{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-05-11", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, MAY 11, 2020\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Ron Curtis convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nThis was a virtual meeting.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Alan Teague led the flag salute\n3.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Board Members Curtis, Hom, Rothenberg, Ruiz, Saheba, and Teague.\nAbsent: Board Member Jeff Cavanaugh\n4.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nNone.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n6.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\n7.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2020-7934\nPublic Hearing to consider a Request for Waiver of the Requirements of the Universal\nDesign Ordinance (Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-18) for the Boatworks\nDevelopment Plan at 2229 - 2235 Clement Avenue, Applicant: Boatworks, LLC.\nAndrew Thomas, Director of Planning, Building, and Transportation, introduced the item.\nThe staff report and attachments can be found at:\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4430529&GUID=EFE3BO9E-\n7B7F-4B42-960E-14DC1D44E463&FullText=1\nBoard Member Teresa Ruiz thanked Director Thomas for the staff report and asked if the\nproposed accessibility accommodation had been reviewed by the building department. If\nthe clubhouse and play structure may already be required by building code to be\naccessible, then it wouldn't be an \"extra\" feature.\nDirector Thomas said no, it may indeed already be required under the building code. It\nwas not in the record before and that is why staff recommends it be a condition of\napproval.\nBoard Member Rona Rothenberg asked since the city complies with the 2019 California\nBuilding Code for accessibility for design review and the Universal Design Ordinance\nexceeds that, the stricter standard must be applied.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 10\nMay 11, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-05-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-05-11", "page": 2, "text": "Director Thomas answered the project must meet the California Building Code, that's non-\nnegotiable. The Universal Design ordinance (local ordinance) exceeds the state's\nstandards. The Applicant is requesting waivers from the city standards.\nBoard Member Asheshh Saheba thanked the staff for the presentation, found the\ninformation very clear, and had no questions.\nBoard Member Teague asked about the interior width of the garages for the fourteen\nunits.\nDirector Thomas answered while Robert McGillis, Project Architect, looked up that\ninformation. There are one and two-car type garages, they are some grading issues with\nmaking the garages accessible.\nBoard Member Teague said that if the garages are not even 13 or 16 feet wide then they\ncould not accommodate a ramp.\nDirector Thomas said it's more about the ability to roll in from the alley over the rolled curb\ninto the garage. The grade excessed the 5% grade.\nBoard Member Teague wanted to make sure if someone brought in a wheelchair\naccessible van if they would have the required room.\nDirector Thomas said yes, on the 14 waterfront homes that \"basically\" meet all the\nrequirements of the Universal Design. Except for access into the units from the street.\nThey do not meet the letter of the code because the only way to get in with a wheelchair\nis by vehicle. Those 14 units all have two-car garages so they could accommodate a\nwheelchair accessible van.\nBoard Member Hansom Hom wanted to know if the items listed by the Disability\nCommission address accessibility issues and if Staff feels comfortable adding them to the\nproject. Also wanted to know how the applicant feels about the list.\nDirector Thomas said that the Disability Commission got together and gave staff the list\njust today. There may be some items that the Planning Board might think would enhance\nthe project. The list takes into account many types of disabilities, not just the need for a\nwheelchair. The applicant had only an hour or so to read over the list.\nThere were no public comments.\nBoard Member Ruiz was very disappointed that the new development is not able to\nprovide 100% visitability. She went back to the map and is struggling to believe that this\nis the best they can do with this site. She did understand there are unique challenges but\nto claim that only 40% of the townhomes are being provided with visitability she would\nneed further detail, without she could not support.\nBoard Member Rothenberg advocated strongly for optimal disabled access provided by\nlaw, however, the Universal design in her opinion is a reach goal. She was inclined to\nsupport bringing more housing to fruition sooner rather than later.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 10\nMay 11, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-05-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-05-11", "page": 3, "text": "Board Member Saheba agreed with Board Member Rothenberg, the Universal Design is\nsetting a higher standard than the baseline code. Also is aware of the unique challenges,\nbut looking at the entire site believes overall goals are being achieved.\nBoard Member Teague was also disappointed but understood. The main issue is that\nthere is no accessible path to the front door. He would like to see the units made adaptable\nfor seniors, lower mobility, and other need occupants. Items listed from the Disability\nCommission's list that should be included. If these items are met he could approve.\nBoard Member Hom also agreed with most of the comments that have already been\nexpressed. Also agreed that at this point, doing a complete redesign is not a realistic\noption. Though very sympathetic to the hardships the site presents and understanding\nwhy choices were made after reading the engineer's report, he believes they can be still\nbetter with regards to accessibility and visitability. Though the applicant needs to step up\nand propose some additional measures, not sure what those items are, and wanted more\ndiscussion.\nPresident Curtis agreed with his colleagues. The problem with the inaccessibility is due to\nthe grades. The applicant is asking for a \"black and white\" solution by having the board\nwaive these requirements. He understands why there is a low percentage of pf\naccessibility but believes these units can be made adaptable. Did not want to give the\napplicant a blanket approval on the waiver.\nDirector Thomas suggested that the Board ask the applicant about the list and if they have\nconsidered Board Member Teague's suggestions.\nMr. McGillis said he understood the concerns and additions suggested by the board,\nhowever, the townhomes are just not conducive to the universal design criteria. He then\ndescribed the challenges of incorporating accessibility within the small footprint of the\narea. He said they are very open to the list for adaptability.\nShona Armstrong, Boatworks LLC, said of the list Board Member Teague presented there\nwere four they are reluctant to be part of the condition. The automatic stove shut off, slip\nresistance floors, anti-glare counters, and tactile method edge detection. They would strive\nto include others but mentioned how little time the applicant had with the list.\nBoard Member Teague believes the applicant could work with staff on reasonable\nsolutions for materials used in the kitchen and bath. He asked the applicant if they would\nuse built-in ovens and stoves.\nMr. MiGillis said they did not know.\nBoard Member Teague is comfortable if the applicant works with staff on these issues.\nDirector Thomas said they will write the condition of approval very clearly. When the\nproject comes back for design review they will discuss these four items.\nBoard Member Ruiz said she is satisfied with the interior concerns but still had concerns\nabout visitability. She offered thoughts on how to increase visibility on the interior units.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 10\nMay 11, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-05-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-05-11", "page": 4, "text": "Board Member Hom said he is now comfortable with supporting the project with these\nconditions that will be discussed in the design review stage.\nBoard Member Saheba said his main issue is the lack of visibility. He also agrees there\ncould be opportunities to increase the number of units that you could get to the front door\nin an accessible way.\nPresident Curtis asked Board Member Ruiz if she would work with Staff on this.\nBoard Member Ruiz said she would and then asked the board if they were comfortable\nabout granting the waivers on just the perimeter units.\nDirector Thomas said it will come down to design review and talked more about what they\ncan word in the conditions of approval to make it very clear what is expected of the\napplicant.\nNicky Collins, Boatworks LLC, said, unfortunately, they got the list very late and had not\ndigested it properly. Though there are some good ideas but was hesitant to make\npromises.\nPresident Curtis told Ms. Collins that she came in late in the discussion. He said it sounded\nlike the applicant needed more time.\nMs. Collins said she did not want to make promises to the Planning Board something that\ncould not be achieved.\nPresident Curtis did not believe the items on the list (minus the four discussed) are high-\ncost items. He then suggested they table the discussion to give the applicant more time.\nMs. Collins said that she would not disagree with that and then added it's not just about\nthe perceived cost but what makes sense. They have to take into account both people\nwith disabilities and those who don't.\nMs. Armstrong mentioned the time constraints about the settlement agreement and that\ncontinuing the discussion would make things difficult. She then asked the Board if they\nwould grant the waivers knowing that the developer would work with staff to address these\nissues before design review at a later date.\nBoard Member Hom suggested putting the burden on the developer to meet these\nconditions and during design review, the burden is on the developer to explain which items\nthey can not agree to.\nPresident Curtis agreed with Board Member Hom but felt the applicant changed their mind\nabout what they were comfortable with in \"the 11th hour\".\nBoard Member Saheba clarified that the list that was sent out from the Disability\nCommission is not the list that was agreed on. The list that Board Member Teague put\nout was more for adaptability. This was the list agreed on except for the four items\nmentioned by Ms. Armstrong.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 10\nMay 11, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-05-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-05-11", "page": 5, "text": "Director Thomas also added that there are a lot of lists coming in late and the applicant\nhas not had a chance to look at any of it. He said it would be best not to continue this item.\nWhat is best for the board tonight is to make a list of conditions everyone is comfortable\nwith. The applicant can always appeal, and there is no time to continue.\nPresident Curtis wanted a motion that gives the applicant the waiver with the conditions\nlisted by Board Member Teague. Expect for the four contested by the applicant, that would\ncome back during design review.\nMr. McGillis wanted to be added to the list of contested items, the 32-inch door clearance.\nBoard Member Ruiz drafted a condition for visitability \"the visitability waivers are granted\nfor units facing Clement, Oak, and Waterfront. Developers shall endeavor to provide\nvisibility to all other units either through the front door or via the garage. Developers shall\nprovide detailed grading plans for all units and visitability during design review\".\nBoard Member Teague did not support this wording.\nBoard Member Ruiz said the word endeavor is not a guarantee, for the units the developer\ncannot make accessible just explain why.\nBoard Member Teague wanted to adjust the wording to \"Developers shall work with staff\non grading plans on those units that do not meet the visitability\".\nRyan Hanson, SBG, addressed the challenges they are facing with the interior units on\nthese requirements and the space they have to work with.\nDirector Thomas believed they can craft language that works for everyone. After the\ndesign review, show the board the grading plan. Please meet these items, and for those\nfive show us why you can't.\nPresident Curtis believes these requirements will not affect marketability and is not\nunreasonable from a board standpoint.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to approve the universal design waiver\napplicant for the Boatworks Development, the fourth and fifth conditions being\nreplaced with:\n1. 100% of the units are made adaptable for seniors, lower mobility, and other\nneeds occupancy\n2. Windows do not require more than 5lbs of force to close\n3. Lever-type handles throughout\n4. Light switches must be placed at accessible heights\n5. Areas around shower and bath to be reinforced\n6.\nShower and Bath must have offset controls\n7. Closets must have adjustable shelves\n8. ADA height required toilets\n9. Adjustable stairs\n10. The shelving in the kitchen must be adjustable.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 10\nMay 11, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-05-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-05-11", "page": 6, "text": "The developer will work with staff on the following items.\n1. Slip resistance material for floors.\n2. Kitchen counters with a tactile method for edge detection.\n3. Built-in oven and stoves.\n4. 32-inch clear opening through doors where possible.\n5. Also really looking hard at ways to increase visibility.\nBefore the vote Board Member Hom wanted to make sure that the applicant would study\nthe garages for accessibility.\nMs. Armstrong said they will look into all options but do not want to say yes to anything in\nparticular.\nBoard Member Ruiz seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0, one abstained\ndue to absence.\n7-B 2020-7936\nNorth Housing Study Session - 300 - 501 Mosley Avenue - Applicants: Habitat for\nHumanity and Alameda Housing Authority. The Planning Board will hold a study session\non two separate residential development proposals for a total of up to 648 units on\napproximately 14-acres at the North Housing site. The site is generally located between\nSingleton Avenue, Mosley Avenue and west of Bette Street. The site is located within the\nR-4-PD-MF, Neighborhood Residential Planned Development District with Multifamily\nOverlay. No action will be taken by the Planning Board at the study session\nAllen Tai, City Planner, gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be\nfound at:\nttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4430531&GUID=C428193E-\n1075-4471-A2A7-C7D8521F4F66&FullText=1\nStaff Member Tai finished his presentation and reminded the Board that this is a study\nsession. This is a time for the board to bring up any issues any concerns so the staff and\nthe applicant can address those at a later date.\nKristi Bascom, Habitat for Humanity, thanked the board and talked about the history with\nNorth Housing. They want to respect the existing architecture and maximize the number\nof affordable housing in the space. These units would be affordable to low-income\nhouseholds. They are very excited to bring affordable homeownership to the city of\nAlameda.\nDanielle Thoe, Housing Authority, also talked about the history of the land and talked\nabout the housing needs of Alameda.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked Ms. Thoe about Lakehurst Drive and if any modifications would\nbe made to the current road.\nMs. Thoe said Lakehurst Dr would remain the same for about 60% from Mosely Ave but\nwill then straighten out to a 90-degree angle to make room for a future local street.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 10\nMay 11, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-05-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-05-11", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Ruiz wanted to know about the distribution between seniors and affordable\nhousing at Block A.\nMs. Thoe said that as of now they do not have an exact number of distributions. It will\npartly depend on demand in the coming years.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked Ms. Bascom if Habitat for Humanity would be requesting a\nvariance on setbacks.\nMs. Bascom said they are still confirming if they meet all the requirements for setback\nunder the Density Bonus Law, if they do they will not need to change setbacks.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked about the current fence line and wanted to know if it was\npermanent or temporary until the paseo was constructed.\nMs. Basom answered there would be a low rise fence that distinguishes the Habitat Project\nfrom the paseo.\nBoard Member Rothenberg wanted confirmation on the number of units going into block\nA.\nMs. Thoe said they have provided a range of units depending on each of the blocks\ndepending on the type of housing being produced.\nBarry Long, UDA, added that there would be a minimum of 90 units on Block A, setting a\nbracket for the perimeters of that block.\nBoard Member Rothenberg wanted to know if the project would be a Notice of Exemption\nfrom CEQA.\nStaff Member Tai said they are currently reviewing the two applications for compliance of\nSB35. Under SB35 the projects would be exempt if they qualify.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked about the proposed development schedule. She felt\nthat the start date of 2021 was early for a project that had not been approved yet and that\nthe schedule of 3 years was long for a project of this size.\nMs. Thoe said that since affordable housing is needed they want their timelines to be\noptimistic. They will take a look at that before the hearing.\nBoard Member Saheba asked about a double gate on the habitat property and wanted to\nknow what the purpose of that gate was.\nMs. Bascom said that is for emergency purposes, to get a fire truck on and off.\nBoard Member Saheba asked about how residents would move to the paseo.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 10\nMay 11, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-05-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-05-11", "page": 8, "text": "Ms. Bascom pointed out pathways with gates that open that residents and pedestrians\ncould use.\nBoard Member Saheba wanted to know how Habitat for Humanity and Alameda Housing\nAuthority would be working together to design the paseo.\nMs. Bascom said that both parties will be contributing to the design and the cost of\nimplementation.\nMs. Thoe added that both parties like the idea of the green space and the need for fire\naccess.\nBoard Member Teague wanted to know if all units are affordable. He also asked why there\nwas a concern about requesting labor concession because it looks like the applicant is\nentitled to them.\nMs. Basom answered that all units are affordable and that for now, they do not believe\nthat they will need the concessions.\nBoard Member Teague wanted to know why they are not building more units. He also\nwanted to make sure that the Housing Authority had looked at AB-1763 to make sure they\ncan build as many units as possible.\nMs. Basom said that this is as many as they can while also providing enough parking and\nlistening to the concerns of the neighborhood.\nMs. Thoe said she is not familiar with that law but will take a look at it.\nBoard Member Hom asked about what type of ownership model Habitat for Humanity is\nproposing.\nMs. Bascom said it is a typical type of condominium ownership.\nBoard Member Hom also commented if they could do more of a mix of income. He then\nasked about the windows on the 3rd floor, they seem small and out of scale.\nBoard Member Hom asked Ms. Thoe or more detail on the different types of housing. He\nis also interested in seeing a Community Space.\nMr. Long said that is not the plan and that instead it will be distributed throughout the site\nand not in a central location.\nBoard Member Hom also commented that he would like to see a wider mix of affordable\nunits.\nMs. Thoe explained how the units need to be divided.\nBoard Member Teague left the virtual meeting.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 10\nMay 11, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-05-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-05-11", "page": 9, "text": "President Curtis asked about financing for the project.\nMs. Thoe explained why they provided a range for each block so depending on funding\nand needs they can determine what works.\nKathleen Mertz, Housing Authority, gave a breakdown of housing authority's financing.\nMs. Bascom then described Habitat for Humanity's financing, it's very different from\nHousing Authority's. It can be \"horrible\" and they are always looking for financial aid.\nPresident Curtis wanted clarification on the construction schedule and if they would have\nthe proper finances to begin in 2021.\nMs. Thoe said that the Housing Authority looks for projects that are \"shovel\" ready. They\nwill be more prepared at each stage of the development.\nBoard Member Ruiz discouraged the use of the fence facing the paseo, it's a type of\nsegregation. If it's temporary that's fine but would like to see it removed.\nPresident Curtis opened public comments.\nCourtney Shepler sent an email to the Clerk regarding insufficient parking and a lack of\ncommunication on behalf of the Housing Authority with the Alameda Landing HOA. The\nemail can be found at:\nttps://alameda.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=8408262&GUID=4709FB3F-9D24\n4BBE-85B5-575028E5OF1E\nPresident Curtis closed public comments.\nThe Board thanked them for their presentation.\n8.\nMINUTES\n8-A 2020-7037\nDraft Meeting Minutes - February 10, 2020\nBoard Member Ruiz wanted an edit on the first motion that she had made, it should say\n\"direction to refine and amend\".\nBoard Member Hom made a motion to approve the minutes with the one correction.\nBoard Member Ruiz seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0, two had\nabstained due to absence.\n9.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2020-7935\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\n9-B 2020-7938\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 10\nMay 11, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-05-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-05-11", "page": 10, "text": "Staff Member Tai said the next regular scheduled meeting falls on Memorial Day, and that\nmeeting will be canceled. The next meeting will then be on Monday, June 8th, 2020.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n12.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard Member Ruiz feels that when many agenda items come in front of the board that\nthey are unable to continue (due to time constraints) and feel forced to make a decision.\nShe requested more time without putting any project or the city at risk.\nStaff Member Tai agreed and noted that Boatworks is unique because of the timeline\nconnected to the settlement agreement. For future items, this is a point well taken and\nstaff will take that into consideration.\n13.\nADJOURNMENT\nPresident Curtis adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 10 of 10\nMay 11, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-05-11.pdf"}