REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF MEETING ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION July 18, 2016 (Approved August 22, 2016) CALL TO ORDER: The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Dimitris Kastriotis, Richard Rhodes, Jim Goff; Hal Gin; Jeff Moore; and Larry Ratto, Chair. OTHERS PRESENT: Rodrigo Orduña, Assistant Deputy Director; Brian Washington, County Counsel s Office; Maria Palmeri, Recording Secretary. MEMBERS EXCUSED: None There were approximately 110 people in the audience. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR: None OPEN FORUM: Open forum is provided for any member of the public wishing to speak on an item not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three (3) minutes. COMMITTEE REPORT: None FIELD TRIP REPORT: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS 3. APPROVAL OF COMMISSION MINUTES June 6, 2016. Member Gin moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Member Goff seconded the motion. Member Kastriotis abstained. Motion carried 5/1. CONSENT CALENDAR: There were no items REGULAR CALENDAR: 4. RUTISHAUSER/DRG BUILDERS, INC HEATON, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING and TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, TR-8218, PLN2014-00173 Petition to allow a General Plan Amendment (open space to residential), rezoning and subdivision of one site from a PD (Planned Development) District allowing Neighborhood Commercial uses to a PD District allowing seven single family dwellings; and to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study, located on Villareal Drive, south side,
approximately 75 feet west of Clement Drive, unincorporated Castro Valley area of Alameda County, bearing Assessor s Parcel Number: 085A-6405-166. Staff Planner: Christine Greene Rodrigo Orduña presented the staff report. Public testimony was called for. Doyle Hector, representing the applicant, spoke on the project. He said that when the County did the General Plan amendment this parcel was erroneously zoned open space instead of commercial. Patricia Curtin, attorney for the applicant, spoke in favor of the project. Thanked staff for all their work. The real issue is if the site is appropriate for housing. The zoning is commercial and the applicant wants to change it to residential. The owner asked HOA to pursue a vote to purchase the property. CEQA is only concerned with impacts of the project to the clubhouse and not the other way around. She asked the Planning Commission to approve the project. Mr. Vaughn, owner of the property, said that he asked HOA if they wanted to purchase the property for the appraised value and they did not respond. There was no response until after he already had a contract with a developer. They waited one year before they made the offer. The following people submitted speaker cards against the project: Bryan Wenter, Jose Lourenco, Mia Johnson, Bruce Barron, Jessica Barrett, Patric Cheung, Vladimir Djorkin, Youjin Ma, Crystal Lin, Sunita D Costa, Wen Zhang, Daisy Maron, Hong On, Chunli Yao, Kris Kokotaylo, William Skaf, Tammy Choi, John Dooley, Jizhen Mao, Marc Colbert, Sam Jason, Terry Hart, Dajun Yu, Brian Hill, Art Liskewicz, Larry Brown, Stan Heimowitz, Edward Walsh, Ron Locatelli, John Falconer, Peter Louie, Liliane Lourenco, Martin Brusio, Li Mcraze, Li Rowena, KC Seideman, Jody Falconer, Laurie Duckte, Laura Lai, Elise Berticevich, Ed Baer, V de Castro, Tracy Davenport, David Zhang, Xinhui Chen, Monica Jimenez-Hui, Briana Lourenco, Laura Lai, and Ed Baeir The following were issues/concern expressed by most speakers: The planning department failed the community on the review of this project Tactic of the owner is to submit application after some time has passed in hopes of having it approved Critical to keep open space open Master planned community and this project changes the original plans, wrong location Not commercially viable is not a true statement Owners have not been interested in a long term commercial investment Owner bought property knowing that it was zoned commercial, not residential They could sell property for the fair market value to HOA Staff report does not show reason to support rezoning, or a significant benefit Proposed finding of compatibility/harmony of project to neighborhood is false Inadequate findings, need to demonstrate the thought process Staff report does not address the General Plan policy requiring showing no commercial viability before rezoning from commercial to residential
CEQA document is inadequate, no analysis on the impacts to the neighbors, such as traffic, construction time and other issues. CEQA baseline is not there. It is an empty lot. Traffic analysis is wrong. Lack of substantial evidence. Development in California is considered a privilege not a right This project does not comply with R-1 standards Traffic impact, safety issues related to traffic This project is not a benefit/betterment to the community Architectural style does not match the rest of the neighborhood HOA has no issue buying this property The owner of the property stalled, is not acting in good faith Possible future complaints lodged by residents of this development due to noise coming from community center Trails are maintained by HOA and they will not be able to stop these residents from using the same amenities in the community that everyone currently enjoys One exit only and in front of Fire Department Day Care application did not go through due to the fact that there was not access to the lot Setback and height does not conform with the architectural standards for the community Mr. Vaughn, the applicant, stated that in the past they spent a lot of money on preparing for a day care center application at this location but decided not to pursue when it was clear that it would not be possible. The application itself never went through the public process. Patricia Curtin, representing the applicant, said this application is only for 7 homes. The community already has 1,600 homes. This is a drop in the bucket. The issues brought up are issues already in the community, it has nothing to do with this project. The property owner tried to negotiate with the HOA to purchase the property and it failed. There is a community benefit, this will be more consistent with the community instead of vacant land. A commercial development will bring more traffic. The Castro Valley area needs 1,000 more housing units. This project would alleviate some of that need. The legislature is mandating that housing projects be approved. She asked that the commission approve the project. Bryan Wenter, representing the HOA, spoke on the feasibility of a commercial development. There is no evidence that a commercial use is not appropriate. There is substantial evidence that this development does not satisfy the general plan and rezoning requirements, the CEQA document is inadequate, and at a minimum staff needs to rewrite and recirculate the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Every effort should be made to make this parcel into a commercial development. He asked that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors a denial of the project. Public testimony was closed. Commissioner Rhodes asked about staff recommendation of a project that needs Variances. Rodrigo Orduña said that the conclusion by staff is that the residential development was in keeping with meeting housing demand. The Planning Commission has discretion to ask for changes to the current development or deny it.
Commissioner Gin thanked everyone for their effort. Thanked the developer for his efforts. Member Gin moved to deny the General Plan amendment, the rezoning, and the subdivision. Member Goff seconded. County Counsel recommended that the members discuss the findings prior to finalizing the motion. Member Rhodes stated that unless a developer is pressured, they would much rather build residential than commercial. He said he is very leery of making a rezoning from commercial to residential. This project needs a lot of Variances to make it work. There has been ample testimony tonight that this project is not a benefit to the community. The current residents have to live with our decision. The proposed housing units do not fit in this community. The HOA in essence will lose control over a portion of the community. One percent housing increase seems insignificant but this is at the center of the community. It carries a lot of weight. The project is inconsistent with the architecture of the other homes, the project needs Variances to make it work, there is no evidence that commercial development is not viable and is therefore not in favor of removing commercial and replace it with residential development. Member Rhodes said he understands the financial constraints expressed by the developer, but this is not affordable housing or public benefit. Commissioner Goff questioned the General Plan designation as open space, but the application is asking to be rezoned from commercial to residential. Rodrigo Orduña explained that the General Plan designation is currently open space, but the zoning designation is currently commercial. Member Kastriotis voiced his concern with feasibility of a commercial development on this property. He was not sure that HOA tried to resolve the issue. There has to be a middle ground. The notion that approving rezoning to housing will hinder the association does not seem right. The Chair spoke on the project. He said he spent a lot of time visiting the site at different hours of the day. He also visited the site during an event. He observed the cars coming down the hill, and the intersection in front of this property will eventually need a stop sign. He does not appreciate neighbors that have a NYMBY attitude, but in this neighborhood that is not the case. It would be inappropriate to build homes on this site. The entrance to the development is also a problem. This would be an inappropriate use of land. The Chair questioned if everyone was in favor of the motion on the floor. Member Dimitris was opposed. The motion passed 4/1. 5. JAMES KNUPPE, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONING UNIT, TRACT MAP, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW and ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, PLN2015-00010 Application to allow a General Plan Amendment from a Public Facility to Community Commercial land use designation, Rezoning from C-O (Commercial Office) District to C-2 (General Commercial) zoning district, a Subdivision to air-space condominiums allowing 12 commercial properties plus a common lot, and a Site Development Review for the development, in a C-O (Commercial Office) C-O District, located at 21634 Redwood Road, east side approximately 150 feet north of Vegas Avenue, Castro Valley area of unincorporated Alameda County, designated Assessor s Parcel Number: 416-0010-017-04. Staff Planner: Richard Tarbell.
Rodrigo Orduña presented the staff report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take public testimony and recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve the General Plan Amendment and the rezoning and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted. The Planning commission would have to approve the Site Development Review contingent upon the Board of Supervisors approval of the rezoning and the GPA. The matter was continued at the last meeting due to concern with number of parking spaces. Tonight the applicant is going to present two other options regarding parking. One option would be the removal of two units and additional parking be provided. The other option is to provide more parking in front of this development. Staff s has reviewed the number of parking for this project, which is sufficient. Public testimony was called for. Mr. Jim Knuppe spoke on the project. He said the Castro Valley Municipal Advisory recommended approval of the project. Mr. Galen Grant, representing the applicant, spoke on the project. He feels it is an appropriate use for the site. He said from the last meeting there was an agreement on no limit on the hours of operation. Based on the type of uses for this location, the parking is sufficient. The required parking is 29 spaces and there are 44 spaces available. He looked at other options for parking. One of the concepts was to offer more parking in front of the facility, but the back-up of 20 feet is not acceptable. Another option would be to take out two of the units and create additional parking. The downside is that it is not financially feasible. He asked for approval of the original plan with restrictions on some of the uses. Commissioner Rhodes questioned about the tandem parking in the units. He stated that the renter might use it for storage space instead of parking. It is close to BART but inaccessible. Nice project but understands the neighbors concerns with parking. Commissioner Gin expressed his concern with parking and businesses that generate a lot of traffic. Alice Rhodes spoke against the project. She spoke on the small driveway, parking and traffic congestion. She also spoke on the difficulty of exit from the site with a right turn only which is planned for the near future. She expressed her concern with multiple tenants in one unit and parking issues. Concerned with impact on parking at Vegas Avenue. Mrs. Brenda Ehrman spoke against the project and rezoning. The proposed parking is not enough. Light industrial will generate noise with traffic going in and out and impact the enjoyment of her back yard. She is not against the project, but wants limit to working hours. Mr. Christopher Ehrman, resident adjacent to the proposed project, spoke of his concern with privacy, noise, parking, and no one to monitor future tenants if too much noise is being generated. He is concerned with traffic and the safety of children crossing the street and walking to school. He is concerned with people using Vegas Avenue to get onto Redwood Road. The Chair asked about sheltering the neighbors from noise coming from this building. Mr. Grant said this is the best design for this site. The kind of tenancy that will create a lot of noise is not the type of business that will be renting at this place. Trees do not block noise but the existing
wall will stay. Most people are not in favor of developing empty land and they would rather keep it empty. The developer will do the best they can. The lease will have use, pet, and parking restrictions. The neighbors may call Mr. Knuppe if they wish. Commissioner Goff asked if these are being built to sell. Mr. Knuppe stated that he plans to sell them individually, but set up an owners association that he is involved with. Rodrigo Orduña said during construction there will be limit to hours of construction. He expanded on acceptable noise levels from the noise ordinance. He stated that there is Code Enforcement recourse regarding noise levels. Member Goff stated that hours of business operation for the tenants should not be limited. He was hoping that staff would have given different examples of the types of businesses to be located at this site. The original intent on the hours restriction was to limit the uses allowable on the property, even more restrictive than currently allowable in a C-2 zone, but he can t see it changing the zoning to C-2 zoning. Member Moore made a motion to restrict the types of uses such that auto sales, tune up, auto installation, body shop, testing, painting, and carpentry would not be allowed, and no limit to hours. He said no high intensity uses for parking and any type of uses with high noises would be allowed. He moved to recommend to the Board of Supervisors the approval of the General Plan Amendment, CEQA documents, and rezoning. He moved to approve the Site Development Review, and Tentative Map pending approval of the General Plan Amendment, CEQA documents and rezoning by the Board of Supervisors. Member Rhodes seconded. Members Goff and Gin opposed. Motion passed 4/2. STAFF COMMENTS & CORRESPONDENCE: None CHAIRS REPORT: None COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENT, COMMENTS AND REPORTS: None ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. ALBERT LOPEZ, SECRETARY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF ALAMEDA COUNTY