{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-04-10", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, APRIL 10, 2017\n1. CONVENE\nPresident K\u00f6ster convened the meeting at 7:00pm\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Knox White led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President K\u00f6ster, Board Members Burton, Curtis, Knox White, Mitchell,\nSullivan. Board Member Zuppan arrived at 7:03pm.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nStaff Member Tai added an update on a previously approved project to Staff\nCommunications, item 9.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n6-A 2017-4156\nAlameda Landing Residential Street Name Revision\nThe staff report and attachment can be found at:\nittps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3010217&GUID=AC80A05C-\n4F1C-47A9-9FC8-80C2F2CA2E9D\nBoard Member Curtis asked who the new street name \"Morrison\" was referring to.\nBoard Member Knox White said that it was Jim Morrison, who attended Alameda High\nSchool.\nBoard Member Knox White made a motion to approve the item. Board Member\nSullivan seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0 (Burton & Zuppan not\npresent for voting).\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2017-4157\nAlameda Marina Planning Board Subcommittee Recommendations Study\nSession\nApproved Minutes\nPage 1 of 9\nApril 10, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-04-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-04-10", "page": 2, "text": "Staff Member Tai introduced the item. The staff report can be found at:\n  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3010218&GUID=D909D69D-\nC500-421B-A54A-B2ECE3A2858D&FullText=1\nSean Murphy, Bay West Development, introduced Jim Musbach, who spoke about their\nmarket study. Mr. Musbach said there has been a decrease in maritime business activities\nover the years. He said most maritime related businesses cannot support rents required\nfor new construction. He added that there will be some refurbished spaces at Alameda\nMarina that will be appropriate for maritime and other makerspaces.\nPresident K\u00f6ster reported on the subcommittee's meetings (K\u00f6ster, Knox White, Mitchell)\nregarding the maritime core of the project. He said they envisioned a working waterfront\nfor smaller boats. He said they wanted to retain as many historical buildings as possible\nthat would support businesses that require lower rents. He said they want a flexible plan\nwith the space to adapt to different uses.\nBoard Member Knox White said the infrastructure costs for the site will force the\ncommunities to make tradeoffs and this process is meant to prioritize the tradeoffs. He\nsaid they wanted to maintain the maritime commercial focus and their access to the water.\nBoard Member Mitchell said this site is different than all the other projects they have\nevaluated, given the large number of businesses currently operating there now. He said\nhe liked the interesting design feature that the graving dock presented. He said he did not\nwant to spend two years moving the project along and then have BCDC deny the project\nover plans to fill in the graving dock.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked what was learned about the buildings being difficult to save.\nPresident K\u00f6ster said the wall of buildings along Clement do not conform to design\nstandards. He said there is one historic building near the entrance that would be worth\npreserving. He said others would be impacted by reconstruction of the seawall.\nBoard Member Knox White explained that the high voltage power lines along the\nsidewalks create ADA issues if the old buildings along Clement remain.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked if they did research on what would be lost economically if\nthose existing businesses were displaced.\nBoard Member Knox White said the market report does not get into that level of detail.\nPresident K\u00f6ster opened the public hearing.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 2 of 9\nApril 10, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-04-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-04-10", "page": 3, "text": "Peter Brand said we are an island city and different than the rest of California. He said we\ncannot be expected to solve California's housing problem. He listed all the housing that is\nalready approved for construction. He said the plan does not provide enough dry boat\nstorage.\nLiz Taylor said small businesses need long leases to make investments in their operations.\nBrian Schumacher said the board needs to consider the safety impacts of all the added\nhousing.\nAnthony Lawson said he came to Alameda for the marine industry. He said he has not\nmet anyone that wants more high density development in Alameda.\nJoan Wilson said there are many other places to build housing and we need to preserve\nlow cost industrial space.\nNancy Hird said we have a jobs/housing imbalance and should not erode commercial\nspace. She said the city should conduct a new study to see how much of the bulkhead\nreally needed to be rebuilt. She said the rent the city collects could be set aside for repairs\nof the bulkhead. She said the plan needs more dry boat storage.\nTom Charron said he has two boats and uses Alameda's boatyards frequently. He said\nwe need to preserve the last of our industrial maritime waterfront spaces.\nMaggie Sabovich says we should think about the waterfront as a very limited and special\ncommodity in California. She said we are losing waterfront. She said sometimes it takes\nher an hour and a half to get through the tunnel from Oakland Yacht Club. She supported\nsaving the maritime usage of the site.\nSylvia Earle said the working waterfront businesses provide the character of Alameda.\nShe said Alameda Marina is home to a unique collection of small businesses and that\nhousing can be built elsewhere.\nChristopher Buckley said he was pleased at the recommendation to preserve as many\nbuildings as possible. He said there appears to be a historic district at the site.\nLeslie Cameron, owner of Bay Ship and Yacht, said they are the new owners of\nSvendsen's. She said she believes there is room for everyone at the site and it does not\nhave to be adversarial.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 3 of 9\nApril 10, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-04-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-04-10", "page": 4, "text": "Brock de Lappe said he believed a development could be done while preserving the\nboatyard and dry storage space. He said the boatyard is a top sales tax generator for\nAlameda.\nWoody Minor said the buildings on the site are the most significant remnant Alameda has\nof its shipbuilding history.\nPresident K\u00f6ster closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Curtis said the subcommittee did a good job listing the priorities. He said\nthat once the maritime businesses are gone, they will be gone for good. He said we need\nto be very careful in doing what is necessary to preserve the boatyard and other\nbusinesses. He suggested using an improvement district to fund site improvements. He\nsaid we won't be able to get people off the island in the event of a big earthquake.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked for information on how the tideland lease money has been\nallocated.\nStaff Member Tai said they can provide that information to the board in the future.\nBoard Member Sullivan suggested considering $2-3 Million homes to help offset\ninfrastructure costs of the site.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she had concerns about the conclusions drawn in the\neconomic study. She said the sales tax and employment information would be helpful to\nsee. She said the maritime commercial focus needs to be the number one priority for the\nsite. She said we need more dry boat storage than currently proposed. She supported\npreserving the graving dock. She said she wants to preserve a thriving maritime\ncommunity.\nBoard Member Knox White said that most of the dry boat storage was not used by active\nboaters. He said the number of 50 was a bare minimum and not a final recommendation.\nHe said the desire to keep existing buildings was for historic preservation reasons as well\ntrying to keep rents down.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked for more information about possible soil contamination\nissues.\nMr. Murphy said they have done extensive soil sampling and there are high lead\ncontaminants on the site. He said they plan to remediate the site and those costs are\nincluded in the $60Million infrastructure estimate. He said they pay $106,000 in rent for\nthe tidelands. He said they are evaluating the use of CFDs to pay for infrastructure.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 4 of 9\nApril 10, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-04-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-04-10", "page": 5, "text": "Board Member Mitchell said his understanding is that they cannot dictate who the\napplicant can lease the space to, so they want to make sure the spaces are programmed\nto allow the right types of uses if viable. He said there are many compromises to be\nweighed on the site.\nPresident K\u00f6ster said this site is different than others and they are trying to systematically\npreserve the maritime core.\n7-B 2017-4167\nStudy Session to Consider Draft Text Amendment to the City of Alameda\nZoning Ordinance (AMC Chapter 30) for Modification of Regulations\nPertaining to Second Units (Accessory Dwelling Units), Accessory\nStructures, and Residential Parking Requirements for Additions of Floor\nArea to Comply with State Law. The proposed amendments are Statutorily\nExempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section\n15282(h).\nStaff Member Tai introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3010219&GUID=8E1C5881-\nFOF5-4B72-94D4-96556F28B15D&FullText=\nStaff Member Diamond gave the staff presentation.\nBoard Member Knox White asked why the detached ADUs could only be 600 square feet\nand attached units can be 750 square feet.\nStaff Member Tai said they are trying to minimize the footprints and impacts that detached\nADUs can have. He explained that the attached ADUs are typically basement conversions\nthat have larger spaces.\nBoard Member Knox White asked for clarification of the \"owner occupied\" rule.\nStaff Member Diamond said they are encouraging the owner living on site and have that\nbe deed restricted.\nBoard Member Knox White said that it would lower the property value by limiting the pool\nof potential buyers for their property.\nBoard Member Curtis said the property should always require an owner occupancy to\nprevent blight. He asked if a home that was not in compliance with parking requirements\nwould be able to build an ADU.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 5 of 9\nApril 10, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-04-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-04-10", "page": 6, "text": "Staff Member Diamond said that if they met the requirements, they would not be required\nto provide additional parking.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if there would be areas that would be exempt from approving\nADUs because of a shortage of street parking in the neighborhood.\nStaff Member Diamond said that they can only require the parking if an existing garage is\nbeing converted.\nBoard Member Zuppan presented a scenario of a possible hardship for the owner of a\ndeed restricted ADU.\nStaff Member Diamond explained the difficulty in enforcing and administering the deed\nrestricted provision and the process for declaring a hardship.\nBoard Member Zuppan sought clarifications about how the setback, lot coverage, and unit\nsize requirements would apply.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked if HOAs could still prohibit ADUs.\nStaff Member Tai said most Harbor Bay lots are not large enough for a detached ADU. He\nsaid any restrictions from the HOA are a private agreement with the homeowner and\nseparate from the permit.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she supports having the applicant be owner-occupied, but\nnot having a deed restriction go with the property. She said she does not think the parking\nexemption is good planning.\nBoard Member Burton asked how the design review and permitting process would work\nfor projects with an addition and an ADU.\nStaff Members Diamond and Tai discussed the different fees and process that would be\nneeded for that scenario and said it would create questions about noticing.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked if the ADU process would be a loophole for people who\nreally want to just do a large addition and avoid design review or parking requirements.\nStaff Member Tai said that people could possibly use that as a workaround in some\ncircumstances.\nBoard Member Knox White asked if there was any appeal process in case staff gets an\nADU design review wrong.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 6 of 9\nApril 10, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-04-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-04-10", "page": 7, "text": "Staff Member Tai said the design review has to be ministerial and would not be\nappealable.\nPresident K\u00f6ster opened the public hearing.\nAlexandra Saikley said she supports ADUs. She said the board should consider changing\nthe requirement that design of the backyard cottages should be consistent in design. She\nsaid prefabricated cottages can make many ADUs financially. She said the cottages\nshould be allowed to be larger than 600 square feet. She suggested 900 or 1,000 square\nfeet would be appropriate.\nChristopher Buckley said that AAPS sent a letter with comments on the ordinance. He\nlisted guidelines they would like to see included.\nPresident K\u00f6ster closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Knox White said we have lot coverage requirements, therefore should not\nalso require the accessory buildings to be smaller. He said 900 square feet might be\nappropriate. He said he could not support a deed restriction for properties to be owner\noccupied. He said he would like to see a combination application to help applicants keep\ncosts down.\nBoard Member Curtis said he feels strongly that there should be an owner occupied\nrequirement.\nBoard Member Zuppan said the square footage limitations raise accessibility concerns.\nShe said she is concerned about extending walls of accessory buildings along property\nlines. She said she supports requiring the original permit be issued to an owner occupied\nunit, but that enforcing that after the ADU is constructed would be impractical. She said\nshe has a problem with the inconsistency in the parking requirements. She says she does\nnot fully understand the CC&R issue.\nStaff Attorney Brown said those covenants restricting ADUs could still be applied even\nthough the city and state would be willing to issue a permit. She said the HOA could still\ninitiate action against them.\nBoard Member Knox White said that he would like to get clarification from the state on the\nHOA issue, saying it does not seem right that the state can say this use needs to be\nallowed while allowing entire HOA communities to opt out of the regulations.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he does not think the 750 square foot parking rule for\nadditions is working the way it was designed to work and we should get rid of it. He said\nApproved Minutes\nPage 7 of 9\nApril 10, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-04-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-04-10", "page": 8, "text": "he thinks the lot coverage requirements are enough and we should not further limit the\nsize of the ADUs. He said there are very interesting prefabricated designs that he would\nbe okay with.\nBoard Member Sullivan said 750 square foot size limit for ADUs was appropriate. She\nsaid she would like to keep the 750 square foot parking rule.\nBoard Member Burton said he was glad the state is forcing us to act. He said he would\nsupport allowing larger ADUs and letting the lot coverage rules apply. He said he would\nbe in favor of eliminating the parking rule for 750 square foot additions. He said he would\nlike to be able to combine the applications for additions and ADUs.\nPresident K\u00f6ster said the visitability standards they are trying to implement would mean\nthat they could allow the unit sizes to be a little larger than they are now. He said he does\nnot need to require the units to be owner occupied.\nBoard Member Curtis suggested that the neighbors be notified of additions that lead to\nhomes larger than 3,000 square feet.\n8. MINUTES\n*None*\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2017-4168\nZoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions\nStaff Member Tai summarized recent decisions made by staff.\n9-B 2017-4169\nFuture Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Tai gave an update on agenda items for the upcoming meetings.\nStaff Member Barrera gave a presentation on the previously approved Sterling Ave.\naddition.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\n11-A 2017-4170\nSubcommittee for Alameda Marina\n*see item 7-A*\nApproved Minutes\nPage 8 of 9\nApril 10, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-04-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-04-10", "page": 9, "text": "11-B 2017-4171\nSubcommittee with Commission on Disability Issues regarding Universal\nDesign Ordinance\n*None*\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident K\u00f6ster adjourned the meeting at 10:42pm.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 9 of 9\nApril 10, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-04-10.pdf"}