{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-05-08", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, MAY 8, 2017\n1. CONVENE\nPresident K\u00f6ster convened the meeting at 7:03pm\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Burton led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President K\u00f6ster, Board Members Burton, Curtis, Knox White, Mitchell,\nSullivan. Board Member Zuppan arrived at 7:12pm, during item 7-A.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nStaff requested that item 6-B be pulled from the agenda.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n6-A 2017-4291\nDel Monte Development Project Annual Report. The Planning Board will\nconsider an annual report documenting compliance with the 2014 Del\nMonte Warehouse Development Agreement. The consideration of an\nAnnual Report is not a project under the California Environmental Quality\nAct (CEQA). No further environmental review is required.\nBoard Member Knox White made a motion to approve the consent calendar. Board\nMember Curtis seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.\n6-B 2017-4292\nHarbor Bay Business Park Association, Harbor Bay Isle Associates and\nHarbor Bay Entities -- Bay Farm Island (Primarily Harbor Bay Isle) DA89-\n01. A request for a Periodic Review of Development Agreement DA89-01,\nfor the period through April 4, 2017, as required under Zoning Ordinance\nSection 30-95.1. The properties are zoned R-1-PD (One Family\nResidence/Plannec Development Zoning District); C-M-PD (Commercial\nManufacturing Planned Development Zoning District); O (Open Space\nZoning District), and R-1-A-H (One Family Residence with Special\nAgricultural and Height Limit Combining Zoning District). The consideration\nof an Annual Report is not a project under the California Environmental\nQuality Act (CEQA). No further environmental review is required.\n*Postponed per staff's request*\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 10\nMay 8, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-05-08", "page": 2, "text": "7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2017-4293\nPLN17-0094 - 900 Mound St. (Krusi Park) - Applicant: Amy Wooldridge for\nAlameda Recreation and Parks Department. A public hearing to consider\na Use Permit and Design Review to permit the demolition of an existing\nrecreation building located at the center of Krusi Park, and the construction\nof a new 2,376 square foot multipurpose recreation building in the same\nlocation. A Use Permit is required because the new building is located\nwithin the O (Open Space) Zoning District. This project is a Class 3\nCategorical Exemption and no additional environmental review is\nnecessary pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303, New\nConstruction of Small Structures.\nStaff Member Sablan gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be\nfound at:\nttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3035359&GUID=63B2C652-\n91C9-48C0-A5AA-3C29EDD94F9C&FullText=\nBoard Member Curtis asked if the regional park's funding has a limit.\nStaff Member Wooldridge said that they have a specific amount of funding available and\nthat the redesigned building will come in within the budget constraints.\nBoard Member Curtis said he would support a condition of approval that requires the\nbuilding be built within the original budget.\nPresident K\u00f6ster opened and closed the public hearing. There were no speakers.\nBoard Member Knox White said the bike racks should be placed near the door in a highly\nvisible location consistent with the city's guidelines.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if the kitchen would be universally designed.\nStaff Member Thomas said it would meet ADA requirements.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if there would be landscaping around the building.\nStaff Member Wooldridge said they removed landscaping from the plan because of the\ncosts.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if it would be appropriate to add a condition of approval that\nrequires the building be completed with allocated grant funds and not permit any additional\ncity funds to be used in case of cost overruns.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 10\nMay 8, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-05-08", "page": 3, "text": "Staff Member Thomas said that is the intent and that any overruns would be a matter for\nthe City Council to address and that Board Member Curtis' concerns about the high cost\nwould be reflected in the record.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked about the inclusion of drinking fountains in the plans.\nStaff Member Wooldridge said they are replacing a drinking fountain near the building.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he looks forward to seeing the new building.\nBoard Member Burton said he is supportive of the idea of the project. He said he hopes\nthe design of the final building be vastly improved and that the design comes back to the\nboard.\nBoard Member Sullivan said the building looks ultra-utilitarian. She suggested that the\ncement not come all the way up to the building and that at least a small amount of plantings\nbe included.\nPresident K\u00f6ster said he would like to see the horizontal siding continue across the front\nof the building. He suggested not using bifold doors for the closets.\nBoard Member Burton made a motion to approve the resolution with the\nconditions that the bicycle parking be moved to a prominent location near the\nfront door of the building and that the design be brought back to the board. Board\nMember Knox White seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Curtis\nabstained).\n7-B 2017-4296\nPublic Hearing to Consider Modification of UP-88-36 to Operate an\nAutomobile Tire Service at 1200 Park Street to Revoke UP-88-36 to\nTerminate the Use Permit within 60 Days of Final Action by the City of\nAlameda\nStaff Member Thomas gave the staff presentation. The staff report and attachments can\nbe found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3035362&GUID=3B1B8D60-\nB79D-441A-BA58-959046BEB92C&FullText=1\nBoard Member Sullivan asked who the permit belongs to, the operator, or the property\nowner.\nStaff Member Thomas said the permit goes with the land.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked for clarification about the term \"business vehicles\" VS.\ncustomer vehicles in the use permit.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 10\nMay 8, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-05-08", "page": 4, "text": "Staff Member Thomas explained that the intent about the satellite parking lot makes it\nclear that they intended for customer cars not to be parked on the street.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he was concerned that the specific call out of \"business\nvehicles\" would create a legal issue surrounding enforcement against customer vehicles.\nStaff Attorney Roush said that looking at the totality of the record is important and you can\nnot just isolate a specific term in the language. He said the language might not be precise,\nbut a court would likely support staff's recommendation.\nBoard Member Curtis said the issue has been discussed at great length and nobody can\nplead ignorance. He said there has been ample time to cure the parking problem.\nBoard Member Knox White asked if staff did any parking counts in the area to evaluate\nthe issue.\nStaff Member Thomas said they did not do any counts and focused only on the violations.\nHe said the street was always pretty full but they were always able to find space on Park\nAve.\nJay Garfinkle, representing the family of the building's owners, said automotive repair has\nbeen done on that site for over 90 years. He said there are other gas stations and auto\nrepair facilities on Park St. He said Mr. Thomas has told him that there is ample parking\nin the neighborhood. He said there was little or no concern expressed to them until 2013\nwhen there was a feud with a neighboring businessman. He said all the concern is about\ncustomer cars in the neighborhood, but the conditional use permit is related to business\nvehicles. He said they believed their tenant would remain in compliance with the use\npermit after the 2015 hearing. He said Mr. Thomas told him that obtaining the additional\nproperty would be \"de-facto\" compliance, even if the tenant did not use it for customer\ncars. He said they told their tenants that if they were in violation with their conditional use\npermit, they would be in violation of their lease and subject to eviction. He said they sought\nclarification from the City on the definitions of \"business vehicles\" and \"store\" (vs. park) in\nthe use permit. He outlined the history of correspondence relating to business owned\nvehicles. He said it would be inappropriate for the board to remove the permit based on\nreported historic issues, but only on current issues. He said they do not believe the\nconditional use permit has been violated as written.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she met with the owners previously. She asked about\nunderground monitoring of the site.\nMr. Garfinkle said they conducted a study in preparation for sale of the property. He said\nthere is minimal contamination where the underground tanks were located before 1979.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 10\nMay 8, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-05-08", "page": 5, "text": "Board Member Sullivan asked where the negotiations stood with Big O for the sale of the\nproperty.\nMr. Garfinkle said that if the permit is upheld, there will likely be a deal. He said if the\npermit is rescinded, there would not be a deal.\nBoard Member Curtis disclosed that he also met with the property owners.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he also met with the owners, and with Big O corporate. He\nasked when they got a response from the city about the definition of business vehicles\nthey were seeking.\nMr. Garfinkle said it was in the last month.\nBoard Member Burton asked if the 1989 use permit amended, or if it replaced the 1979\nuse permit.\nStaff Member Thomas said that it was amended.\nStaff Attorney Roush said that a condition from 1979 that is not addressed or superseded\nby a later revision would still be applicable.\nBoard Member Zuppan read a portion of the minutes from a 2015 hearing that addressed\nthe customer vehicle parking conditions in the use permit.\nPresident K\u00f6ster disclosed that he met with the owners of the property before the meeting.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she also met with the owners as well as representatives from\nBig O.\nPresident K\u00f6ster opened the public hearing.\nBen Garfinkle, property owner, said that most of the complaints in the public record are\neither from before 1989, or are from Mr. Thoms and his attorney. He said the neighborhood\nis mixed use and most residents moved into the neighborhood after the business was in\noperation. He said the neighborhood around Jackson Park enjoys much more parking\nsupply than other neighborhoods. He said the problem will be greatly reduced when there\nare two stores in town splitting the existing customers. He said there is no evidence\nprovided by the city that there is a parking problem in the neighborhood.\nRobert Lane, attorney for the property owners, said that the owners cannot cure the\nviolations of the use permit without removing the tenants, which will happen soon and not\nbe a problem with a new owner/operator in Big O. He said condition three clearly speaks\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 10\nMay 8, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-05-08", "page": 6, "text": "only to business vehicles. He said the use has been consistent since 1979 and the board\nhas voted unanimously to continue the use every time.\nRick O'Neil, Big O Tires, said an average Big O store does about two million dollars a\nyear, and the Park St. store did over five million dollars per year. He said they anticipate\nhaving fewer cars because the current operator will take much of their business to the new\nlocation. He said they are committed to being in full compliance of the conditional use\npermit.\nArt Thoms, owner of Washboard laundromat, said he has been trying for 12 years to get\nthe conditions enforced. He said they have dominated the area parking for 35 years. He\nsaid he has been threatened by Big O employees. He said employees park in the meters\nall day long. <microphone turned off, unintelligible>\nJim Lott, resident, said there is a parking problem on street cleaning days and on\nweekends.\nBetsy Mathieson, resident, said there is a parking problem, especially on the weekends.\nShe explained how the business uses the street for customer parking before and after it\nis serviced.\nDavid Blackwell, representative for Big O Tires, said they proposed multiple conditions to\naddress noise concerns and enforcement for the use permit. He said there is a very high\nstandard for revocation of a use permit. He said there is a new user coming in and they\nshould not be punished for violations of prior tenants.\nBobbie Centurion, resident, urged the board to expire the use permit. She said allowing\nBig O to take over would continue to have the negative impacts on the neighborhood.\nGuido Bertoli, tenant, said they have been trying to use their off site parking and have\nbeen working on the problem for years. He said Mr. Thomas had always been saying that\nthey should look for a location off of Park St.\nFrank Martin said that bad behavior should not be rewarded. He said stopping a competitor\nfrom opening would be rewarded the operator's bad behavior.\nMana-Jean Wagnon said that the complaints are all against the tenant, who would benefit\nfrom the ending of the use permit. She said the property could benefit from Big O being\nan owner occupied business.\nPresident K\u00f6ster closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Zuppan said the business as it currently exists is not working for the\nneighbors. She said the issue is about compliance with the use permit, not about whether\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 10\nMay 8, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-05-08", "page": 7, "text": "there is a parking problem or not. She said she is very clear what the problems are with\nthe business at the current location. She said they are clearly in violation and is inclined\nto revoke the use permit. She said she could also support giving staff more time to\nconsider if notices were properly provided if the board feels that is necessary.\nBoard Member Curtis said he agrees with Board Member Zuppan. He said the city is not\nthe villain and the property owner is not a victim here. He said the expectations were very\nclear after the November meeting. He said he would be inclined to revoke the use permit\nas well.\nBoard Member Sullivan raised concern about what would happen if the business went\naway. She said the family trust and condition of the property would lead it to sit for a long\ntime, as the Party Warehouse has. She said the lost tax revenue would be significant as\nwell and that it was a difficult choice.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he does not want to make any knee jerk decisions. He said\nan owner-operated business might lead to better results. He said he is fine with the current\nuse and likes to see a mix.\nBoard Member Burton said the intent and compliance of the conditions are what matters.\nHe said it is clear that they are not being met, even if the wording was imprecise. He said\nthere have been enough chances and would support revoking the use permit.\nBoard Member Knox White asked if there was a reason why they could not move forward\nif the city cited the wrong section of the use permit in the notices of violation.\nStaff Attorney Roush said that the board could still revoke given the totality of the evidence\nand complaints made, even if the notices did not perfectly identify which section of the use\npermit was being violated.\nBoard Member Knox White asked if they could add a requirement to the permit to have\nthe business be owner-occupied.\nStaff Attorney Roush said that would be a significant limitation and said he would generally\ncaution against such a condition.\nBoard Member Knox White said he met with the Garfinkles and with Big O. He said the\nboard may have revoked the use permit in 2015, but took the easy way out hoping that\nthe tenant's plan to move to Oak St. would solve the problem. He said it is a difficult\ndecision. He said he would not support continuing the use permit with the current\nlanguage. He said he does not see a significant difference between customers that park\nin the neighborhood for this business versus other businesses on Park St. He said we\ncould revoke the use permit, or loosen the conditions after getting more information about\nthe parking conditions in the neighborhood.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 10\nMay 8, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-05-08", "page": 8, "text": "President K\u00f6ster said this is not an easy issue. He said there is a history of violations and\nimpacts from the previous operator.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked how quickly they could revoke if they changed the\nconditions of the use permit.\nStaff Attorney Roush said they would need to go through a similar due process and not\nbe a \"one and done\" scenario. They would need to provide the owner an opportunity to\ncure the violation or potentially face some liability.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked about properties for sale and vacancies on Park St.\nStaff Member Thomas said Park St. is doing very well compared to twelve years ago and\nhas a low vacancy rate.\nBoard Member Curtis said that we will just be pushing the problem down the road and we\nhave an opportunity to deal with the issue once and for all.\nBoard Member Burton said we do not provide street parking for the private benefit of a\nsingle business. He said that if we modify the use permit he would support making the\nparking prohibition explicit, but that he still supports revocation.\nBoard Member Zuppan said that she considered what would happen to the property if the\nuse went away, but that there is a reason that the property is not zoned for this use. She\nsaid she would only support a modification of the use permit if there were funding in place\nto monitor and enforce the conditions.\nStaff Attorney Roush said that it would be a challenge to draft a condition that met those\nrequirements.\nBoard Member Knox White made a motion to revoke the conditional use permit.\nBoard Member Curtis seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 (Knox White,\nCurtis, Burton, Zuppan) - 3 (Mitchell, K\u00f6ster, Sullivan).\nStaff Member Thomas said that the decision can be appealed in the permit center within\nten days.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked for and received confirmation that the motion was in\nalignment with the staff recommendation. She asked if the city attorney felt they should\nrevote on the item.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 10\nMay 8, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-05-08", "page": 9, "text": "Staff Attorney Roush said it would be helpful to revote to confirm the motion was to\nimplement staff's recommendation that the conditional use permit be terminated in 60 days\nafter final city action.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked for a revote on the motion. The motion passed 4 (Knox\nWhite, Curtis, Burton, Zuppan) - 3 (Mitchell, K\u00f6ster, Sullivan).\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2017-4288\nDraft Meeting Minutes - March 13, 2017\nBoard Member Knox White made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member\nSullivan seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Curtis and Zuppan abstained).\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2017-4289\nZoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions\nStaff Member Thomas said they have had five minor design reviews approved since\ntheir last hearings.\n9-B 2017-4297\nFuture Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Thomas gave a report on what items are coming up in future meetings.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked about the item that was postponed from the consent calendar.\nStaff Member Thomas gave a summary of discussions around taking possession of a\nstrip of land on Harbor Bay from HBIA.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nThe board received a letter from the BIA on the Universal Design Ordinance.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\n11-A 2017-4294\nSubcommittee for Alameda Marina\n*None*\n11-B 2017-4295\nSubcommittee with Commission on Disability Issues regarding Universal\nDesign Ordinance\nBoard Member Sullivan said they met and considered the BIA letter that said the added\nelements to the ordinance would cost $80,000 per unit.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 10\nMay 8, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-05-08", "page": 10, "text": "Board Member Zuppan said there is a lot of concern about a fourteen story building being\nproposed at Encinal Terminals. She said there is confusion about whether the issue is\nabout the amount of housing being built rather than the shape and form of the building.\nBoard Member Burton said Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda is working with\nthe city and AMP on an event for May 23 at the library about the local climate action plan.\nBoard Member Mitchell suggested using the Alameda Green program as a method for\nhaving new developments be required to provide green energy to their projects.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nStaff Member Potter announced the grand opening of Stargell Commons on May 17th as\npart of affordable housing week.\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident K\u00f6ster adjourned the meeting at 9:58pm.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 10 of 10\nMay 8, 2017", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-05-08.pdf"}