{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2006-09-25", "page": 1, "text": "COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nSeptember 25, 2006\nPresent: Berger, Bunker, Longley-Cook, Chair Cooney, Fort, and Lord-Hausman\nAbsent/Excused: Vice-Chair Moore, Kirola\nGuests: Lucy Gigli, Joan Steber (Bike Alameda)\nMINUTES: The minutes of August 28, 2006 were approved as submitted.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: none\nNEW BUSINESS:\n1. Bike Alameda.\nGuest Ms. Gigli and Steber informed the commission on Bike Alameda's campaign for an\nalternative Estuary crossing, as the existing tube is not bike or pedestrian user friendly. Bike\nAlameda is hopeful that a water shuttle/taxi between Alameda Landing and Jack London\nSquare will be implemented and is seeking support from the commission and other interest\ngroups. Though the commission did not disagree on the concept they did have some\nreservations. In general once disembarking from the water shuttle there are no other transit\nor disability accessible facilities on either end for the disabled. Chair Ed Cooney's opinion\nwas that the shuttle was not relevant to the disabled. Commissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman\nwas concern about accessibility on the shuttle and once one disembarks where does one go.\nCommissioner Charles Bunker stated that access from the dock at Jack London Village is\nvery steep. Commissioner Toby Berger thought the shuttle is a great idea but how does a\ndisabled person get to the shuttle. Commissioner Steve Fort thought it was important that\nthe commission provide input now. Commissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman withdrew her\nmotion to support Bike Alameda's endeavor, as she was not sure that that was within the\ncommission's roles and responsibility.\n2. Ninth Street Remodeling Project\nCommissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman informed the commission on her attending the\nhistorical advisory meeting regarding remodeling of an existing 3-unit building on Ninth\nStreet. Though she did not represent the commission she had spoken with the owner on\nmaking the building more ADA accessible. The owner was very open and appreciated her\nsuggestions.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2006-09-25", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nSeptember 25,2006\n2006 Minutes\nPage 2 of 3\n3. Press Release\nChair Ed Cooney and commissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman will met and discuss items for a\npress release on October Disability Awareness month. October is also white cane and\ndisability employment awareness month. A Disability Awareness Month proclamation will\nbe presented by the City Council at the council meeting of October 3rd\n4. Alameda Hospital Health Fair: (Lord-Hausman)\nCommissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman informed the commission about the October 21st,\n2006 Alameda Hospital Annual Community Health Fair. The event will be held from 9:00\na.m. to 12:30 p.m. at the hospital. Commissioner's Adrienne Longley-Cook and Audrey will\ncontact the director of relations for a Commission table at the event.\n5. Assembly Bill 1234 Ethics Training: (Secretary)\nThe secretary informed the commission on the City's mandatory ethics training requirements\nfor all elected and appointed officials. Deadline for completing the training and taking the\nexam is January 1, 2007. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is providing\ntraining on December 11th from 10 a.m. to noon. Secretary informed the commissioners that\nPublic Works will provide assistance to attend the ABAG training if commission members\ncan not do the training and testing on their own. Chair Ed Cooney, commissioners Charles\nBunker and Toby Berger stated that they would like to attend.\nOLD BUSINESS:\n1. Status of Accommodation Recommendations:\nThe secretary reviewed the public works proposed changes to the Commission's\n\"Recommendations for ADA Policies'. Commissioner Toby Berger was not satisfied with\nthe proposed changes and will discuss further at the October meeting.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\n1. Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook informed the commission about the upcoming\nNovember 15th Alameda Youth Collaborative meeting. A time capsule commemorating\nthe 10th year of the collaborative will be buried and the Collaborative is requesting items\nfor inclusion into the time capsule. Commissioner suggested roster and a photo.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2006-09-25", "page": 3, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nSeptember 25,2006\n2006 Minutes\nPage 2 of 3\nADJOURNMENT:\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, October 23, 2006 in\nRoom 360, City Hall.\nMatthew T. Naclerio\nPublic Works Director\nEd Sommerauer\nAssociate Civil Engineer\nES:lc\nG:\\pubworks\\LTMMDDD Disability Committee/2006/821min.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-09-25", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, September 25, 2006\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:10 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMember Mariani\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Lynch, Vice President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft, Cunningham,\nMariani, Kohlstrand, Lynch, and McNamara.\nAlso present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney Donna\nMooney, Supervising Planner Douglas Garrison, Debbie Potter, Development Services, Elizabeth\nCook, Development Services, Contract Planner Chandler Lee.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of September 11, 2006.\nMember Cunningham noted that on page 2, he had requested clarification of the 45-foot-high green\nbean, and what it looked like.\nMember Cunningham noted that page 6, paragraph 2, should be changed to read, \"The eave ridge\nline of the main roof had been incorrectly drawn, and was about three feet higher than it should\nhave been above the grade level at that point.'\nMember Cunningham wished to clarify the following statement on page 7, paragraph 4: \"He\nsuggested using a skylight for natural daylight, which would reduce the cost of construction.\" He\nnoted that combining that with roof modifications, which could potentially reduce the cost of\nconstruction.\nPresident Lynch noted that page 3, paragraph 3, should be changed to read, \"President Lynch noted\nthat the noticing practices were regulated by the State, and that the City may want to consider\nextending often extended the noticing parameters.\"\nM/S Cunningham/Ezzy Ashcraft to approve the minutes for the meeting of September 11, 2006, as\namended.\nAYES - 5; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 2 (Cook, Mariani)\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Lynch noted that the applicants for 8-A had been delayed, and suggested that the order of\nItems 8-A and 8-B be switched.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nSeptember 25, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-09-25", "page": 2, "text": "M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to hear Item 8-B before Item 8-A.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nNone.\n7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A.\nUse Permit, UP06-0011 - West Alameda Business Association (WABA) and City of\nAlameda - Public Parking Lot at Taylor Avenue and Webster Street (DB). Applicants\nrequest approval of an amendment to Use Permit, UP05-007 to allow additional hours of\noperation for the existing farmers' market every Thursday from 4:00 p.m. through midnight,\nfrom May 1 through the end of September. Specific changes to the scope of the previously\napproved Use Permit would include additions of barbeque (outdoor cooking and food sales),\nchildren's activities, guest chef demonstrations, movies, and music presentations provided\nafter dusk until midnight. This activity would be located in the City Public Parking Lot D and\nwould expand into Taylor Avenue. The site is located within the CC (Community\nCommercial) Zoning District and is located within the boundaries of the Business and\nWaterfront Improvement Project. (Applicant has withdrawn application.)\nM/S Cunningham/Cook and unanimous accept the withdrawal of this application.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n7-B.\nGPA05-02, R05-04, MP05-02, DP05-02, TM05-02, IS05-03 -Grand Marina Village\nResidential Development (AT). The applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment,\nRezoning, Development Plan, Master Plan and Vesting Tentative Map and adoption of a Mitigated\nNegative Declaration to allow the development of forty (40) new detached single family homes.\nDevelopment of the residential project would involve the reconfiguration of the existing marina\nparking lot and improvements to the existing waterfront path and open space areas within the 8.36\nacre Master Plan area. The site is located in the M2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning District at the\nintersection of Grand Street and Fortmann Way to the south of the Oakland Estuary and\nrecreational marina facilities, north of the Pennzoil property and City of Alameda Animal Shelter\nand Corporation Yard, and west of Grand Avenue. (Applicant and Staff request a continuance\nto the meeting of October 9, 2006.)\nM/S Cunningham/Cook and unanimous to continue Item 7-B to the meeting of October 9, 2006.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nSeptember 25, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-09-25", "page": 3, "text": "7-C.\nApplicant requests a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to allow five\nnew buildings totaling approximately 100,795 square feet in floor area with a total of\n268 parking spaces to be constructed on a 7.7 acre site (CL). The site is located at 1900 -\n1980 North Loop Road within the Harbor Bay Business Park in the C-M-PD, Commercial\nManufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District. Applicant: SRM Associates (FDP06-\n0003 and DR06-0071). (Continued from the meeting of September 11, 2006. Applicant\nrequests a continuance to the meeting of October 9, 2006.)\nM/S Cunningham/Cook and unanimous to continue Item 7-C to the meeting of October 9, 2006.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nSeptember 25, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-09-25", "page": 4, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-B.\nApplicants request a Development Plan and Major Design Review for a 39 unit,\nmultiple-family affordable housing project, internal driveway, off-street parking,\nlandscaping and associated improvements on an approximately 2.5 acre site (CL). An\naddendum to the Catellus Mixed Use Development EIR has been prepared. The site is located\nat 401 Willie Stargell Avenue (formerly Tinker Avenue) in the southwest corner of the former\nFISC Site (Tract 7179) within the M-X, Mixed Use Planned Development District.\nApplicants: Resources for Community Development & City of Alameda (FDP06-0004 and\nDR06-0080).\nMr. Thomas summarized the affreport, and noted that this proposal was consistent with the General\nPlan, Master Plan and EIR. He noted that a subslab depressurization (SSDS) system, which would\nprevent gases from the benzene plume from entering the living spaces of the buildings. This would be\nan interim solution because the Navy is pursuing full cleanup of the benzene plume.\nMr. Eric Mikiten, project architect, described and displayed the site plan, landscaping design, and\narchitectural design of the project. He noted that the plan called for a sustainable green building. He added\nthat 15 of the 39 units will be fully accessible, and the remainder will be adaptable units; and all site\namenities will be fully accessible. The planting scheme focused on drought-tolerant and native plants, with\na bioswale along the side of the parking area and other areas to collect and filter the runoff from the\nproject. He displayed and described the materials and the design, and noted that the inspiration for the\ndesign was from the Japanese origins of Craftsman design. The color scheme was a palette of muted and\nsophisticated colors that were reminiscent of natural materials. The low sloping roof reflected the Japanese\naesthetic as well. The clear story windows would allow more light into the units, and reduce the need for\nartificial lighting.\nPresident Lynch complimented the architect on the design.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Alex McElree, Executive Director, Operation Dignity, 2243 San Jose, spoke in support of this\nitem. He noted that this project had been delayed for several years because of negotiations, and the\nfunding was finally secured to build these units. He noted that this development was service-enriched\npermanent housing, which included onsite counseling services for the residents, including money\nmanagement and domestic services. He noted that Operation Dignity had a great deal of faith in RCD\nand in Mr. Mikiten's staff; he believed these homes would be something people would be proud to\nlive in.\nMr. Joe Cloren, expressed concern about building on toxic land, and requested clarification of that\nplan.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nSeptember 25, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-09-25", "page": 5, "text": "Mr. Aron Sogor, 2137 Otis, Apt 208, expressed concern about the mediation of the contaminated\nsoils, and inquired how this project would be different from past projects in that regard.\nMs. Debbie Potter, Base Reuse Manager, addressed the speakers' concerns, and noted that the\ncleanup of the benzene plume was the Navy's responsibility. She added that the Navy's cleanup\nschedule did not match with the City's building efforts, and that City staff and the developer met with\nthe Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). An interim solution would be implemented,\nincluding the SSDS, which includes a vapor barrier between the soil and the indoor spaces, a common\npractice to deal with radon gas. The active system vents the gases to the exterior, with no chance that\nthe gases would be trapped within the enclosed spaces.\nA discussion of the remediation techniques ensued. Ms. Potter noted that following the remediation,\nlong-term monitoring would occur.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft complimented the developer on a nicely designed project.\nVice President Cook liked the courtyard idea, as well as the kitchen areas that face the courtyard. She\nexpressed concern about the fencing on one side of the pathways. Mr. Mikiten agreed with Vice\nPresident Cook's concerns, and noted that the fences and barriers were already there. He would like\nto open those areas up to the neighborhood areas.\nMs. Potter noted that after 9/11, the Coast Guard became very focused on security, and noted that\nNorth Village has been vacated and will be auctioned off in the future. She noted that would open the\nsite up, and added that Miller School would not longer be a school.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member McNamara regarding parking regulation, Mr. Thomas replied\nthe residents would register their cars to monitor whether the cars in the lot belonged to residents,\nand whether any residents had an unusual number of cars.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Cunningham whether there was a maintenance agreement for\nthe landscaping, Mr. Thomas replied that a standard condition could be added. Member Cunningham\ncomplimented staff and the applicant on this project.\nMember Kohlstrand supported this project, and was glad to see it move ahead. She acknowledged the\neffort expended in making the building compatible with green design, as well as making it a beautiful\nproject. She expressed concern about the visual interest along Willie Stargell Avenue, and noted that\nthe project was intended to be a gateway to the West End of Alameda. She noted that it would be\neasy to miss the main entrance to the building, and inquired whether the public part of the project\ncould be made more visible to the street at the entrance.\nIn response to Member Kohlstrand's concerns, Mr. Thomas suggested that staff work with the\napplicant regarding the corner of Stargell Avenue as a condition of approval, to put more focus at the\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nSeptember 25, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-09-25", "page": 6, "text": "southeast corner of the building. Member Kohlstrand noted that would be agreeable to her.\nMember Mariani agreed with Member Kohlstrand's comments, and added that this was a good\nproject. Her concerns about the plume had been answered, and she liked the concept of the courtyard.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the transit would be adequate, Mr. Thomas noted that AC\nTransit service to west Alameda was not excellent, but there would be a bus stop at the development.\nHe noted that the West End transportation programs would make a difference in providing\nsupplemental services. Once Tinker is put in place, and the queue jumpers are operational, Tinker may\nbecome an excellent transit route.\nM/S Cunningham/Mariani and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-33 to\napprove an addendum to the Catellus mixed use EIR and approve a Development Plan and Major\nDesign Review for a 39 unit, multiple-family affordable housing project, internal driveway, off-street\nparking, landscaping and associated improvements on an approximately 2.5 acre site, with additional\nconditions to require a landscape maintenance agreement, and enhancement of the southeast corner\nelevation landscaping.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nSeptember 25, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-09-25", "page": 7, "text": "8-A.\nDR06-0027 and V06-0006 - Applicant: Fargo Farnesi Inc. - 2427 Clement Ave. (DG).\nThe applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new two-story commercial\ncabinet shop with a penthouse apartment on the third floor, to be used as a caretaker's unit,\nand a free-standing single-story wood frame structure to be used as an administrative office\nfor the cabinet shop. The project will provide four full-size parking spaces and one ADA\ncompliant parking space. The applicant proposes to pay parking in lieu fees pursuant to\nAlameda Municipal Code Section 30-7.13 for any additional spaces that may be required by\nthe City. The applicant is also applying for a Variance to the City onsite vehicle backup\ndistance and minimum driveway and parking area perimeter landscaping requirements. The\nsite is located at 2427 Clement Ave. within an M-2, General Industrial, (Manufacturing)\nDistrict. (Continued from the meeting of September 11, 2006.)\nMr. Garrison summarized the staff report.\nPresident Lynch noted that more than five speaker slips had been received.\nM/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to reduce the speakers' time to three minutes.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN- 0\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Shawn Smith, project architect, noted that he and the applicant tried to be sensitive to the\nneighbors' needs and had met with the residents. A concern was raised about noise from the\nwoodworking shop, and he noted that 8-inch-thick insulated concrete forms with insulated foam on\nthe outside; its sound transfer rating would be 50, the equivalent of a movie theater. Reclaimed bricks\nwould be used for the building fa\u00e7ade, to give it the appearance of being an older building. The client\nwould like to use the caretaker unit in the penthouse for his own unit, and would like a more modern\nlook for his unit. They had discussed a one-foot side setback from the current property line, and that\nthey would like a minimum residential driveway of 8\"6\".\nMs. Theresa Long, 2431 Clement, noted that they had a shared driveway, and expressed concern\nabout this project because they would lose their access to the back of the property, as well as the nine\noff-street parking spaces if the fence went up. She distributed pictures of their property to the Board.\nMr. Kirby Long, 2431 Clement, noted that they would not be able to get their full-size Expedition\n(7'6\" long) in the proposed driveway.\nMs. Long noted that they would not be able to use their warehouse in the back as proposed.\nMr. Robert Reed, applicant, noted that he used the building as an office and light manufacturing He\nwould like to consolidate his business, and would like the space and height to accommodate his\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nSeptember 25, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-09-25", "page": 8, "text": "business.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether he had come to an agreement with his\nneighbors regarding the easements, Mr. Reed replied that there was 18 feet between the properties,\nand that 8'6\" was a legal driveway; they were trying to split the difference at this time. He estimated\nthat he was giving them 12 inches of free land, and that he did not envision ever getting a semi truck\ninto the back. He tried to curtail the liabilities of the business by keeping his operations fenced within\nhis property.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Lynch regarding the City's historical perspective on easements,\nMs. Mooney replied that in a potential dispute over a right of access, the City sees fencing disputes as\nprivate matters to be resolved among the parties. If they reach an agreement regarding an easement\nthat would typically be recorded.\nPresident Lynch cautioned the Board not to condition an easement, which was a private matter\nbetween two parties.\nMember McNamara noted that the front part of the building would be reserved for office use, and\nexpressed concern about the hydraulic lift parking as an alternative to fulfilling the parking\nrequirements. She inquired whether the administrative office could be incorporated into the new\nbuilding to create more room for parking.\nMr. Garrison noted that one of the factors when looking at demolition was the potential historic value\nand concerns that the building would be too tall for the neighborhood if the office was added to the\nnew building.\nMr. Smith noted that the original design had half of a floor that was dedicated to the office space, as\nwell as other administration functions; they had to remove that part to make the building shorter. He\nnoted that the building was in bad shape, and that the HAB had given permission to tear the building\ndown. He noted that the hydraulic lifts were not his first choice, but they were concerned about\nparking capacity. He noted that they would be open to suggestions regarding parking.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that since HAB approved demolition, she was concerned with the lack\nof off street parking spaces. She inquired whether the old building could be demolished, the new\nbuilding moved closer to the front of the property, with parking in the back. Mr. Smith noted that\nthey wanted to have enough maneuvering room for vehicles, which would be difficult under those\ncircumstances.\nVice President Cook shared the concerns about hydraulic parking, and was concerned about having\nheavy vehicles above people's heads.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nSeptember 25, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-09-25", "page": 9, "text": "Mr. Smith noted that they would be amicable to in-lieu fees if the Board agreed. They could also\nmodify or remove the front building, and work out a way to add two more parking spaces.\nVice President Cook noted that she liked the smaller building on the street.\nMember Kohlstrand believed the proposed building was a good design, but seemed to be discordant\nwith the building in the front. She inquired about the noise of the hydraulic lifts.\nMr. Smith noted that the lifts were operated by an electric motor; he was unsure of the decibel rating,\nand estimated that it made less noise than an idling car. He noted that he could provide the noise\nratings to the Board members.\nMember Cunningham noted that parking was always a delicate concern, and that the architectural\nsolutions were sound. He had been concerned about the noise generated from its facility, but believed\nthose issues had been addressed. He was pleased with the current proposal, with the exception of the\nhydraulic lifts.\nMr. Smith requested direction on parking, and inquired whether the Board preferred a parking\nalternative or in lieu fees.\nMember Mariani noted that she was in favor of in lieu fees.\nPresident Lynch suggested that the Board provide clear guidelines to the staff, and that staff\nincorporate that information into a report, and continue the item until that time.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to encourage this kind of mixed use, and noted that\nit was aesthetically pleasing. She commended the architect, and supported in lieu fees for the parking.\nMr. Garrison noted that staff would continue to work with the applicant, and the applicant would\ncontinue to work with his neighbor. The item would come back to the Board at the next meeting,\nwith a resolution to the easement question and a revised recommendation on the parking situation.\nStaff would double-check the parking calculations, and examine the use of variances without lifts. The\nnumber of in lieu spaces would also be examined.\nM/S Cunningham/ Ezzy Ashcraft to continue this item to the meeting of October 9, 2006.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPresident Lynch called for a five-minute recess.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nSeptember 25, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-09-25", "page": 10, "text": "8-C.\nAlameda Towne Centre Expansion Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DG). A\npublic hearing to receive comments on the draft Environmental Impact Report that evaluates\nproposed changes and expansion of the Alameda Towne Centre (formerly South Shore Center).\nThe project includes modifications to an earlier Planned Development Amendment proposed in\n2002 / 2003. These include 49,650 square feet of floor area above the 112,000 square feet\nexpansion proposed in 2002/2003, the construction of a new 145,000 sq. ft. Target department\nstore, instead of the previously proposed 90,000 square feet building, construction of a new\nparking structure and improvements to the southeast corner of the South Shore Shopping\nCenter. The purpose of this meeting is to receive comments on the draft EIR only. No action\nto approve or deny the project will occur at this meeting. The project site is zoned C-2- PD\n(Central Business-Specia Planned Development District).\nMr. Garrison presented the staff report.\nPresident Lynch noted that more than five speaker slips had been received.\nM/S Cook/McNamara to reduce the speakers' time to three minutes.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Winston Chu, 1143 Otis Drive, expressed concerns about the traffic impact of this project. He\nnoted that there were limited entrances and exits in Alameda, and was concerned about emergency\nevacuation of Alameda. He noted that it would be very difficult to build more roads without\nexercising eminent domain. He believed the Target would draw people into the City, which would\ncongest the entrances and exits to the City.\nMr. Ashley Jones noted that the impact of a store this large would be felt by the nearby residents, and\nagreed with the previous speaker's comments about traffic.\nMs. Reyla Graber, 178 Basinside Way, spoke in opposition to this project and read an excerpt from a\nnewspaper article about a proposed Target in Davis. It addressed the impact on local stores by\nTarget, as well as health care policies and economic concerns.\nMs. Alice Cleveland, 2101 Shoreline, spoke in opposition to this project. She noted that her condo\nunit in the Willows faced the road directly in front of the main post office at Shoreline, and her\nwindows overlook the narrow, two-lane street. She noted that there were no bicycle lanes and no\nsidewalk. She was very concerned about pedestrian safety, and believed the street should be widened\nto accommodate the cars and delivery trucks.\nMs. Holly Sellers, 1624 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in opposition to this project. She noted that her\ncomments she submitted about the DEIR had not been addressed; her concerns were air quality and\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nSeptember 25, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-09-25", "page": 11, "text": "noise. She believed the air quality within homes should be measured as affected by 18-wheel trucks;\nshe was concerned that the noise rating for those trucks were not included in the chart. She noted that\nsome of the trucks would be only 20 feet away from homes. She believed the truck traffic would\nnegatively impact the residents' quality of life. She submitted her comments to staff.\nMs. Kimberly Miner, 1004 Camellia Drive, indicated she supported the project but did not speak.\nMr. Terry Miner, 3214 Bayo Vista Avenue, spoke in support for this project and the EIR. He\ndisagreed that Target is the same kind of discount store as a WalMart or K-Mart. He believed that\nmany car trips would be generated to go to a Target off-island.\nMs. Eugenie Thompson requested that the City redo the traffic study. She had been asked by some\ncitizens to review the traffic study who wondered why a project of this magnitude could have zero\nimpacts. She did not believe the EIR evaluated the traffic impacts of a Target as proposed by the\ndevelopers. She noted that generic shopping was examined instead. She noted that Target would be a\nmajor regional draw, from three to five miles. As a civil engineer and a traffic engineer, she did not\nbelieve this EIR was reality-based. She supported controlled growth, and believed that 700,000\nsquare feet was a very large shopping center. She would like alternative sites to be examined more\nclosely. She noted that traffic impacted people and the quality of life, not just roads. She urged the\nCity to do a new traffic study.\nMs. Jill Reed, 2101 Shoreline Drive #146, spoke in opposition to this project. She echoed the other\nspeakers' concerns, and did not believe the project would have no traffic impact. She did not believe a\nstore of this size should be at that side of the Island, and that it was a long drive for people to shop.\nMs. Mary Tigh, 2137 Otis Drive #223, spoke in opposition to this project, and spoke on behalf of Rich\nPerranan who was out of town. She read his letter into the record:\n\"I arrived in Alameda in 1927, and remember when going to school that we had four bridges and\nthe Posey Tube. We still have four bridges and the Posey Tube for access to Alameda. All the\nstreets from those bridges are either one lane or become one land before Otis Drive. The side\nstreets are also one lane:\" Versailles, Broadway, Willow and Grand. Otis becomes one lane before\nPark Street. Otis has become the truck route to the shopping center. Otis currently has 12 exits and\nten entrances to the center before Willow and Park Street. Only two each on Broadway, Shoreline\nDrive and Willow Street. Shoppers not living in the general area of the center have no clue what\nthe traffic is like 24/7. At the St. Francis condo, we have 108 vehicles that use our driveway for\naccess to Otis Drive. At times we have a hard time getting onto Otis because of the traffic backed\nup at the signal at Willow. There are backups from Versailles to Park Street also. Target's traffic\nfigures on the 112,000 square foot store of 30% and the 300,000 shoppers from off-island are way\noff base. It would be more like 40% due to the increase in footage of 49,000 feet. Our streets\ncannot handle this increase. They are having problems now. Our property values will decrease, and\nwill likely have more crime as more people come on to our island each day. Many are not against\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nSeptember 25, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-09-25", "page": 12, "text": "Target, but they would like a smaller store, not a big box store.\"\nMs. Patricia Gannon, 1019 Tobago Lane, spoke in opposition to this project and noted that she had sent\ntwo letters in strong opposition to this project. She believed the store was grossly out of scale for Alameda,\nand cited studies that when big box stores open in a city, family-owned stores go out of business, housing\nvalues decrease, and the local streets are clogged with traffic, thus degrading the quality of life.\nMs. Beverly DeWolfe spoke in opposition to this project, and expressed concern about traffic congestion.\nShe was concerned about building a garage under the store, where there would be water. She believed\nTarget should be located on a freeway, not a shoreline.\nMr. Tim Erway, 2101 Shoreline Dr #224, spoke in opposition to this project and noted that he was on\nthe Willows Board. He was very concerned about the one-lane approaches to the vicinity of the store, and\nbelieved that the traffic would be very congested. He believed the traffic study was flawed and should be\nredone.\nMr. Blake Brydon, Vice President, Alameda Civic Light Opera, 1033 Camino Del Valle, spoke in\nsupport of this item, as well as the EIR as submitted by the developer. He believed the issues of traffic\nand noise had been sufficiently addressed. He noted that Target had been an outstanding community\npartner in supporting the Alameda Civic Light Opera in their funding projects.\nMs. Judith Kissinger, 2101 Shoreline Dr. #428, spoke in opposition to this project. She believed the\nEIR did not provide mitigating factors for the environmental impact that the proposed Target would\nhave on her neighborhood. She had attended a neighborhood meeting, where the latest design was\npresented; she believed it was basically the same design that she felt ignored the neighbors' previous\nconcerns, such as the blockage of views and light because of the size of the building. She was very\nconcerned about the impact on her property value. She believed it should be redesigned, and the\nimpact reports reconsidered.\nMr. Aron Sogor, St. Francis, spoke in opposition to this project. He noted that he was very concerned\nabout the safety of the schoolchildren, which will include his children, in crossing the street to go to\nschool. He was concerned about the environmental impact on the beaches.\nMs. Susan Peiper, 2101 Shoreline Drive, echoed the comments about traffic and believed both the\ntraffic study and EIR were both flawed in scope and in their conclusions. She believed the study area,\nstarting at Grand, was too narrow and largely ignored the major and minor thoroughfares which\nwould be impacted by a far greater flow of cars to the proposed store. She believed that all of Park,\nWebster and Constitution would bear much heavier traffic. She noted that the impact on Franciscan\nWay was not adequately addressed in the DEIR. She pointed out several inconsistencies between the\nDEIR's conclusion and the 2003 Planning Board's conclusions, where a 93,000 sq. ft. store was\nconsidered to be unacceptably large.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nSeptember 25, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-09-25", "page": 13, "text": "Mr. Robb Ratto, PSBA, spoke in support of this item and wished to address the impact on existing\nbusinesses. The PSBA Board of Directors unanimously approved this project, citing the Kaizen-\nMarsden report, who estimated that 3% of current sales may be lost to Target, but that the overall\nimpact would be minor. He noted that some retailers near the site wanted the Target, as well as Bed,\nBath & Beyond and other stores, to open up, which PSBA believed would continue to improve the\nnumbers for those stores.\nMs. Sonia Scott, 2442 Otis Dr., noted that the retail community supposed to support the residents.\nShe did not think the types of products carried by Target would compete with the smaller businesses,\nand she would be happy to have a Target in Alameda. She noted that there had been safety concerns\nabout traffic, and wondered where the store could be placed on Fruitvale to ease the traffic. She\nbelieved it was too large a store for South Shore Center.\nMs. Susan Battaglia, 1351 Burbank Street, noted that her concern about traffic has continued to\ngrow. Although Target may be a good neighbor, she did not believe it was a good fit for Alameda.\nShe believed the traffic study was flawed and should be discarded. She believed crime would be an\nissue with a big box store.\nMr. Red Wetherill, 28 Cove Road, spoke in opposition to this project. He agreed with Ms. Thompson's\ncomments. He noted that he was a professional architect, and did not believe the placement of this store on\nan island did not make sense.\nMr. Jim Strehlow, 3122 Gibbons Drive, spoke in support of this item with some concerns about the\negress portion of the EIR. He made suggestions on how to improve the shopping center with a three-\nlane egress plan. He challenged the City to plan for traffic problems in advance of the development,\nand for it to admit its mistakes during the DEIR phase for the good of the community as a whole. He\nbelieved the development should be redesigned for a smaller footprint.\nMs. Dorothy Reid, Willows Homeowners, 2101 Shoreline #276, recalled that she had asked that this\nproject be approached in a different way, and for the community to be involved throughout the\nproject. She noted that she had read the EIR three times, which she believed to be inadequate. She\nbelieved that the DEIR ignored the General Plan, which discussed residential streets and not creating\nnuisances. She believed the traffic data was wrong, and noted that while the public views had been\naddressed, she did not believe the impact of a five-fold increase in store size was not addressed.\nMr. Harry Dahlberg, 729 Bay Wood Road, Economic Development Commission, spoke in support of\nthe EIR and requested that the Board accept it in its present state. He noted that the EDC conducted\na number of hearings to consider the impact of such a store in Alameda, and the EDC endorsed it\nunanimously after considering traffic and related implications. They also found that the majority of\nAlamedans do want this store.\nMs. Cathy Leong, 48 Kara Road, spoke in support to this item. She noted that as a past president of\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nSeptember 25, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-09-25", "page": 14, "text": "the Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber was in favor of the EIR and smart business development\nShe believed that while Alameda was a residential community, without retail activity, there would be\nno residents. She noted that there would be more on- and off-island traffic to go to stores in other\ncities. She noted that many people were concerned about the opening of Trader Joe's, but that it had\nbecome a good neighbor.\nMr. Gail Wetzork, Chair, Economic Development Commission, 3452 Calecca Lane, spoke in support\nto this item and echoed the previous two speakers' comments. He noted that when this item came\nbefore the EDC, the Commissioners endorsed it unanimously. He believed the impacts could be\nmitigated, and he agreed with the EIR.\nMr. William McAleer, 420 Kitty Hawk Rd., spoke in opposition to this item, and expressed concern\nabout traffic. He noted that the majority of people don't walk, bicycle or carpool to Target, and\nestimated 900,000 trips to and 900,000 away from Target per year. He noted that the area was full of\nresidential neighborhoods, and he did not believe it was an appropriate use for the neighborhood.\nMr. Chris Kovach, 2101 Shoreline Drive, spoke in opposition to this item. He did not believe the EIR\naddressed the impact of expansion on the Island by Target. He was concerned about the impact of\ntraffics on the community, and believed the congestion would be a safety hazard.\nMr. Mark Linde, 2830 Central Avenue #B, spoke in opposition to this item. He believed the traffic\nstudy should be redone and noted that the delivery trucks driving down the residential streets would\nbe a safety hazard.\nMr. Bob Feinbaum, Oakland, spoke in support to this item. He believed the Target store would\nprovide more variety of goods and services in Alameda. He believed that by improving the public\ntransit access to the center, the traffic impacts would be mitigated. He encouraged Target to use the\nbest design possible for this store.\nMs. Susan Sperry, 2101 Shoreline #355, spoke in opposition to this item and noted that she had been\nhit by a car earlier in the year. She was very concerned about the pedestrian safety in the shopping\ncenter, where she had been hit. She noted there were missing stop signs, speed limit signs and\nsidewalks. She would like the Planning Board to address pedestrian safety in that.\nMr. Walt Jacobs, 28 Balleybay, spoke in support to this item and noted that he was immediate past\npresident of the Chamber of Commerce. He understood people's fear of change and growth, but\nbelieved the benefits outweighed the challenges of the EIR.\nMr. Eric Scheuermann spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that Target had projected an annual\ngross revenue of $50 million; of that, $38 million will come from Alameda residents, which is $500\nper year for every person in Alameda. He was unsure whether that was a realistic figure. He\nacknowledged the City staff's estimate of retail leakage to off-Island Targets. He was very concerned\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nSeptember 25, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-09-25", "page": 15, "text": "about traffic congestion to Target, and noted that there was more to quality of life than tax revenues.\nHe believed this use would be too big, would generate too much traffic and did not fit in Alameda.\nMr. Noel Folsom spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern about the traffic congestion\nsurrounding this use, and its impacts on the residential neighborhoods.\nMr. Scott Brady, 1812 Encinal Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. He was very concerned\nabout the traffic portion in the EIR, and noted that the level of service figures would be meaningless\nto readers without the number of vehicles per hour included in the correlation. He believed this EIR\nwas a piecemeal document, and that it was a recipe for disaster.\nMr. Andrew DuBois, 2101 Shoreline Drive #438, spoke in opposition to this item. He was concerned\nabout the adequacy of the traffic study, and sometimes had to wait for three green lights to get across\nPark Street at Otis.\nMr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, spoke as a member of Bike Alameda. He supported\nLucy Gigli's comments on the inadequacy of pedestrian and bicycle comments in the EIR, and the\nprovisions for them. He was disappointed that this continued a trend that pedestrians, bicyclists and\ntransit riders had not been adequately accounted for and taken care of in the South Shore traffic\npattern. He would be willing to accept Target as a good neighbor in the right location. He noted that\nmany low-income families needed a store like Target in Alameda, and did not believe they should\nhave to go to San Leandro. He noted that Target was a big supporter of community programs. He\nbelieved that it should be located in the right place, supported by a developer that is willing to pay the\nfreight on the development, and to adequately provide for all the needs to support Target and South\nShore being a good neighbor. He did not believe that standard had yet been met, and did not believe it\nhad been met in 2003 with the EIR at that time. He believed this DEIR could be improved.\nMs. Lucy Gigli, President, Bike Alameda, PO Box 2732, noted that Bike Alameda had been waiting\nfor this most recent proposal. They believed that there had been no meaningful analysis of walking or\nbicycling had been made in and around the project area. She believed the additional cars on the road\nwarranted safer facilities for bikes and pedestrians. She noted that secure long-term and employee\nbike parking needs were not met. They believed that the bike lanes being placed on the main access\nroads of Otis, Park and Shoreline would create safer access with the new intersections. She believed\nthe Target area would have increase turning movements on Whitehall, and the sidewalks should be\nmade much safer. There would be added pedestrian traffic between Walgreen's and Office Max, and\nshould require an east-west parallel sidewalk along the inside of Otis to get between those stores and\nTarget. She noted there would be an increased amount of pedestrians along the Park Street area near\nWalgreen's and the Sushi House would warrant an enlarged sidewalk.\nM/S Cunningham/McNamara and unanimous to extend the meeting to 11:15 p.m.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nSeptember 25, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-09-25", "page": 16, "text": "Mr. Mike Corbitt. Alameda Towne Center, 523 South Shore Center, spoke in support to this item.\nHe thanked the speakers for their opinions, and noted that he shared their wishes for safe and\nmanageable traffic patterns for the project. He submitted 520 names of people who want Target at the\ncenter.\nMs. Elizabeth Flanagan agreed with the other speakers who mentioned their concerns about the\nflawed traffic study. She would like the local schools to be included in the traffic safety with respect\nto safety.\nMs. Mary Jacak, 1330 Caroline Street, believed the EIR was inadequate and felt very strongly that\nthere should be no street without sidewalks on both sides.\nMs. Kris Murray, 1738 Alameda Avenue, spoke in support to this item.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPresident Lynch entertained Board comments on how to proceed with this item.\nMember Kohlstrand believed it would be appropriate to continue the discussion to the next meeting.\nShe noted that it would be helpful to hear all the comments, and then absorb them before\ncommenting.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Lynch regarding the timeline going forward, Mr. Thomas\nreplied that the final date of the comment period was October 12, 2006. Staff heard a number of\nimportant comments and concerns raised, and expected to receive more letters and emails. He\nbelieved the best option would be for the Board to continue its discussion to October 9, 2006. He\nbelieved it would take one to two months to prepare the final EIR. The Board must wait to take any\naction until the Final EIR has been in circulation for at least 15 days. He requested that staff provide\nthe public with a timeline and milestones of goals to guide public comment.\nVice President Cook requested the comments made by the Transportation Commission as soon as\npossible. Mr. Thomas noted that staff would provide their minutes by October 9, 2006.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to continue Board discussion of this item to the\nmeeting of October 9, 2006.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATION\nNone.\n10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 16\nSeptember 25, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-09-25", "page": 17, "text": "a.\nOral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that there had been no meetings since her last report.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember Mariani).\nMember Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.\nC.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member\nKohlstrand).\nMember Kohlstrand advised that there had been no meetings since her last report.\nd.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board\nMember Cunningham).\nMember Cunningham advised that there had been no meetings since his last report.\n11.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATION:\nMr. Thomas advised that for October 9, 2006, a number of items had been brought to the next\nmeeting's agenda, and Grand Marina had requested that they be moved to that agenda.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n11:17 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nCatalog Woodbresy\nCathy-Woodbury,Secretdry\nPlanning & Building Department\nThese minutes were approved at the October 9, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was\naudio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 17\nSeptember 25, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf"}