May July 13th, exactly seven PM, and we'll go ahead and begin tonight's planning board meeting before we start the agenda.

Board Member Sue, can you lead us in a pledge of allegiance?

Sure.

All right, thank you.

And we'll go ahead with the first agenda item, which is roll call.

Okay.

Uh good evening.

Um, board member Hom here.

Here and President Cisneros.

Here.

Okay, we have a quorum.

Great.

Um, and uh, yeah, we um have a tight uh board today, but um we will carry on.

So the next agenda item are um, oh actually before that.

Um I always forget this part.

Um, so uh this is official S City business meetings, and I just want to give like a little um preamble before we get deeper into tonight's meeting um and share some rules about um our meeting conducts.

Um, uh, we ask that uh folks um listen respectfully, and um some folks uh maybe public speaking for the first time, so things can be stressful, so we want to create an environment that's supportive and also to um not only respect each other, but also respect the board as we are deliberating um and coming to consensus with certain city um agenda items.

So I just want to share that, and there are um if things were elevated, um, it could lead to uh consequences and and there if there are violations.

So just wanted to name that.

Um, and now uh we'll move on to agenda item two.

Any agenda changes from staff or the board.

No, no, don't I?

No.

None tonight.

Great.

Um, any uh non-agenda public comments.

Anyone uh could speak either in the room or online for up to three minutes for anything that's not listed in tonight's meeting agenda.

Do we have any speakers?

Uh, we don't have any speakers.

Oh wait, actually, wait one second.

We have um Philip.

Uh, okay, online.

Okay.

Philip, you're allowed to talk.

Oh, sorry, I meant I wanted to talk on the agenda 5A.

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

Sorry.

All right.

Uh thank you.

So um we'll circle back at that agenda item.

We'll close that item and move on to consent calendar.

We have the draft meeting minutes from June 22nd.

Um if any discussion from fellow board members, and if not, oh.

Um we don't have the proper members present to be able to vote on that.

Okay, so we'll carry it over.

Yeah.

Great, we'll continue it.

Thank you for flagging that.

And with that, we'll move on to agenda item 5A, which is to review some proposed zoning ordinance amendments for uh short-term rental um policies.

So looks like we'll have a staff presentation.

Yes.

I'll just move over here and make a little more formal.

Uh, my name is Steve Buckley.

I'm the Planning Services Manager, and I'll be presenting on the short-term rental uh proposal this evening.

Uh as you recall, we um let's see.

There we go.

Yeah.

Um so we're gonna we're gonna uh review a little bit of where we've been and then uh I'll go over the ordinance that we've drafted uh at the staff level to um address your feedback and the community feedback that we've heard so far, and then we'd like to um hear more feedback and make sure that we're on the right track and and if possible get a recommendation tonight for the city council.

Um, noting that of course there's there's no rush.

Um so you know, if if we end up needing to redraft some things, that's fine too.

Um all of this is basically um in response to the housing element and the discussions that were carried on uh leading up to the 2022 adoption of the housing element, including policy H 19, where uh this um issue was brought forward as something that the city would undertake in the in the uh coming years uh to limit short-term rentals uh because they do have an effect on the supply of long-term housing for sale and for rent.

Um whether that's a major impact or lesser impact is sort of up to the beholder, um, but it is uh one element of how we uh try to manage our housing supply for for all residents.

Uh with that we'll proceed.

Um so uh last year in January and in April uh we came to you with uh sort of a proposal for how we would approach this.

Uh then we went ahead and uh had a workshop and heard back from the community uh members who um are uh operators of short-term rentals as well as uh neighbors of short-term rentals and um kind of their um concerns and we're I think we've tried to really balance those interests in terms of uh neighborhood character um and um economic um benefits of of uh having the opportunity to use a property for short-term rental.

Um and so some of what we heard from the board in particular was it didn't really seem to like be like a widespread problem or significantly affecting the housing supply, but it was still a worthwhile endeavor to try to come up with some sort of reasonable regulations.

Um of the key components was uh to try to uh make sure that these are owner occupied, or um at least um that they're, you know, someone is on site that can um manage the activity and make sure it's not a nuisance to the neighbors.

Um but otherwise uh seemed like you know, property could be used almost year-round um for short-term rental, um, so long as it um again wasn't adversely affecting the neighborhood.

One of the things that we wanted to note was that ADUs, accessory dwelling units that are created under state law, are by law prohibited from being used as short-term rentals.

So there's a little bit of distinction that I'll go into later, but basically there's there's a few things that we can't allow, and that's just not even in our discretion.

But generally it seemed like you know, we wanted to just make sure that people were safe and comfortable on the property, that these were code compliant units or or spaces that wouldn't create a hazard, and also just that we we wanted to sort of take a light touch on enforcement.

It seemed like that's our general policy.

Uh we we offer people plenty of opportunities to come into compliance with building codes or zoning codes.

We don't go out and look for trouble, but you know, if we hear a complaint or we see something that looks concerning, then we will, you know, initiate an investigation, and then that could lead to some sort of enforcement.

So that we would continue to take that sort of approach.

So in the ordinance, um, we took an example, looked at lots of other examples, but Santa Monica seemed to have a really good framework.

It was very thorough and clear, you know, it's it spells out what uh properties are eligible to be used, who's eligible to rent, uh, what the responsibilities are of both the uh people who are renting the property out and the people who are coming to visit, and then there's uh again some enforcement measures.

But to be clear, we we talked last time about sort of hosted, non-hosted, semi-hosted, and that seemed to be kind of confusing.

Um so we've we've adopted the Santa Monica model for this reason as well because they define terms like short-term rental, less than 30 days, and it's an accessory use, it can't be a primary commercial use of a property.

Um, and so in that sense, um again, we're we're trying to maintain the character of the neighborhoods.

Uh it needs to be a primary residence of the person who is offering it for rent.

So they have to live there at least the majority of the year, either in the space that's being rented out or in a separate space but on the same property, and then they get into home sharing and vacation rental, and so we've adopted those terms as well.

Uh home sharing is where you're actually sharing the same home that you live in.

It might be a fourth bedroom or it might be you know a sort of connected but separate space.

Um, like where I lived when I was a teenager down in the basement.

Um, and so you know, there's sort of those kinds of spaces that are flexible and they could have different purposes for family or visitors or for rental, but they're not technically a dwelling unit.

Um, and then there's vacation rental, which is where it's actually a separate space.

It's a separate dwelling unit or a separate cottage or however you want to uh talk about it.

Um, but again, it can't be technically an ADU under state law.

So this this is often a multi-unit property, like developed in the 40s.

Uh you know, there's a cottage in the back and a house in the front, or it's an upstairs-downstairs Victorian, right?

And there's a basement unit, it's been there forever.

Um, it's not an ADU because it wasn't created as an exception to zoning.

It was created under the rules that were in place at the time.

And so it's it's eligible for use as a short-term rental.

And then we want to make sure that there's always somebody available, even if the owner and permanent resident is away on vacation that they have a local contact.

So that's a some really basic considerations.

So again, we in the ordinance we talk about where they're permitted, any residential building, uh also boats, floating homes, liverboards, and then other separate sleeping spaces, but they can't be sort of sheds or you know, basements that aren't finished.

So they need to be places that are habitable and meet code.

Not permitted, things like well, group housing of different kinds, ADUs.

There's also another state prohibition on SB9 subdivisions, which are these new uh lot split subdivisions where if you take advantage of state law, again, the intent of that state law is to create permanent housing.

So you can't use it for short-term rental.

Um, also various kinds of affordable housing, um, that's deed restricted, and apartments that have been subject to an eviction uh of some kind or have ongoing code violations.

So that's where you can and can't do it.

Um again, we want it to be safe, so we have these standards, has to be uh up to code for residential occupancy and have various uh safety features, and then you can't um you know exceed certain occupancy limits or um have uh commercial uh rentals like for parties, um you need to have some good neighbor policies, insurance, and then we want to um require the operator to actually list their permit number in their advertisements so that we can kind of cross-reference that everyone who's advertising is also registered.

Um that permit number would come through this process that's meant to be fairly straightforward, kind of like any other business license, home occupation, you know, sort of um registration process uh where it's not a hearing, there's no appeal unless, for instance, an applicant is denied and they are unhappy with that denial, but otherwise, it would be at the staff level, um, and it would run with the business license, which is renewed every year.

So every year that there would be a sort of again like file your paper on time, pay your fee, and then you're good to go.

Um so we wouldn't have a big review process once it's up and running, unless we hear complaints.

Um we would also have a phase-in period, what we're calling an amnesty period.

So if this ordinance is adopted, there would be a chance for people to kind of figure out what they need to do.

We do some outreach, you know, have the handouts, uh, make sure everybody knows how to get onto our website, and this would all be online, very simple.

And then, as I mentioned, the enforcement would be through our standard um administrator citation process, which starts with a warning and then you know, incrementally more serious fines.

So that's pretty much it.

Um we're happy to answer any questions tonight and um hear your thoughts.

Okay.

Uh great presentation.

Thank you.

I'll bring it to the board for uh clarifying questions.

Uh one on the call.

Yeah, just clear.

Thank you for the staff report.

I did reveal the ordinance and the notes of the working committee, which I thought did a really good job discussing all the issues.

Um just one question.

Definitely it seems like primary residence seems to be a key item in order to allow unhost it.

You mentioned primary residents reside like six months or more.

I don't see that in the definition.

There's a required time period, is there a reason that wasn't included?

We could add that.

Um it's sort of a term of art.

I mean, if it like for tax purposes and other reasons.

I mean, if if you reside in California, you must have a regular presence here, and that's sort of the the idea.

So, same with living in this property on Alameda, the expectation would be even if you go on vacation or um whatever, that this is your legal residence.

Okay, but we could add we could add that specifically.

Yeah, yeah.

I'm just asking because I you mentioned in your presentation, and I notice it's not included in the definition.

Thank you.

That's really what my only question.

Okay, great.

Um board member Sue.

Thanks for the presentation, Steve.

Um, yeah, just uh a follow-up clarifying question to board member Hom.

Um so I guess so the idea is that um if you have a well, let me reframe it, I guess, is the only way someone who's able to host or have a STR is they have to have a primary residence in Alameda and can only have technically by definition and also by the way this is defined in the and the ordinance, only one primary resident.

So the idea is that I say what I'm trying to get at is they're only gonna be able to h take the idea is that you they're only gonna be able to host or have one STR because they can only have one primary residence.

That's the requirement with the idea.

Yeah.

Yeah, and I think that's a point of discussion we could we could delve into.

Um we we also specify that it would be on properties up to four units, and I think we had some discussion before about, well, what if say they have a basement unit and a cottage in the back, and they still live upstairs in the main house.

Well, could they short-term rental all of the rest of the space?

And I think that's still up for discussion.

Um I think we framed it as no more than one of those spaces.

Yes, and they have to live on site.

Right.

Yeah.

Did this kind of the way that they were trying to approach it here, is this exactly how the Santa Monica Ordinance tried to handle um this issue, I guess, of you know somebody having a home that they own in Alameda and then buying another home and deciding or buying a duplex and saying let's rent those out.

Is that what is this how Santa Monica tried to tackle the problem or that issue?

Right, right.

Okay.

So there's less speculation.

Right.

I mean, just thinking out loud of like how to actually like enforce that.

I mean, you'd have to uh figure out a way to check if someone um you know they actually live there and whether they spit down.

Okay, I'm just more rambling now.

But um, yeah, I'll have more thoughts on that.

Thanks.

Good questions.

Um did you maybe yeah, uh, board member Wang.

Uh yeah, thank you, Steve.

Um I have a couple questions just to understand more the nature of the uh complaint process uh given that it kind of lives somewhere else in the code.

Um so I have a couple examples in mind if you don't if you don't mind just maybe walking through those examples.

So so let's say someone let's say there's an operating STR, they've they have a permit.

Um someone makes a noise complaint um and then that occurs a few times within a certain period.

Can you maybe walk through what that would look like, what would happen.

Yeah, um these sort of temporal complaints are tricky sometimes because we have to send somebody out to verify it.

Um now if someone is able to record it with a timestamp and you know over time we see a pattern, then that helps us be able to send someone at the right time, whether it's you know, Friday night, most likely, Saturday night, something like that.

Um we do have a code officer that's you know available to go out at odd hours.

Um but um yeah, we would try to, you know, take the totality of the evidence, whether it's from the neighbors, then you know, talk to the owner, see if they can verify or, you know, uh argue against the complaint, um, and then we would as I said do an investigation.

Okay, but you also talked about I think it was a three or four-step kind of laddering process where um yeah.

Let's say you had four verified incidents.

At that point, you would then we would probably undertake a suspension.

So I think what we're talking about is a warning and then maybe uh a 30 day suspension and then you know, uh uh $500 fine, you know, or you know, escalating to a thousand dollar fine, you know, we would we would have that system.

Um I'm sorry, I just I don't know exactly what those steps are, but something along those lines.

Okay, I think you I think um it's not I I guess in in this particular ordinance it's not super clear.

So eventually when when it gets to the you know, if and when it gets to the administrative piece, I guess having that uh enforcement process be spelled out, I think would be helpful for the public.

Um I have a second question that's kind of along the lines of uh board members who's question, uh which is to say, let's say uh let's say you have a permitted STR, and then someone comes and they have a complaint and they say actually that is not their primary residence.

Um I wonder if you've uh considered what that complaint process then looks like, whether it kind of mirrors uh a more general scenario, like a noise scenario, or if it's slightly different.

Yeah.

Um sorry, going back to the enforcement.

There's actually uh there's no page numbers here, but on this uh attachment under 30-19.6 F, it talks about the escalating enforcement warning, suspension, um, and revocation.

Um, sorry.

Um something more like an ownership, like a factual investigation is a little easier.

Um, and we can verify from their application they're supposed to provide documentation up front, and then we can verify if that's still true, or if there's some other evidence like um property ownership, uh and those sorts of things.

I guess that what I what I have in mind, and we can talk about this more in the comment part of our evening, is that if if you know if someone is warranted that a property is their primary residence and it's not, you can't really warn them about that.

It either is or it isn't, right?

Oh, well we're not really gonna warn them to move into the STR, I think.

We would warn them that we would revoke their permit, and they would have to turn it into a long-term rental.

Right.

So it's a little bit more binary this situation than another type of situation, I think.

Yeah, and I think in any event the warning would be either comply or we will revoke.

And so they can do that in any way that they are able.

Right.

That's fair.

Yeah.

Um, okay, switching topics.

Uh this was just a clarification question in the staff report.

Um under the section on types of buildings and spaces in the staff report.

You have a sentence that reads homeowners would be able to host visitors in units that they do not own if they are on the same property.

Uh I think that's supposed to say that they do not occupy.

Correct.

Okay.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Those are all my questions.

Great.

Um any other clarifying questions from fellow board members.

Um, if not, um I uh just want to uh double check uh these items, so um uh this would apply to all ADUs, and you said in your presentation, um like that all the ADUs are not eligible for S CRs.

Um, and that's partly because of state law and therefore new newly constructed ADUs are not eligible for STRs, right?

Okay.

And that's again a logic statement uh laddering up because state law effectively makes it okay.

Just want to double check on that.

Um and same case with the SB9 units, like it's kind of somewhat already embedded and state law.

Um sorry, I'm just kind of repeating back just to make sure we fully understand.

Um then uh we received a written comment.

Um, my reading of the ordinance, it seemed like the concern um with the the complaint of this primary um house being an STR um wouldn't be allowable in the future.

This is like the Otis Drive situation.

Um I think the the piece that's maybe uh missing a little bit is this like conversation about the enforcement element, but otherwise it seemed like that would not be allowed.

Like it has to I'm just repeating it back again.

Um the host should be in that um residence and that in that home.

Is that right?

So the Yeah it exactly so and as was quoted, it's it's you can only have one primary residence at a time.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um a host could live in an ADU and rent out the house or whatever the other unit as an STR, though.

That is a work around, yeah.

Yeah, okay.

Okay.

Um those are all my.

Oh yes, board member home.

Actually, you triggered uh a question in my mind.

Um I meant to ask this too.

Excuse me.

When I read the ordinance, it also indicates that a host can be a tenant.

Uh, law is that tenant is a long-term tenant.

So in that scenario, you could have someone who owns the house but does not actually live in it, so they're not the primary tenant, but the tenant is able to uh rent out their space or the unit as an STR is that is that right?

So that's the one exception for a primary residence that they that they could actually rent out their rental, yes.

Uh so it's essentially subletting with the landlord's permission, most likely.

It I mean most leases would say you can't do that without their permission, um, but subletting or short-term renting of rooms uh would be allowed for those tenants as well.

Um there's a limit that they can't charge more than their uh rent cap that's established uh in the rent program, okay.

Just so just to uh bring up perhaps a worst case scenario, which would be rare.

You know, but I just so you have a property owner that owns six homes, say.

He rents out all of them to long-term tenants.

So all six homes can potentially be uh short-term rental.

The primary if the tenant is the primary.

Yes, okay, so that's an exception.

So technically that property owner could actually have multiple short-term rentals along as their tenants or long-term.

As yeah, as long as the the tenant is the one who's operating the short-term rental.

So we wouldn't want to pass through where somehow there's a shadow uh world of tenants who aren't really tenants who are then short-term rental.

No, I understand.

On behalf of an owner.

I just want to clarify that there is a venue that's potentially available for a primary property owner to have more than one short-term rental, right?

Right, right.

Because the host would not be the owner, the host would be the tenant.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, thanks.

All right.

If no other clarifying questions, uh I think that's it.

Thank you so much.

Okay, thank you.

Um, and we'll go ahead and transition to public comments.

Um, I have three uh written slips here.

I'm wondering if we have any um public comment speakers online.

It looks like we have four.

Okay.

I'm wondering.

Um, how does the board feel?

Do we want to do the three minutes for everyone?

So that would be seven.

Yeah, everyone's playing with that.

Yeah.

Sorry.

I'm wondering if there are more speakers.

Um I don't yeah, I don't think we're not gonna get more than these, yeah.

But we might get more online.

That's point.

Actually, we just lost one, so we have three.

We lost one?

Okay.

All right.

In that case, um, all right.

It sounds like the board, we're all um supportive of uh because when we tend to have a lot of um public comment speakers, we sometimes adjust the comment period from three minutes to two minutes each, but in this case, um we'll go ahead and do the three minutes.

So um I'll start with in-person speaker.

Um we have Warren Wong.

Yeah, you want to come up to the podium?

Good evening, uh planning uh commissioners and city attorney and planning staff.

My name is Warren Wong.

I'm a uh longtime resident of Alameda and also a licensed commercial and residential real estate appraiser, having served for my 30 years before after I was a manager of the Bank of America's uh regional office, as well as 20 years as a probate referee for San Francisco County, appraising most of the states and trusts there.

Um, speaking today in a sense of caution.

Um I'm not saying I'm directly against this, but I just want to make sure we utilize some best practices.

Um this we can take this in consideration.

So uh I just want to make sure we use good safeguards, but let's be also understand that when you impose something like an ordinance like this, you're dealing with one of the issues which is called the bundle of rights theory.

You know, that's a real estate term and a legal term.

So what you're taking away potentially is one's ability to market a property in a broader sense.

So please keep that in mind.

The other thing I want to make sure you understand is how would could this potentially impact something in a property that we someone who is a long-term owner that might want to sell the property down the road to ensure the highest value for it in the market if they decide to do like a prop 19 tax transfer to another residential property as a principal unit for their for their in another county.

Okay, the other thing that uh, well, first of all, I want to say I thank you for you know writing a good ordinance.

I think it had generally good safeguards and language and also some good elements of protection there.

I think what the key thing we want to do for the takeaway here is limit how can I say it speculative rental where people buy property just to make it an Airbnb, okay?

And having stayed in Airbnbs when I go to conventions around the country, it's kind of a nice thing to have.

And as well as it's it's it's you know managed well, but the the key thing I want to make sure we're clear about is that I want to ensure that when we do allow these two uh take place that we allow quiet enjoyment for people in the neighborhoods, so the so that that's good.

So other than that, the only thing I want to say is.

Sorry.

That's a clip hanger there.

Oh yeah, I think we've got the the sentiment that, yeah, thank you so much.

I'd really appreciate the public comments.

Yes.

Um maybe we'll bring it um online to the next speaker.

So the first speaker we have is um Athena Mog Haddam.

I'm gonna let you allow you to talk.

Yes, hi, good evening.

Can you hear us?

Yes.

Perfect.

Hi, good evening.

This is Athena and I speaking.

Um I have previously appeared before you to um explain that our family depends on income from our short-term rental to um help pay for our property and um maintain our housing here in in Alameda.

Um we maintain an STR um on San Antonio, close to Park Street, and um we we often host families, um, you know, people visiting their families in Alameda, and uh have generally been um happy to host people who have been very low maintenance and um just you know a joint to deal with.

Um I did want to ask about the ADU language in the ordinance.

Um the ordinance as written exclude excludes all ADUs.

Um, previously some of the feedback to prior versions of the ordinance um as discussed.

There was a cutoff of 2017 that was talked about.

Um I've also seen online 2020 cutoffs mentioned, um, for uh, you know, construction of ADUs that um acts as a cutoff for when STRs may or may not be permitted, and uh I wanted to ask why all of that was excluded in in the current um language.

Yeah, because the state's law does not exclude all ADUs, but looks like in the staff language all ADUs are excluded.

And it was referred that it was excluded because the state law is excluded.

So I wonder why Alameda is putting more restrict options on ADU while state doesn't.

And to clarify this, um, well, likely would impact our family in um direct ways.

So it's very important to us that that this be considered, and we'd be very grateful.

Um, if um you would take a moment to address it.

Okay, thank you.

I think that's all for us.

Thank you.

Thank you for your uh comments.

Um we'll bring it back to the room.

Next speaker, Steve Um Busi.

Oops, sorry if I said your last name wrong.

Good evening.

My name is Steve Bassi.

Um I attended and spoke at both of the uh uh workshops we had last year.

Um my wife and I own a home in Alameda that was built in 1885, AP something like that.

Um, and in the backyard is a cottage that was built in 1909 as an in-law unit for the owner's mother and father-in-law.

Um we've operated as a uh short-term rental for the last 12 years.

Um we've had a uh business license the entire time.

Uh initially it was just an apartment license because there was no such thing as a short-term rental um business license in Alameda, but we've updated that.

Um, reading the ordinance, it sounds like our use is allowed, um, given that we have a home with a cottage in the backyard.

However, later in the ordinance it mentions the address has to be the same.

And in 1909, the cottage was given a different address.

Um it's 1181 as it was to 1183 that I live in.

Um I could see the way the ordinance is written that a clerk who's trying to approve my application would say no you can't.

Um this other property is next door.

However, it is on the same parcel on the same property.

Um, just want to make sure that's that's clarified.

Um other concern I have is the and this doesn't affect me at all, but the fact that there's no grandfather um exemption, um, although they have is 60 days.

If someone does not live, you know, if someone's invested millions of dollars in a home and furnished it and decorated it, they've got 60 days before they have to find permanent tenants.

Um, it seems like a very short window of time to me.

Um, doesn't affect me, but it just it just sort of stood out in the ordinance to me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate your public comments.

Um, should we move online to the next speaker?

Let's see, it looks like we have three more online speakers, and the next one is uh Karen Bay.

Karen, you are allowed to talk.

Yes, okay.

You have a little bit of an echo.

Okay.

I don't know.

I think I'm going to maybe um try turning down the volume on the computer.

She's connected to two.

Yeah, two audios.

Yeah.

Okay.

Maybe should we come back to her?

Yeah, we'll come back to you.

Okay.

We'll come back to you, Karen.

Um, so then the next uh speaker is uh Zidim.

I allow you to talk.

Good evening, board members and uh Madam President.

I think you've heard from a couple of members of the public today about um them being great hosts, um, and and that's awesome to hear.

Um I bring to you a uh situation that's not so great as an example.

Um I have a I live on the West End.

I have a home across the street from me that was for sale and um didn't successfully sell, and so they started renting it on Airbnb at a very affordable price, which resulted in um weekend rentals and party after party after party, and um the overall effect was very disturbing on the neighborhood, um, and a complete nuisance.

Um, the host is not in Alameda.

Uh they live in uh the valley somewhere, um maybe in Tracy or Modesto, I can't remember, uh, but far enough where they can't get here with any um any speed.

Um, and so my my first issue regarding your language and in the proposed ordinance is um we're talking about local hosts.

Um I would like to see a flushed out definition of what local means and not only a 60 minute, not only a 60-minute response time, but um maybe a proximity in terms of distance to Alameda, um, which I think would be helpful in these types of situations.

Um, I do appreciate the the hosted um aspect of your proposed ordinance, and I think that's great.

Um, and I'll just end on um I think it's a great that um short-term rentals are happening in Alameda, and we're trying to regulate them and that um the city will get to collect some um TOT as part of this process uh to offset the services.

So that's all thank you.

Great, thank you.

Um, next speaker, uh Julie Ann.

Good evening, everyone.

Uh my name is Juliana Conell.

I am a five-star super host on Airbnb.

I'm also a third generation Alamedan, and I'm proud to call this town my home.

So I understand that everyone in this room shares the same goal, making Alameda an affordable and vibrant place to live, but restricting responsible short-term rentals is not the solution to our housing challenges.

What short-term rentals do provide is meaningful economic support for local homeowners and our local economy.

This additional income for myself and for others help pay property taxes, insurance, and maintenance.

It helps me continue here to live in Alameda.

Visitors who stay in my STRs are grandparents who visit their children and grandchildren, sons and daughters who visit their mothers, and out-of-town guests who want a safe and quiet neighborhood outside of San Francisco.

Our guests contribute to Alameda's economy by shopping local, tasting our local brews, and watching our famous Fourth of July parade.

However, I also recognize concerns about noise and neighborhood impacts.

Those concerns are valid, but they should be addressed through effective enforcement of existing rules, responsible host already required, quiet hours, occupancy limits, and immediate responses to complaints.

The small number of bad actors should not deter on policy for everyone else.

After all, this is not the French quarter in New Orleans.

Alameda has a long tradition of welcoming visitors while preserving the character of its neighborhoods.

We are not Oakland, we are not Berkeley, we're not Santa Monica or other cities who have long-term rentals.

We are a town with very limited and clean and safe accommodations for our grandparents who are visiting their grandchildren.

Our short-term rentals offer clean and safe accommodations.

Having long-term rentals will not only affect us rental host, but will affect the grandmother who is visiting their grandchildren for the week and their families.

I respectfully ask the council to continue support well regulated short-term rentals.

They strengthen our local economy, help residents remain in their homes, and provide safe and clean accommodations for visitors and families.

Let's focus our efforts on addressing the true causes of our housing shortage while preserving an important source of income for Alameda residents and important asset for our community.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Great, thank you.

I guess the next online speaker.

Okay, the next person we have online is uh Philip Cocky.

So Philip will allow you to talk.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Um, uh thank you for the well-considered ordinance.

Um I am a real estate agent.

I've been real estate agent in Alameda for over 20 years, and I also operate um short-term rental.

It doesn't really affect me because I the ordinance because I live in the unit, it's a duplex, it's solid to code, it's not an ADU or anything else.

I'm not hosting a private home.

However, from listening to this, I think if uh what I'm concerned about is say single family homes that are excluded because the owner doesn't live there a lot of times just from the market standpoint of how uh an Airbnb or a VRBO operates.

Uh, having a larger home is uh a very uh it's a nice amenity to have for a larger family who's traveling.

Uh I don't really see where the speculators would come into Alameda and start to buy up homes.

I don't I don't think that there's the market to be to be had for somebody to really make a large amount of money off of something like this.

I don't really see that as something that would probably just wouldn't attract the kind of person who would want to get a return on investment like that.

Uh I do unfortunately hearing about the gentleman's home in the West End where there's parties, I think for the most part.

The people that have I've had through have been very quiet.

There's a very low impact on the neighborhood, and in fact, probably in some cases less because there's not another car here permanently.

So I think I'm certainly all in favor of having good rental policies and a good ordinance, but I think there is an aspect to this where you will eliminate certain people that are they may own a home, they may not live in Alameda.

Unfortunately, the the situation on the West End is kind of an extreme example, but a large home as a rental is the valuable property, so just by excluding them, you'll be cutting out a certain part of the market for the people that do want to continue that this is an economic activity.

And other than that, thank you for the time.

Thank you.

Okay, so we have um next up is Catherine Chang.

Catherine allowing you to talk.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, so my family owns a unit, and I actually live next door and I manage the unit.

And we've had situations where there was some nuisance, and the neighbors have my phone number and they call me, I call the cops or how to call the fire department, and it's been very smooth, but um this is like a I'm a single mom, and it's a very second income to me.

So creating all this ordinance could create situation for myself, even though my family owns it, and I help them manage it.

Um and the people that do come here and that stay at our place are usually uh people that work in Alameda or they come to visit.

We get a lot of traveling nurses, and so there's just a variety of people, and we have our set rules, so we I know that some Airbnbs don't have strict rules like we do, and I live right next door, so I'm able to accommodate any issue that goes on.

Um, what else?

Also, question is that we rent out rooms, some are long-term rentals and some are short-term rentals.

So, would that make a difference if they're not all short-term rentals?

Um, if there's some long-term rentals, some short-term rentals.

Uh I think that's mostly it.

Thank you.

Okay, then that's it.

That's it.

Okay, great.

Um, and with that, we'll go ahead and close with a comment and uh bring it back to the board for deliberations.

Um this is um uh to help inform our recommendation to the city council where that decision will be made.

So you all want to kick us off.

Yes, board member Han.

Maybe just to start uh does staff want to respond to some of the public comments, the questions that were asked.

Uh yeah, sure.

Um the obviously the bundle of rights and quiet enjoyment are are fundamental uh real estate um considerations.

Um I don't think short-term rental is necessarily, you know, I don't know.

I'll leave it to the city attorney to to say whether that's a protected right or just one of many rights that we're regulating as a under our police power, but um uh as far as the ADU cutoff, um I I do see where the staff report didn't distinguish exactly um that we were going beyond state law.

Um so these laws were enacted in 2017, and then so they do essentially take effect then.

Um and so anything before 2017 could be considered um grandfathered or you know exempt um from that state prohibited prohibition.

Um we went ahead and and just made it all ADUs that were developed under ADU law, again, meaning they received exemptions from standard zoning, either for density or setbacks or some other development standard.

Um because we don't really have that many that are pre-2017, and so um what we would do is basically just screen all the applicants and just figure out like does it have an ADU tag on the permit?

And if it does, then it's uh eligible, unless again it's either renter occupied and that's being sublet or owner occupied and the main building is being used as the STR.

So there would be a couple of exceptions built in there, but the it's termed as if it can't be used as short-term rental as an economic activity solely as the primary activity.

Um would we also exclude renters from STRs?

Maybe we would.

So I actually wanted to make a comment on the ADU issue, please do.

So as Steve mentioned, the ADU state law has prohibitions against short-term rentals for certain classifications of ADUs and junior accessory dwelling units.

That the state law has changed over the years, and it's very difficult to track exactly which categories of ADUs have those particular rental restrictions.

It's generally, you can generally base it on the year that the ADU was constructed, but there are so many different exceptions to that and fact-specific cases, because as you know, our ADU sometimes they're built in 1909 and they were not legally permitted until 2018.

So is that an ADU that is created under state law, or is it a grandparented ADU?

It's it's really a difficult type of decision to make.

So just wanted to give you our full reasoning there.

Um I put a picture up on the screen.

If you would indulge me just for a minute.

So this shows a typical Alameda neighborhood.

Um it's got sort of mixed historical zoning and development patterns, but it's it's it's very mixed.

Um if you go to the next one.

Um, this is off of um Park Avenue and Broadway.

Um this is where today some short-term rentals are available and they're going rates for a two-night stay.

Um, this isn't all of them by any means.

Um, as you zoom in and out, different ones appear on the map.

But this is kind of a smattering of today's rentals.

Um, and they're all kinds of rentals.

I looked some of them up, and they're just they're all kinds of properties.

Um, and I wanted to just show you some samples, not of these literal ones, but um similar ones.

Go ahead.

Um, so on the left here, you have uh a four-unit you know, building it has a front door, but really the other entrances are on the side, and there's parking and back.

Um in the middle, you have a front house and a backhouse.

Um, and one or both of those could also have two units in it, and then another four unit project next door, or probably more than four.

Um, and so all of these may or may not be eligible depending on if the owner lives there, or if the tenant has the owner's permission to then sublet essentially a room in their apartment or rent it out while they're gone on vacation, things like that, another multi-unit building, kind of the same deal.

I lived in one of these for a while, and the owner lived upstairs in the owner's unit.

It was a bigger three-bedroom unit.

And then the other three tenants had one-bedroom units, and we all got along great, but the owner was always there.

And so theoretically they could short-term rental one or more of those units, depending on how we write the ordinance.

And then you know, houses with the basement unit or a duplex side by side, upstairs, downstairs.

You know, there's all kinds of traditional housing forms.

These are not ADUs necessarily, but they're, you know, duplex and other kinds of units.

And so we're not saying that the those can't be short-term rental as long as the owner lives on site or the tenant has the owner's permission.

One more, I think.

And then the courtyard umits, um, that's a really tricky situation.

But again, I think you get the gist of it.

You know, we just have all these housing types.

So we're not prejudging any of them.

We're just trying to um say that for most people who probably move into these multi-unit buildings, they're not expecting to have a hotel room next door.

They're hoping to have a community, so people that they know, that they can talk to, um, if there's a problem, um, that there's some stability in the neighborhood.

And I think that's really part of what we're getting at, is also these multi-unit properties have other people living there.

And so we're trying to also recognize the rights of those tenants and neighbors.

And I'll I'll just leave it there.

Uh yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, no, thank you for that explanation, Steve.

Um, I guess clarification.

I'm looking at the ordinance, and this is 30-19-4.

You know, B3.

And it says, I remember reading this a host may rent no more than one dwelling unit or other habitable space as an STR on the same property at the same time.

So does that mean that say an owner owns a duplex?

They have a tenant living upstairs, and they live downstairs, or vice versa.

Does that mean that at any one time there can only be one str rather than two?

That's how we wrote it.

Okay, and yeah, and so we're we're being very strict on that.

Okay, okay.

I just wanted to make sure I understood that that was what the intent was.

Okay.

I guess we're number soon.

Um I just have this is more of a question also.

Um, so appreciate the explanation on the ADU law and understand that it can get very complex as they add more housing laws, it just gets more and more complex.

Um, and so I understand the approach of just, you know, saying they're prohibited.

Um, but I I think it would be helpful to just include some language as just a guidepost for the public.

Because I understand, you know, internally staff probably has their notes and they know, like, oh, yeah, it says this, but you know, we flag it and blah, blah, blah.

We do our own due diligence to figure out.

But I think for somebody buying a new property, right?

They see this and they go, oh, that's that won't work for us.

But actually, in reality, it might work, but it's very complicated.

So, and and I know it's complicated, it'd be hard to write something in here that would just exp make it a more clear, and I even, you know, you know, your example of the cottage built in 1908, but and then maybe in you know, 2005 they started using it as a B and B.

I don't know when it being became came along, but just say 2005 or whatever, but then they didn't get legalized as an ADU in 2019, but they've been doing it for like 10, 15 plus years.

Are we now gonna say you can't do this anymore?

I don't know what the state law says, but I think, like in that example, they should be allowed to continue doing it because they've been doing it for so long, despite their legalization later on.

Anyways, I think kind of my bigger commentslash question is is I think it would be helpful to include some language in here just as a guidepost for the public that it's not some blanket ban.

I mean, unless unless staff is like, look, there's only like five properties, like we've done the analysis, and there's only like five properties in the city and that fall under this, and so that's why we're doing it, then I'd be fine.

But I I would imagine just see by you showing me all these different examples that there's probably ADUs in the city that we just don't even know about that someone's lived in there forever, and maybe at some point they want to Airbnb out, and they would be confronted with this ordinance and be like, oh, I I can't, but maybe they actually could.

Yeah, I'm I'm thinking back, um the former director, um, Andrew Thomas was telling me a little bit about the history of of ADUs in Alameda as well.

I think he said that really um there was an amnesty period already where um people with these basement units or cottages that the permitting history was a little uncertain, you know.

Maybe there was a record on file, maybe there wasn't.

Um they were actually given an opportunity, oh, probably 15 years ago, where the city really took the initiative and tried to bring people in and kind of just deal with it.

Um I think if someone were to come in now and try to legalize an ADU, um, I think we would do that other research first and try to show that no, actually it was built according to the code at the time.

And um, you know, we only had zoning since 1940, roughly, so um, you know, prior to that there was lots of development that happened, and we have sandborne maps and other ways of documenting um legal development that's you know that's okay, and we wouldn't try to legalize it under an ADU law necessarily.

Um so it wouldn't get knocked out just because of that.

So I think it I think it's um it will affect probably a couple of hundred units citywide, not short-term rental units.

I mean, probably like you said, five short-term rental units that are technically ADUs, maybe ten.

I don't know, but it doesn't seem like it's really that many.

Okay, thanks.

I think it's probably more likely going to affect the single family home where people own two homes in in town or don't live in town at all.

Yeah, um great.

Uh any other comments or feedback?

Yeah, for member Wayne.

Uh yeah, well, um, I have a lot of comments, but uh first um I would just echo board member Sue's comment.

I tend to agree that if there was some kind of secondary structure that predates ADU law, but it later uh became more formally permitted.

I would I would think that that should just kind of slide under and be allowed.

Um I do think that, you know, we have a policy objective with ADUs, and that is to say, you know, given our long-standing housing supply issues that ADUs have been a way that we've been very intentional about creating a new form of density in our existing neighborhoods, and we've also added on uh you know policy incentives such as waiv impact fees for ADUs, right?

And that is all in service of creating more long-term housing supply.

That's not to say that ADUs are guaranteed to become long-term housing, uh, but I think that uh explicitly allowing them to be short-term rental housing is certainly not in service of creating long-term housing supply.

Um bigger picture comment.

Uh, you know, I think a lot of the discussion uh uh on the workshop nights and and tonight uh has focused on noise and nuisance questions, which I I think are are totally valid.

You know, one of the comments that I made earlier on was I'm not sure that short-term rentals as a as a category of product naturally have more land use problems than then otherwise, but I think that I think I'm happy to be proven wrong.

I think we, you know, a couple people have spoken up to say, well, look, if the owner or the host isn't here, like we tend to see some nuisance issues crop up.

But all that said, to me, I think noise and nuisance are still not the primary issue here.

Just going back to long-term housing supply, we do have that as a primary policy objective, and that is codified in the housing element that the city adopted as as Steve has pointed out already.

And so we are here to pick that thread up following the adoption of the housing element.

We are, I think just uh I'm not sure if you said this, Steve, but you said it earlier in our prior workshops.

We're probably among the last of the cities in the in at least the East Bay or the or the in the vicinity to be adopting this.

And you know, over the years since uh Airbnb is has really become popular here and and across the globe.

I think we've seen a lot of uh ordinances um regulating short-term rentals, and so they you know, I think one the market's kind of used to seeing them now.

It should be, um, it shouldn't be a surprise.

Um, and two, I think, you know, if anything, you know, we're we're kind of aligning with the market at this point.

Um so uh I generally uh you know, I think the I think where we were going with our workshops was good.

Um I'm I'm pretty pleased with how it's turned out.

Um I did think the uh you know the structure of hosted, semi-hosted, and unhosted is was helpful for us to start thinking about the kinds of short-term rentals that we wanted to regulate or allow or disallow.

Uh, but ultimately I agree the nomenclature was starting to throw us off.

I do think the new structure is a lot more easy to understand.

Um so I'm glad that we found that precedent and we're following in its footsteps.

Um I think I have a couple more comments.

I guess as a as a parent in a family that travels, I'm sympathetic uh to the notion that that larger homes are are helpful.

Um but uh again, I I think you know we're I don't think we're gonna be any under any illusion that passing a short-term rental ordinance is gonna boost our housing supply significantly, right?

We're not looking for a silver bullet, but um in many of the conversations that we have here, we are looking for uh important but incremental steps to support and shore up our long-term housing supply.

So I think here we're we're looking to make a balance between um supporting long-term affordability for um people in the Bay Area, um, and and also allowing kind of a reasonable flexibility with uh people's properties.

Um recognizing that you know being able to rent out your home or your second unit on your property supports long-term affordability for for homeowners.

Um I have some kind of micromanagement type of comments uh that that I think relate to how relates to I think this concern about primary residents.

And so understanding that I think we're largely kind of focused on the honor system, backed up by I think uh complaints or enforcement.

I do I do want to uh I think one reinforce that you know it's it's not so much about showing showing documents that that have your address on uh on them, right the primary point is that that is your primary residence so I think that there's you know we want something that maybe is like an affidavit where you actually say that and then the documents are supporting it's not that the documents are primary if that makes sense um the second thing is um and I kind of alluded to this in my question is I don't know about I don't know whether multiple warnings make sense in the context of somebody uh misleading about whether uh a short-term rental is their primary residence um so I I do think that you know if somebody did that and it was found to be untrue then I think we should recognize as a city that that application was made in bad faith and so it should really be a one tier warning I don't think that they should get multiple chances at that um the second thing is um I think that you noted or the proposal is that if if um if an applicant loses eligibility for for their short term rental for whatever reason that they aren't able to reapply for 180 days is that right um so I I think I think at least in the context of a sort of false primary residence scenario that is shouldn't just be the applicant that's not eligible to reapply for 80 days but in addition the property in question should also be barred from being a short-term rental for 180 days regardless of who applies I think those are all my comments thank you uh board member Han yeah um just um taking time to now express my thoughts on this for first of all um first of all I think this is a well crafted ordinance is there is a nice balance between recognizing that we need some enforcement authority for the bad players that happen and unfortunately that does happen but also recognizing that quite honestly the majority vast majority of short term rentals are not a problem so it's not you don't want to like overregulate and and have staff spend a lot of time uh but at the same time you want the teeth to be able to enforce if you need to um there's I you know I think it covers is a good balance like I said you know so I'm ready to support the ordinance I do have some suggestions to to take into consideration some of them supporting what other board members say uh even though it's complicated it does seem to me that if an ADU was grandfathered in is not truly an ADU of pre-2017 or 2020 you know it is basically grandfathered.

I know that creates complications for administration standpoint but uh it seems that they're technically not an ADU under the state law so maybe they should be exempt um I do agree uh with with board member Wang about the violation I mean to me the multiple warnings come in for operational issues you know noise uh you know they're having a big party or other operational violations of the standards those are subject to warnings but if if it turns out the person no longer lives there you know you know it could be they may represent it correctly but then they moved out or whatever then it should automatically uh be terminated as the ability to operate an ADU um one one comment just responding to a comment from the audience and I don't know where this is I was looking for it there was a comment that you know, if if there's say an AD not ADU uh but uh yeah a living space that might be have a different address on the same property is not an ADU, you know, maybe clarifying if it's a different address that that that doesn't apply to the exception.

And I don't know where that is and whether that's that's um actually correct or not, but if you could check on that um the the other comment, and this has to do with the definitions in the ordinance.

I do agree, and I'll throw it out here for consideration.

There was a comment about the local contact, meaning the person that needs to be responded within 60 minutes.

It does seem to me that is fair to require that that local contact reside in Alameda.

So that's kind of one of my suggestions.

I don't think that would be too prohibitive.

Uh otherwise you could have someone living up in Lake Tahoe and say I could respond within 60 minutes or whatever.

Um, so that's one suggestion.

The other suggestion is the definition of primary residence.

I I'm open to the idea of placing a some type of time limit, like you know, you need to, you know, permanent resident meaning you're you're you're living there, you know, at least six months out of the year.

And also, since we are allowing tenants to host uh STRs, maybe it requires also providing evidence of a long-term lease on the property to, you know, that way it's not just someone like you know rents it for three months or whatever.

And then a final amendment suggests, and this is kind of what what brought up under that item three.

It might be good to clarify the issue about only one str rental on say a multi-unit building, because when I read that it says a host, but you know, you that could be interpreted as on the property you have a property owner and you have a tenant, so that means both of them can serve as a host, but might be good to clarify that so there's not any confusion down the road.

So otherwise, I think staff did an excellent job with with crafting the ordinance, listening to all the various feedback from board members and the public, and uh coming up with an ordinance that to me is clear, but um not overly complicated.

So using Santa Monica as an example sounds like that was the right way to go.

Thank you.

And I'll just add, we actually are more liberal than Santa Monica.

They prohibit the vacation rentals, they define it and then prohibit it.

Oh, okay.

So we're uh at least allowing it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

That's one clarification from the comments is that we're allowing both.

I'll use the term hosted and unhosted.

The only requirement is that it needs to be the primary residence.

So for the person that mentioned they have a large home that they would like to rent out, that's perfectly fine.

You know, you could be away from that residence.

You just have to be the primary resident of that house.

Um I just had a uh a follow-up question on the ADU prohibition.

You mentioned that in the city already bans the use of ADUs for STRs.

Is that so that's like in another um section of the city's code?

So then for existing, I guess that it's possible that there are some existing ADUs that are being used as STRs technically in violation of the city's code at this time, or has it just been they say unregulated?

Yeah, I think um if we got a complaint, we would investigate it, and it would be violating sort of the ADU section of the code, since we don't currently have an SDR code.

Okay.

Um I'll also point out that when you all updated your ADU ordinance, um, you did make an amendment um to specify to continue forward that language prohibiting um ADUs from being uh rented less than 30 days, but then there was also a provision inserted that said unless otherwise authorized by this code, we and the reason for that was we weren't sure how you were going to come down on this issue.

So you do have some flexibility.

Yeah, and you you read my mind on that because my next my next point was if we were gonna put something in this ordinance to say, you know, um unless otherwise prohibited, right?

ADUs are would we need to then go and modify that one sounds like we okay?

So um I s I still think I would support you know, kind of just bringing back to our conversation of the ADU ban.

I would still support some language in here, um, just to give the public a signpost, and I understand it's probably doesn't end up being too many ADUs, but I think just to kind of I think to the kind of overall comments about um, you know, uh, you know, if you're a potential like you know, buyer of this property or potentially think about moving here, like just being able to know that and you're you know, oh you're looking at this this this section of the code, just seeing that signpost I think would be really helpful and not for people thinking that it's just a just um a complete ban.

So um just a couple other comments I wanted to just circle back on board member Wang's um comment about about the primary um residence uh requirement.

I think he's really on point with that, and we may want to just I think the way you you when you look at the way the definition is drafted right now, it might someone I could see arguing saying, Well, you know, I've provided, you know, I've got two registrations here, two registrations here, I've I've got my primary, even though at the end it says a person can only have one primary residence.

So I would try to redraft this to say something along the lines of like basically what it says, you know, the usual place of their housing, um, you know, which shall be as shown by something where we're not emphasizing the registration as much, but more as the registration as supporting supporting material.

So um I also just had this this thought of I think this was board member Hom's comment of you know, there are there are some people, and I think this maybe not as common here, but where you have snowbirds where they spend you know six months here and then six months somewhere else throughout the year.

Um I you know you we might end up having those situations where they will still it's almost like they have primary residences in two places if they're 50-50, and I guess under this code, if they you know, I think that will end up having to be if we go like this kind of affidavit route, we're just gonna have to make a a call at the end of the day of what we're kind of comfortable with.

But I think in like those kind of scenarios, um it's not it would not be the same as someone you know buying like living here in Alamina and then buying a house and then registering their voter registration and their you know utility bill there and saying, Well, I also live there.

So um I you know I think that's the kind of issue that we are we are trying to address.

Um, and just to board members' comment about the the local host, I I had the same thought of like why don't we just make it so that someone lives in Alameda and I and I just I tend to agree with that, but I also feel like maybe it might be too restrictive.

Like what if that person just lives in like Oakland and San Leandro?

Like maybe the language is sufficient enough to say, Look, they can respond, even though I mean respond is so vague, but maybe that goes to the point that maybe we don't want to over-regulate.

So I'm I'm a bit on the fence on that language.

Um, but I yeah, also, you know, I don't want someone to abuse it and be like, oh, well, you live in Sacramento, and that's enough.

They can respond by text in 60 minutes.

So maybe we do want to try and time that up a little bit.

But overall agree, I I think that this those um I think the Santa Monica model was was is a good model, and I appreciate staff's work on this and all the all the kind of uh uh input they've they've provided.

Thank you.

Any um other comments or feedback on board members?

Um with that, I'll just uh share that I'm in agreement with my fellow board members.

Um I uh think this was uh really thoughtfully put together by staff.

I feel like this is a really challenging issue.

I mean um I'm very sympathetic to members of the public that um use short-term rental um income as um part of their um you know livelihoods and um this is gonna be a big adjustment.

Um I also think it's a fair point that um I don't think you know we're not Santa Monica we're not San Francisco this isn't um going to uh change the spec of market uh trajectory um and um I do think this is responsive to what we have articulated in the housing element um and I do think this is a reflection of our values of how we want to have available homes for people to live as their true home like a long-term housing so um for those reasons um I'm supportive of this draft and I uh think um a lot of the recommended amendments make a lot of sense um so support all my fellow board members with that um and I think a lot of this is comes down to like intent so um I don't know if we want to solve for that now and do a little bit more deliberation or if like staff feels that they have like good direction from the board.

Like I I'm curious if um we could bring it back to you all um if you have any follow-up questions for us.

Yeah I I do um I wanted to ask you all in terms of this uh question around sort of legacy operators who are already up and running don't have any complaints um depend on the income uh you know we had an amnesty period um it it could be extended or it could be more indefinite like if you can show that you've been listing your property and we look and we've never had any complaints maybe those people are okay um and we're really just trying to regulate those future conversions um which we do under the um eviction uh clause as well where we're trying to keep people in their homes and so you know there there is there are those protections already um and we're recognizing those but um as you were saying like are we trying to now open up more of these units as rentals or are we trying to solve a nuisance problem um because if they're not a problem then maybe the legacy operators could continue and I I just wanted to run that by you because I I heard a little bit of concern among the the people who are here um I'm not so I'm not sure I'm following are you because I my think is it that you're so yeah obviously there are existing ADUs that are operating as short term rentals and oh so you're saying those have been fine so actually I'm not talking about ADUs because those are already regulated but more like the person who owns two homes and oh I see lives in one and rents the other as a short term rental.

Are we trying to tell that person they can no longer do that and if they come in for a permit they're gonna get in trouble or and or if we find out about them we'll have to pursue them for enforcement.

Or are they okay if they come in for a permit we can say great you know you can if you can show that you've been doing it for X you know time period like you're you've already been doing it for six months or a year or two years.

And we haven't gotten any complaints maybe there's a solution to that.

I mean I did I did just have kind of a similar thought I mean because I did we receive some comments of folks who have been doing this for a while and I would generally be supportive of that idea.

And I think there's that question of like how how long kind of is cut off point but the other thing I wonder um I wonder if this is like could somebody make an argument of like I'm being treated disparately because I came I'm trying to do this after the ordinance was put in place?

Um I you know I own a second home and I want to do this, but just because of past this date, it's no longer allowed.

I mean, I I think this is a good idea, but I just wonder if someone could make that argument to get that kind of permission struck down.

So yeah I mean I think that's always the case when you pass a new rule.

Yeah.

So it's a kind of a key item.

State law prohibits S STRs for ADUs.

So part of the to me a key guiding point is is this an ADU under state law?

W however you define that, I'm not say that's a clear definition, but state law specifically prohibits short-term rentals for quote unquote ADUs.

So as long as it's you know, if it's outside of that state definition, then I'm open to allowing the short-term rentals.

For the legacy versions or going forward, because that's the that's the real cutoff here is it has to be your primary residence.

Yes.

I think where ADUs isn't uh I think is it like a legacy unit, right?

Because or short-term rental, short-term rental.

Yeah, legacy short term rental that are not ADUs.

Yes, correct.

Yeah.

Okay, yeah.

Because if they're not ADUs, then there's not a state law issue, right?

It's only if they are classified as ADUs.

Am I missing something?

It's it's not the uh I think what Steve is asking is if there's an uh an owner and they're operating uh, let's say a single family home that's next door as their ADU under the ordinance as it's written they would no longer be allowed to do so.

Right.

I think Steve is saying, do we want to provide some kind of amnesty program for people who have been good actors?

Is that am I well said?

Yeah, I mean I'm open to that long as it doesn't violate state law.

Yeah, and I think yeah, I agree with um the consensus that we're coming to, and I think the question for me is um the like how long have they been proving to be a uh good standing STR um business owner, I guess?

Like I don't know, like it seems like one year maybe is not enough um evidence.

So that I think that's my question.

Um I think you were getting at that board members too.

So I don't know if it's like two years, three years, um but yeah.

I I would support a year, I think that's oh yeah, I think that would be too.

Okay, yeah.

I will support that.

That makes sense to me where someone has come to depend on it.

And I I would I would say though that if if that permit, this let's say this grandfathered permit gets revoked, I would say they don't get to come back and redo it.

Yeah.

Great.

That sounds fine.

All right, great.

Um any other um clarifications or things that would be helpful as you're um putting together this recommendation, um, Mr.

Buckley.

Where did you land on the um response uh uh radius?

Whether living in Alameda or not, yeah, that was a good question.

Yeah, yeah, because we solve that.

Maybe you could I mean we say 60 minutes.

Yeah.

Okay, that just throw this out there because I, you know, I don't have a problem with alameda, but I can understand maybe some more flexibility.

I mean, they need to be res be able to respond, maybe on site as well as by phone within sixty minutes.

Might that be because within an hour, you could live in Oakland or San Leandro, but you know, there might be a case where you want them to be able to, you know, be on the premises.

So that throw that out as a suggestion because I agree alamina might be a little bit too restrictive.

I would I would support that um recommendation.

Okay, so is it live in Alameda or be able to respond on site within sixty minutes?

I think it's uh be able to respond within sixteen minutes, including arrive in person, right?

Yeah.

Have the ability to arrive in person within 16 minutes.

I assume if they live in Alameda, they can respond in six minutes, right?

Of course, unless there's like massive traffic gestion for their work.

But I won't go there.

Yeah.

Does that uh work for you too, board member Wayne?

Sure.

Okay.

Thank you.

I think we got it.

Okay, great.

Um, any other yes, the board member home.

Oh no, I don't.

I was just gonna make a motion.

Oh, yes.

Uh go ahead and make a motion.

Yep.

Well, let me pull up the staff and put and make sure I what the what you're asking us to do.

Yeah.

So I um make a recommendation that we recommend to the city council to adopt um short-term rental regulation and ordinance as recommended by staff with the revisions discussed tonight by board members and further finding that the ordinance is exempt from CEQA.

I will second.

Okay.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

No opposition.

Two absences, and they have motion carries.

The motion carries.

Great.

Thank you.

Uh thank you so much to members of public, um, both here in person and online for all your um contributions.

Um, and with that, we'll move on to agenda item 5B, which is a workshop on commercial zoning.

Hi.

Hello.

Yeah, the button on the right.

Oh, there we go.

Okay.

Um, so we are here to provide an overview of the downtown commercial zoning code update for Park Street and Webster Street, which are Alameda's uh two main street corridors.

Um our project goals are to reduce storefront vacancies, reduce regulations that create unnecessary burden for new businesses, uh, modernize, clarify and simplify the zoning code, uh, build flexibility in the code to allow for emerging business types, all while maintaining the active pedestrian oriented district that it was originally envisioned for.

Uh to understand the potential impact of these changes.

We analyze the commercial building stocks in both areas.

Um observations include that park street contains around one million square feet of commercial space, roughly twice the amount of of square footage of other East Bay East Bay business improvement districts.

Uh retail and restaurant uses make up nearly 50% of commercial square footage within each district.

And if we include office and mixed-use uh buildings or square footage, that um percentage ramps up to around 85.

And over half of our com of all commercial buildings are 4,000 square feet or smaller.

Um looking at the vacancy specifically, we see that commercial vacancies rates are sitting at approximately 12% uh on Webster Street and 7% on Park Street.

Uh staff categorized these vacant spaces into four groups.

That's the first two uh represent the most common vacancies and are expected to benefit from the proposed zoning updates.

The remaining two will likely require more targeted interventions beyond zoning changes.

And as for our process, staff held three workshops uh with representatives from the Webster Street and Park Street Business Association, planning board members, and other key stakeholders to help shape uh the recommendations.

Following the study.

Staff will return to the planning board in September and then the city council in fall for adoption, and with that, I'll pass it over to Henry for the recommendations.

Great.

Thank you, Caesar.

Is that Caesar with the economic development department?

I was just gonna ask.

Yeah, thank you.

Giving a little overview of what we've gone through so far in our effort and some of our goals.

And so I'm gonna go ahead and oh sorry, Henry Dong with the planning building and transportation department, and I'm gonna go over some topics that we would hope to hear back from the board and the community on.

So first off, I'd like to express my appreciation for the uh working group that we had with the DABA and WABA stakeholders, and then uh board member Wang and member Ruiz.

Um a lot of the insight that they're gonna they gave us in those meetings will help to shape our um how we approach this project.

Um so uh I guess the question here is um how do we streamline um the code and the process to help to reduce some of the vacancies that uh Caesar was talking about.

Um, and so staff is recommending um mainly three approaches.

Uh first is to consolidate the list of permitted uses where possible, uh, and move the the code format to a more modern format, similar to the Alameda Point district and the North Park Street district where they use more general terms, and then number two, consider removal of requirements for use permits uh for certain uses where it's possible.

Um we really want to reserve the use permit process for those types of uses that we want to review on a case-by-case basis or uses that we want to implement conditions of approval to because I guess the use permit process includes a public hearing and and that usually can add about roughly three to twelve months worth of um processing time to a project, which will also create uncertainty for prospective tenants that may be choosing between a location in Alameda or a location in another city.

Um so these are some of the aspects to consider, and so we think it's worth taking a second look at some of these uses that we're gonna be talking about.

Um the other thing to consider is accessibility, because we have some uses that have limitations from being located on the ground floor or actually prohibited from being on the ground floor.

Um, but in Webster Street and Park Street, we have a lot of older buildings that may not have elevators, and so accessibility is another thing that we're thinking about.

And then lastly, uh we want to take a look at clarifying and modernizing the code.

So the first uh item to talk about here is um list uses not shops, right?

Um we want to consolidate consolidate the dozens of retail shops and personal services type uses all into like two main definitions, which is general personal services and general retail sales.

Um by listing individually, it really creates kind of a uh unclarity for those uses that aren't specifically useful listed on the in the code, and um, you know, it also requires that staff make similar determinations if we're going to um allow those types of uses, and so uh it makes sense to group them into general terms to make things more flexible and clear.

Um so when we're talking about retail use, um, just about most of the of the retail uses are allowed by right on Park and Webster Street.

Um, there are a few uses that we would like to take a second look at, and one of those is um retail used goods, which are actually require a use permit in the CC district.

Uh state law uh states that cities must treat these thrift store uses the same as new retail uses, retail store uses.

And so we're proposing to eliminate the distinction between new and used good sales.

And so I guess this is one's more kind of like an FYI, but we'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

The next retail used to like to take a look at is grocery stores and convenience stores.

So both of these can require use permit in both districts.

But based on our experience with the use permit process and hearings, usually the topics that come up in discussion are have to deal with alcohol beverage sales or late night hours operation.

And so we'd like to hear your thoughts on allowing these uses by right if we pull the alcohol sales and hours operations out of the equation and require use permits for those aspects.

And then we'd also like to hear your thoughts on if there's any, I guess, uh accessory type uses of alcohol sales that we could consider as by right, such as the sale of just beer and wine and not distilled spirits, or limiting the square footage of the area for alcohol sales.

So general personal services, in general, these it's kind of mixed on the current regulations on whether that uh where they're allowed by right and um require use permit.

Uh I think in general, we think that watch hospitals, coin laundry shops, and barbershops should be allowed by right.

Um there are a few current uh personal service uses that require use permit that we'd like to uh hear your thoughts on.

Um is being salons uh actually require use permit on Webster Street, but not on Park Street.

Um, and so we think that it should be consistent across the board, and then upholstery shops currently require a use permit, and like to hear if you guys think that that should be by right.

Um some other personal service uh uses that we'd like to hear your thoughts on are massage and tattoo um businesses.

Currently, massage is allowed by right on the upper floor, but not on uh but requires a use permit on the lower floor, um and then tattoo businesses are not allowed on the ground floor, and so uh, like to hear your thoughts on allowing these by right, considering that we do have a massage technician permits process that also has background check process for that, and then we also feel like the tattoo regulations might be an outdated perception of tattoo studios when um they're more considered more of like an artistic type of use nowadays.

And then the last personal service uh use we'd like uh take a look at is gyms.

Currently, gyms require a use permit on the ground floor, and we think that these uses could be allowed by right.

Um, so I'm gonna hear your thoughts on that.

Offices is the next topic that we want to take a look at.

Um currently uh North Park Street requires a use permit on the ground floor, um, and the CC district requires a use permit if uh if it occupies the front 50% of the ground floor on Park or Webster Street and permit it elsewhere.

Um our thoughts process here is that a lot of the smaller offices could be allowed by right on the ground floor, because uh there usually those types of offices like dentist's offices and that type of thing have more activity.

And then offices over 4,000 square feet.

Well, we could require use permit for, and then we propose to remove the 50% ground floor requirement.

And then the next topic here is medical facilities.

But we don't really quite have a definition for these.

Then we have a commercial recreation as our next topic.

We'd like to hear your thoughts on.

And then billiards is another is a form of commercial recreation that we'd like to include as a buy right within with the definition.

But there are some outdated regulations that prevent the billiards from being located in the downtown districts and also prohibits minors from attending these facilities.

And then during our working group, I guess the reoccurring conversation was about window transparency, visibility into these facilities and maintaining vibrancy for the active storefront.

And so we're proposing a window transparency policy that requires that the first five feet into a window be visible and not blocked out.

And then we have exceptions for those uses that have some privacy considerations.

And then lastly, some of the conversations in our working group talked about increasing the standard business hours to allow for those businesses to operate early in the morning.

And so we have a proposal for increasing the standard business hours from 5 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

Um, and then require use permit for to open outside of those hours.

And then we have an additional option to consider about on Friday and Saturdays allowing businesses to operate until 12 a.m.

And so um yeah, so the first step that we'd like uh is to hear from you guys tonight and the community about um some of our topics that we have on the list or any other topics that you guys think um we should consider, and then um we'll take that back into August when we're writing our draft amendment and return to you guys in September.

And so that concludes our presentation.

Wonderful.

Yeah, thank you so much.

Great presentation, and I'll bring it to the board for clarifying questions for staff, yes, call number two.

Um, thanks for the presentation.

Uh, very interesting.

Um one question I had was um, so um for the health clinic, or I think inpatient versus outpatient.

Um, staff report says there's a definition of health clinic right now.

Are we proposing to keep that definition and say that that is going to be basically for um outpatient services and we're gonna allow those to be by right um within these districts?

Or or is like health clinic gonna be a still be a separate thing and we're gonna separate out inpatient outpatient, inpatient outpatient services and say, yes, outpatient services are allowed by right, but outpatient or inpatients still gonna need a use permit.

Yeah, I think our goal is to clarify that how there's health clinics listed in one district and medical facilities in the district.

So we want to kind of clarify the definition for that.

Um as one as outpatient and one as inpatient, and then require use permit for inpatient uses, um, and then we were looking at regulating outpatient similar to just offices in general, which would be based on the sizes, yeah.

Okay, yeah, it's that's that's helpful, and that makes sense, I think.

Um, because I was look, but I think the follow-up question as I was looking at this definition of health clinic, which is a facility, whether public or private, principally engaged in providing services for health maintenance, diagnosis, treatment of human diseases, pain or injury.

And I wondered if this is like I I could see that definition being different from like uh kind of more of a traditional like medical treatment definition.

Like the the way the definition is drafted seems a bit kind of like, um, you know, maybe it's like a place where you can go to get like herbal treatments or you know, I know now modern days people are like doing like you know, peptide injections or something like that.

Like, is that what health clinic is supposed to is that supposed to be different from like you know, inpatient, or how are we thinking like is there an intent to like have health clinic be different from like outpatient like traditional medical services, I guess.

Yeah, I think what we are imagining is like trying to separate, I guess your typical dentist's office and maybe like a walk-in clinic um versus like hospitals.

That was kind of like our main goal.

Yeah, and so um, and so yeah, it might be revising the definition of health clinics to kind of make that distinction there.

Yeah, yeah.

And that might still fall under like personal services, maybe.

Um the other question I had, and I was just trying to find this quickly.

I didn't look earlier, but um, how is uh, I'm sure there's a separate use for like cannabis or like marijuana dispensaries, right?

And I just I just haven't seen them in the definition, but that's totally regulated differently and probably has its own process that is not really will be is that gonna be addressed, I guess, in this whole process, or is it kind of already got its own comprehensive scheme?

Yeah, we're we're not proposing any changes to that.

Um it has like a whole section in the ordinance dedicated to it, and then there's also um like a section outside of the zoning ordinance that um regulates it as well.

So yeah, we were gonna proposing to a very comprehensive state law probably process.

Um, okay.

The other I think the other question I had is um uh kind of I think in one of the first few board meetings I did, there was a um like church that was pro that like had to get a use permit, I think, on park, and I remember that was like, oh, maybe something we might revisit later on.

Um, in was that discussed in the work group at all in terms of like how to deal with religious facilities and like how are we maybe proposing to handle them or address them maybe in this um in this update.

Yeah, um, I guess that wasn't a topic that we covered too much in the working group, I don't recall.

Um, but I don't think we were trying to streamline that uh the process for the that particular use.

We're gonna leave it as a use permit.

But um, but we definitely would love to hear your thoughts on on that.

Yeah, I I think, yeah, I I think I I would agree, and I think there was maybe, um maybe there was something in here about which ones will be changing to use permits.

But I yeah, I I I agree that should be the could you I I think my comment was along the lines of there's this, um you know you're gonna be streamlining all these uses onto like you know, general retail, general personal, and I would support you know religious facility being one of the ones where you call out specifically as you know requiring use permit, so okay, thanks.

If I may, I I think I remember how I was gonna jump into we we don't call it religious facilities, and so it's it's any kind of uh sort of uh community assembly, and so we have the elks club next door.

Um we do have a number of churches, um, and then there's other things that we're actually talking about in terms of um places where people might have just um receptions and parties, you know, it's sort of an assembly use, um, whether it's for members or guests or you know, for the community at large.

Um so those are actually all now in one definition.

Um and I think what Henry is considering is should those remain use permits in these downtown districts?

And I think we recommend yes, because they are a larger gathering with different kinds of dynamics.

Okay, thanks.

Yeah, yeah.

Just jump jumping on.

Assembly uses, thank you for explaining that.

Um it is something that I think not could be taken a look at because I could see small assembly uses just as you define general retail sales and general personal services that maybe um assembly uses that are you know relatively smaller in size could be outright permitted, but once they exceed a certain size or uh or occupancy level, perhaps that triggers a use permit.

But anyway, that's not a question, so I should be asking a question.

So um one of the other questions I have, and this comes up sometimes of holstery shops, you know.

They vary from being very retail oriented to be almost like industrial oriented.

Does the zoning ordinance make a distinction between when a upholstery shop is a retail use versus a more light industrial type of use?

Because I would because it seems like there's a retail use that the staff recommendation seems appropriate, but you kind of want to make sure it doesn't transition to a more industrial operation.

But I might just a question is there a distinction?

Yeah, so there's there's two uh listings for upholstery.

Um is small upholstery shops exclusive of refinishing and other furniture repair or manufacturing, and then there's upholstery shop exclusive of refinishing and other furniture repair or manufacturing.

So it sounds like it distinguishes that out.

Um in terms of manufacturing.

So the manufacturing use is currently not allowed in these uh commercial districts.

Right.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, I have a question.

Can you explain why gyms requires a use permit?

Good question.

I I don't know the the history to the original um reasons why the zoning was zoned that way, but I imagine that maybe it's based on them being operating in early hours and possibly um maybe um where there might have been concerns about them being located um where retail normally is located.

So if Jim if I if something like a gems got proposed, what approval is is required?

Um so let's see, I think in North Park Street District, if it's located on the ground floor, I think it requires the use permit, and then um athletic clubs and health clubs require use permit in the C CC district.

Okay, okay.

Well, I agree that's an area that might be looked at to see because you know it's a restaurant use from what I can tell.

Then I have a question about.

Oh, sorry, I was talking about like health like gyms as in um like personal training gyms?

Oh, I don't care.

I thought you said Jim's coffee shop.

Oh, yeah.

So, sorry.

Okay, yes.

All right, my misunderstanding.

Sorry.

Yeah, I'm getting hungry, maybe that's they have some good records though.

Yeah, I like Jim's coffee shop.

Um anyway.

Um, all right, thanks for clarifying.

But but um since you mentioned gyms, I did have a question about that.

Jim S with a GYM.

Um so in the staff report, you you come up with some generalized definition of general retail sales and general personal sales, which I think is a good direction.

In the following paragraph, you note that 30,000 square foot limitation uh distinguishes general retail sales.

So the question is, with that, are you considering a similar kind of limitation of what triggers a use permit for personal services?

Because the only one in that listing that seems like it might be quite large, the gymnasium athletic club.

So is that maybe something that that limit would also be thinking staff that that might also apply to you know that the rear instance of a really large personal service like a health club or a gym?

I think we're interested in hearing if that's something the board would be interested in.

Um right now we're we're kind of just using an existing large format retail um requirement that's in the CC district.

Um and so that's where that that comes from.

Okay, but yeah, we could certainly apply that to other uses as well.

It seems like the general concern when I was reading the committee notes, it was concern about these really large uses, whichever whatever they are, might kind of disrupt the vitality of that retail store.

Um, which kind of gets to my next questions related to window transparency.

You know, sometimes these really large uses they want to close up their windows for you know logical reasons.

And the proposals is that anywhere there's any window, you need to maintain transparency for at least five feet.

Is there any requirement, current requirement that requires a minimum amount of transparency along the street front ditch so that you know we do have for new buildings in North Park Street and Alameda Point a sim a very a very similar policy?

It talks about transparency at least five feet.

And so what we're doing here is proposing to take that policy and apply it to new tenants in existing buildings.

Yeah, no, I get that.

I guess my question is is you know, a lot of cities for the ground floor retail in a downtown or active retail district, they want to maintain a minimum um lineal feet of transparency windows rather than having you know solid wall for say 30, 50 feet or so.

So does our ordinance have addressed that at all?

Um not currently, not currently, okay, okay.

Um and then my final question is parking.

You know, I know that the purpose of this ordinance of revision, which I think conceptually makes a lot of sense is try to be remove the complexity and help streamline approval of retail uses along park and webster, which makes sense to me.

Parking is usually one of the key key issues that is um causing you know a lot of tenants or developers to be able to move in.

What are the parking requirements for along this, you know, along both Webster and Park?

I remember parking became an issue that we have to uh do a fairness for a use of the but is that something that's also being looked at is whether we want to amend the parking unless we don't currently have no parking requirements or minimal.

Yeah, currently um for parking website shoot, we just have maximum parking requirements.

Oh, okay.

No minimums then.

Yeah, no minimum.

Okay, okay.

Okay, that's good.

Thanks for answering.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um and just uh oh go ahead, please.

Uh Henry, do don't we have a 30% transparency objective standard?

Is that just for residential?

Oh, yeah, you might, yeah.

So I think we I think we have something similar to what you were asking, either lineal feet or area of the wall.

Okay.

We do have some standards sort of buried in the code uh of our objective standards and something like 30% of the wall area.

Okay, good.

That's that's good.

Yeah, yeah.

Great.

Um, and just a friendly reminder to try to speak um within three inches of the mic, 'cause I it might be hard for maybe folks online.

Um great.

Um uh board member Wang, did you have any qu uh clarifying questions?

Um I do, but I think I can save them for the comment period of our item.

Okay, you'll fold it in or layer it in.

They're kind of commenty questions.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um, all right.

And yeah, I don't know, I'm like debating of you know even asking my question, because um, but uh why not?

So um I was um looking at the staff survey of the vacant units and um I don't know, I I was just uh hoping for like a little bit more like narrative on um the stalled projects and the unmotivated property owner.

Um yeah, like not I I understand that this isn't exactly responsive to the discussion at hand, but I I think it just could be helpful um to know.

Sure.

Um, so a lot of the reasons why uh um some of the buildings are are vacant is because um they're old buildings.

I think um Wava and Dava are like are 1940s buildings, most of them.

So they are require a lot of building upgrades, which ca uh may not be able to uh they require a lot of building upgrades.

Um they also have are uses that are not necessarily um compatible or or are very dominant, non-dominant at this point.

So they require a lot of major infrastructure upgrades just to kind of um get them to be even uh leased.

So therefore it's just it it takes a long time or it it requires a lot of capital um for for that to happen and then many people are not uh willing to do that for a small plot of land.

Uh for the unmotivated property owners, those are uh individuals who like they have they have um they own the the building and we've we've done we've contacted them.

We're like, hey, we wanna like help you lease your space, and they just do not respond.

Um but those will so those are a lot a lot harder to kind of um fill.

Um but luckily there's few of them.

But they are the ones that kind of you tend to see and and they are like those properties that have been vacant for like five, ten plus years that really become iSource.

Yeah, got it.

Um and like with those ones that require like infrastructure upgrades, um, like the thought that maybe they could pass on some of those expenses to the tenant, like once maybe find one, or it's like oh we have to do that up front before I don't know.

Or that depend on the negotiations, I guess.

Yeah, I mean it I think it's it's dependent on uh uh like how how it's structured.

Uh a tenant can like start renting and then decide that he needs to do all these infrastructure changes, but um uh for example um I'm thinking um there was one building where they bought a property, uh they wanted to make it into a restaurant.

They because of the occupancy they required a second uh entrance and the building code did not uh the building did not was not able to do to hold that and therefore they just had to abandon the property.

So the i it's I it depends on the property owner can do it to then either make it easier to lease or then the tenant can establish a business and then figure out what he needs and then figure out if he can or cannot do it.

Yeah.

Thank you so much.

Yeah, I appreciate you entertaining me.

Great.

Um all right I think that's all our questions then um should we open it up to public comment.

I don't have any speaker slips but um if there's anybody online um that wish to speak on this item please go ahead and raise your hand.

Not seeing any hands so okay great.

And with that, we'll close public comment and bring it back to the board.

Again this is a workshop so um uh we'll continue uh the discussion that'll eventually inform these amendment but would anyone like to start with any feedback uh yeah board member Wayne.

Um yeah generally uh I think supportive of um staff's recommendations um they all tend to make a lot of sense to me um I just have a couple questions uh more in the vein of understanding I think the mechanics of how we're proposing to um alter and streamline the ordinance um so just to I think play back um I think the top line edit that you're proposing is for uses that are permitted by right you're basically uh consolidating collapsing all of that into basically two big categories retail general retail and personal uses and then the second thing that we're doing is we're taking some of some of the uses that currently require use permits and we're kind of upgrading them and saying we're not gonna require use permits of you anymore.

That's like that fits like a small selection of the uses that currently require use permits, but not all of them so some of the uses that currently require use permits will still live on that list and still require use permits for example community assembly like we were just talking about earlier right okay that's um helpful for me just to understand I think how the I think the lists in our that were described in our staff report work.

But then I think there's there's I think a category of uses that are currently permitted by right which don't I think get then get described in the new regime and the one that stood out to me was hotel like a hotel is I think not a personal service right.

So okay Steve says no so um so in this new regime that we're thinking about hotels would not be permitted by right and they also they're not gonna get downgraded to a conditional use permit at least not they haven't they haven't been discussed explicitly as something requiring a conditional use permit.

So just flat I guess just it's a question of what about uses that used to be permitted by right and don't fit retail and personal services.

Yeah that thank you for the question.

But we might also have some other proposals for you guys um when we come forward with the amendment um in September.

Um but oh it's yeah I mean I think what you're what you're capturing is that there are there are lots of other things that we're just not talking about tonight because either we're not suggesting any changes um or we just haven't gotten to that yet.

Yeah.

Um I'd also point out there's the I think there's a third bucket of things that we're looking at tonight, which is those things that are inconsistent between Park and Webster and North Park.

And we're trying to uh make those internally consistent because they are on currently in the same zoning district, so but historically those business districts or those those um property owners, merchants, uh neighbors had different opinions about things, and so we made little carve-outs, and we're trying to um do away with those carve outside.

Yeah, I I I I mean, generally I I think that the um the retail and personal services I think paradigm works.

Um, and my intent in kind of asking these questions is just to say, like, what about this?

Um, and so I there uh I have a couple of those.

So hotel was one of them as an example.

Um I think something that came up in workshop was uh you know, I heard uh kind of a general interest in artist studios and artist galleries.

So I always flagged that as maybe a question of how that would be thought about or treated as well.

Um and then uh a uh the last one on my list is offices, um, which I think you're proposing as buy right under four thousand uh at four thousand or under right now.

And so I think my comment there is uh I'm generally supportive of that.

I do wonder whether um a locational uh factor and can come into play here.

I think that I recall that something that came up in workshop was hey, our offices may be a little bit better suited off the main court or on kind of the side streets, and I do think that having offices on say a Santa Clara is a little more conducive to maintaining that main drag for retail.

So I I bring that up uh as a suggestion to think about.

Um I think I'm gonna make a comment that's unrelated to all of this, uh, which also goes back to uh board members who's yeah, I had the same I had the same the same light bulb went off for me because it was also one of my first um hearings with the the storefront church.

Um and I went back to that one, and I think that when we granted that um conditional use permit, we had asked for them to come back within a year for us to review again, and so we don't have to talk about it here.

I'm just asking whether that happened and maybe I wasn't here.

Um it hasn't happened.

I don't know.

Okay, okay.

I don't know for sure at least.

Something to something to come back to another time.

Great.

Um any other VS that we're member home.

Yeah, I'll just go through real quickly and uh and comment on the list of items staff mentioned.

First of all, I think the direction staff is heading towards to try to clean up the probably some outdated obsolete uh provision of the zoning code to be consistent with what I see in other cities makes a lot of sense.

I think the definitions you came up with is what I see in a lot of cities too.

Also uh what you just commented on, Steve about you know, cons in internal consistency between the commercial district makes a lot of sense.

I could just see over the years certain things happen and no longer really make sense.

So uh I and that will make it simpler for staff and applicants too that there's not all these special rules in place for different segments of uh or commercial areas.

Um so uh the retail sale of used goods.

Yeah, I understand that's state law, so that it's a good cleanup.

Uh grocery stores and convenience stores, um, you know, the ABC license issue, I think I would tie that to what what are the different categories of ABC licenses that are allowed.

I'm there's a little bit more leniency towards this area, certainly beer and wine at a grocery store.

Um, you know, seems that shouldn't trigger a use permit.

Um I don't don't even know quite honestly, distilled liquors.

I mean, if it's only limited to a small portion of a grocery store, you know, to me, you know, as long as you're not consuming it on site, you know.

What's the problem with someone buying a bottle vodka?

You know, that's I'm just raising it as a question.

Not that I I reverted to that problem myself.

Uh commercial recreation.

Um I I do think taking a look at uh, you know, since it is, you know, placing a use permit limit once it exceeds a certain size makes sense to me.

So that's kind of my comment there.

Most of the uses that are relatively small.

Uh how allowing those to be outright permitted uses also makes sense to me.

Totally agree with billiards.

That's really an outdated kind of uh definition back when they were considered kind of slimy places, no longer the place, a lot of family-oriented billard shops these days.

Um and then uh personal service, all the items you mentioned in the list to allow them be outright.

I think that makes sense to me.

Massage partners are regulated elsewhere by the police department.

So I think there's good controls for that.

Tattoo parlors are now kind of this you know outdated conception.

Uh upholstery shops, you address that as long as there's a clear distinction between what's a retail upholstery shop versus a more light industrial.

Um, medical facilities, I think that I don't disagree with the staff suggested there.

The offices, I do totally agree with staff after reading the explanation.

It is a confusing section of the code to interpret.

I think using a 4,000 whether 4,000s to write right square footage.

Some cities use lineal feet of street frontage as another guide.

Um, not suggesting we need to add that in, but I'm just I see that those two standards trying to address the same issue.

Window transparency um is is great that we do have some minimum, you know, objective design standards for transparency for um for uh new uses and I would say maybe major remodels, whatever triggers that should maybe take a look at requiring buildings that maybe a more solid wall, so you need to open up their walls a little bit, regardless of what the use is and uh standard um business hours.

Yeah, totally agree that the standardized ordinance if they're if that's missing in some of our code sections, then it should be uh included and be consistent across the board.

And then noise standard sessions.

I know that's another area that staff is researching, so I won't comment on that.

Anyway, so those are my quick comments of the issues that staff has outlined.

Um yeah, I think just wanted to echo some of the comments of both Burmanning Away and Hom.

Um, in general, I think supportive of the overall approach.

Um I think especially with that commercial recreation, how things are just shifting and changing, um, being able to adapt to um you know new uses or or recreation or services that are appearing, I think, super helpful.

Um in terms of offices, I'm I'm a bit like on the fence, and I think maybe because this is a workshop, I can't I don't need to cut it one way or the other.

But um I think I'm a torn between kind of like some use is better than just a vacant storefront.

So like maybe if we allow it to buy right, then you know, if someone an office wants to be right on park, then great.

That's better than it being being vacant.

But then, you know, on the I think on the flip side of it is your um either a taking away that space from something that could be more more active, um, or it's gonna be occupied by office that's kind of doesn't have as much of the kind of foot traffic as a um as another type of of more active use.

I think the other way I was thinking about this too is, you know, demand.

Like is there a like our are there small businesses and kind of organizations saying, you know, we just can't find a place to locate in Alameda.

You've got to open up Park Street or Webster so that we can, you know, get more of this.

I don't think that's happening.

So if we wanted to go the other one and say, look, we want to maintain these spaces for um for more active uses, like we could limit it to to what board member Wang was suggesting is to the side streets.

Or I I still like the kind of like upper floor use permit or upper floor is by right use permit on ground floor, but I understand that it's also um confusing.

So uh yeah, I'm a bit kind of on the fence on that one, but I I do appreciate I think staff's approach and thinking, and I also think the the kind of change to the to the window transparency will will really help, and I think kind of supports that kind of creativity.

I I think often to the um I think it's called the audiology zone, I believe, which is near signal coffee.

They always have like out front at least like a really nice painting or something that just helps to engage the space, even though it's really just a a lobby area.

So um I think those are all my comments right now, but I I I think staff has done a great job and I appreciate the working group thinking through all of this and and I I think it is interesting trying to streamline these these things like billet uses, which are like where my mom said, very very outdated and not the kind of billiard halls we think of of in the past.

So, thanks.

Great.

Um, and I guess uh I'll go next.

Um like the last one to go.

So yeah.

Um yeah, I agree with my colleague members and you know, just um to be honest on that note with the billiard.

I I do feel like I'm kind of like old fashioned or whatever because like I saw that and the tattoo parlor and I was like, I don't know, but I uh and yeah, times are changing.

Um and um I I do think there are some safeguards in here to help with that.

And I I think what I keep going back to and it's like similar in this um vein of argument we're having with the offices.

Um what's sticking with me is like um what does it look like at the street level?

So I do, you know, if there is like a tattoo parlor, I I like appreciate the opportunity to have that window transparency to see like activity, like and ideally, I don't know, maybe there's like some kind of like little retail storefront in the front.

Um like just some kind of activation.

Um and then I would apply that also with office use, which I also um uh was like, oh I'm not sure if that would work, but I do see how it could work if you know the front part um has like if it's an architecture um office, like really lovely renderings or models or you know, just like ways to engage the pedestrians.

So um I think that's the the thing I keep going back to like the window transparency and the activation opportunities if we were are going to make these um streamlined uses.

Um and then I guess um the thing I I keep going I I also had the question about the community assembly um uh approval we did a while back and how this um that's the nexus of this new ordinance with what we um approved back then and the way I think of it is um, and I I didn't I'm not prepared and I didn't like read through the ordinance to like uh see how it would apply, but um it felt like it was like written as a loophole, like even though it's a conditional use permit.

It's like, oh well, we can't really argue against this assembly use.

Like, you know, we it's kind of checks the box.

And so that's maybe where I go back.

I think board member Hom, you mentioned like is that an opportunity for our S to look at the definition of a of assembly use and like what type of assembly use makes sense for our downtown streets?

Because I'll be honest, um, I am curious for the one year anniversary re you know, look back because I'm not sure if that really was like the best use for our downtown.

So um, yeah, like how do we want to maybe revisit um even conditional use permits in a way that um could be interpreted for like the spirit of the ordinance, if that makes sense.

Um, so they're two my uh my high level um comments or feedback, and yeah.

Otherwise, I think this is great.

So um any other uh comments or feedback from board members for staff or no, you know, checking heads, all right.

And then um, was that uh helpful for you all?

Yeah, thank you very much.

Um, yeah, we have um I also have uh our consultant Heather Coleman.

Um she's listening in, and so she's really great at um synthesizing comments and moving us forward with uh the next tasks.

So um yeah, we'll be coming back to you.

Okay, great, yeah.

Um, yeah, I also want to echo my thanks to staff and our uh um subcommittee uh members for championing this.

I know there's like when we heard uh there's a lot of external externalities that's happening with um downtowns, and I appreciate that we're taking the initiative to address um what we can with how we can.

So thank you.

All right, uh, I guess we'll go ahead and close agenda item five B.

And we'll move on to um, yeah.

So this will this is your workshop, it'll go to city council.

So go ahead and close it engine item five B.

Moving on to staff communications.

Um items.

So um just wanted to confirm we're uh canceling the July 27th meeting, and instead we'll be meeting on August 24th, possibly for a special meeting.

Um we have a uh local soccer team that wants to uh establish an outdoor um performance space, and so um we're we're working on that, and um we have a few steps in the permit process that aren't necessarily just the city but other um agencies that need to comment before we can bring it to you.

So we wanted to make sure we did all those things in the right order.

Yeah, I know uh staff sent an email to everyone.

I'm not sure if everyone had a chance to see their inbox about that uh calendar change.

But um, yeah, so it sounds like I see nodding heads that um that works for us.

Okay, thank you.

Yep.

All right, um and any public comments on staff communications, don't see any um commenters here.

Okay, great.

We'll close that and move on to board communications.

See anything from the board, and any public comments on that?

None.

Great, we'll close that.

Any member of the public could speak on something that wasn't on tonight's agenda for three minutes.

Do we have any speakers?

Uh no speakers.

Great.

Uh is 9 30 p.m.

and we are adjourned.