Title
Draft Meeting Minutes - April 8, 2019
Body
DRAFT MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, APRIL 8, 2019
1. CONVENE
President Sullivan convened the meeting at 7:00pm
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Cavanaugh led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: President Sullivan, Board Members Cavanaugh, Curtis, Mitchell, Rothenberg, Saheba, Teague.
Absent: None.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
6-A 2019-6743
Annual Review: Del Monte Development Agreement - Applicant: TL Partners I, LP. The applicant requests a periodic review of a Development Agreement related to the Del Monte Warehouse Master Plan. The consideration of an Annual Report is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). No further environmental review is required
6-B 2019-6744
Annual Review: Alameda Point Site A Development Agreement - Applicant: Alameda Point Partners, LLC (APP). Approve a Resolution Finding that APP has Demonstrated Good Faith Compliance with the Terms and Conditions of the Alameda Point Site A Development Agreement from April 15, 2018 through April 15, 2019, based on the Findings contained in the Draft Resolution. This Compliance Review is not a project under CEQA.
Board Member Curtis asked to pull Item 6-B be removed from the Consent Calendar.
Board Member Teague motioned to approve the Consent Calendar, Board Member Curtis seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Boardmember Curtis asked about the Alameda Point Partners letter attached to the staff report, which referenced the addition of 80 housing units in Phase II. Boardmember Curtis wanted to know if the 80 units were in addition to the total unit count approved at Site A.
Staff Member Allen Tai, Planning Services Manager, said that the units were not discussed in the staff report and he recommended the Board continue the item to the next meeting in order to get confirmation.
Board Member Curtis motioned to continue Item 6-B to the April 22, 2019 meeting. Board Member Teague seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2019-6757
Public Hearing on the Wireless Communication Facilities Design Guidelines. In September 2019, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a ruling on small cell wireless facilities to be placed in the public right of way. The FCC decision asks local governments to publish any aesthetic standards by April 15, 2019, so the City has prepared design guidelines prior to this date to ensure that new small cell wireless facilities are screened and camouflaged as much as possible. The design guidelines are published on the City’s website and a copy of the policy will be distributed to any small cell applicant. Preparation of these design guidelines is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with certainty that implementation of aesthetic guidelines will have no significant effect on the environment.
Staff Member Tai gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at: <https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3903553&GUID=9C540B2C-512B-4491-9DAD-660C2B7266F0&FullText=1>
Board Member Mitchell asked how historic lights would be defined under this policy.
Staff Member Tai said that generally all street lights that are of the decorative type and not the new “cobra-head” style lights are on the historic list and are off limits to wireless installations.
Board Member Mitchell asked why pedestal meters are being prohibited.
Staff Member Tai said the City’s goal has been to limit sidewalk intrusions that detract from the pedestrian experience.
Board Member Saheba asked if this new technology would result in a rapid proliferation of these types of sites and if there is a bidding process for access to sites.
Staff Member Tai said that using San Francisco as a guide, Alameda is likely to have many installations on utility poles.
Staff Member Erin Smith, Deputy Public Works Director, said that they are estimating about one per 1,000 residents, or at least 85 across the city.
Board Member Curtis asked if the City Attorney is comfortable with the rules, in light of the letter from Crown Castle.
Staff Member Tai said that the City Attorney is comfortable with the proposed guidelines.
Board Member Teague asked if the wireless guidelines govern the white Common Networks’ wifi antennae proliferating on many older Alameda homes.
Staff Member Tai said that wifi equipment is exempt from these guidelines.
Board Member Teague asked that city monuments are more explicitly protected with respect to aesthetics, which would cover the historic streetlights. He said the highest rated items on the historic study list should be considered under the policy.
Board Member Cavanaugh asked if homeowners could install these devices on their property.
Staff Member Tai said that would likely be subject to design review and likely create problems for both the homeowners and the City. He said he does not anticipate small cells wireless being installed in homes due to technical requirements that make single family structures unsuitable for installation.
President Sullivan asked if we knew how many companies would be putting these up and whether there was a master plan in place.
Staff Member Smith said that there are likely five to six companies that will be installing equipment. She said they contemplated a master plan and entered into an agreement with a master broker to deal with the carriers’ requests. She said staff is trying to get ahead of the process, but not necessarily with a formal master plan.
President Sullivan asked what type of public education and outreach will be required regarding the proliferation of the wireless installations.
Staff Member Smith said that they have considered requiring applicants to notify all residents within a certain distance with each installation. She said that they have removed that requirement because of the very limited discretion whether the antenna is permitted. She said they are considering requiring the companies to hold more general public forums to educate residents about what is coming.
President Sullivan encouraged staff to do outreach and educate the public via newspapers and mailers. She asked what is likely to happen on Harbor Bay where there are fewer telephone poles and above ground utility infrastructure to locate these items.
Staff Member Smith said that Harbor Bay is well positioned for these types of installations because of the type of street light’s used in that area.
President Sullivan asked what percentage of the installations would be from Crown Castle, whom she said wrote a strong letter about the proposed regulations.
Staff Member Smith said that she did not know how many would come from Crown Castle.
President Sullivan asked for more information about the noise the items would generate, saying they were described to be equivalent to a car idling.
Staff Member Tai said that they are not seeing fans included in the equipment currently being deployed, which is where the noise concerns typically originate, as the technology has advanced from older versions.
Board Member Mitchell asked for clarification regarding carriers’ ability to install extra poles for their equipment in areas where there predominantly historic street lights.
Staff Member Smith said that would be a possibility, but that more often than not, carriers will look to install their equipment on existing utility poles.
Board Member Teague said that he hoped that the language around visually impacting historic monuments would prevent new poles from being installed in such instances that Board Member Mitchell referred to.
Board Member Curtis said it might be easier for the applicant to place the installations on buildings instead of putting in new poles that would irritate the City and residents.
Staff Member Tai said that the City has the ability to make strong arguments about impacting historic buildings and the carriers typically take the path of least resistance.
Board Member Rothenberg asked if the radio frequencies would be managed to prevent interference.
Staff Member Smith said that they are putting the onus on the carriers to prevent frequency conflicts.
President Sullivan opened the public hearing.
Mike Kelly said the installation at High and Fairview is hideous with low boxes and dangling wires. He said he hopes that type of installation will not be repeated. He said the companies should be required to remove their equipment when they stop using a certain set of technology.
There were no more speakers. President Sullivan closed the public hearing.
Staff Member Smith said that new permits will include conditions governing the removal of outdated equipment.
Board Member Mitchell said he would like to see the City maintain some kind of mapping of the installations. He said he prefers installations be attached to the existing poles and not have extensions that effectively create a parallel pole. He hoped the carriers can notify the public about the installations even if they cannot change the outcome of the permit because it will help people better understand what is happening and prevent problems from arising.
No action was required by the Board.
8. MINUTES
8-A 2019-6755
Draft Meeting Minutes - February 11, 2019
Board Member Curtis said that on page 3 he wanted to convey, regarding traffic, that the gridlock in the Posey Tube in the mornings was caused by the merging of various streets coming into Webster and not from the freeway on ramp backing up into Alameda.
President Sullivan corrected a typo. She clarified that on page 3, fifth from the bottom, she clarified her statement to convey she was concerned that doing updates in a piecemeal fashion does not increase costs dramatically. She said that on the last page, third paragraph, that she was referring to a Planning Board meeting and not the developer’s meeting.
Board Member Mitchell made a motion to approve the minutes with the requested changes. Board Member Teague seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
8-B 2019-6756
Draft Meeting Minutes - February 25, 2019
President Sullivan said that on page nine, first paragraph, she clarified her comment disagreeing with equating homeless individuals with senior citizens.
Board Member Rothenberg said that on page one the motion listed the same person making and seconding the motion.
Board Member Curtis made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Board Member Rothenberg seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2019-6745
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
The staff report can be found at: <https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3903547&GUID=535D2B14-F65E-4AFF-80EA-88624A58ECD9&FullText=1>
9-B 2019-6619
Status Report on Design Review and Development Plan for an approximately 113,000-square-foot hotel with 172 guest rooms, and an approximately 7,000-square-foot restaurant with coffee shop at 2900 Harbor Bay Parkway
Staff Member Tai said the design review would come back to the Planning Board on May 19th.
9-C 2019-6621
Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation Department Projects
Staff Member Tai previewed future agenda items.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
10-A 2019-6753
Planning Board Review of General Plan Chapter 1 Settings, and Organization of the General Plan, Chapter 2 Land Use Element, and Chapter 3. City Design. The review of the General Plan Chapters are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board Member Teague said the City Council agenda item on the General Plan does not conform to what the Planning Board did in a substantial way. He said this is the second time this has happened and he is concerned the Planning Board’s direction is not being transmitted appropriately. He said the document provided to the board tonight did not include the previous changes made to Section 2.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 8:15pm.