body,date,page,text,path
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2005-08-22,1,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
August 22, 2005
Present: Berger, Bunker, Chadow, Chair Cooney, Fort, Vice-Chair Gwynne, Longley-Cook, Moore,
Absent/Excused: McGaughey, Seffens
Guests: Audrey Lard-Hausman
MINUTES: The minutes of May 23, 2005 where approved.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Pedestrian Access During Construction Projects:
Commissioner Toby Berger commented on the draft standards for pedestrian access during
construction projects and suggested several changes. These changes included stipulating that surfacing
be non-slippery when wet. The Commission agreed to present comments on the draft standards to the
secretary to incorporate into the final version. The secretary will check with other Cities about their
notification procedures.
2. Alameda Theater:
The acting secretary presented the proposed access plans for the renovated theater. There was
unanimous consent that the renovations are not adequate for a wide range of disabilities. The acting
secretary proposed that the Architect for the theater renovation attend the next meeting to discuss
accessibility issues.
3. Handicap Parking Spaces for Park Street Farmers Market:
The acting secretary stated that vehicles with handicap placard or plates can park at any metered
space. Temporary signs designating handicap spaces are available for events, such as the Farmer's
Market. Secretary to follow up. Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook stated that the current
Farmer's Market is not accessible friendly.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-08-22.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2005-08-22,2,"Commission on Disability Issues
August 22, 2005 Minutes
Page 2
4. Disability Awareness Month:
The acting secretary read the proposed proclamation to be read by Mayor Beverly Johnson at a City
Council meeting next month. A commissioner suggested that a press release be issued about the Alameda
Hospital Health Fair scheduled for October 15th
OLD BUSINESS:
5. Abilities EXPO:
Vice-Chair James Gwynne updated the Commission on the upcoming abilities EXPO on November
18th in Santa Clara. The Chair informed the vice-chair that there needed to be a clarification as to who
would get transportation to and from the EXPO. The Mastick Senior Center was prepared to provide
transportation only for members of the commission. Any misunderstanding or miscommunications
should be clarified as soon as possible.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Guest Audrey Lard-Hausman said the members of the Police Academy ticket illegally parked vehicles
in spaces designated for handicap parking as well as vehicles parked on sidewalks. They will respond
to calls.
2. Commissioner Jody Moore volunteered to prepare handout information on disability issues for
children.
3. A commissioner suggested an award for construction projects that provide good accessibility.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, September 26th in Room 391,
City Hall.
Sincerely,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Robert Claire
Associate Civil Engineer
RC:lc
G:\pubworks\LT\MCI Disability Committee/2005/0822min.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, August 22, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Vice President Cook
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand,
Lynch, and Piziali.
Board members Mariani and McNamara were absent from roll call. Board member
Mariani arrived during the Board discussion of Item 8-D.
Also present were Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Deputy City Attorney Julie
Harryman, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner III Allen Tai, Planner II Dennis
Brighton.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of July 25, 2005 (continued from the meeting of
August 8, 2005.).
M/S Piziali/Lynch to approve the minutes for the meeting of July 25, 2005, as presented.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
b.
Minutes for the meeting of August 8, 2005.
President Cunningham advised that page 10, paragraph 8 should be changed to read, ""He
would like further discussions regarding the window signs, and believe that 25% window
coverage contradicted the intentions of the Design direction ordinance.""
A quorum for a vote on the minutes was not present. They will be carried over to the next
meeting.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
7.
2005-2006 ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS
President Cunningham advised that it was customary for a full Board to be seated for an
election, and that it should be continued until then.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,2,"8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8.A.
PDA05-0003 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant
proposes a Planned Development Amendment to amend the Harbor Bay Business
Park landscaping and lot coverage provisions as established in Resolution 1203.
This Amendment would affect Lots 1-6, 8 and 12 of Tentative Parcel Map 8574.
These lots are fronting on or southerly of 1900 and 2000 North Loop Road. The
proposed Planned Development Amendment would allow a five percent (5%)
increase in building coverage for parcels larger than 5.5 acres. Currently,
maximum allowed building coverage is thirty five percent (35%) for lots larger
than 5.5 acres and forty percent (40%) on lots smaller than 5.5 acres. The
maximum lot coverage allowed on lots smaller than 5.5 acres would not be
affected. The proposed Planned Development Amendment would also decrease
the minimum landscape coverage by five to ten percent (5 to 10%), depending on
lot size. Currently, 30% landscaping coverage is required on lots smaller than 5.5
acres and 25% landscaping coverage is required for parcels larger than 5.5 acres.
The proposed Planned Development Amendment would decrease the landscaping
requirement to twenty percent (20%) for these lots regardless of size. The
property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned
Development.) (Continued from the meeting of July 25, 2005.)
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to September 26, 2005.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,3,"8-B.
FDP05-0002/DR05-0057 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The
applicant requests a Final Development Plan and Design Review for four (4) new
flex warehouse, office and light manufacturing facilities ranging in size from
13,900 to 33,272 square feet on 6.41 acres adjacent to and southerly of 2000
North Loop Road (Parcels 8-12 on Tentative Parcel Map No. 8574). These
facilities will be on one lot of approximately 11.53 acres until the final map is
approved. The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing -
Planned Development.) (Continued from the meeting of July 25, 2005.)
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to September 26, 2005.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,4,"8.C.
Variance, V05-0006, and Major Design Review, DR05-0063 - Mary Claire &
Robert Neumann - 2504 San Jose Avenue (DG). The applicants request a
Major Design Review approval for the construction of a 117-square foot detached
accessory structure and an approximately 180-square foot deck at the rear of the
single-family residence. A Variance approval is requested because the proposed
detached structure would be built to within 6-inches from the westerly side and
rear property lines, where minimum 5-foot setbacks are required because the
structure would be located less than 75-feet from the front property line. The site
is located within an R-4 (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-32 to
approve a Major Design Review approval for the construction of a 117-square foot
detached accessory structure and an approximately 180-square foot deck at the rear of the
single-family residence. A Variance approval is requested because the proposed detached
structure would be built to within 6-inches from the westerly side and rear property lines,
where minimum 5-foot setbacks are required because the structure would be located less
than 75-feet from the front property line.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,5,"8-D. Status Report and request for extension of time for construction allowed under
Planned Development Amendment PDA02-0003 and Major Design Review
DR02-0095, located at 2160 Otis Drive, South Shore Shopping Center (DG).
Vice President Cook advised that she had questions about this item.
Ms. Mariani arrived during the discussion of this item.
Vice President Cook noted that the Board had been asked for an extension of construction
until 2010, which seemed to her to be a very long time. She understood that the
construction would proceed with all due haste.
Ms. Eliason advised that the Walgreen's was in plan check. She noted that it was unusual
to have a completion requirement, and that a vesting requirement was usually part of the
conditions. Staff attempted to pick a date in the future so that all of Phase I could be
completed, rather than bringing this item back to the Board every year.
Vice President Cook noted that the Board did not want construction to go on forever.
Mr. Lynch noted that he had some suggestions regarding this item, and remarked that it
should be placed on the Regular Agenda.
M/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous to remove Item 8-D from the Consent Calendar and
place it on the Regular Agenda.
AYES - 6 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Ms. Eliason summarized the staff report, and reviewed the history of this item. She noted
that because of the hazmat cleanup and mitigation, it had taken longer than anticipated.
Mr. Lynch noted that the goal was to have less construction disturbance for the least
amount of time, which led to the completion condition. Given the complexity of the
construction, given with the staff resources required, he suggested that the Board look
forward on a timeline, versus backwards. He noted that the vesting in the planning
terminology was the using of the permit. He believed the applicant could demonstrate
that, which would address the first hurdle. He noted that the second hurdle was the
submittal of building plans, which must be reviewed by staff. When the permit is to be
pulled, the Code requires the diligent exercise of the Building Permit to keep it active. He
requested that the Board receive a bullet point list of every phase of this project, and that
the significant milestones be attached to specific dates based on staff resources. He
inquired whether the plan checking could be outsourced in order to keep the project on
track.
Ms. Eliason advised that there was only on plan checker on staff, and that they were
using outside resources as much as possible. She noted that Walgreen's submitted their
plans in June, and she could check with the Building Official to confirm the length of
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,6,"time that plan checking would take. She noted that it depended on whether there were any
issues or problems.
Mr. Lynch suggested continuing the item so the Board could hear from the Department in
terms of a realistic timeline.
Ms. Kohlstrand expressed concern about a jump in the extension from six months to five
years without any background.
M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue Item 8-D to the Planning Board
meeting of September 12, 2006.
AYES - 6 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,7,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
MDR05-0216, Regency Centers - 2599 Blanding Ave (AT). The applicant
requests sign program approval for the Bridgeside Shopping Center. The site is
located within a C-2 PD, Central Business Planned Development District.
(Continued from the meeting of August 8, 2005.)
Mr. Tai summarized the staff report and displayed the proposed signage designs on the
overhead screen.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand, Mr. Jerry Weiman, sign consultant,
described the lighting and channel letter identification of the signage.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Matthew Hoffman, 2800 Marina Drive, spoke in support of this application and
noted that he recently moved to Alameda from Antioch. He hoped the project could be
completed quickly so the sand dunes could be replaced.
Mr. Dave Needle, 2981 Northwood Drive, spoke in support of this application, and was
happy that the signs were smaller. He had not heard any objections from the neighbors.
Ms. Barbara Price, PK Consultants, 1047 Tahiti, noted that she was speaking on behalf of
the development team. She noted that representatives from Raley's, Regency Centers and
Foothill Partners were also in attendance.
Mr. Hadi Monsef, PO Box 1355, spoke in support of this application and agreed with the
staff report.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Piziali recalled that the Board did not want the view of the water from inside the
stores to be blocked by window signs. He suggested creating a clear band of a certain
height to allow the water view.
Mr. Lynch agreed with Mr. Piziali's suggestion, and noted that the clean lines should be
maintained.
In response to Mr. Lynch's question, Mr. Piziali confirmed that he did not want to see
additional signage by the merchants blocking the view. He noted that the developer's
signage was fine.
President Cunningham cautioned against placing the signs so high that they could not be
read without stepping back, or so low that they interfere with merchandising.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,8,"Ms. Kohlstrand requested a presentation to clarify the location of the signs. Mr. Tai noted
that the four signs applied to Buildings B, C, D and F, and that individual standards were
established for the market (Building A) and the gas station (Building E). He noted that
page 6 in the Revised Sign Program contained the standards for the gasoline station signs.
M/S Kohlstrand/Mariani and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-
33 to approve the sign program for the Bridgeside Shopping Center.
AYES - 6 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,9,"9-B.
PD03-0004; DR03-0108, Regency Centers - 2599 Blanding Avenue (AT).
Review of waterfront design, landscaping, and building elevation plans for
compliance with project conditions of approval for the Bridgeside Shopping
Center per Planning Board Resolution PB-04-64. The site is located within a C-2
PD, Central Business Planned Development District.
Mr. Tai summarized the staff report, and displayed the revised project site plans that
addressed the Planning Board's previously stated concerns. Staff recommended approval
of this item.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether the transformers had been
previously approved by the Planning Board, Mr. Tai replied that previous discussions did
not involve transformers, nor the details of their appearance. They were shown as
symbols on the plans, and the approximate locations were approved. Vice President Cook
stated that she did not believe she approved any transformers before, and inquired why
they could not be placed underground.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Hadi Monsef, PO Box 1355, spoke in support of this application and noted that the
staff report indicates the Board's requirements were met. He noted that he served on the
Public Utilities Board for eight years, three years as president, and stated that it was very
difficult to place transformers underground.
Mr. Matthew Hoffman, 2800 Marina Drive, spoke in support of this application. He
noted that the transformer in this project would not bother him or some of the neighbors
that he had spoken with. He looked forward to the completion of the project.
Ms. Barbara Price, PK Consultants, 1047 Tahiti, noted that she was speaking on behalf of
the development team, and would be available to answer any questions.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Vice President Cook commended Mr. Tai for presenting such a detailed report. She noted
that she had some concerns that made it difficult for her to support this item.
President Cunningham noted he was generally happy with the responses made by the
applicant following Board discussions. He believed the seating area of the amphitheatre
could be improved by introducing some earth berms.
Mr. Piziali was pleased to see a new handrail would be placed all the way across the front
of the project. He liked the two steps in front of the Nob Hill stores, where the tables
would be placed, which would separate the area from the walkway. He was generally
pleased by the project.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,10,"Ms. Mariani noted she was happily surprised by the current plans, and complimented
Raley's on the compromises they made. She stated that she found it difficult to notice
transformers, and did not believe they would be burdensome in this project; she preferred
them to a big box along the waterway. She believed they could be camouflaged by
landscaping.
Ms. Kohlstrand advised she had no major concerns.
Vice President Cook noted that she had concerns regarding the changes that were not
made, particularly the fact that the buildings were treated as having a back door instead of
two front doors. The landscape plan did not change her perspective with respect to the
orientation between the waterside of the buildings and the waterfront. She saw very few
amenities, except for those required by BCDC. She saw very few benches and amenities,
and would like people to be able to walk alongside the north side of the building to go
shop to shop. She noted that would not be possible because of the grass breaking up the
pavement between shopping entrances. She did not see any doors leading out to the
waterside from Building B. She was pleased to see the coffee shop tenant would provide
tables and chairs, and believed the landlord should also provide tables and chairs that
would be permanently affixed outside for people to use for waterside picnics. She wanted
to see more articulation and recessed door fronts along the waterside of the building to
create a more interesting pedestrian environment. She was strongly opposed to the
transformers, and did not believe they were inconspicuous. She expressed concern that
the grading necessary for the amphitheatre was not included, although the Board had
requested that condition. She was generally dissatisfied with this plan, and believed it did
not adequately relate to the waterfront in a manner that would do justice to this unique
site.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali regarding the trees, Mr. Tai confirmed that since
the staff report was written, the applicant has agreed to move the trees toward Blanding.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding Vice President Cook's comments
regarding the grading, Mr. Tai responded that the original amphitheatre proposed did not
have specific grading details that would indicate how it would be sloped. When staff
received the construction documents, they realized that the amphitheatre area as shown
on the plans could be improved upon so it would have more amphitheatre character and
more lighting. Staff discovered that the grade difference between the front and the back
end of the amphitheatre was only two feet, making it impossible to terrace the
amphitheatre to create an actual staging area. Staff decided to place trees along the back
and create a wedge-shaped public area that focused on the stage.
President Cunningham suggested that the developer bring in some dirt to make more of a
grade.
Mr. Doug Weile, Foothill Partners, stated that it would not be a problem to bring
additional fill material into the site. The issues had to do with the surrounding properties;
there was a fence line on the property line separating the site from Union Pacific, and
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,11,"they cannot get permission from Union Pacific to fill on their property. There is a fixed
elevation along the boundary. The developers may make public health and safety
improvements to Corps property, but not other improvements (under the moratorium of
the Army Corps of Engineers). They cannot get permission from the Corps to lower the
grade on the waterfront edge, and they cannot get permission from the railroad to raise
the grade on the railroad edge. The project planner did not have any other workable
design solutions other than those included in the plan.
Vice President Cook did not believe the space should be called an amphitheatre if it
cannot function as such, and suggested that the space be may be used for chess and picnic
tables.
Mr. Lynch noted that the value of this space may not be known until the project has been
completed. He suggested that since the space would be landscaped, that a condition be
placed that one year after the Final Certificate of Occupancy has been issued, the issue of
the public space be revisited.
Ms. Eliason stated that staff could look at the landscape maintenance agreement, and
could require that this part of the project be brought back to the Board as a condition of
that agreement. Mr. Lynch agreed with that suggestion. Ms. Eliason stated that she was
aware of several locations that had flat spaces in front of the amphitheatre; people would
bring their own chairs if there was a concert or other performance.
Mr. Lynch would like to see some drawings to accompany the text document of the
landscape maintenance agreement.
Ms. Eliason suggested that a condition be added, stating that prior to Final Occupancy of
the last building, to have that space reviewed for its use.
Mr. Weile noted that the staff of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission
now calls that space a ""glade"" instead of an amphitheatre because it was not sloped.
Mr. Lynch suggested that it be called ""open public space"" that is landscaped. He did not
believe the specific activities needed to be itemized.
Vice President Cook advised that her vote against this project was primarily based on the
interrelationship of the buildings with the waterfront.
Ms. Mariani noted that she was not excited about the transformers, and noted that they
had not been specifically presented previously. She believed the present transformer
placement was the lesser of two evils.
President Cunningham advised that he had spoken to a representative at Alameda Power
& Telecom, and they did not recommend placing the transformers underground given its
location. The transformer would require more maintenance when placed underground.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,12,"Vice President Cook noted that this site was a clean slate, and believed that the
transformer placement could have been thought out more carefully. She strongly believed
the transformer placement treated the waterfront side as a back door.
M/S Mariani/Piziali to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-34 to approve the
waterfront design, landscaping, and building elevation plans for compliance with project
conditions of approval for the Bridgeside Shopping Center per Planning Board
Resolution PB-04-64.
AYES - 5 (McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Cook); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,13,"9-C.
Presentation to the Planning Board concerning proposed 49,650 sq. ft.
expansion of retail floor area, allowing the construction of a new 145,000 sq.
ft. Target Department Store, construction of a new parking structure and
improvements to the southeast corner of the South Shore Shopping Center
under Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0004 (DG). The purpose of
this meeting is for discussion purposes only. No action to approve or deny
PDA05-0004 will occur at this meeting.
Ms. Eliason advised there would be no staff report, and that the applicant would provide
a presentation. No action would be taken at this time.
Mr. Randy Kite, Harsch Investment Properties, 523 South Shore Center West, reviewed
the history of this project, and made a slide presentation to give the Board some
perspective on the progress of the project, the current status and the future plans of the
project.
Mr. Jan Taylor, project architect, Field Paoli, displayed the site plan and described the
proposed phased improvements to the site. He noted that the use of stained wood would
add a unique look to the property. He displayed current photographs of the site, and
added that the use of unique and colorful signage, as well as awnings, would enliven the
center. He noted the design changes would be a radical departure from the current
appearance, and that the buildings would not appear to be cookie cutter buildings seen in
other retail centers. He noted that the creation of the three beachfront restaurants would
take advantage of the views across the Bay. He stated that one of the center owners,
Jordan Snitzer, was very interested in implementing an art program that would exceed the
City's mandates, such as a commemorative bronze statue of Alamedan Nell Schmidt, the
first woman to swim across the Bay. He noted that a strong commercial western end that
would activate the walkway between Mervyn's and the back of Albertson's would be
desirable. He advised that Target was a tenant that paid attention to its surroundings, and
created its architecture to suit. He noted that was the subject of a recent article in the San
Francisco Chronicle. The firm believed that Target would be able to fit into the desired
look and feel. He noted that the loading dock behind Safeway facing the apartment
building to the south would be relocated to face the retail to the north. He displayed the
proposed elevations of the Target store. Most of the building would be 37 feet high, with
an additional six feet at the raised corner element. He stated that this Target would not
look like the typical store, and would be tailored to this center.
Mr. Mike Corbitt noted that from a leasing point of view, Target would present an
opportunity to build a unique store. He stated that Target was the number one tenant
attractor in the retail marketplace.
Mr. Taylor noted that the majority of the parking would be underneath the store, and that
the bottom floor of the store would be approximately ten feet above grade. He stated
there would be a small additional surface-level parking lot adjacent to the store. They
would investigate narrowing the street between the Willows and Target, providing a 20-
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,14,"foot wide landscaping buffer. There could be a one-way-only entrance to the center to
reduce traffic along the northern edge of the Willows.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether a garden center would be
included, Mr. Corbitt noted that he did not know, but would find out.
President Cunningham called for a five-minute break.
President Cunningham advised that more than five speaker slips had been received.
M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 6 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Hector Medina, 2101 Shoreline Drive, #258, spoke in opposition to this item. He
noted that the new bus route generated more noise near his home, and he was concerned
that this development would bring even more noise. He believed the design was
beautiful, but that it would bring more traffic congestion, crime and noise to the
neighborhood.
Mr. Tim Erway, President, Willows Homeowners Association, 2101 Shoreline Drive,
spoke in opposition to this item. He believed the design and plans through Phase 7 were
attractive, and he was pleased with them. He expressed concern that the there would be
less control over the site after the developer sells the land to Target. He was very
concerned that the underground parking would attract crime and require more security.
He agreed with Mr. Medina's concerns about the negative impact on the neighborhood
following the bus route change. He wished to address traffic congestion and noise
impacts.
Mr. Jon Spangler noted that he was speaking as a private citizen, and inquired whether
access to all of the stores would be as convenient, or more convenient, for transit patrons
and bicyclists as it will be for automobile drivers. He inquired whether Harsch would be
willing to include mitigations such as shuttles running between the bridges, across the
Island and from the tubes to South Shore up Doolittle. He suggested that the developer
fund electric shuttles so that the noise to the adjacent residents would be reduced. He
noted that AC Transit had discussed that option, and that it was in the Transit Master Plan
for the City. He noted that equivalent access would be necessary, and those mitigations
cannot be accomplished on a one-way street. He inquired about the impact Target would
have on Mervyn's, and what would happen to that space once its lease is over and moves
out. He believed the City was not doing enough to have effective and intelligent transit
and transportation on the Island.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,15,"Mr. Blake Brydon, 1033 Camino Del Valle, spoke in support of this application. He
believed the design would enhance South Shore, and that the addition of Target would be
a benefit to the community. He believed that it would add diversity in shopping and retail
that the Island did not have at this time.
Ms. Susan Pieper, 2101 Shoreline Drive #299, spoke in opposition to this item. She
expressed concern about delivery trucks. She stated that all large, modern retailers used
delivery of goods sold, which would increase the volume and impact of truck traffic, as
well as noise and air pollution. She expressed concern about seismic safety of the
underground parking structure, and believed that a building built on landfill in a major
earthquake would be a hazard.
Ms. Valerie Ruma, 1610 Willow Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and expressed
concern about traffic congestion and impacts from off-Island traffic.
Ms. Vivian Leigh Forde, 2101 Shoreline Drive #148, spoke in opposition to this item.
She noted that she was generally happy with the progress at South Shore and the
amenities being realized. She was strongly opposed to a 145,000 square foot edifice. She
noted that this use would lead to more construction and pile-driving to support the
structure, and that the lights and traffic noise would have a negative impact on the
neighbors.
Ms. Joan DiStefano, 2101 Shoreline Drive #145, spoke in opposition to this item. She
believed narrowing the space between the Willows and the shopping center would create
more traffic jams. She noted that three residents of the Willows had been hit by cars in
the last year in that area. She estimated a community of 70,000 people would not support
this kind of retail use, and that 200,000 people would support it; the store would rely on
people driving to Alameda via the tubes and the bridges, leading to gridlock. She was
concerned that the independent merchants in town would be negatively impacted, and
that sense of community would be eroded.
Ms. Dorothy Reid, 2101 Shoreline Drive, #276, spoke in opposition to this item and
noted that she represented over 300 citizens who had written letters or signed petitions
against this Target store. She noted that the Target profiled in the newspaper article was
located in a mall, not in a smaller shopping center with limited access. She was
concerned about the height, width and proximity of this building to the nearby homes.
She believed there should be a full Environmental Impact Review performed on this site,
and that this project would affect the health, safety and welfare of the residents in the
area. She did not agree that this project met with the terms of the agreement, which stated
that the buildings in the center should be low profile. She added that this store would
need intensive outside services. She believed there should be an economic impact review
as well. She did not believe this project should disrupt the lives of the area homeowners.
She asked why the public notice to this request only stated it was for an additional 49,650
square feet, and asked when an additional 90,000 square feet for this building was
approved. The current Safeway is only 34,000 square feet, so the additional square
footage is actually 111,000 square feet. She presented pictures that showed the Safeway'.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,16,"building's height, which she believed is misrepresented in the architectural drawings
presented by the applicant.
Mr. Don Patterson, 1256 Sherman Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and thanked
Mr. Garrison for meeting with him. He believed South Shore should submit a separate,
detailed landscape and signage plan, based on the developer not complying with Trader
Joe's landscape plan. He added that Trader Joe's has been open 35 months. He inquired
how an Occupancy Permit can be issued without signoffs. He believed Alameda deserved
better landscaping and signage than what was approved 40 years ago. He believed there
should be five to eight feet of landscaping provided on each of the building walls,
especially parking structures and Walgreen's. He believed the Master Plan, landscaping
and signage plans should be submitted and approved before any additional permits are
issued, and Trader Joe's landscaping should be completed.
Mr. Keith Wells was called to speak, but was not in attendance.
Ms. Ani Dimusheva, 2911 Calhoun Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted
that the drawings were shown out of context, and that the convalescent homes or Willow
Street were not shown. She believed the Target store was too tall, and that it would be too
massive; its proximity overwhelmed the Mervyn's building. She was concerned that
when Mervyn's closed, it would be replaced with an even larger building. She would like
to see its replacement moved back and built smaller. She was concerned about traffic
congestion. She believed smaller stores would serve Alameda better.
Ms. Alice Cleveland, 2101 Shoreline Drive #484, spoke in opposition to this item. She
was concerned that the placement of this big box store would negatively impact her
quality of life. She noted that the large tractor-trailers trucks currently drove past her
home while servicing Safeway, and that they were noisy and dirty. She was very
concerned about the potential truck traffic if Target were to open, and the traffic
congestion surrounding the center. She saw Alameda as an upscale community, and did
not see why it would want a Target store; she suggested that it be placed near the freeway
or on Alameda Point.
Ms. Kris Murray, 1738 Alameda Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and added
that, as a business owner herself, that public comment regarding businesses was generally
from the opponents. She noted that she had spoken with more than 100 people in the past
48 hours who supported the idea of a Target store in Alameda. She acknowledged that
Alameda was an upscale community, and that she had disposable income that she would
like to spend in Alameda. However, she found that she often shopped off the Island to
visit a Target store specifically. She believed a Target store would provide a shopping
experience that's appropriate for the community's diversity, and that there were many
residents who do need a discount marketer. She would like to spend her tax dollars in the
community.
Ms. Jan Young, 2101 Shoreline Drive, noted that she was pleased with the progress at
South Shore, and that it was beautiful. She did not like the idea of a Target in her
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,17,"backyard. She liked the idea of the small storefronts. She lived across from the Safeway
loading dock, and was concerned about the current and future noise and air pollution. She
was concerned about her property value, and agreed that Alameda did not need a big box
store.
Mr. Jon Brooks, 2101 Shoreline Drive #230, spoke in opposition to this item. He had not
heard anything from City staff about the requirement for an EIR in this circumstance, and
believed there would be a cumulative effect from the traffic and air quality. He did not
want Alameda to become homogeneous, and would rather see a mixed use retail store,
perhaps with lofts upstairs from smaller boutiques.
Mr. Brian McDonald noted that he lived at the Willows, and that he agreed with his
neighbors regarding traffic, noise and pollution. He did not like the prospect of having
a
Target in his back yard, and found the overall size and footprint of the store to be
excessive. He believed the developer employed bait-and-switch tactics in seeking
approval for this store. He was concerned that the traffic impacts would put the entire
East End into gridlock.
Mr. Kevin Frederick spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that this store was
gigantic and would interrupt the flow of traffic. He believed the Target store would create
urban sprawl, which he was strongly opposed to. He hoped the Board would listen to the
majority in this matter.
Ms. Aulette Floris noted that she was a business owner, but was opposed to a big box
store. She was very concerned about traffic congestion and noise. She noted this was so
close to a residential area, and was concerned about a potential increase in crime and
decrease in the quality of life.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Mariani would like to see the approval for the 90,000 square feet with the conditions.
Ms. Eliason noted that staff would provide a copy. Ms. Kolhstrand concurred with the
request.
Ms. Eliason advised that the last Planned Development Amendment performed in 2003
was adopted on a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff would provide a copy of that
document to the Board. No environmental review had been circulated for this project yet;
a new environmental review would be done for this project, updating the traffic numbers
and other areas of concern.
Vice President Cook would like to look at this project more closely, especially in view of
the City's work in retail strategy and increasing its tax base. She realized that there was
considerable retail leakage off the Island that could be captured for the benefit of the
schools, police and fire departments. She would like to have a better understanding of the
typical Target patron. She believed that many residents did want more retail
opportunities, and acknowledged that environmental review was a huge concern. One of
Planning Board Minutes
Page 17
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,18,"her continuing concerns about the Center was the lack of pedestrian connections, as well
as bicycle access. She believed that the pedestrian and bicycle environments in the center
must change. She was concerned about the cumulative impacts of the piecemeal nature of
the center. She believed a parking structure would not only break up the expanse of
pavement in front of Mervyn's, and would also be more attractive if landscaped properly.
Mr. Piziali noted that he would like to see this item come back before the Board in the
form of a workshop before any action is taken. He was concerned about the large amount
of square footage, and while he did not want retail leakage going off the Island, he did
not want floods of people coming from off-Island to shop, either.
Mr. Lynch noted that he agreed with the comments made by the other Board members.
He would be interested in examining the environmental documents. He was interested to
hear comments about a possible mixed use at the center. He would like to see a larger
view of the City operation as a whole, from an economic development perspective, as
well as other perspectives. He noted this was not a stand alone issue, and that it should be
integrated into other commissions.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that she agreed with Vice President Cook's comments, and
believed that scale was an important consideration. She noted that the safety of sidewalks
and bicycle paths near Safeway were paramount.
President Cunningham noted that some parts of the policy document fit with the Target
store, and other parts are in opposition to what the community wants. The report
acknowledged that the leakage data would present opportunities to bring retail solutions
into the community. It also went on to say that it was up to the community and the private
sector to decide what kind of retail should be included, as well as what type of retail did
not fit the community character. He noted that Target did respond to the community
needs, and are serious about providing a store that would fit in with the community; he
applauded those efforts. He noted that other Target stores have demonstrated the
company's willingness to buy into sustainability. He was very interested in possible
traffic mitigations. He would like further insight into the impact that this store would
have on the existing tenants in the community, particularly the smaller stores.
Vice President Cook noted that she spoke with a woman who managed a small retail
shop, who did not object to the Target store. The manager stated that she would shift the
items in her inventory to carry what Target did not.
President Cunningham recalled that Ms. Mariani requested a definition of a big box store,
and agreed with Mr. Piziali's suggestion of holding a workshop. He recommended giving
the matter more time before making a decision.
Ms. Mariani inquired how the square footage increased from 90,000 to 145,000 square
feet. She expressed concern about the direction the City is taking, given the approval of
the Cineplex and the consideration of this Target store. She did not believe the addition of
Planning Board Minutes
Page 18
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,19,"11.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-
President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised there had been no further meetings.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member
Piziali).
Mr. Piziali advised there was nothing new to report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee
(Board member Mariani).
Ms. Mariani advised that she did not have any further information. She noted that she
would speak with President Cunningham and the City Council because she was having
some trouble making all of the meetings; there is no backup replacement at this time. She
noted that Ms. McNamara had been the backup, and is no longer; in addition, the WABA
representative is no longer on the Committee.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board
member Kohlstrand).
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that she was not in attendance at the meeting due to her vacation.
She noted that the meeting date was set with very short notice.
12.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Eliason advised that there will be a Transportation Master Plan meeting of the Task
Force on Wednesday, August 24, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. The meeting would address streets
and circulation plans.
13.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:10 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 19
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,20,"Respectfully submitted,
Paul Benoit, Acting Secretary
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the September 12, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 20
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf