Speaker 0: Public hearing to consider an appeal of certain conditions of approval imposed by Planning Board Resolution Number PB 2010 approving a waiver of the Universal Residential Design Ordinance Alameda Municipal Code Section 30, Dash 18 for the proposed development and 2229 to 2235 Clement Avenue and adoption of related resolution.
Speaker 1: All right. And I thought we might have Andrew Thomas here. All right. Hello, Mr. Thomas. Are you presenting, I take it?
Speaker 3: Yes. I'll make this quick as well. Can you hear me okay?
Speaker 1: Yeah, just fine.
Speaker 3: All right. I'm Andrew Thomas. Planning building and transportation director at the council may remember that the city council, the planning board and staff have been working very hard over the last three or four months on what we all know as the Boat Works project. In March, the City Council took an important action to really resolve over 15 years of disputes and really move this project forward so we can finally get that new housing and waterfront access that we've been talking about for many, many years of the boat work site located on Clement at the corner of Oak. So there's been a number of actions that we've all been working on over the last few months. In March, the council approved the settlement agreement. In April, the council, a planning board, and the council in two separate meetings recommended and then adopted the development plan, tentative map and other entitlements for the project. At that time in April, the Council may remember that there was a request from the applicant for a waiver of universal design requirements. Staff did not recommend that waiver. At that time, we felt it was premature because there's a process laid out in the ordinance for that, for the consideration of those waivers and that process hadn't been followed. So the council approved the entitlements in April, but not the waiver. In May, the applicant began working with staff and brought their waiver to the Disability Commission for review and comment. The Disabilities Commission's job is to advise the.
Speaker 2: Planning Board.
Speaker 3: On these types of waivers. So their recommendations went to the Planning Board on May 11th. The Planning Board considered a recommendation to approve the waiver from staff with a list of conditions that had been negotiated with the applicant. At that meeting, the Planning Board added a few more conditions with the intent of making all of the units more adaptable and the Planning Board believed, based on the conversations that occurred with the applicant at the meeting, that the applicant was was comfortable with those conditions. The Planning Board under fully understands the history of this project and the many years of of dispute. So they were working hard to try to work something out that would improve the project but also be acceptable to the applicant. But, you know, as these Zoom meetings go, communication was a little bit difficult, I think. And shortly after, a few days after the meeting, the boat works team realized that there were a few of the conditions they couldn't live with and they needed to request some amendments to those to those conditions. So their only recourse at that point was to appeal to council the proposed adjustments to the Planning Board's additional conditions. Staff is recommending that you approve changes this. If you do and uphold their appeal request, then that will be really a major milestone in moving this project towards completion. And for from staff's perspective, we it was disappointing that we weren't able to do better with the universal design requirements, but to do so would require a complete redesign of this project. And given the history of the project and given all the work that's been done by all the boards and commissions over the last few years, that that just we can't recommend going trying to go back that way. And we just think it would lead to more dispute and argument. So we're recommending you uphold the appeal and make the adjustments to the conditions as shown in the attached remarks. But that I will do my presentation and I'm available to answer any questions that the board may have. Excuse me, the city council may have. I think we also have representatives from the boat works team. They're here to answer questions if you need them. They don't have any comments to make at this time.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Thomas. And I think, Councilmember Belton, I see your hand up for your hand. Okay. Um, so any questions of Mr. Thomas and seeing then, Madam Clerk, do we have any public.
Speaker 2: Speakers here remembered?
Speaker 0: Have one quick comment on the zoom. I was muted. Sorry, I.
Speaker 1: All right. Hello, Miss Kenny.
Speaker 2: Hello. Thank you for having me tonight. I want to give you a little bit more context of what happened at the Commission on Disability. We recommended against grabbing this way. This waiver represents a gutting of the universal design, and the presenting materials presented by the works did not demonstrate how this was financially feasible. It definitely would cost time and we have a commission definitely want to keep things moving. As far as we understand, there's a housing crisis.
Speaker 3: But at this point.
Speaker 2: This waiver, when it was brought to us, lacked sincerity. As far as one of the things I asked is, are there ways that we can have accessibility through the garage? That's one of the things that the planning board asked them to.
Speaker 3: Look into in.
Speaker 2: Section three, that they're asking as part of their waiver on what the.
Speaker 3: Planning.
Speaker 2: Board asked them to do. If you can have an.
Speaker 3: Entrance through.
Speaker 2: Another door to the garage, that opens up townhomes.
Speaker 3: To people the way.
Speaker 2: That this boat works. Design Right now, almost every universal design unit is going to be in the affordable housing building. None of the townhomes would be accessible or vegetables. And. The so the fact that the commission did not want this, we understood that given the litigious nature of the works. It was likely to go through. We asked for them to consider other ways that they could include accessibility. The fact that we're now here because they didn't want to even consider concluding those other ways speaks to the concerns that we had in the first place. This is the attempt to go the universal design or news and ask.
Speaker 3: To increase.
Speaker 2: Process on the part of the disabled community. This is not.
Speaker 3: This this there's.
Speaker 2: No demonstration here of why they can't even consider as the project develops, seeing how they can create opportunities for entrance into a unit so that somebody can come in, but they don't want to do that. That's what they're asking you to do tonight. I think that the section that they're asking you to leave it under is really interesting because it says for affordable housing costs. Now, all of nine of the concepts that they're asking you to rate tonight have to do with the affordable housing section of this development. It all has to do with the townhomes.
Speaker 3: And the.
Speaker 2: Single family.
Speaker 3: Homes.
Speaker 2: This time. That is not the issue.
Speaker 1: And your time is up. Thank you, Miss Kenny.
Speaker 0: Do anybody else a speaker who has raised their hand. Okay. Shona Armstrong.
Speaker 1: All right. And okay. Ms.. Armstrong is with the applicant, correct?
Speaker 2: Yes. Right.
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. Ms.. Armstrong. Hi.
Speaker 2: I just wanted to respond to the comment that the applicant is very willing to consider and look at additional accessibility possibilities. The letter from the engineer that accompanied the request for the waiver laid out the limitations, and he worked really hard at trying to figure out how to make them maximally accessible, given the layout that's been approved through this complex process that we've all been a part of the problem. One of the big problems is that accessible and visible under the code actually doesn't allow for access through the garage. It has to be accessed through the door. So while there could well, someone could get in through the garage, it doesn't qualify under the law. And so that's why we're asking for this waiver. But we're very open and will be looking for opportunities to provide additional accessibility. We just.
Speaker 1: Given the layout that has been very.
Speaker 2: Laboriously worked out at this point, I can't promise that it will meet the specifics of the code in every respect.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. Anything further?
Speaker 2: No, thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Armstrong. Madam, quick, do we have any further comments? Public comments?
Speaker 0: No, we have none.
Speaker 1: All right. And Mr. Thomas, back to you. Did you want to add anything?
Speaker 3: No, I don't think there's anything to add at this point. I apologize. I didn't mean to misrepresent the disability commission. They were very concerned with the design for sure. And I think from from staff perspective, you know, one of the big problems with this project and it's not an inherent yes, it is an inherent problem. I mean, we designed this project in 2011. Those of you who've been around with us, you know, we weren't thinking about universal design in 2011. We're just starting to what we're resolving tonight, if we move this forward, if the council moves us forward, is really resolving a series of issues that have revolved around that project. If we were starting from scratch, we would probably and had the luxury of being able to completely redesign the project today. We probably could do better from a universal design perspective. I'm sure we could, but as I said earlier, that we're just really staff doesn't feel the city has the luxury to be able to say, hey, let's just start over. I think what we've been trying to achieve over the last few months is, well, let's let's complete this, let's finish, move on. And I think the last thing I would say is I think we as a community can stay committed to our universal design audience. This I hope this project is an anomaly, not, you know, a new standard.
Speaker 1: And just for my clarification, so what Ms.. Armstrong said and I thought I'd read it in the staff report, is that it is still possible to enter a unit through the garage, that some of the town hall units.
Speaker 3: That's on on a number of the units have everything.
Speaker 2: Needed to.
Speaker 3: Be universal design. The issue is meeting the grade for a wheelchair to get from either the alley or the sidewalk into the unit. And if you do a strict interpretation of the slopes and does that meet the requirement that I think believe the 5% grade? No, that does not on either side. I think what Shauna is describing is and.
Speaker 2: The engineers that work with each.
Speaker 3: Unit as we move through the process, they can look at literally each house. I mean, we're now we're talking about a foot, a couple inches here, there, and the grading that can make the difference so that it.
Speaker 2: Would meet the.
Speaker 3: Legal standard. I mean, if you're good in a wheelchair, you're going to be able to get into this unit. But does it meet a legal standard? That's sort of the ADA standard for 5%. No, it does not.
Speaker 1: But if I recall correctly, and I'm just revisiting this staff report, this is I mean, there is still a percentage of units that have the excess.
Speaker 2: Yes. Yes, it.
Speaker 3: Is. Let me just clarify for the record, I think the standard in our ordinance, 30% universal design. This project is 15%. And then the other standard in our ordinance is 100% visibility. And this project has 50% visibility. So it's essentially it's getting 50% of the requirement both both both criteria.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Counsel Comments.
Speaker 0: He doesn't want to be councilmember.
Speaker 1: Councilman. Oh, I'm sorry. Miss Weiss, are you telling me something?
Speaker 0: We were just. Mr. McGillis, I think he's representing the project. He was wanting to comment, I think, but I didn't know if he was clarifying a point or we're not exactly sure. Robert Okay. Do you think he's.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, counsel, hold your thoughts. What? We just finished a public comment and if indeed we support everybody. Hello?
Speaker 3: Can you hear me? Appreciate your time tonight. I just wanted to point out a couple of things related to extensibility. It's important for.
Speaker 1: Research. For those of us who don't quite recognize your name, although it looks familiar, could you just tell us who you are and how you're feeling? I think no worries.
Speaker 3: My name is Robert McGinnis. I'm one of the project architects for the project. I've been working with city staff Andrew Thomas for years on this project, hoping to get some this project realized to the benefit of the community. I just wanted to point out to the council members and members of the public who might not realize that this project, as proposed, far exceeds the state of California's accessibility. The challenge we had was recognizing the universal design ordinance and some of the criteria there. And so I think the painting of a picture that we're not trying to do or achieve accessibility may be misconstrued by some of the comments that were made. But we're certainly we tried after the planning board made some recommendation recommendations to accommodate those things. And so we did work as much of that as we could back into the current proposal. So I think it's important to note.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. Anything further?
Speaker 3: No, that's all. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. And, Madam Clerk, any. Any further public speakers?
Speaker 0: That was all. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. So I know I was calling on someone. Councilmember Odie. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Mayor. So this is a question for Mr. Thomas. And if you don't know the answer, that's fine. Um, my other projects that we've approved prior to the universal design, I mean, what are their numbers? Because this is, what, 15 and 50, right? Yeah, I know. The the other, the more recent project, which I don't have the exact numbers, was the Pulte Alameda Landing Waterfront Project, about 350 units. I forget their exact, uh, uh, universal design numbers, but I believe it was also around 15%. Now they had the benefit of a development agreement where we had pre-negotiated the 15%, but that was all done before we did our universal design ordinance. So but it adds, you know, it's it does come back to the that project as well is a lot of townhomes and the townhomes are very difficult to get the visibility. The other great example is Alameda Marina. Alameda Marina, if you remember, about 700 units total, about half in multi-family housing, you know, stacked flats with elevators. The other half and townhomes they doubled are universal design standard. Because of that housing type, they were able to get not 30%, but 50%. Now, on the townhomes, they struggled and they had to come to the disability commission planning board for a waiver on the visibility because that's 100% requirement and it affects the townhomes as well. So, you know, I think if you're doing a multifamily building with elevator, our ordinance is not hard to meet. If you're doing townhomes, it's really it's very problematic. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Any further questions or comments? Emotion. I was vice mayor.
Speaker 3: I'm happy to make a motion to, but I'm just a quick comment. I appreciate Mr. and Mrs. Kenney and Mr. Thomas making very cogent arguments for why townhomes are a housing type that doesn't meet a number of our city goals. Unfortunately, there are also the housing type that tends to pay for the infrastructure and the projects, and so we end up having to pay for those. As somebody who in and I know a number of us did work really hard on the universal design. It is not easy to, you know, kind of grant waivers like this. But as Mr. Thomas pointed out, this is a project that we've been working on since 2011. I think we have had very good success on projects where we they come in and they know that the universal design ordinance is there or we set out the goals ahead of time. And I certainly don't think that this is a project where we're going to be able to go back and easily recreate it from scratch in order to do that to meet the new update updated ordinance. So with that, I would be I would move for approval of the staff recommendation to make the amendments to grant the waiver.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. We have a motion to have a second.
Speaker 3: I will reluctantly. Second.
Speaker 1: Okay. Councilmember Ody has seconded any discussion. I will just say that I read this staff report carefully. Actually, a couple of times. And I. I deeply appreciate the work that our Commission on Persons with Disabilities does. And they are all very committed individuals. I, I also understand the struggles that this project grapples with. And I was convinced from reading the staff report in the supporting documents that a good faith effort has gone into this and that the the intentionality is there. I and I I'm also heartened by the fact that there it is possible to enter through the garage. So even though in some of the townhomes, depending on the grade. But so even though that can't be counted towards meeting code, it's, you know, it would offer some visibility. But I do think that best efforts have been made. I think this is one area where I would say to consider not to make the perfect the enemy of the good, because we have struggled for a long time to get housing built in this very, you know, desirable location close to public transit. And and again, we we do have universal design and visibility, just you not the the the maximum percentage. So I am fully prepared to support and I see Councilmember Village hand up. Councilor Vella.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I just want to also note that my expectation, based off of what was said at tonight's meeting, is that there are going to be continued efforts at that. And I think that that's important, important for us to note and for staff to continue to follow up on which I know they will to to see how we can we can make the units as functionally as functionally universal as possible, even if it's not following the letter of our ordinance. Okay. Thank you. I'm prepared.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. Thank you. And Councilmember. So I guess your hand up.
Speaker 3: Great. Well, thank you. Just quickly, um, I will continue to vote no on this project for the reasons that I voted no before. Um, but as I was writing my notes with my head down, I do want to acknowledge that when Ms.. Kenny had to say was very powerful, some of the the the the the that her phrase is increasing profits on the back of the disabled community. Um, it's something that we shouldn't lose sight of. And I, and I know that this council won't do that, but, um, but as we go forward with other projects at that, that is something that keep in mind. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 3: I'll also be brief. And just like Councilmember de Song, I also write down notes with people's names and what what they say. So I because some of them I want to refer to later, later in the discussion. But, you know, like you, Madam Mayor, I had a read this a couple of times to really digest it and again.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it didn't really sit well in the beginning. But you know, after speaking with Mr. Thomas about it, um, and also understanding that, you know, this has Mr. Thomas said this was a project that originally was approved in 2011, so nine years ago. I do want to say that both works people know. Uh. If we approve this, it's, you know, another example of this council turning the page from the years of litigation. And I appreciated the comments by Ms.. Armstrong, and I'm going to trust that they're sincere and that they will continue to work with our staff because, you know , I know I have turned the page on the relationship with ThoughtWorks and I think our city has done a good, a good job doing that. And you know, one good faith effort should be responded to in kind by another good faith effort. So I'm going to hope we can't pin them to anything, but I hope that they will continue to talk about this in good faith. And that's really all I have to say.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brody. All right. Everyone spoken who wants to speak? And I, too, believe that we we in the works are turning the page together. And I think that there's so much potential and soon to be realized. So with that, we've had. Okay. I forgot who moved, who seconded.
Speaker 0: I realize you're not quite right.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Thank you. Oh, more coffee? Okay. Maybe we have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 0: Councilmember de SAG.
Speaker 3: I know.
Speaker 0: Not quite.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 0: Odie.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Bella.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Mayor as he Ashcraft. Yes. That carries 4 to 1.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. And thank you to all of our speakers and staff. Let's work and let's go. Okay, so we are to keep moving. Counsel, it's almost 9:00, but you are doing well. We've covered a lot of territory and we're moving on to six D Madam Clerk.
Speaker 0: Public Hearing to consider adoption of the Community Development BLOCK Grant Home Partnership Investment Program, five year strategic plan for fiscal years 2020 through 2025 and the Fiscal Year 20 2021. CDBG Home Action Plan and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute related documents.
Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of Certain Conditions of Approval Imposed by Planning Board Resolution No. PB-20-10 Approving a Waiver of the Universal Residential Design Ordinance (Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-18) for the Proposed Development at 2229 - 2235 Clement Avenue; and Adoption of Related Resolution, Applicant:  Boatworks, LLC.  (Planning, Building and Transportation)