{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-02-25", "page": 1, "text": "UNAPPROVED\nCOMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nFebruary 25, 2008\nTIME\nThe meeting convened at 6:05 P.M.\nPRESENT\nVice-Chair Moore, Commissioners Berger, Kirola, Longley-Cook, Robinson and\nFort.\nABSENT\nChair Lord-Hausman, Commissioners Hakanson and Kreitz.\nMINUTES\nThe January 28, 2008 minutes were approved as presented.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nThere was no written communication.\nNEW BUSINESS\nThere was no new business.\nOLD BUSINESS\n1.\nAlameda Landing (Andrew Thomas, Planning & Bldg. Dept.):\nThis item will be scheduled for a future meeting.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nThere was no staff communication.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS\n1.\nCommissioner Berger stated that the AR&PD Spring 2008 Guide dedicates an entire page for\ninformation regarding paratransit/disability issues within the City of Alameda. Commissioner\nBerger suggested the Commission prepare a draft letter thanking Dale Lillard, AR&PD Director,\nfor the excellent article that highlights accessibility resources in the City.\n2. Commissioner Longley-Cook stated that she and Chair Lord-Hausman attended the Alameda\nCollaborative for Children, Youth & Families monthly February meeting. A presentation was\nmade by Children Now, an organization that focuses on children's issues including health and", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-02-25", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nFebruary 25, 2008\nMinutes\nPage 2 of 2\ndental care, among others. They discussed the large need state-wide of providing dental care for\npre-school children, for example. The website is www.childrennow.org and Commissioner\nLongley-Cook stated that she will bring the report to the next meeting.\nCommissioner Berger requested that the Commission send a letter to Alameda County Dental\nAssociation for local and state support. Secretary Akil stated they could draft a letter for Council\nconsideration to send the letter to the County or, as individuals, send a letter in support of\nchildren dental care issues.\n3. Commissioner Longley-Cook stated that a PTA Council representative indicated she wanted to\nattend the Commission meeting to discuss wording for a proposed education parcel tax. The\nsuggested wording was to look at providing an exemption for seniors and the disabled.\n4. Commissioner Fort inquired about audible pedestrian signals at Lincoln and Willow. Secretary\nAkil responded that intersection may have four-way stop signs.\nADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 6:45 P.M. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, March 24, 2008, at\n6:30 P.M. in Room 360 at City Hall.\nAucudia Abil\nRespectfully submitted,\nLucretia A. Akil\nCommission Secretary\nG:\\LucretialCommDisability\\Minutes\\2008\\Minutes_Feb 2008.00", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-02-25", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, February 25, 2008\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:03 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nVice President Kohlstrand.\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Board\nMembers Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, Lynch, and\nMcNamara.\nAlso present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney\nFarimah Faiz; Planner III Dennis Brighton.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of November 13, 2007.\nThese minutes will be considered on March 10, 2008.\nb.\nMinutes for the meeting of February 11, 2008 (not available).\nThese minutes will be considered on March 10, 2008.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nFuture Agendas\nMr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.\nPresident Cook noted that she left the Measure A meeting considering how it would fit\ninto the Housing Element, and would like to see a presentation on how the Housing\nElement would be updated, and how it fit into the State Density Bonus Ordinance and the\nSecondary Unit Ordinance amendments.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she had heard numerous comments on the\neducational nature of the Measure A forum, and that they wished to have more\npresentations in the future. She believed that a weeknight evening would be good for\nmost people.\nBoard Member Lynch wished further clarification on the input requested from the\nPlanning Board members. He was concerned about the budget and time impacts of\nadditional work requested of staff; he noted that the budget was set for the current work\nPage 1 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-02-25", "page": 2, "text": "plan and believed there would be unintended consequences from that additional work. He\ndid not want to micromanage the department.\nBoard Member Lynch believed it would be helpful to put this project within a critical\npath with various milestones, in order to know when the work product must be brought to\nthe department within the term of the contract. He requested that staff share the schedules\nwith the Planning Board.\nBoard Member Cunningham requested that the March 10 meeting include some time to\nexamine lessons learned from the forum which he believed should be addressed, other\nthan the Housing Element. He would like to discuss use issues in particular.\nBoard Member McNamara inquired about the status of the additional Planning Board\nmember. Mr. Thomas replied that the position had been advertised, and that Mayor\nJohnson was considering her options.\nb.\nZoning Administrator Report\nMr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nMr. Bill Smith discussed the development opportunities in Alameda.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8-A. V07-0006 (Variances) and DR07-0056 (Major Design Review) - 3327\nFernside Blvd. the applicant requests Variance and Design Review approval to\nenlarge an existing single-family home located within an R-2, Two-family\nResidential Zoning District. Continued from January 28, 2008. Recommended\nfor continuance.\nVice President Kohlstrand moved to continue this item.\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.\nNoes: 0 Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A.\nDR07-0080 - 1629 Webster Street. The applicant requests a Major Design\nReview approval to construct an approximately 8,274-square foot, two-story,\nmixed use building to be located on the southwesterly corner of Webster Street\nand Pacific Avenue. The ground floor area would be divided into retail space. The\nsecond floor would be composed of two dwelling units and a separate\nPage 2 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-02-25", "page": 3, "text": "office/storage area. The applicants are also requesting approval to permit the\npayment of parking in-lieu fees. The site is located within a C-C, Community\nCommercial Zoning District. (DB)\nMr. Brighton summarized the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this item.\nWABA had requested that an additional condition of approval be added to require the\ninstallation of awnings at the street frontage buildings prior to occupancy of the building.\nStaff concurred with that request.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board Member McNamara whether the conditions requested\nby WABA replaced the conditions previously stipulated, Mr. Brighton replied that was\nessentially the case. He added that the previous conditions applied to an earlier plan set\nsubmittal.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it would be helpful to receive the materials\nsooner in advance of the meeting, and suggested sending PDF files by email. She would\nlike additional time to review the materials.\nPresident Cook advised that nine speaker slips had been received.\nBoard Member Cunningham moved to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.\nBoard Member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Noes:\n0 Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. John Piziali, former Planning Board President, spoke in support of this project as a\nWest End resident and WABA member. He believed this would be a special project,\nwhich he believed to be the first mixed use project on the street. He expressed concern\nabout the parking requirements and the in lieu fees, which he believed were excessive; he\nbelieved those requirements often stifled new projects. He would like to see the\nrequirements scaled to the project, which was a strain on smaller projects.\nMs. Doreen Soto, City of Alameda Development Services Department, Alameda County\nImprovement Commission, City Hall West, spoke in support of this project. She noted\nthat they had worked with this applicant for about two years, and noted that it had been a\ndifficult project with respect to the parking. They hoped that they would be able to bring\nnew parking regulations forward soon. She believed this was a very good infill project\nthat maximized the site with a mix of retail and housing uses. She believed this project\nwould create new jobs, and encouraged the Planning Board to approve this project.\nMs. Kathy Moehring, Executive Director, WABA, spoke in support of this project. She\nnoted that she had worked on this project with the Webster Street Design Committee. She\nnoted that the applicant had been gracious and easy to work with in addressing the\nPage 3 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-02-25", "page": 4, "text": "Design Committee's concerns. She believed this project was needed on Webster Street in\norder to establish a viable commercial district.\nMr. Thomas Keenan, 617 Pacific, spoke in opposition to this project, and displayed\nseveral photos of the site. He believed that there were several unresolved hazardous\nmaterials occurrences on the site that had not been remediated or placed on the public\nrecord. He noted that with respect to Item 2, the fire station along Webster Street on the\nsouth side had a red curb adjacent to that location, and if cars were to park in that area,\nthere would not be sufficient space for the fire trucks to exit. He noted that several\nmonths before, Alameda Party and Play, located across the street, had been approved\nwith no additional required parking because it was an existing building. He believed that\nwhen that building is occupied, the parking problems would increase on the street. He\nnoted that the closest unmetered parking space was 260 feet west on Pacific Avenue on\nthe opposite side of the street. He added that there would be no space for the additional\ntrash receptacles or Dumpsters that would be required.\nMs. Beverly Miranda, 630 Pacific, spoke in opposition to this project. She noted that she\nsupported progress, and would like to see this project work out; however, she was\nconcerned about workers from the nearby businesses parking in front of her and her\nneighbors' houses. She noted that several times, people had parked in her driveway\nbecause there was no parking available. She would like to see this part of Alameda\nimproved with the proposed design, but not without sufficient parking.\nMr. Derek Pavlik, WABA Design Committee, 2875 Glascock Street, spoke in support of\nthis project. He noted that Mr. Koka had invited their input throughout the process in the\nfour years since he had been on the committee; he noted that he was the most willing\ndesign collaborator he had worked with.\nMs. Tricia Collins-Levi, 634 Eagle Avenue, spoke in support of this project. She believed\nthis kind of project would move Webster Street in the right direction; she understood the\nparking issues, and hoped the issue of the fees would be worked out. She noted that the\napplicant had worked very hard on this project, and believed it would have a positive\neffect on the neighborhood.\nMs. Jackie Keenan, 617 Pacific, believed that the site still needed to be remediated from\nits use as a gas station. She noted that there was existing parking on Webster, and that\nthere was no place for additional parking. She noted that additional parking on Pacific\ncould not conflict with the red curb next to the fire station. She noted that it was a\nconstant problem trying to discourage people from parking in their driveways. She noted\nthat on several occasions, she had not received notices from the City with respect to this\nproject.\nMr. Sam Koka, applicant, 802 Pacific Avenue, described the proposed project and noted\nthat he had worked closely with the Webster Street Design Committee.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPage 4 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-02-25", "page": 5, "text": "President Cook requested that staff address the hazmat, parking, waste and noticing\nissues.\nMr. Brighton noted that this project had a 300-foot notification radius, which extended to\n626 Pacific Avenue. He noted that there were two outdoor waste storage areas between\nthe building and Mr. Koka's property, which would be able to accommodate small waste\nbins that would be typical for such a use.\nMr. Thomas noted that staff would craft a condition regarding the red zone, and that the\nanalysis in the staff report had been discussed extensively with the Public Works\nDepartment. He added that the Design Review Team (DRT) had addressed that issue,\nincluding the fire department. He noted that it could be conditioned to reconfirm that the\ntwo additional spaces would be available on the street, and if not, the project could be\nconditioned to provide the two spaces on-site, which he believed would be virtually\nimpossible. Alternatively, the in-lieu fees would be increased. He recommended that an\nadditional condition be included with respect to hazmats, that it be confirmed to the effect\nthat no building permit should be issued that would impede or prevent either the ongoing\nmonitoring, or if there was a tank that must be removed, that it be taken care of before the\nbuilding is built.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it was not just the presence of a tank, but any\nleakage or plumes must be properly addressed.\nBoard Member Lynch believed that the Planning Board must remain mindful of the\nrequirements originating from regulatory agencies. He added that certain requirements\nwill have to be met for the property to be insurable.\nBoard Member Cunningham believed this was an excellent project which would be a\ngood fit on Webster Street. He believed that the requirement for parking may be adjusted\nupon receipt of the permit, and did not know how that would align with the parking\nordinances and the timeline.\nBoard member Cunningham assumed that with respect to the amendment to the use\npermit for SK Auto, they had been consulted and that they were in agreement.\nMr. Thomas noted that Mr. Koka owned that property as well.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board Member Cunningham, Mr. Thomas replied that a\ncondition of approval should be added stating that prior to the issuance of building\npermits, that the Webster Street treatment would turn the corner to where it would meet\nwith the Otaez Building. Board Member Cunningham noted that could be worked out by\nthe design applicant, but wanted to ensure that the materiality was consistent. He wanted\nto ensure that the glazing would be clear, and without tint.\nPage 5 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-02-25", "page": 6, "text": "Vice President Kohlstrand echoed Board member Cunningham's comments, and believed\nthis project would be a good fit for Webster Street. She was excited to see mixed use\nprojects like this, and that it was able to replicate some of the historic features of\nAlameda's commercial streets that had residential units above ground floor retail. She\nsupported reducing the parking requirements in the business districts, because she did not\nthink by developing a surface parking lot for each use would provide the most effective\nuse of the commercial streets in town.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand regarding parking requirements,\nMr. Thomas described the uses for the in-lieu fees, including leasing additional public\nparking spaces, expanding existing lots or adding new satellite lots in the area, in addition\nto transit improvements. He added that the possibility of a permit parking system was one\nalternative that was still unresolved; he noted that the neighbors' input would be gathered\nas well.\nBoard Member McNamara shared the opinions of the other Board members in terms of\nsupporting this project, and appreciated WABA's input in terms of the detailed\ninformation, criteria and conditions they had provided to staff. She also appreciated the\nchange to the awnings, acknowledging that they were a very important part of this\nelement. She also agreed that the certificate of occupancy not be awarded until the\nawnings were put up. She believed this was a good use of the street and the space, and\nbelieved the City needed to be very aggressive in providing some off-street public\nparking lots. She added that there were no such lots on the same side of Lincoln. She\nempathized with the neighbors experiencing the parking problems, and encouraged them\nto call a towing company when people parked in their driveways.\nPresident Cook suggested looking into residence parking stickers to protect the residents\nof the neighborhood. Mr. Thomas noted that would be possible.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she supported the concept, and believed this\nproject would be a significant improvement over the existing vacant lot. She sympathized\nwith the neighbors who lived just outside the 300-foot radius, and requested that they be\nincluded in any further noticing on this project. She suggested that WABA sponsor\nfurther neighborhood meetings. She would condition the approval on having sufficient\nproof that the hazardous material issue had been resolved. She noted that Condition 5\nread, and location of the transformers to service these loads must be approved by the\nBureau of Electricity before building permit issuance.\"\nPresident Cook agreed that the Planning Board needed to have input on the location of\nthe transformers, and suggested that a condition be added that they be hidden from public\nview. Mr. Thomas replied that similar conditions had been modified for Alameda\nLanding, stating that the transformers should be screened and not located on the public\nright of way. He noted that they may be located behind the building, adjacent to the auto\nuse, and not on Webster or Pacific.\nPage 6 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-02-25", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft agreed with Mr. Piziali's assessment that the parking in\nlieu fees of almost $90,000 were excessive. She suggested that an adjustment could be\nmade retroactively. She noted that the language in the resolution on page 2 read, \"The\nCity is able to utilize the parking in lieu fees for parking and transit projects within the\nWebster Street commercial corridor. She noted that page 4 of the staff report stated\nthat funds would be used to lease spaces at a satellite lot, or to support transit services and\nfacilities in the area. She would like to change the language to state on the resolution,\n\"The City shall utilize the parking in lieu fees She would like to see the in lieu fees\nonly fund transit projects, transit services and facilities in the area. She noted that shuttles\nto BART were needed to get people out of their cars during commute hours.\nBoard Member Lynch wished to address parking in lieu fees, and based on his own\nprofessional experience, $6,000 was very inexpensive for a parking space. He realized\nthe developer was not expected to pay the full cost of the parking spaces, but to use\npublic dollars assist in that project. He would not support any reduction of the parking in\nlieu fees because of the greater public good.\nPresident Cook noted that she was not prepared to condition the dollars on transit in this\narea, because it was well-served by transit and less well-served by parking spaces. In\ngeneral, she would like more information when such a suggestion is made for parking.\nShe noted that there were a lot of buses running along this route already.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cook whether there were any plans to extend the\ntreescape up to the project to maintain consistency in the landscaping, Mr. Brighton\nreplied that there were fresh trees along Webster Street in front of the site. He noted that\nthere may be one space for a tree; staff would check with Public Works to confirm that\nitem.\nPresident Cook noted that the 100-foot height limit was in effect for this area, and she\nsuggested that be examined before a future applicant considered a building of 100 feet in\nthat location. She inquired whether it was a remainder from the 1970s, and suggested that\nit be brought down before it became an issue. She noted that she was in favor of this\nproject, which addressed a number of issues that Board had discussed. She noted that it\nreflected the discussion held at the forum regarding the importance of placing residential\nuse above retail or office in the business districts. She believed it supported the\nbusinesses, and kept the streets safer because of the 24-hour presence of people in the\nvicinity. She understood the neighbors' concerns about parking, and noted that it was the\ndownside of enjoying a mix of uses in Alameda. She believed the City should work to\nfind a place for the parking, and to enforce parking violations described by the neighbors.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that she supported transit, but would not support the\nproposal by Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding transit because she believed the\nareas transitioning from low to moderate density needed time to do SO. She noted that\nshelters and street furniture had been enhanced in recent years, and believed the City\nshould look at ways to consolidate the off-street parking. She did not believe the density\nwas present to propose a structure right away. She believed there should be some off-\nPage 7 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-02-25", "page": 8, "text": "street lots, perhaps along the side streets or on Webster Street that will accommodate a\nbroad range of uses. She did not believe the in lieu fees should be limited to transit\nfunding at this point.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft understood Vice President Kohlstrand's concerns, and\nsuggested that an eventual parking permit system be instituted. She noted that the\nenforcement of the parking restrictions were an important part of the process.\nBoard Member Lynch believed it was very important to examine and clarify the\nenforcement policy for the City. He hoped that Parking Enforcement had not been aware\nof this issue, and that they become aware of it going forward.\nPresident Cook moved to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to approve a Major\nDesign Review approval to construct an approximately 8,274-square foot, two-story,\nmixed use building to be located on the southwesterly corner of Webster Street and\nPacific Avenue. The ground floor area would be divided into retail space. The second\nfloor would be composed of two dwelling units and a separate office/storage area. The\napplicants are also requesting approval to permit the payment of parking in-lieu fees.\nConditions will be added regarding:\n1.\nThe transformers;\n2.\nClear glazing;\n3.\nThe red no-parking zone;\n4.\nThe hazardous materials;\n5.\nThe design details to wrap around the corner, and there will be\ncoordination between the two fa\u00e7ades; and\n6.\nThe awnings will be installed prior to building occupancy; and\n7.\nTrash enclosures.\nMr. Thomas noted that staff would confirm that the two parking spaces would be\navailable. If not, they would be added to the parking in lieu fee.\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.\nNoes: 0 Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed.\nMr. Thomas noted that staff would work with WABA with respect to the parking issues.\n9-B.\nPLN07-0061 - SRM Associates - 2800 Harbor Bay Parkway. Applicant\nrequests a Final Development Plan, Major Design Review, Planned Development\nAmendment for reduced parking, and Tentative Map approval for the construction\nof ten new office buildings totaling approximately 109,280 square feet in floor\narea with a total of 384 parking spaces to be constructed on a 9.22 acre site. The\nsite is located within the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, and Planned\nDevelopment Zoning District. (DV)\nPage 8 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-02-25", "page": 9, "text": "Mr. Thomas presented the staff report on Mr. Vu's behalf. Staff recommended that the\nPlanning Board approve the Final Development Plan, Major Design Review, Planned\nDevelopment Amendment for reduced parking, and that the Planning Board recommend\napproval of the Tentative Map to City Council, as shown in the staff report.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Joe Ernst, SRM Associates, applicant, displayed a PowerPoint presentation, and\ndescribed the background, scope and layout of this proposed project. He displayed the\ncolors and materials board, and described the canopies on the five buildings. He noted\nthat the ability to create unit ownership was a unique element, and that a condo map\nwould be put on each building. He noted that the buildings would be broken into flats,\nand the addition of stairs within the units would be very inefficient. He noted that there\nwould be no middle unit, and that each unit would have three open sides.\nMr. Brian Tremper, President, Freport Homeowners Association, 232 McDonnel Road,\nnoted that he was speaking as a resident, although this project had been discussed by the\nhomeowners association. He noted that many of their comments had been addressed with\nSRM already, particularly screening the parking lot, with the exception of the view\ncorridors. He inquired how the landscaping would be maintained once the transfer has\ntaken place. He believed the lagoon was poorly maintained, and noted that no large trucks\nwould be allowed. He was concerned about the restaurant, and felt that would be a\ndifficult location for a restaurant, and compared it to Zazu's, next to KTVU in Oakland.\nHe was concerned about late-night noise if a restaurant were to operate there, and\nrequested that limits be placed. He expressed concern about the noise from the bus stop,\nwhich was scheduled to be at the intersection of the access road and Harbor Bay\nParkway.\nMr. Eddie Chin expressed concern about the design for the back access road, which\nwould flow into the Harbor Bay parking lot.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\n\"In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether this use was required to be located\nat this site, or whether it could be used for other uses such as residential in a business\npark, Mr. Thomas replied that the site was office use but there were limits on the allowed\nintensity of use; this intensity was well within the upper limit.\"\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cook whether this use was required to be located\nat this site or whether it could be used for other uses such as residential, Mr. Thomas\nreplied that the site was office use but there were limits on the allowed intensity of use,\nthis intensity was well within the upper limit. With respect to airport noise, he noted that\nthe newer generations of aircraft were becoming quieter, but that noise was a big issue at\nevery airport.\nBoard Member Lynch disagreed with the comments regarding the swapping the parcels,\nand believed the amount of signatures of individuals coming forth would be significant.\nPage 9 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-02-25", "page": 10, "text": "He believed the project was stunning, and appreciated the community coming forward;\nhe believed the City should heed their suggestions. He believed the conditions were\nreasonable. He believed this was a beautiful commercial project, which was what the land\nuse was intended for.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft commended Mr. Vu for a well-written, well-organized and\nconcise staff report. She noted that she was mindful of the need for revenue coming into\nthe City to replace the revenue lost by the departure of the car dealerships. She supported\nclean, green businesses and appreciated the sustainable design exhibited by the applicant.\nShe believed this would be an environmentally friendly project. She noted that the 25-\nfoot-wide access road also had shared bike lane space, and believed that was a minimal\nlane. She inquired whether it would be widened. Mr. Thomas replied that the proposal\nwas to maintain the basic 25-foot width curb to curb.\nMr. Ernst noted that the width varied, and that there was no curb on the west edge. He\nnoted that there were pinch points that were less than 25 feet. He noted that as the new\nroad is constructed, the minimum width would be 25 feet; he noted that there would be\nseveral areas where it would be wider than 25 feet. He noted that it was part of the\nparking area, and that it was not intended to be a through street. He noted that they\nwished to narrow the road somewhat to slow the transit buses down.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she understood the traffic calming provided by a\nnarrower street, but was concerned about safety and would like to see alternate forms of\ntransportation encouraged. She liked the presence of the bicycle parking.\nMr. Ernst noted that he was not a traffic engineer, but that the parking at the ferry\nterminal, which was denser than this use, did not have any operational problems. He\nadded that the buses traveled through the parking lot without problems.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft hoped the parking would be screened from the homes on\nMcDonnell across the lagoon, and from the Bay Trail, and noted that the landscaping\nplan seemed to indicate that. In response to her inquiry regarding the current vacancy\nrate, Mr. Ernst replied that the business park's vacancy rate was 14%, down from the low\n20s several years ago. He noted that it was lower than Marina Village, as well as the City\nvacancy rate. He noted that this project evolved from the demand for a commercial site\nwith lower density and the ability for the business owners to own their space as well.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft strongly suggested that a restaurant be located near the\nproject. She believed it would make sense to have a Peet's coffee shop in the area as well.\nShe noted that the nearby trail was well-used during the weekends, and added that the\nnew hotel's clients would also appreciate those amenities.\nMr. Ernst noted that there were two other restaurant opportunities along the waterfront in\naddition to this project, including the hotel. He hoped that critical mass could be reached\nso the restaurant would be viable.\nPage 10 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-02-25", "page": 11, "text": "Board Member McNamara noted that Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft had addressed many\nof her concerns, including the width of the access road. She believed the applicant had\nworked closely with the homeowners and addressed their concerns. She believed the area\nwould need restaurants, that the project was well-thought out and well-designed, and she\nsupported this project.\nVice President Kohlstrand echoed the previous statements, and believed this was\na\nwonderful project for the site. She was pleased to see the amount of effort put forth in\nworking with the staff and the residents. She also liked the sensitivity shown towards the\nwaterfront, as well as incorporating the LEED elements into the project. She liked the design\nas well. She did not like the amount of surface parking, but understood that it had to be\nthere. She believed the roadway was strangely designed, and noted that people use the ferry\nparking lot like a through road. However, she did not know whether there were any options\nto correct it at this point. She suggested that a bike lane be added, and cited Portland and\nEmeryville as examples of using wide bioswale treatments in more urban settings, where\nmuch less space was used to provide drainage. She would like to see more space made\navailable for bicyclists and pedestrians, and encouraged the applicant to make the parking\nlot as safe as possible as the amount of traffic increased.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand whether the BART shuttle stopped\nin the business park, Mr. Ernst replied that the business park had its own TSM, including a\nBART shuttle, which was added when AC Transit took away the express shuttle. He noted\nthat the business park sponsored the shuttle. They agreed to increase the size of the bus this\npast year, and will go to two buses in July 2008. She liked the fact that the applicant had\nprovided some flexibility in the site for the restaurant use.\nBoard member Cunningham complimented the applicant on a job well done, and noted that\nhe would like to push the bar higher if possible. In response to his inquiry regarding the\nLEED rating, Mr. Ernst replied that they currently had LEED certification, and had\nidentified 28 points, which would place them at the LEED Silver rating.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board Member Cunningham regarding the site lighting, Mr.\nErnst replied that the lighting would be designed to a LEED standard for residential light\npollution, which was a stricter standard than commercial. He noted that they intended to\nmaintain a safe level of lighting on the site, but not light up the residents' back yards. He\nadded that they would use low-voltage landscape lighting.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham regarding the transformers, Mr.\nErnst replied that they had some space constraints. He added that they met with AP&T and\nlocated the transformers; the transformers must be a certain distance away from the\nbuildings. The location of the transformers took precedence, and the trash enclosures were\nplaced on the opposite side of the building.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham regarding placing a landscaping\nagreement in the development agreement, Mr. Ernst replied that everything east of the\nroad was maintained by the business park. He added that it was maintained by the\nPage 11 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-02-25", "page": 12, "text": "landscape and lighting district administered by the City, and noted that the irrigation\nwould be upgraded this year, and that the dead plant material would be replaced with new\nplantings.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that Condition 29 suggested participation in the TSM\nprogram, and recommended that it be strengthened to require participation in the TSM\nprogram.\nMr. Ernst noted that the Harbor Bay Business Park already included participation in the\nTSM as part of the development agreement and the PD.\nBoard Member Lynch noted that the question was whether the City plan was deed-\nrestricted, as were the CC&Rs. If it was a condition of the CC&Rs, it would be deed-\nrestricted.\nBoard member Cunningham inquired whether the applicant had considered natural\nventilation for these buildings, and noted that it would be a good place to have a\nshowcase in Alameda of a naturally ventilated office park.\nMr. Ernst replied that the mechanical systems will all have economizers to switch to use\nnatural ventilation. He noted that the window systems will be designed to be operable. He\nnoted that if the windows were opened, the doors must be closed, because the airplanes\nspread noise throughout the space. He noted that had not been designed into the space\nyet.\nBoard member Cunningham inquired whether showers would be provided for bicyclists,\nand encouraged the applicant to do SO. Mr. Ernst replied that their green specifications\nincluded that feature as well; he added that several of their buyers had done so in their\nown plans. He added that they had a confirmed Silver rating, and may be able to achieve\na Gold LEED rating.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would like to see a copy of the applicant's\ngreen specifications.\nA discussion of the road width and right of way ensued.\nVice President Kohlstrand believed the ferry terminal road would be the biggest problem.\nMr. Thomas noted that if the road were to be built to City standards, it would be\nsignificantly wider.\nBoard Member Lynch noted that if it were a City road, Public Works would not be likely\nto want to take on the road's maintenance because of the cost.\nPresident Cook noted that page 13, paragraph 1, should be changed to read,\nPage 12 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-02-25", "page": 13, "text": "President Cook noted that there were many positive aspects to the project, and\nappreciated the applicant's willingness to work with the City and the neighborhood over\nthe course of the project. She was uncomfortable with the first set of findings on pages 1\nand 2, that the project would be compatible with the adjacent surroundings, providing\nharmonious transitions between different designated land uses. She felt that the site was\nmore clustered and walled off the water, with an insufficient relationship back to the\ncommunity. She believed this project was similar to Alameda Landing in that it was a\nwaterfront site approved for a lot of commercial office use, but it did not incorporate\nsignificant public access and recreation. She noted that both projects had a sea of parking,\nbut that Alameda Landing incorporated public access and recreation opportunities in a\nway that provides a reason for the public to be there at night and on the weekends, to\nkeep it safe and active. While she liked the project, she felt it was somewhat disconnected\nfrom the waterfront environment and cut the community off from the shores. She also felt\nthat there was not a harmonious transition from the parking on the north through the site\nto the south. Finally, she felt that there should be a safer and more efficient road for bikes\nand cars through the Ferry Terminal rather than the undersized private access road now\nthere.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft would like to see Condition 13 modified to read, \"The\nfinal landscape plan for the area between the eastern edge of the private ferry access road\nand the sidewalk along the lagoon shall comply with Bay-friendly landscaping\nguidelines, as set forth by StopWaste.org.\" She noted that because the property was on\nthe waterfront, anything put on the landscaping would be safe to run off into the water.\nVice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt draft Planning Board Resolution to approve a\nFinal Development Plan, Major Design Review, Planned Development Amendment for\nreduced parking for the construction of ten new office buildings totaling approximately\n109,280 square feet in floor area with a total of 384 parking spaces to be constructed on a\n9.22 acre site. The following modifications will be added:\n1. Page 5, Item 13: A reference to Bay Friendly landscaping will be\nincorporated;\n2. Page 7, Item 29: A modification to the Harbor Bay TSM program will be\nincorporated;\n3. Prior to issuance of permits, staff will work with the applicant to look at ways\nto minimize the width of the bioswale for the purpose of providing more\nwidth for the curb-to-curb for bicycles and pedestrians; underground\nmechanical solutions should be avoided. Lane width will not be added for\nvehicles;\n4. The transformers will be screened; and\n5. Showers will be encouraged as part of the TSM program.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5.\nNoes: 1 (Cook); Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed.\nVice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt draft Planning Board Resolution to approve\nthe Tentative Map for the construction of ten new office buildings totaling approximately\nPage 13 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-02-25", "page": 14, "text": "109,280 square feet in floor area with a total of 384 parking spaces to be constructed on a\n9.22 acre site.\nBoard Member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5.\nNoes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain - 1 (Cook). The motion passed.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nVice President Kohlstrand would like the resolution thanking Gina Mariani for her service\non the Planning Board to be presented at the next Planning Board meeting. Mr. Thomas\nagreed, and noted that would take place.\n11-A. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force (Board\nMembers Cook/Kohlstrand)\nPresident Cook noted that there had been no further meetings.\n11-B. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember McNamara)\nMr. Thomas noted there was nothing to report.\n11-C. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation Subcommittee (Board Member\nKohlstrand)\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that there had been no further meetings since her last\nreport.\nPresident Cook requested that if there had been no further meetings under Board\nCommunications, that they be removed from that meeting's agenda. Mr. Thomas\nconcurred with that suggestion.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n10:35 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nPage 14 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-02-25", "page": 15, "text": "This meeting was audio and video taped.\nPage 15 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf"}