body,date,page,text,path
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2008-04-28,1,"APPROVED
COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
April 28, 2008
TIME
The meeting convened at 6:32 P.M.
PRESENT
Chair Lord-Hausman, Commissioners Berger, Longley-Cook, Fort, Kirola, Robinson
and Kreitz.
ABSENT
Vice-Chair Moore
MINUTES
The March 24, 2008 minutes were approved with the following correction: under Old Business,
item number two, the last two sentences were deleted, as that was not reflected in the discussions.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
There was no written communication.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Draft Pedestrian Plan (Gail Payne, PW):
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator, gave a presentation on the Draft Pedestrian Plan, which
included the executive summary, vision goals and policies, outreach, existing conditions and
implementation.
Commissioner Berger asked if the number of residents with disabled license plate placards were
included in the update, to which Ms. Payne replied they were not, however, they will get that
information from DMV. Chair Lord-Hausman suggested checking with the Census Bureau.
Commissioner Berger asked what the multi-modal plan includes, to which Ms. Payne responded
it includes all different types of transit operations.
Commissioner Kirola asked if the timing at pedestrian signals could be adjusted to extend
walking times within the crosswalks, to which Ms. Payne replied yes, and signal timing issues
are addressed under the Implementation Section.
Commissioner Berger suggested looking at more recent data under Bus Stop Boards, as the
current data is two years old, to which Ms. Payne agreed to do.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-04-28.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2008-04-28,2,"Commission on Disability Issues
April 28, 2008
Minutes
Page 2 of 4
Chair Lord-Hausman asked if the updated information would be implemented over years, to
which Ms. Payne responded yes, as the Plan would not be updated again for another five to ten
years. Chair Lord-Hausman requested that PW provide another update to the Commission in the
fall.
Commissioner Kirola asked if funding would come from tax and grants, to which Ms. Payne
responded that all monies are strictly from transportation funding and not being drawn from the
General Fund of the City.
Commissioner Berger asked that the material for the walkway improvements not be slippery, to
which Ms. Payne replied that process will be addressed within the Public Walkway Project and
Pedestrian Guidelines.
Chair Lord-Hausman asked if the proposed improvements along Shoreline Drive be addressed
sooner than later, to which Ms. Payne replied that Shoreline Drive is not identified as high
priority due to lack of funding, however, it is considered an important improvement as part of
the overall Plan update.
Ms. Payne thanked the Commission for their input.
2. Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study Update (Gail Payne, PW):
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator handed out information regarding the feasibility study
currently underway. The City has selected a consultant to assist in that effort. There is a public
meeting scheduled for May 17, 2008 and anticipated it will be completed in the fall.
Commissioner Berger stated that if Oakland is only contributing $10,000 to the study, is the City
(Oakland) committed to the project, to which Ms. Payne replied yes. Oakland has the study
ranked as a high priority project in its redevelopment and Bicycle Master Plans. The City has a
good relationship with Oakland and, in terms of the estuary study, it is more of Alameda's issue
as the City (Alameda) is the lead agency.
OLD BUSINESS
1. 2007 CDI Accomplishments (Chair Lord-Hausman):
Chair Lord-Hausman distributed the updated list of CDI accomplishments from 2006-2007
and suggested that the Commission review it and provide any further comments to her. The
2008 accomplishments continue to be worked on.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-04-28.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2008-04-28,3,"Commission on Disability Issues
April 28, 2008
Minutes
Page 3 of 4
2. Path Between Crown & Washington Parks (Chair Lord-Hausman):
Chair Lord-Hausman stated the accessibility improvements along the pathway are done and
look nice.
3. Disability Parking at City Events (Chair Lord-Hausman):
Chair Lord-Hausman stated that, as part of the agreement with the City, the Earth Day event
would include accessible temporary parking.
4. Commission Recruitment (Chair Lord-Hausman):
Chair Lord-Hausman stated she had not received any new applications from prospective
applicants and encouraged everyone to spread the word about open vacancies on the
Commission.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
1. Secretary Akil stated the presentation of the draft ADA Transition Plan would be presented to
the Commission at the May 27, 2008 meeting and would also be noticed as a community-wide
meeting. A printed version of the draft Plan would be available for review in several City
offices prior to the meeting date. More information will be mailed to the Commission in
advance as well. Secretary Akil explained that the delay of the presentation to the CDI was due
to internal approval and presentation to affected City departments.
2. Secretary Akil provided information from Barry Bergman, PW Transportation Coordinator,
requesting that a representative from the CDI join the Bike Plan Task Force as they begin to
update the Plan.
Commissioner Longley-Cook asked about the frequency of the meetings, to which Chair Lord-
Hausman responded that it is similar to the Pedestrian Plan Task Force, which does not meet on
a weekly basis, only as needed.
Commissioner Kreitz agreed to join the Task Force as the CDI representative, to which Secretary
Akil indicated that she would inform Mr. Bergman.
ORAL OMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS
1. Cathy Nielsen, SSHRB member, stated she had received the letter that the CDI had sent to the
Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB) regarding County medical funding for low-
income/disabled individuals and wanted to discuss those items.
Chair Lord-Hausman responded that she was not aware if the letter was distributed to all of the
SSHRB members and requested that she return to a future meeting to discuss that issue, to which
Ms. Nielsen agreed.
G:\Lucretia)CommDisability\Minutes)2008\Minutes_Apr 28 2008.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-04-28.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2008-04-28,4,"Commission on Disability Issues
April 28, 2008
Minutes
Page 4 of 4
2. Buena Vista Commons:
Chair Lord-Hausman stated that one of the low-income homes would be accessible for a disabled
household.
3. Chair Lord-Hausman read and distributed a news article on the California Chamber of
Commerce regarding the Chamber's urging its members to join its Advancing Disability Access
Coalition in support of statewide efforts to achieve better compliance with disability access laws.
4.
Commissioner Berger stated that there is no buzzer located at the back of the Alameda Free
Library building under the outside handicap placard for assistance. Also, there needs to be
another changing table installed in one of the library restrooms to allow more space for the
disabled.
Secretary Akil stated she would send an email to Jane Chisaki regarding these two issues and
get back to the Commission with the findings.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M. The next scheduled meeting is Tuesday, May 27, 2008, at 6:30
P.M. in Room 360 at City Hall.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia A. Akil
Commission Secretary
G:\Lucretia)CommDisability\Minutes)2008\Minutes_Apr 28 8 2008.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-04-28.pdf
PensionBoard,2008-04-28,1,"OF
of
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
PENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD 4:30 P.M., APRIL 28, 2008
ALAMEDA CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA
CONFERENCE ROOM 391
1.
The meeting was called to order by Member William Soderlund at 4:40 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL: Present: Trustees Nancy Elzig, and Karen Willis. Staff: Juelle Ann
Boyer, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Lelia Faapouli, Administrative
Technician, Human Resources.
Absent: Members Beverly Johnson and Robert Follrath
3.
MINUTES: The minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 28, 2008 were
moved for approval by Member Elzig and seconded by Member Willis. Passed
3-0.
4.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
4-A.
PENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2008:
a.
In the amount of $ 227,562.44 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.
b.
In the amount of $ 3,516.67 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.
4-B.
PENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2008:
a.
In the amount of $ 226,147.76 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.
b.
In the amount of $ 3,516.67 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.
4-C.
PENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 2008:
a.
In the amount of $ 225,987.43 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.
b.
In the amount of $ 3,516.67 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.",PensionBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PensionBoard,2008-04-28,2,"City of Alameda
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Pension Board - Monday, April 28, 2008
Page 2
Member Elzig motioned to adopt the consent calendar and seconded by Member Willis.
Passed 3-0
5.
AGENDA ITEMS:
5-A. The Chief Financial Officer's Financial Report for City of Alameda Police
and Fire Pension Funds for the period ending March 31, 2008 was
accepted as presented. Member Elzig moved to approve, seconded by
Member Willis. Passed 3-0
5-B.
Continuation of discussion on purchasing and erecting new flagpoles at
City Hall.
Member Willis had nothing new to report regarding grants. Member Elzig
also reported researching grants on the internet but could not find
anything to report.
Juelle-Ann Boyer suggested a company called eCIVIS that sell their
services to research grants for you. Member Willis will look into it.
5-C.
Memo from Human Resources Director notifying of death of 1079
Pensioners, Alice Aspinall, widow of Battalion Chief - Warren Aspinall,
Robert Nunes, Firefighter and Leonard Engstrom, Police Officer was
accepted with regrets on a motion by Member Elzig and seconded by
Member Willis. Passed 3-0.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no oral communications.
7.
PENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)
There were no communications from the board.
8.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was
adjourned at 4:46 p.m.",PensionBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PensionBoard,2008-04-28,3,"City of Alameda
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Pension Board - Monday, April 28, 2008
Page 3
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Willis, Human Resources Director
and Secretary to the Pension Board",PensionBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, April 28, 2008
1.
CONVENE:
7:06 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member McNamara.
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Board
Members Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, Lynch and
McNamara.
Also present were Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager, Assistant City Attorney
Farimah Faiz.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of November 13, 2007 (continued from April 14,
2008).
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that on pages 1 and 2, the Assistant City Attorney's
last name was misspelled ""Faz,"" and should be corrected to read ""Faiz.""
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the first bullet point in the second-to-last
paragraph on page 2 should be changed to read: ""1. The square footage from the prior
approval would be reduced because the Target store was not-no longer needed because
Target had withdrawn its application.""
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 5, paragraph 6, read, ""Board member Lynch
stated it was important to understand the current parking configuration versus the new
configuration. He noted that he had spoken with the City Manager's office to apprise
them that the applicant was willing to work with the City to address the sidewalk issue on
Park Street."" She inquired whether Board member Lynch had received a response to his
discussion. Board member Lynch replied that he would provide the information when it
was available.
President Cook noted that page 6, paragraph 2, because she agreed with some aspects of
the plan, but not others, the language should be changed to read: ""Prosident Cook noted
that she generally agreed with the plan.-She noted that she was fine with the increased
height on the Mervyn's building, but that it seemed lopsided,-because without the
additional height, the center would now look lopsided because some heights had been
increased on the new, improved parts of the center.""
President Cook noted that further into the same paragraph, the following language ""She
believed the deck could be made more attractive... "" referred to her comment that she was
not sure about the parking structure yet, and would need to give it more thought.
Page 1 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,2,"President Cook noted that the next sentence in the same paragraph should be changed to
read, ""She inquired about Dr. Perry's corner, and was concerned about circulation and
pedestrian safety.'
President Cook noted that the last several sentences in the same paragraph
""She believed the elevation for the Mervyn's building looked good, and would like
updated traffic counts. She agreed with Board member Ezzy Ashcraft about the crosswalk,
and was very concerned that the crosswalks at Shoreline Drive did not connect with the
pedestrian walkways at the center and did not like the current crosswalk at Shoreline.'
She noted that was not an issue so much for the center, as it was for the Public Works
Department. She added that the crosswalks led right into iceplant and did not connect.
Board Member Cunningham moved to approve the minutes of November 13, 2007, as
amended.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4.
Noes: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 2 (Kohlstrand, McNamara). The motion passed.
b.
Minutes for the meeting of March 24, 2008 (pending).
These minutes will be considered at a later meeting.
c.
Minutes for the meeting of April 14, 2008 (pending).
These minutes will be considered at a later meeting.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
Mr. Biggs suggested that Items 9-A and 9-B be reversed in order on the agenda at the
request of the Public Works Department.
6.
PRESENTATIONS:
a.
Staff Communications - Future Agendas
Mr. Biggs provided an update on future agenda items.
Board member Lynch requested that given the volume of information that would be
required for the May 12, 2008, public hearing of the Harbor Bay Village VI Project GPA
and EIR, that the following meeting have a light agenda to handle overflow from that
hearing. He anticipated that there would be a great deal of public interest in that item, and
did not believe the Planning Board would be able to make a determination that evening.
Mr. Biggs noted that staff would do its best to make the documentation available to the
Board as early as possible, and that it would be made available at the Planning
Department as early as possible for the public as well.
Page 2 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,3,"Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she had a similar request for the following meeting
for the Draft Pedestrian Plan. She noted that City staff's Gail Payne had done a lot of
work on that document, and that it may take two meetings to cover it.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that for future agenda scheduling, whenever an
item had a voluminous amount of reading, that staff could determine when the documents
would be ready, and give the Planning Board members a longer window of time to
review the documents before the meeting.
President Cook noted that the office condominium project at Harbor Bay went to City
Council on appeal, and the appeal was rejected, so project approval was upheld. She
noted that she had spoken to an appellant, who expressed concern about the lack of
sufficient notice. She had told President Cook that over 1,300 had signed a petition.
President Cook believed that there should be more time to inform the public, as well as
time to review the materials.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that the 300-foot radius noticing had been complied with,
and added that there were a number of homeowners associations within Harbor Bay Isle,
as well as a Master Association. She suggested that the Association put themselves on the
list to receive the packet online.
Board member Lynch noted that about two years ago, the Board held a discussion
regarding revising how it interacted with the public in terms of noticing. They believed
that given the staff needs, that a break in the schedule be taken, and a Planning Board
agenda projecting forward a month was suggested. He believed it would be simple to do,
and would not take any additional dollars or staff resources; he noted that management
scheduling would be able to accomplish that goal.
b.
Zoning Administrator Report - Meeting of April 15, 2008.
Mr. Biggs provided an update on the latest Zoning Administrator Report, and noted that
the Action Agenda was also included in the packet.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-B.
Capital Improvement Projects Fiscal Year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010
The Planning Board will review the proposed Capital Improvement Projects
Proposal for the next two year City Budget. The Planning Board will consider
whether the proposed expenditure plan is consistent with the City of Alameda
General Plan.
Page 3 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,4,"Ms. Kozisek, Public Works, summarized the staff report. The next public hearing will be
held at 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 30, 2008, and will also be available on the City
website. The following meetings will be noted on the website as well.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Helen Sause noted that she hoped the 27 projects reduced the 101 projects. She inquired
when the Sewer Master Plan would be completed. She inquired where the Estuary Crossing
study would occur, and wondered what the study was about. She inquired whether the Tree
Master Plan fell under this work, and whether there would be implementation from it.
Ms. Kozisek replied that the 27 projects were not taken out of the 101 projects, which were
anticipated for the future. She noted that Public Works planned to finish the Sewer Master
Plan by the end of 2008. She noted that the Estuary Crossing study was in response to the
problems encountered by pedestrians and bicyclists when traveling through the Tubes. The
study was intended to find other possible ways to get across the Estuary, and the
environmental phase was intended to examine all possibilities before picking one that had
the least adverse impact. She noted that the Tree Master Plan was underway, and that the
trees were being measured. She added that had already been funded, and was not included in
this project. She expected that would be completed in several months.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the genesis of the
Public Benefit Score, Ms. Kozisek replied that it was a concept that had been around for a
few years. The score was looked at, but is not the final score upon which a determination
was made. A higher score has more benefits, such as economic or visual benefits,
cultural/historic/recreation potential or preservation, or environmental impacts.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the City Hall Tower retrofit was given a score of
76, which is higher than either bridge maintenance, storm drain repair or water taxi vessel
procurement. She added that the cost would be $430,000, and noted that the City's budget
restrictions were well-known. She understood it was a private funding effort, and that it was
listed in the unfunded list, and inquired why it received a score of 76.
Ms. Kozisek replied that the complete list was not available at this time, but added that
private funding gave the project a higher score. The project on City Hall would benefit all
citizens, while the storm drains were not noticed unless they flooded onto someone's
property.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether the Board would like to continue this
item in order to allow sufficient time to read the material, Board member Ezzy Ashcraft
replied that would be helpful.
Board member Lynch inquired about the acronyms and the presentation of the data with
respect to fees received and projected expenditures. Ms. Kozisek replied that they were
Page 4 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,5,"conservative estimates developed by the Finance Department. He inquired whether staff
would share the information from the public meetings as they are conducted; Ms. Kozisek
replied that would occur.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she would look forward to receiving the background
information. She requested that Ms. Kozisek comment on the gas tax, which was being
raided by the State and used on the State level. She inquired whether $240,000 was the
amount being received by the City. Ms. Kozisek replied that was only the part that went
toward Capital Improvements; the remainder went to the operating budget.
Vice President Kohlstrand inquired about Bicycle and Pedestrian projects, Ms. Kozisek
discussed the budget allocation for those uses and noted that the details on the prioritizations
would be available mid-year.
Board member Lynch complimented Ms. Kozisek on her thorough and methodical approach
to this project.
Board member McNamara noted that for 2008-09, $24 million was approved, with $16
million for the Stargell Extension, a one-time project, and 2009-10 identified $6 million for
Public Works. She inquired whether the $2 million differential would change, or whether
the City should expect dwindling funds over the next few years.
Ms. Kozisek noted that the funds may decrease, and that staff took a more conservative
approach. She added that there were frequently mid-year appropriations to address, and that
some of the Measure B funds were held in reserve to act as a local match for potential
grants.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft encouraged Ms. Kozisek to provide explanations for technical
acronyms for the public. Ms. Kozisek replied that the Board received a shortened version of
the document that would be seen by the public, which would explain the technical terms.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether any Climate Protection
Task Force findings were included in the document, Ms. Kozisek replied that buildings over
3 million square feet should be LEED-rated. Board member Cunningham added that the
findings of the Task Force were valuable, and believed that they should be reflected in some
follow-through. He noted that there were a number of recommendations that would benefit
the community, such as the reduction of solid waste through the green building ordinance.
She noted that she would look further into that matter.
Board member Cunningham believed that future projects identified by the Planning Board
should be detailed in the CIP, and would like to see more details. Ms. Kozisek noted that
City Council would have a workshop on this issue in a month, and was unsure whether there
would be enough time to include this discussion. She noted that it was better for the entire
City's funding to have a complete list of wish-list projects, and encouraged the Planning
Board to submit these to the Unfunded Projects List as a planning tool.
Page 5 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,6,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the StopWaste.org version of the green building
ordinance had been approved at the last meeting, and had been sent to City Council. She
was concerned that the Task Force had not been consulted for the wish list. Board member
Cunningham replied that the green building ordinance contained only one of the findings.
Vice President Kohlstrand would like more information on the Estuary study. She noted that
Director Woodbury had attended the joint meeting with the City Council, and returned to the
Planning Board for a mid-year discussion. She hoped that would become a regular
occurrence to discuss how projects fit into the CIP. She noted that she would abstain
because there was nothing in the document that discussed conformance to the General Plan.
President Cook agreed with Vice President Kohlstrand, and would like further clarification
of the Planning Board's role in this plan. She was not prepared to say it was consistent with
the General Plan, but that it was no reflection on the work done by Public Works. Ms.
Kozisek noted that there was almost no new construction in the CIP, and that it was
generally reconstructing or repairing existing items.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether it would be possible to bifurcate the CIP
report so the Planning Board may have more time to consider the full information.
Mr. Biggs inquired whether the Plan would go to the City Council for approval. Ms.
Kozisek replied that they would begin to hold workshops in late May; there will be one or
two meetings to discuss the CIP, followed by a vote.
President Cook requested that the Board be allowed the time to examine the unfunded
projects and decide on a course of action.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with that suggestion, and inquired about the other
Boards and Commissions that may want to weigh in.
Mr. Biggs suggested continuing this item to May 12, 2008, and given the time constraint, he
did not know whether they would be able to distribute the CIP to the Boards and
Commissions in time.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that the Climate Protection Task Force be made a
priority in examining the unfunded projects.
President Cook inquired whether the Planning Board had the authority to recommend that
a
project be placed on the funded or unfunded list for review. Ms. Kozisek noted that staff
would put any request on the unfunded list, including proposals from the general public. To
get on the proposed list, it must go through the City Manager and Public Works, and money
must be available for it.
President Cook suggested that this item be deferred, and that a meeting be held with the
Planning Director to explain how the Board may have meaningful input into the capital
budgeting process.
Page 6 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,7,"Vice President Kohlstrand would like to go further, and facilitate the Board's input into the
process.
Board member McNamara suggested that the Board adhere to the letter of the law and
determine whether it was consistent with the General Plan or not.
Board member Cunningham agreed with Board member McNamara's suggestion.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft was comfortable voting because she had read the entire
packet. She expressed concern about the $430,000 proposed expenditure of the clocktower
at City Hall, and she believed that was somewhat out of priority. She could make the finding
that the CIP was consistent with the General Plan.
Board Member Cunningham moved to find that the CIP list for the Fiscal Year
2008/2009 and 2009/2010 was in conformance with the General Plan.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4. Noes:
0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 2 (Cook, Kohlstrand). The motion passed.
9-A. PLN08-0155 - 2201 South Shore Center - Applicant - Harsch Investment
Realty. Permit includes the renovation of Building 900 and site improvements in
the area immediately adjacent to the building. Current review is limited to the
architecture design and does not include the use or operational aspects of this
building. Building 900 currently contains a single retail store (Mervyn's) and two
smaller tenant spaces. A portion of the existing retail store will be converted into
five smaller shops. The existing building height ranges from approximately 25 feet
to 28 feet. After renovation, the typical building height would range from 25 feet
to 29 feet with parapets over the entranceways extending up to a maximum height
of 33.5 feet. Site improvements include extensive landscaping, new benches and
bicycle parking facilities. (JB/DG).
Mr. Biggs presented the staff report and displayed a PowerPoint presentation.
Board member Cunningham noted that the staff report did not mention the PDA, and the
ability to raise the height of the structure. He acknowledged that was not part of the
approval.
Mr. Biggs noted that the Planning Board will look at the PDA in the future, and if the
second story was confined with the architecture of the building, it would be defined within
the building permit process. The height could not be increased without a design review.
Board member Cunningham noted that his comments had been addressed, and that he was
happy with what he saw.
Page 7 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,8,"Board member Lynch concurred.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook about the process, Mr. Biggs replied that the
amendment would need to come before the applicant could add the second floor space. Any
modifications to the exterior of the building would be subject to design review.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that when she went to Town Centre, she was
continually impressed and pleased with how beautiful it looked. She would recommend
people visit it to see the spring flowers. She also liked the building materials and the design.
She was pleased to see people strolling through the courtyard. She did not find the design of
the Kohl's building to be consistent with the high level of design of the other buildings. She
will be happy to see the old Mervyn's building gone. She believed the long, uninterrupted
expanses of walls be replaced with some windows, although she understood that retail
windows could be problematic because the retailer would lose display space. She believed
windows would make walking along this area a more interesting experience for the
pedestrian. She inquired why there was no entrance on the west elevation, and noted that
created an even longer blank expanse on that side. She believed the south elevation facing
the interior mall also needed some glass window displays to look in, to break up the expanse
of building material. She liked the east elevation.
Vice President Kohlstrand echoed Board member Ezzy Ashcraft's concerns regarding the
blank wall and lack of access to the store on the west side.
President Cook echoed Board member Ezzy Ashcraft's concerns.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed the lettering of the Kohl's sign looked very large,
and inquired how big it was.
Board member McNamara inquired about bike racks, and would like more to be installed at
the center.
The public hearing was opened.
Randy [Kytes], applicant, was pleased that this had been a very collaborative process, and
that the series of challenging meetings had been productive. He noted that much of the
wall space was needed by the store for internal display. He noted that Kohl's typically
operated with a single entry into the store, and he noted that they would be able to make
an accommodation for two entries. The entrances were originally on the west and north
sides, and the applicant was asked to move them to the mall side. The owner of the
company held an impassioned meeting with the Centre architects and Kohl's architects,
and requested a number of upgrades and further articulation in the building. He noted that
it was difficult to express a three-dimensional view in the elevations, and added that the
trellises would step off the building substantially.
Mr. Kytes suggested that Kohl's be allowed to do what they do, in order to for them to
continue to be successful. They discussed adding a layer of pedestrian amenity, such as
Page 8 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,9,"art plaques. He noted that Kohl's did not merchandise show windows, and he believed
the center could install fountains or art in lieu of putting in a show window that would
likely be covered by a graphic. He believed the current design was sufficiently articulated
and followed the flavor of the center. He was confident that a more interesting walk
would be possible. They would also maintain shop space along the mall with a strong
pedestrian walkway. He noted that the height of the sign was 12 inches taller than
Safeway, and added that he would find out the total square footage of the sign. He noted
that Kohl's originally wanted an entryway on the west, but Harsch felt that it would be
more valuable on the mall.
Monique Lee, Harsch, displayed and described the bike rack area.
President Cook requested that the applicant address the color schemes of the building, and
noted that there was a lot of beige in the elevations.
Jeff [Stohl], Shrader and Holt, Kohl's project architect, noted that they originally had the
entrance plan to make it pedestrian friendly. The developer requested that the entrance
face the pedestrian mall, and Kohl's has since added trellis elements, landscaping and
pilasters to break it up. He noted that they had been working with Field Paoli on the color
scheme, and the elevations presented muted earth tones. They would like to keep that
general scheme, and added that they could pop out some more true to life colors.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft whether color and material
boards had been brought, Mr. [Stohl] replied that they used materials consistent with the
existing Towne Centre buildings. They were refacing the aggregate with new wood
paneling and arbors, as well as a tile selection near the entrance that also featured glazing.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that the positive transition of Towne Centre had featured
a lot more transparency, and noted that Harsch captured that concept where the small-
scale buildings were being added in the corner. She was concerned that the warehouse
look would interrupt the existing Center visuals.
Mr. Stohl noted that Kohl's used the interior of the walls to display merchandise from
within the store. He noted that the store needed as much inside wall space as possible to
follow the merchandising plans.
Jeff Pool, Manager of New Store Development, Kohl's Department Store, noted that four
of the five Kohl's stores that would be developed in 2008 would be 88,000 square feet.
He noted that sometimes there was a gap regarding the nature of Kohl's business. He
noted that there were 15 stores within the San Francisco metropolitan area, and that they
were publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange with annual sales of $16 billion.
Their mission statement was to be a family-focused, family-oriented specialty department
store for the nation. He noted that Mervyn's was 84,000 square feet. He noted that their
plan for the interior wall displays created a struggle in 2006 as the developer's needs
were set against the store's need to create sufficient revenue. He noted that they have
recently found ways to accommodate form and function. He noted that they had no show
Page 9 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,10,"windows in a normal prototype store, and that there were store windows at the store
entrance, as well as within the store, containing mannequins. He did not believe it would
be possible to create additional store windows. He noted that they wished to put their best
foot forward in the Centre, and did not believe the PowerPoint presentation did justice to
the colors and articulation that had been presented. He assured the Board that they would
be able to present what the Board needed to make a decision.
Board member McNamara expressed concern about the massing and bland color of the
building, which she believed was already an eyesore. She liked the landscaping efforts
throughout the center, and believed that it would be continued in this part of the project.
Mr. Kyte noted that Harsch was very protective and critical of the center's design. He
believed that the landscaping and the trellises on the south side of Bed, Bath & Beyond
would have sufficed. He noted that they knew how to create a pedestrian amenity, and
that they knew how to get people to flow through the shopping center, as well as to stay,
linger and enjoy the experience. He noted that they would make every piece of this center
right before it was completed.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed there was a solution to the Board's desire for
display windows, as well as landscaping and the trellis. She believed that the Board's
expectations were placed very high by the previous phases of the center. She did not want
to see long expanses of wall, and that the public wanted a beautiful place to shop. She did
not want to see a warehouse on the corner of the development. She inquired whether
there were restrictions on the truck hours.
Mr. Pool noted that Mervyn's had the same width with a recessed dock, and described the
shift of the dock area in order to increase the sales area. He noted that the Mervyn's door
accommodated two trucks. Mr. Kyte added that trash compactors were also included.
Mr. Pool expressed concern that the posters that were initially very attractive in an initial
presentation before the City may become yellowed and curled in the window. He noted
that it may be a function of training of managers for poster maintenance. He noted that
they wanted to put the entrance on the west side, but that Harsch did not allow it. He
believed that the illumination and the trellises would improve the presentation than
depending on Kohl's to use existing design programs. He was concerned that the lack of
a national, regional or local program for shop windows would lead to a shopworn look
over time.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding truck hours, Mr. Pool
replied that they would probably be less than Safeway's. Kohl's had two or three
deliveries weekly, with the exception of the holiday season.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand regarding the concrete, Mr. Pool
described the transition from colored concrete to the asphalt in that area.
Page 10 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,11,"In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether they had looked at brick-like
surfaces, Board member Cunningham replied that the weight of the truckloads required
that the surface be made of concrete. Mr. Kyte replied they had looked at stamped
concrete, but they were problematic with the weight of the truckloads.
President Cook noted that she shares some of the same concerns as Board member Ezzy
Ashcraft. She added that while she normally abstained from a piecemeal development, she
was in favor of this item moving forward, particularly in light of the CIP moving
forward. She noted that sales tax revenue was very important to the City, and had seen
that Mervyn's had not done as good a job in that area. She shared the concerns regarding
the windows, and trusted that the developer would keep it on a human scale. She
appreciated any design additions that could enliven the colors. She was initially very
concerned about not having a west-facing door, but understood that would be a concern
with respect to shoplifting.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there were any overhangs above the
trellises between the loading dock and the Kohl's sign. She would like to see the Kohl's
letter in a smaller size, particularly given the flatness of the façade. She requested that the
letters be the same size as Safeway. Mr. Pool noted that the traffic flow along Otis was
significantly blocked, and they had asked for Kohl's identification as the largest store in
the center; Harsch had denied that request. He noted that Kohl's square footage was
larger than Safeway, and that the sign was intended to be seen by passing traffic on Otis
Drive.
Mike Corbitt, Harsch Development, noted that the letters on the Mervyn's sign were six
and five feet, respectively. He noted that it was important for the store to be seen.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft would like there to be more visual interest on the exterior.
She inquired where the art panels and fountains would be located. Mr. Kyte replied that
history panels would be mounted on the building on the west side. Board member Ezzy
Ashcraft did not believe she could support this unless there was a window or some other
point of interest on the blank wall. Mr. Kyte replied that the Board had not approved
locations for other panels, and that they had installed many of them. He added that the art
panels have been purchased already, and that they intended to include an appropriate
level of pedestrian amenities and landscape. He assured the Board that they would create
a pedestrian-friendly appearance, and estimated that two panels would be placed on the
west elevation in a yet-to-be-determined location, and two on the south elevation between
the Kohl's entry and the West End of the mall. He noted that they had other pieces of art
that had not been sited yet, and that those pieces exceeded the City's requirements.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt Draft Planning Board Resolution to approve
a permit that includes the renovation of Building 900 and site improvements in the area
immediately adjacent to the building. Current review is limited to the architecture design
and does not include the use or operational aspects of this building. Building 900
Page 11 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,12,"currently contains a single retail store (Mervyn's) and two smaller tenant spaces. A
portion of the existing retail store will be converted into five smaller shops. The existing
building height ranges from approximately 25 feet to 28 feet. After renovation, the typical
building height would range from 25 feet to 29 feet with parapets over the entranceways
extending up to a maximum height of 33.5 feet. Site improvements include extensive
landscaping, new benches and bicycle parking facilities.
President Cook requested an amendment to add the following language in Condition 3:
""This area shall not be used for vehicle parking, loading or unloading, staging or material
storage
The amendment was acceptable to the maker and seconder of the motion.
Board member Lynch seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 1
(Ezzy Ashcraft). The motion passed.
9-C.
Housing Element/Measure A Forum Summary
For Planning Board review and discussion. This item is for discussion purposes
only.
Mr. Biggs summarized the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
There were none.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Vice President Kohlstrand believed the summary accurately reflected what had happened
at the forum, and hoped that there would be more of a summary from the staff
perspective.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 1, paragraph 4, of the Preface did not seem
to be accurate, which read: ""In March 2007, the Planning Board appointed an ad hoc
committee.
A group of Alameda residents appealed the Planning Board's committee
appointment to the City Council, reflecting the community's passion about preserving
Measure A."" She did not believe that sentence belonged in the document, and stated that
an appeal made by seven people could not be extrapolated to speak for the City's
population of 75,000. She believed the process was accurate.
Board member Lynch noted that this item was prepared by Planning Director Cathy
Woodbury, and asked how the comment made by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft could be
integrated. He believed it reflected an opinion and should be struck.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed the sentence she quoted was a conclusionary
statement, and should be removed from the document.
Page 12 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,13,"Mr. Biggs replied that the sentence could be stricken from the document.
Board member Lynch advised that that was a direction to staff, rather than a request, and
inquired about the process to make a correction.
Board member Cunningham inquired where this process would go in the future. Mr.
Biggs described the general process, and noted that SunCal would take the input and
bring it back in a summary to the City
President Cook did not want this discussion to continue if SunCal were not to be in the
picture. She believed further discussion of this matter was very important, particularly the
tradeoffs faced on Alameda Point.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft would like to hear more about forum-based codes, which
would not supplant the discussion about Measure A, but she believed it was a timely
topic. She would like to agendize that topic for a future meeting.
President Cook noted that developers liked certainty, and this discussion would help in
future development. She noted that a bright side of an economic downturn allowed the
City time to refine these items.
Vice President Kohlstrand inquired about the status of the Housing Element; she noted
that it was important to have the forum summary as a record, but believed that the
ultimate meaning for the community was missing from the document.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the event cost $41,500, and hoped that covered
the entire process, not just that day.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that it included the preparation and organization time, as
well as presentations and lunch.
President Cook would like to hear back from the Planning Director to discuss the work
program issues and the policy issues, particularly as they relate to the Housing Element.
Board member Lynch would like a response from the Planning Director on this item, and
suggested that a Director's Report be placed on the agenda. He expressed concern that
the Planning Director did not attend the meeting, which he believed was significant. He
believed the Director's Report would fall into the policy category that would enable the
Director to clarify the policy issues to the Board.
Board member Lynch inquired whether this had been circulated as a draft document. Mr.
Biggs replied that he did not know. Board member Lynch believed that staff should
consider circulating this document as a draft to the individuals who participated for
accuracy, and then produce the document.
Page 13 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,14,"Board member Lynch moved that the document be returned to the Planning Board in
draft form with a presentation by the Planning Director.
Vice President Kohlstrand wished to amend the motion to state that the Planning Director
would be able to address the issues brought forward during the Board's discussion.
President Cook wished to further amend the motion to include a document to forward to
City Council.
Vice President Kohlstrand seconded the amended motion, with the following voice vote -
6. Noes: 0. The motion passed.
Page 14 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,15,"10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
a.
Report on Alameda Point Station Area Plan
Mr. Biggs presented the staff report, and noted that it was provided to the City Council by
the City Manager. He noted that the report was available on the City's website.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. David Howard suggested that this study was justified on the basis of having to
respond to the Oakland-Chinatown lawsuit against the City of Alameda. He noted that
Section 3.3 of the Settlement Agreement called for a study of transportation alternatives,
which had been presented by the Planning Director many times that outside money was
used to conduct the study to satisfy the requirements of the agreement. He hoped that the
Planning Board or Planning staff would refer this study to the Oakland-Chinatown
Advisory Committee for review, as part of responding to this agreement. He noted the
concerns expressed by the Chinatown Agreement as part of the settlement agreement
regarding automobile traffic. He noted that the transit-enhanced third alternative
translated to twelve buses per hour coming out of Alameda Point, presumably mostly
coming through the Tube. He believed the Advisory would want to review whether they
intended to trade automobiles for buses.
Mr. Howard addressed Board member Cunningham's previous comments about the
balance of jobs and housing at Alameda Point, and noted that the concept was not
adequately addressed in the report. He did not observe any efforts in Alameda to attract
a
big campus user. Regarding the Housing Element, he understood that 71% of Alameda
residents left the Island to get to work each day. He noted that the top ten employers in
Alameda employed only about 4,000 people out of a day population of 38,000 people. He
believed that looking at more housing at Alameda Point would aggravate the current
housing/jobs balance. He supported the idea of reusing the buildings, and bringing jobs at
a range of pay scales that would not require people to leave the Island; he believed that
might solve some of the traffic and transit considerations.
Mr. Howard expressed concern that the report continued to promulgate the notion which
he did not believe had been substantiated or justified, that Measure A precluded any
historic buildings from being reused. He spoke specifically of the Bachelor Executive
Quarters and the Bachelor Officer Quarters. He cited Article 3 of Chapter 30 of the
Alameda Municipal Code (Development Regulations): Multiple Dwelling Units
-
Rehabilitation, remodeling or alteration of existing structures provides that existing
multiple dwelling units may be rehabilitated or remodeled, provided they comply with
the provisions of the chapter, and no building shall be altered to increase the number of
multiple dwelling units contained therein."" He believed that legislation has been
conveniently ignored by every study of what to do with the BEQ and the BOQ. He
believed it was not substantiated that the BEQ and the BOQ could not be reused through
that legislation. He believed that should be studied, and has heard Planning staff and
Page 15 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,16,"President Cook requested that Mr. Thomas update the Board at the next meeting.
Board member Lynch inquired whether a motion would be needed for this item, because
it
was the byproduct of a settlement. He requested that staff return with an answer to the
Board, and suggested that if it was the product of a settlement agreement, he believed
there was some duty to deliver it. If not, he inquired whether the Board should deliver it
in the spirit of neighborliness.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that it was the summary of the first hearing in a process
that has not concluded. Mr. Biggs noted that Mr. Thomas could report to the Board on
that item.
No action was taken.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft hoped that Alameda was not the only body performing
studies on this issue, and that there was reciprocity on Oakland's part.
President Cook suggested that this follow-up be included in Staff Communications for the
next meeting.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that a meeting of the Pedestrian Task Force had been
held; the Task Force included members of the Planning Board, the Transportation
Commission, the Housing Commission and the Accessibility Commission. She noted that
information will come to the Planning Board at the end of May. She encouraged the
Board and the public to look at the work performed by the Task Force in documenting
existing facilities in Alameda. She noted that there was considerable detail, and that their
challenge would be to figure out how to implement the plans to improve pedestrian
amenities in Alameda.
Page 16 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,17,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that Thursday, May 15, would be Bike to Work Day.
She added that May 21 would be the grand opening of the Alameda Theater, and that it
would be a black-tie event.
President Cook noted that Saturday, May 24, would be Family Day at the theater.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
This meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 17 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf