{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2009-03-23", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nCOMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nMarch 23, 2009\nTIME\nThe meeting convened at 7:03 P.M.\nPRESENT\nChair Lord-Hausman, Commissioners Fort, Longley-Cook, Kirola, Kreitz and\nKrongold.\nABSENT\nVice-Chair Moore and Commissioner Berger\nMINUTES\nThe February 23, 2009 minutes were approved with corrections.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nThere were no written communications.\nNEW BUSINESS\n1. Statement of Economic Interests, Form 700 (Board Secretary):\nSecretary Akil distributed the annual Statement of Economic Interest forms, covering the period\nfor January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008, for the Commissioner's to complete and sign.\n2. Presentation on Annual Paratransit Program Application for 2009/2010 (Public Works):\nGail Payne, Transportation Coordinator for the Public Works Department discussed the renewal\nand application process for the 2009/2010 fiscal year. The program is funded through the\nTransportation Sales Tax and there is one mandatory line-item designated for Paratransit. The\npresentation topics included the service description, objectives, customer satisfaction survey\nresults, needs identification, planning process, marketing and funding overview.\nSecretary Akil asked how many agencies responded to the bid to provide Paratransit services to\nwhich Ms. Payne responded two, Welcome Transportation and Friendly.\nCommissioner Krongold asked if Welcome Transportation's vehicle fleet is as large as Friendly\nto which Ms. Payne stated that they (Welcome Transp.) has a fleet of vehicles.\nCommissioner Krongold asked if the budget for marketing is $19,000 every year as stated in the\nstaff report, to which Ms. Payne responded that budget is not for marketing, but is designated for\ncustomer service, outreach and Mastick Senior Center staffing.\nWith no further questions, Chair Lord-Hausman thanked Ms. Payne for the presentation.\nMs. Payne also acknowledged that Chair Lord-Hausman has agreed to be the PAPCO's City of\nAlameda representative.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2009-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2009-03-23", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nMarch 23, 2009\nMinutes\nPage 2 of 3\nOLD BUSINESS\n1.\nSpecial Needs-Special Services Resource Fair (Commissioners Krongold/Kreitz):\nSecretary Akil informed the Commission that they could do fundraising for the fair if the City\nManager's office was in agreement with that effort and provided that there is sufficient staffing\nfrom the finance department to support the activity. Secretary Akil also reminded the\nCommission that they are an advisory body to Council and tasked with making\nrecommendations regarding disability issues to Council. The Commission should discuss\nwhether or not to go ahead with a fair and then vote on whether to convey that intent to Council\nas they (Council) should be made aware of what the Commission wants to do. This\ncommunication could happen through an off-agenda report or presentation during a City\nCouncil meeting.\nCommissioner Kreitz suggested that the CDI forward an off-agenda memo to Council\ninforming them of the proposed fair.\nChair Lord-Hausman stated that she would support a short presentation to Council for the sake\nof publicity and the value of visibility. Chair Lord-Hausman suggested that an off-agenda be\nsent first and then in August the CDI should request the item be placed on the Council agenda\nfor a September meeting date.\nCommissioner Kirola asked if the City would take any portion of the money raised by the CDI\nto which Secretary Akil responded that she did not know if that would happen.\nCommissioner Longley-Cook stated that the Special Needs Fair should focus on services in\nAlameda to which Commissioner Kreitz stated that they started with local resources and it\nmorphed with other agencies.\nCommissioner Kreitz stated that people within the City use these other outside agencies.\nChair Lord-Hausman stated that there are not enough agencies in Alameda to meet the needs of\nthe disabled community so we have to draw from the County.\nCommissioner Krongold stated the work group brainstormed the list and requested that the CDI\nprovide any additional agencies or groups to which they did. Chair Lord-Hausman stated that\nthe list is good and the CDI should proceed with the recommended additions to the list.\nCommissioner Krongold stated the work group would draft a registration form and cover letter\nfor the next CDI meeting for review and discussion.\nChair Lord-Hausman asked if the CDI could use the City emblem for various correspondence\nfor the fair to which Secretary Akil responded that she would check with the City Attorney's\noffice. Chair Lord-Hausman also requested that the registration forms be mailed to City Hall to\nwhich Secretary Akil agreed, but that all contact information should identify a CDI name and\ntelephone number for all questions. Secretary Akil agreed to forward all registration forms\nback to the CDI member in charge of the fair.\nucretia)CommDisability\\Minutes)2009\\Minutes_Mar 23 2009.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2009-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2009-03-23", "page": 3, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nMarch 23, 2009\nMinutes\nPage 3 of 3\n2.\nCommission Disability Internet Webpage (Chair Lord-Hausman/Secretary Akil):\nThis item is on hold due to on-going funding and budgeting issues.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nThere was no staff communications.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS\n1.\nCommissioner Krongold stated that there will be a March 28th event at College of Alameda\nfor student's transitioning from K-12 to Community college. There are a number of agencies\ninvolved addressing both social and transitional issues. There will be a variety of sessions\nfrom 10:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. and the cost is $5.00. Chair Lord-Hausman provided the\nspecific time of the event and registration which is from 9:30 A.M. to 3:00 P.M.\n2.\nCommissioner Kreitz acknowledged that this is her last meeting and thanked the Commission\nfor their time and will be available to help on the fair to which Chair Lord-Hausman thanked\nher for her involvement and time.\n3.\nChair Lord-Hausman stated that a press release went out by the City Clerk's office\nannouncing openings on the CDI. Commissioner Krongold provided Chair Lord-Hausman\nwith two prospective names to contact for possible interest in the Commission.\n4.\nChair Lord-Hausman confirmed that she has agreed to represent the City of Alameda on both\nPAPCO and ACTIA which meets the fourth Monday in the afternoon.\n5.\nChair Lord-Hausman provided information on accessible traveling from a magazine based out\nof San Francisco. The link is www.emerginghorizons.com.\nADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Tuesday, May 26, 2009 at 7:00\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLucretia Akil\nBoard Secretary\ncretia)CommDisability\\Minutes)2009\\Minutes_Mar 23 2009.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2009-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-03-23", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING\nMONDAY, MARCH 23, 2009\nCOUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM\nPresident Kohlstrand called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard Member Lynch\nROLL CALL:\nPRESENT:\nPresident Kohlstrand, Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft\nBoard members, Autorino, Cook, and Lynch were\npresent upon roll call.\nABSENT:\nBoard members Cunningham, and McNamara.\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nAndrew\nThomas,\nPlanning\nServices\nManager/Secretary to the Planning Board; Jon Biggs,\nPlanning Services Manager, Doug Vu Planner, Nancy\nMcPeak, Executive Assistant/Recording Secretary\nMINUTES:\nMinutes from the meeting of February 9, 2009.\nMotion to Approve as Amended: APPROVED as\nAmended 4-0-1. (Lynch abstained)\nMinutes from the meeting of February 23, 2009\nMotion to Approve as Amended: APPROVED as\nAmended 4-0-1. (Autorino abstained)\n5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nMotion to move item 9-C to first Agenda Item.\nApproved 5-0.\n6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nWritten Report\n6-A. Future Agendas- Staff presented the report.\nBoard member Lynch requested that a study session be scheduled on a future agenda\nregarding Senate Bill 375.\nBoard member Cook requested that a discussion item be scheduled on a future\nagenda regarding the Planning Board's site modification recommendations\nwhen a project is changed to include something such as the demolition of a building.\nPage 1 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-03-23", "page": 2, "text": "6-B Zoning Administrator Report-The Zoning Administrator meeting of March 17,\n2009 was canceled.\n7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nAnyone may address the Board on a topic not on the agenda under this item by\nsubmitting a speaker's information slip, subject to the 5-minute time limit.\nNONE\n8. CONSENT CALENDAR:\nConsent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or\nadopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or\nexplanation is received from the Planning Board or a member of the public by\nsubmitting a speaker slip for that item.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-C\nMajor Design Review - PLN09-0004 - 433 Buena Vista Avenue - Axis\nArchitecture for KW Alameda LLC. Design Review approval for a 3,800\nsquare foot community center, maintenance building, and minor landscaping\nmodifications to amend a previously approved Design Review for a 6,000\nsquare-foot community center, four detached garages, carports, and other\nexterior and site modifications to existing apartment buildings (DR04-0113). (DV)\nStaff presented a Power Point presentation outlining the project.\nMichael Gold, a representative for Kennedy Wilson, the applicant, was introduced and\nmade a brief statement thanking the public for their support of the project.\nShawn Alexander, the architect on the project was introduced and gave a presentation\nshowing the buildings prior to the improvements made by Kennedy Wilson and the\nimprovements made since acquiring the property. Mr. Alexander also displayed\ndiagrams of the proposed changes.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThomas Cooke, Bonanza Apartments, spoke in favor of the project. Mr. Cooke is the\nsite Manager of the Bonanza Apartments located directly across from the street from\nthe project. Mr. Cooke stated that prior to Kennedy Wilson's renovation of the site there\nwere daily problems at the property, since they have taken over he has had no\nproblems. He mentioned that the parking is still an issue in the area.\nPage 2 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-03-23", "page": 3, "text": "Nicole Strasser, resident, spoke in favor of the project. She stated that she is very\npleased with the decision to remove the garages from the plan because of the parking\nproblems on the property. She complemented Summerhouse for the job they are doing\non the property.\nLt. Sean Lynch, Alameda Police Department, spoke in favor of the project. Lt. Lynch\nstated that he is the evening watch commander for the area and the property has\nchanged dramatically since the renovation of the site and buildings. The area was\npreviously a high crime, high police volume property and was a financial drain on the\nCity of Alameda. Lt. Lynch stated that the transformation at Summerhouse is an\noutstanding example of how you can change a negative into a positive.\nKathy Moehring, Executive Director, West Alameda Business Association (WABA),\nspoke in favor of the project. Ms. Moehring stated that Summerhouse is a wonderful\ncommunity partner and that the developer has created an environment that is safe,\nbeautiful and a welcome addition to West Alameda.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she conducted a site visit and was very\nimpressed with the Complex. She is concerned with the lack of parking and was told\nthat the turn over rate is high because of it. She suggested that WABA possibly look at\nintroducing a Zip Car or City Car Share program at the site. She is also concerned with\nthe reduction in the community center space and would like to hear that issue\naddressed.\nThe applicant responded that although the buildings are going to be smaller there is not\ngoing to be a reduction in amenities. He stated that the temporary leasing office,\nconsisting of approximately 1,000 square feet will eventually be opened up for use as a\ncommunity center for the residents.\nPresident Kohlstrand mentioned that during a site visit she noticed a fitness center\nlocated in one of the units and questioned if it was permanent.\nThe applicant responded that a 1,000 square foot fitness center is planned in the new\ncommunity center and the fitness center in the unit was not permanent.\nBoard member Cook stated that she had originally voted against the project. She is\npleased the garages and carports have been removed from the plans. Although she\nwould like to see the trellises kept and is concerned that there are not enough trees in\nthe parking lot and throughout the complex.\nStaff responded that once the plan for the parking lot is completed it will adhere to the\nCity of Alameda's current standard of one tree per four parking spaces. The applicant\nwill be planting approximately 148 trees in the parking lot for a total of 172 trees in and\naround the parking area.\nPage 3 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-03-23", "page": 4, "text": "Board member Cook stated that the current plans do not show as many trees as the old\nplans. She feels that more trees are necessary to break up the massiveness of the\nbuildings. She also mentioned that the old plans show more trees on the northwest\narea of the site.\nThe applicant responded that some of the trees within the complex near the buildings\nhave been taken out. The thought was that once those trees mature they would cause\ndarkness in the units so more trees were placed around the perimeter on the current\nplans to contribute to a park like setting and allow natural light for the units.\nBoard member Cook stated that she would like more trees in the parking lot area so that\nthe residents are not overlooking just the vehicles but have some greenery.\nThe applicant stated that they could place more trees along the perimeter of the\nbuildings near the parking lot. Although another concern with placing more trees closer\nto the buildings along the parking lot is lighting as the lights for the parking lot are on the\nbuildings and more trees would prohibit light from going deeper into the parking lot.\nBoard member Cook requested that staff take another look at the tree planting plans to\nensure that the park like setting previously approved by the Planning Board is adhered\nto. She also asked about the trellises that were originally planned in the parking lot.\nThe applicant responded that the trellises were reconsidered due to the heaviness they\nbrought to the area and the concern that they could conceal some undesirable activities.\nThe developer stated that the plan is to have vines covering the utility buildings where\nthe trellises were slated to go.\nBoard member Cook is also concerned with the community room and believes that it\nshould be next to the pool and have a kitchen for use by the residents. She feels that\nthe community room should be the heart of the project. In addition, she feels that the\nsite is isolated from the community and would like to see a place for neighboring\nresidents to have access to and across the site, as was included in the West Alameda\nNeighborhood Improvement Plan.\nThe applicant stated that there are pedestrian gates around the property that residents\ncan use via a key, but non residents do not have this access.\nBoard member Autorino asked if there had been any negative comments by residents\nregarding the removal of the garages.\nThe applicants responded that there were none to their knowledge.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft agreed that the community room needs to be improved.\nShe feels that the tree plan is sufficient. She feels that allowing access to the\nneighboring residents would destroy the sense of security at the site.\nPage 4 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-03-23", "page": 5, "text": "Board member Lynch stated that he believes that the addition of a kitchen could be a\nmanagement issue. He is comfortable with the barbeque area as filling that need.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft disagreed stating that a kitchen would be a nice amenity.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated that she also is happy to see the garages removed from the\nplans and opening the area up for additional parking spaces. She feels that as long as\nthe tree plan adheres to the City of Alameda's current standards it is sufficient. She\nstated that she likes the new building design and feels it fits better on the site. She\nagrees that allowing access to the neighboring residents would make for easier access\nto Ralph Appezzato Parkway but noticed that the residents in the audience disagree\nand feel that it would destroy the sense of security. She asked when the applicant\nplans on finishing the landscaping.\nThe applicant responded that it is contingent on the out come of tonight's meeting.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked about the status of the West Alameda Neighborhood\nImprovement Plan and how it relates to the site.\nStaff responded that the plan was adopted in August 2005 and recognized the problems\nwith public access through the apartment complex. The access improvement that the\nplan identified was from the south side of the property towards the College of Alameda\nand Appezzato Parkway. The City would need to obtain the land through an easement\nor property rights along the east perimeter between the Summerhouse Complex and the\nsingle-family homes next door to construct a walkway. Such improvements are\ncontingent on whether or not the City could obtain the property.\nBob Hart, President of Kennedy-Wilson suggested that the community room be placed\nin the proposed fitness center space near the pool and the fitness center be moved into\nthe temporary leasing space.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would be happy with that compromise.\nBoard member Cook moved/Board member Lynch seconded the motion to amend\nthe resolution to state that the applicant will provide approximately 3,200 square\nfeet of community space and fitness area and a 1,200 square foot community\nroom will be near the pool in the space originally slated for the fitness room. The\nmotion carried 5-0.\n9-A. Density Bonus Ordinance - Citywide - City of Alameda. Recommendation to\nthe City Council on the proposed Density Bonus Ordinance and proposed\nNegative Declaration. (JB)\nPage 5 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-03-23", "page": 6, "text": "Staff addressed previously asked questions and concerns regarding the Density Bonus\nOrdinance. One of the questions was whether the City can place a cap on incentives or\nconcessions. The City can include caps in the Ordinance but by doing so the applicant\ncan still request an exception to those caps. Another item of clarification was the mobile\nhome park section which has been amended to state Mobile Home Parks for Senior\nHousing. Section 30-17.10b was changed to read that historic properties will be\nidentified by the National Register of Historic Places and the references to Measure A\nhave been changed to read Article 26 of the Alameda City Charter.\nStaff gave a power point presentation outlining the Density Bonus Ordinance and\nNegative Declaration.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft commended staff for providing a thorough report. She\nquestioned if the rights of tenants are preserved in a condominium conversion under the\nDensity Bonus Ordinance.\nStaff responded that the tenants rights are preserved.\nBoard member Lynch asked what portion the redevelopment area of the City covers.\nStaff responded that the redevelopment area consists of all of the Alameda\nPoint/Alameda Landing area and from that area all the way across the Northern\nWaterfront to Bridgeside Shopping Center at Fruitvale Avenue. All of Webster Street\nand Park Street are also on the map.\nBoard member Cook asked if the City can negotiate with the developer regarding a\nconcession that is on the list.\nStaff responded that the City can negotiate on concessions but the City will need to\nprove that the concession is not necessary to make the project feasible. Staff also\nstated that it is important to craft a list that the City does not want to grant exceptions to.\nBoard member Cook stated that she believes the shorter the list the easier it will be to\nnegotiate the concessions.\nStaff mentioned that the developer can request a concession that is necessary to make\nthe project feasible and the City would need to prove that the project can work without it.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nChristopher Buckley of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS)\nreferenced a letter sent to the Planning Board which has since been adopted by APPS\nas a recommendation. The letter stated that the society is concerned with the way the\nOrdinance is crafted that it may allow too many incentives or concessions that could\nadversely affect the character of Alameda's neighborhoods. Also stated was that the\nOrdinance should include caps on the amount of increase and decrease on items like a\nPage 6 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-03-23", "page": 7, "text": "reduction in setbacks or increase in height. Also suggested was that the concessions\nbe limited to only those mandated by the State of California. In regards to the parking\nrequirements it is suggested that the City require established parking and if the\napplicant wants to ask for a parking concession the burden of proof will be on them to\ndemonstrate it is necessary. A clarification was made to Page 9, Section 30-17.10b\nwhich stated the \"City's List of Officially Designated Architecturally and Historic\nSignificant Buildings\", should read \"properties designated a City of Alameda Historical\nMonument or included in the City of Alameda's Historical Building Study List\".\nDiane Licatenstein of H.O.M.E.S. stated that they feel there is a need for diagrams\nshowing the designs resulting from changing height and setback limits and design.\nH.O.M.E.S favors anything that allows a mixture of housing types in Alameda. She\nstated that Alameda has a satisfactory inclusionary housing program although believes\nthat the 25% affordable housing requirement should be Citywide and not just in the\nredevelopment area. She also stated that the proposal could potentially damage\nlivability by changing the allowed setbacks and specifically mandating usable public\nspace. She urges the City to evaluate the design impacts the Density Bonus Ordinance\nmight pose and review what design guidelines would need to be adopted based on\ngood planning principles to make the ordinance an acceptable regulation for the City of\nAlameda.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nBoard member Lynch stated for clarification that the Density Bonus Ordinance does not\nwaive the City of Alameda design guidelines. He also stated that the ordinance needs\nto have a range of incentives and the option to say no to certain ones.\nPresident Kohlstrand requested clarification on the parking requirements.\nStaff responded that if the developer request that the state's parking requirements are\nused it will not count as a concession and they can request another one. The developer\ncan request that the parking requirements be reduced even further as a concession.\nBoard member Cook asked for clarification on the list of incentives.\nStaff responded that the list in the State ordinance is to serve as examples of the types\nof incentives that may be granted. The developer can ask for just about anything aside\nfrom monetary compensation.\nBoard member Cook stated that instead of the increased maximum lot coverage she\nwould rather have a waiver to Measure A and have the buildings connected to allow for\nmore open space around the structures. She also questioned allowing the live/work\nunits within multi-family residential districts stating that a large portion of the main island\nof Alameda is zoned multi-family and this could bring more industrial uses into those\nneighborhoods.\nPage 7 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-03-23", "page": 8, "text": "Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the projects will need to come to the Planning\nBoard prior to approval at which time these concerns can be addressed.\nStaff stated that the Planning Board or City Council will still have discretion to deny a\nconcession or incentive on a project if they feel is not necessary.\nBoard member Autorino voiced his concern over reducing the affordable income\nrequirement from 25% to 15% in the redevelopment areas stating that it will reduce the\namount of affordable housing yet increase the density.\nStaff stated that the redevelopment areas are going to be denser by nature.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated that if you leave the requirement at 25% then you are only\nincreasing the cost of the market rate housing to cover the increased amount of\naffordable housing.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft agrees and is concerned that the 25% requirement could\nscare developers away and make many projects unfeasible.\nBoard member Cook feels that it is a good idea to put caps on the concessions. She\nalso asked about the scenario when two lots are purchased next to each other.\nStaff responded that the property owners could combine the lots to make a larger site to\nallow a multi-family project and as long as all of the other requirements are met they can\nrequest the project be considered for the density bonus.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated that she doe not feel that it is beneficial to put caps on the\nconcessions because it could limit the flexibility the City has to negotiate.\nBoard member Cook suggested staff look at what other Cities are doing.\nStaff stated that you can place caps on the concessions but when it comes down to it if\nthe developer really needs the concession they will argue for it whether it is capped or\nnot, unless there is something specific in the State law allowing for a cap.\nBoard member Lynch stated that he wants to give the Planning staff as much flexibility\nas possible to negotiate the best project.\nBoard member Cook is concerned that there is not more opposition to reducing the\ninclusionary affordable housing requirement from 25% to 15%.\nBoard member Lynch stated that many cities are waiving the inclusionary requirements\ndue to the large amount of affordable housing units available in these economic times.\nBoard member Autorino moved/Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the\nmotion to approve the staff recommended Density Bonus Ordinance including\nPage 8 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-03-23", "page": 9, "text": "the amendment for live/work units with the exception of the reduction of the 25%\nrequirement for affordable housing in the redevelopment areas. The motion\ncarried 5-0.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft moved/Board member Lynch seconded the staff\nrecommendation that the inclusionary housing requirement be made 15%\nthroughout the City of Alameda and brought forward to City Council after being\nconsidered by the Economic Development Commission and the Housing\nCommission for comment. The motion carried 4-1 (Autorino no).\nBoard member Cook recommended/Board member Lynch seconded the adoption\nof the Negative Declaration. The motion carried 5-0.\n9-B. Stargell Avenue Extension Landscape Master Plan - Applicant - City of\nAlameda. The City of Alameda requests approval of a landscape master plan for\nsite improvements within public rights-of-way along the proposed Wilver \"Willie\"\nStargell Avenue extension to Webster Street. (DV)\nStaff gave a report describing the project.\nStaff introduced Todd Young of Gates and Associates, the landscape architect on the\nproject. Mr. Young gave a power point presentation describing the project.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked what sort of work is currently being done at the street site.\nMr. Young introduced Dina Tasini the project manager. Ms. Tasini stated that they are\ncurrently trenching for utilities at the site.\nPresident Kohlstrand questioned the row of trees on the east side of Webster Street,\nstating they are not on the plans the Planning Board received.\nAlex Channing of Gates and Associates responded that the only plantings in that area\nwill be shrubs.\nBoard member Cook questioned if Webster Street is going over or under the ramp for\nConstitution Way.\nMr. Young responded that Webster Street will continue to go under the ramp.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nChristopher Buckley of the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) referred to a\nletter written by WABA to the Planning Board. Mr. Buckley stated that WABA is very\nexcited for the project to go through and commended Gates & Associates for the\nthoughtfulness and creativity displayed in their design submittals. WABA has three\nspecific recommendations. The first recommendation is to have the Crepe Myrtle trees\nPage 9 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-03-23", "page": 10, "text": "shown on the west side of Webster Street north of Stargell Avenue along the bioswale\nbe replaced with Flowering Pear trees.\nMr. Young stated that the change was made because the Flowering Pear trees do not\nwork well with the bioswales because they cannot tolerate having wet feet and would\nnot survive very long with all of the water. The Crepe Myrtle trees can tolerate the\nwater.\nMr. Buckley stated that the concern with the Crepe Myrtle trees is that they will\nencroach into the roadway.\nMr. Young stated that the trees meet the requirements of Cal Trans.\nMr. Buckley also stated that section A through Webster Street shows Washington\nHawthorn in the median and that appears to be a mistake and it should be Crepe\nMyrtle. WABA feels that irrigation, electrical and other infrastructure should be\ndesigned to allow future installation of additional streetscape elements as follow-up\nprojects when funding is available such as an entry arch or other gateway structure on\nWebster Street south of Stargell, replacement of cobrahead light fixtures with more\ndecorative fixtures and continuing the addition of \"acorn\" street lights from the tube\nportals all the way down to Central Avenue. Mr. Buckley asked that the Planning Board\napprove the project with the addition of the aforementioned items.\nMr. Young stated that Mr. Buckley was correct and the Crepe Myrtle should be in the\nmedian in Section A.\nDina Tasini, the Project Manager, stated that she has met with WABA to go over how to\naccommodate their concerns for the future improvements without any cost. Ms. Tasini\nreported that the conduit was sized so that it could handle additional electrical for\nlighting at a later date. Also there is a scope of work to look into the entryway and what\ncould be put there. She also mentioned that City Council has approved the construction\nof the street portion of the project.\nPresident Kohlstrand questioned the idea of an archway and wondered if any item\nplaced in the area would need to be approved by the Planning Board.\nMs. Tasini stated that it is not a specific that they are looking at, but the parameters of\nthe area and soil structure. Anything placed in the area will first need to be approved by\nthe Planning Board.\nBoard Member Cook asked if there were traffic signals at the cross walks to Neptune\nPark.\nMr. Young stated that there are traffic signals at the cross walk to Neptune Park.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked if there was a sidewalk on the east side of Webster Street.\nPage 10 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-03-23", "page": 11, "text": "Ms. Tasini stated that there will be a side walk going to the north towards Ralph\nAppezzato Parkway but not south towards the Posey Tube.\nPresident Kohlstrand questioned why there isn't a cross walk across Stargell near the\nintersection with Mariner Square Loop.\nMs. Tasini stated that it was probably a Cal Trans issue but that she would look in to it.\nPresident Kohlstrand suggested that the lawn area at the intersection of Stargell and\nMariner Square Loop should be planted with a more environmental sustainable\nvegetation. Also she wants to make sure that there is a full compliment of sidewalks in\nthe area.\nMr. Young stated that they can look at a different ground covering in that area.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked if the land owned by Catellus needs to follow the same\nlandscape guidelines when it is developed.\nStaff responded that when that parcel gets developed they will need to adhere to this\nMaster Plan.\nBoard member Cook moved/Board member Lynch seconded the motion to\napprove the Stargell Avenue Extension Landscape Master Plan with the provision\nthat the lawn area be planted with a more environmentally sustainable vegetation.\nThe motion carried 5-0.\n9-D. Bay Friendly Landscaping Ordinance - Applicant - City of Alameda. The\nPlanning Board will consider a proposed Alameda Municipal Code amendment\nrelated to creation of a Civic Bay Friendly Landscaping Ordinance requiring\nsustainable landscaping practices for City and public-private partnership projects\nor renovations that equal or exceed $100,000 in construction costs. (DV)\nMotion to continue this item to the meeting of April 13, 2009.\nApproved 5-0.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nBoard members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or\nmake a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a referral\nto staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body\nat a subsequent meeting concerning a City matter or, through the chair, direct staff to\nplace a request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda.\nNone.\nPage 11 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-03-23", "page": 12, "text": "12. ADJOURNMENT:\n10:55 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThis meeting was audio and video taped.\nPage 12 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf"}