{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-03", "page": 1, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nMinutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, March 3, 2005 - 6:30 p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n6:30 p.m.\n2.\nWELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS\nMayor Beverly Johnson, President Andrew Cunningham and Chair Lee Perez welcomed\neveryone to the workshop.\n3.\nROLL CALL: Mayor Beverly Johnson, Andrew Cunningham, Anne Cook,\nRebecca Kohlstrand, Lee Perez, Diane Lowenstein, Elizabeth Johnson.\nAlso present were Andrew Thomas, Steven Proud, Project Manager, Jim Adams, ROMA\nDesign Group, Walter Rask, ROMA Design Group, Frederick Knapp, Page & Turnbull,\nMelissa Boudreau, Page & Turnbull (Project Manager), Jim Musbach, Economic\nPlanning Systems, Andrew Barnes, Economic Real Estate Consultant, Matthew\nRidgeway, Fehr & Peers, Seleta Reynolds, Fehr & Peers, Peter Russell, Russell\nResources.\n4.\nPRESENTATION OF PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS FOR\nALAMEDA POINT\nMr. Andrew Thomas noted that ROMA Design Group would make a presentation, and\npublic comment would be taken after the presentation. He noted that the results of the\ncommunity discussions held at the previous two workshops were available on the City\nwebsite. He noted that a Preliminary Draft Development Concept would be developed\nsoon, based on a financially feasible development concept for the Base. Development\nalternatives would also be explored. He described the future timeline of the development\nand environmental review process, and encouraged public feedback regarding the\ninformation on the website. He encouraged residents to take advantage of the Base tours\nprovided by the City.\nMr. Walter Rask, ROMA Design Group, presented a PowerPoint presentation.\n5.\nCOMMUNITY COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION\nA community member noted that the O Club was a beautiful building that needed\nupgrading, and that it had historic value. He believed it was worth keeping, and believed\nthe Big Whites were more trouble than they were worth.\nMr. Thomas noted that the O Club served as a functioning social center in Alameda.\nA community member thanked staff for the additional options, and inquired whether the\nnon-Measure A-compliant option would be affected by the groundwater contamination.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nMarch 3, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-03", "page": 2, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nHe inquired whether a constrained view of the economic viability of the project was\nbeing presented.\nMr. Stephen Proud noted that they were concentrating on the Phase I plan, but that there\nwas flexibility in the later phases. The timing of the property delivery was an important\npart of the economic analysis.\nA community member favored the non-Measure A-compliant options, and believed that\nincreasing the density and value of the options would be positive. He inquired about the\neffect of the number of parkland acreage on the acres-per-thousand-population. He\ninquired about the $22 million deficit.\nMr. Thomas noted that the Citywide analysis had not been performed, although a similar\nopen space analysis in the 2003 General Plan Amendment EIR had been performed.\nMr. Proud noted that there was no $22 million slush fund attached to the project, and\nexplained the expenditures needed to service the project.\nA community member appreciated the contrasts between the Measure A and non-\nMeasure A options. She favored seamless integration, vibrant new neighborhoods,\nestablishing neighborhood centers, and did not see those items in either options. She\nwould like to see a design that worked with the mitigations that would also be\neconomically feasible. She did not believe that Phase I followed good planning\nprinciples, and was disappointed in the design.\nA community member thanked staff for the illustrations of how the project would look if\nMeasure A was modified. She preferred single-story residence designs.\nMr. Proud noted that the City would acquire all the buildings when the Navy completes\nthe ownership transfer; they are currently being leased, which is the chief source of\nrevenue to offset the costs.\nA community member inquired about the time lag between property expenses and\nproperty sales, and how the money was made up.\nMr. Proud noted that was the reason for having a Master Developer, who was responsible\nfor putting in the backbone infrastructure and preparing for later property owners.\nA community member inquired about transportation on the Base, and inquired whether\nthere would be bike trails. She inquired whether the parking would be maintained, and\nsuggested that one of the large hangars could be used to accommodate large events.\nMr. Thomas noted that bike routes were planned and that the site would be bike-friendly.\nThe transportation program would be examined at the March 23, 2005 workshop.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nMarch 3, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-03", "page": 3, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nA community member inquired about the Phase I development, and the housing density\nin that phase. She inquired whether there would be any innovative or eco-friendly\narchitecture.\nMr. Walter Rask noted that the density would be approximately 12 units per acre, which\nwas roughly comparable to Bayport. He noted that there would be no walls, and that the\nblocks would be exterior-oriented; there would be no gated portions of the neighborhood.\nThe buildings would feel very public and friendly in nature. There was an overall goal of\nthe project to achieve sustainability objectives; green building measures and recycling\nwould be used.\nA community member supported retaining the Enlisted Men's Quarters, and believed that\nturning them into condos may bring more diverse populations into Alameda. She inquired\nabout the contamination on sites for non-Measure A and commercial uses. Mr. Rask\ndisplayed the mixed use areas, and noted that conventional housing would not be possible\nin that area if there was groundwater contamination.\nA community member inquired about the groundwater and soil contamination, and\nsuggested that those areas not be developed until the contamination was cleaned up.\nMr. Russell noted that the contamination in the Phase I area was relatively minor, and\ndescribed its nature in detail. A non-Measure A-compliant design would allow for\npodium parking on the ground, with the residences on top; the chemicals would never\nreach the residences. Among the chemicals were dry cleaning solvent, nail polish\nremover, gasoline.\nA community member inquired whether PAHs were in the ground water. Mr. Thomas\nreplied that they were not water-soluble and were not a groundwater issue.\nA community member inquired about how malleable the wildlife refuse was to being\nmoved.\nMr. Proud noted that the issue of wildlife transfer is an issue of property transfer between\nagencies, to the Veterans Administration rather than Fish & Wildlife.\nA community member noted that he was a real estate consultant, and noted that a\nrelatively good job had been done in this project. He noted that the lagoon was a\nsignificant amenity. He believed that plan was biased toward single-family housing, and\nnoted that high-rise residences had been built successfully in San Diego. He believed the\ncommercial land sale figures were optimistic. He expressed concern about the\ntransportation linkages. He proposed that the lagoon and the golf course be linked.\nA community member noted that the main advantage of Measure A was the greater\ndiversity of housing, including middle-level housing.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nMarch 3, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-03", "page": 4, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nA community member inquired what kind of planning overview was used to create\ncommunity activity hubs, and did not see those hubs in this plan.\nMr. Adams described the 1400 housing units, and noted that a series of smaller retail\ncenter could not be supported.\nMr. Christopher Buckley noted that there was an assumption that the grade must be\nraised due to the 100-year flood, and suggested the use of a levee. He inquired how\n115,000 square feet of retail was derived, and how much of the anticipated retail demand\nfrom the residential uses would be absorbed by that retail.\nMr. Thomas noted that the levee question was examined, and that they decided to raise\nthe level instead, rather than create a seawall along the edge of the site. He noted that\nwould create a visual barrier to the water.\nMr. Proud noted that they had to compact the bay mud to accept more load.\nMr. Rask noted that they did not wish to overbuild the retail spaces, nor did they wish to\ncannibalize other retail areas in Alameda.\nA community member noted that the new residents would also need libraries, schools and\nyouth centers, and inquired where they were included in the plan.\nMr. Thomas replied that community centers were programmed into the project, including\nthe O Club and the original Navy Mess Hall. Police and fire services were included in the\nfinancial pro forma, as well as a small library. He noted that once the planning became\nmore solidified, they would address the impact on the school district in more detail.\nA community member noted that the Big Whites would involve an expensive process,\nand inquired why they were included in the non-Measure A option if they would\nhandicap the option.\nMr. Rask noted that they had not reconciled all the elements of that plan yet, and they\nwere working with the first version of the financial details.\nA community member noted that she was recently appointed to the HAB, and had taken\nthe tour, which she believed was very illuminating. She believed that the air traffic\ncontrol tower should be retained on the site. She believed it was emblematic of the\npurpose of the Naval Air Station and should be added. She noted that there were\ndiscussions to extend the live/work boundaries to Alameda Point, which would give more\nflexibility to the reuse of the site.\nTim Royal, Pastor, All Nations Fellowship, would like the character of Alameda to carry\non to Alameda Point. He noted a lack of churches on Alameda Point.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nMarch 3, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-03", "page": 5, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nMr. Adams noted that several sites were identified for being suitable for churches, and\npointed them out on the site plan.\nA community member thanked staff for exploring Measure A and mixed use possibilities.\nHe expressed concern about the phrase \"less clean housing,\" and took offense to the\nconcept and the language.\nMr. Proud reassured the audience that that wording was not intended to cause offense,\nand described the Restoration Advisory Board's role in site remediation. He added that\nthey did not blindly follow the Navy's directives. He noted that part of the cleanup\nprocess may be privatized, and that unsuitable sites would not be used to residential\nreuse.\nMr. Adams noted that lead paint had historically been used at Alameda Point, and that\ndemolition of such buildings and remediation was very closely regulated. He noted that\nlead was not easily water-soluble, and that it could easily be scraped from the surface of\nthe soil.\nA community member inquired how they determined the value from the sale of the land.\nMr. Proud described how the residential land values were determined, and added that the\nmaster plan developer was instrumental in that determination.\nMr. Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope, inquired why the $54 million for the affordable\nhousing component was a public cost, and believed that should be the developer's\nresponsibility.\nMr. Thomas noted that was a developer cost and part of the overall financing of the\nproject. Mr. Rask noted that it was a project cost, not a public cost.\nA community member inquired about the different traffic scenarios and whether the cost\nof traffic was figured into the project costs; he inquired whether the low traffic scenario\nwould lead to increased savings. He inquired whether any information was available on\nthe price ranges for the market-rate units.\nMr. Rask noted that the typical single- and multi-family house trip generation analysis\nwas used.\nMr. Bill Smith noted that he had information about a potential investor in the\nBrownfields project.\nReverend Pamela Kerst, Twin Towers United Methodist Church, apologized for her\nearlier flippant remarks regarding the churches on Alameda Point. She inquired how\neconomic diversity was measured for moderate- and low-income public employees, and\nhow they fit into Measure A and affordable housing. She inquired whether the minimum\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nMarch 3, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-03", "page": 6, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nrequired by law would be provided, or if more would be provided. She inquired about\nMr. Adams' definition of \"eco-friendly.\" She recalled Mr. Proud's comments about\nlandfill on the flood plain, and whether that would be eco-friendly.\nMr. Thomas noted that the actual affordable housing breakdown would be provided at the\nnext workshop.\nMr. Adams noted that much work must still be done in terms of defining the standards\nthat will be put in place for green building and eco-friendly design. He noted that this\npiece of land was being recycled, and that they were exploring the idea of transit-oriented\ndevelopment. Their goal was to create a development that would depend on\ntransportation means other than the automobile. He noted that the standards for building\nmaterials and energy use were still being developed.\nMs. Eve Bach inquired whether there was an assumed reduced income expectation on the\naffordable housing, and whether that amount to a double accounting.\nMr. Rask replied that it was shown as a cost because the revenues do not cover the cost of\nbuilding the unit. He noted that they were being sold for less than what they cost.\nMs. Bach inquired about the estimated acreage and cost of parking would be, and\nwhether the supporting studies would be available online.\nMr. Adams, ROMA, replied that there was a vast amount of information, and noted that\nrequests for backup information could be made at his email address. He noted that the\nproject required parking for the viability of each land use was used in the analysis. Each\nunit had its own parking, whether in garages or parking structures.\nA community member inquired whether institutional controls and land use restrictions\nwould be attached to Phase I. He found it difficult to believe that the impact to the school\ndistrict was not included.\nMr. Peter Russell replied that Alameda's Marsh Crust Ordinance already applied to all of\nAlameda Point. There may be additional institutional controls is specific areas, and there\nmay be no residential planned for other areas. There may also be prohibition against\ndigging below a certain depth. He added that the need for another school will be\nanalyzed, and that millions of dollars of school impact fees were included.\nA community member inquired whether the income from the affordable housing was\nincluded in the assumptions.\nA community member whether it would be possible for individuals to buy lots. Mr.\nAdams replied that it was managed by a master developer because of the very large\ninfrastructure cost, approximating $100 million; it was not the kind of project that would\nlend itself to individual lot sales.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nMarch 3, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-03", "page": 7, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nA community member inquired whether there would be any further delay in the transfer\nof the Base, and noted that in 1997, the Big Whites were sold to them as a major part of\nthe project. He believed the project was too packed together, and added that he had\nserved on the Base during his military career. He was shocked at the state of several\nhistoric buildings that had been vandalized before the property was taken over.\nMr. Proud noted that the delay in the conveyance would have a significant impact on\nproject economics. They had worked very cooperatively with the Navy with respect to\nAlameda Point, and their open approach during negotiations would be beneficial to the\nconveyance transfer.\nA community member inquired whether the 1% for public art was included in the overall\ncost. Mr. Thomas indicated that it was.\nA community member expressed concern about the middle-income units, and noted that\nthe Warmington Homes were no longer middle-income homes.\nMs. Lucy Gigli inquired about the comparison of the value of the difference properties on\nthe site. She expressed concern that the multifamily units were all bunched together,\nwhich increased the density of those blocks. She would like to see pockets of multifamily\nhousing, as well as an evaluation of the mixing of the retail uses, and noted that Bayport\nand Coast Guard Island don't have any corner stores or cafes.\nMr. Thomas noted that there were combination duplex/small retail possibilities.\nA community member inquired what an in-law unit was. Mr. Thomas replied that it was a\nsmall unit on the same lot, usually a loft or one-bedroom unit. She suggested that the\nname be changed because in-law unit implied a non-approved unit. Mr. Thomas noted\nthat the in-law terminology would be changed to \"secondary unit.'\nPUBLIC COMMENT WAS CLOSED.\nPresident Cunningham noted that it was important to clearly identify the goals of the land\nuse, and that there were some misunderstandings about the use. He suggested that use of\na \"laundry list\" to identify what will be provided. He believed it was important to\nunderstand the fiscal impacts of the existing structures on the final picture. He believed\nthat social and ecological responsibility was important, and that a sustainable ordinance\nshould be examined if the community wished to engage in sustainable design.\nMs. Kohlstrand believed that a Measure A-compliant option should be examined, and\nthat the density and patterns of development on the Island as a whole should be examined\nas well. She believed that mixed use and the mix of patterns on the blocks should be\nlooked at, and that the density should be served by transit. She supported the non-\nMeasure A-compliant option, and examining how the transportation network fit in.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nMarch 3, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-03-03", "page": 8, "text": "PRELIMINARY DRAFT\nSubject to modification prior\nto approval by Planning Board\nMs. Konrad expressed concern that the Community Reuse Plan and the General Plan both\ncall for walkable neighborhoods on Alameda Point, and did not see that in this plan. She\nbelieved that neighborhood centers should be developed so residents could walk to them.\nShe believed the open space should be usable.\nMr. Lee Perez thanked the audience for their comments, and noted that the web page\ncontained a great deal of information on the project. He encouraged the residents to\nremain proactive in communicating with staff and commissioners during this process.\nMr. Thomas invited additional public comments to be addressed to the City by phone,\nmail or email. He noted that the entire presentation and maps would be posted on the\nwebsite. He noted that the Navy always attended the RAB meetings.\n6.\nADJOURNMENT:\n9:35 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJerry Cormack, Interim Secretary\nCity Planning Department\nThese minutes were approved at the April 11, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This\nmeeting was audio and video taped.\nG:\\PLANNING\\PB\\Agendas_Minutes\\Minutes.05\\March 3_Spec.dod\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nMarch 3, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf"}