{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-01-23", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, JANUARY 23, 2017\n1. CONVENE\nPresident K\u00f6ster convened the meeting at 7:00pm\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Knox White led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President K\u00f6ster, Board Members Burton, Curtis, Knox White, Sullivan. Board\nMember Zuppan arrived at 7:30pm. Board Members Mitchell arrived at 9:52pm.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\n*None*\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nArnold Brillinger, from Commission on Disability Issues, said Alameda should make\nevery new home visitable to those with disabilities.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n6-A 2017-3805\nPLN15-0198 - 1926 Park Street - Applicant: Bridgett Shank on behalf of\nPark Esquina, LLC. Public Hearing to consider approval of a landscape\nplan for a previously approved development project. The Planning Board\napproved a Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for a two-building\nmixed use development with a condition of approval that required final\nlandscape plan approval by the Planning Board. This project is\ncategorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to the\nCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15304\n-\nMinor Alterations to Land\nBoard Member Sullivan said she would like the plantings along the Blanding elevation\nshould have more green.\nBridgett Shank, project architect, pointed out that the maiden grass they plan is green\nand that the rendering did not represent it accurately.\nBoard Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the plan. Board Member Knox White\nseconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 1 of 15\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJanuary 23, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-01-23", "page": 2, "text": "7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2017-3803\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 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(Continued from January 9, 2017)\nStaff Member Sablan gave the staff presentation.\nTom Ellebie and Paula Mathis, applicants, spoke about their plans and goals for their\nproject. They said they worked hard to find common ground with their neighbors and\nresolve concerns about the project's potential impact on the nearby oak trees.\nItalo Calpestri, project architect, gave a summary of the process and revisions to the plans\nhave gone through.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked how far the new structure is from the property line.\nMr. Calpestri said it was almost three feet from the property line, but the existing fence\nwas about 1.5 feet onto the applicant's property.\nPresident K\u00f6ster opened the public hearing.\nJudy Thomas, applicant's arborist, said the garage should be constructed using pier and\ngrade beam construction to avoid damaging tree roots. She said she will be present\nwhenever work is done near the tree roots.\nAntonia Nicosia said that they are asking for changes to the design to protect the oak\ntrees. She said that pier and grade construction can still cause damage to tree health. She\nsaid they have had trees fall recently in the neighborhood. She said we should not\njeopardize the tree's health for a recreational structure. She suggested scaling back the\ndesign and/or moving it to a different site on the property.\n[Board Member Zuppan arrived at 7:30pm]\nApproved Minutes\nPage 2 of 15\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJanuary 23, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-01-23", "page": 3, "text": "Scott Dawson, neighbor, said the project is too big and will compromise tree health. He\nsaid the arborist report he submitted shows that they should not build behind tree number\n1.\nVincent Wu, applicant's structural engineer, said that they can design the structure to limit\nthe forces put on the root structure of the trees.\nDee Keltner, neighbor, said they are stewards of the trees and the oak trees' health needs\nto be considered. She said the City should not rubberstamp these plans because it affects\neverybody. She said our tree regulations should be updated immediately.\nRob Doud, neighbor, said he supports his neighbors' project. He said he appreciates the\nefforts they made to reach out to the neighborhood.\nRena Rickles, applicant's attorney, said the applicants have done everything asked of\nthem by staff to address concerns. She said the applicants hired her to respond to the\nCEQA challenge made on the project. She said there is no merit to a CEQA challenge.\nPresident K\u00f6ster closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Burton said he visited the site. He said the health of the trees was his\nprimary concern. He said it appeared they could do pier and grade beam construction\nwithout disturbing the major roots. He said it was not a very tall structure and should not\ndisturb major lateral branches of the tree. He said he would support an additional condition\nmandating that no major lateral branches be disturbed. He said that with proper care, he\ncan support the project.\nBoard Member Sullivan said the applicants have gone the extra mile to comply with the\nCity's requirements. She said the owners have certain property rights and she supports\nthe project.\nBoard Member Knox White said everyone shares the goal of preserving the trees. He said\nhe asked staff to have the City's arborist to evaluate the reports and that he reported back\nthat the plan is satisfactory. He said he would be supporting the project.\nBoard Member Curtis said that this process caused a lot of expense and time spent for\nthe applicant and that staff had already reached this conclusion at the previous meeting.\nHe said we placed an undue burden on the property owners. He said he will vote yes on\nthe project.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she met with the applicant and the neighbors. She said that\nshe is convinced that the project can be done as approved and conditioned without\nharming the trees. She said she supports the proposal as structured with the additional\nApproved Minutes\nPage 3 of 15\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJanuary 23, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-01-23", "page": 4, "text": "condition regarding lateral branches. She said she agrees with the neighborhood that we\nneed to clarify what the standards are around oak trees.\nPresident K\u00f6ster said he hopes to see some language before council addressing the\ntreatment of live oaks. He said he visited the applicant and neighbor's house and believes\ndue diligence has been done.\nBoard Member Burton made a motion to approve the application with a change to\ncondition of approval 6.e.: (i) The foundation shall be a combination of slabs on grade,\ngrade beams and piers. Slabs on grade, grade beams, and piers shall not disturb tree\nroots greater than 3\". (iv) None of the major lateral limbs shall be removed or subjected to\nmajor trimming to accommodate the new structure.\nBoard Member Curtis asked how you would define a major limb.\nThe project arborist said that a major limb on these trees would be anything greater than\n6\".\nBoard Member Burton said that \"six inches or greater in diameter.' would be the standard\nfor a major lateral limb. Board Member Curtis seconded the motion. The motion passed\n6-0.\n7-B 2017-3804\nHold a Public Hearing to Consider Site A Neighborhood Park Final Details\nfor Design Review Application\nBoard Member Burton said his firm is involved in designing projects in Site A adjacent to\nthe Neighborhood Park and would be recusing himself for this item.\nStaff Member Thomas introduced the item and gave the staff presentation.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked for assurance that the decomposed granite would have a\nlife of 20-25 years, because there does not seem to be a plan for maintenance.\nJames Winstead, landscape architect, said it would need ongoing maintenance. He said\nthey worked with the Parks department on the plan and that it would have a stabilizer\ncompound in it.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked if all the green was lawn and if any of the areas were meant for\nstormwater retention.\nMr. Winstead explained which areas were lawn and which were other plantings. He said\nthere is a retention area all along the sidewalk which would receive stormwater from the\nstreet and park runoff.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 4 of 15\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJanuary 23, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-01-23", "page": 5, "text": "President K\u00f6ster asked if there were any education or demonstration space in this park.\nMr. Winstead said it did not, but that there is community gathering space that could\npossibly serve that function.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked why the basketball was only a half court.\nStaff Member Thomas said that it was a recommendation from the Parks Dept. He said a\nfull court bring a different kind of game with more adults. He said they have moved to using\nhalf courts in areas in close proximity to housing.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked if there are standard fixtures for bike racks, BBQs, and drinking\nfountains, or if they were meant to be unique.\nStaff Member Thomas said they do not have a specific policy. He said the Waterfront Park\nhad some unique features.\nPresident K\u00f6ster opened the public hearing.\nSusan Ramos said she visited the site and there are over-wintering monarch butterflies\nusing the site. She said she hopes the design would include habitat and not just another\nplayground.\nCasey Sparks said Site A fits in with the progress of the city. He said there was a lot of\nhope when the plan was passed and looks forward to the park breaking ground soon. He\nsaid increases in rent and cost of living in the East Bay, this project will be a step in the\nright direction.\nPresident K\u00f6ster closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she was concerned that we did not know about the butterflies\nahead of time.\nStaff Member Thomas explained that it is relatively new information to them as well. He\nsaid they are present in the Main Street neighborhood, but this park site is a parking lot\nright now, with no eucalyptus trees.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she was concerned about bicycle traffic. She said the street\nshould be naturally pretty slow. She said she is comfortable with the sharrows and\nsupports placing bike racks where the activity is, specifically mentioning the basketball\ncourt. She said she supports the plan.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 5 of 15\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJanuary 23, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-01-23", "page": 6, "text": "Board Member Knox White said we need some bike racks at B Street. He said the park is\nunder parked for bikes. He said we should build the bike racks for peak use. He said he\nliked the idea from Bike Walk Alameda for striping the travel lanes at 10' with a one way\nbike lane.\nBoard Member Sullivan said the plan looks nice and looks forward to seeing how the cork\noaks grow.\nPresident K\u00f6ster said he supports doing anything we can to support species like the\nbutterflies as we plan at Alameda Point.\nBoard Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the plan and take into consideration\nincreasing the number of bicycle racks and evaluating their placement. Board Member\nKnox White seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.\n7-C 2017-3806\nA Public Hearing to Consider a Resolution Recommending City Council\nApproval of the Alameda Point Bladium Tentative Parcel Map Application:\nPLN16-0544\nStaff Member Thomas introduced the item.\nBoard Member Knox White asked if staff is comfortable with the language the Bladium\nattorney is proposing.\nStaff Member Thomas said they are basically comfortable clarifying what changes to the\nbuilding would trigger which conditions. He said he is somewhat concerned with trying to\nget that language right on the fly.\nBoard Member Knox White stated that we are only approving a tentative map at this point.\nHe said the City would still own the parcel and could still clarify conditions if and when the\nproperty is sold.\nBoard Member Curtis said that picking and choosing conditions at the tentative map stage\nwas not advisable. He said a potential buyer could add any conditions they desire during\nthe purchase phase.\nBrad Scheck, owner of Bladium, said they are seeking clarity about what events would\ntrigger requirements from the City.\nStaff Attorney Brown said the conditions are for disclosure purposes and included in other\ntentative maps they have done. She said she is reluctant to have the board insert\nmodifications. She suggested using staff's recommendation or continuing the item to come\nup with the correct language.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 6 of 15\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJanuary 23, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-01-23", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Curtis made a motion to continue the item. Board Member Knox White\nseconded the motion.\nBoard Member Knox White asked that, if the item is continued, could it have direction to\nstaff to clarify significant or non-minor building permits and come back on consent.\nBoard Member Burton said items 7,8, and 9 do not include the language referring to\nexterior changes or vertical construction.\nBoard Member Curtis said the language should be consistent from map to map. He said\ncreating wiggle room will lead to future debate over the definition of terms like material or\nmajor.\nPresident K\u00f6ster said he supports continuing the item and bringing it back on the consent\ncalendar.\nBoard Member Knox White said item 13 is the only one that he needs to be clarified before\nhe is prepared to support the item.\nBoard Member Burton said he supports the continuance. He said there are interior\nchanges that could lead to intensification of use that should trigger the conditions.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if there is room to change the conditions during the sale\nnegotiations.\nStaff Attorney Brown said there are two things happening. That the tenant is trying to\nexecute their purchase agreement, but in order for the conveyance to happen there needs\nto be a legal parcel created.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if the concerns of the tenant could be resolved separately\nfrom the tentative map.\nStaff Member Thomas said he believes they are resolvable. He said another option is that\nthey could approve the item as is and work it out before it goes to City Council.\nBoard Member Knox White rescinded his second of Board Member Curtis' motion.\nPresident K\u00f6ster opened the public hearing.\nTony Daysog thanked the tenant for sticking with Alameda Point for all these years. He\nsaid they have earned the board's support. He says the global issues of the tentative map\nshould be able to move forward tonight.\nPresident K\u00f6ster closed the public hearing.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 7 of 15\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJanuary 23, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-01-23", "page": 8, "text": "Board Member Zuppan said she thinks the tentative map needs to move forward. She\nsaid she is ready to make that motion after hearing other board member comments.\nBoard Member Knox White said he would like the motion to direct staff to work out these\nissues before bringing the item to City Council.\nBoard Member Curtis said he is comfortable moving forward, but wants to make sure that\nthe City Attorney's office approves of what moves forward.\nStaff Attorney Brown summarized what she heard from the board: supporting staff's\nrecommendation to move the map forward with some minor tweaks. She said she thinks\nthat will be fine.\nBoard Member Zuppan made a motion to approve the tentative map with guidance to staff\nto make minor modifications to make the intent clear as discussed. Board Member Knox\nWhite seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.\n7-D 2017-3807\nRecommend City Council Approval of the Main Street Neighborhood\nSpecific Plan at Alameda Point. The Planning Board will hold a public\nhearing and make a recommendation to the City Council on the specific\nplan for the area generally located around Main Street, Pan Am Way, and\nWest Tower Avenue\nStaff Member Giles gave the staff presentation.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked how staff arrived at only 10% workforce housing. She said\nthat is where our young families will end up and they are very important to this city and\nthe numbers seem low.\nStaff Member Giles said that 10% is a floor and it was based on what is economically\nfeasible.\nStaff Member Thomas said they do not have a template for this standard.\nBoard Member Sullivan said staff should look at how our existing neighborhoods are being\nused and is concerned with the type of housing we are building.\nBoard Member Knox White said we need to be upfront with what areas would have\nprotections from sea level rise at what intervals. He said he was hoping to see how much\nmoney would be generated from different sizes of market rate housing products.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 8 of 15\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJanuary 23, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-01-23", "page": 9, "text": "Staff Member Thomas said their financial expert is present and can begin to address those\nquestions.\nJames Edison, financial consultant for Alameda Point, said every acre developed at\nAlameda Point has to carry $1Million of infrastructure. He said affordable housing does\nnot carry their infrastructure costs and that burden gets shifted to the remaining units. He\nsaid they assumed that the workforce housing would be affordable by design, by making\nthem smaller units. He said the cost of homes is a function of square feet. He said a larger\nunit is more profitable than a smaller unit. He said there is no land cap here, but there is\na unit cap. He said they came up with the 10% number for workforce housing by trying to\nbalance all the different factors that will burden any development at the site.\nBoard Member Sullivan said it would be nice to understand the anatomy of the costs to\nbuild different units.\nBoard Member Knox White asked if there had been an analysis of what the dollar tradeoffs\nare for different levels of additional square feet per unit.\nMr. Edison said they could come up with a marginal extra value analysis. He said that the\nMaster Infrastructure Plan is dominated by big ticket items like the levee. He said this\nmeans than the savings by building the units in a smaller area are marginal because of\nthings like the levee have to be built the same way in either case.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if the infrastructure costs are priced per unit or allocated\nbased on the square footage of each unit.\nMr. Edison said the MIP is based on the acreage. He said a lot of the work has to be done\nsitewide. He said the last piece is a residual value analysis which gives you a per unit\nvalue. He said the main constraint for Main Street is the unit count.\nBoard Member Curtis said the high costs of infrastructureconstruction is why these units\nhave such a high price.\nBoard Member Sullivan said perhaps we should build some $2-3 Million homes to help\nsupport the starter units.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked what the cost is per unit for going beyond the 1425 unit cap.\nMr. Edison said that it was $50,000 per unit.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if that number was negotiable.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 9 of 15\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJanuary 23, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-01-23", "page": 10, "text": "Staff Member Thomas said that they would also need to amend the General Plan to\nexceed the cap. He said an easy way to pay for more workforce housing is to build more\nunits.\nMr. Edison said that the $1 Million per acre infrastructure costs comes out to $50,000/unit\nif you are building at 20 units/acre.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked how many units are envisioned for Main St.\nStaff Member Thomas said there are 260 units already in the area and there is room for\napproximately 200 units for Main St. depending on how many are allocated to the adaptive\nreuse area.\nBoard Member Burton asked to clarify whether the requirement to use different architects\nfor each block applied to the \"super blocks\" or the ultimately smaller blocks within as plans\nmove forward.\nStaff Member Thomas said they had not clarified that yet and would need to specify it\nfurther.\nBoard Member Burton pointed out areas that would not be elevated for sea level rise as\nmarked in the plan due to their historic preservation.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if we are certain that there is adequate protection from\npotential lead paint contamination.\nStaff Member Giles said that current environmental protections are in place.\n[Board Member Mitchell arrived at 9:52pm.]\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked how the needs for civic spaces would be addressed.\nStaff Member Thomas said they envisioned the central area of the base, near the parade\ngrounds, City Hall West, and theater, serving as the location for civic spaces.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked what the plans included for solar and water conservation at\nthe site.\nBoard Member Burton said that the state's next building code may require all new\nresidential construction to be zero net energy by 2020.\nBoard Member Mitchell said that he would support including it in our plans now to build in\nthat redundancy. He said he would like to see more than just wiring for solar.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 10 of 15\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJanuary 23, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-01-23", "page": 11, "text": "President K\u00f6ster opened the public hearing.\nTony Daysog said the financial report is an excellent report that lays out paths for\nachieving the social ends desired for the neighborhood. He said the board should push\nthe envelope in getting higher workforce housing numbers.\nMike Ruddy said his company is interested in building in this neighborhood.\nDoug Biggs said the process is very important for the Collaborating Partners. He said it is\ntime to move forward with the plan. He said the conditions at the site are inhumane and\nwould not be allowed anywhere else. He said the cap means that they need to focus on\ndelivering on the promise to build this housing for their formerly homeless residents.\nPresident K\u00f6ster closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Knox White said that the sea level rise issue is addressed. He said that\nwe need to look at other options for cost savings besides waiving the workforce housing\nrequirements if necessary. He said he would like the NACTO guidelines for street widths\nto be included in the plan. He said he would be supportive of adding zero net energy\nrequirements to the plan.\nBoard Member Curtis said the plan was good.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she would like the new information regarding butterflies to be\nincluded in the plan. She said she would like to promote visitability in the plan. She said\nshe would like to support wider sidewalks to make sure there is extra room for widening\nthe streets if necessary. She said we need to be consistent in protecting our working\nwaterfront and preventing privatization of the waterfront. She asked to please not use the\nunattractive street markings. She suggested adding lighting guidelines for the streetlights.\nBoard Member Mitchell said making the workforce housing affordable by design was a\ngood compromise. He said he would like to see solar included in the plan. He said he\nwould like to emphasize preserving existing trees as much as possible.\nBoard Member Burton said that the impending Universal Design ordinance would address\nthe visitability issue. He offered several text edit suggestions for the plan.\nStaff Member Thomas said he is hearing that most of the board supports waiting for the\nstate building requirements to take effect in 2020 requiring all residential construction meet\nnet zero energy requirements. He said he likes that rule because it does not dictate how\nit happens.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 11 of 15\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJanuary 23, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-01-23", "page": 12, "text": "Board Member Knox White said he would support putting net zero in the plan now.\nBoard Member Burton said he would support net zero as well. He said he would like to\nkeep the method flexible, rather than relying on solar.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he would hate to see the project rely on far away energy\nproduction to meet net zero.\nBoard Member Curtis asked why we would want to put the burden on the developer before\nit is necessary. He said if we wait for the state, the builder might move quickly to avoid the\ncost.\nBoard Member Burton said he was glad we are using the same parking maximums as Site\nA and the unbundled parking. He said that unbundled parking would not work for single\nfamily homes. He suggested requiring \"adjacent\" blocks to use different architects.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she would like to keep the code requirements as simple as\npossible to keep the project as affordable as possible. She said she would like the single\nfamily homes come with parking spaces. She said we should support the monarch\nbutterflies.\nPresident K\u00f6ster said we should consider the idea of using some \"super-lots\" to help pay\nfor some of the infrastructure.\nStaff Member Thomas said it was not their intent was not to require unbundled parking for\nsingle family homes. He asked the board if it wants net zero in all residential buildings\nnow, or if it would prefer to wait and let the state regulations take effect.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she was concerned about the impact of net zero on the cost\nof delivering the low income housing.\nBoard Members Sullivan and Curtis said they agreed.\nBoard Member Mitchell said that if we do this upfront it can be done for pennies on the\ndollar. He said this is a compromise because we could require battery banks as well.\nBoard Member Curtis said it was still a significant cost. He said we have a three year\nwindow to control costs and we should help the developer keep the price of these units\ndown.\nPresident K\u00f6ster suggested that the board consider net zero policy citywide, and not just\nput it in this one project. He said this would incentivize developers to get the ball rolling,\nwhich would help APC get their project sooner.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 12 of 15\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJanuary 23, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-01-23", "page": 13, "text": "Board Member Knox White said houses are sold at the price they can get, not the cost of\nbuilding. He said he would be glad to exempt the Collaborating Partners from the net zero\nrequirements.\nStaff Member Thomas said that whatever the consensus is, they will bring the net zero\nand workforce housing issues up for discussion with the City Council.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he does not think net zero will make or break a project.\nBoard Member Zuppan made a motion to extend the meeting beyond 11pm. Board\nMember Burton seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\nBoard Member Knox White made a motion to approve the plan and for staff to consider\nall proposed edits suggested by board members regarding: butterflies, street widths, sea\nlevel rise clarity, leave out net zero but recommend council consider the policy, address\nthe waiver issue and consider increasing the number of units before waiving the workforce\nrequirements, lighting guidelines, waterfront language, saving trees where possible,\nexempting the Collaborative from the 10% workforce requirements but including 42 units\nof workforce housing in the entire project, exempting single family homes from unbundled\nparking, adjacent superblocks having different architects.\nBoard Member Zuppan offered an amendment to include ten foot sidewalks in commercial\ndistricts. Board Member Knox White accepted the amendment. Board Member Curtis\nseconded the motion.\nBoard Member Burton said he is worried that the net zero requirement would cause a\ndelay in getting the infrastructure done that the Collaborating Partners will need.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked for a straw vote on including zero net energy in the plan,\nexempting the Collaborative and existing structures. Board Members Knox White and\nMitchell indicated they are in favor.\nBoard Member Zuppan said that we need to consider whether the unit cap will prevent\nthis plan from being viable.\nThe motion passed 7-0.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2017-3812\nDraft Meeting Minutes - October 24, 2016\nBoard Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Knox\nWhite seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-1 (K\u00f6ster abstained)\nApproved Minutes\nPage 13 of 15\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJanuary 23, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-01-23", "page": 14, "text": "8-B 2017-3813\nDraft Meeting Minutes - November 14, 2016\nBoard Member Knox White made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Curtis\nseconded the motion. Board Member Zuppan asked that the minutes be amended to\naccurately reflect her remarks regarding the health of the trees. The amendment was\naccepted. The motion passed 7-0.\n8-C 2017-3814\nDraft Meeting Minutes - November 28, 2016\nBoard Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Knox\nWhite seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2017-3810\nZoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions\nStaff Member Thomas listed the recent approvals.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she would like to pull the AutoZone approval to discuss\nsharing the parking lot with the neighborhood at night.\n9-B 2017-3811\nFuture Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Thomas previewed future meeting items.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\n11-A 2017-3808\nSubcommittee for Alameda Marina\nBoard Member Knox White gave an update on their meetings.\n11-B 2017-3809\nSubcommittee with Commission on Disability Issues regarding Universal\nDesign Ordinance\n*None*\nBoard Member Zuppan said the Economic Development Strategic committee plan met\nand provided an update.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nApproved Minutes\nPage 14 of 15\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJanuary 23, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-01-23", "page": 15, "text": "*None*\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident K\u00f6ster adjourned the meeting at 11:13pm.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 15 of 15\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJanuary 23, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-01-23.pdf"}