{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-09-27", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2021\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Asheshh Saheba convened the meeting* at 7:00 p.m.\n*Due to Governor Executive Order N-08-21, Planning Board members can attend the\nmeeting via teleconference.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Ron Curtis led the flag salute.\n3.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Board President Saheba, Vice President Ruiz, and Board Members Curtis, Hom,\nRothenberg, and Cisneros.\nAbsent: Board Member Alan Teague.\n4.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nNone.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n6.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\n7.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2021-1322\nAmending Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter XXX to Revise Section 30-2\nDefinitions and Section 30-7 Off-Street Parking and Loading Space Regulations - Citywide\n- Applicant: City of Alameda. Public hearing to consider recommending that the City\nCouncil adopt an ordinance to amend Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XXX to Revise\nSection 30-2 Definitions and Section 30-7, Off-Street Parking and Loading Space\nRegulations, to implement the City of Alameda Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (CARP)\nand Transportation Choices Plan. The proposed amendments are exempt from the\nrequirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(: where it can\nbe shown with certainty that the proposed amendments will not have a significant effect\non the environment, and Section 15183, projects consistent with a community plan,\ngeneral plan or zoning, each of which provides a separate and independent basis for\nCEQA clearance and when viewed collectively provide an overall basis for CEQA\nclearance. No further environmental review is needed.\nBrian McGuire, a Planner, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report\nand attachments can be found at\n ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5138833&GUID=436A438F-\nE81-4521-BF2C-B3300D123799&FullText=1.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 10\nSeptember 27, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-09-27", "page": 2, "text": "President Saheba opened the board's clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Rona Rothenberg asked how the minimum parking would be calculated\nfor disabled access. She also suggested not using the word \"desirable\" and instead\nfocusing on reasonable accommodation. She then had questions about EV (electric\nvehicle) handicap parking.\nStaff Member McGuire explained the math they used in addition to what the California\nBuilding Code required. He then explained the use of the word \"desirable\" and then\nexplained the standard for how they settled on the number of spaces for accessible EV\nparking spots.\nVice President Teresa Ruiz asked about the intention to deviate from the California\nBuilding Code. She wondered if there should be a clause to follow whichever was more\nstringent. She also asked about encroachment for the parking space dimensions and\nparking stackers.\nStaff Member McGuire said these standards were more stringent and the intention was to\ngo beyond what was required. He then explained that for encroachment they would follow\nthe zoning code. They had not really addressed parking stackers.\nBoard Member Curtis asked about disabled parking spaces and wanted to know how\nmany spots would be required under the new ordinance. He did not want to see disabled\npeople penalized to make more room for cyclists or pedestrians.\nStaff Member McGuire explained how the new ordinance would calculate disabled parking\nspots and how the feedback they had gotten was in line with Board Member Curtis's\nconcern.\nBoard Member Xiomara Cisneros asked for an overview of what the Transportation\nCommission had thought of this ordinance. She also had questions for the Exception\nPiece and asked for examples.\nStaff Member McGuire discussed the highlights of that meeting. He then explained when\nthe Exception Piece might be needed, which would require a Use Permit.\nAndrew Thomas, Director of Planning Building and Transportation, discussed what his\ntakeaways were. He acknowledged that better management was needed of on-street\nparking. He further discussed the Use Permit process if someone needed additional\nparking for a project\nBoard Member Hanson Hom asked how the threshold was set, provisions, intensification\nprocess, and EV charging requirements. He had other general questions as well and\nasked about how developers on Alameda point had responded. He also had specific\nquestions about certain parking requirements and how this ordinance would affect ADUs.\nStaff Member McGuire discussed how the ordinance would be applied and how this\nordinance would work with existing and new developments. He spoke on the needs and\nissues that had been coming up on Alameda Point. He answered the more specific\nquestions and explained what they would refine before going to the City Council.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 10\nSeptember 27, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-09-27", "page": 3, "text": "Director Thomas discussed further when this ordinance would apply and also discussed\nprojects at Alameda Point.\nAllen Tai, City Planner, also helped explain what State Law would and would not allow\nwhen it came to bicycle parking requirements. He also answered Board Member Hom's\nquestions about landscaping.\nPresident Saheba asked about ADA parking and what would happen if a person wanted\nto go to zero parking.\nStaff Member McGuire explained what the standard would be if a developer chose to not\nhave parking.\nPresident Saheba opened public comment.\nDenyse Trepanier, President for Bike Walk Alameda, strongly supported the staff\nrecommendation on the parking ordinance and hoped that the board also supported it.\nShe then thanked the staff for all their hard work.\nDebi Ryan, Community Action for Sustainable Alameda (CASA), thanked Brian, Andrew,\nand all the staff for their work on this ordinance. She was in full support of this ordinance\nand anything that would further the CARP plan.\nPresident Saheba closed public comments and opened board discussions.\nBoard Member Curtis was in support but wanted to change the Use Permit process for\nadditional parking. He wanted it to be done at a staff level to make it more efficient for the\ndevelopers. Appeals would still come to the Planning Board.\nPresident Saheba discussed why having the Use Permits come before the board didn't\nfeel like a hindrance since it would only be for special cases. He was in favor of keeping\nthe ordinance as it was described.\nStaff Member McGuire explained the process in more detail and what would be done at\nthe staff level and what would come before the board.\nStaff Member Tai explained the Zoning Administrator Process. He added that they could\namend the resolution to reflect that these were Administrative Use Permit by the Zoning\nAdministrator.\nVice President Ruiz asked about parking stackers and how they could affect standard\nparking size. She was concerned about future developments. She also wanted the\nlanguage around encroachment to be clarified.\nStaff Member McGuire discussed standard parking sizes and how they could work with\nlanguage to anticipate newer technologies such as parking stackers.\nStaff Member Tai also added information about encroachment and what the existing code\nallowed.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 10\nSeptember 27, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-09-27", "page": 4, "text": "Board Member Hom made a motion to adopt the ordinance as prepared by staff with\nthe following amendments. Clarify that the Use Permit for exceeding parking would\nbe an Administrative Use Permit, that staff would clarify the sections on the\nencroachments of trees and stackers, clarify the ordinance would only apply to new\nand retrofitted parking areas/lots, clarify the floor area be based on what staff's\nunderstanding was, clarify that ADUs were not subject to any parking requirements\nor bicycle parking requirements and that lighting design review could be an\nAdministrative Design Review. Board Member Curtis seconded the motion, and a\nroll call vote was taken. The motion passed 6-0.\n7-B 2021-1270\nAmendment to the City Council Policy for Naming City Property, Facilities and Streets -\nCitywide - Applicant: City of Alameda. Public hearing to review and comment on the City\nCouncil-initiated revisions to the Policy for Naming City Property, Facilities, and Streets.\nCEQA Determination: The proposed amendment is not a project under CEQA pursuant to\nCEQA Guidelines Section 15378 and Public Resources Code Section 21065. No further\nenvironmental review is needed\nStaff Member Tai introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and\nattachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5124721&GUID=B507AE6D-\n5707-4D08-9460-7394C5713807&FullText=1.\nPresident Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked how names of deceased people had been gathered\nand how had the 3-year policy been agreed on. She also asked about renters' options and\nthe costs of renaming streets.\nStaff Member Tai stated that the 3-year had been in the policy for a long time. He then\nexplained the issues between owners vs. renters and what work would be needed to go\ninto verifying people.\nVice President Ruiz wanted to know if once this was adopted by the City Council would it\nbe part of the Municipal Code. She also wanted to know if there would be an application\nfee for renaming a street. She also questioned how to shorten the process to make it more\nefficient and accessible overall.\nStaff Member Tai answered no this was an Outside Policy. He said a fee had been\ndiscussed, they would need to research to see what administrative costs there were to the\ncity. He then discussed the criteria needed and what the thinking was behind the outlined\nprocess.\nBoard Member Curtis discussed the unintended consequences of renaming a street, it\ncould really impact residents of that street. He wanted consideration for renaming a street\nto first be to the residents of the street in question. He gave his thoughts on the 3-year\npolicy.\nBoard Member Hom asked if the 500 signatures needed had to be property owners.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 10\nSeptember 27, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-09-27", "page": 5, "text": "Staff Member Tai clarified that it was both property owners and tenants. It would be\nresidents in general regardless if they were owners or renters.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked about the process to verify if they were actual residents of\nAlameda. She wanted to know if they could also distinguish owners from renters then.\nStaff Member Tai said that would be a policy decision for the council if they wanted the\nstaff to verify owners from renters. He discussed ideas of how they could apply that and\nthat the public comment was they wanted all residents of Alameda regardless if they live\non the street in question to be able to weigh in on street name changes.\nPresident Saheba opened public comments.\nDrew Dara-Abrams, an Alameda resident (Calhoun Street), discussed how he and his\nneighbors had been working on changing the Calhoun Street name. He thanked city staff\nand the board for doing this important work. He had some concerns about the upfront\napplication process and he was happy that renters' views were being considered as well.\nPresident Saheba closed public comment and opened board discussion.\nBoard Member Hom discussed how controversial street renaming could be. He thought\nthe 500 threshold was a bit too low, he thought it should be related to the length of the\nstreet. He did believe that tenants should be part of the threshold.\nStaff Member Tai clarified to the board that the 500 thresholds wouldn't automatically\nchange the name, it was the threshold to initiate the question to the council about the\nname change. He then explained what would happen if the council agreed on a name\nchange.\nBoard Member Curtis still felt that people who lived on the street in question should have\nthe main vote. He gave ideas on how the residents could have more of a say in the name\nchange.\nVice President Ruiz concurred with Board Member Curtis's comments that the opinions of\nthe residents of the street should carry more weight.\nBoard Member Cisneros suggested ways to get the community more involved.\nPresident Saheba liked the recommendations and that the residents of the street, who\nwould be the most impacted, would have more of a say. He agreed the 500 threshold was\ntoo low.\nStaff Member Tai thanked the board for their input.\n7-C 2021-1298\nA Public Hearing to Review and Comment on the Draft Climate Adaptation and Hazard\nMitigation Plan.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 10\nSeptember 27, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-09-27", "page": 6, "text": "Danielle Mieler, Sustainability, and Resilience Manager introduced this item and gave a\npresentation. The staff report can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5138828&GUID=9EE7404A-\nB585-461D-956A-0AAFAAF535AE&FullText=\nPresident Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Rothenberg wanted to know if they would be working with neighboring\ncities to make sure the plans were complementary and inclusive. She also wanted to know\nspecifically about plans for transportation needs (the tubes) since they affected different\nregions.\nStaff Member Mieler discussed the collaborative work they were doing with other\norganizations and cities that would benefit everyone. She then discussed the funding they\nhad requested for the Posey and Webster tubes and they were working closely with\nCalTrans on that issue.\nVice President Ruiz asked if they had considered including Supply Chain Resiliency and\nif they had collected data on private wells for the Asset Inventory. She also questioned\nother items on the Asset Inventory, such as conduits, and wanted to know more about\nwhat the plan was for those assets.\nStaff Member Mieler thought that including Supply Chain Resiliency was an excellent idea.\nShe then discussed that private wells were an asset but not an asset that they were readily\nable to quantify. For the conduits sizes at some of the developments, she believed that\nwas information they could gather for the final plan.\nBoard Member Cisneros asked about the grants/points collected and reductions.\nStaff Member Mieler explained the Community Rating System and how homeowners\ncould get flood insurance reductions. She then discussed grants and federal funding that\nwas in the works.\nBoard Member Hom asked about flood management and if Alameda could reach a 7\nrating.\nStaff Member Mieler said she did not have the answer to that but would look into it. She\nknew it would take a significant increase to get to those higher ratings.\nBoard Member Hom then asked about earthquake retrofits and wanted to know if Alameda\nwould become more aggressive about requiring these retrofits.\nStaff Member Mieler discussed what the options were now and how they could support\nand encourage owners to get their buildings retrofitted. She added that neighboring cities\nhad already required these mandatory retrofits for their buildings.\nPresident Saheba opened public comments.\nThere were no public speakers.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 10\nSeptember 27, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-09-27", "page": 7, "text": "President Saheba opened board discussions and comments.\nBoard Member Cisneros stated that she was in support of the mandatory retrofits.\nPresident Saheba thanked staff and closed the item.\n7-D 2021-1321\nRequest to Review and Comment on the Staff Recommendations to the City Council for\na Commercial Streets Two-Year Work Program to Improve the Park Street and Webster\nStreet Striping Plans; Improve the On-street Parklet Program; Maintain the Alameda\nAvenue Street Closure; and Resume Pre-COVID Parking Management, Fee Collection,\nand Enforcement Activities.\nRochelle Wheeler, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, gave a presentation. The staff\nreport and attachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5138832&GUID=D6E3E109\nAF10-458A-94DE-8E9D15015E83&FullText=1.\nPresident Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked about safe access for cyclists, an issue that Bike Walk\nAlameda had bought up in a letter. She also had questions about the design standards,\nthat could be achievable for business owners, for the parklettes.\nStaff Member Wheeler addressed the letter from Bike Walk Alameda and what plans were\nin the works for bike facilities. She then described what safety standards they were\nproposing for parklets that would bring more cohesiveness and they were still working on\nthose aesthetic standards.\nVice President Ruiz wanted to know if they were able to break down the survey results to\nknow which residents lived on the affected slow streets, she added that Alameda Ave was\nher main concern. She also wanted to know the operating hours of the parklettes and what\nsafety barrier options for the parklettes the city was considering.\nStaff Member Wheeler said they had they did not have that specific survey data and she\ndiscussed what the business district had done to address the concerns of the residents\non Alameda Ave. For the parklettes, generally during the business hours is when they\nwere allowed to operate and for safety barrier options they did not at this time have a clear\nstaff preference.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if there were any plans to start charging businesses for having\na parklet. He discussed the lost revenue to the city since these parklets were taking the\nspots of parking meters and it was providing businesses with extra space.\nStaff Member Wheeler said that was something they were diving more deeply into. She\nthen discussed what factors would need to be examined to determine those costs and\nfees. The goal eventually was to pass some of the expenses to the businesses. She then\nclarified the parklets operating hours, the permit allowed 7 am to 10 pm, Sunday through\nThursday, and then through Midnight on Friday and Saturday nights.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 10\nSeptember 27, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-09-27", "page": 8, "text": "Board Member Cisneros wanted to know when the last time the parking meters had been\nincreased. She also suggested some other information that would be helpful in the surveys\nto better understand the demographics. She also asked about parking turnover.\nStaff Member Wheeler said she did not have that information on the parking meters, she\nknew what the current rates were. She then discussed parking turnover and why having\n15% available parking was desirable.\nDirector Thomas also discussed the importance of having better parking management\nwith better parking enforcement.\nBoard Member Hom wanted to know if there was enough time for tenants to apply before\nNovember 1st, he was concerned it was not a realistic period.\nStaff Member Wheeler answered that these recommendations had been announced\nstarting in July. Staff was encouraging businesses to start the process now and not to wait.\nThey would have some sort of grace period to make sure everyone had a Use Permit.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if there had been increases in fender benders on Park and\nWebster since the program had started.\nStaff Member Wheeler said after viewing the Collision Statistics they had not seen an\nincrease, it might still be too soon to tell.\nDirector Thomas added that they had learned through the survey that people felt safer.\nPresident Saheba opened public comment.\nKathy Weber, Executive Director of the Downtown Alameda Business Association, urged\nthe board to continue its support of the Commercial Streets Program. She discussed the\ncritical lifeline this program offered Alameda businesses.\nRon Mooney, an owner of Daisy's, spoke in support of this project, he discussed what an\nasset having the parklets had been. He thought the Commercial Streets program was\ngreat and even encouraged lowering the speed limit even more. He added what reach out\nhe had done to make sure residents knew what was happening.\nPresident Saheba closed public comment and opened board discussions.\nBoard Member Hom stated that he was a big proponent of road dieting and creating more\npedestrian-friendly corridors. He discussed how other cities had been doing projects like\nthis even before the pandemic to create more vibrant downtowns. He liked the idea of\nfurther studying this project and making it permanent. He did think the Kimley-Horn Study\ncould use further evaluation and he liked all the recommendations that staff brought\nforward.\nVice President Ruiz did point out a typo in the Kimley-Horn report.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 10\nSeptember 27, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-09-27", "page": 9, "text": "Board Member Cisneros wanted to see clear and explicit language about parking\nenforcement.\nPresident Saheba discussed how the transformation of both Webster and Park had made\nthe city more walkable and liveable. He did want to see the parklets have the same\nalignment as the sidewalks to avoid tripping hazards. He discussed other design issues\nthat needed to be thought off and was encouraged that this could be a more permanent\nthing.\n8.\nMINUTES\n8-A 2021-1316\nDraft Meeting Minutes - June 28, 2021 (Continued from the meeting of September 13,\n2021)\n8-B 2021-1317\nDraft Meeting Minutes - July 12, 2021 (Continued from the meeting of September 13,\n2021)\n8-C 2021-1320\nDraft Meeting Minutes - July 26, 2021\nBoard Member Rothenberg pointed out places where her name needed to be corrected\non the July 12th and in the July 26th minutes.\nBoard Member Cisneros pointed out a typo in the July 12th minutes, it should have been\nDensity Discussion.\nVice President Ruiz pointed out that Staff Member Tai's name at been misspelled on the\nJuly 26th meeting.\nPresident Saheba opened public comments.\nThere were no public speakers.\nPresident Saheba closed public comments.\nPresident Saheba took a roll call vote item by item. For the June 28th meeting, the\nminutes passed with corrections 5-0, President Saheba abstained since he had\nbeen absent. For the July 12th meeting, the minutes passed with corrections 4-0,\nPresident Saheba and Vice President Ruiz abstained since they had been absent.\nFor the July 26th meeting, the minutes passed with corrections 6-0.\n9.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2020-1318\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nRecent Actions and Decisions can be found\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5138829&GUID=1B8DEA57-\n9450-472F-8D3E-6FDC28DAE705&FullText=1\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 10\nSeptember 27, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-09-27", "page": 10, "text": "9-B 2020-1319\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Tai said the next board meeting would be October 11th and the staff was\nplanning a Housing Element Workshop. They would also review a Use Permit for a project\nat Alameda Point. Then at the October 25th meeting, they would bring back the revised\nGeneral Plan.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard Member Cisneros verified that the Housing Element Subcommittee meeting was\nthe upcoming Thursday.\nVice President Ruiz asked if they would be discussing the impact of SB-9, Measure A,\nand the potential conflict in Alameda.\nStaff Member Tai explained SB-9 and how the process would work. He added that the\nstaff was still reviewing the law and how they planned to bring it to the board for review.\nDirector Thomas added that this was being viewed as part of the Housing Element\nprocess.\nBoard Member Curtis asked about the RHNA Appeal, he had heard that it had lost.\nDirector Thomas said that was true and explained how the process worked. He explained\nthat as of now Alameda's RHNA number was not going down.\nBoard Member Hom asked if SB-10 could also affect Alameda and was interested in\nlearning more.\n12.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n13.\nADJOURNMENT\nPresident Saheba adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 10 of 10\nSeptember 27, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-09-27.pdf"}