body,date,page,text,path
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2006-07-24,1,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
July 24, 2006
Present: Berger, Bunker, Chair Cooney, Fort, Longley-Cook, Lord-Hausman, Kirola, Vice-Chair
Moore (left at 8:15)
Absent/Excused: Crone, Steffens
Guests: None
MINUTES: The minutes of April 24, 2006 were approved with the following corrections: a) ""were
approved"" not ""where approved"" in Minutes section.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Disability Awareness Month Activities.
The commissioners discussed the proposed performance of Axis Dance Company, which is directed
by Molly McFarlane, an Alameda resident. The group will be doing performances in San Francisco
and Oakland, and has asked for a $500 stipend from those cities, but are willing to work with
Alameda on an alternative amount. Concerns about the performance include the weather in October,
what day to have it, ground surface for the dancers if out-of-doors, size of performance area
(preferably 30 feet by 20 feet, but 20 feet by 20 feet would be OK), source of funding for stipend and
other expenses, conflicting events such as Yom Kippur (October 1st), theme, banner proclaiming
""Disability Awareness Month"", if there should be speakers such as the Mayor as well, microphone
and loudspeaker needs, Commissioner and Vice Chairman Moore and Commissioner Lord-Hausman
will speak with Ms. McFarlane, the School District, Parks and Recreation, and Debbie Opperud,
Special Olympics Coach, and will have a full proposal for decision making at the August meeting. In
the interim, comments among commissioners will be circulated through Chair Cooney. Chair
Cooney will speak with Ed Sommerauer to ensure that the proclamation by Council is requested in a
timely manner.
2. Availability of Staff Reports
Staff presented recommendations: Policy changes are the only comments that go directly to Council.
Environmental document comments go to the Planning Department, to be taken under advisement
for their staff comments to Council. Improvement plan comments go to Public Works Department,
to be taken under advisement for their staff comments to Council. The Commission would like to be
on the leading edge of the planning process, not the tail end. As examples, Chair Cooney mentioned
the Washington Dog Park, Webster Street Improvements, and the Theater. There was some question
as",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-07-24.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2006-07-24,2,"Commission on Disability Issues
July 24, 2006
Minutes
Page 2 of 3
to how to present the improvement projects in a way that is accessible to all members, especially
those who cannot see the plan sets. Wooden models are highly appreciated. Sandpaper cutouts on
paperboard are useful for simple drawings.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. Accessibility Policy:
Staff presented certain changes recommended to make the policy more specific. The changes
were met with approval. Staff will make the changes, write up a staff report to accompany it,
and then submit it to Council for their approval. Staff was directed to come up with a budget
to implement the policy, and a source of funding. For example, there should be more
extensive signage of what is available, such as assistive listening devices, in meeting halls.
There should be a standardized statement on all agendas as to what is available at meetings
and in advance of meetings. The agendas and announcements should be available in a variety
of forms - not everyone has access to the city website, or can read the newspaper. There
should be people with disabilities serving on other commissions. The Commissioners
discussed the need to have an ADA expert in each department. Staff informed the
Commission of the intent by Risk Management to hire an accessibility issues staff person,
and the Commissioners expressed interest in being involved in the hiring process, budget,
and accountability related to this new position. The Chair requested that staff provide a copy
of the ADA and Title 24 in Braille, tape, or screen-readable format for himself, and Braille
or tape format for Commissioner Fort.
2. Bayport Park:
There is some concern that there may not be enough accessible toilets for women and
children at Bayport Park. Staff will double check and report back.
3. Events Calendar:
The next concert in Crab Cove is August 11th Commissioners Longley-Cook and Berger
will again attend and offer information, including a flyer from the Transportation and Land
Use Coalition entitled ""Alameda for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities"" They will look
into obtaining large print and Braille copies as well.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Commissioner Langly-Cook attended the Transportation Commission meeting June 29th ,
and, regarding the Towne Centre renovation project. She was pleased to see the
accessibility improvements. Commissioner Lord-Hausman will attend next month, when
South Shore will again be discussed.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-07-24.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2006-07-24,3,"Commission on Disability Issues
July 24, 2006
Minutes
Page 3 of 3
2.
The July 20th edition of the Alameda Sun, mentioned Commissioner Langly-Cook in the
article ""Where the Sidewalk Ends""
3. Commissioner Cooney stated that a policy on construction was passed last March and
sent out to contractors, to the best of his knowledge. He would like staff to double check
this.
4. The Miracle League Baseball group is partnering with Alameda Rotary. The local
representative is Roberta Rockwell. This involves a modified, rubberized field that is
accessible to players with disabilities. They have 300 eligible kids. Catellus has offered
some land, and the Giants and A's are interested in participating. The construction date
is planned for the Spring of 2008. The Commission would like a representative to speak
at their next meeting. Commissioner Lord-Hausman will follow up, and request that Ms.
Rockwell be allowed to speak as the first item of business.
5. Commissioner Steffans has not attended the last few meetings. Chair Cooney will ask
for her resignation.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, August 28, 2006 in
Room 360, City Hall.
Sincerely,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Laurie Kozisek
Associate Civil Engineer
LK:lc
G:\pubworks\LT\MCD Disability Committee/2006\724min.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, July 24, 2006
1.
CONVENE:
7:07 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member Mariani
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice-President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft,
Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani and McNamara.
Also present were Assistant City Attorney Donna Mooney, Planning Services Manager Andrew
Thomas, Planner III Douglas Garrison and Executive Assistant Latisha Jackson.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of July 10, 2006
Member McNamara noted that in Oral Communications at the beginning of the meeting, the
comments she made supporting a public forum to discuss the pros and cons of putting Measure A on
the ballot were not referenced in the minutes. She would like to have those comments inserted in the
minutes.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 4, paragraph 3, should be changed to read, ""Member Ezzy
Ashcraft Kohlstrand-noted that the City Charter stated that the Planning Board may have power to
investigate and recommend.
""
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the Charter was more specific than that, and stated that the
""Planning Board shall have such powers and duties. ""
Member Kohlstrand noted that page 11, paragraph 6, should be changed to read, ""Member
Kohlstrand commended staff and commended Catellus for their work, and believed the project was
getting to the point where it was close to being a fairly good Measure A-compliant project for this
site. This would be one of the best Measure A-compliant proposals Alameda had seen.
Member Kohlstrand noted that page 11, paragraph 6, should be changed to read, ""She believed this
plan did not reflect reflected what the citizens of Alameda desired because it did not address the land
use and density issues.'
Member Kohlstrand noted that page 11, paragraph 6, should be changed to read, ""She continued to
advocate the alternative for the purposes of advancing the land use and parking discussion with
respect to Measure A.""
Member Kohlstrand noted that page 12, paragraph 4, should be changed to read, ""Member
Kohlstrand noted that she preferred public streets, and though she understand that there was a
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,2,"maintenance benefit to private streets, she still preferred the public streets.""
Vice President Cook noted that page 4, paragraph 2, should be changed to read, ""Vice President
Cook noted the Board discussed Measure A many times in relationship to projects before us, and
believed that the issue was being brought forth by the citizens because City leadership was not
discussing it at this time.""
M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Kohlstrand to approve the minutes for the meeting of July 10, 2006, as amended.
AYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Mariani)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cunningham advised that a speaker slip had been received for Item 8-B.
M/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to move item 8-B to the regular agenda.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
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,2006-07-24,4,"8-A
Proposed Recommendation to Rename Tinker Avenue to Willie Stargell Avenue (DV).
President Cunningham advised that a speaker slip in favor of Item 8-A had been received.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Diane Lichtenstein, 633 Sand Hook, spoke in support of renaming Tinker Avenue to Willie
Stargell Avenue. She noted that streets available for renaming had been included in the staff report,
and she suggested that in keeping with community street name conventions (flowers on Bay Farm
Island, and bird names in Harbor Bay), the residential streets in the grid be considered to be renamed
in a similar fashion.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed that the Historical Advisory Board was responsible for street naming,
rather than the Planning Board.
Mr. Thau noted that the Historic Advisory Board could place street names on the list, and the
Planning Board could recommend to City Council whether the name was appropriate for the street.
M/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-24 to
recommend to Council to rename Tinker Avenue to Willie Stargell Avenue.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,5,"8-B.
PD06-0001 and DR06-0054 - Habitat for Humanity - 626 Buena Vista Ave. (DG). The
applicant requests approval of Planned Development and Major Design Review applications
allowing the construction of eight new dwelling units consisting of four two-story duets on a lot
previously used as a carwash. The project site is zoned R4-PD Neighborhood Residential
District-Planned Development Zoning District. (Applicant requests continuance to the
meeting of August 14, 2006).
M/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to move item 8-B to the regular agenda.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Jackie Keenan, 617 Pacific Avenue, noted that several neighbors had concerns about this project,
and inquired about a neighborhood meeting. Mr. Garrison stated that he believed it would be held
Monday, July 31, 2006. Ms. Keenan supported a neighborhood meeting so the neighbors may discuss
their concerns.
The public hearing was closed.
Item continued to the meeting of August 14, 2006.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,6,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
GPA06-01, MPA06-01, DP06-01, EIR06-01-Catellus Mixed Use Development (AT). The
applicant requests approval of a General Plan, Master Plan and Development Agreement
Amendments and certification of an EIR to replace 1,300,000 square feet of approved but not yet
constructed office and research and development uses with 400,000 square feet of office use,
300,000 square feet of retail shopping use, 20,000 square feet of health club, and up to 300
residential units. The site is located in the MX (Mixed Use) Zoning District which is located
south of the Oakland Alameda Estuary, north of the College of Alameda and the Bayport
Residential Project, east of Coast Guard Housing, and west of Webster Street.
Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report, thanked the Planning Board members for the edits and
changes that they provided and recommended that the Planning Board hold a public hearing, review
pertinent information and forward this item to the City Council.
Ms. Karen Auschler, SMWM, design consultant, continued the presentation and discussed the
amendments to the Master Plan.
Mr. Marcus addressed the Board and thanked them for their time and impact and reiterated that the
plan is Measure A-compliant and CEQA-compliant. He explained why a vote was needed at this
Planning Board meeting.
President Cunningham noted that more than five speaker slips had been received.
M/S Kohlstrand/Lynch and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. John Knox White, Chair, Transportation Commission, distributed a document to the Board and
summarized its contents. The memo requested that streets and intersections not be widened, that
speed limits be limited to 25 mph, all EIRs include an analysis of the effects of the project on the
City's transit, pedestrian and bicycle environment, including the surrounding areas.
Mr. Thomas advised that the Public Works Department had submitted comments on the
Transportation Commission's recommendations.
Mr. Ed Clark. President, Board of Directors, West Alameda Business Association (WABA), 1553
Webster Street, spoke in favor of this item, and complimented the applicants in working with
residents and businesspeople in the surrounding neighborhood. He emphasized that because the
provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) are consistent with City goals, they asked
the Planning Board and City Council to continue to incorporate the terms of the MOU in the Master
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,7,"Plan and other agreements negotiated by the City with respect to the development of Alameda
Landing.
Mr. Sandip Jariwala, WABA, 1628 Webster Street, spoke in favor of this item, and believed the
project provided good visibility for West Alameda. He believed it was critical that the terms that had
been agreed to would be enforced in the future.
Mr. Michael Krueger, 2145 Santa Clara Avenue, Apt. E, was pleased to see the Planning Board's
recommendations included in the staffreport. He addressed the issue of the staff report (page 13, Part
K, #4) regarding landscaping, and did not want the shade to be sacrificed. He noted that the larger
long-term issue is consistency with Alameda Point transportation strategy and addressed the
possibility of a lift bridge for pedestrians and bicyclist.
Mr. Jermaine Garrett and Ronald (Luhar), Alameda Boys and Girls Club, both spoke in favor of this
item, and noted that Alameda Landing would provide the opportunity for part-time jobs for students.
He was in favor of being able to walk to work.
Ms. Roberta Rockwell, Miracle League, 1322 Sherman Street, spoke in favor of this item, and
described the Miracle League baseball team. She noted that Dan Marcus and Catellus had donated an
acre of land for use by the Miracle League team that is near parking and the waterfront. She invited
the Board to attend their opening day.
Mr. George Phillips, Director, Alameda Boys and Girls Club, PO Box 1069, spoke in favor of this
item, and suggested that the buildings have air conditioning. He noted that the original Boys and Girls
Club had a presence in this area of Alameda Landing for many years. He noted that the Club members
needed jobs within walking distance of the Club and encouraged the Board to keep that in mind going
forward. He noted that he had a previous career in retail, and had a sense of the challenge faced by
Catellus to nail down commitments from desirable retailers.
Mr. Jim McPhee, Cushman & Wakefield, 924 Grosvenor, Oakland, representing Clif Bar, spoke in
favor of this item. He noted that he had reviewed several attractive proposals for Clif Bar and added
that the Catellus proposal was very compelling, particularly with respect to sustainability. He noted
that the LEED-certified building was very attractive, and complimented the applicants on their
environmental sustainability.
Mr. Barry Cohn, BT Commercial, 555 - 12th Street, Oakland, spoke in favor of this item and noted
that he had worked on this project with Catellus for about 10 years.
Mr. Italo Calpestri, 1504 Park Street, spoke in favor of this item. He believed this project improved
the retail emphasis at the north end of Webster Street, making a waterfront destination on the Estuary
a very important part of this concept. He supported the additional retail for Alameda residents in this
area, and noted that it should reduce retail leakage in Alameda.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,8,"Mr. Jim Franz, 1320 Walnut, spoke in favor of this item. He believed this project would be a
wonderful opportunity for the West End residents, both as a destination for Bay Area residents and
for an opportunity for jobs in the retail sector.
Ms. Alice Garvin, 1717 Dayton, spoke in favor of this item and was pleased to see the City and the
Navy moving forward.
Ms. Cathy Leong, 48 Kara Road, spoke in favor of this item and supported the previous speakers'
statements. She noted that Catellus had been very responsive to the Planning Board's concerns
throughout this project. She believed this project would attract new residents and shoppers to the
West
End, and should prevent further retail leakage. She noted that the waterfront as it currently
stands is blighted, and believed this project would change that.
Mr. Glen Schimelpeenig spoke in favor of this item, and believed this project would alleviate the
current blight on the West End.
Mr. Bill Garvine, 2828 Marina Drive, spoke in favor of this item as a resident. He thanked Catellus
for the many opportunities he and his family had enjoyed to provide public input into this process and
final design. He supported the opportunity for retail leakage to be reduced. As a youth baseball coach,
he was particularly grateful for the inclusion of Miracle League.
President Cunningham noted that his family members had been recipients of Mr. Garvine's coaching
skills.
Mr. Irv Hamilton, 420 Cola Ballena, spoke in favor of this item. He noted that Catellus was a public
relations client of his, but was speaking on behalf of a friend, Victor Jin. Mr. Jin had submitted a letter
to the Planning Board, which he read into the record:
""To All Members of the Planning Board:
Please support the proposed revisions to the Catellus Mixed Use development project known
as Alameda Landing. The original plan was ideal for that time period and real estate market.
However, the real estate market has changed dramatically, especially the demand for office
space. The proposed revisions make more economic sense and bring more of a balance of
what the City and its citizens need, with a better mix of office, retail and more housing. Your
""yes"" vote on the proposed revisions will be greatly appreciated.""
Mr. Ashley Jones, 1040 Fair Oaks Avenue, asked if there were limits on square footage on the big
buildings at the project site. He expressed concern that if there was no square footage limit, a big box
store such as a WalMart may be placed there.
Ms. Gail Wetlork, submitted a speaker slip, but did not speak.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,9,"Ms. Diane Lichtenstein, 633 Sand Hook, spoke in favor of this item, and applauded Catellus on its
proposal. She echoed the other comments, and reminded the board of the Webster Street linkage, and
of the West End's importance.
Mr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, Park Street Business Association, spoke in favor of this item.
He described the background of this project, and supported moving forward with this process.
Ms. Barbara Mooney, business owner, 1421 San Antonio, spoke in favor of this item and noted she
was very impressed with Catellus' proposal. She believed Clif Bar was the kind of corporate citizen
Alameda should be working with.
Ms. Kathy Wagner, Mariner Square Athletic Club/Spotlight on the Square, business owner, 2227
Mariner Square Loop, spoke in favor of this item. She looked forward to being able to shop at
Alameda Landing, and noted that she was looking forward to opening a new club at that location. She
noted that Catellus had met nearly all of the City's requests.
Ms. Diana Thomas, Acting General Manager Mariner Square Athletic Club, 2227 Mariner Square
Loop, spoke in favor of this item, and noted that Catellus had treated them as a true partner. She
supported Catellus' environmental responsibility.
Ms. Sandy Berry, Cornish & Carey Commercial, 2804 Mission College Blvd. #120, Santa Clara,
spoke in favor of this item and noted the were the leasing agent for this Catellus project. She noted
that they were passionate about the vision of the proposed project and the retail activity; she believed
this was a truly visionary project that the City could be proud of. She described the live/work/play
nature of this mixed used project that would be a gathering place in Alameda.
Ms. Gretchen Lipow, 2242 San Antonio, inquired about the buildings listed in the plan on Fifth and
Moseley and wanted to make sure big structures weren't going in. She was quite concerned about the
aesthetic impacts of that possibility, which only used the first floor for functionality. She was
concerned about the traffic and aesthetic issues.
Ms. Pat Bail hoped the applicant planned to plant all the trees mentioned in the presentation. She
wished to discuss the issue of the open space where it appears Tinker Ave. is encroaching on the open
space near the College of Alameda baseball field. She hoped that while the final contract with the
College is being worked out, that the Alameda Youth Football League use that practice field, along
with the new artificial turf field. She believed that the College's open space was an important asset.
She suggested that the project contain two soccer fields, two baseball fields and one football field.
She inquired whether this project would be redone because of the lowered residential demand. She
noted that if this was a walled community, she suggested that be re-examined due to the negative
impact of Bayport being walled off from the rest of the community. She noted that this item is
Measure A compliant, and she urged the Planning Board to consider that was a Charter amendment
passed in 1973 to protect the Victorians and prevent high density in town. She inquired about the
extra space that remained when the number of homes was reduced.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,10,"Ms. Helen Sause, 816 Grand Street, spoke in favor of this project. She wished to address the
circulation of the shuttle, and did not believe the shuttle should just bring people to bus stops; she
believed the shuttle should run the length of Webster Street, which would enliven the retail shops. She
hoped that the ongoing dialogue between the public, the Planning Board, the Developer and staff
would continue for a project this size.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in favor of this item. He echoed the comments of
Mr. Knox White, Mr. Krueger and Ms. Sause. He supported placing showers in each office building
for those who bike to work. He inquired whether the TDM manager would be a full-time, permanent
job. He inquired whether there would be wake control and protection for the waterfront plaza. He
emphasized the importance of a zero net energy use design throughout the project for the LEED
certification.
Mr. Hadi Monsef, Alameda Association of Realtors, PO Box 1353, spoke in favor of this item and
noted that the AAR unanimously endorsed this project.
Mr. Walt Jacobs, 28 Balleybay, immediate past president of Alameda Chamber of Commerce, spoke
in favor of this item, which he believed would be a great asset to the City.
Ms. Anita Ng, 1529 Webster Street, spoke in favor of this item and hoped this project would bring
more shoppers to the West End of Alameda.
Ms. Melody Marr, CEO, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, 1416 Park Avenue, noted that the
Chamber supported this project wholeheartedly. She appreciated the applicant's willingness to listen
carefully to the residents and surrounding business owners. She noted that the Chamber of Commerce
president could not attend, and she read the comments into the record:
""Dear Members of the Planning Board,
As a representative of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, I would like to express our strong
support for the Alameda Landing project in its current form. We believe this project offers
tremendous benefits to the people of Alameda, as well as an attractive site for new businesses.
The project is already bringing commercial tenants that will offer a substantial positive
economic impact to the City of Alameda. This type of waterfront development is a giant step
in developing our blighted waterfront areas into multiuse spaces that will benefit the entire
community. I urge you to vote your approval of the project now to avoid any further delays in
the development process. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Rich Warren, President
Alameda Chamber of Commerce""
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,11,"She noted that she also had an email from Patty Jacobs, a member who could not be present at this
meeting, who as a member of GABA wholeheartedly supported this project. She noted the names of
other members who did not wish to speak: Bruce Reeves (Reeves & Seidler), Barbara Marchand
(Marchand & Associates), Gale Wetlork, Allison Bliss (Allison Bliss Consulting), Renée Kellogg (RK
Promotions) and Bernie Matthews (a retired police chief). She and the aforementioned people urged
the Planning Board to certify the EIR and to grant all necessary approvals for this project in order to
forward it to the City Council.
Ms. Marilyn Schumacher, 1829 Clinton, spoke in favor of this item. She wished to bring the
""freeway"" of the Estuary to the Board's attention, and noted that an effective town dock, such as in
Sausalito, could be an economic boon to the City.
Ms. Barbara Price, PK Consultants, spoke in favor of this item, and noted that she worked with
Catellus on this project. She read the following letter into the record in favor of this item:
""Honorable Planning Board members:
I am writing as a resident and homeowner in Alameda for the last five years. During this time,
I have observed the tedious process required for some projects to receive approval, and speak
with others through out governmental approval process. I would like to suggest that the
degree of rigor with which projects are recommended and approved related to the factors
independent of whether there is a community concern, and whether it fits into Alameda's
plans and goals.
I have just finished reading the draft EIR for the Alameda Landing project. The project has
changed due to the market conditions, and the changes will generate more housing and
commercial space, more recreation areas and additional revenues to Alameda through the sale
of acreage to afford the additional housing. All projects respond to the best knowledge
available for the future. If they did not, many more would fail. It appears consistent with the
City's goals and additional housing, in particular affordable housing, and provides additional
jobs, as well as a semi-self-contained community, like what is being planned for at Alameda
Point. I would provide more retail and commercial options for current residents of Alameda,
as well as making our City more robust economically.
We all know that the longer the planning process, the more expensive the project, and
frequently, the end result is less than originally projected and planned. In time, we are
competing internationally for building materials, additional time, costs, money, and we have
seen every major project undertaken.
As someone who is deeply concerned about the environment, it appears that the
environmental issues are handled well. New State standards establish requirements for news
buildings and the conservation of energy, or to put it in the other way, require less energy use.
Let us put an underused asset to work in the near future. I am encouraging you to give this
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,12,"project your approval.
Yours truly,
Stanley M. Shipman
Norwich Road""
Ms. Price read the following letter into the record:
""Ladies and gentlemen:
I am a real estate broker who has worked in the Bay Area for almost 20 years. I have watched
with interest these last few years the development of new retail in Alameda. In fact, Bruce
Knopf invited me to be a speaker for a presentation on retail in Alameda citywide retail
strategy a few years ago. I believed at the time, and still do, that Alameda can have it all. In
our business there is a thing called synergy. Because of retail's organic nature, the synergy
created within a shopping center and/or retail center is an important component in what
makes shopping interesting and exciting.
I urge the Planning Board and City Council to support Alameda Landing EIR. This will afford
an opportunity for additional quality retail to be built in conjunction with the other shopping
areas of Alameda will offer citizens a quality of life than can become the highlight of the Bay
Area.
Christine Furstenberg
Metrovation Brokerage""
Ms. Tracy Jensen, 3112 Gibbons Drive, spoke in favor of this item. She complimented the Board's
oversight of this process, and Catellus on its responsiveness and commitment to green building
standards. She believed this project would give children a good chance to see Alameda's heritage as
an island city.
Ms. Lorre Zuppan, 2986 Southwood Drive, spoke in favor of this item. She noted she was a member
of the Economic Development Commission, and was also speaking as a private citizen. She had voted
for this project as a member of the EDC, and lauded Catellus for the concessions it made on behalf of
public spaces. She believed Clif Bar would be an excellent tenant, and did not wish to lose them to
delays.
Mr. David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern
that the artist renderings would not resemble the project when built. He was hesitant about the
classification of Mixed Use, and inquired why each area was not classified separately (Residential,
Office, Open Space, etc.). He was concerned that the Mixed Use classification would become a grab
bag. He didn't believe the green space would be big enough for children to play.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,13,"Mr. Richard Lyons, Wordel Rosen Black & Dean on behalf of Clif Bar, 18 Shannon Circle, spoke in
favor of this item. Clif Bar liked the concept of reusing a building, and that its LEED certification was
an important aspect of the design. He noted that the Mixed Use zoning was a critical aspect of the
project would give employees things to do before and after work. He appreciated the general
community support, and added that it would be important to Clif Bar to move forward on this
project.
Mr. Seth Hamalian, 3333 Fernside Blvd., spoke in favor of this item. He complimented Catellus on
their quality as a partner with the City as a result of partnerships in other cities that he has
experienced. He acknowledged residents' concerns about moving forward before every detail has
been finalized, and believed that Catellus has provided a great deal of interaction and positive
reflection of residents' feedback in developing this project.
Mr. Sam Koka, 802 Pacific, submitted a speaker slip, but was not in attendance to speak.
Ms. Sherri Steig, Executive Director, West Alameda Business Association, PO Box 215, spoke in
favor of this item. She asked that the WABA MOU with Catellus be integrated into the project.
WABA believed that the BART shuttle should be included in the Master Plan. She noted that new
retail should strengthen existing retail; that the City should strengthen the role of Alameda's main
street districts as the City's concentration of specialty shops; and that new retail should not have
significant long-term deleterious affects on existing retail.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Cunningham called a five-minute recess.
President Cunningham wished to address certain questions and asked staff to address conditions of
retail. He noted that it had been the City's preference not to have walled communities, and added that
the walls in Bayport were required by an EIR.
Mr. Thomas noted that there were no sound walls planned for the project. He noted that there was a
limit on the total amount of retail in the project to minimize impacts on Webster Street.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the Board's role in the Tinker project,
Mr. Thomas replied that the first two lanes of the Tinker Extension Project had been built already.
The City's plan was to continue that extension so that a new intersection at Webster Street would be
created. He described the layout of the extension and noted that it was a separate project than the
Catellus project before the Board.
Vice President Cook noted that she had provided very detailed comments to staff and that some of
her comments were not included. She noted that the Master Plan did not include the Miracle League
field, nor did it include anything requiring a water taxi. She added that there was nothing requiring a
shopping center in Subarea 3. She wanted to ensure that all the details were included in the document.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,14,"She believed there was some retreat from the language requiring a mix of uses, and noted that page 9
should include ""residential uses"" along the water's edge. She would like ""up to 50,000 square feet of
additional waterfront retail uses in the commercial area"" to read 'a minimum of 50,000 square feet of
additional waterfront retail uses in the commercial area.""
Dan Marcus addressed Vice President Cook's concerns, and noted that they were concerned about
making a specific commitment regarding specific numbers of residential uses along the waterfront.
Based on working with their waterfront consultant, months of work within the community and with
staff, and listening respectfully to Vice President Cook's request for a specific number of residential
units on the waterfront, they believed that the Master Plan's language to allow residential on the
waterfront in the future, but not require a specific number of units was the most appropriate
compromise.
President Cunningham suggested that the ability to permit residential should be included in the
language.
Member Lynch suggested adding the wording ""commercial and residential"" without specifying a
certain number of residential units.
Member Kohlstrand noted that she had been overwhelmed by the amount of documentation
accompanying this project, and was impressed by the favorable public testimony. She expressed
concern about the street cross sections, and hoped for an extension to the other streets. She would
like to have a forum where the transportation issues in the Master Plan could be addressed in more
detail.
Member McNamara's expressed concern about the parking issue. She would like to see some sort of
parking structure, or would like to make some open space as an option if the parking spaces were not
required. She expressed concern about the circulation or transportation flow, and how it will integrate
with current Webster Street traffic.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that this was a very exciting project, but added that the project should
not be rushed because of Clif Bar's deadline without ensuring it was the highest quality project
possible. She was strongly concerned about parking, and did not believe the design team had been as
responsive to the Board's concerns as in other areas. She would like a better solution to the parking
issue. She did not want the parking areas to resemble an asphalt jungle, and was very concerned about
the aesthetic elements of this project. She noted that if there were a modification in Measure A, there
could be more residential over retail incorporated into the current plan.
Vice President Cook shared the concerns about parking, and how the project could be a true mixed
use project. She believed Subareas 2 and 3 should have 100% second story mixed use, as opposed to
50 percent. She was also concerned about the height of the project, especially the 85-foot office
buildings, which would be higher than anything in the mainland of Alameda.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,15,"Member Mariani noted that she was impressed with the support of this project by both the residents
and the business organizations. She had long wanted to this kind of project to come to the West End
to bring vibrance and life back to that area, and would like to see the blight in the area to be replaced
with positive uses.
Given the late hour, Member Lynch believed it would be detrimental to wordsmith the document, and
that the larger issues should be addressed and resolved.
President Cunningham noted that he had concerns about the heights of the buildings, and would like
further information in that regard. He emphasized that this Master Plan was a framework, and that it
was important to build flexibility into the plan. He would like to see some residential on the
waterfront, but would like to know more about its implications.
Member Mariani did not believe that the waterfront would be an appropriate place for residential,
given the noise level from the Oakland ports.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed that the language should be inclusive rather than exclusive, allowing
the issues to be revisited at a later time.
With respect to street cross-sections, Member Kohlstrand wanted to ensure the relationship between
the transit and bike lanes were clarified.
Member Lynch appreciated the work done by WABA, and appreciated Member Kohlstrand's
comments. He believed care should be taken when specific numbers are mentioned, and that the
overall goal should be kept in mind; he did not want the goals to compete, and for them to enhance
each other.
Mr. Thomas noted that the plan did not currently require parking structures.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the location of the parking areas were not yet known, and that not
every allotted space needs to be a structure. She noted that where the view mattered, she would
prefer to see a parking structure rather than a parking lot. President Cunningham noted that the
design requirement was to reduce the amount of asphalted area; he did not want to advocate parking
structures to the exclusion of other options.
Member Lynch noted that retailers and office tenants would have certain parking requirements, which must
be addressed. He believed that having the parking area more fractured would be a more desirable solution.
Mr. Thomas confirmed the Board's request for guidelines regarding the review of parking in the final
Development Review, and strengthening the guidelines on spreading the parking lots out.
Mr. Marcus thanked the Board members for their comments, and agreed with Member McNamara's
suggestion to turn uncommitted parking areas into open space. He proposed that the current section in the
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,16,"Master Plan regarding the street plans remain the same, but suggested conditions be added as follows:
""these conditions are subject to refinements of the sidewalks or additional street parking based on further
study.
Member Lynch stated that the Board would like to explore the opportunity of putting housing above all
retail, which he believed was a legitimate question, not a Measure A debate. He noted that it would change
the look of the project dramatically, and would affect the required parking.
Member Mariani agreed with Mr. Marcus' statement that some tenants may want only a one-story
building, such as PF Chang's
Member Kohlstrand appreciated what Vice President Cook was trying to achieve, but would feel more
comfortable with more flexibility in the goals with respect to at least 50 percent second story mixed use.
President Cunningham suggested that language be included to encourage as much mixed use as possible.
M/S Lynch/Cook and unanimous to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Mr. Thomas noted that with respect to the 100-foot height limit for waterfront buildings, it had been
reduced to 85 feet. Mr. Marcus noted that the current Master Plan stated that buildings up to five stories
could be built, and they had no intent to do more than that. The 85-foot limit was stated because some
tenants may want to have a raised floor building.
Member Kohlstrand believed it was important to frame the open space.
With respect to R&D, Mr. Thomas noted that the Tinker Extension was crucial for the lower 250,000
square foot retail center. If the City could not complete the extension, Variant B would be explored, which
would include plans for some retail and some R&D or a complete swap-out of R&D in that subarea.
Mr. Thomas noted Vice President Cook's comments regarding the 50% requirement, and noted that it was
always staff's intent that in the nodes, at least 50% of the buildings had second floor uses. He added that
more could be added, but that the City wished to have a required minimum.
Vice President Cook noted that while she appreciated all the public comments, she would not vote to
approve this item. She did not feel comfortable that the required details were in place with respect to the
qualitative character of this project at this time. She did not question Mr. Marcus' level of commitment, but
was uneasy about possible change in developers over time that may then result in changes to the project.
M/S Mariani/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No.'s, PB-06-25, PB-06-26, PB-06-27, PB-
06-28, PB-06-29 and PB-06-30, to approve GPA06-01, MPA06-01, DP06-01, EIR06-01 for the
Catellus Mixed Use Development including a General Plan, Master Plan and Development Agreement
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,17,"Amendments and certification of an EIR to replace 1,300,000 square feet of approved but not yet
constructed office and research and development uses with 400,000 square feet of office use, 300,000
square feet of retail shopping use, 20,000 square feet of health club, and up to 300 residential units.
AYES - 6; NOES - 1 (Cook); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 17
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,18,"9-B.
R06-0001, FDP05-0005, UP05-0022 and DR - Harbor Bay, Storage LLC - 500
Maitland Drive (DG). The applicant requests approval of Rezoning, Final Development
Plan, Use Permit and Major Design Review applications allowing the expansion of an existing
recreational vehicle and self-storage facility. The existing facility includes 115 recreational
vehicle parking spaces, 48,510 square feet of self-storage space and a 2,100 square foot office
and manager's unit. The proposed expansion would add 4.41 acres and include 70 additional
recreational vehicle parking spaces and 30,756 additional square feet of self-storage space.
The entire project site is designated as Commercial Recreation on the City of Alameda
General Plan. The existing facility is zoned CM-PD Commercial Manufacturing-Planned
Development District. The expansion area is currently zoned O Open Space. The rezoning
request to CM-PD Commercial Manufacturing-Planned Development District, is consistent
with the General Plan and current land use patterns.
Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report and recommended approval of this item.
Member Lynch noted that this project was a good example of what the industrial lands were intended
for, and added that he would have some difficulty in rezoning industrial land for residential purposes
here.
Member McNamara noted that she had concerns about screening of the site and noted that she did
not want to see a lot of RVs and big parking lots, but aesthetically pleasing to the business park
area. Member Mariani noted that she did not want to see a lot of RVs and parking areas.
The public hearing was opened.
David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, noted that he did not want to see an RV park at the corner of
the neighborhood.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Garrison noted that there were extensive setbacks: 50 feet from Harbor Bay Parkway and 20 feet
from Maitland. The expansion area was inside of that area, and a landscaped eight-foot high fence
would be built around the perimeter of the facility.
Vice President Cook did not believe the landscaping was landscaped well enough, and that the
screening on Viewpoint 3 looked like fabric on a fence. Mr. Garrison noted that it was not mature and
dense enough yet.
Member Lynch suggested that the language requiring maintenance of the mature landscaping be
changed to specify ""within three years, premiere landscaping will be maintained at the height of 10
feet, such that from Viewpoint 2, per the photos, the landscaping is at that 10-foot height in three
years.""
Planning Board Minutes
Page 18
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,19,"M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Cook to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-31to approve the
Rezoning, Final Development Plan, Use Permit and Major Design Review applications allowing the
expansion of an existing recreational vehicle and self-storage facility. The existing facility includes 115
recreational vehicle parking spaces, 48,510 square feet of self-storage space and a 2, 100 square foot
office and manager's unit. The proposed expansion would add 4.41 acres and include 70 additional
recreational vehicle parking spaces and 30,756 additional square feet of self-storage space. The entire
project site is designated as Commercial Recreation on the City of Alameda General Plan.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 19
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-24,20,"10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
This item was continued.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding potential future Planning Board Measure A Forum
(President Cunningham).
This item was continued.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).
This item was continued.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
This item was continued.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
This item was continued.
12.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
This item was continued.
13.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Caths Woodbury
Cathy Woödbury, Secretary
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the August 14, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 20
July 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf