{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-01-13", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, JANUARY 13, 2020\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Curtis convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Cavanaugh led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Board Members Curtis, Cavanaugh, Hom, Rothenberg, Ruiz, Saheba, and\nTeague.\nAbsent: None.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nBoard Member Teague asked to hear item 9-B first. There was no objection to the request\nto change the agenda.\n*9-B 2020-7600*\nAndrew Thomas, Planning, Building and Transportation Department gave an update.\nThe staff report and attachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4291099&GUID=6FB51018-\n6468-41C7-B729-6F43F52CA453&FullText=1.\nBoard Member Saheba said changes are primarily to materials and that the overall\nmassing and fenestration are not changing. He said the changes are minor and he did not\nhave a problem with the staff decision.\nBoard Member Rothenberg concurred with Board Member Saheba's comment.\nBoard Member Teague said he did not object to the staff decision.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2020-7602\nPlanning Board Study Session to Discuss Article 26 of the Alameda City Charter\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 7\nJanuary 13, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-01-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-01-13", "page": 2, "text": "Council Members Daysog and Knox White explained the work of the City Charter\nSubcommittee and what they were asking of the Planning Board. They thanked the board\nfor their efforts.\nBoard Member Teague said Measure A has two independent items: limiting construction\nto single family homes and duplexes, and limiting density. He asked speakers to address\nthe elements specifically.\nDirector Thomas gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4291100&GUID=A9953CA6-\nB565-451C-B946-0613DD5BC3CO&FullText=1.\nBoard Member Hom asked how multi-family housing has been approved in recent years\nin spite of Measure A.\nDirector Thomas explained how state housing and density bonus laws apply to properties\nidentified in Alameda's Housing Element. He explained how the Regional Housing Needs\nAssessment is calculated, distributed, and evaluated by state officials.\nPresident Curtis asked if safety concerns such as evacuation or emergency response\ntimes are factored into housing decisions.\nDirector Thomas said that if the Fire Department said a project would create a direct safety\nissue, then there would be justification for denying a project.\nPresident Curtis opened public comment.\nJerry Schneider said we are already doing our part and supported defending Measure A.\nDolores Kelleher said the conclusions in the staff analysis were not well supported. She\nsupported evaluating Measure A in a larger context in a more balanced way.\nKevin Kearney said repealing Article 26 would have many financial and quality of life\nconsequences. He said there needs to be a better plan in place before considering\neliminating Article 26.\nShannon Whitley said repealing Article 26 could lead to the loss of historic homes. He said\nanytime we build more homes they are expensive homes and won't help those looking for\nhousing.\nConchita Perales said staff does not live in Alameda and therefore does not care about\nAlameda's issues. She called the housing built before Measure A was passed ugly rat-\nboxes.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 7\nJanuary 13, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-01-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-01-13", "page": 3, "text": "Katherine Saxby said we need to wait and see what happens with newly approved\ndevelopment and changes in state law before considering changes to Measure A. She\nsaid all the development is on the West End and not equitable.\nJohn Galloway said the City should create a data model of the city to run simulations on\nnew development and its impacts.\nMargie Siegal said infrastructure needs to be addressed before increasing density. She\nsaid none of the new multifamily construction in Oakland is affordable for the black\ncommunity and causing gentrification.\nDorothy Freeman said Measure A preserves historic homes and Alameda's character.\nShe said Measure A is being used as a scapegoat for Alameda's problems.\nSteve Slauson supported preserving Measure A. He said we are already doing our fair\nshare.\nGrover Wehman-Brown said the housing crisis is a safety issue. They supported removing\nArticle 26 because of its impacts on the housing crisis and said we need dense housing.\nBradley Potts said many properties have been grandfathered into being allowed to have\nmany units on their property which is not fair to other homeowners who do not have that\nright. He said he wanted to have in-law units to keep family close by. He wanted to see\nMeasure A modified or eliminated.\nBetsy Mathieson said Alameda has a diverse housing stock. She said Article 26 preserves\nlow income units and repeal would lead to displacement and gentrification.\nKaren Lithgow said Alameda's well preserved Victorians are a valuable asset to the city\nthat need to be preserved. She said there is no room for more cars that new units would\nbring and decried the mid-century apartment buildings as \"rat boxes\" that ruin\nneighborhoods. She said homebuyers are already diverse and we do not need to change\nour laws to make Alameda more diverse.\nSharon L-S spoke in favor of preserving Article 26.\nJames Snider asked what the rush is given we do not know the impacts of already\napproved units.\nPaul Foreman said the staff evaluation was not neutral and he disagreed with the\nconclusions.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 7\nJanuary 13, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-01-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-01-13", "page": 4, "text": "life. She said Article 26 should be excluded from the City Charter and we need to adapt.\nWilliam Smith said we should embrace housing and eliminate the ban of multi-family\nhomes from the City Charter.\nDoug DeHaan spoke in favor of preserving Measure A. He said the staff report was not\nbalanced.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 7\nJanuary 13, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-01-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-01-13", "page": 5, "text": "Jay Garfinkle compared staff to President Trump's staff and suggested we could end up\nwith Alameda being a giant Ghost Ship scenario. He said we need a different process to\nconsider Measure A.\nRuth Abbe said Alameda needs to welcome more Alamedans to town in order to meet our\nclimate goals. She said she supported modifying Article 26.\nLynette Lee said she agreed with the staff findings and recommendations. She supported\nmodifying or repealing Measure A in order to build more affordable housing.\nChristy Cannon said she felt intimidated by the crowd showing their emotions. She said\nwe need more affordable housing. She said Measure A needs revision to be looking\nforward to housing needs and climate change and well as addressing preservation\nconcerns.\nJonathan Soglin addressed the affordable housing crisis. He said Measure A is a blunt\ntool when we need surgical precision.\nNancy Gordon said adding ADUs is very costly and renting rooms in single family homes\nis more affordable. She said the rent ordinance is responsible for making the rental crisis\nworse.\nElizabeth Greene said blaming Measure A for Alameda's housing problems is dishonest.\nShe supported the AAPS letter.\nCarol Gottstein took issue with the assertions in the staff analysis. She said disabled\npeople are vulnerable in an emergency and she would not feel safe on an upper floor in\nmulti-family housing.\nPresident Curtis closed public comment.\nBoard Member Teague said there would be no density limit on the C-C district if we\nrepealed Measure A. He said we have passed many ordinances since Measure A to\nprotect neighborhoods. He said the ban on multi-family housing is a barrier to affordable\nhousing. He supported putting Article 26, Section 1, which limits construction to only single\nfamily homes and duplexes, on the ballot for repeal. He said the 2,000 square foot limit is\nmore complicated and should not be taken lightly given state laws against downzoning.\nHe suggested altering the density section by area to spread out the growth to different\nparts of the island to ease the stress on the island's infrastructure.\nBoard Member Rothenberg said she would support the preservation board's letter to study\nthe issue along with the review of the General Plan.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 7\nJanuary 13, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-01-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-01-13", "page": 6, "text": "Board Member Hom said he sees the benefits that Measure A provided to the island. He\nsaid times have changed and we have a serious housing crisis and climate change\nproblems. He said Measure A is a one size fits all solution. He said density can be\nmisleading because of the size of the units. He suggested FAR standards or form based\ncodes that might encourage smaller, more affordable units. He said there are many\nresident profiles not represented in this room that need to be included in this process.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked people to not make personal attacks when speaking on this\nissue. She said as an architect it is strange to see land use regulation in the City Charter.\nShe expressed interest in how infrastructure challenges were handled at our peak\npopulation in the 1940s. She said Article 26 may not have had the intent of being an equity\nbarrier, but multi-family housing supports increased affordability. She agreed that Article\n26, Section 1 could be removed. She suggested identifying appropriate historic districts\nand letting other areas increase density if they choose.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh said California is changing drastically and the state is taking\nover and we need to make a plan for the future.\nBoard Member Saheba said we can model the future we want to have or be forced into a\nposition we have to accept. He said we have many more elements today to help preserve\nthe character of neighborhoods than when Measure A was passed. He said the diversity\nof the housing stock makes Alameda an interesting place to live and loosening the\nrestrictions on multi-family dwellings would help alleviate the pressure. He said focusing\nthe density into specific pockets creates problems.\nPresident Curtis said that if we have a comprehensive General Plan governing different\nzones, then all we need to do is modify Measure A to comply with the General Plan. He\nsaid the fear is that the Council will change the General Plan to upzone areas the public\ndoes not want it to.\n8. MINUTES\nNone.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2020-7601\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 7\nJanuary 13, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-01-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-01-13", "page": 7, "text": "Janet Gibson gave a history of Alameda from her experience. She said there are many\nhomes in Alameda that have value.\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Curtis adjourned the meeting at 10:31 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 7\nJanuary 13, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-01-13.pdf"}