Planning Board - Regular Meeting

One, it's Monday, May 11 and exactly 7PM, and we'll begin the city of Alameda planning board meeting Before we officially begin, Board Member Ham, can you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, please? Thank you. And we'll begin with roll call.

I see seven out of seven. We got a full board.

Alright. Do you have to go through

Do we need to go through them all? I don't know. Normally.

That's what we typically do. Okay. I I like just

going with the flow, but

Board member Hong.

You gotta you gotta check the voice.

Here. Board member Sue. Here. Board member Ruiz.

Here.

Vice president Arisa.

Here.

President Cisneros.

Here.

Board Member Wang?

Here.

And Board Member Seheva?

Present.

Now we have a full board.

Alright. Great. Do we have any agenda changes?

None from staff.

Okay. Or the board? Looks like no. And any member of the public oh, sorry, I'm going to interrupt myself. Before we go even further, just a quick disclaimer that from rules in terms of how we conduct our meetings here in the city of Alameda, this is official business, so please no disruptions. Listen carefully while others are speaking, especially it could be that person's first time doing public speaking. And we want to create a safe space. Please be mindful that folks are potentially watching and listening from home online. So they could be younger. We want to set a good civic example.

And according to the California Penal Code Section four zero three, it's a criminal offense for any person to, without authority of law, willfully disturb or break any assembly or meeting that is unlawful in character other than assembly or meeting referred to Penal Code Section three zero two. First violations will receive a warning, and continued violations will require additional action, which could include police intervention. Okay. So with that said, we can move on to non agenda public comments. Anyone may speak on an item that's not already listed out in tonight's agenda for up to three minutes. Do we have any speakers?

Yes, we do. Danielle Mueller.

Good evening, board members. I'm Danielle Mueller, sustainability and resilience manager for the city of Alameda. Here tonight to talk about potential revenue measure for the city. So over the last year, we've been engaging with the community regarding the city's significant infrastructure challenges. During four city council workshops last last fall, we identified more than $800,000,000 in urgent needs.

This includes our aging roads, bridges, storm drains, and public safety facilities, all of which are increasingly vulnerable to severe storms, sea level rise, and major earthquakes. So I'm here tonight to update you on this work and share how we're gathering community input to help us prioritize these critical projects. To give a recent example, in 2023, we experienced a major power outage while the High Street Bridge was open. So to prevent this from happening again, we are exploring backup generators to ensure residents can get on and off the island 20 fourseven, even during a blackout. You likely also remember the significant flooding this past January during the king tides.

This is a preview of how sea level rise will impact Alameda in the coming years if we don't take action now. We must ensure that city facilities remain operational even after a major earthquake. Currently, face significant risks. When studied, our Westin Fire Station received a C grade. The Alameda Point Station and Training Facility received a D.

And the Alameda Animal Shelter received an F. Our pavement condition score is currently 66 out of 100. While that's slightly better than Oakland at 58, we're lagging far behind neighbors like Emeryville at 78 and Pleasanton at 76. Neglecting these needs increases costs for everyone. It shows up in diminished property values, vehicle wear and tear, rising insurance rates, and most critically slower emergency response times.

Without a dedicated funding source, the city is forced to use the general fund for urgent repairs. These repairs become more expensive every year. They go unaddressed. One option under consideration is a 300,000,000 local infrastructure measure that would create a protected dedicated fund especially for these infrastructure needs. If approved, property owners would pay approximately $49 for every $100,000 of assessed value, not market value.

For a home with an assessed value of 500,000, that equates to roughly 2 and $45 per year. This funding would allow us to prevent flooding in the Posey Webster tubes and on city streets, install earthquake safe backup power so our bridges remain operational, repair potholes and improve traffic safety, maintain sewer and storm water system to prevent bay, pollution, ensure our first responders can react quickly to fires and medical emergencies. We recently, mailed Alameda voters an information guide and survey. If you haven't yet, please visit alamedaca.gov/stronger together to review the materials and complete the online survey. So please help us spread the word. We want to hear from as many residents as possible. Thank you.

Thank you.

It's exactly three minutes. Other speakers?

Any attendees wish to speak, please raise your hand now. No further speakers.

Okay, great. And that was a very helpful update. Moving on, we'll close non June of public comment item and open up for the consent calendar, which are the draft meeting minutes for 04/13/2026. If we have no discussion on the minutes, Do we have a motion?

Think you need

to have public comments.

Oh yeah, I guess. Yeah, do we have any public comments on the consent calendar?

Doesn't appear so. Okay.

Closing public comment. Do we have a motion?

I move to approve the draft meeting minutes on 04/13/2026.

Okay. And do we have a second? Okay. And the motion passes. Great.

Moving on to regular agenda item, which is a study session for the accessory dwelling unit condo conversion update. And do we have a staff presentation?

All righty. Thank you esteemed board members, president for your time this evening. As noted, the item before you is a study session regarding updates to the ADU ordinance. Study session is intended to be emphasized. This is hopefully going to have a little bit of a conversational tone.

I'd like to get some input from the planning board, but we will not be making a decision tonight. The intent will be to bring back a red line version of the proposed ordinance amendments with direction from the board, hopefully at the second meeting in June. So with that in mind, the item before you updates the ADU ordinance. The ADU ordinance originally adopted twenty seventeen-twenty eighteen, give or take, allows for the creation of accessory dwelling units. You'll hear me refer to those as ADUs.

I'm going to give a little bit of background on those. I'm sure you're all probably pretty familiar with them, but just for the benefit of the public who may be listening in and anybody who maybe wants a little bit of a refresher. So the way I'd like to frame this is basically by going over each policy issue one by one, getting input from the board, and then we'll kind of go back and recap some of those policy directions from the board at the end. And with that in mind, just a little bit of the background I discussed. So ADUs are typically compact dwelling units, sometimes converted from existing space in residential lots, sometimes created as new construction, generally speaking permitted wherever other residential units are allowed.

And sort of a distinction here is accessory dwelling units, ADUs, what you may hear me refer to as JDUs, junior accessory dwelling units. The key difference here is that junior accessory dwelling units can only be created with an existing space of a single family home. Typically, they're also smaller. There are different restrictions associated with them. Whereas ADUs can be detached, attached to the primary dwelling, converted from existing space, sort of all of the above.

There are limitations that apply to ADUs that don't apply to JADUs. And of course, the number and type allowed vary. So it's important to keep that in mind. And actually, I'm going to jump to this last point too here while I'm making a distinction between types of ADUs. It's important to remember that the development standards that we'll be asking the board for comment on tonight generally don't apply to what are referred to sometimes as statewide exemption ADUs.

Also, you'll see them referred to here as sixty six thousand three twenty three units. I know that's a very sort of opaque way to refer to these units, but it is how the state refers to them. And so, it references government code section 66,323 that contains the development standards for these specific types of ADUs. Basically, a 66,323 or statewide exemption ADU refers to an ADU that is no more than 800 square feet in floor area, has four foot side and rear yard setbacks, and generally meets one of the height restrictions associated with these statewide exemption ADUs, usually 16 or 18 feet. The reason it's important to remember is that when we're considering these various development standards or various policies that might be applied to ADUs, they typically won't be applied to these statewide exemption units.

So just something to kind of frame the conversation. Nothing we would be proposing here would, you know, create a hurdle for those types of units or make them any more difficult to build than they currently are today. In addition, just some background here. I think you folks were pretty involved in the annual progress report that we had that showed that our ADU production is actually going quite strong, both this past year and the year previous. And so it's sort of proportionally making up a greater amount of the overall housing production in the city right now.

I also want to note that there's quite a bit of data to suggest that ADUs are inherently more affordable than other types of residential units. There are a couple of different reasons for this. I won't speculate as to why that may be the case. But generally speaking, ADUs are considered a more affordable option than, you know, sort of a typical single family home or even maybe a condo with shared walls. And then, of course, there's the state prohibition on separate sale or conveyance of ADUs, had been in place until relatively recently.

One of the reasons we're here today is because of changes to state law that allow local jurisdictions, if they so choose, to allow the conversion of ADUs, either proposed or existing, into condominiums, allowing their separate sale. So that is going to be one of the main questions we focus on today. But just to kind of give you an understanding of how ADUs have sort of historically been looked at and considered to be sort of an auxiliary use to the primary dwelling and therefore non separable. All right. But we'll consider some of the reasons why that may be worth taking a look at.

So just moving along here, we do have a housing element program that encourages us to annually sort of review our ADU ordinance and production. That takes place as part of our annual review. You may remember there's some brief mention of that in our report. But because the ADU production has met our expectations over the past few years, that is meeting the sort of average 50 or so ADUs annually that we would expect to be permitted, there hasn't been a robust review of how the changes to state law may need to be reflected in our local ordinance. Now, any places in the local ordinance that currently conflict with state law, staff defers to state law on.

So it's not like there's a vulnerability there. But it's best practice to kind of true up the local ordinance to make sure that it's consistent with state law. And because of certain changes that have been made, there's sort of a range of smaller cleanup kind of changes in addition to the policy questions we want to ask you. So we can go over those in a little bit more detail if there's any specific ones that pique the board's curiosity. But just some examples of some of the state laws that have changed.

So obviously AB ten thirty three is kind of the, maybe one of the more consequential ones, the reason for us coming and kind of discussing this condo conversion option. You'll also see SB twelve eleven expanded the number of permitted units to be converted from existing multifamily. And there will be a bit of a conversation on that as well. I'm actually just going to pause just to kind of give you guys an idea of how we've structured this a little bit. I'll And get into this in the next slide.

But I've tried to kind of top load our agenda tonight so that we've got a lot of policy questions that I think maybe warrant a little bit more discussion right up front. And then as we kind of move through some of these policy discussions, some may warrant less discussion. So continuing on some of these legislative updates, AB2533, this one was significant because it allows unpermitted ADUs to be converted into legalized units while only adhering to those provisions of the law that are related to health and safety. So a lot of times that involves complying with the building code, but it may not involve maybe some of the planning codified zoning ordinance requirements for ADUs. So that was a pretty significant change.

AB eleven fifty four provided clarifications regarding JADUs. They provide additional guidance regarding some of the deed restriction questions that we'll be talking about later. And then SB five forty three has to do with the timelines that are related to our review, as well as sort of clarifications on, know, for example, when we talk about ADU, how ADU floor area is measured. Typically, we

talk about floor area, we're talking

about sort of the footprint of a building. But ADU floor area is actually measured from the interior walls. A little bit of a distinction there. So all interesting updates to state law. They are pretty relentless with coming down every few years with updates regarding ADUs. So we're keeping an eye on those. And like I said, we typically just defer to the state law. But where possible, we'd like to update the ordinance to reflect some of those changes. So these are the key policy questions that we have here for you tonight. We're going to return to this slide at the end, so don't worry too much.

But what I'd like to do is go over these one by one, provide some examples, get some feedback from the board. And then at the end, I'll recap some of the information that's been provided to us, some of the direction that I think we've received, and you can clarify for me if I get any of that mixed up. Just going to run through these real quick, but like I said, we'll have dedicated slides and examples for each. So, whether ADUs should be allowed to convert condominiums, whether non state exemption ADUs should be subject to a front yard setback, the number and type of ADUs allowed, specifically in multifamily buildings, whether additions to existing nonconforming accessory structures? That is, maybe a garage that's located right up to the rear yard property line.

As part of an ADU project can extend along existing nonconformity, that's going to require maybe an example or two. We'll get into that. Clarifications to the removal of existing parking requirements. Of course, no parking is required of ADUs, just to be clear. Potential either continuation of our existing impact fee exemptions or questions about whether or not how that should be handled.

And then, like I mentioned before, the deed restriction requirements. So moving right along here to sort of arguably the meatiest question before us, the question of whether or not the city ought to allow the conversion of ADUs proposed existing to condominiums. It's worth noting that this would not apply to JADUs. So this is not going to be applicable to a junior accessory dwelling unit that is ADU converted from existing living space in a single family home under 500 square feet. This would be allowing the conversion of either a proposed meaning you don't have to necessarily have an ADU on-site to propose this conversion or an existing ADU, one that has already been constructed to turn into a condominium.

That is to say that it would have some sort of a governing body like an HOA that would have CCNRs, you know, restrictions on the use of, for example, shared space. And the sale of the actual ADU condo unit would be sort of limited to the building itself. So, a little bit different from maybe a parcel map or another type of land division that would also convey the land associated with the property. Ultimately, the question comes down to whether or not allowing the conversion of ADUs to condominiums would constitute a threat to the existing rental housing stock in the city, and whether or not the allowance of a conversion to a condominium would incentivize property owners who would not otherwise construct an ADU to construct one because of the potential value capture from the sale of that new unit. So generally speaking, I think there's a consensus here.

We're pro housing city. We like ADUs. Generally speaking, we want to encourage ADUs. We've had a really great success with having these units develop in neighborhoods that would otherwise struggle to densify their residential unit count. And so this is a way for that to be done in a way that is maybe less impactful to the community, but allows a relatively low burden sort of type of application in construction for homeowners who have residential properties and are looking to expand.

Like I mentioned before, not only are AUs desirable because they're relatively easy to build, but they're also desirable because they're inherently more affordable than other types of units. And so with that in mind, the argument for allowing ADU condo conversion hinges on the idea that there are property owners who would not otherwise construct an ADU if not for the incentive of being able to sell that ADU once it's constructed, either because they don't want to deal with managing renters. They don't have the wherewithal or savvy to manage a sort of rental property. Or because the configuration of the site isn't very suitable for rental ownership. So they sort of are given an opportunity to construct an ADU with a different sort of outcome in mind where they aren't managing this new unit or owner occupying it.

The argument against is that if the city were to allow ADU condo conversion, that we would need to accept the possibility that it would be quite popular, right? And it's not impossible that if all of the ADUs in the city converted to condominiums, not that that's a likely outcome, but that it is hypothetically possible, that this would create a reduction in the existing rental housing stock in the city to the detriment of the renting residents. The sort of counter to that would be to argue that because ADUs are inherently affordable by creating these condominium units, you've created a homeownership opportunity that wouldn't really exist otherwise. And so there's sort of these competing interests as far as preserving the existing rental stock that we acknowledge is very important in the city and incentivizing property owners to create new ownership stock in the type of unit that otherwise doesn't really have a way to come into being. When we were looking at this, it felt important to include a little bit of statistical information about the existing breakdown of units in the city.

And it's worth noting that roughly half of the units in the city are currently rental units. And there's a little bit more of a robust breakdown. I don't think we necessarily need to go over the exact numbers in the staff report. But even if every existing ADU were to convert, it would represent less than 3% of the rental housing stock that currently exists. And we simply don't expect this to be the case for most ADU projects. So I think that's a relatively manageable concern. And because I just threw a lot of information at you, I'd kind like to pause right there and just make sure there weren't any questions or thoughts about that.

Yeah, thank you. And just to, like, clarify how you want to move forward with the study session, is the idea for each section, we'll pause, do some clarifying questions, then yeah, so the setbacks, and then the blah, blah, blah.

Unless you as president have a different preference I'm certainly happy to roll with this however you want but that gives me an opportunity to take more robust notes and kind of hear a little bit more of the conversation as we go.

Perfect yeah

I'll open it up to the board for clarifying questions.

First of all, thank you for the staff report. I thought it was a good thorough staff report. I'll just start off with some questions about this issue. And I know this legislation been in place and different cities are debating it. One of my general questions, which is not necessarily relevant, I'm just curious what other cities have done as far as allowing for the condo conversions.

But, one of the questions I have is, does state law provide any limitations on if a city decides to allow condo conversions, whether the city could also impose a minimum fulfillment standard such as lot size or I know owner occupancy is now kind of removed, but for the purpose of a condo conversion, Is that an option that is still in place?

We may need to explore this with our city attorney's office a little bit. I think, as I understand it, there are basic limitations. I think I mentioned, for example, JADUs cannot be converted into condominiums. So the state does provide some guardrails. But I would need to do more investigation as to whether or not presumably, we could in order to make the findings associated with the subdivision of the property, presumably you could do some amount of either conditioning or requirements associated with that.

It would be good to clarify that since this is optional action the city can take, I'm just wondering whether the general restrictions on ADUs, whether those are waived or they're allowed to be a little bit more flexible if the city chooses to allow for condo and home ownership.

Yeah, presumably if we were to allow condo conversion and somebody proposed a statewide exemption ADU and then proposed to turn that into a condo, we would not be able to apply the additional development standards, whatever those may be, to such a because it would already be a statewide exemption unit. So presumably in that case, we wouldn't be able to apply additional standards. But I would assume that outside of statewide exemption ADUs that they would be subject to whatever standards we see fit. It would be good to clarify that.

Yeah, just weigh in a little bit. This is really an evolving issue. There have been very few cities that have adopted these ADU conversions. And I think there is some tension between, I think it's AB ten thirty three that allowed the conversion with the state exemption ADUs that require at least an 800 square foot ADU be approved. And so if you were going to require a lot, minimum lot size that would not accommodate an 800 square foot ADU, of course that would not be permissible.

But assuming it would, I think it's an interesting issue. And I don't know that it has been determined yet.

Thank you.

Thank you. Board Member Luiz?

Yeah, thank you for the presentation. We're just taking questions right now and no comments, correct?

Yeah, just clarifying questions for now. Okay.

Along the similar line, there's also SB 9, the subdivision of lots and how do those two compare? Have you taken that into consideration in proposing this?

So SB9, as I understand it, caps the resulting lots to have four units. That is, you know, you result in a duplex or two single family homes and the resulting ADUs associated with them. So presumably that four unit cap would if you're pursuing a subdivision under SB nine, the four unit cap would apply. But it would be a different pathway if you were presuming a condo conversion for ADUs.

But after that, after SB nine, then they can subsequently condo convert everything because there's no cap on what happens after subdivision, correct?

I would need to look into more of SB-9s because I think there's deed restrictions associated with the SB-nine application. And so there may be something in there.

So that's a good idea. Clarify when you bring that back Yeah,

I think you're right in the sense that there's various permutations you can get with an SB nine application, whether it's a lot split or a duplex with two ADUs or two duplexes, etc. But presumably after an SB-nine subdivision, the remaining single family home plus potentially an ADU or the remaining Well, if it's it would have to be an ADU to be benefiting from ten thirty three. Right? So we often have to layer these different state laws in Right.

Review a

Right, but Alameda's ADU law doesn't really cap the size. I think it's 1,400 if I remember correctly. It's not 800.

1,200 square feet.

1,200, right. So that's a decent size ADU. So you can potentially have that. What I'm saying is the state law, it exceeds the state law limit, but it's not a 66,323 unit, but it's a legal ADU. And then they can subdivide that can not subdivide, but condomize that separately. And I know that you haven't gotten to it, but the restriction was one of the questions that we were supposed to answer too, right?

Yeah, yeah. So

we just want to know what the extent of SB nine is and how that interacts with this current, this ADU ordinance that we're discussing right now.

Good question. Thank

you. Any other clarifying guests? Board Member Zeeva?

Yeah, thanks for the presentation again. You voiced some concern about the conversion taking away from the rental stock within the city. And well, two parts to that question. First is, I guess from the city's perspective, what are the challenges of reducing that rental stock? What should we be mindful of if that happens?

But secondly, if it does get converted in a condominium, the owner of the condominium can rent it, correct? So it would be back into the rental pool in a sense. So again, I'm sort of trying to understand what the challenge is. It feels like there's more optionality actually than restrictions when I look at it in that perspective. But I am curious to hear what your thoughts are.

Yeah. And I think there's definitely an argument that can be made that goes that something like this is actually flexible, right? Ultimately, concern you could almost derive it from the existing condo excuse me, conversion to multiple houses ordinance that we have, which has what's called a critical ratio standard. The stated intent of that is to preserve rental housing stock. It basically states condo conversions can't take place after you cross the sixtyforty threshold for rental units versus ownership units.

And so you can get the impression there and in some of our general plan programs and policies that preservation of existing rental units is a goal purely because typically renters are more vulnerable than folks who own their properties. And so by not converting away those units, you preserve those folks who are in a more vulnerable position. I mean, you're right to point out that a condo ADU could end up back on the rental market. That's certainly possible. I guess the argument would be that currently it only goes in one direction, right?

Currently every ADU becomes a rental unit. And so how much of this would be diverted into ownership units? Question, right? There's realistic barriers. There's practical reasons why folks might prefer a rental unit over ownership unit.

But at the end of the day, I think our analysis shows that it's unlikely to create a significant negative impact to the existing rental housing stock just by virtue of how robust our current rental housing stock is in comparison to the ownership proportionally. But it is, we would be remiss if we did not bring the issue to your attention, right? There is, you know, you'll see these arguments made in other jurisdictions where they're having these conversations. And so, at least wanted to sort of bring to light the concern.

Yeah, and I think just to add to that, I think part of it is the direct displacement potential, right? So there's the sort of rental versus ownership housing stock question, but also just there could be an existing resident there and the, you know, making it easier or making it allowing the ADU to be come a condo could incentivize the displacement of an existing tenant. Obviously, Alameda has pretty robust tenant protections and and just cause eviction rules, so those tenants would benefit from that. But it's, you know, something we definitely want to flag.

Yeah. And just to kind of bridge off of that a little bit, you know, the the goal would be to avoid any kind of Ellis Act evictions or to put guardrails around these conversions such that you wouldn't have undue displacement. Obviously, tenants get first rate of refusal under state law. There's a lot of protections built into condo conversions already that prevent sort of the most extreme forms of displacement for existing renters. So I do just want to point out that that's not really a acute concern of ours.

Thank you.

Any other questions? None. I had a clarifying question and I feel like we've talked about this before in the past, but do we have a sense of those ADUs that are being built every year, the 50 or what have you, what the actual use is? They could be for short term rentals or for family or for office or

So generally speaking, ADUs are not allowed to be short term rentals. I would say we aren't requesting that applicants tell us their intended use. But I think a quick scroll through your Zillows or whatever preferred rental marketplace is that you'll see a fair number of them do become rental units. I think there's also it's fair to say that a lot of them become sort of in law suites, you know, family members living in there, kids coming back from college, things like that. So I think, you know, it's fair to assume that some of these may not even have been on the rental market in the first place.

But yeah, I think there's a pretty broad range of uses for these. I'd also point out that probably fewer are used for offices, although it would not surprise me if some number are, just because our home occupancy kind of program that allows folks to run businesses out of their homes does make it easier for folks to do that out of their primary dwelling rather than out of any accessory dwelling. So I think primarily being used as either a primary rental residence or as sort of an in law suite.

Okay, that's helpful, thanks. And I guess would you prefer that we give you our commentary and guidance at the very end of this? Or do I'm want to

open to either approach. My intent was just I'm going to be going over a lot of information on like a specific policy issue. What I don't want is to get through this policy issue, go on to the next one, and now you've forgotten everything we just talked about. So if you have stuff that you want was give direction on. Just

going to state, don't we need to wait for public comment before we get into discussion on these or because it's a study session, it's kind of anything goes? Think we

have some flexibility because of the study session. But traditionally, we do want the board to hear the public comment before they give sort of advice to staff. You can kind of weigh that, how you want to handle it.

Okay. I feel like I would prefer for us to have the discussion now. And then we could do a quick rediscussion at the end after public comment, if that's Okay.

You also have very few attendees. If you wanted to take a public comment on issue by issue, you can even do that if you were so inclined. But up to you.

I think, yeah, I think we could wait till the end. But yeah, if it pleases the board, let's go ahead and give commentary now on this issue area, if that's okay. All right, open it up. What do we think about

Yep.

Board member Suits.

I guess I'll go first. So, yeah, I think this is an interesting topic of this of this law. And I think one thing that's interesting is that the conversion process requires the homeowner to comply with a pretty complex law. I think it's called the Sterling Davis Act, and it's this whole mapping process. You basically have to condominiumize your property and set up, like, CC and Rs and, like, to establish a common area and, like, south.

So so on the one hand, like, yes, there's this argument that maybe this will reduce the amount of rental properties, but on the other hand, like, this process may also dissuade property owners from going through it because I would imagine it'd be somewhat expensive. You probably have to hire a lawyer and come up with all this stuff, and then when you go to sell it, you're going to have to, if you have a mortgage, get sign off from your bank. You're going to have to get a map and assess and record it. So there's this whole process that I think kind of makes it a little more complicated than as just like, oh, you can just go and do it. So I come from that angle.

I don't see this as at risk of kind of reducing rental properties as much. Just looking at some kind of the articles of, like, recent cities that have adopted this, I saw kind of one suggestion. I think this was in Berkeley. They had one of the council members had proposed certain kind of, like, tenant protections to try and, like, stem, you know, people from being forced out of their their rental ADU if they were if their rental use goes condominiumized. And so, you know, that's something the city, like, could could could consider maybe I don't I don't think I wanna want it to be incredibly comprehensive, but you could do something like like a right of first refusal or something.

I don't know if you can write that into the ordinance, but perhaps that's something where if the ADU gets condominiumized, property owner has to then make an like, and if they decide to sell it, they've gotta offer it to the renter first. You know? I'm sure there may be some other, like, other policy considerations there, but that's, like, maybe one idea to consider if we're talking about rental rental protections. But but I you know, in your staff report, I I I do think like if we've got four fifty out of and it's only 3%, like I'm not as concerned, but you know, I think it

is

important discussion to have. Thank you.

Board Member Duiz?

Thank you. I almost want to echo verbatim your comments. In terms of the I am of a camp to provide options and varieties for our residents, not to restrict them because market is market. The government cannot dictate a market. You can try, but we're not here to we don't know what is going to happen in the market.

And all we can do is offer optionality for the residents depending on what their financial situations are or their long view. Yes, there's a condo management is not that easy to convert, right? You have a CCNR, you need to have management from overseeing, make sure there's reserves that's allocated for. It's as simple as it is. So is it going to compete or deplete our rental stock? I don't think so. But it is an option. So I and I'm all for options. So if you're looking for a black and white yes and no answer, I'm going to say, yeah, let's go for it. And if it doesn't work, then a few years later we can reevaluate that.

But at least now then the residents have options. Thank you.

Any other board member Wang? Yeah,

I'm interested in seeing this happen. From my perspective, looks like maybe modest upside, very little, pretty much no downside. Again, more flexibility has been an ongoing theme. We've talked about preservation of existing rental stocks. I don't know if existing is an operative word in that phrase.

And I bring that up because to me ADUs are kind of a new creature. Like secondary units certainly have existed for a long time. But as part of our short term rental ordinance discussion, I think we established that there actually is a difference between ADUs proper and things that are not ADUs but kind of look like ADUs, right? And so when I look at ADUs and the creation of ADUs, I don't think existing rental stock. I think of ADUs as a newish creature.

It's being created now. We're looking for more creation on an ongoing basis. And so I think what we're saying here is as ADUs get created, why don't we allow some of those to be ownership based and why don't we allow that as you said, I think, it might even spur more creation of ADUs. So I don't see this as eroding existing rental stock. If we're saying that we have a policy of creating only rental units as we create housing in Alameda, I think that's a different question.

But I don't think that is a policy. And I don't think that's the question that's being called here. That's correct.

Thank you. Any other comments? Vice President Addisa?

I guess I kind of agree with what everybody has said. That it seems just like adding flexible, kind of more flexibility to the ADU, but at the same time, it seems also complex enough that not everybody's going to do that just because it's allowed. I'm curious to hear how the lots are actually split. I hear then that there is another ordinance or the SB nine is what kind of governs the division of the lots. But then there's this other one that would govern the division of the property or the ownership.

Which the whole thing seems pretty complicated to actually do if you're an owner. So why not allow it? I mean, why not? Thank you for the presentation.

Thank you. Any other comments? Board Member Helm?

Yeah, I agree with the board members that this should be allowed as an option. From a policy standpoint, the balancing of whether you'll be impacting residential units versus ownership units. Quite honestly, when I think the need for ownership, lower income ownership units, is probably more acute, because at least we are producing affordable rental units at the very low and low income level. If we adopt the amendments to the inclusion of housing ordinance, where the ownership units are probably moderate income, then we have this huge gap that's identified in the housing element of very low and low income units. And, I think the ADUs could potentially fill that gap.

So, from a policy standpoint, I think allowing the option would be beneficial. Having said that, I agree with the comments. When I think about filing a condo map to try to create a, say, maybe it could be more than two lots, because you could have multiple ADUs. But, that seems like a pretty onerous task by itself. Don't want that to be an obstacle, but a homeowner needs to go in with their eyes wide open on, if they truly wanna pursue that option.

I'd also be interested to explore the idea, I don't know what kind of standards, were there certain standards that we might want to apply to, as a conditions for allowing the ownership or the condo maps. I don't know whether there's some minimum lot size or some other standards that we may might want to apply if state law does allow that for this option. But, those are my thoughts.

Great, any other comments? No? Alright. Well, I'm in agreement with my fellow board members and definitely agree that homeownership is a huge challenge here in California and the Bay Area. So I think it would be a good problem for us to tackle if we ran into that. I also appreciate everyone's comments, but also as we've said, we have strong tenant protections. And also, what more can we do to address the displacement concerns that were brought up by staff. So yeah, I think we're all in agreement.

Great. Thank you. And we will come back to this. Try to recap some of those comments after we have public comment. But just in the interest of keeping us moving here, this is kind of our second issue.

And again, these are sort of in descending order of how much they probably need to be, you know, hashed out. This is this could be a little bit confusing because it's going to include a distinction here, as many of these will, for our statewide exemption ADUs. So, of course, our statewide exemption ADUs would not be subject to this standard because we don't have the authority to apply it. The current code, the current ADU ordinance, excuse me, does not state any specific setback for front yards. That is to say that in most residential districts here in the city, there is well, in all of our residential districts, in most of the districts that allow residential, there's a 20 foot front yard setback on at least standard lots for substandard lots that are, you know, lots with less than 100 foot depth or in a couple of other situations, for example involving, you know, where it abuts the water, the front yard setback can be reduced.

But generally speaking, most, you know, our zoned properties in the city have this 20 foot front yard setback. We've been advised that generally speaking, you know, if we did get an ADU proposal that was not a statewide exemption unit and did, you know, locate in this front yard area, that it could be the case that we can make an argument for the existing front yard setback apply to such a structure. But we've been advised that it would be a little more airtight, a little bit more kind of in keeping with best practice to have any front yard setback applied to ADUs codified in the ADU ordinance. And so this question is really, do we feel that we ought to kind of take this front yard property line question and apply it to non exemption ADUs sort of the same way it applies to other, like a primary dwelling unit on the lot. And the kind of policy question that's here is, you know, if we agree that a front yard setback should be applied to non statewide exemption ADUs, should it be the same setback applied to our existing primary structures, right?

Should it be a flat setback, right? So, a 20 foot, for example, setback from the front yard regardless of whether or not your lot is substandard or has some other non conforming condition? Or is there some other arbitrary value that we think is appropriate, a 10 foot setback, a five foot setback, whatever it is, that we feel would be more suitable for the front yard setback applied to non exemption ADUs? So that one's little bit of a quicker spiel. Do we

have any

questions about what it would mean to apply a front yard setback to these sorts of things? And again, we will return to this at the end, give our public opportunities to comment.

Any clarifying questions? Yes, Board Member Wang.

So just so I understand, is this question related to condo conversion or is it just because we're opening the ordinance that we're taking the opportunity to clarify something that maybe is unstated right now?

I should have been more clear about that. Excuse me. Yes, this is entirely independent of the question of condominium conversion, as are all of the other remaining issues. So while we may want to consider how they interact with that, if we are going to pursue you know, a direction to create a condo conversion option, they are not specific to that. These are generally applied DOL ADUs.

Vice President ISA.

I have a question. So are you saying that currently all the ADUs and all the homes have a 20 foot setback requirement?

So currently, all primary structures on residential lots that is lots that have an R designation, not other zoning districts that allow residential And lots that have an R designation that are standard, that is at least 100 feet deep and don't have strange conditions like abutting the lagoon or something, those lots have a 20 foot front yard setback requirement. Now, may be existing legal nonconformities. That is to say, there may be places where the homes were built prior to that front yard setback standard, in which case you'll often see homes that are less than 20 feet away from the front yard property line. However, this would be applied to, you know, new construction. So, I'm proposing a new ADU.

I'd like to locate it in my front yard area. How far setback? And it's not a statewide exemption ADU, know, for whatever reason. Let's say it's a thousand square feet, right? How far setback should that be? Should it be the typical 20 foot front yard setback? Should it be the typical 20 foot front yard setback with caveats that are extended to existing primary structures? Or should it be some other arbitrary number that we think is more appropriate than 20 feet?

Board Member Luis? So Board Member Vice President Erlisa, the reason being that currently our ADU ordinance has side yard and rear yard setback but is completely silent on the front yard setback. That's why he's seeking clarification on that.

So the question is whether we want to keep the 20 foot but clearly stated or whether we want to change it to something different.

Generally speaking, yes. That is sort of the question. Although I think there's a little bit of nuance there as well. You could choose not to apply it at all if you wanted to direct us to do that as well. And that's technically an option.

Right. You could go from zero to 20, any number. Change it. Exceeding

to one, yeah, hypothetically.

Board Member Hong?

Yeah, just a question. For the 66,323 exemption units, what is the Lobo front yard setback for those units? Can they actually go right to the sewer lot line?

That is correct.

Okay. Okay, which is seems a little.

And those are the 500 square foot units? 500 maximum?

Not quite. So those are 800 square foot 800. 500 square foot maximum is a JEDU.

Oh, okay.

And a lot of little thresholds here. So if you have any questions about those, happy to clarify.

Any

more questions? I don't have a question. Don't Okay. Have have

So sorry. The way you framed it, were you saying either recommending the 20 foot front setback or complying with whatever that existing property's front setback is?

That would be one of the options available to you as a policy direction to staff would be to say yes, apply the 20 foot setback as it is typically applied in residential districts except where the front yard setback would otherwise be modified by other provisions in the code.

Okay, I'll open it for feedback. Board Member Hall?

Yeah, this one, I don't know, for me is kind of simple. I kind of favor requiring the same setback as the primary structure, which allowances. I know there's allowances for porches or things like that to encroach in the setback. But to me, requiring the same, I mean, I'm open for more flexibility in the rear yards, but in the front yard setback, I think I'm thinking about the character of the residential neighborhood and the street. And, it could be, to me, visually, could be disruptive to see an ADU that doesn't comply with the prevailing setback requirement.

Certainly, if there's a street where you see a predominant number of homes that are non conforming front yard setback, that could be a justification for a variance, say. But, I tend to favor quite the same setback as the primary structure, same zoning regs.

Board Member Louise?

So, just want to clarify Board Member Harm. So, if the primary structure is non conforming, then has a non conforming setback, then the ADU will have the same nonconforming setback. They don't have to justify that. All they have to do is say, hey, the main structure is only five feet away from the front property line. Therefore, the ADU will be five feet away from property line.

I'm not sure of the process, but I would see that as a justification for an exception process, not automatic.

From my seat, I would like to see that as automatic because you're matching existing building. And just you don't want to create more hurdle. Try to figure out why. And if the existing building is only five feet away from I'm exaggerating. But it's only five feet away from the front property line, there's already a precedent there. Why do you want to make an ADU to go through hurdles when you've got an elephant that's a right against the street?

You know, I guess it depends on what we mean by a hurdle. If it can be administratively approved is where I would see it. But I guess I'm not in favor of just making it automatic.

Okay.

Yeah. Other reasons? Definitely keep it simple, though. I wouldn't, you know, I mean, it's part of the application.

Right, I'm just saying that, so if, yes, that can be a reason, right? You have to write out the reason why because the reason will be existing structure is non conforming. But if we're asking the applicant to justify that, does that mean that they have to go through the zoning code to find what ordinance that actually apply that allows the justification? To me, that is a hurdle.

Yeah, well, I would hope staff could assist the applicant in that regard. Plus, I guess, if there's an existing non performing structure, and someone wanted to expand that structure and maintain that non conformance setback, doesn't city require that to be approved? It's not automatic, is it? I guess that if it is automatic for a primary structure to, say, add some square footage to a non conforming setback structure. If that's an automatic process in the city, then to be consistent with that, an AU could apply.

Long as certain findings can be made, yeah. Are basically, if you can extend along the existing non conformity in such a way that it does not create impacts to, I want to say it's view, blockage, shade, and privacy. Maybe I'm making up one of those three, but certain factors, if you're not creating undue impacts as compared to a conforming addition, then yes, you're allowed to.

And those are the kind of findings I would see consist, I'm trying to be as consistent with what we apply to main structures as accessory structures.

Makes sense.

Yeah, I think you're, just to add to that, there's, we have an existing process, not necessarily every existing non conforming building could automatically apply that non conforming setback, but if there are conditions where it's typical on the block that everyone's at a 10 or 15 foot setback, then we would apply standards. Obviously, anything we do craft, we have to craft it in a way that it's objective. And so, know, start talking about some things like view blockage and shading and things. Have to be able to create a rule that's pretty simple. Where I think the difference between these two potential universes is very small, right?

There's just the practicalities of of meeting any setback in front of a house that would apply. There's very few lots that this would even be an academic exercise in, much less getting real projects, think. And actually, to that end

Yeah.

Here's a real world example in the city where you can see sort of what this would look like, right? I mean these are for what it's worth seemingly fairly conforming lots. So something to think about.

Yeah, so all the units on that side they are not conforming, right?

I'm sorry, what? One more time?

The units on the, on your right side of the screen, they encroach into the 20 feet setback.

Well, I didn't go out there with a tape measure. And sometimes it's a little bit hard to know exactly where behind the sidewalk that front yard property line begins. But I would say this is a pretty typical layout for sort of Alameda front yards, where it's 20 feet or close to it with maybe a slight encroachment from the porch or stairs.

One

thing I think I wanted to just mention is, you know, in such scenarios where like a property is set far back, more back than what the setback is. So, like, if it's 20 and that property is set back 30, I don't want the I don't think I want the ordinance written in a way where it now says that the standard is 30 for that ADU. Like, it probably should be

Yeah. 20.

Right. Right.

So 20 or yeah.

Yeah. So so it probably should be drafted in a way that sets a baseline. And then if the property owner says, well, my my my home is actually just 10 feet, then then that is the standard that applies for that ADU. But if it's 30, then then the ADU builder or the property owner can use the 20 feet standard.

Yeah. So Mhmm. Yeah.

Vice president, you saying, you gonna say something?

Well, I I was just thinking kind of in a very pragmatic way that most of the lots are kind of deep and narrow proportionately. So I don't think that this would apply. There would be a way to build. It's more like the question is do we want to change the character of the street by allowing ADUs within the 20 foot setback? And if we don't want to do that, which I assume we don't, then I guess we're saying we want to maintain the 20 foot setback as a baseline. Is that kind of

I have a comment.

Yes, Board Member Wang.

Also, I guess the first comment before we talk about numbers is this seems like an exceedingly rare condition, right? And we don't really have front yard ADUs being proposed very much.

I would argue that most and maybe our developer communities can chime in. I would argue that a lot of folks are opting not to pursue these because they want them in their rear yards. I don't think we should jump to the conclusion that people will self regulate and just choose not to do these if they are an option.

Okay. That's helpful. I guess my opinion on the front yard setback is a little bit different. I'm generally a little bit less bothered by a little bit variation in front yard setback. And so I was going to propose a couple ideas just to throw into the pot here.

And one of them was if there's an existing setback regulation on a particular block that the front yard, the front setback for a new ADU has to be at least 85% of the existing setback regulations. So that's one thing to throw in the pot. The second would be to kind of consider, I think, the dynamic between what board member Ham and board member Ruiz were playing out is to say that the setback could be the lesser of, I think, the first number or an existing nonconforming precedent on the same block. So it's kind of just written in to have to kind of snap into one number if there's already a number that establishes a different datum in the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Any other comments or suggestions? Okay. Seeing none. Did I give you like some of a starting point?

I feel like I got pretty good direction on that unless somebody else wants to chime in.

Okay. Alright. I think we're okay then.

Alright.

Thank you.

Keep it moving here. So next one, this one's gonna get a little bit in the weeds, so bear with me here. This is a question about the number and type of ADUs allowed. Now, the reason this is a relevant question for us here is because the city's current ordinance is more permissive than what is required by state law as sort of the bare minimum as far as the number of existing converted space that we allow to be created into ADUs on multifamily lots. So if you have an existing multifamily building, that can mean a duplex, it could mean, you know, a 16 unit apartment building.

You can convert any amount of the existing space. This could be non habitable space as well, so for example an attached garage, to any number of ADUs. This is distinct from state law in two kind of meaningful ways. And I've prepared a table that hopefully explains this in a clear way. The first way that state law sort of their minimum requirements are distinct is that it's tied to the existing number of units on-site.

So, you know, for a six unit building, you get six ADUs, right? So it's got sort of a cap built in in that way. The other thing that distinguishes it is sort of an overall cap at eight units. So if you had, you know, as you see here, a 10 or 11 unit apartment building, that doesn't mean you necessarily get up to 10 or 11 units. Under the state law, you would simply be capped at eight.

Currently, we have no such limits in either situation. So the question before you would be and sort of there's three I would think of this as sort of three buckets that we could potentially explore, right? The first would be to say, no, we like our uncapped multifamily conversion rule. We don't want that to change. And we just want them to have as many as they want in there. The second option would be to say, we really like that state standard. That's the most capping we can do. It's the most limitations we can impose on these sorts of things as far as the number allowed. We're going go for that. And the third option, which is a little bit more nuanced, right, similar with what we were saying with front yard setback, right, is you can choose something in between the two, right?

You can say, maybe we want there to be some arbitrary cap, 10 or 15 units, you can't exceed that. But we don't necessarily want to tie it to the number of units on-site, right? Or vice versa, you could say, well, we're interested in tying it to the number of units on-site, but we're not going to cap it at eight. We're going to say you can go up to the number of units on-site regardless of how many are on-site. And just to kind of inform, you know, maybe add some concrete examples to this, we have two projects that the city received applications for.

I'm not going to go too much into detail about, you know, the location or the specifics of the project, but just to kind of give you an idea of how these things end up playing out. On your sorry, I guess our left side here, the apartment building that you see zoomed in on, the proposal was to convert that existing ground floor that's primarily parking spaces, laundry, sort of storage areas to nine ADUs. This was in addition to the two detached ADUs they proposed in the rear yard area. So, were relatively small units but you can imagine a situation where if we had the state law applied here, they wouldn't be able to convert the nine units because you would be capped at eight or the number of units on-site. And so, the result would be likely not that the conversion wouldn't happen, but instead that fewer number of units would be proposed and in all likelihood those units would be larger, right, you're converting the same amount of space, or they would choose not to convert that entire space.

And then on the right side here, this is sometimes referred to as the South Shore apartment, sometimes referred to as the Beach and Tennis Club. These are apartments sort of by West Line and Shoreline there. We did receive a preliminary application to convert existing office, commercial, and parking areas within this larger multifamily development for 50, five-zero, ADUs. You know, that was a preliminary application, so they were really just seeking guidance from staff about how our standards would interact with that kind of a proposal. That wasn't sort of a formalized proposal that we received as like a building permit application.

But it does shed light on the way in which uncapped ADUs can lead to some pretty interesting proposals as far as the sort of magnitude of unit conversions that are proposed. So I think I'm going to pause there and just make sure we don't have any questions about sort of number and type allowed. It might be helpful even just to have this table back up so that we kind of see what that breakdown is.

Questions, concerns?

Bring it to the board. Yes, Boardman Wang.

Thank you. So I generally want to understand the concept of ADUs context in of multifamily dwellings. Is there some kind of advantage for an owner to call a new unit an ADU versus just a residential unit? For instance, would they not be allowed to build would they not be allowed to convert those garages to units if they just called those units instead of ADUs under their current zoning? What's the ADU pathway here?

Yeah, it's a really good question. Short answer is yes. There are generally incentives. There are also some I wouldn't call them disincentives, but there are development standards imposed on ADUs that aren't imposed on other units. So it's sort of a give and take. Primarily, I think you'd be looking at things like building code compliance is a big one. So for example, generally your ADUs don't need to be sprinkled if the primary unit isn't sprinkled. Whereas if you were creating a new unit, you know, it has to meet current fire code. There are also things like, generally speaking, the unit that is created as an ADU just generally doesn't have the same as robust requirements of it. The idea is that it's got, for example, an efficiency kitchen, right?

It's got allowances for things in the building code that a typical unit would not be able to get away with. So generally speaking, they're easier to construct. There's also the permitting timelines associated with them. So ADUs are subject to state law that requires that we essentially go through our permitting process more quickly and without any discretionary review. And so, short answer is yes. There's generally more benefits to trying to construct an ADU than a primary unit, Although there are some development standards applied to ADUs that are not applied to primary units. So, example, the cap on square foot area.

Okay, that's super helpful. And then looking at this slide, could you clarify then that the column two, the number of ADUs allowed by state law per certain lots with existing multifamily units, do those numbers apply now, today, here in Alameda, or no?

No. Alameda is allowed to have a more permissive standard apply. If for whatever reason we had conflicting standards on the books and we tried to apply a more stringent one that reduced it below the number that you see there, then we would have to defer to state law because it would be in conflict. But as things stand, we have a more permissive standard and therefore we apply the more permissive standard. Yeah, that's just sort of a glimpse of what maybe other jurisdictions might do or what the minimum required under the state law is.

Okay, that's helpful. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, board member Hsu.

So I just wanted to understand this table. I I had thought that there was a different number of ADUs allowed depending on if you're proposing, like, detached versus attached. Like, so I thought it was if you are talking about detached ADUs, it would be basically this table. But if we're talking about conversion of nonhabitable space within an existing multi family building, it's some other equation. I may be just behind on the law on that, but just wanted to kind of confirm, what, does this apply to both detached and attached, or is there different standards?

So with a multi family lot, you get your two detached ADUs and in addition to that, you can convert to any number of units with an existing space in the multi family building. So it's in addition to that. You get your two detached on a multi family lot and you can convert your existing space, you know, whether that's the Ground Floor garage or a storage space or whatever, into as many ADUs as you want. Okay. That's our current regulation.

So that, okay, so what's the state law on, like what's the bare minimum under state law that we have to offer for both detached and attached ADUs?

Same thing for detached to detached and you know per unit up to eight conversion in the existing. So uncapped conversion of the existing in our current one capped at eight. And then the other distinction is scaling with the number of units. That's the state law which doesn't apply currently in

our Right. That, yeah, that's the detached law where you get at least two, but you can also you can go up to is it can you go up to eight in that one? Or is it detached as unlimited under state law?

So so regard so if if you're converting existing space within the building, it's gonna be inherently attached. Right?

Right. Yeah.

So that space, under state law, can be converted into the number of units equal to the number of units on-site up to eight. That answer your question?

Yeah. And sorry. And then for detached, is it just two is the minimum that you have to offer under state law, or is

it Two is the minimum you'd have to, yes, comply with state law, you have to allow at least two detached ADUs on multifamily law. Okay, thank you.

And I believe that cap it of eight is a relatively recent amendment, state law.

For detached, right, or for the conversion Okay, of gotcha.

Good questions. I know this is, I knew this table was going to get some good questions, so.

I have a question. Sure. Is there a minimum area for an ADU?

If I'm not mistaken, I think under state law it's like 200, maybe 180. It's very, very, very low, if at all.

Okay.

I mean eventually, you have to ultimately have either, I mean if it's an ADU, not a JDU, you're going need a bathroom, an efficiency kitchen, a bedroom. You know, so there's sort of functional minimums there as well. I want to say it's 180 square feet, but that could be old, old news in ADU law.

Thank you.

I think it's a building code requirement as opposed to an AU

law. Remember, Louise? So I remember when we updated the AU ordinance. And the idea is to promote as many units as possible, in the multifamily products. And it looks like your example of that 50 unit application is doing exactly what we wanted it to do. And my question is, who complained? Why are we trying to cap having more units? I'm a little bit baffled.

I think Are

we receiving public complaints that we're allowing too many units to be built in a housing constraint market?

So just to be clear, staff is not giving you direction that these projects were undesirable or otherwise alarming in any way. But we did want to emphasize the projects that came through that would not have been allowable under state law, right? So that are only possible because we have these more permissible. So just to sort of give examples of that. It's the only reason I and they weren't necessarily again, one of them wasn't even really an official project.

It was a preliminary request that we'd received. And so we're not really getting feedback from the public on these. It's more to illustrate how this plays out in reality. In jurisdictions, I have had the benefit of working with jurisdictions that are much less friendly towards housing, vastly prefer jurisdictions that are very friendly towards housing personally. But I can say that the arguments you hear made in those jurisdictions have a lot to do with sort of nebulous ideas of preserving neighborhood character or generally having the opinion that density negatively impacts either property values or, the abstract community values that they may have.

I don't think they're particularly robust arguments, but those are the sort of things you hear in jurisdictions that have less less interest in solving the housing crisis.

But most of these units using that 50 unit example, they are within the four most of the units with the exception of two are within the four walls of existing structures, correct?

As it was proposed, yes. Proposed conversion of existing office.

So there's really no change to existing volume?

That is correct. Although I will add that particular proposal did include prefabricated ADUs on the roof of the existing parking structure.

But that's true, though. You can only have two. Outside.

Converted from existing space because that existing roof parking structure was actually used. And so their argument was that those would actually be converting existing space.

Oh, that is, okay. Now we're getting the crux of the

That's fine.

Developers will tend to ask for the sort of most and then we can give them guidance on what we I might mean, disagree gonna with little that

on this one more time.

Board Okay. Member Hong?

Yeah, just a couple of questions. I'm kind of neutral on this issue, but just a couple of questions. I'm trying to think of the differences if a multi family project was proposing to create some new units versus ADU units. Is there differences in parking requirements?

Neither would have any minimum parking requirements.

Yeah, okay. Whether they're an ADU or not.

Regardless.

Okay.

And, if it were a non ADU unit, would they pay impact fees? Yes. Okay, so that could be a key financial difference. Yep. Okay.

And based on those examples you brought up, not from a policy or political perception standpoint, are there any zoning issues that are difficult for staff to deal with when someone proposes that many additional ADUs? Just trying to think of what might be the physical constraints.

Because they're proposed from existing space, they really don't pose too many issues from like a zoning compliance standpoint. Will say they, in my experience, I've seen these applicants struggle a little bit more with building code compliance. For example, needing the fire rate separations between these units and things can be quite challenging. But not from a zoning or Yeah, a compliance

I'm just wondering whether that might be an issue. Okay, thanks.

Remember, Luis? Yeah,

so back to the 55 or 50 units example. You said they were proposing prefab on top of the parking structure or within the parking structure?

And again, I think their goal through this preliminary process was to ask for the most and see what we would be willing to entertain.

Because I'm reading our zoning code. It says within portions of existing structures. So on top is not within.

Think we probably gave them similar guidance So when they asked about their

then again, that is a one off, then I'm not worried about that. But for all intents and purposes, the zoning, the code is doing what it was intended to do, which is allowing maximum units into the market. Yes.

It sounds like Board Member Luis has transitioned us to the feedback part and Board Member also saying you're agnostic about this. But any other guidance or feedback from board members? Board Member Hsu?

Yeah, just a couple of comments, and I really appreciate all the great discussion here. I just wanted to turn back to the state law, which, you know, I think we're probably not like, because we're we go beyond, I just wanted to kinda be clear. I think it for when we're talking about detached assessed weight dwelling units, I think there is a distinction between whether you're talking about an existing family dwelling and a proposed multi family dwelling. If we just look up, and this is, it's the code, government code 66323, I think under A four, I think if you're talking about existing multi family dwelling, you can do up to eight attached eight detached accessory dwelling units, but you exceed what the existing dwelling units are on the site. If you have like a six unit building, you can't exceed six detached dwelling units.

And then so it just kind of Yes. Yeah. But if it's a but this this is fascinating. But if you're proposing a multi family dwelling, you can't build more than two detached. Right?

There must there was probably policy decisions behind that, but it's just this odd distinction that I wanted to flag. And the other thing I wanted to just kind of bring up is so when, you know, under our current code, you know, if someone, you know, like take that, I think, club or whatever with the existing office and commercial and want to convert it, I I totally support it. I think it makes a lot of sense and this law allows developers to kind of go and it seems like it maybe makes more sense to them in many cases, but I think when you're talking about I don't what I'm talking about. When you're getting to these developments where something on the extreme end where it's some existing, I don't know, bigger shopping center, maybe they're willing to add 100 units or whatever, I think under the current law, ADUs might be exempt from impact fees or they can't impose them. And so when you're talking about adding 100 units, I wonder if the policy considerations change there a little bit about whether or not we want to continue exempting projects like that.

Know, obviously developers are trying to reduce costs, so that could be one way. I'm not saying that we you know, that is like a like a deciding factor for me, but I think it's just something to consider if we're talking about like 100 units, 150. Like at what point do we draw the line and say okay, like maybe at that point, you know, we say you can't use this because you're just, there's too much of an impact now onto the road, onto existing city resources. Like, we're gonna we're gonna look at that a little more closely.

Thank you. Any other feedback? Board member Duiz?

This is just for discussion purposes. But ADU doesn't have parking requirements, correct?

That's correct.

Alright. So

Yeah. So but I'm just talking in general, like, you're gonna add, like, you know, bunch of units with at least one person that maybe you're gonna use libraries, go to school

Right.

Things like that, fire services,

like Right. I'm saying, again, in order to get to that, it has to be within existing structure. Totally. You'd be converting something else. So you're adding and subtracting.

Yeah, no, that makes sense.

No, but I understand. So because you are adding people or families that likely will have cars. Even if you don't have parking, you will have a car. Not necessarily. Not necessarily, but you might. So those things could impact.

But you made point. Like, there's already existing development. There's There's so many existing within existing

Yeah. The confines of existing walls.

But the use is being changed, so it's Right. Different different needs.

Mhmm. Like if it wasn't,

I don't

know, you know, the use of shopping center. Extreme, but unlikely. Other comments? Board Member Wang?

I think that Board Member Xu brings up a really interesting point. I was thinking about something similar, which is that relative to the dynamic between building a regular unit versus an ADU, if an ADU is easier to build for a variety of reasons, it does make sense for owners to take that path. But in the case of 50 ADUs, you've got to imagine that owner's got a lot more resources and they can probably pull the trigger one way or the other. That said, we've also been in this room talking about impact fees and their effect on getting housing produced. We've also been in this room talking about we've only got 60 units permitted last this year and they were all ADUs.

So I also think we should just take into account, I do think the impact fee question is a really relevant one that hasn't come up yet. And so the question to us becomes, is this a particularly interesting way for us to be generating housing at scale? Oh, and look, it turns out we don't have to create a new policy that helps to incentivize it because we've already done the work, right?

Any other comments or guidance? Okay. Yeah. Seeing none. And, yeah, I think I'm in agreement with the general sentiment this being a good catalyst for more housing.

Cool. Thank you. I feel like I got good input on that one. We are getting into the slightly easier questions, at least in my personal opinion. So hopefully these won't be quite as complicated. I'm going to try to go a little bit quicker through this. We actually talked a little bit about legal nonconforming additions before. I think it was pointed out that if you were proposing non ADU related on a primary dwelling in addition to a building that has an existing non conforming setback. Let's say you've got a two foot side yard setback instead of the required five. And you were to extend that non conformity without increasing it as part of your addition project, as long as you're not making impacts to things like shade or view blockage.

Generally speaking, those kinds of things can be permitted through what we refer to here as K and L findings. It's a reference to a part of the general provisions in our zoning ordinance. Currently, that part of the code only applies to primary dwellings, which means when somebody converts an existing accessory dwelling to an ADU, and as part of that, they're proposing what our code allows is a 150 square foot addition for ingress and egress. The addition has to be conforming. That is to say, it doesn't get to take advantage of that existing legal nonconformity.

What ends up happening as a result is sometimes some kind of awkward shaped buildings. And I think this illustration kind of helps define that a little bit. So, you see here a very typical kind of block in Alameda where you have the homes are arranged to one side such that you can have your driveway on the other. And the garages, the detached garages are in the very back most corner of these lots with more or less a zero foot setback from the rear yard property line. Those are non conforming and frankly great candidates for ADU conversion.

When these convert, you might have somebody say, hey, I'd love to do a little addition as part of this. And the area you see in blue outside of that four foot setback is where they're currently sort of required to build, right, in a conforming area, not encroaching into that setback. If we, you know, wanted to make changes to the code, we could hypothetically allow that same continuation along an existing nonconformity for these additions to, you know, the existing non conforming accessory structures that are being converted to ADUs, which would allow you to do something that you see in red there which does encroach, but you know, doesn't increase the non conformity of the existing accessory structure. And just to clarify what I mean by that, let's say this had a one or two foot setback from that rear yard property line, it wouldn't be a zero foot setback that you're constructing. It would conform to that existing setback distance.

I don't feel like this needs too much more clarification. So I think I'm just going to open that up for questions, comments, concerns.

Board Member Zakiba?

Yeah, I just had a question on your statement there. If they were allowed to do the addition in red, you said it wouldn't increase the existing nonconformed condition. But it does increase the existing nonconformed condition, right? You have a longer length of nonconformity happening.

I guess what I mean to say is it doesn't increase the magnitude of the nonconformity. That is to say, if you had a nonconforming two foot setback, it wouldn't be encroaching into the zero foot setback area, right? Like, you wouldn't increase the extent to which the nonconformity takes place. You would increase the quantity of the nonconformity, right?

Yeah, maybe it's the nuances of the wording that you're using. You are increasing the nonconformed condition. You're just conforming to the nonconformed condition, in a sense.

MALE Increasing the amount of nonconformity, not the magnitude of it.

Right. Well, there's a magnitude to it. So I guess I'm not completely understanding. To me, in this example that you have with the zero lot line, you're on your neighbor's property line, obviously. And then you're going to continue to do some work along that edge if you don't do the four foot setback.

Again, don't know about all these examples. These are a lot of things that we can kind of think about. But personally, I don't know the number of times this would need to be thought through. But it seems to me that if you needed to do the addition and you needed to now conform to this four foot setback, I'm not seeing the downside, I guess, of that. What would be the problem?

Yeah. So I think most folks, from a just sort of practical, realistic perspective, want to conform to the existing walls. From a structural perspective, it's easier to do, right? I'd say, you know, when we do have projects that have to notch in a foot or two to comply with a setback that, you know, is otherwise maybe only non conforming like that one foot, it does add cost to those projects. There's increased difficulty in creating a structure that can't rely on the existing exterior walls like that and now has to kind of meet its structural calcs through its

own passing. I'm not a structural engineer, but I'm not positive of that analysis because I think whatever structure you're going to add, it's going to have to be structurally sound, whether it's whatever the existing structure is doing. I think if you don't build in the red zone, it gives you opportunity for light and air into your existing structure and your new structure because you're not on the property line on that side. So it gives you some opportunities. Again, you'd have to take advantage of them.

And I don't know if there's an existing window, where that red area is in the existing structure. But again, I don't see the challenges, I guess, of managing to the setback that's required.

The only other argument I could think to make is you'd create some dead space, right? The same way you're saying you're creating a space that's sort of an opportunity, I think a lot of folks end up with sort of a patch of dirt behind there that nobody ever goes to. But I see your point, is there may not be a strong sort of injury created, right? Nothing that we're solving by a lot

Right, of right. Yeah, that's what I was just trying to figure out. Like how is it becoming a challenge? That's it.

I would say this is something we fairly frequently just because there is a large number of accessory structures that are non conforming and they are good candidates for ADU conversion. So it is something we see with some frequency.

Okay, all right. Thank you.

Any other clarifying questions? I have a comment. Okay.

I can hold.

Sorry. Yeah. Maybe quick questions. And it sounds like we're rolling pretty quickly now.

But,

yeah, any questions before we jump into comments now? Okay. And Board Member Wayne.

So I think that first image that you showed was really just the conceptual illustration of what this KNL thing is. And we kind of talked about that in the prior. Generally, I don't have a problem with applying the same concept to ADUs. But I think I do have a problem when we're talking about a zero foot setback. Because we're pretty used to seeing long, narrow lots, pretty small yards.

Everyone I think neighbors are conditioned to seeing a garage on the backside of basically, their back neighbor's garage in their yard. I think it's another thing to say, Hey, that garage is now going to expand laterally by some number of feet. Maybe now it's going to take up half your yard. So, I think in the context of a zero foot setback, I'd be more inclined to hold to standards or even to some kind of compromise standard rather than to say that zero foot setback can continue and expand, however you want to call that. So that would be my that would be my feedback.

Do you remember Sue?

Yeah. I just so looking at k, is it says, I think, only it just says side required side yard setbacks. Does that mean this this doesn't apply to rear and front yard or the city?

Next one. K and L. L is for rear. Yep. But it does not apply to front yard.

But so L, I thought L was only for 2nd Floor?

Yes. So you can go up on the 2nd Floor. Yeah.

Okay. But

Oh, sorry. You're asking whether this could apply to a reduction of a rear yard setback.

Yeah. So like like in your example, right, this is like this is a this rear yard is is zero for the garage. But k only says side yard. It doesn't say rear or front. So I'm wondering, is that like a strict reading? Like, you're only applying this to if you're building within a side yard that doesn't comply with your side yard setback, or are you doing it? Spot on.

Yes, that is exactly how it works. Wouldn't just to be clear, we wouldn't be able to take K and L and inject them into ADU ordinance. As Brian mentioned earlier, the whole kind of discretionary view blockage shade question is a little bit iffy, I think. We would really want a clear standard that says something like a quantifiable ex fee or whatever it is. And so we wouldn't be able to just like copy paste the exact K and L language. It was just sort of context Oh, the exam. Yeah, sorry, I should have clarified that.

No, no, And that was my comment too. It sounds like you're on that already, is that wherever this new ordinance lives will have a specific language about setback within non performance.

It would have to be quantifiable, non discretionary, yeah. Great.

Anyone else? Board Member Hong?

Sure, I'll weigh in. You know, I see both, you've provided a good description of both sides of the issue. To me, if it's an existing ADU, I know state law is permissive that requires cities to legalize non conforming existing ADUs. When you're talking about adding additional, I think that's different. And, I totally agree with you.

That red space is always this odd, even if it's four feet or it's two feet, this is dead space that's odd. But, when I look at the potential, those are probably likely what, about 200 square foot single car garages. So, if you're allowed like a 800 square foot ADU, that can stretch across the entire backyard. So, that's a significant encroachment into the four foot setback. What I really think about is the neighbor and behind.

They're gonna, I think justifiably, have an adverse reaction to seeing suddenly this small accessory structure be expanded double or even more and impact the rear yard. So, I'm a little concerned not about the dead space, but how it affects the adjacent neighbors backyard use.

So,

I'm kind of not necessarily inclined to allow for an automatic, I'll say automatic, but our discretionary type of reduction in that setback unless there's some particularly good reasons for it.

I will add, you pointed out something that I failed to distinguish here in my comments, which is this was intended for conversion of, of course, if you had an existing nonconformity and your intent was to demolish and construct a new one, we could hypothetically apply different sets of standards to each of those. So just to kind of clarify, there's a little bit of a nuance there.

Yeah, that's right. Because you lose your nonconforming, right, if you totally remove

the

old ADU. Right. But some people have just kept a frame in place. Right. Yeah, okay.

Any other comments or feedback?

I agree with the board member Wang's comments.

So it sounds like not conforming to the non conforming. Great. Next item.

They only get easier from here, folks. So removal of existing parking, this is a great example of a standard that we do have on the books right now and we do enforce. But we're hoping to kind of just bring it back to you, make sure everybody's happy with it, and make sure that we don't want to kind of tweak it as we kind of look at this. So, as I think it's probably pretty clear, a lot of these ADU conversions happen from conversions of existing garages. A lot of existing garages in Alameda are either detached and front directly onto the right of way or are attached and have a nonconformity in their front yard setback such that there is very little distance between the opening of that garage door and the front yard property line.

And in cases where folks convert these existing parking areas to ADUs and there's less than 18 feet between that front garage door and that front yard property line, we do ask that those applicants remove their curb cut and restore the curb gutter and sidewalk to its condition. The thinking being that with cars the size they are now, a less than 18 foot area there would not constitute a standard parking stall in our code. And therefore, is not really suitable for having an existing curb cut remain. In part because any cars that park there have a fairly good likelihood of encroaching into the sidewalk area, forcing pedestrians to potentially take on safe acts, you know, to avoid those cars and just creates a bit of an issue with parking. So, just want to make sure that we want to continue that policy of, you know, regarding removal of curb cuts and restoration of curb gutter sidewalk for these projects that do kind of alter the parking in this way.

And, you know, if there are changes we want to make to that, I think we probably want to continue to excuse me, put them in the ADU code because currently they don't live in the ADU ordinance. So this is sort of similar to the front yard setback where we want to make sure things that apply to ADUs all live in the same section of the code. So questions, comments, concerns, thoughts about curb cut driveway removal?

So

you're saying, I think I understand the concept, but under current regulation, what's happening?

So if a proposal included conversion of an existing garage to an ADU in such a way that no parking spaces remained in that garage, and if that garage conversion was either had less than 18 feet between that parking stall and the front yard property line, right, that we would require as part of that building permit that you include in your plans removal of the existing curb cut and restoration of that curb gutter sidewalk and the public right of way. So, it does require that they get, for example, an encroachment permit. It is sort of adding something for this applicant to do. But the argument is that there are sort of impacts to the public right of way that can't be avoided if we don't require that of them.

So you're saying we're already requiring this when this happens and we may just want to continue to require it by being more explicit about that in the ADU ordinance?

Just making sure that it's clear that it applies to ADUs, making sure that it's clear how the standard applies and just making sure that there isn't any kind of option for ambiguity if an applicant wanted to challenge us on that request.

Okay, but it's been the practice?

It does not change our current practices. As of right now, certainly, another reason to bring it before you is if you had suggestions on how to change it,

That's we would implement those helpful, thank you.

We're essentially allowing them to keep what becomes a nonconforming off street parking space if they have sufficient room outside of the property line right now. Because theoretically, like if if they didn't have the garage before, we wouldn't allow we wouldn't allow the curb cut to create that 18 foot driveway because we would require them to have a parking space outside of the front yard setback. So this is a situation where we sort of essentially, we don't we don't penalize them as long as they have room for the car that's not encroaching on the right of way. So it's just codifying that. But, you know, there is some could make the argument that, well, if you don't have the garage anymore, you should re restore it even if you have 18 feet because you no longer have that that space outside of the front setback.

But this would just be to codify the existing Got

it. That's helpful. That was a little confusing, but helpful.

So it does get confusing. The curb cut stuff gets a little weird.

Right. Thank you.

Maybe I shouldn't have framed this as the easy stuff. Any

other questions? Yeah, board member? Just wanted

to comment. I think the other advantage of requiring the driveway be closed off, because it could create potentially another on street parking space. And, in neighborhoods where parking is at a premium, I was just over in San Francisco the other day, and finding parking when all the driveways is frustrating. But, anyway, that could, in a minor way, alleviate a little bit of the parking in a neighborhood.

Kirkwood is absolutely sort of a privatization of the public right of way in a sense, right? You do get more street parking as a result of this policy.

Any feedback or vice president, Arisa?

It seems like a reasonable request. So if all we need to do is to include it in the IDU portion of the code, then it seems reasonable to me.

Great.

Right, roll in agreement. Thanks.

Okay, now we're rolling. Impact fees exemptions. I'm going preface this by saying I was hesitant to bring the question before us at all, in part because we have an existing housing element program that commits us to waiving impact fees on ADUs. But at the end of the day, we're reworking the ordinance. And so it should at least come before you.

The city currently sort of goes above and beyond with our waiving of impact fees. We waive all impact fees that we have discretion over for ADUs. I say we have discretion over, for example, school impact fees still apply because the school district levies those. The state law does allow us, if we were so inclined, to apply proportional impact fees to those portions of an ADU over seven fifty square feet. If the board was interested in pursuing something to that effect, what I would like to do is kind of pull out some numbers on examples of what an ADU revenue might actually look like, what kind of impact fees we would actually get from something like that.

To give you kind of a clear idea of how substantial that would even be, I suspect it would not be very. But short of having that kind of raw data in front of us, I guess what we really need to be thinking about here are the hurdles placed on folks who are proposing to construct ADUs. I just want to point out that generally speaking, a lot of folks who are pursuing ADU are doing it because other forms of either densifying their lot or proposing new construction are cost prohibitive. And so to put cost related hurdles on ADU construction would probably be significant. Or at least we would I think it's reasonable to assume we would see impacts on those applied as a result.

But certainly, you know, with the current state of affairs the way they are, there's always reasons to consider alternative revenue streams. So just putting that to the board.

Questions?

Or we could jump into comments right now. Yeah, I have one

more question.

I would be interested to understand what the potential revenue impact would be. But for instance, how many ADUs do we have that are over seven fifty square feet that could generate revenue under the state law allowance versus having them waived as they currently are?

Board Member Hsu.

I would just say I do want to support Board Member Wang's comment kind of when we had this discussion just earlier now, just about kind of his discuss thoughts on, you know, how you know, challenges with impact fees and and is there a way we can encourage more development through other avenues. I think that's a great point. And I think this is kind of maybe one of those things where, you know, the housing element currently waives them. Maybe we we just let that be the case and see how it works. And if it allows, like, the driver to come in and add 50 units, like, that's that's great. You know? So just kinda wanted to to supplement my comments earlier.

Board member, Louise? Yeah. I echo fellow Board member's comments. I think at the moment, ADU ordinance is still fairly new. And we are going through unprecedented residential sector cycle where nothing really got built in the past few years, jumping so fast into adding impact feed at the moment may be choking the supply too soon.

And I'm more willing to wait a few more years to see Let the cycle normalize a little bit before we start changing the formula and let the market have time to react because seriously nothing really there's hardly any new multifamily construction in the past three or three years. And all of us in the industry are anticipating a significant rent increase because of the constraint in supply. And ADU is ways to mitigate that impact and let's just let it ride out a few years before we jump into imposing impact fee.

Thank you.

Any other comments? This does remind me of the earlier comment by Board Member Sue where if it's a multifamily ADU project and it's like 50 ADUs, are we applying that same argument and saying those or all those fees are waived?

There's currently no distinction.

Yeah, okay. I guess like that would only be my one caution just like circling back to that. Like do we want to think about that for like really large projects? And given our recent inclusionary zoning discussion, we have talked about exempting projects 10 units or less. And so maybe something like that would be a threshold. I'm not sure. I'm not saying that exactly because I do very much agree with my fellow board members that this is a new policy relatively here in Alameda. We want to kind of see how things go. And it's something maybe for us to consider with these larger multifamily ADU projects.

Great. All right. Finish Line In Sight. This is mostly a reflection of changes to state law, but there is a bit of a policy question raised here. So our existing ordinance does require certain deed restrictions for JADUs, specifically their sort of owner occupancy, comply with the general standards associated with JADUs.

They're kind of basic, but changes to state law have made it so that we can only very narrowly apply deed restrictions even to JADUs. So, as I understand it, and it sounds like city attorney's office has advised us that maybe I need to clarify this a little bit, But effectively, for JADUs, the only deed restriction that one could possibly apply is regarding owner occupancy. So there's a question about whether that applies to all JADUs or just those JADUs with an internal connection. Just to clarify, did state here that it was only those with an internal connection, but maybe more broadly applicable. And the question really before us is, we have to remove all of the other deed restriction requirements to comply with state law anyway.

Do we want to keep this sort of vestige of the deed restriction requirement regarding owner occupancy for JADUs? Or is it our opinion that whatever we were trying to accomplish with those deed restrictions originally has been so consistently undermined by the state law requirements that there's really no point in requiring the owner occupancy alone for the JADUs. So questions, comments, concerns on that issue?

Board Member Wayne?

Could you walk us through if you know the policy origins of that, of the I guess the last deed restriction that's applicable here?

Yeah. So I think it may even be worth kind of going back a little further, which is for a lot of jurisdictions and I'd have to look up a little bit more closely what Alameda did originally. But in many jurisdictions, deed restrictions were required all ADUs at one point, right? And slowly, state law evolved to kind of curtail local jurisdictions' ability to apply those to more and more types of ADUs, right? So this is sort of a continuation of that over time.

I think our current requirement being applied to JADUs has kind of two sources, right, origin points. The first is JADUs in particular, A, have the internal connectivity, right? They have the possibility to share a bathroom, for example, with the primary unit. And for that reason, owner occupancy seems reasonable. And the other is that, again, I think this kind of gets to the earlier point about jurisdictions that may not want to encourage ADUs so much.

Think I deed restrictions were generally used as a tool to create an additional hurdle or additional requirements on folks who wanted to create these units. So I think those are kind of the two reasons why deed restrictions are kind of often employed. But again, they've been pretty gutted by state law. So if we are going to do it, are pretty narrowly applying the requirement now. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions or if not feedback?

Vice President Arisa? I think I agree with you in that if the state doesn't really allow those many restrictions anymore, and this is the only one restriction left for us to enforce, it doesn't really seem to be serving the purpose that we're pursuing. So why leave it? There doesn't seem to be a reason. I can't see it. I don't know if others can see the reason to keep it.

Can I offer the counterpoint?

Yes, please.

So the argument would be sort of the same reason for its origin, right, would be I can create a JADU that has internal connectivity to the primary dwelling, and therefore, we want to require owner occupancy so that there aren't conflicts between those two units, right? You can imagine a situation where rent out both units because owner occupancy isn't required and now you've got to manage the potential tension points between two tenants who don't have independent living spaces. That would be kind of the counter argument I think.

So is the deed restriction requiring that the owner lives in the property but not in the ADU?

Yes, it does not require the owner to live in the JADU.

Just, okay.

And if I may, this is one of those issues that we need to look at a little bit more closely. The state law says that if you want to regulate owner occupancy, you can do that. It doesn't have to be via a deed restriction. You can just say, you know, you can impose an owner occupancy requirement for JADUs with shared sanitation facilities, right? But then there's another aspect of state law that talks about the ability to impose deed restrictions, which are really going out of favor.

And the law allows deed restrictions for JADUs to clarify the prohibition against sale of the JADU, which I don't know that that's really necessary here, but And then also to clarify the restriction on the size and attributes of the j a d u. So that those two deed restrictions are left intact.

By the state. By

state law.

So that means that we don't need to enforce them because the state is enforcing them? Or do we also need to?

The state law says that the city shall impose these deed restrictions. Shall record a deed restriction for those two issues. I see.

So sorry. To repeat back, we should do this, but not necessarily through a deed restriction. I have an underargument requirement.

So I'm sorry. So there are two issues. One is this very narrow requirement in the state law that requires cities to impose deed restrictions for those two issues that I talked about. The prohibition against sale and the restriction on size and attribute of the JADU. Since that is a state requirement, you don't have authority to elect not to do that.

The other issue that we talked about is for these sanitation facilities, the shared sanitation facilities. If you're gonna have that type of situation, you the state law allows cities to impose an owner occupancy requirement. And I suppose that owner occupancy requirement could be subject to restriction. There is a little bit of policy discretion there.

Okay. Sorry. I'm gonna try repeating that one more time. Yes. So to comply with the connectivity sewer provision, that would have to be owner occupancy, which could be done through deed restriction or something else.

It it almost. Well, yeah. This is

It's fine. I think you're right

on the these nuanced issues that cities are don't have to impose owner occupancy for shared facilities, but you have the ability, the policy call to require it. And again, this is probably why it's very low in this totem pole of of issues because it's really not a major policy issue. And if you do require an owner occupancy, then you could probably impose a deed restriction requirement as well.

And if I may just add, I think the reason why the owner occupancy would want, the reason one might want the deed restriction for the owner occupancy would be because it's difficult to enforce otherwise, right? Like it would have to be the rent program or some other entity enforcing that, whereas with a deed restriction, planning has the opportunity to enforce it through the development review process.

Yeah, it's also, I mean if it's an ordinance requirement, you could code enforcement, yeah.

Board Member Hong.

Yeah, I'm a little confused, I understand why I'm confused too. But anyway, So, the concern is that if you don't require own occupancy, then that means that primary dwelling unit and the JADU could be rented out to someone. And, that someone who rents out the primary dwelling unit could have the ability to sublease the JADU. Is that, is that, I guess I'm not seeing why that's necessarily a concern, but is that kind of why the owner occupancy issue is being raised? Because lack of control by the owner to manage the tenant who may be subleasing the JADU?

Is that what I'm hearing? I guess I'm So not as much

as sublease. Like the property owner could lease both units independently. It wouldn't necessarily be one lessee leasing to But yeah, in either situation, the concern is that the shared sanitation facilities is a source of conflict and therefore better managed by an owner occupant than by a tenant. But

on that specific example, that is already required by state law to be when it comes to the sanitation, shared sanitation facilities, right? No. That's not?

No, you can, it allow, the state law allows cities to impose I got it. That requirement. I don't know that we have had this issue occur. It's very academic.

But it could occur. Yes. So I think I agree with, it's almost like you're saying we allow you to have two units in your property and they are connected by these. They're sharing some facility, But, so we allow you to do that, but then you have to be there to manage it. You have to live in it to manage it if you do that.

So, we okay with that or is it Okay for us to let it be what it is? And then I guess my question would be, if there were issues that were raised because of this situation, where there are two tenants and one owner, and they are sharing, let's say, a bathroom or something, who would these tenants go to to resolve their issue?

Presumably the property owner. I suppose if

they And had that's it, right.

Right. So I mean, they could use any recourse available to them through either a rent board or whatever. If there was a venue for them to

raise complaint Right. They would have to go to the rent board and raise their concerns.

Sure. I think this would really be a civil issue between the tenant and the property owner. Unless there was an actual infraction of our rent control ordinance or something, it really wouldn't bring the issue.

Right. So it really is the owner is on the hook, let's say, for whatever happens with their own property no matter what, whether they have a deed restriction or not.

That is correct.

I have feedback. Yeah.

Go for it.

Do I start? People share bathrooms. It's okay. I think that I read this potential policy as throwing up an unnecessary roadblock to creating JADUs. I don't see a need for an owner to need to live in a building that has a JDU if there's a bathroom that's shared. People share bathrooms all the time. They can work it out. They don't need to bring the planning department or the planning board into their bathroom conflicts. Or the owner, or the owner. People can work it out.

And if the owner wants to create a JADU and not live in the primary unit or in the JADU, I'm sure people can sign the lease understanding that the bathroom is shared. It's not a big deal.

Thank you.

Board Member Han.

I totally agree. I think this is more of a management issue in my mind, not a legal city issue.

Remember Luis?

Yeah, ditto, that's treat everybody like adults.

Great.

Especially the owner.

Thank you, thank you. Well, board with that, I'm just going to quickly go through these. This is just a note that some of the other changes to the AD ordinance that we will be proposing in the red line version will bring to you. We did not cover tonight, but they are literally just compliance with state laws, know, making sure that the references to the government code sections are correct, and some kind of reworking the where things live, you know, what subsections things are in. But all fairly minor, none requiring any kind of policy input.

And of course, we will have an opportunity to review those if you take issue with any of the formatting when we bring the red line version to you. I was going open up for questions, I think maybe I'll pass it back to the board. We can do our, you know, any public comments and everything, follow that up with the discussion. And then what I'd like to do is kind of read back to you some of what I gathered from your notes, and you can give me input on that. Okay, great.

Good, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, and I guess we'll bring it back to public comment.

We have two speakers in person, and I'd please ask any attendees online who wish to speak to raise their hand. Our first speaker is Benjamin Winter.

You have three minutes.

Everybody. Thank you for your work. And I want to I'm here as someone for a real world experience. I'm here to give feedback as someone who sought for a home for my family for fifteen years and was always right out of reach. And I'm also here now as a part owner of a property that's trying to subdivide an ADU.

So some real world just feedback for you guys from someone who's been in the city a long time. First of all, I want to say this discussion, I'm very glad it's happening. I've had my eye on this for a long time. And I think without very conscious steps forward towards affordable housing, it's never going to happen. We've been talking about affordable housing. I've seen it from many channels and a lot of rhetoric about affordable housing. But it's never going to just happen. So thank you. I'm really glad this has come up and that I really feel that we need to see it through as a city. And there's a lot on your plate.

And so I'm really glad we're here. So as a part owner, I also want to say I've been trying to go through a lot split, traditional lot split, working with planning for a year and a half. And there no there's no map for it. There's no template. There's no way forward.

We have worked with planning. We've it's just been there's no without there being a template or way forward, we've run into cost prohibitive situation. And so I think for ADUs to be, in my experience for the last year and a half, being absolutely nowhere and by no one's direct fault, just by policy that's there, there's no way forward without allowing for condominium izine, weird word, of AU. So I'm very much in favor of the city pursuing this. A little feedback on the rental impact that we were talking about in the beginning.

I did some math, and I just want to say the way it crunches down is the market rent is more than someone would be paying for a mortgage at market rate. So if they bought the house, their mortgage at current interest rates would be lower than the market rent considerably, just so

you know.

And I've had four tenants in this ADU, and they're transient because they're trying to buy. And they've all asked me if they could buy the unit. I'm like, I wish you could. So affordability is a thing. I also want to comment on just that I really believe that it would weave a socioeconomic web these neighborhoods, making these houses affordable in these deep lots instead of people just buying condos on Shoreline, on Clement, on the base. We would really weave our neighborhoods in a much better way. And so I think that's really important discussion about where our city is going in that way. Yeah, I really and I think I had a few notes and

they're all over the place.

And there's my three minutes. So let's do it.

Thank you

so much. Really appreciate your comments. We have another speaker.

Yeah, our next speaker is Hank Hernandez.

We have materials.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So dear planning board members, my name is Hank Hernandez. I'm a longtime resident of Alameda. I've been here since 2001. I'm also the president of Alameda Tiny Homes, a local ADU builder. We've completed dozens of projects here in town.

I just want to thank you and the city staff for engaging in this issue of condominization of ADUs. I think it's super important. Specifically, want to encourage you to take action on it, to move forward with it. I think from my experience talking with literally hundreds of families in Alameda, This is an important opportunity for them to create new housing, mainly from my experience with family. We've built dozens of units.

I would say the vast majority are family use. Maybe less than a third have been built as rentals to begin with. Most of the units were built for maybe that leg up kind of house for a kid or a family member. A lot of it is aging in place. Some of it's different than you think, as in the grandparents move to the ADU and the kids move into the main house because they need the space for family. But time and again, a lot of what I'm hearing is there's no affordable way to own a home. So let's build an ADU. But you're not gaining the benefit of the actual ownership. And allowing that condominiumization would give people that extra benefit.

I

think regardless of my anecdotal experience with what are being rented versus what have been built for whatever reason, I think it'd be important for the city to do a survey of the existing units to find out what are they actually being used for. These things change over time. Like I know some of our clients didn't build it as a rental but maybe have rented it since, or started as a rental but now have a family member living in it. So I would encourage you to do a survey. It's also important that, you know, this is an important personal issue to a lot of families that people in town have the opportunity to reflect on what you're going to propose because a lot of people are going to be impacted by it.

So as you develop it, please publish it. Let other stakeholders, you know, folks that are building ADUs, etcetera, know about it. Particularly important to me is utility connections. So not only is this going to impact ADUs that have already been built and that need to convert, but for those that will be purpose built to be converted. And those are going to be different kinds of units that are going to face different kinds of challenges.

And I think it might be appropriate to have a special way to deal with the conversions versus existing ADU stock will have different challenges that those understand it. Anyway, I'd just like to offer my help. I have literally talked to hundreds of people about ADUs. I've built dozens in town.

Pick up

the phone and call me. I can give you a lot of perspective.

You so much. I really appreciate it. You. Any other public comments?

If anybody online would like to give a comment, raise your hand now. There don't appear to be any online, but I will point out, I'm not sure if the board members had an opportunity to check their email today, but we did receive a public comment from the Housing Action Coalition that I'll just share publicly now. Very briefly, this is the housing action coalition's support for the opt in to AB ten thirty three ADU condominium conversion. They express strong support. They urge the board to preserve the impact fee waiver for ADUs.

And they encourage us to preserve ministerial pathways regarding sixty six thousand three twenty three units. It's just a quick summary of their comments.

Thank you. If no other public comments, then we'll close that portion of the meeting.

Don't see any.

Great. And we'll bring it back to the board in case folks would like to update any guidance or have any reflections. We had some experts here that seemed to like validate a lot what we already discussed. But also brought up some interesting points. Yes, Board Member Hall.

First of all, you for coming to the hearing, sitting through our deliberations. Your comments were very beneficial. Your comments did raise kind of two points in my mind. One, it sounds like the consensus tonight was to allow for the option of ownership ADUs. And, we discussed the process could be pretty onerous.

And, part of me is thinking, well, creating the policy to allow for it is probably not going far enough. One thing that staff might need to take a look at, is there a way, if the policy direction is to facilitate ownership ADUs, is there a way to come up with a more streamlined process for processing these condo conversions? So, they're not as time consuming or labor intensive, costly as they could be. So, kind of following through with a policy and implementation. The other point that I saw, and this was in the second page of Mr.

Hernandez's letter. And, I think his staff report talked about this, but I don't think we talked about tonight, was the issue of allowing for the patios and rooftop decks. And, there's a lot of states that the 66,323 ADUs are exempt from those kinds of design review. But, I know that in the past, things like patios and roof decks are sensitive issues with neighbors. So, I guess one of the questions for staff to explore is for the non 66,323 ADUs, Is there a more streamlined process of what the thinking is regarding our current standards, whatever they are, versus what might be modified, if anything has been thought of?

Yeah, briefly. I don't have to, you don't have to fully respond.

I mean, you pretty much summarized exactly it. Yes, we acknowledge six thousand six thirty two units should not be subject to any discretionary review, including design review. Generally speaking, the policy that we currently have is that, yes, if you're proposing a rooftop deck as part of an ADU project, that you would trigger design review. So the current policy question is really just to make that more explicit in the code or to exempt those projects from design review is really the question that we were intending to bring before you with more of a red line version just because I think the language is really important for that particular policy question. But if you have additional direction regarding that, happy to incorporate that into our first draft.