{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-07-17", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nSPECIAL MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, JULY 17, 2017\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Koster convened the meeting at 7:02pm\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Sullivan led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President K\u00f6ster, Board Members Curtis, Mitchell, Sullivan. Absent: Board\nMember Burton.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nPresident K\u00f6ster said the board elections may be moved to the end of the meeting,\npending Board Member Burton's arrival.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n*None*\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2017-4568\nEncinal Terminals Environmental Impact Report, Draft Master Plan,\nGeneral Plan Amendment and Development Agreement. Applicant: North\nWaterfront Cove, LLC. Public Hearing to consider the Master Plan, Density\nBonus application, General Plan Amendment, and Development\nAgreement for the redevelopment of the Encinal Terminals property located\nat 1521 Buena Vista Avenue. (APN 72-0382-001, -002, and 72-0383-\n03) The properties are zoned MX (Mixed Use) and MF (Multifamily\nResidential). A Focused Supplemental Environmental Impact Report has\nbeen prepared for the project pursuant to California Environmental Quality\nAct\nStaff Member Thomas gave a presentation on the staff recommendation. The staff report\nand attachments can be found at:\nittps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3099766&GUID=7C55F667-\nE01A-4538-A431-6F2D68F32FBB&FullText=1\nApproved Minutes\nJuly 17, 2017\nPage 1 of 10\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-07-17", "page": 2, "text": "Board Member Sullivan asked if BCDC would still require the perimeter to be open space\nif no Tidelands swap were executed.\nStaff Member Thomas said we would be likely to get a 15-20 foot shoreline path, but not\n7 acres with 100 feet of open space around the water.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked who would be responsible for dredging a new marina at the\nsite.\nStaff Member Thomas said that would be an issue to be dealt with when the marina lease\nis set up. He said the site does not presently have much need for dredging.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked for clarification on which documents governs various open\nspace and public access requirements if there is a conflict.\nStaff Member Thomas said they tried to minimize overlap of issues and eliminate conflicts\nbetween documents.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if the money that might have been available for a water\nshuttle has been allocated for acquiring the Pennzoil property, and if so, what the thinking\nwas for that.\nStaff Member Thomas explained the transit funding sources and plans the project will\nprovide. He said the General Plan identifies the Pennzoil parcel as the priority in order to\ncomplete Clement Ave and move the truck route.\nBoard Member Curtis asked how we can approve a development agreement without the\nphasing set.\nStaff Member Thomas said there is no financial risk to the City. He said they cannot start\nbuilding until they get a phasing plan approved. He said there is a detailed phasing plan,\nbut they preserved flexibility in case the state requires a different phasing plan.\nBoard Member Knox White asked what the benefit is of going above the 60 foot height\nlimit in the General Plan.\nStaff Member Thomas said they did not want every building to look the same. He said you\ncould get 589 units within the 60 foot height limit, but every building would be 5-6 story\nsquares and not step down toward the water.\nBoard Member Knox White asked about a section in the plan that seems to allow the\ndeveloper to go higher than the limit if they have more or less commercial space. He did\nnot understand why they would need to go higher if they put in less commercial.\nApproved Minutes\nJuly 17, 2017\nPage 2 of 10\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-07-17", "page": 3, "text": "Staff Member Thomas said that they might have situations that all parties want to approve\na building that does not exactly meet the master plan and wanted to be able to have the\nplanning board approve that without requiring a master plan amendment.\nMike O'Hara, Tim Lewis Communities, gave a presentation on the master plan.\nBoard Member Knox White asked if the road along the promenade that connects with\nClement would allow private vehicles to pass through.\nMr. O'Hara said they plan to limit through access to emergency vehicles only.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked where marina users would park.\nMr. O'Hara said there would be a loading zone and parking would be in the structures of\nthe buildings.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked what S the current condition of the piers.\nMr. O'Hara said there is a timber portion of the wharf that would be removed and the rest\nof the piles will be rehabilitated for mixed use.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked if the quantity of electric vehicle parking at each location is\ndefined.\nMr. O'Hara said that those details would be left for the design review phase.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if \"purple pipe\" for water recapture is included in the plan.\nMr. O'Hara said there are a number of ways to achieve different LEED certifications and\nthey are supportive but did not prescribe what elements would be included.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked how they could evaluate the tradeoff of a tall building with\nmore open space if the design review does not happen until the last phase.\nMr. O'Hara said that each design review application would be accompanied by a report\non how all the other phases are progressing and how they are falling within the unit ranges.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked if the traffic light would still be required at Entrance Rd. and Buena\nVista.\nMr. O'Hara said that once the truck route on Clement is complete, the Buena Vista and\nEntrance Road intersection would not require a traffic signal.\nApproved Minutes\nJuly 17, 2017\nPage 3 of 10\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-07-17", "page": 4, "text": "President K\u00f6ster asked if there would be a vehicular drop off area for the water taxi.\nMr. O'Hara said they would need to look at that as the detailed plans progress.\nPresident K\u00f6ster opened the public hearing.\nCristin Sullivan expressed concern about safety for residents during construction. She\nexpressed concern over being able to support all the retail development. She said she\nsupports adding housing in Alameda to address affordability.\nDorothy Freeman read a news quote cautioning against setting the precedent of allowing\nvery tall buildings. She said tall buildings belong in Oakland. She said the residential mix\nwas too high and wanted more commercial space and fewer units.\nRachele Trigueros, Bay Area Council, said they endorse the project because of the\nhousing crisis. She said the state is not building the number of units required to keep up\nwith job growth.\nKari Thompson, Chamber of Commerce, urged the board to support the project.\nMichael McDonough, Chamber of Commerce, said this project will lead to the\nbeautification of the northern waterfront. He said he was excited to see the project happen.\nBeth Kenny, Chair of the Commission on Disability Issues, expressed concern about the\nvisitability and universal design requirements are not consistent with the ordinance the\nboard recently recommended. She asked the board to not approve the universal design\nsection of the plan.\nChristopher Buckley asked that the 60 foot height limit be maintained. He said a 160 foot\nheight limit would open a Pandora's Box in Alameda. He asked for clarification on how\nmany areas might be allowed to have tall buildings.\nKen Levins said he did not see any facilities for liveaboards. He said the tall building could\ntake away his view of Oakland. He said Clement is not a well-designed truck route. He\nsaid he did not see any spaces for vehicles with trailers that might use the marina.\nMeredith Levins said there are no red curbs on her street which is supposed to be a fire\nlane which makes it impossible for emergency vehicles to pass and for them to exit their\ndriveway. She asked that the city put in accountability in the plan for things like parking\nand enforcement.\nEric Embry said adding 589 units on top of Del Monte might be more than the\nneighborhood can handle. He said Clement does not make sense as a truck route. He\nApproved Minutes\nJuly 17, 2017\nPage 4 of 10\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-07-17", "page": 5, "text": "said Marina Shores did not help with the housing crisis. He suggested waiting to see how\nDel Monte goes before moving forward with this plan.\nJohn Platt said Del Monte fits Alameda but a 14 story building does not fit. He said the\ntraffic on Sherman is already bad before any units are built. He said the quality of life on\nthe island is going down.\nLisa said they purchased a home in Alameda because of the small town feel. She said it\ntakes 30 minutes to get off and on the island. She said there will be too many people and\nnot enough parking. She asked why the truck route would be on a waterfront street. She\nsaid there is no solution to traffic, school overcrowding, hospitals, and animal shelters.\nBill Smith said he is excited about the project. He said there will be growing pains, but not\nhaving housing is real misery, not just inconvenience. He said he likes the 14 story\nbuilding.\nLaura Thomas, Renewed Hope, thanked the board for their hard work. She said they\nsupport the project. She said they would like to see a higher percentage of affordable units\nin such a large project.\nTeresa Ruiz said they are excited to see these underutilized sites move forward. She said\nwe can solve transportation problems with incentives but cannot solve the housing\nproblem without building more housing. She encouraged higher bedroom count units to\nsupport families that need housing.\nKaren Bey said there is a lot to like about the project, including the 14 story tower. She\nsaid it is an appropriate place to build. She wanted to make sure the ferry is very important\nto make sure is funded.\nAlan Pryor said trucks and traffic have been a big part of our history. He said we need\nplaces for people to live that are affordable.\nAngela Hockabout, Alameda Home Team, said we need every unit to help address the\nhousing shortage. She said the discomfort from traffic and tall buildings is nothing\ncompared to the suffering of folks without stable housing. She said opposing new housing\nfor aesthetic reason is oppressive. She urged approval of the project.\nPresident K\u00f6ster closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Knox White asked who approves the density bonus.\nStaff Member Thomas said the density bonus is embedded in the master plan.\nApproved Minutes\nJuly 17, 2017\nPage 5 of 10\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-07-17", "page": 6, "text": "Board Member Knox White said the application is not included and asked if they can\ndiscuss the merits of the project without the density bonus application.\nStaff Member Thomas said the requirement is to show that the 491 unit base project is\nfeasible for the density bonus, but they are not asking for any waivers like some projects\nhave.\nBoard Member Knox White asked for clarification about the project's universal design\nrequirements.\nStaff Member Thomas said that 80% of the project would be visitable. The 20% that are\ntownhomes would not meet that standard. He said the draft ordinance on universal design\nrequires 100% visitability, but allows for developers to apply for waivers for townhomes.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked what data we have to show the impacts of TDM on the\n\"substantial and unavoidable\" traffic impacts.\nStaff Member Thomas said we can't build a new bridge and we can't say no to new\nhousing. He said we have to be more efficient with our transportation space. He said we\nare working on increasing transit services.\nBoard Member Mitchell said that 589 units, when compared with the size of the city, is a\nmodest amount. He said he likes the revitalized Park St., even though it is hard to park\nthere. He said he likes the flexibility in the plan, the access to the water, additional\naffordable housing, down payment assistance, and public art funds. He said he\nappreciates the mixed use of the site and is okay with the building heights in the plan. He\nsaid he would like to move forward tonight.\nBoard Member Curtis said we might consider that 589 units is too many for the site. He\nsaid he is against the 90 foot height level. He said the parking is inadequate. He said he\ncannot vote for the project.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she is opposed to the project as designed. She said the\nproject is jam packed with units. She said she is disappointed in the universal design\nelements of the plan. She said she does not support the 90 foot tower. She said traffic and\nparking are issues and we should not build this many units.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she thinks we are striking a good balance because people on\nboth sides are unhappy with parts of the project. She said we should make sure there is\naccess for vehicles with boat trailers. She said we should limit the number of compact\nparking spaces on the site. She said she liked the suggestion of making sure we have\nmore two and three bedroom units. She said we should make sure that pets are allowed\nin these buildings. She said she would like the potential height waiver to only apply to the\nApproved Minutes\nJuly 17, 2017\nPage 6 of 10\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-07-17", "page": 7, "text": "one corner of the site. She said we need to require energy and water conservation in the\nproject. She said rentals and affordable units are the most likely ones to require universal\ndesign elements and some of these items should be required up front. She said the\nreduced cost transit passes should be available to more residents. She said she would\nlike the landscaping to be part of design review. She said she agreed with the speakers\nwho said Clement is a bad place for a truck route. She said the line 19 is at double the\nexpected ridership and still parking problems, which means there is something wrong with\nour transportation models. She said we should have flexibility for residents to leave their\ncars someplace safe so they can use transit. She suggested making the parking stalls tall\nenough to allow stacked parking. She suggested tying the ferry dock to something more\nconcrete to make sure that transportation infrastructure is built earlier in the project.\nBoard Member Knox White said he is not inclined to approve a 14 story building at this\ntime. He said the exception to the height limit should only apply to sub-area F, increases\nthe planned commercial square feet, and is architecturally exceptional. He said the design\nreview exception needs to have some benefit to the community beyond just a nice tower.\nHe said we should include construction updates and schedules be released every six\nmonths. He said we should require liveaboard facilities to be addressed in design review.\nHe said he agreed with Board Member Zuppan about the universal design review issues.\nHe said he would like to see the language of the draft universal design ordinance included\nin the agreement. He said he would like to have the density bonus application included\nwhen the plan goes to council. He said there are dozens of empty parking spaces around\nLittlejohn Park every night. He said we can build to support cars or build to support bikes\nand transit.\nPresident K\u00f6ster said we are in housing crisis mode and these units are badly needed.\nHe said he likes that the units in this development would be smaller and inherently more\naffordable. He said he would like to see the project meet the universal design elements.\nStaff Member Thomas said a potential recommendation would be to approve the master\nplan with the following additional recommendations to council and staff: eliminate 4b and\nexpand the height limit exception to only apply to site F if the design is exceptional and\nthere is an increase in the amount of commercial; six month construction plans noticed to\nthe public; the density bonus application be included with the proposal that goes to the\ncity council; the master plan include design review for boat trailer access, liveaboard\nfacilities, limits on compact spaces, landscaping for open space and private will come to\ndesign review; include a distribution of larger bedroom units; provisions to allow pets; meet\nthe standards of the draft universal design ordinance and allow waiver applications during\ndesign review if necessary; allow households to purchase more transit passes if needed;\nencourage council to examine the phasing requirements for the water shuttle as well as\ndrop off access for the water shuttle.\nApproved Minutes\nJuly 17, 2017\nPage 7 of 10\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-07-17", "page": 8, "text": "Staff Member Thomas addressed the two members who stated their opposition to the\nplan. He said the city legally cannot say there are too many units. He said if there are other\nitems that they had issue with in the plan that they could try and address with amendments\nthey could raise them now.\nBoard Member Curtis said staff is saying that the state says if you can stuff that many\nunits on the site there is nothing you can do. He said there are other mitigating concerns\nthat he owes the public. He said the parking is an issue and accommodating the weekend\nvisitors will be a problem. He said the Pasta Pelican is going broke because of their parking\nproblems. He said the design can be improved and there is not enough parking, and that\nis the basis for his vote.\nBoard Member Zuppan made a motion to extend the meeting to 11:15pm. Board Member\nMitchell seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.\nBoard Member Knox White asked if they would be able to hear other items given that they\ndid not make a motion at 10:30pm.\nStaff Attorney Penick said they would not be able to hear additional items tonight.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked how hard it would be to come back after the first phase to\nadd parking.\nStaff Member Thomas said they could amend the plan, or they could include a condition\nthat allows changes at the design review phase is certain conditions are met.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she would like to include that flexibility in the plan.\nBoard Member Mitchell and President K\u00f6ster said they would be supportive of the\namendment.\nBoard Member Knox White said if we want to define what the problem is to trigger such a\nclause, he could be supportive. He described a parking occupancy study that could give\nthe board or the developer to amend the parking levels of future phases.\nBoard Member Knox White made a motion to approve the staff recommendation\nwith the changes listed (above, in italics, underlined) by Staff Member Thomas plus\nthe parking occupancy study that could trigger a review of parking requirements.\nBoard Member Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-2 (Curtis,\nSullivan).\n<skip to item 8. Minutes>\nApproved Minutes\nJuly 17, 2017\nPage 8 of 10\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-07-17", "page": 9, "text": "7-B\nBoard Elections\nBoard Member Knox White nominated Board Mitchell to serve as President. Board\nMember Curtis seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\nBoard Member Curtis nominated Board Member Sullivan to be Vice President. Board\nMember Zuppan seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\n7-C 2017-4572\nZoning Amendment - Affordable Housing. Applicant: City of Alameda. The\nPlanning Board will hold a Public Hearing to consider zoning amendments\nrelated to Affordable Housing. The project is categorically exempt from\nfurther review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to\nCEQA Guidelines Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects. Staff is\nrequesting this item be continued to July 24, 2017\n*continued*\n8. MINUTES\n2017-4564\nDraft Meeting Minutes - May 8, 2017\nBoard Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Mitchell\nseconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\n2017-4565\nDraft Meeting Minutes - May 22, 2017\nBoard Member Zuppan made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Curtis\nseconded the motion.\nBoard Member Curtis asked to add (on page 4 of 9) \"Curtis said he would vote for the\nrevised plan as long as staff forwarded his recommendation for informational purposes\nthat a bond could be put up to secure the development of phase 3.\" He said the information\nwas not included in the presentation to City Council.\nBoard Member Zuppan moved to amend the motion to include the amendment. Board\nMember Curtis seconded the amendment. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Sullivan abstained).\nBoard Member Zuppan made a motion to extend the meeting to 11:30pm. Board Member\nCurtis seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\n<return to item 7-B>\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2017-4566\nApproved Minutes\nJuly 17, 2017\nPage 9 of 10\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-07-17", "page": 10, "text": "Zoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions\nStaff Member Thomas gave a report (unintelligible).\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\n11-A 2017-4567\nSubcommittee for Alameda Marina\n*None*\nBoard Member Knox White thanked President K\u00f6ster for his service as President and said\na potential goodbye to the board and staff.\nBoard Member Zuppan said it was a pleasure to serve on the board.\nAll board members thanked the outgoing board members.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident K\u00f6ster adjourned the meeting at 11:17pm.\nApproved Minutes\nJuly 17, , 2017\nPage 10 of 10\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-07-17", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJuly 17, 2017\nMinutes of the Special Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday, July 17, 2017\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:39 p.m.\nPresent were:\nChair Cambra and Vice Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana; Members\nFriedman, Griffiths, and Murray\nCommittee Staff:\nJennifer Kauffman\nCity Attorney Staff: John Le\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\na. Staff noted that a revised agenda was published today and is available in the back\nof the room or online.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\na. Staff for the record stated there are no cases reviewed at tonight's meeting.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1\na. None.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\na. None.\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS\na. No unfinished business.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\n7-A. Overview of Rent Program Administrative Procedures\nReview of RRAC meeting procedures\nSchedule possible Brown Act/Sunshine Ordinance Training\nStaff explained the administrative procedures for the Ordinance, noting the\ninformation is also available at public informational workshops. The discussion\nincluded the following topics:\nCommunication between staff and parties\nInvalid notices and reimbursements on violations\nQualifications for the individual meeting the Ordinance's definition of \"Landlord\"\nReasonable accommodation process\nPage 1 of 3", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-07-17", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJuly 17, 2017\nPublic record requests\nReferrals to regional legal and social services\nMediation options\nCommittee members discussed factors under consideration for rent increase reviews\nincluding the role of supportive documentation. The discussion addressed the\ninformation provided to parties prior to Committee meetings, types of supportive\ndocumentation relevant to rent increases, parties' inclusion or exclusion of\nsupportive documents. Committee members requested staff share with each\nmember a copy of the template letters provided to parties prior to the RRAC\nmeeting.\nMembers discussed the Committee's role and procedures during the mediation and\nrecommendation phase. City attorney staff identified section 6-58.85.A, noting that\nmembers are not advocates for either the Landlord or the Tenant. Members requested\nthat staff provide guidance on City Council's intent with the role of mediation and\ndialogue during the RRAC process. Member Friedman stated he will follow-up with\nCity attorney staff at a later time if he is interested in pursuing this topic.\nMember Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana introduced topic regarding the appropriate time allotment\nper case. Members discussed the procedures and noted that changes will be made\nthrough an amendment to the RRAC Rules and Procedures.\nChair Cambra made logistical recommendations on the following topics:\nSeating arrangement\nTime management\nName badges\nMember's roles\nRoom acoustics\nMember's ability to discuss Committee procedures in the future\nMembers request staff agendize the opportunity for a Committee\nmembers to debrief on the RRAC process at each meeting.\nMotion and second for the meeting to extend 10 minutes beyond 9:30pm (Griffiths\nand Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana). Approved by unanimous consent.\nChair Cambra and Member Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana discussed updating the RRAC chair\nannouncements. Cambra and Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana agreed to prepare the language\ntogether to share at the upcoming RRAC meetings.\nPage 2 of 3", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-07-17", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJuly 17, 2017\nCity attorney staff informed Committee members that a Sunshine Ordinance video\ntraining is available to the public online at the City's website. Staff confirmed that the\ninformation will be sent to Committee members and each members is welcome to\ncontact the City attorney's office with questions once they view the video.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.\na. No public comment.\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\na. Chair Cambra requested the Committee agendize a discussion on the low volume\nof reviews requested by tenants for increases equal to or less than 5%. Members\nand staff discussed the scope and purview of the Committee. Cambra withdrew\nthe request and noted he will introduce the topic at a later date.\n10.ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:43 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nCommittee Secretary\nJennifer Kauffman\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 6, 2017.\nPage 3 of 3", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-07-17.pdf"}