Alameda City Council
June 4, 2024

NATEL ENERGY –DESIGN REVIEW & USE PERMIT

CALL FOR REVIEW OF PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL
CITY COUNCIL ITEM 7 - A JUNE 4 TH , 2024

CALL FOR REVIEW
2CITY COUNCIL JUNE 4, 2024 – CALL FOR REVIEW: NATEL ENERGY DR & UP –PLN24-0059  On 4/22/24, Planning Board unanimously approved Natel’s application for:
 Use Permit for outdoor research & development, outdoor storage  Design Review for expansion of existing hydraulic test facility  Called for Review by Vice Mayor Daysog & Councilmember Herrera-Spencer  City Council must decide if you believe the Planning Board made a mistake in approving the project and finding it exempt from CEQA
 City Council can uphold, reverse, or modify Planning Board decision

USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW
(PLN24-0059)
3CITY COUNCIL JUNE 4, 2024 – CALL FOR REVIEW: NATEL ENERGY DR & UP –PLN24-0059  Planning Board’s Approval was based on Findings:

1. Exempt from CEQA – Infill Development

2. Use Permit – Compatibility; Adequate Transportation & Service Facilities; No Adverse Impacts; Relates favorably to General Plan & Alameda Point Zoning

3. Design Review – Consistent w/ General Plan & Zoning; Appropriate Design; Visual Compatibility
General Plan & Alameda Point Zoning:
 Heavy emphasis on attracting new businesses to Alameda Point  Supporting adaptive reuse, investment in the NAS Alameda Historic District

CALL FOR REVIEW #1
4CITY COUNCIL JUNE 4, 2024 – CALL FOR REVIEW: NATEL ENERGY DR & UP –PLN24-0059 Argument #1: Insufficient Notice – some long-term tenants nearby did not receive mailings.

Staff Response:
 Project was noticed properly per AMC & CA Government Code.  Property owners w/ in 300 feet based on County assessment roll  Staff also mails courtesy notices to tenants when addresses available  Courtesy notices emailed to tenants whose addresses were not in database  Failure to receive notice does not invalidate decision CALL FOR REVIEW #2
Argument #2: View Blockage – “additional
equipment will significantly block views [of
SF] from the City’s long-term tenants”;
impacts “value of the leases”
Staff Response:
 View in question is not city-adopted view
corridor or character defining feature of
historic district
 Approval balances General Plan priorities
w/ desire to maximize views
 Existing 32’ easement on northern
property line
CITY COUNCIL JUNE 4, 2024 – CALL FOR REVIEW: NATEL ENERGY DR & UP –PLN24-0059 5

CALL FOR REVIEW #3
6CITY COUNCIL JUNE 4, 2024 – CALL FOR REVIEW: NATEL ENERGY DR & UP –PLN24-0059 Argument #3: Unpermitted Use & Structure –
clarify “legal non-conforming” status
referenced at Planning Board
Staff Response:
 Outdoor uses have been continuous prior to
Natel
 Not relevant to Planning Board findings on
April 22nd

CALL FOR REVIEW #4
Argument #4: Noise, vibration, & Compliance w/
USFWS Biological Opinion – existing equipment &
operation not compliant w/ Biological Opinion.

Staff Response:
 Project is compliant with Biological Opinion
 Zone 2 allows new structures as tall as adjacent building  Biological Opinion does not regulate noise in Civic Core Area (incl. 2401 Monarch.)
 CA Least Tern colony established while airfield was in operation
 No vibration, noise levels are modest & intermittent; complies w/ Noise Ordinance
CITY COUNCIL JUNE 4, 2024 – CALL FOR REVIEW: NATEL ENERGY DR & UP –PLN24-0059 7

CALL FOR REVIEW #5
8CITY COUNCIL JUNE 4, 2024 – CALL FOR REVIEW: NATEL ENERGY DR & UP –PLN24-0059 Argument #5: Building 43 Winery Lease Impacts – View impacts on nearby tenants, especially B43 Winery, are unacceptable impact on value of those leases. B43 took possession in June ’14, yard was “vacant” in Nov. ’15 when Natel signed lease.

Staff Response
:
 B43 Lease: “No rights to any view or to light or air over any property”  2401 Monarch covered in (Matson) shipping containers in 2014 & 2015  Natel outdoor storage & testing began almost immediately after move in
 City’s landlord role not part of regulatory role in making Use Permit & DR findings

CALL FOR REVIEW #6
9CITY COUNCIL JUNE 4, 2024 – CALL FOR REVIEW: NATEL ENERGY DR & UP –PLN24-0059 Argument #6: Council should review Planning Board Findings – CEQA infill exemption is incorrect; project is not compatible w/ Spirits Alley
Staff Response:
 CEQA –
 Meets all five criteria for an infill exemption (Sec. 15332)  Historic structure not affected by outdoor uses
 Complies w/ Biological Opinion
 Also qualifies for Existing Facilities (Sec. 15301) & Small Structures (Sec. 15303) exemptions; Also covered by Alameda Point FEIR (2014)  Planning Board found project (as conditioned) compatible

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
10CITY COUNCIL JUNE 4, 2024 – CALL FOR REVIEW: NATEL ENERGY DR & UP –PLN24-0059  Uphold Planning Board decision
 Find project exempt from CEQA
QUESTIONS?
CITY COUNCIL JUNE 4, 2024 – CALL FOR REVIEW: NATEL ENERGY DR & UP –PLN24-0059 11