{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-12", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, JULY 12, 2021\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Alan Teague convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nDue to Governor Executive Order N-29-20, Planning Board members can attend the\nmeeting via teleconference.\nAn ASL Interpreter was available for agenda item 7-A and can be seen in the video.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE\nPresident Teague led the flag salute.\n3.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: President Teague and Board Members Curtis, Hom, Rothenberg, and Cisneros.\nAbsent: Vice President Asheshh Saheba and Board Member Teresa Ruiz.\n4.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nAllen Tai, City Planner, requested that item 7-B be converted to a Study Session, due to\nan issue with the public notice having the wrong address published. He recommended\nthat since there were people in attendance who wanted to speak on this item, they take\nthe public's testimony, which would help give staff direction. Then they would re-notice\nand come back with this item for formal action at the next meeting.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n6.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\n7.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2021-1114\n1215 Park Street - Use Permit for Use of an Outdoor Rear Patio and Yard - Applicant:\nClub House Bar. Consideration of a Use Permit to allow outdoor use of an existing rear\npatio and yard area behind the Club House Bar for outdoor seating. The project is located\nwithin the C-C-T (Community Commercial, Theater Combining) Zoning District. The\nproject is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA\nGuidelines Section 15301 - Existing Facilities and 15183 - Projects Consistent with\nGeneral Plan and Zoning.\nAndrew Thomas, Director of Planning, Building, and Transportation, introduced the item\nand gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5015997&GUID=3E9BE579-\nBC27-4FOF-929D-F5866304FE86&FullText=1\nPresident Teague opened the board clarifying questions.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 18\nJuly 12, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-12", "page": 2, "text": "Board Member Rona Rothenberg asked about the revocation terms, she wanted\nclarification on what complaints meant, was it something generalized or associated with\nspecific conditions of approval.\nDirector Thomas explained the role of the Use Permit, it established a set of ground rules\nfor the operation of the business for the patio and the backyard area. There will need to\nbe a good-faith effort by all parties to make this work. If staff received 3 complaints that\nthey could verify, then a Use Permit could be revoked. He explained that if that happened\nthe city staff could schedule a public hearing and recommend a Use Permit be revoked.\nThey had tried to be very clear and specific about what the expectations were.\nBoard Member Ron Curtis asked about a similar Use Permit issue with Spinning Bones\nand that parameters had been added for the use of that outdoor space based on the hours\nof operation. He wanted to know if staff had looked into that Use Permit to use as a\nbenchmark for this issue since it set a precedent.\nDirector Thomas said they had looked at that Use Permit but it was a very different use.\nOne was a restaurant and the other was just a bar. They had considered it but instead\ncreated custom conditions for this. Every Use Permit was different as every business was\ndifferent.\nBoard Member Hom asked what had been the hours for outdoor use at Spinning Bones.\nStaff Member Tai said it was 11 am to 3 pm.\nBoard Member Hom asked if there was a maximum occupancy for the outdoor area.\nDirector Thomas said after some discussion they had shied away from putting a number\nas a condition of approval. Mainly because that would be a hard thing to monitor. The\nboard could add that if they wished. The staff believed this obligation fell on the manager\nand owner of the bar.\nBoard Member Hom saw how that would be difficult for the staff to enforce. He then asked\nfor the rationale behind having different time limits on the two outdoor areas.\nDirector Thomas explained the difference between the two outdoor areas, both were\ndifferent in size and one was closer to neighbors. They had chosen to be more restrictive\nof the lawn area than the patio area. This was part of the compromise that would hopefully\nminimize future epacts.\nBoard Member Hom asked how far away the edge of the patio from the property line was.\nDirector Thomas said roughly it was about 15 feet.\nBoard Member Xiomara Cisneros asked if Spinning Bones had received any complaints.\nShe also wanted to know more about the distance to residential neighbors and about the\ndecision to have Saturday and Sunday availability for the lawn. She thought that Sunday\nnight might be more disruptive to people getting ready for the workweek.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 18\nJuly 12, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-12", "page": 3, "text": "Director Thomas was unaware of any complaints that Spinning Bone had received and\nwith Covid, he did not think they were even using their outdoor area. For use of the lawn,\nit was the applicant's suggestion to have those hours. People/patrons tended to want to\nenjoy a drink during midday on Saturday and Sunday.\nStaff Member Tai could not recall any complaints Spinning Bones had received.\nBoard Member Cisneros said she could see that and that her question about distance had\nalready been addressed.\nDirector Thomas referred to an aerial view of the bar to show the two outdoor areas and\nhow close the residential area was.\nPresident Teague had no clarifying question and then opened the public comments.\nAbner Aquirre had lived next to the bar saying this had been an issue for a while now,\npatrons had been loud, obnoxious, and had used very foul language. He thought that covid\nhad exacerbated these issues. He asked that the board imagine what it was like in their\nshoes and believed that no one would want to experience these activities. He highlighted\nan incident of drunk driving on June 15th and that the person was slumped over the wheel\nwith their foot on the gas. He wanted to be heard and that this situation was becoming too\nmuch to handle.\nCasey Byrnes thanked the board. He said he lived right next to the bar, he had since 1989\nand thought that the bar had created a dangerous situation. He described fighting and\nvery angry people at the bar. He felt that this issue had been ignored by the bar and didn't\nthink it was fair to the children and families living nearby. He described how people,\nincluding children, were unable to sleep at night due to the noise. He also described the\ntwo canopies/tents that were out in the patio area that were right up against where they\nwere living and he did not think that was appropriate. He did not believe that people should\nbe behaving this way and thought it should change, he even discussed his sobriety.\nVictoria Jongetjes detailed how she had complained about the noise from the bar for a\nwhile and felt there was chronic unwillingness by the police to enforce any noise\nordinance. She was an early riser for her job and the noise from the bar was making that\nimpossible. She was also upset that the police department did not have decibel readers\nso they were unable to enforce the noise ordinance anywhere on Park Street. She\nbelieved the noise caused by all the parklets was ridiculous and that parking was\nextremely hard. She was vehemently opposed to any additional outdoor use of space on\nthis block in this area.\nKaren Sweet thanked the board for the opportunity to speak. She had known Corinna\nZanetti Millosovich, the owner of the Club House Bar, for about 13 years and she and her\nhusband were also acquainted with her husband Joe. In all the time she had known them\nthey have been extremely proud of Alameda, the town they grew up in. She discussed\nhow much Corrina loves the bar and all the energy and pride she had poured into her bar.\nShe described all the work Corrina had put into the bar and she always tries her best to\nwork with her neighbors. She added that the people who frequent the bar were middle-\naged regular people, not the loud rude dangerous people commenters had described. She\nbelieved the complaints raised against the bar were false and outrageous. She hoped the\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 18\nJuly 12, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-12", "page": 4, "text": "board members would take into account Corrina's hard work and dedication to making the\nbar successful.\nMike Henneberry urged the board to follow the staff's recommendation to allow a permit\nfor the outdoor rear patio at the Club House Bar. He discussed what had always been the\nstandard practice for permits such as these. He reminded everyone that this was a\nbusiness district. He thought the owners of the bar had addressed many if not all of the\ncomplaints brought forward by the disgruntled neighbors. He thought the owners had used\nthe covid emergency as an opportunity to reinvest and create an asset to the community.\nHe urged the board to vote yes.\nCari Lee Donovan had lived adjacent to the bar for the last 13 years and had raised her\nchild there. She said that their homes were so close to the area they want to use she and\nher neighbors could hear everything the bar patrons said and did. She had sent photos\nfor reference. She said this was more than ambient business district sounds, this was very\nadult language being used close to where children live. She did not think this was legal\nunder State and Federal Fair Housing Laws. She talked about the video proof that she\nhad sent in that contained adult dialog and sexual harassment. She believed this permit\nwould affect negatively the daily lives of the families who live nearby She described the\nsexual harassment she had personally been the victim of.\nClare Hayward had witnessed the bar's use of the outdoor space and patio since 2016\nand that her backyard space and bedroom windows were very close to the bar's outdoor\nspace. She described the unacceptable levels of noise she had been subjected to,\nhowling, swear words, and unacceptable types of conversation. She could hear noise from\nthe bar in every room in her apartment. She talked about past attempts to reach out to the\nbar that had been met with mixed responses from \"f'off\" to patrons getting louder after\nbeing told to keep it down. She did not think the permit was an appropriate use. She said\nher roommate had been subject to sexual harassment while exercising in their front yard\nwhich had led her to stop using their yard area. Many neighbors had stopped using the\nyard area for this reason. She discussed her mental health job that she did from home,\nworking with clients who were dealing with sensitive and crisis situations. The noise from\nthe bar made her work impossible, she had a right to a peaceful home environment.\nJoe Millosovich, the husband of the owner, discussed the changes and improvements to\nthe bar since the last hearing, including privacy, signage and security cameras. He\ndisputed some of the complaints brought forward by Ms. Donovan. He urged the board to\nconsider the bar's 100-year history when they made their decisions.\nBrett Bye said the goal was not to interfere with the bar's ability to conduct business but\ndid not believe residents should have to negotiate for their rights and privacy which had\nrepeatedly been violated. They wanted to maintain the status quo for the good of the whole\nneighborhood and the neighbors were the only party not motivated by money. He pointed\nout that the bar had never had an outdoor permit and they don't respect residents now\nwithout one. He described all the video proof going back years that showed late-night\nparties with DJs, people shouting obscenities, sexual harassment, and other behaviors\nnot conducive to the R5 general housing. He said the neighbors were the ones who\nwitnessed this behavior 24/7 and a person who just spends a few hours at the bar did not\nget the whole picture. He thought this permit was counterintuitive to the upcoming General\nPlan.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 18\nJuly 12, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-12", "page": 5, "text": "Zac Bowling echoed the comments made by Mike Henneberry, this was a mixed-use area\non Park St and the permit was for something that had existed before. He felt bad for the\nneighbors but this was exactly what this area on Park Street was zoned for. He was in\nsupport of the staff's recommendation.\nCarmen Reid supported the Use Permit. She discussed how hard Corinna had worked\nand thought it was very important to support women-led businesses. She was very sad\nfor the neighbors and hoped they could find some sort of compromise or other design\nchange. She felt that Corinna truly cared about the community and both her and her\nhusband's family had been in Alameda for some time. She urged the board to give her a\nchance and to support her.\nJohn Macaco discussed the many times he had been in the bar and that he had never\nseen anything that out of hand. He was amazed at the things he was hearing because he\nknew how much pride Coco (Corinna) was taking in the bar to keep it a decent\nestablishment in the neighborhood. He talked about all the hard work she had done and\nhow she gets rid of people when they are disrespectful. He felt sorry for the neighbors that\nthey felt that this was such a bad idea. He saw the bar as good for the city and much\nimproved from what it used to be. He was very much in favor of this Use Permit.\nPresident Teague closed the public comments and opened the board discussion and\npotential action.\nBoard Member Rothenberg believed that the merits of supporting a vibrant business were\nconsistent with the General Plan. She thought it was regrettable that she had not been to\nthe bar. She thought they had to convince themselves that they had demonstrated the\nterms that were cited in the resolution (she paraphrased from the resolution) such as, it\nwas an appropriate and approved use. She also cited the General Plan and also noted\nthe importance of compromise. She also discussed ways they could improve things when\nthis came for a review and how terms could be added or made stricter.\nBoard Member Curtis stated this was an interesting issue and thought Board Member\nRothenberg articulated it very well with the qualification of the issue of the Use Permit.\nThen on the other hand everyone has the right to a peaceful usage of their property. He\nwanted to know how long the patio had been in use.\nDirector Thomas did not have an exact answer, he thought it had been used on and off\nover the years. He knew there was a history of neighbors calling and complaining.\nBoard Member Curtis said that goes on with any bar in a neighborhood.\nDirector Thomas said that was right, there were other areas of the city where there was\nconstant friction between neighbors and commercial uses, that's the nature of a mixed-\nuse area.\nBoard Member Curtis thought it was unfortunate that these issues came up from time to\ntime. He believed that the controls that were in place represented a reasonable\ncompromise that would allow him to vote for this Use Permit.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 18\nJuly 12, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-12", "page": 6, "text": "Board Member Hom agreed this was an interesting issue. He discussed the broad issue\nregarding bars and restaurants in mixed-use areas and how they were appropriate but\ninherently some conflicts arose. He considered the equity issue with Spinning Bones, he\nknew it was a different use but with Spinning Bones being a restaurant that usually meant\nfewer complaints than say a bar. However, they had put more restrictive conditions on\nSpinning Bones than the Club House Bar. He discussed the differences between the two,\na bar operates later into the night and since a restaurant relied more on food services they\ncould handle more restrictions. He had studied Spinning Bones' outdoor area with their 3\npm restriction. He also appreciated that the staff had distinguished between the bar's patio\nand lawn area. He wanted the board to consider limiting the hours for the lawn area to be\nconsistent with Spinning Bones and suggested 3 pm to be equitable. He further discussed\nhow he assessed the use, it was about finding a balance between a legitimate business\nbut also being mindful that there had been a history of noise complaints at this location.\nBoard Member Cisneros liked Board Member Rothenberg's suggestion about scheduling\na check at some point. She wanted to know if the lawn was closest to the residential area.\nDirector Thomas said yes it was.\nBoard Member Cisneros said since that was the case she was open to the suggestion of\nrestricting time on the lawn and she also liked Board Member Hom's idea of treating this\nequally to what they did for Spinning Bones. She hoped that would give relief to the\nneighbors and be a compromise for all. She agreed that this was an appropriate use and\nsupported the staff's recommendation.\nPresident Teague thanked everyone for speaking on this, the staff for their work, and the\nestablishment for working on compromises. He concurred with his fellow board members\nthat this was a permitted use. He discussed what they had done in the past when there\nwas a strong potential for problems which included the condition that the Use Permit was\nfor 1 year then it had to come back for review. He wanted the conditions fixed since they\ndid not reflect what was in the staff report. He also wanted to see that the establishment\nworks with the staff to establish a Good Neighbor Policy and enforcement of that. There\nwas nothing now about enforcement. He discussed that the prohibition on amplified sound\n(#5) had left out live performances and announcements, it just said no amplified speakers.\nFor the exterior lighting item, the city's Dark Sky Ordinance was not sufficient for this. He\nwanted to see that the lights be directed below the window lines of the neighboring\nbuildings, even if it's not a bright light it could be disturbing after hours. He had also thought\nthat they could just allow the patio area or cut the lawn in half, but this was a Good\nNeighbor Policy and enforcement issue. Also, to give the neighbors the tools to hold the\nestablishment accountable. He could support this with these types of conditions.\nBoard Member Curtis pointed out, in regards to Board Member Hom's comment, that the\nresolution took the grassy area from 11 am to 6 pm. They gave 11 am to 3 pm to the\nrestaurant since that took them through the lunch hour. He thought 11 am to 6 pm was a\nreasonable time for the bar and didn't cut into the privacy issues. He thought that restricting\nthe hours would hinder the bar and they should do whatever they could to let the bar be\nsuccessful while also mitigating the noise to the neighbors.\nBoard Member Rothenberg made a motion to advance the conditional Use Permit subject\nto the refinement of the terms in the resolution as cited by President Teague, Board\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 18\nJuly 12, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-12", "page": 7, "text": "Member Hom, and related comments regarding specific additions that would be consistent\nwith the terms that had been imposed on other similar businesses concerning the Good\nNeighbor policy, enforcement terms, lighting, acoustic that comply with the noise and dark\nsky policies as were enumerated in other resolutions. Also that there be timed and dated\nterms which would come back over a period of time, 6 months, for review.\nBoard Member Curtis seconded the motion but questioned if that meant changing the\nhours to 11 am to 3 pm. He preferred to keep the hours as it was in the resolution provided\nby the staff.\nBoard Member Cisneros said after hearing more she agreed with Board Member Curtis\nabout not shortening the hours. She appreciated Board Member Hom's thought about\ntreating each business fairly.\nBoard Member Hom said that Spinning Bones was in the same predicament and for him,\nit was about parity, Spinning Bones got their business restricted. Also by limiting time on\nthe lawn it would create a buffer for the neighbors and maybe allow more time on the\nweekend.\nPresident Teague added that 4 pm to 6 pm was typically Happy Hour which was much\nmore important for a bar than a restaurant.\nBoard Member Hom asked how much indoor sitting the bar has. He wanted to know how\nrestrictive they were being by not allowing people to occupy the lawn area during Happy\nHour.\nDirector Thomas did not know the exact capacity of the bar but as it had already been\nobserved it was a pretty small bar inside. He believed that the 1-year review was the most\nfundamental thing they were debating. This way they reserve the right to adjust everything\nwhen this comes back. Also by opening the parklet on the street they can move people\nout of the back yard if it gets too busy or loud. However, the council had not made a final\ndecision on how long those palettes would remain.\nBoard Member Rothenberg clarified her comment about consistency. She was referring\nto consistency with other businesses they had reviewed that used outdoor space not just\nin regards to mixed-use zoning. It was also in regards to the broader use issue of hours,\nnoise, good neighbor terms, and so forth. She mentioned all the businesses that gave\nexamples of what it meant to be a good neighbor.\nPresident Teague asked for clarification from Board Member Rothenberg on her motion\nto see if there was anything he missed. He clarified that condition number 1 was to change\nthe time on the lawn from 6 pm to 3 pm, Board Member Hom's suggestion. Then his\nsuggestion about adding a bullet item about developing, publishing, and enforcing a Good\nNeighbor Policy, he expected that to come back in the review. The prohibition clause\nneeded to be clarified to include live performances and announcements in addition to the\namplified speakers. Also that the exterior lighting would not only comply with the Dark Sky\nOrdinance but also would be directed below the window lines of neighboring buildings and\nthat this was all come back for review in 6 months.\nBoard Member Rothenberg confirmed that was her motion.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 18\nJuly 12, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-12", "page": 8, "text": "Board Member Curtis said his second was contingent on the friendly amendment of taking\nthe hours back to 11 am to 6 pm.\nPresident Teague said they could make that a second motion.\nBoard Member Hom thought that voting on the hours separately was a good approach.\nHe suggested in regards to surveillance cameras, suggested installing cameras not higher\nthan the fence (8 feet) line to ensure privacy for the neighbors.\nDirector Thomas said that was feasible and they could make that adjustment.\nBoard Member Curtis made a motion to move the hours back to the staff's\nrecommendation of 11 am to 6 pm. President Teague seconded the motion. A roll\ncall vote was taken and the motion passed 4-1, with Board Member Hom voting\nagainst and Vice President Saheba and Board Member Ruiz absent.\nBoard Member Rothenberg made a motion to advance the conditional Use Permit\nsubject to the refinement of the terms in the resolution. The applicant would work\nwith the staff to develop, publish and enforce a Good Neighbor Policy. For\nCondition #5 under amplified sound, they would add live performances and\nannouncements to comply with the Noise Ordinance. All exterior lighting would\nhave to comply with the Dark Sky Ordinance and lights would be directed below the\nneighbor's window lines. All cameras would not be mounted above the fence line.\nLastly, this would come back for review with the Planning Board in 6 months. A roll\ncall vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0 with Vice President Saheba and\nBoard Member Ruiz absent.\nPresident Teague checked that the ASL interpreter's services were no longer required,\nthanked them, and excused them from the meeting.\n7-B 2021-1118\n1435 Webster Street - Use Permit for Use of Parking Lot for an Outdoor Commercial\nEntertainment Events - Applicants: West Alameda Business Association, West End Arts\nDistrict, and the Fireside Lounge. Consideration of a Use Permit to allow outdoor use of\nan existing parking lot at 1435 Webster Street for outdoor commercial entertainment\nactivities. The project is located within the C-C-T (Community Commercial, Theater\nCombining) Zoning District. The project is exempt from the California Environmental\nQuality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Existing Facilities and\n15183 - Projects consistent with General Plan and Zoning.\nThis item was changed to a Study Session.\nDirector Thomas gave a presentation The staff report and attachments can be found at\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5015998&GUID=32EB7A38-\n1B69-4E6F-9179-03FA5B10708B&FullText=1.\nLinda Asbury and Sandy Russell, the applicants, also presented to the board and\ndiscussed the background and reasons (the frustrations, emotions, and protests\nsurrounding the murder of George Floyd) for the Healing Garden at the parking lot at 1435\nWebster Street and what it grew into. Ms. Russell also discussed what they had been\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 18\nJuly 12, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-12", "page": 9, "text": "doing to mitigate sound such as using decimal readers to constantly check the noise level\nand they had talked to neighbors to better understand what they could do going forward.\nMs. Asbury, Executive Director of the West Alameda Business Association (WABA),\ndiscussed how the primary charge of WABA since 1985 was to bring commerce to the\nstreets of Alameda and how this location had allowed them to do this and had benefited\nmany different parties.\nPresident Teague opened public comments.\nJenny Garibaldi gave her support to the Healing Garden and the summer concert series.\nShe had known Sandy Russell, the owner of Fireside since she had opened the bar about\n10 years ago. She had personally experienced Mr. Russell's hospitality and had seen her\nshare that with her neighbors over the years. She believed that Ms. Russell and her team\nhad revitalized the West End, galvanized the community over the last year, and had\nhelped other Webster Street businesses stay afloat during the pandemic. She saw the\nHealing Garden as a creative solution to a seemingly hopeless situation that helped local\nbusinesses and artists. It was born in response to the murder of George Floyd and out of\na need for the community to gather safely during an unsafe time. She discussed the many\nother benefits of the Healing Garden and how Sandy and her team had been working with\nneighbors. She hoped that the Healing Garden would be allowed to stay at least until the\nend of the year.\nRebecca Hayman supported the Healing Garden continuing. She spoke on how it sprang\nout of nothing and she had personally gone to 4 events, she commented on how easily\nshe and her friends were able to walk to the location. She saw this as an amazing local\nbenefit and saw the good it did the community. She talked about how charming, unique\nand diverse it was. She hoped they would be allowed to continue to at least the end of the\nyear.\nTara Pilbrow, Vice President of the West End Art's District, discussed the collaboration\nthe Art District had with the Healing Garden Summer Series. She said they started working\nwith the Healing Garden at the beginning of the year when they realized they would not\nbe able to do the bigger events they had planned due to Covid restrictions. She discussed\nhow excited artists have been at the opportunity to do live shows again and how much\nattendees had appreciated it. She said they had been massively affected by the\ncomplaints by neighbors and had worked so hard to mitigate the situation. She discussed\nways that they were working on that from limiting the number of events and communicating\nbetter with everyone.\nBrian J. Kenny, a musician who had played at the Healing Garden, discussed what a\nphenomenal place it was. He discussed how committed Sandy Russell had been to make\nit work for both the neighborhood and the performers. He believed it had been great for\nthe community and great for the arts. He spoke on how diverse the crowds had been and\nhow it had restored his faith in the community.\nConstance Garica, owner of the Menagerie in Alameda, had been hosting events at the\nHealing Garden. She discussed how so many artists had lost their sources of income due\nto the pandemic. The West End had helped to promote culture and how WABA and the\nArt's District had been very active in handling any issues that had come up with the\nneighbors. She reminded everyone that they would try to please everyone but to please\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 18\nJuly 12, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-12", "page": 10, "text": "remember the importance of the benefits of art and music to the community. She asked\nthat the board please extend the Use Permit.\nRobbie Wilson, founder, and Director of the Black Achievers Alliance of Alameda\ndiscussed what birthed the Healing Garden. Out of tragedy came art and brought the\ncommunity together. She loved the openness of the garden, and how she and her\ndaughter even planted flowers in the garden. This had been a beautiful way to bring the\nwhole island community together. She talked about a successful fundraiser she had there\nand was so happy that this location had been available. This space was a great\nrepresentation of \"we all belong here\". She talked about how Sandy and her team were\nvery conscientious of the noise. She trusted that Sandy would find a solution that would\nwork for everyone and believed this was an amazing collaboration for everyone involved.\nShe discussed how everyone had benefited from being able to be around art and music\nand was in full support of this continuing.\nZac Bowling was in full support of this project. He said he would save his comments for\nwhen a deciding action would take place but felt that it was pretty obvious that this project\ndid a lot for the community.\nJR Key said it was pretty clear that the community loved this place. He said he lived a\nblock away and had no issues with the sound. He believed the people running this was\ninsanely respectful and after every event, they clean up thoroughly. He ended by saying\nit was clear everyone is in favor of this continuing.\nPresident Teague closed public comments and opened the board commentary.\nBoard Member Rothenberg thanked everyone for their thoughtful comments. She believed\nthis was an appropriate use and was consistent with the goals for the business district.\nShe thought the conditions outlined in the resolution were also appropriate and would\nsupport this when it came forward for action.\nBoard Member Curtis thought the whole project had been exceptionally creative and was\ngood for the community. He also believed it did a lot for mitigating the bad consequences\ndue to Covid. He was concerned about the \"law of unintended consequences\" and the\nnoise impact for the people around was going to be substantial. He pointed out that from\nnow to the end of the year there were about 31 events planned, that's a lot of noise for\nneighbors who just wanted to peacefully enjoy their premises. On the other hand, the\ngreater good that came from this was also a mitigating factor. He wanted to support this\nbut he did have reservations. Those reservations were diluted by the enthusiasm and\nsincerity of the people who do these events. He believed the greater good from this project\nmore than offset the \"unintended consequences\".\nBoard Member Hom thanked everyone for speaking on this item. He believed this use was\norganically derived and had a lot of positive energy, anything that enlivened the corridor\nwas a plus. He did share Board Member Curtis's concern about the noise issues. At the\nsame time, he appreciated that WABA had made a concerted effort to mitigate those\nissues and had listened to the neighbors. He wanted clarification on the events planned\nfor the rest of the year, it was more limited to what the Planning Staff said was permissible.\nHe also appreciated the suggestion by WABA to install drapery canopies to mitigate the\nnoise. He wanted to know if that had been reviewed by the fire department, he wanted to\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 10 of 18\nJuly 12, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-12", "page": 11, "text": "make sure the drapes would not be a fire hazard. He also wanted to know how staff had\narrived at the maximum occupancy level for the Saturday and weekday events. Overall he\nbelieved this use was generally very positive but it would be nice to see what else WABA\ncould do to mitigate the noise.\nPresident Teague clarified that Board Member Hom wanted that information at the next\nmeeting.\nBoard Member Hom said that was correct.\nBoard Member Cisneros thanked everyone for their testimonials and she agreed with\nmuch of what her fellow board members had already said. Similar to the first agenda item\nshe was sympathetic to the neighbors who were affected and wanted to acknowledge that\nthis was first marketed as a garden that grew into a concert series. She also agreed that\ncommunication could have been better with the surrounding community but she believed\nthis was a wonderful phenomenon that happened in Alameda. She appreciated how it had\nlivened downtown during a dark time and the pros outweigh the cons. She did have\nquestions about the dates outlined and was curious why there were some Sundays noted.\nShe was interested to know more about continuing the series at a better location, Crab\nCove had been mentioned. This had been such a great success. She was also fine with\nhaving her questions answered when the item came back.\nPresident Teague thanked everyone for their participation and was disappointed that the\nboard could not take action now. He pointed out that conditions 2, 3, 4, and 7 were\ndisjointed and when this came back he wanted to understand how they were different.\nExcept for one situation, there were not 3 events per week in the 3 months they were\nlooking at. He wanted to understand more about what they were talking about. For the\namplified events, if there were no amplified events it would be nice to have examples of\nwhat those were. Also were those ticketed events or like an art show, there was an endless\nflow of people coming through. He thought this was a marvelous event, he had checked\nthe zoning code and this fell into the conditional use under the area of things done outside\nof a structure that was either permitted or conditional. Theaters and auditoriums were\nthings that were conditional use, this fell into that category without a structure. He looked\nforward to getting answers to his questions and he did feel for the neighbors but at least\nWABA was receptive to their concerns. He suggested adding that contact information for\nthe neighbors so they know where to send their feedback.\n7-C 2021-1119\nPublic Hearing on the Alameda General Plan Update\nDirector Thomas introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff report and\nattachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5015999&GUID=DC5DAE49\n8D63-46E5-8CB7-757378675565&FullText=1.\nPresident Teague opened public comment.\nZac Bowling thought the General Plan revisions looked great. He thanked someone for\nthe clarification of the history of Article 26 by mentioning the Fair Housing Act. He\ndiscussed how communities passed exclusionary housing laws like Article 26 in response\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 11 of 18\nJuly 12, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-12", "page": 12, "text": "to the Fair Housing Act to exclude certain people. He liked the inclusion of the transit-\noriented mixed-use housing on the two Main Streets. He discussed densities and gave\nthe idea of putting minimum densities in as a guidepost and not mentioning maximum\ndensities. He also suggested striking the term \"Mount Trashmore\" from the General Plan.\nHe didn't agree with the comments that ignored the objective reality of the density\nincreases they would have to meet and he rejected the claim that putting densities into\nthe General Plan would encourage demolition of existing buildings.\nLeora Feeney appreciated standardizing the name for the Alameda Wildlife Reserve in\nthe General Plan and choosing a name for it. She requested to consider not using the\nterm Alameda Point Nature Reserve but to use Alameda Wildlife Reserve. She explained\nthat the reason for this was because the tag Alameda Wildlife Refuge had been in\nexistence in Alameda with the Fish and Wildlife Service and others for 27 years. She\ndiscussed all the materials, banners, and documents that had this name. She had gone\nover the revised General Plan and had seen five or six ways the property had been\nreferred to. She hoped they would support calling it officially the Alameda Wildlife\nReserve.\nChris Aria, Chair of the Harbor Bay Club Members Committee, discussed how their goal\nwas to preserve the location as a recreational space. He discussed how in the first draft\nof the General Plan the land use element had the Harbor Bay designated as medium\ndensity residential and now in the update, it was designated as Community Mixed-Use\nand he was curious about what motivated this change. He wanted to know more about\nwhat was the Planning Board's goal for the Harbor Bay Club's land. He represented over\n100 club members and these were their concerns. He said he would be following up with\nan email and wanted to make sure the club members had their concerns addressed.\nChris Buckley, from the Alameda Architecture Preservation Society, discussed a letter that\nthey had sent the night before and thanked Director Thomas for addressing some of those\nquestions. He also thanked the staff and the board for incorporating many of the\ncomments AAPS had previously submitted into the General Plan revision. Responding to\nDirector Thomas's game plan, there seemed to be a disconnect between where\nthe Housing Element was going and where the rest of the General Plan was going. He\nadvised that after the General Plan was together, get the Housing Element together before\nsending anything to the City Council. He went over other recommendations that were in\nthe letter. Keeping the text that was proposed for deletion in section 1.3, he thought that\ntext was very relevant for preserving the architectural character of existing historic\nneighborhoods. For residential densities, he thought the Housing Element should come\nup with those numbers. He believed they should be careful about upzoning since it was\ndifficult to down zone afterward. For section 9 he recommended keeping those provisions\nin.\nCarmen Reid thanked everyone for their work on the revised General Plan. She\ncommented on the lot sizes. She believed it was important to retain 5,000 square feet\nminimum lot sizes in the low-density residential land use neighborhoods. She believed\nthat decreasing the size would encourage lot splits and would architecturally disrupt\nneighborhoods. She wanted the board to be mindful of the quality of life for the residents\nand how decreasing lot sizes would negatively affect neighborhoods. She also believed\nthat any board member who owned a property larger than 5,000 square feet who would\nbenefit financially from a lot split should consider recusing themselves from weighing in\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 12 of 18\nJuly 12, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-12", "page": 13, "text": "on this proposed change. She wanted to see more work done to reach out to the\ncommunities about proposed commercial development especially Bay Farm and Harbor\nBay. She recommended sending out a survey to those communities and having an open\ndialogue with them.\nLesa Ross wanted to find her way through all of these issues. She was a homeowner at\nCHBIOA and was a Harbor Point HOA Board Member. Her main concern was changing\ntheir recreational area into a mixed-use, property at Harbor Bay Club. She discussed the\nimportance and the benefits of the club, the pool especially, for so many people. She\nadded that this was a community asset and urged the board to save the pool, the childcare,\nand the grassy area. She added that so many people had no idea what was going to\nhappen and advocated for more communication.\nPresident Teague closed public comment and opened the board commentary.\nBoard Member Rothenberg reiterated how proud she was to have participated in this plan,\nit had gotten better and better and was a credit to everyone. She noted how much time\nthey had spent on June 14th about the Harbor Bay Zoning, she had in her notes that it\ncould be rezoned to different zoning. The zoning that was shown in the General Plan was\nwhat was in the books but it didn't preclude zoning it for continued use. She thought it had\na lot of merit regarding the purpose in the General Plan, she thought it was timely since\nso many people had mentioned it.\nDirector Thomas clarified the questions around the Harbor Bay Zoning. The zoning was\nwhat governed what you could do with your property and it currently had mixed-use\nzoning. What they had done in this General Plan was if the future of the Harbor Bay Club\nwas going to change it would change because of the city's RHNA allocation and the\nHousing Element. They absolutely needed to tackle that as part of the Housing Element\nconversation. Since they had not even gotten to the Housing Element yet, they\nrecommended that they change it from what was in the original draft to community mixed-\nuse; they had applied this to any property in Alameda that was zoned C2 mixed-use. He\nexplained how the General Plan was a lot bigger than just housing however everybody\nwanted to talk about housing. He again discussed the staff's thoughts about getting the\nGeneral Plan out and adopted then tackling the Housing Element.\nBoard Member Rothenberg thanked him for recapping this information. She also asked\nabout the timing and Mr. Buckley's suggestion about presenting the General Plan and the\nHousing Element at the same time. She did understand why staff would want to present\nthe General Plan first and then the Housing Element.\nDirector Thomas said this was how the staff wanted to sequence things, they could do\nwhat Mr. Buckley suggested though. He said they all agreed on one thing, that all of the\nelements in the General Plan, Housing and Land Use, should all be internally consistent.\nThe staff wanted to move forward with the Land Use Element and the rest of the General\nPlan and get it adopted, with the understanding that in a year they would amend it with\nthe Housing Element. That would be when they tweak the land use classifications. He\ndiscussed more of the benefits of sequences items the way staff had recommended.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked about items in the AAPS's letter, such as the density\nchange. She also thought that the comment about a Civic Center District had a lot of merit\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 13 of 18\nJuly 12, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-12", "page": 14, "text": "and opportunities. She said she had a basis for the Secretary of the Interior's\nStandards. She also volunteered to do page turns since final revisions are very tedious.\nShe asked about a Housing Working Group that was going to work on the Housing\nElement and wanted an update on that.\nDirector Thomas said there was a Housing Working Group set up with President Teague\nand Board Members Cisneros and Hom and they had a meeting coming up. He discussed\nhow the staff had been struggling with it since they had too many balls in the air. He added\nthat on July 6th the City Council did not take a lot of action but it was an important meeting\nand had set the stage. He discussed the daunting task to get the Housing Element adopted\nin the City of Alameda on time.\nBoard Member Curtis had read through all the revisions and Mr. Buckley's comments and\naside from the Housing Element, he thought Mr. Buckley made a lot of good points, points\nhe would have made. He mainly liked comments about the building and construction\nregulations. Any of these regulations that convert and cause the owner to convert on an\nexisting building from electricity to gas should not be an ordinance and that's because it's\ndetrimental to young people who are trying to make ends meet and to older people who\nare on fixed incomes. He wanted to see that modified to let the owner decide because the\ncity shouldn't ask someone to go into debt even if they offer assistance. He also discussed\nsomething that got to him every time, how the Fair Housing Act was the catalyst for\nMeasure A, that was not true. The catalyst for Measure A was Ron Cowan building 9600\nunits on Bay Farm Island originally, but it went to 3200 units after people complained. He\nrecommended that the Housing Element should have a preempt that should direct the City\nAttorney if the zoning is legal for the Harbor Bay Club. He believed there was still a lot of\nwork that needed to be done.\nBoard Member Hom addressed what Director Thomas said about density, he was in the\nsame mind frame as Director Thomas. He appreciated how they addressed the terms\nabout mimicking historic architecture. He also noticed that they had gotten technical input\non the language around sea-level rise but those policies had gotten more complicated by\nreferencing elevations that he did not understand. He thought that could use a spotlight to\nexplain what that new information meant. He thought what they had done for the revisions\nof the land use definitions was very good. He really agreed with taking out the density\ndiscussion from the Land Use Element and deferring it to the Housing Element, he thought\nthat was a good approach. He was against deferring adopting the General Plan, the plan\nwas about more than just housing. He believed the plan was continuing to improve and\nwas moving in a very positive direction. For Harbor Bay, he didn't see that the proposed\nland use designation was in any way pushing for eliminating the health club. He agreed\nthat it was a very important community amenity and discussed more what the zoning\nmeant.\nBoard Member Cisneros agreed this was an evergreen document and needed to be\nflexible. She couldn't agree more with Board Member Hom's comment about Harbor Bay,\njust because it was zoned for something it would be other factors that decided what got\nbuilt there. She was excited about some of the changes. She advocated changing the\ntheme from character to balance and discussed the desire to make this a more inclusive\ncommunity. She addressed what they mean to her and gave examples of better wording\nin sections. She wanted to see the definition of Affordable Housing made broader. For the\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 14 of 18\nJuly 12, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-12", "page": 15, "text": "density discussion, she did think it made sense to hold off on that until they got deeper\ninto the Housing Element.\nPresident Teague thanked his fellow board members for their insightful comments. On\npage 7 he appreciated the comment on multi-family and shared housing and the changes\nto it. He did want to see nontraditional housing included. He really liked that it said \"this\nmultifamily in all residential zones\". For LU10 he was disappointed that they had not given\nAlameda Point a Mainstreet yet and wanted to explore establishing one. He thought they\nwere pretty close on the efficient land use for LU15 which optimized the use of limited land\nin Alameda for residential purposes. He recommended ending it there and not adding the\n\"by maximizing the number of units on each acre\" since there were many ways to optimize\nthe use. On page 10 LU17, he pointed out that none of the action items actually talked\nabout rehabilitation and again brought up the Mills Act. He also pointed out that \"historic\"\nmeant where something historic happened and gave an example, and \"historical\" meant\nbeing part of a historical timeframe. He addressed that Alameda had many historical\nbuildings but very few historic buildings. He wanted to see the Historical Study List cleaned\nup and protections prioritized based on the historical nature of the buildings.\nDirector Thomas asked for more examples of what he was thinking since he had discussed\nthis before.\nPresident Teague further explained that on the Study List if something is labeled N that\nshould have more protections than something labeled S and so forth down the list. On\npage 14, he was happy to see that the height had been removed and that the density\ndiscussion was being deferred. He had not liked having those numbers in the General\nPlan and wanted them in the zoning. He did not think it should require them to go back\nand change the Land Use Element because it should say they support multi-family\nhousing. He was not in favor of requiring owners to convert their homes, encouraging was\nfine but requiring was too much. He saw so many changes that were great, such as\nexpanding the solar panels on existing development. He also agreed they should probably\nnot say Mount Trashmore. He deferred to Staff Counsel Celena Chen if a board member\nshould recuse themselves on the matter of owning a home over a certain amount. He\naddressed that he owned a lot over 5000 square feet and he would do whatever he was\ntold to do.\nDirector Thomas thanked President Teague and all the members of the Planning Board.\nThis information was very helpful, and he agreed that every time they worked through this\nit got better and better. He addressed how the staff was becoming nervous that it was time\nto get this adopted and on the books, since it was so much better than what they had now,\nand then they could move on to the Housing Element. He asked for clarification on the\ncomments around policy CC13 Action A, about the electrification of existing buildings. He\nthought what he was hearing was that incentives to electrify were great but be super\ncareful about any types of requirements or having to do something at the point of sale. He\nasked about remodeled homes or homes that were being completely reconstructed.\nPresident Teague believed that remodeled and gutted homes were in a grey area. They\nwould need to be super careful there.\nDirector Thomas knew it would be touchy and difficult. This would be a zoning and building\ncode change.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 15 of 18\nJuly 12, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-12", "page": 16, "text": "Board Member Curtis believed that item put a burden on the home buyer and the seniors.\nHe thought it was unfair to take away choice on something somebody owned.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked if the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan and its vision\nin the General Plan anticipated there would be an existing buildings electrification\nordinance. She recalled this being something that would have to come forward at some\npoint.\nDirector Thomas said that was absolutely correct. The CARP did not specify what exactly\nthat would be but to get to be a Net Zero community you have to look at the total building\nstock. It came down to how aggressive they wanted to be to achieve these goals while\nmaintaining balance. They would work through it like everything else.\nPresident Teague said people had been asking him about \"the point of sale\" thing as well.\nDirector Thomas said it was something that other cities had been discussing and Alameda\nhad also been discussing. He asked that everyone remind their neighbors that nothing\nwould happen without a lot of public discussion and conversation.\nPresident Teague thanked everyone and made sure Director Thomas had everything he\nneeded.\nDirector Thomas said they would publish additional adjustments to the amendment list\nbased on the comments received and what had been discussed. The staff report that\nwould go out for the next meeting would have those suggestions highlighted.\n8.\nMINUTES\n8-A 2021-1113\nDraft Meeting Minutes - May 24, 2021\nBoard Member Rothenberg had a correction for Item 7-D, it should have been CARP\ninstead of CARB.\nStaff Member Tai said that Item D was about the leaf blowers and referred to the CARB,\nCalifornia Air Resources Board.\nBoard Member Rothenberg withdrew her correction.\nBoard Member Hom made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member\nRothenberg seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed\n4-0 with Vice President Saheba and Board Member Ruiz absent and President\nTeague abstaining.\n9.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2021-1105\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nActions and Decisions can be found at\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 16 of 18\nJuly 12, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-12", "page": 17, "text": " https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5015994&GUID=174D0132-\n9553-4E86-A703-5637C6E8FF46&FullText=1.\nNo board member wished to pull any item for review.\n9-B 2021-1106\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Tai announced that at the Monday, July 26 meeting they would have a full\nagenda and bring back the 1435 Webster which was the Study Session from today. There\nwould also be a minor planned development amendment to a small setback issue for a\nbuilding under construction at the Harbor Bay Business Park. The staff would also bring\nforward an architectural design review approval for the medical respite center at McKay\nAve, a draft of the Vision Zero Action Plan, and another General Plan update. He also\nupdated the board that Board Member Ruiz's question about 53 Killybegs had been\naddressed so she had withdrawn her request for a Design Review.\nDirector Thomas gave an update that at the July 6th City Council meeting they decided to\nappeal the RHNA numbers on a 3-2 vote. The appeal was submitted on Friday, July 9th.\nPresident Teague asked about the other 4 items.\nDirector Thomas said they did not do anything. They debated a bunch of aspects on it and\ndecided not to do anything with the resolution. He explained the next actions for the staff\nand said they should hear back about the appeal in November.\nBoard Member Hom wanted to know about the rationale for the appeal.\nDirector Thomas explained that between Article 26, sea-level rise, transportation, and\nseismic safety the council believed that it had a strong argument for appeal. The staff had\nalso introduced the issue of the Navy Cap as an argument. They wanted the region to\nknow about the Cap to get help for it. He explained more about the appeal process and\nwhat they had asked for. The staff would be working on two paths, one if the appeal was\naccepted and the other if it is rejected.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked about the Encinal Terminals Action that had been\nbundled with the other items. She thought it would be unfortunate if that languished\nbecause the developer needs direction one way or another.\nDirector Thomas said staff agreed and had made it clear to the council that they would still\nbe bringing projects forward regardless of the appeal.\nPresident Teague asked what was the current state of the Encinal Terminals.\nDirector Thomas explained they had an approved 2017 Master Plan with no Tidelands\nExchange and then they also have the Planning Board recommendation for the Tidelands\nExchange Master Plan. They also have the Resolution from the Planning Board\nrecommending to the council to approve the Tidelands Exchange.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 17 of 18\nJuly 12, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-12", "page": 18, "text": "10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n12.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nChris Buckley requested that notifications for the General Plan get properly sent out. He\nhad some issues with notifications and had not received one for this meeting.\nDirector Thomas said the issue was being looked into.\n13.\nADJOURNMENT\nPresident Teague adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 18 of 18\nJuly 12, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf"}