{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-05-09", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, MAY 9, 2016\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Knox White called meeting to order at 7:01pm.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Burton led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President Knox White, Board Members Burton, Henneberry, Mitchell, Sullivan,\nZuppan. Board Member K\u00f6ster arrived at 8:45, during discussion on item 7-B.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\n*None*\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n*None*\n7. REGULAR\nAGENDA\nITEMS\n7-A 2016-2866\nStudy Session to Consider Draft Citywide Universal Design Ordinance\nRequirements and Standards\nStaff Member Thomas gave the staff presentation. The staff report and attachments can\nbe\nfound\nat\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2705109&GUID=E8EFEAEC-\n44BA-443E-A864-89BB00613A56&FullText=1\nBoard Member Mitchell asked whether the ordinance is likely to trigger any legal\nchallenges.\nStaff Attorney Brown said the City Attorney's office would be included in the drafting\nprocess. She said that because it was \"uncharted territory\" they would publicize the\nordinance with trade associations for feedback.\nPage 1 of 11\nApproved Minutes\nMay 9, 2016\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-05-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-05-09", "page": 2, "text": "Board Member Sullivan said she wanted to make sure to include the building community\nin the process to account for design trends.\nThere was no public comment.\nBoard Member Burton said we definitely should include the development community but\nthese requirements are needed and can be accommodated. He said he is happy to see it\nmoving forward as our community continues to age.\nBoard Member Zuppan said these features could be a market advantage, not just a\nburden, for the developer community.\nBoard Member Henneberry said he supports the other Board Members' comments and is\nin favor of the sub-committee idea.\nPresident Knox White thanked staff for bringing the item forward. He said he is okay with\na sub-committee, but that he is most concerned with getting the ordinance turned around\nquickly before more major projects get approved without it. He said he was concerned\nwith making a formal mixed sub-committee due to Brown Act concerns.\nStaff Member Thomas said he would like to use the sub-committee to move it along quickly\nand is okay with having it subject to Brown Act requirements.\n7-B 2016-2867\nStudy Session to Provide Direction on Main Street Neighborhood Specific\nPlan Park and Street Network Alternatives and Key Development\nRegulations\nStaff Member Ott gave the staff presentation. The staff report and attachments can be\nfound\nat:\nttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2705110&GUID=32717723-\n28E2-456C-A02F-717615B52446&FullText=1\nDoug Biggs, Executive Director of the Alameda Point Collaborative, gave a brief\npresentation on why they prefer to locate their facilities in the southeast corner of the Main\nStreet Neighborhood. He said the proximity to new infrastructure, amenities and Site A will\nhelp them with cost and financing.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked what surrounds the area.\nStaff Member Ott said the ferry terminal and parking were to the north and residential to\nthe east.\nPage 2 of 11\nApproved Minutes\nMay 9, 2016\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-05-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-05-09", "page": 3, "text": "Board Member Henneberry asked what the future holds for the Big Whites and what the\narrangement is now.\nStaff Member Ott said they need a lot of rehabilitation, but the intention is to keep and\nrestore them. She said a property manager manages the units for the City.\nBoard Member Henneberry suggested that we consider including the renovation of the\nOfficer's Club as a condition to a private development in the Main Street neighborhood.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked about plans for the smaller housing units near the Big\nWhites.\nStaff Member Ott said that those decisions would be made at a later date.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked what a reduction in height limits near the ferry terminal\nwould have on the project.\nStaff Member Ott said she could not say at the moment, but that their thinking was to\npreserve flexibility. She said that City Council, as property owner, can always make a final\ndecision on any development plan for the site.\nBoard Member Burton asked how narrow the four story area on the northern edge was at\nits narrowest point. He asked how wide the beehive blocks were. He asked about street\nsection plans around Orion.\nAmy McPhee, consultant, said it was 50-100 feet at the narrowest. She said the beehive\nblocks were about 150 feet wide. She said they have begun to look at street section\noptions and can forward that information to the board.\nPresident Knox White opened the public hearing.\nCarlos Castellanos, from MidPen Housing, said they have a preference for alternatives\ntwo and three and look forward to working collaboratively on the process.\nKaren Bey said she hopes we keep the chapel and theater in the plans. She said she likes\nthe idea of extending the beehive network and the linear park and central gardens\nalternatives.\nPresident Knox White closed the public hearing.\nPage 3 of 11\nApproved Minutes\nMay 9, 2016\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-05-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-05-09", "page": 4, "text": "Board Member Sullivan said she liked the centralized park idea. She asked if the square\nfootage of the centralized park was the same as with the linear parks. She said blocking\nthe waterfront with a four story building would be like putting the post office on Shoreline\nDrive.\nStaff Member Ott confirmed that it was about 8 acres of open space in each alternative.\nBoard Member Henneberry said two to three stories between the Big Whites and the water\nwas appropriate, not four. He said he could go for park options two or three.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he supported a two story maximum along the northern edge.\nHe said he would prefer a three story max for the other areas instead of four. He said he\nliked alternative two's linear park, and that alternative three was his second choice. He\nsaid he supported many of the comments AAPS made.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she met with APC before the meeting. She said she prefers\noption three for the park. She said she liked the mirrored beehive street network. She said\nthe market rate housing along the southern edge feels isolated. She said she would like\nto see view corridors preserved along the northern edge, and that she can not see over\ntwo story buildings any better than four story buildings. She said she would like to see\nshadow impacts studied. She said she supported preserving flexibility for neighborhood\nuses.\nBoard Member Burton said he met with APC also. He said he preferred the park\nalternatives two or three. He said he is not in favor of the expanded beehive because it\nwould limit the options for what can go on those blocks. He suggested that the team do\nsome preliminary studies of what housing types fit in different blocks to make sure they\nare feasible. He said putting 50 foot high buildings between the beehive and the ferry\nwould not fit with the neighborhood. He said the fire requirements for roadway width next\nto taller buildings might make a one way loop around the park undesirable. He said he\nwould like to preserve the smaller bungalows.\nPresident Knox White said he favors option three for the park because it is so hard to\nmake a linear park work well. He said it might be better to have houses up against the\npark instead of a one way couplet. He said he wanted to be careful not to build a\nneighborhood that is hard to serve with transit. He said he would like to set a goal for\nsmaller single family homes at this site. He said we do not have to cover every inch in this\narea right away. He said he hopes we limit or ban townhome style units at this site. He\nsaid he did not want Orion to punch through to Main St. due to the traffic it would pull\nthrough the neighborhood. He said we need to look at infill and accessory dwelling unit\noptions for this site.\nPage 4 of 11\nApproved Minutes\nMay 9, 2016\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-05-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-05-09", "page": 5, "text": "Board Member Burton said single family homes could maybe be used as a buffer for the\nBig Whites but that we should encourage denser housing closer to Site A.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster said he would like to see a planning document identifying the\nhistoric buildings in the neighborhood that will be kept. He said he liked the idea of the\nfarm community. He said he supported the idea of building taller and denser closer to Site\nA and going lower as you reach the Big Whites and the farm edge. He said he was\nconcerned with creating a strong access to the ferry terminal.\n7-C 2016-2868\nStudy Session to Provide Direction on Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal\nDesign\nBoard Member Burton recused himself from the discussion do to his employment\nconnection to Alameda Point Partners who is a major funder for the project.\nStaff Member Giles gave the staff presentation. The staff report and attachments can be\nfound\nat:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2705111&GUID=8DC03921-\nCF1-4BCO-AD9C-3CC74E04E4F3&FullText=\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked if the City was purchasing the vessel or if the $16 Million was\njust the budget shortfall.\nStaff Member Giles said that it was just identifying the budget shortfall for procurement of\nthe vessel.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked if the decision to do an interim plan was deliberate and what\nthe reason was behind it.\nStaff Member Thomas said that the long term infrastructure costs that would be born by\ndevelopers of Site B are why the choice was made to go with an interim option to get a\nferry terminal operational.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if the wheel stops for separating the two way bike lane were\nto be the same style as those used on Shoreline.\nStaff Member Thomas said that they were, but they were looking into a more permanent\ntype.\nPage 5 of 11\nApproved Minutes\nMay 9, 2016\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-05-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-05-09", "page": 6, "text": "Board Member Mitchell asked about comparisons to costs for building the Harbor Bay and\nMain St. terminals and whether there was a less expensive version of this plan.\nStaff Member Giles said this is probably the minimalist version.\nStaff Member Thomas said that the in water improvements were very expensive and\nplanned for the long haul.\nStaff Member Ott said that to avoid dredging they are planning a longer float which is an\nupfront cost that will save money down the line.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked how long they could last without dredging.\nStaff Member Ott said that the site has very little shoaling and could likely last 30 years or\nmore without having to dredge.\nPresident Knox White opened the public hearing.\nHelen Sause said that there were many good reasons why the project would benefit\nAlameda and said she hopes the city would support the project.\nPresident Knox White closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Henneberry said this was not controversial and we should proceed.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she was happy to see this moving forward. She said she had\nconcerns that the short term paint solutions would start looking bad very quickly.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster said we need this multi modal transit hub. He said he was\nconcerned with the placement of the road and would like to study having it pushed back\nor going around behind the parking. He suggested temporary kiosks to provide some\namenities for the area.\nPresident Knox White said he did not see any phase one bike parking solutions. He said\nwe need to plan for a lot of bikes at this location. He said the parking lot will generate 400\nvehicle trips through congested West End streets so we should make sure we have more\nthan ten bike lockers that fill up quickly. He explained his concerns over how Regional\nMeasure Two earmarked money for Alameda's ferry service and that it is being diverted\nfor other items in WETA's budget. He said we should support Regional Measure Three\nwhen that money is directed back to Alameda. He said we needed to send the message\nPage 6 of 11\nApproved Minutes\nMay 9, 2016\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-05-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-05-09", "page": 7, "text": "that the street parking near the terminal would be a community asset and not be owned\nby the adjacent property owners.\n7-D 2016-2869\nPlanning Board Study Session: Boatworks Project, PLN15-0582 - 2235\nClement Avenue - Applicant: Phillip Banta. Study Session to review and\ncomment on Development Plan and Density Bonus applications for\nconstruction of approximately 182 residential units and approximately two\nacres of open space on a 9.48-acre parcel located at 2235 Clement\nAvenue. An environmental impact report has been completed for the\nproject in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.\nStaff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found\nat: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2705112&GUID=108ADAC4-\nA6-43F6-A798-910AD5A57A24&FullText=1\nPhillip Banta gave a presentation on the history of the project and application.\nNicoley Collins, part owner of the project, introduced herself. She said she hopes they can\nanswer any questions and move the project forward. She said she fears that they have hit\na wall with city staff.\nRobert McGillis, project architect, spoke about options for the tentative map.\nShona Armstrong, Boatworks attorney, spoke about the unusual order of the approvals\nfor this project. She said there was an approved density bonus application in 2011 that\nspecified the number of affordable units. She said the inclusionary housing and density\nbonus issues only reappeared in the March 8th, 2016 letter and that is why they feel it\nwould be appropriate to have more time to work those issues out.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked where visitor parking would be. She confirmed that there\nwere no backyards for any of the units.\nMr. Banta explained that Blanding Ave. would have street parking along one side and Elm\nwould have perpindicular parking along one side.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked what the distance between the water and the adjacent\nproperty lines would be.\nMr. Banta said the smallest distance would be 50 feet.\nPage 7 of 11\nApproved Minutes\nMay 9, 2016\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-05-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-05-09", "page": 8, "text": "Board Member Burton asked what the law says about the size and distribution of the\naffordable housing.\nStaff Member Thomas said there are guidelines and the ordinance says the units should\nbe \"comparable.\nMr. Banta said that the affordable housing plan was approved in 2011 and that the code\nsays affordable units may be smaller in size and have different finishes.\nStaff Member Thomas said that the standard Mr. Banta referenced was for the additional\nunits provided under the density bonus, but, not the City's 15% inclusionary.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she was concerned about the letter just received today stating\nno intention of adding any docks now or in the future to the boatways.\nMr. Banta said they have an existing pier that they plan to improve. He said it was decided\nin consultation with the City to not include references to possible future floating docks.\nBoard Member Henneberry asked how we came to such a large discrepancy on the\nnumber of affordable units.\nStaff Member Thomas explained the math and interpretations of the inclusionary\nordinance that lead to the discrepancy of 8 units and which types of affordable units are\nrequired.\nStaff Attorney Brown explained that the numbers referenced by the applicant's attorney\nreflected a settlement agreement that the parties no longer have any rights or obligations\nto.\nMs. Armstrong, Boatworks attorney, said that they have a disagreement about the efficacy\nof the settlement agreement and that the City already approved the density bonus\napplication and tentative map and therefore those conditions are baked in.\nPresident Knox White said that we are getting into legal questions beyond the\nqualifications of the Board. He pointed out that they are not being asked to act tonight and\nthat these questions can get clarified if and when the item comes back for action.\nPresident Knox White opened the public hearing.\nPage 8 of 11\nApproved Minutes\nMay 9, 2016\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-05-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-05-09", "page": 9, "text": "Dorothy Freeman said the project has several issues. She said most of units include extra\nground floor units. She said the designs lead to a much greater need for parking. She said\nthe very low income units designated for wounded warriors are not adequate.\nJoseph Woodard said the project is part of the Gateway to Alameda. He said moving the\napartment building to the center of the development would improve access to views of the\nhills and better integrate the affordable units. He said the rooftop decks are not ADA\ncompliant. He said the configuration allows the creation of secondary ground floor units.\nHelen Sause, Alameda Home Team, said they hope the maximum number of units can\nbe built. She said it would be beneficial to have some retail on the site.\nKaren Bey said she is disappointed in the project. She compared it to the standard being\nset at Alameda Point and thinks we are missing an opportunity to have an exciting mixed\nuse project so close to Park St. She said she wished there was a dock for water taxis.\nPresident Knox White closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she was bothered by the economic segregation of the project.\nShe said she has a problem with the lack of backyards. She said adding a bathroom in\nthe garage has to be forbidden. She said using the roofs makes it a four story building.\nBoard Member Mitchell said the project needs a lot of work. He said the entire project feels\ntoo dense and the mix of housing types seems chaotic. He said the green space behind\nthe homes on the water make the open space seem like they belong to those homes and\nnot the public.\nBoard Member Burton said the moderate income units should be evenly distributed on the\nsite. He said he was troubled with the uniformly tiny units in the affordable building. He\nsaid he would support more multi family housing on the site. He said the lots are\ninadequate for the size of the units on them.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster said he likes that the street grid is reconnected. He is glad that the\nmulti family housing is in phase one and that the open space and paseos are larger. He\nsaid he was concerned with the heights of some of the buildings. He said he had concerns\nabout the landscaping choices given the drought conditions. He said he would want\nrestrictions on the aging in place units. He said he wished we could actually connect with\nthe water. He said bringing in some sort of retail use would benefit the site.\nPage 9 of 11\nApproved Minutes\nMay 9, 2016\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-05-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-05-09", "page": 10, "text": "Board Member Henneberry said he liked the waterfront park and that it should have kayak\naccess. He said he was concerned with building a wall around the community. He said the\naffordable units should be spread out and similar sizes.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she liked the waterfront park. She said she was concerned\nabout protecting small children from the water, especially if there was going to be a tot lot\nthere. She was concerned with the types of railings on the roof decks. She said it would\nbe nice to have more benches that face out to the water instead of sideways. She was\nconcerned with having only one elevator for the wounded warrior building. She supported\nspreading the affordable units throughout the site. She said the site feels closed off and\nwould not invite people in. She suggested changing the mix of housing types could free\nup some space for residents to breath.\nPresident Knox White said he was frustrated that there were no new plans submitted\nbetween December and this meeting. He said the large unit sizes do not allow the project\nto work well. He said the density bonus combined with 470 sq. ft. affordable units and the\nlargest possible market rate units was cynical and contrary to the goals of the density\nbonus program. He said the project must provide TDM in order to get approval. He said\nhe would like to see more creative use of multi family to create more useable private open\nspace. He said they have expected true water access from every waterfront project.\nBoard Member Burton made a motion to continue the meeting past 11pm. Board Member\nZuppan seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\nPresident Knox White said he is comfortable leaving the question of the affordable housing\nnumber to staff. He said that he would want to see a real plan if they are asked for a new\ntentative map extension. He said he was glad everyone wants to move the project forward\nbut that it would require real partnership. He said he appreciated the lack of a court\nstenographer as a first step.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2016-2872\nDRAFT MINUTES-FEBRUARY 22, 2016\nBoard Member Zuppan asked to begin including the hyperlink to the final resolutions in\nthe minutes.\nBoard Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member\nHenneberry seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\n8-B 2016-2873\nDRAFT MINUTES- MARCH 14, 2016\nPage 10 of 11\nApproved Minutes\nMay 9, 2016\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-05-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-05-09", "page": 11, "text": "No action was taken due to the minutes not being included in the packet.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nStaff Member Thomas outlined items coming up in future Planning Board meetings. He\nsaid the Harbor Bay Club draft EIR should be released soon.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nPresident Knox White said that Council upheld the decision on the Webster St. project by\na 4-1 vote.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Knox White adjourned the meeting at 11:07 pm.\nPage 11 of 11\nApproved Minutes\nMay 9, 2016\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-05-09.pdf"}