{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-05-24", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, MAY 24, 2021\n1. CONVENE\nVice President Asheshh Saheba convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Rona Rothenberg led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Board Members Curtis, Hom, Rothenberg, Cisneros, Ruiz, and Saheba.\nAbsent: President Teague\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nThe agenda was revised on May 17, 2021, at 1:15 pm to continue item 7B to June 14,\n2021. The applicant had requested this continuation.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n6-A 2021-948\nMake a Determination that the Proposed Fiscal Year 2021-22 and 2022-2023 Capital\nBudget is Consistent with the General Plan. CEQA Determination: Not a Project.\nAttachments can be found at\nIttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4953599&GUID=8C6E3EOF-\n4CF9-4325-9399-DDAC067D1905&FullText=1\nVice President Saheba opened public comment.\nCarmen Reid addressed that the budget included 1.4 million dollars for painting the Big\nWhites at Alameda Point and this item had been discussed at a City Council meeting\nwhere the City Manager stated he would get back to the Council with more details. She\nasked that this specific line item be removed until it had been reviewed by the City\nManager. She wanted to know more about how many homes this included and when was\nthe last time these homes were painted. She felt that this was a very excessive expense.\nAndrew Thomas, Director of Planning, Building, and Transportation, explained what the\nboard's role was. They simply had to confirm the staff's findings that the Capital\nImprovement Program was consistent with the General Plan. The City Council's role was\nto approve the budget. The preservation of the 17 historic homes was consistent with the\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 11\nMay 24, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-05-24", "page": 2, "text": "General Plan. The speaker's questions were great and would be for the City Council to\nanswer.\nSomeone messaged the board. Why is there a specific dollar amount?\nDirector Thomas answered that was what a Capital Improvement Plan was. The budget\nwas for public improvements and the Big Whites are city-owned.\nBoard Member Rothenberg made a motion to determine that the Proposed Fiscal\nYear 2021-22 and 2022-23 Capital Budget was consistent with the General Plan, and\nBoard Member Ron Curtis seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the\nmotion passed 6-0, with President Teague absent.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2021-949 -\nPublic Hearing to Consider a Resolution Recommending City Council Approval of the\nAmended Encinal Terminals Tidelands Exchange Master Plan and Density Bonus\nApplication and Draft Development Agreement for the Redevelopment of the Encinal\nTerminals Properties (072-0382-001, 072-0382-002 and 072-0383-003) and City\nTidelands Property (APN 072-0382-009) located at 1521 Buena Vista Avenue. A Focused\nSupplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Tidelands Exchange and Master Plan\nwas prepared and certified in 2017, in conformance with the California Environmental\nQuality Act.\nBoard Member Teresa Ruiz recused herself from this agenda item.\nDirector Thomas introduced the item and gave the history of this project. The staff report\nand attachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4953600&GUID=EC35A194-\nD9D6-41C6-A373-FAFEA4E5AF41&FullText=1\nMike O'Hara, Director of Land at Tim Lewis Communities, also gave a presentation that\ndiscussed the changes to the parking requirements and the Master Plan.\nVice President Saheba opened public comment.\nCarmen Reid gave her support for the two parking spaces as Mr. O'Hara had suggested.\nShe thought it was important to consider that as density increases people will have\nadditional vehicles. Also, families would have family members and guests staying or\nvisiting.\nVice President closed public comments and opened the board's clarifying questions.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 11\nMay 24, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-05-24", "page": 3, "text": "Board Member Xiomara Cisneros wanted to know how long the conversation about\nparking (1.5 spaces vs. 2 for the townhomes) had been going on between the City and\nthe applicant.\nDirector Thomas said over the last 8 years this conversation had been going on. He\ndiscussed how they had gotten into this situation because he and Mr. O'Hara had read\nthe text differently.\nMr. O'Hara agreed with that.\nBoard Member Hansom Hom wanted clarification on the difference between what City\nStaff recommended versus what the applicant proposed for parking.\nDirector Thomas said that the Master Plan limited the number of townhomes to 200 of the\n589, the other 389 were multifamily units. When he did the math that meant the difference\nbetween what the applicant wanted and what the staff suggested was 100 spaces. This\nwas assuming they build all 200 townhomes.\nBoard Member Hom then wanted to know if the staff thought it was an accurate statement\nthat the applicant made that this project was in line with other projects at Alameda Point.\nAlso, were there any characteristics of this project that could argue for a lower parking\nstandard.\nDirector Thomas answered that the way the city staff had been thinking about parking was\na constantly evolving process. The process had changed over the last 8 years alone. He\ndiscussed the many parking studies and data they had gathered and how Climate Change\nhad affected how they thought about parking. He discussed the history of approvals and\nhow each project was different. He acknowledged that they would soon be coming before\nthe Board with a Parking Ordinance. To answer the question directly, under Mr. O'Hara's\nplan it would be 1.7 spaces and under the staff's recommendation, it was 1.5, if you\nassume the project would build all 200 townhomes.\nBoard Member Hom asked if the 1.5 standard would include guest parking places.\nDirector Thomas clarified that these would just be private parking spaces. The Master\nPlan also required that there be 200 guest and visitor spaces since they were hoping there\nwould also be a Marina as well.\nMr. O'Hara added that when you look at a project you have to look at it in its entirety and\nall the things that go with it. He said they were committed to many traffic control measures\nand were building a water taxi dock. If you broaden the lens a bit you can see the mitigating\nfactors.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 11\nMay 24, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-05-24", "page": 4, "text": "Board Member Rothenberg wanted to know why they weren't setting the bar for future\nprojects that hadn't been in process as long as this one had been. This development had\nbeen in process for a long time and this was a new term of development, it would be an\nact of good faith.\nDirector Thomas said that was a fair approach considering how far this developer had\ncome. He didn't want to recommend the Master Plan with what the developer wanted and\nthen in 3 weeks come back with a Parking Ordinance that said something completely\ndifferent for everyone else.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked about terms in the agreement that spoke to the\ndeveloper's commitment to the phasing requirements and timing and state and local\napprovals. Would this need to go to the State's Public Works Board? Also, there was the\nterm for \"labor agreement\", which has merit but can add time to any project. She wanted\nto know if these two items had been addressed.\nDirector Thomas said they do not need to go before the State's Public Works Board, but\nthey would need to go to the State's Land Commission. They would need approval from\nthe City Council, property owner (Mr. O'Hara and his team), and the State's Land\nCommission to do this project.\nVice President Saheba asked if there was a difference in requirements for bicycle parking\nfor the townhomes versus the multifamily units.\nDirector Thomas said there were very detailed requirements for bicycle parking for both\nthe townhomes and the multifamily units.\nBoard Member Hom asked if the development agreement complied with the phasing plan,\nhe had not seen any of the phasing language.\nDirector Thomas discussed they worked with outside consultants familiar with the State\nLand Commission. The Master Plan had very clear language that outlined the timeline and\nphasing.\nBoard Member Hom asked what was the term for or the ordinance requirement for\nAffordable Housing.\nDirector Thomas said it was typically 55 years for the Affordable Housing Units, the deed-\nrestricted units. They had set it up that it would continue with each sale. The 10 moderate\nunits were 5 years. This was a program they had never done before. He explained how\nthe terms were applied.\nBoard Member Hom asked if the developer had gone over and above what objective\ndesign guidelines had called for.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 11\nMay 24, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-05-24", "page": 5, "text": "Director Thomas said he thought they were. When the project comes through it had to\nmeet the objective design standard. They had added to the Master Plan additional\nstandards that were site-specific.\nVice President opened the board's comments and discussion.\nBoard Member Cisneros thought they should revisit the 100% visitability requirements to\nmake sure that the townhomes were able to meet this. She saw 3 reasons why they should\nrecommend this item to the council. It is simply a great project, it would help with their\nhousing element and so much had been invested in this and if it were to fail it would make\nfuture projects more precarious. For the parking, she didn't believe that higher density\nmeant more parking. She appreciated the staff's intention with having maximum parking\nrules and she agreed with Board Member Rothenberg's comment about having a standard\nmoving forward.\nBoard Member Curtis agreed with his colleagues on this. He addressed that this\ndevelopment had been on the books for a long time. He agreed with Board Member\nRothenberg that they should set a parking standard going forward but they should\ngrandfather this with the parking spaces the applicant had requested. He was concerned\nany change or roadblock would delay the project further and increase the cost for\neveryone involved including future buyers. He recommended to grandfather the parking\nthat was requested and to approve the Development Agreement with the modification to\nparking.\nBoard Member Hom appreciated the applicant and the staff for working together to\nimprove the Master Plan document. Overall he was very supportive of the project and\nagreed with his fellow board members in regards to the parking. He thought that asking\nthe applicant to change the parking was too late in the game so to speak but he\nappreciated the staff being more aggressive in limiting parking.\nBoard Member Rothenberg concurred with her fellow board members and acknowledged\nthe changes in the Master Plan that had improved and enhanced the project. She\nsupported the project and believed it had a tremendous public benefit all around.\nVice President Saheba also appreciated the improvements to the Master Plan. It made\nsense for the direction that they wanted to go in with the Housing Element. Also, for the\nparking situation, he agreed with his fellow board members. He discussed the many ways\nthat they should be looking at multifamily and townhome parking differently.\nBoard Member Hom made a motion to recommend that the City Council approve\nthe Amended Encinal Terminals Tidelands Exchange Master Plan and Density\nBonus Application and Draft Development Agreement for the Redevelopment of the\nEncinal Terminals Properties, deleting the condition to require adjusting the\nparking ratio to 1.5. The motion was seconded by Board Member Curtis. A roll call\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 11\nMay 24, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-05-24", "page": 6, "text": "vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0, with President Teague absent and Board\nMember Ruiz abstaining.\n7-C 2021-952\nProposed Citywide Text Amendments to the City of Alameda Zoning Ordinance (AMC\nChapter 30) to Modify Public Art Requirements. Applicant: City of Alameda. Public hearing\nto consider proposed amendments to Alameda Municipal Code Chapter 30. The proposed\namendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant\nto CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3) and 15303.\nAllen Tai, City Planner, introduced this item. The staff report and attachments can be found\nat\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4953602&GUID=220E7191\nC62C-46D0-8164-B6777391577D&FullText=1.\nAmanda Gehrke, Development Manager with Community Development, gave a\npresentation discussing the changes and feedback since this item was first introduced at\nthe April 26, 2021, Planning Board Meeting.\nVice President Saheha opened the board's clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked about the condition, item 2-B page 5, that had to do\nwith the exemption for waving the requirement when you have 100% Affordable Housing.\nShe wanted to know if they had rethought the merit for not having that exception or of\nqualifying it. She gave an example of the provision she was thinking, \"only if the inclusion\nof art is an economic impediment to the project development to conform the exception and\nthe intent of your art program with the goals of the General Plan for inclusivity, equity, and\nthe appropriate sharing of resources\".\nStaff Member Tai said when this provision was added to the Public Art Ordinance some\nyears ago the emphasis was to respond to the cost of housing and not to put a burden on\naffordable housing. That was why the staff did not look at qualifying that exemption but\nthe board could raise that question to the City Council.\nVice President Saheba opened public comments.\nThere were no public speakers.\nVice President Saheba closed public comments and opened the board's discussion.\nBoard Member Cisneros was in support of moving this forward and appreciated Board\nMember's Rothenberg comments and concerns on equity. She was curious to know what\nother cities had done in this situation and wondered if there were other creative ways to\nprovide public art to 100% Affordable Housing.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 11\nMay 24, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-05-24", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Curtis thought the changes were implemented nicely and he supported the\nresolution.\nBoard Member Hom appreciated how the staff listened to their comments. He understood\nwhy the exemption for 100% Affordable Housing was there and wanted to make sure it\nwas clear that the exemption was only for 100% Affordable Housing.\nBoard Member Rothenberg supported the resolution as it was drafted. She wanted to see\na revision to item 2-B Page 5 with something like the language she had provided earlier.\nShe thought this was overall meritorious and should advance.\nBoard Member Ruiz thanked the staff for revising the resolution. In regards to Board\nMember Rothenberg's concern, she saw the point but it's extremely difficult to fund 100%,\nAffordable Housing projects. Any fee that did not go directly into the construction of the\nproject would be an economic hardship. She did not think that adding any of the suggested\nlanguage was necessary and was ready to support the resolution as it was written.\nVice President Saheba echoed his fellow board member's comments and was happy to\nsee sections that had been debated were refined. He understood the tricky situation of\nkeeping things equitable when it came to Affordable Housing and wanted to keep thinking\nof ways to keep things equitable whenever they could. Overall he thought the rework was\ncommendable and it was now successful.\nBoard Member Ruiz understood Board Member Rothenberg's recommendation but she\nwould rather have that as a consideration for the council to review than as an amendment\nto the resolution.\nBoard Member Rothenberg agreed that was a good suggestion.\nBoard Member Cisneros clarified her statement about using the in-lieu fee. She had meant\nthat when the developer paid a fee-in-lieu of doing public art that could be used for\nAffordable Housing public art.\nBoard Member Hom echoed that was what he had meant as well.\nBoard Member Ruiz said that was what they wanted the council to consider. To consider\nexpanding the usage of the in-lieu fee fund, not just for the maintenance of existing artwork\nbut for the implementation of public art in 100% Affordable Housing projects.\nBoard Member Ruiz made a motion to recommend to the City Council the adoption\nof the resolution with the consideration of the equity language for Affordable\nHousing. Board Member Cisneros seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken\nand the motion passed 6-0, with President Teague absent.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 11\nMay 24, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-05-24", "page": 8, "text": "7-D 2021-953\nPublic Hearing to Consider Recommending the City Council Adopt an Ordinance to\nAmend Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XXIV (Public Health) to Impose a Citywide\nProhibition of Gasoline-Powered Leaf Blowers, Effective January 1, 2024. The proposed\namendment is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act\n(CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), where it can be seen with\ncertainty that the proposed ban on gasoline-powered leaf blowers will not have a\nsignificant effect on the environment. No further environmental review is needed.\nStaff Member Tai introduced this item. The staff report and attachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4953603&GUID=6B959E97-\n9FEO-4BBE-B9F2-C96E85FC51B6&FullText=1.\nVice President Saheba opened the board's clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Ruiz wanted to know why they were not also addressing the noise pollution\ncomponent.\nStaff Member Tai said that could be a point for discussion. They focused on this work\nbecause the California Air Resource Board (CARB) had specified this as an action item to\nreduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. If the board and the council believed that the noise\nshould be front and center then they would need to redraft the ordinance. He explained\nthe further changes and details they would need to address if they focused on the noise\naspect of gas-powered leaf blowers.\nBoard Member Cisneros asked if electric leaf blowers were quieter.\nStaff Member Tai said that was not the case.\nBoard Member Hom asked if the city was currently using electric leaf blowers.\nDirector Thomas said that the Parks Department was in the process of converting over to\nelectric leaf blowers. However, some contractors who work for Public Works were still\nusing gas.\nStaff Member Tai added that landscapers prefer gas-powered leaf blowers since they\nwere much more powerful. The electric leaf blowers tend to be less powerful and less\ndurable.\nBoard Member Rothenberg pointed out that the staff report used data from the CARB\nreport from 2000. She wanted to know if the staff had looked at any other updated\nstatistics.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 11\nMay 24, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-05-24", "page": 9, "text": "Staff Member Tai said the CARB report from 1999 was still the most creditable technical\ndocument that many other cities were still using.\nBoard Member Curtis stated that the new Echos (brand of leaf blowers) were certified by\nthe State of California and had an emission control device on them.\nVice President Saheba opened public comments.\nCarmen Reid expressed her support for the ban of gas leaf blowers and she cautioned\nagainst any harsh punishment enforcement or fines. She encouraged community\neducation such as partnering with recycling services, schools, and businesses to get the\nword out. She wanted to see this ordinance enacted sooner rather than later.\nVice President Saheba closed public comments and opened the board's discussion.\nBoard Member Cisneros appreciated the comment about starting this sooner rather than\nlater. She wondered why to wait until 2024 but she acknowledged that implementation\ncould be hard. She said it was unfortunate that electric leaf blowers were not quieter but\ndue to all the reasons outlined for the good of the environment, she supported this moving\nforward.\nBoard Member Curtis supported this ordinance and even pointed out that many local\nhardware stores were no longer selling gas-powered leaf blowers.\nBoard Member Hom also supported this ordinance. He liked that this implemented one of\nthe action items in the Climate Action Plan and the two-year phasing period would be\ngood. This would give people time to adequately transition and to figure out how to\nenforce.\nBoard Member Rothenberg concurred with her fellow board members. She added that\nshe had never seen the merit of these devices. The overall intent of the ordinance was\ngreat and it had her support.\nBoard Member Ruiz echoed her fellow board member comments and was in full support\nof this ordinance.\nVice President Saheba agreed that this needed to happen. He stated that we are in a\nclimate crisis and did not understand waiting 2 and a half years to implement this\nordinance. He would be in favor of bringing this up a year to 2023. Enforcement can take\ntime but that should not be the reason to wait.\nBoard Member Curtis agreed with Vice President Saheba on implementing this quickly but\npointed out that many contractors had a substantial investment in their equipment. He\nthought that people would need more time than just a year to adapt.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 11\nMay 24, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-05-24", "page": 10, "text": "Board Member Ruiz clarified that this was not part of the Zoning Ordinance, they were just\nrecommending it to the City Council for adoption.\nStaff Member Tai said that was correct.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked if this could be something they could survey before going to\nthe council. She did not want to be in a situation where the city would be in breach of\ncontract with any companies or individuals who had contracts with the city. This would\nhelp the council make a more informed decision.\nVice President Saheba was confused if it would be a breach or an amendment to the\ncontracts.\nBoard Member Ruiz said amendment was a better term.\nBoard Member Cisneros appreciated the compromise suggested by Board Member Ruiz\nand was interested in seeing the findings. She was inclined to support the staff's\nrecommendation but also wanted to see if they could potentially survey their landscaping\ncompanies for the council's consideration.\nBoard Member Hom gave the compromise of July 1, 2023, which would split the\ndifference. It would give 2 years of a transition period.\nBoard Member Curtis said he would buy that.\nVice President Saheba said he was comfortable with that as well. If the public wanted to\nvoice their thoughts he encouraged them to go to the City Council meeting when this item\ncame up.\nStaff Member Tai said he heard the board loud and clear about the considerations on the\ntiming. When this ordinance goes before the council, the staff would make it clear that the\nPlanning Board was considerate of the effectiveness date. He would also pull information\nabout city contracts with city landscapers, it would be difficult to understand what\ncorporations or smaller landscapers may have existing contracts. He also added that the\nrecommended timeframe included time for outreach and education.\nBoard Member Curtis agreed with Board Member Cisneros that the concern was more on\nsmaller landscapers. He thought that extra time would give smaller companies time to\nchange out their equipment.\nBoard Member Hom made a motion to recommend to the City Council to adopt the\nordinance with an earlier effective date of July 1, 2023 subject to the staff doing\nmore research on the potential impact. Board Member Ruiz seconded the motion.\nA roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0, with President Teague absent.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 10 of 11\nMay 24, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-05-24", "page": 11, "text": "8. MINUTES\nNone.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2021-954\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nRecent Actions and Decisions can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4953604&GUID=4A502FB2-\n5671-4EC5-9710-7CE98CFB706D&FullText=1.\n9-B 2021-955\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building, and\nTransportation Department Projects.\nStaff Member Tai informed the board that their next meeting in June would be a joint\nmeeting with the Historical Advisory Board. They would hold a workshop on the General\nPlan, discuss the Housing Element, and the General Plan EIR.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard Member Cisneros shared that she and Board Member Ruiz volunteer for the Urban\nLand Institute. They would be hosting a summit next week \"Housing the Bay\" and\nrecommended the event to her fellow board members.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked about the correct protocol for submitting comments\nabout the General Plan and the EIR as a citizen.\nStaff Member Tai said any comments can be sent to the staff.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nVice President Saheba adjourned the meeting at 8:52 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 11 of 11\nMay 24, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-05-24.pdf"}