Title
Draft Meeting Minutes - February 13, 2023
Body
DRAFT MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2022
1. CONVENE
President Teresa Ruiz convened the *meeting at 7:00 p.m.
*Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, codified at Government Code Section 54953, Planning Board members can attend the meeting via teleconference.
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Curtis led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: President Ruiz and Vice President Hom*, and Board Members Saheba, Cisneros, Ariza, Curtis and Teague.
Absent: None
Vice President Hom arrived during Item 7A.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
Board Member Curtis made a motion to change the order of the agenda and Board Member Teague seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Kelly Kistner wanted to verify where the Bay 37 item was.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
6-A 2023-2803
PLN17-0538 - 1825 Park Street - Design Review Time Extension - Applicant: Paresh Patel for Ganesha, LLC - Public hearing to consider a request for a time extension to extend the expiration of an approved Design Review application for the construction of a 54’-6” foot, four-story hotel with 96 rooms at the southwest corner of Park Street and Clement Avenue. The property is located within the NP-G, North Park Street Gateway zoning district. CEQA Determination: The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 - In-Fill Development Projects. (Item Continued to the February 27, 2023 Planning Board Meeting).
This item was tabled until the next meeting.
7. MINUTES
8-A 2023-2737 - Draft Meeting Minutes - October 10, 2022
Minutes can be found here:
<https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6017856&GUID=7E92CED9-84A9-4739-AB0A-AF56EA5601D1&FullText=1>.
There were no public comments.
Board Member Teague made a motion to approve the minutes and Board Member Cisneros seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0 with Board Member Curtis abstaining due to absence at the meeting.
8-B 2023-2738 - Draft Meeting Minutes - November 14, 2022
Minutes can be found here:
<https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6017857&GUID=49B465B4-EC4B-4558-B521-6D45A54CFD4F&FullText=1>.
These minutes were not voted on.
8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2023-2804
PLN22-0401 - 2800 Fifth Street - Master Plan/Development Plan Amendment - Applicant: Pulte Homes. Public Hearing to consider a recommendation to the City Council to adopt an amendment to the Alameda Landing Waterfront Mixed Use Master Plan and Bay 37 Development Plan to replace a requirement for a 5,000 sq. ft commercial retail building with other land uses at the terminus of Fifth Street. CEQA Determination: A Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project was certified in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (State Clearinghouse #2006012091) in 2006.
Henry Dong, Planner III, gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
<https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6017859&GUID=8D5C0256-73BE-4401-9660-136DA2BAE11A&FullText=1>.
Bill Sadler, Pulte, and Matthew Visick, Consultant, were also available for comments and questions.
Public Comment for item 7A
Chris Lloyd (was granted 6 minutes since he was representing a group of neighbors and had requested that before the meeting) a resident of Bay 37 gave a presentation (43:32*) on the recommendations from the residents on what to do with the commercial space. He discussed who the Bay 37 Community was and why they believed a greenspace was the best option for the community. Marni and Ford Roosevelt also presented and discussed the outreach they had done within the community. Speaker Lloyd ended by discussing how a community center and additional housing would not be a good fit for the area. He gave other ideas on how to bring affordable housing to the site.
Allison Plaisance, a resident of Bay 37, discussed how her view would be impacted after she had paid extra for a “premium” lot with a view. She also discussed how the greenspace was already bringing the community together.
Steve Chu, who lives in a lot adjacent of the sales offices, said that the new building would 100% block their view after they paid extra for the lot. The sales team had also downplayed the size of the proposed building. He also agreed that a greenspace with actual grass was the best option.
Yael Herrera Villar, property faces the sales office, did like the idea of a community or rec center but added that parking would be very difficult and had not heard how that would be addressed. She saw transportation has a huge issue and didn’t see biking as a realistic option. She also discussed being in a below market rate unit and her concerns of the HOA fees going up if there are too many low income units.
Steph Bradshaw, member of Bay 37 community for about 3 months, discussed how she missed the opportunity to take the survey but she very much agreed with everything that Chris and Marni had suggested and discussed in their presentation. She urged the board to think about the impact to residents if this 3 story community space or homes were to go ahead. The folks with views had paid a very high premium for their views and many of them had not been advised that a 3 story building could potentially go there.
Jill Benson, resident of Bay 37, discussed the community was in agreement about the need for open space. She went into detail that the community was in favor and understood the need to not have a car focused society but a community space here would need parking options. She also went into detail how not just the residents would lose the view but the whole community would.
Shari Deguzman concurred (plus one-ing) that most of the area was concrete and that more greenspace was needed. She also thought that using the greenspace would be great opportunity for public art. She also discussed parking and how people did park in the circle.
Kelly Kistner, lives in front of the sales office, discussed the impact if a 3 story building were to go in front of her home. She went into further detail of the impacts of having people illegally parked blocking fire lanes. She believed a community center would cause many negative impacts. She discussed the importance of urban green spaces.
Francisco Sprouse said he was very much against adding additional parking. He discussed the many other parking options nearby. He thought it was inappropriate for the Planning Board to circumvent the parking maximum ordinance nor should the parking be allowed so close to a children’s playground.
Scott Roden, Bay 37 resident, agreed with the presentation and discussed the lack of greenspace and what a benefit it would be for the community.
Action taken for item 7A
Board Member Teague made a motion to recommend to the City Council to approve an option that consist of a small neighborhood park that is owned and maintained by the HOA, a single family detached dwelling that is market rate on the property with a maximum height of 20 feet and Pulte would offer two BMR units at the very low income level somewhere on the development. Vice President Hom seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1 with Board Member Saheba voting against.
7-B 2023-2805
PLN22-0412 - 1200 Park Street - Use Permit and Design Review - Applicant: Norman Sanchez Architecture, Inc. Public hearing to consider Use Permit to allow adaptive reuse of an existing commercial property as a tavern use with an outdoor seating area with live music events, new perimeter fencing, and extended hours of operation until 11:00 PM on Fridays and Saturdays located at the northeast corner of Park Street and San Jose Avenue. The use permit request also includes afternoon and early evening live music events on Wednesdays and Thursdays from 5:00 PM to 8:00 PM, Fridays from 4:00 PM to 9:00 PM, Saturdays from 2:00 PM to 9:00 PM, and Sundays from 2:00 PM to 6:00 PM. The applicant also requests Design Review approval to rehabilitate two existing commercial buildings on the site totaling approximately 6,000 square feet. CEQA Determination: This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities, 15303, New Construction or Replacement of Small Structures, and 15183, Projects Consistent with General Plan and Zoning.
Staff Member Dong introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
<https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6017860&GUID=A84B36BB-7796-4E81-9109-1ACEBB379E3F&FullText=1>.
Grant Usken and Melody Thebeau, the applicants, gave a presentation as well (*2:07:32).
Norman Sanchez, the architect, also presented and gave remarks (*2:20:04).
Public Comment for item 7B
Efrem Williams discussed Alameda’s roadways and bike lanes and the lack of parking on Park St. He felt that had effected businesses that had closed on Park St. He thought this business would bring drunk cyclist to an already busy street. He also felt this was too loud and busy for the local residents. He did believe that change was good but was concerned for impaired cyclists.
Kathy Weber, Executive Director Downtown Alameda Businesses Association (DABA), was very eager to support the Alameda Tap house. She talked about the growing businesses and restaurants on Park and saw this beer garden as an excellent addition to Park St. She noted that the music component would be designed to complement conversation and not be a concert experience. She discussed how the owners had done outreach to the community and had made their plans available to all and welcomed feedback. She and DABA looked forward to welcoming them to the district.
Tito Villasenor (asked for 6 minutes since he was representing residents who could not attend the meeting but was denied since he had not requested that from staff before the meeting) did support this project but had concerns about parking for local residents. He discussed how bad the parking was now and asked that the city consider permitted parking for the residents on San Jose and Park St. He was open to the idea of the music but was against the extended hours. He also suggested having a “last call” for food and strongly disagreed with extending the closing hours to 11pm.
Betsy Mathieson, who lived on Park St, was very supportive of the tavern and tap house. She pointed out that the notice she received in the mail mentioned the music but not the amplified sound. She was worried that her fellow neighbors had no idea about the amplified sound. She was very concerned about that and suggested they do sound checks beforehand. She also suggested limiting the days for amplified sound until it was established what the sound would be like. She was very excited for this adaptive reuse of an existing building and was looking forward to being a patron.
Ann Argyriou, resident of Park St, asked if the retaining wall was only 6” and pointed out that sound would go above that. She also mentioned that the notice she received said nothing about amplified sound. She would support the reduced hours and felt that the potential of 7 hours of amplified sound on a Saturday sounded like a “nightmare”. She also addressed how terrible the parking was on Park St for the neighbors. She was also concerned about pedestrian traffic through residential neighborhoods (Park St to Otis) if people walked up from Southshore. She supported the idea of permitted parking for residents. She did like the idea of the adaptive reuse of the space but wished the city had done more to communicate with residents.
Due to the lateness of the hour a motion and a vote was taken to continue the meeting.
Board Member Teague made a motion to continue the rest of the agenda items except for Staff and Oral Communications to a future meeting. Board Member Curtis seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
Action taken for item 7B
Board Member Hom made a motion to accept staff’s recommendation with the exception that the indoor and outdoor hours would match (Sunday - Thursday 10pm, Friday - Saturday 11pm), amplified sound would be allowed 3 times per month on either on a Friday (4pm - 8pm) or Saturday (2pm - 8pm), and in 6 months after the business had opened the board would review and that would include a standard noticing to all the neighbors. The applicant would also work with the staff on planting trees in the ground, final plans would need to provide details for the brick and mesh fence, explore designs for the connection between the restaurant and tap room, and work with staff to make the masonry wall more permeable. Board Member Curtis seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2023-2735
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
Recent actions and decisions can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6017854&GUID=9238A9EE-E708-496C-9457-C4B831E36C6A&FullText=1.
9-B 2023-2736
Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation Department Projects
Staff Member Tai discussed the city’s hybrid meeting and that new process. He discussed safety measures that had been put in place and what was expected of the board members.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
None.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Ruiz adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m.
*refers to the minute mark in the video