Title
Draft Meeting Minutes - September 13, 2021
Body
DRAFT MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2021
1. CONVENE
President Asheshh Saheba convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Due to Governor Executive Order N-08-21, Planning Board members can attend the meeting via teleconference.
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Rona Rothenberg led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: President Saheba and Board Members Curtis, Hom, Rothenberg, Cisneros, and Teague.
Absent: Vice President Teresa Ruiz.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
Board Member Alan Teague suggested splitting up item 7-A., to separate the EIR discussion from the General Plan Update.
After some discussion, it was decided to have the ERI discussion in 7-A1 and then to have a discussion for the General Plan Update as 7-A2.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Lesa Ross commented that the link to the meeting was not clear and was very difficult to find. She said it made it very difficult to join the meeting and asked that they make it blue.
Allen Tai, City Planner, informed everyone that the Legistar system would not allow them to make it a different color. He also informed everyone that the agenda webpage on the city’s website also had links to all the meetings.
Other board members gave helpful hints to work the link.
Chris Buckley pointed out another link, for public correspondence, that wasn’t working.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 1&2 2021-1269
Public Hearing to consider Resolutions Recommending that the City Council Certify the Alameda General Plan Final EIR, Adopt Findings and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and Approve Alameda General Plan 2040.
Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning Building and Transportation, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at <https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5124720&GUID=84471348-7D66-40D9-9D05-15A66C8383CC&FullText=1>.
President Saheba opened up the board clarifying questions on the Final EIR.
There were no questions at this time.
President Saheba opened public comment on the Final EIR.
There were no public comments on the EIR.
President Saheba closed the public comments and opened board discussions and possible action on the Final EIR.
Board Member Teague made a motion to recommend that the City Council certify the Final EIR and adopt the findings and the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan. Board Member Rothenberg seconded the motion and a roll call vote was taken, the motion passed 6-0.
President Saheba opened the board clarifying questions on the General Plan.
Board Member Xiomara Cisneros had questions about LU-15 and the RHNA language that was missing. She asked questions about the current zoning at Harbor Bay Club.
Director Thomas explained that she was looking at the revisions document and LU-15 wasn’t in there. He discussed the intent of LU-15. He explained that the current zoning at Harbor Bay Club was C2 and that land use designation was different from zoning. He expanded on what the goals were for the Housing Element.
Board Member Ron Curtis asked if Commercial Recreation was the original zoning at the Harbor Bay Club.
Director Thomas said that was the General Plan designation, not the zoning. The zoning was C2. The designation today was Commercial Recreation and this was a designation they were not using anymore. If the board wanted to keep it they could, until they deal with the Housing Element.
Board Member Hansom Hom asked about the language around Measure A and the implications of deleting it. He then asked about Harbor Bay and why the zoning needed to change. He also asked about different land use classifications and the new classification for the Harbor Bay Club. He did want to see the proposed wording on this new classification.
Director Thomas did not believe there would be an implication in deleting the language around Measure A but they would still need to have a conversation about their zoning and the history around their zoning. He discussed how they had to analyze all areas of Alameda for housing, which included Harbor Bay. The site now allowed housing and the owners were interested in pursuing housing options. He explained more about the new classification for Harbor Bay Club.
Board Member Rothenberg asked about the zoning and designation of other community centers in Alameda. She discussed the use to the public and how it was important to look at the benefits the club brought.
Director Thomas explained the different community centers, from open spaces for parks or residential if they were in a residential area. Harbor Bay Club is a private commercial health club. He explained all the possibilities that had been discussed for the club.
Board Member Teague asked specific questions about language and the intent of the wording on the addendum list. He gave suggestions on stronger wording, asked for clarifications on some of the definitions, and asked about street classifications.
Director Thomas explained the intentions behind the wording and listened to suggestions. He also discussed the work that the Transportation Commission had been doing on the Street Classification Appendix that had not been presented yet.
Staff Member Tai clarified some language meanings and how some things could be interpreted.
President Saheba asked for additional clarification on the Harbor Bay Club zoning. He wanted to know if the property owner had submitted any designs for a potential design.
Director Thomas said no, the owners had always tried to change the zoning. They had never submitted anything that worked with the current zoning.
Board Member Curtis discussed the history of the club and his involvement when it was created in 1978-1979.
There was then a debate on the Commercial Recreation Land Use designation and what was used for other health clubs.
President Saheba opened public comments.
Manish Singh, an Alameda resident, voiced his concern for the Harbor Bay Club and urged that the land be designated as Recreational Space and should not be tied to the Housing Element. He also voiced his frustration that the owners had not considered selling to anyone who wished to maintain the site as a health facility.
Lesa Ross discussed why other clubs weren’t succeeding while Harbor Bay Club was since it did have outdoor space. She discussed the other ways that the Harbor Bay Club supported the General Plan and its overall importance to the community.
Behrad Aria, an Alameda resident, discussed the importance of the Harbor Bay Club to the community on Bay Farm. He was concerned that the area could not support more housing.
Chris Aria, an Alameda resident, asked that the Planning Board please consider zoning the Harbor Bay Club as Recreational. He discussed the history of the space and how it had been zoned wrong for years. He also wanted it made very clear what a new owner of the club could or could not do.
Alex Wolfe, an Alameda resident, discussed the importance of the Harbor Bay Club and why it should be designated as Recreational. He discussed better places in Harbor Bay for housing. He also discussed how it was purposely being mismanaged.
Tim Coffey, an Alameda resident, discussed the importance of the Harbor Bay Club. He also discussed its history and what homeowners were promised with the facility.
Neil Dandavati, an Alameda resident, discussed the importance of the Harbor Bay Club and its history and meaning to the community. He also discussed better community outreach and did believe there was some potential in mixed-use zoning.
Jeff Petersen, an Alameda resident, discussed the golf course and how it was before it was redeveloped as a recreational facility and talked about how much the club had changed since the owners had been denied being able to develop it for housing. He believed the owners were letting the club run down on purpose.
Bill Pai, Board President for the Primary Board for the Community of Harbor Bay, said he supported the decision to defer the zoning decision for the Harbor Bay Club until the Housing Element was resolved. He discussed how the Governing Documents of the community stated that there would always be a recreational facility on that property. It was part of the covenant that was made with the homeowners.
Josh Geyer, an Alameda resident, was very sympathetic to everyone’s comments but he reminded everyone that housing must be considered in all areas of Alameda. He thought the idea that it had to be for housing or recreation was wrong, you could make both work.
Rohit Reddy, an Alameda resident, discussed the importance of Harbor Bay Club and how it was part of the reason he and his family came to live in Alameda. He discussed how important it was to his family and the community. He added that he did support housing but having green spaces and a liveable community was also important.
Rebekah Balboni, an Alameda resident, urged the board to rethink the zoning for the Harbor Bay Club. She discussed how the club helped her maintain her mental health during the pandemic and she was ready to fight for the pool’s importance.
Jason Gerke, an Alameda resident, and a nurse discussed the importance of the Harbor Bay Club for both mental and physical health.
Zac Bowling thought the General Plan was looking great and appreciated that his comments were heard. He believed that they should defer the zoning for the Harbor Bay Club until a later date. He applauded the staff for all their hard work.
Chris Buckley, AAPS (Alameda Architectural Preservation Society) discussed the elements that the AAPS had liked and what elements needed more detail.
Michelle Russi wanted to know what research had been done to understand the importance of health facilities. She discussed all the different ways the Harbor Bay Club was valued.
Kyle Conner, an Alameda resident, agreed with previous speakers about the importance of the Harbor Bay Club. He also believed that the owners had purposely mismanaged it.
Luke Szymanski, an Alameda resident, discussed the importance of the Harbor Bay Club for the community. He also discussed better options for housing in Alameda.
President Saheba closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Board Member Cisneros thanked everyone and thought it was fine to leave the introductory language at the beginning of the General Plan, it was a fact that Measure A was passed not long after the Fair Housing Act was approved. She saw the General Plan as a reflection of the values of Alameda and suggested using the word balance instead of character. She gave her thoughts on the land use designation for the Harbor Bay Club and how the distribution of housing needed to be equitable. She was open to all creative solutions for the club land.
Board Member Curtis thanked everyone for sharing their thoughts and comments. He gave his opinion that Measure A was in response to the Fair Housing Act was untrue. He discussed his experience with building in Alameda before Measure A passed. He believed that language should be taken out of the introduction because it was not relevant and not true. He then discussed his work with Harbor Bay Club and what the people of Harbor Bay had been promised. He also discussed the problems with building on the club land and discussed alternatives. He did not want politics in the introduction of the Housing Element.
Board Member Hom appreciated the great work done by the staff and thanked everyone for their discussions. He supported deleting the language about Measure A. He also appreciated Exhibit C with the new edit, LU-15 B Policy and he agreed with AAPS to do whatever needed to reference in other policies. For the Harbor Bay Club, he agreed with the staff’s suggestion to maintain it as Community Recreation. He discussed more on the Harbor Bay Club and how housing had to be equitable. He knew that this would be something that would need to be discussed more.
Board Member Rothenberg thanked everyone for their comments. She agreed if the wording was not relevant it could be deleted and acknowledged that this should be treated as a living document that could change over time. She believed the changes brought up by the AAPS were relevant. For the Harbor Bay Club, she was in favor of the staff’s recommendation until she had heard about the background of the land use entitlements. She gave her thoughts on the zoning and how they had a duty to find land in Bay Farm to mixed-use.
Board Member Teague thanked everyone who had worked on this and all of the community input they had received. He could not support recommending this to the City Council until he had seen a final Planning Board revision. He discussed what he wanted to see in that revision. He gave specific wording for page 2, he thought it was valid to think about the word character and suggested diversity, for LU-3 “Complete Streets' ' he wanted to see language for people with mobility issues and he was all for changing the parking requirements but not at the expense of housing. For LU-17 he wanted it stated that this was the cheapest way to get more housing. For LU-18 he wanted to see “define a Mainstreet'' for the Alameda Point Waterfront. For LU-31 he felt that the ferry gateways had been left out and thought something should be there to welcome people when they come in on the ferry. He appreciated the Special Needs Section that the staff had added to the parking design. He discussed that what was in the legend and what they had described should match and the importance of acknowledging proper terms from gender and people experiencing homelessness, language matters. For CC-17 Zero Waste Culture he discussed how composting and gardening should be made available to residents. He was not in favor of adding bike boulevards at this time to the 15 mph zones. He then gave his thoughts on transportation for 8-80 and parking fees and spaces. He also gave his thoughts on the Infectious Disease Preparedness section. He was supportive of leaving Harbor Bay Club as it was and explained how he viewed the site.
Director Thomas took notes on every board member’s comments and asked questions making sure understood what board members wanted to see in the final draft.
President Saheba thanked staff for their hard work on this plan. He believed a lot of his thoughts had already been stated. He gave his thoughts on LU-31, he was in support that ferries were also gateways. For the Harbor Bay Club, he knew that it was a community asset but acknowledged how it had deteriorated over time. He saw an opportunity to really look at it through the lens of the Housing Element.
Board Member Hom asked questions about the next steps and how the schedule would be affected by asking for a final draft. He also asked for clarification on bike boulevards.
Director Thomas explained the staff’s schedule and next steps.
Lisa Foster, Transportation Planner, explained what a bike boulevard was.
Board Member Teague made a motion to request that the staff bring back a Final Planning Board Draft for their approval to recommend to the City Council. Board Member Curtis seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
7-B 2021-1270
Amendment to the City Council Policy for Naming City Property, Facilities and Streets - Citywide - Applicant: City of Alameda. Public hearing to review and comment on the City Council-initiated revisions to the Policy for Naming City Property, Facilities, and Streets. CEQA Determination: The proposed amendment is not a project under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 and Public Resources Code Section 21065. No further environmental review is needed.
After a discussion and a vote, it was decided due to time to bring this item back at a later date.
7-C 2021-1271
A Public Hearing to Review and Comment on the Draft Vision Zero Action Plan.
Staff Member Foster introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at
<https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5124722&GUID=AAB39619-4094-495F-9A9C-3B7F0DDDB86E&FullText=1>.
President Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Rothenberg asked if a member of the CalTrans Team had been on the Vision Zero task force team. She also asked if they had presented it to the fire and police departments.
Staff Member Foster said they did not have someone from CalTrans but that was a great idea. She added that they did have the Fire Marshal and someone from the police department on their task force.
Board Member Cisneros asked when the Socially Vulnerable Map was created.
Staff Member Foster answered that it had been created with the Climate Action Resiliency Plan. She discussed how they would update it going forward.
President Saheba opened public comments.
There were no public comments.
President Saheba closed public comments and opened board discussions.
Board Member Cisneros agreed that this was a very thoughtful plan and very inclusive. She thanked the staff for their hard work on this.
Board Member Curtis thought it was an excellent plan and was in full support.
Board Member Hom echoed his board members. He thought it was very ambitious and had excellent data and detail. He wanted to see a more proactive point and wanted to see how projects and future developments would impact areas. How could they improve these areas? He also wanted to see before and after statistics of each of these improvements and changes. This way they could see what was most effective.
Staff Member Foster discussed what before and after studies were in the works.
Board Member Rothenberg wanted staff to keep track of how much traffic was coming off the freeway and how that contributed to the accidents here. She then discussed a letter from the public that had suggestions about speed bumps and she believed those were good suggestions.
Board Member Teague thought it was a great plan and he looked forward to seeing this implemented and achieving their goals.
President Saheba believed it was important to get this plan implemented and was critical due to the sobering facts he had learned. He wanted to know if there was a priority list for the action items. He also wanted to know what the next steps would be. He did want to see a prioritization of goals.
Staff Member Foster discussed budget concerns and how they would fund each project. She then discussed the next steps, how they could incorporate feedback from this meeting and how this would be treated as a living document.
8. MINUTES
Staff Member Tai informed the board that after consulting the City’s Attorney’s Office they would be opening the minutes to Public Comments.
Due to time (and extra time would have been needed for public comments) and after a discussion and vote (Board Member Teague made the motion, President Saheba seconded and all were in favor), approval of the minutes was pushed to the next scheduled meeting.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2021-1267
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
<https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5124718&GUID=976FDCCC-F927-478A-B3AD-7B230F8458D0&FullText=1>.
No one wanted to call any item for review.
9-B 2021-1268
Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation Department Projects
Staff Member Tai said that at the next meeting they would review and comment on the City’s Naming Policy, a workshop on the Housing Element Update, revisions of the Parking Ordinance, and Climate Action Staff will have a presentation.
Board Member Hom asked for information on when the Housing Element Subcommittee would be meeting.
Staff Member answered that it was this coming Thursday.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board Member Rothenberg offered her services for a page turn on the General Plan.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Curtis adjourned the meeting at 10:56 p.m.