body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2009-08-24,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING
MONDAY, August 24, 2009
1.
CONVENE:
President Kohlstrand called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft
3.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
President Kohlstrand, Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft, Board
members Autorino, Cook, Cunningham, Lynch, and Zuppan.
ABSENT:
None.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes from the meeting of July 27, 2009
President Kohlstrand noted that the minutes should be
corrected to reflect the information requests by the Planning
Board. Motion as amended 5-0-2. (Autorino & Zuppan
abstained)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
Item 8-B was moved from Consent to Regular Agenda.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff commented that the Fire Department was available to provide assistance, as the
elevator was out of operation.
6-A Future Agendas
Staff presented the upcoming projects to come before the Planning Board.
6-B Zoning Administrator Report
Staff reported that on August 4, 2009 a Use Permit and Design Review application for a
project at 1208 Lincoln was approved for two residential units on the second-floor of an
existing commercial structure.
Board member Lynch asked how the Green Building Ordinance would be introduced to the
community and recommended that staff contact the pertinent green building organizations
to obtain technical assistance as well as education materials for the community.
Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft asked whether the building community would get the
opportunity to review the proposed ordinance in a workshop format.
President Kohlstrand requested that the work-program for the fiscal year be included on the
upcoming project list.
Page 1 of 11",PlanningBoard/2009-08-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-08-24,2,"7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Barbara Kerr spoke to item 8-A (continued) and stated that the project does not currently
comply with the approvals granted in the past. She requested that any future plans be
made to conform to the General Plan and the Municipal Code.
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
Use Permit - PLN09-0184 - Applicant - Chengben ""Peter"" Wang for Encinal
Terminals - A request to approve an amendment of the existing use permit UP-94
06 to allow for the outdoor storage, refurbishing, and sale and lease of shipping
containers, outdoor storage of boats, watercraft, automobiles, RV's, chassis,
trailers, automotive equipment, vehicles, buses, trucks, mobile homes, construction
equipment and materials for business, homes, commercial and/or household goods
and ancillary uses including office or retail functions from September 26, 2009
through August 31, 2015. Applicant requested continuance to the September
28, 2009 Planning Board Meeting.
Rezoning - PLN09-0222- Applicant - City of Alameda. A rezoning of property
currently occupied by ConGlobal Industries from M-2, General Industrial
(Manufacturing) District, to M-X Mixed Use Planned Development District to
conform to the General Plan Mixed Use Designation. Applicant requested
continuance to the September 28, 2009 Planning Board Meeting.
Zoning Text Amendment - PLN09-0243- M-X Zoning District Regulations -
Applicant: City of Alameda. A proposed text amendment to the M-X Mixed Use
Planned Development District zoning regulations to allow for application for interim
use permits prior to approval of a master plan for the property under certain
conditions. Applicant requested continuance to the September 28, 2009
Planning Board Meeting.
Motioned by Board member Cunningham/seconded by Vice-President Ezzy
Ashcraft to continue item 8-A to the meeting of September 28, 2009.
Approved 7-0
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-B
Conformance Rezonings - Applicant: City of Alameda: PLN09-0110 - 1913
Sherman Street (APN 074-0906-031-08) A rezoning of a 1.9 acre property from
M-1-PD, Intermediate Industrial (Manufacturing) Planned Development District, to
R-2-PD, Two Family Residence Planned Development District.
Staff presented the agenda report.
Page 2 of 11",PlanningBoard/2009-08-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-08-24,3,"Barbara Kerr corrected the staff report and listed the General Plan policies that direct the
future street access to the site from Sherman Street and not Bay Street. She stated that
she does not recommend the Planned Development overlay at this time, as the future
development is still uncertain and speculative.
Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft corrected the resolution's date and was supportive of Barbara
Kerr's comments pertaining to street access.
President Kohlstrand asked staff why the Planned Development overlay was necessary.
Staff explained the flexibility in site design that is possible with a PD overlay designation.
Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft motioned/Board member Cook seconded approval.
Approved 7-0.
9-A
2009-2010 Election of Planning Board Officers. The Planning Board will elect a
new President and Vice President for the upcoming year, as required by the
Planning Board By-Laws.
Board member Cook thanked President Kohlstrand for her excellent work as the
President of the Board and recommended Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft to the
position of President. Motioned by Board member Cook / seconded by Board
Member Lynch. Approved 7-0.
Board member Lynch motioned/seconded by Board member Cunningham to elect
Board member Autorino to the position of Vice-Presidnet. Approved 7-0.
9-B
Use Permit - PLN08-0479 - 1051 Pacific Marina - Charlie Zawde. Proposed
banquet and catering facility in an existing building that proposes to operate
between the hours of 9 am - 10 pm, Sunday through Thursday, and 9 am to 11:30
pm, Friday and Saturday.
Staff addressed President Kohlstrand's question regarding the difference between the
hours of operation as proposed by the applicant and staff's recommendation for shorter
hours of operation. Staff then proceeded with the staff report outlining the parking study as
submitted by the applicant's consultant and answered Planning Board members' questions
raised at the previous meeting with the following answers: 1) Owner shall control the
alcohol license: The applicant will not obtain their own license, but would only provide the
space for the client or caterer who holds a liquor license to provide for the beverages and
food; 2) Require parking lot clean-up after events: condition related to this was included in
the resolution; 3) Limitations on the number and conditions for events: the applicant is
agreeable to conditions for events, but staff is uncertain if the applicant is amenable to
limiting the number of events; 4) Non-compliance activities: Non-permitted work had since
been granted building permits with applicant paying code enforcement penalties, staff
confirmed events had occurred without use permit approval; and 5) Similar banquet facility
conditions of approval: Bayside Banquet facility's parking requirements were met through
existing conditions; the Brazilian Room (Oakland) has a ratio of one security officer present
per 50 guests between the ages of 16 and 21; the Oakland Yacht Club's approval
contained no conditions limiting the number of events, number of guests, or specifying
Page 3 of 11",PlanningBoard/2009-08-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-08-24,4,"parking requirements.
Board member Cook stated that crafting final conditions at the dais are difficult, and asked
staff to evaluate the community's proposed conditions of approval. Staff commented that
the community and the applicant should be heard one more time, to evaluate all proposed
conditions and to develop a final list from that.
Board member Lynch requested a clarification of the resolutions from staff, applicant, and
the community.
Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft requested information on the noise and parking study.
President Kohlstrand asked whether the State Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) liquor
license could be held by the caterer instead of the owner of the premises. Staff stated that
caterers can obtain licenses and the property owner could proceed without holding the ABC
license.
Board member Zuppan asked if clients could bring their own alcoholic beverages to the
premises. Staff noted it understood this would be possible.
Board member Lynch motioned/ Board member Cunningham seconded to limit public
testimony to three minutes each. Approved 7-0.
President Kohlstrand opened the public comment period.
T. Sullivan, the applicant's representative, stated that the applicant has made a significant
effort after the last meetings to accommodate the public's comments about noise and
parking concerns. He stated that while the applicant generally agrees to staff's proposed
conditions of approval, there are concerns with proposed conditions #4, #7, #13, and #16.
Conditions #7 and #16, requiring parking attendants and security personnel at every event,
are unduly burdensome. He commented that these requirements should kick in when 150
or more attendees per event are present. Condition #13, requiring a 10 pm closing time at
all events, would make the facility infeasible. He stated that the other facilities of a similar
nature are not restricted in such a manner. Condition #4, prohibition of the sale of alcoholic
beverages, is difficult to enforce. Although the applicant does not want to sell alcohol on
site, there may be caterers who are required to sell the beverages pursuant to client's
requests.
B. Warner, financial manager at Point Marina Vista, stated that an agreement has been
reached between the adjacent property management, Legacy Partners, to utilize shared
parking. He added, that similar businesses do not have the conditions proposed for Point
Marina Vista and he asked that the Use Permit be approved to permit the operation of the
business, which is similar to businesses permitted by right in the MX zoning.
C. Zawde, property manager, stated that his company is committed to operating a first
class facility that can be a good neighbor. He stated that the noise concerns can be
mitigated, as noted in the noise study and that parking can be provided. He requested that
the hours of operations be up to 11:30pm on Friday and Saturday be granted to make the
project financially feasible and that condition #4 be altered to require security personnel for
Page 4 of 11",PlanningBoard/2009-08-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-08-24,5,"events that exceed 150 attendees.
M. Hershey, Oakland Yacht Club Member, stated that the Oakland Yacht Club does have
conditions of approval that it complies with. In addition, he wanted to ensure that the City
has a program that would monitor compliance with the conditions of approval, if the project
was approved.
B. Paulsen, Oakland Yacht Club Member, spoke about noise and vehicle parking security
concerns, but focused on how the property owner would comply with the conditions of
approval and how they would be enforced.
T. Cronin, Marina View Towers resident, stated that the proposed use is not equivalent to
the former restaurant use. He is gravely concerned about compliance with California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and American Disability Act (ADA) requirements. The
proposed use would not be a good neighbor. He recommended that the Planning Board
impose a performance and liability bond to protect the interests of the local residents and
the City of Alameda.
L. Cardoza, Oakland Yacht Club Member, recommends denial of the application as the
conditions of approval are not adequate to ensure compliance and monitoring.
N. Shemick, Marina Village resident, stated that the applicant has negated a good faith
effort with the neighborhood, based on the previous business activities at the site that were
non-compliant. She also requested that the project be denied, as it would likely cause many
disruptions to the neighborhood, and result in frequent calls to the Alameda Police
Department that is already overburdened due to staff reductions.
M. Keen, Marina Village resident, requested denial of the project, due to the fact that a
banquet facility would create nuisances, and noise.
N. Bartlett, Marina Village resident, reiterated her concerns that the applicant would not be
able to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval.
T. Charron, Marina Village resident and Pacific Marina Yacht Club, was discontented with
the fact that no meeting with the applicant had been convened outside of the Planning
Board hearings. He outlined the deficiencies in the parking analysis and then clarified the
conditions of operation at the Pacific Marina Yacht Club. He is opposed to a facility that
allows trring-your-own-booze"" type of events. He requested that a mediator be brought into
the discussion, who could facilitate and reach a reasonable set of conditions for both sides.
D. Carroll Marina Village resident, opposes the proposal on the basis that the banquet
facility's management would not be a responsible or good neighbor. He also questions the
adequacy of the parking study.
B. Jarvis, Marina Village resident, proposed that instead of allowing the banquet facility,
the City should allow deviation from development standards and permit the construction of
several high-end condominiums, which would recoup the applicant's costs and be a
suitable neighbor to existing residential development.
Page 5 of 11",PlanningBoard/2009-08-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-08-24,6,"President Kohlstrand closed the public comment period.
The Board asked that the applicant respond to the question of advertising and scheduling
of upcoming events. The applicant stated that the website is not theirs and that no event
was scheduled for September 6, 2009.
Board member Cook asked for clarification on the applicant's interpretation of 'bring-your-
own-beverages' and why the applicant is requesting that condition #4 be changed. The
applicant stated that no alcohol will be sold through the banquet's business operation, but
that alcoholic sales would be strictly conducted by caterers.
Board member Lynch asked for clarification on the deposit for staff and material for Use
Permits. Staff explained how staff time billed towards the deposit on processing the
application. Board member Lynch suggested that a facilitator be selected to resolve the
items that are contentious, paid for by the applicant or billed against the project. He
rejected the idea to developing conditions of approval at the dais and suggested that the
Board only review the project upon agreement of the different parties.
Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft disagreed with the need to find a mediator and with the
statement that the facility would not be ADA compliant. She would like to see a condition of
approval requiring that the applicant obtain an ABC liquor license, as it would generate a
vested interest by the property owner in maintaining good relationships with neighbors, as
their liquor license would be at stake. She also recommended that condition #4 be revised
to require security when an event has 100 or more attendees. In addition, she stated that
enforcement of conditions is possible. She stated that a restaurant and a banquet facility
are somewhat similar uses, but that the restaurant is more intensive from a parking need
standpoint as they are open for business seven days a week, while this venue would
operate once or twice a week.
Board member Autorino asked the applicant why building activity and events were
conducted without proper permits. The applicant's representative stated that the property
owner was unaware of the need to obtain a Use Permit to hold events. Board member
Autorino asked how the business operations would be conducted and the community would
be able to contact someone in the case of issues at events. The applicant's representative
stated that the applicant would be available at all times for any comments by the
neighborhood. Board member Autorino then asked why it was necessary to increase the
security-guest ratio to 150 instead of 50. The representative stated that it was an arbitrary
number, but they were flexible. Board member Autorino asked for clarification on the
parking study and whether areas were left out in the parking need count as stated in the
public testimony. Charlie Abrams, Traffic Engineer, explained the parking analysis and
stated that the analysis was complete and did calculate parking needs for berths in the
marina.
Obaid Khan, City of Alameda Civil Engineer, spoke about the review process and analysis.
He recommended that if there are more than 130 to 150 attendees, valet parking or
attendant parking should be required.
Board member Autorino wanted it in the record that the applicant's analysis stated on rare
events, parking demand would exceed capacity, while the City's analysis revealed that
Page 6 of 11",PlanningBoard/2009-08-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-08-24,7,"parking would exceed capacity on weekends.
Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft requested that Condition #8 be revised that the applicant
""shall secure the shared parking agreement"", instead of making a ""good faith effort"".
Board member Cook noted that she did her own informal analysis of the site, and noted
that a portion of the parking lot was not maintained or striped. She asked who was
responsible for maintaining the parking lot. Mr. Khan stated that maintenance of the
parking lot was up to the property owners that utilized the lot.
Board member Cunningham asked how the Board would like to proceed and how to
resolve the issues that are still pending. He supported the property owner's right to develop
and utilize the site.
President Kohlstrand asked the Board to come to agreement on how to proceed. Either
deny the project, or continue the project to another meeting to give the applicant time to
meet with the neighbors and develop a set of acceptable conditions.
Board member Cook stated that there are too many unresolved issues, but that she would
not be able to approve the project if there was a vote on the item this evening.
Board member Cunningham stated that he felt that it was the board's responsibility to come
to a decision instead of sending the project back to be revised yet again.
Board member Autorino expressed that he supported the application and wanted to move
forward with its consideration.
Board member Zuppan favored a reuse of the site, but would not be able to approve it at
this time, as she still had questions about the project.
President Kohlstrand stated that she is not able to approve the project at this time, given
the applicant's inability to achieve a resolution with concerned parties.
Board member Zuppan asked whether there was air-conditioning on the site. The applicant
affirmed this. She commented that while without air-conditioning, attendees would likely
leave doors open once the facility became too hot, which would result in significant noise
intrusion into the neighborhood. She asked how the applicant expects to address that
issue. The applicant stated that there are automatic closers on doors. On-site staff would
close the doors when amplified music is played.
Board member Cunningham stated that a vestibule at the building may help mitigate noise
intrusion into the neighborhood.
Board member Zuppan asked the applicant to confirm the number of events that are
planned per year. The applicant agreed to limit the number of events until the use permit is
up for its first review, at which point the number may be increased to what was originally
requested.
Board member Zuppan asked if the applicant had secured an overflow parking agreement.
Page 7 of 11",PlanningBoard/2009-08-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-08-24,8,"The applicant stated it had not as of yet, but a neighboring commercial property owner,
Legacy Partners, had verbally agreed to an agreement for overflow parking on an as
needed basis. She also asked how the applicant proposes to inform the community when a
large event is scheduled. The applicant stated that all business owners and other interested
parties would be informed prior to a large event taking place.
Board member Zuppan asked if the applicant would consider prohibiting the sale of tickets
to the general public for events. The applicant agreed to this, but only if non-profit
organizations would be exempted from this prohibition.
Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft stated she would like to proceed and work at arriving at a
decision, so that a successful business that could contribute and increase the economic
vitality of the City could be established and favored working on a list of conditions that
would minimize impacts to the neighborhood and allow the property owner to operate a
successful banquet facility.
Following a discussion evaluating the merits and details of a lengthy list of conditions,
recommended by staff, applicant, and concerned citizens, the Board developed the
following list of conditions:
1. The applicant shall not operate the facility until a valid business license from the City
of Alameda has been obtained.
2. The applicant shall not use, or permit any caterers and/or clients to use the kitchen
facilities unless a valid permit to operate such kitchen has been issued to applicant from
the Alameda County Environmental Health Department.
3. Alcoholic beverages at this facility may only be served in conjunction with events and
then only by caterers that hold a valid and proper class of Alcoholic Beverage Control
license issued by the State of California. Patrons, guests, attendees, staff, and owners
are not allowed to consume any alcoholic beverages outside, except for in the enclosed
patio area.
4. Any sale of alcoholic beverages shall only be done in conjunction with events and
then only by caterers that hold a valid and proper class of Alcoholic Beverage Control
license issued by the State of California. No facility owner, facility owner staff, patron,
guest, or attendee is allowed to bring or serve any alcoholic beverage at any event held
at this facility.
5. A maximum of 250 individual guests shall be permitted for any single event held at
this facility.
6. Shared parking with the common parking area of Pacific Marina is operated on a first-
come, first-serve basis. The property is controlled under a valid Agreement of
Reciprocal Easements, Covenants, and Restrictions (dated 09/26/1989) and the
facility at 1051 Pacific Marina must adhere to all rules and regulations of the Pacific
Marina common parking. The applicant/facility shall not block or reserve parking
spaces for event guests.
7. Parking attendants shall be uniformed and employed to monitor and direct parking
Page 8 of 11",PlanningBoard/2009-08-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-08-24,9,"for all events with more than 135 attendees and must be on duty for at least the first two
hours of the event.
8. Applicant shall coordinate with other uses at Pacific Marina for events with more than
135 attendees.
9. Before any event with more than 135 attendees, applicant must secure a shared
parking agreement with a neighboring commercial property parking lot owner on a form
approved by the City Attorney.
10. All events held at the facility shall comply with the City of Alameda's Noise
Ordinance pursuant to Section 4.10 of the Alameda Municipal Code.
11. No amplified sound equipment shall be used outside the facility. All doors and
windows of the facility must remain closed when public address systems are used or
when amplified sound systems are in operation, bands are playing, or recorded music
or video is being operated inside the facility.
12. All events held at the facility shall be private and not open to the general public.
13. Outdoor activities conducted in association with events shall be limited to the deck
and lawn area enclosed by a fence on the parking lot side of the building. No music
amplified or un-amplified or use of public address systems is allowed in this area or in
any other outside areas of the property.
14. All events shall end by 10 p.m. Sunday - Thursday and 11:00 p.m. on Friday and
Saturday.
15. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all patrons quietly vacate the parking
lots by 10:30 p.m., Sunday - Thursday and 11:30 p.m. on Friday and Saturday and
must notify all clients, guests, and employees that the site is located next to residential
neighborhoods and that all patrons must be respectful of residents of these
neighborhoods. No alcoholic consumption, disruptive, noise, commotion, or
unnecessary vehicle noise is allowed in the common Parking Area of Pacific Marina nor
in the Alameda Marina City Park which abuts this facility.
16. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all clients, caterers, staff, owners and
guests for each event observe the posted speed limits in the Pacific Marina Parking
area and on adjacent streets.
17. Security guards shall be provided at events in the following ratios to insure
compliance of patrons, caterers, and staff with all mandates of this resolution.
Between 100 - 200 attendees - Minimum of one security guard
Greater than 200 attendees - Minimum of two security guards
Security services and its staff shall be bonded, trained to current industry standards,
uniformed, and visible during all events held at this facility. Security guards must be on
Page 9 of 11",PlanningBoard/2009-08-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-08-24,10,"duty at the facility and parking areas before any event commences and be employed to
stay on duty during all events and remain on duty until the last patron leaves the
common parking area.
18. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that patrons and employees do not park
vehicles in private residential areas.
19. The applicant shall be responsible for the clean up of debris in the parking lots and
on the Pacific Marina site generated by any events held at the facility.
20. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that all permanent employees,
contractors, hired part-time or hourly staff, security personnel, caterers, and entertainers
adhere to these conditions of approval and shall ensure compliance of same to these
conditions of approval.
21. The on-site manager or representative of the property owner shall be on-site during
events and maintain a list of the conditions of this use permit along with the contact
information of the owner or owner's representative, so that issues related to events can
be quickly addressed.
22. This Conditional Use Permit PLN08-0479 will be reviewed by the Alameda Planning
Board every six months for a period of one year from the date of approval.
23. Planning staff shall mail a notice indicating the date, time, and location of each six
month review of this use permit to all property owners, tenants, and homeowner
associations within 500 feet of the project site so interested parties are notified and may
to attend these meetings.
24. Revocation: This Conditional Use Permit may be modified or revoked by the
Planning Board pursuant to the Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-21.3d should the
Planning Board determine that: 1) the use or conditions under which it is being operated
or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity; 2) the property is operated or maintained so as
to constitute a public nuisance; or 3) the use is operated in violation of the conditions of
the Conditional Use Permit.
25. Expiration: The Use Permit approval shall expire two (2) years after the date of
approval or by August 24, 2011 unless the applicant has started operation of the
banquet facility in reliance on this use permit. The applicant may apply for a time
extension, not to exceed two (2) years. An extension request will be subject to approval
by the Planning Board and must be filed prior to the date of expiration.
26. HOLD HARMLESS. The applicant shall defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable
to the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda, its Redevelopment
Agency, the Alameda City Planning Board and their respective agents, officers, and
employees from any claim, action, or proceeding (including legal costs and attorney's
fee) against the City of Alameda, Alameda Redevelopment Agency, Alameda City
Planning Board and their respective agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside,
void or annul, an approval by the City of Alameda, the Planning and Building
Department, Alameda City Planning Board, the City of Alameda Redevelopment Agency
Page 10 of 11",PlanningBoard/2009-08-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-08-24,11,"or City Council relating to this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any
claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperated in such defense. The City
may elect, in its sole discretion, to participate in the defense of said claim, action, or
proceeding.
Board member Cunningham motioned/seconded by Board member Board member
Autorino. Motion passed 6-0-1 subject to the above conditions of approval.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Municipal Code Amendment - City of Alameda. A Municipal Code Amendment
to amend the Alameda Municipal Codes Sections 30-36 and 30-37 related to
Design Review. (review only)
Board member Cunningham requested a red lined version of the amendment
be made available to the Board
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 place a
request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda.
None.
12.
ADJOURNMENT: 11:10 p.m.
Page 11 of 11",PlanningBoard/2009-08-24.pdf