body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2012-02-13,1,"APPROVED
MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY FEBRUARY 13, 2012
7: 00 p.m.
1. CONVENE:
7:05 P.M.
2. FLAG SALUTE:
Board Member Burton
3. ROLL CALL:
President Ezzy Ashcraft, Vice-President Autorino, Board
members Burton, Henneberry, Knox White and Zuppan.
Absent: Köster
4. MINUTES:
Minutes from the Regular meeting of October 24, 2011
Board member Burton explained that on page 5 of 8, the paraphrased sentences within the
fourth or fifth paragraph which states, Mr. Thomas responded that one of the unanswered
questions he reported that all studies would be paid for all outside studies and staff
expenses"" is not a full sentence. Therefore, the board would need to clarify the sentence.
Also, Board member Burton stated that the sentence found on page 8 of 8 in the 2nd
paragraph ""President Ezzy Ashcraft mentioned to read the following summary of the three
emails received supporting the project into the record."" He needed further clarification of
what the summary meant.
President Ezzy Ashcraft replied that the sentence meant that the following summary of three
emails received in support of the Golf Course proposal. She further stated that the Board
only needs to omit ""mentioned that"" and then direct development, 130 homes and please
vote yes were the three comments.
Board member Zuppan stated that a number of good comments were made at the meeting
about the wildlife and trees planted in memoriam to which compensation was paid and it
was not brought out in the minutes. She would like to see those points included in the
minutes if possible.
President Ezzy Ashcraft explained that due to the fact that the meetings are recorded and
made available by audio the written minutes should express the most important points and
themes.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called a motion to approve the minutes. Board member Henneberry
moved the October 24th minutes to be accepted as amended. 2nd by Board member Burton
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 15
February 13, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-13,2,"and approved 4-0. 2 abstentions (Autorino and Knox White).
Minutes from the Regular meeting of November 28. 2011. (Pending)
Minutes from the Regular meeting of December 12. 2011. (Pending)
Minutes from the Regular meeting of January 9. 2012. (Pending)
Minutes from the Special Joint meeting of January 23, 2012. (Pending)
5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Written Report
6-A
Future Agendas
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, addressed the Board about future agenda
items. The major items discussed for the February 27th meeting will be a design review
application of the Target store including the site landscape and open space plan and
secondly a use permit for office use at 1830 Lincoln Avenue. The March 12th meeting will
hold a workshop regarding the update on the Housing Element and a discussion on the
Alameda Point Zoning Plan. On March 26th, the Board will have a hearing on the Park
Street Streetscape Plan and a subdivision map on Versailles. April's meeting will discuss the
Alameda Point zoning amendment and Bicycle Guidelines, the six-month review for 1051
Pacific Marina, and the final hearing on the North Park Street Code and North Park Street
Code Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Thomas also stated that he would include the
zoning administrator's upcoming agendas on the items.
Board member Knox White acknowledged that next meeting would include the prioritized list
of city recommended transportation projects.
President Ezzy Ashcraft replied that the Alameda Countywide Transportation Project
submittals for the Regional Transportation Plan are not usually available to the public and
this is a perfect time to present them.
Obaid Khan, City of Alameda Supervising Civil Engineer, stated that a list will be presented
at the next meeting and will include all projects submitted to the Alameda Countywide
Transportation Plan
6-B. Report on Planning Director action on Administrative Amendment of January 9, 2012
Planning Board Condition of Approval 8.1 for Alameda Landing Retail Center
Development Plan and Street Plan Amendments (PLN11-0328).
The Administrative Amendment revised Condition 8.1 to extend the term of the
restriction on sales floor area devoted to non-taxable merchandise and to clarify the
circumstances under which the Condition is subject to elimination or amendment.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 15
February 13, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-13,3,"Mr. Thomas reported on an action taken on February 1, 2012, that came out of the January
9th hearing where the Board considered a site plan for Catellus Retail Plan and condition of
approval.
Board member Autorino asked whether the Planning Director had the authority to change a
decision the Board made as long as he communicated the change to the Board.
Mr. Thomas answered yes for the most part.
President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the particular development agreement is not necessarily
made for all developments.
Mr. Thomas replied yes that is true, this process taken is outlined in our development
agreement with Catellus and the Alameda Landing Project.
Vice President Autorino replied how would changes to the regulations relative to big box
development become null and void.
Mr. Thomas explained that the way it works is that Catellus agreed to establish these
prohibitions on the site for a number of years and this reflects the citywide prohibition on big
box stores. If the City at any point decides to amend the ordinance based on
recommendations from the Planning Board and City Council, then the prohibition would not
longer be in effect.
Vice President Autorino asked if there were options that the Board could take if they were
not satisfied with the policy change.
Mr. Thomas stated there are two options: (1) accept the report and do nothing, in case this
appeal automatically goes away and the condition replaces the one opposed; and (2) the
Board can call the item for a hearing. He also stated that if the Board called for a hearing
under this development, which brings together the union, Target, and Catellus. Then the
union will simply keep their appeal in play because they have a hearing scheduled for
February 21st before the City Council. If the Board is comfortable with the decision then all
activity is done for tonight and if they are not then they will discuss the issue on February
21st.
Vice President Autorino asked if Target was ok with the change.
Mr. Thomas replied yes.
Sean Whiskerman, First VP of Catellus Development Corporation, stated that since the last
meeting, the company met with the union and Target and they collectively agree with the
wording and the overall results.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked the Board if they were aware of provisions that say Target
can come back before the Board if at some point in the future they felt there was cause for
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 15
February 13, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-13,4,"an adjustment to be made.
President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the item was for public notice; no vote is necessary.
7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A. Change to Order of Agenda
Mr. Thomas stated that the Board must comply with the Sunshine Ordinance, which means
the Board must amend their rules and procedures to include public comment at the end of
the agenda whereas public comment is already noted at the beginning.
Vice President Autorino asked whether the public could comment on any topic.
Mr. Thomas replied the public could make a comment that is not on the meeting's agenda.
President Ezzy Ashcraft brought a motion to adopt an amendment to Section D of the
Planning Board Rules and Procedures where the Board would add a second oral
communication agenda item after the board communications and before the meeting's
adjournment.
The motion was moved by Board member Burton. 2nd by Board member Autorino.
Approved 5-1.
Mr. Thomas stated that this is the last opportunity for the public to raise issues regarding
Alameda Landing.
9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A. PLN11-0310- 2004 Clinton Avenue - The project consists of the construction of a
two-story, duplex with approximately 3,638-square feet of conditioned floor area and
an attached 4-car garage. The project is located on a vacant lot within an R-4
(Neighborhood Residential) zoning district.
Mr. Thomas gave an overview of the project's design proposal along with a Power Point
Presentation. He gave the Board four options to act upon based on staff's
recommendations: (1) the Board can accept the staff's recommendation; (2) the Board can
approve the project with additional conditions; (3) the Board can deny the project; and (4)
the board can continue the hearing and direct staff to work with the applicant to modify the
plans, then bring the revised plans back for review.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for questions and comments from the Board.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 15
February 13, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-13,5,"Vice President Autorino stated that he went to visit the property and he asked if the back
end of the house is up to the grassy area or over the grassy area.
Mr. Thomas stated that the back end of the house goes to the edge of the grass.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked whether the house that burned down on the site had a unit at
the back of the building.
Leslie Shubin, resident of 2000 Clinton Avenue, explained that there was no unit behind the
house.
Board member Henneberry asked about the difference in square footage from the old house
to the new proposed development.
Mr. Thomas stated that the proposal is substantially larger since the older house was a 2-
bedroom unit and the new proposal is a 3-bedroom unit.
Board member Knox White asked about the parcel's history.
Mr. Thomas replied that the new owner purchased the property after the original house
burned. The new owner approached the City and explained that he wanted to build in the
same configuration as the previous home. The Planning Department then told him that he
would not be able to build in the desired configuration because there was an easement on
the seawall. The property owner then came back with a different configuration where both
units would be under one building, the house would be narrower, and parking would be
provided on either side of the house. Under that configuration, the house would require two
curb cuts, but the City couldn't allow two curb cuts for a single property.
Dick Rutter, Alameda based architect and resident of 2205 Clinton Avenue, stated that he
disagreed with the design proposal and more thought should go into the revision, especially
with the parking design.
Christopher Buckley, VP of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, presented a
letter on behalf of the organization. He explained that the organization believed that the
design needs major revision and the building proposal is not compatible with the rest of the
neighboring buildings and does not comply with the City Council's design review manual,
the Guide for Residential Design. He also explained that the drawings lacked sufficient
details and the two floor plans need further clarification.
Leslie Shubin, neighbor to the project applicant, stated that her residence's dimensions are
30' feet wide by 45' feet deep and the 2004 Clinton Avenue proposal goes back 63' feet.
Thus, the proposed house will block her sunlight and view of the lagoon towards the East.
She explained that there is a way to modify the proposal without interfering with her house
and she does not believe that the proposed design will fit well with the neighborhood.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for the Board to comment and asked the Board to call for a
motion to continue the discussion about the proposal.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 15
February 13, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-13,6,"Board member Burton stated that he appreciated staff's design alternatives and the public's
comments on the design analysis. He believed the design must comply with the scale of the
neighborhood stating the difference in the relative depth in comparison to the neighboring
properties. He feels that the parking spaces do not comply with the Zoning Ordinance.
Vice President Autorino questioned how the project met the design review parameters
based on staffs' findings.
Mr. Thomas stated the planning department reviewed the design and mistakes were made,
that is why it is so important to have a hearing called.
Board member Henneberry stated that the square footage looks about 2x as large as the
new design proposal and he called for the proposal to go back for review and modification.
Board member Knox White asked why the applicant didn't come tonight.
Mr. Thomas stated that the applicant didn't come because he was quite frustrated with the
process and he was willing to make changes, but he wants to construct at least 2-3-
bedroom units.
Board member Knox White asked if there is a reason for the Board to continue to review the
project and have staff work with the applicant without denying the entire application and
having him resubmit the application.
Mr. Thomas stated the Board's best option was to not take action on the project that night,
but continue with the item along with directions similar to what Board member Burton and
staff suggested.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked if there is a psychological affect of having the project denied.
She was ultimately aware of how sensitive the project was to the applicant, community
members, and neighbors.
Board member Knox White suggested that the Board discuss the design review process in
the summer and see if the process could be streamlined. He also would like to see the
board member who called the project for review included in the staff report. Furthermore, he
would like the staff report to include the project's history and the original footprint.
Vice President Autorino stated that in the past the City brought in architectural assistance to
help applicants. He wanted to know if staff had enough bandwidth to assist applicants with
the redesign proposal.
Mr. Thomas replied that staff has the expertise and time to improve the plan and they can
use the material and advice of qualified volunteers in Alameda. He went on to explain that
staff worked with an architect that was known from a previous Park Street project to help an
applicant that was having design issues. The staff used the applicant's money that was
deposited to the Planning Department to assist with the design.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 15
February 13, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-13,7,"President Ezzy Ashcraft replied that it is important to have a one-on-one meeting with the
applicant and walk the property with him. She asked Farimah Faiz, City Deputy Attorney, to
describe the call for review process.
Ms. Faiz stated that their practice hasn't been to include more detail when a board member
calls a project for review, but she will go back and look at the City's code in order to
incorporate more detail.
President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that for the record the City asked the Planning Board to
approve the project without attachments, she then went to city hall to review the plans and
she explained to staff that she couldn't sign off on the project and the project should come to
the Board for review.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for the Board to make a motion to continue reviewing the
project and require staff to help the applicant make revisions.
Motion called by Board member Know White. 2nd by Board member Henneberry. Approved
6-0.
9-B. A Public Hearing to Take Public Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact
Report for the North Park Street Code and the Draft North Park Street Code.
Mr. Thomas gave a brief report about the North Park Street Code Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) and Draft North Park Street Code. He explained that the meeting was
for noting public comments on both the DEIR and code and staff would be taking public
comments on the DEIR until February 20th. By April, the Board would be able to review the
Final Environmental Impact Report, which would include the public comments and the final
version of the North Park Street Code.
Board member Knox White asked if the code would streamline the entitlement process,
basically if the applicant met the guidelines then it would be significantly cheaper and
simpler to develop, but if the applicant were to go outside of the guidelines it would be much
more difficult.
Mr. Thomas agreed and explained that the idea of the code is for someone to be able to
look at it and apply the code to their property by knowing exactly what the City is looking for
such as the type of building, shape of building and architectural treatments. The guidelines
are more of a form-based code unlike a traditional zoning code that tells applicants what the
City does not want.
Board member Knox White asked whether the proposed process of approval is easier for
applicants.
Mr. Thomas stated the process will make it easier for the applicants by: (1) giving the
applicants so much detail about how to design the building to where the review should be
straight forward; (2) requiring zoning uses, where the planning department won't review
applicants based on permitted uses, but staff will try to limit the conditionally permitted uses
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 15
February 13, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-13,8,"as much as possible.
Board member Knox White referred to page 9 of the North Park Street Environmental
Impact Report, under the Land Use Assumption section and asked if that was based on the
number of employees.
Mr. Thomas stated no that is the estimated job growth for that area that is consistent with
the City's General Plan.
Vincent Wu, business and property owner of Oak Street and Pacific Avenue, fully supports
staff's recommendation.
Karen Bey, Alameda resident, approved the project and she believes it will help the City of
Alameda attract more visitors. She would like to see this code expanded throughout the
community and wondered whether the historic train stations and Neptune Beach District will
go through the same process. She also stated that it would be great to find grant money to
install markers in the districts once they are established. Furthermore, she asked how the
properties were selected and how the properties were determined for mixed-use or
live/work. Finally, she asked about parking requirements, especially since some of the
existing homes in the communities are in the historical listing and have physical constraints.
Lisa Sweet, certified sustainable building adviser, recommended that the City make planning
decisions based on sustainability. She also mentioned that the Clinton Avenue project
should employ professional assistance in a sustainable point of view. Lastly, she asked Mr.
Thomas if the City adopted the CalGreen Tier 1 provision and she suggested that staff hand
out the Green point rated checklist to the Clinton Avenue property owner.
Christopher Buckley stated that his organization submitted comments to the draft code in
the middle of March and June of last year. He noticed that the latest draft reflects very little
of his organization's comments, so he asked staff to clarify whether they are still reviewing
the comments. He wished to schedule a meeting with staff to discuss the comments before
the final draft comes before the Board.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked staff to answer Karen Bey's questions.
Andrew Thomas stated that the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society and the
community reviewed the City's map and presented comments on recommended sites. He
explained the last Board meeting went through the map areas. There was an issue
regarding the residential developments since a lot of the area behind Park Street is zoned
R-4 and R-5, which allows businesses in that district and there is a lot of land that is zoned
for manufacturing and are nonconforming uses. So, staff created two zone classifications:
(1) classic residential; and (2) mixed-use and there are two types of mixed-use districts
based on building form. He further stated that based on the City's parking requirements,
new residential construction will refer to the zoning code. However, many residential units
don't have two required parking spots, so If a property owner doesn't have a two car garage
today, that makes the property a legal nonconforming use and there is no penalty.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Services Manager, stated that if a property owner had
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 15
February 13, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-13,9,"a change of use and staff would need to reconsider the parking for whatever reason, then
staff would look at the building type. If the building were a 100-year-old building, then staff
would apply discretion to address the parking standards.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for the Board to make comments on the North Park Street
Code Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Board member Knox White stated that one of the things that the environmental impact
report has to do is fit into the regional planning framework. He explained that in regards to
the housing portion for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association
of Bay Area Governments' (ABAG) Sustainable Community Strategy, the Environmental
Impact Report doesn't seem to address how housing will be constructed in the Priority
Development Areas. Also, the housing numbers seemed to be quite low and based on
historical growth. He also commented on the document's overall format, where the findings
are highlighted in some sections and in other sections it is not and he found the document
difficult to read. He referred to section D6, the Mitigation for Storm Water Utilities, where it
says the plan will result in a reduction of storm water runoff, but if development exceeds the
assumptions, meaning if a development which is bigger than noted in the document is built
then that would be trigger new thresholds and the City would have to write a new EIR.
Mr. Thomas replied that if he essentially took all the development projections on page 9 and
build all of that out staff would have done enough analysis that they believe the City's sewer
and storm water systems could handle that and staff has it broken down essentially by
block. Also, staff has setup a system where a developer can submit an application and staff
can immediately see the capacity assumed for the block and know if the applicant is fine in
terms of sewer and storm water. If the applicant jeopardizes the sewer and storm water
capacity, then staff would study the proposal.
Board member Knox White referred to the Transportation Mitigation Levels Of Service
section. Based on the corridors of transit, the corridors are not defined in the level of service
analysis and they do not follow the guidelines for transit corridors, which would be to look at
two stops on either side of the transit area in order to expand the corridor as long as
possible. Secondly, he couldn't find whether the automobile arterial segments levels of
service were analyzed. Thirdly, he explained the bicycle analysis was fine, but the
pedestrian portion of the analysis is incorrect because the analysis was looking at the
average delay per person, in all directions at Park Street and Blanding Avenue. When
referring to section IV-E21, the average pedestrian delay was 16 seconds, which seems to
quick. So, there are issues with the cumulative pedestrian times. Regarding the Mitigation
section, he noted that Mitigation 3 is completely out of compliance when referring to section
4.4.2.F of the General Plan. The first recommended mitigation does not have a TDM
selected except unless the City does not do all the other TDMs. Fourthly, he stated the
analysis that allows what is proposed for a mitigation is not in compliance with the General
Plan, which says that no mitigations in an environmental impact report can be proposed if it
degrades the pedestrian and bicycle levels of service. He doesn't see the level of service
shown, but he knows that the mitigations will increase crossing times in the middle of the
business district and it seems the plan is to propose all along Park Street what has been
done at Encinal Avenue and Park Street. Furthermore, he pointed out the recommendations
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 15
February 13, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-13,10,"that were for the Northern Waterfront EIR in order to handle capacity seems to become
mitigations for this plan as well. He would like to know that this plan is triggering those
needs in and of itself, or the proportion of the project costs seem to be geared towards the
very large development numbers generated by the Northern Waterfront and what is being
proposed on Park Street. In addition, the mitigation acknowledges that the project costs
sharing whether it's TDM or whichever is not just coming out of just the North Park Street
Project. Lastly, the Green House Gas Mitigations section, the transportation Mitigation 3
doesn't seem to reduce vehicle miles traveled. He continued to note under IVK-7 it's
important for the City to apply a minimum number of bicycle parking spots per building for
the mitigation rather than propose 1 bicycle space for every new business that has 10 car
spaces.
Board member Zuppan stated that she appreciated that the cumulative impact was being
taken into account, especially Caltrans work on I-880.
Board member Burton stated that he wanted to comment on the North Park Street Draft
Code's transportation and the bicycle sections. He felt there were issues of bicycle assess
and accommodating bicycles in the zone and staff has not addressed this aspect in the
code. When referring to the Waterfront District pages 35-36, the street section is illustrated,
but bicycle lanes are not shown. Also, the code does not mention the Alameda Bicycle Plan
and Guidelines. He goes on to state that the pedestrian and bicycle facilities only have two
lines in the parking section and parking requirements. He felt the pedestrian and bicycle
facilities should be in the very beginning and should be much more expansive. Referring to
the Architectural design standards and guidelines, he was encouraged by the form-based
code and he felt the code should only regulate the building and circulation patterns that
encourage pedestrian scale development. Regarding the Green Buildings Guidelines
section of the North Park Street Code Environmental Impact Report, he was surprised that
there was no reference in the section of the code to other city requirements such as
CalGreen, Bay Landscaping Guidelines, Build It Green Guidelines, and the Zero Waste
ordinance.
Mr. Thomas stated that staff would look at the code and come back to the Board in April
with the revisions. He pointed out that Board member Knox White made important
comments to the environmental impact report's traffic section and he would like the Board to
look at the Green House Gas section of the report because the traffic and green house gas
analyses are closely linked. He explained that staff has tried to put a finer analysis on the
alternatives chapter and there are two areas in the environmental impact report where staff
found significant unavoidable impacts: (1) an increase in automobile traffic and (2) an
increase in green house gases due to automobile traffic. He went on to say that in the
alternatives chapter, staff found ways to make the North Park Street Code more sustainable
and create less of an environmental impact. Staff also looked at the pros and cons of trying
to push the code further on with some of the green initiatives and they analyzed what that
would mean relative to other districts in Alameda. In response to Board member Burton's
comments, Mr. Thomas explained that the design review has guidelines meaning they are
not code so the developer should try to match their project to the scale of the neighboring
house and staff is looking at the last 40 pages of the North Park Street Code as architectural
guidelines. Also, staff is determining whether the guidelines should be adopted as code or
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 15
February 13, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-13,11,"adopted as guidelines, and whether the guidelines should be part of the citywide design
guidelines.
President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to Executive Summary page II-3 in order to understand if
sidewalks would be constructed on Tilden Way as part of this project.
Andrew Thomas replied this is part of the zoning code so a developer comes to find there
isn't a sidewalk along the frontage must build one.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked staff if they plan to expand sustainable design and green
building standards citywide. She also referred to the pedestrian plan in the Environmental
Impact Report's Transportation and Circulation section IVE-2, regarding walkable sidewalks
in areas. Board member Ashcraft explained that she would like to make Times Way into a
pedestrian only thoroughfare. She believes many pedestrians use this as a short cut off of
Park Street when the traffic is slow and the path connects the Civic Center to Park Street. In
the Environmental Impact Report's Land Use and Public Policy, page IV-A4 she raised an
issue about having childcare centers located on Park Street north of Lincoln Avenue. Finally,
regarding policy 2.5.1 she considered the plans to be an important principal for the
community.
Board member Knox White stated that the code is a great model for moving the City forward
and he believed that the architectural design standards and guidelines should be held as
guidelines.
President Ezzy Ashcraft stated public comment could be made up until February 20th for the
North Park Street Code Environmental Impact Report and comments for the North Park
Street Code can be made until the next hearing, which is April.
9-C. Review and Comment on Staff's Responses to the Regional Sustainable
Communities Strategy - Alternative Scenarios.
Mr. Thomas stated this is a status report and staff has kept the Board and City Council up to
speed on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) and the Associated Bay
Area Governments' (ABAG) regional planning effort. He went on to say that the plan would
have long-term effects on the City's housing allocations as well as state and regional
funding for transportation and housing. He felt that the Focused Growth Scenario is the
City's preferred scenario, but the biggest issue in Alameda is how housing affects the City's
traffic levels. Yet, all the scenarios aggressively require more housing, which exceeds the
City's General Plan projections.
Board member Knox White asked whether staff is looking for feedback from the Board in
order to provide the comments to ABAG and MTC before they announce the preferred
scenario.
Mr. Thomas replied yes.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 11 of 15
February 13, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-13,12,"Board member Knox White stated that the biggest issue with the five alternative scenarios is
that they don't provide any alternatives to anything because the outcomes are within a 1%
difference of each other. Ultimately, the preferred scenario is the initial vision, which he
believes staff should challenge. He encouraged the City to be careful about only talking
about job creation and to not forget the other regional issues.
President Ezzy Ashcraft stated on page 5 staff talked about Alameda Point in terms of acres
and there are a lot, but when broken down to what is usable land there is not much. She
would like to know if the City would be forced to comply with the scenario.
Mr. Thomas replied that under Senate Bill 375 the regional bodies would create a planning
effort that cities and counties can or cannot participate in. If the city or county chose not to
participate in the regional strategy then there would be limited regional money for the city or
county.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked if there is any protection from this regional strategy. She
illustrated a lawsuit that occurred amongst the City of Alameda and the city of Oakland in
2003. The city of Oakland sued Alameda based on the City's General Plan amendment,
which would allow a large number of housing units built onto Alameda Point. The city of
Oakland cited increased traffic in Oakland's Chinatown District as the main outcome from
allowing housing on Alameda Point. Board member Ashcraft also inquired about the status
of the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee, which was formed from the settlement of
the lawsuit.
Mr. Thomas replied that the City couldn't meet housing numbers without financial support for
their infrastructure systems. Therefore, the regional bodies would have to financially provide
for transportation and housing. He goes on to say that Northern Waterfront, Alameda Point,
and Alameda Landing require infrastructure improvements and the City cannot be sued by
neighboring jurisdictions every time they attempt to provide housing. In terms of the
Chinatown Committee, Staff Khan is the point person for that committee.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the City is looking island wide for building job sites.
Mr. Thomas stated this question is definitely on staff's mind and will be included in the
Housing Element.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for public comment.
Bill Smith, member of Renewed Hope, stated that the City's focus is to provide housing or
jobs and that causes a rift in the jobs and housing balance. Ultimately, he advocates for
denser residential development.
Lisa Sweet stressed the importance of how cars dictate green house gas emissions and
sustainability.
9-D. Alameda Point Update: Implementing Land Use Amendments for Alameda Point
Consistent with the Navy's Anticipated Conveyance of Alameda Point Property and the
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 12 of 15
February 13, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-13,13,"Goals Stated in the Recent Community Process.
Jennifer Ott, Chief Operating Officer for Alameda Point, gave an update on the staff report.
Currently staff is considering a zoning amendment for the entire base and they want to
make sure the guiding principal is based on what the community wants. The next steps are
to develop a plan for the proposed 5.5 million square feet of commercial development and
1,400 housing units. She reported that in late 2010 the City held community forums with
specific topical presentations for community input. Staff consolidated the comments into a
summary report. Ultimately, the community's priorities will guide staff as they begin to work
development advisors or private partners in the future. She also stated that staff is looking at
terms of disposition as a phase or incremental approach. Lastly, the current zoning for
Alameda Point is Heavy Industrial or M-2 with a government overlay, which works in some
areas, but staff should zone accordingly in other parts of the parcel in order to be more
opportunistic.
Mr. Thomas stated that the 2003 General Plan amendment for Alameda Point was made
specifically for the City of Alameda to integrate the reuse plan into the General Plan. He
explained that staff must look at the reuse plan and General Plan or base zoning and if
possible find funding to complete an environmental impact report in order to position parts of
the employment areas of Alameda Point in the same way as Harbor Bay was positioned.
Ms. Ott replied that they are in the process of hiring a consultant to assist with the process
but most of the work will be conducted in house. However, she explained that objective of
this meeting was to introduce the concept and receive feedback from the Board.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for public comment.
Bill Smith, Alameda resident, stated that he liked the Alameda Point process and was glad
to see the community's input included. He felt that the top choices found in the community
survey were (1) open space; 2) affordable housing; and (3) historical preservation and
housing was a big part of the project. He encouraged the Board to think big within the
documents and use the Housing Element to create opportunity for Alameda Point.
President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the second workshop on the Housing Element and
Alameda Point would take place on March 12th and staff is working hard to get the housing
element fast tracked.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident, stated that he wants the City to focus on economic
development and the City hasn't helped with developing commercial activity. He asked if the
City had any incentives to encourage business growth.
Ms. Ott replied that staff received input from perspective tenants about the City's typical
practice of only allowing short-term leases and that has been the City's policy in the past
given the uncertainty of the redevelopment plan. So, part of the zoning and disposition
strategy is for the City and staff to discuss approving longer-term deals in certain parts of
Alameda Point to incentivize investment. Currently, the City incentivizes commercial
investment through rental credit.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 13 of 15
February 13, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-13,14,"Mr. Thomas stated there is a fundamental change in the mindset in terms of approaching
Alameda Point. From 2000-2010 the City was under contract with a master developer 1 of
(2) and the Master development agreement stated that the developer would have control
over the base, but the developer would have to consult with the community in terms of
planning. So, staff's approach in the mean time would be to enter into short-term leases,
thus making it difficult for any tenant to invest money into the property. By 2010, staff and
the City started to think about long-term leases and staff is trying to get the word out to the
development and business communities that Alameda Point is available.
Ms. Ott stated that this is intended to be an economic development strategy to attract jobs
and that process will inform the zoning amendment and disposition strategies. Ultimately,
there will be an iterative process going forward.
Karen Bey stated that she was concerned that the City would lock itself into long-term
agreements that would be difficult to get out of once the right businesses come along.
Ms. Ott explained that she does agree and she doesn't think long-term agreements should
be applied throughout the base. She stated that the historical districts would be a point for
adaptive reuse and designated for long-term leases. Overall, staff is thinking strategically on
where they place the long-term leases.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for Board comments.
Board member Henneberry stated that he agreed with the strategy, which allows the
reintegration of the base with the City.
Board member Knox White asked if the findings and goals from the last public summary
could be retrieved easily.
Ms. Ott replied that the summary could be found in the April 6, 2011, ARRA meeting and the
meeting's link is available online.
Board member Knox White stated that it would be good to start the March 12th meeting with
a discussion on the assumptions coming out of the findings.
Ms. Ott replied that staff would attach the summary to the March 12 staff report.
Board member Knox White stated while developing zoning flexibility is the absolute
objective, staff should design a mix of uses that allow the City to be flexible with whatever
markets occur.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Thomas spoke about the Sunshine ordinance. He circulated the training CD, hard copy
of the ordinance, planning board rule and procedures, and provided the City of Alameda
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 14 of 15
February 13, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-13,15,"Attendance Guidelines for Boards and Commissioners.
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that an email was sent to the Board about three seminars for
California planning commissioners coming up within the next few months.
Board member Knox White stated that he would like staff to conduct a presentation on the
prioritized transportation projects that were submitted to the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission's Regional Transportation Plan.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
NONE.
13. ADJOURNMENT:
10:56 PM
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 15 of 15
February 13, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf