body,date,page,text,path
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2007-04-23,1,"OF
City of Alameda
California
$
COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
April 23, 2007
PRESENT: Berger, Bunker, Fort, Vice-Chair Moore, Longley-Cook, Cooney, Chair Lord-
Hausman, and Kirola
ABSENT/EXCUSED: Hakanson
GUESTS: Lucretia Akil (Assistant Risk Manager)
MINUTES: The minutes of March 26, 2007 were approved as submitted.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
1. The agenda and minutes of the Social Service Human Relations Board were read by the
secretary.
NEW BUSINESS:
1.
Draft Transportation Element for General Plan Amendment California Environmental
Quality Act Review:
The draft Transportation Element (TE) was distributed to the Commissioners. The
transportation element consists of the following five items: 1) draft Multimodal Circulation
Plan goals and policies, 2) draft Pedestrian Plan policies, 3) draft policies regarding the
review of environmental impact reports (EIRs), 4) draft Street Functional Classification
System, and 5) draft TSM/TDM policies. Commissioner Ed Cooney informed the
Commission that he had attended past meetings and reviewed the draft and hadn't found
anything that would be of interest to the commission or anything against the element.
However, each commissioner should review and provide any comments at the May meeting.
A copy should be made available in audio format.
2. Concerts at the Cove:
Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook informed the Commission about the East Bay
Regional Park Crown Beach Concerts summer schedule to be held June 8, July 13, and
August 10. As in previous years, the Commission will staff the event and have a table
for disability awareness. Commissioners Moore and Longley - Cook will attend the June
8th concert. Commissioner Longley-Cook will also attend the two other concerts.
Commissioners should contact Adrienne Longley-Cook or Toby Berger if they plan to
assist.
'ublic Works Department
950 West Mall Square, Room 110
Alameda, California 94501-7575
510.749.5840
Fax 510.749.5867
TDD 510.522.7538
Printed on Recycled Paper",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-04-23.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2007-04-23,2,"Commission on Disability Issues
April 23, 2007
Minutes
Page 2 of 3
3. Disability Awareness Month Planning:
A subcommittee was formed with Vice-Chair Jody Moore as chair to discuss planning
options for the October ""Disability Awareness Month' activities. She will provide an
update at the May meeting regarding the field of dreams baseball field at Alameda
Point.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. Bus Shelters: (Commissioner Longley-Cook)
Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook informed the Commission on the April 3, 2007
City Council item ""Proposed Bus Shelter Design Standard for All Future Installations in
the City of Alameda'. The secretary distributed copies of the staff report to the
Commissioners. Commissioner Ed Cooney requested that the report also be provided
in audio and e-mail. Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook will attend the April 25
Transportation Commission meeting and report back to the Commission at the May
meeting. The Commission requested that they be notified of any future bus shelter
installations so that they can provide assistance in placement.
2. PAPCO:
Staff is still soliciting for a PAPCO volunteer. Chair Audrey Lord-Hausman informed the
Commission that she will contact staff regarding the status of the vacancy on the PAPCO
Commission. PAPCO's meeting location has changed from Hayward to Oakland.
3. Audible Traffic Signal Locations:
The secretary and Commissioner Ed Cooney informed the Commission on their site
visit to the northeast corner of Webster Street and Buena Vista Avenue. It was
observed that the current configuration of the intersection and the traffic island would
render the existing 45-degree crosswalk unsafe to the visually impaired if signals were
upgraded with audibles. A Commissioner stated that the intersection of Ironwood and
Island Drive is very difficult to cross, as it does not have a traffic signal.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-04-23.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2007-04-23,3,"Commission on Disability Issues
April 23, 2007
Minutes
Page 3 of 3
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Ms. Lucretia Akil, Risk Manager, distributed invitations and informed the Commission that a
breakfast buffet will be held in recognition of the City's volunteers. The buffet will be held
on Thursday, May 31st, 8:30am, at the Grand Pavilion, 300 Island Drive. RSVP to Lucretia
by May 10th
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Commissioner Ed Cooney informed the Commission that he will be resigning from the
commission when his term expires in June.
2. Some of the Commissioners' terms will expire in June. Re-appointments will be necessary.
Secretary to update Commission at the May Commission meeting.
3. Commissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman informed the commission that an Oakland Tribune
March 27, 2007 article rated the City of Berkeley as the most accessible city for disabled and
Chicago was the runner-up. She also stated the City of Berkeley will soon have a new center
for the disabled: The Ed Roberts Campus, a one-stop-shop for disability services.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, May 21, 2007 in Room
360 at City Hall.
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
I Eam
Ed Sommerauer
Associate Civil Engineer
ES:lc
Disability Committee/2007/423min.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-04-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, April 23, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:10 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member Kohlstrand
3.
ROLL CALL:
Acting President Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, Kohlstrand,
and McNamara.
President Lynch, Vice President Cook and Board member Mariani were absent.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Donna Mooney, Planner III Douglas Garrison.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the Alameda Towne Centre Workshop of March 12, 2007.
Board member McNamara noted that she was absent from the 4:30 p.m. March 12
meeting because she recused herself.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that on page 2, ""Yawn"" should be spelled ""Yian.""
Acting President Cunningham noted that in the middle of page 2, the sentence reading
""He would also like a bus stop he was happy with a grid of pedestrian sidewalks, that
is"" should be completed.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the minutes as amended.
Board member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 3.
Abstain: 1 (McNamara). Absent: President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Board member
Mariani. The motion failed for lack of a quorum and will be considered at the next
meeting.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Future Agendas
Mr. Thomas provided a handout and a brief presentation of future agenda items.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,2,"Mr. Mark Shepard, Frank Bette Center for the Arts, wished to urge the Planning Board to
consider incorporating the arts community in the planning process while incorporating
green plans. He noted that successful communities incorporated a thriving arts
community broadly supported by civic government and business, and he believed it was
very important to support the creative and artistic populace in Alameda. He believed it
would enhance Alameda's attractiveness to visitors and potential residents, and would
like the City's support in their effort to actively market Alameda.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A.
DP07-0001 - Catellus/Prologis - Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development
(AT). The applicant requests Development Plan approval for the waterfront
promenade, streetscape cross-sections for Fifth Street and Mitchell Mosley
Avenue, and the Alameda Landing Transportation Demand Management
Program. The project area is located south of the Oakland Alameda Estuary,
north of the College of Alameda and the Bayport Residential District, east of
Coast Guard Housing, and west of Webster Street. The site is in the M-X (Mixed
Use) Zoning District. (The applicant requests a continuance to the meeting of
May 14, 2007.)
Board member Kohlstrand moved to recommend continuance of this item to May 14,
2007.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote - 4. Absent: Lynch, Cook, Mariani.
8-B. TM06-0003 - Shane Barber - 1000 Atlantic Avenue (DV). The applicant
requests approval of Tentative Parcel Map 9387, allowing the conveyance of up
to 8 separate commercial spaces located within one building to separate owners.
The project site is located in the M-X (Mixed Use) Zoning District.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-11 to
approve Tentative Parcel Map 9387, allowing the conveyance of up to 8 separate
commercial spaces located within one building to separate owners.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote - 4. Absent: Lynch, Cook, Mariani.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,3,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
PDA02-0004 - 523 South Shore Center (Alameda Towne Centre) (DG). The
applicant is requesting modification of Conditions 1.a and 1.d of Resolution No.
PB-03-40. These conditions require the construction of an east-west sidewalk
along the rear of businesses fronting onto Otis Drive prior to the occupancy of
Phase II-b of shopping center redevelopment. The applicant is requesting the
Planning Board approve a modified sidewalk plan and the timeframe for
implementation. The site is located within a Central Business District with Planned
Development overlay Zoning District (C-2-PD).
Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Randy Kyte, applicant, described the position of Harsch Investments on this issue,
and noted that they preferred Option B. They believed that after much technical analysis
in 2004 with staff and engineers that they came up with the right solution by adding more
north-south sidewalks in order to tie the bank and restaurant pads to the main center. He
noted that not much had changed in terms of technical feasibility associated with 13
driveways interrupting the walkway. They have begun speaking with each property owner
and/or tenant about how to split the sidewalk along the property line.
Mr. Kyte noted that the characterization that they were willing to do either/or was not
completely accurate. They believed that after much technical analysis in 2004 with staff
and engineers that they came up with the right solution by adding more north-south
sidewalks in order to tie to the bank and restaurant pads. He noted that not much had
changed in terms of technical feasibility and liability associated with 13 driveways
interrupting the walkway. They would consider that, and have begun speaking with each
property owner and/or tenant about how to split the sidewalk along the property line. They
believed the alternative plan was a superior plan, and they wished to address the issue
conditioned by City Council on Building 500 and Building 300 that the occupancies be
withheld until the issues are brought back before the Planning Board. They anticipated
opening Bed Bath & Beyond in the next few months.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Dorothy Reid believed the applicant was before the Board to be able to occupy
Buildings 300 and 500. She inquired whether that could be done without having to make
a
decision on the sidewalk, which she believed was premature. She noted that parking was
governed by the total amount of the Gross Lease able Area (GLA), which was unknown
because the PDA was incomplete. She noted that the Safeway side had 528 parking spaces,
which would be enough to compensate for the lost spaces if the sidewalk were to be built on
the other side.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,4,"Ms. Susan Decker appreciated the efforts made by the City and Harsch to make the center
more pedestrian-oriented. She believed that adding north-south walkways would help, but
did not believe it was the best solution. She suggested the use of raised crosswalks in the
parking lot to calm speeding traffic.
Mr. Michael Krueger reiterated Ms. Decker's comments, and did not see the north-south
sidewalks as a substitute for the east-west sidewalk at all. He noted that he had many photos
of pedestrians already walking in the middle of the roadway; he noted that it was already
unsafe and a liability issue. He did not believe the east-west roadway was necessary when
the north-south roadways were already available, and did not believe that inconvenience was
a sufficient reason to add the east-west roadway at the expense of safety.
Mr. Jon Spangler spoke on behalf of Pedestrian-Friendly Alameda, and noted that the
tertiary treatment of pedestrians at South Shore has long concerned him. He believed that
equivalent access for pedestrians was a reasonable request, and noted that four-foot
sidewalks were too narrow. He added that there were no separations of sidewalks from the
traffic lanes. A six-foot sidewalk on both sides of the roadway would be feasible by
removing parking spaces. He did not believe it would be acceptable to reroute pedestrians to
Otis Drive. He suggested making the sidewalks wider, and making vehicle lanes 10 feet
wide, and that rumble strips be added to slow traffic down. He agreed with the suggestion
for raised sidewalks. He added that the use permit was granted four years ago, following
detailed questioning by the Planning Board, and added that Target was not included in these
plans. He urged the developer to follow up on the plans in the right way.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Acting President Cunningham regarding continuing
pedestrian access from Otis into the body of the parking lot, Mr. Kyte replied that the
proposed walks proposed in 2004 addressed the connections through the adjacent
properties to Otis, and that they were sensitive to that. He acknowledged that the signage
could be better.
In response to an inquiry by Acting President Cunningham regarding the history of
pedestrian safety and accidents, Mr. Michael Corbitt, Harsch Investments, replied that
there were no history of accidents specifically on that road.
In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara regarding Ms. Reid's suggestion
of split sidewalks, Mr. Corbitt replied that they had examined that possibility. He noted
that there were 23 driveways in that area, and that the idea of putting a solid sidewalk on
that side, and short-stopping all the drive lanes would reduce the parking in a critical
portion of the shopping center. Also, trying to transplant parking from the new to the old
Safeway lot in terms of expecting people to use it was a concern because of the demand
for parking in front of the Safeway store. He noted that it was a parking requirement in
the anchor leases that a certain parking ratio be maintained. He did not believe that was
viable as the alternative on the north side, and noted that textured pavement and raised
table sidewalks through the driveways, as well as rumble strips, would be feasible.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,5,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft expressed considerable concern that the occupancy
requirement seemed to have been overlooked or ignored. She noted that information
discussed between staff and the applicant was not taken back to the Planning Board. She
noted that there were few areas in the City where a pedestrian could walk down a
sidewalk without crossing a driveway. She inquired whether the additional parking
spaces along Shoreline Drive as a result of the construction could be credited towards the
parking requirements.
Mr. Kyte noted that in 2004, they spent considerable time working through the
conditions, and met with staff several times to address many of the conditions. Their
examination of the safety and liability issues led them to the conclusion that the north-
south walk was a better solution. He noted that the parking ratio was four per 1000, and
that the additional parking on the south side ultimately supported the additional retail that
had been added. Safeway was a major addition to the shopping center, and he added that
the parking should be placed where the need was. They decided that parking should be
placed on the south side of the center to support Bed Bath & Beyond. He noted that it
was written into the leases that the old parking lot would be removed. Once the road is
placed on that parcel, a bike-pedestrian path would be placed there, and the area would be
added to the beachfront area for buildings and parking.
Board member Kohlstrand noted that the Board had been told that north-south sidewalks
could be added, or that the sidewalk requirement could be partially pushed onto the
adjacent property owners. She believed that would put the Board and the City into a very
bad position, and did not want to see that problem repeated. She did not want to see this
situation show up on Whitehall, Franciscan or similar streets. She strongly believed that
when the parking was installed adjacent to a particular building, that the applicant should
not propose a too-large building that required so much parking that could not
accommodate a full-length sidewalk along that roadway. She understood the issue with
the parking leases, and would go with the alternative of pushing it to the north side as a
second option, but did not believe it was the best solution for this particular site. She
would not support the north-south sidewalk, and would rather see a full-sized six-foot-
wide sidewalk on the south side of that driveway. As a secondary option, she would
support Option B.
Mr. Kyte noted that it was determined that the sidewalk would be on the north side,
within the existing roadway right of way. Of the 24 feet, four feet would be taken for the
sidewalk, leaving two 10-foot lanes. He noted that they had received very succinct
direction in 2004 on how to approach this issue, which ran contrary to the Planning
Board's wishes. He noted that they were working hard to develop the right solution, and
came up with the idea to push the sidewalk north. They had discussed the idea of
elevating the crosswalks through the driveways with staff, and they had mutually agreed
to use a colored stamp concrete to clearly delineate the walkway. The walkway would
also have a four-inch raised curb the entire length. He noted that they were comfortable in
that recommendation.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,6,"Mr. Corbitt advised that Bank of America had signed a preliminary letter of
understanding, and that the surveying would also need to be done. Wells Fargo had also
signed the letter, and Washington Mutual had also begun examining the letter. He noted
that the owner of Burger King had indicated he would sign it as well. He noted that they
wanted to have the safest environment possible.
Board member Kohlstrand noted that she could accept Option B, although she did not
believe it was the superior alternative. She wanted to ensure that the development was
sized so that the needed parking and sidewalks would be available on the site without
having to push them off-site.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that on page 2 (paragraph 1-b) of the resolution
covering Option B, the applicants had agreed to complete construction by April 2008.
She noted that this had begun in 2003, and was concerned about the timeframe. She was
particularly concerned about the construction of the east-west walkway, and did not
believe people would be in more peril walking on a sidewalk than sharing a lane with
cars.
Mr. Kyte noted that it would take at least a year to design the parking lots and get them
through the City's permit process. He believed the timeframes were fairly aggressive, and
would pursue them with diligence.
Acting President Cunningham noted that this condition addressed public safety in an east-
west orientation, yet the proposal addressed a north-south orientation, which he found to
be at odds. He did not believe that solution would address the design and safety needs of
the project. He suggested that some traffic calming measures be employed to maintain
additional safety elements, and that any unsafe condition be mitigated. He did not
perceive any Board support for the north-south orientation, and believed the existing east-
west condition was the orientation to be pursued. He believed the timeframe should also
be discussed.
Board member McNamara believed the Board's frustration stemmed from the
presentation of this project in a piecemeal fashion, and believed there were more recent
site plans than those from 2003 to accompany the most recent changes. She supported the
east-west alternative, and although it was not optimal by any means, she believed it was
the best of the two alternatives presented. She suggested that the Board add a condition
with some traffic calming measures, such as speed bumps or raised crosswalks that cross
the access road.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand regarding the timeline, Mr.
Garrison noted that the condition was written to set up definite timelines and milestones;
the first was to get the agreement of the property owners, then the permits and then to
complete the construction. He noted that the three-month interval was an estimate made
by the applicant.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,7,"Board member Kohlstrand requested that in the first stage, the agreement from the
property owners be brought back in concert with the first phase to provide assurance
before the Board considered signing off on Target and the rest of the development.
Mr. Kyte replied that the letters from the property owners could be in place, and that they
would be delivered to the City. He noted that they were very detailed in terms of the
items of agreement.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-12 to
approve Option B, with the following amendments:
1.
Traffic calming measures, such as rumble strips, raised crosswalks and/or
speed humps should be provided to slow traffic along the roadway;
2.
The applicant will provide quarterly status reports to the Planning Board
with the first report to coincide with the review of the Target proposal,
which currently stood at June 25, 2007, or August 23, 2007, whichever
comes first; and
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote - 4. Absent: Lynch, Cook, Mariani.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,8,"9-B.
Initial Study IS05-0001; Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0001;
Major Design Review DR05-0010; Use Permits UP06-0003, UP06-0010, UP06-
012 and UP06-0013; - Applicant: Safeway, Inc. 2234 Otis Drive (adjacent
Alameda Towne Centre) (DG). The applicant requests approval of Planned
Development Amendment, Major Design Review and Use Permits allowing the
demolition of an existing bank building and redevelopment of the property with a
gas station. The project includes three covered pump islands, each containing three
pumps, for a total of eighteen pumping stations. Fuel will be stored in three 20,0000
gallon underground storage tanks. In addition to the approximately 7,500 square-foot
canopy covering the gasoline pumping facilities, the project includes an
approximately 625 square-foot building, housing the cashier's desk, restrooms and
retail sales of convenience items. The applicant is proposing twenty-four hour
operations and the sale of beer and wine. An Initial Study / Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared for this project. Mitigation measures have been
identified that will reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant
level. The site is located within a Central Business District with Planned
Development overlay Zoning District (C-2-PD).
Mr. Garrison presented the staff report, and recommended approval of this application.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Todd Paradise, applicant, Safeway, noted that there were several Safeway fuel
centers in the Bay Area, including Dublin, Livermore and Morgan Hill. He added that the
fuel centers were owned and operated by Safeway, and that they were a vital part of the
program, adding convenience to the grocery operations. He described the background of
the site plan, and displayed a presentation of the proposed project. He noted that
following a community workshop in early March, they dropped the request for alcohol
sales.
Mr. Chris Furcoe, noted that his company had worked on many hundreds of gas stations
across the nations. He summarized the technological advances featured by the proposed
gas station, and noted that California was on the leading edge of regulatory reform. He
stated that the proposed station would be state of the art, and added that the tanks and
piping would feature double-walled fiberglass. The gas station would meet the most
stringent earthquake standard (Category 5 earthquake standard). The air quality would be
aided by a Stage 2 vapor recovery system.
Ms. Debbie Cartegener, land use attorney, Cassidy, Shimko, Dawson & Kawakami,
confirmed the applicant's understanding regarding condition of approval #8, regarding
the monitoring of the driveways for five years. She understood that Safeway would
provide the funding as necessary for that, and the actual monitoring would be performed
by the City. She noted that a gas station project normally did not take two years to
complete, and that the applicant was concerned about moving forward as quickly as
possible. She noted that there was no guarantee that the Target application would be
heard in two months, and requested that the Board consider this project at this time.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,9,"Mr. Garrison noted that Safeway would provide the funding, and that the City would
likely hire a consultant to perform the monitoring.
Ms. Debra Banks noted that she had offered an initiative to have a petition circulated
through the St. Francis condominiums regarding the concerns raised during the early
April meeting. She expressed concern about the mitigated negative declaration, and
whether it was sufficient to cover the environmental concerns of the community. She also
expressed concern about the traffic flow, and noted that it was almost impossible to make
a left-hand turn from St. Francis. She was also concerned about the environmental
integrity, and whether the ground and landfill would support this type of system. She
expressed concern about safe waterways and structural integrity, especially with respect
to earthquakes. She was also concerned about unmanageable traffic on Otis Drive.
Mr. Mark Irons inquired about the mitigated negative declaration. He thought the traffic
would flow in two directions, as is typical for gas stations in Alameda. He understood
that the higher number of pumps would expedite usage, but was concerned that it would
attract even more cars, causing congestion. He understood the urgency, but believed it
may be best to wait. He was concerned about the cumulative effects of this project.
Ms. Dorothy Reid wished to clarify the start of monitoring period, and would like to see
it monitored five years after the shopping center is completely developed through the
PDA. She believed it would take five years to build it up and see that effect. She inquired
why the applicant wanted the gas station on the site at all. She noted that the original plan
was to remove the existing gas station. She questioned whether the center needed a gas
station in this spot at all, regardless of the quality of work that the applicant has done. She
noted that the center has been without a gas station for three years, and that people have
figured out where to go for gas. She noted that people really wanted a service station.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio, noted that he usually bought his gas at a locally
owned full-service Chevron station. He noted that the north side entrance of the gas
station off Webster was not supposed to be used, although people did it all the time. He
suggested that it be redesigned so that a driver could only enter on one side, and exit
through another. Regarding pedestrian safety, he suggested that the exit be on the south
side of the gas station into the shopping center, with a raised safe crosswalk barrier to
slow traffic. He believed the post-completion monitoring period should be at least 10
years rather than five years because most gas tank failures and toxic waste problems
occur long after five years. He emphasized that monitoring and mitigation was a cost of
doing business.
Mr. Randy Kyte noted that they had been working with Safeway gas for two years, and
added that Safeway has been on the Island since 1958. He noted that they also had
concerns about their earlier concerns, and believed they had done a very good job in
revising the plan in conjunction with staff. He believed that the circulation from the
shopping center to Otis made good sense, and added that they would work on their own
mitigation plan to ensure there would be no queuing problems in the east-west drive aisle,
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,10,"which would be detrimental to the shopping center; Safeway agreed with that assessment
as well. They believed the plan has progressed well, and acknowledged their effort to add
the sidewalk.
Mr. Bill Smith, 724 Central #9, noted that he had spent 20 years redesigning bicycles,
and continued to work on alternative vehicles. He discussed charging stations for electric
bikes and automobiles.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft commended the applicant for their decision not to sell
alcohol at the gas station. She appreciated the support of the east-west sidewalk. She did
not believe the gas station for South Shore Center should be supersized, and noted that
the previous gas station had fewer pumping sites. She noted that it was also busier, and
meant more cars in the shopping center. She proposed that there be no more than 12
fueling stations with six pumps, and she liked the biodiesel proposal. She noted that the
Dublin station had 12 fueling positions, and that there were usually fewer than three cars
waiting to fuel. She inquired whether the hours for refueling from the big tanker trucks
could be limited to off-peak hours, and whether the station should be a 24/7 station. She
agreed with Mr. McKay's suggestion in his email that any light generated should be
designed so it did not adversely impact the adjacent neighbors, and that additional
landscaping should be added along the Otis Drive side of the lagoon to further shield
neighbors on the other side of the lagoon.
Board member McNamara noted that she had used the Dublin Safeway fuel center often,
and enjoyed the orderly flow of traffic, which was a one-way flow. She remembered the
gas lines of the 1970s, and noted that similar events may negatively impact the
surrounding streets; she inquired how long the monitoring would continue. She added
that traffic queuing was a serious concern for her. With respect to the emails on lighting
impacts sent by residents of Laurel and Powell, she would like to know which
landscaping view would be supported. Mr. Garrison explained the perspectives and scale
of the illustrations. Mr. Thomas noted that the preliminary landscaping plan was on page
PL-1, which was more reliable and specific than the perspective illustrations.
A discussion of the photometric plan ensued.
Board member McNamara expressed concern about the refueling times, and inquired
about the anticipated refueling timeframe. Mr. Garrison replied that the CEQA document
noted that truck deliveries were generally prohibited during the late night hours by the
AMC (11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.). He noted that the specific truck delivery times had not
been identified.
Mr. Thomas suggested that the applicant be asked whether they would be willing to limit
truck deliveries to early morning hours.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,11,"The applicant noted that with respect to deliveries during early morning hours, there were
physical limitations for deliveries; a full truck was the safest way to deliver fuel, and
most drivers would not leave the site it they could not drop off the entire load because of
the remaining vapors in the truck. They would need some flexibility for that reason, and
he discussed the technical aspects of the fuel delivery process, which he noted was
relatively quiet.
Board member McNamara noted that the concern was regarding conflict with traffic and
respecting the neighbors' noise concerns. Mr. Gold noted that it was important that the
Planning Board and the residents felt comfortable, and invited them to talk with other
cities who have the Safeway fueling stations.
Acting President Cunningham inquired whether a year-long monitoring process would be
acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Gold replied that they would be willing to do so, and to
discuss other items of concern at that time. He noted that they wished to be good
neighbors, and added that they had a good reputation for doing the right thing with
respect to their operations.
Board member Kohlstrand stated that she would like to remove the shopping cart
restrictions between Trader Joe's and Safeway, and noted that they were often abandoned
on the sidewalks. Mr. Kyte replied that the perimeter may have been too narrow, and
added that they had many shopping carts scattered all over the center.
Board member Kohlstrand shared the same concerns as her fellow Board members, and
believed the lighting plan would be respectful of the neighbors across the lagoon. She
believed that there were too many gas pumps on the site, and suggested reducing it by
two or four. She was not comfortable with a continuous curb cut adjacent to the shopping
center, and that it should be narrowed down with the same kind of circulation on the
shopping center side as on Otis, while providing a safer environment for pedestrians. She
noted that the truck traffic should be accommodated from the westernmost driveway as
well. She was not comfortable on the proposal as shown because of its size, and believed
it was too big for the site. She believed the architectural design was very positive, and
liked the proposed treatment; she believed the landscape plan was reasonable.
In response to an inquiry by Acting President Cunningham question regarding the
Category Five earthquake design criteria, Mr. Gold replied that California had seismic
zones one through four, and there were higher zone levels that engineers use as a
multiplied to determine the force of an earthquake. He noted that this site was in Zone 4-
A, and that magnitude of earthquake would be approximately 7.4. He noted that when the
Loma Prieta earthquake hit in 1989, none of the tanks were damaged. He noted that the
tanks were structurally secure sitting either above or below ground, and added that the
piping was flexible. He noted that they had never had any problems with the underground
storage systems because of earthquake activity.
Acting President Cunningham inquired about monitoring in Condition 8, Mr. Gold replied
that the purpose of the condition was to monitor traffic flow at the project driveway at the
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,12,"direction of Public Works over concerns of queuing into the public right of way. He
noted that it was never intended to address other issues as such air quality because that
was well addressed through monitoring and reporting requirements that gas stations go
through.
Mr. Peter Galloway, OmniMeans Traffic Engineers, noted that the queuing issue was put
in as a safeguard. Their analysis indicated that they did not expect a maximum queue of
over two vehicles per island when there was maximum demand at the station. After the
study was completed, Public Works decided they would like to monitor the driveway for
an additional five years as a safeguard to determine if there were any problems of the
driveway traffic spilling onto Otis.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that this was a larger station than the one that was
there before, and noted that this existing shopping center was not an optimal location; she
believed that the Park Street and Otis location was a better location. She noted that this
was a response to the public's request for a fueling station in the center of the island.
Acting President Cunningham noted that he has been concerned about overdevelopment
on this parcel, and believed it would be in the community's best interest to mitigate that.
Board member Kohlstrand would like a raised six-foot-wide sidewalk at the location. She
did not feel comfortable establishing conditions on the project at this time.
Acting President Cunningham called for a five-minute recess to allow staff and the
applicant to confer.
Mr. Dan Gold, Consulting Engineers, project architect, noted that the proposal of limiting
the applicant to one smaller curb cut in the back would not work for the applicant. He
understood that the quantity of pumps was an issue for the Planning Board, and proposed
establishing driveways similar to the current driveways, with two driveway openings
from the bank. They would be willing to maintain those driveway openings, give or take
a few feet, to ensure there was proper truck circulation. They wished to move the kiosk
forward, and demonstrated on the overhead screen one dispenser that would be
eliminated as a compromise. An additional area of transition space would be gain,
reducing the width of the driveway openings to approximately the same width existing
now. He noted that it would be very difficult to make the station work if the driveways
were restricted further. He noted that the opening was currently 23 feet, and that they
would widen it to approximately 40 feet.
A discussion of the proposed measurement changes ensued.
Board member Kohlstrand suggested moving the kiosk all the way forward.
Mr. Gold noted that in that case, the traffic would go through the major queues.
Board member Kohlstrand expressed concern about the presence of a continuous curb
cut, which was not typical in Alameda. She did not believe it was the best solution for
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,13,"Alameda, and believed that too many pumps were being fit onto one site. She did not
believe it was a good design.
Mr. Gold noted that he was most concerned with the circulation, and that it made good
design and business sense to keep them as open and flowing as possible. He was less
concerned about the number of dispensers than making the wrong decision on the access.
Board member Kohlstrand emphasized that the City was trying to accommodate
pedestrians.
Mr. Gold noted that reducing the width to 35 feet may work if the truck were able to pass
through.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand whether the raised, stamped
pavement table would differ in height from the rest of the east-west sidewalk, Mr. Gold
confirmed that it would.
In response to an inquiry by Acting President Cunningham regarding the number of
pumps requested by the Planning Board, Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was
looking for 12 pumps.
Acting President Cunningham noted that the Planning Board wished to maximize the
length of the raised sidewalk to encourage pedestrian safety. He noted that there should
be access to accommodate four lanes.
Board member Kohlstrand noted that she would like to see the final redesign before
approving it, and would like an additional condition that the walkway along the southern
side be a minimum of six feet.
Mr. Thomas noted that would be part of a motion to continue and redesign for Planning
Board final approval.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-13
to adopt the mitigated negative declaration.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, which passed with the following voice
vote - 4. Absent: President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Board member Mariani.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to extend the meeting to 11:15 p.m.
Board member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which passed with the following voice
vote - 4. Absent: President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Board member Mariani.
Board member McNamara moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-13 as
revised on the supplemental staff report and amended by adding conditions 23, 24, and 25
as follows:
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,14,"1.
The number of pumps will be reduced to 12;
2.
No more than 70 feet be devoted to driveway access on the south side
property line, with the rest being raised sidewalk; and
3.
Tanker delivery would be limited to non-peak hour periods.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 3.
Noes: 1 (Kohlstrand) Absent: President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Board member
Mariani. The motion failed.
Board member McNamara moved to continue this item to the meeting of May 14, 2007.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which passed with the following
voice vote - 4. Absent: President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Board member Mariani.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee
(Board Member Mariani).
Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board
Member Kohlstrand).
Board member Kohlstrand advised that no further meetings had been held.
C.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force
(Acting President Cunningham).
Acting President Cunningham noted that the next meeting would be May 16, 2007 at
which time the draft of the Task Force's findings would be reviewed.
12. ADJOURNMENT:
11:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the May 14, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf