{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-04-13", "page": 1, "text": "MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, APRIL 13, 2015\n1. CONVENE:\n7:03 P.M.\n2. FLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Tang 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:\nMr. Andrew Thomas, City Planner, asked the President Henneberry to continue the item at\n2100 Clement St. President Henneberry approved the continuation.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nMr. Kurt Peterson, resident, spoke about the ferry maintenance project. He said there was\nvery little information about the potential noise at the project site. He said that the approval\nof extended hours for the project was concerning.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR: None\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n7-A. 2015-1546\nPLN14-0731 - 1777 Shoreline Drive. Public hearing to consider an\napplication for Design Review approval for a new enclosure on the\nrooftop of an apartment building to house 12 new panel antennae and\nother associated equipment for an AT&T wireless telecommunication\nfacility. The project is located within an R-3-PD (Garden Residential\nPlanned Development) zoning district.\nPLN14-0729 - 1538 Saint Charles Street. Public hearing to consider\nan application for Design Review approval for a new enclosure on the\nrooftop of an apartment building to house nine new panel antennae\nand other associated equipment for an AT&T wireless\ntelecommunication facility. The project is located within an R-4\n(Neighborhood Residential) zoning district.\nMs. Deborah Diamond, representing City Staff, gave a presentation. She clarified that\nthere were two separate projects being discussed, but they were jointly called for review.\nThe proposed antennas are meant to replace the ones currently being moved off Alameda\nUnified School District (AUSD) property.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 1 of 10\nApril 13, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-04-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-04-13", "page": 2, "text": "Board Questions:\nBoard Member Burton asked Ms. Diamond about the possibility of co-locating the towers\nwith those of other carriers at a nearby site. Ms. Diamond said that the applicant provided\nalternative site analyses. Ms. Misako Hill, representing AT&T, said that the adjacent\napartment site has limited space for the ground equipment necessary for the operation of\nthe towers.\nBoard Member Tang asked Ms. Diamond if there would be any interference from T-\nMobile's antennas. Ms. Diamond replied in the negative.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked about the minimum distance required from the school district\nproperty. Ms. Diamond replied that the school district has no authority on this matter.\nBoard Member Alvarez asked about some of the boxes that were in the nearby area.\nMr. Allen Tai, Planning Services Manager, said that the boxes are intended to be auxiliary\nequipment for the towers.\nBoard Member Tang asked about the antennas' service area. Ms. Diamond said that these\nantennas are intended to fill an area that will lose coverage when the current antennas are\nremoved from the school district's property.\nPresident Henneberry asked Ms. Farimah Faiz, Deputy City Attorney, about the appeal\nprocess. Ms. Faiz explained that there is a 10-day appeal process for those who want to\nappeal the issue to the City Council.\nMr. Ken Mintz, representing AT&T, said that the public depends heavily on mobile phones,\nand that this project is needed to avoid an expected gap in service.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked Ms. Hill about the potential negative effects from the\nproposed radiation levels. Mr. Bill Hammond, registered professional engineer, explained\nabout the mitigation efforts that were conducted for AT&T. He explained that the roof of the\nbuilding is accessible from a locked outdoor staircase. Board Member Zuppan said that\nthere is no ability to keep unauthorized people off of the roof of the Saint Charles site. Mr.\nHammond replied that his company recommended to AT&T to install an alarm bar to\nprevent unauthorized access.\nVice President Alvarez asked Mr. Hammond what would constitute a safe allowable\ndistance from the antennas. Mr. Hammond explained that only trained professionals would\nbe allowed to service the antennas.\nVice President Alvarez explained the Board heard about a similar issue in the recent past.\nShe said that the Board was told that cell phone use is more dangerous than cell phone\nantennas. She asked if schoolchildren are exposed to more radiation in a classroom. Mr.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 2 of 10\nApril 13, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-04-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-04-13", "page": 3, "text": "Hammond explained that each phone has a rating absorption rate up 20 times the\nallowable limit for a cell phone tower. He reassured the Board that there is no measurable\nrisk of children using phones.\nBoard Member Knox White asked what would happen if a building manager needed to do\nroof work on either building. Mr. Hammond explained that it would be safe to work on a\nroof, unless one was painting the antennas themselves. A worker would have to be notified\nthat he or she could be exposed to radiation, in accordance with OSHA and FCC\nregulations.\nBoard Member Burton asked if energy was being emitted in all directions from the site. Mr.\nHammond replied that these antennas would focused on three specific areas of Alameda.\nThe Board opened public comment.\nPublic Speakers:\nMs. Jessica Reed said that she was concerned about both proposals, but said that the\n1777 Shoreline Drive location was more worrisome to her. She read from the AUSD\nresolution, and said that the Shoreline location was an unrealistic alternative for these\nantennas. Ms. Reed said that AT&T failed to fully explain the proposed gap in service if\nthese antennas were not erected at this location.\nMs. Carol Taylor, resident, said that she is concerned about the noise these towers might\ncause. She said that she lives at the Saint Charles site, and that T-Mobile does not have\nany signs or access restrictions to the towers. She said she appreciates that AT&T plans\nto install safety restrictions at the site.\nIsabella, Charlotte, and Ania, students at Maya Lin Elementary School, said that they were\npart of an organization called Students for Antenna Free Environments. The said that the\nproposal violates the AUSD ban on or near school district property, and that the antennas\nare ugly.\nMr. Charles Archipeque, resident, said that he had no idea that his children were being\nexposed to a health hazard on school district property. He said he volunteers at an AUSD\nschool, and he cannot believe that there is a debate on how these towers will be\nmaintained. He urged the Board to think about the children who would be negatively\naffected by these towers.\nMs. Sarah Cruz, AUSD teacher, said that at least one student has expressed fear about\nthese towers to her. She said that children should be concerned about their education and\nnot about these towers. She said she understands that the Board cannot base their\ndecision on health concerns, but reminded the Board that AUSD has banned cell phone\nantennas on or adjacent to school campuses.\nMr. Joseph Hannakuna, resident, said he worked for a cell phone company many years\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 3 of 10\nApril 13, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-04-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-04-13", "page": 4, "text": "ago. He said he wanted to clarify that while an individual can choose to carry a phone,\nsomeone who is near a tower cannot choose when the cell tower emits its signal. He said\nthat AT&T has been responsive to community concerns about the placement of the Saint\nCharles site, but said that the public safety concern for the Shoreline site leads him to\noppose the project.\nMr. Lester Cabral, resident, said he owns property adjacent to the Saint Charles site. He\nsaid that he opposed the project. The generators would lead to negative effects on the\nresidents in the area. He urged the Board to add conditions that would require ongoing\nreviews to any of the plans in order to prevent any incident from taking place.\nThe Board closed public comment.\nBoard Comments:\nBoard Member Knox White said he is frustrated by the lack of control that the community\nhas on this subject. He said that Ms. Faiz sent him some extra legal information on the\nissue. He noted that he had watched some legal presentations on the issue, and said that\nhe understood that there is little flexibility on the issue. He added he would like to add\nconditions of approval, which would copy the City of Burbank's methods for Design Review\nfor cell towers, including inspections and limited use permit times. He said he wanted to\nrecommend that the City Council to adopt similar Design Review guidelines in Alameda.\nHe echoed Ms. Taylor's concerns about noise after business hours, and wanted to make\nsure that part of the Design Review conditions would include security systems to limit\naccess to the roof.\nBoard Member Burton said he agreed with Board Member Knox White's comments. He\nsaid he understood the concern about the distance of the towers from the schools, and\nsaid that the towers are a small enough addition to the building that it will not affect the\nskyline.\nBoard Member Tang asked the City and AT&T to find a way to limit exposure. He also\nasked if the owner of a building would have to disclose potential health effects to\nprospective tenants. Mr. Thomas said he is unsure if the landlords are obligated inform\ntheir tenants about the potential cell-tower hazards. Ms. Faiz said that the proposal at the\nSaint Charles site is a private agreement reached between the carriers and the landlords.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster said that the design of the towers will not negatively affect the\nbuilding, but they should be co-located wherever possible. He asked if the antennas could\nbe located on the elevator towers, if possible.\nPresident Henneberry asked for more clarification on the height issue.\nMr. Thomas explained that the City ordinance does not allow for a height exception for\ncommercial projects. He asked for the Board to deal with each project separately. Board\nMember Zuppan asked if these towers would be subject to noise regulations.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 4 of 10\nApril 13, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-04-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-04-13", "page": 5, "text": "Mr. Thomas replied in the affirmative. Board Member Zuppan said she supported Board\nMember Knox White's call for Design Review guidelines for cell towers in the future.\nMr. Tai said that co-locations do have streamlined regulations, and that the proposed\ndesign is compatible with the site, given the FCC standards. Board Member Zuppan said\nthat she would be in favor of limiting maintenance hours as a condition of approval. She\nsaid she cannot make the findings on Design Review.\nBoard Member Tang asked that regular maintenance bedone during regular business\nhours. Mr. Thomas replied in the affirmative. He urged business leaders, the public, and\nCity staff to meet together to solve the issue.\nPresident Henneberry thanked staff for bringing the issue forward and the Board members\nand the public for their comments.\nBoard Member Knox White motioned to approve the towers at the Saint Charles site with\nconditions limiting normal construction and maintenance to regular business hours, adding\nalarmed doors, and informing the tenants about these facilities on the roof. Vice President\nAlvarez seconded the motion.\nThe motion carried, 7-0.\nBoard Member Knox White stated that the City Council can call any Planning Board\ndecision for review. He said that he called these projects for review to the Planning Board\nin order to have a conversation on the issue. He motioned to approve the Shoreline site\nwith the same conditions. Board Member Burton seconded the motion.\nThe motioned carried, 5-2. (Board Members Zuppan and K\u00f6ster voted against the motion.)\nBoard Member Knox White motioned to recommend to the City Council to adopt Design\nReview guidelines for cell towers similar to those currently in place in Burbank. Board\nMember Burton said he would second the motion, if it was allowed to talk about it at this\nmeeting. Ms. Faiz said it would be allowable.\nThe motion carried, 7-0.\n7-B 2015-1549\nPLN14-0305 - 2350 Harbor Bay Parkway - Applicant: Mina Patel\nStudy Session for a Final Development Plan and Design Review to\nallow the construction of a 99-room hotel on the Harbor Bay Business\nPark Shoreline. This project is exempt from the California\nEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines\nSection 15332-Infill Development Projects.\nMr. Thomas introduced the project. He explained that there would be no vote tonight on\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 5 of 10\nApril 13, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-04-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-04-13", "page": 6, "text": "the issue, but said that the architect wanted Board comment and input on the current\ndesign.\nMs. Patel introduced Mr. Nikhil Kahn, architect. Mr. Kahn gave a presentation.\nBoard Questions:\nBoard Member Zuppan asked Mr. Khan about the poles on the terraces in the illustrations.\nMr. Khan explained that the poles are meant to hide the parking garage from the public\nview.\nVice President Alvarez asked about the size of the parking garage. Mr. Khan said the\ngarage would be one story tall on one side and two stories tall on the other.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked about the possibility of shrinking the size of the hotel. Mr.\nKhan said he discussed the idea with staff, but it would come at the expense of the\nbuilding's design. Board Member K\u00f6ster asked how irrigation would work on the top of the\nbuilding. Mr. Khan described the various irrigation and planting designs the team was\nconsidering.\nThe Board opened public comment.\nMr. Dan Reidy, on behalf of the Harbor Bay Business Park Association, said that his group\nfelt that the project would help the business park and expressed support.\nMr. Ty Hudson, with Unite Here! Local 2850, said that there are other, non-structural\nissues with the plan. He said there were issues with the adjacent parking agreements. Mr.\nHudson said that the project might not merit the claims for an infill exemption from CEQA.\nThe Board closed public comment.\nBoard Comments:\nBoard Member Tang asked if the hotel's proposed meeting room would be used\nexclusively for guests. Mr. Thomas said that is what the applicants are proposing. Board\nMember Tang asked if the parking ratio would be the same as other hotels in the area. Mr.\nThomas replied in the affirmative. Board Member Tang asked about the setback\nrequirements. Mr. Thomas said that the applicants met the setback requirements.\nBoard Member Zuppan said that the hotel sharing parking is her chief concern. She added\nthat the plan to limit use of the meeting room limitation to guests only is meaningless to\nher. She said there should be some way to accommodate those who want to use the\nmeeting room without having to rent a hotel room. She said that she would be open to a\nshared parking agreement between the hotel and other businesses. She asked if there are\nother ways to refine the massing of the building and expressed concern about the amount\nof water use that the plants might use depending on the conditions.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 6 of 10\nApril 13, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-04-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-04-13", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member K\u00f6ster asked Mr. Thomas if there was an agreement for shared parking\noffsite currently in place. Mr. Thomas explained that the applicant had planned to buy a\nparcel only for parking, but staff is not enthusiastic about that proposal. The applicant is\nwaiting for approval for the plans before they enter into a shared parking agreement with\nother businesses. Board Member K\u00f6ster said that the massing of the building is getting\nbetter, but said that the design is getting away from the basic ideals that make a building\nunique. He said that some materials could be changed to address this issue.\nBoard Member Burton said the project is moving in the right direction. The sculpting of the\nbuilding is an improvement. He said that the central mass housing the elevator and other\nutilities do not fully establish the identity of the building and urged the architects to keep\nthe design simple.\nBoard Member Knox White said he agrees with staff's parking solution and said that the\napplicant's proposal for limiting access to the meeting room shows good faith from the\nparties. He said that he agreed with his fellow Board Members' comments.\nVice President Alvarez said that she finds it hard to visualize the hotel as it is currently\ndesigned. She wondered how much creativity the architects would have from Marriott. She\nsaid there are issues with the lot size and location.\nBoard Member Tang said he is excited about the shared parking arrangement, but wanted\nto know if there might be a limitation on the parking arrangement. Mr. Thomas said that\nprevious hotels were required to enter into a long term arrangement to resolve any parking\nissues they might have had.\nBoard Member Burton motioned to continue after 10:30 P.M. Vice President Alvarez\nseconded the motion. The motion carried, 6-1. (Board Member Knox White voted against\nthe motion).\nPresident Henneberry said that the color scheme for the building is better than before, but\ncalled for more analysis on the issue. He said he needs more information about the\nbuilding's design before he can vote for it.\nMr. Thomas and Ms. Faiz explained the reasoning behind the infill exemption from CEQA\nfor the project.\nPresident Henneberry called for a five-minute break.\nPresident Henneberry called the meeting back to order.\n7-C 2015-1547\nPublic Hearing to consider approval of a Transportation Demand\nManagement Plan for Marina Shores (formerly \"Marina Cove II\")\nlocated at 1551 Buena Vista Avenue and bounded by Ohlone Street,\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 7 of 10\nApril 13, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-04-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-04-13", "page": 8, "text": "Buena Vista Avenue, Clement Avenue, and Entrance Way. The\nproperties are zoned R-4/PD (Neighborhood Resdiential with a\nPlanned Development overlay) with a MF (Multifamily Residential)\noverlay. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the City\nCouncil on January 2, 2013 for the Tentative Map pursuant to the\nCalifornia Environmental Quality Act.\nMr. Thomas gave a presentation. He introduced Mr. Gordon Jones, President of Lennar\nBay Area. Mr. Jones gave a presentation.\nBoard Questions:\nBoard Member Burton asked if there is a requirement for the new development to join the\nNorthern Waterfront TMA, and if there is a procedure for them to do so. Mr. Thomas\nexplained the developer is required to join either the Northern Waterfront TMA of the West\nAlameda TMA. Currently, they are the only development at the site, and they would join\nthe cross-estuary shuttle on a temporary basis.\nThe Board opened public comment:\nMs. Erin Fisher, resident, asked the Board to encourage mass transit for all Alameda\nresidents. She said she was concerned that she would have to pay for the shuttle service\nas a current resident of the area, while her nearby neighbors might not have to but\nnevertheless would benefit from the increased public transit serving the area.\nThe Board closed public comment.\nBoard questions:\nBoard Member Knox White asked for clarification on the language in the text in order to\ngive the developer the option to create their own TMA or to join a current one. He\nsuggested that a welcome packet be introduced for future residents to inform them of their\ntransit options, and said that an annual transportation survey would be a good idea in\norder to plan for future development in the area. He said that the TMA is otherwise very\neasy to read and understand.\nBoard Member Burton said he agreed with Board Member Knox White's comments. He\nasked about the position of a TDM services coordinator, and stated that the person or\nentity must conduct the survey and the vehicle count in the area.\nBoard Member Tang asked if there would be a limit on passes per household. Mr. Thomas\nsaid that each household would pay an annual fee, and the people who move in would first\nhave access to AC Transit and the cross-estuary shuttle. This arrangement could change\nover time, depending on the necessities of the residents.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster said that he would like to add in the survey what specific types of\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 8 of 10\nApril 13, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-04-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-04-13", "page": 9, "text": "transit are being used the most.\nBoard Member Burton motioned to extend the meeting past 11 P.M. Board Member Knox\nWhite seconded the motion.\nThe motion carried, 7-0.\nBoard Member Knox White motioned to approve the amendments with the clarifications to\nthe TMA, extending the shuttle to the development, adding the annual survey and vehicle\ncounts, and including a welcome packet and car sharing services. Board Member Burton\nseconded the motion.\nThe motion carried, 7-0.\n7-D 2015-1532\nPLN14-0701 - 2100 Clement Street. (Clement, Willow, Eagle\nProject) Design Review, Development Plan, Density Bonus and\nVesting tentative Map. - A public hearing to consider applications to\npermit construction of 58 attached townhomes on a 2.78 acre site\nlocated at 2100 Clement Street. Continued to a future date.\n8. MINUTES:\n8-A. 2015-1540\nDraft Meeting Minutes-January 13, 2014\nBoard Member Knox White motioned to approve the minutes. Vice President Alvarez\nseconded the motion.\nThe motion carried, 7-0.\n8-B. 2015-1541\nDraft Meeting Minutes-March 9, 2015\nThe Board asked to continue these minutes.\n8-C. 2015-1542\nDraft Meeting Minutes-February 23, 2015\nThe Board asked to continue these minutes.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n9-A. 2015-1544\nZoning Administrator and Design Review: Recent Actions and\nDecisions: None\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 9 of 10\nApril 13, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-04-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-04-13", "page": 10, "text": "10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\n10-A\n2015-1545 Transportation Commission Report on Point-to-Point Car Sharing\nPolicy: None\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\n11-A 2015-1543\nReport from the Alameda Point Site A Ad-Hoc Subcommittee\nPresident Henneberry said that the subcommittee has not met yet.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\n13. ADJOURNMENT: President Henneberry adjourned the meeting at 11:05 P.M.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 10 of 10\nApril 13, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-04-13.pdf"}