{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-03-12", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY MARCH 12, 2012\n7:00 p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:05 P.M.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard Member Autorino\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Zuppan, Vice-President Burton, Board\nmembers Autorino, Ezzy Ashcraft, Knox White, K\u00f6ster.\nHenneberry.\n4. MINUTES:\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of February 13, 2012\nBoard member Knox White asked to amend page 6, which said, \"Board member Knox\nWhite would like to continue to review and have staff work... \" It should say President\nEzzy Ashcraft asked for a motion to continue and Board member Knox White asked was\nthere a reason to continue.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked to amend page 4. On the top of the page, the last\nsentence before oral communications the sentence should have two sentences or\nmaybe a semicolon.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked to amend page 7 of 15. On the top of page first\nparagraph, which states \"President Ashcraft discussed the 2000 Clinton Avenue\nproperty. The City asked for her comments, but there were no attachments.. \" So, the\nword \"Her\" should be changed to the \"Planning Board.\"\nBoard member Burton asked to amend page 6. On the top of the page, the notes do not\nlist Board member Burton's detailed objections to the follow:\n1. Relative depth of the building compared to the depths of the other buildings on the\nsite.\n2. How the parking spaces weren't in compliance.\n3. How the scale of the building, the detail of the building and rooms are inhabitable.\nBoard member Knox White moved to approve the minutes of February 13, 2012 as\namended.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nThe motion was approved 6-0 and 1 abstention.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 1 of 23\nMarch 12, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-03-12", "page": 2, "text": "Minutes from the Regular meeting of November 28. 2011\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to approve the minutes of November 28, 2011 as\nwritten.\nBoard member Autorino seconded the motion.\nThe motion was approved 5-0 and 2 abstentions.\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of January 9.\n2012.\n(Pending)\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of February 27, 2012 (Pending)\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nWritten Report\n6-A\nFuture Agendas\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, reported on the future agenda items. The\nMarch 26, 2012 meeting consists of a use permit for the College of Alameda Flea\nMarket, the Public Art Ordinance Workshop, and a 6-month review for 1051 Pacific\nMarina. Staff has decided they are not ready to bring the Public Art Ordinance for the\nworkshop that day, but staff will bring the actual proposed amendments before the Board\nlater in the spring. The April 9, 2012 meeting consists of draft amendments to the\nAlameda Municipal Code related to massage uses. Additionally, there will be a use\npermit design review and variance application for the redesign and remodel of a gas\nstation at 1716 Webster Street and Park Street Streetscape Plan from Public Works. A\nrecent addition to the April 9th agenda will be a review of the Transportation Demand\nManagement and Systems citywide plan. Staff will have the report made available to the\nBoard by March 26th.\nThe April 23, 2012 meeting consists of the Draft Alameda Point Zoning Amendment and\nFinal Environmental Impact Report and Final Recommendation of the Park Street Code.\nLastly, the May 14, 2012 meeting consists of a final approval needed by the Board for\nthe Public Art Draft Amendments, the first draft of the revisions to the municipal code\ndealing with farm animals, third hearing on the Housing Element, and the Bicycle\nGuidelines from Public Works. The agenda may also include a fourth item regarding the\nproposed amendments to the municipal code to require bay friendly landscaping.\nRegarding the Zoning Administrator's updates, he approved a use permit for a temporary\nchain linked fence at 1600-1618 Park Street.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked Mr. Thomas if he included the Park Street\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 2 of 23\nMarch 12, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-03-12", "page": 3, "text": "Streetscape Plan in the April 9th agenda and how will that be presented to the Board.\nMr. Thomas replied it would be a rendering of the proposed project on Park Street.\nBoard member Knox White referred to the last meeting where the Board discussed the\nBroadway/Jackson project and staff indicated the Oakland City Council was in support of\nthe project. He contacted the offices of Wilma Chan, staff for Rebecca Kaplan, and Pat\nKernighan to confirm their support. They are in support of the general idea of the project,\nbut depending on whom you talk to they have some concerns. There were suggestions\nabout something coming back to the Board for review and we're already a year into the\nproject study report and it has not come back. He is surprised that the project is not on\nthe agenda until May, especially since this is a $190 million dollar public works project.\nMr. Thomas replied that staff is looking at the agendas for the next couple of months and\nthe April 23rd meeting could work, especially since the Board will be discussing the\nAlameda Point Rezoning plan. He will contact Public Works to see if they can attend the\nmeeting.\nPresident Zuppan agreed.\n7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n8. CONSENT CALENDAR:\nNone.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A. Housing Element Update Public Workshop - The Planning Board will hold a\npublic workshop to consider a package of amendments to the City of Alameda Housing\nElement to respond to State of California Government Code requirements and\nsuggestions from the State Department of Housing and Community Development. The\npackage also includes a number of proposed amendments to the Land Use Element and\nZoning Ordinance related housing requirements and development processes. The\npurpose of the meeting is to solicit public comments on the proposals. No final actions\nwill be taken by the Planning Board on the proposals at this meeting.\nMr. Thomas gave a brief Power Point presentation about the Draft Housing Element and\nsubsequent public process and schedule. He reported on the Draft Housing Element\nAmendments and related amendments to the Land Use Element and zoning ordinance\nunder the City of Alameda's General Plan. The purpose of the presentation was to kick\noff a 2-month review period related to the staff report. The goals are after the 60-day\nreview period, the Board will recommend the changes to the Housing Element and the\nzoning amendments to the City Council for approval and then receive certification this\nyear.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 3 of 23\nMarch 12, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-03-12", "page": 4, "text": "Board member Knox White explained that there are penalties for not allocating enough\nland for residential use, but there doesn't seem to be penalties levied.\nMr. Thomas replied yes that is correct. The state does levy a penalty in the sense that\nwe have to build more houses. The objective is to make land available for residential\ndevelopment. So, it would have been a much simpler exercise if we had met our\nobligations from the last period and it would have been slightly smaller for this period.\nVice President Burton asked Mr. Thomas to clarify the numbering of Table 5-5 on the\nPower Point presentation with Table 4.4 in the staff report.\nMr. Thomas replied the staff report should be labeled 5-4 in attachment 2.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked Mr. Thomas to define the following terms:\nemergency shelters, supportive housing, and transitional housing so that members of the\npublic who don't have access to the staff report could follow allow.\nJennifer Gastelum, Service Lead for Pacific Municipal Consultants, explained that\nemergency shelters are permanent facilities that have pre-designated number of beds,\nfor an overnight type service with security and lighting. Family housing is defined as one\nor more persons living together in a dwelling unit and the term family does not mean\nrelated by blood. Supportive housing services are defined as an apartment complex that\noffers a job training center and/or a childcare facility on site. Single Room occupancy is\ndefined as a unit with a kitchen or bathroom but not both, also known as a boarding care.\nTransitional housing would be foster care or veterans care rehabilitation facilities put a\ncertain amount of day stay on that facility.\nPresident Zuppan called for public comment or questions.\nDiane Lichtenstein, Vice President of HOMES, congratulated the Planning Board and\nstaff for their report and advancing planning throughout the year. The completion will\ngive confidence to developers, lessees, and people coming into Alameda for economic\ndevelopment and she hopes that the update moves as quickly as possible.\nHelen Sause, member of HOMES, applauded the staff and the process to achieve\nCalifornia Housing and Community Development approval of the Alameda Housing\nElement. She believes the housing element is critical for the City's economic\ndevelopment especially since the dismantling of the Redevelopment Department. Finally,\nshe hopes the coalition that helped get the Lawrence Livermore Lab to come to Alameda\nPoint will come together to support the City's economic development goals.\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, had three\ndifferent comments referring to attachment 4. Regarding the multifamily residential\nzoning ordinance if the unit is over 700 square feet the parking requirements state that\ntwo parking spaces are needed and that is too much, especially if the City wants to lower\ntheir carbon footprint and be more sustainable. Second, the staffs' report detailing\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 4 of 23\nMarch 12, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-03-12", "page": 5, "text": "emergency shelter requirements for a maximum of 25 individuals to be housed in one\nshelter makes no sense. The City is not meeting the stewardship requirements and he\nwould like to see 50 to 100 individuals housed. He would also like to see churches given\nthe option to house individuals. Third, he was concerned that the density is too low and\nthe City should be looking at more than 30 units per acre.\nD. Tillman, member of TASK Incorporated, a non-profit organization that works with\nwomen who are transitioning from hardships and distress stemming from abuse,\nhomelessness, and other obstacles. The organization is preparing to design and\nconstruct a 150-unit facility to include emergency beds for women who need assistance\nand she asked the Board to consider her organization when reviewing the Housing\nElement.\nLaura Thomas, resident of Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, congratulated the staff\non the report and the revisions. The update is a step in the right direction, but the plan\nneeds more work, especially in regards to building more affordable housing.\nLynette Lee, member of Renewed Hope and former executive director for a non-profit\norganization that built and managed 1,400 affordable housing units.\nShe reiterated sentiments made in the December meeting regarding higher density,\nespecially given the loss of redevelopment agency funds and the current economic\nclimate. She appreciates the work that staff and their consultants have put into the\namendments and response to the state. She is also disappointed that the zoning\nallowance remains relatively low and she displayed illustrations of various large\nresidential densities. She posed a question to the Board on whether the current\nminimum density requirements for the City is in response to the state or do they want to\ncreate a benefit for the City that will positively affect everyone. She also asked the Board\nand staff to consider allowing buildings up to four stories high, reducing parking\nrequirements, implementing parking flexibility on transit-oriented development projects\nand sites along major bus lines. Overall, she would like the Board to consider these\npossibilities in their final report to the state.\nPresident Zuppan asked for any additional comments to the Housing Element Update.\nFor this month's meeting, the board members were only required to provide comments.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft referred to the Planning Commissioner's Handbook and\nread the introduction to the housing law and policy section, \"Housing is a critical\ncommunity asset and a necessity for a healthy and well-balanced community.\nCommunities should strive to provide housing in a variety of types and a variety of prices\nto serve the needs of all residents. There are numerous reasons to ensure a diverse\nhousing supply: (1) availability of diverse high quality housing choices for workers is a\nsignificant factor in retaining and attracting businesses; (2) helps to achieve social\nequity; (3) the largest portion of most family budgets goes to housing. When more\naffordable housing is available, people have more money for other necessities such as\nhealth care and disposable income to spend in the community, which will have big\neconomic payoffs.\" This is the overarching consideration when grappling with the\nHousing Element because it affects the entire community and the City wants to be an\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 5 of 23\nMarch 12, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-03-12", "page": 6, "text": "economically thriving community and achieve the jobs/housing balance. She questioned\nwhether the City is continuing the First Time Buyer Program and Foreclosure Prevention\nfound in page 12 (attachment 2) and page 13 of the staff report. She also wanted to\nknow more about the Dedicated Housing Funds.\nDebbie Potter, Alameda Housing Authority, replied the Dedicated Housing Funds are\ntwo separate funding sources that the City receives from Affordable Housing In-Lieu\nfees. The in-lieu fees are received under the Inclusionary ordinance for projects that are\nfewer than 9-units and developers can pay a fee in-lieu of providing units. The second\nsource is from Affordable Housing-Unit fees, which are payments from commercial\ndevelopers who can pay a fee in-lieu of providing an affordable unit. The in-lieu fee funds\nthe First Time Home Buyer Program or also called the Down Payment Assistance\nProgram, which is operated within the City. The Alameda Landing project will include an\nin-lieu fee, as part of the residential portion of Alameda Landing. The project may or\nmay not generate sufficient funds to continue the First Time Home Buyer Program, but\nas it stands, the City operates the program. The Foreclosure Program was something\nthat the City was involved in when the foreclosure crisis began and Housing and Urban\nDevelopment (HUD) was funding a variety of initiatives where the City received some\nfunds early on, but subsequently have not received funds nor applied for funds and the\nforeclosure crisis has not hit too badly. Thus, the City is currently working with licensed\nprograms like the Unity Council in Oakland.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked Ms. Potter to confirm whether the City would\nreceive in-lieu fees from the non-residential portion.\nMs. Potter stated the City would receive funds from the commercial portion and both\npots of money will continue to fund the First Time Home Buyer Program.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked how the in-lieu and affordable housing unit fees are\ngenerally calculated.\nMs. Potter replied it is part of the City's annual fee schedule. So, there is an in-lieu fee of\n$17,000 a unit if developers build a minimum of 5-units. The affordable housing unit fee\ndepends on the type of non-residential development that is being built and the lowest\nrate is warehouse developments and the highest fee is for office development, which\ncreates employment and housing impacts. She would get back to Board member Ezzy\nAshcraft on the exact fees per development type.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft referred to Chapter 3 of the Housing Element (attachment\n2) page 11, under the action plan about condominium conversions; she questioned\nwhether the condo conversions code was active. During the 2001-2006 target, it was\nrecommended that the condominium conversion code be reviewed in order to make it an\nattractive tool for providing affordable housing.\nMr. Thomas replied that condominium conversion applications have not been submitted\nin quite some time, and there has not been any action on this particular target recently.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 6 of 23\nMarch 12, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-03-12", "page": 7, "text": "Board member Ezzy Ashcraft explained that the Board was talking about making\naffordable housing opportunities available and it has come up to the Board before, but is\nstaff doing anything to market that.\nMr. Thomas replied staff has not been actively marketing that, but they can now. Staff's\nbasic approach for condominium conversions is to look at two things: (1) are there\nzoning compliance issues or zoning nonconforming issues that need to be fixed; and (2)\nare there building code issues. In Alameda, almost every multifamily building has some\nkind of zoning problem, and the Board has waived those requirements for every\napplication. However, what the City requires that the building safety code be reviewed.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft needed clarification on the operation of the homeless\nshelters (refer to Chapter 6, page 9). She questioned whether the City would look for\noutside operators to run the facilities.\nMr. Thomas said the City's job is to operate the shelters, but provide the land for the\nshelters. So, the proposal is to amend the zoning ordinance to permit emergency\nshelters in the M-1 and M-2 zones.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked who would decide how the shelters would run and\nwho would essentially set the criteria. Especially since, you don't want to group all\nhomeless individuals together such as homeless teens or families with children.\nMs. Gastelum replied as someone comes and approaches the City to establish a shelter\nthere would be some requirements such as parking, security, lighting, and what type of\nfacility it is for. The Board would then approve the criteria. Also, a list of conditions must\nbe met before the facility is built such as the facility must have proper lighting, security,\nbe near mass transit, cap the total number of beds, the hours of operations, and more.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked how did the criteria address the question that she\nraised about whether it is appropriate to mix all homeless people together.\nMs. Gastelum replied that it is up to the facility provider coming forward to construct the\nfacility and the Board may be able to recommend what type of group the facility can\nhouse.\nMr. Thomas asked Ms. Gastelum if the City has the ability to include criteria or would it\nbe overstepping their bounds on requirements of state law.\nMs. Gastelum replied that it should be something that should be researched in order to\nsee if that would be considered a constraint to allowing emergency facilities, especially if\nthe Board limits the facility to certain groups.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked Ms. Gastelum to bring the updated information to\nthe next meeting in May.\nVice President Burton stated that the piece of the discussion is assuming that an\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 7 of 23\nMarch 12, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-03-12", "page": 8, "text": "emergency facility application would come before the Board. However, since it legally\npermitted to develop the facility, then the Board would not necessarily review the\napplication.\nMr. Thomas would talk to California Housing and Community Development to see if the\nCity has another level of discretion regarding the emergency facilities in order to create\nadditional conditions.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft referred to Chapter 6, page 18 regarding rental units. She\nneeded clarification on who determines what an affordable rent is.\nMs. Gastelum replied that it is part of the City's inclusionary requirements.\nMr. Thomas said the language is from the City's inclusionary housing ordinance.\nMs. Potter stated the definition of affordable is provided to staff by the state and\nsometimes the federal government and they say that residents should spend no more\nthan 30% of their income for rent. Moderate-income homebuyers can spend up to 35%\nof their income on a mortgage. Also, HUD provides the incomes annually based on\nhousehold size for low, very low, and moderate incomes.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft referred to the staff report on page 6. There is discussion\nof the different parts of the City's west end waterfront that are available for residential\ndevelopment during the compliance period of the Housing Element. So, she wanted to if\nthe Pennzoil site on Grand Street would require any clean given its past use as a oil\nretailer.\nMr. Thomas replied the site needs relatively little clean up and staff has had extensive\ntalks with them. The Pennzoil tanks are above ground, and the only clean up is within\nthe top couple of inches. He also noted that the site owner put the property on the\nmarket about 6 years ago, and they pay for the site clean up.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft referred to page 8 of the staff report. She thinks the\nproposed multifamily 30 dwelling unit zoning overlay is exciting and she looks forward to\nit moving along.\nBoard member Knox White asked Ms. Potter about whether the City encourages owning\na home more than renting apartments and if the City has thought about assisting people\nrenting rather than owning.\nMs. Potter stated it's true that the City has a policy towards moving people into\nhomeownership rather than moving them into apartments. Overall, the City has goals to\nsee residents become homeowners and it's true that building affordable homeownership\nis much more expensive in terms of the subsidies given. Typically, to date the\nhomeownership units are those that have been provided by developers as an\ninclusionary requirement, where the redevelopment agency and the City have not\nparticipated in the financial assistance aspect for those projects. Also, under Measure A\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 8 of 23\nMarch 12, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-03-12", "page": 9, "text": "homebuilders have been precluded from constructing multifamily housing so typically\nthey develop small lot, single-family developments. With the new 30 units to the acre\nzoning overlay there is no direction that it must be ownership housing or rental housing.\nThus, the language provides a whole range of housing types, which the developer can\ncome in and leverage outside financial resources.\nBoard member Knox White explained that one of the conditions for the emergency\nshelters should be accessibility by public transit. He did not see it in the staff report or\nthe amendments, but Mr. Thomas stated it was there so that gives him hope. He also\nencouraged the Board and staff to include affordable and workforce housing terms.\nEspecially because workforce housing is usually market rate and that sets the Board\ntowards the goal of providing that type of housing. He referred to Chapter 2, page 6\n(attachment 2) and asked if the definition of \"family\" is included in the definitions section.\nHe found it odd that in the middle of the page the definition of family was in the header.\nMs. Gastelum replied that the definition would be included in the section, so staff won't\nhave to call it out. However, the state wants the City to tell them that they are doing it.\nSo, in the future it will not be found there.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft brought up a comment from Board member Knox White\nabout how emergency shelters should be close to public transit. She referred to Chapter\n6, page 10 where It states \"These vacant sites and under utilized parking lots are close\nto both services and transit.\"\nBoard member Knox White replied that the sites chosen by staff suggested they be\nwithin proximity to public transit. Yet, just in case the City decides to change where zone\nM-1 and M-2 are located, then the City retains the idea that the sites must be close to\npublic transit.\nBoard member Knox White referred to Chapter 3 page 18, which talks about one of the\ngoals from the 1990 Housing Element. The goal calls for review of the City's parking\nstandards to facilitate infill development. One of the biggest drivers for both housing\ncosts and hurdles to housing is the onerous parking requirements that we put on it. He\nsuggested that instead of striking out everything that allows for in-lieu fees, they follow\nthrough with that and do the review, not necessarily as part of the Housing Element\nUpdate, but have the review take place. Furthermore, in Chapter 6 page 10, he\nsuggested removing the parking requirements in the Housing Element that are\nspecifically in the General Plan since the City ordinances already have parking\nminimums that deal with that already. Also, within Table 6.2, Parking Standards, he\nsuggested that they rely on the City's ordinances that have parking minimums in place\nand take it out of the Housing Element. He referred to Chapter 5, page 8 and Table 5.4\n(List of Sites) and noticed that Ron Good is not identified as a multifamily house. He\nbelieves that the bigger issues with the use of the multifamily designation is that the City\nis trying to meet a certain number based on the availability of land so that the state will\ncertify the Housing Element. Although the City is applying in places that make sense\nnumerically, it does not necessarily have placement close to public transit. For example,\nthe Chevy site will never have a bus that runs near the site unless it will do a big\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 9 of 23\nMarch 12, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-03-12", "page": 10, "text": "turnaround. Since the Ron Goode site is located on a heavily public transit corridor in the\nCity, the site should be designated as multifamily. Based on the staff report, what\njumped out at him was the fact that the consultant thinks that we don't identify enough\nhousing capacity resulting in the state challenging those sites. Therefore, two ideas to\ncombat the issue are: (1) identify the Ron Goode site as multifamily because it's in the\nNorth Park Street District and the community already stated they want mixed-use; and\n(2) allow density bonuses within the multifamily overlay zoning designation. He is not\nsure what number that would be, but he definitely believes this should be encouraged,\nespecially for transit-oriented places. He referred to Jon Spangler's comment about\nparking requirements in multifamily developments. He pointed out that multifamily\ndevelopments give out transit passes for a shuttle, but the City should also eliminate\nparking requirements because it will make it to expensive to build. Once the\nTransportation Demand Management and Transportation Systems Management\n(TDM/TSM) plan is in effect, it will be difficult to get people from not using their cars if the\nCity provides free residential parking. Thus, the TDM/TSM plan should include reducing\nresidential parking in areas where transit service exists. Finally, since staff will be talking\nto HCD during the 60-day review staff should be looking at other sites for multifamily\nhousing and North Park Street is a good area since most of the community accepts\ndenser residential development.\nBoard member Henneberry asked Mr. Thomas about the discussions and outcomes with\nthe West Alameda Business Association in terms of high-density options above retail on\nWebster Street.\nMr. Thomas replied the discussions with Webster Avenue Business Association were\nseveral years ago and staff hasn't reached out to the association this year and in this\ncontext. They were interested in the idea of changing the zoning code on Webster Street\nto encourage housing above retail in order to revitalize Webster Street as part of mixed-\nuse projects. The Initial conversations took place around 2-years ago and there was no\nfollow up from staff or the association.\nBoard member Henneberry encouraged staff to reignite that discussion if they have the\ntime because this would be a very desirable pursuit.\nMr. Thomas replied he would follow up with the association.\nBoard member Henneberry asked Mr. Thomas to also talk to the Park Street Business\nAssociation. He also wanted to know why the Ron Goode site is included in the staff\nreport, but not the Good Chevrolet property.\nMr. Thomas explained that the Good Chevrolet has an ongoing proposal that is a fully\ncommercial project without residential. He didn't want to put housing on the list and tell\nthe state that it was available when the proposal doesn't include residential. So, he if the\nproject does not go forward, then it would be a potential site.\nVice President Burton said the multifamily residential combining zone talks about the\nnumber of different housing types permitted, but it is not clearly address the idea of\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 10 of 23\nMarch 12, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-03-12", "page": 11, "text": "housing over retail. So, he wants to know how staff envisions that type of housing\ninteracting with the zone.\nMr. Thomas replied that the multifamily zone proposed by staff was primarily for the\nHousing Element. They presented a variety of housing types and then they added the\nidea on attachment 4, Draft Multifamily Combining Zone, District Regulations (Section\nC-II). The objective under Section C-II is for a site that has frontage on either Park or\nWebster Streets to have ground floor retail space.\nVice President Burton encouraged staff to actively pursue ground floor retail on a site.\nHe was glad to see that ground floor retail is required in those locations so the City has\nan active pedestrian-oriented street frontage. Also, he concurred with Board member\nKnox White about giving developers a density-bonus for transit-oriented developments,\nespecially along Park and Webster Streets. So, the community is clear on the process\nhe wanted a few clarifications about how the Multifamily ordinance process would work\nin order for the City to adopt it and how it relates to Measure A.\nMr. Thomas explained the City provides some land that facilitates and encourages\nmultifamily housing as well as other types. Additionally, the City is required to show the\nstate how they have enough land zoned at the appropriate density for low-income\nhousing. One way to do that is provide land that is zone at 30 units per acre. So, staff\ncreated a zoning overlay (the draft ordinance is located in attachment 4) that is a zoning\ndesignation and can be applied to five or six identified sites in the City.\nVice President Burton replied the idea is that City's local ordinance cannot supersede\nstate law.\nMr. Thomas exclaimed that's right, state law supersedes local law and it's the City's\nresponsibility to comply with state law. The Planning Board and the City Council's jobs\nwith the staff's assistance are to identify appropriate sites in Alameda to apply this law.\nIn terms of adoption and process, there will be a final public hearing before the Board\nand City Council before it is adopted.\nVice President Burton stated he likes the way staff has chosen to look at places where\nthe scale of the buildings and densities are compatible with the neighborhood and\ndevelopment patterns in the City. Regarding the elimination of redevelopment agencies,\nhow has this affected this type of development and how will it affect the implementation\nof this plan.\nMr. Thomas replied he thinks that it only reinforces the importance of this package of\namendments and the strategy in the past with the Housing Element was a two-prong\nstrategy. The first strategy was to retain very low-density throughout the City because\nthe City has a lot of land available and can show way more land than necessary to meet\ntheir obligation and the second strategy was the fact that they had a Redevelopment\nAgency. Specifically, the City requires 25% affordable housing and they had a\nRedevelopment Agency that could essentially buy down the cost of the projects. Now,\nwhen presenting the analysis to the state, the 30 units per acre designation seems like\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 11 of 23\nMarch 12, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-03-12", "page": 12, "text": "the most viable argument since the 25% affordable policy back fired slightly against the\nCity and redevelopment dissolved.\nBoard member Henneberry asked if staff discussed the plan with the development\ncommunity.\nMr. Thomas said staff has not had specific discussions about the 30 units per acre plan,\nbut they have had general discussions over the years. They have had many\nconversations over the last few years since the City adopted the density bonus incentive.\nDevelopers have to come in the Planning Department to ask how they can use this in\norder to make their multifamily development project work. At the end of the day, there\nare many factors affect a project's financially viable including the configuration, parking\nrequirements, and conditions on the site. He thinks the discussion of the 30 units per\nacre versus the 40 units per acre is an important discussion, but he doesn't think it is the\nonly piece of the conversation in terms of what it will take to make that development\nviable.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked Mr. Thomas could bring representatives from the\ndevelopment community to the next Housing Element Workshop on May 14th in order to\ntalk to the Board about developing this type of housing in the economic climate and\nelimination of redevelopment funds. Also, in terms of how state law trumps local law in\norder to construct higher density she asked if any of this precludes some or all of these\nsites from being a mixture of affordable and market-rate. In the past, the Board\ndiscussed not placing all of the City's affordable housing units in one area of town. She\nreferred to Chapter 6, page 6, which states that inclusionary units can under some\ncircumstances and if the Board approves be built at a different site. When the Board\ndiscussed the development of Grand Marina some years ago, there was strong\nconsensus to not segregate the unit types.\nMr. Thomas stated that City policy requires every project to include at least 15% of its\ntotal stock for affordable units. The City also has ordinances and policies that do allow\ndevelopers to apply to move those units offsite. Staff had one of those applications in the\nlast 10 years and that did not go well. However, he wanted to make sure everyone\nunderstood that the City created the affordable housing policy. Under the state\nrequirements, all the City has to do is provide 30 units per acre even if they didn't have\ninclusionary requirements.\nBoard member Zuppan brought up the need to be realistic before reducing parking\nrequirements. As transit service declines, transit-oriented development that were\neffective today might not be in the future and in some parts of town there is not adequate\nparking for residents. Also, not every very low and low-income job type allows\nemployees to use public transit because transit might not be running during their\ncommute time. Additionally, she asked Mr. Thomas to present a recap on how the\nMultifamily Overlay Zoning designation relates to Measure A.\nMr. Thomas said Measure A has two primary components: (1) it prohibits multifamily\nhousing throughout the City; and (2) the maximum density is 21 dwelling units to the\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 12 of 23\nMarch 12, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-03-12", "page": 13, "text": "acre or one unit for every 2,000 square feet of land. The relationship between state and\nlocal law began a couple years ago when the City Council with recommendation by the\nBoard adopted the Density Bonus Ordinance. State law says every City must adopt a\ndensity bonus ordinance and must allow up to a 35% density over the maximum allowed\nby local general plan, charter, or ordinance and must grant waivers to any development\nstandard that makes the project not possible to fit on the site with the density. Recently,\nthe City Council approved a privately developed Boatworks Project (construction\npending), which is a series of single-family homes, attached townhomes, and 26-unit\nmultifamily apartment building. Thus, state law says the City has to provide multifamily\nsomewhere and the City cannot prohibit such development throughout the City.\nRegarding the density, the City under state law must show how they can provide\naffordable housing. So, the City is including the 30 units per acre Multifamily Zoning\nOverlay to provide for the affordable housing component. He also noted that although\nthe legal right permits the project, they would still come before the Planning Board for the\ndesign review (e.g. to review the shape of the building, building fa\u00e7ade and parking\nconfiguration). Finally, in terms of the parking requirements, staff will continue to analyze\nand consider making changes to the language.\nBoard member Henneberry stated those who were around when Measure A passed,\nwhich was a while ago, knew that the objective was to make sure Victorian houses were\nnot torn down and replaced with apartment houses. Therefore, having that variance to\nthe zoning ordinance does not conflict.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft recognized Board member Zuppan's concerns with public\ntransit, but if the Board and staff are careful in planning developments that are within\nwell-served corridors then it is a good safety factor. She agreed with Board member\nKnox White's comment about the former Chevy site and believes a residential\ndevelopment is less than ideal without public transit service. She noted that senior\nhousing with shuttle service similar to Cardinal Point at Mariner Square is needed and\nthe site is a great location because it's around the water.\n9-B. Alameda Point Rezoning Public Workshop - The Planning Board will hold a\npublic workshop to consider a initial proposals for zoning amendments at Alameda Point\nto conform the zoning regulations for the property to the policies, objectives, and\nstandards for the property included in the City of Alameda General Plan and the City of\nAlameda Community Reuse Plan. The purpose of the meeting is to solicit public\ncomments on the proposals. No final actions will be taken by the Planning Board on the\nproposals at this meeting.\nJennifer Ott, Chief Operating Officer for Alameda Point, presented the Land Use, Zoning,\nand General Plan Amendments for Alameda Point. On February 13th, she came before\nthe Board and for this meeting she presented more details about the amendments. She\nwill subsequently come back with even more details until they receive final approval of\nthe amendments in June. On March 24th, staff will go before City Council to present their\nrecommendations. The idea is that staff is looking tot focus the development and the\ndisposal of the property into residential and commercial areas by breaking it up into\nsmaller pieces. She feels residential areas have a different strategy than the commercial\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 13 of 23\nMarch 12, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-03-12", "page": 14, "text": "areas given where the market is for residential development versus commercial. The two\nimportant pieces to this effort are that the City and community maintain control over the\nentitlement process and to create entitlement certainty in order have entitlements in\nplace. The next step from there is the entitlement process and they are proposing base-\nwide zoning. It's important to create this foundation because it will keep them focused on\nwhat the community wants as part of the larger vision of Alameda Point. What they are\nlooking for at this meeting is to get feedback regarding some of the big picture questions\nand the zoning boundaries. They conducted an extensive community outreach effort in\nNovember of 2010 and received a lot of feedback. They presented that feedback last\nApril to the City Council and they have built upon this information in order to come to the\nBoard with some suggestions on how to move forward with some of these districts.\nFinally, they will come back to the Board on April 23rd with a draft of the zoning code in\norder to meet the June deadline.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked Ms. Ott for more clarification on the\nrecommendations that will go before the City Council in March.\nMs. Ott replied that there are working on two different efforts. First, they are working with\nthe City Council or the \"landowner\" regarding the disposition and development strategy.\nThen, they are working with the Planning Board on the entitlements and zoning of the\nparcel, which will then be approved by the City Council.\nBoard member Henneberry asked about the parcel and the runways other than the\nNorthwest Territory portion. He asked for a brief thumbnail on the development status.\nAdditionally, he referred to a report about the 1990 Biological Opinion and the California\nLeast tern.\nMs. Ott stated that the Northwest Territory is a triangular portion made up of 215-acres\nand listed as open space. The runway is south of portion and it is part of a federal-to-\nfederal transfer, which is not part of the property that will come to the city. The parcel still\nowned by the Navy and the Navy is in discussions with the Veterans Affairs Department\nto transfer the property as an outpatient clinic and a columbarium. Board member\nHenneberry is correct about the parcel being home to a colony of nesting California\nLeast terns, which is an endangered species. So, as part of the transfer process the\nNavy has to comply with the Endangered Species Act. The Biological Opinion was\nrelative to their property and they had to place restrictions on their property. Also, the\nVeterans Affairs is conducting their process right now.\nBoard member Henneberry asked if the columbarium proposal would be in that southern\nhalf of the runway where the VA was going to place that.\nMs. Ott stated that is the Veterans Affair's current public proposal. They are in\ndiscussions about how to locate the building in a different location in order to allow the\nprocess to move forward slightly faster.\nBoard member Henneberry replied so is the development precluded in the Northwest\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 14 of 23\nMarch 12, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-03-12", "page": 15, "text": "Territory's half.\nMs. Ott replied no.\nBoard member Henneberry asked if the current proposal would be parkland of some\nsort.\nMs. Ott said there are a number of proposals from the Reuse Plan dating back to a 1996\ndocument that proposed a golf course, conference center, regional park, and sports\ncomplex. They are now conducting preliminary discussions with the Veterans Affairs and\nFish and Wildlife Services about a Regional Parks or Sports Complex use and possibly\nmoving the Veteran Affairs facility in the northern area.\nBoard member Henenberry asked in reference to the California Least tern is all\ndevelopment precluded because of the Lease Turns with the exception of the federal\ncolumbarium project.\nMs. Ott replied that the runways are not part of their footprint and are off limits in terms of\ndevelopment. However, there is a proposal from the Veterans Affairs to build the\noutpatient clinic on the northern portion of that.\nBoard member Henneberry stated Muirad provides a number of jobs in terms of the\nships and he would encourage the City to pursue making that a larger presence. He\nquestioned whether Muirad has a west coast office and if not, this may be a good\nlocation for them to put their offices.\nMs. Ott replied she agrees and the company has ships and an office in San Francisco.\nStaff had initial conversations about the consolidation and relocation to Alameda Point\nand they will keep the discussions going.\nBoard member Autorino commented about the Cape Cod National Seashore, which has\na Lease Turn colony. The Cape Cod actually ropes off the beach so he's not surprised\nhow restricted this area is.\nMs. Ott explained that 10% of the species' entire fledglings come from this colony every\nyear.\nMr. Thomas presented the amendment details. The five zoning districts are custom to\nAlameda Point: (1) Employment-Adaptive Reuse District; 2) Employment District; 3)\nTown Center District; (4) Open Space District; and (5) Residential District. The Alameda\nPoint Zoning Reuse Plan is their base document and all of the zoning districts would\nhave some type of open space requirements.\nPresident Zuppan asked for any additional comments to the Alameda Rezoning Update.\nFor this month's meeting, the board members were only required to provide comments.\nBoard member Autorino applauded staff for creating the five subareas and he likes the\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 15 of 23\nMarch 12, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-03-12", "page": 16, "text": "Town Center District. However, he would like staff to include more waterfront orientation\nin the residential areas because right now the residential areas are pushed away from\nthe waterfront on one side. He believes there has to be a mixed-use area and he is\nconcerned with the juxtaposition of the commercial and residential area. Since you have\nto go through the residential districts to get to the commercial center, there will be issues\nwith the residents. Also, since this plan has a wide range of commercial uses, staff must\nconsider how the commercial use type will affect the residential areas. Additionally, he\nenvisions that residents and visitors will heavily use the open space area and the way\nthe plan is structured would prohibit residents from directly accessing the open space\nsince they have to go through the commercial district. Thus, he would like the open\nspace area to be easily accessible to all residents. He believes the adaptive re-use\nemployment area is concerning and he doubts that the City will be able to find a use for\na lot of the buildings. What makes the adaptive-reuse area more difficult is that staff is\nsaying that anything can go in there. So, when you look at this juxtaposition of residential\nand commercial and it's very difficult to plan and understand the impacts. Ultimately, this\nshould be addressed with more residential and less adaptive reuse. Lastly, he would like\nthe public to access the entire area and experience the whole waterfront.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft agreed with Board member Autorino's comments. She\ndoesn't like the fact that staff is capping the amount of residential units at Alameda Point\nespecially when the City is updating the Housing Element. On page 2 and throughout the\nstaff report they emphasized the need to include the community's input and involvement.\nYet, there is a throw away line on page 2, that acknowledged the major area of\ndisagreement with the community was the total number housing units planned for\nAlameda Point. The outcome of the disagreement states that it is no longer relevant\nbecause the City has committed to the Reuse Plan's vision as the basis for conveyance\nand development. She feels it is premature to cap the number of housing units and staff\nis tying developers' hands. She remembers over the years that the Board and the public\ndiscussed the need to have Alameda Point to coincide with the rest of Alameda. So, she\nwants to know why staff is treating the parcel differently from the rest of the City. She\nwould also like to know if there are any other zoning ordinances that cap the number of\nhousing units that can be built on the site.\nMs. Ott agreed that the theme was brought up and the reality is the agreement entered\nwith the City and Navy requires them to use Re-use Plan as the basis to receiving the\nparcel. If they entitle the parcel for a lot more they will jeopardize the conveyance of the\nentire property. So, the City Council decided to move forward with the Re-use Plan. The\nplan allows 1,425 units and that is a good 5-10 years of residential development, which\nstaff feels is a very good start. The entitlements can change over time, but for now staff\nand the City Council feel that it's important to acquire the property at no cost using the\nexisting plan.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft explained that having a housing cap or focusing housing\nthroughout the site are two different questions and staff can have one without the other.\nMs. Ott replied staff would look at that and they contemplated the ability to transfer units.\nThus, staff could have a process that would allow them to transfer units from the\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 16 of 23\nMarch 12, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-03-12", "page": 17, "text": "residential area to a specific project. But it creates a couple of extra hurdles before they\ncan transfer the units.\nBoard member Knox White questioned whether the conveyance requires the City to cap\nhousing in the City's Zoning ordinance.\nMs. Ott replied staff will look into that, but there is no actual requirement to put the\nnumber and the cap in the zoning ordinance.\nBoard member Knox White asked Ms. Ott to address the issue about whether the\nconveyance agreement contemplates the ability for City to build 1,425 units at Alameda\nPoint, but beyond that they would have to pay $50,000 per additional unit. So, he is\nhaving a hard time understanding why the Navy won't give us the land and the City could\nrenegotiate the units beyond 1,425.\nMs. Ott replied that it does at a future date, but the conveyance is based on certain\nenvironmental review documents that the Navy prepared. If the City entitles something\nthat creates a foreseeable project that's different than what is in the environmental\nreview document than they will have to redo those documents and it would take months\nand additional funds to process the documents. Ultimately, that would jeopardize our no\ncost conveyance agreement.\nBoard member Knox White replied if the City were to convey something at 1,425 units\nusing their existing environmental documents, but then later decide to change the\nnumber of units and conduct their own review then there would be nothing that would\nstop that.\nMs. Ott replied that's correct.\nPresident Zuppan called for public comment or questions.\nBoard member Knox White moved to limit the five public speakers time to three minutes\neach.\nBoard member Burton seconded the motion.\nThe motion was approved 6-0 with 1 abstention.\nHelen Sause, member of HOMES, wondered if the plans had gone dormant due to the\ndemise of redevelopment and the Lawrence Livermore Lab's move to the city of\nRichmond. On the other hand, she was pleased to see the no cost conveyance had\ngone through. Then, it was a pleasant surprise to see the City Manager's letter about the\napproaching analysis and understand what is needed to move the plan forward. She was\nconcerned that the parcel would be developed without a cohesive plan. However, this\ncomprehensive approach will allow diverse development that can be developed at\nvarious time schedules with mixed-uses and potential waterfront development, similar to\nMarina Village. The net result is that they end up with a wise program that will be enable\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 17 of 23\nMarch 12, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-03-12", "page": 18, "text": "ensure developments to these sites. Ultimately, she looks forward to this plan, applauds\nthe City for investing in this and she hopes the Council will quickly endorse the plan.\nDiane Lichtenstein, Vice President of HOMES, congratulated the staff on a well thought\nout plan. She was originally concerned that the plan would be developed in sections and\nthat it would not be cohesive. However, she understood that will not happen and she\nurged staff to hire a development advisor who has experience with this type of endeavor\nin order to move the plan along. Her organization advocates for mixed-use\ndevelopments and services that are accessible to everyone who lives there and she felt\nthere was a lack of the mix-use developments in the plan. In addition, she urged staff to\ninclude amenities in each residential district such as small restaurants, cleaners, and\ncoffee shops. Also, she urged for a mix of diverse residential types including mixing\naffordable and market-rate housing just as the community and Board said.\nBill Smith, Vice President of Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, agreed with Board\nmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Knox White's comments about placing a housing cap in the\nzoning ordinance. The Urban Land Institute just came out with a report that shows\nCalifornia is overbuilt in single-family housing, but not multifamily housing near transit\nand urban districts. So, the City could increase the residential density and still develop\ncommercial and open space. Ultimately, believes the City is not representing the\ncommunity's input and he would be interested to see what staff has to say about that.\nKaren Bay, Alameda resident, echoed Board member Autorino's comments about\nhaving more residential along the waterfront. She believes that is an important aspect to\nthis project that is missing. She found that adding residential in the corner between the\ntown center and employment parcels would be beneficial. Also, she would like to see\nmore residential within the adaptive reuse area. She wondered how the City would\nfinance the sewer and energy infrastructure. Regarding the Northwestern Territories, she\nwould like to see a hotel or convention center in that area or at least zone for that type of\nuse.\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, agreed\nwith some of the comments made by the previous speakers. He believes the best plan\nAlameda Point Plan was designed by Peter Calthorpe. However, that plan will forever\nhave a black eye because SunCal was attached to it. Yet, the Calthorpe plan was the\nmost diverse and greenest plan because it included 3,000 residential units and had an\nintegrated approach. He felt that the 1,425 residential cap limits the City in many ways.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster asked about the flexibility of the zoned areas at Alameda Point.\nMr. Thomas stated yes things could change and at the beginning, they were working on\na policy foundation stemming from the Reuse Plan and General Plan. They anticipate\nthat there will be certain areas where the City will want even more detail in terms of\ndevelopment regulations, but before they let this loose to development they may want to\ndo a pattern explaining the shapes and sizes of new homes. Furthermore, they can\nprescribe a form-based policy or they may decide that is too expensive and have the\ndeveloper do the design aspect as part of the entitlement process. Also, the Town\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 18 of 23\nMarch 12, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-03-12", "page": 19, "text": "Center District may need additional levels of detail that they want built into the\nentitlements.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster stated if a developer wanted to build housing in the Adaptive\nReuse District it sounds like it could be a little prescriptive and the developer would have\nto take a couple of steps to get there.\nMr. Thomas said yes we all need to discuss those issues such as do we want them to go\nthrough extra steps.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster asked if the City's planned is to look at multiple developers for this\nsite or one master developer.\nMr. Thomas explained that staff's perspective is to get more than one developer,\nespecially since the site is huge. Given the current economy, it is better to develop in\nsmaller pieces with multiple developers.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster would also like to discuss the site's transportation plan. He also\nechoed some of the Board and public's sentiments about not capping the housing since\nit would be a miss opportunity.\nBoard member Knox White was concerned about the dual track and amendment\nprocess. The Council is being asked to adopt a process that appears to solidify what\nhappens in specific zones especially in the northern and southern areas. From what he\nis hearing, the Board is not in consensus regarding the staff proposals on the zoning\namendments. He recommended that the Board to send a letter of communication to the\nCity Council to hold off on that part of the discussion. He liked the developer consultant\npart of this plan, but he fears that this conversation hasn't happened and this is the first\ntime the Board has meaningfully analyzed how Alameda Point should start to be shaped.\nRegarding the SunCal Plan he thinks the zoning map does a significantly better job at\nidentifying the type of zoning the City should adopt moving forward. He wondered if staff\nshould bring this map out so there are not so many levels. The actual zoning proposal is\nsignificantly problematic and may cause issues similar to Harbor Bay where people end\nup with millions of square feet of commercial entitlements that are not used. Thus, they\nwould end up asking to swap out land at the Northwestern Territories for more housing\nlater. He felt the current plan proposed is homogenous because the commercial areas\ndon't allow housing or other meaningful uses. The plan is contrary to the public's opinion\nof wanting a variety of mixed-use, affordable housing, and transit-oriented districts that\nprovide jobs and open space. Alameda Landing is an example of a site that identifies as\nmixed-use, but develops a lot of single use pads next to each other and this plan does it\nat a grander scale. He echoed the sentiments made by some of the Board and public\nabout capping the housing. He believes capping the housing will cause single-family\nhousing to be built and they will be left with an undesirable mixed-used in the Town\nCenter District similar to Marina Village. Staff should look at mixed-use with residential\nalong the waterfront, and make sure the Town Center core is active with residential and\ncommercial uses. He ultimately believes there should be zoning flexibility in all of these\nplaces.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 19 of 23\nMarch 12, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-03-12", "page": 20, "text": "Board member Henneberry wanted to know what staff is asking from the City Council\nnext week.\nMs. Ott replied the ask is to provide direction on a strategy they have contemplated,\nwhich talks about dividing the property in a concurrent development approach and\nengaging the development community about these areas.\nBoard member Henneberry asked if staff has the specific proposal on the entitlements.\nMs. Ott stated they have the development envelope in the Reuse Plan as a starting\npoint. As part of the disposition process, staff could go back and take the cap out and\nleave it out of the zoning ordinance, but developers need exact unit numbers that they\ncan develop.\nVice President Burton agreed with many of the Board's comments. He felt that Board\nmember Autorino comments about the continuous green connection and the\ninterconnectedness of the shoreline spaces is important. He understood staff's need to\ncreate a base-wide zone, but there has to be an explanation of how they will move\nforward in order to create a cohesive development. The Calthorpe plan has many strong\npoints that built the plan's skeleton and backbone, including a transportation network and\npathways through the different uses. He wants a plan of action for the backbone so,\nonce they start breaking up the 20-acre parcels they end up with something cohesive.\nHe was encouraged to hear that there will be some accommodation for multifamily\nresidential in the employment areas and the Town Center District. However, he wanted\nto see that developed in more of a specific way so there is an opportunity for mixed-use.\nHe was encouraged by the form-based code for North Park Street and he would like to\nsee how that process could be layered over the base-wide zoning. He referred to the\nlower employment area that interfaces on Main Street with the residential across and\nsuggested that staff create a slice along there for higher-residential housing. In terms of\nmoving forward with the actual dispersal of land, he would like staff to focus on the Town\nCenter District and the parcels nearby in order to build up the center first and support the\npublic transit and mixed-uses.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft referred to page 3 (2nd paragraph) of the staff report. She\nstated that the community wants not just affordable housing, but housing for all income\nlevels. She would like that incorporated in further writings about this topic. On page 7 of\nthe staff report, the paragraph states the area is adjacent to the existing Bay Port\nresidential to the east and is currently occupied by 200-units of transitional housing and\n65-untis of former Navy family housing. She wanted to know if the 265-units of housing\nwould be counted towards that 1,425-unit cap.\nMs. Ott stated yes, but that number could go down.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft explained we need to disperse housing throughout the\narea and the housing cap should not exist. She referred to page 5 of the staff report\nabout transportation mobility and pointed out that traffic congestion would be minimized\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 20 of 23\nMarch 12, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-03-12", "page": 21, "text": "if employment and housing were in close proximity. Lastly, she asked if Ms. Ott would\ninclude the Board's remarks from this meeting to the City Council.\nMs. Ott replied yes, she would include the Board's comments into the staff report. She\nalso let the Board know that staff is pursuing a grant application to analyze the Town\nCenter District's precise plan for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.\nPresident Zuppan endorsed Board member Autorino's comments about juxtaposition of\nthe commercial uses and the residential neighborhood. She also agreed with the green\npath around the site and Board member Burton's comments about green pathways and\nhow they can be connected. She echoed the Board and public's disagreement with the\nhousing cap.\nBoard member Knox White asked Ms. Ott about her response to the Board and the fact\nthat staff can go back and change the zoning code when necessary. He felt that it\ndoesn't matter what the Board says about the zoning amendments because staff will\nmove forward and ask the City Council to approve the amendments next week.\nMs. Ott replied if the Board wants to consider zoning or allowing residential as a\nconditionally permitted use in the employment area that is a consideration. However, the\ndiscussion with the City Council is about the disposition and staff is not ignoring the\nBoard's comments. In order to set a plan and sell land, they have to present the number\nof units attached to the parcel's districts.\nVice President Burton made a motion to extend the meeting to 11:30 pm.\nBoard member Knox White seconded the motion.\nThe motion was approved 7-0.\nMs. Ott stated that she is not ignoring the issue, but in order to entitle and sell land to a\ndeveloper they have only 1,425 units, but that doesn't mean they can't create more in\nthe future. When selling the land and building units, they have to be specific that is why\nthe disposition strategy is different from the zoning strategy.\nBoard member Knox White was concerned that the proposed disposition approach was\nbased on the assumption that the zoning plans may change after they sold the prime\nresidential and commercial. He then suggested that staff present the disposition part to\nthe City Council in June or July.\nMs. Ott replied the proposing disposition strategy is just beginning. She recommended\nthat staff should not market the commercial area adjacent to the 50-acre LBNL parcel.\nMr. Thomas stated the sequence of events would be to have the zoning ordinance\napproved before the environmental review occurs. Then the disposition would begin\nonce they have the entitlements.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 21 of 23\nMarch 12, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-03-12", "page": 22, "text": "Board member Knox White felt that staff should discuss the disposition with the City\nCouncil once the zoning is approved.\nMs. Ott explained that the project description would be the Reuse Plan. So, the\nconcentration of the residential units will result from the zoning amendments and that\nfeeds directly into the project description and the environmental impact report. Their\nmeeting with the City Council is aimed at discussing the bigger picture, whereas with the\nBoard it is more detailed. The larger question for the Board and Council is whether they\nwant to concentrate the units in a certain area from a disposition standpoint instead of\nsprinkling them everywhere.\nBoard member Knox White replied then put them in the Town Center District.\nMs. Ott replied they talked about having a minimum of 425 units to start in the Town\nCenter.\nBoard member Knox White replied the Town Center area is where development should\nbe built up first and the rest will follow.\nMs. Ott said if development could build 425 multifamily housing units that is a good start\nto the Town Center since it is a much smaller area.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked how staff will include a mix of housing types\ndiscussed earlier and how they will respond to the input regarding housing placed\nthroughout Alameda Point.\nMs. Ott replied the Town Center District is the agreed upon residential site even if there\nis no cap in the zoning and staff has discussed residential along Main Street in the\ncommercial and the southern area.\nMr. Thomas replied he would look at the Town Center District and the residential center.\nIn order to get a mix of residential types, staff is starting in the base layer to get the form-\nbased ideas in there. He would use graphics from previous planning efforts or start\nlaying out blocks in both of these areas. The SunCal Plan does allow a finer grain of four\ndifferent residential categories. He suggested that staff come back at the next meeting\nand present specific housing types. He also pointed out that Board member Knox\nWhite's comments raised an important question about how many units are needed to\nmake the Town Center District a vibrant area.\nMs. Ott explained they contemplated on whether the residential uses require a gradient\nthe closer one gets to the Town Center District. What they heard from the development\ncommunity is that the land near the Town Center District is the most valuable land with\nmarket potential.\nVice President Burton asked Ms. Off if the City is required to document the exact number\nof residential units in the Zoning ordinance.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 22 of 23\nMarch 12, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-03-12", "page": 23, "text": "Ms. Ott stated it is not set in stone in the ordinance.\nVice President Burton exclaimed they shouldn't set the number and the smart thing to\nsay what type of densities will go into the areas.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nMr. Thomas mentioned that the executive summary of the Urban Land Institute's report\nis on the City's website.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nPresident Zuppan thanked Board member Ezzy Ashcraft and Board member Autorino for\ntheir service.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n13. ADJOURNMENT:\n11:19 PM\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 23 of 23\nMarch 12, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf"}