{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-09-14", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2020\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Alan Teague convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nThis meeting was via Zoom.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Ron Curtis led the flag salute.\n3.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: President Teague and Board Members Curtis, Hom, Rothenberg, Ruiz,\nand Saheba.\nAbsent: None.\n4.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nAndrew Thomas, Director of Planning Building and Transportation, recommended that\nthey move the public comment, the main item, to the first item on the Agenda. They would\nbe taking public comments on the General Plan throughout this Agenda item. For anyone\nwho had a comment on items not relating to the General Plan to save those to the end of\nthe forum before the remaining items on the Agenda.\nThere were no objections from the board on this.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n6.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\n7.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2020-8301\nGeneral Plan Update - Public Forum #1: Developing a healthy, equitable, and inclusive\nCity.\nPresident Teague reminded the board that this is a forum and they would not be making\ndecisions. They would be making suggestions, providing their thoughts to the staff and the\npublic. This would be an ongoing process and in no way near anything final.\nDirector Thomas gave a presentation on behalf of the General Plan team on the first\ntheme. The General Plan Draft presentation on \"Developing a Healthy, Equitable and\nInclusive City\" and attachments can be found\nat:\nittps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4631380&GUID=B2E79DC6-\nE52D-485C-9D8A-E2DDA1E4B1C1&FullText=1.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 9\nSeptember 14, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-09-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-09-14", "page": 2, "text": "Director Thomas also pointed out the General Plan's website,\nhttps://www.alameda2040.org/ where more information could be found. This is also where\nthe public could leave comments, concerns, and questions about the General Plan. He\nalso encouraged Alameda residents to take the surveys.\nDirector Thomas had the board fill out Poll #1.\nBoard Member Curtis asked about what the percentages on the map represented.\nDirector Thomas explained what they meant.\nPresident Teague asked for the public questions that had been collected.\nSarah Henry, Public Information Officer, presented questions from the public submitted\nduring the presentation.\nWould the city be considering changing street or park names the public considered\noffensive or is that for another discussion?\nDirector Thomas said they do not currently have a policy in the draft General Plan about\ntree/park name changes but one could be added.\nHow many people had responded to the surveys?\nDirector Thomas said over 500 people had responded, and the surveys would be available\nfor the rest of the year.\nWhat was the outreach plan for inclusivity in this process? It looked like everyone\nparticipating so far was white and middle age.\nDirector Thomas said they are reaching out to different groups and neighborhoods to try\nand increase participation in areas that are lacking. They can already tell they are not\nreaching youths, so they are working with school districts, youth groups, and afterschool\nprograms.\nDoes the city plan to put low-income housing in every neighborhood on the city\nmap?\nDirector Thomas said they would talk about where housing would go later in the meeting.\nStaff sees opportunities for growth happening in every neighborhood but there are very\nfew locations in Alameda where they can significant numbers of new housing.\nIs there a map showing the density of every neighborhood?\nDirector Thomas said they don't have that map but they can create that map.\nHow will the housing policies reflect the ever-changing demands of the pandemic?\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 9\nSeptember 14, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-09-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-09-14", "page": 3, "text": "Director Thomas said when they started the draft for the General Plan the pandemic had\nstarted. This first draft does not deal with the pandemic at all. The safety element of the\nGeneral Plan would be the right place to start introducing those concepts, staff has learned\nso much in the last 6 months about dealing with the pandemic.\nDoes the city have definitions of what is equitable and inclusive? If so, what are\nthey?\nDirector Thomas said this general plan does not have measures for them. Once they\nintroduce measures, metrics, and definitions into the next draft there will be a way to see\nif they had met them.\nIn Policy LU1 neighborhood needs to be defined. What does neighborhood mean\nwhat is shown on survey 1 or exhibit 1 map?\nDirector Thomas said they were thinking much more about the conceptual concept of\nneighborhood.\nIn Policy LU1 how literally are the action reference statements to be taken for all\nneighborhoods? Specifically action number 5?\nDirector Thomas answered that what the General Plan is saying complete neighborhoods\nhave to address all these needs. These needs exist in all neighborhoods. Some of these\nitems will have conditional use permits that is how these things will be managed.\nRecently state law requires the creation of an environmental justice element or\nintegrating environmental justice into the General Plan. Does Alameda plan to\nincorporate such an element? HUD recently rescinded the affirmatively further fair\nhousing rule, does Alameda plan to continue to work towards those goals?\nDirector Thomas answered that they have integrated environmental justice throughout\nelements of the General Plan. They would be reviewing the first draft carefully against the\nstate law requirements.\nPresident Teague opened up board discussions.\nVice President Asheshh Saheba believed it was critical to get the output from all the\ndifferent neighborhoods and was very glad this was happening. He agreed that tying the\nhousing policies into each of the neighborhoods was important.\nBoard Member Teresa Ruiz echoed the sentiment of how important reaching out to\ncommunities underrepresented was. She believed the General Plan was the backbone for\nfuture planning and creating equity inclusive neighborhoods was a noble idea and a goal\nto strive for. She did voice that some of the wording in the policies was rather broad. She\nwas concerned about putting the housing policy in the general Plan since the state is\nconstantly changing its requirements.\nBoard Member Rona Rothenberg felt that economic goals and initiatives were buried in\nthe text and said they should be more explicit. She said that for a Post Covid Era would\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 9\nSeptember 14, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-09-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-09-14", "page": 4, "text": "current density still apply, and might there be other ways to think about the overall health\nof the community. She also agreed with Board Member Ruiz about some of the wording.\nBoard Member Hanson Hom felt that more needed to be done to reach out to youth,\nseniors, and non-white members of the city. He noted that the Southshore neighborhood\nwas silent and was surprised by the low level of response from Bay Farm. His main conflict\nwas that even though important equity and inclusiveness were, we must be aware of the\ncurrent density. He also foresaw people having an issue with land-use policies 15 and 16\nand believed these needed more work.\nBoard Member Curtis addressed the cynicism and fear coming from the community. He\nbelieved that with clearer policies and credibility they could address these issues. He went\non to say that for people to believe these items are going to be done the city has to have\ncreditability.\nPresident Teague asked when the draft for the housing and mobility elements would be\navailable.\nDirector Thomas said that the current housing element and under state law they have to\nupdate by the summer of 2022. All seven elements of the mobility elements are on the\nwebsite.\nPresident Teague pointed out it was not.\nDirector Thomas was surprised and said they would double-check the link.\nPresident Teague asked how the Housing Authority had responded with helping with\nparticipation.\nDirector Thomas said they had reached out to them and the Housing Authority would help\nget the word out to the lower-income population.\nPresident Teague was very much in favor of a theme like this. He also spoke about his\nexperience with discrimination and how can the board help encourage a high quality of life\nfor everyone. He spoke about other word changes he would like to make expectations and\ngoals clear.\nThe Board took a break from 8:06 pm to 8:16 pm.\nDirector Thomas recommended letting him continue with presenting the rest of the policies\nthen to answer questions presented by the public.\nDirector Thomas continued the presentation.\nPresident Teague asked to hear questions from the public and to keep the time under 10\nminutes.\nStaff Member Henry asked questions submitted by the public.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 9\nSeptember 14, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-09-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-09-14", "page": 5, "text": "Can we talk about zoning and which neighborhoods are going to have other uses\nbesides residential?\nDirector Thomas answered the zoning should be consistent with the General Plan. Once\nthe General Plan is updated then the board can discuss specific neighborhoods and\ndistricts they want to amend to implement the General Plan.\nA caller felt that having the General Plan discussion at the Planning Board Meeting\nwas unfair due to the board's rule about limiting public comments to three minutes\nand suggested something more informal that would allow true back and forth\ndiscussion.\nThe West End has been overwhelmed by high-density development and wanted to\nknow why this hadn't been shared with other areas. Why hadn't Bay Farm and\nHarbor Bay been developed more?\nDirector Thomas said this was an interesting observation. The policy about where housing\nshould go will be debated for the next four months.\nIs there a way to update the survey results before the end of the meeting?\nDirector Thomas said no, the survey results will be updated before each monthly planning\nmeeting.\nDoes Alameda currently meet the state's affordable housing requirements?\nDirector Thomas answered that Alameda still has 2 years of the 8 years to achieve the\ntotal units but they will probably not meet the affordable housing obligations.\nDoes the city count ADUs as part of the RENA?\nDirector Thomas said the city gets credit for every housing unity they add, so yes.\nWhere is the link to the written comments? They would like to see the reference to\nthe Preservation Club's letter.\nDirector Thomas said that has not been posted yet. Staff will go through all the comments\nand suggestions and see what they will present to the Planning Board. The Planning\nBoard will decide what will go to the City Council.\nWhy are we discussing philosophy before discussing infrastructure?\nDirector Thomas said that General Plan deals will many issues, nothing is happening\nbefore anything else. Items are happening simultaneously.\nWhy doesn't the General Plan talk about adding a new bridge or extending the\ntunnel? New housing means more traffic for Alameda and this needs to be\naddressed.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 9\nSeptember 14, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-09-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-09-14", "page": 6, "text": "density was of their neighborhoods. The General Plan will have a maxim density for each\nclassification. Measure Z will affect what the Planning Board can or can do about changing\ndensities in different areas.\nHas the council approved affordable units that haven't been built yet?\nDirector Thomas said the council has approved enough units to meet the regional need.\nHowever, even if every one of those units was built we would not meet ar Affordable\nHousing Obligations.\nHow the future of Alameda Housing is needs to be forecasted?\nDirector Thomas said all of that was addressed in the introduction chapter to the General\nPlan and gave a summary of their thoughts.\nPresident Teague opened up board commentary.\nBoard Member Ruiz felt that with Measure Z on the ballot they should wait until after the\nelections before continuing the conversations about where to put housing.\nBoard Member Rothenberg looked forward to participating in the upcoming forums.\nBoard Member Hom talked about the importance of this issue and believed some of the\npolices should be refined and made more clear in their wording. He also stressed the\nimportance of infrastructure is for growth. He also noted that the city needs to address the\nplans for South Shore and more focus needs to go into public health.\nBoard Member Curtis agreed with what his fellow board members had said. He was\nconcerned when the units being built, would the City have adequate infrastructure that\ncould handle emergencies from earthquakes and fires and wanted a study to be done.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 9\nSeptember 14, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-09-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-09-14", "page": 7, "text": "Vice President Saheba spoke about sustainable growth and how the city could create a\nhousing policy around that. He talked about the importance of looking at many things that\nare connected to housing needs.\nPresident Teague asked about Coast Guard Island.\nDirector Thomas said that it is a Federal Facility today, but did ask the question of what\nthe plan would be if the Federal Government vacated Coast Guard Island. If the Coast\nGuard left that would be a great place for mixed-use housing.\nPresident Teague asked if they would do the same for the Resupply Station.\nDirector Thomas pointed out that on the General Plan there is a Federal Facility overlay.\nWhen and if the government vacated these areas general zoning would apply.\nPresident Teague opened the public comment.\nStaff Member Henry asked one more question submitted by the public before letting the\ncommenters speak.\nIs there a section on the website about adding schools? With all the units being\nplanned there has to be a discussion about education and the quality of education.\nDirector Thomas answered that the General Plan does have institutional classification\nidentified on the map and there are policies about schools and the need for land for those\nschools.\nBetsy Mathieson wanted them to determine the actual existing density of every\nneighborhood as it is now. We need to know what we have now before we plan for the\nfuture.\nDavid Burton, a former Planning Board Member, said the General Plan must state clearly\nthe vision for ourselves. The broad themes must be restated in plain and concisely worded\nheadings to make them effective. He then gave examples of what he meant and opinions\non each of the themes.\nJay Garfinkel said he did not see scientific problem solving being applied in the General\nPlan. He also commented that if there is going to be a major development somewhere\nmore notice needs to go out to residents than what is already being done. He is concerned\nthat this process is going on during a time when people are overwhelmed by the elections\nand dealing with Covid-19. He did not see the point of all of these philosophical items\nbefore addressing infrastructure. He was overall very concerned with the way this process\nwas being done.\nDolores Gallagher, a member of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society,\ncommented that she couldn't give the highest endorsement about the survey because\nthere needed to be more information and details. She suggested lengthening out the\nprocess and getting more feedback from the public. She also commented on the lack of\ntrust on both sides of Measure Z and believed that public engagement could help with\nthis.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 9\nSeptember 14, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-09-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-09-14", "page": 8, "text": "Roland Angle brought up the issue of 5G Technology installation on the island and that\nthere had not been any health studies done on the effects of 5G. He was disappointed\nthere was no mention of 5G in the General Plan and wanted to know what the city's policy\nwas about installing 5G on the island. He wanted to know how the city would protect the\nhealth of the city's residents against 5G.\nRasheed Shabazz, a resident, wanted to encourage the ongoing conversation about racial\nand economic segregation. He expressed the importance of having clear definitions of\nequity and inclusion. He believed this process could be an opportunity to address some\nof the long-standing housing discrimination and to repair the legacy of racial segregation\nin Alameda.\nDoree Miles, a resident, and member of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society\nfelt the draft was too big and needed to be clearer. She also voiced her concern that this\nmeeting should have been postponed until people could attend in person. The link she\nwas originally sent to attend this Zoom meeting did not work and it took her over 40 min\nto register to attend. She was very concerned with infrastructure and wanted to know why\nit wasn't addressed first. She mentioned Alameda's sewer system and is concerned that\nthe city will outgrow the capabilities of the pipes.\nSavanna Cheer wanted to echo what Board Member Hom had said about the missing\ninformation about the public's health. She believed the city had a responsibility to take\ncare of its citizens and having access to clean air and water is as valuable as housing.\nChristopher Buckley wanted the deadline about having comments submitted to the\nPlanning Board more clear. He also addressed the lack of participation from people\ndirectly affected by these decisions and blamed the digital divide. He addressed some\nthoughts on the Density Bonus law and felt that the format of the meeting was too\nconstrained and wanted something with more open discussion.\nJoyce Boyd, a board member of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, wanted\nto vote for a more informal discussion and wanted to know if the HIstorical Advisory Board\nwould be giving input on the General Plan as well.\nPresident Teague closed the public comments.\n8.\nMINUTES\nNone.\n9.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2020-8289\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nStaff report and recommendations can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4630184&GUID=D2D79AB6-\nAC23-4CD7-B468-0A9CF41F0606&FullText=1.\nThe board did not call any item for review.\n9-B 2020-8290\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 9\nSeptember 14, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-09-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-09-14", "page": 9, "text": "Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nDirector Thomas said the next meeting would be in two weeks on September 28th. This\nwould not be a forum, they would be addressing future projects.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n12.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n13.\nADJOURNMENT\nPresident Teague adjourned the meeting at 9:23 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 9\nSeptember 14, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-09-14.pdf"}