{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-02-23", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2015\n1. CONVENE:\n7:03 P.M.\n2. FLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Zuppan led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL:\nPresent: President Henneberry, Vice President Alvarez and\nBoard Members Burton, Knox White, K\u00f6ster, Tang and Zuppan.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR: None\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n7-A. 2015-1350\nPLN14-0305-2350 Harbor Bay Parkway-Applicant: Mina Patel. The\napplicant requests approval of Final Development Plan and Design\nReview to allow the construction of a 99-room hotel on the Harbor Bay\nBusiness Park shoreline. The project is exempt from the California\nEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines\nSection 15332-Infill Development Projects. Continued From the\nMeeting of February 9, 2015\nMr. Andrew Thomas, City Planner, gave the presentation.\nBoard Member Burton asked Mr. Thomas if the Fire Department gave its approval to the\nproposed project design. Mr. Thomas answered in the affirmative.\nBoard Member Burton asked Mr. Thomas about setbacks for the planned property. Mr.\nThomas explained that staff looked at the project taking into account both parcels on the\nsite. The second parcel would be used for completion of the Bay Trail.\nBoard Member Burton asked Mr. Thomas about if the owner was present. Mr. Thomas\nintroduced Ms. Mina Patel, the applicant. Ms. Patel stated that she was in discussions with\nanother landowner for another parcel to be used additional parking.\nBoard Member Burton asked Mr. Thomas about the applicant's proposal to provide ten bikes\nfor guest use, and asked where the bikes would be stored. Mr. Thomas explained that the\nCity requires bike parking on site, and he asked Ms. Patel about where stored bikes would\nbe stored.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 1 of 9\nFebruary 23, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-02-23", "page": 2, "text": "Board Member K\u00f6ster asked about the need for another traffic signal on Harbor Bay\nParkway. Mr. Thomas replied that part of the property taxes paid by Harbor Bay Business\nPark owners, as per the development agreement signed in the 1980s, goes to a\ntransportation improvement fund. As the Business Park expanded, developers knew that\nthere would be a need for traffic signals, and the most recent traffic study suggested to\nsignalize the intersection of North Loop Road and Harbor Bay Parkway.\nBoard Member Tang noted that correspondence between staff and the applicant indicated\nthat the existing hotels' parking ratio was 1.25 parking spaces per car. He suggested that a\ncrosswalk be included for the safety of pedestrians. Mr. Thomas replied that the city zoning\ncode calls for 1.25 parking spaces per car, but the Board can approve fewer spaces, if\nappropriate. All of the hotels in the business park should have the same ratio of parking for\nreasons of fairness. Some of the hotels have had shared parking agreements with nearby\nbusinesses in order to minimize creating new parking spaces.\nBoard Member Alvarez asked for clarifications regarding public concern for the project. Mr.\nThomas said that the building is much shorter allowed per the development agreement. Mr.\nThomas said that staff had suggested a lower parking ratio because of a variety of reasons,\nbut other hotels have shared parking spaces with businesses. Furthermore, Mr. Thomas\nsaid that the Board could mandate certain aspects for landscape design for the property.\nBoard Member Knox White asked Mr. Thomas about a proposed on-site restaurant. Mr.\nThomas replied that there would be no on-site restaurant, but said there would be a\nbreakfast area as is common in many other hotels.\nBoard Member Knox White asked if the owners will be paying into the Transportation\nImprovement Fund. Mr. Thomas replied affirmatively.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked Mr. Thomas about the LEED and ADA compliance level of the\nbuilding. Mr. Thomas said that the LEED level of the hotel meets state requirements.\nBoard Member Burton explained that ADA compliance is required for a percentage of\nrooms.\nPresident Henneberry asked Mr. Thomas to elaborate on his discussions with other hotel\nowners in the area regarding the parking ratio. Mr. Thomas replied that the other hotel\nowners, in the interest of fairness, wanted the proposed hotel to have the same parking ratio\nas existing hotels in the area, which is 0.69 parking spaces per car. The City's zoning code\nmandates 1.25 parking spaces per hotel room.\nPresident Henneberry asked Mr. Thomas about the property line of the parcel. Mr. Thomas\nreplied that the property line does not go all the way to San Francisco Bay.\nThe Board opened public comment.\nMr. Robb Ratto, of the Park Street Business Association, spoke in favor of the project. He\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 2 of 9\nFebruary 23, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-02-23", "page": 3, "text": "said that the City needed more hotels near the airport. He thanked the applicant for\nproposing a shuttle Park Street. It would help the City as a whole, and the Park Street\nbusinesses in particular.\nMr. Sal Robles, architect, spoke against the project. He said that cars currently park across\nthe street from the proposed project, and that some cars park in his company's lots across\nthe street. He said that the hotel's plans do not take into account the needs of the hotel's\nemployees, and the lack of parking spaces available for them. Mr. Robles also expressed\nconcern about the lack of setbacks for the project, which would be a nuisance for bicyclists\ntrying to avoid parked cars on the Bay Trail.\nMs. Wilen Huber, representing IAW, spoke against the project. She said that the amount of\nparking for the proposed hotel was much lower than needed. She said that many workers\nmight have to walk a quarter mile in each direction to and from their cars. She also said that\nthe location of the hotel might negatively affect the habitat of burrowing owl.\nMr. Dan Reidy, on behalf of the Harbor Bay Business Park Association, reminded the Board\nthat the City Council wanted to upgrade the Bay Trail in the area of the hotel. He said his\norganization approved the plans of the proposed hotel, and urged the Board to approve the\nplans. The issue of the burrowing owls, he said, is a non-issue. He praised staff's work on\ntrying to minimize the creation of new parking spaces.\nMr. Kerwin Allen, neighbor, expressed his opposition to the project in its current form. He\nsaid that setbacks are far too small for the size of the hotel. He also expressed opposition to\nstacking cars in the enclosed parking structure, and said that the building is overdeveloped\nfor the size of the lot.\nMr. Michael McDonough, President of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, spoke\nenthusiastically in favor of the project. He said that the revenue coming in for the City from\nthe hotel is much greater than from sales taxes. Furthermore, there would be more taxes\ncoming in as a result of people spending their money at other Alameda businesses.\nMs. Trish Spencer, Mayor of Alameda spoke in her individual capacity. She suggested that\nthe hotel include story poles for the project. Mayor Spencer spoke about the transparency of\nthe project. She suggested that decisions made without transparency are of grave concern\nto her.\nThe Board closed public comment.\nPresident Henneberry asked Mr. Thomas about whether the amount of waterfront space at\nthe project site would lead to a CEQA exemption. Mr. Thomas replied in the negative; all\nprojects in the City are within an urban area, and the project qualifies for an exemption from\nCEQA.\nBoard Member Zuppan stated she was in favor of a hotel in the area. She said that originally,\nthe site was to house a restaurant for the Harbor Bay Business Park, and the rezoning would\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 3 of 9\nFebruary 23, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-02-23", "page": 4, "text": "lead to a building on the space. She said the project nevertheless is not ready for approval.\nShe expressed concern about the lack of detail on the proposed plans. She said that without\nmore detail on the project, it would be hard for her to vote for approval. Board Member\nZuppan recalled that other hotels in the area had to have a reciprocal parking arrangement\nbefore Board approval, and wanted approval of this hotel to have these same conditions.\nShe suggested that a crosswalk, as suggested by Board Member Tang, was a great idea,\nand expressed concern for the architect's absence. The suggestion of story poles, as\nsuggested by Mayor Spencer, was a good one. She also expressed concern with the design\nof the hotel.\nBoard Member Burton said he was also in favor of a hotel in the site, but he also expressed\nconcern about the lack of detail in the presented plan. He said there are concerns about\nparking on the site. He was glad to hear that the applicant was considering additional\nparking spaces on another parcel, but wanted to know more precisely where these spaces\nwould be located. He also wanted to know where bike parking would be located and wanted\nto be sure that the free bikes would be accommodated on the site. Board Member Burton\nexpressed concern on parts of the design for the building, and particularly objected to the\nsize of the proposed signage on the building.\nBoard Member Tang echoed Board Member Burton's comments on the signage. He\nproposed lowering the signage to the second or third floor of the building, instead of having it\nat its current location at the top floor. He said that the majority of people who would stay at\nthe hotel will be business travelers, and wanted to know about the effectiveness of the\nproposed shuttle to Downtown Alameda. He also was concerned about issues about the\nproposed stacked parking structure, and asked if the applicants had an alternative parking\nplan. He said that the proposed setbacks of the structure were too narrow and could pose a\nhazard to bicyclists.\nBoard Member Knox White said that the area is almost unbuildable because of the\ndevelopment agreements sealed in the 1980s. He said he agreed with the other Board\nMembers, especially with Board Member Zuppan. Board Member Knox White said that the\nbuilding would be isolated from other buildings in the business park, and said that the public\nshould expect a better-looking building than what was currently being proposed. He said that\nthere are no ways for hotel guests to access the waterfront other than from the front\nentrance, and questioned if the number of parking spaces on the site is truly appropriate for\nthe site. He wanted to see more access to the waterfront.\nVice President Alvarez expressed disappointment that the architect could not be at the\nmeeting tonight. She suggested that there were issues with the proposed parking, and\nagreed with Board Member Zuppan's comments about the need for a reciprocal parking\nagreement. She expressed concerns with the design of the building, and said that airport\nnoise could negatively impact enjoyment of the proposed outdoor balconies. She also\nworried about the suggestion of story poles to the building. Vice President Alvarez also\nstated that any approval of alcohol sales at the site should be regulated.\nPresident Henneberry called for a brief break.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 4 of 9\nFebruary 23, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-02-23", "page": 5, "text": "President Henneberry said he could not support the project in its current form.\nBoard Member Zuppan motioned to continue the project. Board Member Knox White\nseconded.\nThe motion carried, 6-0-1 (Board Member K\u00f6ster abstained).\n7-B 2015-1351\nPublic Workshop on Alameda Point Site A Development Plan, including\nthe Housing Plan\nMr. Thomas gave the presentation. He explained that 800 of the 1425 housing units\nproposed for Alameda Point would be located at Site A. There would be other commercial\nand retail space in the area in order to make it a mixed-use, pedestrian and transit-oriented\nproject. The housing would be multi-family units located together to decrease automobile\ntraffic, increase density and ensure access to public transportation. 200 of the 800 housing\nunits would be affordable; 128 of the 200 units would be for very low and low-income\nhousing. The entire build-out of the site would take approximately 5 years.\nMr. Thomas introduced Mr. David Israel, of BAR Architects. Mr. Israel reminded the Board of\nthe mixed-use nature of the proposed plan. He said that his team continuously updates the\nplans for the site, and informed the Board of interest for a hotel at the site. He also explained\nto the Board about various adjustments made to the proposed open space and street\nlayouts. He informed the Board that his firm was starting to develop architectural prototypes\nfor the constructing buildings and parking plans.\nMr. Israel introduced Ms. April Phillips, landscape architect. She explained that her team had\nadded more details into the plans, and had taken public comments into account of her\ndesign.\nMs. Jennifer Ott, Chief Operating Officer of Alameda Point, updated the Board about the City\nCouncil meeting held the previous week. She reported that the Council was in favor of\naffordable housing for both seniors and non-seniors. Ms. Ott noted that there was concern\nfrom the Council about the amount of proposed open space; they wanted that the park\nspace to be constrained in order to focus on the buildings at the site.\nThe Board opened public comment.\nMr. Steven Ased, of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, wanted the building\nmaterials of the new buildings to be harmonious with those of the existing buildings.\nMr. Bill Smith, of Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, said the plans for the project are\ngetting better, but there are still things needed. He said that he would be meeting with Eden\nHousing, the low-income housing developer, to learn more about affordable senior housing\nat Site A. He also said that it is very important that the phasing of affordable housing is\nguaranteed in the disposition agreement.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 5 of 9\nFebruary 23, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-02-23", "page": 6, "text": "Ms. Trish Spencer, Mayor of Alameda, spoke in her individual capacity, said the Council did\nnot vote on the issue. She said she attended the Disability Commission's meetings, and said\nthat the discussions at that meeting urged for all amenities to be accessible. She said that\nthe land on which this project is located is public land.\nThe Board closed public comment.\nBoard Comments:\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked Mr. Thomas about the phasing of the project. Mr. Thomas said\nthat the phasing of the project is very complicated because of the nature of keeping existing\nbuildings as well as constructing new ones.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked why the affordable housing would be located in one block. Mr.\nThomas said that, from a management standpoint, there are advantages to having all of the\naffordable housing in one place. Ms. Ott added that low-income housing are also funded\nseparately, and therefore have to be concentrated in order to be competitive for funding. The\nmoderate-income housing would be spread throughout the project.\nBoard Member Tang said that he wanted to see more restaurants and retail space spread\nout, instead of concentrating parking and restaurants in one particular area. He wanted to\nknow if retail could be placed between the commercial and residential areas.\nBoard Member Burton expressed support for low-income senior housing at Site A. He liked\nhow the developer was being very responsible at the site and was providing many public\namenities in order to make the transit-oriented. He asked about whether or not Orion Street\nwould be re-aligned; Mr. Thomas explained that they would be moving Orion Street in order\nto balance the needs of the area in both the short and long-terms. Board Member Burton\nasked about the gateway to Main Street, and Mr. Israel added that his team will be\naddressing the gateway to the site in the future.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked Ms. Phillips about whether or not parking would be on the\nstreet, and how such parking plans affected stormwater drainage at the site. Ms. Phillips\nexplained that parking and trees are, for the most part, in the same alignment.\nMr. Smith explained that affordable housing has to be put together for the benefit of the\nresidents. He suggested that public amenities, such as playgrounds, be integrated for the\nbenefit of all residents.\nBoard Member Knox White expressed concern about the one way couplets, and wanted to\nmake sure that the fire department was acceptable with the planned layout. He still had\nconcerns with the one-way couplets, and said it seemed like there was an empty space that\ncould not be used. He expressed concern about school bus routes, and that they should be\nextended into Alameda Point. He said that staff should only focus on the Site A area until it is\nfully built, but not at the expense of the current residents of Alameda Point. He said that the\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 6 of 9\nFebruary 23, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-02-23", "page": 7, "text": "infrastructure built at the area needs to serve the entire Point. He wanted to make sure that\nthe designs of the buildings are interesting and unique, and said that the team has been very\ncreative in solving these problems. He wanted to make sure that staff ensured that the\nstreets had as few street walls as possible, and that the corner of Ralph Apezzato Memorial\nParkway and Main Street had the opportunity for some neighborhood commercial space as\nwell.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she appreciated what the team has done in incorporating\ncommunity feedback. She noticed that there are fewer places for disabled parking,\nespecially for people to enjoy waterfront activities. These accommodations need to be\nimplemented in the initial stages of Phase 0. She said that she likes how the streets connect\nin the plans, and that the general plan for Site A is improving.\nVice President Alvarez said she is part of the subcommittee, and said that she disagrees\nwith Board Member Knox White about parking at the area. It is much easier to plan parking\nin the present and convert it in the future. There are many people who might need to have\nparking closer to the water. She praised the developers for working with the community to\nimprove the plans. Vice President Alvarez asked for clarification about the construction of\nmulti-family housing, and the waiver that allows for its construction.\nMr. Thomas explained that voters instituted the ban on multi-family housing in 1972.\nCurrently, there are only two ways to build multi-family housing in the City of Alameda: the\ndensity bonus ordinance, which allows the developer to ask the City for bonuses and other\nfinancial concessions, and for allowing for multi-family overlay in order to comply with state\nlaw. Now that the City of Alameda owns the land, the City has the right to build either\nsingle-family or multi-family homes. The easiest way to build multi-family housing on the site\nis to invoke the density bonus.\nPresident Henneberry asked Mr. Thomas about a proposed workshop with City Council\nregarding the density bonus. Mr. Thomas said that that workshop will happen on March 10.\nHe said he agrees with the points made by Eden housing, but there should be a full\ndiscussion on their proposal.\n8. MINUTES:\n8-A. 2015-1230\nDraft minutes of January 26, 2015\nBoard Member Knox White motioned to approve the minutes. Board Member K\u00f6ster\nseconded the motion.\nThe motion carried, 6-0-1 (Zuppan)\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n9-A. 2015-1232\nZoning Administrator and Design Review: Recent Actions and\nDecisions.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 7 of 9\nFebruary 23, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-02-23", "page": 8, "text": "Board Member Zuppan asked why the Board has not seen very many cell towers proposals\ncoming to them.\nMr. Thomas explained that typically, the Zoning Administrator does not bring cell towers to\nthe Board unless the public asks them to. There have been new federal regulations\nintroduced to limit city interference to the erection of cell towers. If an applicant comes to the\ncity and asks for a lease, the City can decide how they want to address this proposed cell\ntower. He encouraged the Board to call any Zoning Administrator decisions for review that\nthey deem appropriate.\nBoard Member Zuppan explained how many second-and third story additions to homes are\nnot creating additional articulation to the existing buildings. She suggested that design\nreview principles be as environmentally friendly as possible also for existing developments.\nBoard Member Burton asked Mr. Thomas about a recent decision made to a Design Review\napplication. Mr. Thomas said that no permits have been issued at this time for that project.\nBoard Member Knox White announced he called the Shoreline Cell Tower for Board review.\nHe said there were many calls from concerned parents about potential health risks for their\nchildren exposed to cell antennas.\nMr. Thomas announced that the Use Permit for Peet's Coffee on Webster Street was\napproved, but the liquor license for the Walgreens was appealed, and there would be a\npublic hearing in the future.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nBoard Member Knox White wanted to explain that he was not opposed to street parking, but\nhe wanted to make sure that the parking was done in a head-in manner.\nVice President Alvarez said that there was a lack of clarity from the drawings.\nPresident Henneberry said that the concerns from the subcommittee's previous meeting\nwere incorporated into the drawings.\nMr. Thomas reminded the Board of the joint meeting with the Transportation Commission in\ntwo days; the Council has been noticed to come, although he is unsure how many\ncouncilmembers would come to the meeting. The Transportation Commission has a\nsubcommittee about the issue of AC Transit at the Point, and wanted a member of the\nPlanning Board to be on that subcommittee.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 8 of 9\nFebruary 23, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-02-23", "page": 9, "text": "13. ADJOURNMENT: President Henneberry adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 9 of 9\nFebruary 23, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-02-23.pdf"}