body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2015-03-09,1,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, MARCH 9, 2015
1. CONVENE:
7:04 P.M.
2. FLAG SALUTE:
Board Member Tang led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL:
Present: President Henneberry, Vice President Alvarez and
Board Members Burton, Knox White, Köster (arrived at 7:25
PM) and Tang. Absent: Board Member Zuppan.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: None
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A. 2015-1403
Hold a Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of an Administrative Use
Permit to Allow Sale of Beer, Wine, and Spirits for Off-Site
Consumption as an Accessory Use at the Existing Walgreens Store at
1600 Park Street; and Adoption of Related Resolution.
Mr. Allen Tai, Planning Services Manager, gave the presentation. He explained that the
agenda item was an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to grant a Use Permit to
allow alcohol sales at Walgreens.
Board Member Burton asked Mr. Tai to compare the amount of space available for alcohol
sales at Walgreens and the Pit Stop Market. Mr. Tai said that the Pit Stop Market, being a
liquor store, has more liquor space.
The Board opened Public Comment:
Mr. Daniel Smith, representing, Walgreens, said that alcohol sales were very important to
Walgreens business model. Walgreens' competitors sell alcohol and other items as well,
and if his company could not sell alcohol, it will be at a competitive disadvantage. He said
that Walgreens closes at 10 PM, and sells types of alcohol that does not typically attract
vagrants.
Mr. Ryan Shutt, the store manager of the Walgreens on Park Street, said that he manages
three stores and the Park Street location is his favorite. He said he sees his customers
every day, and any customers to whom Walgreens cannot not sell alcohol is a customer
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 8
March 9, 2015",PlanningBoard/2015-03-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-03-09,2,"that he potentially loses.
Mr. Jaspal Sekhon, owner of the 7-11 across the street, opposed the project. He said that
Walgreens is a big store that threatens the nine other liquor stores in the area. He said that
there are vagrancy issues in the area, as well as at South Shore Center. He reminded the
Board that the Zoning Administrator denied a similar use permit for the 76 gas station. He
said that other cities have prohibited the sale of alcohol at downtown Walgreens locations.
Ms. Preethi Swetha, resident, said she supported the appeal. She said that big-name
chains are convenient for the public, but they can have a negative impact on the small
businesses in the area.
Mr. Dominic Carrion, Alameda resident, said he was a victim of a felony drunk driver about
eight years ago. He said that the City should be restricting, not increasing, alcohol sales.
He said he has nothing against Walgreens, but questioned the need for more places that
sell alcohol in Alameda.
Mr. Dave Salazar, resident, said that many of the vagrants on Alameda come from
Oakland. Many of them come to Alameda in search of alcohol. He urged the board to
reconsider the use permit, because vagrants negatively affect the quality of life in
Alameda.
Mr. Joel Gutierrez said that big chains have a history of forcing smaller businesses to
close. He feared that a Walgreens that can sell alcohol on Park Street would lead to
negative effects on the businesses in the area.
Mr. Jerry Coulon stated his opposition to granting Walgreens a liquor license. He said that
part of Alameda's charm is the small businesses on Park Street. He said he shops at
Walgreens for many convenience items, but he said that he does not support alcohol sales
from a big corporation.
Mr. Yagumeet Sindhu said that the Walgreens on Park Street made no economic sense.
He said that the Walgreens in San Leandro does not have a liquor license, and their sales
are quite fine.
The Board closed public comment.
Board Member Knox White asked Mr. Tai about the description of this particular liquor
license. Mr. Tai explained that this particular license allows for the sale of beer, wine, and
spirits. Mr. Tai explained that other business on Park Street also have this type of liquor
license.
Board Member Knox White asked if the Board had to make findings to make a decision.
Mr. Thomas explained that the Board should, for the record, make findings in order to
approve or deny the liquor license. If the Planning Board cannot make findings, they
should state so for the record.
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 8
March 9, 2015",PlanningBoard/2015-03-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-03-09,3,"Board Member Köster said that Walgreens is indeed convenient, but he thinks of the chain
as a drugstore. He said he disagrees with the appellant's claim that alcohol sales would
impair the revitalization of Park Street, and suggested that the Board could call the Use
Permit for review in a year if there are vagrancy issues. He agreed with Board Member
Knox White that it could potentially have a negative effect on surrounding businesses, but
said that the small businesses could reinvent their business model.
Board Member Tang asked Mr. Tai if any other stores in the area have a similar liquor
license and operate later than 10 P.M. Mr. Tai responded that the appellant sells liquor
after 10 P.M, and the Walgreens on South Shore is open for 24 hours.
Board Member Tang asked if there are statistics regarding vagrancy at the Walgreens on
Park Street. Mr. Tai said he talked to the Chief of Police, who said that the Police
Department is not concerned about vagrancy at the Walgreens' store.
Board Member Burton said that the over-saturation of alcohol sales on Park Street is not
an issue. He said that he understands the concerns of small businesses, but said that
Walgreens sells other products as well. He said he would support bringing the Use Permit
back for review in six months.
Vice President Alvarez said that she understood the feeling of big business competing
against small business. She said that many other businesses, such as restaurants, are
moving into the area and would apply for liquor licenses.
President Henneberry clarified that the Board denied liquor licenses on Webster Street
because they were at gas stations. He also argued that the vagrancy issue is a policing
issue and that he was in favor of bringing the Use Permit back for review in six months.
Board Member Burton motioned to uphold the Zoning Approval's decision, with the
condition bring the Use Permit for review six months after the beginning of sales. Vice
President Alvarez seconded the motion. The motion carried, 4-2 (Board Members Knox
White and Köster voted against, Zuppan absent.)
7-B 2015-1402
Annual Reviews: 1) Alameda Landing Mixed Used Project
Development Agreement and 2) Transportation Demand
Management Program - Applicant: Catellus Alameda
Development, LLC. The applicant requests a periodic review of two
Development Agreements and a Transportation Demand
Management Program (TDM) related to the Alameda Landing Mixed
Use Residential Project and the Alameda Landing Mixed Use
Commercial Project.
Mr. Thomas gave the presentation. He said staff believed that Catellus and Tri-Pointe
Homes have a made a good-faith effort to uphold their agreements.
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 8
March 9, 2015",PlanningBoard/2015-03-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-03-09,4,"Board Member Knox White asked if the reports have gone to the Transportation
Commission and the City Council. Mr. Thomas replied in the negative.
Board Member Köster asked Mr. Thomas todescribe the City's current shuttle services. Mr.
Thomas listed the different shuttles.
Board Member Knox White asked about the inclusion of energy-efficient amenities into the
homes and businesses being constructed.
Mr. Bill Sadler, of Tri-Pointe Homes, said that these energy-efficient options are important
for his company's business. Typically, there are not very many requests for such options,
but he said that his company does provide conduit for solar panels on homes sold in
Alameda. Because Alameda Municipal Power is less expensive than other electric
companies in the area, the firm decided against offering solar power as an option for
homes sold in Alameda.
Mr. Sean Whiskerman, representing Catellus, said he could not recall the requirement of
EV charging stations being part of the Development Agreement, but planned to provide
them for the benefit of customers. If the Development Agreement did indeed call for EV
charging stations at the Point, his firm would include them.
Board Member Knox White asked for contact information for the TMA office. Mr. Atkinson
said that he and Catellus have to deal with public complaints, but they are few and far
between. He said that he and the Catellus staff field public calls. He said that he is
planning on adding additional stops for the current shuttles.
Board Member Knox White noted that the majority of Alameda is residential. He asked
how the TMA would include these new residential areas currently under construction. Mr.
Atkinson said that his team plans on asking new residents as they move in to the new
areas regarding shuttle service.
Board Member Knox White said that the current TDM requires an annual survey of current
employees. Mr. Atkinson said this report will be finished in October of this year.
Board Member Tang asked about shuttle utilization rates, and if Mr. Atkinson's team had
approached Target to offer initiatives. Mr. Atkinson replied that Target, which is based in
Minnesota, is not used to such plans. The company's transportation policies and their
corporate advertising budget, are decided by their corporate executives in Minnesota.
However, since Safeway opened in Alameda Landing, many shoppers now use the shuttle
service to get to and from the store. There has been about a 12 to 15 percent increase of
riders.
Vice President Alvarez asked about the ridership numbers mentioned in the report. Mr.
Thomas said about 11,000 riders have used the service in the past year. Vice President
Alvarez said that 11,000 riders seems like a low number, but she understands the
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 8
March 9, 2015",PlanningBoard/2015-03-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-03-09,5,"parameters on which the shuttle was set up.
The Board opened public comment.
Ms. Courtney Sheffler, homeowner, questioned why her house is being built to 2010
energy efficiency standards. She said that the builders of the house were violating no laws,
but the City should be forcing all builders use the most updated energy standards for new
development in the City. She said she cannot wait to use the new shuttle, but wanted to
make sure that the taxpayers who pay for the shuttle should be given priority to use it.
The Board closed public comment.
Board Member Tang said that, in the long run, the Board needs to make the TMA as
efficient as possible. If the shuttle is not user-friendly, it will lead to low ridership. He
suggested that businesses in Alameda offer incentives to consumers to ride the shuttles,
and said that there has to be an enforcement mechanism to make sure that the shuttle is a
success.
Board Member Burton said he is encouraged by the progress of the shuttle. He said that
he likes how businesses are also trying to increase shuttle ridership. He said he agrees
with the speaker's comments about residents and businesses being given priority to use
the shuttle.
Board Member Knox White encouraged Tri-Pointe and Catellus to be more proactive in
adding energy-efficient upgrades to their constructed buildings. He said if the Board were
to make a recommendation to the Transportation Commission, he would suggest that the
current TDM is inadequate, and that there are still many flaws with the current shuttle
operation. He said that Target is the only retailer mentioned in the TDM, and said he had
questions about how many roundtrips per day are taken by people going to and from the
store. He said that he would like to see the marketing material by the Target store to
encourage employees to take the free shuttle.
Board Member Köster said that he is glad that the program is working well, and that other
businesses are encouraging use of the shuttle. He said he would like to expand the shuttle
service to other parts of Alameda to discourage cross-Island car trips.
Vice President Alvarez said she had a hard time with the proposed draft resolution. She
said that she does not know if there was a good faith effort for compliance of the TDM. Mr.
Thomas replied that the Board could approve the report without the TDM language, and
that staff would pass on the comments of the Board to the Transportation Commission and
the City Council.
Vice President Alvarez asked if it is possible for all buildings to be updated to the current
code, even if they were built before the code was updated.
Board Member Burton explained that the City could not force developers to conform to the
current code for buildings approved under the prior code. Mr. Thomas agreed.
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 8
March 9, 2015",PlanningBoard/2015-03-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-03-09,6,"President Henneberry said his views on the issue were reflected by the Board's
comments.
Board Member Knox White motioned to approve the TMA, noting that the TDM activities
have not met the City's requirements. He suggested that the report should revise the dates
covered in the report, the TMA board setup, the fact that the shuttle to BART must run 7
hours per day, how Day One activities, including employee marketing, a useable website,
annual employee service are not in place, and for the report to include an analysis of
impact relative to the 30% reduction request. Board Member Köster seconded the motion.
The motion carried, 6-0.
7-C 2015-1404
PLN13-0175 - 2100 Clement Street - Applicant: City Ventures.
Study Session for Design Review, Development Plan, Vesting
Tentative Map and Density Bonus to Permit Construction of 58
Townhome Units on a 2.78 Acre Parcel Located at 2100 Clement
Street. The Project is Subject to Environmental Review Under the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Mr. Thomas explained that staff is not ready to give a final recommendation on the project;
he asked the public for their input. He introduced Mr. Andrew Warner, of City Ventures, the
applicant, who gave the presentation.
Board Member Köster asked Mr. Warner about the details of the solar panels. Mr. Werner
explained that some of the panels will be flat on the roof, and others will be mechanized.
Board Member Tang asked Mr. Warner about concerns from the neighbors. Mr. Werner
replied that the neighbors are concerned about parking, and that there are 21 parking
spaces for general use in the project.
Vice President Alvarez asked if the access roads are available for emergency vehicle
address. Mr. Thomas said that the fire department is still looking at the specifics of the
plan.
Board Member Köster asked Mr. Thomas if the City has any ordinances regarding guest
parking spots. Mr. Thomas responded that there is a ratio of 1 guest space per 2 housing
units in this development, as compared to 1 space per 4 housing units in other cities.
The Board opened public comment.
Ms. Keri Thompson, Treasurer of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of
this project. She said that the project site is served by AC Transit, and that the project's
applicants are very receptive to the community's concerns.
Mr. Andrew Packee, resident, said he was impressed with the presentation, but wondered
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 8
March 9, 2015",PlanningBoard/2015-03-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-03-09,7,"if Alameda was ready for more houses. He believed that it was a great idea to repurpose
old and abandoned buildings in the City. These townhouses will be very expensive, and
wondered how many future residents will be taking the bus to and from their destination.
He appreciated that the City is looking to improve Clement Avenue as a thoroughfare, but
said that there needs to be more infrastructure in the city.
Ms. Jennifer Heflin, resident, said that Alameda's small businesses are part of the City's
charm, but wondered if the condominiums and townhomes would add to the community
feel. She feared that the addition of condominiums and townhouses would lead to a
destruction to the feeling of community that makes Alameda unique.
Ms. Dorothy Freeman, resident, spoke against the project. She said that there is not
enough infrastructure to support the new residents moving into the area. She said that the
Northern Waterfront has only 1/6 of the park space it should have. There is not enough
open space for current residents, and asked for the Board to consider the effects of new
development on the current residents of the Northern Waterfront.
Mr. Bill Smith, of Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, said he was encouraged by the
project. He said his group wanted to see more open space at the site, and said he agreed
with previous speakers about parking and traffic issues. Mr. Smith said that he wanted to
see affordable housing spread throughout the development, and was concerned that all of
the homes would be owner-occupied, which presents issues for affordable housing groups.
Ms. Karen Bey, resident, spoke in favor of the project. She said she likes that there are
many wonderful aspects to the project. The current market for housing suggests that
homeowners are going to use transit. They are paying high property taxes, and that
homeowners in this development will be near public transit, which will also alleviate traffic
issues. Ms. Bey said that the new residents will also walk to Park Street and spend their
money there. She spoke favorably of the developer's other projects in Oakland, and
expressed hope that the developers will create a similar project in Alameda.
Mr. Noe Valenzuela, resident, said that he recently bought a rehabilitated Victorian house.
He said that there are many economic and environmental benefits of having a walkable
community in Alameda. He said he was very excited about the project, and that it should
proceed if it follows the City's guidelines.
The Board closed public comment.
Board Member Tang asked Mr. Thomas if the parcel was originally zoned commercial. Mr.
Thomas said that the property was rezoned for residential use in 2009.
Board Member Burton said that his neighbors ride public transit as much as anyone else in
the City, even though their houses are much more expensive. He is supportive of having
housing on this site, but is less supportive of the project as a whole. He said that there
need to be more access points to the development in order to disperse the cars coming in
from one point. He agreed with the developer's attempt to keep the buildings in proportion
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 8
March 9, 2015",PlanningBoard/2015-03-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-03-09,8,"with the new buildings, but suggested that the houses could be reconfigured to incorporate
more open space into the area. There are other, less gracious issues with the design of
the houses that also need to be addressed, including the small private balconies on some
of the units. Board Member Burton also said that Alameda does not need any air
conditioning units for the houses, and suggested that it would help the developer's plans to
exclude them in the houses.
Board Member Köster said he agreed with Board Member Burton's comments. He said
that the walkability of the community is an important factor in the neighborhood. He said
that the density could be lowered a little bit in order to increase the open space on the site.
Board Member Köster asked if some ground-floor commercial space could be incorporated
into the new buildings if possible.
Board Member Knox White said that there was too much asphalt and not enough open
space in the proposed development. He said that he is confused by the size of the
housing, and questioned if the sizes of the proposed housing is appropriate for the
neighborhood. He suggested building a through street and building housing along that
street instead of having four cul-de-sacs.
Vice President Alvarez said that the major entrance to Eagle Avenue needs to be moved
closer to Mulberry Street. The architecture on Eagle, Willow, and Clement Avenues are all
different from each other, and the developers need to marry the three different
architectural styles in this new development. She suggested that the neighbors concerned
about parking organize themselves as they did at the Del Monte.
Board Member Burton said that the two-story buildings along Willow Street are nicely
integrated with the existing neighborhoods, but the townhouses with the first floor
bedrooms are not truly in-line with universal design guidelines.
President Henneberry said that there is unanimity that this is a good project for the City,
but it is not ready in its present form. He said he looks forward to seeing an update of this
project.
8. MINUTES: None
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
9-A. 2015-405
Zoning Administrator and Design Review: Recent Actions and
Decisions.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
11-A 2015-1341
Report from the Alameda Point Site A-Ad-Hoc Subcommittee
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 8
March 9, 2015",PlanningBoard/2015-03-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-03-09,9,"President Henneberry said that the subcommittee has not met yet.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
13. ADJOURNMENT: President Henneberry adjourned the meeting at 10:26 p.m.
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 8
March 9, 2015",PlanningBoard/2015-03-09.pdf