{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2013-06-10", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nWEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2013\n1. CONVENE:\n7:03 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Knox White\n3. ROLL CALL:\nPresident Burton, Vice President Henneberry, Board members\nKnox White, K\u00f6ster, Alvarez-Morroni and Tang.\nAbsent - Board members Zuppan.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR: No items on Consent\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n7.A.\nDesign Review Application PLN13-0060 and PLN13-0061 Applicant:\nTriPointe Homes and Catellus Design Review application for nine (9) Multifamily\nBuildings on 5th Street as part of the Alameda Landing Residential Project.\nMr. Andrew Thomas, City Planner, provided a briefing on the project.\nPresident Burton opened the meeting to public comment.\nChristopher Buckley, spoke on comments from the May 13th meeting that windows were\nnot on the rendering. He commented on stucco issues, and he further commented on\nwindow type and color.\nJon Spangler, started by commending Mr. Buckley for the attention to detail. He spoke on\nthe colors of the buildings stating they should be more Mediterranean.\nPresident Burton closed the meeting to public comment.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster asked for staff to address the questions. He further asked if\nindustrial type windows could be an option. He likes the new sweeping curve in design, but\nwondered how far it extruded.\nMr. Thomas addressed the comments and mentioned that this will be coming back to the\nBoard. He stated the design professionals do not have an answer regarding the curve\ndesign, but it will probably be a couple of feet difference.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 1 of 8\nJune 10, 2013", "path": "PlanningBoard/2013-06-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2013-06-10", "page": 2, "text": "Board member Knox White stated he likes all the changes that have been incorporated,\nbut he wanted to edit the Resolution regarding the small wall between sidewalk and\nbuilding.\nBoard member Alvarez-Morroni thanked TriPointe for the changes. She asked about the\nelevation on the single family units, and stated the color palate looks a little dark.\nBoard member Tang stated overall the plans look good. He asked about the trees in the\npresentation and is there more planting in the plan. He further asked about bike racks.\nMr. Thomas stated there will be more planting. He commented that bike racks are in the\npublic access areas and all units have two car garages.\nVice President Henneberry stated he viewed the property and likes where they are going.\nPresident Burton stated the window comments were not about the loft type, more about\nthe Alameda waterfront style and agrees with Mr. Buckley's statement. He agreed on the\ncolor comments and would like for this to not look too bland.\nBoard member Knox White would like the bike parking ordinance to be looked at for this\nproject.\nBoard member Knox White motioned to approve with comments.\nVice President Henneberry seconded the motion.\nMotion carried, 6-0\n7.B. Alameda Landing Residential Condition of Approval Regarding Street Widths.\nMr. Thomas provided an overview of this item, and the requirements for Alameda Fire\nDepartment (AFD). He also mentioned that Matt Tunney of AFD was present.\nBoard member Alvarez-Morroni stated now is a great time for this.\nBoard member Tang asked how staff is dealing with streets currently.\nMr. Thomas explained.\nVice President Henneberry commented on variations and aesthetics to streets.\nBoard member Knox White asked what is the width of High Street.\nStaff commented 40-feet (actual width is 36 feet).\nBoard member Knox White commented on where is the standard written, and talked on\nstreet designs getting bigger, then trucks get bigger and he finds no one wants to shrink\nstreets. He commented on concerns to \"C\" Street and wants to know what the standard is\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 2 of 8\nJune 10, 2013", "path": "PlanningBoard/2013-06-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2013-06-10", "page": 3, "text": "based on.\nMr. Thomas stated he wasn't sure where the standard is written or what it's based on.\nMatt Naclario, Public Works Director, stated that the number of lanes can determine the\nwidth. His research has been most cities have gone from 7' to 8' for parking with the\nratios being 70% use this, but as low as 50%. The Development Review Team has been\nlooking closely at the street designs for Alameda Point and is aware of the AFD\nrequirements for safety.\nBoard member Knox White stated there are other safety issues and this is a concern when\nroads get wider. He wants the City as a whole to add other safety concerns. There are\nmultiple states who have adopted standards.\nPresident Burton opened the meeting for public comment.\nHelen Sause, resident, expressed apology for being late to speak but commented on item\n7.A. and wanted them to look at other color schemes, and a mixed of housing types. She\nstated the grid street pattern is very important with the connect ability to other\nneighborhoods and streets and need to be useable for public transportation. She is\ndelighted for the development to be moving forward.\nPatricia Ashley, resident, stated the street width is a big issue in Bayport and the safety\nissues are very important with high density. She urged them not to underestimate real\nbehavior; probably 50% park one car in the garage, one on the street. Narrowing the\nparking lane is a big concern, keeping it wider is better.\nJon Spangler, resident, addressed the Board as a biking instructor and wanted them to\nconsider the door opening factor on the streets. 7' parking lanes cannot work with a safe\npassing for cyclists. He reported the door zone is 4-5' and not 2-3'.\nPresident Burton closed public comment.\nBoard member Alvarez-Morroni agreed with Ms. Ashley's comment. She thinks the street\nwidths are site specific but to keep \"C\" Street a wider street.\nVice President Henneberry agreed there are things the City can do to decrease the\nnumber of speeders. He supported the AFD needs for an additional 24\" on the street.\nPresident Burton wanted to comment on the condition of this item, there is no bike lane on\nthe street, but there is a bike/pedestrian path alongside the street. He stated the City\nshould look at these issues on a case-by-case basis because some streets have 7' parking\nlanes.\n7.C. Alameda Landing Retail Center Design Review and Planned Development\nAmendment Application PLN13-0157. Applicant: Catellus. Design Review and\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 3 of 8\nJune 10, 2013", "path": "PlanningBoard/2013-06-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2013-06-10", "page": 4, "text": "Planned Development Amendment Application to construct eleven retail buildings\non a 24 acre site between Fifth Street, Stargell Avenue, Mitchell Avenue and\nMariner Square Loop and commonly known as the Alameda Landing Retail Project.\nMr. Thomas provided an overview and introduced members of Catellus.\nSean Whiskeman provided a briefing.\nMr. David Blair, MCG Architecture, provided a presentation.\nBoard member Alvarez-Morroni asked about the landscape by Michael's wall.\nMr. Whiskeman stated that wall line is on property line of Mariners Square Athletic club\nand there is no room.\nBoard member Tang asked about a seating facility by Starbucks.\nMr. Thomas stated there is extensive seating and landscape in former plans along with\ntrash bins and the bike rack designs are in the process.\nMr. Whiskeman reported they are working with Bike Alameda for design and locations.\nVice President Henneberry asked about modifying the buildings at past meetings.\nMr. Thomas stated they are right in the middle of the design process, but for tonight are\nthe three priorities are Building G, designs for Buildings A and F. This was discussed at the\nsubcommittee meetings.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster asked for understanding on the buildings facing inward as opposed\nto toward the streets.\nMr. Thomas explained the goals of the retail center.\nBoard member Knox White asked if there is a possibility for a door in Starbucks to the\nplaza.\nMr. Whiskeman stated while working with Safeway there is no other way to have another\nopening onto the plaza unless its top to bottom curved glass, this is an operational issue.\nBoard member Knox White reported being on the subcommittee that provided comments\non the Building G concerns, and it would be great to find another plan. There was a good\ndiscussion on Building A, and Buildings B and C with a bit more variation.\nVice President Henneberry asked about the door at Peets at Nob Hill which is an out only\nand asked if this option has been discussed with Safeway.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 4 of 8\nJune 10, 2013", "path": "PlanningBoard/2013-06-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2013-06-10", "page": 5, "text": "Mr. Whiskeman reported that if it's an access door they have loss prevention issue.\nVice President Henneberry asked if the dividing of Building G has been for a specific\ntenant.\nMr. Whiskeman stated they wanted an all four sided design as one enters the court.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster asked for square footage and additional parking, are they bound by\ncertain restrictions.\nMr. Whiskeman wasn't sure what would trigger further planning to add square footage\nstating they are doing their best to work within the site plan.\nPresident Burton commented on Building G being critical to adopt or not tonight. The\nmain entry street could be compromised if the building is divided. The back of the building\nshould be more developed or more creative.\nPresident Burton opened the meeting to public comment.\nChristopher Buckley, resident, stated he liked and wanted the smoke stack detail. He\nwondered if spatial glass would be a stronger statement in the scheme of mid-century.\nThe details will be very important, such as the joints and composite plank siding. The\nwindow recesses need to be addressed.\nDiane Lichenstein, resident, stated she feels there is no softness on the buildings and she\nwould like the landscape design to be softer. The clock tower is great but it's still bold and\nboxy. She commented on the lighting designs.\nJon Spangler, resident, he talked on Building A regarding President Burtons comment\nabout taking back the space with artistic relief. Building F is too dark, maybe primary\ncolor awnings, and recessed windows. He does like the clock tower idea. He clarified his\nprevious comment was not to add a bike lane on the street.\nKaren Bey, resident, stated there has been mixed ideas on what the vision of the center\nhas been because originally this was being marketed as a lifestyle center which it isn't with\nthe big Safeway and big Target. She likes what TriPointe is doing, but this center needs\nto complement the area.\nHelen Souse, resident, commented on big boxes need to be softened, perhaps parking\nunder the buildings. She likes the clock tower, but not the advertising. She stated\nlandscaping will be important.\nPresident Burton closed public comment.\nBoard member Alvarez-Morroni stated that she likes the green on Building A and ambient\nlighting on the side, Building F and would like Building G to stay one building. She thinks\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 5 of 8\nJune 10, 2013", "path": "PlanningBoard/2013-06-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2013-06-10", "page": 6, "text": "complete building, or if split make it a paseo. He appreciates the imagery that was\npresented, and he can go either way with clock tower or smoke stack. He asked when the\nboard will see signage, and expressed concern on nighttime lighting with neighbors. He\nasked about the resolution language for bike parking item to be changed. Buildings B and\nC should have a more individual look.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster commented on the clock tower idea having both. Is there a way to\nsplit the resolution items apart or do it all together?\nMr. Thomas provided information.\nBoard member Knox White motioned to continue meeting after 10:30 p.m.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 6 of 8\nJune 10, 2013", "path": "PlanningBoard/2013-06-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2013-06-10", "page": 7, "text": "Board member K\u00f6ster seconded the motion.\nMotion carried, 6-0\nBoard member Knox White motioned to approve the resolution with removing item 6,\nAmendment and approval of Building A with the Stargell screening and other items coming\nback to the PB, and to update the language for the bike parking.\nVice President Henneberry seconded the motion.\nMotion carried, 6-0\n7.D. Recommend Adoption of An Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code\nSection 30-2 Definitions for Home Occupations to allow Cottage Food Operations\nas required by AB 1616.\nMr. Thomas provided a briefing and overview of the state law and AMC.\nBoard member Knox White asked for the removal of the word, \"pedestrian\". \"\nVice President Henneberry motioned to adopt option two and strike the word 'pedestrian'\nfrom amendment.\nBoard member Knox White seconded.\nMotion carried, 6-0\n8. MINUTES:\nMinutes of May 29, 2013 (Pending)\nMinutes of May 13, 2013 (Pending)\nMinutes of April 22, 2013 (Pending)\nMinutes of April 8, 2013 were approved.\nPresident Burton proposed edits.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster motioned to approve with edits.\nVice President Henneberry seconded the motion.\nMotion carried, 6-0\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n9.A. Future Agendas\nMr. Thomas reported on upcoming items.\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 review\nactions or Zoning Administrator actions taken since the last Planning Board meeting.\nPresident Burton asked for a call for action on any of the items on the list. There was no\ncall for action.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 7 of 8\nJune 10, 2013", "path": "PlanningBoard/2013-06-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2013-06-10", "page": 8, "text": "10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nPresident Burton commented on an Alameda Point Town Center & Waterfront\nSubcommittee and he would like the committee to be himself, member Knox White and\nasked member Alvarez-Morroni to be an addition to this group.\n11.A. Report from Alameda Landing Residential Design Review Ad-Hoc Sub-\nCommittee - Nothing to report\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None\n13. ADJOURNMENT: President Burton adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 8 of 8\nJune 10, 2013", "path": "PlanningBoard/2013-06-10.pdf"}