body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2005-03-03,1,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting
Monday, March 3, 2005 - 6:30 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
6:30 p.m.
2.
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Mayor Beverly Johnson, President Andrew Cunningham and Chair Lee Perez welcomed
everyone to the workshop.
3.
ROLL CALL: Mayor Beverly Johnson, Andrew Cunningham, Anne Cook,
Rebecca Kohlstrand, Lee Perez, Diane Lowenstein, Elizabeth Johnson.
Also present were Andrew Thomas, Steven Proud, Project Manager, Jim Adams, ROMA
Design Group, Walter Rask, ROMA Design Group, Frederick Knapp, Page & Turnbull,
Melissa Boudreau, Page & Turnbull (Project Manager), Jim Musbach, Economic
Planning Systems, Andrew Barnes, Economic Real Estate Consultant, Matthew
Ridgeway, Fehr & Peers, Seleta Reynolds, Fehr & Peers, Peter Russell, Russell
Resources.
4.
PRESENTATION OF PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS FOR
ALAMEDA POINT
Mr. Andrew Thomas noted that ROMA Design Group would make a presentation, and
public comment would be taken after the presentation. He noted that the results of the
community discussions held at the previous two workshops were available on the City
website. He noted that a Preliminary Draft Development Concept would be developed
soon, based on a financially feasible development concept for the Base. Development
alternatives would also be explored. He described the future timeline of the development
and environmental review process, and encouraged public feedback regarding the
information on the website. He encouraged residents to take advantage of the Base tours
provided by the City.
Mr. Walter Rask, ROMA Design Group, presented a PowerPoint presentation.
5.
COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION
A community member noted that the O Club was a beautiful building that needed
upgrading, and that it had historic value. He believed it was worth keeping, and believed
the Big Whites were more trouble than they were worth.
Mr. Thomas noted that the O Club served as a functioning social center in Alameda.
A community member thanked staff for the additional options, and inquired whether the
non-Measure A-compliant option would be affected by the groundwater contamination.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
March 3, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-03,2,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
He inquired whether a constrained view of the economic viability of the project was
being presented.
Mr. Stephen Proud noted that they were concentrating on the Phase I plan, but that there
was flexibility in the later phases. The timing of the property delivery was an important
part of the economic analysis.
A community member favored the non-Measure A-compliant options, and believed that
increasing the density and value of the options would be positive. He inquired about the
effect of the number of parkland acreage on the acres-per-thousand-population. He
inquired about the $22 million deficit.
Mr. Thomas noted that the Citywide analysis had not been performed, although a similar
open space analysis in the 2003 General Plan Amendment EIR had been performed.
Mr. Proud noted that there was no $22 million slush fund attached to the project, and
explained the expenditures needed to service the project.
A community member appreciated the contrasts between the Measure A and non-
Measure A options. She favored seamless integration, vibrant new neighborhoods,
establishing neighborhood centers, and did not see those items in either options. She
would like to see a design that worked with the mitigations that would also be
economically feasible. She did not believe that Phase I followed good planning
principles, and was disappointed in the design.
A community member thanked staff for the illustrations of how the project would look if
Measure A was modified. She preferred single-story residence designs.
Mr. Proud noted that the City would acquire all the buildings when the Navy completes
the ownership transfer; they are currently being leased, which is the chief source of
revenue to offset the costs.
A community member inquired about the time lag between property expenses and
property sales, and how the money was made up.
Mr. Proud noted that was the reason for having a Master Developer, who was responsible
for putting in the backbone infrastructure and preparing for later property owners.
A community member inquired about transportation on the Base, and inquired whether
there would be bike trails. She inquired whether the parking would be maintained, and
suggested that one of the large hangars could be used to accommodate large events.
Mr. Thomas noted that bike routes were planned and that the site would be bike-friendly.
The transportation program would be examined at the March 23, 2005 workshop.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
March 3, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-03,3,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
A community member inquired about the Phase I development, and the housing density
in that phase. She inquired whether there would be any innovative or eco-friendly
architecture.
Mr. Walter Rask noted that the density would be approximately 12 units per acre, which
was roughly comparable to Bayport. He noted that there would be no walls, and that the
blocks would be exterior-oriented; there would be no gated portions of the neighborhood.
The buildings would feel very public and friendly in nature. There was an overall goal of
the project to achieve sustainability objectives; green building measures and recycling
would be used.
A community member supported retaining the Enlisted Men's Quarters, and believed that
turning them into condos may bring more diverse populations into Alameda. She inquired
about the contamination on sites for non-Measure A and commercial uses. Mr. Rask
displayed the mixed use areas, and noted that conventional housing would not be possible
in that area if there was groundwater contamination.
A community member inquired about the groundwater and soil contamination, and
suggested that those areas not be developed until the contamination was cleaned up.
Mr. Russell noted that the contamination in the Phase I area was relatively minor, and
described its nature in detail. A non-Measure A-compliant design would allow for
podium parking on the ground, with the residences on top; the chemicals would never
reach the residences. Among the chemicals were dry cleaning solvent, nail polish
remover, gasoline.
A community member inquired whether PAHs were in the ground water. Mr. Thomas
replied that they were not water-soluble and were not a groundwater issue.
A community member inquired about how malleable the wildlife refuse was to being
moved.
Mr. Proud noted that the issue of wildlife transfer is an issue of property transfer between
agencies, to the Veterans Administration rather than Fish & Wildlife.
A community member noted that he was a real estate consultant, and noted that a
relatively good job had been done in this project. He noted that the lagoon was a
significant amenity. He believed that plan was biased toward single-family housing, and
noted that high-rise residences had been built successfully in San Diego. He believed the
commercial land sale figures were optimistic. He expressed concern about the
transportation linkages. He proposed that the lagoon and the golf course be linked.
A community member noted that the main advantage of Measure A was the greater
diversity of housing, including middle-level housing.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
March 3, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-03,4,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
A community member inquired what kind of planning overview was used to create
community activity hubs, and did not see those hubs in this plan.
Mr. Adams described the 1400 housing units, and noted that a series of smaller retail
center could not be supported.
Mr. Christopher Buckley noted that there was an assumption that the grade must be
raised due to the 100-year flood, and suggested the use of a levee. He inquired how
115,000 square feet of retail was derived, and how much of the anticipated retail demand
from the residential uses would be absorbed by that retail.
Mr. Thomas noted that the levee question was examined, and that they decided to raise
the level instead, rather than create a seawall along the edge of the site. He noted that
would create a visual barrier to the water.
Mr. Proud noted that they had to compact the bay mud to accept more load.
Mr. Rask noted that they did not wish to overbuild the retail spaces, nor did they wish to
cannibalize other retail areas in Alameda.
A community member noted that the new residents would also need libraries, schools and
youth centers, and inquired where they were included in the plan.
Mr. Thomas replied that community centers were programmed into the project, including
the O Club and the original Navy Mess Hall. Police and fire services were included in the
financial pro forma, as well as a small library. He noted that once the planning became
more solidified, they would address the impact on the school district in more detail.
A community member noted that the Big Whites would involve an expensive process,
and inquired why they were included in the non-Measure A option if they would
handicap the option.
Mr. Rask noted that they had not reconciled all the elements of that plan yet, and they
were working with the first version of the financial details.
A community member noted that she was recently appointed to the HAB, and had taken
the tour, which she believed was very illuminating. She believed that the air traffic
control tower should be retained on the site. She believed it was emblematic of the
purpose of the Naval Air Station and should be added. She noted that there were
discussions to extend the live/work boundaries to Alameda Point, which would give more
flexibility to the reuse of the site.
Tim Royal, Pastor, All Nations Fellowship, would like the character of Alameda to carry
on to Alameda Point. He noted a lack of churches on Alameda Point.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
March 3, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-03,5,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
Mr. Adams noted that several sites were identified for being suitable for churches, and
pointed them out on the site plan.
A community member thanked staff for exploring Measure A and mixed use possibilities.
He expressed concern about the phrase ""less clean housing,"" and took offense to the
concept and the language.
Mr. Proud reassured the audience that that wording was not intended to cause offense,
and described the Restoration Advisory Board's role in site remediation. He added that
they did not blindly follow the Navy's directives. He noted that part of the cleanup
process may be privatized, and that unsuitable sites would not be used to residential
reuse.
Mr. Adams noted that lead paint had historically been used at Alameda Point, and that
demolition of such buildings and remediation was very closely regulated. He noted that
lead was not easily water-soluble, and that it could easily be scraped from the surface of
the soil.
A community member inquired how they determined the value from the sale of the land.
Mr. Proud described how the residential land values were determined, and added that the
master plan developer was instrumental in that determination.
Mr. Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope, inquired why the $54 million for the affordable
housing component was a public cost, and believed that should be the developer's
responsibility.
Mr. Thomas noted that was a developer cost and part of the overall financing of the
project. Mr. Rask noted that it was a project cost, not a public cost.
A community member inquired about the different traffic scenarios and whether the cost
of traffic was figured into the project costs; he inquired whether the low traffic scenario
would lead to increased savings. He inquired whether any information was available on
the price ranges for the market-rate units.
Mr. Rask noted that the typical single- and multi-family house trip generation analysis
was used.
Mr. Bill Smith noted that he had information about a potential investor in the
Brownfields project.
Reverend Pamela Kerst, Twin Towers United Methodist Church, apologized for her
earlier flippant remarks regarding the churches on Alameda Point. She inquired how
economic diversity was measured for moderate- and low-income public employees, and
how they fit into Measure A and affordable housing. She inquired whether the minimum
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
March 3, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-03,6,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
required by law would be provided, or if more would be provided. She inquired about
Mr. Adams' definition of ""eco-friendly."" She recalled Mr. Proud's comments about
landfill on the flood plain, and whether that would be eco-friendly.
Mr. Thomas noted that the actual affordable housing breakdown would be provided at the
next workshop.
Mr. Adams noted that much work must still be done in terms of defining the standards
that will be put in place for green building and eco-friendly design. He noted that this
piece of land was being recycled, and that they were exploring the idea of transit-oriented
development. Their goal was to create a development that would depend on
transportation means other than the automobile. He noted that the standards for building
materials and energy use were still being developed.
Ms. Eve Bach inquired whether there was an assumed reduced income expectation on the
affordable housing, and whether that amount to a double accounting.
Mr. Rask replied that it was shown as a cost because the revenues do not cover the cost of
building the unit. He noted that they were being sold for less than what they cost.
Ms. Bach inquired about the estimated acreage and cost of parking would be, and
whether the supporting studies would be available online.
Mr. Adams, ROMA, replied that there was a vast amount of information, and noted that
requests for backup information could be made at his email address. He noted that the
project required parking for the viability of each land use was used in the analysis. Each
unit had its own parking, whether in garages or parking structures.
A community member inquired whether institutional controls and land use restrictions
would be attached to Phase I. He found it difficult to believe that the impact to the school
district was not included.
Mr. Peter Russell replied that Alameda's Marsh Crust Ordinance already applied to all of
Alameda Point. There may be additional institutional controls is specific areas, and there
may be no residential planned for other areas. There may also be prohibition against
digging below a certain depth. He added that the need for another school will be
analyzed, and that millions of dollars of school impact fees were included.
A community member inquired whether the income from the affordable housing was
included in the assumptions.
A community member whether it would be possible for individuals to buy lots. Mr.
Adams replied that it was managed by a master developer because of the very large
infrastructure cost, approximating $100 million; it was not the kind of project that would
lend itself to individual lot sales.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
March 3, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-03,7,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
A community member inquired whether there would be any further delay in the transfer
of the Base, and noted that in 1997, the Big Whites were sold to them as a major part of
the project. He believed the project was too packed together, and added that he had
served on the Base during his military career. He was shocked at the state of several
historic buildings that had been vandalized before the property was taken over.
Mr. Proud noted that the delay in the conveyance would have a significant impact on
project economics. They had worked very cooperatively with the Navy with respect to
Alameda Point, and their open approach during negotiations would be beneficial to the
conveyance transfer.
A community member inquired whether the 1% for public art was included in the overall
cost. Mr. Thomas indicated that it was.
A community member expressed concern about the middle-income units, and noted that
the Warmington Homes were no longer middle-income homes.
Ms. Lucy Gigli inquired about the comparison of the value of the difference properties on
the site. She expressed concern that the multifamily units were all bunched together,
which increased the density of those blocks. She would like to see pockets of multifamily
housing, as well as an evaluation of the mixing of the retail uses, and noted that Bayport
and Coast Guard Island don't have any corner stores or cafes.
Mr. Thomas noted that there were combination duplex/small retail possibilities.
A community member inquired what an in-law unit was. Mr. Thomas replied that it was a
small unit on the same lot, usually a loft or one-bedroom unit. She suggested that the
name be changed because in-law unit implied a non-approved unit. Mr. Thomas noted
that the in-law terminology would be changed to ""secondary unit.'
PUBLIC COMMENT WAS CLOSED.
President Cunningham noted that it was important to clearly identify the goals of the land
use, and that there were some misunderstandings about the use. He suggested that use of
a ""laundry list"" to identify what will be provided. He believed it was important to
understand the fiscal impacts of the existing structures on the final picture. He believed
that social and ecological responsibility was important, and that a sustainable ordinance
should be examined if the community wished to engage in sustainable design.
Ms. Kohlstrand believed that a Measure A-compliant option should be examined, and
that the density and patterns of development on the Island as a whole should be examined
as well. She believed that mixed use and the mix of patterns on the blocks should be
looked at, and that the density should be served by transit. She supported the non-
Measure A-compliant option, and examining how the transportation network fit in.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
March 3, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-03,8,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
Ms. Konrad expressed concern that the Community Reuse Plan and the General Plan both
call for walkable neighborhoods on Alameda Point, and did not see that in this plan. She
believed that neighborhood centers should be developed so residents could walk to them.
She believed the open space should be usable.
Mr. Lee Perez thanked the audience for their comments, and noted that the web page
contained a great deal of information on the project. He encouraged the residents to
remain proactive in communicating with staff and commissioners during this process.
Mr. Thomas invited additional public comments to be addressed to the City by phone,
mail or email. He noted that the entire presentation and maps would be posted on the
website. He noted that the Navy always attended the RAB meetings.
6.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary
City Planning Department
These minutes were approved at the April 11, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
G:\PLANNING\PB\Agendas_Minutes\Minutes.05\March 3_Spec.dod
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
March 3, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf