[0:08] It is Monday, August 24, 26, exactly 7 p.m. and we are beginning tonight's framework meeting before we officially begin our business.

[0:18] Let's start with the pledge of allegiance.

[0:20] Or remember when can you lead us?

[0:25] pledge allegiance to the lie in the United States of America, and to the Republic, or which

[0:31] stands, when the nation under God, may be the result of the liberty of justice for all.

[0:40] Thank you so much.

[0:43] And let's start with roll call.

[0:48] Good evening, board member Homb.

[0:50] Here.

[0:51] Or member Sue.

[0:52] We'll remember when, here, and present us the scenarios.

[0:56] We have a quorum.

[0:57] Okay, great.

[0:59] And before we move on to the next agenda item, I just want to remind members of the public that tonight is official city business.

[1:08] And so I ask that we conduct tonight's meeting with no disruptions and be respectful to each other, those in the room and those virtually at home.

[1:21] And, you know, it is a criminal offense for any person to willfully disturb or break any

[1:29] of some weird meeting that is unlawful and its character and there are consequences.

[1:34] So let's enjoy tonight's meeting and respectfully partake as members of the community.

[1:41] So with that, we'll go ahead and move on to the second agenda item.

[1:45] Any agenda changes from staff for the board?

[1:47] not this evening. Okay, great. Any non-agenda public comments? Anyone can speak for up

[1:57] to three minutes on an item that's not on tonight's agenda. Do we have any speakers?

[2:03] I don't have any speakerships for non-agenda and I see no hands raised online for non-agenda

[2:09] Public comments.

[2:11] Okay.

[2:12] We'll go ahead and close that item.

[2:15] The next item is the consent calendar.

[2:17] We have draft meeting minutes from July 13.

[2:21] Do we have any discussion?

[2:24] Or any public comments on that?

[2:26] If not, we have a motion.

[2:31] I'll move to approve the accent calendar.

[2:34] I'll second.

[2:35] Okay, good.

[2:36] Motion to second, all those in favor say aye.

[2:38] Aye.

[2:39] pose and two absences or three motion carries okay great all right and we'll move on to

[2:49] regular agenda items and tonight is a workshop of for 1150 1120 Harbor Bay Parkway this is for

[2:58] the interim venue for the open roots and soul the facility so it looks like we have a

[3:08] presentation?

[3:14] Good evening, President Cisneros. And members of the Planning Board, Brian McWire

[3:18] Planner III here to introduce item 5A, our second workshop. The Oakland Roots and Sol S.C.s

[3:25] proposal to host professional soccer matches at their existing headquarters in training

[3:31] facility. Next to the Oakland Airport in the Harvard Bay Business Park, we really appreciate

[3:37] the board returning a little early from your august recess to help keep us on schedule.

[4:02] There's about that. Our plan tonight is to provide the planning board in the community.

[4:07] A quick refresh of the project proposal, we're going to provide some updates on the project

[4:12] and process since you first heard about the plans in your June workshop. The project team has been

[4:20] are to work completing a number of technical studies and reports to help inform any

[4:25] eventual decision. Tonight is just a workshop and no decision being made. So I

[4:30] should really about giving you and the community a chance to start digesting what

[4:34] are some large dense documents and continue to gather feedback on those documents as

[4:42] well as the overall project. So I apologize now but we might have to we're going to be

[4:49] Just a quick reorientation, 1150 and 1220 Harbor Bay Parkway.

[5:01] We're the former home of the Oakland Raiders and current home of Oakland roots in Seoul. There had quarters and training facility. It's at the South Eastern tip of Bay Farm Island, next to the airport in the business park.

[5:16] The roots are requesting to install modular grants stands for a little over 7,600 fans, plus some field level seating for a max attendance of 8,000 people.

[5:25] They would bring in food vendors, merchandise booths, and temporary restroom facilities and other amenities for our matchdays.

[5:34] The roots would play up to 24 professional soccer matches per year with up to 8,000 fans.

[5:40] The games would be primarily on Saturdays and some Wednesday evenings between the sole matches that's the women's team and other games.

[5:51] They plan for about a dozen other matches with 3,000 or fewer attendees.

[5:57] This will not be a concert venue and given the proximity to the airport

[6:02] among other reasons fireworks and drone shows would not be permitted at the site.

[6:07] It's part of the use.

[6:10] We wanted you in the community to have as much time as possible with these fairly thick and technical reports

[6:16] before seeking any eventual board action.

[6:23] Chief Among the Exhibits in your staff report tonight

[6:25] is the draft environmental checklist.

[6:28] The checklist explains our basis for the streamlining approach

[6:33] that we're planning to take under SQL and provide

[6:38] the detailed evaluation of the project's environmental effects.

[6:43] ESA is the primary SQL consultant on the project

[6:47] and prepare the checklist. We'll be hearing later from Chris Dugin, ESA's Sound Expert

[6:52] to break down the noise analysis. We also have Luke Evans available, both remotely, from

[6:59] ESA if there are any other questions on the Sequel checklist. We also are going to hear from

[7:04] Andy Kozinski, our Consultant Traffic Engineer from Fair and Pears. We're really lucky to have

[7:10] an all-star cast of consultants for this project. Andy will present on the detailed traffic study

[7:16] that's been conducted, as well as the Transportation Management Plan, which will be addressing

[7:24] the sort of the game-day logistics.

[7:28] We've had a busy summer working through the proposal, and preparing all the necessary

[7:33] studies you met back in June at the beginning of the month, the project was officially referred

[7:38] to the airport land use commission, that's a county body, as well as the FAA Federal Aviation

[7:45] administration for review.

[7:51] We also had a successful open house at the roots facility, which I think you'll hear more about next from Lydia. Next month, the ALUC will meet to make their determination on the project compatibility with the Oakland airport land use plan.

[8:16] We've been working closely with our board staff and to make sure we understand their concerns,

[8:21] and are doing everything we can that possible to address those.

[8:26] Pending the outcome of the ALUC meeting, we anticipate returning to the planning board fairly soon,

[8:34] potentially to seek a determination, a vote of to approve or denied project or at that time.

[8:47] You've got a couple of empty chairs today.

[8:49] We next week at the City Council meeting, we expect the council to have two new planning

[8:54] board members to be nominated, so they would be confirmed and seated in time for any

[9:04] that they're keeping their aware of all these materials in these meetings if they want to catch up.

[9:10] So that'll be a big item for them, potentially one of their first meetings.

[9:16] With that, I'm going to pass it off to Lydia Tan of the Oakland Roots and Soul

[9:19] and then we'll continue after that with our consultants to speak about the noise and traffic.

[9:25] Good

[9:34] evening, President Cisneros and members of the board.

[9:37] Thank you very much for taking time out of August to be with us today.

[9:43] I am Lydia Tannam, Chief Real Estate Officer of the Oakwood Roots and Soul.

[9:47] Also with me is Lindsey Barron, who is President of the club,

[9:50] so there's any operational team type questions that come up.

[9:53] She's available to answer those questions.

[9:56] Just really quickly, go over some slides that we had presented.

[10:00] Welcome to the last time around. Oakland was the sole. We are part of the United Soccer League. We are the first purpose driven professionals for its team in the U.S., and we have a men's team, women's team, and a development team as well.

[10:13] As Brian mentioned, we are at the 11, 15, 12, 20 Harbor Bay Parkway, which is the former Oakland Raiders facility. We've been there since the beginning of 2021, but just recently we're able to have a long journey.

[10:29] control which makes us able to start thinking about planning for the future here.

[10:36] Lots of things happenings since we were on this is 25 and one was certainly have

[10:40] our own operations on site that we make the facility available to a number of other

[10:45] local and not so local uses as well.

[10:50] I mentioned last time we were here is that we have been a little bit of a no-med in terms

[10:55] our game day operations, we've been in four locations in the last six years.

[11:01] You all are probably reading a little bit about the Open Call CM and how it really is not a good fit for us.

[11:06] We are making progress towards our permanent home.

[11:10] We have been lots and lots of conversations with a Port of Oakland about Howard's terminal

[11:13] and with the eventual purchasers of the Open Call CM.

[11:17] So we feel like we've got a good bead towards our local towards our permanent home.

[11:24] But in the meantime, we're really looking for that place that we can call home.

[11:28] It's a rally, we'll place, we're not having to look every single year and really focus on

[11:32] winning and really activating the space and being a great partner for the community.

[11:41] So very quickly, our vision and goals, as we started to look for a potential site,

[11:44] is to be close to our home base. Make sure that we have an amazing intimate experience for a

[11:54] This would be a first opportunity for to feel both the roots and the soul as their home matches.

[11:59] So men and women team, both playing at the same location, as I mentioned before, stable home for us.

[12:06] So we can think about the future in our team and then more control over our facility to make sure that we are supporting our events and the community and have just more

[12:17] market troll over that. So as Brian mentioned, we've all been working really hard of this summer,

[12:23] particularly the technical team and you're going to hear again from our sound and our transportation

[12:29] consultants. We've also been trying to get a better sense of operationally how we're going to work,

[12:35] what the requirements will be, how we're going to really make this a wonderful experience. Brian

[12:40] also mentioned we've been having lots and lots of conversations with the airport. We've gotten a preliminary

[12:46] feedback from the FAA and will be at the A-Lock in September, quickly on this one, the FAA

[12:55] feedback is that our proposed field lights are too tall and could cause some issues,

[13:01] and so we have been working to reduce them and they'll get the renderings that reflect

[13:07] a light pulse that are about 14 feet shorter than the last time you saw the renderings.

[13:14] to where you continue to work and iterate to make sure that the facility meets all the requirements

[13:19] to the concerns that people have.

[13:22] We just this morning at 7.37 a.m., submitted our next application for application submittal

[13:30] response to staff comments and filling out the remainder of questions and forms that were

[13:38] required.

[13:38] And we continue to be out there in the community, just make sure folks understand what we're planning, getting feedback, and making adjustments accordingly.

[13:47] So very quickly, these are just a short list of the folks that we have been talking to.

[13:54] We continue to reach out, particularly to the HOAs in the area and the residents area, and make sure that we're giving them this much time to give us feedback as possible.

[14:04] We did have an open house on August 8th.

[14:08] It was a joint lease sponsored event with the city of Elameda.

[14:14] Which was amazing.

[14:15] I think it's the only way we could actually get a fire track for the kids there was pretty

[14:18] awesome.

[14:20] So we had over 200 attendees come.

[14:23] And what I would say is it was really exciting to see this facility in a community abuse.

[14:32] We had a great set up, the city was there to talk about the city's process and how the community

[14:41] can provide feedback in input.

[14:44] We also, as you can see, had a series of boards set up to talk about different topics that

[14:47] we have heard in prior that we're up concern, our sound consultant, our traffic consultant,

[14:54] lighting consultant, we're all on board to make sure they can answer questions that were

[14:59] check to come with me.

[15:00] So we had a great time around just trying to share information about the experience, get feedback back from the community and make sure that we continue to iterate our proposal.

[15:13] We'll also have incredible committee partners out to just activate. Let's make it a fun experience. Let's let people see what this facility is like and how we can do it.

[15:23] The top right is a, um, it's a scrim mural that will show up at our first match next season.

[15:31] Uh, it's very much a, uh, a group, um, a group effort as you can see. So we were really very thankful

[15:38] to the community partners who came to, um, uh, make sure that the community showed up,

[15:43] community understood what the feel slow is about and what we could do at the site.

[15:50] Potential concerns, same things as before, we continue to iterate them and you're going to hear a lot about our particular transportation management plan and how we've designed the facility to address some noise issues.

[16:05] And just, you know, I last slide, which is some of our game day activations.

[16:11] We, it's for the, I get to look through lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of photos around our matches and I get super excited when I just see how much engagement there is with the kids, with the local communities, with our local artists, and we're just really looking forward to bringing something like this to the facility down at Harbor Bay Parkway.

[16:35] So with that, I think we move on to sound, is that right?

[16:41] Yeah, Chris, you should be able to unmute and speak and choose yourself.

[16:50] Yes.

[16:50] Thank you, Brian.

[16:51] I can unmute.

[16:52] I am getting a video error message.

[16:57] So I do apologize for that.

[16:58] Am I coming through on audio?

[17:00] Yeah.

[17:01] We can hear you loud and clear.

[17:03] Okay.

[17:03] Great.

[17:04] Maybe it's fitting since I'm the sound consultant.

[17:07] Good evening.

[17:09] It's my pleasure to be before the board this evening.

[17:11] my name is Chris Dugin, I'm a principal, acoustic and air quality consultant with environmental

[17:17] science associates. And I think, obviously, when you have a project involving the potential

[17:23] for temporary and air-mittent increase as an ambient noise, it's important to talk about it.

[17:29] In working with the roots, we not only wanted to share and disclose information and assumptions

[17:34] with the local community, but we need a study to comply with the sequence. And Ryan, we can move

[17:40] to the next slide please.

[17:43] And that's what the sound assessment that I've been working on does.

[17:47] It answers the question, would the project expose people to noise and access of local standards?

[17:55] To answer that question, we developed and ran a model that estimates sound

[17:59] at dozens of residential hotel commercial receptors.

[18:03] And then we took those estimates and we compared them against the city's objective noise standards.

[18:07] And I think the key word is objective.

[18:11] The city has adopted objective standards for the community that all projects are evaluated

[18:15] against to make sure that all projects are reviewed and treated the same.

[18:19] And that's important.

[18:21] And so, most of my presentation and most of the sound assessment focuses on compliance with

[18:25] the city's objective standards.

[18:27] Of course, the other part of a project like this is that subjective response.

[18:31] The gut reaction that each individual has, their unique concern about a potential

[18:36] change to their noise environment.

[18:38] And so at the end of my presentation,

[18:39] I'll also talk a little about the design features

[18:41] that the Roots have incorporated into the project

[18:43] to address those subjective responses.

[18:47] Next slide, please.

[18:50] So to set the stage, what are the cities standards?

[18:53] Well, there's really two.

[18:54] And the first comes from the municipal code.

[18:57] It's on screen here.

[18:59] It's important to know a couple of things.

[19:01] Aside from the fact that there are separate standards

[19:03] for residential and commercial uses, what's noteworthy is that it's not one number.

[19:09] There are several standards in the code.

[19:12] The lowest or base standard is 55 decibels, and that is a value that is not to be exceeded

[19:17] more than 30 minutes in an hour.

[19:20] From that base standard, the code then allows slightly higher noise levels for shorter periods

[19:24] of time.

[19:26] Now, from my perspective, the standard of interest is the lowest standard, the 55 decibels.

[19:31] If the sound assessment can show that the project's estimated noise levels at their worst would be less than 55 decibels than I feel confident telling you that the project would comply with the municipal code.

[19:44] Next slide please, Brian.

[19:47] Second standard is from the general plan.

[19:49] It's a broader standard unlike the municipal code which gets down to the number of minutes in an hour.

[19:55] The general plan is a single number and it is a 24 hour average standard.

[19:59] .

[20:00] What that means for a project like this, where we're only going to generate sound for a few hours during the day, this general plan standard is not very restrictive, and so our emphasis really was on trying to meet the municipal code requirement.

[20:17] Next slide please. Thank you. So what do we do? What does this sound assessment contain? It was basically three steps.

[20:24] First, we conducted a community noise survey.

[20:27] We were out on representative weekend and weekday nights,

[20:31] most likely to have a soccer match.

[20:33] And the purpose of the survey was to document,

[20:36] existing or baseline conditions in the area,

[20:40] near the training facility.

[20:41] And I think specifically, in the residential community,

[20:44] to the north of the training facility.

[20:47] The exp, I think there was an expectation

[20:49] that due to the proximity to the airport,

[20:51] the community noise survey would show elevated

[20:54] and that really wasn't the case.

[20:58] Most of that residential development

[20:59] is not within 65 C&EL airport noise contours

[21:03] and while takeoffs and landings did increase

[21:07] noise levels periodically intermittently.

[21:10] The overall noise environment was actually relatively low.

[21:13] For example, it was usually less than 60 C&EL or 60 LDN,

[21:18] which in general plan parlance would mean that it's

[21:21] normally acceptable noise environment for the residential community.

[21:27] Excitely,

[21:30] second, we work with the routes to identify and understand what the sources of noise would be as soccer match.

[21:38] And once we understood those sources, we not only reviewed manufacturer specifications and published information on how loud those sources can be,

[21:45] but we took empirical measurements at an actual match, including specific measurements for speakers,

[21:52] numbers, drummers, and spectators.

[21:55] While the empirical measurements were very helpful, it's also led to a choice.

[22:00] In some cases, we had information that said spectators can generate a noise level of

[22:04] 80 decibels for example, whereas we may have measured something lower like 75 decibels.

[22:10] Where we had that choice, we applied the higher of the information available to us.

[22:15] So we can serve it typically to supply the highest sound level information we could for the projects noise sources.

[22:25] Next slide please.

[22:27] Thank you.

[22:28] Third, we took this information and we developed a three-dimensional model.

[22:33] The model incorporates project-specific information, information-like

[22:37] the location and height of the sound sources, the location of buildings, surrounding the venue,

[22:46] it accounts for shielding of sound waves by the existing buildings, also accounts for reflection

[22:51] of sound waves, off the buildings, and two specific receptor locations.

[22:56] The model also allows us to account for differences in conditions.

[23:00] So for example, when we were out on July 11th at the Roots match, unfortunately there were not

[23:05] 8,000 spectators at that match, but for my perspective, that's not a limitation.

[23:11] The model allows us to take information for a known amount of spectators and then scale

[23:15] it up to the proposed Vendus capacity of about 8,000 spectators.

[23:21] The model, we put this information into the model and it turns out sound level estimates

[23:26] at specific points or receptors that we've identified, for example, the sound assessment

[23:32] as a receptor, each of the residents closest to the venue, and then it also produces noise

[23:38] contour maps, which are like a topographic map, except instead of elevations, it's decibels,

[23:44] and this is akin to the noise contour map that you usually would see for an error point. Next slide, please.

[23:53] So with any model result, we did a healthy dose of DAW, but it's a model. And as I mentioned,

[23:58] We want to disclose and share information and assumptions, so a couple of key assumptions that I think are important to highlight before we go over the results in a minute.

[24:09] First, the model we prepared, it assumes all sources generate maximum noise they can at the same time.

[24:17] So if we blunt, the model assumes spectators are cheering drummers or drummers, drumming, and the speakers are blaring as loud as they can.

[24:28] So it's a pretty conservative approach in that regard because obviously sound levels would have been flow over the course of the game.

[24:34] The model assumes all sources are loud as they can consistently throughout the whole game.

[24:41] On speakers, we model speakers assuming a sound level of 110 decibels.

[24:47] However, when we went out and took those empirical measurements, speakers never actually

[24:51] generated that sound level.

[24:53] They came in at a maximum of 190 VA and on average they were 7 decibels lower.

[24:58] So, again, another conservative of the sound level.

[25:00] Option in the model. And finally, the noise report was completed in mid July. At the time the report was completed, but proposed stands were between 30 and 32 feet in height. However, the current proposal has the stands lower at about 25 feet in height. And this matters because as we bring this spectators in the stands down, we get more shielding of sound by the existing buildings in the business park.

[25:32] Okay, so to the results, on screen is an excerpt of the noise contour map that was generated by the noise model.

[25:41] It's similar to a temperature scale.

[25:43] Reds would indicate higher noise levels, blues would indicate lower noise levels, yellows and greens in between.

[25:50] I mentioned a lot about the shielding that the existing business park buildings provide.

[25:54] Unfortunately, as you can see from the contour map, and I've highlighted that with the directional arrow in the map,

[26:00] There is a direct line of sight from the facility to the residential neighborhood to the north of the venue.

[26:07] And for that reason, our maximum impact is occurring, not surprisingly, at the residents that is located the closest to the training facility.

[26:16] At that residence, model is estimating a noise level of 54 and a half, decibels.

[26:21] That is an exterior, sounds standard, and it's a prediction that is less than that base

[26:28] that lowest 55DBA standard that I started my presentation with.

[26:34] So while we're meeting the municipal code standard, I can't say that the project won't

[26:41] be audible.

[26:42] Even a noise level of 54.5, which complies with the standard, could still be 2 to 4 decibels above

[26:48] the existing noise level that we measured, I mentioned it was a relatively quiet ambient noise

[26:53] environment. That's on an hourly basis. On a daily noise exposure basis, looking at how

[26:58] there's the 24 hour noise environment change, it's pretty negligible, it's less than one

[27:03] decibel, so really no change. I've been talking a lot about focusing on the residential

[27:08] receptors, the establishment also considers commercial and hotel receptors, and we do not

[27:13] to see the standards there, either.

[27:18] Next slide.

[27:21] So from the objective to the subjective,

[27:24] it's important to highlight some of the design features

[27:26] that the root of and corporate into the project

[27:28] that really contribute to that estimated noise level

[27:32] of about 54 and a half decibels.

[27:35] First, most of the project's outsources

[27:37] are oriented away from residential receptors.

[27:41] So for example, there are seven speakers included

[27:44] in the model, six of them are pointed to the airport.

[27:47] only one of them is pointing towards the residential neighborhood in general.

[27:54] Second, on those speakers, speakers sound as controlled, and it's really focused on

[27:58] the spectators.

[27:58] The speakers are not aiming up into the air for sound to travel over buildings, they're

[28:03] really focused on the spectators themselves.

[28:07] Third, very importantly, the closest receptor is at least 1100 feet from any specific

[28:14] and most receptors in the residential neighborhood are at least

[28:18] a quarter of a mile away from all of the project's sound sources.

[28:23] So this is a long distance, a lot of way for a sound

[28:26] we have to travel to get to the residential neighborhood

[28:29] provides for a lot of attenuation and loss of sound energy.

[28:33] As I mentioned, the business park buildings also served to either fully

[28:37] or partially blocked most of the project's sound sources,

[28:41] and I would conclude with saying that this is not the first project.

[28:44] that we've done, this type of project, the results of our model are very consistent with previous

[28:50] noise measurements we've made of other soccer facilities with similar type stadiums. So that's

[28:57] encouraging allows us to feel good and have confidence in the model results. So with that I'll conclude

[29:05] my presentation, I'll turn it over to Andy and of course I'll be available for questions at

[29:22] the

[29:22] board members. My name is Andy Kazinsky. I'm a principal transportation planner with fair

[29:26] and peers, transportation consultant out of Oakland. And I'll be talking you through some

[29:31] of the details of our transportation plan for the venue and I'll finish with a note on the

[29:36] secret analysis for transportation.

[29:41] The objective of our plan is to produce convenient and comfortable

[29:46] experience for the fans at the same time minimizing impacts, transportation impacts to neighbors

[29:51] who are close to the venue.

[29:55] And with that in mind, here are some of the key elements

[29:57] of the plan.

[29:59] First off, we have...

[30:00] A really rich quality of data on routes fans where they live, how they get to the games from serving routes games that some of the current and previous venues.

[30:12] And so we've based our plan off of that data. One of the Senate pieces of the plan is shown with the red dashed line on the figure here is a shuttle service that would connect Coliseum Bart and some of the remote parking lots as needed to the venue.

[30:29] And when we're expecting particularly high attendee numbers, this shuttle would reduce traffic and parking demand near the venue with as many as 40 shuttles per hour for sellout games.

[30:43] The second key element of the plan is sufficient parking close to the venue and so the root organization has agreements in place for sufficient parking.

[30:54] 2100 spaces near the site within a short walk and in addition to this additional remote park

[31:03] and spaces along the Hegenberger corridor and at Coliseum Bar which will be used when needed

[31:10] and I'll get more into the parking in a moment. Finally, a lot of Ruth's fans tend to

[31:18] And we will further encourage that through financial incentives, cheaper parking, and priority parking locations close to the venue to minimise as much as possible traffic near the venue.

[31:33] And we expect most traffic to come through using the red pink and the blue directions, which I'll, again, talk to in a moment.

[31:40] So,

[31:45] most attendees will arrive via automobile,

[31:51] mainly carpool, but quite a lot of driver

[31:54] alone as well.

[31:55] So, around 90% we expect to do that with smaller proportions arriving via Uber and

[32:01] Lyft and Taxis, around 5%, maybe around 5% would take Bart if the shuttle is available as an option,

[32:08] and minimal amounts of folks would walk or bike just because of the nature that most fans

[32:13] not within walking and biking range of the venue.

[32:18] And before the game, we found that around

[32:21] two thirds of fans arrive fairly spaced out within that one hour before the game starts,

[32:28] the route sometimes puts on some activities before the game. And a third of fans actually arrived

[32:33] more than an hour before the game starts. After the game, premature fans are expected to leave fairly

[32:40] shortly thereafter but it tends to be spread across that one hour period

[32:46] and table two shows

[32:48] that unablished between two and three people per vehicle is the typical weight expected

[32:53] at the root scheme.

[32:58] So we deeper dive into parking and what this chart shows that depending

[33:02] on the type of event the parking demand fluctuates and so the green line shows that

[33:08] there's 2100 parking spaces available within more conditions of the venue and we expect

[33:15] The least amount of parking demand for, let's say, a 5,000 person event on a Saturday.

[33:22] The tends to be more folks driving alone on a Wednesday, probably because they're coming

[33:26] off, they're coming straight from their job, I would imagine.

[33:29] So, in that situation, the demand does slightly exceed the supply and so 250 remote park

[33:36] in spaces are required, and then for a set out on a Saturday, 740 remote spaces are required,

[33:43] and then for a sellout on a Wednesday,

[33:46] which would be the rarest occasion

[33:47] as most events are planned for the Saturday,

[33:51] would require the most remote parking at 1,530.

[33:59] I want to talk about where fans are coming from,

[34:01] because I want to address the topic of which routes

[34:03] they're going to take to get to the venue.

[34:07] This figure shows different colored lines,

[34:10] that indicate different directions of travel

[34:12] that we would expect attendees to take.

[34:14] I'll start with the yellow line,

[34:17] which is fans that actually live in Alameda,

[34:20] of which there's about 6% of roots fans,

[34:24] and one of those six, actually live on Bay Farm Island itself.

[34:29] So it's a relatively low proportion of traffic

[34:31] that starts on the island, or within the city of Alameda.

[34:37] Then the purple blue and pink directions indicate,

[34:42] there may be some traffic coming from the north

[34:45] and the majority of fans are come in front to and from the north.

[34:49] Some of those, if we were not to implement the transportation plan that I'm going to step through in detail,

[34:56] you know, we may expect that some of those may be 18.

[35:00] 15% would come through Alameda. However, the majority would continue down 880 and Hagenburg because that's

[35:08] actually a quick way to get to the venue. We expect Google Maps and all the other apps will largely

[35:14] direct folks on Hagenburg anyway. And then there's some traffic coming more from the east and the

[35:19] south blue and red and again, expecting those folks to take Hagenburg around 95th.

[35:31] We've heard very

[35:32] I should in the public event and about, is there a potential for traffic through neighborhoods

[35:39] and so our plan, many measures in place to deter this to the extent possible?

[35:45] And so the first of those is local traffic only signs which will be installed on the game

[35:50] days, the temporary signs that they'll be showing that message in a temporary manner.

[35:56] One of them, as you come off, do a little on to Island Drive, one of them, as you come off

[36:03] from mainland, on to Harbor Bay Parkway, and in three other locations, as shown with the red

[36:08] stars, furthermore, after the game, to prevent drivers driving up Harbor Bay Parkway and turning

[36:17] on to mainland, we will, in addition to the local traffic only sign, have cones there

[36:23] to more thoroughly deter that unwanted behavior

[36:27] with the option of a traffic control officer

[36:29] or event staff station there in addition to that.

[36:34] These measures will encourage drivers to use Hague and Boger

[36:39] and 98 Davenue, as well as other measures I will mention.

[36:43] Other things to discourage cut through traffic

[36:45] is that nearly half of the parking will be remote

[36:50] with free matchday shuttles,

[36:51] which will mean that fewer vehicles are in the vicinity of the venue for the more when you

[36:58] want to fan purchases their game ticket, at that moment there are the option to purchase a

[37:04] parking pass for a specific lot with the expectation that almost well really all fans will know

[37:10] exactly where they're going with their parking pass to minimize folks showing up and trying to find

[37:16] space.

[37:18] The routes are avoiding lots of adjacent to the neighborhoods, and then finally we will

[37:24] be staffing all of the lots with parking attendance and security personnel to really make

[37:28] sure that the lot you suggest is clean and orderly.

[37:37] We did an analysis of traffic operations

[37:39] at seven different intersections close to the venue, and these intersections capture the

[37:46] full extent of really any disruptions to traffic that we anticipate so you can see them here

[37:51] three very close to the venue and a few further out on Ron Cowan Parkway in Hall of

[37:56] Bay Parkway. I'll step through those results.

[38:02] This is a table of the traffic

[38:06] conditions that we would expect before and after a game. And these are the traffic

[38:13] conditions.

[38:16] The seven intersections in this table and what we're showing in

[38:20] existing conditions is that before a game,

[38:27] in the existing conditions, I should say that during

[38:30] a Wednesday before the game is six o'clock and a Saturday after the game in nine o'clock,

[38:34] there's very little traffic in the area. I think we all know that intuitively that the

[38:39] area is not particularly busy in the evenings after the, after the work rush, it pretty much empties

[38:43] out, and so that's what these results are showing. So in many ways that makes this a relatively

[38:50] good location for a venue. Well, on the right hand of this table is when we're loading on

[38:57] our game day traffic to those conditions. We're finding that for that one hour before the game

[39:02] and we're sharing a Wednesday here but Saturday would have very similar results. The traffic

[39:07] congestion worsens a little bit, for those familiar with level of service letter grades,

[39:11] C is as bad as it gets, which means minimal delay really. So that's because fans are spread out

[39:19] cross more than an hour and so there isn't really much in the way of traffic conditions.

[39:25] After the game, it's a different story because everyone wants to leave pretty much at the

[39:29] same time.

[39:30] That's one we're expecting there to be quite a lot more congestion.

[39:34] And so there are two locations where that really takes hold.

[39:37] The first is immediately next to the venue at South Loop Road in Harbour Bay Parkway where

[39:42] it's a lot of subs, which essentially means heavily congested, more demand that supply

[39:49] and then a run count and halber bay parkway, where it's E, which means this drive is going to

[39:55] experience quite a lot of delays, but the intersection is large enough to 3 process those

[39:59] vehicles.

[40:00] So I'm going to speak to those two intersections now, not what we're going to do about that traffic issue.

[40:07] This is a map of the venue area, and so what it's showing is in orange, the project site.

[40:14] And I want to step through a few of the details here. The first is that we propose a road closure on south loop road, which is shown with the red hatching here.

[40:24] And that is because we're expecting a lot of people to be an exiting venue and entering the venue and then going north to go to their vehicles and so by closing the road, there is simplifies

[40:35] Circulation and separates pedestrians from traffic in that key location. Furthermore, we are instituting in pink, a particular pick up and drop off zone for

[40:47] and lifts and taxis and so on. So forth have a separate area for that and you'll notice there's

[40:53] a lot of traffic control office is placed at all of the key intersections in the area.

[41:02] This is

[41:02] a zoom into that intersection right next to the venue so in orange that's where the temporary

[41:07] road closure is going to be and what we're trying to do is make sure that pedestrians have enough

[41:14] safe and comfortable experience so we'll be making traffic control offices ensuring they have

[41:19] of time to cross the street with a completely separate phase so that we don't have people crossing

[41:24] and cars turning at the same time.

[41:27] And then we will have the traffic control officer posted so that the B Street can empty two

[41:32] lanes can empty at a time, which is going to really increase the traffic flow through this

[41:35] intersection and get people out of here as quickly as possible.

[41:42] And then further to the east, after the game here at Ron Cowan and Harbour Bay, we'll post up

[41:47] traffic control officer here to enable those drivers going eastbound on Ron Cowan headed towards

[41:56] Heganberger to proceed even at times when they have a red light and that again will get traffic

[42:04] flowing out of the venue as quickly as possible and we'll encourage people to take Ron Cowan

[42:09] and encourage people to take Heganberger and not cut through the island of Alameda to go

[42:14] from the north.

[42:21] And on the topic of VIRCAMAS travels, which is what is the required

[42:25] sequo environmental analysis for this project, we found the VMT impact to be less

[42:31] insignificant, but I want to step through why that's the case. The way that the analysis

[42:36] was conducted is if we, if the project, if we can conclude that the project's VMT impacts

[42:43] are within the envelope as was studied in the general plan.

[42:48] And by the envelope, I mean, the expected growth in this area

[42:52] between existing and a future year,

[42:56] we actually, the general plan assumes a growth of 2,000 jobs

[42:59] in this area by the venue.

[43:01] And 2,000 jobs generates an annual vehicle miles

[43:05] travel of 6.8 million.

[43:08] Our project would generate an annual vehicle miles

[43:10] travel of 3.1 million, which is, well,

[43:13] within the budget that the general plan cleared for this particular area.

[43:19] So, that leads us to conclude that the environmental impact of vehicle mass travel

[43:23] is within the envelope, and it's less insignificant.

[43:27] So, Sequit does not require any mitigation measures for vehicle mass travel.

[43:33] I'll be trying to answer questions at the appropriate time.

[43:37] All right.

[43:37] Thank you.

[43:43] All right.

[43:44] Thanks for sticking with us.

[43:45] We're ready to answer any questions in here any public comments I'll ask members of the public if you're on Zoom and you're going to want to speak on this please raise your hand now

[43:55] So we can get an accurate count. We may

[43:58] have to we may be

[44:00] triggering the sort of two-minute per person

[44:03] threshold if depending on how many hands get raised

[44:05] we've got

[44:07] Turner from a city attorney's office. The even myself from planning got Sarah Lee our public works engineer as well as

[44:12] the project team and the consultants all available to answer any questions.

[44:16] Great, thank you so much for the presentation.

[44:19] I'll bring it to the board for any clarifying questions.

[44:22] And as you said, open up for public comment,

[44:25] and then we can share our feedback for this workshop

[44:29] and reminder there's no decision being made

[44:31] that will come later, September, October, time for you.

[44:36] So, to my whole board members, any questions for the consultants

[44:39] or staff for member Wayne?

[44:44] Yeah, thank you to staff, to the applicant,

[44:48] and to the consultant for a very thorough presentation.

[44:50] I would just a couple of quick questions.

[44:54] First question is about transportation.

[44:57] I think guys saw in the...

[45:00] In the transportation management plan that the local traffic only signs would be a certain

[45:07] at least a certain subset of them would be permanent. But I think in your presentation,

[45:12] just now you said they would be installed on game days. Could you clarify that difference a little bit?

[45:19] Yeah. It may be that the signs are permanent and so far as they are erected and then, you know,

[45:28] covered unless it's a game day.

[45:31] So the message will be displayed temporarily,

[45:33] so it has the maximum impact on the game day,

[45:36] but otherwise it would be covered.

[45:37] And the alternative is that it's the signs themselves

[45:40] of temporary, but that will be figured out later in the process.

[45:44] OK, generally, the intent is that they're active only on game days.

[45:49] Absolutely.

[45:50] OK, understood.

[45:52] OK.

[45:53] That was it.

[45:54] Thank you.

[45:56] question to staff then, what if he could tell us a little more on what's going on with the

[46:08] airport land use commission?

[46:17] So, basically, there's the state mandates, the process is probably, I wish you can speak to

[46:22] this a little bit better than I mean, if I if I miss anything, but state mandates that, you

[46:27] Now, jurisdiction that counties adopt air alert land use compatibility plans to govern

[46:33] and influence their airport influence area.

[46:36] This project very clearly is being between, you know, to the primary run-wise at the

[46:41] Oakland airport is in the Oakland airports influence area and there's sort of guidelines from

[46:48] the state and then there's a Oakland airport specific land use plan compatibility plan that

[46:54] this project needs to get weighed against and there's certain standards that are adopted

[46:57] and guidelines and so the airport land use commission is a mix of representatives

[47:04] throughout the county and they meet infrequently for projects like this and they provide

[47:12] sort of judge to the project against that criteria we have referred the project to county staff

[47:19] who are reviewing it against the guidelines. We you did have a letter from early July

[47:27] shortly after the original study session from the Port of Oakland, staff who raised a number of concerns about compatibility.

[47:35] We've been working with them closely to make sure we're addressing those concerns.

[47:40] I think some of the items in that letter.

[47:43] It was sort of the initial reaction and also sort of at the high level.

[47:49] How does it, you know, are these things consistent in a perfect world with being next to an airport?

[47:54] And then when you get to the actual Oakland airport plan,

[47:58] you start to see a little more nuance in some of those guidelines.

[48:00] So one of the things, you know, they don't encourage large assembly type events like this or venues in the airport influence area.

[48:08] But there's quite Syria for them to permit it.

[48:11] Basically, if they're, you can demonstrate that there's not another viable alternative.

[48:18] And I think, you know, you heard Lydia speak of the sort of nomad.

[48:24] existence of the roots over the last six years so we think there's a pretty good

[48:29] case to be made for why this is a reasonable location and that they sort of

[48:38] met that justification. There's some other things that they're looking at like

[48:41] where are the lights going to be? How are they going to be pointed? You know these

[48:44] are modern LED lights so we're fairly confident that they're going to you know

[48:48] whether it's for our own dark skies ordinance at the city level or the airport

[48:52] and the air traffic controllers and the pilots to make sure that it's going to be compatible

[48:57] and it's not going to create any hazards for things like that. Obviously, we heard about the

[49:02] FAA review. That's a sort of a technical airspace review to which is resulting in

[49:09] preliminarily a little bit lowering of the light. So we're working through those questions with the

[49:14] port. They are obviously a key stakeholder for, you know, key partner for the city,

[49:18] a key member of the airport land use commission themselves.

[49:22] They sit on that body and it's their airport.

[49:25] So they're going to have a lot of a lot to say.

[49:28] And so if and when we come back to you,

[49:30] assuming successful resolution with the ALUC,

[49:35] we'll be working closely with them

[49:37] when it comes time to craft appropriate conditions

[49:40] of approval to make sure we make sure that the venue

[49:44] is a good neighbor for the port for their port.

[49:48] That's super helpful. Thank you.

[49:53] Thank you.

[49:54] Remember home?

[49:56] Yeah. Thank you for the presentation.

[49:58] Very informative.

[50:00] I have specific questions on the various traffic, parking, lighting, and noise, but I have

[50:07] some general questions. First, if I may, and maybe I'll ask these before, we have the

[50:13] public comments. I go follow up with my more technical questions after public comments.

[50:19] But one of the things that I was trying to clarify is the maximum capacity, which is 8,000.

[50:27] So it appears that the Farmel analysis assumes the highest capacity of 8,000, you know,

[50:33] probably got sell out crowd and all of that, which is good because that's a conservative approach.

[50:38] But then when I was looking at some of the plans, you know, like the seeding capacity in the plans

[50:45] was showed like 6,700 seats and then the park analysis was then showed 6,000 seats.

[50:56] Could you clarify what is the actual capacity, if the stands do not seat up to 8,000?

[51:06] Where's the additional capacity of the people's employees or what?

[51:12] Because I'm low confused with the actual capacity.

[51:17] absolutely happy to try to answer this and if perhaps Lydia has anything that there the sort

[51:26] of fine-grained details of the plans. The big picture is seats on three sides of the field sort of

[51:33] top bottom and left in this image. The specific heights and the specific capacity has been refined a

[51:41] little bit this is the latest version. This packet went out as we were completing our review of

[51:49] the previous submitter where we got a lot of parallel processes going on here where you guys

[51:53] are experiencing at the same time staff is. This is the latest version so the stand capacity

[51:59] is showing 7,639 and then they essentially have you know 361 I think that large party is field

[52:09] field seeding as well as, you know, in that right side, basically in some under some like

[52:14] tenths, ten by ten tenths and whatnot, there would be some field level seeding sort of

[52:20] that aren't part of the bleachers. But overall, total ticket sold or tickets issued,

[52:26] eight thousand, and ten inches, the project that we've been studying, how it's configured,

[52:31] it's a little nipping and talking here and there, but we're sticking with eight thousand.

[52:36] If you look at their numbers and expectations sort of at what their history is and the average,

[52:42] they've said they have a few sort of what I think Lindsey's called these like the tent pole games a year,

[52:49] where they're opening day when they play Sacramento, etc., where they might expect the sellouts.

[52:55] Typically, I think, you know, it's not uncommon for them to have four or five thousand at a match.

[52:59] So we're obviously from a sequence standpoint.

[53:03] We study the maximum impact from what are we anticipate in reality.

[53:09] We sort of account for both of those.

[53:12] So thank you.

[53:13] And that's good.

[53:14] That could sure assume the kind of like the worst case scenario or for the root of the best case scenario.

[53:21] The other question I have is really from a processing standpoint.

[53:26] And you've mentioned the A-Lock al-Milagious Commission, reviewed as needed as was FAA.

[53:36] One level of approval or sign-off will be required before this comes to the board.

[53:43] I know you're going to be probably having conditional approval that provides more detail,

[53:48] but what we actually get, some at least conceptual or initial approval from both agencies.

[53:55] And then the second part question is based on their comments, will the fire metal reveal be adjusted based on like for instance

[54:05] You're lowering the lights which is probably a positive thing for residences, you know, a 15 feet or whatever it is.

[54:13] Yeah, absolutely.

[54:14] So,

[54:17] the way that we're anticipating it with their sort of the ALUC, which is sort of reviewing

[54:23] the land use, the compatibility of the use, and that process, we have to have a determination

[54:30] on land use compatibility before the planning board can act.

[54:33] Like our general plan requires it, it's part of the mitigation, probably, you see, to

[54:39] can explain the history and probably we've got an all-estatement agreement for you know

[54:45] with the airport from many many years ago and so we have to have that determination.

[54:50] There is a process for the city council if for some reason we're not expecting this or planning for this.

[55:00] For where the city council could essentially make that determination or overrule, not favorable determination from the ALUC, we're, you know, not anticipating going that route, but essentially before this board can approve a project and entitlement, we have to have that determination made from the ALUC or worst case scenario, if the city council wanted to consider overriding a negative ruling, but obviously if, you know.

[55:28] So they may make a decision, I haven't been to a ALUC meeting, but they could make some recommendations

[55:36] or say that their sort of determination is conditioned on similar to you make conditions

[55:44] of approval.

[55:45] The FAA review is more, as I understand, a more of a technical exercise.

[55:51] I don't think, you know, it's question, are we poking into the airspace or not and doesn't

[55:56] need to be adjusted right that sort of airspace like an upside down wedding cake as it moves

[56:00] out from the airport that they have control over.

[56:05] And so that, you know, whether the lights are 5 feet higher or lower is something that, you

[56:11] know, probably this board could make a approval of a land use application of use permit or

[56:19] designer view and as long as we're not wearing the ballpark when they come and apply for building

[56:24] permits.

[56:25] They would have to have the FAA approval before they started construction before they get their building from the public.

[56:32] So I think that's how we anticipate it working.

[56:35] Yeah, and then another process questions, the parking.

[56:38] You know, I mean there's discussion of up to 2,100 spaces.

[56:42] It would be off-site in agreements with the Jason Propheoners.

[56:48] To what level will we receive some preliminary assurance or some preliminary agreement that

[56:55] These, this is part owners have agreed in concept at least to open up their lots for parking for the game days.

[57:04] Yeah, absolutely great question.

[57:06] I think we've started to think about what that looks like and how we ensure that.

[57:14] We haven't sort of written a resolution or a draft conditions approval yet,

[57:19] but one way we could do that might be, you know,

[57:22] Here's the concept of how the parking plan's going to work.

[57:24] Once they get approval, a condition of approval might say,

[57:29] before you get a certificate of occupancy,

[57:32] or before your first match, you need to provide staff

[57:35] with signed agreements showing X number of spaces

[57:41] within X, Y minutes, locking distance of the facility.

[57:46] Before you can start to operate games.

[57:48] So we can, I think one way to do that

[57:50] potentially be through a condition of approval where we say, you need to have, you know,

[57:55] there might have some parking on site over in this sort of end of their lot for employees,

[58:01] and then an additional 2,000 or whatever that number is going to be parking spaces in the business park

[58:07] identified that will be available for your matches before you can proceed. Before you get a building

[58:14] for men or occupants here or something like that.

[58:16] I think occupants, yeah, well, I'll have to discuss

[58:18] what the trigger is.

[58:20] It would be good, the beneficial for us to see

[58:23] where they stand with the negotiations

[58:25] because I know some of the property owners might have

[58:28] some concern about liability and insurance

[58:31] when you bring this item to us.

[58:33] Not to expect sign, you know, feebly executed agreements.

[58:37] And then on my final question is a clarification,

[58:39] regarding the SQL consultants.

[58:40] I see that the checklist was the memo was addressed to the city, so I'm assuming the city is the client ESA.

[58:50] However, ESA's the memo regarding a noise analysis was to the roots.

[58:59] So, I'm a little confused who's the actual client.

[59:02] It was like the technical studies where Zitz Corrette was done through Oakland Roots, asked the

[59:09] client and they submitted it to the city and then the city prepared the final report,

[59:15] even though ESA kind of like serving both parties, but so if it turns out the Roots did submit

[59:22] these technical studies for final analysis, has staff reviewed these studies, peer reviewed

[59:28] them and or the further that we see incorporate staff comments?

[59:34] Yes, so, and we've done this in a number of times, essentially the way the relationship works is.

[59:41] They are, yes, say, and fair and peers are inloysing the roots, but they're scope of work and their direction.

[59:49] They're taking direction on the, the sequence checklist from staff on what to include and incorporating our comments.

[59:56] So yes, what you see today reflects.

[1:00:00] You know, our input on what the scope of work should be. We obviously worked, you know, hand in hand with, with the consultant and the applicant to make sure we're addressing everything that needs to be included in that checklist.

[1:00:16] But they essentially, they, they, the bill goes to them, but they do what we tell them.

[1:00:24] And I know ESA at fair and fair is a very reliable

[1:00:27] professional firm.

[1:00:29] So I have no question about their objectivity.

[1:00:32] But is it correct to say that the city is the client

[1:00:36] for all of these studies, although the applicant pays the bill?

[1:00:43] So to speak.

[1:00:43] Yeah, they're preparing them for us at our direction.

[1:00:46] OK, OK.

[1:00:47] I just wanted to make sure that was clear.

[1:00:53] Thank you.

[1:00:55] Thank you.

[1:00:57] Thank you for the presentation.

[1:01:01] Very helpful information.

[1:01:02] My main question is on parking and transportation.

[1:01:06] I was wondering if we can go back to the slide.

[1:01:08] I think it was called parking demand and supply estimate.

[1:01:12] And it had like, it's basically comparing,

[1:01:14] I think, parking demand on different days.

[1:01:19] Yeah, this one.

[1:01:20] So the 2100 is that, is that when we say near-site, is that within the vicinity, or are we talking about also spaces like a long-hegan beggar and Bart Coliseum?

[1:01:33] Yeah, the 2100 is the expected number of parking supply, but they will have in the business park.

[1:01:44] So, okay, so Saturday, so even like we're looking at a Saturday, if you've got, is that

[1:01:51] 8,000?

[1:01:52] Yeah, it's okay.

[1:01:53] Yeah,

[1:01:56] it's okay.

[1:01:56] The 740, that means you're going to need, based on, you know, assuming you've got 8,000

[1:02:01] people coming, then you need 740 parking spaces off-site, so that's your barter, call a CM.

[1:02:08] Okay, this is helpful.

[1:02:08] So the fault question I had is, I think further down in this deck,

[1:02:13] there was a comment saying that nearly half of the parking

[1:02:17] will be remote with service by a shuttle.

[1:02:23] So I believe that was like further down.

[1:02:28] So I think my question is basically,

[1:02:31] if even on a Saturday, you only need 740 remote spaces,

[1:02:35] But you're saying half of the parking will be met by remote.

[1:02:39] That just seems to be a discrepancy in the math, and so I wonder, yeah.

[1:02:43] Yeah, I can clarify, and what it means is that in the event of the maximum parking demand

[1:02:50] that far on the right, only in that situation would maybe nearly half of the parking

[1:02:55] be remote, but the plan is that the remote parking would only be available if the ticket

[1:03:03] solved or enough to justify it and only so like we would fill up the 2100 first and then

[1:03:09] only use the remote if needed above the 2100. Okay. So then the requirement that like nearly

[1:03:17] half the parking will be remote as in like ad bar or call CMR. That's not necessarily because

[1:03:25] that would only maybe be in the case if you were exceeding parking that's available exactly that would

[1:03:32] not be the case on most of the scenarios

[1:03:35] who would only be the case on like the eight

[1:03:37] does, the sellout on the Wednesday would nearly half

[1:03:41] the park and be remote, yeah, right?

[1:03:45] Okay, I've got some comments, but I think that's it for now.

[1:03:47] Thank you.

[1:03:48] Okay, yeah, thanks.

[1:03:51] Thank you.

[1:03:54] And my question also related to traffic,

[1:03:59] The theme of the traffic, I understand why the intersections that were analyzed were analyzed and I did wonder what would warrant, like additional traffic analysis, and this is maybe my little, my topic view, where I do wonder about like island drive going on an off-bay farm and

[1:04:29] and looking at the arrows on figure 4 from the,

[1:04:34] and I think it's a version of that in here in the deck.

[1:04:39] It's not a huge number, but it's like 18%

[1:04:42] of the traffic, whether it's coming from a front side

[1:04:45] or other parts of that one meter oakland

[1:04:48] will become eaten through island giants.

[1:04:50] Oh, it's just, yeah, that one.

[1:04:53] Yeah, I was just wondering,

[1:04:55] And I guess, like, why not?

[1:05:00] Do that analysis for that intersection, knowing that might be impacted?

[1:05:09] Yeah, this chart indicates that 18% of the funds could come through our meeting.

[1:05:18] That's an absolute worst case, because with some of the measures we're proposing, we're encouraging folks to use Hagenburg, so we anticipate numbers to be less.

[1:05:26] That being said, these are numbers we use to do traffic analysis just to present the conservative viewpoint.

[1:05:37] And before the game, I think it's very reasonable to conclude that because the traffic numbers

[1:05:43] is spread over such a time period.

[1:05:47] I don't think anywhere is going to have much of a difference in traffic numbers that would be

[1:05:52] learning studies as our table is showing.

[1:05:56] After the game, when there is that more of a crush load

[1:05:59] coming away from the stadium,

[1:06:03] the first intersection,

[1:06:06] next to the stadium, essentially meters,

[1:06:09] how much calls can actually go through.

[1:06:13] By that, I mean,

[1:06:16] it only has a cinematic capacity.

[1:06:19] And there's more people want to get through it

[1:06:22] it can handle just in that immediate moment after the game, which is why there's going to be

[1:06:26] cues for people coming out of the parking lots. That's just the effects of life for any major

[1:06:29] sports event.

[1:06:32] And what that intersection serves what it does is because it can only

[1:06:37] has capacity so many cars to get through, it really makes sort of the traffic results downstream of that,

[1:06:43] a lot better because it's limiting the amount of vehicles that can really pass through. And so

[1:06:51] because as you go a Bay Farm Parkway and go to do a little in Ireland,

[1:07:00] those streets tend to have roughly the same amount of lanes, same amount of capacity,

[1:07:05] and because what we're seeing at Hobba Bay Parkway and Island Drive was a very minimal

[1:07:13] impact of the traffic on that intersection. There's no reason for us to believe that

[1:07:19] anywhere even further than that would have anything larger than that.

[1:07:24] So, but we recently, we're very confident that there wouldn't be impacts further away than that location.

[1:07:31] Okay.

[1:07:32] And maybe I'll just add to that a little bit.

[1:07:34] I think one of the things I mentioned sort of our review was concurrent with putting out the agenda for this meeting.

[1:07:42] One of the comments we gave in the last round was to get a more granular look at the

[1:07:47] distribution within Bay Farm. I know this exhibit sort of points all those

[1:07:50] arrows straight at Island Drive, but I think the expectation is the vast majority

[1:07:55] of the vehicles will continue down due little to Harvard Bay Parkway. And obviously

[1:08:00] the traffic control plans will respond to sort of how that granular

[1:08:06] information, you know, do we need to have the signage or other interventions

[1:08:11] further upstream to make sure folks are sticking to the preferred routes?

[1:08:15] Yeah, yeah, remember that more going 80 and yeah, so okay, great. Thank you. That was my question.

[1:08:28] Any other questions on the board? If not, I could open it for a public comment. How many speakers do we have?

[1:08:37] If anyone would like to speak, please raise your hand on Zoom.

[1:08:42] I've got two hands on line and five slips in my hand.

[1:08:48] So seven total at the moment.

[1:08:55] How does the board feel about keeping it at three minutes?

[1:08:59] If it's just seven speakers.

[1:09:04] We'll go ahead and keep it at three minutes.

[1:09:06] All right, sir, in person, for speaker, John DeBore,

[1:09:22] suggestion, maybe have people

[1:09:24] key up.

[1:09:25] So, yeah, yeah, that would be great.

[1:09:27] After that we'll have.

[1:09:29] Next couple.

[1:09:31] Yeah, Harry, is that constant top of this, and followed by Ronald Canfield after?

[1:09:37] Great suggestion.

[1:09:38] Thank you.

[1:09:40] Good evening.

[1:09:40] My name is John DeBore.

[1:09:41] My wife and I, Melissa, have been Bay Farm residents for over 20 years.

[1:09:48] During that time, we've witnessed many positive changes in Alameda.

[1:09:53] As we raise our family here, we continue to support opportunities that will strengthen our

[1:09:58] community.

[1:09:59] We...

[1:10:00] Strongly support the Oakland Roots and Souls, having home games at Harbor Bay. We feel this will

[1:10:07] provide a safe, wholesome family environment. That's the affordable entertainment for residents

[1:10:18] and Alameda neighboring communities. The presence of professional soccer games would create

[1:10:24] opportunities for youth, to watch, and become more engaged in sports, live healthier activity

[1:10:33] lives, and just positive community environments.

[1:10:39] The Oakland Rutz and Seoul Organization has demonstrated a strong commitment to the community,

[1:10:45] engagement, diversity, inclusion, and values that well align with Alameda's character and

[1:10:53] for the future.

[1:10:55] Professional soccer matches would provide a unique gathering

[1:10:59] places for families, neighbors, visitors,

[1:11:03] fostering community pride and creating shared experiences.

[1:11:09] Allowing the club to host these matches on Harbor Bay would be a

[1:11:13] positive addition and benefit the entire

[1:11:16] Alameda community.

[1:11:17] Thank you.

[1:11:19] Thank you.

[1:11:20] Thank you for coming.

[1:11:22] Next up, Harry Cousin.

[1:11:27] Let you introduce yourself, Harry.

[1:11:28] Followed by Rob.

[1:11:29] Oh, excuse me.

[1:11:30] Robert Ronald Camfield and Roberto Lomas.

[1:11:34] After that.

[1:11:35] Hello, my name is Harry Conson,

[1:11:37] top of this.

[1:11:38] And I'm the business agent for local one of seven.

[1:11:40] Stayjans who currently supply all the labor for these wonderful folks.

[1:11:46] We love having them in Oakland.

[1:11:48] They've actually brought some life.

[1:11:50] We lost most of our sports team as as you all know

[1:11:54] It's a shame we couldn't host them there permanently. It's a great facility. They can make all the noise they want

[1:12:00] But that's another subject. So anyway, I think it all sounds great. We're we love Alameda

[1:12:07] We would just like to be part of the collective bargaining agreement. I I see all these great plans and stuff

[1:12:14] But I don't really see a breakdown of like well

[1:12:18] local one of seven, it's in our jurisdiction, it's the international lines of the

[1:12:22] actual stations, employees local one of seven, that's your familiar with them,

[1:12:26] but it sure would be great to have a presence in Alameda, just like we do now.

[1:12:33] And I know there's some great things coming up, but there's the right

[1:12:36] I'm theater, and Alameda that's coming, I think Alameda is going to be a

[1:12:39] pretty happening place, I currently have some rental property in Alameda and I

[1:12:47] I think this is a really good opportunity to host sports back again in the community and perhaps they can grow and maybe they can go maybe they can build the facility over in Oakland as they talked about.

[1:13:01] I think this is a really good starting place for them and I just wanted to come out here and thank you all for allowing another sports seem to come in the area and we're greatly appreciated.

[1:13:13] Thank you.

[1:13:15] The next speaker Ronald can feel followed by Roberta, Lamas, and Kathy Weber.

[1:13:25] Well, I don't have a very good speech. I have to warn you. It's not as good as most of yours,

[1:13:30] or people that have been up here prior to me. I'm a resident of Alameda on Bay Farm.

[1:13:36] I live in that direct line for the sound that was shown on the graph.

[1:13:43] I've been here for 40 years, I think it's going to change the community.

[1:13:49] I think it's an improper location for this type of venue.

[1:13:54] I think they're great what they do, but I would like to not to do it in Harvard Bay Park.

[1:14:02] The parking that they're discussing overflow parking, I live on the, I can see my house

[1:14:08] on your screen up there, when it was up earlier,

[1:14:17] the parking for that they're going to

[1:14:23] expand to, looks like it would be, the number is parking, the number has lots of facilities

[1:14:29] there, but they're on B Street, and I can look out my back door, open my bedroom door, and

[1:14:36] look out the back and see if the number is parking lot, I can't wait till I have people at midnight,

[1:14:42] struggling through screaming and hollering, revving their engines, making all kinds of noise

[1:14:48] and disturbance.

[1:14:49] This isn't the community I moved into, and as a practice field, it was never a problem,

[1:14:59] but as a facility.

[1:15:00] With 8,000 people,

[1:15:03] night time, day time, we'll have a few other events. It'll turn into craziness. And I just have to speak up. If it doesn't come across real great, I have to tell you that's my feeling. And I have a lot of neighbors that aren't here. But think that I'm the dummy who's going to come out and talk. And they share a lot of the same concern. So I wish there'd be more interaction if there's even looks like a sign.

[1:15:31] going to go forward, and I hope it doesn't, with the homeowners associations that have lots

[1:15:37] of property right there, we already buck up against a number of commercial areas. That

[1:15:45] was supposed to be a office space, it turned into a factory. So a lot of things seem to

[1:15:52] morph into other things, and they're originally thought to be. Thank you for your time, and

[1:15:57] Thank you for your consideration and for your thoughtful questions.

[1:16:04] Thank you.

[1:16:05] Next up, Roberto Lannis, followed by Kathy Weber.

[1:16:14] Kathy Weber?

[1:16:22] Good evening, President Cisneros, members of the planning board and city staff.

[1:16:26] I'm Kathy Weber, executive director with downtown Alameda Business Association.

[1:16:31] And I'm here on behalf of the 400 businesses that we represent.

[1:16:35] We're pleased to support the Oakland Roots and Soul proposal to use their

[1:16:41] for professional and community sporting events over the next three to five years.

[1:16:47] We think that this is a remarkable opportunity for the city of Alameda.

[1:16:53] Bringing soccer matches and other sporting events to the facility will introduce people to Alameda.

[1:16:59] And when people come here for a game, we're hopeful that they'll stop for dinner, grab a drink, get a coffee, do some shopping,

[1:17:06] and spend some time before or after the event, and all of that is good for all of our businesses.

[1:17:14] It's also a chance to introduce people to Alameda who might not otherwise have a reason to visit.

[1:17:20] Once they discover our friendly community, we'll sure they want to come back and explore our

[1:17:26] restaurants, our shops and other experiences outside of game day.

[1:17:33] While we understand that there are

[1:17:35] some noise, transportation, and traffic concerns that come along with hosting larger events,

[1:17:40] we're confident that those issues can be thoughtfully addressed through planning and

[1:17:44] coordination with the city, the team, and our community.

[1:17:48] From our perspective, this proposal checks a lot of important boxes.

[1:17:52] It introduces and brings people to Alameda.

[1:17:55] It creates economic activity for our local businesses, provides opportunities for residents

[1:18:01] and young people. And once again, it's strengthens our connection to the broader Bay Area Sports Community.

[1:18:09] We believe that Allen need it can be a valuable partner while the roots continue looking for a long-term stadium solution.

[1:18:18] Thank you for your time and for your consideration.

[1:18:21] Thank you.

[1:18:22] You will go online to Madeline Satta, followed by Joe Ernst.

[1:18:35] Keeping presence is narrows and members of the planning board, I'm Madeleine Static, the President and CEO of the Alameda Chamber and Economic Alliance.

[1:18:44] Earlier this month, I attended the community event, which was an open house hosted by the Oakland Roots and Soul at their facility in Harbor Bay.

[1:18:53] It was really encouraging to see so many of our local businesses, nonprofits, engage in learning more about the proposal for an interim match venue.

[1:19:05] The Alameda Chamber of Economic Alliance has a long-standing relationship with the Oakland roots in Seoul.

[1:19:12] They have been an engaging civic partner in our community and they really have consistently made it a priority to make sure that they support and engage all our lives.

[1:19:23] local businesses. We also commend the city staff and Auckland's Woodson Soul for the work they

[1:19:30] have done studying the transportation impacts on the proposal. Through really collaboration with

[1:19:38] the Harvard Bay Business Park and other stakeholders, they have really developed a transit and

[1:19:43] parking plan designed to lessen impacts on its surrounding Harvard Bay community.

[1:19:53] From the

[1:19:53] This really presents an amazing and unique economic development opportunity for Alameda.

[1:19:59] Also, no.

[1:20:00] That the city of Alameda is not really subsidizing this project. The opens roots in Seoul will be making this investment and really covering all costs.

[1:20:11] So, at match days, we can bring new businesses to Alameda and also additional customers to Alameda businesses, restaurants and hotels.

[1:20:20] But there's also another community benefit that I think it's very valuable and important.

[1:20:25] A practice facility that has really, I mean, traditionally, it was really close to the public, right?

[1:20:34] But it really could become now a gathering place for our community, a place to play, sports, businesses, families get together and make it a community there.

[1:20:43] For all of this reasons, the Alameda Chamber and Economic Alliance fully supports Auckland

[1:20:49] Routensol and this opportunity to invest in Alameda.

[1:20:53] We encourage the planning board to support this moving forward.

[1:20:56] Thank you so much.

[1:21:00] Thank you.

[1:21:01] And next speaker's show arts.

[1:21:04] Thank you.

[1:21:05] My name is Joe Ernst.

[1:21:06] I am a resident of Alameda.

[1:21:08] I've had the opportunity to be a developer and investor in the business park for nearly 25 years.

[1:21:15] And I'm also a member of the Board of Directors of the Business Park speaking here tonight on behalf of my business as a resident and the Board of Directors.

[1:21:27] We strongly support the roots.

[1:21:29] I think this will be fantastic for economic development for the business park and for the city.

[1:21:37] Create more opportunity for our hotels, more amenities.

[1:21:41] And, you know, I know from personal experience firsthand that the roots are just a tremendous

[1:21:48] community partner and they will work with the community to make this work and this will

[1:21:54] be a tremendous benefit for the city. So I hope when this comes before you for a decision

[1:21:58] that you will approve it and to the benefit of our community. Thank you.

[1:22:07] That's the last of our speakers.

[1:22:10] Okay, great.

[1:22:11] Thank you.

[1:22:13] And with that, we'll close public comment.

[1:22:15] Thank you so much to members of the public for your thoughtful feedback.

[1:22:21] I'll bring it back to the board for a discussion.

[1:22:25] Would anyone like to begin?

[1:22:28] Board Member Hall?

[1:22:29] Sure, I'll begin.

[1:22:31] And my comments are now really more specific.

[1:22:34] And I, first of all, I want to thank you to everyone who spoke, certainly the concerns about

[1:22:40] impacts of the facilities are demolished. And I think the states are trying to address those.

[1:22:45] I do have some comments and questions to maybe to further dive into the analysis to maybe try

[1:22:54] to improve the confidence level of residents that the impacts are adequately addressed.

[1:22:59] But first of all, I do acknowledge the economic benefits of such a facility for the community.

[1:23:06] So to me is a balancing of how can we achieve these economic impacts, but at the same time,

[1:23:11] ensure that residents who live near the facility aren't adversely impacted.

[1:23:18] So with that, have some comments.

[1:23:21] We've got the traffic study.

[1:23:24] I'm, there seems to be, to me, anyway, a disconnect between the assumptions and the analysis.

[1:23:34] For instance, if I read it correctly, like on table four is assuming like about two thirds of the attendees will be arriving by bar,

[1:23:43] which is a very high number, hopefully that will happen.

[1:23:46] But then when I do the math and you subtract out 2,000, 8,000, you get down to about 2,500 attendees that will be driving or car polling.

[1:23:58] But at the same time, there's an estimate that there's a need for 2,100 parking spaces.

[1:24:03] So I'm kind of wondering whether we're overestimating the number parking spaces needed or overestimating the writers, you know, the modal split of people that will be taking part.

[1:24:16] So I would kind of ask that that be aligned or looked at again to ensure that they are consistent.

[1:24:27] The second item and this has to do with where the traffic is coming from.

[1:24:32] I truly hope that Park Street businesses and I'll meet a business will benefit from the visitors that come to this facility.

[1:24:40] Having said that, it seems to suggest to me that there might be more traffic coming going to the game or after the game to downtown Alameda, which hopefully that will happen.

[1:24:55] So I think maybe the traffic analysis need to take into consideration the possibly fifth.

[1:25:09] So that's kind of a concomment that you're going to traffic analysis that I would appreciate a little bit more evaluation on. The other question I have is kind of operationally. There's discussion of partial street closures or temporary enforcement.

[1:25:29] I like to hear a little bit more from the police department on whether how are they going

[1:25:36] to be asked to provide this maybe off duty officers or on duty officer for fighting the

[1:25:43] trapping enforcement and is that going to be compensated by the roots or how is that going

[1:25:51] to be taking care of on the game days. So that's the question I have. And I know that one of the

[1:25:57] had to do what concerned about emergency routes. So it'd be good to confirm that during

[1:26:02] those peak arrival or departure periods that emergency access is maintained for ambulances

[1:26:10] and things like that that serves the neighborhood. So those are just some comments I have regarding

[1:26:15] the traffic analysis. Regarding the lighting, I think it's beneficial that FAAs record the

[1:26:26] to be lower, but what would be beneficial to ensure that residents understand the level of impact?

[1:26:34] As you might do a photo sim showing down that corridor where the gentleman audience can see

[1:26:43] the stadium to see how visible are these lights will be from the residents that are directly

[1:26:50] can view the stadium. I know there's going to be downward facing lights, but it'll be good just

[1:26:59] to provide a photo sim to show how much of a visual impact will be on the residents that are

[1:27:05] that have a line of sight to the stadium. So that might be a beneficial analysis to provide.

[1:27:16] Regarding the noise analysis, I really do appreciate that the noise analysis really takes

[1:27:22] one of the underscores of African-Servative Approach, it assumes, you know, one hundred-tint

[1:27:28] DBA. Disapples throughout the entire hour of the event, and which is not really going to happen

[1:27:38] because that assumes, you know, that looks peaks and valleys.

[1:27:42] But even at that point, the conclusion was that the most severe

[1:27:47] standard of 55 DBA was still being met.

[1:27:52] It would be good to also just to verify, you know,

[1:27:55] the Ms. Mokode has the other standards, and especially,

[1:27:59] I think, for the one minute interval, or maybe the shorter interval,

[1:28:03] to confirm that those, I think that noise level was 70

[1:28:07] disciples would be good to confirm that during those peak periods that that

[1:28:12] wonder disciple rating that's being used for valuation that that still

[1:28:19] complies with those most severe standards because one of the disciples is four

[1:28:22] times louder than say 80 or is probably six times louder than 70 or something like

[1:28:28] that so it'd be good to just complete that analysis and maybe the noise analysis

[1:28:33] I was already covers that. I got to be honest, and it really points the analysis and detail,

[1:28:39] but it'd be good to just substantiate that for the record. I'm just trying to make sure things are well covered.

[1:28:46] And then, one thing I mentioned last time is not really part of the environmental assessment,

[1:28:53] but it would be good to see a solid waste plan. I know it would probably be a conditional approval,

[1:28:58] But, you know, efforts, I think we've mentioned it to really promote sustainability practices.

[1:29:04] If there could be something submitted or proposal on how this the events will be managed to maximize sustainability,

[1:29:12] solid ways recycling practices, pick up off a litter off site.

[1:29:18] That might occur as part of the game.

[1:29:21] So that, that want to point that out as a comment and, um, to see that I cover everything.

[1:29:31] Yeah, I think that's my main comments.

[1:29:35] Yeah, thank you.

[1:29:37] Could I just board member Ham?

[1:29:39] I think I got all your comments.

[1:29:41] The, um, the first one you were commenting on table four.

[1:29:44] I just want to make sure I understand what you were concerned about.

[1:29:48] We ended up here too.

[1:29:53] And it could be I'm as misunderstanding the analysis, you know, so so do you want me to kind of

[1:30:00] Yeah, can you restate it, or maybe Andy did you?

[1:30:03] When I looked at table four, and you see the far right column, this is within one hour of the game,

[1:30:12] I think if I'm reading this right, it is a 65, was actually 75% of the people arriving will be taking

[1:30:21] bar.

[1:30:24] So when I say okay, 75 subtract from 8,000 attendees 75 or I use 65% then you get down to

[1:30:35] like 2400 to 20%.

[1:30:36] Yeah.

[1:30:37] I think I can just start short stuff you there.

[1:30:40] I think what that number is representing is 75% of the 5% or 6% of people that will come

[1:30:48] by bar will arrive within one hour.

[1:30:50] So this is the percentage of the Bart Pie is arriving in that hour, but it's not a percent.

[1:30:57] The 75% is not of the entire 2018.

[1:31:00] It's only of the 6% which would be 500 people or whatever that arrived by Bart.

[1:31:06] Okay, thank you.

[1:31:07] Three-fourths of them would be coming.

[1:31:08] So what are we assuming as far as the number of attendees arriving by Bart and taking

[1:31:17] shovel?

[1:31:18] five percent. Only five percent. Okay. All right. Okay. Is there a way to increase that number, I guess?

[1:31:26] That's in pretty low. You know, like maybe offering discount on art passes. I don't know what it is.

[1:31:35] Yeah, I mean, if I person is simply low to me.

[1:31:39] I would say it's hard to move the needle much higher just because when people write transit,

[1:31:44] is it? Every time you have to transfer it to another transit system, that detours a lot of people.

[1:31:51] So I think anything much more than 5% is unrealistic, unfortunately, to give it how far away it is.

[1:31:57] I know how challenged it is. Yeah. Yeah.

[1:32:00] That is one, I mean, okay. Thanks for clarified. I miss Red. Yeah.

[1:32:04] Okay. One other comment I might add is that I really appreciate the transition management plan.

[1:32:11] in the requirement of the city, but, and I know there'll be regularly monitor as the games

[1:32:19] go on over the next five years, but it would be good for the comfort level of residents.

[1:32:25] Maybe you'll already do this, but to have it posted on the website, the end of reports, maybe

[1:32:32] on the Roots website or in the city's website, so for transparency residents can have access

[1:32:38] to it.

[1:32:39] so that's just another suggestion.

[1:32:42] Okay, thanks.

[1:32:46] Great, thank you.

[1:32:49] Next, anyone else, or member Sue?

[1:32:54] So thank you for all the public comment.

[1:32:57] And I'll say I think the staff

[1:32:59] and Oakland Roots team influence so far

[1:33:02] have done a solid job in analyzing this project

[1:33:06] and looking at all the issues from different angles.

[1:33:10] I will say as a recovering sequel attorney, I felt that noise analysis is actually particularly

[1:33:17] in-depth and well done for even a product of this size.

[1:33:22] I think for me, my main concern and I do live on Bay Farm near I think it was at Island and

[1:33:30] McCartney.

[1:33:32] I think the main concern for me is parking.

[1:33:36] I think today, you know, the TDM plan is off to a good start.

[1:33:41] I would like to see ultimately, I think, just some more kind of, as I know, this is very preliminary.

[1:33:48] So as you get into more kind of the detail, you know, performance standards, I think, would be helpful.

[1:33:54] I know it's obviously hard to move the needle in terms of the type of transportation people are going to take to get here.

[1:34:00] But anything I think we can do to reduce vehicle usage.

[1:34:08] So performance standards, there's a lot of discussion

[1:34:11] about having traffic control officers

[1:34:14] signs that either will be placed out or covered up

[1:34:19] when not in use.

[1:34:20] Someone's going to need to go out and do all those things.

[1:34:24] Put out the sign.

[1:34:24] Someone's going to need to coordinate on the TCO

[1:34:26] and so I agree with the comment on the police department

[1:34:28] involvement, but I think having an in-depth TDM plan and if it's a kind of even more than

[1:34:35] detailed plan of like game day, this is what things look like, like, who's going out and

[1:34:39] putting out those signs, who is making sure traffic control officers need to know where they need

[1:34:46] to be, you know, to the public comment about, you know, parking near the site. I think there was

[1:34:53] someone during the resignation said that they're trying to locate the parking spots,

[1:34:57] parking locations as far away from...

[1:35:00] And the neighbourhoods, I think that's a great idea and I would love to see in the next iteration

[1:35:05] of furthering of that, of that idea and more effort to try to locate these parking locations

[1:35:11] more closer to the soccer stadium and away from the neighbourhoods. But those are all my comments

[1:35:19] for now. Thank you.

[1:35:24] Thank you. And remember, Wayne? Okay. Okay. Good. All right.

[1:35:32] I think, I'll just add a similar vein of thought to board members to, you know, plus one not only more parking, close to the soccer facility, but also wondering about encouraging the parking, you're the Coliseum Bart, and having those shuttles and encouraging more of that carpool.

[1:35:56] I think it sounded like from the analysis, like when we hit the max capacity, then we'll

[1:36:03] look at that strategy.

[1:36:04] And I do wonder if we want to shift that, like, let's encourage that strategy, so we don't

[1:36:08] have so much cars coming in, so that's, I think, just double-clicking a little bit on using

[1:36:17] less cars.

[1:36:19] And yeah, I just huge things to my developer members for the great questions and comments,

[1:36:25] many things to members of the public for taking the time this evening for all your insights

[1:36:34] and comments on both sides. This is a great project on different scales and we will see how

[1:36:44] the boarder comes to their determination in September and appreciate the concerns,

[1:36:53] appreciate

[1:36:53] that we are most perspectives.

[1:36:56] So, I guess with that, does staff have any other clarifying questions for the board as we

[1:37:04] move forward with next steps?

[1:37:07] I think we, we got what we needed.

[1:37:09] I think if, you know, we've got some good feedback about what to make sure we're covering.

[1:37:13] I think if we wanted to go over any of those things, we could probably do some preliminary responses

[1:37:18] or we could just make sure that some of those things, like,

[1:37:21] Remember, on point of that, we will make sure we've got included in the final package and address those, but thank you for your time.

[1:37:32] Okay, free.

[1:37:34] And with that, we'll go ahead and close agenda item 5A. Thank you, everyone.

[1:37:41] And we'll move on to agenda item six, which is staff communications.

[1:37:52] We have items A and B.

[1:37:55] Yeah, on six A, you have in your packet an attachment that lists recent decisions

[1:38:02] over a longer period than usual because you had a bit of a recess, so we've been sending emails

[1:38:09] of those decisions as they happen so that you didn't miss anything and then we've summarized

[1:38:14] them here.

[1:38:19] I will say one of them has been appealed and so we'll be coming to you at the end

[1:38:24] of September, September 28th so there will be a design review appeal that will come to you as

[1:38:32] as possibly another hearing on this item, the Roots and Soil.

[1:38:42] Also, before that, on September 14th, your agenda includes zoning update for the community

[1:38:53] commercial, which is the zoning along Park Street and Webster Street, so that staff report

[1:38:59] coming to you soon, and you also will be seeing an item at the beach and tennis club

[1:39:06] at South Shore, which is a use permit and design review amendment to change the commercial

[1:39:19] space that has been very lightly used over the past 30 or 40 years into residential space.

[1:39:29] Great. Thank you. Any questions, if not? Any public comments for Genitem 6?

[1:39:41] Okay. We'll go ahead and close that item. Genitem 7 is board communications. Any announcements

[1:39:49] from the board? I think we had a couple of questions. And it was alluded to a little bit

[1:39:56] already in this meeting, but um...

[1:40:00] Yes, we did come back a little bit early for our summer break, so I think there's things to everyone for coming

[1:40:07] out a little bit early and to sounds like our next planning board meeting is September 14th. Correct.

[1:40:13] You will also have some new members appointed, I think Brian mentioned that, so we hope that you'll be joined by some new faces at the second meeting.

[1:40:22] Okay, two new plane board members, okay, great and I'm actually going to be absent on that day.

[1:40:32] So I don't know what the policy is for, like, who would run the meeting on them out on the 14th.

[1:40:39] Mm-hmm.

[1:40:40] I think I see.

[1:40:41] Looks like our vice president has resigned your seat, so and we haven't had elections

[1:40:48] because we usually like to hold those when we have a full board.

[1:40:52] So, we could chat offline if that's easier, okay, all right, that sounds good.

[1:40:58] Or should we hold an election now for...

[1:41:01] I think they can just hopefully have one.

[1:41:03] It's a temporary point one.

[1:41:05] Have that meeting.

[1:41:07] At the meeting, okay.

[1:41:09] Okay.

[1:41:10] We'll do that.

[1:41:14] Sounds good.

[1:41:19] Any other...

[1:41:20] questions or announcements? Yes, we're going. Just a question on the status of the

[1:41:27] the short-term rental ordinance is that? Short-term rental ordinance. We have the

[1:41:34] short-term rental ordinance and the ADU revisions that you also reviewed that allows

[1:41:41] condos sale as well as some other cleanup. Those are both going to the City Council.

[1:41:50] They were sort of floating in on the schedule for a little while they've settled on September 15th.

[1:41:56] Thank you.

[1:41:57] And that would be the first reading, assuming that goes through the second reading,

[1:42:02] and then 30 day period before they go into effect.

[1:42:08] Thank you.

[1:42:12] Any other?

[1:42:12] Yes.

[1:42:12] Remember how?

[1:42:14] Since we were talking about Harbor Bay Park,

[1:42:17] You know, this was, goes back a couple of years ago, you know, the planning board approved that the hotel, I guess it was a Hilton, I forgot to hire it or whatever it is.

[1:42:28] But there was a requirement for, and kind of, some type of art installation, I think they maybe have talked about a mirror or something like that, right at that prominent corner.

[1:42:39] And looks like the whole tell is getting closer completion of just kind of wondering what the status of our installation is.

[1:42:50] Yeah, it's been sort of evolving based on, again, airport influence area concerns about moving lights and flashing lights and bright lights.

[1:43:03] So it's been redesigned, It's under installation.

[1:43:08] I think the hotel and the art are kind of on

[1:43:10] the same timeline of not quite done,

[1:43:13] and we're not quite sure when,

[1:43:16] but it's underway.

[1:43:20] As it's significantly changed.

[1:43:22] I remember last time we moved in from some kind

[1:43:24] of a lighting scheme right?

[1:43:26] I wasn't almost still here,

[1:43:29] but quite just don't remember,

[1:43:31] I just, so that got because of

[1:43:34] some airport concerns that got redesigned.

[1:43:38] Yeah, and so it's being reviewed by the public art.

[1:43:42] Okay.

[1:43:43] You know, staff.

[1:43:44] Okay. Okay. I was just wondering, because I drive by it almost every day.

[1:43:50] Thank you.

[1:43:50] Like a very glaring reminder.

[1:43:53] Yeah.

[1:43:53] Or lack of, I guess.

[1:43:56] Not very.

[1:43:59] Okay, great.

[1:43:59] Any other comments or questions for staff?

[1:44:05] I don't know if you probably have much of an obeyed that, but there have been any like developments you can share, I guess, on the shopping center at Harbor Bay in terms of kind of potential activity or nothing.

[1:44:22] There are very quiet landlord, don't hear much of anything from them.

[1:44:27] Are you able to comment on, um, I know like the three restaurants, Le Penca and Le Vows, and

[1:44:34] Chinaville all have that sewer issue? Do you know if the work has been performed? I've seen

[1:44:40] plumbers out there, but I don't know if they're fixing that problem, but anything you can share.

[1:44:44] It says factual for me, so that's all I'm requesting. I have heard something about that.

[1:44:49] I believe it's a work in progress. Okay. Thank you.

[1:44:56] Any other comments, if not, we'll go ahead and close.

[1:45:03] Any one from the public to speak on something that wasn't on tonight's meeting? Do we have any speakers? Okay. And with that, it is 845 and we are adjourned. Thank you.

Planning Board on 2026-08-24 7:00 PM - SPECIAL MEETING

Agenda

Transcript