City of Alameda Planning Board Meeting Summary - October 26, 2026

The Alameda Planning Board met at 7:00 PM on October 26, 2026, in City Hall Council Chambers with remote participation. The board considered a Planned Development Amendment for the South Shore Beach and Tennis Club and a Downtown Commercial Zoning Text Amendment. Board members Katie Freed, Hom, Cisneros, Lee, and President Wang were present; Sue and Ruiz were absent. Board member Lee recused from the South Shore item, and Board member Freed introduced herself as a nearly 10-year Alameda resident.

Consent Calendar

• Draft meeting minutes from June 22, 2026, continued from October 12, 2026, were not approved and were continued to the next meeting because no board member could vouch for the minutes.

Discussion Item: 5-A – Planned Development Amendment, South Shore Beach and Tennis Club

• Staff presented a request by Reggie Hanna on behalf of Rockhill Management, LLC, to amend the existing Planned Development Z-8.96 at 410 Westline Drive and 936 Shorepoint Court, converting existing commercial and office space to residential use in two areas. The 1971 development contains about 9.19 acres and 446 existing residential units; 16 new residential units are proposed with no new floor area.
• The amendment would proportionally reduce permitted commercial space and remove the cap on ADUs to be consistent with state law. Staff said the project meets Planned Development eligibility and use-permit standards, and residential density would increase to roughly 50 units per acre, within the General Plan maximum of 100 units per acre. CEQA consistency was based on the 2040 General Plan EIR certified November 30, 2021.
• Board questions addressed inclusionary housing: ADUs would not trigger the inclusionary ordinance, while non-ADU units could if thresholds are met. Staff commented that code enforcement related to sports-complex lighting is being handled separately; the construction manager targeted permit submittal by the end of the week, and lights had been reprogrammed to turn off earlier.
• Board discussion acknowledged resident complaints about maintenance, lighting, noise, and smoke but concluded these are separate code-enforcement matters and do not prevent the amendment findings. One board member expressed concern that using ADUs avoids inclusionary requirements but nonetheless supported more housing. The board also requested staff to bring back a status report on code enforcement actions in roughly three to six months.

Public Comments – Item 5-A

• Lucia Catalano, a South Shore Apartments resident for over 15 years, opposed the amendment, citing two broken elevators, unresolved rodent issues, poor maintenance, parking strain, and construction disruption, and said the focus should be on upkeep before expansion.
• Marilyn Sandifer, a Shorepoint Court resident of 21 years, raised concerns about bright sports-complex lights after 10 p.m., pickleball noise, and barbecue smoke, and asked for enforcement of rules if more residents are added.
• Vincent Gardillo said he did not oppose the housing but argued the board could not make the required harmonious findings because of an open code-enforcement case, X26-0282, for unpermitted sports-court floodlights under the Dark Skies ordinance. He asked for a condition, a continuance, or referral of the lighting permit to the board.
• Another Shorepoint Court speaker described light, noise, and smoke nuisances and asked that the property comply with codes before further approvals; she noted the recent 7 p.m. lighting cutoff had been an improvement.

Key Outcomes – Item 5-A

• Motion to adopt the Planned Development Amendment as recommended by staff passed 4-0 with no abstentions; Board member Lee recused. The decision is final unless appealed or called up by the City Council.

Discussion Item: 5-B – Downtown Commercial Zoning Text Amendment

• Staff, with planning consultant Heather Coleman, presented zoning text amendments for the Community Commercial (C-C) and North Park Street Gateway (NP-G) districts, developed with three stakeholder working groups and a July Planning Board workshop. The goal is to reduce about 10% storefront vacancy by reducing cost, delay, and uncertainty for businesses.
• Proposed changes include: allowing grocery and convenience stores by right, with a use permit required if more than 20% of floor area is devoted to alcohol; allowing personal services by right under 30,000 square feet, including salons, private instruction, tattoos, and massage; allowing offices and health clinics by right on the ground floor under 4,000 square feet, later amended to 5,000 square feet, with use permits above that threshold; allowing artist studios by right; allowing commercial recreation under 5,000 square feet by right; requiring use permits for community and commercial assembly; updating standard business hours to 5 a.m.-10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 5 a.m.-12 a.m. Friday and Saturday; and retaining use permits for outdoor operations. A window-transparency standard was also included.
• Board questions covered the lack of expedited permit review, threshold rationale, artist and maker uses, Harbor Bay exclusion, small utility definitions, assembly uses, and enforcement of transparency requirements. Staff said existing businesses would generally be legal nonconforming or benefit from expanded allowances, and transparency would be enforced through business license and zoning clearance processes plus complaint-based code enforcement.

Public Comments – Item 5-B

• Rich Crinks, a 40-year Alameda resident and 37-year commercial real estate broker with ties to Webster Street and Park Street business districts, supported the amendments and said unnecessary conditional use permits create delays and lease negotiation problems.
• Katie Connell, an artist spearheading the Alameda Arts Alliance, supported the amendments but urged more focus on artists. She cited examples such as San Francisco's Vacant to Vibrant program, with 45 or more pop-ups and more than half converting to permanent tenants, grants up to $50,000, and national culture-based infrastructure impact of $1 billion annually and 300% employment growth.
• Kathy Weber, Executive Director of Downtown Alameda, supported the amendments and said zoning is one part of the vacancy challenge; she encouraged continued work and supported moving the item to the City Council.

Key Outcomes – Item 5-B

• Motion to adopt the resolution recommending the City Council approve the zoning text amendments, with an amendment changing the office and health clinic use-permit threshold from 4,000 to 5,000 square feet for consistency, passed 5-0. The board also asked staff to consider refining the active transparency language.

Staff Communications

• Staff summarized recent departmental actions and decisions under Item 6-A.
• Upcoming meetings and projects were announced: the next regular meeting is November 9, 2026, likely including the Oakland Roots interim venue at Harbor Bay for use permit and design review, contingent on City Council action; a possible special meeting on November 30, 2026; and a December 14, 2026 meeting with UC Berkeley student presentations on Alameda-related concepts. One board member stated unavailability on December 14.

Non-Agenda Public Comment and Adjournment

• No non-agenda public comment speakers were present, and the meeting adjourned after board communications.