{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2022-02-14", "page": 1, "text": "DRAFT MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2022\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Asheshh Saheba convened the *meeting at 7:00 p.m.\n*Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, codified at Government Code Section 54953, Planning\nBoard members can attend the meeting via teleconference.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nVice President Teresa Ruiz led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President Saheba, Vice President Ruiz, and Board Members Curtis, Rothenberg,\nCisneros, Teague, and Hom.\nAbsent: None.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nNone.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2022-1741\nPLN22-0032 - Design Review Amendment - 1051 Harbor Bay Parkway- Applicant: Shriji\nHospitality, Inc. A Public Hearing to consider an amendment to the Planning Board's\nDesign Review Approval PLN17-0600 to allow minor modifications to the southwest and\nsoutheast elevations of the hotel building approved at 1051 Harbor Bay Parkway. General\nPlan designation: Business Employment. Zoning: C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing -\nPlanned Development zoning district. CEQA Determination: Design Review approval for\na permitted use is not subject to CEQA. McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group V. City\nof St. Helena (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 80, Public Resources Code Section 21080\nHenry Dong, a Planner III, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report\nand attachments can be found\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5445281&GUID=90DA8C28-\n8BE1-4268-B1B4-C7933F49A1C1&FullText=1.\nDraft Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 10\nFebruary 14, 2022", "path": "PlanningBoard/2022-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2022-02-14", "page": 2, "text": "President Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Hanson Hom asked about previous design changes the board had asked\nthe applicant to work with the staff on and wanted an update on those.\nStaff Member Dong answered that they were still working with the applicant on those. The\nprevious conditions of approval would still apply.\nVice President Ruiz also asked about a condition that had not been addressed.\nStaff Member Dong explained that they would address those conditions before the building\npermit.\nPresident Saheba opened public comment.\nThere were no public speakers.\nPresident Saheba closed public comment and opened board discussion.\nBoard Member Ron Curtis wanted to know what assurances they had that the conditions\nwould be met in the future.\nAllen Tai, City Planner, addressed those concerns and explained how the pandemic had\naffected timelines. He also discussed what the board could ask of the staff and the\napplicant.\nPresident Saheba was happy to see this had come back but brought up the importance of\nthis being a \"gateway\" site and how they addressed the corner was critical. He\nrecommended putting a condition on the Design Review to bring this back as they updated\nit.\nVijay Patal, the applicant, discussed the history of the project and addressed the concerns\nover the design and the entry corner.\nBoard Member Hom asked about the timeframe for proposals about the corner elevation.\nMr. Patal hoped to have things done in the next 60 days.\nStaff Member Tai reminded the board that this development was subject to Public Art and\nthat was part of the consideration for the corner.\nDirector Thomas added information on the timeline and that an Ad Hoc Subcommittee\ncould be useful.\nDraft Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 10\nFebruary 14, 2022", "path": "PlanningBoard/2022-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2022-02-14", "page": 3, "text": "Board Member Rona Rothenberg made a motion to approve the Design Review\nAmendment as submitted with the condition that the refined design options for the\ncorner come back to a working group with staff before the design is finalized for a\npermit. Board Member Hom seconded the motion. The subcommittee would be\nPresident Saheba, Vice President Ruiz, and Board Member Hom. A vote was taken\nby a roll call and the motion passed 7-0.\n7-B 2022-1743\nPLN21-0459 - Design Review and Development Plan Amendment - 2607 - 2619 Santa Clara\nAvenue & 1514 - 1518 Broadway - Applicant: Branagh Land Inc. Public hearing to consider Design\nReview and Development Plan Amendment to allow the construction of eight townhome dwellings\nwithin an existing 1.29-acre residential development. General Plan designation: Medium Density\nResidential. Zoning: R-5-PD, General Residential-Planned Development zoning district and partly\nwithin the R-4-PD, Neighborhood Residential-Planned Development. CEQA Determination: Design\nReview approval for a permitted use is not subject to CEQA. McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood\nGroup V. City of St. Helena (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 80, Public Resources Code Section 21080. As\na separate and independent basis, the development plan amendment is categorically exempt from\nthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15332,\nIn-fill Development.\nStaff Member Dong introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff report and\nattachments can be found at\nttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5445282&GUID=4AD523DE\nBOF2-4DD8-9A36-421D05CA98CE&FullText=1.\nPresident Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Alan Teague clarified that the number of affordable units would stay at\ntwo.\nStaff Member Dong said that was correct.\nVice President Ruiz asked about discrepancies between the site plan and the strong water\ncontrol plan.\nStefan Schnider, the applicant, discussed and explained the discrepancies.\nBoard Member Curtis, asked where the mailboxes would be located.\nMr. Schnider said they would likely have cluster mailboxes in the center drive aisle.\nBoard Member Curtis also asked about where lighting for the bathrooms came from for\nthe interior units. He also questioned the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) unit and if\nit had the appropriate space and how the flow of trash collection would work. He also\nwanted to know if they had considered the noise from the playground for two of the units.\nDraft Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 10\nFebruary 14, 2022", "path": "PlanningBoard/2022-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2022-02-14", "page": 4, "text": "Mr. Schnider explained the lighting layout and said they had followed the Universal Design\nRequirements for the ADA units. He also discussed the thoughts behind the playground.\nDan Hale, the architect, also shared some slides on the project and gave a presentation.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked if they had considered some sort of barrier at the end\nof the driveway to protect the play area. She then asked if they had considered\nincorporating public art into the canopy.\nMr. Schnider was open to considering art with the canopy. He then discussed the fencing\naround the play area and that they were open to considering bollards.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked for a recap on a portion of the Resolution on the Density\nBonus.\nMr. Schinder explained how the Density Bonus was calculated.\nStaff Member Dong said the Resolution called out which units those lots were in.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if there would be noise when the rain fell on the metal canopy.\nHe also wanted to understand how garbage would be picked up.\nMr. Schnider did not anticipate a noise problem. He then explained the HOA would have\nto pay a bit more for the garbage bins to be pulled out for collection. He then discussed\nwhat the options were.\nPresident Saheba asked about site-wide lighting and wanted to know if there had been a\nphotometric study done for egress. He also wanted to know if this project fell under Fair\nHousing Laws. He was curious why one unit was labeled an ADA unit.\nMr. Schinder said they had not done a photometric study, he discuss what they had done.\nDirector Thomas explained the local Universal Design Ordinance and the Basic California\nBuilding Code and how those worked with Fair Housing.\nPresident Saheba opened public comment.\nThere were no public speakers.\nPresident Saheba closed public comment and opened board discussion.\nBoard Member Hom discussed options for the canopy and variety would have a nice\neffect. He liked the idea of removing the parking and having more open space.\nDraft Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 10\nFebruary 14, 2022", "path": "PlanningBoard/2022-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2022-02-14", "page": 5, "text": "Board Member Xiomara Cisneros agreed with Board Member Hom about less parking and\nwas sad about one less unit but overall it was a better design. She believed the elimination\nof minimum parking made it a better fit and hoped other developers would consider\neliminating parking. She supported the project.\nBoard Member Teague agreed with Board Member Cisneros and thought that staff should\ntake note of the change they were approving for these canopies and add them to the list\nof the Design Standards.\nBoard Member Curtis could not support this project due to the flow. He felt that the overall\nflow of the garbage pick-up and the play area was unsafe.\nPresident Saheba wanted to add to the motion that the staff works with the applicant to\nensure that this project meets the Fair Housing Guidelines. Also, that staff works with the\napplicant that the site meets egress lighting.\nStaff Member Tai explained that these issues would be reviewed during the Building\nPermit review.\nBoard Member Hom made a motion to approve the modifications to the Design\nReview with the acceptance to the amendment to the design of the canopy, so they\nhave flexibility, and the amendment to Condition #9 to correct the required number\nof bicycle parking spaces, 8 long term, and 2 short term. Also the addition of\nbollards in the parking lot, review of the lighting plans as well as ensuring that the\nproject meets Accessible and Fair Housing Guidelines. Board Member Teague\nseconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1 with\nBoard Member Curtis voting against.\n7-C 2022-1744\nPublic Workshop to Review and Comment on the Draft Housing Element Update and\nZoning Code Amendments for Park Street, Webster Street, and Commercial Areas to\nAccommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the Period 2023-2031 in\nCompliance with State Law\nDirector Thomas introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and\nattachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5445283&GUID=996B7DF3-\n466C-4CFF-A548-D3763AAE2C7C&FullText=1.\nPresident Saheba opened up the board clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Teague asked about Zoning Changes that were not related to the RHNA\n(Regional Housing Needs Allocation).\nDraft Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 10\nFebruary 14, 2022", "path": "PlanningBoard/2022-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2022-02-14", "page": 6, "text": "Director Thomas explained why those items stilled pertained to the RHNA.\nVice President Ruiz asked if Webster had a Uniformed Height. She then wanted to know\nif WABA's (West Alameda Business Association) design recommendations had been\nvetted or approved by the Webster Street property owners.\nDirector Thomas said Webster Street had a Uniformed Height and that the property\nowners had not approved WABA's Design recommendations.\nBoard Member Hom asked about the intent behind raising Webster's height limit.\nDirector Thomas explained what the extra height would be able to allow.\nBoard Member Cisneros asked about Webster being a historic district.\nDirector Thomas explained the history and background of Webster. Park Street had a\ndesignated Historic District and Webster Street did not, he explained more on that.\nBoard Member Rothenberg discussed a letter sent by the AAPS (Alameda Architecture\nPreservation Society) that discussed height increases in and out of historic areas. She\nalso discussed Harvey Rosenthal's thoughtful comments about Neptune Plaza. She\nbelieved he had made a very strong business case and was worthy of deliberation.\nDirector Thomas discussed Neptune Plaza and the several emails with Mr. Rosenthal. He\nbelieved the staff's recommendation was a compromise between what Mr. Rosenthal\nwanted and what WABA's Design committee wanted. He then discussed how they looked\nat Historic areas and why they were not looking at down-zoning.\nPresident Saheba opened public comment.\nBetsy Mathieson was excited by the return of residential over commercial on Park and\nWebster Street. She was also pleased to see the emphasis on visibility active uses of\nstorefronts. She also believed that opaque storefront windows had no place in Alameda's\ndowntowns. She also strongly agreed with the height limits suggested by the AAPS.\nKaren Bey believed the height limits and zoning changes for Park and Webster Street\nshould be the same as it would eliminate confusion. She also supported Neptune Plaza\ngetting a Multi-Family overlay.\nJosh Geyer was very excited to hear about the proposed upzoning for the main streets in\nAlameda. He discussed the many benefits this would allow.\nJay Garfinkle felt that Staff Member Tai's image showing building heights was not\naccurate. He was concerned about the lack of parking on Webster and suggested that all\nDraft Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 10\nFebruary 14, 2022", "path": "PlanningBoard/2022-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2022-02-14", "page": 7, "text": "staff parking at City Hall be eliminated so that employees could set a good example by\ntaking public transit. He also felt that the Planning Board only focused on compliance and\nshould change its name to the Compliance Board.\nHarvey Rosenthal, the owner of Neptune Plaza, gave his thoughts on height limits and\nwhy not everything could have a blanket height limit. He also discussed other\ndevelopments and why now was the time to increase height limits.\nZac Bowling supported the staff's proposal and believed they were on the right track. He\nwas excited about redevelopment along Webster St.\nChristopher Buckley, with the AAPS, discussed and went over the main point in a letter\nthe society had sent.\nTherese Hall was curious how the public was being notified about these workshops. She\nwas very concerned about the creation of microclimates with these tall buildings. She was\nalso concerned about limiting vehicular traffic since it felt that there was little or no concern\nfor disabled people.\nMarilyn Alwan supported Neptune Plaza being treated like all the other shopping centers\nand saw it as a great housing opportunity.\nAlex Spehr expressed her approval of the staff's proposal to upzone, especially Neptune\nPlaza. She was shocked to hear there was no historic protection on Webster Street, she\nwanted to see some historic protection as well as upzoning to get more housing. She also\npointed out that disabled people use motorized wheelchairs as well as transit and\nsidewalks, not just cars.\nDaniel Hoy, Design Committee and Board of Directors for WABA, wanted to do more\ncanvassing of parcel owners in the Webster Area to ensure they were aware of all the\nchanges.\nDrew Dara Abrams discussed the height limits and densities. He believed that they\nneeded to encourage private developers to build units in these areas that brought a mix\nof amenities. He liked seeing the different ways to improve the pedestrian experience. He\nalso hoped to see a BART station on Webster.\nPresident Saheba closed public comment and opened board discussion.\nBoard Member Teague discussed the importance of being very clear so people\nunderstand why they were doing things the way they were. He wanted to use Housing\nNeeds Overlays to deal with the Multi-Family Density issues instead of changing zoning\ndirectly. He discussed different overlays and how they would be beneficial.\nDraft Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 10\nFebruary 14, 2022", "path": "PlanningBoard/2022-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2022-02-14", "page": 8, "text": "Board Member Curtis addressed there was the demand for units but they needed to focus\non the reality of getting them built. He discussed what the developer had to do and having\nthe height to build those units was important. He discussed the importance of finance for\nthese developers.\nVice President Ruiz discussed Overlay zones and the conflicts around those. She also\nagreed that WABA needed to talk to its business owners. She also wanted to discuss the\nsight line they were using to create these new height limits, having livable streets was\nimportant. She thought a Shadow Study should be a requirement as a better gauge to set\nbuilding height. She thought that Webster and Park St should be kept at the same height\nand was in support of Neptune Plaza being in an Overlay Zone.\nDirector Thomas explained and discussed the issues around the Density Bonus\nOrdinance and the overlays. He also discussed current projects and the issues they were\nhaving.\nBoard Member Hom discussed the importance of balancing the historic core with where\nresidential density is logical. He believed these two corridors were great for housing, he\nthought housing would be beneficial and wouldn't deter from the historic feel. He also gave\nhis thoughts on increasing density and the Density Bonus Law.\nBoard Member Cisneros agreed that overlays could be a very useful tool. However, she\nfelt it was important to change the zoning. She also agreed there should be more flexibility\non Webster Street. She also discussed her concerns around zoning.\nPresident Saheba generally was more supportive of no density limits and discussed the\nbenefits of that. He also thought a consistent height through Webster would be good. He\nthen discussed when an Overlay made more sense.\nDirector Thomas went into detail discussing Density Bonus.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2022-1745 - Draft Meeting Minutes - December 12, 2021\nBoard Member Teague pointed out a typo.\nPresident Saheba opened public comments.\nThere were no speakers.\nPresident Saheba closed public comment.\nDraft Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 10\nFebruary 14, 2022", "path": "PlanningBoard/2022-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2022-02-14", "page": 9, "text": "Board Member Teague made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Vice\nPresident Ruiz seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the minutes\npassed 7-0.\n8-B 2022-1746 - Draft Meeting Minutes - January 10, 2022\nBoard Member Hom clarified his thoughts on how the parcels would work.\nPresident Saheba opened public comment.\nThere were no public comments.\nPresident Saheba closed public comment.\nBoard Member Hom made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Board\nMember Rothenberg seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the\nminutes passed 7-0.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2022-1728\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nRecent actions and decisions can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5445279&GUID=12B8C3AD-\n4EE-43A7-88FA-C51A038B63AA&FullText=1.\nNo board members wanted to pull any item for review.\n9-B 2022-1729\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Tai announced that at the next meeting the staff hoped to bring back the\nAnnual CARP Report, Transportation Choices Plan, and to continue the Housing Element\nWorkshops.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n10-A 2022-1747 - HCD Letter dated 11-29-21\nThe letter can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5445286&GUID=E384EA51-\nCE16-4A13-9F4B-A72DD47B61FF.\nStaff Member Tai explained this letter was about Article 26 and the City's Charter.\nDraft Planning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 10\nFebruary 14, 2022", "path": "PlanningBoard/2022-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2022-02-14", "page": 10, "text": "11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nVice President Ruiz brought to the staff's attention practical application challenges with\nmoving to all electrical, especially for Multi-Family. She wanted the staff to plan and work\nwith Public Works and AMP to see how to work out the rules and regulations so that all\nthe departments are ready for the challenges.\nStaff Member Tai discussed what the city was already doing.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Saheba adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m.\nDraft Planning Board Minutes\nPage 10 of 10\nFebruary 14, 2022", "path": "PlanningBoard/2022-02-14.pdf"}