{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-02-27", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2017\n1. CONVENE\nPresident K\u00f6ster convened the meeting at 7:01pm\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Zuppan led the flag salute.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked the board to observe a moment of silence in remembrance of\nSolana Henneberry.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President K\u00f6ster, Board Members Burton, Curtis, Knox White, Sullivan, Zuppan.\nBoard Member Mitchell arrived at 7:14pm.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nStaff Member Thomas asked that item 6-B be pulled from consent and continued for two\nweeks.\nBoard Member Zuppan made a motion remove item 6-B from the Consent Calendar\nand continue it for two weeks. Board Member Burton seconded the motion. The\nmotion passed 6-0.\nBoard Member Zuppan made a motion to approved the balance of the Consent\nCalendar, items 6-A and 6-C. Board Member Sullivan seconded the motion. The\nmotion passed 6-0.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNancy Hird asked the board to initiate the process to include many of the buildings at\nAlameda Marina on the historic preservation list. She said they were left off the list\noriginally because of a clerical error.\nWoody Minor said he led the process in the late 1970s to establish the study list. He said\nthe buildings at Alameda Marina have great historical significance to Alameda's ship\nbuilding past. He asked the city to use peer review on the historic study analysis for\nAlameda Marina.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\nApproved Minutes\nPage 1 of 10\nFebruary 27, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-02-27", "page": 2, "text": "6-A 2017-3952\nA Public Hearing to Consider: PLN16-0592 - 1310 Court Street - Applicant:\nMichael and Jen McAnaney. The applicant request Planning Board\napproval for a Design Review and Variance to waive parking requirements\nfor the conversion of an existing basement to create more than 750 square\nfeet of new floor area in a single family home.\n6-B 2017-3953\nPLN17-0536 - 1435 Webster Street - Applicant: Dannan Development.\nPublic Hearing to consider a modification to a condition of approval for\nConstruction of a Three-Story Mixed-Use Development including Nine\nResidential Units and Ground Floor Retail at 1435 Webster Street (APN74-\n427-5-1). The project is categorically exempt from further review under the\nCalifornia Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section\n15305 Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations.\n6-C 2017-3954\nAnnual Review: Del Monte Development Agreement - Applicant: TL\nPartners I, LP. The applicant requests a periodic review of a Development\nAgreement related to the Del Monte Warehouse Master Plan. (Item\ncontinued to the March 13, 2017 meeting)\n***see motions under section \"4.\" above.***\n7. REGULAR\nAGENDA\nITEMS\n7-A 2017-3950\nPlanning Board Study Session: Conceptual Revised Land Use Program for\nAlameda Landing Waterfront. Study sessions are exempt from review\nunder the California Environmental Quality Act.\nAndrew Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found\nat:https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2962412&GUID=26806879-\n980-4AA4-87A9-A22C6F5BD036&FullText=1\nSean Whiskeman, Catellus, gave a presentation on their proposal for the change in use\nfor the waterfront portion of Alameda Landing.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked if they had spoken with any other large maritime businesses\non the island and asked how many square feet for maritime would remain in their plan.\nMr. Whiskeman said they have spoken with Starlight Marine and hope to keep them on\nthe site. He said they need about 5000-7500 square feet of office and machine shop and\nApproved Minutes\nPage 2 of 10\nFebruary 27, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-02-27", "page": 3, "text": "then dock space. He said they have spoken with many companies, including Bay Ship,\nover the years.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked if there was a market study to determine how much\nmaritime commercial could work at the site.\nMr. Whiskeman said they have spent a lot of time and money pursuing commercial\nopportunities for the site and spoken with commercial real estate brokers about the market\ndemand. He said there is not any commercial demand for the site that could pay for the\ninfrastructure upgrades that are needed.\nBoard Member Burton asked for clarification about what exactly is being asked for by the\ndeveloper with respect to the development agreement and environmental impact report.\nStaff Member Thomas said the city needs to decide whether the project will require a\nsupplemental EIR and master plan amendment. He said the board could also decide if the\nproposal is consistent with the previous master plan. He said staff has decided that the\nproject will require a disposition and development agreement amendment approved by\nCity Council. He said the number of outbound morning trips as compared to the 2006 plan\nwould be a major factor in decided what actions and approvals would be required.\nMr. Whiskeman said their master plan anticipated changes in use as long as they stay\nwithin their predicted number of trips. He said they have designed the project to do just\nthat.\nBoard Member Burton asked for clarification about the nine units of affordable housing\nfrom the current phase of Alameda Landing that would be applied to the requirements for\nthe final phase.\nMr. Whiskeman said they made a deal with the city to build Stargell Commons nine units\nlarger than required that would be applied towards the waterfront plan.\nBoard Member Burton asked where that agreement is codified.\nStaff Member Thomas said he did not know.\nBoard Member Burton asked whether the water shuttle would be guaranteed in the plan\nor just aspirational.\nMr. Whiskeman said they would build an ADA compliant dock at a cost of about $2.5\nMillion. He said they would also finance the boat cost and that TDM revenues would fund\noperation.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 3 of 10\nFebruary 27, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-02-27", "page": 4, "text": "Board Member Burton asked what additional access to the waterfront would be available\nto maritime users, or if the plan is to seek users (e.g.-sailmakers) that do not require water\naccess.\nMr. Whiskeman said they would get through that during the design review process. He\nsaid they envision the users having access to the water.\nBoard Member Burton asked what the sea level rise requirements are for the site.\nBill Kennedy, Catellus VP of construction, said they have to plan for 36 inches of sea level\nrise, and another 30 inches for adaptive measures. He said they will use a series of\nmeasures, including stepping the plan up as you get into the park.\nBoard Member Burton asked if the upcoming Universal Design ordinance would apply to\nthis project.\nStaff Member Thomas said they would like to meet those requirements as much as\npossible. He said that if the project needed a disposition and development agreement,\nthen everything is on the table. He said the townhomes will be the hard part to meet the\nimpact requirements.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked if all the TDM dollars would go towards the ferry, or a mix of ferry\nand shuttle.\nMr. Whiskeman said the shuttle is the only thing in operation right now. He said the\nadditional revenue from the waterfront portion would largely go towards the water taxi. He\nsaid they are close to completing a larger, citywide TMA.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked if they have an environmental sustainability plan.\nMr. Whiskeman said they would be meeting all California green building standards and\nwater board standards. He said they are not at the point yet where a lot of those decisions\nhave been made.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked what the for sale versus for rent mix would be.\nMr. Whiskeman said they are leaning more towards for sale product.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked if rentals would result in fewer parcels being charged for\nthe recent school bond.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 4 of 10\nFebruary 27, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-02-27", "page": 5, "text": "Staff Member Thomas said that it depends on how they divide up the project.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked what building heights would be envisioned for the site.\nMr. Whiskeman said the hotel would likely be 4-5 stories and the tallest on the site. He\nsaid the soil conditions make building higher very expensive.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked if the soil mound on the site would be moved.\nMr. Whiskeman said that it is not a permanent feature and much of it would be used for\nthe waterfront phase. He said they strongly believe that they do not need an amendment\nto their EIR.\nStaff Member Thomas said \"we will debate it.\"\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if the Clif Bar discussions happened before or after the 2006\nplan was approved.\nStaff Member Thomas said it came after. He said all of their waterfront sites have \"edge\nissues.'\nBoard Member Zuppan said she did not see the goals and objectives in the 2006 Master\nPlan in the staff report.\nStaff Member Thomas said the long process back then led them to build in some flexibility\nfor the planning board to make changes to the plan. He said it required that the changes\nwould not cause any new environmental impacts and meet other objectives.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked for data on how much our commercial spaces generate\nrevenue compared to residential.\nMr. Whiskeman said their program would generate five times the property taxes that the\ncommercial plan would have.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked for and received confirmation that we have roughly 2,000\nunits approved and 2,000 units proposed right now.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if the 8 acre park and shoreline maintenance was already an\nobligation of the developer. He asked if they would go forward with the existing plan or\nwalk away if the change was not approved\nApproved Minutes\nPage 5 of 10\nFebruary 27, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-02-27", "page": 6, "text": "Mr. Whiskeman said the existing plan was not close to being economically viable and\nwould not move forward.\nBoard Member Curtis said we have a jobs/housing imbalance in Alameda that is just as\nsignificant as the housing crisis.\nTom Marshall, Catellus, said we have to get passed the conversation about \"not seeing\nthis coming,\" or if the plan was a \"bait and switch.\" He said they have spent about $200\nMillion to date on infrastructure. He said they have spent $18 Million on advanced costs\nto prepare for the waterfront phase. He said the situation with the wharf is a lot more\nexpensive than previously thought. He said all the other uses are being subsidized by the\nhousing.\nPresident K\u00f6ster opened the public hearing.\nDoug Biggs, Executive Director of the Alameda Point Collaborative, said that the Alameda\nLanding project has been a big job generator for their residents. He said it has ended the\nfood desert that they had before. He said the hotel jobs would be a great stepping stone\nfor their residents. He said he strongly supports the plan.\nMichael McDonough, Chamber of Commerce, said this project would bring jobs to the city.\nHe said Catellus has been a good partner for the city. He said businesses say their\nemployees can't find housing. He said the hotel would generate lots of tax revenue for\nAlameda.\nAngela Hockabout said the housing organizations she works with look forward to the\naffordable housing the project would provide. She said we need more housing and more\nco-working spaces. She said we need housing for all.\nRich Krinks said he would rather see more residences than offices at this site. He said\nthere is 100,000 square feet of office space available in Marina Village. He said we still\nhave a housing crunch. He said he would like to see the water shuttle come back.\nBrent Aboudara, Alameda Landing resident, said construction activity is having a\nsignificant impact right now. He said a five story hotel would dwarf the existing buildings.\nDiana Aiken said people are working from more home. She said she wants to be able to\nwalk along the shoreline and have a drink at a restaurant. She said she looks forward to\nthe water taxi as an option to get to Jack London Square.\nCourtney Shepler said she lives at Alameda Landing and looks forward to something cool\ncoming to the shoreline. She said half of her neighbors work from home. She said she\nApproved Minutes\nPage 6 of 10\nFebruary 27, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-02-27", "page": 7, "text": "supports the project. She said she would not support a business park along such an\nimportant waterfront.\nMichael Cally said he moved to Alameda when he bought a home at Alameda Landing.\nHe said he is excited to see the project move forward.\nMark Vis said he understands the concerns about traffic and maritime commercial. He\nsaid a business park would create a dead zone. He said a mixed use project would activate\nthe space.\nPhilip James said he was thrilled to see so much participation from the community. He\nsaid the project provides a chance to provide benefits to two cities at the same time. He\nsaid he loves the idea of watching the lighted yacht parade from the waterfront site.\nDenyse Trepanier said she supports the proposal because we need the housing. She said\nshe wants the project to provide room for a bicycle and pedestrian bridge. She said City\nCouncil supports studying a bridge and that we need to incorporate the bridge into the\nlong term plans for the site.\nVictoria Fierce said she supports the project and would love to see more housing here.\nShe said it will open up homeownership opportunities. She said housing delayed is\nhousing denied.\nBrian McGuire said the number of jobs added if nothing happens is zero. He said adding\nmore and more amenities and different tiers of affordable housing could lead to the project\nnot penciling out and being back at square one. He said requiring less parking would lower\nthe housing costs and reduce traffic generated by the project. He said Bike Walk Alameda\nsupports preserving space for a bike and pedestrian bridge or third tube.\nPresident K\u00f6ster closed the public hearing.\nStaff Member Thomas said there is 360,000 square feet of occupied space and those jobs\nwould stay if no project moved forward.\nBoard Member Knox White said he hoped we would get a better understanding of what\nthe liabilities would be fore the city if no project moves forward and the wharf is not\nrepaired. He said we are not having the broader conversation about the amount of\ncommercial space that is available for development in Alameda. He said he would be\nsurprised if the City Council said they want to have mostly truck traffic on the site. He said\nhe would like to see a more mixed use project. He said he would support higher building\nheights in order to achieve the goal of including more commercial. He said he would\nsupport a new plan, but is not sure this is it. He said this is one of the few places that could\nApproved Minutes\nPage 7 of 10\nFebruary 27, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-02-27", "page": 8, "text": "effectively serve as a transit connection to Oakland and we should think about preserving\nsome space for that use.\nBoard Member Curtis said he would support something that did not have any impact. He\nsaid it is hard to understand how the project would not cause a lot of traffic.\nBoard Member Zuppan said that although a significant amount of housing could be\ndeveloped on this site, once the land is used for housing it is gone forever. She said this\nis one of a few places for working waterfront uses. She said we should consider going\ntaller to preserve more space for commercial uses in the future. She said she would like\nto see more numbers to make a more informed decision.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he would like to see more of the land used for commercial\nbut he does not want to jeopardize the project. He said he would like to see a robust\naffordable housing plan and sustainable building plans. He said he supported setting aside\nspace for a pedestrian bridge and is excited about the possibility of a water taxi. He said\nwe don't need more waterfront office space. He said he doesn't want to see the \"everyone\nbelongs here\" motto only apply to those that can afford it. He said he would also support\ngoing taller to get more mixed use.\nBoard Member Burton said he would support more vertical mixed use and not just\nhorizontal mixed use. He suggested small incubator office space might be a good option.\nHe said he would support more multi-family units instead of single family. He said he is\nsupportive of building more residential on the site to meet the goals of the site.\nBoard Member Sullivan said we are not looking at the totality of what we are doing with\nour waterfront. She supports some mixed use of housing but wants to see some variety.\nPresident K\u00f6ster said he supports land banking a portion of the site for a bridge or tunnel\nfooting. He said he likes the waterfront park but there needs to be more of an idea of how\nto connect the spaces. He said we need to activate that waterfront for all Alamedans and\nnot just for the residents of the site.\n8. MINUTES\n*None*\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2017-3955\nZoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions\nStaff Member Thomas said they approved several design reviews today.\n9-B 2017-3957\nApproved Minutes\nPage 8 of 10\nFebruary 27, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-02-27", "page": 9, "text": "Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Thomas listed items coming to future meetings.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked what the progress was with the Big O site.\nStaff Member Thomas said that two violation letters have been sent out.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n10-A 2017-3956\nLetter from Association of Bay Area Governments - Plan Bay Area 2040\nStaff Member Thomas said ABAG responded to his previous letter and acknowledged\nsome mistakes in their draft plan.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\n11-A 2017-3948\nSubcommittee for Alameda Marina\n*Has not met*\n11-B 2017-3949\nSubcommittee with Commission on Disability Issues regarding Universal\nDesign Ordinance\nStaff Member Thomas said the universal design ordinance was waiting for him to make\nsome minor changes and bringing back to the subcommittee one last time.\nBoard Member Knox White said he met with the owners of Big O, Alameda Preservation\nSociety and Save our Working Waterfront. He said he was surprised that the Economic\nDevelopment item went to City Council and did not include the board's comments.\nStaff Member Potter said the presentation on the Economic Development Plan strategies\nwas intended as a check in and staff will be finalizing those strategies before going back\nto the advisory panel and Planning Board before City Council approval.\nBoard Member Knox White said that Planning Board is charged with making policy\nrecommendations to City Council and they should know what the Planning Board said\nabout the plan.\nStaff Member Potter said they will continue to refine the plan and see Planning Board's\ninput before going to City Council for approval.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he also met with Big O Tires.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 9 of 10\nFebruary 27, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-02-27", "page": 10, "text": "Board Member Zuppan said she met with Big O, and Catellus.\nBoard Member Curtis said he also met with Big O.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident K\u00f6ster adjourned the meeting at 10:18pm.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 10 of 10\nFebruary 27, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-02-27.pdf"}