{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-11-13", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, November 13, 2006\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:05 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMember Kohlstrand\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Lynch, Vice President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft, Cunningham,\nKohlstrand.\nMembers Mariani and McNamara were absent.\nAlso present were Planning and Building Services Director Cathy Woodbury, Assistant City\nAttorney Donna Mooney, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner II Dennis Brighton, Barry\nBergman, Public Works.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of October 23, 2006.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 5, paragraph 3, should be changed to read, \"Member Ezzy\nAshcraft noted that she was very pleased and impressed impressive with the environmentally\nfriendly design elements incorporated into this project...\nMember Kohlstrand believed the statement on page 4, second to last paragraph, which read,\n\"Member Kohlstrand noted that the 75% recycling rate of construction materials was impressive\"\nwas made by another member rather than her. Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed that she made that\nstatement.\nVice President Cook noted that page 9, paragraph 4, should be changed to read, \"She would like\ngrass instead of some of the shrubs in other landscaped areas.\n\"\nVice President Cook noted that on page 11, four conditions of approval were listed, and she wished\nto ensure that the sidewalk width was not obstructed or narrowed by the wells for street trees or by\nthe bus stops, so that the pedestrian ways are a clear five feet. Ms. Woodbury suggested, \"facilitate\npedestrian access without obstruction.\" Vice President Cook agreed with that additional language.\nVice President Cook noted that page 13, she had commented that there should be a stop sign at the\ncorner, and she would like to leave that to the discretion of Public Works. She would like the\nlanguage changed to indicate that she believed there \"probably should be a stop sign at that corner.\"\nM/S Cunningham/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of October\n23, 2006, as amended.\nAYES - 4 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -\n1\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nNovember 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-11-13", "page": 2, "text": "Member Ezzy Ashcraft requested moving Item 7-A from the Consent Calendar to the Regular\nAgenda.\nM/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Kohlstrand and unanimous to move Item 7-A from the Consent Calendar to the\nRegular Agenda.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nVice President Cook inquired whether it would be possible to consider Item 8-B before 8-A, because\nshe believed that one of the findings related to compatibility of design review with the rest of the\ncenter.\nM/S Cook/Cunningham and unanimous to hear Item 8-B before Item 8-A.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPresident Lynch noted that a speaker slip had been submitted for Item 7-A.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nMs. Clare Risley wished to comment on the extensive modeling of the Albertson's and Noah's\nBagels building at Alameda Towne Centre with building permits. She did not believe there was any\nauthority for issuing those permits, and believed their issuance appeared to be expressly prohibited\nunder Planning Board Resolution 03-40, adopted on July 28, 2003. She noted that resolution\nspecifically disapproved Phases III, IV-B and later phases. She believed the Albertson's remodel\nreplacement was Phase V, and the Noah's Bagels remodel was Phase IV-B. The resolution stated on\npage 3, \"Phase III, IV-B, and later phases are specifically not approved.\" She believed the resolution\nlanguage was clear, while the construction proceeded. She stated that the language also stated that\nthe developer may seek approval of the specifically disapproved phases at a later time by submittal\nof \"a new environmental review with a traffic study conforming to California Environmental Quality\nAct guidelines, a new Planned Development Amendment and Major Design Review.\" She did not\nbelieve that had been done. She requested that no further building permits be issued for the Alameda\nTowne Centre, and to the extent possible, stop work on the projects until requirements for their\napproval as set forth in that resolution have been met, and the necessary approvals have been given.\nPresident Lynch noted that Ms. Risley's concerns would be forwarded to the appropriate department,\nwhich would provide a response.\nMs. Woodbury advised that staff would report back, and was confident that everything was in order.\nMs. Holly Sellers expressed concern about the public hearing notice for this meeting, dated October\n24, 2006, which stated at the bottom of page 2, \"To assure delivery to Board members prior to the\npublic hearing, please submit any written comments before April 3, 2006.\" She noted that date was\nobviously an error. She noted that she and her neighbor had delivered their written comments one\nweek before the meeting (November 6, 2006), had pointed out the error to staff and inquired whether\nthey had submitted their comments in time to be included. Mr. Garrison had confirmed that they had\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nNovember 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-11-13", "page": 3, "text": "met the deadline, but that they were not included in the staff report or passed along to the Board. She\nnoted that they copied the Board, but she was disappointed that their comments were not available to\nother interested parties.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nNovember 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-11-13", "page": 4, "text": "Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nNovember 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-11-13", "page": 5, "text": "Mr. Edward Cuney, Chair, Commission on Disability Issues, expressed concern about the shelter at\nthe corner of Santa Clara and Willow. He demonstrated the challenge he faced when approaching\nthat shelter with a cane, and noted that he could be struck in the face by the post. He suggested that\nsomething be placed between the post and the back of the shelter so the cane could come in contact\nwith it, but not low enough to trip the pedestrian. Alternatively, the shelter could be moved back so\nthere would be sufficient area to walk down the center of the sidewalk. He was concerned that he\nhad brought this to the City's attention nearly a year and a half ago.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPresident Lynch wished to like to see some discussion in the staff report as it relates to the benefits of\nvarious materials and design. He realized there was a balancing act in terms of aesthetics, budgetary\nconstraints and maintenance, as well as a cost-benefit to certain materials over a period of time. He\nwould like to continue this item to address those concerns, and would like a more complete staff\nanalysis of the information provided, e.g., the initial and ongoing maintenance costs of tempered\nglass. He also would like more analysis of the shelters that were discussed by Mr. Cuney.\nMr. Bergman noted that there were only two of those shelters in the City, with four posts but no side\nwalls. He noted that those shelters met ADA requirements, but that did not mean that the City could\nnot go beyond ADA requirements.\nVice President Cook expressed concern about the width and usability of sidewalks, and\nencroachment on them with various items that may not be useful any more.\nMember Kohlstrand understood how Park and Webster Streets had their own unique shelters\ndesigns, and how flexibility in terms of materials would be necessary.\nMr. Bergman noted that there were different right of way constraints at different locations, and they\ngenerally placed the shelter back into the sidewalk near the property line. He noted that there was\none exception at Park and Otis, which was designed many years ago.\nPresident Lynch noted that more detailed discussion of constraints and rationales would be very\nhelpful to the Board members and to the public.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft requested that this be placed on a fast track, so the commuters could have\nsome relief during the rainy season.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Lynch, Mr. Bergman noted that the current year's CIP did not\nhave this item in the budget.\nActing President Cunningham noted that the public would be able to comment on this item before\nCity Council.\nMember Kohlstrand did not feel the need to bring this item back to the Planning Board, as long as\nstaff understood the Board's concerns.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nNovember 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-11-13", "page": 6, "text": "M/S Kohlstrand/Cunningham and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-47 to\nrecommend City bus shelter design standards for future bus shelter locations in Alameda, with the\nmodification requesting staff to examine the Board's suggestions before bringing the item to City\nCouncil, and adding a proposed schedule of implementation.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nNovember 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-11-13", "page": 7, "text": "7-B.\nV06-0007 (Variance) and DR06-0090 (Major Design Review) - 1331 Sherman Street -\nApplicant: Casey Deshong (DB). The applicant requests a Major Design Review approval\nfor approximately a 198-square foot, single-story addition to the single-family dwelling and\na Variance from the 20-foot rear yard setback and 40-percent lot coverage requirements\npursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.1(d)(7) and 30-4.1(d)(3). The site is located within a R-1,\nOne-Family Residence Zoning District.\nM/S Cook/Cunningham and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-46 to\napprove a Major Design Review for approximately a 198-square foot, single-story addition to the\nsingle-family dwelling and a Variance from the 20-foot rear yard setback and 40-percent lot\ncoverage requirements pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.1 (d)(7) and 30-4.1(d)(3)\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -\n0\nFollowing the vote, President Lynch received a speaker slip regarding this item, and invited a motion\nto withdraw the approval of Item 7-B.\nMs. Mooney suggested a motion to rescind, and to open the public hearing.\nM/S Cunningham/Kohlstrand to rescind the approval of Item 7-B, and to open the public hearing.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. David Maxie, 1330 Bay Street, noted that the owner of the property behind him, with a St.\nCharles Street address, recently requested a variance in order to add a bedroom and a bathroom. He\nnoted that all the garages along the line backing up between St. Charles and Bay Street were\nprobably all within six inches of the property line. He noted that the garages would be the only view\nfrom the back of the property. He noted that the house adjacent to the property was approximately\nfour feet from the property line. He believed the owner should have his variance because the view\nwas not different from what was already there.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nM/S Cook/Cunningham and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-46 to\napprove a Major Design Review for approximately a 198-square foot, single-story addition to the\nsingle-family dwelling and a Variance from the 20-foot rear yard setback and 40-percent lot\ncoverage requirements pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.1(d)(7) and 30-4.1(d)(3)\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n8-B.\nProposed expansion and redevelopment of the Alameda Towne Centre (DG). The focus\nof this workshop will be on site and building design. Information will be provided\nconcerning applications submitted by Harsch Investment Properties. These include Planned\nDevelopment Amendments PDA05-0004, PDA06-0002 and Major Design Review DR05-\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nNovember 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-11-13", "page": 8, "text": "0073 which include redevelopment of the southeast corner of the center (Shoreline area), a\nnew approximately 147,000 square foot retail structure (Target), a three level parking\ngarage, new signage and various other improvements. The purpose of this workshop is for\ndiscussion purposes only. No action to approve or deny the project will occur at this\nmeeting.\nItem 8-B was heard before Item 8-A.\nMr. Garrison requested a recess to address a technical issue.\nPresident Lynch called for a ten-minute recess.\nMr. Garrison summarized the staff report and displayed a PowerPoint presentation.\nPresident Lynch noted that on the illustrated plan, a parcel was identified as a gas station at the\nintersection at Otis Drive. He suggested that the wording be changed to \"proposed gas station.\"\nMr. Randy Kite, Harsch Investment Properties, displayed a PowerPoint presentation to describe the\nactions in Items 8-A and 8-B and the plans for the site. He noted that they were 30% into the\nconstruction, and that substantial redevelopment would be accomplished in 2007.\nMr. Jan Taylor, project architect, described in detail the building design elements of this redesign\nand remodel project. He displayed a PowerPoint presentation to illustrate the proposed changes,\nincluding vehicle and public transportation circulation\nVice President Cook requested visuals of buildings 800 and 900. Mr. Garrison noted that he could\nlook for some. Mr. Taylor noted that the loading dock for building 800 would be removed and\ntucked into the building. He noted that the metal arcade would be pulled off, and wood trellises and\ntwo bump outs would be added to frame the entrance. He noted that building 900 (the former\nMervyn's) would be examined in the future for remodeling, and plans had not yet been produced.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nPresident Lynch noted that more than five speaker slips had been received.\nM/S Cunningham/Kohlstrand and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Claire Risley expressed concern the Planning Department has recommended approval of items\nthat had been specifically disapproved by the Planning Board. She believed that Planning Board\nResolution 03-40 specifically disapproved Phases 3, 4-B and later phases. Buildings 400 and 500\nwere included in Phase 4-B, and she believed that resolution did not allow for this phase. She\nbelieved that a new Environmental Impact Report and traffic study, new Planned Development\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nNovember 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-11-13", "page": 9, "text": "Amendment and a major design review must be submitted. She believed that unless those steps had\nbeen followed, the building permits for buildings 400 and 500 may not be pulled. She noted that the\nstaff report suggested that because permits had already been mistakenly issued for buildings 700 and\n800, that there should be no complaints about more permits being issued for construction in phases\nthat have already been specifically disapproved by the Planning Board.\nPresident Lynch gave documents to Ms. Risley for her review regarding her assertions; he noted that\nif the documents were incorrect, she would be able to communicate that directly to City staff.\nMr. Kite noted that Ms. Risley's commented regarded Item 8-A, and wished to respond. He noted\nthat their counsel was unable to attend this meeting, but that she submitted a letter which reinforced\nstaff's position on why there was authority in place to approve building 300, as well as 400 and 500\nunder the Alameda Municipal Code.\nMs. Melinda Reising, Park Street, expressed concern about traffic and did not believe the\nEnvironmental Impact Report addressed those concerns in terms of how the traffic on Park Street\nwould be impacted. She was concerned that Park Street would become an off ramp once Target\nopened.\nMs. Jill Reed noted that she lived at the Willows, and was concerned that the plans seemed to be\npiecemeal and scattered about the site. She believed there should be one EIR that addressed all the\nmodifications. She would like to know the height of the Target store, and was concerned about\ntraffic impacts on the side streets such as Franciscan Street. She did not believe that street should be\na main artery out of the shopping center. She echoed the previous concerns voiced by the other\nspeakers.\nMr. Michael Krueger noted that as a Transportation Commissioner, he wished to call the Planning\nBoard to the Commission's recommendations that had not been included in the original packet. He\nnoted that the mitigation on the left-turning bicyclists was addressed by relocating the bike path. He\nwas pleased to see that the issue of widening the sidewalk on Park Street had been addressed. He\nnoted that the issue on the transit mitigations was partially addressed by configuring the intersection\nto allow for a better turn for the buses. During the TC discussion, they discussed working with AC\nTransit to explore a more optimum route for the buses through the center, particularly with the\npotential addition of Target and a parking garage, which could add a lot of traffic congestion. He\nwas pleased to see the addition of a sidewalk on one side of Whitehall Place, but was concerned\nabout pedestrian accommodation and would like to see sidewalks on both sides if possible. The TC\nalso passed a recommendation that every internal roadway should have a continuous sidewalk on at\nleast one side. He strongly disagreed with the assessment that there was no treatment needed for the\nfull east-west sidewalk along where the banks are located. He suggested that the parking ratio may\nbe adjusted if parking spaces needed to be removed in order to get more pedestrian accommodations.\nMs. Alice Cleaveland, 2101 Shoreline Drive, echoed Mr. Krueger's comments about the narrow\nsidewalks on one side of the road. She was very concerned about the large trucks that drive through\nthat area. She described a pedestrian-car near-miss that she had witnessed due to the lack of a\nsidewalk, as well as teenage pedestrians walking in the middle of the streets.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nNovember 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-11-13", "page": 10, "text": "Ms. Dorothy Reid was concerned that the appearance of building 900 was still unknown, and that at\n25 feet, the store was very close to the road. The traffic from Target would not be able to drive\nthrough the back. She added that the store was proposed at 90,000 square feet, which was reduced to\n66,000 square feet by the mitigated negative declaration. She was concerned that the square footage\nkept changing. She would like the Board to give clear instructions to the applicant going forward\nwhile waiting for the EIR. She did not understand the assumption that Target would be built. She\nnoted that the original proposal was to sell the land, and she would like to see alternative plans for\nthe site. She was very concerned about the proposed 48-foot height of the building.\nMr. David Geshi, Gray Cliffs owner, spoke in support of this item. He believed that the small\nbusinesses in the vicinity would be benefited by the proposed Target. He noted that his business had\nsuffered slightly from the remodeling, but believed the Target customers would also become his\ncustomers. He depended on the larger stores in the center to bring foot traffic to his business, and\ndisagreed with those who believed construction should be stopped altogether.\nMr. Gary Blanick spoke in support of this item. He noted that he often traveled to San Leandro to\nshop and would rather spend the tax dollars in Alameda. He believed the traffic issues could be\nresolved, and believed Target would benefit Alameda and the Town Centre.\nMs. Vivian Forte was very concerned about the amount of growth the proposed buildings on this site\nhave undergone, as well as with the pylons to be put into the ground. She would like to see more\ninformation on color treatments for the proposed project, and would prefer an earth-tone color\nscheme.\nMr. John Selbach spoke in support of this item and would like the project to go forward. He noted\nthat he shops at off-Island Targets about twice a week, and that he would rather shop in Alameda.\nMr. David Perry noted that he was a pediatric dentist in the shopping center, and supported this\nproject. He noted that his patients enjoy shopping in the improved shopping center. At this time,\nthere is a vacant lot near the Willows facing his business, and some of his patients have experienced\ncar break-ins. He believed the risk would be lessened with the Target in his vicinity.\nMs. Susan Pieper noted that the Willows residents did not want to face a vacant lot either, but that\nthere were alternatives to a Target store. She did not want piecemeal development on this site, and\nneeded to see a better EIR.\nMs. Kathleen von Martins, Powell Street, noted that she lived across the street from the shopping\ncenter, and added that she approved of the architectural improvement and addition of Target to the\nshopping center. She was very concerned about the traffic, security and quality of life implications\nfor the surrounding residents.\nMr. Richard Peranon expressed concern about traffic congestion and pollution, and noted that\nchildren walking to Lum and Wood Schools and the nearby patients would be affected by the\npollution. He did not object to Target itself, but would like a more appropriately sized and located\nstore. He was concerned that the shopping center was not near a freeway, which would be more\nappropriate for a Target.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nNovember 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-11-13", "page": 11, "text": "Mr. David Kirwin noted that many of the comments made on the Draft EIR had not been addressed,\nand he would like to see an overall plan before moving forward. He disagreed with using a\npiecemeal plan for such a large project. He was concerned about the addition of second stories in the\nshopping center. He was concerned about the potential increase in vandalism and graffiti, and added\nthat he had observed that when he worked with Target in a maintenance capacity. He wanted to\nensure that an unmanageable traffic situation did not develop from this project.\nMr. Tim Erway noted that he did not object to Target as a store, but added that all the Target stores\nhe has seen are on large boulevards or off freeway exits. He commended Harsch for their work on\nthe center so far, and believed that it looked very good. He was concerned about the increase in\nbuilding heights, as well as the traffic. He did not believe this location was appropriate for a Target\nstore. He had attended several Traffic Commission meetings, and believed the entrances should be\nmade into real driveways with a barrier between traffic and pedestrians.\nMs. Rela Graber would like the developer to discuss pedestrian safety in addition to bicycle traffic.\nShe had heard of two serious pedestrian accidents in the center, and believed the left-hand turn was\ntoo piecemeal to be safe. She would like the access past the Post Office to be closed off and turned\ninto a minipark.\nMs. Lucy Gigli, Bike Alameda, was pleased to see the changes that had been made, and would\ncomment on the bike/pedestrian items upon further examination of the plans. She was concerned\nabout pedestrian safety at the east-west sidewalk parallel to Otis between Trader Joe's and Safeway,\nand would like pedestrian habits to be integrated into that plan.\nMs. Susan Decker echoed the previous speakers' compliments regarding the center, and expressed\nconcern about pedestrian safety through the corridor cited by Ms. Gigli. She noted that she was\nneutral on the placement of a Target in the center, but expressed some concern that the Craftsman\ndesign might be more appropriate for smaller buildings. She submitted some design options to the\nBoard.\nMr. James Leach, Global Perspectives Engineering Services, supported bringing more revenue into\nAlameda, and recognized that there would be tradeoffs. He believed the traffic leaving the Island\ngoing to other Targets would be reduced. He commended the developers for going to the extra effort\nof putting the parking structure below the main service. He would like the 9-foot-wide parking\nspaces to be widened to 10 feet from the center, and to double-stripe them.\nMr. Aron Sober noted that he was concerned about living so close to a Target store, as well as\npedestrian safety for the children going to school and the beach. He was concerned about traffic\ncongestion, pollution and noise. He was unsure how much shoppers the new center would attract.\nMs. Marilyn Schumacher noted that she would rather ride her bike to shop at a local Target rather\nthan drive off-island. She wanted to ensure the scale would be adjusted, and noted that riding her\nbike to the center via Otis was a scary event for her. She inquired how the bike traffic would be\nrouted, and asked the Board to consider pedestrian and bike safety. She requested that the shopping\ncarts be trapped on the Target lot so they would not be left in the surrounding neighborhoods.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nNovember 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-11-13", "page": 12, "text": "Ms. Bobbi [Centurion] spoke in support of this item, and believed that Target offered a retail option\nthat Alameda needed. She did not want to spend her time driving to surrounding cities to shop at\nTarget, and would rather spend her retail dollars in town. She supported the upgrades that have been\nmade so far.\nDr. Linda Rickerts concurred with the speakers who wish to spend their retail dollars in Alameda,\nbut would like to see the Target store elsewhere on the Island. She believed the traffic and safety\nimpacts would be too much for the neighborhood, and believed the Target should be located closer\nto the freeway. She was concerned about the target demographic for the Target stores with respect to\npotential crime and vandalism in the neighborhood.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMember Kohlstrand commended the developer and the architect on their responsiveness to the\nPlanning Board and Transportation Commission's concerns regarding this project. She was pleased\nin general with the design. With respect to 8-A, she understood that it was within the Planning &\nBuilding Director's discretion to approve the design review. She noted that this was a high-profile,\noften controversial project and as a Planning Board member, she felt somewhat blindsided when she\nread about these approvals, tucked into another subsection for Buildings 300 and 400. While she\nunderstood the need for expediency, she also wanted the public to feel they had input in these\ndecisions; as a Planning Board member, she wanted input as well. She had been following the Target\nproject in Davis, California, and noted that their proposed Target store was similar in size to this\nproposed size on a single level. She found it very attractive and was pleased to see it would be\nLEED certified. She would like the architect to explore a LEED design, and inquired whether a\nsingle-story store, rather than a podium design, would be possible. She believed the current design\nwas somewhat large and out of scale for the area.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand when the final EIR would be available, Mr.\nGarrison replied that all of the comments had been taken on the Draft EIR. Staff was currently\nworking on the document, and he estimated that it may be available in about a month.\nPresident Lynch noted that staff may wish to respond to the comments regarding the podium design.\nMr. Kyte noted that a typical one-level Target would be about 127,000 square feet; the podium\nconfiguration was used because of the vertical transportation and loading areas, increasing the\nsquare footage to 145,000 square feet. To do a 127,000-square foot store, between 10 to 12 acres\nwould be needed depending on landscape percentages. He noted that this site was 5.6 acres, and in\norder to accommodate the parking, a podium store was the only option.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether a larger site had been considered for a\none-story store, Mr. Kyte replied that they did, and because of the number of leases, it was not\npossible. He noted that a podium store was a relatively new concept for Target, and that about a\ndozen had been built for urban settings with limited parking.\nVice President Cook noted that it was important to address the larger question of shopping center\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nNovember 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-11-13", "page": 13, "text": "density in Alameda.\nMember Kohlstrand expressed concern about the coverage on the site as it related to the extension\nand the elderly care facilities. She noted that it was appropriate to develop an existing shopping\ncenter with retail uses, but the question was how intense should the development and traffic be.\nMr. Kyte noted that they had put forth an application consistent with what Target wanted, and did\nnot believe the project was being forced on anyone. They had listened very carefully to the concerns\nof the Board and the public with respect to the design and massing of the store, as well as what may\nbe more appealing.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that Target had not compromised on the square footage; Mr. Kyte\nresponded that Target had inherited the 90,000 square foot stores, which have since been phased out.\nHe noted that Target had a certain square footage in their prototype designs to serve their customer\nbase as they deemed necessary. He added that the overall density on the site was the result of\nblending anchor stores and shop space.\nVice President Cook expressed concern about the density that made a two- to three-level parking\nstructure in order to meet the parking capacity. She was less concerned about a particular tenant or\nthe size of an individual building than the overall site plan.\nMember Cunningham echoed Vice President Cook's concerns about the appropriate density for the\nsite, and was not as concerned about having a large or small store, but rather the total GLA for the\nsite. He also believed the public's concerns about the density and traffic impacts were a critical part\nof the decision-making process. He inquired about the definition of a \"destination mall\" was, as\nreferred to by the developer.\nMr. Kyte noted that in his presentation, he identified the pieces that were complete and then worked\naround the center. He suggested that the types of users for each piece of the center being completed\nshould be defined. He noted that the hardscape was being installed in the center court center, and\nthat in a year, they envisioned that whole section of the mall being fully tenanted; they had\ncommitments on a majority of the space. They had been in ongoing discussions with Mervyn's for\nthe past few years; he believed that they appear to be solidifying their balance sheet and were ready\nfor an economic resurgence in this region. They had approached the developers regarding a long-\nterm commitment, as well as Harsch's expectations of them to stay; he noted that the store must be\nsubstantially upgraded. He did not believe it would be practical to reposition existing tenants\nelsewhere, and invited the Board and members of the public to examine the large model of the\nshopping center they had displayed at the center.\nMember Cunningham noted that he supported the site, but was still concerned about the GLA for the\nsite.\nMr. Kyte noted that they had tried to be responsive and open with the Board and the community with\nrespect to their concerns and issues; they intended to work to find a solution to address those\nconcerns.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nNovember 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-11-13", "page": 14, "text": "Member Cunningham inquired whether a traffic review of the ingress and egress points along Otis\nDrive. Mr. Garrison replied that it did concern staff and had been addressed; they had examined\nqueuing on Otis I their analysis. Member Cunningham expressed concern about pedestrian and\nbicycle safety in that area.\nVice President Cook expressed concern that some of the original 1993 conditions were not being\nmet, and inquired about their legal status. She was hesitant to make any more approvals until the\nstatus of the previous approvals was clarified.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft shared Vice President Cook's concerns regarding the previous approvals.\nMs. Woodbury advised that staff would examine the rest of the conditions closely to ensure that\neverything went forward as it should.\nMs. Garrison noted that Building 600 West, 700 and 800 were publicly noticed extensively, and staff\nreceived fewer than six people showing any interest; the people who examined the plans at the\nPlanning Department said they were fine. He personally called several members of the Planning\nBoard to invite them to examine the plans, and they said it seemed routine.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that all Planning Board members receive the same notice as the\nmembers of the public receive. She would like to be made aware of those items.\nMs. Woodbury concurred, and noted that Board notification should be part of the process in the\nevent of a staff-level design review. She noted that staff would rectify that situation, and apologized\nto the Board members who had not received notices.\nMember Kohlstrand wished to revisit the east-west connector, which had been a condition of\napproval. She was also concerned about Whitehall Place and Franciscan Way, and recalled a\ncomment by the architect that the streets were not wide enough to accommodate sidewalks on both\nsides. She understood that they were private roads, and that the parking bays could be bumped back\nto accommodate sidewalks on both sides; she would like that possibility to be considered. Because\nthe truck loading would be accessed off of Whitehall, she inquired whether the trucks would enter on\nWillow because of the width of the internal streets. She inquired about the latest iteration of that\ndesign, and believed there should be a continuous sidewalk along the north side of Franciscan Way.\nShe noted that the intersection of Franciscan Way and South Shore Center Drive had not been\nmentioned, and mentioned that the developer seemed to improve that intersection through the\nAlbertson's redesign but had not seen it.\nPresident Lynch noted that because of the lateness of the hour, a motion to continue the meeting\nwould be needed.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Cunningham to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -\n0\nPresident Lynch noted that if it was the Board planned to prioritize pedestrian walkways, that should\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nNovember 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-11-13", "page": 15, "text": "be specifically stated. He believed there must be a balance struck in that case, which may be a\nreduction in parking or square footage. He noted that it was the developer's business to understand\nthe economics of a project, and suggested that as the developer discusses the plan for the site, that\nwas the point where the Board and the community ask for clarification. He understood that a balance\nmust be struck.\nMember Kohlstrand believed the presentation about the pedestrian enhancements were very positive,\nand she was most concerned that the intersection at Whitehall Place and Franciscan Way would be\naddressed. She recalled the comment made during the public hearing regarding the appropriateness\nof the Craftsman style, and noted that she liked the articulation presented in the design, although it\nwas a huge structure. She was unsure about the design solution, but believed the developer should\ntake that design comment to heart in deciding what the best design solution would be. She recalled\nthe comments about the color schemes, and inquired whether it would be red or another color\nscheme more in keeping with Alameda.\nMember Kohlstrand expressed concern with respect to the Transportation Commission's\nrecommendation of establishing three lanes with a bidirectional turn lane on Park and Shoreline. She\nwas concerned that this mitigation measure implied a loss of parking and treatment along the street\nthat would make it even harder for pedestrians to cross those streets. She realized that would be\nclarified with the environmental document, and would like more emphasis on alternative modes of\ntransportation. She believed that turning lanes should be more focused at the area where they would\nbe needed, rather than a continuous treatment of the whole street.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft reflected on the public comments expressing concern about crime and\nvandalism, and wondering why Alamedans flocked to out-of-town Targets if there was a problem in\nthat area. She noted that Alamedans were not known for leaving the Island to an unsafe destination.\nVice President Cook concurred with Member Ezzy Ashcraft's comment, and believed that Target\nappealed to a wide range of shoppers. She believed it would be a benefit to have a Target in the City.\nPresident Lynch believed that the discussions within the development team should begin with\nimprovements in the infrastructure.\nA discussion of circulation in the internal roads ensued.\nMr. Kyte noted that they would consider the many comments and return with an in-depth session.\nHe invited the public to see their large model as a prelude to a study session. He would like to\nresolve the issues and work towards the remaining key issues such as the size of the Target.\nNo action was taken.\nPresident Lynch noted that 10 speaker slips for Item 8-C had been received.\nPresident Lynch noted that Member Ezzy Ashcraft temporarily left Chambers, and added that Item\n8-C would be heard before Item 8-A.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nNovember 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-11-13", "page": 16, "text": "8-C. UP06-0015 and UP06-0016 - Harsch Investments Realty LLC - 2215 South Shore Center\n(BS/DG). The applicant requests approval of Use Permits allowing operation of a Health Studio\n(Fit-Lite) between the hours of 6 am and 10 pm in an existing retail space in Alameda Towne\nCentre (formerly South Shore Center). The Use Permits are required for health studios in the\nCentral Business (C-2) District and for the extended hours of operation.\nVice President Cook noted that a staff report would not be necessary.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThere were no speaker slips.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nM/S Cunningham/Kohlstrand to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. P-06-49 and PB-06-50\nto\napprove Use Permits allowing operation of a Health Studio (Fit-Lite) between the hours of 6 am and\n10 pm in an existing retail space in Alameda Towne Centre (formerly South Shore Center). The Use\nPermits are required for health studios in the Central Business (C-2) District and for the extended hours\nof operation.\nAYES - 4 (Ezzy Ashcraft, Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -\n0\nM/S Kohlstrand/Cunningham to extend the meeting to 12:00 midnight.\nAYES - 4 (Ezzy Ashcraft, Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATION:\nNone.\n10.\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 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 further meetings since the last report.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 16\nNovember 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-11-13", "page": 17, "text": "d.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board\nMember Cunningham).\nMember Cunningham noted that no meetings had been held.\n12.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATION:\nPresident Lynch noted that the Planning Board meeting of November 27, 2006, had been cancelled.\nPresident Lynch noted that mandatory ethics training must be completed by the end of 2006.\nMs. Woodbury noted that free ethics training was available on the Internet.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 17\nNovember 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-11-13", "page": 18, "text": "8-A.\n2245 S. Shore Center (old Walgreen's Building) Major Design Review File No. DR06-\n0081; 2246 S. Shore Center (old Ross building): Major Design Review File No. DR06-\n0096; 2293 South Shore Center (Petco building) Major Design Review File No. DR06-\n0096. (DG).\nMr. Garrison presented the staff report and recommended approval of this item.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Lynch why the tower needed to be at its design height, Mr.\nJan Taylor, project architect, noted that Building 300 in front of Walgreen's was approved and the\ndesign was changed to add a mezzanine. He noted that the building was six to eight feet higher than\nTrader Joe's and that the interior allowed greater flexibility. The tower was intended to establish the\nidentity of the shopping center in a positive way, and that it was comparable to the tallest portions of\nthe Willows.\nPresident Lynch noted that 10 speakers slips had been received\nM/S Cunningham/Kohlstrand and unanimous to reduce the speakers' time to three minutes.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Tim Erway noted that his question about the height had been answered, and believed the parking\narrangement in front of Trader Joe's was unsafe. He suggested that future parking schemes not\nincorporate the \"direct-in\" parking.\nMr. Michael Carr noted that he would have preferred to hear Item 8-A before 8-B. He believed it\nwas important to keep the architectural elements intact on the topic discussed, and believed it was\nimportant to keep the discussion point of the center of the mall separate from the Target portion of\nthe shopping center. He believed the rest of the shopping center should not be drawn into the\ncontentiousness of the Target segment, which he also favored.\nMr. Michael Krueger did not believe any part of the shopping center could be considered\nunimportant, and believed the last drawings showed the buildings increasing in height towards\nSafeway. He believed the tower on one side of the center begged the question of what element would\nmatch it on the other end. He did not support approaching the design of the shopping center in a\npiecemeal fashion.\nMs. Holly Sellers noted that she had read the meeting minutes from 2003 that led up to Resolution\nPB-03-40, which showed that the Board worked long and thoughtfully to craft the resolution. She\nbelieved the Board wanted to be involved as the project progressed, and provided checks and\nbalances so that the development would not get out of control, as she believed it was doing. She\nurged the Board not to approve this design review because she believed that that Resolution Page 4,\nonly Phases 1-A, 2-B an 4-A may be constructed. She did not believe the architect's site\nmodifications to the Park Street North Drive should be included.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 18\nNovember 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-11-13", "page": 19, "text": "Ms. Dorothy Reid noted that she understood the resolutions in 2003 would direct the process as\nwritten. She believed that when a redevelopment plan was submitted, that trumped any existing\nentitlement if they planned to do the development. She believed this was a different design, and\ninquired what could be expected with this PDA. She was concerned that building a 48-foot-tower\nmight set a precedent, and was not convinced that South Shore needed a marker for identification.\nShe would like to see some options that were not as tall.\nMs. Cathy Leong noted that she was former president of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, and\nurged the Planning Board to allow Harsch to move forward with the plans for buildings 300, 400 and\n500 as designed. She was concerned that if the plans continued to be delayed, the City would not\nreap the benefits of the tax revenues and that the tenants would not wait indefinitely for resolution of\nthis issue. She noted that a piecemeal approach was a common reality of retail centers. She believed\nthis shopping center was finally making a log-awaited turnaround, and urged the Board to support\nsmart business development. She believed Target's underground parking would not be a security\nissue, and noted that she grew up near Target's headquarters. She concurred that Alamedans do not\ngo to where there was trouble. She believed that the silent residents of Alameda that do not attend\nthe meetings spoke during the election and would support this project.\nMr. Randy Kyte, Harsch Development, noted that this was a redevelopment of an existing shopping\ncenter, and was not a ground-up development; he noted that a piecemeal approach was normal for\nsuch a situation. He noted that the tower could be lowered, but did not believe that would be the\nproper design approach to take for that building; he disagreed with the \"piecemeal\" label, and noted\nthat in a year, a design would be available for the Board to examine with the exception of Building\n900.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPresident Lynch wished to address the assertions made by some speakers that the resolutions\napproved in 2003 should be adhered to by this Board. He advised that the staff report included the\nnew resolutions that would become the resolutions of record if this item were to be approved.\nMember Cunningham agreed with the architect that a corner element would be a benefit to the\ncenter. He believed the scale and size matched the larger stores in the center such as Safeway.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that there were quite a few one-story buildings in the center that are\nbetween 33 to 38 feet high, and expressed concern about the increasing height in the center.\nVice President Cook shared the concerns about the bootstrapping of the compatibility of the scale of\nthe existing center, and believed the project had become even bigger than what had been just built.\nShe was unsure whether she could make the finding that the project was compatible with the rest of\nthe site and neighboring properties. She would need to hear from the City Attorney and Planning\nDirector regarding the PDA.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there was a specific condition in the previous resolution\nthat was problematic. Vice President Cook noted that condition about the internal circulation was a\nsignificant for her, as well as the number of bus stops and parking space locations. She liked the\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 19\nNovember 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-11-13", "page": 20, "text": "design and was excited about the new tenant. She inquired why the corner tower must be 10 feet\ntaller than the highest point of the Safeway building. She suggested imposing height limits to\nsafeguard against newer phases becoming higher and higher. She was not wedded to the earlier\nresolution suggesting that a unified style and theme fitting the 1950s - 1970s period.\nPresident Lynch understood the challenges faced in taking over an existing shopping center and the\nresulting piecemeal approach. He noted that change was an important element of planning, and\ngiven the scale of the structures, these three buildings were consistent with what was already in\nplace. He agreed that the tower was a prominent visual statement, and that within a retail complex,\nthis plan was consistent with land use, the adopted design for the site and zoning. He was concerned\nwith some of Vice President Cook's comments as they relate to some of the already-approved\nconditions, which he perceived as a separate item.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the appearance of much of the center is known, which would\nsupply a design standard for the rest of the center. She believed the overall design was attractive.\nMember Cunningham noted that he could support buildings 400 and 500, which he believed fit the\nexisting character; he was concerned about the massing of building 300. He suggested setting\nbuilding 300 back to mitigate the height.\nPresident Lynch noted that it was 11:58 p.m.\nM/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue the meeting to 12:30 a.m.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMr. Kyte noted that the tower was 38-feet-4-inches, the low parapet was 37-feet-4 inches and the\nnext step was 40-feet-4-inches, as opposed to Safeway at 38 feet 9 inches and 33 feet 8 inches. He\nbelieved the tower could be reduced by several feet, and added that the equipment could be screened\nby leaving the center section a bit taller while the main body of the parapet could be lowered about\ntwo feet and four feet on the tower.\nMember Cunningham believed that reducing the parapets would accentuate the tower; he was more\nconcerned about the parapets than the tower.\nA discussion of the tower height and number of floors ensued.\nVice President Cook expressed concern about the safety of the internal circulation at Whitehall to\nPark Street, and added that it was already dangerous at Safeway and Trader Joe's. She did not wish\nto continue the circulation problems in this center. She would prefer to see a walkway between\nSafeway and the old Walgreen's building.\nMember Kohlstrand believed the design of building 500 could be improved, and was concerned with\nthe blank facades in the east and south sides.\nM/S Cunningham/Ezzy Ashcraft to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-48 to approve\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 20\nNovember 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-11-13", "page": 21, "text": "DR06-0092 related to building 400.\nAYES - 4 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Cook); ABSTAIN -\n0\nMr. Kyte described the walkways that had been included in the center. He believed the parapet could\nbe reduced to roughly match the height of the Trader Joe's building.\nPresident Lynch was not comfortable in redesigning the center's walkways during the hearing, and\nurged the Board to vote the application up or down, and allow the applicant to appeal the decision if\nneeded.\nVice President Cook believed the 2003 Board intended for the center to have connections to the\nshore at the corner, and believed that buildings 400 and 500 would preclude that from happening.\nM/S Cunningham/Ezzy Ashcraft to approve DR06-0096 regarding building 500.\nAYES - 3 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 2 (Ashcraft, Cook); ABSTAIN - 0\nThe motion failed.\nM/S Ezzy Ashcraft/[None] to approve DR06-0081 regarding building 300.\nThere was no second.\nMember Cunningham noted that he would support a tower at the corner, and would like the parapet\nheight and the visual mass of the building to be reduced.\nMember Cunningham believed the other items should be considered with a full Board.\nVice President Cook would like a better understanding of the circulation on Whitehall all the way to\nPark.\nM/S Cunningham/\nto reconsider DR06-0096 regarding building 500.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nM/S Cunningham/Ezzy Ashcraft to continue DR06-0081 and DR06-0096 to the meeting of\nDecember 11, 2006.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n13.\nADJOURNMENT:\n12:41 a.m\nRespectfully submitted,\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 21\nNovember 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-11-13", "page": 22, "text": "Cathy Woodbury\nSecretary, Planning & Building Department\nThese minutes were approved at the December 11, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was\naudio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 22\nNovember 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2006-11-13", "page": 1, "text": "Social Service Human Relations Board\nMinutes of the Special Meeting, Monday, November 13, 2006\nCALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL - The meeting was called to order at 6:38 p.m.\nPresent: Acting President Wasko, Members Franz, Chen, Villareal, and Nielsen. Also\npresent were Development Services Director, Leslie Little and staff members Beaver and\nJones.\n3-A. RECOMMENDATION REGARDING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PUBLIC\nSERVICES PORTION OF THE FY 2006-07 CDBG ACTION PLAN - Acting President\nWasko introduced the item. Member Franz stated he has a conflict of interest as a paid\nemployee of Red Cross and recused himself. Director Little presented the staff\nrecommendations, indicating that additional funds are available and need to be spent by\nMarch 31, 2007. The funds need to go to agencies that can spend them by that deadline\nand in keeping with previous reprogrammings, the funds are recommended to go to\nagencies that can use them for direct service benefits. Both Bananas, Inc. and ARC have\ndirect service programs and have told staff they can meet the March 31 deadline. Little\nstated there is a public hearing before City Council on December 5, 2006 and staff would\nlike to submit the SSHRB recommendation along with the report. Wasko asked about\nfunding the Eden I & R 211 program. Director Little stated that Eden I&R assured the\nCity Manager that there is sufficient funding to qualify for the Public Utilities\nCommission approval and a pilot program will be up and running by December 2006.\nLittle explained that additional information regarding the 211 system was being sought\nfrom Eden I&R if and how CDBG and other funds might be able to be used. She indcated\nthat staff will continue to research the funding options to include CDBG funds and\nperhaps the Board could revisit this subject next spring. M/S (Chen, Villareal) to accept\nthe Staff recommendation to fund the amounts of $10k to American Red Cross and $16k\nto BANANAS, Inc. was approved 4/0/1.\n4. BOARD / STAFF COMMUNICATIONS - None\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None\n6.\nADJOURNMENT - Acting President Wasko adjourned the meeting at 6:57 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nCarol Beaver, Secretary\nSocial Service Human Relations Board\nCB:sb\nG:SSHRB\\Packets\\2006\\Nov\\NovMinutes1113.doc", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2006-11-13.pdf"}