body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2016-05-09,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, MAY 9, 2016
1. CONVENE
President Knox White called meeting to order at 7:01pm.
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Burton led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: President Knox White, Board Members Burton, Henneberry, Mitchell, Sullivan,
Zuppan. Board Member Köster arrived at 8:45, during discussion on item 7-B.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
*None*
7. REGULAR
AGENDA
ITEMS
7-A 2016-2866
Study Session to Consider Draft Citywide Universal Design Ordinance
Requirements and Standards
Staff Member Thomas gave the staff presentation. The staff report and attachments can
be
found
at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2705109&GUID=E8EFEAEC-
44BA-443E-A864-89BB00613A56&FullText=1
Board Member Mitchell asked whether the ordinance is likely to trigger any legal
challenges.
Staff Attorney Brown said the City Attorney's office would be included in the drafting
process. She said that because it was ""uncharted territory"" they would publicize the
ordinance with trade associations for feedback.
Page 1 of 11
Approved Minutes
May 9, 2016
Planning Board Meeting",PlanningBoard/2016-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-05-09,2,"Board Member Sullivan said she wanted to make sure to include the building community
in the process to account for design trends.
There was no public comment.
Board Member Burton said we definitely should include the development community but
these requirements are needed and can be accommodated. He said he is happy to see it
moving forward as our community continues to age.
Board Member Zuppan said these features could be a market advantage, not just a
burden, for the developer community.
Board Member Henneberry said he supports the other Board Members' comments and is
in favor of the sub-committee idea.
President Knox White thanked staff for bringing the item forward. He said he is okay with
a sub-committee, but that he is most concerned with getting the ordinance turned around
quickly before more major projects get approved without it. He said he was concerned
with making a formal mixed sub-committee due to Brown Act concerns.
Staff Member Thomas said he would like to use the sub-committee to move it along quickly
and is okay with having it subject to Brown Act requirements.
7-B 2016-2867
Study Session to Provide Direction on Main Street Neighborhood Specific
Plan Park and Street Network Alternatives and Key Development
Regulations
Staff Member Ott gave the staff presentation. The staff report and attachments can be
found
at:
ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2705110&GUID=32717723-
28E2-456C-A02F-717615B52446&FullText=1
Doug Biggs, Executive Director of the Alameda Point Collaborative, gave a brief
presentation on why they prefer to locate their facilities in the southeast corner of the Main
Street Neighborhood. He said the proximity to new infrastructure, amenities and Site A will
help them with cost and financing.
Board Member Zuppan asked what surrounds the area.
Staff Member Ott said the ferry terminal and parking were to the north and residential to
the east.
Page 2 of 11
Approved Minutes
May 9, 2016
Planning Board Meeting",PlanningBoard/2016-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-05-09,3,"Board Member Henneberry asked what the future holds for the Big Whites and what the
arrangement is now.
Staff Member Ott said they need a lot of rehabilitation, but the intention is to keep and
restore them. She said a property manager manages the units for the City.
Board Member Henneberry suggested that we consider including the renovation of the
Officer's Club as a condition to a private development in the Main Street neighborhood.
Board Member Sullivan asked about plans for the smaller housing units near the Big
Whites.
Staff Member Ott said that those decisions would be made at a later date.
Board Member Mitchell asked what a reduction in height limits near the ferry terminal
would have on the project.
Staff Member Ott said she could not say at the moment, but that their thinking was to
preserve flexibility. She said that City Council, as property owner, can always make a final
decision on any development plan for the site.
Board Member Burton asked how narrow the four story area on the northern edge was at
its narrowest point. He asked how wide the beehive blocks were. He asked about street
section plans around Orion.
Amy McPhee, consultant, said it was 50-100 feet at the narrowest. She said the beehive
blocks were about 150 feet wide. She said they have begun to look at street section
options and can forward that information to the board.
President Knox White opened the public hearing.
Carlos Castellanos, from MidPen Housing, said they have a preference for alternatives
two and three and look forward to working collaboratively on the process.
Karen Bey said she hopes we keep the chapel and theater in the plans. She said she likes
the idea of extending the beehive network and the linear park and central gardens
alternatives.
President Knox White closed the public hearing.
Page 3 of 11
Approved Minutes
May 9, 2016
Planning Board Meeting",PlanningBoard/2016-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-05-09,4,"Board Member Sullivan said she liked the centralized park idea. She asked if the square
footage of the centralized park was the same as with the linear parks. She said blocking
the waterfront with a four story building would be like putting the post office on Shoreline
Drive.
Staff Member Ott confirmed that it was about 8 acres of open space in each alternative.
Board Member Henneberry said two to three stories between the Big Whites and the water
was appropriate, not four. He said he could go for park options two or three.
Board Member Mitchell said he supported a two story maximum along the northern edge.
He said he would prefer a three story max for the other areas instead of four. He said he
liked alternative two's linear park, and that alternative three was his second choice. He
said he supported many of the comments AAPS made.
Board Member Zuppan said she met with APC before the meeting. She said she prefers
option three for the park. She said she liked the mirrored beehive street network. She said
the market rate housing along the southern edge feels isolated. She said she would like
to see view corridors preserved along the northern edge, and that she can not see over
two story buildings any better than four story buildings. She said she would like to see
shadow impacts studied. She said she supported preserving flexibility for neighborhood
uses.
Board Member Burton said he met with APC also. He said he preferred the park
alternatives two or three. He said he is not in favor of the expanded beehive because it
would limit the options for what can go on those blocks. He suggested that the team do
some preliminary studies of what housing types fit in different blocks to make sure they
are feasible. He said putting 50 foot high buildings between the beehive and the ferry
would not fit with the neighborhood. He said the fire requirements for roadway width next
to taller buildings might make a one way loop around the park undesirable. He said he
would like to preserve the smaller bungalows.
President Knox White said he favors option three for the park because it is so hard to
make a linear park work well. He said it might be better to have houses up against the
park instead of a one way couplet. He said he wanted to be careful not to build a
neighborhood that is hard to serve with transit. He said he would like to set a goal for
smaller single family homes at this site. He said we do not have to cover every inch in this
area right away. He said he hopes we limit or ban townhome style units at this site. He
said he did not want Orion to punch through to Main St. due to the traffic it would pull
through the neighborhood. He said we need to look at infill and accessory dwelling unit
options for this site.
Page 4 of 11
Approved Minutes
May 9, 2016
Planning Board Meeting",PlanningBoard/2016-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-05-09,5,"Board Member Burton said single family homes could maybe be used as a buffer for the
Big Whites but that we should encourage denser housing closer to Site A.
Board Member Köster said he would like to see a planning document identifying the
historic buildings in the neighborhood that will be kept. He said he liked the idea of the
farm community. He said he supported the idea of building taller and denser closer to Site
A and going lower as you reach the Big Whites and the farm edge. He said he was
concerned with creating a strong access to the ferry terminal.
7-C 2016-2868
Study Session to Provide Direction on Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal
Design
Board Member Burton recused himself from the discussion do to his employment
connection to Alameda Point Partners who is a major funder for the project.
Staff Member Giles gave the staff presentation. The staff report and attachments can be
found
at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2705111&GUID=8DC03921-
CF1-4BCO-AD9C-3CC74E04E4F3&FullText=
Board Member Köster asked if the City was purchasing the vessel or if the $16 Million was
just the budget shortfall.
Staff Member Giles said that it was just identifying the budget shortfall for procurement of
the vessel.
Board Member Köster asked if the decision to do an interim plan was deliberate and what
the reason was behind it.
Staff Member Thomas said that the long term infrastructure costs that would be born by
developers of Site B are why the choice was made to go with an interim option to get a
ferry terminal operational.
Board Member Zuppan asked if the wheel stops for separating the two way bike lane were
to be the same style as those used on Shoreline.
Staff Member Thomas said that they were, but they were looking into a more permanent
type.
Page 5 of 11
Approved Minutes
May 9, 2016
Planning Board Meeting",PlanningBoard/2016-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-05-09,6,"Board Member Mitchell asked about comparisons to costs for building the Harbor Bay and
Main St. terminals and whether there was a less expensive version of this plan.
Staff Member Giles said this is probably the minimalist version.
Staff Member Thomas said that the in water improvements were very expensive and
planned for the long haul.
Staff Member Ott said that to avoid dredging they are planning a longer float which is an
upfront cost that will save money down the line.
Board Member Sullivan asked how long they could last without dredging.
Staff Member Ott said that the site has very little shoaling and could likely last 30 years or
more without having to dredge.
President Knox White opened the public hearing.
Helen Sause said that there were many good reasons why the project would benefit
Alameda and said she hopes the city would support the project.
President Knox White closed the public hearing.
Board Member Henneberry said this was not controversial and we should proceed.
Board Member Zuppan said she was happy to see this moving forward. She said she had
concerns that the short term paint solutions would start looking bad very quickly.
Board Member Köster said we need this multi modal transit hub. He said he was
concerned with the placement of the road and would like to study having it pushed back
or going around behind the parking. He suggested temporary kiosks to provide some
amenities for the area.
President Knox White said he did not see any phase one bike parking solutions. He said
we need to plan for a lot of bikes at this location. He said the parking lot will generate 400
vehicle trips through congested West End streets so we should make sure we have more
than ten bike lockers that fill up quickly. He explained his concerns over how Regional
Measure Two earmarked money for Alameda's ferry service and that it is being diverted
for other items in WETA's budget. He said we should support Regional Measure Three
when that money is directed back to Alameda. He said we needed to send the message
Page 6 of 11
Approved Minutes
May 9, 2016
Planning Board Meeting",PlanningBoard/2016-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-05-09,7,"that the street parking near the terminal would be a community asset and not be owned
by the adjacent property owners.
7-D 2016-2869
Planning Board Study Session: Boatworks Project, PLN15-0582 - 2235
Clement Avenue - Applicant: Phillip Banta. Study Session to review and
comment on Development Plan and Density Bonus applications for
construction of approximately 182 residential units and approximately two
acres of open space on a 9.48-acre parcel located at 2235 Clement
Avenue. An environmental impact report has been completed for the
project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
Staff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found
at: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2705112&GUID=108ADAC4-
A6-43F6-A798-910AD5A57A24&FullText=1
Phillip Banta gave a presentation on the history of the project and application.
Nicoley Collins, part owner of the project, introduced herself. She said she hopes they can
answer any questions and move the project forward. She said she fears that they have hit
a wall with city staff.
Robert McGillis, project architect, spoke about options for the tentative map.
Shona Armstrong, Boatworks attorney, spoke about the unusual order of the approvals
for this project. She said there was an approved density bonus application in 2011 that
specified the number of affordable units. She said the inclusionary housing and density
bonus issues only reappeared in the March 8th, 2016 letter and that is why they feel it
would be appropriate to have more time to work those issues out.
Board Member Sullivan asked where visitor parking would be. She confirmed that there
were no backyards for any of the units.
Mr. Banta explained that Blanding Ave. would have street parking along one side and Elm
would have perpindicular parking along one side.
Board Member Mitchell asked what the distance between the water and the adjacent
property lines would be.
Mr. Banta said the smallest distance would be 50 feet.
Page 7 of 11
Approved Minutes
May 9, 2016
Planning Board Meeting",PlanningBoard/2016-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-05-09,8,"Board Member Burton asked what the law says about the size and distribution of the
affordable housing.
Staff Member Thomas said there are guidelines and the ordinance says the units should
be ""comparable.
Mr. Banta said that the affordable housing plan was approved in 2011 and that the code
says affordable units may be smaller in size and have different finishes.
Staff Member Thomas said that the standard Mr. Banta referenced was for the additional
units provided under the density bonus, but, not the City's 15% inclusionary.
Board Member Zuppan said she was concerned about the letter just received today stating
no intention of adding any docks now or in the future to the boatways.
Mr. Banta said they have an existing pier that they plan to improve. He said it was decided
in consultation with the City to not include references to possible future floating docks.
Board Member Henneberry asked how we came to such a large discrepancy on the
number of affordable units.
Staff Member Thomas explained the math and interpretations of the inclusionary
ordinance that lead to the discrepancy of 8 units and which types of affordable units are
required.
Staff Attorney Brown explained that the numbers referenced by the applicant's attorney
reflected a settlement agreement that the parties no longer have any rights or obligations
to.
Ms. Armstrong, Boatworks attorney, said that they have a disagreement about the efficacy
of the settlement agreement and that the City already approved the density bonus
application and tentative map and therefore those conditions are baked in.
President Knox White said that we are getting into legal questions beyond the
qualifications of the Board. He pointed out that they are not being asked to act tonight and
that these questions can get clarified if and when the item comes back for action.
President Knox White opened the public hearing.
Page 8 of 11
Approved Minutes
May 9, 2016
Planning Board Meeting",PlanningBoard/2016-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-05-09,9,"Dorothy Freeman said the project has several issues. She said most of units include extra
ground floor units. She said the designs lead to a much greater need for parking. She said
the very low income units designated for wounded warriors are not adequate.
Joseph Woodard said the project is part of the Gateway to Alameda. He said moving the
apartment building to the center of the development would improve access to views of the
hills and better integrate the affordable units. He said the rooftop decks are not ADA
compliant. He said the configuration allows the creation of secondary ground floor units.
Helen Sause, Alameda Home Team, said they hope the maximum number of units can
be built. She said it would be beneficial to have some retail on the site.
Karen Bey said she is disappointed in the project. She compared it to the standard being
set at Alameda Point and thinks we are missing an opportunity to have an exciting mixed
use project so close to Park St. She said she wished there was a dock for water taxis.
President Knox White closed the public hearing.
Board Member Sullivan said she was bothered by the economic segregation of the project.
She said she has a problem with the lack of backyards. She said adding a bathroom in
the garage has to be forbidden. She said using the roofs makes it a four story building.
Board Member Mitchell said the project needs a lot of work. He said the entire project feels
too dense and the mix of housing types seems chaotic. He said the green space behind
the homes on the water make the open space seem like they belong to those homes and
not the public.
Board Member Burton said the moderate income units should be evenly distributed on the
site. He said he was troubled with the uniformly tiny units in the affordable building. He
said he would support more multi family housing on the site. He said the lots are
inadequate for the size of the units on them.
Board Member Köster said he likes that the street grid is reconnected. He is glad that the
multi family housing is in phase one and that the open space and paseos are larger. He
said he was concerned with the heights of some of the buildings. He said he had concerns
about the landscaping choices given the drought conditions. He said he would want
restrictions on the aging in place units. He said he wished we could actually connect with
the water. He said bringing in some sort of retail use would benefit the site.
Page 9 of 11
Approved Minutes
May 9, 2016
Planning Board Meeting",PlanningBoard/2016-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-05-09,10,"Board Member Henneberry said he liked the waterfront park and that it should have kayak
access. He said he was concerned with building a wall around the community. He said the
affordable units should be spread out and similar sizes.
Board Member Zuppan said she liked the waterfront park. She said she was concerned
about protecting small children from the water, especially if there was going to be a tot lot
there. She was concerned with the types of railings on the roof decks. She said it would
be nice to have more benches that face out to the water instead of sideways. She was
concerned with having only one elevator for the wounded warrior building. She supported
spreading the affordable units throughout the site. She said the site feels closed off and
would not invite people in. She suggested changing the mix of housing types could free
up some space for residents to breath.
President Knox White said he was frustrated that there were no new plans submitted
between December and this meeting. He said the large unit sizes do not allow the project
to work well. He said the density bonus combined with 470 sq. ft. affordable units and the
largest possible market rate units was cynical and contrary to the goals of the density
bonus program. He said the project must provide TDM in order to get approval. He said
he would like to see more creative use of multi family to create more useable private open
space. He said they have expected true water access from every waterfront project.
Board Member Burton made a motion to continue the meeting past 11pm. Board Member
Zuppan seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
President Knox White said he is comfortable leaving the question of the affordable housing
number to staff. He said that he would want to see a real plan if they are asked for a new
tentative map extension. He said he was glad everyone wants to move the project forward
but that it would require real partnership. He said he appreciated the lack of a court
stenographer as a first step.
8. MINUTES
8-A 2016-2872
DRAFT MINUTES-FEBRUARY 22, 2016
Board Member Zuppan asked to begin including the hyperlink to the final resolutions in
the minutes.
Board Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member
Henneberry seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
8-B 2016-2873
DRAFT MINUTES- MARCH 14, 2016
Page 10 of 11
Approved Minutes
May 9, 2016
Planning Board Meeting",PlanningBoard/2016-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-05-09,11,"No action was taken due to the minutes not being included in the packet.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Thomas outlined items coming up in future Planning Board meetings. He
said the Harbor Bay Club draft EIR should be released soon.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
President Knox White said that Council upheld the decision on the Webster St. project by
a 4-1 vote.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Knox White adjourned the meeting at 11:07 pm.
Page 11 of 11
Approved Minutes
May 9, 2016
Planning Board Meeting",PlanningBoard/2016-05-09.pdf