{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2006-01-23", "page": 1, "text": "COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nJanuary 23, 2006\nPresent: Chair Cooney, Fort, Longley-Cook, Lord-Hausman, Moore, McGaughey\nAbsent/Excused: Berger, Bunker, Vice-Chair Gwynne, Steffens\nGuests: Sean Lynch (APD)\nMINUTES: The minutes of December 12, 2005 where approved with the following\ncorrection: Change Oral Communications Item No. 1 \"Commission questioned why limited\nto 75 years or older and to include service animals.\" to \"Commissioner questioned\n\"\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: none\nNEW BUSINESS:\nElection of Chair and Vice-Chair: (Chair Cooney)\nCommission elected Ed Cooney - Chair and Jody Moore - Vice-Chair as 2006 officers.\nAyes 5, Nays 0.\nOLD BUSINESS:\nStatus of Accommodation Recommendations and Accessibility during Construction\nGuidelines and Policy Document:\nSecretary informed commission that Public Works is reviewing the construction form. Chair\nCooney will assist staff in providing costs of various Braille transcription/sign language\ninterpreters.\nBvlaws Modification:\nCommission reviewed and verified proposed changes to the bylaws. Needs City Council\napproval. Secretary to follow up.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2006-01-23", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nJanuary 23,\n2006 Minutes\nPage 2 of3\n3. APD Volunteer Program:\nCommissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman and Officer Sean Lynch informed the commissioners\nof the Alameda Police Department's volunteer program that allows participants to issue\nparking citations to vehicles illegally parked in disabled parking spaces. Volunteers must be\ngraduates of the City's 10-week police academy program. The participants are also\ncompiling an inventory of locations of disabled parking spaces and any maintenance\nrequirements throughout the City.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS: none\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\n1. Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook updated the commission informational flyer and\nrequested staff to final changes.\n2. Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook attended the January 18 Alameda Youth\nCollaborative meeting and informed the commission on the Alameda Safe School\nEnvironmental Team (ASSET) program whereby adults assist at-risk students.\n3. A youth film festival will be held on February 25, 2006 at the Bay Theatre, Alameda Pointe.\n4. Chair Ed Cooney reported that the audible signal at Park Street and Santa Clara Avenue\nintersection is not loud enough.\n5. Commissioner Gina McGaughey informed the commissioners that she will be resigning from\nthe commission.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2006-01-23", "page": 3, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nJanuary 23,\n2006 Minutes\nPage 3 of3\nADJOURNMENT:\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, February 27, 2006 in\nRoom 360, City Hall.\nSincerely,\nMatthew T. Naclerio\nPublic Works Director\nEd Somemrauer\nAssociate Civil Engineer\nES:lc\nG:\\pubworks\\LT\\MCD Disability Committee/2006\\123min.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-01-23", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, January 23, 2006\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:01 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nVice President Cook\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch, and\nMcNamara.\nBoard member Mariani was absent.\nAlso in attendance were Planning & Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Deputy City Attorney Julie\nHarryman, Supervising Planner Andrew Thomas, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Contract Planner\nChandler Lee.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of January 9, 2006.\nM/S Cook/McNamara to approve the minutes for the meeting of January 9, 2006, as presented.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nNone.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nJanuary 23, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-01-23", "page": 2, "text": "7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A.\nFDP05-0006/DR05-013 - Peet's Coffee - 2001 Harbor Bay Parkway (CL). Applicant\nrequests a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to allow a one-story building of\napproximately 138,000 square feet in floor area including a 14,300 square foot two-story\noffice component, with 128 parking spaces and over two and one-half acres of landscaped\narea, to be constructed on a 8.85 acre site. The site is located within the Harbor Bay Business\nPark in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution PB-06-04 to approve a\nFinal Development Plan and Major Design Review to allow a one-story building of approximately\n138,000 square feet in floor area including a 14,300 square foot two-story office component, with\n128 parking spaces and over two and one-half acres of landscaped area, to be constructed on a 8.85\nacre site.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nJanuary 23, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-01-23", "page": 3, "text": "7-B.\nPM05-0002 & PM05-0003; 1090 and 1350 Marina Village Parkway (ATh). Applicant:\nAlameda Real Estate Investments. The applicant is requesting the approval of two parcel\nmaps creating a total of four parcels and the conversion of existing berths, within these four\nparcels, from rental to condominium ownership. These parcels cover existing marina facilities\nonly. No new residential or commercial uses are proposed. No new construction or alteration\nof existing facilities is proposed. All existing easements and permit requirements concerning,\nbut not limited to open space, public access and vehicular access will remain in effect.\n(Applicant requests continuance to the meeting of February 13, 2006.)\nM/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of February 13, 2006.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nJanuary 23, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-01-23", "page": 4, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A. Grand Marina Study Session (ATh). Study Session on proposed 40-unit residential\ndevelopment located at the intersection of Grand Street and Fortmann Way in the Northern\nWaterfront area.\nSupervising Planner Andrew Thomas presented the staff report.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham whether an EIR or a negative declaration would\nbe needed, Mr. Thomas did not anticipate any significant unavoidable impacts from the 40-unit. He\nnoted that some mitigations would be needed, but he believed that everything could be mitigated to a\nlevel of \"Less Than Significant.\"\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. David Day, applicant, Warmington Homes, presented the proposed site plan on the overhead\nscreen.\nMr. Jason Nearing, civil engineer, Carlson Barbie & Gibson, described the features of the master plan,\nincluding parking, landscaping, pedestrian corridors, and open space areas. He emphasized that the\nview corridors were maintained to the waterfront, including a pedestrian corridor in several locations\nto maintain easy pedestrian access to the existing open space along the waterfront.\nMr. Don Rickey, architect, Dahlin Group, discussed the architectural features of the homes. The\nsquare footage would range from 1300 to 2308 sq. ft. for the various plans. The architectural would\nbe coastal, reminiscent of that found in Santa Cruz or Sausalito, using materials like stucco, metal\nroofing for accents, shingle siding and vertical siding.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Lynch regarding the economics of reducing the number of\nhomes and making them larger, Mr. Day replied that it would become difficult to make the project\neconomically feasible if the number of homes was reduced below 30 homes.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara regarding apparent inconsistencies within the\npresentation regarding parking spaces, Mr. Day clarified the parking scheme, pointing out the\nconceptual land plan idea for the Pennzoil City site, which included the perpendicular parking. A\ndiscussion of the pedestrian pathways ensued.\nBoard member Lynch noted that he liked the attempt to separate pedestrian and automobile traffic,\nbut also appreciated staff's concern that they may cause issues with both drivers and pedestrians. He\nsuggested a paving pattern or cobblestone design element could suggest a pedestrian way.\nPresident Cunningham believed that the landscape plan lent itself to a terrace scheme, which he\nrealized may be contrary to Alameda's goals. He noted that if a lifestyle environment were to be\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nJanuary 23, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-01-23", "page": 5, "text": "created, he did not want see a series of individual dwelling houses on very small lots. He suggested\ninvestigating semi-detached homes with a zero lot line. He did not want to create a series of wind\ntunnels with narrow alleys between houses.\nBoard member Kohlstrand requested clarification of the reciprocal easements. Mr. Day replied that\nthey were very similar to a zero lot line concept; a reciprocal easement placed the property line\nequidistant between the two homes. Through the CC&Rs, a borrowed easement provided for an eight\nfoot side yard.\nBoard member Kohlstrand noted that because of Measure A, some creative solutions for the site are\nnot being implemented and some strange-looking developments were resulting from Measure A\nlimitations.\nMr. Day noted that with Measure A, duets could be implemented, but that only two units could be\nattached.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand regarding the zoning for the Pennzoil site, Mr.\nThomas replied that it was zoned Manufacturing The Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment\nwould recommend that it be rezoned for residential.\nPresident Cunningham supported the alley approach, and noted that it worked well in Bayport. He did\nnot want to see a PDA with a street lined with garage doors, and believed that the proposed\nstreetscape was very attractive. He would like to see a three-dimensional model of this project.\nBoard member Lynch believed that this project would be viewed best as a blank slate. He would have\nliked to consider other models, regardless of some of the local limitations faced by the Board. He was\nnot sure that Measure A could withstand a challenge, and suggested that the applicants look at the\nPlaya Vista development, which had won many awards. He would like to see a similar development\nin Alameda. He believed that terracing could be included, and that a mix of condo-style and single-\nfamily homes could be included in the development. He added that there was open space where\nconcerts could be held, and that the entire effect of that development was stunning.\nVice President Cook noted that marina occupancy were cyclical, and asked about vacancies at the\nMarina. Mr. Day confirmed that the occupancy rate was at 98% at the Marina.\nBoard member Lynch would be in favor of additional open space and less parking. He inquired why\ngates and permit parking would even be considered. He believed that residents of other\nneighborhoods would want to have permit parking, which may be a slippery slope.\nMr. Thomas noted that staff originally had a negative reaction to the gates, and noted that permit\nparking and the gates were not staff-initiated ideas.\nBoard member McNamara inquired whether the outside restroom would be maintained by the\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nJanuary 23, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-01-23", "page": 6, "text": "harbormaster, and suggested that the current restroom be torn down or re-faced to match the\nresidential design more closely.\nVice President Cook expressed concern about the design of the development, and noted that she\nsupported residential waterfront use. She noted that a resident of a nearby development had\ncommented that the proposed lots were even smaller than his. She did not see the tradeoff for the\npublic in return for the density. She did not agree with the narrowing and privatizing of the streets,\nand believed the streets should remain in the public realm.\nBoard member Kohlstrand agreed with Vice President Cook's comments regarding public streets and\nthe view corridors. She did not have a problem with the number of units, but was concerned about the\nsize of the units in the limited amount of space. She noted that was a challenge to accomplish within\nthe limitations of Measure A.\nPresident Cunningham noted that a three-dimension massing model would be valuable in assessing the\nmix of architectural styles on the streetscape. He inquired whether like styles should be grouped\ntogether to accomplish a larger picture. He noted that the third story bothered him, and would like to\nsee it integrated in a more pleasing way. He expressed concern about the massing of the development.\nHe liked the articulation of the design, and how it picked up details from the surrounding\nneighborhoods.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding this project's economics, Mr. Thomas\nreplied that the project is privately financed and no City funds are being contributed to the project.\nThis project will pay Citywide development impact fees, which help fund a variety of services, such as\ntraffic improvements to park maintenance and improvements. Staff anticipated that it would pay a fair\nshare of improvements within the Northern Waterfront to allow the area to build out. It would be\nsubject to the public art requirements. President Cunningham requested that the amount committed be\nidentified and integrated into the design. He encouraged residential development.\nMr. Thomas noted that staff would review the Board's comments with the applicants, and would\nfocus on the changes to the site plan to respond to the comments. Staff will also complete the\nenvironmental document for this project.\nMs. Woodbury complimented the Board on the depth and detail of their comments.\nNo action was taken.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nJanuary 23, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-01-23", "page": 7, "text": "9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATION\na.\nUpdate on Catellus Mixed Use Project\nSupervising Planner Andrew Thomas presented this report, and noted that the Bayport project, which\nhad approximately 500 units, was a portion of a larger master plan approved in 2000. In addition to\nthe residential portion, there were plans for a 1.3 million square foot office/R&D park, which has not\nmoved forward since its original approval due to the Bay Area office market conditions and the dot-\ncom bust. Catellus and the City agreed to investigate the possibilities of changing that portion of the\nplan to another conceptual program. The larger use would be included in the environmental document\nto act as a maximum envelope, and the use could be made smaller within that document. The new\nproposal would include 300 housing units, 300,000 square feet of retail, and 400,000 square feet of\noffice. He noted that would require a series of amendments to documents, including a General Plan\nAmendment, zoning amendments, a Master Plan Amendment, and a supplemental EIR. He noted that\npage 3 of the memorandum outlined the community engagement strategy for this process, which was\ndesigned to keep the community involved throughout the design and entitlement process. Staff also\nintended to incorporate the boards and commissions, particularly the Planning Board, into this\nprocess as often and as early as possible. He noted that there was a successful open house/community\nmeeting the previous Saturday, January 21, 2006. A scoping session has been scheduled for February\n9, 2006, at 6:30 p.m., to be held in Council Chambers before the Zoning Administrator.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the Zoning Administrator, Mr. Thomas\nreplied that at this time, Cynthia Eliason would serve as the Zoning Administrator.\nMr. Thomas noted that the second major workshop would be held on February 15, 2006, which he\nencouraged the Board members to attend. A study session with the Planning Board would be held on\nMarch 13, 2006, during a regularly schedule meeting. The EIR would be released approximately a\nmonth after that meeting, and transportation issues would be a major part of that discussion. A study\nsession with the Transportation Commission would be held in late April; transportation, the project\nlayout and Measure A issues would be part of that discussion. The first official hearing on the EIR\nwould be held before the Planning Board in May, which would be widely noticed. There would be a\npresentation before the Economic Development Commission in May. The official hearing where the\nPlanning Commission would make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed General\nPlan Amendment, rezoning and Master Plan Amendments would be held in June and July.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Lynch regarding the number of people who lived and\nworked on the old Alameda Naval Air Station, Mr. Thomas replied that it was approximately 17,000-\n18,000. Mr. Lynch noted that his father had worked there, and that there was always traffic.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Lynch regarding water taxis, Mr. Thomas replied that\nAlameda had its own ferry service now and were partially funded by MTC. The City also worked\nclosely with the Water Transit Authority, with the idea of transitioning the ferry service from an\nAlameda-run service to a regional water transit service. He noted that a water taxi between this site\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nJanuary 23, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-01-23", "page": 8, "text": "and Jack London Square would have to be funded by this project, perhaps in combination with\nAlameda Point.\nBoard member Kohlstrand noted that a better pedestrian environment should be created in this area,\nand that there should be coordination between the department heads in the cities of Alameda and\nOakland.\nBoard member Lynch noted that there was a significant financial impact to the Board's decisions, and\nthat there was a tradeoff between retail and residential. He believed this was the time to address that\nissue because of the planning process that leads to a determining vote. He believed that a General\nPlan Amendment would be needed, and that the financial implications to the City's General Fund\nwould be significant. He added that some jurisdictions ask for a financial feasibility study, which he\ndid not see as part of this package.\nPresident Cunningham believed that Board member Lynch's point regarding financial feasibility was\nwell taken. Mr. Thomas advised he would bring that concern to the team, and believed it would be\ndoable.\nBoard member Lynch noted that he was not a retail expert, nor was the general public, and did not\nbelieve he should get involved in the discussion regarding the type of retail. He wanted the tax\nrevenue from the General Fund to pay for services.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nJanuary 23, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-01-23", "page": 9, "text": "10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice President Cook).\nVice President Cook advised there was nothing new to report.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember Mariani).\nBoard member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member\nKohlstrand).\nBoard member Kohlstrand advised that there had been no further meetings since her last report.\n11.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nUpdate on Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact\nReport.\nMr. Thomas advised that the EIR would be released within one or two weeks, and that it would be\nbrought before the Board for action after that time.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n9:20 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nCathy Woodbury, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThese minutes were approved at the February 13, 2006 Planning Board meeting. This meeting was\naudio and videotaped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nJanuary 23, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-01-23.pdf"}