body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2021-12-13,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2021
1. CONVENE
President Asheshh Saheba convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
2. FLAG SALUTE
Vice President Teresa Ruiz led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: President Saheba, Vice President Ruiz, and Board Members Curtis, Hom,
Rothenberg, Cisneros, and Teague.
Absent: None.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
Vice President Ruiz made a motion to move item 7-C to the first of the Regular
Agenda Items. Board Member Curtis and Teague seconded the motion. A roll call
vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
President Saheba acknowledged the sad passing of Alameda County Supervisor Wilma
Chan who was killed when she was struck by a motorist in Alameda.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
6-A 2021-1539
2022 Planning Board Regular Meeting Schedule.
The schedule can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5350543&GUID=B6514ADO-
1B04-4450-922E-A1DEE5OAADC2.
Board Member Alan Teague made a motion to approve the schedule and Board
Member Rona Rothenberg. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-C 2021-1559
Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Bayport/Alameda Landing Master Plan
and Alameda Landing Waterfront Residential Planned Development at 2800 Fifth Street
(PLN21-0457) to eliminate a requirement for a minimum of 5,000 square feet of
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 10
December 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-12-13,2,"commercial services space adjacent to the Alameda Landing Waterfront Park on Fifth
Street.
Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning Building and Transportation, introduced the item.
The staff report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5350551&GUID=D9C80E17-
3993-45F1-B10B-8E17EA1EBO2E&FullText=1
Bill Sadler, Development Director of Pulte Homes, also gave a presentation.
President Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Ron Curtis wanted confirmation that the increase of units was to 362.
Director Thomas said that was correct.
Board Member Teague confirmed that the term ""commercial"" was broader than ""retail"".
He asked if there were sections they could strike out since it would be giving the developer
a lot more time. He wanted to know the estimated timeline.
Director Thomas explained the idea behind the original condition. He said that the staff
did not want to stop the project as they did Design Review. He then explained the
reasoning behind the revised condition.
Mr. Sadler discussed the timeline for the development for when they would reach building
330.
Board Member Rona Rothenberg disclosed that she had emailed Mr. Sadler. She asked
about the Master Plan and wanted to know if Mr. Sadler had weighed the benefits of a
""commercial"" designation.
Director Thomas explained the history of the original Master Plan and what was needed
to support the types of uses that would be there.
Staff Member Tai added there had been conversations about the benefits of a Community
Commercial Space.
Board Member Ruiz disclosed that she too had reached out to Mr. Sadler before the
meeting. She said that they had discussed that the townhome models yield more units
and if he would consider modifying the ground floor single-family units. She also wanted
to know what was the most efficient and financially feasible.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 2 of 10
December 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-12-13,3,"Mr. Sadler explained that what they had designed was already approved and permitted.
Any changes could delay completion but he was all for putting the right home on this
property. He gave a cost and time rundown for the options.
Board Member Xiomara Cisneros asked about sales for the development. She also
wanted an update on the public water shuttle.
Mr. Sadler said sales were going well and very steady.
Director Thomas gave an update on the funding and development of the water shuttle
service.
Board Member Hanson Hom wanted to know if there was a Community Space planned or
would Mr. Sadler consider one. He also asked what would happen if the City Council
decided to maintain the Commercial Space designation. He also asked if they were open
to including low incoming housing in the mix.
Mr. Sadler said he would need to look into that since they were already in the process with
the DRE (Department of Real Estate) with an approved budget. He then discussed how
the designation and how having low-income housing would affect their work.
President Saheba asked about the construction of the boardwalk and the park. He wanted
to see things come together in a linked fashion.
Director Thomas discussed the requirements for those constructions. Mr. Sadler
discussed what was delaying those items.
Board Member Hom was concerned about financing and wanted to make sure any
changes would not negatively affect Mr. Sadler.
Mr. Sadler discussed what he would need to do with certain changes.
President Saheba opened public comments.
Betsy Mathieson said she hoped that this would be an opportunity for something new. She
discussed the benefit of having waterfront commercial activity and gave examples. She
thought that would be more beneficial to tenants.
Jay Garfinkle was unsure of the details and wanted to make sure there was adequate
parking for the water shuttle. He felt that someone was back peddling on this and this was
something that should have been addressed months ago.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 3 of 10
December 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-12-13,4,"President Saheba believed this piece of property was critical to the Master Plan. He
believed that the developer needed to get creative with the space such as some of the
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 4 of 10
December 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-12-13,5,"ideas suggested by Director Wooldridge. He was supportive of giving the developer more
time.
Board Member Teague made a motion to approve to strike out the sentence of
timing for Design Review and to give the developer more time to consider
Community Space or Mixed-Use. The developer would work with City Staff to
consider other alternative uses for the space. Board Member Cisneros seconded
the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
7-A 2021-1557
Public hearing to consider amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter 30 (Development
Regulations) Section 30-4.1, R-1, One-Family Residence District, and 30-2 Definitions to
bring the R-1 regulations into compliance with State Law and implement Senate Bill 9. The
proposed text amendments are exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to SB
9, which states that an action by a local agency to adopt an ordinance to implement the
provisions of SB 9 shall not be considered a project under Division 13 (commencing with
Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
Director Thomas gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5350549&GUID=5DFA302F
F982-470B-8DF6-OFOCD8DA2061&FullText=1
President Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Hom asked if there was language that addressed the maximum of 4 units
allowed. He also had questions about the 1200sqft maximums and if someone wanted to
go above that limit. He also had questions about setbacks and wanted clarification on what
an Urgency Ordinance meant. He also wanted the staff's opinion on what ""condo
standards"" meant.
Board Member Teague discussed what the current ADU law allowed and what language
they could add to make it clearer.
Director Thomas explained the process if someone wanted a larger unit. He also explained
the need and process for an Urgency Ordinance.
Both Director Thomas and Staff Member Tia discussed how ""condo standards"" were
interpreted by the staff and the law.
Board Member Rothenberg wanted to know how this would apply to historic buildings, the
rule about renting and managing setbacks.
Director Thomas explained how state law addressed setbacks and that staff would be
working on a Short Term Rental Ordinance.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 5 of 10
December 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-12-13,6,"Staff Member Tai explained how historic buildings would be handled.
Board Member Teague had questions about ADUs being allowed with SB-9 and what
Alameda would allow. He had questions about information in the Turner Center Report
and how he was interpreting it. He then discussed hypothetical situations and what could
possibly be allowed. He also had questions about the square footage, setbacks, and
Efficiency Units.
Heather Colman, the consultant, explained that the report was written before the law was
finalized.
Director Thomas went into detail about would could hypothetically be allowed with SB-9.
He also explained which sections and standards Alameda could decide what they wanted
to allow.
Staff Member Tai discussed Efficiency Units.
Vice President Ruiz asked about what standards would be coming up that needed
approval. She also questioned how they reached the 5000 sq ft lot area.
Director Thomas explained that these zoning changes were the Objective Zoning
Standards. He explained the thought process behind the 5000 sq ft lot size.
President Saheba opened public comment.
Zac Bowling discussed the work he had done to champion SB-9.
Jay Garfinkle wanted the Planning Board to recommend to the City Council to enact an
Emergency Ordinance to make sure anyone who applies for SB-9 would be subject to the
same standards and conditions.
Chris Buckley, Alameda Architecture Preservation Society (AAPS), discussed a letter the
society had sent.
Betsy Mathieson agreed with the comments and the concerns brought up by the AAPS.
Margaret Hall also supported the recommendations and changes to the text brought up
by the AAPS.
Hank Hernandez, Alameda Tiny Homes, wanted to know what the options were for people
who already had an ADU on their property.
President Saheba closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 6 of 10
December 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-12-13,7,"Vice President Ruiz was concerned with the speed with which this was going through and
thought it needed further review. She recommend making the text more in line with state
law.
Board Member Teague was in favor of moving this forward but with substantial changes
and he agreed with Vice President Ruiz that the text should be more in line with SB-9. He
also recommended that the use needed to be very clear, this was just for Residential Use.
He discussed the other changes he would make to move this forward.
Board Member Hom agreed with most of Board Member Teague's comments. He did
recommend that how many units were allowed on a lot be clarified. He also agreed about
the language being as close to the law as possible.
Board Member Cisneros wanted to know what would happen if they took no action.
Director Thomas explained the process if the council did not adopt anything in January.
Board Member Curtis said he could not accept the part of the Resolution dealing with
Home Occupations, he believed that those should have Use Permit. He also believed that
neighbors should have a say in what goes into their neighborhoods.
President Saheba continued the conversation about the 1200 sq ft parameter. He was in
support of eliminating the 1200 sq ft threshold to allow for more flexibility.
There was a discussion about appropriate Permitted Usage and street access for the
parcel.
Board Member Teague made a motion to recommend to the City Council that they
adopt the resolution regarding SB-9, excluding all of the changes related to
""Permitted Usage"" and the changes to definitions. They must clarify the use of the
words ""alteration"" and ""demolition"". They should replace the section referring to
Alameda's specific Rental Code with the language from SB-9. They would also
clarify which Permitted Usage was considered Residential and Non-residential. The
access to the split lot needed to be a combined pedestrian and vehicle access. They
would not modify Alameda's ADU ordinance and leave it as is. Also, setbacks must
be clarified and in compliance. The building of a 1 family dwelling is a minimum of
800 sq. ft to equal in size to the other unit and the 1600 sq. ft limit be the limit as to
the existing unit. Board Member Curtis seconded the motion. A roll call vote was
taken and the motion passed 6-1 with Board Member Hom voting against.
7-B 2021-1558
Objective Design Review Standards for One- and Two-Family Dwellings. Public hearing
to consider Objective Design Review Standards for development allowed under Senate
Bill 9. Adoption of the Objective Standards is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 7 of 10
December 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-12-13,8,"Guidelines Sections 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.
Staff Member Tai introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5350550&GUID=9D2BEDDA
018E-402D-94E8-0632FCF09D70&FullText=1
President Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Hom asked for clarification on the Housing Accountability Act and if there
was a change in the process of review for Single Family Homes once they adopt these
new Design Standards.
Staff Member Tai discussed the changes and that they would not affect the process. These
changes were mainly addressing SB-9.
Board Member Rothenberg thought the checklist format was very user-friendly. She made
suggestions on how to make setbacks easier to understand and to use matching materials
when appropriate.
Staff Member Tai addressed massing and setbacks. He then discussed that a judgment
call was very important when choosing materials.
Vice President Ruiz asked about existing garages that were in undesirable conditions and
wanted to know if they could be added to or altered. She also wanted to know about
garage doors that were in the back of the house, it wasn't viewable so why worry about it.
She also had questions concerning upper story additions.
Staff Member Tai discussed SB-9 units that had parking and what the intent was for
garages facing away from the street was. He then discussed upper story additions and
how numbers were arrived at.
Board Member Teague asked about dropping the third bullet, he found it made things very
unclear. He wanted to know if this was based on the Multi-Family Objective Standards.
Staff Member Tai said they could drop that item. He discussed when they did carry some
of the standards over and what was different.
President Saheba opened public comment.
Zac Bowling liked the Objective Design Standard that the staff had come up with. He
discussed how these were easy to work within and thanked staff for their work on this.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 8 of 10
December 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-12-13,9,"Chris Buckley, AAPS, discussed a letter the society had sent. He agreed that taking out
the third bullet would help. He also gave suggestions for improving the standards and the
process. He also pointed out that the society had sent a markup showing where the
language was unclear.
Betsy Mathieson endorsed the AAPS's letter and agreed with Mr. Buckley's comments
and concerns.
President Saheba closed public comment and opened board discussion.
President Saheba wanted to know if there were any concerns about this item getting
disjointed with the previous item, SB-9. He did agree that some of the text needed to be
cleaned up and the diagrams refined.
Staff Member Tai did not see any issues but having a set of standards adopted by the new
year would be helpful.
Board Member Cisneros was concerned that this might be too prescriptive and wondered
if they could add room for flexibility.
Vice President Ruiz was hesitant to rush this through and recommended possibly bringing
this back. She gave suggestions on clarifying language around carport/detached garages.
She also gave suggestions on language around windows and upper story additions.
Board Member Teague discussed how this could keep evolving at future meetings and
the importance of getting something approved tonight.
Board Member Hom was comfortable moving this forward with some of the amendments
suggested by his fellow board members and they could be refined down the road.
Board Member Curtis made a motion to approve the Objective Design Review
Standards with the removal of the third bullet point as recommended. Board
Member Hom seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion
passed 6-1 with Vice President Ruiz voting against.
8. MINUTES
8-A 2021-1540
Draft Meeting Minutes - September 27, 2021
8-B 2021-1541
Draft Meeting Minutes - October 11, 2021
8-C 2021-1542
Draft Meeting Minutes - October 25, 2021
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 9 of 10
December 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-12-13,10,"Due to the late hour and the need to take public comment the approval of these minutes
was postponed to a future meeting.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2021-1555
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
Recent actions and decisions can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5350547&GUID=05FCDEED-
FD2C-449E-BCE8-42DA3BA038A5&FullText=1
No board members wanted to pull any item for review.
9-B 2021-1556
Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation
Department Projects
Staff Member Tai announced that at the January meeting the plan was to bring more
discussions about the Housing Element Update. There would also be a review of the Use
Permit of the Clubhouse Bar.
9-C 2021-1560
End of Year Planning Board and Planning Department Accomplishments
Director Thomas thanked the board for all the work they had done over the past year and
discussed the activities and accomplishments of the Building Department.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
President Saheba wished everyone a Happy Holiday and thanked them for all their hard
work over the last year.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Betsy Mathieson was happy that Director Thomas's cold was subsiding.
Board Member Curtis took a moment to thank the staff and everyone for their hard work.
The rest of the board agreed with him!
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Saheba adjourned the meeting at 11:09 p.m.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 10 of 10
December 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf