{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-03-09", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, MARCH 9, 2020\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Curtis convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Hom led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Board Members Curtis, Cavanaugh, Hom, Rothenberg, Ruiz, Saheba, and\nTeague.\nAbsent: None.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nPresident Curtis announced that item 7-C would be continued to March 23, but allowed\npublic comment on the item.\nJerry Serventi, from the Public Utilities Board, said they are excited about the possibility\nof the solar project.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft thanked for Board for all of their work.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n6-A 2020-2278\nPublic Hearing to Consider a Finding of General Plan Conformity for the Disposition of\nReal Property at 2800 Fifth Street\nBoard Member Teague moved approval of the item. Board Member Ruiz seconded\nthe motion. The motion passed 7-0.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2020-7776\nPLN19-0556 - Phase / Waterfront Park Design Review Amendment - Alameda Point Site\nA - Applicant: Alameda Point Partners. Public hearing to consider whether the planting of\npalm trees in the Waterfront Park. The environmental effects of the proposed project were\nconsidered and disclosed in the Alameda Point Environmental Impact Report (State\nClearinghouse #2013012043). No further environmental review is required. (Continued\nfrom February 24, 2020)\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 7\nMarch 9, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-03-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-03-09", "page": 2, "text": "Board Member Teague made a motion to plant something other than palm trees. Board\nMember Cavanaugh seconded the motion.\nApril Phillips, project landscape architect, gave a presentation. The staff report can be\nfound\nat:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4343913&GUID=A41FFFDO-\n9F93-4B3A-B6DF-1CC4EAF937C5&FullText=1.\nThere were no public speakers.\nBoard Member Teague restated his motion opposing the use of palm trees. Board\nMember Rothenberg seconded the motion.\nBoard Member Teague said he cannot overcome the zero waste goal of the City and said\nwe know more about the palm tree composting issues now that we knew then.\nBoard Member Hom said there are a number of considerations and he is supportive of\nselective use of the palm trees.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh expressed concern about the plan to light the sculpture from\nthe palm trees and how that fits with the dark skies ordinance.\nMs. Phillips said all of their lighting will be dark skies compliant.\nBoard Member Ruiz said the technology exists to deal with palm waste and the city should\nlook forward to address this problem in the long term. She expressed support for the use\nof the palm trees.\nBoard Member Saheba said the said he is more in favor of not having the palms than\nhaving the palms.\nPresident Curtis said a lot of time and money went into the plan for this space and there\nare offsetting priorities that lead him to support the use of the palm trees.\nThe motion passed 4-3.\nAndrew Thomas, Director of Planning, Building and Transportation Department, said staff\nwould work with the applicant to select the final six trees.\n7-B 2020-7777\nPLN19-0477 - Use Permit and Design Review- 2390 Mariner Square Drive - Applicant:\nBanner NorCal Developer, LLC. Public hearing to consider Design Review, Parking\nReduction, and Use Permit for a new, six-story self-storage building and outdoor storage\nfor boats and recreational vehicles with associated landscaping and fencing. The\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 7\nMarch 9, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-03-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-03-09", "page": 3, "text": "proposed building is approximately 72 feet in height at its tallest point and approximately\n110,844 square feet in size. The applicant is requesting a reduction in required parking\npursuant to Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Section 30-7.12. The project is located within\nthe M-2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) Zoning District. The proposed building is\ncategorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA\nGuidelines Sections 15332 - Infill Development and 15183 - Projects Consistent with\nGeneral Plan or Zoning\nDavid Sablan, Planner, gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be\nfound\nat:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4343995&GUID=080CB279-\nC8B4-4ADE-BE69-5E65C9A141DO&FullText=1.\nMargo Connolly, applicant, gave a presentation.\nBoard Member Teague asked about the large green sign being lit at night, and whether\nthe hours could be limited.\nStaff Member Thomas said that the Board could condition the approval on lighting the sign\nduring certain hours or have the sign lower on the building.\nBoard Member Hom said he appreciates the change in the line of the wall. He said he still\nhas concerns and asked if trees could be added in the setbacks to further soften the impact\non the streetscape.\nBoard Member Saheba said adding street trees would help with the pedestrian scale and\nscreening of the building. He also suggested blurring the lines between the City property\nand project site with landscaping. He pointed out that the glazing at the corner would have\ndepth and the spandrel glass flanking it would not look the same.\nPresident Curtis opened the public hearing.\nWayne Shin said he lives nearby and plans to be the first tenants of the storage facility\nbecause where they rent now is filthy.\nMadeline Sadik, Chamber of Commerce, expressed support for the project.\nPresident Curtis closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Teague said there should be more landscaping, including street trees. He\nexpressed concern about having a green glowing sign and suggested having it backlit. He\nsaid employees should have EZ Passes.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 7\nMarch 9, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-03-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-03-09", "page": 4, "text": "said he also had concerns about how the high up sign would be lit.\nBoard Member Hom said he thinks the landscaping needs to be enhanced, including street\ntrees. He said he favors a halo type lighting for the sign and leans toward requiring solar\nbe used.\nPresident Curtis said the applicant did a good job incorporating the Board's feedback. He\nsaid he would support requiring EZ Passes for the employees.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to approve the project with conditions:\ninclude EZ passes for all employees; work with staff to significantly increase the\nnumber of trees in the City parcel; work to add street trees if possible; require an\nopaque sign with lighting behind. Board Member Rothenberg seconded the motion.\nThe motion passed 6-1 (Saheba opposed.)\n7-C 2020-7779\nPLN19-0601 - Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration & Mitigation Monitoring and\nReporting Program and Use Permit - Alameda Municipal Power Solar Facility - Doolittle\nLandfill site (Doolittle Drive and Harbor Bay Parkway) - Applicant: Alameda Municipal\nPower. Public hearing to consider adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration &\nMitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Use Permit to allow the construction\nand operation of a 2.0 megawatt photovoltaic solar facility on an 11-acre portion of the\n33.2-acre Doolittle Landfill site located northwest of the intersection of Doolittle Drive and\nHarbor Bay Parkway. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation\nMonitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared to analyze the environmental\neffects of the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)\nContinued to March 23, 2020.\n7-D 2020-7782\nPLN19-0564 - Phase Il Alameda Marina Master Plan Project - 1815 Clement Avenue\n(between Chestnut Street and Willow Street) - Applicant: Alameda Marina, LLC. Public\nhearing to consider Phase Il of the Alameda Marina Master Plan Project. The approvals\nrequested by the Applicant include a Development Plan and Design Review application\nfor 182 townhouse units in 31 buildings, a waiver from the 100% visitability requirement\nunder the Universal Design Ordinance, and approval of the Affordable Housing Plan and\nTransportation Demand Management Plan for the entire Master Plan project. The\nenvironmental effects of the proposed project were considered and disclosed in the\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 7\nMarch 9, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-03-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-03-09", "page": 5, "text": "Alameda Marina Master Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse #2016102064). No further\nenvironmental review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)\nStaff Member Thomas gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found\nat:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4345897&GUID=79DEA740-\nL4BC-4F04-91AE-66703D6CED89&FullText=1.\nDavid Burton, project architect, gave a presentation.\nBoard Member Teague asked if the affordable housing plan is included in the application.\nSean Murphy said the specific units have not been identified, but that the ratios, locations,\nand universal design characteristics will be evenly distributed throughout the project.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked why the flats are not being built and we are building all\ntownhomes.\nMr. Burton said the stacked flat buildings are significantly more expensive to build without\nany increase in value that is being leveraged to pay for the infrastructure.\nBoard Member Hom asked whether townhomes with one car garages or having to build\nstacked flats would have a larger impact on the pro forma.\nMr. Murphy said the stacked flats would have a larger impact.\nBoard Member Saheba asked what happened with the pedestrian bridge over the\nWaterlife Park.\nMr. Murhpy said the Coast Guard permit required to build the bridge may prevent it from\nbeing viable.\nStaff Member Thomas said he believed that the bridge was a required element of the open\nspace design review.\nBoard Member Saheba said he is more comfortable with the applicant's site plan. He\nexpressed concern with having the HVAC condensers at the ground level in front of every\nunit. He noted the universally designed units, 22 of which have second kitchens on the\nground floor, and questioned whether the code would allow that.\nThere was a discussion about the definition of a unit, the potential impacts of keeping or\nremoving these 20 ground floor kitchens, and possible ways to proceed.\nThere were no public speakers.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 7\nMarch 9, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-03-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-03-09", "page": 6, "text": "Board Member Teague made a motion to approve the project with conditions:\nremove conditions 3 & 4; applicant to work with staff to add windows to the\nstairwells on the roof; only rough in the first floor kitchens if desired, adjust the\nratios of universal design units and to work with staff to address the multiple unit\nissue; equitably distribute the affordable housing units; work with staff to move as\nmany of the air conditioners as possible to the roof. Board Member Rothenberg\nseconded the motion.\nBoard Member Hom asked to have a separate vote on condition number 4 regarding the\nparking requirements.\nPresident Curtis made a motion to support removing condition number 4 from the\nresolution. Board Member Teague seconded the motion.\nBoard Member Hom said he supports keeping condition 4 because of the impact on\nreducing vehicle trips and believes it would help improve the affordability of these units.\nPresident Curtis' motion passed 6-1 (Hom opposed.)\nBoard Member Ruiz said the design has improved greatly. She suggested the applicant\nconsider some specific color changes to improve the project.\nBoard Member Hom said the improvements to the design allow him to support removing\ncondition number 3.\nBoard Member Teague and Rothenberg accepted Board Member Ruiz' direction for\nthe applicant to work with staff on the three final design details she mentioned as a\ncondition of approval. The motion passed 7-0.\n7-E 2020-7783\nDiscussion of Veterans Administration Plans to use Fuel Oil for Heating the Proposed\nAlameda Point Facility\nPresident Curtis tabled the item until a representative from the VA could be present to\ndiscuss the matter.\n8. MINUTES\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2020-7765\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nStaff Member Thomas gave an update.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 7\nMarch 9, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-03-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-03-09", "page": 7, "text": "9-B 2020-7766\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Thomas gave an update.\nBoard Member Teague suggested that the revised ADU ordinance come back on the\nConsent Calendar before going to City Council.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh expressed concern that the bird study for the solar project at\nMt. Trashmore be specific to Alameda in order to have a fair discussion of the issue when\nit comes to the Board.\n9-C 2020-7780\nDiscussion Regarding Planning Board Packets\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard Member Ruiz said she would miss the next meeting. She also said we need to solve\nthe problem of trash bin staging for dense townhome projects given the number of projects\nmoving forward with this building type.\nAt Board Member Saheba's request, the Board directed staff to determine whether the\nbridge over the graving dock was being removed, because it is part of the approved design\nreview and would need an amendment to be removed.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Curtis adjourned the meeting at 10:19 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 7\nMarch 9, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-03-09.pdf"}