body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, January 8, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:05 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member Kohlstrand
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft, Cunningham,
Kohlstrand, Mariani, McNamara.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney Donna
Mooney, Planner III Dennis Brighton, Planner Brian Stanke.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of December 11, 2006.
Member Cunningham inquired about the finalized calendar for 2007 meetings. Mr. Thomas noted
that the approved calendar had been modified from the calendar in the packet. The packet had
suggested canceling the first meeting in November, and it was decided not to cancel that meeting.
Vice President Cook noted that page 2, paragraph 1, should be changed to read, "" to make sure that
tree wells, benches and bus shelters, and other items did not encroach on the sidewalk that was meant
to be walked on.""
Vice President Cook noted that page 7, paragraph 4, should be changed to read, ""Vice President
Cook agreed with much of Member Kohlstrand's comments, but also and understood the need for
this project to have a specific front function. She challenged the applicant to treat the waterfront
differently with future projects and attract future tenants that do not require parking in front of the
buildings, and that can conform to the design challenge.""
Vice President Cook noted that page 8, paragraph 3, should be changed to read, ""Vice President
Cook noted that the minutes did not discussed concerns raised about the status of the conditions of
the 2003 PDA.""
Vice President Cook noted that page 9, paragraph 1, should be changed to read, ""She believed the real
issue was how much square footage could be supported on this site without sacrificing the pedestrian
bicycle access, d number of trees, landscaping and other amenities -the Board desired. She believed that
the developers did not get approval for most of the center in the 2003 much of what they wanted from the
PDA, and noted that because the Board wanted the evelopers to improve the project 's the Board'sdesire
for waterfront orientation. would force the developers to return and show increased waterfront orientation.
She noted that the developers did not appeal the 2003 Planning Board decision that direction to the City
Council, and returned with the project. She believed that at this point, the Board was being asked to
approve buildings on a piecemeal basis without regard for the overall site and water orientation of the
project. design, with some buildings having been approved, and some buildings that have been all but
demolished except for their shells.-Sh believed the intent of the Planning Board had been extremely clear,
and she was concerned that their intent had not been carried out forward.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,2,"Vice President Cook noted that page 9, paragraph 3, should be changed to read, ""Vice President
Cook expressed concern that this approach would weaken the City's leverage with the developer. She
asked whether the Planning Board could look at the overall site plan as it was allowed to examined in
2003, including the intentions stated at that time.
Vice President Cook noted that page 9, paragraph 6, should be changed to read, ""In response to
Member Ezzy Ashcraft's request for the specific examples, Vice President Cook replied that she was
concerned about the status of they were:
Vice President Cook noted that page 10, paragraph 5, should be changed to read, ""She also expressed
her concern that the Planning Board had approved a PDA for this site with conditions, and that a at
least one major condition had not been met. She inquired what the Board's options were at this point.
She inquired how the developer could proceed in this way by first building under the PDA, and-but
then-returning on a building-by-building basis for approval outside of the PDA; she would appreciate a
response from staff that addressed her concerns.""
Vice President Cook noted that page 11, paragraph 7, should be changed to read, ""Vice President
Cook was disappointed that a waterfront site would have only ""peekaboo"" views of the Bay from a
second floor deck.""
Vice President Cook noted that page 13, paragraph 1, should be changed to read, ""Vice President
Cook complimented the applicant on their design details for the part of the project approved and
built pursuant to the 2003 PDA work, especially the fine details.
She believed to date the center
was well-done and greatly improved, but and added that it could be much better from a waterfront
planning perspective.""
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 2, paragraph 5, should be changed to read, ""AYES - 4
(Mariani, Cunningham McNamara-absent)
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that on page 6, she believed the Board had been addressed by the owner
of the Zephyr company.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 8, paragraph 4, should be changed to read, ""He believed it was
a moot point, because once the Planned Development Amendment application was acted upon,
everyone including the applicant acknowledged that everything was back on the table.""
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 10, paragraph 1, should be changed to read, ""Member Ezzy
Ashcraft noted that she was passionate about the issue of the sidewalk, and disclosed that she did a
walkthrough of the property with Harsch, and also with Field Paoli, and representatives from the
Alameda Transportation Commission, Bike Alameda and Pedestrian Friendly Alameda.""
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 12, paragraph 3, should be changed to read, ""She liked the
cut-throughs, and did not want to see the issues swept under the rug, and inquired whether the Board
could request a date certain for completion of incomplete items once the questions have been
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,3,"clarified.""
Vice President Cook moved approval of the minutes.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Board
members Ezzy Ashcraft, Kohlstrand and President Lynch - 5. Abstentions: Board members
Cunningham and Mariani - 2.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Lynch noted that no speaker slips had been received for Item 8-B.
Board member Cunningham motioned to move Item 8-B from the Regular Agenda to the Consent
Calendar.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Mr. David Howard noted that he had spoken with a woman circulating a petition for a deepwater port
at Alameda Point for a cruise ship terminal. He believed that would be worth exploring, and was
shocked and dismayed at what he believed to be City staff's lack of imagination for anything that did
not involve building higher density homes and building upward on Alameda Point. He believed that
the effort to build a cruise ship terminal could be married to an effort to bring more wineries to
Alameda, and replicate the success that Rosenblum Wineries enjoys at Alameda Point. He believed
that water taxis to Jack London Square and San Francisco could be added to the services, and that
more tax dollars could be spent in Alameda.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,4,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-B.
Variance - V06-0010/Minor Design Review MDR06-0237 - Applicant/Appellant:
Carrie Blanche 1821 Grand Street (BS). The property owner is requesting a Variance and
Minor Design Review for a 4 foot side yard setback where either a zero or a 12 foot setback
is required to add a 60 square foot addition to an existing single-family house. The site is
located within a C-] M, Commercial - Manufacturing Zoning District.
Board member Cunningham motioned to move Item 8-B from the Regular Agenda to the Consent
Calendar.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-01 to approve a
Variance and Minor Design Review for a 4 foot side yard setback where either a zero or a 12 foot
setback is required to add a 60 square foot addition to an existing single-family house.
Board member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,5,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee (AT). A presentation by representatives of the
Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee describing efforts between Alameda and Oakland to
improve existing transportation systems serving Chinatown and Alameda and reduce
transportation impacts on pedestrians and the quality of life in Oakland's Chinatown and
Alameda.
Mr. Thomas presented the staff report. He introduced the presenting members of the Oakland
Chinatown Advisory Committee.
Mr. Alan Yee, Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee, thanked City staff and the Board for hosting
this presentation and Board Member Mariani for her invaluable input on the Committee.
Ms. Lynette Lee recognized Oakland Planning Commission Suzy Lee, who served on the Committee
and was in attendance. She provided a brief history of Oakland Chinatown and described the
transportation and traffic challenges faced by both Oakland Chinatown and Alameda. She noted that
the one-way street system was a particular traffic and pedestrian safety challenge.
Jenny Ong - Executive Director, Chinatown Chamber of Commerce, noted that Oakland Chinatown
had grown tremendously during its history, and added that the 600 small businesses contributed
significantly to the City's tax base. She noted that regional transportation connections converged in
Chinatown, creating significant traffic congestion. She noted that there were many senior centers,
schools and community centers in Chinatown, which made pedestrian safety a particular concern. She
noted that Chinatown had the highest rate of vehicle and pedestrian collisions, and most of the victims
were seniors; one-third of Chinatown's population consists of seniors. She described the efforts to
improve transportation systems and pedestrian safety.
Julia Liao, staff, Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee, noted that one of their goals was to
enhance pedestrian safety in an area that was near a major junction of freeways. They also hoped to
enhance mobility for the seniors and disabled, as well as to improve the attractiveness of the shopping
district. They also hoped to involve the community in the process, and to unify the diverse groups to
seek the long-term solutions.
Mr. Yee described the Committee's involvement in the regional perspective, and noted that they
would develop proposals to supplement the CEQA and EIR process currently in place. They would
study alternatives and would work on the proposal made to both Alameda and Oakland for alternative
analysis and guidelines to address the issues. They intended to explore the issue of impact fees, and
hoped that Oakland would be able to follow Alameda's example of using impact fees to address
Chinatown. They intended to revive the planning studies and implementation of the proposals,
especially as the Webster and Posey Tubes affect traffic in and out of Alameda. They hoped to bring
those recommendations to the Planning Board going forward.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the proposed Oak to Ninth Street project impacted the
Committee's plans. Mr. Yee replied that Oak to Ninth would impact the Jackson Street on-ramp.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,6,"Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there would be any response on the state or federal level
regarding funding for the Broadway/Jackson proposal. Mr. Yee replied that they had worked with the
State and made recommendations; he hoped they would help seek funds and implement one of the
recommendations
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether they were working with MTC and ABAG to
prioritize some of their goals for access via the Tube and 880, Ms. Ong replied that they had spoken
with the developer of the Oak to Ninth property, and they had signed an agreement with the
Chinatown Chamber and Asian Health Services to contribute funds to improve traffic congestion in
Chinatown.
Mr. Thomas noted that the Alameda/Oakland subregion should be better at advocating for state and
federal money. He noted that other cities have joined together to get priority for transportation funds
for regional improvements. He noted that they were working with ACTIA and CalTrans to prepare a
Project Study Report (PSR), and that the Chinatown Committee was very effective in getting the
Oakland City Councilmembers to attend the meeting with the City of Alameda and ACTIA so that the
Oakland Councilmembers would emphasize the need to make the ramp system the priority in the
study.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that Ron Dellums, Oakland's new mayor, had significant experience in
Washington, D.C., and she hoped that would assist in getting federal funds.
Member Kohlstrand complimented the Committee on their cooperative efforts, and believed that
traffic improvements would be part of the solution. She would like a briefing on the
Broadway/Jackson proposal. She believed that transit in both cities would also be part of the solution,
because of the constraint at the Tube. She noted that the development in Jack London Square and
west of the freeway would place increasing demand on the road network; she added that area was
somewhat isolated from the transit service. She inquired whether the City of Oakland had looked at
other traffic inbound into Oakland; she noted that many of the broad, wide Oakland streets have not
used their capacity. She encouraged creative ways of lessening the impact on Chinatown, and would
encourage traffic calming methods on the most impacted streets.
Member Kohlstrand inquired whether the City was working with a consultant. Ms. Ong replied that
they were, and that they had received an MTC grant for Chinatown improvements; bulbouts were
part of that plan.
Vice President Cook stated that she viewed the Estuary as a positive and unifying element between
Oakland and Alameda, rather than a dividing force. She shared the concerns about Oak to Ninth, and
noted that it was a huge project. She noted that the larger projects were connected with the Port,
which did not always see eye-to-eye with the City of Oakland from a planning perspective. She would
recommend some planning and real estate representation from the Port on the committee.
Member Cunningham believed it was interesting how two communities could work to affect the
other. He believed it would be beneficial to discover the lessons that would be learned from this study
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,7,"as some potentially larger developments are examined. He thought the analysis of the CEQA
shortcomings was interesting, and that developers coming into Alameda would be asked to do similar
studies.
Mr. Thomas noted that the City's thresholds for analyzing projects focused on the car, which was
discussed by the Chinatown representatives in 2002-3 when discussing some of Alameda's and
Oakland's EIRs. He noted that many felt that the impact on pedestrians, transit and bicyclists needed
to be addressed more thoroughly. He noted that the Transportation Commission and then the
Planning Board had also been raising the same concerns that the analysis had been centered on cars.
He noted that the two cities could work together in developing a common methodology to benefit
both cities.
Member Kohlstrand noted that as a transportation planner, she knew that many cities were grappling
with that issue, and that it was intended for applications in suburban environments where lanes could
be added. She noted that the resulting wide streets became very difficult for pedestrians to cross. She
noted that San Francisco was still struggling with that issue, and believed it would be beneficial to
examine the measures being implemented by San Francisco.
President Lynch inquired whether there was any response provided to the Oakland Mayor's office or
City Council when they suspended the cumulative impact analysis for developments in Oakland.
Mr. Thomas replied that that legislation was passed just before this committee was established.
President Lynch noted that the Mayor requested a waiver from the cumulative impact analysis within
the documents for the City of Oakland and their projects; that was approved by the State legislature.
He believed that creative thinking would be necessary in the design aspects of streets and questions
raised about the social impacts, social interaction, air quality and quality of life.
Member Mariani noted that it had been a pleasure serving on this committee, and that she would
continue to do SO.
No action was taken.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,8,"8-C.
Appeal of Major Design Review Approval - DR06-0064 - Applicant/Appellant: Grace
Villa 1811 Eighth Street (DB). The property owner is appealing a condition of Design
Review approval that requires the removal of a driveway gate that reduces access to required
parking in a detached two-car garage. The site is located within an R-2, Two-Family
Residential Zoning District.
Mr. Brighton summarized the staff report, and noted that he had distributed a letter from a neighbor
who opposed any proposal that would inhibit off street parking.
The public hearing was opened.
Italo Calpestri, project architect, noted that the applicant believed the gate was a necessity because of
a
number of security breaches that had occurred. The plan shown had more bedrooms added to the
lower floor, and the security of those bedrooms was paramount to the applicant. Mr. Brighton had
recommended that the gate be placed at the back of the building, which would make access to
unauthorized people along the driveway very easy. The applicant filed the appeal because having the
gate at the rear did not meet their security needs.
President Lynch suggested that this item be suspended to allow a sidebar conversation to take place
between staff and the applicant to discuss gate alternatives.
Board member Cunningham moved to continue the item until later in the meeting.
Board member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,9,"9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that no further meetings had been held since her last report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
There was no additional information following the agenda item.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
Member Kohlstrand advised that there was nothing new to report. She had been invited to participate
in a meeting with Planning staff and a representative from the Transportation Commission to discuss
transportation issues as they relate to Alameda Point and Catellus.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board
Member Cunningham).
Member Cunningham noted that their first meeting would be held January 10, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. in
the new library.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would like to see the City adopt some green building
ordinances to add to the building codes. She had conducted some research at the Waste Management
Authority for Alameda County on other municipalities that already had green building ordinances. She
met with Karen Smith, the Executive Director of WMA, who attended the ribbon cutting ceremony
for the LEED-certified library. She noted that the new Zephyr building would have some green
building elements, as would the Habitat for Humanity homes. She applauded those entities for their
voluntary application of green building elements, but believed the City had a responsibility to the
community and the environment to have these ordinances on the books. There were only two cities in
Alameda County without some sort of green building ordinance on the books: Alameda and
Piedmont. She would like the Planning Board to make a recommendation to the City Council to
adopt green building requirements.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff was working on these issues, and believed the green building initiative
could be brought to the Climate Protection Committee, and the Planning Board for consideration.
Member Cunningham noted that previous discussions of a green building ordinance had been
sidelined due to funding and staffing constraints.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,10,"A discussion of building codes and building practices ensued as it related to applying a green building
ordinance.
Mr. Thomas noted that his tour of the Peet's Coffee building during the inspection was enlightening,
and added that the Clif Bar building was attempting to achieve a LEED platinum certification.
Board member Cunningham moved to reopen Item 8-C.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,11,"8-C. Appeal of Major Design Review Approval - DR06-0064 - Applicant/Appellant: Grace
Villa 1811 Eighth Street (DB). The property owner is appealing a condition of Design
Review approval that requires the removal of a driveway gate that reduces access to required
parking in a detached two-car garage. The site is located within an R-2, Two-Family
Residential Zoning District.
The public hearing was reopened.
Mr. Calpestri noted that he and Mr. Brighton had agreed to disagree, and that the sticking point was
the need for an automatic opener or operator on the gate. He resisted the idea of an operator due to
its expense, which could approach $2,500, and another $1,000 for installation. He requested that the
Board support the first alternative given in the staff report, without providing an operator.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch regarding the necessity of an operator, Mr. Brighton
replied that it encouraged the use of the on-site parking.
Ms. Susan Villa, noted that she was representing her mother Grace Villa (the applicant). She noted
that her mother was 82 years old, and has become increasingly frail. She had lived in this home since
1947, and it was her hope to stay there. She and her eight siblings would like this expansion to be
approved SO that caregivers and other family members may be accommodated there in order to care
for their mother. Her mother had experienced several frightening incidents when people came up the
driveway. This, combined with her age and decreasing sight, had made her quite fearful, and she was
adamant that she would like a gate. She noted that her mother did not own a vehicle, and noted that
there would be one vehicle at the house from either a caregiver or a family member. She did not
believe it would be a problem to use the gate and gain access to the garage. She understood
the
concern about offstreet parking, and believed this would not contribute to the problem.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether she would agree to the alternative which called
for a five-foot-high iron/steel fence, Ms. Villa replied that she would not be opposed to that
alternative.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the public policy or rationale requiring the gate to be see-
through She believed that it would be a common-sense solution to have the gate swing toward the
front of the house, rather toward the side of the house, which would impede the driveway. She
believed that people should be encouraged to improve their homes, especially the older homes. She
also wanted to support older residents in being able to stay in their homes as long as possible.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch regarding the idea that having an operator was an
onerous condition, Mr. Brighton replied that the floor area was being doubled with more bedrooms
and bathrooms. He believed the additional $2,500-$3,000 in light of the major construction
investment was a minor consideration for the long-term use of the property, and the long-term benefit
of the community to have offstreet parking.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,12,"Member Mariani thanked staff for the additional information, and noted that the Board had been
concerned about offstreet parking. She noted that with the increase in square footage, up to six
people could potentially live in this house. She believed that an additional $2,500 when compared
with the cost of the construction was relatively minor, and she agreed with staff's assessment.
Vice President Cook agreed with the staff report She understood the security concerns, but had also
seen a thief jump a neighbor's fence when a gate had been installed. She believed the number of
bedrooms, number of cars, and accessibility to the garage were the Board's main concerns.
Member Kohlstrand believed it was an onerous requirement to have the automatic gate opener, and
she did not know whether it had been required before for a residential property. She agreed with
Member Ezzy Ashcraft's assessment, and would support the condition of a new gate, but without the
opener on it.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City would continue to require mechanical gate
operators on all driveways that were less than stated in the Code. She noted that a neighbor had such
an operator, and added that it was very noisy when it worked; it was also expensive to repair the
motor. She appreciated the thoroughness of staff's report, as well as the addition of the Code
sections. She did not see any reference to mechanical openers in the Code.
In response to an inquiry by Member Cunningham regarding the definition of ""see-through,"" Mr.
Brighton replied that 50% of the volume must be unobscured.
Board member Cunningham moved to uphold the appeal, and to suggest the installation of a five-foot
see-through fence on the southeast corner without an electric operator.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which failed by the following voice vote: Board
member Kohlstrand - 3. Noes: Vice President Cook, President Lynch, Board member Mariani - 3.
(Absent: Board member McNamara - 1.)
President Lynch suggested that this item be suspended for further discussion between staff and the
applicant.
Board member Mariani moved to suspend discussion of this item in order to resolve the outstanding
issue of the mechanical gate.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by a unanimous voice vote - 6.
(Absent: Board member McNamara - 1.)
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,13,"11.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
a.
Status Report on upcoming Public Forum related to Measure A and Alameda Point.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Jean Sweeney noted that she was dismayed at the amount of support she has seen for overturning
Measure A. She believed that issue should go to the voters, and she would not like to see further
public sessions in pursuit of that goal. She believed that overturning Measure A would increase the
density in Alameda, which she opposed. She did not want Atlantic Avenue widened to eight lanes,
which would greatly impact entrances to the Tube.
Ms. Diane Lichtenstein, representing Homes, believed the recommendation was to fold the forum into
the station area plan that would come before the public soon. She believed that would not be the best
way to approach this issue. She noted that Ms. Woodbury's memo based the station area plan on
transportation and transit orientation. She believed the conceptual development plans with and
without Measure A would be discussed as well. She believed that if Measure A was folded into the
community forums as a discussion point, it would dominate the purpose of what the station area plan
was, which was to discuss transportation and transit, not Measure A. She requested that the Board go
forward with the proposal to hold a forum, and noted that it had been three years since the last forum
at Kaufman Auditorium. She believed it would be fair to hear the public's views on such a hot issue,
especially since many things had changed since then.
Mr. David Howard objected to the use of MTC funds to explore non-Measure A-compliant
alternatives. He also objected to the Measure A forums being combined with the station area plan
discussion, and also objected to the existence of the Measure A forums in general. He was concerned
that a study of a non-Measure A-compliant alternative as proposed may eventually undermine
Measure A. He did not believe that was a good use of funds, and did not want it to become a
backdoor way to undermine Measure A.
Ms. Helen Sause, representing Homes, complimented the Board's plans to schedule a hearing on the
impacts of Measure A across the City, not just Alameda Point. She believed it was important to
separate this hearing from the work that will be done by WRT in analyzing the transportation
development alternative for Alameda Point. She noted that it was encouraging to allow people to
speak about the impacts of Measure A. She was concerned that linking it with the transportation
study, that polarized positions would result, and added that no one was suggesting eliminating it. She
believed that citywide, people deserved to have the chance to speak their minds about the possibility
of modifying Measure A. She hoped the issue could be discussed civilly.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Member Mariani believed that while the speakers had opposite points of view, they did agree that the
discussions should not be held together in a combined forum.
Member Cunningham did not believe the issues could be examined effectively without considering
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,14,"both options. He agreed that whether the MTC funds were used to study Measure A, it would take
more money than that to complete the study. He suggested doing a noncompliant Measure A scheme
to see the implications, and believed that would be prudent planning.
Mr. Thomas provided background information regarding the settlement agreement that led to this
study, as well as the Oakland-Chinatown Advisory Committee and the MTC grant money.
Member Mariani thanked Mr. Thomas for the clarification, because the memo distributed to the
Planning Board did not contain that information.
Vice President Cook believed that the study should go forward, and that the Measure A study forum
should also occur. She was also interested in other aspects of the Measure A debate besides only
transportation. She was very concerned about ensuring that there was a middle ground between
housing for the very rich and the very poor. She inquired whether the ferry would be viable when it is
moved. She supported looking at a policy such as Measure A objectively, and would like to hear all
the perspectives on the issue. She was concerned about urban design issues that flowed from urban
design and density. She had felt that there were places in the City where Measure A should be
tightened up, and other places where it did not make sense. She supported an informational forum
with a skilled facilitator.
Member Kohlstrand agreed with Vice President Cook's comments, and supported having the MTC
study, as well as an independent forum on Measure A.
President Lynch appreciated the public comments, but was somewhat disappointed in the
characterization of some of the comments that he had heard during his time on the Planning Board in
that Measure A is not just about density. He noted that it was also about design, and when some
people become demonized for wanting to have a public discussion, that does not mean the next step
would be to overturn Measure A. He believed a discussion about an existing ordinance was entirely
within the public purview.
In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand, Mr. Thomas replied that the intent of the MTC
scope of work was to gather resources and information that the City could use to inform the work
that would be done by the master developer.
President Lynch noted that part of the discussion was how to design the 1800 new residences, and
what kind of homes they would be. He noted that the impacts on open space must also be examined
with respect to placement of the homes, bike paths and transportation schemes. He noted that the
answer would not be known until the possible scenarios could be laid out. He did not believe that
examining these questions would necessarily lead to overturning Measure A.
Member Kohlstrand believed that the standards for block sizes should be followed regardless of
Measure A compliance, and that obtaining more information would be helpful. She suggested using
the AC Transit guide that addressed transit-oriented design. She also met with the general manager of
the Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton last week, who noted that 93% of their users arrived by
car. He noted that they built the development with four parking spaces per thousand square feet, and
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,15,"he added that they had ""way too much parking.""
Member Kohlstrand noted that the MTC study, undertaken through the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Agency, stated that the Planning Board members could participate as Alamedans.
While she believed that was positive that all Alamedans had an opportunity to participate in this
process, it seemed strange that a fundamental planning issue would not come before the Planning
Board, nor was there a mention of the Planning Board having a special presentation on this issue.
Mr. Thomas apologized for that information not being included in the memo. He noted that the
products of the MTC scope of work included the recommendation for new designs for parking
standards, block sizes and other public improvement standards and parking standards. He noted that
these findings would be implemented as zoning text amendments, which would come to the Planning
Board for recommendation to the City Council. He noted that the parking studies and other tasks
were designed to inform the Planning Board and the City Council.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft agreed that the City needed additional expertise from people who have
worked on outside projects in different communities. She noted that she recently spent five days in
Vancouver, British Columbia, which was a vibrant water-oriented community.
Vice President Cook agreed with Member Ezzy Ashcraft that this should not be viewed as strictly a
Measure A forum.
President Lynch noted that it would be one of the vehicles where the public could speak about
Measure A as it applied to a particular area and different design concepts.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the workshops could be televised. Mr. Thomas noted that
the venue had not been selected yet.
Vice President Cook noted that some people cannot watch the telecast because they already had
schedule conflicts.
Mr. Thomas noted that it may be videotaped and reshown on the cable channel.
President Lynch requested an update on Item 8-C. Mr. Thomas advised that staff and applicants had
met, and the applicant understood that the appeal failed. The applicant would live with the current
requirement, which was to remove the gate. They would work with staff to examine some of the
options in the staff report, which can be approved without coming back to the Planning Board.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-08,16,"12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy Woodbury
FCathy Woodbury, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the February 12, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
January 8, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf