{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-01-11", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES OF THE\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, JANUARY 11, 2010\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:07 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nVice-President Autorino\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresent:\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft, Vice-President\nAutorino,\nBoard members, Cook, Cunningham,\nKohlstrand, Lynch, and Zuppan.\nAbsent:\nNone.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes from the Special meeting of September 10, 2009\nBoard Member Zuppan requested that the line at the bottom of page 3 be corrected to read\n\"that all design Guidelines be written as clearly as possible and consider the economic\nimpact of that guideline\". Board Member Kohlstrand motioned, seconded by Board Member\nZuppan to approve the minutes as amended. Motion passes as amended 4-0-3. Vice-\nPresident Autorino, Board members Cook and Lynch abstained.\nMinutes from the meeting of September 28, 2009 (Pending)\nMinutes from the meeting of December 14, 2009\nVice-President Autorino requested that the stated approval of item 9A be corrected to\naccurately reflect the granted approval of 6 AM to 7 AM. Vice-President Autorino motioned,\nBoard Member Cunningham seconded the motion to approve the minutes as amended.\nMotion passes as amended 4-0-3. Board members Cook, Lynch and Zuppan abstained.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nWritten Report\n6-A\nFuture Agendas\nStaff presented an overview of future agendas.\n6-B Zoning Administrator Report\nStaff reported on the Zoning Administrator's approval of a Use Permit and Design Review\nApplication for Rockwall Wine Company located at 2300 Main Street.\nOral Report\nStaff presented an update on the development of Alameda Point.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nPage 1 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-01-11", "page": 2, "text": "None\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8-A Density Bonus Ordinance - Applicant - City of Alameda. Proposed caps and\nlimits on concessions and/or incentives for Density Bonus Projects on sites in a\nresidential zone district or a site with a general plan land use designation of\nresidential. Staff requested a continuance of this item to the Regular Planning\nMeeting of January 25, 2010.\nBoard Member Kohlstrand motioned, Board member Cunningham seconded motion to\ncontinue the item to the Planning Board meeting of February 8, 2010. Approved 7-0.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A\nReview of the Use Permit for Kohl's Department Store. Use Permit review\nallowing additional store hours of operation on certain mornings before 7:00 am and\non certain nights until 12:00 midnight. Kohl's is located at 2201 South Shore Center\nin the C-2 PD (Central Business Planned Development) Zoning District in Alameda.\nStaff presented an overview of prior project and explained the requested amendment to the\nKohl's hours of operation.\nMs Montalvo, Kohl's store manager, apologized for the confusion on the hours of operation,\nand requested that the Planning Board approve the Use Permit\nBoard Member Cunningham asked the applicant why a 4:00 am opening was being\nrequested. The applicant stated that this day is the busiest sales day of the year and the\nearly hours of operation are required to stay competitive with other retailers.\nMs. Sellers, Alameda resident, encouraged the Planning Board to deny the Use Permit for\nadditional hours of operation.\nMs. Risley, Alameda resident, stated her opposition to the Use Permit amendment through\nthis process. She also stated that the public hearing notification of this project is\ninadequate.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft closed the public comment period.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft summarized the Planning Board's options with respect to this use\npermit request.\nBoard Member Kohlstrand, for clarification, asked whether the Use Permit can be brought\nback to the Planning Board for modification and if this was permissible under the Municipal\nCode.\nMs. Faiz, city attorney, clarified that the Planning Board can take an action to amend the\nUse Permit.\nPage 2 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-01-11", "page": 3, "text": "Board Member Kohlstrand noted she prefers to leave the Use Permit as it is although would\nlike to hear the reasons for expanding the dates.\nBoard Member Cunningham does not support revocation of the Use Permit, but would like\nto see what overarching community goals would be met by approving the Use Permit as\nproposed.\nBoard Member Cook stated she does not support revocation of the use permit, but has\nsome questions about expanding the hours of operation.\nVice-President Autorino does not support the revocation, but asked for clarification on the\nrationale behind the proposed amendments.\nStaff explained that the applicant has requested the amendment to the hours of operation\nso that it can provide shopping opportunities during the holiday seasons and at other\nappropriate times of the year. The rationale of granting a blanket approval is to eliminate\nconfusion year after year over which particular days have actually been approved for the\nextended hours.\nBoard Member Kohlstrand stated that leaving the period open will allow for better\nclarification and enforcement.\nBoard Member Lynch motioned to amend the Use Permit to allow expanded hours of\noperation as proposed by staff, seconded by Vice-President Autorino. Motion passes 7-0-0.\n9-B\nConsideration of a Use Permit to Allow additional Truck Delivery Hours at\nAlameda Towne Center, Safeway Store. The Safeway Store is requesting use\npermit approval to allow truck deliveries between the hours of 4:00 AM and 6:00 AM.\nThe store is located at 2227 South Shore Center in Alameda in the C-2 PD (Central\nBusiness Planned Development) Zoning District.\nStaff presented a report on the project and summarized public comments.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked for a clarification on the number of smaller trucks Safeway\nanticipates coming to the store in the additional morning hour.\nBoard Member Lynch asked for clarification on the proposal to allow certain types of\ndelivery vehicles, and noted that the applicant has not made the case that supports\nallowing extended the delivery hours.\nMr. Paradise, Safeway Real Property Manager, stated that Safeway would make every\neffort to manage the smaller vendors, and explained the difficulty of coordinating their\ndeliveries. He suggested that the Planning Board allow a test period during which Safeway\nbe allowed to receive deliveries starting at 4 am, in an effort to see how Safeway manages\nthe vendors and potential noise impacts. Upon completion of the testing period, the\nPlanning Board could then approve or deny the Use Permit amendment with the\ninformation gained during this trial period.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft opened the public comment period.\nPage 3 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-01-11", "page": 4, "text": "Board Member Cunningham motioned, seconded by Board Member Kohlstrand to shorten\nthe speaker time to 3 minutes per person. Motion passes 7-0-0.\nMr. Cantwell, shopping center neighbor, proposed that perhaps more landscaping to muffle\nnoise at the perimeter of the shopping center.\nMr. Wullschleger, Alameda resident, opposed the extended hours of operation and stated\nthat the current delivery trucks exceed speed limits when traveling through Alameda, and\nthey are excessively noisy.\nMs. Perrault, shopping center neighbor, stated that she has supported redevelopment at\nthe shopping center, but opposes extended hours of operation starting at 4 am, because\nthe noise impacts are too great to bear for the neighborhood.\nMr. Morris, shopping center neighbor, seconds previous comments and opposes extended\nhours of operation starting at 4 am.\nMr. Halpern, shopping center neighbor, opposes extended hours of operation starting at 4\nam.\nMs. Gould, shopping center neighbor, opposes extended hours of operation starting at 4\nam and rebutted the claim that perishables would spoil if delivered at a later time, since\nthey are transported in refrigerated trucks. She stated that the truck deliveries in the early\nmorning hours, were 18-wheeler trucks. She cautioned that enforcement is necessary and\naccountability must be expected.\nMs. Sellers, Alameda resident, opposes extended hours of operation due to noise impacts\non the community and rebutted arguments in the staff report.\nMs. Saxty, Alameda resident, opposes extended hours of operation due to noise impacts\non the community.\nMr. Radding, Alameda Neighbors Unites representative, opposes extended hours of\noperation and stated that Safeway should not be rewarded with additional hours of\noperation, since they have not abided by their current approvals.\nMs. Risley, Alameda resident, stated that Safeway should not be rewarded with extended\nhours of operation when they consistently violate current approvals and Municipal Code.\nMr. Barber, shopping center neighbor, opposes extended hours of operation due to the\nsignificant noise created by the delivery trucks and the associated unloading of\nmerchandise.\nMr. Libby, Alameda resident, opposes extended hours of operation and stated the volume\nof deliveries could be delivered during normal business hours, without impacting the\nbusinesses and that the quality of life needs to be maintained.\nMr. Powell, shopping center neighbor, opposes extended hours of operation.\nPage 4 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-01-11", "page": 5, "text": "Mr. Helperin, Alameda resident, opposes extended hours of operation and stated that the\nPlanning Board should go a step further and require that the delivery trucks not be allowed\nto come to Alameda before 6 am.\nMs. Radding, Alameda Neighbors Unites representative, reiterated the group's frustration\nwith Planning Board decisions that have always benefited the businesses instead of the\nquality of life of those that live near the shopping center. She urged the Planning Board to\ndeny the expanded hours of operation.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft closed the public comment period.\nMr. Paradise, Safeway Real Property Manager, responded to the comments made by the\npublic. He stated that smaller delivery trucks would be quieter and that a later delivery\nhours would have other negative impacts, such as trucks would need to come to Alameda\ntwice in a day in order to keep their deliveries on schedule.\nBoard Member Lynch favors denial of the Use Permit and asked that the public not make\npersonal attacks on staff or the Board for recommendations or decisions reached in the\npast.\nBoard Member Zuppan favors denial of the Use Permit and seconded the speakers'\ncomments on the detrimental impact of noise on sleeping and neurological development,\nand added that Safeway has shown some disrespect to the City by not remaining in\ncompliance with the current conditions of approval and other city regulations.\nBoard Member Cook stated she was not in favor of the use permit request because she\ndoes not feel the findings for approval can be made and does not feel that the type and\nnumber of trucks that will be coming to Safeway have been accurately projected.\nVice-President Autorino favors denial of the permit, but cautioned the neighbors that\ndevelopment and expansion of the shopping center is inevitable.\nBoard Member Cunningham favors denial of the permit on the basis that the required\nfinding for approval, especially finding number one, cannot be made.\nBoard Member Kohlstrand favors denial of the application and suggested that the City\nshould start imposing monetary fines to enforce the regulations as set forth in the Municipal\nCode and the use permit conditions.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the previous comments supporting the denial of the use\npermit. She suggested that the Planning Board and staff review opportunities for planting\nadditional vegetation that could buffer shopping center noises for residents along Otis Drive\nand the lagoon or possibly review such opportunities in the Master Tree Plan.\nBoard Member Lynch stated that staff should ensure that the Master Fee schedule is\namended to include a \"monitoring fee' that could be used to fund time staff spends\nmonitoring or investigating code complaints that a project is not in compliance with\nconditions of approval. This was seconded by other members of the board.\nPage 5 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-01-11", "page": 6, "text": "Board Member Cunningham motioned, seconded by Board Member Kohlstrand, to deny\nthe additional truck delivery hours. Motion to deny the use permit request is approved on a\nvote of 7-0-0.\n9-C Zoning Text Amendment - Medical Marijuana Dispensaries - Applicant: City\nof Alameda. A proposed text amendment to amend the Alameda Municipal\nCode to prohibit establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries within the City\nof Alameda.\nStaff presented the proposed ordinance.\nBoard Member Cook asked whether pharmacies could dispense medical marijuana. Staff\ncommented that it was not aware of any pharmacy that included this as an elements of\ntheir operation and was not familiar with laws governing the operation of pharmacies.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft opened the public comment period.\nMs. Arbuckle, Alameda resident, spoke in support of allowing medical marijuana\ndispensaries within Alameda and requested that the Planning Board recommend that the\nCity Council adopt an ordinance allowing such dispensaries.\nMr. Hausman, Alameda resident, spoke in support of allowing medical marijuana\ndispensaries and cited that crime statistics do not speak in favor of an outright prohibition.\nShe added that careful regulations could be drafted that would mitigate potential impacts to\na community.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft closed the public comment period.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft shared her field observations from a visit to a medical marijuana\ndispensary in the City of Oakland.\nBoard Member Cunningham asked Ms. Faiz, City Attorney, if the City has legal grounds to\nprohibit medical marijuana dispensaries.\nMs. Faiz, City Attorney, stated that California has passed several laws that decriminalize\nsmoking and cultivating marijuana, but there is not a mandate allowing dispensaries.\nBoard Member Kohlstrand felt this topic warranted a careful discussion amongst board\nmembers and stated that prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries may be a disservice to\nthe community without further debate on the issue.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft stated that changes are afoot in the State Assembly and that there\nwould be more guidance and regulations in the future, plus she understood that a measure\nregarding medical marijuana would be on a future ballot in California.\nBoard Member Cook asked that staff clarify the moratorium timeframe.\nStaff stated that the moratorium could only be extended one more time and even with such\nan extension, would end in November 2010. It is staff's intention to have something\nestablished in the Municipal Code prior to the end of the moratorium.\nPage 6 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-01-11", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Cunningham asked if the City Council could provide more direction on how\nthey want the Board and staff to develop an ordinance and if an indication on the outcome\nhad been provided.\nBoard Member Lynch stated that the Board is being asked to make a policy decision, when\nthat is typically set by the City Council, not a Planning Board, which deals with land use\nissues. He stated that he was not comfortable making that policy decision. He suggested\nthat the City Council should provide some guidance, and following that, the Board and staff\ncould develop an ordinance that is tailored to Alameda's needs.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked for more information on the dispensaries, such as crime\nstatistics, more feedback from the Police Department, and more input from the business\ncommunity.\nVice-President Autorino seconded Lynch's comments and stated that he would not be\nready to make a recommendation on the proposed ordinance.\nBoard Member Cook stated that she would like more direction from the City Council before\nconsidering whether to develop regulations that would ensure medical marijuana\ndispensaries were being operated in an appropriate manner.\nBoard Member Kohlstrand stated that she anticipates that it will be difficult to find a suitable\nlocation for such uses in Alameda.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked staff for direction on how best to proceed at this point since\nthe Board appeared to be seeking further direction from the City Council.\nStaff stated that the Planning Board could recommend the ordinance to City Council, which\nthen makes its own decision. Should the City Council disagree with the ordinance, it would\nremand the ordinance for further review to the Planning Board. This would be the quickest\nway to receive some form of policy direction.\nBoard Member Lynch stated that the Planning Board could pass a motion by which the\nBoard could ask City Council to respond to specific questions that would clarify policy\ndirection.\nStaff recommended that the Board make a motion, either approval or denial, on the\nproposed ordinance and recommend the proposed ordinance with individual comments\nexpressing the Board's concerns.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked whether the Board could recommend an extension to the\nmoratorium, to allow additional time to work on the ordinance, while also requesting\ndirection from the City Council that would shape the nature of the ordinance.\nBoard Member Kohlstrand stated that the ordinance has not received proper public\ndiscussion.\nBoard Member Cunningham raised concerns that the proposed ordinance is not in keeping\nPage 7 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-01-11", "page": 8, "text": "with the Attorney General's findings and that this leads him to believe that there is\ninsufficient information to make a decision.\nMs. Faiz, City Attorney, pointed out that the Guidelines issued by the Attorney General are\nnot binding law, just guidelines.\nBoard Member Kohlstrand asked whether the Board could approve an outright ban when\nthe policy direction from the City Council is still unknown.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the Board could continue the item, while the Board awaits\npolicy direction from City Council and staff gathers more information.\nStaff stated that the Board could continue the item, but that the Council is awaiting the\nBoard's response to assist them with making their decision.\nVice-President Autorino motioned, seconded by Board member Cunningham to extend the\nmeeting until 11:10 pm. Motion passes 7-0.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the difference between medical\nmarijuana co-operative and collective dispensaries.\nMs. Faiz, City Attorney, clarified the respective code sections.\nBoard Member Cook asked whether the Planning Board could request an extension of the\nmoratorium to allow sufficient time to consider whether to revise the ordinance.\nStaff suggested recommending approval or denial of the proposed ordinance.\nVice-President Autorino stated the Board should ask for an extension of the moratorium\nand develop an ordinance that would allow and regulate the dispensaries, as opposed to an\noutright ban. He also added the Board should ask the Council for direction.\nBoard Member Cook suggested that the Planning Board, staff of the Police Department,\nSocial Services, and the City Attorney work together to develop an appropriate set of\nregulations if the Council extends the moratorium to allow further consideration.\nBoard Member Lynch stated that the City Council should be asked whether or not a\nmoratorium should be extended and if it should be extended, what type of regulations\nshould be developed.\nThe Planning Board recommended that the City Council refer the matter back to the\nPlanning Board for further deliberation and hearings to allow time for preparation of a draft\nordinance that might allow a limited number of dispensaries in carefully controlled locations\nand under certain limited conditions.\nVice-President Autorino motioned, seconded by Board member Cunningham, to\nrecommend that the City Council reject the ordinance banning medical marijuana\ndispensaries within the City of Alameda, refer development of an ordinance that allows\nmedical marijuana dispensaries in Alameda back to staff and the Planning Board, and\nextend the moratorium prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries to allow for sufficient\nPage 8 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-01-11", "page": 9, "text": "time to develop an ordinance allowing them. Motion passes as amended 7-0.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nMs. Kerr submitted comments on the minutes of the Planning Board of September 28,\n2009.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft spoke about Ms. Latisha Jackson, former Executive Assistant to\nthe Planning Department, who passed away recently from breast cancer. She extended the\nBoard's sympathies to Ms. Jackson's family.\n12. ADJOURNMENT:\n11:10 p.m.\nPage 9 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-01-11.pdf"}