2013-12-20 uc village project ed fields appeal

8/13/2019 2013-12-20 UC Village Project Ed Fields Appeal

1/5

DEC 2 0 Z013PLANNING ZONIN APPEAL

GENER L INFORMATION Date of decision being appealed:

Who: Any Applicant or party with standing may appeal anDecember 2013

administrative decision by Planning staff or a Planning Type of decision: Please check oneZoning Commission actionWhen: A written appeal must be filed within 14 calendar days of the Administrative 0administrative or Commission action Planning Zoning Commission [j]Where:Appeals of administrative decisions are filed with the Municipal Code or ZoningCommunity Development Department. Appeals of PlanningZoning Commission actions are filed with the City Clerk Ordinance Section 0Cost: 565.00 (non-refundable)Process: Appeals of Planning Staff decisions will be considered

by the Planning Zoning Commission. Appeals of Plan- If you have any questions regarding thisning Zoning Commission decisions wil l be heard before procedure, please call the City Clerk atthe City Council. For appeals of Planning Zoning (510) 528-5720 or Planning Division atCommission decisions on items not requiring a Public (510) 528-5760.Hearing, the appeal will be set for formal City Councilconsideration within 30 days. For items which requireda Public Hearing, the City Council willschedule a Public Hearing within 30 days to consider theappeal.

Project Address: 1075 Monroe Street, 1095 Monroe Street, 1080 Monroe Street, 1100 San Pablo AvenueDescription of Project: University Village Mixed Use Project, Grocery Store, Retail, and Senior Housing

Applicant Name: University of California Appellant Name: Edward FieldsAddress: Oppidan Address: 616 Kains AvenueBelmont Village Albany, CA 94706Phone Number: See Attachment A Phone Number: 510525-4636Basis of Appeal: (Please be precise) See Attachment B

Signature: ~ ~ J ~ Date: December 20,2013.

Date Filed: \L \ l LS I R e c e i V e d b Y : ~ ~ I Fee: $ S ' ~ . O o I R e c e i P t # : ~ ~Appeal Agenda Date: P&Z D City Council DJ:/Forms/Plonning/P ZAppeoIForm.pub Revised 9 23 2013


2/5

Attachment A Applicant Name Address and Phone Number

Owner:

The Regents of University of California200 A E BuildingBerkeley, C 94720-1382Phone: (510) 643-5314

Applicant/Developer:

Belmont Village Albany, LLC (Senior Housing)5800 Armada Drive, Suite 200Carlsbad, C 92008Contact: Brent CoveyTelephone: (760) 931-1134 x l

Oppidan433 irport Blvd. Suite 426Burlingame, C 94010Contact: Steven CutterPhone: (650) 548-2672


3/5

Attachment B, Basis of Appeal, E Fields, December 20,2013:The Planning and Zoning Commission erred and abused its discretion in its action approving ResolutionsNos. 2013-05, 2013-06, 2013-07, 2013-08, 2013-09, 2013-10, and 2013-11 including the Conditions ofApproval (2), the tentat ive maps (2), the design review plans (2), the landscape plans (2), and thespecial findings. These Resolutions are not consistent with the Albany General Plan or the AlbanyMunicipal Code Chapter XX Planning and Zoning and Chapter XXII Subdivision, the San Pablo AvenueDesign Guidelines, or City Council Resolution No. 2011-52 Planned Unit Development, but not limited to.The action is not supported by evidence in the record, and the standards and review criteria wereincorrectly applied.The Planning and Zoning Commission (and the City Council) cannot make findings that the proposedtentat ive maps and project designs are consistent with the City's General Plan since it lacks a validhousing element, and is thus invalid.The Resolutions refer to Tentative Parcel Maps and Project Plans, but no dates of submittal or revisionare specified.Approval of the tentat ive maps is not consistent with Chapter XXII as there has been no ParklandDedication as required by that Chapter. Reference to Parkland Dedication in the Conditions of Approvaldoes not meet the requirements of the Chapter as spelled out in AMC 22-8.4.As required by AMC 22-4, the tentat ive maps do not show The location, width and direct ion of flow ofall water courses, including tide waters, and the approximate location of all areas subject to inundation orstorm water overflow ... or The boundaries of existing and proposed public areas within or adjacent tothe subdivision, the existing or intended use thereof, and the approximate area of each in square feet [ or]to the nearest one-tenth (1/1 0 acre, whichever is most appropriate to the size ofthe parcel.. ..As required by AMC 22-4, there is not provided A statement covering the existing and proposed zoningof he property, existing and proposed uses, including specific detail on any public uses proposed and theproportion of he total area of the subdivision represented by each such use, any proposed deedrestrictions, and information pertinent to whether the proposed subdivision and the provisions for itsdesign and improvement are consistent with the General Plan or any applicable specific plan.As required by City Council Resolution No. 2011-52 Planned Unit Development and AMC 20.100.060 (inparticular subsection F , but not limited to, approval ofthe Project Plans does not provide the requiredopen space area exceeding 30,000 square feet along Codornices Creek. 2011-52 refers to developmentplans submitted on April 4, 2011 and supplemented by the applicant in la ter presentations which showthe required 31,000 square foot open space area provided along the Creek by setting the building back.The proposed structure does not conform to the development plan as approved.

Page 1 of 3


4/5

Approval of the Project Plans by the Planning and Zoning Commission is not consistent with AMC20.24.090 USABLE OPEN SPACE, but not limited to, in that at least 200 square feet of common usableopen space as defined in AMC 20.08.020) per unit is not provided. Indoor open space cannot becounted. The requirement is for usable outdoor open space, not recreational area. The 4 storyassisted living facility itself is not a suitable recreational structure.Approval of the Project Plans by the Planning and Zoning Commission is not consistent with AMC20.12.040 PERMITIED LAND USES BY DISTRICT and 20.100.060, but not limited to, with respect toground floor building frontage along San Pablo Avenue. The applicant received a waiver of theregulation prohibiting a large residential care facility on the ground floor in the SPC district. HoweverTable 1.A., Note 3, states: Ground floor building frontage along San Pablo Avenue is reserved forcommercial activity, except for any necessary access to residential facilities; residential use is permittedelsewhere on the ground floor, and above the ground floor. Off-street parking in support of residentialuse is not permitted to occupy building frontage along San Pablo Avenue. Approximately forty-s ixpercent ofthe residential care facility San Pablo Avenue street f rontage is parking. The Project Plans(Development Plans) on which the EIR and the PUD were based show ground floor retail along the SanPablo Avenue street frontage.Approval of the Project Plans by the Planning and Zoning Commission is not consistent with AMC20.100.050 DESIGN REVIEW, but not limited to, with respect to conformance to the General Plan, anyapplicable specific plan, and applicable design guidelines adopted by the City of Albany, and specificallythe City-adopted San Pablo Avenue Design Guidelines, but not limited to. Objective 1 of theseGuidelines is Create a 'retail boulevard' that reflects the quality of Albany.Approval of the Tentative Parcel Map Resolutions is not consistent with subsections of AMC 20.40.030and 20.40.040, but not limited to, in that there has been no Affordable Housing Agreement executed asa condition of approval of a tentative map. The applicant has voluntarily applied for and received aDensity Bonus and waiver of development standards. (City Council Resolution 2012-45) While this maynot have been legally granted, it nevertheless constitutes a form of assistance which according toCalifornia Government Code and California Civil Code permits the provision of affordable housing or inlieu payments as required by Chapter XX.

Approval of the design review and landscape plans is not consistent with the 1992 Albany General Planpolicies regarding Tree Preservation and Creek Conservation including, but not limited to, LU 7.1, LU 7.2,LU 9.2, CROS 1.4, CROS 4.5, and CHS 1.1. The plans do not show the preservation or relocation ofmature, heritage, and endangered trees. The plans do not show Tree Protection Zones around treesthat are to be preserved. The plans do not show how soil compaction around trees to be preserved willbe avoided by the proposed adjacent paved surfaces.

Page 2 f3


5/5

The approved project plans show that the proposed number of grocery and retail parking spacesexceeds the number required by 59 percent. Reducing both the size of the grocery store and thenumber of parking spaces to the minimum required would provide more opportunities for preservingmature trees.Conditions of Approval SP 69 SP 70 SP 71 and GEN 9 should be modified to require an Ohlone NativeAmerican onitor on site dur ing excavation and grading.Note: I have been an Albany resident for more than 10 years. I live in west Albany about one kilometeraway from the project site. I am interested in preserving the most open space possible for public use. Iam interested in having my City comply with its General Plan specific plans and Municipal Codes as wellas state land use and planning laws.

Page 3 of 3

2013-12-20 uc village project ed fields appeal

Documents