pages
15 rows where "date" is on date 2021-06-28 sorted by text
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Link | body | date | page | text ▼ | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2021-06-28 | 1 | APPROVED MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD MONDAY, JUNE 28, 2021 1. CONVENE President Alan Teague convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. This meeting was via zoom. 2. FLAG SALUTE Board Member Hanson Hom led the flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Present: President Teague and Board Members Curtis, Hom, Rothenberg, Cisneros, and Ruiz. Absent: Vice President Asheshh Saheba. 4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION President Teague suggested postponing agenda item 7-A 2021-1043 Board Elections to either the last meeting of July or even the first meeting in September. This was due to board members being absent and to have whoever the Mayor and City Council appointed present. Allen Tai, City Planner, confirmed the elections for July 26th, which would be after the second City Council meeting. No board member objected to postponing the board elections. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 7-B 2021-1047 PLN20-0541 - 910 Centennial Avenue - Administrative Variance and Design Review - Applicant: Amornrit Pudkeepamrongrit. Public hearing to consider a Call for Review of the Zoning Administrator's approval of an Administrative Variance and Design Review to allow the construction of a new 1,907 square foot two-story single-family home. Due to the narrow 22-foot lot width, a variance is necessary to allow a 3-foot side yard setback on the east side and a 1-foot setback on the west side where 5-foot setbacks are required, and to allow the new home to be constructed with the same 14-foot 6-inch front yard setback as the existing detached garage that exists onsite where a 20-foot setback is required. General Plan: Medium-Density Residential. Zoning: R-2, Two-Family Residence District. CEQA Determination: Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 - New Construction of Small Structures and 15305 - Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 1 of 15 June 28, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2021-06-28 | 9 | Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 9 of 15 June 28, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2021-06-28 | 5 | Board Member Curtis thanked everyone for the presentation. He felt that all of his questions and concerns had been answered and he could vote for this. Board Member Cisneros felt that after reading the staff report the project had met the fire safety concerns. She also appreciated the public comment about more coordination with the Fire Department. She was also satisfied with how the neighbor's privacy concerns were being addressed and supported the project. Board Member Hom said it was a narrow lot and that the findings for the variance could be made, so that was not the issue. He still questioned why it was either five feet or one- foot setback, nothing in between. He wondered if there could be a discussion about more of a setback that could be provided. He also brought up President Teague's comment on the garage and reducing it by 12 inches to make room for a crawl space and to help maintain the rain gutters. He also questioned if the back wall on the second story could be set back more as well. He agreed there were justifications for the variance and it was just a matter of if there could be more of a setback. He added again that for the removal of the tree, the applicant should reach out to the owner since he did not believe the tenant had the right to approve the removal of the tree. He understood it was a difficult issue and a civil matter. Board Member Ruiz believed the variance was warranted. She concurred with the Historic Advisory Board's comments about needing to review the siding examples and to make the garage treatment more architecturally pleasing. She felt that she could approve this project. Board Member Rothenberg restated her concerns about ensuring when they develop these properties, to meet their General Plan, they don't overdevelop in every lot by virtue of variances. She said they did have an impact on the health, safety, and welfare of the public. The codes were strict for a reason and hoped the applicant could endeavor to make some adjustments to improve the overall massing of the buildi… | PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf,11 | PlanningBoard | 2021-06-28 | 11 | Board Member Hom appreciated the staff's work on this and the public comments. He thought the direction they were going for with parking maximums, unbundling the parking, and emphasizing bike parking made a lot of sense and a positive direction. He echoed some of the concerns brought up by Board Member Curtis, he did however think that developers would push for more parking and thought the parking maximums were a good direction. He wanted to see data that supported the rationale for the proposed reduction in parking standards when this ordinance would come before them. With the concern about unbundling parking, he discussed ways that HOAs or property managers could encourage tenants not to park their cars in the streets excessively. For bicycle parking, he wanted to see definitions for long-term parking vs short-term parking. He felt that the staff report had done a good job of clarifying other questions that he had. Board Member Ruiz applauded the staff for putting forth this thorough draft. She asked if the intent for this was to be more stringent than the Building Code. Staff Member McGuire said the goal was for the Zoning Code to be more demanding than the California Green Building Code. The Zoning Code could be a little less technical than the building code has to be. Staff Member Ruiz said it would be good to mention how they would regulate or allow parking stackers since by nature they would not meet the space requirements mentioned so some provision would be helpful. She then asked about a paragraph on page 1 that defined how to count floor area, she had noticed this was in the old ordinance and did not think it was significant now and was confusing. She could not think of an example of how it would result in a significant impact on the count and questioned if it was even needed. Staff Member McGuire agreed it had been carried over from the existing ordinance. Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning, Building, and Transportation, discussed how if a developer needed to go above the maximum there was a process … | PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2021-06-28 | 4 | Board Member Rothenberg said they were making a case by referencing buildings that were built under prior standards, and they were building under current standards. They are stricter for a reason. Staff Member Tai pointed what the zoning code allowed for non-conforming houses. Staff Member McCartney gave the example of the new ADU regulations and what they can now allow. Board Member Rothenberg said the nature of an ADU and the nature of a new two-story home in an existing lot were two different cases. President Teague asked if the garage were to be 8 inches narrower would that make the garage unusable. He thought there was enough space. Mr. Pukdeedamrongrit said they could do that. Board Member Hom asked for the designer to address the building code question about the roof eave and the rain gutter being within two feet of the property line. Mr. Pukdeedamrongrit said as far as he understood the only mention was for the overhead and the leave, not the gutter. Board Member Hom clarified that the rain gutter was not considered a roof overhang. President Teague opened public comments. Zac Bowling said he was in support of this project. He addressed how the restraints in the current design code made it difficult to build anything like what we have today. He felt that the setback requirements were done more for density control than for safety. He believed the current project was a better use of the space than just for cars. Roberta Hough, a neighbor, said the project was too big and the setbacks too small. She had fire safety concerns and said she felt better after speaking to Fire Chief Hearn. She believed that the Fire Chief should always be included in the process of approving such variances. She also gave her concerns about mildew for the property. Philp Fegoni, the owner, thanked everyone for their time and discussed the history of the project. He said his family had owned the property for 100 years and that his younger sister would be living in the new home which would be next to her daughter's home. He stated th… | PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2021-06-28 | 7 | Board Member Ruiz thanked them for the presentation. She wanted to know from an operational standpoint how the loading and unloading would be handled, such as where the loading truck would be parked and how deliveries would work. Mr. Cukierman explained since they couldn't have a curb cutout there was still space in front of the bus stop for a truck to pull in and load and unload. Board Member Ruiz asked about the previous suggestion of shared parking and wanted to know if anyone had reached out to the Walgreens or Starbucks across the street. Mr. Cukierman said he had not tried to contact those corporations but he had tried to reach out to the Rodeway Inn but kept getting a voice message that said the inbox had not been set up yet. Board Member Rothenberg thanked everyone. She wanted clarification about the dates on the drawings, the drawings that they received were dated March 12th and the presentation, the visuals they had shared, was dated June 28th. Mr. Waterman clarified that the plans and elevations were the same as what was in the documents, nothing had changed. Board Member Rothenberg asked about the Dark Sky Ordinance and wanted to make sure it was sufficient as it was stated in the resolution. She wanted to make sure that the condition did not have to be detailed in any more specificity than it already was. She had a similar question and concern in regard to obtaining an encroachment permit for the work that was going to be done at the curb. Other than these concerns she thought it was a wonderful project. Staff Member Tai addressed the Dark Sky Ordinance and said it required lighting to be downward pointed and for fixtures to be shielded. He added that staff felt that this project could meet those standards, they were being pointed out in the conditions to make sure they were addressed at the final building plans. He also stated that the revised resolution that was introduced at the beginning of this item had language that addressed the issues around the encroachment permit. President Teague asked if … | PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2021-06-28 | 10 | Brian McGuire, Transportation Planner, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4989276&GUID=6F102F46- 7E61-46F6-9093-1417174CDFA3&FullText=1. President Teague opened public comment. Zac Bowling said he liked this. He asked that the 30 AMP requirement be bumped up to 40, given the new car requirements. He wanted language added to the Electric Vehicle (EV) charging station section about using standard space J1772 charting standards to make sure proprietary charge stations were not used specifically and cause boxing out. He also gave specific recommendations for EV-ready plugs. Denyse Trepanier, Board President for Bike Walk Alameda, applauded the staff for this parking policy draft. She felt that it was forward-thinking but also not radical or extreme. She discussed how other cities were also correcting this land-use mistake and had gotten rid of their parking minimums. She also discussed a similar bill (AB-1401) that was making its way through the state's legislature and if it got stalled it would be important to have this work moving forward. She also discussed the radically changing climate and how this policy was an important step for the changes we need to be making. Drew Dara-Abrams discussed how removing parking requirements could make affordable housing more possible. Anything that could help lower the cost of new housing was worth pursuing. Bundled with all the other opportunities for mode shift, smarter TDM policies, and getting people on e-bikes could add up to a gradual shift away from cars being the dominant way of transportation. He appreciated the city moving forward with this and gave his support. President Teague closed public comments and opened board commentary. Board Member Curtis believed the staff did a good job on a very detailed plan and appreciated the well-thought-out presentation. He however thought about the Law of Unintended Consequences. He was concerned about off-street parking… | PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2021-06-28 | 2 | None of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply Deirdre McCartney, Permit Technician III, Planning Building and Transportation, introduced the item and gave the staff report. The staff report and attachments can be found at tps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4989274&GUID=450ACD54- DA3A-49DD-AB51-22F4A7BD76BB&FullText=1. President Teague opened board questions. Board Member Ron Curtis asked if by setting back the second story they had opened up then the view from the second story for the house next door. Staff Member McCartney said the existing garage massing, roof height, and roof style were being rebuilt in the same footprint. The two-story portion of the house would then start past the house at 908 Centennial. Board Member Curtis asked so essentially the view coming out of the upper story windows of the house at 980 Centennial would be the same as what it is right now. No additional blocking of light or destruction of the view other than what they were looking at originally. Staff Member McCartney if you were to look straight out the window then yes. If you were to look at an angle you would see the two-story portion of the house. Board Member Curtis asked if she thought a one-foot setback from 908 and the look of that housing looming on them destroyed the ambiance of that room. Staff Member McCartney explained that the two-story portion of the house stepped back three feet from the house, they varied it to make room for windows. Staff Member Tai clarified the view from different points and explained that the garage would have the same footprint as the existing garage. Board Member Hom asked if the parking also served the adjacent multi-family home. He wanted to know if there was a requirement for that parcel to maintain parking so they could eliminate the garage and still be compliant with the City's zoning standards. Staff Member McCartney said they were not required to maintain any parking. The new garage would provide two spaces for the new hom… | PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf,15 | PlanningBoard | 2021-06-28 | 15 | President Teague appreciated Board Member Curtis's comments and appreciated Director Thomas' point of view. Director Thomas apologized again that the staff report had not accurately reflected the Planning Board's rationale and discussion. That was part of their job, to accurately reflect and transmit their deliberations to the council. President Teague was concerned it would not pass since it needed 4 votes to pass with the Tideland Exchange portion. Director Thomas said the resolution could pass with 3 votes. He felt that the resolution had a 50/50 chance either way. He believed it was going to be a super-charged conversation. President Teague suggested conveying to the council to update the definition of multifamily exclude 4 units and less and to use rounding up from 2000 square feet as a means to improve the density in all neighborhoods. 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 13. ADJOURNMENT President Teague adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 15 of 15 June 28, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2021-06-28 | 14 | President Teague asked for clarification about the last City Council Meeting. The recommendation was not what he expected. Director Thomas explained the resolution on the Housing Element and the staff report had shown what they had done and had the language that had been removed. The staff thought it was an important decision by the Planning Board but it was the crux of the matter for the council as to why the issue was particularly difficult for the city. They had a conflict and the City Council was going to have to decide between state law and the charter. The staff report described the language that was taken out and why it was taken out. Then the Planning Board's version was also attached as well. He thought it was odd that the Planning Board's version was shown as a strikeout format, which was not how they usually did it. The item would be going to the council on July 6th. President Teague said unfortunately that did not answer his question, he felt that the board's time had been wasted. He added that the information in the staff report did not capture all of the reasoning of why they voted the way that they did. He thought there could have been a separate resolution that covered section 26 because there were very strong reasons as to why that language was struck beyond the legality reasons. He felt that when they passed a resolution that recommended that the City Council should do something he expected them to receive what the board said. There could have been a separate resolution that just covered Article 26, which should be covered by the City Attorney in terms of the legal opinion of if it did or did not preempt state law partially or fully. Director Thomas apologized that he felt they had wasted their time, he added that staff did not feel that it was a waste of time at all. The Planning Board held a hearing that provided an opportunity to hear from the public to learn and talk about these issues and the role of the Planning Board. They had told the council exactly what the board had recommended. He sa… | PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2021-06-28 | 6 | President Teague suggested at least 8 inches and ideally 12 inches. Board Member Hom made a motion to approve the application for the variance with the condition that the applicant work with the city staff to find a way to increase the side yard setback for the garage area (8-12 inches) and Board Member Curtis seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0, with Vice President Saheba being absent. 7-C 2021-1049 PLN19-0237 - Design Review - 1929 Webster Street - Applicant: Daniel Cukierman. Public hearing to consider a Design Review to allow the construction of a new 6,210 square foot commercial building, intended for a restaurant and tavern, on a vacant commercial property adjacent to the Cross Alameda Trail. This Design Review for the building comes after the Planning Board approved a Use Permit for the tavern use, outdoor seating, and extended hours of operation and Parking Variance in 2020. The site is located within the C-C, Community Commercial District. The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, In-fill Development Staff Member Tai introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4989275&GUID=A4037EA5- 20E6-43D5-AF9B-F06526C3BECA&FullText=1. Erik Waterman, the architect for the project, also gave a presentation that discussed the building design. Daniel Cukierman, the owner of the project, discussed what they wanted to achieve with this space. President Teague opened the board clarifying questions. Board Member Curtis thought it was a great design. He asked if the structural design had taken into consideration the wind load and the shear factor of the canopy. The wind could really get up in that area of town, that was his only concern. Mr. Cukierman said that was a concern for him as well and it would be discussed with the structural engineer. Mr. Waterman said it had been factored in. Board Mem… | PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf,13 | PlanningBoard | 2021-06-28 | 13 | President Teague wanted his closing thoughts for item 7-A to be rewritten, he felt that the paragraph did not represent what he said well. He also wanted Director Thomas's comment afterward to reflect that he had agreed with President Teague. Board Member Hom made a motion to approve the minutes with these corrections. Board Member Curtis seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0 with Vice President Saheba being absent and Board Member Cisneros abstaining since she had not been present at the meeting. 9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS 9-A 2021-1044 Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions Actions and Decisions can be found at ittps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4989271&GUID=B49CD28E- 2E70-4209-B781-A730CD94B234&FullText=1 No board member wanted to pull any item for review. 9-B 2021-1045 Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation Department Projects Staff Member Tai announced that the next meeting would be Monday, July 12th. At that meeting, two use permits related to commercial outdoor use, one on Park St. and one on Webster St., will be considered. There would also be a General Plan update. 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS Board Member Ruiz informed everyone that she would be absent at the next meeting. Board Member Curtis asked the staff if they would have meetings in August. Staff Member Tai said none were planned at this time. Board Member Hom asked Director Thomas about the Housing Element Subcommittee meeting invite for the second week of July, he was concerned he had missed it. Director Thomas said he was unsure and would check on that, he believed it was on July 15th that they had agreed to meet. He said they would follow up on that and checked that President Teague was back then. President Teague confirmed he was back then. He then asked about confidentiality with the Google Doc edits and he did not have a link yet to the Google Docs. Director Thomas assured … | PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2021-06-28 | 3 | Staff Member McCartney said she did not know and that the owner could answer. Staff Member Tai said the owner did own the adjacent lot. Board Member Hom then asked about comments about the avocado tree. He wanted to know who owned the tree since there was a condition to remove it and to plant replacement trees. Staff Member Tai explained how there had been an agreement between the neighbors to replace the tree at the Zoning Administrator Hearing. This was a civil matter and not something the city had jurisdiction over. Board Member Hom clarified that the adjacent owner had verbally agreed to the removal of the avocado tree and to have replacement trees. Staff Member Tai said that was correct. Board Member Hom asked about the one-foot setback and that there were no leaves within two feet but a gutter near the property line. He wanted to know if that was allowed by building code. Staff Member McCartney said she believed it was because of an exception. The owner explained the agreement that had been reached with the tenant next door, the property owner did not care or wanted to be involved. He explained the person using the garage for storage was a family member. Board Member Hom thought it would be best to work these things out with the property owner. He understood it was a civil matter. Board Member Ruiz wanted dimensional clarification on sheet A2.1, would the building be in the same location and would it be smaller. The project designer, Mr. Pukdeedamrongrit, explained the setbacks and that the width would be smaller. He then explained the setbacks in other places. Board Member Ruiz then asked about sheet 3.3, detail number 2. She wanted to know what those windows look into. Mr. Pukdeedamrongrit explained that the windows would bring light into the hallway and that you would look over the shed of the property at 1216 9th street. Board Member Rothenberg wondered if the staff or applicant could give better references for waiving current standards that did not apply to existing non-conforming buildings. Staff Memb… | PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2021-06-28 | 8 | Zac Bowling said how much he liked this project. He liked that it would create a community around a tavern-like meeting place. He also liked that since it was on the western side of Webster it gave something for the Bay Port residents and the new neighbors at Alameda Point a place to walk to. He loved that it was next to the Cross Alameda Trail and the bus line which would help discourage car use. He added that any new growth on Webster was better for Alameda. Kiran Patel, General Manager and one of the owners of the Rodeway Inn, said he was still concerned about the noise since the tavern was still scheduled to be open until 2 am. He discussed how noise travels and that the vibrations of the noise were a concern as well. He was also concerned about parking since the tavern would not have its own parking lot. He worried that the tavern's patrons would end up parking there anyway and his staff would spend their time as parking attendants. He was not sure what number Mr. Cukierman had used but he was easily reachable by phone and was more than happy to discuss the parking issue with him. Mr. Patel and Mr. Cukierman verified phone numbers. President Teague asked that they coordinate that offline, he then closed public comment and opened board discussion and potential action. Board Member Curtis said it was a good-looking project and a good gateway for Alameda. He felt that his concerns about parking, patronage, and timing had been answered. He said this was a tremendous addition for Alameda and the Webster Street area and he would vote for this. Board Member Cisneros was sympathetic to the neighbor and their concerns about noise. She fully supported this project and wanted to move forward with it and hoped the applicant could work with the neighbor on those concerns. Board Member Hom brought up that at the approval of the Use Permit there had been a condition added that allowed the Planning Board and or city staff to review the Use Permit after 12 months to see if there were any noise issues. He hoped that condition… | PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf,12 | PlanningBoard | 2021-06-28 | 12 | powered. She also discussed transportation demand management and asked for consideration for residential parking permits. President Teague said he was all about the cost of housing, keeping it down, and making it easier for developers to build projects. He liked the idea of getting rid of all parking requirements, he had even pushed Habitat to have less parking for their affordable housing and they would not go for it. Habitat said they needed parking which brought up the equitable aspect. Income and age were also a factor, someone in their 70s or 80s may be able to drive but not be able to use other forms of transportation and not qualify to be disabled. He wanted to look at the impact on equity with this change and he absolutely believed they needed to make this change. He discussed how many projects that he had seen, other than the Habitat ones, had wanted to reduce their parking. He agreed that whatever it takes to make your project successful was fine but they would need to make sure they built the right number of disabled spots. He was concerned the new parking maximum would also lower the disabled spots. He wanted to explore completely removing parking requirements other than for disabled spots. Staff Member McGuire clarified that the draft amendment they were reviewing did eliminate parking minimums. If an applicant wanted to build no parking the code would allow that. President Teague said unless their project needed more than the minimum then they would have to come before the Planning Board and ask for it. He said he wanted it more simplified, no maximum and no minimum. Board Member Curtis wanted to reinforce some of what President Teague had said about the controls with the parking in regards to the development. The first one was that the developer was going to build as many units as they possibly could which would take parking down. The other one was, even if they thought parking would help sell the unit they still have the control because they have to have so many low-cost units. The market takes it… | PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE "pages" ( [body] TEXT, [date] TEXT, [page] INTEGER, [text] TEXT, [path] TEXT, PRIMARY KEY ([path], [page]) );