Alameda Planning Board Meeting: Gibbons Drive Plan and Board Elections, October 12, 2026

The Alameda Planning Board met on Monday, October 12, 2026, beginning at 7:00 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers at 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda. The agenda had been revised on October 5, 2026, to add the Board Elections item. Five board members were present, including the Board President; board members Ruiz and Freed were absent. The Board voted 5-0 to move Board Elections ahead of the Gibbons Drive public hearing. The meeting included the consent calendar, Board Elections, a public hearing on the Gibbons Drive Sidewalks and Trees Plan, staff communications, and board communications. It adjourned at approximately 9:24 PM.

Consent Calendar

• 4-A – June 22, 2026 draft minutes: Continued to a future meeting because too few current board members had attended that prior meeting to vouch for the minutes.
• 4-B – August 24, 2026 draft minutes: Approved unanimously (5-0, with two absences).

Board Elections

• After the agenda change, the Board considered Board Elections before the Gibbons Drive hearing. A nomination recommending Board Member Wang for President and Board Member Sue for Vice President was placed. With no other nominations and no public comment, the Board voted 5-0 to elect Wang as President and Sue as Vice President, effective at the next board meeting.

Public Comments & Testimony

Non-agenda public comment

• William Morrison, a Fernside resident, criticized the public comment format as a one-way, non-interactive 'check-the-box' exercise and expressed frustration about the lack of opportunity for dialogue.
• Pam Lowe requested that the city combine the Gibbons Drive sidewalks and trees work with the Front Side Boulevard traffic calming piece of the pavement management project, noting that approximately $200,000 had already been approved for the traffic calming portion.
• At the end of the meeting, Jim Strelo thanked the Board for listening and noted that residents turned out despite the Indigenous Peoples' Day holiday.

Gibbons Drive Sidewalks and Trees Plan hearing

• Maria von Lieshout opposed the current plan, saying it is not preservation-first. She said many Alameda sidewalks are 35–60 years old, the city has mainly used concrete cutting and asphalt patching, and cities such as Sunnyvale, Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, and New York use engineered solutions such as reinforced concrete and larger tree wells. She also said the plan was based on input from only 12 residents.
• Jim Strelo opposed the 20 percent removal cap, saying existing liquid ambers are about 70 percent more efficient than replacement trees at filtering greenhouse gases and storing carbon, and that property values could decrease 8–12 percent. He asked for a 10 percent cap.
• Jennifer Green, an Alameda resident, opposed removing healthy trees and said liquid ambers can live up to 300 years. She noted that a 20 percent cap every five years could mean 100 percent removal within 25 years and asked for measurable safeguards, clear definitions of feasibility, and documentation of preservation options before any non-emergency removal. She said ADA compliance and tree preservation can coexist.
• Travis Morgan asked the Board not to approve removal of healthy trees. He called the document a 'tree removal framework' rather than an accountable sidewalk repair plan, and referenced the December 2025 City Council approval to remove 65 trees on Clement/Tilden Way, including four protected coast live oaks, saying that work could have been done with fewer removals. He requested a block-by-block plan for sidewalks, curbs, and storm drains.
• Pam Lowe referenced the Master Street Tree Plan's preservation goals and said no healthy tree should be approved for removal without a tree-by-tree assessment. She also noted that the city created a slow street on Versailles, suggesting similar public-good actions could be used to protect trees.
• Kate Lewis, a former Gibbons Drive resident, said she was unaware of the outreach, said people drove from other cities to see the fall trees, and encouraged a 5 percent removal cap and meandering sidewalks into yards.
• Laura Zupon said the proposal's main changes are to exempt future removals from Planning Board review and remove the annual 5 percent per block face protection, and that other elements already exist in city policy. She asked for measurable preservation-first standards, preservation of Planning Board review, and public engagement in the next version.
• Carter Lowe, a lifelong Alameda resident and UC Irvine planning student, urged the Board to expand options beyond the plan and said curb cuts and bump-outs could give trees more space. He asked what kind of city Alameda wants to be.
• Monica Allen asked the Board to reject the plan and return with one that better prioritizes tree preservation and more community involvement.
• Pete Aston disputed the city's characterization of 'extensive' outreach. He said 12 people voted at the May meeting, and a community survey with 115 respondents found that 9 percent said the city provided sufficient input opportunity, 81 percent of Gibbons residents were willing to meander sidewalks onto their lawns, and 95 percent were willing to give up parking.
• Mark Minor, a Fernside resident and author of an alternative counterpoint plan, said the proposed cap lacks measurable, quantifiable, step-by-step guidelines and uses subjective language. He urged the Planning Board to stay involved in future decisions and cited what he called inconsistencies in the arborist report.
• William Morrison, speaking again, supported keeping the 5 percent cap and described the trees as a habitat attraction for large flocks of blackbirds.
• Patricia Gray, a Gibbons Drive homeowner for 30 years, said she accepted removal of four or five sick trees but found the five-year, 20 percent plan unacceptable and called the trees irreplaceable. She said she did not ask for replacement species and wants to save the existing trees.
• Amos White, a West Side resident and founder of 100k Trees for Humanity, said the 20-year removal plan is too aggressive. He said 9 of 12 participants at a May meeting chose a 50-year plan, three chose chicanes, and the 20-year plan got zero first-place votes. He cited USDA Forest Service research that large trees remove about 70 times more air pollution than newly planted trees and argued matching 112 trees would require nearly 8,000 saplings. He asked for a timeline of at least 50 years, tree-condition-based removal ordering, and continued public review.
• David Harris asked for a cap of at most 10 percent and said the goal should be to remove only what is necessary, not replace the whole canopy.
• Kelly Becker, a three-year resident, said people go out of their way to drive down Gibbons, and she urged the Board to fund sidewalk repairs rather than tree removal. She noted many homeowners are willing to give up personal property to save trees.
• Linnea Williams, an Alameda resident of about 12 years, said the future process should be proactive rather than reactive, with tree-by-tree decisions and public input built into the plan.
• An in-person speaker who spoke from her seat said the sidewalks are not 'dangerous' for her grandchildren or herself, although ADA regulations are a separate issue, and stated: 'The trees are the non-negotiable.'

Discussion Items

Gibbons Drive Sidewalks and Trees Plan

• Public Works Director Aaron Smith presented the draft plan. It addresses 112 remaining liquid amber (American sweet gum) trees on Gibbons Drive: 88 rated in good condition and 24 in fair condition, with none rated excellent. Five poor-condition trees were removed in spring 2026 and replaced. About two-thirds of sidewalks and more than 80 percent of curbs have moderate or significant damage.
• The draft plan uses a location-by-location, preservation-first approach, treats tree removal as a last resort, and caps removals at no more than 20 percent of remaining liquid ambers in each five-year period. It also establishes a replacement tree palette of eight species; the 2010 Master Street Tree Plan banned new liquid amber plantings citywide.
• Staff said alternatives such as doing nothing, removing or relocating sidewalks, raising sidewalks, and roadway chicanes were considered and rejected or deemed infeasible. The plan is intended to coordinate sidewalk, curb, accessibility, and drainage work while gradually transitioning the canopy.
• Staff requested that the Planning Board recommend City Council adoption and that future removals carried out under the plan not require additional Planning Board review under the tree removal policy's 5 percent per block face threshold. All other tree removal policy requirements would continue to apply.
• The CEQA determination is that the action is categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15308 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment).
• Board questions included the basis for the arborist condition ratings and the '40 to 80 percent of lifespan' statement; the consulting arborist, Daria, explained that the 40–80 percent figure is a maturity measure based on ANSI A300 standards, not a lifespan prediction, and that condition ratings reflect factors such as growth form, decay, pests, and crown health.
• Board members generally said the plan is a good framework but needs more specificity. Board Member Hom suggested measurable evaluation criteria, a lower cap of about 10 percent, separate treatment of emergency removals, a neighborhood committee, exploration of assessment districts or similar funding, and more detailed public notification explaining why alternatives to removal were rejected. Board Member Sue echoed the need for cost and measurement information, supported a neighborhood committee, and said emergency removals should not count against the cap. Board Member Lee asked for greater detail on tree locations, prioritization, and how far the cap would actually be needed.
• Staff said they had heard the feedback and would consider whether to return to the Planning Board or proceed to City Council with revisions.

Staff Communications

• The Board received the list of recent zoning administrator and design review approvals without public comment.
• Staff announced an upcoming Boards and Commissions appreciation reception on October 13, 5–7 PM at the O Club.
• The next Planning Board meeting is tentatively expected to include the commercial zoning ordinance update and a West Line Drive Beach and Tennis Club project.
• The ADU/condominium ordinance update was adopted by City Council; the short-term rental ordinance was pulled at second reading due to a technical issue and may return.
• The Oakland Roots interim venue project at Harbor Bay is scheduled for City Council consideration on November 4 and possibly the Planning Board on November 9.
• Staff noted the retirement of Stephen Buckley and that the city manager is conducting an organizational analysis before recruiting a new planning director.

Board Communications

• New Board Member Lee introduced himself and said his background includes housing production, including affordable and market-rate housing. He asked about Alameda's progress toward housing goals and how to position the city for more housing production.
• Board Member Hom suggested the Board receive a briefing on new state planning and housing laws; staff said they would look for resources and noted an annual report and housing element updates are expected early in the year.

Key Outcomes

• The Board voted 5-0 to approve the agenda change moving Board Elections before the Gibbons Drive hearing.
• The August 24, 2026 minutes were approved 5-0; the June 22, 2026 minutes were continued.
• Board Member Wang was elected President and Board Member Sue was elected Vice President by a 5-0 vote, effective at the next meeting.
• The Board did not recommend adoption of the Gibbons Drive Sidewalks and Trees Plan as presented. Instead, it passed a motion (5-0) recommending that the draft plan be revised to address Planning Board and public comments and returned to the Planning Board for further review. The Board did not grant the requested exemption from future Planning Board review.
• The public comment period for the Gibbons plan remains open through October 23, 2026, with additional presentations to the Commission on Persons with Disabilities on October 14 and the Historical Advisory Board on November 5, before a December 1 City Council consideration date noted by staff.