{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2014-08-25", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, AUGUST 25, 2014\n1. CONVENE:\n7:02 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE:\nPresident Burton\n3. ROLL CALL:\nPresident Burton, Vice President Henneberry, Board members\nAlvarez-Morroni, Knox White and Zuppan.\nAbsent: Board Members K\u00f6ster and Tang.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: Motion by Knox White requested 9.C. be\nheard during regular agenda items. Seconded by Zuppan\nAll in favor. 5-0\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR:\n6.A. PLN14-0380 - Marina Village Business Park - Applicant: GNU Group for\nBrookfield Property Group: Amendment to the Marina Village Master Sign Program to add\nfour new monument signs at two entrances to the Marina Village Business Park. The\nEnvironmental Determination for this project is a Class 11 categorical exemption pursuant\nto CEQA Guidelines Section 15311 - Accessory Structures\nBoard member Knox White approved consent calendar.\nBoard member Zuppan seconded.\nMotioned carried. 5-0\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9.C. Update on the Status of the Del Monte Project\nMr. Andrew Thomas, City Planner, reported that the project has been moving forward with\ntransportation planning, parking planning and sustainability details. He reported on the\ntimeline for the project stating it should be ready for the September 22, 2014 Planning\nBoard meeting, and to City Council in November or December. He also mentioned that\nthe documents will be on the website Sept. 11, 2014.\nPublic comment:\nMr. Stuart Rickard, resident, commented on the tree canopy along Buena Vista will be\ngood. The thought of unbundling the parking should be better addressed. He did a basic\nparking study for Del Monte and reported a lack of parking for about 63 cars, and this\ndoesn't count retail spaces. He commented on the west end of the site that will be 100 of\nthe units. He commented on the Master Plan not having clear details as what is required\nfor adding space to the project.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 1 of 7\nAugust 25, 2014", "path": "PlanningBoard/2014-08-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2014-08-25", "page": 2, "text": "7.A. Design Review Application - PLN14-0153, 2905 Madison Street.\nConstruction of a new 2,927 sq. ft. two-story, single family house that is approx. 30' in\nheight. The house includes 4 bedrooms, 3 baths, and an attached two-car garage on the\nfront elevation. The exterior features a stucco facade and porch on the front elevation. A\npatio and deck are also proposed on the rear elevation. The project is located on a vacant\nlot within an R-1 zoning district.\nMr. Allen Tai, Senior City Planner, provided a brief review on the project.\nMs. Angelica Aquino, staff, provided an overview and presentation.\nVice President Henneberry asked about the average square footage of the split level\nhomes in the neighborhood.\nMs. Aquino stated she thought it was about 1,600 square feet.\nPresident Burton reported the average square footage of the area was 1,126.\nBoard member Zuppan asked about the 6' set-back allowance.\nMs. Aquino stated the setback is 5'.\nPresident Burton asked about the 2.5' window recess.\nMs. Aquino stated that it is in the design guidelines.\nMr. Clifford Mapes, owner, stated hearing the neighbor comments made the previous two\nchanges requested, upon the third request for changes he asked this Board hear the\nplans. He asked for neighbors to sign a petition to approve his building, and he submitted\nthat to the Planning Board. He reported more changes are workable, but he wanted the\nBoard to weigh in regarding the roof, porch, and garage. He stated that a single car\ngarage is a thing of the past. He feels he is within the guidelines and asked for them to\napprove his project.\nMr. John Campbell, Architect, has worked with staff and the project has evolved. Tandem\nparking and lowering square footage will be too significant to change the plans again. He is\nlimited with staff recommendations.\nPublic comment:\nMr. Jerome Harrison, neighbor, stated that he has lived in the area for 25 years and the\nproposed house will be grotesquely large in comparison to the neighborhood. He also\nstated that the signatures obtained on the petition were not from the immediate neighbors.\nMr. Paul Liu, neighbor, stated that he lives adjacent to the property and objects to the\nproject and the size mainly. He stated his home is 1,200 square feet and is one of the\nlarger homes currently in the area. He feels there will be privacy and sun shading issues\nthat will impact his home. He stated that the project seems out of character for the\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 2 of 7\nAugust 25, 2014", "path": "PlanningBoard/2014-08-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2014-08-25", "page": 3, "text": "neighborhood. He supports the staff report and appreciates the due diligence for the\nprocess.\nMs. Lisa Prior, neighbor, lives behind the property and stated that the height of this project\nwill be about 12 feet taller than her home and she feels that there will be privacy and\nshadowing issues by the mass of the house. She stated that the house isn't in keeping\nwith the rest of the neighborhood.\nClose public comment\nBoard member Alvarez-Morroni asked about the residential design guide, and how does\nthis project fit in with the guidelines.\nMr. Andrew Thomas, City Planner, reported that project is within the guidelines, but the\ndesign manual doesn't deal with mass detail because it varies between neighborhoods.\nReducing the scale of the second floor is the recommendation, and adding the porch,\nchanging the roof will help. He stated there are two thresholds for approval, design and\nzoning, design is subjective.\nBoard member Alvarez-Morroni stated being conflicted because of the guidelines. She\nempathized with the neighbors losing privacy and sunlight.\nBoard member Zuppan reported understanding both sides of the debate. She stated they\nhave made detail changes in the past such as level to other houses on the back of the\nproperty. She would like to see a 'shade' study. Perhaps line up the project with the\nfronts of the neighbors houses. Neighbors have valid concerns with privacy.\nBoard member Knox White supports staff recommendations. He doesn't think this is the\nright house for this neighborhood and it should be more compatible with the size of homes\nin the area. He also feels the 16 foot curb cut is excessive.\nVice President Henneberry stated this is a four bedroom house being built in a 2 bedroom\nneighborhood. He reported on a similar house in his neighborhood sticking out like a sore\nthumb. He would like to see a house that fits into the neighborhood.\nPresident Burton stated the staff recommendations are good, but need to go a bit farther\nand feels that this isn't the right house for the neighborhood. He feels that there are better\nways to design the house. The 2 door garage is out of place for this property. He is fine\nwith 2 stories, but the 2nd story needs to be reduced.\nMr. Thomas reported continuing to work with the applicant and neighbors on\nrecommendations to improve the design.\n7.B. PLN14-0302 - 1700 Harbor Bay Parkway - Applicant: Balaji Alameda, LLC.\nThe applicant requests approval of a Parcel Map to allow the subdivision of an existing\n3.56-acre parcel to create a new 0.93-acre parcel, and approval of a Final Development\nPlan and Design Review to allow the construction of a 72-room, four-story hotel on the\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 3 of 7\nAugust 25, 2014", "path": "PlanningBoard/2014-08-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2014-08-25", "page": 4, "text": "new parcel. This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)\npursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 -Infill Development Projects\nMr. Allen Tai, Senior Planner, provided a briefi overview of the project.\nMr. Jeff Mac Adam, Architect, Architectural Dimensions, provided a presentation.\nBoard member Knox White asked about the subdivision parking.\nMr. Tai stated under the reciprocal agreement map there is parking behind the hotel.\nMr. Mac Adam stated currently there are 14 spaces.\nVice President Henneberry asked if it is discovered later that the parking is insufficient\ndoes that preclude the project from moving forward. Also does the reciprocal agreement\nplan meet the standard.\nMr. Tai stated a transportation/parking demand study was done and it was determined that\n60% of the cars parking at the site currently are visiting other sites in the business park\nand most of the hotel patrons fly into Oakland Airport and are picked up by the\ncomplimentary hotel shuttle.\nVice President Henneberry asked if this property was owned by the same people out there\nnow, and what was there attendance and parking like.\nMr. Dhruv Patel, Owner of both properties stated that the current hotel has 103 rooms and\n400 parking spaces are available. The majority of use is the neighboring business district\nand they tend to shuttle over or use rental cars.\nBoard member Zuppan wanted to confirm that both hotels have parking, shuttle service\nand bicycle service available to them.\nMr. Thomas confirmed.\nPublic Comment:\nMr. Ty Hudson, UniteHere Local 2850, referenced a letter sent to the Planning Board. The\nunion group stated they have concerns and asked for the Planning Board to postpone the\ndecision. They are concerned with parking and California Environmental Quality Act\n(CEQA) issues. He stated there would be a deficit of over 100 parking spaces if both\nhotels were sold out not to mention the restaurant. His other concern is the infill\nin\ntandem with parking and zoning regulations. He also stated there are three species that\ninhabit the grassy field which need to be studied.\nMr. Mac Adam stated the extended stay has microwave and refrigerator. Staff did a lot of\ntime doing the parking study. The lot is a mowed lawn, not a grassy field.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 4 of 7\nAugust 25, 2014", "path": "PlanningBoard/2014-08-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2014-08-25", "page": 5, "text": "Board member Knox White asked staff to move the bike parking. He is fine with the\nparking plan and feels the staff report is very clear.\nBoard member Alvarez-Morroni agreed with Knox White.\nBoard member Zuppan asked if reciprocal parking can be pulled by the other site.\nMr. Tai explained specific details of revocable and non-revocable reciprocal parking\nagreements and there doesn't seem to be a conflict with the current use. The agreement\nwith both hotels cannot go away, there is no end date to the agreement, and both parties\nhave to agree to any changes.\nVice President Henneberry commented that the reciprocal agreements are fine when\nparties are getting along, but not so much when they aren't. He asked for a clear\nexplanation of what can happen if either party asks for a change in the agreement\nspecifically the words 'sole discretion'. Is there a clause in the agreement that would allow\nthe office building owners to cancel the parking agreement.\nMr. Tai stated there are a couple of clauses for instance the hours of use, and that the\nother owners are not using those spaces during those hours, and that there is an overage\nof spaces, referencing the Kittlelson letter, also there are conditions recorded with the\noriginal land.\nBoard member Knox White asked if the Planning Board can set a condition of approval for\nparking.\nMr. Thomas stated yes, and staff can report back on a clarification on the consultants\nletter. Regarding the CEQA comments, there are no violations here as there has been a\nin-depth analysis completed, and there is no variance in the zoning.\nPresident Burton agreed that an irrevocable agreement might be a better way. He also\nstated that the design looks good.\nBoard member Zuppan asked if the parking requirements have been changed.\nMr. Thomas stated they have been changed for hotels, but not city-wide.\nBoard member Knox White motioned to approve the designs with the condition of\nchanging the parking requirement to .82, receiving an irrevocable parking agreement, and\namend to include restriping of the parking spaces.\nBoard member Zuppan seconded.\nMotioned carried. 4-1 (Henneberry opposed)\n7.C. City of Alameda Zoning Amendment Regarding Commercial Recreational\nUses and other miscellaneous amendments. The Planning Board will hold a public hearing\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 5 of 7\nAugust 25, 2014", "path": "PlanningBoard/2014-08-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2014-08-25", "page": 6, "text": "to consider a number of potential zoning amendments regarding commercial recreational\nuses, arcades, ground floor office uses, and the definition of residential use. The proposed\namendments are categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State\nCEQA Guidelines 15305 Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitation.\nMr. Andrew Thomas gave an overview of the proposed changes.\nBoard member Zuppan asked about the definition of \"family' and is there a protection for\nthe number of people in a home.\nMr. Thomas stated there is a limitation on number of occupancy, but if people are\nunrelated there is not a way to gauge.\nBoard member Knox White expressed concern on how we are trying to do this and satisfy\nthe State.\nMr. Thomas stated he will contact the State for clarification.\nPublic Comment:\nMr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director - Park Street Business Association (PSBA), he stated\nthe days of pinball machines corrupting the public are over and well behind us. He\nsupports the proposals regarding commercial recreation space and offices in the ground\nfloor space.\nMr. Michael McDonough, Chamber of Commerce, asked for the Planning Board to\napprove the staff recommendations\nMr. Stuart Rickard, resident, stated he is in support of the staff recommendations.\nBoard member Knox White asked for a better definition of 'family'.\nBoard member Zuppan would like for office space to be more precise on the ordinance,\nand has reservations regarding the language.\nMr. Thomas clarified board member Zuppan's comment as by-right for retail.\nPresident Burton commented positively on more office space being available. He is\nsupportive of all the measures and agreed with Knox White on 'family' issue.\nBoard member Knox White motioned to approve with a definition of 'family' and editing a\ntypo.\nBoard member Alvarez-Moronni seconded.\nMotioned carried. 5-0\n7.D. Board Elections - Tabled pending a full Board.\n8. MINUTES:\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 6 of 7\nAugust 25, 2014", "path": "PlanningBoard/2014-08-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2014-08-25", "page": 7, "text": "8.A.\nDraft minutes of June 9, 2014\nBoard member Zuppan motioned to approve the minutes with edits.\nVice President Henneberry seconded.\nMotioned carried. 5-0\n8.B.\nDraft minutes of June 28, 2014\nBoard member Alvarez-Morroni motioned to approve the minutes with edits.\nVice President Henneberry seconded.\nMotioned carried. 4-1 (Knox White abstained)\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n9.A.\nFuture Agendas - Mr. Thomas reported on upcoming agenda items.\n9.B. Staff Communications - Zoning Administrator and Design Review Recent\nActions and Decisions - Mr. Thomas stated the public counter has been very busy, and he\nprovided a list of projects.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\n11.A. Report from Alameda Point Town Center Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee:\nPresident Burton requested this item be removed from agenda as the work of the\nsub-committee is completed.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None\n13. ADJOURNMENT: 9:57 p.m.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 7 of 7\nAugust 25, 2014", "path": "PlanningBoard/2014-08-25.pdf"}