{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-09-26", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2016\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Knox White called meeting to order at 7:00 pm.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President Knox White, Board Members Burton, Curtis, K\u00f6ster, Mitchell,\nSullivan. Board Member Zuppan arrived at 7:10pm (beginning of item 7-A).\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nPresident Knox White moved the minutes and staff communications up to before item 7-\nA.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n*None*\n*MINUTES*\n8-A 2016-3378\nDraft Minutes - May 9, 2016\nBoard Member Burton made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Sullivan\nseconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0-1 (Curtis abstained).\n8-B 2016- 3380\nDraft Minutes - April 25, 2016\nBoard Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Burton\nseconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0-2 (Knox White and Curtis abstained).\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS**\n9-A 2016-3373\nZoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions\nStaff Member Thomas reported on the list of approvals made.\n9-B 2016-3375\nApproved Minutes\nPage 1 of 7\nPlanning Board Meeting\nSeptember 26, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-09-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-09-26", "page": 2, "text": "Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Thomas gave a report on upcoming items for future meetings.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2016-3366\nBoard Elections\nBoard Member Curtis made a motion to postpone the board elections to the next meeting.\nBoard Member Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-1 (Burton).\n7-B 2016-3379\nHold a Public Hearing to Consider Site A: 1) Street Names, 2) Waterfront\nPark Final Design Review Materials and Details, 3) Preliminary Ferry\nTerminal Canopy Design, and 4) Preliminary Block 9 Design. The Alameda\nPoint Final EIR evaluated the environmental impacts of redevelopment and\nreuse of the lands at Alameda Point consistent with the Town Center Plan,\nwhich included Site A. No further review is required for this review of the\nproject designs.\nStaff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found\nat: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2837314&GUID=B6B4335E-\nFB37-48B2-972B-6CD8D9F92CC8&FullText=1\nDavid Delasantos, project architect for Block 9, gave a presentation for the revised design\nof Block 9.\nThere were no public speakers.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked why two streets had the same name for interrupted\nsegments.\nStaff Member Thomas said they tried to avoid using new names for short segments.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked if Ardent Way would continue into the Main Street\nNeighborhood or become a dead end at W. Tower Ave.\nStaff Member Thomas said it was not in the Master Infrastructure Plan and would be\ndetermined when the streets for that neighborhood are planned.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if there was a policy governing street name continuity.\nStaff Member Thomas said they have a degree of flexibility and that they review the plans\nwith the Fire and Police Departments.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 2 of 7\nPlanning Board Meeting\nSeptember 26, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-09-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-09-26", "page": 3, "text": "Board Member Zuppan asked what other options were considered for the glass walls on\nthe Ferry Terminal pier.\nStaff Member Ott said they are trying to find a solution that meets the needs of riders,\nBCDC, and protects against bird strikes. She said, so far, they feel the mesh over glass is\ntheir best option.\nBoard Member Zuppan suggested a film treatment for the glass that creates a sandblasted\neffect. She asked how much rain protection the canopy would provide.\nMarcy Wong, architect, said they are balancing cost, visibility, and protection. She said it\nwould provide protection during light rain but not necessarily during wind driven rain.\nPresident Knox White asked to consider adding windows to the large blank wall on one of\nthe corners of Block 9.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked what will prevent birds from sitting atop the canopy of the\nFerry gangway and whether it is likely to fade to a much less attractive shade of blue over\ntime. She asked how high the glass paneling would come up.\nMs. Wong said they chose the fabric in large part based on cost. She said it would have\na 10-15 year life expectancy. She said there would be a gap between the glass and the\ncanopy.\nBoard Member Curtis asked how the canopy design would perform relative to a traditional\ninverted \"U\" shaped canopy.\nMs. Wong said the canopy should perform comparably to a more basic design.\nPresident Knox White asked how high the glass windscreen was drawn in the plans.\nMs. Wong said it shows a six foot high windscreen.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked if there was a concern with kids climbing the railing along the\nwaterfront.\nApril Phillips, landscape architect, said the railing design was consistent with most\nwaterfront railings they find around the bay.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked if there would be fencing at the end of the 500 foot railing of\nphase one.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 3 of 7\nPlanning Board Meeting\nSeptember 26, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-09-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-09-26", "page": 4, "text": "Ms. Phillips said they are working on a transition plan that addresses the grade change\nand probably leave the waterfront open for the time being.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked about the heat that gets retained on the artificial turf.\nMs. Phillips said they had not researched that issue. She said they decided that given the\ntype and amount of use predicted, they felt that an artificial turf was necessary.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked why BCDC required the use of a railing.\nMs. Phillips said that safety was BCDC's primary reason behind recommending the railing.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if the LED color temperature was part of the resolution.\nStaff Member Thomas said they can make it clear in the resolution to choose the warmer\nlight setting.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she had concerns about the palm tree variety being chosen,\ndue to susceptibility to scales, and aesthetics.\nMs. Phillips said they are working with a number of people to make sure they make an\ninformed choice. She said they are balancing soil and wind concerns, which limits their\nchoices.\nStreet Names\nPresident Knox White said he was glad Board Member Sullivan caught the street names\ncontinuity issue. He said two streets with jogs intersecting did not work. He gave some\nbackground on the process for selecting street names that the community went through in\nrecent years. He suggested Tradewind and Golden Hawks as names to be added.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster gave some feedback on the hierarchy of avenues, streets, and\nways based on length and cardinal orientation.\nStaff Member Thomas summarized the board consensus on changes to the street names.\nHe said Ardent Way would be Ardent St. and go N/S from W. Atlantic. He said Coronado\nAve would end at Ardent St. He said the western portion of Coronado would change to\nTradewind Ave. He said the portion labeled Ardent Way (D) would be Golden Hawks Way.\nBoard Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the street names resolution with\namendments: Coronado \"C\" becomes Tradewind Ave; Buckthorn \"D\" becomes Buckthorn\nApproved Minutes\nPage 4 of 7\nPlanning Board Meeting\nSeptember 26, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-09-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-09-26", "page": 5, "text": "Way; Ardent \"D\" becomes Golden Hawks Way; and Ardent \"C\" becomes Ardent St. Board\nMember Curtis seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.\nThe resolution will be posted at: https://alamedaca.gov/city-hall/planning-board\nWaterfront Park Landscaping\nBoard Member Sullivan said she has concerns with the decomposed granite. She would\nlike to make sure we are not stuck with something that does not work. She said she hopes\nthey keep searching for a good palm tree choice.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he prefers the railing option 1 with the cable instead of the\nbars. He said he was glad they are planning to use the 3000 K LED lights.\nBoard Member Curtis said he prefers option 2 for the railing.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she would like the larger cap to the railing but with the less\nobstructive cable below. She expressed some concerns with the light fixture choices. She\nsaid she is concerned with the fake grass. She said she hopes we can find a more\nattractive fixture for the lights along the promenade.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster said he likes the vertical stanchions of option 1 with the top to option\n2. He said he agreed that the pole mounted lighting for the promenade was not attractive.\nPresident Knox White said he likes the railing cap from option 2. He said he has some\nconcerns about the usability of the bike racks. He briefly polled the board on the railing\noptions. The consensus was for the vertical stanchions and the wing shaped railing with\ncable beneath.\nStaff Member Thomas summarized proposed changes and conditions to the resolution:\nno greater than 3000 Kelvin color temperature for the LED lighting; railing with straight\nstanchions and the flat top; bring back the promenade light poles with the site furniture\nchoices; bring back the bike rack; update and discussion on the tree strap lighting.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster made a motion to approve the landscape resolution with the\namendments Staff Member Thomas spelled out above. Board Member Mitchell seconded\nthe motion.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked for more research on the palm tree selection and to report\nback when the remaining items come to the board.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 5 of 7\nPlanning Board Meeting\nSeptember 26, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-09-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-09-26", "page": 6, "text": "Board Members K\u00f6ster and Mitchell accepted the additional reporting request as an\namendment to their motion.\nThe motion passed 6-0.\nThe resolution will be posted at: https://alamedaca.gov/city-hall/planning-boar\nFerry Terminal\nBoard Member Zuppan said she prefers the orange canopy for the ferry terminal. She\nsuggested using a glass finish that would be effective for deterring bird strikes and more\nattractive than the wire mesh.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster said he also liked the orange canopy and liked the design. He said\nhe has some concerns about the effectiveness of the canopy for providing protection from\nthe elements.\nPresident Knox White said rain protection is the primary concern for the design. He\nsuggested using an approved Alameda Point branding color for the ferry terminal.\nBoard Member Curtis said he likes the design but does not think it will provide sufficient\nprotection.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he liked the orange canopy as well. He said wind will be the\nbiggest concern at this location.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster said making the gangway a bit wider than at Main St. would be\npreferred in order to allow bikes to offload more easily.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she was concerned with how the peaks and valleys would\ncollect caked on dirt.\nBlock 9\nPresident Knox White said the design is greatly improved. He said he is concerned about\nthe blank wall at the corner. He said he is worried about the arcade effect the frontage of\nW. Atlantic might have. He suggested trying to keep some of the articulation without\npushing pedestrians too far away from the building.\nBoard Member Curtis asked how many residential units the building would have.\nStaff Member Thomas said the building would have 182 units.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 6 of 7\nPlanning Board Meeting\nSeptember 26, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-09-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-09-26", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Mitchell asked the architect to discuss the fabric panels used in the design.\nMr. Delasantos said they function as a solar shading device and they should be very long\nlasting.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he agrees that the blank wall on the corner needs something\nto activate it. He said he was a little concerned with the tensioned fabric panels.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she liked the vibrant color at the street level. She agreed with\nother Board Members that something needed to be added to the blank wall.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster said he liked the pops of color. He said he is not sold on the garage\nentryway. He said he liked the fins but has concerns with potential noise or vibrations due\nto wind. He suggested turning the blank wall into a green wall that climbs up to the terrace\nabove.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she thought the east elevation was too plain. She shared\nconcerns about the fabric fins. She said the mosaic tiles could make the project look dated\nvery quickly. She said she liked the idea of a living wall.\n8. MINUTES\n*Moved to beginning of Regular Agenda***\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n**Moved to beginning of Regular Agenda***\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard Member Mitchell said he would miss the next meeting so the Board Elections would\nhave to get postponed again.\nPresident Knox White said he met with the applicant for the Webster St. project that would\nbe coming forward. He said the City Council has been making progress on the Fernside\nwaterfront access discussion. He said the sale of the estuary parcels would move forward\nwithout the six that are adjacent to the waterfront access points while they work on the\neasement and code issues.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Knox White adjourned the meeting at 9:31pm.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 7 of 7\nPlanning Board Meeting\nSeptember 26, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-09-26.pdf"}