pages: PlanningBoard/2009-08-24.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2009-08-24 | 6 | President Kohlstrand closed the public comment period. The Board asked that the applicant respond to the question of advertising and scheduling of upcoming events. The applicant stated that the website is not theirs and that no event was scheduled for September 6, 2009. Board member Cook asked for clarification on the applicant's interpretation of 'bring-your- own-beverages' and why the applicant is requesting that condition #4 be changed. The applicant stated that no alcohol will be sold through the banquet's business operation, but that alcoholic sales would be strictly conducted by caterers. Board member Lynch asked for clarification on the deposit for staff and material for Use Permits. Staff explained how staff time billed towards the deposit on processing the application. Board member Lynch suggested that a facilitator be selected to resolve the items that are contentious, paid for by the applicant or billed against the project. He rejected the idea to developing conditions of approval at the dais and suggested that the Board only review the project upon agreement of the different parties. Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft disagreed with the need to find a mediator and with the statement that the facility would not be ADA compliant. She would like to see a condition of approval requiring that the applicant obtain an ABC liquor license, as it would generate a vested interest by the property owner in maintaining good relationships with neighbors, as their liquor license would be at stake. She also recommended that condition #4 be revised to require security when an event has 100 or more attendees. In addition, she stated that enforcement of conditions is possible. She stated that a restaurant and a banquet facility are somewhat similar uses, but that the restaurant is more intensive from a parking need standpoint as they are open for business seven days a week, while this venue would operate once or twice a week. Board member Autorino asked the applicant why building activity and events were conducted without proper permits. The applicant's representative stated that the property owner was unaware of the need to obtain a Use Permit to hold events. Board member Autorino asked how the business operations would be conducted and the community would be able to contact someone in the case of issues at events. The applicant's representative stated that the applicant would be available at all times for any comments by the neighborhood. Board member Autorino then asked why it was necessary to increase the security-guest ratio to 150 instead of 50. The representative stated that it was an arbitrary number, but they were flexible. Board member Autorino asked for clarification on the parking study and whether areas were left out in the parking need count as stated in the public testimony. Charlie Abrams, Traffic Engineer, explained the parking analysis and stated that the analysis was complete and did calculate parking needs for berths in the marina. Obaid Khan, City of Alameda Civil Engineer, spoke about the review process and analysis. He recommended that if there are more than 130 to 150 attendees, valet parking or attendant parking should be required. Board member Autorino wanted it in the record that the applicant's analysis stated on rare events, parking demand would exceed capacity, while the City's analysis revealed that Page 6 of 11 | PlanningBoard/2009-08-24.pdf |