{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-07-24", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, JULY 24, 2017\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Mitchell convened the meeting at 7:00pm\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President Mitchell, Board Members Burton, Curtis, Knox White, K\u00f6ster, Sullivan,\nZuppan.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nBoard Member Knox-White suggested swapping the order of items 7-A and 7-B.\nPresident Mitchell said he had the same thought but worried that many people were\nwaiting to come for 7-B until 7-A was completed.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nAlan Teague, nominee for the Planning Board, introduced himself to the board. He\nexplained his background and approach he would take to issues the board faces.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n*None*\n7. REGULAR\nAGENDA\nITEMS\n7-A 2017-4581\nStudy Session on the Alameda Shipways Residential Project\nStaff Member Barrera gave introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be\nfound at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3105092&GUID=9D1B972E-\n EDA1-46EF-B1BA-A21585248062&FullText=1\nThe landscape architect from Ima Design gave a presentation on the park and landscape\nplan.\nErnie Vasquez, project architect, gave a presentation on the design of the building.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked what the length of the Del Monte building is.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 1 of 9\nJuly 24. 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-07-24", "page": 2, "text": "Staff Member Thomas said the Del Monte building is about one thousand feet long,\napproximately twice as long as this building.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if they were planning to use rip rap or a planted edge.\nThe landscape architect said they are planning to have a stabilized soil edge which would\nhave plantings at the water's edge.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked what the plan for sea level rise is for the park area.\nThe landscape architect said the elevation of the park area was about four feet above\ncurrent sea level.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked about cutting the building in two and creating a public access\nthrough the middle of the site.\nMr. Vasquez said that it would create a security concern and that the large setbacks on\nthe sides of the building would create a better connection for the community.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked if there were any plans to have any marina or boat access\nat the site.\nMr. Vasquez said the ownership was not interested in managing a marina and competing\nagainst adjacent marinas.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster said the ground floor units near the garage access sites would be\nheavily impacted and the use needed to be reconsidered.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if the two garage entrances were large enough to allow two\nway traffic.\nMr. Vasquez said the driveways would each be two way.\nBoard Member Knox White asked why none of the Ship Ways ramps were used in the site\nfor the park forms.\nThe landscape architect said that they wanted to create a usable site and the slope of the\nramps were too severe to encourage many of the activities they envision for the park.\nBoard Member Knox White asked why they needed a roadway next to the existing\nroadway.\nMr. Vasquez said they see that area as a place for prospective residents to come into the\nsite. He said it could have a different pavement treatment and be a nice feature.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 2 of 9\nJuly 24. 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-07-24", "page": 3, "text": "Board Member Burton asked if there has been a parking study done to determine the\ncorrect number of parking spaces for a project of this size.\nStaff Member Thomas said they have not done that yet.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked if there is a study to determine the ability to support two\nseparate kayak businesses along the estuary (Encinal Terminals).\nStaff Member Thomas said they have not done an official study but are trying to make\nsure each project has the ability to support kayak launching.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked how wide the building is.\nMr. Vasquez said the building is 544 feet.\nPresident Mitchell asked if there were public restrooms in the park.\nThe landscape architect explained that there would be a public restroom on the northern\npart of the site.\nStaff Member Thomas explained that there is a plan for a bathroom for the adjacent marina\nwhich would be private and they are trying to coordinate it so that there is a public\nbathroom incorporated as well.\nPresident Mitchell asked if the Bay Trail would be lit up at night.\nThe landscape architect said they are not at that level of detail.\nPresident Mitchell asked if the would be plans to use greywater to irrigate the large lawn\narea on the site.\nThe landscape architect said they are still in the early stage of planning.\nPresident Mitchell opened the public hearing.\nLaura Thomas said she is excited to see a rental project moving forward. She applauded\nthe developer's plan to include inclusionary units and encouraged the developer to accept\nSection 8 vouchers.\nKaren Bey said she supports the project having more housing and will add value to the\nbusiness park. She said we have an opportunity to amenitize our business park. She said\nwe need to make sure that we get a water shuttle with the project.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 3 of 9\nJuly 24. 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-07-24", "page": 4, "text": "Alan Teague said the restroom, fix it station, and water fountain being located together is\ncritical to cyclists. He said conveying the slope of the site along the side of the building\ncould be a nod to its history.\nPresident Mitchell closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster said he is having trouble figuring out how the project fits Alameda.\nHe said it would be nice if some of the elements of the project reflected the site's past. He\nsaid he would like to see two structures with pedestrian access through the middle of the\nsite. He said he would like to see the landscape connect to the water more and reflect\nsome of the historic use of the site. He suggested butterfly or shed roofs that could mimic\nthe old ramps. He suggested using the rooftop as an amenity for the project. He said he\npreferred the architecture in option C.\nBoard Member Knox White said the ramps are the defining feature of the site and does\nnot reflect the history of the site. He said he likes the size of the units being smaller and\nmore affordable by design. He said we could lose 100 parking spaces at $50,000/ space\nto fund amenities and reduce cost. He said we should start setting the standard of where\nwe want to go in the next fifty years. He said he is excited to see the project move forward.\nBoard Member Curtis said the site is very difficult and the layout and circulation of the\ndesign are very good.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she likes how the building fa\u00e7ade is visually broken up. But\nshe said at street level, you will not be able to see the water because of the 544 foot long\nwall of building. She said she has concerns over some of the composite materials looking\nplastic.\nBoard Member Burton said he would like to see something in the architecture that speaks\nto the site and not be indistinguishable from thousands of other projects. He asked if the\nbuildings and courtyards could be manipulated to match the rhythm of the the existing\nramps and crane ways. He asked to see the building step down and break up the massing\nmore. He agreed that option C was the best of the available choices.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she would like to see more information about the sea level\nrise planning and perhaps do more than the minimum to protect the park from sea level\nrise. She said the park should step down to the water somehow. She said she feels 544\nfeet would be too long of a building. She said she would like to see the building step down\nto the water and break up the massing. She said the plan needs to connect better to the\nsite history, something experiential.\nBoard Member Curtis said all the suggestions lead to a potential increase in cost which\nwe need to be sensitive to.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 4 of 9\nJuly 24. 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-07-24", "page": 5, "text": "President Mitchell said he was also in favor of option C for the design. He said he would\nlike to see larger entrances to the Bay Trail. He said recycling greywater for the large lawn\nwould be beneficial. He said he supported varying the building heights. He said he does\nnot like the bulb out area and thinks there is an opportunity to improve that area.\n7-B 2017-4582\nCity Council Request that the Planning Board Review Affordable Housing\nRegulations Citywide\nStaff Member Thomas introduced the item and explained the staff recommendations.\nThe staff report and attachment can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3105093&GUID=A5E99E2A-\n08D0-4E11-AC44-D7C25CC06070&FullText=1\nBoard Member Sullivan asked if the city knows how the low income housing is performing\nover the last fifteen years.\nStaff Member Thomas said that one thing they have noticed is that rental units often work\nbetter than forcing homeownership responsibilities onto low income residents.\nStaff Member Potter said they contract with the Housing Authority to administer the\nproject. She said they track the units, over 100, and verify residency and perform other\nfunctions.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if federal changes in funding would affect this project.\nStaff Member Potter said the federal government is reducing the amount of funding\nallowance to administer the Section 8 program and have stopped issuing new vouchers.\nShe said this program is administered and funded at the local level and would not be\nimpacted by the federal government.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked if in lieu fees would lead to a city not being in compliance\nwith their housing element because the affordable housing is deferred.\nStaff Member Thomas said that would not affect RHNA compliance, which focuses\nprimarily on zoning, not on the projects that actually get built.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked if recent developers have complained about the cost of\ninclusionary housing requirements in Alameda.\nStaff Member Thomas said that they know it is a huge cost to overcome, especially the\n25% at Alameda Point, but that they do not get many complaints because the\nrequirements are very clear.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 5 of 9\nJuly 24. 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-07-24", "page": 6, "text": "Board Member Knox White said they received an email supporting a land value tax as an\nalternative to increasing inclusionary requirements. He asked if the city could issue\naffordable housing bonds.\nStaff Member Potter said it would require a vote of the people, similar to the countywide\nA1 bond last year.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked if we know what is best for the city between affordable by\ndesign or subsidized housing.\nStaff Member Thomas said they feel like they need to look at all segments of the problem.\nBoard Member Burton asked if the density bonus law could allow developers a way out of\nbuilding the affordable by design units.\nStaff Member Thomas said they only grant a waiver if the developer can show that it\nmakes it physically impossible to fit the number of units on the site. He said they have\nnever received a request for a financial concession which would require them to show\ntheir pro forma to prove the hardship.\nPresident Mitchell asked if we could do an affordable by design study.\nStaff Member Thomas said they could. He said the requirement would create a strain on\ntownhome and single family home developments, but all rental apartment projects would\nhave no problem meeting it.\nPresident Mitchell opened the public hearing.\nLaura Thomas said Alameda has done a good job of channeling developer profits into\npublic benefits. She said the money for inclusionary housing comes from developer profits.\nShe suggested using boomerang funds, potential profit sharing from Site A, or a bond, for\naffordable housing.\nPresident Mitchell closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster said he agreed with the staff report. He said he liked using unit size\nto define the affordable by design requirements.\nBoard Member Knox White said he would like to stop using \"workforce housing\" which\nleaves out workers on either side of the income spectrum from that definition. He said he\nis basically supportive of the staff recommendation. He said we have to be part of the\nsolution to the regional housing crisis. He said our recommendation should be to have\ncouncil look at funding sources for affordable housing.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 6 of 9\nJuly 24. 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-07-24", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Burton said he is not comfortable making these recommendations on the\nfly. He said he would like to see some economic analysis and get feedback from the builder\ncommunity. He said he does not like the idea of in lieu fees, and likes integrating folks\nfrom different income levels throughout projects.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she felt we need more analysis before moving forward.\nBoard Member Zuppan said there is an economic cost to forcing developers to build\nsmaller units. She said an in lieu fee could be an interesting option if priced and\nadministered effectively. She said tweaking the inclusionary percentages to generate\nmore affordable units should be considered.\nBoard Member Curtis said we need to be careful in imposing anything greater than what\nwe have now.\nPresident Mitchell said we need to be extremely cautious about increasing our\nrequirements. He said we need to study this issue and not make a recommendation off of\na gut feeling.\nBoard Member Knox White asked how many large projects are likely left that would be\nsubject to any future changes in the inclusionary ordinance.\nStaff Member Thomas said that North Housing was really the only one. He said that many\nof the bidders for that property expressed interest in just rehabbing the existing units and\nrenting them out which means they would not be subject to affordable housing rules. He\nsaid they could engage a consultant to evaluate the effects of increasing the middle\nincome housing requirements citywide.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if council would receive the same report the board did.\nStaff Member Thomas said he would include the same staff report with some\nsupplemental information.\nBoard Member Knox White made a motion to: recommend that the City Council proceed\ncautiously, maintain the 15% inclusionary requirement; consider a 10% middle income\nrequirement for new projects or hire a consultant to study going higher than 10% in a range\nof housing markets; look at a variety of funding sources, including boomerang funds, Site\nA profit, a parcel or land value tax. Board Member Curtis seconded the motion.\nBoard Member Curtis said he is concerned about directing council to look for sources of\nfunding without going to a vote of the public. He suggested splitting the motion.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she does not feel comfortable voting on a 10%\nrecommendation without getting more information.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 7 of 9\nJuly 24. 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-07-24", "page": 8, "text": "President Mitchell suggested including language to review the middle income\nrequirements on a project by project basis.\nBoard Member Knox White withdrew his motion.\nBoard Member Knox White made a motion to recommend the City Council maintain\nits 15% inclusionary requirement, and that because we do not have enough\ninformation and because of the small number of potential projects that would be\nimpacted we do not feel comfortable making a recommendation on a middle income\nhousing requirement but feel that would be negotiated during the plan\ndevelopment. Board Member Curtis seconded the motion.\nBoard Member Zuppan suggested including a study of achieving increased affordable\nhousing by tweaking the percentages of very low, low, and moderate income in the\ninclusionary ordinance.\nBoard Member Curtis said he is not supportive of the amendment.\nBoard Member Knox White amended his motion and said that if council were\ninterested in studying middle income requirements that they also consider\nadjusting the sub-categories of the 15% inclusionary requirement. Board Member\nCurtis seconded the amendment. The motion passed 7-0.\nBoard Member Knox White made a motion to recommend that council look at\npotential funding sources for affordable housing including: parcel taxes,\nboomerang funds, Site A profits, land value capture or any other sources to provide\naffordable housing outside of using market rate units. Board Member Burton\nseconded the motion. The motion passed 5-2 (Curtis, Sullivan).\n8. MINUTES\n*None*\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2017-4584\nZoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions\nStaff Member Thomas said they have taken no actions.\n9-B 2017-4585\nFuture Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Thomas gave an update on the calendar. The report can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3105096&GUID=8A1CFED6-\n67FB-4A10-974D-10CC6742F558\nApproved Minutes\nPage 8 of 9\nJuly 24. 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-07-24", "page": 9, "text": "10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\n11-A 2017-4583\nSubcommittee for Alameda Marina\n*None*\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nTrish Spencer shared information about the passing of resident Dick Rutter.\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident adjourned the meeting in memory of Dick Rutter at 10:41 pm.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 9 of 9\nJuly 24. 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-07-24.pdf"}