body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2016-10-24,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2016
1. CONVENE
Board Member Mitchell convened the meeting at 7:03pm.
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Sullivan led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Board Members: Burton, Curtis, Knox White, Mitchell, Sullivan. Absent:
President Köster. Board Member Zuppan arrived at 7:06pm
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
Board Member Knox White made a motion to move item 7-B to the front of the regular
agenda. Board Member Sullivan seconded the motion. No vote was taken.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
Board Member Burton recused himself for the consent calendar and item 7-B.
Board Member Knox White made a motion to approve the consent calendar. Board
Member Curtis seconded the motion. The vote passed 5-0.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-B 2016-3501
Hold a Public Hearing to Consider Site A Neighborhood Park Design
Review Application
Staff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be
found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2858658&GUID=89BB764A-
3A80-41CD-A1F5-7286416E7BOF&FullText=
James Winstead, landscape architect, gave a presentation on the park's design.
Board Member Curtis asked about the park's acreage.
Approved Minutes
Page 1 of 9
Planning Board Meeting
October 24, 2016",PlanningBoard/2016-10-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-10-24,2,"Mr. Winstead said the central block is just over one acre,and the others are 0.5 acres
and 0.35 acres.
Board Member Sullivan asked where the arbutus trees would be used.
Mr. Winstead said they would be used in more passive areas away from paving due to
the mess they make.
Board Member Sullivan asked what kind of guarantee there would be that the
decomposed granite surfaces would last more than a couple years.
Mr. Winstead said there is a stabilizer compound that can be added to keep the surface
locked in.
Board Member Zuppan asked why the plan lacked detail if it was asking for a resolution
of approval.
Staff Member Thomas said they can condition the approval to bring back the plant
selections. He said they will be taking it to the Parks Commission next and wanted to get
the design out to the public as soon as possible.
Board Member Zuppan asked how many picnic tables were planned in the middle
section.
Mr. Winstead said there would be 15 tables.
There were no public speakers.
Board Member Knox White said bike racks often get put off to the sides. He said he
would like to see a condition that racks be required at all activity generating locations. He
said he is not clear on what the 7-8 foot bike path was doing. He said it is not a real bike
facility and not integrated into the intersections. He said perhaps a wider sidewalk would
make more sense because that is how it will get used.
Board Member Sullivan said she would like to see what plantings end up in different
locations.
Board Member Zuppan said she likes the activities plan and landforms for the park. She
said she would like to see the landscape design come back, as well as the bike path
design. She said she would like the resolution to specifically allow dogs in the park.
Board Member Curtis asked about the different sized picnic tables.
Approved Minutes
Page 2 of 9
Planning Board Meeting
October 24, 2016",PlanningBoard/2016-10-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-10-24,3,"Mr. Winstead explained the mix of regular and oversized picnic tables.
Board Member Mitchell said he would also like to see the final details come back. He
said he liked the design and landform elements.
Staff Member Thomas said they would add a condition to bring back the final
landscaping plan. He said they would bring back the bike access plans and amend the
resolution to specifically allow leashed dogs in the park. He said they would also bring
back details of the lighting plan, and water fountain type and placement.
Board Member Zuppan made a motion to approve the design review with the conditions
listed by Staff Member Thomas. Board Member Knox White seconded the motion. The
motion passed 5-0. The resolution can be found at:
https://alamedaca.gov/sites/default/files/document-files/department-
files/Planning/2016 planning board resos july-december.pdf
7-A 2016-3500
Hold a Public Hearing to Consider a Development Plan, Design Review
and Use Permit (PLN16-0468) for Building 8 on Alameda Point located at
2350 Saratoga Street
Staff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be
found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2858657&GUID=682D8768-
CCEO-497C-BA5D-457869E36EE2&Options=&Search=&FullText=1
Eric Mikiten, project architect, gave a presentation on the proposed project.
Board Member Sullivan asked what kinds of residents they expect moving in.
The owner said that people working from home is becoming more common. He said
designers, artists, consultants, and other users compatible with residential use could live
there. He said the ground floor would likely have a variety of tenants.
Board Member Curtis asked if there were requirements for space allocation between the
work and live spaces.
Mr. Mikiten said Alameda does have code requirements for how much space is used for
work.
Board Member Sullivan asked what the price points would be and whether the universal
design would add to the cost.
Approved Minutes
Page 3 of 9
Planning Board Meeting
October 24, 2016",PlanningBoard/2016-10-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-10-24,4,"Mr. Mikiten said the universal design costs were minimal. He said the combining of work
and live spaces would make these units a good value for the residents.
Board Member Zuppan asked if the roof space would be available to the public.
Mr. Mikiten said they anticipate it being used by tenants, but that if there were events
held it would mean more people would be able to visit the space.
Board Member Zuppan asked if there were any green features being incorporated into
the building.
The owner said the biggest green feature is not tearing the building down.
Mr. Mikiten said the work/live functions were also a large green feature of the use.
Board Member Burton asked if the work/live spaces would be rental or for sale.
The owner said they would be applying for historic rehabilitation tax credits which would
prohibit sale of units for at least five years. He says they are comfortable being
owner/operators, but would also be open to selling to tenants if they were prepared to
take ownership.
Board Member Curtis said the design looks good. He said he is concerned with the
density of the units. He said he is also worried about the parking.
The owner said the ordinances encourage lower parking levels for these projects at
Alameda Point. He said the scale of the building really makes the number of units seem
spacious.
Board Member Mitchell asked what kind of electrical would be supplied to tenants.
The owner said the ground floor would have three phase 480 power. He said the
work/live units would have single phase 208 power but could be increased at tenant
request.
There were no public speakers.
Board Member Zuppan said she was excited to see the project moving forward with this
type of use. She said she was concerned about the parking but there are plans in place
to address that on the base. She said the roof structure would probably not show very
Approved Minutes
Page 4 of 9
Planning Board Meeting
October 24, 2016",PlanningBoard/2016-10-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-10-24,5,"much and be fine. She said she liked the flexibility of the spaces. She said she is
supportive of the project.
Board Member Knox White said this is exactly the type of project we are looking for. He
said bike rack locations will be important for this building. He said the long term bike
parking might be in the wrong place and would make more sense near the freight
elevator. He said the accessible parking spaces could be moved to be next to each other
for better access. He expressed concern for how the truck access off of Ranger would
work.
Board Member Burton said he supports the project. He said it was difficult to find small
commercial spaces and there would be high demand for this type of product. He said he
was glad to hear about the developer's experience with rehabilitating old buildings. He
said there will not be parking shortages on the base for decades. He said minimizing the
visual impact of the rooftop elements is a good idea.
Board Member Sullivan said she is enthusiastic about the project and looks forward to
seeing it completed.
Board Member Curtis said he likes the project, but is worried about density and traffic.
Board Member Mitchell said there is a good team behind this project. He said work/live
is a great solution to our traffic problems. He said this project is an important step in
making Alameda Point successful.
Board Member Zuppan made a motion to approve the staff recommendations with
modifications: review of bike rack locations; review of trash locations; continue working
on truck access details; ensuring the roof and banding changes are made; and,
accessible parking locations are reviewed. Board Member Burton seconded the motion.
Board Member Knox White said the City Council has already approved the density and
we are only voting on the design review.
The motion passed 5-1 (Curtis). The resolution can be found at:
https://alamedaca.gov/sites/default/files/document-files/department-
files/Planning/2016 planning board resos july-december.pdf
7-C 2016-3502
Review and Comment on the Public Review Draft of the Alameda Point
Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan
Staff Member Giles gave the staff presentation. The staff report and attachments can be
found at:
Approved Minutes
Page 5 of 9
Planning Board Meeting
October 24, 2016",PlanningBoard/2016-10-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-10-24,6," ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2858659&GUID=A4EF7EBF-
EBF-4FC7-B578-1E63AE0E56C9&Options=&Search=&FullText=1
Board Member Sullivan asked if we have looked at starter homes and senior homes for
middle class people, not just the rich and very poor.
Staff Member Thomas explained what affordability levels would be included. He said
they are working on designing projects that will have units that are available for
households of all income levels by dictating the size of the units.
Board Member Sullivan said that young families cannot live in one bedroom apartments
and we need small starter single family homes.
Staff Member Ott said 9% of the units would be deed restricted moderate income units.
She said the flexibility of building heights and types will make it so that the market rate
units are more affordable to middle income buyers.
Board Member Curtis said that the boom market helps pay for the affordable housing
now, but if the market changes direction, that will not work out for the people who paid
top dollar for the market rate units.
Staff Member Ott explained that the moderate income buyers would not participate in the
upside or downside equity changes that a market rate purchaser would.
Staff Member Thomas explained the origin of the 25% inclusionary requirements of
building at this site.
Board Member Knox White asked what could be built within the Historic Zone within the
strict design guidelines.
Staff Member McPhee said the guidelines were targeted at the non-contributing
buildings in the historic district.
Board Member Mitchell asked if limiting heights to three stories instead of four was
feasible.
Staff Member Ott said they are looking to preserve flexibility in order to make certain
product types viable.
Board Member Zuppan said we need to be incorporating plans for indoor
homework/library spaces for children on this end of town.
Approved Minutes
Page 6 of 9
Planning Board Meeting
October 24, 2016",PlanningBoard/2016-10-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-10-24,7,"Board Member Mitchell opened the public hearing.
Abby Goldware, Mid-Pen Housing, spoke about their plans for serving the Collaborating
Partners in this neighborhood. She said they support the plan that is before the board.
Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, suggested clarifying
the provisions regarding infill in the historic district. He gave suggestions for guideline
changes that could be made that were included in their letter.
Curtis Thomas said he is worried that people like him might be squeezed out of the
neighborhood and hopes they will be able to come back to the neighborhood when it is
built out.
Board Member Mitchell closed the public hearing.
Board Member Burton said keeping the four story limit will be important in order to
maintain the variety of housing. He gave an extended list of suggested edits for the plan
to aid in clarity and precision.
Board Member Curtis said a lot of time went into the document and that it was very well
written.
Board Member Zuppan said she would like to see universal design called out
specifically. She supported the idea of accommodating middle income housing. She said
narrow streets do not make the streets safer. She said she was concerned with the
sustainability of emphasizing grass in the historic district. She said we need flexibility for
building heights, but there should be a burden to demonstrate a need to exceed three
stories and not allow tall buildings by right.
Board Member Knox White said the use of ""primarily residential"" to describe the mixed
use zoning is something they need to be deliberate about. He said the General Plan
policy of 90% of the housing being medium density is not spelled out in the plan. He said
he is concerned that the areas relying on a dike for sea level rise protection will not have
it until 100% of the base is built out. He said the safety of narrower streets are supported
by academic studies. He said the shared streets need a lot more thought. He said the
parking table appears to be missing data. He listed several potential edits for clarity. He
said we should use size requirements to address the middle income housing need.
Board Member Sullivan said it is important we match our housing stock to what our
community has been and wants to attract in the future. She said not everybody wants to
live in a seven story building. She said she does not like narrow streets. She said they
are not safe and if speed is a problem to use speed bumps. She said when there is only
Approved Minutes
Page 7 of 9
Planning Board Meeting
October 24, 2016",PlanningBoard/2016-10-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-10-24,8,"parking on one side of the street it creates hardships on holidays and for guests. She
said she would not want to approve anything taller than three stories.
Board Member Mitchell said he supports smaller, workforce housing options. He said he
would like to see stronger language than just encouraging green features. He said we
should explore giving priority for new housing to people that are displaced by
redevelopment on the site.
Board Member Zuppan made a motion to extend the meeting to 11:15pm. Board
Member Knox White seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Board Member Knox White asked that, in order to inform the discussion on market rate
housing types, housing cost information be included when the plan comes back.
8. MINUTES
8-A 2016-3497
Draft Meeting Minutes - June 13, 2016
Board Member Knox White made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member
Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0-1 (Abstain: Curtis).
8-B 2016-3499
Draft Meeting Minutes - June 22, 2016
Board Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Knox
White seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0-2 (Abstain: Burton, Curtis).
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Thomas gave an update on design review decisions and future meeting
agendas.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board Member Burton said he attended the TDM workshop and there were some new
voices present that were very helpful.
11-A 2016-3503
Subcommittee with Commission on Disability Issues regarding Universal
Design Ordinance
*None*
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
Approved Minutes
Page 8 of 9
Planning Board Meeting
October 24, 2016",PlanningBoard/2016-10-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-10-24,9,"13. ADJOURNMENT
Board Member Mitchell adjourned the meeting at 11:05pm.
Approved Minutes
Page 9 of 9
Planning Board Meeting
October 24, 2016",PlanningBoard/2016-10-24.pdf