pages
11 rows where "date" is on date 2006-04-10
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
body 1 ✖
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2006-04-10 | 1 | Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Monday, April 10, 2006 1. CONVENE: 7:06 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE: Ms. Kohlstrand 3. ROLL CALL: President Cunningham, Vice-President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft, Kohlstrand, Lynch and McNamara. Board member Mariani was absent. Also present were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Douglas Garrison, Planner III, Contract Planner Chandler Lee, Doug Cole, Development Services, Executive Assistant Latisha Jackson. President Cunningham welcomed Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft to the Planning Board. 4. MINUTES: Minutes for the meeting of February 27, 2006. Vice President Cook advised that at the bottom of page 8, the motion was not approved unanimously, and that it failed. She advised that at the bottom of page 9, the vote was not unanimous. President Cunningham noted that the motion on page 12 was to deny, and there were two "Ayes" and three "Noes." He believed that three people supported the denial, and that he and Mr. Lynch voted against the denial. Ms. Woodbury stated that the motion was for approval, and it failed. She noted that the language would be changed for clarification. M/S Cook/McNamara to approve the minutes for the meeting of February 27, 2006, as amended. AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Ashcraft) 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. Planning Board Minutes Page 1 April 10, , 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2006-04-10 | 2 | 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: 7-A. PDA05-0007 - Park Street Landing - 2307 Blanding Avenue (EP). Redesign of the existing monument sign, per the request of the Planning Board. Three signs would be established on the existing monument sign. The site is located within the Park Street Landing Shopping Center in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District. (Staff requests continuance to the meeting of April 24, 2006.) M/S Kohlstrand/Ashcraf and unanimous to continue Item 7-A to the meeting of April 24, 2006. AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 2 April 10, , 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2006-04-10 | 3 | 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 8-A. FDP06-0001 /DR06-0004 - Exchange Support Services, Inc. - 1700 Harbor Bay Parkway (DG). The applicant requests approval of Final Development Plan and Major Design Review applications allowing the construction of a new 105 room, three-story hotel. Guest rooms will not include kitchen / cooking facilities. The building includes approximately 59,000 sq. ft. of floor area. Typical building height would be approximately 34 ft. with some parapets extending up to a maximum height of 42 ft. The site is located in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report, and recommended approval of this project. In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand whether the future building pad was included in the 48% landscaping, Mr. Garrison confirmed that was true. Member Kohlstrand noted she was disappointed to that there were no plans for development of this portion of the site, and that she had asked for amenities on Harbor Bay Parkway. She inquired when some other amenities may be seen on this site. Mr. Garrison noted that the applicants could address that question. The public hearing was opened. Mr. John Manderfeld, Marin Management, Inc., hotel operator, noted that they planned to assess the question of amenities following completion of the construction. He noted that they would know what the demands of the area would be, and that they were examining small restaurants, cafés, and coffee vendor service. He added that they would need to find a suitable tenant. He noted that the Hampton Inn brand was part of the Hilton Corporation, and that there would be a "shop," which would sell small food items that guests could prepare in their rooms. Complimentary breakfast is also included, and no lunch or dinner service was included. In response to an inquiry by Member Lynch whether there were FARs on this site, Mr. Garrison replied that there were not in this part of Harbor Bay Parkway. President Cunningham noted that the conditions mentioned… | PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2006-04-10 | 4 | The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Member Lynch would like more vegetation to be added, and liked the idea of indigenous plants. M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-12 to approve Final Development Plan and Major Design Review applications allowing the construction of a new 105 room, three-story hotel. Guest rooms will not include kitchen / cooking facilities. The building includes approximately 59,000 sq. ft. of floor area. Typical building height would be approximately 34ft. with some parapets extending up to a maximum height of 42 ft. The changes to the landscaping plan would be included, which would increase the number and/or size of the trees in the parking area to better screen the building. AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 President Cunningham called for a five-minute break. Planning Board Minutes Page 4 April 10, , 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2006-04-10 | 5 | 8-B. Catellus Study Session (AT). A presentation and discussion of proposed changes to the Catellus Mixed Use Development Project. The study session provides an opportunity for Planning Board and public input into the proposed project design early in the project design process. The project site is located on the north side of the College of Alameda adjacent to the Oakland Estuary. No action will be taken on the proposed project at this meeting. Mr. Lee presented the staff report. Noted that two community workshops were held, and that the suggestions from the public were summarized in the table distributed to the Board. He introduced the applicant team. Mr. Dan Marcus made a PowerPoint presentation, detailing the project. He noted that amenities such as outdoor dining, playgrounds, and bike and walking paths. The January workshop made it apparent to them that the waterfront was special for people of all ages. He described the site layout and surrounding uses. Their intention was to create an exciting mixed use development, with a special waterfront use. He noted that both the January and February workshops were well attended and productive. He answered the three predominant questions they answered at the workshop: 1. Why is Catellus proposing to make this change? He noted that the site was entitled for 1.3 million square feet of office development. There is a lack of office development, and a demand for such; 300-400,000 square feet of office could be absorbed over the next five to ten years, but 1.3 million square feet of office development must be spread out over decades. He added that there was a strong demand for residential and retail development, and noted that the ability for students to have nearby jobs will attract more students. He believed that workplaces near homes will also be beneficial. Catellus also intended to make the waterfront a special site. 2. How will our proposed retail impact other retail in Alameda? He noted that the City sponsored a citywide retail forum to address this question, and tha… | PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2006-04-10 | 6 | shifted from the City to Catellus. Ms. Karen Alschuler, SMWM, described the details of the plan and displayed the site plan on the overhead screen. She noted that having a waterfront site brought with it the responsibility to treat it with respect. Mr. Prakash Pintel, SMWM, displayed the plan and described its layout, scope and major components. He noted that they intended to connect Alameda to its waterfront. He noted that a health club would be a good use on the waterfront, with outdoor jogging paths along the waterfront. They favored an integrated transit stop system to serve both the housing and retail uses, and to bring people to the waterfront. He displayed a water taxi system, similar to that used in Vancouver. Ms. Karen Alschuler, SMWM, discussed the waterfront as a way to bring the mixed uses together. She displayed the proposed plan, including new office buildings, the park and the public spaces as they relate to the water views. Their goal was to change this site from derelict to destination. The public hearing was opened. Mr. George Phillips, 901 Park Street, spoke in support of this project. He noted that Catellus has been a good friend and neighbor in Alameda, and believed they worked diligently to be sure the nonprofit organizations were involved in this project. He asked the Board to consider the parking considerations and open space. Ms. Lucy Gigli, President, Bike Alameda, noted that they had worked closely with the East Bay Bicycle Coalition in looking at this project. They would like the Board to use this project as a way to reduce the demand of auto traffic by closing the current gap for bicycles and pedestrians between the West End of Alameda and Oakland. She noted that the bicycle access for that short distance was in the dirty, noisy Posey Tube with a very dangerous and narrow path. She believed this project would open up the opportunity to take the water taxi concept a step further, and would create transportation access for pedestrians and bicyclists. Mr. Randy Renthschler expressed his … | PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2006-04-10 | 7 | Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why Catellus did not propose this particular project in the first place. Mr. Manderfeld noted that Catellus competed with a number of developers to look at the redevelopment of this overall site. At that time, the focus was on creating a jobs/housing balance and commercial uses; there had been some retail uses sprinkled in the original project. The original proposal was before the dot-com crash, and there had been significant interest in office and R&D uses. He noted that the past chair of the EDC had commented to him that plans were meant to change. The community has since expressed its interest in more retail. Member Kohlstrand disclosed that she reviewed the proposal with the developers. Member [Ezzy Ashcraft] disclosed that she met with the developer to review the proposal, but not at the same time as Member Kohlstrand. Member Kohlstrand believed there were many positive aspects to this plan, especially the integration of varied land uses. She liked the idea of Fifth Street being used as a main spine that oriented towards Jack London Square in Oakland. She believed that having Mitchell Mosely Avenue and Tinker Avenue developed as major east-west streets on the property was a positive aspect. She expressed concern about the uses being spread apart. She noted that the predominant use was parking, and believed that concern was expressed at the workshops as well. She believed the very low density was a constraint that resulted in a lot of parking. She would rather see land reserved and not developed than having all the surface parking area. She would like better integration of the uses. Vice President Cook agreed with Member Kohlstrand's comments, and supported the mixed use concept over the office projects. She would like to see best practices for waterfront development implemented for this project, and complimented SMWM on their involvement in this project. She believed the site was overly constrained, including the influence of Measure A; she would like to see more diversity in re… | PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2006-04-10 | 8 | Mr. Lee noted that the City was responsible for building Tinker Avenue, and that preliminary designs had been created. The EIR for the project examined the site in great detail, and more information should be available by the end of April. Member Ashcraft echoed Member McNamara's concern about the many parking spaces. Mr. Lee noted that the Master Plan contained considerable flexibility regarding the parking lot. He noted that the current parking numbers reflected the City's requirements in a typical development. Member Lynch agreed with Mr. Lee's comments, and believed the City's planning documents need to be revisited to reflect current conditions. He believed the site could be even denser, and that the City should look at the interpretation and application of Measure A. He believed that should be rethought, and believed there was a difference of opinion within the legal community. He complimented the applicant on a job well done. President Cunningham echoed the previous comments on housing and parking, and agreed with the other comments. He understood that the current live/work ordinances do not make an allowance for this use. He would like the City to tackle the issue of sustainability, and believed an ordinance addressing sustainability should be in place. He noted that such a large development would have a large impact on the community, which he believed should be mitigated as much as possible. He would like to see the phasing plan for this construction. Mr. Lee noted that the Master Plan contained exhaustive detail on this project. Member Lynch believed the idea of the health club over a retail space was a terrible idea because it was not children-friendly or user-friendly. He would like to see a more family-friendly health club on this site. Member Lynch believed this would be the perfect place for fireworks displays, and noted that the Marin Community Foundation, housed at the former Hamilton Air Force Base, was stunning. He believed it was an excellent example of adaptive use. In response to an inquiry … | PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2006-04-10 | 9 | Member Kohlstrand would like to see more density on this site, and for the amount of parking surface to be reduced. She would like further research into a possible parking structure. She would like a better connection to the rest of Alameda and further examination of use of the Tubes. She intended to convey her belief that the City could make better use of the frontage road, the name of which she did not know, at Mariner Square in terms of providing access to the site. Vice President Cook agreed with Member Lynch's opinion regarding the health club and would rather see a residential use there. She would like to understand the water taxi issue better, and wanted to ensure they worked well. She expressed concern about the Coast Guard housing on this site, and their concerns for security versus the City's plan for integration into the rest of the City. She believed there was an opportunity with this project to improve the residential access to the waterfront, and to improve the Coast Guard housing. Mr. Lee noted that they had discussed potential connections into that site. Vice President Cook was concerned about the schism between affordable housing and the million dollars homes, and while the 25% affordable housing allotment for Alameda was commendable, she would like to see a more seamless integration of the different housing types in Alameda. Mr. Lee noted that Measure A allowed for some flexibility for attached homes within a certain limit. In addition, part of the term sheet did require 25% affordable housing. Member Lynch would like to see a copy of the 2000 Master Plan agreement. He noted that with a new City Manager and Planning Director, he believed that the introduction of a new document such as this should be put into context with the past Master Plan. He was not open to reexamining the policy of fiscal neutrality, and believed it should remain a core piece going forward. In response to an inquiry by Member Lynch whether a General Plan Amendment would be done, Mr. Lee replied that the project required a G… | PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2006-04-10 | 10 | Ms. Woodbury noted that would be discussed by the Executive Management Team, and that would be brought to the City Manager to bring that thought forward. No action taken on this item. Planning Board Minutes Page 10 April 10, , 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf,11 | PlanningBoard | 2006-04-10 | 11 | 9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None 10. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that there were no further meetings since the last report. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this item. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member Kohlstrand). Member Kohlstrand advised that she was unable to attend the last meeting, and would report to the Board at a later time. 11. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None 12. ADJOURNMENT: 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catay Woodbury Cathy Woodbury Secretary City Planning Board These minutes were approved at the May 8, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 11 April 10, , 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.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]) );