{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-03-09", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING\nMONDAY, MARCH 9, 2009\nPresident Kohlstrand called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member McNamara led the flag salute.\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Kohlstrand, Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft, Board\nmembers Autorino, and McNamara were present upon roll call.\nBoard members Cook, Cunningham, and Lynch were absent.\nSTAFF PRESENT: Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager/Secretary to the\nPlanning Board; Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager, Cynthia\nEliason, Supervising Planner, Simone Wolter, Planner I, Althea\nCarter, Executive Assistant/Recording Secretary\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes from the meeting of December 8, 2008. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft moved/Board\nmember Autorino seconded the motion to approve the minutes as presented from December\n8, 2008.\nApproved 4-0.\nMinutes from the meeting of January 26, 2009. Board member Autorino moved/Board member\nMcNamara seconded the motion to approve the minutes as presented from January 26, 2009.\nApproved 4-0.\nMinutes from the meeting of February 9, 2009.\nContinued to the meeting of March 23, 2009.\nMinutes from the meeting of February 23, 2009 (pending)\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nWritten Report\n6-A.\nFuture Agendas - Staff presented the report.\n6-B.\nZoning Administrator Report - Meeting of March 3, 2009 - Canceled\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\n*\nAnyone may address the Board on a topic not on the agenda under this item by\nsubmitting a speaker's information slip, subject to the 5-minute time limit.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nConsent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or\nPage 1 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-03-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-03-09", "page": 2, "text": "adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is\nreceived from the Planning Board or a member of the public by submitting a speaker\nslip for that item.\nNone\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A.\nDraft Housing Element Update - Citywide - City of Alameda. Provide comments on\nthe Draft Housing Element 2007-2014 and direct staff to forward the Draft Housing\nElement to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)\nfor review. (CE)\nStaff presented the report and informed the Board that the Housing Element is a required\nelement of the General Plan. The City's current Housing Element was adopted in 2003. 2007-\n2014 is the period that is covered by the proposed Housing Element. At the request of the\nPlanning Board, staff added information on income level classifications to the staff report. Staff\ninformed the Board of the process for approval of the Housing Element by the State Housing\nand Community Development department (HCD). Updated policies in the new element include\nthe Northern Waterfront, review of redevelopment areas, and policies incorporating\nsustainable development and design from the Local Action Plan.\nStaff stated that the current proposed numbers are realistic. Staff's approach was to identify all\navailable sites for housing development and then wait for comments from HCD.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft asked for an explanation of Community Development Block\nGrants (CDBG).\nStaff informed the Board that CDBG are federal funds guaranteed to any community with a\npopulation over 50,000. These funds are monitored and disbursed by Development Services\nDepartment. The funds are used for housing and other programs.\nThe hearing was opened for public comment.\nM. Warrenberg spoke in opposition to development of the Island High site for housing. She\nstated she would like the project reduced from 16 units to a maximum of 12 units on the site.\nN. Folsom spoke on behalf of the Alameda Homeless Network. He asked if any impact on the\nshelter has been identified as a result of additional housing development.\nStaff stated that page 32 of the Housing Element discusses emergency shelter and homeless\nneeds and there are no plans to displace or move the shelter.\nThe public hearing was closed.\nPresident Kohlstrand suggested the Board organize the discussion by providing general\ncomments on the Housing Element then specific comments on each chapter.\nPage 2 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-03-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-03-09", "page": 3, "text": "Board member McNamara stated she thought it was a thorough document, addresses issues,\nand is a good tool to assist the Board moving forward.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that with the current economic situation the document\ntakes on urgency and addresses the possible need for additional housing for all income levels.\nBoard member Autorino stated that it is a good plan to increase all levels of housing needs in\na city with limited space.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated she thought the document was comprehensive and suggested\nincluding an executive summary or paragraph describing the background of the Housing\nElement, or staff analysis. She would like it to include a summary of where the City is, what\nthe City can accomplish and how the City plans to meet these objectives.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to page III-16. She would like to understand what items\nstaff considers priority items.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated the report should stress that Alameda is an island and has limited\nopportunities for housing development.\nStaff stated an introduction and or summary at the beginning of the Housing Element would be\nincluded and additional public hearings will take place.\nA Board discussion ensued on public input to the Housing Element.\nStaff suggested sending the document to HCD for review, and during the 60-day review period\nstaff can discuss with the Board opportunities for community input.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to page II-1 Housing Policies and stated this section\nappears to be directed towards the Northern Waterfront. The Housing Element discusses\nallowing housing in areas zoned for industry and commercial use. She would like staff to\naddress what issues surface when locating housing next to commercial uses to ensure\ncompatibility.\nStaff stated that conformance rezoning is an existing project in the department and staff plans\nto start with areas designated for housing in the Housing Element.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to policy II-6 3d and asked staff to elaborate on the\nIsland High site's availability for non school district employees. She asked if there were a\nspecific number of units set aside for school district employees.\nStaff responded that the use of redevelopment funds precludes the City from restricting which\napplicants can apply for housing on this site. There is no specific number of units set aside for\nschool district employees but they are being given priority.\nPresident Kohlstrand referred to policy II-2 (b.i) and asked if the home ownership goal was a\nresult of a 2001 policy adopted by City Council. She asked if the policy should be revisited.\nPage 3 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-03-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-03-09", "page": 4, "text": "Staff responded that they will research the 2001 policy to determine if the situation has\nchanged and whether the policy should be revisited. In 2001 Alameda had a high amount of\nrental units and the City wanted to encourage home ownership. The policy facilitated\ncondominium conversions.\nPresident Kohlstrand referred to policy II-6 3a and asked if this review had been\naccomplished. She believes the density bonus ordinance addresses the 25% inclusionary\nrequirement and asked if there was a conflict.\nStaff responded that the review is pending.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked that staff discuss the relationship between homeless shelter\nfunding referred to on page II-7 3-h and emergency shelter referred to in item 3-e. She asked\nif the City needed to increase homeless shelter funding.\nStaff responded that the City assists existing homeless shelters with funding. Policy 3-h\naddresses a new state law which states the City needs to create, within at least one zoning\ndistrict, the ability for a shelter to go in without discretionary review.\nIn response to a question by President Kohlstrand staff responded that there continues to be a\nneed to create additional beds in Alameda.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to page II-5 g and asked for an explanation of an\nundocumented dwelling unit. She also asked how people find out about the amnesty program.\nStaff responded that the amnesty program is run by the Building Division. Some multiple\ndwelling units in Alameda do not have the required permits and are considered\nundocumented. The amnesty program provides a mechanism for owners of these types of\nunits, who are not subject to code enforcement, the ability to obtain permits based on codes in\neffect at the time the units were built. There has been outreach to realtors and the City's\nbuilding official wrote an article in the local newspaper.\nPresident Kohlstrand referred to chapter III and stated she likes the layout: of programs,\nanalysis, and target objective, objective met. She would like to see this layout used\nconsistently throughout the document.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to page III-4 Limited Equity Cooperatives/Land Trust\nModel and asked why there are no additional projects planned in the new housing element.\nStaff responded that this information was provided by the Development Services Department\nand staff will need to research why this program is considered no longer viable.\nPresident Kohlstrand referred to the targets/objectives and asked why the targets are\ndefinitive on some but rather loose on others.\nStaff responded that these are also Development Services programs and at the time this\nreport was written the amount of funds available for some of the programs was not known.\nPage 4 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-03-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-03-09", "page": 5, "text": "President Kohlstrand stated it was difficult to determine where the City was successful and\nwhere the City was unsuccessful. She stated this information would be helpful for the Board to\nget a sense of what was effective and what was not.\nStaff referred the Board to table III-1 for a list of completed projects.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated she would like the information to clearly show what was\naccomplished within the existing Housing Element and accomplishments under the proposed\nHousing Element.\nStaff stated they will confer with Development Services and provide the Board with the\nrequested information.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to chapter IV page IV-2 where the report refers to 300\nNavy housing units and asked if these were existing housing units and where they were\nlocated.\nStaff stated these units were existing Coast Guard housing.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to IV-4 where it states \"not military employees\" and\nasked what the significance of the statement was and what were the implications for the City\nregarding housing.\nStaff stated it is the way the census counts the population living on a military site but are not\nmilitary personnel.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft requested staff add a sentence explaining why this statement\nwas included. She referred to page IV-25 condominium conversion and asked staff to explain\nthe reference to developers.\nStaff stated that there have been a number of lawsuits involving condominium conversions\nrelated to common walls, windows, utilities, etc. Developers have difficulty navigating through\nthe City's processes relating to multi family units. A condominium conversion must be brought\nup to current building codes including structural modifications which can be costly.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft asked staff to provide the Board with suggestions for improving\nthe condominium conversion process.\nStaff stated the condominium ordinance will be brought before the Planning Board later this\nyear.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated she would like the ordinance designed to make\ncondominium conversions easier.\nStaff stated they would research the 2001 policy regarding the 60 percent/40 percent\nthreshold to determine how the process for condominium conversions can be streamlined.\nPage 5 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-03-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-03-09", "page": 6, "text": "President Kohlstrand recommended review of the text and tables in the document to ensure\nconsistency throughout. She noticed the change in income levels on page IV-9 4a for\nAlameda residents and asked staff to review for accuracy.\nStaff responded that all numbers in the document will be reviewed for accuracy.\nPresident Kohlstrand referred to page IV-13 table 4-10 and asked staff to check the numbers\nreferred to in this section. She referred to page IV-17 table 4-13 and asked for an explanation\nfor why the number of units is declining.\nStaff stated the numbers represent changes at the naval base.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked if there were any mobile homes in Alameda.\nStaff stated that there are no mobile home parks in Alameda but there are caretaker units on\nindustrial properties.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to page III-9 policy 2.a.vii (work/live units) analysis and\nrecommendations, and asked if suggestions would be presented to the board at a future date.\nShe referred to page III-17 2.e.iv action plan, and asked if any additional incentives were\nbeing proposed.\nStaff responded that the affordable housing fee is for new commercial or residential\ndevelopment. An applicant has the option to pay into a fund managed by Development\nServices. Staff intends to review the work/live ordinance and return to the Board with\nrecommendations.\nPresident Kohlstrand referred to chapter V table V-1 page V-4. She stated that this section\nlists sites that can accommodate housing and asked staff to explain how unit counts were\nachieved and asked whether it is appropriate to reduce the number of units designated for the\nIsland High site.\nStaff stated that mid-range numbers, 15 dwelling units per acre, were used for medium density\nresidential areas. For the Island High site the amount of funding available was used to\ndetermine the minimum number of units.\nPresident Kohlstrand requested staff add a discussion in the footnote as to how the unit count\nfor the Island High site was achieved and make it clear that the number is an estimate.\nBoard member McNamara asked if there were other sites on the list that have been around as\nlong as the Versailles site. She asked if it should be included since it has not been developed\nfor about 30 years.\nStaff responded that the Housing Element law does not require that cities build units. It\nrequires cities to make land available for units to be built. The Versailles site has the correct\nzoning and infrastructure to be included on the list.\nIn response to a question by Board member McNamara, staff affirmed it is a clean site.\nPage 6 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-03-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-03-09", "page": 7, "text": "Board member Autorino referred to page V-2 where it states there are 3,768 units proposed\nbut the table on page V-1 states 3,708 units.\nStaff responded that all numbers in the report will be rechecked and corrected where\nappropriate.\nPresident Kohlstrand referred to the Island High site and stated she is leaning towards\naccepting 12 units for this site.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated she is inclined to support staff and stay with 16 units for\nthe site since that is the minimum units that can be built at this location.\nBoard member McNamara stated she supports Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft's position and\ndoes not want to single out the Island High site. She supports the staff recommendation.\nStaff stated a discussion with Development Services will occur to ascertain why 16 units were\ndetermined to be the minimum for the site, and then staff would decide whether the number\nshould be reduced.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated she wanted to reiterate that this is not a final number of units for\nthe site it is an estimate. She referred to chapter VI page VI-10 h: \"The minimum lot size\nrepresents a reasonable and justifiable approach to protecting Alameda's small-town\ncommunity character. Since the regulation serves credible policy objectives, it would not be\nappropriate to eliminate the regulation.' She believes this statement is subjective rather than\nan objective observation.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft agreed with President Kohlstrand.\nBoard member Autorino suggested removing the two sentences. He believes the sentence\nfollowing the two mentioned by President Kohlstrand covers what is being stated.\nPresident Kohlstrand summarized the board's comments and requested they be completed by\nstaff prior to the Housing Element being forwarded to HCD for review. She stated that once\nthe Housing Element is reviewed by HCD, and staff re-presents it to the Board, staff will\nprovide suggestions on community outreach.\nStaff stated the Boards' comments, edits, and suggestions would be incorporated into the\ndocument, the document would be forwarded to HCD for review and a copy would be\ntransmitted to the Board; staff will also make the document available to the public. Once\ncomments have been received from HCD, staff will provide suggestions for a community\nworkshop or other forum for public comments.\nPresident Kohlstrand requested the item be placed on a Planning Board agenda in 2 months\nafter comments have been received from HCD.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft moved/Board member Autorino seconded the motion to\ndirect staff to forward the draft Housing Element, including comments, suggestions,\nPage 7 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-03-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-03-09", "page": 8, "text": "a result of the rezoning.\nStaff responded that the major factor with rezoning is that the current tenant would become a\nnonconforming use.\nBoard member Autorino stated he would like to see a list of all the sites where staff is\nconsidering zoning changes.\nStaff stated that this information would be coming to the board at a future date. Staff could\nprepare a list of properties where the general plan and zoning are not consistent.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked why staff chose not to bring all the nonconforming sites listed on\nthe Housing Element to the board at this time.\nStaff responded that it was a matter of available resources. The sites being presented tonight\nwere thought to be the least problematic.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked if there was any discussion in the Housing Element about staff's\napproach to rezoning the sites in clusters over time.\nStaff responded in the negative.\nBoard member Autorino moved/Board member McNamara seconded the motion to\nPage 8 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-03-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-03-09", "page": 9, "text": "direct staff to initiate the rezoning process for properties identified as suitable for\nhousing in the 2003 General Plan Housing Element. The motion carried 4-0.\n9-C. Density Bonus Ordinance - Citywide - City of Alameda. Recommendation to the\nCity Council on the proposed Density Bonus Ordinance and proposed Negative\nDeclaration. (JB)\nStaff presented the Density Bonus Ordinance and the Draft Negative Declaration. A density\nbonus ordinance provides incentives for developers to develop housing for very low, low, and\nmoderate income groups within market rate housing developments by allowing an increase in\nunit density and/or modified development standards. Density bonuses up to 35 percent would\nbe dependent on the types of projects. The ordinance also rescinds the existing inclusionary\nhousing ordinance requiring 25% affordable housing units in redevelopment areas.\nBoard member McNamara asked whether the income category \"extremely low', as noted in\nthe draft Housing Element would be also be considered for inclusion in this ordinance.\nStaff responded that this category is not explicitly called out in this ordinance, but that the\nextremely low income category is included in the low income category.\nPresident Kohlstrand requested clarification on the ordinance language on page 3, and\nwanted to ensure that the ordinance was reviewed by the legal division so that no developer\nwould be able to apply two or more density bonuses to one project.\nStaff clarified that a developer would only be able to apply one of the different density\nbonuses and must select from only one category.\nVice-President Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification of the ordinance language at the bottom\nof page 4, which states that for low income housing units, the affordability requirements were\napplicable for the duration of all financing methods, while for moderate income units, the\naffordability requirement ceased upon sale by the first moderate income owner.\nStaff explained that for those units developed under the Density Bonus ordinance, the initial\npurchaser must qualify as a moderate income to purchase the unit, but may sell at market\nrates. However, if there are affordable units in the development that were required by the\ninclusionary units ordinance, then those units would retain the affordability mandates that they\nremain affordable for 50 years.\nPresident Kohlstrand requested clarification on how the City would count inclusionary housing\nunits toward a Density Bonus. President Kohlstrand also asked if developers would be able to\ndouble count units per each ordinance to get additional incentives.\nStaff explained that staff was recommending that the inclusionary ordinance be amended to\nhave a city-wide 15 percent affordable housing unit requirement as opposed to a 25 percent\ninclusionary housing requirement in redevelopment areas. This rollback would prevent\ndevelopers from automatically receiving a density bonus for certain projects. In addition, staff\nstated that units developed under those separate ordinances could not be double counted to\nachieve a density bonus.\nPage 9 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-03-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-03-09", "page": 10, "text": "President Kohlstrand closed the board discussion and opened for public hearing.\nChris Buckley submitted a letter to the Planning Board recommending that incentives or\nconcessions be limited to those incentives that are mandated by the state, opposed to\ndeveloping individual concessions that make an end-run around local zoning standards.\nPresident Kohlstrand closed the public hearing.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked for clarification on whether existing single-family homes could be\nconverted to multiple units, receive a density bonus, and be subject to Article 26.\nStaff explained that this scenario would be possible and that Article 26 would still apply as\nwell as the density bonus ordinance.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked which incentives are mandated by the State.\nStaff stated that incentives #2, #3, #4, #5, and #7 are all mandated by the State.\nPresident Kohlstrand questioned whether the proposed incentives may need to be revised to\nrestrict the incentives.\nStaff responded that State law explicitly encourages affordable housing development and\nencourages cities to develop incentives in addition to the mandated incentives developers to\ncreate affordable housing.\nVice-President Ezzy Ashcraft revisited the scenario in which a large single family home would\nbe subdivided into several units. Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft cautioned that such a\naffordable housing development would likely lead to overcrowding.\nStaff explained that the set of circumstances that would allow such a development are\nextremely rare in Alameda, and such a development would not likely become common place.\nBoard member Autorino asked how the incentive list was developed.\nStaff responded that the list was developed in an iterative process with several City\ndepartments.\nBoard member McNamara moved and Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion to\ncontinue the Density Bonus ordinance to the next meeting to allow for review of all new\nmaterial and consider the statements discussed in this session.\nStaff agreed to place this ordinance on the next Planning Board agenda for March 23, 2009.\nThe motion carried 4-0.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone\nPage 10 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-03-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-03-09", "page": 11, "text": "11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nBoard members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or make a\nbrief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a referral to staff or other\nresources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent\nmeeting concerning a City matter or, through the chair, direct staff to place a request to\nagendize a matter of business on a future agenda.\nNone\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\na 10:05 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThis meeting was audio and video taped.\nPage 11 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-03-09.pdf"}