{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-09-13", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2021\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Asheshh Saheba convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nDue to Governor Executive Order N-08-21, Planning Board members can attend the\nmeeting via teleconference.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Rona Rothenberg led the flag salute.\n3.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: President Saheba and Board Members Curtis, Hom, Rothenberg, Cisneros, and\nTeague.\nAbsent: Vice President Teresa Ruiz.\n4.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nBoard Member Alan Teague suggested splitting up item 7-A., to separate the EIR\ndiscussion from the General Plan Update.\nAfter some discussion, it was decided to have the ERI discussion in 7-A1 and then to have\na discussion for the General Plan Update as 7-A2.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nLesa Ross commented that the link to the meeting was not clear and was very difficult to\nfind. She said it made it very difficult to join the meeting and asked that they make it blue.\nAllen Tai, City Planner, informed everyone that the Legistar system would not allow them\nto make it a different color. He also informed everyone that the agenda webpage on the\ncity's website also had links to all the meetings.\nOther board members gave helpful hints to work the link.\nChris Buckley pointed out another link, for public correspondence, that wasn't working.\n6.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\n7.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 182 2021-1269\nPublic Hearing to consider Resolutions Recommending that the City Council Certify the\nAlameda General Plan Final EIR, Adopt Findings and the Mitigation Monitoring and\nReporting Plan, and Approve Alameda General Plan 2040.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 10\nSeptember 13, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-09-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-09-13", "page": 2, "text": "Andrew 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=5124720&GUID=84471348-\nD66-40D9-9D05-15A66C8383CC&FullText=1\nPresident Saheba opened up the board clarifying questions on the Final EIR.\nThere were no questions at this time.\nPresident Saheba opened public comment on the Final EIR.\nThere were no public comments on the EIR.\nPresident Saheba closed the public comments and opened board discussions and\npossible action on the Final EIR.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to recommend that the City Council certify\nthe Final EIR and adopt the findings and the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan.\nBoard Member Rothenberg seconded the motion and a roll call vote was taken, the\nmotion passed 6-0.\nPresident Saheba opened the board clarifying questions on the General Plan.\nBoard Member Xiomara Cisneros had questions about LU-15 and the RHNA language\nthat was missing. She asked questions about the current zoning at Harbor Bay Club.\nDirector Thomas explained that she was looking at the revisions document and LU-15\nwasn't in there. He discussed the intent of LU-15. He explained that the current zoning at\nHarbor Bay Club was C2 and that land use designation was different from zoning. He\nexpanded on what the goals were for the Housing Element.\nBoard Member Ron Curtis asked if Commercial Recreation was the original zoning at the\nHarbor Bay Club.\nDirector Thomas said that was the General Plan designation, not the zoning. The zoning\nwas C2. The designation today was Commercial Recreation and this was a designation\nthey were not using anymore. If the board wanted to keep it they could, until they deal with\nthe Housing Element.\nBoard Member Hansom Hom asked about the language around Measure A and the\nimplications of deleting it. He then asked about different land use classifications and the\nnew classification for the Harbor Bay Club. He wanted to see the proposed wording on\nthis new classification.\nDirector Thomas did not believe there would be an implication in deleting the language\naround Measure A but they would still need to have a conversation about their zoning and\nthe history around their zoning. He discussed how they had to analyze all areas of\nAlameda for housing, which included Harbor Bay. The site now allowed housing and the\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 10\nSeptember 13, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-09-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-09-13", "page": 3, "text": "owners were interested in pursuing housing options. He explained more about the new\nclassification for Harbor Bay Club.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked about the zoning and designation of other community\ncenters in Alameda. She discussed the use to the public and how it was important to look\nat the benefits the club brought.\nDirector Thomas explained the different community centers, from open spaces for parks\nor residential if they were in a residential area. Harbor Bay Club is a private commercial\nhealth club. He explained all the possibilities that had been discussed for the club.\nBoard Member Teague asked specific questions about language and the intent of the\nwording on the addendum list. He gave suggestions on stronger wording, asked for\nclarifications on some of the definitions, and asked about street classifications.\nDirector Thomas explained the intentions behind the wording and listened to suggestions.\nHe also discussed the work that the Transportation Commission had been doing on the\nStreet Classification Appendix that had not been presented yet.\nStaff Member Tai clarified some language meanings and how some things could be\ninterpreted.\nPresident Saheba asked for additional clarification on the Harbor Bay Club zoning. He\nwanted to know if the property owner had submitted any designs for a potential design.\nDirector Thomas said no, the owners had always tried to change the zoning. They had\nnever submitted anything that worked with the current zoning.\nBoard Member Curtis discussed the history of the club and his involvement when it was\ncreated in 1978-1979.\nThere was then a debate on the Commercial Recreation Land Use designation and what\nwas used for other health clubs.\nPresident Saheba opened public comments.\nManish Singh, an Alameda resident, voiced his concern for the Harbor Bay Club and urged\nthat the land be designated as Recreational Space and should not be tied to the Housing\nElement. He also voiced his frustration that the owners had not considered selling to\nanyone who wished to maintain the site as a health facility.\nLesa Ross discussed why other clubs weren't succeeding while Harbor Bay Club was\nsince it did have outdoor space. She discussed the other ways that the Harbor Bay Club\nsupported the General Plan and its overall importance to the community.\nBehrad Aria, an Alameda resident, discussed the importance of the Harbor Bay Club to\nthe community on Bay Farm. He was concerned that the area could not support more\nhousing.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 10\nSeptember 13, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-09-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-09-13", "page": 4, "text": "Chris Aria, an Alameda resident, asked that the Planning Board please consider zoning\nthe Harbor Bay Club as Recreational. He discussed the history of the space and how it\nhad been zoned wrong for years. He also wanted it made very clear what a new owner of\nthe club could or could not do.\nAlex Wolfe, an Alameda resident, discussed the importance of the Harbor Bay Club and\nwhy it should be designated as Recreational. He discussed better places in Harbor Bay\nfor housing. He also discussed how it was purposely being mismanaged.\nTim Coffey, an Alameda resident, discussed the importance of the Harbor Bay Club. He\nalso discussed its history and what homeowners were promised with the facility.\nNeil Dandavati, an Alameda resident, discussed the importance of the Harbor Bay Club\nand its history and meaning to the community. He also discussed better community\noutreach and did believe there was some potential in mixed-use zoning.\nJeff Petersen, an Alameda resident, discussed the golf course and how it was before it\nwas redeveloped as a recreational facility and talked about how much the club had\nchanged since the owners had been denied being able to develop it for housing. He\nbelieved the owners were letting the club run down on purpose.\nBill Pai, Board President for the Primary Board for the Community of Harbor Bay, said he\nsupported the decision to defer the zoning decision for the Harbor Bay Club until the\nHousing Element was resolved. He discussed how the Governing Documents of the\ncommunity stated that there would always be a recreational facility on that property. It was\npart of the covenant that was made with the homeowners.\nJosh Geyer, an Alameda resident, was very sympathetic to everyone's comments but he\nreminded everyone that housing must be considered in all areas of Alameda. He thought\nthe idea that it had to be for housing or recreation was wrong, you could make both work.\nRohit Reddy, an Alameda resident, discussed the importance of Harbor Bay Club and how\nit was part of the reason he and his family came to live in Alameda. He discussed how\nimportant it was to his family and the community. He added that he did support housing\nbut having green spaces and a liveable community was also important.\nRebekah Balboni, an Alameda resident, urged the board to rethink the zoning for the\nHarbor Bay Club. She discussed how the club helped her maintain her mental health\nduring the pandemic and she was ready to fight for the pool's importance.\nJason Gerke, an Alameda resident, and a nurse discussed the importance of the Harbor\nBay Club for both mental and physical health.\nZac Bowling thought the General Plan was looking great and appreciated that his\ncomments were heard. He believed that they should defer the zoning for the Harbor Bay\nClub until a later date. He applauded the staff for all their hard work.\nChris Buckley, AAPS (Alameda Architectural Preservation Society) discussed the\nelements that the AAPS had liked and what elements needed more detail.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 10\nSeptember 13, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-09-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-09-13", "page": 5, "text": "Michelle Russi wanted to know what research had been done to understand the\nimportance of health facilities. She discussed all the different ways the Harbor Bay Club\nwas valued.\nKyle Conner, an Alameda resident, agreed with previous speakers about the importance\nof the Harbor Bay Club. He also believed that the owners had purposely mismanaged it.\nLuke Szymanski, an Alameda resident, discussed the importance of the Harbor Bay Club\nfor the community. He also discussed better options for housing in Alameda.\nPresident Saheba closed public comment and opened board discussion.\nBoard Member Cisneros thanked everyone and thought it was fine to leave the\nintroductory language at the beginning of the General Plan, it was a fact that Measure A\nwas passed not long after the Fair Housing Act was approved. She saw the General Plan\nas a reflection of the values of Alameda and suggested using the word balance instead of\ncharacter. She gave her thoughts on the land use designation for the Harbor Bay Club\nand how the distribution of housing needed to be equitable. She was open to all creative\nsolutions for the club land.\nBoard Member Curtis thanked everyone for sharing their thoughts and comments. He\ngave his opinion that Measure A was in response to the Fair Housing Act was untrue. He\ndiscussed his experience with development in Alameda before Measure A. He believed\nthat language should be taken out of the introduction because it was not relevant and not\ntrue. He then discussed his work with Harbor Bay Club and what the people of Harbor Bay\nhad been promised. He also discussed the problems with building on the club land and\ndiscussed alternatives. He did not want politics in the introduction of the Housing Element.\nBoard Member Hom appreciated the great work done by the staff and thanked everyone\nfor their discussions. He supported deleting the language about Measure A. He also\nappreciated revisions to Exhibit C with the new edit, and the revisions to LU-15 B. For the\nHarbor Bay Club, he agreed with the staff's suggestion to maintain it as Community\nRecreation. He noted that the question of housing at the Harbor Bay Club would be\nsomething that would need to be further discussion in the future.\nBoard Member Rothenberg thanked everyone for their comments. She agreed if the\nwording was not relevant it could be deleted and acknowledged that this should be treated\nas a living document that could change over time. She believed the changes brought up\nby the AAPS were relevant. For the Harbor Bay Club, she was in favor of the staff's\nrecommendation until she had heard about the background of the land use entitlements.\nShe gave her thoughts on the zoning and how they had a duty to find land in Bay Farm to\nmixed-use.\nBoard Member Teague thanked everyone who had worked on this and all of the\ncommunity input they had received. He could not support recommending this to the City\nCouncil until he had seen a final Planning Board revision. He discussed what he wanted\nto see in that revision. He gave specific wording for page 2, he thought it was valid to think\nabout the word character and suggested diversity, for LU-3 \"Complete Streets' he wanted\nto see language for people with mobility issues and he was all for changing the parking\nrequirements but not at the expense of housing. For LU-17 he wanted it stated that this\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 10\nSeptember 13, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-09-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-09-13", "page": 6, "text": "was the cheapest way to get more housing. For LU-18 he wanted to see \"define a\nMainstreet\" for the Alameda Point Waterfront. For LU-31 he felt that the ferry gateways\nhad been left out and thought something should be there to welcome people when they\ncome in on the ferry. He appreciated the Special Needs Section that the staff had added\nto the parking design. He discussed that what was in the legend and what they had\ndescribed should match and the importance of acknowledging proper terms from gender\nand people experiencing homelessness, language matters. For CC-17 Zero Waste\nCulture he discussed how composting and gardening should be made available to\nresidents. He was not in favor of adding bike boulevards at this time to the 15 mph zones.\nHe then gave his thoughts on transportation for 8-80 and parking fees and spaces. He\nalso gave his thoughts on the Infectious Disease Preparedness section. He was\nsupportive of leaving Harbor Bay Club as it was and explained how he viewed the site.\nDirector Thomas took notes on every board member's comments and asked questions\nmaking sure understood what board members wanted to see in the final draft.\nPresident Saheba thanked staff for their hard work on this plan. He believed a lot of his\nthoughts had already been stated. He gave his thoughts on LU-31, he was in support that\nferries were also gateways. For the Harbor Bay Club, he knew that it was a community\nasset but acknowledged how it had deteriorated over time. He saw an opportunity to really\nlook at it through the lens of the Housing Element.\nBoard Member Hom asked questions about the next steps and how the schedule would\nbe affected by asking for a final draft. He also asked for clarification on bike boulevards.\nDirector Thomas explained the staff's schedule and next steps.\nLisa Foster, Transportation Planner, explained what a bike boulevard was.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to request that the staff bring back a Final\nPlanning Board Draft for their approval to recommend to the City Council. Board\nMember Curtis seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion\npassed 6-0.\n7-B 2021-1270\nAmendment to the City Council Policy for Naming City Property, Facilities and Streets -\nCitywide - Applicant: City of Alameda. Public hearing to review and comment on the City\nCouncil-initiated revisions to the Policy for Naming City Property, Facilities, and Streets.\nCEQA Determination: The proposed amendment is not a project under CEQA pursuant to\nCEQA Guidelines Section 15378 and Public Resources Code Section 21065. No further\nenvironmental review is needed.\nAfter a discussion and a vote, it was decided due to time to bring this item back at\na later date.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 10\nSeptember 13, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-09-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-09-13", "page": 7, "text": "7-C 2021-1271\nA Public Hearing to Review and Comment on the Draft Vision Zero Action Plan.\nStaff Member Foster introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff report and\nattachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5124722&GUID=AAB39619-\n4094-495F-9A9C-3B7FODDDB86E&FullText=1.\nPresident Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked if a member of the CalTrans Team had been on the\nVision Zero task force team. She also asked if they had presented it to the fire and police\ndepartments.\nStaff Member Foster said they did not have someone from CalTrans but that was a great\nidea. She added that they did have the Fire Marshal and someone from the police\ndepartment on their task force.\nBoard Member Cisneros asked when the Socially Vulnerable Map was created.\nStaff Member Foster answered that it had been created with the Climate Action Resiliency\nPlan. She discussed how they would update it going forward.\nPresident Saheba opened public comments.\nThere were no public comments.\nPresident Saheba closed public comments and opened board discussions.\nBoard Member Cisneros agreed that this was a very thoughtful plan and very inclusive.\nShe thanked the staff for their hard work on this.\nBoard Member Curtis thought it was an excellent plan and was in full support.\nBoard Member Hom echoed his board members. He thought it was very ambitious and\nhad excellent data and detail. He wanted to see a more proactive point and wanted to see\nhow projects and future developments would impact areas. How could they improve these\nareas? He also wanted to see before and after statistics of each of these improvements\nand changes. This way they could see what was most effective.\nStaff Member Foster discussed what before and after studies were in the works.\nBoard Member Rothenberg wanted staff to keep track of how much traffic was coming off\nthe freeway and how that contributed to the accidents here. She then discussed a letter\nfrom the public that had suggestions about speed bumps and she believed those were\ngood suggestions.\nBoard Member Teague thought it was a great plan and he looked forward to seeing this\nimplemented and achieving their goals.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 10\nSeptember 13, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-09-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-09-13", "page": 8, "text": "President Saheba believed it was important to get this plan implemented and was critical\ndue to the sobering facts he had learned. He wanted to know if there was a priority list for\nthe action items. He also wanted to know what the next steps would be. He did want to\nsee a prioritization of goals.\nStaff Member Foster discussed budget concerns and how they would fund each project.\nShe then discussed the next steps, how they could incorporate feedback from this meeting\nand how this would be treated as a living document.\n8.\nMINUTES\nStaff Member Tai informed the board that after consulting the City's Attorney's Office they\nwould be opening the minutes to Public Comments.\nDue to time (and extra time would have been needed for public comments) and after\na discussion and vote (Board Member Teague made the motion, President Saheba\nseconded and all were in favor), approval of the minutes was pushed to the next\nscheduled meeting.\n9.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2021-1267\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5124718&GUID=976FDCCC\nF927-478A-B3AD-7B230F8458D0&FullText=1.\nNo items for called for review.\n9-B 2021-1268\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Tai said that at the next meeting they would review and comment on the\nCity's Naming Policy, a workshop on the Housing Element Update, revisions of the\nParking Ordinance, and Climate Action Staff will have a presentation.\nBoard Member Hom asked for information on when the Housing Element Subcommittee\nwould be meeting.\nStaff Member answered that it was this coming Thursday.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard Member Rothenberg offered her services for a page turn on the General Plan.\n12.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 10\nSeptember 13, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-09-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-09-13", "page": 9, "text": "13.\nADJOURNMENT\nPresident Saheba adjourned the meeting at 10:56 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 10\nSeptember 13, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-09-13.pdf"}