{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-03-08", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, MARCH 8, 2021\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Alan Teague convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nThis meeting was via Zoom.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nPresident Teague led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Board Members Curtis, Hom, Rothenberg, Cisneros, Ruiz, Saheba, and Teague.\nAbsent: None.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nPresident Teague acknowledged that it was International Women's Day and wanted to\npraise the amazing work of the women on the board and staff.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2021-708\nPlanning Board Study Session: Proposed Process and Schedule to Update the City's\nGeneral Plan Housing Element for 2023 to 2031.\nAndrew Thomas, Director of Planning, Building, and Transportation, introduced the item\nand gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4812300&GUID=E88C245E-\n470-4D5D-B5C5-AD33A529315F&FullText=1.\nPresident Teague opened the public comments.\nThere were no public comments.\nPresident Teague closed public comments and opened the board's clarifying questions\nand comments.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 12\nMarch 8, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-03-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-03-08", "page": 2, "text": "Board Member Rona Rothenberg said it was a very thorough and explanatory report. She\nsuggested it would enhance the report to have a small graph on page 2 and explained\nhow it could make the information more clear. She also wanted clarification about the\ninclusionary ordinance where in-lieu - fees were discussed. She also suggested adding a\nbullet on page 16 to inform the public that staff had contacted the state about not making\nthe numbers.\nBoard Member Xiomara Cisneros asked when was the last time they had done an Impact\nFee Nexus Study.\nDirector Thomas said it was about 5 years ago when they did their current Impact Fee.\nThey had updated a portion in the last couple of years for the Open Space piece of the\nImpact Fee. The larger issue they need to address over the coming months is they need\nto look at all the Impact Fees together. He spoke about the delicate balance of trying to\nimpose costs on projects to cover public projects and how those fees impact many\ndifferent things.\nBoard Member Teresa Ruiz wanted clarification on the next RHNA (Regional Housing\nNeeds Allocation) allotment since there were two different numbers in the report.\nDirector Thomas explained that the current draft number was 5,350 and how the number\nhad been changing over time. He said that it would be finalized this summer and they\nwould correct and update the report.\nBoard Member Ruiz also commented on the inclusionary housing and wanted to know if\nthey currently allow offsite inclusionary housing since it could be an economic way to offset\naffordable housing requirements.\nDirector Thomas said they do currently allow that under the code. He explained what the\ncode allows and past projects that had done that. He also explained variations that had\nbeen allowed.\nBoard Member Ruiz suggested they refine the zoning to code to encourage this more it\ncould make affordable housing more feasible. She also pointed out that Density Bonus\nhad gone up to 50% from the 35% that was noted.\nDirector Thomas said that was correct and the report would be updated.\nBoard Member Ruiz also thought that on page 15 they should refine the Universal\nOrdinance to achieve the goal without becoming a burden. Also, they should better define\nGroup Housing such as Co-Living.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 12\nMarch 8, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-03-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-03-08", "page": 3, "text": "Director Thomas said from the staff's perspective they agree. He added that recognizing\nin the zoning code and making sure through the housing element process with HCD\n(Housing and Community Development) they could count those units.\nBoard Member Ruiz suggested allowing upzoning of the existing dated multifamily projects\nand gave examples and the benefits of doing so.\nDirector Thomas said that was a very interesting idea to pursue.\nVice President Asheshh Saheba wanted to know what was the likelihood of these\napproved housing projects moving forward.\nDirector Thomas said they recommend not putting any project on the list unless they feel\nconfident that it would happen. He explained how they work with projects that had been\n\"stuck\" for one reason on another.\nVice President Saheba commented on the Senior Assisted Living and was happy it was\nbeing counted. He wanted to know if Memory Care was also counted in the residential\ncount.\nDirector Thomas said that staff is working with HCD to know what would be counted as a\nunit. He spoke about past work they had done with HCD and that there would be changes\nto the code to allow assisted livings to count.\nBoard Member Ron Curtis asked how the math worked out to show the percent of housing\nthey were responsible for.\nDirector Thomas explained how they arrived at that amount and also discussed RHNA's\nmethodology.\nBoard Member Curtis was concerned about any action they take that would subsidize\nthese units at the cost of the taxpayers. He wanted to know if the board or City Council\nhad the authority to do that without a vote from the community.\nDirector Thomas said yes they did. Under State Law, they are called Development Impact\nFees. There was a strict approach for how a city could adopt fees on new development,\nit's not a requirement but more of an option. City Council could adopt them or not, and\nthey could resend or adjust them.\nBoard Member Curtis said this should be done above board so everyone can see it.\nBoard Member Hanson Hom was in support of redefining the definitions around senior\nhousing under the current zoning code. He discussed adjusting the percentages around\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 12\nMarch 8, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-03-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-03-08", "page": 4, "text": "Density Bonus and was in favor of having that discussion. He asked if Alameda had a\nCommercial Linkage Fee and suggested doing a Nexus Study on it.\nDirector Thomas said yes Alameda had one.\nBoard Member Hom wanted to know if these projects could take advantage of the Density\nBonus and if so, whether these units be counted towards the City's Regional Housing\nNeeds Allocation (RHNA).\nDirector Thomas said on that particular issue there were projects where a certain amount\nhas been approved, then there were the areas they were upzoning and HCD says you\nhave to have a realistic amount. Alameda Point for example there was a Navy Financial\nCap, and they would max out the amount under that cap.\nBoard Member Hom wanted to know when they might hear back from HCD.\nDirector Thomas said he hoped to hear back from them in a month or so.\nPresident Teague suggested having four \"buckets\", the fourth bucket would represent the\nMF (multifamily) overlay which is the most politically charged item. He added that they\nshould explore all the possible code changes to see what the potential number of units\nthat would allow in terms of infill. He was surprised to see Coast Guard Island on the list\nbecause he didn't think that HCD would ever count that.\nDirector Thomas agreed and said it was only on the list to remind the staff to call the Coast\nGuard and see if they had any plans to build housing. If they do plan on building housing\nthey would work with HCD to count that housing.\nPresident Teague commended Board Member Hom for bringing up the 1% of the 15% in\nInclusionary Housing was too small and it needs to be at least 2%. He spoke on other\npossible opportunities to encourage housing and added that the subcommittee (President\nTeague, Board Members Hom, and Cisneros) would be meeting later this month.\nDirector Thomas said that the staff would be reaching out to the subcommittee to schedule\na meeting. He gave a rundown on the issues they would be working on first.\n7-B 2021-715\nPublic Hearing to Consider Resolutions Recommending Approval of a Tidelands\nExchange and a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Amended Encinal Terminals\nMaster Plan for the Redevelopment of the Encinal Terminals Properties (072-0382-001,\n072-0382-002, and 072-0383-003) and City Tidelands Property (APN 072-0382-009)\nlocated at 1521 Buena Vista Avenue. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for\nthe Tidelands Exchange and Master Plan was prepared and certified in 2017, in\nconformance with the California Environmental Quality Act.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 12\nMarch 8, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-03-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-03-08", "page": 5, "text": "Board Member Ruiz recused herself from this agenda item.\nDirector Thomas gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at\nttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4812302&GUID=89F5F1F0-\nA3C5-48E5-8599-A69FF4FB5452&FullText=1.\nMike O'Hara, the developer's representative, also gave a presentation that explained the\nhistory and the vision of the project. He then made himself available to answer questions.\nPresident Teague opened the board's clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked for a recount of the City Council's action in December\n2017 that resulted in an impasse with the City Council unable to get the votes to pass this\nproject. She wanted to know how to make sure the impasse didn't happen again.\nDirector Thomas explained that in 2017 there was no motion to approve the exchange,\nthere was no support. There were also no consequences for not doing it. Now there is a\nvery real public benefit for doing this project, this will help the city get to the required\namount of housing units.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked about the funding for the maintenance of the open\nspaces and areas and wanted to know if there was a net amount of assessments that will\ncover those public areas and had it been quantified.\nDirector Thomas said that it had not been quantified by the city yet. He pointed out that\nChapter 4: Process, lays out the sequence of steps they would take. Early in the process\ncity staff would work with counsel and put together the assessment district, and then they\nwould be voted in.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked about the Sierra's Club letter addressing marine impact.\nThe EIR (Environmental Impact Statement) was already certified and the report states that\nthere would be no additional or more severe environmental impact. She asked if it was\ncertain that the issues raised by the Sierra's Club letter would not invoke any additional\nactions.\nDirector Thomas clarified for the record that the EIR report was certified in 2017 for the\ndevelopment of this site with a Tidelands Exchange. The plan they are looking at now is\nthe same as it was in 2017 and there was no evidence that there would be any additional\nimpact.\nBoard Member Cisneros asked to hear more about the mitigations for sea-level rise.\nDirector Thomas explained that the project was designed to provide for 36 inches of sea-\nlevel rise. He also spoke on the requirement (for all waterfront projects) that they also\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 12\nMarch 8, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-03-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-03-08", "page": 6, "text": "not allowed under the guidelines.\nDirector Thomas said that the final design review would have to come back to the Planning\nBoard for all those design elements.\nBoard Member Hom questioned why the cross-sections of public access are lacking street\nlighting. He did not see a lighting plan with the fixtures mentioned. He also questioned the\noutline of the phasing of public improvements.\nDirector Thomas said they are trying to create some flexibility in the sequence of those\nimprovements.\nBoard Member Hom wanted clarification in the Master Plan that the Alaska Basin District\nwould set aside land for Marina parking. He also wanted to know if there would be a\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 12\nMarch 8, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-03-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-03-08", "page": 7, "text": "requirement that the Affordable Housing would be distributed throughout the four districts\nor would they be concentrated in one area.\nDirector Thomas said they had left the option open to concentrate the Affordable Housing\nif they wanted to bring in a partner. He spoke more about the benefits of having a\npartnership.\nBoard Member Hom asked if the Affordable Housing Agreement would be part of the\ndesign review process that comes before the board.\nDirector Thomas said that the Affordable Housing Agreement is approved between the\nCity Manager and the project applicant but they need to know those things when they do\nthe design review.\nPresident Teague asked about the 2018 plan and wanted to know why the imagery wasn't\nmatching what was on the slides. The \"No Exchange\" plan did not match what they had\nbeen looking at.\nMr. O'Hara explained the differences between the 2018 plan from the current one. Most\nof the difference was due to how much of the wharf could be saved and what else changed\nafter working with BCDC (Bay Conservation and Development Commission).\nDirector Thomas also explained how all of these changes affected approval from each\ngroup.\nPresident Teague and Board Member Cisneros disclosed that they had met with the\napplicant as well.\nPresident Teague opened the public comment.\nLaura Thomas, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, wanted to express her support for\nthe Amended Master Plan for the Encinal Terminal Development with the Tidelands\nExchange. She spoke of her disappointment of this not passing in 2017 and believed that\nthe Sierra Club was not on the side of development or housing. She said this was a terrific\nopportunity to address traffic issues since there would be water transportation offered and\nit was going to provide badly needed housing for low-income families. She hoped the City\nCouncil would be smarter this time.\nVickie Sedlack, a resident of Alameda, urged the board to approve this project. She saw\nthis as an exciting project that would help Alameda make its RHNA number. She was also\nexcited by the waterfront access this would bring to the public and would allow for water\ntransportation.\nPeter Anderson, the owner of Grand Marina, said even though this project could potentially\ncreate a competitor for him he still wanted to support this project. He said the wharf was\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 12\nMarch 8, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-03-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-03-08", "page": 8, "text": "badly in need of attention and repair and this project was badly needed. He offered to take\nanyone from the Sierra Club on a tour to show them how bad the wharf was and he was\nconcerned if nothing happened the wharf would end up in the estuary.\nKelly Lux, Chair of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, gave her support to the Encinal\nTerminal. The Chamber of Commerce strongly supported the Tidelands Exchange which\nmade the Master Plan possible because it would make a significant improvement to the\nland to allow the project to be built. It also brings in badly needed housing and adds\nwonderful public waterfront open space for all to enjoy. They were also in full support of\nthe housing plan provided. She strongly encouraged the city to move forward with this\nproject.\nPatricia Lamborn wanted to support the Sierra Club's letter. She asked that the board\nmove this decision back to the elected leaders of the City Council. She also brought up\nthe request for the developer to donate 2 million dollars for De-Pave Park. She and the\nSierra Club believed what the developer was offering were things they would get anyway\nand the developer was not doing enough to deal with sea-level rise.\nJim Oddie was in favor of this project. He offered some suggestions on how to make it\nmore attractive to the City Council. He suggested making the finances more transparent\nand adopting the Sierra Club's request for 2 million dollars for De-Pave Park. He urged\nthe board to do something different or this project would be stalled again.\nPresident Teague closed public comments.\nPresident Teague opened board discussion and comments on the Tideland Exchange.\nBoard Member Rothenberg said it was a conditional and meritorious plan which would\nenable the development.\nBoard Member Cisneros agreed with the previous comments in support.\nVice President Saheba was in support of the Tideland Exchange as well.\nBoard Member Curtis was also in support of the exchange. He commented on the 2 million\ndollars proposal, he said that would add too much money to the selling price of the units\nand the true benefits to the city was going forward with the project.\nBoard Member Hom believed the Tideland Exchange was a positive direction for the use\nof this piece of property. He was also in support even without the 2 million dollar\ncontribution or any contribution.\nPresident Teague thanked the staff, the applicant, and the citizens for speaking on this\nissue. He believed that any negotiations with the developer for anything extra was a City\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 12\nMarch 8, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-03-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-03-08", "page": 9, "text": "Council item and was in full support of moving this to the City Council. He recommended\nchanging the word \"reconsider\" to \"negotiate\" since no action had been taken.\nBoard Member Rothenberg made a motion to recommend to the City Council to\napprove the Tidelands Exchange with the word change of \"reconsider\" to\n\"negotiate\" and Board Member Curtis seconded the motion. A roll call vote was\ntaken and the motion passed 6-0, Board Member Ruiz had recused herself.\nPresident Teague opened board discussion and comments on The Master Plan.\nPresident Teague clarified with the staff that the board didn't need to approve the Master\nPlan that evening for the plans to move forward in terms of the Tidelands Exchange.\nDirector Thomas said that was correct and that the staff planned to be back with a\nDevelopment Agreement for a Planning Board review.\nBoard Member Rothenberg discussed how Master Plans are living documents and they\nform over time. She believed this Master Plan stood on its merit and content but could\nbenefit from being improved and more informative in areas. She pointed out there could\nbe aspirational goals set that had been brought up by the public. She gave examples of\nhow that would work and pointed out places where other references could be noted.\nBoard Member Cisneros appreciated the comments made by Board Member Rothenberg.\nShe felt that the Master Plan was very comprehensive but did encourage the applicant to\nconsider and incorporate some of the other comments made by the public. She also saw\nthat the 2 million dollar request was for City Council to negotiate, she did note that she\nbelieved the request was a bit unfair.\nVice President Saheba believed the Master Plan was much improved and agreed with\nBoard Member Rothenberg's comment about the Master Plan being a living document.\nHe also gave examples of areas that could be made clearer. He had some thoughts on\nhow to make the parking more mindful.\nBoard Member Curtis believed his colleagues had already beautifully articulated the\ncritiques of this plan and he had nothing else to add.\nBoard Member Hom was in support of the Master Plan and thought it was much improved\nfrom the 2018 plan. He commented on public access and how this project would provide\naccess on 3 sides which is much more public access than you would see in regular\nwaterfront projects. He also commended that the developer was committed to maintaining\npublic access, which was a big plus. He was also ready to adopt the Master Plan now with\na few amendments. He suggested revising the sketches, adding plans for the lighting in\npublic access areas and ways to improve parking.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 12\nMarch 8, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-03-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-03-08", "page": 10, "text": "President Teague talked about the original Master Plan from December 2017 that was 80\npages compared to the current one which was only 40 pages. He said many areas were\nnot elaborated on enough. He suggested looking through and seeing where more\ninformation could be added, the information is there so it needs to be included. He wanted\nthe Master Plan to be more complete, but if the rest of the board was ready to approve he\nwould. He wanted to see the Master Plan come back with the Development Agreement.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked the board and the staff if the City Council would expect\nto have the approval of the Tidelands Exchange and the Master Plan come as a unit. She\nthought it could be detrimental to the consideration of the Tidelands Exchange to not have\nthe Master Plan come with it at the same time.\nDirector Thomas said that the staff planned to be at the City Council hearing with all the\ndocuments together. He added that they could certainly bring the Master Plan back with\nthese changes when they come with the Development Agreement to the Planning Board.\nThat would not slow up the process.\nBoard Member Curtis wanted to make sure that not having an approved Master Plan would\nnot affect the City Council's decision on the Tidelands Exchange.\nDirector Thomas assured Board Member Curtis that staff would bring the resolution of\nTidelands Exchange to the council when they brought everything else. They would not go\nto the council with only a piece of the puzzle.\nBoard Member Curtis also wanted to make sure once this was approved it would come\nback to the Planning Board for final Design Review.\nDirector Thomas said yes, items such as lighting, palm trees, the configuration of blocks,\nand use of the launch. All of that is part of the Design Review in the final process, but\nhaving a well-thought-out Master Plan would make all of that more clear.\nPresident Teague asked if this would slow up how long it took the Development Agreement\nto come before the board.\nDirector Thomas did not see any of the comments or suggestions as slowing down the\nprocess.\nBoard Member Hom made a motion to defer the approval of the Master Plan and\nhave it come back to the Planning Board with the Development Agreement with the\namendments and clarifications that had been discussed. Vice President Saheba\nseconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0, Board\nMember Ruiz had recused herself.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 10 of 12\nMarch 8, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-03-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-03-08", "page": 11, "text": "Director Thomas reviewed his notes to make sure he had all the concerns to revise the\nMaster Plan. He noted the palm trees and landscaping, the lighting issue, look at the\nreferences regarding the Bay Trail, getting a better timeline, improve the language around\nthe launch and the use, take another look at the parking, refine the scale of the blocks,\nand look at the4 setbacks.\nBoard Member Hom suggested looking at elevations.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2021-713\nDraft Meeting Minutes - February 8, 2021\nBoard Member Curtis gave a correction on page 2 for his statement and provided better\nwording.\nBoard Member Hom made a motion to approve the minutes with this correction and\nBoard Member Curtis seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the\nminutes passed 7-0.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2021-705\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nRecent items can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4812298&GUID=4560C896-\n4DB-4E7A-9F73-FE2C940E2B1D&FullText=1.\nNo board members wanted to pull any of the items for review.\n9-B 2021-706\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nAllen Tai, City Planner, said that at the next meeting on March 22 the staff would be\nbringing the project at Peach St back that had been called for a review. The staff was also\nplanning on giving an update of the General Plan update process.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 11 of 12\nMarch 8, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-03-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-03-08", "page": 12, "text": "12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Teague adjourned the meeting at 9:51 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 12 of 12\nMarch 8, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-03-08.pdf"}