{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-02-10", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2020\n1. CONVENE\nBoard Member Teague convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Board Members Cavanaugh, Hom, Rothenberg, Ruiz, Saheba, and Teague.\nAbsent: President Curtis.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nNone.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2020-7700\nAdoption of Objective Design Review Standards. The Objective Design Review Standards\n(Objective Standards) consist of a checklist of architectural and site design standards that\nwill apply to housing development projects under State law. Adoption of the Objective\nStandards is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3), the\ncommon sense exception that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for\ncausing a significant effect on the environment and 15183, projects consistent with a\ncommunity plan, general plan or zoning\nHeather Coleman, planning consultant, gave a presentation. The staff report and\nattachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4323148&GUID=9528948B-\n224C-41EB-81F3-36581EC2AOCA&FullText=1\nBoard Member Hom shared that he provided some written comments to staff regarding\nthe proposed standards.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked why the standards refer to two separate dimensional\nrequirements for window recesses.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 7\nFebruary 10, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-02-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-02-10", "page": 2, "text": "Ms. Coleman said that the two inch recess is a requirement and the four inch recess was\nprovided as part of a menu of options to meet the articulation requirement.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked why the standards regarding site context only applied\nif pre-1942 buildings were present.\nStaff Member Tai said staff was trying to ensure that new development within traditional\nhistoric neighborhoods would be sensitive to architecture called out in the Historic\nPreservation Ordinance.\nBoard Member Saheba asked how context would be defined.\nMs. Coleman said they looked at different ways to define context and decided they would\nlimit it to the buildings that are most visible from the project site as opposed to a set\ndistance.\nBoard Member Teague asked if an applicant could pick multiple context buildings with\ndifferent styles.\nMs. Coleman said that they would want to avoid mixing styles and the intent is to limit the\ncontext building to one style.\nBoard Member Teague asked if objective standards could be created to only apply to a\nspecific area within Alameda and not the entire city.\nMs. Coleman said that you could create a standard that applied to a defined area.\nBoard Member Teague asked if stricter standards could be implemented in the future.\nAssistant City Attorney Chen said that nothing would prevent revisiting the standards,\nnoting that whatever standards are in place when an application is deemed complete will\nbe applicable.\nBoard Member Teague opened the public hearing.\nDorothy Freeman noted the 2100 Clement project as an example of excellent design\nwhich respects the context of the existing historic neighborhood that should be applied\ncitywide.\nGreg Smith said the West Alameda Business Association requests strengthening items to\nhelp preserve the character of Webster Street.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 7\nFebruary 10, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-02-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-02-10", "page": 3, "text": "Karen Lithgow said Alameda Architectural Preservation Society wants to protect the\ncharacter of Alameda's historic neighborhoods and asks that the items in their comment\nletters be included.\nDoug Biggs asked that action on this item be delayed. He said the objective standards are\nbeing packed with items that could burden affordable housing providers.\nKathleen Mertz said the latest version has a lot of new items in it that housing providers\nneed time to review and help refine. She asked for a delay in adoption in order to prevent\nimpacts on the cost to provide housing. She said the Everett Commons project referenced\nas a good design ended up costing almost one million dollars per unit to build.\nDanielle Thoe said the board and staff should take another look at what objective\nstandards are. She said they should not include subjective design standards.\nBetsy Mathieson said it is important that any new building should be compatible with the\nexisting buildings in the area. She said the standards should be at least as prescriptive as\nour current guidelines because of the streamlined nature of these projects.\nChristopher Buckley shared some examples of buildings that they would like to avoid by\nhaving clear standards and ensuring context sensitive development.\nBoard Member Teague closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Saheba asked if there was a deadline to adopt objective standards.\nStaff Member Tai said there is no deadline, adding that a streamlined application today\nwould rely on any objective standards found in existing design guides.\nBoard Member Saheba said creating clarity in this document is a challenge. He said the\ndocument gives enough parameters for applicants to decide what course they want to\nchoose.\nBoard Member Ruiz said she had a follow up conversation with Mr. Buckley about the\nAAPS comments. She said she understands the concerns of both sides and thinks the\ncontext section will need the most work.\nBoard Member Hom said staff had a hard job to capture subjective design guidelines in\nobjective standards and it is a delicate balance. He agreed that the neighborhood context\nitem may need further refinement. He suggested getting these guidelines in place now\nand revisiting them after a year.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 7\nFebruary 10, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-02-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-02-10", "page": 4, "text": "and Hom accepted the friendly amendment.\nBoard Member Saheba said that he would like to get a report back if any projects use\nthese streamlined standards before the refinements are brought back.\nThe motion passed 6-0.\n7-B 2020-7701\nProposed Citywide Text Amendments to the City of Alameda Zoning Ordinance (AMC\nChapter 30) to modify Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations to comply with state law and\nmake other administrative, technical, and clarifying amendments pertaining to appeals and\nYouth Centers definition. Applicant: City of Alameda. Public hearing to consider proposed\namendments to Alameda Municipal Code Chapter 30. The proposed amendments are\nexempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA\nGuidelines Sections 15282(h), 15061(b)(3), and 15183 and Public Resources Code\nsection 21080. 17\nAllen Tai, City Planner, gave a presentation. The staff report and draft ordinance can be\nfound\nat:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4323159&GUID=6A4D178B-\nF107-4BF0-9342-E2F455B28C3E&FullText=1.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked if the changes would permit trailers (pre-fabricated)\nhomes in backyards. She also asked why so few permitted units are not being built.\nStaff Member Tai said that manufactured homes are defined by the state and would have\nto meet all the building code requirements in order to be placed on property in Alameda.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 7\nFebruary 10, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-02-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-02-10", "page": 5, "text": "He said that high construction costs are what typically prevents permitted units from being\nconstructed.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh asked if there was anything that protects neighbors' views\nfrom being obstructed by an ADU.\nStaff Member Tai said state law is very specific and view preservation is not something\nthat can be included in the ADU ordinance.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh asked how we ensure that ADUs are not used as vacation\nrentals.\nStaff Member Tai said that applicants must record a deed restriction prohibiting that type\nof use.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked whether the new provisions apply to new multifamily buildings,\nor only existing buildings.\nAssistant City Attorney Chen said there are inconsistencies in state law that will likely\nrequire cleanup legislation.\nBoard Member Teague sought clarification regarding the legal interpretation of several\nprovisions.\nThere was a discussion about when the eight foot ceiling height limitation applies, such\nas only in the flood zone where the finished floor must be raised and the 16 foot overall\nheight limit must be granted an exception.\nBoard Member Teague opened the public hearing.\nKathleen Russo said the way the 25% rule was being applied was making her project\neconomically infeasible.\nBetsy Mathieson said ADUs can be a good way for more housing to be permitted in historic\nneighborhoods.\nBoard Member Teague closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Ruiz said that the four foot setback language needs clarification.\nBoard Member Teague said we should be liberal in the application of the ADU law. He\nsaid their impacts are less than concentrating new development in large projects. He said\nsingle family homes should be able to add a JADU and detached ADU. He suggested the\nmultifamily provision allow 25% and round up instead of rounding down and permit\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 7\nFebruary 10, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-02-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-02-10", "page": 6, "text": "detached units and/or duplexes. He expressed support for eliminating the lot coverage\nrequirements. He proposed allowing a design standard option from the Secretary of the\nInterior be included.\nBoard Member Hom said he would like to keep the 25% maximum, but is open to allowing\nduplexes.\nBoard Member Saheba expressed support for modifying the 25% rule to \"round up.\"\nAssistant City Attorney Chen raised the possibility that rounding up would exceed the 25%\nmaximum language and possibly expose the ordinance to being nullified from some sort\nof legal challenge.\nBoard Member Teague said there is a provision that permits local ordinances to be less\nrestrictive than the state law and would be willing to risk exceeding the 25% by rounding\nup. He asked Christopher Buckley to comment on the differentiation question in the\nSecretary of the Interior standards as pertains to detached ADUs.\nMr. Buckley said there is a lot of discretion and varying interpretations of what\ndifferentiation means in the standards.\nBoard Member Hom made a motion to approve the ordinance with an amendment\nto allow for rounding up on the 25% cap regarding multifamily units as well as\npermitting two detached ADUs to be built as a duplex. Board Member Ruiz\nseconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2020-7698\nDraft Meeting Minutes - December 9, 2019\nBoard Member Rothenberg moved approval of the minutes. Board Member Ruiz\nseconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2020-7695\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\n9-B 2020-7697\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Tai gave brief report on upcoming items.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 7\nFebruary 10, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-02-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-02-10", "page": 7, "text": "None.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nBoard Member Teague adjourned the meeting at 9:23 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 7\nFebruary 10, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-02-10.pdf"}