{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-03-11", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, MARCH 11, 2019\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Sullivan convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Rothenberg led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President Sullivan, Board Members Cavanaugh, Curtis, Rothenberg, Saheba,\nTeague.\nAbsent: Board Member Mitchell.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n6-A 2019-6624\nGeneral Plan Amendment Study Session. Applicant: City of Alameda. The Planning Board\nwill hold a study session to consider amendments to the Setting and Organization Chapter\nof the Alameda General Plan. The proposed amendments are categorically exempt from\nthe California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section\n15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA only applies to actions that have the potential to\ncause a significant impact on the environment. Staff requests continuing this item to the\nmeeting of March 25, 2019.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to continue the item. Board Member Curtis\nseconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2019-6629\nPublic Hearing on the Scope of the Environmental Impact Report for the Veterans\nAdministration Multi-Specialty Outpatient Clinic and National Cemetery Project\nStaff Member Tai introduced the item. The staff report and presentation can be found at:\nttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3874113&GUID=C9C4CBE7-\nFA2E-4D78-9663-97B109C11C64&FullText=1\nBoard Member Teague asked if the Veterans project actually required an EIR for their\nproject.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 10\nMarch 11, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-03-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-03-11", "page": 2, "text": "Staff Member Tai confirmed that the project does require an EIR.\nPresident Sullivan opened the public hearing.\nIrene Dieter suggested the scope be broadened. She said the VA should replace all the\nwetlands that would be destroyed by the project. She wants to consider redirecting storm\nwater runoff back onto the wetlands at the base instead of dumping into the bay.\nRichard Bangert said the CEQA document was required for the wetland mitigation plan.\nHe said the EIR should consider an alternative that would place the clinic in the Alameda\nPoint Enterprise District. He said that would cut down on truckloads of soil needed as well\nas be better served by transit options.\nAllen Michaan urged that the Antique's Fair be considered throughout the project. He\nsuggested allowing the Fair to rotate its site configuration 90 degrees when construction\non the VA project begins. He said that they do not disturb the birds and can be a\ncompatible use. He said the event brings a lot of benefits and prestige to Alameda.\nThere were no more speakers. President Sullivan closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Teague asked if the suggestions offered by the public speakers be covered\nnormally in the EIR.\nStaff Member Tai said that all of the comments would be recorded and addressed in the\nEIR.\nBoard Member Teague said the area is encapsulated and he hopes that the EIR will\nconsider potential impacts to that encapsulation.\nBoard Member Curtis said it is an honor for Alameda to have this project.\nPresident Sullivan asked if there are plans for the Antiques Fair to make sure they do not\nbecome homeless.\nStaff Member Tai said he does not have that answer tonight and that staff would have to\nfigure out that part of the conversation as the project moves forward.\nBoard Member Saheba asked if future adjacent uses to the easements would be impacted\nby this project and need to be studied.\nStaff Member Tai said that he is not aware of any impacts, but those questions are part of\nthe reason for doing the EIR. He said the public would have until March 22nd to submit\ncomments. He said the responsibility for implementing, monitoring, and applying for\nwetland mitigation would be solely on the VA.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 10\nMarch 11, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-03-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-03-11", "page": 3, "text": "7-B 2019-6632\nConditional Use Permit - 1528 Webster Street - Applicant: Dustin Moore on behalf\nof Main Street Supply, LLC. Public hearing to consider a Use Permit to allow the\noperation of a Cannabis Retail dispensary within the existing commercial building at 1528\nWebster Street for the sale of Cannabis and Cannabis Products. The dispensary will also\nhave a delivery service and will have an indoor area for on-site consumption of products\nby customers. The project is located within the C-C (Community Commercial) Zoning\nDistrict. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)\npursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Minor Alteration of Existing FacilitiesStaft\nMember Sablan gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3874116&GUID=58F7BE65-\n2144-42A3-8654-C8D6A5513050&FullText=1\nJared Vicker, applicant, gave a presentation.\nBoard Member Curtis asked how the lounge would differ from a bar.\nMr. Vicker said that a major difference is the inability to sell food and beverage. He said\nthe lounge would be used for a variety of uses.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if there would be a time limit for customers in the lounge.\nMr. Vicker said it is in their interest for customers to not loiter for extended periods and\nthat they could consider adjusting their operational plan to have time limits.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked how the application met the condition to fit in the\nneighborhood and not have any adverse impacts on the neighborhood.\nMr. Vicker said they worked carefully with the city to address all the questions and issues\nthat were set for them.\nStaff Member Tai said that the strict land use questions the application raises are similar\nto many other types of business that could operate in the area. The dispensary is a retail\nuse similar to other businesses but only the product is different.\nBoard Member Saheba asked if there would be a lighting plan coming back for review.\nStaff Member Tai said that the lighting would be part of the operator's permit if the\nconditional use permit is approved.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh asked how many other facilities the applicant operates.\nMr. Vicker said that the team for this site is unique, but their entitlement team has worked\non 15-20 throughout the state.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 10\nMarch 11, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-03-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-03-11", "page": 4, "text": "Board Member Cavanaugh asked what percentage of their customers the applicant felt\nwould use the lounge space.\nMr. Vicker said they think it will be a small percentage. He said they are still working on\nthe business plan for how to use that space.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh asked how they would regulate overconsumption in the\nlounge.\nMr. Vicker said they would need to do impairment training for employees and emulate best\npractices with information from various authorities.\nBoard Member Teague emphasized that there are two parts to the cannabis ordinance, a\nplanning portion and a building portion. He asked why the certain conditions were not\nincluded in the draft resolution.\nStaff Attorney Le said they have a condition that covers all applicable laws. He said it was\nmore efficient to have that, rather than to specifically identify each requirement which could\nresult in confusion if there were omissions.\nBoard Member Teague said operational radius is not in the Planning Board's radius. He\nasked how delivery would operate, given that the facility has no dedicated parking.\nMr. Vicker said they would have employees bring cases out to waiting drivers. He said\nthey would have to secure a parking space. He said the delivery vehicles can often only\ncome and go from the dispensary once per day because they can carry product and be\ndispatched remotely, unlike a pizza delivery model which requires drivers to come and go\nfrequently.\nBoard Member Teague asked why there were discrepancies in different documents\nregarding the hours deliveries may take place.\nStaff Member Tai said that the state allows delivery until 10pm and that Alameda's\nordinance will only allow them until 9pm.\nBoard Member Teague asked if the City has established its own operating guidelines\nwhich the state allows.\nStaff Attorney Le said there is a provision in the ordinance that allows staff to craft those\nrules in the future.\nBoard Member Teague said he is concerned about sensitive users having to pass through\na lounge full of smoke in order to access the dispensary. He said he hoped the operating\nguidelines would address that issue.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 10\nMarch 11, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-03-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-03-11", "page": 5, "text": "President Sullivan asked if we have smoking ordinances that prohibit smoking in buildings\nin Alameda.\nStaff Attorney Le said that we do have ordinances that govern rules around smoking in\nAlameda. He said they were recently amended with cannabis use in mind.\nPresident Sullivan asked what liability Alameda has by permitting this use which is\nallowable under state law, but prohibited under federal law.\nStaff Attorney Le said that issue may be outside this board's purview. He said the City\nCouncil has decided to regulate cannabis and move forward.\nPresident Sullivan asked what was being done to prevent access to cannabis by minors.\nMr. Vicker said they take that issue very seriously. He said they take copies of photo ID\nand are vulnerable to being shut down by the state. He said they have much more rigorous\nrequirements than in a typical bar. He said data shows a decrease in black market activity\nnear dispensaries.\nPresident Sullivan asked if this is going to be an all cash business.\nMr. Vicker said that they would not be an all cash business. He said they anticipate being\na banked business. He said they will take strong security and deterrence measures\nagainst theft.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if the applicant would be subject to operating guidelines\ndeveloped in the future, or if they would be exempt.\nStaff Attorney Le said there are two types of permits. He said the regulatory permit would\nbe able to take effect according to the date of the regulation and is up for review on an\nannual basis.\nStaff Member Tai detailed the Planning Board's role in the CUP process.\nPresident Sullivan opened the public hearing.\nAnita Ng said the business would not be compatible with the neighborhood. She said it is\nnot the correct location.\nDon Sherratt said he is opposed to the permit. He said cannabis should not be located\nnext to places that children use. He said it would adversely impact neighbors.\nSerena Chen said she has worked on many smoke-free ordinances, including Alameda's.\nShe said the buffer zone has been reduced to 600 feet. She said she was surprised that\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 10\nMarch 11, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-03-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-03-11", "page": 6, "text": "the location was suggested to the applicant by city staff. She said the martial arts center\nnext door to the proposed location meets the definition of a youth center.\nLinda Asbury, representing WABA, said the good neighbor policy being implemented by\nthe applicant will make them a good addition to Webster St. She asked that the board\nsupport the permit.\nRyan Agabao said he fully supports the use permit. He said businesses were enthusiastic\nthat a new business will be bringing people to Webster St. He brought a petition of\nbusiness owners, managers, and residents that support the business.\nRosalinda Fortuna submitted signatures from merchants that are opposed to the\ndispensary. She said the business is not good because of the children in the area, lack of\nparking, and would lead to impaired people crashing their cars, and increased crime. She\nsaid there has not been adequate notice about the proposal.\nJoanna Lau, manager of the Chi Institute, said they oppose the location of the business\nbecause it does not respect the needed buffer for a youth center. She submitted petitions\nof people opposed to the dispensary. She asked if there would be more police on Webster\nin response to this business. She said they do not want to see lines outside, and worried\nthat this business would send the wrong message to children.\nAnthony Germono said his children attend the martial arts school next door to the\nproposed facility. He said this is the wrong location for this business. He asked the\nmembers to stand up for his and other children.\nRasheed Shabazz said the zoning decisions did not meet the equity guidelines in the\nordinance. He worried that the location was chosen because the mosque and martial arts\nschool might be the path of least resistance because they do not have the same political\npower as other groups. He said the area has been historically subjected to the war on\ndrugs and now other people who were not subjected are poised to profit from cannabis\nlegalization.\nCass, a neighbor, said she is concerned about double parking and would like to see the\nbusiness address this problem. She said the location is highly trafficked by children and\nthere are more appropriate spots along Webster that should be zoned for this use.\nRegina Hall said that cannabis is safer than alcohol. She said a dispensary is safer than\na liquor store. She said that the parents are responsible for protecting their children and\nregulating will help control access to cannabis.\nThere were no more speakers. President Sullivan closed the public hearing.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 10\nMarch 11, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-03-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-03-11", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Teague said the board is constrained in what they can do. They cannot\nmake a moral judgement, but could discuss items like the parking issue. He said the new\nuse in the CC zone requires the board to make a judgement on the parking issue. He said\nthat parking is his biggest concern. He said he would support a one year permit in order\nto test the effectiveness of the TDM measures and evaluate the parking impacts.\nBoard Member Curtis said the board can decide if the neighborhood is better off with the\ndispensary or without. He said the lounge would be tantamount to an opium den. He said\nincluding the lounge prevents him from supporting the project. He said the lounge presents\na hazard to the neighborhood.\nBoard Member Saheba said the window screening on the lounge creates a blank fa\u00e7ade\nand is detrimental to creating a vibrant business district.\nBoard Member Rothenberg concurred with the other board members. She said the\noperation may be beneficial to the community, but that it does not fit in the neighborhood.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh said finding parking during the farmers' market is extremely\ndifficult. He said we may need to look at a different site.\nPresident Sullivan said Webster Street has changed a lot in the time she has been in\nAlameda. She said there are many children in the neighborhood. She said the large\nbuilding and the lounge with blocked out windows are a problem for her. She said she\ndoes not think this is the right location and would vote no.\nBoard Member Teague said that City staff did not advise the applicant to choose this\nlocation, but rather this half-block is the only area along Webster that meets the City\nCouncil's location requirements to permit the use. He asked whether the board is able to\nissue a use permit that prohibits on site consumption.\nStaff Member Tai said that they can do that, but would want to ask the applicant whether\nthey are willing to remove that component from their application.\nBoard Member Teague said that if the applicant would like to consider that question he\nwould move to continue the item to the next meeting.\nBoard Member Curtis said he would second that motion.\nMr. Vicker said that Board Member Teague's suggestion of a one year permit might be a\nworkable solution. He said the owners spent a lot of money designing the project to include\na consumption lounge and they would have to evaluate the question of removing it. He\nsaid the space would serve multiple purposes besides consumption and suggested that\nthey could tailor the operation plan to address potential concerns. He said the City\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 10\nMarch 11, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-03-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-03-11", "page": 8, "text": "identified on site consumption as a desired component from the beginning. He said they\nhave put in a lot of time and would like to move forward as soon as possible.\nStaff Member Tai said the board could approve the application as is, deny the permit, or\ntry and approve the permit with changes.\nBoard Member Curtis made a motion to approve a use permit for distribution, sale,\nand delivery with a condition that there be no on-site consumption and that the\napplicant provide a plan to prevent delivery drivers from double parking. Board\nMember Cavanaugh seconded the motion.\nBoard Member Saheba asked if the window screening was for just the lounge, or the\nlounge and the retail portion.\nStaff Member Sablan said that they are not recommending the windows just be blacked\nout, but have some sort of approved design.\nStaff Member Tai said that he misspoke and that only the lounge portion would be\nscreened. He said the lounge could be moved somewhere else on the site to allow the\nwindows to be unblocked, but that it would require reworking the floor plan.\nMr. Vicker said that only the Haight St. portion would have the windows glazed.\nBoard Member Curtis said his motion to not allow the lounge was not due to aesthetics,\nbut because of the impact on the neighborhood.\nBoard Member Teague said he wants find a way to move the project forward. He said he\nunderstands the concern about onsite consumption. He said he would support the motion.\nPresident Sullivan said she still feels it is the wrong location due to the many children's\nactivities in the area.\nStaff Attorney Le said that he would want the board to make the motion on staff's revised\nresolution, which includes minor administrative edits, rather than the one in the packet.\nThe motion passed 4-2 (Sullivan and Rothenberg voted no.)\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2019-6630\nDraft Meeting Minutes-December 10, 2018\nPresident Sullivan pointed out that Board Member Saheba's name was\nlisted in the roll call twice. She offered three typographical corrections.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 10\nMarch 11, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-03-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-03-11", "page": 9, "text": "Board Member Teague made a motion to approve the minutes as\namended. Board Member Saheba seconded the motion. The motion\npassed 6-0.\n8-B 2019-6631\nDraft Meeting Minutes-January 28, 2019\nBoard Member Saheba said his name was listed twice in the roll call.\nBoard Member Curtis made a motion to approve the minutes as\namended. Board Member Rothenberg seconded the motion. The\nmotion passed 5-0-1 (Teague abstained.)\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2019-6620\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nThe staff report can be found at:\nttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3874110&GUID=043800D0-\nE71C-44C2-801E-ADODBA1CB037&FullText=\nPresident Sullivan asked if the City was tracking the change of rental units into owner\noccupied, like the duplex to single family contained in the report.\nStaff Member Tai said they track the loss of units.\nPresident Sullivan said that with the change in rent laws she is hearing that many units\nare being removed from the market.\n9-B 2019-6619\nStatus Report on Design Review and Development Plan for an approximately 113,000-\nsquare-foot hotel with 172 guest rooms, and an approximately 7,000-square-foot\nrestaurant with coffee shop at 2900 Harbor Bay Parkway The staff report can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3874109&GUID=6058C692-\n2240-406A-AE4D-3915E0321954&FullText=1\nPresident Sullivan said she and Board Member Saheba met with the applicant and\nneighbors to discuss the hotel.\nStaff Member Tai said the applicant is working on new plans for the project which will be\nsubmitted when ready.\n9-C 2019-6621\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 10\nMarch 11, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-03-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-03-11", "page": 10, "text": "Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and\nTransportation Department Projects\nStaff Member Tai previewed future agenda items.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 9:16pm.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 10 of 10\nMarch 11, , 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-03-11.pdf"}