OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Joint Planning Board & Historical Advisory Board Meeting - June 14, 2021

Planning Board — Monday, June 14, 2021
BodyAlameda, California
SessionPlanning Board
DateMonday, June 14, 2021
StatusFILED
Video Record
Meeting Thumbnail
⇩ GET FROM SOURCE

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Transcript — Verbatim
0:01

You are a lot.

0:04

Great, thank you.

0:05

Welcome to the June 14th joint meeting of the Planning Board and the Historical Advisory Board.

0:13

Would uh board member Ruiz please lead us in the flight salute?

0:18

Of course.

0:19

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic, which is stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice form.

0:44

By the HAB.

0:46

President Teague.

0:48

Here.

0:49

Board member Cisneros.

0:52

Here.

0:54

Curtis.

0:55

Not here yet.

0:56

Hom?

0:57

Here.

0:58

Rothenbury?

0:59

Here.

1:00

Ruiz.

1:01

Yeah.

1:03

And Vice President Sahaba is uh has an excused absence today.

1:08

Um now the roll call for the historical advisory board.

1:11

Um, let the record be known that Chair Saxby is um also has an excuse absence.

1:18

So I'll call on Vice Chair Sanchez here.

1:23

Um board member Laura here.

1:27

Jones.

1:29

With here.

1:31

And we have a quorum from both boards.

1:34

Thank you.

1:35

Uh Board Member Curtis had a uh medical issue to deal with.

1:40

Okay, thank you.

1:42

Okay, thank you.

1:44

Um agenda changes and discussion.

1:48

Uh staff.

1:51

Uh let me know earlier that they basically have four slides that cover all of the agenda items for tonight.

1:58

And one suggestion was that they go through all four slides in the very beginning, as everything is basically related to the general plan.

2:06

And then we hold individual public hearing board commentary on the items as we move forward.

2:13

Does anyone object to that way of uh proceeding?

2:19

Okay, any other changes, Andrew or Alan?

2:22

No, none from staff.

2:24

Okay, thank you.

2:26

Uh now is the time for oral communication.

2:28

Anyone may address either board on a topic not on the agenda uh by raising your hand, and you would be limited to a um three-minute time frame.

2:40

So if you would like to speak to the board on an item not on the agenda, uh please raise your hand.

2:48

Looks like we have one, two speaker, three speakers.

2:54

Uh the first speaker will be Mike Van Dying.

3:00

Hello, can you hear me?

3:03

Yes.

3:04

Thank you, everyone.

3:07

Um at the historical advisory board's last meeting.

3:11

Four members of the board voted to demolish the remaining World War II merchant marine buildings that still stand on the McKay Avenue parcel.

3:19

Before the vote, each board member spoke, but Director Thomas Saxby's words made the most sense.

3:26

He said, What I'm reading from public comments and hearing from the speakers tonight, the vast majority appear to value the significance of this site, and the buildings represent a connection to the merchant marines.

3:40

That gives me a lot of hesitation for this board to make the decision to demolish these buildings.

3:47

I think that given the importance to the community, that certainly elevates the site in terms of our local historic register.

3:55

I certainly preferred the option of adaptive reuse of these buildings.

3:59

He went on.

4:00

And since it is such a controversial issue, we need the homeless facility, and the voters have voted to support that, but this historic site apparently is not appropriate for that use.

4:12

It would have to be torn down to make it appropriate.

4:14

So I would come down in favor of not delisting the property and not approving the application for demolition.

4:22

And that would ultimately promote the decision to the elected officials on the city council.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Affordable Housing███████████████████19%
Historic Preservation██████████████14%
Housing████████████12%
General Plan████████████12%
Procedural████████8%
Transportation Safety████████8%
Land Use Policy████████8%
Environmental Protection█████5%
Pending Litigation███3%
Summary of Proceedings

Joint Planning Board & Historical Advisory Board Meeting - June 14, 2021

The Planning Board and Historical Advisory Board held a joint meeting on June 14, 2021, via Zoom, to discuss the Alameda General Plan Update, the Housing Element Update resolution, and the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The meeting included public testimony on all three items, board discussion, and a vote on the housing element resolution.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Oral Communications (non-agenda): Several speakers addressed the Historical Advisory Board's recent decision regarding the demolition of World War II merchant marine buildings at McKay Avenue. Speakers urged the preservation of the site and criticized staff advice that limited consideration of public opinion. Others thanked the board for its thoughtful decision.
  • General Plan Update (Item 7-A): Speakers expressed a range of positions:
    • Brendan Sullivan (resident near Encinal Terminals) supported prioritizing development at Alameda Point and northern waterfront shopping centers, opposed upzoning medium-density residential areas to avoid demolition of historic buildings, and urged retaining the 5,000 sq ft minimum lot size in low-density zones.
    • Carmen Reed opposed increasing two-story height limits in historic districts like Park Street and Webster Street, advocating retention of existing 30-foot limits in stations and 40-foot limits on Park Street.
    • Zach Bowling supported the general plan's proposed heights on transit corridors but urged updating the transit-rich definition to include company buses at the east end.
    • William Smith expressed full support for allowing multifamily housing in all residential neighborhoods (including R-1 zones), arguing it would enable teachers and young professionals to live in Alameda and combat exclusionary zoning.
    • Charles Johnson (Harbor Bay Isle resident) opposed rezoning the Harbor Bay Club and Harbor Bay Landing Shopping Center for multifamily housing, citing deed restrictions and the club's importance to neighborhood quality of life.
    • Bill Pye (Harbor Bay Isle board president) opposed the draft general plan's proposed rezoning of the club and shopping center, citing inadequate infrastructure and infrastructure commitments; recommended focusing housing at Alameda Point and Encinal Terminals.
    • Multiple speakers expressed concern about increased traffic, parking shortages, and infrastructure capacity with high-density development; urged limiting growth to Alameda Point and Northern Waterfront.
    • Dolores Keller (AAPS) asked the city to seek removal of the Navy housing cap at Alameda Point and contact owners of estuary shopping centers about housing development.
    • Daniel Hoy (WABA) requested clearer visual diagrams and design guidelines for Webster Street, including gradual density increases from south to north.
    • Margaret Hall (general contractor) questioned language in LU-17B that seems to discourage design solutions mimicking prior styles, which she felt conflicts with historic preservation goals.
    • Lessa Ross (Harbor Bay Club member) emphasized the club's importance as a community recreation resource and urged compromise to preserve it.
    • Christopher Buckley (AAPS) asked that LU-17B and LU-26B be revised to preserve compatibility with historic areas and recommended including existing preservation action steps in the new general plan. He also cautioned that upzoning can trigger state density bonus that is hard to reverse.
    • Several speakers urged renegotiating the Navy housing cap to allow more units at Alameda Point.
  • Housing Element Resolution (Item 7-B): Speakers offered varying views on Article 26:
    • Zach Bowling supported the resolution as written, stating Article 26 violates state law and that full preemption is appropriate; he also advocated for equitable upzoning across all neighborhoods.
    • Carmen Reed (Alameda Citizens Task Force) argued Article 26 is only partially preempted and urged replacing the resolution's language with wording stating "partially preempted to the extent necessary to meet RHNA."
    • Catherine Allen called Article 26 discriminatory and urged its removal.
    • Christopher Buckley (AAPS) supported partial preemption language to avoid conceding all of Article 26 in potential lawsuits; requested more analysis of state density bonus implications.
    • William Smith argued Article 26 violates both RHNA and affirmatively furthering fair housing, and supported the original language.
    • Ruth Abbey supported equitable distribution of housing across all neighborhoods.
  • Draft EIR (Item 7-C): No public speakers signed up for this item.

Discussion Items

  • 7-A: General Plan Update Public Forum – Staff provided an overview of the March 2021 draft general plan, the housing element schedule (adoption by end of 2022), and the EIR process. Board members discussed concerns about historic preservation, design standards (LU-17B and LU-26B), equitable distribution of housing, parking, infrastructure, and the need to prioritize Alameda Point. Many members supported staff's proposed eight edits to the draft plan. Board Member Ruiz raised equity concerns about concentrating housing on brownfield sites. Board Member Hom emphasized optimizing land use within existing constraints (Article 26). Board Member Cisneros advocated for including policies on preserving affordable housing, community land trusts, and equitable distribution.
  • 7-B: Housing Element Update Resolution – Staff explained the resolution's purpose as a roadmap for complying with state law, including maximizing use of city-owned land at Alameda Point and Encinal Terminals, and rezoning to permit multifamily housing at least 30 units per acre. Extensive discussion on whether Article 26 is fully or partially preempted. Board Member Hom proposed removing the clause stating Article 26 is "preempted and unenforceable" and instead adding language to the second bullet: "contrary to city charter article 26 as necessary to comply with state law." The board voted 4-0 to approve the resolution with that amendment. There was no interest in recommending an appeal of the RHNA allocation.
  • 7-C: Draft EIR Public Hearing – Board members asked questions about vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts, programmatic vs. project-level analysis, and sea level rise. Staff clarified that VMT impacts are significant but unavoidable due to employment-related trips, though the general plan improves the trend. Board Member Hom noted that telecommuting post-pandemic could reduce VMT.

Key Outcomes

  • Vote on Housing Element Resolution (Item 7-B): The board voted 4-0 to recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution with the following modification: the first "Now, Therefore" paragraph was struck entirely; the second bullet was revised to include "contrary to city charter article 26" after "at least 30 units per acre." The title was also trimmed to remove the reference to finding Article 26 preempted. The board did not recommend appealing the RHNA allocation.
  • General Plan Update: No formal action; the board will continue to refine the draft with staff based on public comments and board input. The target is to bring a final recommendation to the board in September 2021.
  • Draft EIR: No action; the public comment period ends June 25, 2021. Written comments will be addressed in the final EIR.
  • Meeting Minutes (April 26, 2021): Approved as amended (minor corrections).

Meeting Transcript

You are a lot. Great, thank you. Welcome to the June 14th joint meeting of the Planning Board and the Historical Advisory Board. Would uh board member Ruiz please lead us in the flight salute? Of course. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic, which is stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice form. By the HAB. President Teague. Here. Board member Cisneros. Here. Curtis. Not here yet. Hom? Here. Rothenbury? Here. Ruiz. Yeah. And Vice President Sahaba is uh has an excused absence today. Um now the roll call for the historical advisory board. Um, let the record be known that Chair Saxby is um also has an excuse absence. So I'll call on Vice Chair Sanchez here. Um board member Laura here. Jones. With here. And we have a quorum from both boards. Thank you. Uh Board Member Curtis had a uh medical issue to deal with. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. Um agenda changes and discussion. Uh staff. Uh let me know earlier that they basically have four slides that cover all of the agenda items for tonight. And one suggestion was that they go through all four slides in the very beginning, as everything is basically related to the general plan. And then we hold individual public hearing board commentary on the items as we move forward. Does anyone object to that way of uh proceeding? Okay, any other changes, Andrew or Alan? No, none from staff. Okay, thank you. Uh now is the time for oral communication. Anyone may address either board on a topic not on the agenda uh by raising your hand, and you would be limited to a um three-minute time frame. So if you would like to speak to the board on an item not on the agenda, uh please raise your hand. Looks like we have one, two speaker, three speakers. Uh the first speaker will be Mike Van Dying. Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Thank you, everyone. Um at the historical advisory board's last meeting. Four members of the board voted to demolish the remaining World War II merchant marine buildings that still stand on the McKay Avenue parcel.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com