{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-02-11", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2019\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Sullivan convened the meeting at 7:00pm\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Saheba led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President Sullivan, Board Members Cavanaugh, Curtis, Mitchell, Rothenberg,\nSaheba, and Teague.\nAbsent: None.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nStaff Member Thomas said that Item 11-A has been added to the agenda per the\nBoard's request.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n*None*\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2019-6535\nApprove a Resolution Finding that the Harbor Bay Entities have Demonstrated Good\nFaith Compliance with the Terms and Conditions of Development Agreement, DA-89-1.\nThis Compliance Review is not a project under CEQA\nStaff Member Thomas gave introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can\nbe found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3850403&GUID=1C7AF3A1\n4AF3-47BF-A488-4C82DC7B6992&FullText=1\nDan Reidy, attorney for Harbor Bay Isle Associates and Harbor Bay Business Park,\nexplained the history of the development agreement.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked if the property being transferred to the City was free of\ndebt.\nMr. Reidy said it is free and clear with no encumbrances.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 7\nFebruary 11, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-02-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-02-11", "page": 2, "text": "Board Member Cavanaugh asked if the original ferry terminal site was owned by someone\nelse.\nStaff Member Thomas explained that there are two parcels. One parcel along the\nwaterfront, which would be dedicated to the City. He said Mina Patel purchased the other\nparcel closer to the road.\nPresident Sullivan asked how many uncommitted lots are left in the business park.\nMr. Reidy said they are all owned by someone. He described potential plans for different\nundeveloped parcels. He said infrastructure requirements and funding would continue\nbeyond the end of the development agreement. He said new development fees would now\napply to future applications for parcels not already in the pipeline.\nStaff Member Thomas explained that assessment districts that fund park maintenance will\nbe ongoing.\nPresident Sullivan asked whether HBIA homeowners could get sucked into any problems\nwith BCDC because of how the agreements are structured.\nStaff Member Thomas said the settlement agreement that runs with the land and are not\ntied to individuals.\nBoard Member Teague asked if they could add a condition to the resolution that it\nbecomes effective upon the transfer of the remaining parcel be recorded.\nStaff Member Thomas said that they could add that condition.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to approve the staff recommendation with\nthe condition that the resolution become effective upon successful transfer of\nParcel 4 (map 6024) to the City of Alameda. Board Member Mitchell seconded the\nmotion. The motion passed 7-0.\n7-B 2019-6536\nPlanning Board Recommendation that the City Council Accept the City of Alameda 2018\nGeneral Plan and Housing Element Annual Report and Adopt Recommended General\nPlan Text Amendments to resolve conflicting language between the residential density\nstandards in the 1991 Land Use Element with the residential density standards adopted\nin the 2012 Housing Element to bring the General Plan into conformance with state\nhousing law. The amendment also includes clarifications regarding business park\ndevelopment standards. The review of the annual report and Land Use Elements are\nexempt from the California Environmental Quality Act\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 7\nFebruary 11, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-02-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-02-11", "page": 3, "text": "Board Member Teague suggested possibly altering the resolution to acknowledge that\nthey did pass something before and are accepting revised wording.\nStaff Member Thomas gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be\nfound at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3850404&GUID=EFD031D8-\nEA8A-4B1E-BADC-C94639684127&FullText=\nBoard Member Curtis said morning traffic heading to the Posey Tube is gridlocked\nbecause of the merging of Atlantic Avenue, Buena Vista Avenue, and Eighth Street into\nWebster Street and not from the freeway on ramp backing up into Alameda. He said all\nthese new units will make the problem much worse. He asked where all the cars would\ngo. He said this is a safety issue.\nStaff Member Thomas said they included the Transportation Choices Plan Annual Report\nto accompany the housing update. He said the region is growing rapidly, but not the\nroadway network. He said that is a conscious decision and the region is trying to use other\nmodes to move people more efficiently. He said our population in Alameda has grown\nslowly, but the number of people working and commuting has increased more significantly.\nHe said people are starting to use other modes besides single occupancy vehicles.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked if now is the right time to make preliminary\nrecommendations around climate action while the climate plan update is being finalized.\nStaff Member Thomas said they do not have to wait to start putting good ideas in the land\nuse regulations.\nBoard Member Mitchell said the congestion he faces is regional and not a direct product\nof what he is seeing in Alameda.\nPresident Sullivan said her observations are different. She said Otis Drive at 5pm is one\nproblem area. She said that doing these updates in a piecemeal fashion would not\nincreases costs dramatically or slow things down.\nBoard Member Curtis listed a number of streets that are facing bad traffic on the island in\nthe mornings already, near where much new development will be placed.\nBoard Member Teague pointed out a discrepancy in the breakdown of housing units in\nthe report. He asked what happens is a city does not meet its RHNA, would it be added\nto the next cycle's numbers.\nStaff Member Thomas said that issue is yet to be determined by state legislation.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 7\nFebruary 11, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-02-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-02-11", "page": 4, "text": "Board Member Teague observed that there is a whereas in the resolution referring to\nsection 2.3 of the land use element when none of the proposed changes deal with that\nsection. He asked how the revised 2.2 terminology should be handled given they passed\nlanguage previously.\nStaff Member Thomas said they can accept the revised language as complying with the\nprevious approval, or they can adopt the language as a new action. He said staff just\nneeds to know if the changes are acceptable to the board before being brought to the\ncouncil.\nBoard Member Teague asked how the need to deal with traffic is handled in the General\nPlan. He said they are approving lots of housing and it all needs to address the\ntransportation impacts together rather than treating them as separate issues.\nStaff Member Thomas said he will put the Transportation Choices Plan can be added to\nthe next agenda. He said that work plan is the appropriate place to deal with traffic issues.\nPresident Sullivan asked if her understanding was correct that the state does care about\ntraffic and only cares about the buildings.\nStaff Member Thomas said the state has made clear that we must build more housing. He\nsaid they change the environmental quality act to not consider traffic delay as an\nenvironmental impact.\nBoard Member Teague asked if the requirement to monitor Measure A should be in the\nreport.\nStaff Member Thomas said that due to state laws they have essentially worked around\nMeasure A's limitations. He suggested that it probably should not be in the charter any\nlonger, but would require voter approval.\nBoard Member Rothenberg said that California's net zero plans could be included to\naddress some of the desire to address climate change goals.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh asked what is the definition of a living unit.\nStaff Member Thomas explained that the definition hinges upon the kitchen and inclusion\nof an oven.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh said very small market rate units could potentially meet the\nlow income unit requirements. He said transportation should be the first priority and come\nbefore dealing with the units being added. He suggested light rail or buses that could use\nthe Fruitvale bridge without getting stuck in vehicle traffic.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 7\nFebruary 11, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-02-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-02-11", "page": 5, "text": "Board Member Saheba said he does not see how the findings in this report will lead to\nmeaningful resolutions will be adopted to address the affordable housing issues.\nStaff Member Thomas said the funding of affordable housing is the most difficult issue\ncities face. He said it is difficult to find agreement given the many funding priorities of the\ncity.\nBoard Member Saheba said including the affordable housing dollars raised and some\nhistorical data on the issue will help focus energies on actions that have positive impact.\nStaff Member Thomas explained some of the fees and costs imposed on developments\nand how they relate to each other. He said that this might be a good time to review them\nall together to make sure they are allocated in the right ratios.\nBoard Member Mitchell said that it would help to have a better understanding of the various\nfees before reviewing a project and asking for specific concessions from developers.\nBoard Member Teague suggested that the wording from the draft resolution with one\naddition is effectively what was approved in November and could be recommended to\ncouncil as such. He said the change is to strike the whereas regarding 2.3 and include the\nwording for the residential density exemption for Measure A provided by the City Attorney\nto address ongoing changes in state requirements.\nPresident Sullivan said they would now provide comments on the General Plan Annual\nReport.\nBoard Member Teague suggested a correction for a typo. He said every link in the report\nis broken due to the new city website. He said referencing population growth from a point\nin time when the Naval Air Station was open at its peak is not useful. He said the traffic\ndata referencing a time with the Navy's trips also does not provide practical help since the\ntraffic patterns were so different from today's more traditional peak hour patterns. He said\nthe weekday commute times and especially at the crossings are the main concern, not\ntotal trips in a 24 hour day. He said our zoning for units and not considering unit size when\ndealing with impact fees makes it harder to build workforce housing. He said the land use\nelement update paragraph does not fit with the section in which it is included. He said we\ndo in fact practically give an automatic density bonus and the inclusionary housing\nbreakdown should change to require a larger change to give a bonus. He said we should\naddress the inability to add ADUs on multifamily units. He said the report should\nacknowledge that Measure A is impacting our ability to deliver housing. He said he would\nadd workforce housing to the second bullet point in the conclusions. He said an additional\nbullet should be added to significantly mitigate traffic impacts of new housing.\nPresident Sullivan said homelessness for 204 people should not be our lead issue in the\nreport, but rather it should be workforce housing. She corrected a typo in the report.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 7\nFebruary 11, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-02-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-02-11", "page": 6, "text": "Board Member Mitchell said he is okay referencing California building code guidelines\nsuch at net zero instead of including specific items. He said that homelessness is a very\nserious issue facing Alameda and should not be buried.\nStaff Member Thomas reviewed his notes from the board input: clean up typos; start using\n1996 as a reference point for the data rather than 1990; no need to wait for the climate\nchange plan to include changes; add a discussion of the workforce, affordable by design,\nand affordable housing issues and how they are financed; scalable impact fees based on\nunit square footage.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to move the report forward with dramatic revisions\nsuch that in the draft resolution strike a portion of the second sentence after \"endorse the\nHousing Element Annual Report\" and the 2nd-4th whereas clauses. Board Member Curtis\nseconded the motion.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked how the motion relates to Staff Member Thomas' list of\ninput.\nStaff Member Thomas said he has time to make the changes and bring it back to Planning\nBoard one more time before it goes to Council.\n*The motion on the floor was withdrawn.*\nBoard Member Curtis made a motion to table the item until the next Planning Board\nmeeting. Board Member Teague seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2019-6540\nDraft Meeting Minutes - January 14, 2019\nPresident Sullivan said the sentence on page two where it said she \"closed the public\nhearing\" makes it sound like the discussion was shut off. She said it should read \"with no\nfurther public comment.\"\nBoard Member Curtis made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member\nRothenberg seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2019-6534\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nThe staff report can be found at:\nittps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3850402&GUID=95EF72D7-\n9A49-4122-863E-86F902DDE511&FullText=\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 7\nFebruary 11, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-02-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-02-11", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Teague said he wished to pull the food truck item. He said his reading of\nthe code says the Planning Board must approve the use permit.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n10-A 2019-6537\nFuture Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation Department\nProjects\nStaff Member Thomas gave an update on future agenda items. He said the Council upheld\nthe board's decision on the Harbor Bay hotel project.\nPresident Sullivan detailed the upcoming community outreach efforts the Planning Board\nrequested to address outstanding questions regarding the Marriott hotel project.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard Member Teague said he was unable to find the North Park Street design guidelines.\nHe said it would be good to be able to find a link to all of the final Planning Board\nresolutions.\n11-A 2019 6550\nAlameda City Charter Review\nBoard Member Teague said the subcommittee should consider moving Measure A into\nthe zoning code.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 9:13pm.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 7\nFebruary 11, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-02-11.pdf"}