{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-07-08", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, JULY 8, 2019\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Curtis convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Rothenberg led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Board Members Cavanaugh, Curtis, Hom, Rothenberg, Ruiz, Saheba, Teague.\nAbsent: None.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nBoard Member Teague motioned to move a portion of the Board Communications\nsection to the beginning of the meeting. Board Member Saheba seconded the\nmotion. The motion passed 7-0.\n*BOARD COMMUNICATIONS***\nPresident Curtis read a proclamation for Dorothy Freeman, Joe Woodward, Christopher\nBuckley, Stephanie Butler, and Virginia Doffelmeyer.\nDorothy Freeman spoke about the neighborhood process that helped refine the design for\nthe new development at 2100 Clement Avenue.\nChristopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, explained the effort\nthey went through to improve upon the original designs.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n*None*\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2019-7067\nBoard Elections\nBoard Member Teague nominated Board Member Curtis to be President. Board Member\nSaheba seconded the motion.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh nominated Board Member Teague to be Vice President.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 10\nJuly 8, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-07-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-07-08", "page": 2, "text": "There were no other nominations.\nThe nominations were approved 7-0.\n7-B 2019-7069\nProposed Development Plan and Design Review Amendments and Lot Line Adjustment\nfor the Del Monte Warehouse Building Project at 1501 Buena Vista. Applicant: TL\nPartners, L.P. Public Hearing to consider proposed amendments to the development plan\nand lot line adjustment to accommodate on-site parking requirements and design review\namendments to revise surface materials and window materials on the addition to the\napproved addition to the building. A final environmental review document was approved\nfor this project in 2014. No new significant impacts have been identified and no additional\nCEQA review is required.\nBoard Member Ruiz recused herself from the item because she lives within 500 feet of the\nproject location.\nAndrew Thomas, Planning, Building and Transportation Department Director, gave a\npresentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3997678&GUID=7BF771EB-\nC1F3-4CA5-BCAE-13042228091E&FullText=\nBoard Member Saheba asked if there was a density increase being requested.\nStaff Member Thomas said that there is no change in the number of units on the site. He\nsaid there will be more units in the main building, but fewer units in Subarea C.\nBoard Member Saheba asked if the increase in the number of units in the main building\nwould result in a change to the elevations.\nMike O'Hara, Tim Lewis Communities, explained that some of the loft units were changed\ninto two levels of flats. He said the facades of the buildings are essentially unchanged.\nBoard Member Teague asked a question about the pattern of score lines in the new plans,\ncomparing the seemingly random pattern in the proposed plan to the symmetrical pattern\nin the previous plan.\nMr. O'Hara said the goal was to have as few score joints as possible.\nBoard Member Teague asked for clarification about the approved unit counts and how the\nwork-live units would factor in.\nStaff Member Thomas explained that the ten work-live units would apply towards the\ncommercial space, and are not considered residential units that count toward the Master\nPlan approval. He explained how the affordable housing pad included land outside of the\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 10\nJuly 8, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-07-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-07-08", "page": 3, "text": "Master Plan area and that ten units were on land included in the Master Plan area. He\nsaid with those ten, plus the 362 units in the main building, there is room for eight units in\nSubarea C.\nBoard Member Teague asked why the number of parking spaces increased.\nMr. O'Hara said the increase in units in the main building meant they needed to add\nparking in order to maintain the approved ratio.\nBoard Member Hom asked if the applicant was required to submit a parking management\nplan.\nStaff Member Thomas said that the parking would be unbundled and that there is a\ncondition of approval that requires them to identify a plan to actively manage their parking\nprogram.\nBoard Member Hom asked if the four electric vehicle spaces required is based on a city\nstandard.\nStaff Member Thomas said that the four spaces were in the original approval. He said the\nentire project would be pre-wired to be able to accommodate as much electric vehicle\ncharging as there is demand.\nBoard Member Hom asked if the windows would be recessed.\nMr. O'Hara said that the windows would be recessed. He showed how the reveal of the\nvinyl and metal windows would be essentially the same.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked what the City's position is regarding approving or not\napproving a condominium map with the project.\nStaff Member Thomas said they approved the project with the assumption that the units\ncould be rentals or for sale. He said the housing stock in Alameda is fairly evenly split, and\nthat new projects are coming in relatively balanced. He said the City has not taken a strong\nposition either way about whether new projects should be for sale or rentals.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh asked what the motivation was for choosing to switch to vinyl\nwindows instead of aluminum.\nStaff Member Thomas said that the decision to switch to vinyl was a cost saving decision.\nHe said that these windows would only be used on the addition, which would be set back\nvery far from the street. He said, given the location, staff's view was that the way the\nwindows are set into the wall was more important than the actual material chosen.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 10\nJuly 8, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-07-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-07-08", "page": 4, "text": "Board Member Cavanaugh asked what the future plans are for the pad acquired from\nWind River.\nStaff Member Thomas said that Tim Lewis Partners would probably come forward with an\napplication at some future date for a small mixed use project. He said both future pads\nwould have to provide their own parking.\nPresident Curtis asked if any thought has been given to what would happen if there turned\nout to not be enough parking.\nStaff Member Thomas said there is a contingency plan for the developer to pay for\nimplementation of neighborhood parking permits if the new residents had significant\nspillover into the neighborhood. He said that more and more of the newer residents are\nwilling and able to live with fewer cars. He explained that limiting parking, in conjunction\nwith transit options, is an effective method of reducing the amount of traffic generated by\nprojects.\nMike O'Hara added that the parking counts do not include the approximately 130 spaces\nthat will be added on the street surrounding the project.\nBoard Member Hom asked whether valet parking was an option if the parking proved to\nbe insufficient.\nStaff Member Thomas said that valet parking may be cheaper for the developer than\npaying to implement permit parking in the neighborhood.\nPresident Curtis opened the public hearing.\nKaren Bey said she was happy to see the project moving forward, but was disappointed\nin the loss of retail space with the project. She said it was an important community benefit\nand consistent with the City's Economic Development Strategic Plan.\nChristopher Buckley asked for clarification about placement of each species of street tree,\nand gave feedback about proper spacing of different trees. He said the City does put in\nroot barriers near sidewalks.\nPresident Curtis closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to approve the item with a change to item 3\nin the resolution. He asked that the actual or visual joists of the stucco be rectilinear\nwith a consistent repeating pattern and/or equal divisions that matches the\nregularity of the building. Board Member Rothenberg seconded the motion.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 10\nJuly 8, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-07-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-07-08", "page": 5, "text": "Board Member Saheba said he thinks the change in window material will be okay. He said\nit was difficult to see what the effect would be on the muntins and the amount of glass\nvisible. He said the stucco joint locations make no sense to him. He said he is not in favor\nof the change from the hardie panel to cement plaster.\nBoard Member Hom said he supports the motion and feels the proposed amendment\nabout the scoring pattern was an important one. He said he supported the lot line\nadjustment and the changes to the parking plan.\nBoard Member Rothenberg suggested amending the motion to give direction\nregarding the surface materials to show a building envelope finish consistent in\ncharacter with the original approval while leaving flexibility for the applicant to\ncome back with affordable, appropriate, long lasting, aesthetically suitable finishes\nat a future time. Board Member Teague accepted the amendment.\nPresident Curtis asked if the scoring of the stucco has a structural impact.\nBoard Member Rothenberg said putting joints into stucco is labor intensive, and that\nstucco is not particularly long lasting, but the material has economic and thermal benefits.\nThe motion passed 6-0.\n7-C 2019-7070\nStudy Session to Review Proposed Text Amendments to the City of Alameda Zoning\nOrdinance (AMC Chapter 30) to ease restrictions on Accessory Dwelling Units, streamline\nDesign Review for existing homes, modify the Work/Live Ordinance, and other\nmiscellaneous administrative, technical, and clarifying amendments. The proposed\namendments are exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Public Resources\nCode section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15282(h), which exempts\nordinances implementing Accessory Dwelling Unit Law (Government Code Section\n65852.2), 15061(b)(3), where it can be seen with certainty that the proposed zoning text\namendments will not have a significant effect on the environment, and 15183, projects\nconsistent with a community plan, general plan or zoning (Continued from Meeting of June\n24, 2019)\nAllen Tai, Planning Services Manager, gave a presentation. The staff report and\nattachments can be found at:\n.https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3997707&GUID=D39DDF54-\n7B8B-4FC0-8690-B395541CD272&FullText=1\nBoard Member Hom asked if ADUs are permitted in every zoning district in the City.\nStaff Member Tai said that ADUs are permitted on any residentially zoned property with a\nsingle family home.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 10\nJuly 8, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-07-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-07-08", "page": 6, "text": "Board Member Rothenberg shared that there are other bills being considered that pertain\nto the subject of ADUs, including items related to health, safety, and building quality.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh asked what recourse residents would have if ADUs have an\nimpact on views or sunlight on neighboring properties.\nStaff Member Tai said that those would not be considered an impact under state law. He\nadded that the decisions were ministerial and exempt from CEQA. He said that during the\nbuilding permit process, staff would continue to ensure that applicants meet state building\ncode requirements.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked if state law required owners occupy the main residence.\nStaff Member Tai said that the current law says cities may require owner occupancy, but\nthere is proposed legislation to remove that permission.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked if the 1200 square foot maximum being considered at the state\nlevel was an aggregate number for two ADUs, or if each would be permitted to be 1200\nsquare feet.\nStaff Member Tai said he believed that item was still under discussion at the state level,\nbut that staff has been thinking in terms of an aggregate 1200 square feet. He added that\nthey are seeing many applications in the 400 square foot range, which is approximately\nthe same as a two-car garage. He said they are not seeing many 1200 square foot ADU\napplications.\nBoard Member Teague asked if the net-zero energy requirements the state is imposing\nbeginning in 2020 would apply to modular ADUs.\nStaff Member Tai said that modular ADUs would have to meet California building code.\nBoard Member Hom asked how HOA's with stricter CC&Rs regarding ADUs would be\nresolved with the City's ordinance.\nStaff Member Tai said the homeowner signed that covenant by choice. He said the City\nwould review the application and approve it in compliance with city and state laws, but the\nrisk would be on the homeowner if they were not in compliance with state law. He said he\nhas not seen any state legislation discussing possibly preempting HOA rules.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if ADUs would be exempt from the existing rental ordinance.\nHe said that would discourage producing these units if they were subject to the rental\nordinance.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 10\nJuly 8, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-07-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-07-08", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Teague said that the ADU comes with a new certificate of occupancy, and\nunder Costa-Hawkins, would be exempt from the rent control portions of the law, but would\nbe subject to the just cause eviction protections. He added that if you were splitting a rental\nunit, instead of building a new structure, it gets more complicated.\nStaff Member Tai said that most applicants at the counter say they are fulfilling a family\nneed and only a small portion are looking to rent out the units.\nBoard Member Curtis said that once the owner occupied requirement goes away,\ninvestors will add ADUs and rent them out in bigger numbers.\nStaff Member Tai continued his presentation, outlining potential changes to design review\nrequirements.\nBoard Member Rothenberg suggested that any green roof approvals be conditioned on\nthe structural ability of the building to support the roof.\nStaff Member Tai added that staff would still review applications for compliance and\napplicants would have to meet other requirements in the building approval process.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked if the new exemptions would have a negative impact\non the City's revenue streams.\nStaff Member Tai said that the window permits were not a major component of the\nDepartment's revenue.\nStaff Member Thomas added that the fees are set up to cover the costs of providing the\nservice, not to turn a profit. He said they are trying to respond to Council direction and\ncommunity concerns, as well as streamline some of the less controversial processes in\norder for staff to focus on the larger projects that have more impact on the community.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh asked if solar panels would be included in the cool roof\nexemption.\nStaff Member Tai said that solar panels are already exempt from design review because\nof state law.\nBoard Member Ruiz suggested requiring longer lasting materials for roofs which get a\ndesign review exemption as part of our sustainability efforts.\nBoard Member Hom suggested matching the design review exemption for additions to the\nADU ordinance, i.e. - 1200 square feet.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 10\nJuly 8, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-07-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-07-08", "page": 8, "text": "Staff Member Tai responded that staff believes that the current development standards\nfor setback, height and lot coverage provide a good envelope to work within, but they can\nexamine that idea further.\nBoard Member Hom said that cool roofs with white paint can create glare that impacts\nother properties and should be considered when designing the ordinance.\nBoard Member Teague pointed out a change that made the restrictions more onerous\nthan before, which is not consistent with the goals of the item. Board Member Teague said\nhe agrees with the AAPS comment stating that side or rear yards that abut a street should\nnot be exempted from design review.\nStaff Member Tai said there are definitions in the Zoning Ordinance which clarify that issue\nand he will double check and make sure it is clear.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh asked if the City would be involved in making sure fences are\nnot built too high.\nStaff Member Tai said they are not proposing any changes to fence rules. He said fence\nheight is a code enforcement issue, but not as high on the priority list as issues which\naffect health and safety.\nBoard Member Saheba said streamlining and focusing on larger projects is an important\ngoal. He asked how other ancillary things people do in their yards are reviewed, if at all.\nStaff Member Tai said that staff would still be doing checks for zoning compliance.\nStaff Member Thomas added that any modifications that do not require a building permit\nare already exempt from design review.\nStaff Member Tai continued his presentation with proposed changes to the Work-Live\nordinance.\nBoard Member Curtis suggested that there be a minimum amount of living space defined.\nBoard Member Teague said the 30% living area cap would result in really small, potentially\ninfeasible, living areas for units smaller than 1,000 square feet. He said the 30%\nrequirement would be effective in limiting abuse by people who are really just trying to\nbuild housing units.\nStaff Member Thomas said they always need to maintain a ratio that keeps the units\ncommercial in nature and the residential portion has to be ancillary in nature. He said if\nthe units were primarily residential, they would have to be Measure A compliant.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 10\nJuly 8, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-07-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-07-08", "page": 9, "text": "Board Member Cavanaugh asked who is responsible for enforcing the commercial nature\nof the units.\nStaff Member Thomas said that there is only one place currently operating work live units\nin Alameda. He said there is an annual check on business licenses.\nBoard Member Teague said that it needs to not be residential if it is not going to comply\nwith Measure A. He said including the living, kitchen and bath in the 30% requirement will\nensure these are not just housing units.\nBoard Member Hom asked what the parking requirements are for retail areas.\nStaff Member Tai said that Park Street and Webster Street require two parking spaces per\n1,000 square feet of retail space, and four spaces per 1,000 square feet elsewhere.\nBoard Member Hom said that might incentivize people to classify their operations as work-\nlive to reduce their parking requirements.\nBoard Member Curtis opened the public hearing.\nEileen Devlin requested that ADUs allow the full use of the basement in the home instead\nof limiting it to only 50% of the size of the primary unit.\nChristopher Buckley, AAPS, highlighted portions of their letter regarding window\nreplacement procedures. He suggested potentially using a minor design review process,\nor administrative appeals. He said the street side lot requirements need to be clarified. He\nsaid the text needs to be modified to allow single glazed windows. He said they are\nconcerned about removing the owner-occupied requirements for ADUs.\nBoard Member Curtis closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Teague reiterated that the definitions do not address the street issue and\nneeds to be corrected.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2019-7063\nDraft Meeting Minutes - May 13, 2019\nBoard Member Teague motioned approval. Board Member Rothenberg seconded\nthe motion. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Ruiz and Hom abstained.)\n8-B 2019-7064\nDraft Meeting Minutes - June 10, 2019\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 10\nJuly 8, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-07-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-07-08", "page": 10, "text": "Staff Member Thomas pointed out that only three members present were in attendance at\nthe June 10, 2019 meeting. He asked that at least one of the other members watch the\nvideo in order to vote on the minutes at the next meeting.\nBoard Member Teague moved to continue the minutes to the next meeting. Board\nMember Cavanaugh seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2019-7065\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nThe staff report can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3996785&GUID=20B929B6-\nDEBA-4E2D-9B65-600ADA13DB24&FullText=1\n9-B 2019-7066\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Thomas said that the final design review for two hotels would be on the\nagenda for the next meeting and then the Board would be off in August.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard Member Curtis read a resolution thanking Sandy Sullivan for her service on the\nPlanning Board.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Curtis adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 10 of 10\nJuly 8, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-07-08.pdf"}