{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-13", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY FEBRUARY 13, 2012\n7: 00 p.m.\n1. CONVENE:\n7:05 P.M.\n2. FLAG SALUTE:\nBoard Member Burton\n3. ROLL CALL:\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft, Vice-President Autorino, Board\nmembers Burton, Henneberry, Knox White and Zuppan.\nAbsent: K\u00f6ster\n4. MINUTES:\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of October 24, 2011\nBoard member Burton explained that on page 5 of 8, the paraphrased sentences within the\nfourth or fifth paragraph which states, Mr. Thomas responded that one of the unanswered\nquestions he reported that all studies would be paid for all outside studies and staff\nexpenses\" is not a full sentence. Therefore, the board would need to clarify the sentence.\nAlso, Board member Burton stated that the sentence found on page 8 of 8 in the 2nd\nparagraph \"President Ezzy Ashcraft mentioned to read the following summary of the three\nemails received supporting the project into the record.\" He needed further clarification of\nwhat the summary meant.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft replied that the sentence meant that the following summary of three\nemails received in support of the Golf Course proposal. She further stated that the Board\nonly needs to omit \"mentioned that\" and then direct development, 130 homes and please\nvote yes were the three comments.\nBoard member Zuppan stated that a number of good comments were made at the meeting\nabout the wildlife and trees planted in memoriam to which compensation was paid and it\nwas not brought out in the minutes. She would like to see those points included in the\nminutes if possible.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft explained that due to the fact that the meetings are recorded and\nmade available by audio the written minutes should express the most important points and\nthemes.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft called a motion to approve the minutes. Board member Henneberry\nmoved the October 24th minutes to be accepted as amended. 2nd by Board member Burton\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 1 of 15\nFebruary 13, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-13", "page": 2, "text": "and approved 4-0. 2 abstentions (Autorino and Knox White).\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of November 28. 2011. (Pending)\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of December 12. 2011. (Pending)\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of January 9. 2012. (Pending)\nMinutes from the Special Joint meeting of January 23, 2012. (Pending)\n5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nWritten Report\n6-A\nFuture Agendas\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, addressed the Board about future agenda\nitems. The major items discussed for the February 27th meeting will be a design review\napplication of the Target store including the site landscape and open space plan and\nsecondly a use permit for office use at 1830 Lincoln Avenue. The March 12th meeting will\nhold a workshop regarding the update on the Housing Element and a discussion on the\nAlameda Point Zoning Plan. On March 26th, the Board will have a hearing on the Park\nStreet Streetscape Plan and a subdivision map on Versailles. April's meeting will discuss the\nAlameda Point zoning amendment and Bicycle Guidelines, the six-month review for 1051\nPacific Marina, and the final hearing on the North Park Street Code and North Park Street\nCode Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Thomas also stated that he would include the\nzoning administrator's upcoming agendas on the items.\nBoard member Knox White acknowledged that next meeting would include the prioritized list\nof city recommended transportation projects.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft replied that the Alameda Countywide Transportation Project\nsubmittals for the Regional Transportation Plan are not usually available to the public and\nthis is a perfect time to present them.\nObaid Khan, City of Alameda Supervising Civil Engineer, stated that a list will be presented\nat the next meeting and will include all projects submitted to the Alameda Countywide\nTransportation Plan\n6-B. Report on Planning Director action on Administrative Amendment of January 9, 2012\nPlanning Board Condition of Approval 8.1 for Alameda Landing Retail Center\nDevelopment Plan and Street Plan Amendments (PLN11-0328).\nThe Administrative Amendment revised Condition 8.1 to extend the term of the\nrestriction on sales floor area devoted to non-taxable merchandise and to clarify the\ncircumstances under which the Condition is subject to elimination or amendment.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 2 of 15\nFebruary 13, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-13", "page": 3, "text": "Mr. Thomas reported on an action taken on February 1, 2012, that came out of the January\n9th hearing where the Board considered a site plan for Catellus Retail Plan and condition of\napproval.\nBoard member Autorino asked whether the Planning Director had the authority to change a\ndecision the Board made as long as he communicated the change to the Board.\nMr. Thomas answered yes for the most part.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the particular development agreement is not necessarily\nmade for all developments.\nMr. Thomas replied yes that is true, this process taken is outlined in our development\nagreement with Catellus and the Alameda Landing Project.\nVice President Autorino replied how would changes to the regulations relative to big box\ndevelopment become null and void.\nMr. Thomas explained that the way it works is that Catellus agreed to establish these\nprohibitions on the site for a number of years and this reflects the citywide prohibition on big\nbox stores. If the City at any point decides to amend the ordinance based on\nrecommendations from the Planning Board and City Council, then the prohibition would not\nlonger be in effect.\nVice President Autorino asked if there were options that the Board could take if they were\nnot satisfied with the policy change.\nMr. Thomas stated there are two options: (1) accept the report and do nothing, in case this\nappeal automatically goes away and the condition replaces the one opposed; and (2) the\nBoard can call the item for a hearing. He also stated that if the Board called for a hearing\nunder this development, which brings together the union, Target, and Catellus. Then the\nunion will simply keep their appeal in play because they have a hearing scheduled for\nFebruary 21st before the City Council. If the Board is comfortable with the decision then all\nactivity is done for tonight and if they are not then they will discuss the issue on February\n21st.\nVice President Autorino asked if Target was ok with the change.\nMr. Thomas replied yes.\nSean Whiskerman, First VP of Catellus Development Corporation, stated that since the last\nmeeting, the company met with the union and Target and they collectively agree with the\nwording and the overall results.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked the Board if they were aware of provisions that say Target\ncan come back before the Board if at some point in the future they felt there was cause for\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 3 of 15\nFebruary 13, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-13", "page": 4, "text": "an adjustment to be made.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the item was for public notice; no vote is necessary.\n7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n8. CONSENT CALENDAR:\n8-A. Change to Order of Agenda\nMr. Thomas stated that the Board must comply with the Sunshine Ordinance, which means\nthe Board must amend their rules and procedures to include public comment at the end of\nthe agenda whereas public comment is already noted at the beginning.\nVice President Autorino asked whether the public could comment on any topic.\nMr. Thomas replied the public could make a comment that is not on the meeting's agenda.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft brought a motion to adopt an amendment to Section D of the\nPlanning Board Rules and Procedures where the Board would add a second oral\ncommunication agenda item after the board communications and before the meeting's\nadjournment.\nThe motion was moved by Board member Burton. 2nd by Board member Autorino.\nApproved 5-1.\nMr. Thomas stated that this is the last opportunity for the public to raise issues regarding\nAlameda Landing.\n9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A. PLN11-0310- 2004 Clinton Avenue - The project consists of the construction of a\ntwo-story, duplex with approximately 3,638-square feet of conditioned floor area and\nan attached 4-car garage. The project is located on a vacant lot within an R-4\n(Neighborhood Residential) zoning district.\nMr. Thomas gave an overview of the project's design proposal along with a Power Point\nPresentation. He gave the Board four options to act upon based on staff's\nrecommendations: (1) the Board can accept the staff's recommendation; (2) the Board can\napprove the project with additional conditions; (3) the Board can deny the project; and (4)\nthe board can continue the hearing and direct staff to work with the applicant to modify the\nplans, then bring the revised plans back for review.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft called for questions and comments from the Board.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 4 of 15\nFebruary 13, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-13", "page": 5, "text": "Vice President Autorino stated that he went to visit the property and he asked if the back\nend of the house is up to the grassy area or over the grassy area.\nMr. Thomas stated that the back end of the house goes to the edge of the grass.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked whether the house that burned down on the site had a unit at\nthe back of the building.\nLeslie Shubin, resident of 2000 Clinton Avenue, explained that there was no unit behind the\nhouse.\nBoard member Henneberry asked about the difference in square footage from the old house\nto the new proposed development.\nMr. Thomas stated that the proposal is substantially larger since the older house was a 2-\nbedroom unit and the new proposal is a 3-bedroom unit.\nBoard member Knox White asked about the parcel's history.\nMr. Thomas replied that the new owner purchased the property after the original house\nburned. The new owner approached the City and explained that he wanted to build in the\nsame configuration as the previous home. The Planning Department then told him that he\nwould not be able to build in the desired configuration because there was an easement on\nthe seawall. The property owner then came back with a different configuration where both\nunits would be under one building, the house would be narrower, and parking would be\nprovided on either side of the house. Under that configuration, the house would require two\ncurb cuts, but the City couldn't allow two curb cuts for a single property.\nDick Rutter, Alameda based architect and resident of 2205 Clinton Avenue, stated that he\ndisagreed with the design proposal and more thought should go into the revision, especially\nwith the parking design.\nChristopher Buckley, VP of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, presented a\nletter on behalf of the organization. He explained that the organization believed that the\ndesign needs major revision and the building proposal is not compatible with the rest of the\nneighboring buildings and does not comply with the City Council's design review manual,\nthe Guide for Residential Design. He also explained that the drawings lacked sufficient\ndetails and the two floor plans need further clarification.\nLeslie Shubin, neighbor to the project applicant, stated that her residence's dimensions are\n30' feet wide by 45' feet deep and the 2004 Clinton Avenue proposal goes back 63' feet.\nThus, the proposed house will block her sunlight and view of the lagoon towards the East.\nShe explained that there is a way to modify the proposal without interfering with her house\nand she does not believe that the proposed design will fit well with the neighborhood.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft called for the Board to comment and asked the Board to call for a\nmotion to continue the discussion about the proposal.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 5 of 15\nFebruary 13, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-13", "page": 6, "text": "Board member Burton stated that he appreciated staff's design alternatives and the public's\ncomments on the design analysis. He believed the design must comply with the scale of the\nneighborhood stating the difference in the relative depth in comparison to the neighboring\nproperties. He feels that the parking spaces do not comply with the Zoning Ordinance.\nVice President Autorino questioned how the project met the design review parameters\nbased on staffs' findings.\nMr. Thomas stated the planning department reviewed the design and mistakes were made,\nthat is why it is so important to have a hearing called.\nBoard member Henneberry stated that the square footage looks about 2x as large as the\nnew design proposal and he called for the proposal to go back for review and modification.\nBoard member Knox White asked why the applicant didn't come tonight.\nMr. Thomas stated that the applicant didn't come because he was quite frustrated with the\nprocess and he was willing to make changes, but he wants to construct at least 2-3-\nbedroom units.\nBoard member Knox White asked if there is a reason for the Board to continue to review the\nproject and have staff work with the applicant without denying the entire application and\nhaving him resubmit the application.\nMr. Thomas stated the Board's best option was to not take action on the project that night,\nbut continue with the item along with directions similar to what Board member Burton and\nstaff suggested.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked if there is a psychological affect of having the project denied.\nShe was ultimately aware of how sensitive the project was to the applicant, community\nmembers, and neighbors.\nBoard member Knox White suggested that the Board discuss the design review process in\nthe summer and see if the process could be streamlined. He also would like to see the\nboard member who called the project for review included in the staff report. Furthermore, he\nwould like the staff report to include the project's history and the original footprint.\nVice President Autorino stated that in the past the City brought in architectural assistance to\nhelp applicants. He wanted to know if staff had enough bandwidth to assist applicants with\nthe redesign proposal.\nMr. Thomas replied that staff has the expertise and time to improve the plan and they can\nuse the material and advice of qualified volunteers in Alameda. He went on to explain that\nstaff worked with an architect that was known from a previous Park Street project to help an\napplicant that was having design issues. The staff used the applicant's money that was\ndeposited to the Planning Department to assist with the design.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 6 of 15\nFebruary 13, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-13", "page": 7, "text": "President Ezzy Ashcraft replied that it is important to have a one-on-one meeting with the\napplicant and walk the property with him. She asked Farimah Faiz, City Deputy Attorney, to\ndescribe the call for review process.\nMs. Faiz stated that their practice hasn't been to include more detail when a board member\ncalls a project for review, but she will go back and look at the City's code in order to\nincorporate more detail.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft stated that for the record the City asked the Planning Board to\napprove the project without attachments, she then went to city hall to review the plans and\nshe explained to staff that she couldn't sign off on the project and the project should come to\nthe Board for review.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft called for the Board to make a motion to continue reviewing the\nproject and require staff to help the applicant make revisions.\nMotion called by Board member Know White. 2nd by Board member Henneberry. Approved\n6-0.\n9-B. A Public Hearing to Take Public Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact\nReport for the North Park Street Code and the Draft North Park Street Code.\nMr. Thomas gave a brief report about the North Park Street Code Draft Environmental\nImpact Report (DEIR) and Draft North Park Street Code. He explained that the meeting was\nfor noting public comments on both the DEIR and code and staff would be taking public\ncomments on the DEIR until February 20th. By April, the Board would be able to review the\nFinal Environmental Impact Report, which would include the public comments and the final\nversion of the North Park Street Code.\nBoard member Knox White asked if the code would streamline the entitlement process,\nbasically if the applicant met the guidelines then it would be significantly cheaper and\nsimpler to develop, but if the applicant were to go outside of the guidelines it would be much\nmore difficult.\nMr. Thomas agreed and explained that the idea of the code is for someone to be able to\nlook at it and apply the code to their property by knowing exactly what the City is looking for\nsuch as the type of building, shape of building and architectural treatments. The guidelines\nare more of a form-based code unlike a traditional zoning code that tells applicants what the\nCity does not want.\nBoard member Knox White asked whether the proposed process of approval is easier for\napplicants.\nMr. Thomas stated the process will make it easier for the applicants by: (1) giving the\napplicants so much detail about how to design the building to where the review should be\nstraight forward; (2) requiring zoning uses, where the planning department won't review\napplicants based on permitted uses, but staff will try to limit the conditionally permitted uses\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 7 of 15\nFebruary 13, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-13", "page": 8, "text": "as much as possible.\nBoard member Knox White referred to page 9 of the North Park Street Environmental\nImpact Report, under the Land Use Assumption section and asked if that was based on the\nnumber of employees.\nMr. Thomas stated no that is the estimated job growth for that area that is consistent with\nthe City's General Plan.\nVincent Wu, business and property owner of Oak Street and Pacific Avenue, fully supports\nstaff's recommendation.\nKaren Bey, Alameda resident, approved the project and she believes it will help the City of\nAlameda attract more visitors. She would like to see this code expanded throughout the\ncommunity and wondered whether the historic train stations and Neptune Beach District will\ngo through the same process. She also stated that it would be great to find grant money to\ninstall markers in the districts once they are established. Furthermore, she asked how the\nproperties were selected and how the properties were determined for mixed-use or\nlive/work. Finally, she asked about parking requirements, especially since some of the\nexisting homes in the communities are in the historical listing and have physical constraints.\nLisa Sweet, certified sustainable building adviser, recommended that the City make planning\ndecisions based on sustainability. She also mentioned that the Clinton Avenue project\nshould employ professional assistance in a sustainable point of view. Lastly, she asked Mr.\nThomas if the City adopted the CalGreen Tier 1 provision and she suggested that staff hand\nout the Green point rated checklist to the Clinton Avenue property owner.\nChristopher Buckley stated that his organization submitted comments to the draft code in\nthe middle of March and June of last year. He noticed that the latest draft reflects very little\nof his organization's comments, so he asked staff to clarify whether they are still reviewing\nthe comments. He wished to schedule a meeting with staff to discuss the comments before\nthe final draft comes before the Board.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked staff to answer Karen Bey's questions.\nAndrew Thomas stated that the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society and the\ncommunity reviewed the City's map and presented comments on recommended sites. He\nexplained the last Board meeting went through the map areas. There was an issue\nregarding the residential developments since a lot of the area behind Park Street is zoned\nR-4 and R-5, which allows businesses in that district and there is a lot of land that is zoned\nfor manufacturing and are nonconforming uses. So, staff created two zone classifications:\n(1) classic residential; and (2) mixed-use and there are two types of mixed-use districts\nbased on building form. He further stated that based on the City's parking requirements,\nnew residential construction will refer to the zoning code. However, many residential units\ndon't have two required parking spots, so If a property owner doesn't have a two car garage\ntoday, that makes the property a legal nonconforming use and there is no penalty.\nMargaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Services Manager, stated that if a property owner had\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 8 of 15\nFebruary 13, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-13", "page": 9, "text": "a change of use and staff would need to reconsider the parking for whatever reason, then\nstaff would look at the building type. If the building were a 100-year-old building, then staff\nwould apply discretion to address the parking standards.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft called for the Board to make comments on the North Park Street\nCode Draft Environmental Impact Report.\nBoard member Knox White stated that one of the things that the environmental impact\nreport has to do is fit into the regional planning framework. He explained that in regards to\nthe housing portion for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association\nof Bay Area Governments' (ABAG) Sustainable Community Strategy, the Environmental\nImpact Report doesn't seem to address how housing will be constructed in the Priority\nDevelopment Areas. Also, the housing numbers seemed to be quite low and based on\nhistorical growth. He also commented on the document's overall format, where the findings\nare highlighted in some sections and in other sections it is not and he found the document\ndifficult to read. He referred to section D6, the Mitigation for Storm Water Utilities, where it\nsays the plan will result in a reduction of storm water runoff, but if development exceeds the\nassumptions, meaning if a development which is bigger than noted in the document is built\nthen that would be trigger new thresholds and the City would have to write a new EIR.\nMr. Thomas replied that if he essentially took all the development projections on page 9 and\nbuild all of that out staff would have done enough analysis that they believe the City's sewer\nand storm water systems could handle that and staff has it broken down essentially by\nblock. Also, staff has setup a system where a developer can submit an application and staff\ncan immediately see the capacity assumed for the block and know if the applicant is fine in\nterms of sewer and storm water. If the applicant jeopardizes the sewer and storm water\ncapacity, then staff would study the proposal.\nBoard member Knox White referred to the Transportation Mitigation Levels Of Service\nsection. Based on the corridors of transit, the corridors are not defined in the level of service\nanalysis and they do not follow the guidelines for transit corridors, which would be to look at\ntwo stops on either side of the transit area in order to expand the corridor as long as\npossible. Secondly, he couldn't find whether the automobile arterial segments levels of\nservice were analyzed. Thirdly, he explained the bicycle analysis was fine, but the\npedestrian portion of the analysis is incorrect because the analysis was looking at the\naverage delay per person, in all directions at Park Street and Blanding Avenue. When\nreferring to section IV-E21, the average pedestrian delay was 16 seconds, which seems to\nquick. So, there are issues with the cumulative pedestrian times. Regarding the Mitigation\nsection, he noted that Mitigation 3 is completely out of compliance when referring to section\n4.4.2.F of the General Plan. The first recommended mitigation does not have a TDM\nselected except unless the City does not do all the other TDMs. Fourthly, he stated the\nanalysis that allows what is proposed for a mitigation is not in compliance with the General\nPlan, which says that no mitigations in an environmental impact report can be proposed if it\ndegrades the pedestrian and bicycle levels of service. He doesn't see the level of service\nshown, but he knows that the mitigations will increase crossing times in the middle of the\nbusiness district and it seems the plan is to propose all along Park Street what has been\ndone at Encinal Avenue and Park Street. Furthermore, he pointed out the recommendations\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 9 of 15\nFebruary 13, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-13", "page": 10, "text": "that were for the Northern Waterfront EIR in order to handle capacity seems to become\nmitigations for this plan as well. He would like to know that this plan is triggering those\nneeds in and of itself, or the proportion of the project costs seem to be geared towards the\nvery large development numbers generated by the Northern Waterfront and what is being\nproposed on Park Street. In addition, the mitigation acknowledges that the project costs\nsharing whether it's TDM or whichever is not just coming out of just the North Park Street\nProject. Lastly, the Green House Gas Mitigations section, the transportation Mitigation 3\ndoesn't seem to reduce vehicle miles traveled. He continued to note under IVK-7 it's\nimportant for the City to apply a minimum number of bicycle parking spots per building for\nthe mitigation rather than propose 1 bicycle space for every new business that has 10 car\nspaces.\nBoard member Zuppan stated that she appreciated that the cumulative impact was being\ntaken into account, especially Caltrans work on I-880.\nBoard member Burton stated that he wanted to comment on the North Park Street Draft\nCode's transportation and the bicycle sections. He felt there were issues of bicycle assess\nand accommodating bicycles in the zone and staff has not addressed this aspect in the\ncode. When referring to the Waterfront District pages 35-36, the street section is illustrated,\nbut bicycle lanes are not shown. Also, the code does not mention the Alameda Bicycle Plan\nand Guidelines. He goes on to state that the pedestrian and bicycle facilities only have two\nlines in the parking section and parking requirements. He felt the pedestrian and bicycle\nfacilities should be in the very beginning and should be much more expansive. Referring to\nthe Architectural design standards and guidelines, he was encouraged by the form-based\ncode and he felt the code should only regulate the building and circulation patterns that\nencourage pedestrian scale development. Regarding the Green Buildings Guidelines\nsection of the North Park Street Code Environmental Impact Report, he was surprised that\nthere was no reference in the section of the code to other city requirements such as\nCalGreen, Bay Landscaping Guidelines, Build It Green Guidelines, and the Zero Waste\nordinance.\nMr. Thomas stated that staff would look at the code and come back to the Board in April\nwith the revisions. He pointed out that Board member Knox White made important\ncomments to the environmental impact report's traffic section and he would like the Board to\nlook at the Green House Gas section of the report because the traffic and green house gas\nanalyses are closely linked. He explained that staff has tried to put a finer analysis on the\nalternatives chapter and there are two areas in the environmental impact report where staff\nfound significant unavoidable impacts: (1) an increase in automobile traffic and (2) an\nincrease in green house gases due to automobile traffic. He went on to say that in the\nalternatives chapter, staff found ways to make the North Park Street Code more sustainable\nand create less of an environmental impact. Staff also looked at the pros and cons of trying\nto push the code further on with some of the green initiatives and they analyzed what that\nwould mean relative to other districts in Alameda. In response to Board member Burton's\ncomments, Mr. Thomas explained that the design review has guidelines meaning they are\nnot code so the developer should try to match their project to the scale of the neighboring\nhouse and staff is looking at the last 40 pages of the North Park Street Code as architectural\nguidelines. Also, staff is determining whether the guidelines should be adopted as code or\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 10 of 15\nFebruary 13, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-13", "page": 11, "text": "adopted as guidelines, and whether the guidelines should be part of the citywide design\nguidelines.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft referred to Executive Summary page II-3 in order to understand if\nsidewalks would be constructed on Tilden Way as part of this project.\nAndrew Thomas replied this is part of the zoning code so a developer comes to find there\nisn't a sidewalk along the frontage must build one.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked staff if they plan to expand sustainable design and green\nbuilding standards citywide. She also referred to the pedestrian plan in the Environmental\nImpact Report's Transportation and Circulation section IVE-2, regarding walkable sidewalks\nin areas. Board member Ashcraft explained that she would like to make Times Way into a\npedestrian only thoroughfare. She believes many pedestrians use this as a short cut off of\nPark Street when the traffic is slow and the path connects the Civic Center to Park Street. In\nthe Environmental Impact Report's Land Use and Public Policy, page IV-A4 she raised an\nissue about having childcare centers located on Park Street north of Lincoln Avenue. Finally,\nregarding policy 2.5.1 she considered the plans to be an important principal for the\ncommunity.\nBoard member Knox White stated that the code is a great model for moving the City forward\nand he believed that the architectural design standards and guidelines should be held as\nguidelines.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft stated public comment could be made up until February 20th for the\nNorth Park Street Code Environmental Impact Report and comments for the North Park\nStreet Code can be made until the next hearing, which is April.\n9-C. Review and Comment on Staff's Responses to the Regional Sustainable\nCommunities Strategy - Alternative Scenarios.\nMr. Thomas stated this is a status report and staff has kept the Board and City Council up to\nspeed on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) and the Associated Bay\nArea Governments' (ABAG) regional planning effort. He went on to say that the plan would\nhave long-term effects on the City's housing allocations as well as state and regional\nfunding for transportation and housing. He felt that the Focused Growth Scenario is the\nCity's preferred scenario, but the biggest issue in Alameda is how housing affects the City's\ntraffic levels. Yet, all the scenarios aggressively require more housing, which exceeds the\nCity's General Plan projections.\nBoard member Knox White asked whether staff is looking for feedback from the Board in\norder to provide the comments to ABAG and MTC before they announce the preferred\nscenario.\nMr. Thomas replied yes.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 11 of 15\nFebruary 13, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-13", "page": 12, "text": "Board member Knox White stated that the biggest issue with the five alternative scenarios is\nthat they don't provide any alternatives to anything because the outcomes are within a 1%\ndifference of each other. Ultimately, the preferred scenario is the initial vision, which he\nbelieves staff should challenge. He encouraged the City to be careful about only talking\nabout job creation and to not forget the other regional issues.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft stated on page 5 staff talked about Alameda Point in terms of acres\nand there are a lot, but when broken down to what is usable land there is not much. She\nwould like to know if the City would be forced to comply with the scenario.\nMr. Thomas replied that under Senate Bill 375 the regional bodies would create a planning\neffort that cities and counties can or cannot participate in. If the city or county chose not to\nparticipate in the regional strategy then there would be limited regional money for the city or\ncounty.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked if there is any protection from this regional strategy. She\nillustrated a lawsuit that occurred amongst the City of Alameda and the city of Oakland in\n2003. The city of Oakland sued Alameda based on the City's General Plan amendment,\nwhich would allow a large number of housing units built onto Alameda Point. The city of\nOakland cited increased traffic in Oakland's Chinatown District as the main outcome from\nallowing housing on Alameda Point. Board member Ashcraft also inquired about the status\nof the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee, which was formed from the settlement of\nthe lawsuit.\nMr. Thomas replied that the City couldn't meet housing numbers without financial support for\ntheir infrastructure systems. Therefore, the regional bodies would have to financially provide\nfor transportation and housing. He goes on to say that Northern Waterfront, Alameda Point,\nand Alameda Landing require infrastructure improvements and the City cannot be sued by\nneighboring jurisdictions every time they attempt to provide housing. In terms of the\nChinatown Committee, Staff Khan is the point person for that committee.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the City is looking island wide for building job sites.\nMr. Thomas stated this question is definitely on staff's mind and will be included in the\nHousing Element.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft called for public comment.\nBill Smith, member of Renewed Hope, stated that the City's focus is to provide housing or\njobs and that causes a rift in the jobs and housing balance. Ultimately, he advocates for\ndenser residential development.\nLisa Sweet stressed the importance of how cars dictate green house gas emissions and\nsustainability.\n9-D. Alameda Point Update: Implementing Land Use Amendments for Alameda Point\nConsistent with the Navy's Anticipated Conveyance of Alameda Point Property and the\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 12 of 15\nFebruary 13, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-13", "page": 13, "text": "Goals Stated in the Recent Community Process.\nJennifer Ott, Chief Operating Officer for Alameda Point, gave an update on the staff report.\nCurrently staff is considering a zoning amendment for the entire base and they want to\nmake sure the guiding principal is based on what the community wants. The next steps are\nto develop a plan for the proposed 5.5 million square feet of commercial development and\n1,400 housing units. She reported that in late 2010 the City held community forums with\nspecific topical presentations for community input. Staff consolidated the comments into a\nsummary report. Ultimately, the community's priorities will guide staff as they begin to work\ndevelopment advisors or private partners in the future. She also stated that staff is looking at\nterms of disposition as a phase or incremental approach. Lastly, the current zoning for\nAlameda Point is Heavy Industrial or M-2 with a government overlay, which works in some\nareas, but staff should zone accordingly in other parts of the parcel in order to be more\nopportunistic.\nMr. Thomas stated that the 2003 General Plan amendment for Alameda Point was made\nspecifically for the City of Alameda to integrate the reuse plan into the General Plan. He\nexplained that staff must look at the reuse plan and General Plan or base zoning and if\npossible find funding to complete an environmental impact report in order to position parts of\nthe employment areas of Alameda Point in the same way as Harbor Bay was positioned.\nMs. Ott replied that they are in the process of hiring a consultant to assist with the process\nbut most of the work will be conducted in house. However, she explained that objective of\nthis meeting was to introduce the concept and receive feedback from the Board.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft called for public comment.\nBill Smith, Alameda resident, stated that he liked the Alameda Point process and was glad\nto see the community's input included. He felt that the top choices found in the community\nsurvey were (1) open space; 2) affordable housing; and (3) historical preservation and\nhousing was a big part of the project. He encouraged the Board to think big within the\ndocuments and use the Housing Element to create opportunity for Alameda Point.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the second workshop on the Housing Element and\nAlameda Point would take place on March 12th and staff is working hard to get the housing\nelement fast tracked.\nJim Strehlow, Alameda resident, stated that he wants the City to focus on economic\ndevelopment and the City hasn't helped with developing commercial activity. He asked if the\nCity had any incentives to encourage business growth.\nMs. Ott replied that staff received input from perspective tenants about the City's typical\npractice of only allowing short-term leases and that has been the City's policy in the past\ngiven the uncertainty of the redevelopment plan. So, part of the zoning and disposition\nstrategy is for the City and staff to discuss approving longer-term deals in certain parts of\nAlameda Point to incentivize investment. Currently, the City incentivizes commercial\ninvestment through rental credit.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 13 of 15\nFebruary 13, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-13", "page": 14, "text": "Mr. Thomas stated there is a fundamental change in the mindset in terms of approaching\nAlameda Point. From 2000-2010 the City was under contract with a master developer 1 of\n(2) and the Master development agreement stated that the developer would have control\nover the base, but the developer would have to consult with the community in terms of\nplanning. So, staff's approach in the mean time would be to enter into short-term leases,\nthus making it difficult for any tenant to invest money into the property. By 2010, staff and\nthe City started to think about long-term leases and staff is trying to get the word out to the\ndevelopment and business communities that Alameda Point is available.\nMs. Ott stated that this is intended to be an economic development strategy to attract jobs\nand that process will inform the zoning amendment and disposition strategies. Ultimately,\nthere will be an iterative process going forward.\nKaren Bey stated that she was concerned that the City would lock itself into long-term\nagreements that would be difficult to get out of once the right businesses come along.\nMs. Ott explained that she does agree and she doesn't think long-term agreements should\nbe applied throughout the base. She stated that the historical districts would be a point for\nadaptive reuse and designated for long-term leases. Overall, staff is thinking strategically on\nwhere they place the long-term leases.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft called for Board comments.\nBoard member Henneberry stated that he agreed with the strategy, which allows the\nreintegration of the base with the City.\nBoard member Knox White asked if the findings and goals from the last public summary\ncould be retrieved easily.\nMs. Ott replied that the summary could be found in the April 6, 2011, ARRA meeting and the\nmeeting's link is available online.\nBoard member Knox White stated that it would be good to start the March 12th meeting with\na discussion on the assumptions coming out of the findings.\nMs. Ott replied that staff would attach the summary to the March 12 staff report.\nBoard member Knox White stated while developing zoning flexibility is the absolute\nobjective, staff should design a mix of uses that allow the City to be flexible with whatever\nmarkets occur.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nMr. Thomas spoke about the Sunshine ordinance. He circulated the training CD, hard copy\nof the ordinance, planning board rule and procedures, and provided the City of Alameda\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 14 of 15\nFebruary 13, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-02-13", "page": 15, "text": "Attendance Guidelines for Boards and Commissioners.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft stated that an email was sent to the Board about three seminars for\nCalifornia planning commissioners coming up within the next few months.\nBoard member Knox White stated that he would like staff to conduct a presentation on the\nprioritized transportation projects that were submitted to the Metropolitan Transportation\nCommission's Regional Transportation Plan.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNONE.\n13. ADJOURNMENT:\n10:56 PM\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 15 of 15\nFebruary 13, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf"}