{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2013-05-13", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, MAY 13, 2013\n1. CONVENE:\n7:02 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE:\nBoard Member Tang\n3. ROLL CALL:\nPresident Zuppan, Vice President Burton, Board members\nAlvarez-Morroni, Henneberry, Knox White, K\u00f6ster (arrived at\n7:15), and Tang\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nAndrew Thomas, City Planner, requested that item 6.A. be pulled from Consent and be\ncontinued May 29, 2013.\nVice President Burton motioned to approve.\nBoard member Alvarez-Morroni seconded the motion.\nMotion carried, 6-0-1 (K\u00f6ster arrived late)\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR:\n6.A. Consideration of Determination of Consistency of the Proposed Fiscal Years\n2013-2014 and 2014-2015 Capital Improvement Plan with the City of Alameda's\nGeneral Plan. Staff requests the Item be continued to the meeting of May 29,\n2013.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n7.A. Design Review Application PLN13-0060 and PLN13-0061 Design Review\napplication to construct 253 residential units, two commercial spaces, internal\nroadways and alleys, parks and open spaces on 22.3 acres located at 2700 Fifth\nStreet and commonly known as the \"Alameda Landing Residential Project\"\nApplicant: TriPointe Homes and Catellus.\nPlanning Manager, Mr. Andrew Thomas provided a briefing and update to the Board.\nMr. Bill Sadler, TriPointe Homes, provided a presentation to the Board.\nJill Williams, Architect, and Samantha Haimovitch, Landscape Architect, gave a\npresentation showing the different building designs and the accompanying landscaping\nfor the project.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 1 of 10\nMay 13, 2013", "path": "PlanningBoard/2013-05-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2013-05-13", "page": 2, "text": "Mr. Thomas stated he is pleased by the amount of work the applicant has done on the\nproject. He stated that the goal is to make 5th Street a very pedestrian and bike friendly\ncorridor. The four blocks of buildings need to look great. This development will be different\nand unique.\nBoard Member Knox White asked when will there be a list of conditions of what the Home\nOwners Association (HOA) will handle.\nMr. Thomas stated this depends on when during the project issues arise.\nBoard member Knox White asked about the Resolution addressing 253 housing units plus\ntwo commercial spaces and are those commercial spaces designated. He stated that\none of the plans for the affordable housing units is a plan the sub-committee asked the\napplicant not to move forward with.\nMr. Thomas stated the commercial spaces on Singleton are defined, and currently\ngoverned by the Master Plan. He stated that should an approval move forward on the\naffordable housing piece, staff can make a note and mention the removal of one.\nBoard member Knox White asked about the widening of streets in the residential areas.\nHe further asked about block D on the map, why is there an additional 2'.\nMr. Matt Naclario, Public Works Director, addressed the questions and spoke on the city\nstandards for streets, including curb widths. The exception is when we are\naccommodating bike lanes, but still keeping to the standard. He stated they will look into\nthe 2' question.\nBoard member Knox White asked about the low fence height in the paseos.\nMs. Haimovitch stated that element hasn't changed from previously presented. This is\ndesigned for low planting.\nBoard member Knox White asked about the walls around the two commercial spaces on\nSingleton. He further asked for clarification on the step-up for the Universal Design units\non the ground.\nMs. Williams explained the flush threshold vs. a step-up for both commercial and the\nresidential units. The Universal Design units would need access from the sidewalk,\nwhich wouldn't be a ramp, but a gradual increase into the home.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster asked about community gardens in the Open Space area.\nMs. Haimovitch stated the landscape design hasn't been completed, and HOA's will have\na weigh in on the topic.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 2 of 10\nMay 13, 2013", "path": "PlanningBoard/2013-05-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2013-05-13", "page": 3, "text": "President Zuppan asked for clarification on the elements and landscape plan being\nconceptual only, and if so what is being approved tonight.\nMr. Thomas clarified the landscape palette is up for approval along with the conceptual\nplans (i.e., trash recepticles).\nPresident Zuppan opened public comment period.\nSusan Deutch, Vice-Chair Disabilities Commission, spoke in favor of Universal Design.\nChristopher Buckley,resident, spoke on the 3-story homes and suggested some minor\nchanges to the pop-up designs. He suggested maybe look at the Bayport as a model.\nHe referred the Board to the North Park Street design manual for guidance.\nEleanor Alperton, she asked about how many parking spaces are designated for the 253\nunits, because she lives in Bayport and there is a parking issue there.\nMr. Thomas responded that every unit will have two parking spots, including garages.\nHelen Sause, she wanted to thank the Board for the good plan and mix of attractive units.\nShe asked about the streets with alleyways, are the lot coverage 100% and will there be\nbreathing space. She asked about transit for the area, and small retail. She asked\nabout providing housing over the flat roof retail.\nMr. Thomas responded by saying the lots on multi-family are almost 100%, and\neverything is alley loaded. Single Family Residents (SFR) will have a side yard, and\ntransit will be the next phase. He stated the Catellus project will be providing its own\ntransit service to BART, and retail space on the ground floor will be provided.\nJon Spangler, stated that he feels the color scheme should be brighter. He stated that\nthere is not enough room for gardens or farm animals and feels the square footage of the\nhomes should be reduced to provide for it.\nAudrey Lord-Hausman, reiterated the need for Universal Design. She feels that there\nshould be benches in the landscape design. She would like to see the street lights be\nforcing light downward, instead of upward.\nPresident Zuppan closed public comment.\nBoard member Alvarez-Morroni stated her and Board member Tang had a chance to\nmeet with the developers. She stated being pleased with the Universal Design element,\nand the green building element in the construction.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster stated the design has come a long way and likes the designs and\nplans. He strongly feels that that a community garden and an area to for residents to\ngrow a garden is a good selling point. He feels that the architecture on Fifth Street is\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 3 of 10\nMay 13, 2013", "path": "PlanningBoard/2013-05-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2013-05-13", "page": 4, "text": "looking better, heights, pitches, etc. He agreed with the color comments. He commented\non the 3-story VS. 2-story elements being more consistent. He clarified solar panels not\nbe a requirement, but be considered by the developer. He feels that solar panels are a\ngood idea for the homes.\nPresident Zuppan asked if the requirements for a community garden or green building\nneed to be decided at this meeting.\nMr. Thomas stated that they are reviewing design tonight. A review of the Development\nAgreement with Catellus would need to be done before adding the requirements for a\ncommunity garden and green building standards.\nBoard member Knox White stated that the 36' street standard is too big and the streets\nshould be designed to lower speeds, not increase them. He does not want to see a big\nwall on 5th Street and requests that the HOA not have control over the color of the homes,\nif an owner wants to change it.\nBoard member Tang commented on the standard of housing in Alameda, but would like to\nadd a bit more flavor into the mix. He would like the design to be more useful for aging\npeople, and more green construction brought into the designs.\nMs. Williams stated that Plan 1 of which there are 22 are universal design and Block D\nwill have plans with a bedroom and bath on the first floor.\nBoard member Tang asked about the possibility of rooftop gardens.\nMs. Williams stated there are no plans for rooftop gardens.\nVice President Burton thanked the developer, design team, staff and the sub-committee\nfor the hard work. The designs have changed dramatically from the first look. He\ncommented on the Fifth street elevation and bringing the loft-style down from the corner.\nThe multi-family buildings, \"Alameda Style\" he likes best and would like this incorporated\ninto the other styles down the street. He agreed with Mr. Buckley's comments on the\nwindows, and more details are needed to blank sides He commented on the front\nelevations as well, lower roof need to be pushed up, and the mass needs to be more\narticulate.\nBoard member Henneberry wanted to say the sheer volume of information is a tribute to\nthe hard work of everyone involved. He stated that the color palette could be lightened\nup. He agrees that the street width could be narrower.\nPresident Zuppan thanked everyone who dedicated their time to this project, stating it has\ncome a long way. She is pleased to see the universal design included. She stated the\ncolors could use more attention, specifically the celery and blue color. She reiterated\nVice President Burton's comments regarding the solid walls on backyards, and the pitch\nof roofs. She agreed with Mr. Buckley's comments on the windows, and having a\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 4 of 10\nMay 13, 2013", "path": "PlanningBoard/2013-05-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2013-05-13", "page": 5, "text": "window schedule. She would like to see more visual interest in the vast spaces. She\nagreed the color choices should be left to the homeowners, but still have some level of\nconsistency. She would like to see ideas for garden planting and landscaping together.\nShe agreed on places for sitting, and street lights pointing downward, and more share of\nthe street to bicycles and safety. She had a hard time with the fixtures in the\nlandscaping, and fitting into the neighborhoods, its a bit hodge-podge. She loved the fact\nthat landscaping is bay friendly.\nBoard member Knox White asked about the process.\nMr. Thomas stated he has prepared a list as they move forward for conditions and\napprovals.\nBoard member Henneberry asked about the downward facing lighting and didn't this\nBoard approve that previously.\nMr. Thomas requested the Board adopt with the conditions being the Fifth Street\nelevations coming back, and color palette. Additional conditions being made but not\ncoming back to the Board would be the HOA would not regulate colors, the Singleton\ncross-section be amended, the affordable housing portion, on block D make the changes,\nthere is already a condition of approval on the lighting, bike parking, make sure benches\nare incorporated, and downward lighting, and the windows for SFR have no sandwiched\ngrids. Specific issues on AS-1, AS-1.5, AS-1.1.7, more vertical variation in landscaping,\nStreet C is a private street, but will connect.\nBoard member Knox White requested specific changes to the bike lane being increased.\nMr. Thomas noted the change.\nVice President Burton commented adding a foot to the bike lane could add an additional\nfoot to the front yard on residences.\nMr. Thomas explained there is a 20' easement on the multi-use path on the western\nboundary. He asked if the request is to make it 10' asphalt for bike path and 5' on each\nside for landscape. The extra foot for bike can be from the landscape sides.\nBoard member Alvarez-Morroni asked if there was a window schedule would this make\nthe decision easier.\nBoard member Knox White agreed with Vice President Burton that it makes sense to add\nthe foot to the property owner's front yard setback.\nBoard member Knox White motioned to approve the Resolution as commented by staff\nand the Board.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster seconded the motion.\nMotion carried 7-0.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 5 of 10\nMay 13, 2013", "path": "PlanningBoard/2013-05-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2013-05-13", "page": 6, "text": "7.B. Tentative Subdivision Map Applications PLN13-0060 and PLN13-0061 for\nproperty located at 2700 Fifth Street to develop two subdivisions on a 19.1-acre\nproperty and a 4.2-acre property to implement the Alameda Landing Residential\nProject. Applicant: TriPointe Homes and Catellus.\nMr. Andrew Thomas, Planning Manager provided a background briefing and suggested\nmodifying the Resolution with the approvals in item 7.A.\nBoard member Knox White asked about the transportation mitigation measures from the\nEIR and the conditions which state they are in accordance with the SEIR.\nMr. Matt Naclario, Public Works Director explained the conditions, and the locations.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster asked about condition's 6 and 7 which state:\nThe applicant/developer shall establish a Homeowners Association (HOA) to provide\nfunding for maintenance of all private improvements including private streets and alleys,\nTSM/TDM, landscaping in common areas, all bio-treatment areas, and retaining walls; and\nStreet C (lots AI, AH, AG) will be a private street and shall be privately maintained by the\nHOA.\nMr. Naclerio stated that the property has not been sold to the applicant yet and will need a\nlot line adjustment.\nMr. Thomas stated Alley M will be a dead end at Lot 51.\nBoard member Koster asked for clarification of item 6 on the Resolution. He further asked\nabout item 7.\nMr. Thomas clarified item 6.\nMr. Naclario clarified item 7.\nPresident Zuppan open the meeting for public comment, there were no speakers, the\npublic comment closed.\nBoard member Knox White motioned to approve the Resolution with the changes made in\nitem 7.A.\nBoard member Henneberry seconded the motion.\nMotion carried 7-0.\n7.C. Historical Preservation Ordinance Revision Conceptual Amendments to the\nHistoric Preservation Ordinance and Design Review Ordinance to Streamline and\nImprove City Development Processes.\nMr. Andrew Thomas gave a brief overview of the proposed updates to the ordinance.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 6 of 10\nMay 13, 2013", "path": "PlanningBoard/2013-05-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2013-05-13", "page": 7, "text": "Board member Knox White asked if the majority of the Historical Advisory Board (HAB)\nsupport the changes.\nMr. Thomas commented on attendance at both meetings with HAB, and there was concern\nexpressed regarding demolition of a property.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster asked for clarification in 'alteration' on a home pre-1942.\nMr. Thomas explained the process currently, and what the proposed would be.\nBoard member Alvarez-Morroni asked about the definition of 'demolition'.\nMr. Thomas stated that the boards can determine a definition of 'demolition', or consider\nchanging the percentage, or look at all character details of the building. The HAB stated\nthe pre-1942 study list was determined in the 1970's.\nPresident Zuppan opened the meeting for public comment.\nJon Spangler, stated that if someone were to take 50% of the gingerbread off of a 1900's\nvictorian it would be sacrilege. Being a homeowner of a historic building comes with a\nstewardship. Demolition should be anything more than half, or half of the historic\naesthetics, as in ruining the character of the building.\nPresident Zuppan closed the public comment period.\nBoard member Knox White commented on the reasons why we have design review. The\nStudy List is a pseudo-official list as there has been no official designation from City\nCouncil.\nBoard member Alvarez-Morroni agreed being in support of the staff recommendations.\nBoard member Henneberry agreed to support staff and Board recommendations.\nVice President Burton agreed with the recommendations.\nBoard member Tang had no comments.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster agreed with Knox White on going through the study list for\naccuracy. He commented on the yellow house on Buena Vista. He further commented on\ncolors.\nMr. Thomas commented that any work on a building that doesn't trigger a building permit\nmeans the homeowners are free to do what they want.\nPresident Zuppan asked about the Study List and the Pre-1942 structure list, does this\ncross reference.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 7 of 10\nMay 13, 2013", "path": "PlanningBoard/2013-05-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2013-05-13", "page": 8, "text": "Mr. Thomas stated that some do not, and the Study List was a survey of potential\nlandmarks.\nPresident Zuppan commented the Study List is an administrative issue that needs to be\naddressed.\nMr. Thomas stated joint meetings have worked in the past, and from a staff perspective its\na winning concept for any call for review.\nBoard member Knox White motioned to continue the meeting past 10:30 p.m.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster seconded the motion.\nMotion carried 7-0.\nPresident Zuppan asked about the process for a joint meeting with voting and quorum with\ndesign review issues.\nMr. Thomas explained two different scenarios.\n7.D. Housing Element Update Proposed schedule and process for the amendment\nto the Housing Element for the period 2014-2022.\nMr. Andrew Thomas provided this item as an informational item, and he provided a brief\noverview.\nBoard member Knox White asked for a schedule at the next meeting.\n7.E. Planning Board Bylaws. Proposed amendments to the Planning Board Bylaws\nto simplify the annual election of officers to eliminate the requirement that the\nelection be postponed until such time that all seven seats are filled by the Mayor\nand City Council.\nMr. Andrew Thomas provided an overview regarding Bylaws.\nPresident Zuppan explained the natural rotation with longest standing member. She\nopened the meeting for public comment.\nJon Spangler, he wanted to remind the Board with what happened with the Transportation\nCommission a couple years ago. There were no appointee from the Mayor and the TC\nhad no quorum and the ability of no work could be done. He asked they look at full\ntransparency.\nPublic comment was closed.\nBoard member Knox White said he would not approve this tonight, as this is a standard for\nall other boards and commissions. He asked a recommendation to Asst. City Manager look\nat this request before moving forward with procedures.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 8 of 10\nMay 13, 2013", "path": "PlanningBoard/2013-05-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2013-05-13", "page": 9, "text": "Vice President Burton commented that if the City just did a realignment and we are asking\nfor this, it makes sense, but without full knowledge of the process he is hesitant.\nMr. Thomas stated staff will look into this item and bring it back to the Board.\n7.F. Election of Planning Board Officers. The Planning Board will elect a new\nPresident and Vice President for the upcoming year, as required by the Planning\nBoard ByLaws\nMr. Thomas asked for nominations for President.\nBoard member Knox White nominated Vice President Burton for President.\nBoard member Henneberry second.\nMotion carried. 7-0.\nBoard member Knox White nominated Board member Henneberry for Vice-President.\nBoard member Alvarez-Morroni seconded the motion.\nMotion carried 7-0.\n8. MINUTES:\nMinutes of April 8, 2013 (Pending)\nMinutes of March 25, 2013 (Pending)\nMinutes of March 11, 2013\nBoard member Knox White motioned for approval with edits.\nBoard member Koster seconded the motion.\nMotion carried 4-0 (Absent Henneberry, and new members not onboard yet)\nMinutes of February 25, 2013\nBoard member Knox White motioned for approval with edits.\nBoard member Henneberry seconded the motion.\nMotion carried 4-0.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n9.A. Future Agendas\nMr. Thomas gave a overview of upcoming projects.\n9.B. Zoning Administrator and Design Review Pending and Recent Actions and\nDecisions. The Planning Board will consider whether to call for review any design\nreview actions or Zoning Administrator actions taken since the last Planning Board\nmeeting.\nBoard member Knox White commented that since the last meeting the City's website has\nbeen updated and changed and there is no information on the 43 chain link fence issues.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 9 of 10\nMay 13, 2013", "path": "PlanningBoard/2013-05-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2013-05-13", "page": 10, "text": "He asked this item to be continued to the next meeting.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\n11.A. Report from Alameda Landing Residential Design Review Ad-Hoc\nSub-Committee\nMr. Thomas requested this item be continued and expand until June 2013 to include the\nretail portion of the property design.\nBoard member Henneberry thanked the Board for the nomination to Vice President.\nPresident Zuppan thanked the Board for allowing her to be seated as President.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None\n13. ADJOURNMENT:\n10:59 p.m.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 10 of 10\nMay 13, 2013", "path": "PlanningBoard/2013-05-13.pdf"}