{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2010-05-24", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nCOMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nMay 24, 2010\n1.\nROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:40 P.M.\nPresent: Chair Krongold, Commissioners Fort, Moore and Warren.\nAbsent: Vice-Chair Tam, Commissioners Lord-Hausman and Kirola.\n2.\nMINUTES\nThe April 26, 2010 minutes were approved with no changes.\n3.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nChair Krongold requested that visitors introduce themselves.\n4.\nNEW BUSINESS\n4-A.\nPedestrian Signals (Virendra Patel, Public Works)\nVirendra Patel of the Public Works Department, discussed the installation of accessible\nsignals at the intersection of Island Drive and Robert Davey, Jr. regarding the proposed\ncount down signals and truncated dome. Mr. Patel is seeking CDI approval. The CDI\nunanimously approved the project and thanked Mr. Patel for his time.\n4-B.\nPrograms & Services for Students with Disabilities (Helene Maxwell, College of\nAlameda, DSPS)\nChair Krongold introduced Ms. Maxwell whom she met at a College of Alameda (COA)\nAdvisory Meeting. The Chair requested that Ms. Maxwell speak to the CDI regarding\naccessible programs and provide information regarding the overall program. Ms. Maxwell\nstated that DSPS funding has been reduced 45% by the state. Community colleges were to\nreceive $130 million dollars in Federal stimulus funding and the state legislatures provided\nonly $45 million dollars. Ms. Maxwell described the various programs offered through the\ncollege. Ms. Maxwell also pointed out that there are state mandated laws that the\nCommunity Colleges are required to meet, but acknowledged that all states are experiencing\nbudget cuts.\nCommissioner Warren asked what district Senator Steinberg represents to which Ms.\nMaxwell responded Sacramento, although he is a key decision maker in funding.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2010-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2010-05-24", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nMay 24,\n2010\nPage 2 of 3\nMs. Maxwell reviewed various actions that individuals and the CDI could pursue, including\ncontacting State and Federal representatives. Ms. Maxwell requested that the CDI\ncommunicate with the new President of COA, upon Dr. George Herring's retirement. She\nalso requested that the CDI write a letter of support for an impending Department of\nRehabilitation grant.\nChair Krongold asked when the deadline is for the grant to which Ms. Maxwell responded\nJune 30.\nChair Krongold asked when the new president of COA would be appointed to which Ms.\nMaxwell responded within two weeks.\nCommissioner Moore stated that she will write a letter and follow up with an e-mail.\nThe CDI agreed to write a letter of support for the grant. Commissioner Moore suggested\nutilizing students to support the program to which Ms. Maxwell agreed.\n5.\nOLD BUSINESS\n5-A.\nCDI Vision Planning (Chair Krongold)\nChair Krongold distributed and discussed the draft CDI Vision Planning which she and\nCommissioner Lord-Hausman put together. The draft covered the partnership, celebration of\nthe 20-year anniversary of the ADA and a presentation to Council which will lead up to\nDisability Awareness Month activities during the month of October.\nCommissioner Moore stated that the goals are limited to accessibility and seniors vs.\nyounger individual and omits events that would support the entire community.\nCommissioner Warren gave a presentation on another goal oriented event which includes art,\ncreating a movie and a reception. Commissioner Warren spoke with the Recreation and Park\nDepartment regarding use of the O'Club and costs.\nChair Krongold suggested that the bulk of the June meeting should be to discuss CDI Vision\nPlanning and goals to which the Commission agreed.\n5-B.\nParatransit Advisory Planning Committee (PAPCO) (Commissioner Lord-\nHausman)\nCommissioner Lord-Hausman was not present.\nG:\\Lucretia)CommDisability\\Minutes(2010\\Minutes_May 24 2010.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2010-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2010-05-24", "page": 3, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nMay 24,\n2010\nPage 3 of 3\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nThere were no staff communications.\n7.\nANNOUNCEMENTS\n1.\nKelly Harp with Community Resources for Independent Living, distributed fliers\nregarding two upcoming events regarding ADA Anniversary Festival.\n2.\nSecretary Akil stated she and Chair Krongold would be meeting regarding the\nADA/CDI website.\n8.\nADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 7:52 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, June 28, 2010\nat 6:30 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLucretia Akil\nBoard Secretary\nG:\\Lucretia)CommDisability\\Minutes/2010\\Minutes_May 24 2010.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2010-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-05-24", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, MAY 24, 2010\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:10 pm\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard Member Kohlstrand\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresent President Ezzy Ashcraft, Board members Cook,\nCunningham, Kohlstrand, Lynch, and Zuppan.\nAbsent: Vice-President Autorino\nStaff Present: Jon Biggs, Planning Board Secretary, Andrew\nThomas, Planning Services Manager, Simone Wolter,\nRecording Secretary, Farimah Faiz, City Attorney's office,\nJennifer Ott, Deputy City Manager\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes from the meeting of May 10, 2010.\nBoard Member Kohlstrand and Board member Cook provided corrections to the meeting\nminutes. Motion to approve meeting minutes as amended made by Board member\nCunningham, seconded by Board Member Zuppan. Approved as amended. 6-0.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nWritten Report\n6-A Future Agendas\nStaff presented an overview of future meetings.\n6-B Zoning Administrator Report\nThe Zoning Administrator approved a Use Permit for a second dwelling unit at 2412\nClement Avenue at the Zoning Administrator Hearing on May 18, 2010. A Use Permit for a\ndirectional sign on Tilden Way was withdrawn from the agenda and continued to a later\ndate.\nOral Report\nNone.\nPlanning Board\nPage 1 of 8\nApproved Meeting Minutes 5/24/2010", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-05-24", "page": 2, "text": "7.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8-A\nGrand Marina Village Master Plan Amendments - Applicant - Warmington\nHomes. Proposed amendments to the Grand Marina Master Plan to maintain\nconsistency with the City of Alameda affordable housing program and amendments\nto landscaping plans. The property is located at the intersection of Grand Street\nand Fortmann Way and is zoned M-X Mixed Use.\nBoard member Cook requested that the item be pulled from the Consent agenda so she\ncould ask some clarifying questions about the project. Item 8-A was moved and heard as\nthe first item under 9, Regular Agenda Items.\n8-B\nCommunity Commercial Zoning Ordinance Amendments-Applicant City of\nAlameda, West Alameda Business Association, and Park Street Business\nAssociation. Proposed amendments to the Community Commercial Zoning District\nrelated to certain retail uses and height limits. The Community Commercial zoning\ndistrict applies to areas in the Park Street and Webster Street Commercial Areas.\nStaff is requested that the item be continued to the Planning Board meeting of\nJuly 12, 2010\nMotion by Board Member Kohlstrand to continue the item to the July 12, 2010\nmeeting, seconded by Board Member Lynch. Motion passes 6-0. Board Member Lynch\nrequested that staff work with the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society to fine-tune\nthe proposed ordinance language.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A\nGrand Marina Village Master Plan Amendments - Applicant - Warmington\nHomes. Proposed amendments to the Grand Marina Master Plan to maintain\nconsistency with the City of Alameda affordable housing program and\namendments to landscaping plans. The property is located at the intersection of\nGrand Street and Fortmann Way and is zoned M-X Mixed Use.\nBoard member Cook asked whether the Planning Board would have had the ability to\nrequire more public amenities or a better site plan in this development when this project\nwas originally reviewed and why more public amenities are not being included with the\nrequest for fewer affordable housing units.\nStaff responded that the current status of the economy makes financing and profitability of\nthese developments difficult. In order to move forward with the phased development, the\napplicant, Warmington Homes, was requesting a decrease in the number of affordable units\npursuant to the new inclusionary housing requirements that were adopted by the City\nPlanning Board\nPage 2 of 8\nApproved Meeting Minutes 5/24/2010", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-05-24", "page": 3, "text": "Council in 2009.\nBoard Member Lynch asked if the City was involved in the financing process and who\nmonitors these developments to insure the required number of units are being sold at rates\nthat meet affordable housing requirements.\nStaff stated that the review and monitoring of affordable units would be done by the City of\nAlameda Housing Authority.\nBoard Member Kohlstrand and Board member Cook commended Warmington Homes on\nthe quality of the model homes. Although Board member Cook felt that the site [plan\nshould have been brought back for Planning Board review in light of the request for fewer\naffordable units.\nBoard Member Kohlstrand motioned, seconded by Board member Cunningham, to\namend the Master Plan. Motion passes 5-1, with Board member Cook voting no.\n9-A\nCONTINUED from May 10, 2010 -- Entitlement Application for Proposed Alameda\nPoint Project\nJennifer Ott, Deputy City Manager, presented an update on the project.\nBoard Member Kohlstrand motioned, seconded by Board Member Lynch to reopen\nthe public comment period. Motion passed 6-0.\nMr. Sweeney, Alameda resident, is opposed to the project for the lack of feasible financing\nconcepts, transportation issues, and conflict with zoning plans. He also stated\nenvironmental impact report is inadequate.\nMrs. Sweeney, Alameda resident, is opposed to the project because she is concerned it is\nin an area that is seismically unstable and will not be able to withstand significant\nearthquakes.\nMs. Decker, Alameda resident, is in favor of a transit-oriented development with good\npedestrian access. She favors concentrated density to make transit alternatives feasible.\nMr. Krueger, Alameda resident, favors the current proposal and the density bonus option in\nparticular. He added his support for transit-oriented development.\nStaff clarified that SunCal prefers the Density Bonus alternative and that the EIR would\nanalyze this alternative against other proposals. Staff added that the scope of the EIR has\nnot been negotiated at this time.\nBoard member Cunningham suggested that the alternative analysis evaluate in simple\nterms the physical layout and benefit analysis of the higher density and other alternatives in\norder to build consensus amongst the community.\nPlanning Board\nPage 3 of 8\nApproved Meeting Minutes 5/24/2010", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-05-24", "page": 4, "text": "Board Member Kohlstrand supports an alternative that concentrates density to allow more\nopen space in other areas. She would like to see an alternative that preserves the Least\nTern habitat. She would also like to see that an analysis be done on the level of density that\nis required to support the essential services such as transportation, infrastructure, schools,\nand what additional density could support other miscellaneous amenities like a sports\ncomplex or marina.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked that the alternatives analyze the impact of timing of toxic\nclean-up by the Navy on the proposed project. She stated that the current plan lacks\nspecifics on commercial trucking impacts and the ferry terminal location. She noted that the\npublic transit systems is precarious and is concerned about the longevity of the systems.\nBoard Member Lynch stated that the planning process for the development has not been\ntransparent and the public has not been given the opportunity to provide input on the\nproposed plan and to prioritize the important features needed and required by the\ncommunity.\nBoard Member Cook stated that the developer provided a considerable amount of public\noutreach and tried to build a consensus with the community, but that the process was\ndifferent than the typical review process in the City and perhaps was less comprehensible\nto the public.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the proposed plan lacks specific details and assurances\non transit, streetscape design, financing, housing types, sustainability plans, and historic\nand habitat preservation. She would like to see the EIR address wetland impacts, Least\nTern habitat impacts, and historic preservation. She asked whether the proposed Veterans\nAdministration facility could be incorporated into the SunCal development area, to facilitate\njob creation in the commercial areas.\nBoard Member Zuppan is concerned that the assumptions for seismic building stability, for\nexample cripple wall strengths, have changed since the Chilean earthquake and would now\nlike to see that the proposed buildings are evaluated against the new set of data or\nrequirements gleaned from that natural disaster. She would like to see that the street\ninfrastructure be evaluated for tertiary impacts, like the width of streets being adequate for\ngarbage trucks. She added that she does not want the rest of the City being negatively\nimpacted by the development. She would like to see that the proposal's phased approach\nevaluated, as well as ongoing impacts to residents. She supports sustainability concepts,\nbut would like to have them evaluated in the EIR, so that one could understand the\nenvironmental impacts of green systems. In addition, she supports historic preservation\nthat is reasonably feasible. While she supports increased density, she is concerned that\nhigh-rise buildings could create turbulent wind and shading impacts. She requested that\ndata points be developed to evaluate the economic feasibility and need for density\nbonuses.\nBoard member Cook stated that the proposed development's setbacks appear to create a\nPlanning Board\nPage 4 of 8\nApproved Meeting Minutes 5/24/2010", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-05-24", "page": 5, "text": "very compact and monotonous development plan. She urged the land planners to develop\nmore site and building lay out variations and carefully review the proposed development\nstandards.\nBoth Board Member Lynch questioned the parking space need assumptions as being too\nlimited.\nBoard member Cook stated that the proposed plan lacks specificity regarding what\nelements would in fact be provided by the project which were merely project goals and that\nit is unclear what elements of the plan would be provided by the developer or the City.\nBoard member Cunningham commented that the EIR should also review the impacts of not\nredeveloping Alameda Point, which would likely negatively impact the City of Alameda.\nBoard Member Lynch asked what the City's involvement will be for the development of\nAlameda.\nStaff responded that the City has not finalized the Development Agreement that would\noutline the dollar amount that the City would put into the project. City staff is currently\nevaluating the pro forma for the density bonus alternative.\nMr. Braun, SunCal representative, described the past public outreach effort. He stated that\nSunCal's polling efforts resulted in wide-spread community support for Measure B, but a\nlack of understanding of the financial details and transportation issues resulted in its defeat.\nHe explained that SunCal is committed to a timely and economical land analysis as well as\ndeveloping in-depth design guidelines for buildings and structures.\nBoard member Lynch stated that he does not agree that there was wide-spread support for\nMeasure B, for if there was the Measure would have passed.\nThe Board thanked staff and the SunCal representatives for the information they provided\nand responses to questions. The President of the Board noted the item would be coming\nback to the Planning Board at a future meeting for consideration. The Board took no further\naction on the project at this time.\n9-B\nBoatworks Project 2229 Clement-Public Hearing to a Proposed Reduced\nDensity Alternative for the Property. The City of Alameda Planning Board will be\nholding a public hearing to receive comments on a proposed reduced density\nalternative for the property. The alternative would reduce the number of housing\nunits from 242 to approximately 175 and increase the public open space from less\nthan a 1/4 acre to approximately two acres. Major issues for discussion will include\nextension of Elm Street and Blanding Street, proposed standards and guidelines for\nthe design of the proposed housing, and park design criteria. The public is\nencouraged to attend and participate in the discussion. No final action will be taken\nby the Planning Board at this meeting.\nPlanning Board\nPage 5 of 8\nApproved Meeting Minutes 5/24/2010", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-05-24", "page": 6, "text": "Mr. Thomas, Planning Services Manager, introduced the project.\nMr. Banta, Project Architect, presented the reduced density alternative project with 179\nunits.\nBoard Members Cook, Zuppan, and Lynch expressed concern with the proposed road\npattern or street layout and requested that the Alameda street grid pattern be incorporated\nand an effort be made to tie proposed roadways with Elm Street and Blanding Avenue.\nBoard member Cunningham asked whether the project has received a preliminary approval\nby the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC).\nStaff responded that BCDC was favorable to the project and supportive of the proposed\namount of public open space along the waterfront.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft noted concern that the street pattern does not incorporate\naccessibility features for those with disabilities and there are limited public parking\nopportunities for accessing the waterfront park area.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft opened the public comment period.\nBoard member Cook motioned, seconded by Board Member Kohlstrand to limit the speaker\ntime to 3 minutes per person.\nMr. Sweeney, Alameda resident, is disappointed that the park along the waterfront is not in\nthe amount of land called for in the General Plan. He hesitantly supports the lower density\nresidential concept, but is concerned about impacts to Park Street traffic levels.\nMrs. Sweeney, Alameda resident, is disheartened that there will not be a 4-acre park on\nthis site. She recommended that public restrooms be included close to the public access\narea. She expressed opposition to the four-story residential apartment complex.\nMs. Redfield, Alameda resident, is supportive of redevelopment of the site, but is\nconcerned with the design of the development. She is disappointed that the park is not\nlarger and that it will appear to be for the exclusive use of residents of the development.\nMr. Bolton, Elm Street resident, stated his concern with traffic increases along Clement\nAvenue when the traffic levels of this development are coupled with those generated by the\nGrand Marina development. He would like to see more parking provided for the residents of\nthe development and for those using public open spaces.\nMs. Field, Elm Street resident, is disappointed that the park will not be larger. She\nrecommended that the proposed park be landscaped like the Union Point Park on the\nOakland Embarcadero. She is concerned that the apartment complex and the residential\nbuildings are too tall at three and four stories respectively.\nPlanning Board\nPage 6 of 8\nApproved Meeting Minutes 5/24/2010", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-05-24", "page": 7, "text": "Mr. Kim, Elm Street resident, while supportive of redevelopment, is concerned about the\ntraffic circulation pattern and the appearance of a closed-off development without easy\npublic access to park spaces. He added that the design of the development is not\npedestrian friendly. He recommended that the developer be asked to provide some\neconomic feasibility analysis to explain to the public why the number of dwelling units is so\nhigh.\nMr. Ratto, Executive Director Park Street Business Association, spoke in favor of the\nreduced density concept and expressed his hopes that this project will remedy the blighted\nappearance of the property and spark the Park Street renaissance. He supported the 2-\nacre park and the narrowing of Blanding Avenue through the development.\nMr. Jones, Alameda resident, is concerned that the traffic impacts will be significant on\nPark Street. He requested that public amenities be included in the development.\nMs. McNally, Alameda resident, finds it difficult to understand the Density Bonus and how it\nis applied to projects in Alameda.\nMs. Decker, Alameda resident, is in favor of the redevelopment of the site with a\nsustainable, pedestrian-oriented development. She recommended that the higher buildings\nare stepped back from public space frontages to create a favorable pedestrian\nenvironment.\nMr. Krueger, Alameda resident, favors extending the street grid to continue through the\nsite. He is concerned that the proposed project would appear to be closed-off and prevent\npublic access to the waterfront. He recommends that Elm Street be continued down to the\nwaterfront.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft closed the public comment period.\nBoard Member Kohlstrand commended the effort to revise the project. She is supportive of\nthe green space extending from Clement Avenue towards the waterfront, with parking and\nvehicular access. However, she strongly encouraged that Elm Street and Blanding Avenue\nbe extended through the site. The streets need to have standard widths and must maintain\nthe streetscape of the rest of the City. She favors removing alleyways and pedestrian\npathways and integrating vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian pathways, plus adding on-\nstreet parking. She is concerned that the current proposal does not provide adequate\naccess to the waterfront or public parking spaces for this use. Instead of higher buildings,\nshe prefers allowing reduced or zero side yard setbacks.\nBoard member Cunningham is concerned that the streets' width and feel will not be\ncompatible with the rest of the city. He supports continuing Elm Street to the waterfront and\nis concerned that there are six access points for traffic onto Clement Avenue.\nBoard member Cook is supportive of the sustainable development aspects, but is\nconcerned that the applicant is not really addressing concerns raised in the last meeting,\nPlanning Board\nPage 7 of 8\nApproved Meeting Minutes 5/24/2010", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-05-24", "page": 8, "text": "with respect to the street grid pattern and traffic impacts during peak travel times. She finds\nthat the public access to the waterfront is too small and insufficient and, in essence, seems\nto privatize this public space. She recommended that the applicant consider other locations\nfor the multi-family structure.\nBoard Member Zuppan supports the redevelopment of the blighted site, but is very\nconcerned about the lack of public parking and the sense that this development appears\nclosed-off to Alameda with access to the public park restricted. She favors that Blanding\nAvenue and Elm Street be continued through the development and that there be vehicular\naccess to the waterfront. She supported Board member Cook's recommendation from the\nlast meeting to include opportunities for commercial ventures along the waterfront.\nBoard Member Lynch requested that information be provided on the feasibility analysis so\nthat the Board can properly evaluate the density bonus proposal.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft is supportive of the sustainability concepts of this development.\nShe favors a continuation of the existing street grid pattern through this development and\npublic access to the waterfront park along with providing parking for visitors to this park.\nShe is supportive of the need to separate vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian travel paths,\nbut is concerned about having to many street intersections along Clement Avenue.\nFollowing Board member comments, the President noted that a lot of input had been\nprovided by the Public and the Board and emphasized that this information should be given\ncareful consideration when the final site plan is developed. No additional action was taken\nby the Board at this time, but it was noted that this project would need to come back to the\nBoard at a later meeting date for consideration.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT: 10:45pm\nPlanning Board\nPage 8 of 8\nApproved Meeting Minutes 5/24/2010", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-05-24.pdf"}