body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2021-02-22,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2021
1. CONVENE
President Alan Teague convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
This meeting was via Zoom.
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Rona Rothenberg led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Board Members Curtis, Hom, Rothenberg, Ruiz, Cisneros, Saheba, and Teague.
Absent: None.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2021-663
Public Hearing for the Planning Board to Review and Comment on the City of Alameda's
Draft COVID-19 Economic Recovery Plan.
Amanda Gehrke, Community Development Department Development Manager,
introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be
found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4795897&GUID=D9C61041-
FC33-44AB-B828-25C0B3A9776D&FullText=1.
President Teague opened public comments.
There were no public comments.
President Teague closed public comments and opened board questions and comments.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 12
February 22, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-02-22,2,"Board Member Hanson Hom found the Covid response to be very thorough and had
addressed a number of issues. He did think that the list of items should be prioritized due
to limited resources and manpower. He thought there should be a focus on low-income
earners and small businesses. He was very interested in the slow street options and the
quick build options.
Board Member Rona Rothenberg agreed with Board Member Hom's comments. She also
believed that the document could go further in addressing equity and diversity, she pointed
to page 6 under ""information sharing"" that section could go broader, she described and
enumerated diverse houses of worship across all faiths as a forum for inclusive programs.
She recommended rereading the document and find places where they could really push
equitable diversity to enhance the message. She believed it was a good piece of work.
Vice President Asheshh Saheba said his main focus was on transportation. He was happy
to see AC Transit in the focus groups to help guide what would be happening. He wanted
to know more about the strategy to get people to re-engage with transportation services.
He recommended putting the focus on that since it would also help the business
communities.
Board Member Teresa Ruiz said in concept she supported making the slow streets
permanent but that the board would need to review it case by case. They would need to
look at what the data said before making that decision. For pilot programs, since the arts
and entertainment sectors had been hurt significantly perhaps they could incorporate
entertainment activities into city-owned parks. She recommended increasing waste
collection in parks due to increased demand and people in these areas. She then made
recommendations on how the document could be more clear and relevant to Alameda.
Board Member Xiomara Cisneros was very supportive of the strategies outlined for land
use. She agreed about the need for evaluation and reviewing the data for those findings.
She discussed how the theme of ""public health"" could be addressed more. She was also
very supportive of rent relief for tenants and on the remarks about supporting small
businesses. She brought up the question about hazard pay and if that was something that
could help larger businesses.
Board Member Ron Curtis believed that a lot of the solutions that had been given were
short-term solutions and had trepidation about making them permanent. Mainly the
reconfiguration of Park and Webster Street and its impact. He also wondered who was
going to maintain this in the long run, he also had other concerns about funding. He also
had questions about crowdfunding for rentals and how it would help individuals and their
businesses. He said the short-term solutions and direction of this were really good.
President Teague first clarified that an example of crowdfunding was GoFundMe and that
at the next City Council Meeting there would be a council referral item to introduce hazard
pay. He agreed with Board Member Rothenberg that there should be some mention about
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 2 of 12
February 22, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-02-22,3,"the various houses of worship throughout the city. Also, he noted that the housing
providers were not included. They should be included to ensure a smooth transition, by
helping them they help the tenants. He thought the short-term actions had been great in
helping businesses. He agreed that they need to evaluate the slow streets and
reconfiguration of Park and Webster Street. Overall he thought the plan was amazing and
that trying things out is the best way to see if it works.
7-B 2021-664
Adoption of Amended and Restated Objective Design Review Standards. The revised
Objective Design Review Standards (Objective Standards) consist of a checklist of
architectural and site design standards that apply to residential development projects.
Adoption of the revised Objective Standards is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the common-sense exception that CEQA applies only to
projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and
Section 15183, projects consistent with a community plan, general plan or zoning.
Allen Tai, City Planner, introduced the item, and Heather Coleman, Urban Planning
Consultant, and David Sablan, Planner III, gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4795898&GUID=431C9BF9-
FF27-4002-8B78-971861EC1108&FullText=1.
President Teague opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Rothenberg asked if they thought they fulfilled the last statement ""obtained
stakeholder input regarding good design vs. containing cost"" and how they fulfilled it. She
also suggested providing a red line copy and a clean copy in the future.
Staff Member Tai apologized for not providing a red line copy. He continued by saying this
had been a very difficult process. He felt that the draft they had presented hit on the most
important design principles and was a good faith effort from the staff as well as Board
Member Ruiz and Vice President Saheba.
Board Member Rothenberg asked if this document could have been written in a less
prescriptive manner.
Staff Member Tai said absolutely and added that the Alameda Architectural Preservation
Society (AAPS) had submitted letters asking for more specificity. He said after reading
their letters they decided against adding too many prescriptive requirements.
Board Member Ruiz asked about item 2B - limitation on blank walls - she asked for
clarification on the requirements, she thought it was a bit confusing.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 3 of 12
February 22, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-02-22,4,"Ms. Coleman explained the requirements more clearly and agreed it could be formatted
better.
Board Member Curtis wanted to know the difference between a prescriptive and a
performance document.
Board Member Rothenberg explained that a performance document would have less
detail but still describe what you wanted to accomplish in broad terms. She suggested
that the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (CARP) be referenced in appropriate sections
and include General Plan climate action goals.
Board Member Cisneros asked if there were examples of performative design objective
standards.
Staff Member Tai said performance standards were more results-driven. The current
approach was a bit of a hybrid but they do mostly explain how to get there. He then gave
examples of each. He said they want to address poor design standards they don't want to
see.
President Teague asked about roof-mounted equipment and visibility, he found the
language to be very vague.
Ms. Coleman explained the intent more.
President Teague opened public comments.
Daniel Hoy, WABA (West Alameda Business Association) design committee, said he felt
that the TDA (Traditional Design Area) left out half of the community. He felt that it goes
against what the community wanted and what they had envisioned. He added that WABA
is more than a business association; it's a community and the TDA map disregards all
their hard work and efforts in bringing the community together.
Brenden Sullivan also wanted to address the TDA map and that it should include all of
Webster Street business district and all of the North Park Street Area. He also felt that the
residential part East of Park Street and North of Tilden be included in the TDA design to
help ensure future development maintains the same character. He ended by talking about
the architectural pedigree of Alameda.
Sylvia Martinez, Director of the Housing Authority of Alameda, discussed how the list of
standards did not serve affordable housing for two reasons. First, it has too many costly
requirements, requirements that add cost without benefits to the residents, and it places
restrictions on the ability to build at the density required for affordable housing.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 4 of 12
February 22, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-02-22,5,"Doree Miles wanted to add on to what Mr. Sullivan had been saying since she felt the
same way. She was very familiar with the North Park St neighborhood and felt that area
had been overlooked. She would like to see this area looked at more and be included in
the design element. She also supported the letter sent by AAPS on February 19th.
Chris Buckley, AAPS, wanted to discuss and go over the two letters sent from the AAPS.
He did feel that the current draft standards were a major improvement from the ones
adopted by the Planning Board last February. He felt that there were still some loose ends
that needed to be addressed. He wanted the board to consider these issues for a future
meeting giving time to work these issues out. He wanted a statement in the document
saying that public notice will still be given and he wanted to know if staff decisions made
under the Objective Standards still would be appealable. He also suggested a two-tiered
system for affordable housing and market-rate housing.
President Teague closed public comments. Before moving on he did ask that staff
elaborate on the applicability of these objective standards and what projects were allowed
to have just a ministerial design review.
Ms. Coleman explained the process and what was required by state law.
Celena Chen, from the City's Attorney Office and Staff Counsel, further explained the
Housing Accountability Act and Senate Bill 35.
President Teague asked a hypothetical question about how a ministerial review could be
requested for all market-rate housing.
Staff Counsel Chen said that a ministerial review only applies to projects that qualify under
SB-35, she then added what those requirements were.
Staff Member Tai added that the board could set different design standards for affordable
housing and market-rate housing.
President Teague opened the board's comments and discussion.
Board Member Hom agreed with taking another look at the TDA map for the Park Street
area. He appreciated how the staff tried to balance the performance base with principles
and had standards in place. He also liked how flexibility had been built into the standards
and he was interested to see how that would work. He gave his thoughts on Affordable
Housing and how he liked to see Affordable Housing blend in with the character of the
neighborhood and not stand out. He also gave his thoughts on design choices.
Board Member Rothenberg felt that as long the board and the staff had mindfully
addressed the comments from the AAPS, WABA, and the Housing Authority she felt the
Objective Design Review Standards merited approval. She also believed the TDA map
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 5 of 12
February 22, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-02-22,6,"could be revisited either as a condition or have the issue continued. She suggested that a
paragraph about sustainability features should be added to the Objective Design features
since they are metric and measurable.
Vice President Saheba described the types of buildings he sees in a city and how the
objective standards can establish a baseline. Not to make future work challenging but to
ensure a certain quality of work. He saw these standards as a good way to establish a
streamline but if everything doesn't fit into these standards it shouldn't be seen as a
challenge to move that project forward.
Board Member Ruiz echoed what Vice President Saheba said, the goal of these objective
standards was not to be a ""holy grail"" that solves all the design problems but just to
establish a baseline. She said given the state mandate it was very difficult to do the
standards in a checklist form and that is why it needed to be more prescriptive. She agreed
with AAPS's comment that a public notice requirement will still be given and should be
addressed in this document.
Board Member Cisneros said she was not fully comfortable with the TDA map, she felt
that it was almost all of Alameda and kept it frozen in a 1940s style. She was not supportive
of expanding it further. She believed the main objective was to support Affordable Housing
developments in the community and suggested an amendment for Affordable Housing.
Board Member Curtis said from his perspective what was important was adequate design,
durable design, and something that was cost-effective. These three things would
accomplish the point of having the Objective Design Standards. He also suggested a way
to appeal if your development does not meet all the listed requirements.
President Teague discussed the requirements for SB-35 and Bonus Density and gave
examples of how they could waive requirements. He had expected to see more polish and
removal (requirements that increase cost) but there were things added that he was
surprised by but understood. He thought that expanding the TDA map to include all of
Webster Street and Park Street made sense to maintain the fabric of those areas. He did
want to change the roof-mounted equipment item, and he gave a suggestion for wording
for better clarity. He said with SB-35 they didn't need to add anything for Affordable
Housing Projects.
Staff Member Tai clarified that an amendment was not needed and further explained
ministerial review and that the staff would be adding information clarifying the process.
President Teague asked if anyone wanted to extend the TDA map.
Board Member Hom said he was not supportive of amending it now but that the staff
should take some time to look at it. It could be a future amendment after some analysis
from the staff.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 6 of 12
February 22, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-02-22,7,"Board Member Curtis made a motion to approve the motion as written and Vice
President Saheba seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion
passed 7-0.
7-C 2021-666
PLN21-0009 - Zoning Text Amendments - Citywide - Applicant: City of Alameda. Public
Hearing to Consider Recommending City Council Adoption of an Ordinance Amending
Alameda Municipal Code Chapter 30 (Development Regulations) to Streamline
Residential Open Space Requirements and Remove Utility Requirements for Multiple
Houses (Condominiums). The proposed zoning text amendments are exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15061(b)(3), where it can be seen with certainty that the proposed text amendments will
not have a significant effect on the environment, and 15183, projects consistent with a
community plan, General Plan or zoning.
Staff Member Tai introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4795899&GUID=1F996EDF-
2CD-4F86-9079-E5D3A488CF87&FullText=1
President Teague opened the board's clarifying questions.
Board Member Hom asked if the city has a park dedication in lieu requirement.
Staff Member Tia said that the City of Alameda does not have a Parkland Dedication
Ordinance, but they did have a Development Impact Fees. He then gave an example using
Jean Sweeney Park. He then clarified that this is just offering another option if the project
wants to give funds to improvement at a neighborhood park that could be done in lieu of
the open space.
Board Member Hom clarified it couldn't be combined for a double benefit and it's on top
of the in-lieu fee.
Staff Member Tai said that was correct, developers could not mix the two together. Onsite
open space is onsite open space, this is just an opportunity where if there is a park across
the street from the project they can give money to that.
Board Member Rothenberg wanted to know about the merit of eliminating the utility
metering requirement.
Staff Member Tai said when this requirement was passed in 1975 there was some concern
about multifamily housing. The staff felt that this was now unnecessary.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 7 of 12
February 22, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-02-22,8,"examining governmental constraint.
President Teague recommended combining AG 1 and 5 to justify it.
President Teague opened public comments.
There were no speakers.
President Teague closed public comments and opened the board's comments and
discussions.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 8 of 12
February 22, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-02-22,9,"Board Member Hom was in full support of the zoning code amendments, eliminating the
utility meters, and eliminating the requirements for closets and laundry facilities. He
believed allowing these things to be market-driven was a good approach and could be
revisited down the road if it becomes problematic. He saw these amendments as a step
in the right direction.
Board Member Rothenberg was in support of the added edit suggested by Board Member
Ruiz. She did suggest an edit on some items that had been struck out that would be better
for clarity. She believed it was an excellent set of revisions and meritorious to be approved.
Vice President Saheba agreed with his fellow board members and that market conditions
would dictate some of the things that were being removed from the text. He was in full
support.
Board Member Ruiz made a recommendation regarding the ""two-block"" definition for the
in lieu of open space. She thought that it was a bit unclear and preferred to see a specific
distance. She advised using a 500ft radius.
Board Member Cisneros agreed with her fellow board member's comments, staff's
recommendations, and seconded Board Member Ruiz's suggestion of specifying a 500 ft
radius.
Board Member Curtis agreed with all the changes except with the open space. He believed
that private open spaces should be given priority and should be mentioned. He thought it
was unhealthy for a high-density unit to not have at least a balcony and a private patio.
He gave a suggestion on required open space footage per total square footage. He was
not in favor of taking away the private open space.
President Teague said the 500ft was far less than two blocks, two blocks was about a
quarter-mile. He saw the table for open space as a barrier to development, it had been
used in the past as barriers to building houses. He did see the need for open space but
didn't agree with the tiered system. He was also in favor of everything being removed. He
also talked about how he would be supportive of making all 120ft for all zones.
Vice President Saheba believed that the market should drive whether open space is
private or common.
Board Member Curtis appreciated what Vice President Saheba said but was still
concerned about those units that were not market-driven. Specifically, the many low-cost
units that were being built to keep costs down with people in small quarters and no access
to the outside.
Vice President Saheba wanted clarification that for a public open space to be utilized it
would be at the discretion of the staff.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 9 of 12
February 22, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-02-22,10,"Staff Member Tai said currently it is the Planning Board's decision based on findings such
as distance and that the public space would be beneficial to the occupants of the
development project.
Board Member Ruiz also wanted to address Board Member Curtis's concern on Affordable
Housing. She said that the state does mandate that Affordable Housing had to have open
space, each of the units had to have private open space in order to meet state funding
requirements. This would be a given regardless of what the local zoning ordinance said.
Board Member Curtis said that information from Board Member Ruiz solved his issue.
Staff Member Tai clarified the standardized amount of open space across districts. He
shared information about the North Park District and what the open space requirements
were.
Board Member Hom said he was supportive of the uniform open space across the board.
He saw the main constraint was the high density. He made sense that open space should
correlate with density.
Board Member Rothenberg made a motion to approve the resolution adopting
amended and restated objective design review standards subject to the revisions
that were put forth by President Teague and Board Member Ruiz, Board Member
Curtis seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1,
Board Member Hom voted against.
8. MINUTES
8-A 2021-669
Draft Meeting Minutes - January 25, 2021
Board Member Ruiz made a motion to approve the minutes and Board Member Hom
seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2021-667
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
Staff report and actions can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4795900&GUID=004F8381
-
B630-4F25-923D-730209A3E105&FullText=1.
Board Member Rothenberg wanted to pull item PLN20-0538, 1215 Peach Street. She also
wanted to know if the Nason Street Project had come back as the minutes had said it
would be.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 10 of 12
February 22, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-02-22,11,"Staff Member Tai said no due to public comments that addressed project conditions of
approval at the staff level. He said they would make a modification in the minutes that the
Nason Street project would not be coming back.
President Teague wanted clarification that 1214 Peach St was not a ministerial approval
ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit)
Staff Member Tai said that was correct, it was a code enforcement case and the staff
would schedule it at an upcoming meeting before the board. They would also notify the
applicant that it had been pulled for a review.
9-B 2021-668
Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation
Department Projects
Staff Member Tai announced that at the next meeting on March 8, 2021, they would be
bringing forward the Housing Element Annual Report and they would discuss with the
board about the upcoming year's events. He added that the Encinal Terminal Master Plan
and Development Agreement would be coming back to the Planning Board. Also if there
was time they would discuss the Parking Ordinance.
Board Member Ruiz reminded everyone that she would need to recuse herself from the
Encinal Terminal discussion.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
President Teague said he had been asked about potentially forming a sub-committee for
the Housing Element. He wanted to know what his fellow board members thought, they
would need 3 board members to form the sub-committee.
Staff Member Tai said what the staff was hoping a sub-committee could focus on was
prioritizing items. Prioritize topics and when the board wants to see items, guidance for
when they do the Housing Element update, and the Zoning Text Amendment.
After discussion, it was decided that President Teague and Board Members Hom and
Cisneros would be on the sub-committee for the Housing Element.
Board Member Rothenberg wanted to share that she had been working with the
Sustainability Group to support the development of an all-electric Reach Ordinance for
new construction. It would be going to the City Council for a first read in the coming months
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 11 of 12
February 22, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-02-22,12,"and that the American Institute of Architects East Bay and the American Institute of
Architects California would be writing letters of support.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Teague adjourned the meeting at 10:03 p.m.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 12 of 12
February 22, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf