Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter XXX (Zoning Ordinance) to Modify Regulations Pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and Related Rules to Comply with State Law (Second Units).  (Community Development 481005)
I need to get through this meeting. Thank you. So if you can look ahead. I need to keep going. Mr. Buckley, did you turn in a slip right there? Okay, well, then that goes at the end. Everyone that wants to speak, you need to turn in your slips. I call them in the order. So who turned in the first slip? And who turned in the first if you gave me two piles. Up. Ever a. Whatever it is that you gave me to pass. Those duties to him first, or. They go under. Got it. Charles Hurt HRT. Stephen Aced. And then David Baker. You ready? Yes, thanks. I would like to first point out that I am not against increasing available housing. I am, however, very interested in preserving the state of Alameda. The state is in, you know, the esthetics and. The cross cultural mix and so forth. I think what you guys are. Proposing, as I understand it. Would increase available. I think it's considered. Right to decide. Housing in lots where it could increase the the. Density to the point where it would impact traffic and decrease the esthetic appeal of Alameda. And in particular, I think that housing, which is added in the front of a house without having a design review, is really a poor idea. Know, one of the things that you know, among other great things in Alameda is, is, you know. The architecture in the area. And for you guys to propose that anyone could build, for example. A mobile home or a modular home in their front yard just because they felt like it without the consideration. Of their neighbors or a design review. I think that's really, you know, a very poor idea. Also, I would like to point out that 1200 square. Feet is actually quite a large chunk of property. I live on Caroline Street. My house is, I think, 1800 square feet. 1200 square feet is a small three bedroom house. That's huge. And, you know, neighbors will be impacted. So I would urge you to consider moving back your 1200 foot maximum. In favor of something like, you know, say 600 feet, which I think, you know, that's still quite a bit, but I think that's a much. More reasonable. Number. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Stephen East. And then David Baker. I share similar concerns with the previous speaker and has to do with the fact that the. Relative size of remaining 1200 square feet can become excessive in relationship, especially on the smaller lot. Thank you, David Baker. And then Scott Brady. The issue is whether or not there should be public input in design review for second dwelling units up to 1200 square feet. The answer is a definitive yes, because we all make mistakes and thus our democratic institutions are designed for public input, since everyone, even with the best intentions, makes mistakes. In my world. And this will cause a chuckle with all the carpenters that are in the audience. The mantra is measure twice. Cut once. Since I'm a pencil pusher all day, every day, I put a mental magnifying glass to documents. But the problem is that this is a form of tunnel vision. Which creates a different set of blind spots. The situation is made even worse by the fact that so many documents are produced and read on computer screens. And my experience is that print free documents are not actually read. But only scanned. If we do not have public input into a design review process, we are setting ourselves up for failure. Thank you. Thank you, Scott Brady. And if you all could line up so that we're ready to go, then Eric Steiger. And then Renata Frey. Mayor Spencer. Members of Council. My name is Scott Brady and I'm here to talk about the new ordinance or request that the maximum buy right size for new structures be limited to 600 square feet. 1200 square feet is larger than many of the bungalows in town. 1200 square feet is far larger than necessary for a elderly person and a caretaker, which is sort of been described as the ideal use for these types of things. 1200 square feet will increase density, increase traffic congestion and increase parking problems. Many Alameda neighbors already have serious parking impacts. Nothing would prevent an applicant from applying for a larger ADU. And if all conditions are appropriate, it will be approved. So why allow more by right density and traffic than required? Concerns for neighborhood density in traffic are very valid and in a city surrounded by water with limited means to leave, managing any increases in density and traffic are critical for the quality of life in the town. So I request that the limit be placed at 600 square feet. Thank you. Thank you. And remember, if you can't here, raise your hands so I can ask them to speak up. Or we can turn up the volume. Thank you. Hi. My name is Eric Steiger. I was here when you guys vote on this before, and I just like to ask you to just reconsider a couple of points. I'm not opposed to the 80 ordinance at all. Again, just looking for a couple of I think are reasonable accommodations, one. Of which there have been mentioned that the maximum by right limit be limited to 600 square. Feet. One of the arguments that staff gave of why 1200 should matter is it would only affect 15% of the housing stock. I find that sort of a double edge argument because if it's if it has limited effect, why not have those extra. Steps in it for it? Because when it does happen, you know, you want that for all the reasons I mentioned, we want that additional review. Have the public have a chance. To have a say in it, but just making automatic just because it only applies to. 1500 homes doesn't seem like a good argument. And the other thing is, just from what I understand, the way that the audience was actually worried, the language about design is still somewhat vague. It doesn't say clearly that it. Will adopt the current buy right design. Guidelines. It's somewhat subjective with respect to detached units are not available from the street. And when this was discussed before, I don't think staff really made that clear. It made it sound like it would absolutely be applicable to the current design guidelines. That's not the case where it is right now. Thank you. Thank you, Renata. And then Nancy heard in the Nancy Gordon. Hi. My name is We're Not Afraid and the risk of repeating what we've heard from the previous speakers, I just want to express my support for their points, specifically in the increased density, the parking challenges, and the access to and from the island. And as well as the increased coverage of open space on any given lot if size edu of 1200 square feet were to be added to many of these units, we would lose a lot of our permeable surfaces and the benefits of those. Thank you. Thank you. Nancy Hurd. And then Nancy Gordon. And then Jim Smallman. Good evening. Alameda has no shortage of developers who want to build market rate housing in Alameda. Few units are affordable to Alameda teachers and service workers who want to live here. I looked at Craigslist over the weekend to see how many units are currently available for renters in Alameda and found that only three were less than $2,000 for a two bedroom and few one bedroom units for this amount. An average square foot for a two bedroom apartment is 700 square feet. I don't think 2000 is affordable for teachers and service workers. A 1200 square foot adu is the size of a house and would probably rent for about 3500 a month. You have an opportunity to open up some new housing avenues to teachers and service workers and still provide more housing to these citizens while reducing traffic on the roads that they travel to come to work each day. I request that you reduce the square footage of the Adus to something that will lead to more affordable housing. Thank you, Nancy Gordon and then Jim Smallman. Mayor and council. Thank you for the chance to speak. Now, I've been in Alameda since 73 property owners and 75 realtor realtors since 78. And I've seen a lot of properties seeing what people have done and the care that they take, or perhaps sometimes lack thereof. Also, there's been an ordinance for parking that you couldn't park within the first 20 feet of your property for many years. Have any of you ever seen it enforced? No. And when you look down the streets, if it were enforced, you couldn't find parking. Okay. So at least most of these cases that I've seen aren't tandem. If you start getting tandem parking and then you don't pay attention to people who are putting concrete in their front yard, and you can end up with, you know, the old song. From the. Sixties of parking lot. Everything's going to be turned into a parking lot. And if when you have tandem, it's very difficult unless everybody on the property has a key to everyone else's car. What if you suddenly need to go someplace or someone's pregnant has to get the hospital or whatever other situation arises? Very, very difficult. And it could be life threatening. I also think 600 square feet is plenty. Your average starter at her house is around 1000 to 1300. And you can have. Seven more people and depending on their ages, you could have seven more cars on someone's property. In addition, I've let people stay in my house for the last 12 years or so because they can't find another place. I've taken them in as housemates. Most of them have cars. I appreciate being able to do that. I appreciate them being around. It's still an issue when you have to put the cars on the street with everybody else's property. There are a lot of future ramifications of this. See. A year ago I asked my tenants in a nine unit building on Central. It's a deep lot joy to add more parking. Or do you want a greenbelt? You want landscaping? They all said We want landscaping, we don't want more parking, which means there's only room for one car per unit. And if there are two people there, which there are in several units, they have to find street parking. They're willing to do that because they want the quality of a yard. They want the green, they want the trees. They just don't want a lot of parking. Also, visitors don't follow the rules. My tenants are really good watchdogs and they tell me when someone's friend is parking there. So not only do you have the people who live on a property in that building, but you have visitors and sometimes there's more than one, right? So it's very, very difficult. The tiny houses that I've seen in Portland where my daughter lives. They're in different styles. They paid attention to having variety, and they're basically. Six feet by eight. Something like that. That's plenty. Thank you. Moment in the Mary J. J. J. And then Chris Buckley. Thank you for the opportunity to say a couple of words. I would like to disabuse some of the Council on the idea that apes. And I don't speak for apes as a board member any longer, but I'm a member a long. Time that that apes is somehow opposed to. Helping with the housing crisis in. Alameda. We have never opposed the auxiliary to dwelling units, but we we have some suggestions about how to improve it, retaining the term of Alameda that we all value at the same time and making important contributions to the housing issues. Number one, do not increase the maximum. Size of a by rite 80. You from the existing 600 square feet to 1200 square feet. Except for to use contained within existing building envelopes. For years, people have tried to put basement units in so-called mother in law units. And and there. Are any number of horror stories about how. People have argued with the city to try to allow it and and so forth. I think that's a good solution because it doesn't change the architecture and it doesn't improve the footprint. The other issue is design standards. And I think going away eliminating design review. Is a for the external buildings. Is a slippery slope that we should not go down, that that's that's difficult. And whatever decision is made tonight. Or made on this. On this auxiliary dwelling unit issue, we're going to have to live with, or at least my children will for 30 or 40 or 50 years. This isn't this is not something that. You can decide 20 years from now. Gosh, we shouldn't have done it. Because it's too late then. So I want I want you to consider it carefully before you go ahead with anything over 600. And I did have one only slightly. Spacey's argument. And that is, if we could take the backyards of some of the council members here and stake out a 1200 square foot building just to show you what it looks like, because it's hard to visualize. And I appreciate that. It is hard. And if anybody is willing to do that, I think it might be a service for us all. Thank you. Thank you, Mary. And then Chris Buckley mean. Thank you. Hi. My name is Mary Yitzhak. I wanted to encourage you to require the design review for a to use and keep the size at a 600 square foot maximum if the goal and that has been a strong message lately that we need more affordable housing in Alameda. 1200 square foot units are not going to be affordable. I think that the key would be to have if you're going to have those kind of units, to have them be small. Another thought that has occurred to me is these are going to be up against the property line potentially. So now your yard, if you have a yard, will have potentially have a building right on the property line. And that's very different than having the setbacks. It's a completely different feel. It's it increases that sense of density and a lot more than having a unit that, you know, is is there but not so I don't know . Looming over your own backyard which is we all know we're pretty small in Alameda anyway. And the. Having a senior moment here. The the other concern I had was that parking you know, we all we all talk about parking. And I wanted to share with you my experiences with that, that it's not just a complaint like, oh, gee, I can't find a parking or I have to park around the block when I visit my friend. It has been in my neighborhood. The main cause for police calls, restraining orders and issues between neighbors. It creates a lot of stress between neighbors just when there's difficulty parking because, you know, somebody has left their car for too long or somebody is parked in two spots. And, you know, I'm sure I. I don't have to tell you what all those oh, all those shapes that that takes. But the the lack and limit of parking is a big stressor in the neighborhoods. And it creates strife that you may not, you know, imagine would be occurring over parking. Thank you. Thank you. Chris Buckley and Patsy Bear sitting. Time to hear him. Christopher Buckley with the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society. So I have 6 minutes rather than 3 minutes. Minutes. Thank you. Okay. First, we received several letters from us, most recently June 19th, and then we had an email exchange today. Our June 19th letter articulated the two main recommendations that APS is submitting concerning the 600 versus 1200 square foot law area limit and also the need for clearer design standards. So I'm asking we have a lot of people here who I believe are not planning to speak. And so may I ask everyone who supports AP as he has his position to please raise your hand now. Thank you. I'd like to walk you through a couple of points in the particularly the July 2nd letter that we sent. Again, our first recommendation of the two is do not increase the minimum maximum by right size of an ADU from the existing 6000 square feet to 1200 square feet, except for 80 use contained within the existing building envelope . So if you are wanting to take an existing basement or another existing portion of an existing building and put a 1200 square foot A.U. in that we don't have a problem. It's just a the use that our new construction attached to an existing building or an expansion of existing building or a new freestanding structure. We want to make that clear. The some of the other speakers pointed out a 1200 square foot AEW could contain three or I would suggest even four bedrooms. Even a 600 square foot adu could include two bedrooms, which would be more than enough to handle the needs of a homeowner who needs assistance and have another bedroom for their caretaker. An 800 square foot adu, you could probably get three bedrooms into that. So going this size of buy right for 480 use seems reckless. I would like to remind you that the way the ordinance is written is that the 80 years meet the standards. There would be no public notification, no design review, and no use permit for an 80 use. All they need is a building permit and the related ministerial approvals. The second recommendation is Theresa maintain the existing design standards for detached edu's. We quote those design standards in our July 2nd letter and they are very clear and they're very ministerial in language which is consistent with a ministerial approval. They basically state for detached age to use when detached from a primary building. The design of the second unit, shall I emphasize, shall be consistent with that of the primary residence, incorporating the same materials, colors and styles of the exterior of the primary dwelling, including roofs, materials and pitch eaves, windows, accents, distinctive features and character defining elements. That's very clear. Now, if more flexibility in that's desired, it should be written in a standards based language rather than the proposed language that makes reference to doing something other than the primary dwelling. If there is a clearly. Recognizable architectural style in the immediate surroundings, what do immediate surroundings mean? Are we talking adjacent properties? Are we talking properties within 100 feet? You that needs to be clarified. It goes on to say that where the immediate context is eclectic, what does that mean? And no particular style of architecture is dominant. We have more subjective language. Dominant, no particular style. A greater degree of architectural variety may be established. What does that mean? This terminology, if more flexibility is desired, the terminology needs to be defined or designed review required. I would. There's also in the last meeting, staff had indicated that the guide to residential design would be used for this language. But this language, which makes reference to immediate surroundings, is inconsistent with the language. In the guide to residential design concerning accessory structures, which we which are use it to use are defined as accessory structures. And the existing language in the guide to residential design is very similar to the existing language in the current ADU ordinance, making reference to the existing building on the same lot, not neighboring buildings. Now I'd like to walk through some of the points in an email exchange, a very friendly email exchange that staff and I had earlier today. I've passed out hard copies to you. You know, staff. You know, we had done a survey of some neighboring communities which we provided to you. And what they're maximum by right 18th floor area is. And we know that that and the communities are Berkeley, Oakland, Piedmont, Santa Cruz, San Jose and San Leandro and Walnut Creek. And all of them had more restrictive. Edu maximums. Then Alameda is proposing staff subsequently brought to our attention that Hayward and Pleasant Hill are using the 1200 square feet. Although we there was some confusion on whether Hayward is actually been adopted or whether it's still a wrap. So at some point we'd like to have to clarify that. But still, those are outliers. And Alameda is very fragile and we believe it's reckless to go ahead with to the max on this. Thank you. When other community. That's thank you mayor Marianne Bartholomew counts Rosemary McNally and then Dorie Miles. Marianne. Okay. Thanks. So I just wanted to thank you because I appreciate that you're taking this issue up. I think that I support the new California law. It's designed to address our state housing crisis. And I think that the city taking this issue on to hopefully incorporate some more affordable housing options for people is a really positive thing right now . Both my husband and I are working education. We have plenty of people who cannot actually live in the cities that they work in. And I think that's really critical to sort of think about that big long term solution. With that said, I have been a homeowner in Alameda since the late nineties. We have a family of four living in a 900 square foot house on Briggs Avenue. So I know all too well that 1200 square foot properties are really big. We're lucky enough to have a long lot that has a big we have a big urban garden in the back. I have no plans on putting concrete to sort of mess out that area. But at the same time, if I did choose to actually build a structure or a secondary structure for like my parents as they're getting older, I would want my neighbors input. Actually, I want it to be part of the community. I do appreciate the sort of flexibility of thinking about how it fits within the guidelines. So I differ in a piece a little bit about that. I do think that there are plenty of modern housing options that might actually fit within the framework. So I'm hoping that maybe there is a little bit of meeting of minds and talking about sort of what what modern framework, what might work in with historical architecture. But with that said, I am concerned that we are not that the current ordinance proposal is seeking. No feedback beyond this, up to 1200 square feet. I do support the notion that anything beyond 600 square feet should have sort of a an input from the local neighbors. So I thank you for your time. Thank you, Rosemary McNally. And if you guys could be ready to go. And then Dorie. And then Joe Van Winkle. I agree with. Everything that Chris basically said on a number of apps. And on top of that, I have a couple of questions. Is there anything that says these new new dwelling units have to be one story? Can they be two stories? And could somebody build a cinderblock house in their backyard right now? I think these are really important questions that need to be answered. Thank you. Thank you, Dorie. And then Joe Van Winkle. Right. Good evening. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I've been a Alameda resident since 1983. Love the island, but my home in the East End in 1990. The neighborhood that I live in is from the architecture, joked George Noble. There's lots of bungalows that range from 800 to about 1100 square feet, and my home is 1060 square feet. So I know it's plenty big for families, in fact, families to live there before I moved in. So I agree with the apps. I think 600 square feet is a good maximum. I think the accessory dwelling units should be that accessories not 1200 square foot primary type homes. I also agree that the design review should be implemented to give everybody a chance to see what these homes will look like before they're put into place. I don't see any reason why we should allow our density to increase with the ADA use more than our neighboring communities and cities. Okay. Thank you. Please give give your your vote to 600 square feet. Thank you. Thank you. Joe Van Winkle. And then Dorothy Freeman. Madumere and members of the Council. Thank you for the opportunity to often citizens are surprised by actions taken by the city, whether it be a housing development or an addition or a remodel, or of course, when we had the cutting down of trees on Park Avenue, Park Street. Excuse me. People don't like to be surprised. No one likes surprises. Now, staff says that citizens should not be surprised. If you pay attention, there's notice, there's hearings and and you shouldn't, you know, be surprised, but not any more. Now we'll have 1200 square feet with no notice and no hearing and we'll have surprises. People will be upset, they'll be frustrated. And things could be overlooked. Safety issues could be overlooked. Things that when you get many eyes looking at something and somebody made a comment earlier, people make mistakes, but just more eyes looking at things, seek greater clarity and usually improves things. And we have historic neighborhoods in Alameda that are really a point of pride. And why would we want to put that at risk? So require the design. Review above 600 feet. Let there be transparency. Notify the neighbors. Let the citizens have their input. Encourage the dialog and maintain the great neighborhoods and good neighborly relations. Thank you. Thank you. Dorothy Freeman. And then Alexandra safely. Good evening and good evening, everyone. I have a 1200 square foot home in Livermore. I can't imagine. How you. Would put that into someone's backyard. I vote for 600. Square feet because I believe. That is more perfect for our neighborhoods. And since. Everybody else has already. Mentioned the rest of my comments, I will not say anything more on that. But the headphones are perfect. Please get. More. Thank you. All right, Alexandra. And then our last speaker on this item is Donna Reagan. Good evening. I would like to strongly encourage you to make it use feasible. There's clearly a lot of benefit to a design review process. It includes more people. It prevents some of the, you know, really awful things from happening. It also costs more and it puts a lot more risk on the project for anybody wanting to develop. To use, the simple fact is there will be a lot fewer ADA use if there's a design review process required. And so I'd like to urge you to think about the benefits that would be gained from having the design review process versus the benefits that would be gained from having more ADA use. How many more ideas? How? Who knows? But that's it. This law is coming into effect from the state because there's seem to be an awful lot of benefit to having more to use. We've had to use allowed in this city for many years. So from my understanding is that to have been approved, many people have tried to get them approved. I as an architect, I've had quite a few clients in my little practice asking me about it. The requirements have been too onerous, and we're talking about not changing them all that much. And so I'd like to look for it for all the benefits that the use bring, addressing the housing crisis, keeping people more likely in their homes because they can afford it, keeping families together, keeping older people in the communities they've lived in for a long time, and otherwise they may be pushed out financially. Like How much are the benefits of design. Review. More important than the benefits of creating more to use? The state law says it's the intent of the legislature that an accessory dwelling unit ordinance get to the important. It that the the the local ordinance not be so burdensome, excessive or arbitrary as to unreasonably restrict the ability of homeowners to create a use and. We're looking at changing all that much. And we've had two approved so far. Maybe something needs to change a little bit more to make these really viable for people to build. I also about the design guidelines and relating to prefab structures which I've brought up before. If you. I don't even know how this time review would mesh with pre-fab structures of prefab structure. It is or it isn't. Design review is all about tweaking and compromising, but you can't do that with prefab structures. So if you eliminate prefab structures, you've that's a whole other bunch of way to use that. You've eliminated a 600 square foot cottage isn't big enough for an accessible one bedroom. Thank you very much. You. She's our last speaker on this item. BUZZER Are there any other slips. This lady is. Did you turn as a speaker? Said you. Called. Me ma'am. All right. Sorry. Go ahead. Donna Hagan. Oh, okay. Good, good. Then you're the last speaker. Yeah, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Okay. I'm a renter here in the area. I've been here for about a year and a half. And I love I mean, it's a great place. Your issue seems like it's been 600 square feet, 1200 square feet. Whatever the square footage is, to me, that doesn't make any difference. The issue is we have zero tolerance on the streets for parking. And, you know, I'm not even talking about the bridges to go here and there. That doesn't make any difference. I'm just talking about street parking where you live. And because of that, I really think that in any kind of design mode, whatever the square footage is, that decided that there should be included in that, that there needs to be parking off street for that unit and not tandem parking, but parking, you know, if they have a big enough slot to put 600 507 on or 1200, however big their lot is, it has to be off the street because there's zero tolerance on our streets now in Alameda for any parking, it's impossible. So to add a thousand or 1200 units or whatever might happen, you're adding a lot of impact to the residents that already live on the streets of Alameda. So it's really important that I believe that it's critical that it be off street parking for these new units and not tandem, which creates issues that have been brought up tonight. Thank you. All right. She's our last speaker. Council members who wanted to go next. A member Ashcraft. And may I ask staff member Alan Tie to come up so I can ask him a few questions for clarification, please. Five questions first, Mr. Chai. Thank you, Mr. Chai. We heard a lot of comments, and I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page. Literally and figuratively. Would you spend some time talking about this 1200 square foot size? Can anybody decide to put a 1200 square foot edu accessory dwelling unit in their backyard? Thank you, Madam Mayor. Members of Council, L.A. Planning Services Manager. So the state law sets a maximum of 1200 as a ceiling for an EDU. But the requirement is actually the lesser of 50% of the existing floor area of the main dwelling or 1200 square feet. So in order to build a 1200 square foot adu, your house has to be at least 2400 square feet in size. And let me just clarify, is it your house like all two or three stories of your house add up to 2400 square feet? Or is it the footprint on the lot? It's a total floor area. So if you have two floors, then that that would be the gross floor and not the footprint. Okay. And what about a percentage of light coverage? So our proposed ordinance also stipulates that including the footprint of the the you and the footprint of the main building, including any impervious surfaces, including like a paved driveway, paved patio. All of that cannot be more than 60% of the total land area. And is there a limit to how many stories an accessory dwelling unit can be, one that's freestanding and not in the basement, obviously. Yes. Detached accessory buildings are current requirements are one story. No taller than 15 feet. And 15 feet is actually measure to the peak of the roof. So the side walls, there's actually a special, specific requirement that the walls cannot be more than ten feet tall. And what is cinderblock dwelling be allowed. Under the current rules? If the main house is built as cinder block, then yes, your accessory building, you're 80. You must be a cinder block wall. What staff is trying to do with the new language is to add flexibility where you don't have to do that. But could you answer her question? Your question was could well, you could be under the current proposal. Could it be made out of cinder block? So, Madam Mayor, I think I did hear the answer. If the if the main house is cinder block, do we have main houses that are cinder block in Alameda? Very rarely. I think there might be a few, but the answer is you would have to go through the zoning reviews via design review staff would review the proposed design of the building. Under the proposed ordinance. Under the proposed ordinance, staff would have the discretion using our city's design review manual to make a decision whether a cinder block would be appropriate. I would say in most cases we won't come to that decision. And you mentioned design review, and we heard a lot of comments to the effect that there would be no design review for accessory dwelling units. Can you clarify for us. Yes. When when surface for referring to design review? In this case, I'm referring to the lower case design review where staff is reviewing the plans. We are doing architectural review of the plans, comparing it with our design review manual, make sure that the proposed architecture and details would comply with the provisions. What's different about that architectural review process done by staff? Staff level with the capital? D.R. Design Review is that there's just no public notice. There's not an appeals process, and that's all stipulated under state law. The review process has to be ministerial. If you meet the city's requirements, which includes design standards and design criteria, then you get a building permit. And in the the correspondence that you had today with Mr. Bartley from the Architectural Preservation Society. And thank you for copying us on it. You made the point that in Berkeley, in Oakland, because those ordinances were pointed out, they actually allow accessory dwelling units of up to 75% of the existing floor area. But in Alameda, we are limiting it to no more than 50% of the existing floor area. That's correct. And in still, it would have to fall within the limitations on how much impervious surface can be, can be occupied, can be covered. And what about Mr. Buckley always raised this great. I don't see him, but he always raises great points and makes me think he's concerned with. I think it's a permissive language of whether you need to use the same materials as in the main house, the existing home for your accessory dwelling unit. Can you tell us why the language is permissive and not mandatory? So I should very clarify. There are different standards for the different situations. Obviously, if you're proposing to add an 80 you to the back of your house so that it's part of one building, our requirement, a proposed requirement is yes, it would have to match so that it's one building. I don't think there's any controversy there. The other option, obviously, would be if you were located on a corner lot or in the rare cases where your main house is built on the back of the lot and there's a lot of open space in the front in your property, that's where you're proposing the adu in the front of the lot. Staff is also proposing in those cases that the the on the corner lot and in the front yard that the architecture match matched the main building. But in all other cases where really you're having a detached unit in the backyard, what staff is putting in the ordinance is we look at the immediate surrounding and and via the amendments to the draft ordinance introduced at the last council meeting, we we clarified it by saying immediate surroundings and, and based on past precedent and how staff describes properties and immediate surrounding really means immediately adjacent buildings. So we would look at what is what is on the property, what is the main building look like, what do the adjacent buildings look like? And we use that as a standard to decide what the EDU should look like. And this is these are provisions based these are based on provisions that are already in the city's design review manual. The city's design review manual tells staff that, hey, when you are deciding on compatibility for new buildings, look at the surroundings. And so that's how we crafted this language. And my last clarifying question is talk about if in 80 you were to be built in the front yard of a dwelling, ie, there are some lots in Alameda that probably have a front yard large enough. What kinds of design review considerations applications would there be? So in that case, our proposed language would would say that you would have to look at the existing main building and try to mimic that character. So the same basically match the the building, the main building that's in the back. Okay. Thank you, Mr. TIME and reminder. Yes, a thank you, Mr. Tai, for clarifying that and answering the questions that were posed. I do think it's important that. There be a direct reference having heard what people. But what was this question? Did you have questions? Answer any clarifying questions. Sorry. Also for that, our vice mayor. Is there? There was a question raised about the setbacks, and I know that there's a reference to section 30, Dash 5.7 F, which includes some set back requirements and also some requirements. Are those still going to apply? Yes. Or how we're defining to use in audiences. They are a type of accessory building. So the section that you reference in the municipal code covers all of that. And so setbacks would apply. So all of the setbacks would apply. Okay. Thank you. And then my other question has to do with when you mentioned adjacent properties other than a corner building, would there be a scenario where staff would be looking at the design of a building on the street behind the house? Meaning the house behind the existing structure on the other street. Yeah. With, with AIDS and all new buildings, staff will always be looking at the design regardless of the situation. I think in the case where there might be a street behind the house. We would also factor in adjacency and from that public street what the structure would look like. And so those are all provisions already in the city's design review manual. And then relative to the footprint question, there is language that I saw that said that it must be subordinate to the footprint. So what does that mean? Subordinate means smaller. So we would we would ask that a for a detached building again because 80 use or accessory buildings and by definition, accessory buildings are really subordinate. They are accessory. I don't think staff would accept then, you know, 12. Well, the maximum size requirement already dictates that it's no greater than 50%. So I have a question. So if the building the total gross square footage of the building is 2400 square feet, including a second story, but the ground floor was 1200 square feet. Could the and assuming that the property was large enough and had enough permeable, short square footage and surfaces, could you build a 1200 square foot? Accessory dwelling? No. In that case, staff's response would be the proposed building is not subordinate by design, by footprint. Okay. And I had asked a question at the previous meeting on this issue as to whether or not we had any information. I know we had figured out that perhaps 15% would be eligible based off of the square footage of the property and the square footage of the house. Do we have any information relative to the impact of the permeable surfaces? That was one of my questions before was how out of those, how many would be ineligible because of lack of permeable square foot surfaces? Unfortunately, that's not data that we have for each property. So but what we would have to do is look into the 15% universe of 15% a little bit more. And what we found is that the majority of those larger homes are located in Harbor Bay. And previously I've explained that in the Harbor Bay community, it's a planned development. It's these homes are pretty much built to the maximum coverage. There's really, I would say, almost no space to accommodate a detached structure. Another about 300 units are also located at Bay Port. There's also some percentage of units located in the newer developments like Tri Pointe Marina Cove and where where there are strict design requirements and development regulations that I would say preclude detached ADA use. And then the remainder of lots that would be eligible for a detached 80, you would be sort of in the neighborhood of the Gold Coast. Mm hmm. Also and also for inside where you have large lots along the water. But a lot of those lots already have existing accessory buildings. Thank you. Member Odie. Thank you. My questions were kind of similar to the vice mayor's. So of this 50% number, that 50% is just based on square footage, right? That's correct. So we don't know of the actual lots. How many? I'm sorry. Let's go back to the the footprint thing. So the even though we say you could put a 1200 square foot adu on a lot, that includes a 2400 square foot house. I mean, the reality is, if 1200 is the first floor, it has to be subordinate. Yes. Right. So really that number of 2400, that 15% is like super inflated, right? Correct. And it's important to remember that the maximum size is really just one of a list of development standards or setbacks that the impervious surface coverage, the design criteria about subordinate structures. And we don't have an idea. I'm sorry I let you finish. I'm sorry. And we don't have an idea of how many of those 15% actually have ads on them now. Right. The the 15% to 15%. There are no ideas. Okay. And then do we have an idea? And I think you kind of answered this with the vice mayor's question, but how many of those that might be eligible to have a 1200 square foot adu based on the the property size? You know, actually, you'd be able to do that because of the permeable surface. Yeah. That's not something that we can figure out. We just don't have data about how much pavement people have in their yards or driveways. And and we also don't have information about all the setbacks and whether the square footage is one or two floors. Yeah, that's just not data that's available. Okay, thanks. And then the you know, we heard some concerns about parking. I mean, what to what extent can we consider parking in adopting an ADU ordinance under the new state law? So under the state law, one of the things that the state legislature legislature did was provide a number of situations where parking cities cannot require parking. One of which is if the ADA is located within a half mile of public transit, and that basically rules out the entire city of Alameda because we are at this point transit friendly. And then just a couple more quick questions on on Mr. Buckley's email. I think he he referenced the new ordinance and then he referenced the design manual. And it sounded like the point he was trying to make was the design manual was a little more strict than the ordinance. So how do we reconcile that, given that we're we're not supposed to make it unduly burdensome? Right. So the design guidelines are guidelines are intended to support ordinances and sort of expand on it. In this case, we have situation where the provisions in our design manuals is very specific on unnecessary buildings. And but by broadening that, adding flexibility in the code, we're actually able to open that up. And then I think there was a hypothetical that I mean, can we build a modular if you lived on Grand Street, for example, could you build a modular home? Edu, in your front yard? In the front yard, if the main building is modular? Okay. I don't think there are any solar. So I'm thinking like for the moment that they're not. So the answer would be no. Okay. I won't do that. I just want to say thank you. I'm finished. All right. I want to ask questions. So in regards to the new California state law requires, could our ordinance require more design review than what is being proposed? Are we? Are we allowing more homes to be approved without design review? More aid used to be approved without design review. Then you think we have to. So procedurally, the design review will still happen. But at staff level, as I had explained it, if if you are thinking about the public notification aspect of the city's current design review process, then if the ADA application meets the ordinance requirements, then no, there will not be the public notification. Could the city decide to insert a design review process that that would be possible, but we would have to change a lot of the provisions in our proposed ordinance. Okay. So I want to get back to so the comments of 600 square feet versus 1200 square feet that range. Could the city propose an ordinance that requires public notice to the neighbors or proposed to use that are 600 feet or greater and still be in compliance with the California law? Yes, but that basically means where we're referring back to our current ordinance. But that would be in compliance with the current law. Yes. Thank you. All right. Any other questions, vice mayor? What's the estimated cost of a publicly noticed design review versus the internal staff design review? So the way the ordinance is written is if you don't meet the requirements and you have to go through the design review, it's design review plus a use permit. So a use permit costs 1600 dollars. Design review is also about another 600. So. Okay. And relative to what staff is considering, you said you don't have the data relative to the permeable surfaces or the setbacks. Those would those be things that staff considers as part of their design review process? Yes. And Brody, did you have questions? I think you've started one more question. So I think I asked this last time, but then, Mr. Buckley, it sent around different audiences. And the question related to whether we could require some type of affordability restriction. And back when we did this the first time, I think we talked a lot about the Piedmont ordinance. And then it looked like in the documents that that were sent to us that the new Piedmont Ordinance does include some type of of affordability restrictions. So can you talk a little bit about what we might or might not be able to do regarding some type of affordability restrictions? I'm sorry. Let me because I think the answer I was told last time was that would be an undue burden. But then I, I mean, I think that's the new Piedmont Ordinance that Mr. Buckley sent. So I'm just wondering if you can reconcile that. Yeah. Steph's position would be that any requirement for affordability or or requirement that's not provided under state law could be interpreted as a burdensome and excessive requirement. Again, understanding the purpose of the state law was to streamline and remove the obstacles. There are other components of the Piedmont Ordinance that staff has looked at as well, such as them requiring a separate design review permit that the first I think it might raise some legal issues, but because it's a another city's ordinance, I won't comment on that. But it would be my interpretation of the state law that if the city were to introduce requirements that weren't provided in the legislation, that there might be some legal concern. I appreciate the. Thank you. Amber Ashcraft. And. Mr. Chai I think it was some of the correspondence we got previously talked about how and you actually referenced that we have properties that have accessory units in the back, usually not accessory dwelling units because this is the new ordinance we're looking at. But they've in many cases they have been left to deteriorate with this ordinance be applicable to someone who say I long for inside has a, you know, a boathouse or something that's no longer a boathouse. But they wanted to convert it. Could they could they come to the city with an application to make it into an accessory dwelling unit. Provided that there's only one main building and one unit on the property? Yes, that's a possibility. And they would still have to meet all of the requirements and the proposed ordinance. Yeah. The requirements that you've set forth. Okay. Okay. Okay. I believe that completes council question. Questions? Yeah. Okay. Comments. Motion member matter. SC I just wanted to clarify because my understanding and I think it's reasonable based on what, what I've heard and of. A review of what we talked about last time, that the fact is a 1200 square foot building is quite large. And this is not about design review. This is design review from everything. And it was confirmed tonight. Design review is going to happen for every accessory dwelling unit. And I think that provides a certain amount of protection. So I think that issue is I'm fine with that issue. The second issue is with what is by right, which my understanding, again, I think it was confirmed tonight, is anything up to 600 square feet by state law is by right and a ministerial review which includes design reviews, small D, small R. So I think that's fine. I think anything bigger than 600 square feet should have the notification and public input to the design review. So I'd like to see that. You know, I'd like to see that in our current ordinance. And I think it does make it different than the existing ordinance. And then lastly on, I think staff talked about a front yard and side yard. I think anything that can be visible from the street and. Visible from the public street should be subject to the design guideline. Those are my comments. Thank you. Want to go next? All right. I'll go next, if you may. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to go back to the preamble to the state legislation. It's section 65852.15 of the California government code. That is the basis of this ordinance we're talking about, says that accessory dwelling units are a valuable form of housing in California because they provide housing for family members , students, the elderly and home health care providers, the disabled and others at below market prices within existing neighborhoods. Homeowners who create accessory dwelling units benefit from added income and increased sense of security. Having someone there living on the property. One of our speakers, a realtor with a big, beautiful house, mentioned that she likes having people living there with her and Addus also provide additional rental housing stock in California. And because they are smaller, they lower the cost of housing within existing neighborhoods while respecting architecture character. And so they because there were some comments made, about 600 square feet is all you need. You can provide the person who lives there and a caregiver. That's all you need. And I would say we're not really all about one size fits all in Alameda. We are unique. But I'm also cognizant of the fact that, as Mr. Ty pointed out, those larger homes with larger lots that would even accommodate an accessory dwelling unit tend to be in neighborhoods that wouldn't that don't have that extra space. So Harbor Bay, the homes there are lovely and large and I love the way it's laid out. Their backyards are not big. Bayport is similar, but there may be some we've I don't have the cities in front of me, but it's single digit. How many of these have even been approved since the ordinance has been on our but before the state law came into effect. But I am still mindful and but I want to say to all you speakers and I do appreciate you coming out and what I hear from all of you and not the ones just the ones who spoke tonight. But you've been emailing. So you really care about Alameda. You care about the character, what we look like. It's you know, it's a charming city and you're not alone. We do to every one of us on the city council. We don't want ugly things built in our house. And we. In our house. I sorry. I was looking at that adorable young family leave because we got too late, I guess, and just thinking we have this need in our city, in our region, in our state. We are trying to address it. I know it brings up a lot of fear. We fear the unknown. We fear what's happened in the past. In other times in Alameda, when there weren't regulations on the books, we saw Victorians torn down. We saw those what could be affectionately referred to as Soviet style apartment blocks built on some lovely historic streets. We don't do that anymore, and that's good. And I also want to say that we have a city government, a planning department, we have a design review manual, and we and when it was amended most recently and any time it's amended, it's done in a public hearing and there's lots of public input. And so that would be applied. Our planners care about what Alameda looks like, too, which is the reason you haven't seen cinderblock houses going up, by the way. So I do understand your concerns. I've heard a little bit of misinformation about, you know, just everybody who wants to can slap up a 1200 square foot accessory dwelling unit, but they can't. And we have restrictions in place and we also have some very compelling needs. But I think this is one of those instances where we really can address competing interest and interests. It is not an either or. So I certainly support the ordinance that the majority of this council passed last time. Thank you, Mayor. Vice Mayor. I'll keep it brief. I think, you know, at the end of the day, I have concerns with the 600 square foot limit, partially because of, you know, the added cost of having the public process. And second of all, relative to the fact that, you know, if you look at the universal design ordinance that we have been working on, I, I have spoken with several architects regarding the requirements of universal design. And 600 square feet is not going to really allow to meet all of the requirements of our universal design ordinance to make an accessory dwelling fully accessible. And I, I really don't want to hinder that process either. So it seems to me like if we did a design review it public design review requirement at the 600 foot limit, we're almost punishing people for building accessible, 100% accessible universal units, which is something I would like to avoid, especially because a number of people who have contacted me relative to wanting to build accessory dwellings have spoken about wanting to age in place and have a, you know, a unit that or have a unit that they could have a family member who they're caring for stay in. So for those reasons, I think the 600 square foot barrier would be too low. I do hear the concerns relative to the where an accessory dwelling would be built in the front yard or the side yard. I'd be willing to consider something under 1200 square feet for those parcels where it would be out front and center. But again, 600 square foot would be, I think, too low in terms of meeting the accessory accessibility requirement. So, you know, that's the only scenario where I would be comfortable looking at lowering it from 1200 square feet, because I do think that when it's front and center like that and people are going to be seeing it, I don't think that there's harm necessarily in public notice, but I wouldn't want to put the number too far below a thousand square feet. Let me ask. Sorry. But 750 square feet notice. Is that too low for you? May I ask a question? Let me let me start asking. And you can but remember memory. I want to speak. But you had raised the comment. So if you could just think about that and then I'll go to member Ody. Member Ody. Thank you, Madam Chair. Most of the comments I would have said have been spoken already by my three colleagues. I do feel we do have robust design standards and our staff pays really close attention to them. So I also feel comfortable that we're not going to have adus of any size approved that are out of character for either the individual lot or the individual neighborhoods. What does concern me and you know, except in the situation where, you know, you have a a landlord tenant relationship, I really believe that we should not interfere too much with people that want to improve their property. I mean, it's their property. I mean, unless they're leasing it or and in the business of providing housing, you know, I don't want to see property owners like the property owner on Saint Charles go through that long and onerous process just for a parking garage. I mean, they want to redo their garage now. I can't imagine what would have happened if they wanted to put an accessory dwelling unit in their backyard. And I think that gets to the gist of the entire thing we're trying to do here, which is remove the barriers for folks that want to do that. So I think that the design review process, having it in public I think is a significant barrier. And, you know, I'm pretty comfortable with the existing ordinance the way it's written. I just want to add before I close, I, I do appreciate the input of Aaps and I did have an opportunity to speak with Chris today. And I'm not one who has any negative inferences or thoughts of apps. I really enjoy the letters and your input and your thoughtful analysis and actually talking to you when I have that opportunity to do so. And we're continuing to do that. So I want to thank you for all of all that you do to help keep the charm of Alameda the way we love it. So I plan on supporting this as it is. Member Ashcraft. You know I'm okay if you know, I want to hear your comments. So. Well. I was hoping to see about reducing so the houses I won't be able to support, but that obviously if you want to make a motion, my preference would be to require a public notice and. So that there could be that conversation with the neighbors. At a lower square. Footage. You know, my comment was really for the properties where it's built, being built in the front yard or the side yard. And the number that I had heard from some of the architects that I had spoken with prior to the meeting regarding the universal design aspect was 850 square feet. So for for the for the accessory dwellings. And I think that this really, you know, reading through the comments from apes and hearing everybody speak tonight, I think it has to do with, you know, making sure we're preserving the kind of overall charm of the neighborhood. And in that aspect, I can understand concerns relative to the design of accessory dwellings in the front yard or the side yard where it's going to be visible from the street. And so so I'll I'll make an. Well, I'd like to hear from my other colleagues to hear if. I think we've heard. I don't remember. Did your state member matter? Well, I'd like to make a motion to have the existing of these the existing text of this be amended to, um, have anything greater than 600 square feet, require notice and have to it explicit. In here, the design review will be conducted regardless and for any. The third is for any accessory dwelling unit visible from a public street. It has to meet the design guidelines. Is there a second? You know what? I have a question. Remember, we can. Can we make those? Hypothetically, can we make those changes and still qualify for a second reading or. Okay. So we would have to have another we have another meeting to have a second reading if this person. I have a Ashcroft. So I am concerned with. Let me go ahead. I'll second and then you can make your comments. Okay. I'll second the motion member. So I cannot support this because I we have all been waiting for the universal design ordinance to come along. And I think that we have to in this city be mindful of people of all differing needs. We want people to be able to age in place. We had correspondence from people who talked about wanting to build an accessory dwelling unit in their backyard, move into that and rent out their main house. So I don't want to start limiting our ability to apply the universal design ordinance, which I think most people know. But it means when you build, you build so that people who might need a wheelchair or a walker, a greater turning radius, so wider doorways, wider hallways can can be there. It's it's allowing people the dignity of living in their home and sometimes without a caregiver, sometimes with a caregiver. So I, I might consider coming down in the square footage number, but not to something that would conflict with universal design ordinance because the rights of the folks who would need that are. Important to. Remember matter. S.E., I don't have any evidence other than what was relayed verbally that we would preclude universal design in a 600 square foot. And it is. So. Yeah. Okay. So we had a motion and a second. Can I. Go to make my. Comment? I mean, what you know, what might be helpful in this is perhaps in six months we hear back from staff, you know, kind of an overview of the 82 applications that we have. And we can look at the pictures, we can have an update on if any of these other cities, more restrictive ordinances are being challenged in court and kind of see if if we put this in place, if it needs to be tweaked, because if we don't have any of these I mean, we had six applications from the beginning of the year. I mean, if we still have six more and they're all backyards of less than 600 square feet like the current ones, the current six are I mean. You know. Are we really you know, are we chasing something that's not there? And so we have a motion and a second. So and I'll go ahead and call that question and then we can have. Right. Okay. So I'll call that question. All those in favor. I, i. Oppose. No, no motion fails. Is there another motion? I'll make a motion to accept the language as is, but to add a requirement that it come back to council in six months time with an update as to what has transpired in the six months relative to applications within the city of Alameda, as well as the laws being passed in neighboring jurisdictions. There is. May I just clarify that? So that's not part of the ordinance. That's just direction to staff? Correct. Correct. Very second. I'll second. Any comments? All those in favor. I oppose. No, I oppose motion passes. 3 to 2. Thank you. All right. Now we move on to 6:36 a.m.. Oh, I'm sorry. 6 a.m.. Adoption of resolutions appointing Unterberg in Jennifer Barrett and Lisa Hall as members of the Commission on Disability Issues, Ron Taylor and Joseph Van Winkle as members of the Gulf Commission. Amber Bailes, Cynthia Silva, Travis Wilson and Dorothy Lismore as members of the Library Board. And Laura Palmer as. A member of the Transportation. Commission. Move approval, Madam Mayor. Thank you. All those in favor. I motion carries unanimously. So all of those that are here. Would you please come up to the podium with the names that she just read? Our new commission members. Ron Taylor. I'm sorry. I'll start with Aunt Anto. I don't know. Get me in. Jennifer Barrett. Lisa Hall. Ron Taylor. Jo Van Winkle. Amber Bailes. Cynthia Silva. Travis Wilson, Dorothy Whisper and Laura Palmer. If you're here, please approach the podium. Thank you. And you'll be sworn in. You take your oath. I got one. Okay. That's fine. But no. I just. I just. I was actually on. He. But. Please raise your right hands. Do you solemnly swear that you will support the. Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and that you will faithfully discharge the duties of the office. Of the. City of Alameda according to the. Best of your ability. Right. Thank you. If you would, please. Welcome. New commission members. Hmm. Okay. I'm moving. You guys. We're going to take a five minute short recess while they're doing that. Okay. Okay. Is that? Take your. Seats. If they really could. Please take your seats so we can resume. All right. The next item is. Six B. Assemble a public hearing to consider introduction of ordinance. Amending the Disposition and Development Agreement between Alameda Point Partners LLC and the City of Alameda for CI eight at Alameda Point. We have a staff member. Let's go. If you want to speak on this item, please submit your slips.