Alameda Planning Board General Plan Forum #1 – September 14, 2020

The Planning Board held its first of four public forums on the draft General Plan 2040 update, focusing on Theme 1: Developing a healthy, equitable, and inclusive city. The meeting, conducted via Zoom due to the COVID-19 pandemic, began at 7:00 PM. No formal decisions were made; the forum served to gather public and board input on the theme and associated policies. Staff presented survey results, proposed policies, and answered questions via chat. The board discussed tensions between housing density and neighborhood character, the need for clearer definitions, and improved outreach. Public comment included concerns about infrastructure, process transparency, and calls for more precise policy language.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Betsy (Matheson): Recommended determining actual existing density of every residential neighborhood before making changes, warning that increased density allowances could incentivize demolition of existing low-income housing.
• David Burton (former planning board member): Suggested restating the four themes in plain language (e.g., “Everyone Belongs” for Theme 1) and emphasized that all policies must consistently reinforce these themes.
• Jay Garfinkel: Expressed concern that the process was rushed, that not all residents received notice, and that infrastructure (e.g., traffic, bridges) should be addressed before adding housing. Opposed deferring to regional housing needs, comparing it to unfairly redistributing resources.
• Dolores Kelleher (AAPS member): Called for a more robust, multi-step public process with detailed definitions and discussion of unintended consequences; suggested extending the timeline to build trust.
• Roland Enkel: Raised health concerns about 5G antennas being installed on the island without health studies, urging the city to include 5G regulation in the general plan’s health considerations.
• Rashid Shabazz (urban planning student and Alameda resident): Stressed the need for clear definitions of equity and inclusion, highlighted the legacy of racial segregation, and advocated for policies that preserve affordable housing and enable right of return for displaced residents.
• Dori Miles (AAPS member): Supported the AAPS letter, cited technical difficulties joining the Zoom meeting, and argued that infrastructure (sewer, power grid) must be addressed before adding housing. Used Fort Lauderdale’s sewer crisis as a cautionary example.
• Savannah Cheer: Thanked the board for the forum, emphasized the importance of including public health (e.g., air quality, stress from poverty) in equity discussions, and urged outreach to underrepresented groups.
• Christopher Buckley (AAPS member): Requested clearer communication of survey deadlines, suggested alternative means (paper surveys) for those without digital access, questioned how form-based codes would interact with state density bonus law, and asked for a more open, interactive forum format.
• Joyce Boyd (AAPS board member): Supported the AAPS letter, praised board comments, and asked if the Historical Advisory Board would provide input on the general plan.

Discussion Items

• Staff Presentation: Andrew Thomas (Planning Director) introduced the general plan update process, noting that the draft is early and no decisions were final. He presented survey results showing that about 60% of respondents agreed Alameda is a safe and healthy city for everyone, while nearly a third disagreed, with youth and people of color disproportionately in the latter group. Key policies discussed included: housing goals H1, H2, H3 (housing for all income levels); land use policy LU1 (complete and equitable neighborhoods); LU14 (regional coordination on climate change); and LU17 (focusing new housing in priority development areas like Alameda Point and the Northern Waterfront). Staff acknowledged the need for better outreach to underrepresented demographics and neighborhoods.
• Planning Board Discussion:
  • Board Member Sahaba: Emphasized the importance of neighborhood-level nuances and linking housing to other community elements for sustainable growth.
  • Board Member Ruiz: Supported the theme but warned against broad wording that could have unintended consequences; suggested tabling site-specific housing discussions until after Measure Z election results.
  • Board Member Rothenberg: Noted that economic resilience is somewhat buried in the text and should be explicitly tied to equity; questioned whether density assumptions hold post-COVID.
  • Board Member Hom: Praised the draft’s comprehensiveness but highlighted a tension between Theme 1 (inclusive density) and Theme 3 (historic character), calling for more refinement. He also expressed concern that the term “affordable housing” carries misconceptions and that community outreach is itself an equity issue. He noted that transportation policies, like congestion pricing, raise equity concerns for low-income commuters.
  • Board Member Curtis: Cautioned that vague generalities fuel cynicism; advocated for precise, neighborhood-specific policies to build credibility. He also raised the need to study infrastructure capacity (emergency vehicle access) before adding units.
  • President Teague: Voiced support for the theme but requested that language like “provide” be changed to “encourage” or “support” since the city does not build housing directly. He also urged inclusion of protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and asked that future drafts address air quality and heat issues.
• Public Questions via Chat: Staff answered several questions, including clarification that ADUs count toward regional housing need, that the city will likely meet its total housing goals but not affordable housing goals, and that maximum densities will be defined in the second draft after input from stakeholders and Measure Z results.

Key Outcomes

• No formal votes or decisions were taken; this was a public input forum.
• Staff will compile all public comments (chat, verbal, surveys) and board input to refine the draft general plan.
• The next community forum (October 12, 2020) will focus on Theme 3: Preservation and enhancement of Alameda’s unique historic neighborhood character.
• A second draft of the general plan is expected in spring 2021, followed by planning board public hearings and eventual city council adoption.
• Staff will consider adjusting the forum format to allow more open discussion, as requested by multiple speakers.
• The outreach plan will be expanded to include youth, lower-income residents, and underrepresented neighborhoods (e.g., South Shore, Bay Farm).