{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2005-08-22", "page": 1, "text": "COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nAugust 22, 2005\nPresent: Berger, Bunker, Chadow, Chair Cooney, Fort, Vice-Chair Gwynne, Longley-Cook, Moore,\nAbsent/Excused: McGaughey, Seffens\nGuests: Audrey Lard-Hausman\nMINUTES: The minutes of May 23, 2005 where approved.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone\nNEW BUSINESS:\n1. Pedestrian Access During Construction Projects:\nCommissioner Toby Berger commented on the draft standards for pedestrian access during\nconstruction projects and suggested several changes. These changes included stipulating that surfacing\nbe non-slippery when wet. The Commission agreed to present comments on the draft standards to the\nsecretary to incorporate into the final version. The secretary will check with other Cities about their\nnotification procedures.\n2. Alameda Theater:\nThe acting secretary presented the proposed access plans for the renovated theater. There was\nunanimous consent that the renovations are not adequate for a wide range of disabilities. The acting\nsecretary proposed that the Architect for the theater renovation attend the next meeting to discuss\naccessibility issues.\n3. Handicap Parking Spaces for Park Street Farmers Market:\nThe acting secretary stated that vehicles with handicap placard or plates can park at any metered\nspace. Temporary signs designating handicap spaces are available for events, such as the Farmer's\nMarket. Secretary to follow up. Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook stated that the current\nFarmer's Market is not accessible friendly.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-08-22.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2005-08-22", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nAugust 22, 2005 Minutes\nPage 2\n4. Disability Awareness Month:\nThe acting secretary read the proposed proclamation to be read by Mayor Beverly Johnson at a City\nCouncil meeting next month. A commissioner suggested that a press release be issued about the Alameda\nHospital Health Fair scheduled for October 15th\nOLD BUSINESS:\n5. Abilities EXPO:\nVice-Chair James Gwynne updated the Commission on the upcoming abilities EXPO on November\n18th in Santa Clara. The Chair informed the vice-chair that there needed to be a clarification as to who\nwould get transportation to and from the EXPO. The Mastick Senior Center was prepared to provide\ntransportation only for members of the commission. Any misunderstanding or miscommunications\nshould be clarified as soon as possible.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\n1. Guest Audrey Lard-Hausman said the members of the Police Academy ticket illegally parked vehicles\nin spaces designated for handicap parking as well as vehicles parked on sidewalks. They will respond\nto calls.\n2. Commissioner Jody Moore volunteered to prepare handout information on disability issues for\nchildren.\n3. A commissioner suggested an award for construction projects that provide good accessibility.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, September 26th in Room 391,\nCity Hall.\nSincerely,\nMatthew T. Naclerio\nPublic Works Director\nRobert Claire\nAssociate Civil Engineer\nRC:lc\nG:\\pubworks\\LT\\MCI Disability Committee/2005/0822min.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-08-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-22", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, August 22, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:03 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nVice President Cook\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand,\nLynch, and Piziali.\nBoard members Mariani and McNamara were absent from roll call. Board member\nMariani arrived during the Board discussion of Item 8-D.\nAlso present were Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Deputy City Attorney Julie\nHarryman, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner III Allen Tai, Planner II Dennis\nBrighton.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of July 25, 2005 (continued from the meeting of\nAugust 8, 2005.).\nM/S Piziali/Lynch to approve the minutes for the meeting of July 25, 2005, as presented.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nb.\nMinutes for the meeting of August 8, 2005.\nPresident Cunningham advised that page 10, paragraph 8 should be changed to read, \"He\nwould like further discussions regarding the window signs, and believe that 25% window\ncoverage contradicted the intentions of the Design direction ordinance.\"\nA quorum for a vote on the minutes was not present. They will be carried over to the next\nmeeting.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n7.\n2005-2006 ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS\nPresident Cunningham advised that it was customary for a full Board to be seated for an\nelection, and that it should be continued until then.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nAugust 22, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-22", "page": 2, "text": "8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8.A.\nPDA05-0003 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant\nproposes a Planned Development Amendment to amend the Harbor Bay Business\nPark landscaping and lot coverage provisions as established in Resolution 1203.\nThis Amendment would affect Lots 1-6, 8 and 12 of Tentative Parcel Map 8574.\nThese lots are fronting on or southerly of 1900 and 2000 North Loop Road. The\nproposed Planned Development Amendment would allow a five percent (5%)\nincrease in building coverage for parcels larger than 5.5 acres. Currently,\nmaximum allowed building coverage is thirty five percent (35%) for lots larger\nthan 5.5 acres and forty percent (40%) on lots smaller than 5.5 acres. The\nmaximum lot coverage allowed on lots smaller than 5.5 acres would not be\naffected. The proposed Planned Development Amendment would also decrease\nthe minimum landscape coverage by five to ten percent (5 to 10%), depending on\nlot size. Currently, 30% landscaping coverage is required on lots smaller than 5.5\nacres and 25% landscaping coverage is required for parcels larger than 5.5 acres.\nThe proposed Planned Development Amendment would decrease the landscaping\nrequirement to twenty percent (20%) for these lots regardless of size. The\nproperty is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned\nDevelopment.) (Continued from the meeting of July 25, 2005.)\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to September 26, 2005.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nAugust 22, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-22", "page": 3, "text": "8-B.\nFDP05-0002/DR05-0057 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The\napplicant requests a Final Development Plan and Design Review for four (4) new\nflex warehouse, office and light manufacturing facilities ranging in size from\n13,900 to 33,272 square feet on 6.41 acres adjacent to and southerly of 2000\nNorth Loop Road (Parcels 8-12 on Tentative Parcel Map No. 8574). These\nfacilities will be on one lot of approximately 11.53 acres until the final map is\napproved. The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing -\nPlanned Development.) (Continued from the meeting of July 25, 2005.)\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to September 26, 2005.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nAugust 22, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-22", "page": 4, "text": "8.C.\nVariance, V05-0006, and Major Design Review, DR05-0063 - Mary Claire &\nRobert Neumann - 2504 San Jose Avenue (DG). The applicants request a\nMajor Design Review approval for the construction of a 117-square foot detached\naccessory structure and an approximately 180-square foot deck at the rear of the\nsingle-family residence. A Variance approval is requested because the proposed\ndetached structure would be built to within 6-inches from the westerly side and\nrear property lines, where minimum 5-foot setbacks are required because the\nstructure would be located less than 75-feet from the front property line. The site\nis located within an R-4 (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-32 to\napprove a Major Design Review approval for the construction of a 117-square foot\ndetached accessory structure and an approximately 180-square foot deck at the rear of the\nsingle-family residence. A Variance approval is requested because the proposed detached\nstructure would be built to within 6-inches from the westerly side and rear property lines,\nwhere minimum 5-foot setbacks are required because the structure would be located less\nthan 75-feet from the front property line.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -\n0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nAugust 22, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-22", "page": 5, "text": "8-D. Status Report and request for extension of time for construction allowed under\nPlanned Development Amendment PDA02-0003 and Major Design Review\nDR02-0095, located at 2160 Otis Drive, South Shore Shopping Center (DG).\nVice President Cook advised that she had questions about this item.\nMs. Mariani arrived during the discussion of this item.\nVice President Cook noted that the Board had been asked for an extension of construction\nuntil 2010, which seemed to her to be a very long time. She understood that the\nconstruction would proceed with all due haste.\nMs. Eliason advised that the Walgreen's was in plan check. She noted that it was unusual\nto have a completion requirement, and that a vesting requirement was usually part of the\nconditions. Staff attempted to pick a date in the future so that all of Phase I could be\ncompleted, rather than bringing this item back to the Board every year.\nVice President Cook noted that the Board did not want construction to go on forever.\nMr. Lynch noted that he had some suggestions regarding this item, and remarked that it\nshould be placed on the Regular Agenda.\nM/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous to remove Item 8-D from the Consent Calendar and\nplace it on the Regular Agenda.\nAYES - 6 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMs. Eliason summarized the staff report, and reviewed the history of this item. She noted\nthat because of the hazmat cleanup and mitigation, it had taken longer than anticipated.\nMr. Lynch noted that the goal was to have less construction disturbance for the least\namount of time, which led to the completion condition. Given the complexity of the\nconstruction, given with the staff resources required, he suggested that the Board look\nforward on a timeline, versus backwards. He noted that the vesting in the planning\nterminology was the using of the permit. He believed the applicant could demonstrate\nthat, which would address the first hurdle. He noted that the second hurdle was the\nsubmittal of building plans, which must be reviewed by staff. When the permit is to be\npulled, the Code requires the diligent exercise of the Building Permit to keep it active. He\nrequested that the Board receive a bullet point list of every phase of this project, and that\nthe significant milestones be attached to specific dates based on staff resources. He\ninquired whether the plan checking could be outsourced in order to keep the project on\ntrack.\nMs. Eliason advised that there was only on plan checker on staff, and that they were\nusing outside resources as much as possible. She noted that Walgreen's submitted their\nplans in June, and she could check with the Building Official to confirm the length of\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nAugust 22, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-22", "page": 6, "text": "time that plan checking would take. She noted that it depended on whether there were any\nissues or problems.\nMr. Lynch suggested continuing the item so the Board could hear from the Department in\nterms of a realistic timeline.\nMs. Kohlstrand expressed concern about a jump in the extension from six months to five\nyears without any background.\nM/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue Item 8-D to the Planning Board\nmeeting of September 12, 2006.\nAYES - 6 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nAugust 22, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-22", "page": 7, "text": "9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A.\nMDR05-0216, Regency Centers - 2599 Blanding Ave (AT). The applicant\nrequests sign program approval for the Bridgeside Shopping Center. The site is\nlocated within a C-2 PD, Central Business Planned Development District.\n(Continued from the meeting of August 8, 2005.)\nMr. Tai summarized the staff report and displayed the proposed signage designs on the\noverhead screen.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand, Mr. Jerry Weiman, sign consultant,\ndescribed the lighting and channel letter identification of the signage.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Matthew Hoffman, 2800 Marina Drive, spoke in support of this application and\nnoted that he recently moved to Alameda from Antioch. He hoped the project could be\ncompleted quickly so the sand dunes could be replaced.\nMr. Dave Needle, 2981 Northwood Drive, spoke in support of this application, and was\nhappy that the signs were smaller. He had not heard any objections from the neighbors.\nMs. Barbara Price, PK Consultants, 1047 Tahiti, noted that she was speaking on behalf of\nthe development team. She noted that representatives from Raley's, Regency Centers and\nFoothill Partners were also in attendance.\nMr. Hadi Monsef, PO Box 1355, spoke in support of this application and agreed with the\nstaff report.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMr. Piziali recalled that the Board did not want the view of the water from inside the\nstores to be blocked by window signs. He suggested creating a clear band of a certain\nheight to allow the water view.\nMr. Lynch agreed with Mr. Piziali's suggestion, and noted that the clean lines should be\nmaintained.\nIn response to Mr. Lynch's question, Mr. Piziali confirmed that he did not want to see\nadditional signage by the merchants blocking the view. He noted that the developer's\nsignage was fine.\nPresident Cunningham cautioned against placing the signs so high that they could not be\nread without stepping back, or so low that they interfere with merchandising.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nAugust 22, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-22", "page": 8, "text": "Ms. Kohlstrand requested a presentation to clarify the location of the signs. Mr. Tai noted\nthat the four signs applied to Buildings B, C, D and F, and that individual standards were\nestablished for the market (Building A) and the gas station (Building E). He noted that\npage 6 in the Revised Sign Program contained the standards for the gasoline station signs.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Mariani and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-\n33 to approve the sign program for the Bridgeside Shopping Center.\nAYES - 6 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -\n0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nAugust 22, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-22", "page": 9, "text": "9-B.\nPD03-0004; DR03-0108, Regency Centers - 2599 Blanding Avenue (AT).\nReview of waterfront design, landscaping, and building elevation plans for\ncompliance with project conditions of approval for the Bridgeside Shopping\nCenter per Planning Board Resolution PB-04-64. The site is located within a C-2\nPD, Central Business Planned Development District.\nMr. Tai summarized the staff report, and displayed the revised project site plans that\naddressed the Planning Board's previously stated concerns. Staff recommended approval\nof this item.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether the transformers had been\npreviously approved by the Planning Board, Mr. Tai replied that previous discussions did\nnot involve transformers, nor the details of their appearance. They were shown as\nsymbols on the plans, and the approximate locations were approved. Vice President Cook\nstated that she did not believe she approved any transformers before, and inquired why\nthey could not be placed underground.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Hadi Monsef, PO Box 1355, spoke in support of this application and noted that the\nstaff report indicates the Board's requirements were met. He noted that he served on the\nPublic Utilities Board for eight years, three years as president, and stated that it was very\ndifficult to place transformers underground.\nMr. Matthew Hoffman, 2800 Marina Drive, spoke in support of this application. He\nnoted that the transformer in this project would not bother him or some of the neighbors\nthat he had spoken with. He looked forward to the completion of the project.\nMs. Barbara Price, PK Consultants, 1047 Tahiti, noted that she was speaking on behalf of\nthe development team, and would be available to answer any questions.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nVice President Cook commended Mr. Tai for presenting such a detailed report. She noted\nthat she had some concerns that made it difficult for her to support this item.\nPresident Cunningham noted he was generally happy with the responses made by the\napplicant following Board discussions. He believed the seating area of the amphitheatre\ncould be improved by introducing some earth berms.\nMr. Piziali was pleased to see a new handrail would be placed all the way across the front\nof the project. He liked the two steps in front of the Nob Hill stores, where the tables\nwould be placed, which would separate the area from the walkway. He was generally\npleased by the project.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nAugust 22, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-22", "page": 10, "text": "Ms. Mariani noted she was happily surprised by the current plans, and complimented\nRaley's on the compromises they made. She stated that she found it difficult to notice\ntransformers, and did not believe they would be burdensome in this project; she preferred\nthem to a big box along the waterway. She believed they could be camouflaged by\nlandscaping.\nMs. Kohlstrand advised she had no major concerns.\nVice President Cook noted that she had concerns regarding the changes that were not\nmade, particularly the fact that the buildings were treated as having a back door instead of\ntwo front doors. The landscape plan did not change her perspective with respect to the\norientation between the waterside of the buildings and the waterfront. She saw very few\namenities, except for those required by BCDC. She saw very few benches and amenities,\nand would like people to be able to walk alongside the north side of the building to go\nshop to shop. She noted that would not be possible because of the grass breaking up the\npavement between shopping entrances. She did not see any doors leading out to the\nwaterside from Building B. She was pleased to see the coffee shop tenant would provide\ntables and chairs, and believed the landlord should also provide tables and chairs that\nwould be permanently affixed outside for people to use for waterside picnics. She wanted\nto see more articulation and recessed door fronts along the waterside of the building to\ncreate a more interesting pedestrian environment. She was strongly opposed to the\ntransformers, and did not believe they were inconspicuous. She expressed concern that\nthe grading necessary for the amphitheatre was not included, although the Board had\nrequested that condition. She was generally dissatisfied with this plan, and believed it did\nnot adequately relate to the waterfront in a manner that would do justice to this unique\nsite.\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali regarding the trees, Mr. Tai confirmed that since\nthe staff report was written, the applicant has agreed to move the trees toward Blanding.\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding Vice President Cook's comments\nregarding the grading, Mr. Tai responded that the original amphitheatre proposed did not\nhave specific grading details that would indicate how it would be sloped. When staff\nreceived the construction documents, they realized that the amphitheatre area as shown\non the plans could be improved upon so it would have more amphitheatre character and\nmore lighting. Staff discovered that the grade difference between the front and the back\nend of the amphitheatre was only two feet, making it impossible to terrace the\namphitheatre to create an actual staging area. Staff decided to place trees along the back\nand create a wedge-shaped public area that focused on the stage.\nPresident Cunningham suggested that the developer bring in some dirt to make more of a\ngrade.\nMr. Doug Weile, Foothill Partners, stated that it would not be a problem to bring\nadditional fill material into the site. The issues had to do with the surrounding properties;\nthere was a fence line on the property line separating the site from Union Pacific, and\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nAugust 22, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-22", "page": 11, "text": "they cannot get permission from Union Pacific to fill on their property. There is a fixed\nelevation along the boundary. The developers may make public health and safety\nimprovements to Corps property, but not other improvements (under the moratorium of\nthe Army Corps of Engineers). They cannot get permission from the Corps to lower the\ngrade on the waterfront edge, and they cannot get permission from the railroad to raise\nthe grade on the railroad edge. The project planner did not have any other workable\ndesign solutions other than those included in the plan.\nVice President Cook did not believe the space should be called an amphitheatre if it\ncannot function as such, and suggested that the space be may be used for chess and picnic\ntables.\nMr. Lynch noted that the value of this space may not be known until the project has been\ncompleted. He suggested that since the space would be landscaped, that a condition be\nplaced that one year after the Final Certificate of Occupancy has been issued, the issue of\nthe public space be revisited.\nMs. Eliason stated that staff could look at the landscape maintenance agreement, and\ncould require that this part of the project be brought back to the Board as a condition of\nthat agreement. Mr. Lynch agreed with that suggestion. Ms. Eliason stated that she was\naware of several locations that had flat spaces in front of the amphitheatre; people would\nbring their own chairs if there was a concert or other performance.\nMr. Lynch would like to see some drawings to accompany the text document of the\nlandscape maintenance agreement.\nMs. Eliason suggested that a condition be added, stating that prior to Final Occupancy of\nthe last building, to have that space reviewed for its use.\nMr. Weile noted that the staff of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission\nnow calls that space a \"glade\" instead of an amphitheatre because it was not sloped.\nMr. Lynch suggested that it be called \"open public space\" that is landscaped. He did not\nbelieve the specific activities needed to be itemized.\nVice President Cook advised that her vote against this project was primarily based on the\ninterrelationship of the buildings with the waterfront.\nMs. Mariani noted that she was not excited about the transformers, and noted that they\nhad not been specifically presented previously. She believed the present transformer\nplacement was the lesser of two evils.\nPresident Cunningham advised that he had spoken to a representative at Alameda Power\n& Telecom, and they did not recommend placing the transformers underground given its\nlocation. The transformer would require more maintenance when placed underground.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nAugust 22, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-22", "page": 12, "text": "Vice President Cook noted that this site was a clean slate, and believed that the\ntransformer placement could have been thought out more carefully. She strongly believed\nthe transformer placement treated the waterfront side as a back door.\nM/S Mariani/Piziali to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-34 to approve the\nwaterfront design, landscaping, and building elevation plans for compliance with project\nconditions of approval for the Bridgeside Shopping Center per Planning Board\nResolution PB-04-64.\nAYES - 5 (McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Cook); ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nAugust 22, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-22", "page": 13, "text": "9-C.\nPresentation to the Planning Board concerning proposed 49,650 sq. ft.\nexpansion of retail floor area, allowing the construction of a new 145,000 sq.\nft. Target Department Store, construction of a new parking structure and\nimprovements to the southeast corner of the South Shore Shopping Center\nunder Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0004 (DG). The purpose of\nthis meeting is for discussion purposes only. No action to approve or deny\nPDA05-0004 will occur at this meeting.\nMs. Eliason advised there would be no staff report, and that the applicant would provide\na presentation. No action would be taken at this time.\nMr. Randy Kite, Harsch Investment Properties, 523 South Shore Center West, reviewed\nthe history of this project, and made a slide presentation to give the Board some\nperspective on the progress of the project, the current status and the future plans of the\nproject.\nMr. Jan Taylor, project architect, Field Paoli, displayed the site plan and described the\nproposed phased improvements to the site. He noted that the use of stained wood would\nadd a unique look to the property. He displayed current photographs of the site, and\nadded that the use of unique and colorful signage, as well as awnings, would enliven the\ncenter. He noted the design changes would be a radical departure from the current\nappearance, and that the buildings would not appear to be cookie cutter buildings seen in\nother retail centers. He noted that the creation of the three beachfront restaurants would\ntake advantage of the views across the Bay. He stated that one of the center owners,\nJordan Snitzer, was very interested in implementing an art program that would exceed the\nCity's mandates, such as a commemorative bronze statue of Alamedan Nell Schmidt, the\nfirst woman to swim across the Bay. He noted that a strong commercial western end that\nwould activate the walkway between Mervyn's and the back of Albertson's would be\ndesirable. He advised that Target was a tenant that paid attention to its surroundings, and\ncreated its architecture to suit. He noted that was the subject of a recent article in the San\nFrancisco Chronicle. The firm believed that Target would be able to fit into the desired\nlook and feel. He noted that the loading dock behind Safeway facing the apartment\nbuilding to the south would be relocated to face the retail to the north. He displayed the\nproposed elevations of the Target store. Most of the building would be 37 feet high, with\nan additional six feet at the raised corner element. He stated that this Target would not\nlook like the typical store, and would be tailored to this center.\nMr. Mike Corbitt noted that from a leasing point of view, Target would present an\nopportunity to build a unique store. He stated that Target was the number one tenant\nattractor in the retail marketplace.\nMr. Taylor noted that the majority of the parking would be underneath the store, and that\nthe bottom floor of the store would be approximately ten feet above grade. He stated\nthere would be a small additional surface-level parking lot adjacent to the store. They\nwould investigate narrowing the street between the Willows and Target, providing a 20-\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nAugust 22, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-22", "page": 14, "text": "foot wide landscaping buffer. There could be a one-way-only entrance to the center to\nreduce traffic along the northern edge of the Willows.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether a garden center would be\nincluded, Mr. Corbitt noted that he did not know, but would find out.\nPresident Cunningham called for a five-minute break.\nPresident Cunningham advised that more than five speaker slips had been received.\nM/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.\nAYES - 6 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -\n0\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Hector Medina, 2101 Shoreline Drive, #258, spoke in opposition to this item. He\nnoted that the new bus route generated more noise near his home, and he was concerned\nthat this development would bring even more noise. He believed the design was\nbeautiful, but that it would bring more traffic congestion, crime and noise to the\nneighborhood.\nMr. Tim Erway, President, Willows Homeowners Association, 2101 Shoreline Drive,\nspoke in opposition to this item. He believed the design and plans through Phase 7 were\nattractive, and he was pleased with them. He expressed concern that the there would be\nless control over the site after the developer sells the land to Target. He was very\nconcerned that the underground parking would attract crime and require more security.\nHe agreed with Mr. Medina's concerns about the negative impact on the neighborhood\nfollowing the bus route change. He wished to address traffic congestion and noise\nimpacts.\nMr. Jon Spangler noted that he was speaking as a private citizen, and inquired whether\naccess to all of the stores would be as convenient, or more convenient, for transit patrons\nand bicyclists as it will be for automobile drivers. He inquired whether Harsch would be\nwilling to include mitigations such as shuttles running between the bridges, across the\nIsland and from the tubes to South Shore up Doolittle. He suggested that the developer\nfund electric shuttles so that the noise to the adjacent residents would be reduced. He\nnoted that AC Transit had discussed that option, and that it was in the Transit Master Plan\nfor the City. He noted that equivalent access would be necessary, and those mitigations\ncannot be accomplished on a one-way street. He inquired about the impact Target would\nhave on Mervyn's, and what would happen to that space once its lease is over and moves\nout. He believed the City was not doing enough to have effective and intelligent transit\nand transportation on the Island.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nAugust 22, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-22", "page": 15, "text": "Mr. Blake Brydon, 1033 Camino Del Valle, spoke in support of this application. He\nbelieved the design would enhance South Shore, and that the addition of Target would be\na benefit to the community. He believed that it would add diversity in shopping and retail\nthat the Island did not have at this time.\nMs. Susan Pieper, 2101 Shoreline Drive #299, spoke in opposition to this item. She\nexpressed concern about delivery trucks. She stated that all large, modern retailers used\ndelivery of goods sold, which would increase the volume and impact of truck traffic, as\nwell as noise and air pollution. She expressed concern about seismic safety of the\nunderground parking structure, and believed that a building built on landfill in a major\nearthquake would be a hazard.\nMs. Valerie Ruma, 1610 Willow Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and expressed\nconcern about traffic congestion and impacts from off-Island traffic.\nMs. Vivian Leigh Forde, 2101 Shoreline Drive #148, spoke in opposition to this item.\nShe noted that she was generally happy with the progress at South Shore and the\namenities being realized. She was strongly opposed to a 145,000 square foot edifice. She\nnoted that this use would lead to more construction and pile-driving to support the\nstructure, and that the lights and traffic noise would have a negative impact on the\nneighbors.\nMs. Joan DiStefano, 2101 Shoreline Drive #145, spoke in opposition to this item. She\nbelieved narrowing the space between the Willows and the shopping center would create\nmore traffic jams. She noted that three residents of the Willows had been hit by cars in\nthe last year in that area. She estimated a community of 70,000 people would not support\nthis kind of retail use, and that 200,000 people would support it; the store would rely on\npeople driving to Alameda via the tubes and the bridges, leading to gridlock. She was\nconcerned that the independent merchants in town would be negatively impacted, and\nthat sense of community would be eroded.\nMs. Dorothy Reid, 2101 Shoreline Drive, #276, spoke in opposition to this item and\nnoted that she represented over 300 citizens who had written letters or signed petitions\nagainst this Target store. She noted that the Target profiled in the newspaper article was\nlocated in a mall, not in a smaller shopping center with limited access. She was\nconcerned about the height, width and proximity of this building to the nearby homes.\nShe believed there should be a full Environmental Impact Review performed on this site,\nand that this project would affect the health, safety and welfare of the residents in the\narea. She did not agree that this project met with the terms of the agreement, which stated\nthat the buildings in the center should be low profile. She added that this store would\nneed intensive outside services. She believed there should be an economic impact review\nas well. She did not believe this project should disrupt the lives of the area homeowners.\nShe asked why the public notice to this request only stated it was for an additional 49,650\nsquare feet, and asked when an additional 90,000 square feet for this building was\napproved. The current Safeway is only 34,000 square feet, so the additional square\nfootage is actually 111,000 square feet. She presented pictures that showed the Safeway'.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nAugust 22, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-22", "page": 16, "text": "building's height, which she believed is misrepresented in the architectural drawings\npresented by the applicant.\nMr. Don Patterson, 1256 Sherman Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and thanked\nMr. Garrison for meeting with him. He believed South Shore should submit a separate,\ndetailed landscape and signage plan, based on the developer not complying with Trader\nJoe's landscape plan. He added that Trader Joe's has been open 35 months. He inquired\nhow an Occupancy Permit can be issued without signoffs. He believed Alameda deserved\nbetter landscaping and signage than what was approved 40 years ago. He believed there\nshould be five to eight feet of landscaping provided on each of the building walls,\nespecially parking structures and Walgreen's. He believed the Master Plan, landscaping\nand signage plans should be submitted and approved before any additional permits are\nissued, and Trader Joe's landscaping should be completed.\nMr. Keith Wells was called to speak, but was not in attendance.\nMs. Ani Dimusheva, 2911 Calhoun Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted\nthat the drawings were shown out of context, and that the convalescent homes or Willow\nStreet were not shown. She believed the Target store was too tall, and that it would be too\nmassive; its proximity overwhelmed the Mervyn's building. She was concerned that\nwhen Mervyn's closed, it would be replaced with an even larger building. She would like\nto see its replacement moved back and built smaller. She was concerned about traffic\ncongestion. She believed smaller stores would serve Alameda better.\nMs. Alice Cleveland, 2101 Shoreline Drive #484, spoke in opposition to this item. She\nwas concerned that the placement of this big box store would negatively impact her\nquality of life. She noted that the large tractor-trailers trucks currently drove past her\nhome while servicing Safeway, and that they were noisy and dirty. She was very\nconcerned about the potential truck traffic if Target were to open, and the traffic\ncongestion surrounding the center. She saw Alameda as an upscale community, and did\nnot see why it would want a Target store; she suggested that it be placed near the freeway\nor on Alameda Point.\nMs. Kris Murray, 1738 Alameda Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and added\nthat, as a business owner herself, that public comment regarding businesses was generally\nfrom the opponents. She noted that she had spoken with more than 100 people in the past\n48 hours who supported the idea of a Target store in Alameda. She acknowledged that\nAlameda was an upscale community, and that she had disposable income that she would\nlike to spend in Alameda. However, she found that she often shopped off the Island to\nvisit a Target store specifically. She believed a Target store would provide a shopping\nexperience that's appropriate for the community's diversity, and that there were many\nresidents who do need a discount marketer. She would like to spend her tax dollars in the\ncommunity.\nMs. Jan Young, 2101 Shoreline Drive, noted that she was pleased with the progress at\nSouth Shore, and that it was beautiful. She did not like the idea of a Target in her\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 16\nAugust 22, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-22", "page": 17, "text": "backyard. She liked the idea of the small storefronts. She lived across from the Safeway\nloading dock, and was concerned about the current and future noise and air pollution. She\nwas concerned about her property value, and agreed that Alameda did not need a big box\nstore.\nMr. Jon Brooks, 2101 Shoreline Drive #230, spoke in opposition to this item. He had not\nheard anything from City staff about the requirement for an EIR in this circumstance, and\nbelieved there would be a cumulative effect from the traffic and air quality. He did not\nwant Alameda to become homogeneous, and would rather see a mixed use retail store,\nperhaps with lofts upstairs from smaller boutiques.\nMr. Brian McDonald noted that he lived at the Willows, and that he agreed with his\nneighbors regarding traffic, noise and pollution. He did not like the prospect of having\na\nTarget in his back yard, and found the overall size and footprint of the store to be\nexcessive. He believed the developer employed bait-and-switch tactics in seeking\napproval for this store. He was concerned that the traffic impacts would put the entire\nEast End into gridlock.\nMr. Kevin Frederick spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that this store was\ngigantic and would interrupt the flow of traffic. He believed the Target store would create\nurban sprawl, which he was strongly opposed to. He hoped the Board would listen to the\nmajority in this matter.\nMs. Aulette Floris noted that she was a business owner, but was opposed to a big box\nstore. She was very concerned about traffic congestion and noise. She noted this was so\nclose to a residential area, and was concerned about a potential increase in crime and\ndecrease in the quality of life.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMs. Mariani would like to see the approval for the 90,000 square feet with the conditions.\nMs. Eliason noted that staff would provide a copy. Ms. Kolhstrand concurred with the\nrequest.\nMs. Eliason advised that the last Planned Development Amendment performed in 2003\nwas adopted on a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff would provide a copy of that\ndocument to the Board. No environmental review had been circulated for this project yet;\na new environmental review would be done for this project, updating the traffic numbers\nand other areas of concern.\nVice President Cook would like to look at this project more closely, especially in view of\nthe City's work in retail strategy and increasing its tax base. She realized that there was\nconsiderable retail leakage off the Island that could be captured for the benefit of the\nschools, police and fire departments. She would like to have a better understanding of the\ntypical Target patron. She believed that many residents did want more retail\nopportunities, and acknowledged that environmental review was a huge concern. One of\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 17\nAugust 22, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-22", "page": 18, "text": "her continuing concerns about the Center was the lack of pedestrian connections, as well\nas bicycle access. She believed that the pedestrian and bicycle environments in the center\nmust change. She was concerned about the cumulative impacts of the piecemeal nature of\nthe center. She believed a parking structure would not only break up the expanse of\npavement in front of Mervyn's, and would also be more attractive if landscaped properly.\nMr. Piziali noted that he would like to see this item come back before the Board in the\nform of a workshop before any action is taken. He was concerned about the large amount\nof square footage, and while he did not want retail leakage going off the Island, he did\nnot want floods of people coming from off-Island to shop, either.\nMr. Lynch noted that he agreed with the comments made by the other Board members.\nHe would be interested in examining the environmental documents. He was interested to\nhear comments about a possible mixed use at the center. He would like to see a larger\nview of the City operation as a whole, from an economic development perspective, as\nwell as other perspectives. He noted this was not a stand alone issue, and that it should be\nintegrated into other commissions.\nMs. Kohlstrand noted that she agreed with Vice President Cook's comments, and\nbelieved that scale was an important consideration. She noted that the safety of sidewalks\nand bicycle paths near Safeway were paramount.\nPresident Cunningham noted that some parts of the policy document fit with the Target\nstore, and other parts are in opposition to what the community wants. The report\nacknowledged that the leakage data would present opportunities to bring retail solutions\ninto the community. It also went on to say that it was up to the community and the private\nsector to decide what kind of retail should be included, as well as what type of retail did\nnot fit the community character. He noted that Target did respond to the community\nneeds, and are serious about providing a store that would fit in with the community; he\napplauded those efforts. He noted that other Target stores have demonstrated the\ncompany's willingness to buy into sustainability. He was very interested in possible\ntraffic mitigations. He would like further insight into the impact that this store would\nhave on the existing tenants in the community, particularly the smaller stores.\nVice President Cook noted that she spoke with a woman who managed a small retail\nshop, who did not object to the Target store. The manager stated that she would shift the\nitems in her inventory to carry what Target did not.\nPresident Cunningham recalled that Ms. Mariani requested a definition of a big box store,\nand agreed with Mr. Piziali's suggestion of holding a workshop. He recommended giving\nthe matter more time before making a decision.\nMs. Mariani inquired how the square footage increased from 90,000 to 145,000 square\nfeet. She expressed concern about the direction the City is taking, given the approval of\nthe Cineplex and the consideration of this Target store. She did not believe the addition of\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 18\nAugust 22, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-22", "page": 19, "text": "11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-\nPresident Cook).\nVice President Cook advised there had been no further meetings.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member\nPiziali).\nMr. Piziali advised there was nothing new to report.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee\n(Board member Mariani).\nMs. Mariani advised that she did not have any further information. She noted that she\nwould speak with President Cunningham and the City Council because she was having\nsome trouble making all of the meetings; there is no backup replacement at this time. She\nnoted that Ms. McNamara had been the backup, and is no longer; in addition, the WABA\nrepresentative is no longer on the Committee.\nd.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board\nmember Kohlstrand).\nMs. Kohlstrand advised that she was not in attendance at the meeting due to her vacation.\nShe noted that the meeting date was set with very short notice.\n12.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nMs. Eliason advised that there will be a Transportation Master Plan meeting of the Task\nForce on Wednesday, August 24, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. The meeting would address streets\nand circulation plans.\n13.\nADJOURNMENT:\n10:10 p.m.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 19\nAugust 22, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-22", "page": 20, "text": "Respectfully submitted,\nPaul Benoit, Acting Secretary\nPlanning & Building Department\nThese minutes were approved at the September 12, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This\nmeeting was audio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 20\nAugust 22, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf"}