body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2007-06-25,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, June 25, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:09 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy
Ashcraft, Kohlstrand, and McNamara.
Board member Mariani was absent from roll call.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Donna Mooney, Supervising Planner Doug Garrison.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the Special meeting of May 29, 2007.
Board member Cunningham noted that page 16, Resolution No. 2 should read, ""The
addition of one more tree is required."" Mr. Thomas noted that was being appealed.
Vice President Cook noted that paragraph 6, page 7, read, ""Acting President Cook
suggested using interpretive signage to help people make their way into the site."" She
suggested interpretive signage to help people understand the history of the site, and what
was previously at the site.
Board member Cunningham moved approval of the minutes as amended.
Vice President Cook seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Abstain - 1
(Lynch). Absent: 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.
b.
Minutes for the meeting of June 11, 2007.
Ms. Mooney wished to clarify that on page 5, she was suggesting that the Board had a
number of wording options, including adding the phrase ""take equivalent measures.""
Board member Cunningham moved approval of the minutes as amended.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote -
5.
Abstain - 1 (McNamara). Absent: 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.
Board member Cunningham inquired whether minutes for the Joint City Council/Planning
Board meeting would be available. Mr. Thomas noted that there should be minutes, and
that he would follow up on that request.
Page 1 of 13",PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-25,2,"5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Future Agendas
b. Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items and the Zoning Administrator
actions.
Board member Kohlstrand noted that the Measure A subcommittee recommendation to
the Planning Board may come back to the Planning Board on July 23, 2007, if a decision
was reached on July 13, 2007.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Debra Banks, 2137 Otis Drive, noted that she was very concerned about the tipping
point regarding the MND Submission for Safeway Gas Station and Convenience Store.
She read her written statement into the record:
""We have reached the tipping point for what is needed and what is right
for Alameda. The tipping point is that do we sacrifice our fragile
environment and critical care facilities for a few more dollars to operate
this town.
""I believe that something is not right in the CEQA guideline compliance,
and have great concerns about the ramifications of the traffic congestion
along with the potential hazards impacting the quality of our air, soils and
waters. On April 23, 2007, the Planning staff submitted to the Planning
Board a list of potentially significant impacts of this project on the air, soil
and water with mitigations.
""Air Quality: construction-related dust has a potentially significant quality
impact. The BAAMQD CEQA Guidelines consider potentially significant
construction-related dust impacts to be adequately mitigated with the
implementation of recommended control measures.
""Geology and Soils: construction-related erosion has a potentially
significant impact on water quality the applicant is to submit an erosion
and sediment control plan to the City prior to the issuance of the Building
Permits and the implementation of best management practices during the
construction phase.
Page 2 of 13",PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-25,3,"""Hydrology and Water Quality: contaminated storm water runoffs can
have a potentially significant impact due to the potential for petroleum
product spills and other debris. The applicant is to prepare and implement
a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
""Fact: To date there has been no formal study of air quality regarding
asbestos, carbon monoxide and gas emissions along the Otis Drive
corridor, as well as soil erosion with stormwater runoffs impacting water
quality, particularly that of the lagoon opposite of the proposed fuel
station. (The lagoon opposite of the Towne Center is already 400% over
the upper limit for expected fecal coliform.)
""Fact: There was critical facilities (two respite care homes and a hospital)
that will be affected by environmental conditions involving air and water
quality.
""Fact: Alameda is approaching the tipping point of endangering its natural
and healthy environment at its south shore for trying to recoup revenue
leakages.
""Is this best planning practice for a town in such a fragile environment?'
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A. Use Permit UP07-0010; Minor Design Review MDR 07-0058; Parking In-lieu
Fees - Applicant: Gary Parker - 2437 Lincoln (ZS). The applicant is
requesting a Use Permit and Design Review approval to establish a dental office
and laboratory on the ground floor of an existing building; reconfigure the parking
lot to increase the number of parking spaces from seven to thirteen; and pay
parking in-lieu fees for five parking spaces. The property is located within a C-C-
T (Community Commercial Theater Combining) zoning district.
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-23 to
approve a Use Permit and Design Review approval to establish a dental office and
laboratory on the ground floor of an existing building; reconfigure the parking lot to
increase the number of parking spaces from seven to thirteen; and pay parking in-lieu
fees for five parking spaces.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6
Absent: 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.
Page 3 of 13",PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-25,4,"8-B.
UP07-0004 - Jason Chan - 1707 Lincoln Ave (SW). The applicant requests
approval of a Use Permit to modify an existing retail space into a new restaurant
with a take-out counter and a total of 40 seats. The property is located within a C-
1 Neighborhood Business Zoning District.
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-24 to
approve a Use Permit to modify an existing retail space into a new restaurant with a take-
out counter and a total of 24 seats.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6
Absent: 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
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). (Continued from the meeting of
June 11, 2007.)
President Lynch noted that staff had prepared a set of documents for the Planning Board,
and members of the public had wanted to look at those plans the previous week; for a
variety of reasons, they were unable to do SO.
Mr. Thomas advised that the Planning Board packet contained the staff report, the April
23 staff report, the reduced April 23 plans, and the large set of plans. The website had all
of those documents with the exception of the large plans. The public binders contained all
of the plan sets.
President Lynch invited Board comment with respect to considering this item at this time,
when all members of the public did not have the opportunity to see all of the documents
Page 4 of 13",PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-25,5,"seen by the Planning Board. He noted that the item could be continued to the next
Planning Board meeting since all of the documents were available.
Board member Kohlstrand suggested that it may be a benefit if the applicant made a
presentation to enable the Board to choose whether or not to continue the item.
Board member McNamara supported continuing the item until the next meeting, out of
respect for full opportunity for the public to review the documents. She noted the
applicant presentation would need to be made again at that point.
Board member Cunningham concurred with Board member McNamara's assessment.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft, Mr. Thomas confirmed that
this item was appropriately noticed, and that there was no issue about the availability of
the material for the public. He understood that Clare Risley had been handed the public
binder, and that there was a miscommunication at that point, resulting in her leaving with
the staff report, the old plans, but without a copy of the new plans. He noted that the new,
larger plans should have been posted on the website. Staff believed that the Board may
move forward if so desired this evening, or continue the item to the next meeting.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to continue this item to the meeting of July 9, 2007.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - Aye: 5
Abstain: 1 (Ezzy Ashcraft). Absent: 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.
9-B.
DP07-0003 - Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project - Applicant:
Catellus Development Group, a ProLogis Company (AT/DV). The applicant
requests Development Plan and Design Review approval for Phase 1A and 2A
retail buildings, off-street parking, landscaping, and associated improvements
south of Mitchell Mosely Extension and east of Fifth Street. The site is located
along the western end of the former FISC Site (Tract 7884) within the M-X
Mixed Use Planned Development Zoning District.
Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report.
Mr. David Tiernan, Senior Vice President, Catellus, Development Group, applicant,
introduced the LPA architectural team and described the firm's experience. He believed the
plan was consistent with the approved Master Plan in terms of its layout and building
placement. He noted that it was a pedestrian- and bike-friendly layout that discouraged the
use of the automobile inside the development.
Mr. Rick Damato, Principal design architect, displayed and described the specifics of the
plan. He emphasized that the project was designed to respect the environment and Alameda,
and that it could begin to teach the community about smart and sustainable design.
Page 5 of 13",PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-25,6,"safe place.
Page 6 of 13",PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-25,7,"Board member Cunningham noted that the light towers were an interesting concept that
could be a signature element. He wanted to ensure that all of the site was sufficiently
lighted, and would like further photometric information.
Mr. Tiernan noted the light towers covered the site, with the exception of the two side
parking lots where they would introduce supplemental parking lot light standards. He noted
that they provided better lighting coverage than the pools of light typically produced by
parking lot lighting. He noted that the standard parking lot lighting would be provided at the
edges.
Mr. Sullivan noted that the landscape island adjacent to the ride share program would
include the public waiting space.
Board member Cunningham noted that the activation of Fifth Street had been executed very
well. He noted that on the public parking side, the main service corridor included trash
receptacles and questioned the option to increase total GLA to include retail frontage onto
the parking lot. Mr. Thomas replied that the Master Plan limited the amount of retail at
Alameda Landing as a whole to 300,000 square feet; the idea of limiting the amount of retail
at Alameda Landing was because they wanted to minimize the competition with Webster
Street and to maintain some retail capacity at Alameda Point. After many retail studies, the
City came to 300,000 square feet as the right amount of retail for Alameda Landing.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch regarding the consistency of the amount of
leeway allowed versus what had been approved at Alameda Landing, Mr. Thomas replied
that in terms of the changes of the footprint of the buildings, the design substantially
conformed with what the Planning Board had approved. Staff added a condition of approval
stating that if the footprint varied by more than 20% in terms of the size of the building, it
would be brought back to the Board.
President Lynch noted that he would be open to incorporating the suggestion, and did not
think it would substantially damage the retail at Alameda Point or Webster Street if this
design element were to be picked up.
Board member Cunningham reflected on past experience of the Bridgeside Center, and
did not believe that the goals of the Bridgeside Center were able to be achieved in terms
of the tenant spaces. He noted that the pizza restaurant painted their windows white, and the
pet shop had placed posters over the windows. He did not believe it had worked out at all as
envisioned by the Planning Board, and hoped the Board could learn from trying to be too
stringent in trying to strive for a goal with respect to tenant leasing.
Board member McNamara noted that the Planning Board had pushed for a high-end
shopping center, which was not the objective of the Bridgeside developers. She wanted to
ensure that a solid foundation of office, retail and residential uses would be established in
order to support the high-end uses envisioned at the waterfront plaza.
Page 7 of 13",PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-25,8,"Mr. Sulivan noted that they had developed millions of square feet of retail, and they learned
that smaller retail tenants tend to feed off each other.. He noted that there were no paseos or
pedestrian paths focused on the back of the retail blocks. He noted that the paseos would be
very activated, with entries and dining on them, which would naturally drawn people to
those spaces. He described the circulation patterns as they envisioned them, and noted that it
would much like a typical downtown.
Board member Kohlstrand mentioned Tucker's on Park Street, which also had a courtyard
which served as a secondary entrance; she would like that to be an example of the retail use.
Vice President Cook noted that Fourth Street was also a good example, as it had many
smaller parking lots in back of the buildings.
Board member Cunningham believed the Planning Board should ensure that the plan
supported a strong landscape plan. He would like the detailed planting plan to define how
the area would be activated.
Vice President Cook wanted to ensure there would be understoried foliage, and she wanted
to ensure there would be sufficient landscaping.
Mr. Sullivan noted that it would be incorporated into the site plans; for every fourth palm,
there would be a canopy tree along Fifth Street, as well as in all of the pedestrian plazas and
parking lot trees.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft wanted to ensure that the college students who may work at
the restaurants and the shops were able to get there from the college. She noted that she was
concerned with the retail tenanting, as cited on page 3 of the staff report: ""The retail centers
provides an important market foundation for the future development of the second phase of
retail referred to in the Master Plan as the waterfront plaza retail to attract the quality
restaurants and specialty retail uses that would make the waterfront plaza a truly unique
Alameda location. Alameda Landing needs to first establish a solid foundation of office,
retail and residential uses that can support the future ""high end"" uses envisioned at the
waterfront plaza."" She believed there was a distinction between high-end and other retail
uses in the staff report, and inquired about other high-end retail establishments that may be
supported by lower-end establishments. She cited Santana Row in San Jose and Fourth
Street in Berkeley were two other retail areas.
Mr. Tiernan noted that their strategy was to create a critical mass of retail as a first phase,
and would not characterize it as high-end or low-end. He believed there would be a broad
spectrum of retail uses, either local, regional or national. He believed it would increase the
value of the retail frontage on the site, and that when the successful flagship tenant (Clif
Bar) was established, it would be easier to bring in quality establishments to the site.
Page 8 of 13",PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-25,9,"President Lynch cautioned against using terms such as high-end and low-end retail
establishments, and cited the success of Panda Express, and the fact that Yan Can Cook
restaurants are no longer open. He clarified that some individuals would refer to Panda
Express as high-end, and that some individuals would refer to Panda Express food as
low-end.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding other examples of this
kind of retail mix, Mr. Sullivan noted that the hybrid center was a new concept. Typically,
the large format will bring the entertainment to the center of the development, and building
out. In this case, Fifth Street would be the entertainment district with the larger format
behind it. He cited the Irvine Spectrum Center, as well as downtown Walnut Creek and
Pleasant Hill.
President Lynch believed it was important to be flexible, and that it was a slippery slope
when referring to ""high-end"" or ""low-end."" Mr. Thomas noted that the phrase ""high end""
was in the staff report and inappropriate. He noted that City Council required a retail leasing
strategy before moving forward, which was the plan brought to the EDC for their review
and approval. They also had to meet regularly with the Executive Director of the
Community Improvement Commission to ensure that when they move through with their
leasing, they would be in compliance with that plan and the City's goals.
Vice President Cook expressed concern that there were no midblock crossings to the
College of Alameda, and to the future residential area along the north side, on Mitchell.
Mr. Sulivan noted that there were pedestrian crossings in six locations along Fifth Street. He
noted that there were three opportunities for pedestrian crossings along Mitchell.
Vice President Cook believed that the east-west entry along the south side of Building A
should remain a street, which should feel like something besides a service entry.
Vice President Cook believed that Building D seemed to be significantly longer than the
other buildings, and inquired why it was designed that way.
Mr. Sulivan noted that they were considering splitting that building, depending on the
leasing situation; he noted that square footages would be increased in other areas to
accommodate that change.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the north-south road option, Mr.
Thomas replied that they were in good shape regarding the road between Buildings G and F,
the sidewalks on both sides of E and D. He believed that the applicants were willing to add a
sidewalk on the southern side of that third east-west road between C and D. Regarding the
north-south road in front of Building A, he suggested that the Board ask the team to make
the statement regarding the Board's concerns about the design.
Board member Cunningham suggested that the pedestrian pathway on the side of Building
A be given more width to make it a inviting space.
Page 9 of 13",PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-25,10,"Board member Cunningham wanted to ensure the highest and best use was being addressed,
and that the potential 50 feet of asphalt would not interfere with that.
Vice President Cook would like the public right of way to include the sidewalks, and
believed it would be good to connect the waterfront residential uses with the College of
Alameda at some point in the future.
Board member Kohlstrand resisted the notion of creating more pavement, and noted that
was it already paved; she was arguing for a different use of the paved space.
Mr. Thomas suggested that the Board may continue this item with the request that the
applicant present three alternative ways to deal with the north-south sidewalk.
President Lynch suggested that the Board members' thoughts be taken and incorporated in
order to make a determination.
Mr. Thomas reviewed the conditions of approval to be included. An appropriate place for
the pick-up and drop-off being covered and lighted next to the ride share area should be
added. The rear sidewalk behind Buildings C and D may have an minimum of five feet of
unobstructed space in all places. The landscape plan shall come to the Planning Board for
final review and approval. A condition already existed to address the transformers, and that
the ""big green boxes"" and utilities be placed behind the buildings, not in front on Fifth
Street. The sidewalk on the south side of Building A should be straightened out for
pedestrian use, and a sidewalk would be added on the south side of the road, from Mariners
Square to Fifth Street. The north-south sidewalk would be included down the length of the
project.
Board member Kohlstrand expressed concern about Condition 7 of the new Draft
Resolution and would like to have a representative from Department of Public Works to
respond to the concerns.
Mr. Thomas noted that the Department of Public Works was concerned about a potential
scenario where they may determine at a future date that the situation was dangerous, which
was the reason for the condition as it existed. He noted that any decision to modify this
project in the future would have to come back to the Planning Board for review and
approval. He suggested following Vice President Cook's suggestion to approve the site plan
with the exception of the north-south roadway and the sidewalks, which could be addressed
at a future date with Public Works.
Mr. Tiernan noted that they would return with specific plans for Building A, which was
80% of the frontage on the street. Those specific plans could be coupled with various
options explored for how to handle the north-south street, and could take place later in the
summer.
Page 10 of 13",PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-25,11,"Vice President Cook moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 07- to approve
the development plan with the condition outlined by staff and the condition that:
Buildings A through H must return for design review;
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Absent: 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.
Board member Cunningham believed the building heights should be defined, and some
section profiles should be presented. He expressed concern about the buildings with the
billboards on the roof, and would like the design elements to be further articulated and
placed on the blank walls on the lower levels, where the pedestrians may see them. He
would like to understand more about the significance of the tilt-up elevations from a
material point of view, and would like to see a material boards to see relief to the expanse
of concrete.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham regarding the recycling of
formed concrete, Mr. Sulivan replied that they may cut the concrete into four-foot-wide
sections, and bury 2.5 feet of it for 18-inch seat walls. They may also create bases to
wood benches, as well as wheel stops.
Board member Cunningham believed the wood trusses were a good idea, and suggested
burying them halfway into the ground to allow them to stand up."" He noted that he had
tried to reference the point that the Board should look at how they worked structurally, so
they could stand up without having to bury them halfway into the ground.
Vice President Cook expressed concern about the color boards, and perceived them as
having a very cool palette. She noted that the paseos shown in the slides had brick and a
more warm, California theme. She would like to see a warmer, more vibrant color
scheme.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the modern signage, Mr.
Sulivan replied that employed techniques to highlight the more nostalgic treatments. He
noted that they did not reflect the actual content.
Vice President Cook expressed concern that the water towers looked like a power plant to
her, and that the façade and the water towers seemed somewhat uncomfortable and
ominous.
Board member McNamara agreed with Vice President Cook's comments about the water
towers, and noted that it reminded her of a nuclear reactor.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft recalled that there had been a water tower at the Base. She
noted that in agricultural areas, water towers were prominent features.
Page 11 of 13",PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-25,12,"President Lynch noted that he liked the water tower as well, and noted that while the
colors could be warmed up, this was an industrial reuse.
Board member McNamara liked the proposal, which showed more detail and dimension,
and would support staff's recommendation to continue to work on the design of
Buildings A and B.
Board member Kohlstrand complimented the applicants on the amount of research they
had done, and noted that they made a real effort to be responsive to the community. She
believed the acknowledgement of Alameda's history and future was very positive. She
agreed with Vice President Cook's comments about the color scheme, and would like to
see it warmed up.
Board member Kohlstrand liked the gateway treatment at Stargell and Fifth Street.
A discussion of the site circulation, paseos and the gateway entrance ensued. The
discussion addressed the establishment of public streets in this development, as opposed
to just having driveways as well as public versus private streets and the tradeoffs between
parking and establishing public roads with sidewalks on both sides. The Planning Board
asked for the developer to return with one to three options for the sidewalks including an
option examining a full public street on the north-south roadway, and another redoing it
slightly and establishing sidewalks on both sides.
The Board members generally liked the maritime sense and whimsical feel of the
lighthouse element.
President Lynch noted that in summary, a discussion was held about the preliminary
concepts, with a strong affirmation in some parts, and strong suggestions to do something
different in other parts. He suggested that the Board entertain a motion to incorporate the
concepts shared during the meeting, and bring back to the Board a design concept that
incorporates those ideas as much as possible. He suggested that the Planning Board check
to ensure their incorporation.
Mr. Thomas noted that the original condition of approval would be amended to require
that all eight buildings come back to the Board for Design Review approval.
No further action was taken.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Alameda Towne Center (South Shore) Sidewalk Quarterly Report
Mr. Thomas noted that the applicant submitted letters of preliminary agreement to the
Planning and Building Department. The FEIR is not anticipated to be available until
August.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Page 12 of 13",PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-25,13,"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 the next meeting of the Pedestrian Task Force
would be held June 26, 2007, from 6:00 - 7:30 p.m.
c..
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board
Member Cunningham).
Board member Cunningham noted that a meeting would be held on Wednesday, June 27,
2007, at the library for two hours.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the July 9, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This meeting
was audio and video taped.
Page 13 of 13",PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf