{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-05-10", "page": 1, "text": "Approved\nMeeting Minutes\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, MAY 10, 2010\n1.\nCONVENE: 7:10 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE: Board Member Lynch\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresent: President Ezzy Ashcraft, Board members, Cook,\nCunningham, Kohlstrand, Lynch, and Zuppan.\nAbsent: Vice-President Autorino\nStaff Present: Laura Ajello, Planner I; Jon Biggs, Planning\nServices Manager; Farimah Faiz, Attorney; Nancy McPeak,\nRecording Secretary; Jennifer Ott, Deputy City Manager,\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager;\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes from the meeting of April 12, 2010\nMinutes from the meeting of April 26, 2010\nMotion by Board Member Kohlstrand, seconded by Board member Cunningham to approve\nthe minutes of April 12, 2010. Motion passes 5-0-1, Board Member Cook abstaining.\nMotion by Board Member Cook, seconded by Board member Kohlstrand to approve the\nminutes of April 12, 2010. Motion passes 4-0-2, Board members Cunningham and Lynch\nabstaining.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nWritten Reports\n6-A\nFuture Agendas\nMr. Biggs provided an overview of upcoming projects coming to the Planning Board for\nreview.\nBoard Member Kohlstrand asked whether the form based code is still being proposed to be\nheard in conjunction with the Economic Development Commission (EDC). She cautioned\nthat the agenda for this date is very large.\nPlanning Board\nPage 1 of 8\nMeeting Minutes 5/10/2010", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-05-10", "page": 2, "text": "Mr Thomas stated that staff was still working on the agenda for that meeting and\ncoordinating with the EDC.\nBoard Member Lynch seconded Board Member Kohlstrand's concern about a large agenda\nfor that meeting.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft requested that all Board members submit their availability for the\nsummer months to Nancy McPeak to schedule additional meetings if needed.\n6-B\nZoning Administrator Report\nMr. Biggs noted that a Use Permit for a second unit on 2515 Otis Drive was approved on\nMay 4, 2010.\nOral Report\nMr. Thomas announced that two public outreach efforts will be undertaken in the near\nfuture. The first open house/ public outreach effort will focus on presenting the Civic Center\nPlan and Carnegie Building to the public and to allow the public to interact with the\nconsultants and get more public feedback on the plan. The second public outreach effort\nwill focus on the Webster Street Visioning effort. A series of events around June 3rd, 4th,\n,\nand 5th 2010 will allow the public to make recommendations and interact with the\nconsultants. The visioning effort for Webster Street would be taken back to the City\nCouncil sometime in September.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nNone.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A\nPlanned Development Amendment/Design Review - PLN09-0409 - 1801 North\nLoop Road - Bay Area Chinese Bible Church. Modify master site plan and\ndesign of Final Development Plan and Design Review, FPD 01-05/DR-01-08\n(originally approved on April 21, 2002 by City of Alameda Resolution 13444). The\napplicant is requesting approval to modify an existing Final Development Plan and\nDesign Review, which is valid through 2014. Two of the planned buildings are to be\nredesigned and reconfigured with a slight decrease in overall floor area.\nMs. Ajello, Planner I, presented the project.\nBoard member Cook asked for clarification on the site plan and whether the operation of a\nseparate pre-school would be established for this site.\nMr. Grumen, project manager, explained that the pre-school is planned to be used during\nservices or events at the site and will not be an independently operated school.\nPlanning Board\nPage 2 of 8\nMeeting Minutes 5/10/2010", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-05-10", "page": 3, "text": "Board member Cunningham asked if sustainable features have been incorporated into the\nbuilding design.\nMr. Grumen, stated that although the building has not been registered with the US Green\nBuilding Council for Leed certification yet, but they are following the requirements closely.\nBoard Member Kohlstrand expressed concern with the design of the building and its\nexterior materials. She questioned whether the architecture of the new building related or\ncomplimented the existing structure, pointing out that the exterior materials and finishes do\nnot match those of the existing two-story building.\nMr. Grumen acknowledged the difference in design and materials, but stated that the\nproject team had selected colors that were important in Chinese culture.\nBoard Member Lynch motioned to approve the project, seconded by Board member\nCunningham. The motion passes 5-1, with Board member Kohlstrand voting no.\n9-B\nPublic Scoping Session for Proposed Alameda Point Project and Draft\nEnvironmental Impact Report.\nMr. Thomas presented the project.\nMr. Kosla, a Forward Planner with the Sun Cal Company, Developer of Alameda Point,\npresented the project.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked whether Peter Calthorpe and Phil Tagami are still involved\nin with this project and part of the design team.\nMr Kosla confirmed that both are still involved as lead designer and adaptive reuse\nspecialist respectively.\nOn a motion by Board Member Kohlstrand, seconded by Board member Cunningham, the\nBoard voted 6-0 to limit public comment to 3 minutes per person.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft opened public comment.\nMr. Needle, Alameda resident, noted opposition to the redevelopment of Alameda Point by\nthe developer Sun Cal, citing that Measure B was not passed by the people of Alameda\nand that the submittals provided by Sun Cal are inadequate and delay tactics by SunCal\nhave caused mistrust within the community.\nMr. Sweeney, Alameda resident, stated his opposition to the redevelopment of Alameda\nPoint by the Sun Cal. He added that the lengthy planning process has yielded no proposal\nthat meets the development objectives of the residents of Alameda. He recommends that\nthe Development agreement not be extended in July.\nMs. Sweeney, Alameda resident, discussed Sun Cal's expenditures for the development of\nPlanning Board\nPage 3 of 8\nMeeting Minutes 5/10/2010", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-05-10", "page": 4, "text": "a development plan.\nMs. Rogers, Alameda resident, expressed concern that during Measure B campaign\nleading up to the February 2010 election, volunteers had received feedback from the\ncommunity that the trust placed in Sun Cal at the onset of the planning process had\nsignificantly eroded. She recommended developing a proposal that limited the number of\ndwelling units to 1,800 and stated that the City of Alameda be the master developer.\nMr. Biggs, from the Alameda Point Collaborative, supports the redevelopment plan in\nAlameda Point, but cautioned that the plan requires increased specificity, which could be\nattained through the Environmental Impact Report analysis. He pointed out that the\nproposed plan needs to be evaluated in light of environmental justice impacts,\nsustainability, and impacts on low-income, vulnerable residents with chronic health\nconditions. He stated that to nothing at the site puts existing infrastructure at risk, as well as\nthe local job creation.\nMs. Hird, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society representative, spoke about\npreserving the historic resources at Alameda Point and they are important and need to be\nsaved. She recommended commencing an adaptive reuse study that would help preserve\nthe historic buildings and allow for their continued use.\nMr. Karvasales, Alameda resident, stated his opposition for the Sun Cal plan because it\nincreases density.\nMr. Stevens, Alameda resident, added his opposition to the the Sun Cal proposal, as it\ndoes not meet the City of Alameda charter.\nMs. McNally, Alameda resident, expressed her opposition to the Sun Cal proposalbecause\nof the political climate it has created. She is concerned that the decision of the electorate is\nbeing ignored in the light of investment pressures.\nMr. Ingram, Alameda resident, stated opposition to the Sun Cal proposal because traffic\nimpacts are too severe and the community's vote was a clear indication that it opposed this\ncompany.\nMr. Khan, Alameda resident, opposes the Sun Cal proposal, as Sun Cal does not have the\nbest interest of Alameda in mind especially when they ask for significant fee waivers and\nfinancial contributions from the City.\nMs. Freeman, Alameda resident noted her opposition to the Sun Cal proposal because Sun\nCal does not respect the vote of the people and will develop a proposal that will only\nincrease the population density. She noted Alameda is already 4th densest city in the East\nBay.\nMs. Morrison, Alameda resident, is concerned that the project is not feasibility as the flood\nplain issues will impact the ability to construct this project. She is also concerned that\nsustainability of the project is not sufficient.\nPlanning Board\nPage 4 of 8\nMeeting Minutes 5/10/2010", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-05-10", "page": 5, "text": "Ms. Gordon, Alameda resident, is concerned about the environmental and traffic impacts\nthat the project would generate.\nMr. Smallman, Alameda resident, stated that the trust between the people and the\ndeveloper is insufficient to sustain a working relationship.\nMr. Daysog, Alameda resident, noted support for an appropriate development at this site.\nMs. Turpen, Alameda resident, noted her opposition to a development with 3,800 dwelling\nunits that will generate significant traffic impacts. She is upset that the current proposal is\nthe same as the one that was rejected in the special election.\nMs. Fetherolt, Alameda resident spoke in opposition to the Sun Cal plan, citing increased\ntraffic impacts on Alameda and Chinatown, placement of residences on toxic land in a\nseismically vulnerable area. She also noted redevelopment of Alameda Point in the\nproposed manner is disrespectful of its this site's past.\nMr. Dileo, Alameda resident, supports the return to the original Preliminary Development\nConcept that meets density requirements and recommended that the City's relationship\nwith Sun Cal be discontinued.\nMr. Bangert, Alameda resident, is concerned about the misleading placement of a solar\nfarm on all maps on the Northern Territories at Alameda Point especially when the solar\nfarm has not been vetted by the Public Utilities Commission. He is also concerned that the\nregional park has been downgraded without obtaining approval from citizens.\nMs. Dieter, Alameda resident, expressed concern with the amount of land fill that will be\nrequired during the life construction of this project and that it will have a significant\ntransportation impact, which should be analyzed in the EIR. She is also concerned with\nbuilding in a seismically active zone and stated this needs to be included in the\nenvironmental analysis as well. She recommended including the preferred alternative from\nthe 1999 Alameda Point EIR as an alternative in the next EIR.\nMr. Jordan, Alameda resident, expressed opposition to extending the exclusive negotiating\nagreement with Sun Cal. He recommended restoring Alameda Point to its original function\nas a wetland and he noted concern with traffic impacts. He also supports the City of\nAlameda being the master developer.\nMr. Sikora, Alameda resident, stated his opposition to this project and added that Sun Cal\nis a developer that will not keep its promises to the City.\nMr. Arnerich, Alameda resident, expressed opposition to the project.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft closed the public comment period.\nBoard Member Zuppan thanked the Planning staff for the excellent staff report.\nPlanning Board\nPage 5 of 8\nMeeting Minutes 5/10/2010", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-05-10", "page": 6, "text": "Board Member Kohlstrand asked for clarification if the City's intent is to continue the DDA\nbased on the basis of the proposed plan.\nMs. Ott confirmed this and stated that the DDA is indeed predicated on a scope of work,\nsuch as this plan. In order to properly negotiate the terms of the DDA, the involved parties\nneed to have a good understanding of the needs and desires of the Planning Board and\nother parties at large. The purpose of presenting the project to the Planning Board is to\nreceive input on the proposed plan.\nBoard Member Lynch asked whether the DDA has to be submitted or approved by July\n20th, 2010.\nMs. Ott explained that the DDA or best offer statement has to be submitted to the City, but\nthe decision on this DDA or best offer statement can be made after the July 20th, 2010\ndeadline. If the DDA or best offer statement and the Navy Term Sheet are submitted, then\nthe ENA can automatically be continued and the development process can continue without\nfurther deadlines.\nBoard member Cunningham asked if the Board is being asked to provide comments on the\nEIR and the proposed development plan.\nMs. Ott confirmed that this was the purpose of this Planning Board meeting.\nBoard member Cook supports allowing maximum flexibility for land uses, but finds that the\nproposed design guidelines are insufficient to ensure high quality development that will be\ncompatible with the rest of Alameda. She also recommends developing a phasing\ndocument that clearly outlines which buildings will be retained, what uses will be allowed in\nPlanning Board\nPage 6 of 8\nMeeting Minutes 5/10/2010", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-05-10", "page": 7, "text": "each phase and when transportation measures will take effect. She would like to see more\nflexibility in residential areas for commercial uses, such as the inclusion of stores and small-\nscale retailers as in the existing Alameda Stations. She commented that some commercial\nuses should be included in denser residential areas, such as cafes for coffee and food,\nwhich will allow for activity on the edges of the transportation pathways and parks.\nBoard Member Kohlstrand seconded Board member Cook's comments on allowing\ncommercial uses amongst residential areas. She pointed out that the proposals maximize\nthe square footage of commercial and residential development. She commended the staff\nreport for the clarity of its report.\nOn a motion by Cunningham, seconded by Lynch, the Board voted 6-0 to extend the\nmeeting to 11:15 pm..\nBoard member Cunningham asked if all comments need to be made at the present\nmeeting, or if the discussion could continue at the next meeting.\nMr. Thomas stated that the discussion can be continued to the next meeting. He requested\nthat the Board members focus their discussion of the scope of the EIR on specific\nenvironmental concerns they have.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is concerned with impacts to the Least Tern\npopulation and traffic impacts on Alameda and Chinatown.\nMr. Thomas stated that the EIR is a very extensive undertaking that has not been fully\nscoped at this point and added it would cover potential impacts to things such as air quality,\nnoise and other issues evaluated in and EIR.\nBoard member Cook requested that the EIR include climate change impacts and an\neconomic analysis of this project. Specifically she would like to see an analysis that\naddresses how some parts of the development, such as schools or park and recreation\nland, would transition into the hands of the City over the long term and how that would\nimpact the City financially. In addition, she would like to see that environmental justice\nimpacts be analyzed for those residents that currently live there and the impacts of the\nrelocation of the housing collaborative within the development. She stated that she would\nlike to see the alternatives structured differently, so that the focus is not only density but\ntransportation issues. Instead, she suggested that the focus be placed on the best\ntransportation strategy, which would then drive the dispersion of density. She would like to\nsee an analysis of what the tipping point in order for public transportation to becomes truly\nfeasible. A similar analysis should be done for the adaptive reuse of the historic structures.\nBoard member Cunningham said he would like to see an analysis on threats and risks on\nadjoining properties, such as the Northern Territories. He requested that there be an\nanalysis of the utility infrastructure to assess the impacts to the entire island when new\nutilities come online. He recommended a carbon footprint analysis be undertaken to assess\nlocal as well as regional impacts on greenhouse gas emissions and what can be\nundertaken to reach a zero net impact. He seconded Board member Cook's request for a\nPlanning Board\nPage 7 of 8\nMeeting Minutes 5/10/2010", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-05-10", "page": 8, "text": "transit-driven alternative.\nBoard Member Zuppan stated that the plan lacks specificity and commitment. She\nrequested that infrastructure, such as storm drains and streets be adequately evaluated.\nShe requested that the public transportation system outlook in 20 years be included. She\nasked for a careful analysis of the economic impacts, such as jobs creation, be included in\nthe EIR. In addition, she is concerned that the habitat of the Least Terns abuts the\nresidential portions of the development, and raised the question whether the development\ncould be programmed differently to avoid the close proximity to these birds.\nBoard Member Kohlstrand would like to see that the project be redeveloped so that the\napproval is not dependent on a slew of mitigation measures, but done in a way that\nembraces all potential concerns and impacts especially the traffic concerns. She would like\nto see an analysis of proposed building heights and how they would impact the existing\nneighborhoods. She seconded Board member Cook's comments on preserving the most\nhistorically significant buildings.\nBoard member Cook supported the master application for the density bonus concept. She\nrequested information on what benefits could accrue to the City from granting a density\nbonus application, be it open space, parks.\nMs. Ott pointed out that the City Council is briefed on the status of the project at each of\ntheir meetings and noted the comments from the Planning Board would be transmitted to\nthe City Council.\nOn a motion by Zuppan, seconded by Cunningham, the Board voted 6-0 to continue\ndeliberation of this project to its next meeting.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT: 11:17 pm\nPlanning Board\nPage 8 of 8\nMeeting Minutes 5/10/2010", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-05-10.pdf"}