body,date,page,text,path
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2006-09-25,1,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
September 25, 2006
Present: Berger, Bunker, Longley-Cook, Chair Cooney, Fort, and Lord-Hausman
Absent/Excused: Vice-Chair Moore, Kirola
Guests: Lucy Gigli, Joan Steber (Bike Alameda)
MINUTES: The minutes of August 28, 2006 were approved as submitted.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: none
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Bike Alameda.
Guest Ms. Gigli and Steber informed the commission on Bike Alameda's campaign for an
alternative Estuary crossing, as the existing tube is not bike or pedestrian user friendly. Bike
Alameda is hopeful that a water shuttle/taxi between Alameda Landing and Jack London
Square will be implemented and is seeking support from the commission and other interest
groups. Though the commission did not disagree on the concept they did have some
reservations. In general once disembarking from the water shuttle there are no other transit
or disability accessible facilities on either end for the disabled. Chair Ed Cooney's opinion
was that the shuttle was not relevant to the disabled. Commissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman
was concern about accessibility on the shuttle and once one disembarks where does one go.
Commissioner Charles Bunker stated that access from the dock at Jack London Village is
very steep. Commissioner Toby Berger thought the shuttle is a great idea but how does a
disabled person get to the shuttle. Commissioner Steve Fort thought it was important that
the commission provide input now. Commissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman withdrew her
motion to support Bike Alameda's endeavor, as she was not sure that that was within the
commission's roles and responsibility.
2. Ninth Street Remodeling Project
Commissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman informed the commission on her attending the
historical advisory meeting regarding remodeling of an existing 3-unit building on Ninth
Street. Though she did not represent the commission she had spoken with the owner on
making the building more ADA accessible. The owner was very open and appreciated her
suggestions.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-09-25.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2006-09-25,2,"Commission on Disability Issues
September 25,2006
2006 Minutes
Page 2 of 3
3. Press Release
Chair Ed Cooney and commissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman will met and discuss items for a
press release on October Disability Awareness month. October is also white cane and
disability employment awareness month. A Disability Awareness Month proclamation will
be presented by the City Council at the council meeting of October 3rd
4. Alameda Hospital Health Fair: (Lord-Hausman)
Commissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman informed the commission about the October 21st,
2006 Alameda Hospital Annual Community Health Fair. The event will be held from 9:00
a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at the hospital. Commissioner's Adrienne Longley-Cook and Audrey will
contact the director of relations for a Commission table at the event.
5. Assembly Bill 1234 Ethics Training: (Secretary)
The secretary informed the commission on the City's mandatory ethics training requirements
for all elected and appointed officials. Deadline for completing the training and taking the
exam is January 1, 2007. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is providing
training on December 11th from 10 a.m. to noon. Secretary informed the commissioners that
Public Works will provide assistance to attend the ABAG training if commission members
can not do the training and testing on their own. Chair Ed Cooney, commissioners Charles
Bunker and Toby Berger stated that they would like to attend.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. Status of Accommodation Recommendations:
The secretary reviewed the public works proposed changes to the Commission's
""Recommendations for ADA Policies'. Commissioner Toby Berger was not satisfied with
the proposed changes and will discuss further at the October meeting.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook informed the commission about the upcoming
November 15th Alameda Youth Collaborative meeting. A time capsule commemorating
the 10th year of the collaborative will be buried and the Collaborative is requesting items
for inclusion into the time capsule. Commissioner suggested roster and a photo.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-09-25.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2006-09-25,3,"Commission on Disability Issues
September 25,2006
2006 Minutes
Page 2 of 3
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, October 23, 2006 in
Room 360, City Hall.
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Ed Sommerauer
Associate Civil Engineer
ES:lc
G:\pubworks\LTMMDDD Disability Committee/2006/821min.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, September 25, 2006
1.
CONVENE:
7:10 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member Mariani
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft, Cunningham,
Mariani, Kohlstrand, Lynch, and McNamara.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney Donna
Mooney, Supervising Planner Douglas Garrison, Debbie Potter, Development Services, Elizabeth
Cook, Development Services, Contract Planner Chandler Lee.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of September 11, 2006.
Member Cunningham noted that on page 2, he had requested clarification of the 45-foot-high green
bean, and what it looked like.
Member Cunningham noted that page 6, paragraph 2, should be changed to read, ""The eave ridge
line of the main roof had been incorrectly drawn, and was about three feet higher than it should
have been above the grade level at that point.'
Member Cunningham wished to clarify the following statement on page 7, paragraph 4: ""He
suggested using a skylight for natural daylight, which would reduce the cost of construction."" He
noted that combining that with roof modifications, which could potentially reduce the cost of
construction.
President Lynch noted that page 3, paragraph 3, should be changed to read, ""President Lynch noted
that the noticing practices were regulated by the State, and that the City may want to consider
extending often extended the noticing parameters.""
M/S Cunningham/Ezzy Ashcraft to approve the minutes for the meeting of September 11, 2006, as
amended.
AYES - 5; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 2 (Cook, Mariani)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Lynch noted that the applicants for 8-A had been delayed, and suggested that the order of
Items 8-A and 8-B be switched.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,2,"M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to hear Item 8-B before Item 8-A.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None.
7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
Use Permit, UP06-0011 - West Alameda Business Association (WABA) and City of
Alameda - Public Parking Lot at Taylor Avenue and Webster Street (DB). Applicants
request approval of an amendment to Use Permit, UP05-007 to allow additional hours of
operation for the existing farmers' market every Thursday from 4:00 p.m. through midnight,
from May 1 through the end of September. Specific changes to the scope of the previously
approved Use Permit would include additions of barbeque (outdoor cooking and food sales),
children's activities, guest chef demonstrations, movies, and music presentations provided
after dusk until midnight. This activity would be located in the City Public Parking Lot D and
would expand into Taylor Avenue. The site is located within the CC (Community
Commercial) Zoning District and is located within the boundaries of the Business and
Waterfront Improvement Project. (Applicant has withdrawn application.)
M/S Cunningham/Cook and unanimous accept the withdrawal of this application.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
7-B.
GPA05-02, R05-04, MP05-02, DP05-02, TM05-02, IS05-03 -Grand Marina Village
Residential Development (AT). The applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment,
Rezoning, Development Plan, Master Plan and Vesting Tentative Map and adoption of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration to allow the development of forty (40) new detached single family homes.
Development of the residential project would involve the reconfiguration of the existing marina
parking lot and improvements to the existing waterfront path and open space areas within the 8.36
acre Master Plan area. The site is located in the M2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning District at the
intersection of Grand Street and Fortmann Way to the south of the Oakland Estuary and
recreational marina facilities, north of the Pennzoil property and City of Alameda Animal Shelter
and Corporation Yard, and west of Grand Avenue. (Applicant and Staff request a continuance
to the meeting of October 9, 2006.)
M/S Cunningham/Cook and unanimous to continue Item 7-B to the meeting of October 9, 2006.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,3,"7-C.
Applicant requests a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to allow five
new buildings totaling approximately 100,795 square feet in floor area with a total of
268 parking spaces to be constructed on a 7.7 acre site (CL). The site is located at 1900 -
1980 North Loop Road within the Harbor Bay Business Park in the C-M-PD, Commercial
Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District. Applicant: SRM Associates (FDP06-
0003 and DR06-0071). (Continued from the meeting of September 11, 2006. Applicant
requests a continuance to the meeting of October 9, 2006.)
M/S Cunningham/Cook and unanimous to continue Item 7-C to the meeting of October 9, 2006.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,4,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-B.
Applicants request a Development Plan and Major Design Review for a 39 unit,
multiple-family affordable housing project, internal driveway, off-street parking,
landscaping and associated improvements on an approximately 2.5 acre site (CL). An
addendum to the Catellus Mixed Use Development EIR has been prepared. The site is located
at 401 Willie Stargell Avenue (formerly Tinker Avenue) in the southwest corner of the former
FISC Site (Tract 7179) within the M-X, Mixed Use Planned Development District.
Applicants: Resources for Community Development & City of Alameda (FDP06-0004 and
DR06-0080).
Mr. Thomas summarized the affreport, and noted that this proposal was consistent with the General
Plan, Master Plan and EIR. He noted that a subslab depressurization (SSDS) system, which would
prevent gases from the benzene plume from entering the living spaces of the buildings. This would be
an interim solution because the Navy is pursuing full cleanup of the benzene plume.
Mr. Eric Mikiten, project architect, described and displayed the site plan, landscaping design, and
architectural design of the project. He noted that the plan called for a sustainable green building. He added
that 15 of the 39 units will be fully accessible, and the remainder will be adaptable units; and all site
amenities will be fully accessible. The planting scheme focused on drought-tolerant and native plants, with
a bioswale along the side of the parking area and other areas to collect and filter the runoff from the
project. He displayed and described the materials and the design, and noted that the inspiration for the
design was from the Japanese origins of Craftsman design. The color scheme was a palette of muted and
sophisticated colors that were reminiscent of natural materials. The low sloping roof reflected the Japanese
aesthetic as well. The clear story windows would allow more light into the units, and reduce the need for
artificial lighting.
President Lynch complimented the architect on the design.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Alex McElree, Executive Director, Operation Dignity, 2243 San Jose, spoke in support of this
item. He noted that this project had been delayed for several years because of negotiations, and the
funding was finally secured to build these units. He noted that this development was service-enriched
permanent housing, which included onsite counseling services for the residents, including money
management and domestic services. He noted that Operation Dignity had a great deal of faith in RCD
and in Mr. Mikiten's staff; he believed these homes would be something people would be proud to
live in.
Mr. Joe Cloren, expressed concern about building on toxic land, and requested clarification of that
plan.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,5,"Mr. Aron Sogor, 2137 Otis, Apt 208, expressed concern about the mediation of the contaminated
soils, and inquired how this project would be different from past projects in that regard.
Ms. Debbie Potter, Base Reuse Manager, addressed the speakers' concerns, and noted that the
cleanup of the benzene plume was the Navy's responsibility. She added that the Navy's cleanup
schedule did not match with the City's building efforts, and that City staff and the developer met with
the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). An interim solution would be implemented,
including the SSDS, which includes a vapor barrier between the soil and the indoor spaces, a common
practice to deal with radon gas. The active system vents the gases to the exterior, with no chance that
the gases would be trapped within the enclosed spaces.
A discussion of the remediation techniques ensued. Ms. Potter noted that following the remediation,
long-term monitoring would occur.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft complimented the developer on a nicely designed project.
Vice President Cook liked the courtyard idea, as well as the kitchen areas that face the courtyard. She
expressed concern about the fencing on one side of the pathways. Mr. Mikiten agreed with Vice
President Cook's concerns, and noted that the fences and barriers were already there. He would like
to open those areas up to the neighborhood areas.
Ms. Potter noted that after 9/11, the Coast Guard became very focused on security, and noted that
North Village has been vacated and will be auctioned off in the future. She noted that would open the
site up, and added that Miller School would not longer be a school.
In response to an inquiry by Member McNamara regarding parking regulation, Mr. Thomas replied
the residents would register their cars to monitor whether the cars in the lot belonged to residents,
and whether any residents had an unusual number of cars.
In response to an inquiry by Member Cunningham whether there was a maintenance agreement for
the landscaping, Mr. Thomas replied that a standard condition could be added. Member Cunningham
complimented staff and the applicant on this project.
Member Kohlstrand supported this project, and was glad to see it move ahead. She acknowledged the
effort expended in making the building compatible with green design, as well as making it a beautiful
project. She expressed concern about the visual interest along Willie Stargell Avenue, and noted that
the project was intended to be a gateway to the West End of Alameda. She noted that it would be
easy to miss the main entrance to the building, and inquired whether the public part of the project
could be made more visible to the street at the entrance.
In response to Member Kohlstrand's concerns, Mr. Thomas suggested that staff work with the
applicant regarding the corner of Stargell Avenue as a condition of approval, to put more focus at the
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,6,"southeast corner of the building. Member Kohlstrand noted that would be agreeable to her.
Member Mariani agreed with Member Kohlstrand's comments, and added that this was a good
project. Her concerns about the plume had been answered, and she liked the concept of the courtyard.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the transit would be adequate, Mr. Thomas noted that AC
Transit service to west Alameda was not excellent, but there would be a bus stop at the development.
He noted that the West End transportation programs would make a difference in providing
supplemental services. Once Tinker is put in place, and the queue jumpers are operational, Tinker may
become an excellent transit route.
M/S Cunningham/Mariani and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-33 to
approve an addendum to the Catellus mixed use EIR and approve a Development Plan and Major
Design Review for a 39 unit, multiple-family affordable housing project, internal driveway, off-street
parking, landscaping and associated improvements on an approximately 2.5 acre site, with additional
conditions to require a landscape maintenance agreement, and enhancement of the southeast corner
elevation landscaping.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,7,"8-A.
DR06-0027 and V06-0006 - Applicant: Fargo Farnesi Inc. - 2427 Clement Ave. (DG).
The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new two-story commercial
cabinet shop with a penthouse apartment on the third floor, to be used as a caretaker's unit,
and a free-standing single-story wood frame structure to be used as an administrative office
for the cabinet shop. The project will provide four full-size parking spaces and one ADA
compliant parking space. The applicant proposes to pay parking in lieu fees pursuant to
Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-7.13 for any additional spaces that may be required by
the City. The applicant is also applying for a Variance to the City onsite vehicle backup
distance and minimum driveway and parking area perimeter landscaping requirements. The
site is located at 2427 Clement Ave. within an M-2, General Industrial, (Manufacturing)
District. (Continued from the meeting of September 11, 2006.)
Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report.
President Lynch noted that more than five speaker slips had been received.
M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to reduce the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN- 0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Shawn Smith, project architect, noted that he and the applicant tried to be sensitive to the
neighbors' needs and had met with the residents. A concern was raised about noise from the
woodworking shop, and he noted that 8-inch-thick insulated concrete forms with insulated foam on
the outside; its sound transfer rating would be 50, the equivalent of a movie theater. Reclaimed bricks
would be used for the building façade, to give it the appearance of being an older building. The client
would like to use the caretaker unit in the penthouse for his own unit, and would like a more modern
look for his unit. They had discussed a one-foot side setback from the current property line, and that
they would like a minimum residential driveway of 8""6"".
Ms. Theresa Long, 2431 Clement, noted that they had a shared driveway, and expressed concern
about this project because they would lose their access to the back of the property, as well as the nine
off-street parking spaces if the fence went up. She distributed pictures of their property to the Board.
Mr. Kirby Long, 2431 Clement, noted that they would not be able to get their full-size Expedition
(7'6"" long) in the proposed driveway.
Ms. Long noted that they would not be able to use their warehouse in the back as proposed.
Mr. Robert Reed, applicant, noted that he used the building as an office and light manufacturing He
would like to consolidate his business, and would like the space and height to accommodate his
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,8,"business.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether he had come to an agreement with his
neighbors regarding the easements, Mr. Reed replied that there was 18 feet between the properties,
and that 8'6"" was a legal driveway; they were trying to split the difference at this time. He estimated
that he was giving them 12 inches of free land, and that he did not envision ever getting a semi truck
into the back. He tried to curtail the liabilities of the business by keeping his operations fenced within
his property.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch regarding the City's historical perspective on easements,
Ms. Mooney replied that in a potential dispute over a right of access, the City sees fencing disputes as
private matters to be resolved among the parties. If they reach an agreement regarding an easement
that would typically be recorded.
President Lynch cautioned the Board not to condition an easement, which was a private matter
between two parties.
Member McNamara noted that the front part of the building would be reserved for office use, and
expressed concern about the hydraulic lift parking as an alternative to fulfilling the parking
requirements. She inquired whether the administrative office could be incorporated into the new
building to create more room for parking.
Mr. Garrison noted that one of the factors when looking at demolition was the potential historic value
and concerns that the building would be too tall for the neighborhood if the office was added to the
new building.
Mr. Smith noted that the original design had half of a floor that was dedicated to the office space, as
well as other administration functions; they had to remove that part to make the building shorter. He
noted that the building was in bad shape, and that the HAB had given permission to tear the building
down. He noted that the hydraulic lifts were not his first choice, but they were concerned about
parking capacity. He noted that they would be open to suggestions regarding parking.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that since HAB approved demolition, she was concerned with the lack
of off street parking spaces. She inquired whether the old building could be demolished, the new
building moved closer to the front of the property, with parking in the back. Mr. Smith noted that
they wanted to have enough maneuvering room for vehicles, which would be difficult under those
circumstances.
Vice President Cook shared the concerns about hydraulic parking, and was concerned about having
heavy vehicles above people's heads.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,9,"Mr. Smith noted that they would be amicable to in-lieu fees if the Board agreed. They could also
modify or remove the front building, and work out a way to add two more parking spaces.
Vice President Cook noted that she liked the smaller building on the street.
Member Kohlstrand believed the proposed building was a good design, but seemed to be discordant
with the building in the front. She inquired about the noise of the hydraulic lifts.
Mr. Smith noted that the lifts were operated by an electric motor; he was unsure of the decibel rating,
and estimated that it made less noise than an idling car. He noted that he could provide the noise
ratings to the Board members.
Member Cunningham noted that parking was always a delicate concern, and that the architectural
solutions were sound. He had been concerned about the noise generated from its facility, but believed
those issues had been addressed. He was pleased with the current proposal, with the exception of the
hydraulic lifts.
Mr. Smith requested direction on parking, and inquired whether the Board preferred a parking
alternative or in lieu fees.
Member Mariani noted that she was in favor of in lieu fees.
President Lynch suggested that the Board provide clear guidelines to the staff, and that staff
incorporate that information into a report, and continue the item until that time.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to encourage this kind of mixed use, and noted that
it was aesthetically pleasing. She commended the architect, and supported in lieu fees for the parking.
Mr. Garrison noted that staff would continue to work with the applicant, and the applicant would
continue to work with his neighbor. The item would come back to the Board at the next meeting,
with a resolution to the easement question and a revised recommendation on the parking situation.
Staff would double-check the parking calculations, and examine the use of variances without lifts. The
number of in lieu spaces would also be examined.
M/S Cunningham/ Ezzy Ashcraft to continue this item to the meeting of October 9, 2006.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
President Lynch called for a five-minute recess.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,10,"8-C.
Alameda Towne Centre Expansion Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DG). A
public hearing to receive comments on the draft Environmental Impact Report that evaluates
proposed changes and expansion of the Alameda Towne Centre (formerly South Shore Center).
The project includes modifications to an earlier Planned Development Amendment proposed in
2002 / 2003. These include 49,650 square feet of floor area above the 112,000 square feet
expansion proposed in 2002/2003, the construction of a new 145,000 sq. ft. Target department
store, instead of the previously proposed 90,000 square feet building, construction of a new
parking structure and improvements to the southeast corner of the South Shore Shopping
Center. The purpose of this meeting is to receive comments on the draft EIR only. No action
to approve or deny the project will occur at this meeting. The project site is zoned C-2- PD
(Central Business-Specia Planned Development District).
Mr. Garrison presented the staff report.
President Lynch noted that more than five speaker slips had been received.
M/S Cook/McNamara to reduce the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Winston Chu, 1143 Otis Drive, expressed concerns about the traffic impact of this project. He
noted that there were limited entrances and exits in Alameda, and was concerned about emergency
evacuation of Alameda. He noted that it would be very difficult to build more roads without
exercising eminent domain. He believed the Target would draw people into the City, which would
congest the entrances and exits to the City.
Mr. Ashley Jones noted that the impact of a store this large would be felt by the nearby residents, and
agreed with the previous speaker's comments about traffic.
Ms. Reyla Graber, 178 Basinside Way, spoke in opposition to this project and read an excerpt from a
newspaper article about a proposed Target in Davis. It addressed the impact on local stores by
Target, as well as health care policies and economic concerns.
Ms. Alice Cleveland, 2101 Shoreline, spoke in opposition to this project. She noted that her condo
unit in the Willows faced the road directly in front of the main post office at Shoreline, and her
windows overlook the narrow, two-lane street. She noted that there were no bicycle lanes and no
sidewalk. She was very concerned about pedestrian safety, and believed the street should be widened
to accommodate the cars and delivery trucks.
Ms. Holly Sellers, 1624 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in opposition to this project. She noted that her
comments she submitted about the DEIR had not been addressed; her concerns were air quality and
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,11,"noise. She believed the air quality within homes should be measured as affected by 18-wheel trucks;
she was concerned that the noise rating for those trucks were not included in the chart. She noted that
some of the trucks would be only 20 feet away from homes. She believed the truck traffic would
negatively impact the residents' quality of life. She submitted her comments to staff.
Ms. Kimberly Miner, 1004 Camellia Drive, indicated she supported the project but did not speak.
Mr. Terry Miner, 3214 Bayo Vista Avenue, spoke in support for this project and the EIR. He
disagreed that Target is the same kind of discount store as a WalMart or K-Mart. He believed that
many car trips would be generated to go to a Target off-island.
Ms. Eugenie Thompson requested that the City redo the traffic study. She had been asked by some
citizens to review the traffic study who wondered why a project of this magnitude could have zero
impacts. She did not believe the EIR evaluated the traffic impacts of a Target as proposed by the
developers. She noted that generic shopping was examined instead. She noted that Target would be a
major regional draw, from three to five miles. As a civil engineer and a traffic engineer, she did not
believe this EIR was reality-based. She supported controlled growth, and believed that 700,000
square feet was a very large shopping center. She would like alternative sites to be examined more
closely. She noted that traffic impacted people and the quality of life, not just roads. She urged the
City to do a new traffic study.
Ms. Jill Reed, 2101 Shoreline Drive #146, spoke in opposition to this project. She echoed the other
speakers' concerns, and did not believe the project would have no traffic impact. She did not believe a
store of this size should be at that side of the Island, and that it was a long drive for people to shop.
Ms. Mary Tigh, 2137 Otis Drive #223, spoke in opposition to this project, and spoke on behalf of Rich
Perranan who was out of town. She read his letter into the record:
""I arrived in Alameda in 1927, and remember when going to school that we had four bridges and
the Posey Tube. We still have four bridges and the Posey Tube for access to Alameda. All the
streets from those bridges are either one lane or become one land before Otis Drive. The side
streets are also one lane:"" Versailles, Broadway, Willow and Grand. Otis becomes one lane before
Park Street. Otis has become the truck route to the shopping center. Otis currently has 12 exits and
ten entrances to the center before Willow and Park Street. Only two each on Broadway, Shoreline
Drive and Willow Street. Shoppers not living in the general area of the center have no clue what
the traffic is like 24/7. At the St. Francis condo, we have 108 vehicles that use our driveway for
access to Otis Drive. At times we have a hard time getting onto Otis because of the traffic backed
up at the signal at Willow. There are backups from Versailles to Park Street also. Target's traffic
figures on the 112,000 square foot store of 30% and the 300,000 shoppers from off-island are way
off base. It would be more like 40% due to the increase in footage of 49,000 feet. Our streets
cannot handle this increase. They are having problems now. Our property values will decrease, and
will likely have more crime as more people come on to our island each day. Many are not against
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,12,"Target, but they would like a smaller store, not a big box store.""
Ms. Patricia Gannon, 1019 Tobago Lane, spoke in opposition to this project and noted that she had sent
two letters in strong opposition to this project. She believed the store was grossly out of scale for Alameda,
and cited studies that when big box stores open in a city, family-owned stores go out of business, housing
values decrease, and the local streets are clogged with traffic, thus degrading the quality of life.
Ms. Beverly DeWolfe spoke in opposition to this project, and expressed concern about traffic congestion.
She was concerned about building a garage under the store, where there would be water. She believed
Target should be located on a freeway, not a shoreline.
Mr. Tim Erway, 2101 Shoreline Dr #224, spoke in opposition to this project and noted that he was on
the Willows Board. He was very concerned about the one-lane approaches to the vicinity of the store, and
believed that the traffic would be very congested. He believed the traffic study was flawed and should be
redone.
Mr. Blake Brydon, Vice President, Alameda Civic Light Opera, 1033 Camino Del Valle, spoke in
support of this item, as well as the EIR as submitted by the developer. He believed the issues of traffic
and noise had been sufficiently addressed. He noted that Target had been an outstanding community
partner in supporting the Alameda Civic Light Opera in their funding projects.
Ms. Judith Kissinger, 2101 Shoreline Dr. #428, spoke in opposition to this project. She believed the
EIR did not provide mitigating factors for the environmental impact that the proposed Target would
have on her neighborhood. She had attended a neighborhood meeting, where the latest design was
presented; she believed it was basically the same design that she felt ignored the neighbors' previous
concerns, such as the blockage of views and light because of the size of the building. She was very
concerned about the impact on her property value. She believed it should be redesigned, and the
impact reports reconsidered.
Mr. Aron Sogor, St. Francis, spoke in opposition to this project. He noted that he was very concerned
about the safety of the schoolchildren, which will include his children, in crossing the street to go to
school. He was concerned about the environmental impact on the beaches.
Ms. Susan Peiper, 2101 Shoreline Drive, echoed the comments about traffic and believed both the
traffic study and EIR were both flawed in scope and in their conclusions. She believed the study area,
starting at Grand, was too narrow and largely ignored the major and minor thoroughfares which
would be impacted by a far greater flow of cars to the proposed store. She believed that all of Park,
Webster and Constitution would bear much heavier traffic. She noted that the impact on Franciscan
Way was not adequately addressed in the DEIR. She pointed out several inconsistencies between the
DEIR's conclusion and the 2003 Planning Board's conclusions, where a 93,000 sq. ft. store was
considered to be unacceptably large.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,13,"Mr. Robb Ratto, PSBA, spoke in support of this item and wished to address the impact on existing
businesses. The PSBA Board of Directors unanimously approved this project, citing the Kaizen-
Marsden report, who estimated that 3% of current sales may be lost to Target, but that the overall
impact would be minor. He noted that some retailers near the site wanted the Target, as well as Bed,
Bath & Beyond and other stores, to open up, which PSBA believed would continue to improve the
numbers for those stores.
Ms. Sonia Scott, 2442 Otis Dr., noted that the retail community supposed to support the residents.
She did not think the types of products carried by Target would compete with the smaller businesses,
and she would be happy to have a Target in Alameda. She noted that there had been safety concerns
about traffic, and wondered where the store could be placed on Fruitvale to ease the traffic. She
believed it was too large a store for South Shore Center.
Ms. Susan Battaglia, 1351 Burbank Street, noted that her concern about traffic has continued to
grow. Although Target may be a good neighbor, she did not believe it was a good fit for Alameda.
She believed the traffic study was flawed and should be discarded. She believed crime would be an
issue with a big box store.
Mr. Red Wetherill, 28 Cove Road, spoke in opposition to this project. He agreed with Ms. Thompson's
comments. He noted that he was a professional architect, and did not believe the placement of this store on
an island did not make sense.
Mr. Jim Strehlow, 3122 Gibbons Drive, spoke in support of this item with some concerns about the
egress portion of the EIR. He made suggestions on how to improve the shopping center with a three-
lane egress plan. He challenged the City to plan for traffic problems in advance of the development,
and for it to admit its mistakes during the DEIR phase for the good of the community as a whole. He
believed the development should be redesigned for a smaller footprint.
Ms. Dorothy Reid, Willows Homeowners, 2101 Shoreline #276, recalled that she had asked that this
project be approached in a different way, and for the community to be involved throughout the
project. She noted that she had read the EIR three times, which she believed to be inadequate. She
believed that the DEIR ignored the General Plan, which discussed residential streets and not creating
nuisances. She believed the traffic data was wrong, and noted that while the public views had been
addressed, she did not believe the impact of a five-fold increase in store size was not addressed.
Mr. Harry Dahlberg, 729 Bay Wood Road, Economic Development Commission, spoke in support of
the EIR and requested that the Board accept it in its present state. He noted that the EDC conducted
a number of hearings to consider the impact of such a store in Alameda, and the EDC endorsed it
unanimously after considering traffic and related implications. They also found that the majority of
Alamedans do want this store.
Ms. Cathy Leong, 48 Kara Road, spoke in support to this item. She noted that as a past president of
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,14,"the Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber was in favor of the EIR and smart business development
She believed that while Alameda was a residential community, without retail activity, there would be
no residents. She noted that there would be more on- and off-island traffic to go to stores in other
cities. She noted that many people were concerned about the opening of Trader Joe's, but that it had
become a good neighbor.
Mr. Gail Wetzork, Chair, Economic Development Commission, 3452 Calecca Lane, spoke in support
to this item and echoed the previous two speakers' comments. He noted that when this item came
before the EDC, the Commissioners endorsed it unanimously. He believed the impacts could be
mitigated, and he agreed with the EIR.
Mr. William McAleer, 420 Kitty Hawk Rd., spoke in opposition to this item, and expressed concern
about traffic. He noted that the majority of people don't walk, bicycle or carpool to Target, and
estimated 900,000 trips to and 900,000 away from Target per year. He noted that the area was full of
residential neighborhoods, and he did not believe it was an appropriate use for the neighborhood.
Mr. Chris Kovach, 2101 Shoreline Drive, spoke in opposition to this item. He did not believe the EIR
addressed the impact of expansion on the Island by Target. He was concerned about the impact of
traffics on the community, and believed the congestion would be a safety hazard.
Mr. Mark Linde, 2830 Central Avenue #B, spoke in opposition to this item. He believed the traffic
study should be redone and noted that the delivery trucks driving down the residential streets would
be a safety hazard.
Mr. Bob Feinbaum, Oakland, spoke in support to this item. He believed the Target store would
provide more variety of goods and services in Alameda. He believed that by improving the public
transit access to the center, the traffic impacts would be mitigated. He encouraged Target to use the
best design possible for this store.
Ms. Susan Sperry, 2101 Shoreline #355, spoke in opposition to this item and noted that she had been
hit by a car earlier in the year. She was very concerned about the pedestrian safety in the shopping
center, where she had been hit. She noted there were missing stop signs, speed limit signs and
sidewalks. She would like the Planning Board to address pedestrian safety in that.
Mr. Walt Jacobs, 28 Balleybay, spoke in support to this item and noted that he was immediate past
president of the Chamber of Commerce. He understood people's fear of change and growth, but
believed the benefits outweighed the challenges of the EIR.
Mr. Eric Scheuermann spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that Target had projected an annual
gross revenue of $50 million; of that, $38 million will come from Alameda residents, which is $500
per year for every person in Alameda. He was unsure whether that was a realistic figure. He
acknowledged the City staff's estimate of retail leakage to off-Island Targets. He was very concerned
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,15,"about traffic congestion to Target, and noted that there was more to quality of life than tax revenues.
He believed this use would be too big, would generate too much traffic and did not fit in Alameda.
Mr. Noel Folsom spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern about the traffic congestion
surrounding this use, and its impacts on the residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Scott Brady, 1812 Encinal Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. He was very concerned
about the traffic portion in the EIR, and noted that the level of service figures would be meaningless
to readers without the number of vehicles per hour included in the correlation. He believed this EIR
was a piecemeal document, and that it was a recipe for disaster.
Mr. Andrew DuBois, 2101 Shoreline Drive #438, spoke in opposition to this item. He was concerned
about the adequacy of the traffic study, and sometimes had to wait for three green lights to get across
Park Street at Otis.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, spoke as a member of Bike Alameda. He supported
Lucy Gigli's comments on the inadequacy of pedestrian and bicycle comments in the EIR, and the
provisions for them. He was disappointed that this continued a trend that pedestrians, bicyclists and
transit riders had not been adequately accounted for and taken care of in the South Shore traffic
pattern. He would be willing to accept Target as a good neighbor in the right location. He noted that
many low-income families needed a store like Target in Alameda, and did not believe they should
have to go to San Leandro. He noted that Target was a big supporter of community programs. He
believed that it should be located in the right place, supported by a developer that is willing to pay the
freight on the development, and to adequately provide for all the needs to support Target and South
Shore being a good neighbor. He did not believe that standard had yet been met, and did not believe it
had been met in 2003 with the EIR at that time. He believed this DEIR could be improved.
Ms. Lucy Gigli, President, Bike Alameda, PO Box 2732, noted that Bike Alameda had been waiting
for this most recent proposal. They believed that there had been no meaningful analysis of walking or
bicycling had been made in and around the project area. She believed the additional cars on the road
warranted safer facilities for bikes and pedestrians. She noted that secure long-term and employee
bike parking needs were not met. They believed that the bike lanes being placed on the main access
roads of Otis, Park and Shoreline would create safer access with the new intersections. She believed
the Target area would have increase turning movements on Whitehall, and the sidewalks should be
made much safer. There would be added pedestrian traffic between Walgreen's and Office Max, and
should require an east-west parallel sidewalk along the inside of Otis to get between those stores and
Target. She noted there would be an increased amount of pedestrians along the Park Street area near
Walgreen's and the Sushi House would warrant an enlarged sidewalk.
M/S Cunningham/McNamara and unanimous to extend the meeting to 11:15 p.m.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,16,"Mr. Mike Corbitt. Alameda Towne Center, 523 South Shore Center, spoke in support to this item.
He thanked the speakers for their opinions, and noted that he shared their wishes for safe and
manageable traffic patterns for the project. He submitted 520 names of people who want Target at the
center.
Ms. Elizabeth Flanagan agreed with the other speakers who mentioned their concerns about the
flawed traffic study. She would like the local schools to be included in the traffic safety with respect
to safety.
Ms. Mary Jacak, 1330 Caroline Street, believed the EIR was inadequate and felt very strongly that
there should be no street without sidewalks on both sides.
Ms. Kris Murray, 1738 Alameda Avenue, spoke in support to this item.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Lynch entertained Board comments on how to proceed with this item.
Member Kohlstrand believed it would be appropriate to continue the discussion to the next meeting.
She noted that it would be helpful to hear all the comments, and then absorb them before
commenting.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch regarding the timeline going forward, Mr. Thomas
replied that the final date of the comment period was October 12, 2006. Staff heard a number of
important comments and concerns raised, and expected to receive more letters and emails. He
believed the best option would be for the Board to continue its discussion to October 9, 2006. He
believed it would take one to two months to prepare the final EIR. The Board must wait to take any
action until the Final EIR has been in circulation for at least 15 days. He requested that staff provide
the public with a timeline and milestones of goals to guide public comment.
Vice President Cook requested the comments made by the Transportation Commission as soon as
possible. Mr. Thomas noted that staff would provide their minutes by October 9, 2006.
M/S Kohlstrand/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to continue Board discussion of this item to the
meeting of October 9, 2006.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,17,"a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there had been no meetings since her last report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
C.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
Member Kohlstrand advised that there had been no meetings since her last report.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board
Member Cunningham).
Member Cunningham advised that there had been no meetings since his last report.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Mr. Thomas advised that for October 9, 2006, a number of items had been brought to the next
meeting's agenda, and Grand Marina had requested that they be moved to that agenda.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Catalog Woodbresy
Cathy-Woodbury,Secretdry
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the October 9, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 17
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf