing facility located at 2100 N. Loop Road (Parcel No. 14 on Tentative Parcel Map No 8574). AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 4 June 27, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-27 | 5 | 7-C. FDP05-0002/DR05-0057 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant requests a Final Development Plan and Design Review for four (4) new flex warehouse, office and light manufacturing facilities ranging in size from 13,900 to 33,272 square feet on 6.41 acres adjacent to and southerly of 2000 North Loop Road (Parcels 8-12 on Tentative Parcel Map No. 8574). These facilities will be on one lot of approximately 11.53 acres until the final map is approved. The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing- - Planned Development.) This item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda. This item was discussed under Item 7-A. M/S Lynch/Cook and unanimous to continue this item, which will be renoticed following discussion with the applicants. AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 5 June 27, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-27 | 6 | 7-D. TM05-0001 - Regency Realty Group, Inc. 2599 Blanding Avenue (AT). Applicants request approval of Parcel Map 8725 to reconfigure four parcels of land at the Bridgeside Shopping Center. The site is located within the C-2 PD, Central Business Planned Development District. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda. Mr. Tai summarized the staff report The public hearing was opened. There were no speakers. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the timing of this action, Mr. Tai replied that it was appropriate because before the public access easements can be recorded on the site, the parcels must be recorded first. He noted that should not be affected by any change in public access easements. Those easements would be recorded by a separate instrument at a later time. The Broadway Street right of way through the site would be permanently abandoned. Vice President Cook noted that she was concerned about the current proposed location for the transformers in the view corridors and welcoming area. Mr. Tai noted that staff was reviewing those issues, which were unrelated to this item. M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-25 to approve Parcel Map 8725 to reconfigure four parcels of land at the Bridgeside Shopping Center. AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 6 June 27, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-27 | 7 | 7-E. DR04-0051, 616 Pacific Avenue, Applicant: Erwin Roxas (AT/EP). The proposal is an appeal of the code enforcement action which determined that the demolition of a single- family residence, located at the above address, is in violation of the AMC $13-21-10 b (removal or demolition of an historic structure without proper permits) and is, therefore, subject to the five (5) year stay that prevents the issuance of any building or construction- related permits for the property. The applicant had received Major Design Review approval in July 2004 for proposed 1st and 2nd story additions, enlargement of the detached garage, interior remodel, porch additions, etc. that would add approximately 1,562 square feet to the dwelling and 225 square feet to the garage and storage shed. The property is within the R-4, Neighborhood Residential District. (Continued from the meeting of June 13, 2005.) M/S Mariani/Piziali and unanimous to schedule this item for the City Council. AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 7 June 27, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-27 | 8 | 7-F. UP05-0012 - Regency Realty Group, Inc. 2523 Blanding Avenue (AT). Applicants request approval of an amendment to Use Permit UP03-0016 to allow operation of the Service Station between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. No changes are proposed to the car wash. The site is located within the C-2 PD, Central Business Planned Development District. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda. Mr. Tai summarized the staff report. He noted that the extension of hours would apply only to the service station, not the car wash, and added that there would be no alcoholic beverage sales associated with the gas station. Delivery trucks would be prohibited from idling their engines during delivery. Staff recommended approval of this item. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Jim Strehlow, 3122 Gibbons Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that a service station was needed, but not on a 24-hour basis. He believed that Bridgeside should be a good neighbor to the Fernside homeowners. He would agree to hours from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. Mr. Rich Bennett, Windsor Drive, spoke in opposition to this item, and believed a 24-hour operation could become an attractive nuisance. He expressed concern about automotive and noise pollution from cars with loud stereos. He was also concerned about loitering late at night, and did not want extra traffic in the neighborhoods at that time of night. He was very concerned about the potential for increased crime. Mr. Harold MacKenzie, 3263 Thompson Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item and expressed concern about noise, traffic and the potential for increased crime in their neighborhood. He opposed a 24-hour operation, but would support a moderated schedule. He suggested the use of a sound wall. Mr. Doug Wiele, applicant, noted that their existing conditions of approval allowed for a 24-hour operation for the supermarket, with a limitation on the car wash and gas station. He noted that this application was a request for modification for the operat… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-27 | 9 | change in hours, such as 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Mr. Tai advised that the applicant would be willing to set the hours from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-26 to approve an amendment to Use Permit UP03-0016 to allow operation of the Service Station between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. No changes are proposed to the car wash. AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 9 June 27, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-27 | 10 | 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 8-A. DR05-0041 - Final Design Review of the Proposed New Cineplex - City of Alameda (CE/JO). Final design review, including consideration of Section 106 findings for the proposed Cineplex at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video Maniacs site. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the C-C and C-C-PD (Community Commercial and Community Commercial -- Planned Development) Districts. (Continued from the meeting of June 13, 2005.) Ms. Ott summarized the staff report. The changes proposed during public and Board comment were: 1. The dome element was eliminated; 2. The aluminum system was changed from clear to dark; and 3. The roof lines were set back as much as possible on the walls closest to the Alameda Theater. Ms. Ott noted that the dome element was eliminated, but that staff recommended that the clear aluminum system be retained. The project architect was able to set back the corner slightly at the joining of the Cineplex and the historic theater. She noted that the architect, Rob Henry, was not able to attend this meeting. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Kyle Connor, Alameda Entertainment Associates, displayed the revised plans for the proposed Cineplex on the overhead screen. President Cunningham advised that more than five speaker slips had been received. M/S Mariani/Piziali and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes. AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 The public hearing was opened. Mr. Wilbur Richards, 2235 Clement Street, spoke in support of this item. He noted that the island would continue to change, and that it could not return to the past. He noted that the parking lot would be difficult to change to another use, and hoped the proper street trees would be chosen. Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, spoke in opposition to this item. He believed this project was too massive for this corner and should be scaled down. He did not believe the Cineplex would be financially viable. Ms. Ani Dimus… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf,11 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-27 | 11 | into the parking structure. She did not believe the Cineplex would be financially feasible in five years. Ms. Linda Hansen spoke in opposition to this item, and displayed photographs of the site with projected massing superimposed on the existing site. She noted that while the Twin Towers Church is taller than the proposed structure, the massing of the Cineplex overwhelmed them. She suggested building an open plaza at the Video Maniacs corner with a two-story retail space and a gathering place. She displayed her sketch, and noted this was more in line with contemporary design theory. She believed this would be more pedestrian-oriented. Ms. Debbie George, speaking as AN individual, not PSBA, spoke in support of this item. She noted that there had been at least ten public meetings on this subject, and noted that the designers had been responsive to public and Board requests. Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that he was a business owner and a member of the Chamber of Commerce. He did not believe this project belonged on this particular corner, and believed that the building was too massive. He noted that over 1,500 signatures had been gathered in opposition to this project. He believed that Alameda deserved a better fit than this design, and would like to see alternatives that fit Alameda's character better. Ms. Barbara Marchand, spoke in support of this item. She believed that no matter how many meetings are held, that there would not be 100 percent agreement on this project. She believed the retail establishments and the people of Alameda would benefit from this project. Mr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, noted that AAPS has gone on record supporting the project concept, but had some concerns about the design. He read an excerpt of the report (page 9, item 2) written by the consultant, Bruce Anderson, expressing concerns about the design, and suggesting that refinements of the design should be made. He believed… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf,12 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-27 | 12 | particularly to support police and fire services. Mr. Gene Oh, Alameda Bicycle, spoke in support of this item, and believed the parking structure was also necessary to create a viable and vibrant outdoor downtown. Ms. Deborah Overfield, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that she had discussed her concerns with Mayor Johnson. She would like to see a two level parking structure, and only one screen instead of multiple screens. She realized this project had been going on for a long time, but did not believe the current design fit Alameda's character. She was very concerned that the new structure would block the Twin Towers Church, which had just installed new stained glass. She believed that more people should walk in town and not worry so much about parking. She did not like the design at all. Ms. Valerie Ruma, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that she would speak on Items 8-A and 8-B simultaneously. She realized that a lot of work had gone into this project, and believed that many Alameda citizens were not aware of the reality of the designs. She noted that some of the recipients of the RFP were not in an appropriate position to do the work, and was not surprised that there were so few responses. She believed the height of the buildings were excessive, and while they did not exceed the decorative structures of the nearby buildings, the structure did overwhelm the main adjacent structures. She suggested that there be sensitive renovation of the Alameda Theater to its original three screens, elimination of the Cineplex building, which would allow for a more distributed parking solution, and public open spaces or smaller scale retail included in the design. Ms. Rosemary McNally, 2145 San Antonio, spoke in opposition to this item. She had attended or watched many HAB and Planning Board meetings, and believed that the general public had only recently understood what was happening. She opposed the 20-inch overhang, and to it being SO close to the street. She suggested building a big theater in Harbo… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.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]) );