body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2008-08-11,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING
MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 2008
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
President Kohlstrand called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Cunningham led the flag salute.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
President Kohlstrand, Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft,
Board members, Cunningham, Lynch and McNamara.
ABSENT:
Board members Autorino and Cook.
STAFF PRESENT:
Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary to
the Planning Board; Assistant City Attorney Farimah
Faiz, Supervising Planner, Cynthia Eliason; Althea J.
Carter, Executive Assistant/Recording Secretary.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of July 14, 2008 - Pending
Minutes for the meeting of July 28, 2008 - Pending
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
6-A. Future Agendas
Staff provided an update on future agenda items.
6-B. Zoning Administrator Report
The August 5, 2008 Zoning Administrator meeting was canceled.
President Kohlstrand requested that staff report on the status of the project slated for
the Island High site. Staff requested the update be deferred to the next Planning Board
meeting when staff members familiar with the project would be present to provide a
comprehensive report.
Page 1 of 21",PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-11,2,"Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the maximum density for the Island High site is
18 units. She does not understand how the number increased to 36 units. She looks
forward to hearing from staff at the next meeting.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Anyone may address the Board on a topic not on the agenda under this item by
submitting a speaker's information slip, subject to the 5-minute time limit.
None.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or
adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or
explanation is received from the Planning Board or a member of the public by
submitting a speaker slip for that item.
8-A. Grand Marina Village Residential Development Street Names - Warmington
Homes (Applicant). The applicant is requesting approval of proposed street
names for the previously approved Grand Marina Village Residential project.
(AT).
Board member Cunningham moved and Board member McNamara seconded
the motion to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion passed with the
following voice vote: 5-0-0.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A. PLN08-0153 - General Plan Amendment -2400 Mariner Square Drive. The
applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment for the MU2 Mariner Square
Specific Mixed Use Area to permit additional office use. The site is located at
2400 Mariner Square Drive within M-2-PD General Industrial (Manufacturing)
Planned Development Zoning District. (CE). (Continued from June 23, 2008).
Cynthia Eliason presented the staff report. Staff is recommending denial of the
proposal.
In response to a Board inquiry staff responded that the Carriage House was a
restaurant previously located at this site. The restaurant burned and was reconstructed.
Originally, there was office space on the second floor of the building and the restaurant
on the ground floor. After the fire, the building was to be reconstructed as office space
only.
In response to an inquiry by the Board staff responded that this proposal relates to the
old Chevy's restaurant only.
Page 2 of 21",PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-11,3,"The public hearing was opened.
Board member McNamara moved and Board member Lynch seconded the motion to
limit the speakers time to 3 minutes. The motion passed unanimously (5-0-0).
Alfredo Kawas spoke in favor of the proposal.
Ernest Pierucci spoke in favor of the proposal. He is the attorney for a business
currently located in San Leandro, that would move to this location should it be converted
to office space. He previously represented several yacht brokers with businesses in
Mariners Square. Currently there is only one yacht business located at Mariners
Square. The current configuration of Mariners Square prevents small businesses from
establishing locations at this site. The activity that used to take place in this location
provided clients for the restaurant. These clients no longer exist.
Steve Farrand, attorney representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the proposal. The
applicant purchased the restaurant in 1992 and in 1993 the restaurant had its highest
gross sales. In 1996 shortly after the applicant purchased the restaurant the military
announced the closure of the naval base resulting in a loss of 18,000 jobs. The staff
report does not discuss whether a restaurant is viable in this location. On August 31,
2006 Chevy's decided to vacate this location and since that time the current owner has
not received a viable offer to lease the building as a restaurant.
Yola Jurzykowski, applicant, spoke in favor of the proposal. The property has been
vacant for two years and in that time she has not received a financially viable offer to
lease the space as a restaurant. She understands staffs desire to keep a restaurant on
this site but it is not economically feasible. If she is not allowed to convert the building to
office space she believes the building will remain vacant due to the lack of qualified
restaurant lease requests.
Onju Updegrave, architect for the applicant, spoke in favor of the proposal. She wanted
to clarify a misstatement by staff. As of today, the Carriage House has not been rebuilt.
5,000 sf of office space was approved for the Carriage House but the rebuild has not
taken place.
Pauline Kelly spoke in favor of the proposal. She doesn't understand why elder care
facilities and storage are allowed in this area but not the type of use requested by the
applicant.
Lars Hansson spoke in favor of the proposal. He works for a company currently located
in San Leandro that would relocate to Alameda. Economic conditions in this area have
changed making this location no longer viable for a restaurant. The relocation of the
business from San Leandro to Alameda benefits Alameda's tax base.
Christos Marras, owner of Gold Coast Grill in Alameda, spoke in favor of the proposal.
As a 32 year resident of Alameda and local restaurant owner he has observed the
Page 3 of 21",PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-11,4,"changes that have taken place in the restaurant business over the years. He supports
the applicants' request.
Cheryl Canaday, owner of Recovery Resources in San Leandro and Alameda resident,
spoke in favor of the proposal. Should the applicants proposal be approved she would
lease the space. She has 25 employees and is prevented from moving to other
affordable office locations in Alameda because of the parking requirements that are
imposed on a business with this number of employees. She lives and pays taxes in
Alameda and would like to relocate her business here.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Board member Cunningham asked whether the option exists for a conditional use to
allow office space for a specified period of time rather than a wholesale change to the
area.
Staff responded that the General Plan is not a timed document. Office use is permitted
in this area so zoning is not the issue. The General Plan prevents this use in this area.
President Kohlstrand asked if the proposal were approved what percentage of space in
this area would be office space?
Staff did not have that information available.
Board member Cunningham stated the goal of the Planning Board is to activate the
waterfront and he is in support of staff's position to want to retain this site as a
restaurant. He does not believe an office use at this site precludes waterfront access.
He is concerned that the property is vacant and with approval of the proposal, the space
would be occupied. From an economic perspective, it would make sense to put the
space to use. If the proposal were approved, he would like to retain the option to
convert the site to restaurant use.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcarft stated that the Board had often heard comments from
residents regarding limited waterfront access in Alameda. She believes with proper
marketing people would patronize a restaurant in this area. In the Marina Village
Parkway there is a glut of available office space as well as in other parts of Alameda.
She believes with the plans for Alameda Landing this area will generate more foot
traffic. She is concerned about preserving waterfront access.
Board member Lynch stated that he believes this proposal is a good case study of
vacuum planning. This is a case of economics and general plan designations. The
General Plan is a City's guide for future planning. General Plan Amendments are limited
to four a year. In this case he believes a General Plan Amendment is the correct way to
go. A viable business has departed and the use has changed. Development of Alameda
Point opens up residential and commercial opportunities. He would not support a
proposal for residential use at this location but office use would not prevent waterfront
Page 4 of 21",PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-11,5,"access. A viable business is willing to relocate to this location. He is in support of a
General Plan Amendment for this proposal.
Board member McNamara does not support the application. The zoning was in effect
when the owner purchased the property. With the planned redevelopment taking place
in the area she believes a restaurant would do well in this location.
President Kohlstrand had reservations about changing the General Plan and believes
changes to it should be made cautiously. She is swayed by testimony heard tonight.
She believes policies should be flexible. Zoning in the area does permit office although
the amount of office space is restricted. She would like the Board to consider a different
percentage limitation of office space to provide flexibility in the area and to allow for a
restaurant to be located in this area in the future should an opportunity present itself.
She would support an increase in the percentage of office space allowed in this area.
She asked for staff's input on this direction.
Staff responded that upon direction by the Board staff would construct policies to
achieve an increase in the amount of office space allowed in the area and present the
information to the Board at a future meeting.
A Board discussion ensued on President Kohlstrand's suggestion. Board member
Cunningham is in support of President Kohlstrand's suggestion but would like to retain
the ability to convert the site back to a restaurant in the future.
Board member Lynch asked what percent would not trigger an inconsistency finding.
Staff responded none. The applicant is asking that the 20% cap in the General Plan be
eliminated and for an increase from 5,000 sf to 10,000 sf of office space.
Board member Lynch asked if staff could construct a policy to modify the percentages
but keep in tact the General Plan.
Staff responded yes.
Board member Lynch asked if the Board decided to go in that direction the point would
be to preserve the General Plan so that no General Plan Amendment is required.
President Kohlstrand asked if the 20% limit was for each individual use or in total for the
entire area.
Staff responded that it is for the entire area. There is a 5,000 sf limitation as well.
President Kohlstrand asked what is the size of the site.
Staff responded a little less than 6,000 sf
Page 5 of 21",PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-11,6,"Board member McNamara stated she would like to know what would be the potential
future consequences for taking this action.
President Kohlstrand stated that since the future of this area is unknown she is in favor
of some flexibility at this time.
Board member Cunningham asked if there would be any change to waterfront access
by approving this proposal.
Staff responded no. There is the issue of allowing an office use that is not water related.
Board member Lynch stated he thinks of public access to the water but views the
businesses as private. He would not support a use that diminishes public access.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that it appears that maintenance was deferred on
this building intentionally to make it not feasible economically thereby creating this
situation where another use would be considered. The Board does not know how
aggressive the owner was in marketing the building as a restaurant. This is a unique
part of the waterfront and the Board should be careful with decisions that will change it.
President Kohlstrand stated she does not believe there is a consensus among the
Board. She asked if the applicant would like to continue working with staff to prepare a
proposal that the Board would support.
Board member Lynch stated he would like staff and the applicant to incorporate the
Boards comments into any future resolution. The applicant should present a proposal
for a specific amount of square feet. The Board will vote that amount up or down and
eliminate the need for a General Plan Amendment. He asked staff if that was correct.
Staff responded no. Board member Lynch's suggestion would still require a General
Plan Amendment.
President Kohlstrand stated that was the case because the Board would be changing
the square footage.
Staff asked the Board for clarification on whether they are asking for a modification to
the resolution presented tonight or a brand new resolution taking into consideration
comments the Board made tonight. Staff inquired whether the Board was considering
modifying the percentages or the amount of square feet in the General Plan.
President Kohlstrand stated the Board is not looking for a specific square foot number
but she would suggest not going over 10,000 square feet. She does not want to
eliminate percentages altogether just consider other options.
Page 6 of 21",PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-11,7,"Board member Cunningham moved and Board member McNamara seconded the
motion to continue this item to the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting of
September 8, 2008. The motion passed by the following voice vote: 5-0-0.
9-B.
Planned Development Amendment, Major Design Review - PDA05-0004,
DR05-0073 - 523 South Shore Center - Harsch Investment Corp. The
applicant requests approval of Planned Development Amendment and Major
Design Review entitlements and certification of an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for redevelopment and expansion of Alameda Towne Centre. The project
includes redevelopment of the site, resulting in full build-out of up to
approximately 706,650 square feet of gross leasable floor area, construction of a
new parking structure, pedestrian, bicycle and transit improvements, new
signage and other minor site improvements. (DG). (Continued from July 14,
2008).
Staff addressed issues raised by the public and the Board at the previous Planning
Board meeting on July 14, 2008. Staff's report tonight will address the following 1) noise
specifically for residential property on Otis Drive near the shopping center area; 2)
adequacy of the traffic study; and 3) general concerns from the Board regarding future
development of the center.
Regarding noise on Otis Drive staff's investigation included the code enforcement
department surveying the area with a decibel meter. Code enforcement found no
violations of city noise standards. Noise generated by the shopping center, including a
parking lot sweeper, was substantially less than the traffic generated on Otis Drive.
Noise was not identified as having a significant impact in the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR). There are conditions in the resolution presented tonight that prohibit more
intensive activities within 200 feet of residential properties, which goes above and
beyond requirements.
Regarding the traffic study, the City retained a third party consultant, Dowling &
Associates, to have licensed engineers review the original study prepared for this
project. Dowling & Associates also reviewed the traffic study plan for the Transportation
Element Update of General Plan. They concurred with the methodology used to prepare
the study and noted that it complied with the requirements of the City. Dowling also
noted that many of the assumptions used in the original study were extremely
conservative and projected a greater number of trips than are likely to occur. In some
cases, it was overstated as much as 50% more than what Dowling found in their own
studies from 2007. Staff believes this is a very conservative traffic study and the study
has accounted for full build out of the center. Mitigation measures to reduce impacts to
less than significant levels have been identified. Dowling noted that because of the
methodology required by the City's traffic study guidelines, it could be argued that the
analysis is ""segmented"" under CEQA. Staff has addressed this argument in the EIR
and concluded is that it is not segmented.
Page 7 of 21",PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-11,8,"atmosphere, landscaping, and safety. The cedar on the buildings is evidence of the
dedication to the vision. The landscaping is the soul of the project. It softens the look
and creates a comfortable place to walk. The design intentionally makes it easier for
bikes and pedestrians to navigate through the Centre. The applicant worked with
Bike/Walk Alameda, and has been responsive to their suggestions. Signage has been
created with a high level of craftsmanship, working with local artisans. Lots of artwork
has been included at the Centre and 12 history panels about Alameda have been
created. Harsch has spent 80 million dollars on the Centre and no part of the
renovation has been subsidized by the city.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft asked who were the people in the last photo.
The applicant responded they are real Alamedans. He described the extra bike racks
added to encourage bicycle riding to and from the Centre. He explained that the center
court is used for evening gatherings for celebrations and concerts. Kohls is scheduled to
open in April 2009. Orchard Supply Hardware is expected to move in Spring 2009
depending on the outcome of the appeal.
President Kohlstrand moved to limit speakers time to three minutes.
Cathy Fong spoke in support of the proposal. She is a 21 year resident of Alameda and
urged the Board to approve the EIR as it stands. She would like to see the project
move forward as quickly as possible.
Page 8 of 21",PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-11,9,"Blake Brydon, President of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of
the proposal and the EIR. He believes the review completed on traffic and the EIR is
thorough. He believes the development company has exceeded expectations, and the
need for jobs and sales tax in Alameda is important.
Melody Marr, CEO Alameda Chamber of Commerce, asked that the Board approve the
proposal. The Chamber is planning a ""Shop Alameda"" promotion and as auto
dealerships in the city close, it is important to encourage new sources of revenue to
maintain city services.
Claire Risley spoke in opposition to the proposal. She is a resident on Grand Street and
at times it resembles the 880 freeway. She urged the Board not to approve the EIR.
She does not think it provides a complete analysis of the traffic. She would prefer that a
decision on the proposal be delayed until current ongoing construction is approved,
vacant sites are occupied, then perform an analysis of the traffic. She distributed a site
plan that shows vacant space in the center.
Holly Sellers spoke in opposition to the proposal. She asked the Board not to certify the
EIR until all questions are addressed. Since the draft EIR was published no new
information has been added. She believes the proposal gives the applicant a blank
check to construct a parking garage with fewer transit improvements than required in
2003. The sidewalk promised before Safeway opened has not been put in. She
believes the parking ratio is not high enough.
Dorothy Reid spoke in support of allowing what has already been approved to be built.
She is opposed to any additions or changes. She would prefer to see the applicant
complete what has been approved then another traffic study should be done to assess
impacts. She doesn't believe there is any harm in denying the EIR and the expansion,
and revisiting the applicants request after completion.
Christine Healey previously provided comments to the Board regarding noise impacts
on the neighborhoods surrounding the Centre. She has spoken with neighbors some of
whom are elderly and English may not be their first language. The neighbors have
complained of the noise. She is not against growth, but is against a diminished quality
of life and lower property values. She does not support extension of business hours at
the Centre or 24 hour truck deliveries.
John Mascali spoke in support of the proposal. He has worked with Harsh and although
he is not a tenant if the Centre, Harsch has been great to work with. He owns two
Burger King franchises nearby. Sales have dropped with the new development but he
is in support of the center, and believes it is good for the community. The sidewalk
issue and noise are both attributable to Burger King, and he is changing his business to
take care of these issues. He supports approval of the proposal and certification of the
EIR.
Page 9 of 21",PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-11,10,"John Knox-White stated that a little over two years ago he asked questions regarding
the EIR, and believes staff has worked hard to answer his questions. He has worked
with Harsh on behalf of transit and alternate transit advocates, although they did not
always see eye-to-eye, Harsch has always worked in good faith. He does not agree
with staffs' response to some of the comments from the transportation commission. For
example regarding Otis Drive instead of adding new lanes we recommended staff look
at reducing lanes to add a 2-way left turn lane. Staffs' response was ""comment noted""
-
he does not understand what that means. He also made suggestions regarding the
addition of bike lanes on Park Street to facilitate bike route connections. Staff's
response was to move the bikes elsewhere.
Eugenie Thomson agrees that Harsch should complete the current plan and urges the
Board not to approve the requested expansion. She believes the transportation study is
technically inadequate for the following reasons: the traffic study is not based on reality
and her previous comments are not addressed; a planner from Dowling conducted the
peer review of an engineers document; methodologies are inconsistent with the
Highway Capacities Manual; the report did not recognize key lane changes; and the
volume assumptions are not conservative. She stated that in 2005 the counts were low
because the stores were not yet built or not yet operating. The comparisons with the
Transportation Element EIR are not valid. She stated that her letter of July 14th was not
included with agendas or on web.
Pat Gannon gave her three minutes to Eugenie Thomson.
Eugenie Thomson hired an independent company called Traffic Data Services. She
would like to know why the level of service was worse at Park and Otis than the
theoretical levels in the city study. She anted to know why no other kind of analysis was
done and why was there no good access for fire trucks and buses. She urged the
Board to consider an expansion only with an updated traffic study.
Geoffrey Kline agreed with E. Thompson. If the developer does not correct problems
now the city and residents will be responsible for correcting them in the future.
Kurt Libby agrees with comments from Anne Cooks letter. He is concerned about
traffic. Trucks entering Alameda from the bridges go down Broadway and are coming
and going all night. He has noticed a lot more traffic on Broadway than in the last
couple of years, making it difficult for residents to back out of driveways. He has to
wash traffic related dust and soot from his house every few months and the traffic
makes it too noisy for outdoor conversation. He stated these are new problems since
the Centre has been under reconstruction. He is located 1.3 miles from the center, and
not included in the area covered by the traffic study. He believes there is a need to
expand the area covered by the traffic study.
Stanley Davis, a representative of Kohls Department Store, spoke in support of the
proposal. He stated that Kohls expects 2-3 deliveries per week, from a distribution
center 80 minutes away. The drop off and pick up trailer will take only 10-15 minutes
Page 10 of 21",PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-11,11,"per delivery. Trucks will not be still with engines idling. Kohls is very excited to be in
Alameda and wants to be the best neighbors possible. The extended hours of
operation are being requested for the convenience of customers.
In response to an inquiry by the Board, Mr. Davis stated that deliveries would take place
between 7am and 10pm and that unloading would be done by hand not with a forklift.
He also stated the store hours of operation would be 7am:10pm weekdays, 7am:11pm
weekends, and holiday shopping hours would take place in November and December
from 7am to midnight.
Tom & Dori DeTurk, owners of Loards Ice Cream at Alameda Town Center, spoke in
support of the proposal. They stated that 3 years ago the South Shore Mall was
downsizing and the work Harsh has done on the Centre has been nothing short of
a
miracle. They are not traffic/EIR experts, but believe Harsh is a good corporate citizen
and easy to work with. Dori has seen three generations of kids at the ice cream store,
and has enjoyed working with Harsh, and would like to see them move forward and
bring in Kohls as a good anchor store to help small independent businesses succeed.
Fred Reid spoke in opposition to the project. Two yeas ago he submitted ""Letter 17""
with three very specific questions regarding numbers used for baseline and cumulative
analysis. He has been working in this area for many decades, and presented specific
discrepancies he found between the city observations and other sources of data. His
comments were answered with procedural statements. He believes the city is wrong.
He does not understand how Dowlings numbers for traffic on Otis Drive in 2003 can be
less than those in this report.
Phil Freitas spoke in favor of the project. He is impressed with the transformation
Harsch has done to the centre and is happy about its revitalization. He urged the city to
certify the EIR and move the project forward.
Susan Decker spoke in favor of the project. She is glad the centre is not near a freeway
since it means people can walk to it. She is happy to have the business so close, and
would like to see that progress continue. The area is becoming more vibrant but more
can be done. She has seen Harsch respond to accommodate bike and pedestrian
access. She is sorry for people who live right across from the Centre, but these
neighbors should expect an increased amount of noise living next to a shopping mall.
Michael Krueger, a member of the Transportation Commission, spoke in favor of the
proposal. He wanted to provide follow up to Mr. Knox-White's comments, specifically
comment #32-8 trying to put pedestrian/biking amenities that sometimes requires
reducing space for car parking stalls. He urged the planning board to recommend
parking reduction if it can help accommodate pedestrians and bikes. This is a different
type of shopping center being pedestrian and bike friendly. It is one of the most
accessible malls he has ever seen, and that is why he is suggesting a further reduction
of parking. He suggests having sidewalks on both sides of the street when the traffic
signal is installed. As an Alameda resident, he is very happy with the changes so far,
Page 11 of 21",PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-11,12,"understands the need for an anchor store, and stated that we need to support the small
businesses in the Centre.
Walter Schlueter spoke in favor of the proposal. He stated that Harsh had been a
responsible and good neighbor, and produced a quality shopping center, that is unusual
for a town of this size. Harsch has invested millions of dollars in the city and has a long
term vision for enjoyable shopping for Alamedans. The Centre allows Alamedans to
shop in town generating sales tax revenue that would help balance the City budget. He
encourages the Board to approve the project.
Marilyn Schumacher spoke in support of the proposal. She disliked the old shopping
center and is in awe of the new center. She rides her bike to the Centre every day.
She loves the lighting and quality of the materials used.
Karen Bey spoke in support of the project. She supports the expansion and would like
to see the city refine the retail strategy to locate similar retailers in one location.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. The board agreed to a five minute
break.
President Kohlstrand suggested a structured discussion. She stated that the Board
could collectively agree that there is a belief in Alameda that changes that have
occurred at the center have been positive for the city. She stated three overriding
issues: 1) Is the infrastructure provided onsite and adjacent to the centre adequate to
meet the needs of the expansion so far? If the shopping center expands, has the
analysis adequately addressed the level of infrastructure primarily regarding traffic and
transportation, 2) What should the maximum size of the center be? Should the Board
consider additional expansion. 3) Neighbors have addressed the operational noise
issues along Park, Otis and Broadway, which are considered issues of livability.
President Kohlstrand stated she would like the Board discussion to begin with the
environmental issues, then move to design and size issues. She stated that Board
member Cook was unable to attend this meeting, but sent a letter where she expressed
her reservations about certifying the EIR due to concerns about lighting, unfulfilled
promises regarding infrastructure improvements, dust control during construction, and
approving additional square footage.
President Kohlstrand asked staff if there were issues that were not related to the EIR
that the Board could deal with independently of EIR certification.
Staff responded that if the applicant's proposal is denied, there are prior approvals the
applicant could act on. The applicant could renovate but not expand the Centre and
could not expand into the shoreline area. The sign program would be affected if the
proposal was denied.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the Board should identify specific concerns with
Page 12 of 21",PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-11,13,"EIR.
President Kohlstrand responded yes.
Staff explained the EIR process as it relates to the project.
Board member McNamara stated she wanted to address and reconcile the differing
opinions regarding traffic. She wondered why there is such a discrepancy between
what the document states and public comments that have been received. She asked if
prior public comments had been responded to satisfactorily. She stated the information
is quantitative, and should not be subjective. She stated she is not comfortable with the
Dowling review.
Staff responded that asking for opinions from different experts in the same field will
sometimes yield differing opinions.
President Kohlstrand asked if the study was conducted by a traffic planner not an
engineer. Her concern is whether the base of the data is outdated. The traffic situation
has changed in the last few years as a result of the changes in Alameda including
overall revitalization. She has observed more traffic in the Otis/Park street area and can
see the need to re-count traffic levels.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft would like to focus on mitigation measures and accelerate
the initiation of these measures.
Staff stated that mitigation measures associated with the driveway at Trader Joes were
identified for cumulative growth to 2025. The city may require implementation of the
mitigations earlier if traffic levels warrant.
President Kohlstrand stated that some mitigations had specific language in the 10 year
range, some were more open ended.
Board member Lynch stated that he believed it was up to the applicant to consider
accelerating the implementation of identified mitigation measures.
Board member Cunningham stated that there was no question that Harsh had created a
great center, and the expansion might make it a bigger place and attract even more
people. He believes the discussion should focus on whether this is an appropriate
project for Alameda. He stated that if the automobile lots are leaving Alameda focus
should be on expanding and improving all areas that can use retail, rather than making
the shopping center a mega center. The board needs to discuss whether a second
garage deck is appropriate and what should the building limits be. The EIR does not
look at aesthetic aspects. He believes there is a fundamental problem with staff looking
for board approval of design of this new addition without public review. If he were to
give an answer today, he would not approve the project because he is uncomfortable
with it. He believes the Board should start with the fundamental question which would
Page 13 of 21",PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-11,14,"be, is this the right project for this location.
A Board discussion ensued on the merits of the project and whether the Board should
discuss the appropriateness of the project for the site.
President Kohlstrand stated that certifying the EIR does not constitute approval of the
project. The Board could decide to certify the EIR and choose to approve less square
footage for expansion.
A Board discussion ensued on whether to discuss the EIR first and then the project or
whether to discuss the project first.
Board member Lynch stated that there are questions about the expansion, but in terms
of some of the smaller stores/restaurants they were designed in response to previous
comments by the Board. He believed the Board discussion should focus on Kohls and
the parking structure.
Board member Cunningham stated that he does not have an issue with waterside
restaurants and the proposed sign program. He is concerned about the expansion.
Board member Lynch stated that in regards to the EIR he would agree that as it relates
to issues regarding traffic, he is comfortable that it is adequate as far as CEQA. He
would be comfortable with specific recommendations, but not discussing the merits of
the methodology used.
President Kohlstrand agreed with Board member Lynch. She would like to focus on the
EIR, because it is hard to grasp how big the project would be. Many people would like
to see the shoreline developed and infrastructure in place as a way to help the centre
get tenants. Perhaps traffic counts could be monitored in the future as more
development occurs. She stated that the Board should focus on traffic, and
transportation and noise in terms of an environmental discussion. She referred the
Board to page five of the EIR resolution and asked if any Board member had issues
with it.
None of the board members had issues with page five of the EIR resolution.
In response to an inquiry by the board regarding the left turn lane onto Park Street, staff
described the details of the lane, and stated it was linked to phase 3 of the
redevelopment plan which is expected to occur in 2010 when major expansion of the
centre will occur. There is language that could mean it may occur sooner.
President Kohlstrand stated that a specific time frame for the improvements is not
stated, only for the contribution.
A
board discussion ensured regarding adding a sentence to the resolution specifically
stating when construction would commence with deadlines for installation and linking
Page 14 of 21",PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-11,15,"the expansion to phase two rather than phase three since there appears to be a need
for the improvements now.
President Kohlstrand invited the applicant to address the Board.
Randy Kyte, representing Harsh, addressed the Board. He stated that arbitrarily
changing implementation of the mitigation measures to phase two disregards the fact
that the nexus for these measures was determined to be in phase three.
A board discussion ensued on the mitigation measures planned for phase two and
phase three.
Randy Kyte stated it is a matter of fairness, and Harsch would like to be treated the
same as any other applicant. If the nexus is determined to be in phase three he would
like that timeline to be respected. He is willing to deal with identified impacts but does
not want to be treated unfairly.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated she appreciated the work done by Harsh, and
believes there is a spirit of wanting to move forward, but the applicant should not have
to bargain in public, this can be done privately and revisited publicly.
President Kohlstrand stated she understood the applicants' position and would like to
find a way to move the project forward.
Randy Kyte stated he would agree to tighter mitigations.
President Kohlstrand stated the Board needed to tighten the timeline.
Staff stated that phase two of the redevelopment covers the period from 2008-2010.
Changing the mitigation timing may hold up issuance of building permits.
A board discussion ensued regarding correlating contributions to issuance of the first
permit in phase three.
Board member Cunningham moved and Board member McNamara seconded the
motion to adopt the Environmental Impact Report as amended. The motion passed 5-0.
Peter Galloway clarified when traffic counts were taken for the traffic analysis. His firm
also performed traffic counts in 2003. The most recent counts were done in 2005. At
that time, the center was undergoing renovation and some driveways were blocked off.
As a result city staff had the highest 2003 counts incorporated into the document.
Counts from at least four intersections were taken. Dowling performed more recent
traffic counts for the Transportation element update in 2007.
A board discussion ensued regarding Mitigation Measure 10-2 and adding language
that states the city can make the determination to implement this mitigation, using level
Page 15 of 21",PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-11,16,"of service as a trigger, and considering that this mitigation may not be needed.
President Kohlstrand stated that Mitigation 10-3 pertains to the Shoreline and access to
the post office. She stated the applicant is 100% responsible for this mitigation, or the
city can determine if the level of service is no longer acceptable. She asked if the board
had any other comments regarding the environmental resolution.
Board member Lynch asked about other traffic concerns.
President Kohlstrand stated those are not listed as significant environmental Impacts,
but are community and city concerns that need to be addressed.
A board discussion ensued regarding other traffic issues including traffic flow and street
light timing and whether the developer or the City should address these issues. The
board directed staff to refer the community comments regarding traffic issues to the City
engineering department, and report back to the Board.
Board member Cunningham asked how and when level of service is determined. He
asked that this issue be addressed and included in the report.
President Kohlstrand had suggested language be added specifying what constitutes an
acceptable level of service.
In response to an inquiry by the board regarding how the City determines level of
service staff responded that the City has published Traffic Study Guidelines.
President Kohlstrand asked if the Board had any additional comments on the
environmental document.
Board member Lynch stated that substantive changes had been made and he would
like to see those changes incorporated into the final version.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated the board could move to adopt the resolution as
amended so it would not be necessary to return this item to the board.
President Kohlstrand stated she felt comfortable with Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft's
suggestion.
Board member McNamara stated she was also comfortable with the suggestion.
The Board approved, by a vote of 5-0, to approve the Environmental Impact Report as
amended.
President Kohlstrand approved a five minute break. A motion to extend the meeting
until 11:30 p.m. was approved.
Page 16 of 21",PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-11,17,"President Kohlstrand stated that the second resolution has to do with approving the
planned development amendment and major design review for redevelopment and
expansion at the Alameda Town Centre. This includes the overall size of the project,
the addition of a parking garage, redevelopment of the shoreline area and the existing
medical offices adjacent to Office Depot, and addition of other infrastructure
improvements. She suggested the Board address the outdoor activities and signage
and infrastructure improvements before addressing the expansion.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft suggested the Board address the size issue first because
public comments are fresh.
Board member Lynch stated he does not see the Board getting through the entire
discussion tonight. The resolution is written such that the Board must approve the
project in its entirety.
President Kohlstrand stated the Board would probably not get through the entire
expansion discussion by 11:30. She suggested starting the discussionon with the other
issues.
Board member Cunningham stated the Board could approve portions of the application
and return to any other elements.
Staff stated the Board could consider taking a vote on aspects of the project where
there are no concerns, and then focus on the major issue of expansion.
Board member Lynch stated that people would be okay with biking pedestrian signage
issues. He inquired how the Board could reopen the issue for public discussion.
A Board discussion ensued regarding Board member Lynch's question.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft suggested the Board use the remaining time for
discussion on this project.
Staff stated that the sign program is time sensitive for the applicant.
Board member Lynch inquired how could the Board break apart a resolution that has
been noticed to the public.
Assistant City Attorney stated that the Board could consider a motion as long as the
same findings are in the resolution.
President Kohlstrand requested that the Assistant City Attorney assist with the correct
language when the Board is at the point of crafting a resolution. She then asked if the
Board had any concerns regarding the signage program.
President Kohlstrand states she had one issue. She believed the signing is marvelous,
Page 17 of 21",PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-11,18,"but there were wall mounted signs for major tenants 6' tall, on the exterior of the center,
and a couple in the interior pedestrian walkway. She wanted to know why this
configuration was implemented.
Monique, on behalf of the applicant, stated that those signs are only used for the major
tenants over 50,000 sf, currently just Kohl's and Safeway.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft asked for clarification on how the size of the signs are
determined.
The applicant responded that going out 50 feet from the facades was not enough and
the Borders sign which was put in caused light impacts.
The Assistant City Attorney clarified an earlier statement. The sign issue is not dealt
with in the resolution and allows the Board to prepare a motion regarding signs.
Board member Lynch moved to approve the sign program per the July 2008 staff report
incorporating the sign program starting on page 8 of 14 and identified in attachment 4,
and any conditions contained in the resolution applicable to the sign program.
President Kohlstrand stated she had one concern. She would like to condition the
planned development agreement to stipulate that the sidewalk lost when Target went
away (adjacent to the parking area between the post office and the TJ Maxx, and also
one adjacent to the parking area near OSH) be provided by the applicant.
Staff responded that the Post office sidewalk is planned, and the other sidewalk has
been removed.
President Kohlstrand agreed that there are tradeoffs, but does not think it will put more
traffic to Whitehall and Franciscan. She believes the plan should provide access but
remove the number of access points to facilitate pedestrian uses. The next time the
Board discusses this issue, we should have some sense of what the parking ratio is with
and without that sidewalk to make an informed decision. She asked that this topic be
put back on the table as part of the master plan.
Board member McNamara confirmed that the sidewalk requested at the July 14 meeting
was the one in front of the dentists office although it is not on the diagram.
Staff confirmed that this particular sidewalk is included.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated she would like to see an overlay showing truck
routes to and from the center, especially as the routes relate to Orchard Supply
Hardware as it is close to a children's dentist office. It would help the Board decide
conditions for hours of delivery. She would like staff to provide this information on a
separate map including streets.
Page 18 of 21",PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-11,19,"Staff responded that there are city truck maps, but not specified driveways they enter
and exit from.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the truck drivers decide which route to take.
Staff responded that the city ordinance only requires truck drivers stay on routes to
destination. They are allowed some flexibility.
President Kohlstrand stated that the Board has certified the Environmental Document
and approved the sign program, and identified some issues for further discussion at the
next meeting. She asked if there was anything else on the table.
Staff responded that if the Board had concerns about the hours of operation those
concerns could be addressed.
President Kohlstrand stated that outdoor activities/special events are permitted from
9am-9pm subject to compliance with city noise standards. Generally speaking the
center is open 6am -12am and any activities outside those hours require special
permission.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated there have been complaints about the noise from
leaf blowers etc., there is a provision prohibiting these activities within 200 feet of a
residence between 10pm and 7am, but then on pg 12, paragraph 43, mitigation
measure regarding construction, limits noise generation more tightly. Perhaps it would
help neighbors if maintenance equipment noise limits are considered within 300 feet
instead of 200 feet and not time restrictions.
Staff responded that 200 feet is easy to identify, 300 feet is in the middle of the parking
lot without a clear landmark, which makes it difficult to implement.
The applicant (Mike Corbett) stated that 300 feet is an issue, because Safeway is open
24 hours. The applicant has been very accommodating for a single person who has
complained about noise, and has addressed all complaints. Not being able to street
sweep while the lot is empty makes it difficult to keep the lot clean. The 300 foot
distance is a real issue.
Board member Cunningham asked if businesses at the Centre accept deliveries 24
hour a day.
Staff responded that if a business is open 24 hours it can accept deliveries during those
hours under previously granted entitlements.
President Kohlstrand stated that with the exception of being within 200 feet of a
residence.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated she was alarmed by the idea of Kohl's opening
Page 19 of 21",PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-11,20,"early and closing late, and the Christmas closing hours of midnight.
President Kohlstrand stated she thinks they would have to alter overall operating hours
to change that.
Board member McNamara stated that perhaps these extended holiday hours are
becoming the norm. She does not see a problem with that and believes store hours
should be driven by a business decision.
President Kohlstrand stated she believes there is a general consensus to stay with the
hours of operation and the time limitations that the staff has put forward, along with the
200 feet limitation adjacent to residential uses, and also with respect to outdoor
activities.
Board member Cunningham moved to approve items 8, 9, and 10. The motion passed
unanimously.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft requested that the next time this item comes before the
Board it is placed at the beginning of the agenda.
President Kohlstrand stated that the Board had already approved item 11. She asked
when the item would be before the Board again. She asked if it could be presented on
September 22, 2008. She asked if at that time the public hearing would be open or
closed.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the public comment period does not have to be
reopened.
President Kohlstrand stated there is always an open public comment period at all
Planning Board meetings, and the public can comment on items not specifically listed
on the agenda.
Board member Lynch believed the public comment period should be reopened, the
project should be renoticed, and it should be stated that specific items are open for
comment and discussion by the Board.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft agreed with Board member Lynch.
President Kohlstrand stated there was consensus among the Board to keep the public
comment period open.
Staff asked to clarify the Board discussion regarding the sign program. There was
a
condition in the resolution related to the signage, there weren't any findings in the
resolution, and there was a reference to an attachment four by one of the planning
board members and that attachment was the Master Sign Program that was being
proposed (page 6 of 14).
Page 20 of 21",PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-11,21,"President Kohlstrand thanked everyone for their patience and input.
A motion to continue the item was approved unanimously.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Item 10A: Summerhouse, an apartment project, had approval for the design of a new
community building. The applicant submitted a revised design for review. Staff asked if
the Board would prefer the design review be handled by staff the Board.
President Kohlstrand requested the Board review the new design.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or
make a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a referral
to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body
at a subsequent meeting concerning a City matter or, through the chair, direct staff to
None
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Biggs, Secretary
City Planning Board
This meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 21 of 21",PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf