{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-09-23", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2019\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Curtis convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Hom led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Board Members Curtis, Cavanaugh, Hom, Rothenberg, Ruiz, Saheba, Teague.\nAbsent: None.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nNone.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\nBoard Member Teague asked to pull both items for review.\n6-A 2019-7266\nPLN19-0056 - Design Review - 1527 Park Street - Applicant: Maxwell Beaumont for\nTheresa Do - Public hearing to consider Design Review to allow the construction of an\napproximately 738-square-foot one-story restaurant on an approximately 10,207-square-\nfoot property located at 1527 Park Street. The site is within the C-C-T, Community\nCommercial - Theatre Combining District. The project is categorically exempt from the\nCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15303 - New\nconstruction of small structures\nThe staff report and attachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4133455&GUID=DC3D9069-\n0974-4E4A-A969-1BAAF1ECEDA4&FullText=1\nBoard Member Teague said that the resolution permits construction activities on Sundays.\nHe asked if that was intentional, or an oversight.\nHenry Dong, Planner III, said that the inclusion of Sundays must have been a mistake.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to approve the item with the condition that\nSunday be removed from the permitted construction times.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 8\nSeptember 23, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-09-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-09-23", "page": 2, "text": "Board Member Hom said that one drawing showed the awning crossing into the public\nsidewalk area and another showed the awning staying within the boundaries of the private\nproperty. He asked which was correct.\nAllen Tai, City Planner, said that it was very common for awnings in a commercial district\nto project over property lines. He said they typically just require an encroachment permit\nreviewed by the City Engineer.\nBoard Member Saheba said that there were discrepancies on multiple drawings.\nStaff Member Tai said that they would ensure that the building plans are 100 percent\nconsistent.\nBoard Member Rothenberg seconded Board Member Teague's motion. The motion\npassed 7-0.\n6-B 2019-7267\nPLN19-0377 - Lot Line Adjustment - 1951 Harbor Bay Parkway - Applicant: Joe Ernst.\nConsideration of a Lot Line Adjustment application to reconfigure three parcels in the\nHarbor Bay Business Park. The reconfiguration changes the parcel lines of three adjoining\nparcels to create two parcels, an 8.4-acre lot with existing development and a 5.1-acre\nvacant lot. The project site is located in the Harbor Bay Business Park C-M-PD\n(Commercial-Manufacturing Planned Development) Zoning District. The project is exempt\nfrom the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines\nSection 15305(a) - Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations\nBoard Member Teague said the description of the item says 1951 Harbor Bay Parkway,\nbut the item also includes property at 2001 Harbor Bay Parkway. He said he wanted to\nmake sure there was no issue with respect to public noticing.\nStaff Member Tai said the parcels being considered for a lot line adjustment are for the\nPeet's roasting facility and two adjacent parcels. He said the neighbors within 300 feet\nhave been noticed.\nBoard Member Teague said that the information included in the plans should be sufficient\nto avoid any open government issues.\nBoard Member Teague moved approval of the item. Board Member Hom seconded\nthe motion. The motion passed 7-0.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2019-7268\nPLN19-0443 - General Plan Text Amendment - Harbor Bay Business Park - Applicant:\nJoe Ernst on behalf of srmErnst Development Partners. Public hearing to consider\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 8\nSeptember 23, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-09-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-09-23", "page": 3, "text": "recommending the City Council approve a General Plan Text Amendment to clarify the\nallowable Floor Area Ratios (FAR) at Harbor Bay Business Park. This amendment would\nmake consistent the Land Use Element text and the existing business park Planned\nDevelopment zoning regulations by clarifying that a 0.5 FAR limit only applies to the\nportion of the Harbor Bay Business Park located between the lagoon and the bay, between\nthe intersections of Mecartney Road and Adelphian Way to the north, and North Loop\nRoad and Harbor Bay Parkway to the south. The clarification results in an internally\nconsistent Land Use Element and aligns the Business Park land use classification with\nexisting entitlements, as well as the City's past practice and historical interpretation.\nStaff Member Tai gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4133615&GUID=3E399FCB-\nBAOE-4A11-8CA8-088681F9234C&Options=&Search=&FullText=1\nBoard Member Teague asked if all property owners in the area had been notified.\nStaff Member Tai said that all owners in the business park and the standard list of agencies\nthat they notify for a General Plan Text Amendment had been notified.\nBoard Member Teague asked why the issue was not brought back to the Planning Board\nto let them know that this could not be brought to the City Council.\nStaff Member Tai said that staff was just busy with other tasks that took priority.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked if the intent of the applicant is consistent with the goals\nof the General Plan. She said 220,000 square feet on one acre would be a very dense,\ntall building right near the airport.\nStaff Member Tai said that they are trying to match the General Plan with the existing\nzoning dating back to the 1981 Development Plan.\nBoard Member Teague pointed to a property at the southwest corner of North Loop Road\nwhich appears to have been developed with the 0.5 Floor Area Ratio in mind. He asked\nwhy that building was being excluded from the current recommended boundaries.\nStaff Member Tai said he could not say whether that property was developed with a 0.5\nFAR in mind, noting that much of the business park developed at relatively low densities.\nHe said the proposed boundaries reflected an attempt to overlay the old plan to the\nmodern day aerial view. He acknowledged that the property was on the waterfront, but not\nin between the waterfront and the lagoon.\nBoard Member Saheba sought clarification of the reasoning behind choosing North Loop\nRoad as the boundary. He asked if the lagoon ends in the same place now as it always\nhas.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 8\nSeptember 23, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-09-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-09-23", "page": 4, "text": "Staff Member Tai said the lagoon appears to have been constructed as envisioned in the\n1981 plan and that North Loop Road is the edge of the property which sits directly in front\nof the end of the lagoon.\nBoard Member Saheba said it seems clear that some projects underbuilt compared to\nthe allowed FAR. He said the project in question at the corner of North Loop Road is a\ntwo story building that may actually be exceeding 0.5 FAR.\nBoard Member Hom asked if the General Plan specifies the FAR for the business park.\nStaff Member Tai said the General Plan does not specify FAR.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh asked if the proposed building would be blocking any views\nof residences that would create problems for the project.\nStaff Member Tai said that the homes behind this site are much further away than the\nMarriott Hotel site, and that the business park is at a higher elevation than those homes\nalready, and that there aren't really water views for those residents.\nPresident Curtis opened the public hearing.\nJoe Ernst, SRM Ernst, noted that the proposed project would be at an FAR of slightly less\nthan 1.0. He said the question of where the \"Bay Edge Road\" limitations applied came up\nin 2006 when the Peet's facility was built. He said it was deemed to only apply to the area\ndirectly in front of the housing, which is why they were allowed to have the heavy truck\nuse for the Peet's site.\nPresident Curtis closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Teague said they had a very long meeting on this topic last year. He said\nin that meeting, Andrew Thomas, Planning, Building and Transportation Director, said \"we\nhave always applied it to properties along the waterfront.\" He said the findings focused on\nthe waterfront and the basis being the shoreline. He said he agrees that they should have\nnot drawn the line so far down, and should have stopped where the shoreline turns\noutward and the airport tidal basin begins. He said it should absolutely apply to 2001\nHarbor Bay Parkway. He read the language that the Board suggested to the City Council\nin 2018 and expressed a preference that the board use that language which took hours to\ncraft rather than starting the exercise over. He said he would make a motion to that\neffect, using the language from the previous meeting and including the property at\n2001 Harbor Bay Parkway in the 0.5 FAR limitation.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh seconded the motion.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 8\nSeptember 23, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-09-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-09-23", "page": 5, "text": "Board Member Hom suggested changing the language from \"conference oriented hotel\"\nto something more clear, such as \"business hotel,\" or just \"hotel.\"\nBoard Member Teague suggested that the wording be changed to \"hotels\" since there are\nmultiple hotels in the business park. He said he would accept Board Member Hom's\nsuggestion as an amendment.\nStaff Member Tai said he understands the direction and will reach out to the subject\nproperty owner before the Planning Board recommendation proceeds to the City Council\nfor final approval.\nThe motion passed 7-0.\n7-B 2019-7269\nAdoption of Objective Design Review Standards for Multi-family Residential Development\nas an addendum to the Citywide Design Review Manual. These Standards are applicable\nto all future multi-family residential development in the City seeking permit streamlining\npursuant to state law. The adoption of Objective Design Review Standards is exempt from\nthe requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), where it\ncan be seen with certainty that adoption of design standards will not have a significant\neffect on the environment, and Section 15183, projects consistent with a community plan,\ngeneral plan or zoning (Continued from the Planning Board Meeting of 9/9/2019)\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to change this item to be a study session.\nBoard Member Ruiz seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\nStaff Member Tai gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:\n ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4134326&GUID=60800532-\nE1D6-4287-9C21-2D080937440A&FullText=1\nBoard Member Ruiz asked what would happen if a developer came in with an SB35\napplication before the objective standards are adopted.\nStaff Member Tai said he would point them to the documents the City has already adopted.\nHe said the difficulty would be identifying which standards were objective, and that it would\nleave the door open for the developer to object and say \"these aren't objective standards.\"\nBoard Member Teague asked hypothetically how these standards would apply to the\nAlameda Marina application or other projects that have been approved. He speculated\nthat we would have to apply them to every project.\nStaff Member Tai said those other projects are not asking for SB35 streamlining and\nministerial review and are subject to the normal design review process.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 8\nSeptember 23, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-09-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-09-23", "page": 6, "text": "Board Member Teague asked how the Density Bonus law interacts with the streamlining\nlaw.\nStaff Member Tai said that the Density Bonus law also refers to objective standards and\nthat staff would use these same guidelines as a checklist. He said an applicant could ask\nfor waivers from the objective standards under Density Bonus.\nPresident Curtis opened the public hearing.\nChristopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS), said that the\nstandards should be beefed up. He said the standards should address context within\nhistoric neighborhoods to ensure good design results like the Mulberry project and the\nEagle and Everett affordable housing projects. He said there is no discussion of surface\nmaterials. He described some of the items they included in their two letters on the issue.\nPresident Curtis closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Rothenberg suggested that a ninth guideline for architecture be added that\nreferences the design manual.\nBoard Member Hom said a lot of cities are scrambling to adopt these standards. He said\nhe agreed with some of the suggestions by the AAPS. He suggested that staff review the\nrecently adopted objective standards in the City of Fremont.\nBoard Member Teague said that there are two bills heading for the Governor's desk that\nwill impact our ability to pass non-objective standards and make changes to the\nstreamlining law. He said he wants the standards to ensure quality but not prevent\ndevelopment in Alameda. He said he does not want standards that would prohibit units\nthat were affordable by design because of something like garage standards.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh said Alameda has a very different feel in different parts of the\ncity. He said the development that replaced the old Lincoln School did not blend in with\nthe neighborhood and he hopes to prevent occurrences like that.\nBoard Member Saheba said it can be difficult to define objective standards when design\nis the subject. He said that it may be best to focus on zoning type standards like setbacks\nand height limitations. He said some of the guidelines need to be more specific to bring\nclarity to a developer.\nBoard Member Curtis said he welcomes any comments from Mr. Buckley. He suggested\na standard that would prevent new construction from deviating substantially from the\nneighborhood context.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 8\nSeptember 23, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-09-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-09-23", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Ruiz said that building technology and codes are constantly changing,\nwhich can make matching the existing neighborhood a challenge. She asked for\nbackground on the requirement for a playground for projects over 25 units.\nStaff Member Tai said that 25 unit standard was taken from multiple other cities that have\ndeveloped the standard, as well as discussions with the Recreation and Parks Director.\nStaff Member Tai asked the Board to continue the item to the next meeting.\nBoard Member Teague said he would not be in favor of continuing the item because it\nwould not include public comment at the next hearing.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to continue the item to the next meeting\nunder the condition that public comment be allowed when it is reheard. Board\nMember Ruiz seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2019-7259\nDraft Meeting Minutes - June 10, 2019\nBoard Member Teague said that on page 8, he made a request that the topic of rooming\nhouses and shared living be revisited. He said recent changes left a hole in the zoning\nordinance.\nStaff Member Tai said they are working on that language and that it might come back with\npending changes to the ADU ordinance.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member\nCavanaugh seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0 (Saheba, Hom, and\nRuiz abstained).\nPresident Curtis confirmed that he watched the video of the meeting in order to approve\nthe minutes.\n8-B 2019-7260\nDraft Meeting Minutes - July 8, 2019\nBoard Member Rothenberg made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member\nTeague seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Ruiz abstained).\n8-C 2019-7261\nDraft Meeting Minutes - July 22, 2019\nBoard Member Hom made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member\nRothenberg seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Saheba abstained).\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 8\nSeptember 23, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-09-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-09-23", "page": 8, "text": "9-A 2019-7262\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nBoard Member Teague said the website is not working reliably. He asked that a link to the\n\"more details\" page be provided until the access issues are resolved.\n9-B 2019-7263\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Tai said that the 10/14/19 meeting would have the Alameda Marina wrap\nbuilding and possibly the Alameda Landing Waterfront project.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard Member Teague said he attended the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal ground\nbreaking ceremony. He said it would be a huge step towards addressing our transit issues.\nHe also said he spoke with the Rec and Parks department about the recurring palm tree\ndiscussions. He shared that they do not like having palm trees on any project because\nthey are expensive to purchase and replace, expensive to maintain, and that the material\nis not compostable and ends in the landfill. He said that our goal as a city is zero waste\nand, therefore, we should not be including palm trees in any new projects. He gave a brief\nsummary of pending legislation that would impact Alameda's land use policies.\nBoard Member Rothenberg said there is at least one derelict property just after the Park\nStreet Bridge and wondered if the Planning Board has any purview over a property that a\nlandlord is neglecting.\nStaff Member Tai said there are requirements in the Municipal Code regarding\nmaintenance of vacant property and that Code Enforcement is responsible for addressing\ncomplaints. He said Code Enforcement does have priorities set by City Council to focus\non issues of health and safety.\nPresident Curtis said that he recently met with Pulte about their project.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Curtis adjourned the meeting at 8:36 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 8\nSeptember 23, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-09-23.pdf"}