{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-14", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nJOINT MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD & HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD\nMONDAY, JUNE 14, 2021\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Alan Teague convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nThis meeting was via Zoom.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Teresa Ruiz led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nHistorical Advisory Board: Vice-Chair Sanchez and Board Members Lau, Jones, and\nWit.\nAbsent: Chair Thomas Saxby.\nPlanning Board: President Teague and Board Members Cisneros, Hom, Rothenberg,\nand Ruiz.\nAbsent: Vice President Asheshh Saheba and Board Member Ron Curtis.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nPresident Teague explained how the meeting would go and that staff had four slides that\nwould cover all of the agenda items.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nMike Van Dine addressed the Historical Advisory Board's (HAB) recent decision to\napprove demolishing the remaining Merchant Marine WWII buildings on the McKay Ave\nparcel. He talked about Chair Saxby's words about the importance to the community these\nbuildings had and how this historic site was not appropriate for the homeless shelter and\nhow this should go to the City Council for a vote. He also disagreed with the City Planner's\ninterpretation of the city's municipal code on historic monuments and felt that the HAB\nmembers were led astray by staff.\nCarmen Reid referred to Alameda's municipal code to remind the HAB members of their\nrole in the community and how they should protect any structures built before 1942.\nAndrew Thomas, Director of Planning, Building, and Transportation, informed the\nspeakers that the City Council would be reviewing the recent HAB decision for the McKay\nAve project. The staff would be recommending that the City Council uphold the HAB's\ndecision to grant the Certificate of Approval.\nChris Buckley, from the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS), thanked the\nstaff for including written communication with the agenda items. However, some of the\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 14\nJune 14, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-14", "page": 2, "text": "written communications had attachments that had not been included. He requested that\nfor future meetings that the attachments please be included with the written\ncommunication.\nZac Bowling thanked the HAB for their recent decision about the proposed development\nat the McKay property. He believed the decision was thoughtful and the HAB had\nconsidered all the facts and the true historical nature of the site. He also acknowledged\nthat his friend Alfred Twu wrote a children's book \"RHNA: The House that Makes New\nFriends\" that explained California's housing needs and development.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2021-1015\nPublic Hearing on the Alameda General Plan Update.\nDirector Thomas introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and\nattachments can be found at\n ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4973464&GUID=3EA90382-\n595E-46CF-ACBO-EC556F65D2AC&FullText=1.\nPresident Teague reminded both boards that this was not an action item. He then opened\nthe public comments.\nBrendan Sullivan said he was pro-building and pro-housing. He wanted the General Plan\nto provide a clear strategy for prioritizing locations for RHNA mandated units. He\nrecommended Alameda Point and the Northern Waterfront as possible development sites.\nHe also encouraged the City to get the Navy to lift the Alameda Point Housing\nDevelopment Cap. He believed that upzoning historical neighborhoods should be a last\nresort.\nCarmen Reid asked that they not increase the two-story height limit. She believed that too\nmany height increases in historic areas would degrade the area's sense of time and place.\nShe also believed height increases in historic areas would encourage the disruption of\narchitectural character. She believed it was very important for Alameda to maintain its\nhistoric character because it is the main attraction for living in and visiting Alameda.\nZac Bowling mentioned an email he had submitted, he also echoed the comments made\nby Dylan Parson, Renewed Hope, and Bike Walk Alameda. He said since this plan spans\n20 years it did a good job for the first 15 but was concerned with the nature of RHNA\nwhether the City can actually catch up to the housing demand. He agreed with the\nproposed plans around Park St and the transit corridors and that the height increases\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 14\nJune 14, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-14", "page": 3, "text": "were warranted. For the Harbor Bay Club, he thought it was a moot point since it was\nalready zoned for housing.\nWilliam Smith applauded City staff for proposing that the City of Alameda affirmatively\nfurther fair housing by allowing multi-family housing in all residential and commercial\nmixed-use neighborhoods. He discussed the many benefits enabled by multifamily\nhousing in all residential neighborhoods. He asked that the Planning Board members\nreach across the generational divide between boomers and millennials on housing. He\nwanted to see Alameda affordable for the working and middle class.\nCharles Johnson discussed the Harbor Bay Club and its history. The club's purpose was\nto provide recreational facilities to the residents of Harbor Bay Isle and it essentially\nreplaced open spaces in the confines of each neighborhood. He believed that removing\nthis amenity from the planned development would be inequitable to the families who had\npurchased homes on Harbor Bay Isle. He discussed the many benefits of having access\nto the club and losing this amenity would be a huge blow to the 112 families who use it.\nBill Pai, the Board President of Harbor Bay Isle, also discussed the importance of the\nHarbor Bay Club. Last month the CHBIOA Board unanimously passed a resolution\nopposing the city's Draft General Plan which if approved as is would rezone the land\ncurrently occupied by the club and shopping center to allow the construction of multifamily\nhousing. He believed the city was already strained in dealing with its infrastructure and\nthought that an increase in residents and housing would further overburden the\ninfrastructure. The CHBIOA proposed to see the club's land use changed to business and\nemployment and encouraged the city to take advantage of Alameda Point for multifamily\nhousing.\nConchita Perales was concerned that the city was proposing a heavy increase in\ndevelopment in existing residential areas while reducing or removing parking\nrequirements. She said if the City Council failed to appeal the RHNA numbers then they\nwould be adding more than 25,000 people to the island in the next 8 years. She didn't\nunderstand the assumption that people would not be bringing their cars, she thought the\nplan was downplaying the traffic situation. She thought that new development should be\nlimited to Alameda Point and the Northern Waterfront as much as possible.\nMatt Reid discussed the importance of preserving Alameda's military history. He\nmentioned how neighboring cities had done a great job such as the Rosie the Riveter\nMuseum in Richmond and thought that Alameda could be doing more. He hoped in the\nlong-term vision they could incorporate how important Alameda's role in WWII was.\nReyla Graber discussed Article 26 and how it confirmed people's love of Alameda as it is\nand how the Mayor herself said that Alameda would continue to support Article 26. She\nwas confused by why the General Plan proposed to allow multifamily development in the\nsingle-family area zones. The report said it would also be eliminating single-family zones.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 14\nJune 14, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-14", "page": 4, "text": "She thought this was an outrageous step and should not be supported by any board\nmembers.\nBetsy Mathieson was encouraged to have read that historic neighborhoods would look the\nsame in 2040 as they do now however she wanted to see the action and policies in the\nGeneral Plan strengthened to see that outcome. She stated that the historic\nneighborhoods have significantly more dwelling units than implied by the General Plan\nZoning Maps. She was pleased that the draft document recognized the need to minimize\nthe displacement of existing residents and urged the board not to create incentives for the\ndemolition of already dense housing stock.\nMark Vine Dine discussed architectural design that would be affected by the General Plan,\nand he was not surprised that photos he had sent in showing modern design plopped next\nto Victorians had gone missing. He believed that policies LU-26B and LU-17B threatened\nthe character of the historic neighborhoods. These new guidelines conflicted with the city's\nexisting design policies. He didn't see the point in replacing the city's current Design\nReview policy. He wanted to see these guidelines revised to see a modern design in the\ncity's new neighborhoods.\nDolores \"Dodi\" Kelleher, a member of the AAPS, spoke on the issue of where it would be\nbest to build the densest housing. AAPS believed it would be best to prioritize Alameda\nPoint and the Northern Waterfront, especially the estuary shopping centers, as possible\nsites for additional housing. The AAPS wanted the city to get the Federal Government to\nremove the housing cap, encourage the owners of the estuary shopping centers to\ndevelop housing on their properties, and look at the traffic around the South Shore\nShopping Center.\nWalt Jacobs did not believe they could do what the General Plan said it would do to the\nwhole city. He thought the most obvious area for development was the base and said the\ncity needed to go before the Navy and renegotiate the deal with them. He saw that as the\nbest place to build much-needed housing and they could build the infrastructure needed.\nHe wanted the rest of the island left alone, including Harbor Bay where he lived.\nDaniel Hoy, who serves on the Board of Directors for the West Alameda Business\nAssociation (WABA), touched on some of the points WABA had sent in a letter. WABA\nhad been trying to encourage development in their business district and hoped to see the\nchanges outlined by the General Plan come to fruition. They had been in conversations\nwith local developers who had many concerns. They wanted to see more clarity in the\nLand Use Policies.\nMargaret Hall was confused by the LU17-B policy, she thought this policy threw past\nrequirements out the window and found it to be very ambiguous. She wanted to see some\nlanguage from the past General Plan retained for the new one. She wanted to see an\nemphasis on supporting and maintaining existing buildings.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 14\nJune 14, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-14", "page": 5, "text": "Lesa Ross discussed the book \"This is Where you Belong\" which was all about loving\nwhere you live through the community. She was a Harbor Bay Club member and\ndiscussed how everyone was concerned and worried about losing the club. She discussed\nhow important the club was and how the owners were not the voice for the community.\nShe hoped they could come to a compromise to save the club and have some of the area\ndeveloped for housing.\nChristopher Buckley, of AAPS, responded to LU17-B and LU26-B which were about\narchitectural preservation. He gave some edits to the language that would make things\nmore clear and helpful. He suggested having more pictures and definitions of design in\nthe General Plan document since design could be very subjective. He asked that they be\ncareful and limited with upzoning because he believes that once you upzone it will be very\ndifficult to downzone again.\nDonna Fletcher discussed how unique Alameda was in regards to required housing with\nAlameda Point and how the city should be taking full advantage of the area. She hoped\nthe city could renegotiate the terms with the Navy to remove the cap on housing. She saw\nthis as a win/win for Alameda and to not wait another day.\nPresident Teague closed public comments and opened board commentary.\nBoard Member Jenn Wit thanked the public for their thoughtful commentary. She liked the\nidea of having a RHNA schedule of development. She believed that development should\ngo hand in hand with transportation and getting people on and off the island as cohesively\nas possible. She also encouraged providing specific guidance to developers who would\nbuild in Alameda, to have them keep in mind the character of the island when designing\nnew development.\nVice-Chair Norman Sanchez appreciated all the comments and asked if the staff had the\nfinal RHNA number.\nDirector Thomas said the most recent number was 5,353 and the City Council will be\ndeciding if they would appeal that number or not.\nVice-Chair Sanchez asked about the comments concerning density bonus with\nrelationship to building height and wanted to know what those provisions were.\nDirector Thomas explained how under California Law the State Density Bonus Law\nallowed a developer to request waivers from any development standard (height limits, set\nback, etc.) to physically fit the units. He gave examples of how it would work.\nVice-Chair Sanchez asked whether the projects that had been approved (Alameda Marina\nand Alameda Point Phase 1) have taken advantage of the density bonus.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 14\nJune 14, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-14", "page": 6, "text": "Director Thomas said yes, most residential projects had taken advantage of the density\nbonus. The only way to build multifamily housing in Alameda was to get a waiver from\nMeasure A through the Density Bonus waivers. Also, Alameda was unique since they\ndon't allow developers to buy out of the Affordable Housing requirement.\nVice-Chair Sanchez asked about the zoning for the Harbor Bay Club and Shopping\nCenter. He thought both of those locations were already zoned to allow housing if the\nowners wished to exercise that right.\nDirector Thomas said that was true for the Shopping Center, it was zoned C2-PD which\nallowed residential above ground-floor retail. For the Harbor Bay Club, which has the same\nzoning C2-PD, the current General Plan has it designated as \"Commercial Recreation\"\nand the new General Plan has it at \"Community Commercial\" to be consistent with site's\nexisting the C-2 PD zoning.\nVice-Chair Sanchez addressed comments about encouraging more contemporary design.\nHe agreed that historic monuments and districts should be protected but thought that\ndiverse and eclectic architecture could make an area successful. He used the area around\nthe UC Berkeley Campus as an example. He believed that as long as design was done\nthoughtfully and in areas where it was warranted modern architecture could be at home\nnext to more historic structures in Alameda. He thought that more enforcement was\nneeded for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to make sure those units are made available\nas affordable housing. He was not opposed to trying to accommodate RHNA requirements\nthroughout the island as opposed to trying to stack them all up in one place.\nBoard Member Ruiz expressed her gratitude to the staff and the public speakers. She first\nwanted to acknowledge the history of red-lining before discussing land-use policies. When\npeople talked about maintaining current community character and putting multi-family\nzones in specific areas, she asked whether this is another form of subtle red-lining. She\nalso supported Vice-Chair Sanchez's comment about how contemporary architectural\nstyles can be cohesive in existing neighborhoods. She also discussed the rezoning of\nHarbor Bay Club and Shopping Center, she saw it as more of an infrastructure issue\nrelated to the connectivity between Bay Farm and the rest of the island. Future\ninfrastructure planning should include upgrading or improving that connectivity.\nBoard Member Hanson Hom thanked the public speakers and noted that the many public\ncomments were very thoughtful. He recognized the difficult decisions that needed to be\nmade. He agreed that the General Plan will need to increase densities at appropriate\nlocations, and he suggested a more granular look at where higher density would be best\nsince a one size doesn't fit all approach will not work for all Alameda neighborhoods. He\nalso supported looking at removing the housing unit cap at Alameda Point, but was\nsensitive to the issue of equity. He also acknowledged that all of Alameda would need to\nshare in the burden of accommodating the additional housing units. He was not in favor\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 14\nJune 14, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-14", "page": 7, "text": "of a policy that would exclude certain areas from accommodating more units because that\nwould be pitting neighborhood against neighborhood. For the Harbor Bay Club and\nShopping Center, he saw nothing in the proposed General Plan classification of\nCommunity Commercial that would eliminate the ability to have a recreation center at the\nHarbor Bay Club as the zoning currently allowed housing. He supported revising the\nlanguage in LU 26-B and 17-B, but suggested clarifying the meaning of \"contemporary\"\nsince it could be interpreted many ways. He was not comfortable with allowing multi-family\nresidential in all zoning districts including the R-1 because there are inherent differences\nbetween lower density single-family neighborhoods and those already with higher\ndensities.\nBoard Member Rona Rothenberg thanked everyone for their comments, she particularly\nappreciated the comments made by AAPS, WABA, and Mr. Bowling. She also thought it\nwas a very good staff report and did not take exception to any of the recommendations.\nShe asked that staff look at the conservation, climate, and mobility sections again with\nequity in mind. In regards to the Harbor Bay Club, she agreed that it is an important\ncommunity resource and that there should be consideration to protect the Club to ensure\nits longevity since it was originally established an amenity for the housing development.\nShe also acknowledged public comments about historic character and thought the current\nlanguage around historic architecture and modern architecture was appropriate.\nBoard Member Alvin Lau noted there is a housing crisis in California and the need to build\nmore housing, and he acknowledged the public comments about fears and concerns\nabout over-development and loss of historical character. He asked about future\ntransportation plans as new development would bring about more traffic and wanted to\nknow the status of the City and BART's efforts for an Alameda BART station.\nDirector Thomas discussed how the General Plan addressed many challenges facing\nAlameda over the next 20 years, such as transportation and climate change. He believed\nthis General Plan took into account and planned for everyone's needs. He then discussed\nthe new bus line planned that would cross all of Alameda. He explained that the City was\nin regular conversations with BART about a future BART station in Alameda. However,\nDirector Thomas also noted that this is a very long-term project.\nBoard Member Lynn Jones appreciated everyone's comments and seconded Board\nMember Wit's comment about making Alameda a destination and a city to be proud of.\nShe echoed the comments about preserving the beauty and essence of Alameda and\ndidn't want to neglect the history of the island. She asked staff for an explanation of the\nstatus of the Navy cap.\nDirector Thomas said they had had conversations with the Navy about increasing or\nremoving the cap. To eliminate the cap or significantly change the cap would require much\nhigher levels of authority within the Navy than the staff level discussions that had been\ntaking place. He discussed other ways the staff had reached out to help such as including\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 14\nJune 14, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-14", "page": 8, "text": "regional agencies Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of\nBay Area Governments (ABAG) to help push the issue.\nBoard Member Xiomara Cisneros said she was not a fan of using the word \"character\" as\na major theme because she believed it conflicted with equity. She discussed her values in\npreservation that included protecting communities that had a history of displacement and\nhow preservation could be used in an exclusionary way. She suggested changing the\nword \"character\" to \"balance\" and gave suggestions of other wording that would be more\ncomprehensive. She agreed with the staff recommendation in multi-family policy LU2 to\nbroaden multifamily residential uses to all residential areas including single-family zones.\nShe also highlighted the need for equitable distribution when it came to housing.\nPresident Teague thanked all of the community for their feedback and for staff's effort\nresponding to all the comments. For the historical preservation aspects, he thought the\ncurrent language went too far and yet not far enough. He believed that the historical\nproperties in Alameda needed more protection than the current Historic Preservation\nOrdinance provided, and that varying levels of protection should be based on the ratings\non the Study List. He agreed there needed to be incentives for restoring and protecting\nhistoric properties such as those offered under the Mills Act. He reiterated that the General\nPlan should provide general policy guidance while the Zoning Code is the primary vehicle\nfor implementation, and therefore discussion of specific densities need to be part of the\nZoning Code and not the General Plan.\nPresident Teague closed Board discussion of the item and adjourned the joint meeting\nwith the Historical Advisory Board. He invited the Historical Advisory Board Members to\nstay for the rest of the meeting if they wanted to.\n7-B 2021-1017\nRecommendation that City Council adopt a Resolution of Intent to Prepare a Housing\nElement Update for the Period 2023-2031 that Maximizes the Use of City-Owned Land at\nAlameda Point and Encinal Terminals and Rezones Certain Sites and Districts to Permit\nMultifamily Housing and Residential Densities of at least 30 units Per Acre and to find that\nCity Charter Article 26 is Preempted and Unenforceable due to Conflicts with State\nHousing Law; and Recommendation on Submittal of Appeal of Draft RHNA Allocation.\nStaff Report and attachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4973465&GUID=C41BEE7D-\n3599-4BC9-A353-84060633BAC7&FullText=1.\nBoard Member Ruiz recused herself from this agenda item.\nBoard Member Hom wanted clarification about which sections of the resolution were \"in\npart conflict\" after seeing many public comments about this issue.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 14\nJune 14, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-14", "page": 9, "text": "Director Thomas explained state law and how Article 26 conflicted with state law. He then\nexplained how and why the City of Alameda had worked around Article 26 with multi-family\n(MF) overlays during the last Housing Element Update to comply with state law and what\nthat meant going forward with the RHNA numbers.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked about Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's recent statement in a\nnewspaper on Article 26 and wanted to know if it was entirely preempted and\nunenforceable under state law or just preempted in part.\nDirector Thomas said he had not spoken to the Mayor since that article came out and was\nunable to discuss her thoughts. He reminded the board that they would be taking this\nresolution to the City Council on July 6th and they would be able to wordsmith it in a way\nthat makes them comfortable. He discussed how this was an evolving issue and that\nAlameda would need to deal with this issue for the foreseeable future. He did add that the\nconsequences of not having a Housing Element and not getting it certified by the State in\nthe next 18 months were severe. There is no question that Alameda will have to do apply\nMF overlays in its zoning in order to meet its RHNA.\nBoard Member Cisneros asked if staff still believed that MF overlays were still the right\nstrategy even if it could conflict with the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)\nprovision.\nDirector Thomas said they were affirmatively working to ensure they addressed the\ninequities that had played out over the years, they have to that as part of the Housing\nElement. He believed the City needs to address the prohibition on multi-family housing in\nall the zoning districts and neighborhoods.\nPresident Teague asked how Alameda was doing at meeting the existing affordable unit\nRHNA and wanted to know if someone could today request MF overlay.\nDirector Thomas answered they were behind and it raises an interesting question if they\nwere in compliance with State Law today.\nPresident Teague asked if it was necessary to state in the Draft Resolution the part about\nabout Article 26, believing that the resolution would be sufficient even if they omitted the\nreference to it.\nDirector Thomas said he didn't think it was absolutely necessary, but he wondered if\nleaving it out of the resolution still made sense given Article 26 is the key issue.\nPresident Teague further asked if the resolution was saying the City would designate\nzoning to permit multi-family housing at densities of at least 30 units as necessary to\ncomply with state law, as they had done in the past.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 14\nJune 14, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-14", "page": 10, "text": "Director Thomas said that was correct, as it would be basically what the City had done in\nthe 2012 Housing Element but now more expansive.\nPresident Teague closed the board's questions and opened public comment.\nZac Bowling said it was imperative that Alameda have an honest discussion about the\nlikelihood of development and discussed his work with a housing advocacy group. He\ndiscussed how Article 26 violated State Law verbatim and how important it was to move\nforward. He gave his thoughts on upzoning and how doing MF overlays made sense. He\nalso pointed out how redlining maps line up with affluent neighborhoods and high\nopportunity neighborhoods and how excluding certain neighborhoods from development\nwould not be equitable.\nCarmen Reid, of the Alameda Citizen Taskforce (ACT), did not believe Alameda has the\ncorrect infrastructure to support more housing development at the densities proposed.\nShe also did not believe that adding more housing would guarantee more affordable\nhousing, and she thought that city staff was pushing an unrealistic agenda. She shared\nACT's version of the resolution that she believed had better wording.\nKatherine Allen was shocked by the amount of protection for Article 26 and found it to be\na discriminatory article in the City Charter. She said that she had lived in Alameda for 7\nyears and was shocked by how little housing development there was in the middle of a\nhousing crisis. She had trouble understanding how not having MF overlays in certain\nneighborhoods wasn't considered redlining. She also echoed many of Mr. Bowling's\ncomments.\nDrew Dara-Abrams voiced his support for Alameda to make this good faith effort to make\nits RHNA numbers. He was curious about reaching supermajority votes with this city\ncouncil. He also thought the proposed level of densities for Park Street and Webster Street\nwere low compared to many successful Bay Area business districts. He also pointed out\nthat his R1 neighborhood wasn't mentioned and urged the board to give his neighborhood\noptions so they could play their part.\nChristopher Buckley, from AAPS, thought the staff report was very informative and well\nwritten. He offered different wording around Article 26 in the resolution that AAPS had\nsuggested and what their concerns were. He also wanted the General Plan to give more\ninformation on Density Bonus Law.\nLesa Ross wanted to point out that Harbor Bay was not made up of entirely single-family\nhomes. She was not against multi-family homes, and she was a single mom who was\nstruggling and made sacrifices to be a part of the Harbor Bay Club. She believed it was\nprejudice to assume that 94502 was full of rich families who didn't want equity.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 10 of 14\nJune 14, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-14", "page": 11, "text": "Matt Reid called out a few concerns unique to Alameda and he encouraged the City to\nappeal the RHNA numbers. He pointed out that infrastructure was different since Alameda\nwas an island and there were limited ways on and off the island. Alameda's earthquake\nrisks were higher than neighboring cities. He called out sea-level rise and emerging\ngroundwater that brought up contaminants to the surface that sea walls do not prevent.\nHe believed that Alameda has exceptional reasons to push back on the RHNA numbers.\nWilliam Smith encouraged the board to stick with the current wording of the resolution. He\nthen pointed out that there had not been a successful appeal of the RHNA number yet\nand saw an appeal as a waste of city staff's time and taxpayer money. He added that the\nRHNA methodology explicitly ruled out consideration of natural hazards since every city\nhad its own share of constraints and hazards.\nRuth Abbe discussed the diversity of housing stock in older neighborhoods and how she\nwas in the process of putting in an ADU. She added there were also parcels in her\nneighborhood that could accommodate another house or more units and they were\ncurrently prohibited from doing that. She supported the idea of equitable and diverse\nhousing stock across the island and that it didn't make sense to concentrate all the new\ndevelopment in one area.\nPresident Teague closed public comments and asked if there was any area in Alameda\nthat prohibited ADUs.\nDirector Thomas said that ADUs were permitted in all residential and mixed-use districts.\nPresident Teague opened the board's discussion and potential action. He reminded the\nboard that they would need a unanimous action to move this forward since they only had\nfour board members present.\nBoard Member Hom referred to two paragraphs in the resolution and said the second part\nwas mainly factual but the first part which explicitly called out Article 26 was the critical\none. He saw it as a nebulous distinction they were trying to make. He suggested\nsimplifying the first part and gave a suggestion for revised wording.\nBoard Member Rothenberg said if the intent was to be explicit about Article 26 then she\nwould support the resolution as it was written. She pointed out how the staff said it was\nprepared to file an appeal but had given enough reasons why it wouldn't be successful.\nShe added if it wasn't going to be successful then they should save proverbial green\nstamps.\nPresident Teague wanted more input from legal staff on a legal argument to support the\nfirst part of the resolution. He recommended dropping references to Article 26 in the first\nparagraph and keep the four bullet items. He was also comfortable adding a 5th bullet\nitem about not recommending Council not appeal the RHNA numbers. He added that\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 11 of 14\nJune 14, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-14", "page": 12, "text": "when he and his fellow board members joined this board they swore an oath to protect\nthe City Charter as much as he had issues with Article 26.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked about the legal bindings of the resolution with and\nwithout the references to Article 26 suggested by President Teague to be struck.\nPresident Teague said it would be a different message altogether and once it went to City\nCouncil they would have more room to work in. He added that this was just a\nrecommendation and he believed that with the proposed edits the resolution had a better\nchance of being approved by the City Council.\nBoard Member Cisneros summarized her understanding of the intent of the original\nwording and noted that keeping the language would bring the issue of Article 26 to the\nforefront.\nPresident Teague and Board Member Hom exchanged comments on the suggested\nwording. Board Member Hom asked how important it was to mention Article 26 in the\nresolution.\nDirector Thomas explained that this is ultimately the Planning Board's resolution and\nunderstood that how the board was conflicted with the issue.\nPresident Teague made a motion to approve the Draft Resolution to the City Council\nwith the following modifications. In the title remove everything after \"and finds that\nthe City Charter\", also strike everything in the \"therefore\" paragraph, and in the \"be\nit\" paragraph strike the word \"further\". Then in the 2nd bullet add the wording\n\"contrary to the City Charter Article 26 as necessary to comply with State Law\".\nBoard Member Rothenberg seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the\nmotion passed 4-0 with Vice President Saheba and Board Member Curtis absent\nand Board Member Ruiz abstained.\n7-C 2021-1018\nPublic Hearing to Receive Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the\nGeneral Plan Update.\nPresident Teague opened public comments.\nThere were no public comments.\nPresident Teague closed public comments and opened the board's discussion.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked if only one of the two volumes were available for review since\nshe had only received one. She wanted to know if there was still time to make comments.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 12 of 14\nJune 14, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-14", "page": 13, "text": "Director Thomas said that both volumes were available and they would be receiving\ncomments on the EIR until June 25th. All of it would be coming back to the board before\nthey had to take an action.\nBoard Member Ruiz had questions concerning Air Quality impacts associated with the\nconstruction activities in new development. She wanted to make sure that the EIR\nspecifically addressed construction activities as a short-term impact and not a long-term\nimpact.\nDirector Thomas agreed and said that was the case in the draft document.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked for clarification on why with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)\nreduced and the Transportation section still considered it a significant impact.\nDirector Thomas explained it was a confusing situation and it relates to how the state\nestablished a threshold of significance. For every project and plan, the threshold is to\nachieve 15% reduction below the regional average. He added that it was employment\ntrips/work trips (everyone leaving in the morning) that put the VMT over 15%.\nBoard Member Hom asked if it should be clarified that this was a Program EIR and that\nfuture development projects would tier off of it.\nDirector Thomas said that was a good suggestion and they would make that clear.\nBoard Member Cisneros commented on how some of these goals seemed challenging to\nenforce.\nDirector Thomas explained more about what the VMT analysis had shown and how staff\nwould be focusing on larger policy goals. He discussed items that would move them in the\nright direction for the environment.\nBoard Member Hom asked about comments concerning sea level rise and groundwater\nand asked to what level the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) required\naddressing with those issues.\nDirector Thomas said the EIR did address flooding issues and hydrology impacts but the\nEIR did not spend much time addressing the changing climate and its effect on projects.\nPresident Teague believed the EIR was very well written and that he appreciated all the\ncomments from the board. He was interested to see what changes caused by the\npandemic will change transportation patterns overall.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2021-1011\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 13 of 14\nJune 14, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-14", "page": 14, "text": "Draft Meeting Minutes - April 26, 2021\nBoard Member Rothenberg had a correction for agenda item 7-B, Ms. Ashley Rebarchek's\ntitle should be Board of Directors AIA - East Bay and Mr. Scott Shell's title should be\nPrincipal of the HDD. Then on Item 7-C, she clarified that her question was whether the\nmatter was consistent with the General Plan.\nBoard Member Hom made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Board\nMember Cisneros seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion\npassed 5-0 with Vice President Saheba and Board Member Curtis absent.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2021-1008\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nActions and decisions can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4973461&GUID=4AB69938\n4F96-4E08-8A6C-EF52EDEC2F14&FullText=1.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked to pull 53 Killybegs Road, PLN21-0095, (Action Date 6-7-21)\nfor a review.\n9-B 2021-1009\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Tai announced that at the next meeting there would be a hearing on a call\nfor review for 910 Centennial, a design review for the Tavern Building on Webster and\nAtlantic, and a study session on the Parking Ordinance revisions.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard Member Ruiz asked that at the beginning of the Public Comments for President\nTeague to kindly remind speakers to refrain from making personal attacks on city staff and\nboard members.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Teague adjourned the meeting at 11:01 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 14 of 14\nJune 14, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf"}