pages
19 rows where "date" is on date 2013-09-25 sorted by date
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Link | body | date ▼ | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf,1 | CityCouncil | 2013-09-25 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING BOARD MEETING WEDNESDAY- -SEPTEMBER 25, 2013- 7:00 P.M. Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:02 p.m. President Burton led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore; and Planning Board Members Alvarez-Moronni, Henneberry, Knox White, Koester, Tang, Zuppan, and President Burton - 12. Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (13-422) Red Wetherill, Alameda, submitted a hand out and discussed the safety of the Tubes. (13-423) Patricia Baer, Alameda, discussed the safety of the Tubes. AGENDA ITEMS (13-424) Review and Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Alameda Point Project. The City Planner gave a Power Point presentation. Expressed concern over traffic on Bay View Drive: Dorothy Kakimoto, Alameda. Expressed concern over the lack of emphasis on environmental health effects and disclosure about contaminants at Alameda Point: Susan Galleymore, Alameda. Stated Housing Opportunities Make Economic Sense (HOMES) would submit comments on the EIR; stated issues include: where the people work at the site will live, the EIRs scope, and the Alameda Town Center name: Helen Sause, HOMES. Expressed thanks for the thorough EIR; stated reaching out to the best planners in the world will be important for the next phase: Chuck Kapelke, Alameda. Expressed appreciation for the EIR public process and inclusion of the housing alternative; stated cumulative analysis is important; the project will have many gains for the community: Bill Smith, Alameda. Stated the sea level rise berm must be built appropriately; urged using the high density Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 1 Planning Board September 25, 2013 | CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf,2 | CityCouncil | 2013-09-25 | 2 | housing option; stated infrastructure must be smart grid, plug and play; expressed concerns about cost estimates: Jon Spangler, Alameda. Expressed concerned about housing alternatives; stated retail should be spectacular and is the opportunity to make Alameda Point a destination: Karen Bey, Alameda. Expressed concern over the vagueness of the EIR; stated the Reuse Plan includes important specifics, which are not in the EIR; schools are particularly important and not well discussed; rigorous community oversight is lacking: Diane Lichtenstein, Alameda. Stated that she is impressed with the mix of open space and light industrial space; the light industrial zone should meet the water and include small and medium size businesses: Adrienne Lakadat, Alameda. Stated traffic in Chinatown in Oakland is a problem; urged the City to work with Oakland to resolve the issue: Alex Dannebaum, Alameda. Expressed concern about transportation issues; stated retail would be automobile based; expressed concern over public involvement: Former Councilmember Doug deHaan, Alameda. Expressed concern that sea level rise issues have not been adequately addressed: Bob Sikora, Alameda. Stated the Alameda Point Collaborative will have written comments; requested more information on mitigation, environmental and justice issues: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative. Stated that he is interested in the historic structures, class issues, transportation and connection to BART: Craig Miott, Alameda. Expressed concern about building height in the Enterprise District; urged support for the current Alameda Point business community: Amanda Shepard, Alameda. Mayor Gilmore noted Chapter 4 of the EIR provides a history and is a really great way for anyone interested to get up to speed. Councilmember Daysog requested staff to double check EIR Appendix G which addresses transportation and circulation data; stated that he believes there is a problem, which he emailed to staff. The City Planner stated staff would check the details on Appendix G. Councilmembe… | CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf,3 | CityCouncil | 2013-09-25 | 3 | would be added back; the Tubes and facilities previously accommodated the flow of 14,000 jobs; before 1997, when there were 14,000 jobs, there was not the current and proposed development in Oakland or sea level change issues as well other issues raised by speakers; requested staff to provide a contextual framework. The City Planner stated the State has established a very prescriptive way to do an EIR; staff and consultants will ensure additional information and context is available to the community, Planning Board and Council; the greatest number of jobs and population was in 1994; a lot of cars left Alameda Point every day; the Navy had ways of managing trips through staggered shifts, but traffic was still bad; staff's approach is to determine what the community can manage and to use different methods; new techniques have to be found for people traveling back and forth to new jobs at Alameda Point; a portion of the redevelopment at Alameda Point would get the City back to the jobs and population 20 years ago; transportation is one of the most interesting challenges; positive things are on the horizon, which other communities are doing; employers run shuttles because employees do not want to drive; companies at Alameda Point today want to start running shuttles; Marina Village is looking at doing a shuttle study; the younger generation is not rushing to buy cars, which will be part of the solution moving forward. Councilmember Tam noted the City's population only increased by less then 1% in the past 10 years. The City Planner stated people feel like the population has been growing faster because of driving habits; a challenge is getting the community to change driving habits; the City has been working with regional transportation agencies, such as the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) and BART regarding options and solutions; trips have be to reduced and alternatives are needed, such as a BART extension, which the City is still working on; BART recently attended the Planning Board meeting and want… | CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf,19 | CityCouncil | 2013-09-25 | 19 | when staff comes back with issues discussed tonight, Council should discuss the pros and cons of having more housing on the water and embedded in that discussion is the overall number of housing units which will be initially constructed; the issues dovetail because deciding to have more housing on the water raises the question of whether to spread units over more areas. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (13-427) The Assistant City Manager presented the results from a survey for naming options for Alameda Point; stated the community favored Seaplane Village and Seaplane Lagoon. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 19 Planning Board September 25, 2013 | CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2013-09-25 | 4 | Board Member Koster concurred; stated the tunnels and connection to Interstate-880 (I- 880) have to be reviewed; from the 1950's to 2000's, society was auto centric, which is changing with urban movements; he tries to drive as little as possible; a small gas hike a couple of years ago forced more riders onto public transit; his friends all ride transit; cars are getting more expensive and are not going to be feasible in the future. Councilmember Chen stated the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) will include incentives and penalties for future Alameda Point residents; the incentives and penalties should be narrowed down; the whole community should be encouraged to take mass transit; the Estuary Crossing shuttle is underutilized; questioned how the City can really encourage and incentivize use; stated the City needs to determine the spark that will get everyone excited about public transportation; Alameda Landing projected an increase of 45,000 vehicles per day; Park Street to Harbor Bay has three exit points: Fruitvale, High Street and Doolittle Drive; Park Street to the West End only has one exit point; an increase in residential or business use will utilize the Tube; that he likes the incentive plan, but would like to better understand proposed incentives. The City Planner stated a lot has to be worked out; the matter would be discussed at the Joint Transportation Commission and Planning Board meeting on September 30th; one of the best ways to ensure that Alameda Point minimizes impact is to attract homeowners and businesses desiring alternatives; one of the first questions businesses ask is how are employees going to get to work without driving; employees are demanding said type of location; Alameda Point needs to provide shuttles and buses; every business and resident at Alameda Point will pay into a transportation fund to generate operating revenue for Alameda Point buses, water taxis or whatever is determined the best use of funds; another essential piece of the strategy is connecting with BART and AC T… | CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf,5 | CityCouncil | 2013-09-25 | 5 | The City Planner stated the policy also was based on the Tubes and bridges; widening roads would just allow cars to travel faster and then have to wait in line to get to the Tube. Mayor Gilmore stated road widening also impacts bicycles and pedestrians because people rush through town; that she receives many complaints about speeding now. The City Planner stated wide streets are the least pleasant for walkers to cross; the EIR transportation section addresses items which make it easier for cars; if something is done for cars, it asks what about pedestrians, bicyclists and transit and whether service levels would go down. Councilmember Daysog stated at some point, widening the end of the outbound Posey Tube would need to be evaluated in the event there is a left turn. The City Manager stated the intersection from I-880 to the Tube is a regional problem; Oakland has projects coming on line; the Chinatown neighborhood faces air quality problems; staff is focused on the exit from the Tube and how to make the egress easier without creating more Chinatown traffic; staff's intention is to come forward with projects and plans that absolutely minimize automobile trips; the City Planner laid out some of the balancing questions; building larger roads creates a less friendly, less urban built environment for pedestrians and bicyclists; a lot of diplomacy has occurred during the last four months; a lot of work remains to be done; the County wants to go forward with a measure on the 2014 or 2016 ballot to increase the sales tax in order to create more transportation infrastructure, which would be good for Alameda as long as the Broadway Jackson interchange and additional expenditures for ferries and boats are included; Alameda is going to have specialized infrastructure needs over the next 50 years because no solution creates another Tube or bridge; the City does not want to be over reliant on automobiles going forward in developing the former Base; the public will have the opportunity to weigh in when options are presented. P… | CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2013-09-25 | 6 | address other problem areas effectively; the matter should be in the EIR and part of discussions going forward. Board Member Knox White stated that he would submit written comments before the deadline; the alternatives analysis needs a lot more flushing out and an explanation of ratings; some assumptions in the alternatives analysis do not make sense; the plan to deal with sea level rise is good; a policy decision still needs to be made about whether the initial mitigation is 18, 12 or 36 inches; the conversation should happen, because the policy impacts the Master Infrastructure Plan (MIP) and also changes the mitigation analysis in the EIR; the EIR goes to 2050, which is a 35 year window; people buying houses at Alameda Point will not have paid off their first mortgage by 2050, when the next dike will start to be built; questioned whether homeowners' first mortgage would be sufficiently protected and whether insurance companies are going to guarantee that the property would be protected from sea level rise; stated the ability to sell land to commercial and homeowners might be impacted; the sea level rise decision impacts a lot of decisions, including fees; the conversation is overdue and needs to be had at some point in the near future. Board Member Tang stated traffic is the most important issue; the City's existing traffic infrastructure limits and dictates the kind of development at Alameda Point; a good mix is needed to have a harmonious flow; there cannot be too many residences or too many retail outlets; that he appreciated hearing about the shuttle service; he carpools from Bay Farm Island; parking spaces are fully occupied; more carpool or shuttle parking spaces might be needed; some buses are empty; questioned whether there should be smaller shuttles; stated bus ridership might depend on how well a company is doing; the City should ensure shuttles will be fully utilized; questioned whether the City has a backup plan in case the Tube is closed; stated any emergency plan to direct traffic should be revis… | CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2013-09-25 | 7 | there will be many public meetings going forward. The City Planner noted the Planning Board is having another hearing on October 14th to address the town center plan and Alameda Point zoning. (13-425) Provide Comments on the Disposition Strategy for Alameda Point. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a Power Point presentation. *** Councilmember Tam left the dais at 9:04 p.m. and returned at 9:07 p.m. * Mayor Gilmore stated commercial and retail is one of the top priorities; questions have come up why the City is leading with commercial and retail. The City Manager stated Alameda's economic deficits and revenue streams have been reviewed; staff is focused on the budget and long term financial problems; the City does not have enough money to maintain the roads on a proper schedule; money has not been set aside for post-employment benefits; PERS is going to impose smoothing, which will cost extra; the Council has done a very good job in making strategic cuts and increasing reserves; in the next two years, the City will go to market for infrastructure as the highest bond rated municipality in the East Bay; cutting more services is politically infeasible; the budget has two sides: cost and revenue; the glaring hole in Alameda's revenue package is retail sales tax; therefore, the number one priority for the City is to bolster retail and bring businesses that generate business to business sales tax; discussed retail leakage; stated growth has to be strategic; leading with housing creates a constituency which could want to stop future commercial, industrial and retail growth and almost always excludes revenue needed generators; staff is concerned with the consequences of California's tax structure; housing units can be assess on the front end, which helps build infrastructure; however, in 30 to 50 years, residential will generally not pay for the service demands it generates based on the Proposition 13 tax structure; uses should be reviewed which balance and give the City financial wherewithal at the front e… | CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf,8 | CityCouncil | 2013-09-25 | 8 | The City Manager stated retail solely would not pay for infrastructure; however, only doing housing deplete the General Fund in the long term; balance is required. Councilmember Tam stated cities have to offer subsidies to attract retail and had redevelopment funds to do so that in the past. The City Manager noted proposals being received do not call for subsidy. Councilmember Tam inquired whether whatever selected, such as an outlet mall, could pay to bring in water, sewer, and gas. The City Manager responded a business would pay for its site; a master developer would not be brought in to do the whole Base and infrastructure; the City is going to have to fit every project into the envelope of mitigations and impacts discussed in the EIR; the City will build the backbone infrastructure and each developer, whether the project is a 20 acre housing pad or a 20 acre office park, would be required to build infrastructure on the project site; significant parts of the entire infrastructure costs would be offloaded, which means the City will receive less revenue on the front end; a comprehensive answer cannot be given because he does not have deals. Councilmember Tam stated that she understands the concept of phasing and piecemeal projects; however, the pieces of the puzzle tie into the backbone infrastructure and have to be contiguous and whole. The City Manager stated the MIP addresses the matter; without redevelopment, the City cannot subsidize every transaction; although the types of projects were listed in a specific order, staff would address projects as they come available; the end of next year, the City will have a method, such as an infrastructure financing district or some other method to build the backbone infrastructure; there will be new housing and retail, and growth of existing businesses; every study shows that the best way to perform economic development is to grow existing successful businesses; many businesses have wanted to expand for years; the vision is multilateral; staff believes the City cannot j… | CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf,9 | CityCouncil | 2013-09-25 | 9 | and whether the City would lead with the Town Center: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative. Encouraged the City to think big; stated Alameda has the opportunity to become a destination; the City should not just settle for sales tax and should have a ground lease, which would help solve budget issues: Karen Bey, Alameda. Gave a brief presentation on history at Alameda Point; suggested Catalina Cove is the right name for the Town Center: Ethan Clifton, Alameda. Board Member Tang discussed use tax revenue; stated having businesses, especially high tech companies move in, is a good thing; discussed Assembly Bill 93 (AB93); encouraged making major efforts to attract tech companies. Councilmember Chen inquired whether the City could come up with some kind of a tax credit or tax incentive program in addition to the AB93; stated information on the matter has been forwarded to staff for review. The City Manager responded staff is reviewing the information and is very interested; stated staff is not eager to provide additional tax breaks; the City would be bringing in businesses to increase tax revenue; having the State realize the tax burden needs to be scaled back to draw people here is good; staff would be cautious about attracting businesses by providing extensive tax breaks because the City would not make money. Board Member Tang stated some cities are pretty aggressive in enticing high tech companies; Milpitas gave his company a five year plan and shared local taxes; the situation is win-win; short term incentives make the package more attractive to a company that wants to move to Alameda. The City Manager stated staff would not rule out the option, but wants to look very cautiously at any tax rebates; rebates would have to make economic sense for the City. Councilmember Chen stated the City is leaking in every retail category including an Asian market; suggested some sort of mall or marketplace for Asian-Americans at Alameda Point; stated the first three priorities are: major retail businesses, major job generati… | CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2013-09-25 | 10 | to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded for new construction. In response to Councilmember Chen's further inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated 1,425 includes existing units, such as the 200 supportive housing units; a settlement agreement requires the City to provide 25% affordable housing on all new housing; 25% of all new housing units have to be affordable, excluding the Collaborative units. Councilmember Chen inquired whether the 200 supportive housing units would remain affordable. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated the Collaborative wants to relocate and wants new facilities; staff believes there are mutual benefits; the Collaborative would have new facilities which would better meet their needs and the land could be used for market housing; the option is being explored. In response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry about prioritization, the City Manager stated the prioritization order does not mean that staff is not working on others items; the City will not have any trouble selling 1,435 units; most developers who have approached the City in the last two years are home builders; detailed zoning is being done for the Town Center; recruiting businesses is going to require more staff energy, attention and imagination; housing does not need to be prioritized to happen. Councilmember Chen inquired there pool of residential developers would be impacted by a high vacancy rate at the Town Center. The City Manager responded in the negative; stated when staff presents any project, even retail, the project will not have a parking lot with stores around the perimeter; another Alameda Landing will not be built and is not appropriate for the view; something which creates a sense of space and destination would be built; other opportunities, such as a campus or light industry, would be something the City could be proud of architecturally; something special will be done for the location. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she under… | CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf,11 | CityCouncil | 2013-09-25 | 11 | be done; the loss of redevelopment dollars has been lamented; the City's bond rating has been upgraded; figuring out how to pay for the things the City needs and wants without always relying on going into debt has been a good thing; every possible source should be tapped before falling back on the easy way out; staff did a good job of bringing the issues forward; the staff report indicates flexibility must be built into the strategy to adapt to changing market conditions, which is counter to the sequential order; the project is going to take place over 15 to 30 years and will see a lot of different economic cycles; flexibility should be kept in mind; the report states developing a greater diversity of land uses and housing types concurrently may allow units to absorb faster, which would result in more revenue sooner to offset expensive infrastructure costs up front; the City wants to proceed cautiously; however, multiple, different types of development can be entertained simultaneously and would benefit the City. *** Councilmember Daysog left the dais at 9:54 p.m. and returned at 9:56 p.m. Board Member Knox White acknowledged Planning staff's incredible effort; thanked Councilmember Tam, with support from others, for requesting a disposition strategy; stated the disposition strategy is a Council decision which impacts zoning and other Planning Board recommendations; a key question is what is the goal of the strategy, which he thinks should be to: guide efforts, protect finances, protect the City from liability issues, ensure the core vision, which includes a vibrant town center, being fiscally neutrality and generating revenue; that he believes the strategy is too broad; gave a Power Point outlining his suggestions. Mayor Gilmore stated when the City went through the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) process, LBNL had concerns about whether staff would be able to take care of personal matters on the lunch hour or before or after work; the Town Center has to go forward at the same time as a component pa… | CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf,12 | CityCouncil | 2013-09-25 | 12 | whether leasing or purchasing the land; the work being done now on the EIR and zoning will make the property more valuable when the City goes to market; time and entitlement risk will be off of the table; doing the EIR and zoning first was part of the City's strategy; most cities have raw land and do an RFP to figure out what to build, which is a beauty pageant; then developers sharpen their pencils to provide real numbers and cities are stuck because the community feels things were promised in the RFP process; the City is not being vague and is clear about the general uses; staff wanted to present a modest approach which recognizes the City cannot predict where markets will be in 15 or even 10 years; the document creates many different envelopes and scopes to allow the City to respond to market signals and proceed with projects which will financially benefit Alameda. President Burton stated one concern is how infrastructure will reach sites; the City Manager has indicated the City will finance and install trunk lines and developers will pay for individual super pad infrastructure; inquired whether a mechanism would require developers to contribute a fair share of trunk lines costs so that the City could recoup at least some of the costs. The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the mechanism will happen in many different ways, such as through lease payments or land sale costs; businesses will have to pay for backbone infrastructure maintenance going forward; the State does not currently have Infrastructure Financing Districts (IFDs); community benefit districts options were discussed in the MIP; the Governor vetoed IFDs for this year; however, the Governor is likely to sign something next year; Alameda and Concord attempted to get some type of financial mechanism together to deal with the infrastructure at both bases; staff is reaching out to other cities with similar issues and is hopeful some financing mechanism will be approved next year. Mayor Gilmore inquired whether staff is analyzing how much… | CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf,13 | CityCouncil | 2013-09-25 | 13 | the document gives staff leverage to have projects in the pipeline while saying the City needs to focus on retail and job creation; reviewed Oakland housing projects examples for context; stated parts of the Alameda Point project, such as the Town Center, will not take 30 years; 1,400 housing units could enter the pipe within 15 years; housing will have to occur close [in time] to retail or enterprise area development because the City will need some kind of bonding to pay for infrastructure; Phase I infrastructure will cost around $190 million, which says something about the density of land uses; the strategy staff put together will help the City achieve the vision; for housing density, emphasis should be on multifamily, which would draw younger adults with spending habits which differ from families or someone in their late 40s or 50s without discretionary income; the Town Center should have higher density to bring a demographic that would lend itself to a funky, eclectic environment. *** Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft left the dais at 10:28 p.m. and returned at 10:32 p.m. and Member Tang left the dais at 10:33 p.m. and returned at 10:35 p.m. * Councilmember Tam stated that she appreciates having a joint meeting with the Planning Board; the discussion has been thoughtful; further stated the multi-prong approach staff is recommending dovetails with Board Member Knox White's guiding principle strategy on priority areas; areas present opportunities to review land banking; as the City Manager mentioned, the City will have no trouble getting single family home developers, which might be an area that should pay for itself and be land banked while focusing on multifamily housing and the Town Center; the criteria should help staff make decisions as inquiries are received from developers; discussed subsidies and the of the Stargell Avenue project example; stated the disposition strategy should be melded with Board Member Knox White's comments. In response to Mayor Gilmore's request for clarification, Councilmember Tam stated th… | CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf,14 | CityCouncil | 2013-09-25 | 14 | been discussion since starting the EIR and zoning; no one has a crystal ball to know what opportunities are going to be presented; discussions should set the outer limit of the envelope; different things can fit within the envelope; staff would present proposal to Council, which best fit the City's priorities, visions, and needs. In response to Councilmember Tam inquiry regarding where projects would go, the City Manager stated the City is either going to have flexibility or not have flexibility; zoning determines what goes where; general areas are known; every project will go to the Planning Board and City Council; that he does not understand what the intermediate criteria could be which would not be covered by zoning and yet would be flexible and not prescriptive or predictive; staff will not bring anything that does not meet zoning and the EIR. Councilmember Tam stated the zoning and EIR are flexible, which is different than the priority areas. The City Manager stated the zoning and EIR are not totally flexible. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the zoning would be form based; stated there are certain categories, such as the maritime zone; the form based code outlines the types of uses which would be appropriate for an area; painting should be with a broad brush to allow for an opportunity that is not on the criteria list. The City Manager responded form based zoning would be done for the Town Center; stated there needs to be a sense of place; something progressive would be done at the Town Center; staff knows a building cannot be more than 10 stories unless it is a signature building; questioned what the intermediate step would be; stated Board Member Knox White and Councilmember Tam want a sieve which would indicate whether staff should bring projects to a specific area; that he does not understand the intermediate step because the zoning is not meaningless; the Planning Board has done a lot of work; saying anything can go anywhere does not conform with the maps and strategy put forward; no one can p… | CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf,15 | CityCouncil | 2013-09-25 | 15 | The City Manager stated Board Member Knox White is proposing to form base zone the entire Base before doing anything. President Burton stated that is what is being done. The City Planner stated the zoning for the entire Base has elements of form based code; the zoning is going to articulate how buildings should look and feel and address the form, not just use, such as retail versus housing; the Town Center grant is going to take the form based zoning to a much higher level; SOM was hired; the Town Center has to be designed just right; the City might want to be a little more nimble for other business areas which are a little bit harder to predict; the form based aspect has been toned down for the enterprise district. President Burton review the idea of form based code and provided an example. The City Planner stated any proposal staff brings would have to pass the first filter of being consistent with the General Plan, zoning and other adopted plans; Board Member Knox White is raising other questions the property owner has to consider, such as whether the project works with the infrastructure and fiscal neutrality policy. Member Alvarez-Moronni stated Board Member Knox White has shown an overlay; however, the City is not at said point yet; the process is going to be organic and is probably going to happen a lot faster when the EIR is approved; the Planning Board subcommittee is discussing the SOM idea; the next step being proposed is much more specific and the City is not there yet; the City is still working through the EIR, zoning, and what the form based areas are going to be; a template is already there; Board Member Knox White is imposing another layer, which is a little more confusing because developers are unknown; at some time, there has to be a specific conversation about finance; right now, the City is still at the draft EIR point. Councilmember Tam inquired whether being at said point would preclude the City from having a strategy. Member Alvarez-Moronni responded there is a strategy. The City Manager st… | CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf,16 | CityCouncil | 2013-09-25 | 16 | may change; predictions do not work. Member Koester left the dais at 10:55 p.m. and returned at 10:57 p.m. (13-426) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of continuing past 11:00 p.m. Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 11. Absent: Member Koster - 1. * Mayor Gilmore stated there seems to be consensus that the priority zones are the Town Center and enterprise area; the City hired a consultant and the Planning Board has worked really hard to figure out what the Town Center will look like; the form based code gets down to the nitty-gritty of what actual buildings will look like and what uses are going be; that she has trouble with form based code for the rest of the Base and having some sort of mechanism to filter potential uses. Member Knox White stated the term criteria is the issue; criteria would not determine whether or not something should be brought forward, but would be used to evaluate information; the Council would determine what information will help with making decisions; the evaluation is not yes or no and simply provides financial and traffic impacts and how projects interact with other land use; the criteria could be a one page sheet with information which would go to the Planning Board and Council; nobody knows what the use will be within the zoning and EIR; the analysis will provide information which can be used to say a project that might generate a lot of traffic is important and should be done; the decision would be made in a mindful way; the City should identify important issues ahead of time, such as finance and traffic, and know what information will be evaluated; the criteria would prohibit a project that does not get four As from coming forward. Mayor Gilmore inquired how the suggestion is different than a regular staff report. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated too much specificity is not a good thing in some cases; each project is going to be unique; staff reports tend to be very thorough; the wheel does not need to be reinvented; the City Manager'… | CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf,17 | CityCouncil | 2013-09-25 | 17 | Councilmember Tam stated the Mayor's statements are consistent with what she and Board Member Knox White are thinking about when discussing broad categories, priority areas, opportunity areas, and land banking; interrelationships should be thought about strategically; the City does not want a hodgepodge; the Town Center having housing above retail has implications for other areas. Mayor Gilmore stated that she does not understand the mechanism being proposed; inquired how the mechanism differs from a staff report. Member Knox White responded the criteria would be a tool for the staff report; suggested the Council have a conversation at another time about, for example, how a project impacts surrounding areas; perhaps a decision will be made that said criteria is bad; no matter what is built, fiscal neutrality is going to be something the Council will care about; fiscal neutrality should be defined so everybody is clear; the same is true for transportation; that he is talking about universal things, not things that are possibly going to change as development proceeds; having a discussion about the core criteria would benefit the Council and community; discussions sometimes get lost in talking about how special a project is; being mindful about the core things the City wants would be good. *** Councilmember Tam left the dais at 11:04 p.m. and returned at 11:07 p.m. Board Member Zuppan stated one challenge is that strategies differ based on financing; the first car over the bridge might have to pay for a big portion of the bridge; the first thing that goes in at Alameda Point might have a number of challenges; LBNL wanted other infrastructure pieces when it was considering Alameda Point; businesses want places for employees to go; the EIR transportation solution includes attracting businesses and housing at the same time; a catalyst is really key and has to solve transportation, financial, infrastructure and amenity issues; amenities and housing are the easiest pieces; figuring out how to solve transportation issues … | CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2013-09-25 | 18 | the Main Street neighborhood should be land banked until the City exceeds the 1,400 limit; that he has been thinking about the same priority zones as Board Member Knox White; the enterprise zone is blank land which is relatively attractive; the historic district buildings are beautiful, but will be really tough; Council should weigh in on such matters. Mayor Gilmore stated that she thought she heard consensus among her colleagues about the priority zone being the Town Center and enterprise zone, which are probably going to go together organically; housing is a little bit tougher; she understands the theoretical desire to put all of the housing in the Town Center phase and have 1,200 multifamily units because it would help transit; however, she does not know whether building 900 instead of 1,200 housing units would be significant for retail or transit; the number of Bayport housing units did not do anything for transit; that she would like to have the flexibility before facing a unit penalty because a decision might be made to build single family houses if somebody is going to pay a lot for the land; reaching a deal with the Navy took 17 years; she is hesitant to put all the housing leggs in one basket; going to the Navy in five years to say the deal struck no longer works for the City could be a momentum killer. President Burton stated one reason transit might not have worked at Bayport is because single family, rather than multifamily, housing was built; multifamily housing is more supportive of transit; the 1,425 limit could be reached quickly whether housing units are built at the Town Center or some are reserved for the Main Street neighborhood; the City could end up holding a conversation with the Navy quickly. Councilmember Chen stated building Bayport, which is only 500 homes, took at least five or six years; realistically, building 1,425 units could take decades; that he really likes the approach that staff will not just concentrate on the business aspect and will develop some housing, especially using th… | CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE "pages" ( [body] TEXT, [date] TEXT, [page] INTEGER, [text] TEXT, [path] TEXT, PRIMARY KEY ([path], [page]) );