body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2010-01-11,1,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 2010
1.
CONVENE:
7:07 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Vice-President Autorino
3.
ROLL CALL:
Present:
President Ezzy Ashcraft, Vice-President
Autorino,
Board members, Cook, Cunningham,
Kohlstrand, Lynch, and Zuppan.
Absent:
None.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes from the Special meeting of September 10, 2009
Board Member Zuppan requested that the line at the bottom of page 3 be corrected to read
""that all design Guidelines be written as clearly as possible and consider the economic
impact of that guideline"". Board Member Kohlstrand motioned, seconded by Board Member
Zuppan to approve the minutes as amended. Motion passes as amended 4-0-3. Vice-
President Autorino, Board members Cook and Lynch abstained.
Minutes from the meeting of September 28, 2009 (Pending)
Minutes from the meeting of December 14, 2009
Vice-President Autorino requested that the stated approval of item 9A be corrected to
accurately reflect the granted approval of 6 AM to 7 AM. Vice-President Autorino motioned,
Board Member Cunningham seconded the motion to approve the minutes as amended.
Motion passes as amended 4-0-3. Board members Cook, Lynch and Zuppan abstained.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Written Report
6-A
Future Agendas
Staff presented an overview of future agendas.
6-B Zoning Administrator Report
Staff reported on the Zoning Administrator's approval of a Use Permit and Design Review
Application for Rockwall Wine Company located at 2300 Main Street.
Oral Report
Staff presented an update on the development of Alameda Point.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Page 1 of 9",PlanningBoard/2010-01-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2010-01-11,2,"None
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A Density Bonus Ordinance - Applicant - City of Alameda. Proposed caps and
limits on concessions and/or incentives for Density Bonus Projects on sites in a
residential zone district or a site with a general plan land use designation of
residential. Staff requested a continuance of this item to the Regular Planning
Meeting of January 25, 2010.
Board Member Kohlstrand motioned, Board member Cunningham seconded motion to
continue the item to the Planning Board meeting of February 8, 2010. Approved 7-0.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A
Review of the Use Permit for Kohl's Department Store. Use Permit review
allowing additional store hours of operation on certain mornings before 7:00 am and
on certain nights until 12:00 midnight. Kohl's is located at 2201 South Shore Center
in the C-2 PD (Central Business Planned Development) Zoning District in Alameda.
Staff presented an overview of prior project and explained the requested amendment to the
Kohl's hours of operation.
Ms Montalvo, Kohl's store manager, apologized for the confusion on the hours of operation,
and requested that the Planning Board approve the Use Permit
Board Member Cunningham asked the applicant why a 4:00 am opening was being
requested. The applicant stated that this day is the busiest sales day of the year and the
early hours of operation are required to stay competitive with other retailers.
Ms. Sellers, Alameda resident, encouraged the Planning Board to deny the Use Permit for
additional hours of operation.
Ms. Risley, Alameda resident, stated her opposition to the Use Permit amendment through
this process. She also stated that the public hearing notification of this project is
inadequate.
President Ezzy Ashcraft closed the public comment period.
President Ezzy Ashcraft summarized the Planning Board's options with respect to this use
permit request.
Board Member Kohlstrand, for clarification, asked whether the Use Permit can be brought
back to the Planning Board for modification and if this was permissible under the Municipal
Code.
Ms. Faiz, city attorney, clarified that the Planning Board can take an action to amend the
Use Permit.
Page 2 of 9",PlanningBoard/2010-01-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2010-01-11,3,"Board Member Kohlstrand noted she prefers to leave the Use Permit as it is although would
like to hear the reasons for expanding the dates.
Board Member Cunningham does not support revocation of the Use Permit, but would like
to see what overarching community goals would be met by approving the Use Permit as
proposed.
Board Member Cook stated she does not support revocation of the use permit, but has
some questions about expanding the hours of operation.
Vice-President Autorino does not support the revocation, but asked for clarification on the
rationale behind the proposed amendments.
Staff explained that the applicant has requested the amendment to the hours of operation
so that it can provide shopping opportunities during the holiday seasons and at other
appropriate times of the year. The rationale of granting a blanket approval is to eliminate
confusion year after year over which particular days have actually been approved for the
extended hours.
Board Member Kohlstrand stated that leaving the period open will allow for better
clarification and enforcement.
Board Member Lynch motioned to amend the Use Permit to allow expanded hours of
operation as proposed by staff, seconded by Vice-President Autorino. Motion passes 7-0-0.
9-B
Consideration of a Use Permit to Allow additional Truck Delivery Hours at
Alameda Towne Center, Safeway Store. The Safeway Store is requesting use
permit approval to allow truck deliveries between the hours of 4:00 AM and 6:00 AM.
The store is located at 2227 South Shore Center in Alameda in the C-2 PD (Central
Business Planned Development) Zoning District.
Staff presented a report on the project and summarized public comments.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked for a clarification on the number of smaller trucks Safeway
anticipates coming to the store in the additional morning hour.
Board Member Lynch asked for clarification on the proposal to allow certain types of
delivery vehicles, and noted that the applicant has not made the case that supports
allowing extended the delivery hours.
Mr. Paradise, Safeway Real Property Manager, stated that Safeway would make every
effort to manage the smaller vendors, and explained the difficulty of coordinating their
deliveries. He suggested that the Planning Board allow a test period during which Safeway
be allowed to receive deliveries starting at 4 am, in an effort to see how Safeway manages
the vendors and potential noise impacts. Upon completion of the testing period, the
Planning Board could then approve or deny the Use Permit amendment with the
information gained during this trial period.
President Ezzy Ashcraft opened the public comment period.
Page 3 of 9",PlanningBoard/2010-01-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2010-01-11,4,"Board Member Cunningham motioned, seconded by Board Member Kohlstrand to shorten
the speaker time to 3 minutes per person. Motion passes 7-0-0.
Mr. Cantwell, shopping center neighbor, proposed that perhaps more landscaping to muffle
noise at the perimeter of the shopping center.
Mr. Wullschleger, Alameda resident, opposed the extended hours of operation and stated
that the current delivery trucks exceed speed limits when traveling through Alameda, and
they are excessively noisy.
Ms. Perrault, shopping center neighbor, stated that she has supported redevelopment at
the shopping center, but opposes extended hours of operation starting at 4 am, because
the noise impacts are too great to bear for the neighborhood.
Mr. Morris, shopping center neighbor, seconds previous comments and opposes extended
hours of operation starting at 4 am.
Mr. Halpern, shopping center neighbor, opposes extended hours of operation starting at 4
am.
Ms. Gould, shopping center neighbor, opposes extended hours of operation starting at 4
am and rebutted the claim that perishables would spoil if delivered at a later time, since
they are transported in refrigerated trucks. She stated that the truck deliveries in the early
morning hours, were 18-wheeler trucks. She cautioned that enforcement is necessary and
accountability must be expected.
Ms. Sellers, Alameda resident, opposes extended hours of operation due to noise impacts
on the community and rebutted arguments in the staff report.
Ms. Saxty, Alameda resident, opposes extended hours of operation due to noise impacts
on the community.
Mr. Radding, Alameda Neighbors Unites representative, opposes extended hours of
operation and stated that Safeway should not be rewarded with additional hours of
operation, since they have not abided by their current approvals.
Ms. Risley, Alameda resident, stated that Safeway should not be rewarded with extended
hours of operation when they consistently violate current approvals and Municipal Code.
Mr. Barber, shopping center neighbor, opposes extended hours of operation due to the
significant noise created by the delivery trucks and the associated unloading of
merchandise.
Mr. Libby, Alameda resident, opposes extended hours of operation and stated the volume
of deliveries could be delivered during normal business hours, without impacting the
businesses and that the quality of life needs to be maintained.
Mr. Powell, shopping center neighbor, opposes extended hours of operation.
Page 4 of 9",PlanningBoard/2010-01-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2010-01-11,5,"Mr. Helperin, Alameda resident, opposes extended hours of operation and stated that the
Planning Board should go a step further and require that the delivery trucks not be allowed
to come to Alameda before 6 am.
Ms. Radding, Alameda Neighbors Unites representative, reiterated the group's frustration
with Planning Board decisions that have always benefited the businesses instead of the
quality of life of those that live near the shopping center. She urged the Planning Board to
deny the expanded hours of operation.
President Ezzy Ashcraft closed the public comment period.
Mr. Paradise, Safeway Real Property Manager, responded to the comments made by the
public. He stated that smaller delivery trucks would be quieter and that a later delivery
hours would have other negative impacts, such as trucks would need to come to Alameda
twice in a day in order to keep their deliveries on schedule.
Board Member Lynch favors denial of the Use Permit and asked that the public not make
personal attacks on staff or the Board for recommendations or decisions reached in the
past.
Board Member Zuppan favors denial of the Use Permit and seconded the speakers'
comments on the detrimental impact of noise on sleeping and neurological development,
and added that Safeway has shown some disrespect to the City by not remaining in
compliance with the current conditions of approval and other city regulations.
Board Member Cook stated she was not in favor of the use permit request because she
does not feel the findings for approval can be made and does not feel that the type and
number of trucks that will be coming to Safeway have been accurately projected.
Vice-President Autorino favors denial of the permit, but cautioned the neighbors that
development and expansion of the shopping center is inevitable.
Board Member Cunningham favors denial of the permit on the basis that the required
finding for approval, especially finding number one, cannot be made.
Board Member Kohlstrand favors denial of the application and suggested that the City
should start imposing monetary fines to enforce the regulations as set forth in the Municipal
Code and the use permit conditions.
President Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the previous comments supporting the denial of the use
permit. She suggested that the Planning Board and staff review opportunities for planting
additional vegetation that could buffer shopping center noises for residents along Otis Drive
and the lagoon or possibly review such opportunities in the Master Tree Plan.
Board Member Lynch stated that staff should ensure that the Master Fee schedule is
amended to include a ""monitoring fee' that could be used to fund time staff spends
monitoring or investigating code complaints that a project is not in compliance with
conditions of approval. This was seconded by other members of the board.
Page 5 of 9",PlanningBoard/2010-01-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2010-01-11,6,"Board Member Cunningham motioned, seconded by Board Member Kohlstrand, to deny
the additional truck delivery hours. Motion to deny the use permit request is approved on a
vote of 7-0-0.
9-C Zoning Text Amendment - Medical Marijuana Dispensaries - Applicant: City
of Alameda. A proposed text amendment to amend the Alameda Municipal
Code to prohibit establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries within the City
of Alameda.
Staff presented the proposed ordinance.
Board Member Cook asked whether pharmacies could dispense medical marijuana. Staff
commented that it was not aware of any pharmacy that included this as an elements of
their operation and was not familiar with laws governing the operation of pharmacies.
President Ezzy Ashcraft opened the public comment period.
Ms. Arbuckle, Alameda resident, spoke in support of allowing medical marijuana
dispensaries within Alameda and requested that the Planning Board recommend that the
City Council adopt an ordinance allowing such dispensaries.
Mr. Hausman, Alameda resident, spoke in support of allowing medical marijuana
dispensaries and cited that crime statistics do not speak in favor of an outright prohibition.
She added that careful regulations could be drafted that would mitigate potential impacts to
a community.
President Ezzy Ashcraft closed the public comment period.
President Ezzy Ashcraft shared her field observations from a visit to a medical marijuana
dispensary in the City of Oakland.
Board Member Cunningham asked Ms. Faiz, City Attorney, if the City has legal grounds to
prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries.
Ms. Faiz, City Attorney, stated that California has passed several laws that decriminalize
smoking and cultivating marijuana, but there is not a mandate allowing dispensaries.
Board Member Kohlstrand felt this topic warranted a careful discussion amongst board
members and stated that prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries may be a disservice to
the community without further debate on the issue.
President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that changes are afoot in the State Assembly and that there
would be more guidance and regulations in the future, plus she understood that a measure
regarding medical marijuana would be on a future ballot in California.
Board Member Cook asked that staff clarify the moratorium timeframe.
Staff stated that the moratorium could only be extended one more time and even with such
an extension, would end in November 2010. It is staff's intention to have something
established in the Municipal Code prior to the end of the moratorium.
Page 6 of 9",PlanningBoard/2010-01-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2010-01-11,7,"Board Member Cunningham asked if the City Council could provide more direction on how
they want the Board and staff to develop an ordinance and if an indication on the outcome
had been provided.
Board Member Lynch stated that the Board is being asked to make a policy decision, when
that is typically set by the City Council, not a Planning Board, which deals with land use
issues. He stated that he was not comfortable making that policy decision. He suggested
that the City Council should provide some guidance, and following that, the Board and staff
could develop an ordinance that is tailored to Alameda's needs.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked for more information on the dispensaries, such as crime
statistics, more feedback from the Police Department, and more input from the business
community.
Vice-President Autorino seconded Lynch's comments and stated that he would not be
ready to make a recommendation on the proposed ordinance.
Board Member Cook stated that she would like more direction from the City Council before
considering whether to develop regulations that would ensure medical marijuana
dispensaries were being operated in an appropriate manner.
Board Member Kohlstrand stated that she anticipates that it will be difficult to find a suitable
location for such uses in Alameda.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked staff for direction on how best to proceed at this point since
the Board appeared to be seeking further direction from the City Council.
Staff stated that the Planning Board could recommend the ordinance to City Council, which
then makes its own decision. Should the City Council disagree with the ordinance, it would
remand the ordinance for further review to the Planning Board. This would be the quickest
way to receive some form of policy direction.
Board Member Lynch stated that the Planning Board could pass a motion by which the
Board could ask City Council to respond to specific questions that would clarify policy
direction.
Staff recommended that the Board make a motion, either approval or denial, on the
proposed ordinance and recommend the proposed ordinance with individual comments
expressing the Board's concerns.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked whether the Board could recommend an extension to the
moratorium, to allow additional time to work on the ordinance, while also requesting
direction from the City Council that would shape the nature of the ordinance.
Board Member Kohlstrand stated that the ordinance has not received proper public
discussion.
Board Member Cunningham raised concerns that the proposed ordinance is not in keeping
Page 7 of 9",PlanningBoard/2010-01-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2010-01-11,8,"with the Attorney General's findings and that this leads him to believe that there is
insufficient information to make a decision.
Ms. Faiz, City Attorney, pointed out that the Guidelines issued by the Attorney General are
not binding law, just guidelines.
Board Member Kohlstrand asked whether the Board could approve an outright ban when
the policy direction from the City Council is still unknown.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the Board could continue the item, while the Board awaits
policy direction from City Council and staff gathers more information.
Staff stated that the Board could continue the item, but that the Council is awaiting the
Board's response to assist them with making their decision.
Vice-President Autorino motioned, seconded by Board member Cunningham to extend the
meeting until 11:10 pm. Motion passes 7-0.
President Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the difference between medical
marijuana co-operative and collective dispensaries.
Ms. Faiz, City Attorney, clarified the respective code sections.
Board Member Cook asked whether the Planning Board could request an extension of the
moratorium to allow sufficient time to consider whether to revise the ordinance.
Staff suggested recommending approval or denial of the proposed ordinance.
Vice-President Autorino stated the Board should ask for an extension of the moratorium
and develop an ordinance that would allow and regulate the dispensaries, as opposed to an
outright ban. He also added the Board should ask the Council for direction.
Board Member Cook suggested that the Planning Board, staff of the Police Department,
Social Services, and the City Attorney work together to develop an appropriate set of
regulations if the Council extends the moratorium to allow further consideration.
Board Member Lynch stated that the City Council should be asked whether or not a
moratorium should be extended and if it should be extended, what type of regulations
should be developed.
The Planning Board recommended that the City Council refer the matter back to the
Planning Board for further deliberation and hearings to allow time for preparation of a draft
ordinance that might allow a limited number of dispensaries in carefully controlled locations
and under certain limited conditions.
Vice-President Autorino motioned, seconded by Board member Cunningham, to
recommend that the City Council reject the ordinance banning medical marijuana
dispensaries within the City of Alameda, refer development of an ordinance that allows
medical marijuana dispensaries in Alameda back to staff and the Planning Board, and
extend the moratorium prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries to allow for sufficient
Page 8 of 9",PlanningBoard/2010-01-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2010-01-11,9,"time to develop an ordinance allowing them. Motion passes as amended 7-0.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Kerr submitted comments on the minutes of the Planning Board of September 28,
2009.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
President Ezzy Ashcraft spoke about Ms. Latisha Jackson, former Executive Assistant to
the Planning Department, who passed away recently from breast cancer. She extended the
Board's sympathies to Ms. Jackson's family.
12. ADJOURNMENT:
11:10 p.m.
Page 9 of 9",PlanningBoard/2010-01-11.pdf