{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-05-28", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, MAY 28, 2019\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Sullivan convened the meeting at 7:04 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Saheba led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President Sullivan, Board Members Cavanaugh, Curtis, Mitchell, Rothenberg,\nSaheba, Teague.\nAbsent: None.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\n*None*\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n6-A 2019-6938\nConsideration of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2019-2021 Capital Budget\nand Consistency with the City of Alameda General Plan\nBoard Member Teague motioned approval of the consent calendar. Board Member\nCurtis seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2019-6939\nPublic Hearing to consider the final architectural elevations, landscape plan, lighting plan,\nand parking plan for Design Review No. PLN18-0381 for an approximately 113,000-\nsquare-foot five-story hotel with 172 guest rooms and an approximately 7,000-square-foot\nrestaurant with coffee shop, located approximately 400-feet northwest of the corner of\nHarbor Bay Parkway and Bay Edge Road. The property is located within the C-M-PD,\nCommercial Manufacturing - Planned Development zoning district. The Harbor Bay Isle\nEnvironmental Impact Report was prepared for the development of the Harbor Bay\nBusiness Park Planned Development.\nHenry Dong, Planner III with the Planning, Building, and Transportation Department, gave\na presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3953178&GUID=BFB9780D\nBEA-4611-ADOE-92D88620FF4A&FullText=1\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 11\nMay 28, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-05-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-05-28", "page": 2, "text": "President Sullivan asked what the distance was from the gravel pathway to any\nhardscaping of the project.\nStaff Member Dong said the building was setback 35 feet from the path and that the patio\nand fire pit area was within the setback.\nBoard Member Curtis said the perspective showing how the hotel fit into the larger\nshoreline context which they included for the previous design was missing from the current\nsubmission.\nAndrew Thomas, Director of Planning, Building, and Transportation, said that perspective\nwas asked for at the October, 2018 study session. He added that the request from the\nDecember, 2018 hearing was to bring back more detailed elevations. He outlined the\nchoices for the Board to consider. He said the Board can approve the plan, or ask for more\ninformation or revisions.\nBoard Member Teague pointed out a discrepancy regarding how many parking spaces\nwere removed between the staff report and the project plans. He said there was an\nincrease in the hotel square footage and a decrease in the restaurant square footage. He\nrequested an explanation from the applicant regarding those changes.\nRobert Leach, project applicant, said the project has been going through Marriot's review\nprocess as well. He said they have needed to increase some space for back of house\noperations. He said the two restaurant groups they have been working with require less\nspace than originally planned. He said they negotiated with BCDC to include hardscape\nimprovements within the 35 foot setback under the condition that they be available to the\ngeneral public utilizing the adjacent trail. He said they have had numerous meetings with\nthe neighborhood and have incorporated most of the feedback into the design. He said\nthey have been good partners and that construction costs are rising and time is a concern.\nPresident Sullivan said hardscape is not typically included in the setback. She said the 75\nfeet from the water is not a number that is relevant, instead drawing attention to the\nproximity of the building to the City-owned pathway.\nStaff Member Thomas said that when setbacks are referenced, they are relative to the\nface of the building.\nPresident Sullivan said the landscaping cross section for the lagoon embankment was\nsmall and unreadable. She asked if there was a large version available.\nMr. Leach said he has a large version in his vehicle outside the building and could retrieve\nit for review.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked how we got from the previous design to the current version.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 11\nMay 28, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-05-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-05-28", "page": 3, "text": "Mr. Leach said they have changed the design four times thus far in response to Planning\nBoard, City Council, staff, and public input.\nBoard Member Teague asked what types of plants are included on the berm blocking the\nheadlights of parked cars. He expressed a concern about taller vehicles shining lights over\nthe top of the berm.\nMr. Leach said he would need to retrieve the landscape plan in order to provide further\ndetails about plantings on the berm.\nStaff Member Thomas said the intent of the plan is to screen the headlights of vehicles\nfacing the pathway and the lagoon.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh said the maximum headlight height, according to the California\nVehicle Code, is 4.5 feet.\nStaff Member Thomas said they can easily adjust the conditions of approval to assure a\nsolid barrier of hedges or berms at 4.5 feet.\nPresident Sullivan said we are here to discuss the size of the setback, the landscape plan,\nand the design of the building. She opened the public hearing.\nBrian Tremper said the design looks like a Soviet style industrial buildings. He said he\nliked the increased landscaping. He said the community input meetings had short notice\nand one was on Mother's Day weekend and many people could not attend. He said we\ndeserve a better design.\nEd Sing said he is okay with the setback of 35 feet. He said the Board should be given\nbetter plan documents for review. He said the community was promised an iterative design\nprocess and did not get that. He said there needs to be more contrast and color in the\ndesign. He asked that the plan not be approved tonight. He asked that the resolution\ninclude a clause stating that the design and landscaping along the lagoon cannot be\nrevised without the express approval of the City with the coordination of the community.\nDavid Ross said that time is money, and Alameda needs the good union jobs that the\nproject will provide. He said the Board should approve the project and stop delaying the\nprocess.\nJuan Barboza, field representative for the carpenters' union, said they fully support the\nproject.\nPat Lamborn said the Planning Board has the power to decide what this hotel looks like.\nShe said the developer has signed on to the labor agreements over time. She said the\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 11\nMay 28, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-05-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-05-28", "page": 4, "text": "Board does not have enough information yet to make a decision. She said all the HOAs\nin Harbor Bay opposed the project. She said the project needs to be worthy of the location.\nWei-Ling Huber, UNITE-HERE, said Alameda needs this project for the tax revenue and\njobs created. She said the hotel will offer good wages, unlike other hotels in Alameda. She\nurged approval of the plans so the project can move forward as soon as possible.\nJohn Belperio, field representative for the carpenters' union, said the developer has been\nengaged and supportive of organized labor from the beginning. He said the project has\nbeen through many stages of approval and revision, and construction costs have\ncontinued to increase.\nThere were no more speakers. President Sullivan closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Teague asked if they approve the architectural design but not the color\npalette, would that be enough to move forward. He received an affirmative response from\nthe applicant. He listed previous conditions on the design that would need to be included\nin any approval, including differentiation between the hotel and restaurant buildings, that\nthe plaster finishes be smooth, and that the berm and landscaping be sufficient to block\nany parked vehicle headlights from reaching the pathway. He said he is not opposed to\nhardscaping in the setback as long as they are publicly accessible.\nMr. Leach said the public access requirement is the same agreement they have made\nwith BCDC.\nBoard Member Teague said he is in favor of the project moving forward. He said the\nstructural design is much improved but did not like the color scheme. He added that the\ndesign distinctions between the two buildings on the site need to be carried forward.\nBoard Member Saheba said we have an opportunity to make a great project on a rare\nwater's edge site. He repeated a previous suggestion to create more connections from the\nparking lot to the Bay Trail to accommodate the flow of ferry riders. He said he has trouble\nwith the use of thin brick in the new design, saying it reads like wallpaper. He said he\nwould not like to see that type of material used along the base of the building. He said the\nincreased glazing on the ground floor is a good idea but thinks the Board would need to\nsee it before approving. He said the building still feels too massive, asking for increased\nwindow sizes. He added that he hopes that the developer has a plan for the art component.\nHe said sprinkling variation in material around the restaurant building detracts from the\ncohesiveness of the design. He said the solar shading on the southern exposure makes\nsense, but the sporadic use of them on the northern fa\u00e7ade is not useful. He expressed\nfrustration with the poor quality and inaccuracy of the drawings being provided to the board\nafter months of work. He said he is prepared to approve the landscape plan, the parking\nplan, and the setback tonight. He said the lighting plan and the architectural elevations are\nnot ready for approval.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 11\nMay 28, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-05-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-05-28", "page": 5, "text": "Board Member Mitchell said he is confused how we got to this design. He said the fa\u00e7ade\nis too large and reminded him of a bunker. He said we have already approved the building\nheight. He said he is fine with the setback. He said it is important that the neighbors inform\nthe design, but that all of Alameda be taken in to consideration. He said the lighting plan\nshould be defined in kelvins and not subjective terms like warm.\nBoard Member Rothenberg said she agreed with the comments of the other board\nmembers. She added that the design is not what she would expect and is not prepared to\napprove the design tonight.\nBoard Member Curtis said a lot of money and time has been put into this process by the\ndeveloper. He said the project needs to get started soon if it is going to get built.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh said he is not happy with the colors. He said he is okay with\nthe size of the structure. He said he wants to approve the project and move it forward.\nBoard Member Teague asked how much of the structural design the Board needs to\napprove to enable the applicant to move forward.\nStaff Member Thomas said the Board can approve the setback, landscape plan, and\nagreeing to the basic configuration of the building. He said he is hearing the Board would\nlike to see the colors, exterior materials, and lighting comeback. He said the applicant can\nsubmit for building permits right away which would allow the time to refine the outstanding\nelements.\nBoard Member Curtis pointed out that some of the board members were not ready to\napprove the landscape plan.\nStaff Member Thomas said he believed he heard some additional conditions to be added\nfor the landscape plan. He said items such as planting choices could easily come back,\nso long as the basic building blocks are approved.\nPresident Sullivan said the building looks very inexpensive. She said the front of the\nbuilding looks very different from the back. She said the bigger windows would help but\ndoes not want to rush the project given how important the location is and the proximity to\nmillion dollar homes. She said she needs to see the landscaping plan. She said the\njacaranda might not be the best choice for the windy, salty location. She said the palm\ntrees selected can get to be 100 feet tall.\nBoard Member Teague asked for an answer about the ability to increase the window size\nin the rooms.\nMr. Leach said the windows in the rooms are eight foot by eight foot, the largest he has\nseen in the industry. He said there is also an air conditioner cabinet adjacent to the\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 11\nMay 28, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-05-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-05-28", "page": 6, "text": "windows. He said they need the remaining space to support the modules when they are\nshipped. He added that they have ten foot ceilings in the rooms. He said it is not feasible\nor desirable to increase the window size further.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked what the purpose of ten foot ceilings would be.\nMr. Leach said they have a narrow bay design to maximize views of the water and that\nthe increased height is appreciated by the customers and requested by Marriott.\nBoard Member Saheba said the concern is the amount of solid on the exterior, not the\namount of glass on the interior.\nBoard Member Teague moved approval of the 35 foot setback. Board Member\nRothenberg seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\nBoard Member Saheba moved approval of the parking lot configuration. Board\nMember Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\nBoard Member Teague moved approval of the building structural design with the\nrequirement that the exterior palette materials and colors return for further review.\nBoard Member Curtis seconded the motion.\nBoard Saheba said he is supportive of approving the footprint and height of the building.\nStaff Member Thomas said he is hearing that at least one commissioner would like to keep\nthe size of the windows open for discussion, and to see how the ground floor clerestory\nwindows will look. He said that it is not uncommon for developers to submit building plans\nand then revise them during the plan check process.\nBoard Member Curtis said that if there is a structural reason why the windows cannot be\nany larger they would possibly be putting in an impossible condition.\nStaff Member Thomas said the ground floor is not modular construction and therefore the\ndeveloper believes that adding the clerestory windows there will not present an\nengineering problem. He suggested approving the building massing, but bringing back the\narchitectural elevations.\nPresident Sullivan asked if the suggestion would approve the articulation on the front\nwhich is very different from the back of the building, and said she could not support that.\nStaff Member Thomas said there are short rooms and long rooms which can be adjusted\nto change the articulation.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 11\nMay 28, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-05-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-05-28", "page": 7, "text": "President Sullivan said she feels the project should come back. She added that approving\nthe project piecemeal will not result in a good project.\nBoard Member Teague said he does not believe the window plan for the rooms can be\nexcluded from the approval and allow the project to move forward, saying he therefore\nwould not amend his motion. He said he would accept the addition of the first floor\nclerestory windows.\nThe motion passed 4-3 (Sullivan, Saheba, and Rothenberg voted No.)\nStaff Member Thomas summarized the decision saying the structural design of the\nbuilding is approved, but the colors and materials would come back. He added that the\nparking, setback, and massing are settled issues.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to have the landscaping plant materials and\na cross section of the berm come back for review. Board Member Curtis seconded\nthe motion. The motion passed 7-0.\nBoard Member Curtis asked when the item would be coming back to the Board.\nStaff Member Thomas said that they would bring the item back for the first meeting in July.\nBoard Member Saheba asked that planning staff review the submissions internally for\nconsistency before distributing them.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked for a partial set of plans that shows the floor plans and\nsections.\nPresident Sullivan declared a five minute recess.\n7-B 2019-6940\nReview and Comment on the Draft Climate Action and Resiliency Plan\nErin Smith, Deputy Public Works Director, gave a presentation. The staff report and\nattachments can be found at:\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3953031&GUID=91EEC739-\nSEBO-4C5D-AE7D-8C52FA9B2740&FullText=1\nPresident Sullivan asked what the cost would be for a typical 2,000 square foot home to\nconvert from gas water heater and furnace to all electric and what the impact would be on\nthe monthly electric bill.\nStaff Member Smith said they have an estimate of approximately $20,000 to perform the\naverage retrofit. She said they have not identified the specific impact on the monthly\nelectric bill.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 11\nMay 28, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-05-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-05-28", "page": 8, "text": "President Sullivan said that she remembers all electric homes having bills of $300-600 per\nmonth. She asked how the decision was made for Alameda to be global leaders on this\nissue.\nStaff Member Smith said the community was the initial source of the interest in setting that\ngoal. She added that it became more of a declarative statement when the City Council\npassed the climate emergency declaration in March.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if there was a budget in place for the items listed in the already\nplanned category.\nStaff Member Smith said that the budget for those items would be in their associated plans,\nsuch as the Transportation Choices Plan.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if there would be significant diminishing returns for the\nmarginal actions that would make them cost prohibitive.\nStaff Member Smith said they include the unit of dollars per metric cubic ton of carbon\ndioxide removed from the atmosphere in the plan. She said their process was a balancing\nact between achieving goals and including what was important to the community. She\ncontinued to say that those tradeoffs are noted in the plan.\nBoard Member Curtis said he is concerned about costs of construction increasing which\nprevents planned developments from proceeding. He said the plan needs to be integrated\nwith what the City is trying to achieve in response to the housing crisis.\nStaff Member Thomas said the City will have to look at what they are requiring of new\ndevelopments and evaluate what new things might be important and what existing\nrequirements need to go in order to keep projects feasible.\nBoard Member Teague asked that the 2005 baseline be included and clarified in relation\nto the proposed actions versus business as usual pathways. He said the mitigations\nshould be presented in a way that prioritizes actions for greatest effect relative to cost. He\nasked that the pie chart have the Transportation category broken down between different\nclasses of vehicles such as trucks versus single occupancy vehicles. He said the\ntelecommuting goal of 1.5 days per week is a strange number, saying someone that\ntelecommutes half a day has commuted. He said encouraging water heating with rooftop\nsolar is a good strategy. He said increased temperatures will lead Alamedans to install air\nconditioning systems which will increase demand for electricity at the exact time that solar\ncould provide the increased energy. He pointed out that we can purchase clean energy,\nbut that will leave the dirty energy for someone else to purchase. He suggested that if we\nban leaf blowers, barbecues should be on the list. He wondered when the last 50 year\nstorm occurred in Alameda.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 11\nMay 28, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-05-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-05-28", "page": 9, "text": "Board Member Curtis said that sometime between 1984 and1986 the lagoons overflowed\nand his dock floated away.\nBoard Member Teague said the cooperative regional documents and efforts should be\nopen source and not hidden from the public.\nBoard Member Rothenberg suggested the cost numbers of the mitigations could be\nincluded earlier in the report. She suggested including the 2016 Local Hazard Plan in the\nAppendix which could make the City eligible for certain funding sources.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked why tsunamis were not included in the list of hazards that\nwere studied, while earthquakes were.\nStaff Member Smith said they addressed earthquakes generally because their impacts\ncan be exacerbated by Climate Change. She said that tsunamis are specifically addressed\nin the Hazard Mitigation Plan.\nBoard Member Curtis said Dames and Moore, an engineering firm, did a detailed report\non liquefaction and tsunami impacts when the original application for the villages of Harbor\nBay was submitted.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh asked where the congestion pricing funds would be allocated.\nStaff Member Smith suggested that some of the funds could go into a climate fund.\nLiam Garland, Public Works Director, said that the feasibility study for congestion pricing\nwould identify what portion of the funding generated would be needed to sustain the\nprogram. He said a climate fund is one option for the excess, expansion of initiatives like\nAC Transit EZ Passes would be another.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh pointed out that buses get stuck in the same lanes that\nvehicles do. He suggested the possibility of having a train system, or bus system on\ndedicated right of way which connects Fruitvale BART with the West End and the ferry\nterminals. He asked how we are working with Oakland to make traffic flow better, which\nhe said appears to be the choke point. He expressed concern about a levee system and\nwho is going to bear the costs. He asked how we would deal with the rising water table.\nStaff Member Garland said adopting the Plan is critical to acquiring grant funding for the\nprojects specified within.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh said we do not know what FEMA will do. He said they have\neliminated their MOU in the Delta, where he owns 700 acres. He said we need to be\nproactive in understanding the funding picture.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 11\nMay 28, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-05-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-05-28", "page": 10, "text": "President Sullivan said the section discussing the Shipways site is already outdated and\nneeds to be updated.\nBoard Member Saheba asked what the City's position and plan is for the deployment of\nscooter sharing services.\nStaff Member Thomas said the Council has asked staff to create a permitting program. He\nsaid they are watching some larger cities that are developing their own permitting\nprograms. He added that cities are seeing injuries associated with scooter use.\nBoard Member Saheba said the Lime bikes at the ferry terminals were being used and\nfilling the last mile need in the transportation system.\nNo action was taken.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2019-6933\nDraft Meeting Minutes - March 11, 2019\nBoard Member Curtis motioned approval of the minutes as corrected. Board\nMember Rothenberg seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2019-6934\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nThe staff report can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3950922&GUID=2C0A5766-\n35B-491A-9E06-1C4ED92D9D3C&FullText=1\n9-B 2019-6941\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Thomas said the June 10 meeting would have a study session on the\nAlameda Landing waterfront housing plan, a new FAAS shelter on Harbor Bay, and a\nDesign Review for the Fifth Street portion of the Alameda Landing waterfront. He said\nsome streamlining amendments, Alameda Marina Tentative Map, and possibly South\nLoop Road or Del Monte on the June 24 meeting. He said they have reserved a bus and\ndriver for the tour for Thursday June 6.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 10 of 11\nMay 28, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-05-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-05-28", "page": 11, "text": "Board Member Teague said he cannot find the individual resolutions online in the same\nfashion as the City Council.\nBoard Member Mitchell announced that he would not be reapplying for a second term\nappointment and that this would be his last meeting. He said he is becoming Executive\nVice President of his children's school PTA and will not have time to do both.\nStaff Member Thomas expressed staff's gratitude for Board Member Mitchell's service on\nthe Board and said he will be missed.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 10:08 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 11 of 11\nMay 28, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-05-28.pdf"}