File #: 2017-4581   
Type: Regular Agenda Item
Body: Planning Board
On agenda: 7/24/2017
Title: Study Session on the Alameda Shipways Residential Project
Attachments: 1. Exhibit 1 - Development Plan, 2. Exhibit 2 - Park Plan, 3. Exhibit 3 - BCDC Comments

Title

 

Study Session on the Alameda Shipways Residential Project

 

 

Body

 

To:                                          Honorable President and

                                          Members of the Planning Board

                     

From:                        Andrew Thomas, Assistant Community Development Director

                                                               Linda Barrera, Planner I

                                                        

Date:                                          July 24, 2017

 

Re:                     Study Session on the Alameda Shipways Residential Project

 

background

 

On March 15, 2017, the Cavallari Group, Inc. submitted an application to the City of Alameda requesting review and approval of a Development Plan and Design Review for the 8.1-acre “Alameda Shipways” site located at 1100-1250 Marina Village Parkway (Exhibit 1). The site is zoned M-X, Mixed-Use Planned Development District with a Multi-family Residential Overlay.  The M-X zoning requires the developer to submit a Master Plan for approval by the Planning Board and City Council.  The 2015-2023 General Plan Housing Element identifies the Shipways site as a housing opportunity site to help meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

 

Currently, the 8.1 acre site consists of concrete ramps and decks, supported by timber piles which were originally constructed during the WWII shipbuilding era but are now in extensively deteriorated condition. Approximately 50,000 square feet of partially occupied office space exists in four separate structures facing Marina Village Parkway. The Shipways project capitalizes on its amazing views of the downtown Oakland skyline and converts an underutilized site with seismic and geotechnical issues into much needed rental housing units.      

 

Staff would like the Planning Board and community to provide input in the following areas of the project:

                     Site design and circulation, including the park design and public access; and

                     Architectural design of the proposed residential building.

 

No final action is requested on this application at this time.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Site Design and Circulation: As shown in Exhibit 1, the project proposal includes a single, four-story, 292-unit apartment complex which surrounds a 3.5-story, 489-space parking structure adjacent to a 2.5-acre public waterfront park.  The 292-unit complex includes 142 one-bedroom units; 138 two-bedroom units; and 12 three-bedroom units.

 

The building is approximately 52 feet tall and is approximately 450 feet long along Marina Village Parkway. The building is setback approximately 40 feet from the front property line along Marina Village Parkway. The site design includes recessed courtyards throughout the perimeter of the site to provide common open space for the residents and break down the mass of this large building. The courtyards range between 35 feet and 66 feet in width. The project also includes a two-story clubhouse and outdoor swimming pool for project residents adjacent to the public park. Access to the waterfront park is provided along the periphery of the building on access paths that are approximately 20-feet wide, with landscaping on either side, creating a 33- to 48-foot wide corridor along the periphery of the building.   

 

Park Design: Behind to the building, the proposal includes a new 2.5 acre public waterfront park (Exhibit 2). The park will feature a vegetated rip rap that slopes down into the bay to soften the existing hard and industrialized marine edge. The shoreline improvements associated with the new park include a new Bay friendly shoreline and extension of the Bay Trail. The waterfront park features open and landscaped lawns, picnic areas, seating, a children’s play area, and a family friendly bike/walk boardwalk. Also planned for the park are a kayak concession building, a multi-purpose dock/launch for kayaks or paddle boards, and possible future water shuttle service to be coordinated between Alameda and the City of Oakland.

 

On April 18, 2017, the applicant, staff and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) met to discuss and get input on the park design from BCDC. An outline of BCDC’s comments are attached in Exhibit 3.

 

Architecture: The proposed design of the building features a combination of clean, simple forms finished with prefinished cement-fiber siding, smooth finished integral plaster, high thermal efficiency exterior window/door systems, solar shading elements and transparent glass and metal balcony rails. The varied siding materials work to break up the building massing and add visual interest to the building. The units are grouped in distinctive blocks with distinguishing articulation and are organized around the perimeter courtyards. The 489- space parking structure at the center of the building would be screened from public view and residents would enter the parking structure from two driveways off Marina Village Parkway.

 

Questions and Issues for the Planning Board and Public Consideration:

 

The following discussion questions reflect staff’s initial review of the proposal and the major design questions that staff is considering. Any direction and/or feedback on the following questions would be very helpful to staff and the applicant.

 

                     Park Design and Access. Staff is concerned that the park is hidden behind a very long building. Staff has been talking to the applicant about design strategies to improve physical and visual access to the park, including ideas to break the building into two buildings. Does the Board have suggestions for improving access to the public park or does the Board feel the 33- to 48-foot corridors along the periphery of the building provide adequate access to the public park?

 

                     Architectural Design. Staff is concerned that the architectural design does not have a strong enough relationship to the historic character of the area or to the waterfront location. The applicant has included an interesting alternative design (See Exterior Study Option A on Sheets 4 and 5), which staff believes does a better job relating to the waterfront location. The more interesting roof lines in Option A also seem to reduce the appearance of one long, wide building. Does the Board have any recommendations for refining the design concept to enhance its integration with the site?

 

                     Other Comments.  The applicant’s design team and city staff would appreciate any additional comments on the project design.

 

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

 

On April 4, 2017, the City of Alameda released a Notice of Preparation (NOP) notifying the public and other public agencies that the City of Alameda has determined that the proposal requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

 

On April 24, 2017, the City held a hearing for the public to submit comments to help the City refine the scope and content of the EIR. Staff is currently preparing the Draft EIR. After the Draft EIR is completed, staff will circulate the document for public review. Staff will then prepare a Final EIR for public circulation. The Final EIR will include any and all revisions needed to provide a complete analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project.  

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Hold a public hearing and provide comments on the preliminary design and park plan. No final decision on the proposed project is being requested of the Planning Board at this time.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:                     

 

 

LINDA BARRERA, Planner I and

ANDREW THOMAS, Assistant Community Development Director

 

Exhibits:

 

1.                     Development Plan

2.                     Park Plan

3.                     BCDC Comments