pages
48 rows where body = "PlanningBoard" and page = 14
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: date (date)
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-10 | 14 | 9-C. Use Permit, UP04-0012/Major Design Review, DR04-0099; Tasha Skinner, Tetra Tech, Inc. For the Alameda Unified School District (Will C. Wood Middle School), 420 Grand Street (DB). The applicant requests a Use Permit and Major Design Review to install twelve cellular telecommunication antennae (4-foot panel antennas) to be located around the top of the school building at the top perimeter/parapet, plus the installation of a utility shed at the rear of the building. A Use Permit is required by AMC, Section 30-4.1(b)(3) for approval of above-ground utility installations for local service in an R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District. M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 9-C from the Regular Agenda and to place it on the Consent Calendar. AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-02 to approve a Use Permit and Major Design Review to install twelve cellular telecommunication antennae (4-foot panel antennas) to be located around the top of the school building at the top perimeter/parapet, plus the installation of a utility shed at the rear of the building. A Use Permit is required by AMC, Section 30-4.1(b)(3) for approval of above-ground utility installations for local service in an R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 14 January 10, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-24 | 14 | President Cunningham noted that he would like to see work/live branch out to Alameda Point and Park Street. However, he did not want such a step to jeopardize the existence of the ordinance. Mr. Piziali believed the residents of Alameda would be able to see that work/live uses were controlled, attractive and appropriate. Vice President Cook believed this ordinance was a baby step toward a discussion of the broader implications of Measure A. She believed this ordinance brought up very important issues for historic preservation and adaptive reuse at the Base. She did not want to see the work/live ordinance put at risk by addressing more complex and overarching issues too soon. Vice President Cook noted that Alameda's citizens had stopped public processes before when it became apparent that it would be not be beneficial. She believed that Alamedans would exercise the same common sense in this case. President Cunningham noted that an additional speaker slip had been received. M/S Lynch/Cook to reopen the public hearing. AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 The public hearing was reopened. Mr. Mark Irons, 835 Oak, noted that he was pleased by the Board's discussion, although he did not disagree that work/live could be successfully extended throughout Alameda Point. He understood the delicacy of this issue. The public hearing was closed. No action was taken. Planning Board Minutes Page 14 January 24, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 14 | 9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 10. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that they continued to meet monthly, and were preparing for the workshop on March 3, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in Chambers; community participation was strongly encouraged. b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report since her last report. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali). Board Member Piziali advised that there was nothing new to report since his last report. d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani). Board Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report. 11. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: a. Presentation in preparation for March 3 Alameda Point Community Workshop. Mr. Thomas displayed a PowerPoint presentation to provide the Planning Board with a preview of the issues associated with development of Alameda Point, which will be discussed at the workshop to be held March 3, 2005. He distributed a hard copy of the PowerPoint presentation and advised that the presentation and other materials can be found on www.alamedapoint.com. He anticipated having a preliminary land use concept and a conveyance strategy accomplished with the Navy by summer. He noted that the four key issues to be addressed at the March 3 workshop were: financial feasibility, historic preservation, Measure A and transportation. The following workshop at the end of March will be co-hosted by the Transportation Commission and the APAC, and will focus on the Estuary crossing issues. He emphasized that the project must pay for itself, and not rely on the City's General Fund; it must also be fiscally neutral in the long run. Mr. Thomas detailed the policy background, environmental constraints, land use constraints, challenges and opportunities of the site. He summarized the issues … | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 14 | Ms. Shelley Dunn, 1322 Regent Street, noted that she was not opposed to the presence of the hospital, but was concerned about parking and dog urine on her lawn. She noted that the urine may not be the responsibility of the hospital staff. She inquired what would happen to the cars current renting space on that site. Ms. Kate Pryor, 2063 Eagle Avenue, spoke in support of this application. She noted that she was a business owner, and believed that the mixed use made the district more vibrant. Ms. Nancy Matthews, 2450 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and expressed concern about the impact of this use on the residences. She described the traffic flow in the neighborhood, and expressed concern about the potential increase in traffic. She did not believe that customers of the clinic should be able to urge approval of a project they did not have to live with. Mr. Tom Matthews, 2450 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that 50 local residents were also opposed to this application. He doubted that the merchants on Park Street would allow this use. He did not believe this building had any residential character, and that the expansion was too large for the area. He believed a condition should be added that would require pets to be walked in the commercial zones only, and that the use to limited to care of sick pets only, with no boarding. He believed the setback was inadequate, with a one-foot setback from Central Avenue; he believed the small setback made it incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood. He would like to see architectural changes that would be more compatible with the transitional residential part of the neighborhood. Mr. Joe Meylor, 1361 Regent Street, spoke in opposition to all facets of this project, including the use, the design and the Variance because the use fundamentally changed the business model of the business. He noted that a small business would become a larger, wider-ranging facility with many more uses. He noted that dogs urinated on his private prope… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-25 | 14 | 9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 10. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC (Vice- President Cook). Vice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report. b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook). Vice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali). Board member Piziali advised he had nothing new to report. d. Oral Status Report regarding Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board member Mariani). Board member Mariani advised that there had been no meetings since her last report. 11. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary City Planning Department These minutes were approved at the May 9, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. G:\PLANNING\PB\Agendas_Minutes\Minutes.05\April 25 Minutes.doc Planning Board Minutes Page 14 April 25, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-23 | 14 | 9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 10. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC (Vice President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that she had requested regular updates on the APAC's work (see Item 11-A). b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali). Board Member Piziali advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting. d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani). Board Member Mariani advised that Mr. Thomas had made a presentation, which she would defer until the next meeting. The Chinatown group was very pleased with the planning so far, resulting from the Alameda Point proposed development. 11. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: a. Staff update on status of Planning for Alameda Point. Mr. Andrew Thomas advised that he had distributed a flier for the sixth and final workshop regarding the preliminary development concept. The final draft of the preliminary development concept and transportation program would be presented at the June 8 community workshop, and the written documents would be presented at that time. The land use plans and the associated development principles would be presented, as would the transportation program and all its phases, and the historic preservation program. An infrastructure plan that supported the preliminary development concept would be presented, as well as other documents. Staff would take community comment on June 8, and would get a sense from the community in terms of work to date, and what would need further work. Those comments would be brought to the ARRA Board on July 14, 2005. Mr. Lynch expressed concern about the type of partners sought by the City as build out approaches. He inquired whether the agreement structure was such that the Master Developer reserves the right… | PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 14 | 8-C. DR04-0051, 616 Pacific Avenue, Applicant: Erwin Roxas (AT/EP). The proposal is an appeal of the code enforcement action which determined that the demolition of a single-family residence, located at the above address, is in violation of the AMC $13-21-10 b (removal or demolition of an historic structure without proper permits) and is, therefore, subject to the five (5) year stay that prevents the issuance of any building or construction-related permits for the property. The applicant had received Major Design Review approval in July 2004 for proposed 1st and 2nd story additions, enlargement of the detached garage, interior remodel, porch additions, etc. that would add approximately 1,562 square feet to the dwelling and 225 square feet to the garage and storage shed. The property is within the R-4, Neighborhood Residential District. M/S Piziali/Lynch to continue Item 8-C to the meeting of June 27, 2005. AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 14 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.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/2005-08-22.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2005-08-22 | 14 | foot wide landscaping buffer. There could be a one-way-only entrance to the center to reduce traffic along the northern edge of the Willows. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether a garden center would be included, Mr. Corbitt noted that he did not know, but would find out. President Cunningham called for a five-minute break. President Cunningham advised that more than five speaker slips had been received. M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes. AYES - 6 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 The public hearing was opened. Mr. Hector Medina, 2101 Shoreline Drive, #258, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that the new bus route generated more noise near his home, and he was concerned that this development would bring even more noise. He believed the design was beautiful, but that it would bring more traffic congestion, crime and noise to the neighborhood. Mr. Tim Erway, President, Willows Homeowners Association, 2101 Shoreline Drive, spoke in opposition to this item. He believed the design and plans through Phase 7 were attractive, and he was pleased with them. He expressed concern that the there would be less control over the site after the developer sells the land to Target. He was very concerned that the underground parking would attract crime and require more security. He agreed with Mr. Medina's concerns about the negative impact on the neighborhood following the bus route change. He wished to address traffic congestion and noise impacts. Mr. Jon Spangler noted that he was speaking as a private citizen, and inquired whether access to all of the stores would be as convenient, or more convenient, for transit patrons and bicyclists as it will be for automobile drivers. He inquired whether Harsch would be willing to include mitigations such as shuttles running between the bridges, across the Island and from the tubes to South Shore up Doolittle. He suggested that the developer fund electric shuttles so that the noise to the adjacent residents would b… | PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2005-09-29 | 14 | Vice President Cook noted that she often bought her tickets online in order to avoid long lines. She suggested that camping be restricted. Mr. Lynch acknowledged that people may line up for tickets at 10 AM, but opposed people sleeping over in front of the theater. He suggested that the applicant hire a private security guard for such events. President Cunningham noted that St. Joseph's was required to hire private security to monitor excess parking for special events. Mr. Piziali wished to ensure that there was no additional taxpayer expense on police services for such an event. Vice President Cook suggested the following language: "The queuing plan shall be viewed by the Public Works Director, Planning & Building Director and the Chief of Police, and shall specifically address overnight queuing, and the cost of extra police services, if and when necessary, shall be borne by the applicant." Mr. Lynch and President Cunningham agreed with that language. Ms. Mariani inquired about inside and outside surveillance, and the specifics of the security. Ms. McNamara believed that 10 extended hour events per year would be sufficient, and added that after the first night, it was no longer a special event for a blockbuster movie. She was also concerned about the impact on the neighborhoods by attendees leaving the late movies at 3 AM Vice President Cook noted that if the 10 days per year went well, the Board could consider adding more dates. Mr. Lynch suggested reviewing the extended hours every six months, rather than projecting a negative. Vice President Cook suggested making that interval slightly longer to accommodate a learning curve, but supported the general idea. She suggested 24 events in a year, and reviewing the extended hours after a year. M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m. AYES - 6 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Vice President Cook believed it would be useful to cap the number of theaters being used on a late- night showing. President Cunningham did not want to place… | PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2005-11-14 | 14 | 9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION: None. 10. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that there had been no further meetings. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali). Mr. Piziali advised there was nothing new to report. d. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). Ms. Mariani was not in attendance to present this report. e. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member Kohlstrand). Ms. Kohlstrand advised that the transportation subcommittee did have its last and final meeting on November 2, 2005 and received additional input on their recommended classification system for the street network in Alameda. It has gone to staff for comment and will come before the Planning Board in the future. Vice President Cook informed the Board that on November 16, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. the League of Women Voters would be sponsoring a forum about Alameda Point at the Church on the corner of Grand and Santa Clara. She pointed out staff member Andrew Thomas had all the details. 11. STAFF COMMUNICATION: There will not be a meeting on November 28, 2005. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 9:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gregory J. McFann, Acting Secretary Planning & Building Department These minutes were approved at the January 9, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 14 November 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2006-02-27 | 14 | replied that two additional marinas were being proposed on the other two sides of the Encinal Terminal site. An additional marina plan was approved by the Planning Board about four years ago just for the Alaska Packers. That permit has since expired, and Mr. Wong was considering resubmitting with a different configuration. He noted that the Board will hear the recommendation by the Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee (Policy ET-11, page 12), stating that there should not be any berths along the northern edge of Encinal Terminals. Member Lynch believed that the City did need marinas, and that they were a tremendous asset to the City. He noted that there were many vistas around the Island with unobstructed views, and that marinas at this location would enhance the experience in Alameda. No action was taken. 9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Woodbury advised that the League of Women Voters communication had been distributed to the Board members. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that there had been no further meetings. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board member Mariani). Ms. Mariani was not in attendance to present this report. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board member Kohlstrand). Ms. Kohlstrand advised that there had been no further meetings. Planning Board Minutes Page 14 February 27, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2006-04-24 | 14 | 1910; he believed it should be upgraded. He discussed the failures of cripple walls, which were part of older buildings. He believed there should be incentives for homeowners to be able to fix those types of conditions. He took exceptions of not having engineers looking at buildings pushing the three-story limit. He expressed concern about poor workmanship by fly-by-night contractors. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Mr. Lynch could not see any work being done without an engineer's and architect's stamp, and believed that was a liability problem. He believed this should be the homeowner's cost, and not the City's He would be open to the Planning & Building Department waiving the plumbing, mechanical and electrical codes, but does not want to see any lessening of the fire codes. He was not sure the parking requirements would help the City reach the objective. President Cunningham echoed Mr. Lynch's comments and agreed with Mr. Rutter. He did not believe the City should give away free parking at the expense of seismic retrofitting. He believed they were two important, but different issues. He noted that it was important for an engineer to look at each building, and that each building was different. Ms. Kohlstrand noted that the Board was not being asked to ultimately take action on the codes. Ms. Woodbury noted that was true, and that any changes in Chapter 30 would eventually come to the Board. The other incentives did not need to come to the Planning Board; the parking and design review requirements would come before the Board. Mr. Lynch believed the parking component should come back before the Board as a separate piece. Ms. Kohlstrand believed it was a positive idea to encourage people to make seismic retrofits. She did not believe that relaxing the parking was a bad idea. She was concerned about relaxing the design review requirements unless there was more structure surrounding those requirements. Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a fast track process could be added for seismic retrofit pro… | PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2006-07-10 | 14 | 12. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: This item was continued to the next meeting. 13. ADJOURNMENT: 11:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathy Woodbusy - Cathy Woodbury, Secretary Planning & Building Department These minutes were approved at the July 24, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 14 July 10, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2006-07-24 | 14 | She believed there was some retreat from the language requiring a mix of uses, and noted that page 9 should include "residential uses" along the water's edge. She would like "up to 50,000 square feet of additional waterfront retail uses in the commercial area" to read 'a minimum of 50,000 square feet of additional waterfront retail uses in the commercial area." Dan Marcus addressed Vice President Cook's concerns, and noted that they were concerned about making a specific commitment regarding specific numbers of residential uses along the waterfront. Based on working with their waterfront consultant, months of work within the community and with staff, and listening respectfully to Vice President Cook's request for a specific number of residential units on the waterfront, they believed that the Master Plan's language to allow residential on the waterfront in the future, but not require a specific number of units was the most appropriate compromise. President Cunningham suggested that the ability to permit residential should be included in the language. Member Lynch suggested adding the wording "commercial and residential" without specifying a certain number of residential units. Member Kohlstrand noted that she had been overwhelmed by the amount of documentation accompanying this project, and was impressed by the favorable public testimony. She expressed concern about the street cross sections, and hoped for an extension to the other streets. She would like to have a forum where the transportation issues in the Master Plan could be addressed in more detail. Member McNamara's expressed concern about the parking issue. She would like to see some sort of parking structure, or would like to make some open space as an option if the parking spaces were not required. She expressed concern about the circulation or transportation flow, and how it will integrate with current Webster Street traffic. Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that this was a very exciting project, but added that the project should not be rushed because of Cli… | PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2006-09-25 | 14 | the Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber was in favor of the EIR and smart business development She believed that while Alameda was a residential community, without retail activity, there would be no residents. She noted that there would be more on- and off-island traffic to go to stores in other cities. She noted that many people were concerned about the opening of Trader Joe's, but that it had become a good neighbor. Mr. Gail Wetzork, Chair, Economic Development Commission, 3452 Calecca Lane, spoke in support to this item and echoed the previous two speakers' comments. He noted that when this item came before the EDC, the Commissioners endorsed it unanimously. He believed the impacts could be mitigated, and he agreed with the EIR. Mr. William McAleer, 420 Kitty Hawk Rd., spoke in opposition to this item, and expressed concern about traffic. He noted that the majority of people don't walk, bicycle or carpool to Target, and estimated 900,000 trips to and 900,000 away from Target per year. He noted that the area was full of residential neighborhoods, and he did not believe it was an appropriate use for the neighborhood. Mr. Chris Kovach, 2101 Shoreline Drive, spoke in opposition to this item. He did not believe the EIR addressed the impact of expansion on the Island by Target. He was concerned about the impact of traffics on the community, and believed the congestion would be a safety hazard. Mr. Mark Linde, 2830 Central Avenue #B, spoke in opposition to this item. He believed the traffic study should be redone and noted that the delivery trucks driving down the residential streets would be a safety hazard. Mr. Bob Feinbaum, Oakland, spoke in support to this item. He believed the Target store would provide more variety of goods and services in Alameda. He believed that by improving the public transit access to the center, the traffic impacts would be mitigated. He encouraged Target to use the best design possible for this store. Ms. Susan Sperry, 2101 Shoreline #355, spoke in opposition to this item and noted that she… | PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2006-10-09 | 14 | Vice President Cook noted that there had been no activity since the last meeting. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). Member Mariani noted that there had been no activity since the last meeting. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member Kohlstrand). Member Kohlstrand noted that there had been no activity since the last meeting. d. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board Member Cunningham). Member Cunningham noted that he did not have a status report at this time. 11. STAFF COMMUNICATION: None. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Caths Woodbury Cathy Woodbury, Secretary Planning & Building Department These minutes were approved at the October 23, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 14 October 9, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2006-10-23 | 14 | for on-street parking, but believed that there would be room on Blanding and on Clement for an additional nine cars if needed. She understood Member Ezzy Ashcraft's design concerns, and believed the current design of the new building should be compatible with what was already there. Member Kohlstrand believed it was exciting to have an office building in downtown Alameda, where the workers could support the existing businesses and a new café. She would like to see more buildings like that, and she was comfortable with the variance. She was concerned about the consistency of the application of the in lieu fees, and she tended to act in favor of the variances over the in lieu fee. She agreed with Member McNamara's comments about the design in terms of integrating it with the existing structures. Acting President Cunningham noted that he did not object to the parking variances, and inquired whether there was a shear wall in the parking area under the building. Mr. Hornberger confirmed that it was a shear wall and a support structure for the structure above. Acting President Cunningham inquired whether removal of the two end spaces in the middle aisle would ease circulation. Mr. Hornberger replied that more spaces would be lost, but added that there was already an adequate 24 feet for backing up. He added that they discussed adding a three-foot backup at the end wall at both sides, and that they would probably convert the three spaces next to the stairway into compact spaces. Acting President Cunningham commented that the existing entrance and the awnings worked very well, and suggested de-emphasizing the two finger maroon elements that protruded into the air, or to bring them in line with the parapet. He also suggested reducing the height of the building in the center element to reduce the visual impact. Mr. Hornberger agreed with that suggestion. Acting President Cunningham inquired what would replace the parking that would be temporarily lost, Mr. Ken Carvalho, Buestad Construction, noted that they planned to park… | PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2006-11-13 | 14 | Member Cunningham inquired whether a traffic review of the ingress and egress points along Otis Drive. Mr. Garrison replied that it did concern staff and had been addressed; they had examined queuing on Otis I their analysis. Member Cunningham expressed concern about pedestrian and bicycle safety in that area. Vice President Cook expressed concern that some of the original 1993 conditions were not being met, and inquired about their legal status. She was hesitant to make any more approvals until the status of the previous approvals was clarified. Member Ezzy Ashcraft shared Vice President Cook's concerns regarding the previous approvals. Ms. Woodbury advised that staff would examine the rest of the conditions closely to ensure that everything went forward as it should. Ms. Garrison noted that Building 600 West, 700 and 800 were publicly noticed extensively, and staff received fewer than six people showing any interest; the people who examined the plans at the Planning Department said they were fine. He personally called several members of the Planning Board to invite them to examine the plans, and they said it seemed routine. Member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that all Planning Board members receive the same notice as the members of the public receive. She would like to be made aware of those items. Ms. Woodbury concurred, and noted that Board notification should be part of the process in the event of a staff-level design review. She noted that staff would rectify that situation, and apologized to the Board members who had not received notices. Member Kohlstrand wished to revisit the east-west connector, which had been a condition of approval. She was also concerned about Whitehall Place and Franciscan Way, and recalled a comment by the architect that the streets were not wide enough to accommodate sidewalks on both sides. She understood that they were private roads, and that the parking bays could be bumped back to accommodate sidewalks on both sides; she would like that possibility to be considered. Because the tru… | PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2006-12-11 | 14 | shortcoming within the Planning Department. She would not let the issue of the east-west sidewalks fall through the cracks, and had spoken with the Transportation Commission and Bike Friendly Alameda about it as well. Following her walkthrough with the transportation advocates, she believed they were pleased with the transit, bike and pedestrian access at the site. President Lynch noted that in Alameda, members of the community clearly communicated their disagreements with proposed projects. He believed it was significant that there were no public speakers to voice their disapproval. To the design review as it related to Buildings 300 and 500. Vice President Cook wanted to ensure that the promised amenities materialized for this project, and would like those items to be documented. Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed the applicant had been very responsive to the community and to the Planning Board. Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the transportation and bicycle advocates were complimentary of the access in this project. Mr. Kyte did not believe that good design needed to be regulated Target. He believed that if the PDA had not been on the table, the Design Review would not have been appealed to this Board. He inquired whether a motion could be put on the floor that would allow them to continue with Buildings 300 and 500 with a condition in terms of a timeline and follow-up regarding a future PDA. President Lynch believed that once clarity was received about the sidewalk, and that it could be remedied, he was satisfied with it. He did not believe that the ability to modify additional conditions, or to insert or delete other items should be done within the design review process; it should be done in the PDA Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a special meeting could be convened to further address this application. President Lynch expressed concern about proper noticing for an additional December meeting. Vice President Cook suggested a special meeting of the City Council. President Lynch suggested that Vice President Co… | PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2007-01-08 | 14 | both options. He agreed that whether the MTC funds were used to study Measure A, it would take more money than that to complete the study. He suggested doing a noncompliant Measure A scheme to see the implications, and believed that would be prudent planning. Mr. Thomas provided background information regarding the settlement agreement that led to this study, as well as the Oakland-Chinatown Advisory Committee and the MTC grant money. Member Mariani thanked Mr. Thomas for the clarification, because the memo distributed to the Planning Board did not contain that information. Vice President Cook believed that the study should go forward, and that the Measure A study forum should also occur. She was also interested in other aspects of the Measure A debate besides only transportation. She was very concerned about ensuring that there was a middle ground between housing for the very rich and the very poor. She inquired whether the ferry would be viable when it is moved. She supported looking at a policy such as Measure A objectively, and would like to hear all the perspectives on the issue. She was concerned about urban design issues that flowed from urban design and density. She had felt that there were places in the City where Measure A should be tightened up, and other places where it did not make sense. She supported an informational forum with a skilled facilitator. Member Kohlstrand agreed with Vice President Cook's comments, and supported having the MTC study, as well as an independent forum on Measure A. President Lynch appreciated the public comments, but was somewhat disappointed in the characterization of some of the comments that he had heard during his time on the Planning Board in that Measure A is not just about density. He noted that it was also about design, and when some people become demonized for wanting to have a public discussion, that does not mean the next step would be to overturn Measure A. He believed a discussion about an existing ordinance was entirely within the public purview. In response… | PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2007-02-26 | 14 | a. 2007 - 2014 Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Element Update. President Lynch noted that some cities were not fulfilling their housing targets, and noted that the housing numbers in the region were likely to change. 10. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member Kohlstrand). Member Kohlstrand advised that there was no action. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board Member Cunningham). Member Cunningham advised that another meeting would be held in two weeks, and were generally held on the third Thursday of each month. 11. STAFF COMMUNICATION a. Future Agendas and work program Mr. Thomas described the future agenda items for the next six months. President Lynch noted that the Northern Waterfront item would be held on March 26, and that the April 9 meeting would be cancelled due to spring break attendance issues. He did not see the Measure A Planning Board forum on the schedule. Mr. Thomas noted that was not placed on the schedule yet. March 29 would be specifically held for Alameda Point. Mr. Thomas suggested that the Planning Board may want to form a subcommittee to address some of the agenda issues. Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when the joint meeting between City Council and the Planning Board would take place. President Lynch noted that he had previously worked in jurisdictions where the joint meetings were part of the regular schedule, and the work plans were included in that discussion. He was surprised that had not happened in Alameda. Planning Board Minutes Page 14 February 26, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2007-03-12 | 14 | 10. BOARD COMMUNICATION a. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). Mr. Thomas noted that the next meeting would be held the following Thursday, March 15, 2007. A status report would be received from ACTIA on the Broadway-Jackson Project Study Report (PSR). Staff had invited the Chair of the Alameda Transportation Commission, John Knox-White, to attend the meeting, because the Transportation Commission had taken the lead for the City of Alameda in pressing for a second look at the CEQA thresholds for transportation impact analysis. He noted that the mitigations needed to be examined more closely. They would be looking for consultant teams who could provide good ideas and advice on the CEQA threshold issue. He noted that Chinatown was very excited about that as well. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member Kohlstrand). Member Kohlstrand advised that there was nothing new to report. Mr. Thomas noted that the subcommittee might not exist any more, and added that the Northern Waterfront item had been removed from Board Communications. He noted that he would check with Public Works and the Transportation Commission to find out whether this item should be retained on the agenda. C. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board Member Cunningham). Member Cunningham advised that a meeting had been held two weeks before, and that another one would be held on March 21, 2007. He noted that their packets contained a lost of goals and actions to identify the top priorities. Planning Board Minutes Page 14 March 12, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2007-03-26 | 14 | was right. She had heard people speak passionately on both sides of the Measure A issue, and believed that some people had misconceptions on what Measure A actually meant. She noted that Measure A could be changed without any greater density, and that more open space could be created; in addition historic resources could be preserved as well under Measure A. She believed it was possible to discuss it without it being an all-or- nothing issue. She noted that there was no attempt to hide this discussion and believed that a public discussion about the process going forward was important. She noted that she was a fan of Measure A, appreciated Victorian homes, and would like to see some of the big stucco buildings on her block disappear. She would like to continue to have this discussion and see where it progressed. Board member McNamara noted that she was disillusioned because she believed the intent of this forum was misconstrued during the public hearing. She believed the intent was to educate the community and citizens of Alameda about the history, consequences, legal aspects of Measure A and to put it in context with respect to the current issues. She noted that the Planning staff had not made a decision, and could not unilaterally change Measure A. She noted that it was not even stated that staff or the Planning Board wanted Measure A to change. She believed that having an informed background was essential to making an informed decision with respect to Measure A. Board member Kohlstrand echoed the previous comments, and noted that staff did not initiate this forum. She had advocated for a forum because she did not grow up in Alameda and did not understand all the history; she wished to help the community as a whole become well versed in its history and effect on the community going forward. She believed that such a forum was important because people had wanted to become better informed as housing and industrial uses evolved over time. She would like to see Alameda's main island character move to Alameda Point, a… | PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2007-04-23 | 14 | 1. The number of pumps will be reduced to 12; 2. No more than 70 feet be devoted to driveway access on the south side property line, with the rest being raised sidewalk; and 3. Tanker delivery would be limited to non-peak hour periods. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 3. Noes: 1 (Kohlstrand) Absent: President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Board member Mariani. The motion failed. Board member McNamara moved to continue this item to the meeting of May 14, 2007. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which passed with the following voice vote - 4. Absent: President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Board member Mariani. 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member Kohlstrand). Board member Kohlstrand advised that no further meetings had been held. C. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Acting President Cunningham). Acting President Cunningham noted that the next meeting would be May 16, 2007 at which time the draft of the Task Force's findings would be reviewed. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Thomas, Secretary City Planning Board These minutes were approved at the May 14, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 14 April 23, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/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/2007-05-29.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2007-05-29 | 14 | Street sorely needed some trees, and she was happy to see these trees being added. She inquired about the tree grates and tree guards. Ms. Ott noted that the tree grates were kept to 3x3 feet on the 10-foot sidewalk, and was concerned about narrowing that space further so that sidewalk seating and potential queuing outside for a blockbuster movie may be accommodated. She believed the omission of tree guards was an oversight, and noted that they would be included. Member Ezzy Ashcraft echoed a concern raised by a landscape architect friend that the trees on Park Street would be tied down and bound, which may reduce their strength and growth. Ms. Ott noted that staff would be amenable to investigating that issue. Member Ezzy Ashcraft supported staggering the showtimes to mitigate queuing, and inquired about the intermission length to support exit of the audience. Mr. Conner replied that referred to the time period between movies, rather than intermission in the middle of the movie. Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about queuing for blockbuster customers inside the theatre during inclement weather, and asked whether the Art Deco railing would be of sufficient height to accommodate those customers. Ms. Ott noted that the railing was subject to the California Historic Building Code, and would not be altered as such; it was approved as part of the building permit. Mr. Conner noted that would concern him as well, and that he could use ropes and stanchions to keep people away from the historic railing. In response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand whether reversing the queuing line and purchase line might provide better flow and less crowding, Mr. Conner replied that may create more traffic with people crossing the ticket holders line to purchase the tickets, and then return to the ticket holders line. Board member Kohlstrand noted that it may keep the crowd in front of their facility. Mr. Conner noted that their policies were geared to not have ticket holder lines that queue for very long, as opposed to what is foun… | PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2007-06-11 | 14 | President Lynch noted that he frequently talked to other residents during the course of the day, and noticed that many people loved the lighted crosswalks and wondered why they were not installed in other places around town. He noted that he was much more alert and aware during the day around the lighted crosswalks, and believed that if the City continued to encourage pedestrian and bicycle traffic, that these enhanced crosswalks would be a good addition throughout the City. Vice President Cook noted that a survey was available on the City's website regarding pedestrian and bicycle issues, and encouraged residents to respond to that survey. c.. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board Member Cunningham). Board member Cunningham noted that a meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, June 20, 2007, which would be rescheduled to June 27, 2007. The mission of that meeting would be to review the final document of the recommendations. Vice President Cook noted that she had information for a free public workshop offered through the UC Berkeley Extension, addressing climate issues and different techniques for greening cities. She noted that the workshop would be held on Saturday, June 23. from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., in San Francisco. Mr. Thomas advised that the Oakland-Chinatown Advisory Committee would meet on Thursday, June 14, at 3:00 p.m. in Room 360 of City Hall. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Thomas, Secretary City Planning Board These minutes were approved at the June 25, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 14 June 11, , 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2007-09-24 | 14 | page 8, that the proposed alternative of the second sidewalk created a physical and visual separation between Building A and the rest of the retail center. She noted that it was a sidewalk, not a wall. She noted that the sidewalk in front of the building did not create a visual separation. She was not willing to let go of the north/south sidewalk. Member McNamara believed the different types of texture, particularly mixing metal with wood, would provide good variation. She encouraged more use of canvas or softer materials to soften the maritime effect. She believed there was an excessive amount of trees in the landscaping plan, and that when they matured, it would create a problem. She appreciated the use of the trees to create a neighborhood atmosphere in front of the Building A. She did not see where the ventilation units would be placed, and would like that to be addressed, because that would definitely affect the design of the building. Regarding the north/south sidewalk, she did not like the recommendation that was made to the Board. She noted that it was important to acknowledge the parking spot issue, and noted that some of the constraints and logistical issues at Towne Centre may warrant increased pedestrian traffic. She believed that without the use of sidewalks and the parking spots, pedestrian safety was placed at risk. She believed there should be an alternative traffic pattern to help with the overflow of traffic, and she did not see the traffic flow on Fifth Street as a detriment. She did not have a solution to the north/south sidewalk, and did not like the current recommendation. Member Lynch noted that he had recently walked along the rear area of Santana Row, and noted that the subject site's back parking configuration was extremely similar. He noted that the configuration worked, and noted that if this site were to be as successful as Santana Row, it would attract enough people to make a significant difference to the General Fund. He complimented the applicant for listening to the Board's commen… | PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2008-01-28 | 14 | Board member Cunningham noted that there was Board consensus that it be brought back under the Consent Calendar. Vice President Kohlstrand moved to continue this item to February 11, 2008, in order to revise and bring back for adoption the Large Format Retail Store Zoning Text Amendments with the revisions summarized by staff. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4. Absent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara). The motion passed. 9-E. Appointment of Board Member as Representative on the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee. (AT) Mr. Thomas noted that former Board member Mariani was the appointee, and Board member McNamara is the alternate representative. Board member McNamara agreed to become the designee. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would be willing to serve as the alternate. Board member Cunningham moved to nominate Board member McNamara to be the primary representative, and for Board member Ezzy Ashcraft to be the alternate representative. Vice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4. Absent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara). The motion passed. 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force (Board Members Cook/Kohlstrand) President Cook noted that there were no further meetings. She added that the packet included the presentations. Mr. Thomas noted that it was a good meeting, and that SunCal received a great deal of extra information. Staff anticipated that they would request an extension on the schedule. They have concerns about the financial feasibility of the preliminary development concept, flooding, and a number of other issues. The community has expressed significant interest in a non-Measure A alternative. Their preliminary design concept is due by March. Page 14 of 15 | PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2008-02-25 | 14 | 109,280 square feet in floor area with a total of 384 parking spaces to be constructed on a 9.22 acre site. Board Member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain - 1 (Cook). The motion passed. 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: Vice President Kohlstrand would like the resolution thanking Gina Mariani for her service on the Planning Board to be presented at the next Planning Board meeting. Mr. Thomas agreed, and noted that would take place. 11-A. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force (Board Members Cook/Kohlstrand) President Cook noted that there had been no further meetings. 11-B. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member McNamara) Mr. Thomas noted there was nothing to report. 11-C. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation Subcommittee (Board Member Kohlstrand) Vice President Kohlstrand noted that there had been no further meetings since her last report. President Cook requested that if there had been no further meetings under Board Communications, that they be removed from that meeting's agenda. Mr. Thomas concurred with that suggestion. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Thomas, Secretary City Planning Board Page 14 of 15 | PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2008-04-28 | 14 | Board member Lynch moved that the document be returned to the Planning Board in draft form with a presentation by the Planning Director. Vice President Kohlstrand wished to amend the motion to state that the Planning Director would be able to address the issues brought forward during the Board's discussion. President Cook wished to further amend the motion to include a document to forward to City Council. Vice President Kohlstrand seconded the amended motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Noes: 0. The motion passed. Page 14 of 17 | PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2008-05-12 | 14 | a. Transmittal of Draft Pedestrian Plan Mr. Thomas noted that the plan would be agendized for discussion at the next meeting. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: Board member Cunningham noted that the Climate Protection Task Plan won an award. Ms. Eliason noted that the award of merit from the Northern California Chapter of the American Planning Association was presented for Community Green Building. Board member Cunningham noted that award was a direct result of staff's hard work. President Cook noted that she had received several calls from Ms. Grabber regarding the noticing requirements. The Board had discussed the need for noticing greater than 300 feet for the big projects with wide-ranging impact on people. Mr. Thomas noted that was discussed with City Council when the Esplanade project came forward. The City has committed to notify a larger area for the Harbor Bay/Business Park projects, as well as to ensure that every homeowners association president was noticed of every project. He invited ideas for improving noticing. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested keeping an up-to-date list of neighborhood, business and other civic organizations that have been interested in planning issues. Board member Lynch noted that this issue has come forward from time to time, and that in San Francisco, there were agencies that assist with notifying the public, including website and email notification. He noted that some cities are adopting ordinances that expand the notification radius. President Cook noted that Ms. Graber's concerns included the radius and the timing issue, and that there was often not enough time to get the community apprised of the issue. Mr. Thomas noted that the notices went out 20 days before the meeting, as adopted by City Council. Ms. Eliason noted that AP&T no longer wants Planning staff to post notices on their new poles, and that staff now uses A-frame signs. Mr. Thomas noted that if a resident wished to be on the email list, they would also receive the staff reports. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:13 p.m. Respectfu… | PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2008-06-23 | 14 | units, and that the development seemed intended to provide affordable housing for school employees. She believed it would be very difficult for the school to mix the housing upon different sites. She believed that putting the units on one site was a very rational approach to trying to deliver these units. She would like Warmington to be able to have some flexibility in trying to accomplish this. Mr. Thomas noted that the agreement and the amendments state that Warmington Homes would be able to try to make this project work. If they failed, it would be because they could not get the land from the School District, or the District would decide they did not want to develop housing on that site. He noted that this agreement would allow Warmington to get started with the phasing. He noted that they needed the ground lease from the school district. Vice President Kohlstrand believed that Warmington was taking all the risk in this project. Mr. Thomas noted that (F) on page 9 stated, "Developer shall secure all necessary discretionary City and other governmental agency permits and approvals to allow development of the off-site affordable development to proceed upon issuance of a building permit by the City. Mr. Day noted that this was brought forth to create goodwill with the City, and added that they were willing to take the time to entitle this project. Board member Cunningham noted that he originally had reservations about this item, but after reading the staff report, he saw a lot of merit to the idea of putting the housing in this location, which would help rejuvenate downtown and the schools. He wished to discuss the modifications to the Grand Marina Plan, and the idea of putting three-story buildings in, instead of two-story buildings. Mr. Thomas noted that Warmington's proposal was to replace five of the affordable units with five market-rate units at Grand Marina. Under the original approvals, the market-rate units were all three-story buildings, and the affordable units were all two-story buildings. He believed … | PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2008-08-11 | 14 | be, is this the right project for this location. A Board discussion ensued on the merits of the project and whether the Board should discuss the appropriateness of the project for the site. President Kohlstrand stated that certifying the EIR does not constitute approval of the project. The Board could decide to certify the EIR and choose to approve less square footage for expansion. A Board discussion ensued on whether to discuss the EIR first and then the project or whether to discuss the project first. Board member Lynch stated that there are questions about the expansion, but in terms of some of the smaller stores/restaurants they were designed in response to previous comments by the Board. He believed the Board discussion should focus on Kohls and the parking structure. Board member Cunningham stated that he does not have an issue with waterside restaurants and the proposed sign program. He is concerned about the expansion. Board member Lynch stated that in regards to the EIR he would agree that as it relates to issues regarding traffic, he is comfortable that it is adequate as far as CEQA. He would be comfortable with specific recommendations, but not discussing the merits of the methodology used. President Kohlstrand agreed with Board member Lynch. She would like to focus on the EIR, because it is hard to grasp how big the project would be. Many people would like to see the shoreline developed and infrastructure in place as a way to help the centre get tenants. Perhaps traffic counts could be monitored in the future as more development occurs. She stated that the Board should focus on traffic, and transportation and noise in terms of an environmental discussion. She referred the Board to page five of the EIR resolution and asked if any Board member had issues with it. None of the board members had issues with page five of the EIR resolution. In response to an inquiry by the board regarding the left turn lane onto Park Street, staff described the details of the lane, and stated it was linked to phase 3 of th… | PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2008-12-08 | 14 | majority of the residents must agree to the program. If enacted all residents will be assessed the fee. In response to a Board inquiry staff stated the survey referenced in the staff report was not done to achieve any scientific data, it was used as an additional form of public outreach. Staffs focus in preparing the report was on creating attractive pricing that would move employee parking off streets and into parking garages or lots thereby creating on street parking for residents. President Kohlstrand stated she was in support of neighborhoods having the option to create an assessment for a residential parking program. Staff stated preparing the ordinances is an ongoing project and feedback from the Board would provide direction to Staff in crafting the ordinances. Staff is looking for Board direction on the in-lieu fees. In-lieu fees can become a large financial part of a project. Staff has proposed some waivers. A demand waiver would apply to a business that can show the demand for parking created by the business is less that what is stated in the code and the calculation would be based on that number. Required parking could be provided entirely on site or a combination of on site parking and in-lieu fees would suffice. To qualify for this option a business must be in close proximity to one of the garages or on a transit route. President Kohlstrand inquired whether a traffic engineer is required to prepare the demand waiver. Staff responded this was required to ensure standard practices and proper methods are being followed. Staff asked for Board input on a historic resource waiver. In the current code if a building is over ten years old upgrading parking for a new or more intense use is not required. Staff is proposing, for Park Street and Webster Street, if it is an historic building and providing parking would require alterations to the building that would affect its historic character then parking requirements could be waived. Staff discussions included continuing to require in-lieu fees for these types … | PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2012-01-09.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2012-01-09 | 14 | trees being removed and there seems to be some inconsistency. Mr. Naclerio replied that any trees on City property or private property must come to the Planning Board. So, as a plan of caution, staff brought item 9c to the Board. Board member Kohlstrand agreed to all Board member Autorino's comments and felt the removal should be brought up in the agenda. President Ezzy Ashcraft agreed. Board member Zuppan supported the selection of the new trees, but she believes the City has spent enough money on removing trees. Board member Zuppan made a motion to pass the resolution without removing the existing trees. Board member Burton seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-1. 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:50 PM Approved Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 14 January 9, 2012 | PlanningBoard/2012-01-09.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2012-02-13 | 14 | Mr. Thomas stated there is a fundamental change in the mindset in terms of approaching Alameda Point. From 2000-2010 the City was under contract with a master developer 1 of (2) and the Master development agreement stated that the developer would have control over the base, but the developer would have to consult with the community in terms of planning. So, staff's approach in the mean time would be to enter into short-term leases, thus making it difficult for any tenant to invest money into the property. By 2010, staff and the City started to think about long-term leases and staff is trying to get the word out to the development and business communities that Alameda Point is available. Ms. Ott stated that this is intended to be an economic development strategy to attract jobs and that process will inform the zoning amendment and disposition strategies. Ultimately, there will be an iterative process going forward. Karen Bey stated that she was concerned that the City would lock itself into long-term agreements that would be difficult to get out of once the right businesses come along. Ms. Ott explained that she does agree and she doesn't think long-term agreements should be applied throughout the base. She stated that the historical districts would be a point for adaptive reuse and designated for long-term leases. Overall, staff is thinking strategically on where they place the long-term leases. President Ezzy Ashcraft called for Board comments. Board member Henneberry stated that he agreed with the strategy, which allows the reintegration of the base with the City. Board member Knox White asked if the findings and goals from the last public summary could be retrieved easily. Ms. Ott replied that the summary could be found in the April 6, 2011, ARRA meeting and the meeting's link is available online. Board member Knox White stated that it would be good to start the March 12th meeting with a discussion on the assumptions coming out of the findings. Ms. Ott replied that staff would attach the summary to the March 1… | PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2012-02-27 | 14 | Mr. Albaugh stated there are windows between the food service area and the entry vestibule and the far left of the vestibule is all glazed windows, creating a big glass box. So, there is visual connection to the outside corner from the food service area from its current location. President Ezzy Ashcraft called for a motion to extend the meeting past 11 p.m. Vice President Autorino made the motion to extend the meeting till 11:30 p.m. Board member Henneberry seconded the motion. Board member Knox White stated that the new rules for City meetings is that if three consecutive meetings go past 11 p.m. then the Board would have to hold more meetings in order to get business done. The motion was approved 7-0. Mr. Thomas stated that the resolution with the amended conditions and bring the revised resolution upon consent next week. President Ezzy Ashcraft proposed a subcommittee to work on the design review. Vice President Autorino stated he doesn't want to delay the project anymore so he believes the conditions work and he believes a subcommittee will enter into additional unnecessary discussion. Board member Burton stated that a subcommittee might work, but he would like to have it brought back before the Board to have assurance that the revised design is something that the Board is happy with. Mr. Thomas stated there is one other way to move forward. He explained there's an on- going process under this scenario where the design team will implement the conditions then look to City staff approve the revisions. There can be a system setup where he can report to the Board about the process the way staff reports on the process of the design review. President Ezzy Ashcraft envisioned delegating two of the board members with professional design background to come in and simultaneously work with Mr. Thomas look over the revisions. Board member Knox White stated that the Board could call a review if they don't like the final plan. Also, the one thing that is not on the caveat and will keep him from voting to approve the Buildi… | PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2012-03-12 | 14 | areas given where the market is for residential development versus commercial. The two important pieces to this effort are that the City and community maintain control over the entitlement process and to create entitlement certainty in order have entitlements in place. The next step from there is the entitlement process and they are proposing base- wide zoning. It's important to create this foundation because it will keep them focused on what the community wants as part of the larger vision of Alameda Point. What they are looking for at this meeting is to get feedback regarding some of the big picture questions and the zoning boundaries. They conducted an extensive community outreach effort in November of 2010 and received a lot of feedback. They presented that feedback last April to the City Council and they have built upon this information in order to come to the Board with some suggestions on how to move forward with some of these districts. Finally, they will come back to the Board on April 23rd with a draft of the zoning code in order to meet the June deadline. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked Ms. Ott for more clarification on the recommendations that will go before the City Council in March. Ms. Ott replied that there are working on two different efforts. First, they are working with the City Council or the "landowner" regarding the disposition and development strategy. Then, they are working with the Planning Board on the entitlements and zoning of the parcel, which will then be approved by the City Council. Board member Henneberry asked about the parcel and the runways other than the Northwest Territory portion. He asked for a brief thumbnail on the development status. Additionally, he referred to a report about the 1990 Biological Opinion and the California Least tern. Ms. Ott stated that the Northwest Territory is a triangular portion made up of 215-acres and listed as open space. The runway is south of portion and it is part of a federal-to- federal transfer, which is not part of the property that will… | PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2012-05-30.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2012-05-30 | 14 | Vice President Burton motioned to continue the meeting for an additional 15 minutes. Board member Köster seconded the motion Motioned carried 5-0; no abstentions Matt Naclerio, Public Works Director, stated that sidewalk repair work will usually take place within 30 days of being marked with pink paint. After the temporary repair the location is placed on a permanent list, and that list currently has a 4- 5 year period. They will attempt to double the number of permanent repairs this year. The white paint is property owner responsibility. Owners receive a notice and have 60 days to repair the sidewalk. Board member Knox White motioned to make the determination of consistency with the General Plan Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion Motion carried 5-0; no abstentions 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS Board members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or make a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a referral to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning a City matter or, through the Chair, direct staff to place a request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda. None 12. ADJOURNMENT 10:59 p.m. Approved Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 14 May 30, 2012 | PlanningBoard/2012-05-30.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2017-01-23.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2017-01-23 | 14 | 8-B 2017-3813 Draft Meeting Minutes - November 14, 2016 Board Member Knox White made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Curtis seconded the motion. Board Member Zuppan asked that the minutes be amended to accurately reflect her remarks regarding the health of the trees. The amendment was accepted. The motion passed 7-0. 8-C 2017-3814 Draft Meeting Minutes - November 28, 2016 Board Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Knox White seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. 9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS 9-A 2017-3810 Zoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions Staff Member Thomas listed the recent approvals. Board Member Zuppan said she would like to pull the AutoZone approval to discuss sharing the parking lot with the neighborhood at night. 9-B 2017-3811 Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development Department Projects Staff Member Thomas previewed future meeting items. 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS *None* 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS 11-A 2017-3808 Subcommittee for Alameda Marina Board Member Knox White gave an update on their meetings. 11-B 2017-3809 Subcommittee with Commission on Disability Issues regarding Universal Design Ordinance *None* Board Member Zuppan said the Economic Development Strategic committee plan met and provided an update. 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Approved Minutes Page 14 of 15 Planning Board Meeting January 23, 2017 | PlanningBoard/2017-01-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2020-11-23.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2020-11-23 | 14 | Staff Member Hong said yes. There were no public comments. President Teague opened the board discussion. Board Member Hom made a motion to approve the Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration & Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Board Member Curtis seconded the motion and a roll call vote was taken. The motion passed 7-0. Board Member Hom made a motion to approve the Use Permit for a solar farm facility with the condition to provide supplemental vegetation to provide visual screening to reduce glare at the OP1 viewpoint. Board Member Rothenberg seconded the motion and a roll call vote was taken. The motion passed 7-0. 8. MINUTES 8-A 2020-8501 Draft Meeting Minutes - August 17, 2020 Board Member Ruiz felt that her questions on page 5 had been oversimplified and wanted that reflected in the minutes. Board Member Curtis made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Board Member Hom seconded the motion and a roll call vote was taken. The motion passed 6-0, Board Member Cisneros sustained. 8-B 2020-8502 Draft Meeting Minutes - September 14, 2020 Board Member Curtis wanted the wording changed on the last paragraph of page 6. Board Member Rothenberg made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Board Member Ruiz seconded the motion and a roll call vote was taken. The motion passed 6-0, Board Member Cisneros sustained. 9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS 9-A 2020-8503 Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions No board members wanted to pull any items. 9-B 2020-8504 Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 14 of 15 November 23, 2020 | PlanningBoard/2020-11-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2021-04-26 | 14 | Director Thomas said he had completely rethought this issue. He discussed how changes to plans are handled and they do come back to the Planning Board in some way. Staff Member Butler described that the intent was not to delegate the authority of the PAC to the Planning Board but to have thoughtful planning of art. She suggested revisiting this part of the ordinance. President Teague concurred that this did sound like it was part of the Design Review of a project. Board Member Ruiz suggested striking out a sentence that would better define the intent. She thought that since it was the Director's discretion it would show up under Recent Actions and Decisions for Planning Board Meetings. Director Thomas clarified that he was not the Director this would come back to, it would be the Director of the Community Development Department which is where the art program sits. He added what makes this awkward is that you have the Planning Board approving something and then a different group with the power to amend it. Board Member Hom said it would be the minimum to have the developer say if they were doing onsite art or to pay the in-lieu fee. He also thought the PAC should be delegated the primary responsibility for reviewing and approving the art, not the Planning Board. He then discussed when exceptions should be allowed and where they can still have the flexibility for the developer. Board Member Cisneros wondered if the developer had to declare the location of the art, she thought that having a general declaration of either providing onsite art or paying the in-lieu fee should be enough. President Teague agreed that the planning stage was the appropriate time to identify an appropriate location for public art since they had not broken ground and it was early in the process. President Teague asked the staff if they should modify these amendments now or did they want to bring this item back. Vice President Saheba commented that the Planning Board would review everything from plant species being planted to every aspect of … | PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2021-06-14 | 14 | Draft Meeting Minutes - April 26, 2021 Board Member Rothenberg had a correction for agenda item 7-B, Ms. Ashley Rebarchek's title should be Board of Directors AIA - East Bay and Mr. Scott Shell's title should be Principal of the HDD. Then on Item 7-C, she clarified that her question was whether the matter was consistent with the General Plan. Board Member Hom made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Board Member Cisneros seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0 with Vice President Saheba and Board Member Curtis absent. 9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS 9-A 2021-1008 Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions Actions and decisions can be found at https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4973461&GUID=4AB69938 4F96-4E08-8A6C-EF52EDEC2F14&FullText=1. Board Member Ruiz asked to pull 53 Killybegs Road, PLN21-0095, (Action Date 6-7-21) for a review. 9-B 2021-1009 Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation Department Projects Staff Member Tai announced that at the next meeting there would be a hearing on a call for review for 910 Centennial, a design review for the Tavern Building on Webster and Atlantic, and a study session on the Parking Ordinance revisions. 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS Board Member Ruiz asked that at the beginning of the Public Comments for President Teague to kindly remind speakers to refrain from making personal attacks on city staff and board members. 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 13. ADJOURNMENT President Teague adjourned the meeting at 11:01 p.m. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 14 of 14 June 14, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2021-06-28 | 14 | President Teague asked for clarification about the last City Council Meeting. The recommendation was not what he expected. Director Thomas explained the resolution on the Housing Element and the staff report had shown what they had done and had the language that had been removed. The staff thought it was an important decision by the Planning Board but it was the crux of the matter for the council as to why the issue was particularly difficult for the city. They had a conflict and the City Council was going to have to decide between state law and the charter. The staff report described the language that was taken out and why it was taken out. Then the Planning Board's version was also attached as well. He thought it was odd that the Planning Board's version was shown as a strikeout format, which was not how they usually did it. The item would be going to the council on July 6th. President Teague said unfortunately that did not answer his question, he felt that the board's time had been wasted. He added that the information in the staff report did not capture all of the reasoning of why they voted the way that they did. He thought there could have been a separate resolution that covered section 26 because there were very strong reasons as to why that language was struck beyond the legality reasons. He felt that when they passed a resolution that recommended that the City Council should do something he expected them to receive what the board said. There could have been a separate resolution that just covered Article 26, which should be covered by the City Attorney in terms of the legal opinion of if it did or did not preempt state law partially or fully. Director Thomas apologized that he felt they had wasted their time, he added that staff did not feel that it was a waste of time at all. The Planning Board held a hearing that provided an opportunity to hear from the public to learn and talk about these issues and the role of the Planning Board. They had told the council exactly what the board had recommended. He sa… | PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2021-07-12 | 14 | and opportunities. She said she had a basis for the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. She also volunteered to do page turns since final revisions are very tedious. She asked about a Housing Working Group that was going to work on the Housing Element and wanted an update on that. Director Thomas said there was a Housing Working Group set up with President Teague and Board Members Cisneros and Hom and they had a meeting coming up. He discussed how the staff had been struggling with it since they had too many balls in the air. He added that on July 6th the City Council did not take a lot of action but it was an important meeting and had set the stage. He discussed the daunting task to get the Housing Element adopted in the City of Alameda on time. Board Member Curtis had read through all the revisions and Mr. Buckley's comments and aside from the Housing Element, he thought Mr. Buckley made a lot of good points, points he would have made. He mainly liked comments about the building and construction regulations. Any of these regulations that convert and cause the owner to convert on an existing building from electricity to gas should not be an ordinance and that's because it's detrimental to young people who are trying to make ends meet and to older people who are on fixed incomes. He wanted to see that modified to let the owner decide because the city shouldn't ask someone to go into debt even if they offer assistance. He also discussed something that got to him every time, how the Fair Housing Act was the catalyst for Measure A, that was not true. The catalyst for Measure A was Ron Cowan building 9600 units on Bay Farm Island originally, but it went to 3200 units after people complained. He recommended that the Housing Element should have a preempt that should direct the City Attorney if the zoning is legal for the Harbor Bay Club. He believed there was still a lot of work that needed to be done. Board Member Hom addressed what Director Thomas said about density, he was in the same mind frame as Director Thoma… | PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2021-07-26 | 14 | standing seam. Concrete tended to be too heavy and would add enough weight to be a structural consideration. Vice President Saheba asked if and where would the staff parking be. Mr. Biggs said it would be adjacent to the East Bay Regional Park area. He added that some staff would also be taking public transit. Vice President Saheba asked when the decision for the roof would be made. Mr. Ebert said the asphalt shingles was the one they were confident they could afford, the standing seam were the ones they wanted if they could get there. Vice President Saheba asked about the wood-look siding. Mr. Ebert explained the properties of the product and what made it an excellent choice. Vice President Saheba asked about the exterior lighting plan. Mr. Ebert said it should have been in the full Design Review Package. Vice President Saheba asked about the gable roof and how that space was being used. Mr. Ebert said they were getting double use out of that area that was where they would store mechanical equipment. It was not really a usable space for programming. President Teague informed Vice President Sahaba that the exterior lighting design was on page 53. Board Member Curtis stated that he had met with Mr. Biggs prior to this meeting and had answered a lot of his questions. He had no other questions at this time. Board Member Rothenberg thanked the staff and applicant for the presentation. She asked about how they had chosen the occupancy class. She also asked about how the building would be powered. Mr. Ebert explained how his background had helped with this design and how the clinical use of the buildings also dedicated what it needed to be classified as. Board Member Rothenberg asked if the clinic would be open 24/7. Mr. Biggs said the clinic would be open during the daytime hours and there will be staff on duty all night as well. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 14 of 21 July 26, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.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]) );