{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-05-22", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, MAY 22, 2017\n1. CONVENE\nPresident K\u00f6ster convened the meeting at 7:03pm\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Mitchell led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President K\u00f6ster, Board Members Curtis, Knox White, Mitchell. Board Member\nZuppan arrived during item 7-B (before 7:25pm). Board Member Burton arrived at 8:33pm\n(item 7-C). Absent: Board Member Sullivan.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nStaff Member Thomas said that item 7-A has been withdrawn.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nTravis Wilson said parking is the next big fight. He asked that parking be considered in\na\nbroader context and not just on a case by case basis. He said the General Plan is outdated\nand needs updating.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n*None*\n7. REGULAR\nAGENDA\nITEMS\n7-A 2017-4358\nAppeal of Design Review Application No. PLN17-0060 - 40 Garden Road\n- Applicant: Chung Ly. Appellant: Robert Price. A public hearing to consider\nan appeal for Design Review Application No. PLN17-0060 for an\napproximately 978 square-foot two-story rear addition to an existing single-\nfamily home. The new addition includes new windows and doors, one new\ngarage door, new siding, and a decorative belly band located on the side\nand rear elevations. The property is located within a R-1, One Family\nResidence zoning district.\n*Withdrawn*\n7-B 2017-4363\nPublic Hearing to Consider a Development Plan Amendment for Alameda\nPoint Site A.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 1 of 9\nMay 22, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-05-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-05-22", "page": 2, "text": "Staff Member Thomas gave the staff presentation. The staff report and attachments can\nbe\nfound\nat:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3047810&GUID=5924B260-\nA15B-4F1E-BC95-4E5D6255255A&FullText=1\nJoe Ernst, Alameda Point Partners, said they have seen significant escalation in\nconstruction costs due to a labor shortage. He explained the difficulty in closing the\nfinancing package for the project.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if the $425/sq. ft. construction cost included infrastructure\nand other costs.\nMr. Ernst said that was just the hard cost of the unit construction with no land costs.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked what the purpose of reevaluating the land use before phase\nII.\nStaff Member Thomas said that it was to help ensure that they could get the 600,000 sq.\nft. of commercial space out of the project.\nPresident K\u00f6ster opened the public hearing.\nAlan Teague said he is generally in favor or the changes but was concerned about the\nfunding for the ferry terminal and the parking implications of increasing the number of\ntownhomes in the project.\nJacob Adiarte said the project would bring many good union trade jobs along with the\nconstruction.\nDoug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative, said they are strongly supportive of the\nchanges to the site plan. He said their residents will have better access to the amenities\nof Site A with the removal of a large warehouse and addition of teacher housing.\nMichael McDonough, Chamber of Commerce, said the high construction costs are a not\nunique to Alameda. He said the existing businesses at Alameda Point need the improved\ninfrastructure that the changes will bring.\nRob Doud said they saw have seen the same cost increases as the applicant and supports\nthe amendment.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 2 of 9\nMay 22, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-05-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-05-22", "page": 3, "text": "Vicki Sedlack said we are so close to seeing things happen at Alameda Point and need to\nsupport this plan amendment and build all the housing we can for the community and to\nattract teachers.\nBill Smith said he supports the project because it provides much needed affordable\nhousing.\nKaren Bey said she supports the amendment. She said the developer has been very\ntransparent and we should do what is needed to get the project built.\nLaura Thomas, Renewed Hope, said they support the amended plan. She said Site A is\nessential to the city's reputation as a successful and sustainable city.\nBrad Shook, Bladium co-owner, said they are in full support of the project. He said they\nare in dire need of infrastructure at the point.\nAngela Hockabout said she supports the proposed amendment. She said we need to\nincrease our density in Alameda to provide housing for all residents.\nPresident K\u00f6ster closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she met with the applicant. She said the changes do not\nincrease the amount of housing, and the changing location of some of the housing helps\nin some ways. She said the project provides many benefits and she is in support of the\namendment.\nBoard Member Knox White said not moving forward with this plan now would be against\nmany things that the city says they want. He said he supports the plan.\nBoard Member Curtis said it is a great project but he is concerned that it presents more\nrisks to the city and taxpayers. He suggested requiring the developer put up a bond to\nensure phase III gets completed.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he prefers this revised plan over the previous version and\nfully supports the plan.\nPresident K\u00f6ster said he has spoken with the developer about the plan and fully supports\nthe proposal.\nStaff Member Thomas said they are focused on making sure phase I is successful. He\nsaid the risk to the taxpayers is relatively low and the city would keep possession of the\nphase III property if nothing moves forward at that time.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 3 of 9\nMay 22, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-05-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-05-22", "page": 4, "text": "Joe Ernst said they would not be in possession of the land for phase III and is not sure if\nyou could even design a bond for that land. He said Site A is going to be the catalyst that\nmakes the later commercial phases at Site A and Site B feasible.\nBoard Member Curtis said a bond would not put a significant financial burden on the\nproject.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if a bond would be something the board would comment\non.\nStaff Attorney Brown explained that this would not be the right time to deal with bonding\nissues.\nBoard member Curtis stated that he would vote in favor of the revised plan provided that\nstaff forwarded his recommendation to City Council regarding securing a bond for phase\nIII.\nStaff Member Ott explained that there are bonding requirements in the plans for things\nlike infrastructure. She said the bonds usually require 100% construction design\ndocuments.\nBoard Member Mitchell made a motion to approve the Site A development plan\namendments as recommended by staff. Board Member Zuppan seconded the\nmotion. The motion passed 5-0.\nBoard Member Knox White announced that the Warriors were winning 103-82.\n7-C 2017-4364\nHold a Planning Board Study Session to Consider Site A Preliminary Block\n9 Design. The Alameda Point Final EIR evaluated the environmental\nimpacts of redevelopment and reuse of the lands at Alameda Point\nconsistent with the Town Center Plan, which included Site A. No further\nreview is required for this review of the project design.\nStaff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff presentation and attachments can\nbe\nfound\nat:\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3047811&GUID=05C19841-\n655E-4086-AF68-F677C443D3B3&FullText=1\nPeter Waller, Pyatok Architects, gave a presentation of their goals and plans for Block 9.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked about lighting and what the building would look like at night.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 4 of 9\nMay 22, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-05-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-05-22", "page": 5, "text": "Mr. Waller said they will more fully develop the lighting plans as the design progresses.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked why the garage access was on Ardent way across from the\ncommercial block.\nMr. Waller said they are still considering their options for that. He said Coronado already\nhas some service access and Orion is a bike lane street and they did not want to break\nthat up.\nThere were no public speakers.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he appreciated the modern, but not austere design. He said\nthey are seeing the same off center window treatments over and over and they might want\nto consider that.\nBoard Member Knox White said it was a nice looking building. He said he has concerns\nabout the arcade becoming a dead space that hides the retail spaces behind. He said the\nbike room should be on the Orion side where the bike lane is.\nBoard Member Curtis said it is a good design and has a nice variety.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she met with the architect to review the plans. She said she\nis warming to the plans. She said she likes the promenade and the angled windows that\ntake advantage of the views. She said she appreciates the larger setback for the\ntownhomes.\nPresident K\u00f6ster said he liked the design of the building. He said he liked the angled\nbalconies most of all. He said the lobby rendering looked a little too much like an office\nspace.\nMr. Waller said they were still having the conversation about setting the retail space back\nor not.\n7-D 2017-4365\nPLN17-0050 - Zoning Text Amendment for Second Units. Consideration of\na Zoning Text Amendment for modification of regulations pertaining to\nSecond Units (Accessory Dwelling Units), and related regulations, for\ncompliance with State law. The proposed amendments are Statutorily\nExempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15282(h) of\nthe CEQA Guidelines, which exempts the adoption of ordinance revisions\nto comply with Government Code Section 65852.2.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 5 of 9\nMay 22, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-05-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-05-22", "page": 6, "text": "Staff Member Tai gave the staff presentation. The staff report and attachments can be\nfound\nat:\nps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3047812&GUID=D55E58FC-\n9E-4E15-ABE7-FED4C9A00D37&FullText=1\nBoard Member Knox White asked what the policy reason was for the owner-occupancy\nrequirement.\nStaff Member Tai said it was based on previous comments to keep these units away from\nspeculators and in the hands of the community.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if these state mandates can be required if it affects safety of\nthe residents.\nStaff Member Tai said there are rules about safety but they require very specific findings.\nStaff Member Thomas said he does not see parking behavior as a way to make a safety\nargument against approving ADUs.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked what the setback rules would be for a new building.\nStaff Member Tai said that the normal setback rules (ie-5ft) would apply.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked if you could increase the size of the primary residence and then\ncount that when determining the size of the ADU they could build.\nStaff Member Tai said that you could do that.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if an existing structure that doesn't match the primary\nresidence would be allowed to be converted.\nStaff Member Tai said they would not be required to redesign the style of the outside of\nthe existing structure.\nPresident K\u00f6ster opened the public hearing.\nAlan Teague said that ADUs for homes on the historic study list should be contemporary\ncompatible and not try to mimic the historic architecture.\nAngela Hockabout said we need to make it harder for people to use cars if we are serious\nabout addressing climate change. She said she wants to make it easier to build these\ntypes of units.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 6 of 9\nMay 22, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-05-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-05-22", "page": 7, "text": "Alice Cheng, architect, said she is concerned about the flexibility in the ordinance. She\nsaid we should consider how to limit the range of designs that could happen with the\nordinance.\nAlexandra Saikley, architect, said we should make it easier to increase the number of\nADUs. She said they are a great way to keep a community together. She said pre-fab\nunits are a way to make them very feasible.\nFrank Maxwell said he supports the ordinance to help ease the housing crisis.\nAnita Longoria said she supports the ordinance and does not want to restrict the size to\nonly 600 square feet. She said the design requirements should be consistent without being\noverly restrictive.\nJim Smallman said ADUs should have different rules for those done within the footprint of\nthe building than those in new structures. He said he is concerned about design\nguidelines.\nChristopher Buckley said the standards need to be carefully crafted. He said the 600\nsquare foot limit should only be permitted for units built within the footprint of the original\nhome. He suggested keeping the original standards for units visible from the street.\nAlan Pryor said 1200 square feet seems large. He said an ADU could be a good option\nfor adult children that could not afford the high rents.\nPresident K\u00f6ster closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Burton said he is supportive of getting the ordinance in place. He\nsuggested a change to allow removal of protected trees with the recommendation of an\narborist. He said he supports removing the 750 square foot rule for additions. He said lot\ncoverage and other requirements would prevent most units from being as large as 1200\nsquare feet.\nBoard Member Curtis said he is in favor of the amendment except for the parking issue.\nHe said he is concerned about the parking creating a safety issue.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if they could institute a threshold that would trigger a\ndiscretionary design review.\nStaff Member Tai said that they could require that for some size greater than 600 square\nfeet.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 7 of 9\nMay 22, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-05-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-05-22", "page": 8, "text": "Board Member Zuppan said she would not be in favor of restricting the ADU size if it is\nwithin the existing envelope. She said she would be in favor of requiring design review if\nit was visible and over 800 or 850 square feet. She said she supports removing the 750\nsquare foot rule, and that the applicants should be owner occupied. She said the universal\ndesign requirements would require more than 600 square feet.\nBoard Member Mitchell said is in full support of adopting the recommendation and\nrequiring owner occupancy. He said he is comfortable with staff making the decisions\nabout design.\nBoard Member Knox White said he would like to see a one year report out of what is being\nbuilt under the ordinance. He said the intent of the ordinance is to supply low impact\nhousing and requiring owner occupancy to get a permit would be counter to that. He said\nwe should not be afraid of having a mix of styles.\nBoard Member Knox White said he would be happy to move the staff\nrecommendation with Board Member Burton's recommendation regarding tree\nremoval and adding design review for units that abut the street.\nStaff Member Thomas listed proposed changes: design review for units in a front\nor side yard, adding an owner occupancy at time of application, adding the certified\narborist recommendation for protected tree removal, remove the 750 square foot\naddition parking requirement, with yearly reporting.\nBoard Member Burton seconded the motion.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked and received confirmation that a basement conversion\nwithin the same footprint that exceeded 50% of the original unit would require a use permit.\nShe asked what parking regulations would apply to those units.\nStaff Member Tai said that it would fall within the area of the ADU ordinance and those\nparking rules, or exemptions, would apply.\nThe motion passed 5-1 (Curtis).\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2017-4366\nDraft Meeting Minutes - March 27, 2017\nBoard Member Zuppan asked to add \"utility\" in front of meters on page 4, and to clarify\nthat she \"asked\" about prohibiting residents from having a car.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 8 of 9\nMay 22, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-05-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-05-22", "page": 9, "text": "Board Member Zuppan made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Board\nMember Curtis seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0-2 (Burton and Knox\nWhite abstained).\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nStaff Member Thomas said this would be Staff Attorney Brown's final Planning Board\nMeeting and that she would be starting soon as the City Attorney for Berkeley.\n9-A 2017-4359\nZoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions\nStaff Member Thomas listed the design review approvals.\n9-B 2017-4360\nFuture Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Thomas gave an update on what would be coming on future agendas.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\n11-A 2017-4361\nSubcommittee for Alameda Marina\nBoard Member Knox White gave a report on the current plan and said they would be\nbringing it before the whole board on June 12th.\n11-B 2017-4362\nSubcommittee with Commission on Disability Issues regarding Universal\nDesign Ordinance\n*None*\nBoard Member Knox White said that he met with Catellus, and he thanked Staff Attorney\nBrown for her service.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident K\u00f6ster adjourned the meeting at 10:00pm.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 9 of 9\nMay 22, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-05-22.pdf"}