{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-06-11", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, June 11, 2007\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:12 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Cunningham\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Lynch, Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy\nAshcraft, and Kohlstrand.\nBoard members Mariani and McNamara were absent from roll call.\nAlso present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney\nDonna Mooney, Supervising Planner Doug Garrison, Planner III Doug Vu.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the Special meeting of May 29, 2007.\nMr. Thomas advised that the minutes for the Special meeting of May 29, 2007, would be\nconsidered at the meeting of June 25, 2007.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Lynch noted that with respect to Item 8-B, the Board would like to ensure that\nthe applicant was responding to the open items at the desire of the Planning Board. He\nwould like to clarify those items for the record.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that the resolution detailed those items.\nMr. Thomas suggested that the item be pulled from the Consent Calendar, and discuss the\nitem with the applicant without taking action.\nBoard member Cunningham would like to follow normal procedure of hearing the staff\nreport, analyzing the plans and review it as any other application.\nBoard member Kohlstrand noted that the item was advertised as a continued item, and\ndid not feel it would be appropriate to pull it off the Consent Calendar.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it had originally been continued to this meeting,\nand inquired why it was continued. Mr. Thomas replied that there had since been a Call\nfor Review on the environmental documentation, which went to City Council on June 5.\non June 6, the Planning packet went out. He noted that there was a communication\nproblem between staff and the applicants in that they were under the impression they\ncould return with just the revised site plan. Staff believed the Board would need a full set\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nJune 11, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-06-11", "page": 2, "text": "of design review plans, and the applicants did not realize that until too late. Therefore,\nstaff recommended a continuance to give them time to produce those plans, and give staff\ntime to review them in order to provide a full staff report. He noted that the notation on\nthe agenda stating that the item had been continued to June 25 was written as if that\ncontinuation had already occurred, when in fact staff made the recommendation for the\nBoard to continue it. He noted that in the future, staff should not take that option away\nfrom the Board.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to remove Item 8-B from the Consent Calendar to\nthe Regular Agenda.\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote - 5. Absent: 2 (Mariani, McNamara).\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\na. Future Agendas\nMr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.\nMs. Mooney noted that for future reference, a motion to remove an item from the\nConsent Calendar was not necessary, and that any one Board member may have it\nremoved.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nMs. Susan Battaglia noted that she recently had a discussion about Target, and inquired\nwhether it would be placed on the agenda in the near future.\nMr. Thomas advised that the application was still active, and that staff has released the\nDEIR. He noted that many comments had been received on the DEIR, and added that\nstaff was still in the process of preparing response and doing additional analysis to\nrespond to the comments. Staff hoped to have it ready and circulated for public review in\nAugust. The next step would be to return to the Planning Board tentatively on August 13,\n2007, for the Planning Board's review of that project.\nPresident Lynch noted that there had not yet been a decision made with respect to Target.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand regarding the public comment\nperiod for the DEIR, Mr. Thomas confirmed that it had closed, and that staff was in the\nprocess of responding to those comments. He added that there will be public hearings\nbefore the Planning Board on the project.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8-A.\nAnnual Status Report on Implementation of the General Plan.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nJune 11, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-06-11", "page": 3, "text": "Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 2 of the Report on the Status of the General\nPlan, regarding the Climate Protection Task Force implemented in 2006, the last sentence\nread, \"The local action plan will possibly create new policies to be incorporated into the\nCity's General Plan, as well as implement climate and air quality policies related to drought-\nresistant landscaping \" She noted that when she tried to get commitments regarding the\nimplementation of green building ordinances in the City, she often heard the Climate\nProtection Task Force would address that. She believed the language was too fuzzy for her\nliking, and inquired why it was not more definite.\nMr. Thomas noted that staff intended to say that the local action plan that the Task Force\nproducts will go directly to City Council, and the Council will then establish priorities for\nimplementing the programs within that plan. He noted that may not entail adopting policies\nin the General Plan, and that there may be existing General Plan policies that would enable\nthe City to directly establish a Green Building Ordinance. He noted that this report went\ndirectly to the State, and through this process, the City may identify additional policies that\nshould be implemented at the General Plan level to provide the foundation for future\nsustainability ordinances or programs.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that Item 7 on the table on page 2 (Action Plan:\nRehabilitation and Neighborhood Preservation) addressed the amnesty plan for\nundocumented units, and inquired how that process worked. Mr. Thomas briefly described\nthe amnesty program, and noted that undocumented units discovered through Code\nEnforcement may go through a process of legalizing those units.\nVice President Cook moved to adopt the Annual Status Report on Implementation of the\nGeneral Plan.\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote - 5. Absent: 2 (Mariani, McNamara).\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nJune 11, , 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-06-11", "page": 4, "text": "8-B.\nUP07-0002 - S. Fong - 2601 Blanding Avenue #B. The applicant requests\napproval of a Use Permit pursuant to Section 30-10.6. of the Alameda Municipal Code to\ninstall five additional game machines at the existing Play N Trade store. The applicant\nalso requests to hold promotional gaming events once per month. Play N Trade is located\nwithin the Bridgeside Shopping Center in the C-2-PD (Central Business District/Planning\nDevelopment Combining) Zoning District.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to remove Item 8-B from the Consent Calendar to\nthe Regular Agenda.\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote - 5. Absent: 2 (Mariani, McNamara).\nMr. Vu presented the staff report, and recommended approval of this item.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThere were no speakers.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft disclosed that she visited the applicant's business earlier in\nthe evening, and complimented the applicant on a beautiful space that was very nicely done.\nShe noted that all eight of the video gaming stations were already installed. She was\nconcerned about the lack of discussion about how the adjacent businesses in the Center\nwould be impacted by the tournaments, although they would be held on early Sunday\nevenings. She inquired how the condition requiring participants to not loiter after the\nconclusion of the event would be enforced. She noted that the language read, \"If the\napplicant fails to comply with this requirement, the Planning Director may require the\napplicant to hire additional security to ensure compliance.\" She would like that language to\nbe strengthened to read, .the Planning Director shall require the applicant to hire\nadditional security to ensure compliance.\" She did not want the initial responsibility to fall\non the Alameda Police Department.\nMr. Vu advised that staff contacted the adjacent store owners, who did not express any\ninitial concerns. Staff had hoped that the shopping center would in essence police itself.\nPresident Lynch noted that in the Code Enforcement area, it was very problematic to\naddress the \"shalls\" in a practical manner. He discussed the enforcement process within\nAlameda, and noted that the language meant different things to staff and the enforcement\nagencies as opposed to how the word \"shall\" is used in a design review.\nBoard member Kohlstrand noted that she felt comfortable leaving some flexibility for the\nstaff in the language at this time.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nJune 11, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-06-11", "page": 5, "text": "Mr. Thomas noted that if any problems should arise at the site, he believed that staff\nwould hear about it very quickly. He noted that the word \"may\" could be changed to\n\"shall,\" or remain the same, with the option of review by the Board if the conditions were\nnot being followed. He added that the option of use permit revocation would also be a\npossibility if necessary.\nMs. Mooney noted that the Board had a number of wording options, including adding the\nphase \"take equivalent measures.\"\nBoard member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-21 to\napprove a Use Permit pursuant to Section 30-10.6. of the Alameda Municipal Code to\ninstall five additional game machines at the existing Play N Trade store. The applicant\nalso requests to hold promotional gaming events once per month.\nBoard member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote - 4. Abstain: 1 (Ezzy Ashcraft) Absent: 2 (Mariani, McNamara).\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nJune 11, , 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-06-11", "page": 6, "text": "8-C.\nInitial Study IS05-0001; Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0001;\nMajor Design Review DR05-0010; Use Permits UP06-0003, UP06-0010,\nUP06-012 and UP06-0013; - Applicant: Safeway, Inc. 2234 Otis Drive\n(adjacent Alameda Towne Centre) (DG). The applicant requests approval of\nPlanned Development Amendment, Major Design Review and Use Permits\nallowing the demolition of an existing bank building and redevelopment of the\nproperty with a gas station. The project includes three covered pump islands, each\ncontaining three pumps, for a total of eighteen pumping stations. Fuel will be\nstored in the 20,000-gallon underground storage tanks. In addition to the\napproximately 7,500-square-foot canopy covering the gasoline pumping facilities,\nthe project includes an approximately 625-square-foot building, housing the\ncashier's desk, restrooms and retail sales of convenience items. The applicant is\nproposed twenty-four-hour operations and the sale of beer and wine. An Initial\nStudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project.\nMitigation measures have been identified that will reduce potentially significant\nimpacts to a less than significant level. The site is located within a Central\nBusiness District with Planned Development overlay Zoning District (C-2-PD).\n(Continued to the meeting of June 25, 2007.)\nVice President Cook moved to continue this item to the next Planning Board meeting.\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote - 5. Absent: 2 (Mariani, McNamara).\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nJune 11, , 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-06-11", "page": 7, "text": "9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A. UP06-0010 - N. Saidian & L. Zekster - 1310 Central Avenue. The applicant\nrequests approval of a Use Permit pursuant to Section 30-30.2 of the Alameda\nMunicipal Code to extend the hours of operation for the Alameda Valero Gasoline\nStation, an existing legal nonconforming service station. The current hours of\noperation for fuel service and auto repair are 9:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. Monday through\nFriday, 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. on Saturday, and closed on Sunday. The proposed\nhours for fuel service and auto repair would be 7:00 a.m.-8:00 p.m. Monday\nthrough Friday, 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. on Saturday, and closed on Sunday. The auto\nrepair hours would be eliminated on Saturday. The Alameda Valero Gasoline\nStation is located in the R-4 (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District.\nMr. Vu summarized the staff report, and detailed the background and scope of this\nproposed project. Staff was unable to make the findings necessary, as required by the\nMunicipal Code, in order to recommend approval of this Use Permit. Staff specifically\nfound that the proposed use was not compatible with the other land uses in the area, that\nit will adversely effect other property in the vicinity, and that it does not relate favorably\nto the City's General Plan. Therefore, it was staff's recommendation that the Board deny\nthe use permit application to extend the fuel service hours of operation in exchange for\nthe reduced auto repair hours, based upon the findings that were included in the staff\nreport.\nPresident Lynch advised that more than five speaker slips had been received.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to reduce the speakers' time to three minutes.\nVice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote - 5.\nAbsent: 2 (Mariani, McNamara).\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Eric Scheuerman spoke in support of this project, and noted that the staff report stated\nthe gas station had been in place since 1950, and recalled a newspaper report stated it had\nbeen there in some form since 1926. He believed the gas station was a historical business\nat this location, and added that it was changed to a nonconforming use in 1974 because\nthe owners wanted to have a 24-hour gas-food operation. He did not want the opposition\nto drive the owners out of business. He agreed that some businesses should be closed on\nSundays.\nMr. Philip Gravem, 1344 Sherman Street, spoke in opposition to this project and noted that\nhe lived directly across from the station. He noted that the 1974-75 issue addressed a second\ngas station across the street that wanted a 24-hour food operation. He complimented the\nowner and said the station was much better than it had been before. He expressed concern\nabout the station's impact on his family time during the evening hours, and did not want the\nhours to be extended.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nJune 11, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-06-11", "page": 8, "text": "President Lynch noted that Mr. Gravem had been his vice principal and civics teacher at St.\nJoseph's High School.\nMs. Susan Battaglia spoke in favor of extending the hours for the gas station, and did not\nlike going in the opposite direction to Webster Street in heavy traffic to get gas. She noted\nthat the other stations frequently had higher prices. She noted the traffic flow at the gas\nstation was uncomplicated, and distributed a petition with 60 signatures in support of the\nextended hours. She believed that operating hours from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. was reasonable, and\ndid not believe that this use would interfere with family time in the evenings. She would\nrather have the sales tax dollars from Alameda gas stations to remain on the island, and was\nconcerned that leakage was occurring because of gas sales outside the station's current\noperating hours. She believed the extended hours would benefit the consumers, the owners\nand the City.\nMr. Randall Miller, 1406 Central Avenue, noted that the goal of all the owners since the gas\nstation opened was to have extended hours. He was concerned that if this use permit were to\nbe granted, that other requests would be made, up to and including 24-hour operation. He\nurged the Planning Board to follow the staff's recommendation of not expanding the hours.\nMr. Craig Coombs noted that he lived two blocks from the site, and while he was affected\nby the traffic, he spoke in favor of the expansion of the hours. He noted that this station had\nbeen in operation in some form since 1928, and believed there was a community need to a\nbusiness that can sustain itself for 80 years. He noted that there was a tradition of service and\ncommunity for this gas station, and that he hoped that would be maintained. He noted that\nthe neighbors who wanted to buy gas had to drive through the island to another gas station,\nwhich increased congestion and pollution.\nMs. Patricia Kinsel, 1307 Central Avenue, noted that she lived directly across from the\ngas station, and expressed concern about the safety of the schoolchildren crossing Encinal\nif the station were to be open at that time.\nMr. Myan, 1311 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to the extended hours, and expressed\nconcern about safety of the schoolchildren, as well as quality of life.\nMr. Robert Drake, 1105 Sherman Street, spoke in support of the extended hours. He noted\nthat he bought all his gas from this station, and did not want to have to drive across town\nto buy gas when it is closed. He noted that the station had been cleaned up since a\nprevious operator, and did not believe the current operators should be held responsible for\nprevious operators. He believed the children would be able to cross the street safely.\nMr. Richard Nordyke spoke in opposition of the extended hours, and did not to continue to\nreinvent the wheel with this issue. He urged the Planning Board to resolve this issue.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nJune 11, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-06-11", "page": 9, "text": "Ms. Rose Ryan noted that she lived towards the back of the gas station, and was opposed\nto the extended hours. She expressed concern about the children's safety and the\nincreased congestion that she believed would result from the extended hours.\nMr. Dale Blaylock noted that he was a 50-year merchant in Alameda, and former\npresident of Greater Alameda Business Association. He recounted the background of this\ngas station, and noted that the applicants were not requesting extended hours for the\nrepair business, only the gas service. He noted that because of the earlier hours, it was\ndifficult for the owners to stay in business. He noted that owners have made an effort to\nbe a good neighbor, and allows the church to use their parking lot on Sunday. He did not\nbelieve that selling gas only between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. would allow them to stay in\nbusiness.\nMr. Leon Zektser, 1310 Central Avenue, noted that he was one of the owners of this gas\nstation. He noted that they had made an error in the application, and had asked to increase\nthe hours from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., Monday through Friday, close the repair shop on\nSaturday and Sunday, and not increase the hours for the repair shop. He understood the\nconcerns about the children, and noted that the last staff report stated that there would be\nno increase in traffic because of the increased hours.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPresident Lynch noted that while the public testimony was compelling, the issue of this\napplication was a legal issue regarding the expansion of a legal nonconforming use. With\nrespect to the process by which the applicant wished to have the property recognized, he\nencouraged the applicant to pay close attention to the General Plan process and the\nZoning text. Short of that, he did not see how the expansion could take place without\nmaking the three required findings.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that the testimony given was sometimes passionate,\nand echoed the comments made by President Lynch, and noted that this was more of a\nlegal issue than a passionate issue. He could not make all the findings. He believed the\nuse was compatible in its existing condition, but he believed that it would become\nincompatible by extending the hours as requested. He could not make the finding that the\nproposed use would not have an adverse effect on the surrounding areas. He did not\nbelieve this was the right application for this property at this time.\nVice President Cook concurred with the previous comments, and noted that she\nfrequented this business. She noted that she has been frustrated by pulling into the pump\nat 8:45 to pump gas because it was not yet open, and that she was not sure she would be\nable to make it to the next gas station in town. She believed that the rules about\nnonconforming uses were quite clear, and she could not make the findings that this\napplication would not negatively impact the other neighborhood uses. She noted that the\nowner was aware of the rules when he bought the property, and that the residents\nsurrounding the use also knew the rules. She concurred with staff's recommendation in\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nJune 11, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-06-11", "page": 10, "text": "the staff report, and did not believe there was any leeway around the requirements of this\nissue.\nMs. Mooney noted that there had been some clerical difficulties in assembling the packet,\nand noted that the resolution had not been included in the packet; staff had distributed the\nresolutions during the meeting. She noted that when making the findings, the Planning\nBoard should make specific findings as they are found in the Alameda Municipal Code.\nShe recommended that the Board members be specific when stating which findings could\nnot be made.\nBoard member Kohlstrand concurred with her fellow Board members. She believed this\nwas an unfortunate situation because she perceived there was a large population in\nAlameda that would like to see expanded hours for this gas station. She understood that\nthe findings were specific. She also agreed with the speakers who were unable to use the\ngas station before and after work hours. She believed the Board members' hands were\ntied in terms of making a finding to allow the expansion of hours to occur.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was a regular customer of this gas station,\nand found it to be a very nice, well-run business. She had difficulty with some of the\nfindings, and believed them to be both vague and subjective. With respect to the location\nof the use being compatible with surrounding uses, she noted that the Code prohibited the\nexpansion of non-conforming uses. In terms of the other land uses in the area, she found\nit to be a commercial district in a neighborhood that included a coffee shop/caf\u00e9, private\nbusinesses, a children's art center, a pub and a nail salon.\nWith respect to the finding that the proposed use would not adversely affect other\nproperties in the vicinity, Board member Ezzy Ashcraft recalled that one speaker stated\nthat their property values would be lowered. She believed that property values in that area\nhave remained strong for some time, and added that page 6-7 of the staff report identified\nno offending noise coming from the site. She believed the public bus that ran along\nEncinal Avenue generated more noise than the car doors or fueling activities. She was\nconcerned about the safety of schoolchildren, but noted that this interaction was\nsignalized. If the crossing time was not adequate for parents with strollers to cross the\nstreet, she believed that Public Works should extend the time of the green light across the\nintersection. She noted that the crossing guard stood at the corner of Encinal and Paru,\nnear the playground. She believed the children could be instructed to walk on the one side\nof the street leading to the crossing guard. She added that she favored supporting local\nneighborhood businesses. She noted that this application had generated 13 pieces of\ncorrespondence in opposition, and 237 pieces of correspondence in support, as well as six\ntelephone messages and the petition of support provided by Ms. Battaglia. She would like\nto find a way to be responsive to the community in support of what seemed to be a\nreasonable neighborhood business.\nPresident Lynch agreed with Board member Ezzy Ashcraft's statements, and noted that\nparagraph 2 on page 4 of the staff report specifically stated under \"Zoning Use Permit\nHistory\" stated that the first finding could not be made legally. For a legal\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nJune 11, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-06-11", "page": 11, "text": "nonconforming use, the findings could not be made for expansion of use and/or service.\nHe noted that all four findings must be made because of the General Plan consistency\nissue to move forward. He suggested that the owner understand the process by which the\nzoning may be changed on this property, because he could not make the first finding.\nMr. Zektser requested that this item be continued.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft, Mr. Thomas detailed the history of\nthis use's previous expansion. He noted that there had been a tradeoff of auto service time\nfor additional gas service time, with the thought that the auto repair hours had more\nimpact than the gas service hours. He suggested hearing the applicant's thoughts on\nrequesting a continuance.\nMs. Mooney advised that the law was clear, as governed by the Alameda Municipal\nCode, regarding the findings that must be made by the Planning Board. At the same time,\nthe Board's decision was also a quasi-judicial decision, and that whether this was the\nexpansion of a legal nonconforming use was determined by the interpretation of the\nfactual circumstances. She concurred that the applicant should be able to state his reason\nfor requesting a continuance.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to reopen the public hearing.\nBoard member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote - 5. Absent: 2 (Mariani, McNamara).\nThe public hearing was reopened.\nMr. Zektser, applicant, noted that the Planning Board approved the expansion of the\nhours the first time in response to trading repair hours for gas service hours. He\nsummarized previous Board actions in 2001 and 2002, and noted that they had invested a\nconsiderable amount of money for the Valero brand in order to serve the community\nbetter. He did not believe the traffic would increase, and that the children would remain\nsafe while crossing the street.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPresident Lynch complimented the applicant on the manner in which he operates his\nbusiness, and noted that he had clearly upgraded his service and provided excellent\ncustomer service. However, he noted that none of those items related to the first finding\nfor him. He did not believe that the findings could be legally made, and would like the\napplicant to explore ways to legally accomplish that goal.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested subtracting hours from the repair hours, and adding\nthem to the gas service hours. She would support continuing this item.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nJune 11, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-06-11", "page": 12, "text": "Vice President Cook wished to remind the audience that the risk in use permits was that a\nless scrupulous owner may take a use over from a more conscientious owner.\nMs. Mooney explained the details of use permits and conditional use permits, and noted\nthat it was customary to have conditions on a use permit.\nMr. Thomas noted that any supporter of this project must be able to argue that this would\nnot be an expansion of use. He believed the only way that could be argued would be do\nequate seven hours of auto repair to 20 hours of gas sales, because gas sales have much\nless impact on the neighborhood than auto repair. Staff believed it could make that\nfinding. He noted that the other option, as suggested by President Lynch, was to step\nback, resubmit for a rezoning to a Neighborhood Commercial district. In that case, the\nproject would still require a use permit, but it would not be a nonconforming use any more if\nthe rezoning was approved. He noted that the hours would run with the land.\nVice President Cook noted that a rezoning would allow her to make Finding 1, and that she\nhad no problem making Finding 2, but still had problems with Findings 3 and 4.\nBoard member Cunningham believed that there must be a balance between convenience and\nneighborhood compatibility. He noted that a planning document can help guide that process\nfor the neighborhood.\nBoard member Kohlstrand recalled the rezoning experienced by her parents' home, which\nresulted in three address changes. She noted that a rezoning to commercial would be\nconsistent with the use that has remained on the site for many years, and found that more\ncompelling than continually dealing with the nonconforming use issue.\nMs. Mooney noted that the three-year clock would start from the date of any denial, and that\nit would be appealable to the City Council.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-22 to\naccept the staff recommendation to deny a Use Permit pursuant to Section 30-30.2 of the\nAlameda Municipal Code to extend the hours of operation for the Alameda Valero\nGasoline Station, an existing legal nonconforming service station.\nBoard member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote - 4. No: 1 (Ezzy Ashcraft) Absent: 2 (Mariani, McNamara).\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nJune 11, , 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-06-11", "page": 13, "text": "10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nMr. Thomas advised that the comment period on the Harbor Bay Village VI EIR closed\non June 5, 2007, and a public hearing had been held by the Planning Board a month ago.\nStaff had received several requests to extend the comment period, which was extended\nfor another month. He noted that a very large number of letters, comparable to the Target\nproposal, had been received. Staff and the consultant team had begun to go through the\nletters and scoping out the amount of additional work that would be necessary to\ncomplete to respond to the comments. Staff will meet with the applicant to establish the\nbudget for that process.\nPresident Lynch suggested that in staff's discussions with the applicant, that they strongly\nconsider what they had heard so far. Mr. Thomas confirmed that the applicant would\nreimburse the City as they go through the process.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember Mariani).\nBoard member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member\nKohlstrand).\nBoard member Kohlstrand advised that the next meeting of the Pedestrian Task Force\nwould be held June 26, 2007, from 6:00 - 8:00 p.m. She believed it would be held in one\nof the conference rooms on the third floor of City Hall.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether the task force addressed the\nphysical attributes of the crosswalks, Board member Kohlstrand replied that it was more\nat the General Plan level. She noted that it had been an unusual process, because the\nupdate to the Transportation Element was initiated by the Transportation Commission,\nrather than staff. She noted that Public Works took the process back under its purview,\nand believed the next task force meeting would examine a work scope that may be\nadopted for further pedestrian analysis.\nMr. Thomas advised that a Draft Transportation Element update had been prepared by the\nTransportation Commission, which City staff has begun to review. Staff believed it was a\nsolid first draft, and that a series of subplans for Transportation Demand Management\nand the pedestrian and transit aspect of the subplans were also to be addressed. He noted\nthat he had met with the transportation planners in the Public Works Department, and\nthey hoped to look at Alameda in two different way: one of the established area of the\nIsland with good pedestrian facilities, and the problematic areas of those facilities; and\nother large areas of Alameda undergoing complete redevelopment, such as the Northern\nWaterfront and Alameda Point.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nJune 11, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-06-11", "page": 14, "text": "President Lynch noted that he frequently talked to other residents during the course of the\nday, and noticed that many people loved the lighted crosswalks and wondered why they\nwere not installed in other places around town. He noted that he was much more alert\nand aware during the day around the lighted crosswalks, and believed that if the City\ncontinued to encourage pedestrian and bicycle traffic, that these enhanced crosswalks\nwould be a good addition throughout the City.\nVice President Cook noted that a survey was available on the City's website regarding\npedestrian and bicycle issues, and encouraged residents to respond to that survey.\nc..\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board\nMember Cunningham).\nBoard member Cunningham noted that a meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, June 20,\n2007, which would be rescheduled to June 27, 2007. The mission of that meeting would\nbe to review the final document of the recommendations.\nVice President Cook noted that she had information for a free public workshop offered\nthrough the UC Berkeley Extension, addressing climate issues and different techniques\nfor greening cities. She noted that the workshop would be held on Saturday, June 23.\nfrom 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., in San Francisco.\nMr. Thomas advised that the Oakland-Chinatown Advisory Committee would meet on\nThursday, June 14, at 3:00 p.m. in Room 360 of City Hall.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n9:20 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThese minutes were approved at the June 25, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This\nmeeting was audio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nJune 11, , 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf"}