body,date,page,text,path
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2006-10-23,1,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
October 23, 2006
PRESENT: Berger, Bunker, Longley-Cook, Chair Cooney, Lord-Hausman, Vice-Chair Moore
ABSENT/EXCUSED: Fort, Kirola
GUESTS: Stefany Pittman, City Manager Debra Kurita
City Manager Debra Kurita introduced herself to the Commission, gave a background of her career
and education, and thanked the Commissioners for volunteering their time. Chair Ed Cooney and
the Commissioners then expressed their concerns, especially the lack of pedestrian access along the
existing Oak Street sidewalk at the proposed parking garage site. The Commissioners suggested
making Oak Street a one-way street or removal of parking on the west side temporarily in order to
accommodate pedestrians adjacent to the construction site. The Secretary informed the Commission
that traffic implications to the neighboring streets and turning restrictions onto Central Avenue and
Santa Clara Avenue from Oak Street would need to be assessed. The Secretary informed the
Commission that the City has hired a new Assistant Risk Manager, Lucretia Akil, who will also be
the City's ADA coordinator and that their concerns should be presented to her.
MINUTES: The minutes of September 25, 2006 were approved with the following corrections: 1)
New Business Item #3, Press Release - change ""met"" to ""meet"", and 2) New Business, Item #4,
Alameda Hospital Health Fair, change ""Commissioner's Adrienne Longley-Cook and Audrey Lord-
Hausman
will contact to ""Commissioner's Adrienne Longley-Cook and Toby Berger will staff
the table at the event"".
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Internet Service Rates and Speed.
Tabled because interested Alameda resident Ms. Marylouise Lambert was not in attendance
at the meeting.
2. Audible Traffic Signals
Tabled because interested Alameda resident Ms. Marylouise Lambert was not in attendance
at the meeting.
3. In-pavement Lights at Various Crosswalk Locations
The proposed secretary discussed the in-pavement crosswalk light construction plans with",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-10-23.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2006-10-23,2,"Commission on Disability Issues
October 23,2006
2006 Minutes
Page 2
Commission. The proposed locations are: a) Park Street at Pacific Avenue, b) Park Street at
Webb Avenue/Times Way, c) Park Street mid-street crosswalk between Santa Clara Avenue
and Central, and d) Webster Street at Taylor Avenue. Commissioner Adrienne Longley-
Cook asked why the locations selected for the inpavement lights were only along Park Street
and Webster Street. In particular she questioned why locations at Shore Line Drive and
Willow Street were not selected. The Secretary informed the Commission that the project is
grant funded and that these locations cannot be changed. The Secretary will forward
suggested location to staff for future consideration. Commissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman
stated that the community needs to be better informed on the intent and purpose of the
lighted crosswalks, that they should not be treated like a crosswalk at a traffic signal. A
suggestion was made that AP&T CATV Channel 31 be used as an outreach and training aid.
Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook stated that some of the lights at the Eighth
Street/Portola Street lighted crosswalk are not working. The Secretary will inform
Maintenance staff.
4. Pedestrian Access during Construction of Parking Garage:
See minutes under Guest above for comments of pedestrian access. Commissioner
Adrienne Longley-Cook stated that pedestrians, including a large number of high school
students, are walking in the middle of Oak Street and not using the open west side sidewalk.
Motion carried to recommend that temporary access be provided for safe access on the east
side of Oak Street.
OLD BUSINESS:
5. Cineplex Theater:
The Secretary reviewed the Cineplex building plans with the Commission. Most of the
eleven suggestions by the Commission's October 24, 2005 have been included in the design.
Commissioner Charles Bunker was still concerned that disabled seating locations were too
close to the screen. The Secretary informed Mr. Bunker that these locations are the standard
locations for a stadium seating style Cineplex. Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook
stated that there was an insufficient number of assisted living devices provided for each
auditorium. The Secretary will contact the architect to discuss how the numbers of assisted
living devices was determined. The Secretary assumes that they conform to ADA standards.
6. Alameda Hospital Health Fair:
Commission will have a table at the fair.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-10-23.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2006-10-23,3,"Commission on Disability Issues
October 23,2006
2006 Minutes
Page 3
7. Alameda Youth Collaborative:
Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook informed the Commission about the Collaborative
questionnaire informational slip which will be included in the Collaborative 10th year time
capsule. The Commission moved that the following information will be provided in the time
capsule: 1) Name - Commission on Disability Issues; 2) Size - The number will be based on
the 1996 census report, 10,000 disabled and 2006 census report, 12,500; 3) Benefits -
informing various City and Civic groups on the needs of the disabled community. Making
groups and agencies aware of accessibility needs to all public events; and 4) include photos
of the City Hall parking lot ramp and the Park Street/Santa Clara Avenue intersection
countdown pedestrian signal.
8. Press Release:
Chair Ed Cooney reviewed the October Disability Awareness month press release.
Commission approved without corrections.
9. Assembly Bill 1234-Ethics - Training: (Secretary)
The Commission moved for a special meeting on November 13th at 7:30 p.m. to take the
ethics training and exam. Secretary to reserve City Hall Room 360.
10. Status of Accommodation Recommendations:
Tabled. Policy recommendations to be part of Assistant Risk Manager/ADA coordinator's
transition plan.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Vice-Chair Jody Moore would like to have the Albany School District Superintendent
address the Commission at a future meeting on the districts blue ribbon Commission on
Autism.
2. Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook informed the Commission that the Santa Clara
Convention Center will be hosting its annual Disability Exposition on November 3-5th
3. Commission Audrey Lord-Hausman stated that she will be attending a luncheon given by the
International Council of Shopping Centers that will include a guest speaker on ""Changes in
ADA'.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-10-23.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2006-10-23,4,"Commission on Disability Issues
October 23,2006
2006 Minutes
Page 4
4. Commissioner Charles Bunker informed the Commission; a) that the shrubs that where
protruding into the pedestrian/bike path along Constitution Way have been trimmed, and b)
the Red Cross will be meeting this Tuesday on the Disaster Registry program.
5.
Commissioner Toby Berger informed the Commission that Disability Sports USA has
opened a baseball field, which was made possible through many contributions. The
information will be forwarded to Ms. Roberta Rockwell via Audrey Lord-Hausman.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, November 27th, 2006
in Room 360, City Hall. A special meeting for ethics training will be held on November 13th, , room
to be determined.
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Ed Sommerauer
Associate Civil Engineer
ES:lc
G:\pubworks\LT\MCD Disability Committee/2006\1023min.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, October 23, 2006
1.
CONVENE:
7:04 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member Mariani
3.
ROLL CALL:
Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft,
Kohlstrand, Mariani and McNamara.
President Lynch was absent.
Also present were Assistant City Attorney Donna Mooney, Planning Services Manager
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, and Planner III Douglas
Garrison.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of October 9, 2006
Member Kohlstrand noted that in the vote at the bottom of page 12 to extend the meeting,
Member Mariani is listed as abstaining. She recalled that she voted against the motion,
and noted that the vote should read: ""AYES - 6; NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0.""
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of October
9, 2006, as amended.
AYES - 6 (Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
Acting President Cunningham noted that staff requested that Item 8-C be heard after Item
8-A.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to hear Item 8-C after Item 8-A.
AYES - 6 (Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Susan Pieper noted that she had received a notice about proposed exterior
modifications for part of Alameda Towne Centre, referring to the old Walgreen's to Ross
and Petco. She noted that it had been reviewed by the Planning & Building Department
for architectural design prior to building permit approval. She urged the City to bring this
issue before the Planning Board for discussion, in order to avoid a piecemeal approach to
Alameda Towne Centre.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,2,"Ms. Dorothy Reid noted that she wished to discuss the permit to make the changes on
Buildings 300 (former Walgreen's), 400 and 500 in Alameda Town Centre. She noted
that was the corner that residents were concerned about with respect to bus traffic. She
requested clarification on the plans for that area of the center. She expressed concern
about the 37-foot-high tower, which she believed was unnecessary. She was very
concerned that this project may get out of control, and appreciated staff's efforts in
working on this project.
Mr. Thomas noted that there had been many changes at South Shore over the years, and
that there were periodic amendments that come before the Planning Board. In this case,
staff sent out a notice to the neighbors, as is customary with all design reviews. If the
neighbors have concerns about what staff was considering, staff has the ability to bring it
to the Planning Board. Staff anticipated having a study session on the South Shore project
at the November 13, 2006, meeting. The gas station proposal will also be discussed.
In response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft whether the Planning Board members
could receive the same notices received by the neighbors regarding the proposed
developments, Mr. Thomas confirmed that would be possible. He believed that should be
part of the normal noticing procedure, and would ensure that took place.
7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A. Applicant: Harbor Bay Acquisition LLC (FDP06-0002 and DR06-0062)
(CL). 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. 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
requests continuance.)
M/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to continue this item.
AYES - 6 (Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN- - 0
7-B. Applicant: City of Alameda (BB). Review the bus shelter survey results and
recommend City bus shelter design standards for future bus shelter locations in
Alameda.
M/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to continue this item.
AYES - 6 (Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - - 0
In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand whether one particular bus shelter had
been recommended, Mr. Thomas replied staff would need more time to coordinate with
Public Works with respect to a recommended shelter.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
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,2006-10-23,4,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-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).
(Continued from the meeting of October 9, 2006.)
Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this project.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Joe Ernst, applicant, SRM Associates, displayed the site plan and described SRM's
efforts on sustainable design and attracting more business services to the park. He noted
that they were an Alameda-certified green business, and that every building they own
implement green programs, including cleaning and carbon-offset programs. He noted that
they have four LEED-rated projects, I process.
Mr. Stephen Fee, project architect, noted that as a former member of the Planning Board,
he understood the challenges faced by the Board with respect to large projects. He
presented the refinements that had been made to the parking plan and the architectural
design for the project.
There were no speaker slips.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether there were any incentives for
the tenants to buy into a green building, Mr. Ernst replied that was not necessary because
every prospective tenant he has spoken with wanted to ""go green."" He did find it
necessary to provide education on the costs and benefits of green building, which he
found to be an effective way for the tenants to incorporate green elements into their
designs. He described how the tenant improvement program can help the building gain
LEED points.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft Member Kohlstrand noted that the 75% recycling rate of
construction materials was impressive.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook how the applicant planned to make
changes at the Master Plan level that would facilitate getting more services on the site,
Mr. Ernst noted that they had given thought to that issue, and that it was a challenge for
them. He noted that 30 acres close to the Ferry terminal were available, including 10
acres right on the water; he believed that was their best opportunity. He noted that the
residents must embrace services such as a restaurant, which would be difficult to be
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,5,"supported only by the business park.
In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand whether the proposed parking was 268
spaces, where the minimum required was 189 spaces, Mr. Ernst noted that they did not
want to oversize the parking. He added that while the parking ratios on the footprints
alone may look high when adding the mezzanine component to the office, they will come
back in line; he noted that every buyer wanted mezzanine space because of the cost of
real estate.
Member Kohlstrand believed that if the applicant kept everything the way it was, but
removed the parking spaces in the front, she would be very comfortable with the project.
She would like to see less parking in front of all the buildings, and appreciated the
applicant's responsiveness. Mr. Ernst noted that these buildings have a very well defined
front for the office component, and a back for the manufacturing/warehouse components.
The applicants believed that it was very important to separate those functions, which
added to the long-term value of the project. They tried to break up the parking by added
street trees and breaking up the parking with a hedgerow, which blocked the rows of cars.
He noted that the presence of cars was a positive factor, which indicated there was
activity on this formerly sleepy parcel.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was very pleased and impressed impressive with
the environmentally friendly design elements incorporated into this project, and she
believed this was a responsible design. She believed the buildings were attractive, and
understood the challenges of leasing buildings in such a site. She believed that SRM had
made a good-faith effort to attract businesses. Mr. Ernst noted that they had a 30%
vacancy rate, which was still relatively high. Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed the City
should encourage the applicant's efforts to encourage occupancy.
Member Mariani noted that she was also pleased with the project, and would like to see
all of the architectural enhancements in Phase I.
Member McNamara noted that she had been concerned about the architectural design, and
was very pleased with the changes that were proposed, especially with the change of
textures and three-foot recesses to add interest. She supported the addition of those
features to Phase I where possible.
M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/McNamara to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-39 to
approve 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, with the modification of adding trees and sun
louvers in Phase I.
AYES - 5 (Lynch absent); NOES - 1 (Kohlstrand); ABSTAIN - 0
8-C. GPA05-02, R05-04, MP05-02, DP05-02, TM05-02, IS05-03 -Grand Marina
Village Residential Development (AT). The applicant requests approval of a
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,6,"General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Development Plan, Master Plan and Vesting
Tentative Map and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration to allow the
development of forty (40) new detached single family homes. Development of the
residential project would involve the reconfiguration of the existing marina parking
lot and improvements to the existing waterfront path and open space areas within the
8.36 acre Master Plan area. The site is located in the M2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning
District at the intersection of Grand Street and Fortmann Way to the south of the
Oakland Estuary and recreational marina facilities, north of the Pennzoil property
and City of Alameda Animal Shelter and Corporation Yard, and west of Grand
Avenue. (Continued from the meeting of October 9, 2006.)
Mr. Thomas presented the staff report. Staff recommended that the Planning Board
recommend to the City Council approval of the mitigated negative declaration, a General
Plan Amendment to specific mixed use consistent with the Northern Waterfront General
Plan Amendment, rezoning to the MX zone, the Master Plan, the Tentative Map, the
development plan and design review.
Mr. Don Ricci, Dahlin Group, displayed and described in detail the project's architectural
design and landscaping plan. He described the features of the homes and the sites, and
displayed the elevations. They proposed Craftsman, cottage and coastal-style elevations,
which they believed were appropriate for a waterfront location. The elevations were
articulated, and the massing stepped back in the front to add interest to the street. The
porches would be five feet deep on all of the plans, and two of the three styles have
second-floor verandas; both the porches and the verandas would be deep enough to
furnish, encouraging people to use them, and interacts with passersby on the street.
Stucco, board and batten siding, and shingle siding would be proposed for all four sides
of the homes, not just the fronts. They also hoped to use a rich and varied color palette for
the entire project, bringing vibrancy to the streetscape. He described the various plans in
detail, and displayed a video simulation of the streetscape and elevations.
There were no speaker slips.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Member McNamara noted that she was very impressed by the presentation and the
designs. She was pleased with the revisions, and believed that many of the issues raised
in January had been addressed. She inquired about the maintenance of the open space and
the parks. Mr. Ricci confirmed that they would be maintained by the homeowners.
Mr. David Day, Warmington Homes, addressed Member McNamara's question and
noted that the CC&Rs contained the details. The part of the BCDC parks where the
homes were fronted would be maintained by the HOA. The 20-foot paseo would be
maintained through the association. She liked the fact that the amount of parking was
reduced, and that the open space was maximized.
Vice President Cook noted that she liked the old wood pier, which she believed was more
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,7,"appropriate than the asphalt pier. She inquired whether the applicant had considered
taking the asphalt off. Mr. Day noted that they were open to the idea, and did not know
the condition of whatever was under the asphalt, which is in poor shape. He noted that
they had planned to put a sign before the pier, warning drivers, rather than bollards, but
added that was still open for discussion. He noted that there were bollards across the way,
going into the boatyard to stop traffic from going into the park.
Mr. Thomas believed that BCDC staff and City staff were on the same page, in that they
did not want the wood pier used as a parking lot. They would need to develop a way to
allow vehicle access, and then manage it so that people do not use it as a parking lot.
Staff would need to do research on the asphalt issue, especially with respect to the water
quality issue raised by Vice President Cook. He noted that the broken asphalt was unsafe
and in very bad shape.
Vice President Cook believed a wooden pier would have a more authentic appearance.
She also suggested appropriate signage and safeguards to protect pedestrians and
bicyclists from automobile traffic.
Acting President Cunningham noted that Christopher Buckley had submitted a speaker slip,
and requested a motion to reopen the public hearing.
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to reopen the public hearing.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda resident, noted that with respect to circulation, he agreed
with having Hibbard cut through to the shoreline; the connection between Hibbard and
Grand would be converted to open space. He had looked at the traffic counts and the
estimated parking use of the marina function, both on weekdays and the weekends; it
seemed to him that the cars would then be directed through the middle of the residential
development on Hibbard Street; the connection between Hibbard and Grand that might
reduce the impact of the traffic on the development. He requested a response from the
developer or staff to that observation.
Mr. Thomas noted that there were currently two ways into that parking lot, and that many
people enter on Fortmann, or can go to the end of Grand Street. With the recent change in
the circulation at the end of Grand Street, drivers would have to go through parking area
where the boat trailers are left before cutting into the parking lot. He noted that most of the
users of the parking lot have already shifted their patterns to taking Fortmann. Staff and the
traffic engineers have examined the traffic flow which currently goes to the marina and
which could go to the new development, and determined that the flow would be very small;
this area was at the end of a cul de sac. Staff was not at all concerned about the loss of the
access to the parking lot by the boat ramp.
Mr. Buckley suggested that staff consider measures to encourage traffic to use Fortmann
rather than Hibbard if they want to leave the parking area. Mr. Thomas replied that until the
new site develops, Fortmann was the only street to use. He added that bulbouts and
landscaping were used to make Hibbard into more of a neighborhood street. Staff believed
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,8,"that using Fortmann would be a more natural movement.
With respect to the design of the buildings, particularly the three-story buildings, Mr.
Buckley inquired whether they could be redesigned so the third floor could be better
integrated to the rest of the building. He noted that the Guide to Residential Design
specifically discouraged popups as additions to existing historic buildings; he believed these
buildings were attempting to reflect the historic architectural character of Alameda, and that
this design principle might apply to these buildings. He wished to call attention to the
detailing of these buildings, and while looking on the City website, could not find the
Planning Board resolution for a permanent Planned Development in the design review. He
would like more information on window selection, trim, porch elements, which he believed
were very important. He knew that Warmington Homes generally handled these elements
very well.
Mr. Thomas noted that the packet in the staff report contained the resolution approving the
Planned Development and design review. The Master Plan also contained some details, and
there were conditions of approval requiring that prior to the issuance of a building permit,
there would be a final landscape plan and final architectural detail to be submitted to the
Planning Director for final approval. He noted that the Planning Board may add specifics to
those conditions.
Member Kohlstrand wished to compliment the project sponsor for their enhancements to the
project, and believed it had improved greatly. She shared Mr. Buckley's concerns, and
suggested that signage be included showing marina access was via Fortmann. She noted that
12 spaces along Hibbard were assigned to BCDC.
Mr. Thomas noted that there were 12 guest spaces on one side of the triangular parks.
However, within the large public parking area for the marina, BCDC wanted the City to
assign 10 spaces for public users of the waterfront so boat users don't park there.
Mr. Jason Neary, CBG Engineers, addressed the parking issue, and noted that under the
permit, BCDC identified 10 parking spaces to be available for BCDC's use. He noted that
those 10 spots would be allocated somewhere along the marina parking area for BCDC use.
In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand regarding concerns about the borrowed
easement and shadowing, Mr. Day replied that they had not had any negative feedback
about the borrowed easement. He noted that there was a lot of light in the third story during
the day, and noted that the third story can only be 500 square feet by code. He added that
would result in shadowing of a very small percentage of the house next door, and added that
the homeowners like the private sideyard for barbeques and other social activities.
Member Kohlstrand noted the condition recommending that all the sidewalks be a minimum
of five feet wide, and inquired whether the sidewalk along Grand could be wider. Mr.
Thomas believed that would be an acceptable condition for Grand, and described several
landscaping possibilities near the sidewalks and alleys.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,9,"In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand whether the City had a long-term plan for
dealing with the end of Grand Street, Mr. Thomas replied that the applicants had proposed
curb and landscaping to replace the temporary solution with the flip-up barriers.
Acting President Cunningham complimented the applicants on their progress in refining this
application, and believed it could be further improved. He believed that some living
standards were being compromised in this design, and believed the density of this project
could be reduced. He believed there were many small compromises within the project and
added that the general project was very good.
Vice President Cook commended the applicants on how far the design has come, and was
excited about the paseo and the grid. She was happy that several of the units directly fronted
the waterfront, and liked the grass in front of the houses. She would like grass instead of
some of the shrubs in other landscaped areas near the other landscaping, such as the low
shrubs. She expressed concern about the heights of the houses, and that there would be 30
three-story homes. She did not want the affordable units to stand out. She believed that the
market has changed somewhat with respect to the economic feasibility of this project, but
would like to reduce the number of units somewhat to allow the owners to have a little more
room. She noted that while this project would be consistent with Measure A, she also was
hesitant about having a somewhat shaded eight-foot side yard.
Acting President Cunningham noted that while this project may be compliant with Measure
A, he wondered whether this particular density would be desirable in this case.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she could support wider alleyways and more moving
space for pedestrians and cars, but she also wanted to note that Alameda needs a variety of
housing stock to meet the needs of different kinds of people. She noted that there were many
busy working families that would like to have a smaller yard to reduce the amount of
maintenance, and believed there were many creative ways to landscape a home. She
believed this kind of project could offer a good housing choice for certain lifestyles and
household types.
Member Mariani did not feel that this project was too dense because of the presence of the
waterfront. She complimented the developer on the progress made on this design, and noted
that she did not prefer the three-story design, especially if the two-story homes were
designated as the affordable units. She liked the way the different styles interacted, as well
as the historic perspective put on the designs. She believed the designs were very appealing.
Member McNamara recalled that the Clement Street project had a density of 24 units per
acre, whereas this project was 11 units per acre. She noted that she had once lived in a zero-
lot home, and understood the lifestyle choices with respect to home maintenance.
Member Kohlstrand noted that she did not have an issue with the density, and agreed with
comments made by Members Mariani and Ezzy Ashcraft indicating that it did have a certain
open feel to it. She believed the City needed to provide different types of housing in
Alameda, and that not everyone wants or can afford single-family homes with big yards.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,10,"In response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft whether any of the units could be
considered disable accessible, Mr. Ricci replied that they were not, and that the porches
were purposely elevated for the design purposes. He noted that there were no downstairs
bedrooms in these homes.
In response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft whether there were any green building
elements built into these homes, Mr. Ricci replied that with the exception of the standard
Title XXIV practice, there was no requirement for LEED certification in this residential
segment. He noted that they did include dual-pane windows, wall insulation, and noted that
it was very difficult to design for solar orientation in a subdivision environment. He noted
that Warmington Homes did what they could with respect to green construction techniques,
using recycled materials, recycling construction debris, and using crushed concrete as
a
base.
In response to an inquiry by Acting President Cunningham whether they intended to have
air conditioning in these homes, Mr. Ricci believed that was the case.
Mr. Day wished to address the issue of affordable units, and noted that on the Bayport
project, the affordable units were smaller and attached. Architecturally, they have a similar
amount of detail, and they had not heard any complaints about the BMR units being
recognizable at all.
Member Mariani noted that she did not like the two-story/three-story distinction. She
believed that the affordable housing plan should be fair.
Acting President Cunningham did not care for the visual impact of the third story on top of
the main part of the house, and did not believe it was as well-integrated as it could be. He
believed the two-story design was very nice. He suggested eliminating some of the three-
story homes in the project.
After a discussion describing the affordable units and criteria, Member Kohlstrand noted
that she would support maintaining the number of affordable units, and suggested that the
square footage be varied.
Member McNamara agreed with Member Kohlstrand's comments, and added that the
number of variable designs helped the neighborhood environment. She did not believe the
two-story homes should be strictly affordable units.
In response to an inquiry by Member McNamara whether a one-story home would be an
option, Mr. Ricci replied that would not be feasible, resulting in a 600-square foot home.
Mr. Thomas advised that the City Council, acting as the Community Improvement
Commission, will have to approve the affordable housing program for this site. The
Planning Board would make a recommendation as to the distribution of affordable housing
units for consideration by the Community Improvement Commission.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,11,"Member Mariani believed this site presented a major opportunity for Alameda, and that the
designs were beautiful and colorful; she noted that the high price for the market-rate homes
made the disparity between the market-rate and affordable units that much more noticeable.
Mr. Thomas acknowledged her concern, which he said ran through all of the City's projects.
Vice President Cook suggested that the landscaping near the Alaska Packers building be
reconsidered, and that some of the ground cover, grasses and shrubs be replaced with lawn
that would allow people to have sit and have lunch.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolutions
recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration, adopt the General
Plan Amendment and adopt the Zoning Amendment.
AYES - 6 (Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Mr. Thomas described several conditions of approval by the Planning Board that the
Planning Board would need to decide on whether to add to the Master Plans Tentative
Map and Final Development Plan.
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt the following conditions of approval:
1. The applicant will study the feasibility of exposing the underlying wood planks
and provide a consistent cosmetically appealing walking and bicycling surface. If
upon further study by the applicant, it is determined by the Planning and Building
Director that exposing the existing wood planks is financially infeasible, unsafe,
or contrary to water quality standards, the Planning and Building Director may
approve an asphalt resurfacing plan.
2. To provide a continuous waterfront promenade with consistent materials
throughout the Northern Waterfront, the existing asphalt pedestrian path from
Grand Street to the Alaska Packers building will be replaced with a concrete path
to match the concrete path provided along the Marina Cove waterfront.
3. The applicant shall provide signage to direct traffic down Fortmann to the marina
parking lot to discourage use of Hibbard by marina-bound traffic.
4. The Grand Street sidewalk shall be widened to facilitate pedestrian access to the
waterfront.
5. The waterfront open space landscaping plan between Hibbard and Alaska Packers
should be revised to include larger areas of turf for informal seating.
6. The final architectural submittal to the Planning and Building Director shall
include revisions to the third story elements to ensure compatibility with the City
of Alameda Residential Design Guidelines for third stories.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,12,"M/S Cook/Cunningham to adopt a condition of approval to widen the front porches to
eight feet.
AYES - 2 (Lynch absent); NOES - 3 (Ezzy Ashcraft, Kohlstrand, McNamara);
ABSTAIN - 1 (Mariani)
The motion failed.
M/S Cook/Cunningham to adopt a condition of approval to revise the elevations and
designs of the third story to better reflect the City's design guidelines.
AYES - 6 (Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - - 0
M/S Cunningham/Cook to adopt a condition of approval to extend the paseo to the
triangular park, with the understanding that two units may be eliminated.
AYES - 4 (Lynch absent); NOES - 2 (Ezzy Ashcraft, Kohlstrand); ABSTAIN - 0
M/S Mariani/Cunningham to adopt a condition of approval to require that distribution of
the ten affordable units will be adjusted so that a minimum of two of the ten units shall be
three story units and two of the two story units be available at market rate.
AYES - 5 (Lynch absent); NOES - 1 (Kohlstrand); ABSTAIN - 0
M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 06- to
approve the Master Plan, Final Development Plan, and design review with the added
conditions.
AYES - 6 (Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Member Mariani left the meeting after this item.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,13,"8-B.
V06-0005/DR06-0052- Christopher Seiwald - 2320 Blanding Avenue (CE).
The applicant requests approval of Variance and Major Design Review applications
to allow the construction of a 17,058 square foot addition to an existing 27,300
square foot commercial building. The total building square footage of the proposed
three-story structure is 44,358 square feet. A Variance to the parking requirements is
requested to allow the provision of 111 parking spaces where 120 parking spaces are
required by the Alameda Municipal Code. The project site is zoned M-2 General
Industrial (Manufacturing). (Continued from the meeting of October 9, 2006.)
Ms. Eliason summarized the staff report, and recommended approval of this proposed
project.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Richard Hornberger, project architect, summarized the background of the project,
and introduced the property owner.
Mr. Christopher Seiwald, applicant, noted that his company, Perforce Software, was
started in Alameda and added that they were rapidly running out of room; he estimated
that the current building could accommodate another year or two of growth.
Mr. Hornberger noted that in the new layout, two curb cuts were deleted, resulting in 3
parking spaces.
Vice President Cook believed this was a good use, and expressed concern about
intensifying what she perceived to be a very dangerous corner. She hoped that Public
Works would look at that corner. Mr. Hornberger noted that the applicant was very
sensitive to that corner. Vice President Cook added that the corner should be striped, that
it should be clear where people should be when they turn the corner, and that there
probably should be a stop sign at that corner.
Ms. Eliason noted that staff would pass that information to Public Works.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft realized that this block did not contain the most attractive
buildings in the City, and while she believed the proposed building was generally
attractive, she was concerned about the color renderings in the back of the packet that
illustrated the conspicuous three-story buildings. She inquired whether the roof line could
be changed to add some visual interest. Mr. Hornberger noted that they could re-examine
the design, and believed that the combination of the banding at the top and the bottom
helped the building blend in. He added that the strong vertical element and a stepped
planter also helped. He believed the introduction of another element would add to the
visual busyness.
Member McNamara believed this building would be an enhancement to the current area,
which she believed was currently blighted. She did not object to the nine-parking-space
variance out of 111 parking spaces. She did not believe there was any room on Oak Street
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,14,"for on-street parking, but believed that there would be room on Blanding and on Clement
for an additional nine cars if needed. She understood Member Ezzy Ashcraft's design
concerns, and believed the current design of the new building should be compatible with
what was already there.
Member Kohlstrand believed it was exciting to have an office building in downtown
Alameda, where the workers could support the existing businesses and a new café. She
would like to see more buildings like that, and she was comfortable with the variance.
She was concerned about the consistency of the application of the in lieu fees, and she
tended to act in favor of the variances over the in lieu fee. She agreed with Member
McNamara's comments about the design in terms of integrating it with the existing
structures.
Acting President Cunningham noted that he did not object to the parking variances, and
inquired whether there was a shear wall in the parking area under the building. Mr.
Hornberger confirmed that it was a shear wall and a support structure for the structure
above. Acting President Cunningham inquired whether removal of the two end spaces in
the middle aisle would ease circulation. Mr. Hornberger replied that more spaces would
be lost, but added that there was already an adequate 24 feet for backing up. He added
that they discussed adding a three-foot backup at the end wall at both sides, and that they
would probably convert the three spaces next to the stairway into compact spaces.
Acting President Cunningham commented that the existing entrance and the awnings
worked very well, and suggested de-emphasizing the two finger maroon elements that
protruded into the air, or to bring them in line with the parapet. He also suggested
reducing the height of the building in the center element to reduce the visual impact. Mr.
Hornberger agreed with that suggestion.
Acting President Cunningham inquired what would replace the parking that would be
temporarily lost, Mr. Ken Carvalho, Buestad Construction, noted that they planned to
park along Oak Street.
M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/McNamara and unanimous to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.
AYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Member Kohlstrand would like the street frontage along Blanding enhanced to avoid
continuous building massing, and to add pedestrian interest and articulation.
In response to Vice President Cook's inquiry regarding the café parking, Mr. Hornberger
replied that it would be adjacent to the café itself. He added that there would be two
handicapped spaces for the café in the back, and noted that the seating area would face a
patio area with a trellis.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,15,"Member Kohlstrand supported the variance and would like to see more work on the
façade.
M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-40 to
approve Variance and Major Design Review applications to allow the construction of an
addition to an existing 27,300 square foot commercial building. A Variance to the parking
requirements is requested to allow the provision of 111 parking spaces where 120 parking
spaces are required by the Alameda Municipal Code. The following modifications will be
added:
1.
The height of the glazed element of the parapet on the addition would be
reduced, and the awning level would be brought down;
2.
Pathways to the parking area would be created; and
3.
The street frontage on Blanding would be enhanced with planters and/or
setbacks.
AYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,16,"8-D.
Major Design Review - DR06-0034 - Applicant: Mohamed Elhashash - 1530
& 1532 Ninth Street (CE). The applicant requests a Major Design Review for
alteration of three single-family homes, each into a duplex, for a total of six units.
The site is located at 1530 and 1532 Ninth Street within an R-4, Neighborhood
Residential Zoning District.
Ms. Eliason summarized the staff report, and recommended approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Thomas Touhy, project architect, described the background of this application, and
noted that they had reviewed comments received by the Alameda Architectural
Preservation Society (AAPS), the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) and City Council.
They worked with the applicant to address those comments, and developed some
recommendations. In the meeting, they worked through the accessibility issues for the
lower units for the two front buildings, as well as the relative benefits and costs of raising
the buildings versus digging down. During that meeting, they decided to leave the
buildings exactly where they were, which seemed to solve a lot of problems with respect
to proportions and the Golden Mean. He noted that Christopher Buckley had provided
additional comments, which he believed were generally supportive of the changes in the
project. He noted that the existing porch railing may have been boxed in, and if so, the
existing railing will stay. If the existing railing is missing, it would be a more difficult
issue with respect to adding a new element to meet the building code. He noted that the
applicant would install all wood windows, and will consider the hipped roof line for the
rear additions. With respect to moving the house, the applicants had decided not to lift the
buildings up at all; they were in their historic locations, and they preferred to leave them
there. He noted that with respect to siding, the applicant will be able to show what areas
would be retained. He noted that much more would be able to be retained since the
buildings would not be raised. He believed it would be fair that the applicant would
prefer that the control of the design stay within the purview of the City.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, AAPS, noted that they had submitted a letter on October 23,
2006, with their comments. They believed the design detail showing the bay window was
very good, but it was only a partial elevation; he would prefer a fully detailed elevation
for the whole front elevation. AAPS was especially concerned about the handrail
treatment, which Mr. Touhy referred to. He noted that the handrail tops should form a
strong horizontal alignment with windowsills in Victorian buildings to form an
architectural base to the main floor. The heights of the existing handrail was 29 inches,
below the Building Code height of 36 inches. Rather than using an extension, they would
rather see the stairway design have a continuous rail that went down to a fairly substantial
newel post. Alternatively, the existing lower rails in front of the building could be kept,
with a simple supplemental railing to achieve the necessary Code height. He appreciated
the use of wood windows. He wished to clarify Item 6 of the letter, requesting the
additional details of the rest of the front elevation, including the porch column and rail
treatments in a complete set of details for consideration by the Planning and Building
Director prior to the issuance of the building permits and allowing AAPS and interested
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,17,"members of the public to comment on those details before a decision was made.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Member Kohlstrand complimented the improvements and enhancements of these historic
structures, and believed the return to the historic character would be a positive change.
Acting President Cunningham noted that the applicant generally agreed with Mr.
Buckley's comments, and that he was in tune with the handrail; he believed that sticking
with Mr. Buckley's recommendation would be beneficial. He was concerned about
getting neighborhood input, and had not heard any comments.
Member McNamara noted that this project was re-noticed to the neighbors, and added
that Mr. Buckley was not originally noticed because he lived more than 300 feet away
from the project. She stated she was very interested in hearing the neighborhood
concerns, and supported the project design.
Acting President Cunningham supported the City maintaining control of the project, as
well as garnering comment from AAPS.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was excited about this project, and believed that
HAB's input had been very beneficial. She liked the proximity to public transportation,
as well as the disabled access for the unit in the back. She was concerned about the 29-
inch rail, when Code calls for 36 inches, and believed that was a safety and liability issue.
Vice President Cook liked this project and agreed with Mr. Buckley's comments. She
expressed concern about the landscaping in the staff report, and hoped the Planning &
Building Director would consider fast-growing hedges.
M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-
45 to approve a Major Design Review for alteration of three single-family homes, each
into a duplex, for a total of six units, with the following modifications:
1. The proposed windows on 1530 and 1532 Ninth Street will be double-glazed
wood clad fiberglass.
2. The railings and newel posts on 1530 and 1532 Ninth Street will be uncovered
and restored. If they do not exist, appropriate replacements meeting historical
designs shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building
Director.
3. Complete elevation drawings will be prepared once the shingles have been
removed and will be approved the satisfaction of the Planning and Building
Director.
AYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
8-E.
Appointment of Two Planning Board Members to the Big Box Retail
Working Committee.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 17
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,18,"M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand to extend the meeting to 11:40 p.m.
AYES - 5 (Lynch absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0
Ms. Doreen Soto noted that they were anxious to commence with this committee, and
noted that representatives had been selected from the Economic Development
Commission and the Transportation Commission. She requested two nominees from the
Planning Board to schedule an initial meeting and look at the scope of work from the
consultant. They hoped to have an initial meeting before the end of the year, if the
holiday schedule allows; they hoped to complete the study within six months. The final
product would be an analysis of all of the issues surrounding big box stores, starting with
a definition. Ms. Eliason noted that zoning amendments or policies may result from these
meetings.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft volunteered to sit on the Committee.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to nominate Member McNamara to the
Committee.
AYES - 6 (Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
This item was continued to the next meeting.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-
President Cook).
This item was continued to the next meeting.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee
(Board Member Mariani).
This item was continued to the next meeting.
C.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board
Member Kohlstrand).
This item was continued to the next meeting.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force
(Board Member Cunningham).
Planning Board Minutes
Page 18
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,19,"This item was continued to the next meeting.
12.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
This item was continued to the next meeting.
13.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:39 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy Woodbusy
Cathy Woodbury; Secretary
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the November 13, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 19
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf