{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-10-24", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2016\n1. CONVENE\nBoard Member Mitchell convened the meeting at 7:03pm.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Sullivan led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Board Members: Burton, Curtis, Knox White, Mitchell, Sullivan. Absent:\nPresident K\u00f6ster. Board Member Zuppan arrived at 7:06pm\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nBoard Member Knox White made a motion to move item 7-B to the front of the regular\nagenda. Board Member Sullivan seconded the motion. No vote was taken.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\nBoard Member Burton recused himself for the consent calendar and item 7-B.\nBoard Member Knox White made a motion to approve the consent calendar. Board\nMember Curtis seconded the motion. The vote passed 5-0.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-B 2016-3501\nHold a Public Hearing to Consider Site A Neighborhood Park Design\nReview Application\nStaff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be\nfound at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2858658&GUID=89BB764A-\n3A80-41CD-A1F5-7286416E7BOF&FullText=\nJames Winstead, landscape architect, gave a presentation on the park's design.\nBoard Member Curtis asked about the park's acreage.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 1 of 9\nPlanning Board Meeting\nOctober 24, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-10-24", "page": 2, "text": "Mr. Winstead said the central block is just over one acre,and the others are 0.5 acres\nand 0.35 acres.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked where the arbutus trees would be used.\nMr. Winstead said they would be used in more passive areas away from paving due to\nthe mess they make.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked what kind of guarantee there would be that the\ndecomposed granite surfaces would last more than a couple years.\nMr. Winstead said there is a stabilizer compound that can be added to keep the surface\nlocked in.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked why the plan lacked detail if it was asking for a resolution\nof approval.\nStaff Member Thomas said they can condition the approval to bring back the plant\nselections. He said they will be taking it to the Parks Commission next and wanted to get\nthe design out to the public as soon as possible.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked how many picnic tables were planned in the middle\nsection.\nMr. Winstead said there would be 15 tables.\nThere were no public speakers.\nBoard Member Knox White said bike racks often get put off to the sides. He said he\nwould like to see a condition that racks be required at all activity generating locations. He\nsaid he is not clear on what the 7-8 foot bike path was doing. He said it is not a real bike\nfacility and not integrated into the intersections. He said perhaps a wider sidewalk would\nmake more sense because that is how it will get used.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she would like to see what plantings end up in different\nlocations.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she likes the activities plan and landforms for the park. She\nsaid she would like to see the landscape design come back, as well as the bike path\ndesign. She said she would like the resolution to specifically allow dogs in the park.\nBoard Member Curtis asked about the different sized picnic tables.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 2 of 9\nPlanning Board Meeting\nOctober 24, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-10-24", "page": 3, "text": "Mr. Winstead explained the mix of regular and oversized picnic tables.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he would also like to see the final details come back. He\nsaid he liked the design and landform elements.\nStaff Member Thomas said they would add a condition to bring back the final\nlandscaping plan. He said they would bring back the bike access plans and amend the\nresolution to specifically allow leashed dogs in the park. He said they would also bring\nback details of the lighting plan, and water fountain type and placement.\nBoard Member Zuppan made a motion to approve the design review with the conditions\nlisted by Staff Member Thomas. Board Member Knox White seconded the motion. The\nmotion passed 5-0. The resolution can be found at:\nhttps://alamedaca.gov/sites/default/files/document-files/department-\nfiles/Planning/2016 planning board resos july-december.pdf\n7-A 2016-3500\nHold a Public Hearing to Consider a Development Plan, Design Review\nand Use Permit (PLN16-0468) for Building 8 on Alameda Point located at\n2350 Saratoga Street\nStaff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be\nfound at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2858657&GUID=682D8768-\nCCEO-497C-BA5D-457869E36EE2&Options=&Search=&FullText=1\nEric Mikiten, project architect, gave a presentation on the proposed project.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked what kinds of residents they expect moving in.\nThe owner said that people working from home is becoming more common. He said\ndesigners, artists, consultants, and other users compatible with residential use could live\nthere. He said the ground floor would likely have a variety of tenants.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if there were requirements for space allocation between the\nwork and live spaces.\nMr. Mikiten said Alameda does have code requirements for how much space is used for\nwork.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked what the price points would be and whether the universal\ndesign would add to the cost.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 3 of 9\nPlanning Board Meeting\nOctober 24, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-10-24", "page": 4, "text": "Mr. Mikiten said the universal design costs were minimal. He said the combining of work\nand live spaces would make these units a good value for the residents.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if the roof space would be available to the public.\nMr. Mikiten said they anticipate it being used by tenants, but that if there were events\nheld it would mean more people would be able to visit the space.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if there were any green features being incorporated into\nthe building.\nThe owner said the biggest green feature is not tearing the building down.\nMr. Mikiten said the work/live functions were also a large green feature of the use.\nBoard Member Burton asked if the work/live spaces would be rental or for sale.\nThe owner said they would be applying for historic rehabilitation tax credits which would\nprohibit sale of units for at least five years. He says they are comfortable being\nowner/operators, but would also be open to selling to tenants if they were prepared to\ntake ownership.\nBoard Member Curtis said the design looks good. He said he is concerned with the\ndensity of the units. He said he is also worried about the parking.\nThe owner said the ordinances encourage lower parking levels for these projects at\nAlameda Point. He said the scale of the building really makes the number of units seem\nspacious.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked what kind of electrical would be supplied to tenants.\nThe owner said the ground floor would have three phase 480 power. He said the\nwork/live units would have single phase 208 power but could be increased at tenant\nrequest.\nThere were no public speakers.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she was excited to see the project moving forward with this\ntype of use. She said she was concerned about the parking but there are plans in place\nto address that on the base. She said the roof structure would probably not show very\nApproved Minutes\nPage 4 of 9\nPlanning Board Meeting\nOctober 24, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-10-24", "page": 5, "text": "much and be fine. She said she liked the flexibility of the spaces. She said she is\nsupportive of the project.\nBoard Member Knox White said this is exactly the type of project we are looking for. He\nsaid bike rack locations will be important for this building. He said the long term bike\nparking might be in the wrong place and would make more sense near the freight\nelevator. He said the accessible parking spaces could be moved to be next to each other\nfor better access. He expressed concern for how the truck access off of Ranger would\nwork.\nBoard Member Burton said he supports the project. He said it was difficult to find small\ncommercial spaces and there would be high demand for this type of product. He said he\nwas glad to hear about the developer's experience with rehabilitating old buildings. He\nsaid there will not be parking shortages on the base for decades. He said minimizing the\nvisual impact of the rooftop elements is a good idea.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she is enthusiastic about the project and looks forward to\nseeing it completed.\nBoard Member Curtis said he likes the project, but is worried about density and traffic.\nBoard Member Mitchell said there is a good team behind this project. He said work/live\nis a great solution to our traffic problems. He said this project is an important step in\nmaking Alameda Point successful.\nBoard Member Zuppan made a motion to approve the staff recommendations with\nmodifications: review of bike rack locations; review of trash locations; continue working\non truck access details; ensuring the roof and banding changes are made; and,\naccessible parking locations are reviewed. Board Member Burton seconded the motion.\nBoard Member Knox White said the City Council has already approved the density and\nwe are only voting on the design review.\nThe motion passed 5-1 (Curtis). The resolution can be found at:\nhttps://alamedaca.gov/sites/default/files/document-files/department-\nfiles/Planning/2016 planning board resos july-december.pdf\n7-C 2016-3502\nReview and Comment on the Public Review Draft of the Alameda Point\nMain Street Neighborhood Specific Plan\nStaff Member Giles gave the staff presentation. The staff report and attachments can be\nfound at:\nApproved Minutes\nPage 5 of 9\nPlanning Board Meeting\nOctober 24, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-10-24", "page": 6, "text": " ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2858659&GUID=A4EF7EBF-\nEBF-4FC7-B578-1E63AE0E56C9&Options=&Search=&FullText=1\nBoard Member Sullivan asked if we have looked at starter homes and senior homes for\nmiddle class people, not just the rich and very poor.\nStaff Member Thomas explained what affordability levels would be included. He said\nthey are working on designing projects that will have units that are available for\nhouseholds of all income levels by dictating the size of the units.\nBoard Member Sullivan said that young families cannot live in one bedroom apartments\nand we need small starter single family homes.\nStaff Member Ott said 9% of the units would be deed restricted moderate income units.\nShe said the flexibility of building heights and types will make it so that the market rate\nunits are more affordable to middle income buyers.\nBoard Member Curtis said that the boom market helps pay for the affordable housing\nnow, but if the market changes direction, that will not work out for the people who paid\ntop dollar for the market rate units.\nStaff Member Ott explained that the moderate income buyers would not participate in the\nupside or downside equity changes that a market rate purchaser would.\nStaff Member Thomas explained the origin of the 25% inclusionary requirements of\nbuilding at this site.\nBoard Member Knox White asked what could be built within the Historic Zone within the\nstrict design guidelines.\nStaff Member McPhee said the guidelines were targeted at the non-contributing\nbuildings in the historic district.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked if limiting heights to three stories instead of four was\nfeasible.\nStaff Member Ott said they are looking to preserve flexibility in order to make certain\nproduct types viable.\nBoard Member Zuppan said we need to be incorporating plans for indoor\nhomework/library spaces for children on this end of town.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 6 of 9\nPlanning Board Meeting\nOctober 24, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-10-24", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Mitchell opened the public hearing.\nAbby Goldware, Mid-Pen Housing, spoke about their plans for serving the Collaborating\nPartners in this neighborhood. She said they support the plan that is before the board.\nChristopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, suggested clarifying\nthe provisions regarding infill in the historic district. He gave suggestions for guideline\nchanges that could be made that were included in their letter.\nCurtis Thomas said he is worried that people like him might be squeezed out of the\nneighborhood and hopes they will be able to come back to the neighborhood when it is\nbuilt out.\nBoard Member Mitchell closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Burton said keeping the four story limit will be important in order to\nmaintain the variety of housing. He gave an extended list of suggested edits for the plan\nto aid in clarity and precision.\nBoard Member Curtis said a lot of time went into the document and that it was very well\nwritten.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she would like to see universal design called out\nspecifically. She supported the idea of accommodating middle income housing. She said\nnarrow streets do not make the streets safer. She said she was concerned with the\nsustainability of emphasizing grass in the historic district. She said we need flexibility for\nbuilding heights, but there should be a burden to demonstrate a need to exceed three\nstories and not allow tall buildings by right.\nBoard Member Knox White said the use of \"primarily residential\" to describe the mixed\nuse zoning is something they need to be deliberate about. He said the General Plan\npolicy of 90% of the housing being medium density is not spelled out in the plan. He said\nhe is concerned that the areas relying on a dike for sea level rise protection will not have\nit until 100% of the base is built out. He said the safety of narrower streets are supported\nby academic studies. He said the shared streets need a lot more thought. He said the\nparking table appears to be missing data. He listed several potential edits for clarity. He\nsaid we should use size requirements to address the middle income housing need.\nBoard Member Sullivan said it is important we match our housing stock to what our\ncommunity has been and wants to attract in the future. She said not everybody wants to\nlive in a seven story building. She said she does not like narrow streets. She said they\nare not safe and if speed is a problem to use speed bumps. She said when there is only\nApproved Minutes\nPage 7 of 9\nPlanning Board Meeting\nOctober 24, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-10-24", "page": 8, "text": "parking on one side of the street it creates hardships on holidays and for guests. She\nsaid she would not want to approve anything taller than three stories.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he supports smaller, workforce housing options. He said he\nwould like to see stronger language than just encouraging green features. He said we\nshould explore giving priority for new housing to people that are displaced by\nredevelopment on the site.\nBoard Member Zuppan made a motion to extend the meeting to 11:15pm. Board\nMember Knox White seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.\nBoard Member Knox White asked that, in order to inform the discussion on market rate\nhousing types, housing cost information be included when the plan comes back.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2016-3497\nDraft Meeting Minutes - June 13, 2016\nBoard Member Knox White made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member\nSullivan seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0-1 (Abstain: Curtis).\n8-B 2016-3499\nDraft Meeting Minutes - June 22, 2016\nBoard Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Knox\nWhite seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0-2 (Abstain: Burton, Curtis).\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nStaff Member Thomas gave an update on design review decisions and future meeting\nagendas.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard Member Burton said he attended the TDM workshop and there were some new\nvoices present that were very helpful.\n11-A 2016-3503\nSubcommittee with Commission on Disability Issues regarding Universal\nDesign Ordinance\n*None*\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\nApproved Minutes\nPage 8 of 9\nPlanning Board Meeting\nOctober 24, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-10-24", "page": 9, "text": "13. ADJOURNMENT\nBoard Member Mitchell adjourned the meeting at 11:05pm.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 9 of 9\nPlanning Board Meeting\nOctober 24, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-10-24.pdf"}