{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-03-13", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, MARCH 13, 2017\n1. CONVENE\nPresident K\u00f6ster convened the meeting at 7:03pm\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Burton led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President K\u00f6ster, Board Members Burton, Knox White, Mitchell, Sullivan.\nAbsent: Board Members Curtis, Zuppan.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nStaff Member Thomas asked that the consent calendar item be continued.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n6-A 2017-4030\nAnnual Review: Del Monte Development Agreement - Applicant: TL\nPartners I, LP. The applicant requests a periodic review of a Development\nAgreement related to the Del Monte Warehouse Master Plan. (Item\ncontinued to the March 27, 2017 meeting)\nBoard Member Knox White made a motion to continue the item to the next meeting.\nBoard Member Mitchell seconded the item. The motion passed 5-0.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2017-4034\nCity of Alameda Amendment Updating the Public Art Ordinance. The\nPlanning Board will consider modifications to update and improve the\nregulations governing the Public Art Ordinance. The proposed amendment\nis categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State\nCEQA Guidelines 15305 Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations\nStaff Member Gehrke gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found\nat:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2977023&GUID=A2F1C5A2-\n24-42E7-BCC8-5997578CB17F&FullText=1\nBoard Member Knox White asked if the \"free admission\" requirement would mean that if\nthe city funded an event the entire event had to be free for all attendees.\nPage 1 of 8\nMarch 13, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-03-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-03-13", "page": 2, "text": "Staff Member Gehrke responded in the affirmative.\nBoard Member Knox White asked if there was consideration for partial funding of events\nthat would have an appropriate portion of free tickets based on the city's contribution.\nStaff Member Gehrke said they did discuss that but they decided that public art needed to\nbe open to the general public.\nBoard Member Knox White asked what analysis was done to see how removing the cap\nwould affect housing costs and ability for projects to be completed as we increase fees on\nnew development.\nStaff Member Thomas said that increasing the costs of construction is a real concern and\nthat this would contribute increasing the cost of market rate units that are constructed. He\nsaid he thinks it will be manageable.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked for more details about how the staff administrative costs\nwere being handled.\nStaff Member Thomas said they are asking for general fund monies to be used for staff\ntime needed to administer the public art program.\nBoard Member Burton asked if the language in the ordinance required dispersal of the\nfunds every year.\nStaff Member Thomas said many years they do not have enough money to issue an RFP.\nHe said they can clean up the language to make sure they do not imply that there will\nalways be annual dispersals.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked how much some of the public art pieces around town cost.\nStaff Member Thomas said they usually cost close to $150,000 in the larger projects. He\nsaid, at Grand Marina, for example, there were two pieces that probably cost around\n$75,000 each.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked if they considered using nature as a criteria for evaluation,\nnow that they are removing the maritime history requirements.\nStaff Member Gehrke said they could use Alameda's natural ecosystem as a criteria when\nevaluating proposals for how they relate to Alameda's heritage.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked if the physical art pieces could be temporary installations.\nPage 2 of 8\nMarch 13, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-03-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-03-13", "page": 3, "text": "Staff Member Gehrke said that on site public art had to be permanent. She said art paid\nfor through the fund could be temporary.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked if any of the programming money could go towards schools'\nprogramming.\nStaff Member Gehrke said she would see no reason it could not be included.\nPresident K\u00f6ster opened the public hearing.\nWesley and Jessica Warren said they encourage the changes to the ordinance so that the\nfunds could be used.\nMark Farrell and Colin Blake said they put on the Alameda Film Festival. They said they\nsupport the changes to the ordinance.\nPhilip James said the community wants to support the arts and that requires more\nspending. He supported removing the maritime requirement.\nTina Blaine said she has been involved in the process since Beverly Johnson was mayor.\nShe said the city has been responsive to artists' concerns and she looks forward to the\nRFP process.\nPresident K\u00f6ster closed the public hearing.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked if a large project could spend some money for on site art and some\ndirectly on the public art fund.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked if we have considered identifying what locations would\nbenefit most from public art.\nStaff Member Gehrke said that could be part of the public process as future RFPs happen.\nBoard Member Burton said he was glad to see this before the board. He said he supports\nremoving the cap on contributions. He said he supports removing the maritime history\nrequirement. He said we should not be limited. He suggested clarifying the language about\n25% administrative fees.\nBoard Member Knox White said the artists in the room and the art they put on and support\nmakes him proud to be an Alamedan. He said he would like to see the item move forward\ntonight. He said he was concerned about completely removing the cap. He said we should\nconsider doing what other cities have done and reducing the percentage for residential to\n0.5%. He said he would like to see the purpose statement that better reflects why having\nart in our community is good for more than just raising property values. He said he\nPage 3 of 8\nMarch 13, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-03-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-03-13", "page": 4, "text": "supports removing the restriction to maritime related art. He suggested trying to find a way\nto make it easy for people to donate money to the fund.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he supports removing the cap and eliminating the maritime\nrequirement.\nPresident K\u00f6ster said he wants to see the proposal move forward. He said he agreed that\nthe purposes need to be reworded.\nBoard Member Mitchell made a motion to approve the item with adjustments to the\npurpose statement, and to section 65.5 (B) and how the 25% programming\nrequirement would be monitored. Board Member Sullivan seconded the motion. The\nmotion passed 5-0.\n7-B 2017-4047\nDevelopment Plan Application PLN17-0075 - 2001 Versailles Avenue\n(Mapes Ranch Project) Applicant: Clifford Mapes. A proposed\nDevelopment Plan application to develop 11 lots on a 1.29-acre property\nlocated at 2001 Versailles Avenue at the corner of Fernside Boulevard and\nVersailles Avenue.\nStaff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found\nat: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2977024&GUID=453065B2-\nOD1-4D68-8023-DACABD88F2DA&FullText=1\nBoard Member Knox White asked if the private drive would have access to Tilden Way.\nStaff Member Thomas said it would not.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked if the 4' setbacks on lots one and two would require a\nvariance.\nStaff Member Thomas said the P-D zoning allows for different setbacks than the usual five\nfeet. He said the eight feet between buildings should work out fine.\nBoard Member Burton asked why the private drive was so wide.\nStaff Member Thomas said he thought Public Works wanted to use some of that space\nfor guest parking.\nBoard Member Burton asked if there were minimum dimensions for the private outdoor\nspace to meet the requirements.\nStaff Member Thomas said there was a requirement for more than 600 square feet.\nPage 4 of 8\nMarch 13, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-03-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-03-13", "page": 5, "text": "President K\u00f6ster asked if the approval would make the mix of single families and duplexes\nstay as is.\nStaff Member Thomas said that nothing would prevent a future owner from proposing to\nmake their property a duplex if the lot were large enough.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked what the fencing plan was for the site.\nStaff Member Thomas said that the perimeter fence would be the next question solved\nbefore the first design review was approved.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster opened the public hearing.\nToby Roebuck said he was concerned about a shortage of parking at the site.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster closed the public hearing.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked about the precedent for requiring garages only be used for\nvehicles and not for storage.\nStaff Member Thomas said they would not be in a position to have staff checking people's\ngarages to make sure it was not used for storage.\nBoard Member Knox White said the design of the lots and the curb cuts for this project are\nout of step with the neighborhood. He said he would like to see smaller driveways. He said\nhe was concerned about the lots backing to Tilden and having walls of the home right up\nagainst a very tall retaining wall and fence. He said he does not think there is a parking\nproblem in this neighborhood.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he was concerned that these homes would not fit the\nneighborhood very well. He said he had concerns about the four foot setbacks and what\nwould happen when someone tries to add on in the future.\nBoard Member Burton said he would like to see the private drive be narrowed. He said he\nwould support narrowing the driveways.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she would like to see the private drive a little thinner. She\nsaid she does not have a problem with the wider driveways, but she does have a problem\nwith dumping cars onto the street. She said she would support a solid wall along Tilden\nWay.\nPresident K\u00f6ster said he would like to see five foot setbacks on lots one, two, and three.\nHe suggested a possible connection point for pedestrians from the Tilden Dr. to the private\nPage 5 of 8\nMarch 13, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-03-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-03-13", "page": 6, "text": "drive. He said he supported narrowing the private drive. He suggested that these homes\ncome back to the board for design review.\nBoard Member Knox White said he was concerned about how the wall along Tilden Dr.\nwould look as a gateway to Alameda.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he would like to see a more substantial wall than just wood.\nHe said ivy was an interesting idea.\nBoard Member Knox White said he would support moving the proposal forward tonight if:\nthe setbacks one lots 1, 2, & 3 were changed to five feet; approvals for the footprints of\nlots 9 & 10 were removed from the approval until they knew what the wall would look like;\nand no more than one double wide curb cut was implemented on each Versailles or\nFernside.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he would like to not see the wide garages on Fernside, but\nwould be okay with them on Versailles.\nBoard Member Knox White said he would be okay with that adjustment.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she would not support limiting the driveway widths.\nBoard Member Knox White made a motion to approve the plan with conditions: the\ndriveways on Fernside will be no wider than 10 feet; no changes to the driveways\non Versailles; removing lots 9 & 10 from the approval; amending the fence condition\nto say that a fence implementation plan must be approved with the first design\nreview plan. Board Member Burton seconded the motion. The motion pass 4-1\n(Sullivan).\n7-C 2017-4049\nPlanning Board Recommendation that the City Council Accept the City of\nAlameda Housing Element 2016 Annual Report and Implementation\nPriorities. The review of the annual report is exempt from the California\nEnvironmental Quality Act\nStaff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachment can be found\nat:  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2977026&GUID=3C7D4917-\nF085-4AF2-B7EF-2BB319083DA3&FullText=1\nBoard Member Knox White asked why we missed our goal for collecting our affordable\nhousing fee.\nStaff Member Thomas said those funds are tied to commercial development.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked how assisted living factored into this report.\nPage 6 of 8\nMarch 13, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-03-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-03-13", "page": 7, "text": "Staff Member Thomas said they have not approved any assisted living in some time. He\nsaid there would be some ordinance changes coming forward.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked if the middle income housing needs a recommendation to go to\ncouncil.\nStaff Member Thomas said the Main St. Plan is the first to codify the affordable by design\nunits. He said if Council approves it, they will expand it to other areas of the city.\nPresident K\u00f6ster opened and closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Knox White asked that the data on how long design reviews take to\nprocess be included where appropriate. He suggested several areas to include in order to\nbolster the report's findings.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he is fine with the report. He said he would like to have a\nworkshop on our inclusionary percentages.\nBoard Member Burton said he supports moving the report forward.\nPresident K\u00f6ster said he supports moving the report forward with Board Member Knox\nWhite's comments included.\nBoard Member Knox White made a motion to send the report to council with the\nboard's comments incorporated. Board Member Mitchell seconded the motion. The\nmotion passed 5-0.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2017-4029\nDraft Meeting Minutes - February 13, 2017\nBoard Member Knox White made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member\nSullivan seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2017-4031\nZoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions\nStaff Member Thomas gave a report on recent and upcoming design reviews.\n9-B 2017-4048\nFuture Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Thomas listed items coming to the next meeting.\nPage 7 of 8\nMarch 13, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-03-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-03-13", "page": 8, "text": "Board Member Mitchell asked if they would be following up on the 750 square foot addition\nrules.\nStaff Member Thomas said they would be reviewing the policy at the April 10th meeting.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\n11-A 2017-4032\nSubcommittee for Alameda Marina\nBoard Member Knox White said they have met twice and they are trying to establish a\nframework for discussing the commercial development at Alameda Marina.\n11-B 2017-4033\nSubcommittee with Commission on Disability Issues regarding Universal\nDesign Ordinance\n*None*\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident K\u00f6ster adjourned the meeting at 9:37pm.\nPage 8 of 8\nMarch 13, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-03-13.pdf"}