body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2015-07-13,1,"DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, JULY 13, 2015
1. CONVENE:
7:04 P.M.
2. FLAG SALUTE:
Board Member Tang led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL:
Present: President Henneberry, Vice President Alvarez and
Board Members Knox White, Köster, Tang and Zuppan.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: None
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A. 2015-1869
PLN14-0701 - 2100 Clement Avenue - Applicant: City Ventures.
Public Hearing to consider a draft Vesting Tentative Map, Density
Bonus Application, Development Plan, and Design Review to Permit
Construction of 52 Units on a 2.78 Acre Parcel Located at 2100
Clement Avenue. The proposal is categorically exempt from further
review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 Infill Development Projects.
Mr. Andrew Thomas, City Planner, introduced revisions to the project including the
Vesting Tentative Map, new park design, reduction in guest parking from 12 to 7 spaces,
and architectural design. Staff recommended approval of the Vesting Tentative Map and
Development Plan. However, the architectural design revision was not complete and staff
recommended a condition of approval requiring that the revised architectural design be
completed for Planning Board review and approval before any building permits are
issued.
Board Member Knox White asked Mr. Thomas whether the Design Review included
review of the park design. Mr. Thomas said it did.
The Board opened public comment.
Mr. Mike McDonough, of Alameda Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of the project
and said the project would positively affect business. He said the revised proposal fits in
well with the Alameda Housing Element.
Ms. Dorothy Freeman, resident, spoke in favor of the project. She emphasized the open
Page 1 of 11",PlanningBoard/2015-07-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-07-13,2,"space design would encourage interaction in the community and was pleased with the
parking revisions. She would like to see increased setbacks, stronger language in the
resolution to protect street trees, and community involvement in the Design Review. She
recommended delaying planned resurfacing until the project is complete.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, of Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, said the project
would be an asset to Alameda. He submitted a letter to the Board which listed AAPS's
concerns, including setbacks being too small and language in conditions of approval
regarding building footprints. He said he would like language in resolution indicate that
the building footprints are not locked in and wanted Board to defer action until new design
came in.
Mr. Scott, Bay Farm Island resident, was in favor of the project and asked the Board to
approve it unanimously. He said he would like to see newer homes in Alameda to buy in
the future.
The Board closed public comment.
Board Member Köster asked Mr. Thomas whether the building footprint would be locked
in. Mr. Thomas replied that the conditions of approval require Design Review and
changes in the footprint can be considered.
Board Member Köster proceeded to thank the applicant for listening to previous concerns
and coming up with a better plan. He said the challenges for this project were well
addressed in the CC&Rs and that he felt comfortable with the setbacks. He was ready to
move on and approve the project.
Board Member Tang agreed with Board Member Köster. He asked Mr. Thomas whether
the applicant can revisit the parking design to expand it. Mr. Thomas said it would be
difficult because with the new park design there is not much space left.
Board Member Knox White was also ready to approve the plan. He asked Mr. Thomas
whether the Street Tree Plan would be brought back to the Planning Board for approval
if trees do need to be removed. Mr. Thomas said it would.
Board Member Knox White said he had a problem with the strict rules and financial
penalties in resolution item 11D because people should not be restricted on how they use
their garages and the City would have to enforce it. He wanted to limit what HOA can
govern to common areas.
Board Member Zuppan asked for clarification on the Pedestrian Walkway Sections on
page L-2 and on the Universal Design aspect of the plan. Mr. Thomas explained that the
section is showing a bike/ped walkway away from cars on the east side of the
development which does not go across to the school but the applicant is in conversation
with the school to allow cut through. Board Member Zuppan asked if fire trucks can go
through.
Page 2 of 11",PlanningBoard/2015-07-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-07-13,3,"Mr. Thomas said that the fire department has reviewed the plans. He explained that the
eight universal design units are easily ADA accessible, having ground floor bedrooms
and minimum 32 inch primary doorways, and four of the eight do not have steps to enter
(the other four have one step).
Board Member Zuppan wanted to ensure that homeowners are notified that the park their
HOA dues pay for are open to the public. She indicated including language in resolution
that would support those who do not have two cars to be able to use their garages to the
fullest extent.
Board Member Alvarez asked if the emphasis in the Tree Plan was only to keep mature
trees. Mr. Thomas said the goal is to keep all trees and that there will be a public notice
if any trees will be removed. Board Member Alvarez was in agreement with Board
Member Knox White regarding item 11D. She was in favor of the project.
Board Member Knox White motioned to approve the project with the exception of
resolution item 11D and to include language that HOA cannot control color, or block ADA
ramps. Board Member Köster second the motion.
The motion carried, 6-0.
7-B. PLN14-0305 - 2350 Harbor Bay Parkway - Applicant: Mina Patel.
Public hearing for a Final Development Plan and Design Review to allow the
construction of a 100-room hotel on the Harbor Bay Business Park shoreline. This
project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 - Infill Development Projects.
Board Member Köster recused himself from this project because of his association with
SB Architects. The Board called for a short break and verified that Board Member Tang
was not within 500' radius of the project.
Mr. Thomas introduced the proposal for the Marriot Fairfield Inn at the Harbor Bay
Business Park. He said this was the third time the Planning Board was reviewing this
project. The first time was in February and there were issues with the site plan, parking
plan and with the architecture. The second time was in April in which the applicants
identified changes to address parking and set back. The revised parking matched
neighboring hotels which have adjacent shared parking and the site plan had been
changed as well. The applicants replaced the original architect team with SB Architects
since the last revision. The project provides service by Harbor Bay shuttle and private
hotel shuttle to the Oakland Airport, Park Street, and the ferry terminal. Mr. Thomas said
that staff was recommending approval.
Mr. Greg Lehman gave a presentation on the revised design concept.
Board Member Tang asked if the adjacent parking lot is owned by the hotel. Mr. Thomas
answered that is not and clarified that it is shared parking with a permanent agreement
Page 3 of 11",PlanningBoard/2015-07-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-07-13,4,"that the hotel leases from the neighboring business.
Board Member Tang asked whether the conference room square footage was
considered in the calculation for parking. Mr. Thomas said that parking calculations were
based on room count only and that this is a typically way of calculating hotel parking and
mentioned it has never been a problem in other places. Board Member Tang said he
was concerned that the conference room square footage was not counted in the parking
calculations.
President Henneberry said that parking concerns had been an issue from early on and
that the agreement is not set in perpetuity. He asked what would happen to the adjacent
parking agreement if in the future the area reached full build out. Mr. Thomas answered
that the hotel would still need to provide parking.
President Henneberry asked if shared parking across the street from a site had ever
been done in Alameda. Mr. Thomas answered that it has been done twice in Alameda
and it has worked for both projects.
Board Member Tang asked if the height of the hotel has any special foundation
requirements. Mr. Thomas said yes and that those issues are handled by the building
division and emphasized that the project must meet all geo-technical requirements.
Board Member Knox White appreciated the applicant addressing the previous parking
issues but that the architectural design did not look very special. He was prepared to
move forward with approval. He asked whether 18"" above existing grade was the
standard height to accommodate the potential for sea level rise. Mr. Thomas said he was
not sure.
Board Member Zuppan said she appreciated the applicant's revisions. She was hoping
for a design that was more impressive. She asked if item 10 in the resolution regarding
off-site shared parking was a condition of approval. Mr. Thomas responded that it was
and that the hotel must maintain additional parking and that the applicant must provide
a copy of the signed reciprocal parking agreement in order to obtain their Certificate of
Occupancy.
President Henneberry questioned how the hotel qualifies for the CEQA Infill
Development Project exemption. Mr. Thomas explained that in order to qualify for that
exemption the project must be consistent with the City's general plan, occur on a site
less than five acres, surrounded by urban uses, and have no major environmental
impacts. Since the project is in the business park and meets all of the requirements,
it
clearly qualifies for the urban infill exemption. He added that the entire business park
has a full EIR conducted previously.
The Board opened public comment.
Mr. Michael McDonough, of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, commended the
Page 4 of 11",PlanningBoard/2015-07-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-07-13,5,"project's process and said it was a beautiful design considering what was feasibly
feasible. He said meeting space in the business park is scares and that the hotel would
serve that need. He added that the shuttles to Park Street would benefit the business
community and that the transit occupancy tax is a great for the city. He also stated that
Ram Hotels have a good reputation as a community partner.
Ms. Teresa Cheng, Ms. Melody Li, and Mr. Wiley Cooper, of United Here 2850 opposed
the project. Their concerns were regarding limited service hotel's poor working
conditions, minimum wages, and limited benefits
Mr. Ed Choi opposed the project. He had an issue with the shared parking condition
because the shared parking the hotel plans to lease belongs to his office development.
He said the project is too massive, too tall, and that landscaping is lacking.
The Board closed public comment.
Board Member Tang asked why there are fewer parking spaces than the ratio. Mr.
Thomas responded that the code encourages reduction in parking if they include
mechanisms to reduce car use and the proposed service meets this classification.
Board member Tang reiterated that he had a problem with the conference room not being
counted in the parking requirement calculation because people using the hotel for
conferences will not use the shuttles.
Board Member Knox said that the parking determination was developed via parking
studies not by planners making up parking numbers. He said staff did a lot of work to
arrive at this recommendation.
Board Member Zuppan said the findings fit with the business park and that she supported
the project.
Board Member Alvarez supported the project with the conditions.
President Henneberry said that an okay design was not acceptable and that the bar was
being set too low. He did not support the project.
Board Member Knox motioned to approve the project with the condition that staff adjust
the language in the resolution to indicate that reciprocal parking is an ongoing
requirement. Also the building finished floor height must meet the same standards as
the Alameda Point Site A buildings, 24 inches above the existing grade. Board Member
Alvarez second the motion.
The motion carried, 5-1.
7-C. PLN14-0134 - 1200 Park Street - Applicant: Gary Voss for Big-O Tires. The
applicant requests an amendment to an existing Use Permit (UP88-36) for 1200
Page 5 of 11",PlanningBoard/2015-07-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-07-13,6,"Park Street. This project is determined to be Categorically Exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines
Section 15301, Existing Facilities.
Mr. Thomas presented the staff report. Big-O's use of public parking has had adverse
effects on neighboring businesses and residents. The City has received 171 petitions
against and 518 letters of support.
Staff recommended modifying the existing use permit conditions to:
1. Delete Condition #1 requiring all work to be performed within enclosed structures.
2. Amend Condition #2 to indicate ""the use of public parking spaces for the storage
of cars waiting for service or for customer pick up is a violation of this use permit.
Receipt of three verifiable violations of this condition shall be grounds for City Staff
to immediately schedule a public hearing before the Planning Board to consider
revocation or modification of this use permit""
3. Retain Condition #5 requiring a sign directing customers to turn right toward Park
Street.
Board Member Köster asked for details on Big-O's valet service. Mr. Guido Bertoli, Big-
O Tires owner, explained that Big-O employees pick up and drop off cars to be served at
the resident's home. This service is provided daily in an effort to relieve stress on public
parking.
Board Member Köster pointed out that according to a complaint letter the City received,
meter maids were not ticketing Big-O cars parked in metered spots. Ms. Kathleen
Livermore, City staff, commented that the City has not confirmed that statement.
Board Member Tang said that when people leave their cars for service at Big-O they shop
at the neighboring businesses so there is some advantage to merchants. He suggested
that Big-O consider constraining how many cars they serve since there is inadequate
parking for the current level of service.
Board Member Knox White motioned to limit speakers to three minutes since there were
far more than five speaker slips for this item. Board member Alvarez second the motion.
The motion carried, 6-0
The Board opened public comment.
Mr. James Manning, neighboring resident, was not in favor of staff's recommendation. He
asked to include limiting employee parking in public parking in Condition #2. He said that
he conducted parking impact observations on street parking in his neighborhood. He
counted 11 Big-O employees during peak periods taking up street parking.
Mrs. Mary Manning, neighboring resident, did not support the staff's recommendation.
She said that although she does not fall within the 300' notification radius she is heavily
Page 6 of 11",PlanningBoard/2015-07-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-07-13,7,"impacted by this issue. She said that her household's use of street parking is limited by
Big-O.
Mr. Larry Wilson, neighboring resident, was not in favor of staff's recommendation, stating
that retired people who live in the neighborhood come in and out of their homes regularly
since they are not at work during the day when Big-O is operating. He said Big-O
employees are on the look-out for parking spaces and they snatch them up quickly when
one becomes available. Therefore, residents are heavily impacted by Big-O's operations.
Mr. Duane Watson, of Lee Auto, supported Big-O. He said there are no lots in the area
available for Big-O. He attested that Big-O tries hard to get people in and out as quickly
as possible. He supported keeping Big-O in the community.
Mr. Paul Grossman, resident, spoke in favor of Big-O stating that he uses the valet service
and that this operation is the most successful Big-O in the country. He asked the Board
to figure out a way to work with Big-O.
Mr. Gary Voss, Big-O Tires owner, stated that he is a part of Park Street Business
Association and the Chamber of Commerce. He said Big-O is trying to be a good partner
to Alameda and that Big-O brings customers to downtown and generates taxes for the
City. He said it feels discriminatory to say Big-O cannot use the public parking and pointed
out that other businesses have more customers that use the public parking lot. He
indicated that Big-O strives not to use metered parking. Furthermore, he stated that Big-
O makes their private parking available to the public after they close in an effort to
contribute to the community.
Mr. Joe Martin, local business owner, was not in favor of Big-O although he is Gary's
customer. He said Gary does not have adequate staff. The business is too big and has
out grown the space it currently has.
Mr. Glenn Reeder, resident, spoke against Big-O. He said he lives a block from Big-O
and it is impossible to park on the street during the day. As a result, residents do not want
to leave their homes during the day. He said that the conditions that prompted complaints
in the past have gotten much worse.
Mr. Michael Notaro, attorney representing Washboard V Laundromat, spoke against Big-
O stating that when Big-O's original Use Permit was issued, they were serving 20 invoices
a day. Today, Big-O serves 60-65 invoices a day. He said the congestion in the public
parking lot is a cause for concern because of the fire hazard it presents. He asked the
Board to require Big-O to find an extra yard for their operation.
Mr. Art Thoms, Washboard V Laundromat owner, spoke against Big-O. He noted that the
parking problem began eight years ago. Since then, he has talked with Gary to try and
resolve the problems but the problems have persisted. He said that when the meter maids
would come by, Big-O employees would come out and talk with them and they would not
get ticketed. Mr. Thoms circulated a petition against Big-O and received 9 business
Page 7 of 11",PlanningBoard/2015-07-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-07-13,8,"signatures and 117 laundromat customer signatures. He asked the Board to reject
changes to Use Permit and reinforce meter enforcement.
Ms. Melinda Hayes, Big-O customer, spoke in support of Big-O. She said she goes
shopping at the neighboring businesses when she takes her car to Big-O. She asked the
Board to consider the contribution Big-O brings to the community.
Ms. Penelope Pahl, local business owner, spoke in favor of Big-O. She said that parking
is a problem everywhere and that the issue needs to be resolved rather than to ask Big-
O to move. She said Big-O customers are entitled to use the public parking just like
everyone else.
Mr. Michael McDonough, of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of Big-
O stating that Big-O is an important and successful business to Alameda. He did not
agree with adding employee parking to Condition #2 but does agree with the City's
recommendations.
Mr. Guido Bertoli, Big-O co-owner, clarified that Big-O rarely uses metered parking and
that they do not have any deals with the meter maids. He said Big-O is actively looking
for alternative sites to expand the business and emphasized that they leave their private
parking open to the community after business hours.
Mr. Daniel Marshall, customer of Big-O and laundromat, spoke in favor of Big-O. He
pointed out that other businesses in the area also have customers that use the public
parking for extended periods of time, such as the hair salons. He said that people often
shop at his wine shop while their cars are at Big-O.
Mr. Ray Mazur, resident and customer, spoke in favor of Big-O. He said that parking
problems are not unique to the neighborhoods near Big-O-he has them in his
neighborhood too. He said Big-O is a gem in Alameda and that a solution to this issue
would benefit everyone.
Ms. Lisa Crawford, resident, spoke against Big-O. She said she lives around the corner
from Big-O and parking has gotten progressively worse. She said she also schedules her
day around Big-O because of how problematic parking is.
Mr. Frank Martin, resident, was not in favor of Big-O. He stated that Big-O conducts work
outdoors regularly and that parking is a big problem.
Mr. Jay Garfinkle, Big-O site property owner, spoke in support of Big-O stating that owners
have been working diligently to find alternative parking. He said that parking has gotten
worse all over the City and that he thinks the owners will be able to resolve the parking
issues.
Ms. Sarah Martin, spoke in favor of Big-O, stating that Big-O is a reliable institution in the
community and that Big-O customers bring business to Park Street.
Page 8 of 11",PlanningBoard/2015-07-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-07-13,9,"Mr. Peter Balmes, of TBC Corporation, spoke in favor of Big-O stating that the owners as
franchisers of Big-O are exceptional business people. He said that servicing vehicles
outside of the shop is common. He came from Florida just to support the owners because
of what good business people they have been for 33 years.
Mr. Bobbie Ceturion, resident, spoke in favor of Big-O. He said that Big-O has a great
reputation and urged the Board to grant the amendment to the Use Permit.
Mr. Kevin Mulholland, Big-O employee, spoke in favor of Big-O. He said employees work
diligently to rotate cars quickly. He asked the Board to take into consideration what Big-
O contributes to the community.
The Board closed public comment.
Board Member Köster asked for clarification on Condition #2. Mr. Thomas explained that
staff suggests deleting the section that states Big-O must find alternative parking for
customer cars and employees and replacing it with a condition indicating storage of cars
in public parking is a violation of the Use Permit-three violations would require review of
the Use Permit by the Planning Board to consider revocation.
Board Member Köster agrees with the conditions recommended by staff and that meter
maids must strictly enforce meters.
Board Member Tang said that Big-O needs to regulate the amount of work they conduct.
He said that residents are impacted the most and brought up the idea of implementing a
residential parking permit system.
Board Member Knox White asked why the ""No Left Turn"" sign is a condition if the City
cannot enforce it. Mr. Thomas responded that it was to encourage customers to turn right.
Board Member Knox White suggested either removing it or strengthening it. He said that
this business is important to the City's economy and the Board must do what they can to
keep them. He also said he was not in favor of adding employees to Condition #2 and
that it lacked a time frame so it would need some clarity in order for him to support it. He
asked for the item to return to the Planning Board with a parking study rather than
anecdotal stories. He said Condition #1 was okay but not allowing cars o be jacked up
because that would affect the aesthetic of the neighborhood.
Board Member Zuppan said she patronizes other businesses when she uses Big-O. She
asked what has happened since the last public hearing. Mr. Thomas answered that there
have been many conversations between the City and the owners for the past two years
but since there have been so many complaints they had to bring it for a public hearing.
Board Member Alvarez motioned to continue past 10:30 p.m. Board member Zuppan
second the motion.
Page 9 of 11",PlanningBoard/2015-07-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-07-13,10,"The motion carried, 6-0.
Board member Alvarez said she was surprised by Condition #2 and that she thinks it is
not fair and not doable. She asked how the City would measure whether Big-O is in
violation when their customers are also patronizing other businesses. She concurred with
discussing permit parking in residential areas but did not agree with the staff
recommendations.
President Henneberry said that he was against cars up on blocks but that employees
should be allowed to park wherever they want. He asked whether Big-O was in favor of
the conditions. Mr. Gary Voss, of Big-O, replied that if they can't do service outside they
will be forced to move to Oakland. President Henneberry said that if Big-O is okay with
the conditions then he is fine with them too.
Board Member Knox White suggested adding a condition for metered spots indicating
that they are for short term use only. He thinks the issue is leading to a residential parking
permit discussion but it will be a long, difficult discussion if it does get there. He suggested
staff amend the resolution and come back to the Planning Board in 60 days and
suggested starting with Condition #2 to include metered parking and include a time frame
of one month. He said Condition #5 should be deleted since the City cannot enforce it.
Board Member Köster agreed with Board member Knox White's comments. He said Big-
O should have a trial period with the conditions and should conduct a traffic study.
Board Member Alvarez asked if a continuance was possible. Mr. Thomas replied that it
was and that there was no deadline for this item.
President Henneberry stated that the Board was not ready for a decision and asked staff
to come back with an amended resolution.
Board Member Alvarez motioned to continue the item. Board Member Zupppan second
the motion.
The motion carried, 6-0.
Mr. Thomas said staff would rework the resolution.
Board Member Zuppan motioned to continue past 11:00 p.m. Board member Alvarez
second the motion.
The motion carried, 6-0.
7-D. A Request to Establish an Ad Hoc Planning Board Subcommittee to direct the next
steps on the planning and design effort of the Boatworks Project.
Mr. Thomas said the subcommittee needed a panel of up to three. President Henneberry
Page 10 of 11",PlanningBoard/2015-07-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-07-13,11,"said he would be on it and asked for volunteers. Board Member Alvarez and Board
Member Köster volunteered.
The Board opened public comment.
Mr. Robert McGillis, of Boatworks Ownership Group, spoke in favor of the item stating
that he looks forward to working with the subcommittee.
The Board closed public comment.
8-A. Draft Meeting Minutes - May 26, 2015.
Board Member Tang abstained from comment on the approval of the minutes.
President Henneberry asked if there were any comments on the minutes. There were
none.
Board Member Alvarez motioned to approve the minutes. Board member Zuppan second
the motion.
The motion carried, 5-0.
9-A. Zoning Administrator and Design Review
Mr. Thomas said staff approved a few design reviews and that there were no issues.
10. Written Communications
None
11. Board Communications
None
12. Oral Communications
None
13 ADJOURNMENT
10:21 p.m.
Page 11 of 11",PlanningBoard/2015-07-13.pdf