{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-03-22", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, MARCH 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 Xiomara Cisneros led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Board Members Curtis, Hom, Rothenberg, Cisneros, Ruiz, 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 2021-758\nPLN20-0538 - 1214 Peach Street - Design Review - Applicant: Van Dang. A Public\nHearing to consider a Call for Review of the Planning Director's approval of a Design\nReview application to legalize work without permits related to Code Enforcement Case\nNo. X21-0009. The work consists of raising an existing single family house by\napproximately one foot to create ceiling height for a new accessory dwelling unit in the\nbasement. The scope of work also includes exterior siding restoration, the addition of\nshingle siding at the front gable, a new octagonal vent under the gable of the front fa\u00e7ade,\nand replacement of the stair railing at the front porch. General Plan: Low-Density\nResidential. Zoning: R-1, One-Family Residence District. CEQA Determination: Design\nreview approval for a permitted use is not subject to CEQA pursuant to McCorkle Eastside\nNeighborhood Group V. City of St. Helena (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 80.\nAllen Tai, City Planner, introduced Deirdre McCartney, Permit Technician III, who gave\nthe presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at\ntps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4836618&GUID=656EB0C4-\n18FB-44DB-A96A-57B354633F2C&FullText=1.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 10\nMarch 22, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-03-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-03-22", "page": 2, "text": "President Teague opened the board's clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Teresa Ruiz wanted to know if the asbestos in the siding had been properly\nabated.\nStaff Member McCartney said she could not answer that but they had been cited by Code\nEnforcement and had gotten a building permit to remove the asbestos siding. She had not\nseen any of that documentation.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked for clarification from staff that the Board is strictly reviewing the\ndesign and facade changes and not the asbestos removal.\nStaff Member McCartney said that was correct.\nBoard Member Ruiz wanted clarification on detail on page 1-A3, she wanted to know\nwhere it was being cut.\nStaff Member McCartney said it was a framing detail, she was unsure where that detail\nwas cut. She would have to get back to Board Member Ruiz on this item. She was hoping\nthe applicant could answer the question but they were not in attendance.\nVice President Asheshh Saheba asked about the replacement railing for the stair and that\nthe report said wood but in the drawings it indicated iron.\nStaff Member McCartney said the applicant assumed that they would be replacing it with\nanother iron rail but as part of the Condition of Approval for Design Review that it needed\nto be a wood railing with a newel post. The applicant had not updated the drawings yet.\nVice President Saheba clarified that the drawings were out of date from what the\nrecommendations were.\nStaff Member McCartney said that was correct, they had not yet updated their plans.\nVice President Saheba asked if the applicant was aware of what type of railing was being\nrequired and wanted to know the department's thought process on asking for a wood\nrailing.\nStaff Member McCartney said they were following AAPS's (Alameda Architectural\nPreservation Society) recommendation that it should be a wood railing.\nStaff Member Tai pointed out that this was a standard practice and that for the Residential\nDesign guidelines they would call for wood railings in a building of this age.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 10\nMarch 22, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-03-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-03-22", "page": 3, "text": "Vice President Saheba asked if the design for the railing would be reviewed at a later time.\nStaff Member Tai said that was correct.\nBoard Member Hanson Hom brought up the letter from AAPS and asked if they were\nproposing any changes on the side and rear elevation.\nStaff Member McCartney said they had a permit in 2019 to remove a shed roof that didn't\ngo with the architecture of the house and replaced it with a gable roof. They had also\nreplaced windows and siding on the other side of the building under other permits.\nBoard Member Hom asked about sheet A-2, there was a projection of a \"bay window\" and\nwanted to know if that was new.\nStaff Member McCartney said it was shown as existing.\nBoard Member Hom asked if the pilaster in the entrance porch area was being retained\nor if it was new.\nStaff Member McCartney said it looked new.\nBoard Member Hom said it was not reflected in the sketch, he did not have a problem with\nit but was just curious.\nBoard Member Ron Curtis had no questions but said he believed that the detail was a\nframing detail of the exterior wall from the foundation up supporting the house above the\nbasement.\nBoard Member Cisneros wanted clarification if the house was empty or if it was owner-\noccupied.\nStaff Member McCartney said the owners were the contractor and the designer and they\ndid not live in the house.\nBoard Member Rona Rothenberg asked since this was a code enforcement case then\nwhat was the basis for considering the design review application to legalize without\npermits. What was the exact status of the non-conforming permit work on the foundation?\nStaff Member McCartney said it was mostly finished. Once they had finished the scope of\nwork they were told that was when they needed to come in for a Design Review. Then\nthey will need to get new permits or revise their existing permits to reflect the additional\nwork they had done.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 10\nMarch 22, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-03-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-03-22", "page": 4, "text": "Board Member Rothenberg said she was unable to find the ordinance that described what\nwork was permitted and which work was not in the city of Alameda under its adoption of\nthe California Business and Professions Code. She was curious about structural and\nseismic work since that work has to be stamped by a licensed architect or engineer.\nStaff Member McCartney said yes the foundation is structural work and added that the\nPermit Center has a handout on who may prepare permits and it deals with the California\nResidential Code. For wood-frame structures not more than three stories and a basement,\nyou do not have to be licensed to do the plans. She added that they also have handouts\non foundation designs, and if you follow those prescriptive details you can get a permit.\nPresident Teague asked if the permit for replacing the windows covered all of the double-\nhung windows.\nStaff Member McCartney said yes.\nPresident Teague asked if it covered the attic vent.\nStaff Member McCartney said no, they will have to add that to their permit.\nPresident Teague clarified that this house was not on the Historic Study List.\nStaff Member Tai said that was correct.\nBoard Member Hom asked when they originally intended to do an ADU (Accessory\nDwelling Unit).\nStaff Member McCartney said they originally got a permit to do foundation work in 2018\nand explained the permit history of the building.\nStaff Member Tai added that in 2019 is when they did the shed roof work.\nBoard Member Hom clarified that staff was not aware that they planned to do an ADU in\nthe basement.\nStaff Member Tai said that was correct and discussed the changes to ADU laws in 2020\nthat made it easier to have an ADU.\nBoard Member Hom asked where the entrance to the ADU would be located.\nStaff Member McCartney said she believed it would be on the side of the house but she\ndid not have the ADU plans.\nPresident Teague opened public comments.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 10\nMarch 22, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-03-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-03-22", "page": 5, "text": "Chris Buckley with the AAPS said that removing the asbestos shingles was a design\nimprovement. He pointed out a design inconsistency where the plans said the siding would\nbe restored but that no longer seemed to be the case. He wanted an example of the new\nsiding to be submitted as part of the review. He discussed how this project was an example\nof work exceeding the scope of work and ambiguous work description. He urged that the\napplicant should keep original design elements when possible, AAPS was unsure why the\nattic window needed to be changed to the octagonal design.\nPresident Teague closed public comment.\nPresident Teague asked about the date discrepancy on the plans from the Approval Letter.\nStaff Member McCartney said she had asked for more information on the plans.\nPresident Teague clarified that the Approval Letter that they had received in the packet\nwas not what they were moving to approve, it was what was originally published that was\ncalled for a review.\nStaff Member Tai said that was correct.\nPresident Teague opened the board discussion.\nBoard Member Ruiz said she was extremely discouraged by the constant violation from\nthe applicant on planning and building permits. She agreed with AAPS that these drawings\nhad been very poorly assembled, it had made her question the quality of the final product.\nShe did note however that these were construction details that the building department\nwould have to review and approve and was outside the purview of the Planning Board.\nShe did not see an issue with changing the attic vent to an octagonal design. She had\nconcerns about the final material board since it looked like the applicant was not replacing\nin-kind materials. She did see why the building needed to be elevated and even with these\nconcerns, she would not withhold her approval.\nVice President Saheba said he was very disappointed that the applicant did not come to\nthe review. That was his only comment.\nBoard Member Hom said he did not have a problem with what was being proposed but it\nwas vague on a lot of the details. He thought that raising the building was still in keeping\nthe character of the home and for an ADU it made a lot of sense. He agreed with AAPS\nthat there needed to be more clarity on what was being retained and what was new. He\ndid not have an objection with the octagonal roof vent or switching out the siding. He\nagreed with the staff that it needed to be a wood railing and would approve this Design\nReview with some clarifying conditions.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 10\nMarch 22, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-03-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-03-22", "page": 6, "text": "Board Member Curtis agreed with his colleagues and would support this. He too was\ndisappointed that the applicant was not present.\nBoard Member Cisneros did not have any issues and looked forward to the applicant\nincorporating these comments once it got to the Building Permit phase.\nPresident Teague was also disappointed in the plans. He was in favor of directing staff to\nhave the applicant clean up their plans, he was not comfortable approving the provided\nplans. He was not against this plan but the plans needed to be complete and describe\nwhat they are doing.\nStaff Member Tai summarized the comments from the board. The applicant needed to\nsubmit revised plans and include specific details such as existing and proposed siding. As\nwell as the restoration of the brackets and details about the stairs and railing (plans should\nreflect wood) and a color materials board.\nBoard Member Hom added that there should also be an elevation showing the\nmodification for the entrance to the ADU. He added that he only brought that up from a\nDesign Review perspective that there was respect for the existing architecture of the\nhouse and not related to the ADU use at all.\nStaff Member Tia said that for information purposes, they could ask the applicant to include\nthat. He also informed the board that in cases with code enforcement when a lot of the\nwork was already done the goal was to quickly move the project through the Design\nReview stage and into the Building Permit stage. Many of the details are worked through\nduring inspections. He did agree that the plans and the details could be better.\nBoard Member Ruiz made a motion to approve the project with the conditions listed\nto staff. The applicant needed to submit revised plans and include specific details\nsuch as existing and proposed siding. As well as the restoration of the brackets\nand details about the stairs (plans should reflect wood) and railing and a color\nmaterials board. Board Member Curtis seconded the motion and a roll call vote was\ntaken. The motion passed 7-0.\n7-B 2021-759\nReview and Comment on the General Plan Schedule of Planning Board Public Hearings.\nAndrew Thomas, Director of Planning, Building, and Transportation, gave a presentation.\nThe staff report can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4836619&GUID=DB91DBAE-\n82C0-45DB-ACAB-C542D5931F49&FullText=1\nPresident Teague opened public comments.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 10\nMarch 22, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-03-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-03-22", "page": 7, "text": "There were no public speakers.\nPresident Teague closed public comments and opened the board's questions and\ncomments.\nBoard Member Ruiz wanted to confirm that the schedule he presented was in line with the\nstaff report.\nDirector Thomas said yes, he had written the staff report and could confirm the dates were\nthe same. He added that he thought they could get through the process with 2-3 hearings,\nit all depended on how much they wanted to work the General Plan before they made a\nrecommendation.\nBoard Member Ruiz said her main concern was the public engagement process. She\nwondered if it was now possible to hold an in-person hearing since more people were\ngetting vaccinated.\nDirector Thomas did not believe they could plan on in-person meetings until at least July.\nIt all depended on county health orders. He added that they had a larger and broader input\nthan he had expected. He then discussed all the different ways they had reached out to\nindividuals and groups.\nBoard Member Ruiz saw no issue with the schedule but suggested keeping an open mind\nand amend as necessary.\nVice President Saheba asked about the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) and its\nconnection to the General Plan, he thought it might be better to split those two up. Let the\npublic understand more about where the EIR lands and then based on that, it would affect\nhow the General Plan would be formulated.\nDirector Thomas thought that was very interesting, he suggested that for the next meeting\nthey could focus on the Draft EIR, not the General Plan.\nVice President Saheba said he felt confident that the staff had coupled together what the\nGeneral Plan was doing based on the EIR parameters. The EIR would present all the data\nso there would be a better understanding of why those decisions were made for the\nGeneral Plan.\nBoard Member Hom thought that the process that was outlined made a lot of sense, was\nrealistic and sensible. He commented that it was important to have a public hearing on the\nEIR early in the process and would help inform the General Plan. He also thought what\nwould be helpful for the board was to have an outline of the major policy changes since\nthe last General Plan. He added what information he wanted to see for the Housing\nElement.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 10\nMarch 22, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-03-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-03-22", "page": 8, "text": "Director Thomas said that staff had everything well documented since everything had\nbeen done online over the last year. They had plenty of information to make the board's\njob easier. He said they could provide hard copies and summaries of all changes, there\nhad been many changes to the General Plan. He discussed what information they had on\nthe Land Use/Housing Element Connection, it was more detailed now.\nBoard Member Curtis thought the schedule was very well laid out and also agreed that\nthe EIR should be discussed first.\nBoard Member Cisneros asked about the deadline for Public Comments and wondered if\nthere would be enough time to review all the comments after the May 17th deadline.\nDirector Thomas said it was more of a request to have all the public comments by May\n17th, the public could comment on the General Plan right up until the close of the very last\nhearing.\nBoard Member Cisneros said her question was more for the comment review period for\nthe EIR.\nDirector Thomas said it was the same thing, it would start around April 1st with a 45-day\ncomment period. They would have a public hearing before the 45 days the public comment\nperiod ends. Then staff would collect all the letters received and the staff would write\nresponses to everything. Not until all of this had happened would the staff be able to write\nup the Final EIR.\nBoard Member Cisneros said that was helpful. She added that she was fine with how the\nschedule was outlined but she could be persuaded to agree with Vice President Saheba\nabout have the EIR first but wanted to hear from her fellow board members.\nBoard Member Rothenberg said the comments and questions of her fellow board\nmembers captured her response very well. She agreed with Vice President Saheba on\nthe sequencing, the EIR should capture the scheduled implications of the impact. She also\nhad questions about what the critical path would be for when the City Council certifies the\nEIR after which the approval of the General Plan since once you certify the EIR there is a\n30 day statute of limitations. She was concerned about what projects would be impacted\nby changes in the Land Use under the General Plan.\nDirector Thomas clarified that the General Plan is for 20 years and what it was a plan for.\nThe EIR evaluates what effect the housing and job growth would have on the city. He\nexplained more about the schedule and that the EIR has to be certified first before anything\nelse could be done.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 10\nMarch 22, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-03-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-03-22", "page": 9, "text": "Board Member Rothenberg said as long as the Housing Element that follows was captured\nquantitatively and qualitatively in both the EIR and the General Plan that would be\nreassuring.\nDirector Thomas agreed.\nPresident Teague thanked Director Thomas and the staff for putting this all together. He\nagreed with Vice President Saheba of isolating the Draft EIR from the General Plan in a\ngiven meeting. He thought a redline version would be helpful but not if everything changed.\nDirector Thomas said he believed they did everything in redline and could make that\navailable. He said they had mainly been working on summaries and cross-references.\nPresident Teague asked about the Housing Element Sub Committee.\nDirector Thomas said they were waiting to hear back from the state and then go to council.\nThey are going to have to do multi-family overlays and depending on what the council\nsays then they could start. The Sub Committee would be very important.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2021-757\nDraft Meeting Minutes - February 22, 2021\nBoard Member Rothenberg corrected her comments on item 7-A, she wanted to add \"she\ndescribed and enumerated diverse houses of worship across faiths as a form of inclusive\nprograms\". Then for item 7-B, she wanted to add to her comment \"she suggested that the\nClimate Action and Resiliency Plan be referenced as appropriate in appropriate sections\nand include General Plan Climate Action goals\".\nBoard Member Curtis wanted to change his comment on item 7-A, second to the last\nparagraph, it should say \"the reconfiguration on Park and Webster St and its impact\".\nBoard Member Ruiz made a motion to approve the minutes as amended and Board\nMember Cisneros seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the minutes\npassed 7-0.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2021-755\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nActions and Decisions can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4836615&GUID=45D028A6\n062C-4262-AOBE-FBD69F6CF936&FullText=1.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 10\nMarch 22, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-03-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-03-22", "page": 10, "text": "No board member wanted to pull any item for review.\n9-B 2021-756\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nThere was nothing at this time.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nPresident Teague wanted to express his and the board's deep sorrow for the occurrences\nin Colorado and Atlanta. Hopefully, they can find a way through these times.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Teague adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 10 of 10\nMarch 22, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-03-22.pdf"}