{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-11-13", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2017\n1. CONVENE\nBoard Member Sullivan convened the meeting at 7:02pm\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Burton led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Board Members Sullivan, Burton, Curtis, Knox White, Teague.\nAbsent: President Mitchell, Board Member K\u00f6ster.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\n*None*\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nBob Naber gave a presentation outlining the loss of Bay Area boatyards. He said we need\nto protect the elevator for houseboats and save Alameda's working waterfront.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n*None*\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2017-4924\nNorth Housing Zoning Amendment -A public hearing to consider a draft\nresolution recommending that the City Council approve a Zoning Map\nAmendment to remove the \"G\" Special Government Combining District\noverlay from the property to be conveyed to CP VI Admirals Cove, LLC,\nHabitat for Humanity, and the Alameda Housing Authority, which may result\nin maintaining, modifying, or removing the existing site-specific Reuse Plan\nhousing limit. The property is generally located between Singleton Avenue,\nMosley Avenue and Bette Street. The proposed rezoning is categorically\nexempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines -\n15305 Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations\nBoard Member Burton recused himself from the item due to a business relationship with\nhis employer and the developer.\nStaff Member Thomas introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and\nattachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3202387&GUID=8EC4E816-\n95B9-4908-A47E-0727482B74ED&FullText=1\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 11\nNovember 13, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-11-13", "page": 2, "text": "Greg Pasquali, Carmel Partners, gave a presentation on their plans for the site and\noutstanding questions of their purchase.\nVictoria Johnson, Alameda Housing Authority, said that the Housing Authority managed\n1400 units at this site during the 40s, 50s, and 60s. She said their board supports lifting\nthe cap help make sure they can bring a viable project forward on their portion of the site\nin the future.\nBoard Member Teague asked if the 2009 reuse plan is advisory or mandatory.\nStaff Member Potter explained the components of the reuse plan. She said they were\nrequired to prepare the plan in order for the Navy to convey the property. She said the\nplan did not envision adaptive reuse and are trying to fit that use into the plan. She said\nthe Navy would call the reuse plan aspirational.\nStaff Member Thomas said they have to make sure the project that moves forward must\ncomply with the environmental requirements.\nBoard Member Teague asked if the Legally Binding Agreement would have to be\namended if the Housing Authority exceeded the number of units originally envisioned.\nStaff Member Potter said they would not.\nBoard Member Knox White asked who would be responsible for the upgrade of sewer and\nstormwater systems if they are not replaced with one of these projects.\nStaff Member Thomas said they would have to establish a process for evaluating and\nupgrading the systems. He said the City's sewer main is off site, has capacity, and they\ncan treat the project like one big sewer lateral system. He said there is a lot of testing still\nto be done and they need to plan for at least 435 units.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked when the Housing Authority and Habitat sites would move\nforward.\nMs. Johnson said that they will need a partner to move forward with the affordable\ncomponents and cannot be certain when that will happen.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked if they could leave the cap in place and revisit it when the\nnext Regional Housing Needs Allocation is given, or when the Housing Authority has a\nplan to consider.\nStaff Member Thomas said that they could absolutely do that.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 11\nNovember 13, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-11-13", "page": 3, "text": "Board Member Curtis asked if all the properties would be conveyed when Carmel closes.\nStaff Member Thomas said that it will happen in stages.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked if the Habitat parcel will be under the Housing Authority.\nMs. Johnson said that the Habitat parcel will go through a separate process and be\nconveyed through HUD. She said they are keeping Habitat included in every step of their\nprocess.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked if the Housing Authority planned to reuse any of the existing\nstructures.\nMs. Johnson said they have deemed reuse infeasible due to the inaccessibility of the units,\nlead and asbestos issues, and the large unit size which do not meet the needs of their\nusers.\nBoard Member Teague asked if Habitat would be rehabbing units or building new.\nMs. Johnson said that either is permitted, but that no two acre parcel contains 30 units.\nBoard Member Sullivan opened the public hearing.\nBob Naber asked if the entire 12.33 acre parcel for homeless accommodation would be\nused for that purpose, which he said seemed like a lot.\nDorothy Freeman said that Alameda Citizens Task Force strongly supports retaining the\n435 unit cap. She said it is premature to anticipate future proposals or housing element\nrequirements. She said the city has approved more market rate housing than is required.\nDoug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative, said that in January they did a homeless count\nand there were over 200 homeless people in Alameda. He said there is never too much\nland available for housing homeless people. He said that you cannot remove the G overlay\nwithout removing the cap. He said reinstating the cap would severely limit their ability to\nprovide the much needed affordable housing.\nDiana Maiden Aiken said she supports removing the G overlay but does not support\nraising the cap without a plan in place. She asked what the timeline and requirements\nwould be for the Housing Authority to tear down the buildings and move forward with their\nproject.\nMark Vis, Alameda Landing resident, said they understood that they would need to\nwelcome new neighbors on this site. He asked what traffic requirements would be in place\nfor future projects here. He said lifting the cap could result in severe impacts on the\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 11\nNovember 13, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-11-13", "page": 4, "text": "neighborhood and quality of life. He said the board should remove the G overlay and\nreinstitute the cap and move forward to develop a plan that works for everyone.\nKirk Bean, Alameda Landing resident, said he is concerned with lifting the cap. He said it\nmakes no sense to remove the cap without a plan in place. He said giving priority to people\nwho work within the city might help alleviate the traffic and commute problems in the city.\nBruce McBride, Alameda Point resident, said he walks the circumference of the island\nevery month. He said he is concerned about the goose pond near Bette St. He said he\nhopes that flyway is preserved with any construction that moves forward.\nDeni Adaniya, Board Member of Building Futures with Women and Children, said Alameda\ndesperately needs housing. She said 36,000 applications were submitted to the Housing\nAuthority for 400 section 8 vouchers in 2015. She said 11,000 applications were submitted\nfor 32 units at Stargell Commons. She said the cap severely limits the ability to provide\nbadly needed affordable housing. She said few developers would be willing to submit\nplans for a project without knowing what the zoning will be.\nMiriam Delagrange, Building Futures, raised concerns about the infrastructure obligations\nof the for profit developer. She said the developer should be providing the backbone\ninfrastructure and roadways. She said she was worried about fire access and cost of\nconstruction for the affordable housing.\nRob Rich, Building Futures, said North Housing is a tremendous opportunity. He\nsupported removing the G overlay without reinstating the cap. He said the backbone\ninfrastructure should be provided by the market rate developer.\nDamian Mason, CASA, said he is concerned about stormwater retention efforts at the site.\nHe said the Housing Authority should consider a co-housing method.\nLois Pryor, Renewed Hope, said she liked that the rehabbed units will be more affordable\nto rent than new construction. She said we should not re-apply the unit cap when the G\noverlay is removed.\nLaura Thomas, Renewed Hope, said the cap should not be reinstated. She said the cap\nwas illegal to begin with because the parcels were in the housing element. She said APC\nand the Housing Authority need the flexibility in order to provide the low income housing.\nCourtney Shepler, Alameda Landing resident, said the residents there might support a\nchange in the cap in the future when there is a plan to consider. She said the 435 unit cap\nis already a large number of units. She supported leaving the cap in place for the time\nbeing.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 11\nNovember 13, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-11-13", "page": 5, "text": "David Kim, Alameda Landing resident, said he was concerned at the impacts that lifting\nthe cap would have on the neighborhood.\nBill Smith said the board should remove the Government overlay and then respect the\nunderlying zoning of the North Housing site. He said the housing would help attract\nbusinesses and jobs to the west end. He said the units there could help support improved\ntransit service. He urged the board to not reimpose the cap.\nRasheed Shabazz said he researched the Housing Authority projects during WWII and\nstudying how they were segregated. He said the property previously housed 1,368 units,\na school, grocery store, and transit service. He told the history of segregated residents\nthere in the 1960s that faced eviction and cannot speak up for affordable housing today.\nHe supported removing the G overlay and not reinstating the cap.\nBoard Member Sullivan closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Teague said the amendment to the NAS Reuse plan is out of date. He\nsaid the density bonus could allow about 588 units on the property. He said rent control\nwould make the rehab project very expensive to tear down and rebuild. He said he will be\nin favor of removing the G overlay and not reinstituting a cap.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster said he does not want to limit our future options, but said it is difficult\nno knowing what the plans would be. He said he is excited to see Habitat for Humanity\ncome to Alameda.\nBoard Member Curtis said he is in favor of the Carmel project. He said he is in favor of\nreinstating the cap. He said he is concerned with the safety of the egress and ingress for\nfuture residents with 30 units to the acre without a plan to consider.\nBoard Member Knox White said we need to give some certainty on the zoning for the site.\nHe said he would be interested in conditioning the removal of the cap on a use permit\nprocess. He said he would like to recommend lifting the G overlay conditioned on an MOU\nbeing signed by the developer on what infrastructure costs are needed.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she supports removing the G overlay. She said she is\nconcerned about the amount of housing. She said she would like to see the cap reinstated\nuntil we know what the state is requiring and what the plan would be.\nBoard Member Teague said he would be willing to do a modified cap where 146 units went\nto Carmel Partners, 30 to Habitat, and the remaining 259 to the Housing Authority parcel.\nHe said he does not think we could separate the cap from the removal of the G overlay.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 11\nNovember 13, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-11-13", "page": 6, "text": "Board Member Curtis said that he could support that compromise which would allow\napproximately 17 units per acre for the Housing Authority, 20 units per acre with a density\nbonus.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she is concerned that limiting the Carmel property to 146\nunits would be unfairly limiting them given their older housing stock and what other\nproperties in the city are doing.\nMr. Pasquali said he is not in a position to support or reject any positions relating to a cap,\nbut that their business plan is for 146 units.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster said he preferred Board Member Knox White's approach to the cap,\ngiving the flexibility for a future Planning Board and Council to go above the cap.\nBoard Member Knox White made a motion to recommend that the City Council\nremove the G overlay, maintain the cap for the entire project but allow the cap to be\nraised to the full amount allowed by the zoning with a conditional use permit, and\nthat the lifting of the G overlay be conditioned to a signing of an MOU relating to\ninfrastructure requirements between the various property owners. Board Member\nK\u00f6ster seconded the motion.\nBoard Member Curtis asked the developer if the questions regarding their obligations\ntowards utilities have been resolved.\nMr. Pasquali said they have done a lot of work with staff on the issue. He said the most\nimportant issue for them is defining what the obligations for backbone infrastructure are.\nHe said that he thinks they will get there.\nBoard Member Teague asked how the maker of the motion would distribute the cap\nbetween the different properties.\nBoard Member Knox White said that he would apply the cap evenly per acre.\nBoard Member Curtis said we should let the developer work out the infrastructure issues\nwith the staff and not complicating things with additional requirements. He said the issues\nare the removal of the cap and the G overlay.\nBoard Member Teague asked if the Housing Authority would be able to bid projects with\nextra density under the proposed conditional use method in the motion.\nStaff Member Thomas said that he envisions the process for the use permit to be done\nconcurrently with a site plan application. He said the cap would be lifted, but that anything\nover 15 units per acre would require an additional level of review.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 11\nNovember 13, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-11-13", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Teague pointed out that the use permit would only need the approval of\nthe Planning Board, subject to Council review.\nBoard Member Curtis asked that the motion be split up to have separate votes on the\nremoval of the G overlay, the requirement to have an MOU, and the cap.\nBoard Member Knox White said he wanted to lift the G overlay with the MOU because\nthat is the one place where the City can really have any leverage. He said he could amend\nhis motion to recommend Council consider whether the infrastructure costs have been\nadequately considered before removing the G overlay.\nStaff Member Thomas summarized the motion on the table as: recommending the G\noverlay be lifted and that Council consider the infrastructure costs before making the\nchange.\nBoard Member Sullivan added that it would be one motion and that the cap would be lifted\nwith the use permit process in place to be addressed concurrently with any future\napplication, split evenly by acreage.\nThe motion carried 5-0.\nBoard Member Sullivan declared a five minute recess.\n7-B 2017-4925\nPublic Hearing to Consider Zoning Amendments to Conditionally Permit\nSpecific Types of Cannabis Businesses in Certain Zoning Districts\nStaff Member Potter gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found\nat: ittp://alameda.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?m=l&id=/matter.aspx?key=6626\nBoard Member Knox White asked how the staff recommendation differs from what the\nmajority of the Council already has given as direction.\nStaff Member Potter said staff incorporated Council feedback and also added the R&D\nlocation for Marina Village to the ordinance.\nBoard Member Curtis asked what law would say regarding personal usage.\nStaff Member Potter said they would be amending the ordinance to reflect state law and\nthat they would be banning outdoor cultivation for personal use.\nBoard Member Curtis asked what protection neighbors would have from second hand\nsmoke.\nStaff Member Potter said that they have a complaint based system of enforcement.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 11\nNovember 13, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-11-13", "page": 8, "text": "Board Member K\u00f6ster asked if only medicinal dispensaries would be permitted in Alameda\neven though recreational use is being legalized statewide.\nStaff Member Potter said that is correct, only medical dispensaries would be permitted.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked how deliveries would be regulated.\nStaff Member Potter said that delivery operators from off the island would be required to\nobtain a business license in Alameda.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked if the restrictions would hinder the ability to raise tax\nrevenues from cannabis businesses.\nStaff Member Potter said the Council wanted to phase in legalization and evaluate how\nthings go.\nBoard Member Teague asked if the Pinball Museum was considered a youth center.\nStaff Member Potter said it was not because it does not predominantly cater to minors.\nBoard Member Teague asked for clarifications of certain definitions that differed between\nthe respective ordinances, including nursery, planting, and cultivation questions.\nAssistant City Attorney John Le attempted to offer technical clarifications. He said he\nwould try and offer clarifying language.\nBoard Member Teague asked how the board would make the special findings needed for\nthe business permits.\nStaff attorney explained that the issues could be reviewed in the renewal process.\nBoard Member Burton pointed out the inconsistent language around the six permitted\nplants in different portions of the ordinance.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked if the nursery would be supplying seedling plants to\nAlameda residents.\nStaff Member Potter explained that it would be a wholesale nursery, not for sale to the\npublic.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked if the onsite consumption would require air scrubbers be\nused by the operators.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 11\nNovember 13, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-11-13", "page": 9, "text": "Staff Member Potter said the ordinance gives staff the ability to regulate that issue, but\nthey are not yet at that point.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she has concerns about possible locations for dispensaries,\nand places where youth congregate.\nStaff Member Potter said the Council went with the state definition of sensitive uses.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked how the determinations were made on how many\nmanufacturing and testing plants were needed.\nStaff Member Potter said they used testimony, Council desire to phase in, and industry\nestimates for population need.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if the language protecting neighbors could be emphasized\nfor both commercial and personal use.\nStaff Member Potter said those issues are captured in the ordinance.\nBoard Member Sullivan opened the public hearing.\nMark Hersman, resident, said he was planning to apply to open one of the dispensaries.\nHe asked that other zones, such as light manufacturing, be opened up for possible location\nof dispensaries. He said large shopping center landlords would likely not rent to cannabis\nbusinesses due to banking policies.\nCathie Warner said her company is a lab testing business and they want to locate in\nAlameda. She said starting January 1st, cannabis testing would become mandatory. She\nsaid the testing industry is important and will be growing. She said they have found good\nlaboratory space in Marina Village and Harbor Bay Business Park.\nRasheed Shabazz asked how the ordinance defined its being equitable.\nBoard Member Sullivan closed the public hearing.\nStaff Member Potter said the zoning maps were equitably distributed, but this was not\nreferring to a potential equity component for communities disproportionately affected by\nthe war on drugs.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to approve the zoning with modifications:\nsection C permitted uses number three, strike the second sentence; section h,\nreference the regulatory ordinance as the guiding light for operational radius;\nspecial findings, strike the entire section and let the findings happen under the\nregulatory ordinance. Board Member Knox White seconded the motion.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 11\nNovember 13, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-11-13", "page": 10, "text": "Staff Member Potter said that staff would provide the information and maps needed for\nthe one mile radius finding. She said rather than striking the last sentence in section c-3,\nthey would prefer to insert \"except as provided for in the previous sentence, cannabis shall\nnot include.\"\nBoard Member Knox White asked if this language should be added to another location\nwhere this is defined differently.\nStaff Member Potter said that this only applies to the nursery item.\nStaff attorney explained the two definitions and said they could make the language\nconsistent.\nBoard Member Teague said he is okay with the proposed \"except as provided language\nbeing added in order to clarify the zoning ordinance. He said the one mile rule would be\nvery complicated and needs to be clarified.\nStaff Member Potter said they would be going through an RFP selection process and\nwould not be first come, first served.\nBoard Member Knox White suggested moving the first special finding to the same location\nall other distances are addressed.\nBoard Member Teague said he would support that change.\nBoard Member Curtis said he thinks staff did a good job.\nBoard Member Burton suggested amending the two descriptions of the six plant limit to\nbe consistent.\nBoard Members Teague and Knox White accepted the amendment.\nBoard Member Teague summarized the motion: In the cultivation section: add \"except as\nrequired\" above the second sentence; special findings section is struck entirely; 1 mile\nradius moved to be under operational section; clarification of language regarding the six\nplant limit.\nThe motion carried 6-0.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2017-4919\nDraft Meeting Minutes - September 25, 2017\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 10 of 11\nNovember 13, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-11-13", "page": 11, "text": "Board Member Curtis made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Burton\nseconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0-2 (K\u00f6ster, Knox White).\n8-B 2017-4920\nDraft Meeting Minutes - October 9, 2017\nStaff Member Thomas said he wanted to bring the minutes back in order to correct and\nexpand on some of the discussion.\nBoard Member Curtis asked that the tape be reviewed to better represent his comments.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2017-4921\nZoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions\nStaff Member Thomas gave a brief report. The staff report and plans can be found at:\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3202385&GUID=9B203DAE-\nE336-4F44-BA8C-6D81697C3900&FullText=1\n9-B 2017-4923\nFuture Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Thomas said they would like to cancel the next meeting. The schedule can\nbe\nfound\nat:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3202386&GUID=5755945F-\nE10D-49CB-A07B-F3B961C867BD\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard Member Teague asked that the staff reports list which meeting is being referred to\nwhen referencing historical actions.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nBoard Member Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 10:42pm.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 11 of 11\nNovember 13, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-11-13.pdf"}