{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-29", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, May 29, 2007\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:08 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Mariani\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nActing President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft,\nKohlstrand, Mariani and McNamara.\nPresident Lynch was absent from roll call.\nAlso present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney\nDonna Mooney, Planner III Doug Vu.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the Special meeting of April 18, 2007.\nBoard member Kohlstrand noted that on page 8, paragraph 2, the discussion about\nregarding traffic levels at Island Drive and Doolittle, read, \" which often backed up at\nLincoln School so that traffic could not pass through the intersection.\" She would like it\nto state that \"the traffic at Island Drive and Doolittle backs up as a result of people trying\nto get off of Harbor Bay going to Lincoln School and the high school, but it did not back\nup at Lincoln at that point.\"\nBoard member Kohlstrand noted that page 9, paragraph 2, should be changed to read,\n\"Member Ezzy Ashcraft Member Kohlstrand-understoo that the private high school is not\nsuch a viable option, and inquired whether it was still in the running.\"\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the minutes as amended.\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.\nAbsent: 1 (Lynch). The motion passed.\nb.\nMinutes for the meeting of May 14, 2007.\nBoard member Kohlstrand moved approval of the minutes as presented.\nBoard member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.\nAbsent: 1 (Lynch). The motion passed.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nMay 29, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-29", "page": 2, "text": "6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\na.\nFuture Agendas\nMr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.\nb.\nZoning Administrator Report\nMr. Thomas provided an update on Zoning Administrator actions.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nNone.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nNone.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nMay 29, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-29", "page": 3, "text": "9-A.\nDP07-0002 & DR07-0044 Development Plan and Design Review - Applicant:\nCatellus Development Corporation - Alameda Landing Mixed Use\nDevelopment Project. The applicant requests Development Plan approval for a\nSite-Wide Master Landscape Development Plan and a Waterfront Promenade\nPlan, and Development Plan and Design Review approval for the Clif Bar & Co.\nHeadquarters commercial project, parking shed, off-street parking, landscaping,\nand associated improvements on an approximately 8.69 acre site. The site is\nlocated along the northern end of the former FISC Site (Tract 7884) within the M-\nX Mixed Use Planned Development Zoning District. (AT/DV)\nMr. Thomas summarized the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the items being\nconsidered: the Site-Wide Master Landscape Development Plan Amendment, the\nWaterfront Promenade Plan, and the Development Plan and Design Review. He thanked\nDavid Tierman of Catellus for bringing an excellent team of designers and consultants to\nthis project.\nActing President Cook disclosed that she had met with Mr. Tierman and several other\nconsultants on-site the previous week in order to walk around with the plans.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft disclosed that she visited the site, and noted that she was very\npleased to see this area of the waterfront that she had never seen before.\nBoard member Kohlstrand disclosed that she visited the site, and found the on-site\nexamination of the plans to be very helpful.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. David Tierman, Vice President, Catellus Development Group, introduced the\ndevelopment team.\nMr. Mike Engelhart, Development Project Management Team, Catellus Development\nGroup, noted that their focus in attaining a sustainable design was adaptive reuse of the\nexisting facility.\nMr. Bruce Lymburn, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean, project manager, detailed the history\nand corporate culture of Clif Bar. He noted that Clif Bar demonstrated a commitment to\nsustainability in their brands, business, people, the community and the planet, as well as\nethical business practices.\nMr. Rene Behan, SWA, provided an overview of the Landscape Master Plan and\ndisplayed a detailed PowerPoint presentation of the Master Plan.\nMs. Martina Goodman, SMWM Architects, described and displayed the adaptive reuse of\nparking behind the Clif Bar building.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nMay 29, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-29", "page": 4, "text": "Ms. Kathy Berg, project architect, Zimmer, Gunsul, Frasca Architects, described and\ndisplayed the design and site plan for the Clif Bar headquarters facility. She detailed how\nthe project would support Clif Bar's commitment to both the financial and community\nbottom lines.\nActing President Cook called for a five-minute recess.\nMr. Bruce Reeves, 2527 Santa Clara Avenue, noted that he supported the arrival of Clif\nBar to Alameda, and that it would be a benefit to the community.\nMr. Gail Wetzork, 3452 Capella Lane, spoke in support of this project, and noted that he\nhad been involved with it since its inception. He supported the use of as much existing\nproperty and material as possible, and looked forward to seeing the Northern Waterfront\nopen up.\nMs. Melody Marr, 1416 Park Avenue, noted that the President of the Alameda Chamber\nof Commerce could not attend, and noted that the officers and directors supported this\nproject. She complimented Catellus for all the work and community outreach they had\nperformed, and added that they performed their due diligence and used the suggestions\nthey had received. The Chamber was very pleased with what they had seen over the past\nyear, and supported parking sheds.\nMr. Dick Lyons, 18 Shannon Circle, spoke in support of this project as a resident and as a\npast president of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nActing President Cook suggested addressing the landscape plan first.\nBoard member Mariani noted that she was very pleased with the plan.\nBoard member Cunningham believed this was the most exciting project he had seen\nduring this tenure on the Planning Board, and complimented the excellent work\nperformed by the team. He inquired whether vehicle access would be available down to\nthe waterfront for people carrying kayaks and similar watercraft down to the waterfront.\nMr. Behan believed there would be access to the waterfront, and that a gateway entry\nwould be necessary to gain access to the floating dock. The structural studies would\ndetermine whether vehicle access would be possible.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether any consideration had\nbeen given to the screening of the recreation zone at the turning basin area, Mr. Behan\nreplied that was the most picturesque piece of the waterfront and noted that it was a\nbalancing act. He noted that there were not many opportunities to screen it because it was\nfully open to the waterfront.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nMay 29, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-29", "page": 5, "text": "In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham regarding other amenities, Mr.\nEngelhart replied that the Master Plan contained a requirement that public access to\nrestrooms be available in the facilities. He noted that an office building was also planned,\nwith the possibility of a restaurant in the last office building. He described the overall\nvision of the office building, which would anchor the project and capture the views to the\nwaterfront.\nMr. Thomas noted that the Master Plan limited this project to 400,000 square feet of\noffice.\nMr. Behan noted that the Clif Bar building will highlight sustainable features, identifying\ndesign elements through graphics that talk about how the bioswales filter water and treat\nstorm drain runoff. They have been working in conjunction with Alameda Power &\nTelecom regarding the project design in order to maximize the impact of renewable\nenergy sources, produced on-site as well as produced by AP&T. They have discussed\nputting a kiosk on the waterfront to exhibit different sources of energy coming to the\nproject both on-site and from the renewable energy sources from AP&T. He noted that\nthe entire project was designed to be a discovery center, both in the buildings and the site\ndevelopment for sustainable development.\nBoard member McNamara inquired about the children's water garden identified on the\nvillage green. Mr. Engelhart noted that it was intended to be an interactive water piece,\npossibly with environmental graphics, that would also be fun for children to play with on\na warm day. He noted that it would be specifically scaled for children.\nBoard member McNamara expressed concern about filtering requirements for chlorine,\nwhich could become very involved and possibly cost-prohibitive. She suggested a\ndifferent kind of educational water element.\nMr. Behan noted that the new health standards require that the pieces be treated not as a\nfountain, but as a pool, and brought up to pool standards.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara, Mr. Thomas noted that the\ncomparison of the green space to a soccer field was to illustrate its comparative size. He\nadded that it was not designed to be a formal recreational soccer field. He noted that it\nwould be an informal space for gathering, kite flying, and events, and that the western\nend of the promenade would have more programmed facilities and spaces.\nBoard member Kohlstrand believed this project was like a dream come true for the City\nof Alameda, and she believed that overall, Catellus has put considerable effort into this\nproject. She wished to discuss the street lighting on the waterfront, which was to have\nseveral different fixtures with higher standards to attain better coverage. She requested a\ndiscussion of the pedestrian-level scale standard as well, and inquired whether a lower\nfixture could be added.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nMay 29, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-29", "page": 6, "text": "Mr. Engelhart noted that a single-pole/multiheaded fixture was shown as being\napproximately 35 feet high, which came with multiple heads that could be oriented in a\nnumber of different ways. He noted that a lower level light could easily be used, and he\nnoted that the elevation was extremely flat, and they intended to get an emphasis at the\nend of the tree rows so that there was a hierarchy to the lights themselves.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand regarding public art, Mr. Thomas\nnoted that would be addressed at another time. He noted that the development agreement\nestablishes that the project actually has two public art requirements, $150,000 each. He\nnoted that the Public Art Commission reviewed those proposals, and the first piece would\nbe included as part of the first phase of the development. He noted that staff could brief\nthe Planning Board as the pieces came forward.\nBoard member Kohlstrand noted that in San Francisco, the public art was well-integrated\ninto the facilities and the public infrastructure.\nBoard member Kohlstrand wished to ensure that if the landscape plan was adopted, that\nthe Planning Board did not preclude the discussions about better development of the\nstreet system, particularly in the retail area as well as the warehouse area. She noted that\nthey had discussed a strong sense of a public space going between the warehouses,\nparking sheds and the actual buildings and would like a little more conventional treatment\nof the retail area.\nWith respect to the public feel, Mr. Thomas noted that the east-west public access was a\nunique situation, as well as all the parking surrounding the sheds. Staff concluded that the\nteam's design was a unique place in Alameda and elsewhere.\nBoard member Kohlstrand believed the idea of 90-degree parking made the most sense.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she loved the project and complimented Catellus and\nClif Bar for their hard work and inspiration. She was pleased to read that Clif Bar was\nhelping businesses adopt green practices, as well as StopWaste.org. She was concerned\nabout the project's contribution to Bay-friendly landscaping, Mr. Behan replied that it\nwas a balance between creating a landscape that was functional and sustainable. He\nadded that it was not a suburban lawn that used a lot of resources. The soil and polymer\npalette would help retain the soil and prevent runoff; the landscaping was also designed\nto be drought-tolerant. The plant palette on the Master Plan was native and drought-\ntolerant. He described the irrigation system, and noted that the infrastructure would\naccept the reclaimed water system. He noted that products would be used that would have\nminimum impact on the Bay.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the Field of Dreams\nplayground, Mr. Thomas replied that it would return to the Board with the design review\nof the final phase of the Promenade.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nMay 29, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-29", "page": 7, "text": "Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that because the Field of Dreams would be a\nvery positive addition to the City's children, that any playground also be universally\naccessible to accommodate differing physical abilities.\nActing President Cook noted that she was excited to see this project, which met the\ncaliber of what she hoped to see in a waterfront development, and commended the\ndevelopers. She noted that this site was being changed to become an environmentally\nsensitive project. She expressed some discomfort with the bioswale/cottonwood tree\nusage, as opposed to a more urban treatment.\nMr. Behan believed that the site's uniqueness was a strength, and brought up Crissy Field\nas an urban park. He noted that the circulation brought people out to the water, and that\nthe wind rows and agricultural landscape was appropriate for the area. He noted that the\nsite was restricted with respect to how much retail would be allowed. He believed the\nlandscape responded to the existing structures.\nActing President Cook noted that how the landscape connected back to the residential\narm of this project was of interest to her, and would like to see more of a visual\nconnection straight through to the waterfront, as detailed on Drawing L1. She noted that\nthe City had control over the water retention basin, and was concerned that the wind rows\nmay impact that in the future.\nMr. Behan noted that that the greenway did not necessarily have to be a wind row,\nalthough they would like the linear orientation to connect to the waterfront. The property\nline was not orthogonal to the waterfront, but there was a clear and strong pedestrian\nconnection at that point, which attempted to connect to the waterfront. As that is\ndeveloped, they intended to further the clear and direct connection as much as possible.\nActing President Cook suggested using interpretive signage to help people make their\nway onto the site, and to make it clear that they have a right to be there. She would like to\ndiscuss that issue with City Council going forward.\nBoard member Cunningham believed that BCDC would be strong advocates for that\nprogram.\nMr. Engelhart noted that they submitted that plan to BCDC and applied their comments\nto this plan. They also planned to make a connection of the Bay Trail along the\nwaterfront, and that the bike path would be signaled and striped.\nMr. Thomas noted that Condition 3 of the Clif Bar resolution stated that all signs would\nbe reviewed and approved by the City, which was a standard condition. In this case, the\nsignage would be very important so that people understood that this was a public area. He\nnoted that easements will be in place, and the public parking will be shared, and the\nsignage will be appropriate and will emphasize that.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nMay 29, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-29", "page": 8, "text": "Acting President Cook wanted to ensure that the interpretive signage would not only\ndescribe the site but also the company, while being respectful of the private nature of the\ncompany. She also believed the interactive fountains would be very welcoming and\nexciting, and loved that addition.\nShe echoed Board member Cunningham's concern about wind screening by the baseball\nfield so that it would be comfortable.\nActing President Cook believed there should be public restrooms separate from those in\nthe building. Mr. Thomas replied that staff would return on June 25 with the first piece of\ndetails for the promenade, and that would be a good opportunity to discuss bathroom\nfacilities.\nMr. Behan noted that this was an extraordinary project for BCDC, and that they were\nvery favorable toward it.\nBoard member Mariani noted that she had some concern about the simplicity of this\ndesign being loaded down with interpretative signage and educational features; she did\nnot want it to be overplanned. She acknowledged the baseball field would be windy, and\ndid not want people to be overwhelmed to the point of not being able to discover what\nwas intended to be a simple project.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft recalled some national parks in Hawaii that had self-guided\ntours with signs that educated but did not mar the natural beauty of the site. She believed\nthat the signs would be educational and creative in that manner.\nMr. Thomas noted that an overall sign program was required of the project in the Master\nPlan, and he recommended that the Planning Board include a condition that the required\nsign program include the plans for interpretive signage and wayfinding, as well as a\nrequirement that it be brought back to the Planning Board prior to occupancy of the Clif\nBar project.\nBoard member Kohlstrand moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 07-17 to\napprove the Landscape Master Plan Amendment as proposed, with the condition that the\nretail landscape plan may vary from the Master Landscape Plan.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.\nAbsent: 1 (Lynch). The motion passed.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she felt favorably about the entire concept, and\nnoted that when she visited the site, she felt the view was very accessible. She expressed\nconcern about the guardrail for the promenade, and did not want children to climb on the\nrailings. She noted that her husband had taken photos of the guardrail at the Embarcadero\nin San Francisco, which had vertical rather than horizontal rungs; the design work at the\ntop was attractive but was not something a child could get a foot into. She noted that the\nview should be maximized with an eye towards safety. She inquired whether there would\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nMay 29, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-29", "page": 9, "text": "be intervals of ladders to climb if someone got to the wrong side of the railing, or fell in.\nShe noted that there were flotation devices at the Embarcadero.\nMr. Behan did not have information on the life safety issue, and noted that there were two\noptions for the guardrail. He noted that it was not uncommon to see the horizontal rail,\nand that a nonclimbable mesh could also be used. They would like to stay away from the\nVictorian-era rails, which became ornamental and would be out of character and\nnontransparent.\nMr. Thomas suggested that those elements be brought back with the Phase I design\nreview for the promenade.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand, Mr. Behan described and\ndisplayed the access to the floating docks.\nA discussion of the floating dock ensued.\nBoard member Mariani noted that she was extremely pleased with the plan, and she\nlooked forward to seeing more details at the next hearing.\nActing President Cook noted that she was very happy with the simplicity of the plan, and\nwould like the applicant to keep the notion of guest docks on mind so people could sail to\na destination to access restaurants.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 07-18 to\napprove the Waterfront Promenade Development Plan.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.\nAbsent: 1 (Lynch). The motion passed.\nRegarding the Clif Bar design review proposal, Board member Mariani did not like the\nparking sign because it did not blend with the aesthetics of the restored warehouse. She\ninquired whether the Clif Bar doors would be red in the final design.\nMs. Goodman noted that the area was vast, and a great deal of signage would be required\nto direct people into the parking garage. They believed that the large sign would be the\neasiest way to accomplish that, and she added that the orange door may end up being\nwhite in the final design.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that he liked the supergraphics associated with the\ngarage, and may support making them bigger. He suggested the wording on the sign just\nsay \"Parking\" rather than \"Parking Garage.\" He inquired whether there was any\nconsideration of harvesting gray water from the very large roof. Ms. Goodman noted that\nthey had not explored that option, but that solar panels would be explored.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nMay 29, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-29", "page": 10, "text": "Mr. Engelhart noted that they would not want to harvest more water than they could use,\nbut they would find the amount of water to balance the system.\nBoard member Cunningham liked the idea of the beacons coming through the doors. He\nrequested more information on activating the waterfront with respect to the light wells,\nand would like to see a way to blur the line of the north fa\u00e7ade of the building relative to\nthe waterfront promenade.\nMs. Berg noted that there would be openings in the front that would bring people directly\ninto the building, and that will provide the indoor/outdoor connection. They were looking\nat a way to incorporate planters and seating areas up towards the face of the building, so\nthat Clif Bar can spill out, and the public came come up towards the edge of the building\nand sit there. She noted that one of the gardens moved out towards the edge, and that it\nwill also be used for stretching and aerobics, as well as some gathering near the wellness\nfacility. She noted that the spine at the water's edge was the circulation path and there\nwill be seating areas near the edge of the glass.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara, Ms. Berg confirmed that the\nwater tower would be approximately 27 feet tall, and it would be about 25-27 feet above\ngrade.\nBoard member McNamara understood the functionality of the water tower, and inquired\nwhether there was any way to design it with additional screening. Ms. Berg believed the\nwater tower was within the character of the maritime environment. She added that there\nwere different options for materials and shaping that would enable it to fit in very well,\nand that it would serve as an iconic element.\nMr. Engelhart noted that they would probably bring a precast concrete system into the\nsite.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that because of concrete's fluid nature, it could be used\nin a very creative manner.\nBoard member McNamara inquired where the accessible ramp was designed to go. Ms.\nBerg replied that there was a 2% slope from the center of the Clif Bar building, within the\nbuilding, and that the inside of the building must be flattened to accommodate furniture\nsystems. She noted that one of the ramps would be used to address the grade transition\nbetween the north-south elevations and the entries on the east and west.\nRegarding the red doors, Board member Kohlstrand believed it was important for people\ncoming through the parking garage and the central spine know where the main entrance\nto Clif Bar was. She did not believe people should have to walk around trying to find the\nmain entrance.\nBoard member Kohlstrand expressed concern about the wind turbines on the roof.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nMay 29, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-29", "page": 11, "text": "Acting President Cook did not believe the wind turbine issue should be decided at this\ntime because it was a major issue.\nMr. Thomas understood that Clif Bar and Catellus were still working out the details on\nthe wind turbine system, and noted that the Planning Board could condition this item so\nthe turbines come back for approval with more details and information.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she liked the graphics on the parking shed, as\nwell as the red door. She inquired whether there would be bike racks in the parking\ngarage; Ms. Goodman confirmed that there would be bike racks, and that they had not\nbeen drawn in yet. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft wanted to ensure that energy would\ncome from clean resources.\nMs. Berg noted that they had extensive conversations about telling the stories of how\nvarious projects, such as the wind turbines, contribute to green power. She noted that this\ncould be done through interpretive signage, or simply through the observation of the\nfeature itself.\nActing President Cook wanted to ensure there would be sufficient parking not only for\nthe employees, but also for any members of the public who would visit the site. Mr.\nThomas confirmed there would be sufficient parking, and added that they had made an\neffort to put in much more parking than Clif Bar needed, even when it expanded.\nActing President Cook wanted to ensure the parking in the shed was well-lit, and that it\nwould feel safe. Ms. Goodman replied that they intended to light it well, as well as install\nCCTV cameras. She noted that the parking garage will be open 24 hours a day.\nMr. Engelhart noted that using the shared parking concept, the restaurants would use the\nparking as well during non-office hours. Acting President Cook emphasized that security\nwould be a priority in the garage.\nIn response to an inquiry by Acting President Cook, Mr. Engelhart noted that the Master\nPlan included a provision that there will always be a waterfront restaurant use on-site,\nalthough the restaurant use was not controlled by the development; it was a tenant\nrequest.\nMr. Thomas noted that the design review for the waterfront plaza, the design review and\ndevelopment plan for the waterfront retail, as well as the configuration of the design.\nIn response to an inquiry by Acting President Cook regarding the difference in language\nbetween the staff report and the resolution, Ms. Mooney noted that the Planning Board\nshould focus on the language in the resolution and the findings. She added that there\nwere some findings listed in the staff report that did not appear in the resolution, and that\nthe Board did not have to address.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nMay 29, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-29", "page": 12, "text": "Board member Mariani moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-16 to\napprove the Waterfront Promenade Development Plan.\n1.\nFinding 8 (comprehensive coordinated information and directional\nsignage) should be modified to read, \"The development will provide a\ncomprehensive, controlled and coordinated system of informational and\ndirectional graphic signage throughout the development\" because a sign\nprogram is required of this project, and will be subject to review and\napproval by the Planning Board.\n2.\nCondition 7 on page 4 of the resolution should be modified to read, \"Prior\nto certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall submit a comprehensive\nsign program for the Alameda Landing project for Planning Board\nreview. Assigned programs shall provide a comprehensive and\ncoordinated and controlled system of informational and directional\ngraphic signage throughout the development; include descriptions of\nwayfinding, public access, graphic signage and tenant signage for the\nproject.\" The following language shall be stricken from the Condition:\n\"The City shall review and approve all building, parking lot and internal\ncirculation signage for the project.\"\n3.\nPrior to issuance of building permits for the wind turbines, the design\nreview should return to the Planning Board for review and approval (new\nCondition 12).\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.\nAbsent: 1 (Lynch). The motion passed.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nMay 29, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-29", "page": 13, "text": "9-B. Design Review DR06-0104 - Applicant: Community Improvement\nCommission and Alameda Entertainment Associates, 1416 Oak Street and\n2305 Central Avenue. Consideration of a landscaping, signage and exterior\nlighting plan for the cineplex and parking garage and a queuing plan for the\nAlameda Theater Complex. The review of the landscaping, signage and exterior\nlighting plans by the Planning Board are requirements of Design Reviews DR05-\n0041 and DR05-0028. The site is located within a C-C-T, Community\nCommercial - Theater Combining Zoning District. (CE/JO)\nMs. Jennifer Ott, Redevelopment Manager, Development Services Department,\nsummarized the staff report for this project.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Christopher Buckley, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, submitted a letter to the Planning\nBoard encouraging the continuance of the sycamores along Central Avenue within the\nPark Street Business District. He believed they would enhance the streetscape, and gave\nthe street a distinct identity. He did not believe having different street trees for different\nprojects would be beneficial to the continuity of the streetscape. He noted that the\narborist's report stated that the infrastructure impacts for sycamores were low with\nrespect to damage. He did not believe the impact of sycamores on signage would not be\nan issue because they had relatively transparent canopies, reached higher, and would\nprovide clearance for storefront signage. He believed the choice of a chanticleer pear\nwould be good for Oak Street. He recommended 4X4 foot cutouts, and that tree guards\nshould be used for the streetscape planning to protect the trees from vandals. He would\nlike to see sidewalk treatments along the frontage of the theatre, and believed the historic\nfrontage of the theatre should be unobstructed.\nMr. Kyle Conner, applicant, noted that his studies indicated that the sycamores stopped at\nthe high school, and that there were no particular trees that stood out at Park Street. He\nwas concerned about the size of sycamores, and that it would be difficult to control the\ngrowth of those trees. They had proposed the pear trees because they were more vertical.\nHe believed they would be a more appropriate tree for Central Avenue.\nMr. Buckley displayed a photograph of sycamores on a narrow sidewalk, and noted that\nthey could be adapted for narrow sidewalks.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to extend the meeting to 11:20 p.m.\nBoard member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.\nAbsent: 1 (Lynch). The motion passed.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft favored the staff choice of chanticleer pear, and believed\nthey would add variety, color and would define the project well. She believed that Oak\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nMay 29, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-29", "page": 14, "text": "Street sorely needed some trees, and she was happy to see these trees being added. She\ninquired about the tree grates and tree guards.\nMs. Ott noted that the tree grates were kept to 3x3 feet on the 10-foot sidewalk, and was\nconcerned about narrowing that space further so that sidewalk seating and potential\nqueuing outside for a blockbuster movie may be accommodated. She believed the\nomission of tree guards was an oversight, and noted that they would be included.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft echoed a concern raised by a landscape architect friend that the\ntrees on Park Street would be tied down and bound, which may reduce their strength and\ngrowth. Ms. Ott noted that staff would be amenable to investigating that issue.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft supported staggering the showtimes to mitigate queuing, and\ninquired about the intermission length to support exit of the audience. Mr. Conner replied\nthat referred to the time period between movies, rather than intermission in the middle of\nthe movie.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about queuing for blockbuster customers inside the\ntheatre during inclement weather, and asked whether the Art Deco railing would be of\nsufficient height to accommodate those customers. Ms. Ott noted that the railing was\nsubject to the California Historic Building Code, and would not be altered as such; it was\napproved as part of the building permit.\nMr. Conner noted that would concern him as well, and that he could use ropes and\nstanchions to keep people away from the historic railing.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand whether reversing the queuing\nline and purchase line might provide better flow and less crowding, Mr. Conner replied\nthat may create more traffic with people crossing the ticket holders line to purchase the\ntickets, and then return to the ticket holders line. Board member Kohlstrand noted that it\nmay keep the crowd in front of their facility. Mr. Conner noted that their policies were\ngeared to not have ticket holder lines that queue for very long, as opposed to what is\nfound at Jack London Square.\nBoard member Kohlstrand expressed concern about some of the standards for the\nDowntown Vision Plan not being applied to this project. She had further concerns about\ntrees having too wide of a canopy over a commercial area without a setback for the\nbuilding. Mr. Conner agreed with that concern.\nMr. Thomas acknowledged that the Tree Master Plan needed to be updated. He noted that\nthe Planning staff who were landscape architects felt this was an appropriate\nrecommendation.\nActing President Cook suggested having the Tree Master Plan updated. Mr. Thomas\nnoted that the City Council had put that on their \"to do\" list as a result of some issues that\noccurred at South Shore.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nMay 29, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-29", "page": 15, "text": "Board member McNamara expressed her ongoing concern about the line queuing issues\nabout accommodation for blockbuster movies, and inquired how overnight queuing could\nbe monitored and prevented.\nBoard member McNamara noted that the diagram showed a queue going down the\nadjacent alleyway, which she felt was a dark and inhospitable environment for their\ncustomers. Mr. Conner noted that the alley was not his first choice, and he would support\nnot using the alleyway at all.\nBoard member McNamara would not support using the area in front of the taqueria\nbecause they were not a tenant of the applicant's building, and she did not feel it would\nbe fair to the taqueria's owners and customers.\nBoard member Cunningham noted Mr. Buckley's comments about the framework and\ncontinuation of a theme with respect to the street trees. He believed that there was a\nprecedent in not continuing the sycamores down the street, and added that it was\nimportant to have the understanding of a framework of design that continued through the\nstreet. He inquired about the driver of the spacing of the trees, and suggested adding one\nmore tree to get the feeling of a green line that he would like to maintain.\nMr. Conner noted that the driver for the tree space was the utilities, and added that there\nwas a culvert at the west end that they were trying to work around. He noted that there\nwas a very large grease interceptor from the restaurant, as well as a number of utilities\nvaults that must be avoided by the trees and their roots.\nActing President Cook believed the lighting design was much more Art Deco and\nsupported the architectural details very well. She noted that she was swayed by Mr.\nBuckley's letter until she drove down Central Avenue. She was concerned that the\namount of pruning that would make the sycamores work would detract from the natural\nform of that tree. She believed the canopy could be more defined, and suggested adding\nmore trees or choose a similar tree to fill in the tree scheme.\nMr. Conner noted that the pear tree did have a canopy, which would spread to 20 to 25\nfeet. He noted that they were easier to control than a sycamore. He did not oppose fitting\nin another tree, and would be amenable to studying that possibility.\nBoard member McNamara suggested that because the signage and exterior lighting plans\nwere not an issue, that the landscaping and queuing issues be revisited.\nActing President Cook suggested adding a condition stating that queuing in the alley be\nnot recommended, and that the queuing be switched if the lines got too long; also, the\naddition of one more tree should be studied.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution Nos. 07-19 and\n07-20 to approve a landscaping, signage and exterior lighting plan for the cineplex and\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nMay 29, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-29", "page": 16, "text": "parking garage and a queuing plan for the Alameda Theater Complex. The review of the\nlandscaping, signage and exterior lighting plans by the Planning Board are requirements\nof Design Reviews DR05-0041 and DR05-0028. The following modifications will be\nadded:\n1.\nQueuing in the alley will not be recommended as part of the queuing plan;\nif the lines become too long, the queuing direction will be reversed;\n2.\nThe addition of one more tree will be studied by staff.\nActing President Cook seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Absent: 2\n(Lynch, Mariani). The motion passed.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 16\nMay 29, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-29", "page": 17, "text": "10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee\n(Board Member Mariani).\nBoard member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board\nMember Kohlstrand).\nBoard member Kohlstrand advised there was nothing new to report.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force\n(Board Member Cunningham).\nBoard member Cunningham noted that the previous meeting had been cancelled, and the\nnext meeting would be held in mid-June.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n11:30 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThese minutes were approved at the June 25, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This\nmeeting was audio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 17\nMay 29, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-29.pdf"}