pages
27 rows where body = "PlanningBoard" and page = 16
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: date (date)
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-10 | 16 | Mr. Walter McQuesten, 1416 Pacific Avenue, supported the applicant's project, and believed their plans would be an improvement for the entire block. He noted that he hoped to undertake a similar project in the future. He believed the raising of the house would provide safety from flooding. He supported the reversal of staff's denial. Mr. Richard Rutter noted that he was an architect, and supported staff's denial of this application. He noted that in the past, neighbors came to agreements regarding roof lines and design proportions. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali, Mr. Rutter replied that 16 stairs were the limit before a landing must be included, and that the applicants were not close to that limit. Ms. Janelle Spatz, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, spoke in support of staff's recommendation. AAPS believed that staff's points were valid, and that in the past contractor Ken Gutlaben had spoken before the Planning Board to say that digging down was as easy as building up. She believed that should suffice for this project, and believed the applicants' plans would be visually disruptive. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara whether the neighboring house had a full unit on the basement level, Mr. Brighton replied that he did not have that information. He addressed the simple aesthetics of the structures, and the future use of the interior was not part of the decision. Ms. McNamara noted that there was more than one separate address on the neighboring home. Ms. McNamara expressed concern that this house was used in the Planning Board's discussion of the Golden Mean; this existing architecture already exceeds the Golden Mean by a significant amount. She was concerned about imposing the Golden Mean on this applicant given the existing architecture, and did not believe that was the applicants' fault. Vice President Cook did not believe there was a reason to make the architecture proportionality worse, and believed the number of existing houses e… | PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-24 | 16 | President Cunningham recalled that there had been a move to post the packet on the website. Mr. Lynch noted that staff transition had been discussed during the previous meeting, and requested that it be agendized for a future meeting, so that the City Manager be able to take part in the discussion. He believed that a discussion within the next month would be most beneficial. 11. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Ms. Altschuler noted that the continued staffing levels affected the ability to distribute an email packet, and that they were attempting to maintain the same work product with a smaller staff. She noted that statutory requirements such as noticing were the first priority of the staff. Ms. Altschuler advised that the support staff requested that she discuss the issue of Roberts Rules of Order as they related to meeting minutes. She noted that the Planning Board minutes were considerably more detailed than what is required, and added that the Council minutes were shorter and did not provide as much information. In order to provide additional time for support staff to perform other duties, she requested the Board's input regarding more limited meeting minutes. She noted that the meeting was recorded on audio and videotape, and added that lengthy minutes must be reviewed and amended by staff. In addition, there was a tremendous amount of paper used in the distribution of the minutes. President Cunningham believed that for study sessions, that a list of bullet points would be sufficient. Routine items would still be well-served by briefer minutes. Ms. Altschuler noted that more important or controversial items would still need detail appropriate to their complexity. Ms. Kohlstrand supported that suggestion. Ms. Altschuler noted that if the condensed minutes were not useful, the extended minutes could be reinstated. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Altschuler confirmed that Building Inspectors generally dropped the packets off while on their rounds in the field. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:27 p.m. Respectfully submitte… | PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 16 | Mr. Busse stated that the business was a veterinary hospital, and that boarding was an ancillary use. Only medical clients were able to use the boarding services, such as for diabetic dogs that need medical oversight. Presently, they allow only two spots for boarding, and that boarding was not available for non-clients; the other four slots were reserved for hospitalized animals. He estimated that six to eight boarding spaces would be available at peak periods for their medical clients; their business was not a kennel. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding the exercise area, Mr. Busse confirmed that it was not a dog run or play area, but an enclosed area where staff members will walk dogs on-leash one at a time. He emphasized that dogs would not be fenced in unattended in that area all day; it may take 10-15 minutes for staff to walk each dog. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand regarding the setbacks, Mr. Busse stated that the building setback at the closest point would be one foot from the property line on Central Avenue. The property line is 4'2" from the existing sidewalk, allowing five feet of landscape space at the closest point; it would expand to a range of 7-14 feet in other areas. Vice President Cook stated that she had no concerns about the proposed rezoning or about the design. She expressed concern about the impact of the lighted sign on the residences, and added that the business hours were generally confined to daylight hours. She was not concerned about the driveway, but was concerned about the expansion of the use next to residential uses. She noted that the Use Permit ran with the land, not the business, and did not believe this was an appropriate use so close to a residential neighborhood. Mr. Lynch advised that he did not have any concerns with the business operations at this site, largely due to their business model. Ms. Mariani noted that this use should blend as much as possible into the neighborhood, and suggested that mature landscaping be a condition of appeal. Mr. … | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-23 | 16 | full analysis. Mr. Lynch noted that a number of communities have gone forward with the environmental documents first, then the plan. The voters would then be provided with the alternatives and an idea of the general concept as it related to the baseline data. Ms. Kohlstrand believed that Alameda Point provided the perfect opportunity to have a meaningful community debate about whether Measure A should prevail, or whether another development approach should be considered for that area. Mr. Thomas believed that the last meeting would be productive if it could be devoted to evaluating the two plans that had been developed through the process. He added that this would not be the end of the planning process. Mr. Lynch noted that he would be out of the country on June 8, but suggested that the City election schedule be presented to the public at that time; a special election would be very costly. He noted that would help structure the planning timeline so that any possible ballot issues may be considered. Mr. Piziali suggested that issue be considered at a separate meeting. Ms. Eliason noted that it may be best to hold the discussion after the Navy's decision was known. b. Staff update on current stafflevels in the Planning Division of the Planning & Building Department. Ms. Eliason advised that Mr. Cormack would retire in mid-June, and his position was slated to be frozen. In the next budget cycle, Ms. Altschuler's position would be eliminated. She noted that staffing would be thin for the time being, and that the recruitment effort for a Planning & Building Director was underway. Greg McFann and Jerry Cormack shared the Interim Planning & Building Director position. The entire Planning & Building Department was in the process of conducting a fee study and evaluation of staffing. Those results will be available in the next month or two; it was hoped that it would show that the staffing levels were too low, given the volume of work on both the Planning & Building sides, allowing the Development Review Manager position … | PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 16 | The public hearing was opened. Ms. Janin Von Furst, 917B Santa Clara, spoke in opposition to this item. She expressed concern about the environmental impact that such projects have on a city the size of Alameda, particularly with respect to parking. She noted that the design reminded her of Jack London Square, but that Alameda could not handle that amount of traffic from outside the city. She noted that the bridges and tubes would be busier, bringing more traffic through the residential neighborhoods. She was concerned that people would park in the neighborhoods to avoid paying for parking in the parking garage. She suggested the use of residential parking permits for neighborhoods near projects of this size. Ms. Nancy Hird, 1519 East Shore Drive, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that she was not speaking on behalf of AAPS. She believed that the massing of this building was excessive although it was improved. She believed that a three-screen theater would be sufficient, and did not want to bring more traffic into Alameda from outside the City. She noted that the success of the Central Cinema disproved the theater that multiple screens were necessary to be economically feasible. Ms. Paula Rainey, 556 Palace Court, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed this project was too big for this district, which was pedestrian-oriented and too crowded with traffic. She believed the new design had been improved, but did not believe this design would enhance the neighborhood. She noted that the design was not pedestrian-friendly, and was too close to the street without softening. She suggested that the old theater be restored, but that the new Cineplex be eliminated. She believed this was a megaplex, and the lack of freeway frontage roads made the situation more difficult. Ms. Pat Bail, 825 Paru, believed the design had improved since the beginning, but that the residents were unprepared for the scope of this project and its impact on the neighborhood. She believed this design was overpowering and inappropri… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-27 | 16 | Mr. Piziali echoed Mr. Lynch's comment, and added that he was ready to move forward with the project. He supported the project at this point. Ms. Mariani noted that she rejected the design as it stands, and agreed with the HAB's opinion of starting again with the design. Vice President Cook noted that she would like to continue the discussion, and added that scale was one of the fundamental issues she heard from the public. She noted that City Hall, the new Library and the Twin Towers church were also large-scale projects. She believed it was time to make a final decision. She noted that someone would probably appeal the decision and to bring it to City Council, which would open up further dialogue about the details of the project. She strongly believed that the project should be sent forward with very clear design direction. She would have liked to have had the agreement with Long's, allowing a larger site. She encouraged the residents to revisit the Long's issue with City Council. President Cunningham agreed with Vice President Cook's comments, and believed the 106 findings should be reviewed to help improve the project. He believed the design of the project had progressed considerably, and noted that some projects can take many years to design. He requested staff's response to the 106 findings. Mr. Lynch agreed with the speakers who wanted the architect and owner to work with the HAB and PSBA to fill in some Art Deco features along the Central Avenue and Oak Street elevation. Vice President Cook expressed concern about including faux historic elements in the design, which may dilute the genuine historic design. She believed that a theater similar to the Livermore example may overwhelm the historic theater. She believed the architecture should reflect the constant evolution of the City. Mr. Lynch noted that some of the speakers had modified their comments, and he would incorporate that increased acceptance into his decision-making process. Mr. Piziali would prefer to send the design to City Council with the Pla… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2005-08-22 | 16 | building's height, which she believed is misrepresented in the architectural drawings presented by the applicant. Mr. Don Patterson, 1256 Sherman Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and thanked Mr. Garrison for meeting with him. He believed South Shore should submit a separate, detailed landscape and signage plan, based on the developer not complying with Trader Joe's landscape plan. He added that Trader Joe's has been open 35 months. He inquired how an Occupancy Permit can be issued without signoffs. He believed Alameda deserved better landscaping and signage than what was approved 40 years ago. He believed there should be five to eight feet of landscaping provided on each of the building walls, especially parking structures and Walgreen's. He believed the Master Plan, landscaping and signage plans should be submitted and approved before any additional permits are issued, and Trader Joe's landscaping should be completed. Mr. Keith Wells was called to speak, but was not in attendance. Ms. Ani Dimusheva, 2911 Calhoun Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted that the drawings were shown out of context, and that the convalescent homes or Willow Street were not shown. She believed the Target store was too tall, and that it would be too massive; its proximity overwhelmed the Mervyn's building. She was concerned that when Mervyn's closed, it would be replaced with an even larger building. She would like to see its replacement moved back and built smaller. She was concerned about traffic congestion. She believed smaller stores would serve Alameda better. Ms. Alice Cleveland, 2101 Shoreline Drive #484, spoke in opposition to this item. She was concerned that the placement of this big box store would negatively impact her quality of life. She noted that the large tractor-trailers trucks currently drove past her home while servicing Safeway, and that they were noisy and dirty. She was very concerned about the potential truck traffic if Target were to open, and the traffic congestion surrounding the center.… | PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2005-09-29 | 16 | 9. ADJOURNMENT: 11:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Greg McFann, Acting Secretary Planning & Building Department These minutes were approved at the October 24, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 16 September 29, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2006-04-24 | 16 | 9. Written Communications: None. 10. Board Communications a. Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook). Vice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). Ms. Mariani advised that the next meeting would be held on April 27, 2006, at 2 p.m. Her committee was working on a proposal to bring to both Planning Boards. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member Kohlstrand). Ms. Kohlstrand advised that there had been no further meetings. Ms. Mariani noted that she had been approached by two people, stating that the Alameda Journal reported that she was in favor of a parking structure at the Catellus project. She was not present at that meeting, did not say that, and she contacted the Journal to correct the report. It was in fact Ms. McNamara who mentioned a parking structure. 11. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 9:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catary Woodbury Cathy Wootbbury, Secretary Planning and Building Department These minutes were approved at the May 8, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 16 April 24, , 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2006-07-24 | 16 | Master Plan regarding the street plans remain the same, but suggested conditions be added as follows: "these conditions are subject to refinements of the sidewalks or additional street parking based on further study. Member Lynch stated that the Board would like to explore the opportunity of putting housing above all retail, which he believed was a legitimate question, not a Measure A debate. He noted that it would change the look of the project dramatically, and would affect the required parking. Member Mariani agreed with Mr. Marcus' statement that some tenants may want only a one-story building, such as PF Chang's Member Kohlstrand appreciated what Vice President Cook was trying to achieve, but would feel more comfortable with more flexibility in the goals with respect to at least 50 percent second story mixed use. President Cunningham suggested that language be included to encourage as much mixed use as possible. M/S Lynch/Cook and unanimous to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Mr. Thomas noted that with respect to the 100-foot height limit for waterfront buildings, it had been reduced to 85 feet. Mr. Marcus noted that the current Master Plan stated that buildings up to five stories could be built, and they had no intent to do more than that. The 85-foot limit was stated because some tenants may want to have a raised floor building. Member Kohlstrand believed it was important to frame the open space. With respect to R&D, Mr. Thomas noted that the Tinker Extension was crucial for the lower 250,000 square foot retail center. If the City could not complete the extension, Variant B would be explored, which would include plans for some retail and some R&D or a complete swap-out of R&D in that subarea. Mr. Thomas noted Vice President Cook's comments regarding the 50% requirement, and noted that it was always staff's intent that in the nodes, at least 50% of the buildings had second floor uses. He added that more could be added, but that the City wished to have a required minimum. Vice… | PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2006-09-25 | 16 | Mr. Mike Corbitt. Alameda Towne Center, 523 South Shore Center, spoke in support to this item. He thanked the speakers for their opinions, and noted that he shared their wishes for safe and manageable traffic patterns for the project. He submitted 520 names of people who want Target at the center. Ms. Elizabeth Flanagan agreed with the other speakers who mentioned their concerns about the flawed traffic study. She would like the local schools to be included in the traffic safety with respect to safety. Ms. Mary Jacak, 1330 Caroline Street, believed the EIR was inadequate and felt very strongly that there should be no street without sidewalks on both sides. Ms. Kris Murray, 1738 Alameda Avenue, spoke in support to this item. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. President Lynch entertained Board comments on how to proceed with this item. Member Kohlstrand believed it would be appropriate to continue the discussion to the next meeting. She noted that it would be helpful to hear all the comments, and then absorb them before commenting. In response to an inquiry by President Lynch regarding the timeline going forward, Mr. Thomas replied that the final date of the comment period was October 12, 2006. Staff heard a number of important comments and concerns raised, and expected to receive more letters and emails. He believed the best option would be for the Board to continue its discussion to October 9, 2006. He believed it would take one to two months to prepare the final EIR. The Board must wait to take any action until the Final EIR has been in circulation for at least 15 days. He requested that staff provide the public with a timeline and milestones of goals to guide public comment. Vice President Cook requested the comments made by the Transportation Commission as soon as possible. Mr. Thomas noted that staff would provide their minutes by October 9, 2006. M/S Kohlstrand/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to continue Board discussion of this item to the meeting of October 9, 2006. AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); … | PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2006-10-23 | 16 | 8-D. Major Design Review - DR06-0034 - Applicant: Mohamed Elhashash - 1530 & 1532 Ninth Street (CE). The applicant requests a Major Design Review for alteration of three single-family homes, each into a duplex, for a total of six units. The site is located at 1530 and 1532 Ninth Street within an R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. Ms. Eliason summarized the staff report, and recommended approval of this item. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Thomas Touhy, project architect, described the background of this application, and noted that they had reviewed comments received by the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS), the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) and City Council. They worked with the applicant to address those comments, and developed some recommendations. In the meeting, they worked through the accessibility issues for the lower units for the two front buildings, as well as the relative benefits and costs of raising the buildings versus digging down. During that meeting, they decided to leave the buildings exactly where they were, which seemed to solve a lot of problems with respect to proportions and the Golden Mean. He noted that Christopher Buckley had provided additional comments, which he believed were generally supportive of the changes in the project. He noted that the existing porch railing may have been boxed in, and if so, the existing railing will stay. If the existing railing is missing, it would be a more difficult issue with respect to adding a new element to meet the building code. He noted that the applicant would install all wood windows, and will consider the hipped roof line for the rear additions. With respect to moving the house, the applicants had decided not to lift the buildings up at all; they were in their historic locations, and they preferred to leave them there. He noted that with respect to siding, the applicant will be able to show what areas would be retained. He noted that much more would be able to be retained since the buildings would not be raised. … | PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2006-11-13 | 16 | 8-C. UP06-0015 and UP06-0016 - Harsch Investments Realty LLC - 2215 South Shore Center (BS/DG). The applicant requests approval of Use Permits allowing operation of a Health Studio (Fit-Lite) between the hours of 6 am and 10 pm in an existing retail space in Alameda Towne Centre (formerly South Shore Center). The Use Permits are required for health studios in the Central Business (C-2) District and for the extended hours of operation. Vice President Cook noted that a staff report would not be necessary. The public hearing was opened. There were no speaker slips. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. M/S Cunningham/Kohlstrand to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. P-06-49 and PB-06-50 to approve Use Permits allowing operation of a Health Studio (Fit-Lite) between the hours of 6 am and 10 pm in an existing retail space in Alameda Towne Centre (formerly South Shore Center). The Use Permits are required for health studios in the Central Business (C-2) District and for the extended hours of operation. AYES - 4 (Ezzy Ashcraft, Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 M/S Kohlstrand/Cunningham to extend the meeting to 12:00 midnight. AYES - 4 (Ezzy Ashcraft, Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 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 was nothing new to report. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member Kohlstrand). Member Kohlstrand advised that there had been no further meetings since the last report. Planning Board Minutes Page 16 November 13, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2007-01-08 | 16 | 12. ADJOURNMENT: 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathy Woodbury FCathy Woodbury, Secretary City Planning Board These minutes were approved at the February 12, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 16 January 8, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2007-03-12 | 16 | 12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Thomas, Secretary City Planning Board These minutes were approved at the Planning Board meeting of March 26, 2007. This meeting was audio and videotaped. Planning Board Minutes Page 16 March 12, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2007-03-26 | 16 | Vice President Cook wanted to know what the constraints on this the Board's discussion would be. Board member Cunningham noted that this would be an informative presentation because Measure A was currently in force. Board member Kohlstrand understood that this was an emotional and heated issue, and relied on staff for guidance with respect to procedure. She did not recall similar instances where the Planning Board was required to ask City Council for permission to act on an agendized item. Ms. Woodbury clarified that this was a policy issue, and City Council dealt with policy issues. She added that when staff analyzed projects, it was under the auspices of existing policy and that Measure A was in the charter; neither staff nor the Planning Board could change that. She noted that staff had a finite amount of resources in the form of time, staff and money. She advised that adding more to the work program would further stretch the resources, which was a significant issue. Board member Kohlstrand noted that it had been a challenge to have the joint meeting with City Council, and noted that would be helpful in this instance. Ms. Woodbury noted that the City Clerk was still looking at calendars to arrange a joint meeting. President Lynch inquired whether the ad hoc committee could recommend a workshop. Ms. Woodbury noted that would be possible. Board member Cunningham noted that the Planning Board had been approached by members of the public for some time, and believed that providing an open forum would be the best approach. He did not believe the City Council was the only entity to address Measure A, and recalled a Measure A forum at Kaufmann Auditorium approximately six years ago. Mr. Thomas suggested that a subcommittee of the Planning Board be established and ask it to return to the Board in one month at a public meeting in chambers. Logistics for the forum and proposals for the structure would be presented at that time. At that time, it could be decided whether to approach Council. Vice President Cook strongly be… | PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2007-05-29 | 16 | parking garage and a queuing plan for the Alameda Theater Complex. The review of the landscaping, signage and exterior lighting plans by the Planning Board are requirements of Design Reviews DR05-0041 and DR05-0028. The following modifications will be added: 1. Queuing in the alley will not be recommended as part of the queuing plan; if the lines become too long, the queuing direction will be reversed; 2. The addition of one more tree will be studied by staff. Acting President Cook seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Absent: 2 (Lynch, Mariani). The motion passed. Planning Board Minutes Page 16 May 29, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2007-09-24 | 16 | design elements on the project, or to send the item back to staff for the final design review, taking the comments into consideration. He noted that continuing the item until October 22 was another option. Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she liked the color palette, and supported breaking up the unarticulated side of Building B. She inquired whether the lighting fixtures on the buildings would come back to the Board. Mr. Thomas replied that it would not. Vice President Kohlstrand moved to extend the meeting until 11:30 p.m. Member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4. Abstain - 1 (Lynch). Absent: 2 (Cunningham, Mariani). The motion passed. Mr. Thomas noted that the extension of Stargell was a mitigation measure imposed upon this project, and that the Stargell project was approved by the City Council in 2001. He noted that it may not happen if the land from the College could not be acquired. Vice President Kohlstrand believed the issues dealt more with the intersections at Mariner Square, as well as the alignment of the roadway and its entrance into the north/south roadway. She wanted to ensure that the Board would still have the opportunity to comment on and resolve the larger issues. Mr. Thomas noted that the issue before the Board at this meeting was the architecture at the retail center. President Cook noted that she was comfortable with Fifth Street, and inquired whether the outstanding issues could come back while the resolved issues go forward. Mr. Thomas replied that it would be an option to approve the design review, with the condition that either specific elevations or specific buildings come back for design review. He added that staff would take the comments, and the Planning Director would work with the applicants to develop a revised plan for the elevation based on the comments. Another option was to bring the revisions back to the Planning Board for final approval. In response to President Cook's concerns about the entrance to Alameda Point, Mr. Thomas replied that a condit… | PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2008-04-28 | 16 | President Cook requested that Mr. Thomas update the Board at the next meeting. Board member Lynch inquired whether a motion would be needed for this item, because it was the byproduct of a settlement. He requested that staff return with an answer to the Board, and suggested that if it was the product of a settlement agreement, he believed there was some duty to deliver it. If not, he inquired whether the Board should deliver it in the spirit of neighborliness. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that it was the summary of the first hearing in a process that has not concluded. Mr. Biggs noted that Mr. Thomas could report to the Board on that item. No action was taken. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft hoped that Alameda was not the only body performing studies on this issue, and that there was reciprocity on Oakland's part. President Cook suggested that this follow-up be included in Staff Communications for the next meeting. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: Vice President Kohlstrand noted that a meeting of the Pedestrian Task Force had been held; the Task Force included members of the Planning Board, the Transportation Commission, the Housing Commission and the Accessibility Commission. She noted that information will come to the Planning Board at the end of May. She encouraged the Board and the public to look at the work performed by the Task Force in documenting existing facilities in Alameda. She noted that there was considerable detail, and that their challenge would be to figure out how to implement the plans to improve pedestrian amenities in Alameda. Page 16 of 17 | PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2008-06-23 | 16 | Mr. Thomas noted that the following modifications would be added: 1. The Planning Board recommended to City Council to consider that some moderate- income housing and some low- and very low-income housing move off-site and some stay on-site; 2. If Warmington Homes pursues another market-rate project at some other location, the suitability of the Island High site as the off-site location for that project should have to return to the Planning Board for the same finding that is being examined for the Grand Marina site. Vice President Kohlstrand expressed concern about the second modification, because it gave no incentive to Warmington Homes to maximize the development on the Island High site. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she did not want to look at every new project come along in a redevelopment area with a 25% inclusionary housing requirement, and that the units would all be taken off-site. She understood that this effort was a balancing act. She inquired whether there would be a way to achieve a mix of different income levels and housing sites. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that would be a financial issue, and why the applicant should be obligated to pay for an additional nine units out of their pockets. Mr. Day noted that they wanted the right to use those units on future projects, but that they were willing to examine in on a case-by-case basis to make sure it was appropriate for each individual project. Mr. Thomas noted that Section 3.7 on page 9 of the agreement stated that in the reduced off-site alternative, "Offsets for future development: Subject to all City, Commission and other discretionary approvals, including any required Planning Board findings, for a period of ten years following issuance of certificate of occupancy for the Island High site, subject to extension " Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the section only applied to low- and very-low-income households: "There shall be no offset allowed under this section for offsite additional units that are rented or sold to moderate income … | PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2008-08-11 | 16 | of service as a trigger, and considering that this mitigation may not be needed. President Kohlstrand stated that Mitigation 10-3 pertains to the Shoreline and access to the post office. She stated the applicant is 100% responsible for this mitigation, or the city can determine if the level of service is no longer acceptable. She asked if the board had any other comments regarding the environmental resolution. Board member Lynch asked about other traffic concerns. President Kohlstrand stated those are not listed as significant environmental Impacts, but are community and city concerns that need to be addressed. A board discussion ensued regarding other traffic issues including traffic flow and street light timing and whether the developer or the City should address these issues. The board directed staff to refer the community comments regarding traffic issues to the City engineering department, and report back to the Board. Board member Cunningham asked how and when level of service is determined. He asked that this issue be addressed and included in the report. President Kohlstrand had suggested language be added specifying what constitutes an acceptable level of service. In response to an inquiry by the board regarding how the City determines level of service staff responded that the City has published Traffic Study Guidelines. President Kohlstrand asked if the Board had any additional comments on the environmental document. Board member Lynch stated that substantive changes had been made and he would like to see those changes incorporated into the final version. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated the board could move to adopt the resolution as amended so it would not be necessary to return this item to the board. President Kohlstrand stated she felt comfortable with Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft's suggestion. Board member McNamara stated she was also comfortable with the suggestion. The Board approved, by a vote of 5-0, to approve the Environmental Impact Report as amended. President Kohlstrand approved a five… | PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2008-12-08 | 16 | Board member Autorino agreed with President Kohlstrand that businesses of a certain size should be excluded from the parking requirement. He stated that buildings should in fact have historic significance and not just ten years old. A Board discussion ensued on whether a distinction between historic or non-historic is important, contributions to off street parking and street design, protection of continuous street façade, fee structure and establishing minimum thresholds, more criteria to apply for a fee waiver, and eliminating the minimum parking requirement. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to the staff report which states that many planners are recommending only maximum not minimum parking requirements. This is a good time for the Board to consider this option. Staff stated that during discussions with the consultant, based on supply and demand in Alameda it is a matter of management not supply. The goal is to retain parking in the Park Street district. There are residential areas in this area suffering spillover. President Kohlstrand stated there are advocates for changing parking policies nationwide. Alameda is an older city where much of the older character has been maintained. If parking is limited, alternatives must be provided. Staff stated that implementing no minimums removes contributions to the in-lieu fund, which reduces funding sources. In response to a Board inquiry staff responded that WABA is supportive of the recommendations and relaxed on site parking requirements. WABA had no comment on the minimums. President Kohlstrand suggested staff get input from PSBA on these issues as currently there is more of a parking issue in the Park Street district. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated she was interested in new technology for replacing parking meters. She suggested reconfiguration of parking spaces in the parking lot on Central near the theatre. The spaces do not accommodate larger SUVs. Staff will return to the Board at a future date with information on the following: in-lieu fees and waiver… | PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2012-02-27 | 16 | safety considerations were included in the evaluation. Mr. Khan referred to the bike plan and he explained that the ranking is listed in the back of the sheet. When calculating the points he referred to the bike plan project. Regarding safety considerations, he said that is a tricky question, but staff looked at different modes of transportation to see how safety is incorporated into the design. Board member Zuppan stated that she was looking at the project that strengthened current seismic standards. Mr. Khan replied that regional and lifeline connectivity would be ranked high in priority. Board member Knox White stated that this is a great process and he was glad to see the City is going through this process methodically. He believes the scoring is still missing a couple of things: (1) transit benefits should have some sort of grade because you want to know what does the scoring mean and if staff provides points then they should give clarification for what the points mean; (2) the Regional Significant scoring seems off because it basically says that local projects score very poorly while regional projects receive bonus points; (3) the Economic Development section is vague and should be gradated to show why points are given; (4) the Transportation Element points are aimed towards public works working with another agency and half the points are created by meeting small policies and he suggested that there should be four general pan objectives. Therefore, the scoring side needs to be more methodical, an example, the former ACTIA scoring does calculate it's funding into a great spreadsheet. His other concern was the way that the projects are called out. Some projects are vague and there should be consistency on how the projects are defined. Also, he believes the spreadsheet should include a column that explains the types of funding that the projects could match with. Additionally, he wanted to know how staff would add new projects to the list and prioritize the list that the community brings up. Lastly, when the li… | PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2012-03-12 | 16 | Town Center District. However, he would like staff to include more waterfront orientation in the residential areas because right now the residential areas are pushed away from the waterfront on one side. He believes there has to be a mixed-use area and he is concerned with the juxtaposition of the commercial and residential area. Since you have to go through the residential districts to get to the commercial center, there will be issues with the residents. Also, since this plan has a wide range of commercial uses, staff must consider how the commercial use type will affect the residential areas. Additionally, he envisions that residents and visitors will heavily use the open space area and the way the plan is structured would prohibit residents from directly accessing the open space since they have to go through the commercial district. Thus, he would like the open space area to be easily accessible to all residents. He believes the adaptive re-use employment area is concerning and he doubts that the City will be able to find a use for a lot of the buildings. What makes the adaptive-reuse area more difficult is that staff is saying that anything can go in there. So, when you look at this juxtaposition of residential and commercial and it's very difficult to plan and understand the impacts. Ultimately, this should be addressed with more residential and less adaptive reuse. Lastly, he would like the public to access the entire area and experience the whole waterfront. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft agreed with Board member Autorino's comments. She doesn't like the fact that staff is capping the amount of residential units at Alameda Point especially when the City is updating the Housing Element. On page 2 and throughout the staff report they emphasized the need to include the community's input and involvement. Yet, there is a throw away line on page 2, that acknowledged the major area of disagreement with the community was the total number housing units planned for Alameda Point. The outcome of the disagreement states … | PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2021-04-26 | 16 | Board Member Hom made a motion to continue this item until the next meeting. Board Member Ruiz seconded and a roll call vote was taken. The motion passed 7- 0. 7-A 2021-859 Public Hearing on the Alameda General Plan Update and the Scope of Environmental Impact Report. Director Thomas introduced this item. The staff report and attachments can be found at ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4913555&GUID=CA000393- 667A-4AB4-9EDD-FC4CDD807FD7&FullText=1. President Teague opened the board's clarifying questions and public comments. There were no public speakers. President Teague closed public comments and opened board discussions. Director Thomas said that the staff report that they were preparing for May 10th would have a lot of the same information. 8. MINUTES 8-A 2021-858 Draft Meeting Minutes - March 8, 2021 Board Member Curtis wanted to change his statement on page 6, it should say "stated" and not "addressed" and then on page 10 in his comment there should be a "not" in front of not having a master plan should "not" affect the city. Board Member Hom said for item 7-B he clarified that his question should be "for properties with potential Density Bonus Units, could these units be counted in the RHNA". Then in the response from Director Thomas, it should be HCD. He also clarified his questions about lighting and that it had questions about Marina parking. Board Member Hom made a motion to approve the minutes with these corrections. Board Member Cisneros seconded the motion and a roll call vote was taken. The minutes passed 7-0. 9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS 9-A 2021-856 Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions Recent actions and decisions can be found at Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 16 of 18 April 26, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2021-07-12 | 16 | Board Member Curtis believed that item put a burden on the home buyer and the seniors. He thought it was unfair to take away choice on something somebody owned. Board Member Rothenberg asked if the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan and its vision in the General Plan anticipated there would be an existing buildings electrification ordinance. She recalled this being something that would have to come forward at some point. Director Thomas said that was absolutely correct. The CARP did not specify what exactly that would be but to get to be a Net Zero community you have to look at the total building stock. It came down to how aggressive they wanted to be to achieve these goals while maintaining balance. They would work through it like everything else. President Teague said people had been asking him about "the point of sale" thing as well. Director Thomas said it was something that other cities had been discussing and Alameda had also been discussing. He asked that everyone remind their neighbors that nothing would happen without a lot of public discussion and conversation. President Teague thanked everyone and made sure Director Thomas had everything he needed. Director Thomas said they would publish additional adjustments to the amendment list based on the comments received and what had been discussed. The staff report that would go out for the next meeting would have those suggestions highlighted. 8. MINUTES 8-A 2021-1113 Draft Meeting Minutes - May 24, 2021 Board Member Rothenberg had a correction for Item 7-D, it should have been CARP instead of CARB. Staff Member Tai said that Item D was about the leaf blowers and referred to the CARB, California Air Resources Board. Board Member Rothenberg withdrew her correction. Board Member Hom made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Rothenberg seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0 with Vice President Saheba and Board Member Ruiz absent and President Teague abstaining. 9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS 9-A 2021-1105 Planning, Building a… | PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2021-07-26 | 16 | *Prescient Teague reminded him to stay on topic and told him to bring up these issues in the Oral Communication section. Mike Van Dine thought it was a beautiful design but felt that the designer had wasted an opportunity to embrace the history of the building. Lis Cox wanted to know what area of the building the homeless would be welcomed into the building to use the resource center on an appointment basis. She also wanted to know if there would be a screening area for the public who did not have an appointment. Harvey Rosenthal, a neighbor, said he had received no notification of this Design Review meeting and thought that was unfortunate. He then discussed how the nature of the program had changed over time. He wanted to know more about how the homeless would be homed. Scott Hamilton thought it was a beautiful building but it did not match the neighborhood or the history of Alameda. He also thought that the designer could have done more to honor the original history of the building and the Merchant Marines. President Teague, before closing public comments, asked Celena Chen, City Attorney's Office, and Staff Counsel, if public notice for this Design Review had been sent out and how far was it noticed. Counsel Chen deferred to the staff for comment on the public noticing of this item. Staff Member Dong answered that public notice was sent out to all properties within 300 feet of the project site. President Teague made a last call for public speakers and asked if the board wanted to hear from Ms. Reid a second time. Board Member Curtis said why not since it was a public hearing and others agreed. Carmen Reid thanked the board for the opportunity to talk. She addressed that there was a violation of public access, the Zoom link for tonight's meeting was broken. She wanted the board to know that the public had not been able to fully access this meeting. In regards to the Design Review, she discussed the goals for the 2040 General Plan, CC-18 "Building Renovation and Reuse" talked about reusing existing buildings. P… | PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf |
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]) );