MINUTES OF MEETING ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 2011 (Approved March 21, 2011)

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF MEETING MARCH 7, 2011 (Approved March 21, 2011) FIELD TRIP Time: 3:30 p.m. Place: 224 West Winton Avenue, Room 111, Hayward California Note: The Planning Commissioners adjourned to the field at 3:30 p.m. to visit the properties listed on the regular calendar below under Field Trip Report. The Commission will reconvene at 6:00 p.m. for the Regular Meeting at 224 W. Winton Avenue, Public Hearing Room, Hayward. REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Ken Carbone, Vice-Chair; Frank Imhof; Mike Jacob; Kathie Ready and Richard Rhodes, Chair. MEMBERS EXCUSED: Commissioner Alane Loisel OTHERS PRESENT: Albert Lopez, Planning Director; Bruce Jensen, Senior Planner; Phil Sawrey-Kubicek, Senior Planner; Brian Washington, County Counsel s Office; Nilma Singh, Recording Secretary. There were approximately twenty-two people in the audience. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR: The Chair announced the upcoming Historic Preservation Conference, Friday, June 17 th, 2011 in Sonora. OPEN FORUM: Open forum is provided for any members of the public wishing to speak on an item not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three (3) minutes. No one requested to be heard under open forum. FIELD TRIP REPORT: The Chair announced that the Commission has visited eight properties in the Fairview area. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Ken Carbone; Frank Imhof; Chair; Glen Kirby; and Richard Rhodes, Vice-Chair. MEMBERS EXCUSED: Commissioners Alane Loisel; Mike Jacob and Kathie Ready.

2 PAGE 2 OTHERS PRESENT: Phil Sawrey-Kubicek, Senior Planner 1. UNINCORPORATED FAIRVIEW AREA OF ALAMEDA COUNTY COMMITTEE REPORT: Commissioner Imhof announced that the Niles Canyon widening project has begun. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS - 2. FEBRUARY 22, 2011 Continued to March 21, CONSENT CALENDAR: No items. REGULAR CALENDAR: 3. AMERESCO VASCO ROAD LLC, VASCO ROAD LANDFILL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PLN ~ Petition to consider adoption of an Addendum to a 2003 Mitigated Negative Declaration for, and approval of, a new landfill gas-to-energy facility (LFGTE) at the Vasco Road Landfill (VRL), 4001 North Vasco Road, north of Livermore, bearing Assessor s Parcel Number: 099B Staff Planner: Bruce Jensen Mr. Jensen presented the staff report and read an from Environmental Health received just prior this meeting. Commissioner Jacob arrived. Public testimony was called for. Alan Siegwarth, representing Ameresco Vasco Road LLC, project developer, further explained the purpose of the facility adding that there are several similar facilities in the Bay Area. The major concern is noise and they are working with neighbors to resolve this issue. Dick Ward, 3884 N. Vasco Road, said he agrees with the concept and supports the project. His concern is the noise level disturbing their life style, especially in the quiet evenings/nights in summer. The applicants are working with the neighbors and in response to their concern, they had a meeting and tour of the facility on Collier Canyon. There is no line of sight issue. However, he has requested noise level measurements. In response to Commissioner Imhof, he stated his appreciation of the completion of the water pipe project which was completed last November, the neighbors are hooked to city water and Zone 7 fee had been reduced. Don King said his property, 3850 N. Vasco Road, is directly across the landfill on a hill and, although he can see the top of the flare from the patio, it is quiet. His concern is noise.

3 PAGE 3 Public testimony was closed. Commissioner Jacob requested clarification regarding the relationship between the new noise recommendations and the nexus of less than significant analysis. Staff explained that the only possible environmental issue of the original MND was air quality and that noise was not a CEQA concern. The noise analysis in the new application suggests an approximate sound level of the mid-30db range which is comparable to the current night noise level and well below County noise ordinance standards or CEQA impact levels. Since there are no CEQ impacts or mitigation, only an administrative condition will be applied to monitor noise levels for nuisance. Commissioner Imhof made the motion to adopt the Addendum and Commissioner Jacob seconded. Motion carried unanimously, 5/0, with Commissioner Loisel excused. Commissioner Imhof made the motion to move staff recommendation for an approval and Commissioner Jacob seconded. Motion carried unanimously, 5/0, with Commissioner Loisel excused. 4. PROPOSED NEW ORDINANCE REQUIRING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES ESTABLISHMENTS ~ To consider an ordinance enacting a new section in Chapter of Title 17 of the General Ordinance Code of the County of Alameda. (Continued from September 7, 2010 and February 7, 2011). Staff Planner: Phil Sawrey-Kubicek Mr. Sawrey-Kubicek presented the staff report. Commissioner Carbone requested clarification regarding the response from City of Hayward and the process to change from beer/wine to hard alcohol. Public testimony was called for. Bill Lambert, RDA, discussed his opposition -- will have an unintended consequence for businesses; size is an issue - will discriminate against small businesses; reads as no new businesses (restaurants) in the unincorporated areas; theme of this ordinance will not play well with the public; the word restaurant should be deleted and if included, there should be exemptions; ABC already has policies in place for over concentrated areas; the 750 feet buffer would not allow any businesses on Castro Valley Blvd, E 14 th Street, Mission Blvd or Hesperian Blvd. He asked for the Finding for Overriding Considerations. Derry Silva, Blossom Ct, stated that within two blocks, there are six alcohol outlets. Additional revenue can be provided by making the area more appealing and, as such, a distance is required. She urged the consideration of the 750 feet buffer. Griselda Gallo, 240 Sunset Blvd in the Cherryland area, with a translator, stated that she is a member of Padres Unidos, part of the Ashland, Cherryland Violence Prevention Collaborative and an active volunteer in the community. During her 11-year Cherryland residency, many new liquor stores have opened including two new parks. However, many young people use these parks for alcohol consumption creating an unsafe environment.

4 PAGE 4 She urged an approval. Commissioner Carbone asked for the location of the new liquor stores. Ms. Gallo replied that they were not new but existing. John Aufdermauer, property owner at Madison Avenue, Castro Valley and a member of Castro Valley Community Action Network, in support, said that the data indicates an over concentration of alcohol outlets in Castro Valley. He urged approval for a 750 feet radius or at least 500 feet. Deputy Bret Scheuller, Sheriff s Office, provided statistics for ACSO Alcohol Decoy Operations, rate of violations from at the request of CommPre. In response to the Commission, he explained the their Fee Ordinance, training and decoy program have helped in the substantial reduction; three arrests have been made at the park to-date; although the operation was conducted only in the West County between , East County has been included in 2011; and confirmed that they were neither in support nor in opposition but providing data at the request of CommPre and the percentage was higher for alcohol vs. drugs. Richard Hancocks said his issues are the same as stated in September, The 500 foot buffer, the most lenient, will not allow a new business in any commercially zoned property. Very few alcohol applications have been received in the last few years and the West BZA has denied those located in the over concentrated areas. A CUP is a discretionary permit. He urged the Commission to either send it back to resolve these issues or deny it. Traci Cross, 4400 Alma Avenue, Castro Valley, representing CV CAN, spoke in support. In reference to ABC s recommendation of one alcohol outlet for every 2,500 residents, Castro Valley is over-concentrated with one outlet for 1,000 residents. The CUP will allow public input on new proposed businesses coming into communities. Large retailers and restaurants should be included. David Silva, 1883 Strobridge Avenue, also spoke in support. He owns a building on Redwood Road and has had a lot of alcohol related problems/damage on his property. As such, Sheriff s Department has been called on numerous occasions and he has had to hire private security. An approval is needed to educate those selling alcohol. Cheryl Miraglia, 5571 Century Oaks Ct, stated that she had submitted a detailed 4-page letter last August. A CUP is already required for bars/taverns and alcohol outlets. The approval of two applications from a total of eight in five years does not support the contention that the current policy is too flexible. She pointed out that two out of five neighboring jurisdictions do not have any distance requirements and the other three is not as restrictive as this proposal. There is no evidence that there is a need to convert the current policy into an ordinance or go beyond the current CUP requirement. If approved, the definition of tavern should be amended to refer only to bars and not restaurants; any distance would apply to bars and alcohol outlets only; distance should be limited to that of the current policy; restriction to advertising should be limited to 1993 policy. However, there is no need for an overly restrictive Ordinance and should be denied.

5 PAGE 5 Barbara Quintero, Women on the Way Recovery Center in Cherryland, in support, noted that the Ashland/Cherryland area has an over-abundance of alcohol outlets and such environment influences the younger generation. Avani Desai, Program Specialist, CommPre, in support of economic community development stated the following: an ordinance will allow up-standing responsible businesses in the community contributing to the economic vitality; the existing businesses will not be impacted by the CUP; however, without the CUP, new businesses will be grandfathered in; only 18% of San Lorenzo High School students believe that it is not difficult to access alcohol; 42% of 11 th graders think it is easy to get alcohol from businesses; larger retailers are equally or more likely to be problematic than alcohol outlets (i.e. Trader Joes and CVS both sold alcohol to minors last year) and should not be exempt from the public hearing process; and no new types of restaurants will be included under the Ordinance. Marc Crawford, 3832 Somerset Avenue, felt that although the Commission had directed staff to re-write the Ordinance at the last hearing, it is very similar with very few changes. There is not a need for an Ordinance as the current system is working and he pointed out that the Sheriff s Department is neither in support nor against. If approved, he suggested the restaurants and neighborhood commercials 10,000 square feet be removed. Public testimony was closed. Commissioner Ready felt that this Ordinance bans businesses bringing tax revenues in the unincorporated areas. Any loitering problems should be reported to the Sheriff s Department. An Ordinance is not needed for bad behavior. Commissioner Carbone said he could not support such an Ordinance and concurred with Commissioner Ready adding that he would like to see the definition of taverns amended. He commended the Sheriff s Department for their efforts, a decrease in the rate of violation from 34% to 17%. Commissioner Jacob said he could support the Ordinance with some significant changes -- the existing policy, focused on bars and liquor stores, needs to be stronger; a discussion is needed on the issue of a nonconforming use in a non-commercial area; the resolution to reflect that this Ordinance is to further effectuate the purposes of our existing policy. He also asked for the possibility of looking into perhaps some additional abatement fees. Mr. Lopez explained that a new Alcohol Operator Fee (training and education) is already in place through Code Enforcement and Sheriff s Department. The Chair stated his concern with the attempt to repair present problems with future actions and added the following: the symbolism gets the attention instead of the problem; the existing policy with other remedies is working and, as such, imposing a restrictive Ordinance will not work; the 750 foot restriction is a defecto ban ; and restaurants need to be removed from the Ordinance. Commissioner Imhof made the motion for a denial and Commissioner Ready seconded. Motion carried 4/1 with Commissioner Jacob dissenting. Commissioner Loisel excused. A discussion followed regarding the grounds for a denial, the next step, the origin and need for such an Ordinance. The Chair requested that the reasons for the denial be outlined in the board letter and Commissioner Ready suggested that CommPre could look into the problem of loitering in front of liquor stores.

6 PAGE 6 STAFF COMMENTS & CORRESPONDENCE: None CHAIRS REPORT: None COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENT, COMMENTS AND REPORTS: Commissioner Jacob asked for the due dates for the Ethics Training and Statement of Economic Interest Forms. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Commissioner Ready moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:45 p.m. Commissioner Carbone seconded the motion. The motion was carried 5/0. ALBERT LOPEZ, SECRETARY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF ALAMEDA COUNTY