{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-09-09", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2019\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Curtis convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Teague led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Board Members Curtis, Cavanaugh, Hom, Rothenberg, Ruiz, Saheba, Teague.\nAbsent: None.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nNone.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2019-7228\nPLN19-0330 - 1205 Park Street - Use Permit for Use of an Outdoor Patio - Applicant: Mike\nYakura. Consideration of a Use Permit to allow outdoor restaurant seating in an existing\n480 square foot patio with a maximum capacity of 15 seats. The proposed hours of outdoor\nseating will be 11:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M., seven days a week. The project is located within\nthe C-C-T (Community Commercial, Theater Combining) Zoning District. The project is\nexempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA\nGuidelines Section 15301 - Existing Facilities\nDavid Sablan, Planner II, gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be\nfound\nat:\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4120374&GUID=834EA79A-\n714D-4D57-9D18-A6724ADABEBC&FullText=1\nBoard Member Teague asked what the normal process and duration is for a use permit.\nStaff Member Sablan said that use permits are typically vested but conditions can be\nplaced that would force them to be brought back for review.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 11\nSeptember 9, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-09-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-09-09", "page": 2, "text": "Mike Yakura, applicant, shared his background and experience with the Board. He said\nhe wants to live and work in Alameda. He explained that the construction noise over the\nlast year will not be indicative of what will come with regular operations. He said the patio\nwill be limited in scope and added that the challenges of the nearby bar have nothing to\ndo with their project.\nBoard Member Hom asked how the garbage collection would be handled.\nMr. Yakura said they would have cans serviced five days per week. He said they have lots\nof experience and know how to maintain a clean area that co-exists with nearby residents.\nPresident Curtis asked what the lease arrangement is for the patio space.\nDanny Sterling said they leased half of the patio for an extra charge which provides\nexclusive use.\nBoard Member Saheba asked what the hours of operation would be for the restaurant.\nMr. Sterling said the restaurant would operate from 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. and that the patio\nwould be cleared at 9 p.m.\nBoard Member Teague asked when the refuse would be picked up.\nMr. Sterling said that ACI wants the bins at the curb by 3 a.m. and that they would therefore\ntake the bins out at the end of each night.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked for clarification about what hours the noise ordinance applies\nto the restaurant operations.\nAllen Tai, Planning Services Manager, explained that the restaurant use is permitted by\nright in the zoning, and that the trash operations would apply whether or not the use permit\nfor the patio is approved.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh asked if there were plans to use space heaters on the patio.\nMr. Sterling said the patio use has always been seen as a bonus for the operation. He\nadded that they anticipate it mostly being used during the daytime, but that heat lamps are\na possibility in the future.\nPresident Curtis opened the public hearing.\nMark Goodeill said the patio would be 11 feet from his building. He said the noise would\nbe a problem for his tenants. He said landscaping and maintenance activities at his\nproperty would become a problem for the patrons using the restaurant patio.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 11\nSeptember 9, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-09-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-09-09", "page": 3, "text": "Heather Quinones said she lives over the proposed restaurant and the use will have\nsignificant impacts on her household. She said the construction activities have been\nextremely disruptive. She urged the board to vote no on the patio.\nCynthia Bonta said the patio is a shared space between the restaurant and the residents.\nShe said the permit takes away rights of the residents to use the patio. She said the use\npermit should not be approved.\nNelson Layag said we have to consider what the benefits are and at who's expense they\ncome. He said we have to consider the health and welfare of our renters. He asked the\nboard to vote against the use permit.\nBrett Bye handed out some images of the property. He said he did not want to be the\nambience for the restaurant patrons. He said the exhaust fans would create noise along\nwith the people using the patio. He raised concerns for the wellbeing of a nearby resident\nwith severe disabilities.\nCari Lee Donovan said her home is 11 feet from the proposed patio space on the second\nfloor of a Victorian. She said the proposal would turn a private space into a public space\nwhere her privacy would be invaded. She had several friends start speaking over each\nother to simulate the noise that the patio would produce and demonstrate how unlivable\nthe situation would be for residents who could not get away from the noise.\nLeslie Chaires expressed concerns for the patio use permit. She said the tenant has failed\nto follow the rules about when construction activities are permitted. She said the activities\nhave negatively impacted her.\nSammy Gutierrez said this situation reminds him of the experience of the Bayview\nApartment building where construction violations and noise pollution served as de-facto\nconstructive evictions. He asked the board to vote no on the use permit.\nHolly Lim said she lives above the restaurant location and her windows face the patio. She\nsaid the noise would have a major impact on her right to quiet enjoyment of her home.\nShe said the result may be partial constructive eviction. She said no effort was made to\nprotect tenants from the construction activities. She said her complaints to City\ndepartments have been received dismissively with no remedy. She urged a no vote on the\nuse permit.\nLaura Ho said she lives above the restaurant, directly above the new exhaust. She said\nshe is concerned about pollutants. She said the exhaust will definitely impact her right to\nhave fresh air.\nLaura Woodard said that the Alameda Renters Coalition stands with the renters in\nopposition to the use permit. She said the permit may result in constructive eviction.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 11\nSeptember 9, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-09-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-09-09", "page": 4, "text": "Maria Dominguez said the use permit application has not been investigated thoroughly.\nShe said there is a pending landlord-tenant issue that may be litigated. She said granting\na use permit would send the message that it is permissible to take away a tenant's rights\nwithout proper investigation. She said the board should do additional environmental\nreview.\nPresident Curtis closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Teague asked if the space in question is in legal dispute.\nStaff Member Tai said that the issues that some speakers described were civil matters\nbetween landlord and tenants, and not within the scope of the use permit consideration.\nBoard Member Teague asked how we can process a use permit for an area where multiple\npeople have claims.\nCelena Chen, Assistant City Attorney, said that it was a civil dispute and does not impact\nwhether the Planning Board can grant a use permit to the tenant to use the space.\nStaff Member Tai said the use permit decision would be based upon the findings in the\ndraft resolution.\nBoard Member Teague asked for clarification on what the requirements for the exhaust\nsystem would be, even though it is not part of the board's decision tonight.\nStaff Member Tai said the mechanical permit for the exhaust vent is a separate issue from\nthe patio use permit.\nPresident Curtis said he visited the site and that the exhaust system is quite complex. He\nsaid there were two scrubbers and that the fan was at the top of the stack in order to\nmitigate noise problems.\nBoard Member Rothenberg suggested that staff ensure the strictest standards be\nenforced on the mechanical system.\nBoard Member Hom asked what the City's usual view on these type of permits has been\non Park Street, and whether the hours of operation restrictions are in line with other similar\nproperties.\nStaff Member Tai said this is a classic land use issue and that the conditions are fairly\nconsistent with other use permits that have been issued. He said they have given\nprobationary use permits in the past to see how the applicant performs.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 11\nSeptember 9, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-09-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-09-09", "page": 5, "text": "Board Member Saheba asked if there have been any other discussions with the landlord\nregarding possible mitigations to help satisfy the residents.\nStaff Member Sablan said that even though the owner submitted the official application,\nstaff primarily worked with the applicant to draft the conditions to the use permit.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked if it would be within the board's purview to require a fountain\nor some other white noise mechanism to mask the noise from the patrons.\nStaff Member Tai said that the board could require that, though it would create additional\nnoise.\nPresident Curtis said that when his neighbor has a dinner party on his patio the noise\ncarries right up to his window and vice versa. He said he can't imagine that happening\nevery night. He said it is an unfortunate and untenable situation.\nPresident Curtis asked if the noise from normal business operation and privacy loss from\nbeing 11 feet away from residents would constitute any kind of violation that would entitle\nthe tenant to a remedy.\nStaff Attorney Chen said she does not believe it does. She said this location is in a mixed\nuse district. She said the board should stick to the four findings before them to make a\ndecision tonight on the use permit.\nBoard Member Teague said he lived next to a night club for years and had to call the\npolice many times and that it took three murders for the use permit to be revoked. He said\nhe may be in favor of a restricted use, but it would need to have conditions and a \"three\nstrikes and you're out\" policy. He said the residents have a potential claim for reduction in\nhousing services and should speak to the head of the rent program at the Housing\nAuthority. He said he would be in favor of a one year probationary period and limit the\nhours to the lunch period. He said he would make a motion to approve with those\nconditions.\nBoard Member Ruiz said she agreed with Board Member Teague and wanted to add a\ncondition that the privacy fence be raised. She was told that the planned fence was six\nfeet, which she agreed was adequate.\nStaff Member Tai summarized the motion: the hours be further limited to 11 a.m. to\n3 p.m.\nBoard Member Hom suggested raising the privacy fence an additional two feet with a\nscreen wall or vines, subject to the neighbors' approval.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 11\nSeptember 9, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-09-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-09-09", "page": 6, "text": "Staff Member Tai said that the current code allows six feet of solid fence with an additional\ntwo feet of lattice.\nStaff Member Tai continued to describe the proposed motion: raising the fence up\nto eight feet with consent of the neighbors; and a requirement that the use permit\nbe renewed after one year.\nBoard Member Hom seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-3, with Board\nMembers Curtis, Rothenberg and Cavanaugh opposed.\nStaff Member Tai explained that the use permit was approved and that the neighbors could\nappeal within ten days if they desired.\n7-B 2019-7229\nHold a Public Workshop to Consider Design Review Amendments for Block 11, Phase /\nWaterfront Park and Preliminary Designs for Block 15c and Phase Il Infrastructure at\nAlameda Point Site A\nBoard Member Ruiz recused herself from the item due to a potential professional conflict.\nDebbie Potter, Community Development and Base Reuse Director, gave a presentation.\nThe staff report and attachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4120454&GUID=DEF7511C-\n7B20-4D99-B2FC-07F469795048&FullText=1\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked if the infrastructure in the Adaptive Reuse area would\nbe funded by lease revenue.\nStaff Member Potter said that the backbone infrastructure in the Adaptive Reuse area\nwould be paid for through building sales and lease revenue, consistent with City Council\npolicy that the base reuse be fiscally neutral. She said that developers have to pay for the\nremaining infrastructure related to their parcels, or pay an impact fee of $1.3 Million per\nacre.\nBoard Member Hom asked if there was a benefits district to handle long term infrastructure\nmaintenance costs.\nStaff Member Potter said they have created a community facilities district to assess\nproperty owners enough to close the ongoing maintenance funding gap.\nBruce Dorfman, Alameda Point Partners, gave a presentation on the status of Site A.\nDavid Israel, BAR Architects, gave a presentation on the design changes to Block 11.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 11\nSeptember 9, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-09-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-09-09", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Rothenberg asked if the developer would be operating and maintaining\nthe parcels, or just designing and building.\nMr. Dorfman said that all the parcels have been sold to developers responsible for their\nblocks.\nBoard Member Saheba noted that the reduction in Block 11 increases the size of Block\n14. He asked what the implication of that would be.\nMr. Dorfman said that Block 14 is a parking lot that would now have room for an additional\nrow of cars.\nBoard Member Saheba asked if the size of the retail portion changed.\nMr. Israel said that the square footage of the retail has been reduced, but that the double\nheight has been maintained in the front portions of the space, similar to the original design.\nBoard Member Teague said the plans show a significant difference in trees and asked if\nthat was intentional.\nMr. Israel said the landscape designer could speak to that as part of the Waterfront Park\npresentation.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh asked for an explanation of the changes to the new east\nelevation.\nMr. Israel showed the changes on the plans, explaining that they are creating a service\nalley between blocks 10 and 11.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh said the new north elevation has a wider band at the top, which\nreduces the streamlined feeling of the previous design.\nMr. Israel said that part of that change is due to a reduction in the amount of glass in the\nnew design, but that they may be able to reduce the parapet height to minimize that\nimpact.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh asked if the new design would include the \"Alameda Point\"\nsignage at the top.\nMr. Dorfman said that they like the signage and that it would be part of the signage\nprogram that would be submitted at a later date.\nBoard Member Hom asked why the recessed element on level three of the original plans\nwas removed.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 11\nSeptember 9, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-09-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-09-09", "page": 8, "text": "Mr. Israel said the plaza would not be very usable if the recess was maintained in the\nconsolidated design.\nPresident Curtis declared a ten minute recess.\nPresident Curtis said that item 7-D would be tabled.\nBoard Member Teague said that he would like to see more detail in the landscape changes\nwhen it comes back. He said he did not like some of the changes to the west elevation,\nincluding the removal of the multi-pane windows. He said the north elevation is fine. He\nadded that the south side of the east elevation should be made to be more attractive for\nvisitors in the green space of Block 10.\nBoard Member Hom said he had a hard time understanding the pedestrian scale of the\nfirst floor elevations. He said the ground floor elevation on the west side needed some\nwork. He said the wall on the east elevation is very different from what was entitled and\nshould be improved. He said he is disappointed with the closed off view of the east\nelevation.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh said he would like to see a night rendering of the project. He\nsaid the smaller paned windows on the west elevation would be preferable, in reference\nto the hangars on the base. He said he would like top of the building to be thinner to seem\nmore streamlined, as previously discussed.\nBoard Member Saheba said the east elevation needs to be looked at closely. He said he\nhopes there are perspective views when the design comes back. He asked if there would\nbe material palette changes.\nMr. Israel said the accent band of tile will be changed to cementitious board.\nApril Phillips, landscape architect, gave a presentation on the changes to the Waterfront\nPark.\nBoard Member Hom said he likes that there is more soft-scape being planned. He said he\nlikes shade trees, but they may not perform well in this windy location. He appreciated that\nthere would be more seating added to the plans.\nBoard Member Rothenberg said the storm water management plan is excellent. She\nsuggested proceeding with caution when purchasing expensive, fully grown palm trees\nthat may not survive.\nBoard Member Teague asked that the historic timeline be very clear when it comes back.\nHe said he definitely supports more seating. He said having shade is critical.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 11\nSeptember 9, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-09-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-09-09", "page": 9, "text": "Ms. Phillips said they have not made changes to the historic timeline.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh said he prefers shade trees to palm trees.\nBoard Member Saheba suggested a mixed canopy would be preferable. He expressed\nconcern about the stamped concrete for the overlook.\nMr. Dorfman gave a presentation on the proposed teacher housing at Block 15c.\nBoard Member Hom said the key entrances could be enhanced. He said the interior\nelevations look a little flat.\nBoard Member Rothenberg said the overall massing is very good. She said the units were\nall very small and asked if it presumes only young teachers.\nMr. Dorfman said there is a combination of one, two, and three bedroom units.\nBoard Member Saheba said the scale feels large and repetitious, especially next to the\ntownhomes. He said he was unclear where a visitor to the site would go to find the front\ndoor to the building. He said the interior courtyard has a \"back of house\" feel, possibly due\nto the large number of garage doors.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh said he was not happy with the design. He said it is not\nattractive and would like to see something that feels more like home and perhaps more\nmodern.\nBoard Member Teague said it looks like Coast Guard housing. He said there needs to be\nmore variation. He said it is not obvious where the entrances are. He said he is not quite\nimpressed and that the teachers should get to come somewhere that feels like home.\nPresident Curtis said he appreciates the simplicity of the design. He said the cost concerns\nare important and the need to have reasonably priced housing for the teachers matters a\ngreat deal.\n7-C 2019-7230\nPublic Hearing to Consider Proposed Zoning Text Amendments to the Zoning Regulations\n(AMC Chapter 30) to: 1) streamline Design Review for small residential additions windows\nreplacements, and green roofs, 2) update Work/Live Ordinance requirements, 3) update\nLot Line Adjustment procedures, and other miscellaneous administrative, technical, and\nclarifying amendments. The proposed amendments are exempt from the requirements of\nCEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), where it can be seen with\ncertainty that the proposed zoning text amendments will not have a significant effect on\nthe environment, and 15183, projects consistent with a community plan, general plan or\nzoning\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 11\nSeptember 9, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-09-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-09-09", "page": 10, "text": "President Curtis opened the public hearing.\nMarilyn Schumacher read a letter from the Bay East Association of Realtors supporting\nthe proposed changes to ADU regulations.\nBoard Member Teague said the definition of yard street side did not meet the intent of the\nboard.\nStaff Member Tai said they will clarify that in the design review exemption section.\nBoard Member Ruiz pointed out a typographical error.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked for confirmation that lot line adjustments would be\nremoved from Planning Board review.\nStaff Member Tai confirmed that lot line adjustments would be handled at the staff level.\nBoard Member Teague raised concern about the work-live language potentially creating\na loophole if there are changes to Measure A. He provided staff with language that could\nclarify the issue.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to approve the staff recommendation with\nchanges to ensure that all additions facing the street are subject to design review\neven if they are in the back yard and that conversion of a work live unit to an\nexclusively residential use or exclusively non-residential use would need to meet\nall requirements of the applicable zoning district. Board Member Rothenberg\nseconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\n7-D 2019-7231\nAdoption of Objective Design Review Standards for Multi-family Residential Development\nas an addendum to the Citywide Design Review Manual. These Standards are applicable\nto all future multi-family residential development in the City seeking permit streamlining\npursuant to state law. The adoption of Objective Design Review Standards is exempt from\nthe requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), where it\ncan be seen with certainty that adoption of design standards will not have a significant\neffect on the environment, and Section 15183, projects consistent with a community plan,\ngeneral plan or zoning\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to adjourn the meeting and table the\nremaining items. Board Member Saheba seconded the motion. The motion passed\n7-0.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2019-7217\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 10 of 11\nSeptember 9, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-09-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-09-09", "page": 11, "text": "11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Curtis adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 11 of 11\nSeptember 9, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-09-09.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-09-09", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nSeptember 9, 2019\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday, September 9, 2019\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.\nPresent:\nChair Sullivan-Cheah; Vice Chair Chiu and Member Sidelnikov\nAbsent:\nMember Murray\nProgram Staff:\nGregory Kats, Grant Eshoo, and Angel Nguyen\nCity Attorney Staff: Absent\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\nStaff informed the Committee that Agenda Item 7-B had resolved.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\nProgram Staff informed the Committee that this was the last meeting and extended\ngratitude to the Committee for being so accommodating with all of the recent\nchanges the last few months.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1\nToni Grimm from Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC) expressed heartfelt thanks to the\nRRAC for serving the community as volunteers throughout the years. She also\nacknowledged the Rent Program Staff for their dedication in being equitable and\nprofessional in serving tenants and landlords. She shared that during the \"No\nCause\" eviction policy, many tenants were intimidated to attend a RRAC meeting,\nbecause they were concerned about retaliation and being evicted.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\n5-A. and 5-B. Approval of the minutes of the August 7, 2019 and\nAugust 14, 2019 special meetings.\nMotion and second to approve the minutes (Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Vice Chair Chiu).\nMotion passed 3-0.\n6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS\nNone.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\n7-A. RI1307 - 1333 Webster St., Unit A102", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-09-09.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-09-09", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nSeptember 9, 2019\nThe property owner and property manager were present, but the tenants were\nnot present.\nProgram Staff informed the Committee that the tenants did not give a clear\nanswer about the resolution of the matter, but indicated that they would not\nattend the meeting.\nChair Sullivan-Cheah announced that the landlord's request will move forward\nsince the tenants were not present.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.2\nEric Strimling from ARC expressed gratitude to the Committee. He said he'd seen\nhow the RRAC had evolved and progressed in ways that he appreciated over time.\nIn addition, he commented, the RRAC over the last six months had been very fair.\nHe also recognized the Program Staff for their efforts and agreed with Ms. Grimm's\ncomments.\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\nAs a resident of Alameda, Chair Sullivan-Cheah expressed his appreciation for the\nProgram Staff's dedication and hard work.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 6:39 p.m.\nRespectfully Submitted,\nRRAC Secretary\nAngel Nguyen\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on October 21, 2019", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-09-09.pdf"}