{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-06-22", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, JUNE 22, 2015\n1. CONVENE:\n7:02 P.M.\n2. FLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Tang led the flag salute\n3. ROLL CALL:\nPresent: President Henneberry, Vice President Alvarez and\nBoard Members Burton, Knox White, K\u00f6ster, Tang, and\nZuppan\nAbsent: None\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR: None\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n7-A\nPLN12-0279 - 2235 Clement Avenue - Applicant: Francis Collins. Tentative\nMap Amendment, Development Plan and Design Review to permit construction of\n182 townhome units and approximately 2 acres of open space on two vacant\nparcels located at the corner of Clement Avenue and Oak Street. An\nenvironmental impact report was prepared and certified pursuant to the California\nEnvironmental Quality Act in 2010.\nAndrew Thomas Assistant Community Development Director, provided presentation and\noverview of the project and requirements. He stated that the staff recommendation is to\ndeny the extension of the map.\nPhil Banta, Boatworks, provided a presentation on the history of the project, and\naddressed staff comments.\nBoard Member Burton questioned the applicants interpretations of open space and\nreferenced page 3 of the letter open space Section 2.1A, stating they will contribute a\nmaximum of $100,000 to create access to the water yet will not be responsible for\nsecuring the permits or any of the construction.\nBoard Member Burton asked what percentage of open space is underwater.\nMr. Thomas stated roughly 5000 of the 61,000 square feet open space requirement is\nwater.\nApproved Minutes\nJune 22, 2016\nPlanning Board Meeting\nPage 1 of 7", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-06-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-06-22", "page": 2, "text": "Mr. Thomas stated he has never needed to make the interpretation of water as open\nspace in the past.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked if there was a path to the water or were the ramps just for\ndrop off.\nMr. Thomas stated that the docks were the original ship drop offs and they didn't want\npeople in the area.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked why the intersection of A Street and Elm Street was\nchanged.\nMr. Banta stated that it allows for a better design to have the street jog to Elm Street.\nBoard Member Knox White stated that Blanding Avenue also does not line up.\nMr. Banta stated that it is to allow for parking on Blanding Avenue.\nBoard Member Zuppan questioned the subjective statements regarding a very significant\nrain storm over limited period of time.\nMr. Banta stated that it implies a continuous downpour for a number of hours, within a 24\nhour period the grounds would absorb the water.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked what the basis for the understanding is.\nMr. Banta stated the information is from the engineer.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if it was in the packet.\nMr. Banta stated it was not.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked about the hazardous materials cleanup of the site.\nMr. Banta stated that phase 2 needs to be remediated and an action plan is in place that\nhas been approved by DTSC.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if the phase 2 cleanup affect the phase 1 residents.\nMr. Banta said it won't affect them.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if the project would fully fund the docks.\nMr. Banta stated the 100K is a reasonable amount, but he didn't want to be required to\ndo other things that may cost much more.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked how would the boats get down to the public dock.\nMr. Banta stated that kayakers can carry them down to the dock and walk down the dock.\nBoard Member Zuppan also questioned the new street arrangements.\nApproved Minutes\nJune 22, 2016\nPlanning Board Meeting\nPage 2 of 7", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-06-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-06-22", "page": 3, "text": "Mr. Banta stated that it provides a better sight line to the open space area and the\nwaterfront.\nBoard Member Burton stated concern that the single family homes at the top do not have\nfire truck access.\nThe Board opened public comment.\nDorothy Freeman, resident, stated that she would like to see a full 2 acres of public open\nspace on the estuary and more than a walking path on the waterfront. She stated there\nis no proper street grid and the site is the Gateway to Alameda and it needs to be\ncomplementary to neighborhood. She does not feel they should not approve this plan.\nHelen Sause, resident, stated that the site has breath taking views and she agrees with\nstaff that the design needs to take advantage of the site and it seems to need a better\ndesign.\nKaren Bey, resident, stated she is disappointed with the design and real community\nbenefits are needed since it is a special site near the historic Park Street district. She\nfeels that the 2 acre park is too small and there should be more public benefit.\nBecky Redfield, resident, stated she dislikes the small units for the low-income housing\nand she would like a ramp for kayaks but the design is not good, seems flimsy, solid\nconcrete would be better\nThe Board closed public comment.\nBoard Member Burton stated that he does not think that the site plan is worth reviewing\nor approving and the previously approved plan had three major access ways for public to\nreach the waterfront, a nice promenade in the center, and had a great core. He stated\nthat the current site plan is packed in tight with narrow spaces between the buildings and\nno open space between the single family dwellings. He feels that the applicant needs to\nstart over and he recommends denial.\nBoard Member Tang stated that he likes the loading and kayak area, but is concerned\nwith the definition of open space and water. He feels that low tide and high tide should\nbe addressed and could be dangerous, need to address safety and open space first.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster stated that the previous plan had great public areas and he is not\nseeing that in this plan, it feels there is too much asphalt, very few trees and little green\nspace. He stated that he would like to see the city streets reconnected and the\narchitecture needs work.\nBoard Member Knox White stated that he agrees with moving the multifamily back to the\ncorner and mentioned. He questioned why the 2011 plan was not suitable. He feels that\nthe boat ramp needs to be approved prior to the project approval and the length of the\nramp clarified due to tides.\nApproved Minutes\nJune 22, 2016\nPlanning Board Meeting\nPage 3 of 7", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-06-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-06-22", "page": 4, "text": "Board Member Zuppan stated that the concepts look nice but would like more details on\nhow things are incorporated and it looks like the pieces were thrown together. She stated\nthat the landscaping was nice and the townhomes have nice access for aging in place,\nbut the other homes do not. She feels that the open space should not just be the sidewalk,\nit should be a place for kids to play. She would like to see a wider waterfront space which\nis available to the public and not just the residents. The affordable housing needs to be\nintergraded within the site and the developer needs to create the open space necessary\nand not require someone else to handle it. She can't approve the project.\nPresident Henneberry stated that the plan needs revisions.\nBoard member Knox White moved to approve denial of the development plan and design\nreview applications and recommend that the Alameda City Council deny the tentative\nmap and density bonus application amendment for the Boatworks project at 2241 through\n2243 Clement Avenue. Board member Burton second the motion.\nMotion passed 7-0.\n7-B\nPLN14-0701 - 2100 Clement Avenue - Applicant: City Ventures. Public\nHearing to consider a draft Vesting Tentative Map and Density Bonus application\nand a resolution approving a Development Plan, Design Review, and Density\nBonus application to Permit Construction of 52 Units on a 2.78 Acre Parcel Located\nat 2100 Clement Avenue. The proposal is categorically exempt from further review\nunder the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines\nSection 15332 Infill Development Projects.\nMr. Thomas provided an overview of the project.\nAndrew Warner, City Ventures, provided an overview of the design.\nBoard member Burton stated that he has heard concerns from the neighbors regarding\nthe street trees and asked how many can be saved.\nMr. Warner stated that all of the trees are close to the sidewalk, or on the site.\nBoard Member Tang stated that an open space area would make the community more\ninteractive, and asked about drought tolerant.\nMr. Warner stated that the open space area will be drought tolerant.\nThe Board opened public comment.\nDorothy Freeman, neighbor, thanked staff and the Alameda Architectural Preservation\nSociety (AAPS) for their help on the project since it is not complementary to the\nneighborhood and 58 units are too dense. She didn't like the unusable open space in the\nprevious plan and stated the new plan has less units, entrances on two streets, and open\nspace increased and neighbor friendly. Scott Lockwood, resident, spoke in favor of the\nproject stating that he used to live in the neighborhood and feels it would be a nice\nApproved Minutes\nJune 22, 2016\nPlanning Board Meeting\nPage 4 of 7", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-06-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-06-22", "page": 5, "text": "addition. He feels the architecture is complementary without trying to mimic the style and\nCity Ventures has engaged the community and incorporated as much as it can.\nJoseph Woodard, neighbor, stated that his home is not far from the development and he\nwelcomes more neighbors. He is glad to work with staff, the Planning Board, and the\napplicant who have listened to the neighbors.\nGinni Dofflemyer, neighbor, stated that the project has made huge progress, but it is not\ncomplete yet. She feels that they still need to keep working on the plan, save the trees,\nand make the project harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood.\nPenny Cozad, neighbor, feels that the bulk and effect of the project on the neighborhood\nwith the setbacks so close it makes the street feel narrow\nMichael McDonough, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of the project\nstating it will increase jobs for the area stating that the Chamber of Commerce\nrecommends approval.\nDick Rutter, AAPS, cited a development in Cape Cod is half as dense has 2100 Clement\nAvenue with 63 units on 8 acres built using East Coast architecture with four paths of\ntravel to the beach. He feels that Clement Avenue can do something similar utilizing\ngabled areas for bedrooms.\nStephanie Butler, neighbor, stated she still has concerns with the open space and the\nguest parking in the middle of it. She agrees that maintaining guest parking is important\nand would like to see a minimum of 6 and prefers more.\nTess Meier stated she is not from neighborhood and is moving to Oakland but feels the\ncity needs more housing. She feels that City Ventures has accommodated the neighbors\non architecture, and electric cars.\nHelen Sause, Alameda Home Team, feels the project is compatible and City Ventures\nhas been receptive to the neighbor comments. She feels the project is a complementary\naddition to the area and it provides diverse and transit oriented housing. She\nrecommends approval.\nChristopher Buckley, AAPS, thanked City Ventures for working close with AAPS stating\nthat they have made significant changes but there are still some changes to be made.\nSteve Aced, resident, stated that he supports the work from City Ventures, but feels there\nis still work to be done for the project to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.\nMatt Cotter, neighbor, stated he is happy to see the project progress and is glad to see\nthat connection is a concern. He agrees that the open space should be bigger, but does\nnot feel the need for 15 guest parking spaces. The project is better than what is there.\nApproved Minutes\nJune 22, 2016\nPlanning Board Meeting\nPage 5 of 7", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-06-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-06-22", "page": 6, "text": "Karen Bey resident, stated that she supports the project and likes the plan and design.\nShe is glad to see that the developer has addressed the neighborhood issues and is\nexcited for more housing near Park Street.\nCall for motion to go pass to 11 p.m.\nBoard Member Knox White motioned, Board Member Burton seconded, motion passed.\nBoard Member Knox White stated that the plan has come a long way since last time it\nwas presented to the Planning Board. He stated that the parking lot in the middle of the\npark area is a weak point of the proposal. He would like to see a mixed design instead\nof a entire block of one style of building and thinks the buildings look too similar but they\ndon't need to mimic historical styles. He would like to see a differentiation of building\ntypes and smaller buildings. He would like the project to maintain as many street trees\nas possible. He is receptive to the overall project, with some needed changes.\nBoard Member Zuppan stated she met with the neighbors and heard their concerns. She\nrecognized that the design has changed a lot since March and likes a lot of what is being\ndone. She would like to see a materials board and agrees with AAPS comments regarding\nthe texture and windows. She would like to see reduced guest parking for open space\nand make sure headlights are not going into the windows of neighbors.\nBoard Member Burton stated the overall site plan has improved and thanked the\ndeveloper for working with staff and the community. He feels that the central green space\nis either parking or open space, but that it cannot be both. He thinks that setbacks would\nbe nice but it is okay as proposed noting that Bayport has 10 ft setbacks, these are 8 to\n10 ft, and Grand Marina is 5 ft. which is okay and the setbacks vary down the street. He\nagrees for the need to maintain the existing street trees as much as possible and get rid\nof parking and central green space.\nBoard Member Tang stated overall he likes the project, not sure about the parking versus\ngreen space..\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster thanked the developer and staff for the outreach to the neighbors.\nHe feels a continuous open space is beneficial. He feels the bright yellow color stands\nout too much and would also like to see a materials board.\nVice President Alvarez stated that it is a challenge to make everyone happy in this\nprocess. She addressed the concerns about parking and believes there should be guest\nparking and open space. She agrees with the AAPS comments and the need to maintain\nthe street trees.\nPresident Henneberry thanked the developer, staff, and the commenters. He agrees with\ntaking out the guest parking and making all open space and the bike paths make sense.\nBoard Member Zuppan made the motion to continue the item, Knox White seconded.\nMotion passes 7-0\nApproved Minutes\nJune 22, 2016\nPlanning Board Meeting\nPage 6 of 7", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-06-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-06-22", "page": 7, "text": "8\nMINUTES\n8-A\nDraft Meeting Minutes - May 11, 2015\nBoard Member Zuppan corrected the misspelling of some commenter's names.\nBoard Member Burton stated that on page 6 the comment should include one accessory\nbedroom on first floor of condo units.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster moved to approve. Zuppan seconded. Motion passes 7-0\n9\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A\nZoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions\nMr. Thomas reported on recent actions and decisions.\n10\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None\n11\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nThe Board presented Board member Tang with a resolution recognizing his service on\nthe Planning Board. Mr. Tang thanked the Planning Board.\n12\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None\n13\nADJOURNMENT: 11:27 p.m.\nApproved Minutes\nJune 22, 2016\nPlanning Board Meeting\nPage 7 of 7", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-06-22.pdf"}