pages
2,990 rows where body = "PlanningBoard" sorted by body
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: page
date (date) >30 ✖
- 2005-02-28 26
- 2007-03-26 25
- 2005-06-13 24
- 2005-06-27 24
- 2008-06-23 23
- 2012-03-12 23
- 2006-11-13 22
- 2008-08-11 21
- 2021-07-26 21
- 2005-01-10 20
- 2005-08-22 20
- 2006-07-24 20
- 2006-10-23 19
- 2007-09-24 18
- 2012-02-27 18
- 2021-04-26 18
- 2021-07-12 18
- 2005-05-23 17
- 2006-09-25 17
- 2007-05-29 17
- 2008-04-28 17
- 2008-12-08 17
- 2005-01-24 16
- 2005-09-29 16
- 2006-04-24 16
- 2007-01-08 16
- 2007-03-12 16
- 2005-02-14 15
- 2006-02-27 15
- 2006-12-11 15
- …
Link | body ▼ | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard/2019-06-10.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2019-06-10 | 1 | APPROVED MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD MONDAY, JUNE 10, 2019 1. CONVENE President Sullivan convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE Board Member Cavanaugh led the flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Present: President Sullivan, Board Members Cavanaugh, Rothenberg, Teague. Absent: Board Members Curtis, Mitchell, and Saheba. 4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION *None* 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS *None* 6. CONSENT CALENDAR *None* 7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 7-A 2019-6983 PLN18-0562 - Planned Development Amendment, Final Development Plan, Design Review, and Zoning Text Amendment - 2331 North Loop Road - Applicant: John Lipp on behalf of the Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter (FAAS). Public hearing to consider a Planned Development Amendment, Final Development Plan, Design Review, and Zoning Text Amendment for a new approximately 12,000 square foot two-story facility for FAAS that would have indoor boarding for up to 37 animals, adoption and veterinary services, administrative offices, and community events. The project is located in the C-M-PD (Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development) Zoning District. The City previously certified/adopted a Final Environmental Impact Report for Harbor Bay Isle (EIR) and Addendum to the EIR (collectively, Previous CEQA Documents) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). None of the circumstances necessitating further CEQA review are present, thus the City can rely on the Previous CEQA Documents. David Sablan, Planner Il with the Planning, Building, and Transportation Department, gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3970959&GUID=3F1268BE 1AOA-4BD5-ADC5-9099783AC6F2&FullText=1 Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 1 of 9 June 10, 2019 | PlanningBoard/2019-06-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2019-06-10.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2019-06-10 | 2 | Board Member Teague said the planned development amendment is not included as a separate resolution and asked if that would require City Council action. Andrew Thomas, Acting Director of Planning, Building, and Transportation, said they are approving the project with a site specific amendment and are not changing the rules for the broader development agreement. He said approving the final development plan for the project would be sufficient to give force to the amendment. Board Member Teague asked the applicant if a restriction on free running animals in the run area at night would pose a problem. John Lipp, Executive Director of FAAS, said that the animals would all be completely inside at night and only be outside with staff and volunteers during the daytime. President Sullivan asked whether the shade structure on the roof was included in the listed height. Staff Member Sablan said the parapet height was 30 feet and the pavilion was an additional ten feet. He said it was open on one side. Marisa Tye, project architect, said the pavilion encloses the stairs and a storage area. She said there are areas open to the shade, and some covered areas for uses like handwashing and garbage. President Sullivan asked what type of outreach was conducted with the immediate neighbors. Mr. Lipp said they sent letters to the homeowners and knocked on doors. He said they spoke with three of the five immediate neighbors and had good conversations. Board Member Teague asked the applicant whether the project would be untenable if the City Council did not approve the zoning change allowing the outdoor run. Mr. Lipp said they would like to be able to socialize the dogs in groups using the run, but could possibly use the same model as their other facility where they have to take the dogs off of the property for exercise. Board Member Rothenberg asked if the applicant considered using any type of sound wall along the property lines. Mr. Lipp said they want to be a good neighbor and said they are engineering the facility to modern best p… | PlanningBoard/2019-06-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2019-06-10.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2019-06-10 | 3 | Ms. Tye said the landscape plan will provide screening along the northern property line and they will also have further sound evaluations at the next phase. There were no public speakers. Staff Member Thomas added that the neighborhood was noticed for the hearing, in addition to the applicants' outreach efforts. Board Member Teague said he is in favor of the project, but wants to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's." He said that condition number 27 should be changed from one to two curb cuts. He said there are always potential unintended consequences to zoning changes. He said he thinks the changes are over broad. He said we are eliminating the idea of allowing kennels, which he does not believe was the intent. He expressed concerns about this use being immediately adjacent to residential use and wanted to limit unleashed outdoor play to daylight hours, such as 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., and otherwise leashed outdoor access would be available. He said he would specify how to narrow down the use permit to specifically address animal shelters and not make other changes to the by right areas of the use permit. He said he is looking forward to this project being completed. Board Member Teague moved approval of the project, and recommend approval to the City Council, with the following changes: to allow two curb cuts; in use permit section ii that we do not drop the word "kennels;" in use permit number three that it read "Veterinary clinics and/or veterinaryhospitals and animal shelters within two hundred feet of any R District only upon a finding by the Planning Director that sufficient air conditioning and soundproofing will be provided to effectivelyconfine odors and noise so as not to interfere with the public health, safety, and welfare. No outside pens or unsupervised runs shall be permitted. Supervised, unleashed outdoor runs shall be permitted during the hours of 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., otherwise leasheda access of the outdoor run is allowed. Board Member Rothenberg seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. 7-B 2019-6984 Pub… | PlanningBoard/2019-06-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2019-06-10.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2019-06-10 | 4 | President Sullivan asked how many parking spaces the planting beds (bulb outs) would take away. Staff Member Thomas said that the midblock bulb outs would result in the loss of four parking spaces. Jason Victor, landscape architect, said the bulb outs are included to be consistent with the rest of Fifth Street for traffic calming purposes. He said the midblock treatments could be considered optional, but they would like to keep the bulb outs at the intersections. President Sullivan said she would prefer to remove the midblock bulb outs. There were no public speakers. Board Member Teague said that he anticipates parking being important with the project and would support removing the bulb outs at the midblock crossing. Board Member Teague moved approval with the change to remove the midblock bulb outs in favor of additional parking spaces. Board Member Cavanaugh seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. President Sullivan asked whether we anticipate a problem with the Chinese Elm trees being susceptible to Dutch Elm disease. Mr. Victor said he has been monitoring the Chinese Elm trees already in use in the previous phase at Alameda Landing and said they have been faring extremely well. He said all of the trees have been doing quite well considering the soil conditions they were dealing with. 7-C 2019-6985 Planning Board Study Session to consider preliminary initial development concepts for the 356 dwelling units on the Alameda Landing Waterfront north of the intersection of Fifth Street and Mitchell Avenue. The project is located within the M-X (Mixed-Use) Zoning District. Staff Member Dong introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found at: ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3971106&GUID=EC26285E- 8D4E-4842-99FB-4D2AAB2E3A69&FullText=1 President Sullivan asked about the plans to potentially run a bridge through the housing development, and asked what that would mean for the project. Staff Member Thomas said the City is working to design a new bicycle and pedestrian crossing… | PlanningBoard/2019-06-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2019-06-10.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2019-06-10 | 5 | want to design the neighborhood so that it is attractive whether or not the bridge is ever constructed. Scott Hilke, Pulte Homes, and the applicant team gave a presentation. President Sullivan asked if the reliance on the Chinese Elm would be a problem given the potential for disease. Mr. Abed said that anytime you have a monoculture that disease is a concern. He said there is a mix of other species in the plan and that so far the tree is doing well in the area. Board Member Rothenberg asked the developer to explain the thinking behind the different building heights and their placement within site. Staff Member Thomas said the Master Plan permits five stories. Mr. Hilke said most of the product they intend to build is three stories, and the flats would be in four story buildings. Board Member Rothenberg said the design needs some refinement. She said the vernaculars of the different products are very different and asked how the products would work together and how the stucco would hold up in the marine environment. Mr. Hilke said they were attempting to show a range of possible designs for consideration. He said that they could stick with a more consistent style, or even try to match the Tri Pointe style of the previous phase of development. Cindy Ma, project architect, said that three of the four products are more contemporary. She said the compact townhomes happen to have a pitched roof and they were just trying to show that there can be different approaches taken with the different typologies. Board Member Rothenberg suggested that there be a unified vision when they bring the design back. She added that a 3D simulation may be helpful. She asked if a market rate development this large (356 units) would be consistent with proposed changes in the General Plan regarding support for a range of affordable housing options. Staff Member Thomas said the site is subject to a development agreement from 2006 and any proposed changes to code would not apply. Board Member Teague asked if the EVA on the west side of the pro… | PlanningBoard/2019-06-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2019-06-10.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2019-06-10 | 6 | Board Member Teague said he understood that some of the units may be run by the Housing Authority and not be for sale market rate. Mr. Hilke said they are in discussions with the Housing Authority about how best to fulfill the affordable housing requirements for the project. He said one option would be to sell a finished building to the Housing Authority that they would then manage. Board Member Teague said the retail section was glossed over and asked for more information. Mr. Hilke said they currently envision a single story retail only building with frontage onto the Waterfront Plaza and the east-west roadway. Board Member Teague asked if the potential pedestrian and bike bridge has caused them to reduce the number of housing units. Mr. Hilke said the placement of the bridge within the view corridor means it is not a problem unless the location changed. Board Member Teague asked if the change in the AMP access on the east side of the project side would be a problem. Staff Member Thomas said that they will work with AMP and make sure there is sufficient access. Board Member Teague asked why the bike connection to the Tri Pointe property is listed only as potential. Mr. Hilke said that they could build a connection, but that they do not control access to the Tri Pointe property. Board Member Cavanaugh asked why the project is being built before a bridge is constructed. Staff Member Thomas said that the bridge planning is a complicated long term project. He said they do not want to stop all housing development while they work on a bridge solution. Board Member Cavanaugh asked what the plan would be for noise abatement with all of the marine services happening to the west of the project site. Mr. Hilke said that they will have to do sound studies and mitigation, but that they will absolutely have to also do disclosure to potential residents about impacts of noise at the site. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 6 of 9 June 10, 2019 | PlanningBoard/2019-06-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2019-06-10.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2019-06-10 | 7 | Staff Member Thomas said that the Master Plan required the 50 foot buffer on the westem edge of the property. He said the biggest noise concerns of the adjacent maritime commercial project will be from trucks. Board Member Cavanaugh said that the contrasting building styles along the Fifth Street corridor with the flat roofs across from the pitched would create a weird feeling that needs to be addressed. He said the imagery could have been a better quality. He added that Fifth Street should be a grand entrance to the waterfront. President Sullivan asked if any of the townhomes have any patios or backyards. Ms. Ma said that the townhomes would have private decks or balconies, but no backyards. President Sullivan asked who the typical customer would be, saying that families would want to have a yard for small children to play unsupervised. Mr. Hilke said they are trying to provide a large number of homes and the design is not conducive to private yards, except for the single family homes which comprisete percent of the project. He said the waterfront park is the amenity for the project. He said they are appealing to a first time buyer looking for a smaller home, noting that they have products as small as 900 square feet. President Sullivan opened the public hearing. Raymond Hsu said he lives in the adjacent Tri Pointe development and is looking forward to the waterfront park being built. He said the four story flats would not fit with their neighborhood and would loom over their balconies and yards. He suggested having a bike path along the eastern edge of the project site to create a buffer and connect to the waterfront park. He said the flats with roof decks could be situated closer to the waterfront where they could take advantage of the views. Ashle Baxter said he also lives in the adjacent Symmetry by Tri Pointe community. He said the existing community should be considered when determining where to site the four story buildings. He said that any rooftop decks should have rules that account for potential noise… | PlanningBoard/2019-06-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2019-06-10.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2019-06-10 | 8 | Staff Member Thomas said there are basic conditions that apply to the project. He said the prevailing westerly winds make it difficult to prevent dust from impacting the marina. He said they work on conditions to deal with the dust, including mitigations and even boat cleaning services for residents. Board Member Rothenberg said she would be happy to participate in drafting enforceable conditions for the general contractor to follow to incentivize compliance. Board Member Teague said he agreed with Board Member Cavanaugh about the design of the small townhomes being very out of place along the Fifth Street frontage. He said there is little variance in roof lines. He said the microtownhouses have potential. He added that the condo designs were bland. He said the six unit flat example in the presentation was much more appealing than what was in the plan, which lacked character or variation. He said the pocket parks need real definition when the plan comes back. He said the connection to the promenade is vital. He said he would not have a problem averaging the two traffic calculations for townhomes and flats to apply to the micro townhomes. He said we need more housing. He said the developer could build more units in taller buildings. He said the design guidelines indicate taller buildings should be further away from the water's edge. He said the pedestrian access from the development to the shuttle at Target needs to be safe. He added that he appreciated the additional view corridors in the plan. President Sullivan said she is concerned that we are not focusing on families and children. She said it affects the long term health and viability of the community. She said the massing of so many units in each building is not attractive to her. Board Member Cavanaugh asked if we can make the connection to the ferry terminal easier for people without depending on cars. Staff Member Thomas said the North Housing project will open up connections through the Estuary Park that will dramatically shorten the distance to get to t… | PlanningBoard/2019-06-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2019-06-10.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2019-06-10 | 9 | The staff report can be found at: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3970897&GUID=9657280C 5ED6-4670-A37C-6429C86D5855&FullText=1 9-B 2019-6941 Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation Department Projects Staff Member Thomas said the Planning Board Tour has been rescheduled to June 20, 2019. President Sullivan said she would like the bus to visit Ballena Bay before returning back to City Hall. Staff Member Thomas said the June 24th meeting would have the Alameda Marina Tentative Map, South Loop Road project, and some Zoning Text Amendments for consideration. Board Member Teague asked that the topic of rooming houses and shared living be revisited and addressed with the proposed changes. He said they left a hole in the zoning ordinance when the previous changes were made. Staff Member Thomas said that the boatyard RFQ period is complete and there were two responses. He said the City may have to rethink how they go about finding a boatyard operator and that they are not giving up on the idea of a boatyard. Board Member Cavanaugh suggested a subtenant approach to providing marine services. Board Member Rothenberg suggested finding a model from another jurisdiction and emulating a successful approach. She said the motivation needs to be there for the City's business partner. 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS *None* 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS *None* 12. President Sullivan said she would be moving on from the board when the new members are seated. 13. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS *None* 14. ADJOURNMENT President Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 9:18 p.m. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 9 of 9 June 10, 2019 | PlanningBoard/2019-06-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2011-07-11.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2011-07-11 | 1 | APPROVED MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD MONDAY, JULY 11, 2011 7:00 p.m. 1. CONVENE: 7:12 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE: Board member Henneberry 3. ROLL CALL: Present: President Ezzy Ashcraft, Board members: Burton, Henneberry, Kohlstrand & Zuppan Absent: Vice-President Autorino 4. MINUTES: Minutes from the Regular meeting of March 14, 2011 Continued due to lack of quorum. Minutes from the Special meeting of March 28, 2011 Continued due to lack of quorum. Minutes from the meeting of April 25, 2011 Continued due to lack of quorum. Minutes from the Regular meeting of June 13, 2011 President Ezzy-Ashcraft provided changes to the minutes. Board member Zuppan made a motion, seconded by board member Henneberry, to approve the minutes as amended. (4- 0). Board member Kohlstrand abstained. 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None 6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Written Report 6-A Future Agendas Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Services Manager, provided an overview of the upcoming projects. 6-B Zoning Administrator Report Approval of Use Permits for the Bladium and Extension for Alameda Point Master Use Permit at Regular Zoning Administrator Hearing of 7/5/11. 6-C Design Review Approvals 7/5/2011 No comments from the board. 7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None APPROVED Minutes Page 1 of 7 7/11/11 Planning Board Meeting | PlanningBoard/2011-07-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2011-07-11.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2011-07-11 | 2 | 8.CONSENT CALENDAR: None 9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 9-A Tentative Parcel Map 8060 and Density Bonus Application PLN10-0262-2229 Clement Street (Boatworks Project) Applicant: Francis Collins. A proposed tentative map and density bonus application to construct 182 residential units, internal roadways and alleys and a waterfront park on a 9.48-acre property located at 2229 Clement Street at the corner of Clement Street and Oak Street. Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, presented the project and provided a brief summary of the long development process of this site. He explained the conditions of approval placed on the tentative map. Board member Kohlstrand asked for clarification on the street access on the northern side of the parcel. Andrew Thomas stated that it does not provide vehicular access, just pedestrian access. He then reiterated that the long list of conditions on the parcel map ensure that all past and current agreements on the project are clearly articulated in one location. Board member Burton asked the architect for clarification on the design of the back alley and whether there are ways to avoid a monotone alley with little visual relief. Mr. Philip Banta, architect for the project, explained the planning and design approach and stated that the layout as shown on the site plan is final, but that if possible the alleys could be modified in simple ways. President Ezzy-Ashcraft opened the public comment period. Mr. Thomas Foley, Alameda Landing property owner, supports the project, but would like to see a six foot sound wall between both sites to alleviate sound from the businesses on the residential development. He is concerned that his parking lot may be used for overflow parking of the residential development, if there is insufficient parking on site. He asked for clarification on the parking requirements of the site. He distributed aerial photographs of his site to explain his location and parking concerns. President Ezzy-Ashcraft closed the public comment period. President Ezzy-Ashcraft is ple… | PlanningBoard/2011-07-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2011-07-11.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2011-07-11 | 3 | conditions of approval and discussed the different streets. He stated that the bioswales would be designed at a later time, included in the landscaping plans, and brought to the Planning Board at a later date. Board member Kohlstrand asked why there would not be on-street parking on Oak Street. Mr. Naclerio explained that the development requires no on-street parking to allow for the development. Board member Kohlstrand is concerned that the traffic on Oak Street would be fairly fast. She asked how the pedestrians would be protected and how the traffic flow would be slowed down. Mr. Naclerio explained that traffic restrictions would only be placed on the north-bound traffic lanes on Oak Street. He stated that traffic flow would be regulated with stop-signs. Pedestrian crossings are present. President Ezzy-Ashcraft asked how the bike lane would be accommodated. Mr. Naclerio stated that the recently adopted Master Bike Plan shows this as a bike route, not a bike lane, and signs would be posted, but not have pavement enhancements. Board member Burton asked whether the 22-foot alley way would allow for sufficient backup space. Mr. Naclerio stated that this is the minimum width permitted; the street trees would be located on paseos, in the front of the residences, to not further infringe on the alley width. President Ezzy-Ashcraft asked whether the electrical transformers could be located tucked into the vegetation to make the area more aesthetically pleasing and so people do not trip over them. Mr. Naclerio stated that Public Works has limited jurisdiction over this issue and their placement, but stated that he would do his best to address the placement of said items. Board member Kohlstrand asked that the conditions be amended to clearly show that the residences' front doors face Blanding Avenue, as well as Clement Avenue, Oak Street and Elm Street. She inquired whether the landscaping plan and waterfront park design, including docks, would return to the Planning Board for approval. Andrew Thomas stated that those p… | PlanningBoard/2011-07-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2011-07-11.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2011-07-11 | 4 | Board member Kohlstrand is concerned about the focus of landscaping on only the paseos instead of the alleys. She opposes a six foot wall between the commercial and the residential uses because it would present a formidable barrier that would do little to integrate the development into the neighborhood. Board member Burton would like to see some form of landscaping in the alleys. He would also like to amend the conditions to stipulate a minimum sustainable design standard for the development, such as Build it Green or a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). President Ezzy-Ashcraft seconded this and asked for the architect to describe the sustainable design features of the project. Mr. Banta elaborated on the design principles for the units, which would allow for photovoltaic systems, accommodate daylighting, passive heating and cooling, and greywater recycling. Specific designs would come before the Board at a later date. Board member Henneberry stated that he supported the project and would be able to move forward on this project. President Ezzy-Ashcraft summarized the project again. She is not in favor of locating a sound wall between the commercial and residential use on the east end. She would prefer trees as a screening. If the commercial parking lot proved to become overflow parking for the residential development, then towing and ticketing would likely solve that problem. President Ezzy-Ashcraft opened the public comment period for a second time. Ms. Helen Sause, Alameda resident, is supportive of the project and commends the applicant and staff for their efforts to develop a project that meets so many of the public's goals. She is also not in favor of sound walls. She recommends distribution of the low- income units amongst the development to avoid stigmatization. Mr. Foley, property owner, elaborated on the parking conditions as shown on his aerial graphic that he had distributed earlier. In lieu of a sound wall, perhaps a wrought iron fence would also work. President Ezzy-Ashcraft closed… | PlanningBoard/2011-07-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2011-07-11.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2011-07-11 | 5 | to screen the homes from the adjacent commercial property. Board member Kohlstrand made a motion, seconded by board member Zuppan, to approve the project as amended. Approved as amended 5-0. 9-B PLN08-0479 - 1051 Pacific Marina Review of Compliance with Conditions of Approval. Pursuant to the conditions of approval of PLN08-0479, the Planning Board will be reviewing compliance of these conditions at this public hearing. Any interested person is invited to attend and give testimony regarding the stated conditions of approval as well as their opinions as to the compliance of the project with its conditions of approval. Further, at this hearing the Planning Board will have the authority to modify any condition of approval that they determine as appropriate to meet the findings prescribed for this permit as well as the spirit and intent of the Alameda Municipal Code. Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch Planning Services Manager, summarized the project history and noted changes in the staff report given an update by the property owner. Board member Zuppan asked if the condition of approval regarding the preparation of food has been addressed. Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch explained that the commercial kitchen has not been used at this site by the current tenant. Board member Zuppan asked for clarification on the business that was operating at this site. Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch explained that the operator has been the same, however, the name of the business under which the operator was operating had been different. This situation has been remedied since the report was written. The board limited all speakers to three minutes. President Ezzy-Ashcraft opened the public comment period. Ms. Maria Powers-Bush, business operator for Hannah's on the Bay, elaborated on the business operations since December 2010 and the kitchen use to date. She reinforced that she makes every effort to comply with the conditions of approval as stipulated by the Use Permit. Mr. Michael Hershey, member of the Oakland Yacht Club, asked whether there have been co… | PlanningBoard/2011-07-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2011-07-11.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2011-07-11 | 6 | noise, drinking in the parking lot, picking-up of trash. He requested a compliance review in six months. Mr. Richard Thompson, business operator for Hannah's on the Bay, discussed the business operations of Hannah's on the Bay. Mr. Luis Munguia, Point Marina Vista property manager, stated that the business operator meets the conditions of approval and reiterated the venue's efforts to be a responsive neighbor. Mr. Robert Chew, East Bay resident, explained his involvement with T25CL (LLC) and Hannah's by the Bay and its potential for job creation and bringing entertainment to the East Bay. Ms. Carla Thomas, writer and associated with the venue, is supportive of the project. Ms. Nancy Shemick, neighbor, stated that the business operator is making a good effort to address compliance. She would be delighted if the business operator was even more proactive, so no complaints would occur at all. She is unsure who really carries responsibility with the mix of business operator, caterer, and property owner. Mr. Dave Marshburn, Rear Commodore of the Oakland Yacht Club, stated that his venue is compliance with the Oakland Yacht Club Use Permit. He would be more supportive of the neighboring venue, Point Marina/Hannah's by the Bay, if it also comply with its conditions. He then elaborated on how some conditions are not being met. Mr. Andre Ward highlighted the mission of the company T25CL and explained the linkage between Hannah's by the Bay and T25CL. He requested a continuance to allow for more time to inform staff on the nature of the business T25CL. President Ezzy-Ashcraft closed the public comment period. Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that more research would be required to see how T25CL fits into the operation of the Hannah's by the Bay. Board member Kohlstrand stated that it is unclear which business is operating at this time and how all conditions are met by the businesses. She recommended a continuance to allow for a review, and later determination whether another Use Permit may be needed for the T25CL. Board memb… | PlanningBoard/2011-07-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2011-07-11.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2011-07-11 | 7 | at the venue. She was concerned that the notification radius of the project was 500 feet when the Alameda Municipal Code only requires 300 feet. Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that the original noticing area was increased due to the water orientation and the desire to notify the neighboring homeowners. She would like to bring the project back to the Board in September with a condition for condition review for compliance. At this point she would like to also evaluate the need for a new use permit or amendment to the Master Plan for Marina Village. Item will be brought back to the Regular Planning Board Meeting of September 26, 2011 for further review. 9-C PLN10-0362 - 701 Atlantic Avenue - Planned Development Amendment and Design Review. The City of Alameda Housing Authority proposes to amend its 1988 Planned Development Agreement to allow a 600 square foot one story addition to an existing office building. Ms. Laura Ajello, Planner, presented the project. Board member Kohlstrand asked for clarification on the setback summary table in the staff report. Ms. Ajello explained that the table and that the structure was developed under Planned Development. Motion made by board member Kohlstrand, seconded by board member Henneberry, to approve the project. Motion approved 5-0. 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Information regarding sea level rise policies in advance of the July 25, 2011 Planning Board Discussion. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: President Ezzy-Ashcraft announced the Lawrence Berkeley National BBQ on July 13, 2011 at the Alameda Point Theatre. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:02 p.m. APPROVED Minutes Page 7 of 7 7/11/11 Planning Board Meeting | PlanningBoard/2011-07-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2015-07-27.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2015-07-27 | 1 | APPROVED MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD MONDAY, JULY 27, 2015 1. CONVENE: 7:02 P.M. 2. FLAG SALUTE: Board member Burton led the flag salute 3. ROLL CALL: Present: President Henneberry, Vice President Alvarez and Board Members Burton, Knox White, Köster, and Zuppan Absent: Tang 4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: Staff requested that item 9-B be heard before the regular agenda items. 9-B Presentation of project under review at 1926 Park Street. No action required. David Sablan, Planner I, introduced the project. Marcel Sengul, property owner, described his vision for the project. He noted he would want to use residence space for himself. Bridgett Shank, Timbre Architecture, presented details of the storage container design, noting the green space on project site would be available for the public and the containers are a re-use of existing materials. President Henneberry asked if the tower is an elevator. Ms. Shank stated it was not an elevator but stairs. Board member Burton stated he would like seeing retail space and not have the café take the whole space. Mr. Sengul stated that the lobby breaks up the space, corner is small area. He believes an ATM is a good idea for a tenant. Board member Burton asked the reason for the residence to have their entrance on Park Street stating that it is a gateway project and doesn't think having an ATM right at the corner is a great idea and would like to see something more powerful. He feels the project is not compliant with the North Park Street guidelines in a couple of ways and feels there must be a strong justification to break these rules with the first gateway project. Mr. Sengul stated that the project is different than any other and ties to the City's maritime history. Page 1 of 7 Approved Minutes July 27, 2015 Planning Board Meeting | PlanningBoard/2015-07-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2015-07-27.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2015-07-27 | 2 | Ms. Shank mentioned that they are aware of the zero setbacks and retail space on ground floor. Board member Zuppan stated that there are many proposals for shipping container buildings are for temporary uses and asked if this is a permanent use. Mr. Sengul stated that the project is being built as permanent. Board member Zuppan asked if heating, cooling, and insulation are possible. Ms. Shank stated to make it structurally sound it will need to be engineered for a full foundation to minimize cuts into existing walls, but the project will comply with all building and safety codes. Board member's Knox-White, Köster, and Alvarez had no questions. The Board opened public comment. Rich Krinks, Harbor Realty, stated he has been in business for 26 years and gets a lot of calls for small spaces adding the site is difficult to develop. He thinks Marcel has come up with a great idea for the site. Ken Carvalho, resident, stated he thinks it is a neat project for the corner, and mentioned that Webster Street was not looking for another gas station but that was approved for the gateway. This project would improve the Park Street gateway. Arthur Mercado reiterated that the project has staff support. Donna Layburn, President of Downtown Business Association stated that she has been anticipating the project and is pleased the board likes the project. She mentioned that the lot size doesn't lend itself to a large architectural approach and feels that the project creates an attractive statement to the gateway, meets market needs, and aligns with warehouse and maritime history making a statement about the history of Alameda. Karen Bey, resident, stated that she is really excited to see a project like this on Park Street feeling it will attract hipsters like other districts in the Bay Area, for example Temescel Alley and Hayes Valley. Tina Blaine, resident lives block away near Rythmix Cultural Center and is excited about the revitalization the project represents. She stated that the area is difficult to revitalize due to past indus… | PlanningBoard/2015-07-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2015-07-27.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2015-07-27 | 3 | President Henneberry stated that no action will be taken tonight on the project and asked staff when it is coming back to the board. Allen Tai, Planning Services Manager, stated sometime in September or October. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: None 7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 7-A Boatworks Tentative Map 8060 Extension Applicant: Phil Banta, Boatworks, LLC. A proposed extension for a tentative map approved in 2011 to construct 182 residential units, internal roadways and alleys and a waterfront park on a 9.48-acre property located at 2229 through 2241 Clement Street at the corner of Clement Street and Oak Street commonly referred to as the "Boatworks Project". Mr. Tai gave a description of the extension and recommended approval. No questions from the Board. The Board opened public comment. Phil Banta, Applicant, stated he was available to answer questions. No public comment. The Board closed public comment. Board member Knox White stated that the City is encouraging the project move along and it is time for project to actually start instead of getting extension after extension, not sure why keeps coming back. Board member Zuppan was encouraged by the formation of a subcommittees and feels a year is enough time. Board member Burton stated he is a member of the subcommittee and although no work has been done yet, he anticipates that if Alameda Point A can be done in 6 months that this project should be completed in 1 year. Vice President Alvarez asked if the 2-year extension was requested by the applicant or staff. Mr. Tai stated it was requested by applicant. Vice President Alvarez asked why a 2 year extension instead of 1 year. Page 3 of 7 Approved Minutes July 27, 2015 Planning Board Meeting | PlanningBoard/2015-07-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2015-07-27.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2015-07-27 | 4 | Mr. Banta stated that he understands project has been here before and he believes that last time they had a bona-fide partner and vision that was not approved by the Board. He stated that they have every intention to move forward, but are only one of numerous players, and he can't account for unforeseen delays outside of their purview. The motion was made to approve a recommendation to the City Council for a one year extension to Tentative Map 8060 or until July 19, 2016. Motion passed 6-0 7-B Proposed Text Amendments to the City of Alameda Zoning Ordinance (AMC Chapter 30) regarding permit streamlining for residential property improvements and other miscellaneous administrative, technical, and clarifying amendments. Public hearing to consider zoning text amendments that would streamline permitting for residential property improvements and other minor administrative, technical and clarifying amendments to improve usability of the zoning regulations. The proposed amendments are categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations. Mr. Tai presented the staff report and described the primary goal of the amendment is to help homeowners and the staff in the Permit Center by streamlining the process and simplifying the requirements by codifying existing interpretations and procedural alignments. The proposals include streamlining for chimney modifications, front yard fences 3 feet tall and minor improvements approved by Harbor Bay Isle Homeowners Association. He mentioned that Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) wrote a letter with concerns about the proliferation of front yard fences. He stated that there are more code enforcement cases on front yard fences then permits for front yard fences, because of convoluted rules and process. Staff recommends approval of the text amendments to chapter 30. Additional amendments will be brought forward during the fall and will be presented to the City Council as one package of am… | PlanningBoard/2015-07-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2015-07-27.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2015-07-27 | 5 | Board member Köster asked about the chimney regulations and wanted to confirm, if there is no design review if an engineer says it is a safety issue. Mr. Tai replied in the affirmative and noted that a staff check will be performed over the counter. Board member Köster asked if Harbor Bay Homeowners approves the design review is the building permit then is issued. Mr. Tai replied yes, because there is no longer a City noticing process. Board member Burton asked if the design review process for at Harbor Bay Isle (HBI) will be used for the newer developments such as Bayport, Alameda Landing, and Marina Cove and do they have their own design review committee. Mr. Tai stated that HBI was picked because of its size of over 2,800 homes and the fact that they already have a robust Design Review and notification process. The HBIA design guidelines are exactly those adopted by the City of Alameda. He is unsure if the new developments have similar established design guidelines and procedures. Board member Burton asked if there was a front yard fence definition for see-through. Mr. Tai stated no. Board member Burton asked if barriers located outside of the setback will be allowed up to maximum building height in the zoning district. Mr. Tai stated that the section is simply being reworded so that it is clearer. Board member Knox White asked if the parking requirements are limited to single family residences. Mr. Tai stated the specific sections referenced are for the single family homes section. Board member Knox-White asked if development outside of the required setbacks means off the property. Mr. Tai clarified that it meant the buildable areas on the lot inside of the perimeter required setbacks. Board member Zuppan asked if the Harbor Bay Isle design review is subject to votes of their HOA. Mr. Tai stated yes they have a design review process that is required. Board member Zuppan stated that HOA process may not be the same as the City's. Mr. Tai stated that is correct. Page 5 of 7 Approved Minutes July 27, 2015 Plannin… | PlanningBoard/2015-07-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2015-07-27.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2015-07-27 | 6 | The Board opened public comment. Christina Hansen, Harbor Bay Isle Architectural committee, answered questions about the process and provided information about the process. Christopher Buckley, AAPS, questioned the definition of see-through style, 30-5.14. He stated that AAPS has concerns about the Planning Director approval of fences, and suggested bringing back minor design review for fences over five feet, and maybe require design review for taller fences. Possibly include a new section on fences in the design review manual. He is also concerned with the chimney approval being required only on study list properties, stating that there are plenty of properties not on the list that are character defining. He recommends exempting only roof mounted chimneys. The Board closed public comment. Board member Knox White had the same concerns as AAPS in regards to the fences. He feels 5 foot fences block the houses and creates a visual wall. He also cannot support the removal of Harbor Bay Isle from design review because it hands over an important governmental function to a non-governmental body and raises the issue of other HOA's without robust review processes to do the same. Board member Zuppan is also concerned with removing the City from design review. She supports streamlining and lowering cost, but still wants tight City controls. She is also concerned with limiting review of chimney removal, and suggests limiting the exemption to rooftop or not visible from the street, and still encourage they be seismically safe. She is concerned about walling in the street with taller fences. Board member Köster would like to strike the five-foot fence rule and limit it to four feet and remove Planning Director review, also limit chimney exemption on peak of the roof, would prefer removal of HOA design review process. Board member Burton agrees with other Board members in regards to chimney roof, support changing to rooftop or non-visible chimneys. He feels the City is opening up Pandora's Box by removing the design review for … | PlanningBoard/2015-07-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2015-07-27.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2015-07-27 | 7 | Motion to continue for staff to address front yard fence, chimney, narrow to rooftop chimney, and no on Harbor Bay Isle. Mr. Tai stated staff will collect recommendations and bring to Council as one big amendment. 7-C Request to Establish an Ad Hoc Planning Board Subcommittee to direct the next steps on the planning and design effort for the Site A development at Alameda Point President Henneberry assigned himself, and Board members Köster, and Burton. Board Member Zuppan volunteered. Appointed-Henneberry, Köster and Zuppan. 8 MINUTES: None 9 STAFF COMMUNICATIONS 9-A Zoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions Mr. Thomas reported on recent actions and decisions. 9-B Presentation of project under review at 1926 Park Street. No action required. Moved to the beginning of the agenda. 10 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None 11 BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: President Henneberry recognized Vice President Alvarez's time spent on the Planning Board. 12 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 13 ADJOURNMENT: 9:15 p.m. Page 7 of 7 Approved Minutes July 27, 2015 Planning Board Meeting | PlanningBoard/2015-07-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2012-11-26.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2012-11-26 | 1 | APPROVED PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2012 1. CONVENE: 7:04 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE: Vice-President Burton 3. ROLL CALL: Present: President Zuppan, Vice-President Burton, Board members Ezzy Ashcraft, and Knox White. Board Member Köster arrived for item 7-A Board Member Henneberry Arrived during item 7-A 4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: 6-A. Zoning Administrator and Design Review Pending and Recent Actions and Decisions. 6-B. 2013 Meeting Calendar Board Member Knox White motioned to approve the consent calendar. Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0; no abstentions. 7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 7-A. Economic Development Strategy for Alameda Point - Presentation by Keyser Marston Associates of a proposed economic development strategy for Alameda Point. Development Manager Eric Fonstein gave a brief introduction of the job-based Strategy and introduced Keyser Marston Associates' consultants Tim Kelly and Ernesto Vilchis who provided a summary of findings via PowerPoint presentation. Consultant clarified for Board Member Knox White that the vision for Alameda Point is to build upon existing businesses and uses, i.e., food, maritime, recreation and breaking Alameda Point into smaller pieces. Approved Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 6 November 26, 2012 | PlanningBoard/2012-11-26.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2012-11-26.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2012-11-26 | 2 | Board Member Köster clarified with the Consultant that current businesses such as St. George got started on existing infrastructure by breaking larger building into smaller spaces and are models for future businesses. The five prototypes selected for study represented a broad spectrum of criteria. Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft clarified with the Consultant their role in commercial development at other bases. KMA's services included developing business terms and they were very much involved in the implementation of the economic development strategy, especially developer selection. Consultant helped identify which developer entity/team had the financing, the vision to realistically put tenants into the buildings. Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft asked for examples of having tenants as ambassadors. Consultant clarified that McClellan Air Force Base actually created a marketing opportunity for existing businesses. In response to her inquiry as to where lease revenues go, Alameda Point Chief Operating Officer Jennifer Ott responded that funds primarily go into the maintenance of City services at the base and property management, also into a "rainy day" fund. Ms. Ott confirmed that Building 5 is one of the most contaminated buildings at the Point and will not be controlled by City until 2019. President Zuppan asked the Consultant to clarify whether there were any parallels with other bases with main gate entrances for both commercial and residential uses. Consultant responded that there are multiple entrances to Alameda Point that can be primarily for residential but residential was not a part of this analysis. In response to infrastructure needs, Consultant responded that telecommunications are important. Infrastructure will be a challenging exercise and stressed the need to be flexible and able to accomplish incrementally. President Zuppan opened public comment. Cheryl and Byron Zook, Alameda Point Studios, spoke in favor of the Strategy and commented on the success of their business and desire for expansion and long-term lea… | PlanningBoard/2012-11-26.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2012-11-26.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2012-11-26 | 3 | Need to make Alameda Point a high-profile project. Jon Spangler, resident, spoke against Strategy but in support of comments made by previous speakers Bangert, Biggs, Smith and Bey. No clear vision at Alameda Point after several plans completed. Issues still needing to be addressed include open space, Measure B and transportation. Piecemeal approach to infrastructure will be more costly than a master development. Helen Sause, HOMES, urged Board not to call a good marketing analysis a strategy. Not sure how mix-use dream can be achieved without integrating residential. Urged Board not to lose vision of walk to work. Irene Dieter, resident, commented on actual branding missing from the Strategy. Need to clarify what it is we want people to think of when they think of Alameda Point. President Zuppan closed public comment. Ms. Ott stated the City is willing to discuss long-term leases with tenants but must also consider future development plans. She stated Standard of Reasonableness was an oversight in the Strategy and should be incorporated. In response to Board Member Köster's inquiry as to the process of incorporating the comments from tonight's meeting, Lori Taylor, Community Development Director, noted that comments/changes would orally be presented to Council on Dec 5. Board Member Köster reiterated that housing and transportation are very important issues in Alameda. Board Member Knox White commented that Strategy reads more like a marketing proposal and concurred with others that there is no real clear vision. Ms. Taylor clarified that since the time the Planning Board packets were distributed; KMA completed the narrative that went out in the Council packets. President Zuppan recommended that the presentation to Council state that the Planning Board did not see the narrative. Board Member Knox White questioned when City is going to prioritize efforts. Current services of property management company should be addressed. He questioned why Strategy recommends targeting specialty foods when Harbor Bay has land an… | PlanningBoard/2012-11-26.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2012-11-26.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2012-11-26 | 4 | Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted this was a good report. She suggested trying to find a way to market the Point to Alameda residents so they could become familiar with the type of uses out there. She noted the need to pursue the film industry and position ourselves to take advantage of opportunities. She emphasized the community's desire for a mixed use development. Board Member Henneberry noted that a certain amount of industrial space needs to support maritime uses at the Point. He stated he supports submitting the Strategy to Council. President Zuppan stated that she agreed with other board members who didn't feel like this was a strategy, but a step in the process to develop an economic development strategy. She noted that a lot of hard choices need to be made regarding what to fund. Tenant management should also be addressed. Board Member Knox White suggested holding off the presentation of the Strategy until the new Council is seated. 7-B. Public Hearing on an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Tentative Map for 89 Lots at 1551 Buena Vista Avenue (APN72-384-21. The project was originally published as 69 lots. The Planning Board will consider approval of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Marina Cove II, 89 residential lots and a Tentative Map within the area bounded by Ohlone Street, Buena Vista Avenue, Clement Avenue and Entrance Way (currently occupied by the Chipman Company). The site is zoned R-4-PD, neighborhood residential with a Planned Development overlay. Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, gave brief presentation. Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft clarified with staff that the six lots fronting Buena Vista would have access from Buena Vista via 3 shared driveways on Buena Vista and not side street access. Staff noted that that Parcel Map was approved several years ago for fewer units. Units were increased to meet the City's housing requirements. Board Member Knox White clarified with Staff that Tentative Map is establishing a Parcel 53 and that dotted lines are adju… | PlanningBoard/2012-11-26.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2012-11-26.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2012-11-26 | 5 | President Zuppan opened public comment. Board Member Knox White motioned to reduce speaker time to 3 minutes. Board Member Henneberry seconded the motion. Motion failed, 3-2-1 Köster abstained; no quorum. Speaker time will remain 5 minutes. William Smith, resident, noted that the design has improved, although he is still concerned about fulfilling the capacity for the Housing Element. Helen Sause, HOMES, spoke against the density of each parcel and suggested that condos might take advantage of the great views over the estuary and relieve the density of each parcel. Integrating affordable homes would be a much improved social aspect of the development. John Spangler, resident, noted that he was not in favor of the Marina Cove I development and not in favor of this proposal. Diane Lichtenstein, HOMES, concurred with comments made by speakers Sause and Spangler. Distressed with lack of number of affordable units and design. Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope, commented that more affordable housing units are needed, although pleased with the proposed 37 unit multi-family housing lot. Karen Bey, resident, spoke in favor of the project and encouraged approval. President Zuppan closed public comment. Board Member Köster r noted concerns about courts, Buena Vista frontage, and emergency access. Staff clarified that decisions on courts A, B and C can be postponed until layout of multi-family buildings is finalized. Multi-unit housing can be increased at a later time. Map is being addressed tonight and not the architecture. What's referred to as "Street C" in report should be "Street B". There is no "Street C". Vice-President Burton motioned to extend the meeting to 11:50. Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion. Motion carried, 6-0; no abstentions. Board Member Köster commented that he'd like to see more density on Parcel 53, Street B connect through to Arbor Street and rear access to lots facing Buena Vista. Board Member Henneberry supported acceptance of project. Board Member Knox White supported acceptance of project. B… | PlanningBoard/2012-11-26.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2012-11-26.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2012-11-26 | 6 | Vice-President Burton supported acceptance of project. Proposed adding condition that developer provide, at a later date, some sort of distinctive paving to Emergency Vehicle Access. President Zuppan supported acceptance of project, although concerned that more housing units are not included. Staff clarified that rear-access to the Buena Vista fronted lots can be considered at the Design Review stage and concern can be included in the report to Council. Board Member Knox White motioned to accept the Tentative Map as proposed minus dotted lines for courts A, B, and C and addition of emergency vehicle access materials language and addendum with the correction of typo (53 lots not 52). Board Member Henneberry seconded the motion. Motion carried, 6-0; no abstentions. 8. MINUTES: 9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Written Report None. 9-A. Future Agendas 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: None. 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. 13. ADJOURNMENT: Approved Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 6 November 26, 2012 | PlanningBoard/2012-11-26.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,22 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-27 | 22 | proposed for the garage. She noted that it would not staff-intensive, and that there would be no pay gate to queue up for at the end of the evening. Vice President Cook noted that there had been more opposition to the theater than the garage, and added that the Board listened carefully to each public speaker. She noted that some items had been addressed previously, such as retail on the ground floor. Mr. Piziali supported the use of variegated brick to add more detail to the façade. Ms. Ott noted that Michael Stanton believed that the symmetry of the pattern with respect to the horizontal openings would look better with a more subtle brick design. President Cunningham believed that the header courses should be fixed, and he was very concerned about the current brick detail design. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Ott confirmed that one of the criteria was that the exterior façade would be consistent with whatever the Planning Board approves. She noted that Michael Stanton specified the quality of the materials in a very detailed way, based on the sample board provided. Vice President Cook noted that the DDA discussed the City's parking operations plan, which would be submitted in a timely manner and examined in detail by the City Council. President Cunningham addressed Mr. Spangler's comment regarding an exit strategy, and noted that there was no way to tell what would happen in the future. He believed the floor-to-floor heights could be adjusted, and that the conversion of a parking garage was problematic. He noted that designing structures with an eye towards adaptive reuse before the intended use has begun will compromise the project from the beginning. He hoped that Park Street business would require this volume of parking. Vice President Cook believed that without the Cineplex, this parking structure would appear too massive on its own. Mr. Lynch requested the inclusion of the financials at the next presentation. He suggested that with the recent Supreme Court decision regarding eminent domain, th… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf,23 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-27 | 23 | accents; 2. The header courses would be corrected; 3. A lighting consultant would be utilized; 4. A landscaping plan would be included, and returned to the Planning Board. AYES - 4 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0 9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: President Cunningham advised that a letter from Sarah [Unavolta], commenting that she was not in favor of Item 8-A. 10. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that their last meeting was held the previous week. Staff will make a presentation before the Planning Board to discuss the future of the project, and what kind of regular review the Board would like. 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 Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). Board Member Mariani advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting. 11. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Ms. Eliason advised that the preliminary concept for Alameda Point was distributed to the Board members. There will be a meeting on that subject in July. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Paul Benoit, Interim Secretary Planning Board Minutes Page 23 June 27, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf,24 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-27 | 24 | Planning & Building Department These minutes were approved at the July 11, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 24 June 27, , 2005 | 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 |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf,13 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-27 | 13 | from other communities. Mr. Don Grappo, spoke in opposition to this item. He did not oppose the concept of a theater and parking structure, and did not believe it was a good design. He suggested valet parking, and inquired whether the changing technology of movies would make this theater obsolete. He suggested a smaller and more aesthetically pleasing design. Mr. Harry Hartman, 1100 Peach Street, spoke in support of this application. He believed the design was a positive compromise, and noted that the City did not have the financial resources to fund an elaborate design at this time. He noted that the business district was set up to benefit from a draw such as this theater. He noted that 352 new spaces in the parking structure would take a lot of pressure off the downtown streets. He believed the cost-benefit analysis showed clearly that the benefits of the Cineplex far outweighed the detriments. Rose, P.O. Box 640353, San Francisco, noted that she was an Alameda resident. She supported the restoration of the theater, and believed that this type of theater could be a model for other specialized movie theaters. Mr. Rudy Rubago spoke in opposition to this item and noted that this was the first time he had seen this design, and inquired about what had happened to the South Shore movie theater. He expressed concern that this theater might not last very long, and what would happen to the building. He did not like the design. He believed the evolving movie technologies for in-home viewing may make theaters obsolete. He inquired whether the owners or employees of this theater live in Alameda. He expressed concern that the money generated from this use would be spent off the Island. He expressed concern about potential crime in the parking structure. He would like to see a cultural center for the performing arts in Alameda. Mr. Rich Tester, 2020 Pacific Avenue, noted that he was a Park Street business owner, and spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern about the size and shading of the structure; he inquire… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-27 | 14 | this building was grossly out of scale for the street, and did not believe anyone would want to renovate the proposed design in the future. Mr. Jim Strehlow, 3122 Gibbons Street, did not understand the pedestrian flow from the parking garage, which forced customers to walk outside before entering the theater. He did not see much detail for the historic theater portion, and would like to see more information. He wished to ensure the historic theater was not dwarfed. He would like to see live performances in that theater, and would like the Planning Board to plan accordingly. Mr. Robert Gavrich, 1517 Fountain, spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern about the design and the financial details of this project with respect to the developer. President Cunningham suggested that the financial questions be directed to the City Council, and that the design issues be addressed at this hearing. Mr. Gavrich noted that the elevation was drawn from a distance of 200 feet, and noted that perspective would not be available in reality. He was concerned about the canyon and wind effect on the street, as well as the noise from the cars driving in the parking garage. Mr. Richard Rutter noted that the staff report for the parking garage stated that the site survey raised questions regarding the property line along Oak Street and the associated width of the public right- of-way. He noted that there would be a ripple effect into the right-of-way or the building. He complimented historical consultant Bruce Anderson on a good and reasoned analysis. He believed the staff report was at odds with his findings. He would be hesitant to support this project at this point before such open issues were resolved. Mr. Jerrold Connors, 2531 San Jose Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, but would favor a more modest three-screen theater like Piedmont Cinema or the Grand Lake. He would like a theater with more character befitting Alameda, and believed it should be scaled back. Ms. Judith Lynch, 1372 Versailles Avenue, noted that she… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf,15 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-27 | 15 | communities. He noted this was a catalyst site, and believed the developer was trying to respond to the community's concerns as much as possible. He believed the parking structure was critical to the success of downtown businesses. Mr. Robb Ratto, Director, Park Street Business Association, spoke in support of this item. He noted that the Board of Directors voted unanimously in favor of the design, and that the majority of PSBA business owners support the design. He noted that this has been a difficult process, and commended the architect for his design and responsiveness to the comments received. Mr. Frank George, 1419 Park Street, spoke in support of this item. He noted that there was a 10- screen cinema in Twain Harte, a smaller town than Alameda, and that they had no problem filling it. He noted that economic diversity was a critical element of financial success, and that there had been eight theaters in Alameda that functioned at the same time. He noted that this was a centrally-located and oriented parking structure and theater, and that the crossover traffic would benefit the other businesses. He originally thought the building was too massive, but believed it would be a benefit to Alameda. Mr. Harvey Brook, 2515 Santa Clara Avenue, #208, spoke in support of this application, and noted that he was a Park Street business owner. He was aware of the petitions circulating against the project, with approximately 1,800 signatures, 2.4% of Alameda's 75,000 residents. He noted that there would be impacts on property tax revenues if this project did not go forward. He was very concerned that if this project were to be delayed, the City would no longer be able to afford the project. Mr. Walt Jacobs, President, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of this item. He noted that this project has been going on for a long time, and that there had been considerable public input. He believed that it was needed to make Alameda more vibrant and attractive to downtown businesses. He believed the design was acceptable, … | PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-27 | 16 | Mr. Piziali echoed Mr. Lynch's comment, and added that he was ready to move forward with the project. He supported the project at this point. Ms. Mariani noted that she rejected the design as it stands, and agreed with the HAB's opinion of starting again with the design. Vice President Cook noted that she would like to continue the discussion, and added that scale was one of the fundamental issues she heard from the public. She noted that City Hall, the new Library and the Twin Towers church were also large-scale projects. She believed it was time to make a final decision. She noted that someone would probably appeal the decision and to bring it to City Council, which would open up further dialogue about the details of the project. She strongly believed that the project should be sent forward with very clear design direction. She would have liked to have had the agreement with Long's, allowing a larger site. She encouraged the residents to revisit the Long's issue with City Council. President Cunningham agreed with Vice President Cook's comments, and believed the 106 findings should be reviewed to help improve the project. He believed the design of the project had progressed considerably, and noted that some projects can take many years to design. He requested staff's response to the 106 findings. Mr. Lynch agreed with the speakers who wanted the architect and owner to work with the HAB and PSBA to fill in some Art Deco features along the Central Avenue and Oak Street elevation. Vice President Cook expressed concern about including faux historic elements in the design, which may dilute the genuine historic design. She believed that a theater similar to the Livermore example may overwhelm the historic theater. She believed the architecture should reflect the constant evolution of the City. Mr. Lynch noted that some of the speakers had modified their comments, and he would incorporate that increased acceptance into his decision-making process. Mr. Piziali would prefer to send the design to City Council with the Pla… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf,17 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-27 | 17 | appealed it. She noted that the Council may send it back to the Board. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the changed color of the aluminum and glass on the upstairs element, President Cunningham replied that he agreed with the HAB's recommendation to use the clear aluminum. He wished to clarify that low-E glazing was available in many tints; the Board would prefer the clear low-E glazing. President Cunningham noted that with respect to page 3, Item 2.2, regarding the base along the theater, a spandrel would provide a base in accordance with the findings. He would like the wording to be modified to provide for a base. President Cunningham noted that with respect to Item 6, he would not recommend 6-inch aluminum clad element depths in the doors; there should not be any recessed openings. Vice President Cook agreed with President Cunningham's assessment; although historic buildings had an increased depth, the narrowness of the retail spaces would not accommodate that depth; she would prefer that be changed to enliven the retail space. The Board agreed that item would be deleted. President Cunningham noted that with respect to Items 8 and 9, a professional lighting designer should be employed for the Cineplex, rather than an electric subcontractor. That design and the signage should come back to the Board. Ms. Eliason advised that Condition 4 of the Draft Resolution already stated that the signage and lighting programs be brought back to the Board. Vice President Cook liked the addition of the brick veneer, which broke up the larger planes. President Cunningham noted that the stucco column caps could be eliminated. In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham whether the color of the brick veneer would be monotone or variegated, Ms. Ott replied that it would be variegated. President Cunningham noted that the sunlight/shading study should be included in the conditions. Vice President Cook noted that she was not extremely concerned about the shading study, and believed that the shade shoul… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf,18 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-27 | 18 | Mr. Lynch noted that after the theater opens, it may be necessary for the police to direct traffic at the owner's expense, as they did after the Jack London Square Theater opened. Ms. Ott noted that there were provisions to handle large crowds for a blockbuster presentation at various times during the year. There would be some education programs so the public could become accustomed to the operation. Vice President Cook fully agreed with Bike Alameda's comments regarding the bike path on Central Avenue, especially with respect to their call to remove the diagonal parking on Central, and having a bike lane. Ms. Eliason noted that City Council had made the commitment to remove the diagonal parking, and to have parallel parking and a bike lane in its place. Vice President Cook was concern about losing the landscaping along the Oak Street façade; she noted that a landscaping plan would soften the large scale of the building. She would like the detailed landscaping plan to return to the Board, addressing both the Cineplex and the garage. Ms. Ott recommended that be conditioned for the garage, because the funding for the landscaping plan is part of the garage contract. She noted the project would have to comply with the City's ordinance, and that there would be street trees for Oak Street. Central Avenue will have street trees along Central as part of the City's ordinance. Mr. Lynch noted that he had concerns about the large DBH; he would like to see trees that were tall enough to soften the building. M/S Piziali/Cook to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-27 to approve the 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, with the following modifications: 1. The blank panels will be resolved; 2. Clear aluminum storefronts will be acceptable; 3. Low-E clear glass will be used; 4. A base for retail spaces will be provided; 5. There will not be recessed openings on retail spaces; 6. The … | PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf,19 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-27 | 19 | 8-B. 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. (Continued from the meeting of June 13, 2005.) M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to continue the meeting to 11:30 p.m. AYES - 4 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0 Ms. Ott summarized the staff report. M/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes. AYES - 4 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0 The public hearing was opened. Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, suggested revisiting the idea of removing the garage from Oak Street to an earlier proposed location behind the Elks' Lodge, which would be a bigger site. He noted that a more efficient garage could be built there, next to a four-lane road. He expressed concern that a six-story garage could invite trouble, and that a smaller garage would reduce that risk. Ms. Melody Marr, CEO, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of this application, and noted that this garage was badly needed in Alameda. She noted that there was no place in Alameda where people could park for a long time without getting parking tickets. Ms. Nancy Hird was not in attendance to speak. Mr. Robb Ratto, Director, PSBA, spoke in support of this application, and noted that their Board of Directors had voted unanimously in favor of this design. Mr. Christopher Buckley, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, noted that he was speak as an individual. He noted that the Board requested a design change to include stronger framing around the posters on the lower level. He had gotten the impression that the Board wanted som… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf,20 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-27 | 20 | Mr. Harold McKenzie, 3263 Thompson Avenue, spoke in support of this item. He would like the garage to be constructed in such a way that would make it work for the City. Mr. Eric Strimlin noted that there was an increasing public groundswell against this structure because of its massiveness. He believed it was out of scale with Alameda, and did not understand why the size of the garage could not be reduced. He asked the Board to inspire, not to compromise. He expressed concern that this garage could weigh the downtown down, and requested that the design be reduced. Mr. Harry Hartman noted that he had a business on Oak Street, and added that parking garages were primarily about functionality. He believed this garage would be an improvement, and that it was not a nondescript structure. He suggested that some work be done to the panels, or that cornices be added for some visual interest. He believed that if the garage were to be well-designed, the ingress and egress would be easy for people. Mr. Jim Strehlow, 3122 Gibbons Street, noted that he supported the project, but was concerned about its size. He requested information about free parking, and hoped the plans for the garage were fiscally sound so that it could be self-sustaining. He suggested that fewer levels would enable to City to reach that goal, and that there should be subsidized parking validation for the Cineplex, to be paid back by the theater owner. He suggested that there should be parking validation for the library as well. He encouraged monthly parking rental revenue, and some methodology to determine how many people would buy monthly passes for the garage. Mr. Robert Gavrich, 1517 Fountain, believed this parking garage was not big enough and was concerned that it would be inadequate for evenings when the Cineplex was at capacity. He believed that would be a parking and traffic nightmare, and did not believe the current plan was unworkable. He noted that the City estimated the creation of 300 new jobs, but that many of them would be in construction. … | PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf,21 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-27 | 21 | Appezzato. Probably the most controversial thing was they strongly recommended not building a parking garage in the Long's lot. Both mayors and design professionals said that a garage, especially one without retail on the ground level will destroy the Civic Center.' Ms. Dimusheva did not want to suggest that there be no parking garage, but she requested that the Board to pay attention to the fact that this area is the civic center, which should be designed on open space, not a canyon. She encouraged the addition of retail on the ground level. She read an excerpt from The Whole Building Design Guide: "Parking has often been reduced to the construction of the most minimal standalone structure or parking lot, without human, aesthetic or integrative considerations. This has given parking a poor public perception, and frequently disturbs or disrupts the existing urban fabric. "However, many architects, engineers and planners have envisioned and constructed far more complex, aesthetic and integrated structures. This should be the goal of good parking design "Aesthetics of garage design has become very important to communities across the country. Recently, garage design has become part of an architectural style of the surrounding architecture. It becomes part of the architectural style of the surrounding architecture, respecting the language of design and using the design process." Ms. Dimusheva believed that the City did not need a Cineplex, but did need a parking garage. She suggested that the parking garage be built with two or three levels of retail space on the bottom, with the addition of a garden and coffee shops on the top, and a cutout corner for public gathering. Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio, noted that he had expected more from the Planning Board with respect to the design of the parking garage and that he usually respected their work. He suggested that people use bicycles for transportation more often, and added that parking structures were not generally beautiful. He was not sure that this was the rig… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2019-10-28.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2019-10-28 | 1 | APPROVED MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2019 1. CONVENE President Curtis convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE 3. ROLL CALL Present: Board Members Curtis, Rothenberg, Ruiz, Saheba, and Teague. Absent: Board Members Cavanaugh and Hom. 4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION None. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 7-A 2019-7378 PLN16-0391 - Design Review - 1920 Minturn Street - Applicant: Rick Stuart for Listo Properties - Public hearing to consider Design Review and parking rate determination to remove a 4,847-square-foot modular building and construct an approximately 10,780- square-foot one-story light industrial building with surface parking. The project is on an approximately 18,973-square-foot lot located at 1920 Minturn Street. The project requires a parking rate determination pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code 30-7.6 - Schedule of Required Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Spaces. The site is within the M-1, Intermediate Industrial (Manufacturing) zoning district. The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15332 - In-fill Development Projects. Linda Barrera, Planner II, gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4196726&GUID=81C02D52- 937B-4946-8472-F5FF82C7CFB2&FullText=1 . Board Member Teague asked whether any parking restrictions were made when the building at 1925 Union Street was remodeled. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 1 of 5 October 28, 2019 | PlanningBoard/2019-10-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2019-10-28.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2019-10-28 | 2 | Staff Member Barrera said that the staff level design review and lot line adjustment for the other building did not include any parking requirements. Board Member Teague asked if there were any existing easements or agreements to require this application to provide parking for the other building. Staff Member Barrera said there is no existing requirement. She added that the project is proposing a deed restriction for shared access to the driveway. Board Member Teague asked why we were treating two different parcels as if they were one. Staff Member Barrera said staff approached the project with the understanding the two properties have historically shared parking. Board Member Teague asked if we could add more parking spaces on this property without triggering the need for an additional Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) parking space. Staff Member Barrera said they could technically add four more parking spaces before requiring an additional ADA space. Board Member Saheba asked if Planning Staff had any concerns about the frontage on Minturn Street not having direct access to the building. Staff Member Barrera said staff felt the access and design fit the location and proposed use well. Board Member Saheba said it seems like there is an opportunity for at least the one unit facing Minturn to have a door facing the street. He asked about the introduction of the stucco in the new building and whether it would be compatible with the rest of the materials which mirror the historic Listo building. Staff Member Barrera said the stucco helps differentiate the new building from the old building, consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards. President Curtis asked what would happen with the reciprocal parking agreement if one of the buildings was sold. Rick Stewart, applicant, said he does not see the building going into a high occupancy type business model in the future. Board Member Teague asked the applicant if he would be willing to do more parking if it did not trigger the second ADA space. Approved Planni… | PlanningBoard/2019-10-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2019-10-28.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2019-10-28 | 3 | Mr. Stewart said they would love to have more parking, but adding an additional aisle of parking would take away square footage from the building. He said the tenants at his property need full size spaces for their work vehicles. There were no speakers. Board Member Teague said he does not see how the Planning Board can treat the two parcels as one project. He added that it was unfortunate that the Listo building did not have parking requirements. He said the parking is not an issue for him because the 19 spaces for 10,000 square feet is enough for the new building and the Listo building does not factor in to his evaluation. Board Member Teague made a motion to approve the resolution with changes: Refer to 15 surface and 6 covered parking spaces in the Design Review findings; the deed restriction for the surface parking be encouraged but optional. President Curtis said it is in everyone's interest to require the shared parking deed restriction. The applicant indicated his willingness to enter into the shared parking deed restriction. Board Member Teague said he would withdraw his proposed change to the resolution making the parking agreement optional. Board Member Teague restated his motion to approve the project with the change to correctly distinguish between the 15 surface and 6 covered parking spaces. Board Member Rothenberg seconded the motion. Board Member Saheba said the location of the ADA stall may not be compliant with California Building Code (CBC) regulations. He suggested relocating the space to be adjacent to the walkway. He said he would need there to be at least one door in the unit facing Minturn Street for him to support approving the project. Mr. Stewart said they contemplated that design. He said they wanted to maintain consistencybetweer the units and that a door in that location could create a grading issue. Board Member Saheba suggested eliminating the stucco and using masonry for those areas, and increasing the glazing on the south elevation. In response to the applicant pointing out the c… | PlanningBoard/2019-10-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2019-10-28.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2019-10-28 | 4 | Mr. Stewart said that there are no steps from the parking area, down the driveway and into the front doors of the units. He said that the area between the building and the sidewalk on Minturn is being using for bio-retention (storm water) purposes which may prevent a door facing Minturn from being feasible. Andrew Thomas, Planning, Building and Transportation Director, said that the Board could condition the project to work with the applicant to attempt to work to make a door facing Minturn work. Board Member Teague said he would support replacing the stucco on the east and west elevations with masonry, but he is not seeing an overwhelming need to add a door to the west elevation. Board Member Saheba said he does not see an added cost to moving a door from the driveway side to the sidewalk. He added that providing direct access to the street provides activation to the urban landscape. Staff Member Barrera pointed out the changes in grade between the driveway side and the walkway side. Board Member Teague accepted the suggested additional conditions as amendments to his motion: replace the stucco on the east and west elevations with masonry; and, if feasible, to add a door to the Minturn Street frontage if the ADA accessibility and C3 storm water management questions can be addressed without significant added expense. Board Member Rothenberg continued to second the motion. The motion passed 5-0. 8. MINUTES 8-A 2019-7380 Draft Meeting Minutes - September 23, 2019 Board Member Teague made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Ruiz seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. 9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS 9-A 2019-7379 Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions Staff Member Thomas gave an update. The staff report can be found at: tps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4196727&GUID=95B775F7- E387-4C98-96F9-911E14260FB1&FullText=1 Board Member Rothenberg asked why no action was taken on the FAAS use permit application. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 4 of 5 October… | PlanningBoard/2019-10-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2019-10-28.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2019-10-28 | 5 | Staff Member Thomas said a couple of residents showed up at the meeting with some questions and concerns about the animal shelter. He said they all agreed to give the neighbors and applicant time to meet and attempt to work out any concerns, and that the shelter is a long way from opening and in no major rush to approve the use permit. He added that the applicant wants to have a good relationship with their neighbors. Board Member Rothenberg said that it is useful to lock in the conditions early before the non-profit expends money on the project. 9-B 2019-7381 Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation Department Projects Staff Member Thomas previewed upcoming meeting items. President Curtis asked that Board Member Teague's presentation on state housing legislation be agendized for an upcoming meeting. Staff Member Thomas discussed the upcoming meeting on Measure A. 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS Board Member Teague thanked staff for cleaning up the items that went on to the City Council. 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 13. ADJOURNMENT President Curtis adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 5 of 5 October 28, 2019 | PlanningBoard/2019-10-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2012-09-24.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2012-09-24 | 1 | APPROVAL MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2012 1. CONVENE - 7:06 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE - Vice President Burton led the flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL - President Zuppan, Vice-President Burton, Board members Knox White, and Köster. Arriving after roll call - Henneberry arrived for item 9-A., and Ezzy Ashcraft arrived for item 9-B 4. MINUTES - Minutes from the Regular meeting of July 23, 2012 (no quorum) 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION - No changes 6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS 6.A. Future Agendas Andrew Thomas Acting City Planner provided an overview of upcoming projects. 7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None 8. CONSENT CALENDAR 8.A. Zoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions. A report of recent actions on minor variances, minor variances, and design review applications. 8.B. Six Month Review of a Use Permit for a Flea Market located on the campus of the College of Alameda President Zuppan stated that a speaker slip was submitted for item 8-C. Board member Knox White motioned to approve the remainder of the consent items as recommended, Vice President Burton seconded, 4-0. Motion carries 8.C. Amendment to Major Design Review Conditions PLN10-0337 - 2216 Lincoln Avenue. Applicant: Satellite Housing and Housing Consortium of the East Bay. The applicant requests removal of one parking condition relating to the prior approval of a Major Design Review for the construction of a 19-unit affordable housing project on approximately .48 acres. The site is a former City staff parking lot within the R-6, Hotel Residential District zoning district. Andrew Thomas - The applicant has requested the removal of a parking condition. This is a minor amendment to the design, and the condition of approval that both staff and applicant determined can be deleted, and will not be reducing parking spaces. Approved Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 4 September 24, 2012 | PlanningBoard/2012-09-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2012-09-24.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2012-09-24 | 2 | President Zuppan opened public comment. Public Speaker - Francis Ritter, stated there are problems with parking in neighborhood as he lives across the street. His concern was addressed by Mr. Thomas. President Zuppan closed public comment. Board member Knox White motioned to approve Item 8-C as recommended/ Vice President Burton seconded, 4-0 Motion carries 9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 9.A. Planned Development Amendment and Design Review - PLN12-0182 - 1011 Chestnut Street - St Joseph Elementary School. A Planned Development Amendment and Design Review application for St. Joseph Elementary School to construct a 700 square foot kindergarten classroom building facing Lafayette Street. The applicant requested a continuance. Board member Burton motioned to move this item to October 22nd, , Board Member Knox White Second, 5-0 motion carries. 9.B. Application for, Design Review and Parking Waiver approval PLN12-0181 - 1518 Webster - John Carnahan. Applicant requests Design Review and Parking Waiver approval to construct a detached garage in the rear parking area of a commercial property. The proposed structure would remove 1 1/2 of 3 existing parking spaces. Andrew Thomas gave a brief overview of the project. Board member Knox White asked if the idea was so that WesCafe could expand into the space. Andrew Thomas stated WesCafe was used as an example. This is not for WesCafe. Board Member Köster asked for clarification on the drawings. Mr. John Carnahan, owner, explained the T1-11 siding would wrap around the entire building to meet fire code. The width of the structure would accommodate a delivery van. Board Member Knox White asked if this was a request for storage of a boat. Mr. Carnahan replied that he is requesting to make it large enough for delivery van, and currently there is a boat there. He stated that the Intent is to possibly match the outdoor environment to that outdoor space. The space is approximately 30 feet by 55 feet. Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft asked what T1-11 is. Mr. Carnahan explained that it is a type of… | PlanningBoard/2012-09-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2012-09-24.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2012-09-24 | 3 | Vice President Burton stated this material was used extensively in 1970's. President Zuppan raised concern that the vines would need to be irrigated and well maintained. Andrew Thomas stated that staff wasn't aware of the proposed planting option prior to the meeting. It would need to be submitted with landscape plans for approval. Mr. Carnahan stated that he was not committed to vines, and was working with a mural artist. President Zuppan closed public comment. Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she likes seeing new businesses on Webster Street. Vice President Burton stated that he had no objection to the use T1-11 siding although it is not an attractive material. He is not sure it would lend well to a mural, and would prefer something else like Hardi panel. Board Member Knox White asked staff to use a different numbering format in the resolutions. The Webster Street Design Manual should be removed because the proposal is not on Webster Street. He asked it be an option to add transit passes. Andrew Thomas clarified the parking issue, and the Board has the ability to allow them to reduce spaces, and to mitigate that. Vice President Burton asked about the parking configuration. Mr. Carnahan - It works because we are talking employee parking in the area. Andrew Thomas described the parking configuration and requirements Board Member Köster stated that he agrees with other members regarding parking passes and the material. President Zuppan asked Vice President Burton about the materials Vice President explained the difference. Board member Knox White made a motion to approve the staff recommendations with removing the condition on materials by striking all of item 2-C and adding a condition to include transit passes and permanent bike parking in the future. Vice President Burton stated he would like to see something about shingles over a Approved Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 4 September 24, 2012 | PlanningBoard/2012-09-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2012-09-24.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2012-09-24 | 4 | corrugated metal roof. Board member Knox White withdrew his motion. Board member Ezzy-Ashcraft motioned to approve the draft resolution with condition 2-C plus regarding siding and roofing it shall complement adjacent buildings, owner shall provide one parking voucher or transit pass or long term bike parking for each space removed as long as there is a business operating. Board member Köster seconded. 6-0 Motion carries. 4. MINUTES (out of order) - Minutes from the Regular meeting of July 23, 2012 Motioned by Board member Knox White, Seconded by Board member Henneberry with Vice President Burton abstained, 5-0-1 minutes approved. 9.C. Planning Board Rules and Procedures- Proposed amendments to the Rules and Procedures for Planning Board meetings regarding the order of the Regular Agenda Items. Board member Ezzy-Ashcraft asked about its order of powers and duties. Andrew Thomas requested that the Board approve what is proposed and bring back the other issues at a later time. Board member Henneberry motioned to approve Item 9-C as recommended/ Board member Ezzy-Ashcraft seconded, 6-0 Motion carries 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS - Henneberry asked if there are concerns regarding 9-C. President Zuppan suggests sending those concerns to Andrew Thomas. Vice President Burton described Parking Day, stating it was a celebration of civic pride, and they received overwhelming positive response on Park Street. All items were donated for use. He expressed a special thanks to Public Works Director, Matt Naclerio and Police Chief, Mike Noonan in helping them in securing the necessary permit. They would like the next step goals to be standard procedures for parklets. He provided a brief slide show. 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None 13. ADJOURNMENT - 8:53 p.m. Approved Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 4 September 24, 2012 | PlanningBoard/2012-09-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2007-05-14 | 1 | Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Monday, May 14, 2007 1. CONVENE: 7:08 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE: Vice President Cook 3. ROLL CALL: President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, Kohlstrand, Mariani and McNamara. Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney Donna Mooney, Planner I Simone Wolter. 4. MINUTES: a. Minutes for the Alameda Towne Centre Workshop of March 12, 2007. Board member McNamara noted that she was absent from the 4:30 p.m. March 12 meeting because she recused herself. Board member Cunningham moved approval of the minutes as presented. Vice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote - 6. Abstain: 1 (McNamara). b. Minutes for the meeting of April 23, 2007. Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 4, paragraph 2, read, "He did not believe the east- west roadway was necessary when the north-south roadways were already available She did not believe that was the substance of Mr. Krueger's comments, because it contradicted his previous sentence. Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 4, paragraph 7, read, "In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara regarding Ms. Reid's suggestion of split sidewalks, Mr. Corbitt replied that they had examined that possibility. He noted that there were 23 driveways " She noted that the previous references on page 3 refer to there being 13 driveways, and inquired whether that was a typo. Mr. Thomas noted that he was referring to putting the sidewalk on the south side of that road, where there were 23 parking aisles. Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 5, the last sentence of paragraph 3, read, "Once the road is placed on that parcel, a bike-pedestrian path would be placed there, and the area would be added to the beachfront area for buildings and parking." She noted that her notes did not reflect that information, and was concerned about whether it would be temporary. She would like the record to reflect that Mike Corbitt stated it was a temporary parking lot, and that it w… | PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2007-05-14 | 2 | Board member Kohlstrand moved approval of the minutes as amended. Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote - 4. Abstain: 3 (Cook, Lynch, Mariani). 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: President Lynch noted that speaker cards had been received for Item 8-A of the Consent Calendar. Board member Kohlstrand moved to remove Item 8-A from the Consent Calendar, and to place it on the Regular Agenda. Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -7. - 6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: a. Future Agendas Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items. 7. ORAL COMMUNICATION: None. Planning Board Minutes Page 2 May 14, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2007-05-14 | 3 | 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: 8-A. Use Permit UP07-0005- Applicant: Bryan Gower for Crosstown Coffee House - 1303 High Street (SW). The applicant requests Use Permit approval to have (acoustic and amplified) live music performances within the coffee shop. Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.8(c)(7), a Use Permit is required for live performances that are in combination with other allowed uses. The site is located within the C-1 Neighborhood Business District. Board member Kohlstrand moved to remove Item 8-A from the Consent Calendar, and to place it on the Regular Agenda. Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7. Mr. Wolter summarized the staff report and recommended approval of this item. President Lynch noted that eight speaker slips had been received. Board member Cunningham moved to limit the speakers' time to three minutes. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Carol Dutra spoke in support of this item as well as live musical performances, and noted that her son was learning to play the piano. Mr. Dave Netherhood noted that he was the founder of the Crosstown Coffee House, and noted that Mr. Gower was unable to attend due to a family medical emergency. He wished to discuss the hours that music would be allowed, as well as the acoustic study requirement. He got the impression that staff wanted no sound at all to be emitted from the building. He did not believe that would be realistic. Mr. Jack Hickman noted that he volunteered at the coffeehouse, and noted that their business had dropped significantly since live music was discontinued. He was unsure how long they could continue serving coffee without live music. Timothy Runberger distributed a copy of his comments and noted that he was eager to see this permit granted, and objected to some of the conditions, particularly the condition stating that prior to any live entertainment being able to play, that a consultant be hired to make enginee… | PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2007-05-14 | 4 | believed that Condition 10, requiring a six-month report to the Planning Board, would cover the noise issues. She did not believe it would be necessary to hire an engineer to measure the noise levels. Ms. Amy Wheat noted that the owners of the coffeehouse had canvassed the neighborhood to solve the noise problems, and that many of the residents' ideas were incorporated by the applicant. She believed that hiring a sound consultant would be far beyond the budget of the applicant, and noted that it was not suggested by the residents. She believed it was an unreasonable condition, and that no one else in the City has had to comply with that condition. Louanne Zankey noted that she understood music could only be played until 8 p.m., and noted that her son could play music in her dining room until 10 without disturbing the neighbors. She added that if a neighbor complained, that the police would come to the door. She noted that the coffeehouse did a good job of presenting family-appropriate music, and thought that 9 p.m. might be a good time to stop the music during the week, and 10 p.m. during the weekends. Ms. Anise Jenkins spoke in support of this project, and noted that it was a positive situation for the neighborhood. She noted that traffic, buses and planes were noticeable in the neighborhood, and did not believe the music would be a detriment to the neighborhood. Mr. Jim McWorley noted that his grandmother used to live across the street from the building occupied by the coffeehouse, and noted that the applicants had vastly improved the noise situation from the days when the building was occupied by the 19th Hole. He noted that this was the only place in Alameda that he could bring his kids to hear live music in the evening. A speaker spoke on behalf of the kids who played music, and noted that she and her husband were youth leaders. She noted that a place like Coffeehouse was a positive influence for kids who perform there. Mr. David May noted that he was the host of Open Mike Night at the coffeehouse, and that … | PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2007-05-14 | 5 | The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. President Lynch described the conditional use permit process, and noted that there was a difference between a residential use and a commercial use. Board member Mariani noted that she used to live kitty-corner to the old 19th Hole, and noted that she used to live above the liquor store. She noted that the current use could not compare with that use. She believed this was a positive use, and suggested giving the applicant a chance before requiring the use of a noise consultant. She would not be opposed to a 9 p.m. cutoff, especially during the summertime, because dance studios and other businesses that play music were often open until 9 p.m. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft commended Kelly Day for her part in repairing the communication. She believed that the process could have been simplified if the correct procedures had been followed. She believed that the rights of the neighbors had to be balanced with the needs of the coffeehouse, and may not object to 9 p.m. for music performance. Board member Kohlstrand was pleased to see the support for this proposal, and was concerned about the neighbors who lived nearby. She did not want to place untenable conditions on the coffeehouse. Vice President Cook suggested that a limit or cap on the number of performances be placed so a burden would not be placed on the neighborhood. She did not want to put constraints like requiring closed windows on the use. Board member McNamara supported the previous comments by the Board members. She did not believe that keeping the doors and windows closed would be a realistic condition. She believed it would be reasonable to measure the noise over time, rather than prior to the first live performance. She was concerned about respecting the time for the music to stop to accommodate the neighbors. She would support an 8 p.m. time limit during the week. She questioned whether the live music was necessary to play every night. Board member Cunningham noted that the use permit rode with the propert… | PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2007-05-14 | 6 | Condition 3, it would be appropriate to have extend the hours past 8 p.m. given the time of year. He suggested that the time of year, the type of activity and the individuals participating in the activity be taken into account. Vice President Cook suggested deleting Condition 2 (requiring an immediate sound study); changing Condition 10 from a six-month report to a three-month report; Condition 12 to state that the use permit approval would expire in one year rather than two years after the date of approval, unless the above conditions have been met. She would be willing to agree to limit the number of events during the week. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed it may be too onerous to limit the number of events per week. She was more concerned about events falling into the amplified music category, and that the performances did not disturb the neighbors. She believed it would be reasonable to request a review in three months. She suggested that the requirement for the acoustic study be removed, and noted that it could be examined at the three-month review period. She suggested allowing amplified music to end at 9 p.m. on weeknights, and 10 p.m. on weekends, with a report after three months of operation. President Lynch cautioned that if the doors were required to be closed, that someone may also lock them, which would be an unsafe violation of the fire code. Board member Kohlstrand moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-13 to approve a Use Permit to have (acoustic and amplified) live music performances within the coffee shop. Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.8(c)(7), a Use Permit is required for live performances that are in combination with other allowed uses. The following modifications were added: 1. Condition 2 was deleted; 2. Condition 3: 8 p.m. should be changed to 9 p.m.; 3. Condition 10: the six-month review should be changed to a three-month review; and 4. Condition 12: the two-year vesting period should be changed to one year. Vice President Cook seconded the motion, with carried by unanimou… | PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2007-05-14 | 7 | 8-B. Design Review DR06-0066, Use Permit UP07-0009 and Parking Exception - Applicant: Sandip Jariwala - 1628 Webster Street (Hawthorne Suites) (ZS). The project involves adding a 16-room 8,990 square foot structure to an existing 50-room 30,500 square foot hotel; and a Parking Exception to provide fewer parking spaces than the number required by City code. Board member Kohlstrand moved to continue this item to a future date. Vice President Cook seconded the motion, with carried by unanimous voice vote - 7. 8-C. Initial Study IS05-0001; Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0001; Major Design Review DR05-0010; Use Permits UP06-0003, UP06-0010, UP06-012 and UP06-0013; - Applicant: Safeway, Inc. 2234 Otis Drive (adjacent Alameda Towne Centre) (AT). The applicant requests approval of Planned Development Amendment, Major Design Review and Use Permits allowing the demolition of an existing bank building and redevelopment of the property with a gas station. The project includes three covered pump islands, each containing three pumps, for a total of eighteen pumping stations. Fuel will be stored in three 20,0000 gallon underground storage tanks. In addition to the approximately 7,500 square-foot canopy covering the gasoline pumping facilities, the project includes an approximately 625 square-foot building, housing the cashier's desk, restrooms and retail sales of convenience items. The applicant is proposing twenty-four hour operations and the sale of beer and wine. An Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Mitigation measures have been identified that will reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. The site is located within a, Central Business District with Planned Development overlay Zoning District (C-2-PD). (Continued from the meeting of April 23, 2007. Staff requests continuance to the meeting of June 11, 2007.) Board member Kohlstrand moved to continue this item to June 11, 2007. Vice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanim… | PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2007-05-14 | 8 | 9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 9-A. DP07-0001 - Catellus/Prologis - Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development (AT). The applicant requests Development Plan approval for the waterfront promenade, streetscape cross-sections for Fifth Street and Mitchell Mosley Avenue, and the Alameda Landing Transportation Demand Management Program. The project area is located south of the Oakland Alameda Estuary, north of the College of Alameda and the Bayport Residential District, east of Coast Guard Housing, and west of Webster Street. The site is in the M-X (Mixed Use) Zoning District. Mr. Thomas presented the staff report, and recommended approval of the Transportation Demand Management plan for the project, the Mitchell Avenue and 5th Street roadway design, and the Site-wide Landscaping Development Plan amendment. Mr. David Tirman, Senior Vice President (California), Catellus Development Group, noted that he was an architect by training, and detailed his professional background. He noted that he was an active member of the AIA and was a LEED-accredited professional. He introduced the design and architecture team, and described their efforts with respect to sustainable development. Ms. Karen Alschuler displayed a PowerPoint presentation on the overhead screen, and described the background, scope and layout of this project. Mr. Rene Behan, Managing Principal, SWA San Francisco, detailed the components to the master plan with respect to the landscaping plan, the open space network, public use spaces and the bioswales. Mr. Tirman noted that the Clif Bar design documents and the adjacent parking shed would be brought forward at the May 29 meeting, along with the waterfront promenade development plan. He noted that at the June 11 meeting, they would return with the retail plans developed by LPA. The design review for 5th Street, Mitchell Avenue and the waterfront plaza would be presented. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. President Lynch called for a five-minute recess. President Lynch noted that the first topic of discussi… | PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2007-05-14 | 9 | parking areas rather than public streets, which was a concern for her. She noted that the guaranteed ride home was only for businesses with more than 100 employees, which may not be the majority of the businesses on this site. She was concerned that the pieces were there, but there were no guarantees that they would be provided, or that they would be effective. Board member Mariani agreed that the transportation piece was very important, but that people could not be forced to use them. She supported the use of incentives. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft commended the Transportation Commission for their work in creating a very comprehensive report. She expressed concern about the water shuttle service, and she would like a stronger commitment to the water taxi, as well as stronger language. She noted this was a waterfront-oriented project, and believed there should be better alternatives to get bikes from Alameda to Oakland rather than riding through the Tube. She strongly believed that public transportation should be subsidized, and that the dollars should be found to do that. She noted that she would continue to work toward a stronger commitment to the water taxi. Vice President Cook shared the concerns about the transportation plan, and noted that she was underwhelmed by it. She shared Board member Kohlstrand's concerns. Under "Duties and Deliverables," the report never discussed evaluating the landside requirements for successful operations of a water taxi, which should include links to other public transportation. She expressed general concern about the funding for the transportation plan, and noted that it did not seem to be particularly well funded. She requested further clarification on the developer role, and any funding contingencies if it failed. She noted that some of the evaluation points were somewhat confusing. Board member Mariani would like further clarification of the $425,000, which only seemed to be available at full development. Board member Cunningham would like more information on how the dollar … | PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2007-05-14 | 10 | financially, and the TDM program is not doing very well, and if additional funds could help the TDM program do better, there would be an increase in the annual allocations to the TDM program. Board member Kohlstrand would like more assurance for other kinds of service to compensate for the water taxi if needed, and the level of parking needed given the mix of uses on the site as a whole. Mr. Thomas noted that any developer would like to have certainty with respect to parking. He noted that there were no commercial office developments in Alameda that charged for parking, and that it was very tough to compete in that arena. Board member Kohlstrand did not believe it would be feasible to charge for parking, and suggested that limiting parking would force users into using alternative modes of transportation; she emphasized that the alternative mode must be available to serve the project. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a positive incentive for a business could be created, rather than using a punitive approach. She hoped that some realistic efforts would be made for a realistic solution. She noted that it took time for new transportation habits to be formed, and did not want to see more traffic put through the Tube. She would like to see more emphasis on water transportation, and would like to see a best effort in developing a workable solution. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the financial aspect of the project, Mr. Thomas replied that the entitlements were already in place. He recommended that the Planning Board could consider the annual report on the success of the program, and if it wanted the parking issue to be addressed in each of the annual reports, it would provide the opportunity to discuss the TDM plan, the parking strategy, use of parking, and whether it should be changed. President Lynch suggested that the areas of the TDM to be addressed in the annual report be discussed prior to the annual report in a scoping session. Board member Kohlstrand suggested that the annu… | PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf,11 | PlanningBoard | 2007-05-14 | 11 | Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to reopen the public hearing. Vice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7. The public hearing was reopened. Mr. Bruce Knopf, Catellus, noted that they were very committed to the TDM program, and saw the TMA program as establishing the beginning of their program, and for other developments to use in the future. They were committed to the water shuttle, which had a minimum funding level in the budget. The operation of the water shuttle will require gap funding from the developer, and he noted that it needed a sufficient level of ridership in order to succeed. They were working with Bike Alameda to develop a constituency. They had also spoken with Transportation Commission Chair John Knox White and members of the TMA about including the TMA itself as an entity within CMA to qualify for guaranteed ride home programs for smaller employers. They had worked closely with AC Transit in the last three months to discuss car share programs, and a program like EcoPass would become a component of their program. Board member Kohlstrand expressed concern that the information presented by Mr. Knopf was not included in the TDM report, and that the language should have been less tentative. President Lynch did not want to circumvent the authority of the TMA Board, which should be the body that fleshed out the ideals of the program. Mr. Knopf noted that the language was accurate, and that he could not guarantee the continued operation of the water shuttle. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Board member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-14 to approve the Alameda Landing Transportation Demand Management Program, with the following modifications as noted by staff would be included and; 1. Parking management strategies would be included in the annual report; 2. If any part of the water shuttle is started and then de-funded, that decision and other options would be reviewed by the Transportation Commission and the City Cou… | PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf,12 | PlanningBoard | 2007-05-14 | 12 | Mr. Thomas described the overall rights-of-way dedicated to the recommended 5th Street and Mitchell Cross Sections. Ms. Alschuler noted that the requirements were given specific scale and size in relationship to the Master Plan. President Lynch invited comment about 5th Street; there were no comments. Vice President Cook expressed concern about the narrowness of the sidewalk on the west side of 5th Street, given that the right of way had been set. She hoped there could be a true mixed use project on this site. Mr. Knopf noted that the strategy for that side of the street was to have an 11-foot section, with a six-foot continuous hardscape and five feet of planting. That planting could be in a more urbanized condition, with trees being placed in tree grates. Vice President Cook inquired whether there would be room for café tables. Mr. Knopf replied that there would be room for the tables. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the narrow townhomes and shop homes. Mr. Thomas described the homes as a Measure A-compliant duplex sitting on top of a retail space. Board member Kohlstrand inquired whether the Board would have an opportunity to comment on the entire street plan. Mr. Thomas replied that the entire internal street network would be presented as part of the development plan, including each phase of the development. The retail center, from Mitchell to Stargell, would be presented on June 11, 2007, as well as building footprints and design review. Board member Kohlstrand expressed concern that the Board was being asked to approve sections of 5th Street, and that there did not seem to be city blocks in the plan. It appeared to be a big shopping center to her, rather than city blocks. Board member Kohlstrand did not believe there was a street network that connected with Alameda. Vice President Cook shared Board member Kohlstrand's concerns, and was also concerned about the apparent privatizing of the streets. Board member Kohlstrand noted that the roads in South Shore Center were similar, and believed this pro… | PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf,13 | PlanningBoard | 2007-05-14 | 13 | Board member Mariani seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote - 4. Noes- 3 (Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft, Kohlstrand). President Lynch suggested that action on the landscape development plan be continued to the meeting of May 29, 2007. Mr. Thomas noted that at the next meeting, staff would present landscape, waterfront promenade and Clif Bar, in that order. Board member Mariani moved to continue the landscape development plan to the meeting of May 29, 2007. Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7. Planning Board Minutes Page 13 May 14, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2007-05-14 | 14 | 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None 11. BOARD COMMUNICATION a. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). Board member Mariani noted that they would hold the next meeting at 3:30 p.m. on May 17, 2007, at the Asian Health Center in Chinatown. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member Kohlstrand). Board member Kohlstrand noted that there was nothing further to report. C. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board Member Cunningham). Board member Cunningham advised that the next meeting would be held on Wednesday, May 16, at 7 p.m. at the Library. Board member Cunningham noted that many mail notifications of project had been received, and he would be happy to access the notifications on line o save mailing expenses. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested printing materials on both sides of the page to save paper. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Anderson Andrew Thomas, Secretary City Planning Board These minutes were approved at the May 29, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 14 May 14, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2016-01-25.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2016-01-25 | 1 | APPROVED MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 2016 1. CONVENE President Knox White called meeting to order at 7:00pm. 2. FLAG SALUTE Board Member Henneberry led the flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Present: President Knox White, Board Members Burton, Henneberry, Köster, Mitchell, Sullivan. Absent: Board Member Zuppan. 4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION *None* 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS *None* 6. CONSENT CALENDAR *None* 7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 7-A 2016-2498 PLN15-0522 - Mark Pelzner - 3273 Thompson Avenue. A public hearing to consider a use permit to allow a woodworking home occupation in approximately 77-square-feet of the ancillary space of an existing detached two-car garage. The items made on the site will be sold online so the business will not have any customers on site. No changes are proposed to the garage and the two existing parking spaces will remain. The property is located within an R-1, One-Family Residence Zoning District. The project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Existing Facilities. Staff Member Barrera gave a presentation on the item. The staff report and presentation are available at: os://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2550392&GUID=1E58BB3E- 7BB3-4ABA-A962-213E2CBD6639&FullText=1 Approved Minutes Page 1 of 9 January 25, 2016 Planning Board | PlanningBoard/2016-01-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2016-01-25.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2016-01-25 | 2 | President Knox White open the public hearing. Mark Pelzner, the applicant, said he has been planning and preparing for this for years and has tried to allay any concerns his business might create. He says he has made improvements to the garage/shop area to mitigate sound concerns. Board Member Sullivan asked how much time the applicant spent using power tools VS. quieter activities such as sanding and staining. Mr. Pelzner said he uses a mix and aspires to do fine woodworking and it is hard to give a percentage. He said he now plans to work behind closed doors where in the past he worked in the open which created more noise. President Knox White closed the public hearing. Board Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the permit with the stipulation that business hours are confined to Monday through Saturday from 9am to 5pm. Board Member Henneberry seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. 7-B 2016-2499 Planning Board Workshop on Alameda Point Site A Design Review for Block 10 Commercial Urban Park Staff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found at: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2550393&GUID=AAA69D5D- 55A4-479B-8052-C52567A404EE&FullText=1 Pam White from Madison-Marquette gave a presentation about their approach to the retail development. Board Member Köster asked if a retail study had been done for the area. Ms. White said that this site does not lend itself to traditional retail studies and they are looking for something unique. Hans Baldauf, project architect, gave a presentation on the design of Block 10. Board Member Sullivan asked about their familiarity with the survival of above ground plantings in windy areas. Approved Minutes Page 2 of 9 January 25, 2016 Planning Board | PlanningBoard/2016-01-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2016-01-25.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2016-01-25 | 3 | Ms. White said they have been working with their landscape architect and were considering heritage olives. Board Member Sullivan said she hopes they consider having plantings with interest through the different seasons. Board Member Mitchell asked if the site would have a greywater system. Ms. White said they are looking at their options, including rainwater catchment and greywater systems. Board Member Burton asked how deliveries would be made to the distillery building. Mr. Baldauf said they were preserving the space of West Seaplane which could be used for off hours deliveries. President Knox White asked about the space behind building 67 and what was planned there. Mr. Baldauf said they were mandated to preserve a certain amount of open space and that it could be a long range space to expand the retail space. President Knox White asked about D Street running between Blocks 10 and 11. Mr. Baldauf said they believe the street is important to connect Appezzato to the parking behind Block 11. Ms. White said they envisioned it as a shared one way street. She said they spoke with Public Works and the Fire Department and always assumed at least some emergency access, but that the street was too narrow for two way traffic. President Knox White asked about the trash enclosures for building 112 and whether we are turning our backs to the street and discouraging people from being there. Mr. Baldauf said the sliced off facade would create visual interest but they were trying to bring people into the interior of the site. Board Member Köster asked if the use and location of the shipping containers was the best use or if there were other ideas for their positioning and for programming some of the large open spaces. Approved Minutes Page 3 of 9 January 25, 2016 Planning Board | PlanningBoard/2016-01-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2016-01-25.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2016-01-25 | 4 | Mr. Baldauf said the containers were used to introduce a different scalar element while breaking up large blank surfaces on the original building walls. There were no public speakers. Board Member Burton said he wondered whether the Distillery building was in the right position along the street. He said he does not understand the fascination with the remnant structure and what was special about it that made it worth saving. He said it will be important to make sure that the building still addresses the street and is not overly biased to the interior courtyard. He said the West Seaplane Shops building could work very well. He said building 112 needs more development. He said Building 67 is starting to seem like more of a background building and not a centerpiece. He wondered how the butterfly roof on the Distillery building would look at night. He said he was concerned about wind exposure for people on the second floor patio. Board Member Mitchell said he liked where the design is going. Board Member Henneberry said it was a nice blend of respecting the history of the base and looking to the future. He said he liked the shipping containers and is glad they are back. Board Member Köster said he agreed with much of what Board Member Burton said. He said the space might be a good venue for some of the Phase Zero programming. He said he liked the Distillery building and West Seaplane Shops. Board Member Henneberry said we needed to keep children of different physical abilities in mind when designing the playground area. President Knox White said he liked the direction of the architecture. He said he was surprised we have opened up D Street. He said that will be the street that everyone uses to access the parking. He said the goal should be to turn the cars off earlier. He said we need to understand that pedestrians will naturally follow the train tracks and we need to plan accordingly. He said he worries that the spaces will be so large and open and difficult to program. He said opening D Street will create a barrier … | PlanningBoard/2016-01-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2016-01-25.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2016-01-25 | 5 | Staff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found at ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2550394&GUID=CE7C66DF- 1473-4975-A380-B8D99AFAEFC5&FullText=1 Mike O'Hara from Tim Lewis Communities gave a presentation on their development process and outlined the tradeoffs of different potential plan options at the site. Board Member Köster asked about where the retail for the site was planned, whether close to the Del Monte edge or out closer to the water. Mr. O'Hara said that depending on the densities, the retail could be concentrated more in one area or the other and that the plan chosen will dictate their choices. Board Member Mitchell asked about the distances (shoreline widths) involved in the perimeter land swap. Mr. O'Hara said it was an estimate and could vary. He guessed it was around 150 feet on the western edge. Board Member Mitchell asked how many units were included in the previous traffic studies. Staff Member Thomas said the traffic study was done in 2008. He said that all these projects contribute to the commute hour traffic problems. He said that is why every project would require the payment of transit funds to help mitigate the traffic impacts. President Knox White asked how this project impacts plans to extend Clement through the Pennzoil parcel. Staff Member Thomas said that he envisioned that the completion of that section would be tied to the development of the Encinal Terminals site. President Knox White opened the public hearing. Elizabeth Tuckwell said she participated in the workshops in November and December. She said a number of people had concerns about the tidelands swap. She said some people felt that BCDC would require the perimeter to be preserved anyway and the tidelands swap would short change Alameda. She said there were also concerns about the number of units and with parking constraints and building heights. Approved Minutes Page 5 of 9 January 25, 2016 Planning Board | PlanningBoard/2016-01-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2016-01-25.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2016-01-25 | 6 | Alison Greene said Alameda needs to leverage our position with the parcel swap to get more out of this project. She suggested middle class rental housing be negotiated as part of the swap. Karen Bey said water transit should be a priority for this project. She said she liked the smaller footprint with taller buildings. Jay Ingram said that the community meetings have not been supported by the City and were not well attended. He said a common sentiment was to see how the Del Monte project works out before moving forward with Encinal Terminals. He said he wanted to keep building heights to 2-3 stories. Helen Sause said this project would help address our housing shortage in Alameda. She said it would provide a unique mixed-use neighborhood for Alameda. She said that many new jobs, revenues and investment would return to the City from the project. President Knox White closed the public hearing. Board Member Henneberry asked for more information on the tidelands swap and what BCDC would require anyway if no swap is done. Staff Member Thomas explained the history of the planning process that anticipated the potential swap. He said BCDC's jurisdiction is the first 100 feet and evaluates each property on a case by case basis. Board Member Sullivan asked about what number of units had to be required for the site. Staff Member Thomas discussed housing element obligations and the tradeoffs between the number of units required to potentially fund various public improvements and amenities. President Knox White asked whether the City would ever approve a plan with no swap that does not restore the wharf. Staff Member Thomas said he did not anticipate that ever happening. Board Member Mitchell said he felt like we were missing the BCDC expectations before knowing how to leverage the swap for the best interests of the City. Approved Minutes Page 6 of 9 January 25, 2016 Planning Board | PlanningBoard/2016-01-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2016-01-25.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2016-01-25 | 7 | Staff Member Thomas said he sees it more from a desire to design the best project and then use the swap to make that happen. Board Member Burton said he will be looking for excellent water access options. He says the retail focus should be along Clement to compliment the Del Monte retail space and be neighborhood serving. He said waterfront dining out at the end of the site could work. He said we should consider small, incubator sized office spaces for the site. He said he was supportive of building higher to preserve open space and increase amenities. He said doing the swap makes sense to make the best plan with the most benefit for the City. Board Member Köster said he thinks the swap makes sense. He said that there are many taller buildings along the Northern Waterfront that are significantly taller than the average 2-3 stories we often think of in Alameda. Board Member Henneberry said we need to make the best swap possible. He said the higher the density, the more open space we get and he supports that. He said we should look at office space uses. Board Member Köster said he would like to see a place for people to temporarily tie up their larger boats while visiting the site. He referenced the Intra-Coastal Waterway in Florida as an example. Board Member Mitchell said he is in favor of the swap and wants to get the best deal we can for it. He said he is concerned about traffic and that if factors into the total number of units he would like to see. Board Member Sullivan said this is an exciting project. She says including docks for sail boats to cruise in would make it a destination. She said she would like to recognize our schooner heritage at the site. President Knox White said he thinks the focus should be along the Alaska Basin and out at the point. He said we should consider using some of the tidelands adjacent to the marina to support that use where it makes sense. He said it could be a good place for some of the displaced users from a potential Alameda Marina development. He agreed with Ms. Greene that… | PlanningBoard/2016-01-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2016-01-25.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2016-01-25 | 8 | to centralize the parking. He said he wants to keep the main vehicular access along the Fortmann Marina side and not put a road separating the Alaska Basin from the project. 8. MINUTES 8-A 2016-2505 Draft Meeting Minutes - July 27, 2015 Board Member Burton corrected an item regarding retail space on Park St. He said that he wanted it to be one space and the cafe to be expanded. President Knox White called for a vote to approve the minutes with Board Member Burton's correction regarding the retail space on Park St.. The minutes were approved 4- 0-2 (Mitchell and Sullivan were not in attendance for the 7/27/15 meeting.) 8-B 2016-2506 Draft Meeting Minutes - November 9, 2015 President Knox White asked that the motions be better captured by pasting in the Board Actions from the resolutions. Board Member Sullivan pointed out a typo assigning the wrong pronoun to her comment on page 5. President Knox White called for a vote to approve the minutes with Board Member Sullivan's correction to page 5. The minutes were approved 6-0. 9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS 9-A 2016-2503 Zoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions Staff Member Thomas said they approved several use permits at Alameda Point and some minor design reviews. 9-B 2016-2504 Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development Department Projects Staff Member Thomas said Bank of Marin and a rezoning request would be coming for the 2/8/16 meeting. He said the three Alameda Point items would be coming 2/22/16. 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS *None* 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS 11-A 2016-2439 Approved Minutes Page 8 of 9 January 25, 2016 Planning Board | PlanningBoard/2016-01-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2016-01-25.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2016-01-25 | 9 | Report from the Alameda Point Site A - Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee Staff Member Thomas said the Alameda Point items would be coming in sets of three. First would be Block 11, 8 and the Waterfront Park. After that would be Blocks 6, 7 and 10. 11-B 2016-2440 Report from the Boatworks - Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee President Knox White said the developer is finalizing an application and would hopefully come before the full board as soon as possible rather than going to the subcommittee. 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS *None* 13. ADJOURNMENT President Knox White adjourned the meeting at 10:49pm. Approved Minutes Page 9 of 9 January 25, 2016 Planning Board | PlanningBoard/2016-01-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2006-08-14 | 1 | Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Monday, August 14, 2006 1. CONVENE: 7:07 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE: Member Ezzy Ashcraft 3. ROLL CALL: President Lynch, Vice-President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft, Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani and McNamara. Board member Cunningham was absent. Also present were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Assistant City Attorney Donna Mooney, and Planner III Douglas Garrison. 4. MINUTES: Minutes for the meeting of July 24, 2006 Member Kohlstrand requested that under Item 9-A (Catellus) the minutes reflect a discussion regarding the retail development block framed by public streets with crosswalks. She noted that Dan Marcus, the developer, had indicated he was willing to incorporate that into the design. Vice President Cook advised that the last full paragraph on page 13 should include the following language: " requiring a shopping center in Subarea 3. In fact, Subarea 3 could include 370,000 square feet of R&D instead of retail, which seemed inconsistent with many of the speakers' perceptions and desires." Member Mariani noted that page 18, paragraph 5 read, "Member Mariani noted that she did not want to see a lot of RVs and parking areas," but that she was not the Member to make that statement. M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Kohlstrand to approve the minutes for the meeting of July 24, 2006, as amended. AYES - 6 (Cunningham absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None. Planning Board Minutes Page 1 August 14, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2006-08-14 | 2 | 6. ORAL COMMUNICATION: President Lynch noted that a speaker slip had been received from Karen Butter regarding Item 10-A, and inquired when it should be heard. Ms. Woodbury advised that it may be heard earlier in the agenda if so desired. President Lynch noted that he would not object to doing that one time, but did not want to set a precedent that would leave the public without a sense of certainty of when a particular item would be heard. He wished to retain the historical precedent of Oral Communications being reserved for items not on the agenda. Member Kohlstrand would like the discussion of Measure A to be held during Item 10-A, and to allow the public to make comments at that time. Ms. Mooney noted that with respect to Board Communications, the Rules and Procedures of the City Planning Board permitted any Board member to speak on any matter, and "limited action may be taken by the Board, such as asking staff for further information, there would typically not be deliberation or action taken by the Board, and that public comments on an agenda item typically immediately precede something to be discussed and acted upon. If the comments were kept to Oral Communications, and Board members spoke during Board Communications, that would be consistent with the Agenda's intent. President Lynch suggested that both speakers be taken during Oral Communications, and Board comments would be heard during Board Communications. Ms. Diane Lichtenstein hoped there would be time for public discussion regarding Measure A. Ms. Karen Butter, League of Women Voters, urged the Board to move forward and hold a public forum on a possible exemption of Measure A for Alameda Point. She believed this was a critical issue for Alameda citizens to discuss and understand the implications of that possibility. Planning Board Minutes Page 2 August 14, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2006-08-14 | 3 | 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: 7-A. Use Permit UP06-0010 - N. Saidian & L. Zekster - 1310 Central Avenue (DV). The applicant requests a Use Permit pursuant to Section 30-20.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code to extend the hours of operation for the Alameda Gasoline - Valero Station, an existing legal nonconforming service station facility. The current hours of operation are 9:00 am-6:00 pm Monday through Friday, 9:00 am-4:00 pm on Saturday, and closed on Sunday. The auto repair hours would be eliminated on Saturday. The Alameda Gasoline-Valero Station is located in the R-4 (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District. (Applicant requests continuance.) M/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft to continue this item. AYES - 6 (Cunningham absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 August 14, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2006-08-14 | 4 | 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 8-A. PD06-0001 and DR06-0054 - Habitat for Humanity - 626 Buena Vista Ave. (DG). The applicant requests approval of Planned Development and Major Design Review applications allowing the construction of eight new dwelling units consisting of four two-story duets on a lot previously used as a carwash. The project site is zoned R4-PD Neighborhood Residential District-Planned Development Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of July 24, 2006). President Lynch congratulated Mr. Garrison on his impending promotion to Supervising Planner. Mr. Garrison presented this staff report, and recommended approval of this item. Ms. Doreen Soto, Development Services, presented the rest of the staff report, and displayed a PowerPoint presentation describing the scope and layout of the project. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Virginia Jhang noted that she lived near the proposed site, and thanked the City for holding the neighborhood meetings. She noted that there were not many neighbors in attendance because many of them did not receive notice, and also because they supported affordable housing on this vacant site. She noted that it was difficult to afford home ownership, and that this project was a great help. She expressed concern about density, traffic safety and accountability. She noted that the developers did not propose to have a homeowners association with CC&Rs to maintain the project. She noted that the project met the Measure A criteria, but was still too dense for its location and lot size. In response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether her own development had CC&Rs, Ms. Jhang confirmed that it did, and that it was very helpful to her and her neighbors. She noted that it was an entry-level community, and that there was a playground in the common area for the children. She described some of the surrounding businesses, and believed the area was already too dense. She would like to see more open space and visitor parking on [Paramus]. The public hearing was closed for Board discussi… | PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2006-08-14 | 5 | Vice President Cook recognized the traffic problems, and believed that Public Works would be able to find a way to mitigate them. She supported this project, and believed that it would be an asset to the community. She had been a previous volunteer for Habitat for Humanity, and supported the pride of ownership it created. She was not concerned about adding CC&Rs to this site. Member Kohlstrand supported this project, and was reluctant to put additional burdens on this parcel, particularly for parking. She noted that this project already met Code in that regard. She would like to see The staff report noted that the City would like continuous sidewalks for trash traffic removal and she also felt they should be there for pedestrians to use. She added that the lots were so small that she believed it would be difficult to get all the landscaping in. Member Ezzy Ashcraft supported this project, but did not find the designs to be attractive. She did not believe they blended well with the rest of the community. She did not see any mention of green building elements in this report, and hoped that it would be included. President Lynch inquired whether the Board wished to add Member Kohlstrand's request about continuous sidewalks and landscaping to the conditions. Mr. Garrison noted that would be agreeable. M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to add continuous sidewalks and landscaping to the conditions of approval. AYES - 6 (Cunningham absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 In response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the explanation of the cost delta for the project, Mr. Craig Meltzner, contract project manager for Alameda Development Corporation, noted that the City funds were actually writing down the total development cost of the project. The actual production cost of the units would be in excess of $400,000 each, and that the City funds would write down the costs to make them affordable to the targeted groups. The very low income units will sell below $200,000; the low income units will sell at $225,000, and the … | PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2006-08-14 | 6 | these were privately owned homes, and that the mortgage documents had requirements to require appearances to be maintained. With respect to the exterior design, Mr. Kirk Peterson, Peterson & Associates Architects, noted that they looked at many designs, and wished they could have had more parking. He noted that this block did not have the typical charm of Alameda, and noted that he tried to follow the 19th century models for their simplicity. HardiPlank siding, corner details, double-hung windows and leaves were used to follow that design palette. Member Ezzy Ashcraft respected the historical aspect of the buildings and wanted to see the project noted that the City moved forward as well. Member Mariani liked the simplicity of the design when surrounded by the commercial clutter. Member Kohlstrand believed the existing courtyard developments in Alameda were more attractive, but she accepted the fact that 16 off-street parking spaces must be provided. She believed the design should be accepted as presented. Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it would be preferable not to look at the development from the street and see rows of parked cars have a row of cars parked on the street if possible. President Lynch was confident in the designers' capabilities, and believed that they addressed as many design features as possible before adding the City's requirements. M/S Mariani/Kohlstrand and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-31 to approve a Planned Development and Major Design Review applications allowing the construction of eight new dwelling units consisting of four two-story duets on a lot previously used as a carwash, with the additional modifications as noted by the Board. AYES - 6 (Cunningham absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 6 August 14, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2006-08-14 | 7 | 8-B. Appointment of Planning Board member to the Climate Protection Task Force. M/S Mariani/Kohlstrand and unanimous to nominate Board member Andrew Cunningham to the Climate Protection Task Force. AYES - 6 (Cunningham absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION: President Lynch noted that a letter was received from Housing Opportunities Makes Economic Sense, signed by Helen Sause, regarding Measure A. Member Mariani noted that the reference to City Council taking action on Measure A on the 1991 ballot was to define Measure A. 10. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding potential future Planning Board Measure A Forum (Board member Cunningham). Member Kohlstrand recalled that the Board had asked for this item to come to the Planning Board to review the history of Measure A, and for members of the public to give their perspective on it. She requested a report from the Planning and Building Director regarding that progress. Vice President Cook agreed with Member Kohlstrand's comments, and believed that this issue should be addressed sooner rather than later. She noted that historic preservation and open space planning were important issues, and that a civil community discussion would be needed. Member Mariani believed there was a full forum on Measure A with the Planning Board and City Council in the 1990s. While it was important for discussion to take place, she did not believe the Planning Board should take a political view on an item to be considered for the ballot. She would feel more comfortable if a separate group or person would drive that discussion. President Lynch noted that Measure A was the purview of City Council and the public, not the Planning Board. He agreed that it was important for the public to be aware of the genesis of Measure A. Part of that discussion included how Measure A was consistent with existing design guidelines as projects come before the Planning Board. He would like to define the appropriate forum for this discussion. Vice President Cook perceived the City … | PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2006-08-14 | 8 | Ms. Woodbury generally agreed with Vice President Cook's description of the Planning Board's role, and that the Board must abide by the regulations set forth in the law. Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed the Board would serve the City better by acting proactively, and noted that the deadline for the November ballot had passed. She would like to see a proposed ballot measure to understand the issue more completely." "We have not even seen a ballot measure on this issue." She would like to hear from some outside authorities regarding this issue for more perspective, and cited attractive developments in other cities. She would like to hear more substantive comments than a series of anecdotal events. She believed an outside facilitator would be a valuable addition to the process. Member Kohlstrand suggested forming a task force comprised of people with a range of perspectives, as well as City representatives and the EDC. Vice President Cook believed a less structured forum would be ideal for the problem-solving needed in this issue. She noted that the EDC had interesting perspectives. She would be interested in working with a highly skilled facilitator who could focus the discussion on the fundamental, underlying issues. Member Mariani suggested consulting with the Mayor and City Council on the Board's role in this matter. She supported an outside forum. Member McNamara supported using an outside forum to clarify the issues, and acknowledged the emotional component of Measure A in the community. She believed the forum should be televised. President Lynch noted that he and Ms. Woodbury would develop a plan of action and report back to the Planning Board. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook). Vice President Cook noted that no further meetings had been held. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). Member Mariani noted that no further meetings had been held, and that the next meeting would be held on Tuesday, August 22, at … | PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2006-08-14 | 9 | 13. ADJOURNMENT: 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathy Woodbury - Cathy Woodbury, Secretary City Planning Board These minutes were approved at the August 28, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 9 August 14, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2012-03-12 | 1 | APPROVED MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD MONDAY MARCH 12, 2012 7:00 p.m. 1. CONVENE: 7:05 P.M. 2. FLAG SALUTE: Board Member Autorino 3. ROLL CALL: President Zuppan, Vice-President Burton, Board members Autorino, Ezzy Ashcraft, Knox White, Köster. Henneberry. 4. MINUTES: Minutes from the Regular meeting of February 13, 2012 Board member Knox White asked to amend page 6, which said, "Board member Knox White would like to continue to review and have staff work... " It should say President Ezzy Ashcraft asked for a motion to continue and Board member Knox White asked was there a reason to continue. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked to amend page 4. On the top of the page, the last sentence before oral communications the sentence should have two sentences or maybe a semicolon. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked to amend page 7 of 15. On the top of page first paragraph, which states "President Ashcraft discussed the 2000 Clinton Avenue property. The City asked for her comments, but there were no attachments.. " So, the word "Her" should be changed to the "Planning Board." Board member Burton asked to amend page 6. On the top of the page, the notes do not list Board member Burton's detailed objections to the follow: 1. Relative depth of the building compared to the depths of the other buildings on the site. 2. How the parking spaces weren't in compliance. 3. How the scale of the building, the detail of the building and rooms are inhabitable. Board member Knox White moved to approve the minutes of February 13, 2012 as amended. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0 and 1 abstention. Approved Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 23 March 12, 2012 | PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2012-03-12 | 2 | Minutes from the Regular meeting of November 28. 2011 Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to approve the minutes of November 28, 2011 as written. Board member Autorino seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0 and 2 abstentions. Minutes from the Regular meeting of January 9. 2012. (Pending) Minutes from the Regular meeting of February 27, 2012 (Pending) 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None. 6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Written Report 6-A Future Agendas Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, reported on the future agenda items. The March 26, 2012 meeting consists of a use permit for the College of Alameda Flea Market, the Public Art Ordinance Workshop, and a 6-month review for 1051 Pacific Marina. Staff has decided they are not ready to bring the Public Art Ordinance for the workshop that day, but staff will bring the actual proposed amendments before the Board later in the spring. The April 9, 2012 meeting consists of draft amendments to the Alameda Municipal Code related to massage uses. Additionally, there will be a use permit design review and variance application for the redesign and remodel of a gas station at 1716 Webster Street and Park Street Streetscape Plan from Public Works. A recent addition to the April 9th agenda will be a review of the Transportation Demand Management and Systems citywide plan. Staff will have the report made available to the Board by March 26th. The April 23, 2012 meeting consists of the Draft Alameda Point Zoning Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Report and Final Recommendation of the Park Street Code. Lastly, the May 14, 2012 meeting consists of a final approval needed by the Board for the Public Art Draft Amendments, the first draft of the revisions to the municipal code dealing with farm animals, third hearing on the Housing Element, and the Bicycle Guidelines from Public Works. The agenda may also include a fourth item regarding the proposed amendments to the municipal code to require bay friendly landscaping. Regarding the Zoning Administrator's updates, he appro… | PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2012-03-12 | 3 | Streetscape Plan in the April 9th agenda and how will that be presented to the Board. Mr. Thomas replied it would be a rendering of the proposed project on Park Street. Board member Knox White referred to the last meeting where the Board discussed the Broadway/Jackson project and staff indicated the Oakland City Council was in support of the project. He contacted the offices of Wilma Chan, staff for Rebecca Kaplan, and Pat Kernighan to confirm their support. They are in support of the general idea of the project, but depending on whom you talk to they have some concerns. There were suggestions about something coming back to the Board for review and we're already a year into the project study report and it has not come back. He is surprised that the project is not on the agenda until May, especially since this is a $190 million dollar public works project. Mr. Thomas replied that staff is looking at the agendas for the next couple of months and the April 23rd meeting could work, especially since the Board will be discussing the Alameda Point Rezoning plan. He will contact Public Works to see if they can attend the meeting. President Zuppan agreed. 7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: None. 9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 9-A. Housing Element Update Public Workshop - The Planning Board will hold a public workshop to consider a package of amendments to the City of Alameda Housing Element to respond to State of California Government Code requirements and suggestions from the State Department of Housing and Community Development. The package also includes a number of proposed amendments to the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance related housing requirements and development processes. The purpose of the meeting is to solicit public comments on the proposals. No final actions will be taken by the Planning Board on the proposals at this meeting. Mr. Thomas gave a brief Power Point presentation about the Draft Housing Element and subsequent public process and schedule. He reported on the Draft Housing Element Ame… | PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf,18 | PlanningBoard | 2012-03-12 | 18 | ensure developments to these sites. Ultimately, she looks forward to this plan, applauds the City for investing in this and she hopes the Council will quickly endorse the plan. Diane Lichtenstein, Vice President of HOMES, congratulated the staff on a well thought out plan. She was originally concerned that the plan would be developed in sections and that it would not be cohesive. However, she understood that will not happen and she urged staff to hire a development advisor who has experience with this type of endeavor in order to move the plan along. Her organization advocates for mixed-use developments and services that are accessible to everyone who lives there and she felt there was a lack of the mix-use developments in the plan. In addition, she urged staff to include amenities in each residential district such as small restaurants, cleaners, and coffee shops. Also, she urged for a mix of diverse residential types including mixing affordable and market-rate housing just as the community and Board said. Bill Smith, Vice President of Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, agreed with Board members Ezzy Ashcraft and Knox White's comments about placing a housing cap in the zoning ordinance. The Urban Land Institute just came out with a report that shows California is overbuilt in single-family housing, but not multifamily housing near transit and urban districts. So, the City could increase the residential density and still develop commercial and open space. Ultimately, believes the City is not representing the community's input and he would be interested to see what staff has to say about that. Karen Bay, Alameda resident, echoed Board member Autorino's comments about having more residential along the waterfront. She believes that is an important aspect to this project that is missing. She found that adding residential in the corner between the town center and employment parcels would be beneficial. Also, she would like to see more residential within the adaptive reuse area. She wondered how the City would finance the … | PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf,19 | PlanningBoard | 2012-03-12 | 19 | Center District may need additional levels of detail that they want built into the entitlements. Board member Köster stated if a developer wanted to build housing in the Adaptive Reuse District it sounds like it could be a little prescriptive and the developer would have to take a couple of steps to get there. Mr. Thomas said yes we all need to discuss those issues such as do we want them to go through extra steps. Board member Köster asked if the City's planned is to look at multiple developers for this site or one master developer. Mr. Thomas explained that staff's perspective is to get more than one developer, especially since the site is huge. Given the current economy, it is better to develop in smaller pieces with multiple developers. Board member Köster would also like to discuss the site's transportation plan. He also echoed some of the Board and public's sentiments about not capping the housing since it would be a miss opportunity. Board member Knox White was concerned about the dual track and amendment process. The Council is being asked to adopt a process that appears to solidify what happens in specific zones especially in the northern and southern areas. From what he is hearing, the Board is not in consensus regarding the staff proposals on the zoning amendments. He recommended that the Board to send a letter of communication to the City Council to hold off on that part of the discussion. He liked the developer consultant part of this plan, but he fears that this conversation hasn't happened and this is the first time the Board has meaningfully analyzed how Alameda Point should start to be shaped. Regarding the SunCal Plan he thinks the zoning map does a significantly better job at identifying the type of zoning the City should adopt moving forward. He wondered if staff should bring this map out so there are not so many levels. The actual zoning proposal is significantly problematic and may cause issues similar to Harbor Bay where people end up with millions of square feet of commercial entitlements … | PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf,20 | PlanningBoard | 2012-03-12 | 20 | Board member Henneberry wanted to know what staff is asking from the City Council next week. Ms. Ott replied the ask is to provide direction on a strategy they have contemplated, which talks about dividing the property in a concurrent development approach and engaging the development community about these areas. Board member Henneberry asked if staff has the specific proposal on the entitlements. Ms. Ott stated they have the development envelope in the Reuse Plan as a starting point. As part of the disposition process, staff could go back and take the cap out and leave it out of the zoning ordinance, but developers need exact unit numbers that they can develop. Vice President Burton agreed with many of the Board's comments. He felt that Board member Autorino comments about the continuous green connection and the interconnectedness of the shoreline spaces is important. He understood staff's need to create a base-wide zone, but there has to be an explanation of how they will move forward in order to create a cohesive development. The Calthorpe plan has many strong points that built the plan's skeleton and backbone, including a transportation network and pathways through the different uses. He wants a plan of action for the backbone so, once they start breaking up the 20-acre parcels they end up with something cohesive. He was encouraged to hear that there will be some accommodation for multifamily residential in the employment areas and the Town Center District. However, he wanted to see that developed in more of a specific way so there is an opportunity for mixed-use. He was encouraged by the form-based code for North Park Street and he would like to see how that process could be layered over the base-wide zoning. He referred to the lower employment area that interfaces on Main Street with the residential across and suggested that staff create a slice along there for higher-residential housing. In terms of moving forward with the actual dispersal of land, he would like staff to focus on the Town Center District an… | PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.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]) );