It's uh Monday, July 28th, 7 p.m.

We're gonna go ahead and start the planning board um meeting and we'll begin with roll call.

Uh board member Louise, can you lead us?

Oh, on a pledge of allegiance.

That's what I meant.

Yes, please stand.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, thank you.

And now we'll move on to roll call.

Yes, uh, good evening.

Um board member Hom.

Here.

Member Ruiz.

Yeah, board member Ariza.

Present.

Board Member Wang.

Here.

And President Cisneros.

Here.

Okay, so we have a quorum.

Um, board members Sahaba is absent as well as board member Sue.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Um, moving on to any agenda changes from staff or the board, saying none.

Okay, at this point, we'll go ahead and open up the meeting for any public comments for anything related not to the agenda this evening.

You can speak up to three minutes.

Do we have any folks?

Doesn't look like we have any speakers.

Okay.

And with that, we'll go ahead and close agenda item three and move on to the consent calendar.

Um, we have a few draft meeting minutes here.

Um, I wonder if we approve them one by one since there's various um absences, so maybe we'll just go down the line for each one.

Um for 4A, any comments?

If not, a motion.

I have stained because I wasn't here that day.

Okay.

Yeah, I'll just note I don't think we have a quorum for that one.

No, no, we'll carry that one over again.

Okay, great.

Then we'll move on to 4B, June 9th.

Um, I think I was absent.

We have a but the rest of you can vote for it.

We have a quorum.

We have a quorum.

I think I was.

I gone.

Uh it looks like you were there.

I was there.

June 9th, yeah.

Yeah, okay.

There was one meeting I missed, I know.

Okay, yeah, yeah.

So do we have a motion or I move to approve the meeting minutes?

Okay, so June 9th.

I second it.

Okay, motion is second.

All those in favor say aye.

I oppose, I'll abstain.

So for B passes.

Okay.

And then we have agenda item 4C.

This is June 23rd.

I abstain.

I wasn't there.

You don't have a quorum.

No quorum.

I think that was the one I missed.

Okay, got it.

I believe so.

Okay.

And I guess we'll co- uh roll that over as well.

Yes.

Okay.

Great.

Um, and then we'll go ahead and close the consent calendars.

Any public comments for the consent calendar?

No, no public comment.

Okay.

And with that, we'll move on to the regular agenda item, which is to review the 2433 Mariner Square Loop Project.

Good evening.

My name is Steve Buckley.

I'm the planning services manager, and I'll be presenting this item tonight, as well as serving as your secretary.

Um so uh this uh item is before you uh for action.

Uh this is a um design review application for a new uh development um at the Webster and Posey tubes area.

Um I'll be going through the permit application, some of the planning and zoning considerations, the CEQA exemption, some of the design review can considerations, and then conditions of approval.

Uh the applicant team is also here tonight, and I've distributed some public comments as well as some revised conditions of approval, uh, which I'd be happy to uh go over, as well as uh public works staff is here, and the city attorney is here remotely.

This uh project is a multifamily infill project consistent with the housing element.

The site was rezoned into 2022, uh, with the housing element adoption and implementation.

Um it is now zoned M2PD with a multifamily combining district.

Uh the proposal is to demolish the existing four commercial buildings on the site and construct a um eight-story residential building with 356 units that would include 54 affordable units in a distribution similar to the market rate units in terms of the studios, one bedrooms, and two bedrooms.

There would be 283 parking spaces within the building in a wrap configuration, three-story concrete podium with units around it facing the street and above forming interior courtyards.

Is currently leased by the existing businesses and would continue to be leased by this project as overflow parking as well as their trash storage area and sort of ancillary support functions like an extra fire lane.

The building would be about 85 feet tall to the parapet, 90 feet given that there's also some fill that would have to happen on the site to bring it above the floodplain and sea level rise.

So I'm calling it 90 feet from the existing grade.

As I mentioned, the Caltrans lot would be part of the site, and there would be some trees that would be preserved on the site.

Most of them are olives and other decorative trees, but there's a small grove of redwoods at one corner, and this project has been designed to accommodate preservation of several of those trees.

This is the site outlined in blue, showing the parking lot, which is the Caltrans lot, as well as the four office buildings facing Mariner Square Road and Mariner Square Loop.

The blue arrow shows the next view that I'll be showing you.

It's sort of the perspective, kind of from the back of the shopping center where there's a target, and there's the roof plan next to that, showing the interior and corner courtyards.

That would include resident amenities up on the third floor.

So that view from that perspective would be like this.

And similar treatments would be on all of the different sides of the building, and I think the applicant will go over that.

But this is the material mix and color mix that they're proposing with balconies recessed as well as projecting and sort of a cornice line on some of the elements.

As I mentioned, the general plan and housing element designated this site as a mixed-use multifamily with a 30 dwelling unit minimum.

The idea is that on large sites like this, we want to make the most of them and encourage the most infill housing that we can get, given that we have a arena number of over 5,000 units to accomplish in the next five years now.

And so this is one step towards accomplishing that goal by going well beyond that minimum.

The height is set by the underlying districts.

So when you have a multi-family combining district, you then relay refer to the underlying district for some of the development standards, and that includes the height and some of the coverage and setbacks.

And so they're complying with that height limit.

Where we're debating what should happen here.

And with the Housing Accountability Act, we're very limited in our discretion in that we can't really deny the project or reduce the density, but that's some really special findings that are rarely met in terms of health and safety impacts to the community.

And those aren't just sort of aesthetic impacts, they're true health and safety impacts.

So given that, we are also looking at a CECA exemption.

So there's no formal environmental review required for two reasons.

Um it's an infill project, and so the class 32 applies, it's consistent with the zoning, meets the size limits, it's adequately served by urban utilities.

And in this case, the applicant actually went ahead and prepared some technical studies to demonstrate that there would be no impacts to habitat, traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

So it clearly qualifies for the class 32 exemption.

There's also, because it's only design review, an exemption under state law and case law that says that if you're looking at only design issues, there really aren't any environmental issues.

And so the buy right development doesn't implicate CEQA.

So all of these findings are in your packet.

Uh we've we've uh outlined uh each of these considerations, including, as I mentioned, the habitat, the traffic, the noise, and so on, uh, with these technical studies by Fair and Pears, Billingwith and Rodkin, and by the uh the arborist.

And then similarly, there's no other other sort of special considerations like hazardous materials or historic resources.

Um finally, we need to just make our design review findings, and so I've outlined here you need to find that it's consistent with the general plan and zoning and our uh objective design findings, uh, that it's just generally compatible, but that's it's it's a tricky one because it's it's that's still kind of subjective.

Um so we're really looking at um these objective uh design standards.

So we're looking at kind of um urban infill does it does it just basically uh fit, and um in that case um there's a checklist that the applicant filled out, and so they've addressed site design issues like parking and landscaping are properly screened, building mass and articulation, they have uh the required uh permeability in terms of windows and balconies, and they break up the blank walls and flat surfaces, and then in terms of the entries and canopies, those are all provided according to the design guidelines, and then uh some of the other details like the siding and windows are um they they have uh the correct variety of siding materials um in the right places and uh they provide balconies that are recessed and projecting, and they've screened their roof equipment.

So in each of these sort of objective um guidelines, they've they've complied with those standards as well.

Um so based on all of that, uh we're recommending that you conduct public hearing that you uh review and comment on any uh design refinements that uh wouldn't necessarily you know affect the feasibility of the project, and then uh adopt the resolution with the findings and conditions and that concludes my presentation.

Thank you so much for that overview.

Um are we gonna be hearing from the applicant as well?

Yeah, I think you could do that and then take comments.

Yeah, um, if that pleases the board, yeah, we'll go ahead and hear from the applicant next.

Thank you.

Great.

Could you go back to just one slide?

Great.

Uh good evening, honorable commissioners.

Um, pleasure to be here with you this evening.

I'm Steven Seary, co-managing principal of the Martin Group.

We are uh the real estate developer and applicant for the project.

Um we're really excited to be here.

This uh project we've been working on actually since 2023, so shortly after the housing element was put into place, and it's been a uh very thoughtful process working with staff and various community members uh that have provided comments through the way.

Um, and uh would just like to commend commend um City of Alameda for putting together a really great housing element and zoning plan.

We developed throughout the Bay Area and having a clear roadmap really helps streamline our various processes.

Just by way of a quick introduction on our team, the Martin Group was founded in 1984, responsible for 24 million square feet of development over a 40-year history.

And we partnered with an excellent design team, BDE architects, the Cazardo Partnership, and CBG as civil engineers who have extensive experience in Alameda.

Just to provide a little additional context, just orienting us with the site, as Steven mentioned, sitting directly adjacent to the Webster and Posey tubes.

What really drove us to this site in the first place was just the diversity and close proximity of various surrounding uses, including existing residential, retail, commercial, and transit.

And in our minds, that really creates a great live work-play sort of community and ties in very well to support a lot of the local local businesses.

Just touching on a few of the project statistics, try to go through it quickly since Steven covered some of these, but 356 apartment units, mix of studios, one bedrooms, and two bedrooms, average square footage of 812 square feet.

So they're well well designed, and we've we included several elements, even including uh work from home features, uh, dedicated workspaces.

Uh 54 of the affordable units at a uh very low, low and moderate levels.

Um, and then mix of in-garage parking, off-site excess parking, given the close proximity to AC Transit, Alameda Express uh Ferry, and then all the bike bikeability and walkability components.

Um, parking spaces may not be needed, but it we do think it's it's nice to have.

From a sustainability perspective, uh this is a big corporate focus of ours for not only making lasting impacts to uh you know our community with housing, but doing it in a sustainable way.

Um, so the inclusion of EV parking stalls, really leveraging the sustainable element of the site through walking, biking, alternative modes of transportation, um, and then a variety of different sustain sustainable inzyme features.

Um, you know, one in addition to this, we'll have committed to renewable energy and solar panels.

From a community benefits perspective, um, we think that this project really exemplifies smart growth, and you know, there's a number of numerous uh tangible results here in terms of economic benefits over a 10-year period from property taxes, permits, impact fees, in terms of the arena goals, uh, you know, for one project to uh provide up to six percent of that goal with five years remaining is is quite meaningful with inclusionary affordable units included.

The addition of you know over 600 residents supporting local retailers and and various employers in the area.

Um, 89 new trees, and we we received some feedback through this design process.

There's uh seven redwoods that are on the corner of the project, and um initially we were going to remove two, but we had received a lot of community feedback that preserving all seven was was important.

Um so working hand in hand with our design team, we were uh able to make that work while not losing any any units in coordination with our arborist.

Um and then uh 374-foot protected bike lane, which uh is a is a class four bike lane, which will be a fantastic addition, I think, to the community.

Stephen had touched on this a little bit before two-story existing office buildings.

As the housing elements have been laid out, we really propose what we believe fits within the four corners of the box of the city's zoning code and design standards.

And then just wanted to highlight again the existing surface parking lot under release from Caltrans.

This is this surface parking lot sits right above the Webster tube, so it can never really be developed as critical infrastructure.

But believe a nice nice element of that as well, it really creates a much greater setback from some of the existing residential.

You can see on the west west on the left side.

And with that, I'd like to leave some time for uh Ian Murphy, who is our architect at BD.

Hi, thanks so much for all your time.

Uh Ian Murphy with BDE architecture, been working with Steven for a number of years on the project.

I just wanted to go over quickly kind of the context of the project and what we're next to here.

So directly due west, we have three-story single-family townhouse projects to the north of us on the upper left of this slide.

You can see that we have three stories senior assisted living flanking either side of the street before we get to the marina and the yacht parking there beyond.

There's a relatively new project directly due east, which is the self-storage project, the large white building here, and then to our south, we have a series of small offices in the one large to two story range, as well as target to the southwest.

These are all really important to us because they kind of set up the context for how we design the building and we look for you know what our neighbors gonna look like in context of this building's design.

The program of the building itself.

Uh we have in this slide we're turned uh 90 degrees clockwise from the last.

We have Mariner Square Loop on the left-hand side and Mariner Square Drive on the bottom of the page.

We have a lobby to greet uh anyone coming to the project adjacent to the vehicular entry on Mariner Square Loop, and also to pull people inwards from the shopping district that's Kitty Corner in that direction.

We have a secondary lobby off of Mariner Square Drive that's nestled inside of the larger amenity space, including the mail and co-work and fitness, as well as substantial uh first of two bike rooms.

There are quite a few units that face the street here, but they're raised up partly in due due in part because of the floodwater 100-year requirement.

So we're up off of the street on Mariner Square Drive and Mariner Square Loop in both cases.

And so you'll see each entry.

We've paid special attention to lifting people up to our entries in a very nice landscaped environment.

This is the second story.

Our parking garage continues up, and we wrap the entirety of the garage with units so that you're not faced at the second level with any open parking.

You have eyes looking outward, uh, more handsome and residentially appropriate uh facade, as well as some double head amenities for greater street presence on that corner.

This is our third uh and final level of our podium of our type one, and in large part it's a continuation of what we saw below.

And then we have uh a fairly expansive landscaped podium with a large internal courtyard that's a little bit quieter, and then we have our open pool deck that faces towards the street and adds a lot of front facing articulation to the building, giving us lots of opportunity for a more interesting design in the more public face.

This is the typical floor.

This is what stacks all the way up until we get to our roof deck where we had the opportunity to have a small sky lounge and roof deck looking back towards the predominant city skylines.

So this is the rendering looking up Mariner Square Drive, as if you were kind of at the storage center or a little bit further down Mariner Square Drive from the storage center, looking back towards some of our amenity spaces.

Above that amenity space is that pool deck where you get a hint of activation of people and potentially plants up there.

Maybe there's some lighting in the evening to give it a very interesting street presence.

Steven did a great job of talking about how the objective design standards regulate for us to break the building massing down.

So we have a series of decks that recess back, and we have the building broken into smaller, more digestible chunks.

And because this is such a long facade, we have a series of corner elements that hold the main street corners as well as the corners where the building returns back onto itself.

Similar to the roof deck at the pool, there's the sky lounge, which pulls your eyes upwards to the cornices and to the canopy that's proposed looking back westward.

This is the other corner on Mariner Square Drive.

Uh also Mariner Square Loop on the left-hand side, looking back towards what would be target, kind of a nut distance.

This corner of the building was actually redesigned from what was originally proposed, and the footprint was reduced in order to save more of those redwoods.

So while this is a massive building in comparison to what else is built in the area, these redwoods are gonna greatly soften and buffer this south-facing side of the building and provide a little bit of visual protection.

So right behind us would be the tube entry structure.

And then this is the view coming as if you were standing kind of next to Target, about to cross the street, and we have our main signage element above one of our lobbies, kind of pulling you towards the pedestrian and vehicular access point, and then you can see the building turns off of rectilinear axis a little bit at the next corner, kind of indicating another important moment.

I'm actually gonna go back a second and just mention that the building materials are a mix of uh stucco and different smooth uh fiber cement plank boards, and then the base is highlighted with predominantly two stories of uh brick to kind of bring a pedestrian element that sort of references the building across the street being the offices that would be on the right side of this image, so that there's a little bit of a relationship there both in scale and material and texture.

And with that, I'm gonna hand it over to Colin Bly, our landscape architect, and he can say a little bit about the landscape plan.

Hi, I'm Colin Bly with the Gizaro Partnership.

I will be relatively brief, talking about the site design and landscape design for the project.

Um, it's a tight site.

There were a lot of constraints that we worked through and worked out with the things that Stephen mentioned earlier with the Caltrans parking lot.

You know, it's over the tunnel, so you can't plant any trees there.

The building needed to be uh expressed upward to stay out of uh high tide uh elevational changes, and of course, we've been talking about the redwood trees at the corner as well that we've worked with the design team and our project arborists to be able to uh preserve those trees and in all their glory.

Um, for the landscape design for the site, um, there is a new uh bike lane and sidewalk along Mariner Square Drive.

That should enhance the uh pedestrian element to the site and bringing you back into the main entry, which is you know, at the lobby and leasing center with the uh the pool courtyard deck that's right above that, so that's a really interesting space.

Um the other sides of the project we've tried to plant as best we can to anchor the project to the ground with with new planting and trees.

Um we installed the dog park back on the parking lot side, and um I think we have a slide for the main entry here too.

Uh but basically the whole perimeter is planted, and uh we picked up the grading challenges for getting up into the building.

At the site main entry, it was sort of an interesting solution, is we had to get everybody up to that first level of the leasing area, and so we were able to create this little plaza space that both picks up stairs and ramps and integrates planting into all of that as well, so it doesn't just feel like you know a grand stair that's bringing you up to those areas at the podium level again.

That pool courtyard is pretty amazing.

It's looking out towards the marina in downtown Oakland.

Um there's a roof deck uh as well on the top floor that looks out that same direction.

Um but the pool courtyard sort of activates the club and lounge spaces, so that's a little more active, and then as you move um up to the left in the plan here, uh it gets into more quieter spaces, and we've created sort of rooms of different activities and elements that the residents can use.

I've been here before, and I know that there are no palm trees on this plan.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Um is that it?

Um, all right, great.

Thank you so much for the presentation.

Um I'll bring it back to the board for any clarifying questions before we open up for public comment.

Anyone would like to yeah, board member hump.

Thank you, and thank you, staff and uh applicant for presentation.

I want to start off with this question for staff.

Um, you just provided us with a copy of the revised conditional approval.

I just quickly glanced through it, and I know a lot of the conditions are technical in manner, but there's quite a bit of revisions.

Um can you walk us through the significant revisions that uh should be brought to the board's attention?

I'd be happy to.

So um, yes, this is a uh red line and strikeout version, and so the hiccup with doing that in Word without like doing a whole bunch of manual edits, is sometimes if you move something, it looks like it's new or stricken and really it just moved.

So I'll point out a couple of these are just moved, but mostly um they're related to if you look um number 41 through 49, those are related to maps and easements.

These this is uh four buildings and four lots right now.

And so this is about these conditions are about combining those lots so you can put one big building on all four lots that has to be one lot, and then arranging the easements so that the fire trucks can get in and the trash trucks can get through and things like that, and um removing old easements and putting in new easements.

So that's all that this is really about 41 through 49.

Um, so I assume what it'll be a lot merger of some sort that could be approved by the city engineer, or is it a staff level approval?

Correct, correct.

So that that's all staff level um technical stuff.

Um, and then if you go down to 42, it's stricken on the TDM plant, but actually that's one of those that's just moved and restated someplace else.

Um, same with the 43, the roadway improvements.

Um when we get down to 54, it's talking about improvements.

This is one where we didn't previously we were referring to um the drawings and the engineers' study, but um instead we also added some very specific language about what we really want them to do for frontage improvements.

So we kind of narrowed the scope and got really specific.

So here it just talks about those street improvements that the developer will do, and they've agreed to this.

So we've sort of already negotiated the bike lane and the sidewalk and the turning lanes and things like that.

So that's all what that is specifying.

Um 56 is about the flood elevation, just making that very specific as well, so there's no confusion.

Um then um let's see, 70 is new.

I guess there's there's a new water quality requirement regarding PCBs, and so that we added that back in.

And I think that's pretty much it.

Oh, um, and then oh, 82 through 86 is related to the electrical power supply system, AMP, and um these are sort of condensed.

AMP typically has about 25 conditions they want to put on a project, but it's it's so technical that it's kind of um really hard to follow.

So instead we just said follow the AMP standards and you know, get the permits and do what they tell you to do with engineering studies.

So that's that's really all this is trying to communicate.

So it's more of a condensed version.

I think that's pretty much it.

The rest, like I said, is kind of stricken because it was either moved around or replaced by something more relevant.

Okay, thank you I appreciate the explanation.

So the um landscaping bus stop and street furniture revisions pretty much are just relocating the conditions someplace else.

Yeah.

So they're not really substantive changes, just just moved conditions.

Correct.

Okay, okay.

I do have a question, I have a couple of questions if I may.

I do have a question about the parking lot tree requirement.

Um I see a condition, condition number 10 that says street trees shall be planted per city standards, one for for every four parking spaces, but then uh I hear the applicants saying they're not able to plant street trees in that parking lot because of the existing Caltrans tube or tunnel.

So how will this condition be met?

Well, I guess um it it's met only to the extent that there's a parking area on the property um that is being redeveloped because they're not changing the Caltrans lot.

Um so they actually do have a little drop-off area, deliveries and a few parking spaces for the leasing office on their property um that's not within the garage, and so that area will have trees, but there is this requirement though.

So I guess is there some alternative way to meet the number three to requirement perhaps planning it elsewhere, say along the perimeter of the building to to further screen or soften the building since the parking lot will not be able to accommodate landscaping.

Is that an option that we have?

Well, I think the landscape architect showed how they've already pretty well planted the perimeter of the site.

Um again, they're not changing the existing Caltrans parking lot.

Do we have the option of the trees are pretty small trees?

That are more in scale with the height of the building, so that it might uh further soften the building over time.

The species are pretty small.

Yeah, I suppose so.

I mean, I think they're mostly sort of vertical trees.

I will just comment, you know, the parking lot tree requirement is also to deal with the heat island effect when you when you add pavement, you also add trees just to kind of counterbalance.

Yeah, I think in this case, again it's it's an existing condition.

Yeah, it's also meant to I think, meet an urban forest requirement too.

So not just um shading, you know, and heat island, but also just uh increasing the urban canopy too, so could be a trade-off given this is a situation where they can't park uh plant parking lot trees.

So we just want to ask about that.

Um let's see.

I do have uh, and some of your questions uh were answered, so I appreciate the applicant answering it.

Um, the TDM requirement, um, this is maybe a question for staff and then and the applicant.

I see the TDM plans proposing like a two to nine percent um re uh trip reduction.

Um maybe for staff is for these type of projects, does the city have a goal for trip reduction for residential projects?

Um not that I know of.

Um I will say that the TDM plan was prepared by the consultant that often uh works for the city, and um I believe he's actually available online.

Um but I think this is a pretty typical range of effectiveness.

Okay, there's a no city goal.

Okay, so then I also see that probably the most significant reason for the free radiation between two and nine percent is dependent on if the applicant can obtain the Caltrans parking lot to increase the parking ratio to 1.25 up from 0.8.

So I would assume that would probably mean the percentage drops down as an incentive to reduce vehicle trips.

So I guess a question for the applicant is where are you with negotiating with Caltrans for getting uh the rights to use the Caltrans parking lot and and how might you might modify the TDM plan to might perhaps further increase trip reductions if you were to get that Caltrans lot because otherwise it seems like you're only proposing about a 2% reduction in vehicle trips.

Yeah, it's uh good question.

Um, so the Caltrans uh parking lot is currently under a lease uh with the property owner.

So it's currently providing excess parking to the existing office.

Um, and then we've been in negotiations and and discussions with Caltrans on further even extending this lease.

Um they have been very supportive, certainly with statewide housing goals and then being a state agency, and then paired with it's uh parking lot on top of the tube, which can never be redeveloped.

So um, so those those, you know, are we believe very soon here as it's been shared uh with us by Caltrans that we'll have an extension of that that lease, so um, you know, with that, that's uh yeah.

I believe with the with the buffer of reduction, that's that's where it comes from.

Um, you know, at the same time too, we do believe the projects, you know, central location, certainly for white uh walking, bikeability, public transit.

Um there's a lot of naturally occurring alternative modes of tamp transportation and options that will be utilized.

Um so I I hope that ants answers your question in terms of you know some of the various I guess partially, I guess my question is with additional Caltrans parking levels sounds like quite honestly, the amount of trip reductions is pretty minimal, maybe like two, three percent or so.

So I'm just wondering, or uh is that the developer think of maybe a little bit more aggressive measures to further reduce the number of trips from this project?

Yeah, I think Steven, we have the traffic engineer.

I think it'd be good for him to say Sam Tabibnia is available.

I'll also just note I well, I'll let him speak.

I I think maybe there's a misreading of of what he was trying to communicate.

So Sam, I uh you're allowed to talk now?

Great.

Um good evening, can you hear me?

Yeah, okay.

Uh good evening, Sam Tabibnia with Baron Pierce, uh road transportation consultant and prepared the TDM plan for this uh project.

Um just a couple of clarifications for your questions.

Um, one the city does not have a goal uh for TDM plans and how much uh trip reduction is required, and then specifically to your question about um the effectiveness of the parking um and whether the providing the Caltrans parking, how much that affects the TDM, that um we had overall two to nine percent effectiveness for the TDM planning reducing uh automobile trips for the project, and from that for that two to nine percent, about two to six percent was for the limited parking.

Um, and that also accounts for the for including the Caltrans parking supply.

It's basically with the Caltrans parking supply, it's about 1.2 parking spaces per unit, uh, which in comparison to the average for the city of um Alameda, which is about 1.4.

Um, so even that's there's about a 15% difference there, and that's what accounts for that uh two to six percent.

Yeah, I guess I understood that I was just wondering um since the six percent is probably assuming a much a more aggressive parking reduction of 0.8 parking space per unit, whether that there were other measures that the Phelper might have been considering to to offset the additional parking spaces to try to up the percentage as much as much as possible.

Yeah, and again, it's uh with the excess parking.

Um, you know, it it's maybe I don't think it's likely that all the parking spaces are gonna get and end up getting utilized based on our unit mix and the project location.

It provides us the option to have that excess parking.

My my understanding is the city act does not have a um a parking, you know, there's no minimum parking requirement.

So it's yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay, and then oh, just one real quick question.

Um, the affordable housing unit, you mentioned uh 54 units for affordable housing.

What's the breakdown between the very low and low units or moderate units?

What's yeah, just curious.

But what the breakdown is it's um it's it's in line with the city's uh inclusionary housing requirement.

I think it's about four percent and some change for very low, four percent some change for uh low, and then uh the balance is like eight percent for moderate.

Okay, thank you.

Those are my questions for now.

Thank you.

Uh board member Deweys.

Um, actually, board member, you brought up a good good, you know, um make me think of a question, and there's a question for staff.

Um, just want to clarify this is a design review session, right?

So, so all the other reports, such as TDM, you know, size transportation and um impact analysis, air quality and noise assessment, those all provided as a courtesy, or can we comment on it because this is a design review only?

We're not questioning the I just want to know what the purview of this board is.

So they are provided as backup to the class 32 CEQA exemption to demonstrate that there's not significant or unusual impacts in those topic areas.

Um, and so that's one CEQA exemption, and as I mentioned, there's another independent CEQA exemption just for design review, so you actually don't even need to necessarily consider the class 32 and those technical studies, but we sometimes do a you know belt and suspenders and double down.

Okay, but again, the purview of this board is design review of the building and not of TDM or or the right to even have this building on site, correct.

Okay, thank you.

I just want to clarify that.

And also I would like to um inform the board that I have met with the applicant prior to the planning board meeting.

Okay, thank you.

Could I just ask follow-up question to what Commissioner Ruiz mentioned?

Um, you mentioned that there's a sequel exemption for making the exemption finding.

Is that something that that is that the planning board needs to weigh in?

I'm not talking about the design review exception, the sequel exception where you're providing us with the technical studies.

Is the board need to decide whether they believe the sequel exemption is met based on these technical studies, or is the board purview strictly regarding the exemption for design review?

Just you could merely make the finding under McCorcal, which is the case law that says design review is exempt from CEQA and of sentence.

You could also say we believe that's true, and we believe it also meets the class 32 exemption with the technical studies, but you don't have to.

It's just a design review.

Okay.

Yeah.

Sorry, but um if there were questions related to the class 32 infill exemption, like we also have the purview to um maybe challenge that.

Um, challenge it in what sense?

Uh as just like questions related to um maybe some of the studies or findings related to the air quality or transportation or uh negative impacts.

I suppose you could.

I mean, it would only be relevant if you didn't find that this was merely a design review application.

If it's merely a design review application, which the zoning says it is, then the CEQA exemption for design review really is all you need.

If you're questioning other things, then you just don't need to make that finding, and it's still exempt.

Okay, okay.

Thank you.

Um any other clarifying questions?

Uh we're member.

Um thank you for the presentation to staff and to the applicant.

I also want to disclose I may I met with the applicant before to understand the project.

Um I wanted to ask about sustainability.

Is the project doing anything beyond Cal Green?

The project intends to be code compliant, and in the likely reality is that it'll be submit after the beginning of the next new year for permit, which would trigger the new and upcoming code, which is above and beyond even what the requirements are now.

Um there are things that uh may end up exceeding the minimum requirement, and we're looking into that in terms of the efficiencies of our mechanical and plumbing systems, and uh some of the uh stormwater treatment you know may exceed the minimum.

Uh we may choose to exceed the minimum on uh the solar PV quantity, even though it is quite large now for these types of projects after doing our Sarah uh calculation for the area that can be converted for solar PV.

We may go beyond that.

Um, but we're not committed to doing that yet.

I see.

So it's you're considering it.

I understand.

Thank you.

Um I guess my other question is related to the units that are on the first floor.

If I understand correctly, the only way to access those units is from inside the building, even though they are on the ground floor.

That's right.

So the units would be accessed from the internal corridor.

That's pretty much necessary on any site that has any grade to make them accessible or adaptable.

Um this site has between three and five feet of grade change between the level that we have to have the floor at to meet the flood requirements and the changing grade of the street.

Um, and it wasn't reasonable to do individual stoops uh and get the stormwater requirements we need and all the various grading requirements that we need.

Okay, and so I just want to understand what what I see um as lines in front of those units on the first floor.

Is it just like landscaping or it appears something like a planter or something?

There's a combination of raised planters to help uh kind of step up to that elevated height that the building has to be at, as well as in ground planting and burned planting, and in in ground stormwater planting.

So there's a number of different types of planting at different heights to kind of build up to that flood elevation.

Okay.

It does seem like there's a lot of parking, but I'm not sure what the thought is on how the parking is assigned to the units.

Stephen, take that one.

Yeah, the uh the parking will be unbundled, so um that'll be for an additional charge and um based on you know availability and who elects for what parking space um then typically after you know thereafter people will park you know by their by their units in terms of the actual assignment of you know, if you're renting this particular space, we haven't fine finalized that at this point, right?

So it's more like you you can opt to not have a parking space.

Correct, yeah, it's it's unbundled.

So um in order to get a parking stall, you'll have to pay an additional parking fee.

Okay, thank you.

Those are my questions.

Um you have to wait till public comment, um, please.

Thank you for um waiting your turn.

Um any other questions now?

Um I had a question regarding I also um for disclosure met with the applicant um to better understand the project.

Um where is it?

I had a question.

Um it was mentioned that I guess the first four levels might be um more noisy.

So I was just wondering about what um maybe because of the parking, um, the wraparound parking garage, so um maybe the applicant can answer like are there yeah, some design um techniques to help mitigate any noise with with that?

Um just to clarify, this is noise that would uh be experienced by tenants in their apartment that you're concerned about.

Um that's what I thought I heard in the overview that it's like, oh, it's gonna be quieter from the upper levels.

Um so I just was wanting to try to understand where that was coming from.

In my presentation, I only meant to say that in terms of the programming of the outdoor active space in the courtyards, one would be more active and lively, which would be the pool deck facing out towards the street, and the programming of the courtyard that's internal would have less loud activities.

So it's uh a choice to have less units uh enclosing something where there might be activities when people want to be resting in their home.

Okay.

But there are lots of design uh tricks and assemblies that we use to make sure that the interior comfort of the units are uh maintained and that there are quiet, comfortable living spaces.

Okay, got it.

Yeah, I I misunderstood, so thank you.

Um my other question I was just curious, and maybe this was in the site plan, like where the affordable housing units are um integrated in the project.

I don't believe we have uh a map of that, Stephen, but I do believe as a condition of approval that'll be um finalized with staff of mix of different you know unit types and locations throughout the building.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, I think those are all the clarifying questions.

Oh, board member Hamas.

Sorry, I had one more question of staff.

Uh I when I read, maybe I didn't see it in the conditions, but um when I read the Arboris report, there were a number of recommendations that the RBIS put forth on tree protection measures during construction.

Uh how are those incorporated into the conditions of approval or into the landscape plans?

Right.

Um there is a condition of approval.

Just have to find where it went.

I might have missed it, so if you can.

Well, it's part of the public works development permit.

And I'll verify that it's elsewhere in the conditions as well.

Okay, yeah, if you could point that out.

I I scanned through it, I didn't see it, but then I could have missed it.

Okay, I'll make sure that that gets in there.

Thank you.

Okay, great.

Um, and with that, uh, we'll move to um public comments.

Uh do we have any online speakers?

Yeah, we have uh two online speakers.

Okay.

Um actually uh let's start in the room and then we'll maybe just go back and forth if that's okay.

Um the first person I have here is um Eric Texa.

We have three minutes.

Uh hopefully I'll take less than that.

My name is Eric Texa, Vice President of Development Blue Rise Ventures.

We are the owners of the research park at Marina Village, which is basically all of the commercial space sort of to the south and east of the proposed project.

Um it's about 1.3 million square feet of what was office space six years ago.

We've since converted six to seven hundred thousand of it to life science RD labs.

We estimate on any given day we have about two thousand people uh working on site.

Um, never done a formal survey of this, but we talked to a lot of people anecdotally, you know.

Most people don't live on the island, some do, but most don't.

And um I just see a lot of synergies between high-density housing projects like this one close to an employment center like ours.

Um, gives more people the opportunity to live next to where they work if they want to.

Uh provides extra funding for alternative transportation through the TMA, um, and for those reasons, you know, we as a as an adjacent owner support the project.

So that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um we'll go online.

But we'll start with um Matt Regan.

Matt, you're allowed to talk.

Thank you.

Uh President Cisneras uh uh commissioners, my name is Matt Regan.

I'm here representing the Bay Area Council, about 350 of the Bay Area's largest employers, and my job is to make sure that our region builds sufficient housing uh to accommodate our economic growth and the demands of our population, and um we have not been doing a particularly good job of that of late, and um so I'm here to support this project.

And one thing that was not discussed much in tonight's deliberations is the fact that we are talking about 356 sorely needed homes for families in Alameda.

Um so let's never lose sight of the fact that that's uh the North Star uh in all of this effort.

Um the project was on a site that's zoned for housing by the city of Alameda.

It's consistent with all of your zoning requirements and inclusionary housing requirements.

It meets all state standards for streamlining and exemptions from CEQA.

So your job is really to stop a developer from building something hideously ugly that violates your design standards, and it's clear that that's not the case.

So we would urge that you move forward with this project with all haste and get these homes built.

Um the housing crisis is not going away, and the people that need homes are they are.

40,000 Californians leave this state every year for Texas.

Our job as housing advocates is to make sure that uh we stop that tide.

Thank you so much for your support.

Good night.

Thank you.

Um next speaker is Mitch Ball.

Hi, thank you.

Yeah, so we are in a housing crisis.

This has become a homelessness crisis and an affordability crisis.

There are many people without homes, less so in Alameda, but they're definitely in Oakland.

And you know, with affordability, rents are extremely high.

Many people my age may never be able to retire because they can't save up paying rent.

I often during lunch go to walk out to the water, passing the slot.

It's mostly empty parking lot.

So I'm happy to see that uh it will be used for better purposes.

Um I'm really happy, you know, that we can build this tall, we can fit this many units on uh this size of lot.

Um, you know, uh I think the parking amount is I wouldn't say it's entirely unreasonable.

I would still say, you know, go forward with the project.

Um the median household here in Alameda has one car.

This has a slight bit more parking spots than units.

Many of these are one bedrooms and studios, so I can see many of these uh units not having cars, and so I think some of those uh parking spots will remain unfilled.

If you know it could be possible to uh reduce the number of parking spots, maybe reduce the parking garage by a level and fit in a few more units, would certainly be happy with that, but all together support the project because we need these units.

Uh, we need these homes, and um yeah, ultimately, um I think maybe some people might oppose this because they see more people on the island, they think traffic's bad, this will mean more cars.

Um I think the opposite.

Uh, if the homes don't get built here, they're gonna get built in Tracy, an hour, two hours of traffic drive away from the jobs here in the Bay Area.

That's gonna contribute far more to traffic.

Uh these are homes where people don't necessarily need a car, they don't necessarily need to be filling the roads with their cars.

Um, you know, once it's built, you know, maybe one day I might live there.

It's close to work, it'd be quite convenient.

So yeah, thank you.

Um let's get building.

Thank you.

Next online speaker.

So next online we have uh Rina Rodnew.

Nina, you are allowed to talk.

Hi, uh, Marina Spasman, actually, Victor.

I just had a question for the builders.

Don't know if this is the right form for it, but I'm just wondering about uh disassembly of the existing structure.

Uh when is that gonna happen?

What's the plan for it?

How are we gonna mitigate death kicking up and noise?

Uh I live literally on the other side of the fence.

I'm looking at the building right now.

Uh, and so yeah, that was just uh front of mind for me.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you for a comment.

Um, next um in-person speaker, Sharon Hackle.

Hello.

I'm also a neighbor um just to the west at the symmetry development.

Um I've been living there and uh owning there for nine years.

Um I'm also former, excuse my voice.

I'm also a former senior executive with Kaiser Permanente, the Clorox Company and Telecare Corporation here in Alameda.

Um I support the overall goals of the project.

Um, I would also like the um the goal of being a good neighbor to be part of of the project as well.

Um I'd like to request that the scope and scale of the building be reduced uh to be more informant fitting with the neighborhood to a maximum height of 70 feet.

Um as for the parking entrance, um, my understanding is that the parking entrance is on the south end on Mariner Square Loop, if I understand that correctly, I'd like to um recommend that the parking entrance either be on the long side on Mariner Square Drive across from the storage or around to the north side.

Um to reduce the the traffic pattern that's there with Target, and I mean there's a it's a substantial for if we're talking about 400 parking spaces, it's a substantial um traffic congestion, there's a a stoplight there, so I can just see a lot lots of congestion happening there.

Um as a neighbor also, and just for the general neighborhood, the um the uh the noise factor is certainly a consideration both during the construction period as well as afterwards so in the uh design element I'd like to request that the my understanding is that the um the rooftop duck is an open air duck.

My request would would be that it is a uh closed duck.

Um in addition, um, that there's some type of um hours of usage, um, so like 10 p.m.

or something like that, so that it keeps the noise level down, especially at that high level with noise caring.

Um looking at the arborist report, um, I would request more shrubbery on the west side to further divide this um complex from the symmetry complex.

Um, as well as there's two existing trees on the northeast corner that I'd like to see um maintained that's closest to the retirement um element, um, that the hours of um construction be limited to eight to five on Monday through Friday.

Um that there's window washing services provided or at least um budget provided for by by this development to our neighboring complex during the um construction period.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Um we don't have any more online speakers, right?

No more online speakers.

Okay, great.

Um we have one more in-person speaker, uh, Lindy.

Oh, now we have one hand right raised here.

Okay, I'll finish with that.

Hello everybody, can you guys hear me?

Um, I live in the cemetery as well.

I'm a neighbor to where this will be developed.

And I just am really appalled that it's going to be such a high rise.

I think that that design will give us no privacy, it will look down on our little three little levels, and we will have um, we will be uh boxed in between this high rise and then the other high rises at Bay 37, and symmetry was there first, and when it was built, we had no idea that these bigger buildings were coming and these um uh high tall condos, and we can't match that, and there will be um, and you can't have trees that high that can buffer that really, and so I'd also like to say that um how about all the pets that everyone's gonna have.

I have one dog myself, and I know how much pet pickup I have to do with just one dog, that's going to be a lot, which brings me to the trash pickup.

That's also gonna be how are they gonna maintain and keep up with this new development?

It's already stressing the city as um from Bay 37.

And as far as I know, Bay 37 is not yet filled.

There's plenty of vacancies there, so why don't we work on filling the housing that we already have instead of building more and more and more?

I've been in Alamina for 22 years, and I love this town.

I really do, and a lot of people who are building don't live here, they don't have to see it all turn to concrete like I've seen over the last 22 years, and the um also I think it's really sad if you think that we're going to believe that there's not going to be traffic, and there's not going to be pollution, and there's not going to be a lot of other things that come with a mass amount of people living right next door.

Yes, there is a housing crisis, but can the people who you want to house even afford this place?

It does look beautiful.

The design looks pretty, but it doesn't belong at that corner for high rise.

Also, and nobody has to live there but us.

We know how much traffic there is.

Even on the Sunday when they have the um the antique fair over by the base at the base.

There's so much traffic just coming down.

Um Mitchell Avenue off of Fifth Street and from the base that it's it's packed.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you for your comments.

And our final online speaker.

Okay, so we have um Yale Herrero.

And I will allow you to talk.

Hi, thank you for taking my comment.

Um, and thank you, board members, for being here.

Um, I'd like to, I'm also a community member and neighbor as well.

Um, and I'd like to echo and tag on to uh the previous two women who spoke before me.

Um I would also like to request um for similar reasons for a shorter building.

Um, eight stories just seems so high for that particular area, especially because, as noted, um, most of the residential buildings in that area were at most, I think somebody said we're four stories.

Um so it just seems residentially out of place.

I would hate to, I don't live right at that, I think it's called Diller Street um area, but if I was just having all that towering down, as somebody spoke before, just doesn't seem like a neighborly thing to do.

Um, I agree with the movement or the request for movement for the parking as well.

Um, just kind of ease, especially that uh transition right there by the tube.

Um I'm wondering uh about the assigned parking.

Uh the the developer said that uh people would need to pay extra to get parking from an equity standpoint that just I'm wondering if that could be changed in some way or supplemented so that each unit could get one assigned parking spot.

Um I'm wondering.

Oh, I also echo the sentiments about worries about traffic in that area.

Um, wondering what plans there are to help ease that.

Um also most of the build the or from what I saw from the plans, there's a lot of um one bedroom and less and studio apartments.

So the idea that these would be for families seems unreasonable to me.

And even if it was, that would then most likely require at least one car for small children.

Um so this just doesn't really seem to fit in my opinion.

Um, and also echo the sentiment that these would not necessarily um help low income, except for maybe the the 54, yes, but the rest, I don't see how that really addresses um the affordability crisis.

These seem to be, you know, luxury apartments.

Um so I don't that's not lost, I think, on the community of what that really is.

Um, I'm also wondering um if the city has any plans to help with the current businesses that are there.

Um I like to express um a worry for uh small independent businesses that are currently running there and what options they would have if this was to be um demolished.

There are other vacancies in other new buildings that are remained vacant because the costs just don't align with what um the current rents are at the current place.

So I'm wondering if the city can supplement or has any plan to help the current businesses that are there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And uh looks like we have one more speaker, Dana.

Hello.

Thank you for my late submission.

My name's Dana.

Um I'm also a neighbor on Diller Street with a few of my neighbors here, and just want to echo and support their comments here.

Um I'm a newer homeowner, and I moved there about almost three years ago, and it's a really lovely community.

Um I'm new to Alameda too, and really love a lot of what the city is doing.

I'm very impressed by all of the things that I've seen over the last few years.

Um, but I am concerned about an eight-story building, considering that there's no other eight-story buildings in the vicinity at all, and none, and I don't know of very many in the entire island.

All of the other communities, including our townhouse community is three stories.

So I I really am concerned about how an eight-story building fits within this entire community and the impacts that that creates to neighbors, cleanliness, you know, all of the things that impact having this this size of a building at this particular location.

So thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your comments.

So let's check um one more time.

Is there anybody online that would like to speak, please uh raise your hand now?

Not seeing anybody raising their hands.

Okay.

For those thoughtful insights.

Um I'll bring them back to the board um for deliberations.

Actually, I do have one question, so um I wonder if I could I'm gonna jump in maybe with the first question.

Um maybe it's tied to the design review piece, but I am also curious about the parking um and what's in the purview of the board.

Um I was a little bit confused about the cow trains um lot.

Uh so that looks like it would be like a shared parking lot and use for overflow, um, if there if it isn't being utilized necessarily for the residents for their parking, um I'm wondering if like that could be used for um some other different use in the future.

Um so that's like one piece of the question.

And yeah, I just wonder what considerations are there for reducing the parking lot.

I noticed um in the TDM or the transportation analysis that it didn't mention the O line, which is nearby.

I don't only mention the local bus services, and um that does seem like a major commuter um asset.

Um, and so I just wonder how much um less reliance there is on cars and um how that analysis is or isn't being incorporated into the programming for the parking spaces.

So I don't know if that staff wants to respond first or the applicant.

Well, I'll just say um it hasn't really come up in terms of what the alternative use for the lot would be.

Um as far as zoning is concerned.

Um if it became a commercial lot where people could pay to park there, then that is typically a regulated use.

And so there would be a use permit for that.

Um so you know, if they started having an operator with daily parking for whatever price, I don't know who would be using it, maybe local employees or something, or commuters, but um, like if it became a parking ride lad or something crazy like that.

Um, I mean that that would require a use permit.

So right now, none of that is contemplated.

Um maybe try to address as best I can.

Um, yeah, as it relates to the um those as parking uses, um, and I'd say just a little bit on this on the site layout to address some of the questions relative to entry points.

As we've thought about it with our team and in coordination with staff, by having a garage uh entrance on one end and then um the surface level entrance that goes in the Caltrans.

We actually think that that's the best plan possible because you end up having two different uh vehicular entrances.

So that helps offload putting it all onto one street.

Um, and then as it relates to the yeah, the parking, um, the it's it's our understanding through Caltrans that that surface lot cannot be repurposed.

It's always been a lot since the tube has been there, and I don't I don't assume the tube is going to be going anywhere.

So, anyways, that's uh the being able to utilize that element for I think you know traffic and additional parking is a ends up being an overall benefit um for various traffic and vehicular access concerns.

Okay.

Uh any other comments from the board.

All right, board member Wang.

Or go ahead.

Thanks.

Um, thank you to the project applicant team for their work this far on the project proposal.

Um also appreciate the applicant taking the time to brief me last week on this.

Um also want to thank the community for coming out.

Um it's clear that everyone who's spoken today really cares about their neighborhood and their community.

Um, so thank you for coming out.

Um this project I think is a is a testament.

Uh I wasn't here, but it's a testament to the hard work that staff and this body did on the housing element, so super exciting to see a big housing element project come before us.

It's it's nice to see it come to fruition in particular in our current development climate.

Um we got a couple questions on this, so I just want to have an opportunity, I think, to clarify with staff.

Um, so in the staff report, um Steven, you do note this that under state law, we cannot reduce the density of this project unless we meet certain conditions.

Are those conditions the the health and safety provisions that you mentioned before?

Are they something else?

It would be the health and safety uh provisions in state law.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Um we've also heard some comments on parking.

Um I think as far as parking, uh it should be noted, at least from my perspective, that at on this project we are looking at one-to-one bike parking.

So we're what we're saying is that this project is is providing uh bike parking far in excess of the vehicular parking supply that they've proposed, um, even though they are allowed under code to provide a lot more vehicular parking.

Um, so I I will just say that I've I've been pushing a lot on on off-street parking in these chambers recently, and we we had a robust debate on that on another project, uh, but here we are not seeing a project that's proposing even what is allowed under code.

We're seeing a project that's proposing well over a hundred spaces fewer than what's allowed in code, I think.

Um, I'm I'm pretty happy with that.

I'm I'm happy to support this project overall, and uh I hope that the applicant will be able to build it expediently uh depending on what happens tonight.

Thank you.

Uh board member Luis.

Um again, I want to echo board member Wang's comments and appreciate the community coming out, um, either spoke for or against the project.

I think this shows that the public process is working.

It also highlights that I think some of us may not be familiar with our local George local codes and what is allowed within this board's purview.

Um, just uh just kind of I would like to use this opportunity to clarify a few things just for everybody.

Um, one just want to clarify this is a rental project, and this is not a for-sale condo, correct?

Okay, let the red co reflect that the applicant confirm that this is a rental project.

So it's not a for-sale condo project.

Secondly, um, often we unbundle the parking not from an equity standpoint, but is too advocate um residents to use alternative means other than just driving a car.

That's why we unbundle parking, and that is being the direction that the city has been moving towards.

That's why the parking and apartment, we're encouraging our developers to do that to unbundle the two so that if a resident realize they have to pay extra for that extra car, maybe they'll figure out that you know maybe they can get away with just one car, and so thus reduce the parking demand.

That's the reason behind that.

And also thoroughly, um, one speaker mentioned about business relocation.

What happens to the existing business?

That is not the purview of this board, and we cannot comment on that.

Um, so then getting into the project, um, also in terms of the pool deck operations, um, the noise concerned.

I believe that needs to be compliance with our local noise uh ordinance.

So I think that is covered, and we don't need to add additional information unless it's in violation of the local um Alameda's noise ordinance, and we do have one.

And so um I did hear a recommendation about window washing for the neighbor buildings during construction.

That is a concern, and I have seen other projects done that.

So I would like to request that as a um conditions of approval that the developer work with the neighbor to provide facade um washing of their windows during construction, maybe at the end of the construction.

Okay.

And I appreciate the clarification on the um on the Webster 2 because initially I was gonna ask for street um trees being planted on that parking lot as well, just to you know mitigate urban heat island uh effect, but um that doesn't seem to be feasible.

Um speaking of sustainability uh on the south facade, I understand that we have some large trees that is being maintained, and I appreciate that.

I think that would provide some um sunshades for the units behind them.

Um there are some units on the southwest side, closer to the Webster tube that have smaller trees.

I would like you to work with the staff and see if you can incorporate some sun shades to um provide some um shading, um mitigate heat gain for that facade.

Um, so those are my comments, and I appreciate you working.

Try to um provide articulation on the building.

I know the purview of this board is we have to review the project according to the objective design review standards.

So I pre- although I appreciate a lot of comments, that is you know, the state has a mandate.

Um the project complies with zoning code.

We can only comment if the building is really ugly, then we can comment on it.

But I think overall the developer did a really good job.

So, so I can support the project with those conditions.

Um board member Hong?

Yeah, thank you.

Um, I support the project too because I understand what the state law is, and uh you know that does comply with our general plan or son ordinances, the design review standards.

So um the key is the design review conditions.

Now, one of the things, and perhaps staff would clarify the resolution does ask us to make two exception findings, the class 32 exemption as well as the design review exemption, and uh staff mentioned that we don't have to make the class 32 exemption, but I can make that exception, and actually that's kind of why I kind of asked some of the questions that I did, because part of that exception is to verify that there's not any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, and water quality.

And uh based on the technical studies, uh I believe that uh the applicant has demonstrated that those um uh based on those studies, no significant effects would occur with the conditional approval that included with the with the uh with the application.

So I can make the class 32 exemption.

I do have some, I do respect the residents who came by tonight to express their concern about the project.

So uh I was thinking about where what can we do within the parameters of these fine review applications to kind of minimize those impacts.

I totally support uh board member Rui's comment.

I was gonna add about the um offering uh window cleaning.

That I've seen that as a condition for large projects.

The other condition is I know I know that for these large sites when there's a lot of demolition, sometimes there's a need for factor control.

Uh that's that sometimes migrates over to adjacent properties.

So I would recommend a condition having the developer responsible for factor control if needed, but uh that's common complaint that I've experienced over years for large sites that are fully demolished.

The other thing is I totally understand um the limitation on street tree planting uh in the underneath the tube.

Um I would encourage the staff to ensure the tree species along the building facing the um facing the residents are as large species as possible, perhaps a large box specimens, you know.

Uh, but there's another another item I like to kind of offer, and I'll throw it out there.

Uh and I've seen that's the condition also for certain projects where there's limitations on tree planting.

Usually the most effective tree planting are those right adjacent to the residences, not next to the building, because the next to the building has, as the applicant mentioned, has no one of the residents, has little effect.

I noticed that along the border of the residential units, there's these open parking bays prior to the garages of the units, and not making a requirement, but having the developer work with the Jason Homer Association to see if there's ability to plant some additional trees uh on within that the residential project's boundary to provide additional buffer uh to further mitigate the view of the structure from the project.

So I want to offer that as condition, not a requirement, but requests that the developer uh work with the homeowners if they are open to considering tree planting along their their property line.

So those are conditions.

Otherwise, I support the project.

I I agree um we are in a housing crisis, we do need significantly um more housing.

You know, I wish there would be a higher percentage of affordable housing units for a project of this size, but it does comply with the ordinance.

So I think we have limited leeway to uh require above what our current requirements are.

Thank you.

Board member or vice president Arisa.

Thank you.

Um thank you to the community for going out and for your comments, and thank you for my fellow board members for going ahead and um proposing some of the things that I think will help.

I I also support this project.

Um I think it, you know, it's within the zoning requirements, and that is what we are reviewing, is just the design of the building.

There were, there are two comments that I want to make.

For for a project that is this size, um, which is really like a whole block, a building that is this um scale.

I I worry a little bit about the experience as a pedestrian, and for me, I think most the front elevation, like on the what is that, well, on the south and the east, seems to be designed um, you know, to scale it down, but on the west, um, where there is no openings.

I see there's like recessed walls only, um, but not not actual openings with windows or any sort of transparency.

I'm wondering if the applicant would consider um treating those releasesus with some other material that would maybe be something more transparent.

Um I'm talking about the, you know, the the ground floor where the bike and the electrical and kind of the utility rooms are.

And I appreciate the landscaping plan because it does help soften the building, but I think that particular facade and that side of the street would be I mean it's it's a it's a very long building.

So this the scale of it is massive.

Um I appreciate what has been done on the other facades of you know breaking up the massing and creating the reasons of the balconies and the projections of the balconies.

Um on that level on the west facade.

Um I I think that the interior is not under our purview, but I will offer uh a question also on the interior corridors.

It seems like the corridors are very very long, and I'm also wondering if there's a way to create some breaks or resist the doors or something just for the comfort of navigating the corridors, um, but I do support this project, and I hope the applicant can complete it in time and it gets built soon.

Thank you.

Um great.

Um and with that it's my turn.

Um yes, I uh echo my fellow board members that um I'm excited that our intense housing element process has culminated to um one of these uh great projects.

Um we um put a lot of effort into that so we could encourage uh new neighbors and new housing.

Uh we recognize our housing crisis, and so um I do think this is a great addition to our community.

Um and you know, I did uh bring up some questions related to the parking.

Um I was nodding my head with some of uh the public comments that were brought up.

Um our maximum I think is 1.5 for a parking ratio, um, and um I agree it's not a deal breaker.

So um I just uh do encourage um the applicant to um really uh activate and utilize the TDM program that they put together um and try to encourage all those alternative uses, including the O line, which again um wasn't mentioned um in the analysis or in the staff report, but other than that, I wholeheartedly um support this project um with the conditions that my board members um brought up.

So with that, um does someone want to make a motion?

Yes, board member Hall.

Yeah, sure.

I'll move to approve the design review with both the class 32 category of exception as recommended by staff in the resolution as well as the design review exception, and with the conditions that are outline uh that outlined by this board discussion.

I did have just one additional minor amendment, if I may, is condition number 99.

I do still do see that that's where the tree protection plan is.

So thank you, staff for that.

But if you could also uh have it reference in compliance with the Arborist report, yes, thank you for catching that.

It's it ended up being broken into a bunch of little sections rather than one paragraph, so it was hard to find, but it's there, and I'll add reference to the Arborist report.

Yeah, yeah.

Um, I'll also add reference to the uh window washing to uh perhaps bigger trees along the west facade if possible um vector control during demolition, um working with the adjacent HOA to see if they would also be open to more tree planting um and the both CEQA exemptions.

Um sorry, fine director.

We also want to add um sun shades on the south side and did you add window washing during construction or is okay so then also a work with a um app the architect to add some sun shades and the south side south facade oh I'm sorry I didn't hear that sunshades okay yeah all those conditions sound fine to me for the resolution okay um what never mind can I just um I just want to clarify something because I think I uh inadvertently introduced maybe some confusion into the record um so I think that the bike parking on this project is one to one with the unit count uh and the vehicular parking is something like one to two and one point two to one including the Caltrans lot so I had said I think that the bike parking was in excess of vehicular but I don't think that's true.

So just wanted to clarify clarify that I see staff is nodding.

Okay.

Um I'd be happy to second the motion.

Okay great uh we have a motion we have a second all those in favor say aye aye aye.

Opposed abstentions see no okay great and the motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah and um I also um I just also want to really thank the public also for coming and I um just really appreciate the the attention to this project and um sharing your opinions of many things.

And I can just clarify as well this this decision is final unless appealed or called for review within 10 days.

All right um moving on to agenda item six um staff communications under 6A we have two recent actions that are in your packet.

And under uh 6B um you get the month of August off as usual so we won't see you again until um sort of the middle of September and we'll notify you of agenda items ahead of time.

Okay.

We'll go ahead and close agenda item six and move on to agenda item seven board communications for staff it's been brought to my attention that we may need to revisit our ADU ordinance.

I've heard from the community members community members that sometimes the ADU um project is denied especially when it has decks on them and when the reasons were changed several times when a reason of denial was given and the applicant re rebuff you know responded saying that ordinance doesn't re apply and then another ordinance will be cited try to deny a project and we as a city should be clear on what our regulation is not finding rules to deny a project but understand the rules and say does this apply or does this not apply so I will ask that maybe we should review that or um just kind of on don't find rules to deny a project but understand what the rules are so everybody can play in the same playing field.

That's the feedback I was getting from the community so thank you for that um yeah we're aware of the situation where the state law keeps changing and so we need to um dovetail our different ordinance sections to fit and so we yeah so maybe I would like to see that brought back again.

Okay.

Thank you.

And then no.

And with the latest um sequel ruling, I think you'll be good for staff to pre-pare like a briefing to the planning board as well with a new SIGA law.

Yeah, we we have a lot of updates um and so we're going through that with the city attorney and thinking about strategically what can we accomplish um in chunks.

Okay.

Thank you.

Board member Han.

Yeah, board member Ruiz brought up the exact same question I had with the with there's been a lot of buzz in the planning circles regarding AB 130, which is the new sequel exemption for most residential projects.

So uh my understanding is goes in effect immediately when the when the governor signed the new budget bill.

So uh it'd be interesting since goes to effect immediately to provide us um update on how this new law affects SQL review for future projects that will be coming before our board, and that might since there's a lot of projects that might be affected, it almost seems like the sooner the better we could get brief um on that issue.

I know there's probably a lot of questions about what it means, but uh it's is a big change in CQ, probably the most significant change in CQA in the last 15 or 20 years.

Yeah, I actually just sat in on a webinar at lunch today, so um and the Alameda County Planning Directors monthly meeting and um, you know, we we bring you exempt projects all the time, and so we we have lots of options as we did tonight on which exemption we apply.

Uh sometimes they come with strings attached in terms of labor or um other um parameters um or requirements.

So um I think we we have pretty good luck with the class 32, um, because we're an urban environment, um, but we're also looking at those others.

Um if a developer wants to use one, then we would especially consider it what because they're sort of looking for their easiest path as well.

Yeah, yeah.

I'm thinking it may not affect Alameda as much because we do use quite a bit the sequel exemption versus some other cities may feel less look you know, less inclined to use it, but with the new state law, kind of forces everyone to kind of be on the same page.

So it'd be interesting how it changes how we're approaching our sequel review for projects.

Tonight is kind of a good example.

Any other word communications?

No, thanks for bringing that up.

Um I have a small one from today's um review.

Um it was mentioned that there isn't an open space requirement for a multifam or multifamily zoning, and I just wonder, you know, how do we feel about that as a board?

Um, because it seems like maybe it's an um oversight or not, and it seems like um so if our applicants um, I don't know, I guess like in tonight's case, like the market is driving like what open spaces they would incorporate into the project, but I just thought I'd lift that up as maybe something that um yeah, I wonder if we want to take a look at that in some shape or form.

I I can clarify so in the multifamily combining district, it refers to the underlying district for its development standards.

So that's where the disconnect is.

If you're in an industrial zone like this, they don't have open space standards because they weren't anticipating residential at the time.

Now with the multifamily, we're sort of allowing multifamily, but we have kind of very loose development standards.

So that there's a little bit of a disconnect.

I I did research this when you brought it up.

In fact, they are providing 30 square feet of common open space and about 20 to 30 square feet of private open space per unit.

So it actually works out according to the general code requirements.

So it's it's sort of like the market actually does drive pretty much what the code requires.

Yeah, for most other residential projects.

Yeah, and I just wonder how many use cases are there where it's like the the underlying zoning was uh didn't account for it, and so yeah, anyways, um not something for us to spend too much time on.

Oh, yeah, board member.

I just just thought I'd add.

I do remember this discussion ha occurred when we're going through the general plan and housing element update as well as a zoning ordinance update.

And the decision at that time was to keep the open space requirement kind of flexible.

So not that long, minimum requirement and allow for flexibility for say group open space versus private open space, allowed to be market-driven.

But then there was also discussion that um, you know, open space requirements is common that uh housing developers, if they qualify for density bonus, state that's a bonus, that's one of the common waiver receptions.

They asked for anyway.

So even we had that as a standard by state law if they requested it and they qualify.

Yeah, they can request a waiver for based on economic hardship or buy the balconies or whatever.

Quite honestly, is it's a fairly you know, lenient standard.

Yeah, and and just finally, I think that a lot of developments are part of a development plan that's in multi phases, and we get shoreline improvements and private and public parks, and so we are flexible because there are different situations.

And this one happens to be a tight site, but they still provide a fair amount of community open space.

Yeah.

Okay.

And I do remember there wasn't there a hundred percent affordable housing project that asked for the waiver of the balconies to as part of the state density bonus allowance.

So what's argued as a hardship case to provide those balconies?

Okay, great.

Yeah, thank you for the reminder on that.

Um, yeah, that works for me.

Like I I wasn't even sure if it's like is this an issue?

I just thought they'd bring it up.

So yeah, thanks for that.

Um great.

Um, going back to our agenda, um, we'll go ahead and close board communications.

We have non-agenda public comments, anyone would like to speak on an item that wasn't presented this evening?

Any speakers online?

No speakers online.

Okay, and seeing none in person, we'll go ahead and close that.

And we are adjourned.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.