body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2017-09-11,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2017
1. CONVENE
President Mitchell convened the meeting at 7:00pm
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Curtis led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: President Mitchell, Board Members Burton, Curtis, Knox White, Köster, Sullivan.
Board Member Zuppan arrived at 7:04pm.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
6-A 2017-4667
PLN17-0536 - 1435 Webster Street - Applicant: Dannan Development.
Public Hearing to consider a modification to a condition of approval for
Construction of a Three-Story Mixed-Use Development including Nine
Residential Units and Ground Floor Retail at 1435 Webster Street (APN74-
427-5-1). The project is categorically exempt from further review under the
California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15305 Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations
6-B 2017-4669
PLN17-0094 - 900 Mound St (Krusi Park) - Applicant: City of Alameda
Recreation and Parks Department. A public hearing to consider final
approval for Design Review to construct a 2,376 square foot multi-purpose
building at the center of Krusi Park. On May 8, 2017, the Planning Board
approved a Use Permit to allow the construction of the multi-purpose
building within the O (Open Space) Zoning District, provided comments on
the proposed design to the applicant, and required a final design be brought
back for Planning Board approval. The project is located within the O (Open
Space) Zoning District. This project is a Class 3 Categorical Exemption and
no additional environmental review is necessary pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15303, New Construction of Small Structures
Approved Planning Board minutes
Page 1 of 9
September 11, 2017",PlanningBoard/2017-09-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2017-09-11,2,"Board Member Knox White made a motion to approve the consent calendar. Board
Member Curtis seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2017-4673
Development Plan Application for a 66-Unit Affordable Housing
Development. Applicant: Housing Authority of the City of Alameda. A
Development Plan application to construct 60 new and to retain six existing
affordable, multi-family, rental units, on a 1.95 acre site within the R-5
Zoning District located at 727 Buena Vista Avenue. The project is exempt
from CEQA pursuant to California Public Resources Code sections
21159.21, 21159.23 (Exemption for affordable housing) and 21159.24
(Exemption for infill affordable housing), as well as CEQA Guideline section
15332 (Infill development projects). Furthermore, the project does not
trigger any of the exceptions in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 in that
the project will not have any significant effects due to unusual
circumstances or any cumulatively significant impacts and will not
adversely impact any designated historic resources
Victoria Johnson, Housing Authority, began a presentation. The staff report and
attachments can bef ound at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3142741&GUID=79DCFCOD-
274E-40AD-8E20-C3D24B460F29
Paul East, project architect, continued the presentation.
Board Member Köster asked about the ability to build up to 85 units on the site and
whether that is hindered by the lack of parking.
Staff Member Thomas said a number of factors that affect the number of units. He listed
the zoning, Measure A exemptions, and other requirements that apply to the site which
they used to arrive at a number.
Board Member Köster asked how the low parking ratio at Shinsei Gardens has been
working.
Ms. Johnson said that when they have meetings at Shinsei Gardens they have to park in
the adjoining neighborhood. She said they are okay for day to day but have no extra space
for visitors.
Board Member Curtis asked if there have been complaints or issues with parking at any
of their other properties.
Approved Planning Board minutes
Page 2 of 9
September 11, 2017",PlanningBoard/2017-09-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2017-09-11,3,"Ms. Johnson explained that daytime parking is heavily impacted due to park and ride
commuters, and ample parking at night. She said they do not have significant parking
issues except for sometimes seniors that need very close parking.
Board Member Zuppan asked how many EZ passes would be supplied to each unit.
Ms. Johnson said they would have a minimum of one per unit and will be trying to get a
2nd pass per unit for a discount.
Board Member Zuppan asked if there would be major utility boxes added to the property.
Ms. Johnson said they are still in discussions with AMP about what will be required.
Board Member Zuppan asked how the board can make certain findings before doing
design review.
Staff Member Thomas said they can reserve judgment on the architecture while still
approving the site plan.
Board Member Sullivan asked what the makeup of the tenants is, given the low ratio of
cars per unit.
Ms. Johnson said they have about 50% seniors, 40% disabled, and maybe 25% working
families.
Board Member Sullivan said she is concerned about the parking. She says the Bayport
residents hate people who are not from the neighborhood parking there. She asked if they
identify resident cars with stickers.
Ms. Johnson said they get stickers to park on the property but do not control the public
streets. She said that is why they are keeping the 1 to 1 ratio which allows every household
to have a car.
President Mitchell opened the public hearing.
Christopher Buckley said he would prefer the artisan design to move forward.
Alan Teague said it would be nice to have more than 66 units. He said the site is well
served by transit. He said he is in favor of the project.
President Mitchell closed the public hearing.
Board Member Zuppan said she is happy to move forward if we can adapt the resolution
findings to reflect the stage of the project they are in. She said she is interested in
Approved Planning Board minutes
Page 3 of 9
September 11, 2017",PlanningBoard/2017-09-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2017-09-11,4,"expanding the number of bus passes to the number of bedrooms. She said she is okay
with the parking as it is.
Board Member Curtis said he is supportive of the project.
Board Member Sullivan said she is okay with the project and thinks the Artisan design
concept is less dated and institutional.
Board Member Burton said he would be supportive of maximizing the amount of units on
the site, even if it is at the expense of some of the parking. He said he would choose the
El Camino style, or perhaps the Artisan style.
Board Member Knox White asked how approving even more units would work.
Staff Member Thomas said they could make it clear that they are supportive of the 66 units
and could approve more during the design review process.
Board Member Knox White said he would rather see more units built rather than a lot of
parking.
Board Member Curtis said he cannot support any more than the 66 units because it would
degrade the quality of life of the residents if parking became a hassle.
Board Member Köster said he would like to approve the project and allow flexibility for the
possibility of more units at the next phase. He said he liked the El Camino and Monte
Verde designs.
President Mitchell asked what possible tradeoffs and financing issues would come up if
they tried to build more units.
Ms. Johnson said they considered tuck under parking, which would be cost prohibitive.
She said they could also build higher and does not think it would negatively affect the
neighborhood, which is mostly commercial and other Housing Authority property. She said
that would require rezoning to add another story. She said some of their funding sources
require 25% of the units to be 3 bedroom. She said times have changed and 50% of their
waiting list is now single people with disabilities.
President Mitchell said he would be open to leaving the high end unit count flexible. He
said he like design options 6 or number 2.
Board Member Zuppan said she liked the Artisan design the most. She said we do not
need to pre-specify how many additional units. The board would be open to and could
always approve more if it gets through design review.
Approved Planning Board minutes
Page 4 of 9
September 11, 2017",PlanningBoard/2017-09-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2017-09-11,5,"Board Member Curtis suggested approving the extra units but specifying the ratio of
parking spaces per bedroom.
Board Member Burton said he would be uncomfortable setting the parking ratio now. He
said he would prefer allowing the Housing Authority to demonstrate how they are providing
adequate parking based on data from other facilities.
Board Member Zuppan made a motion to approve the development plan for 66 units
with the clarifications for items D and E that they are subject to design review, and
that the 66 units could be increased if the applicant demonstrates that their would
be adequate parking. Board Member Köster seconded the motion.
Board Member Knox White said going for funding needs certainty. He asked if they could
give staff direction to return with a zoning change that allows them to go up another story.
Ms. Johnson said they are not averse to the flexibility. She said a taller building would
increase per square foot costs beyond their already high level.
Board Member Zuppan said she would like to amend her motion to allow 66-84 units
on the site. Board Member Köster accepted the amendment. The motion passed 7-
0.
7-B 2017-4674
Public Hearing to Consider a Proposed Zoning Amendment to AMC
Section 30-25 Appeals or Calls for Review
Staff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found
at: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3142742&GUID=9E2FA4AD-
E3CB-4E3D-9271-4F397B794B4E&FullText=1
Board Member Sullivan asked what the process is for the zoning amendment.
Staff Member Thomas said they have two public hearings with the council to change the
law. He said the staff report would be updated with the Planning Board's
recommendations.
Board Member Sullivan asked if a resident's appeal fee could be waived if the council then
calls it for review.
Staff Member Thomas said it would not.
Board Member Sullivan asked how many calls for review have been made.
Staff Member Thomas said there have been ten since 2015. He said from 2002-2014 there
were five.
Approved Planning Board minutes
Page 5 of 9
September 11, 2017",PlanningBoard/2017-09-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2017-09-11,6,"Board Member Zuppan asked why the recommendation included a requirement to identify
a specific part of the zoning code as the cause for the call for review.
Staff Member Thomas said they are trying to identify what went wrong with the process.
President Mitchell asked how the time and materials cost would be accounted for if there
are calls for review.
Staff Member Thomas said that they will track the expenses and bill the general fund.
President Mitchell opened the public hearing.
Kari Thompson, Chamber of Commerce, urged strong support for the changes. She said
the businesses were incurring large expenses in time and resources to deal with calls for
review.
Alan Teague said our current ordinance requires council members to specify a reason to
justify the call for review and that needs to be enforced by staff. He said he is concerned
about the Brown Act and serial meetings if we require two council members to call a project
for review.
Board Member Mitchell closed the public hearing.
Board Member Zuppan said the ordinance should specify that they are referring to the
City's cost, not anyone else's. She said she is uncomfortable with the Brown Act
implications of requiring a second council member for a call for review. She said it would
require some sort of notification system to prevent Brown Act violations.
Staff Member Thomas said they are considering a staff practice of sharing any written
calls for review with all the other council members so they would know it has been called
for review.
Board Member Curtis said he was disappointed by the portion of the staff report that talks
about council members being pressured by their constituents without justification.
Staff Member Thomas explained that the questionable language came from the council
referral.
Board Member Knox White said the Brown Act issue is a big one. He said we could adjust
the timing required for the two calls for review. He said we could also adjust our sunshine
ordinance to allow this action with limited discussion at each council meeting. He said that
someone who wins an appeal should have their appeal costs paid.
Approved Planning Board minutes
Page 6 of 9
September 11, 2017",PlanningBoard/2017-09-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2017-09-11,7,"Staff Member Thomas explained the options the board is considering. He said one way
would be to have a two week call for review period, where the first call for review would
have to be submitted within seven days. He said they would put in language that notifies
all the council members when any council member submits a call for review. He said the
other option would be to have a standing agenda item for recent board and commission
decisions to provide an opportunity to call something for review.
Board Member Sullivan said council members are elected individually to represent the
community and does not see how requiring a second member would change the frivolity
of some calls for review.
Staff Member Thomas said that under the current system there is no way to have staff
evaluate the merits of a call for review. He said it is the only place where one council
member can determine what city business gets done or not, regardless of what business
the council as a whole has determined is important.
Board Member Köster said there needs to be a little bit of checks and balances.
Board Member Burton said he would lean towards the plan where staff is notified for calls
for review and staff notifies the rest of council.
President Mitchell said he likes the staff recommendation, but recognizing the Brown Act
issues. He said he wants to find a way to do this without adding more work for staff and
council.
Board Member Zuppan said that having the call for review discussion at city council
meetings is the superior option because of potential timing issues. She said there needs
to be time for people to do their research because most people do not watch planning
board meetings.
Staff Member Thomas said he hears a consensus to give council early notice of decisions
and to have a standing item on the city council agenda to consider calling items for review.
Board Member Zuppan said that there should be enforcement of the provision that
requires a reason to justify calls for review.
Board Member Zuppan made a motion to recommend moving the item to council as
discussed with the parameters for the Brown Act included, the typos and process
corrections offered including agendizing the item early in the meeting, and
considering whether a similar process should be created for other boards in the
city. Board Member Köster seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
8. MINUTES
8-A 2017-4654
Approved Planning Board minutes
Page 7 of 9
September 11, 2017",PlanningBoard/2017-09-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2017-09-11,8,"Draft Meeting Minutes - June 12, 2017
Board Member Zuppan made a motion to accept the minutes. Board Member Curtis
seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Köster).
8-B 2017-4655
Draft Meeting Minutes - June 26, 2017
Board Member Zuppan, on item 7-A, asked to clarify a comment on Universal Design to
say that innovation happens when it is required and we should create the conditions and
let the builders find a way to meet them, allowing for appeals and waivers if necessary.
Board Member Sullivan offered minor clarifying edits.
Board Member Curtis said his comment about building only two units at a time and vehicle
flow lacked context.
Board Member Zuppan made a motion to accept the minutes as amended. Board Member
Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
8-C 2017-4675
Draft Meeting Minutes - July 17, 2017
Board Member Zuppan made a motion to accept the minutes. Board Member Knox White
seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2017-4665
Zoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions
Staff Member Thomas gave an update. The staff report can be found at:
tps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3142738&GUID=9301164E-
4EA-4F19-926F-3B2E0517732F&FullText=1
9-B 2017-4677
Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development
Department Projects
Staff Member Thomas gave a preview of upcoming meetings. The list can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3142744&GUID=B0607841-
437D-4557-9D88-10134742E1CE
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board Member Knox White reported that he met with Rich Krinks and Board Member
Curtis about a hotel proposal on Park St. He said the Economic Development Strategic
Plan Task Force met.
Approved Planning Board minutes
Page 8 of 9
September 11, 2017",PlanningBoard/2017-09-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2017-09-11,9,"11-A 2017-4657
Subcommittee for Alameda Marina
President Mitchell asked for an update on the project.
Staff Member Thomas said they are conducting an independent analysis of the costs of
rehabilitating the seawall and infrastructure of the site and are working on a number of
other issues with the applicant.
President Mitchell asked if they still need the subcommittee.
Staff Member Thomas said he did not believe so and that the analysis would come back
to the full board.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Mitchell adjourned the meeting at 9:34pm.
Approved Planning Board minutes
Page 9 of 9
September 11, 2017",PlanningBoard/2017-09-11.pdf