{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-03-09", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, MARCH 9, 2015\n1. CONVENE:\n7:04 P.M.\n2. FLAG SALUTE:\nBoard Member Tang led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL:\nPresent: President Henneberry, Vice President Alvarez and\nBoard Members Burton, Knox White, K\u00f6ster (arrived at 7:25\nPM) and Tang. Absent: Board Member Zuppan.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR: None\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n7-A. 2015-1403\nHold a Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of an Administrative Use\nPermit to Allow Sale of Beer, Wine, and Spirits for Off-Site\nConsumption as an Accessory Use at the Existing Walgreens Store at\n1600 Park Street; and Adoption of Related Resolution.\nMr. Allen Tai, Planning Services Manager, gave the presentation. He explained that the\nagenda item was an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to grant a Use Permit to\nallow alcohol sales at Walgreens.\nBoard Member Burton asked Mr. Tai to compare the amount of space available for alcohol\nsales at Walgreens and the Pit Stop Market. Mr. Tai said that the Pit Stop Market, being a\nliquor store, has more liquor space.\nThe Board opened Public Comment:\nMr. Daniel Smith, representing, Walgreens, said that alcohol sales were very important to\nWalgreens business model. Walgreens' competitors sell alcohol and other items as well,\nand if his company could not sell alcohol, it will be at a competitive disadvantage. He said\nthat Walgreens closes at 10 PM, and sells types of alcohol that does not typically attract\nvagrants.\nMr. Ryan Shutt, the store manager of the Walgreens on Park Street, said that he manages\nthree stores and the Park Street location is his favorite. He said he sees his customers\nevery day, and any customers to whom Walgreens cannot not sell alcohol is a customer\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 1 of 8\nMarch 9, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-03-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-03-09", "page": 2, "text": "that he potentially loses.\nMr. Jaspal Sekhon, owner of the 7-11 across the street, opposed the project. He said that\nWalgreens is a big store that threatens the nine other liquor stores in the area. He said that\nthere are vagrancy issues in the area, as well as at South Shore Center. He reminded the\nBoard that the Zoning Administrator denied a similar use permit for the 76 gas station. He\nsaid that other cities have prohibited the sale of alcohol at downtown Walgreens locations.\nMs. Preethi Swetha, resident, said she supported the appeal. She said that big-name\nchains are convenient for the public, but they can have a negative impact on the small\nbusinesses in the area.\nMr. Dominic Carrion, Alameda resident, said he was a victim of a felony drunk driver about\neight years ago. He said that the City should be restricting, not increasing, alcohol sales.\nHe said he has nothing against Walgreens, but questioned the need for more places that\nsell alcohol in Alameda.\nMr. Dave Salazar, resident, said that many of the vagrants on Alameda come from\nOakland. Many of them come to Alameda in search of alcohol. He urged the board to\nreconsider the use permit, because vagrants negatively affect the quality of life in\nAlameda.\nMr. Joel Gutierrez said that big chains have a history of forcing smaller businesses to\nclose. He feared that a Walgreens that can sell alcohol on Park Street would lead to\nnegative effects on the businesses in the area.\nMr. Jerry Coulon stated his opposition to granting Walgreens a liquor license. He said that\npart of Alameda's charm is the small businesses on Park Street. He said he shops at\nWalgreens for many convenience items, but he said that he does not support alcohol sales\nfrom a big corporation.\nMr. Yagumeet Sindhu said that the Walgreens on Park Street made no economic sense.\nHe said that the Walgreens in San Leandro does not have a liquor license, and their sales\nare quite fine.\nThe Board closed public comment.\nBoard Member Knox White asked Mr. Tai about the description of this particular liquor\nlicense. Mr. Tai explained that this particular license allows for the sale of beer, wine, and\nspirits. Mr. Tai explained that other business on Park Street also have this type of liquor\nlicense.\nBoard Member Knox White asked if the Board had to make findings to make a decision.\nMr. Thomas explained that the Board should, for the record, make findings in order to\napprove or deny the liquor license. If the Planning Board cannot make findings, they\nshould state so for the record.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 2 of 8\nMarch 9, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-03-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-03-09", "page": 3, "text": "Board Member K\u00f6ster said that Walgreens is indeed convenient, but he thinks of the chain\nas a drugstore. He said he disagrees with the appellant's claim that alcohol sales would\nimpair the revitalization of Park Street, and suggested that the Board could call the Use\nPermit for review in a year if there are vagrancy issues. He agreed with Board Member\nKnox White that it could potentially have a negative effect on surrounding businesses, but\nsaid that the small businesses could reinvent their business model.\nBoard Member Tang asked Mr. Tai if any other stores in the area have a similar liquor\nlicense and operate later than 10 P.M. Mr. Tai responded that the appellant sells liquor\nafter 10 P.M, and the Walgreens on South Shore is open for 24 hours.\nBoard Member Tang asked if there are statistics regarding vagrancy at the Walgreens on\nPark Street. Mr. Tai said he talked to the Chief of Police, who said that the Police\nDepartment is not concerned about vagrancy at the Walgreens' store.\nBoard Member Burton said that the over-saturation of alcohol sales on Park Street is not\nan issue. He said that he understands the concerns of small businesses, but said that\nWalgreens sells other products as well. He said he would support bringing the Use Permit\nback for review in six months.\nVice President Alvarez said that she understood the feeling of big business competing\nagainst small business. She said that many other businesses, such as restaurants, are\nmoving into the area and would apply for liquor licenses.\nPresident Henneberry clarified that the Board denied liquor licenses on Webster Street\nbecause they were at gas stations. He also argued that the vagrancy issue is a policing\nissue and that he was in favor of bringing the Use Permit back for review in six months.\nBoard Member Burton motioned to uphold the Zoning Approval's decision, with the\ncondition bring the Use Permit for review six months after the beginning of sales. Vice\nPresident Alvarez seconded the motion. The motion carried, 4-2 (Board Members Knox\nWhite and K\u00f6ster voted against, Zuppan absent.)\n7-B 2015-1402\nAnnual Reviews: 1) Alameda Landing Mixed Used Project\nDevelopment Agreement and 2) Transportation Demand\nManagement Program - Applicant: Catellus Alameda\nDevelopment, LLC. The applicant requests a periodic review of two\nDevelopment Agreements and a Transportation Demand\nManagement Program (TDM) related to the Alameda Landing Mixed\nUse Residential Project and the Alameda Landing Mixed Use\nCommercial Project.\nMr. Thomas gave the presentation. He said staff believed that Catellus and Tri-Pointe\nHomes have a made a good-faith effort to uphold their agreements.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 3 of 8\nMarch 9, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-03-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-03-09", "page": 4, "text": "Board Member Knox White asked if the reports have gone to the Transportation\nCommission and the City Council. Mr. Thomas replied in the negative.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked Mr. Thomas todescribe the City's current shuttle services. Mr.\nThomas listed the different shuttles.\nBoard Member Knox White asked about the inclusion of energy-efficient amenities into the\nhomes and businesses being constructed.\nMr. Bill Sadler, of Tri-Pointe Homes, said that these energy-efficient options are important\nfor his company's business. Typically, there are not very many requests for such options,\nbut he said that his company does provide conduit for solar panels on homes sold in\nAlameda. Because Alameda Municipal Power is less expensive than other electric\ncompanies in the area, the firm decided against offering solar power as an option for\nhomes sold in Alameda.\nMr. Sean Whiskerman, representing Catellus, said he could not recall the requirement of\nEV charging stations being part of the Development Agreement, but planned to provide\nthem for the benefit of customers. If the Development Agreement did indeed call for EV\ncharging stations at the Point, his firm would include them.\nBoard Member Knox White asked for contact information for the TMA office. Mr. Atkinson\nsaid that he and Catellus have to deal with public complaints, but they are few and far\nbetween. He said that he and the Catellus staff field public calls. He said that he is\nplanning on adding additional stops for the current shuttles.\nBoard Member Knox White noted that the majority of Alameda is residential. He asked\nhow the TMA would include these new residential areas currently under construction. Mr.\nAtkinson said that his team plans on asking new residents as they move in to the new\nareas regarding shuttle service.\nBoard Member Knox White said that the current TDM requires an annual survey of current\nemployees. Mr. Atkinson said this report will be finished in October of this year.\nBoard Member Tang asked about shuttle utilization rates, and if Mr. Atkinson's team had\napproached Target to offer initiatives. Mr. Atkinson replied that Target, which is based in\nMinnesota, is not used to such plans. The company's transportation policies and their\ncorporate advertising budget, are decided by their corporate executives in Minnesota.\nHowever, since Safeway opened in Alameda Landing, many shoppers now use the shuttle\nservice to get to and from the store. There has been about a 12 to 15 percent increase of\nriders.\nVice President Alvarez asked about the ridership numbers mentioned in the report. Mr.\nThomas said about 11,000 riders have used the service in the past year. Vice President\nAlvarez said that 11,000 riders seems like a low number, but she understands the\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 4 of 8\nMarch 9, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-03-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-03-09", "page": 5, "text": "parameters on which the shuttle was set up.\nThe Board opened public comment.\nMs. Courtney Sheffler, homeowner, questioned why her house is being built to 2010\nenergy efficiency standards. She said that the builders of the house were violating no laws,\nbut the City should be forcing all builders use the most updated energy standards for new\ndevelopment in the City. She said she cannot wait to use the new shuttle, but wanted to\nmake sure that the taxpayers who pay for the shuttle should be given priority to use it.\nThe Board closed public comment.\nBoard Member Tang said that, in the long run, the Board needs to make the TMA as\nefficient as possible. If the shuttle is not user-friendly, it will lead to low ridership. He\nsuggested that businesses in Alameda offer incentives to consumers to ride the shuttles,\nand said that there has to be an enforcement mechanism to make sure that the shuttle is a\nsuccess.\nBoard Member Burton said he is encouraged by the progress of the shuttle. He said that\nhe likes how businesses are also trying to increase shuttle ridership. He said he agrees\nwith the speaker's comments about residents and businesses being given priority to use\nthe shuttle.\nBoard Member Knox White encouraged Tri-Pointe and Catellus to be more proactive in\nadding energy-efficient upgrades to their constructed buildings. He said if the Board were\nto make a recommendation to the Transportation Commission, he would suggest that the\ncurrent TDM is inadequate, and that there are still many flaws with the current shuttle\noperation. He said that Target is the only retailer mentioned in the TDM, and said he had\nquestions about how many roundtrips per day are taken by people going to and from the\nstore. He said that he would like to see the marketing material by the Target store to\nencourage employees to take the free shuttle.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster said that he is glad that the program is working well, and that other\nbusinesses are encouraging use of the shuttle. He said he would like to expand the shuttle\nservice to other parts of Alameda to discourage cross-Island car trips.\nVice President Alvarez said she had a hard time with the proposed draft resolution. She\nsaid that she does not know if there was a good faith effort for compliance of the TDM. Mr.\nThomas replied that the Board could approve the report without the TDM language, and\nthat staff would pass on the comments of the Board to the Transportation Commission and\nthe City Council.\nVice President Alvarez asked if it is possible for all buildings to be updated to the current\ncode, even if they were built before the code was updated.\nBoard Member Burton explained that the City could not force developers to conform to the\ncurrent code for buildings approved under the prior code. Mr. Thomas agreed.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 5 of 8\nMarch 9, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-03-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-03-09", "page": 6, "text": "President Henneberry said his views on the issue were reflected by the Board's\ncomments.\nBoard Member Knox White motioned to approve the TMA, noting that the TDM activities\nhave not met the City's requirements. He suggested that the report should revise the dates\ncovered in the report, the TMA board setup, the fact that the shuttle to BART must run 7\nhours per day, how Day One activities, including employee marketing, a useable website,\nannual employee service are not in place, and for the report to include an analysis of\nimpact relative to the 30% reduction request. Board Member K\u00f6ster seconded the motion.\nThe motion carried, 6-0.\n7-C 2015-1404\nPLN13-0175 - 2100 Clement Street - Applicant: City Ventures.\nStudy Session for Design Review, Development Plan, Vesting\nTentative Map and Density Bonus to Permit Construction of 58\nTownhome Units on a 2.78 Acre Parcel Located at 2100 Clement\nStreet. The Project is Subject to Environmental Review Under the\nCalifornia Environmental Quality Act.\nMr. Thomas explained that staff is not ready to give a final recommendation on the project;\nhe asked the public for their input. He introduced Mr. Andrew Warner, of City Ventures, the\napplicant, who gave the presentation.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked Mr. Warner about the details of the solar panels. Mr. Werner\nexplained that some of the panels will be flat on the roof, and others will be mechanized.\nBoard Member Tang asked Mr. Warner about concerns from the neighbors. Mr. Werner\nreplied that the neighbors are concerned about parking, and that there are 21 parking\nspaces for general use in the project.\nVice President Alvarez asked if the access roads are available for emergency vehicle\naddress. Mr. Thomas said that the fire department is still looking at the specifics of the\nplan.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked Mr. Thomas if the City has any ordinances regarding guest\nparking spots. Mr. Thomas responded that there is a ratio of 1 guest space per 2 housing\nunits in this development, as compared to 1 space per 4 housing units in other cities.\nThe Board opened public comment.\nMs. Keri Thompson, Treasurer of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of\nthis project. She said that the project site is served by AC Transit, and that the project's\napplicants are very receptive to the community's concerns.\nMr. Andrew Packee, resident, said he was impressed with the presentation, but wondered\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 6 of 8\nMarch 9, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-03-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-03-09", "page": 7, "text": "if Alameda was ready for more houses. He believed that it was a great idea to repurpose\nold and abandoned buildings in the City. These townhouses will be very expensive, and\nwondered how many future residents will be taking the bus to and from their destination.\nHe appreciated that the City is looking to improve Clement Avenue as a thoroughfare, but\nsaid that there needs to be more infrastructure in the city.\nMs. Jennifer Heflin, resident, said that Alameda's small businesses are part of the City's\ncharm, but wondered if the condominiums and townhomes would add to the community\nfeel. She feared that the addition of condominiums and townhouses would lead to a\ndestruction to the feeling of community that makes Alameda unique.\nMs. Dorothy Freeman, resident, spoke against the project. She said that there is not\nenough infrastructure to support the new residents moving into the area. She said that the\nNorthern Waterfront has only 1/6 of the park space it should have. There is not enough\nopen space for current residents, and asked for the Board to consider the effects of new\ndevelopment on the current residents of the Northern Waterfront.\nMr. Bill Smith, of Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, said he was encouraged by the\nproject. He said his group wanted to see more open space at the site, and said he agreed\nwith previous speakers about parking and traffic issues. Mr. Smith said that he wanted to\nsee affordable housing spread throughout the development, and was concerned that all of\nthe homes would be owner-occupied, which presents issues for affordable housing groups.\nMs. Karen Bey, resident, spoke in favor of the project. She said she likes that there are\nmany wonderful aspects to the project. The current market for housing suggests that\nhomeowners are going to use transit. They are paying high property taxes, and that\nhomeowners in this development will be near public transit, which will also alleviate traffic\nissues. Ms. Bey said that the new residents will also walk to Park Street and spend their\nmoney there. She spoke favorably of the developer's other projects in Oakland, and\nexpressed hope that the developers will create a similar project in Alameda.\nMr. Noe Valenzuela, resident, said that he recently bought a rehabilitated Victorian house.\nHe said that there are many economic and environmental benefits of having a walkable\ncommunity in Alameda. He said he was very excited about the project, and that it should\nproceed if it follows the City's guidelines.\nThe Board closed public comment.\nBoard Member Tang asked Mr. Thomas if the parcel was originally zoned commercial. Mr.\nThomas said that the property was rezoned for residential use in 2009.\nBoard Member Burton said that his neighbors ride public transit as much as anyone else in\nthe City, even though their houses are much more expensive. He is supportive of having\nhousing on this site, but is less supportive of the project as a whole. He said that there\nneed to be more access points to the development in order to disperse the cars coming in\nfrom one point. He agreed with the developer's attempt to keep the buildings in proportion\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 7 of 8\nMarch 9, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-03-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-03-09", "page": 8, "text": "with the new buildings, but suggested that the houses could be reconfigured to incorporate\nmore open space into the area. There are other, less gracious issues with the design of\nthe houses that also need to be addressed, including the small private balconies on some\nof the units. Board Member Burton also said that Alameda does not need any air\nconditioning units for the houses, and suggested that it would help the developer's plans to\nexclude them in the houses.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster said he agreed with Board Member Burton's comments. He said\nthat the walkability of the community is an important factor in the neighborhood. He said\nthat the density could be lowered a little bit in order to increase the open space on the site.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked if some ground-floor commercial space could be incorporated\ninto the new buildings if possible.\nBoard Member Knox White said that there was too much asphalt and not enough open\nspace in the proposed development. He said that he is confused by the size of the\nhousing, and questioned if the sizes of the proposed housing is appropriate for the\nneighborhood. He suggested building a through street and building housing along that\nstreet instead of having four cul-de-sacs.\nVice President Alvarez said that the major entrance to Eagle Avenue needs to be moved\ncloser to Mulberry Street. The architecture on Eagle, Willow, and Clement Avenues are all\ndifferent from each other, and the developers need to marry the three different\narchitectural styles in this new development. She suggested that the neighbors concerned\nabout parking organize themselves as they did at the Del Monte.\nBoard Member Burton said that the two-story buildings along Willow Street are nicely\nintegrated with the existing neighborhoods, but the townhouses with the first floor\nbedrooms are not truly in-line with universal design guidelines.\nPresident Henneberry said that there is unanimity that this is a good project for the City,\nbut it is not ready in its present form. He said he looks forward to seeing an update of this\nproject.\n8. MINUTES: None\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n9-A. 2015-405\nZoning Administrator and Design Review: Recent Actions and\nDecisions.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\n11-A 2015-1341\nReport from the Alameda Point Site A-Ad-Hoc Subcommittee\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 8 of 8\nMarch 9, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-03-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-03-09", "page": 9, "text": "President Henneberry said that the subcommittee has not met yet.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None\n13. ADJOURNMENT: President Henneberry adjourned the meeting at 10:26 p.m.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 9 of 8\nMarch 9, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-03-09.pdf"}