{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-25", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nPLANNING BOARD MEETING\nWEDNESDAY- -SEPTEMBER 25, 2013- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:02 p.m. President Burton led the Pledge of\nAllegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam\nand Mayor Gilmore; and Planning Board Members\nAlvarez-Moronni, Henneberry, Knox White, Koester,\nTang, Zuppan, and President Burton - 12.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(13-422) Red Wetherill, Alameda, submitted a hand out and discussed the safety of the\nTubes.\n(13-423) Patricia Baer, Alameda, discussed the safety of the Tubes.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(13-424) Review and Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the\nAlameda Point Project.\nThe City Planner gave a Power Point presentation.\nExpressed concern over traffic on Bay View Drive: Dorothy Kakimoto, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over the lack of emphasis on environmental health effects and\ndisclosure about contaminants at Alameda Point: Susan Galleymore, Alameda.\nStated Housing Opportunities Make Economic Sense (HOMES) would submit\ncomments on the EIR; stated issues include: where the people work at the site will live,\nthe EIRs scope, and the Alameda Town Center name: Helen Sause, HOMES.\nExpressed thanks for the thorough EIR; stated reaching out to the best planners in the\nworld will be important for the next phase: Chuck Kapelke, Alameda.\nExpressed appreciation for the EIR public process and inclusion of the housing\nalternative; stated cumulative analysis is important; the project will have many gains for\nthe community: Bill Smith, Alameda.\nStated the sea level rise berm must be built appropriately; urged using the high density\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n1\nPlanning Board\nSeptember 25, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-25", "page": 2, "text": "housing option; stated infrastructure must be smart grid, plug and play; expressed\nconcerns about cost estimates: Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nExpressed concerned about housing alternatives; stated retail should be spectacular\nand is the opportunity to make Alameda Point a destination: Karen Bey, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over the vagueness of the EIR; stated the Reuse Plan includes\nimportant specifics, which are not in the EIR; schools are particularly important and not\nwell discussed; rigorous community oversight is lacking: Diane Lichtenstein, Alameda.\nStated that she is impressed with the mix of open space and light industrial space; the\nlight industrial zone should meet the water and include small and medium size\nbusinesses: Adrienne Lakadat, Alameda.\nStated traffic in Chinatown in Oakland is a problem; urged the City to work with Oakland\nto resolve the issue: Alex Dannebaum, Alameda.\nExpressed concern about transportation issues; stated retail would be automobile\nbased; expressed concern over public involvement: Former Councilmember Doug\ndeHaan, Alameda.\nExpressed concern that sea level rise issues have not been adequately addressed: Bob\nSikora, Alameda.\nStated the Alameda Point Collaborative will have written comments; requested more\ninformation on mitigation, environmental and justice issues: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point\nCollaborative.\nStated that he is interested in the historic structures, class issues, transportation and\nconnection to BART: Craig Miott, Alameda.\nExpressed concern about building height in the Enterprise District; urged support for the\ncurrent Alameda Point business community: Amanda Shepard, Alameda.\nMayor Gilmore noted Chapter 4 of the EIR provides a history and is a really great way\nfor anyone interested to get up to speed.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested staff to double check EIR Appendix G which\naddresses transportation and circulation data; stated that he believes there is a\nproblem, which he emailed to staff.\nThe City Planner stated staff would check the details on Appendix G.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the historical evolution of Alameda Point in Chapter 4 is\nworth noting because a frame of reference is needed; 14,000 jobs were lost; 9,000 jobs\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n2\nPlanning Board\nSeptember 25, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-25", "page": 3, "text": "would be added back; the Tubes and facilities previously accommodated the flow of\n14,000 jobs; before 1997, when there were 14,000 jobs, there was not the current and\nproposed development in Oakland or sea level change issues as well other issues\nraised by speakers; requested staff to provide a contextual framework.\nThe City Planner stated the State has established a very prescriptive way to do an EIR;\nstaff and consultants will ensure additional information and context is available to the\ncommunity, Planning Board and Council; the greatest number of jobs and population\nwas in 1994; a lot of cars left Alameda Point every day; the Navy had ways of managing\ntrips through staggered shifts, but traffic was still bad; staff's approach is to determine\nwhat the community can manage and to use different methods; new techniques have to\nbe found for people traveling back and forth to new jobs at Alameda Point; a portion of\nthe redevelopment at Alameda Point would get the City back to the jobs and population\n20 years ago; transportation is one of the most interesting challenges; positive things\nare on the horizon, which other communities are doing; employers run shuttles because\nemployees do not want to drive; companies at Alameda Point today want to start\nrunning shuttles; Marina Village is looking at doing a shuttle study; the younger\ngeneration is not rushing to buy cars, which will be part of the solution moving forward.\nCouncilmember Tam noted the City's population only increased by less then 1% in the\npast 10 years.\nThe City Planner stated people feel like the population has been growing faster because\nof driving habits; a challenge is getting the community to change driving habits; the City\nhas been working with regional transportation agencies, such as the Water Emergency\nTransportation Authority (WETA) and BART regarding options and solutions; trips have\nbe to reduced and alternatives are needed, such as a BART extension, which the City is\nstill working on; BART recently attended the Planning Board meeting and wants to\nreview the option.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Bay Area recently had a couple of opportunities to\ndo trial runs of alternative means of transportation, other than cars, during the BART\nstrike and Bay Bridge closure; the ferries saw tremendous increases in ridership; people\nwill use other means of transportation; the ferries and AC Transit stepped up\noperations; the City Council and Planning Board receive lots of emails from people\nconcerned about proposed developments and the impact of automobile traffic;\nencouraged everyone to think about their personal habits and ask themselves whether\neverything is being done to minimize car dependency; the public's help is needed;\noptions reviewed for Alameda Point should be applied to the greater community as well.\nMayor Gilmore stated transportation demand management plans and ways to minimize\nthe impact of new development assumes the problem is Alameda Point; however, how\nthe rest of the Island gets around is going to have to change; everyone should be\nthinking about taking shuttles and BART; the solution is going to have to be Island wide.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n3\nPlanning Board\nSeptember 25, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-25", "page": 4, "text": "Board Member Koster concurred; stated the tunnels and connection to Interstate-880 (I-\n880) have to be reviewed; from the 1950's to 2000's, society was auto centric, which is\nchanging with urban movements; he tries to drive as little as possible; a small gas hike\na couple of years ago forced more riders onto public transit; his friends all ride transit;\ncars are getting more expensive and are not going to be feasible in the future.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) will\ninclude incentives and penalties for future Alameda Point residents; the incentives and\npenalties should be narrowed down; the whole community should be encouraged to\ntake mass transit; the Estuary Crossing shuttle is underutilized; questioned how the City\ncan really encourage and incentivize use; stated the City needs to determine the spark\nthat will get everyone excited about public transportation; Alameda Landing projected\nan increase of 45,000 vehicles per day; Park Street to Harbor Bay has three exit points:\nFruitvale, High Street and Doolittle Drive; Park Street to the West End only has one exit\npoint; an increase in residential or business use will utilize the Tube; that he likes the\nincentive plan, but would like to better understand proposed incentives.\nThe City Planner stated a lot has to be worked out; the matter would be discussed at\nthe Joint Transportation Commission and Planning Board meeting on September 30th;\none of the best ways to ensure that Alameda Point minimizes impact is to attract\nhomeowners and businesses desiring alternatives; one of the first questions businesses\nask is how are employees going to get to work without driving; employees are\ndemanding said type of location; Alameda Point needs to provide shuttles and buses;\nevery business and resident at Alameda Point will pay into a transportation fund to\ngenerate operating revenue for Alameda Point buses, water taxis or whatever is\ndetermined the best use of funds; another essential piece of the strategy is connecting\nwith BART and AC Transit; businesses or households wanting to drive should not be\nattracted to Alameda Point; the City has to attract residents who would be happy not to\nneed a car.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the staff report indicates the draft EIR finds that all\npotential impacts on biological resources can be mitigated; there are pelicans, least\nterns and other endangered species; that he is very pleased with the language and\nhopes the City can back it up; adaptively reusing the Bachelor Officers Quarters (BOQ)\nand Bachelors Enlisted Quarters (BEQ) for multifamily housing is a great idea.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he has a different opinion regarding road widening;\nroad widening might be necessary; the policy has to rely on traffic data; suggested staff\nreview Section 4.4.2.A, and contemplate the possibility that roads might need to be\nwidened in some specific instances.\nMayor Gilmore stated the matter has been discussed over the last several years; the\ncollective consciousness has been that the City wants to encourage people to get out of\ncars and widening roads encourages people to get back into cars.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n4\nPlanning Board\nSeptember 25, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-25", "page": 5, "text": "The City Planner stated the policy also was based on the Tubes and bridges; widening\nroads would just allow cars to travel faster and then have to wait in line to get to the\nTube.\nMayor Gilmore stated road widening also impacts bicycles and pedestrians because\npeople rush through town; that she receives many complaints about speeding now.\nThe City Planner stated wide streets are the least pleasant for walkers to cross; the EIR\ntransportation section addresses items which make it easier for cars; if something is\ndone for cars, it asks what about pedestrians, bicyclists and transit and whether service\nlevels would go down.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated at some point, widening the end of the outbound Posey\nTube would need to be evaluated in the event there is a left turn.\nThe City Manager stated the intersection from I-880 to the Tube is a regional problem;\nOakland has projects coming on line; the Chinatown neighborhood faces air quality\nproblems; staff is focused on the exit from the Tube and how to make the egress easier\nwithout creating more Chinatown traffic; staff's intention is to come forward with projects\nand plans that absolutely minimize automobile trips; the City Planner laid out some of\nthe balancing questions; building larger roads creates a less friendly, less urban built\nenvironment for pedestrians and bicyclists; a lot of diplomacy has occurred during the\nlast four months; a lot of work remains to be done; the County wants to go forward with\na measure on the 2014 or 2016 ballot to increase the sales tax in order to create more\ntransportation infrastructure, which would be good for Alameda as long as the\nBroadway Jackson interchange and additional expenditures for ferries and boats are\nincluded; Alameda is going to have specialized infrastructure needs over the next 50\nyears because no solution creates another Tube or bridge; the City does not want to be\nover reliant on automobiles going forward in developing the former Base; the public will\nhave the opportunity to weigh in when options are presented.\nPresident Burton stated that he appreciates the comments made about how everyone is\ninvolved in the traffic situation; he recently saw a billboard that said: \"You are not stuck\nin traffic, you are traffic;\" everyone needs to be part of the solution, which cannot simply\nbe the responsibility of new people; the transportation management plan is one critical\ncomponent missing from the EIR; significant mitigation is needed if the City decides to\nreduce residential traffic by 10% and commercial traffic by 30%, which is an achievable\ngoal, instead of some of roadway changes discussed in the EIR which do not have a\nsignificant impact on car traffic but do have significant impacts on pedestrian and bike\ntraffic; that he would also like to see a greater level of detail in the EIR traffic studies;\nthe EIR compares scenarios; all the other development in town is going to have greater\nor at least as much impact as the traffic generated by Alameda Point; he would like to\nsee a more direct comparison of the project impact to the project impact plus cumulative\nin order to clearly understand where problems lie and be able to determine the most\neffective manner going forward; solutions for Alameda Point might not effectively\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n5\nPlanning Board\nSeptember 25, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-25", "page": 6, "text": "address other problem areas effectively; the matter should be in the EIR and part of\ndiscussions going forward.\nBoard Member Knox White stated that he would submit written comments before the\ndeadline; the alternatives analysis needs a lot more flushing out and an explanation of\nratings; some assumptions in the alternatives analysis do not make sense; the plan to\ndeal with sea level rise is good; a policy decision still needs to be made about whether\nthe initial mitigation is 18, 12 or 36 inches; the conversation should happen, because\nthe policy impacts the Master Infrastructure Plan (MIP) and also changes the mitigation\nanalysis in the EIR; the EIR goes to 2050, which is a 35 year window; people buying\nhouses at Alameda Point will not have paid off their first mortgage by 2050, when the\nnext dike will start to be built; questioned whether homeowners' first mortgage would be\nsufficiently protected and whether insurance companies are going to guarantee that the\nproperty would be protected from sea level rise; stated the ability to sell land to\ncommercial and homeowners might be impacted; the sea level rise decision impacts a\nlot of decisions, including fees; the conversation is overdue and needs to be had at\nsome point in the near future.\nBoard Member Tang stated traffic is the most important issue; the City's existing traffic\ninfrastructure limits and dictates the kind of development at Alameda Point; a good mix\nis needed to have a harmonious flow; there cannot be too many residences or too many\nretail outlets; that he appreciated hearing about the shuttle service; he carpools from\nBay Farm Island; parking spaces are fully occupied; more carpool or shuttle parking\nspaces might be needed; some buses are empty; questioned whether there should be\nsmaller shuttles; stated bus ridership might depend on how well a company is doing; the\nCity should ensure shuttles will be fully utilized; questioned whether the City has a\nbackup plan in case the Tube is closed; stated any emergency plan to direct traffic\nshould be revisited; developers are going to have to invest money on traffic\ninfrastructure to make the development successful; questioned how people will make it\nfrom Bay Farm Island to Alameda Point to shop at Target; stated hopefully, residents\nwill take a shuttle and not drive to Alameda Landing.\nMayor Gilmore stated President Burton commented about the analysis between the\nAlameda Point traffic and existing traffic; the matter has been discussed for years;\nreports show significant impacts from traffic on the rest of the Island even if Alameda\nPoint is not built; development on the rest of the Island is fragmented and spread out,\nmaking a comprehensive plan more difficult; there are more opportunities to put in traffic\nmitigation plans that have a better chance of working at Alameda Point, which should be\naddressed in the EIR; people need to understand that even if nothing is done at\nAlameda point, there is a very good chance that there will be gridlock on the rest of the\nIsland unless driving habits change or bus and shuttle capacity increases; the matter\nneeds to be flushed out; complimented staff and the Planning Board on the tremendous\namount of work that has been put into the EIR and the outreach efforts; stated turn out\nis much better than the in the past and will hopefully continue to improve as the process\ncontinues; the City wants input; October 21st is the deadline for submitting comments;\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n6\nPlanning Board\nSeptember 25, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-25", "page": 7, "text": "there will be many public meetings going forward.\nThe City Planner noted the Planning Board is having another hearing on October 14th to\naddress the town center plan and Alameda Point zoning.\n(13-425) Provide Comments on the Disposition Strategy for Alameda Point.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a Power Point presentation.\n***\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 9:04 p.m. and returned at 9:07 p.m.\n*\nMayor Gilmore stated commercial and retail is one of the top priorities; questions have\ncome up why the City is leading with commercial and retail.\nThe City Manager stated Alameda's economic deficits and revenue streams have been\nreviewed; staff is focused on the budget and long term financial problems; the City does\nnot have enough money to maintain the roads on a proper schedule; money has not\nbeen set aside for post-employment benefits; PERS is going to impose smoothing,\nwhich will cost extra; the Council has done a very good job in making strategic cuts and\nincreasing reserves; in the next two years, the City will go to market for infrastructure as\nthe highest bond rated municipality in the East Bay; cutting more services is politically\ninfeasible; the budget has two sides: cost and revenue; the glaring hole in Alameda's\nrevenue package is retail sales tax; therefore, the number one priority for the City is to\nbolster retail and bring businesses that generate business to business sales tax;\ndiscussed retail leakage; stated growth has to be strategic; leading with housing creates\na constituency which could want to stop future commercial, industrial and retail growth\nand almost always excludes revenue needed generators; staff is concerned with the\nconsequences of California's tax structure; housing units can be assess on the front\nend, which helps build infrastructure; however, in 30 to 50 years, residential will\ngenerally not pay for the service demands it generates based on the Proposition 13 tax\nstructure; uses should be reviewed which balance and give the City financial\nwherewithal at the front end and in the long term; staff is not interested in big box retail,\nsuch as Costco or Walmart; staff will present retail proposals in the next couple of\nmonths; retail is a priority for financial, phasing and political reasons and because there\nis a real need; traffic trips will be created; however, trips of Alamedans driving cars off\nIsland to shop would be diverted; retail would not exclude, but would complement,\nhousing.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she understands the academic need for sales tax\nrevenue; however, the City will have to deal with financing infrastructure; there is a huge\nbackbone infrastructure need; the City has huge sales tax leakage, which needs to be\ndealt with long term; inquired whether studies show that retail can pay for Alameda\nPoint infrastructure which has a price tag of $575 to $600 million.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n7\nPlanning Board\nSeptember 25, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-25", "page": 8, "text": "The City Manager stated retail solely would not pay for infrastructure; however, only\ndoing housing deplete the General Fund in the long term; balance is required.\nCouncilmember Tam stated cities have to offer subsidies to attract retail and had\nredevelopment funds to do so that in the past.\nThe City Manager noted proposals being received do not call for subsidy.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether whatever selected, such as an outlet mall, could\npay to bring in water, sewer, and gas.\nThe City Manager responded a business would pay for its site; a master developer\nwould not be brought in to do the whole Base and infrastructure; the City is going to\nhave to fit every project into the envelope of mitigations and impacts discussed in the\nEIR; the City will build the backbone infrastructure and each developer, whether the\nproject is a 20 acre housing pad or a 20 acre office park, would be required to build\ninfrastructure on the project site; significant parts of the entire infrastructure costs would\nbe offloaded, which means the City will receive less revenue on the front end; a\ncomprehensive answer cannot be given because he does not have deals.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she understands the concept of phasing and\npiecemeal projects; however, the pieces of the puzzle tie into the backbone\ninfrastructure and have to be contiguous and whole.\nThe City Manager stated the MIP addresses the matter; without redevelopment, the City\ncannot subsidize every transaction; although the types of projects were listed in a\nspecific order, staff would address projects as they come available; the end of next\nyear, the City will have a method, such as an infrastructure financing district or some\nother method to build the backbone infrastructure; there will be new housing and retail,\nand growth of existing businesses; every study shows that the best way to perform\neconomic development is to grow existing successful businesses; many businesses\nhave wanted to expand for years; the vision is multilateral; staff believes the City cannot\njust lead with housing; everything must be done in phases.\nStated that she likes the strategy for the lagoon area and focusing on one area first;\nexpressed concern about the City not being ready to adequately invest in Alameda\nPoint; stated that she supports having multiple diverse developers: Helen Sause,\nAlameda.\nStated 1,425 housing units is inadequate for transit; a fiber optic network and smart grid\nis needed to attract high tech firms; the right mix is needed at Alameda Point: Jon\nSpangler, Alameda.\nInvited everyone to attend the Harvest Fest; inquired whether or not the list is prioritized;\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n8\nPlanning Board\nSeptember 25, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-25", "page": 9, "text": "and whether the City would lead with the Town Center: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point\nCollaborative.\nEncouraged the City to think big; stated Alameda has the opportunity to become a\ndestination; the City should not just settle for sales tax and should have a ground lease,\nwhich would help solve budget issues: Karen Bey, Alameda.\nGave a brief presentation on history at Alameda Point; suggested Catalina Cove is the\nright name for the Town Center: Ethan Clifton, Alameda.\nBoard Member Tang discussed use tax revenue; stated having businesses, especially\nhigh tech companies move in, is a good thing; discussed Assembly Bill 93 (AB93);\nencouraged making major efforts to attract tech companies.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether the City could come up with some kind of a tax\ncredit or tax incentive program in addition to the AB93; stated information on the matter\nhas been forwarded to staff for review.\nThe City Manager responded staff is reviewing the information and is very interested;\nstated staff is not eager to provide additional tax breaks; the City would be bringing in\nbusinesses to increase tax revenue; having the State realize the tax burden needs to be\nscaled back to draw people here is good; staff would be cautious about attracting\nbusinesses by providing extensive tax breaks because the City would not make money.\nBoard Member Tang stated some cities are pretty aggressive in enticing high tech\ncompanies; Milpitas gave his company a five year plan and shared local taxes; the\nsituation is win-win; short term incentives make the package more attractive to a\ncompany that wants to move to Alameda.\nThe City Manager stated staff would not rule out the option, but wants to look very\ncautiously at any tax rebates; rebates would have to make economic sense for the City.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the City is leaking in every retail category including an\nAsian market; suggested some sort of mall or marketplace for Asian-Americans at\nAlameda Point; stated the first three priorities are: major retail businesses, major job\ngenerating businesses, and maritime businesses; the fourth category is residential\nfamily housing; there should be a parallel approach; having residential fourth on the list\nalmost sends a message that the City is not highly prioritizing residential development;\nsuggested bumping up residential one or two notches; inquired how many of the 200\nsupport housing units are low or affordable income units.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded all of them.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the City is trying to convert the project into a smaller\nfootprint; inquired whether only 25% is required to be allocated for low income housing,\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n9\nPlanning Board\nSeptember 25, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-25", "page": 10, "text": "to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded for new construction.\nIn response to Councilmember Chen's further inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer -\nAlameda Point stated 1,425 includes existing units, such as the 200 supportive housing\nunits; a settlement agreement requires the City to provide 25% affordable housing on all\nnew housing; 25% of all new housing units have to be affordable, excluding the\nCollaborative units.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether the 200 supportive housing units would remain\naffordable.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated the\nCollaborative wants to relocate and wants new facilities; staff believes there are mutual\nbenefits; the Collaborative would have new facilities which would better meet their\nneeds and the land could be used for market housing; the option is being explored.\nIn response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry about prioritization, the City Manager\nstated the prioritization order does not mean that staff is not working on others items;\nthe City will not have any trouble selling 1,435 units; most developers who have\napproached the City in the last two years are home builders; detailed zoning is being\ndone for the Town Center; recruiting businesses is going to require more staff energy,\nattention and imagination; housing does not need to be prioritized to happen.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired there pool of residential developers would be impacted\nby a high vacancy rate at the Town Center.\nThe City Manager responded in the negative; stated when staff presents any project,\neven retail, the project will not have a parking lot with stores around the perimeter;\nanother Alameda Landing will not be built and is not appropriate for the view; something\nwhich creates a sense of space and destination would be built; other opportunities, such\nas a campus or light industry, would be something the City could be proud of\narchitecturally; something special will be done for the location.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands the City can move forward on\nmore than one front and hopes the City does so; historically, the goal has been to\ncreate new jobs to replace jobs lost when the Navy closed; the City needs sales tax\nrevenue; however, a wider view is needed; consideration should be given to the type of\njobs retail creates; hundreds of people working good construction and related trades\njobs have been at Alameda Landing for months; however, retail workers probably make\nminimum wage; keeping Alamedans off busy highways to shop is a good thing; the\nproposed retail opportunities cannot be supported by Alamedans alone; she supports\nattractive waterfront developments, which has been discussed for years; lines can be\ncrossed and uses can be mixed; having high end retail development does not prevent\nhigh end market rate residential, which would help pay for infrastructure; opportunities\nwill present themselves; as speakers said, the City should think big; amazing things can\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n10\nPlanning Board\nSeptember 25, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-25", "page": 11, "text": "be done; the loss of redevelopment dollars has been lamented; the City's bond rating\nhas been upgraded; figuring out how to pay for the things the City needs and wants\nwithout always relying on going into debt has been a good thing; every possible source\nshould be tapped before falling back on the easy way out; staff did a good job of\nbringing the issues forward; the staff report indicates flexibility must be built into the\nstrategy to adapt to changing market conditions, which is counter to the sequential\norder; the project is going to take place over 15 to 30 years and will see a lot of different\neconomic cycles; flexibility should be kept in mind; the report states developing a\ngreater diversity of land uses and housing types concurrently may allow units to absorb\nfaster, which would result in more revenue sooner to offset expensive infrastructure\ncosts up front; the City wants to proceed cautiously; however, multiple, different types of\ndevelopment can be entertained simultaneously and would benefit the City.\n***\nCouncilmember Daysog left the dais at 9:54 p.m. and returned at 9:56 p.m.\nBoard Member Knox White acknowledged Planning staff's incredible effort; thanked\nCouncilmember Tam, with support from others, for requesting a disposition strategy;\nstated the disposition strategy is a Council decision which impacts zoning and other\nPlanning Board recommendations; a key question is what is the goal of the strategy,\nwhich he thinks should be to: guide efforts, protect finances, protect the City from\nliability issues, ensure the core vision, which includes a vibrant town center, being\nfiscally neutrality and generating revenue; that he believes the strategy is too broad;\ngave a Power Point outlining his suggestions.\nMayor Gilmore stated when the City went through the Lawrence Berkeley National\nLaboratory (LBNL) process, LBNL had concerns about whether staff would be able to\ntake care of personal matters on the lunch hour or before or after work; the Town\nCenter has to go forward at the same time as a component part to help attract\ndevelopment to Alameda Point; the enterprise zone and Town Center go together;\namenities have to be provided for workers and existing residents; requested staff to\naddress subsidies.\nThe City Manager stated items one through nine are not in a strict pecking order;\nmarket place realities indicate housing is not hard to get right now; other areas are\ngoing to require more imagination and work; assuming the enterprise zone would\nrequire a subsidy to the backbone infrastructure is a mistake; the City will have to\nfinance backbone infrastructure because the City will control the construction; the City\nwill not overbuild for things not there; the backbone infrastructure will not be brought to\nthe door of the enterprise area and the City will not proceed if sufficient funds are not\ncoming in; backbone infrastructure to the enterprise area is the same backbone\ninfrastructure for the Town Center; they go hand in hand from the infrastructure\nperspective; the City will provide backbone infrastructure to the door of each super pad\nand individual developers will be required to build infrastructure on their property\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n11\nPlanning Board\nSeptember 25, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-25", "page": 12, "text": "whether leasing or purchasing the land; the work being done now on the EIR and\nzoning will make the property more valuable when the City goes to market; time and\nentitlement risk will be off of the table; doing the EIR and zoning first was part of the\nCity's strategy; most cities have raw land and do an RFP to figure out what to build,\nwhich is a beauty pageant; then developers sharpen their pencils to provide real\nnumbers and cities are stuck because the community feels things were promised in the\nRFP process; the City is not being vague and is clear about the general uses; staff\nwanted to present a modest approach which recognizes the City cannot predict where\nmarkets will be in 15 or even 10 years; the document creates many different envelopes\nand scopes to allow the City to respond to market signals and proceed with projects\nwhich will financially benefit Alameda.\nPresident Burton stated one concern is how infrastructure will reach sites; the City\nManager has indicated the City will finance and install trunk lines and developers will\npay for individual super pad infrastructure; inquired whether a mechanism would require\ndevelopers to contribute a fair share of trunk lines costs so that the City could recoup at\nleast some of the costs.\nThe City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the mechanism will happen in\nmany different ways, such as through lease payments or land sale costs; businesses\nwill have to pay for backbone infrastructure maintenance going forward; the State does\nnot currently have Infrastructure Financing Districts (IFDs); community benefit districts\noptions were discussed in the MIP; the Governor vetoed IFDs for this year; however,\nthe Governor is likely to sign something next year; Alameda and Concord attempted to\nget some type of financial mechanism together to deal with the infrastructure at both\nbases; staff is reaching out to other cities with similar issues and is hopeful some\nfinancing mechanism will be approved next year.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether staff is analyzing how much of the backbone\ninfrastructure each parcel will have to pay as part of the MIP.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated\ndevelopers would be responsible for building infrastructure related to their site and\nwould also pay a prorated share of the site wide infrastructure; every parcel will\ncaptures its burden; not requiring a developer to pay a fair share would be a Council\ndecision; if a site does not pay its fair share, another site down the road would have to\npick up the cost; the amounts would be built into fees; staff is drafting an RFP for\nAlameda Point fees to capture the pro rata share of larger, site wide infrastructure,\nincluding some of the larger parks.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the strategy is a means to implement the Alameda Point\nvision, which could be a funky, eclectic place for professionals, bohemians and new\nbusinesses, similar to the Planning Board presentation by SOM; that he is okay with\nfocusing on retail, while not excluding other things; he is also oaky with commercial,\nindustrial and housing being fourth because things are going to occur close together;\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n12\nPlanning Board\nSeptember 25, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-25", "page": 13, "text": "the document gives staff leverage to have projects in the pipeline while saying the City\nneeds to focus on retail and job creation; reviewed Oakland housing projects examples\nfor context; stated parts of the Alameda Point project, such as the Town Center, will not\ntake 30 years; 1,400 housing units could enter the pipe within 15 years; housing will\nhave to occur close [in time] to retail or enterprise area development because the City\nwill need some kind of bonding to pay for infrastructure; Phase I infrastructure will cost\naround $190 million, which says something about the density of land uses; the strategy\nstaff put together will help the City achieve the vision; for housing density, emphasis\nshould be on multifamily, which would draw younger adults with spending habits which\ndiffer from families or someone in their late 40s or 50s without discretionary income; the\nTown Center should have higher density to bring a demographic that would lend itself to\na funky, eclectic environment.\n***\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft left the dais at 10:28 p.m. and returned at 10:32 p.m. and\nMember Tang left the dais at 10:33 p.m. and returned at 10:35 p.m.\n*\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she appreciates having a joint meeting with the\nPlanning Board; the discussion has been thoughtful; further stated the multi-prong\napproach staff is recommending dovetails with Board Member Knox White's guiding\nprinciple strategy on priority areas; areas present opportunities to review land banking;\nas the City Manager mentioned, the City will have no trouble getting single family home\ndevelopers, which might be an area that should pay for itself and be land banked while\nfocusing on multifamily housing and the Town Center; the criteria should help staff\nmake decisions as inquiries are received from developers; discussed subsidies and the\nof the Stargell Avenue project example; stated the disposition strategy should be\nmelded with Board Member Knox White's comments.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's request for clarification, Councilmember Tam stated\nthat she liked the mapping which showed priority, opportunity, and land banking areas;\ncriteria should define what the City envisions in the areas and whether the City would be\nwilling to consider financial subsidies or tax incentives.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she understands the concept of the priority areas; however,\nshe does not understand the criteria addressing the development desired in the areas\nbecause that is addressed by the zoning and EIR.\nBoard Member Knox White stated the zoning has a lot of flexibilities and does not have\na lot of guidance right now; the zoning does not have specificity or indicate where to put\na shopping mall; that he thought Councilmember Tam is saying the criteria should\nevaluate whether or not projects meet what the City want to do while having flexibility\nstaff wants.\nMayor Gilmore stated the ability to respond to market conditions and have flexibility has\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n13\nPlanning Board\nSeptember 25, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-25", "page": 14, "text": "been discussion since starting the EIR and zoning; no one has a crystal ball to know\nwhat opportunities are going to be presented; discussions should set the outer limit of\nthe envelope; different things can fit within the envelope; staff would present proposal to\nCouncil, which best fit the City's priorities, visions, and needs.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam inquiry regarding where projects would go, the City\nManager stated the City is either going to have flexibility or not have flexibility; zoning\ndetermines what goes where; general areas are known; every project will go to the\nPlanning Board and City Council; that he does not understand what the intermediate\ncriteria could be which would not be covered by zoning and yet would be flexible and\nnot prescriptive or predictive; staff will not bring anything that does not meet zoning and\nthe EIR.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the zoning and EIR are flexible, which is different than the\npriority areas.\nThe City Manager stated the zoning and EIR are not totally flexible.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the zoning would be form based; stated\nthere are certain categories, such as the maritime zone; the form based code outlines\nthe types of uses which would be appropriate for an area; painting should be with a\nbroad brush to allow for an opportunity that is not on the criteria list.\nThe City Manager responded form based zoning would be done for the Town Center;\nstated there needs to be a sense of place; something progressive would be done at the\nTown Center; staff knows a building cannot be more than 10 stories unless it is a\nsignature building; questioned what the intermediate step would be; stated Board\nMember Knox White and Councilmember Tam want a sieve which would indicate\nwhether staff should bring projects to a specific area; that he does not understand the\nintermediate step because the zoning is not meaningless; the Planning Board has done\na lot of work; saying anything can go anywhere does not conform with the maps and\nstrategy put forward; no one can predict what is going to happen; staff cannot predict\nwhere the market will be in 5 to 8 years and the City does not have money to subsidize\nprojects; requested clarification of the intermediate step.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she was just going to ask Councilmember Tam or Board\nMember Knox White to explain.\nBoard Member Knox White stated as part of the disposition strategy, the Council should\nindicate places the City wants to focus efforts and create priority zones; information\nwould be provided on fiscal neutrality and traffic impacts before anything is presented;\ninformation should be provided about how staff feels the proposal will impact the land;\nthe criteria is not a next step, rather it is information the Council would use to judge\nwhether or not to a project meets the goals.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n14\nPlanning Board\nSeptember 25, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-25", "page": 15, "text": "The City Manager stated Board Member Knox White is proposing to form base zone the\nentire Base before doing anything.\nPresident Burton stated that is what is being done.\nThe City Planner stated the zoning for the entire Base has elements of form based\ncode; the zoning is going to articulate how buildings should look and feel and address\nthe form, not just use, such as retail versus housing; the Town Center grant is going to\ntake the form based zoning to a much higher level; SOM was hired; the Town Center\nhas to be designed just right; the City might want to be a little more nimble for other\nbusiness areas which are a little bit harder to predict; the form based aspect has been\ntoned down for the enterprise district.\nPresident Burton review the idea of form based code and provided an example.\nThe City Planner stated any proposal staff brings would have to pass the first filter of\nbeing consistent with the General Plan, zoning and other adopted plans; Board Member\nKnox White is raising other questions the property owner has to consider, such as\nwhether the project works with the infrastructure and fiscal neutrality policy.\nMember Alvarez-Moronni stated Board Member Knox White has shown an overlay;\nhowever, the City is not at said point yet; the process is going to be organic and is\nprobably going to happen a lot faster when the EIR is approved; the Planning Board\nsubcommittee is discussing the SOM idea; the next step being proposed is much more\nspecific and the City is not there yet; the City is still working through the EIR, zoning,\nand what the form based areas are going to be; a template is already there; Board\nMember Knox White is imposing another layer, which is a little more confusing because\ndevelopers are unknown; at some time, there has to be a specific conversation about\nfinance; right now, the City is still at the draft EIR point.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether being at said point would preclude the City from\nhaving a strategy.\nMember Alvarez-Moronni responded there is a strategy.\nThe City Manager stated there is a strategy; staff would not bring a project for single\nfamily cul-de-sac homes in the enterprise zone or for the Town Center in the adaptive\nreuse area; staff is being asking not to bring a deal unless certain financial criteria are\nmet; however, the City will not have answers until a developer is given site control; the\nCity is trying to bring in private investment; developers do not spend money on detailed\neconometric work and drawings until they have site control; the proposal tonight puts\nthe cart before the horse; developers would be asked to meet certain conditions and\nwould not be able to provide an honest answer until they have site control; the proposal\nasks for less flexibility; the City's entire approach has been broadly define what is\nacceptable; everything will have to go to the Planning Board and the Council; conditions\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n15\nPlanning Board\nSeptember 25, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-25", "page": 16, "text": "may change; predictions do not work.\nMember Koester left the dais at 10:55 p.m. and returned at 10:57 p.m.\n(13-426) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of continuing past 11:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n11. Absent: Member Koster - 1.\n*\nMayor Gilmore stated there seems to be consensus that the priority zones are the Town\nCenter and enterprise area; the City hired a consultant and the Planning Board has\nworked really hard to figure out what the Town Center will look like; the form based\ncode gets down to the nitty-gritty of what actual buildings will look like and what uses\nare going be; that she has trouble with form based code for the rest of the Base and\nhaving some sort of mechanism to filter potential uses.\nMember Knox White stated the term criteria is the issue; criteria would not determine\nwhether or not something should be brought forward, but would be used to evaluate\ninformation; the Council would determine what information will help with making\ndecisions; the evaluation is not yes or no and simply provides financial and traffic\nimpacts and how projects interact with other land use; the criteria could be a one page\nsheet with information which would go to the Planning Board and Council; nobody\nknows what the use will be within the zoning and EIR; the analysis will provide\ninformation which can be used to say a project that might generate a lot of traffic is\nimportant and should be done; the decision would be made in a mindful way; the City\nshould identify important issues ahead of time, such as finance and traffic, and know\nwhat information will be evaluated; the criteria would prohibit a project that does not get\nfour As from coming forward.\nMayor Gilmore inquired how the suggestion is different than a regular staff report.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated too much specificity is not a good thing in some cases;\neach project is going to be unique; staff reports tend to be very thorough; the wheel\ndoes not need to be reinvented; the City Manager's ear is to the ground and he knows\nwhat other communities are doing successfully and that is all going into the mix; that\nshe worries about building specific criteria for a situation that is not a one size fits all; a\nquality project is desired and there are enough ways to get that; traffic is on everybody's\nmind, yet the City will not redo an EIR every time a proposal comes forward; the uses\nare laid out with room for flexibility; that she is comfortable given the input presented\ntonight.\nMayor Gilmore stated every Alameda Point project will influence the rest of Alameda\nPoint; hopefully, the first project will make the area more desirable.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n16\nPlanning Board\nSeptember 25, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-25", "page": 17, "text": "Councilmember Tam stated the Mayor's statements are consistent with what she and\nBoard Member Knox White are thinking about when discussing broad categories,\npriority areas, opportunity areas, and land banking; interrelationships should be thought\nabout strategically; the City does not want a hodgepodge; the Town Center having\nhousing above retail has implications for other areas.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she does not understand the mechanism being proposed;\ninquired how the mechanism differs from a staff report.\nMember Knox White responded the criteria would be a tool for the staff report;\nsuggested the Council have a conversation at another time about, for example, how a\nproject impacts surrounding areas; perhaps a decision will be made that said criteria is\nbad; no matter what is built, fiscal neutrality is going to be something the Council will\ncare about; fiscal neutrality should be defined so everybody is clear; the same is true for\ntransportation; that he is talking about universal things, not things that are possibly\ngoing to change as development proceeds; having a discussion about the core criteria\nwould benefit the Council and community; discussions sometimes get lost in talking\nabout how special a project is; being mindful about the core things the City wants would\nbe good.\n***\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 11:04 p.m. and returned at 11:07 p.m.\nBoard Member Zuppan stated one challenge is that strategies differ based on financing;\nthe first car over the bridge might have to pay for a big portion of the bridge; the first\nthing that goes in at Alameda Point might have a number of challenges; LBNL wanted\nother infrastructure pieces when it was considering Alameda Point; businesses want\nplaces for employees to go; the EIR transportation solution includes attracting\nbusinesses and housing at the same time; a catalyst is really key and has to solve\ntransportation, financial, infrastructure and amenity issues; amenities and housing are\nthe easiest pieces; figuring out how to solve transportation issues can be done by\nbringing in a business; the City will not have a problem attracting houses and smaller\nbusinesses, but will have trouble funding the government infrastructure; hearing the\nCouncil's consensus to have a catalyst in the area around the water is helpful; a\ncatalyst project can solve issues, such as infrastructure, and is like getting the first few\npieces in a puzzle, which is why determining what the catalyst looks like is a struggle;\nthe Council and Planning Board can tweak the zoning if it turns out to be totally wrong\nbased on the catalyst project.\nPresident Burton stated hearing from the Council about priority zones would be good;\nhousing is limited; about 1,200 units remain after counting units for the Alameda Point\nCollaborative and Big Whites; perhaps to make the Town Center successful, a\ndetermination should be made about the housing units; one determination might be that\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n17\nPlanning Board\nSeptember 25, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-25", "page": 18, "text": "the Main Street neighborhood should be land banked until the City exceeds the 1,400\nlimit; that he has been thinking about the same priority zones as Board Member Knox\nWhite; the enterprise zone is blank land which is relatively attractive; the historic district\nbuildings are beautiful, but will be really tough; Council should weigh in on such matters.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she thought she heard consensus among her colleagues\nabout the priority zone being the Town Center and enterprise zone, which are probably\ngoing to go together organically; housing is a little bit tougher; she understands the\ntheoretical desire to put all of the housing in the Town Center phase and have 1,200\nmultifamily units because it would help transit; however, she does not know whether\nbuilding 900 instead of 1,200 housing units would be significant for retail or transit; the\nnumber of Bayport housing units did not do anything for transit; that she would like to\nhave the flexibility before facing a unit penalty because a decision might be made to\nbuild single family houses if somebody is going to pay a lot for the land; reaching a deal\nwith the Navy took 17 years; she is hesitant to put all the housing leggs in one basket;\ngoing to the Navy in five years to say the deal struck no longer works for the City could\nbe a momentum killer.\nPresident Burton stated one reason transit might not have worked at Bayport is because\nsingle family, rather than multifamily, housing was built; multifamily housing is more\nsupportive of transit; the 1,425 limit could be reached quickly whether housing units are\nbuilt at the Town Center or some are reserved for the Main Street neighborhood; the\nCity could end up holding a conversation with the Navy quickly.\nCouncilmember Chen stated building Bayport, which is only 500 homes, took at least\nfive or six years; realistically, building 1,425 units could take decades; that he really\nlikes the approach that staff will not just concentrate on the business aspect and will\ndevelop some housing, especially using the multifamily housing overlay; the City's\nhousing needs should be met; the waiting list for affordable housing is very long.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like staff to come back with more\ninformation; she is intrigued by the concept of the priority zones; requested information\nabout what Alameda Point land banking would look like; stated that she does not have\nenough information to decide whether or not to support allocating 1,425 units at the\nTown Center.\nBoard Member Henneberry stated the meeting tonight is to comment on the EIR and\ndisposition; the level of specificity being discussed is way too detailed.\nBoard Member Knox White stated one outstanding zoning question is whether or not to\nhave housing on the waterfront facing the seaplane lagoon; the amount mentioned has\nbeen a quarter of the waterfront or less; getting Council direction on the issues would be\ngood; noted zoning is specifically embedded in the disposition strategy.\nMayor Gilmore stated Council has not given a lot of thought to said matter at this point;\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n18\nPlanning Board\nSeptember 25, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-25", "page": 19, "text": "when staff comes back with issues discussed tonight, Council should discuss the pros\nand cons of having more housing on the water and embedded in that discussion is the\noverall number of housing units which will be initially constructed; the issues dovetail\nbecause deciding to have more housing on the water raises the question of whether to\nspread units over more areas.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(13-427) The Assistant City Manager presented the results from a survey for naming\noptions for Alameda Point; stated the community favored Seaplane Village and\nSeaplane Lagoon.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:20 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n19\nPlanning Board\nSeptember 25, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf"}