body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2016-05-23,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, MAY 23, 2016
1. CONVENE
President Knox White called meeting to order at 7:01pm.
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Mitchell led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: President Knox White, Board Members Burton, Mitchell, Sullivan. Board
Member Zuppan arrived at 7:09pm. Board Member Henneberry arrived at 8:00pm.
Absent: Board Member Köster.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
President Knox White moved item 7-C to the beginning of the regular agenda to
maintain quorum and in anticipation of Board Member Burton recusing himself for items
7-A and 7-B.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Rachel Campos gave an update on Phase Zero activities at Site A at Alameda Point.
Anonymous Painter raised concerns about the condition and negative effects of the
former Christmas tree lot on Webster St.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
6-A 2016-2927
Approve a Resolution Finding that the Harbor Bay Entities have
Demonstrated Good Faith Compliance with the Terms and Conditions of
Development Agreement, DA-89-1, through April 4, 2016, Based on the
Findings Contained in the Draft Resolution. This Compliance Review is not
a project under CEQA
Board Member Burton made a motion to approve the consent calendar. Board Member
Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
7. REGULAR
AGENDA
ITEMS
Item 7-A was moved back to its original position on the agenda because the applicant for
7-C was not yet present and Board Member Zuppan arrived, establishing a quorum. Board
Member Burton recused himself for item 7-A.
7-A 2016-2928
Page 1 of 9
Approved Meeting Minutes
May 23, 2016",PlanningBoard/2016-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-05-23,2,"Public Hearing on the Scope of the Encinal Terminals Focused
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.
Staff Member Thomas introduced the item and gave the staff report. The staff report and
attachments
can
be
found
at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2722798&GUID=7337A724-
1EF6-4984-B097-5FEFBAD2COCA&FullText=1
President Knox White explained that the board would not be addressing the project itself,
only on the scope of the EIR.
Board Member Mitchell asked what number of housing units the 2008 EIR assumed.
Staff Member Thomas said it studied approximately 260 housing units and a large amount
of commercial square feet. The new proposal has 580 housing units and much less
commercial space.
President Knox White opened the public hearing.
Dorothy Freeman said people attending the community meetings did not want high rise
buildings as a consequence of requesting more open space. She said allowing high rise
buildings would be a bad precedent for Alameda. She suggested housing units be priced
for median income residents.
Paul Foreman spoke about the jobs/housing imbalance in Alameda and how it impacts
city finances. He said reducing the amount of available land for commercial use will
preclude us from being able to address this issue in the future.
Elizabeth Tuckwell said impacts of shade cast by buildings should be considered, as well
as views. She also said water pollution from increased units needs to be considered.
President Knox White closed the public hearing.
Board Member Mitchell suggested population & housing (p. 76) should be looked at due
to the increase in units. He asked why we should not look at school impacts.
Staff Member Thomas said that state law is very specific on the issue and says that since
the school district collects impact fees, the outcome of the EIR on the school issues will
be the same.
Board Member Mitchell said that information would be helpful for the public to evaluate
the issues more clearly. He said the drought has become much more severe since the
previous EIR and that we might want a fresh look at water supply impacts.
Page 2 of 9
Approved Meeting Minutes
May 23, 2016",PlanningBoard/2016-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-05-23,3,"Board Member Sullivan said she would like to see an updated look at the schools issue.
She questioned the information about Wood School's enrollment.
Board Member Zuppan asked why geology and soil impacts would not need to be studied
due to the potential for much taller buildings.
Staff Member Thomas explained how the 2008 report required proper geotechnical
studies and mitigation for whatever size buildings are proposed.
Board Member Zuppan explained that approving the study is not the same as approving
the project.
Staff Member Thomas said CEQA is basically a disclosure law and approving an EIR does
not equate to approving the project.
President Knox White confirmed that we would be using the updated thresholds of
significance and transit corridor travel time.
Staff Member Thomas said they would be looking at vehicle miles traveled and transit
times. He said they would provide information on level of service at intersections.
Board Member Zuppan confirmed the traffic impacts would include comparisons to a ""do
nothing"" alternative.
Staff Member Thomas summarized the feedback and said they would be adding sections
on: population and housing, utilities, and public services. He also said they can look at the
shade and view corridors in response to the public comment.
7-B 2016-2929
Planning Board Workshop: Provide Direction on Alameda Point Site A: (1)
Blocks 6 and 7 Architectural Design, (2) Blocks 6 and 7 Parking Design, (3)
West Atlantic Gateway Design and (4) Street Names for Side Streets.
Staff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found
at: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2722801&GUID=522F8B64-
EA88-4043-8FOB-87EBBCF41B2D&FullText=1
Jessica Music, KTGY architect for Block 6, gave a presentation on the architecture of
Block 6.
Peter Hesse, architect for Block 7, gave a presentation on Block 7.
Mr. Dorfman, applicant, spoke to the question of bundling the parking with the townhomes
and why it is needed for these units.
Page 3 of 9
Approved Meeting Minutes
May 23, 2016",PlanningBoard/2016-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-05-23,4,"Board Member Sullivan confirmed that all the units in Blocks 6 and 7 will be for sale. She
confirmed that there were no private courtyards or backyard spaces. She asked what type
of customer they envisioned.
Mr. Dorfman said they believed young families would be their primary customer.
Board Member Sullivan said she does not understand how that would work given the lack
of private, secure space for small children and questioned the applicant's research. She
asked what the price range would be.
Mr. Dorfman said the type of product was common and consistent in Alameda and
throughout the Bay Area and very popular. He said they would be comparable to other
units currently being sold in Alameda (possibly $800k-$1M).
President Knox White opened the public hearing.
Jerry Serventi said that Block 6 should really start looking like the housing across the street
in the rest of Alameda. He liked that there were units fronting onto Main St. He said he
preferred option 3 for the corner that does not have a large element announcing entry to
the base. He suggested maintaining street names instead of having them change.
Vicky Sedlack said she looks forward to the different types of housing units coming to the
base. She liked how the designs tied into the base. She said she supports tying the parking
to the units to support the infrastructure investment required.
Karen Bey said Site A is the best project going in Alameda right now. She said she looked
forward to seeing this type of product coming to Alameda. She said she preferred option
3 for the corner on Block 6. She said the developer should have the right to select the
names of the streets.
Elizabeth Tuckwell said she did not see a lot of attention paid to bicycle lanes. She said
that would be more important than unbundled parking.
President Knox White closed the public hearing.
Board Member Mitchell said he liked the clean design of Block 7. He said Block 6 is a
great looking project. He said he wants the transition to just be another part of Alameda
and not have signage announcing entry to Alameda Point. He said he would hate to see
the quality of the project downgraded due to a 2% change in traffic and, therefore, is
comfortable offering the bundled parking. He said young families without private outdoor
space tend to get out more.
Page 4 of 9
Approved Meeting Minutes
May 23, 2016",PlanningBoard/2016-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-05-23,5,"Board Member Sullivan said she did not like the row of orange doors on Block 7. She said
the project had a flat feel in parts. She said she would like to see more diversity with the
front doors.
Board Member Zuppan said she liked the dark mullions and wood features of Block 7. She
liked the ability to add solar to the tilted roofs, the roof patio and stairs, and accessible
units. She said there is a lack of rhythm to the frontage of W. Atlantic. She said Block 6 is
very attractive. She liked the previous imagery with the transit stop in the middle of the
gateway.
Staff Member Thomas said the bus lanes were moved to the outside lanes in consultation
with AC Transit.
Board Member Zuppan liked options one and two for the gateway because it was more
inviting to the public. She felt option three sends the message that this space is not for
you. She said she was concerned with the location of the mailboxes and hoped that they
would be large enough to accommodate packages. She wants to make sure the benches
are in places where there is a reason to linger there. She said she wondered if there was
a more attractive option than checker block paving. She said she wanted the CC&Rs to
allow dogs. She said trees are to shade pedestrians and if they are in the street they will
be targets for car bumpers. She suggested some reference to the history of the base if
there is an open plaza at the gateway. She said the parking arrangement meets the
requirements and does not have a problem with it being bundled. She said the garages
could be used for storage as well.
Board Member Henneberry said the renderings look good. He said the he agreed with
Board Member Zuppan on the parking question and has no problem with the plan. He said
he liked the wing in option two for the gateway. He said Yorktown would make more sense
than York for a street name. He said some of the street names do not tie into the Navy
theme.
President Knox White said that the list of available street names has many options that
would pay proper respect to the base's history and the people who worked there. He said
he would favor keeping the Appezzato name on Alameda Point instead of changing
names. He said he has concerns about the durability of the wood grain siding. He said he
liked option three for the gateway. He said the Master Plan said to try and integrate the
neighborhood seamlessly. He said he does not believe the parking plan is consistent with
the transportation plan for the project. He said it would be more transparent to address
this issue as a variance instead of pretending like it is in compliance because the buildings
are not connected.
Board Member Mitchell said he agreed with President Knox White that changing from
Appezzato to Atlantic would be confusing and that perhaps we could dig a little deeper for
more appropriate names on some of the other streets.
Page 5 of 9
Approved Meeting Minutes
May 23, 2016",PlanningBoard/2016-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-05-23,6,"Board Member Henneberry said he prefers West Atlantic to continuing Appezzato. He
said he is more concerned with some of the other names, like Buckthorn, which is an
invasive species.
Board Member Sullivan said she likes the phrase ""When the Atlantic meets the Pacific""
and that it should stay Atlantic on the base because Appezzato had nothing to do with the
base.
Board Member Zuppan said she can see both sides of the street name question.
Staff Member Thomas asked the board to discuss the question of placing trees in the
street a little more.
Board Member Sullivan said trees in the street will not shade sidewalk users and become
damaged by cars.
Board Member Zuppan said she prefers them on the sidewalk to shade pedestrians.
Board Member Henneberry said he had not given it much thought, but that he would not
want to back into a tree.
President Knox White said this design is used in many places and he would be more
concerned if people could not miss a tree.
7-C 2016-2930
Planning Board Study Session: Alameda Landing Waterfront Park Design
and Land Use Program Revision
Staff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found
at: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2722802&GUID=645CC4C
64F-44AC-AOAA-42FD3A17DOC1&FullText=
Sean Whiskeman, from Catellus, gave a presentation on their proposal for the site.
Board Member Henneberry asked what the percentage of affordable housing would be for
the site.
Staff Member Thomas said the minimum would be 15%, but the developer is currently
proposing 16% of the base project be affordable and would seek a density bonus.
Board Member Zuppan asked if she was correct in understanding that the developer had
already gotten approval in the past to change the approved plan to add more housing to
pay for the investment needed in the site. She asked what the fiscal impact was to the
changes.
Page 6 of 9
Approved Meeting Minutes
May 23, 2016",PlanningBoard/2016-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-05-23,7,"Staff Member Thomas confirmed that they had changed the plan in 2006 to add housing
at Alameda Landing. He explained the assessments on the properties would make the
project fiscally neutral.
Board Member Zuppan confirmed that the sales tax from the retail at Alameda Landing
would be applied towards the fiscal neutrality of the entire project.
Board Member Sullivan said she would like to see the expected revenue stream from
commercial vs. residential for the project.
Board Member Mitchell asked about the longevity of the current wharf and how pressing
the issue is for the current commercial tenants on site.
Staff Member Thomas said it is a big strong structure that had railroad cars on it. He said
the big concern is that in an earthquake it will move laterally and topple into the estuary.
President Knox White asked to confirm that the large amount of rot and work needed was
the reason Clif Bar chose not to relocate to the site and no other project has moved
forward.
Staff Member Thomas and the applicant explained the combination of reasons Clif Bar did
not follow through.
The applicant explained that the soil on land behind the wharf is what really threatens the
wharf in the long term and that is what really changed the calculations since the 2006
redesign.
Board Member Burton asked why there was a greenway along Mitchell Ave. He asked
why the hotel was sited where it was.
The applicant explained that there were easements that prevented building there, namely
the high voltage power lines. He said the hotel was placed where it is because of parking
availability, prominence, and adjacency to the retail component.
Board Member Burton asked if and when Mitchell Ave would connect to Main St.
Staff Member Thomas said that the third phase of Alameda Landing would extend Mitchell
to the Bay Ship & Yacht property line. He said Bay Ship & Yacht has seven acres of vacant
land they want to redevelop and Mitchell is part of that conversation.
President Knox White opened the public hearing.
Page 7 of 9
Approved Meeting Minutes
May 23, 2016",PlanningBoard/2016-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-05-23,8,"Mike Kraft said the traffic getting through the tube into Alameda is much worse since
Alameda Landing opened. He said getting jobs on the island that could afford the housing
being built is important. He said the dirt generated by Catellus' work is having severe
impacts on the motoryacht he lives on. He is asking that these impacts be accounted for
if phase three goes forward.
Courtney Shepler said she is a resident of Alameda Landing and supports the plan. She
said a business park would not be the best use of the waterfront and would leave the
waterfront empty on the weekends.
Daniel Alhadeff, representing Starlight Marine, explained the high environmental
standards their business meets. He said the working waterfront needs to be protected as
plans move forward. He said he supports the Catellus plan.
President Knox White closed the public hearing.
Board Member Burton said he can be supportive of the change in use but that there would
be a lot of work to do to convince the community about why it is necessary. He said he
would like to push the restaurants out towards the water. He said having large, open,
passive spaces between the two active ends of the waterfront park would be a good use.
He suggested looking into more maker, supportive marine, or light industrial uses within
the sight to provide jobs even if the office space market is not there.
Board Member Sullivan sad the housing crisis is not for million dollar homes but for homes
for young families starting out. She said she feels the park is hostage to adding new homes
and asks where the jobs for these people would be.
Board Member Henneberry said affordability is important and would like to see those
numbers go up. He said, however, the amount of affordable housing is zero if nothing gets
done. He said if we want to move forward, this project can be done the right way to achieve
our goals.
Board Member Mitchell said he understands the property needs a lot of work, but agrees
with Board Member Burton that there is work to be done with the public before it moves
forward.
Board Member Zuppan said there needs to be a balance with commercial at this site. She
said the housing at the first two phases was supposed to contribute funds to get this site
done. She said she could maybe be supportive of some housing but it has to have a
significant jobs component.
President Knox White said he was a little disappointed that this was almost 100% housing.
He said it is clear that the project has turned out to be more difficult since previous plans
were approved. He said he wants to see more commercial spaces of some type on the
Page 8 of 9
Approved Meeting Minutes
May 23, 2016",PlanningBoard/2016-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-05-23,9,"site. He said we do still have large areas available for commercial development in the city.
He said he would like to see universally designed buildings and not more townhomes. He
said he would like to see smaller homes built at this site. He said the only way to address
housing costs is to build more housing. He said we will not be able to subsidize enough
housing to address the supply problem. He said we need more commercial with good jobs
for this site.
Board Member Burton made a motion to continue the meeting past 11:00 pm if necessary.
Board Member Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion failed.
8. MINUTES
*None*
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2016-2931
Zoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions
No action taken
9-B 2016-2932
Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development
Department Projects
Staff Member Thomas said a special meeting has been added for June 22nd, a
Wednesday. He said he would not be present for June 13th. He outlined what projects are
coming in the June meetings.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Knox White adjourned the meeting at 10:55pm.
Page 9 of 9
Approved Meeting Minutes
May 23, 2016",PlanningBoard/2016-05-23.pdf