{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-05-23", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, MAY 23, 2016\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Knox White called meeting to order at 7:01pm.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Mitchell led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President Knox White, Board Members Burton, Mitchell, Sullivan. Board\nMember Zuppan arrived at 7:09pm. Board Member Henneberry arrived at 8:00pm.\nAbsent: Board Member K\u00f6ster.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nPresident Knox White moved item 7-C to the beginning of the regular agenda to\nmaintain quorum and in anticipation of Board Member Burton recusing himself for items\n7-A and 7-B.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nRachel Campos gave an update on Phase Zero activities at Site A at Alameda Point.\nAnonymous Painter raised concerns about the condition and negative effects of the\nformer Christmas tree lot on Webster St.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n6-A 2016-2927\nApprove a Resolution Finding that the Harbor Bay Entities have\nDemonstrated Good Faith Compliance with the Terms and Conditions of\nDevelopment Agreement, DA-89-1, through April 4, 2016, Based on the\nFindings Contained in the Draft Resolution. This Compliance Review is not\na project under CEQA\nBoard Member Burton made a motion to approve the consent calendar. Board Member\nMitchell seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.\n7. REGULAR\nAGENDA\nITEMS\nItem 7-A was moved back to its original position on the agenda because the applicant for\n7-C was not yet present and Board Member Zuppan arrived, establishing a quorum. Board\nMember Burton recused himself for item 7-A.\n7-A 2016-2928\nPage 1 of 9\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nMay 23, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-05-23", "page": 2, "text": "Public Hearing on the Scope of the Encinal Terminals Focused\nSupplemental Environmental Impact Report.\nStaff Member Thomas introduced the item and gave the staff report. The staff report and\nattachments\ncan\nbe\nfound\nat:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2722798&GUID=7337A724-\n1EF6-4984-B097-5FEFBAD2COCA&FullText=1\nPresident Knox White explained that the board would not be addressing the project itself,\nonly on the scope of the EIR.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked what number of housing units the 2008 EIR assumed.\nStaff Member Thomas said it studied approximately 260 housing units and a large amount\nof commercial square feet. The new proposal has 580 housing units and much less\ncommercial space.\nPresident Knox White opened the public hearing.\nDorothy Freeman said people attending the community meetings did not want high rise\nbuildings as a consequence of requesting more open space. She said allowing high rise\nbuildings would be a bad precedent for Alameda. She suggested housing units be priced\nfor median income residents.\nPaul Foreman spoke about the jobs/housing imbalance in Alameda and how it impacts\ncity finances. He said reducing the amount of available land for commercial use will\npreclude us from being able to address this issue in the future.\nElizabeth Tuckwell said impacts of shade cast by buildings should be considered, as well\nas views. She also said water pollution from increased units needs to be considered.\nPresident Knox White closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Mitchell suggested population & housing (p. 76) should be looked at due\nto the increase in units. He asked why we should not look at school impacts.\nStaff Member Thomas said that state law is very specific on the issue and says that since\nthe school district collects impact fees, the outcome of the EIR on the school issues will\nbe the same.\nBoard Member Mitchell said that information would be helpful for the public to evaluate\nthe issues more clearly. He said the drought has become much more severe since the\nprevious EIR and that we might want a fresh look at water supply impacts.\nPage 2 of 9\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nMay 23, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-05-23", "page": 3, "text": "Board Member Sullivan said she would like to see an updated look at the schools issue.\nShe questioned the information about Wood School's enrollment.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked why geology and soil impacts would not need to be studied\ndue to the potential for much taller buildings.\nStaff Member Thomas explained how the 2008 report required proper geotechnical\nstudies and mitigation for whatever size buildings are proposed.\nBoard Member Zuppan explained that approving the study is not the same as approving\nthe project.\nStaff Member Thomas said CEQA is basically a disclosure law and approving an EIR does\nnot equate to approving the project.\nPresident Knox White confirmed that we would be using the updated thresholds of\nsignificance and transit corridor travel time.\nStaff Member Thomas said they would be looking at vehicle miles traveled and transit\ntimes. He said they would provide information on level of service at intersections.\nBoard Member Zuppan confirmed the traffic impacts would include comparisons to a \"do\nnothing\" alternative.\nStaff Member Thomas summarized the feedback and said they would be adding sections\non: population and housing, utilities, and public services. He also said they can look at the\nshade and view corridors in response to the public comment.\n7-B 2016-2929\nPlanning Board Workshop: Provide Direction on Alameda Point Site A: (1)\nBlocks 6 and 7 Architectural Design, (2) Blocks 6 and 7 Parking Design, (3)\nWest Atlantic Gateway Design and (4) Street Names for Side Streets.\nStaff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found\nat: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2722801&GUID=522F8B64-\nEA88-4043-8FOB-87EBBCF41B2D&FullText=1\nJessica Music, KTGY architect for Block 6, gave a presentation on the architecture of\nBlock 6.\nPeter Hesse, architect for Block 7, gave a presentation on Block 7.\nMr. Dorfman, applicant, spoke to the question of bundling the parking with the townhomes\nand why it is needed for these units.\nPage 3 of 9\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nMay 23, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-05-23", "page": 4, "text": "Board Member Sullivan confirmed that all the units in Blocks 6 and 7 will be for sale. She\nconfirmed that there were no private courtyards or backyard spaces. She asked what type\nof customer they envisioned.\nMr. Dorfman said they believed young families would be their primary customer.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she does not understand how that would work given the lack\nof private, secure space for small children and questioned the applicant's research. She\nasked what the price range would be.\nMr. Dorfman said the type of product was common and consistent in Alameda and\nthroughout the Bay Area and very popular. He said they would be comparable to other\nunits currently being sold in Alameda (possibly $800k-$1M).\nPresident Knox White opened the public hearing.\nJerry Serventi said that Block 6 should really start looking like the housing across the street\nin the rest of Alameda. He liked that there were units fronting onto Main St. He said he\npreferred option 3 for the corner that does not have a large element announcing entry to\nthe base. He suggested maintaining street names instead of having them change.\nVicky Sedlack said she looks forward to the different types of housing units coming to the\nbase. She liked how the designs tied into the base. She said she supports tying the parking\nto the units to support the infrastructure investment required.\nKaren Bey said Site A is the best project going in Alameda right now. She said she looked\nforward to seeing this type of product coming to Alameda. She said she preferred option\n3 for the corner on Block 6. She said the developer should have the right to select the\nnames of the streets.\nElizabeth Tuckwell said she did not see a lot of attention paid to bicycle lanes. She said\nthat would be more important than unbundled parking.\nPresident Knox White closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he liked the clean design of Block 7. He said Block 6 is a\ngreat looking project. He said he wants the transition to just be another part of Alameda\nand not have signage announcing entry to Alameda Point. He said he would hate to see\nthe quality of the project downgraded due to a 2% change in traffic and, therefore, is\ncomfortable offering the bundled parking. He said young families without private outdoor\nspace tend to get out more.\nPage 4 of 9\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nMay 23, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-05-23", "page": 5, "text": "Board Member Sullivan said she did not like the row of orange doors on Block 7. She said\nthe project had a flat feel in parts. She said she would like to see more diversity with the\nfront doors.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she liked the dark mullions and wood features of Block 7. She\nliked the ability to add solar to the tilted roofs, the roof patio and stairs, and accessible\nunits. She said there is a lack of rhythm to the frontage of W. Atlantic. She said Block 6 is\nvery attractive. She liked the previous imagery with the transit stop in the middle of the\ngateway.\nStaff Member Thomas said the bus lanes were moved to the outside lanes in consultation\nwith AC Transit.\nBoard Member Zuppan liked options one and two for the gateway because it was more\ninviting to the public. She felt option three sends the message that this space is not for\nyou. She said she was concerned with the location of the mailboxes and hoped that they\nwould be large enough to accommodate packages. She wants to make sure the benches\nare in places where there is a reason to linger there. She said she wondered if there was\na more attractive option than checker block paving. She said she wanted the CC&Rs to\nallow dogs. She said trees are to shade pedestrians and if they are in the street they will\nbe targets for car bumpers. She suggested some reference to the history of the base if\nthere is an open plaza at the gateway. She said the parking arrangement meets the\nrequirements and does not have a problem with it being bundled. She said the garages\ncould be used for storage as well.\nBoard Member Henneberry said the renderings look good. He said the he agreed with\nBoard Member Zuppan on the parking question and has no problem with the plan. He said\nhe liked the wing in option two for the gateway. He said Yorktown would make more sense\nthan York for a street name. He said some of the street names do not tie into the Navy\ntheme.\nPresident Knox White said that the list of available street names has many options that\nwould pay proper respect to the base's history and the people who worked there. He said\nhe would favor keeping the Appezzato name on Alameda Point instead of changing\nnames. He said he has concerns about the durability of the wood grain siding. He said he\nliked option three for the gateway. He said the Master Plan said to try and integrate the\nneighborhood seamlessly. He said he does not believe the parking plan is consistent with\nthe transportation plan for the project. He said it would be more transparent to address\nthis issue as a variance instead of pretending like it is in compliance because the buildings\nare not connected.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he agreed with President Knox White that changing from\nAppezzato to Atlantic would be confusing and that perhaps we could dig a little deeper for\nmore appropriate names on some of the other streets.\nPage 5 of 9\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nMay 23, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-05-23", "page": 6, "text": "Board Member Henneberry said he prefers West Atlantic to continuing Appezzato. He\nsaid he is more concerned with some of the other names, like Buckthorn, which is an\ninvasive species.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she likes the phrase \"When the Atlantic meets the Pacific\"\nand that it should stay Atlantic on the base because Appezzato had nothing to do with the\nbase.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she can see both sides of the street name question.\nStaff Member Thomas asked the board to discuss the question of placing trees in the\nstreet a little more.\nBoard Member Sullivan said trees in the street will not shade sidewalk users and become\ndamaged by cars.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she prefers them on the sidewalk to shade pedestrians.\nBoard Member Henneberry said he had not given it much thought, but that he would not\nwant to back into a tree.\nPresident Knox White said this design is used in many places and he would be more\nconcerned if people could not miss a tree.\n7-C 2016-2930\nPlanning Board Study Session: Alameda Landing Waterfront Park Design\nand Land Use Program Revision\nStaff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found\nat: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2722802&GUID=645CC4C\n64F-44AC-AOAA-42FD3A17DOC1&FullText=\nSean Whiskeman, from Catellus, gave a presentation on their proposal for the site.\nBoard Member Henneberry asked what the percentage of affordable housing would be for\nthe site.\nStaff Member Thomas said the minimum would be 15%, but the developer is currently\nproposing 16% of the base project be affordable and would seek a density bonus.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if she was correct in understanding that the developer had\nalready gotten approval in the past to change the approved plan to add more housing to\npay for the investment needed in the site. She asked what the fiscal impact was to the\nchanges.\nPage 6 of 9\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nMay 23, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-05-23", "page": 7, "text": "Staff Member Thomas confirmed that they had changed the plan in 2006 to add housing\nat Alameda Landing. He explained the assessments on the properties would make the\nproject fiscally neutral.\nBoard Member Zuppan confirmed that the sales tax from the retail at Alameda Landing\nwould be applied towards the fiscal neutrality of the entire project.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she would like to see the expected revenue stream from\ncommercial vs. residential for the project.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked about the longevity of the current wharf and how pressing\nthe issue is for the current commercial tenants on site.\nStaff Member Thomas said it is a big strong structure that had railroad cars on it. He said\nthe big concern is that in an earthquake it will move laterally and topple into the estuary.\nPresident Knox White asked to confirm that the large amount of rot and work needed was\nthe reason Clif Bar chose not to relocate to the site and no other project has moved\nforward.\nStaff Member Thomas and the applicant explained the combination of reasons Clif Bar did\nnot follow through.\nThe applicant explained that the soil on land behind the wharf is what really threatens the\nwharf in the long term and that is what really changed the calculations since the 2006\nredesign.\nBoard Member Burton asked why there was a greenway along Mitchell Ave. He asked\nwhy the hotel was sited where it was.\nThe applicant explained that there were easements that prevented building there, namely\nthe high voltage power lines. He said the hotel was placed where it is because of parking\navailability, prominence, and adjacency to the retail component.\nBoard Member Burton asked if and when Mitchell Ave would connect to Main St.\nStaff Member Thomas said that the third phase of Alameda Landing would extend Mitchell\nto the Bay Ship & Yacht property line. He said Bay Ship & Yacht has seven acres of vacant\nland they want to redevelop and Mitchell is part of that conversation.\nPresident Knox White opened the public hearing.\nPage 7 of 9\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nMay 23, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-05-23", "page": 8, "text": "Mike Kraft said the traffic getting through the tube into Alameda is much worse since\nAlameda Landing opened. He said getting jobs on the island that could afford the housing\nbeing built is important. He said the dirt generated by Catellus' work is having severe\nimpacts on the motoryacht he lives on. He is asking that these impacts be accounted for\nif phase three goes forward.\nCourtney Shepler said she is a resident of Alameda Landing and supports the plan. She\nsaid a business park would not be the best use of the waterfront and would leave the\nwaterfront empty on the weekends.\nDaniel Alhadeff, representing Starlight Marine, explained the high environmental\nstandards their business meets. He said the working waterfront needs to be protected as\nplans move forward. He said he supports the Catellus plan.\nPresident Knox White closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Burton said he can be supportive of the change in use but that there would\nbe a lot of work to do to convince the community about why it is necessary. He said he\nwould like to push the restaurants out towards the water. He said having large, open,\npassive spaces between the two active ends of the waterfront park would be a good use.\nHe suggested looking into more maker, supportive marine, or light industrial uses within\nthe sight to provide jobs even if the office space market is not there.\nBoard Member Sullivan sad the housing crisis is not for million dollar homes but for homes\nfor young families starting out. She said she feels the park is hostage to adding new homes\nand asks where the jobs for these people would be.\nBoard Member Henneberry said affordability is important and would like to see those\nnumbers go up. He said, however, the amount of affordable housing is zero if nothing gets\ndone. He said if we want to move forward, this project can be done the right way to achieve\nour goals.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he understands the property needs a lot of work, but agrees\nwith Board Member Burton that there is work to be done with the public before it moves\nforward.\nBoard Member Zuppan said there needs to be a balance with commercial at this site. She\nsaid the housing at the first two phases was supposed to contribute funds to get this site\ndone. She said she could maybe be supportive of some housing but it has to have a\nsignificant jobs component.\nPresident Knox White said he was a little disappointed that this was almost 100% housing.\nHe said it is clear that the project has turned out to be more difficult since previous plans\nwere approved. He said he wants to see more commercial spaces of some type on the\nPage 8 of 9\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nMay 23, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-05-23", "page": 9, "text": "site. He said we do still have large areas available for commercial development in the city.\nHe said he would like to see universally designed buildings and not more townhomes. He\nsaid he would like to see smaller homes built at this site. He said the only way to address\nhousing costs is to build more housing. He said we will not be able to subsidize enough\nhousing to address the supply problem. He said we need more commercial with good jobs\nfor this site.\nBoard Member Burton made a motion to continue the meeting past 11:00 pm if necessary.\nBoard Member Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion failed.\n8. MINUTES\n*None*\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2016-2931\nZoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions\nNo action taken\n9-B 2016-2932\nFuture Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Thomas said a special meeting has been added for June 22nd, a\nWednesday. He said he would not be present for June 13th. He outlined what projects are\ncoming in the June meetings.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Knox White adjourned the meeting at 10:55pm.\nPage 9 of 9\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nMay 23, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-05-23.pdf"}