{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2006-12-11", "page": 1, "text": "COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nDecember 11, 2006\nPRESENT:\nBerger, Bunker, Longley-Cook, Chair Cooney, Fort, Hakanson, Lord-Hausman,\nKirola, and Vice-Chair Moore\nABSENT/EXCUSED:\nGUESTS: Marie Asejo and Alain Lacambra\nMINUTES: The minutes of October 23, 2006 were approved with the following corrections: 1)\nunder guest change their concerns 'to ' their concerns and frustrations\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nThe secretary informed the Commission that Assistant Risk Manager Ms. Lucretia Akil will\nbe taking over as Commission Secretary as of March 2007 and will also be the City's ADA\ncoordinator. Commissioner Toby Berger recommended that the suggested Commission\nADA policy recommendations and the \"pedestrian access during construction' criteria be\ntabled until Lucretia takes over.\nNEW BUSINESS:\n1. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair\nThe Commissioners elected Audrey Lord-Hausman for Chair and re-elected Jody Moore for\nVice-Chair for 2007. Chair Ed Cooney thanked the commission for their contributions\nthroughout the year and providing him with assistance and backing during his term as Chair.\nOLD BUSINESS:\n2. Cineplex Theater:\nThe Secretary informed the Commission of the architect's response to the following\nsuggestions raised by the Commission: a) The number of assisted listening devices for each\ntheater was based on ADA and Title 24 requirements. Commissioner Toby Berger was still\nconcerned and would like to know if the audible system allows for increasing the number of\ndevices should their be a demand in the future. Secretary to follow up, b) A fold down\nchanging table has been provided in the men's restroom, c) Towel dispensers will have built", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-12-11.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2006-12-11", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nDecember\n11,2006\n2006 Minutes\nPage 2 of 3\nin trash receptacles, d) Hooks have been installed in all stalls. Commissioner Toby Berger\nrecommended that the hooks be close to the water closet in the stalls, e) Other than the\ndisabled stall, no additional grab bars will be installed in the other men's stalls. Placement\nof grab bars in the other stalls would require that these stalls be made totally ADA\naccessible.\nChair Ed Cooney reported on his meeting with City staff and the parking garage contractor\nregarding pedestrian access along the Oak Street construction site. The Commission is\naware that there is no pedestrian access along the east side of Oak Street. The contractor has\nrelocated the construction fence closer to the curb and provided a coned refuge area along\nthe side of the construction fence, should pedestrians disregard the 'sidewalk closed' signs.\n3. Alameda Hospital Health Fair:\nCommissioner Toby Berger informed the Commission that she and Commissioner Adrienne\nLongley-Cook had a table and represented the Commission at the health fair. Numerous\npeople asked questions. She recommended that the Commission continue to participate in\nthe annual fair.\n4. Alameda Youth Collaborative:\nCommissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman informed the Commission that Commissioner\nAdrienne Longley-Cook provided the information to the Alameda Youth Collaborative for\nthe 10th year time capsule.\n5. Disaster Registry Program:\nCommissioner Charles Bunker informed the Commission that the disaster registry\napplication has been revised to make it easier to fill out. There are currently twenty-five\napplications on record.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS: none\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\n1. Commissioner Charles Bunker stated that the sidewalk has been uplifted at the Ballena\nBoulevard Bridge. Secretary will follow up.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-12-11.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2006-12-11", "page": 3, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nDecember\n11,2006\n2006 Minutes\nPage 3 of 3\n2. Commissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman informed the Commission that; a) there is an ADA\nBest\nPractices\nTool\nKit\nfor\nState\nand\nLocal\nGovernments\nat\nwww.usdoj.gov/ada/pcatoolkit/abouttoolkit.htm, and b) Disability Rights Advocates has\nfiled a lawsuit against the California Department of Transportation. The lawsuit seeks to fix\naccess barriers along pedestrian rights-of-way, including sidewalks, crosswalks, pathways,\nand Park and Ride facilities under the control of Caltrans.\n3. Commissioner Jody Moore informed the Commission a green light was given for the\nAlameda Landing development and that the Miracle League field is closer to becoming a\nreality.\n4. Chair Ed Cooney informed the Commissioners that they are invited to the City's\nDevelopment Services groundbreaking ceremonies for the Habitat for Humanity eight\nresidential homes site at 626 Buena Vista Avenue on Tuesday, December 12.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, January 29th, 2007 in\nRoom 360, City Hall.\nMatthew T. Naclerio\nPublic Works Director\nEd Sommerauer\nAssociate Civil Engineer\nES:lc\nG:\\pubworks\\LT\\MCD Disability Committee/2006\\1211min.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-12-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-12-11", "page": 1, "text": "Hale he\nMinutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, December 11, 2006\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:05 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMember McNamara\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Lynch, Vice President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft, Kohlstrand,\nMcNamara.\nMembers Cunningham and Mariani were absent.\nAlso present were Assistant City Attorney Donna Mooney, Supervising Planner Andrew Thomas,\nPlanner III Douglas Garrison.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of November 13, 2006.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that page 5, paragraph 7, read, \"Member Kohlstrand understood how Park\nand Webster Streets had their own unique shelter designs, and how flexibility in terms of materials\nwould be necessary.' She noted that the main point she tried to convey was that aside from unique\nshelter designs on Park and Webster, that there should be a consistent design treatment throughout\nthe rest of the city. She believed Member Ezzy Ashcraft also made that comment.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Member Kohlstrand's statement.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that on page 12, the last statement attributed to Member Kohlstrand\nshould be attributed to Member Ezzy Ashcraft.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that on page 22, the vote on Item DR006-0096, regarding Building 500,\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft was listed as a \"No.\" She noted that Member Kohlstrand should be listed as a\n\"No\" vote, instead of Member Ezzy Ashcraft.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the first sentence in the last paragraph on page 9 should read, \"Mr.\nMichael Kruger noted that as a Transportation Commissioner, he wished to direct the Planning\nBoard 's attention to the Commission's recommendation that had not been included in the original\npacket.\"\nShe also wished to commend Cory Emberson for a superlative job on the minutes for a very long and\ncomplex meeting.\nVice President Cook noted that page 5, should be changed to read, \"Vice President Cook expressed\nconcern about the width and usability of sidewalks and wanted to ensure that there were no\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nDecember 11, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-12-11", "page": 2, "text": "encroachments made on that width with various items that may not be useful any more.\" She wanted\nto make sure that tree wells, benches and bus shelters, and other items on the sidewalk that was meant\nto be walked on.\nVice President Cook noted that page 13, paragraph 6, should read, \"Vice President Cook noted that\nit was important to address the overall density of retail at South Shore Center on a planwide basis,\nand not project by project as they come in.\nVice President Cook noted that page 21, paragraph 1, should be changed to read, \"Vice President\nCook shared the concerns about the scale of the existing center, and believed that the project that had\nbeen built was becoming even bigger than what was approved in 2003. She wished to add the\nfollowing sentence: \"She was particularly interested in advice from City staff regarding how the\nBoard could look at the project in the context of the overall site, as opposed to how it could be done\nbuilding by building, as discussed in the developer's attorney's letter.\" She was looking for the City\nattorney and staff to address the issue of how it could be looked at as a PDA, as was done in 2003.\nM/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of November 13, 2006,\nas amended.\nAYES - 4 (Mariani, Cunningham McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION\nMs. Diane Lichtenstein, Homes, recalled an active discussion in the July meeting regarding a\ncommunity forum to discuss Measure A. She noted that the staff report was to have been made\navailable at that time, and she urged the Planning Board to put it on the agenda for community\ndiscussion.\nMs. Karen Butter, representing the League of Women Voters of Alameda, echoed Ms. Lichtenstein's\ncomments, and added that there was a need for public meetings to consider the advantages and\ndisadvantages of exempting Measure A from Alameda Point. She encouraged the Planning Board to\nmove forward in scheduling such a meeting in a timely fashion. She noted that during one of the\nsummer meetings, there was also a suggestion from the staff on that issue.\nPresident Lynch noted that the Board had heard from individuals and organizations in Alameda that\nwould want to entertain a discussion. He believed the question before the City was how to facilitate\nthat process. He did not personally advocate one way or the other, but suggested that it was\nincumbent upon the Board to respond to the responsibility to consider that particular item. He\nbelieved the question before the Board was how to respond to that item.\nMember McNamara inquired whether it was realistic to expect a response by the next meeting.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nDecember 11, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-12-11", "page": 3, "text": "President Lynch did not believe this was a difficult item to process, but believed it was challenging\nbecause of its possible scope.\nA discussion of the process choices ensued.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that staff has had six months to consider this item, and that the public and\nBoard has requested a response. She would like to see a response from staff regarding the layout of\nthe plan by the end of January.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft echoed President Lynch's comments, and added that no matter how\nchallenging an issue was, they had to start somewhere. She believed that because the Planning Board\nadvised the City Council on planning matters, and recalled that while the Board did not wish to be the\nconvening body, they did want to be part of the process, including calling in outside professionals\nregarding environment issues and land use law.\nPresident Lynch noted that he had discussed that matter with Planning and Building Director Cathy\nWoodbury, and he agreed that it would be reasonable to request a report by the end of January.\nVice President Cook noted that this was an ideal time to discuss this issue because there was currently\nno developer at Alameda Point.\nPresident Lynch agreed with the previous comments, and noted that the Board would be able to\ncontemplate planning issues without the pressure of an ongoing development.\nMr. Thomas advised that staff was starting work with a grant received from MTC to examine transit-\noriented development at Alameda Point. The first task would be an analysis of the different\nalternatives. The report to be presented in January would outline the scope of the work and the\ncommunity process. He believed it would be very helpful for the Planning Board to comment on how\nto interface with that process, as well as work to be done beyond that point.\n7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A.\nAdoption of 2007 Planning Board Calendar.\nMr. Thomas noted that the 2007 Calendar had been revised to reflect staff's recommendation that the\nfirst meeting in November not be cancelled at this time.\nPresident Lynch noted that the Board may want to consider canceling the July 9, 2007, meeting. It\nhad been his experience that was a popular vacation time with the Planning Department, and that it\nwas close to July 4th\nVice President Cook concurred with President Lynch's suggestion.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nDecember 11, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-12-11", "page": 4, "text": "Member Kohlstrand noted that she was comfortable with the existing calendar, and found that\nmeetings were cancelled if there were no agenda items.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to adopted the revised 2007 Planning Board Calendar.\nAYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -\n0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nDecember 11, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-12-11", "page": 5, "text": "7-B.\nDR06-0043 (Major Design Review) and V06-0003 (Variance) - Sebastian Martinez -\n1534 Buena Vista Avenue (DV). The applicant requests Major Design Review approval to\nre-construct a single-family residence that was substantially destroyed by two separate fires.\nA Variance is requested because the lot has a width of 25-feet and the proposed residence will\nhave side yard setbacks of 3-feet, where a minimum 5-foot side yard setback is required, and a\nfront yard setback of 15-feet, where a minimum of 20-feet is required. The site is located\nwithin an R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-51 to approve\na Major Design Review approval to re-construct a single-family residence that was substantially\ndestroyed by two separate fires. A Variance is requested because the lot has a width of 25-feet and\nthe proposed residence will have side yard setbacks of 3-feet, where a minimum 5-foot side yard\nsetback is required, and a front yard setback of 15-feet, where a minimum of 20-feet is required.\nAYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n7-C.\nTM06-0006 (Tentative Map) - Alameda Development Corporation - 626 Buena Vista\nAvenue (DV). The applicant requests approval of Tentative Parcel Map 7846, consisting of\n8 new lots. The site is located within the R-4-PD Neighborhood Residential Planned\nDevelopment Zoning District.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-52 to approve\nTentative Parcel Map 7846, consisting of 8 new lots.\nAYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n7-D.\nTM06-0005 (Tentative Map) - SRM Associates - 1900 - 1980 North Loop Road (DB).\nThe applicant requests Tentative Parcel Map approval to merge six existing parcels into five\nparcels with each parcel accommodating a new flexible use building (warehouse, distribution,\nlight manufacturing and administrative office). The site is located within the Harbor Bay\nBusiness Park in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning\nDistrict.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-53 to approve\na Tentative Parcel Map to merge six existing parcels into five parcels with each parcel\naccommodating a new flexible use building (warehouse, distribution, light manufacturing and\nadministrative office).\nAYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nDecember 11, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-12-11", "page": 6, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\nFDP06-0002 (Final Development Plan) and DR06-0062 (Major Design Review)\n-\nHarbor Bay Acquisition LLC - 2275 Harbor Bay Parkway (AT). The applicant requests\na Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to allow a one-story building of\napproximately 36,899 square feet in floor area with 69 parking spaces to be constructed on a\n4.1 acre site. The site is located within the Harbor Bay Business Park in the C-M-PD,\nCommercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District. (Continued from the\nmeeting of September 11, 2006.)\nMr. Thomas presented the staff report, and noted that five conditions had been added to address the\nneighborhood concerns. He noted that the additional conditions had been added since the September\n11, 2006, version of the resolution. Staff recommended approval of this item.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Joe Ernst, SRM Associates, presented the proposal and noted that Zephyr was a leading designer\nand manufacturer of high-end kitchen range hoods, and was a $27 million company founded in 1997.\nHe noted that SRM was committed to sustainable design, and added that they currently had four\nLEED facilities underway, including the Peet's roasting facility at Harbor Bay.\nMr. Ernst described the new site orientation and the plans for noise management and mitigation, as\nwell as the grading and landscaping plans.\nMr. Stephen Fee, project architect, displayed the site plan and elevation of this project and described\nthe massing and design elements of the showroom.\nMr. Ernst noted that they would be available to answer any questions.\nThere were no Public speakers.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member McNamara whether page 3 of the Draft Resolution was\nmisnumbered, or whether items were missing, Mr. Thomas noted that the items had been\nmisnumbered by the automatic numbering system in Microsoft Word. He noted that the conditions\nwere complete and would need to renumbered.\nMember Kohlstrand commended Mr. Ernst and his team for time they spent meeting with the\nneighborhood group, as well as for their responsiveness in addressing the Board's issues. She believed\nthis was an exciting business, and that the design features and enhancements that had been\nincorporated into the project were very positive. She believed they were losing an opportunity by\nputting parking adjacent to the waterfront, and would not feel comfortable voting for this project.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nDecember 11, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-12-11", "page": 7, "text": "Member Ezzy Ashcraft commended the design team, and would like to see more environmentally\nfriendly design through the City. She believed they had been very responsive and put together a\nbeautiful design. She was mindful of the business park's 70% occupancy rate, and believed Zephyr\nwas an innovative company. She was impressed by how the parking in front had been minimized, and\nbelieved that because this business park was approved many years ago in this area, she did not expect\nit to read the same way as a beachfront resort. She liked the wider walkways, the trees, and the\nremoval of several parking spaces.\nPresident Lynch echoed the previous positive comments. He believed the City erred in the design of\nthis business park because it looked like a business park. While it was functional as a business park, the\ndesign elements were not too far from his perception of tilt-ups. He noted that while the interiors\nwere uniform and uninteresting, the exterior was attractive. He cited a building in the Napa Business\nPark at the intersection of Highway 12 and 29 that was unidentifiable as a warehouse.\nA discussion of parking configurations ensued.\n\"Vice President Cook agreed with much of Member Kohlstrand's comments, but also and understood\nthe need for this project to have a specific front function. She challenged the applicant to treat the\nwaterfront differently with future projects and attract future tenants that do not require parking in\nfront of the buildings, and that can conform to the design challenge.\"\nM/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-54 to approve a Final\nDevelopment Plan and Major Design Review to allow a one-story building of approximately 36,899\nsquare feet in floor area with 69 parking spaces to be constructed on a 4.1 acre site. He suggested\nthat the applicant may be able to offer that kind of design as well, by breaking up the massing with the\nmaterials and various design elements. He emphasized that he was not suggesting that the building be\nredesigned at this time.\nAYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (Kohlstrand); ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nDecember 11, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-12-11", "page": 8, "text": "8-B.\n2245 S. Shore Center (old Walgreen's Building) Major Design Review File No. DR06-\n0081; 2246 S. Shore Center (old Ross building): Major Design Review File No. DR06-\n0096; 2293 South Shore Center (Petco building) Major Design Review File No. DR06-\n0096. (DG). (Continued from the meeting of November 13, 2006.)\nMr. Garrison summarized this staff report. He noted that the project design was consistent with the\nnearby buildings in the center, as well as the residential area. No Planned Development Amendment\nor additional CEQA review would be required, and construction of the two buildings would not\npreclude site improvements that may be required under Planned Development Amendment 05-004\n(Target). Staff recommended approval of both design reviews.\n\"Vice President Cook noted that the minutes did not discussed concerns raised about the status of the\nconditions of the 2003 PDA.' She noted that the staff report discussed what was going well, but did\nnot sufficiently address what was not done; she believed that was the more interesting discussion. She\nrequested further information from the staff in that regard.\nMr. Garrison noted that the only condition at this point that seemed to be an issue was the condition\nfor the east-west sidewalk behind the bank on the north part of the property. Staff believed that the\napplicant had met with City staff and pointed out the engineering problems resulting from the creation\nof the sidewalk. They developed an alternative plan, which included several north-south sidewalks\nwhich were designed to serve the function of the east west sidewalk which is to facilitate pedestrian\naccess to and through the shopping center. He understood that staff, in consultation with Public\nWorks, administratively decided that the alternative was acceptable. In hindsight, he believed that was\na condition that may not have been an appropriate item to approve on an administrative level. \"He\nbelieved it was a moot point, because once the Planned Development Amendment application was\nacted upon, everyone including the applicant acknowledged that everything was back on the table\"\nand the Planning Board could require that sidewalk. As noted in the staff report, they intended to return\nin January with a comprehensive site plan that showed the sidewalk plan prior to Planning Board\ndetermination.\nVice President Cook noted that there were a number of current Board and staff members who were\ninvolved in this matter. She did not believe it would be difficult to reconstruct their thoughts on the\nsidewalk issue. She noted that the Board was passionate on the issue of sidewalks, and she believed their\nviewpoints were clear on the tapes of the meeting.\nMr. Thomas noted that the resolution itself was where the conditions are officially documented.\nA discussion of the conditions and determination on which the permit was originally affirmed ensued.\nVice President Cook noted that originally, the building heights were not discussed because they were lower\nat that time. She noted that height was a concern because of the redesign; the second stories would change\nthe square footage and parking requirements. She noted that the developer had told her that more\npedestrian and bicycle usage would reduce parking. \"She believed the real issue was how much square\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nDecember 11, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-12-11", "page": 9, "text": "footage could be supported on this site without sacrificing the pedestrian bicycle access, and number of\ntrees,landscaping and other amenities-the Board desired. She believed that the developers did not get\napproval for most of the center in the 2003 much of what they wanted from the PDA, and noted that\nbecause the Board wanted the developers to improve the project's the Board s desire for -waterfront\norientation. would force the developers to return and show increased waterfront orientation. She noted that\nthe developers did not appeal the 2003 Planning Board decision that direction-to the City Council, and\nreturned with the project. She believed that at this point, the Board was being asked to approve buildings\non a piecemeal basis without regard for the overall site and water orientation of the project design, with\nsome buildings having been approved, and some buildings that have been all but demolished except for\ntheir shells-She believed the intent of the Planning Board had been extremely clear, and she was concerned\nthat their intent had not been carried out forward.\"\nMr. Garrison stated that a comprehensive site plan would be presented in January, and that it would\naddress every question raised by Vice President Cook. He noted that the Board would have all the\ninformation and authority to make changes to the site plan and add sidewalks.\n\"Vice President Cook expressed concern that this approach would weaken the City's leverage with\nthe developer. She asked whether the Planning Board could look at the overall site plan as it was\nallowed to examined in 2003, including the intentions stated at that time.\"\nPresident Lynch noted that if an earlier determination was believed to be inappropriate, there could be\na recision of that condition.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand regarding Vice President Cook's concerns, President\nLynch replied that she had requested a status report on the conditions as they were placed in the PDA\nin 2003.\n\"In response to Member Ezzy Ashcraft's request for the specific examples, Vice President Cook replied\nthat she was concerned about the status of they were:\"\n1.\nThe east-west sidewalk;\n2.\nThe 120-foot transit stop near Walgreen's, and a transit area/center provided near\nAlbertson's;\n3.\nThe water orientation of the site as a whole.\n4.\nOne tree for every four parking spots, but some credit given for the palm trees that\nshaded the parking hardscape;\n5.\nCredits given for office space that was never developed;\n6.\nAngled parking versus perpendicular parking to be addressed in three to five years\nwhen the other unimproved phases returned to the Board;\n7.\nBike access;\n8.\nWhether the second floors would be built out, and if so, whether there would be\nenough parking;\n9.\nA second restroom in future phases;\n10.\nA gas station, which the Board wanted to ensure was somewhere on the plans;\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nDecember 11, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-12-11", "page": 10, "text": "She stated that she was very concerned about the clarity of the Board's intent with respect to\napproval of various phases, and the Board's accountability to the community.\n\"Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was passionate about the issue of the sidewalk, and disclosed\nthat she did a walkthrough of the property with Harsch, and also with Field Paoli, and representatives\nfrom the Alameda Transportation Commission, Bike Alameda and Pedestrian Friendly Alameda.\"\nMr. Garrison reviewed the applicant's compliance with all of the Condition of Approval from the\n2003 PDA. He added that there was an existing application for the gas station, and that a mitigated\nnegative declaration would be released for that project in the next week.\nVice President Cook wanted to ensure this suburban mall could become an outward-looking mall\nwith a respect for the waterfront. Mr. Garrison noted that the applicant's presentation would show an\ninterim plan for that area, how it will be connected to the center, and a final plan showing its\nconnection.\nMs. Mooney requested clarification from Vice President Cook regarding a range of items.\nVice President Cook stated that the Board received a letter from the developer's attorney explaining\nhow they could proceed with the approval of the separate buildings, as proposed by the developer.\nShe had inquired at the last meeting how the Board could look at the PDA for the entire site, as they\ndid in 2003. \"She also expressed her concern that the Planning Board had approved a PDA for this\nsite with conditions, and that a at least one major condition had not been met. She inquired what the\nBoard's options were at this point. She inquired how the developer could proceed in this way by first\nbuilding under the PDA, and b then-returning on a building-by-building basis for approval outside of\nthe PDA; she would appreciate a response from staff that addressed her concerns.\" She would like\nthose concerns to be addressed in a subsequent taffreport. She would especially like detailed follow\nup in staff reports that describe why and how items were addressed, or were not able to be carried out.\nShe believed that Alameda should aspire to higher planning standards.\nMr. Thomas noted that stafftried to answer most of those questions in the November 13 staff report,\nHe noted that the resolution, not the tapes from the meeting, delineated what was approved or not\napproved. The resolution that acknowledges that there may be changes in the areas outside of the\napproved area. It was based on those conditions and limitations that City staff believed that they\ncould proceed with design review and with making changes to buildings outside the approved area of\nthe originally approved planned development.\nMr. Garrison noted that this was an existing shopping center, and although there were proposed\nchanges within the shopping center that the Board did not specifically approve through the 2003\nPDA, they were existing legal uses. The applicant is allowed to replace, repair and renovate those\nbuildings.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nDecember 11, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-12-11", "page": 11, "text": "President Lynch suggested that if the resolution was not clear in identifying the amount of the square\nfootage inside versus outside the PDA, he suggested that in January, staff prepare a data sheet that\nidentifies the date, the square footage on the site, the buildings and administrative approvals. At that\ntime, the Board could come to an agreement for a starting point, and then overlay what has been\napproved.\nMember McNamara noted her appreciation of Vice President Cook's research and analysis of the past\ndocumentation for this project, and noted that it was critical to identify the requirements for this\nproject.\nPresident Lynch did not want to be part of a process that revisits City code that disallows the\nPlanning Director the ability to administratively approve changes. He believed that was crucial to the\nability to streamline applications in the City.\nMr. Randy Kyte, project architect, described the background of this application. He noted that every\ncondition detailed from the initial meetings with staff has either been met or in the process of being\nmet on a phase-by-phase basis. He noted that the additional sidewalks have been installed already, and\nhe believed that they had met the necessary conditions. He noted that because this was an existing\nproject, there was urgency associated with its redevelopment, including the repositioning of certain\ntenants. They had revised their plans to a certain degree from the 2003 PDA, and they retained,\nrenovated and retenanted many of the existing structures instead of tearing them down. Their main\nfocus was to set a consistent design theme, as detailed by their architect, at the last meeting. He\ndisplayed a PowerPoint presentation that displayed the history of this center's development. He\ndescribed the site design, as well as lighting and landscaping plans; he also described several tenant\nplans as they related to the center as a whole.\nMr. Kyte noted that they considered the tower element to be an important element in this project, and\nbelieved it was an identifying feature on a critical corner of the project. They strongly believe it should\nbe maintained in the design. He also described the circulation patterns surrounding the center.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMember McNamara inquired when the model would be available to see. Mr. Kyte noted that they\nwould meet with the owners and the design team on December 19 and at that point, the model will be\navailable to review.\n\"Vice President Cook was disappointed that a waterfront site would have only \"peekaboo\" views of\nthe Bay from a second floor deck.\" Mr. Kyte noted that Petco had a very long lease that would make\nany change in that regard a challenge.\nMember McNamara noted that she did not understand why the building height had to be much higher\nthan Trader Joe's, and added that an additional eight feet was significant. Mr. Kyte noted that the\ntower was the only part that was higher, and added that a strong tower element would create a strong\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nDecember 11, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-12-11", "page": 12, "text": "statement. He noted that a 46-foot-high tower was not very high, and the apartment buildings were\nsubstantially higher.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that she met with the project sponsor after the last Planning Board meeting\nand looked at the model. She noted that the timing of approvals were a complex balance with other\nissues, and would like further discussion of that item. She acknowledged that better waterfront views\nwould be possible if the tower were to be moved, but she noted that the property owner and business\nowners should have some flexibility in terms of where their tenants were located. She supported the\nchanges that had been incorporated. She had spoken with the Chair of the Transportation\nCommission, and believed that they were beginning to move towards the access solutions.\nMr. Kyte noted that staff has been acutely aware of the implications of this piece of the project, long\nbefore it was appealed to the Planning Board by community members under the design review\nsubmittal. They re-examined the conditions for this phase of the development, including what should\nbe done to meet the conditions of the 2003 PDA as it related to this phase, including parking layout,\nratio and landscaping. They believed all those conditions for this phase had been met.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern that this project may be stopped at this point while awaiting\nclarification of the issues addressing previous approvals. She believed that for years, Alameda\nresidents wanted to see this deteriorating shopping center improved. She hoped that there would be a\nchance for a walk-through. She noted that some of the concerns regarding waterfront views had been\nmet in different ways besides having a tower that faced directly on the water. \"She liked the cut-\nthroughs, and did not want to see the issues swept under the rug, and inquired whether the Board\ncould request a date certain for completion of incomplete items once the questions have been\nclarified.\" She was concerned that the retail leases could not be held open indefinitely, because retail\nopenings are time-sensitive. She believed the design was attractive. She wanted the center to be\npedestrian-friendly, with an emphasis on their safety, particularly on the walkway in front of Building\n300.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft liked the improvements in Building 500, but believed that it needed a south-\nfacing entrance. She understood that the current tenant did not want to have people looking out on\nthe car wash property, but noted that it may not always be a carwash. She believed that would aid the\nwaterfront view.\nMr. Thomas suggested that before the EIR for Target was finalized, staff should return before the\nBoard in January with the 2003 resolution, the map, the matrix, the adopted conditions and an\nexplanation of how the sidewalk condition was handled.\nMr. Kyte noted that when they approached staff regarding the sidewalk and the conflicts regarding the\ndriveways and stormwater systems, the north-south orientation became an obvious solution. They\nbelieved that if there was a condition with a long-term Master Plan or strategy in place to control\nsidewalks throughout the shopping center, some would be achievable and others would be more\ndifficult where other owners' property was involved. Regarding the building's design and the Bed\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nDecember 11, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-12-11", "page": 13, "text": "Bath & Beyond's access point, the layout was a function of where their entry point was, and he noted\nthat tenant was relatively inflexible, and they were satisfied with the solution that connected them\nto\nthe parking lot and to the mall.\n\"Vice President Cook complimented the applicant on their design details for the part of the project\napproved and built pursuant to the 2003 PDA work, especially the fine details. She expressed\nconcern that the tinting on the interior windows was very dark. Mr. Kyte noted that was specified for\nthe Low-E coating. She believed to date the center was well-done and greatly improved, but and\nadded that it could be much better from a waterfront planning perspective.\" She was concerned that\nthe 2003 conditions did not address all of the issues, and that the Board would not get what it wanted\nif it did not approve Target.\nMr. Kyte believed that they had been in Alameda for a long time, and hoped there was a certain\nlevel\nof trust that had been established.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that with the exception of Target, the retail areas had not been examined,\nand that they had the ability to control the square footage.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Ezzy Ashcraft to adopt Planning Board Resolution No.'s PB-06-55 and PB-06-56\nto approve Building 300 with the design revisions, and Building 500 with the understanding that a full\nstaff report would be presented in January 2007 on the issues brought forward by Vice President\nCook.\nAYES - 3 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (Cook); ABSTAIN - 1 (McNamara)\nThe motion failed.\nPresident Lynch noted that the applicant could appeal to the City Council.\nMr. Garrison noted that the most of the questions that have been raised were being addressed through\nongoing work on site improvements, sidewalks, transit operations, pedestrians, bicycles, vehicle\ncirculation and landscaping; and those items would come to the Planning Board in January.\nMember McNamara noted that she was not comfortable voting on this item without that information.\nMr. Mike Corbitt, Harsch Investment, noted that another delay would push the leasing deals into\n2008, and that they would not be able to open in 2007.\nPresident Lynch appreciated the applicant's comments and noted that this was a design review issue.\nHe added that within a PDA, the case law and planning principles were very clear. He believed that\nmechanisms, including code compliance, status report and other avenues, were in place to address the\nitems heard during this meeting.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would not like to see the applicant pay the price if there was a\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nDecember 11, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-12-11", "page": 14, "text": "shortcoming within the Planning Department. She would not let the issue of the east-west sidewalks\nfall through the cracks, and had spoken with the Transportation Commission and Bike Friendly\nAlameda about it as well. Following her walkthrough with the transportation advocates, she believed\nthey were pleased with the transit, bike and pedestrian access at the site.\nPresident Lynch noted that in Alameda, members of the community clearly communicated their\ndisagreements with proposed projects. He believed it was significant that there were no public\nspeakers to voice their disapproval. To the design review as it related to Buildings 300 and 500.\nVice President Cook wanted to ensure that the promised amenities materialized for this project, and\nwould like those items to be documented.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft believed the applicant had been very responsive to the community and to the\nPlanning Board.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the transportation and bicycle advocates were complimentary of the\naccess in this project.\nMr. Kyte did not believe that good design needed to be regulated Target. He believed that if the PDA\nhad not been on the table, the Design Review would not have been appealed to this Board. He\ninquired whether a motion could be put on the floor that would allow them to continue with Buildings\n300 and 500 with a condition in terms of a timeline and follow-up regarding a future PDA.\nPresident Lynch believed that once clarity was received about the sidewalk, and that it could be\nremedied, he was satisfied with it. He did not believe that the ability to modify additional conditions,\nor to insert or delete other items should be done within the design review process; it should be done\nin the PDA\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a special meeting could be convened to further address this\napplication.\nPresident Lynch expressed concern about proper noticing for an additional December meeting.\nVice President Cook suggested a special meeting of the City Council.\nPresident Lynch suggested that Vice President Cook communicate her concerns to staff in order to\nnotice and prepare for a possible special meeting.\nA\ndiscussion about meeting dates and logistics ensued, which determined that a special meeting\nwould not be feasible due to the holidays.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the City's legal opinion whether there\nwould be another opportunity to address these issues, Ms. Mooney replied that she had not seen what\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nDecember 11, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-12-11", "page": 15, "text": "would be brought before the Board in the form of the Target PDA.\n9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATION:\nNone.\n10.\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).\nMember Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member\nKohlstrand).\nMember Kohlstrand noted that there had been no meetings since her last report.\nd.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board\nMember Cunningham).\nMember Cunningham was not in attendance to present this report.\n11.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATION:\nMr. Thomas reviewed recent City Council action on Development Projects.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n11:28 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAnlable\nAndrew Thomas\nSecretary, City Planning Board\nThese minutes were approved at the January 8, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was\naudio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nDecember 11, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf"}