{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-10-10", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2016\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Knox White called the meeting to order at 7:01pm.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Mitchell led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President Knox White, Board Members Burton, Curtis, K\u00f6ster, Mitchell,\nSullivan. Board Member Zuppan arrived at 7:12pm.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nPresident Knox White moved Items 7-A (Board Elections) and 7-B (Encinal Terminals) to\nthe end of the regular agenda. He moved item 7-D to the beginning of the regular\nagenda.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n*None*\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-D 2016-3455\nPlanning Board Study Session to consider Draft Universal Design\nOrdinance\nStaff Member Thomas gave the staff report. The report and attachments can be found\nat:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2848685&GUID=6D020B3F-\n7FF6-4195-9BD3-521DB6E20493&FullText=1\nBoard Member Mitchell asked what legal ramifications there might be, due to the\nuniqueness of our proposed ordinance.\nStaff Attorney Brown said they are still reviewing the ordinance as it comes together. She\nsaid they will provide feedback on legal defensibility as it moves forward.\nBoard Member Curtis said many of the items could be \"roughed in\" during construction\nwith minimal cost. He said sale prices would operate somewhat independently from\nconstruction costs.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 1 of 10\nPlanning Board Meeting\nOctober 10, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-10-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-10-10", "page": 2, "text": "President Knox White asked why townhomes only required 10% compared with 30% for\nother types of construction.\nStaff Member Thomas said every new unit needs to be visitable, but the ratios applied to\nfull living accessibility. He said townhomes presented a special challenge for full\naccessibility.\nPresident Knox White opened the public hearing.\nErick Mikiten, architect, said he is an advocate of universal design. He said the City has a\nbig opportunity to send a message with its ordinance. He said the ordinance should apply\nto work/live units. He said universal design has many positive green building features,\nlargely by reducing waste. He said the \"five or more\" threshold could be lowered to three\nto match up with Measure A.\nPresident Knox White closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked Mr. Mikiten to provide his written suggestions to Staff\nMember Thomas.\nBoard Member Zuppan suggested that where they had a lower threshold such as with the\ntownhomes, they require the balance of units to be readily adaptable.\nStaff Member Thomas said they are looking at such items in the ordinance, including\nadaptable staircases and entrances.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he would like to proceed with the low cost and no cost\nsolutions. He said he is concerned about adding costs. He said he is comfortable with\nstaff's ratios.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster said we should consider several items that he has seen and dealt\nwith in other ordinances: flooring types, rocker light switches, door handles, and conduit\nfor assistive technologies.\nStaff Member Thomas said that other cities have these options for buyers of spec houses,\nbut that they are not mandatory. He said we are requiring these features in 30% of all new\nhousing stock.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked if the new requirements that apply to 100% of units would\napply to someone rebuilding a house that burned down.\nStaff Member Thomas said they would need to address that question and it raises an\ninteresting policy question.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 2 of 10\nPlanning Board Meeting\nOctober 10, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-10-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-10-10", "page": 3, "text": "Board Member Burton said the subcommittee with the CODI members was very\nproductive. He said definitions will have a large impact on how this ordinance gets applied.\nHe said a 100% visitability standard would practically preclude townhomes from being\nbuilt.\nPresident Knox White said multi use buildings need to be addressed. He said lowering the\npercentage requirements for townhomes is incentivizing a type of unit that has many\nproblematic effects. He said he is concerned with significantly adding to costs, saying we\nalready put a heavy cost burden on new construction.\nBoard Member Burton said that some requirements could cause conflicts with other goals\nsuch as density and transit oriented design.\nBoard Member Curtis said some items should be required in 100% of new construction,\nand another tier for the more expensive items.\nBoard Member Zuppan said that all senior housing should meet all universal design\nrequirements. She said the ready adaptability could apply to the 100% visitability standard.\nShe said one idea would be a fund for universal design items that is funded through the\ndevelopment that residents could apply for.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked when this ordinance would take effect and whether it would\nbe retroactively applied to approved projects.\nStaff Member Thomas said it is not retroactive. He said it would take effect 30 days after\nthe second City Council hearing. He said the ordinance can be crafted to identify which\nprojects in the planning stage would be exempt or not.\n7-C 2016-3444\nSafety and Noise Element Update - Public Hearing and Recommendation\nfor Adoption to City Council. This project is categorically exempt from the\nCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines\nSection 15061(b)(3). as the project does not have the potential to have a\nsignificant effect on the environment.\nStaff Member Thomas gave the staff report. The staff report and attachments can be found\nat:  ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2848684&GUID=63A1B801\nC4EA-4F9E-96F5-449E4C494C6E\nBoard Member Curtis asked where the city anticipates building new seawalls.\nStaff Member Thomas said that all new developments must address a certain amount of\nsea level rise, and be designed to accommodate adaptations for even larger amounts of\nsea level rise.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 3 of 10\nPlanning Board Meeting\nOctober 10, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-10-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-10-10", "page": 4, "text": "President Knox White asked how they decided what went in the plan and what did not.\nStaff Member Thomas said they combined the noise and health & safety elements. He\nsaid they could use their discretion to decide what items belong in the element.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked how noise adherences for the airport would be enforced.\nStaff Member Thomas said that the City's basic position is that they do not want the noise\ngoing up. He said they want to monitor the noise and have a policy to address potential\ngrowth in operations at the airport.\nStaff Member Livermore said that there are meetings with residents that work with the Port\nof Oakland to minimize noise impacts as much as possible.\nBoard Member Zuppan said the document is very focused on current conditions but does\nnot really look forward. She suggested putting physical markers in the streets to tell people\nwhat type of inundation or liquefaction zone they are in and tell people they need to\nprepare.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked how this element interacts with the new FEMA flood maps.\nStaff Member Thomas said they continue to operate under the old maps until FEMA\nfinalizes their maps and puts them into effect.\nThere were no public speakers.\nBoard Member Zuppan said we might benefit from adding senior and disabled care\nfacilities to the section mentioning hospitals (SN3). She pointed out an item that was\nplaced under the wrong heading (SN3a). She pointed out a typo under flooding and sea\nlevel rise in the reference to tide tables and said anal-retentive does indeed have a\nhyphen. She said we should specifically coordinate with wider community groups and not\njust government agencies.\nBoard Member Mitchell said we could pass the resolution tonight and plan to bring it back\nfor further refinement in the future.\nPresident Knox White said that he would prefer to get it right before moving it forward\nbecause it has been a long time since it has been updated and could get forgotten if it\nmoves forward now. He said SN2 is a project and should not be in the general plan. He\nsaid having something about maintaining and updating a functioning EOC would make\nsense. He said SN4 needs to be reworded to make items A & B fit nicely under it. He said\nairplanes do not typically have accidents, they crash, and that word should be replaced.\nHe said SN5 and SN6 might be combined under one airplane related item. He said SN8\nshould have something prioritizing a lifeline bridge to the mainland. He said safety of\npeople living in buildings should take precedent and we should discuss whether we let\nApproved Minutes\nPage 4 of 10\nPlanning Board Meeting\nOctober 10, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-10-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-10-10", "page": 5, "text": "people exempt themselves from certain items. He said we should be actively participating\nin regional discussions on sea level rise mitigation and work to have a permanent seat in\nany bodies working on the issue. He said SN22 should mention 50 years of sea level rise\ninstead of referencing a specific height. He offered several other organizational\nsuggestions. He said the City Council encouraged the League of Cities to adopt Vision\nZero and that this would be an opportunity to adopt it as a policy of the City in our General\nPlan.\nBoard Member Curtis said we should avoid bringing the document back too many times.\nStaff Member Thomas said he would like to bring the item back in November with all the\nchanges.\nBoard Member Zuppan made a motion to continue the item to the November 14, 2016\nmeeting. Board Member Curtis seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\n7-E 2016-3446\nDraft City of Alameda Response to Plan Bay Area 2040 \"Preferred\nDevelopment Scenario\".\nStaff Member Thomas gave the staff report. The staff report and attachments can be found\nat: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2848686&GUID=69CB3614\nE8DB-4428-B2BB-194B865832E7\nBoard Member Zuppan said that the numbers in the letter to do not match up.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster said Alameda has done its part by increasing ferry ridership and\nMTC needs to respond to that with increased funding for ferry services. He said we set up\nour own unofficial car sharing and have shown resilience that is not being acknowledged.\nBoard Member Zuppan said showing more data with population and available land will\nshow real disparities in the allocations.\nBoard Member Sullivan said they do not seem to be taking into account public safety in\nthe event of an emergency.\nPresident Knox White said the comments about access to BART stations are not the most\ncompelling. He said the 64% of units being outside of PDAs was the strongest point. He\nsaid that if that is their approach, then Piedmont's 1% allocation is way off. He said\nreminding them that we have been way out front trying to solve these transportation issues\nwould be worthwhile.\nBoard Member Burton said it is important for us to do our fair share but we need realistic\ntargets and the transportation dollars to support it.\n7-A 2016-3442\nApproved Minutes\nPage 5 of 10\nPlanning Board Meeting\nOctober 10, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-10-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-10-10", "page": 6, "text": "Board Elections\nPresident Knox White said that the newly elected chair would take over at the next\nmeeting.\nBoard Member Zuppan said the Planning Board has rotated the presidency and vice\npresidency throughout the board based primarily on seniority. She said it develops the\nskills and understanding of the board members.\nBoard Member Zuppan nominated Board Member K\u00f6ster for President.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster accepted the nomination.\nThere were no other nominations. Board Member K\u00f6ster was elected President 7-0.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster nominated Board Member Mitchell for Vice President.\nBoard Member Mitchell accepted the nomination.\nThere were no other nominations. Board Member Mitchell was elected Vice President 7-\n0.\n7-B 2016-3443\nPlanning Board Study Session Regarding Encinal Terminals Site Plan,\nPublic Streets and Public Parks\nBoard Member Burton said his firm works with Tim Lewis Communities in other locations\nand recused himself from the item.\nStaff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachment can be found\nat: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2848683&GUID=9114FCCD-\nF9-46CA-B2B9-0C6FF1278779&FullText=1\nMike O'Hara, Tim Lewis Communities, gave a presentation on the site plan.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if they were planning to widen Buena Vista. He asked if they\nwould be extending Clement Ave.\nMr. O'Hara said that Buena Vista was on the other side of the Del Monte Warehouse and\nthat any improvements to it are related to the Del Monte project. He said Clement would\nbe extended as part of the Del Monte project.\nBoard Member Curtis said that the elephant in the room is the traffic from this project\ncompounded with all the other projects. He said at 1pm today, it took seven minutes to\ntravel 300 yards down Park St.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 6 of 10\nPlanning Board Meeting\nOctober 10, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-10-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-10-10", "page": 7, "text": "President Knox White said that the traffic impacts would come back with the EIR. He said\ntonight is to deal with the site plan.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked what the retail strategy is.\nMr. O'Hara said they anticipate tying in retail on Clement facing the retail in Del Monte. He\nsaid they envision 50,000 square feet of retail that could be distributed a number of ways.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked for clarification on how much commercial space is planned.\nStaff Member Thomas said they will have to dig into what the nature of the commercial\ncomponent is. He said he is skeptical that this site will get 50,000 square feet of retail.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked how adaptable the plan is based on potential downward\nrevisions in the number of units allowable in the forthcoming EIR.\nMr. O'Hara said this plan has the maximum allowable number of units in the EIR. He said\nthey would have to reconsider many items if the unit count was lowered significantly.\nStaff Member Thomas said he hoped the site plan would still work with a variety of\npotential unit counts.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if there would be families at the project. He asked what\nschools the kids would go to.\nMr. O'Hara said they anticipate housing opportunities for all types of households, including\nfamilies. He said the schools question would be covered in the EIR.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked if there were any playfields for families included in the green\nspace plan.\nMr. O'Hara said they have not planned for that specific use. He said there were large\nspaces that could be used for picnics and games.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked if there would be coordination between different projects\nfor retail strategies or would they all be scrambling for the same customers.\nMr. O'Hara said they are planning for neighborhood serving retail at the Del Monte project.\nHe said this site would be unique and attract a different type of user.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked how much of a problem wind would be for a waterfront\nrestaurant at the northwest corner of the site.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 7 of 10\nPlanning Board Meeting\nOctober 10, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-10-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-10-10", "page": 8, "text": "Staff Member Thomas said they have been trying to wrestle with the placement of that\nbuilding and how it relates to wind concerns.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked if the Fortmann Marina road would be available to use or if\nthere would have to be separate access roads.\nStaff Member Thomas said there are public access easements on that road, but the\nconfiguration could be problematic for tying it into the Encinal Terminals road network.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked how wide the promenades would be.\nMr. O'Hara said they were at least 48 feet wide.\nPresident Knox White opened the public hearing.\nBrian McGuire said he liked that cars were de-emphasized on the promenade and traffic\nwas moved to the Entrance Rd side of the buildings. He said it might not be bad to allow\nsome vehicle traffic on the shared plaza to activate the promenade. He said Bike Walk\nAlameda discussed the parkway in the middle of Entrance Rd. He said putting the cars in\nthe middle, the green space on the sides next to the buildings, and enhancing the\nsidewalks and bike lanes would be a better use of that space. He said that if Encinal\nTerminals somehow moves forward before Del Monte, it should be required to complete\nthe Clement St extension.\nPresident Knox White closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Zuppan said the open house tour was very nice and the site is very\ninteresting. She said she likes the idea of the naked street along the promenade. She\nsuggested a low speed limit for the shared street. She said she likes how the buildings\nstep back from the street. She said the greenway down the middle has a lot of crossing\npoints and she might not feel comfortable walking down it. She said she liked the\nroundabout at the end and the natural amphitheater. She said she likes the idea of using\nthe building at the corner as a wind block. She said she liked the mix of housing types and\nsizes.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster said he liked the evolution of the plan. He said he agreed with staff's\nrecommendations to widen the sidewalks and bike lanes and reducing the lane widths to\nten feet. He said the best parkways go a long way without interruption. He said he is\nworried how people come and go from any water transit options. He suggested opening\nup the view corridor at the circle by removing the corner of building G. He suggested\nworking with Fortmann Marina to perhaps change their access point and share some of\nthe space to make the access points work better for both sites. He said it would be nice to\nsee the Bay Trail illustrated better on the plans. He said he liked the idea of a working\nwaterfront marina with dry boat storage and hoisting abilities.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 8 of 10\nPlanning Board Meeting\nOctober 10, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-10-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-10-10", "page": 9, "text": "Board Member Mitchell said it is a beautiful site. He said he is not a fan of the 14 story\nbuilding. He said he is worried that we might end up with too much inactive open space.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster said that on the boat tour it was interesting to see these taller\nbuildings from the water that you don't tend to notice from the streets.\nStaff Member Thomas said the shadow study will be very illustrative when we address the\nbuilding heights.\nBoard Member Mitchell said a 3-D perspective of different building heights and massing\nwould be helpful.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she likes the entrance corridor, but is concerned with the\nnumber of breaks in the parkway. She said she is not a fan of 14 stories.\nPresident Knox White said the open space is not designed for people and is mostly for\npavement and cars and unusable green space. He said there is no active transportation\nconsiderations or bike lanes. He said it feels like we are just giving up with this design. He\nsaid we are building densely in order to support transit but not actually building the project\nto support transit, biking, and walking. He said it looks nice on a map but will not be a\nplace that people want to be. He said everything has too much space between it. He said\nthe shared space needs to be designed for low speeds, not just signed. He said the fire\ndepartment would require 23 foot wide roads on both sides of the greenway. He said the\ndesign feels like Marina Village, which has not been successful from a business or public\nspace point of view.\nBoard Member Zuppan said Marina Village was hampered by landlord issues early on and\nthat their business problems can not necessarily be blamed on design. She said that you\nreally have to get to the edge of the site to see the water, trees or no trees.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2016-3441\nDraft Meeting Minutes - May 23, 2016\nBoard Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Mitchell\nseconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0-2 (Curtis and K\u00f6ster abstained).\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2016-2441\nZoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions\nStaff Member Thomas reported on recent zoning and design review decisions.\n9-B 2016-2442\nApproved Minutes\nPage 9 of 10\nPlanning Board Meeting\nOctober 10, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-10-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-10-10", "page": 10, "text": "Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Thomas gave a report on upcoming agenda items.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nStaff Member Thomas included the White House's development toolkit. He said we are\ndoing many of the things that are in the toolkit.\nPresident Knox White said the other thing it said is that if you want to fix affordability\nissues, you have to start building housing.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nPresident Knox White thanked the board for trusting him as the chair and looked forward\nto serving as a board member for the next eight months.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Knox White adjourned the meeting at 10:45 pm.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 10 of 10\nPlanning Board Meeting\nOctober 10, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-10-10.pdf"}