body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2007-07-09,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, July 9, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:07 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Mariani
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy
Ashcraft, Kohlstrand, Mariani and McNamara.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Donna Mooney, Supervising Planner Doug Garrison, Public Works Obeid Khan.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of June 25, 2007.
Board member Cunningham noted that page 7, paragraph 4, should be changed to read,
""Board member Cunningham noted that the activation of the Fifth Street and both sides of
the waterfront-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.""
Board member Cunningham noted that page 7, paragraph 7, should be changed to read,
""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.""
Board member Cunningham noted that page 11, paragraph 5, read, ""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 noted that page 10, paragraph 2, should be changed to read, ""Vice
President Cook would like the public right of way to include ise-the sidewalks.
""
Board member Kohlstrand noted that page 12, paragraph 4, read, ""A discussion of the
site circulation, paseos and the gateway entrance ensued."" She believed that lengthy
discussion addressed the establishment of public streets in this development, as opposed
to just having driveways. She requested that the minutes reflect the discussion addressing
public versus private streets, as well as the tradeoffs between parking and establishing
public roads with sidewalks on both sides. She also believed that the Planning Board had
specifically asked for the developer to return with one to three options for the sidewalks.
She believed that one option was examining a full public street on the north-south
roadway, and that another one was redoing it slightly and establishing sidewalks on both
sides.
Page 1 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-09,2,"President Lynch noted that page 9, paragraph 1, read, ""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 noted
that the point of his comment was not that Panda Express has been successful, but that
some individuals would refer to Panda Express as high-end, and that some individuals
would refer to Panda Express food as low-end. He emphasized that was why he
recommended caution regarding terms of ""high-end"" or ""low-end"" as it related to food
establishments.
Board member Cunningham moved approval of the minutes as amended.
Board member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Abstain - 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Future Agendas
Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Mr. Kirk Knight, 1316 Regent Street, Gallagher & Lindsey, noted that he was a Realtor,
and noted that he had communicated with Ms. Woodbury and Mr. Thomas, as well as
Mr. Garrison and other Planning staff. He requested clarification whether the City wanted
to attract and retain professional practices in Alameda, such as doctors, dentists, lawyers,
CPAs and other licensed professionals. He expressed concern about a professional
building that was built seven years ago, which he and several other individuals would like
to purchase. He noted that he would like to own only a portion of that building, in the
form of condominium ownership. He noted that he was told this would require a Use
Permit; he added that the building has been solely used for medical, dental and
professional uses for 55 years, and that no aspect of the use would be changed. He noted
that there would be a costly four-month delay in order to find out whether he could
purchase the building in that manner. He noted that his appraiser informed him the
building may be worth several hundred thousand dollars less by that time, and that he
would not know for months whether he would need additional parking or pay in lieu fees.
He did not believe this was an appropriate way to do business. He noted that the City's
transfer tax revenue was greater than property tax, and would like to convert classic
office buildings into office condos.
President Lynch noted that further discussion of this issue could be agendized, and added
that the Board could not have the authority to render a decision as it related to an item
under Oral Communication.
Page 2 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-09,3,"Ms. Mooney advised that the Board may ask a brief question, direct staff to take further
action, or request that an item be agendized for discussion.
Mr. Thomas noted that the building was in a residential zone (R-5), but the City had no
record of any commercial Use Permits for the uses. Staff has advised the applicant that
he should submit for the Use Permit and the commercial condominium at the same time.
Before a commercial condominium may be approved in a residential zone, the Use Permit
would be the mechanism to ensure that a commercial use would be possible and
acceptable.
Board member Cunningham recalled an earlier Use Permit application for a dentist office
in a house, which was denied due to strong opposition from the neighbors.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the four-month time period referred to by
Mr. Knight. Mr. Thomas noted that there were internal actions that needed to be taken,
as well as 20-day noticing requirements.
President Lynch noted that when this kind of project is taken on, he encouraged the
speaker to be mindful of the various Building Codes. He wished the speaker success in
this project.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
2007-2008 Election of Planning Board Officers
Board member Kohlstrand moved to nominate Vice President Cook as President of the
Planning Board.
Board member Mariani nominated Board member Cunningham as Vice Chair of the
Planning Board.
Board member Cunningham thanked Board member Mariani for the nomination, and
respectfully declined.
Board member McNamara nominated Board member Kohlstrand as Vice Chair of the
Planning Board.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motions, with the following voice vote - 7. The
motions passed.
9-B.
Initial Study IS05-0001; Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0001;
Major Design Review DR05-0010; Use Permits UP06-0003, UP06-0010, UP06-
Page 3 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-09,4,"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 25, 2007.)
Mr. Garrison presented the staff report and recommended approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
Dan Goldwin, project architect, noted that on June 23, 2007, the Board requested that the
number of pumps be reduced. He noted that they accomplished their goal of keeping the
driveway openings to less than 70 feet, and that they were now 62 feet.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Mariani regarding peak hours, Mr. Thomas
replied that Condition 14 stated that they would be 7:00-9:00 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m. on
weekdays. On weekends, peak hours would be 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. No fuel trucks
would be allowed to make deliveries between those hours.
Dorothy Reid spoke in opposition to this project, and noted that from the beginning of the
project, she believed this would be the worst possible location for this gas station. She
noted that it backed up into a very narrow roadway, and that traffic jams were already
occurring with the center being 50% leased. She believed the gas station would be better
located in the corner of the center. She inquired how much room for error there was in the
truck turning space, and noted that she was very concerned about the two second left
turns. She inquired how the tanker truck could leave the center without if couldn't turn
into the gas station to get onto Otis Drive. She was also concerned about where the
Safeway.com trucks would be parked. She expressed concern about Mitigation 6 on page
8, which stated that the traffic light would be installed in 10 years. She realized that the
stoplight was included in the CIP, and that the 10-year period would give the City some
leeway, but she did not understand why a mitigation would take 10 years to install.
She requested clarification of Mitigation #7, which stated that the applicant will have Otis
Drive go right in and out if a traffic signal is installed. She understood that a traffic signal
must be installed, and inquired when that would occur. She believed that the five-year
monitoring period in Mitigation #8 was too short a period of time, and believed the
Page 4 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-09,5,"impacts should be monitored for 10 years. She noted that Condition #13 allowed the
applicant 30 days to notify that there biodiesel pump would not be installed, and believed
that should be a longer notice period. She noted that Condition 14 addressed gas station
peak hours, not the shopping center peak hours. She believed there should be
consideration for the shopping center peak hours, and believed that the fuel delivery
should be made in the early morning hours to avoid peak hours. She was concerned about
the turning radius in Condition #19. She noted that Condition #25 reflected the
recommendation from the Police Department, and noted that the police did not state that
24-hour operation would deter crime. She was concerned that it may attract crime, and
would like the 24-hour operation to be reconsidered.
Ms. Claire Risley, 2202 Grand Street, requested that the Planning Board not approve this
project until the ingress and egress to the Safeway fuel station could be designed in a
manner that does not violate the truck route ordinance. Alternatively, she requested that
the approval be condition in order to minimize deviation from established truck routes.
She noted that the entrance and exit were on a part of Otis that was not a truck route, and
displayed a map of the truck routes. She believed the nearest and shortest deviation
would be from the intersection of Otis Drive and Park Street, and requested that any
approval be conditioned to require trucks to follow that route.
Mr. Matt Francois, Cassidy, Shimko, Dawson and Kawakami, land use counsel for
Safeway, noted that the truck routes had been thoroughly reviewed by the City's
engineering staff and determined to meet the requirements of the City Code regulations.
He noted that City Code allowed for minor deviations where it may be impracticable to
use the truck routes. He noted that the Alameda Towne Centre had been the site of two
former gas stations, which likely use the same routes as proposed by Safeway. In order to
minimize the potential for traffic, Condition 14 was imposed; as agreed to by Safeway, it
would limit deliveries to non-peak hours. He noted that Safeway was committed to
providing biodiesel fuel. The applicant requested the flexibility to determine whether or
not there was a demand for this product in the market. He did not believe there would be
a nexus to impose a condition limiting the time limit on that requirement, because no
impacts were indicated that would need to be mitigated through such a condition. He
noted that the queuing impacts had been thoroughly analyzed by an independent traffic
consultant retained by the City to review those impacts, and determine there would be no
adverse impacts. They believed the monitoring conditions were adequate, and did not
believe that 10 years would be reasonable.
The public hearing was closed.
In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara regarding the truck routes, Mr.
Thomas noted that the truck route map showed the designated truck routes. He noted that,
trucks clearly needed to leave truck routes, and cited moving trucks as an example. He
noted that trucks making deliveries to each retailer needed to leave the truck route.
Board member McNamara requested further clarification regarding truck turning radii.
Page 5 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-09,6,"In response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand about the hours and access points
for the trucks, Obeid Khan, Public Works, replied that Condition 19 required that the
final design should incorporate adequate turning radii.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Mariani regarding the peak hours, and the
period of time between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. She noted that Lum School, Wood School and
Alameda High School were very close to this center; she was very concerned about the
safety of children being transported after school. She did not believe that any tanker truck
should be allowed in that area between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. She added that the senior homes
and convalescent hospital were also in close proximity to the center.
Board member Cunningham inquired about the number of deliveries per day. Mr.
Garrison replied that the applicant had stated it would be approximately once per day.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand whether one delivery a day would
pose a hardship to Safeway, Mr. Golwin replied that it would be an inconvenience to
them, and that it would take more planning to get the fuel to the site. He noted that
because Alameda was an island, any delay in allowing the delivery to be made may result
in the gas station running out of fuel. He noted that a fuel truck must deliver an entire
load, and that if the station has not sold enough gas to accommodate a full fuel load, that
entire delivery will have been lost. He was concerned about the impact to consumers if
the gas station were to run out of gas. He noted that there were no better trained drivers
than fuel tanker drivers, and noted that the current hour restrictions were probably
appropriate. He suggested that some flexibility would allow the tankers to make
deliveries while accommodating events such as a parade.
President Lynch was reluctant to impose an all-day restriction on fuel delivery.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand about the increase in size of the
kiosk, Mr. Golwin noted that there was originally a front entrance to the kiosk, allowing
goods to be stacked on either side. He noted that the new design allowed customers to
enter from the side from the pump islands. He noted that the 650 square-foot kiosk has
been reduced to 604 square feet.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the Board recently heard a proposal the Alameda
Landing development, which included various green elements. She added that Clif Bar
would transport its baked goods from Southern California on trucks fueled by biodiesel.
She noted that Safeway's use of B-10 could be run in current diesel engines. She
suggested that Condition 13 be removed altogether, and inquired why Safeway would
want to be associated with biodiesel if it wanted the exit clause within 30 days. She noted
that while there had been news articles about the viability of green fuels in the Pacific
Northwest, she believed that the Bay Area and California in general were equally
environmentally conscious. She noted that Safeway was a California-based corporation,
and that protection of the environment was an important issue to her.
Page 6 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-09,7,"Vice President Cook wished to address Mitigation Measure 8, which addressed accidents
and queues. She was concerned about the area around Wells Fargo, and did not feel
comfortable making Findings 4 and 10, which addressed whether the project would have
negative impacts on the adjacent uses.
Board member Mariani noted that she agreed with Vice President Cook's comments. Her
objections deal with the non-peak hours, which include times when children are just
getting out of school, walking around, or riding bikes; parents were driving children to
Towne Centre for after-school activities during those times. She stated that the gas
station was in close proximity to the hospital and many convalescent homes with patients
walking around the area. She felt this was a major safety concern.
Board member Cunningham noted that he did not want to see the uses in Alameda
intensified so much that traffic would come to a stop; however, he was willing to accept
the fact that there would be some impacts as the Island developed in certain ways. He
noted that he was careful to assess when the impacts would become too severe and
unacceptable. He noted that the City and applicants had come a long way in mitigating
the potential impacts of this development on the area. He noted that a drive-through
restaurant would like to create more traffic through the area than this use. He believed it
would be unrealistic to prohibit gas tankers from driving through the Island.
Board member Cunningham noted that Conditions 22 and 23 relating to stormwater
runoff, recommended runoff into a swale ""if possible."" He inquired whether the Planning
Board could determine at this time whether it was possible rather than leaving the item
open. He would like to tighten the wording up to state that surface drainage would go into
the grassy swale. He would like to filter the contaminants and hydrocarbons from the gas
station.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch, Mr. Khan confirmed that these Regional
Water Quality Act regulates storm water run off operations.
Vice President Cook wished to commend the applicant on their responsiveness to the
Board's comments, and believed this was a very nice-looking gas station. She noted that
her site concerns precluded her from voting for this resolution, but she appreciated the
amount of work the Board has done on this item, and how well the applicant has
responded.
Board member Kohlstrand agreed with Board member Cunningham's comments, and
thanked the applicant the revisions to the project, as well as their patience while the
hearing was rescheduled. She believed that Mitigation 7 should be amended to read, ""The
applicant shall limit the Otis Drive driveway to right-in, right-turn-out when the traffic
signal is installed.""
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the staff report stated that ""Condition 13 was
included in the Draft Resolution to reflect the applicant's commitment to install and
advertise a biodiesel product."" She inquired whether biodiesel would be sold, and noted
that the language in Condition 13 did not reflect much of a commitment to install,
Page 7 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-09,8,"advertise or sell biodiesel. She would like further information from Safeway; otherwise,
this did not seem to be much of a condition at all to her.
President Lynch noted that he was hesitant to mandate a particular item for sale, as the
community evolved, especially with respect to alternative fuels. He believed that
Safeway would sell as much biodiesel as the market is willing to bear. He hoped that a lot
of biodiesel would be sold.
Mr. Thomas advised that the April 23 resolution had no mention of biodiesel, and that it
was initiated by the Board. Safeway had agreed to include it, and it was discussed by
Safeway Gas. Staff initiated the conversation to define and gauge Safeway's commitment
to biodiesel.
Board member Mariani said that she would like to modify the delivery hours to reflect
her safety concerns.
Board member Kohlstrand noted that this was a big shopping center that would have
other truck traffic, and would be more comfortable leaving the restrictions as proposed by
staff.
Board member Ashcraft believed that Condition 13 should be retained as a reminder that
Safeway as a California corporation has a commitment to the Bay Area environment.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 07- to adopt
a 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 twelve pumping stations. Fuel will be stored in three 20,000 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. 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 following modifications
will be added:
1. Condition 7 regarding the traffic light will be changed to replace the words ""if
possible"" with the word ""when possible""; and
2. Condition 22 and 23 will be modified to delete ""where possible"" regarding
swale drainage.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. No:
2 (Cook, Mariani). The motion passed.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Board member McNamara noted that she had submitted an email to staff, expressing her
concern and frustration, in that the Bridgeside Center had been frequently referenced in
Page 8 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-09,9,"negative terms as it relates to current items under review with the Alameda Landing
project.
Board member Mariani thanks Board member McNamara for writing this email, which
reflected her own concerns about the Bridgeside Center.
President Lynch believed this was a compliance issue, and would like staff to respond to
these concerns. He suggested that the staff response be agendized.
Vice President Cook would like the staff report to include the final approval for the
Board's review and reference. She noted that the Planning Board was very painstaking in
the details of this approval. She would like to have a site tour, and believed it was
important to have the facts in order when further addressing the issue.
Board member Cunningham would like to know if the developer had a reason for the
empty spaces in the center.
Board member Ashcraft noted that she had visited the gaming store and met the owner,
and that it was very attractive inside. She recommended that when discussing how the
Bridgeside Center could be made nicer, the Board should emphasize that it is not
criticizing the hard-working individual business owners.
President Lynch believed that it was important for the Board to recognize the public
process, and it was difficult to keep the larger issues in sight while focusing on the
individual issues. He believed it was important to take a step back and lay out the guiding
principals of what the Board would like to see. He would be open to setting up a
subcommittee to allow people to work on this issue. He believed the applicant should
present the plan to the Board, and allot the appropriate time to examine the issues without
being rushed.
Board member McNamara understood that the Board's role did not cover which retailers
went into a center.
Board member Cunningham noted that he was part of the subcommittee formed for the
Bridgeside issues.
Vice President Cook inquired how the Board would be capable of designing the space to
achieve a planning goal, when it would not be allowed to dictate use. She noted that the
Board worked very hard to design the space to have two front doors, with the notion of
placing the Starbucks there. She noted there was some movement in land use planning to
be more specific with respect to the type of use and size. She would like further
clarification on the Board's ability in that regard. She noted that the development
agreement had a list of nonpermissible uses.
Mr. Thomas noted that was an issue staff could explore with future developments. He
noted that the City could zone a site MX, which would require a Master Plan, such as
Page 9 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-09,10,"Grand Marina or Catellus. He noted the Master Plan could allow more specificity with
respect to uses.
Board member Mariani noted that she enjoyed shopping at Nob Hill Foods, and that
Bridgeside was a good center, but she was very concerned about the size and location of
the transformers.
Vice President Cook would like to initiate a conversation between the Planning Board
and the Alameda Bureau of Electricity with respect to the size of transformers and
utilities placed in visible aesthetic locations.
President Lynch believed the City needed to consider structural changes to the process,
and that the City may want to consider a committee to be empowered to do something
outside a Board's normal scope of work. He believed that would be a large undertaking
that would take make years. He did not believe that all authority could be vested with one
body.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Dakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Mr. Thomas noted that the meeting scheduled for the previous week had been cancelled.
It has been rescheduled for August.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
Board member Kohlstrand noted that a meeting had been held on June 26. The
subcommittee reviewed the work scope for the Pedestrian Task Force, and they intended
to take the policies related to pedestrians from the Transportation Element to develop an
implementation plan that could be passed on to the Capital Improvements Program.
Vice President Cook noted that there was still time to submit the Pedestrian/Bicycle
survey on the City's website.
President Lynch noted that he had recently attended a workshop with respect to bus
shelters, and believed that Alameda could take the lead in that regard.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board
Member Cunningham).
Board member Cunningham noted that they would meet on July 10, 2007, at 6:15 p.m. in
Room 360. They would examine transportation and land use elements of the General
Plan. They intended to categorize and prioritize items within those two categories. The
next meeting would be July 18, 2007, to discuss the energy, waste and outreach items.
Page 10 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-09,11,"Vice President Cook wished to thank President Lynch for his tenure as Planning Board
president, and particularly liked his welcoming demeanor and effort to educate the public
during the public.
President Lynch believed that Alameda was a very special place in a positive way, and
that it was his desire to elevate the Planning Board from the mundane.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:27 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the July 25, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 11 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf