{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-04-22", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nMONDAY-APRIL 22, 2019-6:15 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:17 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella,\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(19-252) Tour of the Enterprise District (Formerly Site B) at Alameda Point; and\n(19-252 A) Recommendation to Authorize Staff to Market a 23.9-Acre Portion (Phase 1)\nof the Enterprise District (Formerly Site B) for Redevelopment Consistent with the City's\nGoals and Objectives for Commercial Development at Alameda Point.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Director made brief comments.\nIn response to Councilmember Vella's inquiry, the Base Reuse and Community\nDevelopment Director stated a smaller portion of the site is being proposed similar to\nSite A; discussed the logic used for Site A, the size and infrastructure; stated staff wants\nto maximize the value of the adjacent nine acres closest to the new ferry terminal; the\nother two parcels will not be clean for several years; the focus will be leasing; Astra\ncould be the first campus at Alameda Point.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the smaller areas on the exhibit are not being\nconsidered, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Director responded\nin the affirmative; stated the Enterprise District is four blocks; the property going out to\nthe water is Tidelands and cannot be sold; the blocks with views adjacent to the park\nwould be developed after the interior parcels.\nCouncilmember Daysog discussed infrastructure; inquired whether infrastructure would\nend at West Ticonderoga.\nAngelo Obertello, Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, responded the final infrastructure build out\nincludes West Hornet.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, Mr. Obertello stated the plan has\ninfrastructure that will be developed in the same corridor at a later date.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Director made brief comments about\nthe tour.\n***\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 22, 2019\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-04-22.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-04-22", "page": 2, "text": "The tour led by John McManus, Cushman & Wakefield, took place from 6:30 p.m. to\n7:30 p.m.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired about the rationale that Nautilus would be a catalyst.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Director responded businesses, such as\nNatel Energy, have indicated a server farm with data storage capacity close by is very\nhelpful; stated research-oriented companies indicated data service would be very\nbeneficial.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director noted that she previously provided\narticles about how other high tech companies tend to gather around data centers.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired whether other high tech users have expressed a desire\nto locate here if there is a data center, the Assistant Community Development Director\nresponded the opportunity has not been explored yet; some Nautilus clients have\nunofficially expressed interest in being located closer to the data center.\nJohn McManus, Cushman & Wakefield, noted creating the infrastructure would allow for\nsmaller parcels to be used; stated a two acre project could not be done in the Enterprise\nDistrict right now.\nMr. Obertello outlined infrastructure issues with the Water Emergency Transportation\nAuthority building.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Knox White's inquiry regarding the definition of campus, the\nBase Reuse and Community Development Director stated a campus would have one\nuser with multiple buildings; Astra would be an example; a campus would have high\nemployment numbers.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated an Alameda Point plan from a while ago showed that all\nthe usable buildings were rented and suggested good buildings be bundled with bad\nbuildings; inquired whether the proposal ensures cherry picking will not being done.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated the 24 acre parcel could be sold subject to the lease of Building 530; the market\nhas been interesting; everyone thought Building 360 would be torn down and Astra has\nbeen doing amazing things in the building so far; people have found uses for buildings;\nthe larger parcel would allow buildings to be mixed and matched and also make the\ninfrastructure happen.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nApril 22, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-04-22.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-04-22", "page": 3, "text": "Vice Mayor Knox White stated the City is running into issues with the fiscal neutrality\npolicy; inquired whether the proposed Phase 1 would be able to cover infrastructure\ncosts.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Director responded that is the intent;\nstated two phases of backbone infrastructure are also sequentially occurring in the\nadaptive reuse area; the issue is timing; the City could escalate the pace of the work by\nissuing an infrastructure bond; the City has been using building sale proceeds to\ncomplete the work; the parcelization is strategic so the infrastructure can pay for itself.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated the Master Infrastructure Plan (MIP) has a phasing plan;\ninquired whether the proposal is consistent with the phasing, to which Mr. Obertello\nresponded in the affirmative; stated the proposal manages connections to reliable\nfacilities in a sequential order.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether underground infrastructure would be done for\nthe Astra buildings, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director noted Astra could do the work or pay\nfor the City to build it.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding working in contaminated\nareas, the Base Reuse and Community Development Director outlined the process.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired about Astra staying, to which the Base Reuse and\nCommunity Development Director responded Astra is interested in having an option to\npurchase once the Navy transfers the land.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's further inquiry regarding infrastructure, the Base\nReuse and Community Development Director stated long term leases pay the\nDevelopment Impact Fee and other payments, similar to Nautilus.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired about the City not owning the land.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Director responded the City operates\nunder the Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance (LIFOC) for the land that has not been\ntransferred.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director noted infrastructure might not be able\nto proceed until after the land has been cleaned.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding end users, the Base Reuse\nand Community Development Director stated the City is looking at end users; however,\nnot all end users are land developers; an end user might have to partner with a land\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 22, 2019\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-04-22.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-04-22", "page": 4, "text": "developer or a land developer also might submit a proposal; staff would bring proposals\nto Council.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether a land developer could have a concept to\ndevelop and sell to an unknown end user.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Director responded such a scenario\ncould occur; stated the process will be open to a wide market.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether a timeframe needs to be outlined for land\ndeveloper ideas.\nMr. McManus responded the preference is an end user; stated a model has been used,\nwith the City giving a year or two of capital credit and the company escrows the money\nto do work, such as a roof; if a project does not work out, the City gets the building back\nwith a new roof; in this case, the City will get around $30 million in proceeds; if the\nproject does not go forward, the City would get the desired infrastructure; the\ndevelopment might be speculative, but it will create streets, trenches, sewer and have a\nproject timeline or it will not be recommended.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated a developer not adhering to a timeline would be\nfound in default to prevent the project from languishing.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated a\ndeveloper could present a plan and have a certain amount of time to find and select\nusers with City approval; staff would ensure details are spelled out.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired where the City would be if a business expresses a desire\nto purchase a building and it does not go forward.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated if a business fails, the City\nwould have a turnkey building that has been improved.\nIn response to Councilmember Vella's inquiry regarding the plume, the Assistant\nCommunity Development Director stated the Navy is responsible for cleanup; the City is\nresponsible for putting infrastructure in clean parcels.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Director stated under LIFOC, the City is\nobligated to take the land once it is clean and there is a finding of suitability for transfer;\nthe City has the ability to lease the property prior to the transfer; the leases can include\noptions to purchase; building leases have to go through an environmental process to\nensure people can be in the buildings; Astra has equipment in its building but does not\nhave people there because the environmental regulatory sign-off is still needed, which\nis why the lease has not gone to Council yet.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nApril 22, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-04-22.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-04-22", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember Oddie stated the developer could be required to do the infrastructure\nwork within a specific amount of time to avoid land banking.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Director stated developers probably feel\na lot of the risk has been mitigated since Site A is under construction; Astra is in the\narea and others are paying fees into an infrastructure fund; marketing makes sense.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether there is an update on Building 41.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Director stated the building is still\nowned by the Navy, cannot be sold and can only be leased.\nStated the Council does not have enough information tonight to move forward with the\n29 acres; discussed the previous proposals; suggested bringing back the two finalist\nfrom the previous proposal to address the full 82 acres; expressed concern over\nBuilding 360 being tied up: Richard Bangert, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the staff recommendation, which is the most logical next step,\nand for Cushman & Wakefield; discussed start up Sila Nanotechnologies needing more\nspace; stated land needs to be available: Karen Bey, Alameda.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed Sila Nanotechnologies; stated that she supports the\nstaff recommendation, which is well thought out; the City needs to be nimble, cannot\nrely on a strong economy going forward and has some great tenants; it is time to test\nthe waters again; proposals will take time to develop; she is concerned with land\nbanking; the City can build protection against land banking; the City Council needs to\nhave a discussion about fiscal neutrality; if the City is going to benefit from the\nredevelopment, the ability to put in needed infrastructure should not be limited to what\ncan be paid for from Alameda Point.\nCouncilmember Vella stated that she does not have a problem with phasing; questioned\nwhen Phase 2 will come back; discussed marketing; stated a vision is needed; she is\nconcerned about connecting infrastructure; there is a benefit to marketing the whole\narea; she is hesitant to approve leases before seeing the marketing; expressed concern\nover tying up buildings without a vision; stated phasing makes sense at this time\nbecause there are some amazing parcels and problematic pieces would not be\ndeveloped until much later; she is willing to support the staff recommendation with a\ncouple of caveats, including having a ballpark on Phase 2 timing and having ordinances\npertaining to the design and planning process being reviewed and returning to Council;\nthe cumbersome process should be streamlined.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated that he supports the staff recommendation; he would like\nto stay away from the term campus and does not want to signal the City wants one\nuser; the Economic Development Strategic Plan states that the City should not try to\nhave a campus; Astra is a smaller business that came in and is growing; the City should\nlook at all types of ideas consistent with planning documents; discussed the types of\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 22, 2019\n5", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-04-22.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-04-22", "page": 6, "text": "businesses in different hubs; stated the process will sell land to someone with a viable\nidea; opening up Alameda Point has been successful; he would like to protect against\nland banking and likes the phasing plan; in the MIP, sea level rise protections require\n100% buildout of Alameda Point; someone could present an idea for more acres.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Astra illustrates that the policy allowing staff to seize\nopportunities has been good; he is glad the process is open to a developer; expressed\nsupport of Mr. Bangert's suggestion to approach previous finalists for their thoughts on\nthe process; other successful Alameda Point businesses should also be tapped for their\ninsight and guidance; information gathering could be done on a parallel track; he likes\nthe idea of starting with the 29 acres selected and supports the staff recommendation;\nencouraged talking to companies for insights; stated that he is open to approaching the\nprevious Site B proposers and likes that the process being open to developers, while\nseizing end user opportunities.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he likes the idea of phasing without shutting off the\noption of a larger portion; expressed support for having the area cohesive and\nprotecting against land banking; stated the City has promised fiscal neutrality to voters\nfor 22 years and he would be reluctant to move away from it without hearing from\nvoters; he would be open to changing the policy to address sea level rise, which will\nimpact the whole Island; bringing in people who have thought about it or are doing work\nat Alameda Point is a good idea.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what Councilmember Oddie means by bringing in people,\nto which Councilmember Oddie responded the City should talk to them and see if they\nare interested in just the proposed area or maybe two areas; expressed support for\nstaff's prioritization to require starting with the 29 acre parcel.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated everyone should be on a level playing field; past proposals\nshould not receive points; discussed the finalists; stated anyone interested can submit a\nproposal.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Director stated that she heard the idea\nwas to pick people's brain; noted focus groups are sometimes used prior to starting a\nmarketing campaign.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated that he is fine with City staff reaching out to every known\ndeveloper about the opportunity; the concern is going to three or four developers to ask\nthem to help develop the proposal.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Director stated staff does not plan on\nhaving a formal request for proposals process; the intent is the property will be\nmarketed.\nCouncilmember Vella stated that she does not want a developer outlining what they\nthink should be in the proposal; expressed support for allowing someone to put in a\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nApril 22, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-04-22.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-04-22", "page": 7, "text": "Phase 1 and Phase 2 proposal; she wants to see Phase 1 actively marketed;\ndevelopers could also add Phase 2; she does not want to pick anyone early on or show\npreference for one developer over another; the previous proposals can be used as\ninformation to determine if the new proposal is better.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the marketing information will return to Council\nor if Council is giving approval tonight.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Director responded staff was\nanticipating tonight would be the final direction; stated the marketing will be rolling and\nwill not have a due date.\nVice Mayor Knox White discussed the buildings being affordable; stated the City cannot\ncompete with downtown Oakland and Fremont for Class A office buildings; he is willing\nto entertain building reuse, which is easier to sell; the City's goal is to build a base and\nstart building infrastructure; noted the project will have to make the design work.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated having the process open to developers is more\nimportant than having input from previous proposers.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated marketing should be done to all; he is curious to see who\nis interested; the City should be strategic; makers space is popular now, but may not be\nin the future.\nCouncilmember Vella requested the final marketing materials be provided to Council.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification that Councilmember Vella is not suggesting\nCouncil edit the marketing materials, to which Councilmember Vella responded that she\nis not saying Council would be weighing in on the materials.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she heard support for staff's proposal to market the 29\nacres as Phase 1; Council would like the question answered about when Phase 2 will\nmove forward; a proposal could contemplate more than the 29 acres; interest from\nanyone will be entertained.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated protection from land banking should be included in the\ndirection.\nCouncilmember Vella stated that she would also like to be directed to come back with\nchanges to ordinances outside of approving the matter.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Director noted the area is actually 23.9\nacres, not 29 acres.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the direction outlined.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 22, 2019\n7", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-04-22.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-04-22", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n-\n5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 8:45\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nApril 22, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-04-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-04-22", "page": 1, "text": "DRAFT MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, APRIL 22, 2019\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Sullivan convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Rothenberg led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President Sullivan, Board Members Cavanaugh, Curtis, Rothenberg, Saheba,\nTeague.\nAbsent: Mitchell.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\n*None*\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n6-A 2019-6801\nAnnual Review: Alameda Point Site A Development Agreement - Applicant: Alameda\nPoint Partners, LLC (APP). Approve a Resolution Finding that APP has Demonstrated\nGood Faith Compliance with the Terms and Conditions of the Alameda Point Site A\nDevelopment Agreement from April 15, 2018 through April 15, 2019, based on the\nFindings contained in the Draft Resolution. This Compliance Review is not a project\nunder CEQA\nBoard Member Teague pulled the item from the Consent Calendar in order to allow the\nstaff update and board discussion.\nStaff Member Thomas said the item was continued from the previous meeting to add\nsome information about a pending application to amend the development agreement.\nThe staff report and attachments can be found at:\nttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3917147&GUID=D7327310\nF3C6-4117-98F2-85261E2A01A2&Options=&Search=&FullText=1\nBoard Member Curtis asked if the 80 units being requested by developer exceeds the\noriginal amount included in their development agreement.\nDraft Planning Board minutes\nPage 1 of 6\nApril 22, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-04-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-04-22", "page": 2, "text": "Staff Member Thomas said that the 80 units are in addition to the 800 units in the\noriginal development agreement. He said approving the annual review does not\nprejudice a future Planning Board decision on the pending application.\nPresident Sullivan asked how the additional requested units impact the 1,425 unit cap\nfor Alameda Point.\nStaff Member Thomas said the 1,425 units have already been allocated, which means\nthe request for 80 additional units would require a change to the General Plan to\nincrease the cap for Alameda Point from 1,425 to 1,505.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to approve the staff recommendation.\nBoard Member Curtis seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2019-6802\nPLN19-0018 - Lot Line Adjustment - 2130/2140 South Shore Center - Applicant:\nRebecca Wiener on behalf of Jamestown South Shore Center LP. Consideration of a Lot\nLine Adjustment application to reconfigure the western property line of the Alameda\nSouth Shore shopping center. The project site is located in the C-2-PD (Central\nBusiness Planned Development) Zoning District. The project is exempt from the\nCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section\n15305 - Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations\nStaff Member Sablan gave the staff report. The report and attachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3917148&GUID=FED15EBA-\n2EBB-4B39-A3C2-OF455329DB9F&FullText=1\nPresident Sullivan asked if the buildings included on the proposed lot were the old Bank\nof Marin, laundromat, caf\u00e9 and dental office.\nStaff Member Sablan confirmed that the buildings President Sullivan listed would now be\ntheir own parcel at the northwest corner of the site.\nBoard Member Teague asked if the new lot would have the required amount of parking\nfrom when it was built.\nStaff Member Sablan said there would be no changes to the parking arrangements and\ncross access easements between the parcels.\nThere was a discussion clarifying parcel lines while examining an aerial view of the site.\nBoard Member Saheba asked if there is anything the board should be considering.\nDraft Planning Board minutes\nPage 2 of 6\nApril 22, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-04-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-04-22", "page": 3, "text": "Staff Member Thomas said there is very little discretion on this action. He said that these\ndecisions are typically handled at a staff level, but Alameda has an older code that gives\nthe Planning Board authority to approve these applications.\nBoard Member Saheba made a motion to approve the staff recommendation.\nBoard Member Rothenberg seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.\n7-B 2019-6803\nPlanning Board Review of General Plan Chapter 1 Settings, and Organization of the\nGeneral Plan Update. The review of the General Plan Chapters are exempt from the\nCalifornia Environmental Quality Act\nStaff Member Thomas gave a report. The staff report and attachments can be found at:\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3917182&GUID=06EE828B-\nA7AF-43FB-A714-7D25CEF7DA98&FullText=1\nBoard Member Curtis said he liked the way staff presented a single section for the board\nto consider in depth at a given point in time. He said he found the new section easy to\nread.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh said he liked the new layout. He said it would be helpful to\nhave explanations of things like Measure A or the state's influence on policy embedded\nin the document, including via hyperlink. He said this would help the public understand\nhow things work in the city.\nBoard Member Teague said that a sentence needs to be added about resolving conflicts\nbetween policy guidance and regulation, and which takes precedence. He said he liked\nthe new format. He suggested certain edits for clarity. He said we should include\ninformation on housing production from 1990 to 2019 and the Density Bonus law. He\nsaid there should be a paragraph about the land conveyance by the Navy and\nassociated constraints on the land. He said the paragraph from the original discussing\nthe completion of Harbor Bay should come back into the new version, and there should\nbe a paragraph about RHNA and the 2014 Housing Element amendments.\nBoard Member Saheba said the layout and graphics were quite good. He asked if there\nis an outline of modifications being proposed from the existing to the new General Plan.\nHe said that global view would help improve the input that the board could provide as\nthey give feedback on each section.\nStaff Member Thomas gave some background on his feelings towards the 1990 General\nPlan and where he anticipated making changes. He said the Climate Action Plan update\nhas led to some rethinking of how the land use and design chapters of the General Plan\nshould be structured. He said he would outline the changes in the next staff report.\nDraft Planning Board minutes\nPage 3 of 6\nApril 22, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-04-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-04-22", "page": 4, "text": "Board Member Rothenberg asked if the whole timeline of changes would be laid out.\nShe asked about the process for amending the General Plan.\nStaff Member Thomas said any final changes would involve public notice and\nadvertising. He outlined the process that he envisions for public input before moving\nforward with recommendations to the City Council.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked if bringing pieces back in chunks would be a\ntransparent process for the public.\nStaff Member Thomas said he could envision a process where the Board works through\nthe entire document and has a public comment process on the entire document.\nPresident Sullivan said she likes the new layout. She said she would like some of the\nlonger sentences to be broken up and for someone to review the document with a style\nguide for things like punctuation. She said our future is heading toward an urban city of\nrenters and not a small, suburban city. She said the balance is shifting.\nStaff Member Thomas said that Alameda has always been fairly evenly split between\nrentals and owner occupied units. He said the short term trends change and is not\nconvinced that future development will absolutely be mostly rentals.\nBoard Member Teague said that when we get to a complete product that the old plan\nshould have references identifying where the policies exist in the new document. He\nasked if the Housing Element can come ahead of the Land Use Element. He said the\nspecial rules for Webster, Park, and Harbor Bay should be called out specifically.\nPresident Sullivan said that there will be so much change coming in Alameda that the\nGeneral Plan should be updated in 15 years instead of the current 30 year gap.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh asked for more information about the Climate Change\nEmergency Declaration.\nStaff Member Thomas explained that the declaration's intent and what will be required in\nthe immediate response to climate change and sea level rise. He said the Council has\ngiven a sense of urgency and asked for transportation projects and the public process\naround them to be greatly sped up.\nBoard Member Rothenberg suggested adding climate change and resiliency to the open\nspace and preservation chapter.\nStaff Member Thomas said that the Board, if it so chooses, can identify specific\nmembers to work with staff on the drafting of specific chapters.\nDraft Planning Board minutes\nPage 4 of 6\nApril 22, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-04-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-04-22", "page": 5, "text": "8. MINUTES\n*None*\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2019-6798\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nThe staff report can be found at:\n ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3917005&GUID=29FAE29C-\n4E9F-4C6B-B66A-315782C3A9E8&FullText=1\n9-B 2019-6799\nOral Report - Status Report on Design Review and Development Plan for an\napproximately 113,000-square-foot hotel with 172 guest rooms, and an approximately\n7,000-square-foot restaurant with coffee shop at 2900 Harbor Bay Parkway\nStaff Member Thomas said staff is evaluating revised elevations and waiting for more\ninformation from the applicant. He said they also received an updated landscape plan.\nHe said the new elevations were sent out to the list of interested parties and the limited\nfeedback thus far was not positive.\nPresident Sullivan said that some of the parties have been told not to respond so they\ncan respond as a group.\nBoard Member Saheba asked if there was a game plan for how to engage the public on\nthe revised designs that is not ad hoc.\nPresident Sullivan said the community was promised a meeting and they need to have it\nbefore it comes back to the Planning Board.\nStaff Member Thomas said he feels like staff needs to review the drawings and make a\nrecommendation before anything happens. He asked if the neighborhood meeting\nshould happen before it comes to Planning Board and what should happen after the\nneighborhood meeting.\nBoard Member Saheba said the applicant needs to go back and present their changes to\nthe neighborhood before staff takes that feedback and incorporates it into their\nrecommendation to the Board.\nStaff Member Thomas said he is comfortable with that process. He said he just needed\nto emphasize that the neighborhood meeting does not approve or deny the project, citing\nsome interactions with residents that seemed to misunderstand that point.\n9-C 2019-6800\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and\nTransportation Department Projects\nDraft Planning Board minutes\nPage 5 of 6\nApril 22, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-04-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-04-22", "page": 6, "text": "Staff Member Thomas said the Park St. hotel is aiming for the second meeting in May to\nreturn to the Planning Board. He said May 13th meeting will include more General Plan\nwork. He said May 28th currently has the Climate Action Plan, Capital Improvement Plan,\nand the Park St. hotel.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard Member Teague asked that, as a response to the Climate Emergency\nDeclaration, the ferry add carpool parking spaces at the Main St. terminal. He said\ncharging for parking would be a regressive tax given the lack of alternatives.\nStaff Member Thomas said staff is not interested in adding parking at Main St. because\nthey do not want to become the park and ride location for Bay Area commuters, and also\nnoted the upcoming opening of Seaplane Lagoon and the changes that will have on\nparking demands.\nBoard Member Teague said the net-metering policy by AMP is not encouraging solar\ngeneration.\nPresident Sullivan asked if the City has studied providing a shuttle to the Main St. ferry\nterminal.\nStaff Member Thomas said the Alameda Shuttle discussions studied a shuttle for the\nferry that would cost five million dollars per year, which did not make sense while there is\nfree parking at the terminal.\nBoard Member Saheba seconded the notion of carpooling being a quick and easy way\nto change behavior. He said that policy would work at all three ferry terminals.\nBoard Member Rothenberg said she hopes the parking consultants do actual\nobservations of the existing conditions at the corners and in the neighborhoods to better\nunderstand the situation on the ground before suggesting policies.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 8:46 p.m.\nDraft Planning Board minutes\nPage 6 of 6\nApril 22, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-04-22.pdf"}