{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-01-09", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, JANUARY 9, 2012\n7:00 p.m.\n1. CONVENE:\n7:05 P.M.\n2. FLAG SALUTE:\nBoard Member Kohlstrand\n3. ROLL CALL:\nPresent: President Ezzy Ashcraft, Vice-President Autorino, Board\nmembers Burton, Henneberry, Kohlstrand. Zuppan.\n4. MINUTES:\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of October 24. 2011.\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of November 28.2011. (Pending)\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of December 12.2011. (Pending)\n5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft made a motion to move Agenda Item # 11 \"Board\nCommunications\" up to the top of the agenda since Board member Zuppan was not\npresent and was unavailable to approve the draft minutes.\nVice-President Autorino made a motion to move Agenda Item # 11 up to the top of the\nagenda.\nBoard member Henneberry seconded the motion.\nThe motion was approved 5-0.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft added one other agenda change. Item 9-A was taken off the\nagenda list because the application was withdrawn.\nVice-President Autorino made a motion to remove Item 9-A off the agenda.\nBoard member Henneberry seconded the motion.\nThe motion was approved 5-0.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft explained that Board member Kohlstrand would be leaving\nthe Planning Board. She read a resolution from the City of Alameda recognizing Board\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 1 of 14\nJanuary 9, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-01-09", "page": 2, "text": "member Kohlstrand's accomplishments.\n6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nWritten Report\n6-A\nFuture Agendas\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, reported on the future agenda items. The\nnext hearing dated January 23, 2012 would be a design review for 2004 Clinton Avenue\nand a speaker would make a presentation on universal design and housing. On\nFebruary 13, 2012, the Draft North Park Street Code and Draft Environmental Impact\nReport for the North Park Street Code would receive public comment. The February 27th\nhearing would review and take action on the architectural design for Building K,\nlandscape and open space plan for the Alameda Landing Project. Additionally, the Board\nwould comment on the Public Works Department's Prioritize List of Transportation\nProjects. On March 12th, the Board would review the housing element update; this\nwould be the second in a series of workshops. Mr. Thomas plans to have all the\nproposals for the Housing Amendment prior to the March 12th meeting. Furthermore, he\nplans to have the draft amendments to the public art resolution before the March 26th\nmeeting.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked Mr. Thomas to give a brief update on the redevelopment\nprocess after the state dismantled all redevelopment agencies.\nMr. Thomas replied Alameda Landing is dependent on redevelopment, but he asked\nDebbie Potter to further explain the situation.\nDebbie Potter, Manager of Alameda Housing Development and Programs, reported on\nthe outcome of redevelopment agencies. She explained that all agencies must be\ndissolved by February 1, 2012 and the City is unable to replace redevelopment with an\noptional or new program. So, a number of cities and counties have looked into\ndesignating a successor agency or housing agency once the dissolution is in effect. On\nJanuary 4th, the City of Alameda became the selector agency and the Alameda Housing\nAgency will be the successor for the housing in Alameda.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked are there any projects in Alameda that would be in\njeopardy or would be halted.\nMs. Potter stated that the City and the Redevelopment Agency had to identify all of its\nenforceable obligations. Once the enforceable obligations are identified, then they are\nable to move forward. The Alameda Landing, Boatworks, and Islander Motel projects are\nenforceable obligations and can move forward. However, there is a move in the state\nlegislature to postpone the dissolution from February 1 in order to buy a little time to\nbetter manage the unwinding of the agencies.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 2 of 14\nJanuary 9, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-01-09", "page": 3, "text": "President Ezzy Ashcraft asked staff to provide an update of the redevelopment process\nlater this year.\nBoard member Kohlstrand stated that Tax Increment Financing funds redevelopment\nand would that now go into the general fund.\nMs. Potter replied that the Tax Increment Financing monies would go back to the county\nand the county would establish a trust fund. The money would then pass through\nagreements and any extra money would be distributed through all the tax entities that\nreceive a share of the property tax. She further explained that the City of Alameda is\nactually a low tax jurisdiction so the City wouldn't receive a significant amount back to\nthe general fund.\n7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n8. CONSENT CALENDAR:\nNone.\n9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A. PLN11-0372 - 1537 Webster Street. The applicant seeks a use permit to\noperate a tattoo business within an existing 2-story commercial building. The\nproposed business will serve customers by appointment and walk-in service daily\nfrom noon to 10 pm with five employees per shift. Retail sales will be limited to\njewelry and store branded fashion accessories.\nThe application was withdrawn.\n9-B. Development Plan Amendment, Master Street Plan Amendment and\nEnvironmental Impact Addendum Applications- PLN11-0328, AT TRACT\n7884 (Alameda Landing) Applicant: Catellus Alameda Development, LLC. A\nproposed Development Plan and Master Street Plan amendment to construct an\napproximately 23 acre retail center with eleven buildings and associated parking,\nlandscape and street improvements including the extension of 5th Street and Mitchell\nStreet. The site is located north of Stargell Avenue, south of Mitchell Street, west of\nMariner Square Loop and east of the 5th Street extension in western Alameda.\nMr. Thomas presented a staff report on the Alameda Landing Development Plan\nAmendment in response to November 28th's public workshop. He provided a one-page\nmemorandum about the traffic study conducted and included supplemental information\nabout levels of service. He brought up critical questions that were raised by the Board\nduring the November 28th hearing, which was how the interface would work with\nbuildings along 5th Street and the planned residential development across the street.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 3 of 14\nJanuary 9, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-01-09", "page": 4, "text": "Sean Whiskeman, VP of Development at Catellus Corporation, gave a schedule update.\nBoard member Henneberry asked Mr. Thomas about Building A in the Alameda\nLanding's Environmental Impact Report whether it would be a grocery store.\nMr. Thomas replied that the Urban Decay Analysis looked at how the project's potential\nimpact could create blight and cause smaller stores to close. If Catellus pursues\ntenanting Building A as a grocer, then they would have to work with the City and both\nparties would have to jointly agree to amend the Retail Tenanting Strategy approve in\n2006.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked Mr. Whiskeman if the range of retail that Catellus is\nlooking to include into the retail center consistent with page 5 of the staff report.\nMr. Whiskeman replied yes that the tenants would include electronics, health and\nbeauty, home improvements, home accessories, restaurants, and more.\nBoard member Henneberry stated the use of Building A as a grocery store is a a big\nissue for many people. He asked if Catellus decided to pursue including a grocery store\nin the retail center weather the issue would come before the Planning Board in addition\nto the City Council.\nMr. Thomas said the Planning Board could comment on the decision and the comments\nwould be taken to the Economic Development Commission and then the City Council.\nBoard member Henneberry replied that it could be construed as a planning issue and\nshould come to the Board for review.\nFarimah Faiz, City Deputy Attorney, reaffirmed Mr. Thomas' comments, which stated\nthat the Board could make comments and the comments would be routed to the City\nCouncil.\nBoard member Kohlstrand asked Mr. Whiskeman to summarize the site plan changes\nfrom the last Board meeting.\nMr. Whiskeman replied that the bicycle circulation and pedestrian connections that are\npresent along the buildings' entrances on 5th Street Buildings were discussed and the\ndesign team felt they followed up with the Board's comments. The backside of Building K\nwas another concern and they addressed the issue with some design concepts to help\nthe Board make their final recommendation.\nPresident Ezzy Askchraft called for the Board to make a motion to limit public comments\nto three minutes.\nVice-President Autorino made a motion to limit public comments to three minutes.\nThe motion was seconded by Board member Kohlstrand.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 4 of 14\nJanuary 9, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-01-09", "page": 5, "text": "The motion was approved 6-0.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft called for public comment.\nPatrick Corder, Member of the Alameda Firefighters local 689 and Alameda resident,\nspoke against Target selling groceries.\nDoug Biggs, Alameda resident and representative of the Alameda Point Collaborative,\napproved the development plan amendment made by Catellus. He believes that the\nlandscaping plan should incorporate climate appropriate, drought tolerant and locally\ngrown plants possibly provided by Ploughshares Nursery.\nDominic Weaver, Alameda resident, stated that the development that was being\nconsidered is very important to the City's economic development, but he was opposed to\nthe Target Supercenter aspect.\nErwin Hiptch, representative of Local 2850 Food Workers Union, explained that he would\nlike the site plan to be further looked into.\nWilhelmina Slater, Alameda resident and member Local 2850 Food Workers Union,\nexplained that she supports the small business and worries about the creation of\nvehicular traffic around the site.\nTony Daysog, Alameda resident, said that there are major issues at play such as\neconomic issues and blight impacts, but he felt the project would help bring economic\nprogress and employment opportunities. He encouraged the Board to analyze the\neconomic development portion of the project and vote to move the project forward.\nDough Bloch, member of Teamsters Joint Council 7, thought this project was a bit\ndifficult because the union supports economic development, but the grocery store\ncomponent was a direct threat to the City's grocers.\nKaren Bey, Alameda resident, stated that the size of the Target is too large and she\nwould like to see a smaller footprint of about 85,000 to 90,000 square feet. Her main\nconcern was to not kill off other retail districts such as Alameda South Shore Center and\nMarina Village. She explained that the retail center's total footage would be 300,000\nsquare feet and Target's footprint would be 140,0000 square feet and that would not\nallow enough space for waterfront retail. Regarding Target's design, she wanted the\ndesign to fit the neighborhood and the waterfront. Therefore, Catellus should complete a\nfull master plan for the area, which includes a marketing strategy that fits in with the\ndevelopment plan. Lastly, she did not want to see a grocery store in the Target store.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked Ms. Bay to explain her request to have a marketing\nstrategy included in the development plan.\nMs. Bey referred to the staff report's executive summary, where Catellus would present\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 5 of 14\nJanuary 9, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-01-09", "page": 6, "text": "square feet of retail, so Catellus can explain why they chose Target's size. He went on to\nexplain that the intent of the retail center was to create a format for large stores in order\nto bring in goods and services that are not found within the City.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked a Target representative to come up and explain whether\nTarget would sell groceries and if so how much space would be devoted to groceries.\nJohn Dewes, Target's Regional Development Manager, addressed the Target store format\nquestion. He explained that less than 10% of the store's floor area would contain groceries.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft emphasized the need to have an appropriate waterfront design.\nShe asked Mr. Whiskerman to reply to Ms. Bay's comments about the full master plan\nand to describe the waterfront plan.\nMr. Whiskeman exclaimed that the retail component was the first piece to the Alameda\nLanding project and the residential phase would follow. Catellus views the retail as the\ndriver to building the streets and building the core component in order to activate the\nwaterfront area. They are establishing the framework for the waterfront area to fit in once\nthey complete the retail and the residential phases.\nBoard member Kohlstrand replied although Mr. Dewes touched on the retail that is\ncoming first, there is a component north of Mitchell Avenue that is unclear. She went on\nto ask if it's their intent to include retail on 5th Street all the way up to the water.\nMr. Whiskeman stated that additional retail would be part of the waterfront.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft called for the Board to comment.\nBoard member Henneberry asked Mr. Thomas about the Supplement Environmental\nImpact Report. He stated that it addressed the urban decay issues as a lead into the\nretail leakage and the harm to grocery stores was considered very low. He questioned\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 6 of 14\nJanuary 9, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-01-09", "page": 7, "text": "whether there was additional analysis conducted in order to know if the Target store\nwould reduce every grocery stores' base operations such as reducing store hours or the\nnumber of employees.\nMr. Thomas replied that Amy Herman would be able to explain more about the urban\ndecay analysis. The objective of the analysis was to see if stores in the City would close\ndue to the construction of Alameda Landing's retail center and the conclusion was no.\nAmy Herman. ALH Urban and Regional Economics and author of the Alameda Landing\nUrban Decay Analysis, explained that Mr. Thomas gave a good summary of the findings.\nThe report's findings indicated a low impact level of impact that was not severe enough\nto cause stores to close and some stores show an over performance to industry\naverages. Furthermore, the standard of decay is the closure of a store for a long enough\nperiod of time to which conditions of decay (blight) would start to materialize.\nBoard member Kohlstrand referred to the staff report on page 7 (indicated by red arrows)\nand attachment 1. She wanted assurance that the buildings fronting 5th Street, which\nshowed according to the cross section a wide sidewalk between the two buildings and\nbetween 5th Street does not have cars parked in that area.\nMr. Thomas replied that parking is not intended for that area, but the markings may show\na form of public art or other demarcation of the sidewalk leading people up to the water.\nBoard member Kohlstrand referred to the staff report on page 6b, section C to the upper\nleft hand side. She wanted to know if the bike lane is really inside the sidewalk.\nMr. Thomas stated the illustration contained a typo and the sidewalk and bike lane were\nmislabeled.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft referred to page 4, Buildings D and H and exclaimed that either\nside of the passage way did not have bicycle parking.\nMr. Thomas replied that staff could create a condition to include visitor bicycle racks for\nBuildings D and H.\nMr. Whiskeman was willing to include bicycle racks near Buildings D and H and he would\nwelcome additional comments as the project evolves.\nBoard member Henneberry stated there are 5 findings that the Board must agree on and\nurban decay is a great portion of the findings. He would like Ms. Herman to explain the\nurban decay analysis and findings again.\nMr. Thomas pointed out that Board member Henneberry was looking for the retail\ncenter's development impact on other grocery stores, but objective of the urban analyses\nwas to review the retail center's impact on causing stores to close and remain closed.\nMs. Herman replied that the analysis also looked at the potential for stores to be\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 7 of 14\nJanuary 9, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-01-09", "page": 8, "text": "released to other tenants. She mentioned the fact that Alameda has a low vacancy rate\nand strong retail market.\nBoard member Henneberry wanted to know how Ms. Herman produced the figures for\nthe analysis.\nMs. Herman explained that she purchased a database from a provider and they gave\nestimates of the sales for various stores of the trade area. She used that information and\nthe square footage information to conduct her calculations. She was not able to publish\nthe data that was provided by the company due to a confidentiality agreement.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether the data was current.\nMs. Herman stated that she purchased the data in the fall of 2011.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft gave an overview of the Board's requirements in order to\napprove the draft resolution.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft commented on the fact that she would like to capture the sales\ntax leakage that is being sent to other Target stores. She would also be comfortable at\ncapping Target's percentage of nontaxable goods per the total square feet at 10%.\nBoard member Kohlstrand explained that she is comfortable with the way Target is\ndescribed, including the amount of groceries that are placed inside the store and the\ndesign of the bicycle and pedestrian circulation. She mentioned the only areas of\nconcern were when pedestrians moved along 5th Street to the north and then moved\nalong the Target store. She had issues with the treatment there and the fact that there is\nparking adjacent to 5th Street. Additionally, she was concerned with the treatment of the\nloading dock on Building A because they are putting a loading dock right near the\npedestrian pathway. Furthermore, she referred to page 3, the Pedestrian Circulation\nsection, when pedestrians move away from Building G to Building K and head to the\ncrosswalk the design team should maintain a consist width of the sidewalks. Finally, she\nneeded clarification on how pedestrians and bicyclists would cross the segment of\nMariner Square Loop safely since the pedestrian and bike circulation stops right at the\nedge of the property.\nMr. Thomas replied that staff would continue to work on that issue and one of the\nconditions is to work with the property owner, Ms. Cathy Wagner, and Catellus.\nVice-President Autorino agreed with Board member Kohlstrand and he believes the\nproject will be an economic generator and create a dynamic part of the west end of\nAlameda.\nBoard member Zuppan referred to the diagrams on pages 5a and 5b that highlights the\ntraffic and turn lanes. Within the last diagram on page 5b, the northwest corner where\n5th Street and Mitchell Avenue meet do not have turn lanes going over to the left at\nMitchell Avenue or going by the Village Green turning left where the Target store would\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 8 of 14\nJanuary 9, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-01-09", "page": 9, "text": "be. She wondered why there isn't a turn lane when it's labeled a turn lane and why\nwouldn't it be necessary to have a left turn lane there.\nMr. Thomas agreed that the diagram showing the Village Green does not have a turn\nlane.\nDan Schaefer, Principal at BKF Engineers, stated that section 1c is mislabeled so there\nis no turn lane or bus stop at section 1c. He mentioned turn lanes are included in areas\nwhere sections are signalized. The Village Green are is not a signalized intersection, so\ncars would wait for a gap then go.\nBoard member Zuppan stated that the development through the village would most likely\nhave bicyclists ride in and out of the area.\nMr. Schaefer explained to Board member Zuppan that the section would be stop\ncontrolled with a stop sign going eastbound.\nBoard member Burton mentioned that the intersection was spoken about in the last\nmeeting and the fact there is no turning lane is a problem. He doesn't believe people will\nbe driving from the main street that is being created in the middle of the project to get to\nthe Target store. So, for the plan to not have a turning lane on 5th Street at the\nintersection by the entrance of the Target store will cause traffic problems.\nBoard member Kohlstrand asked Board member Burton where he would add a turn lane.\nBoard member Burton exclaimed that drivers heading down Mitchell Avenue going from\neast to west and would turn down onto 5th Street and then turn into the Target store.\nBoard member Kohlstrand stated that the Mariner Square Loop and coming along\nStargell Avenue and then all the way up to the axis point would be the main traffic\nissues. She asked Mr. Shaver if his numbers showed that.\nMatthew Ridgway, Fehr and Peers, stated that it is exactly what the numbers are\nsuggesting and people would prefer to come in at Mariner Square Loop and Stargell\nAvenue because that is the most direct path of travel.\nBoard member Zuppan asked Mr. Ridgeway if they estimated the traffic volume of\ndrivers turning from 5th Street at that intersection into the residential development in the\nfuture.\nMr. Ridgway replied there were 65 left hand turns into the residential area on the other\nside of 5th Street during the PM peak hours and the volumes didn't represent a problem\nin terms of service.\nBoard member Zuppan referred to page 6a with the examples of the plaque inserts she\nasked if the markings were suggestions of what the treatments could be.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 9 of 14\nJanuary 9, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-01-09", "page": 10, "text": "Board member Kohlstrand also referred to page 6a in section b on the right hand side.\nShe wanted clarification on why it stated private sidewalk and public sidewalk.\nMr. Thomas stated the dimensions are correct, but the labels between private and public\nare reversed.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft referred page 8 of 15 under the Bicycle Circulation and\nFacilities. There are three bullet points and the first bullet point under the last sentence\nstates \"All bicycle lanes are 5' feet wide and parallel parking spaces are 8' feet wide.\nWhen she last talked to Mr. Thomas, she wanted to know what the two have to do with\neach other.\nMr. Thomas replied there is an 8' foot-parking lane and a 5' foot bike lane with a total of\n13' feet. The real issue was brought up by Lucy Gigli, President of BikeAlameda\nregarding bicyclists encroaching into the door zone.\nObaid Khan, City of Alameda Supervising Civil Engineer, stated in a commercial area\nlike 5th Street staff recommends not using wide edge line usually seen as a bike lane by\nitself and a stripe with an edge line running parallel that defines the parking lane. One of\nthe ideas staff is promoting under Alameda's Bicycle Design Guidelines is to extend the\nT's along the parking area into the bike lane to define the door zone. The practice has\nbeen implemented in the city of Oakland and has been helpful. He included the design\ninto the Design Guidelines and the Board will be able to review the guidelines soon.\nBoard member Burton stated he is glad to see the Board's comments incorporated into\nthe new plan. He referred to page 3 the Pedestrian Circulation Plan where the\npedestrian can access Buildings F to Building A on the east edge of the property. The\nillustration shows the secondary pedestrian circulation hugging the property, but he\nsuggested flipping the secondary circulation on to the other side of the major axis along\nthere. So, instead of pedestrians coming out of Building F and coming down the row of\ncompact parking spaces, there should be a walkway along there in order to eliminate the\npedestrian trying to cross in front of the loading zone and reduce pedestrians coming in\noff of Stargell Avenue. Regarding the Bicycle Circulation section, he was pleased to see\nbicycles going through the center or main street of the project, but he would like to get a\nbike lane to the front of the Target or Building A. He suggested a condition to the bike-\nparking plan, which would state that secure and well-lit bike parking, shall be required\nwithin visual proximity to the entrance of all buildings. Furthermore, he suggested that\ndeliveries to the loading zone in Building A be limited for to non-store hours.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the building has the potential to be divided into three\ndifferent spaces and the loading zone illustrated would cross the pedestrian pathway.\nMr. Thomas stated that staff and design team looked at the loading zone conflict and\nsome debated whether to remove the crosswalks altogether. However, Alameda South\nShore Center's loading does occur off hours and Board member Burton's suggestion of\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 10 of 14\nJanuary 9, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-01-09", "page": 11, "text": "moving the sidewalk over helps eliminate the issue. So, the Board should condition staff\nto continue working on that issue.\nBoard member Burton stated that he would like the building images in the staff report to\nbe more progressive. He also discouraged including a large entry element at the\nentrance of the Target store, which was discussed at last meeting by the design team.\nBoard member Henneberry stated that Article 14 of the City Charter remands the\nimprovement and beautification of the City to the Planning Board and that is something\nthe Board should keep in mind. He believes they failed to discuss the store's scale and\nthe grocery aspect, which he believes will impact Alameda grocers. He would support a\nmotion for Target to operate under conditional use, which they can sell 0 percent\ngroceries with the exception of pharmaceutical products.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft referred to page 11 of 15 under the Building Design section and\nshe is happy that the builders are attempting some type of LEED status. She asked the\nteam whether they talked about incorporating photovoltaic materials in the building. She\nalso referred to page 11 of 15, the Parking Design section to which she needed\nclarification about the rideshare spaces.\nMr. Thomas said the rideshare spaces are designated for carpool or vanpool parking.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft acknowledged the project's overall economic benefits to the City\nand called Board member Henneberry to phrase the motion.\nBoard member Henneberry called a motion for the new Target store to operate under\nconditional use where they can sell zero percent of nontaxable goods with the exception\nof pharmaceutical products.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft explained the motion failed for lack of a second.\nBoard member Kohlstrand recommended creating a condition to require Target to sell\neither less than 10% non-taxable goods or up to 10% of nontaxable goods per the\nstore's total square footage. She asked Mr. Thomas to see if that was feasible.\nMargo Bradish, Partner of Cox, Castle and Nicholson LLP and Council to Catellus,\nexplained that the Alameda Landing Development Agreement states that anything you\ncannot do by ordinance you cannot do by condition. Thus, the Board could not restrict\nTarget from selling 10% of nontaxable goods.\nMr. Dewes replied that Target was under 10% of nontaxable goods and the company\ncame into the City because they knew they would have the retail flexibility under the\nCity's ordinance. However, he would be willing to make a concession to cap the sale of\nnontaxable goods to 10% for up to 5 years.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether Target store would consider increasing the\namount of nontaxale goods after the 5-year cap.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 11 of 14\nJanuary 9, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-01-09", "page": 12, "text": "Mr. Dewes replied that a fair comprise would be to have a cap of up to 3 to 5 years\nbecause after 5 years the market and state regulations may have changed, and that\ncompromises Target's retail flexibility.\nMr. Thomas replied to Board member Kohlstrand's question about the Board's ability to\ncondition the project. The current City/Catellus agreement says that the City doesn't\nwant a grocery store on this site, so the condition could be imposed.\nBoard member Zuppan raised a need to include a condition regarding lighting on the site\nplan to protect wildlife at night.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked Mr. Thomas to list the conditions.\nMr. Thomas reported on the resolution of approval, which contains 78 conditions on\nattachment 3. Based on the Board's comments, the following conditions were added: (1)\nadd bike racks to Buildings G and H, including Board member Burton comment about\nvisible bicycle facilities near the buildings' entrances; (2) widen the pedestrian path that\nleads from building G to Building K; (3) relook at the sidewalk crossings with the loading\ndock as part of the design review for Building A and review Board member Burton's\nsuggestion to improve the sidewalk from Building A to F; (4) relook at the design review\nfor Building K to see if there are options for redesigning the parking options along 5th\nStreet and increase the aesthetics; (5) review the lighting plan and amend the language\nwith Board member Zuppan's comments; (6) amend the typos in the staff report's\nillustrations.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked Mr. Dewes what would happen after Target's nontaxable\ngoods cap expired.\nMr. Dewes replied that Target could do as they initially were proposing to do since they\nmade a concession to cap the nontaxable goods for 5 years\nBoard member Henneberry stated that Target would be willing to operate under the 10%\ncap for up to 5 years and after that it would be business as usual. He asked if other cities\ncap Target's nontaxable good sales.\nMr. Dewes replied there are stores where nontaxable good sales are limited.\nBoard member Kohlstrand made a motion to adopt the resolution with the six\namendments provided by Mr. Thomas and included the condition to cap Target's\nnontaxable sales floor area at 10% for up to 5 years.\nBoard member Henneberry seconded the motion.\nThe motion was approved 5-1. (Board member Henneberry opposed)\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 12 of 14\nJanuary 9, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-01-09", "page": 13, "text": "9-C. Recommend Approval to the City Council to Remove One Three-Inch Diameter\nLiquidambar and Replace with One 15-gallon Japanese Maple in Conjunction with\nthe Dublin Sewer Pump Station Backup Generator Installation Project, No. P.W. 04-\n10-10.\nThe presentation of the staff report was not needed and the Board moved to vote on the\nitem.\nVice-President Autorino made a motion to approve the removal of the one three-inch\ndiameter Liquidambar and replace the item with one 15-gallon Japanese Maple in\nconjunction with the Dublin Sewer Pump Station Backup Generator Installation Project.\nBoard member Henneberry seconded the motion.\nThe motion was approved 6-0.\n9-D. Approval to Add Three Tree Species, from the Master Street Tree Plan's Tree List, to\nthe Planting Palette for the Park Street Corridor North of Clinton Avenue.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft reported on the three tree species, October Glory Maple, Silver\nLinden, and Brisbane Box, would be added to the list.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft called for public comment.\nMs. Gottstein asked if the trees' removal was placed on the general agenda rather than\nthe consent calendar because they had to be.\nMr. Spangler stated that it is ironic that the City is proposing the removal of two more\ntrees that met the City's old guidelines after they clear cut a number of trees that made\nthe public upset. He believes this entire project was not publically in a timely fashion\nprior to its most recent approval phase and it shouldn't have gone out without this\nreview.\nMatt Naclerio Alameda Public Works Director explained that the Gingko and Crape\nMyrtle trees were kept because they were consistent with the tree landscape. However,\nthe new landscape architecture proposal does not include the planted trees. Although\nthe trees could be replanted somewhere else, they may not survive.\nVice-President Autorino asked if the removal of the trees is worth the potential bad press\nfrom the result of the removal.\nMr. Naclerio stated that staff has worked with the City Manager's office and they are\nsupportive of the tree removal. The included the potential public backlashes from the\nproject in the staff report. So, they will speak to the public or the public can inquire about\nthe removal.\nBoard member Kohlstrand stated that the item's title doesn't bring up anything about\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 13 of 14\nJanuary 9, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-01-09", "page": 14, "text": "trees being removed and there seems to be some inconsistency.\nMr. Naclerio replied that any trees on City property or private property must come to the\nPlanning Board. So, as a plan of caution, staff brought item 9c to the Board.\nBoard member Kohlstrand agreed to all Board member Autorino's comments and felt the\nremoval should be brought up in the agenda.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft agreed.\nBoard member Zuppan supported the selection of the new trees, but she believes the\nCity has spent enough money on removing trees.\nBoard member Zuppan made a motion to pass the resolution without removing the\nexisting trees.\nBoard member Burton seconded the motion.\nThe motion was approved 5-1.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\n12. ADJOURNMENT:\n10:50 PM\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 14 of 14\nJanuary 9, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-01-09.pdf"}