{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-28", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, JUNE 28, 2021\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Alan Teague convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nThis meeting was via zoom.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Hanson Hom led the flag salute.\n3.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: President Teague and Board Members Curtis, Hom, Rothenberg, Cisneros, and\nRuiz.\nAbsent: Vice President Asheshh Saheba.\n4.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nPresident Teague suggested postponing agenda item 7-A 2021-1043 Board Elections\nto either the last meeting of July or even the first meeting in September. This was due to\nboard members being absent and to have whoever the Mayor and City Council appointed\npresent.\nAllen Tai, City Planner, confirmed the elections for July 26th, which would be after the\nsecond City Council meeting.\nNo board member objected to postponing the board elections.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n6.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\n7.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-B 2021-1047\nPLN20-0541 - 910 Centennial Avenue - Administrative Variance and Design Review -\nApplicant: Amornrit Pudkeepamrongrit. Public hearing to consider a Call for Review of the\nZoning Administrator's approval of an Administrative Variance and Design Review to allow\nthe construction of a new 1,907 square foot two-story single-family home. Due to the\nnarrow 22-foot lot width, a variance is necessary to allow a 3-foot side yard setback on\nthe east side and a 1-foot setback on the west side where 5-foot setbacks are required,\nand to allow the new home to be constructed with the same 14-foot 6-inch front yard\nsetback as the existing detached garage that exists onsite where a 20-foot setback is\nrequired. General Plan: Medium-Density Residential. Zoning: R-2, Two-Family Residence\nDistrict. CEQA Determination: Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 - New\nConstruction of Small Structures and 15305 - Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 15\nJune 28, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-28", "page": 2, "text": "None of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions in CEQA Guidelines Section\n15300.2 apply\nDeirdre McCartney, Permit Technician III, Planning Building and Transportation,\nintroduced the item and gave the staff report. The staff report and attachments can be\nfound at\ntps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4989274&GUID=450ACD54-\nDA3A-49DD-AB51-22F4A7BD76BB&FullText=1.\nPresident Teague opened board questions.\nBoard Member Ron Curtis asked if by setting back the second story they had opened up\nthen the view from the second story for the house next door.\nStaff Member McCartney said the existing garage massing, roof height, and roof style\nwere being rebuilt in the same footprint. The two-story portion of the house would then\nstart past the house at 908 Centennial.\nBoard Member Curtis asked so essentially the view coming out of the upper story windows\nof the house at 980 Centennial would be the same as what it is right now. No additional\nblocking of light or destruction of the view other than what they were looking at originally.\nStaff Member McCartney if you were to look straight out the window then yes. If you were\nto look at an angle you would see the two-story portion of the house.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if she thought a one-foot setback from 908 and the look of\nthat housing looming on them destroyed the ambiance of that room.\nStaff Member McCartney explained that the two-story portion of the house stepped back\nthree feet from the house, they varied it to make room for windows.\nStaff Member Tai clarified the view from different points and explained that the garage\nwould have the same footprint as the existing garage.\nBoard Member Hom asked if the parking also served the adjacent multi-family home. He\nwanted to know if there was a requirement for that parcel to maintain parking so they could\neliminate the garage and still be compliant with the City's zoning standards.\nStaff Member McCartney said they were not required to maintain any parking. The new\ngarage would provide two spaces for the new home only.\nBoard Member Hom clarified if the adjacent units were currently using the two-car garage\nfor tenant parking.\nStaff Member McCartney said some of the neighbors had indicated they were using the\ndriveway to park two cars.\nBoard Member Hom wanted to know who was currently using the garage. He also wanted\nto know if the owner owned the adjacent parcel. He hoped the applicant could clarify how\nthe parking was being used.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 15\nJune 28, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-28", "page": 3, "text": "Staff Member McCartney said she did not know and that the owner could answer.\nStaff Member Tai said the owner did own the adjacent lot.\nBoard Member Hom then asked about comments about the avocado tree. He wanted to\nknow who owned the tree since there was a condition to remove it and to plant\nreplacement trees.\nStaff Member Tai explained how there had been an agreement between the neighbors to\nreplace the tree at the Zoning Administrator Hearing. This was a civil matter and not\nsomething the city had jurisdiction over.\nBoard Member Hom clarified that the adjacent owner had verbally agreed to the removal\nof the avocado tree and to have replacement trees.\nStaff Member Tai said that was correct.\nBoard Member Hom asked about the one-foot setback and that there were no leaves within\ntwo feet but a gutter near the property line. He wanted to know if that was allowed by\nbuilding code.\nStaff Member McCartney said she believed it was because of an exception.\nThe owner explained the agreement that had been reached with the tenant next door, the\nproperty owner did not care or wanted to be involved. He explained the person using the\ngarage for storage was a family member.\nBoard Member Hom thought it would be best to work these things out with the property\nowner. He understood it was a civil matter.\nBoard Member Ruiz wanted dimensional clarification on sheet A2.1, would the building be\nin the same location and would it be smaller.\nThe project designer, Mr. Pukdeedamrongrit, explained the setbacks and that the width\nwould be smaller. He then explained the setbacks in other places.\nBoard Member Ruiz then asked about sheet 3.3, detail number 2. She wanted to know\nwhat those windows look into.\nMr. Pukdeedamrongrit explained that the windows would bring light into the hallway and\nthat you would look over the shed of the property at 1216 9th street.\nBoard Member Rothenberg wondered if the staff or applicant could give better references\nfor waiving current standards that did not apply to existing non-conforming buildings.\nStaff Member Tai explained current setbacks and what would still apply to this home. He\nalso explained different districts and what those requirements were and why. For\nvariances, they look at physical constraints and that the property owner was not getting\nany special privileges. The neighborhood has similarly narrow lots, but those homes were\nbuilt before the current zoning standards were adopted.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 15\nJune 28, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-28", "page": 4, "text": "Board Member Rothenberg said they were making a case by referencing buildings that\nwere built under prior standards, and they were building under current standards. They\nare stricter for a reason.\nStaff Member Tai pointed what the zoning code allowed for non-conforming houses.\nStaff Member McCartney gave the example of the new ADU regulations and what they\ncan now allow.\nBoard Member Rothenberg said the nature of an ADU and the nature of a new two-story\nhome in an existing lot were two different cases.\nPresident Teague asked if the garage were to be 8 inches narrower would that make the\ngarage unusable. He thought there was enough space.\nMr. Pukdeedamrongrit said they could do that.\nBoard Member Hom asked for the designer to address the building code question about\nthe roof eave and the rain gutter being within two feet of the property line.\nMr. Pukdeedamrongrit said as far as he understood the only mention was for the overhead\nand the leave, not the gutter.\nBoard Member Hom clarified that the rain gutter was not considered a roof overhang.\nPresident Teague opened public comments.\nZac Bowling said he was in support of this project. He addressed how the restraints in the\ncurrent design code made it difficult to build anything like what we have today. He felt that\nthe setback requirements were done more for density control than for safety. He believed\nthe current project was a better use of the space than just for cars.\nRoberta Hough, a neighbor, said the project was too big and the setbacks too small. She\nhad fire safety concerns and said she felt better after speaking to Fire Chief Hearn. She\nbelieved that the Fire Chief should always be included in the process of approving such\nvariances. She also gave her concerns about mildew for the property.\nPhilp Fegoni, the owner, thanked everyone for their time and discussed the history of the\nproject. He said his family had owned the property for 100 years and that his younger\nsister would be living in the new home which would be next to her daughter's home. He\nstated that over the years they had done everything they could to design a property that\nmet all the requirements. He and his family were not looking for any special treatments\nand that the setbacks they were asking for had been granted to other homes in the\nneighborhood.\nPresident Teague closed public comment and opened board discussion.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 15\nJune 28, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-28", "page": 5, "text": "Board Member Curtis thanked everyone for the presentation. He felt that all of his\nquestions and concerns had been answered and he could vote for this.\nBoard Member Cisneros felt that after reading the staff report the project had met the fire\nsafety concerns. She also appreciated the public comment about more coordination with\nthe Fire Department. She was also satisfied with how the neighbor's privacy concerns\nwere being addressed and supported the project.\nBoard Member Hom said it was a narrow lot and that the findings for the variance could\nbe made, so that was not the issue. He still questioned why it was either five feet or one-\nfoot setback, nothing in between. He wondered if there could be a discussion about more\nof a setback that could be provided. He also brought up President Teague's comment on\nthe garage and reducing it by 12 inches to make room for a crawl space and to help\nmaintain the rain gutters. He also questioned if the back wall on the second story could be\nset back more as well. He agreed there were justifications for the variance and it was just\na matter of if there could be more of a setback. He added again that for the removal of the\ntree, the applicant should reach out to the owner since he did not believe the tenant had\nthe right to approve the removal of the tree. He understood it was a difficult issue and\na\ncivil matter.\nBoard Member Ruiz believed the variance was warranted. She concurred with the Historic\nAdvisory Board's comments about needing to review the siding examples and to make the\ngarage treatment more architecturally pleasing. She felt that she could approve this\nproject.\nBoard Member Rothenberg restated her concerns about ensuring when they develop\nthese properties, to meet their General Plan, they don't overdevelop in every lot by virtue\nof variances. She said they did have an impact on the health, safety, and welfare of the\npublic. The codes were strict for a reason and hoped the applicant could endeavor to make\nsome adjustments to improve the overall massing of the building. She said with all the\ncomments and conditions they had discussed she was prepared to join in an approval.\nPresident Teague had looked over the history of the lot to see what had originally been\nthere. He believed in the case for the variance, the conditions had been met. His idea for\nthe garage was because of the house located directly next to the garage and mirroring the\nsetback that the house had on the garage would allow a sufficient area between them to\nallow for airflow. This was something he would like to see but was not a requirement. He\nwas in favor of this project. He asked counsel about verbiage around the removal of the\navocado tree and wanted to know if they needed to clarify anything.\nCelena Chen, Staff Counsel - City Attorney, said they did not have to specify permitting\nthe removal of the tree. This was a civil matter that needed to be worked out between\nneighbors.\nStaff Member Tai asked for a specific dimension in regards to the increased setback for\nthe side yard that had been requested by Board Member Hom.\nBoard Member Hom suggested a two-foot setback, which would not include the roof\ngutter. He wanted to confirm with the applicant that the one-foot reduction in the garage\nwould not compromise the ability to park two cars in the garage.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 15\nJune 28, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-28", "page": 6, "text": "President Teague suggested at least 8 inches and ideally 12 inches.\nBoard Member Hom made a motion to approve the application for the variance with\nthe condition that the applicant work with the city staff to find a way to increase the\nside yard setback for the garage area (8-12 inches) and Board Member Curtis\nseconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0, with\nVice President Saheba being absent.\n7-C 2021-1049\nPLN19-0237 - Design Review - 1929 Webster Street - Applicant: Daniel Cukierman. Public\nhearing to consider a Design Review to allow the construction of a new 6,210 square foot\ncommercial building, intended for a restaurant and tavern, on a vacant commercial\nproperty adjacent to the Cross Alameda Trail. This Design Review for the building comes\nafter the Planning Board approved a Use Permit for the tavern use, outdoor seating, and\nextended hours of operation and Parking Variance in 2020. The site is located within the\nC-C, Community Commercial District. The project is categorically exempt from the\nCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section\n15332, In-fill Development\nStaff Member Tai introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff report and\nattachments can be found at\nttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4989275&GUID=A4037EA5-\n20E6-43D5-AF9B-F06526C3BECA&FullText=1.\nErik Waterman, the architect for the project, also gave a presentation that discussed the\nbuilding design.\nDaniel Cukierman, the owner of the project, discussed what they wanted to achieve with\nthis space.\nPresident Teague opened the board clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Curtis thought it was a great design. He asked if the structural design had\ntaken into consideration the wind load and the shear factor of the canopy. The wind could\nreally get up in that area of town, that was his only concern.\nMr. Cukierman said that was a concern for him as well and it would be discussed with the\nstructural engineer.\nMr. Waterman said it had been factored in.\nBoard Member Hom inquired about concerns brought up by the manager of the Rodeway\nInn about noise issues coming from the second-floor deck area. He asked if there was\ngoing to be a solid wall along the property line of the Southside public area; he wanted to\nknow how the noise was going to be mitigated.\nMr. Waterman said the front portion would be solid and it would be below the height of the\nRodeway Inn. The Rodeway Inn was a solid wall there and there would be no activity\nabove the roofline of the Inn.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 15\nJune 28, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-28", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Ruiz thanked them for the presentation. She wanted to know from an\noperational standpoint how the loading and unloading would be handled, such as where\nthe loading truck would be parked and how deliveries would work.\nMr. Cukierman explained since they couldn't have a curb cutout there was still space in\nfront of the bus stop for a truck to pull in and load and unload.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked about the previous suggestion of shared parking and wanted\nto know if anyone had reached out to the Walgreens or Starbucks across the street.\nMr. Cukierman said he had not tried to contact those corporations but he had tried to reach\nout to the Rodeway Inn but kept getting a voice message that said the inbox had not been\nset up yet.\nBoard Member Rothenberg thanked everyone. She wanted clarification about the dates\non the drawings, the drawings that they received were dated March 12th and the\npresentation, the visuals they had shared, was dated June 28th.\nMr. Waterman clarified that the plans and elevations were the same as what was in the\ndocuments, nothing had changed.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked about the Dark Sky Ordinance and wanted to make\nsure it was sufficient as it was stated in the resolution. She wanted to make sure that the\ncondition did not have to be detailed in any more specificity than it already was. She had\na similar question and concern in regard to obtaining an encroachment permit for the work\nthat was going to be done at the curb. Other than these concerns she thought it was a\nwonderful project.\nStaff Member Tai addressed the Dark Sky Ordinance and said it required lighting to be\ndownward pointed and for fixtures to be shielded. He added that staff felt that this project\ncould meet those standards, they were being pointed out in the conditions to make sure\nthey were addressed at the final building plans. He also stated that the revised resolution\nthat was introduced at the beginning of this item had language that addressed the issues\naround the encroachment permit.\nPresident Teague asked if the Dark Sky Ordinance would also apply to the lighting under\nthe trellises.\nStaff Member Tai said it would.\nPresident Teague's concern was for the lighting on the first page that had a lovely circle\nof lights that looked like it was radiating in all directions.\nMr. Waterman added that they would shield that, it would be in all directions except up.\nPresident Teague opened public comments.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 15\nJune 28, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-28", "page": 8, "text": "Zac Bowling said how much he liked this project. He liked that it would create a community\naround a tavern-like meeting place. He also liked that since it was on the western side of\nWebster it gave something for the Bay Port residents and the new neighbors at Alameda\nPoint a place to walk to. He loved that it was next to the Cross Alameda Trail and the bus\nline which would help discourage car use. He added that any new growth on Webster was\nbetter for Alameda.\nKiran Patel, General Manager and one of the owners of the Rodeway Inn, said he was still\nconcerned about the noise since the tavern was still scheduled to be open until 2 am. He\ndiscussed how noise travels and that the vibrations of the noise were a concern as well.\nHe was also concerned about parking since the tavern would not have its own parking lot.\nHe worried that the tavern's patrons would end up parking there anyway and his staff\nwould spend their time as parking attendants. He was not sure what number Mr.\nCukierman had used but he was easily reachable by phone and was more than happy to\ndiscuss the parking issue with him.\nMr. Patel and Mr. Cukierman verified phone numbers.\nPresident Teague asked that they coordinate that offline, he then closed public comment\nand opened board discussion and potential action.\nBoard Member Curtis said it was a good-looking project and a good gateway for Alameda.\nHe felt that his concerns about parking, patronage, and timing had been answered. He\nsaid this was a tremendous addition for Alameda and the Webster Street area and he\nwould vote for this.\nBoard Member Cisneros was sympathetic to the neighbor and their concerns about noise.\nShe fully supported this project and wanted to move forward with it and hoped the\napplicant could work with the neighbor on those concerns.\nBoard Member Hom brought up that at the approval of the Use Permit there had been a\ncondition added that allowed the Planning Board and or city staff to review the Use Permit\nafter 12 months to see if there were any noise issues. He hoped that condition would result\nin the applicant being responsible and making sure any noise issues don't get out of hand.\nHe thought the revised design was very positive, he thought the sloped roof had a dramatic\nlook and gave a nice entry element as people exited the Webster Tube. He appreciated\nthe life this project would bring to that area of Webster.\nBoard Member Ruiz knew this was a design review and that the Use Permit had already\nbeen approved; however, she was extremely disappointed that the applicant had made\nno concerted effort to reach out to neighbors about the parking issue. She pointed out that\nthe applicant had had six months to do so and questioned if the applicant was in good\nfaith trying to push the project forward. She did acknowledge that this was not what was\nbeing discussed at hand, they were only reviewing the architecture. She assured the\napplicant that the Use Permit would be reviewed after they had been in operation.\nBoard Member Rothenberg appreciated all the comments and input and concurred with\nthem. She said if it was as nice as their Oakland location, which she had been to, it would\nbe a welcomed addition to Alameda. Provided of course they take into account all the\ngood neighbor comments and conditions that had been discussed.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 15\nJune 28, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-28", "page": 9, "text": "Approved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 15\nJune 28, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-28", "page": 10, "text": "Brian McGuire, Transportation Planner, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The\nstaff report and attachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4989276&GUID=6F102F46-\n7E61-46F6-9093-1417174CDFA3&FullText=1.\nPresident Teague opened public comment.\nZac Bowling said he liked this. He asked that the 30 AMP requirement be bumped up to\n40, given the new car requirements. He wanted language added to the Electric Vehicle\n(EV) charging station section about using standard space J1772 charting standards to\nmake sure proprietary charge stations were not used specifically and cause boxing out.\nHe also gave specific recommendations for EV-ready plugs.\nDenyse Trepanier, Board President for Bike Walk Alameda, applauded the staff for this\nparking policy draft. She felt that it was forward-thinking but also not radical or extreme.\nShe discussed how other cities were also correcting this land-use mistake and had gotten\nrid of their parking minimums. She also discussed a similar bill (AB-1401) that was making\nits way through the state's legislature and if it got stalled it would be important to have this\nwork moving forward. She also discussed the radically changing climate and how this\npolicy was an important step for the changes we need to be making.\nDrew Dara-Abrams discussed how removing parking requirements could make affordable\nhousing more possible. Anything that could help lower the cost of new housing was worth\npursuing. Bundled with all the other opportunities for mode shift, smarter TDM policies,\nand getting people on e-bikes could add up to a gradual shift away from cars being the\ndominant way of transportation. He appreciated the city moving forward with this and gave\nhis support.\nPresident Teague closed public comments and opened board commentary.\nBoard Member Curtis believed the staff did a good job on a very detailed plan and\nappreciated the well-thought-out presentation. He however thought about the Law of\nUnintended Consequences. He was concerned about off-street parking and the upzoning\nthat was planned to make the RHNA numbers. With the upzoning, there would be multiple\ndwellings and without adequate parking provided they would be taking parking away from\nexisting neighborhoods that were already crowded, neighborhoods that were built under\nthe existing parking requirements. He felt that they needed to take a hard look at how they\nwere going to implement this ordinance. He also addressed the marketing aspect, by\nmaking a maximum number of parking units this allowed the developer to make none if\nthey chose to, which would not be a good thing. He believed there should be more options\nfor the developer to decide what type of parking they would need. He also discussed when\na bike trip was not feasible and urged for moderation and to think about the needs of\neveryone.\nBoard Member Cisneros was very excited about this. She also discussed AB-1401 and\nthe importance of this policy should that bill not pass. She wanted there to be some\ndiscussion on further eliminating parking requirements close to public transit such as the\nferry or a bus line.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 10 of 15\nJune 28, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-28", "page": 11, "text": "Board Member Hom appreciated the staff's work on this and the public comments. He\nthought the direction they were going for with parking maximums, unbundling the parking,\nand emphasizing bike parking made a lot of sense and a positive direction. He echoed\nsome of the concerns brought up by Board Member Curtis, he did however think that\ndevelopers would push for more parking and thought the parking maximums were a good\ndirection. He wanted to see data that supported the rationale for the proposed reduction\nin parking standards when this ordinance would come before them. With the concern\nabout unbundling parking, he discussed ways that HOAs or property managers could\nencourage tenants not to park their cars in the streets excessively. For bicycle parking, he\nwanted to see definitions for long-term parking vs short-term parking. He felt that the staff\nreport had done a good job of clarifying other questions that he had.\nBoard Member Ruiz applauded the staff for putting forth this thorough draft. She asked if\nthe intent for this was to be more stringent than the Building Code.\nStaff Member McGuire said the goal was for the Zoning Code to be more demanding than\nthe California Green Building Code. The Zoning Code could be a little less technical than\nthe building code has to be.\nStaff Member Ruiz said it would be good to mention how they would regulate or allow\nparking stackers since by nature they would not meet the space requirements mentioned\nso some provision would be helpful. She then asked about a paragraph on page 1 that\ndefined how to count floor area, she had noticed this was in the old ordinance and did not\nthink it was significant now and was confusing. She could not think of an example of how\nit would result in a significant impact on the count and questioned if it was even needed.\nStaff Member McGuire agreed it had been carried over from the existing ordinance.\nAndrew Thomas, Director of Planning, Building, and Transportation, discussed how if a\ndeveloper needed to go above the maximum there was a process in place.\nBoard Member Ruiz said it made sense if applied to a minimum standard but not for a\nmaximum standard. She also addressed the concerns around parking turnover and\nsuggested provisions around short-term parking as well in mixed-use developments.\nStaff Member McGuire clarified that she was talking about private property.\nBoard Member Ruiz said yes she was talking about private property and gave the example\nof a mixed-use development that was coming in.\nStaff Member McGuire said one of the benefits of eliminating the minimums was whatever\nspace they ended up within a project, that meets the TDM threshold, they could then put\na condition on the project. The condition would allow them to manage the space more\nstrategically to accommodate short term parking and loading needs.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked that they check carefully for inherent conflicts in the\ncode, she gave the example of what was in Chapter 11. If you put in disabled spots then\nyou have to have a commensurate number of EV-ready spots. She said defining EV ready\nwas really important. She clarified that in her experience EV ready was different than\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 11 of 15\nJune 28, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-28", "page": 12, "text": "powered. She also discussed transportation demand management and asked for\nconsideration for residential parking permits.\nPresident Teague said he was all about the cost of housing, keeping it down, and making\nit easier for developers to build projects. He liked the idea of getting rid of all parking\nrequirements, he had even pushed Habitat to have less parking for their affordable\nhousing and they would not go for it. Habitat said they needed parking which brought up\nthe equitable aspect. Income and age were also a factor, someone in their 70s or 80s may\nbe able to drive but not be able to use other forms of transportation and not qualify to be\ndisabled. He wanted to look at the impact on equity with this change and he absolutely\nbelieved they needed to make this change. He discussed how many projects that he had\nseen, other than the Habitat ones, had wanted to reduce their parking. He agreed that\nwhatever it takes to make your project successful was fine but they would need to make\nsure they built the right number of disabled spots. He was concerned the new parking\nmaximum would also lower the disabled spots. He wanted to explore completely removing\nparking requirements other than for disabled spots.\nStaff Member McGuire clarified that the draft amendment they were reviewing did\neliminate parking minimums. If an applicant wanted to build no parking the code would\nallow that.\nPresident Teague said unless their project needed more than the minimum then they\nwould have to come before the Planning Board and ask for it. He said he wanted it more\nsimplified, no maximum and no minimum.\nBoard Member Curtis wanted to reinforce some of what President Teague had said about\nthe controls with the parking in regards to the development. The first one was that the\ndeveloper was going to build as many units as they possibly could which would take\nparking down. The other one was, even if they thought parking would help sell the unit\nthey still have the control because they have to have so many low-cost units. The market\ntakes it up and the low-cost housing takes it down and the developer was the one who\nhad everything on the line. So if you don't have minimums or maximums the developer\nwould police that.\nPresident Teague thanked the board for all of their comments and acknowledged that his\ncomments were probably the most radical ones. He believed getting rid of minimums was\ngood and it needed to be addressed in some way.\n8.\nMINUTES\n8-A 2021-1048\nDraft Meeting Minutes - May 10, 2012\nBoard Member Ruiz wanted her comments on page 3 where she referred to Portland's\nFareless Square to be expanded on, she thought her comments had been oversimplified.\nBoard Member Hom wanted a comment of his about the mixed-use districts to be rewritten\nand clarified, it had not clearly expressed his thoughts.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 12 of 15\nJune 28, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-28", "page": 13, "text": "President Teague wanted his closing thoughts for item 7-A to be rewritten, he felt that the\nparagraph did not represent what he said well. He also wanted Director Thomas's\ncomment afterward to reflect that he had agreed with President Teague.\nBoard Member Hom made a motion to approve the minutes with these corrections.\nBoard Member Curtis seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the\nmotion passed 5-0 with Vice President Saheba being absent and Board Member\nCisneros abstaining since she had not been present at the meeting.\n9.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2021-1044\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nActions and Decisions can be found at\nittps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4989271&GUID=B49CD28E-\n2E70-4209-B781-A730CD94B234&FullText=1\nNo board member wanted to pull any item for review.\n9-B 2021-1045\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Tai announced that the next meeting would be Monday, July 12th. At that\nmeeting, two use permits related to commercial outdoor use, one on Park St. and one on\nWebster St., will be considered. There would also be a General Plan update.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard Member Ruiz informed everyone that she would be absent at the next meeting.\nBoard Member Curtis asked the staff if they would have meetings in August.\nStaff Member Tai said none were planned at this time.\nBoard Member Hom asked Director Thomas about the Housing Element Subcommittee\nmeeting invite for the second week of July, he was concerned he had missed it.\nDirector Thomas said he was unsure and would check on that, he believed it was on July\n15th that they had agreed to meet. He said they would follow up on that and checked that\nPresident Teague was back then.\nPresident Teague confirmed he was back then. He then asked about confidentiality with\nthe Google Doc edits and he did not have a link yet to the Google Docs.\nDirector Thomas assured him they hadn't posted that yet and they would post those closer\nto the 15th.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 13 of 15\nJune 28, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-28", "page": 14, "text": "President Teague asked for clarification about the last City Council Meeting. The\nrecommendation was not what he expected.\nDirector Thomas explained the resolution on the Housing Element and the staff report had\nshown what they had done and had the language that had been removed. The staff\nthought it was an important decision by the Planning Board but it was the crux of the matter\nfor the council as to why the issue was particularly difficult for the city. They had a conflict\nand the City Council was going to have to decide between state law and the charter. The\nstaff report described the language that was taken out and why it was taken out. Then the\nPlanning Board's version was also attached as well. He thought it was odd that the\nPlanning Board's version was shown as a strikeout format, which was not how they usually\ndid it. The item would be going to the council on July 6th.\nPresident Teague said unfortunately that did not answer his question, he felt that the\nboard's time had been wasted. He added that the information in the staff report did not\ncapture all of the reasoning of why they voted the way that they did. He thought there\ncould have been a separate resolution that covered section 26 because there were very\nstrong reasons as to why that language was struck beyond the legality reasons. He felt\nthat when they passed a resolution that recommended that the City Council should do\nsomething he expected them to receive what the board said. There could have been a\nseparate resolution that just covered Article 26, which should be covered by the City\nAttorney in terms of the legal opinion of if it did or did not preempt state law partially or\nfully.\nDirector Thomas apologized that he felt they had wasted their time, he added that staff\ndid not feel that it was a waste of time at all. The Planning Board held a hearing that\nprovided an opportunity to hear from the public to learn and talk about these issues and\nthe role of the Planning Board. They had told the council exactly what the board had\nrecommended. He said explained that just because the Planning Board took a different\nposition from the staff on whether Measure A is preempted by state law it didn't mean that\nstaff would automatically change their position.\nPresident Teague said he understood all that, but the City Council could have taken an\naction on two different resolutions. The one the board recommended and the one that the\nstaff recommended, as a separate item. He recommended that the City Council divide the\nissue when they heard it and then deal with both of them separately. He said another\nreason why it was done this way was to attempt to get 4 votes from the City Council, on\nthe resolution that included the Tidelands Exchange and the Multi-Family Overlay because\nit did not approach the preemption aspect of section 26.\nBoard Member Curtis felt there were two sides to the picture. He thought in talking to\ncertain council members about this they were looking to see all sides of the issue. He also\nthought it was strange to have the strikeout version of the resolution as well. If the council\nwas looking to see all pros and cons of the issue then having the information from both\nsides would stimulate a more vigorous debate. He saw both points and the middle ground\nwas that the council needed all of this information. He saw there was no harm done and\ndid not feel that it was a waste of time.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 14 of 15\nJune 28, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-28", "page": 15, "text": "President Teague appreciated Board Member Curtis's comments and appreciated\nDirector Thomas' point of view.\nDirector Thomas apologized again that the staff report had not accurately reflected the\nPlanning Board's rationale and discussion. That was part of their job, to accurately reflect\nand transmit their deliberations to the council.\nPresident Teague was concerned it would not pass since it needed 4 votes to pass with\nthe Tideland Exchange portion.\nDirector Thomas said the resolution could pass with 3 votes. He felt that the resolution\nhad a 50/50 chance either way. He believed it was going to be a super-charged\nconversation.\nPresident Teague suggested conveying to the council to update the definition of\nmultifamily exclude 4 units and less and to use rounding up from 2000 square feet as a\nmeans to improve the density in all neighborhoods.\n12.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n13.\nADJOURNMENT\nPresident Teague adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 15 of 15\nJune 28, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf"}