{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2007-04-23", "page": 1, "text": "OF\nCity of Alameda\nCalifornia\n$\nCOMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nApril 23, 2007\nPRESENT: Berger, Bunker, Fort, Vice-Chair Moore, Longley-Cook, Cooney, Chair Lord-\nHausman, and Kirola\nABSENT/EXCUSED: Hakanson\nGUESTS: Lucretia Akil (Assistant Risk Manager)\nMINUTES: The minutes of March 26, 2007 were approved as submitted.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\n1. The agenda and minutes of the Social Service Human Relations Board were read by the\nsecretary.\nNEW BUSINESS:\n1.\nDraft Transportation Element for General Plan Amendment California Environmental\nQuality Act Review:\nThe draft Transportation Element (TE) was distributed to the Commissioners. The\ntransportation element consists of the following five items: 1) draft Multimodal Circulation\nPlan goals and policies, 2) draft Pedestrian Plan policies, 3) draft policies regarding the\nreview of environmental impact reports (EIRs), 4) draft Street Functional Classification\nSystem, and 5) draft TSM/TDM policies. Commissioner Ed Cooney informed the\nCommission that he had attended past meetings and reviewed the draft and hadn't found\nanything that would be of interest to the commission or anything against the element.\nHowever, each commissioner should review and provide any comments at the May meeting.\nA copy should be made available in audio format.\n2. Concerts at the Cove:\nCommissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook informed the Commission about the East Bay\nRegional Park Crown Beach Concerts summer schedule to be held June 8, July 13, and\nAugust 10. As in previous years, the Commission will staff the event and have a table\nfor disability awareness. Commissioners Moore and Longley - Cook will attend the June\n8th concert. Commissioner Longley-Cook will also attend the two other concerts.\nCommissioners should contact Adrienne Longley-Cook or Toby Berger if they plan to\nassist.\n'ublic Works Department\n950 West Mall Square, Room 110\nAlameda, California 94501-7575\n510.749.5840\nFax 510.749.5867\nTDD 510.522.7538\nPrinted on Recycled Paper", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2007-04-23", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nApril 23, 2007\nMinutes\nPage 2 of 3\n3. Disability Awareness Month Planning:\nA subcommittee was formed with Vice-Chair Jody Moore as chair to discuss planning\noptions for the October \"Disability Awareness Month' activities. She will provide an\nupdate at the May meeting regarding the field of dreams baseball field at Alameda\nPoint.\nOLD BUSINESS:\n1. Bus Shelters: (Commissioner Longley-Cook)\nCommissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook informed the Commission on the April 3, 2007\nCity Council item \"Proposed Bus Shelter Design Standard for All Future Installations in\nthe City of Alameda'. The secretary distributed copies of the staff report to the\nCommissioners. Commissioner Ed Cooney requested that the report also be provided\nin audio and e-mail. Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook will attend the April 25\nTransportation Commission meeting and report back to the Commission at the May\nmeeting. The Commission requested that they be notified of any future bus shelter\ninstallations so that they can provide assistance in placement.\n2. PAPCO:\nStaff is still soliciting for a PAPCO volunteer. Chair Audrey Lord-Hausman informed the\nCommission that she will contact staff regarding the status of the vacancy on the PAPCO\nCommission. PAPCO's meeting location has changed from Hayward to Oakland.\n3. Audible Traffic Signal Locations:\nThe secretary and Commissioner Ed Cooney informed the Commission on their site\nvisit to the northeast corner of Webster Street and Buena Vista Avenue. It was\nobserved that the current configuration of the intersection and the traffic island would\nrender the existing 45-degree crosswalk unsafe to the visually impaired if signals were\nupgraded with audibles. A Commissioner stated that the intersection of Ironwood and\nIsland Drive is very difficult to cross, as it does not have a traffic signal.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2007-04-23", "page": 3, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nApril 23, 2007\nMinutes\nPage 3 of 3\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n1. Ms. Lucretia Akil, Risk Manager, distributed invitations and informed the Commission that a\nbreakfast buffet will be held in recognition of the City's volunteers. The buffet will be held\non Thursday, May 31st, 8:30am, at the Grand Pavilion, 300 Island Drive. RSVP to Lucretia\nby May 10th\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\n1. Commissioner Ed Cooney informed the Commission that he will be resigning from the\ncommission when his term expires in June.\n2. Some of the Commissioners' terms will expire in June. Re-appointments will be necessary.\nSecretary to update Commission at the May Commission meeting.\n3. Commissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman informed the commission that an Oakland Tribune\nMarch 27, 2007 article rated the City of Berkeley as the most accessible city for disabled and\nChicago was the runner-up. She also stated the City of Berkeley will soon have a new center\nfor the disabled: The Ed Roberts Campus, a one-stop-shop for disability services.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, May 21, 2007 in Room\n360 at City Hall.\nMatthew T. Naclerio\nPublic Works Director\nI Eam\nEd Sommerauer\nAssociate Civil Engineer\nES:lc\nDisability Committee/2007/423min.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-04-23", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, April 23, 2007\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:10 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMember Kohlstrand\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nActing President Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, Kohlstrand,\nand McNamara.\nPresident Lynch, Vice President Cook and Board member Mariani were absent.\nAlso present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney\nDonna Mooney, Planner III Douglas Garrison.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the Alameda Towne Centre Workshop of March 12, 2007.\nBoard member McNamara noted that she was absent from the 4:30 p.m. March 12\nmeeting because she recused herself.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that on page 2, \"Yawn\" should be spelled \"Yian.\"\nActing President Cunningham noted that in the middle of page 2, the sentence reading\n\"He would also like a bus stop he was happy with a grid of pedestrian sidewalks, that\nis\" should be completed.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the minutes as amended.\nBoard member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 3.\nAbstain: 1 (McNamara). Absent: President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Board member\nMariani. The motion failed for lack of a quorum and will be considered at the next\nmeeting.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nFuture Agendas\nMr. Thomas provided a handout and a brief presentation of future agenda items.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nApril 23, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-04-23", "page": 2, "text": "Mr. Mark Shepard, Frank Bette Center for the Arts, wished to urge the Planning Board to\nconsider incorporating the arts community in the planning process while incorporating\ngreen plans. He noted that successful communities incorporated a thriving arts\ncommunity broadly supported by civic government and business, and he believed it was\nvery important to support the creative and artistic populace in Alameda. He believed it\nwould enhance Alameda's attractiveness to visitors and potential residents, and would\nlike the City's support in their effort to actively market Alameda.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8-A.\nDP07-0001 - Catellus/Prologis - Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development\n(AT). The applicant requests Development Plan approval for the waterfront\npromenade, streetscape cross-sections for Fifth Street and Mitchell Mosley\nAvenue, and the Alameda Landing Transportation Demand Management\nProgram. The project area is located south of the Oakland Alameda Estuary,\nnorth of the College of Alameda and the Bayport Residential District, east of\nCoast Guard Housing, and west of Webster Street. The site is in the M-X (Mixed\nUse) Zoning District. (The applicant requests a continuance to the meeting of\nMay 14, 2007.)\nBoard member Kohlstrand moved to recommend continuance of this item to May 14,\n2007.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote - 4. Absent: Lynch, Cook, Mariani.\n8-B. TM06-0003 - Shane Barber - 1000 Atlantic Avenue (DV). The applicant\nrequests approval of Tentative Parcel Map 9387, allowing the conveyance of up\nto 8 separate commercial spaces located within one building to separate owners.\nThe project site is located in the M-X (Mixed Use) Zoning District.\nBoard member Kohlstrand moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-11 to\napprove Tentative Parcel Map 9387, allowing the conveyance of up to 8 separate\ncommercial spaces located within one building to separate owners.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote - 4. Absent: Lynch, Cook, Mariani.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nApril 23, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-04-23", "page": 3, "text": "9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A.\nPDA02-0004 - 523 South Shore Center (Alameda Towne Centre) (DG). The\napplicant is requesting modification of Conditions 1.a and 1.d of Resolution No.\nPB-03-40. These conditions require the construction of an east-west sidewalk\nalong the rear of businesses fronting onto Otis Drive prior to the occupancy of\nPhase II-b of shopping center redevelopment. The applicant is requesting the\nPlanning Board approve a modified sidewalk plan and the timeframe for\nimplementation. The site is located within a Central Business District with Planned\nDevelopment overlay Zoning District (C-2-PD).\nMr. Garrison summarized the staff report.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Randy Kyte, applicant, described the position of Harsch Investments on this issue,\nand noted that they preferred Option B. They believed that after much technical analysis\nin 2004 with staff and engineers that they came up with the right solution by adding more\nnorth-south sidewalks in order to tie the bank and restaurant pads to the main center. He\nnoted that not much had changed in terms of technical feasibility associated with 13\ndriveways interrupting the walkway. They have begun speaking with each property owner\nand/or tenant about how to split the sidewalk along the property line.\nMr. Kyte noted that the characterization that they were willing to do either/or was not\ncompletely accurate. They believed that after much technical analysis in 2004 with staff\nand engineers that they came up with the right solution by adding more north-south\nsidewalks in order to tie to the bank and restaurant pads. He noted that not much had\nchanged in terms of technical feasibility and liability associated with 13 driveways\ninterrupting the walkway. They would consider that, and have begun speaking with each\nproperty owner and/or tenant about how to split the sidewalk along the property line. They\nbelieved the alternative plan was a superior plan, and they wished to address the issue\nconditioned by City Council on Building 500 and Building 300 that the occupancies be\nwithheld until the issues are brought back before the Planning Board. They anticipated\nopening Bed Bath & Beyond in the next few months.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Dorothy Reid believed the applicant was before the Board to be able to occupy\nBuildings 300 and 500. She inquired whether that could be done without having to make\na\ndecision on the sidewalk, which she believed was premature. She noted that parking was\ngoverned by the total amount of the Gross Lease able Area (GLA), which was unknown\nbecause the PDA was incomplete. She noted that the Safeway side had 528 parking spaces,\nwhich would be enough to compensate for the lost spaces if the sidewalk were to be built on\nthe other side.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nApril 23, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-04-23", "page": 4, "text": "Ms. Susan Decker appreciated the efforts made by the City and Harsch to make the center\nmore pedestrian-oriented. She believed that adding north-south walkways would help, but\ndid not believe it was the best solution. She suggested the use of raised crosswalks in the\nparking lot to calm speeding traffic.\nMr. Michael Krueger reiterated Ms. Decker's comments, and did not see the north-south\nsidewalks as a substitute for the east-west sidewalk at all. He noted that he had many photos\nof pedestrians already walking in the middle of the roadway; he noted that it was already\nunsafe and a liability issue. He did not believe the east-west roadway was necessary when\nthe north-south roadways were already available, and did not believe that inconvenience was\na sufficient reason to add the east-west roadway at the expense of safety.\nMr. Jon Spangler spoke on behalf of Pedestrian-Friendly Alameda, and noted that the\ntertiary treatment of pedestrians at South Shore has long concerned him. He believed that\nequivalent access for pedestrians was a reasonable request, and noted that four-foot\nsidewalks were too narrow. He added that there were no separations of sidewalks from the\ntraffic lanes. A six-foot sidewalk on both sides of the roadway would be feasible by\nremoving parking spaces. He did not believe it would be acceptable to reroute pedestrians to\nOtis Drive. He suggested making the sidewalks wider, and making vehicle lanes 10 feet\nwide, and that rumble strips be added to slow traffic down. He agreed with the suggestion\nfor raised sidewalks. He added that the use permit was granted four years ago, following\ndetailed questioning by the Planning Board, and added that Target was not included in these\nplans. He urged the developer to follow up on the plans in the right way.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by Acting President Cunningham regarding continuing\npedestrian access from Otis into the body of the parking lot, Mr. Kyte replied that the\nproposed walks proposed in 2004 addressed the connections through the adjacent\nproperties to Otis, and that they were sensitive to that. He acknowledged that the signage\ncould be better.\nIn response to an inquiry by Acting President Cunningham regarding the history of\npedestrian safety and accidents, Mr. Michael Corbitt, Harsch Investments, replied that\nthere were no history of accidents specifically on that road.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara regarding Ms. Reid's suggestion\nof split sidewalks, Mr. Corbitt replied that they had examined that possibility. He noted\nthat there were 23 driveways in that area, and that the idea of putting a solid sidewalk on\nthat side, and short-stopping all the drive lanes would reduce the parking in a critical\nportion of the shopping center. Also, trying to transplant parking from the new to the old\nSafeway lot in terms of expecting people to use it was a concern because of the demand\nfor parking in front of the Safeway store. He noted that it was a parking requirement in\nthe anchor leases that a certain parking ratio be maintained. He did not believe that was\nviable as the alternative on the north side, and noted that textured pavement and raised\ntable sidewalks through the driveways, as well as rumble strips, would be feasible.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nApril 23, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-04-23", "page": 5, "text": "Board member Ezzy Ashcraft expressed considerable concern that the occupancy\nrequirement seemed to have been overlooked or ignored. She noted that information\ndiscussed between staff and the applicant was not taken back to the Planning Board. She\nnoted that there were few areas in the City where a pedestrian could walk down a\nsidewalk without crossing a driveway. She inquired whether the additional parking\nspaces along Shoreline Drive as a result of the construction could be credited towards the\nparking requirements.\nMr. Kyte noted that in 2004, they spent considerable time working through the\nconditions, and met with staff several times to address many of the conditions. Their\nexamination of the safety and liability issues led them to the conclusion that the north-\nsouth walk was a better solution. He noted that the parking ratio was four per 1000, and\nthat the additional parking on the south side ultimately supported the additional retail that\nhad been added. Safeway was a major addition to the shopping center, and he added that\nthe parking should be placed where the need was. They decided that parking should be\nplaced on the south side of the center to support Bed Bath & Beyond. He noted that it\nwas written into the leases that the old parking lot would be removed. Once the road is\nplaced on that parcel, a bike-pedestrian path would be placed there, and the area would be\nadded to the beachfront area for buildings and parking.\nBoard member Kohlstrand noted that the Board had been told that north-south sidewalks\ncould be added, or that the sidewalk requirement could be partially pushed onto the\nadjacent property owners. She believed that would put the Board and the City into a very\nbad position, and did not want to see that problem repeated. She did not want to see this\nsituation show up on Whitehall, Franciscan or similar streets. She strongly believed that\nwhen the parking was installed adjacent to a particular building, that the applicant should\nnot propose a too-large building that required so much parking that could not\naccommodate a full-length sidewalk along that roadway. She understood the issue with\nthe parking leases, and would go with the alternative of pushing it to the north side as a\nsecond option, but did not believe it was the best solution for this particular site. She\nwould not support the north-south sidewalk, and would rather see a full-sized six-foot-\nwide sidewalk on the south side of that driveway. As a secondary option, she would\nsupport Option B.\nMr. Kyte noted that it was determined that the sidewalk would be on the north side,\nwithin the existing roadway right of way. Of the 24 feet, four feet would be taken for the\nsidewalk, leaving two 10-foot lanes. He noted that they had received very succinct\ndirection in 2004 on how to approach this issue, which ran contrary to the Planning\nBoard's wishes. He noted that they were working hard to develop the right solution, and\ncame up with the idea to push the sidewalk north. They had discussed the idea of\nelevating the crosswalks through the driveways with staff, and they had mutually agreed\nto use a colored stamp concrete to clearly delineate the walkway. The walkway would\nalso have a four-inch raised curb the entire length. He noted that they were comfortable in\nthat recommendation.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nApril 23, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-04-23", "page": 6, "text": "Mr. Corbitt advised that Bank of America had signed a preliminary letter of\nunderstanding, and that the surveying would also need to be done. Wells Fargo had also\nsigned the letter, and Washington Mutual had also begun examining the letter. He noted\nthat the owner of Burger King had indicated he would sign it as well. He noted that they\nwanted to have the safest environment possible.\nBoard member Kohlstrand noted that she could accept Option B, although she did not\nbelieve it was the superior alternative. She wanted to ensure that the development was\nsized so that the needed parking and sidewalks would be available on the site without\nhaving to push them off-site.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that on page 2 (paragraph 1-b) of the resolution\ncovering Option B, the applicants had agreed to complete construction by April 2008.\nShe noted that this had begun in 2003, and was concerned about the timeframe. She was\nparticularly concerned about the construction of the east-west walkway, and did not\nbelieve people would be in more peril walking on a sidewalk than sharing a lane with\ncars.\nMr. Kyte noted that it would take at least a year to design the parking lots and get them\nthrough the City's permit process. He believed the timeframes were fairly aggressive, and\nwould pursue them with diligence.\nActing President Cunningham noted that this condition addressed public safety in an east-\nwest orientation, yet the proposal addressed a north-south orientation, which he found to\nbe at odds. He did not believe that solution would address the design and safety needs of\nthe project. He suggested that some traffic calming measures be employed to maintain\nadditional safety elements, and that any unsafe condition be mitigated. He did not\nperceive any Board support for the north-south orientation, and believed the existing east-\nwest condition was the orientation to be pursued. He believed the timeframe should also\nbe discussed.\nBoard member McNamara believed the Board's frustration stemmed from the\npresentation of this project in a piecemeal fashion, and believed there were more recent\nsite plans than those from 2003 to accompany the most recent changes. She supported the\neast-west alternative, and although it was not optimal by any means, she believed it was\nthe best of the two alternatives presented. She suggested that the Board add a condition\nwith some traffic calming measures, such as speed bumps or raised crosswalks that cross\nthe access road.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand regarding the timeline, Mr.\nGarrison noted that the condition was written to set up definite timelines and milestones;\nthe first was to get the agreement of the property owners, then the permits and then to\ncomplete the construction. He noted that the three-month interval was an estimate made\nby the applicant.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nApril 23, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-04-23", "page": 7, "text": "Board member Kohlstrand requested that in the first stage, the agreement from the\nproperty owners be brought back in concert with the first phase to provide assurance\nbefore the Board considered signing off on Target and the rest of the development.\nMr. Kyte replied that the letters from the property owners could be in place, and that they\nwould be delivered to the City. He noted that they were very detailed in terms of the\nitems of agreement.\nBoard member Kohlstrand moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-12 to\napprove Option B, with the following amendments:\n1.\nTraffic calming measures, such as rumble strips, raised crosswalks and/or\nspeed humps should be provided to slow traffic along the roadway;\n2.\nThe applicant will provide quarterly status reports to the Planning Board\nwith the first report to coincide with the review of the Target proposal,\nwhich currently stood at June 25, 2007, or August 23, 2007, whichever\ncomes first; and\nBoard member McNamara seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote - 4. Absent: Lynch, Cook, Mariani.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nApril 23, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-04-23", "page": 8, "text": "9-B.\nInitial Study IS05-0001; Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0001;\nMajor Design Review DR05-0010; Use Permits UP06-0003, UP06-0010, UP06-\n012 and UP06-0013; - Applicant: Safeway, Inc. 2234 Otis Drive (adjacent\nAlameda Towne Centre) (DG). The applicant requests approval of Planned\nDevelopment Amendment, Major Design Review and Use Permits allowing the\ndemolition of an existing bank building and redevelopment of the property with a\ngas station. The project includes three covered pump islands, each containing three\npumps, for a total of eighteen pumping stations. Fuel will be stored in three 20,0000\ngallon underground storage tanks. In addition to the approximately 7,500 square-foot\ncanopy covering the gasoline pumping facilities, the project includes an\napproximately 625 square-foot building, housing the cashier's desk, restrooms and\nretail sales of convenience items. The applicant is proposing twenty-four hour\noperations and the sale of beer and wine. An Initial Study / Mitigated Negative\nDeclaration has been prepared for this project. Mitigation measures have been\nidentified that will reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant\nlevel. The site is located within a Central Business District with Planned\nDevelopment overlay Zoning District (C-2-PD).\nMr. Garrison presented the staff report, and recommended approval of this application.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Todd Paradise, applicant, Safeway, noted that there were several Safeway fuel\ncenters in the Bay Area, including Dublin, Livermore and Morgan Hill. He added that the\nfuel centers were owned and operated by Safeway, and that they were a vital part of the\nprogram, adding convenience to the grocery operations. He described the background of\nthe site plan, and displayed a presentation of the proposed project. He noted that\nfollowing a community workshop in early March, they dropped the request for alcohol\nsales.\nMr. Chris Furcoe, noted that his company had worked on many hundreds of gas stations\nacross the nations. He summarized the technological advances featured by the proposed\ngas station, and noted that California was on the leading edge of regulatory reform. He\nstated that the proposed station would be state of the art, and added that the tanks and\npiping would feature double-walled fiberglass. The gas station would meet the most\nstringent earthquake standard (Category 5 earthquake standard). The air quality would be\naided by a Stage 2 vapor recovery system.\nMs. Debbie Cartegener, land use attorney, Cassidy, Shimko, Dawson & Kawakami,\nconfirmed the applicant's understanding regarding condition of approval #8, regarding\nthe monitoring of the driveways for five years. She understood that Safeway would\nprovide the funding as necessary for that, and the actual monitoring would be performed\nby the City. She noted that a gas station project normally did not take two years to\ncomplete, and that the applicant was concerned about moving forward as quickly as\npossible. She noted that there was no guarantee that the Target application would be\nheard in two months, and requested that the Board consider this project at this time.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nApril 23, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-04-23", "page": 9, "text": "Mr. Garrison noted that Safeway would provide the funding, and that the City would\nlikely hire a consultant to perform the monitoring.\nMs. Debra Banks noted that she had offered an initiative to have a petition circulated\nthrough the St. Francis condominiums regarding the concerns raised during the early\nApril meeting. She expressed concern about the mitigated negative declaration, and\nwhether it was sufficient to cover the environmental concerns of the community. She also\nexpressed concern about the traffic flow, and noted that it was almost impossible to make\na left-hand turn from St. Francis. She was also concerned about the environmental\nintegrity, and whether the ground and landfill would support this type of system. She\nexpressed concern about safe waterways and structural integrity, especially with respect\nto earthquakes. She was also concerned about unmanageable traffic on Otis Drive.\nMr. Mark Irons inquired about the mitigated negative declaration. He thought the traffic\nwould flow in two directions, as is typical for gas stations in Alameda. He understood\nthat the higher number of pumps would expedite usage, but was concerned that it would\nattract even more cars, causing congestion. He understood the urgency, but believed it\nmay be best to wait. He was concerned about the cumulative effects of this project.\nMs. Dorothy Reid wished to clarify the start of monitoring period, and would like to see\nit monitored five years after the shopping center is completely developed through the\nPDA. She believed it would take five years to build it up and see that effect. She inquired\nwhy the applicant wanted the gas station on the site at all. She noted that the original plan\nwas to remove the existing gas station. She questioned whether the center needed a gas\nstation in this spot at all, regardless of the quality of work that the applicant has done. She\nnoted that the center has been without a gas station for three years, and that people have\nfigured out where to go for gas. She noted that people really wanted a service station.\nMr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio, noted that he usually bought his gas at a locally\nowned full-service Chevron station. He noted that the north side entrance of the gas\nstation off Webster was not supposed to be used, although people did it all the time. He\nsuggested that it be redesigned so that a driver could only enter on one side, and exit\nthrough another. Regarding pedestrian safety, he suggested that the exit be on the south\nside of the gas station into the shopping center, with a raised safe crosswalk barrier to\nslow traffic. He believed the post-completion monitoring period should be at least 10\nyears rather than five years because most gas tank failures and toxic waste problems\noccur long after five years. He emphasized that monitoring and mitigation was a cost of\ndoing business.\nMr. Randy Kyte noted that they had been working with Safeway gas for two years, and\nadded that Safeway has been on the Island since 1958. He noted that they also had\nconcerns about their earlier concerns, and believed they had done a very good job in\nrevising the plan in conjunction with staff. He believed that the circulation from the\nshopping center to Otis made good sense, and added that they would work on their own\nmitigation plan to ensure there would be no queuing problems in the east-west drive aisle,\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nApril 23, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-04-23", "page": 10, "text": "which would be detrimental to the shopping center; Safeway agreed with that assessment\nas well. They believed the plan has progressed well, and acknowledged their effort to add\nthe sidewalk.\nMr. Bill Smith, 724 Central #9, noted that he had spent 20 years redesigning bicycles,\nand continued to work on alternative vehicles. He discussed charging stations for electric\nbikes and automobiles.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft commended the applicant for their decision not to sell\nalcohol at the gas station. She appreciated the support of the east-west sidewalk. She did\nnot believe the gas station for South Shore Center should be supersized, and noted that\nthe previous gas station had fewer pumping sites. She noted that it was also busier, and\nmeant more cars in the shopping center. She proposed that there be no more than 12\nfueling stations with six pumps, and she liked the biodiesel proposal. She noted that the\nDublin station had 12 fueling positions, and that there were usually fewer than three cars\nwaiting to fuel. She inquired whether the hours for refueling from the big tanker trucks\ncould be limited to off-peak hours, and whether the station should be a 24/7 station. She\nagreed with Mr. McKay's suggestion in his email that any light generated should be\ndesigned so it did not adversely impact the adjacent neighbors, and that additional\nlandscaping should be added along the Otis Drive side of the lagoon to further shield\nneighbors on the other side of the lagoon.\nBoard member McNamara noted that she had used the Dublin Safeway fuel center often,\nand enjoyed the orderly flow of traffic, which was a one-way flow. She remembered the\ngas lines of the 1970s, and noted that similar events may negatively impact the\nsurrounding streets; she inquired how long the monitoring would continue. She added\nthat traffic queuing was a serious concern for her. With respect to the emails on lighting\nimpacts sent by residents of Laurel and Powell, she would like to know which\nlandscaping view would be supported. Mr. Garrison explained the perspectives and scale\nof the illustrations. Mr. Thomas noted that the preliminary landscaping plan was on page\nPL-1, which was more reliable and specific than the perspective illustrations.\nA discussion of the photometric plan ensued.\nBoard member McNamara expressed concern about the refueling times, and inquired\nabout the anticipated refueling timeframe. Mr. Garrison replied that the CEQA document\nnoted that truck deliveries were generally prohibited during the late night hours by the\nAMC (11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.). He noted that the specific truck delivery times had not\nbeen identified.\nMr. Thomas suggested that the applicant be asked whether they would be willing to limit\ntruck deliveries to early morning hours.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nApril 23, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-04-23", "page": 11, "text": "The applicant noted that with respect to deliveries during early morning hours, there were\nphysical limitations for deliveries; a full truck was the safest way to deliver fuel, and\nmost drivers would not leave the site it they could not drop off the entire load because of\nthe remaining vapors in the truck. They would need some flexibility for that reason, and\nhe discussed the technical aspects of the fuel delivery process, which he noted was\nrelatively quiet.\nBoard member McNamara noted that the concern was regarding conflict with traffic and\nrespecting the neighbors' noise concerns. Mr. Gold noted that it was important that the\nPlanning Board and the residents felt comfortable, and invited them to talk with other\ncities who have the Safeway fueling stations.\nActing President Cunningham inquired whether a year-long monitoring process would be\nacceptable to the applicant. Mr. Gold replied that they would be willing to do so, and to\ndiscuss other items of concern at that time. He noted that they wished to be good\nneighbors, and added that they had a good reputation for doing the right thing with\nrespect to their operations.\nBoard member Kohlstrand stated that she would like to remove the shopping cart\nrestrictions between Trader Joe's and Safeway, and noted that they were often abandoned\non the sidewalks. Mr. Kyte replied that the perimeter may have been too narrow, and\nadded that they had many shopping carts scattered all over the center.\nBoard member Kohlstrand shared the same concerns as her fellow Board members, and\nbelieved the lighting plan would be respectful of the neighbors across the lagoon. She\nbelieved that there were too many gas pumps on the site, and suggested reducing it by\ntwo or four. She was not comfortable with a continuous curb cut adjacent to the shopping\ncenter, and that it should be narrowed down with the same kind of circulation on the\nshopping center side as on Otis, while providing a safer environment for pedestrians. She\nnoted that the truck traffic should be accommodated from the westernmost driveway as\nwell. She was not comfortable on the proposal as shown because of its size, and believed\nit was too big for the site. She believed the architectural design was very positive, and\nliked the proposed treatment; she believed the landscape plan was reasonable.\nIn response to an inquiry by Acting President Cunningham question regarding the\nCategory Five earthquake design criteria, Mr. Gold replied that California had seismic\nzones one through four, and there were higher zone levels that engineers use as a\nmultiplied to determine the force of an earthquake. He noted that this site was in Zone 4-\nA, and that magnitude of earthquake would be approximately 7.4. He noted that when the\nLoma Prieta earthquake hit in 1989, none of the tanks were damaged. He noted that the\ntanks were structurally secure sitting either above or below ground, and added that the\npiping was flexible. He noted that they had never had any problems with the underground\nstorage systems because of earthquake activity.\nActing President Cunningham inquired about monitoring in Condition 8, Mr. Gold replied\nthat the purpose of the condition was to monitor traffic flow at the project driveway at the\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nApril 23, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-04-23", "page": 12, "text": "direction of Public Works over concerns of queuing into the public right of way. He\nnoted that it was never intended to address other issues as such air quality because that\nwas well addressed through monitoring and reporting requirements that gas stations go\nthrough.\nMr. Peter Galloway, OmniMeans Traffic Engineers, noted that the queuing issue was put\nin as a safeguard. Their analysis indicated that they did not expect a maximum queue of\nover two vehicles per island when there was maximum demand at the station. After the\nstudy was completed, Public Works decided they would like to monitor the driveway for\nan additional five years as a safeguard to determine if there were any problems of the\ndriveway traffic spilling onto Otis.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that this was a larger station than the one that was\nthere before, and noted that this existing shopping center was not an optimal location; she\nbelieved that the Park Street and Otis location was a better location. She noted that this\nwas a response to the public's request for a fueling station in the center of the island.\nActing President Cunningham noted that he has been concerned about overdevelopment\non this parcel, and believed it would be in the community's best interest to mitigate that.\nBoard member Kohlstrand would like a raised six-foot-wide sidewalk at the location. She\ndid not feel comfortable establishing conditions on the project at this time.\nActing President Cunningham called for a five-minute recess to allow staff and the\napplicant to confer.\nMr. Dan Gold, Consulting Engineers, project architect, noted that the proposal of limiting\nthe applicant to one smaller curb cut in the back would not work for the applicant. He\nunderstood that the quantity of pumps was an issue for the Planning Board, and proposed\nestablishing driveways similar to the current driveways, with two driveway openings\nfrom the bank. They would be willing to maintain those driveway openings, give or take\na few feet, to ensure there was proper truck circulation. They wished to move the kiosk\nforward, and demonstrated on the overhead screen one dispenser that would be\neliminated as a compromise. An additional area of transition space would be gain,\nreducing the width of the driveway openings to approximately the same width existing\nnow. He noted that it would be very difficult to make the station work if the driveways\nwere restricted further. He noted that the opening was currently 23 feet, and that they\nwould widen it to approximately 40 feet.\nA discussion of the proposed measurement changes ensued.\nBoard member Kohlstrand suggested moving the kiosk all the way forward.\nMr. Gold noted that in that case, the traffic would go through the major queues.\nBoard member Kohlstrand expressed concern about the presence of a continuous curb\ncut, which was not typical in Alameda. She did not believe it was the best solution for\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nApril 23, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-04-23", "page": 13, "text": "Alameda, and believed that too many pumps were being fit onto one site. She did not\nbelieve it was a good design.\nMr. Gold noted that he was most concerned with the circulation, and that it made good\ndesign and business sense to keep them as open and flowing as possible. He was less\nconcerned about the number of dispensers than making the wrong decision on the access.\nBoard member Kohlstrand emphasized that the City was trying to accommodate\npedestrians.\nMr. Gold noted that reducing the width to 35 feet may work if the truck were able to pass\nthrough.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand whether the raised, stamped\npavement table would differ in height from the rest of the east-west sidewalk, Mr. Gold\nconfirmed that it would.\nIn response to an inquiry by Acting President Cunningham regarding the number of\npumps requested by the Planning Board, Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was\nlooking for 12 pumps.\nActing President Cunningham noted that the Planning Board wished to maximize the\nlength of the raised sidewalk to encourage pedestrian safety. He noted that there should\nbe access to accommodate four lanes.\nBoard member Kohlstrand noted that she would like to see the final redesign before\napproving it, and would like an additional condition that the walkway along the southern\nside be a minimum of six feet.\nMr. Thomas noted that would be part of a motion to continue and redesign for Planning\nBoard final approval.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-13\nto adopt the mitigated negative declaration.\nBoard member McNamara seconded the motion, which passed with the following voice\nvote - 4. Absent: President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Board member Mariani.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to extend the meeting to 11:15 p.m.\nBoard member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which passed with the following voice\nvote - 4. Absent: President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Board member Mariani.\nBoard member McNamara moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-13 as\nrevised on the supplemental staff report and amended by adding conditions 23, 24, and 25\nas follows:\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nApril 23, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-04-23", "page": 14, "text": "1.\nThe number of pumps will be reduced to 12;\n2.\nNo more than 70 feet be devoted to driveway access on the south side\nproperty line, with the rest being raised sidewalk; and\n3.\nTanker delivery would be limited to non-peak hour periods.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 3.\nNoes: 1 (Kohlstrand) Absent: President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Board member\nMariani. The motion failed.\nBoard member McNamara moved to continue this item to the meeting of May 14, 2007.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which passed with the following\nvoice vote - 4. Absent: President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Board member Mariani.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee\n(Board Member Mariani).\nBoard member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board\nMember Kohlstrand).\nBoard member Kohlstrand advised that no further meetings had been held.\nC.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force\n(Acting President Cunningham).\nActing President Cunningham noted that the next meeting would be May 16, 2007 at\nwhich time the draft of the Task Force's findings would be reviewed.\n12. ADJOURNMENT:\n11:09 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThese minutes were approved at the May 14, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This\nmeeting was audio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nApril 23, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf"}