body,date,page,text,path
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2009-03-23,1,"APPROVED
COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
March 23, 2009
TIME
The meeting convened at 7:03 P.M.
PRESENT
Chair Lord-Hausman, Commissioners Fort, Longley-Cook, Kirola, Kreitz and
Krongold.
ABSENT
Vice-Chair Moore and Commissioner Berger
MINUTES
The February 23, 2009 minutes were approved with corrections.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
There were no written communications.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Statement of Economic Interests, Form 700 (Board Secretary):
Secretary Akil distributed the annual Statement of Economic Interest forms, covering the period
for January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008, for the Commissioner's to complete and sign.
2. Presentation on Annual Paratransit Program Application for 2009/2010 (Public Works):
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator for the Public Works Department discussed the renewal
and application process for the 2009/2010 fiscal year. The program is funded through the
Transportation Sales Tax and there is one mandatory line-item designated for Paratransit. The
presentation topics included the service description, objectives, customer satisfaction survey
results, needs identification, planning process, marketing and funding overview.
Secretary Akil asked how many agencies responded to the bid to provide Paratransit services to
which Ms. Payne responded two, Welcome Transportation and Friendly.
Commissioner Krongold asked if Welcome Transportation's vehicle fleet is as large as Friendly
to which Ms. Payne stated that they (Welcome Transp.) has a fleet of vehicles.
Commissioner Krongold asked if the budget for marketing is $19,000 every year as stated in the
staff report, to which Ms. Payne responded that budget is not for marketing, but is designated for
customer service, outreach and Mastick Senior Center staffing.
With no further questions, Chair Lord-Hausman thanked Ms. Payne for the presentation.
Ms. Payne also acknowledged that Chair Lord-Hausman has agreed to be the PAPCO's City of
Alameda representative.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2009-03-23.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2009-03-23,2,"Commission on Disability Issues
March 23, 2009
Minutes
Page 2 of 3
OLD BUSINESS
1.
Special Needs-Special Services Resource Fair (Commissioners Krongold/Kreitz):
Secretary Akil informed the Commission that they could do fundraising for the fair if the City
Manager's office was in agreement with that effort and provided that there is sufficient staffing
from the finance department to support the activity. Secretary Akil also reminded the
Commission that they are an advisory body to Council and tasked with making
recommendations regarding disability issues to Council. The Commission should discuss
whether or not to go ahead with a fair and then vote on whether to convey that intent to Council
as they (Council) should be made aware of what the Commission wants to do. This
communication could happen through an off-agenda report or presentation during a City
Council meeting.
Commissioner Kreitz suggested that the CDI forward an off-agenda memo to Council
informing them of the proposed fair.
Chair Lord-Hausman stated that she would support a short presentation to Council for the sake
of publicity and the value of visibility. Chair Lord-Hausman suggested that an off-agenda be
sent first and then in August the CDI should request the item be placed on the Council agenda
for a September meeting date.
Commissioner Kirola asked if the City would take any portion of the money raised by the CDI
to which Secretary Akil responded that she did not know if that would happen.
Commissioner Longley-Cook stated that the Special Needs Fair should focus on services in
Alameda to which Commissioner Kreitz stated that they started with local resources and it
morphed with other agencies.
Commissioner Kreitz stated that people within the City use these other outside agencies.
Chair Lord-Hausman stated that there are not enough agencies in Alameda to meet the needs of
the disabled community so we have to draw from the County.
Commissioner Krongold stated the work group brainstormed the list and requested that the CDI
provide any additional agencies or groups to which they did. Chair Lord-Hausman stated that
the list is good and the CDI should proceed with the recommended additions to the list.
Commissioner Krongold stated the work group would draft a registration form and cover letter
for the next CDI meeting for review and discussion.
Chair Lord-Hausman asked if the CDI could use the City emblem for various correspondence
for the fair to which Secretary Akil responded that she would check with the City Attorney's
office. Chair Lord-Hausman also requested that the registration forms be mailed to City Hall to
which Secretary Akil agreed, but that all contact information should identify a CDI name and
telephone number for all questions. Secretary Akil agreed to forward all registration forms
back to the CDI member in charge of the fair.
ucretia)CommDisability\Minutes)2009\Minutes_Mar 23 2009.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2009-03-23.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2009-03-23,3,"Commission on Disability Issues
March 23, 2009
Minutes
Page 3 of 3
2.
Commission Disability Internet Webpage (Chair Lord-Hausman/Secretary Akil):
This item is on hold due to on-going funding and budgeting issues.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
There was no staff communications.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS
1.
Commissioner Krongold stated that there will be a March 28th event at College of Alameda
for student's transitioning from K-12 to Community college. There are a number of agencies
involved addressing both social and transitional issues. There will be a variety of sessions
from 10:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. and the cost is $5.00. Chair Lord-Hausman provided the
specific time of the event and registration which is from 9:30 A.M. to 3:00 P.M.
2.
Commissioner Kreitz acknowledged that this is her last meeting and thanked the Commission
for their time and will be available to help on the fair to which Chair Lord-Hausman thanked
her for her involvement and time.
3.
Chair Lord-Hausman stated that a press release went out by the City Clerk's office
announcing openings on the CDI. Commissioner Krongold provided Chair Lord-Hausman
with two prospective names to contact for possible interest in the Commission.
4.
Chair Lord-Hausman confirmed that she has agreed to represent the City of Alameda on both
PAPCO and ACTIA which meets the fourth Monday in the afternoon.
5.
Chair Lord-Hausman provided information on accessible traveling from a magazine based out
of San Francisco. The link is www.emerginghorizons.com.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Tuesday, May 26, 2009 at 7:00
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia Akil
Board Secretary
cretia)CommDisability\Minutes)2009\Minutes_Mar 23 2009.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2009-03-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-03-23,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING
MONDAY, MARCH 23, 2009
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
President Kohlstrand called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board Member Lynch
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
President Kohlstrand, Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft
Board members, Autorino, Cook, and Lynch were
present upon roll call.
ABSENT:
Board members Cunningham, and McNamara.
STAFF PRESENT:
Andrew
Thomas,
Planning
Services
Manager/Secretary to the Planning Board; Jon Biggs,
Planning Services Manager, Doug Vu Planner, Nancy
McPeak, Executive Assistant/Recording Secretary
MINUTES:
Minutes from the meeting of February 9, 2009.
Motion to Approve as Amended: APPROVED as
Amended 4-0-1. (Lynch abstained)
Minutes from the meeting of February 23, 2009
Motion to Approve as Amended: APPROVED as
Amended 4-0-1. (Autorino abstained)
5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
Motion to move item 9-C to first Agenda Item.
Approved 5-0.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Written Report
6-A. Future Agendas- Staff presented the report.
Board member Lynch requested that a study session be scheduled on a future agenda
regarding Senate Bill 375.
Board member Cook requested that a discussion item be scheduled on a future
agenda regarding the Planning Board's site modification recommendations
when a project is changed to include something such as the demolition of a building.
Page 1 of 12",PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-03-23,2,"6-B Zoning Administrator Report-The Zoning Administrator meeting of March 17,
2009 was canceled.
7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Anyone may address the Board on a topic not on the agenda under this item by
submitting a speaker's information slip, subject to the 5-minute time limit.
NONE
8. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or
adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or
explanation is received from the Planning Board or a member of the public by
submitting a speaker slip for that item.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-C
Major Design Review - PLN09-0004 - 433 Buena Vista Avenue - Axis
Architecture for KW Alameda LLC. Design Review approval for a 3,800
square foot community center, maintenance building, and minor landscaping
modifications to amend a previously approved Design Review for a 6,000
square-foot community center, four detached garages, carports, and other
exterior and site modifications to existing apartment buildings (DR04-0113). (DV)
Staff presented a Power Point presentation outlining the project.
Michael Gold, a representative for Kennedy Wilson, the applicant, was introduced and
made a brief statement thanking the public for their support of the project.
Shawn Alexander, the architect on the project was introduced and gave a presentation
showing the buildings prior to the improvements made by Kennedy Wilson and the
improvements made since acquiring the property. Mr. Alexander also displayed
diagrams of the proposed changes.
The public hearing was opened.
Thomas Cooke, Bonanza Apartments, spoke in favor of the project. Mr. Cooke is the
site Manager of the Bonanza Apartments located directly across from the street from
the project. Mr. Cooke stated that prior to Kennedy Wilson's renovation of the site there
were daily problems at the property, since they have taken over he has had no
problems. He mentioned that the parking is still an issue in the area.
Page 2 of 12",PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-03-23,3,"Nicole Strasser, resident, spoke in favor of the project. She stated that she is very
pleased with the decision to remove the garages from the plan because of the parking
problems on the property. She complemented Summerhouse for the job they are doing
on the property.
Lt. Sean Lynch, Alameda Police Department, spoke in favor of the project. Lt. Lynch
stated that he is the evening watch commander for the area and the property has
changed dramatically since the renovation of the site and buildings. The area was
previously a high crime, high police volume property and was a financial drain on the
City of Alameda. Lt. Lynch stated that the transformation at Summerhouse is an
outstanding example of how you can change a negative into a positive.
Kathy Moehring, Executive Director, West Alameda Business Association (WABA),
spoke in favor of the project. Ms. Moehring stated that Summerhouse is a wonderful
community partner and that the developer has created an environment that is safe,
beautiful and a welcome addition to West Alameda.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she conducted a site visit and was very
impressed with the Complex. She is concerned with the lack of parking and was told
that the turn over rate is high because of it. She suggested that WABA possibly look at
introducing a Zip Car or City Car Share program at the site. She is also concerned with
the reduction in the community center space and would like to hear that issue
addressed.
The applicant responded that although the buildings are going to be smaller there is not
going to be a reduction in amenities. He stated that the temporary leasing office,
consisting of approximately 1,000 square feet will eventually be opened up for use as a
community center for the residents.
President Kohlstrand mentioned that during a site visit she noticed a fitness center
located in one of the units and questioned if it was permanent.
The applicant responded that a 1,000 square foot fitness center is planned in the new
community center and the fitness center in the unit was not permanent.
Board member Cook stated that she had originally voted against the project. She is
pleased the garages and carports have been removed from the plans. Although she
would like to see the trellises kept and is concerned that there are not enough trees in
the parking lot and throughout the complex.
Staff responded that once the plan for the parking lot is completed it will adhere to the
City of Alameda's current standard of one tree per four parking spaces. The applicant
will be planting approximately 148 trees in the parking lot for a total of 172 trees in and
around the parking area.
Page 3 of 12",PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-03-23,4,"Board member Cook stated that the current plans do not show as many trees as the old
plans. She feels that more trees are necessary to break up the massiveness of the
buildings. She also mentioned that the old plans show more trees on the northwest
area of the site.
The applicant responded that some of the trees within the complex near the buildings
have been taken out. The thought was that once those trees mature they would cause
darkness in the units so more trees were placed around the perimeter on the current
plans to contribute to a park like setting and allow natural light for the units.
Board member Cook stated that she would like more trees in the parking lot area so that
the residents are not overlooking just the vehicles but have some greenery.
The applicant stated that they could place more trees along the perimeter of the
buildings near the parking lot. Although another concern with placing more trees closer
to the buildings along the parking lot is lighting as the lights for the parking lot are on the
buildings and more trees would prohibit light from going deeper into the parking lot.
Board member Cook requested that staff take another look at the tree planting plans to
ensure that the park like setting previously approved by the Planning Board is adhered
to. She also asked about the trellises that were originally planned in the parking lot.
The applicant responded that the trellises were reconsidered due to the heaviness they
brought to the area and the concern that they could conceal some undesirable activities.
The developer stated that the plan is to have vines covering the utility buildings where
the trellises were slated to go.
Board member Cook is also concerned with the community room and believes that it
should be next to the pool and have a kitchen for use by the residents. She feels that
the community room should be the heart of the project. In addition, she feels that the
site is isolated from the community and would like to see a place for neighboring
residents to have access to and across the site, as was included in the West Alameda
Neighborhood Improvement Plan.
The applicant stated that there are pedestrian gates around the property that residents
can use via a key, but non residents do not have this access.
Board member Autorino asked if there had been any negative comments by residents
regarding the removal of the garages.
The applicants responded that there were none to their knowledge.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft agreed that the community room needs to be improved.
She feels that the tree plan is sufficient. She feels that allowing access to the
neighboring residents would destroy the sense of security at the site.
Page 4 of 12",PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-03-23,5,"Board member Lynch stated that he believes that the addition of a kitchen could be a
management issue. He is comfortable with the barbeque area as filling that need.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft disagreed stating that a kitchen would be a nice amenity.
President Kohlstrand stated that she also is happy to see the garages removed from the
plans and opening the area up for additional parking spaces. She feels that as long as
the tree plan adheres to the City of Alameda's current standards it is sufficient. She
stated that she likes the new building design and feels it fits better on the site. She
agrees that allowing access to the neighboring residents would make for easier access
to Ralph Appezzato Parkway but noticed that the residents in the audience disagree
and feel that it would destroy the sense of security. She asked when the applicant
plans on finishing the landscaping.
The applicant responded that it is contingent on the out come of tonight's meeting.
President Kohlstrand asked about the status of the West Alameda Neighborhood
Improvement Plan and how it relates to the site.
Staff responded that the plan was adopted in August 2005 and recognized the problems
with public access through the apartment complex. The access improvement that the
plan identified was from the south side of the property towards the College of Alameda
and Appezzato Parkway. The City would need to obtain the land through an easement
or property rights along the east perimeter between the Summerhouse Complex and the
single-family homes next door to construct a walkway. Such improvements are
contingent on whether or not the City could obtain the property.
Bob Hart, President of Kennedy-Wilson suggested that the community room be placed
in the proposed fitness center space near the pool and the fitness center be moved into
the temporary leasing space.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would be happy with that compromise.
Board member Cook moved/Board member Lynch seconded the motion to amend
the resolution to state that the applicant will provide approximately 3,200 square
feet of community space and fitness area and a 1,200 square foot community
room will be near the pool in the space originally slated for the fitness room. The
motion carried 5-0.
9-A. Density Bonus Ordinance - Citywide - City of Alameda. Recommendation to
the City Council on the proposed Density Bonus Ordinance and proposed
Negative Declaration. (JB)
Page 5 of 12",PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-03-23,6,"Staff addressed previously asked questions and concerns regarding the Density Bonus
Ordinance. One of the questions was whether the City can place a cap on incentives or
concessions. The City can include caps in the Ordinance but by doing so the applicant
can still request an exception to those caps. Another item of clarification was the mobile
home park section which has been amended to state Mobile Home Parks for Senior
Housing. Section 30-17.10b was changed to read that historic properties will be
identified by the National Register of Historic Places and the references to Measure A
have been changed to read Article 26 of the Alameda City Charter.
Staff gave a power point presentation outlining the Density Bonus Ordinance and
Negative Declaration.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft commended staff for providing a thorough report. She
questioned if the rights of tenants are preserved in a condominium conversion under the
Density Bonus Ordinance.
Staff responded that the tenants rights are preserved.
Board member Lynch asked what portion the redevelopment area of the City covers.
Staff responded that the redevelopment area consists of all of the Alameda
Point/Alameda Landing area and from that area all the way across the Northern
Waterfront to Bridgeside Shopping Center at Fruitvale Avenue. All of Webster Street
and Park Street are also on the map.
Board member Cook asked if the City can negotiate with the developer regarding a
concession that is on the list.
Staff responded that the City can negotiate on concessions but the City will need to
prove that the concession is not necessary to make the project feasible. Staff also
stated that it is important to craft a list that the City does not want to grant exceptions to.
Board member Cook stated that she believes the shorter the list the easier it will be to
negotiate the concessions.
Staff mentioned that the developer can request a concession that is necessary to make
the project feasible and the City would need to prove that the project can work without it.
The public hearing was opened.
Christopher Buckley of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS)
referenced a letter sent to the Planning Board which has since been adopted by APPS
as a recommendation. The letter stated that the society is concerned with the way the
Ordinance is crafted that it may allow too many incentives or concessions that could
adversely affect the character of Alameda's neighborhoods. Also stated was that the
Ordinance should include caps on the amount of increase and decrease on items like a
Page 6 of 12",PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-03-23,7,"reduction in setbacks or increase in height. Also suggested was that the concessions
be limited to only those mandated by the State of California. In regards to the parking
requirements it is suggested that the City require established parking and if the
applicant wants to ask for a parking concession the burden of proof will be on them to
demonstrate it is necessary. A clarification was made to Page 9, Section 30-17.10b
which stated the ""City's List of Officially Designated Architecturally and Historic
Significant Buildings"", should read ""properties designated a City of Alameda Historical
Monument or included in the City of Alameda's Historical Building Study List"".
Diane Licatenstein of H.O.M.E.S. stated that they feel there is a need for diagrams
showing the designs resulting from changing height and setback limits and design.
H.O.M.E.S favors anything that allows a mixture of housing types in Alameda. She
stated that Alameda has a satisfactory inclusionary housing program although believes
that the 25% affordable housing requirement should be Citywide and not just in the
redevelopment area. She also stated that the proposal could potentially damage
livability by changing the allowed setbacks and specifically mandating usable public
space. She urges the City to evaluate the design impacts the Density Bonus Ordinance
might pose and review what design guidelines would need to be adopted based on
good planning principles to make the ordinance an acceptable regulation for the City of
Alameda.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Board member Lynch stated for clarification that the Density Bonus Ordinance does not
waive the City of Alameda design guidelines. He also stated that the ordinance needs
to have a range of incentives and the option to say no to certain ones.
President Kohlstrand requested clarification on the parking requirements.
Staff responded that if the developer request that the state's parking requirements are
used it will not count as a concession and they can request another one. The developer
can request that the parking requirements be reduced even further as a concession.
Board member Cook asked for clarification on the list of incentives.
Staff responded that the list in the State ordinance is to serve as examples of the types
of incentives that may be granted. The developer can ask for just about anything aside
from monetary compensation.
Board member Cook stated that instead of the increased maximum lot coverage she
would rather have a waiver to Measure A and have the buildings connected to allow for
more open space around the structures. She also questioned allowing the live/work
units within multi-family residential districts stating that a large portion of the main island
of Alameda is zoned multi-family and this could bring more industrial uses into those
neighborhoods.
Page 7 of 12",PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-03-23,8,"Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the projects will need to come to the Planning
Board prior to approval at which time these concerns can be addressed.
Staff stated that the Planning Board or City Council will still have discretion to deny a
concession or incentive on a project if they feel is not necessary.
Board member Autorino voiced his concern over reducing the affordable income
requirement from 25% to 15% in the redevelopment areas stating that it will reduce the
amount of affordable housing yet increase the density.
Staff stated that the redevelopment areas are going to be denser by nature.
President Kohlstrand stated that if you leave the requirement at 25% then you are only
increasing the cost of the market rate housing to cover the increased amount of
affordable housing.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft agrees and is concerned that the 25% requirement could
scare developers away and make many projects unfeasible.
Board member Cook feels that it is a good idea to put caps on the concessions. She
also asked about the scenario when two lots are purchased next to each other.
Staff responded that the property owners could combine the lots to make a larger site to
allow a multi-family project and as long as all of the other requirements are met they can
request the project be considered for the density bonus.
President Kohlstrand stated that she doe not feel that it is beneficial to put caps on the
concessions because it could limit the flexibility the City has to negotiate.
Board member Cook suggested staff look at what other Cities are doing.
Staff stated that you can place caps on the concessions but when it comes down to it if
the developer really needs the concession they will argue for it whether it is capped or
not, unless there is something specific in the State law allowing for a cap.
Board member Lynch stated that he wants to give the Planning staff as much flexibility
as possible to negotiate the best project.
Board member Cook is concerned that there is not more opposition to reducing the
inclusionary affordable housing requirement from 25% to 15%.
Board member Lynch stated that many cities are waiving the inclusionary requirements
due to the large amount of affordable housing units available in these economic times.
Board member Autorino moved/Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the
motion to approve the staff recommended Density Bonus Ordinance including
Page 8 of 12",PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-03-23,9,"the amendment for live/work units with the exception of the reduction of the 25%
requirement for affordable housing in the redevelopment areas. The motion
carried 5-0.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft moved/Board member Lynch seconded the staff
recommendation that the inclusionary housing requirement be made 15%
throughout the City of Alameda and brought forward to City Council after being
considered by the Economic Development Commission and the Housing
Commission for comment. The motion carried 4-1 (Autorino no).
Board member Cook recommended/Board member Lynch seconded the adoption
of the Negative Declaration. The motion carried 5-0.
9-B. Stargell Avenue Extension Landscape Master Plan - Applicant - City of
Alameda. The City of Alameda requests approval of a landscape master plan for
site improvements within public rights-of-way along the proposed Wilver ""Willie""
Stargell Avenue extension to Webster Street. (DV)
Staff gave a report describing the project.
Staff introduced Todd Young of Gates and Associates, the landscape architect on the
project. Mr. Young gave a power point presentation describing the project.
President Kohlstrand asked what sort of work is currently being done at the street site.
Mr. Young introduced Dina Tasini the project manager. Ms. Tasini stated that they are
currently trenching for utilities at the site.
President Kohlstrand questioned the row of trees on the east side of Webster Street,
stating they are not on the plans the Planning Board received.
Alex Channing of Gates and Associates responded that the only plantings in that area
will be shrubs.
Board member Cook questioned if Webster Street is going over or under the ramp for
Constitution Way.
Mr. Young responded that Webster Street will continue to go under the ramp.
The public hearing was opened.
Christopher Buckley of the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) referred to a
letter written by WABA to the Planning Board. Mr. Buckley stated that WABA is very
excited for the project to go through and commended Gates & Associates for the
thoughtfulness and creativity displayed in their design submittals. WABA has three
specific recommendations. The first recommendation is to have the Crepe Myrtle trees
Page 9 of 12",PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-03-23,10,"shown on the west side of Webster Street north of Stargell Avenue along the bioswale
be replaced with Flowering Pear trees.
Mr. Young stated that the change was made because the Flowering Pear trees do not
work well with the bioswales because they cannot tolerate having wet feet and would
not survive very long with all of the water. The Crepe Myrtle trees can tolerate the
water.
Mr. Buckley stated that the concern with the Crepe Myrtle trees is that they will
encroach into the roadway.
Mr. Young stated that the trees meet the requirements of Cal Trans.
Mr. Buckley also stated that section A through Webster Street shows Washington
Hawthorn in the median and that appears to be a mistake and it should be Crepe
Myrtle. WABA feels that irrigation, electrical and other infrastructure should be
designed to allow future installation of additional streetscape elements as follow-up
projects when funding is available such as an entry arch or other gateway structure on
Webster Street south of Stargell, replacement of cobrahead light fixtures with more
decorative fixtures and continuing the addition of ""acorn"" street lights from the tube
portals all the way down to Central Avenue. Mr. Buckley asked that the Planning Board
approve the project with the addition of the aforementioned items.
Mr. Young stated that Mr. Buckley was correct and the Crepe Myrtle should be in the
median in Section A.
Dina Tasini, the Project Manager, stated that she has met with WABA to go over how to
accommodate their concerns for the future improvements without any cost. Ms. Tasini
reported that the conduit was sized so that it could handle additional electrical for
lighting at a later date. Also there is a scope of work to look into the entryway and what
could be put there. She also mentioned that City Council has approved the construction
of the street portion of the project.
President Kohlstrand questioned the idea of an archway and wondered if any item
placed in the area would need to be approved by the Planning Board.
Ms. Tasini stated that it is not a specific that they are looking at, but the parameters of
the area and soil structure. Anything placed in the area will first need to be approved by
the Planning Board.
Board Member Cook asked if there were traffic signals at the cross walks to Neptune
Park.
Mr. Young stated that there are traffic signals at the cross walk to Neptune Park.
President Kohlstrand asked if there was a sidewalk on the east side of Webster Street.
Page 10 of 12",PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-03-23,11,"Ms. Tasini stated that there will be a side walk going to the north towards Ralph
Appezzato Parkway but not south towards the Posey Tube.
President Kohlstrand questioned why there isn't a cross walk across Stargell near the
intersection with Mariner Square Loop.
Ms. Tasini stated that it was probably a Cal Trans issue but that she would look in to it.
President Kohlstrand suggested that the lawn area at the intersection of Stargell and
Mariner Square Loop should be planted with a more environmental sustainable
vegetation. Also she wants to make sure that there is a full compliment of sidewalks in
the area.
Mr. Young stated that they can look at a different ground covering in that area.
President Kohlstrand asked if the land owned by Catellus needs to follow the same
landscape guidelines when it is developed.
Staff responded that when that parcel gets developed they will need to adhere to this
Master Plan.
Board member Cook moved/Board member Lynch seconded the motion to
approve the Stargell Avenue Extension Landscape Master Plan with the provision
that the lawn area be planted with a more environmentally sustainable vegetation.
The motion carried 5-0.
9-D. Bay Friendly Landscaping Ordinance - Applicant - City of Alameda. The
Planning Board will consider a proposed Alameda Municipal Code amendment
related to creation of a Civic Bay Friendly Landscaping Ordinance requiring
sustainable landscaping practices for City and public-private partnership projects
or renovations that equal or exceed $100,000 in construction costs. (DV)
Motion to continue this item to the meeting of April 13, 2009.
Approved 5-0.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or
make a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a referral
to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body
at a subsequent meeting concerning a City matter or, through the chair, direct staff to
place a request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda.
None.
Page 11 of 12",PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-03-23,12,"12. ADJOURNMENT:
10:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
This meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 12 of 12",PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf