{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-12-13", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2021\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Asheshh Saheba convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nVice President Teresa Ruiz led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President Saheba, Vice President Ruiz, and Board Members Curtis, Hom,\nRothenberg, Cisneros, and Teague.\nAbsent: None.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nVice President Ruiz made a motion to move item 7-C to the first of the Regular\nAgenda Items. Board Member Curtis and Teague seconded the motion. A roll call\nvote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.\nPresident Saheba acknowledged the sad passing of Alameda County Supervisor Wilma\nChan who was killed when she was struck by a motorist in Alameda.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n6-A 2021-1539\n2022 Planning Board Regular Meeting Schedule.\nThe schedule can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5350543&GUID=B6514ADO-\n1B04-4450-922E-A1DEE5OAADC2.\nBoard Member Alan Teague made a motion to approve the schedule and Board\nMember Rona Rothenberg. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-C 2021-1559\nPublic Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Bayport/Alameda Landing Master Plan\nand Alameda Landing Waterfront Residential Planned Development at 2800 Fifth Street\n(PLN21-0457) to eliminate a requirement for a minimum of 5,000 square feet of\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 10\nDecember 13, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-12-13", "page": 2, "text": "commercial services space adjacent to the Alameda Landing Waterfront Park on Fifth\nStreet.\nAndrew Thomas, Director of Planning Building and Transportation, introduced the item.\nThe staff report and attachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5350551&GUID=D9C80E17-\n3993-45F1-B10B-8E17EA1EBO2E&FullText=1\nBill Sadler, Development Director of Pulte Homes, also gave a presentation.\nPresident Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Ron Curtis wanted confirmation that the increase of units was to 362.\nDirector Thomas said that was correct.\nBoard Member Teague confirmed that the term \"commercial\" was broader than \"retail\".\nHe asked if there were sections they could strike out since it would be giving the developer\na lot more time. He wanted to know the estimated timeline.\nDirector Thomas explained the idea behind the original condition. He said that the staff\ndid not want to stop the project as they did Design Review. He then explained the\nreasoning behind the revised condition.\nMr. Sadler discussed the timeline for the development for when they would reach building\n330.\nBoard Member Rona Rothenberg disclosed that she had emailed Mr. Sadler. She asked\nabout the Master Plan and wanted to know if Mr. Sadler had weighed the benefits of a\n\"commercial\" designation.\nDirector Thomas explained the history of the original Master Plan and what was needed\nto support the types of uses that would be there.\nStaff Member Tai added there had been conversations about the benefits of a Community\nCommercial Space.\nBoard Member Ruiz disclosed that she too had reached out to Mr. Sadler before the\nmeeting. She said that they had discussed that the townhome models yield more units\nand if he would consider modifying the ground floor single-family units. She also wanted\nto know what was the most efficient and financially feasible.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 10\nDecember 13, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-12-13", "page": 3, "text": "Mr. Sadler explained that what they had designed was already approved and permitted.\nAny changes could delay completion but he was all for putting the right home on this\nproperty. He gave a cost and time rundown for the options.\nBoard Member Xiomara Cisneros asked about sales for the development. She also\nwanted an update on the public water shuttle.\nMr. Sadler said sales were going well and very steady.\nDirector Thomas gave an update on the funding and development of the water shuttle\nservice.\nBoard Member Hanson Hom wanted to know if there was a Community Space planned or\nwould Mr. Sadler consider one. He also asked what would happen if the City Council\ndecided to maintain the Commercial Space designation. He also asked if they were open\nto including low incoming housing in the mix.\nMr. Sadler said he would need to look into that since they were already in the process with\nthe DRE (Department of Real Estate) with an approved budget. He then discussed how\nthe designation and how having low-income housing would affect their work.\nPresident Saheba asked about the construction of the boardwalk and the park. He wanted\nto see things come together in a linked fashion.\nDirector Thomas discussed the requirements for those constructions. Mr. Sadler\ndiscussed what was delaying those items.\nBoard Member Hom was concerned about financing and wanted to make sure any\nchanges would not negatively affect Mr. Sadler.\nMr. Sadler discussed what he would need to do with certain changes.\nPresident Saheba opened public comments.\nBetsy Mathieson said she hoped that this would be an opportunity for something new. She\ndiscussed the benefit of having waterfront commercial activity and gave examples. She\nthought that would be more beneficial to tenants.\nJay Garfinkle was unsure of the details and wanted to make sure there was adequate\nparking for the water shuttle. He felt that someone was back peddling on this and this was\nsomething that should have been addressed months ago.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 10\nDecember 13, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-12-13", "page": 4, "text": "President Saheba believed this piece of property was critical to the Master Plan. He\nbelieved that the developer needed to get creative with the space such as some of the\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 10\nDecember 13, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-12-13", "page": 5, "text": "ideas suggested by Director Wooldridge. He was supportive of giving the developer more\ntime.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to approve to strike out the sentence of\ntiming for Design Review and to give the developer more time to consider\nCommunity Space or Mixed-Use. The developer would work with City Staff to\nconsider other alternative uses for the space. Board Member Cisneros seconded\nthe motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.\n7-A 2021-1557\nPublic hearing to consider amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter 30 (Development\nRegulations) Section 30-4.1, R-1, One-Family Residence District, and 30-2 Definitions to\nbring the R-1 regulations into compliance with State Law and implement Senate Bill 9. The\nproposed text amendments are exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to SB\n9, which states that an action by a local agency to adopt an ordinance to implement the\nprovisions of SB 9 shall not be considered a project under Division 13 (commencing with\nSection 21000) of the Public Resources Code.\nDirector Thomas gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5350549&GUID=5DFA302F\nF982-470B-8DF6-OFOCD8DA2061&FullText=1\nPresident Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Hom asked if there was language that addressed the maximum of 4 units\nallowed. He also had questions about the 1200sqft maximums and if someone wanted to\ngo above that limit. He also had questions about setbacks and wanted clarification on what\nan Urgency Ordinance meant. He also wanted the staff's opinion on what \"condo\nstandards\" meant.\nBoard Member Teague discussed what the current ADU law allowed and what language\nthey could add to make it clearer.\nDirector Thomas explained the process if someone wanted a larger unit. He also explained\nthe need and process for an Urgency Ordinance.\nBoth Director Thomas and Staff Member Tia discussed how \"condo standards\" were\ninterpreted by the staff and the law.\nBoard Member Rothenberg wanted to know how this would apply to historic buildings, the\nrule about renting and managing setbacks.\nDirector Thomas explained how state law addressed setbacks and that staff would be\nworking on a Short Term Rental Ordinance.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 10\nDecember 13, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-12-13", "page": 6, "text": "Staff Member Tai explained how historic buildings would be handled.\nBoard Member Teague had questions about ADUs being allowed with SB-9 and what\nAlameda would allow. He had questions about information in the Turner Center Report\nand how he was interpreting it. He then discussed hypothetical situations and what could\npossibly be allowed. He also had questions about the square footage, setbacks, and\nEfficiency Units.\nHeather Colman, the consultant, explained that the report was written before the law was\nfinalized.\nDirector Thomas went into detail about would could hypothetically be allowed with SB-9.\nHe also explained which sections and standards Alameda could decide what they wanted\nto allow.\nStaff Member Tai discussed Efficiency Units.\nVice President Ruiz asked about what standards would be coming up that needed\napproval. She also questioned how they reached the 5000 sq ft lot area.\nDirector Thomas explained that these zoning changes were the Objective Zoning\nStandards. He explained the thought process behind the 5000 sq ft lot size.\nPresident Saheba opened public comment.\nZac Bowling discussed the work he had done to champion SB-9.\nJay Garfinkle wanted the Planning Board to recommend to the City Council to enact an\nEmergency Ordinance to make sure anyone who applies for SB-9 would be subject to the\nsame standards and conditions.\nChris Buckley, Alameda Architecture Preservation Society (AAPS), discussed a letter the\nsociety had sent.\nBetsy Mathieson agreed with the comments and the concerns brought up by the AAPS.\nMargaret Hall also supported the recommendations and changes to the text brought up\nby the AAPS.\nHank Hernandez, Alameda Tiny Homes, wanted to know what the options were for people\nwho already had an ADU on their property.\nPresident Saheba closed public comment and opened board discussion.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 10\nDecember 13, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-12-13", "page": 7, "text": "Vice President Ruiz was concerned with the speed with which this was going through and\nthought it needed further review. She recommend making the text more in line with state\nlaw.\nBoard Member Teague was in favor of moving this forward but with substantial changes\nand he agreed with Vice President Ruiz that the text should be more in line with SB-9. He\nalso recommended that the use needed to be very clear, this was just for Residential Use.\nHe discussed the other changes he would make to move this forward.\nBoard Member Hom agreed with most of Board Member Teague's comments. He did\nrecommend that how many units were allowed on a lot be clarified. He also agreed about\nthe language being as close to the law as possible.\nBoard Member Cisneros wanted to know what would happen if they took no action.\nDirector Thomas explained the process if the council did not adopt anything in January.\nBoard Member Curtis said he could not accept the part of the Resolution dealing with\nHome Occupations, he believed that those should have Use Permit. He also believed that\nneighbors should have a say in what goes into their neighborhoods.\nPresident Saheba continued the conversation about the 1200 sq ft parameter. He was in\nsupport of eliminating the 1200 sq ft threshold to allow for more flexibility.\nThere was a discussion about appropriate Permitted Usage and street access for the\nparcel.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to recommend to the City Council that they\nadopt the resolution regarding SB-9, excluding all of the changes related to\n\"Permitted Usage\" and the changes to definitions. They must clarify the use of the\nwords \"alteration\" and \"demolition\". They should replace the section referring to\nAlameda's specific Rental Code with the language from SB-9. They would also\nclarify which Permitted Usage was considered Residential and Non-residential. The\naccess to the split lot needed to be a combined pedestrian and vehicle access. They\nwould not modify Alameda's ADU ordinance and leave it as is. Also, setbacks must\nbe clarified and in compliance. The building of a 1 family dwelling is a minimum of\n800 sq. ft to equal in size to the other unit and the 1600 sq. ft limit be the limit as to\nthe existing unit. Board Member Curtis seconded the motion. A roll call vote was\ntaken and the motion passed 6-1 with Board Member Hom voting against.\n7-B 2021-1558\nObjective Design Review Standards for One- and Two-Family Dwellings. Public hearing\nto consider Objective Design Review Standards for development allowed under Senate\nBill 9. Adoption of the Objective Standards is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 10\nDecember 13, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-12-13", "page": 8, "text": "Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3), the common-sense exception that CEQA applies only\nto projects 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.\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=5350550&GUID=9D2BEDDA\n018E-402D-94E8-0632FCF09D70&FullText=1\nPresident Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Hom asked for clarification on the Housing Accountability Act and if there\nwas a change in the process of review for Single Family Homes once they adopt these\nnew Design Standards.\nStaff Member Tai discussed the changes and that they would not affect the process. These\nchanges were mainly addressing SB-9.\nBoard Member Rothenberg thought the checklist format was very user-friendly. She made\nsuggestions on how to make setbacks easier to understand and to use matching materials\nwhen appropriate.\nStaff Member Tai addressed massing and setbacks. He then discussed that a judgment\ncall was very important when choosing materials.\nVice President Ruiz asked about existing garages that were in undesirable conditions and\nwanted to know if they could be added to or altered. She also wanted to know about\ngarage doors that were in the back of the house, it wasn't viewable so why worry about it.\nShe also had questions concerning upper story additions.\nStaff Member Tai discussed SB-9 units that had parking and what the intent was for\ngarages facing away from the street was. He then discussed upper story additions and\nhow numbers were arrived at.\nBoard Member Teague asked about dropping the third bullet, he found it made things very\nunclear. He wanted to know if this was based on the Multi-Family Objective Standards.\nStaff Member Tai said they could drop that item. He discussed when they did carry some\nof the standards over and what was different.\nPresident Saheba opened public comment.\nZac Bowling liked the Objective Design Standard that the staff had come up with. He\ndiscussed how these were easy to work within and thanked staff for their work on this.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 10\nDecember 13, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-12-13", "page": 9, "text": "Chris Buckley, AAPS, discussed a letter the society had sent. He agreed that taking out\nthe third bullet would help. He also gave suggestions for improving the standards and the\nprocess. He also pointed out that the society had sent a markup showing where the\nlanguage was unclear.\nBetsy Mathieson endorsed the AAPS's letter and agreed with Mr. Buckley's comments\nand concerns.\nPresident Saheba closed public comment and opened board discussion.\nPresident Saheba wanted to know if there were any concerns about this item getting\ndisjointed with the previous item, SB-9. He did agree that some of the text needed to be\ncleaned up and the diagrams refined.\nStaff Member Tai did not see any issues but having a set of standards adopted by the new\nyear would be helpful.\nBoard Member Cisneros was concerned that this might be too prescriptive and wondered\nif they could add room for flexibility.\nVice President Ruiz was hesitant to rush this through and recommended possibly bringing\nthis back. She gave suggestions on clarifying language around carport/detached garages.\nShe also gave suggestions on language around windows and upper story additions.\nBoard Member Teague discussed how this could keep evolving at future meetings and\nthe importance of getting something approved tonight.\nBoard Member Hom was comfortable moving this forward with some of the amendments\nsuggested by his fellow board members and they could be refined down the road.\nBoard Member Curtis made a motion to approve the Objective Design Review\nStandards with the removal of the third bullet point as recommended. Board\nMember Hom seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion\npassed 6-1 with Vice President Ruiz voting against.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2021-1540\nDraft Meeting Minutes - September 27, 2021\n8-B 2021-1541\nDraft Meeting Minutes - October 11, 2021\n8-C 2021-1542\nDraft Meeting Minutes - October 25, 2021\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 10\nDecember 13, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-12-13", "page": 10, "text": "Due to the late hour and the need to take public comment the approval of these minutes\nwas postponed to a future meeting.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2021-1555\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nRecent actions and decisions can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5350547&GUID=05FCDEED-\nFD2C-449E-BCE8-42DA3BA038A5&FullText=1\nNo board members wanted to pull any item for review.\n9-B 2021-1556\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Tai announced that at the January meeting the plan was to bring more\ndiscussions about the Housing Element Update. There would also be a review of the Use\nPermit of the Clubhouse Bar.\n9-C 2021-1560\nEnd of Year Planning Board and Planning Department Accomplishments\nDirector Thomas thanked the board for all the work they had done over the past year and\ndiscussed the activities and accomplishments of the Building Department.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nPresident Saheba wished everyone a Happy Holiday and thanked them for all their hard\nwork over the last year.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nBetsy Mathieson was happy that Director Thomas's cold was subsiding.\nBoard Member Curtis took a moment to thank the staff and everyone for their hard work.\nThe rest of the board agreed with him!\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Saheba adjourned the meeting at 11:09 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 10 of 10\nDecember 13, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf"}