{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2014-03-24", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, MARCH 24, 2014\n1. CONVENE:\n7:03 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE:\nPresident Burton\n3. ROLL CALL:\nPresent:\nPresident Burton, Vice President Henneberry,\nBoard members Knox White, Alvarez-Morroni, Tang and\nZuppan.\nAbsent:\nBoard member K\u00f6ster.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Speakers:\nMs. Maureen Lynch resident spoke regarding the HBI community, and the financial\nsituation of Ron Cowen. She commented on the history of the financial status of the\ncompany, and the Harbor Bay Club.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR:\n6.A. Recommendation to Review and Approve Alameda Landing Residential\nStreet Names and House Colors\nBoard member Knox White motioned to remove the item from consent.\nMr. Andrew Thomas, City Planner, reported to the Board and showed the Board the color\npalettes.\nPresident Burton confirmed the mix of two and three story buildings at each corner, and\nthe color variation throughout the development.\nBoard member Knox White commented on the street names using \"bay' and 'lake' in the\ntitle.\nVice President Henneberry commented on not having a problem with the titles, but feels\nwe could do better with making this more tailored to Alameda.\nBoard member Zuppan agreed with Knox White stating that some form of change is\nneeded.\nBoard member Alvarez-Morroni stated some are too long.\nBoard member Tang agreed.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 1 of 8\nMarch 24, 2014", "path": "PlanningBoard/2014-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2014-03-24", "page": 2, "text": "President Burton suggested the street names come back to the Board.\nBoard member Alvarez-Morroni motioned to reject the proposed recommendation, and\nbring back to the Board names more closely reflecting Alameda history.\nVice President Henneberry seconded.\nMotion carried, 6-0\nBoard member Alvarez-Morroni stated the colors are not as drab as previously proposed,\nand feels the new palette is fine.\nBoard member Zuppan commented that the reds might conflict the Target Store across the\nstreet. She asked if homeowners will be bound by the Home Owners Association (HOA)\nto these.\nMr. Jonathan Boriak, KTGY, stated there will be no restriction on colors by the HOA.\nBoard member Zuppan stated this color scheme does not create a cohesive environment\nwith the rest of the street, which is what was agreed to previously.\nPresident Burton stated that the new palette will be a good mix and he is fine with the reds.\nBoard member Alvarez-Morroni motioned to approve the color boards as presented.\nVice President Henneberry seconded.\nMotion carried, 5-1-0 (opposed Zuppan)\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n7.A. 1809 Grand Street - PLN14-0009 - Architectural revisions for a 3,640 square\nfoot Emergency Operations Center Building. The proposed project is categorically exempt\npursuant to CEQA guidelines 15332 In-fill Development Projects\nMr. Andrew Thomas presented an update and report on the project.\nMr. Chris Ford, PRW Architects, presented a report to the Board.\nPresident Burton opened the item for public comment.\nMr. Michael Torrey, resident, commented on encouraging the project to move forward.\nHe further commented on the trees not being in the way of radios.\nMr. James Fine, resident, commented on being an energy economist and asked how the\nfacility be powered in a disaster. The plan calls for a diesel power generator, but he\nsuggested some alternatives such as a biodegradable resource. There is a better\nalternative for renewable energy source, like solar energy. This could be a revenue\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 2 of 8\nMarch 24, 2014", "path": "PlanningBoard/2014-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2014-03-24", "page": 3, "text": "generator for the City. He also stated that diesel generators are against the City's climate\nordinance.\nPresident Burton closed the public comment.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster's comments were read into the record by Mr. Thomas. He doesn't\nbelieve using the Carnegie Building as a model is best, and the pitch of the roof seems\nsquished under eves, also there are an odd number of windows and the grand door. He\nsuggested a more modern or prairie style design.\nBoard member Knox White commented on the stone wall being 6' next to the sidewalk.\nHe is opposed to the front door being on the side, but appreciates the need for the building\nto be secure. This building doesn't interact with the neighbors, and being a public building\ndoesn't seem accessible.\nBoard member Alvarez-Morroni commented on the mixed-use of the neighbors. This is\nan institutional building in a mixed-use area. She doesn't like the elevations. She is fine\nwith the building, and not sure it could ever really blend into the neighborhood.\nBoard member Tang asked about the signage.\nMr. Thomas reported where the signs would be placed.\nBoard member Tang asked about the lighting on the building.\nMr. Ford stated there will be low lighting on the building and parking lot.\nBoard member Zuppan asked if emergency operations can be done in the back if needed.\nMr. Ford reported there are spotlights planned for emergencies.\nBoard member Zuppan asked about one tree in front.\nMr. Ford stated the landscape architect wasn't present, but he thought it was about\nbalance with the neighborhood, and the building.\nBoard member Zuppan doesn't like the building's look, and suggests more landscaping\nand trees to soften the property. Also, she would like to see the pitch of the roof changed.\nShe agreed regarding an alternative energy source.\nVice President Henneberry agreed with Alvarez-Morroni that that this is a utilitarian\nbuilding and has no issues with it. He agrees that the building should be energy efficient.\nPresident Burton stated the front entry being referred to Carnegie was more size and not\nstylistic, and agreed the substation across the street matches the scale. He would like to\nsee a small sign that identifies the building function. He agreed with the tree comments.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 3 of 8\nMarch 24, 2014", "path": "PlanningBoard/2014-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2014-03-24", "page": 4, "text": "He stated the planter boxes seem to work with the building. He expressed concerns with\nsolar not being the best way to go with AMP.\nMr. Thomas commented on staff looking at a flat roof on the Fire Station is a good option\nfor solar.\nPresident Burton commented on the backside of the building, and that the side elevations\ndon't show the same detail, which should be fixed on the plans.\nBoard member Alvarez-Morroni suggested a sign on the front is a good idea, and the tree\ncould become a maintenance issue. She agrees an alternative energy source is best.\nVice President Henneberry motioned to approve the staff recommendations to include\nthree trees in front, signage in front of the building, and stone on the back of the building.\nAnd when the fire station comes back, both buildings will include an energy alternative.\nBoard member Alvarez-Morroni seconded.\nBoard member Zuppan stated the energy alternative is a good idea, and this is important\nbecause this is an emergency center.\nMotion carried, 5-1-0 (opposed Knox White)\n7.B. Planning Board will receive a presentation on the Draft Transportation\nDemand Management Plan (Plan) for Alameda Point (AP) and provide comments\nMs. Jennifer Ott, COO, made a presentation, and reported on the requirements of the\nPlan.\nBoard member Alvarez-Morroni asked about the tax burden analysis and when did the\n1.8% include the special assessments.\nMs. Ott stated the 1.8% is total. This could go up to 2%, but that will be determined on the\nmarket.\nBoard member Tang asked if there will be a carpool parking area at AP. He asked if the\nsuper market parking lots are fully used and could they be shared.\nMs. Ott stated this isn't currently part of the Plan, but certainly can be looked at.\nMr. Thomas commented that a conversation can happen with the big retailers for sharing\nparking lots.\nBoard member Tang commented that waiting for shuttle buses can be a problem.\nMs. Ott stated this is a key point and they will be looking closely at those kinds of details.\nBoard member Tang asked about the transportation coordinator's role and requested\nlooking closely at sales tax linkage.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 4 of 8\nMarch 24, 2014", "path": "PlanningBoard/2014-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2014-03-24", "page": 5, "text": "Ms. Ott reported their role will include writing a manual for new employers also they will\nlook closely at the tax linkage for transportation.\nBoard member Zuppan asked about the HOA being included.\nMs. Ott commented the residents have a big part and the edit will be made to the language\nto include this.\nBoard member Zuppan wanted to know how the residents there now will be affected.\nMs. Ott stated long term leases will need to comply with the Plan also.\nBoard member Zuppan asked why the ferry service isn't included.\nMs. Ott reported they will be added.\nBoard member Zuppan questioned how the funding will be fair to all who develop or lease\nat AP and what does that mean to the first who develop, and the last. She asked for a\nclarification of the figures in the report because they aren't matching.\nMs. Ott stated they are looking at the build-out number to assign and assess what will be\nbilled to parcels. They are trying to determine the proper calculations. There is less\ndemand for services in the beginning, so there is a need to supplement in the beginning.\nThey will look closer at what that means per square foot.\nVice President Henneberry asked about the \"Town Center\" wording.\nMs. Ott stated this will be a City Council determination for changing the name.\nPresident Burton asked about the 10%-30% reductions based on the EIR and is there a\nprovision in the TDM that if the numbers vary, can the numbers be recalculated.\nMs. Ott reported there will be mechanisms for adjustments once there are actuals.\nMr. Jim Daisa clarified that the estimates and counts would determine what is residential\nand what is commercial. There will be monitoring every year, and it is required per the\nEIR to reduce if there is a need to reduce.\nMs. Ott stated the requirement is doing the TDM, and it will always be in place.\nPresident Burton confirmed that current 10-year leases don't have to follow a TDM until\nthey renew.\nMs. Ott stated most of the leases are 5-years or less and it would need to be approved\nincorporated into new leases.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 5 of 8\nMarch 24, 2014", "path": "PlanningBoard/2014-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2014-03-24", "page": 6, "text": "President Burton opened the item for public comment.\nMs. Ayn Kirkendall, Saint George's Spirits, commented on being a commuter and would\nlike to see more options for transportation as their hours vary. The plan doesn't address\nthe tourist side for services. She talked about the other hangers being occupied and\nbeing an alcohol based area and that more public transit is a necessity.\nMr. Jim Strehlow, resident, reported the TDM for commercial, retail listing at 85 points, but\nan even 16% reduction across the items isn't realistic. He stated there should be focus on\npeak hour reductions and is concerned there are too many restrictions for developers. The\ncost of living in Alameda is high. He asked who will be taxed to pay for the incentives. He\nalso stated that the routes for the Target and bicycle shuttle through the tube do not\nconnect.\nMs. Claudia Pamparana, Faction Brewing Co., spoke on the benefits of having a shuttle to\nBART. She stated that they are working with other distilleries in the area regarding\ntransportation. She would like to see transit shuttles on weekends, and if being forced to\npay into something she would like it to benefit her company.\nPresident Burton closed the public comment.\nBoard member Knox White stated that this is a really good Plan, but there could be some\norganizing done in the report to make it clearer. There should be some kind of reopener\nfor a TDM, and a regular check in place. He asked where the $1mil figure came into the\nPlan. He has concerns on the P2 parking lot, 3.5 acre. He commented on the shuttle\ncosts and 80% being the salary of the driver.\nVice President Henneberry agreed with Knox White. He addressed the Faction speaker\nand stated there have been many discussions to help transport employees and visitors to\nthe area and that effort will continue. He stated this is a good Plan and should move\nforward.\nBoard member Zuppan pointed out that there are a lot of good points in the Plan, but she\nhas concerns on how the numbers pencil out stating it is difficult to understand how the\ncosts can be sustainable, when the TMA is chartered there will still be a challenge. Also\nthe commercial space isn't scheduled to be completed for 30 years.\nMs. Ott stated the difficulty is assessing the property value for things not built yet, and the\nspecial tax for residential 1.8%, she stated the formula will be based on the $1mil upon\nbuild-out. The demand for services is based on what is built and adjustments will happen\nas things move forward.\nBoard member Zuppan explained that from early on, the Board has been talking about\ntransportation connecting the entire island, not just this one area. Looking at the Plan\nagain the focus is only AP, and isn't connecting with all the other shuttle and bus services\non the Island. She feels the City's Transportation Commission should be working on\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 6 of 8\nMarch 24, 2014", "path": "PlanningBoard/2014-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2014-03-24", "page": 7, "text": "connecting the other services to this one. Perhaps we can look at the Emeryville plan.\nShe also asked about flexibility being removed from areas on the Plan. She used the\nexamples of websites and the request to build your own plan, consultant work is\nexpansive. AC Transit is a non-competitive agency and we need to look at options.\nMs. Ott explained the requirement for easy-passes on AC Transit. She agreed there\nneeds to be clarification and if the Plan needs to change, requirements could change.\nBoard member Zuppan asked about the water recreation areas and parking connected to\nthose areas.\nMs. Ott stated they are looking at P5 to be the area for water access. She further\nexplained the starting points and funds for getting the project started. There is a lease\nrevenue budget of approximately $11 mil and are trying to find ways to tap into.\nBoard member Tang asked for staff to look at other TDM's that are successful. He\nexpressed concerns with non-AP residents/tenants using the services and how will that be\nlooked at.\nMs. Ott stated there have been comparisons done, and yes there are very successful\nTDM's that work in many areas in the country. She understands his concerns with people\ncoming to AP for parking and using services without paying.\nBoard member Tang stated concerns that employers being held to the restrictions for their\nemployees without the benefits. He stated smaller more frequent shuttles might be more\ncost effective.\nMs. Ott stated the assessments will be fully explained. They are looking at shuttle\nvariables for efficiency.\nBoard member Alvarez-Morroni appreciates all the TDM Plan work, and understands there\nmay be changes in the future. She agreed the Transportation Commission should be\ntasked with getting the scope of the TDM city-wide. She feels that the current tenants\nshould work together to find a solution for shuttling visitors.\nPresident Burton agreed that Phase Zero should look at helping business currently at AP.\nHe agreed with connecting the Plan throughout the City. He commented on parking and\nwalking radius and asked if the Board would have the final say on the details. He agreed\nit's a great start, and that there is a need for clarity in a couple spots. He is excited about\ngrant funds being sought.\nMs. Ott stated developers will add parking and PB will be seeing those as they come\nthrough the process. There are three parking lots in the Town Center area. The current\ngrant fund application is due in early April. The comments tonight will be reorganized\nbefore it goes to the Transportation Commission (TC). Ms. Ott reviewed the comments\nand requested edits for the Plan to be done before being submitted to the TC.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 7 of 8\nMarch 24, 2014", "path": "PlanningBoard/2014-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2014-03-24", "page": 8, "text": "8. MINUTES:\nDraft Meeting Minutes for January 27, 2014\nBoard member Knox White motioned to approve the minutes as amended.\nVice President Henneberry seconded.\nMotion carried, 6-0\nDraft Meeting Minutes for February 10, 2014\nBoard member Knox White motioned to approve the minutes.\nVice President Henneberry seconded.\nMotion carried, 6-0\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n9.A.\nFuture Agendas - Mr. Thomas reported on upcoming agenda items.\n9.B. Staff Communications - Zoning Administrator and Design Review Recent\nActions and Decisions - Mr. Thomas reported there were none.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nBoard member Knox White questioned if the driveway at 1600 Park Street is being done\nas proposed.\nMr. Thomas stated the driveway hasn't been built yet, but he is keeping an eye on the\nproject details.\nBoard member Knox White stated there is a city-wide TDM Plan and is there any timeline\non getting it back into the process of being revised.\nMr. Thomas stated not at this time, but he will connect with staff.\n11.A. Report from Alameda Point Town Center Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee - None\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None\n13. ADJOURNMENT:\n10:35 p.m.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 8 of 8\nMarch 24, 2014", "path": "PlanningBoard/2014-03-24.pdf"}