Public Meetings - Alameda, California

The Alameda Planning Board met on May 23, 2022, via Zoom to address several agenda items. The board unanimously approved a street vacation, recommended a zoning text amendment to the City Council to allow cannabis manufacturing in the North Park Street Maritime Manufacturing District, and conducted a public workshop on the April 2022 Draft Housing Element. The Housing Element discussion was extensive, with staff presenting revisions, receiving public comments, and board members providing detailed feedback for further refinement before submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

The Planning Board of the City of Alameda met on Monday, May 9, 2022, at 7:00 PM via Zoom. The meeting included a design review for the fire tower beautification project at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex, a public hearing on a resolution to amend the General Plan to align with the Climate Adaptation and Hazard Mitigation Plan, and a public workshop on the April 2022 Draft Housing Element and proposed zoning amendments. The board also heard a staff presentation on the launch of a new Alameda parking enforcement service starting May 23, 2022. Consent Calendar - No consent calendar items were listed for action. Public Comments & Testimony - Fire Tower Beautification (Item 7-A): - Joe Choi, a resident across the street, questioned the need for the structure, citing its large size and potential for trespassing. - Matt Reed expressed support for the beautification plan, urging approval. - Bill Pye, board president of the Harbor Bay Isle Community Association, stated that the community is united in wanting the eyesore removed. He noted that while the community does not oppose the beautification plan if removal is not possible, they are frustrated that the structurally sound building cannot be demolished due to cost concerns. He emphasized that the board does not oppose the proposal. - Another Harbor Bay Isle resident echoed support for the beautification, calling it an improvement over the current eyesore. - Housing Element Workshop (Item 7-C): - Melissa Donahue opposed eliminating Article 26 and allowing 60-foot buildings, citing concerns about parking, congestion, and lack of open space for children. - Betsy Matheson urged against tall buildings in historic commercial districts, arguing they would create sunless wind tunnels and promote land speculation. - Matt Reid requested that the full November 2021 HCD letter be made public, criticized the use of outdated data for AFFH mapping, and asked for clearer mapping of project sites by resource area. - Christopher Buckley (Alameda Architectural Preservation Society) proposed an ADU strategy as an alternative to upzoning, urged caution against over-upzoning now, and asked for protection of the historic North Park Street residential area. - Carmen Reed supported maintaining lower height limits in historic districts and argued that fair housing inequities in Alameda are minor due to the city's small size. She requested infrastructure improvements such as light rail and a second tube before increasing density. Discussion Items - 7-A: Design Review for Fire Tower Beautification Project - Applicant: Greenway Golf Associates, Inc. proposed to beautify the fire tower at Clubhouse Memorial Road and Island Drive with a pollinator garden, raised planter boxes, renovated windows, and rotating art installations in the windows. The project is required under a lease amendment approved by City Council in June 2021. - Staff Presentation: Amy Woolridge (Recreation and Parks Director) explained that the city and Greenway jointly determined the building could remain standing after structural and hazardous materials assessments. The Golf Commission had unanimously recommended denial of the design due to concerns about inaccessibility, the large gate, lack of public access, and the use of asphalt. - Greenway Golf Presentation: Tracy Craig, Umesh Patel, and Zach Wald presented the design. They emphasized that the building is structurally sound, that the community (Harbor Bay HOA) preferred understated design, and that they are willing to study public access and other issues but need approval to meet a September 2022 deadline. They noted that a mural was originally proposed but changed to window art after discovering historic windows. - Board Discussion: Board members expressed concerns about the design's deviation from the lease agreement (which specified a mural), lack of pedestrian safety, absence of a sidewalk connecting to the park, and the lack of public access. Several members noted that the decision to keep the building was made jointly and that the lease would need amendment if changes were desired. A motion was made to deny the design and recommend that the applicant work with the Golf Commission and explore demolition, safety improvements, and public access. The motion passed 6-0. - 7-B: Public Hearing on General Plan Amendment for Climate Adaptation and Hazard Mitigation Plan - Staff Presentation: Danielle Miller (Sustainability and Resilience Manager) presented a resolution recommending that the City Council amend the Health and Safety Element and Conservation and Climate Action Element of the General Plan 2040 to align with the Climate Adaptation and Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022. The plan was approved by Cal OES and FEMA on May 1, 2022, making Alameda eligible for pre-disaster mitigation grants and flood insurance discounts. The amendment also aligns with AB 2140. - Board Discussion: Board member Curtis asked about retrofitting floor elevations in existing buildings; staff clarified that the intent is for new construction. Vice President Ruiz raised questions about the stormwater management plan and inclusion of Alameda Municipal Power as a key partner. Board member Teague noted that the retrofitting language should be clarified to avoid unintended requirements. - Outcome: The board voted to adopt the draft resolution with edits to clarify that retrofit requirements apply to new construction and to encourage incentives rather than mandates. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). - 7-C: Public Workshop on April 2022 Draft Housing Element and Zoning Code Amendments - Staff Presentation: Andrew Thomas (Planning, Building and Transportation Director) provided an update on the housing element process. He noted that the initial 30-day public comment period ended May 9, 2022, with 135 pages of comments received. The draft housing element must address the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 5,353 units for 2023-2031 and comply with state law on affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH). Thomas highlighted that Article 26 of the city charter (prohibiting multifamily housing and densities above 22 units/acre) conflicts with state law, as stated in a November 2021 letter from HCD. He proposed revisions to permit multifamily housing in all residential districts (R1–R6), increase densities up to 60 units/acre in R6, reduce open space requirements to 60 sq ft/unit, and introduce incentives for adaptive reuse and transit-oriented development. Other changes include a possible vacancy tax, reconsideration of inclusionary housing percentages, and removal of AUSD surplus sites from the inventory. - Board Discussion: Board members discussed the legal status of Article 26, with Board member Teague requesting a definitive legal opinion on preemption. Several members expressed support for the overall direction but raised concerns about the impact on historic districts, the need for infrastructure improvements, and the importance of connecting housing to transportation planning. The workshop was informational; no vote was taken. Key Outcomes - Item 7-A: The board denied the design review (6-0) and recommended that Greenway Golf work with the Golf Commission to revise the design, and explore: - The feasibility of demolishing the building. - Improved pedestrian safety (e.g., sidewalk) along Clubhouse Memorial Road. - Public access to the tower grounds. The recommendation is non-binding. - Item 7-B: The board approved the resolution (6-0) recommending that the City Council adopt the General Plan amendments to align with the Climate Adaptation and Hazard Mitigation Plan, with the clarification that retrofit requirements for sea level rise apply to new construction. - Item 7-C: No action taken. Staff will publish revisions to the Draft Housing Element by May 16, 2022, and hold a final public workshop at the May 23, 2022 Planning Board meeting. The draft will be submitted to the state Housing and Community Development (HCD) by the end of May, with a 90-day review period. The board will continue working on zoning amendments over the summer, aiming for final City Council adoption in November/December 2022. - Minutes: The February 28 and March 14, 2022 meeting minutes were continued to the next meeting due to time constraints.

The Planning Board of Alameda met via Zoom on Monday, April 11, 2022, at 7:00 PM. The agenda included three major items: a use permit for outdoor events at 1435 Webster Street, a study session on increasing housing capacity at Alameda Point Site A, and a workshop on the draft Housing Element and zoning amendments. Board members present: Curtis, Hom, Ruiz, Tig (Vice Chair), and Rothenberg? (Roll call showed Saheba absent, Cisneros absent, Rothenberg absent? Actually transcript: Saheba excused absence, Cisneros absent, Rothenberg absent, Curtis here, Hom here, Ruiz here, Tig here – so quorum of five). The meeting lasted approximately three hours. Public Comments & Testimony - Item 7-A (1435 Webster Use Permit): Melissa Millon and Marie Malam spoke in opposition, describing severe noise impacts on their quality of life and urging that amplified sound be banned. They cited a lack of enforcement and feeling unheard. Gina (representing EnCinAl High School) and Linda Asbury (Executive Director, West Alameda Business Association) spoke in favor, noting the events benefited the community and were run responsibly. Asbury stated they only planned six amplified events in 2022, down from 26 in 2021, and committed to listening to neighbors. - Item 7-B (Alameda Point Site A): Stephanie Hill (Trammell Crow Residential) and Karen Bay spoke in support, highlighting the developer's early delivery of community benefits (ferry terminal, parks, affordable housing) and the need for feasible project economics. - Item 7-C (Housing Element Workshop): Karen Bay supported uniform zoning and preserving retail on main streets. Drew Dara Abrams emphasized the importance of height limits and ground-floor details. Christopher Buckley (Alameda Architectural Preservation Society) opposed massive upzoning, recommending lower heights in historic districts and cautioning against over-reliance on density bonuses. Discussion Items - 7-A: 1435 Webster Street – Use Permit for Outdoor Events: Staff recommended approval with conditions. Board members questioned noise standards, complaint history (two from same neighbor), and proposed a one-year permit with stricter limits. After debate, a motion passed (5-0) to approve with modifications: amplified sound limited to one calendar day per month (Friday or Saturday), maximum three hours, measured at 85 decibels at residential property lines; permit expires in one year; three verified complaints from different individuals trigger a revocation hearing. - 7-B: Alameda Point Site A – Development Plan Amendment (Study Session): Staff presented plans to increase housing from 800 to 1,300 units on site A. Key issues: a pedestrian/bike view corridor, the high proportion of townhomes (400 out of 600 planned units), and challenges meeting universal design requirements (10% visitable vs. city ordinance requiring 100%). Board members generally supported the increased density, the view corridor, and providing flexibility on universal design, but urged early discussion with the disability commission. No action taken. - 7-C: Draft Housing Element & Zoning Amendments (Workshop): Staff outlined the process: 30-day public comment period ending May 9, then state HCD review. Board members offered extensive comments on density, height limits, ADUs, fair housing, and zoning complexities. Key points: board supported a uniform 60-foot height limit on Webster Street but favored a tiered approach on Park Street to protect the historic core; many favored eliminating density limits in favor of form-based standards; concerns about the transit overlay and base zoning confusion were raised. Board member Tig advocated for four units per residential parcel by right to promote fair housing. No votes taken. Key Outcomes - Item 7-A: Use permit approved (5-0) with conditions including one amplified event/month, 3-hour duration, Friday/Saturday only, 85 dB at residential property line, one-year term, and a three-strike complaint trigger for revocation. Applicant must submit revised event schedule to staff. - Item 7-B: Study session concluded; staff will incorporate feedback and hold future hearings with the Disability Commission and City Council (scheduled for May 3). Final action expected by fall 2022. - Item 7-C: Workshop adjourned; public comment period remains open through May 9. Staff will revise the Housing Element and zoning draft based on input and submit to HCD for review over 90 days. Planning Board will continue discussions at the May 9 meeting. - Other: A quorum was not present to approve the February 28 minutes, held over to the next meeting.

The Alameda Planning Board met on March 28, 2022, via Zoom. The board considered a tentative map for a condominium plan at 2350 Saratoga Street (Item 7A) and a design review amendment for a senior convalescent living facility at 1245 McKay Avenue (Item 7B). A public workshop on the Draft Housing Element Update (Item 7C) was continued to the next meeting on April 11, 2022. Minutes from two prior meetings were approved. Public Comments & Testimony - Item 7B public comment: One speaker (Ms. Reed, representing herself) opposed the design review amendment, arguing that a new environmental review should be conducted because the project changed from reuse to demolition, and noted a pending nomination to the National Register of Historic Places for the site. She also criticized the use of white stucco in a marine environment and stated the proposed buildings do not visually relate to each other. - A second speaker expressed support for the project, citing the quality of design and the community's desire for a facility for elderly and medically fragile individuals, noting they voted for the project twice. Discussion Items - 7A - 2350 Saratoga Street Tentative Map: Staff (David Sablon) presented a proposal to divide an existing 4-story building into three commercial condominium units for financing purposes. No new units would be created. Board members asked about fire separation and the relationship between condominiumization and the city ordinance prohibiting sale of individual work/live units. Staff clarified that the three condominiums represent whole portions of the building, and tenants would rent individual units. No public comments were received. - 7B - 1245 McKay Avenue Design Review Amendment: Staff (Henry Dong) and the applicant (Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative; Gary Struthers, architect) presented a revised design for a 61,300-square-foot, 101-unit senior convalescent living facility, replacing an earlier plan to rehabilitate an existing building. The new design features two courtyards, connections to the adjacent respite center, strong horizontal elements, simple stucco materials, and sustainability features targeting Green Point Rated Gold. Board members asked about laundry and trash facilities, window recesses, lighting plans, tree preservation, street lighting on McKay, a decorative gate, and buffers for ground-floor units. The architect noted that the site's existing parking is largely retained, and the building will be all-electric with potential solar panels. A tree inventory had been performed, with street trees preserved. Key Outcomes - 7A - Tentative Map (2350 Saratoga Street): Motion to recommend approval to the City Council passed unanimously (voice vote: all aye). - 7B - Design Review Amendment (1245 McKay Avenue): Motion to approve with conditions passed 6-0 (Cisneros aye, Curtis aye, Hom aye, Rothenberg aye, Ruiz aye, Teague aye). Conditions included: - Applicant to provide and receive staff approval of a photometric lighting plan as part of building permit. - Staff to review building accent colors to ensure a more muted palette. - Applicant to explore a more decorative gate with potential integration of public art. - Reinforced heavy landscaping along McKay Avenue to buffer ground-floor units. - Item 7C (Housing Element Workshop) continued to April 11, 2022. - Minutes: January 24, 2022 minutes approved (Hom abstained) and February 14, 2022 minutes approved with corrections (vote unanimous).

The Alameda Planning Board held a workshop and public hearing on Monday, March 14, 2022, at 7:00 PM via Zoom. The primary agenda item was a review of the General Plan and Housing Element Annual Report, draft Zoning Code Amendments for residential districts R-1 through R-6, and Design Review exemptions. No formal votes were taken; the meeting served to gather public and board input on two proposed approaches for allowing multifamily housing: a base zoning approach (Option 1) and a transit-oriented overlay district (Option 2). Staff presented the need to meet a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 5,353 units with a recommended 15–30% buffer (effectively planning for 6,100–6,900 units). Public Comments & Testimony - Zach Bowling suggested combining both options, concentrating housing near high-frequency transit but also considering eighth-mile buffers and other bus lines. He cautioned against over-relying on ADU projections and downzoning, citing legal risks under SB 330. - Karen Bay emphasized fair housing, urging that Alameda Point be developed as a high-resource community with jobs, retail, parks, and healthcare to avoid repeating historical patterns of concentrated poverty. - Christopher Buckley (Alameda Architectural Preservation Society) objected to shifting RHNA targets, requested analysis of state density bonus impacts on historic districts, and questioned the necessity of broad upzoning given rising ADU production (78 units in 2021). - Josh Geyer supported Option 2 (transit overlay) as more sustainable and efficient, but recommended a hybrid approach and extension to Bay Farm. - Alex Sparrow questioned the effect of upzoning on historic buildings and suggested incentivizing facade reuse with extra height allowances. - Drew Dara Abrams supported the R1–R6 zoning changes and the transit overlay, but asked to include ferry terminals and interlined bus routes in the overlay criteria. - Dolores Kelleher (AAPS) opposed unlimited density, arguing it would invite state density bonus projects that could exceed height limits without guaranteeing affordable units. - Sophia DeWitt (East Bay Housing Organizations) supported the staff recommendation and transit overlay but stressed the need to distribute affordable housing across all neighborhoods, including Bay Farm. Discussion Items - Staff Presentation (Andrew Thomas, Planning Director): Presented the annual report and housing element update schedule. Key points included: - The fifth cycle RHNA of 1,725 units was met, but affordable housing production fell short (15–25% deed-restricted vs. 50% need). - Projected unit sources: 2,100 from approved projects, 1,489 from Alameda Point, 1,200 from shopping center overlays, 300 from Park/Webster Street upzoning, 250 from northern waterfront sites, 60 ADUs/year (conservative), and 9 SB9 units/year. - A 15–30% buffer is needed to avoid net-loss penalties, requiring additional units from residential districts. - Fair housing: HCD’s opportunity map shows high-opportunity areas in east/south Alameda; most planned units are in low-opportunity areas (Northern Waterfront, Alameda Point). - Two multifamily options: (1) Allow multifamily by right in R3–R6, remove density limits, keep height/setback/form standards; (2) Create a transit overlay district (within 1/4 mile of high-frequency transit) allowing up to 45 feet and removing density limits, while restricting multifamily elsewhere. - Board Member T: Asked about net-loss consequences and requested a city attorney opinion on whether state law overrides Article 26 (Measure A). Preferred Option 2 with a fair housing overlay allowing four units per parcel in high-opportunity areas, and urged removal of kitchen-based unit definitions and open-space barriers. - Board Member Cisneros: Favored direct zoning code changes over overlays, citing a letter from HCD stating Article 26 is preempted. Supported a hybrid approach and emphasized equitable distribution of affordable housing. - Board Member Hom: Liked the overlay concept but wanted a higher affordable housing requirement within it, and questioned definitions (shared living in M districts, religious assembly). - Vice President Ruiz: Preferred direct zoning revisions for flexibility and equity, questioned the “kitchen” definition tied to unit count, noted the 1,000 sq ft limit on SB9 units vs. 1,200 sq ft ADU limit, and suggested reducing open space to 100 sq ft (market rate) and 75 sq ft (affordable). - Board Member Rothenberg: Supported Option 1 (prescriptive approach), proposed extending the building code separation reference to R1, and suggested expanding design standard 17 to include seismic and fire safety for chimneys. - Board Member Curtis: Expressed concern about traffic congestion and emergency vehicle access, urging a study of impacts before approving additional units. - President Saheba: Supported the transit overlay but recommended extending it to Bay Farm and other underutilized commercial districts. Key Outcomes - No formal action was taken; the meeting was a workshop to gather input. - Staff will revise the annual report to remove prescriptive language about zoning districts and incorporate board direction. - Staff will continue refining the zoning amendments, with a second workshop on Park/Webster Street at the next meeting (March 28, 2022). - The draft housing element (complete with all appendices) is scheduled for release on April 1, 2022, for a 30-day public review, followed by hearings in April/May before submission to HCD. - Staff acknowledged the need to analyze state density bonus impacts, address fair housing concerns, and consider combinations of the two multifamily options.

The Alameda Planning Board held a regular meeting via Zoom on February 28, 2022, beginning at 7:00 PM. The board considered endorsements of two annual reports on climate action and transportation, held a public workshop on the draft Housing Element and the Alameda Point program to construct 1,489 housing units, and approved minutes from the previous meeting. Board Member Teague was excused; all other members were present. Public Comments & Testimony - Kimi Sugoka, a resident, expressed concern about ongoing construction noise and nighttime air conditioning units from the Maximus redevelopment of South Shore Apartments, which she said disturbed her sleep. She was directed to contact the planning department for follow-up. - Cindy Johnson (Bike Walk Alameda) supported staff recommendations for the transportation report, particularly endorsing continued pursuit of the pedestrian and bicycle bridge to Oakland and cautioned against predetermining its financial feasibility before a funded study is complete. - Betsy Matheson advocated for a city policy requiring new and renovated buildings to have accessible exterior clotheslines to reduce energy use, noting her own experience using a backyard clothesline year-round. - Ruth Abey (Community Action for Sustainable Alameda) praised the planning board and staff, expressed support for the climate and transportation reports, and encouraged the board to support the Cool City Challenge application. She also noted she had recently electrified her home and stressed the importance of community organization for climate action. - A speaker (name unclear) supported the annual reports, highlighted the new AC Transit line 78 as a positive addition, and urged the city to ensure the service continues after its pilot period despite low pandemic-era ridership. - On the Housing Element workshop: Sarah McIntyre (MidPen Housing) introduced herself as the development partner for the Alameda Point Collaborative Reshape project, expressed support for both the Alameda Point Partners site A amendment and the West Midway project, and noted infrastructure remains a key challenge. - Zach Mowen (housing advocate) expressed concern that the existing 25% affordable housing requirement at Alameda Point may be difficult to prove viable to HCD and suggested considering a citywide 15% requirement with a Berkeley-style affordable housing overlay to encourage rather than mandate higher affordability. - Doug Biggs (Executive Director, Alameda Point Collaborative) supported the site A amendment and the West Midway project, emphasizing the need for new infrastructure to replace the deteriorating existing housing and described the collaborative's resident-engaged design process. - Karen Bay raised concerns about the loss of commercial retail space at Alameda Point as part of the re-entitlement, noting the original 600,000 square feet of commercial (including 200,000 square feet of retail) may be reduced. She warned against repeating past retail leakage to Oakland and urged careful planning. Discussion Items - 7-A: Endorsement of Annual Reports on Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (CARP) and Transportation Danielle Miller, Sustainability and Resilience Manager, presented the CARP annual report, highlighting 2021 achievements such as the all-electric reach code, amended parking ordinance, and leaf blower ban. She outlined 2022 priorities including sea level rise adaptation (via the San Leandro Bay/Oakland/Alameda Estuary Adaptation Working Group), development of an equitable existing buildings electrification roadmap, and application for the Cool City Challenge ($1 million prize for carbon neutrality). Lisa Foster, Senior Transportation Coordinator, presented the transportation annual report, noting four traffic fatalities in 2021, new bikeways (2.5 miles), and progress on Vision Zero. She discussed planned projects for 2022 including the Lincoln/Pacific corridor and the Clement Extension. Board members asked questions about specific intersections (e.g., Otis Drive/South Shore), the pedestrian bridge feasibility study, grant funding certainty, and the process for residents to report safety concerns. They praised the reports and emphasized the importance of grant prioritization and coordination with regional partners. - 7-B: Public Workshop on Draft Housing Element Update and Alameda Point Program Andrew Thomas (Planning, Building and Transportation Director) presented the plan to build 1,489 housing units on 55 acres of city-owned land at Alameda Point (approximately one-quarter of the city's 8-year Regional Housing Needs Allocation of 5,300 units). The plan relies on two main components: Site A (currently entitled for 800 units, proposed to increase to 1,500 units) and the West Midway Reshape project (replacing 200 existing affordable units and adding 589 new ones, total 789 units). Infrastructure – including sewer, storm water, and roads – is a major constraint, with total costs estimated at $10-12 million for phase two. The city is negotiating with Alameda Point Partners (for Site A) and with Catellus/Brookfield (for West Midway) to build the necessary infrastructure. Board members discussed financing challenges, the Navy cap on market-rate units, the need for affordable housing (25% at Alameda Point vs. 15% citywide), fair housing requirements, and the importance of timing infrastructure with housing production. No action was taken; the workshop was informational. - Minutes (Item 8-A): The board approved the January 24, 2022 meeting minutes with an amendment to clarify Board Member Cisneros's comments regarding the multifamily overlay. - Staff Communications: Staff announced that the next planning board meeting (March 14, 2022) will include another housing element workshop on zoning text amendments. - Board Communications: A discussion occurred regarding the procedure for calling items for review. Staff clarified that a written justification is required per municipal code, but calls can be made orally during the meeting with follow-up email, and the 10-day appeal period allows calls to be made anytime within that window. Key Outcomes - Endorsement of Annual Reports: The board voted unanimously (6-0-1, with Board Member Teague excused) to endorse both the CARP annual report and the annual report on transportation, with a specific comment that the board recommends reevaluating the ranking of the pedestrian/bicycle bridge to Oakland given the $1.5 million feasibility study underway. This comment will be transmitted to the City Council along with the endorsement. - Minutes Approved: The January 24, 2022 meeting minutes were approved (6-0, with Board Member Hom abstaining as he was not present) with the amendment noted. - Next Steps: Staff will bring forward the housing element workshop on zoning text amendments for the March 14, 2022 meeting. Board Member Hom noted he will be absent from that meeting. The City Council is scheduled to consider the annual reports on March 15, 2022.

The Alameda Planning Board met on February 14, 2022, at 7:00 PM via Zoom to consider three major agenda items: a design review amendment for a hotel at 1051 Harbor Bay Parkway, a design review and development plan amendment for eight townhomes at 2607-2619 Santa Clara Avenue and 1514-1518 Broadway, and a public workshop on the draft Housing Element Update and zoning amendments for Park Street, Webster Street, and commercial areas. The board also approved minutes from previous meetings. All items were discussed with public testimony, and votes were taken on the first two items. Consent Calendar - No consent calendar items were listed or discussed. The meeting proceeded directly to regular agenda items. Public Comments & Testimony - No public comments were made during the initial Oral Communications period at the start of the meeting. - For item 7A (hotel design amendment), no public speakers addressed the board. - For item 7B (townhomes), no public speakers addressed the board. - For item 7C (Housing Element Workshop), multiple public speakers provided comments: - Betsy Matheson (Alameda resident): Expressed support for residential over commercial uses on Park and Webster Streets, encouraged limiting building heights as recommended by the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS), and requested step-downs adjacent to residential properties. She also raised concerns about shadow impacts and microclimates. - Speaker (name not provided): Supported uniform height limits for Park and Webster Streets, endorsed the multifamily overlay for Neptune Plaza, and emphasized the need for feasible project economics. - Josh Dyer (Alameda resident): Expressed excitement about upzoning main streets, highlighting potential for daycare, childcare, and other amenities. Supported increased housing density to enliven commercial areas. - Jay Garfinkle: Criticized the rendering of five-story buildings as appearing twice as tall as nearby structures, questioned the lack of parking, and urged the city to eliminate staff parking at City Hall to set an example. He also suggested renaming the board to a "compliance board." - Harvey Rosenthal (owner of Neptune Plaza): Advocated for staggered ascending heights on Webster Street, particularly for Neptune Plaza, to allow five stories over commercial. He argued that economic feasibility requires sufficient height and density. - Speaker (name not provided): Expressed support for staff's proposed height and setback requirements over WABA's, favoring the draft resolution to meet RHNA targets. - Christopher Buckley (Alameda Architectural Preservation Society): Presented four main points: concern about state density bonus law allowing buildings to exceed height limits, support for WABA's two-track approach, request to retain story limits in the zoning code, and opposition to increased heights on Park Street without a use permit. He also suggested an ADU strategy. - Therese Hall (Alameda resident): Raised issues about public notification for the workshop, requested a repository for presentation materials, expressed concerns about microclimates (shading and wind tunnels), and emphasized the needs of disabled residents for accessible parking. - Marilyn All (Alameda resident): Thanked staff for correcting a typo regarding multifamily dwellings and supported treating Neptune Plaza like other shopping centers with increased height limits. - Alex Bear (Alameda resident): Expressed approval of staff's proposal and encouraged upzoning, especially for Neptune Plaza. He noted that the appearance of a five-story building next to a three-story building is poor design, not necessarily height, and called for historic preservation protections on Webster Street. - Daniel Hoy (West Alameda Business Association design committee): Thanked staff for diagrams, requested more time to canvass property owners about the proposed changes, and expressed some concerns about staff's modifications to WABA's diagrams. - Drew Dara Abrams (Alameda resident): Supported increased height limits, density bonuses for affordable housing, and pedestrian improvements. He encouraged long-term thinking, including potential future BART stations. Discussion Items 7-A: Design Review Amendment – 1051 Harbor Bay Parkway (Hotel) - Staff Presentation (Henry Dong, Planner): The hotel was originally approved in October 2020. The applicant (Shriji Hospitality, Inc.) requested minor modifications to the southwest and southeast elevations to accommodate Hilton's product type and modular construction. The number of rooms, colors, and materials remain unchanged. Staff recommended approval by motion. - Board Discussion: Board members asked about deferred design conditions from the original approval, including a corner enhancement and sunshades. Staff confirmed these had not been addressed. Board members expressed concern that the corner design (a gateway site) was not finalized. The applicant (Mr. Patel) stated that a more robust corner design is planned, including public art, and would be submitted within 60 days. Director Thomas suggested an ad hoc committee to review the design before building permits. - Motion: Board member Rothenberg moved to approve the amendment as submitted, with a condition that the refined corner design be reviewed by a planning board subcommittee (consisting of Rothenberg, Ruiz, and Hom) before finalization. Seconded by Hom. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). 7-B: Design Review and Development Plan Amendment – 2607-2619 Santa Clara Ave & 1514-1518 Broadway (Townhomes) - Staff Presentation (Henry Dong): The project originally proposed 9 townhomes with a stacked parking structure. A 2021 city ordinance eliminated minimum parking requirements, leading the applicant to revise the plan to have 8 townhomes with surface parking. The revision removes the parking structure and one unit, resulting in a more open site plan. Staff recommended approval, with a correction to condition 9 (bicycle parking: 8 long-term, 2 short-term). - Applicant/Architect Presentation (Dan Hale, Hunt Hale Jones): Presented slides showing the improved site plan with eliminated parking structure, open space, and children's play area. They proposed an alternate entry canopy design: a 3-foot canopy over front doors with a sloping metal roof between units, instead of a 5-foot flat canopy. They also discussed the ADA unit, accessible bathrooms, and landscaping. - Board Discussion: Board members raised questions about permeable pavers, garbage truck access, noise from the play area, lighting, and compliance with fair housing laws. Board member Curtis opposed the project due to traffic flow and safety concerns. Board members Cisneros and Hom supported the design improvements. Board member Rothenberg suggested adding bollards for safety and incorporating public art into the canopy. Board member Teague asked about fair housing and ADA compliance. Board member Ruiz requested a photometric study for egress lighting. - Motion: Board member Hom moved to approve the design review and development plan amendment with the following modifications: (1) approve the applicant's alternate canopy design; (2) correct condition 9 to 8 long-term and 2 short-term bike spaces; (3) require bollards at the parking lot edge near the play area; (4) conduct a photometric study for adequate lighting; (5) ensure compliance with fair housing and accessibility codes. Board member Teague seconded. The motion passed 6-1, with board member Curtis dissenting. 7-C: Public Workshop – Draft Housing Element Update and Zoning Amendments for Park Street, Webster Street, and Commercial Areas - Staff Presentation (Andrew Thomas, Planning Director): Presented the draft zoning amendments to encourage housing on transit corridors. The city needs to plan for 5,353 new housing units (RHNA cycle 2023-2031). Staff proposed eliminating multifamily prohibitions and density limits on Park and Webster Streets, allowing residential above ground-floor commercial. Height limits were discussed: 65 feet on Park Street, and a graduated height system on Webster Street (from 40-85 feet) based on proximity to the historic core. The proposal also includes a 30-unit-per-acre minimum density to qualify as affordable under state law. Staff emphasized that this is a workshop to gather feedback; no vote was taken. - Board Discussion: Board members discussed the use of overlay zones vs. direct zoning amendments, height consistency, minimum density requirements, and the interaction with state density bonus law. Board member Teague advocated for using multiple overlays (fair housing, transit, multifamily, high-density, commercial) to target housing needs. Board member Hom supported eliminating density limits and retaining flexibility, but questioned the 30-unit minimum. Board member Cisneros preferred direct zoning amendments over overlays. Board member Curtis stressed the importance of financial feasibility for developers. Board member Ruiz emphasized the need for sun/shadow studies and step-backs for pedestrian comfort. Board member Hom supported consistent height limits on Webster Street. The board generally supported the staff approach but requested further refinement and outreach to property owners. - Outcome: No action taken. Staff will incorporate feedback and present a revised draft at a future meeting. Key Outcomes - Item 7-A: Approved unanimously (7-0) with a condition to create a subcommittee (Rothenberg, Ruiz, Hom) to review the corner design before building permits. - Item 7-B: Approved 6-1 (Curtis dissenting) with amendments including canopy design, bike parking correction, bollards, lighting study, and fair housing compliance. - Item 7-C: No vote. Workshop concluded; staff will revise the draft zoning amendments based on board and public input. - Minutes: Approved minutes from December 12, 2021 (with a typo correction) and January 10, 2022 (with a clarification from board member Hom). Both passed unanimously. - Staff Communications: Upcoming meetings include an annual report on the CARP Transportation Choices Plan and continued Housing Element workshops. - Written Communication: An HCD letter dated November 29, 2021, regarding Article 26 of the city charter was transmitted to the board. Next Steps - Staff will work with the hotel applicant and the ad hoc subcommittee to finalize the corner design within 60 days. - For the townhome project, staff will ensure building permit conditions are met, including the approved amendments. - The Housing Element Update will be refined with further outreach to business districts and property owners, and will return to the Planning Board for a formal recommendation later in 2022.

The Alameda Planning Board met on January 24, 2022, at 7:00 PM via Zoom to consider a design review amendment for Block 11 at Alameda Point and to hold a public workshop on draft housing element zoning code amendments. The board approved the design review amendment 6-0 and received public input on the housing element changes. Consent Calendar - No items. Public Comments & Testimony - David Israel (architect): Explained that the proposed change to the west elevation windows differentiated the residential lobby from retail entrances, noting that the hangar door aesthetic was reserved for retail. - Betsy Matheson (Alameda resident): Expressed interest in seeing the south elevation to understand the relationship between hangar doors on the first floor and upper floors. - Zach Bowling (public): Supported staff’s approach, argued that Article 26 (Measure A) is preempted by state law, and suggested an affordable housing overlay to meet affirmative fair housing obligations. - Karen Bay (public): Proposed rezoning North Park District maritime manufacturing zones to allow transitional housing, affordable housing, and low barrier navigation centers to address inequities in housing distribution. - Josh Dyer (public): Supported staff’s approach, argued that Article 26 is exclusionary and that state law supersedes local charters. - Rolling Smith (public): Seconded earlier comments and called for the affirmative fair housing baseline to be made available before finalizing zoning decisions. - Christopher Buckley (Alameda Architectural Preservation Society): Argued that upzoning R2 to R6 was premature, recommended using a multifamily overlay for specific sub-areas, and noted that ADU projections may exceed previous estimates. - Alex Spear (public): Expressed strong support for upzoning Park and Webster Streets while preserving historic character, and advocated for increased density. Discussion Items - 7-A: Design Review Amendment for Block 11 (West Atlantic Avenue and Pan Am Way): Staff (Andrew Thomas, Planning Director) presented a request by UDR, Inc. to modify the ground-floor west elevation window design. The previously approved condition required a specific window arrangement, but the applicant proposed switching the lobby entry and fitness center window designs. Staff supported the change. The board discussed clarity of entry; some members noted the new design was less obvious but ultimately approved the amendment. - 7-B: Public Workshop on Draft Housing Element Zoning Code Amendments: Staff presented proposed changes to definitions and regulations for residential uses, including transitional/supportive housing, shared living, residential care, warming centers, low barrier navigation centers, and multifamily dwellings. Discussion focused on compliance with state law, the conflict with Article 26 (Measure A), and the need for fair housing. Board members raised questions about definitions, density calculations, and the zoning map. No final decisions were made; the workshop was intended to gather feedback for future amendments. Key Outcomes - 7-A: The board approved the design review amendment (Motion by Board Member Teague, seconded by Board Member Cisneros) with a vote of 6-0 (Board Member Hom absent). The change allows the alternative window design on the west elevation. - 7-B: No vote was taken. The board provided feedback and direction to staff, including: clarifying definitions, exploring the use of SB10, considering an affordable housing overlay, and addressing concerns about Article 26 compliance. Staff will incorporate feedback into future zoning code amendments and housing element updates, with upcoming meetings on February 14, 2022, to discuss commercial district zoning and other items.

The Planning Board of Alameda met on Monday, January 10, 2022, at 7:00 PM via Zoom. The meeting lasted approximately 2.5 hours (adjourned at 9:41 PM). Key actions included unanimous approval of a six-month renewal for the Club House Bar's conditional use permit and a public workshop on draft zoning amendments for shopping center sites to help meet the city's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 5,353 units for 2023-2031. The board also approved minutes from three previous meetings with abstentions. Consent Calendar - Item 6-A (2022-1622): 1622 West Atlantic Avenue, Site A Block 11 – Design Review Amendment. The applicant requested a continuance to the January 24, 2022 meeting. The board granted the continuance without objection. Public Comments & Testimony - Betsy Matheson: Expressed support for rezoning shopping centers for housing, noting existing services and walkability. Supported letters from the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) and West Alameda Business Association (WABA) and raised concerns about parking reliance on adjacent parcels. - Daniel Hoy (WABA): Clarified that WABA had no prior conversation with the owner of Neptune Plaza; the five-story proposal was new to them. Urged a form-based code approach and asked for continued dialogue on height and density. - Zach Bowling: Supported mixed-use, walkable communities, advocated for 60-foot height limits as economical, and suggested updating underlying zoning instead of overlays. Noted that density bonus assumptions cannot be used in housing element counts. - Christopher Buckley (AAPS): Generally supported the proposal, but recommended different height/density standards per shopping center, higher density for estuary sites, flexibility on ground-floor uses, and more staff analysis of development potential. - Drew Dar Abrams: Expressed qualified support, emphasizing the need for pedestrian-friendly design and learning from other Bay Area projects. Suggested treating each shopping center differently and praised elimination of parking minimums. Discussion Items - Item 7-A (2022-1629): Club House Bar Conditional Use Permit Renewal – Staff (Brian McGuire) reported that over the six-month review period, only one noise complaint was received and immediately addressed. The board discussed the privacy fence condition (8-foot requirement vs. current 6-foot screen) and the revocation process. The board approved the renewal with a new condition to maintain a landscaping buffer. - Item 7-B (2022-1630): Public Workshop on Draft Housing Element Zoning Code Amendments for Shopping Centers – Director Andrew Thomas presented the draft multifamily overlay district for eight shopping centers (Alameda Landing, Marina Village, South Shore, Harbor Bay Landing, Neptune Plaza, Park Street Landing, Blanding, and Bridgeside). Key points: - The RHNA target is 5,353 units; proposed projects total about 2,000 units, with 1,428 from Alameda Point and 589 from NCNAL terminals pending city council decisions in January/February 2022. - The overlay would permit multifamily housing by right at densities of 30–100 units per acre (with density transfer), a default 60-foot height limit, and prohibition of ground-floor residential (except for active uses like lobbies, fitness, daycare). - Staff emphasized that the goal is to avoid triggering state density bonus law by providing adequate density upfront. - Board members raised questions about height limits, ground-floor flexibility, parking, traffic, and the impact of state density bonus. Ideas included work-live lofts, different standards for interior vs. street frontages, and removing Neptune Plaza to address it under Webster Street zoning. - Public speakers supported the concept but urged customization per site, especially for Neptune Plaza. - Staff noted that the next workshop on January 24 will focus on residential district zoning; the housing element policy document is targeted for March 2022 submission to the state. Key Outcomes - Item 7-A: Motion to approve the Club House Bar conditional use permit renewal as recommended by staff passed unanimously (7-0, with President Saheba and all members present voting aye). - Item 7-B: No action taken; workshop only. Board provided direction to staff to consider: - Customizing density and height per shopping center. - Allowing non-residential ground-floor uses (e.g., work-live, fitness, lobbies) rather than only retail. - Removing Neptune Plaza from the overlay to be handled under Webster Street zoning. - Evaluating a 100-foot height limit for South Shore and Harbor Bay (already higher than 60 feet). - Clarifying the definition of multifamily housing (5+ units) and adjusting density calculations for residential districts. - Minutes: Three sets of minutes were approved with abstentions: - September 27, 2021: Approved (6-0-1, President Saheba abstained). - October 11, 2021: Approved (5-2, Cisneros and Ruiz abstained due to absence). - October 25, 2021: Approved (6-1, President Saheba abstained). Next Steps - Staff will refine the shopping center overlay ordinance based on board and public feedback. - January 24, 2022: Planning Board workshop on residential district zoning changes (SB9, navigation centers, etc.). - January 18, 2022: City Council decision on NCNAL terminals (critical for housing element). - February 2, 2022: City Council decision on Alameda Point Site A re-entitlement. - March 2022: Target to submit housing element policy document to HCD for review. - Summer 2022: Finalize zoning ordinances for city council adoption.