{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-02-13", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2017\n1. CONVENE\nPresident K\u00f6ster convened the meeting at 7:01pm\n***Video for this meeting can be found at:\nttp:llalameda.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=6&clip id=1918\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Mitchell led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President K\u00f6ster, Board Members Burton, Curtis, Knox White, Mitchell, Sullivan.\nBoard Member Zuppan arrived at 7:03pm.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\n*None*\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n*None*\n7. REGULAR\nAGENDA\nITEMS\n7-A 2017-3902\nA Public Hearing to Consider: PLN16-0592 - 1310 Court Street - Applicant:\nMichael and Jen McAnaney. The applicant request Planning Board\napproval for a Design Review and Variance to waive parking requirements\nfor the conversion of an existing basement to create more than 750 square\nfeet of new floor area in a single family home.\nStaff Member Sablan gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found\nat:   https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2951559&GUID=681E36B5-\n085C-40B3-809A-905FFDB2CB26&FullText=1\nBoard Member Curtis asked if the curb cut were restored, would there be an additional on\nstreet parking space.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 1 of 10\nFebruary 13, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-02-13", "page": 2, "text": "Staff Member Sablan said that it would create an additional on street parking space that\nwould be available for the neighborhood.\nStaff Member Thomas said that if the board decides to grant a variance for both parking\nspaces, that they suggest at least restoring the curb so the neighborhood could legally\nuse the extra street parking space.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked what evidence there was for when the driveway was closed\noff.\nStaff Member Sablan said they had a photograph from 1979 showing the driveway still\nthere, but they are unsure when it was removed.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked if they could use the laws in place when the change was\nmade to determine what action should be required.\nStaff Member Thomas said they do have an amnesty program that tries to do that.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked whether they would be required to add parking if this were\nan accessory dwelling unit instead of an addition.\nStaff Member Thomas said new laws at the state level say they could not require additional\nparking if it were a second unit.\nBoard Member Burton asked if a 600 square foot second unit and 400 square foot addition\nwould require an additional parking space.\nStaff Member Thomas said that it would not require additional parking in that scenario.\nBoard Member Curtis said that there is a practical question about whether there is any\nharm done by granting a variance in this situation when the improvements are good for\nthe whole neighborhood.\nBoard Member Burton asked if there is a recorded easement between the applicant and\nthe neighbors at 1314 Court St. who would need it to access their driveway.\nStaff Member Sablan said the applicant said there is not.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked if the easement would still be valid if they grant the variance.\nStaff Member Thomas said that the easement is a civil arrangement between the property\nowners and would be unaffected by a variance.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 2 of 10\nFebruary 13, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-02-13", "page": 3, "text": "Board Member Knox White asked if the existence of the easement negates their ability to\nfind that there is something unique about this property to grant the variance.\nStaff Member Thomas said the board could make whatever finding they want about the\nuniqueness of the property, but it is hard to argue that there is no way to provide the\nparking.\nPresident K\u00f6ster opened the public hearing.\nMichael McAnaney, applicant, explained why they are asking for a variance. He said there\nis abundant parking in their neighborhood, their family owns only one car, and he rides a\nbike and takes the bus to work.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked how they know the addition is 1.000 square feet. She asked\nif they could even fit a modern car into the existing garage.\nMr. McAnaney said the plans are for 1,000 square feet and they could not fit their car in\nthe garage if they rebuilt the driveway.\nPresident K\u00f6ster closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Knox White said he is not confident that we could make a legal claim to a\nvariance. He said he would like to recommend to the City Council to change the parking\nrequirements to allow a maximum of two parking spaces.\nBoard Member Curtis said he opposes a blanket change in zoning and wants to look at\neach application on its merits. He said he would support restoring the curb cut and granting\nthe variance.\nBoard Member Zuppan said putting a parking spot on this property would not add to the\nvalue of the neighborhood. She said a variance would be appropriate in this instance.\nBoard Member Mitchell said there is a lot of available street parking in the area. He said\nhe can make a finding about the uniqueness of the property in order to provide a variance.\nHe said he would also like to have a broader discussion about these requirements in light\nof recent changes to state law.\nBoard Member Burton said he would normally love to reconsider parking requirements in\nAlameda. He said the existence of the easement makes it difficult to find the conditions\nrequired to give a variance. He said it would set a precedent for other properties in the\ncity. He said he would be supportive of option two.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 3 of 10\nFebruary 13, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-02-13", "page": 4, "text": "Board Member Zuppan asked how it would work practically to park two cars on the\nproperty given the conditions of the easement which she said would lead to the loss of the\neasement if the existing garage has to be torn down.\nBoard Member Burton read the easement description out loud and acknowledged that\nBoard Member Zuppan's interpretation of the easement conditions might in fact remove\nthe driveway access and create the required hardship if the garage were torn down.\nBoard Member Sullivan said this is a charming property with a young, growing family and\nin this case, requiring the parking would destroy the ambience of the property. She said\nshe supports the variance.\nPresident K\u00f6ster said he was curious how this project would play out because he is in a\nsimilar situation with his property. He said it presents an interesting challenge for many\nsimilar properties in Alameda. He said the property line issues creates a special situation\nfor this property. He said he would like to see the curb cut closed and allow the variance.\nBoard Member Knox White made a motion to approve the variance with the condition that\nthe curb cut be returned to curb, and with a recommendation that staff bring an\namendment to the zoning requirement to give the Planning Board the ability to\nconditionally waive the parking requirement in similar situations.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she thinks this should be two separate motions.\nBoard Member Mitchell made a motion to approve the variance.\nStaff Member Thomas said he would like to request the motion direct staff to craft a\nresolution with the appropriate findings for the variances and restoring the curb cut, to be\nplaced on the consent calendar for approval.\nBoard Member Mitchell made a motion to do what Staff Member Thomas said. Board\nMember Zuppan seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\nBoard Member Knox White made a motion to direct staff to return to the board with\na proposed recommendation for City Council to amend the current zoning language\nthat requires the 750 square foot trigger that all parking be brought up to code and\ngive the Planning Board the ability to conditionally waive the parking requirement.\nBoard Member Curtis seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\nBoard Member Knox White made a motion to continue the item to the next meeting.\nBoard Member Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 4 of 10\nFebruary 13, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-02-13", "page": 5, "text": "7-B 2017-3904\nStudy Session to Consider Draft Citywide Universal Design Ordinance\nRequirements and Standards\nStaff Member Thomas gave a presentation. The staff report and attachment can be found\nat: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2951560&GUID=258D7220-\nC844-4689-B63B-FBA18B44EAFO&FullText=1\nBoard Member Zuppan suggested making a distinction requiring a bathing component to\nthe bathroom in the universally designed units and not requiring that for the bathrooms\nused to meet the visitability requirement.\nBoard Member Knox White asked if an accessory dwelling unit would be held to the\nUniversal Design ordinance.\nStaff Member Thomas said there are exemptions for home additions and adding a unit\nwithin an existing building.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked how the ordinance would apply to secondary units.\nStaff Member Thomas said that it would apply for a new structure but not converting an\nexisting structure (ie-garage).\nStaff Member Zuppan asked why we are not allowing the use of an alternative door to\nmeet the visitability standard, instead of mandating it be the front door.\nStaff Member Thomas said that Christopher Buckley (AAPS) also brought that issue up to\nhim for consideration.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked why the accessible level doorbell was not on the required\nlist. She asked if reconstruction after a fire would be exempt from building to the new\nstandards.\nStaff Member Thomas said that it is a good policy question and should be spelled out in\nthe code.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if we have considered the financial impact, since we are on\nthe leading edge of this issue, and if there has been pushback.\nStaff Member Thomas said there has been some pushback in the developer community.\nHe said the multi-family buildings will meet the requirements fairly easily. He said the\ntownhome developers are very concerned about some of the requirements. He said the\nflexibility between product types will hopefully help them meet their requirements. He said\nApproved Minutes\nPage 5 of 10\nFebruary 13, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-02-13", "page": 6, "text": "the ability to come to the board for waivers will also provide some flexibility if there are\nproblems.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked how this ordinance would apply to projects currently in the\napplication phase.\nStaff Attorney Brown said that until a vested map and development agreement are in\nplace, any new ordinance can apply.\nStaff Member Thomas said they can specify who and when the ordinance applies when\nthey pass it.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked if the visitability requirements would apply to demolishing\nan old garage and building a new one with an apartment above.\nStaff Member Thomas said it would.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked how the historic corridors like Park St. would be treated.\nStaff Member Thomas said changes within an existing building are exempt, but new\nconstruction would have to meet the requirements.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if only applying the ordinance to properties with three or more\nunits would simplify a lot of these questions.\nStaff Member Thomas said that it would.\nPresident K\u00f6ster opened the public hearing.\nNan Rideout said she was in favor of the ordinance. She said her perspective has changed\non the subject as she has aged. She said having housing appropriate for aging seniors\nallows for many important cultural resources to function.\nWilliam Fairchild from Starlight Marine Services said he hopes the board makes maritime\nbusinesses part of Alameda's plans for the future.\nAudrey Lord-Hausman, introduced members of the Commission on Disability Issues and\nthanked the board and staff for their work. She said she looks forward to completing this\nordinance.\nAl Wright talked about his parents' experience getting changes built into a new home to\nmake it more accessible. He said you would never know the house was designed for\nuniversal access in mind.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 6 of 10\nFebruary 13, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-02-13", "page": 7, "text": "President K\u00f6ster closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Knox White said he would like to see some clarifications for specific\nsituations. He said he would like to see it apply to smaller properties and that there is\nenough flexibility built in. He said he is ready to see it move forward.\nBoard Member Curtis said he is concerned that we preserve the flavor of Alameda and\nexempt older properties being rebuilt.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she would like to figure out how to issue fewer waivers and\nget more compliance. She said accessibility is the priority and that there should be\nflexibility on which door provides access to visitors. She suggested some sort of waiver\nfor reconstruction after disaster. She said she liked the idea of allowing staff to provide\nsome waivers for small properties. She said she was concerned about the accessory\nstructure issue that was raised. She said she is worried that we will be requiring an\nenormous bathroom on the ground floor for the visitability part of the ordinance.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he would like to see simple exemptions for some of the\naccessory structures and odd scenarios. He said he would be okay with allowing a rear or\nside door meet the accessibility requirement.\nBoard Member Burton said you can meet the accessible bathroom requirements with a\n6'10\" X 9' bathroom. He said putting in an effective date would be good, if we can. He said\nwe should add a statement of purpose for the visitability goal. He said we should not\nexempt buildings like Del Monte that would add a large number of units. He offered several\nsuggested technical edits and proofreading corrections.\nBoard Member Sullivan said it was important to include comments from the building\ncommunity about what costs certain items would add. She said she would like to see some\ntightening of the ordinance to allow single family homes to have flexibility.\nPresident K\u00f6ster said he would like to safeguard older homes being rebuilt after acts of\ngod. He said there are differences for mobility standards and accessible standards and\nwe should be clear which we are referring to at different points. He said the aggressive\nnature of the ordinance could be something the city could market.\nBoard Member Knox White said he hoped the purpose could start out by making the\nordinance about people and not design standards and building requirements.\nStaff Member Thomas said they would do some fine tuning, meet one more time with the\nsubcommittee and hopefully bring it back before a joint meeting of the Planning Board and\nCODI in March.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 7 of 10\nFebruary 13, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-02-13", "page": 8, "text": "8. MINUTES\n8-A 2017-3889\nDraft Meeting Minutes - December 12, 2016\nBoard Member Sullivan offered edits for clarity and typos.\nBoard Member Zuppan offered edits for clarification and asked for further information on\nBoard Member Burton's Board Communication.\nBoard Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the minutes with the suggested\nedits. Board Member Knox White seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\n8-B 2017-3890\nDraft Meeting Minutes - January 9, 2017\nBoard Member Zuppan offered edits for clarification.\nBoard Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the minutes with the suggested\nedits. Board Member Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0-3\n(Burton, K\u00f6ster and Knox White abstained).\n8-C 2017-3906\nDraft Meeting Minutes - January 23, 2017\nBoard Member Knox White said half his last name was missing in one section.\nBoard Member Zuppan offered an amendment clarifying concerns about lead paint\nremediation at Alameda Point. She suggested including the link to the meeting video in\nplace of the link to the staff report and attachments.\nBoard Member Burton offered some clarifications identifying speakers for the St. Charles\nproject that is being called for review. He clarified the timing of implementation for Zero\nNet Energy requirements at the state level.\nBoard Member Curtis offered an edit to clarify his remarks about infrastructure\nconstruction costs at Alameda Point.\nBoard Member Burton made a motion to approve the minutes with the corrections\nnoted. Board Member Zuppan seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2017-3910\nZoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions\nApproved Minutes\nPage 8 of 10\nFebruary 13, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-02-13", "page": 9, "text": "Staff Member Thomas said they pulled two items off of the list of approvals for further\nchanges.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked for more information about 1526 Webster St.\nStaff Member Sablan gave a description of the project.\n9-B 2017-3912\nFuture Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Thomas said the Harbor Bay Hotel is going before BCDC soon. He listed\nprojects that would be on the next agenda, including Catellus for Alameda Landing\nwaterfront phase.\nBoard Member Knox White said he is not interested in hearing a request for a change of\nuse by Catellus unless all the requirements of the previous phase, including shopping cart\nrestrictions, have been met.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\n11-A 2017-3900\nSubcommittee with Commission on Disability Issues regarding Universal\nDesign Ordinance\n*Discussed in item 7-B*\n11-B 2017-3901\nSubcommittee for Alameda Marina\n*None*\nBoard Member Zuppan said the Economic Development Strategic Plan Task Force is\nhaving a meeting 2/16 at 8am at Alameda Marina.\nBoard Member Knox White reported that he met with Mike O'Hara from Tim Lewis\nCommunities to catch up on the meeting he missed.\nPresident K\u00f6ster said he also met with Mike O'Hara.\nBoard Members Knox White and Mitchell disclosed (separately) meeting with Save\nAlameda's Working Waterfront.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 9 of 10\nFebruary 13, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-02-13", "page": 10, "text": "12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nAl Wright said Andrew Thomas is a real asset to Alameda. He said that we need to find a\nway to even out our water supply. He said requiring on-demand water heaters for new\nconstruction and remodeled building could save a lot of water.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked if we want to to discuss mandating Zero Net Energy beyond the\nstate requirements.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he would support that.\nStaff Member Thomas reviewed the ordinances that staff is working on getting back before\nthe board which are taking up much of staff's time.\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident K\u00f6ster adjourned the meeting at 10:20pm.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 10 of 10\nFebruary 13, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-02-13.pdf"}