Parks, Recreation & Open Space Commission - Regular Meeting

clock. So, we'll call this meeting to order. I will start with the land acknowledgement. The city of Albany recognizes that we occupy the land originally protected by the Confederated villages of Luchon. We acknowledge the genocide that took place on these lands and must make strides to repay the moral debt that is owed to this indigenous people, specifically the Aloney tribe. We thank them for their contributions which have transformed our community and will continue to bring forth growth and unity. The city of Albany commits to sustaining ongoing relationships with the tribe and together build a better future for all that now make this their home. And with that we can move on to roll call.

Commissioner Mman here. Commissioner Pearson here. Commissioner Pilch present. Um, Commissioner Wadi, she'll be arriving late and I will note the time of her attendance when she arrives. And Chair Mloud here. All right, we'll move on to item number two on our agenda. Exparte communications. Have there been any being none? I had none. We'll move on to item three, announcements. Any announcements?

Yes. And you will notice I put this towards the front of the agenda this evening. Um, I would like to announce our new community development director, Dena Tsini. Um, so Dina, if you want to come up and introduce yourself, that would be great. Thank you.

Hello. Good evening. I figured I was off camera over there, so I should at least show my face. Um, my name is Dina Tini. I'm the uh, director of community development or community development director. I think I've been here seven weeks now and I'm loving it. This is a wonderful place. I've been to the housing to city council and now here. So, I hope you'll see my face more and that we get to have a good relationship and if you need anything at any time, please reach out. Um, we have great staff that, you know, usually you don't have to reach out to me, but if you would like to, and I'd love to meet each one of you individually, understand what you may or may not wish for us to do. So, with that, I'm going to sit and listen for the meeting tonight and hope to see you again in a few weeks.

Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. And welcome to Albany. Welcome to the position. Thanks for coming. All right. We'll move on to item four, consent calendar. Consent calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion unless an item is pulled from the consent calendar. Um, and we did have a couple of modifications to make to item 4-2 and 4-3. Um,

uh, yes. So, um, thanks to Chair Mloud for noting the miswording in, um, condition number nine. Staff recommends um whether these stay on the consent calendar or not, that the replacement language for for um condition number nine is that the building permit plan said shall show the removal of the curb cut with restoration of the curb, gutter, paving, planting strip, and sidewalk and the removal and landscaping of the driveway. So, there was some miswording. So, if uh any recommendation could include that swap out for that language, that would be appreciated.

Okay. Um, yeah, it caught my eye and it seemed like it needed to be clarified a little bit. Um, I mean, the only thing I would add would be per public works standards and specifications or something like that, but um, that's probably going to be taken care of at the building permit stage, I would imagine. Okay. Um well, is there um anyone in the public who would like to pull an item from the consent calendar? Please either step up to the podium um or use the raise the hand icon.

Hi there. My name's Carl Kruth. I'm here about 902 Carmel. um just grateful for your consideration and um we have no problem with the curb cut and the landscaping. Thank you. Okay. You're the applicant. Yes. Okay. Okay. My bad. I I don't do this kind of thing. Okay. Well, just I don't know who who you are are or representing. Uh okay. So, that doesn't pull that item from the consent calendar. Just brief comment. Uh does any commissioner wish to pull any item from the consent calendar? Seeing none,

if I may add one thing, we did get a a public communication for the 902 Carmel and one of the requests was just to state the maximum permissible density for the site. Um, so I just thought if it's okay, I could just announce what the maximum permissible density for that site would be. Uh, Commissioner Peltz, do you have a Yeah, actually uh I did have one question about 42. I don't know if we're officially pulling it or not. Uh if it's clarifying questions and statements, it could be we can ask and without pulling it, but if there's controversy, we should we should have it pulled.

Uh may I go ahead? Uh for uh so the um we're extending the existing non-conforming um setbacks. Um, I just want to clarify that the exterior walls are not being changed or moving at all. But since there's uh unhabitable unhabitable space that's being turned into habitable space, we have to technically call out the existing non-conforming setbacks. Is that do I am I reading that correctly?

That is correct. The excavation work uh requires extending ver uh vertically an existing non-conforming. Oh, in this case it would be actually extending down. Exactly. Yeah. Oh, gotcha. All right. Plus what you already said as well. And that I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Oh, good. Um if I may note that Commissioner Wadi has entered at 7:06. Thank you for um and Commissioner Wadi since you missed the announcement. Um, we did introduce Dina Tini, our new community development director. So, she welcome

kindly offered if you wanted to reach out with her to meet up, that would be great. Um, but if I may continue, the maximum residential density for the Solano commercial district is 63 dwelling units per acre. So on a lot the size of 902 Carmel, which is 3,300, that would allow for a total of 4.7, which would round down unless they were doing a density bonus project, and then it would round up to five. So it's either four without density bonus or five if if it were a density bonus project. Apologies for interrupting you earlier.

Um, okay. Um, Commissioner Wy, we're just on the consent calendar. And there's one addition to the language for conditions of approval for 4-2 and 43 minor addition. And we are at the point where no one has pulled any items and we are ready to take a motion. Um before we do, if Commissioner Wad is going to be voting, can we um hear if you have any exparte communications? No. Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Okay, I will move the consent calendar with the addition of

with the addition of the item shown on the screen. The addition of the change noted on the screen. Okay. Do we have a second? I'll second and vote. Commissioner Mman, yes. Commissioner Pearson, yes. Yes. Wii, yes.

And I vote yes as well. That motion carries five to zero. So, your project has been approved. Um, there's still a 14-day appeal period. I don't know if there story polls up, but they should remain up for the duration of the appeal period. If there are story polls, I don't know there are, there are none. Okay. Yeah, your project has been approved. All right. Uh, moving on to item five, public comments. For persons desiring to address the commission on an item that is not on the agenda, please note that city policy limits each speaker to three minutes and the Brown Act limits the commission's ability to take andor discuss items that are not on the agenda. Therefore, such items may be referred to staff for comment or to a future agenda. Is there anyone online uh who would like to make a public comment there? No one else in the room for that. Um please use the raise a hand icon if you'd like to speak on something not on the agenda.

Ask them. Hi, we're in the public uh public comment item. If you wish to make any public comments uh for the good of the city or on any general matter, you're welcome to do so or not. Okay, fair enough. Welcome. Okay. All right. So, uh any public comment online? No. No.

Okay. Okay, we'll close item five and move up on to item 6-1, public hearing on planning and zoning commission resolution 2025-4 recommending that the city council adopt amendments to the planning and zoning code regarding residential uses and care facilities and staff will have a presentation for us. There's a little bit of lag. Okay, there we go. I cannot see my presenter view. There we go. Okay, perfect. Okay. So, good evening commissioners and members of the public um and staff, fellow staff members. My name is Mera Han, associate planner with the city um planning and building manager Leslie Mendes and I are here tonight to present some amendments to our planning and zoning code um in front of the planning and zoning commission for their review and recommendation. These amendments are to implement housing element programs and reflect changes to state law related to residential uses and community care facilities. So, the proposed amendments seek to implement, as I said, um housing element programs and state law updates. As you may already know, on February of 2023, the Albany City Council adopted a 2023 20 uh 2031 housing element, which provides a policy framework and implementation plan to address existing and projected housing needs here in Albany over an 8-year planning period, including special housing needs. and the

proposed zoning ordinance amendments seek to implement discrete and readily achievable programs adopted as part of the housing element. They also seek to align with updates to state law related to family daycare homes and accessory dwelling units uh legislation. So we will go over these uh in more detail on the next slides. So um program 1A like you can see here is u the single family zoning reform. uh it is included under the housing element uh goal of equitable access to housing which is to revise the single family zoning or R1 in our code to allow for a greater mix of housing types and increased access to affordable housing opportunities in Albanesey's residential neighborhoods. So one means um one means of increasing affordability as we all know is through the availability of more infill homes located in multi-unit buildings. So um a relatively recent piece of state legislation which you may be aware of already but I will I will explain it here for the public um that was enacted recently is to incentivize housing is Senate Bill 9 or SB9 which permits the construction of duplexes on lots zoned single family or R1 district in our city. However, the city zoning code only allows single family homes and ADUs in the R1 district. So in conformance with SB9 in the intent of program 1A, the proposed amendments would one eliminate language designated designating the R1 district for the exclusive construction of single family homes and ADUs. So what it does is that this opens uh the possibility to construct different types of dwelling units that would fill in the need for u missing middle housing types and not only single family homes and ADUs um which of course would still have to meet

development standard allowances and regulations um in our code. So also staff looked in the residential use classifications as you can see on the lower um right bottom uh lower right part of the slide. Um so we looked in the in these classifications in the use table and found that the code currently lists single two and multifamily uh uses as residential uses. So those concepts are listed as uses. However rather than uses these are structures. So because these are housing configuration types rather than uses, staff proposes to group them all as structure types under a new singleuse classification for dwelling. So dwelling would be defined as a residential use of a single building or portion of a building that provides permanent provisions for occupancy by a household. A broad use classification that includes single to multifamily and mixeduse development types. So by doing this dwelling provides the flexibility to allow a variety of housing types within a district particularly the R1 district while still retaining the underlying density allowances and development standards for that district as explained before let's see next slide. All right. So, let's um go over housing element program 3D. Uh this is included in a different goal which is goal three of the housing element special housing needs. Um so, program 3D provides directives to lower regulatory barriers for large residential care facilities and to recognize group homes as a use allowed in all residential zones. So, what are these two types of uses? Let's just go briefly over each one of them. Um, so first we should talk about definitions, right? The state defines a

residential care facility which is the first kind of uh kind of section of our of this this amendment group um state sorry as a dwelling unit licensed by the state of California to provide 24-hour non-medical care for persons in need of personal services supervision protection and assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living. So that's a residential care facility. So they make state makes a distinction between small and large residential care facilities. So basically small residential serves up to six residents where large uh res residential large care facility serves more than six residents. So currently the code our code requires a major use permit which as you know requires planning and zoning commission level approval for a large care facility in all residentially zoned districts. The proposed amendments lower the discretion level um from a major use permit to a minor use permit which would only require staff review um approval. And similarly, the city's code currently includes spacing and locationational requirements for certain care facilities. So for example, it requires a care facility to be located a minimum of 300 ft from another care facility. Um also that no residential property uh may be aboded on more than one side by any combination of a large daycare home, daycare facility or care facility or residential care facility. So to further this program implementation, the amendments remove all these space uh requirements unless they're required by state law. And as we know, state law keeps being revised. So that's at the discretion of state law, but in terms of our code, we are removing all space requirements. Um all right, so moving on to housing

element program 3H. This is the last of the three programs that these amendments seek to implement. So what uh this one is also part of that special housing needs uh housing element goal and includes changes to our code related to low barrier navigation centers. I'll explain what those are or LBNC's single room occupancy housing SRO's and employee housing. So the following amendments are proposed to implement this problem. So it's easier to kind of like explain what these amendments are because they're kind of like ex in in their definition is included the directive that this program uh provides. So first of all is to add a definition for low barrier navigation center uh to mirror the statutory definition and what that is is a housing first low barrier temporary serviceenriched shelter focused on helping homeless individuals and families to quickly obtain permanent housing. Low barrier what does it mean? It includes practices to reduce barriers of to entry such as allowing partners uh even if they're not a population specific um site uh pets storage of personal items etc. So it's it's easy to enter these type of um facilities and right now our code doesn't have a definition for these type of uh uses. Um also state law um AB 101 requires LBNC's to be uh a by right use in any area zoned for mixed use or in a non-residential district that permits multifamily housing. So for example the Solano commercial and the Sablo commercial district. So to comply with state law and implement the program, LBNC's are defined now and added as a public and quasi public use and included as a permitted use in both the SPC or Sablo commercial and SC Solano commercial districts.

um consistent with the program recommendation, the amendments change SRO's or single room occupancy housing. Um from requiring a use permit to just being allowed by right in the S Pablo commercial district. Uh the program also um suggests to consider adding them as a byite use in the Solon commercial district as well and these two changes are part of the amendments. Um also SRO's are to be considered a residential use. So they have been moved to the residential section in the use table as well. Um finally um housing element program 3H also includes recognizing employee housing as a residential use. So however with the proposed extensive and expansive definition of household employee housing would by by definition be a household and be considered a residential use. So creating separate regulations or definitions uh specific to employee housing was deemed unnecessary. Okay. Moving on to state law updates. we have uh two sets of uh state legislation that these amendments seek to align the code with. So first of all is SB234 um which is it's it's also called the keeping the kids close to home act right the family daycare homes which was passed in 2019 to address the supply shortage for child care facilities by requiring that local jurisdictions lower regulatory zoning and procedural barriers for family daycare homes and treat them as residential uses. So to comply with this law, the amendments are to remove the requirement for a minor use permit for large family daycare homes and allowing them by right in all districts that permit dwelling units including the S Pablo commercial and uh

Solano commercial districts. Um, as the state has removed discretion for all family daycare, the amendments include removing any reference that differentiates small family to uh from large family daycare and just simplifying the use to family daycare home. Um, and also um the amendments uh remove all spacing, parking, noticing and hearing requirements specifically applicable to family daycare homes. So all these have been eliminated from the code in these amendments um to comply with this state law. Okay. And then finally uh you know we know that the city some of us u may know that the city last updated the ADU zoning code regulations uh in winter of 2023 and 2024. Since then, there have been annual legislative changes and updates to the California Department of Housing and Community Development or HCD ADO guidelines. Um, and then, um, so to comply with these recent changes to state law, the following amendments are proposed. Uh, we'll list them here. So, one is that the number of detached ADUs permissible on a lot with an existing multif family dwelling has increased from two to eight. So, these are detached ADUs. provided that the number of these ADUs does not exceed the number of existing units on the lot. Second, uh we have to update uh reference government code sections for state ADU law as SB 477 has rechartered them. And also uh pay per state law, the ADU amnesty date for unpermitted ADUs has been extended by two years to January 1st, 2020. Finally, uh so while staff was working on all these, we um re identified

opportunities to make some cleanup amendments uh which include um updating definitions to be consistent with state defined terms. Um also we removed duplicates um you know just a general cleanup in terms of uh definitions for more clarity on our organization. Um we also are proposing to update footnotes to the permitted land use table. Um to accommodate amended use classifications. Um uh corrected as well to include the prohibition of commercial uses on residential lots on Adams and King Street which is part of our general plan as noted on the staff report and other changes. And finally, some other cleanup u amendments to correct footnotes on the uh ADU ordinance um to kind of align the ordinance better with uh with state law. Um all right. So with that, let me just Okay. Uh All right. So finally, yes, uh these uh proposed amendments are in alignment with city policies and goals as elaborated on pages five and six of the staff report. Um so they comply with general plan housing and land use elements and also with the city council strategic plan initiative to promote housing. All right. So staff has received one public comment so far. The comment came from an Albany resident uh with comments about the modifications to the R1 zoning and how they would ensure that forplexes can be built in that zoning district. removing the language uh that so our answer is you know as explained before um as we're removing language from the code that would restrict this district or single family residential district to single family dwelling units opens the

possibility to build different types of uh of dwelling units not not only single family but also duplexes and multifamily um with alignment with SB9 with Senate Bill 9 as explained previously Um, also the commenter asked about the definition of dwelling. Again, as stated previously, the reason to create it is that currently on our use table, what is listed are types of structures. Dwelling is a type of use defined in broad terms. Now, in our proposed amendment to include all types of dwelling units from single to multif family to mixed use. So again, a residential use of a single building or portion of a building. That's the definition that provides permanent provisions for occupancy by a household which is also a broad use classification to include again single to multifamily and mixeduse development. So by doing this so these changes just provide more flexibility to allow a variety of housing types within a district uh while still retaining the u the density allowances and development standards for that district. Um, also as a reminder to uh members of the public is and also to the commissioners, these are the ones the amendments that we're presenting today are cleanup amendments to comply with specific state law updates and housing amendment programs. Uh, but and uh staff appreciates the comment received and uh shares that we will be looking into making more intense updates to our zoning code as well. Um and I think part of the last uh com uh part of the comment was in terms of the residential care facilities and its impact on existing facilities. So just as a reminder, these amendments do not apply to senior care facilities uh just to residential care facilities as explained throughout the uh presentation.

Um so yeah, hopefully uh this is um a good explanation and kind of overview of our presentation and on recommendations and next steps. Staff recommends that the planning and zoning commission approve resolution 202504 recommending that the city council adopt the proposed amendments to the planning and zoning code. Upon recommendation of the updated ordinances to the city council, staff will incorporate any comments received tonight and schedule before the city council for review and adoption in what we estimate to be October or November of this year. Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation. Uh we will move to commissioner questions for staff. Does anyone have questions? Commissioner Wadi? Yeah, I had a quick question just making sure I'm understanding this. So the way I'm reviewing the revisions, this effectively makes R1 through three as it relates to residential uses the same, right? So there's no longer differentiation between R1, R2, and R3 in terms of density allowed. Is that accurate?

No, we're not changing the density allowances or the maximum or minimums. What we're doing is it's mostly like semantics really. It's we're creating a new use which is dwelling an umbrella use and under it we would be have uh we are including so hey dwelling the dwelling use can have different types of structures however these are going to be ultimately regulated by our development standards which include densities uh height um you know F etc those are not being changed so ultimately all the possibilities of development are still being regulated uh by these development in standards.

Got it. So density per in in the R1, two and three is enumerated. I'm just looking on the table right now. The use table. So the use table basically there's no difference between the R1 and R3, but then you layer in elsewhere that I probably just don't know where in the code to look for that, but there's somewhere else where it enumerates different densities that are allowed.

Correct. That's correct. And then my second question, this might just maybe it's correlated to that and I'm just not reading the code right here. Um, but it looks like because dwelling includes up to mixeduse buildings, does that mean that a mixeduse building that includes commercial is permitted in the R1 district? Like if you hypothetically built like one residential unit, right? Something that was at the allowable density in the R1, would you now be allowed to do a mixeduse building of whatever that density allowances plus a commercial use since subsection D of dwelling definition now allows for a mixeduse?

Um, so that's a good question, but no. What we we defined dwelling is the use which is the residential use and that dwellings could be located in structures such as a single family detached, a duplex, multif family or a mixed use. So if a mixed use is permissible, it's only if a commercial use is allowable in that district. Got it. So you go to R1. R1 doesn't allow commercial. Therefore, inherently a mixeduse building is not allowed. Correct. Okay. Okay. Got it. Thank you. That clarifies my questions. Uh, any other questions?

Yeah, speak into the microphone. Sorry, I have a question regarding one of the foot number six that doesn't allow single family dwellings uh in R4 district. Uh this is in three uh attach attachment exhibit B. So, Commissioner M, sorry. Um, you're referring to footnote number six, right? Yeah. Multi family dwellings only. See,

exactly. Yeah. And that prohibits single family and two family dwellings uh in our four district, but it doesn't apply that to Solano commercial and Solano San Pablo commercial district. wondering are we permitting single family and two family dwellings in San Pablo commercial and Salano commercial districts.

So that footnote number six is related to the R4 because previously in the R4 single family and two family dwellings were not permitted. So the scope of these um these current amendments are pretty specific related to the program element in the R1 district. So we did not change anything in the R3, R4, RHD. So if single family were previously prohibited, we still prohibited it. Dwelling units allowed it is mentioned somewhere because this would be kind of a summary of uses, you know,

right? people would be referring to this and there is a possibility of misinterpretation that they may think single family or you know two families are permitted in San Pablo commercial and Salano commercial so in the Solano commercial single family are permitted they are permitted right in the in the in San Pablo they are I think they are not yeah yes so so we didn't change Hence the footnote um clarifying.

Okay. But you know my question is the footnote because it is just under R4 and it is not under SPC. You know I'm wondering like do we should we add that there?

So under the Solano we have footnote 8 and for the Sam Pablo we have footnote 9 because each of those footnotes are different and that are tailored specifically to the footnote. So footnote 8 for Solano commercial is the exact. It's just renumbered. It used to be footnote 2. There's no difference. Footnote six with the R4 clarifies that the single family and two family are not permissible in the R4.

And then under um San Pablo commercial, it is the um footnote 9 which used to be footnote three. So again that didn't change just the the numeration changed. I see. Okay. So you have one footnote individually for each district. Correct. And the only new one is for the R4 the San Pablo and the I see and Solano already had those footnotes. Okay. Okay. Makes it clear. Thank you.

Any other questions for staff? Filch. What was it? That is correct because they are included if you refer to the residential land use classifications. Um single family, two family, multif family are included within the definition of dwelling. So dwell in right and what the foot the new footnotes right. So they are actually being deleted. correct. No single room occupancy residential hotel is being at moved from quasi public and quasi public quasi public to residential. Yeah. Because now it is considered a residential use. Right. Sure.

duplex on an existing lot or it allows for dividing a lot and getting four units or sorry not a duplex but two units this is in um uh state terms I'll use the term unit that allows for two units on a existing lot or if you it allows you to divide your lot and then potentially have four. Yes. So basically, uh, none of those development standards may apply if they preclude the construction of a dwelling unit of at least 800 square feet, two dwelling units, sorry, per resulting lot.

Okay. Yeah.

They might All right. So, family. Normally other juris farther. You're not I'm not sure. I'm sorry. my mic on and maybe this is part of the discussion. I'm I don't know if this is fulfilling the intent of single family zoning reform or just the letter. Um and I don't know if you want to speak to that now or maybe we should hold it off to the discussion.

I didn't really hear a question.

Okay. Um yes, maybe there isn't one, so maybe we we'll leave that for discussion. Let me see if I have any more questions. Um, okay. Well, then regarding that were did we um as part of this, did we consider what other jurisdictions have been doing with their single family zoning reform, such as in Berkeley, uh, which just did a missing which did a I think they call the middle housing ordinance just recently. So um because you asked it like that, we did not look at other jurisdictions. The point of these amendments were not to be um exclusive or fully comprehensive. It started out as it started out as family daycare and grew from there, but it was still ch it was still limited to be seen as cleanup amendments. So, in no way should this be seen as the end, but it's just a start that we thought we could work into our workload.

Got you. Okay. I think that answers the question. Thank you very much. Can I ask Pearson? Yeah. Yeah. Could I ask one clarification? So, just based on Commissioner Pulch's comment. So, can you confirm that in the R1 SB9 would still be a a resident would still be able to apply SB9 in the R1 on a lot that had one home? Sorry, can you repeat the question into the mic? Oh, sorry. Quite hear you either. Sorry. In R in the R1 district, would a homeowner be able to utilize SB9? Yes. Thank you.

Yeah. And I think adding to um Leslie's comment as well, um this amendment uh in terms of um eliminating language uh for the R1 district for the exclusive use of single family dwelling units. It's to align with the spirit of SB9 as well. So, we're moving towards that direction. However, as Leslie uh explained and I mentioned during my presentation, uh we will move forward more intensive uh zoning amendments in the future, near future. Okay. Uh any other questions?

Yeah, go ahead, Commissioner M. So just based on uh commissioner uh builds and um commissioner Pearson's question regarding SB9 uh if someone uses SB9 on their R1 R1 lot single family lot and let's say you create two units would they still be uh permitted to create additional ADUs like the answer is yes. However, the ADU would be counted as one of the two units.

So, there would not be like eight units. If let's say, you know, there is a large single family lot, they split that and build four units and then they add, you know, like two ADUs each. So, there would be like six dwelling units on that lot or maybe eight. Would that be possible? My understanding is that no, it's uh it's again an ADU would be considered uh would be counted towards Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Other questions? More follow?

Yeah, I did one more. I forgot. um the classific uh the new uh term dwelling that you're using um is that a a classification used in other jurisdictions as well um uh or or is this something unique to Albany?

I can answer for myself in terms of my professional experience. I have not specifically seen the term dwelling used in a use category. However, in our internal discussions, we considered that since in the spirit of defining based on the use, what's the use uh just to be kind of aligned with that uh we, you know, staff thought that the term dwelling would encompass what the actual use would be. Yeah. I I Yeah. And I can confirm other jurisdictions use the term dwelling in their use case.

Okay, great. I I didn't want to use a term that was maybe only unique to us. Okay. Thank you. That's it. Okay. Anyone else? Um I don't have a lot to ask, but I guess um it's been a little while since SB9 passed and I'm not really with specifics. Um, are there minimum lot sizes for SB9 or I mean we have so many small lots that I thought that maybe SB9 almost didn't you know it didn't apply or it wasn't able to be utilized in a lot of small lots. So wanted to

so it's true we do have small lots here in Albany comparatively. However, the as my understanding and it's all we have developed uh a slew of handouts and frequently asked questions and uh site eligibility requirements. So SP9 requires that the minimum lot size is 2400 square feet and if you subdivide each lot has to be a minimum of 1,200 square ft. So even our small Albany lots um qualify for SP9. Okay. And has any applicant anybody used SB9 in any application to date? No, not in our city.

We have received questions. However, for some reason, who knows the so far we haven't seen an actual application come in. Okay. And then you mentioned um that we are going to be addressing other zoning issues. uh related to the housing element uh our strategic plan goals etc. Um, so do we have a timeline for that? And what you know I I think uh what what I'm looking for is something that's really going to move the needle. You know, I mean I this for discussion a little bit but um

I know in terms of development standards and one related question that says here at the bottom SQA is not triggered by what we're doing today because it's minor. So if we start changing development standards, densities, do we have to go through S squa approval or is there some way get around that if we're upzzoning? It depends what we are doing. Um so it would be analyzed um on a case by case basis. Yeah. I'm just wondering how complicated it is to change or you know phase our zone. Isn't there also a recent state bill that just passed that said if you're implementing your housing element it they're statutoily exempt or Yeah. exempt right. So I think there's no longer that the need to go through SQA for doing code

sort of what I was hoping or looking for. Okay. Otherwise I have no question no more further questions. So uh if there's anyone we'll open this up to public comment there. Anyone in the room would like to make a public comment on this issue please come to the dis.

Hello everybody. Uh, my name is Max Klene. I'm the owner of 1129 Portland Avenue in Albany. It's um, first of all, I wanted to say that completely approve and I uh, this plan and I like the direction it's going in because I'm a fan of um, increasing housing stock and I really want to address that. Currently, my building I've just been through planning uh, only a few months ago. Um, I wish I kind of knew about SB9 then, but uh, you know, there's some problems. So, um, my building was is on a 2500 foot lot. It's one of those tiny ones in Albany. Um, I it has a maximum floor area ratio of 0.55. You know that? That means if you multiply those numbers, you get like 1300 square foot, which is not that much comparatively to my neighbors. Also, it's a little bit frustrating to me because the lot adjacent to mine is R2, even though I'm in R1. So, I'm like, you know, I'm inches away from R2 and I couldn't really build the houses that I wanted to uh to for my family. You saw my other children here as well. So, although I like really like this law, um I would really like to eventually see density increase so that it because F doesn't make sense for 2500T lots. I use the ADU law to add a second unit to there. I think eventually it's like 1,700 square foot if you add these two things together. Pretty happy with that. But the truth is I would have loved to build more. I spent a lot, you know, getting up to two stories and that. So um I really like this and I want to voice my support for increasing densities in um R1 as well. So and one last comment as well is that because there's something interesting happened. My backyard is only 300 square foot. The ADU law allows

for a 1,00 square foot ADU law uh ADU by right. It couldn't even fit in two stories in the backyard. So I was given permission to build an ADU into the front yard with no front setback. So currently we have about three foot front setback. So I also as well as the density and F I would encourage reducing the front setback as another way to accommodate density. Thank you. All right, thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else who would like to comment in the room here? Is there anyone online who would like to comment on this item?

Yes. Hi, my name is Brian Martin. Uh, I'm a resident of the 600 block of Adam Street. Um, I thank staff for addressing some of the questions I emailed earlier about this item. Um, before I begin, I wanted to just mention that about 90% of Commissioner Pilch's statements were not audible. Um, so if he or staff for the official ref record record can summarize what his questions were that I think that would be um useful. Uh, and then one question I had was in which document is dwelling defined and how was it defined? I looked through all the attachments and I only see it defined um in the staff report which is not a binding document for development in the city. I could be I overlooked it couldn't but um if if staff could clarify that also from the questions that were answered after the presentation um it was clear that some of the commissioners weren't sure how it was defined or if it was a standard term and um so I think that would be that's important to make sure that that's in there for the public to be aware of what it means. Um and my last question is um what is the process and timeline by which the underlying restrictions on development in R1 and other zoning districts will be addressed in planning and zoning meetings which could address the need for higher density housing, for example, up through fourplexes throughout the city in R1 and would also help the uh the four person who just um spoke and wished he could have made a denser development um to help out our housing. stock in his own family uh but

was unable to with the current restrictions apparently. Thanks. Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else online? Please use the raise the hand icon if you'd like to speak. Nope. No. All right. Seeing no further public comment, public comment is closed and we will move to commissioner discussion of this item. Anyone who would like to May we um answer the questions?

Oh siring I I believe it was in there was a definitions attachment, wasn't there? Was it in that? I Yes. Uh so it's in exhibit D. Uh and it's under residential use classifications. Um, so yeah, it was uh uploaded to the agenda and of course uh you're welcome to email us as well at the planning department with questions if you have any further questions about where to find uh the specific sections of our amendments or the different parts. Pardon? You said exhibit E as in echo or did I D as in David?

D as in David. Okay, thank you. Yeah. Um and I don't know if I may chair and Leslie answer the other question about like the list of questions that were asked after that he he did not find audible. We can just um Commissioner Pilch had his microphone off for part of his question period. Um I don't know how we summarized that. Were they would they be able to be were they captured on the recording at all even faintly? or I could repeat them if you wanted. If you can just briefly repeat your questions, that would be helpful.

Okay, let me see. I didn't I wasn't reading off a script, but let me see if I can remember them correctly and maybe others can fill in. Um, one was about SB9. Uh, what do you do? Can people override uh FAR and uh um density uh if they need to with SP9? I mean the answer is yes. Um does this implement the intent of single family zoning reform? The answer was this is a start. Um is dwelling uh classification use in other jurisdictions? Yes. Uh did we look at what other jurisdictions are doing? No, not yet. Um and then I was asking about the table where where all the items where a row is completely struck out then that row will disappear in the table. And I believe that's all the questions I asked.

Okay. Thanks. And I think there was a question by Martin about timeline for future zoning changes. Right. So timeline isn't really under this agenda, but since it's been brought up, I will just address we are going to be looking at our future workload and our priority is the items highlighted by HCD on our certification letter. So those are the items that we are going to be that we're actively working on and moving forward with. So we will be regrouping. We've got we had a quite a few kind of summer amendments that we got through. So we need to start focusing. We'll bring uh kind of an agenda workload for you um next meeting and I don't have specific time frames at this time.

Okay. Thank you. Uh commissioner discussion. Anybody have comments? happy to start. Yes, please. Um, pretty much I don't I don't have any additional comments to share. This seems after ask answering my questions, it's pretty straightforward. This is effectively a cleanup and alignment with some state laws. This isn't, you know, a massive change of our density controls in the city. Um, so it seems very straightforward and sort of the first step on that journey of cleaning things up and aligning with state law uh in compliance with our housing element. So, this seems like a pretty straightforward action. I'm happy to support. I know others might want to speak, but I'm happy to make a motion to approve when the time comes.

Okay. Any other comments?

Yeah, I'll thank you. I'll just echo those comments uh and just add one more thing, which is that um I hope that we do get to uh density um density and far changes sooner than later. Maybe even get rid of FAR. I can always hope. Um but uh one thing we might want to consider is that Berkeley just did um big amendments um and went through a very long process. Um and it might be appropriate for Albany. It might be something to do uh to just copy and paste. We might just want to consider doing exactly what they did. Um I don't know if that'll fly in Albany. Hey, I'm getting already getting some looks from fellow commissioners, but um I mean there's something to be said for not re reinventing the wheel. So, uh I'll just leave it at that.

Okay. Um Pearson or no comments moment. I would just like to acknowledge that uh all these um updates and amendments uh planning staff has done a very thorough job. you know you have tracked all changes through all sections and all that. It was very clear when I read it. So thank you for that and I support all the proposed amendments.

Okay. Uh it leaves me um yeah I support what you're doing. It's a great first step. I mean, we have a lot more on the housing element that we need to deal with and specifically from HCD, which is in terms of zoning upgrades, ballot measure form for measure K. Um, R2 zoning upgrades. Um, and I would also state that R1 reform is really not reform unless we upgrade those standards as well, development standards. So, um, you know, I think there's a lot of work to do in those areas and that's kind of the key thing that will move the needle. Um, because if we don't change the development standards, things aren't going to improve my opinion. So I I really want to encourage staff and and everyone to you know really move forward with those other items. U you know and Mr. Martin keeps making the same point you know we are required to equitably distribute our housing opportunities across the city and that doesn't mean we've just done our specific plan for San Pablo Avenue and we're done. you know, that includes Milano Avenue, the Brighton corridor that's within, you know, Stones Throw, major transit stop and shopping. Uh, so there's a lot of opportunity here to make improvements. And I I hear uh this commenter in the audience's frustrations with the F. As an architect, as a builder, I think the FIR F leads to endless frustration and it is a limit on housing. So um a barrier to more housing. So I I encourage that reform

before actually multiple times and I would love us to tackle that. Um so regarding what's before us right now, I just had one suggestion. Um it was for what was it? Exhibit D. I think you could add JDU to single family. It said ADU was allowed but a JD do was also allowed by right wasn't included in uh exhibit D. It was a residences one dwelling a single family. That would just small suggestion. Um otherwise I'm very happy to support what we're doing right now but I I really wish we would go further especially in terms of missing middle housing. um support that and um you know allow people to build duplexes, triplexes, triplexes, what have you. Um so is we'll conclude and is there a motion?

I'm happy to make a motion to approve this item with staff recommendation. There a second and we'll take a vote. Commissioner Wadi. Hi. Commissioner Pilch, yes. Pearson, yes. Commissioner Mman, yes. I vote yes as well. That item has been approved. Um, we will move on to item seven, presentations. Are there any presentations? None this evening. And that leaves item eight, adjournment. We are 8 o'clock at 8 o'clock. So, this meeting is now adjourned. Thank you all. And thank you.