Title
Draft Meeting Minutes-February 27, 2017
Body
DRAFT MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2017
1. CONVENE
President Köster convened the meeting at 7:01pm
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Zuppan led the flag salute.
President Köster asked the board to observe a moment of silence in remembrance of Solana Henneberry.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: President Köster, Board Members Burton, Curtis, Knox White, Sullivan, Zuppan. Board Member Mitchell arrived at 7:14pm.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
Staff Member Thomas asked that item 6-B be pulled from consent and continued for two weeks.
Board Member Zuppan made a motion remove item 6-B from the Consent Calendar and continue it for two weeks. Board Member Burton seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Board Member Zuppan made a motion to approved the balance of the Consent Calendar, items 6-A and 6-C. Board Member Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Nancy Hird asked the board to initiate the process to include many of the buildings at Alameda Marina on the historic preservation list. She said they were left off the list originally because of a clerical error.
Woody Minor said he led the process in the late 1970s to establish the study list. He said the buildings at Alameda Marina have great historical significance to Alameda’s ship building past. He asked the city to use peer review on the historic study analysis for Alameda Marina.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
6-A 2017-3952
A Public Hearing to Consider: PLN16-0592 - 1310 Court Street - Applicant: Michael and Jen McAnaney. The applicant request Planning Board approval for a Design Review and Variance to waive parking requirements for the conversion of an existing basement to create more than 750 square feet of new floor area in a single family home.
6-B 2017-3953
PLN17-0536 - 1435 Webster Street - Applicant: Dannan Development. Public Hearing to consider a modification to a condition of approval for Construction of a Three-Story Mixed-Use Development including Nine Residential Units and Ground Floor Retail at 1435 Webster Street (APN74-427-5-1). The project is categorically exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations.
6-C 2017-3954
Annual Review: Del Monte Development Agreement - Applicant: TL Partners I, LP. The applicant requests a periodic review of a Development Agreement related to the Del Monte Warehouse Master Plan. (Item continued to the March 13, 2017 meeting)
***see motions under section “4.” above.***
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2017-3950
Planning Board Study Session: Conceptual Revised Land Use Program for Alameda Landing Waterfront. Study sessions are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Andrew Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found at:<https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2962412&GUID=26806879-7980-4AA4-87A9-A22C6F5BD036&FullText=1>
Sean Whiskeman, Catellus, gave a presentation on their proposal for the change in use for the waterfront portion of Alameda Landing.
Board Member Sullivan asked if they had spoken with any other large maritime businesses on the island and asked how many square feet for maritime would remain in their plan.
Mr. Whiskeman said they have spoken with Starlight Marine and hope to keep them on the site. He said they need about 5000-7500 square feet of office and machine shop and then dock space. He said they have spoken with many companies, including Bay Ship, over the years.
Board Member Sullivan asked if there was a market study to determine how much maritime commercial could work at the site.
Mr. Whiskeman said they have spent a lot of time and money pursuing commercial opportunities for the site and spoken with commercial real estate brokers about the market demand. He said there is not any commercial demand for the site that could pay for the infrastructure upgrades that are needed.
Board Member Burton asked for clarification about what exactly is being asked for by the developer with respect to the development agreement and environmental impact report.
Staff Member Thomas said the city needs to decide whether the project will require a supplemental EIR and master plan amendment. He said the board could also decide if the proposal is consistent with the previous master plan. He said staff has decided that the project will require a disposition and development agreement amendment approved by City Council. He said the number of outbound morning trips as compared to the 2006 plan would be a major factor in decided what actions and approvals would be required.
Mr. Whiskeman said their master plan anticipated changes in use as long as they stay within their predicted number of trips. He said they have designed the project to do just that.
Board Member Burton asked for clarification about the nine units of affordable housing from the current phase of Alameda Landing that would be applied to the requirements for the final phase.
Mr. Whiskeman said they made a deal with the city to build Stargell Commons nine units larger than required that would be applied towards the waterfront plan.
Board Member Burton asked where that agreement is codified.
Staff Member Thomas said he did not know.
Board Member Burton asked whether the water shuttle would be guaranteed in the plan or just aspirational.
Mr. Whiskeman said they would build an ADA compliant dock at a cost of about $2.5 Million. He said they would also finance the boat cost and that TDM revenues would fund operation.
Board Member Burton asked what additional access to the waterfront would be available to maritime users, or if the plan is to seek users (e.g.-sailmakers) that do not require water access.
Mr. Whiskeman said they would get through that during the design review process. He said they envision the users having access to the water.
Board Member Burton asked what the sea level rise requirements are for the site.
Bill Kennedy, Catellus VP of construction, said they have to plan for 36 inches of sea level rise, and another 30 inches for adaptive measures. He said they will use a series of measures, including stepping the plan up as you get into the park.
Board Member Burton asked if the upcoming Universal Design ordinance would apply to this project.
Staff Member Thomas said they would like to meet those requirements as much as possible. He said that if the project needed a disposition and development agreement, then everything is on the table. He said the townhomes will be the hard part to meet the impact requirements.
President Köster asked if all the TDM dollars would go towards the ferry, or a mix of ferry and shuttle.
Mr. Whiskeman said the shuttle is the only thing in operation right now. He said the additional revenue from the waterfront portion would largely go towards the water taxi. He said they are close to completing a larger, citywide TMA.
Board Member Mitchell asked if they have an environmental sustainability plan.
Mr. Whiskeman said they would be meeting all California green building standards and water board standards. He said they are not at the point yet where a lot of those decisions have been made.
Board Member Mitchell asked what the for sale versus for rent mix would be.
Mr. Whiskeman said they are leaning more towards for sale product.
Board Member Mitchell asked if rentals would result in fewer parcels being charged for the recent school bond.
Staff Member Thomas said that it depends on how they divide up the project.
Board Member Mitchell asked what building heights would be envisioned for the site.
Mr. Whiskeman said the hotel would likely be 4-5 stories and the tallest on the site. He said the soil conditions make building higher very expensive.
President Köster asked if the soil mound on the site would be moved.
Mr. Whiskeman said that it is not a permanent feature and much of it would be used for the waterfront phase. He said they strongly believe that they do not need an amendment to their EIR.
Staff Member Thomas said “we will debate it.”
Board Member Zuppan asked if the Clif Bar discussions happened before or after the 2006 plan was approved.
Staff Member Thomas said it came after. He said all of their waterfront sites have “edge issues.”
Board Member Zuppan said she did not see the goals and objectives in the 2006 Master Plan in the staff report.
Staff Member Thomas said the long process back then led them to build in some flexibility for the planning board to make changes to the plan. He said it required that the changes would not cause any new environmental impacts and meet other objectives.
Board Member Zuppan asked for data on how much our commercial spaces generate revenue compared to residential.
Mr. Whiskeman said their program would generate five times the property taxes that the commercial plan would have.
Board Member Zuppan asked for and received confirmation that we have roughly 2,000 units approved and 2,000 units proposed right now.
Board Member Curtis asked if the 8 acre park and shoreline maintenance was already an obligation of the developer. He asked if they would go forward with the existing plan or walk away if the change was not approved
Mr. Whiskeman said the existing plan was not close to being economically viable and would not move forward.
Board Member Curtis said we have a jobs/housing imbalance in Alameda that is just as significant as the housing crisis.
Tom Marshall, Catellus, said we have to get passed the conversation about “not seeing this coming,” or if the plan was a “bait and switch.” He said they have spent about $200 Million to date on infrastructure. He said they have spent $18 Million on advanced costs to prepare for the waterfront phase. He said the situation with the wharf is a lot more expensive than previously thought. He said all the other uses are being subsidized by the housing.
President Köster opened the public hearing.
Doug Biggs, Executive Director of the Alameda Point Collaborative, said that the Alameda Landing project has been a big job generator for their residents. He said it has ended the food desert that they had before. He said the hotel jobs would be a great stepping stone for their residents. He said he strongly supports the plan.
Michael McDonough, Chamber of Commerce, said this project would bring jobs to the city. He said Catellus has been a good partner for the city. He said businesses say their employees can’t find housing. He said the hotel would generate lots of tax revenue for Alameda.
Angela Hockabout said the housing organizations she works with look forward to the affordable housing the project would provide. She said we need more housing and more co-working spaces. She said we need housing for all.
Rich Krinks said he would rather see more residences than offices at this site. He said there is 100,000 square feet of office space available in Marina Village. He said we still have a housing crunch. He said he would like to see the water shuttle come back.
Brent Aboudara, Alameda Landing resident, said construction activity is having a significant impact right now. He said a five story hotel would dwarf the existing buildings.
Diana Aiken said people are working from more home. She said she wants to be able to walk along the shoreline and have a drink at a restaurant. She said she looks forward to the water taxi as an option to get to Jack London Square.
Courtney Shepler said she lives at Alameda Landing and looks forward to something cool coming to the shoreline. She said half of her neighbors work from home. She said she supports the project. She said she would not support a business park along such an important waterfront.
Michael Cally said he moved to Alameda when he bought a home at Alameda Landing. He said he is excited to see the project move forward.
Mark Vis said he understands the concerns about traffic and maritime commercial. He said a business park would create a dead zone. He said a mixed use project would activate the space.
Philip James said he was thrilled to see so much participation from the community. He said the project provides a chance to provide benefits to two cities at the same time. He said he loves the idea of watching the lighted yacht parade from the waterfront site.
Denyse Trepanier said she supports the proposal because we need the housing. She said she wants the project to provide room for a bicycle and pedestrian bridge. She said City Council supports studying a bridge and that we need to incorporate the bridge into the long term plans for the site.
Victoria Fierce said she supports the project and would love to see more housing here. She said it will open up homeownership opportunities. She said housing delayed is housing denied.
Brian McGuire said the number of jobs added if nothing happens is zero. He said adding more and more amenities and different tiers of affordable housing could lead to the project not penciling out and being back at square one. He said requiring less parking would lower the housing costs and reduce traffic generated by the project. He said Bike Walk Alameda supports preserving space for a bike and pedestrian bridge or third tube.
President Köster closed the public hearing.
Staff Member Thomas said there is 360,000 square feet of occupied space and those jobs would stay if no project moved forward.
Board Member Knox White said he hoped we would get a better understanding of what the liabilities would be fore the city if no project moves forward and the wharf is not repaired. He said we are not having the broader conversation about the amount of commercial space that is available for development in Alameda. He said he would be surprised if the City Council said they want to have mostly truck traffic on the site. He said he would like to see a more mixed use project. He said he would support higher building heights in order to achieve the goal of including more commercial. He said he would support a new plan, but is not sure this is it. He said this is one of the few places that could effectively serve as a transit connection to Oakland and we should think about preserving some space for that use.
Board Member Curtis said he would support something that did not have any impact. He said it is hard to understand how the project would not cause a lot of traffic.
Board Member Zuppan said she thinks we can put a significant amount of housing on this site. She said once the land is housing it is gone forever. She said this is one of a few places for working waterfront uses. She said we should consider going taller to preserve more space for commercial uses in the future. She said she would like to see more numbers to make a more informed decision.
Board Member Mitchell said he would like to see more of the land used for commercial but he does not want to jeopardize the project. He said he would like to see a robust affordable housing plan and sustainable building plans. He said he supported setting aside space for a pedestrian bridge and is excited about the possibility of a water taxi. He said we don’t need more waterfront office space. He said he doesn’t want to see the “everyone belongs here” motto only apply to those that can afford it. He said he would also support going taller to get more mixed use.
Board Member Burton said he would support more vertical mixed use and not just horizontal mixed use. He suggested small incubator office space might be a good option. He said he would support more multi family units instead of single family. He said he is supportive of building more residential on the site to meet the goals of the site.
Board Member Sullivan said we are not looking at the totality of what we are doing with our waterfront. She supports some mixed use of housing but wants to see some variety.
President Köster said he supports land banking a portion of the site for a bridge or tunnel footing. He said he likes the waterfront park but there needs to be more of an idea of how to connect the spaces. He said we need to activate that waterfront for all Alamedans and not just for the residents of the site.
8. MINUTES
*None*
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2017-3955
Zoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions
Staff Member Thomas said they approved several design reviews today.
9-B 2017-3957
Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development Department Projects
Staff Member Thomas listed items coming to future meetings.
President Köster asked what the progress was with the Big O site.
Staff Member Thomas said that two violation letters have been sent out.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
10-A 2017-3956
Letter from Association of Bay Area Governments - Plan Bay Area 2040
Staff Member Thomas said ABAG responded to his previous letter and acknowledged some mistakes in their draft plan.
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
11-A 2017-3948
Subcommittee for Alameda Marina
*Has not met*
11-B 2017-3949
Subcommittee with Commission on Disability Issues regarding Universal Design Ordinance
Staff Member Thomas said the universal design ordinance was waiting for him to make some minor changes and bringing back to the subcommittee one last time.
Board Member Knox White said he met with the owners of Big O, Alameda Preservation Society and Save our Working Waterfront. He said he was surprised that the Economic Development item went to City Council and did not include the board’s comments.
Staff Member Potter said the presentation on the Economic Development Plan strategies was intended as a check in and staff will be finalizing those strategies before going back to the advisory panel and Planning Board before City Council approval.
Board Member Knox White said that Planning Board is charged with making policy recommendations to City Council and they should know what the Planning Board said about the plan.
Staff Member Potter said they will continue to refine the plan and see Planning Board’s input before going to City Council for approval.
Board Member Mitchell said he also met with Big O Tires.
Board Member Zuppan said she met with Big O, and Catellus.
Board Member Curtis said he also met with Big O.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Köster adjourned the meeting at 10:18pm.