Planning Board - Regular Meeting

It is Monday, August 24, 2026, exactly 7 p.m. And we are beginning tonight's planning board meeting. Before we officially begin our business, let's start with the Pledge of Allegiance. Board Member Wang, can you lead us?

One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you so much. And let's start with roll call.

OK. Good evening. Board Member Hom. Here. Board Member Hsu. Here. Board Member Wang. Here. And President Cisneros.

Here.

We have a quorum.

OK, great. 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. 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. And it is a criminal offense. For any person to willfully disturb or break any assembly or meeting, that is unlawful in its character, and there are consequences. So let's enjoy tonight's meeting and respectfully partake as members of the community. So with that, we'll go ahead and move on to the second agenda item. Any agenda changes from staff or the board?

Not this evening.

Okay, great. Any non-agenda public comments? Anyone can speak for up to three minutes on an item that's not on tonight's agenda. Do we have any speakers?

I don't have any speaker slips for non-agenda, and I see no hands raised online for non-agenda public comments.

Okay. We'll go ahead and close that item. The next item is the consent calendar. We have draft meeting minutes from July 13th. Do we have any discussion or any public comments on that? If not, do we have a motion?

I'll move to approve the extended calendar.

And I'll second. Okay, great. Motion to second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? And two absences, or three?

Motion carries.

Okay, great. All right, and we'll move on to regular agenda items. And tonight is a workshop for 1150 and 1120 Harbor Bay Parkway. This is for the interim venue for the Oakland Roots and Seoul facility. So it looks like we have a staff presentation.

Good evening, President Cisneros and members of the Planning Board. Brian McGuire, Planner 3, here to introduce Item 5A, our second workshop on the Oakland Roots and Soul SC's proposal to host professional soccer matches at their existing headquarters and training facility next to the Oakland Airport in the Harbor Bay Business Park. We really appreciate the board returning a little early from your August recess to help keep us on schedule. Our plan tonight is to provide the planning board and the community a quick refresh of the project proposal. We're going to provide some updates on the project and process since you first heard about the plans in your June workshop. The project team has been hard at work completing a number of technical studies and reports to help inform any eventual decision. Tonight is just a workshop, no decision being made. Tonight's really about giving you and the community a chance to start digesting what are some large, dense documents. and continue to gather feedback on those documents as well as the overall project. So I apologize now, but we might have to. We're going to be nerding out a little bit. Just a quick reorientation. 1150 and 1220 Harbor Bay Parkway home. We're the former home of the Oakland Raiders and current home of the Oakland Roots in Seoul, their headquarters and training facility. It's at the southeastern tip of Bay Farm Island, next to the airport and the business park. The Roots are requesting to install modular grandstands for a little over 7,600 fans, plus some field level seating for a max attendance of 8,000 people. They would bring in food vendors, merchandise booths, and temporary restroom facilities and other amenities for match days. The Roots would play up to 24 professional soccer matches per year with up to 8,000 fans. The games will be primarily on Saturdays and some Wednesday evenings. Between the sole matches, that's the women's team, and other games, they plan for about a dozen other matches with 3,000 or fewer attendees. This will not be a concert venue, and given the proximity to the airport, among other reasons, fireworks and drone shows would not be permitted at the site as part of the use. We wanted you in the community to have as much time as possible with these fairly thick and technical reports before seeking any eventual board action. Chief among the exhibits in your staff report tonight is the draft environmental checklist. The checklist explains our basis for the streamlining approach that we're planning to take under CEQA and provides a detailed evaluation of the project's environmental effects. ESA is the primary CEQA consultant on the project and prepared the checklist. We'll be hearing later from Chris Dugan, ESA's sound expert, to break down the noise analysis. We also have Luke Evans available, both remotely, from ESA if there are any other questions on the CEQA checklist. We also are going to hear from Andy Kaczynski, our consultant traffic engineer from Farron Piers. We're really lucky to have an all-star cast of consultants for this project. Andy will present on the detailed traffic study that's been conducted, as well as the transportation management plan, which will be addressing sort of the game day logistics. We've had a busy summer working through the proposal. and preparing all the necessary studies. You met back in June. At the beginning of the month, the project was officially referred to the Airport Land Use Commission, that's a county body, as well as the FAA, Federal Aviation Administration, for review. 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's compatibility with the Oakland Airport land use plan, land use compatibility plan, excuse me. We've been working closely with airport staff to make sure we understand their concerns and are doing everything we can possible to address those. Pending the outcome of the ALUC meeting, We anticipate returning to the planning board fairly soon, potentially, to seek a determination, a vote to approve or deny the project at that time. You've got a couple empty chairs today. Next week at the city council meeting, we expect the two new planning board members to be nominated. So they would be confirmed and seated in time for any eventual vote on this item. So we'll make sure that they're aware of all these materials in these meetings if they want to catch up. So that'll be a big item for them at potentially one of their first meetings. With that, I'm gonna pass it off to Lydia Tan of the Oakland Roots in Seoul, and then we'll continue after that with our consultants to speak about the noise and traffic.

Good evening, President Cisneros and members of the board. Thank you very much for taking time out of August to be with us today. I am Lydia Tan. I'm chief real estate officer of the Oakland Roots of Seoul. Also with me is Lindsey Behrens, who is president of the club. So if there's any operational team type questions that come up, she's available to answer those questions. Just really quickly, I'll go over some slides that we had presented last time around. Oakland Roots in Seoul, we are part of the United Soccer League. We are the first purpose-driven professional sports team in the US. And we have a men's team, women's team, and a development team as well. As Brian mentioned, we are at 1115-1220 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 long-term control, which makes us able to start thinking about planning for the future here. Lots of things happening since we were on since 2021. We certainly have our own operations on site, but we make the facility available to a number of other local and not so local uses as well. I mentioned last time we were here is that we have been a little bit of a nomad in terms of our game day operations. We've been in four locations in the last six years. You all are probably reading a little bit about the Oakland Coliseum and how it really is not a good fit for us. We are making progress towards our permanent home. We have been in lots and lots of conversations with the Port of Oakland about how we're terminal and with the eventual purchasers of the Oakland Coliseum. So we feel like we've got good, a good bead towards our permanent home. But in the meantime, we're really looking for that place that we can call home. It's a reliable place. We're not having to look every single year and really focus on winning and really activating the space and being a great partner for the community. So very quickly, our vision and goals as we start to look for a potential site is to be close to our home base, make sure that we have an amazing intimate experience for our fans, something that we're challenged with at the Coliseum. This would be a first opportunity to feel both the roots and the soul as their home matches, so men and women team both playing at the same location. As I mentioned before, a stable home for us so we can think about the future and 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 control over that. So as Brian mentioned, we've all been working really hard over the summer, particularly the technical team. And you're going to hear, again, from our sound and our transportation consultants. We've also been trying to get a better sense of operationally how we're going to work, what the requirements will be, how we're going to really make this a wonderful experience. Brian also mentioned we've been having lots and lots of conversations with the airport. We've gotten a preliminary feedback from the FAA and will be at the ALOC in September. Quickly, on this one, the FAA feedback is that our proposed field lights are too tall and could cause some issues. And so we have been working to reduce them. And the renderings now reflect light poles that are about 14 feet shorter than the last time you saw the rendering. So we continue to work and iterate to make sure that the facility meets all the requirements, the concerns that people have. We just this morning at 7.37 a.m. submitted our next application, formal application submittal response to staff comments and filling out the remainder of questions and forms that were required. And we continue to be out there in the community just making sure folks understand what we're planning, getting feedback, and making adjustments accordingly. So very quickly, these are just a short list of the folks that we have been talking to. We continue to reach out, particularly to the HOAs in the area and the residents in the area, and make sure that we're giving them as much time to give us feedback as possible. We did have an open house on August 8. It was a jointly sponsored event with the city of Alameda. which was amazing. I think it's the only way we could actually get a fire truck for the kids there, which is pretty awesome. So we had over 200 attendees come. And what I would say is it was really exciting to see this facility. in a community use. We had a great setup. The city was there to talk about the city's process and how the community can provide feedback and input. We also, as you can see, had a series of boards set up to talk about different topics that we had heard prior that were of concern. Our sound consultant, our traffic consultant, lighting consultant were all on board to make sure they could answer questions that were technical in nature. 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. Well Health sent incredible community partners out to just activate. Let's make it a fun, fun experience. Let's let people see what this facility is like and how we can do it. The top right is a scrim mural that will show up. at our first match next season. It's very much a group effort, as you can see. So we were really very thankful to the community partners who came to make sure that the community showed up, the community understood what the facility was about and what we could do at the site. 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. And just my last slide, which is some of our game day activations. It's funny. 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. So with that, I think we move on to sound. Is that right? Okay.

Yeah, Chris, you should be able to unmute and speak. Introduce yourself.

Yes, thank you, Brian. I can unmute. I am getting a video error message, so I do apologize for that. But am I coming through on audio?

Yeah, we can hear you loud and clear.

Okay, great. Maybe it's fitting since I'm the sound consultant. Good evening. It's my pleasure to be before the board this evening. My name is Chris Dugan. I'm a principal acoustic and air quality consultant with Environmental Science Associates. And I think, obviously, when you have a project involving the potential for temporary and intermittent increases in ambient noise, it's important to talk about it. In working with The Roots, we not only wanted to share and disclose information and assumptions with the local community, but we need a study to comply with CEQA. And Brian, we can move to the next slide, please. And that's what the sound assessment that I've been working on does. It answers the question, would the project expose people to noise and excess of local standards? To answer that question, we developed and ran a model that estimates sound at dozens of residential hotel commercial receptors. And then we took those estimates and we compare them against the city's objective noise standards. And I think the key word is objective. The city has adopted objective standards for the community that all projects are evaluated against to make sure that all projects are reviewed and treated the same. And that's important. And so most of my presentation and most of the sound assessment focuses on compliance with the city's objective standards. Of course, the other part of a project like this is that subjective response, the gut reaction that each individual has, their unique concern about a potential change to their noise environment. And so at the end of my presentation, I'll also talk a little about the design features that the routes have incorporated into the project to address those subjective responses. Next slide, please. So to set the stage, what are the city standards? Well, there's really two, and the first comes from the municipal code. It's on screen here. It's important to know a couple of things. Aside from the fact that there are separate standards for residential and commercial uses, what's noteworthy is that it's not one number. There are several standards in the code. The lowest or base standard is 55 decibels, and that is a value that is not to be exceeded more than 30 minutes in an hour. From that base standard, the code then allows slightly higher noise levels for shorter periods of time. Now, from my perspective, the standard of interest is the lowest standard, the 55 decibels. If the sound assessment can show that the project's estimated noise levels at their worst would be less than 55 decibels, then I feel confident telling you that the project would comply with the municipal code. Next slide, please, Brian. Second standard is from the general plan. It's a broader standard. Unlike the municipal code, which gets down to the number of minutes in an hour, the general plan is a single number, and it is a 24-hour average standard. 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. Next slide, please. Thank you. So what do we do? What does the sound assessment contain? It was basically three steps. First, we conducted a community noise survey. We were out on representative weekend and weekday nights, most likely to have a soccer match, and the purpose of the survey was to document existing or baseline conditions in the area near the training facility, and I think specifically in the residential community to the north of the training facility. I think there was an expectation that due to the proximity to the airport, the community noise survey would show elevated sound levels. And that really wasn't the case. Most of that residential development is not within the 65 CNEL airport noise contour zone. And while takeoffs and landings did increase noise levels periodically, intermittently, the overall noise environment was actually relatively low. For example, it was usually less than 60 CNEL or 60 LDN, which in general plan parlance would mean that it's a normally acceptable noise environment for the residential community. Next slide, please. Second, we worked with the roots to identify and understand what the sources of noise would be at a soccer match. And once we understood those sources, we not only reviewed manufacturer specifications and published information on how loud those sources can be, but we took empirical measurements at an actual match, including specific measurements for speakers, drummers, and spectators. While the empirical measurements were very helpful, this also led to a choice. In some cases, we had information that said spectators can generate a noise level of 80 decibels, for example, whereas we may have measured something lower, like 75 decibels. Where we had that choice, we applied the higher of the information available to us. So we conservatively chose to apply the highest sound level information we could for the project's noise sources. Next slide, please. Thank you. Third, we took this information and we developed a three-dimensional model. The model incorporates project-specific information, information like the location and height of the sound sources, the location of buildings surrounding the venue. It accounts for shielding of sound waves by the existing buildings, also accounts for reflection of sound waves off the buildings in two specific receptor locations. The model also allows us to account for differences in conditions. So for example, when we were out on July 11th at the Roots Match, unfortunately there were not 8,000 spectators at that match. But from my perspective, that's not a limitation. The model allows us to take information for a known amount of spectators and then scale it up to the proposed venue's capacity of about 8,000 spectators. The model, we put this information into the model, and it churns out sound level estimates at specific points or receptors that we've identified. So for example, the sound assessment has a receptor at each of the residents closest to the venue. And then it also produces noise contour maps, which are like a topographic map, except instead of elevations, it's decibels. And this is akin to the noise contour map that you usually would see for an airport. Next slide, please. So with any model results, we get a healthy dose of, yeah, but it's a model. And as I mentioned, 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. First, the model we've prepared, it assumes all sources generate maximum noise they can at the same time. So to be blunt, the model assumes spectators are cheering, drummers are drumming, and the speakers are blaring as loud as they can. So it's a pretty conservative approach in that regard because obviously sound levels would ebb and flow over the course of the game. The model assumes all sources are as loud as they can consistently throughout the whole game. On speakers, we modeled speakers assuming a sound level of 110 decibels. However, when we went out and took those empirical measurements, speakers never actually generated that sound level. They came in at a maximum of 109 dBA, and on average, they were seven decibels lower. So again, another conservative assumption in the model. And finally, the noise report was completed in mid-July. At the time the report was completed, the 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 the spectators and the stands down, we get more shielding of sound by the existing buildings in the business park. Okay, so to the results. On screen is an excerpt of the noise contour map that was generated by the noise model. It's similar to a temperature scale. Reds would indicate higher noise levels. Blues would indicate lower noise levels. Yellows and greens are in between. I've mentioned a lot about the shielding that the existing business park buildings provide. Unfortunately, as you can see from the contour map, and I've highlighted that with the directional arrow in the map, there is a direct line of sight from the facility to the residential neighborhood to the north of the venue. And for that reason, our maximum impact is occurring, not surprisingly, at the residence that is located the closest to the training facility. At that residence, model is estimating a noise level of 54.5 decibels. That is an exterior sound standard, and it's a prediction that is less than that base, that lowest 55 dBA standard that I started my presentation with. So while we're meeting the municipal code standard, I can't say that the project won't be audible. Even a noise level of 54.5, which complies with the standard, could still be two to four decibels above the existing noise level that we measured. I mentioned it was a relatively quiet ambient noise environment. That's on an hourly basis. On a daily noise exposure basis, looking at how does the 24-hour noise environment change, it's pretty negligible. It's less than one decibel, so really no change. I've been talking a lot about focusing on the residential receptors. The sound assessment also considers commercial and hotel receptors, and we do not exceed the standards there either. Next slide. So from the objective to the subjective, it's important to highlight some of the design features that the routes have incorporated into the project that really contribute to that estimated noise level of about 54 and a half decibels. First, most of the project sound sources are oriented away from residential receptors. So for example, there are seven speakers included in the model. Six of them are pointed to the airport. Only one of them is pointing towards the residential neighborhood in general. Second, on those speakers, speaker sound is controlled and it's really focused on the spectators. The speakers are not aiming up into the air for sound to travel over buildings. They're really focused on the spectators themselves. Third, very importantly, the closest receptor is at least 1,100 feet from any specific sound source. And most receptors in the residential neighborhood are at least a quarter of a mile away from all of the project's sound sources. So this is a long distance, a lot of way for a sound wave to travel to get to the residential neighborhood, provides for a lot of attenuation and loss of sound energy. As I mentioned, the Business Park buildings also serve to either fully or partially block most of the project's sound sources. And I would conclude with saying that this is not the first project that we've done of this type of project. The results of our model are very consistent with previous noise measurements we've made of other soccer facilities with similar type stadiums. So that's encouraging. It allows us to feel good and have confidence in the model results. So with that, I'll conclude my presentation. I'll turn it over to Andy, and of course, I'll be available for questions at the conclusion of presentations. Thank you.

Good evening, planning board members. My name is Andy Kaczynski. I'm a principal transportation planner with Ferran Pires, transportation consultant out of Oakland. And I'll be talking you through some of the details of our transportation plan for the venue, and I'll finish with a note on the CEQA analysis for transportation. The objective of our plan is to to produce convenient and comfortable experience for the fans at the same time minimizing impacts, transportation impacts to neighbors who are close to the venue. And with that in mind, here are some of the key elements of the plan. First off, we have a really rich quality of data on Roots fans, where they live, how they get to the games, from surveying Roots games at some of the current and previous venues. And so we based our plan off of that data. One of the centerpieces of the plan, as 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. 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. The second key element of the plan is sufficient parking close to the venue. And so the Routes organization has agreements in place for sufficient parking. 2,100 spaces near the site within a short walk. And in addition to this, additional remote parking spaces along the Hegenberger Corridor and at Colosseum Bar, which will be used when needed. And I'll get more into the parking in a moment. Finally, a lot of Roots fans tends to carpool, and we will further encourage that through financial incentives, cheaper parking, and priority parking locations close to the venue to minimize as much as possible traffic near the venue. And we expect most traffic to come through using the red, pink, and the blue directions, which I'll, again, talk to you in a moment. Most attendees will arrive via automobile, mainly carpool, but quite a lot of drive alone as well. So around 90% we expect to do that, with smaller proportions arriving via Uber and Lyft and taxis, around 5%. Maybe around 5% would take BART if the shuttle is available as an option. And minimal amounts of folks would walk or bike, just because of the nature that most fans are not within walking and biking range at the venue. And before the game, we found that around 2 thirds of fans arrive fairly spaced out within that one hour before the game starts. The Roots sometimes puts on some activities before the game. And a third of fans actually arrive more than an hour before the game starts. After the game, pretty much all fans are expected to leave fairly shortly thereafter. But it tends to be spread across that one hour period. And table two shows that, on average, between two and three people per vehicle is the typical we'd expect at the Roots game. So a deeper dive into parking and what this chart shows that, depending on the type of event, the parking demand fluctuates. And so the green line shows that there's 2,100 parking spaces available within walking distance of the venue. And we expect the least amount of parking demand for, let's say, a 5,000 person event on a Saturday. There tends to be more folks driving alone on a Wednesday, probably because they're coming straight from their job, I would imagine. So in that situation, the demand does slightly exceed the supply, and so 250 remote parking spaces are required. And then for a sellout on a Saturday, 740 remote spaces required, and then for a sellout on a Wednesday, which would be the rarest occasion, as most events are planned for the saturday would require the most remote parking at 1530. i want to talk about where fans are coming from because i want to address the topic of which routes they're going to take to get to this to the venue This figure shows different colored lines that indicate different directions of travel that we would expect attendees to take. I'll start with the yellow line, which is fans that actually live in Alameda, of which there's about 6% of Roots fans. And one of those six actually live on Bay Farm Island itself. So it's a relatively low proportion of traffic that starts on the island or within the city of Alameda. Then the purple, blue, and pink directions indicate there may be some traffic coming from the north, and the majority of fans are coming to and from the north. Some of those If we were not to implement the transportation plan that I'm going to step through in detail, we may expect that some of those, maybe 18%, would come through Alameda. However, the majority would continue down 880 and Hegenberger, because that's actually a quicker way to get to the venue. And we expect Google Maps and all the other apps will largely direct folks on Hegenberger anyway. And then there's some traffic coming more from the east and the south, blue and red, and again, expecting those folks to take Hegenberger or 95th. We've heard very much in the public event and about Is there a potential for cut-through traffic through neighborhoods? And so our plan puts many measures in place to deter this to the extent possible. And so the first of those is local traffic only signs, which will be installed on the game days, temporary signs. They'll be showing that message in a temporary manner. As you come off do a little onto Island Drive one of them as you come off Maitland on top of a parkway and in Three of the locations as shown with the red stars Furthermore after the game to prevent Drivers driving up harbor Bay Parkway and turning on to Maitland We will in addition to the local traffic only sign have cones there to more thoroughly deter that unwanted behavior with the option of a traffic control officer or event staff stationed there in addition to that. These measures will encourage drivers to use Hagenberger and 98th Avenue as well as other measures I will mention. Other things to discourage cut-through traffic is that nearly half of the parking will be remote, with free match-day shuttles, which will mean that fewer vehicles are in the vicinity of the venue. Furthermore, when a fan purchases their game ticket, at that moment they'll have the option to purchase a parking pass for a specific lot, with the expectation that almost really all fans will know exactly where they're going with their parking pass to minimize folks showing up and trying to find the space the routes are avoiding lots that are adjacent to the neighborhoods and then finally we will be staffing all of the lots with parking attendants and security personnel to really make sure that the lot usage is as clean and orderly We did an analysis of traffic operations at seven different intersections close to the venue, and these intersections capture the full extent of really any disruptions to traffic that we anticipate. So you can see them here, three very close to the venue and a few further out on Roncown Parkway and Harbor Bay Parkway. I'll step through those results. This is a table of the traffic conditions that we would expect before and after a game. And these are the traffic conditions before the seven intersections in this table. And what we're showing in existing conditions is that before a game, In the existing conditions, I should say that during a Wednesday before the game at 6 o'clock and a Saturday after the game at 9 o'clock, there's very little traffic in this area. I think we all know that intuitively that this area is not particularly busy in the evenings after the work rush, it pretty much empties out. And so that's what these results are showing. So in many ways, that makes this a relatively good location for a venue. When on the right hand of this table is when we're loading on our game day traffic to those conditions. We're finding that for that one hour before the game, and we're sharing a Wednesday here, but Saturday would have very similar results. The traffic congestion worsens a little bit. For those familiar with level of service letter grades, C is as bad as it gets, which means minimal delay, really. So that's because fans are spread out across more than an hour, and so there isn't really much in the way of traffic conditions. After the game... It's a different story because everyone wants to leave pretty much at the same time. So that's when we're expecting there to be quite a lot more congestion. And so there are two locations where that really takes hold. The first is immediately next to the venue at South Loop Road and Harbor Bay Parkway, where it's F, which essentially means heavily congested. more demand than supply, and then at Roncown and Harbor Bay Parkway, where it's E, which means the driver's going to experience quite a lot of delays, but the intersection is large enough to really process those vehicles. So I'm going to speak to those two intersections now and what we're going to do about that traffic issue. This is a map of the venue area. And so what it's showing is, in orange, the project site. 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. And that is because we're expecting a lot of people to be exiting the venue and entering the venue and then going north to go to their vehicles. And so by closing the road there, it simplifies circulation and separates pedestrians from traffic in that key location furthermore we are instituting in pink a particular pickup and drop-off zone for ubers and lifts and taxis and so on so forth have a separate area for that and you'll notice there's a lot of traffic control offices placed at all of the key intersections in the area This is a zoom in to that intersection right next to the venue. So in Orange, that's where the temporary road closure is going to be. And what we're trying to do is make sure that pedestrians have a safe and comfortable experience. So we'll be making traffic control officers, ensuring they have enough time to cross the street with a completely separate phase. So we don't have people crossing and cars turning at the same time. And then we will have the traffic control officers posted so that B Street can empty, two lanes can empty at a time, which is going to really increase the traffic flow through this intersection and get people out of here as quickly as is possible. And then further to the east, after the game here at Roncown and Harbor Bay, we'll post up a traffic control officer here to... Enable those drivers going eastbound on Ron Cowan headed towards Hagen burger To proceed even at times when they have a red light and that again will get traffic flowing out of the venue as quickly as possible and Will encourage people to take Ron Cowan and encourage encourage people take Hagen burger and not cut through the island of Alameda to go to and from the north And On the topic of vehicle miles traveled, which is what is the required CEQA, environmental analysis, for this project, we found the VMT impact to be less than significant. But I want to step through why that's the case. The way that the analysis was conducted is if we can conclude that the project's VMT impacts are within the envelope as was studied in the general plan, and by the envelope I mean The expected growth in this area between existing and a future year, the general plan assumes a growth of 2,000 jobs in this area by the venue. And 2,000 jobs generates an annual vehicle miles traveled of 6.8 million. Our project would generate an annual vehicle miles traveled of 3.1 million, which is well within the budget that the general plan cleared for this particular area. So that leads us to conclude that the environmental impact of vehicle miles traveled is within that envelope, and it's less than significant. So CEQA does not require any mitigation measures for vehicle miles traveled. Happy to answer questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you.

All right. Thanks for sticking with us. 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 so we can get an accurate count. We may have to, we may be triggering the sort of two minute per person threshold, depending on how many hands get raised. We've got Daniel Turner from the city attorney's office, Steve and myself from planning. We've got Sarah Lee, our public works engineer, as well as the project team and the consultants all available to answer any questions.

Great, thank you so much for the presentation. I'll bring it to the board for any clarifying questions. And as you said, open up for public comment, and then we can share our feedback for this workshop. And reminder, there's no decision being made that'll come later September, October time period. So to my fellow board members, any questions for the consultants or staff? Board Member Wang.

Yeah, thank you to staff, to the applicant, and to the consultant for a very thorough presentation. Just a couple quick questions. First question is about transportation. I think I saw in the transportation management plan that the local traffic only signs would be at least a certain subset of them would be permanent. But I think in your presentation just now, you said they would be installed on game days. Could you clarify that difference a little bit?

Yeah. It may be that the signs are permanent insofar as they are erected and then covered unless it's a game day. So the message will be displayed temporarily so it has the maximum impact on the game day. But otherwise, it would be covered. And the alternative is that the signs themselves are temporary. That will be figured out later in the process.

OK. Generally, the intent is that they're active only on game days?

Absolutely. OK. Understood. OK.

That was it. Thank you. Question to staff then. I wonder if you could tell us a little more on what's going on with the Airport Land Use Commission.

Sure. So basically, the state mandates a process. There's probably others who can speak to this a little bit better than me if I miss anything. But state mandates that counties adopt airport land use compatibility plans to govern and influence There's airport influence area, and this project very clearly is being between two of the primary runways at the Oakland airport, is in the Oakland airport's influence area. And there's sort of guidelines from the state, and then there's a Oakland airport specific land use plant compatibility plan that this project needs to get weighed against, and there's certain standards that are adopted and guidelines. Airport Land Use Commission is a mix of representatives throughout the county, and they meet infrequently for projects like this, and they sort of judge the project against that criteria. We have referred the project to county staff who are reviewing it against the guidelines. You did have a letter from early July shortly after the original study session from the Port of Oakland staff who raised a number of concerns about compatibility. We've been working with them closely to make sure we're addressing those concerns. I think some of the items in that letter, it was sort of the initial reaction and also sort of at the high level, how does it, you know, are these things consistent in a perfect world with being next to an airport? And then when you get to the actual Oakland airport plan, you start to see a little more nuance in some of those guidelines. So one of the things, you know, they don't encourage large assembly type events like this or venues in the airport influence area. But there's criteria for them to permit it. Basically, if you can demonstrate that there's not another viable alternative. And I think you heard Lydia speak of the sort of nomad existence of the routes over the last six years. So we think there's a pretty good case to be made for why this is a reasonable alternative. location and that they sort of met that justification. There's some other things that they're looking at, like where are the lights going to be? How are they going to be pointed? These are modern LED lights, so we're fairly confident that they're going to, whether it's for our own dark skies ordinance at the city level or the airport and the air traffic controllers and the pilots, to make sure that it's going to be compatible and it's not going to create any hazards for things like that. Obviously, we heard about the FAA review. That's sort of a technical airspace review, which is resulting in, preliminarily, a little bit lowering of the lights. So we're working through those questions with the port. They are obviously a key stakeholder, a key partner for the city. key member of the Airport Land Use Commission themselves. They sit on that body. And it's their airport, so they're going to have a lot to say. And so if and when we come back to you, assuming successful resolution with the ALUC, we'll be working closely with them when it comes time to craft appropriate conditions of approval to make sure we make sure that the venue is a good neighbor for the airport. Does that answer?

That's super helpful. Thank you.

Thank you Thank you for the presentations very informative I have specific questions on the various, you know traffic parking lighting and noise But I have some some general questions first if I may and maybe I'll ask these before we have the public comments I could follow up with my more technical questions after public comments, but to One of the things I was trying to clarify is the maximum capacity, which is 8,000. So it appears that the environmental analysis assumes the highest capacity, 8,000, probably like a sellout crowd and all of that, which is good, because that's a conservative approach. But then when I was looking at some of the plans, like the seating capacity in the plans, which showed like 6,700 seats, And then the parking analysis then shows 6,000 seats. Could you clarify what is the actual capacity? If the stands do not seat up to 8,000, where's the additional capacity? The people said employees or what? Because I'm a little confused with the actual capacity.

Absolutely. Happy to try to answer this, and if perhaps Lydia has anything to add. The sort of fine-grained details of the plans, the big picture is seats on three sides of the field, sort of top, bottom, and left in this image. The specific heights and the specific capacity has been refined a little bit. This is the latest version. This packet went out as we were completing our review of the previous submittal. We've got a lot of parallel processes going on here where you guys are experiencing it at the same time staff is. This is the latest version. So the stand capacity is showing 7,639 and then they essentially have 361, I think that large party is field field seeding as well as in that right side, basically under some like tenths, 10 by 10 tenths and whatnot, there would be some field level seeding sort of that aren't part of the bleachers. But overall, total tickets sold or tickets issued, 8,000 attendance is the project that we've been studying. How it's configured, it's a little nipping and tucking here and there, but we're sticking with 8,000. If you look at their numbers and expectations sort of at what their history is and the average, they said they have a few sort of what I think Lindsey's called these like the tentpole games a year, where the opening day, when they play Sacramento, et cetera, where they might expect the sellouts. Typically, I think it's not uncommon for them to have 4,000 or 5,000 at a match. So obviously, from a CEQA standpoint, study the maximum impact and from whether we anticipate. In reality, we sort of account for both of those.

Yeah, so thank you. And that's good, because you're assuming the kind of like the worst case scenario, or for the roots, the best case scenario, I suppose. The other question I have is really from a processing standpoint. You've mentioned the ALOC, Alameda Land Use Commission, review that's needed as well as FAA review. What level of approval or sign off will be required before this comes to the board? I know you're going to be probably having conditional approval that provides more detail, but will we actually get some at least conceptual or initial approval from both agencies? And then the second part question is based on your comments, will the fire metal reveal be adjusted based on, for instance, you're lowering the lights, which is probably a positive thing for residences, 15 feet or whatever it is.

Yeah, absolutely. So the way that we're anticipating it, there's sort of the ALUC, which is sort of reviewing the land use, the compatibility of the use. In that process, we have to have a determination on land use compatibility before the planning board can act. Like, our general plan requires it. It's part of the mitigations, probably. City attorney can... Explain the history and and probably we've got a settlement agreement for you know with the airport from many many years ago And so we have to have that determination There is a process for the city council if, for some reason, we're not expecting this or planning for this, where the city council could essentially make that determination or overrule a not favorable determination from the ALUC. We're not anticipating going that route. But essentially, before this board can approve a project, an 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, they may make a decision. I haven't been to an ALUC meeting, but they could make some recommendations or say that their sort of determination is conditioned on similar to you make conditions of approval. The FAA review is more, as I understand it, more of a technical exercise. I don't think you know, it's a question of are you poking into the airspace or not and does it need to be adjusted, right? That's sort of the airspace like an upside down wedding cake as it moves out from the airport that they have control over. And so that, you know, whether the lights are five feet higher or lower is something that, you know, probably this board could make an approval of a land use application of a use permit or design review. And as long as we're in the ballpark when they come and apply for building permits, they would have to have the FAA approval before they started construction. Before they get their building permits, probably. So I think that's how we anticipate it working.

And then another process questions the parking, you know I mean there's discussion of up to 2100 spaces that would be off-site in agreements with adjacent property owners To what level will we receive some preliminary? assurance or some preliminary agreement that these business park owners have agreed in concept at least to open up their lots for parking during game days and

Yeah, absolutely. Great question. I think we've started to think about what that looks like and how we ensure that. We haven't sort of written a resolution or a draft conditions of approval yet, but one way we could do that might be, you know, here's the concept of how the parking plan is going to work. Once they get approval, a condition of approval might say before you get a certificate of occupancy or before your first match you need to provide staff with signed agreements showing, you know, X number of spaces within X, Y minutes walking distance of the facility before you can start to operate games. So we can, you know, I think one way to do that would potentially be through a condition of approval where we say you need to have, you know, they might have some parking on site over in the sort of end of their lot for employees and then an additional 2,000 or whatever that number is going to be parking spaces in the business park identified that will be available for your matches before you can proceed.

like before you get a building permit or occupancy or something like that.

Yeah, I think occupancy. Yeah, we'll have to discuss what the trigger is.

It would be good, be beneficial for us to see where they stand with the negotiations, because I know some of the property owners might have some concern about liability and insurance when you bring this item to us. I don't expect signed, fee-fully executed agreements. And then my final question is a clarification regarding the CEQA consultants. I see that the checklist was, the memo was addressed to the city, so I'm assuming the city is the client, ESA. However, ESA's, the memo regarding the noise analysis was to the roots. So I'm a little confused. Who's the actual client? It looks like the technical studies were, is this correct, was done through Oakland Roots, asked the client, and they submitted it to the city. And then the city prepared the final report, even though ESA kind of like serving both parties. But so if it turns out the roots did submit these technical studies for farm analysis, have staff reviewed these studies, peer reviewed them, and are the versions that we see incorporate staff comments?

Yes. And we've done this a number of times. Essentially, the way the relationship works is they are, ESA and Farron Peers are invoicing the roots. but their scope of work and their direction. They're taking direction on the CEQA checklist from staff on what to include and incorporating our comments. So yes, what you see today reflects you know, our input on what the scope of work should be. We obviously worked, you know, hand in hand with the consultant and the applicant to make sure we're addressing everything that needs to be included in that checklist. But they essentially, the bill goes to them, but they do what we tell them. Does that make sense?

And I know ESA and Fair Impairs are very reliable professional firms. I have no question about their objectivity. But is it correct to say that the city is the client for all of these studies, although the applicant pays the bill, so to speak?

Yeah, they're preparing them for us at our direction. OK.

I just wanted to make sure that was clear. Absolutely.

Thank you Thank you board member sue Thank you for the presentation very helpful information. Um, my main question is on Parking and transportation. I was wondering if we can go back to the slide. I think it was called parking demand and supply Estimate and it had like it's basically comparing I think parking demand On different days. Yeah this one so So the 2100, when we say near site, is that within the vicinity? Or are we talking about also spaces like along Hegenberger and Barth Coliseum?

No, the 2,100 is the expected number of parking supply that they will have in the business park. In the business park, OK.

So Saturday, so even like when we're looking at a Saturday, if you've got, is that 8,000? yeah so yeah okay yeah um the 740 that means you're gonna need based on you know assuming you've got 8 000 people coming then you need 740 parking spaces off-site so that's yeah bart or coliseum um okay this is helpful so the follow-up question i had is i think further down in this deck there was a comment saying that nearly half of the parking will be remote with service by shuttle. So I believe that was further down. I think my question is basically, if even on a Saturday you only need 740 remote spaces, but you're saying half of the parking will be met by remote, that just seems to be a discrepancy in the math. And so I wonder, yeah.

Yeah, I can clarify. And what it means is that in the event of the maximum parking demand, that bar on the right, only in that situation would maybe nearly half of the parking be remote. But the plan is that the remote parking would only be available if the tickets sold are enough to justify it. So we would fill up the 2100 first and then only use the remote, if needed, above the 2100.

OK. So then the requirement that nearly half the parking will be remote, as in like at BART or Coliseum or Hagenward, that's not necessarily, I guess that would only maybe be in the case if you were exceeding parking that's available? Exactly.

That would not be the case on most of the scenarios. It would only be the case on like the eight, the sellout on the Wednesday would nearly half the parking be remote. Right.

OK. OK, I've got some comments, but I think that's it for now. Thank you. OK, yeah, thanks.

Thank you. Thank you. And my question also related to traffic, the theme of traffic. I understand why the intersections that were analyzed were analyzed. And I did wonder, what would warrant additional traffic analysis? And this is maybe my little myopic view, where I do wonder about Island Drive going on and off Bay Farm and looking at the arrows on figure four from the, and I think there's a version of that in here in this deck. It's not a huge number, but it's like 18% of the traffic, whether it's coming from Firmside or other parts of Alameda or Oakland, will be coming through Island Drive. So it was just, yeah, that one. Yeah, I was just wondering, I guess, why not do that analysis for that intersection, knowing that might be impacted?

Yeah, so this chart indicates that 18% of the fans could come through Alameda. And that's an absolute worst case, because with some of the measures we're proposing, we're encouraging folks to use Hagenberger. So we anticipate the number to be less. That being said, these are the numbers we used to do traffic analysis, just to present the conservative viewpoint. And what we... Before the game, I think it's very reasonable to conclude that because the traffic numbers are spread over such a time period, I don't think anywhere is going to have much of a difference in traffic numbers that would be meriting study, as our table is showing. After the game, when there is that more of a crush load coming away from the stadium, The first intersection next to the stadium essentially meters how much cars can actually go through. By that I mean it only has a certain amount of capacity, and there's more people want to get through it than it can handle just in that immediate moment after the game, which is why there's going to be queues for people coming out of the parking lots. That's just a fact of life for any major sports event. And, but what that intersection serves, what it does is, because it can only, has capacity for so many cars to get through, it really makes sort of the traffic results downstream of that a lot better, because it's limiting the amount of vehicles that can really pass through. And so, because as you go up Bay Farm Parkway and go to, Doolittle and Island, those streets tend to have roughly the same amount of lanes, same amount of capacity. And because what we're seeing at Harbor Bay Parkway Island Drive was a very minimal impact of the traffic on that intersection. There's no reason for us to believe that anywhere even further than that would have anything larger than that. So we're very confident that there wouldn't be impacts further away than that location.

And maybe I'll just add to that a little bit. I think one of the things I mentioned, sort of our review was concurrent with putting out the agenda for this meeting. One of the comments we gave in the last round was to get a more granular look at the trip distribution within Bay Farm. I know this exhibit sort of points all those arrows straight at Island Drive, but I think the expectation is the vast majority of those vehicles will continue down Doolittle to Harbor Bay Parkway. And obviously the traffic control plans will respond to sort of how that granular information, you know, do we need to have the signage or other interventions further upstream to make sure folks are sticking to the preferred routes.

Yeah, I remember that. More going 880. Okay, great. Thank you. That was my question. Any other questions from the board? If not, we could open up for public comments. How many speakers do we have?

If anyone would like to speak, please raise your hand on Zoom. I've got two hands online and five slips in my hand, so seven total at the moment.

Okay. How does the board feel about keeping it at three minutes if it's just seven speakers? Okay.

Yeah.

We'll go ahead and keep it at three. All right.

We'll start in person. First speaker, John DeBoer.

Suggestion, maybe have people keel up.

Yeah, yeah, that'd be great. Do you want to name the next couple?

Yeah, Harry, is that Constantopoulos? And followed by Ronald Canfield after.

Great suggestion. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is John DeBoer. My wife and I, Melissa, have been Bay Farm residents for over 20 years. During that time, we've witnessed many positive changes in Alameda. As we raise our family here, we continue to support opportunities that will strengthen our community. We strongly support the Oakland Roots and Souls having home games at Harbor Bay. We feel this will provide a safe, wholesome family environment that's affordable entertainment for residents and Alameda neighboring communities. The presence of professional soccer games would create opportunities for youth to watch and become more engaged in sports, live healthier activity lives, and just positive community environments. The Oakland Roots and Soul organization has demonstrated a strong commitment to the community, engagement, diversity, inclusion, and values that well align with Alameda's character and culture. Professional soccer matches would provide a unique gathering places for families, neighbors, visitors, fostering community pride, and creating shared experiences. Allowing the club to host these matches on Harbor Bay would be a positive addition and benefit the entire Alameda community. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your comment.

Next up, Harry Constantine.

Let you introduce yourself, Harry, followed by Rob Roberto. Oh, excuse me. Robert Ronald Canfield and Roberto Lamas.

After that. Hello. My name is Harry Constantopoulos, and I'm the business agent for Local 107, stagehands who currently supply all the labor for these wonderful folks. We love having them in Oakland. They've actually brought some life. We lost most of our sports team, as you all know. It's a shame we couldn't host them there permanently. It's a great facility. They can make all the noise they want. But that's another subject. So anyway, I think it all sounds great. We love Alameda. We would just like to be part of the collective bargaining agreement. I see all these great plans and stuff, but I don't really see a breakdown of like, well, Local 107, it's in our jurisdiction. It's the International Alliance of Theatrical Stagehands Employees Local 107. Not sure if you're familiar with them, but it sure would be great to have a presence in Alameda, just like we do now. And I know there's some great things coming up. There's the Radom Theater in Alameda that's coming. I think Alameda is going to be a pretty happening place. I currently have some rental property in Alameda, and I used to live in Alameda. But 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. 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 team to come in the area. And, yeah, we're greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you.

Your next speaker, Ronald Canfield, followed by Roberta Lamas and Kathy Weber.

Well, I don't have a very good speech, I have to warn you. It's not as good as most of yours or people that have been up here prior to me. I'm a resident of Alameda on Bay Farm. I live in that direct line for the sound that was shown on the graph. I've been here for 40 years. I think it's going to change the community. I think it's an improper location for this type of a venue. I think they're great at what they do, but I would like them not to do it in Harbor Bay Park. The parking that they're discussing, overflow parking, I can see my house on your screen up there when it was up earlier. The parking that they're going to expand to looks like it would be Penumbra's parking. Penumbra has lots of facilities there, but they're on B Street. I can look out my back door, open my bedroom door, and look out the back and see Penumbra's parking lot. I can't wait till I have people at midnight straggling through, screaming and hollering, revving their engines, making all kinds of noise and disturbance. This isn't the community I moved into. And as a practice field, it was great. It was never a problem. But as a facility with 8,000 people, nighttime, daytime, or 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 this even looks like it's going to go forward. And I hope it doesn't. With the homeowners associations that have lots of property right there, we already buck up against a numbers commercial area. That was supposed to be a office space. It turned into a factory. So a lot of things seem to morph into other things than they originally thought to be. Thank you for your time, and thank you for your consideration and for your thoughtful questions.

Thank you.

Next up, Roberto Llamas, followed by Kathy Weber. Kathy Weber?

Good evening, President Cisneros, members of the planning board, and city staff. I'm Kathy Weber, executive director with Downtown Alameda Business Association. And I'm here on behalf of the 400 businesses that we represent. We are pleased to support the Oakland Roots and Soul proposal to use their Harbor Bay Parkway training facility for professional and community sporting events over the next three to five years. We think that this is a remarkable opportunity for the city of Alameda. Bringing soccer matches and other sporting events to the facility will introduce people to Alameda. 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, and spend some time before or after the event. And all of that is good for all of our businesses. It's also a chance to introduce people to Alameda who might not otherwise have a reason to visit. Once they discover our friendly community, we're sure they want to come back and explore our restaurants, our shops, and other experiences outside of game day. While we understand that there are some noise, transportation, and traffic concerns that come along with hosting larger events, we're confident that those issues can be thoughtfully addressed through planning and coordination with the city, the team, and our community. From our perspective, this proposal checks a lot of important boxes. It introduces and brings people to Alameda. It creates economic activity for our local businesses, provides opportunities for residents and young people. And once again, it strengthens our connection to the broader Bay Area sports community. We believe that Alameda can be a valuable partner while the Roots continue looking for a long-term stadium solution. Thank you for your time and for your consideration.

Thank you.

It will go online to Madeline Sadek followed by Joe Ernst.

Good evening, President Cisneros and members of the planning board. I'm Madeline Sadek, the president and CEO of the Alameda Chamber and Economic Alliance. 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. 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. The Alameda Chamber and Economic Alliance has a longstanding relationship with the Oakland Roots and so on. 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 local businesses. We also commend the city staff and Oakland Roots and Soul for the work they have done studying the transportation impact on the proposal. Through really collaboration with the Harbor Bay Business Park and other stakeholders, they have really developed a transit and parking plan designed to lessen impact on its surrounding Harbor Bay community. From the Alameda Chamber prospects, really, this really presents an amazing and unique economic development opportunity for Alameda. Also knowing that the city of Alameda is not really subsidizing this project. The Oakland Roots in Seoul will be making this investment and really covering all costs. So at match days, we can bring new visitors to Alameda and also additional customers to Alameda businesses, restaurants, and hotels. But there's also another community benefit that I think it's very valuable and important. A practice facility that has really I mean, traditionally, it was really close to the public, right? 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. For all these reasons, the Alameda Chamber and Economic Alliance fully supports the Oakland Roots and Soul and this opportunity to invest in Alameda. We encourage the planning board to support this moving forward. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

And next speaker is Joe Ernst.

Thank you. My name is Joe Ernst. I am a resident of Alameda. I've had the opportunity to be a developer and investor in the business park for nearly 25 years. 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, we strongly support the roots. I think this will be fantastic for economic development for the business park and for the city, create more opportunity for our hotels, more amenities. And I know from personal experience firsthand that the roots are just a tremendous community partner. They will work with the community to make this work And this will be a tremendous benefit for the city. So I hope when this comes before you for a decision that you will approve it and To the benefit of our community, thank you That's the last of our speakers

OK, great. Thank you. And with that, we'll close public comment. Thank you so much to members of the public for your thoughtful feedback. I'll bring it back to the board for discussion. Would anyone like to begin? Board Member Ha?

Sure, I'll begin. And my comments are now really more specific. And first of all, I want to thank you to everyone who spoke. I think certainly the concerns about the impacts of the facilities are acknowledged. And I think the studies are trying to address those. I do have some comments and questions to maybe to further dive into the analysis to maybe try to improve the confidence level of residents that the impacts are adequately addressed. But first of all, I do acknowledge the economic benefits of such a facility for the community. So to me it's a balancing of how can we achieve these economic impacts, but at the same time ensure that residents who live near the facility aren't adversely impacted. So with that, I have some comments. Regarding the traffic study, There seems to be, to me anyway, a disconnect between the assumptions and the analysis. For instance, if I read it correctly, like on table four, it's assuming about 2 thirds of the attendees will be arriving by bar, which is a very high number. Hopefully that will happen. But then when I do the math and you subtract out 2 thirds from 8,000, you get down to about 2,500. attendees that will be driving or carpooling. But at the same time, there's an estimate that there's a need for 2,100 parking spaces. So I'm kind of wondering whether we're overestimating the number of parking spaces needed or overestimating the riders, the modal split of people that will be taking part. So I would kind of ask that that be aligned or looked at again to ensure that they are consistent. The second item, and this has to do with where the traffic is coming from, I truly hope that Park Street businesses and Alameda business will benefit from the visitors that come to this facility. 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. So I think maybe the traffic analysis needs to take into consideration the possibly visitor traffic that might choose to hopefully come to Alameda before the game and maybe afterwards if the businesses are open at the pubs and things. So that's kind of a concomitant that regarding the 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. I'd like to hear a little bit more from the police department on how are they going to be asked to provide this, maybe off-duty officers or on-duty officers providing the traffic enforcement? And is that going to be compensated by the routes? Or how is that going to be taken care of on game days? So that's the question I have. And I know that one of the comments had to do with concern about emergency routes. So it would be good to confirm that during those peak arrival or departure periods that emergency access is maintained for ambulances and things like that that serves the neighborhood. So those are just some comments I have regarding the traffic analysis. Regarding the lighting, I think it's beneficial that FAA is requiring the lights to be lowered, but what would be beneficial to ensure that residents understand the level of impact is you might do a photo sim showing down that corridor where the gentleman in the audience can see the stadium to see how visible are these lights will be from the residents that directly can view the stadium. I know they're going to be downward facing lights. But it would be good just to provide a photo sim to show how much of a visual impact will be on the residents that have a line of sight to the stadium. So that might be a beneficial analysis to provide. Regarding the noise analysis, I really do appreciate that the noise analysis really takes, I want to underscore, it's a very conservative approach. It assumes 110 dBA disables throughout the entire hour of the event, which is not really going to happen, because that assumes there will be peaks and valleys. But even at that point, the conclusion was that the most severe standard of 55 dBA was still being met. It would be good to also just to verify. The MSMO code has the other standards, especially for, I think, the one minute interval or maybe the shorter interval. to confirm that those, I think that noise level was 70 decibels. It would be good to confirm that during those peak periods that that 100 decibel rating that's being used for valuation that that still complies with those most severe standards because 100 decibel is four times louder than say 80 or is probably six times louder than 70 or something like that so it'd be good to just complete that analysis and maybe the noise analysis already covers that i didn't i gotta be honest i didn't read the voice analysis in detail but it'd be good to just substantiate that for record i'm just trying to like make sure things are well covered And then one thing I mentioned last time, it's not really part of the environmental assessment, but it would be good to see a solid waste plan. I know it would probably be a condition of approval. But efforts, I think we mentioned it, to really promote sustainability practices. If there could be something submitted, a proposal on how the events will be managed to maximize sustainability, solid waste recycling practices, pickup of litter offsite that might occur as part of the game. So I wanted to point that out as a comment. And let's see, did I cover everything? Yeah, I think that's my main comments. Thank you.

Could I just, Board Member Humm, I think I got all your comments. The first one, you were commenting on table four. I just want to make sure I understand what you were concerned about. We brought it up here, too.

And it could be I'm misunderstanding the analysis. So do you want me to kind of go over it again?

Yeah, can you restate it? Or maybe, Andy, did you? Sure.

When I look at table four and you see the far right column, it says within one hour of the game, I think if I'm reading this right, this is 65. Well, actually, 75% of the people arriving will be taking BART.

Gotcha.

Yeah, right? So when I say, OK, 75, subtract from 8,000 attendees, I use 65%. Then you get down to like 2,600. I think I can just stop you there.

What that number is representing is 75% of the 5% or 6% of people that will come by BART will arrive within one hour. So this is the percentage of the BART pie is arriving in that hour. But it's not a percent. The 75% is not of the entire 8,000. It's only of the 6%, which would be 500 people or whatever that arrive by BART.

Three fourths of them would be coming. So what are we assuming as far as the number of attendees arriving by BART and taking shuttle?

5%. Only 5%? OK. All right.

OK. Is there a way to increase that number, I guess? That seems pretty low. You know, like maybe offering discount on BART passes? I don't know what it is.

I mean, 5% seems pretty low to me. I would say it's hard to move the needle much higher just because when people ride transit, every time you have to transfer to another transit system, that deters a lot of people. So I think anything much more than 5% is unrealistic, unfortunately, just given how far away it is from the station.

I know how challenging it is. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah, that is one. I mean, you know.

Thanks for clarifying. I misread that table. Yeah. OK. One other comment I might add is that I really appreciate the transportation management plan. I mean, it's a requirement of the city. And I know they'll be regularly monitored as the games go on over the next five years. But it would be good for the comfort level of residents. Maybe you already do this, but to have it posted on the website of annual reports, maybe on the ROOT's website or on the city's website. So for transparency, residents can have access to it. So that's just another suggestion. OK, thanks.

Great, thank you. Next, anyone else for Member Hsu?

So thank you for all the public comment. And I'll say I think the staff and the Oakland Roots team and consultants so far have done a solid job in analyzing this project and looking at all the issues from different angles. I will say as a recovering CEQA attorney, I felt the noise analysis was actually particularly in-depth and well done for even a project of this size. I think for me, my main concern, and I do live on Bay Farm near Island and McCartney, I think the main concern for me is parking. I think today the TDM plan is off to a good start. I would like to see ultimately, I think, just some more kind of, and I know this is very preliminary, so as you get into more kind of the detail, performance standards I think would be helpful. 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. But anything I think we can do to reduce vehicle usage So performance standards, there's a lot of discussion about having traffic control officers, signs that either will be placed out or covered up when not in use. Someone's going to need to go out and do all those things, like put out the sign. Someone's going to need to coordinate on the TCO. And so I agree with the comment on the police department involvement. But I think, you know, having an in-depth TDM plan, and if it's a kind of even more detailed plan of, like, game day, this is what things look like, like, who's going out and putting out those signs? Who is making sure traffic control officers need to, you know, know where they need to be? You know to the public comment about you know parking You know near the site I think there was someone in the during the presentation said that they're trying to locate the parking spots Parking locations as far away from the neighborhoods I think that's a great idea and I would love to see in the next iteration kind of a furthering of that of that idea and more effort to try to locate these parking locations more just kind of closer to the to the to the soccer stadium and away from the The neighborhood so but that those are all my comments for now.

Thank you Thank you and remember Wayne Okay, okay good All right, I think I'll just add a similar vein of thought to board members to Plus one, not only more parking close to the soccer facility, but I was also wondering about encouraging the parking near the Coliseum part and having those shuttles and encouraging more of that carpooling. Because it sounded like from the analysis, when we hit the max capacity, then we'll look at that strategy and I do wonder if we want to like shift that like let's encourage that strategy so we don't have so much cars coming in so that's I think just double clicking a little bit on using Less cars. And, yeah, just huge thanks to my fellow board members for the great questions and comments. Many thanks to members of the public for taking the time this evening for all your insights and comments on both sides. This is a great opportunity. project on different scales and we will see how the board comes to their determination in September and appreciate the concerns appreciate the optimism and All sides of everyone's perspectives so I Guess with that the staff have any other clarifying questions for the board as we move forward with next steps.

I

I think we got what we needed. I think we got some good feedback about what to make sure we're covering. I think if we wanted to go over any of those things, we could probably do some preliminary responses, or we could just make sure that some of those things that Board Member Hahn pointed out, we will make sure we've got included in the final package and address those. But thank you for your time.

Okay, great. And with that, we'll go ahead and close agenda item 5A. Thank you, everyone. And we'll move on to agenda item 6, which is staff communications. We have items A and B. Yeah.

On 6A, you have in your packet an attachment that lists recent decisions over longer period than usual because you had a bit of a recess, so we've been sending emails of those decisions as they happen so that you didn't miss anything, and then we've summarized them here. I will say one of them has been appealed, and so will be coming to you at the end of September, September 28th. So there will be a design review appeal that will come to you, as well as possibly another hearing on this item, the Roots and Soul. Also, before that, on September 14, Your agenda includes zoning update for the community commercial, which is the zoning along Park Street and Webster Street. So that staff report will be coming to you soon. And you also will be seeing an item at the Beach and Tennis Club at South Shore. which is a use permit and design review amendment to change the commercial space that has been very lightly used over the past 30 or 40 years into residential space.

Okay, great. Thank you. Any questions? If not, any public comments for agenda item six? Okay. We'll go ahead and close that item. Agenda item seven is board communications. Any announcements from the board, I think? We had a couple of questions, and it was alluded to a little bit already in this meeting. Yes, we did come back a little bit early for our summer break, so huge thanks to everyone for coming out a little bit early, and it sounds like our next planning board meeting is September 14th.

Correct.

Yeah, okay.

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.

Okay, two new planning board members. Okay, great. And I'm actually gonna be absent on that day So I don't know what the policy is for like would run the meeting. I'm out On the 14th.

Mm-hmm Looks like our vice president has resigned her seat so And we haven't had elections because we usually like to hold those when we have a full board, right? so

And we could chat offline if that's easier. Yeah. Okay. All right. That sounds good.

Or should we hold an election now for?

I think they could just temporarily appoint one. Temporarily appoint one. At that meeting.

At the meeting. Okay. Yeah. Okay. We'll do that.

Okay. Sounds good. Okay. Any other board questions or announcements? Yes, Board Member Wang.

I just have a question on the status of the short-term rental ordinance. Is that?

Short-term rental ordinance. We have the short-term rental ordinance and the ADU revisions that you also reviewed. that allows condo sale as well as some other cleanup. Those are both going to the city council. They were sort of floating on the schedule for a little while. They've settled on September 15. Thank you. And that would be the first reading, assuming that goes through, then second reading, and then a 30-day period before they go into effect.

Thank you.

Great. Any other? Yes, Board Member Howell.

Since we were talking about Harbor Bay Park, this goes back a couple of years ago. The planning board approved that the hotel, I guess it was a Hilton, I forgot, or a Hyatt, or whatever it is. But there was a requirement for some type of art installation. I think they maybe have talked about a mural or something like that, right at that prominent corner. And it looks like the hotel is getting close to completion. I'm just kind of wondering what the status of the art installation is.

Yeah. sort of evolving based on, again, airport influence area, concerns about moving lights and flashing lights and bright lights. So it's been redesigned. It's under installation. I think the hotel and the art are kind of on the same timeline of not quite done, and we're not quite sure when. But it's underway.

OK. Has it significantly changed? I remember last time we got approval, some kind of a lighting scheme, right? I don't know who was still here. Were you? Yeah. I just don't remember. So that got, because of some airport concerns, that got redesigned.

Yeah. And so it's being reviewed by the public art staff.

Okay. Okay. I was just wondering because I drive by it almost every day. Okay.

Thanks. Like a glaring reminder. Yeah. Yeah. Or lack of, I guess. Not glaring. Lack of glaring. Yeah. Okay. Great. Any other comments or questions for staff? Yes. Board Member Hsu.

I don't know if you probably have much of an update, but has there been any developments you can share, I guess, on the shopping center at Harbor Bay in terms of potential activity?

No, nothing. They're a very quiet landlord. Don't hear much of anything from them.

Are you able to comment on, I know the three restaurants, La Penca, and Laval's, and Chinaville all have that sewer issue. Do you know if the work has been performed? I've seen plumbers out there, but I don't know if they're fixing that problem. But anything you can share. It says factual information, so that's all I'm requesting.

I have heard something about that. I believe it's a work in progress. Thank you.

All right, any other comments? If not, we'll go ahead and close agenda item seven. Anyone from the public could speak on something that wasn't on tonight's meeting. Do we have any speakers? Okay, and with that, it is 8.45 and we are adjourned. Thank you.

Thank you.