{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-10-09", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, OCTOBER 09, 2017\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Mitchell convened the meeting at 7:00pm.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Sullivan led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President Mitchell, Board Members Burton, Curtis, Knox White, Sullivan,\nTeague. Board Member K\u00f6ster arrived at 7:01pm.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\n*None*\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n*None*\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2017-4798\nStudy Session - 2390 Mariner Square Drive Co-Living, Co-Working zoning\nAmendment. Applicant: Todd Jersey Architecture and Open Door\nDevelopment. A Planning Board study session to consider a proposed\nZoning Amendment to allow residential use on a 1.4 acre site currently\nzoned M-2 General Industrial and designated in the General Plan for Mixed\nUse. The site is located at the corner of Mariner Square Drive and Marina\nVillage Parkway. No final action or decision is being considered. The\nproposed Zoning Amendment is subject to the California Environmental\nQuality Act. (Continued from Planning Board Meeting of 9/25/17, report and\nexhibits have been revised)\nStaff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found\nat:  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3165568&GUID=BB178433-\n709-46F3-B3C8-8D230C5BEC20&FullText=1\nThe applicants (Todd Jersey, a representative of Open Door, and John Atkinson) gave a\npresentation about what they envision for the site.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 7\nOctober 9, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-10-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-10-09", "page": 2, "text": "There were no public speakers.\nBoard Member Teague listed questions he would have if the project came before the\nboard. He said there is apparently a disabled veteran owned business on the site and he\nwould want to know what would happen with that. He asked what multi-purpose means\nfor the parking lot. He said he would need more details on the work live nature of the\nproject. He said he would want to make sure the sewer and water could be\naccommodated. He said he wondered if an M-X zoning would be more appropriate.\nBoard Member Curtis said he looks at it from another perspective. He says that the Pasta\nPelican is going broke because of the parking issues created by the Commodore Cruises\nevents. He said the number of units and makerspaces will make parking a real challenge.\nHe said the communal environment would limit the market. He said there are many\ncompeting developments coming online with makerspaces and worries there is not\nenough market for that.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked what percentage of the commercial space would be\nallocated to non-residents.\nMr. Jersey said they really do not know yet. He said there are some good precedents that\ndemonstrate the low demand for parking for this demographic of artists and millennials.\nHe said building from scratch will allow a very high quality lifestyle at a reasonable price\npoint. He said with 115 residents and 50 makers, there would be a lot of people that could\nsupport the restaurant (Pasta Pelican).\nBoard Member Curtis said he would like to see a report on the makerspace square footage\napproved for the area and an analysis of that market.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked what portion of the larger area would be covered by this\nproject.\nStaff Member Thomas said it was a small piece of a larger mixed use area that was\naddressed by the 1991 General Plan. He gave a history of the zoning changes that have\nhappened in the area since 1991. He said they will struggle with whether to come back\nwith a rezoning for just this parcel or addressing the whole area.\nBoard Member Sullivan said we need to look at the whole area and not evaluate parcels\npiecemeal.\nMr. Jersey said they want to be good neighbors and will absolutely nail the mobility\nquestion for the project.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 7\nOctober 9, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-10-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-10-09", "page": 3, "text": "Board Member Burton said it is hard to tell whether this would be viable for this site. He\nsaid the site layout would be dramatically impacted by the fire access requirements. He\nsaid the universal design ordinance would likely require elevators. He said we would need\nto understand how the commercial/retail spaces are going to be used in order to judge the\nflow of people to and from the site. He said he does not think the intensity of use is likely\nto work. He said the project looks under parked. He said he is open to the idea, but there\nis a lot of work to do before it comes back.\nBoard Member Knox White said he agrees with Board Member Teague that M-X zoning\nwould be the right course of action. He said he would support sending that\nrecommendation on to the council before the applicant does any more work.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked how residential setback rules would affect this project.\nStaff Member Thomas said that the M-X zoning would allow them to customize a master\nplan for the site.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked who owns the easement.\nStaff Member Thomas said he believes CalTrans owns the easement and they would have\nto figure out what restrictions would apply.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster said he likes the idea but there is a lot of work to do in order to see\nif it would pass muster.\nPresident Mitchell said he does not see manufacturing happening at the site. He said it is\nhard to evaluate the idea because it is not clear whether they will have a viable project\nafter addressing the questions raised so far. He asked whether they should wait until the\napplicants further develop the idea or if they should recommend the M-X zoning now.\nStaff Member Thomas said he likes the idea of taking the M-X zoning to council in order\nto get them involved sooner rather than later. He said the applicant could go a little further\nand then come back for just the M-X zoning request if they think they still have a project.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if the changes to the use of the site would require a\nreevaluation of the utilities' location and capacity.\nStaff Member Thomas said the city would have to clear the environmental requirements\nof any rezoning. He said they would need an infrastructure improvement plan but not\nnecessarily a new map.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she would like them to meet with CalTrans about the\nrequirements for the easement before proceeding.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 7\nOctober 9, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-10-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-10-09", "page": 4, "text": "The applicant thanked the Board for their input and said he believed the M-X zoning was\na good fit.\nBoard Member Teague said they should look at making 50% of their parking carshare to\nsee if they can make the site a hub for carsharing in the area.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster said the Parkmerced apartments in San Francisco partnered with\nUberPool and provide the tenants with a free $100 rideshare voucher monthly. He said\nthat could be a good partnership given the likelihood that the many of the artist residents\nof a project like this might drive for Uber on the side.\nNo action was taken.\n7-B 2017-4799\nPLN17-0465 - Building 8 Rooftop Addition - Applicant: Alameda Point\nRedevelopers, LLC. The proposed addition requires Historical Advisory\nBoard approval of an amendment to a previously approved Certificate of\nApproval to modify a contributing structure to the Naval Air Station Alameda\nHistoric District, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.\nThe proposed addition also requires Planning Board approval of an\namendment to a previously Development Plan and Design Review. The\nCity of Alameda certified the Alameda Point Final EIR (State Clearinghouse\nNo. 201312043), which evaluated the environmental impacts of\nredevelopment and reuse of the lands at Alameda Point. No further\nenvironmental review is required for this project\nStaff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found\nat: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3165569&GUID=8F1C4849-\nEB4-4632-A78C-F4AFF41FA327&FullText=1\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked if there was a beer facility in the room 101 facility.\nThe applicant said they are putting a brewery in there. He said the brewery would have a\nrooftop beer garden.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked if the rooftop beer garden could be expanded.\nThe applicant said they are in negotiation over that topic now.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked if the public would be able to walk through the interior\ncommercial spaces from one to the next.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 7\nOctober 9, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-10-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-10-09", "page": 5, "text": "The applicant said that the 12 foot wide loading docks would be the public space that\npeople could walk along and enter each space through the loading doors.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked if the rooftop commercial spaces would be visitable.\nThe applicant said the roof would be available for any of the approved uses. He said the\nwestern portion would be public spaces and the rest would be owner/user access. He said\nthey may have some of the residential uses on the fourth floor if they lease out significant\nportions of the other floors to commercial tenants.\nBoard Member Teague asked if the applicant would have to come back for approval to\nput work/live units on the fourth floor.\nStaff Member Thomas said they are capped at 88 total units but they could be anywhere\nin the building.\nBoard Member Teague asked why the square footage of the fourth floor was listed as from\n40,000 - 55,000 square feet.\nThe applicant said they were originally considering a mezzanine for the fourth floor. He\nsaid they decided to go with the less impactful design after consulting with the Historical\nAdvisory Board.\nThere were no public speakers.\nBoard Member Curtis said it is a great improvement over the original plan. He said it adds\nto the productivity of the development.\nBoard Member Knox White made a motion to approve the item. Board Member\nBurton seconded the motion.\nBoard Member Teague said the TDM fees should be adjusted based on the new square\nfootage of the project.\nBoard Member Knox White said accepted Board Member Teague's suggestion as a\nfriendly amendment. Board Member Burton seconded the amended motion. The\nmotion passed 7-0.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2017-4793\nDraft Meeting Minutes - July 24, 2017\nBoard Member Sullivan offered two corrections, one typo and one clarification of her\ncomment on the design of a project.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 7\nOctober 9, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-10-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-10-09", "page": 6, "text": "Board Member Knox White offered a correction clarifying then public speaker Teague's\ncomments on the Shipways project.\nBoard Member Burton asked to strike the sentence about the trash enclosures.\nBoard Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Board\nMember Knox White seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Teague\nabstained).\n8-B 2017-4792\nDraft Meeting Minutes - September 11, 2017\nBoard Member Sullivan said the word artisan should be capitalized because it was the\nname of a design. She asked that a run on sentence be broken up and clarified. She said\na board member's name was missing in one spot on page five.\nBoard Member Teague asked to delete a clause modifying his wanting the applicant to\nhave more than 66 units.\nBoard Member Knox White made a motion to approve the minutes with the\nproposed changes. Board Member K\u00f6ster seconded the motion. The motion passed\n6-0-1 (Teague abstained).\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2017-4796\nZoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions\nStaff Member Thomas said they approved one use permit and three design reviews. The\ndecisions\ncan\nbe\nfound\nat:\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3165567&GUID=70694E82-\nFA90-4D6F-AA19-A46DEE21F4FC&FullText=1\n9-B 2017-4801\nFuture Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Thomas listed items for upcoming meetings. The list can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3165570&GUID=13780132-\n8B05-427D-93F6-C2CEODE5F116\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 7\nOctober 9, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-10-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-10-09", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member K\u00f6ster read a resolution honoring Lorre Zuppan for her service on the\nPlanning Board.\nLorre Zuppan said it was an honor to serve.\nBoard Member Knox White noted that Ms. Zuppan was an early and strong champion of\nthe Universal Design ordinance.\nStaff Member Thomas thanked Ms. Zuppan for all of her work.\nPresident Mitchell, Board Members Burton, Sullivan, Curtis, K\u00f6ster, and Teague thanked\nMs. Zuppan for her service.\n11-A 2017-4795\nSubcommittee for Alameda Marina\n*None*\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Mitchell adjourned the meeting at 8:42pm.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 7\nOctober 9, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-10-09.pdf"}