{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2006-07-24", "page": 1, "text": "COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nJuly 24, 2006\nPresent: Berger, Bunker, Chair Cooney, Fort, Longley-Cook, Lord-Hausman, Kirola, Vice-Chair\nMoore (left at 8:15)\nAbsent/Excused: Crone, Steffens\nGuests: None\nMINUTES: The minutes of April 24, 2006 were approved with the following corrections: a) \"were\napproved\" not \"where approved\" in Minutes section.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None\nNEW BUSINESS:\n1. Disability Awareness Month Activities.\nThe commissioners discussed the proposed performance of Axis Dance Company, which is directed\nby Molly McFarlane, an Alameda resident. The group will be doing performances in San Francisco\nand Oakland, and has asked for a $500 stipend from those cities, but are willing to work with\nAlameda on an alternative amount. Concerns about the performance include the weather in October,\nwhat day to have it, ground surface for the dancers if out-of-doors, size of performance area\n(preferably 30 feet by 20 feet, but 20 feet by 20 feet would be OK), source of funding for stipend and\nother expenses, conflicting events such as Yom Kippur (October 1st), theme, banner proclaiming\n\"Disability Awareness Month\", if there should be speakers such as the Mayor as well, microphone\nand loudspeaker needs, Commissioner and Vice Chairman Moore and Commissioner Lord-Hausman\nwill speak with Ms. McFarlane, the School District, Parks and Recreation, and Debbie Opperud,\nSpecial Olympics Coach, and will have a full proposal for decision making at the August meeting. In\nthe interim, comments among commissioners will be circulated through Chair Cooney. Chair\nCooney will speak with Ed Sommerauer to ensure that the proclamation by Council is requested in a\ntimely manner.\n2. Availability of Staff Reports\nStaff presented recommendations: Policy changes are the only comments that go directly to Council.\nEnvironmental document comments go to the Planning Department, to be taken under advisement\nfor their staff comments to Council. Improvement plan comments go to Public Works Department,\nto be taken under advisement for their staff comments to Council. The Commission would like to be\non the leading edge of the planning process, not the tail end. As examples, Chair Cooney mentioned\nthe Washington Dog Park, Webster Street Improvements, and the Theater. There was some question\nas", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2006-07-24", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nJuly 24, 2006\nMinutes\nPage 2 of 3\nto how to present the improvement projects in a way that is accessible to all members, especially\nthose who cannot see the plan sets. Wooden models are highly appreciated. Sandpaper cutouts on\npaperboard are useful for simple drawings.\nOLD BUSINESS:\n1. Accessibility Policy:\nStaff presented certain changes recommended to make the policy more specific. The changes\nwere met with approval. Staff will make the changes, write up a staff report to accompany it,\nand then submit it to Council for their approval. Staff was directed to come up with a budget\nto implement the policy, and a source of funding. For example, there should be more\nextensive signage of what is available, such as assistive listening devices, in meeting halls.\nThere should be a standardized statement on all agendas as to what is available at meetings\nand in advance of meetings. The agendas and announcements should be available in a variety\nof forms - not everyone has access to the city website, or can read the newspaper. There\nshould be people with disabilities serving on other commissions. The Commissioners\ndiscussed the need to have an ADA expert in each department. Staff informed the\nCommission of the intent by Risk Management to hire an accessibility issues staff person,\nand the Commissioners expressed interest in being involved in the hiring process, budget,\nand accountability related to this new position. The Chair requested that staff provide a copy\nof the ADA and Title 24 in Braille, tape, or screen-readable format for himself, and Braille\nor tape format for Commissioner Fort.\n2. Bayport Park:\nThere is some concern that there may not be enough accessible toilets for women and\nchildren at Bayport Park. Staff will double check and report back.\n3. Events Calendar:\nThe next concert in Crab Cove is August 11th Commissioners Longley-Cook and Berger\nwill again attend and offer information, including a flyer from the Transportation and Land\nUse Coalition entitled \"Alameda for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities\" They will look\ninto obtaining large print and Braille copies as well.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\n1. Commissioner Langly-Cook attended the Transportation Commission meeting June 29th ,\nand, regarding the Towne Centre renovation project. She was pleased to see the\naccessibility improvements. Commissioner Lord-Hausman will attend next month, when\nSouth Shore will again be discussed.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2006-07-24", "page": 3, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nJuly 24, 2006\nMinutes\nPage 3 of 3\n2.\nThe July 20th edition of the Alameda Sun, mentioned Commissioner Langly-Cook in the\narticle \"Where the Sidewalk Ends\"\n3. Commissioner Cooney stated that a policy on construction was passed last March and\nsent out to contractors, to the best of his knowledge. He would like staff to double check\nthis.\n4. The Miracle League Baseball group is partnering with Alameda Rotary. The local\nrepresentative is Roberta Rockwell. This involves a modified, rubberized field that is\naccessible to players with disabilities. They have 300 eligible kids. Catellus has offered\nsome land, and the Giants and A's are interested in participating. The construction date\nis planned for the Spring of 2008. The Commission would like a representative to speak\nat their next meeting. Commissioner Lord-Hausman will follow up, and request that Ms.\nRockwell be allowed to speak as the first item of business.\n5. Commissioner Steffans has not attended the last few meetings. Chair Cooney will ask\nfor her resignation.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, August 28, 2006 in\nRoom 360, City Hall.\nSincerely,\nMatthew T. Naclerio\nPublic Works Director\nLaurie Kozisek\nAssociate Civil Engineer\nLK:lc\nG:\\pubworks\\LT\\MCD Disability Committee/2006\\724min.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-24", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, July 24, 2006\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:07 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMember Mariani\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice-President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft,\nKohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani and McNamara.\nAlso present were Assistant City Attorney Donna Mooney, Planning Services Manager Andrew\nThomas, Planner III Douglas Garrison and Executive Assistant Latisha Jackson.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of July 10, 2006\nMember McNamara noted that in Oral Communications at the beginning of the meeting, the\ncomments she made supporting a public forum to discuss the pros and cons of putting Measure A on\nthe ballot were not referenced in the minutes. She would like to have those comments inserted in the\nminutes.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 4, paragraph 3, should be changed to read, \"Member Ezzy\nAshcraft Kohlstrand-noted that the City Charter stated that the Planning Board may have power to\ninvestigate and recommend.\n\"\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the Charter was more specific than that, and stated that the\n\"Planning Board shall have such powers and duties. \"\nMember Kohlstrand noted that page 11, paragraph 6, should be changed to read, \"Member\nKohlstrand commended staff and commended Catellus for their work, and believed the project was\ngetting to the point where it was close to being a fairly good Measure A-compliant project for this\nsite. This would be one of the best Measure A-compliant proposals Alameda had seen.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that page 11, paragraph 6, should be changed to read, \"She believed this\nplan did not reflect reflected what the citizens of Alameda desired because it did not address the land\nuse and density issues.'\nMember Kohlstrand noted that page 11, paragraph 6, should be changed to read, \"She continued to\nadvocate the alternative for the purposes of advancing the land use and parking discussion with\nrespect to Measure A.\"\nMember Kohlstrand noted that page 12, paragraph 4, should be changed to read, \"Member\nKohlstrand noted that she preferred public streets, and though she understand that there was a\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nJuly 24, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-24", "page": 2, "text": "maintenance benefit to private streets, she still preferred the public streets.\"\nVice President Cook noted that page 4, paragraph 2, should be changed to read, \"Vice President\nCook noted the Board discussed Measure A many times in relationship to projects before us, and\nbelieved that the issue was being brought forth by the citizens because City leadership was not\ndiscussing it at this time.\"\nM/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Kohlstrand to approve the minutes for the meeting of July 10, 2006, as amended.\nAYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Mariani)\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Cunningham advised that a speaker slip had been received for Item 8-B.\nM/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to move item 8-B to the regular agenda.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nJuly 24, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-24", "page": 3, "text": "6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nMr. Michael Krueger, 2145 Santa Clara Avenue, Apt. E, spoke in reference to more affluent families\nusing public transportation and provided statistical data gathered by National Resources Defense\nCouncil to prove that these families use public transportation if alternative modes were available. He\nhoped that with civil and thoughtful discussion would bring possible sensible modifications to\nMeasure A and further exploration of improved development in the future may come about.\nMember Mariani noted that if the citizens of Alameda wanted Measure A to be placed on the ballot,\nthere were procedures in place to reach that goal.\nMr. Karen Butter, 1027 Foster Street, League of Women Voters, noted that the League had\npresented a letter, copying the Planning Board, requesting that Measure A be put on the ballot. She\nnoted that the League had no position on whether Alameda Point should be exempt from Measure A,\nbut believed that the public conversation regarding this issue should be encouraged.\n7.\n2006-2007 ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS:\nM/S Cunningham/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to nominate Member Lynch as President.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nM/S Lynch/Cunningham and unanimous to nominate Vice President Cook as Vice President.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nJuly 24, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-24", "page": 4, "text": "8-A\nProposed Recommendation to Rename Tinker Avenue to Willie Stargell Avenue (DV).\nPresident Cunningham advised that a speaker slip in favor of Item 8-A had been received.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Diane Lichtenstein, 633 Sand Hook, spoke in support of renaming Tinker Avenue to Willie\nStargell Avenue. She noted that streets available for renaming had been included in the staff report,\nand she suggested that in keeping with community street name conventions (flowers on Bay Farm\nIsland, and bird names in Harbor Bay), the residential streets in the grid be considered to be renamed\nin a similar fashion.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft believed that the Historical Advisory Board was responsible for street naming,\nrather than the Planning Board.\nMr. Thau noted that the Historic Advisory Board could place street names on the list, and the\nPlanning Board could recommend to City Council whether the name was appropriate for the street.\nM/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-24 to\nrecommend to Council to rename Tinker Avenue to Willie Stargell Avenue.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nJuly 24, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-24", "page": 5, "text": "8-B.\nPD06-0001 and DR06-0054 - Habitat for Humanity - 626 Buena Vista Ave. (DG). The\napplicant requests approval of Planned Development and Major Design Review applications\nallowing the construction of eight new dwelling units consisting of four two-story duets on a lot\npreviously used as a carwash. The project site is zoned R4-PD Neighborhood Residential\nDistrict-Planned Development Zoning District. (Applicant requests continuance to the\nmeeting of August 14, 2006).\nM/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to move item 8-B to the regular agenda.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMr. Garrison summarized the staff report.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Jackie Keenan, 617 Pacific Avenue, noted that several neighbors had concerns about this project,\nand inquired about a neighborhood meeting. Mr. Garrison stated that he believed it would be held\nMonday, July 31, 2006. Ms. Keenan supported a neighborhood meeting so the neighbors may discuss\ntheir concerns.\nThe public hearing was closed.\nItem continued to the meeting of August 14, 2006.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nJuly 24, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-24", "page": 6, "text": "9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A.\nGPA06-01, MPA06-01, DP06-01, EIR06-01-Catellus Mixed Use Development (AT). The\napplicant requests approval of a General Plan, Master Plan and Development Agreement\nAmendments and certification of an EIR to replace 1,300,000 square feet of approved but not yet\nconstructed office and research and development uses with 400,000 square feet of office use,\n300,000 square feet of retail shopping use, 20,000 square feet of health club, and up to 300\nresidential units. The site is located in the MX (Mixed Use) Zoning District which is located\nsouth of the Oakland Alameda Estuary, north of the College of Alameda and the Bayport\nResidential Project, east of Coast Guard Housing, and west of Webster Street.\nMr. Thomas summarized the staff report, thanked the Planning Board members for the edits and\nchanges that they provided and recommended that the Planning Board hold a public hearing, review\npertinent information and forward this item to the City Council.\nMs. Karen Auschler, SMWM, design consultant, continued the presentation and discussed the\namendments to the Master Plan.\nMr. Marcus addressed the Board and thanked them for their time and impact and reiterated that the\nplan is Measure A-compliant and CEQA-compliant. He explained why a vote was needed at this\nPlanning Board meeting.\nPresident Cunningham noted that more than five speaker slips had been received.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Lynch and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. John Knox White, Chair, Transportation Commission, distributed a document to the Board and\nsummarized its contents. The memo requested that streets and intersections not be widened, that\nspeed limits be limited to 25 mph, all EIRs include an analysis of the effects of the project on the\nCity's transit, pedestrian and bicycle environment, including the surrounding areas.\nMr. Thomas advised that the Public Works Department had submitted comments on the\nTransportation Commission's recommendations.\nMr. Ed Clark. President, Board of Directors, West Alameda Business Association (WABA), 1553\nWebster Street, spoke in favor of this item, and complimented the applicants in working with\nresidents and businesspeople in the surrounding neighborhood. He emphasized that because the\nprovisions of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) are consistent with City goals, they asked\nthe Planning Board and City Council to continue to incorporate the terms of the MOU in the Master\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nJuly 24, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-24", "page": 7, "text": "Plan and other agreements negotiated by the City with respect to the development of Alameda\nLanding.\nMr. Sandip Jariwala, WABA, 1628 Webster Street, spoke in favor of this item, and believed the\nproject provided good visibility for West Alameda. He believed it was critical that the terms that had\nbeen agreed to would be enforced in the future.\nMr. Michael Krueger, 2145 Santa Clara Avenue, Apt. E, was pleased to see the Planning Board's\nrecommendations included in the staffreport. He addressed the issue of the staff report (page 13, Part\nK, #4) regarding landscaping, and did not want the shade to be sacrificed. He noted that the larger\nlong-term issue is consistency with Alameda Point transportation strategy and addressed the\npossibility of a lift bridge for pedestrians and bicyclist.\nMr. Jermaine Garrett and Ronald (Luhar), Alameda Boys and Girls Club, both spoke in favor of this\nitem, and noted that Alameda Landing would provide the opportunity for part-time jobs for students.\nHe was in favor of being able to walk to work.\nMs. Roberta Rockwell, Miracle League, 1322 Sherman Street, spoke in favor of this item, and\ndescribed the Miracle League baseball team. She noted that Dan Marcus and Catellus had donated an\nacre of land for use by the Miracle League team that is near parking and the waterfront. She invited\nthe Board to attend their opening day.\nMr. George Phillips, Director, Alameda Boys and Girls Club, PO Box 1069, spoke in favor of this\nitem, and suggested that the buildings have air conditioning. He noted that the original Boys and Girls\nClub had a presence in this area of Alameda Landing for many years. He noted that the Club members\nneeded jobs within walking distance of the Club and encouraged the Board to keep that in mind going\nforward. He noted that he had a previous career in retail, and had a sense of the challenge faced by\nCatellus to nail down commitments from desirable retailers.\nMr. Jim McPhee, Cushman & Wakefield, 924 Grosvenor, Oakland, representing Clif Bar, spoke in\nfavor of this item. He noted that he had reviewed several attractive proposals for Clif Bar and added\nthat the Catellus proposal was very compelling, particularly with respect to sustainability. He noted\nthat the LEED-certified building was very attractive, and complimented the applicants on their\nenvironmental sustainability.\nMr. Barry Cohn, BT Commercial, 555 - 12th Street, Oakland, spoke in favor of this item and noted\nthat he had worked on this project with Catellus for about 10 years.\nMr. Italo Calpestri, 1504 Park Street, spoke in favor of this item. He believed this project improved\nthe retail emphasis at the north end of Webster Street, making a waterfront destination on the Estuary\na very important part of this concept. He supported the additional retail for Alameda residents in this\narea, and noted that it should reduce retail leakage in Alameda.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nJuly 24, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-24", "page": 8, "text": "Mr. Jim Franz, 1320 Walnut, spoke in favor of this item. He believed this project would be a\nwonderful opportunity for the West End residents, both as a destination for Bay Area residents and\nfor an opportunity for jobs in the retail sector.\nMs. Alice Garvin, 1717 Dayton, spoke in favor of this item and was pleased to see the City and the\nNavy moving forward.\nMs. Cathy Leong, 48 Kara Road, spoke in favor of this item and supported the previous speakers'\nstatements. She noted that Catellus had been very responsive to the Planning Board's concerns\nthroughout this project. She believed this project would attract new residents and shoppers to the\nWest\nEnd, and should prevent further retail leakage. She noted that the waterfront as it currently\nstands is blighted, and believed this project would change that.\nMr. Glen Schimelpeenig spoke in favor of this item, and believed this project would alleviate the\ncurrent blight on the West End.\nMr. Bill Garvine, 2828 Marina Drive, spoke in favor of this item as a resident. He thanked Catellus\nfor the many opportunities he and his family had enjoyed to provide public input into this process and\nfinal design. He supported the opportunity for retail leakage to be reduced. As a youth baseball coach,\nhe was particularly grateful for the inclusion of Miracle League.\nPresident Cunningham noted that his family members had been recipients of Mr. Garvine's coaching\nskills.\nMr. Irv Hamilton, 420 Cola Ballena, spoke in favor of this item. He noted that Catellus was a public\nrelations client of his, but was speaking on behalf of a friend, Victor Jin. Mr. Jin had submitted a letter\nto the Planning Board, which he read into the record:\n\"To All Members of the Planning Board:\nPlease support the proposed revisions to the Catellus Mixed Use development project known\nas Alameda Landing. The original plan was ideal for that time period and real estate market.\nHowever, the real estate market has changed dramatically, especially the demand for office\nspace. The proposed revisions make more economic sense and bring more of a balance of\nwhat the City and its citizens need, with a better mix of office, retail and more housing. Your\n\"yes\" vote on the proposed revisions will be greatly appreciated.\"\nMr. Ashley Jones, 1040 Fair Oaks Avenue, asked if there were limits on square footage on the big\nbuildings at the project site. He expressed concern that if there was no square footage limit, a big box\nstore such as a WalMart may be placed there.\nMs. Gail Wetlork, submitted a speaker slip, but did not speak.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nJuly 24, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-24", "page": 9, "text": "Ms. Diane Lichtenstein, 633 Sand Hook, spoke in favor of this item, and applauded Catellus on its\nproposal. She echoed the other comments, and reminded the board of the Webster Street linkage, and\nof the West End's importance.\nMr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, Park Street Business Association, spoke in favor of this item.\nHe described the background of this project, and supported moving forward with this process.\nMs. Barbara Mooney, business owner, 1421 San Antonio, spoke in favor of this item and noted she\nwas very impressed with Catellus' proposal. She believed Clif Bar was the kind of corporate citizen\nAlameda should be working with.\nMs. Kathy Wagner, Mariner Square Athletic Club/Spotlight on the Square, business owner, 2227\nMariner Square Loop, spoke in favor of this item. She looked forward to being able to shop at\nAlameda Landing, and noted that she was looking forward to opening a new club at that location. She\nnoted that Catellus had met nearly all of the City's requests.\nMs. Diana Thomas, Acting General Manager Mariner Square Athletic Club, 2227 Mariner Square\nLoop, spoke in favor of this item, and noted that Catellus had treated them as a true partner. She\nsupported Catellus' environmental responsibility.\nMs. Sandy Berry, Cornish & Carey Commercial, 2804 Mission College Blvd. #120, Santa Clara,\nspoke in favor of this item and noted the were the leasing agent for this Catellus project. She noted\nthat they were passionate about the vision of the proposed project and the retail activity; she believed\nthis was a truly visionary project that the City could be proud of. She described the live/work/play\nnature of this mixed used project that would be a gathering place in Alameda.\nMs. Gretchen Lipow, 2242 San Antonio, inquired about the buildings listed in the plan on Fifth and\nMoseley and wanted to make sure big structures weren't going in. She was quite concerned about the\naesthetic impacts of that possibility, which only used the first floor for functionality. She was\nconcerned about the traffic and aesthetic issues.\nMs. Pat Bail hoped the applicant planned to plant all the trees mentioned in the presentation. She\nwished to discuss the issue of the open space where it appears Tinker Ave. is encroaching on the open\nspace near the College of Alameda baseball field. She hoped that while the final contract with the\nCollege is being worked out, that the Alameda Youth Football League use that practice field, along\nwith the new artificial turf field. She believed that the College's open space was an important asset.\nShe suggested that the project contain two soccer fields, two baseball fields and one football field.\nShe inquired whether this project would be redone because of the lowered residential demand. She\nnoted that if this was a walled community, she suggested that be re-examined due to the negative\nimpact of Bayport being walled off from the rest of the community. She noted that this item is\nMeasure A compliant, and she urged the Planning Board to consider that was a Charter amendment\npassed in 1973 to protect the Victorians and prevent high density in town. She inquired about the\nextra space that remained when the number of homes was reduced.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nJuly 24, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-24", "page": 10, "text": "Ms. Helen Sause, 816 Grand Street, spoke in favor of this project. She wished to address the\ncirculation of the shuttle, and did not believe the shuttle should just bring people to bus stops; she\nbelieved the shuttle should run the length of Webster Street, which would enliven the retail shops. She\nhoped that the ongoing dialogue between the public, the Planning Board, the Developer and staff\nwould continue for a project this size.\nMr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in favor of this item. He echoed the comments of\nMr. Knox White, Mr. Krueger and Ms. Sause. He supported placing showers in each office building\nfor those who bike to work. He inquired whether the TDM manager would be a full-time, permanent\njob. He inquired whether there would be wake control and protection for the waterfront plaza. He\nemphasized the importance of a zero net energy use design throughout the project for the LEED\ncertification.\nMr. Hadi Monsef, Alameda Association of Realtors, PO Box 1353, spoke in favor of this item and\nnoted that the AAR unanimously endorsed this project.\nMr. Walt Jacobs, 28 Balleybay, immediate past president of Alameda Chamber of Commerce, spoke\nin favor of this item, which he believed would be a great asset to the City.\nMs. Anita Ng, 1529 Webster Street, spoke in favor of this item and hoped this project would bring\nmore shoppers to the West End of Alameda.\nMs. Melody Marr, CEO, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, 1416 Park Avenue, noted that the\nChamber supported this project wholeheartedly. She appreciated the applicant's willingness to listen\ncarefully to the residents and surrounding business owners. She noted that the Chamber of Commerce\npresident could not attend, and she read the comments into the record:\n\"Dear Members of the Planning Board,\nAs a representative of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, I would like to express our strong\nsupport for the Alameda Landing project in its current form. We believe this project offers\ntremendous benefits to the people of Alameda, as well as an attractive site for new businesses.\nThe project is already bringing commercial tenants that will offer a substantial positive\neconomic impact to the City of Alameda. This type of waterfront development is a giant step\nin developing our blighted waterfront areas into multiuse spaces that will benefit the entire\ncommunity. I urge you to vote your approval of the project now to avoid any further delays in\nthe development process. Thank you for your consideration.\nSincerely,\nRich Warren, President\nAlameda Chamber of Commerce\"\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nJuly 24, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-24", "page": 11, "text": "She noted that she also had an email from Patty Jacobs, a member who could not be present at this\nmeeting, who as a member of GABA wholeheartedly supported this project. She noted the names of\nother members who did not wish to speak: Bruce Reeves (Reeves & Seidler), Barbara Marchand\n(Marchand & Associates), Gale Wetlork, Allison Bliss (Allison Bliss Consulting), Ren\u00e9e Kellogg (RK\nPromotions) and Bernie Matthews (a retired police chief). She and the aforementioned people urged\nthe Planning Board to certify the EIR and to grant all necessary approvals for this project in order to\nforward it to the City Council.\nMs. Marilyn Schumacher, 1829 Clinton, spoke in favor of this item. She wished to bring the\n\"freeway\" of the Estuary to the Board's attention, and noted that an effective town dock, such as in\nSausalito, could be an economic boon to the City.\nMs. Barbara Price, PK Consultants, spoke in favor of this item, and noted that she worked with\nCatellus on this project. She read the following letter into the record in favor of this item:\n\"Honorable Planning Board members:\nI am writing as a resident and homeowner in Alameda for the last five years. During this time,\nI have observed the tedious process required for some projects to receive approval, and speak\nwith others through out governmental approval process. I would like to suggest that the\ndegree of rigor with which projects are recommended and approved related to the factors\nindependent of whether there is a community concern, and whether it fits into Alameda's\nplans and goals.\nI have just finished reading the draft EIR for the Alameda Landing project. The project has\nchanged due to the market conditions, and the changes will generate more housing and\ncommercial space, more recreation areas and additional revenues to Alameda through the sale\nof acreage to afford the additional housing. All projects respond to the best knowledge\navailable for the future. If they did not, many more would fail. It appears consistent with the\nCity's goals and additional housing, in particular affordable housing, and provides additional\njobs, as well as a semi-self-contained community, like what is being planned for at Alameda\nPoint. I would provide more retail and commercial options for current residents of Alameda,\nas well as making our City more robust economically.\nWe all know that the longer the planning process, the more expensive the project, and\nfrequently, the end result is less than originally projected and planned. In time, we are\ncompeting internationally for building materials, additional time, costs, money, and we have\nseen every major project undertaken.\nAs someone who is deeply concerned about the environment, it appears that the\nenvironmental issues are handled well. New State standards establish requirements for news\nbuildings and the conservation of energy, or to put it in the other way, require less energy use.\nLet us put an underused asset to work in the near future. I am encouraging you to give this\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nJuly 24, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-24", "page": 12, "text": "project your approval.\nYours truly,\nStanley M. Shipman\nNorwich Road\"\nMs. Price read the following letter into the record:\n\"Ladies and gentlemen:\nI am a real estate broker who has worked in the Bay Area for almost 20 years. I have watched\nwith interest these last few years the development of new retail in Alameda. In fact, Bruce\nKnopf invited me to be a speaker for a presentation on retail in Alameda citywide retail\nstrategy a few years ago. I believed at the time, and still do, that Alameda can have it all. In\nour business there is a thing called synergy. Because of retail's organic nature, the synergy\ncreated within a shopping center and/or retail center is an important component in what\nmakes shopping interesting and exciting.\nI urge the Planning Board and City Council to support Alameda Landing EIR. This will afford\nan opportunity for additional quality retail to be built in conjunction with the other shopping\nareas of Alameda will offer citizens a quality of life than can become the highlight of the Bay\nArea.\nChristine Furstenberg\nMetrovation Brokerage\"\nMs. Tracy Jensen, 3112 Gibbons Drive, spoke in favor of this item. She complimented the Board's\noversight of this process, and Catellus on its responsiveness and commitment to green building\nstandards. She believed this project would give children a good chance to see Alameda's heritage as\nan island city.\nMs. Lorre Zuppan, 2986 Southwood Drive, spoke in favor of this item. She noted she was a member\nof the Economic Development Commission, and was also speaking as a private citizen. She had voted\nfor this project as a member of the EDC, and lauded Catellus for the concessions it made on behalf of\npublic spaces. She believed Clif Bar would be an excellent tenant, and did not wish to lose them to\ndelays.\nMr. David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern\nthat the artist renderings would not resemble the project when built. He was hesitant about the\nclassification of Mixed Use, and inquired why each area was not classified separately (Residential,\nOffice, Open Space, etc.). He was concerned that the Mixed Use classification would become a grab\nbag. He didn't believe the green space would be big enough for children to play.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nJuly 24, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-24", "page": 13, "text": "Mr. Richard Lyons, Wordel Rosen Black & Dean on behalf of Clif Bar, 18 Shannon Circle, spoke in\nfavor of this item. Clif Bar liked the concept of reusing a building, and that its LEED certification was\nan important aspect of the design. He noted that the Mixed Use zoning was a critical aspect of the\nproject would give employees things to do before and after work. He appreciated the general\ncommunity support, and added that it would be important to Clif Bar to move forward on this\nproject.\nMr. Seth Hamalian, 3333 Fernside Blvd., spoke in favor of this item. He complimented Catellus on\ntheir quality as a partner with the City as a result of partnerships in other cities that he has\nexperienced. He acknowledged residents' concerns about moving forward before every detail has\nbeen finalized, and believed that Catellus has provided a great deal of interaction and positive\nreflection of residents' feedback in developing this project.\nMr. Sam Koka, 802 Pacific, submitted a speaker slip, but was not in attendance to speak.\nMs. Sherri Steig, Executive Director, West Alameda Business Association, PO Box 215, spoke in\nfavor of this item. She asked that the WABA MOU with Catellus be integrated into the project.\nWABA believed that the BART shuttle should be included in the Master Plan. She noted that new\nretail should strengthen existing retail; that the City should strengthen the role of Alameda's main\nstreet districts as the City's concentration of specialty shops; and that new retail should not have\nsignificant long-term deleterious affects on existing retail.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPresident Cunningham called a five-minute recess.\nPresident Cunningham wished to address certain questions and asked staff to address conditions of\nretail. He noted that it had been the City's preference not to have walled communities, and added that\nthe walls in Bayport were required by an EIR.\nMr. Thomas noted that there were no sound walls planned for the project. He noted that there was a\nlimit on the total amount of retail in the project to minimize impacts on Webster Street.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the Board's role in the Tinker project,\nMr. Thomas replied that the first two lanes of the Tinker Extension Project had been built already.\nThe City's plan was to continue that extension so that a new intersection at Webster Street would be\ncreated. He described the layout of the extension and noted that it was a separate project than the\nCatellus project before the Board.\nVice President Cook noted that she had provided very detailed comments to staff and that some of\nher comments were not included. She noted that the Master Plan did not include the Miracle League\nfield, nor did it include anything requiring a water taxi. She added that there was nothing requiring a\nshopping center in Subarea 3. She wanted to ensure that all the details were included in the document.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nJuly 24, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-24", "page": 14, "text": "She believed there was some retreat from the language requiring a mix of uses, and noted that page 9\nshould include \"residential uses\" along the water's edge. She would like \"up to 50,000 square feet of\nadditional waterfront retail uses in the commercial area\" to read 'a minimum of 50,000 square feet of\nadditional waterfront retail uses in the commercial area.\"\nDan Marcus addressed Vice President Cook's concerns, and noted that they were concerned about\nmaking a specific commitment regarding specific numbers of residential uses along the waterfront.\nBased on working with their waterfront consultant, months of work within the community and with\nstaff, and listening respectfully to Vice President Cook's request for a specific number of residential\nunits on the waterfront, they believed that the Master Plan's language to allow residential on the\nwaterfront in the future, but not require a specific number of units was the most appropriate\ncompromise.\nPresident Cunningham suggested that the ability to permit residential should be included in the\nlanguage.\nMember Lynch suggested adding the wording \"commercial and residential\" without specifying a\ncertain number of residential units.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that she had been overwhelmed by the amount of documentation\naccompanying this project, and was impressed by the favorable public testimony. She expressed\nconcern about the street cross sections, and hoped for an extension to the other streets. She would\nlike to have a forum where the transportation issues in the Master Plan could be addressed in more\ndetail.\nMember McNamara's expressed concern about the parking issue. She would like to see some sort of\nparking structure, or would like to make some open space as an option if the parking spaces were not\nrequired. She expressed concern about the circulation or transportation flow, and how it will integrate\nwith current Webster Street traffic.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that this was a very exciting project, but added that the project should\nnot be rushed because of Clif Bar's deadline without ensuring it was the highest quality project\npossible. She was strongly concerned about parking, and did not believe the design team had been as\nresponsive to the Board's concerns as in other areas. She would like a better solution to the parking\nissue. She did not want the parking areas to resemble an asphalt jungle, and was very concerned about\nthe aesthetic elements of this project. She noted that if there were a modification in Measure A, there\ncould be more residential over retail incorporated into the current plan.\nVice President Cook shared the concerns about parking, and how the project could be a true mixed\nuse project. She believed Subareas 2 and 3 should have 100% second story mixed use, as opposed to\n50 percent. She was also concerned about the height of the project, especially the 85-foot office\nbuildings, which would be higher than anything in the mainland of Alameda.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nJuly 24, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-24", "page": 15, "text": "Member Mariani noted that she was impressed with the support of this project by both the residents\nand the business organizations. She had long wanted to this kind of project to come to the West End\nto bring vibrance and life back to that area, and would like to see the blight in the area to be replaced\nwith positive uses.\nGiven the late hour, Member Lynch believed it would be detrimental to wordsmith the document, and\nthat the larger issues should be addressed and resolved.\nPresident Cunningham noted that he had concerns about the heights of the buildings, and would like\nfurther information in that regard. He emphasized that this Master Plan was a framework, and that it\nwas important to build flexibility into the plan. He would like to see some residential on the\nwaterfront, but would like to know more about its implications.\nMember Mariani did not believe that the waterfront would be an appropriate place for residential,\ngiven the noise level from the Oakland ports.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft believed that the language should be inclusive rather than exclusive, allowing\nthe issues to be revisited at a later time.\nWith respect to street cross-sections, Member Kohlstrand wanted to ensure the relationship between\nthe transit and bike lanes were clarified.\nMember Lynch appreciated the work done by WABA, and appreciated Member Kohlstrand's\ncomments. He believed care should be taken when specific numbers are mentioned, and that the\noverall goal should be kept in mind; he did not want the goals to compete, and for them to enhance\neach other.\nMr. Thomas noted that the plan did not currently require parking structures.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the location of the parking areas were not yet known, and that not\nevery allotted space needs to be a structure. She noted that where the view mattered, she would\nprefer to see a parking structure rather than a parking lot. President Cunningham noted that the\ndesign requirement was to reduce the amount of asphalted area; he did not want to advocate parking\nstructures to the exclusion of other options.\nMember Lynch noted that retailers and office tenants would have certain parking requirements, which must\nbe addressed. He believed that having the parking area more fractured would be a more desirable solution.\nMr. Thomas confirmed the Board's request for guidelines regarding the review of parking in the final\nDevelopment Review, and strengthening the guidelines on spreading the parking lots out.\nMr. Marcus thanked the Board members for their comments, and agreed with Member McNamara's\nsuggestion to turn uncommitted parking areas into open space. He proposed that the current section in the\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nJuly 24, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-24", "page": 16, "text": "Master Plan regarding the street plans remain the same, but suggested conditions be added as follows:\n\"these conditions are subject to refinements of the sidewalks or additional street parking based on further\nstudy.\nMember Lynch stated that the Board would like to explore the opportunity of putting housing above all\nretail, which he believed was a legitimate question, not a Measure A debate. He noted that it would change\nthe look of the project dramatically, and would affect the required parking.\nMember Mariani agreed with Mr. Marcus' statement that some tenants may want only a one-story\nbuilding, such as PF Chang's\nMember Kohlstrand appreciated what Vice President Cook was trying to achieve, but would feel more\ncomfortable with more flexibility in the goals with respect to at least 50 percent second story mixed use.\nPresident Cunningham suggested that language be included to encourage as much mixed use as possible.\nM/S Lynch/Cook and unanimous to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMr. Thomas noted that with respect to the 100-foot height limit for waterfront buildings, it had been\nreduced to 85 feet. Mr. Marcus noted that the current Master Plan stated that buildings up to five stories\ncould be built, and they had no intent to do more than that. The 85-foot limit was stated because some\ntenants may want to have a raised floor building.\nMember Kohlstrand believed it was important to frame the open space.\nWith respect to R&D, Mr. Thomas noted that the Tinker Extension was crucial for the lower 250,000\nsquare foot retail center. If the City could not complete the extension, Variant B would be explored, which\nwould include plans for some retail and some R&D or a complete swap-out of R&D in that subarea.\nMr. Thomas noted Vice President Cook's comments regarding the 50% requirement, and noted that it was\nalways staff's intent that in the nodes, at least 50% of the buildings had second floor uses. He added that\nmore could be added, but that the City wished to have a required minimum.\nVice President Cook noted that while she appreciated all the public comments, she would not vote to\napprove this item. She did not feel comfortable that the required details were in place with respect to the\nqualitative character of this project at this time. She did not question Mr. Marcus' level of commitment, but\nwas uneasy about possible change in developers over time that may then result in changes to the project.\nM/S Mariani/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No.'s, PB-06-25, PB-06-26, PB-06-27, PB-\n06-28, PB-06-29 and PB-06-30, to approve GPA06-01, MPA06-01, DP06-01, EIR06-01 for the\nCatellus Mixed Use Development including a General Plan, Master Plan and Development Agreement\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 16\nJuly 24, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-24", "page": 17, "text": "Amendments and certification of an EIR to replace 1,300,000 square feet of approved but not yet\nconstructed office and research and development uses with 400,000 square feet of office use, 300,000\nsquare feet of retail shopping use, 20,000 square feet of health club, and up to 300 residential units.\nAYES - 6; NOES - 1 (Cook); ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 17\nJuly 24, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-24", "page": 18, "text": "9-B.\nR06-0001, FDP05-0005, UP05-0022 and DR - Harbor Bay, Storage LLC - 500\nMaitland Drive (DG). The applicant requests approval of Rezoning, Final Development\nPlan, Use Permit and Major Design Review applications allowing the expansion of an existing\nrecreational vehicle and self-storage facility. The existing facility includes 115 recreational\nvehicle parking spaces, 48,510 square feet of self-storage space and a 2,100 square foot office\nand manager's unit. The proposed expansion would add 4.41 acres and include 70 additional\nrecreational vehicle parking spaces and 30,756 additional square feet of self-storage space.\nThe entire project site is designated as Commercial Recreation on the City of Alameda\nGeneral Plan. The existing facility is zoned CM-PD Commercial Manufacturing-Planned\nDevelopment District. The expansion area is currently zoned O Open Space. The rezoning\nrequest to CM-PD Commercial Manufacturing-Planned Development District, is consistent\nwith the General Plan and current land use patterns.\nMr. Garrison summarized the staff report and recommended approval of this item.\nMember Lynch noted that this project was a good example of what the industrial lands were intended\nfor, and added that he would have some difficulty in rezoning industrial land for residential purposes\nhere.\nMember McNamara noted that she had concerns about screening of the site and noted that she did\nnot want to see a lot of RVs and big parking lots, but aesthetically pleasing to the business park\narea. Member Mariani noted that she did not want to see a lot of RVs and parking areas.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nDavid Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, noted that he did not want to see an RV park at the corner of\nthe neighborhood.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMr. Garrison noted that there were extensive setbacks: 50 feet from Harbor Bay Parkway and 20 feet\nfrom Maitland. The expansion area was inside of that area, and a landscaped eight-foot high fence\nwould be built around the perimeter of the facility.\nVice President Cook did not believe the landscaping was landscaped well enough, and that the\nscreening on Viewpoint 3 looked like fabric on a fence. Mr. Garrison noted that it was not mature and\ndense enough yet.\nMember Lynch suggested that the language requiring maintenance of the mature landscaping be\nchanged to specify \"within three years, premiere landscaping will be maintained at the height of 10\nfeet, such that from Viewpoint 2, per the photos, the landscaping is at that 10-foot height in three\nyears.\"\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 18\nJuly 24, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-24", "page": 19, "text": "M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Cook to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-31to approve the\nRezoning, Final Development Plan, Use Permit and Major Design Review applications allowing the\nexpansion of an existing recreational vehicle and self-storage facility. The existing facility includes 115\nrecreational vehicle parking spaces, 48,510 square feet of self-storage space and a 2, 100 square foot\noffice and manager's unit. The proposed expansion would add 4.41 acres and include 70 additional\nrecreational vehicle parking spaces and 30,756 additional square feet of self-storage space. The entire\nproject site is designated as Commercial Recreation on the City of Alameda General Plan.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 19\nJuly 24, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-24", "page": 20, "text": "10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATION:\nThis item was continued.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding potential future Planning Board Measure A Forum\n(President Cunningham).\nThis item was continued.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).\nThis item was continued.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember Mariani).\nThis item was continued.\nd.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member\nKohlstrand).\nThis item was continued.\n12.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATION:\nThis item was continued.\n13.\nADJOURNMENT:\n11:37 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nCaths Woodbury\nCathy Wo\u00f6dbury, Secretary\nPlanning & Building Department\nThese minutes were approved at the August 14, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was\naudio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 20\nJuly 24, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf"}