body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2019-04-22,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY-APRIL 22, 2019-6:15 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:17 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella,
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA ITEM
(19-252) Tour of the Enterprise District (Formerly Site B) at Alameda Point; and
(19-252 A) Recommendation to Authorize Staff to Market a 23.9-Acre Portion (Phase 1)
of the Enterprise District (Formerly Site B) for Redevelopment Consistent with the City's
Goals and Objectives for Commercial Development at Alameda Point.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Director made brief comments.
In response to Councilmember Vella's inquiry, the Base Reuse and Community
Development Director stated a smaller portion of the site is being proposed similar to
Site A; discussed the logic used for Site A, the size and infrastructure; stated staff wants
to maximize the value of the adjacent nine acres closest to the new ferry terminal; the
other two parcels will not be clean for several years; the focus will be leasing; Astra
could be the first campus at Alameda Point.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the smaller areas on the exhibit are not being
considered, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Director responded
in the affirmative; stated the Enterprise District is four blocks; the property going out to
the water is Tidelands and cannot be sold; the blocks with views adjacent to the park
would be developed after the interior parcels.
Councilmember Daysog discussed infrastructure; inquired whether infrastructure would
end at West Ticonderoga.
Angelo Obertello, Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, responded the final infrastructure build out
includes West Hornet.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, Mr. Obertello stated the plan has
infrastructure that will be developed in the same corridor at a later date.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Director made brief comments about
the tour.
***
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 22, 2019
1",CityCouncil/2019-04-22.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-04-22,2,"The tour led by John McManus, Cushman & Wakefield, took place from 6:30 p.m. to
7:30 p.m.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Vella inquired about the rationale that Nautilus would be a catalyst.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Director responded businesses, such as
Natel Energy, have indicated a server farm with data storage capacity close by is very
helpful; stated research-oriented companies indicated data service would be very
beneficial.
The Assistant Community Development Director noted that she previously provided
articles about how other high tech companies tend to gather around data centers.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether other high tech users have expressed a desire
to locate here if there is a data center, the Assistant Community Development Director
responded the opportunity has not been explored yet; some Nautilus clients have
unofficially expressed interest in being located closer to the data center.
John McManus, Cushman & Wakefield, noted creating the infrastructure would allow for
smaller parcels to be used; stated a two acre project could not be done in the Enterprise
District right now.
Mr. Obertello outlined infrastructure issues with the Water Emergency Transportation
Authority building.
In response to Vice Mayor Knox White's inquiry regarding the definition of campus, the
Base Reuse and Community Development Director stated a campus would have one
user with multiple buildings; Astra would be an example; a campus would have high
employment numbers.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated an Alameda Point plan from a while ago showed that all
the usable buildings were rented and suggested good buildings be bundled with bad
buildings; inquired whether the proposal ensures cherry picking will not being done.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the 24 acre parcel could be sold subject to the lease of Building 530; the market
has been interesting; everyone thought Building 360 would be torn down and Astra has
been doing amazing things in the building so far; people have found uses for buildings;
the larger parcel would allow buildings to be mixed and matched and also make the
infrastructure happen.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
April 22, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-04-22.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-04-22,3,"Vice Mayor Knox White stated the City is running into issues with the fiscal neutrality
policy; inquired whether the proposed Phase 1 would be able to cover infrastructure
costs.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Director responded that is the intent;
stated two phases of backbone infrastructure are also sequentially occurring in the
adaptive reuse area; the issue is timing; the City could escalate the pace of the work by
issuing an infrastructure bond; the City has been using building sale proceeds to
complete the work; the parcelization is strategic so the infrastructure can pay for itself.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the Master Infrastructure Plan (MIP) has a phasing plan;
inquired whether the proposal is consistent with the phasing, to which Mr. Obertello
responded in the affirmative; stated the proposal manages connections to reliable
facilities in a sequential order.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether underground infrastructure would be done for
the Astra buildings, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Director
responded in the affirmative.
The Assistant Community Development Director noted Astra could do the work or pay
for the City to build it.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding working in contaminated
areas, the Base Reuse and Community Development Director outlined the process.
Councilmember Oddie inquired about Astra staying, to which the Base Reuse and
Community Development Director responded Astra is interested in having an option to
purchase once the Navy transfers the land.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's further inquiry regarding infrastructure, the Base
Reuse and Community Development Director stated long term leases pay the
Development Impact Fee and other payments, similar to Nautilus.
Councilmember Oddie inquired about the City not owning the land.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Director responded the City operates
under the Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance (LIFOC) for the land that has not been
transferred.
The Assistant Community Development Director noted infrastructure might not be able
to proceed until after the land has been cleaned.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding end users, the Base Reuse
and Community Development Director stated the City is looking at end users; however,
not all end users are land developers; an end user might have to partner with a land
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 22, 2019
3",CityCouncil/2019-04-22.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-04-22,4,"developer or a land developer also might submit a proposal; staff would bring proposals
to Council.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether a land developer could have a concept to
develop and sell to an unknown end user.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Director responded such a scenario
could occur; stated the process will be open to a wide market.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether a timeframe needs to be outlined for land
developer ideas.
Mr. McManus responded the preference is an end user; stated a model has been used,
with the City giving a year or two of capital credit and the company escrows the money
to do work, such as a roof; if a project does not work out, the City gets the building back
with a new roof; in this case, the City will get around $30 million in proceeds; if the
project does not go forward, the City would get the desired infrastructure; the
development might be speculative, but it will create streets, trenches, sewer and have a
project timeline or it will not be recommended.
The Assistant City Attorney stated a developer not adhering to a timeline would be
found in default to prevent the project from languishing.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated a
developer could present a plan and have a certain amount of time to find and select
users with City approval; staff would ensure details are spelled out.
Councilmember Vella inquired where the City would be if a business expresses a desire
to purchase a building and it does not go forward.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated if a business fails, the City
would have a turnkey building that has been improved.
In response to Councilmember Vella's inquiry regarding the plume, the Assistant
Community Development Director stated the Navy is responsible for cleanup; the City is
responsible for putting infrastructure in clean parcels.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Director stated under LIFOC, the City is
obligated to take the land once it is clean and there is a finding of suitability for transfer;
the City has the ability to lease the property prior to the transfer; the leases can include
options to purchase; building leases have to go through an environmental process to
ensure people can be in the buildings; Astra has equipment in its building but does not
have people there because the environmental regulatory sign-off is still needed, which
is why the lease has not gone to Council yet.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
April 22, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-04-22.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-04-22,5,"Councilmember Oddie stated the developer could be required to do the infrastructure
work within a specific amount of time to avoid land banking.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Director stated developers probably feel
a lot of the risk has been mitigated since Site A is under construction; Astra is in the
area and others are paying fees into an infrastructure fund; marketing makes sense.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether there is an update on Building 41.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Director stated the building is still
owned by the Navy, cannot be sold and can only be leased.
Stated the Council does not have enough information tonight to move forward with the
29 acres; discussed the previous proposals; suggested bringing back the two finalist
from the previous proposal to address the full 82 acres; expressed concern over
Building 360 being tied up: Richard Bangert, Alameda.
Expressed support for the staff recommendation, which is the most logical next step,
and for Cushman & Wakefield; discussed start up Sila Nanotechnologies needing more
space; stated land needs to be available: Karen Bey, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed Sila Nanotechnologies; stated that she supports the
staff recommendation, which is well thought out; the City needs to be nimble, cannot
rely on a strong economy going forward and has some great tenants; it is time to test
the waters again; proposals will take time to develop; she is concerned with land
banking; the City can build protection against land banking; the City Council needs to
have a discussion about fiscal neutrality; if the City is going to benefit from the
redevelopment, the ability to put in needed infrastructure should not be limited to what
can be paid for from Alameda Point.
Councilmember Vella stated that she does not have a problem with phasing; questioned
when Phase 2 will come back; discussed marketing; stated a vision is needed; she is
concerned about connecting infrastructure; there is a benefit to marketing the whole
area; she is hesitant to approve leases before seeing the marketing; expressed concern
over tying up buildings without a vision; stated phasing makes sense at this time
because there are some amazing parcels and problematic pieces would not be
developed until much later; she is willing to support the staff recommendation with a
couple of caveats, including having a ballpark on Phase 2 timing and having ordinances
pertaining to the design and planning process being reviewed and returning to Council;
the cumbersome process should be streamlined.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he supports the staff recommendation; he would like
to stay away from the term campus and does not want to signal the City wants one
user; the Economic Development Strategic Plan states that the City should not try to
have a campus; Astra is a smaller business that came in and is growing; the City should
look at all types of ideas consistent with planning documents; discussed the types of
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 22, 2019
5",CityCouncil/2019-04-22.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-04-22,6,"businesses in different hubs; stated the process will sell land to someone with a viable
idea; opening up Alameda Point has been successful; he would like to protect against
land banking and likes the phasing plan; in the MIP, sea level rise protections require
100% buildout of Alameda Point; someone could present an idea for more acres.
Councilmember Daysog stated Astra illustrates that the policy allowing staff to seize
opportunities has been good; he is glad the process is open to a developer; expressed
support of Mr. Bangert's suggestion to approach previous finalists for their thoughts on
the process; other successful Alameda Point businesses should also be tapped for their
insight and guidance; information gathering could be done on a parallel track; he likes
the idea of starting with the 29 acres selected and supports the staff recommendation;
encouraged talking to companies for insights; stated that he is open to approaching the
previous Site B proposers and likes that the process being open to developers, while
seizing end user opportunities.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he likes the idea of phasing without shutting off the
option of a larger portion; expressed support for having the area cohesive and
protecting against land banking; stated the City has promised fiscal neutrality to voters
for 22 years and he would be reluctant to move away from it without hearing from
voters; he would be open to changing the policy to address sea level rise, which will
impact the whole Island; bringing in people who have thought about it or are doing work
at Alameda Point is a good idea.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what Councilmember Oddie means by bringing in people,
to which Councilmember Oddie responded the City should talk to them and see if they
are interested in just the proposed area or maybe two areas; expressed support for
staff's prioritization to require starting with the 29 acre parcel.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated everyone should be on a level playing field; past proposals
should not receive points; discussed the finalists; stated anyone interested can submit a
proposal.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Director stated that she heard the idea
was to pick people's brain; noted focus groups are sometimes used prior to starting a
marketing campaign.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he is fine with City staff reaching out to every known
developer about the opportunity; the concern is going to three or four developers to ask
them to help develop the proposal.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Director stated staff does not plan on
having a formal request for proposals process; the intent is the property will be
marketed.
Councilmember Vella stated that she does not want a developer outlining what they
think should be in the proposal; expressed support for allowing someone to put in a
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
April 22, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-04-22.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-04-22,7,"Phase 1 and Phase 2 proposal; she wants to see Phase 1 actively marketed;
developers could also add Phase 2; she does not want to pick anyone early on or show
preference for one developer over another; the previous proposals can be used as
information to determine if the new proposal is better.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the marketing information will return to Council
or if Council is giving approval tonight.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Director responded staff was
anticipating tonight would be the final direction; stated the marketing will be rolling and
will not have a due date.
Vice Mayor Knox White discussed the buildings being affordable; stated the City cannot
compete with downtown Oakland and Fremont for Class A office buildings; he is willing
to entertain building reuse, which is easier to sell; the City's goal is to build a base and
start building infrastructure; noted the project will have to make the design work.
Councilmember Daysog stated having the process open to developers is more
important than having input from previous proposers.
Councilmember Oddie stated marketing should be done to all; he is curious to see who
is interested; the City should be strategic; makers space is popular now, but may not be
in the future.
Councilmember Vella requested the final marketing materials be provided to Council.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification that Councilmember Vella is not suggesting
Council edit the marketing materials, to which Councilmember Vella responded that she
is not saying Council would be weighing in on the materials.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she heard support for staff's proposal to market the 29
acres as Phase 1; Council would like the question answered about when Phase 2 will
move forward; a proposal could contemplate more than the 29 acres; interest from
anyone will be entertained.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated protection from land banking should be included in the
direction.
Councilmember Vella stated that she would also like to be directed to come back with
changes to ordinances outside of approving the matter.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Director noted the area is actually 23.9
acres, not 29 acres.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the direction outlined.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 22, 2019
7",CityCouncil/2019-04-22.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-04-22,8,"Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
-
5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 8:45
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
April 22, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-04-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2019-04-22,1,"DRAFT MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, APRIL 22, 2019
1. CONVENE
President Sullivan convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Rothenberg led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: President Sullivan, Board Members Cavanaugh, Curtis, Rothenberg, Saheba,
Teague.
Absent: Mitchell.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
6-A 2019-6801
Annual Review: Alameda Point Site A Development Agreement - Applicant: Alameda
Point Partners, LLC (APP). Approve a Resolution Finding that APP has Demonstrated
Good Faith Compliance with the Terms and Conditions of the Alameda Point Site A
Development Agreement from April 15, 2018 through April 15, 2019, based on the
Findings contained in the Draft Resolution. This Compliance Review is not a project
under CEQA
Board Member Teague pulled the item from the Consent Calendar in order to allow the
staff update and board discussion.
Staff Member Thomas said the item was continued from the previous meeting to add
some information about a pending application to amend the development agreement.
The staff report and attachments can be found at:
ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3917147&GUID=D7327310
F3C6-4117-98F2-85261E2A01A2&Options=&Search=&FullText=1
Board Member Curtis asked if the 80 units being requested by developer exceeds the
original amount included in their development agreement.
Draft Planning Board minutes
Page 1 of 6
April 22, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-04-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2019-04-22,2,"Staff Member Thomas said that the 80 units are in addition to the 800 units in the
original development agreement. He said approving the annual review does not
prejudice a future Planning Board decision on the pending application.
President Sullivan asked how the additional requested units impact the 1,425 unit cap
for Alameda Point.
Staff Member Thomas said the 1,425 units have already been allocated, which means
the request for 80 additional units would require a change to the General Plan to
increase the cap for Alameda Point from 1,425 to 1,505.
Board Member Teague made a motion to approve the staff recommendation.
Board Member Curtis seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2019-6802
PLN19-0018 - Lot Line Adjustment - 2130/2140 South Shore Center - Applicant:
Rebecca Wiener on behalf of Jamestown South Shore Center LP. Consideration of a Lot
Line Adjustment application to reconfigure the western property line of the Alameda
South Shore shopping center. The project site is located in the C-2-PD (Central
Business Planned Development) Zoning District. The project is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15305 - Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations
Staff Member Sablan gave the staff report. The report and attachments can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3917148&GUID=FED15EBA-
2EBB-4B39-A3C2-OF455329DB9F&FullText=1
President Sullivan asked if the buildings included on the proposed lot were the old Bank
of Marin, laundromat, café and dental office.
Staff Member Sablan confirmed that the buildings President Sullivan listed would now be
their own parcel at the northwest corner of the site.
Board Member Teague asked if the new lot would have the required amount of parking
from when it was built.
Staff Member Sablan said there would be no changes to the parking arrangements and
cross access easements between the parcels.
There was a discussion clarifying parcel lines while examining an aerial view of the site.
Board Member Saheba asked if there is anything the board should be considering.
Draft Planning Board minutes
Page 2 of 6
April 22, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-04-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2019-04-22,3,"Staff Member Thomas said there is very little discretion on this action. He said that these
decisions are typically handled at a staff level, but Alameda has an older code that gives
the Planning Board authority to approve these applications.
Board Member Saheba made a motion to approve the staff recommendation.
Board Member Rothenberg seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
7-B 2019-6803
Planning Board Review of General Plan Chapter 1 Settings, and Organization of the
General Plan Update. The review of the General Plan Chapters are exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act
Staff Member Thomas gave a report. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
 https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3917182&GUID=06EE828B-
A7AF-43FB-A714-7D25CEF7DA98&FullText=1
Board Member Curtis said he liked the way staff presented a single section for the board
to consider in depth at a given point in time. He said he found the new section easy to
read.
Board Member Cavanaugh said he liked the new layout. He said it would be helpful to
have explanations of things like Measure A or the state's influence on policy embedded
in the document, including via hyperlink. He said this would help the public understand
how things work in the city.
Board Member Teague said that a sentence needs to be added about resolving conflicts
between policy guidance and regulation, and which takes precedence. He said he liked
the new format. He suggested certain edits for clarity. He said we should include
information on housing production from 1990 to 2019 and the Density Bonus law. He
said there should be a paragraph about the land conveyance by the Navy and
associated constraints on the land. He said the paragraph from the original discussing
the completion of Harbor Bay should come back into the new version, and there should
be a paragraph about RHNA and the 2014 Housing Element amendments.
Board Member Saheba said the layout and graphics were quite good. He asked if there
is an outline of modifications being proposed from the existing to the new General Plan.
He said that global view would help improve the input that the board could provide as
they give feedback on each section.
Staff Member Thomas gave some background on his feelings towards the 1990 General
Plan and where he anticipated making changes. He said the Climate Action Plan update
has led to some rethinking of how the land use and design chapters of the General Plan
should be structured. He said he would outline the changes in the next staff report.
Draft Planning Board minutes
Page 3 of 6
April 22, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-04-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2019-04-22,4,"Board Member Rothenberg asked if the whole timeline of changes would be laid out.
She asked about the process for amending the General Plan.
Staff Member Thomas said any final changes would involve public notice and
advertising. He outlined the process that he envisions for public input before moving
forward with recommendations to the City Council.
Board Member Rothenberg asked if bringing pieces back in chunks would be a
transparent process for the public.
Staff Member Thomas said he could envision a process where the Board works through
the entire document and has a public comment process on the entire document.
President Sullivan said she likes the new layout. She said she would like some of the
longer sentences to be broken up and for someone to review the document with a style
guide for things like punctuation. She said our future is heading toward an urban city of
renters and not a small, suburban city. She said the balance is shifting.
Staff Member Thomas said that Alameda has always been fairly evenly split between
rentals and owner occupied units. He said the short term trends change and is not
convinced that future development will absolutely be mostly rentals.
Board Member Teague said that when we get to a complete product that the old plan
should have references identifying where the policies exist in the new document. He
asked if the Housing Element can come ahead of the Land Use Element. He said the
special rules for Webster, Park, and Harbor Bay should be called out specifically.
President Sullivan said that there will be so much change coming in Alameda that the
General Plan should be updated in 15 years instead of the current 30 year gap.
Board Member Cavanaugh asked for more information about the Climate Change
Emergency Declaration.
Staff Member Thomas explained that the declaration's intent and what will be required in
the immediate response to climate change and sea level rise. He said the Council has
given a sense of urgency and asked for transportation projects and the public process
around them to be greatly sped up.
Board Member Rothenberg suggested adding climate change and resiliency to the open
space and preservation chapter.
Staff Member Thomas said that the Board, if it so chooses, can identify specific
members to work with staff on the drafting of specific chapters.
Draft Planning Board minutes
Page 4 of 6
April 22, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-04-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2019-04-22,5,"8. MINUTES
*None*
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2019-6798
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
The staff report can be found at:
 ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3917005&GUID=29FAE29C-
4E9F-4C6B-B66A-315782C3A9E8&FullText=1
9-B 2019-6799
Oral Report - Status Report on Design Review and Development Plan for an
approximately 113,000-square-foot hotel with 172 guest rooms, and an approximately
7,000-square-foot restaurant with coffee shop at 2900 Harbor Bay Parkway
Staff Member Thomas said staff is evaluating revised elevations and waiting for more
information from the applicant. He said they also received an updated landscape plan.
He said the new elevations were sent out to the list of interested parties and the limited
feedback thus far was not positive.
President Sullivan said that some of the parties have been told not to respond so they
can respond as a group.
Board Member Saheba asked if there was a game plan for how to engage the public on
the revised designs that is not ad hoc.
President Sullivan said the community was promised a meeting and they need to have it
before it comes back to the Planning Board.
Staff Member Thomas said he feels like staff needs to review the drawings and make a
recommendation before anything happens. He asked if the neighborhood meeting
should happen before it comes to Planning Board and what should happen after the
neighborhood meeting.
Board Member Saheba said the applicant needs to go back and present their changes to
the neighborhood before staff takes that feedback and incorporates it into their
recommendation to the Board.
Staff Member Thomas said he is comfortable with that process. He said he just needed
to emphasize that the neighborhood meeting does not approve or deny the project, citing
some interactions with residents that seemed to misunderstand that point.
9-C 2019-6800
Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and
Transportation Department Projects
Draft Planning Board minutes
Page 5 of 6
April 22, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-04-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2019-04-22,6,"Staff Member Thomas said the Park St. hotel is aiming for the second meeting in May to
return to the Planning Board. He said May 13th meeting will include more General Plan
work. He said May 28th currently has the Climate Action Plan, Capital Improvement Plan,
and the Park St. hotel.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board Member Teague asked that, as a response to the Climate Emergency
Declaration, the ferry add carpool parking spaces at the Main St. terminal. He said
charging for parking would be a regressive tax given the lack of alternatives.
Staff Member Thomas said staff is not interested in adding parking at Main St. because
they do not want to become the park and ride location for Bay Area commuters, and also
noted the upcoming opening of Seaplane Lagoon and the changes that will have on
parking demands.
Board Member Teague said the net-metering policy by AMP is not encouraging solar
generation.
President Sullivan asked if the City has studied providing a shuttle to the Main St. ferry
terminal.
Staff Member Thomas said the Alameda Shuttle discussions studied a shuttle for the
ferry that would cost five million dollars per year, which did not make sense while there is
free parking at the terminal.
Board Member Saheba seconded the notion of carpooling being a quick and easy way
to change behavior. He said that policy would work at all three ferry terminals.
Board Member Rothenberg said she hopes the parking consultants do actual
observations of the existing conditions at the corners and in the neighborhoods to better
understand the situation on the ground before suggesting policies.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 8:46 p.m.
Draft Planning Board minutes
Page 6 of 6
April 22, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-04-22.pdf