Title
Draft Meeting Minutes - January 13, 2014
Body
DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 2014
1. CONVENE: 7:02 p.m.
2. FLAG SALUTE: Board member Alvarez-Morroni led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL: President Burton, Vice President Henneberry, Board Members Knox White, Alvarez-Morroni, Köster and Zuppan. Absent: Board member Tang.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Speakers :
Mr. David Maxey said that there need to be more entrances into Alameda. He suggested that a tube could be extended from Main Street into the City of Oakland.
Ms. Eugenie Thompson addressed the Board for help with a public records request made to the clerk's office. She said she is interested in the traffic counts and analysis of traffic from the draft EIR.
Mr. Andrew Thomas, City Planner, stated he will gladly get Ms. Thompson in touch with the City's traffic consultant.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: None
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7.A. Review and Approve Proposed Cross-Walk at Stargell Avenue and Webster Street. The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA guidelines 15332 In-fill Development Projects.
Mr. Andrew Thomas, City Planner, provided an update and briefing on the cross-walk.
Board Member Comments:
Board member Knox White said he appreciated the work of staff and the developers.
President Burton understood that the original design was too costly, but is happy with this alternative.
Board member Knox White motioned to approve the resolution.
Vice President Henneberry seconded the motion.
The motion carried, 6-0.
7.B. Alameda Point Draft General Plan Amendment, Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Draft Master Infrastructure Plan, and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) - Approve draft resolutions recommending City Council certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #2013012043) and approval of amendments to the City of Alameda General Plan and Alameda Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance), and a Master Infrastructure Plan for the reuse and development of Alameda Point (AP).
Mr. Thomas gave a presentation.
Board member Zuppan asked if there will be impact regarding the public records request from Ms. Thompson.
Mr. Thomas stated that all the information she requested will be available to her tomorrow.
Board member Alvarez-Morroni commended staff on the work, and said she sees the transportation piece being the largest part of the EIR. It would have been nice to have a TDM document to connect with the EIR for public review.
Board member Köster asked how the City partnered with the City of Oakland on transportation issues.
Mr. Thomas said that they have produced multiple reports for alternatives within Oakland and Chinatown, which were produced in cooperation with the Regional Transportation Authority. All of the proposed solutions were rejected by Oakland. The City will continue to work with the County and Oakland to find solutions to congestion problems. He also said that Oakland and Chinatown do not want a new tunnel from Alameda.
President Burton asked about the letter from Alameda Point Collaborative regarding supportive housing.
Ms. Jennifer Ott, Chief Operating Officer of Alameda Point, provided detail on the supportive housing and job creation numbers for the agreement with Alameda Point Collaborative.
The Board opened public comment
Mr. Brian Schumacher, engineer, thanked the Board for their time spent on the project. He warned that if the Board adopted these current plans, it would be a great disservice to the public.
Ms. Becca Homa, representing AC Transit, thanked the Board for being able to provide support for the Master Infrastructure Plan. She said that AC Transit is pleased with the plan making Alameda Point a transit-oriented community. She recommended a pass for Alameda Point residents. She said the agency is in favor of transit only lanes on Atlantic Avenue.
Mr. Dennis Carroll, neighbor, said he appreciated the bluntness of staff regarding an additional tube or bridges into Oakland. The tubes connecting Oakland and Alameda are a patchwork that need updating. The interest of West End residents need to be considered in any development of Alameda Point. He urged rejection of the EIR.
Mr. Dick Rutter, representing Alameda Architectural Protection Society, which submitted written comment to the Board, stated that the turning basin in Oakland are not deep enough for heavy ships, and in turn, would impact a new tube. The housing in the 1800s and 1900s have needed to add new garages. Now, each adult resident has to have a car. Until transportation and job transit habits change, the lack of parking will be an issue. He said his group would like to see boundary lines set on zoning maps and other design guidelines in the plans.
Mr. John Thompson said he was disappointed regarding the transportation issues and suggested a delay of the approval of the EIR. He said that the housing development at Alameda Point arrives before stable jobs do, and worries about the reliability of the current tubes in an emergency.
Ms. Eugenie Thompson said that she has many questions about traffic and quality of life that have not been addressed. She again stated her public records request for records have not been addressed. There is something wrong with the peak analysis in the document about the traffic situation in Oakland. There are major issues about traffic congestion in East Alameda as well. There is a mitigation in Oakland that has not been considered, the reconstruction of the High Street off ramp.
Mr. Larry Tong, with the East Bay Regional Parks District, said he is excited about the redevelopment of the Point and encouraged Alameda to consider an investment in the East Bay Regional Parks District in order to develop a regional park at the Point.
Ms. Helen Sause agreed with the speakers who talked on transportation needs. She praised staff's work on the issue. She said she felt rushed to review the complex documents and having to comment. There isn't a clear answer on why there is a rush to complete these documents. She commented on alternatives to the plan and how the issues of employment at the Point are being handled. She asked the Board to take more time to review these documents.
Mr. Doug Biggs, Executive Director of the Alameda Point Collaborative, stated that his organization has been involved in the redevelopment process for over 13 years. He thanked staff for incorporating the public's concerns into the EIR. He urged approval of the documents in order to increase economic vitality in the area.
Mr. Red Wetherall, neighbor, said he submitted a letter during the public comment time and that none of his questions were addressed. He asked the Board to reject the EIR.
Mr. Bill Smith, of Renewed Hope, stated that his organization is excited to see the development of Alameda Point move forward. He comment that transportation and housing are both major isssues and will be tied together going forward. He stated that the Navy's housing limit should be reexamined. He commented on the multi-family housing restrictions, and called for Alameda Point to be exempt from the ban on multi-family housing in the City. He stated that the 25% of the housing will be affordable.
Ms. Karen Bey, neighbor, thanked everyone who helped, and said that more innovative thinking will be needed to solve these issues. She called for finding creative solutions for the transportation issues at Alameda Point, and commented on a private ferry service as being an idea to help with traffic issues. She said that entire region is evolving and changing.
The Board closed public comment.
Board Comments:
Board member Köster said he was excited about what is going to happen at the Point. There are companies that are revitalizing transit. He would like to see studies on alternative modes of transportation into and out of Alameda, and he would like to see the City continue to work with the City of Oakland.
Board member Knox White asked staff about the graphs submitted by Ms. Thompson and her statement claiming that the Alameda Point EIR stated that the development at Alameda Point would only generate one trip.
Mr. Thomas explained that the Alameda Point EIR used the best available traffic modeling technology and tools to predict traffic impacts from Alameda Point. He explained that the traffic computer model predicts traffic congestion not just from the project but it also takes account of all of the traffic that will be on the roadway and freeway systems that is generated by all of the other developments planned in Alameda, Oakland and the larger region. It is a regional traffic model used by all the cities in the region and maintained by the Regional Transportation Agencies. The traffic model and the Alameda Point EIR found that:
· The capacity of the Webster and Posey Tubes is fixed and limited.
· Traffic from local and regional growth exceeds the capacity of the tubes.
· There is no more room for additional traffic from Alameda Point in the tubes, and there will be significant and unavoidable transportation impacts as the result of local, regional and Alameda Point specific development.
· The addition of a significant number of jobs at Alameda Point will reduce traffic impacts if more Alameda residents are able to work at Alameda Point instead of driving off-island for their employment.
Ms. Alice Chen, Traffic Consultant with Kittelson, said that the current model are the best tools available for transportation projection.
Board member Knox White commented on the word, "speculative," with relation to the statement of overriding considerations. He asked about alternatives to building infrastructure around a smaller housing footprint. He would like his comments to be included in all tables. He asked about various mitigation issues which he submitted in writing to staff.
Board member Alvarez-Morroni commented that the EIR has taken all factors into consideration. This process, however, should move forward, noting that this meeting is not the end of the road with Alameda Point.
Board Member Zuppan said she agreed with all the comments with the other Board members.
Board member Zuppan commented that a TDM Plan for the site is needed. Transportation issues affect all of Alameda. She stated she was supportive of the EIR moving forward, with the emphasis that the TDM Plan is essential. She suggested a second set of financial documents for preserving historical infrastructure at the Point. If the City cannot afford true preservation, there need to be plans for meaningful preservation of the building.
Vice President Henneberry commented on being in favor of the EIR moving forward. He acknowledged that traffic issues in Alameda were a concern. He said he wants to get cars to their destination faster, but not at the expense of public safety.
President Burton asked about guidelines for a new infill development.
Mr. Thomas stated there is no schedule yet, but there will be guidelines for the Town Center area, and Ms. Ott added that the Town Center area will also have guidelines for infill construction within the district.
Board member Alvarez-Morroni motioned to approve the resolution recommending the final EIR to City Council. Vice President Henneberry seconded the motion.
The motion carried, 6-0.
Mr. Thomas briefed the Board on the Zoning Ordinance amendment.
Board member Zuppan asked about the 100' shoreline band around the area and impact of residential in the Main Street area. She said she has some concerns with the transition between commercial and housing in that area.
Mr. Thomas explained the logic behind the design of the transitional area. He acknowledged that the transition to Alameda Point needs to be done intentionally and carefully.
Board member Köster commented on the proposed maximum setbacks from Alameda Point Collaborative, and said it would be interesting to see a model for the building heights and setbacks with existing structures across Alameda Point.
Board member Knox White suggested letting the public know of the current document. He said he had concern about the lack of public comment, especially from homeowners living near the area.
President Burton commented on the different building types in Alameda Point and the need to know where those are referenced in the City Design Guidelines.
Board member Köster motioned to approve the draft Zoning Ordinance amendments. Board member Alvarez-Morroni seconded the motion.
The motion carried, 6-0.
Ms. Ott Introduced the Master Infrastructure Plan.
Vice President Henneberry, Board Member Zuppan Board member Alvarez-Morroni all praised the work on the Master Infrastructure Plan.
Board member Knox White commented on changing the language in clause about sea level rise to include more detail about all potential costs, and to include the entire island, so that the mitigation clause covers all of Alameda.
Ms. Ott reported about all potential costs in the infrastructure plan is for the 24 inch solution at Board and City Council request. She said they had community meetings to address the concerns about seas level rise and said that these meetings were well attended.
Board member Köster asked if the City would follow LEED-certification equivalence throughout the development of Alameda Point. Ms. Ott replied affirmatively.
Board member Zuppan motioned to approve the draft Master Infrastructure Plan.
Vice President Henneberry seconded the motion.
The motion carried, 5-0-1 (Knox White abstained)
Board member Alvarez-Morroni motioned to approve the draft resolution recommending that the City Council amend to the General Plan. Board member Köster seconded the motion.
The motion carried, 6-0.
8. MINUTES: None
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
9.A. Future Agendas - Mr. Thomas informed the board of various upcoming projects and agenda items.
9.B. Staff Communications - Zoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions - Mr. Thomas stated there were two Design Review approvals. He reported on an upcoming planning workshop in San Francisco.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
11.A. Report from Alameda Point Town Center Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee - None
11.B. Report from Alameda Point Zoning Ad-Hoc Sub Committee- President Burton stated this subcommittee's work has been completed and this group will no longer be meeting.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
13. ADJOURNMENT: President Burton adjourned the meeting at 10:54 p.m.