{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-12-12", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2016\n1. CONVENE\nPresident K\u00f6ster convened the meeting at 7:01pm\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Burton led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President K\u00f6ster; Board Members Burton, Curtis, Knox White, Mitchell, Sullivan.\nBoard Member Zuppan arrived at 7:06pm.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nAt Staff Member Thomas' request, President K\u00f6ster moved a portion of Staff\nCommunications to the beginning of the meeting.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nMike O'Hara, Tim Lewis Communities, gave an update on the evolving plans for the\nEncinal Terminals site plan.\n***Staff Communications***\nStaff Member Thomas summarized the work that the board and staff completed in 2016.\nStaff Member Tai gave a presentation on Planning Services work for 2016.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n6-A 2016-3676\nUse Permit Review for Smog Check Service at European Auto Repair -\nPLN12-0230 - 1928 High Street - Applicant: Irman Turanovic. Six- month\nreview of a Use Permit for smog check service at 1928 High Street and\nconsideration of business hours on Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.\nThis project is categorically exempt from further environmental review\npursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities.\nBoard Member Knox White made a motion to approve the consent calendar. Board\nMember Curtis seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\n7. REGULAR\nAGENDA\nITEMS\n7-A 2016-3674\nApproved Minutes\nPage 1 of 11\nPlanning Board Meeting\nDecember 12, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-12-12", "page": 2, "text": "Review Strategies Matrix and Provide Direction for Drafting the Economic\nDevelopment Strategic Plan (EDSP)\nStaff Member Fonstein gave a presentation on the EDSP.\nBoard Member Burton asked how the matrix would drive the plan.\nThe consultant explained how the implementation actions would be developed after\ngetting board and council direction.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if the amount of building, cars, and traffic being added was\ntaken into account. He said the additional units and office space and businesses and\ntourism we are proposing is changing the complexion of what Alameda is all about and\nthe congestion will drive people away.\nThe consultant said they did analyze the commute flows and found most residents leaving\nthe island in the morning and less incoming traffic. She said adding destinations in\nAlameda would help reverse that pattern. She said they will be trying to integrate the\neconomic development plan to the TDM plan.\nBoard Member Zuppan said that the concerns expressed at the workshop centered\naround maintaining a strong industrial maritime industry. She said the attendees strongly\nsupported making hotel meeting rooms available to the public.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked if we track self-employed people in Alameda.\nThe consultant said their data does not track self-employed residents.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked if AirBnB data is collected for Alameda.\nStaff Member Fonstein said they are evaluating how to begin reviewing that information.\nPresident K\u00f6ster opened the public hearing.\nKaren Boutilier said the city should make the permitting process easier for businesses.\nShe said we need to fix our transportation issues if we want jobs, visitors, and economic\nactivity. She said \"strategic planning is what you do when you don't know what to do.\"\nDan Reidy, Harbor Bay Business Association, said the report contained some good ideas\nfor the business park. He said the city could better encourage new hotel development in\nthe Harbor Bay Business Park by communicating better with outside agencies.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 2 of 11\nPlanning Board Meeting\nDecember 12, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-12-12", "page": 3, "text": "Karen Bey said she was excited about the plan. She said we need to improve the\npermitting process for small businesses. She said we need to not forget about Park St.\nand Webster St. She suggested bringing back a committee to help increase tourism.\nPresident K\u00f6ster closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Zuppan said there is a lot of good work in this plan. She said she would\nlike to see greater clarity of the vision for the plan. She said the strategies were good but\nthe connection to the vision were weak.\nBoard Member Mitchell said the plan is very broad and needs some focus.\nBoard Member Knox White said the document is not ready to go to the City Council. He\nsaid it feels like a statement of where we are today rather than where we want to be in ten\nyears. He said he is concerned with the reliance on subsidizing businesses to come here.\nHe said we should focus on resilience. He said we can attract one business with a hundred\nemployees or help one hundred businesses grow by one employee. He said we have\nfailed to serve and capitalize on our large Asian American population and being near\nChinatown and instead just do things like add another Safeway.\nBoard Member Curtis asked where are we considering the quality of life issues in these\nplans. He said we are trying to put fifteen pounds of stuff in a five pound bag.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she would like to see more specificity of our goals.\nBoard Member Burton said the plan needs a clear voice if it is not going to just sit on a\nshelf. He said we should focus like a laser on attracting jobs that fit our residents and\nkeeping their money on the island. He suggested using tourism to drive the brand of\nAlameda in order to attract businesses instead of just visitors. He said we need to focus\non north Park St. in the plan.\nPresident K\u00f6ster reopened the public hearing.\nHelen Sause said it is important for the city to direct the developments in the city in the\nbest way possible for the residents.\nPresident K\u00f6ster closed the public hearing.\nPresident K\u00f6ster said people know about parts of what Alameda has to offer and not the\nwhole package. He said we need to focus on our transit corridors and small businesses.\nHe said the Moscone Center is closing soon and we could capitalize off of the large spaces\navailable at Alameda Point.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 3 of 11\nPlanning Board Meeting\nDecember 12, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-12-12", "page": 4, "text": "7-B 2016-3675\nProvide Comments on the Draft Strategies for the Citywide Transit and\nTransportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan\nStaff Member Thomas introduced the item.\nStaff Member Ott and the consultants gave the staff presentation.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked how many people they need to get out of their cars to make\na difference.\nThe consultant said they are establishing the baseline and would be looking at what the\npotential impacts of implementing these strategies would be.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked why we are focusing on the SF bound trips when it has the\nfewest number of drive alone trips. She asked how many trips we need to remove from\nthe current conditions, before any new projects are completed, to solve our traffic\nproblems.\nThe consultant said that there are many outside factors that influence congestion, even if\nthey eliminate many trips, which makes targeting a specific number difficult.\nStaff Member Ott said that the regional bottleneck (880) could still result in congestion in\nAlameda even if this plan is successful. She said capturing SF bound commuters with our\nnew growth would help us mitigate our congestion because of the high transit usage for\nthose commuters.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked what the process was for assessing the effectiveness and\nease of implementation of different projects.\nThe consultants said they relied on their experience with these types of projects and are\nincorporating input from staff and the community. He said that even with all that, there is\nstill some subjectivity in the evaluations.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she was confused about how autonomous vehicles rated as\nmore effective than a free shuttle would.\nThe consultant explained that they studied free bus service, but not the shuttle as\ndescribed. He said there is a lot of uncertainty around driverless vehicles and their\npotential for impacting congestion.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 4 of 11\nPlanning Board Meeting\nDecember 12, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-12-12", "page": 5, "text": "Board Member Zuppan said there is a tradeoff between narrowing the streets and quality\nof life. She asked how the other side of the safety coin is assessed and balanced against\nVision Zero goals.\nThe consultant said the NACTO guidelines are useful. He said each project has to be\nevaluated on a case by case basis.\nBoard Member Zuppan said there is a cost to expecting constant vigilance. She confirmed\nthat congestion pricing meant charging people for going through the tubes and over the\nbridges.\nBoard Member Knox White asked if someone who drives to BART would be included in\nthe 78% who took transit to SF in the survey.\nThe consultant said, depending on how they responded, they would likely be included in\nthe transit number.\nBoard Member Knox White said that would be a reason why focusing on transit for SF\ncommuters could still alleviate congestion at the crossings.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked how many people from Alameda are traveling to BART.\nThe consultant said it was around 2,000.\nBoard Member Mitchell said the lowest hanging fruit would be people driving to BART.\nThe consultant said BART ridership from Alameda actually decreased from 2008 to 2014.\nHe said Alamedans are switching to the Ferry and Transbay bus.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked if we are looking at a park and BART shuttle approach.\nThe consultant said that Lyft and Uber are filling some of that need. He said there is\nalready some informal park and ride going on with people parking near bus stops.\nBoard Member Burton asked what the current level of service is for using the ferry to get\nyour bike from Alameda to Oakland.\nThe consultant said it is the South SF ferry that provides the service a few times in the\nmorning and a few times in the evening. He said this might increase when the new Ferry\nTerminal opens.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 5 of 11\nPlanning Board Meeting\nDecember 12, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-12-12", "page": 6, "text": "Board Member Burton asked if there are specific actions identified for the transportation\nawareness campaigns.\nThe consultant said they are looking at using the TMA to help with that item.\nBoard Member Burton asked what complete streets planning there is for Otis Dr.\nStaff Member Payne said they have been receiving lots of complaints from residents about\nhigh speeds on Otis and a need for traffic calming. She said they are considering a 4 to 3\nroad diet.\nBoard Member Curtis asked where on Otis Dr. we are seeing 70mph speeds.\nStaff Member Payne said that they are seeing it between Westline and Grand.\nBoard Member Curtis said he lives off of Otis and that between 6:30am and 7pm there is\nno way any car can get above 25 mph.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked if the consultants are working with Bike Walk Alameda and\nreceived their correspondence. He suggested committing to working with them.\nThe consultants said they received the letter just before the meeting.\nBoard Member Sullivan said there are no transportation options for the ferry and no\nparking plans. She asked how they are going to increase ridership if that is the case.\nThe consultant said that project #5 is a crosstown express bus service that would serve\nthe ferry terminal. He said they are looking for funding to make it happen as soon as\npossible. He said WETA is working on access plans for both terminals and they want to\nsupport that.\nStaff Member Ott said they just added 100 parking spaces for Main St. and that the\nSeaplane Lagoon terminal will have 400 parking spaces. She said Harbor Bay is more\ncomplicated. She explained the multi faceted approach they are taking in trying to address\nthe parking situation at Bay Farm.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked how many Alamedans are using Uber to get to BART.\nThe consultant said they do not know, but that it is increasing and the companies are\ncreating new products to address price conscious commuters.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 6 of 11\nPlanning Board Meeting\nDecember 12, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-12-12", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Sullivan said that it will be important to have good data and a means to\nmonitor travel habits.\nThe consultant said they have all the information available to them.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked who is subsidizing the South San Francisco ferry service.\nThe consultant said it is funded through MTC bridge toll money.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked if they study travel times when evaluating these options.\nThe consultant said that they do and that it is a very important factor. He said that is one\nof the reasons for including things like express bus service and queue jump lanes. He said\nhaving more than one transfer is another major factor in people's decision to drive or not.\nPresident K\u00f6ster opened the public hearing.\nBrian McGuire said Bike Walk Alameda's regular and board members have participated\nin this process. He said they are concerned about losing the Estuary Crossing Shuttle. He\nsaid acknowledging greenhouse gas goals and subsequent funding sources is important,\nnot just people throughput. He said the long term projects have near term actions that\nshould be included in the list of projects. He said we should not wait for Alameda Point to\nbe built out to restripe Main St. with better complete street access to the ferry terminal. He\nsaid improving freeway access in Oakland does not further the goals of the plan. He said\nreevaluating parking requirements for new developments would be a cheap and easy way\nto help alleviate congestion impacts.\nKaren Bey said that it is important to include a water transit program for the northern\nwaterfront. She said each developer should be required to build water transit infrastructure\nwith their projects and put a water transit tax on the ballot. She said we need to use our\nwaterways to help us get around the island.\nHelen Sause, Alameda Home Team, says they are concerned that all the development\ndesigns seem to end at the water. She said they held a cross estuary panel to talk about\nthe issues and opportunities for developments along the estuary.\nPresident K\u00f6ster closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Knox White said he thinks we made a mistake combining the Transit Plan\nand TDM Plan. He said we should have a transit section and a TDM section as it moves\nforward. He said he would like to have seen evaluations of the impacts of each project\nbefore giving the thumbs up, rather than the other way around. He said almost everything\nApproved Minutes\nPage 7 of 11\nPlanning Board Meeting\nDecember 12, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-12-12", "page": 8, "text": "on the list have been in Alameda's plans for years and we are not finding much to add to\nit. He said he would like to see what the experts think we should be doing instead of just\nresponding to what people are saying they want. He said he would like to see using TNCs\nfor paratransit rides come back on the list. He said BART to Alameda deserves its own\nspecial category and does not belong in 8+ years. He said he is floored that the only short\nterm bike projects are two projects that should be done by now. He said he is not\nconvinced that Otis is the highest priority, but getting people across the Fruitvale Bridge\nshould be a top priority. He said some of the items on the list are not fleshed out enough.\nHe said there are some projects that are clearly not meeting the definition of TDM, like\nimproved freeway access. He said nobody ever complained about High St. but it is the\nsame width as the new Shoreline. He said liveability is not just how comfortable are you\nwhen you are driving. He said we might want to eliminate the goal of getting people to San\nFrancisco and focus on getting people to BART.\nBoard Member Curtis said the solutions provided were good solutions. He confirmed that\nthe initial rankings are somewhat subjective and that they would develop benchmarks and\nthen revisit the rankings.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she was disappointed with the lack of detail and lack of\ninclusion of items that received the most public input. She said the city told the business\ncommunity that they would study the free shuttle idea. She said it is not properly described\nand not about getting people transbay. She said we need to stop focusing on getting\npeople off the island and need to focus on getting them used to using transit. She said an\nin island shuttle would cast a wider net and be more effective at getting people to use\ntransit than just making new homeowners buy a bus pass.\nStaff Member Ott said that item 18 is free bus service. She said that they can clarify the\nidea of providing free bus service with ten minute headways is a good one but paying for\nit will be very difficult. She said you would need a parcel tax or congestion pricing to pay\nfor it and that is why it is categorized as it is. She said staff does not think they can\naccomplish it within eight years. She said they can create more nuance in their timeframes,\nbut they have to be realistic in projections.\nBoard Member Zuppan said they have many one off shuttles that can support a free\nshuttle.\nStaff Member Ott said they are working closely with AC Transit and the private shuttles to\nmake sure they are not undermining their public transit funding.\nBoard Member Zuppan said that it is not meant to undermine, but supplement AC Transit\nservice. She asked that the electric component of that service be included in the\ndescription. She said this still seems like a list of all the things we already have. She would\nApproved Minutes\nPage 8 of 11\nPlanning Board Meeting\nDecember 12, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-12-12", "page": 9, "text": "like to see how they fit the strategies and what impacts they will have before judging what\nis included in the plan. She said we focus a lot on the stick, making driving miserable. She\nsaid somebody driving 70mph on Otis is a policing issue not a transportation issue. She\nsaid making it impossible for them to get around is not the solution to our speeding\nproblems and we should hire more police if that is what it takes. She said she would like\nto focus more on how to make transit easier, then people will be willing to pay for the\nconvenience. She said there is already a lot on the project list and discouraged adding\nearly steps for long term projects in the earlier phases of the list. She said she disagrees\nabout the safety and livability of Shoreline Drive.\nBoard Member Mitchell said that construction traffic in Oakland has been impacting traffic\nin Alameda. He said we need a robust plan that has a sense of focus. He said we should\nrevisit the SF bound data for accuracy. He said causing more traffic to make things safe\nfrom speeding is counterintuitive. He said we are on a flat island with moderate weather\nand should look at biking even more as a mode of transportation.\nBoard Member Burton said the document needs to have a clear voice with concrete\nactions to take. He said getting Oakland commuters out of their cars and into transit is the\nobvious way to make a big difference. He said the other top item is to make drastic\nimprovement in the transit and bike infrastructure to get people to schools on the West\nEnd. He asked if there was a way to tie the TDM plan to the Economic Development Plan.\nHe said the low/medium/high measurement was not adequate. He said each project\nshould have an estimate of how many cars it would take off the road. He suggested using\nvehicle miles traveled to gauge success. He said everything in the plan should be tied\nback to greenhouse gas reduction.\nBoard Member Sullivan said her issues have been covered and looks forward to the next\ndraft.\nPresident K\u00f6ster said the connections and timings of our transit is what will ease the\ntension overall.\nBoard Member Knox White said that reducing lanes on Otis was not to create congestion,\nbut rather to make sure that you could only do the speed limit. He said that not incenting\nsomething is not the same thing as using a stick. He said reducing parking on new\nconstruction is reducing the incentive to drive, but not a stick like congestion pricing would\nbe.\n7-C 2016-3677\nDesign Review-PLN16-0232 1208 Saint Charles Street- The Planning\nBoard will hold a Public Hearing to consider Design Review for a project\nconsisting of the demolition of a two car garage built prior to 1942 and the\nApproved Minutes\nPage 9 of 11\nPlanning Board Meeting\nDecember 12, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-12-12", "page": 10, "text": "construction of an accessory structure that will have a three car garage and\nunconditioned space designated as an artist studio. The proposed\naccessory structure is approximately 880 square feet which is less than\n40% of the required rear yard allowed for accessory structures per\nAlameda Municipal Code (AMC) Section 30-4.1(d). A certified arborist\nhas surveyed the existing Coast Live Oak trees and has provided a list of\nprotective measures to be administered during construction to protect the\nhealth of the trees. The property is located within the R-1 (One-Family\nResidence) Zoning District. Staff is requesting a continuance to the\nPlanning Board Meeting of January 9, 2017.\n***Continued*\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2016-3670\nDraft Meeting Minutes - September 12, 2016\nBoard Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Zuppan\nseconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-1. (Abstain: Knox White)\n8-B 2016-3671\nDraft Meeting Minutes - September 26, 2016\nBoard Member Mitchell made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Curtis\nseconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\n8-C 2016-3672\nDraft Meeting Minutes - October 10, 2016\nBoard Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Mitchell\nseconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\n8-D 2016-3678\nDraft Meeting Minutes - June 27, 2016 - Revised\nBoard Member Knox White made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member\nZuppan seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-1. (Abstain: Curtis)\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2016-3573\nZoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions\nStaff Member Thomas summarized recent design review approvals.\n9-B 2016-3574\nFuture Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Thomas previewed future agenda items for 2017.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 10 of 11\nPlanning Board Meeting\nDecember 12, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-12-12", "page": 11, "text": "10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\n11-A 2016-3673\nSubcommittee with Commission on Disability Issues regarding Universal\nDesign Ordinance\nBoard Member Burton gave an update on their recent meeting and that progress was\nbeing made on the draft ordinance.\n11-B 2016-3681\nSubcommittee for Alameda Marina\n*None*\nBoard Member Knox White said he met with the owners of Big O.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked if the color on the projector could be improved as the board's\nholiday present.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident K\u00f6ster adjourned the meeting at 10:50pm.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 11 of 11\nPlanning Board Meeting\nDecember 12, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-12-12.pdf"}