{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-10-14", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nMONDAY--OCTOBER - 14, 2019--6:00 P.M.\n(19-558) A special meeting was called to allow the Council to attend a Gun Safety Town\nHall.\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 14, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-10-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-10-14", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2019\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Curtis convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Board Members Curtis, Cavanaugh, Hom, Rothenberg, Ruiz, Saheba, and\nTeague.\nAbsent: None.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nNone.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n6-A 2019-7324\nAdoption of Objective Design Review Standards for Multi-family Residential Development\nas an addendum to the Citywide Design Review Manual. These Standards are applicable\nto all future multi-family residential development in the City seeking permit streamlining\npursuant to state law. The adoption of Objective Design Review Standards is exempt from\nthe requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3 where it\ncan be seen with certainty that adoption of design standards will not have a significant\neffect on the environment, and Section 15183, projects consistent with a community plan,\ngeneral plan or zoning. (Item Continued to November 25, 2019 Planning Board Meeting)\nPresident Curtis said the item would be tabled until the November 25, 2019 meeting.\nBoard Member Teague wanted to ensure that there would be an opportunity for public\ncomment on the item when it is heard.\nAndrew Thomas, Planning, Building and Transportation Department Director, said they\nwould plan to have public comment on the item.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2019-7349\nPLN19-0270 - Development Plan and Design Review - 1815 Clement Avenue (between\nAlameda Marina Drive and Schiller Street) - Applicant: Pacific Shops, LLC. Public Hearing\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 9\nOctober 14, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-10-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-10-14", "page": 2, "text": "to consider Development Plan and Design Review application for a four- to five-story\nresidential building with 360 multi-family units and 8 Work/Live units as part of Phase / of\nthe Alameda Marina Master Plan project. The environmental effects of the proposed\nproject were considered and disclosed in the Alameda Marina Master Plan Environmental\nImpact Report (State Clearinghouse #2016102064). No further environmental review is\nrequired under the California Environmental Quality Act.\nStaff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found\nat: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4154339&GUID=FOC16E65-\nABDF-43AE-8DE1-EB057B54EB8F&FullText=1\nlan Murphy, BDE Architecture, gave a presentation.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked what the building dimensions are.\nMr. Murphy said it is a very long fa\u00e7ade, which dictated their tactics to try and break up\nthe building with different techniques, including the view corridor.\nBoard Member Ruiz said she was told that the building length would be 485 feet.\nBoard Member Teague sought and received confirmation that no palm trees were planned\nfor the project.\nBoard Member Hom disclosed that he met previously with the applicant to review the\nchanges to the plan. He asked if the view corridor would be kept open at all hours.\nMr. Murphy said they discussed the possibility of closing the corridor during certain hours,\nbut that the current intention is to leave it open.\nMr. Thomas said there is a condition of approval in the resolution stating that no gates\nwould be built blocking public access to the view corridor.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked if there are any legal or physical constraints preventing the\nground floor units from having some kind of stoop to help activate Clement Avenue.\nMr. Murphy said the four feet of grade change would require extensive stoops. He added\nthat they went in the direction of having the units feel more private, which allowed them to\nprovide more landscaping at the edge of the building.\nBoard Member Saheba asked if all residents would have to rely on the Schiller Street\nloading zone, or if there would be an option for residents on the west side of the project.\nMr. Murphy said he expected large truck loading to happen on the Schiller side of the\nbuilding.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 9\nOctober 14, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-10-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-10-14", "page": 3, "text": "Board Member Saheba said the plans showed balconies for certain units that would be\nabove the lobby space, and the renderings did not. He asked which was accurate.\nMr. Murphy said the renderings reflect the planned look of the fa\u00e7ade.\nPresident Curtis opened and closed the public hearing. There were no speakers.\nBoard Member Teague said he has met with the applicant on multiple occasions. He said\nhe is in support of the project and has no suggested changes.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to approve the item. Board Member Hom\nseconded the motion.\nBoard Member Hom said he really liked the architecture. He said the design is a step\nabove most projects he has reviewed.\nBoard Member Saheba said the corridor needs to feel public. He said the first portal near\nthe street has lighting in the soffit. He said there does not appear to be any lighting in the\nrear portal and suggested there should be.\nBoard Member Teague said he would accept that condition regarding lighting of the\npathway portal as an amendment to his motion. The motion passed 7-0.\nStaff Member Thomas said the decision is final, but can be appealed within the next ten\ndays.\n7-B 2019-7350\nPLN19-0368 - 2800 Fifth Street - Development Plan, Density Bonus, and Tentative Map -\nApplicant: Pulte Home Company, LLC. Public Hearing to consider Development Plan,\nDensity Bonus, and Tentative Map applications to construct 357 residential units, 5,000-\nsquare-feet of commercial space, internal roadways and alleys, parks and open space on\nan approximately 17.2-acre site as part of the Alameda Landing Waterfront Mixed-Use\nDevelopment. The Planning Board may also review and comment on the initial Design\nReview plans for the project. The project is located within the M-X, Mixed-Use District. The\n2006 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report was certified in accordance with\nthe California Environmental Quality Act for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development\n(State Clearinghouse #2006012091).\nHenry Dong, Planner III, gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be\nfound\nat:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4154955&GUID=CC9C7888-\nBF76-45AA-AAA7-E258B70B42EC\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 9\nOctober 14, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-10-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-10-14", "page": 4, "text": "Board Member Teague asked to see the traffic calculations table, stating that there was\nan error.\nStaff Member Thomas explained the trip generation calculator that staff used for the\nproject.\nBoard Member Teague sought clarification about the labeling of the 11 units that were\ninitially misclassified. He asked if flats larger than 1200 square feet would change the\ntraffic generation numbers.\nStaff Member Thomas explained that the flats over 1200 square feet would fit into another\nclassification for multifamily units that have identical trip generation rates per the ITE\ncodes.\nBoard Member Teague asked how the affordable housing credit would work.\nStaff Member Thomas said that the Stargell Commons project was able to provide more\nunits than the TriPointe project required. He said the nine additional units from Phase II\nare being applied to Phase III.\nPresident Curtis asked that a live copy of the trip matrix be provided to the board members.\nBoard Member Hom asked if any follow up traffic counts have been conducted since the\n2006 EIR was adopted in order to see if the projections were correct.\nStaff Member Thomas said that they updated to matrix in 2017 to reflect what was actually\nbuilt. He said there has not been a major traffic study done since construction took place.\nHe said that the main thing that has changed since 2006 is how much the regional arterials\nhave been impacted, but the project has generated trips in line with the 2006 EIR\nprojections.\nScott Hilk, Pulte Homes, gave a presentation.\nJonathan Boriack, KTGY, continued the presentation by describing the project\narchitecture.\nBoard Member Teague asked if the pocket parks are privately owned public spaces.\nMr. Hilk said that they are.\nBoard Member Hom asked why there was not an enhanced crosswalk along Fifth Street.\nStaff Member Thomas said the Fifth Street design has been previously approved by the\nPlanning Board and is the responsibility of Catellus.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 9\nOctober 14, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-10-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-10-14", "page": 5, "text": "Board Member Ruiz disclosed that she met with the applicant. She asked if the Board is\nreviewing the vertical architecture tonight.\nStaff Member Thomas said staff has not had time to review the design review yet, but\nwanted to include it since Pulte had it available to share with the Board. He said the\nDevelopment Plan was the highest priority for tonight.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked if the waste management and traffic plan would be part of the\nvertical design review or part of the development plan process. She said she has concerns\nthat having all of the garages so close together without proper staging areas would be a\nproblem.\nStaff Member Thomas said they have not spent a lot of time on waste management\nquestions yet. He said the Board could condition the Development Plan to require a waste\nmanagement plan be part of the design review submittal.\nBoard Member Rothenberg suggested that we note that the species in the landscape plan\nbe appropriate for the marine environment. She said the video showed lots of palm trees\nwhich the Board has pointed out come with many problems.\nMr. Hilk said they have heard that feedback. He said the video reflected the approved\ntrees from the waterfront park plan. He said they are happy to modify at the Board's\ndirection.\nPresident Curtis said the entrance to Harbor Bay Parkway is a good example. He said 29\nyears ago they put in 11 palm trees and have lost several while the rest are not thriving in\nthe conditions.\nBoard Member Saheba disclosed that he met with the applicant. He asked if the 5,000\nsquare foot retail space will have sufficient parking.\nStaff Member Thomas said the use is likely to be related to the park and dock activities.\nHe said there are four spaces immediately adjacent to the pad and there is a shared lot\nacross the street with 30 spaces.\nBoard Member Saheba asked if the space could be used as ancillary space for the\nresidential, such as a clubhouse or similar.\nStaff Member Thomas said the requirement is that the space be retail/commercial. He\nsaid the resolution is conditioned on them bringing back a plan for the commercial as the\nproject takes shape and becomes populated.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh asked if there would ever be a connection to the ferry terminal\nvia Mitchell Avenue.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 9\nOctober 14, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-10-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-10-14", "page": 6, "text": "Staff Member Thomas said the City's General Plan envisions Mitchell extending all the\nway to Main Street through the Bay Ship and Yacht property but that it is not part of this\nproject.\nPresident Curtis opened the public hearing.\nRaymond Hsu, President of the neighboring TriPointe HOA, thanked Pulte for working\nwith their community to improve the project. He said they are still concerned with the\navailability of parking and the height of the four story flats along Fifth Street. He added\nthat Board Member Ruiz was right to worry about the waste management issue, as that\nhas happened in their neighborhood. He expressed concern about the traffic planning on\nthe island.\nPresident Curtis closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to approve the Development Plan resolution\nwith conditions: adding the waste management plan as part of the Design Review;\nbanning all palm trees from the site due to cost of purchase and replacement,\nmaintenance and liability, and zero waste goals of the City. He recommended that\nstaff reach out to Catellus to add the suggested crosswalk on Fifth Street. Board\nMember Rothenberg seconded the motion.\nBoard Member Hom disclosed that he met with the applicant previous to the meeting. He\nsaid he likes the site plan and product mix.\nPresident Curtis disclosed that he had met with the developer.\nBoard Member Teague expressed appreciation for all the work that went into improving\nthe plans.\nThe motion passed 7-0.\nBoard Member Rothenberg made a motion to approve the Tentative Map. Board\nMember Hom seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\nStaff Member Thomas said the Tentative Map would go on to City Council. He said the\nDevelopment Plan approval was final, but appealable for the next ten days.\nBoard Member Teague said he liked the changes to all the buildings, except one. He said\nthe large blocks on top of the buildings on page A.2.2.0 are distracting and asked for an\nattempt to reduce their impact.\nMr. Hilk said they are trying to provide roof decks, which require two staircases and an\nelevator shaft.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 9\nOctober 14, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-10-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-10-14", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Saheba said this type of architecture is a bit frenetic but is okay if that is\nwhat the developer wants to do. He said the Compass buildings have the same shading\nelements regardless of orientation. He said this results in some of the south oriented\nbuildings having no shading elements over the glazing of the living spaces. He said this\nshould be taken into account for sustainability reasons as well as creating some visual\ninterest in the alleyways by not having the shade elements on the north facing garages.\nHe said a bit more care and analytical study could be done with an eye towards\nsustainable design. He said the ground floors of the flats along Fifth Street are detrimental\nto the streetscape due to the blank fa\u00e7ade. He said there are opportunities to open up the\ninterior uses to allow some light to get out and indicate some life beyond the wall. He said\npage A.4.0.4 shows some details that seem inconsequential and pasted on that need\nwork.\nBoard Member Ruiz echoed Board Member Saheba's comments regarding the fa\u00e7ade of\nthe Landing buildings. She said the video makes the corner of Fifth and Mitchell look very\nstark. She suggested further study to make that corner more pedestrian friendly. She said\nthe Lookout balcony walls are too large and intrusive.\nBoard Member Hom suggested some further differentiation between the unit types via\nmaterial types and color. He expressed concern with some of the design elements of the\nCompass units. He suggested using different railing designs between the different unit\ntypes to help add differentiation.\nBoard Member Rothenberg and President Curtis concurred with the previous design\nrelated comments.\n7-C 2019-7351\nPLN19-0408 - Tentative Map - Site A Phase 2 at Alameda Point - Applicant: Alameda\nPoint Partners, LLC. - Public Hearing to consider Tentative Map No. 8532 for the proposed\nsubdivision of six lots on 20.1 acres within the second phase of the Site A Development\nPlan at Alameda Point.\nStaff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found\nat: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4154411&GUID=A07DD2C9-\n99D-4194-BBC8-7B9E6583EF46&FullText=1\nThere were no speakers.\nBoard Member Ruiz said that she no longer needs to recuse herself on any items related\nto Site A.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council.\nBoard Member Rothenberg seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 9\nOctober 14, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-10-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-10-14", "page": 8, "text": "8. MINUTES\n8-A 2019-7340\nDraft Meeting Minutes - September 9, 2019\nBoard Member Hom made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Ruiz\nseconded the motion.\nBoard Member Teague said that on page 10 he would like to call out the amendments in\nhis motion to be relating to street yards and changing work/live to residential.\nThe motion to approve the corrected minutes passed 7-0.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2019-7325\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nThe\nstaff\nreport\ncan\nbe\nfound\nat:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4150605&GUID=004691B9-\n7F5-44AD-AEOD-9139B5A72ED8&FullText=\nBoard Member Teague explained the software bug that was preventing him from being\nable to view applications.\nBoard Member Ruiz said that she has only been able to view the first page of plans on her\niPad.\n9-B 2019-7327\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Thomas said Site A is the only item planned for the October 28 meeting. He\nsaid they expect to bring the Pulte project back November 12, which is a Tuesday due to\nVeteran's Day. He said Objective Standards are scheduled for November 25, as well as\na lot line adjustment and parcel map for the Catellus/Pulte site. He said December 9 would\nbe a public forum on Measure A.\nBoard Member Teague asked staff to gather feedback from developers on the proposed\nObjective Standards. He requested further legal opinion from the City Attorney's Office\nregarding our ability to have two different sets of design criteria based on whether\nstreamlining is invoked or not. He said the affordable housing developers say they do not\ninvoke streamlining out of a fear of antagonizing staff.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 9\nOctober 14, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-10-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-10-14", "page": 9, "text": "Staff Member Thomas said staff is actively working on a streamlined application for the\nHousing Authority and that they are not that sensitive about an applicant using\nstreamlining.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard Member Teague said he has suggested considering repealing the ADU law and\njust adopting the state's law in the interest of expedience. He said he will be speaking to\na group and will note that he is not speaking on behalf of the Planning Board.\nPresident Curtis asked what the vehicle would be for making the ADU recommendation to\nCity Council.\nStaff Member Thomas said they are already working on the topic, but were waiting for the\nnew state laws. He said they can consider Board Member Teague's suggestion at that\ntime.\nBoard Member Hom said it would be interesting to get a high level review of the recent\nhousing related bills that could impact Alameda. He said he would not be able to attend\nthe October 28 meeting.\nPresident Curtis said he would like to schedule some time on the November 12 agenda to\nhave Board Member Teague present on the recent state housing bills.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Curtis adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 9\nOctober 14, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-10-14.pdf"}