{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-02-22", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2021\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Alan Teague convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nThis meeting was via Zoom.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Rona Rothenberg led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Board Members Curtis, Hom, Rothenberg, Ruiz, Cisneros, Saheba, and Teague.\nAbsent: None.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nNone.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2021-663\nPublic Hearing for the Planning Board to Review and Comment on the City of Alameda's\nDraft COVID-19 Economic Recovery Plan.\nAmanda Gehrke, Community Development Department Development Manager,\nintroduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be\nfound at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4795897&GUID=D9C61041-\nFC33-44AB-B828-25C0B3A9776D&FullText=1.\nPresident Teague opened public comments.\nThere were no public comments.\nPresident Teague closed public comments and opened board questions and comments.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 12\nFebruary 22, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-02-22", "page": 2, "text": "Board Member Hanson Hom found the Covid response to be very thorough and had\naddressed a number of issues. He did think that the list of items should be prioritized due\nto limited resources and manpower. He thought there should be a focus on low-income\nearners and small businesses. He was very interested in the slow street options and the\nquick build options.\nBoard Member Rona Rothenberg agreed with Board Member Hom's comments. She also\nbelieved that the document could go further in addressing equity and diversity, she pointed\nto page 6 under \"information sharing\" that section could go broader, she described and\nenumerated diverse houses of worship across all faiths as a forum for inclusive programs.\nShe recommended rereading the document and find places where they could really push\nequitable diversity to enhance the message. She believed it was a good piece of work.\nVice President Asheshh Saheba said his main focus was on transportation. He was happy\nto see AC Transit in the focus groups to help guide what would be happening. He wanted\nto know more about the strategy to get people to re-engage with transportation services.\nHe recommended putting the focus on that since it would also help the business\ncommunities.\nBoard Member Teresa Ruiz said in concept she supported making the slow streets\npermanent but that the board would need to review it case by case. They would need to\nlook at what the data said before making that decision. For pilot programs, since the arts\nand entertainment sectors had been hurt significantly perhaps they could incorporate\nentertainment activities into city-owned parks. She recommended increasing waste\ncollection in parks due to increased demand and people in these areas. She then made\nrecommendations on how the document could be more clear and relevant to Alameda.\nBoard Member Xiomara Cisneros was very supportive of the strategies outlined for land\nuse. She agreed about the need for evaluation and reviewing the data for those findings.\nShe discussed how the theme of \"public health\" could be addressed more. She was also\nvery supportive of rent relief for tenants and on the remarks about supporting small\nbusinesses. She brought up the question about hazard pay and if that was something that\ncould help larger businesses.\nBoard Member Ron Curtis believed that a lot of the solutions that had been given were\nshort-term solutions and had trepidation about making them permanent. Mainly the\nreconfiguration of Park and Webster Street and its impact. He also wondered who was\ngoing to maintain this in the long run, he also had other concerns about funding. He also\nhad questions about crowdfunding for rentals and how it would help individuals and their\nbusinesses. He said the short-term solutions and direction of this were really good.\nPresident Teague first clarified that an example of crowdfunding was GoFundMe and that\nat the next City Council Meeting there would be a council referral item to introduce hazard\npay. He agreed with Board Member Rothenberg that there should be some mention about\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 12\nFebruary 22, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-02-22", "page": 3, "text": "the various houses of worship throughout the city. Also, he noted that the housing\nproviders were not included. They should be included to ensure a smooth transition, by\nhelping them they help the tenants. He thought the short-term actions had been great in\nhelping businesses. He agreed that they need to evaluate the slow streets and\nreconfiguration of Park and Webster Street. Overall he thought the plan was amazing and\nthat trying things out is the best way to see if it works.\n7-B 2021-664\nAdoption of Amended and Restated Objective Design Review Standards. The revised\nObjective Design Review Standards (Objective Standards) consist of a checklist of\narchitectural and site design standards that apply to residential development projects.\nAdoption of the revised Objective Standards is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA\nGuidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the common-sense exception that CEQA applies only to\nprojects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and\nSection 15183, projects consistent with a community plan, general plan or zoning.\nAllen Tai, City Planner, introduced the item, and Heather Coleman, Urban Planning\nConsultant, and David Sablan, Planner III, gave a presentation. The staff report and\nattachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4795898&GUID=431C9BF9-\nFF27-4002-8B78-971861EC1108&FullText=1.\nPresident Teague opened the board clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked if they thought they fulfilled the last statement \"obtained\nstakeholder input regarding good design vs. containing cost\" and how they fulfilled it. She\nalso suggested providing a red line copy and a clean copy in the future.\nStaff Member Tai apologized for not providing a red line copy. He continued by saying this\nhad been a very difficult process. He felt that the draft they had presented hit on the most\nimportant design principles and was a good faith effort from the staff as well as Board\nMember Ruiz and Vice President Saheba.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked if this document could have been written in a less\nprescriptive manner.\nStaff Member Tai said absolutely and added that the Alameda Architectural Preservation\nSociety (AAPS) had submitted letters asking for more specificity. He said after reading\ntheir letters they decided against adding too many prescriptive requirements.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked about item 2B - limitation on blank walls - she asked for\nclarification on the requirements, she thought it was a bit confusing.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 12\nFebruary 22, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-02-22", "page": 4, "text": "Ms. Coleman explained the requirements more clearly and agreed it could be formatted\nbetter.\nBoard Member Curtis wanted to know the difference between a prescriptive and a\nperformance document.\nBoard Member Rothenberg explained that a performance document would have less\ndetail but still describe what you wanted to accomplish in broad terms. She suggested\nthat the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (CARP) be referenced in appropriate sections\nand include General Plan climate action goals.\nBoard Member Cisneros asked if there were examples of performative design objective\nstandards.\nStaff Member Tai said performance standards were more results-driven. The current\napproach was a bit of a hybrid but they do mostly explain how to get there. He then gave\nexamples of each. He said they want to address poor design standards they don't want to\nsee.\nPresident Teague asked about roof-mounted equipment and visibility, he found the\nlanguage to be very vague.\nMs. Coleman explained the intent more.\nPresident Teague opened public comments.\nDaniel Hoy, WABA (West Alameda Business Association) design committee, said he felt\nthat the TDA (Traditional Design Area) left out half of the community. He felt that it goes\nagainst what the community wanted and what they had envisioned. He added that WABA\nis more than a business association; it's a community and the TDA map disregards all\ntheir hard work and efforts in bringing the community together.\nBrenden Sullivan also wanted to address the TDA map and that it should include all of\nWebster Street business district and all of the North Park Street Area. He also felt that the\nresidential part East of Park Street and North of Tilden be included in the TDA design to\nhelp ensure future development maintains the same character. He ended by talking about\nthe architectural pedigree of Alameda.\nSylvia Martinez, Director of the Housing Authority of Alameda, discussed how the list of\nstandards did not serve affordable housing for two reasons. First, it has too many costly\nrequirements, requirements that add cost without benefits to the residents, and it places\nrestrictions on the ability to build at the density required for affordable housing.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 12\nFebruary 22, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-02-22", "page": 5, "text": "Doree Miles wanted to add on to what Mr. Sullivan had been saying since she felt the\nsame way. She was very familiar with the North Park St neighborhood and felt that area\nhad been overlooked. She would like to see this area looked at more and be included in\nthe design element. She also supported the letter sent by AAPS on February 19th.\nChris Buckley, AAPS, wanted to discuss and go over the two letters sent from the AAPS.\nHe did feel that the current draft standards were a major improvement from the ones\nadopted by the Planning Board last February. He felt that there were still some loose ends\nthat needed to be addressed. He wanted the board to consider these issues for a future\nmeeting giving time to work these issues out. He wanted a statement in the document\nsaying that public notice will still be given and he wanted to know if staff decisions made\nunder the Objective Standards still would be appealable. He also suggested a two-tiered\nsystem for affordable housing and market-rate housing.\nPresident Teague closed public comments. Before moving on he did ask that staff\nelaborate on the applicability of these objective standards and what projects were allowed\nto have just a ministerial design review.\nMs. Coleman explained the process and what was required by state law.\nCelena Chen, from the City's Attorney Office and Staff Counsel, further explained the\nHousing Accountability Act and Senate Bill 35.\nPresident Teague asked a hypothetical question about how a ministerial review could be\nrequested for all market-rate housing.\nStaff Counsel Chen said that a ministerial review only applies to projects that qualify under\nSB-35, she then added what those requirements were.\nStaff Member Tai added that the board could set different design standards for affordable\nhousing and market-rate housing.\nPresident Teague opened the board's comments and discussion.\nBoard Member Hom agreed with taking another look at the TDA map for the Park Street\narea. He appreciated how the staff tried to balance the performance base with principles\nand had standards in place. He also liked how flexibility had been built into the standards\nand he was interested to see how that would work. He gave his thoughts on Affordable\nHousing and how he liked to see Affordable Housing blend in with the character of the\nneighborhood and not stand out. He also gave his thoughts on design choices.\nBoard Member Rothenberg felt that as long the board and the staff had mindfully\naddressed the comments from the AAPS, WABA, and the Housing Authority she felt the\nObjective Design Review Standards merited approval. She also believed the TDA map\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 12\nFebruary 22, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-02-22", "page": 6, "text": "could be revisited either as a condition or have the issue continued. She suggested that a\nparagraph about sustainability features should be added to the Objective Design features\nsince they are metric and measurable.\nVice President Saheba described the types of buildings he sees in a city and how the\nobjective standards can establish a baseline. Not to make future work challenging but to\nensure a certain quality of work. He saw these standards as a good way to establish a\nstreamline but if everything doesn't fit into these standards it shouldn't be seen as a\nchallenge to move that project forward.\nBoard Member Ruiz echoed what Vice President Saheba said, the goal of these objective\nstandards was not to be a \"holy grail\" that solves all the design problems but just to\nestablish a baseline. She said given the state mandate it was very difficult to do the\nstandards in a checklist form and that is why it needed to be more prescriptive. She agreed\nwith AAPS's comment that a public notice requirement will still be given and should be\naddressed in this document.\nBoard Member Cisneros said she was not fully comfortable with the TDA map, she felt\nthat it was almost all of Alameda and kept it frozen in a 1940s style. She was not supportive\nof expanding it further. She believed the main objective was to support Affordable Housing\ndevelopments in the community and suggested an amendment for Affordable Housing.\nBoard Member Curtis said from his perspective what was important was adequate design,\ndurable design, and something that was cost-effective. These three things would\naccomplish the point of having the Objective Design Standards. He also suggested a way\nto appeal if your development does not meet all the listed requirements.\nPresident Teague discussed the requirements for SB-35 and Bonus Density and gave\nexamples of how they could waive requirements. He had expected to see more polish and\nremoval (requirements that increase cost) but there were things added that he was\nsurprised by but understood. He thought that expanding the TDA map to include all of\nWebster Street and Park Street made sense to maintain the fabric of those areas. He did\nwant to change the roof-mounted equipment item, and he gave a suggestion for wording\nfor better clarity. He said with SB-35 they didn't need to add anything for Affordable\nHousing Projects.\nStaff Member Tai clarified that an amendment was not needed and further explained\nministerial review and that the staff would be adding information clarifying the process.\nPresident Teague asked if anyone wanted to extend the TDA map.\nBoard Member Hom said he was not supportive of amending it now but that the staff\nshould take some time to look at it. It could be a future amendment after some analysis\nfrom the staff.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 12\nFebruary 22, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-02-22", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Curtis made a motion to approve the motion as written and Vice\nPresident Saheba seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion\npassed 7-0.\n7-C 2021-666\nPLN21-0009 - Zoning Text Amendments - Citywide - Applicant: City of Alameda. Public\nHearing to Consider Recommending City Council Adoption of an Ordinance Amending\nAlameda Municipal Code Chapter 30 (Development Regulations) to Streamline\nResidential Open Space Requirements and Remove Utility Requirements for Multiple\nHouses (Condominiums). The proposed zoning text amendments are exempt from the\nCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section\n15061(b)(3), where it can be seen with certainty that the proposed text amendments will\nnot have a significant effect on the environment, and 15183, projects consistent with a\ncommunity plan, General Plan or zoning.\nStaff Member Tai introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff report and\nattachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4795899&GUID=1F996EDF-\n2CD-4F86-9079-E5D3A488CF87&FullText=1\nPresident Teague opened the board's clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Hom asked if the city has a park dedication in lieu requirement.\nStaff Member Tia said that the City of Alameda does not have a Parkland Dedication\nOrdinance, but they did have a Development Impact Fees. He then gave an example using\nJean Sweeney Park. He then clarified that this is just offering another option if the project\nwants to give funds to improvement at a neighborhood park that could be done in lieu of\nthe open space.\nBoard Member Hom clarified it couldn't be combined for a double benefit and it's on top\nof the in-lieu fee.\nStaff Member Tai said that was correct, developers could not mix the two together. Onsite\nopen space is onsite open space, this is just an opportunity where if there is a park across\nthe street from the project they can give money to that.\nBoard Member Rothenberg wanted to know about the merit of eliminating the utility\nmetering requirement.\nStaff Member Tai said when this requirement was passed in 1975 there was some concern\nabout multifamily housing. The staff felt that this was now unnecessary.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 12\nFebruary 22, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-02-22", "page": 8, "text": "examining governmental constraint.\nPresident Teague recommended combining AG 1 and 5 to justify it.\nPresident Teague opened public comments.\nThere were no speakers.\nPresident Teague closed public comments and opened the board's comments and\ndiscussions.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 12\nFebruary 22, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-02-22", "page": 9, "text": "Board Member Hom was in full support of the zoning code amendments, eliminating the\nutility meters, and eliminating the requirements for closets and laundry facilities. He\nbelieved allowing these things to be market-driven was a good approach and could be\nrevisited down the road if it becomes problematic. He saw these amendments as a step\nin the right direction.\nBoard Member Rothenberg was in support of the added edit suggested by Board Member\nRuiz. She did suggest an edit on some items that had been struck out that would be better\nfor clarity. She believed it was an excellent set of revisions and meritorious to be approved.\nVice President Saheba agreed with his fellow board members and that market conditions\nwould dictate some of the things that were being removed from the text. He was in full\nsupport.\nBoard Member Ruiz made a recommendation regarding the \"two-block\" definition for the\nin lieu of open space. She thought that it was a bit unclear and preferred to see a specific\ndistance. She advised using a 500ft radius.\nBoard Member Cisneros agreed with her fellow board member's comments, staff's\nrecommendations, and seconded Board Member Ruiz's suggestion of specifying a 500 ft\nradius.\nBoard Member Curtis agreed with all the changes except with the open space. He believed\nthat private open spaces should be given priority and should be mentioned. He thought it\nwas unhealthy for a high-density unit to not have at least a balcony and a private patio.\nHe gave a suggestion on required open space footage per total square footage. He was\nnot in favor of taking away the private open space.\nPresident Teague said the 500ft was far less than two blocks, two blocks was about a\nquarter-mile. He saw the table for open space as a barrier to development, it had been\nused in the past as barriers to building houses. He did see the need for open space but\ndidn't agree with the tiered system. He was also in favor of everything being removed. He\nalso talked about how he would be supportive of making all 120ft for all zones.\nVice President Saheba believed that the market should drive whether open space is\nprivate or common.\nBoard Member Curtis appreciated what Vice President Saheba said but was still\nconcerned about those units that were not market-driven. Specifically, the many low-cost\nunits that were being built to keep costs down with people in small quarters and no access\nto the outside.\nVice President Saheba wanted clarification that for a public open space to be utilized it\nwould be at the discretion of the staff.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 12\nFebruary 22, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-02-22", "page": 10, "text": "Staff Member Tai said currently it is the Planning Board's decision based on findings such\nas distance and that the public space would be beneficial to the occupants of the\ndevelopment project.\nBoard Member Ruiz also wanted to address Board Member Curtis's concern on Affordable\nHousing. She said that the state does mandate that Affordable Housing had to have open\nspace, each of the units had to have private open space in order to meet state funding\nrequirements. This would be a given regardless of what the local zoning ordinance said.\nBoard Member Curtis said that information from Board Member Ruiz solved his issue.\nStaff Member Tai clarified the standardized amount of open space across districts. He\nshared information about the North Park District and what the open space requirements\nwere.\nBoard Member Hom said he was supportive of the uniform open space across the board.\nHe saw the main constraint was the high density. He made sense that open space should\ncorrelate with density.\nBoard Member Rothenberg made a motion to approve the resolution adopting\namended and restated objective design review standards subject to the revisions\nthat were put forth by President Teague and Board Member Ruiz, Board Member\nCurtis seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1,\nBoard Member Hom voted against.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2021-669\nDraft Meeting Minutes - January 25, 2021\nBoard Member Ruiz made a motion to approve the minutes and Board Member Hom\nseconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2021-667\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nStaff report and actions can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4795900&GUID=004F8381\n-\nB630-4F25-923D-730209A3E105&FullText=1.\nBoard Member Rothenberg wanted to pull item PLN20-0538, 1215 Peach Street. She also\nwanted to know if the Nason Street Project had come back as the minutes had said it\nwould be.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 10 of 12\nFebruary 22, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-02-22", "page": 11, "text": "Staff Member Tai said no due to public comments that addressed project conditions of\napproval at the staff level. He said they would make a modification in the minutes that the\nNason Street project would not be coming back.\nPresident Teague wanted clarification that 1214 Peach St was not a ministerial approval\nADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit)\nStaff Member Tai said that was correct, it was a code enforcement case and the staff\nwould schedule it at an upcoming meeting before the board. They would also notify the\napplicant that it had been pulled for a review.\n9-B 2021-668\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Tai announced that at the next meeting on March 8, 2021, they would be\nbringing forward the Housing Element Annual Report and they would discuss with the\nboard about the upcoming year's events. He added that the Encinal Terminal Master Plan\nand Development Agreement would be coming back to the Planning Board. Also if there\nwas time they would discuss the Parking Ordinance.\nBoard Member Ruiz reminded everyone that she would need to recuse herself from the\nEncinal Terminal discussion.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nPresident Teague said he had been asked about potentially forming a sub-committee for\nthe Housing Element. He wanted to know what his fellow board members thought, they\nwould need 3 board members to form the sub-committee.\nStaff Member Tai said what the staff was hoping a sub-committee could focus on was\nprioritizing items. Prioritize topics and when the board wants to see items, guidance for\nwhen they do the Housing Element update, and the Zoning Text Amendment.\nAfter discussion, it was decided that President Teague and Board Members Hom and\nCisneros would be on the sub-committee for the Housing Element.\nBoard Member Rothenberg wanted to share that she had been working with the\nSustainability Group to support the development of an all-electric Reach Ordinance for\nnew construction. It would be going to the City Council for a first read in the coming months\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 11 of 12\nFebruary 22, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-02-22", "page": 12, "text": "and that the American Institute of Architects East Bay and the American Institute of\nArchitects California would be writing letters of support.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Teague adjourned the meeting at 10:03 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 12 of 12\nFebruary 22, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf"}