body,date,page,text,path
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2008-02-25,1,"UNAPPROVED
COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
February 25, 2008
TIME
The meeting convened at 6:05 P.M.
PRESENT
Vice-Chair Moore, Commissioners Berger, Kirola, Longley-Cook, Robinson and
Fort.
ABSENT
Chair Lord-Hausman, Commissioners Hakanson and Kreitz.
MINUTES
The January 28, 2008 minutes were approved as presented.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
There was no written communication.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
OLD BUSINESS
1.
Alameda Landing (Andrew Thomas, Planning & Bldg. Dept.):
This item will be scheduled for a future meeting.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
There was no staff communication.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS
1.
Commissioner Berger stated that the AR&PD Spring 2008 Guide dedicates an entire page for
information regarding paratransit/disability issues within the City of Alameda. Commissioner
Berger suggested the Commission prepare a draft letter thanking Dale Lillard, AR&PD Director,
for the excellent article that highlights accessibility resources in the City.
2. Commissioner Longley-Cook stated that she and Chair Lord-Hausman attended the Alameda
Collaborative for Children, Youth & Families monthly February meeting. A presentation was
made by Children Now, an organization that focuses on children's issues including health and",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-02-25.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2008-02-25,2,"Commission on Disability Issues
February 25, 2008
Minutes
Page 2 of 2
dental care, among others. They discussed the large need state-wide of providing dental care for
pre-school children, for example. The website is www.childrennow.org and Commissioner
Longley-Cook stated that she will bring the report to the next meeting.
Commissioner Berger requested that the Commission send a letter to Alameda County Dental
Association for local and state support. Secretary Akil stated they could draft a letter for Council
consideration to send the letter to the County or, as individuals, send a letter in support of
children dental care issues.
3. Commissioner Longley-Cook stated that a PTA Council representative indicated she wanted to
attend the Commission meeting to discuss wording for a proposed education parcel tax. The
suggested wording was to look at providing an exemption for seniors and the disabled.
4. Commissioner Fort inquired about audible pedestrian signals at Lincoln and Willow. Secretary
Akil responded that intersection may have four-way stop signs.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 6:45 P.M. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, March 24, 2008, at
6:30 P.M. in Room 360 at City Hall.
Aucudia Abil
Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia A. Akil
Commission Secretary
G:\LucretialCommDisability\Minutes\2008\Minutes_Feb 2008.00",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, February 25, 2008
1.
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Vice President Kohlstrand.
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Board
Members Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, Lynch, and
McNamara.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Farimah Faiz; Planner III Dennis Brighton.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of November 13, 2007.
These minutes will be considered on March 10, 2008.
b.
Minutes for the meeting of February 11, 2008 (not available).
These minutes will be considered on March 10, 2008.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Future Agendas
Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.
President Cook noted that she left the Measure A meeting considering how it would fit
into the Housing Element, and would like to see a presentation on how the Housing
Element would be updated, and how it fit into the State Density Bonus Ordinance and the
Secondary Unit Ordinance amendments.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she had heard numerous comments on the
educational nature of the Measure A forum, and that they wished to have more
presentations in the future. She believed that a weeknight evening would be good for
most people.
Board Member Lynch wished further clarification on the input requested from the
Planning Board members. He was concerned about the budget and time impacts of
additional work requested of staff; he noted that the budget was set for the current work
Page 1 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,2,"plan and believed there would be unintended consequences from that additional work. He
did not want to micromanage the department.
Board Member Lynch believed it would be helpful to put this project within a critical
path with various milestones, in order to know when the work product must be brought to
the department within the term of the contract. He requested that staff share the schedules
with the Planning Board.
Board Member Cunningham requested that the March 10 meeting include some time to
examine lessons learned from the forum which he believed should be addressed, other
than the Housing Element. He would like to discuss use issues in particular.
Board Member McNamara inquired about the status of the additional Planning Board
member. Mr. Thomas replied that the position had been advertised, and that Mayor
Johnson was considering her options.
b.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Mr. Bill Smith discussed the development opportunities in Alameda.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A. V07-0006 (Variances) and DR07-0056 (Major Design Review) - 3327
Fernside Blvd. the applicant requests Variance and Design Review approval to
enlarge an existing single-family home located within an R-2, Two-family
Residential Zoning District. Continued from January 28, 2008. Recommended
for continuance.
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to continue this item.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Noes: 0 Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
DR07-0080 - 1629 Webster Street. The applicant requests a Major Design
Review approval to construct an approximately 8,274-square foot, two-story,
mixed use building to be located on the southwesterly corner of Webster Street
and Pacific Avenue. The ground floor area would be divided into retail space. The
second floor would be composed of two dwelling units and a separate
Page 2 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,3,"office/storage area. The applicants are also requesting approval to permit the
payment of parking in-lieu fees. The site is located within a C-C, Community
Commercial Zoning District. (DB)
Mr. Brighton summarized the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this item.
WABA had requested that an additional condition of approval be added to require the
installation of awnings at the street frontage buildings prior to occupancy of the building.
Staff concurred with that request.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member McNamara whether the conditions requested
by WABA replaced the conditions previously stipulated, Mr. Brighton replied that was
essentially the case. He added that the previous conditions applied to an earlier plan set
submittal.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it would be helpful to receive the materials
sooner in advance of the meeting, and suggested sending PDF files by email. She would
like additional time to review the materials.
President Cook advised that nine speaker slips had been received.
Board Member Cunningham moved to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
Board Member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Noes:
0 Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. John Piziali, former Planning Board President, spoke in support of this project as a
West End resident and WABA member. He believed this would be a special project,
which he believed to be the first mixed use project on the street. He expressed concern
about the parking requirements and the in lieu fees, which he believed were excessive; he
believed those requirements often stifled new projects. He would like to see the
requirements scaled to the project, which was a strain on smaller projects.
Ms. Doreen Soto, City of Alameda Development Services Department, Alameda County
Improvement Commission, City Hall West, spoke in support of this project. She noted
that they had worked with this applicant for about two years, and noted that it had been a
difficult project with respect to the parking. They hoped that they would be able to bring
new parking regulations forward soon. She believed this was a very good infill project
that maximized the site with a mix of retail and housing uses. She believed this project
would create new jobs, and encouraged the Planning Board to approve this project.
Ms. Kathy Moehring, Executive Director, WABA, spoke in support of this project. She
noted that she had worked on this project with the Webster Street Design Committee. She
noted that the applicant had been gracious and easy to work with in addressing the
Page 3 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,4,"Design Committee's concerns. She believed this project was needed on Webster Street in
order to establish a viable commercial district.
Mr. Thomas Keenan, 617 Pacific, spoke in opposition to this project, and displayed
several photos of the site. He believed that there were several unresolved hazardous
materials occurrences on the site that had not been remediated or placed on the public
record. He noted that with respect to Item 2, the fire station along Webster Street on the
south side had a red curb adjacent to that location, and if cars were to park in that area,
there would not be sufficient space for the fire trucks to exit. He noted that several
months before, Alameda Party and Play, located across the street, had been approved
with no additional required parking because it was an existing building. He believed that
when that building is occupied, the parking problems would increase on the street. He
noted that the closest unmetered parking space was 260 feet west on Pacific Avenue on
the opposite side of the street. He added that there would be no space for the additional
trash receptacles or Dumpsters that would be required.
Ms. Beverly Miranda, 630 Pacific, spoke in opposition to this project. She noted that she
supported progress, and would like to see this project work out; however, she was
concerned about workers from the nearby businesses parking in front of her and her
neighbors' houses. She noted that several times, people had parked in her driveway
because there was no parking available. She would like to see this part of Alameda
improved with the proposed design, but not without sufficient parking.
Mr. Derek Pavlik, WABA Design Committee, 2875 Glascock Street, spoke in support of
this project. He noted that Mr. Koka had invited their input throughout the process in the
four years since he had been on the committee; he noted that he was the most willing
design collaborator he had worked with.
Ms. Tricia Collins-Levi, 634 Eagle Avenue, spoke in support of this project. She believed
this kind of project would move Webster Street in the right direction; she understood the
parking issues, and hoped the issue of the fees would be worked out. She noted that the
applicant had worked very hard on this project, and believed it would have a positive
effect on the neighborhood.
Ms. Jackie Keenan, 617 Pacific, believed that the site still needed to be remediated from
its use as a gas station. She noted that there was existing parking on Webster, and that
there was no place for additional parking. She noted that additional parking on Pacific
could not conflict with the red curb next to the fire station. She noted that it was a
constant problem trying to discourage people from parking in their driveways. She noted
that on several occasions, she had not received notices from the City with respect to this
project.
Mr. Sam Koka, applicant, 802 Pacific Avenue, described the proposed project and noted
that he had worked closely with the Webster Street Design Committee.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Page 4 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,5,"President Cook requested that staff address the hazmat, parking, waste and noticing
issues.
Mr. Brighton noted that this project had a 300-foot notification radius, which extended to
626 Pacific Avenue. He noted that there were two outdoor waste storage areas between
the building and Mr. Koka's property, which would be able to accommodate small waste
bins that would be typical for such a use.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff would craft a condition regarding the red zone, and that the
analysis in the staff report had been discussed extensively with the Public Works
Department. He added that the Design Review Team (DRT) had addressed that issue,
including the fire department. He noted that it could be conditioned to reconfirm that the
two additional spaces would be available on the street, and if not, the project could be
conditioned to provide the two spaces on-site, which he believed would be virtually
impossible. Alternatively, the in-lieu fees would be increased. He recommended that an
additional condition be included with respect to hazmats, that it be confirmed to the effect
that no building permit should be issued that would impede or prevent either the ongoing
monitoring, or if there was a tank that must be removed, that it be taken care of before the
building is built.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it was not just the presence of a tank, but any
leakage or plumes must be properly addressed.
Board Member Lynch believed that the Planning Board must remain mindful of the
requirements originating from regulatory agencies. He added that certain requirements
will have to be met for the property to be insurable.
Board Member Cunningham believed this was an excellent project which would be a
good fit on Webster Street. He believed that the requirement for parking may be adjusted
upon receipt of the permit, and did not know how that would align with the parking
ordinances and the timeline.
Board member Cunningham assumed that with respect to the amendment to the use
permit for SK Auto, they had been consulted and that they were in agreement.
Mr. Thomas noted that Mr. Koka owned that property as well.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member Cunningham, Mr. Thomas replied that a
condition of approval should be added stating that prior to the issuance of building
permits, that the Webster Street treatment would turn the corner to where it would meet
with the Otaez Building. Board Member Cunningham noted that could be worked out by
the design applicant, but wanted to ensure that the materiality was consistent. He wanted
to ensure that the glazing would be clear, and without tint.
Page 5 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,6,"Vice President Kohlstrand echoed Board member Cunningham's comments, and believed
this project would be a good fit for Webster Street. She was excited to see mixed use
projects like this, and that it was able to replicate some of the historic features of
Alameda's commercial streets that had residential units above ground floor retail. She
supported reducing the parking requirements in the business districts, because she did not
think by developing a surface parking lot for each use would provide the most effective
use of the commercial streets in town.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand regarding parking requirements,
Mr. Thomas described the uses for the in-lieu fees, including leasing additional public
parking spaces, expanding existing lots or adding new satellite lots in the area, in addition
to transit improvements. He added that the possibility of a permit parking system was one
alternative that was still unresolved; he noted that the neighbors' input would be gathered
as well.
Board Member McNamara shared the opinions of the other Board members in terms of
supporting this project, and appreciated WABA's input in terms of the detailed
information, criteria and conditions they had provided to staff. She also appreciated the
change to the awnings, acknowledging that they were a very important part of this
element. She also agreed that the certificate of occupancy not be awarded until the
awnings were put up. She believed this was a good use of the street and the space, and
believed the City needed to be very aggressive in providing some off-street public
parking lots. She added that there were no such lots on the same side of Lincoln. She
empathized with the neighbors experiencing the parking problems, and encouraged them
to call a towing company when people parked in their driveways.
President Cook suggested looking into residence parking stickers to protect the residents
of the neighborhood. Mr. Thomas noted that would be possible.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she supported the concept, and believed this
project would be a significant improvement over the existing vacant lot. She sympathized
with the neighbors who lived just outside the 300-foot radius, and requested that they be
included in any further noticing on this project. She suggested that WABA sponsor
further neighborhood meetings. She would condition the approval on having sufficient
proof that the hazardous material issue had been resolved. She noted that Condition 5
read, and location of the transformers to service these loads must be approved by the
Bureau of Electricity before building permit issuance.""
President Cook agreed that the Planning Board needed to have input on the location of
the transformers, and suggested that a condition be added that they be hidden from public
view. Mr. Thomas replied that similar conditions had been modified for Alameda
Landing, stating that the transformers should be screened and not located on the public
right of way. He noted that they may be located behind the building, adjacent to the auto
use, and not on Webster or Pacific.
Page 6 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,7,"Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft agreed with Mr. Piziali's assessment that the parking in
lieu fees of almost $90,000 were excessive. She suggested that an adjustment could be
made retroactively. She noted that the language in the resolution on page 2 read, ""The
City is able to utilize the parking in lieu fees for parking and transit projects within the
Webster Street commercial corridor. She noted that page 4 of the staff report stated
that funds would be used to lease spaces at a satellite lot, or to support transit services and
facilities in the area. She would like to change the language to state on the resolution,
""The City shall utilize the parking in lieu fees She would like to see the in lieu fees
only fund transit projects, transit services and facilities in the area. She noted that shuttles
to BART were needed to get people out of their cars during commute hours.
Board Member Lynch wished to address parking in lieu fees, and based on his own
professional experience, $6,000 was very inexpensive for a parking space. He realized
the developer was not expected to pay the full cost of the parking spaces, but to use
public dollars assist in that project. He would not support any reduction of the parking in
lieu fees because of the greater public good.
President Cook noted that she was not prepared to condition the dollars on transit in this
area, because it was well-served by transit and less well-served by parking spaces. In
general, she would like more information when such a suggestion is made for parking.
She noted that there were a lot of buses running along this route already.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether there were any plans to extend the
treescape up to the project to maintain consistency in the landscaping, Mr. Brighton
replied that there were fresh trees along Webster Street in front of the site. He noted that
there may be one space for a tree; staff would check with Public Works to confirm that
item.
President Cook noted that the 100-foot height limit was in effect for this area, and she
suggested that be examined before a future applicant considered a building of 100 feet in
that location. She inquired whether it was a remainder from the 1970s, and suggested that
it be brought down before it became an issue. She noted that she was in favor of this
project, which addressed a number of issues that Board had discussed. She noted that it
reflected the discussion held at the forum regarding the importance of placing residential
use above retail or office in the business districts. She believed it supported the
businesses, and kept the streets safer because of the 24-hour presence of people in the
vicinity. She understood the neighbors' concerns about parking, and noted that it was the
downside of enjoying a mix of uses in Alameda. She believed the City should work to
find a place for the parking, and to enforce parking violations described by the neighbors.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she supported transit, but would not support the
proposal by Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding transit because she believed the
areas transitioning from low to moderate density needed time to do SO. She noted that
shelters and street furniture had been enhanced in recent years, and believed the City
should look at ways to consolidate the off-street parking. She did not believe the density
was present to propose a structure right away. She believed there should be some off-
Page 7 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,8,"street lots, perhaps along the side streets or on Webster Street that will accommodate a
broad range of uses. She did not believe the in lieu fees should be limited to transit
funding at this point.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft understood Vice President Kohlstrand's concerns, and
suggested that an eventual parking permit system be instituted. She noted that the
enforcement of the parking restrictions were an important part of the process.
Board Member Lynch believed it was very important to examine and clarify the
enforcement policy for the City. He hoped that Parking Enforcement had not been aware
of this issue, and that they become aware of it going forward.
President Cook moved to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to approve a Major
Design Review approval to construct an approximately 8,274-square foot, two-story,
mixed use building to be located on the southwesterly corner of Webster Street and
Pacific Avenue. The ground floor area would be divided into retail space. The second
floor would be composed of two dwelling units and a separate office/storage area. The
applicants are also requesting approval to permit the payment of parking in-lieu fees.
Conditions will be added regarding:
1.
The transformers;
2.
Clear glazing;
3.
The red no-parking zone;
4.
The hazardous materials;
5.
The design details to wrap around the corner, and there will be
coordination between the two façades; and
6.
The awnings will be installed prior to building occupancy; and
7.
Trash enclosures.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff would confirm that the two parking spaces would be
available. If not, they would be added to the parking in lieu fee.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Noes: 0 Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff would work with WABA with respect to the parking issues.
9-B.
PLN07-0061 - SRM Associates - 2800 Harbor Bay Parkway. Applicant
requests a Final Development Plan, Major Design Review, Planned Development
Amendment for reduced parking, and Tentative Map approval for the construction
of ten new office buildings totaling approximately 109,280 square feet in floor
area with a total of 384 parking spaces to be constructed on a 9.22 acre site. The
site is located within the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, and Planned
Development Zoning District. (DV)
Page 8 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,9,"Mr. Thomas presented the staff report on Mr. Vu's behalf. Staff recommended that the
Planning Board approve the Final Development Plan, Major Design Review, Planned
Development Amendment for reduced parking, and that the Planning Board recommend
approval of the Tentative Map to City Council, as shown in the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Joe Ernst, SRM Associates, applicant, displayed a PowerPoint presentation, and
described the background, scope and layout of this proposed project. He displayed the
colors and materials board, and described the canopies on the five buildings. He noted
that the ability to create unit ownership was a unique element, and that a condo map
would be put on each building. He noted that the buildings would be broken into flats,
and the addition of stairs within the units would be very inefficient. He noted that there
would be no middle unit, and that each unit would have three open sides.
Mr. Brian Tremper, President, Freport Homeowners Association, 232 McDonnel Road,
noted that he was speaking as a resident, although this project had been discussed by the
homeowners association. He noted that many of their comments had been addressed with
SRM already, particularly screening the parking lot, with the exception of the view
corridors. He inquired how the landscaping would be maintained once the transfer has
taken place. He believed the lagoon was poorly maintained, and noted that no large trucks
would be allowed. He was concerned about the restaurant, and felt that would be a
difficult location for a restaurant, and compared it to Zazu's, next to KTVU in Oakland.
He was concerned about late-night noise if a restaurant were to operate there, and
requested that limits be placed. He expressed concern about the noise from the bus stop,
which was scheduled to be at the intersection of the access road and Harbor Bay
Parkway.
Mr. Eddie Chin expressed concern about the design for the back access road, which
would flow into the Harbor Bay parking lot.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
""In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether this use was required to be located
at this site, or whether it could be used for other uses such as residential in a business
park, Mr. Thomas replied that the site was office use but there were limits on the allowed
intensity of use; this intensity was well within the upper limit.""
In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether this use was required to be located
at this site or whether it could be used for other uses such as residential, Mr. Thomas
replied that the site was office use but there were limits on the allowed intensity of use,
this intensity was well within the upper limit. With respect to airport noise, he noted that
the newer generations of aircraft were becoming quieter, but that noise was a big issue at
every airport.
Board Member Lynch disagreed with the comments regarding the swapping the parcels,
and believed the amount of signatures of individuals coming forth would be significant.
Page 9 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,10,"He believed the project was stunning, and appreciated the community coming forward;
he believed the City should heed their suggestions. He believed the conditions were
reasonable. He believed this was a beautiful commercial project, which was what the land
use was intended for.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft commended Mr. Vu for a well-written, well-organized and
concise staff report. She noted that she was mindful of the need for revenue coming into
the City to replace the revenue lost by the departure of the car dealerships. She supported
clean, green businesses and appreciated the sustainable design exhibited by the applicant.
She believed this would be an environmentally friendly project. She noted that the 25-
foot-wide access road also had shared bike lane space, and believed that was a minimal
lane. She inquired whether it would be widened. Mr. Thomas replied that the proposal
was to maintain the basic 25-foot width curb to curb.
Mr. Ernst noted that the width varied, and that there was no curb on the west edge. He
noted that there were pinch points that were less than 25 feet. He noted that as the new
road is constructed, the minimum width would be 25 feet; he noted that there would be
several areas where it would be wider than 25 feet. He noted that it was part of the
parking area, and that it was not intended to be a through street. He noted that they
wished to narrow the road somewhat to slow the transit buses down.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she understood the traffic calming provided by a
narrower street, but was concerned about safety and would like to see alternate forms of
transportation encouraged. She liked the presence of the bicycle parking.
Mr. Ernst noted that he was not a traffic engineer, but that the parking at the ferry
terminal, which was denser than this use, did not have any operational problems. He
added that the buses traveled through the parking lot without problems.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft hoped the parking would be screened from the homes on
McDonnell across the lagoon, and from the Bay Trail, and noted that the landscaping
plan seemed to indicate that. In response to her inquiry regarding the current vacancy
rate, Mr. Ernst replied that the business park's vacancy rate was 14%, down from the low
20s several years ago. He noted that it was lower than Marina Village, as well as the City
vacancy rate. He noted that this project evolved from the demand for a commercial site
with lower density and the ability for the business owners to own their space as well.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft strongly suggested that a restaurant be located near the
project. She believed it would make sense to have a Peet's coffee shop in the area as well.
She noted that the nearby trail was well-used during the weekends, and added that the
new hotel's clients would also appreciate those amenities.
Mr. Ernst noted that there were two other restaurant opportunities along the waterfront in
addition to this project, including the hotel. He hoped that critical mass could be reached
so the restaurant would be viable.
Page 10 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,11,"Board Member McNamara noted that Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft had addressed many
of her concerns, including the width of the access road. She believed the applicant had
worked closely with the homeowners and addressed their concerns. She believed the area
would need restaurants, that the project was well-thought out and well-designed, and she
supported this project.
Vice President Kohlstrand echoed the previous statements, and believed this was
a
wonderful project for the site. She was pleased to see the amount of effort put forth in
working with the staff and the residents. She also liked the sensitivity shown towards the
waterfront, as well as incorporating the LEED elements into the project. She liked the design
as well. She did not like the amount of surface parking, but understood that it had to be
there. She believed the roadway was strangely designed, and noted that people use the ferry
parking lot like a through road. However, she did not know whether there were any options
to correct it at this point. She suggested that a bike lane be added, and cited Portland and
Emeryville as examples of using wide bioswale treatments in more urban settings, where
much less space was used to provide drainage. She would like to see more space made
available for bicyclists and pedestrians, and encouraged the applicant to make the parking
lot as safe as possible as the amount of traffic increased.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand whether the BART shuttle stopped
in the business park, Mr. Ernst replied that the business park had its own TSM, including a
BART shuttle, which was added when AC Transit took away the express shuttle. He noted
that the business park sponsored the shuttle. They agreed to increase the size of the bus this
past year, and will go to two buses in July 2008. She liked the fact that the applicant had
provided some flexibility in the site for the restaurant use.
Board member Cunningham complimented the applicant on a job well done, and noted that
he would like to push the bar higher if possible. In response to his inquiry regarding the
LEED rating, Mr. Ernst replied that they currently had LEED certification, and had
identified 28 points, which would place them at the LEED Silver rating.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member Cunningham regarding the site lighting, Mr.
Ernst replied that the lighting would be designed to a LEED standard for residential light
pollution, which was a stricter standard than commercial. He noted that they intended to
maintain a safe level of lighting on the site, but not light up the residents' back yards. He
added that they would use low-voltage landscape lighting.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham regarding the transformers, Mr.
Ernst replied that they had some space constraints. He added that they met with AP&T and
located the transformers; the transformers must be a certain distance away from the
buildings. The location of the transformers took precedence, and the trash enclosures were
placed on the opposite side of the building.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham regarding placing a landscaping
agreement in the development agreement, Mr. Ernst replied that everything east of the
road was maintained by the business park. He added that it was maintained by the
Page 11 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,12,"landscape and lighting district administered by the City, and noted that the irrigation
would be upgraded this year, and that the dead plant material would be replaced with new
plantings.
Board member Cunningham noted that Condition 29 suggested participation in the TSM
program, and recommended that it be strengthened to require participation in the TSM
program.
Mr. Ernst noted that the Harbor Bay Business Park already included participation in the
TSM as part of the development agreement and the PD.
Board Member Lynch noted that the question was whether the City plan was deed-
restricted, as were the CC&Rs. If it was a condition of the CC&Rs, it would be deed-
restricted.
Board member Cunningham inquired whether the applicant had considered natural
ventilation for these buildings, and noted that it would be a good place to have a
showcase in Alameda of a naturally ventilated office park.
Mr. Ernst replied that the mechanical systems will all have economizers to switch to use
natural ventilation. He noted that the window systems will be designed to be operable. He
noted that if the windows were opened, the doors must be closed, because the airplanes
spread noise throughout the space. He noted that had not been designed into the space
yet.
Board member Cunningham inquired whether showers would be provided for bicyclists,
and encouraged the applicant to do SO. Mr. Ernst replied that their green specifications
included that feature as well; he added that several of their buyers had done so in their
own plans. He added that they had a confirmed Silver rating, and may be able to achieve
a Gold LEED rating.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would like to see a copy of the applicant's
green specifications.
A discussion of the road width and right of way ensued.
Vice President Kohlstrand believed the ferry terminal road would be the biggest problem.
Mr. Thomas noted that if the road were to be built to City standards, it would be
significantly wider.
Board Member Lynch noted that if it were a City road, Public Works would not be likely
to want to take on the road's maintenance because of the cost.
President Cook noted that page 13, paragraph 1, should be changed to read,
Page 12 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,13,"President Cook noted that there were many positive aspects to the project, and
appreciated the applicant's willingness to work with the City and the neighborhood over
the course of the project. She was uncomfortable with the first set of findings on pages 1
and 2, that the project would be compatible with the adjacent surroundings, providing
harmonious transitions between different designated land uses. She felt that the site was
more clustered and walled off the water, with an insufficient relationship back to the
community. She believed this project was similar to Alameda Landing in that it was a
waterfront site approved for a lot of commercial office use, but it did not incorporate
significant public access and recreation. She noted that both projects had a sea of parking,
but that Alameda Landing incorporated public access and recreation opportunities in a
way that provides a reason for the public to be there at night and on the weekends, to
keep it safe and active. While she liked the project, she felt it was somewhat disconnected
from the waterfront environment and cut the community off from the shores. She also felt
that there was not a harmonious transition from the parking on the north through the site
to the south. Finally, she felt that there should be a safer and more efficient road for bikes
and cars through the Ferry Terminal rather than the undersized private access road now
there.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft would like to see Condition 13 modified to read, ""The
final landscape plan for the area between the eastern edge of the private ferry access road
and the sidewalk along the lagoon shall comply with Bay-friendly landscaping
guidelines, as set forth by StopWaste.org."" She noted that because the property was on
the waterfront, anything put on the landscaping would be safe to run off into the water.
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt draft Planning Board Resolution to approve a
Final Development Plan, Major Design Review, Planned Development Amendment for
reduced parking for the construction of ten new office buildings totaling approximately
109,280 square feet in floor area with a total of 384 parking spaces to be constructed on a
9.22 acre site. The following modifications will be added:
1. Page 5, Item 13: A reference to Bay Friendly landscaping will be
incorporated;
2. Page 7, Item 29: A modification to the Harbor Bay TSM program will be
incorporated;
3. Prior to issuance of permits, staff will work with the applicant to look at ways
to minimize the width of the bioswale for the purpose of providing more
width for the curb-to-curb for bicycles and pedestrians; underground
mechanical solutions should be avoided. Lane width will not be added for
vehicles;
4. The transformers will be screened; and
5. Showers will be encouraged as part of the TSM program.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5.
Noes: 1 (Cook); Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed.
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt draft Planning Board Resolution to approve
the Tentative Map for the construction of ten new office buildings totaling approximately
Page 13 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,14,"109,280 square feet in floor area with a total of 384 parking spaces to be constructed on a
9.22 acre site.
Board Member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5.
Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain - 1 (Cook). The motion passed.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Vice President Kohlstrand would like the resolution thanking Gina Mariani for her service
on the Planning Board to be presented at the next Planning Board meeting. Mr. Thomas
agreed, and noted that would take place.
11-A. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force (Board
Members Cook/Kohlstrand)
President Cook noted that there had been no further meetings.
11-B. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member McNamara)
Mr. Thomas noted there was nothing to report.
11-C. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation Subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand)
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that there had been no further meetings since her last
report.
President Cook requested that if there had been no further meetings under Board
Communications, that they be removed from that meeting's agenda. Mr. Thomas
concurred with that suggestion.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
Page 14 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,15,"This meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 15 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf