Hello, good evening.

It is Monday, March 23rd, 2026.

And before we formally begin, listed with a Pledge of Allegiance, Vice President Adissa, can you lead us, please?

Thank you.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America for which is one nation under God.

Indivisible would liberty in Joseph or all.

Great.

First item is roll call.

Yes, good evening.

Board Member Sue.

Here.

Board Member Ariza.

Present.

Board Member Wang.

Here.

Board Member Saheda.

Present.

And President Cisneros.

Here.

Okay, we have a quorum.

Okay.

We have two absences.

Excused.

Got it.

Okay.

Great.

And the next item number two is agenda changes.

Do you have anything from the board or staff?

See none.

And then we have non-agenda public comments.

And before I open that item up, I do have some uh content, some uh disclaimer, I guess, rather, I'd like to share for members of the public, um, where we have rules about meeting conduct.

And uh I just want to remind folks that this is a business meeting.

Um we are conducting the business of the city of Alameda, so therefore I asked there is not to be um any applause or booze, strong verbal um responses on either either side.

Uh we listen respectfully when other people are speaking.

Public speaking can be stressful, and sometimes we have folks who are speaking for the first time in public.

So we don't want folks to feel intimidated when they get up here to share their views.

Um we want to create a safe space for people to share their perspectives.

I'd also like that we be mindful for young people that may be in the room physically here or watching from home on Zoom.

Um so let's set a good civic example for all.

Um if you want to hold signs, that's your first amendment right.

Um then we have the California Penal Code Section 403 states it's a criminal offense for any person to, without authority of law, willfully disturb or break up assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in his character, other than assembly or meeting referred to in Penal Code Section 302 or elections code 18340.

First violations will receive a warning and continue violations will require additional action, which could include police interventions.

Okay, so um now we have that out.

Um we'll go ahead and open up for non-agenda public comments.

Anyone can speak for three minutes regarding any matter that's not on the agenda.

Do we have any speakers?

Yeah, we have one speaker in person, Ron Suarez.

Great.

Hi, I am uh Dr.

Ron Suarez.

Uh just moved to Alameda last year, and very happy uh to be here.

Um I uh want to talk uh about uh software uh that can be done here and the repurposing of the buildings at the former naval air base.

I live in storehouse lofts, uh so from our rooftop, I can see all these various buildings, many of them uh abandoned.

Uh and uh you've received uh cards from me all already.

So I've done two two things uh recently.

Um I started the website, AlamedaPoint.org uh to promote local businesses.

Uh just there's 200 units in our building, and after a year, I still don't know a number of the businesses that are uh in there.

So I would just like to promote local business in uh in the area.

Uh but then I look at these abandoned buildings that can be repurposed.

Uh and I think uh if we found a way to put solar panels on the roof now, I ran some AI models and the numbers could be totally off.

Uh but what you should be taking from it uh is the vision that it helps to promote.

Uh and that's that instead of these big data centers that some of which are being planned will need more electricity than the city of Seattle.

And that's that instead of these big data centers that some of which are being planned, will need more electricity than the city of Seattle, and they want to start offshore drilling here in California, which will totally pollute our beaches.

I got tar all over my feet back around 72 in Santa Barbara from the oil spilling back then.

And I think that Alameda could set an example for the rest of the country by doing decentralized micro data centers.

I was born in Spanish Harlem in New York City.

My father only got as far as the eighth grade.

I learned to program in Fortran when I was 14 at a special program at NYU.

So I'd like to see those kinds of things promoted for younger children so they can get ahead.

Well, and NYU then gave me a full scholarship and invited me to attend without even having to apply.

Then I went to the University of Michigan, PhD psychology, started to learn artificial intelligence in 1976.

I think my yellow lights on, so that's been coming out of time.

Oh, thank you so much for listening.

Yeah, thank you so much.

And do we have any other speakers?

No other speakers.

Okay, great.

Thank you very much for that.

Uh closing agenda item three.

We're moving on to consent calendar.

And um, it looks like we actually don't have um the quorum to move this item.

Is that right, some staff?

Yes, that's right.

So we'll carry those over to next time.

Okay, great.

So um we'll carry that over and we'll go ahead and dig into regular agenda items 5A being a use permit for 707 West Hornet Avenue.

Good evening, President Cesneros and members of the planning board.

Brian McGuire here to present the application for the use permit modification for the USS Hornet Museum.

Um try to be brief on this one.

A little timeline background.

Um the museum began operations back around 1998, a couple years after the base closed.

Umperated under a number of interim temporary use permits in the intervening years until 2021 when the use permit was renewed and made permanent.

Um, now that all the sort of conveyance and much of the planning around Alameda Point have been finalized.

Last year, um our public safety staff uh initiated a review of the public safety procedures and the use permit um review for us here in planning after a couple of special events held at the Hornet that raised some some safety-related concerns, which brings us to the recommendation we have for the use permit modification tonight.

Um brief context: the Hornet is located in the enterprise area of Alameda Point, both zoning and general plan, which envisions a mix of industrial and maritime uses, museums are permitted in the in that district with a conditional use permit.

Um in addition to the safety element, there's there's other concerns um with the Hornet operations in terms of, you know, it's it's fairly unique among large ship-based museums.

We're not the San Francisco Waterfront or San Diego Harbor or New York, you know, Manhattan um waterfront where you have huge amounts of sort of naturally occurring tourist traffic that would support um ship-based museums.

So their operations budget relies pretty heavily on these additional events outside normal museum hours, um, including concerts, these sort of like Comic Con type um events, overnight camps, think Boy Scouts do in science and technology education along with sort of a sleepover, uh, as well as other private corporate type events.

Um the safety issues that that were raised were really related to sort of just general crowd control and security, um combined with the analysis, updated analysis that there's really some limited egress and evacuation concerns that were raised with the uh events and the size of the crowds that were happening um previously.

In addition, the other key point here is there was uh not really a good system for establishing accountability of the third-party vendors and promoters that would use the Hornet, um, sort of like a subtenant almost for these events.

Um after this review, and as shown in the one of the exhibits to your staff report, the building official puts the current capacity based on the egress ability at the Hornet at 660 for maximum occupancy.

Um they can go above this with certain conditions via special event permit, but the sort of general day-to-day uh baseline max occupancy 660.

So there's a number of changes in the proposed use permit, just to summarize.

It's sort of a general cleanup.

Uh it's kind of a lot of technical amendments.

There's a lot of old outdated and redundant um provisions that carried over from version to version.

Um clearly defers the to the building official with the assistance of fire for establishing the maximum occupancy.

So if they were to upgrade, add an additional or increase the ability to evacuate in case of an emergency, they would be able to increase that maximum occupancy.

Um so it sort of defers that process clearly to to those life safety officials and and takes it out of the use permit.

Um requires annual inspections from building and fire, um establishes a number of operational requirements for the overnight stays, like those Boy Scout type events, um terms of ratios, safety monitors, fire procedures, et cetera.

Um it lowers the special event threshold for triggering a special event permit, specifically for those later night concert, alcohol serve type of events that can create a little bit of that increased safety concern among uh police and fire, especially.

Um during the course of the review, we identified um with the applicant an appetite to potentially allow for limited helicopter landings at the site.

There's no immediate plans for this, but um, we wanted to create the space within the use permit um to allow up to six landings per year, subject to additional other agency approvals, CowTrans, FAA, et cetera, as well as um additional city review of those procedures.

Um the resolution in your staff report makes findings related to CEQA, um, that it's exempt from further review and compliant, as well as the required use permit findings.

So we are recommending that you conduct public hearing and adopt a resolution uh approving the use permit amendment.

And I'm available if you have any questions, as well as the uh applicant.

Thank you.

Um I'll bring it back to the board.

Uh any clarifying questions for staff or for the applicant.

Uh board member Sue.

Um Thanks for the presentation, Brian.

I just have a uh a couple questions or more than a couple, um just on the conditions, basically.

Uh one of them, I think the existing use permit had a um language about when the Hornet could be open or closed, and I didn't see that language in the new proposed conditions.

So I wanted to ask if yeah, what was the thinking behind that?

Yeah.

Yeah, uh we were we were looking at that.

Um there aren't established hours of operations for the Alameda Point District, and given the nature of their operations, um, they have overnight events.

Uh it really the the approved hours of operation that probably were established with the original approval in 2008, really envisioned just focused around the museum use.

But since it's sort of doing more than that, um the trying to put in hours of operation, but then talk about all these events that are happening outside of that time didn't make sense.

So we went ahead and removed it and and we sort of are deferring to the conditions of approval to govern what goes on at at what hours of the day and what requirements they need to meet for that.

Okay.

Okay, yeah, that makes makes a lot of sense.

Um the other thing I saw was the there was a condition on fireworks that were was removed, I think.

Was that um something the staff decided to do?

Yeah, so that's it's an interesting history.

I don't have it all.

Um used to be able to do fireworks events, but in order to get the permit to do it, they had to actually launch the fireworks from beyond the city um boundaries out in the bay.

So they would actually have to get the fireworks permits from uh the city and county of San Francisco.

Um so basically with with the review and with sort of the the current procedures and approvals and expectations of fire, um, we essentially just said we're done with fireworks because it's not something didn't really make sense for us to be governing something that is happening outside of city limits, I think was was the key point.

And then obviously within the Hornets lease premises, we're not approving any pyrotechnic displays anymore.

Okay, great.

Yeah, thanks.

Um that's all actually I had.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Um any other clarifying questions?

No.

No.

Okay.

See none, then we'll bring it back to the board and um any deliberations, feedback or comments?

Or do we have a motion?

You may want to hear from the applicant.

Oh, public comment?

Yeah.

Can we open it up for public comment for anyone who would like to make a comment for three minutes or less on that agenda item may do so?

Do we have any comments online or in person?

Yeah, there are no hands raised.

The applicant didn't prepare a presentation, but uh if the board wants to hear from them, uh they're they're available.

Okay.

Um I don't think we had any questions for the applicant.

Did we um no?

Yeah.

Should they do the presentation regardless to think it's a good idea?

Uh they didn't.

You said they didn't have a prepared piece of the case.

Oh, they didn't now.

Oh, go.

Okay.

Seeing no public comment, we'll go ahead and close that.

And now we'll bring it back to deliberations.

Or a motion.

Um I will make a motion to approve the new proposed uh or amendment to use permit PLN 2501618 based on the conditions and findings uh proposed by planning staff.

All second three.

We have a motion and second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Oppose, and we have two absences.

Okay, great.

The motion carries, and uh excited to see um more support and activity for um this wonderful asset we have in Alameda.

So thank you.

Moving on to item fee five B.

We have um a use permit for 1521 Buena Vista National Terminals.

All right.

And staff will give a presentation.

Good evening.

I'm Steve Buckley, Planning Services Manager.

Um I actually need the other presentation.

The blue one.

Um, okay, thank you.

So um I'll make the staff presentation, and then uh I'm joined tonight with um base for use uh staff who are also involved in the uh Tide Lands Lease uh negotiation, uh Walker Toma, and then also the applicant um Michael Hera is here and has a presentation.

Um so this is a use permit application for a temporary use uh two-year permit during the uh interim between uh now and when the applicant is uh required under the development agreement to begin work on site preparation for the implementation of the master plan.

Um this I'll I have several views of of the property from along um Clement Avenue, um just kind of giving you the context.

Um this uh sort of boxy building with the uh five upper story windows is is located at the front of the site, and the site extends back along the water there along the wharf um and uh fill area.

So this is uh located at 1521 point of vista, it's vacant except for these uh empty buildings.

Uh it's located surrounded on three sides by water with the Alaska Basin and the Fortman Marina and the Oakland estuary along the sides and then Clement Avenue at the front.

Um it is in the northern waterfront priority development area, and so it's been um planned for multifamily, approved for multifamily, and uh intended to be developed, as I said, in just a couple of years with those um 500 uh or so uh market rate and 80 um affordable units uh as well as uh variety of trails and parks and uh new streets and utilities as well as uh sea level uh adaptation measures and repair of the wharfs.

So this has all been uh studied in a prior master plan and EIR.

It's part of a tide lens exchange and is governed by a uh development and disposition agreement and a development agreement.

And so all of that is uh meant to start happening in um 2028 with some of the preparatory work happening uh very soon.

Uh the Tide Lands lease is actually uh uh the city owns a portion of the site right in the middle of this uh wharf area.

And so um it's currently uh subject to the Tidelands Trust and uh therefore is subject to a lot of uh restrictions on what can happen there.

But it does allow warehouses, marinas, general manufacturing, and other things.

The zoning also allows a variety of things, including RD water-oriented uses, offices, and residential.

This site was used for over a decade as a container storage and repair facility, as you can see here on the left from 2000 to 2012.

The site was then vacated and it's been sitting in pretty much the same condition since, except for you know, sort of deteriorating conditions at the wharves and in the buildings due to just general age and neglect and vandalism and so on.

As you can see here also, the neighborhood has changed where there used to be warehouses and trucking facilities, it's now residential uses to the south of Clement Avenue.

Clement Avenue was actually didn't exist in this configuration back then, but has since been improved and extended as a multimodal connector through the neighborhood.

This shows some of that new development.

At the top of the picture here is the old warehousing that was along that sort of stretch of Clement, and from that same perspective, you can see now the new housing and the new street with Fort Mammorina off to the left in both of those pictures.

This shows in the three lower panels the public truck tide lands trust area in blue and the swap that has been approved that would consolidate the development area into those yellow triangle and extensions, with the public trust extending out over all of the water, the wharves, and the main road into the site that would be a public access to the water with a sort of conceptual development plan shown on the right.

Here again on the left is sort of the boundary of the land area in red with the proposed sort of development area and uh surrounding uh bay trail and the street connection out to the water.

And then on the right, um the blue line shows the actual uh mean high water line.

Um it's underneath the wharf and around the perimeter out into Fortman Marina.

And so uh there is a BCDC uh jurisdictional line that extends 100 feet in from that higher water line, and so I've outlined that in the dashed blue, showing where there is room within the non-BCDC area for all of this activity to occur, and with proper uh review, it could even extend out a little further towards the perimeter of the site.

Uh on the right is a close-up of an improvement that's proposed as part of the project showing a driveway that would uh extend into the Fort Memorina parking lot and then extend further uh north into this activity site at the Ensignal terminals.

And the purpose here is to close the existing driveway to the Fort Memorina where there is a slight conflict with the Cross Alameda Trail, the bike lane that goes, it's a two-way bike lane.

Um right now there's some markings that kind of warn people that there could be some traffic, cross traffic, and so this project would actually close that driveway, provide a new driveway, and um thereby improve the cross Alameda Trail as well.

The uh project involves storage of electric vehicles that are awaiting uh delivery to customers, and so this project would truck in electric vehicles on a car carrier, whether it's a one or two car carrier sort of flatbed or a larger uh semi-trailer truck that can hold eight or ten cars at once.

They would be coming into the site via the established truck route through either the park street or fruitvale or high street bridge.

Um in your packet, I included this map.

I wanted to clarify here the green on the map shows the likely truck traffic route.

Uh the Clement Avenue extension currently doesn't pass through entirely.

Um there's a development project that's still underway, and there's uh a stretch that's not passable, so they would continue to use the temporary uh Clement Avenue through to Buena Vista and then back over to the site, which is highlighted here in yellow.

So with all of the allowed uses, the map the trucking is considered and the storage is considered consistent with the master plan uses and the interim uses that are allowed prior to the implementation of the master plan that include industrial and uh boat and storage and related and similar uses.

And as I said, the public trust uses include water-oriented as well as industrial and uh transportation sorts of uses.

So this as an interim use is not going to interfere with the ultimate implementation of that master plan as it required uh it obviously all of the cars that are brought onto the site for temporary storage would eventually be removed and there wouldn't be any permanent improvements that would uh remain after the closure of the use.

So with that, the staff is recommending approval of this uh car storage operation for this interim period, subject to conditions that would limit activity to that truck route and limit the hours of operation, limit uh the activity to the outer portions, uh sort of the water side of the site as much as possible to limit noise and uh limit uh lighting to the minimum necessary for security purposes.

Uh security would be improved with um uh work on the fences that are there now, maybe adding some slights, some slats, or um at least um re-securing the fences where they're um loose, and uh there would be staff on the site at least during the day during the operations, and that would also improve the uh security.

The project invol involves the demolition of uh some of the buildings towards the front of the site, so that would also improve the just the um problems with graffiti and and uh uh vagrancy, and um the site would just be required to be maintained in a tidy condition.

So um that resolution in your packet includes all of those conditions, including hours of operation as well, um, particularly trying to keep traffic, truck traffic in particular, um, outside of the peak hours.

Um the concern here is that with the work that's happening in the POSE and Webster tubes over the next two years, that this sort of truck traffic could interfere with cross-alamita traffic, which is likely to be diverted somewhat over to the uh park and high street bridges.

Um so we're just trying to not add to that uh congestion if we can avoid it.

Um also limit the hours of operation so that there wouldn't be nighttime activity that could affect the neighborhood.

And that concludes my presentation.

Happy to answer any questions.

Any questions?

And we'll do questions to staff and then have the applicant come up with that idea.

Okay.

Sure.

I also maybe I didn't quite clarify.

Um there is a there's proposed condition on um sort of the the number of trucks that um would be um coming sort of during a ramp up period, there might be a little bit extended hours to as they're just beginning and then shutting down the operation.

There could be some flexibility around you know how those peak um activity times um are managed, but otherwise we feel like the operation could could operate with the more limited sort of um hours.

Thank you for uh lifting that up.

Um Vice President Adsa.

Um yeah, I just want to clarify.

So if I understand correctly, it's it's the temporary use that is being proposed is a storage facility.

So in other words, the tracks would be coming into to leave the cars, the electric cars, and then eventually at some point not it's not like an everyday activity, it's just that they're being stored for a period of time and then they're being moved.

Or I guess how how is that traffic, I guess.

Yeah, I think the applicant can explain it better, but my understanding is cars would come and go on a fairly regular basis, um, but there might be some peak times based on market demand.

So it's kind of like a business storage kind of yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um any other clarifying questions?

Uh board member Wayne.

I have a few questions.

Um, thank you for that presentation.

The draft resolution makes reference to buildings that will be cleared.

Could you speak a little more about that?

Yes.

We have the presentation.

So the site, as you can see here, this is a good one.

The top photo shows the three buildings that would be demolished.

And these are visible from Clement Avenue.

There's a building A and in Building B over on the right.

There's actually a breezeway that connects them as well.

And they are in the way of the new driveway that would enter the site.

They're kind of on the edge of the site there.

And so those would be demolished.

And then the main building there with the boarded up windows, the two-story building, would also be demolished, I understand, just because it is unusable and kind of a hazard.

So that would be part of the project as well.

Okay.

That's super helpful.

And then there's a lot of discussion of this use permit being interim or temporary.

But I couldn't find if there was a defined term within the resolution.

Could you speak about that a little bit more?

The intent is that it would be coincident with the beginning of the development according to both the development agreement and the DDA, the city is a part party to the development with the Tightlands leaseland, and that lease is being renegotiated to allow this activity.

Yep.

And so it would have its own timeline triggers.

Yeah.

So effectively the main project approval has its deadlines.

And so if those deadlines need to be met, then this thing, this use has to sunset for those deadlines to be met.

Right.

And we've spoken with the applicant about uh sort of a ramp up period, but also a ramp down period, that there would be a four to six week period where they would need to start moving cars off, and we would need evidence that they are actually wrapping up operations.

Okay.

Um questions that come from some public comment that we got that I'm interested in understanding.

Um one comment was about pedestrian path of travel from the bay trail.

Is that something that you've considered in in some of the site reconfiguration here?

That's primarily the the Fortman Marina driveway work that we're suggesting would be completed.

It we've looked with public works at the right-of-way for pedestrians and the property ownership for Fortman Marina, unfortunately constrains the possibility of extending a sidewalk currently.

That's actually that's on the bike lane, and obviously we don't want cars going into the bike lane, but it is a two-way bike lane.

But then there's a fence and some ivy there and some trees.

That's all privately held under the by the Fortman Marina as part of their lease.

Again, that's Tideland's trust land.

Um but we don't have, I don't think, as far as we know, um, the ability to extend a sidewalk through there yet.

It would only be through some future redevelopment.

Um but even short of a sidewalk, it seems like the path of travel from the bay trail right now is gonna need to go through that new elbow that's being proposed.

Essentially sharing sharing kind of a driveway with the trucks that are coming in and out, is that right?

Oh no, the bay trail doesn't go into the site yet.

The bay trail would only happen when the full development happens.

So right now the bay trail is this bike lane and sidewalk where that person is walking, and then it crosses the crosswalk over to the other side of the street, and the pedestrian way is along the front of these houses uh where sorry where that's crosswalk extends.

So they cross the street and continue along the other side of the street.

Okay.

Um and then this this is just a clarifying question.

There's there is another entrance to this site that's mid-block that's not being proposed for active use as part of this use permit, is that right?

Right.

Um it may be needed while the buildings are being demolished if the use starts up before those buildings are fully demolished.

But that would be a again a very limited time frame.

Okay.

One comment that piqued my interest had to do with fire safety, given the unique nature of the things that are being stored here.

If that is pretty typical language, or if it's been sort of targeted toward the specific uses that are being contemplated here.

But the parking of electric cars is not considered particularly hazardous.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Any other clarifying questions?

Or if we have questions for the applicant.

I think I can let uh Walker Toma speak to that.

Uh he's in the midst of that.

Okay.

Um, so uh just when you're ready more questions for staff.

Um sorry.

Uh that one should be for them.

Okay.

I think that's it.

Yeah.

Um we could treasure to thank you.

Yeah, hi, I'm Walker Tillman.

I'm with the base for use and economic development department.

And so the we're anticipated on bringing a lease amendment to City Council uh next month for this project.

Um so happy to answer any questions you have about the Tide Lands lease or anything else pertaining to that.

So what what in particular are you?

Yeah, I guess like uh is there any reason to have the state or BCDC involved in this interim use transaction?

Um I'll separate the the two.

I mean the this is a it's we as the city are the stewards of you know state tide lands, and so this is under this section, this very strange shape in the middle of it, which is the uh the the portion of a larger tide lands lease that has uh the city entered into with a user in the late 70s.

It's from 1979.

Um and this this portion of it was assigned to the current uh the applicant.

And and so there are there are just restrictions in what can occur in Tidelands versus uh another city-owned property.

And so um that's those are some of the considerations that we have to take into account and what we have to address uh when we bring this item to to council.

Okay, yeah.

Um part of the reason why I ask is um also uh spurred from the written comment from Bike Walk Alameda, um, where there was interest in having BCD BCDC's um review of this.

But you're just I just want to repeat back what I'm understanding that's not necessary.

Like this is like a city council purview.

So for the from the Tidelands lease perspective, that's something that's we make findings of I guess the BCDC, um Mr.

Buckley spoke to the the Tidelands boundary that's you know the a hundred feet from the traditional shoreline.

Um and and so the the findings that I think was made in that analysis was that the activities would take place outside of the BCDC jurisdiction.

Um that's I'm not an expert in that, so if there's further findings, but um that's that's my understanding.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Sure.

Um great.

Um I think uh we could transition to the applicant giving uh presentation at this point.

Good evening, President Cisneros, members of the planning board.

I'm Michael Harup, director of forward planning for the Tim Lewis Communities.

Um we are the managing member of Baby Landing LP.

Oh, I'm sorry.

There we go.

Um, and we're we're here because the pervasive poor real estate market conditions that have existed since about a month after we got our final city council approvals in 2022, um has basically decimated real estate values everywhere, and the present viability of the Ansel terminal site is has been similarly decimated, and it's it that has delayed implementation of the approved development plan.

Continued trespassing, graffiti, vandalism, um various nuisances, disturbances, and security risks to us and our neighbors have plagued the site for a while, uh despite our continued efforts uh to work with the Alameda PD.

I won't go through all of these words on here.

Suffice to say that uh we acquired the property as under a different name, North Waterfront Cove in 2013.

We've been at this for a long, long time.

Um finally secured city council approval, as I mentioned, in February of 2022.

We spent the next two years uh basically completing all of the stuff we had to do with the state with regard to the exchange.

And then about a year ago, uh a little over a year ago, the city council granted some milestone extensions that were referred to earlier by uh Mr.

Buckley.

And then uh almost exactly a year ago, we took title as a new entity.

We we bought out our our partner and uh took over the took over the property.

Um this is the site.

Um I've identified the areas that are off limits uh for certain, which are all parts of the wharf, and um of the 23 acres that are the 23 upland acres, uh, about five of them will be um off limits.

Um I'll get to the discussion about the uh BCDC in a minute.

But um so the lease parcel sits in the middle.

This is the slide that you just saw.

Um, and so our our request is to approve this use permit for temporary storage, parking storage of new electric vehicles.

It's a low impact method to allow temporary occupancy of the site.

It'll improve all the negative conditions that are perpetuated out there while we complete the permitting processes in the next couple of years.

So why why approve the use permit?

There's basically four reasons.

First is occupation of the current vacant blighted site.

I think I said that about a hundred times today, but um occupation of that site basically creates an active occupied daily use.

Uh there's no abandoned portions of the site, there's people at the site every day.

And uh we will by demolishing the buildings, we'll absolutely remove conditions that have led to trespassing, graffiti and vandalism, and in the end improve neighborhood traffic and safety.

This is what we've been dealing with for the last several years.

Um broken into um graffiti, our whole electrical system for the for the large uh hangar area out in the middle of the site, vandalized and ultimately stolen.

Um interiors of buildings have been uh destroyed, and so we've been dealing with this for quite some time.

Um the other thing about this is that the uses are isolated from from neighbors.

Uh the site's surrounded on three sides by water, and then uh commercial building across uh Alaska basin, and then the residential neighborhoods of Star Harbor and Marina Shores will be isolated further by um keeping all the loading and unloading activity uh well into the interior of the site.

Here's kind of the breakdown of how that works.

And for context, that white line in the entinal basin there is about 1600 millennial feet long, almost a third of a mile.

So if we identify uh if we limit the activities, loading and unloading to the the center center of the site, you're you're talking about a pretty substantial um uh setback from those residential sites.

Third, it accelerates the Fortman Marina entrance solution.

Um the master plan contemplated that and mandated that that confluence of entrance road, Clement Avenue, the cross Alameda Trail, and the Fortman Marina access was a mess.

And it mandated that we fix that.

Um with this use permit, it actually will accelerate it to present day instead of waiting for the rest of the uh the site uh development to commence.

So we've expanded this a little bit to um look at current conditions and see how things can work.

We've extended this this pavement here to allow for trucks to pull off the site and or off the road and stage here if need be if there's some issue with getting through the gate or whatever.

Demo these two buildings right here.

And then in the second step uh when public works uh reviews everything and and we would punch through right here, do some uh internal changes in the parking lot, and then close off uh the curb.

So you would end up with a a standard four-way intersection instead of a four-way plus a weird access point.

Fourth, um our um our licensee that we're working with has uh this is a replication of uh a successful um uh process that they've done in other parts of the country where they've taken similar vacant blighted properties uh occupied them with car storage, and then um it it would it turned out to be a successful and temporary solution to um or a bridge to future development.

Um there were a number of conditions that I wanted to get to um to discuss.

I don't know if I should finish my finish the presentation, come back to that or um well, let me let me jump into that right now.

There were there were a number of conditions that I brought up to staff that I um had asked to revise, and they've not been revised in the in the current um portion of the resolution.

So if I could ask you to turn to condition one, I'll get to the these ones here in a minute, but I'll I'll go in order.

Condition one and condition two both have a sentence in there that I think is superfluous, and I think it could be removed from one of them.

But the the main concern that we have is that it does not permit any use of the site, any activity on the site unless and until the Tidelands uh lease amendment is completed.

And as we've looked at on this slide here, there's uh there's a a large portion of the site that's that's not public tideless and is not subject to a lease and would not be subject to a lease amendment.

We've asked that um that that condition be modified to say that none of the activity can it will be allowed on the portion of the site that is public Thailands unless and until that um lease amendment is secured.

So that that would affect um conditions one and two.

Um if we go back to the back to the slides, um number seven.

We are proposing because there may be a difference uh differential in time from when the non-tidelands parts are being utilized and when the tide lands uh parcels parcel is being utilized.

We wanted to introduce a possible second ramp up time period um if there was you know some sort of a delay between the two.

And we would limit it to two weeks, and so all of those conditions, the condition, rest of the condition would remain unchanged.

Condition eight is um is really problematic for the user.

Um we have been working with them since back in November and um trying to make this work, and one of the things that they told us up front was we're we're not gonna be happy with, we're not gonna be able to.

We have a corporate mandate against any type of limitation on hours.

We want access 24-7.

And I said, we're we're gonna have to work with you on that.

Um and so they came back and they they agreed to limit the the hours um instead of 24-7 to 7, 7 a.m.

to 7 p.m.

Um when staff came back with the 8 a.m.

to 4 p.m.

The said that's that's really almost impossible for us to comply with.

And if you're not allowing any truck trips after 4 p.m., that's gonna be very difficult for us.

We're in the logistics business.

We um think things happen out of out of their control.

Uh shipments come in um out of schedule, shipments get delayed.

Um different things happen during the during the course of a of a business week, and they they really need some more flexibility.

So what they've proposed is that they extend the 4 p.m.

hour to 6 p.m.

So that the deliveries could be from 8 a.m.

to 6 p.m.

And the rationale for that is that the majority of the truck trips will occur between 8 and 4.

It will be there's not gonna be a rush of you know, a rush of trucks delivering vehicles at 5 o'clock.

It's gonna be, you know, from a logistics standpoint, it's gonna make a lot of sense for them to try and keep all their hours in into the non-commute hours, but they don't always control how shipments work and all that.

So they're they really serious about uh expanding that time period to 6 p.m.

Um they also said there may be some unusual circumstances that um may take them outside of that time period, not not very often.

They said not more than five deliveries a week.

Um so I think we're we're talking about a few truck trips per day, possibly during that time period.

So those were that's something to um consider.

Um there's a condition for a 200 foot buffer.

That's almost two acres of site that I would be unable to utilize, and I don't understand why there's a buffer employed.

Um what we discussed, what I explained to staff was that you know, as I said a little bit earlier, all of the loading and unloading activity is going to happen far into the interior of the site.

It'll be well beyond this 200 foot buffer.

But as written, it says I can't store any cars in that 200 foot buffer, and that's that's just not I it I don't understand it.

It doesn't make sense, and I felt like if we could um codify the fact that we will do deliveries at the north end of the uh more interior uh of the site um that that last sentence could be deleted.

Um I think lastly, number 11 on roadway access.

There was actually a question also about the mid-block access, and what we had proposed was that um that be just tweaked, I think just a little bit to accommodate to allow that mid-block access if needed uh any time up until the the Fortman access improvements were completed.

So that would be just a minor tweak to what that condition is.

Um I believe that was that was the last of the the ones that I had concerns with.

So in conclusion, to wrap up, we feel like this interim use is a is a is a very good idea uh because occupation of the site and removal of blinded buildings will improve neighborhood safety and security.

The site's isolated, as I mentioned, and the primary use activities will be far from the residential neighbors.

It accelerates uh uh a safety problem.

It accelerates solving the sorry, it's accelerates solving a safety problem by uh completing the uh Fort Memorina access improvements.

And then we feel like this is a this is a proven temporary solution and a very good bridge to future development.

With that, I'll I'll close uh by urging you to approve the use permit and be available for any questions.

Great.

Thank you for that uh presentation.

I'll bring it back to the board for clarifying questions.

Uh yeah, Vice President Adisa.

Thank you for the presentation.

Um I guess something that I'd love to know.

I I don't have clear, is like how many trucks a day are we talking about coming in and going out?

The information that I've gotten from the user is that um the the range would essentially be zero to ten.

Um and to answer your question earlier, I should have brought that up in the presentation.

I apologize.

Um the there's a total of about 700, they're they're anticipating 700 to 1,000 cars total.

So if you do the math on that, um it they felt like uh three three to four week time period could probably get the the site filled only by using you know by uh uh less than the the 10 truck trips per day.

Um once that ramp up period is is completed and the the site is is filled to its anticipated capacity.

Um the it's it's it's less regular.

It'll it'll the deliveries will come about as cars are sold, need to be picked up, delivered to the to the uh dealership, uh, and then similarly more new cars will come in.

And so the idea, what they've been able to do typically is to combine those uh truck trips so that if they're bringing new vehicles out, they can pick up uh vehicles that are on the site and take them to a dealership, for example.

Um so they they've anticipated that you know, I I think the average would probably be well under 10, but it's it's kind of a zero to ten um range, total range.

And I would imagine that the traffic flow of those trucks is coming in through the fruitville, like the Park Street Bridge and the High Street Bridge, like through the bridges, not through the bridge.

It would be the the um the the route that they're talking about using is is over the fruit bale bridge and then coming straight down um Clement.

Clement, yes.

So that's that's that's their plan.

It's about a 1.9 mile stretch uh from through through the city of Alameda.

And so that that's what they're anticipating.

Thank you.

Uh there's one one other thing I wanted to point out with there was a question about the BCDC uh limit line.

And um there's a condition, I believe, that's written in here that um if if anything's required from B C D C that we would have to get the required requ requisite permit.

Um and so we we've looked at it.

It was said that no uses would would be beyond where that 100 foot setback line is.

They could be, but not without if if if if there's uh a permit required from from BCDC, then we're we're obligated to get it.

So I didn't want to I didn't want to limit our ourselves to staying outside of that limit line.

If we want to avoid getting a permit from them, then yes, that would be the case.

But if um if we want to expand uh the area out there and we we can get that approved by BCDC, then we'll do it.

Thank you.

Any other clarifying questions?

Uh board member Sue?

Um yes, I just have one question um on condition nine.

Uh you mentioned uh how you wanted us to maybe remove the 200 foot buffer.

Yes.

I think the staff's kind of intent there was was more, I think they remember getting at just the unloading and loading activity.

So if we were to modify that restriction just to say that no unloading or uh loading would uh could occur within that 200 foot foot buffer, but storage otherwise would be okay.

Would would you be okay with that?

Um I mean two 200 feet aways.

I mean um if or just some other distance, I think that's I think that was kind of their intent from the presentation was to limit just that activity.

I mean I can also let them clarify too, but I think that's what I understood.

And in my conversations with staff, um the they were not understanding that we were we were gonna take down that third building because and that's thinking that that would kind of be you know that would be a buffer.

We're not gonna do anything south of there.

But the idea is we are we are gonna take that building down.

So we don't want to limit ourselves to that.

And yeah, so if we we'd be amenable to a modification of that.

I just I mean the the outdoor activity that talks about uh focused in the middle and outer area of the site, that's the very first sentence of that.

So I felt like it's it's already there.

Um so um, I I seem to understand that I don't know.

I think this is a question for stuff, but the way I read it is that it's a 200 buffer on Clement Avenue, not on the whole site.

Right.

I mean, I guess depending on where that setback starts, if it starts at the curb and gutter, that's that's uh that's that's probably a lot easier to accommodate.

Um the staff want to jump in?

No, uh uh understood.

Understood though, uh that it is on Clement.

It's not but still 200 feet on I mean, yeah, 200 feet on what 300 uh 350 feet is pushing two acres.

So that's that's why that's why I'm concerned.

Yeah, it was just a suggestion.

Um I mean, I think looking at the map now, um it's true that 200 feet would essentially knock out the uh southern block of of your property, and then that would push all of the activity essentially into either the Titan's lease property or your northern property.

Correct.

And you know, it was a it was an attempt at um keeping the site you know, sort of looking undeveloped.

Um but I think if there were just weren't a lot of loading and unloading within some distance, just so that the neighbors don't have to listen to trucks, you know, rattling at all hours of the day, you know.

Um that's all we were really thinking about.

Um I don't know if it if it might be too hard to solve for now, but do you have like a appropriate distance amount in mind?

Well, I I guess there's two two things.

The um one is that condition 10 talks about us putting fabric or slats on the fence to kind of hide it.

So it also didn't make sense to me to have a buffer there if you're screening what's behind it anyway, right?

So that was the that was our thought.

And so I I don't want to get into a situation where I can't unload um vehicles unless we have the Tide Lands lease area.

So the the 200 feet is is important.

So I mean if it was, I don't know, 50 feet from the from the cross allimeter trail or something like that.

I mean, I I I think that would that would give us some some room to maneuver in there.

Yeah, that's essentially the distance to the the buildings.

So then that would establish kind of where the cars would then start to be stacked and loading and unloading would happen.

Okay.

It sounds like that works and um great.

Yeah.

Um any additional clarifying questions uh member Sue?

Or okay, great.

Thank you.

Uh I just have one more question.

I guess what comes to my head with all these conversations is does stuff um kind of anticipate that you would need, or is that part of the conditions that you would need like a layout or a final layout of what the activities in the site will be organized, how the how it will be organized as far as the entrance and the fins and the you know storage area versus the loading and unloading, something like that.

Yeah, I think that's it's somewhat implied in a couple of conditions.

We talk about fire access and circulation, which is uh typically a 20-foot roadway that would meander through the site.

And then also the driveway work at the Fortman Marino would be subject to a uh public works permit, and so that would deal with gates and pavement and um access.

So I think those two together would mean that the city would still be looking at some sort of final layout, yes.

Okay.

I mean just to kind of answer the question in general in a cartoon style, uh the entrances would be, you know, once once we have the public works approval would come in here, and then the anticipated route is that the trucks would kind of have a pathway around around the site and the cars would be parked in in in between.

So the trucks would kind of come here and then there would be a path back to here for for exiting.

So somewhere between, you know, it's probably more of a an angled path like that.

And so we'd have cars parked here, cars parked here.

That's that's the the general idea.

They're not going to it's difficult for them to provide like a you know a parking lot layout or something uh about how they're gonna do that because um it's gonna it's gonna change over time and they're they're very um sensitive to wanting to you know comply with the permit, you know, and and and not um you know just do what's there.

That's why we're being a little particular maybe on some of the conditions.

So and the other the other thing I did not say is that it was probably implied is that they are um really anxious to occupy the site.

So that's why you know the conditions of trying to uh create um uses in advance of the the Tidelands lease, which isn't gonna be heard for another month and takes effect a while after that.

So their concern is to try and occupy at least a portion of the site as soon as possible.

So and obviously that it's it's meaningful to us too for all the reasons, the the site security reasons that we mentioned.

So yeah, I would just add, I think staff we we spoke about that ramp up period and and using other portions of the site.

And I I actually I thought we had amended this to include some of that language, so I'm I'm not sure maybe the wrong version got in your packet.

So actually that's fine with us that I think using the rest of the site under this use permit makes a lot of sense.

Because they're able to traverse the lease parcel um without using it under their current lease.

Got it.

There was not an amendment that's needed.

Yeah.

There is, but I have I have the strikeout here.

Um basically as was said, the intent is to say that condition number one uh no portion of the tidelance parcel can be used.

That's number two.

And instead the sentence that refers to that in condition one would just be stricken.

Because it's it's duplicative and and not necessary if we allow it on the rest of the site.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um any other questions?

Uh board member Wayne?

Yes, as long as we're talking about the new language, um, I'm wondering if staff can comment on the newly proposed language regarding the operating hours.

Do you have a reaction to that?

Well, we've sort of gone back and forth on this quite a bit.

So um I think it's um we've we've written that is not a mistake.

Uh in eight to four because we believe that we really want to keep traffic out of the peak hour, except during the ramp up and wrap down periods.

Understood.

Thank you.

But you know, your discretion.

Yep.

Okay.

Um any other clarifying questions.

Um I had a couple.

Going back to the um trucks, uh, can you describe them a little bit more?

Um are they electric trucks?

Oh, the trucks.

Um no, they're not.

No, they're they're you're kind of your standard um vehicle hauling uh truck that carries up to 10 vehicles at a time.

Um they're not always, you know, they they wouldn't always be completely full, but those are the the ones that you've seen that are stacked in there at various angles.

And um so that's that's the idea behind those.

And there are I don't believe anybody's making uh electric vehicles of that sort yet.

So um I I checked with the with the uh with our licenseed partner on this and they uh they confirmed that they are they are not electric.

Yeah.

Um the way the use permit is designed that there's um various um interim uses that are allowed.

I'm just curious, uh did you um your company try to pursue any of those other alternatives?

I don't remember like the list of things, but um we we um so we this whole process you you might have seen on um Steve's presentation that it had a May 25 date.

We were originally going to do a kind of a uh a very broad use permit that we could because our broker told us that you really need a use permit to go out to the market, otherwise no one will want to lease your site because it takes too long.

Um so we recognize together that it was gonna be problematic to come here before you and not have any answers to any questions.

Um so we decided to to back out of it.

Um we were approached in November by uh this group um to utilize our site.

There their lease was coming to an end.

And um so between May when we started the when we signed the listing agreement and November, we had no serious offers or or any any anybody that wanted to utilize the site.

Then we got two groups that wanted to talk to us, but they were you know it was some sort of uh you know, light manufacturing, one was kind of light manufacturing, one was a little heavier manufacturing.

Um those all came up about the same time as as this this car storage came up.

And the car storage to us was by far the least impactful of of those uses.

We we stopped pursuing the discussions with the other groups when this came about because we felt that it was it was so low impact.

Um for the most part the cars are just out there sitting, right?

And there's no um day-to-day activity.

There's not, you know, constant deliveries of trucks from different areas.

Um, you know, like if it was uh uh what it used to be, um you know, the um shipping container storage.

There were trucks in and out of there constantly.

And this this is the opposite of that.

I mean, there are trucks in there, but um but it's on a nothing's happening on the streets out in front.

It's all happening interior to the site.

And we just we felt it was of all the uses, we felt it was it was pretty perfect for for what we were trying to do.

Um they weren't looking the other thing is a lot of times um these uh prospective lessees are looking for long-term commitments, you know, five years, five years, ten years, whatever.

And obviously we couldn't do that given our limitations on the with the development um timing.

And um so they and they just said we want to sign a one-year lease and we want to extend it for you know uh we'll we'll do things in one year increments.

And we said that's great, because here's our here's here's our constraint, and they said it's fine.

It solves it solves the problem for them right now, and in two years they'll they'll have to solve it um you know some way else.

But yeah, we we just we felt it was really the uh uh uh an ideal use for for that site.

Given given the neighborhood, given the residential, um, you know, even even though we're surrounded on three sides, we're also mindful obviously of the residential component, um, the residential um uses to our south.

And so we want to be good neighbors, and we felt like getting the site cleaned up and and occupied was was uh also a uh a great thing.

We just we we felt like this was the optimal um opportunity.

Okay, yeah.

Thank you.

But we you know it's goes without saying we'd we'd love to be able to kind of make this work with them.

And uh so the hours of use and all of those things are you know that's why I said we're we're fairly particular about about some of those things.

So um anyway, appreciate your consideration.

Yeah, yeah.

Thank you.

Sorry, and I have two more quick questions.

Sure.

Um I'm uh curious if you would be open to this being like a one-year um conditional use permit and potential for renewal.

Um I don't know, being optimistic, like maybe the market changes or whatever.

And you also mentioned there's a ramp down period um and time needed for site prep, what have you, and the lease C or I don't know, the company requires a 365-day lease anyway.

So that was I mean I I think the way it's structured is good in that it's it the use permit, as you mentioned, sunsets at the time that our development uh obligations commence.

So I I don't think it makes sense.

I I we would be we would not be really amenable to to just saying okay, the use permit's only good for a year.

We would want it to be able to last for for two years um during during that entire time period.

Um the minute we leave or the minute it's it's it's not occupied, we're we're we're back to a lot of some of the same problems that we've got right now.

So that's that's why we would urge you to stick with the two years that's presented.

Okay, yeah.

And I again I was just thinking about the time period.

Uh maybe I need also clarification on what exactly the March 2028 clock means when we say um, like is that when the site prep start or when develop?

I don't know.

So that that could be helpful.

Um and then my last question, um, assuming the revenue I saw in the self report, it's like a split with the city, but also with the applicant, and that revenue will be that much more helpful for moving the project, affordable housing, or not excuse me, not affordable, but the housing project forward.

Um is that fair to say?

Yeah, absolutely.

I mean, yeah, the um if you're I didn't quite hear everything you just said.

Yeah, so just uh the revenue from this um interim use given the uh conditions, the financial constraints, the market constraints, this would help move the long-term project forward and go towards that.

Yes, yeah, I agree with that.

You mentioned something about a split.

I think there is a there's a conversation that we'll have with the city council with regard to um that amendment to the Tidelance Lease.

I wasn't sure if that's what you were referring to.

But um, but yeah, definitely this covers covers costs, and you know, it it it makes spending um the funds to move things forward uh a lot more palatable in in an environment where right now the viability of that project is is in question.

So it's it's it it relies on some metrics changing dramatically, which are haven't been moving very fast and and recently went started going the other way.

So um so yeah, so that's it's definitely um definitely something that that would that would assist us in that regard.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um and with that, we'll move it to public comment.

Um do we have anyone in the room or anyone on Zoom as well?

We have one in person and one online so far.

If you want to speak on this item, please raise your hand.

I'm sorry, how many speakers do we have, Brian?

Just two at the moment.

Two speakers?

Okay.

We're up to three.

Uh first speaker in person is Alison Green.

Okay.

Um we have three minutes uh to speak on this agenda item.

Mike, haven't seen Mike in what 12 years.

Um this is very ironic because 13 years ago we were having this whole thing, Del Monte, do we, do we not?

Very contentious.

And one of the main influencing points, aside from providing housing, was getting rid of the truck.

And hello, here we are again.

Um I I made notes for myself, but I'm gonna veer from that for a minute because I have to tell you I'm kind of terrified at the idea that we've got the potential of the tail wagging the dog here.

You've got somebody who wants to lease as soon as possible, the hours aren't good, the restrictions aren't good, and the idea that we will accommodate that as a city and put ourselves in a position.

Um I walk my dog every day across Buena Vista, as do many people.

And we we have achieved making it a residential neighborhood.

If you go out there after work, um, you know, four to seven, everyone's out with their children, with their pets, with their families.

People are biking, people are walking, they're doing all the things we want, and it's it's great.

And you know, making the inside of ensignal terminals arguably safer by having something there, it is not you know enough to counteract making it more dangerous by sending tractor trailers up entrance road.

And okay, I don't know all the truck terminology, but something that carries 10 cars on it seems kind of big to me and the pollution and all that.

You know, we've got people, you know, hybrid work, they're working from home, clang bang bang.

It just isn't ready.

This isn't ready.

And the city's uh notification period, you know, for these types of issues, and it's nobody's fault here, needs to be rethought because I found out about it from a flyer stapled on a telephone call.

Because I guarantee if people were more aware, you would probably have a lot more input from the people in the neighborhood.

But you know, it's it's not ready, it's not safe, you know, a trucking company that needs to come and go at will, a little scope creep there.

Um, and cutting access off.

I mean, no, the Fortman parking lot is kind of quirky, and Brian, when I submitted my C click fix about making it safer, this is not what I meant.

But um, you know, it works.

People watch out for each other.

The the owners allow people in, it's very heavily trafficked.

And without having like safe access, you know, where where are people gonna go?

They're being crossing down the street in the middle of the street, no stop signs on curves.

You're just not ready to vote on this tonight, and this plan isn't ready.

But thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, Cindy Johnson.

Good evening.

Thank you for taking my call.

I'm calling on behalf of Bike Walk Alameda and wanted to clarify the issue of pedestrian access, we mentioned in our letter.

The bay trail actually hugs the waterfront at Fortman Marina.

So what people do right now walking east along the bay trail is to walk through the driveway that's gonna be closed, and then through the parking lot and onto the trail.

This change will close the existing access point, and pedestrians will likely either walk in the new driveway or in the in the bike lane until they can cut back into the waterfront along the waterfront, which is about two blocks east.

Neither of these scenarios are good.

We're concerned about access, we're concerned about access through the parking lot, or we're not concerned, we're not concerned about the access through the parking lot, but that's out of scope, but just along the driveway that's gonna be built.

Whether it's a sidewalk or barriers or even delimiters, just having some dedicated space is really important.

That way this project will actually improve both pedestrian and bicycling circulation in the area rather than potentially worsening it.

So again, we ask that you condition your approval on improved dedicated pedestrian access here.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Benjamin Grass.

Hi, it's actually Kim Cadle.

I'm a resident with Benjamin Grass, and I have two key points uh related to the letter that we submitted.

The first is regarding the blighted building demolition.

It was verbalized that three buildings would be demolished, the two for the entrance, and then the main large boarded up building.

Yet when the plan was presented by the owner, only two buildings were mentioned.

So I just want to make sure that all three buildings are included in the plan because of the blight.

And then the second point is I really urge you to consider that you're not ready to vote based on the real fire risk of up to a thousand electronic vehicles, electric vehicles stored in such a small uh footprint.

So before you let I just want to make sure that everyone's educated on those risks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have no further speakers.

Okay, great.

And with that, we'll close public comments.

Um and we'll bring it back for board deliberations.

I did have um, sorry, and I I we talked about this.

Um but um what was the response in regards to the fire concerns?

Um what's staff's reaction to that?

Yeah, I did uh reach out to the uh fire marshal and the building official.

I didn't get a response today um this afternoon, but um again, we we believe that a parking lot is not an unusual safety hazard as composed uh compared to uh what the commenter uh noted was more of a power plant uh battery storage, which is more concentrated and um more problematic.

And I understand that there are new regulations around those kind of power storage facilities as opposed to motor vehicles or electric vehicles.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

Um yeah, any um comments or reactions from the board.

Yes.

I yeah, I mean I'm just looking at at the site plan and I fail to see how the pedestrian and bike access or will change.

Is is there something I'm missing?

How how will it change?

There.

So right now, uh I I did fail to mention.

So there is a a sidewalk that goes through the adjacent park at Fort Memorina.

I don't know if we have a good slide, but over if you look at the picture on the right here.

Yeah, and there's a parking lot.

And there's a there's a building and there's a boat ramp, and there's more parking kind of off to the side of this picture to the right.

And then there is a little pathway that goes along the marina frontage and connects to a neighboring park, which then connects to a public sidewalk, which I guess is a bay trail kind of spur.

Um and so it right now it just sort of dead ends into this parking lot.

And theoretically, you know, if you if you end if you find yourself there, you can then go through the parking lot and cross over to where the green bike path is.

And so in the future, if you were to find yourself in that parking lot, you could use the new driveway, but then you might be mixing with truck traffic or car traffic or some other traffic, which you do now in that other driveway, but it's lower, lower volume, and then you sort of arrive at the green bike trail.

It's not a sidewalk exactly, but it sort of gets you closer to the crosswalk or the or the uh concrete sidewalk and the bike path.

So in the future, I guess we could condition it that there could still be a rolled curb at that green hatch mark so that people could still step out or roll roll their bike or other vehicle over into that bike lane.

We just don't want cars being tempted to do that.

Yeah, yeah, I see.

I see the would it be possible to continue the bike path along the way of the new truck entrance or the new driveway to the parking lot.

So the I mean I I don't know.

I'm uh I'm asking.

Yeah, the this the street with where that stop bar is pretty narrow.

That's just barely two lanes.

And so to try to put I did think about that.

There if we tried to put a sidewalk or a bike lane also in there up to the parking lot, the new parking lot entrance.

We I guess we could explore that.

Um if we extended that sidewalk in.

It's just that right now it's it's all gonna get torn out again anyway.

But um for now, yeah, for two years we could see if they could put in a sidewalk or a crosswalk.

I think that the pedestrians are similar to uh uh there's not a lot of change except for the fact that they will have to cross the street and trucks might be coming in or going out.

But the bike, I understand now the difference, and it seems that if there was a a bike lane that was clear and I don't know what the best layout is.

But something to consider.

Yeah, I I think just regarding the bike lane piece.

I mean, the in my experience and it you know, folks are generally using the cross-elameter trail that exists along Clement for the bikes.

I think the the public commenters were generally giving out the sort of the pedestrians tend to try to figure out their own way to cla get across the existing gap as opposed to crossing in the designated crosswalk twice and walking along the south side of Clement on the sidewalk.

So um but I think it is something that as the like refine these temporary improvement plans, you know, staff could continue to explore.

Yeah, they will be getting a public works permitted.

So we could the striping would help, I mean.

Yeah, we could add it as a as a consideration as a temporary measure, some sort of crosswalk or striped pathway.

Yeah.

There's several uh just from experience, there's several of these kind of trails that drop you off into a parking lot along the waterfront, and you you do just sort of find your way until you hook up with the rest of the trail.

So it's I don't think it's super hazardous or heavily used along the parking lot part.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

Um other uh feedback or comments um from my fellow board members.

Uh board member Sue.

Um so I I think you know, one thing that I think I'm mostly concerned with um uh from the public commenter really um is is the the truck traffic.

Um I think that was the thing that stood out for me.

Um so I started thinking about ways that you might address that.

Um, you know, I I think the staff report and uh the presentation always said was zero to ten trips a day, so you could try and like limit the trips, but I I don't know if that's actually enforceable and how would you go about making sure that there's only five trucks coming in and out of the city every day.

So um and then on top of that, you're not gonna be able to, you know, change the infrastructure in a way that makes it less impactful, right?

The roads are what they are and the truck route is what the truck route is.

Um so I wonder what I mean further, I guess analysis we could do if we were to not act on this today to like address the the truck problem.

Like I don't know if the applicant would, you know, through their user come back and say, yeah, we're okay with five, and then us in the city would be like, yeah, we can enforce that.

Um so I just want to kind of throw that thought out there.

I'm I'm still wrestling it with myself, but I I think for me that's probably um the biggest issue right now, and um just the traffic, the conflicts with pedestrians and people on about on bikes and whatnot.

Um I'm open to other like ideas on how you you address that, but I I think to some extent this might be a like you either have it here or you don't.

I don't know if there's a way to actually address it in a way that would um I guess sufficiently mitigate it.

Either way, you're gonna have trucks coming, and then I don't know how much you would actually be able to enforce you know, five trucks coming every day.

Someone's not gonna be out there counting.

I think it the the issue was the time limitations, and I don't know how others feel about that.

I think to end at 4 p.m.

versus at 6 p.m., which is what the applicant would want to see.

Yeah, and I'm willing to figure out I I think you know, obviously staff had their proposal, the applicant had their proposal, perhaps something where we could craft.

I I agree with you.

I think we should, you know, just thinking most people are probably out after work working from home walking their dogs or just taking a walk.

So that's probably heavily in that four to six time period.

So maybe one way to do this is to try and uh maybe allow more of the give more flexibility on time during the ramp up period, but then when it's down to the actual just normal operations, your your constraints.

I think that's basically what we have now, but I think the applicant is asking for more.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um I wrote down here they wanted to change it from 8 a.m.

to 6 p.m.

So in case folks want a reminder.

Any other comments?

Uh yes, uh board member Wayne.

Yeah, just uh on the hours.

Um I tend to agree with staff's position for some of the reasons that have already been articulated.

I do think that four to six period is does have increased activity from pedestrians, dog walkers, families.

Um I think you generally expect rush hour to pick up then too for vehicles.

So generally a little more congestion, a little more conflicts with large trucks carrying 10 cars at a time.

I think that's something that we want to avoid.

Um so that's that's where I stand on hours.

Um on fire risk, I'm not you know, I I also agree that you understand that that EVs are you know not hazards per se.

I do think um just for for the sake of of putting this on on the record for discussion, I do think they pose a specific risk profile that should be addressed.

That said, I do think you know the condition that requires that you know fire personnel and apparatus have access through into the site is is what we're looking for, right?

Then we we want fire personnel and the fire department to be able to get into the site and have the necessary clear distances and other parameters for addressing uh any sort of fire that happens with like a a battery.

Um so I I think that that's covered already.

Um regarding the pedestrian access, uh it does seem informal.

And so I think you know, probably to me the level of intervention is we don't want to create a situation where the path of least resistance for the pedestrian becomes share the space with the semi carrying 10 cars.

I think that's both uncomfortable and unsafe.

Um so I do think you know, the if if you were to implement a rolled curb solution, probably just having a rolled curb that's wide enough to accommodate a couple pedestrians or a bicycle is enough.

You don't need the entire width of the former driveway to be a rolled curve, because I think that does invite cars to continue to drive up there.

Um I would be more in favor of that than just then to stripe out a portion of that new driveway.

Because I'd I I can't see anyone wanting to walk down that path and then encountering a truck coming in with 10 cars.

That's that's I don't think that's a situation that we want.

Those are my comments.

Um any other uh follow-up comments or deliberation items.

Um let's see.

I um was looking at one of the written comments.

Um I want to go back to my earlier question about uh what exactly is happening on March 2028.

Um there was a request to have a sunset clause ensuring temporary uses conclude well before the 2028 development deadline.

So is the idea that in March 2028, that's when like site because I remember the ramp down period is like four to six weeks um uh duration, I guess, time period.

But um is it right to say March 2020 is when the site prep will begin and this um the the interim use is all already vacant at that point?

Is that yeah, there there would be a period where permits would be pursued.

So I think we would know whether or not those timelines are being met.

And so right now there is an interim um schedule um including establishing a an assessment district um and um then ultimately getting site development permits for stabilizing the site and rebuilding the wharfs and uh seawall.

So as those permits are being pursued, we would kind of know how the ultimate deadline would would be established on on that timeline.

Okay.

Um so it would it would definitely be timed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um then I I just um I'd echo that I agree on probably keeping the timeline to 8 a.m.

to 4 p.m.

Um, you know.

Uh to be honest, this isn't um for me the ideal in room use uh for this site.

Um I'm also concerned about uh the traffic and increased truck use.

Um it doesn't seem the most compatible for what this emerging neighborhood is.

Um and um it does seem um an opportunity to activate the site and get this project um uh moving that much more towards like it's more longer term use.

So um I think I agree with my fellow board members on um keeping that condition and then um I don't really have um to be honest, uh a strong perspective on the strike pathway or roll curves.

I don't know if um I know uh board member Sue or Vice President of Issa if you wanted to react to the suggestion one way or another.

I I agree that it it would be better to route the bikes a different route than the trucks, however that looks if that is through the current kind of area that it gets narrow, narrower so that only the bikes can pass, then that's fine.

Or the bikes and the pedestrians, I mean.

Um but it does seem that something should be included in the permit.

So that if it's restriping or accommodating a roll curve or yes.

Okay.

So if I could summarize.

Yeah.

Um please do that.

Condition one, um, I think we're okay with the suggestion that it's duplicative of the condition two, so we can take out the middle sentence about commencing on the lease premises and the entire site together.

I think it can be phased on the remainder of the site, and then as the lease is amended, begin on the leased parcel.

Um so then that carries over to number two, just a a wording change there on the title ends parcel as opposed to the entire site being implicated.

Then on number seven, um there's a four-week ramp up period.

The applicants were suggested that there might also be a separate two-week ramp up period if the Tide Lens parcel comes online at a different time, and I think I'm okay with that.

Um seems like we're okay with a ramp up period.

There might be two slightly different ramp up periods.

Um if you're okay with that.

Condition eight, though, is where the applicant was asking for extended hours.

You're saying that you would prefer to keep the hours of eight to four.

The applicant also asked that there be at least extenuating circumstances for up to five trips outside of those hours.

Um I think what we've got is a we could approve it if they ask the planning director and can demonstrate extenuating circumstances as opposed to just at their discretion, they just run extra trucks when they feel like it.

So I think we would recommend that you keep the condition as written.

And then uh the buffer, the 200 foot buffer on condition nine.

Um I don't know if you were okay with the 50 feet.

Does that seem okay?

And that would just be kept.

So the building is yes.

Yes.

So that would that would be kept as a sort of weed-free um buffer zone behind the fence.

Because they might not put slats in the fence, and so then at least there's a little bit of a visual buffer.

Um talks about this access, and I think the applicant's suggestion about timing is fine that um they are under a timeline to at least submit plans for a permit to public works and building, and then must implement in a timely manner, such as no later than 30 days after issuance.

Um we can add in here, I think this is where the sidewalk goes.

We say, you know, public works permits should address pedestrian and bike access that would be modified by the closure of the driveway.

And the engineers will figure that out.

Yeah.

Any um uh I want to circle back to what you brought up, board member Wang about um just uh for maybe extra caution at having the fire department um visit the site and just do a safety review.

I I hear you that this doesn't seem like maybe it would warrant that, but um it is a lot of cars and um uh by the saltwater, so I I think I agree with you on elevateing that.

Um that would be condition fifteen talks about fire stuff.

Oh, it's in there already.

Well, we can we can suggest that there would be site inspection or code.

How do you want to word that?

Because I'm not sure if there is a code.

Uh yeah, there is.

There's so it should just meet the code for these type of facility as far as um fire access.

Emergency vehicle access.

It should meet the building code for this type of use.

Okay.

So it's whatever use this is.

It it yeah, it's uh uh like a parking lot, parking garage kind of use.

Storage, yeah.

Storage I don't know.

But hazardous storage.

The building, the building department will know.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

Based on I think like the the battery component is like the part that maybe needs to be considered a storage of cars, whatever that is.

I I don't know my code that well.

Okay.

Okay.

I think that covers it.

Okay.

Uh that works for me if that works for my fellow board members.

Yeah.

All right.

Do we have a motion?

Um I will move to uh approve the proposed use permit, uh, PLN25017.

Um, subject to the uh additional conditions uh that we've just discussed, summarized by the planning manager.

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

And we have two abstentions.

Or absences.

Thank you.

All right.

And that agenda item is closed.

Thank you so much to members of the public and uh for those who wrote in as well.

Um thank you to the applicant um and to staff for bringing this to us.

Moving on to agenda item 5C, which is the development plan amendment for the Radium Theater.

Good evening again.

We'll try to get you out of here not too late tonight.

Um Brian McGuire, again, here to present uh item 5C, a proposed amendment to the site A development plan to allow performing arts center a performing arts center in landscape plaza on the seaplane lagoon taxiway, located between the waterfront promenade, the seaplane lagoon park basically, and building 77, which is the Alameda Mayor Air Museum.

Tonight staff is requesting that you hold a public hearing and adopt the draft resolution approving the development plan amendment and find the project compliant with California Environmental Quality Act.

Uh just a most of you were here uh I think two years ago.

So the project hopefully looks familiar.

In 2024, we had some workshops with HAB Historical Advisory Board and Planning Board before holding several joint subcommittee subcommittee meetings.

Um thank you, Vice President Arisa, for your participation in that.

Um and board member Hallm.

Uh to help refine the proposal.

We spent most of 2025 refining some technical details, solving some of the stormwater and other technical problems that public works likes to work through, as well as giving staff from the base reuse and economic development department time to negotiate the ground lease and purchase option, which is been running parallel to this process and will go to city council for approval or for consideration next month.

Little bit of land use context here.

The project location is in the heart of what many of our planning documents refer to as the Alameda Point Waterfront Town Center.

The waterfront town center is intended to create a vibrant transit oriented mixed use waterfront with visitor serving uses like retail, recreation, and entertainment.

That would catalyze a larger transformation of Alameda Point.

Projects also located within the Naval Air Station Alameda Historic District, listed in the National Register in 2013 for its significance relating to events during World War II, as well as the architecture and design of the base.

Some of the character defining features of the district that are relevant to this application include lots of important views, which we'll talk about, the orthogonal layout of buildings, roads, and the landscape, as well as the expansive open paved areas.

Additionally, the project is governed by the 2014 town center, waterfront, town center and waterfront precise plan.

Which called for, as you can see here on the left in the purple box, lots of potential future development along the seaplane lagoon taxiway.

The site A development plan from 2022, the amendment is shown on the right, which is when the theater project was first considered that came to you.

You can see that the roadway network has evolved between the precise plan, the town center plan, and the site A development plan.

No longer do we have that sort of diagonal segment, which was envisioned, and then the precise plan called for that one acre entry plaza before you reach the seaplane lagoon park.

Now that Pan Amway and Atlantic essentially come to the right angle and bring you all the way up to the to the entrance to the park.

But Radium's proposal effectively restores the one acre plaza, albeit in a slightly different configuration.

Some of those view corridors, the town center plan diagram here on the left shows you the character defining views and the heavy purple lines.

And then it calls out several other views for consideration when building out the taxiway and the waterfront town center.

Chief among these other views, not character defining in the historic district, but is the view from the center of the museum, building 77 to the museum.

That's a smaller red box on the right, going through the middle of the project site.

The plan also anticipated numerous other view corridors aligned with the face of the hangars, which you can see in the larger red box.

When we brought the project to you in 2024, one of the key considerations was the theater program kind of defines the shape and size.

So which one of these other views was more important?

And when we brought it back, brought it to you, the boards, both boards tended to agree that if forced to choose, the museum view should be given more weight, more preference in the planning.

So this moved the building to the west and created the larger proposed plaza.

Here you can see that the views, the view is preserved and emphasize maintaining the connection between building 77 and the water, as well as embracing the connection between the theater building and the museum.

The current proposal calls for plans for an interim parking lot and a new north-south roadway to the west of the site to address circulation and parking issues.

Thanks to a HAB member who flagged this board member Bevan pointed out how the historic aerial on the left shows when the taxiway was covered in airplanes and seaplanes.

And you can see that the new roadway essentially creates a new view corridor down the middle between the hangars that lines up with the historic seaplane ramps, as well as sort of you can see the natural circulation patterns and view corridors that are created in the older photo.

So that's kind of a nice um nice thing that the current design sort of sort of reestablishes that we thought to call out.

Tonight is a significant milestone for the project, but there's a lot more to come.

Um the development plan details sort of the big pieces of where the theater will be located and where the plaza and roadway will go.

But the applicant will have to return closer to construction for final design review approval as well as a parcel map.

We're not asking for design review approval tonight because too much of the of the sort of skin of the building and the landscape plan could still change between now and construction.

Um, the final design would have to be consistent with the HAB and planning board approvals that um the have already approved a couple weeks ago, and we're hoping to get the board's support for the development plan amendment tonight.

The Alameda Point EIR, the zoning, and the town center plan all require that the project be consistent with a number of guide guiding documents as relates to um in-filled design guidelines, the guide to preserving the character of uh the historic district as amended, which is important because the cultural landscape report has in fill design review guidelines that were the city council adopted as an amendment to the guide.

So when you know the a lot of the documents call for um adopting and following in fill design guidelines, that's basically the main um set of guidelines that we're talking about here, as well as there are guidelines in the precise plan.

Um also need to meet the Secretary of Interior standards for uh rehabilitation.

So we engaged with architectural resources group to provide that expert third party analysis that we use to support the conclusions in the draft resolution.

The report finds that the project is consistent with the secretary standards.

Um there's a detailed discussion in the report specifically about what panoramic about sort of the panoramic views south of the hangars towards the water, uh while a portion of the panoramic view is impacted.

Overall, the impact is minimal, and the panoramic views are largely preserved, the theater being all the way on the east end of the taxiway and um partially sort of tucked behind the museum building.

2014 was long time ago for uh most of us.

I don't think any of us were here and involved in the approvals back then, but it is worth noting that the Alameda Point EIR anticipated major redevelopment and infill, including potentially demolition of historic structures and character defining elements of the historic district.

Um at that time, council essentially said um that that would could still be okay if those impacts were unavoidable because of the project goals for economic development and reuse of the base.

Uh you know, they're trying to replace 15,000 jobs and and reuse uh all these you know old facilities.

Um so they adopted overriding considerations when they approved when they certified that EIR and approved the project.

Um the mitigation measures were followed, were adopted and have been implemented with this project.

Obviously, HAB issued their approval a couple weeks ago.

Um, and the draft resolution makes numerous findings related to CEQA, um, basically saying that the impacts have been thoroughly studied and disclosed.

Next up, the project goes to the city council next month to consider that ground lease and purchase option.

After that, there will be a major fundraising phase.

Then hopefully sooner than later, they'll be back before us to consider design review and uh tentative parcel map.

With that, staff's recommending you hold public hearing and adopt the draft resolution, approving the development plan amendment and findings and finding the project consistent with CEQA.

The applicant has a presentation as well if you would like to hear that first, and we're available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Um if it's okay with um my fellow board members.

Maybe we have applicant data presentation now?

Okay.

Yeah, thank you.

Yes, thank you.

Uh uh good evening.

Thank you for uh your time.

Uh my name is Christopher Sewald.

I'm the founding uh director of uh Radium Presents to put this project on.

Uh I'll be brief.

Um we have this project before you tonight.

Uh you've seen it a couple of years ago, hasn't changed too too much.

Um, but we want you to take a close look at it for two reasons.

One is if it happens, it will be uh uh a focal point for Alameda Point.

And it really will define the whole area.

In fact, it could define all of Alameda once completed.

That's reason number one.

Reason number two is because I think we really have worked hard to hit the nail on the head.

We have a lot of uh you know, dedicated Alamedans.

We have people dedicated to the theater, we have experts.

Some of the very fine architects and uh landscape architects who really put together something that we think is going to be beautiful and uh will be a lasting treasure for the city of Alameda and not just a two-year parking lot.

Um I'm going to uh uh bring on uh Leslie Cliff from Bora Architecture who will walk you through the project.

Thank you.

Great.

Hi everyone.

I don't know if you can see me yet.

We can hear you and see you as we okay, great.

Um so I'm Leslie Cliff.

I'm with Bora Architects, and we're really excited to bring you our evolved design for Radium and the Performing Arts Center at Alameda Point.

Um this is of course seeking approval for us to move forward.

Uh if you can go to the next slide, Brian.

So for those who maybe weren't involved, this is the original site plan that we submitted in response to the RFP that was back in 2023 to propose a public entertainment use on this site.

And this was the beginning of a multi-year process of conversations.

Gotten a lot of great input.

Um I want to uh uh maybe step back for some of you and let you know that the proposed program remains mostly unchanged.

It includes a building that's about 35,000 square feet.

It includes a 550 seat performance hall, buildings two stories with an upper level restaurant providing views down the runway to the San Francisco skyline and beyond, and a rooftop bar.

On the ground floor, there's activation from a cafe that faces the waterfront park toward the seaplane lagoon.

And there's a two-story lobby that fronts what will be a new public plaza to the east, and that's how you'll enter the building, as well as from a drop-off area on a new street that'll be built between the Naval Air Museum and the theater.

Loading is from the west.

Uh so we, if you can go to the next slide, we've made you know many adjustments and have had a lot of conversations.

We met with you all back in June of 2024.

There were subcommittees that were um pulled together where we got a lot of great input, and we've also met with the historic board uh now twice as well.

You can move on to the next slide.

To highlight just a few of those comments while looking at the site plan.

Um we did adjust the building location to preserve that Naval Air Museum view corridor that was Brian talked about.

Um we responded to a request to provide conceptual elevations of all sides of the building.

We were asked to develop what you see here as a pretty you know basic site plan to a much more detailed plaza plan, and I have landscape architects in the room there that will give you that detail in just a moment.

Um the team was asked to look at how the building fits within the context, including building height.

We needed to develop more detail on how traffic would flow, parking, drop-off, um, and all of those good pieces, including service and loading.

We studied stormwater, and we enhance the connection to the waterfront park to the south.

So we've done a lot of work beyond what you see here.

Next one, next slide.

Uh so this site plans to illustrate um that the current project, as you see it here, will require work that is actually beyond the property line.

Uh, mostly that is this new pedestrian and vehicular street that is between the performing arts theater building and the Naval Air Museum, and that's where drop-off will occur.

We also need to navigate about three feet of grade change because the runway, the existing runway is lower than the waterfront park, and our building be raised up to that waterfront park level and out of the floodplain.

You can go to the next slide.

So this is a more current uh site plan that has uh addressed those concerns that were raised.

You can see that the building location's been shifted to the west.

There's a 40-foot view corridor that you can see there in orange from the Naval Air Museum.

There's also uh that second uh view corridor from Tower Road on the west that Brian mentioned.

Um we've provided much more detail about the service and the loading.

That proposed parking that you see here will be down at the runway level and will be striped on the runway surface itself.

Next slide.

This is 3D conceptual massing.

This is mostly the same as previously submitted.

Um, you know, again, it's at a conceptual level to give you a sense of scale and extent of windows, but of course, the scheme will be developed further and we'll return for full design review in the future.

You can go to the next slide.

Here's a second view.

Um in this one you can see uh how the proposed massing is being inspired by the Naval Air Museum that's beyond there, um, as well as other buildings in the district, including large hangar doors on the building 41 and other buildings.

You can go to the next slide.

And the height of the building is uh at mostly at 43 feet, which is within the 50 foot zoning height limit, um, which is the height of the hangar buildings in the district, that 50 feet.

Um so we're below that.

Uh the only exception is the fly tower, which extends to 70 feet.

Um, and your for your reference, the Naval Air Museum that's um directly north of us is 30 feet in height.

So now we want to turn it over to our uh design partner, Surface Design, uh and they can walk you through the public plaza in more detail.

Uh thank you, Leslie.

My name's James Lorde, and it's nice to see you all again.

Uh we are so excited about this project, especially on the landscape front, to thinking about how what a community benefit both of the performing arts center, but also the open space at the same time.

As you'll note, a lot of the organization of the plaza itself is really based on these amazing views out and into the park.

Um, as you can see coming from Pan Am Way, you have the promenade uh runway, we call it that can be used for outdoor performances, and that leads one from the corner directly to the front door of the performing arts center.

As Leslie and everyone has, and Brian is all mentioned, the big view uh that we've been concerned about is the one from the Naval Air Museum, and you basically unappo unobstructed view of 40 feet all the way straight through to the uh sculpture and beyond.

And then having uh another sort of more intimate uh walkway that takes you from if you're coming from the tower district down across the plaza and out to the view.

That is the longest water view you can get.

So the park and what we've tried to design here is to reinforce the connection to the water.

So that sort of semi-diagonal coming from the north to the south actually aligns and magnifies the open space where the ferries currently come in.

So if you imagine that, it's uh quite an important spot.

We're playing with topography, as we mentioned, three feet up for everywhere, um, and then a series of these sort of lifted panels that um in essence engage with the existing waterfront park.

So not turning our back, but actually building off of it.

So that panel you see there closest to the where it says waterfront park is tilted up and is and we've been working with your parks people to think about that as another performance space and picnic area that you can again look out over the existing waterfront park and out to the water.

Other areas that you see in their green is incorporating all the storm water, as everyone's been mentioning.

So that's all handled on site, nothing's being transferred over.

Next.

You start to see what I was talking about here with the more intimate spaces next.

And you can see the overlay of the trees again, reinforcing those view corridors.

Next.

This is um important.

This is uh looking across that view, the long view of the water that cuts you straight through.

And then we're also again outreaching along Pan Amway to the tower district.

So really trying to reinforce pedestrian movement and retail uh to that street as well, even though it's one block over.

Also setting up uh interface with the Naval Museum.

What you have or might not uh see what we've done is that we've integrated a drop-off area.

Um next slide.

Should be in that.

That's it.

Oh, here you go.

Sorry.

Uh the green one, I imagine.

Uh yeah, there we go.

So this is the other view from this is where Pan Amway turns.

So this is our our performance uh promenade runway that takes you to the front door.

Next one here.

There we go.

There's that corridor we spoke about.

This is what it looks like on the ground if you're um at the street at the drop off.

And this is looking back at the naval, and you can see how both the architecture and the landscape is tried to frame and activate uh visually the Naval Air Museum.

And then here's the the sort of the waterfront park interface that I mentioned.

Again, the picnic lawns that look not back to our plaza but out to the existing waterfront and allows people to sit and perch and enjoy the outside in the marine and the lagoon.

Um this is a little bit of a an adjustment uh that we talked about here.

This was the original layout, which is sort of a this new street that's gonna cut through between the performing arts center and the naval museum.

It's a dead straight shot.

Um we had some parking on and we've changed this and worked really intently with the with the city uh to create um a different kind of safer environment.

So this is the new plan.

It incorporates a chicane, which uh sort of cuts off the sort of direct shot, so it slows uh uh cars down when it goes in.

Not only that, but with the pavement treatment.

We're really thinking that keep this a slow street.

So for um maximum uh crossing to the to the Naval Museum and up to uh the Pan Amway with drop off being on the one side.

It also has allowed us to really aggregate some of the stormwater management for the tree uh for the street itself, so we can get these wonderful sort of greener streets at the same time.

I'll leave that for any questions or comments you guys might have.

Great, thank you so much.

I'll bring it back to the board for any clarifying questions.

Yes, uh board member Sahiban.

Yeah, uh thank you for the presentations.

Uh I did have a question just on um and I can't recall when we last saw this if the site had extended to the east of the Naval Air Museum.

I see there's a little portion um on the northeast corner there.

Um is that new or was that always there?

No, as as the as we work through, and it was a lot of discussion about what that road's gonna look like, and and I think uh still there's you know, ultimately by the time we come back with tentative map and designer view we'll we'll answer those questions.

But the sort of the vision did expand to sort of open up that corner and and invite people in, and I can let the the landscape architect speak to that more.

But that is new from what you saw.

It is sort of conceptual in nature at this point.

Um but uh it does sort of sort of give you that idea that that this site could further integrate and you know didn't call it out in the presentation, but you can see here the existing waterfront park on the bottom.

You can see the bay trail, the concrete part, and then the landscaped area between the theater and the bay trail is actually part of the existing waterfront park.

Um so they're proposing to essentially expand and and more fully integrate that landscape design into the park.

So they have to sort of essentially redesign that portion of the public park and there would be a maintenance agreement and things worked out with the parks department um in order to do that.

Um so yeah, that's just showing sort of the big vision of what what this plaza and and landscape is gonna look like.

Um but just to confirm essentially the red dashed line shows the extent of the work and it's continuing now to the northeast portion, just east of the Naval Air Museum.

Um I don't know if it impacts any operations of the Naval Air Museum, or it's meant to enhance the arrival to the to the museum.

Yeah, I think a lot of those questions will get um answered in the in the map phase.

So the the parcel, I'm not sure.

I don't know about I think the museum has been conveyed, but the the hangar to the north of the museum has not.

And when that happens, and then we parcelalize it and dedicate the public right-of-way, what the final access and circulation for the adjacent users will be will inform like what we can or can't really achieve in this corner of the project uh site.

Okay.

So this the scope has expanded a bit to grab that corner and how it turns out is still yet to be determined.

Yeah, I think I think that you know the the landscape plan is conceptual at this point.

Um so sort of to give everyone the vision and uh some of those details will be worked out in the in the ground lease, but also they're gonna come back with uh that design review to lock it down when it's time to build.

Okay.

Thank you.

That was my main question.

Thank you.

Um any other questions.

Uh board member Sue.

Um yeah, I think we we probably touched on this when this project came to us last time, but uh what what's the plan for parking um kind of long term?

Because I know there's the interim parking behind the theater, but has that been kind of a point of discussion?

The planning time?

Yeah, absolutely.

So the the plan, the planning documents and approvals for Altmeta Point envisioned um sort of this Alameda Point was a little bit ahead of its time.

First place in the city that didn't have minimum parking requirements is back in 2014, right?

Um and really envisioned minimizing the private dedicated off-street parking um and having city-owned lots and properties, and so there's a uh a city wide uh Alameda Point Transportation Demand Management Plan that includes designated spots that are anticipated for future public lots.

Um we're starting to get to having to answer those questions in a little bit more detail in a couple of areas, but obviously for the foreseeable future, we've got acres and acres of empty pavement that are not you know uh going to redevelop next week or next year.

Um and so we think that this interim use will serve for an extended period, um the interim parking lot.

But uh we if this site were to redevelop, we would you know then be faced with the having to solve that next question of you know, because this is not just gonna serve the theater, this could serve park users and and people visiting other other locations in the area.

So we really want those to be city owned and managed so that we can right size it and also potentially if need be price it in order to encourage folks to use those those other modes.

But it's not a it's it's not a uh we don't think this is a very short term.

We call it interim, but not necessarily a short-term um proposal here.

Um so we think this could function for quite a while.

Um and just one more follow-up question.

Um I looking through the plans and I saw a cross section of Pan Amway, and I was wondering if this project includes changes to the I guess the layout of Pan Am Way.

It doesn't look like it because what the cross-section looks like looks like what is now there's based on Google Maps.

Um I think this is, yeah, what is this?

Yeah, I think they're the they did a there's a little sleight of hand here.

I think that driveway into Pan Amway is probably sliding to the north a little bit.

Um so there as part of this, they would have to probably relocate um that the final position of those curbs and that that entrance into this new road by a few feet.

Um I think uh there are some slides that some images that maybe show it or hint at it, um, but essentially they they sort of overwrote the existing aerial in the plans.

So it's just a few feet difference, I think.

The so I in the exhibit one on page 29 that is kind of similar, not exactly this one here, but there's an acronym LOW, and I was just trying to figure out what that stands for.

Um maybe limit of work.

Well, yeah, it says 29, I think.

Limit of work.

Limited work.

Okay, thank you.

Very helpful.

Um, I think that's all I have for now.

So actually, so just to build on it, it sounds like that's what you were just saying, right, Brian, is that like it looks like there's some work that needs to happen in that intersection right there that includes Pan Amway a bit, because it kind of juts out it to grab part of that intersection right there.

Yeah, I think that's right.

Um again, these are conceptual and the tentative map is really gonna define the the those final curb and gutter locations.

Um but my understanding as as I've seen the plans develop is that essentially that the current sort of western side of Pan Am roadway connection would would shift a few feet if the if the proposed plan for the roadway location were to move forward, it would just shift a few feet to the north and maybe narrow a couple of feet too, because it's 26 feet for the aerial fire truck access next to the building, but it's only I think 22 feet curb to curb uh adjacent to the plaza, whereas currently it's probably 26 feet at Pan Am.

Does that make sense?

I'm so much following, but I think I have enough.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, no intervene overload.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um other questions?

If not, um we'll go ahead and open up to public comment.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Two online so far.

I don't have any speaker slips in the room.

Um Tara Pilbro.

Hello, good evening.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes.

Wonderful.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Um my name is Tara Pilbro.

I am the executive director of West End Arts District.

I'm also on the board of Radium.

And I think most importantly, for why I'm here speaking to you this evening, I am also a working artist.

And I had long and lovely eloquent words for you this evening, but viewing the time that we have currently before us, I'm going to keep it short and sweet.

I have three major points for you.

One is that as a dancer, choreographer, and performer, I think I can speak on behalf of not only the professional artists, but also a lot of young artists and amateurs on the island to say that there is a desperate need for a facility of this sort in Alameda.

And we need it not only as a place to gather to create and to perform.

But they I believe there's also a need for it as a symbol.

So radium will be a symbol of the importance of the arts to this city.

Alameda is a city which values the arts both for health and wellness, for community well-being, for social cohesion, for creativity, for inspiration, for education.

For so many reasons, the arts are vitally important to our community.

And I think radium will really symbolize that fact, especially in its current location, which is incredibly visible both for anyone coming towards the island and for the people on the island.

One of the things that I wanted to point out is that I think that over the last five to ten years, uh it's really the arts community, West End Arts District, Radium Presents, and a host of other arts and cultural organizations that have through a variety of events and and performances through opera, through music festivals, through dance performances, really works to bring the area where the radium building will be back to life.

And I think that is really symbolic of how important radium will be in the future to Alameda Point's cultural vibrancy.

It will be the town center that however many years ago when people were laying out the plans for what Alameda Point was going to be, and they pointed to that space in the middle there and said this should be the town center.

Radium is the building that will create the vibe that they were thinking of at that moment.

That cultural community hub in the center of a space that creates a vibrant neighborhood in Alameda Point.

So on behalf of myself and all of the arts ecosystem of Alameda and of the Wider Bay Area, I urge you to approve the proposal this evening for Radium.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next up is Brent Saldana.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes, we can hear you.

Great.

Thank you.

Hi, good evening.

My name is Brent Soldania, and I'm an attorney and chair of the real estate practice at Frill LeBron and Martell.

However, I'm here tonight in my individual capacity as a board member of Radium, and equally as important as a resident of Alameda.

And I want to take this opportunity to convey what this project means to me personally.

My family and I have been living in Alameda for about 12 years now.

And I know by Elmeda standards, that's quite short, but it's long enough to know that this is the community in which I wanted to buy my first home and raise my kids.

Envision, I envision being here for much, much longer.

To a mighty team of people leading the charts to fight for a prominent arts and culture institution at Alameda Point that has the potential to not only significantly shape the arts community in our city, but also secure Elameda's place in an East Bay and Greater Bay Area cultural scene.

You see, I want to be part of that group as a long-term vision for something truly transformational for our city.

A project that has the potential for catalyzing further change at Alameda Point and within the arts community here.

We're talking about a project that would offer professional quality performance space accessible to local arts organizations, that would act as a hub to attract audiences from outside Elameda to spend their dollars at other local businesses, and that expands opportunities for Elmita's youth interested in arts programming.

I'm incredibly excited to support Radium.

My hope is that with your approval this evening, Radium can take the next step towards its vision for a key institution for arts, culture, and community here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We got one more hand so far.

Nick Wing.

Nick Winkworth.

Right.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Wonderful.

Thank you so much.

So my name is Nick Winkworth.

I'm speaking to you tonight in my capacity, really, as just a local resident.

My family and I moved to Alameda to the West End in 2019.

And one of the things that really attracted us to this area was Alameda Point.

And not just the incredible history that is there, but the potential.

And as I've become engaged with various arts organizations in Alameda, you know, I've been a little disappointed by the slow rate of change and revitalization that we we've seen there.

I've, you know, I've only been here a short time, but I guess my expectations weren't realistic.

But I'm so excited by the potential of radium to accelerate the revitalization of that and bring uh life and vibrancy to this area.

And you know, one of the things that I just wanted to make a point for was that if you bring the arts to a place that's going to bring people, and those people are going to bring businesses, and that will bring revenue to help uh maintain the historic buildings, to bring the arts in.

Uh I th I I think this is a really critical piece in the uh in the development of that.

I and I'm very excited to see this move forward.

Uh I think that uh you know the plans are exactly right.

I think it is a size of a venue which is sorely missing in the Bay Area.

I think it'll be a fantastic asset.

But most importantly, I think it will drive uh a lot more of the read revitalization of the area and accelerate all the things that we really want to have happen up there.

So uh I really want to put my my voice behind uh supporting um this development.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have no more speakers.

No more speakers.

Okay.

We'll go ahead and close public comment and I'll bring it back to the board for deliberations, comments, feedback.

Anyone want to start?

Sure.

Yeah, okay.

Right president Adisa.

Um I just want to say thank you for bringing this project back and for all the improvements that you can definitely see that um at least I feel heard, and that this, you know, also working in collaboration with staff.

I think that it shows that all the kind of the comments, at least the ones we had that I remember, you know, the parking, the views, uh, and the public spaces, it has all been taken into account.

And I really like uh the approach for this low street as well.

Um so I I definitely hope that the funding comes about as soon as possible, and that we can see the project build um as soon as possible, too.

Thank you.

Uh yes, a board member Sahibba.

Yeah, I I also um really appreciate all the hard work and effort that's gone in since the last time we've met, and I understand all the technical aspects that the team has really tried to drive forward on.

Um and as we come back in the future uh continue to you know uh look forward to understanding how this will be realized and um um how we continue to work with the context of the park and um of the naval base uh sorry of the of the actual museum in order to uh really um allow the the radium theater to be this connector between multiple aspects of um uh of the naval base so appreciate it again and looking forward to the next steps.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Yes, uh board member Wayne.

Um I'll be brief.

Um just I just want to point out you know I'm gonna pre appreciate the the thought that went into this.

Um the site planning is really sensitive, it's thoughtful.

Um it's also energetic and contemporary.

I quite like it.

Um looking forward to the next step at design review.

Thanks.

Great, thank you.

Um other comments?

Uh see now.

Um I uh apologize.

I do have a question.

Um there was um a written comment um just uh contesting maybe the CEQA compliance.

I was just wondering if um staff or the attorney has any um response or reaction uh to that yeah I'm happy to go first and let uh assistant city attorney um expand if if you like um I think we we did a lot of a lot of analysis and a lot of review and a lot of work went into it and we've got a lot of um prior uh CEQA documents that govern exactly what we're proposing here um so I think it's fair to say that that staff has a has a very different view of uh the project's secret compliance than than the commenter yeah I would agree with Brian um as he mentioned in his earlier presentation the city did adopt a statement of overriding considerations where they did all the review for this site and found that the goals of the project were gonna have some effects um to comply with that statement this had to go to HAB for consistency review and it did do that um so it has been reviewed and it has met all the measures for it to be consistent.

Thank you.

And um I'd agree with that assessment it's uh clear um uh from the exhibits uh there was uh a lot of analysis done um so just thank you to the staff um thank you to the applicant um for all the hard work behind this I agree with my fellow board members uh this is a really exciting addition to our community and um a potential catalyst for all the opportunity on the point so um I very much support um this project moving forward this uh development plan amendment so thank you um and I would just add I was also I very much appreciate the public comments it was um uh you can tell very authentic and very moving so just uh much appreciation for um all the supporters for this project as well and with that do we have a motion yeah I I'll move to adopt the draft resolution to approve the development of the the development plan amendment for the radium theater at 2151 Ferry Pointway.

Great.

I'll second all right all those in favor aye no opposed and two absences.

All right and the motion carries thank you.

All right we'll go ahead and close item 5C officially and move on to agenda item six staff communications yes uh under 6A uh you have in your packet uh information about three recent decisions by the zoning administrator and planning staff those decisions are still in their appeal period uh the uh under 6B I can report uh future meetings we are hoping to bring the inclusionary ordinance back to you April thirteenth and so um I'm currently working out some of the details and uh I've uh reached out to the working group to get their final input as well and gotten some feedback so um so making some final tweaks on that but that should be coming back as well as um uh a few other items on April thirteenth um also just to give you an update uh you did hear the park station um use permit uh and I wasn't sure if you all had heard but uh that decision was appealed to the city council and so that will be heard on May 5th um and so the uh the noise issue uh remains and we're hoping

So um still making some final tweaks on that, but that should be coming back as well as um uh a few other items on April 13th.

Um just to give you an update, uh you did hear the park station um use permit.

Uh and I wasn't sure if you all had heard, but uh that decision was appealed to the city council, and so that will be heard on May 5th.

Um the uh the noise issue uh remains, and we're hoping to get some more information from the appellant um in terms of uh their position.

All right, thank you for that update.

Um yes, sure.

Presidents, I I think we also you asked about whether there might be an election of a new president sometime in the near future.

Um since you've been serving for almost two years.

Um I honestly I need to look up the bylaws.

I couldn't find it in on short notice, but I I believe there's a schedule that's commonly used, it might be July.

Um I think you might need to hang in there for a few more months.

Um but in the meantime, you all can consider uh who you might want to nominate, if not the vice president.

Um usually we try to do that when all the members are present, so that's another variable that we'll try to take advantage of when you're all here.

Okay, yeah, that makes sense.

Uh thank you.

I appreciate that.

Yeah.

I was like, hmm, I'm not sure.

Thank you.

Um great.

And then um, I guess we'll go ahead and close um item six.

Oh, and I forgot.

Um any public comments on this?

See none?

Okay.

Now we'll close agenda item six.

And then agenda item seven, board communications.

See none.

And uh agenda item eight.

Any member of the public may comment on something that was not on the agenda tonight.

Do we have any online speakers?

Seeing none.

Okay, we'll go ahead and close that.

And we are adjourned at 9:32.

Thank you.