{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-12", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, September 12, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:06 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMr. Lynch\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,\nMcNamara, and Piziali.\nBoard member Mariani was absent.\nAlso present were Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Assistant City Attorney David Brandt,\nDeputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Contract Planner Chandler Lee, Planner III Douglas Garrison.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of August 8, 2005 (continued from the meeting of August\n22, 2005.).\nM/S Piziali/McNamara to approve the minutes for the meeting of August 8, 2005, as presented.\nA quorum for a vote on the minutes was not present. They will be carried over to the next meeting.\nb.\nMinutes for the meeting of August 22, 2005.\nPresident Cunningham advised a member of the public, Ms. Dorothy Reid, requested that page 15,\nparagraph 6, re the Target store, be changed to read: \"She did not believe this project should disrupt\nthe lives of the area homeowners. She asked why the public notice to this request only stated it was\nfor an additional 49,650 square feet, and asked when an additional 90,000 square feet for this\nbuilding was approved. 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's building 's\nheight, which she believed is misrepresented in the architectural drawings presented by the\napplicant.' He did not have any objection to entering this additional language into the minutes.\nM/S Cook/Kohlstrand to approve the minutes for the meeting of August 22, 2005, as corrected.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (McNamara)\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nSeptember 12, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-12", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Cunningham advised that a speaker slip had been received for Item 8-A. Mr. Piziali\nrequested that Item 8-C be pulled from the Consent Calendar.\nM/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to remove Items 8-A and 8-C from the Consent Calendar, and\nto place them on the Regular Agenda.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -\n0\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n7.\n2005-2006 ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS\n(Continued from the meeting of August 22, 2005.)\nPresident Cunningham advised that it was customary for a full Board to be seated for an election,\nand that it should be continued until then.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nSeptember 12, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-12", "page": 3, "text": "8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8.A.\nStatus Report and request for extension of time for construction allowed under Planned\nDevelopment Amendment PDA02-0003 and Major Design Review DR02-0095, located at\n2160 Otis Drive, South Shore Shopping Center (DG). (Continued from the meeting of\nAugust 22, 2005.)\nMr. Garrison presented the staff report, and noted that while the applicant has met all the vesting\nrequirements, they have not completed the construction. The applicant requested two additional\nyears to complete construction.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Dorothy Reid, 2101 Shoreline Drive #201, distributed a chart to illustrate her comments, and\nnoted that there was confusion over what PDA-02-A2-03 was for. She noted that PDA-02 only\napproved the four yellow highlighted buildings, as well as the July 2003 site plan; Trader Joe's was\nalready built. She was concerned about approving construction for two more years on one-and-a-half\nbuildings, and that whether there would be a clear understanding regarding the PDA. She believed\nthere was confusion between building square footage and GLA, which were two very different\nnumbers. She noted that the current construction did not expire until January 28, 2006, and would\nlike to wait to approve this item until there was more clarity regarding the entire site. She believed\nthat specific numbers should be cited, and was also concerned about the proposed amendment to\nParagraph 2: \"Any substantial alteration will require a new PDA and Design Review.\" She believed\nthat the word \"substantial\" should be clarified. She did not understand the purpose of Paragraph 21,\neven in the original PDA. Rather than modifying this paragraph, she believed it should be struck\nentirely.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMr. Garrison noted that the only language addressed by staff specifically dealt with the construction\ntimeline; the other comments are outside of the scope addressed by staff at this time. In terms of the\nsquare footage questions and the map, the construction was approved for the area where Walgreen's\nand Beverly's are located. He would have to look at the current Safeway building permit plans to\nclarify the apparent square footage discrepancy.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Mr. Garrison noted that the reason the entire PDA\nproposed at that time was not approved. The Planning Board wanted to get additional information\non the shoreline area, as well as some other areas. The applicant was directed to return with a\nproposal for a new gas station and to redo the shoreline area; that was where the current PDA\napplication was relevant and is being reviewed by the City. He noted that it was not critical to the\nresolution, and could be deleted.\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Eliason replied that the Walgreen's was in plan check.\nMr. Lynch noted that the timeline was created with the expectation of a certain type of performance.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nSeptember 12, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-12", "page": 4, "text": "M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-36 to\napprove an extension of time for construction allowed under Planned Development Amendment\nPDA02-0003 and Major Design Review DR02-0095, located at 2160 Otis Drive, South Shore\nShopping Center.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nSeptember 12, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-12", "page": 5, "text": "8-B.\nApplicant requests approval of a Use Determination that coffee roasting and ancillary\nuses are similar to other uses permitted in the C-M, Commercial-Manufacturing\nDistrict (CL). C-M Districts are located City-wide. Applicant: City of Alameda.\nM/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-36 to approve\na\nUse Determination that coffee roasting and ancillary uses are similar to other uses permitted in\nthe C-M, Commercial-Manufacturing District (CL).\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nSeptember 12, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-12", "page": 6, "text": "8.C.\nUse Permit No. UP-05-0009 - Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority/Area 51\nProductions, Inc. - Northwest Territories, Alameda Point (ATh). The Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority requests an Interim Use Permit revision to allow the lease of\nthe Northwest Territories to hold temporary trade show festivals, for up to two weeks in\nlength. The site is located in the M-2-G, General Industry (Manufacturing) Special\nGovernment Combining Zoning District.\nMs. Eliason summarized the staff report.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. John Walker, applicant, noted that he had worked with these shows for the last eight years, and\nthat the City requested that he revise his Use Permit because of the success of the shows. He noted\nthat his client base was largely composed of Fortune 500 companies, including General Motors.\nMr. Piziali noted that he had gotten the impression that the Planning Board was handing over the\nchoice of what type of shows would be there to the ARRA, and that he was concerned about that\npossibility. He did not have a problem with Area 51 Productions.\nMs. Eliason noted that the Board should consider this a Master Use Permit for the Northwest\nTerritories for the temporary trade shows, so that each trade show did not have to come back to the\nBoard each time. Staff has found that over the years, the conditions placed on the trade shows were\nfairly standard, and that it was often difficult to hold the hearings in time for the trade show.\nMr. Piziali noted that the resolution states that the Board members examined maps, drawings and\ndocuments, and noted he did not have those items. He was aware that the events were fine, but\nwould like more information. He emphasized that he did not want to micromanage these events, and\nrelied on staff to ensure that ARRA did not allow events that would upset the residents.\nMs. Eliason confirmed that the only events would be trade shows in the Northwest Territories.\nMr. Walker noted that he has managed events all over the world since 1967, and that he was a San\nFrancisco native. He added that he was very protective of the Base, and noted that for every show he\nproduced, he turned down ten.\nVice President Cook noted that Use Permits ran with the land, rather than the tenant, and noted that\nwhile the applicant was an excellent tenant, future tenants may not meet that standard. She was\nconcerned with the breadth of the types of uses and the potential length.\nMs. Eliason advised that Interim Use Permits were different than regular Use Permits because this\nwas an agreement between the ARRA and Area 51 Productions in this case. This Interim Use Permit\ndoes not grant anyone else the ability to hold trade shows, and they would still have to go through a\nseparate Use Permit process. This temporary Use Permit expires after five years, which was the\nreason this permit was brought back to the Board.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nSeptember 12, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-12", "page": 7, "text": "Mr. Walker advised that the trucks used for loading were generally staged the evening before so they\ndid not impact peak traffic. He added that there were very few venues for public trade shows in the\nBay Area, and that the Cow Palace was antiquated and inadequate.\nMs. Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Redevelopment Manager, noted that the City had a contract with\nPM Realty Group, which acts as the City's property management agent. PM Realty Group collects\nleases on behalf of the ARRA. The revenue went directly to the ARRA, and the master developer is\nnot involved in the ARRA's interim leasing program. She added that PM Realty Group was strictly\nthe ARRA's agent; all of the funds collected by them on behalf of the ARRA are deposited into the\nARRA's account.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMr. Piziali noted that he was largely interested in the appropriateness of the event, rather than\nthe economics of how the Base was run. He noted that his question had been answered.\nM/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-37 to approve an Interim Use\nPermit revision to allow the lease of the Northwest Territories to hold temporary trade show\nfestivals, for up to two weeks in length.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (Cook); ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nSeptember 12, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-12", "page": 8, "text": "9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A.\nNomination of two Planning Board members to the South Shore Shopping Center working\ngroup.\nThere was no staff report.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Dorothy Reid, 2101 Shoreline Drive #201, supported going forward with this process and\nbelieved it would help everyone understand the history and process of this project. She hoped that\nsolutions could be reached.\nMs. Susan Pieper, 2101 Shoreline Drive #299, applauded the City for establishing the workshop\nprocess, and noted that she had considerable experience in dealing with land use issues, from\ndifferent points of view. She noted that the best results came from putting the interested parties\ntogether to listen to each other, to try to negotiate a win/win situation in their recommendations. She\nurged the Board to take this process seriously.\nMr. Tim Erway, President, Willows Homeowners Association, 2101 Shoreline Drive, thanked the\nCity for establishing this workgroup, and reviewed the background of their involvement in this\nproject.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding the makeup of the group, Ms. Eliason replied\nthat two Board members would be included, which would not be a Brown Act issue.\nMr. Piziali expressed concern about too many cooks ruining the soup, and inquired about the size of\nthe working group.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMr. Garrison noted that the idea was to accomplish project goals, so a manageable size was\nessential. The immediate neighbors have been contacted, as well as the medical facilities. He\nbelieved that a couple of representatives from each group would be ideal. He believed that\nrepresentatives from Public Works may be included to answer specific questions about traffic, and\nanticipated several representatives from the applicant as well. He noted that a representative from\nTarget may be included.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding the objective of the group, Mr. Garrison\nreplied that immediate neighbors had raised concerns and the City hoped to get them together with\nthe applicant to address those issues before decision was required from the Board.\nMr. Lynch believed that the workgroup would be productive if the individual groups could exchange\nideas and come to a common understanding. He supported this idea.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nSeptember 12, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-12", "page": 9, "text": "President Cunningham supported this kind of dialogue, but was concerned about potential\ncircumnavigation of the public process.\nMs. Kohlstrand thanked staff for the information, and noted that she believed that this kind of\nworking group was important to understand the concerns. She recalled concerns expressed by Board\nmembers during the Bridgeside workgroups that they felt as if they had to buy into a decision before\nit came back to the full Board. She believed that a smaller group would be more doable. She\nbelieved it would be better without a Planning Board representative on the committee.\nMs. Eliason noted that the full Board and public workshops and hearings would be still be held.\nVice President Cook supported a workshop model that was more open and interactive. She had\nfound the Bridgeside process to be very frustrating, and added that members of the public spoke in\ndifferent capacities. She wanted to know who was accountable to whom. She was hesitant to start a\nnew workgroup model without more information and consensus.\nMr. Garrison did not anticipate this process to be a lengthy one.\nA discussion regarding time commitment and workgroup structure ensued.\nMr. Piziali believed it was very important for the public to attend these workshops, but was not sure\nit was necessary for Board members to attend. He would be willing to have staff, the applicant, and\nrepresentatives of the neighboring properties to attend these workgroups.\nVice President Cook was concerned about the notion of participants believing they would be\nnegotiating during these meetings, and added that there was no accountability.\nMr. Lynch noted that these meetings dealt with the City Council' constituency, and that for the\nBoard to take an active role at this stage would be problematic.\nMs. Kohlstrand agreed with Mr. Lynch's concerns, and emphasized that while it was important for\nstaff, the applicant and the public to meet, she did not believe the Planning Board needed to sanction\nit at this point.\nVice President Cook requested more information about specific workshop details, such as number of\nworkshops, accommodation for different schedules, and what kind of facilitator would be used.\nMr. Piziali agreed that a neutral facilitator was crucial to the success of these workgroups.\nMs. Kohlstrand suggested that staff also meet with the members of the Willows Homeowners\nAssociation to discuss their concerns.\nMr. Lynch noted that it was important to redefine what the applicant wants, and added that not every\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nSeptember 12, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-12", "page": 10, "text": "point would have agreement.\nMs. Eliason advised that the Board's concerns had been noted, and that they would be passed on to\nthe applicant.\nNo action was taken.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nSeptember 12, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-12", "page": 11, "text": "10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).\nMr. Piziali advised there was nothing new to report.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nmember Mariani).\nMs. Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.\nd.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board member\nKohlstrand).\nMs. Kohlstrand advised that a meeting had been held on August 17, 2005, and noted that it was led\nby the Chair of the Transportation Commission. She believed he was trying to establish a new\nclassification system for the roadways in Alameda. A very useful discussion was held, and people\nleaned toward a recommendation of using a more multimodal type of classification system; both\nvehicles, buses, bicycle and pedestrian use would be included. They anticipated presenting a\nproposal for street classifications at the next meeting.\n12.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATION:\nMs. Eliason advised that a special meeting would be held on Thursday, September 29, 2005 to hear\nthe Use Permits associated the Alameda theatre and Cineplex. Staff wanted to ensure that everyone\ncould be accommodated, and that the Elks Club was secured for an overflow crowd.\n13.\nADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION:\n8:31 p.m.\n13-A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION\nSignificant exposure to litigation pursuant to (b) of section 54956.9 number of cases: 1\n14.\nADJOURNMENT:\n9:10 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nSeptember 12, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-12", "page": 12, "text": "Paul Benoit, Interim Secretary\nPlanning & Building Department\nThese minutes were approved at the September 26, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was\naudio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nSeptember 12, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf"}