{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-05-10", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nSPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD AND THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION\nMONDAY, MAY 10, 2021\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Alan Teague convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nThe meeting was via Zoom.\nASL Interpreters were present at this meeting and can be seen in the video.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE\nCommissioner Rebecca Kohlstrand led the flag salute.\n3.\nROLL CALL\nTransportation Commission:\nChair\nSoules,\nVice-Chair\nNachtigall\nand Commissioners Yuen, Kohlstrand, Weitze and Rentschler.\nAbsent: Commissioner Hans.\nPlanning Board: President Teague and Board Members Curtis, Hom, Rothenberg, Ruiz,\nSaheba, and Teague.\nAbsent: Board Member Cisneros.\n4.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nNone.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nAriana Bindman, a freelance reporter with the SF Gate, wanted to check in with the parklet\non Park Street and Alameda Avenue. She had recently written a story about the situation.\nShe believed this story shined a light on class disparity and how city officials were being\napathetic towards certain Alameda residents.\n6.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n6-A 2021-904\nProposed Citywide Text Amendments to the City of Alameda Zoning Ordinance (AMC\nChapter 30) to Modify Public Art Requirements. Applicant: City of Alameda. Public hearing\nto consider proposed amendments to Alameda Municipal Code Chapter 30. The proposed\namendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant\nto CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3) and 15303. (Item Continued to May 24, 2021,\nPlanning Board Hearing)\nBoard Member Ron Curtis made a motion that item 6-A be continued to the May\n24th meeting and Board Member Rona Rothenberg seconded the motion. A roll call\nvote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.\n7.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2021-905\nPublic Hearing on the Alameda General Plan Update.\nAndrew Thomas, Director of Planning, Building, and Transportation, introduced the item\nand gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at\nApproved PB & TC Joint Meeting Minutes\nPage 1 of 11\nMay 10, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-05-10", "page": 2, "text": " ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4928037&GUID=63163F6E-\nA2D6-48B5-A4A5-6CE722E8D07D&FullText=1.\nPresident Teague opened public comment.\nThere were no public speakers.\nPresident Teague closed public comments and opened the board/commission questions\nand commentary.\nVice President Asheshh Saheba wanted to know if they had looked at the different parking\nrequirements for the different programs offered for the city.\nDirector Thomas said that parking and parking management are going to be a major focus\nof the city staff's work, and are working on a comprehensive rewrite of the Off-Street\nParking Zoning Code. He explained how it would be different from how it had been in the\npast.\nVice President Saheha believed this was critical to a sustainable future.\nVice-Chair Alysha Nachtigall wanted to know since the plan is to have paid parking at the\nferry terminals if there would also be an increase in transit connections to provide an\nincentive for commuters.\nDirector Thomas said having additional transit connections were critical and AC transit\nis\nworking on a plan with WETA (Water Emergency Transportation Authority). He gave a\nbackground on the work those organizations had been planning for Alameda and when it\nis expected to start. He brought up that AC Transit's plan was dependent on Alameda\nmanaging and charging for parking at the ferry terminals as an incentive to take the bus.\nVice-Chair Nachtigall stated that with equity in mind getting the word out about these\nservices would be critical.\nDirector Thomas agreed.\nBoard Member Rothenberg wanted to know if the climate action elements had been\nincorporated and if Residential Parking Permits had been addressed and discussed.\nDirector Thomas said they did acknowledge the progress on the green initiatives and the\nGeneral Plan would keep pushing on what else they can do to deal with Climate Change\nand Greenhouse Gas Emissions. For parking management, the General Plan did not talk\na lot about the city's existing Residential Permit Parking Program, which is available for\nevery neighborhood in Alameda. There was a discussion about parking controls in areas\naround public transportation.\nBoard Member Teresa Ruiz wanted to elaborate on the connectivity aspects of the mobility\nelements. She wanted to see more specifics (bike/scooter/rideshare) folded into the smart\nstreet planning in terms of storage and parking for those elements. She also wanted to\nsee specific elements for safety (no right turn on red or cyclist specific traffic lights) to see\nif they were appropriate or could be adapted for Alameda. She also gave some ideas on\nApproved PB & TC Joint Meeting Minutes\nPage 2 of 11\nMay 10, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-05-10", "page": 3, "text": "how to encourage public transportation, such as Portland's Far-less Square, which they\nhad for over 30 years, that relieved the burden of having to carry a bus pass. She brought\nup the speed limit on the estuary and how it was not being enforced, they needed to find\na way that with ferries and water taxis everyone felt safe and comfortable on the water.\nDirector Thomas said they were also working on other plans such as the Active\nTransportation Plan, which would get into more detail about bicycle and pedestrian\nimprovements for the city over the next 5-10 years. Then there was the Vision Zero Action\nPlan which would deal with some of the questions raised about safety.\nBoard Member Ruiz suggested having all the plans and policies listed in the front and\nwhat they cover so the information was easily located.\nCommissioner Scott Weitze said he did not see a plan to get bikes to the water shuttles\nand wanted to know if they would create bus-only lanes in Alameda. He brought up the\nissue of Enterprise Zone and if they would need to rewrite anything in the General Plan.\nDirector Thomas said the vision is to have great pedestrian and bicycle connections\nthroughout the city between parks, open spaces, commercial spaces, and the waterfront.\nHe discussed how development on the waterfront is required to build a public water shuttle\ndock. He said it was a good note to go back and make sure that concept was very clear.\nFor dedicated bus lanes, they would need to go back and take a look at that, they certainly\nhad mentioned dedicated bus lanes in a few places. He then described the new state law,\nthe Surplus Lands Act, and how it was essentially a new housing bill.\nCommissioner Weitze said he appreciated and applauded the quiet streets and reduction\nin parking and described a great experience at Almanac Brewery being outside. He\nbelieved that was in line with the true character of Alameda. He added that reductions in\nparking would free up land.\nDirector Thomas said they were trying to get the concept across, and yes there were\npeople in the city who had to drive, that if you are able it should be super easy and safe\nto use public transportation or use another option.\nCommissioner Weitze asked about accessible parking and if there had been a discussion\nabout making those the only parking spots available.\nDirector Thomas said they had discussed those options and this would be where the idea\nof a maximum parking standard comes in.\nCommissioner Tina Yuen suggested having a table in the front of the plan showing which\npolicies and plans overlap to make it easier for the reader to see the intersectionality of\ncertain elements.\nDirector Thomas liked that idea not just for the reader but also for the staff.\nCommissioner Yuen asked about the estuary crossing and she thought that the language\nin that section was very neutral. She wanted to hear more about where the city was in\nprioritizing this and how they were pushing this forward. She was specifically asking about\nthe West Alameda bike to Oakland Bridge.\nApproved PB & TC Joint Meeting Minutes\nPage 3 of 11\nMay 10, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-05-10", "page": 4, "text": "Director Thomas said they had given a lot of time and effort to that project. He discussed\nhow long that project had been discussed, first brought up 10 years ago, and while he did\nnot see it happening during his time with the City of Alameda, he believed it was important\nto get the ball rolling on it. He discussed where they were with planning and how they had\nbeen working with Oakland and Chinatown to get people excited about this project.\nCommissioner Yuen agreed it wasn't a pipe dream and it was a necessity for the city. She\nthen asked if there was anything that didn't make it into the General Plan that he wished\nhad.\nDirector Thomas said honestly there wasn't. He gave credit to the city staff, Amie\nMacPhee, Candice Miller, Sheffield, and the consultant team. He also thanked the\ncommunity members of Alameda for their input and their goal is to write the best General\nPlan they could.\nBoard Member Hanson Hom found the plan very readable and well laid out. He\ncommented on the truck routes and wondered how the proposed bike routes and\npedestrian access would affect those truck routes. He said he didn't see much attention\non Senior mobility options and wanted to hear more about that. He was also interested in\nhearing more about Park Policies, he wanted to know if they had discussed having a\ndedicated park fund like the Quimby Act. He asked about Fire Services and that Alameda\nmight need a ladder truck. He agreed there should be a cross-reference table at the\nbeginning and to have in the Implementation Section the more granular plans with a\ntimeline of the plans.\nDirector Thomas said they were still working on the Transportation Element Appendix,\nwhich would have the truck routes on it. He also discussed park dedication and while they\ndon't have a Quimby Act requirement they did have a significant Open Space\nDevelopment Impact Fee.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand agreed with everyone that the second draft was a big\nimprovement. She had questions about the Land Use Designation for Neighborhood\nMixed-Use and gave examples of some around the city that had been labeled residential\nand was curious as to why that was.\nDirector Thomas said that was a great question and that they needed to go back and take\na look at the Neighborhood Mixed-Use qualifications on the map. The intent was to\nmaintain the zones wherever they existed. He then explained how the zoning in some\nareas still allowed for commercial use and a wide variety of mixed uses.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand also asked about business and employment and pointed out\nthere were no services in certain business parks. Then she asked about Land Use Policy\n#31 and wondered why the High Street Bridge had been let out.\nDirector Thomas discussed what the intent was for the business park, they would like to\nsee more food and restaurant uses. For policy #31 they would need to go back and take\na look at that and he would also need to check on why the High Street Bridge was left out.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand pointed out conflicting information about accidents per year.\nShe also discussed policy #15, the congestion at the tubes, and that the language needed\nApproved PB & TC Joint Meeting Minutes\nPage 4 of 11\nMay 10, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-05-10", "page": 5, "text": "to be very clear. She was concerned about making a lane transit only during certain times.\nThen for policy #24, she felt that Bay Farm was overlooked on the issue of sea-level rise,\nand for open spaces, she said that Neighborhood Park was missing from the map. She\nalso wanted the Bay Area Water Trail mentioned for people who want to enjoy the\nwaterways.\nDirector Thomas thanked her for her notes.\nBoard Member Curtis brought up parking concerns for seniors and families with small\nchildren that still heavily relied on driving their cars and couldn't rely on public transit for\ntheir needs. He did feel that the second draft was a big improvement and was proud of\nthe work that had gone into it.\nCommissioner Randy Rentschler referred to the map showing where most of the traffic\ncollisions happened (at traffic lights) and discussed how roundabouts would be beneficial\nboth for safety and money-wise. He also urged for simple policies that didn't put a burden\non the Public Works Department.\nDirector Thomas said that the city staff agreed 100% and thanked Gail Payne, a Senior\nTransportation Coordinator, for really encouraging and researching roundabouts. He\nadded that people would be seeing roundabouts more in the next 20 years in Alameda.\nCommissioner Rentschler also addressed the \"Idaho Stop\" that allowed cyclists to treat a\nstop sign as a yield sign. He felt that this created friction between people and suggested\nthat stop signs should say that cyclists were allowed to do that.\nChair Samantha Soules believed this plan was a shift in what had been done and was\nvery ambitious. The goals were difficult but achievable and she was happy to see the\nconnections between land use and mobility. She also discussed the importance of how\nthis plan took into account all the different needs when it came to transportation and had\nto offer choices. She added that they should now focus on safety and evacuation needs.\nPresident Teague told staff this was an amazing document and there was so much good\nin it. He was very proud to have their names on it. On pages 23-26 he addressed how he\nwanted to keep the Planning Code out of the General Plan since it would create too much\ncost to ever change or adjust it. He added that with low-density anything less than 21 units\nper acre was not acceptable, but that should be in the Planning Code and not in the\nGeneral Plan. On page 29 for LU-2 the \"Complete Neighbors\" that went into F: The Multi-\nFamily Shared Housing and how non-traditional housing was discussed and how it was\nlimited to medium density, he was not in favor of that and it should be available to any\ndistricts that involved residents. He wanted it to be clearer that they supported all types of\nnon-traditional housing, all different types of structures. He was unclear if LU:15 or LU:2\nwere where they would call out that they needed to optimize their land for housing. He\ngave examples of ways to use the land for the best effect. For LU-10, which discussed\nAlameda's two main streets, he felt that Alameda Point was being overlooked. He said it\nwas a shame that they say they only had two main streets when they were spending all\nthese resources to build a community at Alameda Point, he really wanted to see Alameda\nPoint designated as a main street or something like that. On page 44, which discussed\nHistoric Preservation, he felt that they had done a terrible job on protecting their\narchitecture resources that weren't monuments and wanted to see something like the Mills\nApproved PB & TC Joint Meeting Minutes\nPage 5 of 11\nMay 10, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-05-10", "page": 6, "text": "Act, or they define the subset for the Study List such as the ones that were N rated for\nhistoric preservation. On page 65 which discussed solar panels in new development, he\nfelt that solar panels shouldn't just be encouraged for new development but also existing\nstructures. Then on page 66 that discussed water, he felt they should be doing more for\nwater preservation such as using greywater not just for new but for existing buildings.\nMake it so they could use the water they had as efficiently as possible. He brought up a\ntopic that Chair Soules had talked about, equity in transportation, and how it needed to be\naddressed more. He felt that this was an amazing document and thanked everyone for\ntheir comments.\nDirector Thomas thanked everyone and that this conversation had set them up nicely for\nthe next workshop. He said everything President Teague said made sense to him and felt\nright. He then explained why they had added the Planning Code information in the General\nPlan, he did however understand President Teague's thoughts and agreed 100%. He\nthanked everyone for their comments and said that the next workshop would be with the\nHistoric Advisory Board on June 15th.\n7-B 2021-906\nMixed-Use Commercial Districts and COVID-19 Commercial Streets Program. The\nPlanning Board and Transportation Commission will consider public comments, receive\nupdates from City staff, and discuss the role and management of mixed-use commercial\ndistricts, transit corridors, and transit-oriented development in Alameda. The purpose of\nthe discussion is for information sharing and provide an opportunity for public comments\nand suggestions.\nDirector Thomas gave a background on this issue and why it was added to the agenda.\nThe attachments and public comments can be found at\n ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4928215&GUID=4144A61E\nDFD5-42A3-9D17-C3ECA32E3A4B.\nPresident Teague opened public comments.\nBrett Bye discussed the problems with the Clubhouse Bar including many abrasive\nconversations and encounters that had spanned the last ten years. He said the goal was\nnot to close the bar but the clientele, which included people wearing gang colors was not\nsomething they wanted in the neighborhood. He also addressed that it was a well-known\nbar that they do not cut off patrons, he even accused the previous owner of drinking\nhimself to death in the bar. There had also been issues of DUIs and cyclists afraid to ride\nby because they might get hit.\nCari Lee Donovan described her own awful experiences of living next to the Clubhouse\nBar that included people staring at her as she enjoyed in her yard and verbal harassment.\nShe said she and her neighbors (that included children) could not get away from the noise,\ncursing, and drunken bar fights. As a Social Worker who worked from home the Clubhouse\nBar was making her work impossible. She had video proof of people urinating on the\nshared fence, sexual harassment, and people looking over the fence. She said she could\nnot live like this anymore and begged the board to take away their Use Permit.\nKyle Montez, a resident on Alameda Ave and was representing his entire building, wanted\nto address the closure of his street or a parklet. He described stolen packages, people\nApproved PB & TC Joint Meeting Minutes\nPage 6 of 11\nMay 10, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-05-10", "page": 7, "text": "gathering without masks, and harassment. He said their concerns had gone unheeded\nfrom the Downtown Alameda Business Association (DABA), the Mayor, and even the City\nCouncil. He also had video proof of the harassment and had even given suggestions of\nbetter places that the benches and tables could be moved to. His building was mainly\noccupied with educators, essential workers, unemployed folks, and veterans. No one in\nthe building was consulted about the street closure and some people had even decided\nto move and others were considering moving due to the benches out front.\nRobin Lynn Wilson, a customer of the Clubhouse Bar, called all the previous comments\nagainst the bar lies. She was an educator and worked with the local youth activists and\nthe other people who go to the Clubhouse Bar were educators, City Officials, people from\nall walks of life. The Clubhouse Bar was a place where people could relax and wind down\nwith a drink and she had never seen any of the bad behavior described tonight over the\nlast 20 years of being a customer of the bar. She called out all the numerous calls made\nto the police with false information and stated the owner had tried many ways to work with\nthe neighbors. The bar was there first and many people who work there have families that\nrely on that income. She was highly offended by the way the patrons of the Clubhouse\nBar had been labeled.\nJoe Millosovich, the husband of the owner of the Clubhouse Bar, gave his personal history\nwith Alameda (born here) and the Clubhouse Bar (his grandfather went there). He\ndefended his father-in-law, who had died in a hospital, not at the bar, and his patrons by\nsaying none of them were gang members. He said a typical night was people over 50\nhaving a nice night. He called out Cari Lee Donovan* for making false statements against\nthe bar and that a friend of hers once jumped on a table to yell at a patron of the bar. Ms.\nDonovan had also made false statements about people peeing in the yard and as for noise\nthe bar had been taking their decimal readings and they had been around 60-62. The\nClubhouse Bar was an Alameda establishment and said that Ms. Donovan was a known\nneighborhood bully who had tried to keep Spinning Bones from getting their Use Permit\nand had even barked at an elderly Asian couple as they did yard work in their yard.\n*President Teague reminded Mr. Millosovich to keep his remarks to the agenda item and\nnot directed at another speaker.\nAriana Bindman, a freelance reporter from SF Gate, had reported on the parklet that was\naffecting the residents at the building where Kyle Montez lived on Alameda Ave. She\ndiscussed that this was a much bigger and complicated issue than the City Officials\nrealized. After her story was published she got many emails from citizens in Alameda and\nthe county that had been having similar issues. She said after interviewing Kathy Weber\nwith DABA, Mayor Ashcraft, and Andrew Thomas she did not feel optimistic that Alameda\ncitizens and businesses were being treated fairly or evenly. She said she would follow up\nclosely on this story.\nClare Hayward described the unacceptable level of noise that she had dealt with over the\nlast two weeks since the Clubhouse Bar had reopened. She said her bedroom window\nwas approximately 25 to 30 feet away from the bar's backyard space and had been\nsubjected to swear words and unacceptable types of conversation. Her job was very\ndemanding and she needed a peaceful living environment. Her garden was adjacent to\nthe bar's backyard space where they share a fence and she was having privacy issues as\npeople from the bar had been heard commenting on the neighbors. She also described\nApproved PB & TC Joint Meeting Minutes\nPage 7 of 11\nMay 10, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-05-10", "page": 8, "text": "had seen dangerous behavior around the bar.\nPresident Teague closed the public comments and reminded the Planning Board and the\nTransportation Commission there were no actions they could take tonight.\nVice President Saheba asked if the Use Permit at the Clubhouse Bar had been renewed\nregularly.\nDirector Thomas said currently the Clubhouse Bar did not have a Use Permit to be able\nto use their backyard. Nevertheless, they were operating legally under the Covid Use\nPermit that applied to all commercial businesses. Once that expired, they would not have\na Use Permit, which is why they are coming before the Planning Board next month. He\nadded that Use Permits go with the land and they typically don't have expiration dates but\nwhat the Planning Board had done in the past was to establish a set of rules for the space.\nVice President Saheba clarified that pre-Covid the bar never had use of the backyard\narea.\nDirector Thomas said that was correct, when complaints came in previously city staff had\nreminded the bar that they did not have a Use Permit for the backyard. He discussed how\nthe owner was keen to get this before the Planning Board and discuss it. He had also been\nin the backyard with the owner and manager and had discussed what they could do to\nimprove things.\nVice President Saheba asked if there had been a discussion about when the City-Wide\nCovid Use Permit would expire.\nApproved PB & TC Joint Meeting Minutes\nPage 8 of 11\nMay 10, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-05-10", "page": 9, "text": "Director Thomas said it would expire when the County-Wide Health Order ended. He\nadded that the owner did not want to operate without a Use Permit and wanted to be\nbefore the Planning Board to have this conversation.\nVice President Saheba said that dialogue was important and encouraged that in a mixed-\nuse area it can feel that things could leaner further in one direction than the others. This\nis part of creating vibrant cities and neighborhoods and he appreciated the conversation\non this.\nVice-Chair Nachtigall appreciated hearing all the comments from the folks who spoke. She\nrequested that the report, which would look at the future of parklets and closed streets,\nwould have data that spoke to the true impact both good and bad on the community.\nDirector Thomas said they would be taking note of that and would try and bring back as\nmuch information as they could. For the benches on Alameda Ave, they were struggling\nwith the normal daytime activities VS the nighttime activities. They knew going in that it\nwas not going to be perfect, and they embraced a lot of changes to deal with the impact\nof the pandemic.\nBoard Member Rothenberg thanked the commenters and agreed with Vice-Chair\nNachtigall that the gathering of data was very important. She gave some suggestions of\ninformation that she would like to see that would also provide a diversity of metrics.\nBoard Member Ruiz thanked the members of the public for their emotional comments that\nwould help the board create better policies moving forward. She said it sounded like there\nwere two issues. First being when they change the use of a street neighbors should be\nnotified. Then the second issue was looking at mixed-use areas that did not take into\naccount density and growth. Perhaps the Noise Ordinance should be updated. There were\nlessons to be learned here as they moved forward with future planning.\nCommissioner Weitze also agreed it was two separate issues here. For the bar, the truth\nwas probably somewhere in the middle of everyone's comments. For the closed street, he\npointed out that the area was in the busiest section of Park Street, and trying to control\nthe noise didn't really make sense. He understood how notifying residents may be helpful\nbut was unsure what it would have done since no one likes change. He believed there\nwere many options here and while he understood how those residents felt it was still a\ncommercial district and that was important to recognize.\nCommissioner Yuen thanked everyone for their thoughtful comments. She also addressed\nthat there were two separate issues. She was happy to hear that Director Thomas had\nbeen speaking with the owner of The Clubhouse Bar to try and figure out solutions for\neveryone. She agreed with Commissioner Weitze that for the closed street it was a\ncommercial area and that control the noise was going to be tricky. She felt that now was\nthe time to take stock and evaluate what works and what could be better.\nBoard Member Hom discussed the broader concept of mixed-use and outdoor dining. He\nbelieved that this added life and character to Alameda. The problems were not an\nindictment against mixed-use but there were opportunities to improve them. He suggested\nlooking at how other cities dealt with these issues. There were a lot of positives but\nApproved PB & TC Joint Meeting Minutes\nPage 9 of 11\nMay 10, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-05-10", "page": 10, "text": "definitely, operational improvements could be made. He gave his thoughts on the Use\nPermit and gave Director Thomas some ideas on information he would like to see.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand thanked everyone for their comments and said she looked\nforward to addressing this issue when the Commercial Streets comes back to the\nTransportation Commission.\nBoard Member Curtis thanked everyone on both sides of this issue for their courage in\nspeaking on this matter. He was concerned about the impact on Grand and Broadway,\nthose streets had taken the increased flow since the reworking of Park and Webster.\nCommissioner Rentschler agreed with Commissioner Kohlstrand and said he is looking\nforward to further discussions. He is interested in seeing what worked and what didn't.\nChair Soules said she also heard two different conversations, public right of way and\nprivate/patio permit use. They would need to look at the use of parklets and what that\nmeans. She too looked forward to looking into the data and seeing the impact and the\nsafety for the community.\nPresident Teague said he had looked into the Municipal Code and read the Noise\nOrdinance. It stated that you could file a complaint with the Planning Department and the\nPublic Works Department and they are supposed to investigate. He asked if this is what\nhappened.\nDirector Thomas explained how the Noise Ordinance worked for the City of Alameda and\nwhat struggles they had been having with enforcing it. He also discussed how Noise\nComplaints are typically handled and what sort of penalties can happen.\nPresident Teague said the Noise Ordinance was problematic and thought that a review\nwas in order. He also agreed there were many lessons to be learned here.\n8.\nMINUTES\n8-A 2020-900\nDraft Meeting Minutes - March 22, 2021\nBoard Member Rothenberg had two corrections. First, it was the Business and\nProfessions Code she was referencing too on her second comment for the first item. The\nsecond item was the EIR should capture schedule implications, and then it should say a\n30-day statute of limitations.\nBoard Member Ruiz had a correction for comment on page 2, she wanted her statement\nclarified and stated what it should have said.\nBoard Member Hom made a motion to approve the minutes with the corrections that\nhad been noted. Board Member Curtis seconded the motion. A roll call vote was\ntaken and the motion passed 6-0.\n9.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2020-902\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nRecent actions and decisions can be found at\nApproved PB & TC Joint Meeting Minutes\nPage 10 of 11\nMay 10, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-05-10", "page": 11, "text": "https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4928034&GUID=CF725A65-\n7801-4A05-94A8-CDDEF3OFCOA8&FullText=1.\nNo member of the Planning Board wanted to pull an item for review.\n9-B 2020-903\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nDirector Thomas said the Planning Board's next meeting would be May 28th. They would\nhave a review on the Encinal Terminals, Public Art Ordinance, and the Draft Leaf Blower\nProhibition.\nStaff Member Payne said the next Transportation Commission Meeting would be on May\n26th. They would discuss the latest Status Report on transportation and equity issues with\nintersections.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nChair Soules stated that it was National Bike Month.\n12.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nKyle Montez asked if he could clarify a statement from earlier in the agenda.\nDirector Thomas said that he could reach out to the Planning Staff the following day.\n13.\nADJOURNMENT\nPresident Teague adjourned the meeting at 10:46 p.m.\nApproved PB & TC Joint Meeting Minutes\nPage 11 of 11\nMay 10, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-05-10.pdf"}