►
From YouTube: Planning & Zoning Commission - June 22, 2022
Description
This meeting will include discussion and possible action on projects at: 907 Ventura, and the San Pablo Specific Plan.
Link to the Agenda and Supporting Documents can be found on the Meeting Agendas page.
https://www.albanyca.org/our-city/kalb-community-media/public-meeting-video-and-agendas
Register in advance for this event:
https://albanyca.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_4wIRRRfeSROXw8wINYogRw
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.
COVID-19 NOTICE – PUBLIC MEETING GUIDELINES
Consistent with California Assembly Bill 361, given the proclaimed state of emergency and the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency Director’s recommendation for continued social distancing for public meetings, which is also consistent with CalOSHA requirements for social distancing for public meetings, Advisory Body members will be participating in public meetings via phone/video conferencing. The public is invited to participate via the methods below:
How to watch or listen to the meeting:
1. Meetings are streamed live and recorded for viewing on City website www.albanyca.org/meetings or on YouTube www.YouTube.com/AlbanyKALB
2. To observe the meeting by video conference, please go to https://zoom.us/s/99056542995
3. To listen to the meeting by phone, please call 1 (669) 900-9128, enter Webinar ID 990 5654 2995, follow by #. When asked for a participant ID, press # again.
How to submit Public Comment:
1.Members of the public may submit comments in writing by emailing the Planning & Zoning Commission at pzc@albanyca.orgwith the agenda item clearly identified in the subject line of the email. Comments may also be submitted by mail to City of Albany – Planning Department Staff, 1000 San Pablo Avenue, Albany, CA 94706. All written comments received by 12 PM on the day of the meeting will be posted on the City website in advance of the meeting.
2.To comment by video conference, click the “Raise Your Hand” button to request to speak when Public Comment is being taken on the Agenda item.You will be asked tounmutedyourself when it is your turn to make your comment for up to 3 minutes. After the allotted time, you will then be re-muted.
3.To comment by phone, you will “Raise Your Hand” by pressing *9to request to speak when public comment is being taken on the Agenda item.You will be asked to unmute yourself by pressing *6when it is your turn to make your comment for up to 3 minutes. You will be re-muted after the allotted time.
*******
KALB supports community access television as a way for Albany residents to share in the political and social life of their community, and as a vehicle for self-expression and communication.
KALB’s mission is to provide a public forum for expression reflecting the diverse backgrounds, views, and interests of Albany citizens.
Albany, California is a small city of 18,539 (2010 census) residents, located within the greater San Francisco Bay area. Easily accessible to San Francisco by both freeway and public transportation, Albany residents enjoy world-class entertainment, shopping, and all the benefits of living within one of the most interested metropolitan regions in the world!
https://www.albanyca.org
https://www.facebook.com/CityofAlbanyCA
https://www.twitter.com/CityofAlbanyCA
https://www.instagram.com/albanycalifornia
A
A
Excuse
me:
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
ohlone
tribe.
We
thank
them
for
their
contributions,
which
have
transformed
our
community
and
will
continue
to
bring
forth
growth
and
unity.
A
A
Are
there
any
commissioners
with
ex-parte
communications
to
disclose?
No?
No,
no
seeing
hearing,
no's
and
seeing
head
shakes.
I
have
none.
Either
we
will
move
on
to
the
consent
calendar.
It
will
be
enacted
in
one
motion
unless
a
member
of
the
public
or
a
member
of
the
commission
pulls
an
item
for
discussion.
A
A
A
Thank
you,
commissioner
donaldson
for
that
motion,
and
I
believe
I
heard
commissioner
waddy
is
with
the
second.
Yes,
okay,
thank
you.
So
I
will
ask
if
there's
any
dissent
from
any
commissioner
to
approving
the
consent
calendar
if
there's
no
dissent
or
abstentions,
yes,
go
ahead.
Commissioner
mullman.
A
A
E
Just
I
do
have
one
announcement,
commissioners,
we're
hoping
that
we'll
be
able
to
schedule
a
special
meeting
in
july
to
to
consider
the
draft
housing
element,
in
particular
the
date
that
we're
looking
at
is
tuesday
july
19th,
we'll
finalize
that
in
the
coming
week
or
so,
but
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
announcement
now.
I
understand
that
commissioner
wadi
will
not
be
available
for
that.
A
G
G
G
G
G
G
I
I
don't
know
what
this
commission's
gonna
do,
but
maybe
you
can
respond
to
people
that
are
emailing
you.
You
know,
jeff
bond
really
help
these
people
out.
You
know
it's
not
fair.
I
mean
these
people
aren't
homeless
yet,
but
you
know
if
they
do
get
evicted
now,
they're
homeless
in
albany,
and
I
was
pretty
sure
that
there's
still
like
a
no
event
eviction
memorandum
right
now
because
of
covid,
so
please
do
what
you
can
for
albany
residents.
A
E
Thank
you,
chair
pilch
and
commissioners.
My
name
is
jeff
vaughn,
I'm
the
community
development
director
for
the
city,
I'd
like
to
give
a
brief
introduction
and
then
turn
it
over
to
our
consultant
team.
To
give
you
a
detailed
presentation,
just
to
kind
of
give
you
some
context
for
where
we
are
in
in
this
project.
E
In
our
particular
case,
we've
received
over
220
000
in
grant
funds
for
this
project
in
2019,
the
city
council
hold
a
series
of
meetings
to
discuss
the
grant
application
and
the
scope
of
work
that
ultimately
has
led
to
where
we
are
today
on
this
project
before
I
turn
it
over
to
a
consultant
team.
I
do
want
to
mention
a
little
bit
the
the
schedule
that
we're
working
on,
and
this
is
kind
of
bringing
the
housing
element
and
the
specific
plan
together.
E
This
allows
us
to
incorporate
the
conclusion
of
the
specific
plan
into
the
draft
housing
element,
which
we
also
need
to
complete
by
the
end
of
july
and
in
draft
form
and
send
to
the
state
for
their
review.
So,
ideally
this
the
commission
can
take
action
this
evening
on
on
making
a
recommendation
to
the
city
council.
If
not,
we
would
hope
that
any
additional
items
that
might
need
attention
or
discussion
can
be
brought
back
to
you
at
your
next
meeting
on
july
13th.
E
We
think
we
can
kind
of
squeeze
it
in,
but
but
hopefully
would
certainly
be
easier
for
us
and
a
little
bit
smoother
transition.
If
we
can
have
a
recommendation
out
of
the
commission
this
evening,
I
realize
that
we've.
There
is
a
great
deal
of
information
here.
A
lot
of
it
is
new
to
you,
so
we
appreciate
whatever
you
can
accomplish
this
evening
with
that
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over
to
gene
eisenberg,
who's,
the
principal
of
lexington
planning
and
jane
lynn,
who
is
principal
with
urban
field
studio.
H
H
H
So
community
engagement
throughout
the
process
we've
been
working
with
the
planning
commission.
Through
a
number
of
study
sessions,
we
had
a
virtual
open
house
over
the
winter
of
2020
2021
with
over
400
participants.
We
are
in
the
midst
of
a
tribal
consultation.
We
did
get
a
request
for
tribal
consultation
and
public
notice
has
been
provided
most
recently
for
this
meeting
to
the
entire
planning
area,
plus
a
300
300
foot
distance
from
the
planning
area,
and
then,
lastly,
we
have
a
project
website.
H
This
is
the
table
of
contents
from
the
plan,
so
this
is
just
indicating
the
key
topics
and
that's
land
use.
As
jeff
indicated,
the
plan
is
really
focused
on
housing
and
so
primarily
in
terms
of
land
use.
We're
talking
about
housing,
as
well
as
the
ground
floor,
retail
requirement,
chapter
on
urban
design
and
a
compendium
talk
document
that
I'll
mention
just
in
a
minute,
and
then
we
have
a
chapter
on
infrastructure
and
mobility
as
well
as
an
implementation
section.
H
There
was
a
request
to
show
what
these
standards
could
look
like
in
terms
of
the
five
six
seven
stories
anticipated
by
the
new
zoning
standards
and
so
you'll
see.
This
is
an
excerpt
from
the
plan
itself.
The
types
of
projects
that
are
being
built
on
100
foot
depth
lots
in
surrounding
cities.
These
are
showing
oakland
and
el
cerrito
examples.
H
The
staff
report
summarizes
some
key
changes
to
the
plan
since
the
commission
reviewed
it
in
march,
and
so
I'm
going
to
summarize
them
again
here-
and
these
are
based
on
straw
polls
by
the
commission
and
by
the
council
later
in
march,
and
so
these
have
resulted
in
changes
to
the
plan.
So
first
clarify
that
ground
floor.
Commercial
development
is
required
along
the
corridor
except
on
sites
with
100
below
market
rate
housing.
H
Second,
we've
removed
the
policy
that
expanded
the
use
of
the
affordable
housing
fee
in
lieu,
which
means
that
primarily,
we
would
expect
the
inclusionary
housing
requirement.
That's
on-site
bmr
units
below
market
rate
units.
Those
would
be
provided
on-site
as
opposed
to
a
fee
in
loop.
Third,
we
expanded
the
northern
node.
H
This
is
where
taller
heights
would
be
permitted
close
to
transit,
the
bart
trains
in
particular
to
include
the
southeast
corner
of
brighton
and
san
pablo
and
then
the
next
three
bullets,
we've
relocated,
the
community
benefits
and
the
zoning
changes
that
were
previously
in
the
plan.
We
had
detailed
standards
about
what
those
would
be:
we've
relocated
them
to
their
own
documents
that
I'll
mention
in
a
minute
in
terms
of
urban
design.
Likewise,
we've
relocated
the
design
guidelines
and
design
standards
that
were
included
in
the
plan
in
march
to
their
own
compendium
document
and
then.
H
H
So
new
in
your
packet
are
amendments
to
the
general
plan.
These
are
shown
in
red
line
format,
so
it
highlights
places
where
we're
proposing
amendments.
It
all
also
highlights
places
where
the
specific
plan
is
emphasizing
or
implementing
policies
in
the
general
plan,
and
so
you'll
see
both
strikeouts
in
specifically
around
development
standards,
because
far
and
height
are
mentioned
in
the
general
plan
and
changes
to
the
general
plan.
Land
use
map,
as
I
said
earlier,
and
then
again,
you'll
see
annotations
that
talk
about
how
the
specific
plan
is
helping
to
implement
those
general
plan
policies.
H
There
are
no
substantial
policy
changes
proposed
beyond
those
changes
to
development
standards
and
then
second,
you
know
we
previously
had
zoning
amendments
listed
in
the
in
the
specific
plan.
We
had
sort
of
a
note
saying
that
we
were
going
to
ultimately
take
them
out
and
we've
done
that
at
this
time,
and
so
the
zoning
ordinance
amendments
you'll
see
the
red
lines.
There.
We've
tried
to
maintain
the
current
organization
of
the
city's
zoning
ordinance,
so
that
means
we've
maintained
the
table
structure
where
you
have
development
standards
by
individual
districts.
H
We
have
not
created
a
new
overlay
that
would
change
the
city
change
the
way
the
city
currently
lists
development
standards.
So,
as
a
result,
you
see
a
lot
of
footnotes,
you
see
exceptions
to
general
rules
that
would
apply
on
san
pablo
avenue
versus
in
other
locations,
and
so
for
that
reason
we
annotated
the
zoning
amendments.
So
it's
easier
to
follow
along
with
those
changes,
are
so
in
the
in
the
margin
of
that
document.
You'll
see
a
little
bit
of
a
guide
to
what
these
footnotes
and
zoning
changes
really
intend
to
do.
H
H
When
you
have
a
building
in
that
85
foot
in
the
85
foot
height
limit,
we
have
gotten
some
feedback
from
a
property
owner
that
we
need
to
better
clarify
how
those
requirements
come
into
play
on
85
foot
where
85
feet
is
allowed
in
particular,
because
many
times
in
those
locations,
a
building,
that's
abetting
atoms
or
canes
would
need
to
be
reduced
down
to
50
feet.
So
we
do
need
to
clarify
that
going
forward,
but
this
community
benefits
document
is
intended
to
again
be
adopted
by
resolution
so
that
it
can
be
adjusted
over
time.
H
So,
for
example,
we
have
a
standard
or
a
benefit
option
around
solar
panels.
Currently,
those
are
required
for
buildings
up
to
three
stories,
but
not
for
the
buildings
above
three
stories,
and
so,
if
that
change
in
the
building
code
over
time,
it
would
no
longer
need
to
be
a
benefit
if
it's
required,
and
so
that's
the
type
of
thing
that
they
change
over
time
and
so
rather
than
amend
the
specific
plan
again,
it
would
be
this
separate
document.
H
And,
lastly,
is
the
sql
analysis,
so
we
prepared
an
addendum
to
the
general
plan
eir.
This
is
assesses
whether
impacts
from
the
specific
plan
would
create
any
new
or
substantially
greater
impacts
compared
to
what
was
accessed
in
the
general
plan
in
general
and
eir,
and
so
this
this
analysis
includes
all
the
secret
topics,
as
well
as
new
secret
topics
that
have
been
identified
by
the
legislature
since
the
eir
was
adopted
several
years
ago.
H
H
H
Also
tonight
we
are
taking
public
comment.
We've
received
several
written
comments
in
response
to
the
staff
report
and
attachments
several
comments
related
to
concerns
about
overhaul
building
height
concerns
about
transitions
to
lower
density,
residential,
a
desire
for
city
wide
for
planning
changes.
Zoning
changes
to
take
place,
rather
than
focusing
all
of
heightened
density
changes
on
stem
pavo
avenue
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
That
concludes
our
presentation.
Thank.
A
A
A
H
We
asked
the
council
to
weigh
in
on
all
of
the
changes
that
the
commission
had
recommended,
because
we
did
not
change
the
draft
between
the
commission
hearing
and
the
council
hearing.
So
those
were
all
corroborated.
So
I
would
say
that
the
straw
polls
indicated
changes
to
both
ensuring
the
ground
floor,
commercial,
affordable
housing
and
the
parking.
A
A
Okay,
all
right
that
was,
it
would
be
okay,
so
just
parking
transit
policies,
added
transit
policies
based
on
transportation,
commission,
okay,
we
might
keep
this
slide
handy.
It
might
be
useful
to
refer
to
later
as
well
and
another
oh
and
a
question
about
whether
or
not
the
design
guidelines
and
the
objective
design
standards
were
there
any
additions
or
changes
to
those.
Since
the
last
time
we
looked
at
those.
H
There
were
changes,
we
had
a
number
of
comments,
I
would
say
more
from
individual
commissioners
and
maybe
jane
can
pipe
in,
and
so
we
made
it.
We
did
make
a
number
of
changes.
Some
of
that
was
making
sure
that
we
have
design
guidelines.
Those
are
subjective
that
our
objective
standards
are
really
objective.
H
I
Design
standards,
genie,
genie's
right
well,
first
of
all,
like
the
it
used
to
be
chap,
it
used
to
be
its
own
chapter
in
this
specific
plan,
but
we
decided
to
move
it
out.
So
it
is
now
in
its
own
document,
and
the
way
it
was
organized
is
was
changed
as
well,
but
the
it's
essentially
the
same
stuff,
but
it
has
also
a
little
more
clarity
on
some
of
the
objective
design
standards
versus
what
is
guidance.
A
H
Sure
I
can,
I
can
start
and
then
maybe
jeff
can
weigh
in,
but
we
want
to
take
one.
We
want
to
take
action
on
the
sql
document
and
the
general
plan
amendments
first,
because
we
do-
and
I
know
this
is
something
that's
come
up
in
previous
meetings.
The
specific
plan
needs
to
be
consistent
with
the
general
plan
and
we
we
can
amend
the
general
plan
and
then
we
ensure
that
a
specific
plan
is
consistent
with
it.
So
we
recommend
doing
the
general
plan
action.
First,
we
always
do
the
sequa
action.
H
First,
that's
sort
of
part
of
the
clearance
to
make
sure
that
as
you're
making
a
discretionary
approval,
we
have
completed
the
necessary
sql
approval
and
then,
in
terms
of
the
zoning
amendments,
I
think
it's
possible.
Those
could
have
been
included
with
the
plan
and
the
design
guidelines,
but
it's
a
little
bit
of
a
separation
between
everything,
that's
associated
with
the
specific
plan
versus
the
zoning
ordinance.
That's
a
city-wide
document.
E
E
We
send
the
ordinance
to
outside
consulting
service
that
actually
drafts
our
municipal
code
and
it's
a
lot
cleaner
to
just
have
them
make
give
them
a
standalone
zoning
ordinance.
Amendment
resolution
not
include
all
this
other
design
stuff
because
they
won't
know
what
it
is
and
they'll
put
it
in
the
ordinance
where
it
doesn't
belong
and
then
it's
a
big
mess.
A
B
Yeah
thanks,
let's
see
first
of
all,
I
want
I,
you
know
I
I'm.
I
have
issues
and
concerns
about
the
specific
plan
you
as
you
all
know,
but
I
do
want
to
thank
staff
and
and
thank
gene
and
her
crew
for
all
the
hard
work
that
you've
put
in.
It
was
a
really
large
file
that
we
received
for
this
meeting.
Hundreds
of
pages
actually,
and
I
could
see
that
a
lot
of
thought
and
effort
went
into
pretty
much
every
part
of
it.
B
There's
a
lot
to
like
about
the
specific
plan
in
terms
of
how
it's
put
together
the
formatting,
the
communication
skills
that
go
into
it,
and
I
applaud
that,
even
though
there
are
parts
of
it
and
some
of
the
policies
that
I
don't
like
at
all.
So
thank
you
for
that
it
is.
I
really
can
recognize
and
appreciate
all
the
work
and
effort
that
went
into
pulling
it
together.
B
I
a
question
I
have
you
mentioned
the
straw
poll.
I
think
I
remember
that
at
the
planning
commission,
I
think
I
I
voted.
I
was
one
no
vote
on
some
of
those
items
for
sure.
Explain
to
me
what
to
happen
at
the
council.
You
did
a
similar
straw
poll
at
the
council
level.
That's
one
question
I
have
and
talk
about
that
and
the
other
question
I
have
is:
did
you
say
there
were
eight
letters
of
comment
that
had
been
received
today
or
yesterday?
H
H
B
H
H
You
know
we
really
didn't
end
up
doing
the
straw
polling,
because
we
had
asked
very
specific
questions
about
their
feedback
on
the
issues
that
the
commission
had
given
us
feedback
on,
and
so
the
council
members
did
indicate
their
preference
around
parking
around
the
affordable
housing
fee
versus
on-site
and
so
based
on
the
comments
that
we
got
from
each
council
member.
That
did
make
a
change
in
the
direction
of
the
parking
in
particular
and
the
affordable
housing
on-site
versus
in
lieu,
in
particular.
D
Thank
you.
I
can't
agree
more
with
commissioner
donaldson
about
the
efforts
the
design
team
has
and
the
planning
staff
has,
and
you
know
put
in
in
preparing
this
specific
plan
document.
I
don't
have
any
procedural
questions.
I
have
some
specific
question.
I'm
happy
that
city
council
preferred
on-site.
Inclusionary
housing.
D
I'd
mentioned
that
in
the
last
meeting,
my
preference
for
that
also
in
the
updated
specific
plan
document
on
page
31,
I
see
one
paragraph
lu5,
affordable
housing
that
refers
to
that,
but
it's
not
very
clear
about
the
preference
for
on-site
inclusionary
housing
and
I
also
looked
through
zoning
amendments,
but
I
could
not
find
any
reference
to
that
language.
I
would
like
to
know
which
page
that
is
marked
up.
H
So
to
clarify
the
way
it
works
now
is
the
city
requires
the
15
inclusionary
requirement
to
be
located
on
site
and
the
city
does
not
have
a
fee
to
set
up
for
a
payment
in
lieu,
and
so
someone
really
needs
to
request
it
or
it's
used
as
a
remainder,
if
they're
providing
an
odd
number
or
fractional
unit.
The
previous
version
of
the
plan
had
suggested
doing
that
study,
identifying
or
updating
that
study
to
identify
the
fee,
and
so
we've
taken
that
out,
and
so
you
don't
see
specific
language
reinforcing
the
idea
of
on-site.
H
D
Okay,
I
understood
that,
but
then
the
language
that
you
have
currently
on
page
31
is
not
very
clear
about
the
preference.
It's
still
very
vague.
If
that
is
the
direction
you
have
received
from
city,
council,
okay
and
then
my
next
question
is
about
this
is
specific,
not
policy.
On
page
29,
we
have
this
plan
that
shows
opportunity
sites
which
mostly
covers
the
sites
that
are
part
of
2015,
to
2023
housing
element
cycle
and
for
the
next
housing
cycle.
D
We
have
added
another
nine
sites,
opportunity
sites
on
the
specific
you
know
within
the
specific
plan
boundary,
and
so
I'm
wondering
since
I
I
particularly
don't
know
you
know,
if
is
it
possible
to
indicate
some
of
those
sides
that
would
be
part
of
the
next
cycle?
Actually,
because
this
2015
to
2023
cycle
is
going
to
be
outdated
next
year
anyway,
and
so
in
order
to,
you
know,
highlight
the
importance
of
the
opportunity
site
within
the
specific
plan.
D
H
It's
going
to
say
something
like,
I
think
it's
2023
to
2030
and
it,
as
you
indicated,
it's
primarily
the
same
sites,
but
there
are
some
additions
and
for
our
purposes
we
are
we're
not
calling
this
map
an
opportunity,
site
map
anymore,
we're
talking
about
it
as
potential
build
out
areas.
We
don't
know
where
development
may
go,
but
I
I
hear
your
comments.
Thank
you,
okay.
Thank
you.
D
D
This
standard
allow
40
percent
of
the
open
space
to
be
covered
with
a
permanent
weather
protection,
and
I
I
am
personally
not
very
comfortable
with
that.
Having
first
of
all,
we
reduce
the
per
unit
required
open,
open
space
from
200
to
100,
and
if
40
percent
of
that
is
going
to
be
covered
permanently,
not
awnings
or
trellis,
but
like
permanent
weather
protection,
then
I
don't
think
that
would
be
very
desirable
and
that's
what
I
had
mentioned
in
our
last
meeting
and
looks
like
you
have
kept
that
provision
unchanged.
D
D
D
So
we
may
just
you
know,
specify
that
projections
are
permitted,
but,
like
being
specific
about
max
you
know,
six
up
to
60
percent
can
be
open
to
740
percent
can
be
covered.
Maybe
I
think
to
extend
you
know
excessive
in
my
opinion,
because
40
of
that
open
space,
if
it
is
like
you
know,
in
a
covered
area,
it
would
not.
It
will
not
look,
you
know
an
open
space
and
then
it
also
would
not
help
growth
of
landscape
and
plantation
planting
things
like
that.
D
A
Okay,
thank
you
and
yeah
I'll.
Let
her
echo
commissioner
muman
and
commissioner
donaldson
as
well,
that
you
know
one
of
my
first
thoughts
of
seeing
the
packet
was
the
was
about
the
amount
of
work
put
into
this.
So
thanking
the
staff
and
consultants
for
for
all
that,
there's
so
many
so
many
details
to
to
cover
impressive.
A
I
will
note
about
the
letters.
Unfortunately,
I
only
received
a
letter
one
letter
in
my
inbox,
and
I
just
while
others
were
talking,
I
just
investigated
that
it
looks
like
one
of
them
went
to
the
email
address
planning
at
albany
ca,
which
does
not
go
to
the
commission.
So
that's
why
some
of
you
might
not
have
received
that
one.
A
J
A
C
A
A
A
So
I
it
doesn't
look
like
we'll.
Have
many
commenters
I'll
go
ahead
and
leave
the
comment
time
in
three
minutes?
Okay,
we
now
have
four
hands
raised.
I
think
for
three
minutes
is
an
important
document
and
it
deserves
the
three
minutes.
But
if
you
do
want
to
abbreviate
and
just
agree
with,
the
previous
speaker
feel
free
to
not
use
up
your
full
three
minutes
and
with
that
staff,
please
let
the
members
of
the
public
in.
G
Good
evening
everybody,
thank
you
again,
so
I
was
just
really
curious
about
a
few
things.
Do
you
remember
in
the
beginning
of
the
meeting
where
you
read
the
statement
about
the
commitment
to
the
ohlone
culture
and
how
everything
we
do
is
supposed
to
be
working
toward
strengthening
relationships
with
the
ohlone
tribe
native
american
indians?
G
Anybody
from
the
ohlone,
tribe
or
segurate
land,
trust
or
or
anything,
I'm
really
concerned,
because
you
read
the
statement
in
the
beginning,
but
then
the
meeting
goes
by
and
you
kind
of
forget
everything
why
we're
supposed
to
be
doing
everything.
We
have
a
flag
flying
high
at
the
city
hall
and
we
have
a
a
statement
read
in
the
beginning
of
every
single
meeting.
G
G
G
B
A
K
All
right
hi,
so
in
the
past,
I've
talked
about
many
aspects
of
this
whole
process.
I
I
I
call
it
albany's
big
lie:
albany's
version
of
the
big
light.
This
is
actually
this
process
is
realizing
some
some
vision
in
the
general
plan.
I
talked
about
the
fact
that
the
notion
that
the
specific
plan
is
modifying
a
general
plan
is
is
backwards.
K
In
particular.
The
visual
and
aesthetic
impacts
on
these
neighborhoods.
The
eir
for
the
current
general
plan,
evaluates
visual
resources
and
notes
that
the
visual
and
aesthetic
conditions
are
well
regulated.
In
various
sections
of
the
general
plan
of
the
municipal
code,
the
er
cites
the
standards
for
building
heights
and
building
placement,
which
are
intended,
quoting
from
the
eir
to
preserve
views,
maintain
light
and
air
and
protect
aesthetic
quality
of
the
city
and
the
surrounding
neighborhoods.
K
The
er
specifically
calls
out
the
city's
daylight
plane
regulations
based
on
these
considerations.
The
er,
conclusive
and
the
general
plan
policies
ensure
that
again,
quoting
the
the
air
new
development
will
fit
within
the
scale
and
design
of
existing
neighborhoods
and
will
not
adversely
affect
the
visual
character
of
adjacent
areas.
K
Obviously,
many
of
the
standards
of
general
plans
have
now
changed.
They
allowed
base
building
heights
have
doubled,
the
setbacks
have
been
reduced
and
the
daylight
plane
requirements
have
been
eliminated.
The
finding
in
the
previous
eir
that
visual
and
aesthetic
conditions
will
not
be
significantly
impacted
by
the
general
plan
will
now
require
additional
analysis
and
evaluation.
K
I
will
note
again
that
there's
been
no
absolutely
no
technical
studies
to
evaluate
the
impact
of
the
proposed
development
standards
on
the
adjacent
residential
neighborhoods.
Initially,
we
were
told
that
the
consultant
would
be
preparing
three-dimensional
models
to
test
the
proposed
revisions
and
the
design
standards,
but
this
never
happened.
The
city
has
proposed
a
simple
addendum
to
the
previous
ers
addendums
are
appropriate
when
there's
only
minor
technical
changes
or
additions
that
are
being
proposed.
This
is
not
the
case
here.
K
Specific
plan
is
proposing
major
changes
to
the
general
plan,
changes
that
were
not
contemplated
and
therefore
not
evaluated
in
the
original
honor.
These
changes
will
have
a
direct
and
significant
impact
in
the
neighborhoods
of
keynes
and
atoms.
Sql
law
requires
that
when
there
are
substantial
changes
proposed
for
a
project,
substitute
or
supplemental
er
shall
be
required
all
right.
K
L
L
The
city
is
planning
for
in
eight
or
more
story
high
buildings
with
zero
parking
spaces.
If
the
san
pablo
avenue
specific
plan
is
adopted
as
written.
One
question
I
have
I'd
like
to
hear
addressed
in
the
meeting
is
what
is
density,
bonus
law,
state
density,
bonus
law
due
to
these
six
to
the
eight
story
heights?
L
Meanwhile,
this
commission
recently
learned
a
public
meeting
that
the
neighborhoods
along
san
pablo
avenue
was
negatively
impacted
by
federal
redlining
housing
policy
is
home
to
residents
with
the
lowest
income
in
albany
and
has
the
lowest
percentage
of
white
residents.
So
why
does
the
san
polis?
The
documents
still
show
only
four
and
five
story:
renderings
launched
along
san
pablo
avenue
in
albany
when
commissioners
in
the
public
requested
six
to
eight
story,
renderings
in
albany
to
more
realistically
show
the
impact.
L
L
Most
importantly,
the
commission
should
keep
in
mind
that
whatever
is
decided
on
for
san
pablo
avenue
and
how
those
decisions
impact
the
surrounding
neighborhood
sets
a
bar
for
the
rest
of
the
city.
In
other
words,
solano
avenue
will
need
to
have
significant
height
for
equity
reasons.
In
particular,
solano
avenue
will
need
to
have
significant
height
increases
and
working
reduction.
Parking
reductions,
r1
will
need
to
be
rezoned,
so
residents
will
have
the
flexibility
to
be
two
three
and
four
plexes
by
right.
L
M
M
The
residents
on
canes
will
be
impacted,
the
same
way
when
this
zoning
commission
previously
made
their
revisions.
Many
years
ago
I
attended
all
those
meetings
and
my
neighbors
attended
the
meetings
and
we
we
stopped
the
plan
which
was
to
to
stretch
the
commercial
zone
from
adam
street,
up
to
madison
and
from
keynes
to
stanage.
M
M
I've
lived
in
albany
for
over
40
years
and
30
of
those
years
have
been
on
adam
street.
I
have
been
active
in
the
community
and
have
sat
on
various
boards
and
conditions.
Albany
is
important
to
me
and
I
don't
want
to
see
it
become
a
city
full
of
high-rise
buildings
in
residential
neighborhoods
adams
and
keynes
currently
have
a
variety
of
housing
and
it's
pleasant.
We
have
duplexes
single-family
homes,
multi-unit
apartment
buildings
and
it's
a
lovely
community
of
mixed
use.
For
those
of
you
who
do
not
live
near
san
pablo.
These
issues
may
not
seem
impactful.
M
N
N
N
You
only
show
four
to
five
story:
buildings
in
your
planned
drawings
for
albany's
part
of
san
pablo
avenue,
even
though
the
text
says
six
to
eight
stories.
I
imagine
that's
because
they
look
correct
there.
Our
own
block
of
adams
street
currently
has
a
mix
of
single-family
homes,
duplexes
triplexes
and
fourplexes.
It's
a
great
neighborhood
neighborhoods,
having
a
mix
of
duplexes,
triplexes
and
fourplexes,
with
both
homeowners
and
renters
living
on
the
same
block
are
pleasant,
diverse,
interesting
neighborhoods.
N
Yes,
parking
is
an
issue.
If,
if
we
remove
our
one
zoning
in
all
of
albany,
it
is
somewhat
easier
to
park
in
a
neighborhood
where
every
home
is
single-family
and
most
homes
have
have
a
garage
or
some
form
of
other
off-street
parking.
However,
today
we
can
still
park
within
a
block
away
from
our
home
on
the
street.
N
N
Yes,
daylight.
Planes
are
an
issue:
if
we
increase
heights
in
all
of
albany,
some
people
will
lose
views
if
a
property
is
modified
to
three
to
four
stories.
However,
three
to
four
stories
is
nothing
compared
to
the
six
to
eight
story
project
that
would
now
be
permitted
with
no
review
or
recourse
literally
in
our
backyard.
It
would
completely
block
our
view
of
the
east
bay
hills.
N
O
Hi
good
evening,
commissioners,
my
name
is
laura.
I
live
in
the
900
block
of
adams
street.
I
previously
lived
in
oakland
and
have
returned
to
albany,
which
is
a
place
I
love
to
call
home.
I
seriously
hope
that
you
will
balance
the
requirement
driven
by
the
state
to
build
more
affordable
housing
with
retaining
the
charm
of
our
community.
O
Let's
remember:
our
tagline
is
an
urban
village
by
the
bay
when
we
drive
north
and
we
drive
south,
we
look
at
the
hideous
buildings
that
are
going
up
in
berkeley
and
in
el
cerrito,
and
it's
my
concern
that
if
this
is
approved
today
and
goes
on
to
city
council,
that
we
will
decimate
the
nature
of
our
community,
the
beauty
and
charm
that
is
albany.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration
and
have
a
good
evening.
P
Hi
there
canes
avenue
piping
in
I
live.
I've
lived
on
canes
for
over
30
years,
so
I'm
on
the
san
pablo
corridor
as
well.
I
definitely
agree
with
with
you
guys
with
you
all
that
albany
needs
to
provide
additional
housing
to
me.
Minimal
parking
is
appropriate
on
san
pablo,
because
san
pablo
is
a
major
bus
route.
P
P
Residences
on
san
pablo
in
berkeley,
such
as
the
ones
on
near
page,
are
really
they
really
fit
with
the
neighborhood
and
they
fit
with
10th
street,
and
they
don't
seem
overwhelming,
and
it's
pages
and
10th
street's,
one
block
off
san
pablo,
like
haynes
and
adams
are,
and
those
are
four
to
five
stories,
as
are
the
photos
in
your
renderings.
They
show
four
to
five
stories,
which
look
right
as
many
of
the
many
of
the
other
speakers
have
pointed
out.
A
J
Yeah
sorry,
I
just
had
one
more
question
about
the
r3
zone
and
it's
just
the
continued
contiguous
areas
along
our
our
project
area
that
are
being
upzoned
to
50
feet
and
not
across
the
city.
Is
that
the
intention
are
we
creating
a
separate
r3
sort
of
r3
plus
zone
in
that
area,
or
is
it
r3
upgrading
across
the
city,
or
is
that
going
to
be
a
completely
separate
process?
H
H
We
are
making
a
change
to
the
r3
within
the
san
pablo
avenue,
specific
planned
area,
so
we're
not
changing
any
other
r3s
outside
of
the
planning
area
and
we're
also
we're
not
proposing
height
changes
in
the
r3.
Unless
you
are
able
to
consolidate
lots
and
you
have
a
split
zoned
spc
r3
zone
lock
and
as
an
incentive
for
that
lock,
consolidation
we're
suggesting
the
building
could
go
up
to
50
feet,
but
otherwise
the
r3
height
is
not
changing
within
the
planning
area.
B
Sorry
about
that,
okay
nick
we
have
like
seven
or
eight
documents
that
are,
you
know
separate
documents
in
front
of
us
tonight.
I'm
I
don't
know.
What's
the
best
way
to
proceed
is,
but
some
of
them
may
require
specific
comments
and
maybe
you'd
want
to
take
the
documents
in
some,
and
you
know
one
at
a
time
and
bring
them
up
that
way.
So
we
can
get
commission's
comments
on
them.
I
I
don't
know
maybe
some
way
of
organizing
the
the
process
as
we
work
through.
This
would
be
good.
A
B
Well,
you
know
I've
looked
at
all
of
them,
and
so
I
you
know
the
land
use
element
chapter.
Let's
see
that
was
in
the
that's
the
general
plan,
the
amendments,
the
general
plan
amendments
that
was
one
document.
The
eir
addendum
was
another
document,
and
I
I
like
I
have
comments
on
that.
The
design
guidelines
and
objective
standards,
which
is
the
new
document
that
was
incorporated
into
the
draft
specific
plan,
that's
a
new,
separate
document,
the
one-page
document
on
community
benefits.
B
I
have
a
couple
comments
there
and
then
the
zoning
ordinance
amendments
are,
you
know
very
detailed
with
all
those
footnotes
and
things
like
that.
So
I
I
do
have
some
comments
on
those
kind
of
detailed.
You
know
page
by
page
kind
of
thing.
I
don't
have
a
lot
of
comments
on
them,
but
some
so
I
don't
know
that's
the
way,
I'm
I've.
That's
the
way.
I've
thought
it
through.
A
Okay,
I
don't
know
I'm
happy
to
try
to
do
it
that
way
to
see
if
there's
comments
on
certain
documents
that,
unfortunately,
my
notes
are
not
as
organized
as
you.
I
just
have
general
comments
and
I'm
not
sure
which
documents
they
actually
refer
to,
but
I
think
that's,
okay.
I
don't.
I
don't
see
that
being
an
issue,
so
I
have
my
all
the
documents
up
here
in
order.
A
B
B
A
That's
an
idea.
I
just
wondered:
if
there
are
any
comments,
but
that's
fine,
we
can.
I
don't.
I
didn't
have
any
comments
on
the
resolutions.
I
I
will
make
one
comment
on
the
the
sidestaff
report,
the
staff
summary,
which
is
that
I
appreciate
the
staff,
including
the
studies
about
parking
and
to
mr
martin's
comment
about.
Perhaps
berkeley.
A
A
Almost
the
entire
city
is
covered
with
the
residential
parking
permits,
and
so
I
don't
believe
that
residents
of
the
of
the
multi-unit
buildings
would
be
allowed
to
park
on
the
street
would
be
allowed
to
purchase
residential
parking
permits.
So
that
is
my
one
comment
about
the
staff
report.
Commissioner
watty
did
you
have
a
comment
about
the
staff
report
or
just
you
know,
yeah.
Q
I
just
wanted
to
jump
in
at
the
beginning
to
say
that
I
only
have
comments
in
general,
so
I
just
I
don't
want
to
waste
everyone's
time
by
sort
of
saying
I
have
no
comments
on
each
document
along
the
way,
so
whenever
it's
the
right
time
to
provide
like
the
ten
thousand
foot
commentary,
I'm
happy
to
chime
in,
but
no
need
for
me
to
open
otherwise
item
by
item.
Okay,.
A
A
Okay,
so
anything
else
in
the
staff
report
or
resolutions
not
seeing
any
hands
raised
for
my
my
fellow
commissioners.
So
the
next
document,
I
think,
is
the
land
use
element
of
the
would
be
the
general
plan
amendments
correct
attachment,
five
yep
and
doug.
Did
you
have,
commissioner
donaldson?
Did
you
have
some
comments
there?
Oh,
oh
yes!
Yes,.
B
B
The
the
the
staff
report
and
or
the
the
document
says
that
the
specific
plan
makes
minor
amendments
to
the
general
plan,
and
I
really
disagree
with
that.
I,
along
the
line
we've
got
comments
from
brian
martin
clay
larson
this
this.
This
the
specific
plan
radically
changes
the
land
use
designations
on
the
san
pablo
san
paul
san
pablo
corridor,
and
I
I
think
it
violates
some
of
the
strategies
that
we
had
in
the
2016
general
plan
regarding
sensitive
transitions
for
the
development
on
the
east
and
west
side.
B
I
think
it
does
not
encourage
designs.
It
discourages
designs
that
will
protect
privacy,
sunlight
for
adjoining
neighborhoods,
like
we've
heard
from
people
who
are
residents
of
keynes
and
adams,
and
it
dramatically
increases
height
limits
it
it.
This
is.
This
is
a
radical
modification
of
albany's
general
plan,
it
it
compromises
policy
1.2,
which
hardly
even
discussed
calling
for
balanced
growth.
B
A
A
B
B
B
Well,
above
our
arena
requirement,
the
arena
requirement
is
a
real
thing.
We
have
to
try
to
do
our
best
to
deal
with
it
on
a
citywide
basis
and
accommodate
space
for
1114
new
units
over
the
30-year
period.
I
think
it's
30
years
and
but
this
one
project
here,
this
specific
plan
will
exceed
our
arena.
B
It
proposes
more
units
than
we
have
in
our
arena.
So
I
just
want
to
make
the
comment
it.
It
is
a
growth
inducing
project,
it
will
definitely,
and
the
purpose
of
it
is
to
increase
the
population
of
albany,
okay
and
then
there's
parking.
When
the
general
plan
was
adopted,
we
required
two
spaces
per
unit.
That's
in
the
general
plan.
B
The
specific
plan
would
eliminate
these
parking
requirements
for
all
housing
and
but
even
in
the
addendum
there's
reference
to
two
projects
that
show
that
you
don't
have
to
have
one
space
per
unit,
but
I'll
note
that
those
projects
respectively,
have
a
demand
of
a
half
a
space
per
unit
on
one
of
them
and
seven
tenths
of
a
space
parking
demand
for
the
other
one
and
that's
well
above
zero.
Well,
above
no
parking
requirement,
no
parking
studies
were
done
as
part
of
the
preparation.
B
I
think
that
the
parking
at
uc
village
is
pretty
well
balanced,
probably
appropriate,
and
it
should
be
viewed
as
an
example
for
albany
and
for
albany's
future
and
it
it.
It
just
highlights
the
problem
to
me
and
the
anxiety
I
have
about
trying
to
drop
down
to
zero
parking.
It
just
isn't
going
to
work
and
the
impacts
that
the
neighbors
fear
are
going.
I
think,
will
will
occur,
they're
real,
so,
okay,
utilities
and
infrastructure
is
mentioned.
As
discussed
in
the
addendum
in
the
eir.
B
B
I
suspect
that
it
is
not
easy
to
relocate
cell
towers
and
I
think
that
the
addendum
and
the
emphasis
the
public
works
in
infrastructure
analysis
should
have
looked
at
that
it
should
have
been
added
to
the
scope
of
work.
This
is
a
potentially
significant
issue,
one
that
is
now.
I
don't
know
how
it'll
ever
be
resolved.
Some
developer
is
going
to
come
along
and
find
out
ooh.
This
is
going
to
be
hard
and
it
will
be
hard.
Some
of
those
male
cell
towers
are
owned
by
one
company.
B
A
I'll
I'll
briefly
speak
to
the
comments
made,
which
is
that
I
again
point
to
the
staff
summary
which
cites
a
study
from
san
francisco,
which
talks
about
induced
demand
for
parking.
If-
and
there
are
studies
elsewhere
as
well,
that
I
know
of
where
induced
demand,
if
you,
if
you
build
spaces
and
make
it
unbundled,
people
will
decide.
Oh
okay!
A
J
Yeah
just
a
a
couple
of
brief
comments:
you
know
the
arena
requirements
and
the
housing
element
are
an
eight-year
timeline
and
our
specific
plan
is
basically
a
20-year
timeline.
So
it's
not
exactly
the
same
unit
numbers
that
would
apply
it's
a
much
longer
build
out
for
the
san
pablo
specific
plan,
and
I
don't
expect
that
it's
going
and
absolutely
it
will
not
happen
all
at
once.
It's
going
to
happen
over
many
many
years,
so
this
is
really
a
guideline
for
the
future
and
it
is
part
of
our
arena
plan.
J
But
it
is
not
the
total
response
for
our
arena
plan
so
just
to
keep
that
in
mind
and
that
we
will
be
looking
at
up
zoning
all
around
the
city
as
part
of
the
housing
element.
So
you
know,
in
that
sense
the
people
that
have
commented
about
equity
and
sharing
the
burden
or
sharing
the
growth
around
the
city.
I
think
that
will
be
addressed
as
we
go
forward
as
part
of
the
housing
element
and
as
far
as
parking
is
concerned,
no
parking
minimums
does
not
mean
zero
parking
will
happen.
There
will
always
be
parking.
J
The
developers
will
provide
some
parking
dependent
on
their
view
of
how
much
they
think
is
warranted
for
a
project
for
their
market
studies,
market
conditions,
and
it
will
be
somewhere
between
probably
0.5
and
0.75,
or
something
that
on
average.
I
would
imagine-
and
I
would
also
note
that
the
city
of
san
jose
just
adopted
a
zero
parking
minimum
standard
across
their
entire
city.
So
you
know
there
are
very
other,
very
good
other
examples
of
municipalities
that
have
done
this
and
the
ones
that
have
done
it
sky
has
not
fallen.
J
A
A
Unless
there's
a
final
comment
on
that
one,
it
would
be
the
same
public
avenue,
specific
plan,
design,
guidelines
and
objective
standards,
and
this
is
where
I
have
the
least,
I
would
say,
maybe
expertise.
So
I'm
hoping
that
if
there's
any
changes,
we
need
to
make
there
or
any
comments.
We
need
to
make
my
fellow
design,
professionals
or
architects
on
the
commission
might
make
them
now.
A
B
Yeah
so
I'll
make
a
comment
on
that
on.
I
probably
have
a
couple
comments,
but
on
list
b,
which
is
in
the
community
benefits
under
community
benefits,
list
b,
there's
item
b
is
family-friendly.
Housing
at
least
20
percent
of
the
units
designed
for
three
bedrooms.
That
would
be
a
a
community
benefit
that
a
developer
could
choose
from
this
list.
B
I
would
like
to
amend
that
item
that
choice,
to
add
that
it
should
have
one
parking
space,
at
least-
and
I
think
that's
that's
reasonable.
I
don't
think
you
should
have
a
three
bedroom
family
unit
without
a
car
without
availability
without
having
having
a
car
of
families.
Families
with
children
used
cars
need
cars,
and
I
think
we
should
do
that.
B
B
I
think
that
gene
said
that
on-site
public
art
that
someone-
I
think
the
city
council
said
that
it
added
the
idea
that
it
may
not
be
satisfied
with
an
in-lieu
fee.
I'm
I
I
don't
see.
I
don't
even
see
the
reason
why
we
have
this
listed
as
a
community
benefit.
I
would
go
with
our
stay
with
our
arts,
our
art
in
public
spaces,
ordinance
and
and
let
the
applicants
and
the
future
applicants
decide
whether
they
want
to
do
art
on
site
or
whether
they
want
to
contribute
to
an
in-lieu
fee.
B
I
think
the
arts
committee
should
be
able
to
decide
how
to
spend
that
money
on
public
art,
not
necessarily
on
site,
so
I'm
I
was
confused
by
that.
I
don't
remember
that
we
put
that
in
there
and
jean
maybe
the
city
council
did,
and
maybe
they
had
with
reasons
for
doing
so,
but
I
don't
know
what
other
commissioners
think
about
that.
So,
in
summary,
I'd
like
to
change
the
family-friendly
housing
to
include
a
parking
space.
B
A
H
Yes,
so
the
feedback
we
got
was
to
only
have
community
benefits
that
were
not
already
requirements
and
right
now
the
developer
has
the
option
they
can
pay
the
fee
or
they
can
put
the
art
on
site.
The
suggestion
here
to
have
the
art
on
site
is
really
about
placemaking
around
helping
establish
identity.
You
know
we
don't
want
cookie
cutter
buildings
and
so
part
of
it's
just
you
know.
A
H
A
Yeah,
okay
yeah,
I
understood
all
right
so
and
then
well.
We
have
a
couple
more
hands
raised
and
I
wanted
to,
and
commissioner
donaldson
had
made
a
couple
of
suggestions,
so
I
wanted
to
get
the
post
of
the
commission
about
that.
But
perhaps
commissioner
mcleod
and
moment
are
going
to
speak
to
that.
So
go
ahead.
Commissioner
mcleod.
J
Yeah,
just
a
couple
of
things
on
list
a
I'm
a
little
ambivalent
about
the
arts,
one
being
as
it
is
already
required,
and
I
I
guess
I
understand
the
idea
of
encouraging
on-site-
or
I
think
you
know
that's
mostly
a
good
idea,
but
it
is
already
a
requirement.
So
I
don't
know
you
know
that
they
can
get
a
benefit
for
just
complying
with
an
existing
requirement.
J
J
J
State
of
california
may
require
that
very
soon,
but
I
guess
we
can
amend
this
list
as
we
go
forward
without
a
lot
of
you
know
without
a
big
effort.
So
you
know
maybe
once
that
is
done
with
once
we
have
an
ordinance
in
place.
We
could
drop
that
one.
You
know,
so
I
had
a
problem
with
that
and
then
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
also
with
the
with
item
e,
that
we
already
require
a
minimum
of
a
14
foot
minimum
ceiling
height.
J
J
D
D
So
in
that
case,
then,
should
these
two
items
be
on
the
same
list
like
item
a
is,
for
you
know,
publicly
accessible,
open
space
and
then
item
b
is
mid
block
pedestrian
connection.
So
if
some
property
some
project
provides
a
mid
block,
pedestrian
connection,
they
would
automatically
you
know,
fulfill
item
a
and
so
the
you
know,
city
would
just
get
one
community
benefit
and
not
to
under
item
under
the
list.
A.
H
D
A
A
D
So
it
looks
like
somewhere
on
the
document.
It
means
it
specifies
that
the
mid
block
connection
space
area
could
be
counted
towards
the
publicly
accessible
open
space,
which
is
part
of
the
which
is
item
a
on
list
a
since.
If
cell
project
provides
a
mid
block
connection,
then
they
automatically
also
complies
with
item
a,
and
so
the
city
would
get
just
one
community
benefit
and
not
two.
A
D
H
D
A
A
D
D
You
know
it
needs
to
be
like
you
know,
a
bigger
community
benefit
and
that's
what
I
understand
from
this
list
is
that
list
a
is
kind
of
big
ticket.
Community
benefits
and
list
b
is
secondary,
and
so
I
don't
think
family
friendly
housing
is
a
small.
You
know
item
if
if
we
want
the
developer
to
develop
twenty
percent
of
the
units
to
be
three
bedroom,
you
know
it's
a
big
chunk
of
real
estate.
D
A
A
C
B
J
Q
Sure
I
mean
I
can
go
either
way
on
this,
although
I
do
think
it's
worth
pointing
out.
You
know
somebody
only
has
to
choose
one
option
in
list
a
so
moving
it
from
b
to
a
really
just
dilutes
its
effectiveness
effectively.
You
know
you
could
just
pick
it
by
itself,
and
that
would
be
it,
whereas
if
it's
in
b,
you
have
to
pick
it
plus
another
thing.
So
to
me
it
is,
you
know
to
me:
it
looks
how
I'm
looking
at
this
is.
What
is
the
cost?
Q
And
you
know
it
is?
It
is
a
fairly
high
cost
to
you
know:
you're
decreasing
the
number
of
doors
effectively.
You
can
have
the
more
three
bedroom
units.
You
have
probably
the
fewer
doors
that
you're
going
to
have.
So
it's
going
to
decrease
your
overall
profit,
I'm
fine
moving
it
up
to
item
a.
I
will
just
say,
and
I
know
I
haven't
chimed
in
yet,
and
I
was
going
to
do
it
later.
Q
A
Well,
commissioner,
wadi,
I
appreciate
that
and
I
think
actually
that
might
be
a
good
approach
for
the
commission
to
take,
because
we
have
seen
this
at
least
a
couple
of
times
and
commented
so,
and
it
is
meant
to
be
something
that
can
be
amended
at
any
time.
So
unless
perhaps
another
way
we
could
go
is
this.
A
Unless
we
we
all
feel
very
strongly
about
some
change
and
I'm
not
hearing
consensus,
you
know,
I'm
not
hearing
a
majority,
I'm
not
hearing
that
all
of
us
are
are
concerned
about
any
one
thing
or
another.
Perhaps
we
ought
to
just
leave
it
alone
for
now,
would
that
be
okay
with
the
commissioners
if
we
just
left
it
to
future
meetings
or
to
the
council.
O
Q
It
might
also
be
worthwhile
for
us
to
sort
of
finish
out.
All
of
our
commentary
start
on
the
voting,
and
if
we
don't
have
you
know
a
majority
vote
on
one
way
or
the
other,
then
maybe
we
can
start
seeing
if
amendments
need
to
be
made
in
order
to
get
us
there.
But
that
would
sort
of
be
my
my
suggestion.
A
Okay,
but
just
going
back
to
this
particular
document,
let
me
just
review
my
notes
about
where
people
make
comments
and
why
don't
I
just
see
if
there's
anyone
who
wants
to
second
anyone
feel
strongly.
They
want
a
second
to
comment
about
someone
else's
comment
or
or
can
we
just
move
on
with
the
the
document,
as
is,
and
let's
see,
there's
a
bunch
of
hands
up,
so
I
don't
know
commissioner
moment
did
you
want
to
okay,
commissioner
mcleod
well,.
J
I
I
would
agree
with
commissioner
waddy
I
we
have
looked
at
this
many
times.
You
know
list
a
is
kind
of
the
big
urban
design
bang
for
your
buck
kind
of
thing.
The
others
are
very
smart
site
specific
to
the
project,
so
I'm
I'm
in
a
way
comfortable,
leaving
it
as
is
and
looking
at
it
in
the
future.
It
is
something
that
we
can
amend
without
a
lot
of
process
or
back
and
forth.
I
think,
and
without
much
controversy
of
any
kind,
so
yeah
I
would
be
in
favor
of
just
moving
forward.
A
D
A
B
Yes,
I
do,
I
understand
where
the
commission
is
going
here
and
you
know
zoning
amendment
issues
can
be
a
language
full
of
details
and
things.
Let
me
find
mine
here.
I
do
have
some
comments.
Where
did
it
go
on
and
maybe
a
couple
of
them
are
important
here
on
page
8,
footnote
15..
This
is
one
of
the
big
footnotes.
It's
important.
B
I
would
like
clarify
clarification
on
that,
because
I
am
I'm
interested
in
knowing
what
uses
are
permitted
on
non-housing
opportunity
sites,
and
I
know
what
does
that?
What
do
I
mean
by
that?
I
mean
if
this,
if
we're
looking
at
a
housing
opportunity,
site
and
footnote
15
applies
to
a
number
of
types
of
uses.
A
B
A
B
B
So
uses
are
those
the
uses
are
permitted
on
the
ground
floor
only
on
sites
identified
as
housing
as
opportunity
sites
in
the
housing
element.
Does
that
mean
that
if
you're
not
at
a
housing
opportunity
site,
you
can't
have
say
animal
grooming,
because
that
has
footnote
15
by
it
or
you
can't
have
animal
sales?
I
I
want.
I
I'm
I'm
worried
about
that.
B
I
don't
understand
adequately
how
this
is
going
to
work,
and
I
really
I
don't
know-
maybe
I'm
not
thinking
straight
here,
but
I
think
staff
should
take
a
real
look
at
that
and
we
yeah
I
we
may
need.
I
don't
know
what
to
do.
I
may
need
to
have
it
break
it
up
in
in
two
footnotes,
one
for
housing,
opportunities,
outs
and
another
one
for
for
other
for
other
sites.
So
I
don't
know.
Maybe
maybe
staff
understands
my
comment?
Yes,
I
hope
you
do.
H
I'm
happy
to
respond,
and
this
is
what
I
was
referring
to,
where
the
proposal
has
a
lot
of
footnotes
that
seem
a
little
bit
wacky,
but
we
tried
to
maintain
the
city's
existing
structure.
So,
as
you
said,
15
footnote
15
says
that
the
use
that's
referenced
in
footnote.
15
is
only
permitted
on
the
ground
floor,
and
that
means
it's
added
to
as
you
as
you
indicated,
a
bunch
of
different
commercial
use
types.
H
H
The
reason
for
limiting
those
uses
to
the
ground
floor,
so
your
animal
hospital
could
be
on
the
ground
floor
on
housing.
Opportunity
sites
is
that
our
understanding
from
hcd
is
that
they
will
not
allow
us
to
assume
sufficient
capacity
for
residential
on
that
housing
opportunity
site
if,
if
it's
allowed
to
be
100
commercial,
and
so
what
this
is
intending
to
say
and
we'll
certainly
look
at
the
language,
because
it
sounds
like
it's
not
clear.
H
B
B
H
B
B
I
don't
know
quite
how
to
address
that.
There
must
be
a
a
portion
of
the
of
the
zoning
ordinance
that
talks
about
home
occupations
and
it
might
need
to
be
addressed
there,
but
I
I
I
think
I
think,
as
as
I
see
it,
footnote
foot
team
15
would
mean
that
you
couldn't
do
some
home
occupations
in
new
multi-family
dwellings
in
the
specific
plan
area.
So
that's
a
concern
for
me
on
page
20.,
I
had
something
on
page
nine
I'll
forget
that
page
20.
B
B
It
I
think
it
needs
to
be
modified
here,
because
the
only
nodes
that
we
have
in
albany
are
all
within
the
specific
plant
area
and
the
way
way
you've
redlined
this
and
made
the
proposed
revisions
is,
is
within
a
commercial
node
overlay
district,
except
within
the
specific
san
pablo's
pacific
planning
area.
The
following
design
standards
shall
apply.
B
H
B
B
It
just
it
just
sure,
grins
me
to
see
this
minimum
parking,
minimum
parking
standard
of
zero
and
that's
on
page
43
and
I'll
also
comment
that
unbundled
parking
is
a
bad
idea
and
we'll
only
crowd
our
streets
with
cars
near
these
projects,
so
that,
okay,
those
are
my
comments
on
zoning
ordinance.
Thank
you.
A
A
H
Yes,
so
the
city
of
berkeley
requires
it,
for,
I
think
most
developments
now
and
so
the
developer
purchases
in
bulk
passes
and
it's
up
to
the
unit
occupant,
to
request
it
sometimes
they'll
require
that
it
be
posted
in
a
public
location
that
these
are
available,
because
otherwise
the
information
might
not
be
out
there.
So
that's
something
that
we
could
clarify,
but
yes,
so
the
city
of
berkeley
does
it
for
most
multi-family.
A
D
Yeah,
I
have
a
related
comment,
and
I
I
had
mentioned
that
in
our
last
meeting.
Also,
since
you
mentioned
berkeley
is
using
that
strategy.
What
is
the
value
they
have
decided
for
the
clipper
card?
Is
it
in?
You
know
in
terms
of
number
of
rides
or
in
terms
of
a
dollar
value,
because
if
it
is
really
a
small
value,
I
don't
think
that
would
be
really
helpful
in
terms
of
reducing
the
dependency
on
a
car.
H
I'll
have
to
look
into
it
more,
but
the
ac
transit
easy
pass,
that's
referenced.
We
have
contacted
ac
transit
about
this,
and
that
is
a
sort
of
bulk
pass
that
they
provide
for
this
kind
of
situation
where
an
employer
or
a
apartment
building
is
offering
these,
and
so
I'd
have
to
find
out
a
little
bit
more
information.
I
thought
it
was
maybe
a
monthly
kind
of
pass
from
ac
transit,
but
I
don't
have
an
answer
right
now.
D
Yeah,
it
depends
like
you
know
where
you
commit
to
if
you're
right
coming
to
san
francisco.
You
know
it
charges
like
twelve
dollars
a
day,
and
so,
if
you
are
doing
like,
if
you
want
to
know
what
is
a
monthly
cost,
it
would
be
like
more
than
200
and
if
you
are
committing
somewhere
closer,
that
would
be
much
less.
So
you
know
it
eventually.
A
A
A
D
A
D
H
C
A
D
Q
Q
I
had
never
really
done
that
in
any
type
of
public
process
before,
but
I
thought
it
was
a
really
good
way
for
us
to
see
where
the
final
votes
landed
on
various
issues
and
how
you
pulled
it
all
together.
So
big
big
kudos
to
all
of
you.
This
is
an
immense
amount
of
work
again,
as
I
mentioned
before,
just
sort
of
I'm
pulling
back
a
little
bit
10
000
feet
here.
One
quick
thing
I
did
want
to
know
just
because
I
know
it
did
come
up
a
little
bit.
Q
I
just
wanted
to
comment
that,
like
from
my
professional
experience,
the
approach
that
we're
taking
here,
where
we're
doing
the
general
plan
amendments
sort
of
at
the
same
time
as
the
specific
plan
amendments
and
the
zoning
change
amendments,
all
of
that
being
processed
concurrently
in
sort
of
a
certain
order
of
operations
for
our
actions
but
in
one
fell
swoop,
is
very
common.
In
fact,
all
of
the
area
plans
that
I've
I've
ever
been
part
of,
or
my
agencies
have
been
a
part
of-
have
always
happened
in
that
manner.
Q
So
this
is
not
strange
to
me
and
I
don't
think
it
is
unlawful
or
I'm
disingenuous
for
us
to
be
taking
that
approach.
I
think
it's
something
that
many
jurisdictions
do.
I
understand
the
sort
of
critiques
to
the
contrary,
but
this
is
not
an
atypical
process
that
we're
undertaking,
in
only
so,
I
think
it's
important
for
us
to
put
that
out
there.
So
anyhow,
I
have
no
issues
with
the
approach
that
we've
been
taking
moving
forward
in
that
manner
tonight.
Q
I
also
want
to
say
that
I
know
there
are
a
lot
of
folks
who
are
really
talking
about
this.
In
contrast
to
sort
of
2016
plan-
and
I
do
think
it's
important
for
us
to
just
note-
even
though
it
doesn't
seem
like
that
long
ago-
we
are
really
in
a
different
moment
as
a
community
and
what
is
being
expected
of
us
from
a
state.
Q
But
I
think
we've
had
a
bit
of
a
hopefully
a
societal
reckoning
over
the
last
several
years,
and
I
think
that's
really
a
bit
of
the
question
that's
before
us
is
that
we
need
to
think
about
things
differently.
We
need
to
do
things
differently,
and
I
think
we
need
to
question
kind
of
the
things
that
we
held
as
sort
of
inherent
truths
and
and
question
those
a
little
bit
differently
than
we
have
in
the
past
and
to
really
have
a
you
know.
Q
Ask
those
tough
questions
about
the
role
that
land
use
has
played
in
a
lot
of
the
inequities
that
our
larger
society
sees.
And
you
know
we
may
not
see
it
on
a
project-by-project
basis
and
be
able
to
draw
those
connections,
but
I
think
to
really
pull
back
and
see
how
all
of
these
things
have
really
led
to
outcomes
that
I
don't
think
any
of
us
think
are
ideal
outcomes
in
our
society
at
large.
Q
Certainly,
albany
is
not
responsible
for
all
of
those
things,
but
I
think
it's
we
do
need
to
sort
of
play
our
part
here
and
I
think,
as
it
relates
to
this
san
pablo
area
plan.
What's
really
important
to
me,
is
really
looking
at
the
san
pablo
plan
that
we
have
on
the
books.
In
my
opinion,
it
hasn't
worked.
It
hasn't
generated
projects,
I
mean.
Q
Obviously
we
have
the
the
san
pablo
the
albany
bull
project,
but
in
reality
I
think
that's
more
of
a
product
of
state
density,
bonus
law
and
the
recent
court
cases
that
really
opened
up
the
usage
of
state
density
bonus
law
for
developers
than
it
is
a
product
of
the
success
of
our
current
san
pablo
plan.
So
I
think
it's
important
for
us
to
just
get
to
the
fact
that,
although
there's
a
lot
of
effort-
and
I
think
good
intention
done
on
that
previous
point-
it
hasn't
worked.
So
we
need
to
do
something.
Q
Different
population
is
growing.
We
have
a
responsibility
to
accommodate
for
our
fair
share.
If
we
don't
we'll
lose
state
funding,
we'll
lose
our
discretion
on
future
housing
projects
and
again
this
is
also
still
just
a
policy
document.
Even
if
this
is
the
best
policy
document
on
the
face
of
the
earth,
it
does
not
guarantee
that
housing
production
will
come,
but
I
do
think
this
is
in
general,
a
great
step
that
we
can
take
as
a
policy
body
in
making
the
conditions
and
the
rules
and
laws
more
apt
for
the
housing
development.
Q
I
personally
don't
think
that
there
are
any
substantive
changes
being
presented
tonight
I
mean
I
know,
we've
talked
a
lot
in
the
leads
on
various
issues,
but
in
general
I
think
these
are
all
topics
we've
talked
over
in
the
past
and
I
am
very
much
I'm
comfortable
moving
this
forward
tonight
again.
The
perspective
that
I'm
looking
on
all
of
this
as
a
package
is
an
unbalanced
perspective.
Q
There
are
definitely
things
in
here
that
I'm
not
100
on
board
on,
and
I
know
I
think
every
commissioner
is
probably
opined
on
various
things
that
they're
not
okay
with,
but
I
also
don't
want
to
let
sort
of
perfection
be
the
enemy
of
the
good
here.
I
think
this
is
on
balance
a
really
good
plan.
I
also
want
to
remind
us
that
things
don't
become.
You
know
cast
in
stone
as
soon
as
we
adopt
this.
Q
If
we
adopt
this
and
we
start
seeing
really
unintended
consequences
happening,
we
can
legislate
those
we
can
fix
those.
We
can
bring
those
forward-
and
I
think
that's
an
important
thing
to
remember
that
this.
Doesn't
this
isn't
the
end
of
the
work
that
we
do
as
a
as
a
policy
body,
and
I
think
we
should
be
reflective
and
and
take
stock
of
what's
happening
and
hear
from
staff
of
you
know,
we've
had
applicants
come
in
and
this
was
an
unintended.
You
know
I
think,
with
commissioner
donaldson
bringing
up
the
sort
of
the
tutoring.
Q
But
all
in
all
sort
of
that
is
my
perspective
on
this.
I
think,
on
balance,
this
is
a
good
plan.
I
think
this
is
a
good
change.
I
am
very
comfortable
giving
this
a
go
and
seeing
if
this
leads
to
better
outcomes,
because
again,
what
we're
working
off
of
before
didn't
work,
and
I
really
think
we
need
to
make
this
pivot
and
move
forward.
A
J
J
You
know
more
housing
is
not
just
better
for
an
equity
point
of
view
for
getting
more
people
from
diverse
backgrounds
to
live
here,
but
it's
also
better
from
an
environmental
point
of
view,
reduces
pressure
on
building
further
out
and
putting
more
pressure
on
our
agricultural
lands
and
more
pressure
on
our
highways.
It
gives
people
better
access
to
jobs
within
the
bay
area.
J
It
brings
more
people
to
our
city,
which
is
great.
I
think
it's
more
customers
for
local
businesses.
It
just
is
more
kids
for
even
for
our
school
district,
who
is
actually
advertising
out
of
our
city.
To
have
more
kids
come
here
from
out
of
district.
We
have
the
capacity
here,
so
you
know,
I
think
it's
fine.
I
think
it's
great.
J
The
transportation
demand
management
program
is
one
of
those
reducing
car
parking
helps.
You
know
in
the
future,
supporting
better
bus
service,
more
robust
bus
service
on
dan,
pablo,
etc,
better
bike
facilities
all
the
way,
all
throughout
the
city
and
better
bike
rooms
as
part
of
the
solution.
So
you
know
for
a
lot
of
good
reasons.
This
is
a
good
plan
for
albany
and
I
support
it.
100
thanks.
B
I
think
this
plan
to
take
several
risks
that
we
shouldn't
be
taking,
that
could
have
significant
consequences
and
there
are
consequences
that
are
worrisome
for
me
with
the
state
density
ball
bonus
law
as
it
exists.
We
got
the
albany
ball
project,
it's
a
big
project,
it's
the
kind
of
development
that
this
plan
anticipates
along
san
pablo
avenue
and
we
got
it
without
this
plan.
B
The
state
density
bonus
law,
we've
learned
at
1600
solano
recently
pretty
much
allows
developers
to
do
just
about
anything
they
want
to,
and
I,
by
adopting
this
plan,
we're
raising
the
base
envelope
for
development
along
san
pablo
avenue
to
a
new
height
level,
far
higher
than
has
ever
been
anticipated
when
we
did
the
general
plan
and
when
you
add
density
bonuses.
To
that
I
I
I
I
worry-
that
we're
gonna
get
some
undesirable
and
bad
projects.
B
I
think
the
density
of
the
state
density
bonus
law
is
the
elephant
in
the
room.
It's
looking
it's
it's
the
way.
It's
evolving
we
saw
on
1600,
ordway
or
169
solano
is
that
it
is
going
to
allow
develop
pretty
much
allows
developers
to
do
whatever
they
want
and
added
on
the
base
of
this
plan.
I'm
just
I'm
just
worried
about
it.
That
makes
me
anxious
about
it
and
so
I'm
gonna
vote.
No.
Thank
you.
A
A
So
if
they
don't
invoke
it,
then
we
then
they
then
they
don't
get
to
wave.
They
don't
don't
get
all
these
waivers
that
they've
seen
in
other
projects.
So
I
think
it's
a
good
thing
and
I
don't
think-
and
it
doesn't
mean
that
everywhere
that
six-story
it's
zoned
for
six
stories,
we'll
have
six
story,
buildings
or
everywhere
its
own
great
stories.
A
lot
of
these
story
buildings,
it
doesn't
mean
that
at
all
developers
will
will
do,
will
propose
what
they
will
propose,
and
I
think
this
is
a
great.
A
I
think
this
is
a
great
plan.
I
have
been
looking
forward
to
seeing
this
plan
through
for
quite
some
time
I
was
I
spoke
about
we
first,
I
was
on
the
planet
with
zoning
commission,
with
mr
donaldson
way
back
when,
when
el
cerrito
did
their
first
standpoint
specific
plan-
and
I
remembered
it-
and
I
and
I
thought
about
it-
and
then
I
started
talking
about
it
at
council
and
commission
meetings
that
hey.
A
A
I
will
just
say
one
more
thing,
which
is
I'm
the
only
just
one
of
my
last
disappointment
is
that
I
wasn't
able
to
gain
any
traction
about
the
idea
of
extending
the
southern
node
of
having
the
southern
node
be
a
much
larger
node,
in
fact
extending
it
from
the
berkeley
border
all
the
way
to
solano
avenue.
I
was
just
looking
at
a
google
map.
We
have
the
all
the
town
center
development,
which
is
a
single
story
completely
through
lot
development
which
borders
on
an
apartment
building
on
the
other
side.
A
That
would
be
a
perfect
place
for
if
someone
actually
wanted
to
go
hate
stories,
that
would
be
a
place
where
eight
stories
would
would
would
would
affect
very
few
people
in
terms
of
shading
etc.
And
then
we
have
the
we
already
have
the
four-story
building
at
solano
and
san
pablo,
the
the
condo
building.
We
have
a
four-story
building
at
the
other
end
at
with
the
senior
housing
near
the
berkeley
border.
A
I
think
that
that
whole
that
whole
stretch,
I
would
rather
see
that
be
very
dense
as
well,
and
I
might
speak
to
that
at
the
council
meeting
as
well.
I'd
love
to
see
that
whole
area
being
known,
but
I've
spoken
about
that
before
I
haven't
gotten
the
traction,
so
I
won't
belabor
that
any
further,
but
I'm
I'm
happy
to
vote
yes
on
this
plan
and
would
turn
it
back
to
my
commission
to
see
if
there's
any
final
comments
or
a
motion
at
this
time.
Q
No
I'm
happy
to
go
ahead
and
make
a
motion
if
it
looks
like
we're
winding
down.
So
with
that,
I
will
go
ahead
and
make
a
motion
to
let's
see,
there's
a
lot
of
different
actions
here.
I
think
it's
a
three-parter,
but
certainly
staff,
tell
me
if
I'm
getting
this
wrong,
but
recommend
that
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
approve
the
following
resolutions,
including
a
resolution
2022-03.
A
A
Seeing
no
on
the
discussion
or
or
pulling
an
individual
item
so
we'll
vote
on
those
three
resolutions.
As
a
group,
then
I'll
go
ahead
and
do
this
as
a
polling
motion.
Just
so
the
we're
very
the
public
and
everyone
is
very
clear
on
the
votes
and
I'll
just
go
as
people
appear
on
my
screen,
commissioner
wadi.
C
F
A
Commissioner
macleod,
yes,
commissioner,
donaldson
no
and
I
vote
yes
and
so
the
vote
is
4-1
and
those
motions
carry,
and
I
thank
everyone
for
their
time
and
participation
tonight
and
to
the
attendees
who
are
still
here.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
participation
and
let
me
just
go
back
to
my
agenda
and
see
if
there's
any
last
items
item
eight
new
business,
there's
mern
next
meeting
is
july.
13Th
is
item
nine
and
if
there's
nothing
else,
no
last
items
from
staff,
then
item
10
is
we
are
adjourned
and
thank
you
very
much
again.