{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2022-04-11", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, APRIL 11, 2022\n1. CONVENE\nVice President Teresa Ruiz convened the *meeting at 7:00 p.m.\n*Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, codified at Government Code Section 54953, Planning\nBoard members can attend the meeting via teleconference.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Alan Teague led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Vice President Ruiz, and Board Members Curtis, Hom and Teague.\nAbsent: President Asheshh Saheba and Board Members Xiomara Cisneros and Rona\nRothenberg.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nNone.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2022-1917\n1435 Webster Street - -Use Permit for Use of Parking Lot for Outdoor Commercial\nEntertainment Events - Applicant: West Alameda Business Association. Consideration of\na Use Permit to allow use of an existing parking lot at 1435 Webster Street for outdoor\ncommercial and entertainment events. The project is located within the C-C (Community\nCommercial) Zoning District. The project is exempt from the California Environmental\nQuality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Existing Facilities and\nSection15183 - Projects Consistent with General Plan and Zoning\nBrian McGuire, Planner, introduced the item and gave a brief presentation. The staff\nreport and attachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5544815&GUID=92833593-\nC1A5-4513-8C3B-5D129D944FCB&FullText=1\nVice President Ruiz opened the board clarifying questions.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 9\nApril 11 2022", "path": "PlanningBoard/2022-04-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2022-04-11", "page": 2, "text": "Board Member Teague asked how the owner would be monitoring the amplified sound, if\nit would be continuously monitored. He also asked about attendance for non-ticketed\nevents and then wording in connection to how the noise was monitored.\nAllen Tai, City Planner, discussed how WABA (West Alameda Business Association)\nwould monitor noise. He added that they had the readings from last year.\nStaff Member McGuire discussed non-ticketed events and how the Noise Ordinance was\nworded and how they had to work with that to make it clear.\nBoard Member Hanson Hom wanted to know the changes to how amplified sound was\nhandled. He also wanted to know of there were any changes to the parking conditions.\nStaff Member McGuire discussed how this Use Permit was clearer and more specific in\nregards to amplified sound and what days that was allowed. He added that there were no\nchanges to the parking conditions.\nBoard Member Ron Curtis discussed noise levels and decibel readings. He wanted to\nknow where the 85-107 decibel limits came from.\nStaff Member Tai answered that the numbers came from readings they had gathered last\nyear and from Santa Monica's Noise Ordinance.\nBoard Member Teague asked if there was a condition of where speakers could go.\nStaff Member McGuire discussed the layout of the location and where the stage was\nlocated.\nVice President Ruiz asked about past noise complaints and wanted to know if they could\ninstead do another Temporary Use Permit.\nStaff Member Tai discussed past complaints and how the board could ask for a review in\none year to make sure the noise was being handled appropriately.\nVice President Ruiz opened public comment.\nMelissa Milam was very much against this Use Permit. She described how the noise was\nawful and that it was not fair to their community. She discussed how these events had\neffected their lives and that the people in charge were not abiding by the rules and the\nlaws.\nMaria Milam was in total shock that this being proposed. She said the events at this\nlocation last summer had caused stressed and anxiety. The noise was too much. She\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 9\nApril 11 2022", "path": "PlanningBoard/2022-04-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2022-04-11", "page": 3, "text": "didn't understand that with things opening back up why this was still needed. She urged\nthe board to ban all amplified sound, she felt like she was being slapped in the face by the\nboard and the city.\nGina Ledesma, leader for recent event, clarified that time that the high school band played.\nShe thought it was a wonderful event that brought the community together. She added\nthat that they were very respectful of the parking and the noise levels.\nJohanna Hall was against this Use Permit. She wanted to know more about the wording\nin the Use permit and was afraid that these events would negatively affect the daily lives\nof the neighborhood. She wanted to see street barricades to keep people from taking non\nmetered parking spots and more communication with the residents. She even urged for a\nStreet Liaison to be assigned. *Cheryl, who was on the call, seconded Johanna and\nbelieved there were more than just two complaints.\nStacy Marino was in favor or the Healing Garden and outdoor dining but was very against\nany event with amplified sound. She discussed how the past events negatively affected\nthe lives of her and her neighbors. She was shocked that this was happening since last\ntime it was said this was a temporary event space.\nDede Lewis, PTA President of Maya Lin School, discussed how appreciative the PTA was\nto be able to use this space for events. She discussed planned events and that since the\npandemic was still going having outdoor events was important.\nLinda Asbury, Executive Director of WABA, clarified past events and that this was only for\n6 amplified sound events and the Taylor lot had always been a private lot. She said that\nevents never go past 9pm and that they were listening to their neighbors and had even\ncanceled events that clashed with neighbor's needs.\nVice President Ruiz closed public comment and opened board discussion.\nBoard Member Hom wanted to know if the applicant would be fine with revising the\ncondition to be a maximum of one amplified sound event per month.\nMs. Asbury said absolutely she would.\nStaff Member McGuire said the 3 per month was to give flexibility and allowances for\ndifferent types of events.\nBoard Member Teague wanted details about the proposed schedule of events and wanted\nto see a corrected list. He was not in favor of the amplified music or having events on\nThursdays. He discussed what decibel readings he was comfortable approving and that\nhe wanted this to come back in a year. He wanted to see the space used but not at the\nsacrifice of the neighbors.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 9\nApril 11 2022", "path": "PlanningBoard/2022-04-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2022-04-11", "page": 4, "text": "Board Member Curtis agreed with Board Members Hom and Teague. He discussed\nconditions that he wanted to see added.\nVice President Ruiz was very concerned with the noise and the negative impact the\nresidential neighbors. She discussed the conditions around the previous temporary Use\nPermit. She also wanted to see a time limit on events with amplified sound.\nBoard Member Hom made a motion to approve the Use Permit with the following\nconditions. Limit the amplified (related to DJs and live bands) sound events to 1\ncalendar day (limited to 3 hours on Friday and Saturday) a month. The Use Permit\nwill expire in one year. Decibel readings for amplified sound would be 85 decibels\nand be measured at the residential property lines. Applicant must also provide a\nformal schedule of events to the Planning Staff. Board Member Curtis seconded the\nmotion and the motion passed 4-0.\n7-B 2022-1918\nAlameda Point Site A Development Plan and Development Agreement Amendment\n(PLN22-0172) - Applicant: City of Alameda and Alameda Point Partners. Planning Board\nStudy Session to consider a Development Plan and Development Agreement Amendment\nto increase housing capacity at Alameda Point Site A to meet the Regional Housing Needs\nAllocation. General Plan Designation: Mixed-Use. Zoning: AP-TC, Alameda Point Town\nCenter District. CEQA Determination: Use of Alameda Point Final Environmental Impact\nReport (FEIR), State Clearinghouse No. 201312043, and Alameda General Plan 2040\nFEIR, State Clearinghouse No. 2021030563. No further environmental review is required.\nBefore the presentation Board Member Teague asked for the City Attorney to address the\nissue with Exhibit 1 and how that was being handled.\nCelena Chen, Planning Staff Counsel, explained that the link to Exhibit 1 was broken. She\nadded that the Planning Board could still conduct this Study Session and that Director\nThomas could provide options on how to move forward.\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Building and Transportation Director, introduced the item and\ngave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5544816&GUID=3BEB565C-\n 9B2D-441F-A214-E6B383E2EC52&FullText=1.\nVice President Ruiz opened the board clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Teague asked about waivers requests combined with Density Bonus for\nthis project.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 9\nApril 11 2022", "path": "PlanningBoard/2022-04-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2022-04-11", "page": 5, "text": "Director Thomas said that was allowed and further explained as the property owner what\nthey could allow.\nBoard Member Curtis wanted details on what developers made up Alameda Partners.\nDirector Thomas answered that the two main partners were Trammell Crow Residential\nand Cypress Equity Investments (CEI).\nVice President Ruiz asked about what units were included in the Housing Element Update.\nDirector Thomas said that the additional units had been included in the update and\ndiscussed the 600 units that needed to be built on Site A and what had to happen in order\nfor that to happen.\nVice President Ruiz opened public comments.\nThere were no speakers.\nVice President Ruiz closed public comments and opened board discussion.\nBoard Member Teague questioned why they were building so many townhomes on the\narea, he would rather see more houses there which would make the Universal Designer\neasier to achieve. He liked the idea of having the pedestrian/bike area.\nBoard Member Curtis still wanted more clarification on the Alameda Partners.\nVice President Ruiz reopened public comments.\nStephanie Hill, Trammell Crow, discussed Trammell Crow's involvement with Alameda\nPoint and a background on the type of development they specialize in. She discussed in\ndetail the complexities of building at the Point.\nKaren Bey, resident, discussed the work that Trammell Crow was required to do at Point\nform Affordable Housing and community benefits. She pointed out that they had done the\ncommunity benefits in Phase 1 which was very unique. She felt that the developer had\ndone a wonderful job and they should be rewarded for the work they had done.\nVice President reclosed public comments and reopened board discussion.\nBoard Member Hom agreed that this location was ideal for an increase in density. He also\nacknowledged that the commitment to 25% affordable housing was very positive and that\nmoving the building to increase the pedestrian corridor was also very positive. He was\nsupportive of the parking decision recommended by staff and discussed ways to achieve\nthe Universal Design Standards.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 9\nApril 11 2022", "path": "PlanningBoard/2022-04-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2022-04-11", "page": 6, "text": "Board Member Teague encourage a type of design similar to what Alameda Marina did to\ntheir townhouses that would accomplish more of the Universal Design.\nVice President Ruiz supported the proposed revision on Coronado St but wanted the\nconnection between Coronado St and Main St to be evaluated for safety to cyclist. She\nhas similar concerns brought up by Board Member Teague about the amount of\ntownhomes. She discussed the importance of job/housing balance and where the retail\ncomponents could fit. She also discussed the difficulties of townhomes to achieve\nUniversal Design.\nDirector Thomas thanked everyone and stated that they would be working with the\nCommission on Persons with Disabilities and what the next steps were.\n7-C 2022-1919\nPublic Workshop to Review and Comment on the April 2022 Draft Housing Element and\nthe proposed Zoning Code Amendments to Accommodate the Regional Housing Needs\nAllocation for the Period 2023-2031 in Compliance with State Law.\nDirector Thomas introduced this item. Staff report and attachments can be found at\nittps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5544817&GUID=C4CD068A-\n5603-425A-AF2E-A59409B20A26&FullText=1.\nVice President Ruiz opened board clarifying questions\nBoard Member Curtis pointed out that he wanted to see just the changes that the board\nhad suggested and what had been implemented. He also wanted clarification on the\ndefinition shared living.\nDirector Thomas discussed what the state required for the Housing Element and what\nparts of the appendixes were brand new.\nBoard Member Teague asked about the 15-30% Buffer being required in the staff report\nbut in the reference it says recommended. He wanted clarification. He also wanted\nclarification on the definition shared living. He pointed out discrepancies in the definitions.\nHe also wanted to see where his commentary had been reflected.\nDirector Thomas said the words from HCD were \"highly recommended\". He then went into\ndetail about what the benefits of the Buffer were. He then went into detail about the\ndefinition of shared living. He discussed what the focus had been with every update of the\nHousing Element and added that they had received comments from a huge amount of\npeople.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 9\nApril 11 2022", "path": "PlanningBoard/2022-04-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2022-04-11", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Hom had questions about the Zoning Code and asked about the discussed\ndesign requirements for Park and Webster St.\nDirector Thomas discussed the takeaways from the last workshop and how staff had\ninterpreted the board's notes.\nStaff Member Tai added information about height limits on Webster St and that the\ntakeaway had been to make them uniformed.\nVice President Ruiz asked about the process of submitting to HCD (Housing and\nCommunity Development) and next steps. She also had questions about upzoning vs\noverlays and State Density bonus.\nDirector Thomas described in detail what HCD needed and what was next in the process\nfor the staff. He added that there will be comments back form HCD which would be another\nopportunity for the board to comment. He then discussed using a combo of both upzoning\nand overlays and how developers could and have used the State Density bonus in\nAlameda.\nVice President Ruiz opened public comments.\nKaren Bey supported the amendments to make a uniformed zoning amendment for both\nPark and Webster Street. She supported higher building heights in high opportunity sites.\nShe discussed areas where retail spaces should be preserved.\nDrew Dara-Abrams asked to make sure that R1-R6 equally contribute to the housing\ngoals. He was very excited at the proposed zoning changes to Park and Webster and\ngave suggestions on height limits.\nChris Buckley, Alameda Architecture Preservation Society, did not think that the massive\nupzoning proposed was necessary and was overkill. He also discussed in detail issues\nand concerns with Density Bonus and the proposed height limits for Park and Webster St.\nVice President Ruiz closed public comments and opened board member discussion.\nBoard Member Teague discussed his concerns with the wording around Article 26. He\nwanted to see the Neighborhood Commercial station called out separately, he was not in\nfavor of putting the density into each one of the zones. He believed that all parcels in all\nresidential zones should be eligible for 4 units. For the transit overlay he believed that a\nquarter mile was too far. He felt that the section for SB-9 left a lot of information out. He\nthen discussed the changes he wanted to see for height limits for the Stations and the\nMixed-Used locations. He added that he wanted to see 7 units by right to every parcel for\nthe Transit Route. He also discussed the Design Standards for ADUs and how to make\nthem contemporary compatible. He then discussed definitions Density Bonus.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 9\nApril 11 2022", "path": "PlanningBoard/2022-04-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2022-04-11", "page": 8, "text": "Director Thomas replied in detail about what was considered Shared Living and other\ndefinitions. He also went into detail about Density Bonus.\nBoard Member Hom discussed his concerns about the geographical distribution of fair\nhousing units. He had questions about the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and how to\nstrengthen it. He also had notes about tables in the Housing Element and how they could\nbe clearer. He also gave notes on the Zoning Ordinance and the North Park Street District.\nHe also discussed the Transit Overlay Districts, he agreed with Board Member Teague\nthat a quarter mile was too far.\nVice President Ruiz discussed ways to strengthen communication with the citizens of\nAlameda and how to best work with the State Density Law. She agreed with the AAPS's\nrecommendation that the Transit Overlay was difficult to implement. She pushed for\nneutrality in dealing with Article 26 and not make the wording politically charged, she\nwanted to remain nonbiased in the public documents. She then pointed out conflicts with\nthe wording connected to Density Bonus and vacancies in Alameda's rental pool. She\nagreed with Board Member Hom about having a legend for Table D-1.\nThere was a conversation about the differences between Park and Webster and what\nheight limits would work best.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2022-1912 - Draft Meeting Minutes - February 28, 2022\nThis item was continued due to a lack of a quorum.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2022-1910\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nRecent actions and decisions can be found at\nittps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5544812&GUID=897EC6D8-\n2F54-4171-AFC5-7DABDABOA3CB&FullText=1\nNo item was pulled for a review.\n9-B 2022-1911\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Tai announced that the April 25th meeting had been canceled and the next\nmeeting was May 9th.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 9\nApril 11 2022", "path": "PlanningBoard/2022-04-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2022-04-11", "page": 9, "text": "10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard Member Hom announced that he would be unable to attend the May 9th meeting.\nVice Chair Ruiz announced that she had submitted Alameda's ADU Policy to The Urban\nLand Institute for a leadership award. She also announced that the Housing the Bay\nConference was coming up.\nBoard Member Hom believed that Alameda's General Plan should be put forth for an\nAmerican Planning Association Award and the deadline was coming up.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nVice President Ruiz adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 9\nApril 11 2022", "path": "PlanningBoard/2022-04-11.pdf"}