{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2012-02-27", "page": 1, "text": "UNAPPROVED\nCOMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nFebruary 27, 2012\n1.\nROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:36 P.M.\nPresent: Chair Lord-Hausman, Commissioners Krongold, Tam, Warren and Fort.\nAbsent: Vice-Chair Harp Commissioners Deutsch, Kirola and Moore.\n2.\nMINUTES\n2-A.\nThe minutes were approved with no changes.\n3.\nORALCOMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nGuest JoanAnn Radu-Sinaiko, Alameda resident, conveyed that she was injured within\nseveral months of moving into the City and decided to visit the CDI meeting.\n4.\nNEW BUSINESS\n4-A.\nGoals and Objectives 2012 (Chair Lord-Hausman)\nChair Lord-Hausman requested input from the CDI regarding future direction for the\ncoming year, with respect to CDI services the disabled community for input to the City\nCouncil.\nCommissioner Warren would like to see more collaboration among the Commissoner's\nfor planned events.\nCommissioner Krongold would like to collaborate with Mastick Senior Center as well as\nthe Fire Department funding for the low-income / senior involvements for residential\nhousing program.\nCommissioner Fort would like some of the movies at Alameda Theatre be captioned for\nthe deaf and video description for the blind.\nChair Lord-Hausman indicated that there was a local theatre that runs movies specifically\nfor Autistic children where adjustments had to be made which falls into what\nCommissioner Fort suggests regarding exploration with the Alameda Theatre.\nCommissioner Fort replied that it would have to be compatible with others in the theatre.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2012-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2012-02-27", "page": 2, "text": "Commissioner Krongld asked if there is a separate soundtrack provided by the theatre or\nis it a non-profit, to which Commissioner Fort replied that most are not accessible except\nfor visual displays.\nSecretary Akil suggested checking what the ADA requirements would be for a private\nentity.\nCommissioner Tam stated that the Jack Kapon housing to be constructed along Lincoln\nshould include education to the community, including sensitivity training for APD for\nthose who are cognitively challenged.\nChair Lord-Hausman acknowledged the suggestions by the CDI are good and\nrecommended following through on a Universal Design Ordinance and monthly\nDisability Recognition Month.\n5.\nOLD BUSINESS\n5-A.\nUniversal Design Ordinance (Chair Lord-Hausman)\nChair Lord-Hausman acknowledged the joint meeting between the Planning Board and\nCDI. and distributed copies of the presentation by Jessica Lehman. Chair Lord-Hausman\nstated that Planning Manager Andrew Thomas recommended the CDI put forth the first\ndraft of a Universal Design Ordnance, although it may not be address for up to one year.\nChair Lord-Hausman requested a work group to begin the draft.\nCommissioner Krongold suggested working with the Mastick Senior Center to which\nChair Lord-Hausman agreed that it would be good idea to partner with them.\n5-B.\nRestructuring Boards and Commissions (Chair Lord-Hausman)\nSecretary Akil stated that there are no changes but there is a questionnaire circulating by\nthe City Manager regarding all Boards and Commissions.\n5-C.\nCity Council Meeting Report (Commissioner Fort):\nCommissioner Fort stated that the February 7th meeting included discussion with\nrestructuring Boards and Commissions but there are no changes.\n5-D.\nPlanning Board Meeting Report (Chair Lord-Hausman):\nChair Lord-Hausman stated that there has been nothing pertinent to the CDI but she will\nkeep the CDI informed should something come up.\n5-E.\nAlameda County Transition Information Faire (Chair Lord-Hausman):\nChair Lord-Hausman distributed the registration form for the Alameda County Transition\nInformation Faire, to which Vice-Chair Harp will participate and Commissioner Warren\nand Chair Lord-Hausman will try to attend.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2012-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2012-02-27", "page": 3, "text": "6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nSecretary Akil stated that the Resource Director is completely accessible via the City\nwebsite and the February 27th CDI meeting is posted on the Events Calendar page.\n7.\nANNOUNCEMENTS\n7-A. Commissioner Tam stated that the AUSD Board had an evaluation of Special Education\nregarding consolidation of services and other options, to which some recommendations\nwill be considered for approval.\n7-B.\nChair Lord-Hausman acknowledged Commissioner Krongold for her hard work on the\nResource Fair and her contribution to the CDI over the past two years.\n8.\nADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 7:36 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLucretia Akil\nBoard Secretary", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2012-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-27", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY FEBRUARY 27, 2012\n7:00 p.m.\n1. CONVENE:\n7:05 P.M.\n2. FLAG SALUTE:\nBoard Member Knox White\n3. ROLL CALL:\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft, Vice-President Autorino, Board\nmembers Burton, Henneberry, Knox White, K\u00f6ster, Zuppan.\n4. MINUTES:\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of December 12, 2011\nBoard member Henneberry called for approval of the December 12, 2011 meeting minutes.\nBoard member Burton seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0, 2 abstentions (Knox White\nand K\u00f6ster.\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of November 28, 2011. (Pending)\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of January 9, 2012. (Pending)\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of January 23. 2012. (Pending)\nMinutes from the Special Joint meeting of February 13, 2012. (Pending)\n5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, stated that staff would like to request to\ncontinue item 9C because the bylaws require the entire Board to be present and take the\naction.\nBoard member Ashcraft made a motion to withdraw item C unless Board member Zuppan\nbecomes present to take action on the item.\n6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nWritten Report\n6-A\nFuture Agendas\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, stated that the future agenda items consist of\nthe second workshop on the Housing Element update including all proposed amendments to\nthe housing element and proposed amendments to the Alameda municipal code and the\ninitial Alameda Point workshop for the March 12, 2012 meeting. The March 26, 2012\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 1 of 18\nFebruary 27, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-27", "page": 2, "text": "meeting consists of the Park Street Streetscape presented by Public Works, the use permit\nfor the College of Alameda Flea Market, the Public Art Ordinance Workshop, and 6-month\nreview for 1051 Pacific Marina. The April 9, 2012 meeting consists of draft amendments to\nAlameda Municipal Code related to massage uses and bicycle guidelines presented by\nPublic Works, and two development applications. The April 23, 2012 meeting consists of the\nDraft Alameda Point Zoning Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Report and Final\nRecommendation of the Park Street Code. The May 14, 2012 meeting consists of Public Art\nDraft Amendments for final approval by the Board and the first draft of the revisions to the\nmunicipal code dealing with farm animals. For the February 21, 2012 meeting of the Zoning\nAdministrator, he approved a use permit for a restaurant located at 1315 Park Street to\noperate until 2 am, and there was no opposition to that. Lastly, the February 28, 2012 of the\nZoning Administrator will consist of a hearing on a use permit for a chain link fence at 1600-\n1618 Park Street.\nGreg McFann, City of Alameda Chief Building Official, reported on Alameda's Six Initiatives\nfor Customer Service at the Permit Center.\n7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, stated that\nlast weekend he spent time teaching a new group of League of American Cycling\nInstructors. He spoke about the door zones and Class Il bike lanes. For the past year, he\nmeasured bicycle lanes in Alameda and many of the lanes do not take the cyclist out of the\ndoor zone such as Oak and Central Avenue and if bicyclists turn right they will have to ride\non the left hand edge of the bike lane to stay out of the door zone. Thus, bicycle and driver\nsafety education is crucial and it would be good to have something similar to Alameda's\nPedestrian Safety initiative.\n8. CONSENT CALENDAR:\nNone.\n9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A.\nDesign Review and Landscape Plan Amendment for Alameda Landing Retail\nCenter- TRACT 7884 (Alameda Landing) Applicant: Catellus Alameda\nDevelopment, LLC. A Landscape Plan application for landscape improvements\nfor an approximately 23-acre retail center, a Design Review application for\nBuilding K for Target Stores at the retail center, and a sign program for the\ncenter. The site is located north of Stargell Avenue, south of Mitchell Street,\nwest of Marnier Square Loop and east of the 5th Street extension in western\nAlameda.\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, Presented the application.\nBoard member Knox White asked once the final design review is approved by the Planning\nDepartment is that appealable by the public or the Board?\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 2 of 18\nFebruary 27, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-27", "page": 3, "text": "Mr. Thomas replied the final design review is meant to be a check of the final construction\nplans to make sure they are consistent with the plans approved by the Board. So, they are\nnot brought back to the Board or public for comment.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster asked if staff knows what is going to be included in the tenant\nlocations.\nMr. Thomas stated that staff developed a retail tenanting strategy with Catellus in 2007, but\nat this point staff does not have tenants identified for the other buildings.\nKen Kay, Landscape Architect for the Alameda Landing Retail Center, presented the\nlandscape and open space plan.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked if he is working with the architects of Target to incorporate\ngreen elements into the building.\nMr. Kay replied yes and he has had a session with Kevin Alba and SGPA who are the main\narchitects for the site.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked what is the timeframe for installing the amenities and will the\nentire site be landscaped once the Target project starts.\nMr. Kay stated there are four public streets that surround the site so there are access issues\nand the Target store will require as much access as possible when it first goes in. He\nestimated that the planting associated to the store will go in first, but Sean Whiskeman, VP\nof Development at Catellus, would comment on this. He explained that the entire site will not\nbe planted with big species, but big trees will be present on Mitchell Avenue and in the\nplazas.\nBoard member Knox White asked about the use of palm trees since they are not native to\nthe area, but shopping centers seem to like them.\nMr. Kay replied that the use of the palm trees was incorporated into the Tree Master Plan.\nSo, what he incorporated a small group of trees in various areas of the site similar to the\nlayout at San Francisco's AT&T Park and along the Embarcadero.\nVice President Autorino referred to the Fifth Street Entry Plaza section on page 6 and asked\nfor clarification about the landing urbanized streetscape at the arrow where the road comes\ndown to two lanes and there is parking. He wanted to know does the illustration show one\nlane each way.\nMr. Kay replied that the cars would be directed to the north and the south at that point and\nsome cars would go straight up to the urbanized street, but the demarcation shows drivers\ncoming from 5th street could go straight or turn left to go to Building K or right to go to\nBuilding A. Furthermore, the engineering is going pretty well on the development plan and\nhe was taking the plan and showing the layout in a graphic form. So, if there are questions\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 3 of 18\nFebruary 27, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-27", "page": 4, "text": "he can follow through with the engineers.\nVice President Autorino explained that he had trouble visualizing the urbanized streetscape\non 5th Street.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft referred to the Fifth Street Linear Greenway section on page 8\n(located to the far right of the diagram) and she asked if the bike lane is placed throughout\n5th street.\nMr. Kay replied that the bike lane goes up 5th Street to the Stargell Avenue side and the\nJanuary 9th meeting shows the plan's cross sections for all the streets and does include the\nbicycle plan in entirety.\nBoard member Henneberry asked about the Memory Trail concept and if Mr. Kay plans to\nincorporate historical information into the entire center or just into the trail.\nMr. Kay replied that the Memory Trail would start at the Central Plaza at Stragell Avenue\nand 5th Street. He would like to see the trail continue up to the water at some point. He also\nmentioned that Square Peg, the signage identity consultants, have considered the historical\naspect.\nBoard member Henneberry replied that the maritime history of Alameda is very important\nand shouldn't be segregated to just one side.\nBoard member Burton referred to the Main Gateway Plaza diagram on sheet 4, Building A\nwhich includes a square on the lower right hand corner of the building. He wondered if the\nsquare was supposed to be a building entrance.\nMr. Kay stated the buildings are hypothetical and he doesn't have plans for the buildings at\nthis level. Also, the landscape is working itself around where the building entry would\npossibly be.\nBoard member Burton referred to the Landing Central Plaza diagram on sheet 7. There is\nan arrow to Building K and on the opposite side, there's an arrow to Building A. He wanted\nto know if the lines' intention is to indicate something that goes across the walkway.\nMr. Kay stated yes there will be enhanced paving to reinforce the pedestrian connection\ndown that spine and subject to cost they would enhance the spine by using a series of\ntrellises as detail similar to what one might find on the Target building.\nBoard member Burton referred to sheet 4 and questioned the bump outs along the landing\nstreet and the elements that are turned in the opposite direction. One was labeled trellis with\nbike racks and benches, but the elements are closer in at the street itself.\nMr. Kay replied that the elements are trellises and one would be able to walk under since\nthey are a gateway through.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 4 of 18\nFebruary 27, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-27", "page": 5, "text": "Board member Burton again referred to the illustration in sheet 4. He asked about the\nnarrow white rectangles, which were 45-degrees away from the red squares.\nMr. Kay replied that they are large benches.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft called for public comments.\nMr. Spangler stated he is impressed with the commitment Catellus has shown to the project.\nFirst, he referred to page 4, Area A on the upper right hand corner and the possibility of\nkiosk/bicycle lockers being built there in the January meeting. Second, he explained that\nthe design team mentioned including a bike station and he wanted clarification. Thirdly, he\nwanted to know if there would be showers for employees who want to commute to work by\nbicycle. Fourthly, he explained that priority must be given to bicycle rack's functionality and\nsecurity. He also mentioned that on the curved area, located in Area V and Area E, there\nwas on street parking. He hopes that the bicycle lane will have a 6' foot width that was\nmentioned in the January meeting. Finally, he would like to see valet bike parking or\nsupervised bicycle parking included in the plan.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft referred to the top of page 4 of the staff report regarding the main\nentry plaza or Gateway Plaza she would like the Board to comment on the area.\nBoard member Burton referred back to his previous comment about the Main Gateway\nPlaza diagram on sheet 4 regarding Building A where there is a square on the lower right\nhand corner of the building. He predicted that the building entrance would be on the parking\nlot side of Building A and if that is true he questioned whether bike parking, lockers, and\nracks that are shown along Stargell Avenue is a legitimate location since the cyclists have to\nfind there way to the entrance way.\nVice President Autorino replied if you move bicycle facilities to the front of the buildings\nyou're cutting down the width of the sidewalk with the bicycles.\nBoard member Zuppan stated that there is a lot of seating, but a lot of the seating is near\nlow bushes without shading. She would like for the design team to find to create natural\nshading for seating that is not surrounded by trees.\nSean Whiskeman, VP of Catellus Development Corporation, replied to Board member\nBurton and Board member Zuppan's comments. He explained that the plan's includes over\n110 bicycle racks and the intent of the racks is to spread across a number of different\nbuildings and serve a couple of different functions. The specific rack found in the illustration\nis for a bike co-op or kiosk and the final locations in place will be worked out with staff and\nBike Alameda.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft stated that there are a lot of bicycles with trailers, which are used to\nhaul children or groceries. So, the design team should look at accommodating the nearby\nresidential neighborhood that uses those bicycles.\nMr. Whiskeman replied to Board member Burton and Board member Zuppan's comments.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 5 of 18\nFebruary 27, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-27", "page": 6, "text": "He stated that the small square of the building suggests a small architectural element; a\nbeacon of some sort, and the design team may or may not include an entrance depending\non the occupant of the building. He also stated that shade is provided in a couple of different\nways potentially umbrellas or canopies are available and when you see dashed lines on the\nplans that suggests canopies are present to protect that area with shade.\nBoard member Henneberry stated that Stargell Avenue and 5th Street would likely be a\nbusy intersection, so will there be something on the corner to mitigate a car crashing into\npedestrians standing on the sidewalk.\nMr. Whiskeman stated there would be a curb and bollards in order to slow a car down.\nMr. Kay stated the large landscape and bio-retention swale areas would deter people from\ngetting in the way of traffic. The bollards and the placement of the curb and plaza prevent\nsmaller cars from hitting pedestrians.\nBoard member Henneberry asked would the area between the bollards and the tree on\nStargell Avenue contain a regular curb without parking.\nMr. Kay replied that parking will not be present and there is a lowered landscape area near\nthe stripes. So, the landscape pushes pedestrians back on to the plaza enough where you\nwon't be on top of where the cars are.\nObaid Khan, City of Alameda Supervising Civil Engineer, stated that in terms of right turn\nvehicles going over the curb and possibly hitting pedestrians, staff doesn't expect this to\nhappen because right turning cars usually drive slower than through traffic.\nBoard member Zuppan stated that a lot of research shows that drivers are more careful\nwhen they allow pedestrian to intrude into the street. She also stated that research indicates\nthat when there are no cues requiring drivers to be more careful that drivers tend to pay\nmore attention to the street environment. So, there are two sides to the safety coin.\nVice President Autorino stated that the 5th Street area with the bollards has great\nlandscaping so is it possible to landscape the Stargell Avenue side so pedestrian would not\nbe on that portion of the plaza. He explained there should be a clear delineation of the street\nand the plaza with a defined entranceway.\nMr. Kay replied that there is a good balance between hard and soft landscapes and as the\ndesign team goes through the details with staff, he will keep that in mind.\nBoard member Knox White asked if the current configuration of Stargell Avenue and 5th\nStreet (illustrated as six lanes) the final configuration of Stargell Avenue, or is there a\nproposal to widen Stargell Avenue.\nMr. Khan stated that there are no plans to widen Stargell Avenue so this direction is final.\nWhen Alameda Point is further developed then staff will look into the configuration.\nBoard member Knox White stated that when the Stargell Avenue extension was built,\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 6 of 18\nFebruary 27, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-27", "page": 7, "text": "Catellus originally was going to pay for a portion of the construction, but the payment has\nnot been received.\nMs. Debbie Potter, Project Manager for Catellus, stated that Catellus is obligated for the\nconstruction cost of the Stargell Avenue extension and they paid for the acquisition of the\nright of way at the College of Alameda so they have put in $8 million into the development.\nCurrently, there is a payment schedule setup for the construction cost.\nBoard member Knox White stated that based on Board member Henneberry's comments\nabout the entryway, the intersection will be one of the least desirable intersections in the\nCity because there will be 6 lanes of traffic coming up Stargell Avenue and the intersection\nwill be the second widest intersection in the City. Also, he had a hard time visualizing people\nspending time in the entry plaza and he believes the space would be considered a drive by\nspace and less of a public space because of the traffic and that's a concern. He hopes the\ndesign team can find a way to buffer the design of the intersection with trellises, but not a\nwall. Also, considering that bike racks will be located near the intersection, he feels that\nbikes will be at risk because there will be little pedestrian activity. Furthermore, he believes\nthat cutting the shopping center off from Bay Port and the College of Alameda is a miss\nopportunity for connecting the space with the rest of the island.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster asked if there is a way to include water elements around the\nintersection and near the public art location in order to mitigate noise from traffic.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft called for Board comment on the Frontage along 5th Street section\non page 5 of attachment 1, Area B.\nBoard member Knox White encouraged Catellus to look at including street bike parking in\nfront of the buildings at 5th Street and secure the parking with bollards.\nMr. Thomas stated that the January 9th staff resolution had a detailed condition about the\nplacement of bike racks. There are distinctions between visitor and employee bike parking\nand employee parking may be effective in bicycle cages or corrals.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft stated that it's important to have buses running through the area, is\nCatellus helping AC Transit fund the service.\nMr. Thomas replied that Catellus and Public Works have been working directly with AC\nTransit to determine the best locations for bus stops. When Alameda Point and Alameda\nLanding are built out there will be a greater demand for bus service and this project is\nconditioned to supply shuttles because the shuttles are part of the Transportation Demand\nManagement plan. The Transportation Demand Management program would kick in either\nwhen a total of 100,000 square feet of commercial space is built or the first 100 housing\nunits are built.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft called for Board comment on the Entry Plaza, the Central Plaza,\nand the 5th Street Linear Greenway.\nBoard member Knox White stated that the project should look at incorporating residential\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 7 of 18\nFebruary 27, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-27", "page": 8, "text": "over the 5th Street businesses in the shopping center and incorporate retail across the\nstreet on 5th Street within the residential so the plaza starts to become an identifiable place.\nMr. Whiskeman replied that there are restrictions and that idea was not contemplated as\npart of the retail plan. However, on the residential side that idea has been contemplated\nbefore and the idea can evolve as the residential plan proceeds.\nBoard member Zuppan stated that although there was an explanation of erecting canopies\nthroughout the plan she would like to see more trees included in the seating area.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked how many trees are shown in the plan.\nMr. Kay stated 797 trees on the 23-acres, plus the roadways.\nMr. Thomas replied that staff could include a condition with the final landscape plan that\nstaff will work with Mr. Kay to ensure that the Board's questions are answered, especially\nputting trees and seating within close proximity of each other.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is a champion of bay friendly landscaping. She\nreferred to page 10 of the plan in the asterisk in the bottom corner, which states\n\"The plant list is subjective to refinement based on plant availability and size.' She would\nlike Mr. Kay and his team to include a minimum number of different species and varieties of\nplants because the attractive elements includes the variety of plant types, sizes, and\nheights.\nMr. Kay replied that there is a sense of the minimum plant species used, but he needs to\nreceive detailed soil reports before he does anything. The plants shown are ones that are\ngenerally available so there won't be a monoculture.\nBoard member Knox White stated that the staff report mentions view corridors. When you\nrefer to the first page of the plan, the current plan of the retail center, there is a building in\nfront of this view corridor that this greenway is going into. He finds the greenway interesting,\nbut if it connects to a typical sidewalk with a building sitting there, then it is a lost opportunity\nto connect the west end over to the waterway.\nMr. Kay replied that across the street from the illustration is slated as a village green\nsurrounded by residential development so this will contribute to the other side of the street.\nHe thinks in reality the variety of the landscape is more important than one type of\nlandscape for 17 feet and the design will be pleasing in the residential section and for\npedestrians making their way up 5th Street.\nBoard member Knox White replied that he was referring to the building on the other side of\nMitchell Avenue not on the other side of 5th Street.\nMr. Whiskeman stated that graphically they wanted to get a sense of the entire project so\nthey used the shopping center, residential, and waterfront plans and there will be discussion\non how to be mindful of how the shopping center is built and how the view corridors are\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 8 of 18\nFebruary 27, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-27", "page": 9, "text": "Vice President Autorino asked why there aren't more windows on the building since you\nwant to mirror the buildings in the development.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the front elevation and length of the building is 495' feet\nlong. In the City of Alameda, many of the commercial blocks are not that long. So, she\nechoes Board member Autorino's sentiments.\nMr. Dewes replied that the store plan design is based no a fixurization plan so it's not\ncomparable to an office building where you can have glass around the building. So, if you\ninclude windows on the Target store, they would look into a stock room or behind a fixture.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft replied is it possible to do more of a treatment that you have on the\nleft west elevation where you have the display windows.\nMr. Dewes replied that is doable, but the building's plan is to use windows to break up the\nbuilding's mass throughout.\nMr. Albaugh referred to the sidewalk plan illustration and the overall design of the building.\nHe said the sidewalk will offset the building and will mimic breaking the building down so\npedestrians are passing a variety of elements.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 9 of 18\nFebruary 27, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-27", "page": 10, "text": "President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to the resolution (found on item number 4 on page 4) voted\non later about the addition of 4-6 green screens on the front elevation to soften the large\nexpansion of wall.\nMr. Thomas replied that the resolution considered how to create a pedestrian scale\nenvironment along that long edge. Mr. Kay raised a number of good points about how the\nbuilding goes in and out and the inclusion of landscaping. One of the main focuses was to\nfind a way to make the I-beam horizontal element more interesting with more shadow lines\nand a traditional kind of trellis feature than the traditional modern horizontal beam.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft called for public comment.\nJon Spangler stated that he is a Target shopper and the point about windows is well spoken.\nIt would be nice to have real light coming into the building so he refers to the Alameda\nLibrary as a good example. Secondly, regarding the external lighting of the signs, he would\nlike to see a 50% reduction of the amount of light emitted and the shape have more curve\nand narrowness. Thirdly, the color of the building of the target the off-white color seems to\nbe a glaring standout compared to the rest of the elevations and that should be toned down\nin order to keep up with the rest of the shopping center.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft called for Board comment on Building K.\nBoard member Burton stated that based on the questions that were asked about the\nplacement of windows there seems to be an error by the team by not including an illustration\nof the building's interior layout as part of the staff report. Secondly, he doesn't see the\nTarget layout as a real effort to tailor the building into the specific site plan and there should\nbe substantial break down of the building's mass. The trellis elements would not be\nsomething pedestrians would be walking amongst and won't be provide shade or shadow.\nHe agreed with Board member Autorino that the entrance should be placed in the middle for\nthe pedestrian-oriented development in theory. When referring to the staff report on page 6,\nhe doesn't see a support for the pedestrian experience adjacent to the building. When\nreferring to page 7, each side of the elevation design is comprised of smaller elements and\nhe determined that it's flat. Lastly, regarding the 2nd to last paragraph on that page there is\nconsistent stucco finished base incorporated around the building, but on the elevations it is\ndescribed as concrete, he would like clarification about the material.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster stated that he has seen some Target with multiple entranceways and\nhe would like the design team to look at including another entranceway on the other side of\nthe building. He referred to the main site plan, page 1, the green arrow that links the two\nBuildings K and Building A. He questioned what Building A will be given this is a secondary\nspine to the project, then who will walk on this spine. He thought this was an entrance to the\nTarget, but in reality people would want to park as close to Target as possible and then drive\nto Building A. Thus, the pedestrian experience would be tarnished.\nBoard member Knox White stated that he echoes everything that both board members said.\nHe doesn't think that the employee entrance should be placed where it is.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 10 of 18\nFebruary 27, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-27", "page": 11, "text": "President Ezzy Ashcraft asked if there is a rationale for taking pedestrian through this route\nonly to come to an employee entrance to Target, is it possible to angle the pedestrian\nentrance closer to the main entrance.\nMr. Whiskeman said there are multiple sidewalk paths that will lead pedestrians from center\ndrive to Building K. Since the way the parking is constructed, the main spine puts\npedestrians a little apart from the entrance. He explained if one were to walk in front of\nBuilding I then across the way would be another sidewalk that takes you off center to the\nright of Target's entrance. The main pedestrian connection to the clump of buildings in the\nmiddle to Building K will not lead you to Target's front door because of the way parking is\nconfigured. However, there may be a design solution that we can get the pedestrian\npromenade over one drive aisle so it ends up closer to Target's entrance, but there is also a\npedestrian sidewalk that will lead you from Building I and Building J to Building K in addition\nto the proposed entrance it is closer to the street, the living landscape pedestrian\nexperience, and residential neighborhood. Thus, a majority of customers may come from the\nparking lot not necessary coming from Mariner Square Loop and have to experience that\nlong walk. So, that is something that can be considered and Mr. Albaugh can come back to\nthe Board about this issue.\nBoard member Knox White stated that in order to preserve the pedestrian experience the\nparking spots should connect to the rest of the shopping center and Target. He pointed out\nthat Mr. Kay did an excellent job along Mitchell Avenue, and he is wondering if Sub Area B\ncould become mixed-use in order to correspond with development along the waterfront.\nRegarding the illumination of the Target signs, the signs will be placed across from homes\nand the signage should be on the side that this building is pretending to front. He proposed\na condition to remove big illuminated signs across from residential developments.\nVice President Autorino stated that people will be going to Building K as a destination and it\nmay be problematic to have another entryway on the opposite side of the building because\nof the loading dock. He would like to see more windows in the front of the building and for\nthe design team to break up the fa\u00e7ade in order to make the building as harmonious with the\narea as possible. He doesn't understand why there is a lighted Target sign on every side of\nthe building, but he brought up the condition that the signs cannot be on before 7 a.m. or\nafter 10 p.m.\nBoard member Henneberry agreed with Board member Autorino and exclaimed that the\ndesign team could only do so much with a 140,000 square foot building. However, he\nbelieves there can be a way to soften the building and make it more acceptable to its\nsurroundings\nBoard member Burton stated that he liked the color palate and the earthier tones and brick\nhelp the building blend with the landscape.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft referred to the Planning Commissioner's Handbook created by the\nLeague of California Cities, Design and Review section, which state that most people prefer\na degree of aesthetic complexity and variety while monotonous facades symbolize\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 11 of 18\nFebruary 27, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-27", "page": 12, "text": "intuitionalism. In order to avoid the monotony, the building should be broken into smaller\nunits with varying shapes, sizes, windows, textures and colors. She believes the plan's is\nheaded in the right direction, but she would like the architects to review the following items:\n(1) break up the large expanse of the front facing south fa\u00e7ade and remedy this with public\nart; (2) reduce the illuminated signs especially in the back of the store; (3) soften the colors\nof the rear elevation facing north (refer to page 13). The order that one sees the colors\ndiffers and now receive dark brown bands framing the panels and that should be soften to\nblend with the surroundings; (4) consider how the Green arrow around Building A to Building\nK could be moved over in order to shift people closer to where they want to be; (5) have the\narchitects bring material samples so the Board can review; and (6) incorporate sustainable\nelements into the plans of the building. She wanted staff to go back and incorporate the\nBoard's suggestions before the Board votes.\nScott Cuyler, Creative Principal and Co-Founder of Square Peg Design, reported on the\ncompany's first attempt at programming the site for the driving audience and at this point,\nthey are not looking at pedestrian signage.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft called for Board comment on the proposed signage located on\npage 18.\nBoard member Burton stated that the plan is headed in a good direction, but the plan needs\nto be developed further. He believed that the Sail logo specifically with the letter \"L\" is\ninteresting, but the logo may be too delicate given the scale. In terms of the horizontal\noptions for the Alameda Landing identity, he was intrigued if it can be done an anti-graffiti\nproof material. He liked the primary site tenant identification where all the signs are located\non one side.\nBoard member Zuppan asked if the letter \"L\" with Sail is suppose to be a weather vein or\nsail that switches around with the wind.\nMr. Cuyler replied that this is a preliminary design report so more work will be done and no\nit's not a weather vein.\nBoard member Knox White stated that having a kinetic aspect to the sign would be unique\nand interesting.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft agreed with Board member Burton that less is more, but make it\nfun and interesting.\nMr. Thomas stated that the landscape and open space plan has a majority of support, but\nwith a few conditions: (1) look at final plan to ensure seating and shading; (2) look at Stargell\nAvenue main entrance at 5th Street to make sure trees and landscape are placed to create\na buffer, while making it attractive primarily on the Stargell Avenue side; (3) place a water\nfeature at that corner to reduce the traffic's noise; and (4) create a list of the minimum plants\nthat will be used in the landscaping plan. Regarding the Building K design review the overall\ntheme heard was that there was not enough variation and not enough visual interest. There\nare 8 different design strategies that staff and the project team can use to improve and\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 12 of 18\nFebruary 27, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-27", "page": 13, "text": "soften the elevations. He also stated that the focus on the south front elevation should be\nenhanced and softened the fa\u00e7ade and 5th Street elevation. Staff wants to know if the Board\nis ready to approve the plan with these conditions or should the design team continuing\nworking on the plan and come back for another hearing. Ideally, staff would like to craft the\nconditions in order to move forward into the next phase of the design.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft said the rear of the building does not need bright red columns or\nthe illuminate the Target sign.\nMr. Thomas replied that the eight conditions for the Building K would be: (1) including\nwindow displays on the south and west elevation will enhance the building; (2) include more\ngreen screens on the front elevation and primarily on the right hand side to soften it and\nbring more landscaping to the front near the green screens; (3) the use of vertical public art\neither standing away or applying to the building to the front elevation so there is some visual\ninterest on the right hand side of the elevation, similar to Perforce Software on Blanding\nAvenue (4) take out the illuminated Target signs that face the residential neighborhood or\nthe waterfront; (5) the trellis elements along the front improve pedestrian experience so pull\nthe trellis away from the building to create shadow or allow pedestrians to walk under; (6)\nmove the planes in and out, but not a huge amount along the eastern portion of the front\nelevation as you move along the main entrance; (7) use materials particularly on the\npedestrian level and along the southern front elevation that are interesting; (8) As Board\nmember Burton stated along the front elevation, the brick shoulder walls read the exact\nsame height so there may be some fairly small changes in the height of the elevations.\nMr. Dewes stated that the illuminated signs along the rear and the west side facing the\nresidential would be taken away from the plan. As Mr. Thomas' pointed out, the right half of\nthe south elevation where the brick portion sits along the wall will project out more.\nRegarding the list of conditions, he can work with all of the suggestions, but the second\nentrance suggestion will not work because it is not part of Target's layout models.\nVice President Autorino replied that the picture shown of Del Monte mimic the warehouses\nalong the Embarcadero in San Francisco. The building style along the front would bring\nmore of the maritime feeling.\nMr. Thomas stated that they did talk about the Del Monte building and the repeating rhythm\nis very pleasant as you drive or walk along the building.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked to discuss drawing 3 in the loading zone area, and was\nthere something in place to screen the loading dock.\nMr. Dewes explained there will be a screen wall with the same materials of the main\nbuilding's palate, the length will be around 70' to 80' feet long and 12' feet high.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster referred to slide 14, where the entrance of the building is located. He\nasked if there was a way to move the food court over to the corner, towards the tower in\norder to shift the store entrance closer to the secondary spine that runs down the plan.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 13 of 18\nFebruary 27, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-27", "page": 14, "text": "Mr. Albaugh stated there are windows between the food service area and the entry vestibule\nand the far left of the vestibule is all glazed windows, creating a big glass box. So, there is\nvisual connection to the outside corner from the food service area from its current location.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft called for a motion to extend the meeting past 11 p.m.\nVice President Autorino made the motion to extend the meeting till 11:30 p.m.\nBoard member Henneberry seconded the motion.\nBoard member Knox White stated that the new rules for City meetings is that if three\nconsecutive meetings go past 11 p.m. then the Board would have to hold more meetings in\norder to get business done.\nThe motion was approved 7-0.\nMr. Thomas stated that the resolution with the amended conditions and bring the revised\nresolution upon consent next week.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft proposed a subcommittee to work on the design review.\nVice President Autorino stated he doesn't want to delay the project anymore so he believes\nthe conditions work and he believes a subcommittee will enter into additional unnecessary\ndiscussion.\nBoard member Burton stated that a subcommittee might work, but he would like to have it\nbrought back before the Board to have assurance that the revised design is something that\nthe Board is happy with.\nMr. Thomas stated there is one other way to move forward. He explained there's an on-\ngoing process under this scenario where the design team will implement the conditions then\nlook to City staff approve the revisions. There can be a system setup where he can report to\nthe Board about the process the way staff reports on the process of the design review.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft envisioned delegating two of the board members with professional\ndesign background to come in and simultaneously work with Mr. Thomas look over the\nrevisions.\nBoard member Knox White stated that the Board could call a review if they don't like the\nfinal plan. Also, the one thing that is not on the caveat and will keep him from voting to\napprove the Building K plan is the pedestrian connection in the fake entrance that is\ncurrently designed in this building.\nMr. Thomas replied that another way of handling the situation would be for staff to conduct a\nfinal design review before building permit is issued. He responded to Board member Knox\nWhite's comments regarding the pedestrian connection.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 14 of 18\nFebruary 27, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-27", "page": 15, "text": "Board member White explained to Mr. Thomas that there usually isn't an acre of parking lot\nin front of pedestrians and when looking across they see their destination. He referred to\nconstant J-walking habits made by drivers who park across the street to go to the Alameda\nTheater because it is a direct path.\nHe suggested re-orienting the parking in front of Target so that it lines up with the parking\nbetween Building A and Buildings E and D so all the parking and the pedestrian pathways\nare straight across Building K.\nBoard member Zuppan stated she likes the idea if you make something interesting and\nworth going to at the end of the path then it solves some of the issues. Also, the lighting\nshould not shine up into the air at night.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the options for Board approval are: (1) stick to what is\nlaid out in the staff report or (2) have the Board not approve the plan and require staff to\ncontinue to work plan and come back for another hearing. She stated that she is calling for\nan approval of the plan with conditions and when the final design review is finalized then\nstaff should report the plan to the Board.\nVice President Autorino called a motion to approve the plan with the conditions defined by\nMr. Thomas and the final design review will come back to the Board for approval.\nMr. Thomas stated that he would provide the interior building layout to the Board before the\ndesign review.\nBoard member Zuppan seconded the motion.\nThe motion passed 5-2. (Board members Burton and Knox White opposed)\nMr. Thomas stated that he would include the statement made by Board member Zuppan in\nthe existing conditions. Board member Zuppan requested for the design team to look at\nincluding something interesting such as public art at the central pedestrian pathway that\nintersects with Building K.\nBoard member Knox White called a motion to extend the meeting until midnight.\nSeconded by Board member Burton.\nThe motion was approved 7-0.\n9-B. Review of Draft Prioritized Transportation Project List.\nObaid Khan, City of Alameda Supervising Civil Engineer, reported on the transportation\nproject list that would be moved for review by the City Council.\nBoard member Zuppan asked how did staff calculate the points and can Mr. Khan explain if\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 15 of 18\nFebruary 27, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-27", "page": 16, "text": "safety considerations were included in the evaluation.\nMr. Khan referred to the bike plan and he explained that the ranking is listed in the back of\nthe sheet. When calculating the points he referred to the bike plan project. Regarding safety\nconsiderations, he said that is a tricky question, but staff looked at different modes of\ntransportation to see how safety is incorporated into the design.\nBoard member Zuppan stated that she was looking at the project that strengthened current\nseismic standards.\nMr. Khan replied that regional and lifeline connectivity would be ranked high in priority.\nBoard member Knox White stated that this is a great process and he was glad to see the\nCity is going through this process methodically. He believes the scoring is still missing a\ncouple of things: (1) transit benefits should have some sort of grade because you want to\nknow what does the scoring mean and if staff provides points then they should give\nclarification for what the points mean; (2) the Regional Significant scoring seems off\nbecause it basically says that local projects score very poorly while regional projects receive\nbonus points; (3) the Economic Development section is vague and should be gradated to\nshow why points are given; (4) the Transportation Element points are aimed towards public\nworks working with another agency and half the points are created by meeting small policies\nand he suggested that there should be four general pan objectives. Therefore, the scoring\nside needs to be more methodical, an example, the former ACTIA scoring does calculate it's\nfunding into a great spreadsheet. His other concern was the way that the projects are called\nout. Some projects are vague and there should be consistency on how the projects are\ndefined. Also, he believes the spreadsheet should include a column that explains the types\nof funding that the projects could match with. Additionally, he wanted to know how staff\nwould add new projects to the list and prioritize the list that the community brings up. Lastly,\nwhen the list is finalized it would be good to have regular updates on the top projects.\nMr. Khan replied that the transit benefit would be looked into and regional significance is a\nvery critical item because when going to MTC, Caltrans, or FHWA for grants the agencies\nare looking for regional significance in order to fund projects. He and staff would look at the\nsheet and refine where necessary. The Economic Development section is something that\nstaff will look at and they are looking at major projects such as Alameda Point and Northern\nWaterfront, not for infill small single-family developments. If there is, an economic\ndevelopment gradient staff will look into it based upon specific plans that exist for Northern\nWaterfront and Alameda Point. The Project Readiness section is a good idea and staff will\nadd points. Regarding the Maintenance section, the project mentioned on Broadway and\nJackson project went into the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan and was a\ncosponsored application with the City of Alameda and Oakland. This was the first time the\nCity has cosponsored with the City of Oakland on this project. Although most of the\nproject's footprint is located in Oakland, it creates a great regional collaboration and the plan\nhas multimodal elements such bus rapid transit, bike lanes and transit exclusive lanes,\nwhich are important and received a lot of regional support.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked about the Broadway project's solution to the freeway\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 16 of 18\nFebruary 27, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-27", "page": 17, "text": "entrance from 7th street.\nMr. Khan stated it will be the 6th Street frontage street and there is some opposition, but\nCity Council members who represent Oakland Chinatown are supporting the project.\nVice President Autorino stated that it would be nice to delineate what the current priorities\nare for street projects.\nMr. Khan replied that is based on the Pavement Condition Index and the amount of traffic\nthe street receives.\nBoard member Zuppan made a motion to extend the meeting for another 10 minutes.\nSeconded by Board member Knox White.\nThe motion was approved 7-0.\n9-C. Election of Planning Board Officers. The Planning Board will elect a new President and\nVice President for the upcoming year, as required by the Planning Board By-Laws.\nVice President Autorino stated that the way the elections works is by seniority and the next\nperson in line would be Board member Zuppan.\nVice President Autorino made a motion to name Board member Zuppan the President of the\nPlanning Board.\nSeconded by Board member Knox White.\nThe motion was approved 5-2.\nK\u00f6ster and Henneberry abstained.\nBoard member Knox White moved to name Board member Burton the Vice President of the\nPlanning Board.\nSeconded by Vice President Autorino.\nThe motion was Approved 7-0.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS :\nNone.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 17 of 18\nFebruary 27, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-27", "page": 18, "text": "12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nMr. Thomas and Board member Zuppan thanked President Ashcraft and Vice President\nAutorino for their work on the Planning Board.\n13. ADJOURNMENT:\n12:10 AM\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 18 of 18\nFebruary 27, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf"}