{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-01-09", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, JANUARY 9, 2017\n1. CONVENE\nBoard Member Mitchell convened the meeting at 7:09pm\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Sullivan led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Board Members Curtis, Mitchell, Sullivan. Absent: President K\u00f6ster, Board\nMembers Burton, Knox White. Board Member Zuppan arrived at 7:15pm.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nStaff Member Thomas said item 7-A has been postponed at the request of the applicant.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n*None*\n7. REGULAR\nAGENDA\nITEMS\n7-A 2017-3726\nPLN15-0232 - 1208 St. Charles Street - Applicant: Paula Mathis and Tom\nEllerbe. The Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing to consider Design\nReview for a project consisting of the demolition of a two car garage and\nthe construction of an accessory structure that will have a three car garage\nand an artist studio. The proposed accessory structure is approximately\n880 square feet which is less than 40% of the required rear yard allowed\nfor accessory structures per Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Section 30-\n4.1 (d).7. This project is categorically exempt from further environmental\nreview pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)\nGuidelines, Section 15303 - New Construction of Small Structures.\n*Postponed*\n7-B 2017-3731\nApproved Minutes\nPage 1 of 7\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJanuary 9, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-01-09", "page": 2, "text": "Encinal Terminals Master Plan Study Session The Planning Board will hold\na study session to review and comment on the Draft Encinal Terminals\nMaster Plan.\nStaff Member Thomas introduced the item.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if the 589 unit number was fixed in stone.\nStaff Member Thomas said the developer is asking for entitlements for up to 589 units. He\nsaid the number is based on the zoning, size of the site, and the 20% state density bonus\napplication.\nMike O'Hara, Tim Lewis Communities, gave a presentation on their current site plan\nproposal.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked what the concern is with the Universal Design ordinance.\nMr. O'Hara said that the ordinance is not yet passed and has gone through several\niterations. He said the product type for the site will mean most of the units will meet\nuniversal design characteristics. He said they are trying to be affordable by design and the\nuncertainty of having to comply with an ordinance that does not yet exist would be\nproblematic.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked why there is a three story minimum.\nMr. O'Hara said that the three story minimum would only apply along the Entrance Rd.\nfrontage. He said it helps define the boundary between the public right of way and the\nbuildings.\nStaff Member Thomas said they have the option of not including the three story minimum.\nHe said the massing reflects their interpretation of the General Plan's direction to step\ndown building heights as you approach the water.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if the planned water shuttle would be public and what\nfrequency it would have.\nMr. O'Hara said they believe the estuary is an underutilized transportation asset. He said\nthe master plan intent is to create the infrastructure for water transit. He said the TMAs\ncould fund operations. He said it could could have different tiers of service, depending on\nfunding and demand.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if the affordable housing numbers pencil out. She said 79\nof 589 is only 13%.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 2 of 7\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJanuary 9, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-01-09", "page": 3, "text": "Staff Member Thomas explained how the inclusionary 15% is applied to the base project\nand the state density bonus gets applied outside of that number.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked why they have a 14 story building if the height limits are 60\nfeet.\nMr. O'Hara said there are buildings in Alameda higher than 60 feet. He said they feel this\nis an opportunity for an iconic structure for Alameda. He said the site does not really have\nany neighbors.\nBoard Member Curtis said he likes the preferred plan, but he said walking down the street\nwould feel like walking next to a wall.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked what more extra Alameda is getting out of the project given\nthat the city owns a significant portion of the land.\nStaff Member Thomas said the General Plan said that it would be better to own six acres\nalong the perimeter than to own them in the middle of the site. He said there is more open\nspace in this plan than they normally would be able to require. He said some urban design\nconsultants told him that they were a little worried there might be too much open space in\nthe plan.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he was hoping to see some more concrete concessions in\nexchange for the land swap, perhaps in numbers of affordable units. He asked what the\nsolar energy plans were for the project.\nMr. O'Hara said they have a lot of roof space without obstruction that would be suitable\nfor solar. He said they have not prescribed any specific requirements for solar at this point.\nHe said they also have the opportunity to harvest wind, rainwater, and greywater at the\nsite.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked if the city would be on the hook for maintenance of the\nbulkhead after completing the land swap for the perimeter.\nStaff Member Thomas said the only way staff would recommend the swap is if the\nbulkhead is fixed up and maintenance is paid for in perpetuity by the project.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if the city would be compensated in the land swap if the\nacreage is not equal.\nStaff Member Thomas explained that they would not be able to move forward with an\nuneven swap because the state will have to approve the transaction.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 3 of 7\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJanuary 9, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-01-09", "page": 4, "text": "Mr. O'Hara continued his presentation on the street and Bay Trail cross sections.\nBoard Member Mitchell opened the public hearing.\nPhilip James said he is a native Alamedan and is excited for the project. He said using\nthis space for more families to take advantage of the space. He said a 14 story building\nhere might balance out the 30 story building(s) planned for Brooklyn Basin.\nVictoria Fierce said she is a renter in Oakland who pays too much to live in an unsafe\nbuilding and this is a huge way for Alameda to make a dent in our housing needs. She\nsaid the building height is totally appropriate for the area.\nJosh Geyer, Alameda homeowner, said he liked the design. He said the site is currently\nbeing wasted. He said the 14 story building would balance out the taller buildings across\nthe estuary. He said housing is a regional good and wants to live in a city that is doing its\npart to prevent pricing people out of Alameda.\nDoyle Saylor, Renewed Hope, said he is a part of a coalition of renters and housing\nadvocates that support 25% affordable housing and universal design.\nHelen Sause, Alameda Home Team, said the plan is well thought out and an exciting\naddition to Alameda. She said turning the estuary into a benefit instead of a barrier will be\ngreat for Alamedans.\nKaren Bey said she supports the project and is excited that we are finally developing our\nwaterfront. She said we are designing the waterfront and have a chance to not repeat the\nmistakes of the past like was done at Southshore. She said she supports building an iconic\nbuilding and utilizing water transit opportunities for the site.\nCarter Lavin, AD18 Democratic delegate, said he is excited by the project and the\nopportunities it provides to make water transit viable.\nChris Perry said they were kicked out of their apartment last year and they chose to stay\nin Alameda. He said we need to build more housing to solve our affordable housing issues.\nJon Spangler said the details will be important to make sure the project is successful. He\nsuggested a kayak-share program similar to what has been launched in Minneapolis. He\nsaid commercial uses that use outside spaces should be used. He said cycle tracks are\ndangerous unless there is no cross traffic.\nBrian McGuire, Bike Walk Alameda, said they like the perimeter circulation sections. He\nsaid Entrance Rd. is where all the residents will need to be so making sure there are\nApproved Minutes\nPage 4 of 7\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJanuary 9, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-01-09", "page": 5, "text": "adequately wide sidewalks and dedicated bike lanes is needed. He said we need the\nhousing badly and Alameda needs to do its part. He said dry storage and a hoist for\nsailboats would be a good way to program the large, empty, open spaces at the site. He\nsaid there should be room for day use sail boat parking. He suggested moving the\nFortmann Marina driveway onto Entrance Rd to help organize traffic flow in that corner of\nthe site.\nBoard Member Mitchell closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Curtis said he is not too worried about height limits, but worries about\nwalking down long corridors of bulky buildings would be an issue. He suggested a few tall\nbuildings mixed with some shorter ones to create some variety.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she could be comfortable with a 14 story building at the end\nof the site with a public viewing platform. She said we are not San Francisco and we do\nnot have to have a perfect street wall. She said she would support greater variation in\nheights. She said she looks forward to seeing more about the green features. She said\nshe supports all efforts to incorporate our universal design standards. She said she wants\nto make sure that the travel lanes are not too narrow. She requested that the parking\ngarage spaces are not too narrow. In light of recent trends that show that Uber and Lyft\ncould reduce congestion 75-80%, so the parking areas should be convertible to other uses\nif parking is not needed in the future. She said she is nervous in dictating the square\nfootage of the workforce housing. She said active field space could be valuable in\nactivating the area. She said programming the spaces through phasing before all the\nresidential is complete.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she would like to see more variety down the spine. She said\nthe park will attract wildlife and that is the cost of doing business.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked for more details on the waterfront park programming.\nMr. O'Hara said they have various ideas on how to program that space. He said they plan\nto use topography to create an amphitheater/performance space and some open space\nfor play.\nBoard Member Mitchell said the site presents a great opportunity. He asked if this project\nwould benefit from a subcommittee.\nStaff Member Thomas said they could set up a subcommittee if there was interest from\nthe board. He said staff could use the help.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he would like to see the affordable housing numbers increase\nin exchange for the height requested by the developer. He said he would like to see a mix\nApproved Minutes\nPage 5 of 7\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJanuary 9, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-01-09", "page": 6, "text": "of rental and for sale units. He said he supports all of the potential green building features\nto be incorporated.\nBoard Member Curtis asked how the swap would be negotiated.\nStaff Member Thomas said they would get a proposal from the applicant and discuss it\namongst a group within City Hall. He said there would be a meeting with City Council\nbefore having a public hearing at Planning Board about the proposed swap.\nBoard Member Curtis applauded the audience members participation.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she would support a tall building at the corner if the design is\niconic.\n8. MINUTES\n*None*\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2017-3729\nZoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions\nStaff Member Thomas said there were three design review decisions since the last\nmeeting.\n9-B 2017-3730\nFuture Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development\nDepartment Projects\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\n11-A 2017-3727\nSubcommittee for Alameda Marina\n*None*\n11-B 2017-3728\nSubcommittee with Commission on Disability Issues regarding Universal\nDesign Ordinance\nStaff Member Thomas gave an update and said they will have one more round of edits\nand be back before the board.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 6 of 7\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJanuary 9, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-01-09", "page": 7, "text": "12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nBrian McGuire said that the board should be mindful of using the term workforce housing\nand that residents making moderate, low income, and very low income are part of the\nworkforce and should not be left out when describing workforce housing. He said housing\nfor people making 120-150% of median income is upper middle class housing.\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nBoard Member Mitchell adjourned the meeting at 9:30pm.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 7 of 7\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJanuary 9, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-01-09.pdf"}