{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-09-11", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2017\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Mitchell convened the meeting at 7:00pm\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Curtis led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President Mitchell, Board Members Burton, Curtis, Knox White, K\u00f6ster, Sullivan.\nBoard Member Zuppan arrived at 7:04pm.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\n*None*\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n6-A 2017-4667\nPLN17-0536 - 1435 Webster Street - Applicant: Dannan Development.\nPublic Hearing to consider a modification to a condition of approval for\nConstruction of a Three-Story Mixed-Use Development including Nine\nResidential Units and Ground Floor Retail at 1435 Webster Street (APN74-\n427-5-1). The project is categorically exempt from further review under the\nCalifornia Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section\n15305 Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations\n6-B 2017-4669\nPLN17-0094 - 900 Mound St (Krusi Park) - Applicant: City of Alameda\nRecreation and Parks Department. A public hearing to consider final\napproval for Design Review to construct a 2,376 square foot multi-purpose\nbuilding at the center of Krusi Park. On May 8, 2017, the Planning Board\napproved a Use Permit to allow the construction of the multi-purpose\nbuilding within the O (Open Space) Zoning District, provided comments on\nthe proposed design to the applicant, and required a final design be brought\nback for Planning Board approval. The project is located within the O (Open\nSpace) Zoning District. This project is a Class 3 Categorical Exemption and\nno additional environmental review is necessary pursuant to State CEQA\nGuidelines, Section 15303, New Construction of Small Structures\nApproved Planning Board minutes\nPage 1 of 9\nSeptember 11, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-09-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-09-11", "page": 2, "text": "Board Member Knox White made a motion to approve the consent calendar. Board\nMember Curtis seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2017-4673\nDevelopment Plan Application for a 66-Unit Affordable Housing\nDevelopment. Applicant: Housing Authority of the City of Alameda. A\nDevelopment Plan application to construct 60 new and to retain six existing\naffordable, multi-family, rental units, on a 1.95 acre site within the R-5\nZoning District located at 727 Buena Vista Avenue. The project is exempt\nfrom CEQA pursuant to California Public Resources Code sections\n21159.21, 21159.23 (Exemption for affordable housing) and 21159.24\n(Exemption for infill affordable housing), as well as CEQA Guideline section\n15332 (Infill development projects). Furthermore, the project does not\ntrigger any of the exceptions in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 in that\nthe project will not have any significant effects due to unusual\ncircumstances or any cumulatively significant impacts and will not\nadversely impact any designated historic resources\nVictoria Johnson, Housing Authority, began a presentation. The staff report and\nattachments can bef ound at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3142741&GUID=79DCFCOD-\n274E-40AD-8E20-C3D24B460F29\nPaul East, project architect, continued the presentation.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked about the ability to build up to 85 units on the site and\nwhether that is hindered by the lack of parking.\nStaff Member Thomas said a number of factors that affect the number of units. He listed\nthe zoning, Measure A exemptions, and other requirements that apply to the site which\nthey used to arrive at a number.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked how the low parking ratio at Shinsei Gardens has been\nworking.\nMs. Johnson said that when they have meetings at Shinsei Gardens they have to park in\nthe adjoining neighborhood. She said they are okay for day to day but have no extra space\nfor visitors.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if there have been complaints or issues with parking at any\nof their other properties.\nApproved Planning Board minutes\nPage 2 of 9\nSeptember 11, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-09-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-09-11", "page": 3, "text": "Ms. Johnson explained that daytime parking is heavily impacted due to park and ride\ncommuters, and ample parking at night. She said they do not have significant parking\nissues except for sometimes seniors that need very close parking.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked how many EZ passes would be supplied to each unit.\nMs. Johnson said they would have a minimum of one per unit and will be trying to get a\n2nd pass per unit for a discount.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if there would be major utility boxes added to the property.\nMs. Johnson said they are still in discussions with AMP about what will be required.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked how the board can make certain findings before doing\ndesign review.\nStaff Member Thomas said they can reserve judgment on the architecture while still\napproving the site plan.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked what the makeup of the tenants is, given the low ratio of\ncars per unit.\nMs. Johnson said they have about 50% seniors, 40% disabled, and maybe 25% working\nfamilies.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she is concerned about the parking. She says the Bayport\nresidents hate people who are not from the neighborhood parking there. She asked if they\nidentify resident cars with stickers.\nMs. Johnson said they get stickers to park on the property but do not control the public\nstreets. She said that is why they are keeping the 1 to 1 ratio which allows every household\nto have a car.\nPresident Mitchell opened the public hearing.\nChristopher Buckley said he would prefer the artisan design to move forward.\nAlan Teague said it would be nice to have more than 66 units. He said the site is well\nserved by transit. He said he is in favor of the project.\nPresident Mitchell closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she is happy to move forward if we can adapt the resolution\nfindings to reflect the stage of the project they are in. She said she is interested in\nApproved Planning Board minutes\nPage 3 of 9\nSeptember 11, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-09-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-09-11", "page": 4, "text": "expanding the number of bus passes to the number of bedrooms. She said she is okay\nwith the parking as it is.\nBoard Member Curtis said he is supportive of the project.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she is okay with the project and thinks the Artisan design\nconcept is less dated and institutional.\nBoard Member Burton said he would be supportive of maximizing the amount of units on\nthe site, even if it is at the expense of some of the parking. He said he would choose the\nEl Camino style, or perhaps the Artisan style.\nBoard Member Knox White asked how approving even more units would work.\nStaff Member Thomas said they could make it clear that they are supportive of the 66 units\nand could approve more during the design review process.\nBoard Member Knox White said he would rather see more units built rather than a lot of\nparking.\nBoard Member Curtis said he cannot support any more than the 66 units because it would\ndegrade the quality of life of the residents if parking became a hassle.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster said he would like to approve the project and allow flexibility for the\npossibility of more units at the next phase. He said he liked the El Camino and Monte\nVerde designs.\nPresident Mitchell asked what possible tradeoffs and financing issues would come up if\nthey tried to build more units.\nMs. Johnson said they considered tuck under parking, which would be cost prohibitive.\nShe said they could also build higher and does not think it would negatively affect the\nneighborhood, which is mostly commercial and other Housing Authority property. She said\nthat would require rezoning to add another story. She said some of their funding sources\nrequire 25% of the units to be 3 bedroom. She said times have changed and 50% of their\nwaiting list is now single people with disabilities.\nPresident Mitchell said he would be open to leaving the high end unit count flexible. He\nsaid he like design options 6 or number 2.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she liked the Artisan design the most. She said we do not\nneed to pre-specify how many additional units. The board would be open to and could\nalways approve more if it gets through design review.\nApproved Planning Board minutes\nPage 4 of 9\nSeptember 11, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-09-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-09-11", "page": 5, "text": "Board Member Curtis suggested approving the extra units but specifying the ratio of\nparking spaces per bedroom.\nBoard Member Burton said he would be uncomfortable setting the parking ratio now. He\nsaid he would prefer allowing the Housing Authority to demonstrate how they are providing\nadequate parking based on data from other facilities.\nBoard Member Zuppan made a motion to approve the development plan for 66 units\nwith the clarifications for items D and E that they are subject to design review, and\nthat the 66 units could be increased if the applicant demonstrates that their would\nbe adequate parking. Board Member K\u00f6ster seconded the motion.\nBoard Member Knox White said going for funding needs certainty. He asked if they could\ngive staff direction to return with a zoning change that allows them to go up another story.\nMs. Johnson said they are not averse to the flexibility. She said a taller building would\nincrease per square foot costs beyond their already high level.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she would like to amend her motion to allow 66-84 units\non the site. Board Member K\u00f6ster accepted the amendment. The motion passed 7-\n0.\n7-B 2017-4674\nPublic Hearing to Consider a Proposed Zoning Amendment to AMC\nSection 30-25 Appeals or Calls for Review\nStaff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found\nat: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3142742&GUID=9E2FA4AD-\nE3CB-4E3D-9271-4F397B794B4E&FullText=1\nBoard Member Sullivan asked what the process is for the zoning amendment.\nStaff Member Thomas said they have two public hearings with the council to change the\nlaw. He said the staff report would be updated with the Planning Board's\nrecommendations.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked if a resident's appeal fee could be waived if the council then\ncalls it for review.\nStaff Member Thomas said it would not.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked how many calls for review have been made.\nStaff Member Thomas said there have been ten since 2015. He said from 2002-2014 there\nwere five.\nApproved Planning Board minutes\nPage 5 of 9\nSeptember 11, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-09-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-09-11", "page": 6, "text": "Board Member Zuppan asked why the recommendation included a requirement to identify\na specific part of the zoning code as the cause for the call for review.\nStaff Member Thomas said they are trying to identify what went wrong with the process.\nPresident Mitchell asked how the time and materials cost would be accounted for if there\nare calls for review.\nStaff Member Thomas said that they will track the expenses and bill the general fund.\nPresident Mitchell opened the public hearing.\nKari Thompson, Chamber of Commerce, urged strong support for the changes. She said\nthe businesses were incurring large expenses in time and resources to deal with calls for\nreview.\nAlan Teague said our current ordinance requires council members to specify a reason to\njustify the call for review and that needs to be enforced by staff. He said he is concerned\nabout the Brown Act and serial meetings if we require two council members to call a project\nfor review.\nBoard Member Mitchell closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Zuppan said the ordinance should specify that they are referring to the\nCity's cost, not anyone else's. She said she is uncomfortable with the Brown Act\nimplications of requiring a second council member for a call for review. She said it would\nrequire some sort of notification system to prevent Brown Act violations.\nStaff Member Thomas said they are considering a staff practice of sharing any written\ncalls for review with all the other council members so they would know it has been called\nfor review.\nBoard Member Curtis said he was disappointed by the portion of the staff report that talks\nabout council members being pressured by their constituents without justification.\nStaff Member Thomas explained that the questionable language came from the council\nreferral.\nBoard Member Knox White said the Brown Act issue is a big one. He said we could adjust\nthe timing required for the two calls for review. He said we could also adjust our sunshine\nordinance to allow this action with limited discussion at each council meeting. He said that\nsomeone who wins an appeal should have their appeal costs paid.\nApproved Planning Board minutes\nPage 6 of 9\nSeptember 11, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-09-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-09-11", "page": 7, "text": "Staff Member Thomas explained the options the board is considering. He said one way\nwould be to have a two week call for review period, where the first call for review would\nhave to be submitted within seven days. He said they would put in language that notifies\nall the council members when any council member submits a call for review. He said the\nother option would be to have a standing agenda item for recent board and commission\ndecisions to provide an opportunity to call something for review.\nBoard Member Sullivan said council members are elected individually to represent the\ncommunity and does not see how requiring a second member would change the frivolity\nof some calls for review.\nStaff Member Thomas said that under the current system there is no way to have staff\nevaluate the merits of a call for review. He said it is the only place where one council\nmember can determine what city business gets done or not, regardless of what business\nthe council as a whole has determined is important.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster said there needs to be a little bit of checks and balances.\nBoard Member Burton said he would lean towards the plan where staff is notified for calls\nfor review and staff notifies the rest of council.\nPresident Mitchell said he likes the staff recommendation, but recognizing the Brown Act\nissues. He said he wants to find a way to do this without adding more work for staff and\ncouncil.\nBoard Member Zuppan said that having the call for review discussion at city council\nmeetings is the superior option because of potential timing issues. She said there needs\nto be time for people to do their research because most people do not watch planning\nboard meetings.\nStaff Member Thomas said he hears a consensus to give council early notice of decisions\nand to have a standing item on the city council agenda to consider calling items for review.\nBoard Member Zuppan said that there should be enforcement of the provision that\nrequires a reason to justify calls for review.\nBoard Member Zuppan made a motion to recommend moving the item to council as\ndiscussed with the parameters for the Brown Act included, the typos and process\ncorrections offered including agendizing the item early in the meeting, and\nconsidering whether a similar process should be created for other boards in the\ncity. Board Member K\u00f6ster seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2017-4654\nApproved Planning Board minutes\nPage 7 of 9\nSeptember 11, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-09-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-09-11", "page": 8, "text": "Draft Meeting Minutes - June 12, 2017\nBoard Member Zuppan made a motion to accept the minutes. Board Member Curtis\nseconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-1 (K\u00f6ster).\n8-B 2017-4655\nDraft Meeting Minutes - June 26, 2017\nBoard Member Zuppan, on item 7-A, asked to clarify a comment on Universal Design to\nsay that innovation happens when it is required and we should create the conditions and\nlet the builders find a way to meet them, allowing for appeals and waivers if necessary.\nBoard Member Sullivan offered minor clarifying edits.\nBoard Member Curtis said his comment about building only two units at a time and vehicle\nflow lacked context.\nBoard Member Zuppan made a motion to accept the minutes as amended. Board Member\nSullivan seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\n8-C 2017-4675\nDraft Meeting Minutes - July 17, 2017\nBoard Member Zuppan made a motion to accept the minutes. Board Member Knox White\nseconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2017-4665\nZoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions\nStaff Member Thomas gave an update. The staff report can be found at:\ntps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3142738&GUID=9301164E-\n4EA-4F19-926F-3B2E0517732F&FullText=1\n9-B 2017-4677\nFuture Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Thomas gave a preview of upcoming meetings. The list can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3142744&GUID=B0607841-\n437D-4557-9D88-10134742E1CE\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard Member Knox White reported that he met with Rich Krinks and Board Member\nCurtis about a hotel proposal on Park St. He said the Economic Development Strategic\nPlan Task Force met.\nApproved Planning Board minutes\nPage 8 of 9\nSeptember 11, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-09-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-09-11", "page": 9, "text": "11-A 2017-4657\nSubcommittee for Alameda Marina\nPresident Mitchell asked for an update on the project.\nStaff Member Thomas said they are conducting an independent analysis of the costs of\nrehabilitating the seawall and infrastructure of the site and are working on a number of\nother issues with the applicant.\nPresident Mitchell asked if they still need the subcommittee.\nStaff Member Thomas said he did not believe so and that the analysis would come back\nto the full board.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Mitchell adjourned the meeting at 9:34pm.\nApproved Planning Board minutes\nPage 9 of 9\nSeptember 11, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-09-11.pdf"}