body,date,page,text,path
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2010-05-24,1,"APPROVED
COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
May 24, 2010
1.
ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:40 P.M.
Present: Chair Krongold, Commissioners Fort, Moore and Warren.
Absent: Vice-Chair Tam, Commissioners Lord-Hausman and Kirola.
2.
MINUTES
The April 26, 2010 minutes were approved with no changes.
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Chair Krongold requested that visitors introduce themselves.
4.
NEW BUSINESS
4-A.
Pedestrian Signals (Virendra Patel, Public Works)
Virendra Patel of the Public Works Department, discussed the installation of accessible
signals at the intersection of Island Drive and Robert Davey, Jr. regarding the proposed
count down signals and truncated dome. Mr. Patel is seeking CDI approval. The CDI
unanimously approved the project and thanked Mr. Patel for his time.
4-B.
Programs & Services for Students with Disabilities (Helene Maxwell, College of
Alameda, DSPS)
Chair Krongold introduced Ms. Maxwell whom she met at a College of Alameda (COA)
Advisory Meeting. The Chair requested that Ms. Maxwell speak to the CDI regarding
accessible programs and provide information regarding the overall program. Ms. Maxwell
stated that DSPS funding has been reduced 45% by the state. Community colleges were to
receive $130 million dollars in Federal stimulus funding and the state legislatures provided
only $45 million dollars. Ms. Maxwell described the various programs offered through the
college. Ms. Maxwell also pointed out that there are state mandated laws that the
Community Colleges are required to meet, but acknowledged that all states are experiencing
budget cuts.
Commissioner Warren asked what district Senator Steinberg represents to which Ms.
Maxwell responded Sacramento, although he is a key decision maker in funding.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2010-05-24.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2010-05-24,2,"Commission on Disability Issues
May 24,
2010
Page 2 of 3
Ms. Maxwell reviewed various actions that individuals and the CDI could pursue, including
contacting State and Federal representatives. Ms. Maxwell requested that the CDI
communicate with the new President of COA, upon Dr. George Herring's retirement. She
also requested that the CDI write a letter of support for an impending Department of
Rehabilitation grant.
Chair Krongold asked when the deadline is for the grant to which Ms. Maxwell responded
June 30.
Chair Krongold asked when the new president of COA would be appointed to which Ms.
Maxwell responded within two weeks.
Commissioner Moore stated that she will write a letter and follow up with an e-mail.
The CDI agreed to write a letter of support for the grant. Commissioner Moore suggested
utilizing students to support the program to which Ms. Maxwell agreed.
5.
OLD BUSINESS
5-A.
CDI Vision Planning (Chair Krongold)
Chair Krongold distributed and discussed the draft CDI Vision Planning which she and
Commissioner Lord-Hausman put together. The draft covered the partnership, celebration of
the 20-year anniversary of the ADA and a presentation to Council which will lead up to
Disability Awareness Month activities during the month of October.
Commissioner Moore stated that the goals are limited to accessibility and seniors vs.
younger individual and omits events that would support the entire community.
Commissioner Warren gave a presentation on another goal oriented event which includes art,
creating a movie and a reception. Commissioner Warren spoke with the Recreation and Park
Department regarding use of the O'Club and costs.
Chair Krongold suggested that the bulk of the June meeting should be to discuss CDI Vision
Planning and goals to which the Commission agreed.
5-B.
Paratransit Advisory Planning Committee (PAPCO) (Commissioner Lord-
Hausman)
Commissioner Lord-Hausman was not present.
G:\Lucretia)CommDisability\Minutes(2010\Minutes_May 24 2010.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2010-05-24.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2010-05-24,3,"Commission on Disability Issues
May 24,
2010
Page 3 of 3
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
There were no staff communications.
7.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1.
Kelly Harp with Community Resources for Independent Living, distributed fliers
regarding two upcoming events regarding ADA Anniversary Festival.
2.
Secretary Akil stated she and Chair Krongold would be meeting regarding the
ADA/CDI website.
8.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:52 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, June 28, 2010
at 6:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia Akil
Board Secretary
G:\Lucretia)CommDisability\Minutes/2010\Minutes_May 24 2010.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2010-05-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2010-05-24,1,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, MAY 24, 2010
1.
CONVENE:
7:10 pm
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board Member Kohlstrand
3.
ROLL CALL:
Present President Ezzy Ashcraft, Board members Cook,
Cunningham, Kohlstrand, Lynch, and Zuppan.
Absent: Vice-President Autorino
Staff Present: Jon Biggs, Planning Board Secretary, Andrew
Thomas, Planning Services Manager, Simone Wolter,
Recording Secretary, Farimah Faiz, City Attorney's office,
Jennifer Ott, Deputy City Manager
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes from the meeting of May 10, 2010.
Board Member Kohlstrand and Board member Cook provided corrections to the meeting
minutes. Motion to approve meeting minutes as amended made by Board member
Cunningham, seconded by Board Member Zuppan. Approved as amended. 6-0.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Written Report
6-A Future Agendas
Staff presented an overview of future meetings.
6-B Zoning Administrator Report
The Zoning Administrator approved a Use Permit for a second dwelling unit at 2412
Clement Avenue at the Zoning Administrator Hearing on May 18, 2010. A Use Permit for a
directional sign on Tilden Way was withdrawn from the agenda and continued to a later
date.
Oral Report
None.
Planning Board
Page 1 of 8
Approved Meeting Minutes 5/24/2010",PlanningBoard/2010-05-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2010-05-24,2,"7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A
Grand Marina Village Master Plan Amendments - Applicant - Warmington
Homes. Proposed amendments to the Grand Marina Master Plan to maintain
consistency with the City of Alameda affordable housing program and amendments
to landscaping plans. The property is located at the intersection of Grand Street
and Fortmann Way and is zoned M-X Mixed Use.
Board member Cook requested that the item be pulled from the Consent agenda so she
could ask some clarifying questions about the project. Item 8-A was moved and heard as
the first item under 9, Regular Agenda Items.
8-B
Community Commercial Zoning Ordinance Amendments-Applicant City of
Alameda, West Alameda Business Association, and Park Street Business
Association. Proposed amendments to the Community Commercial Zoning District
related to certain retail uses and height limits. The Community Commercial zoning
district applies to areas in the Park Street and Webster Street Commercial Areas.
Staff is requested that the item be continued to the Planning Board meeting of
July 12, 2010
Motion by Board Member Kohlstrand to continue the item to the July 12, 2010
meeting, seconded by Board Member Lynch. Motion passes 6-0. Board Member Lynch
requested that staff work with the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society to fine-tune
the proposed ordinance language.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A
Grand Marina Village Master Plan Amendments - Applicant - Warmington
Homes. Proposed amendments to the Grand Marina Master Plan to maintain
consistency with the City of Alameda affordable housing program and
amendments to landscaping plans. The property is located at the intersection of
Grand Street and Fortmann Way and is zoned M-X Mixed Use.
Board member Cook asked whether the Planning Board would have had the ability to
require more public amenities or a better site plan in this development when this project
was originally reviewed and why more public amenities are not being included with the
request for fewer affordable housing units.
Staff responded that the current status of the economy makes financing and profitability of
these developments difficult. In order to move forward with the phased development, the
applicant, Warmington Homes, was requesting a decrease in the number of affordable units
pursuant to the new inclusionary housing requirements that were adopted by the City
Planning Board
Page 2 of 8
Approved Meeting Minutes 5/24/2010",PlanningBoard/2010-05-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2010-05-24,3,"Council in 2009.
Board Member Lynch asked if the City was involved in the financing process and who
monitors these developments to insure the required number of units are being sold at rates
that meet affordable housing requirements.
Staff stated that the review and monitoring of affordable units would be done by the City of
Alameda Housing Authority.
Board Member Kohlstrand and Board member Cook commended Warmington Homes on
the quality of the model homes. Although Board member Cook felt that the site [plan
should have been brought back for Planning Board review in light of the request for fewer
affordable units.
Board Member Kohlstrand motioned, seconded by Board member Cunningham, to
amend the Master Plan. Motion passes 5-1, with Board member Cook voting no.
9-A
CONTINUED from May 10, 2010 -- Entitlement Application for Proposed Alameda
Point Project
Jennifer Ott, Deputy City Manager, presented an update on the project.
Board Member Kohlstrand motioned, seconded by Board Member Lynch to reopen
the public comment period. Motion passed 6-0.
Mr. Sweeney, Alameda resident, is opposed to the project for the lack of feasible financing
concepts, transportation issues, and conflict with zoning plans. He also stated
environmental impact report is inadequate.
Mrs. Sweeney, Alameda resident, is opposed to the project because she is concerned it is
in an area that is seismically unstable and will not be able to withstand significant
earthquakes.
Ms. Decker, Alameda resident, is in favor of a transit-oriented development with good
pedestrian access. She favors concentrated density to make transit alternatives feasible.
Mr. Krueger, Alameda resident, favors the current proposal and the density bonus option in
particular. He added his support for transit-oriented development.
Staff clarified that SunCal prefers the Density Bonus alternative and that the EIR would
analyze this alternative against other proposals. Staff added that the scope of the EIR has
not been negotiated at this time.
Board member Cunningham suggested that the alternative analysis evaluate in simple
terms the physical layout and benefit analysis of the higher density and other alternatives in
order to build consensus amongst the community.
Planning Board
Page 3 of 8
Approved Meeting Minutes 5/24/2010",PlanningBoard/2010-05-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2010-05-24,4,"Board Member Kohlstrand supports an alternative that concentrates density to allow more
open space in other areas. She would like to see an alternative that preserves the Least
Tern habitat. She would also like to see that an analysis be done on the level of density that
is required to support the essential services such as transportation, infrastructure, schools,
and what additional density could support other miscellaneous amenities like a sports
complex or marina.
Board Member Zuppan asked that the alternatives analyze the impact of timing of toxic
clean-up by the Navy on the proposed project. She stated that the current plan lacks
specifics on commercial trucking impacts and the ferry terminal location. She noted that the
public transit systems is precarious and is concerned about the longevity of the systems.
Board Member Lynch stated that the planning process for the development has not been
transparent and the public has not been given the opportunity to provide input on the
proposed plan and to prioritize the important features needed and required by the
community.
Board Member Cook stated that the developer provided a considerable amount of public
outreach and tried to build a consensus with the community, but that the process was
different than the typical review process in the City and perhaps was less comprehensible
to the public.
President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the proposed plan lacks specific details and assurances
on transit, streetscape design, financing, housing types, sustainability plans, and historic
and habitat preservation. She would like to see the EIR address wetland impacts, Least
Tern habitat impacts, and historic preservation. She asked whether the proposed Veterans
Administration facility could be incorporated into the SunCal development area, to facilitate
job creation in the commercial areas.
Board Member Zuppan is concerned that the assumptions for seismic building stability, for
example cripple wall strengths, have changed since the Chilean earthquake and would now
like to see that the proposed buildings are evaluated against the new set of data or
requirements gleaned from that natural disaster. She would like to see that the street
infrastructure be evaluated for tertiary impacts, like the width of streets being adequate for
garbage trucks. She added that she does not want the rest of the City being negatively
impacted by the development. She would like to see that the proposal's phased approach
evaluated, as well as ongoing impacts to residents. She supports sustainability concepts,
but would like to have them evaluated in the EIR, so that one could understand the
environmental impacts of green systems. In addition, she supports historic preservation
that is reasonably feasible. While she supports increased density, she is concerned that
high-rise buildings could create turbulent wind and shading impacts. She requested that
data points be developed to evaluate the economic feasibility and need for density
bonuses.
Board member Cook stated that the proposed development's setbacks appear to create a
Planning Board
Page 4 of 8
Approved Meeting Minutes 5/24/2010",PlanningBoard/2010-05-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2010-05-24,5,"very compact and monotonous development plan. She urged the land planners to develop
more site and building lay out variations and carefully review the proposed development
standards.
Both Board Member Lynch questioned the parking space need assumptions as being too
limited.
Board member Cook stated that the proposed plan lacks specificity regarding what
elements would in fact be provided by the project which were merely project goals and that
it is unclear what elements of the plan would be provided by the developer or the City.
Board member Cunningham commented that the EIR should also review the impacts of not
redeveloping Alameda Point, which would likely negatively impact the City of Alameda.
Board Member Lynch asked what the City's involvement will be for the development of
Alameda.
Staff responded that the City has not finalized the Development Agreement that would
outline the dollar amount that the City would put into the project. City staff is currently
evaluating the pro forma for the density bonus alternative.
Mr. Braun, SunCal representative, described the past public outreach effort. He stated that
SunCal's polling efforts resulted in wide-spread community support for Measure B, but a
lack of understanding of the financial details and transportation issues resulted in its defeat.
He explained that SunCal is committed to a timely and economical land analysis as well as
developing in-depth design guidelines for buildings and structures.
Board member Lynch stated that he does not agree that there was wide-spread support for
Measure B, for if there was the Measure would have passed.
The Board thanked staff and the SunCal representatives for the information they provided
and responses to questions. The President of the Board noted the item would be coming
back to the Planning Board at a future meeting for consideration. The Board took no further
action on the project at this time.
9-B
Boatworks Project 2229 Clement-Public Hearing to a Proposed Reduced
Density Alternative for the Property. The City of Alameda Planning Board will be
holding a public hearing to receive comments on a proposed reduced density
alternative for the property. The alternative would reduce the number of housing
units from 242 to approximately 175 and increase the public open space from less
than a 1/4 acre to approximately two acres. Major issues for discussion will include
extension of Elm Street and Blanding Street, proposed standards and guidelines for
the design of the proposed housing, and park design criteria. The public is
encouraged to attend and participate in the discussion. No final action will be taken
by the Planning Board at this meeting.
Planning Board
Page 5 of 8
Approved Meeting Minutes 5/24/2010",PlanningBoard/2010-05-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2010-05-24,6,"Mr. Thomas, Planning Services Manager, introduced the project.
Mr. Banta, Project Architect, presented the reduced density alternative project with 179
units.
Board Members Cook, Zuppan, and Lynch expressed concern with the proposed road
pattern or street layout and requested that the Alameda street grid pattern be incorporated
and an effort be made to tie proposed roadways with Elm Street and Blanding Avenue.
Board member Cunningham asked whether the project has received a preliminary approval
by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC).
Staff responded that BCDC was favorable to the project and supportive of the proposed
amount of public open space along the waterfront.
President Ezzy Ashcraft noted concern that the street pattern does not incorporate
accessibility features for those with disabilities and there are limited public parking
opportunities for accessing the waterfront park area.
President Ezzy Ashcraft opened the public comment period.
Board member Cook motioned, seconded by Board Member Kohlstrand to limit the speaker
time to 3 minutes per person.
Mr. Sweeney, Alameda resident, is disappointed that the park along the waterfront is not in
the amount of land called for in the General Plan. He hesitantly supports the lower density
residential concept, but is concerned about impacts to Park Street traffic levels.
Mrs. Sweeney, Alameda resident, is disheartened that there will not be a 4-acre park on
this site. She recommended that public restrooms be included close to the public access
area. She expressed opposition to the four-story residential apartment complex.
Ms. Redfield, Alameda resident, is supportive of redevelopment of the site, but is
concerned with the design of the development. She is disappointed that the park is not
larger and that it will appear to be for the exclusive use of residents of the development.
Mr. Bolton, Elm Street resident, stated his concern with traffic increases along Clement
Avenue when the traffic levels of this development are coupled with those generated by the
Grand Marina development. He would like to see more parking provided for the residents of
the development and for those using public open spaces.
Ms. Field, Elm Street resident, is disappointed that the park will not be larger. She
recommended that the proposed park be landscaped like the Union Point Park on the
Oakland Embarcadero. She is concerned that the apartment complex and the residential
buildings are too tall at three and four stories respectively.
Planning Board
Page 6 of 8
Approved Meeting Minutes 5/24/2010",PlanningBoard/2010-05-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2010-05-24,7,"Mr. Kim, Elm Street resident, while supportive of redevelopment, is concerned about the
traffic circulation pattern and the appearance of a closed-off development without easy
public access to park spaces. He added that the design of the development is not
pedestrian friendly. He recommended that the developer be asked to provide some
economic feasibility analysis to explain to the public why the number of dwelling units is so
high.
Mr. Ratto, Executive Director Park Street Business Association, spoke in favor of the
reduced density concept and expressed his hopes that this project will remedy the blighted
appearance of the property and spark the Park Street renaissance. He supported the 2-
acre park and the narrowing of Blanding Avenue through the development.
Mr. Jones, Alameda resident, is concerned that the traffic impacts will be significant on
Park Street. He requested that public amenities be included in the development.
Ms. McNally, Alameda resident, finds it difficult to understand the Density Bonus and how it
is applied to projects in Alameda.
Ms. Decker, Alameda resident, is in favor of the redevelopment of the site with a
sustainable, pedestrian-oriented development. She recommended that the higher buildings
are stepped back from public space frontages to create a favorable pedestrian
environment.
Mr. Krueger, Alameda resident, favors extending the street grid to continue through the
site. He is concerned that the proposed project would appear to be closed-off and prevent
public access to the waterfront. He recommends that Elm Street be continued down to the
waterfront.
President Ezzy Ashcraft closed the public comment period.
Board Member Kohlstrand commended the effort to revise the project. She is supportive of
the green space extending from Clement Avenue towards the waterfront, with parking and
vehicular access. However, she strongly encouraged that Elm Street and Blanding Avenue
be extended through the site. The streets need to have standard widths and must maintain
the streetscape of the rest of the City. She favors removing alleyways and pedestrian
pathways and integrating vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian pathways, plus adding on-
street parking. She is concerned that the current proposal does not provide adequate
access to the waterfront or public parking spaces for this use. Instead of higher buildings,
she prefers allowing reduced or zero side yard setbacks.
Board member Cunningham is concerned that the streets' width and feel will not be
compatible with the rest of the city. He supports continuing Elm Street to the waterfront and
is concerned that there are six access points for traffic onto Clement Avenue.
Board member Cook is supportive of the sustainable development aspects, but is
concerned that the applicant is not really addressing concerns raised in the last meeting,
Planning Board
Page 7 of 8
Approved Meeting Minutes 5/24/2010",PlanningBoard/2010-05-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2010-05-24,8,"with respect to the street grid pattern and traffic impacts during peak travel times. She finds
that the public access to the waterfront is too small and insufficient and, in essence, seems
to privatize this public space. She recommended that the applicant consider other locations
for the multi-family structure.
Board Member Zuppan supports the redevelopment of the blighted site, but is very
concerned about the lack of public parking and the sense that this development appears
closed-off to Alameda with access to the public park restricted. She favors that Blanding
Avenue and Elm Street be continued through the development and that there be vehicular
access to the waterfront. She supported Board member Cook's recommendation from the
last meeting to include opportunities for commercial ventures along the waterfront.
Board Member Lynch requested that information be provided on the feasibility analysis so
that the Board can properly evaluate the density bonus proposal.
President Ezzy Ashcraft is supportive of the sustainability concepts of this development.
She favors a continuation of the existing street grid pattern through this development and
public access to the waterfront park along with providing parking for visitors to this park.
She is supportive of the need to separate vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian travel paths,
but is concerned about having to many street intersections along Clement Avenue.
Following Board member comments, the President noted that a lot of input had been
provided by the Public and the Board and emphasized that this information should be given
careful consideration when the final site plan is developed. No additional action was taken
by the Board at this time, but it was noted that this project would need to come back to the
Board at a later meeting date for consideration.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
12.
ADJOURNMENT: 10:45pm
Planning Board
Page 8 of 8
Approved Meeting Minutes 5/24/2010",PlanningBoard/2010-05-24.pdf