{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-03-23", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, MARCH 23, 2020\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Curtis convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE\nAndrew Thomas, Planning, Building and Transportation Director, led the flag salute\n3.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Board Members Curtis, Hom, Rothenberg, Cavanaugh, Ruiz, Saheba, and\nTeague.\nAbsent: None.\n4.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nStaff requested and a motion was made by Board Member Rothenberg that items 6A, 7A,\n7C and Minutes be pushed to the April 13th, 2020 meeting, Board Member Ruiz seconded.\nA roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n6.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\n7.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-B 2020-7845\nBoatworks Project, PLN 20-0118, -0119, -0120, -0121 and -0122 at 2229 and 2235\nClement Avenue - Applicant: Boatworks LLC. A Public Hearing to consider\nentitlements for the development of the 9.4 acre property located at 2229 - 2235\nClement Avenue with 182 residential units and a publicly accessible waterfront\nopen space. The entitlements include requests for a tentative map, density bonus,\ndevelopment plan, open space design review, and development agreement. An\nenvironmental impact report was certified in 2010 for the project in compliance with\nthe California Environmental Quality Act and no further review is required.\nStaff Member Thomas gave an oral presentation on this item. The staff report and\nattachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4396700&GUID=1ADC24CB-\n66E3-4FCE-B75A-D672DBAE0295&FullText=1\nDirector Thomas concluded his presentation and made himself available for questions. He\nalso introduced City Planning Counsel Celena Chen from the City Attorney's Office who\nwas available for questions.\nBefore questions, President Curtis asked Shona Armstrong (representing the applicant,\nBoatworks LLC) if she wanted to add anything.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 7\nMarch 23, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-03-23", "page": 2, "text": "Ms. Armstrong commended the thoroughness of the presentation and thanked everyone\nfor making this meeting happen during these extreme circumstances.\nBoard Member Teague asked City Planning Counsel Celena Chen a clarifying question\nabout waiver criteria under the Density Bonus law.\nStaff Counsel Chen explained the waiver criteria and what is required to deny a request\nfor concessions.\nBoard Member Teague asked Counsel Chen to clarify that a waiver is granted for anything\nthat could preclude the number of units under the bonus for affordable housing.\nCounsel Chen clarified that was the case.\nBoard Member Teague asked about laws related to building within 100 feet of the\nshoreline.\nDirector Thomas said the BCDC has jurisdiction over the 100 feet band, you can build but\nBCDC has design review approval. What is allowed or disallowed in that 100 feet can vary\ndrastically from project to project.\nBoard Member Teague then asked about how the HOA fees will be distributed to units\nthat are deeded to be affordable.\nDirector Thomas answered that the City does not get involved with how an HOA organizes\nitself. The City can only say that 21 of these units can only be leased or sold to families in\na certain income range.\nBoard Member Teague asked if the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) cost was\nalso calculated into that.\nDirector Thomas said that is a different situation if the City wants something included in\nthe HOA, something the City wants them to cover should be added to the resolution. Past\nprojects have had that, but as of right now he did not see the affordable mentioned in the\ncondition of approval. All units must be given a transit pass.\nBoard Member Teague asked if there were past projects where the transit passes were\nnot assessed on affordable units.\nDirector Thomas clarified the project needs to fund the transit passes for all the units. The\nfunding comes out of the TDM fee from the whole project for everyone. He could not recall\nhow it was funded in past projects.\nBoard Member Teague wanted to make sure that families that are part of the affordable\nhousing do not get stuck with high fees.\nDirector Thomas said there is a limit to what they can pay, fees don't get added on top\nlater. The rest is subsidized by the rest of the project. They are not added on after the fact\nto affordable housing.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 7\nMarch 23, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-03-23", "page": 3, "text": "Board Member Teague asked if palm trees are possible as part of the landscaping. He did\nnot see any on the list for possible plants.\nDirector Thomas said there are no palm trees proposed on the plans and Ms. Armstrong\nconcurred.\nBoard Member Jeff Cavanaugh asked about access to the park and easement, what\npublic parking is going to be available.\nDirector Thomas said there is on-street parking on Blanding and Waterfront West Drive.\nThere will be a requirement from BCDC that there be signed visitor parking available.\nTenants and homeowners tend to park in visitor parking and since they would be private\nstreets, the City can't enforce; it is up to the HOA.\nBoard Member Asheshh Saheba asked about BCDC requirements in parking spaces and\naccess and wanted clarification on what number of parking spaces there will be for BCDC\nand then for guests. Board Member Saheba asked if the board was trying to approve that\nnow and if the 43 will be adequate for both groups.\nDirector Thomas believes the 43 spaces will be adequate for both groups. BCDC will get\nspecific and have spots marked but it gets tricky with the enforcement of those spots.\nFrom the City staff perspective, there has not been much thought into spaces since there\nis no way to effectively enforce it.\nBoard Member Saheba wants to make sure that guest parking makes sense.\nDirector Thomas explained that the applicant has been meeting with BCDC and that there\nwill be spots for Waterfront Park visitors.\nBoard Member Saheba wanted to know where the parking was for the multi-family units.\nDirector Thomas pointed out where they were on the design.\nBoard Member Saheba asked about the design of the parking structure and wanted to\nmake sure it still needed to go through a design review.\nDirector Thomas said the ground floor parking design would need some design creativity.\nBoard Member Saheba asked for some design clarification on the size of units and their\nplacement on the masterplan.\nMs. Armstrong deferred to Robert McGillis, project architect from her team. Mr. McGillis\nsaid they were trying to combine universal design and street accessibility.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked for clarification on the past explanation by referencing\npage 4 of the letter about design and elevation.\nMr. McGillis explained the choice of design and the challenge because of the grade\ndifference from the street.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 7\nMarch 23, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-03-23", "page": 4, "text": "Board Member Rothenberg sought and received clarifications regarding the open space\ncalculations.\nBoard Member Rothenberg then asked what the entitlement document will say about the\nopen space.\nDirector Thomas said they have to follow the plans, and the plans show where the park\nand tentative public access is. When the final map is approved, those easements are\nrecorded into perpetuity.\nDirector Thomas pointed out that on page DP-4 the applicant has shown the green areas\nare close to 2 acres for open space. Their plan meets the requirements for open space,\nso the difference in opinion/wording is irrelevant.\nBoard Member Rothenberg concluded that if this is the document that gets recorded, what\nit says matters.\nDirector Thomas said there will be a final map that gets recorded, this is a tentative map.\nBoard Member Teresa Ruiz asked if the front yard setback applies.\nDirector Thomas said no, the internal streets are private, most are alleys, most houses\nface into paseo, except homes facing Oak Street and Clement Avenue. Under the PD\nzoning requirement, you need a development plan, the setback requirements are in this.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked if the common open space claims any of the public set back.\nDirector Thomas noted that PD-4 and PD-7 illustrate public areas and how they attach to\nprivate open space in front of the homes.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked about affordable housing breakdown and wanted to know the\nmath that decided that amount.\nDirector Thomas explained the breakdown, 13 for low income and 8 very low income (21\ntotal), and acknowledged that the table explaining it on page 2 was confusing.\nBoard Member Hom also expressed the table on page 2 was confusing. He then asked\nabout the concession and waiver for Density Bonus law, the applicant asked that Alameda\nwaive that the affordable housing \"be distributed equally around the project and be\ncomparable in size.\" He wanted to know if the City was treating that as one concession.\nDirector Thomas answered they treated this as a single concession. To be clear this is\nlocal Density Bonus Law, it's not state law. They relaxed this code.\nBoard Member Hom asked about the exact deviations, the waivers on setbacks, and\ncoverage.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 7\nMarch 23, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-03-23", "page": 5, "text": "Director Thomas explained the concessions that were allowed for parking spaces,\nsetbacks, and heights of buildings.\nBoard Member Hom said a table would have been useful in the staff report.\nDirector Thomas said they could provide that in the future.\nBoard Member Hom asked about the Universal design, it seems that somewhere in the\nplan it would be beneficial to have a condition that clarifies that the approval for the\ndevelopment plan does not include their request for deviation of Universal design at this\npoint.\nDirector Thomas agreed that is something the Planning Board could clarify in the\nresolution. They could add a condition or statement making that clear. Director Thomas\nexplained that this presentation is about advising the Planning Board and what they want\nto recommend to the City Council.\nBoard Member Hom asked about Clement Street and the requirement for planter strips.\nDirector Thomas said the right of way is very narrow, the staff asked that they moved the\ntrees to the back of their property.\nBoard Member Teague asked Director Thomas about the tentative map, 24 guest parking\nspaces on public streets.\nDirector Thomas said that is a mistake, it should say 0, there is no guest parking on public\nstreets. Correct page TM3.\nBoard Member Teague pointed out a spelling mistake on page 6 of Draft Resolution.\nDirector Thomas then noted that any laws that are on the books today are applied to this\nproject, any laws that go into effect after this would not be applied to this project.\nPresident Curtis opened up to Public Comment.\nMs. Armstrong again thanked everyone for the meeting.\nDirector Thomas read a letter from Ms. Dorothy Freeman. In it, she gave a brief history of\npast projects and plans for this lot and a call for as much open space as possible. She\nalso included a plea to not put all the low-income housing together. Letter can be found\nat:\nhttp://alameda.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=c2203480-7e7e-4555-8701-\n5a9e2269cbdb.pdf\nPublic comments are closed.\nDeliberation\nBoard Member Teague moved to approve the staff recommendation with\nconditions, listed below. Board Member Rothenberg seconded the motion.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 7\nMarch 23, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-03-23", "page": 6, "text": "Board Member Teague thanked everyone and is excited to see something happen to this\nlot. He expressed concern about putting all the low-income housing together and about\nthe maintenance of the waterfront area. He suggested wording be added about the\nmaintenance fee for the waterfront area.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh thanked everyone and wants this to move forward to City\nCouncil.\nBoard Member Saheba thanked everyone and that he has some concerns about the\noverall design. He believes the units are packed too closely together.\nBoard Member Rothenberg thanked everyone and added on to the comments made by\nBoard Member Teague and Board Member Saheba that the Planning Board add\nconditions about the Universal Design, Public Parking and that all attempts be made to\noptimize all open space.\nBoard Member Ruiz thanked everyone, had issues with the Open Space concept, and\nexpressed concern with the segregation of the affordable units. She then asked if the\napplicant has to prove it is a financial burden to place the affordable units throughout the\nproject.\nDirector Thomas said the burden is on the City to disprove it based on the information they\nhave been given. From the Staff's perspective, it is not worth time or energy to disprove\nthat it saves the Developer money.\nBoard Member Hom thanked everyone and agrees that it is not ideal to have all the low-\nincome housing in one place and would like to see them spread throughout the project.\nPresident Curtis asked for a table form (parking height and coverage) and agreed that all\nthe low-cost housing should not all be placed together, should not be segregated. Also,\nthe City needs to be protected and make sure that potential buyers know that they are\nresponsible for the \"riff raff\" on the waterfront. He agreed with Board Member Teague that\nit should be reflected in the CC&Rs.\nBoard Member Teague asked Counsel Chen if we can qualify the concession to provide\nmore uniform distribution of affordable units.\nCounsel Chen said the municipal code says that the City can require the applicant to\nprovide documentation, which they have in their application. Staff believes this\ndocumentation proves the need for the concession.\nBoard Member Teague clarified that this would be about distributing the low-income\nhousing throughout the development.\nDirector Thomas reminded everyone that the Board's goal is to advise the City Council. It\nis clear that everyone is uncomfortable with having low-income housing all together. It\nwould be nice to spread them throughout the site. This can be made as a\nrecommendation.\nBoard Member Teague listed the conditions.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 7\nMarch 23, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-03-23", "page": 7, "text": "1. Change reference to 24 parking spots on Clement to zero\n2. Page 6, # correct typo\n3. Include on page seven the maintenance fees for the HOA\n4. Clarify that the Universal Design Ordinance is applicable to the project.\n5. All attempts to optimize vertical and horizontal open space must be explored\n6.\nProvide a more uniform distribution of affordable units with the multi-family\nbuilding should be explored\n7. Guest Parking be designated along the waterfront\nRoll Call vote was taken to approve with these conditions, the motion passed 7-0.\n8.\nMINUTES\nNone\n9.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2020-7824 Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and\nDecisions\nittp://alameda.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?m=l&id=/matter.aspx?key=9525\n9-B 2020-7825 Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building\nand Transportation Department Projects\nDirector Thomas said they hope to have a meeting on April 13, 2020. However, with Covid-\n19 it is unsure what the future holds. These meetings need to be open and available to\nthe public for them to attend.\nBoard Member Teague said he wants to do whatever he can to make this a true digital\nmeeting in the future.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard Member Saheba was pleasantly surprised by an email about Board Member\nRothenberg having won the 2020 Thomas Jefferson award for public architecture.\n12.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n13.\nADJOURNMENT\nPresident Curtis adjourned the meeting. (Recording cut out 9:01pm)\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 7\nMarch 23, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-03-23.pdf"}