body,date,page,text,path
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2012-02-27,1,"UNAPPROVED
COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
February 27, 2012
1.
ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:36 P.M.
Present: Chair Lord-Hausman, Commissioners Krongold, Tam, Warren and Fort.
Absent: Vice-Chair Harp Commissioners Deutsch, Kirola and Moore.
2.
MINUTES
2-A.
The minutes were approved with no changes.
3.
ORALCOMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Guest JoanAnn Radu-Sinaiko, Alameda resident, conveyed that she was injured within
several months of moving into the City and decided to visit the CDI meeting.
4.
NEW BUSINESS
4-A.
Goals and Objectives 2012 (Chair Lord-Hausman)
Chair Lord-Hausman requested input from the CDI regarding future direction for the
coming year, with respect to CDI services the disabled community for input to the City
Council.
Commissioner Warren would like to see more collaboration among the Commissoner's
for planned events.
Commissioner Krongold would like to collaborate with Mastick Senior Center as well as
the Fire Department funding for the low-income / senior involvements for residential
housing program.
Commissioner Fort would like some of the movies at Alameda Theatre be captioned for
the deaf and video description for the blind.
Chair Lord-Hausman indicated that there was a local theatre that runs movies specifically
for Autistic children where adjustments had to be made which falls into what
Commissioner Fort suggests regarding exploration with the Alameda Theatre.
Commissioner Fort replied that it would have to be compatible with others in the theatre.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2012-02-27.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2012-02-27,2,"Commissioner Krongld asked if there is a separate soundtrack provided by the theatre or
is it a non-profit, to which Commissioner Fort replied that most are not accessible except
for visual displays.
Secretary Akil suggested checking what the ADA requirements would be for a private
entity.
Commissioner Tam stated that the Jack Kapon housing to be constructed along Lincoln
should include education to the community, including sensitivity training for APD for
those who are cognitively challenged.
Chair Lord-Hausman acknowledged the suggestions by the CDI are good and
recommended following through on a Universal Design Ordinance and monthly
Disability Recognition Month.
5.
OLD BUSINESS
5-A.
Universal Design Ordinance (Chair Lord-Hausman)
Chair Lord-Hausman acknowledged the joint meeting between the Planning Board and
CDI. and distributed copies of the presentation by Jessica Lehman. Chair Lord-Hausman
stated that Planning Manager Andrew Thomas recommended the CDI put forth the first
draft of a Universal Design Ordnance, although it may not be address for up to one year.
Chair Lord-Hausman requested a work group to begin the draft.
Commissioner Krongold suggested working with the Mastick Senior Center to which
Chair Lord-Hausman agreed that it would be good idea to partner with them.
5-B.
Restructuring Boards and Commissions (Chair Lord-Hausman)
Secretary Akil stated that there are no changes but there is a questionnaire circulating by
the City Manager regarding all Boards and Commissions.
5-C.
City Council Meeting Report (Commissioner Fort):
Commissioner Fort stated that the February 7th meeting included discussion with
restructuring Boards and Commissions but there are no changes.
5-D.
Planning Board Meeting Report (Chair Lord-Hausman):
Chair Lord-Hausman stated that there has been nothing pertinent to the CDI but she will
keep the CDI informed should something come up.
5-E.
Alameda County Transition Information Faire (Chair Lord-Hausman):
Chair Lord-Hausman distributed the registration form for the Alameda County Transition
Information Faire, to which Vice-Chair Harp will participate and Commissioner Warren
and Chair Lord-Hausman will try to attend.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2012-02-27.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2012-02-27,3,"6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Secretary Akil stated that the Resource Director is completely accessible via the City
website and the February 27th CDI meeting is posted on the Events Calendar page.
7.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
7-A. Commissioner Tam stated that the AUSD Board had an evaluation of Special Education
regarding consolidation of services and other options, to which some recommendations
will be considered for approval.
7-B.
Chair Lord-Hausman acknowledged Commissioner Krongold for her hard work on the
Resource Fair and her contribution to the CDI over the past two years.
8.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia Akil
Board Secretary",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2012-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-27,1,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY FEBRUARY 27, 2012
7:00 p.m.
1. CONVENE:
7:05 P.M.
2. FLAG SALUTE:
Board Member Knox White
3. ROLL CALL:
President Ezzy Ashcraft, Vice-President Autorino, Board
members Burton, Henneberry, Knox White, Köster, Zuppan.
4. MINUTES:
Minutes from the Regular meeting of December 12, 2011
Board member Henneberry called for approval of the December 12, 2011 meeting minutes.
Board member Burton seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0, 2 abstentions (Knox White
and Köster.
Minutes from the Regular meeting of November 28, 2011. (Pending)
Minutes from the Regular meeting of January 9, 2012. (Pending)
Minutes from the Regular meeting of January 23. 2012. (Pending)
Minutes from the Special Joint meeting of February 13, 2012. (Pending)
5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, stated that staff would like to request to
continue item 9C because the bylaws require the entire Board to be present and take the
action.
Board member Ashcraft made a motion to withdraw item C unless Board member Zuppan
becomes present to take action on the item.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Written Report
6-A
Future Agendas
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, stated that the future agenda items consist of
the second workshop on the Housing Element update including all proposed amendments to
the housing element and proposed amendments to the Alameda municipal code and the
initial Alameda Point workshop for the March 12, 2012 meeting. The March 26, 2012
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 18
February 27, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-27,2,"meeting consists of the Park Street Streetscape presented by Public Works, the use permit
for the College of Alameda Flea Market, the Public Art Ordinance Workshop, and 6-month
review for 1051 Pacific Marina. The April 9, 2012 meeting consists of draft amendments to
Alameda Municipal Code related to massage uses and bicycle guidelines presented by
Public Works, and two development applications. The April 23, 2012 meeting consists of the
Draft Alameda Point Zoning Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Report and Final
Recommendation of the Park Street Code. The May 14, 2012 meeting consists of Public Art
Draft Amendments for final approval by the Board and the first draft of the revisions to the
municipal code dealing with farm animals. For the February 21, 2012 meeting of the Zoning
Administrator, he approved a use permit for a restaurant located at 1315 Park Street to
operate until 2 am, and there was no opposition to that. Lastly, the February 28, 2012 of the
Zoning Administrator will consist of a hearing on a use permit for a chain link fence at 1600-
1618 Park Street.
Greg McFann, City of Alameda Chief Building Official, reported on Alameda's Six Initiatives
for Customer Service at the Permit Center.
7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, stated that
last weekend he spent time teaching a new group of League of American Cycling
Instructors. He spoke about the door zones and Class Il bike lanes. For the past year, he
measured bicycle lanes in Alameda and many of the lanes do not take the cyclist out of the
door zone such as Oak and Central Avenue and if bicyclists turn right they will have to ride
on the left hand edge of the bike lane to stay out of the door zone. Thus, bicycle and driver
safety education is crucial and it would be good to have something similar to Alameda's
Pedestrian Safety initiative.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
Design Review and Landscape Plan Amendment for Alameda Landing Retail
Center- TRACT 7884 (Alameda Landing) Applicant: Catellus Alameda
Development, LLC. A Landscape Plan application for landscape improvements
for an approximately 23-acre retail center, a Design Review application for
Building K for Target Stores at the retail center, and a sign program for the
center. The site is located north of Stargell Avenue, south of Mitchell Street,
west of Marnier Square Loop and east of the 5th Street extension in western
Alameda.
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, Presented the application.
Board member Knox White asked once the final design review is approved by the Planning
Department is that appealable by the public or the Board?
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 18
February 27, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-27,3,"Mr. Thomas replied the final design review is meant to be a check of the final construction
plans to make sure they are consistent with the plans approved by the Board. So, they are
not brought back to the Board or public for comment.
Board member Köster asked if staff knows what is going to be included in the tenant
locations.
Mr. Thomas stated that staff developed a retail tenanting strategy with Catellus in 2007, but
at this point staff does not have tenants identified for the other buildings.
Ken Kay, Landscape Architect for the Alameda Landing Retail Center, presented the
landscape and open space plan.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked if he is working with the architects of Target to incorporate
green elements into the building.
Mr. Kay replied yes and he has had a session with Kevin Alba and SGPA who are the main
architects for the site.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked what is the timeframe for installing the amenities and will the
entire site be landscaped once the Target project starts.
Mr. Kay stated there are four public streets that surround the site so there are access issues
and the Target store will require as much access as possible when it first goes in. He
estimated that the planting associated to the store will go in first, but Sean Whiskeman, VP
of Development at Catellus, would comment on this. He explained that the entire site will not
be planted with big species, but big trees will be present on Mitchell Avenue and in the
plazas.
Board member Knox White asked about the use of palm trees since they are not native to
the area, but shopping centers seem to like them.
Mr. Kay replied that the use of the palm trees was incorporated into the Tree Master Plan.
So, what he incorporated a small group of trees in various areas of the site similar to the
layout at San Francisco's AT&T Park and along the Embarcadero.
Vice President Autorino referred to the Fifth Street Entry Plaza section on page 6 and asked
for clarification about the landing urbanized streetscape at the arrow where the road comes
down to two lanes and there is parking. He wanted to know does the illustration show one
lane each way.
Mr. Kay replied that the cars would be directed to the north and the south at that point and
some cars would go straight up to the urbanized street, but the demarcation shows drivers
coming from 5th street could go straight or turn left to go to Building K or right to go to
Building A. Furthermore, the engineering is going pretty well on the development plan and
he was taking the plan and showing the layout in a graphic form. So, if there are questions
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 18
February 27, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-27,4,"he can follow through with the engineers.
Vice President Autorino explained that he had trouble visualizing the urbanized streetscape
on 5th Street.
President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to the Fifth Street Linear Greenway section on page 8
(located to the far right of the diagram) and she asked if the bike lane is placed throughout
5th street.
Mr. Kay replied that the bike lane goes up 5th Street to the Stargell Avenue side and the
January 9th meeting shows the plan's cross sections for all the streets and does include the
bicycle plan in entirety.
Board member Henneberry asked about the Memory Trail concept and if Mr. Kay plans to
incorporate historical information into the entire center or just into the trail.
Mr. Kay replied that the Memory Trail would start at the Central Plaza at Stragell Avenue
and 5th Street. He would like to see the trail continue up to the water at some point. He also
mentioned that Square Peg, the signage identity consultants, have considered the historical
aspect.
Board member Henneberry replied that the maritime history of Alameda is very important
and shouldn't be segregated to just one side.
Board member Burton referred to the Main Gateway Plaza diagram on sheet 4, Building A
which includes a square on the lower right hand corner of the building. He wondered if the
square was supposed to be a building entrance.
Mr. Kay stated the buildings are hypothetical and he doesn't have plans for the buildings at
this level. Also, the landscape is working itself around where the building entry would
possibly be.
Board member Burton referred to the Landing Central Plaza diagram on sheet 7. There is
an arrow to Building K and on the opposite side, there's an arrow to Building A. He wanted
to know if the lines' intention is to indicate something that goes across the walkway.
Mr. Kay stated yes there will be enhanced paving to reinforce the pedestrian connection
down that spine and subject to cost they would enhance the spine by using a series of
trellises as detail similar to what one might find on the Target building.
Board member Burton referred to sheet 4 and questioned the bump outs along the landing
street and the elements that are turned in the opposite direction. One was labeled trellis with
bike racks and benches, but the elements are closer in at the street itself.
Mr. Kay replied that the elements are trellises and one would be able to walk under since
they are a gateway through.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 18
February 27, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-27,5,"Board member Burton again referred to the illustration in sheet 4. He asked about the
narrow white rectangles, which were 45-degrees away from the red squares.
Mr. Kay replied that they are large benches.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for public comments.
Mr. Spangler stated he is impressed with the commitment Catellus has shown to the project.
First, he referred to page 4, Area A on the upper right hand corner and the possibility of
kiosk/bicycle lockers being built there in the January meeting. Second, he explained that
the design team mentioned including a bike station and he wanted clarification. Thirdly, he
wanted to know if there would be showers for employees who want to commute to work by
bicycle. Fourthly, he explained that priority must be given to bicycle rack's functionality and
security. He also mentioned that on the curved area, located in Area V and Area E, there
was on street parking. He hopes that the bicycle lane will have a 6' foot width that was
mentioned in the January meeting. Finally, he would like to see valet bike parking or
supervised bicycle parking included in the plan.
President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to the top of page 4 of the staff report regarding the main
entry plaza or Gateway Plaza she would like the Board to comment on the area.
Board member Burton referred back to his previous comment about the Main Gateway
Plaza diagram on sheet 4 regarding Building A where there is a square on the lower right
hand corner of the building. He predicted that the building entrance would be on the parking
lot side of Building A and if that is true he questioned whether bike parking, lockers, and
racks that are shown along Stargell Avenue is a legitimate location since the cyclists have to
find there way to the entrance way.
Vice President Autorino replied if you move bicycle facilities to the front of the buildings
you're cutting down the width of the sidewalk with the bicycles.
Board member Zuppan stated that there is a lot of seating, but a lot of the seating is near
low bushes without shading. She would like for the design team to find to create natural
shading for seating that is not surrounded by trees.
Sean Whiskeman, VP of Catellus Development Corporation, replied to Board member
Burton and Board member Zuppan's comments. He explained that the plan's includes over
110 bicycle racks and the intent of the racks is to spread across a number of different
buildings and serve a couple of different functions. The specific rack found in the illustration
is for a bike co-op or kiosk and the final locations in place will be worked out with staff and
Bike Alameda.
President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that there are a lot of bicycles with trailers, which are used to
haul children or groceries. So, the design team should look at accommodating the nearby
residential neighborhood that uses those bicycles.
Mr. Whiskeman replied to Board member Burton and Board member Zuppan's comments.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 18
February 27, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-27,6,"He stated that the small square of the building suggests a small architectural element; a
beacon of some sort, and the design team may or may not include an entrance depending
on the occupant of the building. He also stated that shade is provided in a couple of different
ways potentially umbrellas or canopies are available and when you see dashed lines on the
plans that suggests canopies are present to protect that area with shade.
Board member Henneberry stated that Stargell Avenue and 5th Street would likely be a
busy intersection, so will there be something on the corner to mitigate a car crashing into
pedestrians standing on the sidewalk.
Mr. Whiskeman stated there would be a curb and bollards in order to slow a car down.
Mr. Kay stated the large landscape and bio-retention swale areas would deter people from
getting in the way of traffic. The bollards and the placement of the curb and plaza prevent
smaller cars from hitting pedestrians.
Board member Henneberry asked would the area between the bollards and the tree on
Stargell Avenue contain a regular curb without parking.
Mr. Kay replied that parking will not be present and there is a lowered landscape area near
the stripes. So, the landscape pushes pedestrians back on to the plaza enough where you
won't be on top of where the cars are.
Obaid Khan, City of Alameda Supervising Civil Engineer, stated that in terms of right turn
vehicles going over the curb and possibly hitting pedestrians, staff doesn't expect this to
happen because right turning cars usually drive slower than through traffic.
Board member Zuppan stated that a lot of research shows that drivers are more careful
when they allow pedestrian to intrude into the street. She also stated that research indicates
that when there are no cues requiring drivers to be more careful that drivers tend to pay
more attention to the street environment. So, there are two sides to the safety coin.
Vice President Autorino stated that the 5th Street area with the bollards has great
landscaping so is it possible to landscape the Stargell Avenue side so pedestrian would not
be on that portion of the plaza. He explained there should be a clear delineation of the street
and the plaza with a defined entranceway.
Mr. Kay replied that there is a good balance between hard and soft landscapes and as the
design team goes through the details with staff, he will keep that in mind.
Board member Knox White asked if the current configuration of Stargell Avenue and 5th
Street (illustrated as six lanes) the final configuration of Stargell Avenue, or is there a
proposal to widen Stargell Avenue.
Mr. Khan stated that there are no plans to widen Stargell Avenue so this direction is final.
When Alameda Point is further developed then staff will look into the configuration.
Board member Knox White stated that when the Stargell Avenue extension was built,
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 18
February 27, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-27,7,"Catellus originally was going to pay for a portion of the construction, but the payment has
not been received.
Ms. Debbie Potter, Project Manager for Catellus, stated that Catellus is obligated for the
construction cost of the Stargell Avenue extension and they paid for the acquisition of the
right of way at the College of Alameda so they have put in $8 million into the development.
Currently, there is a payment schedule setup for the construction cost.
Board member Knox White stated that based on Board member Henneberry's comments
about the entryway, the intersection will be one of the least desirable intersections in the
City because there will be 6 lanes of traffic coming up Stargell Avenue and the intersection
will be the second widest intersection in the City. Also, he had a hard time visualizing people
spending time in the entry plaza and he believes the space would be considered a drive by
space and less of a public space because of the traffic and that's a concern. He hopes the
design team can find a way to buffer the design of the intersection with trellises, but not a
wall. Also, considering that bike racks will be located near the intersection, he feels that
bikes will be at risk because there will be little pedestrian activity. Furthermore, he believes
that cutting the shopping center off from Bay Port and the College of Alameda is a miss
opportunity for connecting the space with the rest of the island.
Board member Köster asked if there is a way to include water elements around the
intersection and near the public art location in order to mitigate noise from traffic.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for Board comment on the Frontage along 5th Street section
on page 5 of attachment 1, Area B.
Board member Knox White encouraged Catellus to look at including street bike parking in
front of the buildings at 5th Street and secure the parking with bollards.
Mr. Thomas stated that the January 9th staff resolution had a detailed condition about the
placement of bike racks. There are distinctions between visitor and employee bike parking
and employee parking may be effective in bicycle cages or corrals.
President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that it's important to have buses running through the area, is
Catellus helping AC Transit fund the service.
Mr. Thomas replied that Catellus and Public Works have been working directly with AC
Transit to determine the best locations for bus stops. When Alameda Point and Alameda
Landing are built out there will be a greater demand for bus service and this project is
conditioned to supply shuttles because the shuttles are part of the Transportation Demand
Management plan. The Transportation Demand Management program would kick in either
when a total of 100,000 square feet of commercial space is built or the first 100 housing
units are built.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for Board comment on the Entry Plaza, the Central Plaza,
and the 5th Street Linear Greenway.
Board member Knox White stated that the project should look at incorporating residential
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 18
February 27, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-27,8,"over the 5th Street businesses in the shopping center and incorporate retail across the
street on 5th Street within the residential so the plaza starts to become an identifiable place.
Mr. Whiskeman replied that there are restrictions and that idea was not contemplated as
part of the retail plan. However, on the residential side that idea has been contemplated
before and the idea can evolve as the residential plan proceeds.
Board member Zuppan stated that although there was an explanation of erecting canopies
throughout the plan she would like to see more trees included in the seating area.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked how many trees are shown in the plan.
Mr. Kay stated 797 trees on the 23-acres, plus the roadways.
Mr. Thomas replied that staff could include a condition with the final landscape plan that
staff will work with Mr. Kay to ensure that the Board's questions are answered, especially
putting trees and seating within close proximity of each other.
President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is a champion of bay friendly landscaping. She
referred to page 10 of the plan in the asterisk in the bottom corner, which states
""The plant list is subjective to refinement based on plant availability and size.' She would
like Mr. Kay and his team to include a minimum number of different species and varieties of
plants because the attractive elements includes the variety of plant types, sizes, and
heights.
Mr. Kay replied that there is a sense of the minimum plant species used, but he needs to
receive detailed soil reports before he does anything. The plants shown are ones that are
generally available so there won't be a monoculture.
Board member Knox White stated that the staff report mentions view corridors. When you
refer to the first page of the plan, the current plan of the retail center, there is a building in
front of this view corridor that this greenway is going into. He finds the greenway interesting,
but if it connects to a typical sidewalk with a building sitting there, then it is a lost opportunity
to connect the west end over to the waterway.
Mr. Kay replied that across the street from the illustration is slated as a village green
surrounded by residential development so this will contribute to the other side of the street.
He thinks in reality the variety of the landscape is more important than one type of
landscape for 17 feet and the design will be pleasing in the residential section and for
pedestrians making their way up 5th Street.
Board member Knox White replied that he was referring to the building on the other side of
Mitchell Avenue not on the other side of 5th Street.
Mr. Whiskeman stated that graphically they wanted to get a sense of the entire project so
they used the shopping center, residential, and waterfront plans and there will be discussion
on how to be mindful of how the shopping center is built and how the view corridors are
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 18
February 27, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-27,9,"Vice President Autorino asked why there aren't more windows on the building since you
want to mirror the buildings in the development.
President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the front elevation and length of the building is 495' feet
long. In the City of Alameda, many of the commercial blocks are not that long. So, she
echoes Board member Autorino's sentiments.
Mr. Dewes replied that the store plan design is based no a fixurization plan so it's not
comparable to an office building where you can have glass around the building. So, if you
include windows on the Target store, they would look into a stock room or behind a fixture.
President Ezzy Ashcraft replied is it possible to do more of a treatment that you have on the
left west elevation where you have the display windows.
Mr. Dewes replied that is doable, but the building's plan is to use windows to break up the
building's mass throughout.
Mr. Albaugh referred to the sidewalk plan illustration and the overall design of the building.
He said the sidewalk will offset the building and will mimic breaking the building down so
pedestrians are passing a variety of elements.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 18
February 27, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-27,10,"President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to the resolution (found on item number 4 on page 4) voted
on later about the addition of 4-6 green screens on the front elevation to soften the large
expansion of wall.
Mr. Thomas replied that the resolution considered how to create a pedestrian scale
environment along that long edge. Mr. Kay raised a number of good points about how the
building goes in and out and the inclusion of landscaping. One of the main focuses was to
find a way to make the I-beam horizontal element more interesting with more shadow lines
and a traditional kind of trellis feature than the traditional modern horizontal beam.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for public comment.
Jon Spangler stated that he is a Target shopper and the point about windows is well spoken.
It would be nice to have real light coming into the building so he refers to the Alameda
Library as a good example. Secondly, regarding the external lighting of the signs, he would
like to see a 50% reduction of the amount of light emitted and the shape have more curve
and narrowness. Thirdly, the color of the building of the target the off-white color seems to
be a glaring standout compared to the rest of the elevations and that should be toned down
in order to keep up with the rest of the shopping center.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for Board comment on Building K.
Board member Burton stated that based on the questions that were asked about the
placement of windows there seems to be an error by the team by not including an illustration
of the building's interior layout as part of the staff report. Secondly, he doesn't see the
Target layout as a real effort to tailor the building into the specific site plan and there should
be substantial break down of the building's mass. The trellis elements would not be
something pedestrians would be walking amongst and won't be provide shade or shadow.
He agreed with Board member Autorino that the entrance should be placed in the middle for
the pedestrian-oriented development in theory. When referring to the staff report on page 6,
he doesn't see a support for the pedestrian experience adjacent to the building. When
referring to page 7, each side of the elevation design is comprised of smaller elements and
he determined that it's flat. Lastly, regarding the 2nd to last paragraph on that page there is
consistent stucco finished base incorporated around the building, but on the elevations it is
described as concrete, he would like clarification about the material.
Board member Köster stated that he has seen some Target with multiple entranceways and
he would like the design team to look at including another entranceway on the other side of
the building. He referred to the main site plan, page 1, the green arrow that links the two
Buildings K and Building A. He questioned what Building A will be given this is a secondary
spine to the project, then who will walk on this spine. He thought this was an entrance to the
Target, but in reality people would want to park as close to Target as possible and then drive
to Building A. Thus, the pedestrian experience would be tarnished.
Board member Knox White stated that he echoes everything that both board members said.
He doesn't think that the employee entrance should be placed where it is.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 18
February 27, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-27,11,"President Ezzy Ashcraft asked if there is a rationale for taking pedestrian through this route
only to come to an employee entrance to Target, is it possible to angle the pedestrian
entrance closer to the main entrance.
Mr. Whiskeman said there are multiple sidewalk paths that will lead pedestrians from center
drive to Building K. Since the way the parking is constructed, the main spine puts
pedestrians a little apart from the entrance. He explained if one were to walk in front of
Building I then across the way would be another sidewalk that takes you off center to the
right of Target's entrance. The main pedestrian connection to the clump of buildings in the
middle to Building K will not lead you to Target's front door because of the way parking is
configured. However, there may be a design solution that we can get the pedestrian
promenade over one drive aisle so it ends up closer to Target's entrance, but there is also a
pedestrian sidewalk that will lead you from Building I and Building J to Building K in addition
to the proposed entrance it is closer to the street, the living landscape pedestrian
experience, and residential neighborhood. Thus, a majority of customers may come from the
parking lot not necessary coming from Mariner Square Loop and have to experience that
long walk. So, that is something that can be considered and Mr. Albaugh can come back to
the Board about this issue.
Board member Knox White stated that in order to preserve the pedestrian experience the
parking spots should connect to the rest of the shopping center and Target. He pointed out
that Mr. Kay did an excellent job along Mitchell Avenue, and he is wondering if Sub Area B
could become mixed-use in order to correspond with development along the waterfront.
Regarding the illumination of the Target signs, the signs will be placed across from homes
and the signage should be on the side that this building is pretending to front. He proposed
a condition to remove big illuminated signs across from residential developments.
Vice President Autorino stated that people will be going to Building K as a destination and it
may be problematic to have another entryway on the opposite side of the building because
of the loading dock. He would like to see more windows in the front of the building and for
the design team to break up the façade in order to make the building as harmonious with the
area as possible. He doesn't understand why there is a lighted Target sign on every side of
the building, but he brought up the condition that the signs cannot be on before 7 a.m. or
after 10 p.m.
Board member Henneberry agreed with Board member Autorino and exclaimed that the
design team could only do so much with a 140,000 square foot building. However, he
believes there can be a way to soften the building and make it more acceptable to its
surroundings
Board member Burton stated that he liked the color palate and the earthier tones and brick
help the building blend with the landscape.
President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to the Planning Commissioner's Handbook created by the
League of California Cities, Design and Review section, which state that most people prefer
a degree of aesthetic complexity and variety while monotonous facades symbolize
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 11 of 18
February 27, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-27,12,"intuitionalism. In order to avoid the monotony, the building should be broken into smaller
units with varying shapes, sizes, windows, textures and colors. She believes the plan's is
headed in the right direction, but she would like the architects to review the following items:
(1) break up the large expanse of the front facing south façade and remedy this with public
art; (2) reduce the illuminated signs especially in the back of the store; (3) soften the colors
of the rear elevation facing north (refer to page 13). The order that one sees the colors
differs and now receive dark brown bands framing the panels and that should be soften to
blend with the surroundings; (4) consider how the Green arrow around Building A to Building
K could be moved over in order to shift people closer to where they want to be; (5) have the
architects bring material samples so the Board can review; and (6) incorporate sustainable
elements into the plans of the building. She wanted staff to go back and incorporate the
Board's suggestions before the Board votes.
Scott Cuyler, Creative Principal and Co-Founder of Square Peg Design, reported on the
company's first attempt at programming the site for the driving audience and at this point,
they are not looking at pedestrian signage.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for Board comment on the proposed signage located on
page 18.
Board member Burton stated that the plan is headed in a good direction, but the plan needs
to be developed further. He believed that the Sail logo specifically with the letter ""L"" is
interesting, but the logo may be too delicate given the scale. In terms of the horizontal
options for the Alameda Landing identity, he was intrigued if it can be done an anti-graffiti
proof material. He liked the primary site tenant identification where all the signs are located
on one side.
Board member Zuppan asked if the letter ""L"" with Sail is suppose to be a weather vein or
sail that switches around with the wind.
Mr. Cuyler replied that this is a preliminary design report so more work will be done and no
it's not a weather vein.
Board member Knox White stated that having a kinetic aspect to the sign would be unique
and interesting.
President Ezzy Ashcraft agreed with Board member Burton that less is more, but make it
fun and interesting.
Mr. Thomas stated that the landscape and open space plan has a majority of support, but
with a few conditions: (1) look at final plan to ensure seating and shading; (2) look at Stargell
Avenue main entrance at 5th Street to make sure trees and landscape are placed to create
a buffer, while making it attractive primarily on the Stargell Avenue side; (3) place a water
feature at that corner to reduce the traffic's noise; and (4) create a list of the minimum plants
that will be used in the landscaping plan. Regarding the Building K design review the overall
theme heard was that there was not enough variation and not enough visual interest. There
are 8 different design strategies that staff and the project team can use to improve and
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 12 of 18
February 27, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-27,13,"soften the elevations. He also stated that the focus on the south front elevation should be
enhanced and softened the façade and 5th Street elevation. Staff wants to know if the Board
is ready to approve the plan with these conditions or should the design team continuing
working on the plan and come back for another hearing. Ideally, staff would like to craft the
conditions in order to move forward into the next phase of the design.
President Ezzy Ashcraft said the rear of the building does not need bright red columns or
the illuminate the Target sign.
Mr. Thomas replied that the eight conditions for the Building K would be: (1) including
window displays on the south and west elevation will enhance the building; (2) include more
green screens on the front elevation and primarily on the right hand side to soften it and
bring more landscaping to the front near the green screens; (3) the use of vertical public art
either standing away or applying to the building to the front elevation so there is some visual
interest on the right hand side of the elevation, similar to Perforce Software on Blanding
Avenue (4) take out the illuminated Target signs that face the residential neighborhood or
the waterfront; (5) the trellis elements along the front improve pedestrian experience so pull
the trellis away from the building to create shadow or allow pedestrians to walk under; (6)
move the planes in and out, but not a huge amount along the eastern portion of the front
elevation as you move along the main entrance; (7) use materials particularly on the
pedestrian level and along the southern front elevation that are interesting; (8) As Board
member Burton stated along the front elevation, the brick shoulder walls read the exact
same height so there may be some fairly small changes in the height of the elevations.
Mr. Dewes stated that the illuminated signs along the rear and the west side facing the
residential would be taken away from the plan. As Mr. Thomas' pointed out, the right half of
the south elevation where the brick portion sits along the wall will project out more.
Regarding the list of conditions, he can work with all of the suggestions, but the second
entrance suggestion will not work because it is not part of Target's layout models.
Vice President Autorino replied that the picture shown of Del Monte mimic the warehouses
along the Embarcadero in San Francisco. The building style along the front would bring
more of the maritime feeling.
Mr. Thomas stated that they did talk about the Del Monte building and the repeating rhythm
is very pleasant as you drive or walk along the building.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked to discuss drawing 3 in the loading zone area, and was
there something in place to screen the loading dock.
Mr. Dewes explained there will be a screen wall with the same materials of the main
building's palate, the length will be around 70' to 80' feet long and 12' feet high.
Board member Köster referred to slide 14, where the entrance of the building is located. He
asked if there was a way to move the food court over to the corner, towards the tower in
order to shift the store entrance closer to the secondary spine that runs down the plan.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 13 of 18
February 27, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-27,14,"Mr. Albaugh stated there are windows between the food service area and the entry vestibule
and the far left of the vestibule is all glazed windows, creating a big glass box. So, there is
visual connection to the outside corner from the food service area from its current location.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for a motion to extend the meeting past 11 p.m.
Vice President Autorino made the motion to extend the meeting till 11:30 p.m.
Board member Henneberry seconded the motion.
Board member Knox White stated that the new rules for City meetings is that if three
consecutive meetings go past 11 p.m. then the Board would have to hold more meetings in
order to get business done.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Mr. Thomas stated that the resolution with the amended conditions and bring the revised
resolution upon consent next week.
President Ezzy Ashcraft proposed a subcommittee to work on the design review.
Vice President Autorino stated he doesn't want to delay the project anymore so he believes
the conditions work and he believes a subcommittee will enter into additional unnecessary
discussion.
Board member Burton stated that a subcommittee might work, but he would like to have it
brought back before the Board to have assurance that the revised design is something that
the Board is happy with.
Mr. Thomas stated there is one other way to move forward. He explained there's an on-
going process under this scenario where the design team will implement the conditions then
look to City staff approve the revisions. There can be a system setup where he can report to
the Board about the process the way staff reports on the process of the design review.
President Ezzy Ashcraft envisioned delegating two of the board members with professional
design background to come in and simultaneously work with Mr. Thomas look over the
revisions.
Board member Knox White stated that the Board could call a review if they don't like the
final plan. Also, the one thing that is not on the caveat and will keep him from voting to
approve the Building K plan is the pedestrian connection in the fake entrance that is
currently designed in this building.
Mr. Thomas replied that another way of handling the situation would be for staff to conduct a
final design review before building permit is issued. He responded to Board member Knox
White's comments regarding the pedestrian connection.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 14 of 18
February 27, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-27,15,"Board member White explained to Mr. Thomas that there usually isn't an acre of parking lot
in front of pedestrians and when looking across they see their destination. He referred to
constant J-walking habits made by drivers who park across the street to go to the Alameda
Theater because it is a direct path.
He suggested re-orienting the parking in front of Target so that it lines up with the parking
between Building A and Buildings E and D so all the parking and the pedestrian pathways
are straight across Building K.
Board member Zuppan stated she likes the idea if you make something interesting and
worth going to at the end of the path then it solves some of the issues. Also, the lighting
should not shine up into the air at night.
President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the options for Board approval are: (1) stick to what is
laid out in the staff report or (2) have the Board not approve the plan and require staff to
continue to work plan and come back for another hearing. She stated that she is calling for
an approval of the plan with conditions and when the final design review is finalized then
staff should report the plan to the Board.
Vice President Autorino called a motion to approve the plan with the conditions defined by
Mr. Thomas and the final design review will come back to the Board for approval.
Mr. Thomas stated that he would provide the interior building layout to the Board before the
design review.
Board member Zuppan seconded the motion.
The motion passed 5-2. (Board members Burton and Knox White opposed)
Mr. Thomas stated that he would include the statement made by Board member Zuppan in
the existing conditions. Board member Zuppan requested for the design team to look at
including something interesting such as public art at the central pedestrian pathway that
intersects with Building K.
Board member Knox White called a motion to extend the meeting until midnight.
Seconded by Board member Burton.
The motion was approved 7-0.
9-B. Review of Draft Prioritized Transportation Project List.
Obaid Khan, City of Alameda Supervising Civil Engineer, reported on the transportation
project list that would be moved for review by the City Council.
Board member Zuppan asked how did staff calculate the points and can Mr. Khan explain if
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 15 of 18
February 27, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-27,16,"safety considerations were included in the evaluation.
Mr. Khan referred to the bike plan and he explained that the ranking is listed in the back of
the sheet. When calculating the points he referred to the bike plan project. Regarding safety
considerations, he said that is a tricky question, but staff looked at different modes of
transportation to see how safety is incorporated into the design.
Board member Zuppan stated that she was looking at the project that strengthened current
seismic standards.
Mr. Khan replied that regional and lifeline connectivity would be ranked high in priority.
Board member Knox White stated that this is a great process and he was glad to see the
City is going through this process methodically. He believes the scoring is still missing a
couple of things: (1) transit benefits should have some sort of grade because you want to
know what does the scoring mean and if staff provides points then they should give
clarification for what the points mean; (2) the Regional Significant scoring seems off
because it basically says that local projects score very poorly while regional projects receive
bonus points; (3) the Economic Development section is vague and should be gradated to
show why points are given; (4) the Transportation Element points are aimed towards public
works working with another agency and half the points are created by meeting small policies
and he suggested that there should be four general pan objectives. Therefore, the scoring
side needs to be more methodical, an example, the former ACTIA scoring does calculate it's
funding into a great spreadsheet. His other concern was the way that the projects are called
out. Some projects are vague and there should be consistency on how the projects are
defined. Also, he believes the spreadsheet should include a column that explains the types
of funding that the projects could match with. Additionally, he wanted to know how staff
would add new projects to the list and prioritize the list that the community brings up. Lastly,
when the list is finalized it would be good to have regular updates on the top projects.
Mr. Khan replied that the transit benefit would be looked into and regional significance is a
very critical item because when going to MTC, Caltrans, or FHWA for grants the agencies
are looking for regional significance in order to fund projects. He and staff would look at the
sheet and refine where necessary. The Economic Development section is something that
staff will look at and they are looking at major projects such as Alameda Point and Northern
Waterfront, not for infill small single-family developments. If there is, an economic
development gradient staff will look into it based upon specific plans that exist for Northern
Waterfront and Alameda Point. The Project Readiness section is a good idea and staff will
add points. Regarding the Maintenance section, the project mentioned on Broadway and
Jackson project went into the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan and was a
cosponsored application with the City of Alameda and Oakland. This was the first time the
City has cosponsored with the City of Oakland on this project. Although most of the
project's footprint is located in Oakland, it creates a great regional collaboration and the plan
has multimodal elements such bus rapid transit, bike lanes and transit exclusive lanes,
which are important and received a lot of regional support.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked about the Broadway project's solution to the freeway
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 16 of 18
February 27, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-27,17,"entrance from 7th street.
Mr. Khan stated it will be the 6th Street frontage street and there is some opposition, but
City Council members who represent Oakland Chinatown are supporting the project.
Vice President Autorino stated that it would be nice to delineate what the current priorities
are for street projects.
Mr. Khan replied that is based on the Pavement Condition Index and the amount of traffic
the street receives.
Board member Zuppan made a motion to extend the meeting for another 10 minutes.
Seconded by Board member Knox White.
The motion was approved 7-0.
9-C. Election of Planning Board Officers. The Planning Board will elect a new President and
Vice President for the upcoming year, as required by the Planning Board By-Laws.
Vice President Autorino stated that the way the elections works is by seniority and the next
person in line would be Board member Zuppan.
Vice President Autorino made a motion to name Board member Zuppan the President of the
Planning Board.
Seconded by Board member Knox White.
The motion was approved 5-2.
Köster and Henneberry abstained.
Board member Knox White moved to name Board member Burton the Vice President of the
Planning Board.
Seconded by Vice President Autorino.
The motion was Approved 7-0.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS :
None.
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 17 of 18
February 27, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-27,18,"12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Thomas and Board member Zuppan thanked President Ashcraft and Vice President
Autorino for their work on the Planning Board.
13. ADJOURNMENT:
12:10 AM
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 18 of 18
February 27, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf