{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-11", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING\nMONDAY, AUGUST 11, 2008\nCOUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM\nPresident Kohlstrand called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Cunningham led the flag salute.\nROLL CALL:\nPRESENT:\nPresident Kohlstrand, Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft,\nBoard members, Cunningham, Lynch and McNamara.\nABSENT:\nBoard members Autorino and Cook.\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nJon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary to\nthe Planning Board; Assistant City Attorney Farimah\nFaiz, Supervising Planner, Cynthia Eliason; Althea J.\nCarter, Executive Assistant/Recording Secretary.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of July 14, 2008 - Pending\nMinutes for the meeting of July 28, 2008 - Pending\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n6-A. Future Agendas\nStaff provided an update on future agenda items.\n6-B. Zoning Administrator Report\nThe August 5, 2008 Zoning Administrator meeting was canceled.\nPresident Kohlstrand requested that staff report on the status of the project slated for\nthe Island High site. Staff requested the update be deferred to the next Planning Board\nmeeting when staff members familiar with the project would be present to provide a\ncomprehensive report.\nPage 1 of 21", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-11", "page": 2, "text": "Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the maximum density for the Island High site is\n18 units. She does not understand how the number increased to 36 units. She looks\nforward to hearing from staff at the next meeting.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nAnyone may address the Board on a topic not on the agenda under this item by\nsubmitting a speaker's information slip, subject to the 5-minute time limit.\nNone.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nConsent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or\nadopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or\nexplanation is received from the Planning Board or a member of the public by\nsubmitting a speaker slip for that item.\n8-A. Grand Marina Village Residential Development Street Names - Warmington\nHomes (Applicant). The applicant is requesting approval of proposed street\nnames for the previously approved Grand Marina Village Residential project.\n(AT).\nBoard member Cunningham moved and Board member McNamara seconded\nthe motion to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion passed with the\nfollowing voice vote: 5-0-0.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A. PLN08-0153 - General Plan Amendment -2400 Mariner Square Drive. The\napplicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment for the MU2 Mariner Square\nSpecific Mixed Use Area to permit additional office use. The site is located at\n2400 Mariner Square Drive within M-2-PD General Industrial (Manufacturing)\nPlanned Development Zoning District. (CE). (Continued from June 23, 2008).\nCynthia Eliason presented the staff report. Staff is recommending denial of the\nproposal.\nIn response to a Board inquiry staff responded that the Carriage House was a\nrestaurant previously located at this site. The restaurant burned and was reconstructed.\nOriginally, there was office space on the second floor of the building and the restaurant\non the ground floor. After the fire, the building was to be reconstructed as office space\nonly.\nIn response to an inquiry by the Board staff responded that this proposal relates to the\nold Chevy's restaurant only.\nPage 2 of 21", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-11", "page": 3, "text": "The public hearing was opened.\nBoard member McNamara moved and Board member Lynch seconded the motion to\nlimit the speakers time to 3 minutes. The motion passed unanimously (5-0-0).\nAlfredo Kawas spoke in favor of the proposal.\nErnest Pierucci spoke in favor of the proposal. He is the attorney for a business\ncurrently located in San Leandro, that would move to this location should it be converted\nto office space. He previously represented several yacht brokers with businesses in\nMariners Square. Currently there is only one yacht business located at Mariners\nSquare. The current configuration of Mariners Square prevents small businesses from\nestablishing locations at this site. The activity that used to take place in this location\nprovided clients for the restaurant. These clients no longer exist.\nSteve Farrand, attorney representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the proposal. The\napplicant purchased the restaurant in 1992 and in 1993 the restaurant had its highest\ngross sales. In 1996 shortly after the applicant purchased the restaurant the military\nannounced the closure of the naval base resulting in a loss of 18,000 jobs. The staff\nreport does not discuss whether a restaurant is viable in this location. On August 31,\n2006 Chevy's decided to vacate this location and since that time the current owner has\nnot received a viable offer to lease the building as a restaurant.\nYola Jurzykowski, applicant, spoke in favor of the proposal. The property has been\nvacant for two years and in that time she has not received a financially viable offer to\nlease the space as a restaurant. She understands staffs desire to keep a restaurant on\nthis site but it is not economically feasible. If she is not allowed to convert the building to\noffice space she believes the building will remain vacant due to the lack of qualified\nrestaurant lease requests.\nOnju Updegrave, architect for the applicant, spoke in favor of the proposal. She wanted\nto clarify a misstatement by staff. As of today, the Carriage House has not been rebuilt.\n5,000 sf of office space was approved for the Carriage House but the rebuild has not\ntaken place.\nPauline Kelly spoke in favor of the proposal. She doesn't understand why elder care\nfacilities and storage are allowed in this area but not the type of use requested by the\napplicant.\nLars Hansson spoke in favor of the proposal. He works for a company currently located\nin San Leandro that would relocate to Alameda. Economic conditions in this area have\nchanged making this location no longer viable for a restaurant. The relocation of the\nbusiness from San Leandro to Alameda benefits Alameda's tax base.\nChristos Marras, owner of Gold Coast Grill in Alameda, spoke in favor of the proposal.\nAs a 32 year resident of Alameda and local restaurant owner he has observed the\nPage 3 of 21", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-11", "page": 4, "text": "changes that have taken place in the restaurant business over the years. He supports\nthe applicants' request.\nCheryl Canaday, owner of Recovery Resources in San Leandro and Alameda resident,\nspoke in favor of the proposal. Should the applicants proposal be approved she would\nlease the space. She has 25 employees and is prevented from moving to other\naffordable office locations in Alameda because of the parking requirements that are\nimposed on a business with this number of employees. She lives and pays taxes in\nAlameda and would like to relocate her business here.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nBoard member Cunningham asked whether the option exists for a conditional use to\nallow office space for a specified period of time rather than a wholesale change to the\narea.\nStaff responded that the General Plan is not a timed document. Office use is permitted\nin this area so zoning is not the issue. The General Plan prevents this use in this area.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked if the proposal were approved what percentage of space in\nthis area would be office space?\nStaff did not have that information available.\nBoard member Cunningham stated the goal of the Planning Board is to activate the\nwaterfront and he is in support of staff's position to want to retain this site as a\nrestaurant. He does not believe an office use at this site precludes waterfront access.\nHe is concerned that the property is vacant and with approval of the proposal, the space\nwould be occupied. From an economic perspective, it would make sense to put the\nspace to use. If the proposal were approved, he would like to retain the option to\nconvert the site to restaurant use.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcarft stated that the Board had often heard comments from\nresidents regarding limited waterfront access in Alameda. She believes with proper\nmarketing people would patronize a restaurant in this area. In the Marina Village\nParkway there is a glut of available office space as well as in other parts of Alameda.\nShe believes with the plans for Alameda Landing this area will generate more foot\ntraffic. She is concerned about preserving waterfront access.\nBoard member Lynch stated that he believes this proposal is a good case study of\nvacuum planning. This is a case of economics and general plan designations. The\nGeneral Plan is a City's guide for future planning. General Plan Amendments are limited\nto four a year. In this case he believes a General Plan Amendment is the correct way to\ngo. A viable business has departed and the use has changed. Development of Alameda\nPoint opens up residential and commercial opportunities. He would not support a\nproposal for residential use at this location but office use would not prevent waterfront\nPage 4 of 21", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-11", "page": 5, "text": "access. A viable business is willing to relocate to this location. He is in support of a\nGeneral Plan Amendment for this proposal.\nBoard member McNamara does not support the application. The zoning was in effect\nwhen the owner purchased the property. With the planned redevelopment taking place\nin the area she believes a restaurant would do well in this location.\nPresident Kohlstrand had reservations about changing the General Plan and believes\nchanges to it should be made cautiously. She is swayed by testimony heard tonight.\nShe believes policies should be flexible. Zoning in the area does permit office although\nthe amount of office space is restricted. She would like the Board to consider a different\npercentage limitation of office space to provide flexibility in the area and to allow for a\nrestaurant to be located in this area in the future should an opportunity present itself.\nShe would support an increase in the percentage of office space allowed in this area.\nShe asked for staff's input on this direction.\nStaff responded that upon direction by the Board staff would construct policies to\nachieve an increase in the amount of office space allowed in the area and present the\ninformation to the Board at a future meeting.\nA Board discussion ensued on President Kohlstrand's suggestion. Board member\nCunningham is in support of President Kohlstrand's suggestion but would like to retain\nthe ability to convert the site back to a restaurant in the future.\nBoard member Lynch asked what percent would not trigger an inconsistency finding.\nStaff responded none. The applicant is asking that the 20% cap in the General Plan be\neliminated and for an increase from 5,000 sf to 10,000 sf of office space.\nBoard member Lynch asked if staff could construct a policy to modify the percentages\nbut keep in tact the General Plan.\nStaff responded yes.\nBoard member Lynch asked if the Board decided to go in that direction the point would\nbe to preserve the General Plan so that no General Plan Amendment is required.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked if the 20% limit was for each individual use or in total for the\nentire area.\nStaff responded that it is for the entire area. There is a 5,000 sf limitation as well.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked what is the size of the site.\nStaff responded a little less than 6,000 sf\nPage 5 of 21", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-11", "page": 6, "text": "Board member McNamara stated she would like to know what would be the potential\nfuture consequences for taking this action.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated that since the future of this area is unknown she is in favor\nof some flexibility at this time.\nBoard member Cunningham asked if there would be any change to waterfront access\nby approving this proposal.\nStaff responded no. There is the issue of allowing an office use that is not water related.\nBoard member Lynch stated he thinks of public access to the water but views the\nbusinesses as private. He would not support a use that diminishes public access.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that it appears that maintenance was deferred on\nthis building intentionally to make it not feasible economically thereby creating this\nsituation where another use would be considered. The Board does not know how\naggressive the owner was in marketing the building as a restaurant. This is a unique\npart of the waterfront and the Board should be careful with decisions that will change it.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated she does not believe there is a consensus among the\nBoard. She asked if the applicant would like to continue working with staff to prepare a\nproposal that the Board would support.\nBoard member Lynch stated he would like staff and the applicant to incorporate the\nBoards comments into any future resolution. The applicant should present a proposal\nfor a specific amount of square feet. The Board will vote that amount up or down and\neliminate the need for a General Plan Amendment. He asked staff if that was correct.\nStaff responded no. Board member Lynch's suggestion would still require a General\nPlan Amendment.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated that was the case because the Board would be changing\nthe square footage.\nStaff asked the Board for clarification on whether they are asking for a modification to\nthe resolution presented tonight or a brand new resolution taking into consideration\ncomments the Board made tonight. Staff inquired whether the Board was considering\nmodifying the percentages or the amount of square feet in the General Plan.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated the Board is not looking for a specific square foot number\nbut she would suggest not going over 10,000 square feet. She does not want to\neliminate percentages altogether just consider other options.\nPage 6 of 21", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-11", "page": 7, "text": "Board member Cunningham moved and Board member McNamara seconded the\nmotion to continue this item to the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting of\nSeptember 8, 2008. The motion passed by the following voice vote: 5-0-0.\n9-B.\nPlanned Development Amendment, Major Design Review - PDA05-0004,\nDR05-0073 - 523 South Shore Center - Harsch Investment Corp. The\napplicant requests approval of Planned Development Amendment and Major\nDesign Review entitlements and certification of an Environmental Impact Report\n(EIR) for redevelopment and expansion of Alameda Towne Centre. The project\nincludes redevelopment of the site, resulting in full build-out of up to\napproximately 706,650 square feet of gross leasable floor area, construction of a\nnew parking structure, pedestrian, bicycle and transit improvements, new\nsignage and other minor site improvements. (DG). (Continued from July 14,\n2008).\nStaff addressed issues raised by the public and the Board at the previous Planning\nBoard meeting on July 14, 2008. Staff's report tonight will address the following 1) noise\nspecifically for residential property on Otis Drive near the shopping center area; 2)\nadequacy of the traffic study; and 3) general concerns from the Board regarding future\ndevelopment of the center.\nRegarding noise on Otis Drive staff's investigation included the code enforcement\ndepartment surveying the area with a decibel meter. Code enforcement found no\nviolations of city noise standards. Noise generated by the shopping center, including a\nparking lot sweeper, was substantially less than the traffic generated on Otis Drive.\nNoise was not identified as having a significant impact in the Environmental Impact\nReport (EIR). There are conditions in the resolution presented tonight that prohibit more\nintensive activities within 200 feet of residential properties, which goes above and\nbeyond requirements.\nRegarding the traffic study, the City retained a third party consultant, Dowling &\nAssociates, to have licensed engineers review the original study prepared for this\nproject. Dowling & Associates also reviewed the traffic study plan for the Transportation\nElement Update of General Plan. They concurred with the methodology used to prepare\nthe study and noted that it complied with the requirements of the City. Dowling also\nnoted that many of the assumptions used in the original study were extremely\nconservative and projected a greater number of trips than are likely to occur. In some\ncases, it was overstated as much as 50% more than what Dowling found in their own\nstudies from 2007. Staff believes this is a very conservative traffic study and the study\nhas accounted for full build out of the center. Mitigation measures to reduce impacts to\nless than significant levels have been identified. Dowling noted that because of the\nmethodology required by the City's traffic study guidelines, it could be argued that the\nanalysis is \"segmented\" under CEQA. Staff has addressed this argument in the EIR\nand concluded is that it is not segmented.\nPage 7 of 21", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-11", "page": 8, "text": "atmosphere, landscaping, and safety. The cedar on the buildings is evidence of the\ndedication to the vision. The landscaping is the soul of the project. It softens the look\nand creates a comfortable place to walk. The design intentionally makes it easier for\nbikes and pedestrians to navigate through the Centre. The applicant worked with\nBike/Walk Alameda, and has been responsive to their suggestions. Signage has been\ncreated with a high level of craftsmanship, working with local artisans. Lots of artwork\nhas been included at the Centre and 12 history panels about Alameda have been\ncreated. Harsch has spent 80 million dollars on the Centre and no part of the\nrenovation has been subsidized by the city.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft asked who were the people in the last photo.\nThe applicant responded they are real Alamedans. He described the extra bike racks\nadded to encourage bicycle riding to and from the Centre. He explained that the center\ncourt is used for evening gatherings for celebrations and concerts. Kohls is scheduled to\nopen in April 2009. Orchard Supply Hardware is expected to move in Spring 2009\ndepending on the outcome of the appeal.\nPresident Kohlstrand moved to limit speakers time to three minutes.\nCathy Fong spoke in support of the proposal. She is a 21 year resident of Alameda and\nurged the Board to approve the EIR as it stands. She would like to see the project\nmove forward as quickly as possible.\nPage 8 of 21", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-11", "page": 9, "text": "Blake Brydon, President of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of\nthe proposal and the EIR. He believes the review completed on traffic and the EIR is\nthorough. He believes the development company has exceeded expectations, and the\nneed for jobs and sales tax in Alameda is important.\nMelody Marr, CEO Alameda Chamber of Commerce, asked that the Board approve the\nproposal. The Chamber is planning a \"Shop Alameda\" promotion and as auto\ndealerships in the city close, it is important to encourage new sources of revenue to\nmaintain city services.\nClaire Risley spoke in opposition to the proposal. She is a resident on Grand Street and\nat times it resembles the 880 freeway. She urged the Board not to approve the EIR.\nShe does not think it provides a complete analysis of the traffic. She would prefer that a\ndecision on the proposal be delayed until current ongoing construction is approved,\nvacant sites are occupied, then perform an analysis of the traffic. She distributed a site\nplan that shows vacant space in the center.\nHolly Sellers spoke in opposition to the proposal. She asked the Board not to certify the\nEIR until all questions are addressed. Since the draft EIR was published no new\ninformation has been added. She believes the proposal gives the applicant a blank\ncheck to construct a parking garage with fewer transit improvements than required in\n2003. The sidewalk promised before Safeway opened has not been put in. She\nbelieves the parking ratio is not high enough.\nDorothy Reid spoke in support of allowing what has already been approved to be built.\nShe is opposed to any additions or changes. She would prefer to see the applicant\ncomplete what has been approved then another traffic study should be done to assess\nimpacts. She doesn't believe there is any harm in denying the EIR and the expansion,\nand revisiting the applicants request after completion.\nChristine Healey previously provided comments to the Board regarding noise impacts\non the neighborhoods surrounding the Centre. She has spoken with neighbors some of\nwhom are elderly and English may not be their first language. The neighbors have\ncomplained of the noise. She is not against growth, but is against a diminished quality\nof life and lower property values. She does not support extension of business hours at\nthe Centre or 24 hour truck deliveries.\nJohn Mascali spoke in support of the proposal. He has worked with Harsh and although\nhe is not a tenant if the Centre, Harsch has been great to work with. He owns two\nBurger King franchises nearby. Sales have dropped with the new development but he\nis in support of the center, and believes it is good for the community. The sidewalk\nissue and noise are both attributable to Burger King, and he is changing his business to\ntake care of these issues. He supports approval of the proposal and certification of the\nEIR.\nPage 9 of 21", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-11", "page": 10, "text": "John Knox-White stated that a little over two years ago he asked questions regarding\nthe EIR, and believes staff has worked hard to answer his questions. He has worked\nwith Harsh on behalf of transit and alternate transit advocates, although they did not\nalways see eye-to-eye, Harsch has always worked in good faith. He does not agree\nwith staffs' response to some of the comments from the transportation commission. For\nexample regarding Otis Drive instead of adding new lanes we recommended staff look\nat reducing lanes to add a 2-way left turn lane. Staffs' response was \"comment noted\"\n-\nhe does not understand what that means. He also made suggestions regarding the\naddition of bike lanes on Park Street to facilitate bike route connections. Staff's\nresponse was to move the bikes elsewhere.\nEugenie Thomson agrees that Harsch should complete the current plan and urges the\nBoard not to approve the requested expansion. She believes the transportation study is\ntechnically inadequate for the following reasons: the traffic study is not based on reality\nand her previous comments are not addressed; a planner from Dowling conducted the\npeer review of an engineers document; methodologies are inconsistent with the\nHighway Capacities Manual; the report did not recognize key lane changes; and the\nvolume assumptions are not conservative. She stated that in 2005 the counts were low\nbecause the stores were not yet built or not yet operating. The comparisons with the\nTransportation Element EIR are not valid. She stated that her letter of July 14th was not\nincluded with agendas or on web.\nPat Gannon gave her three minutes to Eugenie Thomson.\nEugenie Thomson hired an independent company called Traffic Data Services. She\nwould like to know why the level of service was worse at Park and Otis than the\ntheoretical levels in the city study. She anted to know why no other kind of analysis was\ndone and why was there no good access for fire trucks and buses. She urged the\nBoard to consider an expansion only with an updated traffic study.\nGeoffrey Kline agreed with E. Thompson. If the developer does not correct problems\nnow the city and residents will be responsible for correcting them in the future.\nKurt Libby agrees with comments from Anne Cooks letter. He is concerned about\ntraffic. Trucks entering Alameda from the bridges go down Broadway and are coming\nand going all night. He has noticed a lot more traffic on Broadway than in the last\ncouple of years, making it difficult for residents to back out of driveways. He has to\nwash traffic related dust and soot from his house every few months and the traffic\nmakes it too noisy for outdoor conversation. He stated these are new problems since\nthe Centre has been under reconstruction. He is located 1.3 miles from the center, and\nnot included in the area covered by the traffic study. He believes there is a need to\nexpand the area covered by the traffic study.\nStanley Davis, a representative of Kohls Department Store, spoke in support of the\nproposal. He stated that Kohls expects 2-3 deliveries per week, from a distribution\ncenter 80 minutes away. The drop off and pick up trailer will take only 10-15 minutes\nPage 10 of 21", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-11", "page": 11, "text": "per delivery. Trucks will not be still with engines idling. Kohls is very excited to be in\nAlameda and wants to be the best neighbors possible. The extended hours of\noperation are being requested for the convenience of customers.\nIn response to an inquiry by the Board, Mr. Davis stated that deliveries would take place\nbetween 7am and 10pm and that unloading would be done by hand not with a forklift.\nHe also stated the store hours of operation would be 7am:10pm weekdays, 7am:11pm\nweekends, and holiday shopping hours would take place in November and December\nfrom 7am to midnight.\nTom & Dori DeTurk, owners of Loards Ice Cream at Alameda Town Center, spoke in\nsupport of the proposal. They stated that 3 years ago the South Shore Mall was\ndownsizing and the work Harsh has done on the Centre has been nothing short of\na\nmiracle. They are not traffic/EIR experts, but believe Harsh is a good corporate citizen\nand easy to work with. Dori has seen three generations of kids at the ice cream store,\nand has enjoyed working with Harsh, and would like to see them move forward and\nbring in Kohls as a good anchor store to help small independent businesses succeed.\nFred Reid spoke in opposition to the project. Two yeas ago he submitted \"Letter 17\"\nwith three very specific questions regarding numbers used for baseline and cumulative\nanalysis. He has been working in this area for many decades, and presented specific\ndiscrepancies he found between the city observations and other sources of data. His\ncomments were answered with procedural statements. He believes the city is wrong.\nHe does not understand how Dowlings numbers for traffic on Otis Drive in 2003 can be\nless than those in this report.\nPhil Freitas spoke in favor of the project. He is impressed with the transformation\nHarsch has done to the centre and is happy about its revitalization. He urged the city to\ncertify the EIR and move the project forward.\nSusan Decker spoke in favor of the project. She is glad the centre is not near a freeway\nsince it means people can walk to it. She is happy to have the business so close, and\nwould like to see that progress continue. The area is becoming more vibrant but more\ncan be done. She has seen Harsch respond to accommodate bike and pedestrian\naccess. She is sorry for people who live right across from the Centre, but these\nneighbors should expect an increased amount of noise living next to a shopping mall.\nMichael Krueger, a member of the Transportation Commission, spoke in favor of the\nproposal. He wanted to provide follow up to Mr. Knox-White's comments, specifically\ncomment #32-8 trying to put pedestrian/biking amenities that sometimes requires\nreducing space for car parking stalls. He urged the planning board to recommend\nparking reduction if it can help accommodate pedestrians and bikes. This is a different\ntype of shopping center being pedestrian and bike friendly. It is one of the most\naccessible malls he has ever seen, and that is why he is suggesting a further reduction\nof parking. He suggests having sidewalks on both sides of the street when the traffic\nsignal is installed. As an Alameda resident, he is very happy with the changes so far,\nPage 11 of 21", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-11", "page": 12, "text": "understands the need for an anchor store, and stated that we need to support the small\nbusinesses in the Centre.\nWalter Schlueter spoke in favor of the proposal. He stated that Harsh had been a\nresponsible and good neighbor, and produced a quality shopping center, that is unusual\nfor a town of this size. Harsch has invested millions of dollars in the city and has a long\nterm vision for enjoyable shopping for Alamedans. The Centre allows Alamedans to\nshop in town generating sales tax revenue that would help balance the City budget. He\nencourages the Board to approve the project.\nMarilyn Schumacher spoke in support of the proposal. She disliked the old shopping\ncenter and is in awe of the new center. She rides her bike to the Centre every day.\nShe loves the lighting and quality of the materials used.\nKaren Bey spoke in support of the project. She supports the expansion and would like\nto see the city refine the retail strategy to locate similar retailers in one location.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion. The board agreed to a five minute\nbreak.\nPresident Kohlstrand suggested a structured discussion. She stated that the Board\ncould collectively agree that there is a belief in Alameda that changes that have\noccurred at the center have been positive for the city. She stated three overriding\nissues: 1) Is the infrastructure provided onsite and adjacent to the centre adequate to\nmeet the needs of the expansion so far? If the shopping center expands, has the\nanalysis adequately addressed the level of infrastructure primarily regarding traffic and\ntransportation, 2) What should the maximum size of the center be? Should the Board\nconsider additional expansion. 3) Neighbors have addressed the operational noise\nissues along Park, Otis and Broadway, which are considered issues of livability.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated she would like the Board discussion to begin with the\nenvironmental issues, then move to design and size issues. She stated that Board\nmember Cook was unable to attend this meeting, but sent a letter where she expressed\nher reservations about certifying the EIR due to concerns about lighting, unfulfilled\npromises regarding infrastructure improvements, dust control during construction, and\napproving additional square footage.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked staff if there were issues that were not related to the EIR\nthat the Board could deal with independently of EIR certification.\nStaff responded that if the applicant's proposal is denied, there are prior approvals the\napplicant could act on. The applicant could renovate but not expand the Centre and\ncould not expand into the shoreline area. The sign program would be affected if the\nproposal was denied.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the Board should identify specific concerns with\nPage 12 of 21", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-11", "page": 13, "text": "EIR.\nPresident Kohlstrand responded yes.\nStaff explained the EIR process as it relates to the project.\nBoard member McNamara stated she wanted to address and reconcile the differing\nopinions regarding traffic. She wondered why there is such a discrepancy between\nwhat the document states and public comments that have been received. She asked if\nprior public comments had been responded to satisfactorily. She stated the information\nis quantitative, and should not be subjective. She stated she is not comfortable with the\nDowling review.\nStaff responded that asking for opinions from different experts in the same field will\nsometimes yield differing opinions.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked if the study was conducted by a traffic planner not an\nengineer. Her concern is whether the base of the data is outdated. The traffic situation\nhas changed in the last few years as a result of the changes in Alameda including\noverall revitalization. She has observed more traffic in the Otis/Park street area and can\nsee the need to re-count traffic levels.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft would like to focus on mitigation measures and accelerate\nthe initiation of these measures.\nStaff stated that mitigation measures associated with the driveway at Trader Joes were\nidentified for cumulative growth to 2025. The city may require implementation of the\nmitigations earlier if traffic levels warrant.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated that some mitigations had specific language in the 10 year\nrange, some were more open ended.\nBoard member Lynch stated that he believed it was up to the applicant to consider\naccelerating the implementation of identified mitigation measures.\nBoard member Cunningham stated that there was no question that Harsh had created a\ngreat center, and the expansion might make it a bigger place and attract even more\npeople. He believes the discussion should focus on whether this is an appropriate\nproject for Alameda. He stated that if the automobile lots are leaving Alameda focus\nshould be on expanding and improving all areas that can use retail, rather than making\nthe shopping center a mega center. The board needs to discuss whether a second\ngarage deck is appropriate and what should the building limits be. The EIR does not\nlook at aesthetic aspects. He believes there is a fundamental problem with staff looking\nfor board approval of design of this new addition without public review. If he were to\ngive an answer today, he would not approve the project because he is uncomfortable\nwith it. He believes the Board should start with the fundamental question which would\nPage 13 of 21", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-11", "page": 14, "text": "be, is this the right project for this location.\nA Board discussion ensued on the merits of the project and whether the Board should\ndiscuss the appropriateness of the project for the site.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated that certifying the EIR does not constitute approval of the\nproject. The Board could decide to certify the EIR and choose to approve less square\nfootage for expansion.\nA Board discussion ensued on whether to discuss the EIR first and then the project or\nwhether to discuss the project first.\nBoard member Lynch stated that there are questions about the expansion, but in terms\nof some of the smaller stores/restaurants they were designed in response to previous\ncomments by the Board. He believed the Board discussion should focus on Kohls and\nthe parking structure.\nBoard member Cunningham stated that he does not have an issue with waterside\nrestaurants and the proposed sign program. He is concerned about the expansion.\nBoard member Lynch stated that in regards to the EIR he would agree that as it relates\nto issues regarding traffic, he is comfortable that it is adequate as far as CEQA. He\nwould be comfortable with specific recommendations, but not discussing the merits of\nthe methodology used.\nPresident Kohlstrand agreed with Board member Lynch. She would like to focus on the\nEIR, because it is hard to grasp how big the project would be. Many people would like\nto see the shoreline developed and infrastructure in place as a way to help the centre\nget tenants. Perhaps traffic counts could be monitored in the future as more\ndevelopment occurs. She stated that the Board should focus on traffic, and\ntransportation and noise in terms of an environmental discussion. She referred the\nBoard to page five of the EIR resolution and asked if any Board member had issues\nwith it.\nNone of the board members had issues with page five of the EIR resolution.\nIn response to an inquiry by the board regarding the left turn lane onto Park Street, staff\ndescribed the details of the lane, and stated it was linked to phase 3 of the\nredevelopment plan which is expected to occur in 2010 when major expansion of the\ncentre will occur. There is language that could mean it may occur sooner.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated that a specific time frame for the improvements is not\nstated, only for the contribution.\nA\nboard discussion ensured regarding adding a sentence to the resolution specifically\nstating when construction would commence with deadlines for installation and linking\nPage 14 of 21", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-11", "page": 15, "text": "the expansion to phase two rather than phase three since there appears to be a need\nfor the improvements now.\nPresident Kohlstrand invited the applicant to address the Board.\nRandy Kyte, representing Harsh, addressed the Board. He stated that arbitrarily\nchanging implementation of the mitigation measures to phase two disregards the fact\nthat the nexus for these measures was determined to be in phase three.\nA board discussion ensued on the mitigation measures planned for phase two and\nphase three.\nRandy Kyte stated it is a matter of fairness, and Harsch would like to be treated the\nsame as any other applicant. If the nexus is determined to be in phase three he would\nlike that timeline to be respected. He is willing to deal with identified impacts but does\nnot want to be treated unfairly.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated she appreciated the work done by Harsh, and\nbelieves there is a spirit of wanting to move forward, but the applicant should not have\nto bargain in public, this can be done privately and revisited publicly.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated she understood the applicants' position and would like to\nfind a way to move the project forward.\nRandy Kyte stated he would agree to tighter mitigations.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated the Board needed to tighten the timeline.\nStaff stated that phase two of the redevelopment covers the period from 2008-2010.\nChanging the mitigation timing may hold up issuance of building permits.\nA board discussion ensued regarding correlating contributions to issuance of the first\npermit in phase three.\nBoard member Cunningham moved and Board member McNamara seconded the\nmotion to adopt the Environmental Impact Report as amended. The motion passed 5-0.\nPeter Galloway clarified when traffic counts were taken for the traffic analysis. His firm\nalso performed traffic counts in 2003. The most recent counts were done in 2005. At\nthat time, the center was undergoing renovation and some driveways were blocked off.\nAs a result city staff had the highest 2003 counts incorporated into the document.\nCounts from at least four intersections were taken. Dowling performed more recent\ntraffic counts for the Transportation element update in 2007.\nA board discussion ensued regarding Mitigation Measure 10-2 and adding language\nthat states the city can make the determination to implement this mitigation, using level\nPage 15 of 21", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-11", "page": 16, "text": "of service as a trigger, and considering that this mitigation may not be needed.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated that Mitigation 10-3 pertains to the Shoreline and access to\nthe post office. She stated the applicant is 100% responsible for this mitigation, or the\ncity can determine if the level of service is no longer acceptable. She asked if the board\nhad any other comments regarding the environmental resolution.\nBoard member Lynch asked about other traffic concerns.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated those are not listed as significant environmental Impacts,\nbut are community and city concerns that need to be addressed.\nA board discussion ensued regarding other traffic issues including traffic flow and street\nlight timing and whether the developer or the City should address these issues. The\nboard directed staff to refer the community comments regarding traffic issues to the City\nengineering department, and report back to the Board.\nBoard member Cunningham asked how and when level of service is determined. He\nasked that this issue be addressed and included in the report.\nPresident Kohlstrand had suggested language be added specifying what constitutes an\nacceptable level of service.\nIn response to an inquiry by the board regarding how the City determines level of\nservice staff responded that the City has published Traffic Study Guidelines.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked if the Board had any additional comments on the\nenvironmental document.\nBoard member Lynch stated that substantive changes had been made and he would\nlike to see those changes incorporated into the final version.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated the board could move to adopt the resolution as\namended so it would not be necessary to return this item to the board.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated she felt comfortable with Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft's\nsuggestion.\nBoard member McNamara stated she was also comfortable with the suggestion.\nThe Board approved, by a vote of 5-0, to approve the Environmental Impact Report as\namended.\nPresident Kohlstrand approved a five minute break. A motion to extend the meeting\nuntil 11:30 p.m. was approved.\nPage 16 of 21", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-11", "page": 17, "text": "President Kohlstrand stated that the second resolution has to do with approving the\nplanned development amendment and major design review for redevelopment and\nexpansion at the Alameda Town Centre. This includes the overall size of the project,\nthe addition of a parking garage, redevelopment of the shoreline area and the existing\nmedical offices adjacent to Office Depot, and addition of other infrastructure\nimprovements. She suggested the Board address the outdoor activities and signage\nand infrastructure improvements before addressing the expansion.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft suggested the Board address the size issue first because\npublic comments are fresh.\nBoard member Lynch stated he does not see the Board getting through the entire\ndiscussion tonight. The resolution is written such that the Board must approve the\nproject in its entirety.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated the Board would probably not get through the entire\nexpansion discussion by 11:30. She suggested starting the discussionon with the other\nissues.\nBoard member Cunningham stated the Board could approve portions of the application\nand return to any other elements.\nStaff stated the Board could consider taking a vote on aspects of the project where\nthere are no concerns, and then focus on the major issue of expansion.\nBoard member Lynch stated that people would be okay with biking pedestrian signage\nissues. He inquired how the Board could reopen the issue for public discussion.\nA Board discussion ensued regarding Board member Lynch's question.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft suggested the Board use the remaining time for\ndiscussion on this project.\nStaff stated that the sign program is time sensitive for the applicant.\nBoard member Lynch inquired how could the Board break apart a resolution that has\nbeen noticed to the public.\nAssistant City Attorney stated that the Board could consider a motion as long as the\nsame findings are in the resolution.\nPresident Kohlstrand requested that the Assistant City Attorney assist with the correct\nlanguage when the Board is at the point of crafting a resolution. She then asked if the\nBoard had any concerns regarding the signage program.\nPresident Kohlstrand states she had one issue. She believed the signing is marvelous,\nPage 17 of 21", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-11", "page": 18, "text": "but there were wall mounted signs for major tenants 6' tall, on the exterior of the center,\nand a couple in the interior pedestrian walkway. She wanted to know why this\nconfiguration was implemented.\nMonique, on behalf of the applicant, stated that those signs are only used for the major\ntenants over 50,000 sf, currently just Kohl's and Safeway.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft asked for clarification on how the size of the signs are\ndetermined.\nThe applicant responded that going out 50 feet from the facades was not enough and\nthe Borders sign which was put in caused light impacts.\nThe Assistant City Attorney clarified an earlier statement. The sign issue is not dealt\nwith in the resolution and allows the Board to prepare a motion regarding signs.\nBoard member Lynch moved to approve the sign program per the July 2008 staff report\nincorporating the sign program starting on page 8 of 14 and identified in attachment 4,\nand any conditions contained in the resolution applicable to the sign program.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated she had one concern. She would like to condition the\nplanned development agreement to stipulate that the sidewalk lost when Target went\naway (adjacent to the parking area between the post office and the TJ Maxx, and also\none adjacent to the parking area near OSH) be provided by the applicant.\nStaff responded that the Post office sidewalk is planned, and the other sidewalk has\nbeen removed.\nPresident Kohlstrand agreed that there are tradeoffs, but does not think it will put more\ntraffic to Whitehall and Franciscan. She believes the plan should provide access but\nremove the number of access points to facilitate pedestrian uses. The next time the\nBoard discusses this issue, we should have some sense of what the parking ratio is with\nand without that sidewalk to make an informed decision. She asked that this topic be\nput back on the table as part of the master plan.\nBoard member McNamara confirmed that the sidewalk requested at the July 14 meeting\nwas the one in front of the dentists office although it is not on the diagram.\nStaff confirmed that this particular sidewalk is included.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated she would like to see an overlay showing truck\nroutes to and from the center, especially as the routes relate to Orchard Supply\nHardware as it is close to a children's dentist office. It would help the Board decide\nconditions for hours of delivery. She would like staff to provide this information on a\nseparate map including streets.\nPage 18 of 21", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-11", "page": 19, "text": "Staff responded that there are city truck maps, but not specified driveways they enter\nand exit from.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the truck drivers decide which route to take.\nStaff responded that the city ordinance only requires truck drivers stay on routes to\ndestination. They are allowed some flexibility.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated that the Board has certified the Environmental Document\nand approved the sign program, and identified some issues for further discussion at the\nnext meeting. She asked if there was anything else on the table.\nStaff responded that if the Board had concerns about the hours of operation those\nconcerns could be addressed.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated that outdoor activities/special events are permitted from\n9am-9pm subject to compliance with city noise standards. Generally speaking the\ncenter is open 6am -12am and any activities outside those hours require special\npermission.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated there have been complaints about the noise from\nleaf blowers etc., there is a provision prohibiting these activities within 200 feet of a\nresidence between 10pm and 7am, but then on pg 12, paragraph 43, mitigation\nmeasure regarding construction, limits noise generation more tightly. Perhaps it would\nhelp neighbors if maintenance equipment noise limits are considered within 300 feet\ninstead of 200 feet and not time restrictions.\nStaff responded that 200 feet is easy to identify, 300 feet is in the middle of the parking\nlot without a clear landmark, which makes it difficult to implement.\nThe applicant (Mike Corbett) stated that 300 feet is an issue, because Safeway is open\n24 hours. The applicant has been very accommodating for a single person who has\ncomplained about noise, and has addressed all complaints. Not being able to street\nsweep while the lot is empty makes it difficult to keep the lot clean. The 300 foot\ndistance is a real issue.\nBoard member Cunningham asked if businesses at the Centre accept deliveries 24\nhour a day.\nStaff responded that if a business is open 24 hours it can accept deliveries during those\nhours under previously granted entitlements.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated that with the exception of being within 200 feet of a\nresidence.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated she was alarmed by the idea of Kohl's opening\nPage 19 of 21", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-11", "page": 20, "text": "early and closing late, and the Christmas closing hours of midnight.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated she thinks they would have to alter overall operating hours\nto change that.\nBoard member McNamara stated that perhaps these extended holiday hours are\nbecoming the norm. She does not see a problem with that and believes store hours\nshould be driven by a business decision.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated she believes there is a general consensus to stay with the\nhours of operation and the time limitations that the staff has put forward, along with the\n200 feet limitation adjacent to residential uses, and also with respect to outdoor\nactivities.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to approve items 8, 9, and 10. The motion passed\nunanimously.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft requested that the next time this item comes before the\nBoard it is placed at the beginning of the agenda.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated that the Board had already approved item 11. She asked\nwhen the item would be before the Board again. She asked if it could be presented on\nSeptember 22, 2008. She asked if at that time the public hearing would be open or\nclosed.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the public comment period does not have to be\nreopened.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated there is always an open public comment period at all\nPlanning Board meetings, and the public can comment on items not specifically listed\non the agenda.\nBoard member Lynch believed the public comment period should be reopened, the\nproject should be renoticed, and it should be stated that specific items are open for\ncomment and discussion by the Board.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft agreed with Board member Lynch.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated there was consensus among the Board to keep the public\ncomment period open.\nStaff asked to clarify the Board discussion regarding the sign program. There was\na\ncondition in the resolution related to the signage, there weren't any findings in the\nresolution, and there was a reference to an attachment four by one of the planning\nboard members and that attachment was the Master Sign Program that was being\nproposed (page 6 of 14).\nPage 20 of 21", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-11", "page": 21, "text": "President Kohlstrand thanked everyone for their patience and input.\nA motion to continue the item was approved unanimously.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nItem 10A: Summerhouse, an apartment project, had approval for the design of a new\ncommunity building. The applicant submitted a revised design for review. Staff asked if\nthe Board would prefer the design review be handled by staff the Board.\nPresident Kohlstrand requested the Board review the new design.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nBoard members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or\nmake a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a referral\nto staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body\nat a subsequent meeting concerning a City matter or, through the chair, direct staff to\nNone\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n11:37 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJon Biggs, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThis meeting was audio and video taped.\nPage 21 of 21", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf"}