pages
318 rows where body = "PlanningBoard" and page = 3
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: date (date)
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-10 | 3 | Mr. Fuz thanked the Board, and said that it was his pleasure to serve the community of Alameda, and that it had been a wonderful experience. He thanked the members of the community that he worked with. He thanked the Board for its dedication and professionalism, and added that it was the best Board he had ever worked with in more than 20 years in the field. He thanked the Planning and Building Department staff for their help, expertise and professionalism, and for making his tenure pleasant and successful. Vice President Cook thanked Mr. Fuz and noted that she had looked forward to working with him for a longer time. She noted that she would miss working with him, and added that she admired his unflappable nature and his ability to maintain calm and a sense of humor. She added that his analytical mind enabled him to accomplish so much during his tenure. Mr. Lynch looked forward to working with Mr. Fuz whenever the chance arose in El Dorado County, and said that Alameda was a much better place for his work in the City. He noted that Mr. Fuz set a positive tone for the City's professional representatives Planning Board Minutes Page 3 January 10, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-24 | 3 | 7-B. DR04-0111/V04-0020, 836 Oak Street, Applicant: Richard Vaterlaus for Michael Rich (AT). The proposal is a request for Major Design Review to legalize the unauthorized raising of a single-family residence one foot to create habitable space in the basement. The building height was increased from approximately 23'-0" to 24'-0", where 35'-0" is the maximum permitted height. The construction also requires a variance to AMC Subsection 30-5.7(e) to allow a rear staircase to extend 7'-6" into the required rear yard, where the maximum encroachment permitted is 6'-0". The project site is located within an R-4, Neighborhood Residential District. M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution PB-05-04 to approve a request for Major Design Review to legalize the unauthorized raising of a single-family residence one foot to create habitable space in the basement. The building height was increased from approximately 23'-0" to 24'-0", where 35'-0" is the maximum permitted height. The construction also requires a variance to AMC Subsection 30-5.7(e) to allow a rear staircase to extend 7'-6" into the required rear yard, where the maximum encroachment permitted is 6'-0". AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 January 24, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 3 | 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: 7-A. TM04-0005 SRM Associates Harbor Bay Parkway (MG). Applicant requests approval of Tentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels into nine parcels. The parcels are located within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are zoned C-M-PD: Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development District. (Continued from the meeting of January 24, 2005.) Ms. Kohlstrand noted that the number of parcels in the subdivision was listed differently in the resolution and on the agenda. Ms. Harryman advised that this item would be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar and renoticed due to the discrepancy. M/S Piziali/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue this item so that it may be renoticed. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 February 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 3 | 7-B. Theater Overlay District Designation (CE). Recommendation to the City Council to adopt an ordinance establishing a Theater Overlay District and rezoning certain properties in the Theater Overlay District designation. (Continued from the meeting of February 14, 2005.) M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-07 to approve a recommendation to the City Council to adopt an ordinance establishing a Theater Overlay District and rezoning certain properties in the Theater Overlay District designation. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 February 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-03 | 3 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board A community member inquired about the Phase I development, and the housing density in that phase. She inquired whether there would be any innovative or eco-friendly architecture. Mr. Walter Rask noted that the density would be approximately 12 units per acre, which was roughly comparable to Bayport. He noted that there would be no walls, and that the blocks would be exterior-oriented; there would be no gated portions of the neighborhood. The buildings would feel very public and friendly in nature. There was an overall goal of the project to achieve sustainability objectives; green building measures and recycling would be used. A community member supported retaining the Enlisted Men's Quarters, and believed that turning them into condos may bring more diverse populations into Alameda. She inquired about the contamination on sites for non-Measure A and commercial uses. Mr. Rask displayed the mixed use areas, and noted that conventional housing would not be possible in that area if there was groundwater contamination. A community member inquired about the groundwater and soil contamination, and suggested that those areas not be developed until the contamination was cleaned up. Mr. Russell noted that the contamination in the Phase I area was relatively minor, and described its nature in detail. A non-Measure A-compliant design would allow for podium parking on the ground, with the residences on top; the chemicals would never reach the residences. Among the chemicals were dry cleaning solvent, nail polish remover, gasoline. A community member inquired whether PAHs were in the ground water. Mr. Thomas replied that they were not water-soluble and were not a groundwater issue. A community member inquired about how malleable the wildlife refuse was to being moved. Mr. Proud noted that the issue of wildlife transfer is an issue of property transfer between agencies, to the Veterans Administration rather than Fish & Wildlife. A community member no… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-14 | 3 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 8-A. Study Session Theater (DSD/JA). Study Session to review revisions for Design Guidelines to construct a new 7-screen Cineplex and 352-space parking structure on the Video Maniac site. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the CC - CCPD, Community Commercial and Special Planned Development Districts. (Continued from the meeting of February 28, 2005.) Ms. Kohlstrand advised that she would recuse herself from this item because she was a principal with the firm of EnviroTrans Solutions, which prepared the traffic analysis for the combined parking garage/theater analysis. Ms. Leslie Little, Development Services, advised that with Ms. Kohlstrand's absence from the discussion, there would not be sufficient Board members to act on this item at this time. Ms. Cormack advised that because Mr. Lynch had not yet arrived, there would not be quorum for this item, and suggested that Item 8-B be heard before Item 8-A. President Cunningham advised that public testimony would be heard, and that no action would be taken by the Board. The item would be heard by City Council on Tuesday, March 15, 2005. Ms. Little provided a status update on the theatre design following the last public testimony and Board comments. She noted that concerned parties would like the word "contemporary" to be removed from any description of the building; the balance of the definition came from the Secretary of the Interior's standards, including the word "contemporary." Item C-3 specified a general vertical emphasis, and she did not believe that there was community consensus regarding that design element. Item C-4 addressed the lobby projection on the second floor, and she believed that element has engaged people's imaginations about the additional activity at the theater. Other issues included studying the public space along Oak Street, widening the sidewalks; public parking and a bike route would be accommodated along the street. Bike r… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-28 | 3 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 05- to approve a Use Permit to operate a daycare center with capacity for forty-five students and eight employees with hours of operation between 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., with the following modifications: 1. The enrollment would be restricted to 40 children; and 2. A two-hour quiet time would be implemented daily. AYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 March 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-11 | 3 | NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda extends their thanks for her "Dedication to Excellence and Commitment to Service" to the City of Alameda on behalf of the City, staff and the citizens of Alameda. President Cunningham noted that Ms. Altschuler's knowledge and expertise will be missed. Ms. Altschuler thanked the Board for making her tenure so memorable and wonderful, and complimented them on their hard work and commitment to the City. As a citizen of Alameda, she was glad that she was leaving the City in such good hands. She thanked staff for its terrific work, and will miss them. Mr. Piziali thanked Ms. Altschuler for her clarity in Planning Board and City Council meetings, and would miss her greatly. Ms. McNamara thanked Ms. Altschuler for her expertise and patience. Vice President Cook complimented Ms. Altschuler on her clarity and talent for explaining difficult issues, as well as her patience through changing Boards. She complimented Ms. Altschuler on her excellent staff reports, and hoped they would be a model for future staff members. Mr. Lynch and Ms. Mariani thanked Ms. Altschuler for her excellent service. Planning Board Minutes Page 3 April 11, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-04-25 | 3 | 7-B DR05-0028 - City of Alameda - 1416 Oak Street (JA/JO). Applicant requests acceptance of preliminary Design for a 352-space parking structure, at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video Maniac site. This site is located at 1416 Oak Street site within the C-C-PB Community Commercial, Community Commercial - Planned Development Zoning Districts. {(Continued from the meeting of April 11, 2005.) (Staff requests a continuance to the meeting of May 9, 2005.)} M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of May 9, 2005. AYES - 5(Cook, Mariani); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 April 25, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-09 | 3 | 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 8-A. DR05-0041 - City of Alameda (CE/JO). Acceptance of preliminary design for the Cineplex generally at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue on the Video Maniac site. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the C-C and C-C-PD (Community Commercial and Community Commercial - Planned Development) Districts. This item was presented after Item 8-B. Ms. Ott presented the staff report, and noted that the DDA (Development Disposition Agreement) was approved by the City Council on May 3, 2005. Mr. Kyle Connors, Alameda Entertainment Associates, developer, presented an overview of the site plan, and noted that the project architect was very experienced in theater design. Mr. Rob Henry, Henry Architects, project architect, presented the project in detail on the overhead display. M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes. AYES - 6 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 The public hearing was opened. Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, noted that the project architect did a good job in fitting a lot of function into a small space, which he also believed was part of the problem. He believed there was too much energy in the site, and suggested that one theater be dropped from the project. He suggested that the corner adjacent to the rosette be curved to mirror the historic theater's curve. He noted that the lines did not flow from one theater to the other. Mr. Kevin Frederick did not like the design of this theater, and did not like the fact that no major changes had been considered by the Board since the inception of this project. He did not agree with the inclusion of the retail spaces, and did not believe they blended with the overall layout of the theater. Ms. Debbie George disagreed with Mr. Frederick's stated belief that the Planning Board did not listen to proposed changes and noted that PSBA's comments and input had been incorporated into the project. She complimented the architect in meeting the challenge of maintaining the in… | PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-05-23 | 3 | 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: 7-A. Use Permit, UP05-005; John Kienoski, John's Bargain Imports, 1770 Viking Street, Alameda, CA. (Alameda Point) (ATh). The applicant requests a Use Permit modification to allow retail sales at an existing wholesale facility. The site is located in the M-2-G, General Industry/Manufacturing Zoning District/Government Combining District. M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-15 to approve a Use Permit modification to allow retail sales at an existing wholesale facility. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 May 23, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 3 | 7-B. DA89-1 -- Harbor Bay Business Park Association, Harbor Bay Isle Associates and Harbor Bay Entities -- Bay Farm Island (Primarily Harbor Bay Isle) (CE). A request for a Periodic Review of Development Agreement DA89-01, for the period through April 4, 2005, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1. The properties are zoned R-1-PD, One Family Residence/Planned Development Zoning District; C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing Planned Development Zoning District; O, Open Space Zoning District and R-1-A-H, One Family Residence with Special Agricultural and Height Limit Combining Zoning District. M/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-18 to approve a Periodic Review of Development Agreement DA89-01, for the period through April 4, 2005, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1. AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-27 | 3 | In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the future possibility of building up, Ms. Eliason noted that the Final Development Plans would preclude that choice because the applicant would have to meet parking requirements; parking was based on a partial warehouse-type use, which was less dense than office. She noted that the entire lot would have to be redeveloped entirely; they would not be able to just add a second story. Vice President Cook expressed concern about having a balance in the public interest, including safety for children and traffic. She had been uncomfortable approving these speculative projects without more information about traffic, parking and other issues. She suggested a potential mitigation by allowing 7-B to be approved without also approving all the parcelization and changing the landscaping requirements. Ms. Eliason noted that the PDA could be limited to only Parcel 14 (Ettore). That would not allow 7- C (four flex warehouses) to move forward at this time. The Parcel Map referenced was already approved by the Planning Board and will be heard by City Council in July. Vice President Cook did not feel she had enough information, and needed more environmental analysis and examination of the schools and roads. She believed the business park as a whole was excellent quality. Mr. Lynch suggested that the 15 parcels be brought back for discussion of circulation, landscaping, and building design, and to move the Tentative Map forward. Ms. Eliason noted that the Tentative Map had been approved, and that the entire business park was under a development agreement, which specified the land uses that may be included in the business park. Those uses included Office, R&D, as well as any use in the C-M District, which also included warehouse/light manufacturing. She noted that the Board had limited ability to change the uses. Vice President Cook would like the parcels, except for Ettore, to return for further analysis and discussion of compatibility of uses with schools and future plans f… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-07-11.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-07-11 | 3 | Mr. Tony Aiello, applicant, St. Joseph's High School principal, noted that the time limits had been discussed with the appellant in November 2004, and January 2005. He believed the appellants' requests regarding the Arts Center doors were not reasonable as they apply to a school use. Students and staff would not use those doors, but would use the main doors Chestnut Street. He noted that the maintenance staff need to use the doors in question, and added that they would be sensitive to the neighbors. He noted that the janitorial staff did not commence work until 4 p.m. He noted that the school had been very responsive to the concerns of the appellants. Mr. Andrew Reed, applicant, noted that he was the project manager for the renovation, and emphasized that it was important that the school be able to run in a normal fashion. It had been his understanding in January that there would be no appeal, but that they hired an architect, made the requested changes, and met with the neighbors. He did not wish the performance of the school to be hindered, and added that there were normally two school plays a year for a total of six evenings. The school did not have total control over the janitorial staff, and would not want to promise something they could not guarantee. He requested that the Board uphold staff's recommendation, and to allow the school to exercise common sense. He noted that many accommodations had been reached for the appellants, particularly the removal of the windows in the boys' locker room. Mr. Jawad Jaber, appellant, expressed concern about potential noise and privacy impacts on his tenants. He was also concerned about the items that changed during their negotiations, and had no issues with the emergency doors. He had been a neighbor of St. Joseph's for 20 years, and added that his children attended the school as well. He requested that alternatives be found for the janitorial staff to avoid privacy impacts on his tenants. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. President Cunningham complimen… | PlanningBoard/2005-07-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-07-25 | 3 | 8-B. FDP05-0002/DR05-0057 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant requests a Final Development Plan and Design Review for four (4) new flex warehouse, office and light manufacturing facilities ranging in size from 13,900 to 33,272 square feet on 6.41 acres adjacent to and southerly of 2000 North Loop Road (Parcels 8-12 on Tentative Parcel Map No. 8574). These facilities will be on one lot of approximately 11.53 acres until the final map is approved. The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned Development.) (Applicant requests a continuance to the meeting of August 22, 2005.) M/S Cook/McNamara to continue this item to the meeting of August 22, 2005. AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 July 25, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-08-08 | 3 | 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: 8.A. Variance, V04-0002, and Major Design Review, DR03-0146 - Alvin Wong - 2708 Lincoln Avenue (DB). The applicant requests a Major Design Review approval for the partial demolition of an approximately 842-square foot, two-bedroom, single-story cottage and reconstruction to provide approximately 1,870-square feet, four-bedroom, two-story, single-family residence, which includes partially covered off-street parking for two-tandem vehicles. Variances are required to permit the following: 1) The structure would be built to within 3-feet from the northwesterly side property line, where a minimum 5-foot setback is required; 2) The structure would cover approximately 51-percent of the site, where the maximum permitted main building coverage is 48-percent for residences with attached garages; and 3) The front porch would be relocated and covered and would be setback approximately 7-feet from the front property line, where 20-feet is the minimum required front yard setback. The site is located within an R-1 (Single-Family Residence) Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of July 25, 2005; item was re-advertised.) Ms. Eliason advised that a letter of support of this item was received by staff. President Cunningham read a letter of opposition into the record: "Dear Planning Board and Reviewing Board, "I think it is ridiculous to even consider letting Mr. Wong build his new home. What is the use of going to the effort of setting limits for size and setbacks, etc., if you are going to let people be exception to the rule? What makes Mr. Wong so special? Will he be allowed to drive 40 miles an hour around town? Do the regulations belong to everyone except Mr. Wong? If he wants this house that he has designed, then let him buy the proper size lot. Signed, M.B." President Cunningham read a letter of support into the record: "We'd like to say that we support Mr. and Mrs. Wong in their efforts to build a new and larger home. We have felt that for many years, this home was smaller than all others in the n… | PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-08-22 | 3 | 8-B. FDP05-0002/DR05-0057 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant requests a Final Development Plan and Design Review for four (4) new flex warehouse, office and light manufacturing facilities ranging in size from 13,900 to 33,272 square feet on 6.41 acres adjacent to and southerly of 2000 North Loop Road (Parcels 8-12 on Tentative Parcel Map No. 8574). These facilities will be on one lot of approximately 11.53 acres until the final map is approved. The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned Development.) (Continued from the meeting of July 25, 2005.) M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to September 26, 2005. AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 August 22, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-09-12 | 3 | 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: 8.A. Status Report and request for extension of time for construction allowed under Planned Development Amendment PDA02-0003 and Major Design Review DR02-0095, located at 2160 Otis Drive, South Shore Shopping Center (DG). (Continued from the meeting of August 22, 2005.) Mr. Garrison presented the staff report, and noted that while the applicant has met all the vesting requirements, they have not completed the construction. The applicant requested two additional years to complete construction. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Dorothy Reid, 2101 Shoreline Drive #201, distributed a chart to illustrate her comments, and noted that there was confusion over what PDA-02-A2-03 was for. She noted that PDA-02 only approved the four yellow highlighted buildings, as well as the July 2003 site plan; Trader Joe's was already built. She was concerned about approving construction for two more years on one-and-a-half buildings, and that whether there would be a clear understanding regarding the PDA. She believed there was confusion between building square footage and GLA, which were two very different numbers. She noted that the current construction did not expire until January 28, 2006, and would like to wait to approve this item until there was more clarity regarding the entire site. She believed that specific numbers should be cited, and was also concerned about the proposed amendment to Paragraph 2: "Any substantial alteration will require a new PDA and Design Review." She believed that the word "substantial" should be clarified. She did not understand the purpose of Paragraph 21, even in the original PDA. Rather than modifying this paragraph, she believed it should be struck entirely. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Mr. Garrison noted that the only language addressed by staff specifically dealt with the construction timeline; the other comments are outside of the scope addressed by staff at this time. In terms of the square footage questions and the map, the construction was approve… | PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-09-26 | 3 | 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: 8.A. DR05-0030, UP05-0013; Italo Calpestri III for Anita Ng; 1305-1311 Park Street (AT). The applicants request approval of Major Design Review to allow construction of a two story 3, ,115 square-foot addition to replace existing additions of 1,300 square feet at the rear of a commercial building. The proposed project results in a net gain of 515 square feet of ground floor commercial space and 1,300 square-feet on the second floor. The second floor, ultimately comprising 1,500 square feet of floor area, will contain two (2) residential units each approximately 750 square feet in size. A Use Permit is required for the dwelling units pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.C.1(s) because the units do not comply with off-street parking requirements. The site is located within the Park Street C-C T, Community Commercial Theatre Combining District. Ms. Eliason presented the staff report, and staff recommended that of the six existing spaces on the site, two of the spaces be marked for the two new dwelling units. The other four spaces would be for the four existing commercial spaces on the ground floor. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Virginia Chabre, 2420 Marti Rae Court, noted that Ms. Eliason's clarification of the parking space configuration addressed her concerns. She suggested that parking stickers be used in this neighborhood, such as those used in San Francisco. She was very pleased that Park Street had become revitalized, but was very concerned about further competition for parking spaces during the weekends and evenings. Mr. Bruce Knopf, Development Services Department, spoke in support of this project, and believed it implemented a policy in the 1990 City General Plan that supported the development of residential above retail in the downtown commercial districts. He believed it added to the mixed use character of the area, represented a substantial new investment in the district, and would add to the district's vitality. Mr. Italo Calpestri, project architect, noted that he would be able … | PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-09-29 | 3 | 6. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 6-A. UP05-0018 - Kyle Conner/Alameda Entertainment Associates, L.P. - 2305, 2317 Central Avenue (JO). The applicant requests a Use Permit approval for the following: 1) multi-screen theatre, live theatre, and public assembly use in the C-C T district pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.22; b) fifty-eight (58') foot building height for the Cineplex pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.g.2; and c) extended hours of operation until 3:00 AM for the theatre pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.c.1( for occasional special events and screenings. The site is located within the Park Street C-C T, Community Commercial Theatre Combining District. Ms. Eliason summarized this staff report. Mr. Kyle Conner, developer, gave a presentation. He was aware of the public feedback, and stated that he was willing to make changes in order to get the Use Permit approved, including retracting the game room. He noted that he requested the extended hours in order to play blockbuster films such as "Star Wars" to be screened at 12:01 AM according to the licensing agreements. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding the average number of blockbuster films released each year, Mr. Conner replied that there may be 15-18 blockbusters this year. On average, there may be 15-30 films with licensing agreements that would allow a 12:01 showing. M/S McNamara/Cook and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes. AYES - 6 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 The public hearing was opened. Ms. Linda Hansen, 1816 Wood Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She suggested that story poles be erected to show the size of this building. She displayed pictures on the overhead screen to illustrate the views that would no longer be visible if the building were to be constructed. She believed the 58-foot height limit was excessive. Mr. Karva Sales, 1719 Pacific Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. He agreed with Ms. Hansen's opinion of the garage's appearance and believed that it was out of character with the res… | PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-10-10.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-10-10 | 3 | discussion about placing that plaza across the street from City Hall Ms. Eliason noted that the small structure was a historic structure. Mr. Thomas advised that the 1991 General Plan discussed the linkage of spaces, design and uses, and that there were several visions of a civic center area. He added that not every civic center must be organized around a large open space. Vice President Cook noted that there was some desire to have an outside public meeting area that created a public presence in the area. There had also been discussion in incorporate public spaces in the City's alleyways, such as Park Street. She noted that the waterfront public access studies had been halted midway through the process. She believed the Planning Board should be more strategically involved, and realized the budgeting process directed these processes. She acknowledged that the staffing situation was also a constraint on accomplishing these goals. Mr. Lynch would not advocate a Specific Plan in this case, and noted that they had been recommendations in the 1980s. He added that the development of a Specific Plan was very arduous, similar to adopting a minor General Plan. He agreed with the efforts that the City has taken thus far, especially the committees and task forces. He suggested that as those documents come forward, the City seek ways to incorporate those documents in the community's initiatives. He added that a Specific Plan would be time-, money- and staff-intensive, as well as legally intensive. He noted that there were substantive differences between "recommended" and "required," as well as "should" and "shall." Ms. Mariani noted that she attended several Downtown Vision meetings as a Greater Alameda Business Association (GABA) member, and that she recalled seeing the picture of the downtown City Center. She inquired whether that was in the Downtown Vision report, and added that she would like to see those documents resurface. President Cunningham recalled that the top ten priorities were agreed upon following that proces… | PlanningBoard/2005-10-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-10-24 | 3 | 7-B. DR05-0045, PF05-0001, V05-0008; John Knowles - 2416 Central Avenue (AT). Applicant requests Major Design Review approval for the construction of a new 5,850 square foot two-story commercial retail/office building in the northeast quadrant of an existing parking lot located between the buildings occupied by the Starbucks cafe and Gallagher and Lindsey offices. The applicant also requests the payment of in-lieu fees and Variance for the additional required parking spaces. The property is located within a C-C T, Community Commercial Theatre Combining District. (Continued from the meeting of October 10, 2005.) (Staff requests continuance to the meeting of November 14, 2005.) M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of November 14, 2005. AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 October 24, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-11-14 | 3 | 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 8-A. DR05-0045, PF05-0001, V05-0008; John Knowles - 2416 Central Avenue (AT). Applicant requests Major Design Review approval for the construction of a new 5,850 square foot two-story commercial retail/office building in the northeast quadrant of an existing parking lot located between the buildings occupied by the Starbucks cafe and Gallagher and Lindsey offices. The applicant also requests the payment of in-lieu fees and Variance for the additional required parking spaces. The property is located within a C-C T, Community Commercial Theatre Combining District. (Continued from the meeting of October 24, 2005.) Board member Lynch arrived during this item. Staff member Allen Tai summarized the staff report. Dorene Soto of the Development Services Department commented on the Variance and economic aspects of the project. She explained that the City of Alameda does not currently have a parking plan policy for Park Street or Webster Street, where retail businesses could be built out and accommodate historic structures to encourage development. She noted that the City is currently working on a scope of services for a parking consultant to assist in this matter as potential business owners have decided not to do business in Alameda due to the costly parking in-lieu fees. She also noted that the Development Services Department would like to support the applicant in his request for a Variance of five parking spaces. President Cunningham inquired on the calculation of how the in-lieu fees are paid in reference to the code. Ms. Soto responded that the City needed to look at the overall picture. She stated the City would hire someone to review the code as the two downtown streets are different and their needs are different. She stated that she has met with several business owners about coming into the downtown; however, when parking in-lieu fees were discussed, they have stated that they are not willing to pay the fees. Board member McNamara inquired if this project was a new construction. Ms. Soto re… | PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-12-12.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-12-12 | 3 | Vice President Cook advised that there had been no further meetings. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali). Mr. Piziali advised that there had been no further meetings. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). Ms. Mariani advised that November meeting had been canceled, and that the next meeting would be held on Thursday, December 15, 2005. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand regarding the Broadway/Jacksor proposal, Ms. Mariani replied that their Committee was developing a comment to that proposal. She added that Andrew Thomas spearheaded their group and would be able to provide more information. Vice President Cook noted that there was been considerable discussion about the project south of the existing Jack London Square area, including the big residential towers. She inquired whether the committee was examining the cumulative traffic impacts that would affect the traffic around Chinatown and the tunnels. Ms. Mariani advised that it had been brought up, and that she would inquire whether a group had been formed to address that issue. d. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member Kohlstrand). Ms. Kohlstrand advised that the last meeting was held on Wednesday, December 7, 2005, and that the traffic issue was raised with respect to movement around the Island and into Oakland. She noted that there would be additional meetings. [[Her mike was off and her comments inaudible]] Mr. Piziali noted that this would be his last meeting, and that he would resign from the Planning Board. He believed that after eight-and-a-half years of being on the Board, it was time for him to leave. Ms. McNamara thanked Mr. Piziali for his valuable guidance and expertise, and added that he would be missed. Mr. Lynch echoed Ms. McNamara's comments. Vice President Cook thanked Mr. Piziali for all the work he's done, and the practical advice and experience that he had brought to the Board as a contractor an… | PlanningBoard/2005-12-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2006-01-09 | 3 | 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: President Cunningham advised that there was a request from the Board to move Item 8-A to the Regular Agenda. M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to remove Item 8-A from the Consent Calendar and place it on the Regular Agenda. AYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 President Cunningham advised that no speaker slips had been received for Item 9-A. M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to remove Item 9-A from the Regular Agenda and place it on the Consent Calendar. AYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 6. ORAL COMMUNICATION: None. 7. Resolution and Commendation for Board member John Piziali. President Cunningham read the following Resolution of Farewell and Commendation for John A. Piziali into the record: WHEREAS John A. Piziali was appointed as a member of the Planning Board on July 15, 1997, to complete an unexpired term; and WHEREAS John A. Piziali was reappointed as a member of the Planning Board on July 1, 1999; and WHEREAS John A. Piziali was again reappointed as a member of the Planning Board on July 1, 2003; and WHEREAS John A. Piziali was elected Vice President of the Planning Board on August 13, 2001; and served as Vice President until October 13, 2004; and WHEREAS John A. Piziali was elected President of the Planning Board on October 13, 2003; and WHEREAS John A. Piziali has also served Alameda by his involvement on behalf of the Planning Board in the Golf Course Committee; and Planning Board Minutes Page 3 January 9, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-01-23.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2006-01-23 | 3 | 7-B. PM05-0002 & PM05-0003; 1090 and 1350 Marina Village Parkway (ATh). Applicant: Alameda Real Estate Investments. The applicant is requesting the approval of two parcel maps creating a total of four parcels and the conversion of existing berths, within these four parcels, from rental to condominium ownership. These parcels cover existing marina facilities only. No new residential or commercial uses are proposed. No new construction or alteration of existing facilities is proposed. All existing easements and permit requirements concerning, but not limited to open space, public access and vehicular access will remain in effect. (Applicant requests continuance to the meeting of February 13, 2006.) M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of February 13, 2006. AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 January 23, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-01-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-02-13.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2006-02-13 | 3 | 7-B. PDA05-0007/MDR05-0350 - Park Street Landing - 2307 Blanding Avenue (EP). Applicant requests a Planned Development Amendment and Minor Design Review to modify the existing sign program to allow for a change in the location of existing building signage, including installation and establishment of three additional signs on an existing monument sign. The site is located within the Park Street Landing Shopping Center in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District. (Applicant requests continuance to the meeting of February 27, 2006.) M/S Lynch/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of February 27, 2006. AYES - 5 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 February 13, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-02-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2006-02-27 | 3 | 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: 7-A. PDA05-0007/MDR05-0350 - Park Street Landing - 2307 Blanding Avenue (EP). Applicant requests a Planned Development Amendment and Minor Design Review to modify the existing sign program to allow for a change in the location of existing building signage, including installation and establishment of three additional signs on an existing monument sign. The site is located within the Park Street Landing Shopping Center in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of February 13, 2006.) M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to remove Item 7-A from the Consent Calendar and place it on the Regular Agenda. AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Ms. Pudell summarized the staff report, and recommended approval of this item. The public hearing was opened. There were no speakers. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Vice President Cook noted that she had requested that this item be removed, and was concerned about adding further signs on the pylon sign for this project. She believed that the pylon sign was not an attractive gateway sign, and had always found it to be unattractive. She also objected to the Cigarettes Cheaper sign at that location. Ms. McNamara concurred with Vice President Cook's comments and noted that the clock did not work. She believed that contributed to the sign being an eyesore, and inquired whether it could be fixed and maintained. Ms. Pudell noted that the conditions of approval state that the clock shall be repaired and maintained in operable condition; that would be enforceable through the resolution. She noted that the Cigarettes Cheaper sign was not approved by staff, and that it could be brought to the applicant's attention to be removed. The allotment of the three signs on the pylon would only be allowable to tenants who lease more than 4800 square feet of floor area. President Cunningham echoed the concerns about the main pylon at the City's entrance, and would like to limit the amount of sig… | PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2006-04-10 | 3 | 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 8-A. FDP06-0001 /DR06-0004 - Exchange Support Services, Inc. - 1700 Harbor Bay Parkway (DG). The applicant requests approval of Final Development Plan and Major Design Review applications allowing the construction of a new 105 room, three-story hotel. Guest rooms will not include kitchen / cooking facilities. The building includes approximately 59,000 sq. ft. of floor area. Typical building height would be approximately 34 ft. with some parapets extending up to a maximum height of 42 ft. The site is located in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report, and recommended approval of this project. In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand whether the future building pad was included in the 48% landscaping, Mr. Garrison confirmed that was true. Member Kohlstrand noted she was disappointed to that there were no plans for development of this portion of the site, and that she had asked for amenities on Harbor Bay Parkway. She inquired when some other amenities may be seen on this site. Mr. Garrison noted that the applicants could address that question. The public hearing was opened. Mr. John Manderfeld, Marin Management, Inc., hotel operator, noted that they planned to assess the question of amenities following completion of the construction. He noted that they would know what the demands of the area would be, and that they were examining small restaurants, cafés, and coffee vendor service. He added that they would need to find a suitable tenant. He noted that the Hampton Inn brand was part of the Hilton Corporation, and that there would be a "shop," which would sell small food items that guests could prepare in their rooms. Complimentary breakfast is also included, and no lunch or dinner service was included. In response to an inquiry by Member Lynch whether there were FARs on this site, Mr. Garrison replied that there were not in this part of Harbor Bay Parkway. President Cunningham noted that the conditions mentioned… | PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2006-04-24 | 3 | 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: 7-A. TM06-0001- - Barry Vial - 1951 Harbor Bay Parkway (DG). The applicant requests approval of Tentative Parcel Map 8980, allowing the conveyance of up to 13 separate commercial spaces located within two buildings to separate owners. The project site is zoned C-M-PD Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District. Ms. Kohlstrand noted that the Board requested consideration for removing parking spaces in front of the building along Harbor Bay Parkway. She noticed that there were still parking spaces there, and requested clarification of the changes and how they would affect the subdivision of the parcels. Mr. Garrison advised that there were originally 11 parking spaces in front, which had been reduced to seven spaces, with the four extra spaces moved to the side and to the rear. Additional landscaping had been installed in front. The parking allocation would be addressed through the CC&Rs. Ms. Kohlstrand was uncomfortable with any parking in front of this development, which would be reflected in her vote. In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham on whether Item 7-A should be placed on the Regular Agenda because of the lengthy discussion, Ms. Woodbury replied that it should be pulled in the affirmative. Ms. Kohlstrand stated she would like the parking to be eliminated from the front of the site. Ms. Woodbury replied that staff looked at the circulation issues with other departments, which was the reason the parking could not be eliminated. The area must be maintained for emergency circulation and circulation for the site as a whole. M/S Kohlstrand/Mariani and unanimous to move Item 7-A from the Consent Calendar to the Regular Agenda. AYES - 4 (Ezzy Ashcraft, Cook and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 The public hearing was opened. Mr. Barry Vial, applicant, noted that the project contained individual units for sale to small business owners, and the project as approved called for a middle unit with reasonably close parking to those facilities. He did not believe it… | PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2006-05-08 | 3 | 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 8-A. UP06-0004 - Italo Calpestri, AIA for Dwight Jennings - 776 Lincoln Avenue (EP). The applicant is requesting approval of a Use Permit to establish a dental office in an existing single family home and to add approximately 500 square feet of office space. The property is located within an R-5 (General Residential) Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of April 24, 2006.) Ms. Pudell summarized the staff report, and wished to clarify that the use was for an orthodontic office. Staff recommended approval of this item. President Cunningham advised that nine speaker slips had been received. M/S Lynch/McNamara to reduce the speakers' time to three minutes. AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 The public hearing was opened. Dwight and Carmen Jennings, applicants, noted that they received a copy of the petition and tried to contact as many signers as possible. Mrs. Jennings noted that they tried to address their concerns about parking, hazardous waste, security and property value. They had consulted a long-time real estate appraiser in Alameda, who wrote a letter regarding R-5 zones and whether the mixed uses in those zones negatively affects property values. She distributed that letter to the Board. Mr. Steve Gibson, 1531 A Eighth Street, spoke in opposition to this project. He noted that he worked nights and like to relax quietly in his backyard. He believed this proposed use would disturb his quiet use of his property. He expressed concern about the traffic impacts from the proposed use. Mr. David Ammo spoke on behalf of his grandmother, who owns four parcels near the project site. He expressed concern about the generated medical waste, as well as storage of flammable and nonflammable gases used. He noted that the parking on the street was already severely impacted. Mr. Mark Severs, 766 Haight, expressed concern about the parking impacts on the street and noted that it was already difficult to park. He did not believe a mixed use neighborhood would retain its value. Mr. B… | PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2006-05-22 | 3 | 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: 7-A. Initiation of a Zoning Text Amendment: Parking Exception Process (CE). M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to accept Initiation of a Zoning Text Amendment: Parking Exception Process. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 May 22, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2006-07-10 | 3 | Ms. Allegra O'Donoghue noted that as an Alameda native, her college-age peers will not be able to afford to live in Alameda. She believed that careful planning at Alameda Point would create the City's own growth and enable more people to live in the city. She noted that there were no Victorian homes on Alameda Point, and believed that Measure A did not apply to Alameda Point in practice. Ms. Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope, believed that Alameda should be committed to provide for future generations in Alameda. She believed that exempting Measure A on Alameda Point would enable Alameda to continue to thrive, and to allow the next generation to live in Alameda. She believed that Measure A should be vetted again with the development of Alameda Point in mind, and believed that Measure A kept the City in a virtual development lockdown. Mr. David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, spoke in opposition to the City Council putting Measure A on the ballot, rather than by public initiative. He noted that Measure A was not just to save Victorians, but to prevent overdevelopment and high density in Alameda. He noted that Alameda Point development has been in development for ten years, and inquired why Measure A was being revisited at this late date. He noted that traffic should be limited, and did not believe that density was needed to support transit. He believed that transit supported existing neighborhoods. Ms. Dorothy Reid, 2101 Shoreline, did not believe all the facts of this issue were known yet. She noted that the staff report pointed out a downturn in retail activity, which may not support the labor and transit from Alameda Point. She noted that existing rents in Alameda were already out of reach for moderate- and low-income households. She noted that Alameda already has sufficient high density and multifamily housing, and that there were constraints on Alameda Point. She did not believe it was within the purview of the City Council or the Planning Board to change Measure A. Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, strongly s… | PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2006-07-24 | 3 | 6. ORAL COMMUNICATION: Mr. Michael Krueger, 2145 Santa Clara Avenue, Apt. E, spoke in reference to more affluent families using public transportation and provided statistical data gathered by National Resources Defense Council to prove that these families use public transportation if alternative modes were available. He hoped that with civil and thoughtful discussion would bring possible sensible modifications to Measure A and further exploration of improved development in the future may come about. Member Mariani noted that if the citizens of Alameda wanted Measure A to be placed on the ballot, there were procedures in place to reach that goal. Mr. Karen Butter, 1027 Foster Street, League of Women Voters, noted that the League had presented a letter, copying the Planning Board, requesting that Measure A be put on the ballot. She noted that the League had no position on whether Alameda Point should be exempt from Measure A, but believed that the public conversation regarding this issue should be encouraged. 7. 2006-2007 ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS: M/S Cunningham/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to nominate Member Lynch as President. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 M/S Lynch/Cunningham and unanimous to nominate Vice President Cook as Vice President. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: Planning Board Minutes Page 3 July 24, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2006-08-14 | 3 | 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: 7-A. Use Permit UP06-0010 - N. Saidian & L. Zekster - 1310 Central Avenue (DV). The applicant requests a Use Permit pursuant to Section 30-20.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code to extend the hours of operation for the Alameda Gasoline - Valero Station, an existing legal nonconforming service station facility. The current hours of operation are 9:00 am-6:00 pm Monday through Friday, 9:00 am-4:00 pm on Saturday, and closed on Sunday. The auto repair hours would be eliminated on Saturday. The Alameda Gasoline-Valero Station is located in the R-4 (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District. (Applicant requests continuance.) M/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft to continue this item. AYES - 6 (Cunningham absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 August 14, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-09-11.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2006-09-11 | 3 | "President Lynch noted that the noticing practices were regulated by the State, and that the City may want to consider extending often extended the noticing parameters." He suggested that he leave his contact information with City staff to be including in the noticing. He recommended that he bring the videotapes to City staff as well. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: 7-A. Applicant requests a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to allow five new buildings totaling approximately 100,795 square feet in floor area with a total of 268 parking spaces to be constructed on a 7.7 acre site (CL). The site is located at 1900 - 1980 North Loop Road within the Harbor Bay Business Park in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District. Applicant: SRM Associates (FDP06- 0003 and DR06-0071). M/S Kohlstrand/Member McNamara and unanimous to continue Item 7-A to September 25, 2006. AYES - 5 (Cook, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 7-B. Applicant requests a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to allow a one- story building of approximately 36,899 square feet in floor area with 69 parking spaces to be constructed on a 4.1 acre site (CL). The site is located at 2275 Harbor Bay Parkway within the Harbor Bay Business Park in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District. Applicant: Harbor Bay Acquisition LLC (FDP06-0002 and DR06-0062) M/S Kohlstrand/Member McNamara and unanimous to continue Item 7-B to September 25, 2006. AYES - 5 (Cook, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 7-C. DR06-0027 and V06-0006 - Applicant: Fargo Farnesi Inc. - 2427 Clement Ave. (DG). The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new two-story commercial cabinet shop with a penthouse apartment on the third floor, to be used as a caretaker's unit, and a free-standing single-story wood frame structure to be used as an administrative office for the cabinet shop. The project will provide four full-size parking spaces and one ADA compliant parking space. The applicant proposes to p… | PlanningBoard/2006-09-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2006-09-25 | 3 | 7-C. Applicant requests a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to allow five new buildings totaling approximately 100,795 square feet in floor area with a total of 268 parking spaces to be constructed on a 7.7 acre site (CL). The site is located at 1900 - 1980 North Loop Road within the Harbor Bay Business Park in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District. Applicant: SRM Associates (FDP06- 0003 and DR06-0071). (Continued from the meeting of September 11, 2006. Applicant requests a continuance to the meeting of October 9, 2006.) M/S Cunningham/Cook and unanimous to continue Item 7-C to the meeting of October 9, 2006. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 September 25, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2006-10-09 | 3 | 7. CONSENT CALENDAR 7-A. DR06-0002 - Jenny Wong - 3292 Washington Street (CE). Public Hearing to consider a Call for Review of a decision of the Planning and Building Director approving Major Design Review, DR06-0002, to allow construction of an approximately 1,350 square foot second story addition, new deck and patio. The property is located in an R-1, One Family Residence Zoning District. [Former Planning Board President Andrew Cunningham] (Continued from the meeting of September 11, 2006.) Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Mr. David McCarver, 3288 Washington Court, spoke in opposition to this project. He noted that he would have liked to see the new shade studies listed in the application, and had distributed the May 2000 newsletter from the Alameda Architectural Society, which covered the City's revised Design Review manual. He noted that the manual was the key document which established what should be approved or not. He expressed concern about the mass and height of this project, and believed that the applicant could not build the front bedroom according to the Design Guidelines. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Member Mariani noted that she was opposed to this project, and agreed with Mr. McCarver's citation of the Design Guidelines with respect to the project. Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that as long as this was a legal use, it was not germane to consider whether this use was for an extended family. Member Cunningham reiterated his comments regarding not allowing someone to make modifications to their house when they were fully entitled to do so under the zoning ordinance. He noted that the Planning Board's job was to mitigate the impacts of those design improvements on the neighbors. He wished to clarify the intent of the article circulated by Mr. McCarver, which he believed intended to maintain the historic significance of older buildings versus nonhistoric (post-World War II) homes. He noted that Ms. Wong's house fell well out of the pre-World War … | PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2006-10-23 | 3 | 7-C. Applicant: City of Alameda Community Improvement Commission (RS). Applicant requests a finding that the proposed Sixth Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project conforms to the City of Alameda's General Plan as it exists and is currently being amended. M/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06- 38 to make a finding that the proposed Sixth Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project conforms to the City of Alameda's General Plan as it exists and is currently being amended. AYES - 6 (Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 October 23, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2006-11-13 | 3 | met the deadline, but that they were not included in the staff report or passed along to the Board. She noted that they copied the Board, but she was disappointed that their comments were not available to other interested parties. Planning Board Minutes Page 3 November 13, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2006-12-11 | 3 | President Lynch did not believe this was a difficult item to process, but believed it was challenging because of its possible scope. A discussion of the process choices ensued. Member Kohlstrand noted that staff has had six months to consider this item, and that the public and Board has requested a response. She would like to see a response from staff regarding the layout of the plan by the end of January. Member Ezzy Ashcraft echoed President Lynch's comments, and added that no matter how challenging an issue was, they had to start somewhere. She believed that because the Planning Board advised the City Council on planning matters, and recalled that while the Board did not wish to be the convening body, they did want to be part of the process, including calling in outside professionals regarding environment issues and land use law. President Lynch noted that he had discussed that matter with Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, and he agreed that it would be reasonable to request a report by the end of January. Vice President Cook noted that this was an ideal time to discuss this issue because there was currently no developer at Alameda Point. President Lynch agreed with the previous comments, and noted that the Board would be able to contemplate planning issues without the pressure of an ongoing development. Mr. Thomas advised that staff was starting work with a grant received from MTC to examine transit- oriented development at Alameda Point. The first task would be an analysis of the different alternatives. The report to be presented in January would outline the scope of the work and the community process. He believed it would be very helpful for the Planning Board to comment on how to interface with that process, as well as work to be done beyond that point. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: 7-A. Adoption of 2007 Planning Board Calendar. Mr. Thomas noted that the 2007 Calendar had been revised to reflect staff's recommendation that the first meeting in November not be cancelled at this time. President Lynch not… | PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2007-01-08 | 3 | clarified." Vice President Cook moved approval of the minutes. Board member McNamara seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Board members Ezzy Ashcraft, Kohlstrand and President Lynch - 5. Abstentions: Board members Cunningham and Mariani - 2. 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: President Lynch noted that no speaker slips had been received for Item 8-B. Board member Cunningham motioned to move Item 8-B from the Regular Agenda to the Consent Calendar. Board member McNamara seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATION: Mr. David Howard noted that he had spoken with a woman circulating a petition for a deepwater port at Alameda Point for a cruise ship terminal. He believed that would be worth exploring, and was shocked and dismayed at what he believed to be City staff's lack of imagination for anything that did not involve building higher density homes and building upward on Alameda Point. He believed that the effort to build a cruise ship terminal could be married to an effort to bring more wineries to Alameda, and replicate the success that Rosenblum Wineries enjoys at Alameda Point. He believed that water taxis to Jack London Square and San Francisco could be added to the services, and that more tax dollars could be spent in Alameda. Planning Board Minutes Page 3 January 8, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-01-31.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2007-01-31 | 3 | Ms. Woodbury responded by saying that she agrees that it would be a good discussion to talk about the work plan. In response to an inquiry by President Lynch on which order the work program items should be viewed in or if the Board should follow the PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Woodbury stated that the Board should follow the PowerPoint presentation. She also brought up the issue of meeting management and making the meetings more efficient to accommodate all speakers and to hear everyone voice their opinions. In response to an inquiry by Board member Mariani on the feasibility of having a joint meeting with the City Council, Ms. Woodbury responded in the affirmative. She noted the question of the joint meeting focusing on a specific project was not feasible. Board member Cunningham expressed his hesitancy on receiving e-mail on his personal e-mail account. He inquired about the concern with individual members of the Board receiving e-mails or having contact with prospective developers that could be viewed as "back door deals" on projects. Ms. Woodbury responded the purpose of setting up this e-mail system was a means for the public to communicate their concerns to the Planning Board. She noted that the City would provide training on how to handle e-mail inquiries. President Lynch expressed concern with receiving and answering emails from the public. He felt at best this system would be a repository for public comment. He suggested that when the system is in place, that no Board members respond to comments. He felt responses could tread in an area in which Board members are rendering a position on something the Board may need to make a determination on. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft responded by saying that she welcomes public comment via email and is willing to respond to inquiries. She noted that she would not dialogue with the public but she felt she should be accessible to the public. Board member Mariani noted that she felt opposite about releasing her personal e-mail address to the public. She noted as a volunt… | PlanningBoard/2007-01-31.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2007-02-12 | 3 | 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 8-A. Planned Development PD05-0002 - Francis Collins - 2241 and 2243 Clement Avenue (AT). The property owner is requesting a Planned Development to construct 242 dwelling units on two (2) parcels totaling approximately 9.4 acres. The site is located within the M-2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) Zoning District (4.6 acres) and the R-2/PD, Two-Family Residence/Planned Development Combining Zoning District (4.8 acres). Mr. Thomas presented the staff report, and stated that because the findings could not be made, staff recommended denial of this planned development approval. The proposed project was not consistent with the General Plan, which called for a mix of uses on the site; it was not consistent with the zoning designations on the property; the proposed development plan did not provide a more efficient use of the site than could be achieved under the district regulations; and it was not possible to make the finding that the proposed developed plan would not have a significant impact on the adjacent land uses. The public hearing was opened. Robert McGillis, project architect, wished to clarify several items. He noted that the Housing Element identified the entire property as being suitable and desirable for housing. He believed the remaining 4.6 acres should be rezoned to allow for housing. He understands that Mixed Use zoning allowed residential/industrial mix. He noted that that the staff report did not note that the project met the 25% inclusionary housing, thus entitling the area to the density bonus. He added that the staff report did not indicate that they had provided all environmental reviews required, including a traffic report. A study for the DTSC (Department of Toxic Substance Control) was provided as well, and was out for comment at this time. Mr. Joseph Woodard noted that staff did not mention the controversy surrounding this site, and that the site had been identified in the Master Plan as a site for a park. He did not want that issue to be forgotten, and believed it … | PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2007-02-26 | 3 | 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 8-A. Planned Development PD07-001/Parcel Map PM06-005 - Applicant: Will Harrison - 700 Grand Street (BS). The applicant requests approval of a Planned Development overlay on an existing R-1 (Single-Family Residential) district and a Parcel Map to allow the division of an existing 25,000 square foot residential lot into two parcels: each with an existing single-family dwelling. The property is located within an R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District. Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would recuse herself from this item because of a personal professional conflict. Mr. Thomas presented the staff report, and recommended approval of this item. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook why this item was not presented as a variance, Mr. Thomas replied that the planned development overlay approach provided the flexibility. Staff did not feel the findings could be made for the variance in this case because the lot was so large. Staff did not feel the historic location of the existing homes or the historic quality of the wall qualified the project for a Planned Development. Vice President Cook expressed concern about the curb cut on Grand because the sidewalk narrowed in that area, as well as the presence of bike riders and the fact that the bridge rose slightly. She noted that drivers would be backing in and out, and believed it would be a risk to pedestrians and bicycle riders. She noted that the proximity of the school was also a concern. Mr. Thomas noted that staff identified six parking alternatives in the staff report. In response to an inquiry by Member McNamara whether the sea wall would be demolished, Mr. Thomas replied that was not the part that staff would consider historic. He noted that it did not have structural significance with respect to the water, and that it was the portion along Grand Street. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Will Harrison, applicant, representing the property owner, noted that they agreed with the staff's recommendation regarding the tandem p… | PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2007-03-12 | 3 | 4. MINUTES: a. Minutes for the special meeting of January 31, 2007. Member Cunningham motioned to continue the minutes for the special meeting of January 31, 2007, to March 26, 2007 Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7. b. Minutes for the meeting of February 12, 2007. Member Cunningham motioned to continue the minutes for the meeting of February 12, 2007, to March 26, 2007 Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7. C. Minutes for the meeting of February 26, 2007. Member Cunningham moved to continue the minutes for the meeting of February 26, 2007, to March 26, 2007 Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7. 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATION: Mr. David Howard expressed concern that the Target traffic studies did not do enough analysis regarding traffic coming across the bridges and in the Tubes en route to Target, particularly down Constitution Way, past Washington School and Park, and down Shoreline or Otis, and then back on the way out. He had not seen any studies that analyzed that traffic pattern. He noted that during the walking tour, people asked questions during and after the tour, and that there were no speaker's slips available. He noted that President Lynch closed the public hearing for that item, and noted that Item 8- C changed the rules and procedures, possibly pushing Oral Communications after Staff Communications. He hoped this would not mean that this would make it more difficult for the public to speak in the future. Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was there for the entire tour, and while there were no speaker slips, there were many speakers. She noted that their names and comments were taken down, and that Mr. Thomas had stated clearly that the comments would be incorporated into the final record. She estimated that there were over six speakers, and that some spoke more than once. She did not want the public to be left… | PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2007-03-26 | 3 | families with young children could not afford housing in Davis. Vice President Cook wished to address her comment on page 12, regarding about the Encinal Terminal project and improvements in Venice, California. She noted that while the improvements were terrific, she wanted to stress that they reflected Venice's development, but did not think that recreating that type of theme in the Encinal Terminal was not necessarily appropriate. She believed the development in Alameda should be respectful of Alameda's maritime heritage without being a slave to history. Board member Kohlstrand moved approval of the minutes as amended. Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7. d. Minutes for the Alameda Towne Centre Workshop of March 12, 2007 These minutes were not available for consideration and would be reviewed at a future meeting. e. Minutes for the Special meeting of March 12, 2007. Ms. Mooney noted that on page 12, she made comment about the page 5 Deliberations and Decisions in the Planning Board Rules and Procedures. She noted that the Board member was not required to indicate a reason, and that it should read, "The rules presently state that the Board member was not required to indicate a reason.' She did not want it to appear that law did not presently require anything to happen if there's a conflict of interest or bias. Vice President Cook noted that page 2, paragraph 1, noted that with respect to the South Shore project. She was concerned that the apparent scale of the restaurant on the corner seemed to be four separate standalone buildings. She wished to clarify that there should be a mix of size and scale of buildings so that people could get a sandwich or coffee and go back to the beach other than fast food in that location. Vice President Cook noted that on page 10, middle of the page, should be changed to read, "She would like to revisit the Downtown Visioning Plan and follow-up steps to include in the work program going forward." Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted th… | PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-04-18.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2007-04-18 | 3 | 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: 8-A. PDA07-0002 (Planned Development Amendment) and DR07-0006 (Design Review) - Alameda Emergency Food Bank - 1900 Thau Way (SW). The applicant requests a Planned Development Amendment and Design Review to remove and replace the existing 1,440 sq ft modular building with a 2,016 sq ft modular building which will be used to warehouse, sort, and distribute free food to Alameda residents in need. The site is located in an M-1-PD, Intermediate Industrial, Planned Development Combining Zoning District. Board member Kohlstrand moved to remove Item 8-A from the Consent Calendar and place it on the Regular Agenda. Vice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7. Mr. Thomas noted that staff recommended approval of this item, subject to the conditions in the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Paul Russell, Director, Alameda Emergency Food Bank, described the operation of the food bank, and noted that while the food was free, the cost to the clients was either in transportation expenses or in personal dignity. Their goal for the project was to restore dignity to the process in providing food, and he described their proposed changes to accommodate the clients and to allow them to wait inside, instead of in the elements. The second goal was to replace their aging building, which would make dramatic visual improvements to the experience and neighbors. They did not wish to serve more clients, but to improve the current environment and create a safe work environment for the volunteers. He noted that one member of the public, who also received services, was the only attendee of the community meeting; she was in favor of the project. In response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand, Mr. Russell noted that 400-500 households are served in a month. He noted that a photo I.D. and proof of residency such as a utility bill were required to receive services. He noted that in his timeframe, there had been no police activity except a case of a stolen bicycle. Board … | PlanningBoard/2007-04-18.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2007-04-23 | 3 | 9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 9-A. PDA02-0004 - 523 South Shore Center (Alameda Towne Centre) (DG). The applicant is requesting modification of Conditions 1.a and 1.d of Resolution No. PB-03-40. These conditions require the construction of an east-west sidewalk along the rear of businesses fronting onto Otis Drive prior to the occupancy of Phase II-b of shopping center redevelopment. The applicant is requesting the Planning Board approve a modified sidewalk plan and the timeframe for implementation. The site is located within a Central Business District with Planned Development overlay Zoning District (C-2-PD). Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Randy Kyte, applicant, described the position of Harsch Investments on this issue, and noted that they preferred Option B. They believed that after much technical analysis in 2004 with staff and engineers that they came up with the right solution by adding more north-south sidewalks in order to tie the bank and restaurant pads to the main center. He noted that not much had changed in terms of technical feasibility associated with 13 driveways interrupting the walkway. They have begun speaking with each property owner and/or tenant about how to split the sidewalk along the property line. Mr. Kyte noted that the characterization that they were willing to do either/or was not completely accurate. They believed that after much technical analysis in 2004 with staff and engineers that they came up with the right solution by adding more north-south sidewalks in order to tie to the bank and restaurant pads. He noted that not much had changed in terms of technical feasibility and liability associated with 13 driveways interrupting the walkway. They would consider that, and have begun speaking with each property owner and/or tenant about how to split the sidewalk along the property line. They believed the alternative plan was a superior plan, and they wished to address the issue conditioned by City Council on Building 500 and Building 300 that t… | PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2007-05-14 | 3 | 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: 8-A. Use Permit UP07-0005- Applicant: Bryan Gower for Crosstown Coffee House - 1303 High Street (SW). The applicant requests Use Permit approval to have (acoustic and amplified) live music performances within the coffee shop. Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.8(c)(7), a Use Permit is required for live performances that are in combination with other allowed uses. The site is located within the C-1 Neighborhood Business District. Board member Kohlstrand moved to remove Item 8-A from the Consent Calendar, and to place it on the Regular Agenda. Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7. Mr. Wolter summarized the staff report and recommended approval of this item. President Lynch noted that eight speaker slips had been received. Board member Cunningham moved to limit the speakers' time to three minutes. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Carol Dutra spoke in support of this item as well as live musical performances, and noted that her son was learning to play the piano. Mr. Dave Netherhood noted that he was the founder of the Crosstown Coffee House, and noted that Mr. Gower was unable to attend due to a family medical emergency. He wished to discuss the hours that music would be allowed, as well as the acoustic study requirement. He got the impression that staff wanted no sound at all to be emitted from the building. He did not believe that would be realistic. Mr. Jack Hickman noted that he volunteered at the coffeehouse, and noted that their business had dropped significantly since live music was discontinued. He was unsure how long they could continue serving coffee without live music. Timothy Runberger distributed a copy of his comments and noted that he was eager to see this permit granted, and objected to some of the conditions, particularly the condition stating that prior to any live entertainment being able to play, that a consultant be hired to make enginee… | PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2007-05-29 | 3 | 9-A. DP07-0002 & DR07-0044 Development Plan and Design Review - Applicant: Catellus Development Corporation - Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project. The applicant requests Development Plan approval for a Site-Wide Master Landscape Development Plan and a Waterfront Promenade Plan, and Development Plan and Design Review approval for the Clif Bar & Co. Headquarters commercial project, parking shed, off-street parking, landscaping, and associated improvements on an approximately 8.69 acre site. The site is located along the northern end of the former FISC Site (Tract 7884) within the M- X Mixed Use Planned Development Zoning District. (AT/DV) Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the items being considered: the Site-Wide Master Landscape Development Plan Amendment, the Waterfront Promenade Plan, and the Development Plan and Design Review. He thanked David Tierman of Catellus for bringing an excellent team of designers and consultants to this project. Acting President Cook disclosed that she had met with Mr. Tierman and several other consultants on-site the previous week in order to walk around with the plans. Member Ezzy Ashcraft disclosed that she visited the site, and noted that she was very pleased to see this area of the waterfront that she had never seen before. Board member Kohlstrand disclosed that she visited the site, and found the on-site examination of the plans to be very helpful. The public hearing was opened. Mr. David Tierman, Vice President, Catellus Development Group, introduced the development team. Mr. Mike Engelhart, Development Project Management Team, Catellus Development Group, noted that their focus in attaining a sustainable design was adaptive reuse of the existing facility. Mr. Bruce Lymburn, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean, project manager, detailed the history and corporate culture of Clif Bar. He noted that Clif Bar demonstrated a commitment to sustainability in their brands, business, people, the community and the planet, as well as ethical business pra… | PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2007-06-11 | 3 | Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 2 of the Report on the Status of the General Plan, regarding the Climate Protection Task Force implemented in 2006, the last sentence read, "The local action plan will possibly create new policies to be incorporated into the City's General Plan, as well as implement climate and air quality policies related to drought- resistant landscaping " She noted that when she tried to get commitments regarding the implementation of green building ordinances in the City, she often heard the Climate Protection Task Force would address that. She believed the language was too fuzzy for her liking, and inquired why it was not more definite. Mr. Thomas noted that staff intended to say that the local action plan that the Task Force products will go directly to City Council, and the Council will then establish priorities for implementing the programs within that plan. He noted that may not entail adopting policies in the General Plan, and that there may be existing General Plan policies that would enable the City to directly establish a Green Building Ordinance. He noted that this report went directly to the State, and through this process, the City may identify additional policies that should be implemented at the General Plan level to provide the foundation for future sustainability ordinances or programs. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that Item 7 on the table on page 2 (Action Plan: Rehabilitation and Neighborhood Preservation) addressed the amnesty plan for undocumented units, and inquired how that process worked. Mr. Thomas briefly described the amnesty program, and noted that undocumented units discovered through Code Enforcement may go through a process of legalizing those units. Vice President Cook moved to adopt the Annual Status Report on Implementation of the General Plan. Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote - 5. Absent: 2 (Mariani, McNamara). Planning Board Minutes Page 3 June 11, , 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2007-06-25 | 3 | "Hydrology and Water Quality: contaminated storm water runoffs can have a potentially significant impact due to the potential for petroleum product spills and other debris. The applicant is to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. "Fact: To date there has been no formal study of air quality regarding asbestos, carbon monoxide and gas emissions along the Otis Drive corridor, as well as soil erosion with stormwater runoffs impacting water quality, particularly that of the lagoon opposite of the proposed fuel station. (The lagoon opposite of the Towne Center is already 400% over the upper limit for expected fecal coliform.) "Fact: There was critical facilities (two respite care homes and a hospital) that will be affected by environmental conditions involving air and water quality. "Fact: Alameda is approaching the tipping point of endangering its natural and healthy environment at its south shore for trying to recoup revenue leakages. "Is this best planning practice for a town in such a fragile environment?' 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: 8-A. Use Permit UP07-0010; Minor Design Review MDR 07-0058; Parking In-lieu Fees - Applicant: Gary Parker - 2437 Lincoln (ZS). The applicant is requesting a Use Permit and Design Review approval to establish a dental office and laboratory on the ground floor of an existing building; reconfigure the parking lot to increase the number of parking spaces from seven to thirteen; and pay parking in-lieu fees for five parking spaces. The property is located within a C-C- T (Community Commercial Theater Combining) zoning district. Board member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-23 to approve a Use Permit and Design Review approval to establish a dental office and laboratory on the ground floor of an existing building; reconfigure the parking lot to increase the number of parking spaces from seven to thirteen; and pay parking in-lieu fees for five parking spaces. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6 Absen… | PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2007-07-09 | 3 | Ms. Mooney advised that the Board may ask a brief question, direct staff to take further action, or request that an item be agendized for discussion. Mr. Thomas noted that the building was in a residential zone (R-5), but the City had no record of any commercial Use Permits for the uses. Staff has advised the applicant that he should submit for the Use Permit and the commercial condominium at the same time. Before a commercial condominium may be approved in a residential zone, the Use Permit would be the mechanism to ensure that a commercial use would be possible and acceptable. Board member Cunningham recalled an earlier Use Permit application for a dentist office in a house, which was denied due to strong opposition from the neighbors. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the four-month time period referred to by Mr. Knight. Mr. Thomas noted that there were internal actions that needed to be taken, as well as 20-day noticing requirements. President Lynch noted that when this kind of project is taken on, he encouraged the speaker to be mindful of the various Building Codes. He wished the speaker success in this project. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: None. 9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 9-A. 2007-2008 Election of Planning Board Officers Board member Kohlstrand moved to nominate Vice President Cook as President of the Planning Board. Board member Mariani nominated Board member Cunningham as Vice Chair of the Planning Board. Board member Cunningham thanked Board member Mariani for the nomination, and respectfully declined. Board member McNamara nominated Board member Kohlstrand as Vice Chair of the Planning Board. Board member Cunningham seconded the motions, with the following voice vote - 7. The motions passed. 9-B. Initial Study IS05-0001; Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0001; Major Design Review DR05-0010; Use Permits UP06-0003, UP06-0010, UP06- Page 3 of 11 | PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-07-23.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2007-07-23 | 3 | b. Zoning Administrator Report Mr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report. 7. ORAL COMMUNICATION None. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: None. 9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 9-A. DP07-0003 - Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project - Applicant: Catellus Development Group, a ProLogis Company and the City of Alameda. The applicant requests Development Plan approval for landscaping and public right-of-way improvements along Mitchell Mosely Avenue, Fifth Street, and Willie Stargell Avenue. The site is located along the western end of the former FISC Site (Tract 7884) within the M-X Mixed Use Planned Development Zoning District. (AT/DV) Mr. Thomas presented the staff report, and noted that the landscape plans for the three new major public roads would be addressed during this item. Staff recommended approval of the landscape plans. Ms. Linda Gates, Gates and Associates, landscape architect, displayed a PowerPoint presentation to describe the streetscape plan for this project. Mr. Rene Behan, SWA Group, landscape architect, continued the presentation of the master plan. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Diana Thomas, General Manager, Mariner Square Athletic Club, 2227 Mariner Square Loop, noted that while they were very excited about the project as presented to the City, and about the Alameda Landing as a whole, they did have some concerns regarding the landscaping proposal, particularly the extra triangle of land as displayed. She noted that was part of the property that the club occupied at 2227 Mariner Square Loop, as well as Bayside Pavilion. She noted that the easement rights were still unclear after meetings with the City, in addition to the traffic easements. In addition, the current extension of Willie Stargell, and how it was presented, would prohibit access to the current property that they occupied, as well as the current businesses. She expressed concern about the tenants in the property that had a loading dock and loading bay, and that the access would be lost. She was concerned that the secondary driveway wou… | PlanningBoard/2007-07-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2007-08-27 | 3 | b. Zoning Administrator Report Ms. Woodbury provided the Zoning Administrator report. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the biodiesel storage tank was intended for City vehicles. Ms. Woodbury replied that it was for private use. 7. ORAL COMMUNICATION: None. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: None. 8-A Annual Review of Development Agreement - DA89-1 - Harbor Bay Business Park Association, Harbor Bay Isle Associates and Harbor Bay Entities - Bay Farm Island (Primarily Harbor Bay Isle) Board member Cunningham moved to continue Item 8-A to September 10, 2007. Board member Lynch seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Absent - 1 (Mariani). The motion passed. 8-B Rezoning R07-0002/Planned Development PD07-0002/Parcel Map PM07- 0004 - Applicant: John & Andrea Medulan - 3236 Briggs Avenue. The applicants request a Zoning Amendment to add a Planned Development (PD) overlay zoning designation to the property located at 3236 Briggs Avenue; and a Development Plan and Parcel Map (PM) approval to divide the existing 203-foot by 48-foot parcel into two parcels, each with an existing single family residence. The site is located within an R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. (LA) Board member Cunningham moved to adopt A draft Planning Board Resolution to approve a Zoning Amendment to add a Planned Development (PD) overlay zoning designation to the property located at 3236 Briggs Avenue; and a Development Plan and Parcel Map (PM) approval to divide the existing 203-foot by 48-foot parcel into two parcels, each with an existing single family residence. Vice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Absent: 1 (Mariani). The motion passed. 9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 9-A Workshop to Develop Recommendation for Planning Work Program Priorities Ms. Woodbury summarized the staff report and detailed the work program priorities, particular those required by State law. Page 3 of 11 | PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2007-09-24 | 3 | 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: None. 8-A Development Agreement DA89-1 -- Harbor Bay Business Park Association, Harbor Bay Isle Associates and Harbor Bay Entities -- Bay Farm Island (Primarily Harbor Bay Isle). A request for a Periodic Review of Development Agreement DA89-01, for the period through April 4, 2007, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1. Member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to adopt the Planning Board Resolution to accept the Periodic Review of Development Agreement DA89-01, for the period through April 4, 2007, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1. Member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Absent: 1 (Cunningham). The motion passed. 9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 9-B. Alameda Landing Waterfront Promenade, Master Landscape Plan and Development Agreement Amendment, Project Applicant: Catellus Development Group, an affiliate of Palmtree Acquisitions Corporation. The applicant requests a Waterfront Development Plan amendment, a Master Landscape Plan amendment, and a Development Agreement amendment to revise the design of the proposed waterfront promenade and open space proposed as part of the Alameda Landing Project. The site is located along the western end of the former FISC Site (Tract 7884) within the M-X Mixed Use Planned Development Zoning District. (AT) Mr. Thomas presented the staff report. and recommended approval of this item. Mr. Aidan Berry, applicant, introduced the project team and concept. Ms. Altschuler, SMWM, displayed a PowerPoint presentation and described the details of the approach and solutions of the project. She described the landscape plan in detail, as well as shoreline access and planting. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that in pulling back the promenade, one of the office buildings was being cut off. She inquired whether the square footage of office was being reduced, or whether stories would be added to the office building. Mr. Thomas stated that the entitlement for office use was 400,000 square feet per the Master Plan, and added that the chan… | PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2007-10-08 | 3 | Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that at the last Planning Board meeting, the meeting date had been October 23, and noted that there must have been a date change. Ms. Chavez noted that it had always been scheduled for October 24. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: 8-A Parcel Map PM07-0003 - Applicant: Jack Cooley, 717 Paru Street. The applicant is requesting a parcel map to divide a 92,053.03-square foot parcel into two parcels. One parcel with an existing single-family residence would be 17,051.13-square feet and the remaining parcel would be 75,001.9-square feet. The 75,001.9-square foot parcel would contain an existing cabana, with the majority of the parcel located within the lagoon. The site is located within an R-1, Single-Family Residential Zoning District (DB). Member Cunningham moved to continue this item. Vice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Absent: 1 (Lynch). The motion passed. 9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 9-A. Approval of the format for a future public forum regarding the Housing Element and Measure A and dissolution of the Expanded Housing Element/Measure A Ad Hoc Committee Ms. Woodbury presented the staff report, and provided a brief background of Measure A. She noted that in July, the ad hoc Housing Element/Measure A Workshop Committee agreed to disband before they reached an agreement on the workshop format, and before discussing potential speakers. The last meeting ended with direction to the appellant members and the Board members to provide their preferred workshop format to the Planning Board for consideration, along with one prepared by the City's consultant. She noted that she expanded upon the consultant's comments, which was included in the packet. Once the Planning Board's comments have been received, staff would work with the consultant on the administrative details, including the invitations to speakers, the venue, date, notices and documentation of the workshop. The Planning Board was asked to approve a format for the public forum, and to dissolve the ad hoc commit… | PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2007-10-22 | 3 | Mr. Phil Tagami, Managing Partner, California Capital Group, summarized his involvement with the site and the team, as well as their plans for this process. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Member Mariani noted that she was impressed with the presentation, and hoped that the idealistic nature of the presentation materialized. Mr. Kelleher wished to clarify that as a team, they walk down a path that they know they can deliver. Member Lynch noted that their presentation was laudable, but that the numbers still had to be resolved at the end of the day. He noted that it was important to define the planning terms so they may be understood by the public. He noted that the end product must be economically viable. Mr. Kelleher agreed with Member Lynch, and noted that in community planning, they present various scenarios that identify various levels of participation by the public sector. He believed there were different scenarios for this site, with different levels of density with different attributes such as transit, sustainability elements, community scale and walkability. He believed it was valuable to offer a broad range of choices. Member Cunningham believed that it was important for the community to understand what the developer is trying to achieve, and that it was not just about money. He believed there were larger community issues to consider as well, and encouraged the developer to continue to be open with the Planning Board. He noted that they will find polarized opinions at both ends, and hoped that the City would not have to settle for mediocrity in the process of striking a balance. He believed the new ideas sounded very exciting, and that a more holistic approach is being used. In response to an inquiry by Member Cunningham whether the PDC was being discarded, Mr. Kelleher replied that they were not doing so, and that they would not be able to execute their plans without the previous site work being done. Their challenge was to qualify the assumptions that were made in the PDC, mainly ge… | PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2007-11-13 | 3 | Bath & Beyond held its grand opening on November 9, 2007. The Beverly and Old Navy buildings were complete; the TJ Maxx building was a few days away from completion. He noted that Building 1900 would have a tenant who would take the old warehouse space, and the construction was expected to start within a few days. He noted that a smaller parking garage would be built. Mr. Jan Paoli, Field Paoli, project architect, displayed and detailed the proposed architectural changes in the project. Monique Lee, Field Paoli, project architect, provided an update on the sidewalks and circulation, and summarized the issues brought forward by the Planning Board. She noted that one bike lane had already been striped on the site, and that several other bike lanes had been planned. Mr. Paoli described the restaurant spaces, their views and the landscaping possibilities. Mr. Kyte described the building redesigns that accommodated the east-west sidewalk. He noted that the easement documents were underway, and that the construction documents associated with the sidewalk, as well as modifications to the buildings, landscaping and graphics were nearing completion. He noted that the timeline of late spring was still in force, given the complexity of the situation, and that the east-west sidewalk would be put in as soon as possible. He noted that the amount of pavement was adequate to install the sidewalk. He would like the board to consider the issue of the parking ratio, and added that they had been in discussion with City staff for some time on the ratio at this site. He believed the opportunity existed to limit the amount of additional parking by using shared parking strategies. Mr. Kyte noted that through shared parking, they were optimistic that they would be able to reduce the 4:1 parking ratio on the site. He noted that there was about 40,000 square feet of office, as well as retail and restaurants. By using the ULI/ITE methodology for shared parking, they saw some good opportunities to justify the reduction. He noted that the pro… | PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2007-11-26 | 3 | Vice President Kohlstrand suggested that the meeting the week of Thanksgiving be retained, and that it be reconsidered if the agenda was a light one. Member Lynch inquired why the meeting was noticed from 7:00 to 11:00 p.m. President Cook believed it was noticed as such to avoid additional motions to extend the meeting. Mr. Thomas confirmed that staff would check on the October 13 meeting and report back to the Board. Member Cunningham moved to approve the 2008 Meeting Calendar as amended, including the cancellation of the December 22 meeting. Member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 7. The motion passed. 9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 9-A. DP07-0003 - Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project - Applicant: Catellus Development Group, a ProLogis Company. The applicant requests an amendment to a Design Review approval for a retail center and associated improvements located south of Mitchell Avenue Extension and east of Fifth Street Extension. The site is located along the eastern end of the former FISC Site (Tract 7884) within the M-X Mixed Use Planned Development Zoning District (AT/DV). Mr. Thomas presented the staff report, and described the background and scope of the proposed project, including the conditions required by the Planning Board in previous hearings. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Kevin Sullivan, LPA Design, applicant, presented the plan approved on September 24 on the overhead screen. He described in detail the features and changes to the plans and the proposed circulation plan. He noted that their target retailers would not accept the land plan and the inconvenience for the user, both from an auto and pedestrian standpoint. He added that the plan would also decrease the parking capacity by 120-plus spaces. Mr. Greg Moore, Vice President of Development, Catellus, noted that he led the leasing efforts at Alameda Landing. He noted that the first phase of that process was the leasing of the large format Building A users, and added that they had conducted numerous conversa… | PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2007-12-10 | 3 | Mr. Paul McGann, applicant, noted that they would like to have the option to be open until 2:00 a.m., which did not mean they would be open that late. He would like to see what the foot traffic would be like, and what the neighborhood reaction would be. He noted that if there was no business after 11:00, they would close at that time. Mr. Eric Reese, applicant, noted that if people came out of the theater after 11:30 or midnight, that would give them the option to get something to eat. He noted that the other locations did not dictate a later hour, and added that they had never had any trouble at those locations. In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara whether they planned to apply to a liquor license, Mr. Reese replied that they planned to apply for a liquor license. In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara regarding the time of the end of the last movie, Doreen Soto, Development Services, replied that the last showing of the theater must start by 11:30 p.m. They had the ability to show a midnight show for blockbuster movies, such as Harry Potter; they must also report to the Planning Board annually to report on the queuing. She noted that the last people would be out of the theater by 12:30 - 1:00 a.m. Mr. Thomas noted that the wine bar use permit allowed them to stay open until midnight. Board Member Lynch noted that he liked having a choice for late-night eating, and noted that this was a commercial district that should have a balance of opportunities for restaurant consumers. Board member McNamara inquired whether the outdoor seating would be open during the late hours, which she believed would create a noise issue for the neighborhood. She inquired whether the outdoor seating could be brought inside for the late-night hours. Mr. Thomas replied that the use permit could be structured that way, and did not know what the applicants thought of that option. Mr. McGann replied that would entail bringing the tables and chairs inside, which may interfere with the operation of the business becau… | PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2008-01-14 | 3 | 9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 9-A. City of Alameda General Plan Retail Policy Amendments - Applicant - City of Alameda. The Planning Board will consider a General Plan Amendment to amend Section 2.5 Retail Business and Services, to add and modify policies as recommended by the Alameda Citywide Retail Policy Report. The proposed amendments would affect all properties in non-residential zoning districts and mixed use zoning districts. Mr. Thomas presented the staff report. President Cook noted that page 1 identified community centers as being planned for Alameda Landing, Alameda Point and the Del Monte Building in the Northern Waterfront area. She inquired who planned the Del Monte Building, and noted that it connoted approval of a concept that the Planning Board had not yet seen. Mr. Thomas replied that was a valid concern. Vice President Kohlstrand inquired whether the City wanted any more community shopping centers such as South Shore and Marina Village. She believed that while the uses were desired, the configuration would be more appropriate as a main street type of development. She did not believe that shopping centers full of private streets and big blocks were very friendly to pedestrians, and that the City should move away from them as much as possible. Board Member Lynch noted that the last sentence in the third paragraph, "Types of Retail Districts: Main Street Business Districts," read: "These districts are pedestrian-oriented districts with historical patterns of development that limit building form, and the ability of individual businesses to provide on-site parking." He did not understand the last section about parking, and while that may be the City's desire, he inquired which businesses contained within the Main Street business district provided on-street parking. Mr. Thomas noted that it should read, ..and limit the ability of individual businesses to provide on- street parking." Vice President Kohlstrand noted that outlets such as Pottery Barn could be offered in an urban setting, rather than the trad… | PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2008-01-28 | 3 | Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that one condition directed staff to provide a list of four to six panelists for each panel. She would be comfortable to leave the number of panelists to the discretion of staff and the consultants. She was neutral on whether breakout groups would be included or not. Vice President Kohlstrand agreed with Board member Ezzy Ashcraft's comments, and was open to having between four to six panelists; four panelists should be a minimum. She was also open to having the small group forums. Board member Cunningham inquired how the panelists were coached toward a discussion, and believed that the panel discussion should be structured correctly to get the most out of the discussion. He believed there should be a minimum of four panelists. He wished to emphasize that there would be ample opportunity for the public to provide input at this forum. He believed it would be useful to have data on the existing housing stock in the City in order to have baseline data. Ms. Woodbury believed that staff would be able to provide that information. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that 50 percent of both panels would be composed of community members. She believed it would be a well-rounded discussion with sufficient time for public comment. In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether there would be a formal role for the Planning Board, Ms. Woodbury replied that she would return to the Board with that information. She will pose that question to the consultant team. Board member Cunningham noted that he was not looking for any active participation. President Cook wished to clarify that there would be an opportunity for both public questioning of the panelists, and an hour-and-a-half at the end of the forum for public comment. She noted that the small group format was an additional way to generate public comment. Ms. Woodbury noted that this forum would be noticed as a special meeting of the Planning Board since a quorum would be present. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstran… | PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2008-02-11 | 3 | Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 7, paragraph 5, should be changed to read, "She supported people being able to improve their properties, and believed there should be some reward for undertaking a project such as this." President Cook noted that with respect to the language at the top of page 7, "President Cook suggested that the dividing line between a boat house and an actual dwelling " she had intended to state that the boat house in this case was larger than many dwellings in Alameda, and so perhaps the square footage should be examined more carefully. She noted there was a fine line between a boat house and a residence. President Cook noted that the language halfway down page 8 should be changed to read, "She believed the issue of height was more critical than the number of floors, and it occurred to the applicants to stay within the height limits". In addition, the following change should be made, "She noted that the issues of density and the public right to the waterfront were important issues to be looked at if Zoning Code amendments are considered." Board member Cunningham moved to adopt the minutes for December 10, 2007, as amended. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4. Noes: 0 Absent: 0; Abstain - 2 (Lynch, McNamara). The motion passed. 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: President Cook noted that a request had been received to remove Item 8-A from the Consent Calendar and place it on the Regular Agenda. She noted that two requests to go first had also been received. She suggested that the items be heard in the following order: 9-B, 9-A, 8-A, and that Staff Communications be heard at the end of the meeting. 9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 9-B. Broadway/Jackson Phase II. A presentation and update on work being completed by the City of Alameda, City of Oakland, California Department of Transportation, and Alameda County Transportation Improvement Agency (ACTIA) to improve automobile, transit, and pedestrian connections and mobility between the Webster and Pos… | PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2008-02-25 | 3 | office/storage area. The applicants are also requesting approval to permit the payment of parking in-lieu fees. The site is located within a C-C, Community Commercial Zoning District. (DB) Mr. Brighton summarized the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this item. WABA had requested that an additional condition of approval be added to require the installation of awnings at the street frontage buildings prior to occupancy of the building. Staff concurred with that request. In response to an inquiry by Board Member McNamara whether the conditions requested by WABA replaced the conditions previously stipulated, Mr. Brighton replied that was essentially the case. He added that the previous conditions applied to an earlier plan set submittal. Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it would be helpful to receive the materials sooner in advance of the meeting, and suggested sending PDF files by email. She would like additional time to review the materials. President Cook advised that nine speaker slips had been received. Board Member Cunningham moved to limit the speakers' time to three minutes. Board Member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Noes: 0 Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed. The public hearing was opened. Mr. John Piziali, former Planning Board President, spoke in support of this project as a West End resident and WABA member. He believed this would be a special project, which he believed to be the first mixed use project on the street. He expressed concern about the parking requirements and the in lieu fees, which he believed were excessive; he believed those requirements often stifled new projects. He would like to see the requirements scaled to the project, which was a strain on smaller projects. Ms. Doreen Soto, City of Alameda Development Services Department, Alameda County Improvement Commission, City Hall West, spoke in support of this project. She noted that they had worked with this applicant for about two years, and noted that it had been a difficult projec… | PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2008-03-24 | 3 | 6. PRESENTATIONS: a. Resolution of Appreciation for former Board Member Gina Mariani. President Cook noted that Ms. Mariani was not in attendance but wished to read the commendation into the record: "A Resolution of Farewell and Commendation for Gina Mariani" Whereas, Gina Mariani, was appointed as a member of the Planning Board on November 4, 2003; and Whereas, Gina Mariani, has also served Alameda as a member of the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee; and Whereas, Gina Mariani, has earned the respect of her fellow Board members and City Staff for her clear and consistent contributions to numerous development projects throughout her tenure; and Whereas, the Planning Board and City Staff wishes to thank Gina Mariani for her constant support, experience, expertise, invaluable insight and good humor; and Whereas, her concern for the welfare of the Citizens of Alameda and the future development of our City were always apparent when balancing neighborhood issues with the economic goals of the City. Therefore be it resolved that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda acknowledges her valuable contributions to the City of Alameda, and wishes her future happiness and continued involvement in community issues. Passed and adopted by the Planning Board of the City of Alameda on the 10th day of March, 2008. b. Staff Communications - Future Agendas Mr. Biggs provided an update on future agenda items. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand whether the Fernside project would return to the Planning Board, Mr. Biggs replied that the project had been revised to eliminate the need for any variances. He noted that it would go to the Historical Advisory Board, and that staff would update the Board on the progress. Board member Lynch noted that on page 4 of 13 of the February 11, 2008, Draft Minutes, the Planning Board received a report from Barbara Hawkins, which identified a Page 3 of 8 | PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-04-14.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2008-04-14 | 3 | NONE REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: (9-A.) Cynthia Eliason presented the City Council approved Local Action Plan for Climate Protection. This item was for discussion purposes only. No action was taken. President Cook asked how zero waste is achieved since there is always something that doesn't fit in a bin. Staff responded that zero waste is a goal. Public comment was opened. Citizen Bill Smith commented on emissions and zero waste. Public comment was closed. Boardmember Lynch inquired whether Stopwaste.org assisted with preparation of the report. Staff responded in the affirmative. Stopwaste.org was instrumental in putting together this collaborative effort. Boardmember Lynch commented on initiative #2 page 29. Retail trips account for the highest use of vehicles. How is this issue addressed? Staff responded that these issues are considered as individual projects are reviewed. Boardmember Ezzy Ashcraft referred to the last document in the plan (Appendix F). She asked whether environmentally preferred purchases (for example cleaning products used by City maintenance staff) would move forward to become an ordinance or stay on the back burner. Staff responded that the intent is to move the document forward as an ordinance. Styrofoam was the first initiative but others will follow. Boardmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the steps required to create a new ordinance. Staff responded by detailing the process involved in establishing an ordinance from Staff to the Planning Board to the City Council. Boardmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff would look to other cities for what they have done in this area. Staff responded in the affirmative. Boardmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the timeframe for implementation of the plan. Staff responded that a timeline has not been set. Boardmember Ezzy Ashcraft acknowledged Simone Wolter (staff) for her contributions to the plan. Boardmember Lynch inquired whether bike lockers will be provided outside the theatre. Staff responded in the affirmative. Page 3 of 7 | PlanningBoard/2008-04-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2008-04-28 | 3 | Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she had a similar request for the following meeting for the Draft Pedestrian Plan. She noted that City staff's Gail Payne had done a lot of work on that document, and that it may take two meetings to cover it. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that for future agenda scheduling, whenever an item had a voluminous amount of reading, that staff could determine when the documents would be ready, and give the Planning Board members a longer window of time to review the documents before the meeting. President Cook noted that the office condominium project at Harbor Bay went to City Council on appeal, and the appeal was rejected, so project approval was upheld. She noted that she had spoken to an appellant, who expressed concern about the lack of sufficient notice. She had told President Cook that over 1,300 had signed a petition. President Cook believed that there should be more time to inform the public, as well as time to review the materials. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that the 300-foot radius noticing had been complied with, and added that there were a number of homeowners associations within Harbor Bay Isle, as well as a Master Association. She suggested that the Association put themselves on the list to receive the packet online. Board member Lynch noted that about two years ago, the Board held a discussion regarding revising how it interacted with the public in terms of noticing. They believed that given the staff needs, that a break in the schedule be taken, and a Planning Board agenda projecting forward a month was suggested. He believed it would be simple to do, and would not take any additional dollars or staff resources; he noted that management scheduling would be able to accomplish that goal. b. Zoning Administrator Report - Meeting of April 15, 2008. Mr. Biggs provided an update on the latest Zoning Administrator Report, and noted that the Action Agenda was also included in the packet. 7. ORAL COMMUNICATION: None. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: None. 9. REGULAR AGENDA IT… | PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2008-05-12 | 3 | difference between the impact if the use stayed under the current zoning and developed as a business park, versus a residential development. He noted there would be no consequential difference in the cost of services. He believed that the residential use was substantially more valuable on a per square foot basis for the developer, and therefore, the assessed value will be higher. He added that the property taxes to the City would also be higher. He noted that the residential value was enhanced by having higher square footage, which would generate an assessed value of approximately $87 million, versus $52 million of commercial. Taxed at 1%, the $35 million difference would yield an additional $350,000 in revenues. He noted that the higher turnover for residential meant the values would continue to keep pace more than commercial uses. He noted that the residential use would come to market sooner than industrial use. He noted that residents would spend more in the City than employees who come to Alameda to work. Mr. Daniel Reedy, land use attorney for applicant, noted that he had prepared his original remarks to go through the draft resolution in the staff report, and he now understood that has since been changed. He had read the new response to comments on the FEIR, and he understood there would be a hearing on the adequacy of the EIR at this hearing. He noted that while they did not agree with every word in either the DEIR or the response to comments, they did concur with staff's recommendation that the FEIR adequately addressed the environmental impacts of the proposed project, and was reasonably complete. He did not believe there was an issue of continuing to keep going on the EIR in gathering more responses or comments. Regarding the merits of the project, they respectfully differed from staff's analysis of the General Plan policies, and had submitted what they perceived to be the pertinent General Plan policies. He suggested that some of the policies focused upon by Mr. Thomas were aimed at the City commenting… | PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-05-27.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2008-05-27 | 3 | Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it would be preferable for a customer to pick up their car on the parking lot after hours, as opposed to on the street. Board member McNamara noted that the applicant performed a public service by allowing the nearby church to use their parking lot. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she understood the applicant's comments about the cars being outside the bay. She wanted the "no street parking" requirement to be followed, and believed it was reasonable for the owner to ask the customers not to park on the street. Board member McNamara understood that the nature of smog check work required that part of the car be outside the garage. With respect to Condition 8, she believed that the Board should consider allowing some parking on the lot in an overnight situation, but not on the street. Board member Cunningham suggested that another six-month review be implemented, in order to address the neighbors' concerns. Board member Autorino noted that the requirement to not allow parked cars on the lot overnight was put in place for a reason, and believed that more input would be needed before making such a change. Acting President Kohlstrand noted that any changes to the conditions had not been noticed, and believed it would be inappropriate to change the conditions at this time. Mr. Thomas suggested that direction be given to staff and the applicant that another six-month review be implemented. The applicant should keep track of this specific situation, and that it be made clear that the preference was to not leave cars on the lot overnight. In six months, staff would return with that information for discussion, and a new resolution which would be noticed if the condition were to be changed. Acting President Kohlstrand suggested that a condition be added to address the work being done inside the bays. In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara regarding overnight parking, Mr. Thomas stated that if a customer's car was not p… | PlanningBoard/2008-05-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2008-06-23 | 3 | noted that PSBA supported the demolition of the current building. He was happy to hear that a parking exception was not needed. He noted that the new building would be better-looking and better-functioning. Mr. Christopher Buckley, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, agreed that the new design would be a big improvement over the current building. He was surprised that the signage would not be considered at this meeting, and he believed it was an integral part of the overall design. He noted that the existing pole sign was 12 feet tall, which he believed was too tall. He believed a monument sign should be placed on a base, not a pole. He suggested that the sign be six feet tall, rather than 12 feet tall. He noted that the drive-through signs were also pole-type signs, and suggested that they be converted to a monument sign with a solid base. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she liked the new design, which was much more harmonious with the neighborhood. She was concerned with the drive-through effect on the environment and air quality. She noted that a car idling for two minutes uses the same amount of fuel as it took to drive one mile, and that idling cars cause a negative impact on health. She noted that an alternative to idling is to park the car, order, and return to the car. She understood that the restaurant was set up more as a take-out restaurant. She believed that the City should be a good steward of the environment. She would like to see a slight redesign to provide on-site parking instead of the drive-through. Vice President Kohlstrand shared Board member Ezzy Ashcraft's concerns with respect to the drive-through and trash cleanup. She endorsed a daily cleanup. She agreed the building design had improved, and she was concerned that the restaurant rested up against the sidewalk. She inquired about the limitations on drive-through restaurants in any zoning area in the City. Mr. Brighton noted that drive-through restaurants were prohibited in some areas on Webst… | PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2008-07-14 | 3 | 9-A. 2008-2009 Election of Planning Board Officers. The Planning Board will elect a new President and Vice President for the upcoming year, as required by the Planning Board President Cook moved to nominate Vice-President Kohlstrand for the position of Board President. Board member Lynch seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 7, Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0, the motion passed. Vice President Kohlstrand moved to nominate Board member Ezzy Ashcraft for the position of Board Vice-President. Board member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 7, Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0, the motion passed. 9-B. Variance and Design Review - PLN08-0086 - 1532 Santa Clara Avenue. The applicant is seeking Variance and Design Review approval for the addition of a second story, 440-square-foot master bedroom suite and 117 square foot deck to an existing one-story single-family residence. A 24-square-foot addition to the lower floor is also proposed; this addition requires a Variance to exceed maximum main building coverage. The proposed deck requires a Variance for building in the side yard setback. An existing side entry stair will also be rebuilt to comply with current building code standards. The property is located within the R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. (LA) Ms. Ajello presented the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the project. The public hearing was opened. Norman Sanchez, architect, spoke in support of the project. He discussed some of the options that he explored with the applicants through the design process. The focus of the project was to keep the overall height of the house as low as possible and to keep the profile of the addition as seamless as possible. One of the main goals of the project was to provide the homeowners with viable outdoor open space, a privilege other homeowners in the neighborhood enjoy. Sushma and Austin Lundd, applicants, spoke in favor of the project and stated that they are willing to arrange the construction schedule to best accomm… | PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-07-28.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2008-07-28 | 3 | Janice Miles spoke in opposition to the proposed Grand Marina transfer of 36 affordable housing units off-site to Island High. Brian Kernan spoke in opposition to the proposed Grand Marina transfer of 36 affordable housing units off-site to Island High. He would support home ownership but believes even nine units is too many at the site. Melanie Wartenberg spoke in opposition to the proposed Grand Marina transfer of 36 affordable housing units off-site to Island High. Andy Olveda spoke in opposition to the proposed Grand Marina transfer of 36 affordable housing units off-site to Island High. Christopher Buckley spoke in opposition to the Grand Marina proposal locating 36 units in an historic neighborhood. Tom Antholzer spoke in opposition to 36 units being located at the Island High site. Nanette Burdick spoke in opposition to a 36-unit high density project on the Island High site. The public hearing was closed. President Kohlstrand reiterated that the Board did not approve a 36-unit project but did vote to allow the transfer of up to five housing units to the Island High site with the potential for another four units for a total of nine units. She asked staff to provide the Board with a briefing on this item at the next Board meeting. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Planning Board or a member of the public by submitting a speaker slip for that item. There were n items on the Consent Calendar/ 9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 9-A. Public Workshop to Gather Community Input and Share Ideas About the Future Development of Housing in Alameda. Housing issues workshop for a discussion on an update to the Housing Element of the General Plan, Density Bonus regulations, and Secondary Housing Unit regulations. The purpose of this workshop is to obtain comments and feedback from the community on these important housing issues. Page 3 of 7 | PlanningBoard/2008-07-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2008-08-11 | 3 | The public hearing was opened. Board member McNamara moved and Board member Lynch seconded the motion to limit the speakers time to 3 minutes. The motion passed unanimously (5-0-0). Alfredo Kawas spoke in favor of the proposal. Ernest Pierucci spoke in favor of the proposal. He is the attorney for a business currently located in San Leandro, that would move to this location should it be converted to office space. He previously represented several yacht brokers with businesses in Mariners Square. Currently there is only one yacht business located at Mariners Square. The current configuration of Mariners Square prevents small businesses from establishing locations at this site. The activity that used to take place in this location provided clients for the restaurant. These clients no longer exist. Steve Farrand, attorney representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the proposal. The applicant purchased the restaurant in 1992 and in 1993 the restaurant had its highest gross sales. In 1996 shortly after the applicant purchased the restaurant the military announced the closure of the naval base resulting in a loss of 18,000 jobs. The staff report does not discuss whether a restaurant is viable in this location. On August 31, 2006 Chevy's decided to vacate this location and since that time the current owner has not received a viable offer to lease the building as a restaurant. Yola Jurzykowski, applicant, spoke in favor of the proposal. The property has been vacant for two years and in that time she has not received a financially viable offer to lease the space as a restaurant. She understands staffs desire to keep a restaurant on this site but it is not economically feasible. If she is not allowed to convert the building to office space she believes the building will remain vacant due to the lack of qualified restaurant lease requests. Onju Updegrave, architect for the applicant, spoke in favor of the proposal. She wanted to clarify a misstatement by staff. As of today, the Carriage House has not been rebuilt. 5,000 … | PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-08-25.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2008-08-25 | 3 | Mr. Eric Scheuerman stated that he believed that Alameda's current major and minor street classifications were uncomplicated, and that the new Transportation Element was essentially redevelopment of Alameda's street system. He cited the recent reworking of Webster and Park Streets as a good example of refinement. He would like to see a study on the potential of excessive street striping, and how it affects neighborhoods. He believed that there were examples of both good and bad striping in Alameda, and added that more double yellow lines were being added to Alameda, creating a more congested, crowded and stressful environment. He believed the new Transportation Element would be a major change for Alameda, and urged the City to see the excellence of Alameda's existing hardscape street design, as well as the downsides. He urged the City to consider a policy of refinement. Mr. Bert Libby noted that he was pleased to see the EIR statements and the livability goals in the TMP. He believed there was too little attention given to quality of life impacts and increased traffic in development issues. Major Johnson had stated that the TMP would accommodate future growth, maintain Alameda's unique character, and protect the current quality of life. He believed the TMP was missing two important sections, and that it was geared towards Alameda residents and their vehicle usage, but did not address non-Alameda traffic originating from off-island. He addressed the State and federal emission goals, and noted that Major Johnson had signed the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. He believed strongly that mitigations for future development should be solely directed at reducing traffic in order to reduce the negative environmental effects of development. He noted SB 375, which implemented AB 32, promoting smart growth development and required that new developments be located near transit corridors and centers in order to reduce vehicle miles traveled and emissions. Ms. Ani Dimusheva expressed concern about the str… | PlanningBoard/2008-08-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-09-08.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2008-09-08 | 3 | Negotiations are ongoing regarding retail development. The decline in the real estate market has negated most pending deals. Target has initiated discussions regarding a location at this site. If negotiations progress the Board will be provided with an update. In response to an inquiry from Board member Ezzy Ashcraft, the applicant stated there have been no changes regarding the reuse of the wharf and warehouses. The plan is to remove 100 feet to allow public access. This includes the existing parking shed. Board member Cunningham moved and Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion declaring the Developer in compliance with the material terms and conditions of the development agreements. The motion passed with the following voice vote - 4, Noes: 0; Absent: 3; Abstain: 0. 9-A. PLN08-0153 - General Plan Amendment -2400 Mariner Square Drive. The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment for the MU2 Mariner Square Specific Mixed Use Area to permit additional office use. The site is located at 2400 Mariner Square Drive within M-2-PD General Industrial (Manufacturing) Planned Development Zoning District. (CE). (Continued from August 11, 2008). At the request of the applicant, this item was continued to the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting of September 22, 2008. 9-B. North Lincoln Strategic Plan. The Planning Board will be reviewing the August 2008 Public Review Draft of the Gateway District Strategic Plan and making a recommendation to the City Council. The Gateway District Strategic Plan recommends redevelopment and design strategies or the blocks on either side of Park Street between Tilden Avenue and the Park Street Bridge. (DG) lan Ross, with City Design Collective, gave an overview of his consulting firm which was responsible for preparing the report. He presented the plan to the Board. He explained that the approach used to create the proposal was based on land use history in Alameda and discussed the purpose of the strategic plan as well as the process used to obtain public input. The pla… | PlanningBoard/2008-09-08.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-09-22.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2008-09-22 | 3 | Staff responded that the approval was part of the Cardinal Point Planned Development Amendment (PDA). This 3,000 sf project vested at that time. The design review for the project has expired but there is no expiration date on reconstruction of the two-story office structure. The Board requested an explanation on vesting. The Assistant City Attorney explained vesting rights as they relate to the Cardinal Point PDA. Board member Autorino asked whether the specific mention of the east side in the PDA was intentional. Staff responded yes. Board member McNamara moved and Board member Cunningham seconded the motion to limit speaker time to three minutes. The motion was unanimously approved. The public hearing was opened. Steve Farrand, attorney for the applicant, spoke in support of the proposal. He urged the Board to approve Resolution #2 or Resolution #3. Yolande Jurzykowski, applicant, explained that when she purchased the building the previous owner removed all the restaurant equipment and the building has not been used as a restaurant since she purchased it. She urged to Board to grant her request to turn an unused building into office space. Ernest Pierucci spoke in support of the project and the desire of his client to relocate her business from San Leandro to this location in Alameda. Cheryl Canaday is an Alameda resident with a business in San Leandro. She spoke in favor of the project and expressed her desire to live and work in Alameda. Leasing space at this site would allow her and her employees to work in Alameda. Jana Fong spoke in support of the project. She is employed in San Leandro by Cheryl Canaday but she lives in Alameda. Stephanie Lulofs spoke in support of the project. She is employed in San Leandro by Cheryl Canaday but she lives in Alameda. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Board member Cook stated she understood the constraints the applicant was facing but she expressed her concern about the glut of office space currently available elsewhere in Alameda. She stated that it is … | PlanningBoard/2008-09-22.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-10-13.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2008-10-13 | 3 | 4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. (DB) Staff is requesting a continuance of this item to the meeting of October 27, 2008. 8-B. Planned Development Amendment, Major Design Review - PDA05-0004, DR05-0073 - 523 South Shore Center - Harsch Investment Corp. The applicant requests approval of Planned Development Amendment and Major Design Review entitlements and certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for redevelopment and expansion of Alameda Towne Centre. The project includes redevelopment of the site, resulting in full build-out of up to approximately 706,650 square feet of gross leasable floor area, construction of a new parking structure, pedestrian, bicycle and transit improvements, new signage and other minor site improvements. (DG). (Continued from September 22, 2008). Staff is requesting a continuance of this item at the applicants' request. The public hearing was opened. Claire Risley requested the Board ensure, when a new date is set for this item, that the hearing not be scheduled between November 16, 2008 and January 13, 2009 when many citizens will be out of town. She requested the notices be mailed to interested parties three weeks prior to the hearing and the notification radius be expanded to greater than the current 500 feet. She also requested the hearing not be scheduled for a date when the agenda is full. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Board member Cook asked staff if a hearing date for the item had been set. Director Woodbury responded no. Board member Cook asked if information previously requested by the Board regarding this item would be provided prior to the future hearing date. Staff responded yes. Board member Cook reiterated her prior request for information on previous approvals regarding this project which included a request for a summary detailing the differences between previously granted entitlements and recent requests by the applicant. She also specifically would like the applicant to provide the number of square feet currently occupied at… | PlanningBoard/2008-10-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-10-27.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2008-10-27 | 3 | Representatives from the SunCal Company presented their Preliminary Development Concept for Alameda Point. Individual Planning Board members passed on the following comments and questions to SunCal. No action was taken on the proposal. The Redevelopment Concept Plan is a good conceptual plan for Alameda Point and is well done. The Plan should include design principles about the importance of waterfront design to create a vital, safe, and pedestrian friendly waterfront. The Plan does a good job of addressing the need for density and the diversity of housing. The Plan sets very high expectations, and SunCal needs to be careful about setting expectations that may not be realistic. SunCal should not "over promise, and under deliver". The phasing of the schools may need to be moved up earlier in the phasing schedule to accommodate. The analysis of the school needs should consider the currently vacant Miller School, which is in the neighborhood. There is a definite need for a library in the project. The analysis of civic facilities should consider a larger area than just Alameda Point. For example, the College of Alameda has a track that is not always available to the community. The Miller School site may be an appropriate location for a new school serving the west end and Alameda Point. Co-locating of public facilities such as libraries with schools will increase the availability for State grant funds for libraries and schools. Given that the Sports Complex and the entire northern edge of the site will be in an area that is not protected from floods and adjacent to a shoreline, which may fail in a major disaster, the financial plan should include funds to rebuild public facilities that are damaged in a flood or major disaster. The plan should include a phasing schedule for the adaptive reuse area that is coordinated with the phasing for the rest of the project. The open space needs to be provided with each phase of the development. The phasing schedule should ensure that there is no net loss of playing fields for socc… | PlanningBoard/2008-10-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-11-24.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2008-11-24 | 3 | REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: (8-A.) Use Permit - UP006-0010 - 1310 Central Avenue - Valero Gas Station. Review of Use Permit for the extended hours of operation for the Alameda Valero Gasoline Station, an existing legal nonconforming service station. (DV) Mr. Biggs presented the staff report. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft pointed out that a letter had been received and that one of the pages of the letter was not included. Staff read the second page of the letter. The public comment was opened. Ms. Patricia Kinzel spoke in support of the applicant and stated that the owners of the gas station have complied with the conditions of the Use Permit. Ms. Rose Ryan stated that she had no complaints about the gas station. She pointed out that no notification was given for the cancellation of the meeting of November 10, 2008. Staff explained the notification process when a meeting is canceled. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft appreciated the 6-month review report and wanted to remove the requirement to bring a review of the Use Permit back to the Planning Board every six months. Board member Cook confirmed that if the owner does not comply with the conditions of approval they might be subject to revocation of the Use Permit M/S/C (Cunningham/Lynch) to accept the six-month review of the Use Permit for the Valero Gas Station and noted that further reviews of the use permit were not necessary. Approved 6-0-0. (9-A.) Second Unit Ordinance. Proposed amendment to the Alameda Municipal Code to allow attached or detached secondary housing units to be constructed on sites with a single-family dwelling. In compliance with State Secondary Housing Unit law, the proposed ordinance provides for the administrative review and approval of secondary units meeting the development standards contained in the code. (JB) Mr. Biggs presented the staff report. Board member Cook asked about building on a vacant lot in an R-4 zone district. Page 3 of 12 | PlanningBoard/2008-11-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2008-12-08 | 3 | In response to an inquiry by President Kohlstrand Development Services Department (DSD) staff responded that during public discussions three schemes were presented which would guide the lay out of future housing and new roads. These discussions produced six overarching guidelines. Most important were the guiding principles detailed on pages seven through twelve in the proposed amendment to the Community Reuse Plan. The purpose of the Plan is to provide the Planning Board with guidelines for the area once a master developer and non-profit are selected for the project. Board member McNamara referred to the layout on page 12 and asked if this incorporates all previous direction provided by the Planning Board. Staff responded that guideline number six (page 12) focuses on connecting the residential use to other public amenities in the neighborhood. This approach is focused on pathways to the waterfront for bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as active and passive access to parks. Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to the second page of Attachment 2 which states "Is there an opportunity to increase neighborhood commercial" she inquired whether the retail referred to is the Alameda Landing project. Staff responded affirmative. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the proposed miracle league field referred to in Attachment 2 page two. She asked if the location for this field is the same as discussed in phase 3 of Alameda Landing. Staff responded that a deal for a field between the developer and the Miracle League had not been finalized. The Miracle League has approached the Recreation and Park Department about the possibility of another site on the eight acres proposed for Rec and Park. This is a proposed idea for a potential location and is not the same site previously proposed to the developer. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to page six of the proposed draft amendment, which states "Emphasize sustainable community design". She would prefer substituting the word "employ" for "emphasize". The second sen… | PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2009-01-12.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2009-01-12 | 3 | In response to a Board inquiry staff stated that the City would make a case about the impact this type of project would have on municipal services and transportation. Board member Cook suggested that a thorough alternative site analysis could include Oak Knoll as an alternative site for the VA facility. Board member Cunningham asked why the deal with the VA had only recently come up. Staff responded that the Navy is interested in an all or nothing proposition. Either the VA takes all the proposed land or none of it. This proposal between the Navy and the VA has been in the works for several years. Board member Cunningham asked how many signatures SunCal would need in order to get the measure on the ballot. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that a percentage of the number of voters who turned out in the last general election would be required. Board member Lynch stated that a VA facility is needed in the community and in the Bay Area. He approves of the site for this purpose. He would not support the VA becoming a tenant of the developer. President Kohlstrand asked if the VA was proposing a below ground cemetery. Staff stated the proposal is for a columbarium not a cemetery. Staff asked if the Board would like a presentation on the VA facility at a future meeting. The Board responded affirmative. 7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: * Anyone may address the Board on a topic not on the agenda under this item by submitting a speaker's information slip, subject to the 5-minute time limit. B. Smith commented on solar power. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Planning Board or a member of the public by submitting a speaker slip for that item. Page 3 of 8 | PlanningBoard/2009-01-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2009-01-26.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2009-01-26 | 3 | Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that there are exceptions to the granting of concessions to the developer if you can show specific adverse impact upon public health and safety or physical environment. Another exception exists if the property is listed in the California Registry of Historical Resources. Staff stated that the goal is to get the EIR process scoped out tonight and started and return to the Planning Board in early March with the Draft Density Bonus. Board member Cunningham asked staff if the Density Bonus Ordinance would apply to this project. Staff responded that it could. Board member Autorino asked what area the specific site encompasses. Staff responded that the site is on Clement Avenue between Oak Street and Elm Street and down to the estuary. Board member Cook noticed that there are boats and docks on the site plan and wondered it that is part of the project or just added to the plan for aesthetics. Staff responded that it was originally proposed as part of the project but was removed from the plans. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft requested staff address the issues down along the water regarding the Army Corps. of Engineers. Staff responded that there are some issues that need to be investigated and clarified along the waterfront that will be done through the project review and EIR process. The property line is back from the waters edge and the Army Corps. of Engineers owns the waters edge and there are a number of structures and facilities that are crumbling into the water. The clean up of the waters edge is a priority. When it gets done and how it gets done and whom the responsibility lies on is an important issue. Board member Cunningham moved and Board member McNamara seconded the motion to limit speaker time to three minutes. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated she believed the five-minute time limit was more appropriate for this item. The motion passed with the following voice vote Ayes: 4; Noes: 2; Absent: 1 Abstain: 0 (Ezzy Ashcraft, Cook). The public hearing was opened. Joseph Woodar… | PlanningBoard/2009-01-26.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2009-02-09.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2009-02-09 | 3 | President Kohlstrand believes the comment regarding citywide business district parking restrictions is relevant. Discussions regarding big rig parking should be heard in a different forum. Staff stated that Public Works, the Planning Department and Development Services staff discussed including other neighborhood business districts during the discussion regarding Park and Webster business districts. The Wilbur Smith study focused on commercial district parking along Park and Webster Streets. Staff plans to revisit neighborhood business district parking at a future date. These areas have different issues including loading and unloading restrictions. Access to transit in these areas is different compared to Park and Webster Street business districts. Because of these differences, staff did not want to lump these areas into this discussion. President Kohlstrand stated these were valid issues for a future discussion. There were no public comments and the public hearing was closed. President Kohlstrand stated the Board discussion should focus on demand waivers and in-lieu fees. Board member Cunningham stated that uses in business districts may change but the amount of square feet available is fixed. He believed planning should revolve around the number of parking spaces required for the amount of retail space available. He believes staff should take a holistic approach to parking that will eliminate the need for many waivers. He stated it appears that the City is requiring different business owners in the same location to pay for the same thing. Staff stated it was difficult to determine how much parking would be provided on each site. Board member Cunningham stated the question of whether the City wants to encourage on-site parking needs to be answered. Previous discussions have centered on satellite parking areas to encourage pedestrian activity. Board member Cook did not think the report was clear on what problem staff is trying to solve. She stated there are different problems in different areas of the City. She b… | PlanningBoard/2009-02-09.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2009-02-23.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2009-02-23 | 3 | The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she walked around the neighborhood and although the proposed design is a departure from the current architectural style of the neighborhood an addition that is done well can be an asset to the area. She feels that the design is very attractive. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft would like to see more consideration given to the neighbors privacy concerns, possibly frosted glass in the windows. Board member Cunningham stated that he has no problem with the project and that it meets the levels of the law. He does not want to see a precedence set to require anyone putting an addition on a home be required to put frosted glass in the bedrooms. He stated that from an architectural point of view the project is a good addition to the neighborhood. Board member Cook stated that she is comfortable with the addition and is glad to see the back staircase window raised to the second story. She also feels that the neighborhood will see a lot of additions to the existing homes in the future. She stated to not allow the project would be effectively down zoning the neighborhood. Board member Lynch complimented staff on the comprehensive report. He does not have any issues with the design and is surprised that more homes in the neighborhood have not been remodeled. He stated that the project is good for the neighborhood and the City and thanked the homeowner for bringing the board a project of value. Board member Cook stated that she was very pleased with the shade study done on the project and found it very easy to read. The Board agreed that the shade studies and staff reports for future projects should be as clear and easy to read as these documents. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she likes the idea of a tile roof from a fire safety standpoint. President Kohlstrand stated that she also agrees that it is a good design and a welcome modification to the neighborhood. She complimented staff on the through presentation. She is concerned… | PlanningBoard/2009-02-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2009-03-09.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2009-03-09 | 3 | Board member McNamara stated she thought it was a thorough document, addresses issues, and is a good tool to assist the Board moving forward. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that with the current economic situation the document takes on urgency and addresses the possible need for additional housing for all income levels. Board member Autorino stated that it is a good plan to increase all levels of housing needs in a city with limited space. President Kohlstrand stated she thought the document was comprehensive and suggested including an executive summary or paragraph describing the background of the Housing Element, or staff analysis. She would like it to include a summary of where the City is, what the City can accomplish and how the City plans to meet these objectives. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to page III-16. She would like to understand what items staff considers priority items. President Kohlstrand stated the report should stress that Alameda is an island and has limited opportunities for housing development. Staff stated an introduction and or summary at the beginning of the Housing Element would be included and additional public hearings will take place. A Board discussion ensued on public input to the Housing Element. Staff suggested sending the document to HCD for review, and during the 60-day review period staff can discuss with the Board opportunities for community input. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to page II-1 Housing Policies and stated this section appears to be directed towards the Northern Waterfront. The Housing Element discusses allowing housing in areas zoned for industry and commercial use. She would like staff to address what issues surface when locating housing next to commercial uses to ensure compatibility. Staff stated that conformance rezoning is an existing project in the department and staff plans to start with areas designated for housing in the Housing Element. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to policy II-6 3d and asked staff to elaborate on the Islan… | PlanningBoard/2009-03-09.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2009-03-23 | 3 | Nicole Strasser, resident, spoke in favor of the project. She stated that she is very pleased with the decision to remove the garages from the plan because of the parking problems on the property. She complemented Summerhouse for the job they are doing on the property. Lt. Sean Lynch, Alameda Police Department, spoke in favor of the project. Lt. Lynch stated that he is the evening watch commander for the area and the property has changed dramatically since the renovation of the site and buildings. The area was previously a high crime, high police volume property and was a financial drain on the City of Alameda. Lt. Lynch stated that the transformation at Summerhouse is an outstanding example of how you can change a negative into a positive. Kathy Moehring, Executive Director, West Alameda Business Association (WABA), spoke in favor of the project. Ms. Moehring stated that Summerhouse is a wonderful community partner and that the developer has created an environment that is safe, beautiful and a welcome addition to West Alameda. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she conducted a site visit and was very impressed with the Complex. She is concerned with the lack of parking and was told that the turn over rate is high because of it. She suggested that WABA possibly look at introducing a Zip Car or City Car Share program at the site. She is also concerned with the reduction in the community center space and would like to hear that issue addressed. The applicant responded that although the buildings are going to be smaller there is not going to be a reduction in amenities. He stated that the temporary leasing office, consisting of approximately 1,000 square feet will eventually be opened up for use as a community center for the residents. President Kohlstrand mentioned that during a site visit she noticed a fitness center located in one of the units and questioned if it was permanent. The applicant responded that a 1,000 square foot fitness center is planned in … | PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2009-04-27.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2009-04-27 | 3 | 8-A. Bay Friendly Landscaping Ordinance - Applicant - City of Alameda. The Planning Board will consider a proposed Alameda Municipal Code amendment related to creation of a Civic Bay Friendly Landscaping Ordinance requiring sustainable landscaping practices for City and public-private partnership projects or renovations that equal or exceed $100,000 in construction costs. (DV). Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft voiced concerns that the proposed ordinance is not tailored to the needs of the island community and requested an amendment to the ordinance. The amendment is at the end of the paragraph at Section 30-60.1: and to incorporate green infrastructure technologies wherever possible including, but not limited to green grids, street edge alternatives and green alleys." at the end of the paragraph and to amend the definition session accordingly. Board member Lynch asked for clarification why this ordinance is limited to city-owned and public-private partnerships as opposed to all projects. Staff explained that the City had taken the direction to first impose any 'green' ordinances on itself first, to show leadership, and to then reach out to the larger community and develop support for such ordinances. Board member Lynch requested information on whether the threshold for projects that trigger the ordinance ($100,000) would apply to cumulative project costs or per bid and he requested an update on the efficiency of the ordinance in 12 months. Staff explained that the ordinance makes provisions for projects under $100,000 that the intent of the ordinance be met, while projects over $100,000 would definitely meet the ordinance and agreed to bring this back for an ordinance review in twelve months. Board member Cunningham asked whether this ordinance is only triggered by landscaping projects or also through projects that come in as building permits. He also asked why the ordinance only required that an applicant attain of 60 points, as opposed to requesting more points to improve the landscaping efficiency. Staff clarified… | PlanningBoard/2009-04-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2009-05-11.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2009-05-11 | 3 | E. Wong is in favor of restrictions to limit second-story additions. She is opposed to any second-story additions on ranch-style homes, as it would reduce home values in the area and would reduce light to adjacent homes. N. Lew is opposed to limitations on additions for ranch-style homes. She also commented that the original petition was changed to more restrictive limitations, which was then submitted to the City. J. Kowskie is opposed to limitations that would prevent her from adding space to her home in the future. President Kohlstrand closed the public comment period. President Kohlstrand asked staff if those petitioners who initiated the overlay are still in contact with staff, which staff was unaware of as the project planner staff was impacted by the reduction in workforce. Board member Cunningham asked if other neighborhoods had any area specific restrictions as proposed for the Fernside district. He also questioned whether the restrictions would really generate the desired design effect for that area and if the new guidelines would restrain civil liberties of property owners, who purchased properties with the idea that they could add habitable space in the future. Staff responded that the design review guidelines, adopted in 2005, and general development regulations provide a mechanism to promote good design. There were no other specific regulations for other areas. Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft welcomed augmenting the design guidelines to include better recommendations that address ranch-style homes. Board member Cook also supports augmenting the design guidelines, discussed key design elements of ranch-style homes and pointed out that the City of Alameda mainly has modified ranch-style homes opposed to true ranch-style homes. She feels that the design guidelines need to address these design nuances. Board member Lynch pointed out the amount of time and staff effort spent on the 'ranches overlay' has been significant and would like to move this project forward. Staff explained the options laid out in the… | PlanningBoard/2009-05-11.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2009-06-08.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2009-06-08 | 3 | President Kohlstrand opened the public comment portion. T. Sullivan, attorney for Point Marina Vista, explained that the applicant has considered the neighbors' concerns and explained how the applicant proposes to address the concerns hours of operation, noise, and safety. He voiced concerns regarding some of the conditions proposed in the resolution, as they significantly inhibit the operation of the business and attainment of the applicable zoning. President Kohlstrand requested clarification on the type of events that would be hosted at the location. T. Sullivan explained that the applicant anticipates wedding receptions, corporate retreats, charitable events, and auctions and further clarified that no ticketed events would be held here. Board member Cook asked where the valet service would be located and what use the entire facility upgrades had anticipated. Mr. Sullivan explained that the valet service would be located within one of the four lots and that the upgrades were geared towards this use. C. Abrams, traffic consultant to the applicant, explained that he conducted a traffic study in 2003 for the proposed change in use from restaurant to office and then continued to explain the parking study submitted for this proposal. B. Warner, financial consultant to the owner, supports the project. He pointed out that the current owner has invested a significant amount of money to upgrade the facility in keeping with its original use. He urged the Planning Board to approve the project, as he believes this project is a cultural, financial, and entertainment asset to the neighborhood. L. Cardoza, Vice Commodore of Oakland Yacht Club, on behalf of the Oakland Yacht Club board of directors and members, requests that the Planning Board deny the Use Permit, due to the increase in traffic and noise impacts on the neighborhood, as well as the lack of parking capacity in the joint use parking lots. M. Hershey, resident at Oakland Yacht Club, raised his concerns about the difficulty of enforcing the hours of operation, par… | PlanningBoard/2009-06-08.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2009-07-13.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2009-07-13 | 3 | Board member Autorino excused himself from hearing and voting on this item due to a conflict of interest. Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft asked for clarification on the development agreement and resolution's statement about Catalina Road's street design and its acceptance as a private or public road by the City of Alameda. President Kohlstrand opened the public comment period. D. Reidy, Harbor Bay representative, explained the street design and corrected the review period in the resolution to April 4, 2009. President Kohlstrand closed the public comment period. Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft moved, Board member Cunningham seconded the motion to approve as amended. Motion passed 6-0-0. 8-B Conformance Rezonings - Applicant: City of Alameda: PLN09-0110 - 1913 Sherman Street (APN 074-0906-031-08) A rezoning of a 1.9 acre property from M-1-PD, Intermediate Industrial (Manufacturing) Planned Development District, to R-2-PD, Two Family Residence Planned Development District. Staff presented a staff report on the conformance rezonings. Staff requested that only the 1913 Sherman Street project be continued to a later date. Board member Lynch asked for clarification on the nature for the delay. He recommended that the project be moved forward if staff's recommendation will likely not change after one month's continuation. Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft asked for clarification on the neighborhood's request for any future development on this parcel having access solely from Sherman Street. President Kohlstrand opened the public comment period. D. Freeman, Estuary Park Action Committee member, spoke about the conceptual design of the proposed Estuary Park and reminded the Planning Board that the change in use would increase residential density, making the park's development an even more pressing necessity. J. Woodard, Estuary Park Action Committee member, urged the City to begin acquiring the park space and start development of financial resources available from philanthropic funding sources. K. Pryor, requested that the Planning B… | PlanningBoard/2009-07-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2009-07-27.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2009-07-27 | 3 | M. Hershey, Marina Village resident, commented that the conditions of approval do not condition the manner in which they should be conducted. He stated that the conditions of approval are not clear enough. N. Shemick, Marina Village resident, spoke in opposition to the banquet/catering facility, as the proposed use would not likely bring with it a dedicated staff who would be interested in developing and maintaining a sense of community. J. Schulze, Marina Village HOA President, spoke in opposition to the proposed use, as it would not be a good neighbor to the existing community, would increase loitering, and would reduce parking access. She also stated that if the project were to get approved, that a resident manager be responsible and available at all times to address neighbor's concerns, so that the HOA would not have to call Alameda Police for each nuisance. S.McDonald, Marina Village resident, stated that another use, similar to the proposed use, already exists in very close proximity and that the neighborhood may be overburdened with another facility. L. Cardoza, Vice Commodore at Oakland Yacht Club, spoke against the project, due to concerns about safety, security, noise, parking and he stated that the current conditions of approval are not specific enough. D. Carroll, spoke against the project, he stated that proposed use would not add to the neighborhood, as it would increase noise, loitering, and would reduce parking availability. B. Steffensen, member of the Oakland Yacht Club, spoke in opposition to the project. He raised concerns that the noise would not be contained within the facility, based on his experiences as a resident when the Tidehouse Restaurant was in operation. Furthermore, he raised concerns about parking and security if the use would move forward as proposed. President Kohlstrand closed the public comment period. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explana… | PlanningBoard/2009-07-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2009-08-24.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2009-08-24 | 3 | Barbara Kerr corrected the staff report and listed the General Plan policies that direct the future street access to the site from Sherman Street and not Bay Street. She stated that she does not recommend the Planned Development overlay at this time, as the future development is still uncertain and speculative. Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft corrected the resolution's date and was supportive of Barbara Kerr's comments pertaining to street access. President Kohlstrand asked staff why the Planned Development overlay was necessary. Staff explained the flexibility in site design that is possible with a PD overlay designation. Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft motioned/Board member Cook seconded approval. Approved 7-0. 9-A 2009-2010 Election of Planning Board Officers. The Planning Board will elect a new President and Vice President for the upcoming year, as required by the Planning Board By-Laws. Board member Cook thanked President Kohlstrand for her excellent work as the President of the Board and recommended Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft to the position of President. Motioned by Board member Cook / seconded by Board Member Lynch. Approved 7-0. Board member Lynch motioned/seconded by Board member Cunningham to elect Board member Autorino to the position of Vice-Presidnet. Approved 7-0. 9-B Use Permit - PLN08-0479 - 1051 Pacific Marina - Charlie Zawde. Proposed banquet and catering facility in an existing building that proposes to operate between the hours of 9 am - 10 pm, Sunday through Thursday, and 9 am to 11:30 pm, Friday and Saturday. Staff addressed President Kohlstrand's question regarding the difference between the hours of operation as proposed by the applicant and staff's recommendation for shorter hours of operation. Staff then proceeded with the staff report outlining the parking study as submitted by the applicant's consultant and answered Planning Board members' questions raised at the previous meeting with the following answers: 1) Owner shall control the alcohol license: The applicant will not obtain their ow… | PlanningBoard/2009-08-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2009-09-10.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2009-09-10 | 3 | following the WABA Guidelines and continuing to consult with WABA. Mr. Ratto, Executive Director of the Park Street Business Association (PSBA), spoke in favor of the storyboard requirement and would like to see that a provision be made in the design review process that would require projects within the Park Street Business district to also receive PSBA approval prior to submittal to the City. PSBA also endorses retaining the standards for projecting signs. President Ezzy Ashcraft closed the public comment period. Board member Cunningham endorsed the concept that the applicants carry the cost of staff time to review projects and asked for a comparison to other jurisdictions' permit fees and noted support for a public notification process that would be primarily carried out by the applicant. President Ezzy Ashcraft endorsed a time and material charge for all projects, regardless of its scope. Several Board members provided comment on the notification process and indicated support for notification proposal # 3 listed in the staff report. Staff was also encouraged to develop guidelines for erecting story poles and netting, which would reduce the need for extensive notification on some projects. The Board asked staff to return with window replacement guidelines, and an updated list of exempt projects and criteria for the replacement of architectural elements and features. They also recommended that the department initiate an online permit submittal process to minimize additional demands on staff time and resources. Board Member Zuppan suggested that online notification and posting of public hearing notices be considered and asked that staff evaluate the technological requirements and cost implications that would be involved with the online posting of these notices. Board Member Kohlstrand requested that the design review process include the PSBA and WABA organizations, as well as other organizations that would like to be included. Board member Cunningham asked that staff clarify which projects would be subject to des… | PlanningBoard/2009-09-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2009-09-28.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2009-09-28 | 3 | Encinal Terminals until August 2012. Board member Cunningham proposed that the Board provide some specific guidance that could guide future decision makers as to what should be done with this site if the economy does not improve and the applicant returns to the Board requesting another extension of the use permit, assuming the Master Plan is not completed by 2012. Staff stated that the City will closely work with the property owner on the development of a Master Plan for the site. The board discussed the proposed height limits for interim uses and agreed that stacked items should be limited to 15 feet, but that individual items that are not stacked, such as a sailboat could exceed the 15 foot limit. Board member Lynch introduced the discussion of short-term storage of transit buses. He stated that there was a large municipal bus service actively looking for land to lease to store their buses. He said that there were environmental concerns which is why the bus companies are looking for storage. Board Member Lynch expressed concern about that problem arising in Alameda. He invited Mr. Gold, attorney for Mr. Wang, to address the issue. Mr. Gold recommended that the Board allow long-term bus storage, but to preclude short- term (daily) bus storage to avoid daily traffic. Following a review, the Board modified the conditions of approval for the project so they read as follows: 1. The occupants of the site shall comply with all conditions of Use Permit UP-94-06 as modified by Resolution PB-09-09 adopted on July 13, 2009 unless modified by the following conditions in which case the following conditions shall supersede conditions in UP-94-06. 2. All container storage and repair activities must be terminated by August 3, 2010. 3. Between August 3, 2010 and August 3, 2012, the following uses may be permitted on the site: a. Special events. Farmers markets, flower markets, maritime sales, movie and other entertainment production, art shows and other outdoor events, exhibits and shows, subject to obtaining a Special Event Pe… | PlanningBoard/2009-09-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2009-10-12.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2009-10-12 | 3 | and stated that parking is already insufficient in the area. Mr. Rai, Alameda resident, opposed the proposed project and supported the previous speaker's points. He proposed that the City should regulate the number of such businesses. Mr. Sekhon, petitioner and owner of the Seven Eleven store at Buena Vista Avenue and Oak Street, objects to the proposed use on the basis that the City does not need more convenience stores. He also pointed out that almost 900 petitioners objected to the use, and their voice should carry some weight. He opposes the sale of tobacco products and suggested that the proposed convenience store would sell items that would support drug use. Board Member Lynch asked for a clarification of the term "novelty items", which were goods Mr. Sehkon stated would offered at this establishment and such items are used for tobacco as well as drug use. Mr. Faizi, Alameda resident, opposed a store that focuses on the sale of tobacco products. Mr. Sultani, Alameda resident, opposed a store that focuses on the sale of tobacco products and that would impact Alameda children. Mr. Salhi, Alameda resident, is concerned about double-parking in front of the convenience store, which may be hazardous to pedestrians. He is also concerned that the proposed use would not improve the neighborhood. Mr. Satar, Alameda resident, opposed the project, as the new use would not really attract new business, but would only pull business from existing businesses in the area. He suggested a better use for that space would be a community use. President Ezzy Ashcraft closed the public comment period. Mr. King, the applicant's legal counsel, spoke to the previous speakers efforts to focus on the wrong assumption that the proposed use would be a tobacco store. The proposed use is a convenience store that sells some tobacco products amongst other items. He then stated that the previous speakers seem to want to direct the type of competition on Park Street. He concluded that it is not the purpose of the Planning Board to steer or guid… | PlanningBoard/2009-10-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2009-10-26.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2009-10-26 | 3 | second story, 2) by eliminating the features that are not compatible with the ranch-style architecture, and 3) by modifying second-story decks that impact privacy on the neighboring properties. Motion passes 4-0. 9-B Variance and Major Design Review - PLN08-0211, 1700 Park Street (Former Cavanaugh Motor Site) Proposed commercial buildings, including a two-story structure, remodel of existing buildings and a parking lot to be accessed from Buena Vista Avenue. The project requires a variance for a reduction in the required number of off-street parking spaces, modification to the ratio of standard to compact parking spaces, reduction in the depth of landscape areas, and modification to the distance vehicles may encroach into landscape areas. Vice-President Autorino motioned, seconded by Board Member Kohlstrand to limit speakers time to 3 minutes each. Motion passes 5-0. Staff presented the project. Board Member Kohlstrand asked for clarification on the application packet and the supplemental review by the consultant Urban Design Collective. Staff stated that the consultant provided design comments to the applicant, who then submitted a revised design of the building based on the building. Ms. Price, PK Consultants, representative for the applicant Mr. Phua, presented the project with a power point presentation. Mr. Phua thanked all involved parties to bring this project to fruition. President Ezzy Ashcraft opened the public comment period. Mr. Reeves, Alameda resident, business owner and member of the Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of the project and urged the Board to approve the project instead of delaying the approval and requiring that the applicant submit yet another set of plans. Ms. Paul, neighbor, spoke in favor of the project and strongly urged the board to condition the project to reduce light glare, prohibit unsightly neon signs, require attractive landscaping, and mitigate egress traffic impacts on the neighbors. Ms. Kennedy, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) Board Member, supported the proj… | PlanningBoard/2009-10-26.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2009-11-09.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2009-11-09 | 3 | Board Member Zuppan asked about the experimental tree planting process, review and timeline of tree plantings, as well as, the replacement rate of trees as outlined in the draft document. The Board summarized the proposed recommendations to City Council, which are - that new planting meet or exceed tree removal; a city arborist position be funded once the economy improves; direct private developers to utilize the Street Tree Plan as a guideline even when new trees are not in the public right-of-way and that the tree matrix be updated every three years; utilize Mr. Buckley's clarifications on the draft to provide more clarity to the document; provided notification to neighbor for significant public right-of-way construction projects; conduct a study on appropriate pruning methodology and practice to avoid long-term damage to trees; and establish a public-private partnership for tree care to that will be managed by staff and implemented and supported by volunteers. 9-B PLN09-0054 Consideration of a Use Permit to Allow additional Truck Delivery Hours at the Trader Joes Store. The Trader Joes store is requesting use permit approval to allow truck deliveries between the hours of 6:00 AM and 11:00 PM. PLN09-0073 Consideration of a Use Permit to Allow additional Truck Delivery Hours at the Big 5 Sporting Goods Store. The Big 5 Sporting Goods store is requesting use permit approval to allow truck deliveries between the hours of 6:00 AM and 11:00 PM. PLN09-0259 Consideration of a Use Permit to Allow additional Truck Delivery Hours at the Petco Pet Supply Store. The Petco Pet Supply store is requesting use permit approval to allow truck deliveries between the hours of 6:00 AM and 11:00 PM. PLN09-0349 Consideration of a Use Permit to Allow additional Truck Delivery Hours at the Safeway Store. The Safeway Store is requesting use permit approval to allow truck deliveries between the hours of 6:00 AM and 11:00 PM. PLN09-0348 Consideration of a Use Permit to Allow additional Truck Delivery Hours at the Walgreens Store. The Walg… | PlanningBoard/2009-11-09.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2009-11-23.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2009-11-23 | 3 | conditioned, any part of the project not completed by November 30, 2009 requires approval of a new Planned Development application. The applicant is requesting an amendment to this condition to allow the remaining portions of the project to be completed by November 30, 2024. Board member Cunningham and Board member Cook stepped down from consideration of this project due to potential conflicts of interest. Lynch asked whether as a graduate of the school, he should recuse himself. Assistant City Attorney Faiz, stated that this did not constitute a conflict of interest and he could consider the matter before the Board if he felt he would be unbiased. Following a brief discussion, the Board decided not to limit public speakers to less than five minutes. Staff presented the project. President Ezzy Ashcraft asked for clarification on the planned development and use permit conditions and whether a new use permit resolution could supersede conditions of the originally approved resolution. Ms. Faiz confirmed that a new resolution could supersede a previous resolution in its entirety. Board Member Lynch commented on the implications of tolling an approval and how it did not take into account all the variables that go along with a project that is a phased development. Mr. Reed, Master Plan Coordinator for St. Joseph's, spoke in favor of the project and stated that the community has worked diligently to collect the needed funding. However, raising money has been particularly difficult since the downturn in the economy and he discussed efforts undertaken so far to complete the project per the approved Master Plan. He also outlined attempts to involve surrounding neighbors and efforts made to comply with the approved Master Plan. President Ezzy Ashcraft asked for clarification on public outreach efforts. Mr. Reed provided information on outreach efforts and summarized that community concerns they had received centered on tandem parking and security issues regarding building design. Mr. Chu, Principal of St. Joseph's High Scho… | PlanningBoard/2009-11-23.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]) );