Title
Draft Meeting Minutes - July 25, 2022
Body
DRAFT MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, JULY 25, 2022
1. CONVENE
Vice President Teresa Ruiz convened the *meeting at 7:00 p.m. She also welcomed new Board Member Diana Ariza.
Board Member Diana Ariza introduced herself.
*Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, codified at Government Code Section 54953, Planning Board members can attend the meeting via teleconference.
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Ron Curtis led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Vice President Ruiz, and Board Members Hom, Curtis and Ariza.
Absent: President Saheba and Board members Teague and Cisneros.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
Allen Tai, City Planner, said since there was not a full board present they would delay Agenda Item 7-B Board Elections.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2022-2245
Alameda Point Site A Development Plan Amendment and Development Agreement Amendment (PLN22-0172) - Applicant: City of Alameda and Alameda Point Partners. Public Hearing to consider a Development Plan amendment and Development Agreement amendment to increase housing capacity at Alameda Point Site A to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. General Plan Designation: Mixed-Use. Zoning: AP-WTC, Alameda Point Waterfront Town Center Sub-district. CEQA Determination: Use of Alameda Point Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), State Clearinghouse No. 201312043, and Alameda General Plan 2040 FEIR, State Clearinghouse No. 2021030563. No further environmental review is required.
Staff Member Tai introduced this item and gave a brief presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
<https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5729459&GUID=5F880BAD-910F-4C9C-89B0-B3027C5FEB02&FullText=1>
Stephanie Hill with Alameda Point Partner and Jessica Murphy with Cypress Equity Investments also presented.
Vice President Ruiz opened board clarifying questions.
Board Member Curtis wanted to know if there was a tentative map to the West Midway Project. He was concerned about infrastructure and utilities.
Staff Member Tai answered there was no map but discussed what the Development Agreement stated about infrastructure requirements.
Board Member Curtis asked about adding requirements to the Development Agreement.
Staff Member Tai discussed what mechanisms were in place in ensure the developer took care of the infrastructure.
Speaker Hill added information on their schedule of performance, what was expected and how they were working with other city departments. The city had access to this schedule and would be aware if they were behind. All of the designs were connected and collaborated so that sewers and water lines would line up. Also road alignments would line up between the two developments. They were working closely with Planning and Public Works.
Board Member Hanson Hom wanted to know where the 600 units would go exactly, how much of a reduction in commercial space would there be and how would the public access the open space.
Speaker Hill used the site map to show where the units would go and which phases they would happen in. She also discussed the changes in commercial space and what had been reduced.
Staff Member Tai brought up past develop agreements to show where the land and the space would come from. He showed where the commercial space was and what was planned in future phases. He also discussed pedestrian access and that they would address public access when they addressed the Site Development plan.
Board Member Ariza asked about the changing in zoning for this site and wanted to know when that would take effect.
Staff Member Tai explained California Law and the benefits for a developer of locking in the rules and regulations of the time of the approval. The amendment is clarifying that the zoning regulations would be the ones from today.
Vice President Ruiz wanted to know what “up to” (square feet) entailed for developers in the resolution, it pertained to the square feet for retail and open space. She wanted the wording clarified. She then asked if Block 10 would come back for Design Review.
Staff Member Tai answered that he would look at the wording of the resolution and yes, Block 10 would come back for Design Review.
Vice President Ruiz opened Public Comment.
Karen Bey discussed that the retail at Site A was an important component and community benefit. She saw this as a great opportunity to create a great Waterfront Retail experience and gave suggestions on how to really push the retail in this project. She wanted the retail square footage to be memorialized in the development agreement, especially since they were losing a large amount of space.
Vice President Ruiz closed public comments and opened board discussion.
Board Member Hom discussed the points raised by Speaker Bey. He agreed there should be something in the development agreement about the differentiation of the land use.
Board Member Curtis thanked Speaker Bey for her comments. He concurred with Board Member Hom that they should be more specific with the space and it would help with confusion going forward.
Vice President Ruiz understood the need to increase housing and the need to not over strict developers. She felt however that there needed to be more accountability in the developer agreement and what each parcel was obligated to provide. She was concerned about job/housing balance and in this proposal commercial spaces were much diminished. She wanted to see a condition to have staff and the developer to work on each categories that would give some flexibility.
Staff Member Tai discussed the resolution and what it allowed and what “up to” entailed. He then emphasized that the Housing Element needed these units to achieve the housing goals.
Vice President Ruiz gave a suggestion of changing the wording from “up to” to “approximately”. She was more comfortable with that wording.
Board Member Curtis concurred with Vice President Ruiz.
Staff Member Tai added that capacity was also a reason for the current wording. He then pointed out the Land Use Diagram to address Board Member Hom’s concerns.
Speaker Hill discussed the square footage of ground space retail for each phase.
Board Member Ariza agreed there needed to be clarity in the developer agreement. She gave the suggestion of adding “not less than” to the “up to” to create a minimum.
Staff Member Tai took a look at the numbers and gave options to the board and what direction would be beneficial for the applicant and staff.
Vice President Ruiz was concerned that the numbers didn’t match and the board had to manually calculate the numbers for the proposed commercial space to figure out what they were approving. She was unsure of what they were approving.
Board Member Curtis agreed that the number for commercial space should be clearly stated in the agreement and not get changed. For this amendment he wanted the residential and commercial numbers to be clearly stated.
Board Member Hom concurred with his fellow board members. He recommended to have this amendment come back with the information updated and clear.
Board Member Hom made a motion to continue this item and to provide further information on commercial and residential space. Board Member Curtis seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0.
Speaker Hill was concerned that this wouldn’t ne able to go City Council on time in order to make their deadlines.
Board Member Curtis wanted to know if they could make a decision via email.
Celena Chen, Staff Counsel, said that email wasn’t an option. She also discussed what the options were.
Board Member Curtis gave suggestion on wording of the amendment.
Speaker Murphy provided numbers on square footage of retail for each phase.
Staff Member Tai said they could approve tonight and make a condition about the numbers.
Board Member Hom made a motion to reconsider the first motion and Board Member Curtis seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0.
Board Member Hom made a motion to approve the amendment to the Development Agreement and approve the resolution for the amendment with the condition that the Land Use Diagram was amended to reflect the retail square footage as the applicant stated tonight. There would also be some wording about not dropping below a certain amount of retail space and they would follow the planning and zoning rules of the date that this was agreed on. Board Member Curtis seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0. A roll call vote was then taken on the recommendation to council for the approval of the DA amendment and that passed 4-0.
7-B 2022-2246
Board Elections
This item has been moved to the next meeting.
8. MINUTES
None.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2022-2196
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
Recent actions and decisions can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5729455&GUID=B754EA5A-B371-42BC-9097-3DDD96ACCA58&FullText=1.
9-B 2022-2197
Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation Department Projects
Staff Member Tai discussed what to expect for September, they anticipated comments back for the Housing Element. There were also non housing elements coming to the board.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
10-A 2022-2234
YIMBY Law Letter to California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) July 8, 2022
Letter can be found at:
<https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5729457&GUID=9BFD3515-693D-49DF-A41D-F514E30EE5D7>.
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board Member Hom discussed the APA State Conference. He discussed which talks would be the most beneficial to board members.
Vice President Ruiz discussed her frustration with applicants coming to the board with missing information. She wanted the board to have proper time to review and not be in the position of delaying a project.
Staff Member Tai agreed.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
13. ADJOURNMENT
Vice President Ruiz adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m.