DEC 2 0 Z013

PLANNING & ZONING APPEAL
GENERAL INFORMATION Date of decision being appealed:
Who: Any Applicant or party with standing may appeal an
December / 11 /2013
administrative decision by Planning staff or a Planning &
Type of decision: Please check one
Zoning Commission action
When: A written appeal must be filed within 14 calendar days of the
Administrative 0
administrative or Commission action
Planning & Zoning Commission [j]
Where:Appeals of administrative decisions are filed with the
Municipal Code or Zoning
Community Development Department. Appeals of Planning &
Zoning Commission actions are filed with the City Clerk
Ordinance Section 0
Cost: $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 this
ning & Zoning Commission decisions will be heard before
procedure, please call the City Clerk at
the City Council. For appeals of Planning & Zoning
(510) 528-5720 or Planning Division at
Commission decisions on items not requiring a Public
(510) 528-5760.
Hearing, the appeal will be set for formal City Council
consideration within 30 days. For items which required
a Public Hearing, the City Council will
schedule a Public Hearing within 30 days to consider the
appeal.
Project Address:
1075 Monroe Street, 1095 Monroe Street, 1080 Monroe Street, 1100 San Pablo Avenue
Description of Project:
University Village Mixed Use Project, Grocery Store, Retail, and Senior Housing
Applicant Name:
University of California
Appellant Name:
Edward Fields
Address:
Oppidan
Address:
616 Kains Avenue
Belmont Village Albany, CA 94706
Phone Number:
See Attachment A
Phone Number:
510525-4636
Basis of Appeal: (Please be precise)
See Attachment B
Signature:

Date:
December 20,2013
--.
Date Filed: \L-\ L S I Fee:  
Appeal Agenda Date: P&Z
D
City Council
D
J:/Forms/Plonning/P&ZAppeoIForm.pub Revised 9/23/2013
Attachment A, Applicant Name, Address, and Phone Number
Owner:
The Regents of University of California
200 A&E Building
Berkeley, CA 94720-1382
Phone: (510) 643-5314
Applicant/Developer:
Belmont Village Albany, LLC (Senior Housing)
5800 Armada Drive, Suite 200
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Contact: Brent Covey
Telephone: (760) 931-1134 xli
Oppidan
433 Airport Blvd. Suite 426
Burlingame, CA 94010
Contact: Steven Cutter
Phone: (650) 548-2672
Attachment B, Basis of Appeal, E. Fields, December 20,2013:
The Planning and Zoning Commission erred and abused its discretion in its action approving Resolutions
Nos. 2013-05, 2013-06, 2013-07, 2013-08, 2013-09, 2013-10, and 2013-11 including the Conditions of
Approval (2), the tentative maps (2), the design review plans (2), the landscape plans (2), and the
special findings. These Resolutions are not consistent with the Albany General Plan or the Albany
Municipal Code Chapter XX Planning and Zoning and Chapter XXII Subdivision, the San Pablo Avenue
Design 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 were
incorrectly applied.
The Planning and Zoning Commission (and the City Council) cannot make findings that the proposed
tentative maps and project designs are consistent with the City's General Plan since it lacks a valid
housing element, and is thus invalid.
The Resolutions refer to Tentative Parcel Maps and Project Plans, but no dates of submittal or revision
are specified.
Approval of the tentative maps is not consistent with Chapter XXII as there has been no Parkland
Dedication as required by that Chapter. Reference to Parkland Dedication in the Conditions of Approval
does not meet the requirements of the Chapter as spelled out in AMC 22-8.4.
As required by AMC 22-4, the tentative maps do not show "The location, width and direction of flow of
all water courses, including tide waters, and the approximate location of all areas subject to inundation or
storm water overflow .... " or "The boundaries of existing and proposed public areas within or adjacent to
the 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 zoning
of the property, existing and proposed uses, including specific detail on any public uses proposed and the
proportion of the total area of the subdivision represented by each such use, any proposed deed
restrictions, and information pertinent to whether the proposed subdivision and the provisions for its
design 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 (in
particular subsection F), but not limited to, approval ofthe Project Plans does not provide the required
open space area exceeding 30,000 square feet along Codornices Creek. 2011-52 refers to development
plans submitted on April 4, 2011 and supplemented by the applicant in later presentations which show
the 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
Approval of the Project Plans by the Planning and Zoning Commission is not consistent with AMC
20.24.090 USABLE OPEN SPACE, but not limited to, in that at least 200 square feet of common usable
open space (as defined in AMC 20.08.020) per unit is not provided. Indoor open space cannot be
counted. The requirement is for usable outdoor open space, not "recreational area." The 4 story
assisted living facility itself is not a "suitable recreational structure."
Approval of the Project Plans by the Planning and Zoning Commission is not consistent with AMC
20.12.040 PERMITIED LAND USES BY DISTRICT and 20.100.060, but not limited to, with respect to
ground floor building frontage along San Pablo Avenue. The applicant received a waiver of the
regulation prohibiting a large residential care facility on the ground floor in the SPC district. However
Table 1.A., Note 3, states: "Ground floor building frontage along San Pablo Avenue is reserved for
commercial activity, except for any necessary access to residential facilities; residential use is permitted
elsewhere on the ground floor, and above the ground floor. Off-street parking in support of residential
use is not permitted to occupy building frontage along San Pablo Avenue." Approximately forty-six
percent ofthe residential care facility San Pablo Avenue street frontage is parking. The Project Plans
(Development Plans) on which the EIR and the PUD were based show ground floor retail along the San
Pablo Avenue street frontage.
Approval of the Project Plans by the Planning and Zoning Commission is not consistent with AMC
20.100.050 DESIGN REVIEW, but not limited to, with respect to conformance to the General Plan, any
applicable specific plan, and applicable design guidelines adopted by the City of Albany, and specifically
the City-adopted San Pablo Avenue Design Guidelines, but not limited to. Objective 1 of these
Guidelines 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 20.40.030
and 20.40.040, but not limited to, in that there has been no Affordable Housing Agreement executed as
a condition of approval of a tentative map. The applicant has voluntarily applied for and received a
Density Bonus and waiver of development standards. (City Council Resolution #2012-45) While this may
not have been legally granted, it nevertheless constitutes a form of assistance which according to
California Government Code and California Civil Code permits the provision of affordable housing or in-
lieu payments as required by Chapter XX.
Approval of the design review and landscape plans is not consistent with the 1992 Albany General Plan
policies 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 of
mature, heritage, and endangered trees. The plans do not show Tree Protection Zones around trees
that are to be preserved. The plans do not show how soil compaction around trees to be preserved will
be avoided by the proposed adjacent paved surfaces.
Page 20f3
The approved project plans show that the proposed number of grocery and retail parking spaces
exceeds the number required by 59 percent. Reducing both the size of the grocery store and the
number of parking spaces to the minimum required would provide more opportunities for preserving
mature trees.
Conditions of Approval SP 69, SP 70, SP 71, and GEN 9 should be modified to require an Ohlone Native
American Monitor on site during excavation and grading.
Note: I have been an Albany resident for more than 10 years. I live in west Albany, about one kilometer
away from the project site. I am interested in preserving the most open space possible for public use. I
am interested in having my City comply with its General Plan, specific plans, and Municipal Codes as well
as state land use and planning laws.
Page 3 of 3

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.