{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-06-22", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, JUNE 22, 2020\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Curtis convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nThis was a virtual meeting.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Jeff Cavanaugh led the flag salute\n3.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Board Members Curtis, Hom, Rothenberg, Cavanaugh, Ruiz, Saheba, and\nTeague.\nAbsent: None.\n4.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nNone.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n6.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n6-A 2020-8066\nConditional Use Permit for Alameda Commercially Zoned Properties. Public hearing to\nconsider a Use Permit to allow the temporary use of privately owned outdoor space and\nparking lots and City-owned sidewalks and on-street parking spaces in certain\ncommercially zoned districts for retail and commercial purposes during the COVID-19\nHealth Emergency. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act\n(CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 - Minor Alteration of Existing\nFacilities, 15304(e) - Minor Temporary Use of Land, and 15305 - Minor Alterations to Land\nUse Limitations.\nConsent item, attachments, and public comments can be found at\nhttp://alameda.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?m=l&id=/matter.aspx?key=9767.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar.\nCelena Chen, City Planning Counsel, stated that since it is a public hearing for a use\npermit there is a requirement to have a public hearing portion.\nPresident Curtis questioned if there were any additional public comments other than the\nones they already have.\nBoard Member Teague said the item should be moved to the Regular Agenda if there\nneeds to be a public hearing.\nApproved Minutes\nPlanning Board Meeting\nPage 1 of 8\nJune, 22 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-06-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-06-22", "page": 2, "text": "President Curtis stated that all the public comments coming in have been supportive. The\nCity Council and the community are for this, and it's urgent and critical for the businesses\nin Alameda. As long as there was no objection he would poll the board now and if that was\nincorrect he would take responsibility for it.\nAndrew Thomas, Director of Planning, Building, and Transportation, stated that from the\nstaff's perspective they did not have any public speakers on this, if there were they would\nhave put the item in the Regular Agenda.\nStaff Counsel Chen asked President Curtis that if he would open a public hearing to show\nthere were no speakers and then closed the public hearing that would take care of the\nprocedural requirement.\nPresident Curtis opened the public hearing.\nPresident Curtis wanted it noted that all the correspondence that he had received had\nbeen favorable and urging a quick settlement of this issue.\nPresident Curtis closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Teague previously made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar\nand Board Member Ruiz seconded. President Curtis took a roll call vote and the\nitem passed 7-0.\n7.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2020-8069\nDevelopment Agreement Annual Reports. The Planning Board will consider the annual\nreport documenting compliance with the Del Monte Warehouse Development Agreement,\nAlameda Landing Development Agreement, and the Alameda Point Site A Development\nAgreement. The consideration of an Annual Report is not a project under the California\nEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA). Item Continued to July 27, 2020.\n7-B 2020-8074\nPLN20-0164 - Use Permit - 1222 Park Street - Applicant: Aaron Kraw on behalf of Park\nSocial, LLC. Public hearing to consider a Use Permit to allow the operation of a cannabis\nretail dispensary with off-site delivery within the existing commercial building at 1222 Park\nStreet for the on-site sale of Cannabis and Cannabis Products. The project is located\nwithin the C-C-T (Community Commercial, Theatre Combining) Zoning District. The\nproject is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA\nGuidelines Section 15301 - Minor Alteration of Existing Facilities and Section 15183 -\nProjects consistent with General Plan and Zoning\nDavid Sablan, City Planner III, gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can\nbe found at http://alameda.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?m=l&id=/matter.aspx?key=9775.\nBoard Member Rona Rothenberg wanted to know if the \"Good Neighbor Policy\" could be\nmet in regards to Jackson Park since the city would be building a playground there. She\nasked if the applicant could meet the conditions of approval safely in terms of smoking\nand littering.\nApproved Minutes\nPlanning Board Meeting\nPage 2 of 8\nJune, 22 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-06-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-06-22", "page": 3, "text": "Staff Member Sablan pointed to the Alameda Municipal code and since Jackson Park\ndoes not have a licensed daycare it would not qualify as sensitive use and therefore meets\nthe conditions.\nBoard Member Rothenberg pressed the point that no one can control what happens but\nas a matter of diligence wanted to know what the applicant will do to ensure their products\nare not a danger to the users of Jackson Park.\nAaron Kraw, the applicant, talked about the plans they have in place in different cities and\nall the security protocols they use.\nMiguel Rodriguez, the applicant, talked more about their security, how they check IDs and\nthey use child safety packaging. Also, any purchased product will be linked to an account\nso they would be able to find out if anyone had been leaving the product in places or trying\nto resell it.\nBoard Member Rothenberg was not entirely satisfied with these answers.\nDirector Thomas talked about all the consideration and planning the City Council had put\ninto cannabis. The applicant's use permit can be revoked and the operator's permit has a\none-year expiration. If there are any problems like the ones Board Member Rothenberg\nhad brought up the city had set up a regulatory system so these concerns could be\naddressed.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked Director Thomas if the staff report supported that this\nwas compatible land use.\nDirector Thomas said yes, they see this as any other type of retail space.\nKenneth Turgen, the architect for the applicant, spoke about the benefits to the city this\nlocation and being on Park Street offered.\nBoard Member Teague asked if there would be a door for deliveries that was a nonpublic\naccess door.\nMr. Turgen nodded yes.\nBoard Member Teague asked if all off-site deliveries would be coming in and out of that\ndoor.\nMr. Turgen said yes, the main entrance would be for clients only. They would be following\nthe correct protocols that no deliveries would be going through the main entrance.\nBoard Member Teague asked about the labeling of the public restrooms \"men\" and\n\"women\" and if it would be possible to label them just \"restrooms\".\nApproved Minutes\nPlanning Board Meeting\nPage 3 of 8\nJune, 22 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-06-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-06-22", "page": 4, "text": "Mr. Turgen said that the code \"potty parity\" states they must have a certain amount of\nrestrooms for men and women. How they are signed afterward is entirely up to the end-\nuser.\nBoard Member Teague encouraged the applicant to label them appropriately after they\nwere in business.\nBoard Member Ruiz wanted clarification if there was going to be onsite consumption of\nthe product.\nMr. Turgen said no, that idea had been pulled.\nBoard Member Ruiz pointed out that the drawings still show a smoking area.\nMr. Turgen said that area was going to be a VIP and educational area.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked staff to delineate that in the resolution, and she wanted her\nconcerns noted about the proximity of two daycares in the area. She wanted staff to\nrespond to this concern.\nStaff Member Sablan said that the draft resolution condition number one strictly prohibits\nonsite consumption and the two daycares in question are family daycares and are not,\nunder the municipal code, included in the definition of a daycare.\nBoard Member Saheba asked how the entrance would be secured for at least 50 feet\naccording to the \"Good Neighbor Policy\".\nStaff Member Sablan said that staff is looking at their security plan and it would be a\ncombination of personnel and cameras.\nBoard Member Saheba asked about where the notices will be posted in the building.\nMr. Turgen said they don't post that on the drawings but will of course put signage how\nthe permit directs them to.\nBoard Member Hom wanted to know about the facade of the building and wanted to know\nhow they are planning on screening the windows.\nMr. Turgen talked about what their plans are.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh wanted to know more about the VIP area.\nMr. Turgen answered what the VIP section would offer to shoppers. It would be more of a\none on one shopping experience.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh wanted to know what security guidelines they would enforce\nto deter \"shoulder tapping\" when an underage person approaches a stranger outside the\nbuilding and asks to buy them a product.\nApproved Minutes\nPlanning Board Meeting\nPage 4 of 8\nJune, 22 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-06-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-06-22", "page": 5, "text": "Mr. Kraw spoke again about their security system, how your ID is scanned when you\npurchase an item and linked to the product. You can be heavily fined if you are caught\nreselling or sharing with minors. They also keep files on each of their clients, \"shoulder\ntapping\" has not been an issue at any of their other stores.\nPresident Curtis wanted to know if products would be sampled in the VIP section.\nMr. Kraw said no, it would be focused more on educational purposes.\nPresident Curtis opened public comments.\nDirector Thomas explained that other than the letters they received before this meeting\nthere have not been any additional public comments.\nPresident Curtis closed public comments.\nPresident Curtis commented that the presentation made by the applicant was excellent\nand very informative.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to approve the use permit with the condition\nspecified in the resolution, Board Member Cavanaugh seconded. President Curtis\ntook a roll call vote and the use permit passed 6-1, Board Member Rothenberg\nopposed.\n7-C 2020-8075\nPLN20-0157 - Use Permit - 1616 Webster Street - Applicant: John Ngu on behalf of\nAlameda Patients Group. Public hearing to consider a Use Permit to allow the operation\nof a cannabis retail dispensary within the existing commercial building at 1616 Webster\nStreet for the on-site sale and off-site delivery service of Cannabis and Cannabis Products.\nThe project is located within the C-C (Community Commercial) Zoning District. The project\nis exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA\nGuidelines Section 15301 - Minor Alteration of Existing Facilities and Section 15183 -\nProjects Consistent with the General Plan and Zoning\nStaff Member Sablan played a video presentation from the applicant. The staff report and\nattachments can be found at\ntps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4567505&GUID=09CF6976-\nBB54-4189-BF9B-BB8B5A6528D6&FullText=1.\nBoard Member Teague asked if there would be a separate door (not main entrance) for\ndeliveries.\nJohn Ngu, the applicant, answered yes there was a separate door for deliveries and it was\nlocated in the back.\nBoard Member Saheba asked the staff how they needed to evaluate the design of the\nstore, the drawings are limited. He did note that the front window glass would be frosted\nand was concerned about the storefront appearance.\nApproved Minutes\nPlanning Board Meeting\nPage 5 of 8\nJune, 22 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-06-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-06-22", "page": 6, "text": "Staff Member Sablan said the applicant does not have anything that qualifies for design\nreview, they would just be looking at the floor plan.\nDirector Thomas spoke about the challenge of blocking the view of inside the store from\nprotected groups but also making the storefront aesthetically pleasing to pedestrians. This\nis something they will continue to work on, to keep the windows interesting while screening\nthem as well.\nBoard Member Saheba was very concerned that just blocking the windows created a\n\"dead zone\" and believed the applicant could create a better option.\nBoard Member Ruiz wanted to know where the delivery vehicles would be parked.\nMr. Ngu answered they have a parking lot behind the building.\nBoard Member Ruiz voiced similar concerns about the street window. She wanted to\nencourage the applicant to look at other creative ways to contribute to the pedestrian's\nexperience on Webster.\nBoard Member Ruiz then pointed out the proximity to another dispensary on Webster and\nworried they were creating an over-concentrated area. She also asked if the operating\nhours could be adjusted so that it would not be opened until after the first bell at Island\nHigh School.\nBoard Member Teague asked what the operating hours of Main Street Supply were.\nStaff Member Sablan answered that Main Street Supply had applied for 9 am to 9 pm and\nthe city law allows 7 am to 9 pm and that is what Alameda Patient Group had applied for.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh asked about \"shoulder tapping\" and how the applicant was\ngoing to keep people from buying the product and reselling it to minors.\nMr. Ngu talked about their security protocols from cameras to how products will be logged\nto clients at the time of purchase.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked if staff had received any community feedback about Main\nStreet Supply since they had been in operation.\nStaff Member Sablan said that they had received a complaint about the screening that\nhad been removed. Once it had been replaced they had no other issues.\nBoard Member Hom wanted to know if the store owners are required to make client\naccounts available to the police department.\nMr. Ngu said yes, their POS (point of sale) data is shared with the local police department.\nPresident Curtis opened public comments.\nPresident Curtis closed public comments.\nApproved Minutes\nPlanning Board Meeting\nPage 6 of 8\nJune, 22 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-06-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-06-22", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Cavanaugh commented that window screening does comply with the bird-\nsafe windows in the city ordinance and that was a good thing.\nBoard Member Ruiz felt strongly about revising the hours of operations.\nBoard Member Teague wanted to hear from the applicant on how they felt about changing\ntheir hours.\nMr. Ngu said if they were unable to move forward with the proposed hours they would but\npreferred to keep the proposed hours.\nA poll was taken for hours of operation.\nMr. Ngu wanted it noted that having an open business is only going to improve the safety\nof the neighborhood.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to approve the use permit as stated in the\ndraft resolution, Board Member Cavanaugh seconded. The use permit passed 5-2,\nBoard Member Ruiz and Rothenberg were opposed.\nBoard Member Hom made a second motion to move the hours to 9 am, Board\nMember Rothenberg seconded. The motion was rejected 4-3, Board Members\nCurtis, Teague, Cavanaugh, and Saheba were opposed.\n8.\nMINUTES\nNone\n9.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2020-8067\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nDesign Review, a full description can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4566395&GUID=94382B16-\nABDA-4B6A-B478-0D8D854EFF29&FullText=1\n9-B 2020- 8068\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nDirector Thomas said the next meeting will be in July. The meeting on July 13th has been\ncanceled, the next meeting will be on July 27th.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nPresident Curtis wanted to tell Board Member Cavanaugh how much he will be missed\nand the wonderful work he had done on the board. He then read Board Member\nApproved Minutes\nPlanning Board Meeting\nPage 7 of 8\nJune, 22 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-06-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-06-22", "page": 8, "text": "Cavanaugh's resolution stating his history with the Planning Board and his many\naccomplishments. President Curtis then thanked the entire board for all of their hard work\nand how honored he had been to serve as President. After this, he stepped down as\nPresident and handed the gavel over to President Teague.\nDirector Thomas talked about Alameda's RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocations)\nnumbers. They would have their exact numbers by next year but to expect between 3,500\nto 4,000 housing units. This will be a challenge and of that number about half will be for\nlow-income housing. He also mentioned that the City Council had a hearing about\nMeasure A two weeks ago, and voted to put Section 26-1 on the ballot for repeal in\nNovember 2020.\nDirector Thomas also wanted to thank Board Member Cavanaugh and President Curtis\nfor their time and service.\n12.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone\n13.\nADJOURNMENT\nPresident Teague adjourned the meeting at 8:36 p.m.\nApproved Minutes\nPlanning Board Meeting\nPage 8 of 8\nJune, 22 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-06-22.pdf"}