Alameda Planning Board Meeting – September 9, 2024: Design Guidelines & Officer Elections
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Alameda Planning Board Meeting – September 9, 2024
The Alameda Planning Board met on Monday, September 9, 2024 at 7:00 PM in City Hall Council Chambers. The board handled consent items, heard public comments regarding CEQA compliance at Alameda Point, deliberated on the proposed Infill Development Design Guidelines for the NAS Alameda Historic District, and elected new officers. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:25 PM.
Consent Calendar
- 4-A / 4-B: Draft meeting minutes for April 8, 2024 and July 22, 2024 were approved unanimously. Board Member Saheba abstained from the April 8 minutes; Board Member Ruiz abstained from the July 22 minutes due to absence.
- 4-C: PLN24-0434 (2350 Saratoga Avenue – outdoor dining facility) was continued to September 23, 2024 as requested by the applicant. Approved unanimously.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Non-Agenda Public Comments (Item 3):
- Shelby Sheehan stated she and Todd Hickman filed a notice of intent to file a CEQA petition challenging a Notice of Exemption for a project at Alameda Point. She argued that no projects at Alameda Point are exempt from CEQA, that the CEQA streamlining is improper, and that a Certificate of Approval is required under the Historic Preservation Act. She urged the board to read the land use regulations themselves.
- Todd Hickman accused the planning staff of misleading the board and cited ongoing CEQA violations. He claimed staff are blocking information, undermining the Historical Advisory Board (HAB), and failing to protect historic resources and views. He referenced his experience as an elected official and urged the board to take independent action.
- Public Comments on Item 5-B (Design Guidelines):
- Shelby Sheehan repeated her position that a Certificate of Approval is required for every project in the NAS Alameda Historic District, citing the Alameda Point EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Plan. She criticized Planning Manager Steve Buckley for misrepresenting the HAB’s findings and stated the resolution is legally defective.
- Carol Gottstein (co‑chair of the restoration advisory board) noted that a specific Cultural Landscape Report for the base exists (February 2012) and is not citywide, contradicting a statement made by a board member.
- Todd Hickman reiterated allegations that the planning department misrepresents facts and misleads the board. He claimed the resolution attempts to circumvent CEQA and that the HAB meeting the prior week saw through the misrepresentations. He urged the board to take charge as a citizen oversight body.
Discussion Items
-
Item 5-B: Alameda Point Historic District – Infill Development Design Guidelines
- Staff Presentation: Planning Manager Steve Buckley presented the draft guidelines, intended as a summary document that distills existing guidelines (the 2013 EIR, precise plans, Secretary of the Interior Standards, etc.). The document had been reviewed by the Historical Advisory Board (HAB), which continued its discussion to October. Staff proposed the board endorse the guidelines with comments, not formally approve them.
- Board Questions and Comments:
- Board members sought clarification on applicability (vacant vs. contributing sites, HAB vs. Planning Board review), the role of the guidelines vs. objectives standards, and the treatment of view corridors.
- Several board members found the document ambiguous regarding which projects require HAB review and when. Suggestions included adding a matrix, flowchart, or checklist.
- Board members requested clearer language to distinguish between describing existing character‑defining features and prescribing future designs (e.g., use “complement” instead of “incorporate”).
- Specific edits were proposed: correct typos, add references to source documents (e.g., view corridor widths), include photos, and revise the “summary of design features” to make clear it lists existing features, not requirements to mimic.
- Outcome: The board did not take a vote; instead, they directed staff to consider all comments and bring back a refined version. No specific timeline was set.
-
Item 5-A: Election of Officers (moved to end of meeting)
- Board Member Home nominated Vice President Cisneros for President and Board Member Areza for Vice President. The motion was seconded. After brief public comment, the board voted unanimously in favor. The new President is Vice President Cisneros; new Vice President is Board Member Areza.
Key Outcomes
- Consent Calendar items approved (minutes and continuance).
- No action taken on Item 5-B; staff to revise the Infill Development Design Guidelines based on board feedback and return for future review.
- Election of officers completed: Board Member Cisneros elected President, Board Member Areza elected Vice President.
- Non-agenda public comments and testimony on Item 5-B are part of the record; no further action taken on the allegations raised.
Meeting Transcript
Uh at I guess seven o'clock or about then. We'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance and Board Member Sahibah will start that. Thank you. One nation undervisible with disparall. Okay, thank you. Staff roll call, please. Yes, good evening. Board member Sue. Here. Board Member Ruiz. Yeah. Board Member Saheba. Present. Board Member Susanaros. Here. Board Member Arisa. Present. Board Member Wang. Here. And President Home. Here. Thank you. All present and we have a quorum. All present. Yeah, we're all here tonight. Agenda changes. I in talking with staff and want to get concurrence for the rest of the board for item number 5A, the election of officers. We're suggesting that maybe we know that at the end of the meeting, rather than right in the middle of the meeting. I think there's a desire with the next board officers opportunity to for the new president and vice president to meet with staff or just a little I don't know, prime or whatever you want to call it. So if the uh board is okay with that, we'll move the election of officers to the end of the agenda, perhaps after item eight. Is that okay with the rest of the board? Okay, great. Thank you. So we're next moving on to item three, which is the non-agenda public comments. This is an opportunity for any members of the public, either at this in this meeting room or online to speak for three minutes on any item that's not on the agenda. So staff, do we have any speakers? Yes, we have two people in person who would like to speak tonight. Okay. Um, first we have Shelby Sheehan. Okay. Ms. Sheehan. Hi there. So I submitted a written public comment uh and in it um I uh included the NOI that we sent, uh, that Todd Hickman and I sent uh regarding our intent to file a C petition challenging the uh secret determination by the planning board. Uh uh notice of exemption pursuant to section 15183 streamlining, and I just wanted to make sure that the uh planning board is aware of that. We'll be filing it um as early as tomorrow. The NOE has uh pretty sufficiently detailed, I think what the issues are uh regarding the sighting and uh placement and uh improper uh building of the uh extension on the site as well as other problems that uh that the sequel that there was no CEQA analysis for. Um no projects at Alameda Point are exempt from CEQA. You can't streamline your way out of the Historic Preservation Act. You can't do anything in the historic district or at all of Alameda Point without a certificate of approval.
openpublica.com