{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-01-24", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, JANUARY 24, 2011\n1. CONVENE:\n7:05 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE: Board member Zuppan\n3. ROLL CALL:\nPresent:\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft, Vice-President Autorino, Board\nMembers Ibsen, Kohlstrand and Zuppan.\nAbsent:\nBoard member Lynch.\n4. MINUTES:\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of November 8, 2010\nContinued-Board requested more detail 4-0-1\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of January 10, 2011 (Pending)\n5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nWritten Report\n6-A Future Agendas\nStaff presented an overview of upcoming planning project.\n6-B Zoning Administrator Report\nMeeting of 1-18-11 Canceled\nOral Report\nNone.\n7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n8. CONSENT CALENDAR:\nNone.\n9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A \"Going Forward Community Planning Strategy for Alameda Point\"\nThe Planning Board will hold a public hearing to discuss Land Uses and Building\nTypes at Alameda Point.\nAPPROVED MEETING MINUTES\n1 OF 8\nPLANNING BOARD 1/24/2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-01-24", "page": 2, "text": "Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, gave a background on the Alameda Point\nCommunity Planning over the past 6 months and where the City hopes to be in the next 18-\n24 months. He reported that in 1993 the Navy announced that it was leaving Alameda. The\nNavy and the City began a community led effort, the 1996 Reuse Plan. He stated that\nalthough the document is general it is a very good planning document containing a good\ndescription of the communities' goals and aspirations for Alameda Point. The document\nwas completed and adopted in 1996 at which time the City and community fully expected\nthe Navy would have the property cleaned of all hazardous materials and conveyed to the\nCity by the year 2000. In the late 1990's it was decided to move to the next step to adopt a\nMaster Plan and bring on a Master Developer with experience doing this scale of project.\nThe Master Developer would in turn fund all the necessary studies and environmental\nreview and work with the City to get a plan completed and ultimately adopted by the City\nCouncil. The first Master Developer was the Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP)\nworked with City staff until 2003 at which time they asked the City of Alameda to help them\nfinancially. The City agreed and put up $3 million dollars, but took the lead on the planning\nefforts and from 2003 to 2006 the City funded a planning effort, infrastructure planning and\nnegotiations with the Navy using funds received from the leases at Alameda Point.\nIn 2006 APCP notified the City that they would no longer be able to go forward with the\nproject. The City then did another Request for Proposals (RFP) for developers and selected\nSunCal to pick up the project where it was left off and carry it through to entitlement.\nSunCal very quickly decided they wanted to do a different plan and go to the voters with\ntheir initiative. The initiative did not pass and in July 2010 the City terminated the\nagreement with SunCal. Throughout both of these efforts the City and the Master\nDevelopers have been maintaining a joint pro forma which is essentially a balance sheet\nestimate looking at all of the costs related to the project and all of the potential revenues\nfrom the project. The Navy is also using a pro forma to determine the value of the property.\nHe reported that in September 2010, City staff initiated a planning and community\nengagement strategy for \"going forward\" at Alameda Point. The purpose and intent of the\n\"going forward\" community engagement strategy is to identify and describe a community\nsupported, financially feasible development concept for Alameda Point. The development\nconcept will serve as the basis for a land use and entitlement plan and conveyance\nagreement with the United States Navy (Navy) for Alameda Point.\nTo implement the community engagement strategy, staff prepared the Community Planning\nWorkbook and designed a series of community forums to engage the community in the\nprocess of creating a development concept for Alameda Point. The workbook and the\nforums are designed to inform and facilitate a community discussion around a number of\ncritically important development questions for Alameda Point. These questions are\ndesigned to highlight and focus community discussion on the trade-offs that may be\nnecessary to achieve financial feasibility and fiscal neutrality. The topics highlighted in\ncommunity workbook include:\n1. Land Use - What is the appropriate mix of recreational, cultural, educational,\nhousing, service and employment uses at Alameda Point?\nAPPROVED MEETING MINUTES\n2 OF 8\nPLANNING BOARD 1/24/2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-01-24", "page": 3, "text": "2. Building Types and Neighborhood Character -- What should new buildings and\nneighborhoods in Alameda Point look like?\n3. Parks and Open Space - How should parks and open space be designed to improve\nthe lives of all Alameda residents?\n4. Historic Character, Preservation and Adaptive Reuse -- How should we honor and\npreserve the history of the former Naval Air Station?\n5. Transportation and Access - How should people travel to and from Alameda Point?\n6. Community Benefits - Which community benefits are the most important?\nThe City held three community workshops in the fall of 2010. The content and materials\npresented at the three workshops located at three different locations throughout the City\n(i.e., East, Central and West Alameda) was identical. This format allowed residents,\nbusiness owners, and other interested stakeholders from different neighborhoods to provide\nideas and feedback on lessons learned and suggest new concepts for Alameda Point. The\nforums occurred on:\nNovember 9, 2010 - East Alameda - Bay Farm Island -- Grand Pavilion\nNovember 18, 2010 - Central Alameda - Mastick Senior Center\nDecember 8, 2010 - West Alameda - The O'Club\nThe forums were well attended (approximate 70-100 participants at each forum) and\ndiscussions were animated. There is also an online interactive workbook. Staff will also be\nholding an Alameda Point Tenant Forum on February 8, 2011. The results of the forums will\nbe summarized and made available to the public in March 2011.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked how many workbooks have been completed so far.\nMr. Thomas did not have an accurate count but said he had two boxes full of the hard copy\nworkbooks completed and had not yet received a tally from the online participants.\nMr. Thomas reported that during the months of January and February 2011, City staff is\nplanning to shift the focus of the community engagement process from \"community forums\"\nto the City's Boards and Commissions. Staff is requesting that the relevant Boards and\nCommissions with primary responsibility for planning, transportation, economic\ndevelopment, parks and open space, and historic preservation participate in the process at\na regularly scheduled meeting.\nIn March staff will publish a going-forward summary of the Fall Forums, the on-line\nworkbook results, the Board and Commission input, and the result of the Alameda Point\nTenants Forum. Through the \"Going Forward\" Summary, staff will create a consolidated\nsummary of \"lessons learned\" and recommendations for preparing a vision for Alameda\nPoint. Staff is hoping to have the synthesis complete in time to present the summary to the\nAPPROVED MEETING MINUTES\n3 OF 8\nPLANNING BOARD 1/24/2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-01-24", "page": 4, "text": "ARRA at their March 2, 2011 meeting.\nBased upon the 15 years of planning efforts that have been completed to date, the General\nPlan Amendment that was approved in 2003, and the most recent direction provided by the\nAlameda community during the going-forward process, staff will present for public\ndiscussion three or four alternative development concepts and potentially a preferred\ndevelopment concept for initial public review and discussion in April. By July, staff would\nlike to transmit the revised development concept and alternatives to the City's and Navy's\nenvironmental consultants in order to commence the environmental review process. The\nNational Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) is the process that the Navy must do prior to\nthe conveyance of the land and the City of Alameda must do the California Environmental\nAct process before adopting a final plan.\nHe reported that there is a lot of agreement about certain pieces of the plan but still major\ndifferences of opinion regarding some of the critical issues such as the amount of\ndevelopment at Alameda Point, the traffic it will produce, and how the traffic will be handled\nand there are different ways to address these issues in alternative scenarios. He stressed\nthat it is very important that over the next few years the City needs to try and build\ncommunity consensus around a single plan. A lot of public meetings and public education\nwill be necessary. The project pro forma will be made public so that members of community\nwill be able to see the cost of items they are requesting such as keeping historic buildings.\nThe process is going to need to have trade-offs and there are things that have to be dealt\nwith such as the sea level change, the infrastructure, and recreational services.\nHe reported that the Alameda community is in full agreement that the Alameda Point plan\nshould be a sustainable plan. The Alameda community is not in full agreement on what a\n\"sustainable plan\" must include or exclude, but all seem to agree that:\nThe plan must prepare for sea level rise.\nAdaptive reuse of existing building is an excellent sustainability strategy, but not all\nagree that all buildings should be saved, especially if a building is not financially\nfeasible to retain, or removal of the building makes room for a beneficial, job\ngenerating use.\nShifting travel modes from automobiles to transit and other alternatives is an\nexcellent strategy for sustainability, but there is disagreement on whether it can be\ndone effectively.\nMixed-use development is a sustainable land use pattern, but there is disagreement\non how much housing is necessary in the mix to be \"truly sustainable\".\nSolar farms, wind turbines, and other forms of on-site energy generation are all\nstrongly supported, provided that there is not an impact on endangered species.\nHe stated that the City believes that the best approach is to try and entitle the property itself\nand then go out for a master developer or the City may also decide to do the project in\nphases. The concern is that the City will not have the money to complete the process to\nentitlement, at which time the City could look at having a master developer but at least the\nprocess will be further along than it is now and there will be less risk for the developer. He\nAPPROVED MEETING MINUTES\n4 OF 8\nPLANNING BOARD 1/24/2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-01-24", "page": 5, "text": "mentioned that the Navy has been cleaning the land during this entire time and expect to\nhave most of the property clean enough to transfer by 2013, by 2018, under the current\nschedule all of it will be clean enough to transfer.\nLastly he thanked President Ezzy Ashcraft who sat on the panel for the Land Use interviews\nand Board member Zuppan who sat on the panel for the Economists interviews for their\nhelp. The City received over 40 responses on the Land Use RFP and narrowed it down to\nthe 12 highest qualified whom were then interviewed. Staff will be recommending to Council\non February 15, 2011 to enter into a contract with Perkins + Will a firm out of San Francisco.\nThey worked on the Alameda Landing Project in the past and are very knowledgeable\nabout Alameda and some of the issues at the Naval Air Station. He reported that they had 6\ninterviews for an Economist and a selection has not yet been made. Also selected are\nARUP, one of the leading firms on sustainable developments and Nelson/Nygaard, one of\nthe leading firms on transportation demand management will be assisting with traffic\nmanagement. He mentioned that the goal is to have a summary report on the \"Going\nForward\" process to the community and Council in March or April and have first draft of a\nseries of alternatives for community discussion and consideration after that and then a\nreport for ARRA consideration and endorsement in July. He stressed that it is very\nimportant to get a project description and alternatives completed by July.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft added that Thor Kaslofsky, the Project Manager for the Hunter's\nPoint Redevelopment Project sat on the panel and it was good to hear that projects like this\ndo eventually get going.\nMr. Thomas also reported that the City is responding to an RFP for a second campus of the\nLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) in March. The land being proposed for the\nLBNL is in the southern area of Alameda Point near the Maritime Administration (MARAD)\nFleet.\nVice President Aurorino asked if the proposal goes through and the LBNL is built in that\narea is it not then deciding the use in that area.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft mentioned that during the panel interviews it was mentioned that\nthe City needs to stay flexible and if an opportunity presents itself it could be a game\nchanger for the project.\nVice President Aurorino agrees on the need for flexibility but warns that the City is saying\nthat they are going to use the community input to decide what is going to be built at\nAlameda Point and then turns around and say but this is going here. He feels that the\ncommunity would welcome the addition of LBNL and the City should look for input from the\ncommunity but are not necessarily going to do everything that the community wants. The\nAPPROVED MEETING MINUTES\n5 OF 8\nPLANNING BOARD 1/24/2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-01-24", "page": 6, "text": "City has to work with flexibility and have a financially viable plan. He is concerned that\nbuildings are going to be placed all over the property with no actual planned development.\nMr. Thomas stated that there is a General Plan for Alameda Point and the question is\nwhether the City wants to change it. He stated that over the course of the community\nworkshops the southern area was unanimously slated as a business area. He also\nmentioned that the leasing strategy at Alameda Point is basically short term and the City is\nlooking at getting into some longer leases with tenants in areas where it is very unlikely that\nthe buildings are going to be torn down.\nBoard member Kolhstrand stated that she is troubled that no new information is being given\nto the Planning Board regarding the workbook summaries. She stated that the Planning\nBoard generally has all of the information prior to making a recommendation and without the\ninformation on how the community feels about Land Use and Building Types it is difficult to\nmake a recommendation.\nMr. Thomas responded that he believes that the Planning Board will play a very large role in\nthe final decision on this project and would like to hear the best way to integrate the\nPlanning Board into the process.\nBoard member Ibsen asked how staff sees the process being managed.\nMr. Thomas responded that City staff will be managing the consultants and he is complying\nthe workbook summary report with help from the consultants. He mentioned that staff will\nbe relying on the boards and commissions to endorse the alternative plans prior to going to\nCouncil with a recommendation.\nBoard member Kolhstrand feels that the Planning Board doesn't have the information that\nthe community provided and feels that information is necessary prior to making a\nrecommendation.\nMr. Thomas stated that what the City is looking for from the boards and commissions is\nactually their own recommendations and thoughts and not based on the community input.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees that more information would be helpful and\nsuggested that staff come back to the Planning Board with a summary of the workbooks at\nthe February 28, 2011 meeting.\nBoard member Ibsen asked if there was a scope of work established for the consultants.\nAPPROVED MEETING MINUTES\n6 OF 8\nPLANNING BOARD 1/24/2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-01-24", "page": 7, "text": "Mr. Thomas stated that staff is currently working on the scope of work for the consultants\nand are only working on a 6 month long scope to get the project to July 2011.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft opened the public comment period.\nTony Daysog spoke in favor of the process and enjoyed the Community Workshops and the\nenergy around the project. He also mentioned that he thinks LBNL is a great opportunity as\nlong as there are no container trucks.\nChristopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS), referenced a\nletter that the AAPS send to the Planning Board stating that they strongly recommend\nadaptive reuse of the historic buildings at Alameda Point and listed a number of uses that\nwould be good for those buildings. He stated that long term leases of the historical buildings\nwould allow the tenants to make improvements to those deteriorating buildings.\nNancy Hird, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS), spoke in favor of keeping\nall 62 of the historic buildings. She was disappointed that a large amount of the workbook\nwas focused on housing and she would like to see other uses at Alameda Point.\nGretchen Lipow mentioned that there has been a high degree of community engagement in\nthe process so far with five well attended community meetings, two held by the group\n\"Moving Forward\" and the three done by the City. Also two well attended bus tours were\nheld by AAPS.\nKaren Bey spoke in favor of the \"Going Forward\" process. She also believes that LBNL\nwould be a driver for the development at Alameda Point. She is concerned that there is no\nrevenue source other than the City to pay for this expensive process.\nJeremy Waen, Presidio Graduate School, spoke in favor of renewable energy generation at\nAlameda Point. He believes there are a lot of opportunities at Alameda Point.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft closed the public comment period.\nVice President Aurorino stated that the development of Alameda Point is going to come at a\ncost. He would love it to be a recreation area but that it is not feasible, there is going to\nneed to be housing to pay for the items the community wants out there. He stated that\nmany people are not happy with the Harbor Bay Isle development but all of the parks, trails\nand other amenities were paid for by the residential development.\nBoard member Kolhstrand stated that she believes there is an environmental cost\nassociated with the way Harbor Bay Isle was developed by completely separating the\nresidential from all other uses demanding that people need to get in their cars to go\nAPPROVED MEETING MINUTES\n7 OF 8\nPLANNING BOARD 1/24/2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-01-24", "page": 8, "text": "anywhere. She believes that Alameda Point should be mixed use to allow people to walk to\ndestinations.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is bothered by the phrase \"fiscal neutrality\" and\nshould no way place a burden on the City of Alameda but she feels that the entire City will\nbenefit from the development of Alameda Point so how could it be fiscally neutral.\nBoard member Kolhstrand asked Mr. Thomas what kind of feedback he is looking for from\nthe Board.\nMr. Thomas stated that he thinks for the process to be successful the City needs input from\nthe Planning Board.\nVice President Autorino made a motion to reopened the public comment period. Seconded\nby Board member Zuppan. Approved 5-0\nCarol Gottstein stated that she attended two of the Community Meetings and believes that\nthe Planning Board should receive a summary of the workbooks prior to a recommendation.\nShe believes that all of workshops need to be pulled together (Moving Forward, AAPS and\nGoing Forward) to get a good idea of the community responses.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft closed the public comment period.\nBoard member Kolhstrand made the motion to continue the item to the February 28, 2011\nRegular Planning Board Meeting with a summary of the workbooks and clarification of what\nis expected from the Board included in the staff report. Motion seconded by Board member\nZuppan. Approved 5-0\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that the Planning Board go on a field trip to visit\nsome well designed mixed use developments in the Bay Area.\n12. ADJOURNMENT:\n9:28 p.m.\nAPPROVED MEETING MINUTES\n8 OF 8\nPLANNING BOARD 1/24/2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-01-24.pdf"}