body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2007-10-08,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, October 8, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:10 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Cunningham.
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Ezzy Ashcraft,
Cunningham, Lynch, Mariani and McNamara.
Member Lynch was absent from roll call.
Also present were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Assistant City
Attorney Donna Mooney, Planner III Dennis Brighton, Obaid Khan, Public Works.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of September 24, 2007.
The minutes will be considered at the meeting of October 22, 2007.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
President Cook understood that several people wished to speak about Item 8-A. She noted
that item was proposed to be continued, and inquired whether the Board should hear the
public comments at this time.
Member Cunningham believed it would be better to take comment after receiving and
reviewing further information.
Member McNamara agreed with Board member Cunningham.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that public comments be taken at this time, and that the
Board members may take notes and address the matter when it would be heard again.
Member McNamara believed the item had been noticed as being continued.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether any speaker slips had been
received, Ms. Woodbury replied that staff was still working with the applicant on their
proposal, and that it was not yet ready to come to a hearing. She added that more
information was required, and that it would be renoticed because it was not continued to a
date certain. She noted that if the members of the public who had come to speak on Item 8-
A would leave their contact information, staff would notify them of the hearing date.
1",PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-08,2,"President Cook noted that no speaker slips had been received for Item 8-A, but that the
members of the public may speak during Oral Communications. She apologized for the
miscommunication.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Future Agendas
Ms. Woodbury provided an update on future agenda items.
b.
Zoning Administrator Report
Ms. Woodbury provided the Zoning Administrator report.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Council member Doug DeHaan noted that he spoke as a private citizen, and wished to
address Alameda Landing and the issues and opportunities in developing that site. He
noted that it was a unique site, and reviewed the background of that project. He expressed
concern about the waterfront and the vistas, as well as the scale, size and massing of the
development. He noted that it had been reduced from its former 600,000 square feet to
250,000 square feet. He expressed concern about the billboards placed on easel mounts
and the massive walls in the form of art. He noted that this was a single-story building,
and that the interior space of the retail was approximately 16 to 20 feet. He did not
believe that building should be 65 feet tall, and noted that the Board had expressed
concern about that height. He did not think that given the green building focus of the
City, that the building should be that tall. He noted that the master tree review would be
coming forward soon, and noted that the pear tree species was not desired and should not
be accepted within the City.
Ms. Karen Miller noted that she was not pleased that the applicant for Item 8-A was not
in attendance, while she and other members of the public attended to speak on the item.
She noted that she lived across the street from the subject house, and noted that many
trees and a pond had been removed from the property, purportedly because they were
installing a pool. She noted that did not occur, and recently heard that they intended to
subdivide the property. She noted that the owner lived in Los Angeles, and had bought
the property as an investment; she did not believe he had the same concerns for Alameda
as she and her neighbors did. She noted that he bought and sold another house across the
street. She noted that this property was unique in Alameda, and she was disappointed that
it has been sitting vacant. She noted that because the applicant had received a notice that
the item was continued; she and her neighbors should have been notified as well.
Ms. Sara Chavez, SunCal Companies, noted that their first public meeting would be held
October 24, 2007, 6:30 p.m. at the Mastick Senior Center. They planned to introduce the
team and give an overview of the constraints at Alameda Point.
2",PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-08,3,"Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that at the last Planning Board meeting, the meeting date
had been October 23, and noted that there must have been a date change.
Ms. Chavez noted that it had always been scheduled for October 24.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A
Parcel Map PM07-0003 - Applicant: Jack Cooley, 717 Paru Street. The
applicant is requesting a parcel map to divide a 92,053.03-square foot parcel into
two parcels. One parcel with an existing single-family residence would be
17,051.13-square feet and the remaining parcel would be 75,001.9-square feet.
The 75,001.9-square foot parcel would contain an existing cabana, with the
majority of the parcel located within the lagoon. The site is located within an R-1,
Single-Family Residential Zoning District (DB).
Member Cunningham moved to continue this item.
Vice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Absent: 1 (Lynch). The motion passed.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A. Approval of the format for a future public forum regarding the Housing Element
and Measure A and dissolution of the Expanded Housing Element/Measure A Ad
Hoc Committee
Ms. Woodbury presented the staff report, and provided a brief background of Measure A.
She noted that in July, the ad hoc Housing Element/Measure A Workshop Committee
agreed to disband before they reached an agreement on the workshop format, and before
discussing potential speakers. The last meeting ended with direction to the appellant
members and the Board members to provide their preferred workshop format to the
Planning Board for consideration, along with one prepared by the City's consultant. She
noted that she expanded upon the consultant's comments, which was included in the packet.
Once the Planning Board's comments have been received, staff would work with the
consultant on the administrative details, including the invitations to speakers, the venue,
date, notices and documentation of the workshop. The Planning Board was asked to approve
a format for the public forum, and to dissolve the ad hoc committee because its work has
been completed.
President Cook noted that seven speaker slips had been received.
Member McNamara moved to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
Member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Absent: 1
(Lynch). The motion passed.
3",PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-08,4,"The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Sally Fallhobber noted that she was speaking as an individual on this item. She believed
it was time for the City to closely examine the effects of Measure A, as well as what has and
has not been built. She had voted for Measure a in 1973, hoping it would fail by a narrow
margin in favor of a better way to control growth and preserve the City's architecture and
small-town atmosphere. She still supports those goals, and at that time, there were units that
were more affordable to single-family homes. She cited Bayport, Marina Cove and Heritage
Bay as not filling that niche, which she did not believe met the intent of the original
supporters. She believed that after 34 years, the people of Alameda should revisit this issue
based on current information. She hoped that a forum to address the issues would be made
available.
Mr. John Knox-White was pleased that all six members of the ad hoc subcommittee
supported this forum. He also supported the Planning Board's recommended format as
described in the packet, which expanded upon the staff recommendation.
Ms. Kate Quick, representing League of Women Voters of Alameda, noted that they were in
general agreement with the recommended format for the forum. They believed that such a
discussion should not be on the merits, or lack thereof, of Measure A, but how it impacted
the community, as well as current and future planning decisions. They would like the
following issues to be addressed:
1.
Does it limit choices?
2.
Does it provide the necessary protection to ensure appropriate density,
building and community design and growth control?
3.
Could these be achieved with additional measures, or different measures?
4.
How has it limited the choices?
She believed the residents of Alameda would be able to gain a more comprehensive
knowledge of this part of the City charter, and decide for themselves how they wish to
proceed, whether it be kept in its current forum, or amending it from the vote of the people.
They believed the forum should be professionally facilitated, and that the speakers who
were expert in the field of planning and community development and design, as well as
those who could address the history and local perspective. They believed that even-
handedness in the design of this forum would be key to its outcome. She believed it was
time to put aside the argument that Measure A, as part of the City Charter, could not be
reviewed, discussed, and possibly amended.
Ms. Susan Decker believed that it was important to have a discussion of the ways that the
City can guide development and preserve the City's character. She appreciated the input
from the community and noted that the list of potential speakers looked good. She had
attended one of the ad hoc committee meetings, and noted that there were difficulties in
agreeing how the public input should be formatted. She noted that the proposal incorporated
both major suggestions, which should encourage public input.
Mr. Michael Krueger spoke in support of the community's recognition of the need of a
forum. He was glad that the community had moved beyond the debate about whether it
4",PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-08,5,"should be discussed or not. He believed the recommended format was very well thought-
out, and urged the Planning Board to adopt it. He was pleased to see so many Alameda
residents, and liked the idea of using small groups and speaking before the general audience.
Ms. Helen Sause, President of Homes, thanked everyone involved in bringing the forum
forward. She supported adoption of the Measure A forum, as well as holding the forum as
soon as possible. She supported putting a deadline on when the forum would be held, and
believed that time was of the essence. She believed the results of the forum were essential to
the development of Alameda Point by SunCal.
Ms. Diane Lichtenstein, Homes, recalled the background of the proposed forum, and
thanked the parties involved in moving ahead. She supported the proposed format, as well as
the employment of a thorough, professional, objective discussion of Measure A and how it
has impacted the City. She believed the speakers should be limited to the professionals who
were able to provide that information. She did not want the forum to become a debate on the
merits of Measure A.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the consultant, David Earley, prepared a summary of the two ad
hoc committee meetings to develop the basis for a format as discussed. She then added
further detail to the summary.
A discussion of the process preceding the development of the various formats ensued.
Ms. Woodbury noted that after reading the letter submitted by the other ad hoc committee
members, the one difference she saw was that the appellant members did not like the idea of
breakout groups. She noted that was the only major difference.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that the packet contained a written proposal outlining the
recommendation by the Planning Board members of the ad hoc committee, and the response
to Mr. Earley's report and the staff report. She noted that while a broad consensus was not
reached, there were items where they reached a consensus. She believed there was common
agreement that Woody Minor would be asked to make a presentation on the historic
background of Measure A. They also felt it was important to provide an opportunity for
citizens of Alameda to ask questions, and to make their opinions known. As directed by City
Council, a written record of the proceeding should be made available, and the forum should
be videotaped and televised. They agreed that it would be important to have a mix of
viewpoints on the panels, and that it should not be biased towards one perspective or
another. The Planning Board members of the ad hoc committee generally agreed with the
schedule and the format recommended by Mr. Earley and staff; a general background
presentation would be made, followed by panel discussions, and then small breakout groups.
Vice President Kohlstrand added that there were points regarding the staff proposal that they
felt were slightly mischaracterized, or that the Planning Board members of the ad hoc
committee had a difference perspective on. Because they were not able to reach a consensus,
5",PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-08,6,"she wished to share those points with the Planning Board for consideration. They believed it
would be important to supplement the presentation made by Woody Minor with an objective
presentation on both the legislative history and a summary of how Measure A had been
implemented in the City. The Planning Board members advocated that those presentations
be provided by current or former City staff, particularly the City Attorney for the legislative
history and how it had been implemented by City staff. The first part of the sessions would
be an hour-long session broken into three parts, providing an overview of the events leading
up to Measure A, the language of Measure A, and some perspective on how that has
affected the City's historic structures.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that for the second part of the forum, the Planning Board
members felt that it was very important not to frame this discussion as advocating for or
against Measure A. They believed it would be more important to focus on issues that related
to Measure A for the City, as well as having a mix of viewpoints on the panel. They
recommended that two different sessions be held, one dealing with housing and general
housing issues, and a second session dealing with general issues related to transportation.
They recommended that each panel consist of six members, and made recommendations
from the broad list of speaker recommendations to represent a mix of Alameda residents and
different perspectives on Measure A. They also suggested a series of questions that might be
posed by a moderator to this panel, and responded to with a unique perspective on the topic.
They recommended that the session last for 40 minutes, followed by an open session to take
questions from the public. After a break, that would be repeated with the transportation
forum. The afternoon schedule was similar to that recommended by staff, that the
participants break out into small groups. She noted that the difference was that a working
lunch was not included in the City budget. She believed that if people were expected to
spend their entire day discussing Measure A, that it would be nice to provide lunch, at the
discretion of the City Council. She believed the questions should be available beforehand to
the people being asked to address them in order to give them sufficient time to research
them.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed that with respect to the speakers, there was a wealth of
resources available, from professional planners to those who can speak to the history of
living in this community.
In response to an inquiry by Member Cunningham whether staff would formulate the list of
speakers, Ms. Woodbury replied that staff could do that if it was the Board's direction. Staff
would hire the Housing Element consultant, which would put the list together. Staff would
be glad to ask people if they were interested and willing, and then work on the details.
Member Cunningham noted that an update of the Housing Element was a lengthy and very
involved process, and did not believe this would be the correct forum to discuss the Housing
Element. He believed that the impact of Measure A on the Housing Element was a critical
item to discuss, but wished to clarify that the intention of this forum was not to address the
Housing Element.
6",PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-08,7,"A discussion of the selection of speakers by the appellants and other parties ensued.
Member Cunningham noted that he was not as concerned about who the speakers were as
long as they represented the interest groups and their points of view that give the Planning
Board a broad perspective and the information they need to find. He believed that would be
the most productive direction to staff. He inquired why six people had been chosen.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it was more important to her to have quality speakers than
a larger number of speakers, particularly so across-the-representation could be achieved.
Member Cunningham noted that the timeline was finite, and he believed those involved
should be respectful of that. He believed that having a set agenda would be important to
structure the forum.
President Cook noted that they considered the idea of having one session relation to
housing, and one related to transportation. She added that that idea was not very popular
with many people.
Member Cunningham believed it would be helpful to pose questions with answers, in
response to the City Council's request of having something definable as an outcome of the
meeting.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft did not disagree with Member Cunningham's comments, but would
like to retain the small breakout sessions in the forum. She noted that they should be
voluntary, and added that a different kind of communication resulted from small group
discussions. She added that it would be provide a different mix of communication
opportunities.
Member Cunningham suggested that the Housing Element consultant facilitate the meeting.
7",PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-08,8,"Ms. Woodbury noted that while staff has interviewed consultants, they had not selected a
consultant yet.
Member McNamara thanked the Planning Board members and the appellants for spending
so much time on getting the forum discussion to this point. She inquired whether there was a
budget to pay for the panelists and mediators, and added that the budget could become
significant. She supported the format that Ms. Woodbury refined from David Earley's forum
because she liked non-working breaks; the suggested format had two significant breaks
during the day. She noted that the Housing Element and the transportation component were
combined into one 90-minute session, instead of two one-hour sessions, which she believed
would be easier to absorb and follow. She liked the idea of seeking professional input
outside of Alameda.
President Cook noted that they felt very uncomfortable being labeled as one side, and the
appellants as the other side. She believed the City Council and Planning Board wished to set
up a very objective workshop where people represented a variety of different interests.
Consequently, they resisted an adversarial approach throughout the six hours of meetings
that were held.
Member McNamara agreed with President Cook's comments, and was more interested in
hearing their perspective, which may supplement or complement the Planning Board's
perspective.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the difference between a 90-minute session and two one-
hour sessions to discuss the Housing Element and transportation was 30 minutes. She
believed strongly that it had taken considerable effort to be able to hold this kind of forum.
She believed there were many serious-minded members of the community who have
thought long and hard about this issue, and who wanted in-depth information. She believed
another 30 minutes of substance would be valuable. She noted that both versions would end
at 4 p.m. and believed that a working lunch would be valuable. She hoped that the session
would also be televised.
Member McNamara noted that the morning session was designed to be very structured, with
speakers and an educational and informational approach. She supported that format, and
believed that after the lunch break, she supported the small group breakout sessions as well,
which would give the citizens of Alameda an opportunity to have input and to summarize
additional issues. She noted that the small group members could select a facilitator amongst
themselves, who would report the results of their meeting back to the group. She noted that
Barbara Kerr had expressed concern that the small groups' input would not be reported back
to City Council, but that would be reported and recorded in the public record and brought
back to City Council. She did not believe that would be a concern. She suggested that for
either format option, allowing an hour at the end of the day for more questions by the public
would be valuable. If there were more than 20 speakers, she suggested randomly selecting
speaker slips to fit into the time allotted.
8",PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-08,9,"Ashcraft noted that people going out for lunch would also support local businesses. She also
suggested that the transit session be shorter than the housing session. She did not want to cut
the public comment period short.
9",PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-08,10,"President Cook invited comment on how to handle the question of the public speakers, and
whether the appellants had provided their full list.
Member Cunningham believed it would be imperative to focus on the topics they wished to
discuss, and then find the right people to address those topics.
Ms. Woodbury noted that if she were the consultant hired by the City, she would want some
flexibility. She suggested that staff work with the consultant with respect to appropriate
speakers that have not been included on the list.
President Cook requested that the Planning Board be kept abreast of the progress through
Staff Communications, and believed it would be important for the full Board to hear the
information going forward. Ms. Woodbury replied that would be possible, and that
milestone dates could be included in the scope of work for the consultant. She noted that
emails could be sent, in addition to reporting to the Board during Staff Communications.
Member Cunningham noted that it would be very important for the public to hear the
progress, and inquired about potential timelines. Ms. Woodbury replied that consultants
have been interviewed, and staff intended to determine whether the preferred consultant
would be willing and able to take the responsibility for this forum. The contract would then
be taken to City Council because it exceeded the limit for funding on a staff level. She
anticipated that late January would be a reasonable timeframe for the forum, depending
upon availability.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that they envisioned having a moderator that would field
and read a question, giving the panelists an opportunity to respond from their own
perspective, rather than give a formal presentation. They believed it would be easier for
residents of Alameda to provide their own personal experience, and someone outside
Alameda may need time to consider questions about Alameda in particular.
Member Mariani liked the idea of asking each group appointed by the City Council for
suggestions, and utilizing the equal suggestions. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she
was very comfortable with the idea.
President Cook requested that staff send a letter to the appellants for additional names that
the consultant should examine. She noted that the moderator must be able to call on the
various panelists in an equal manner.
Member Cunningham suggested that a 45-minute lunch would be appropriate, and would
like to see a priority list of topics. He believed that two hours for a small group breakout
plus reporting back would be a long time, and suggested that time for lunch be borrowed
from that time. He noted that if there were eight groups with three minutes to report back,
that would leave enough time for Catellus to make their report.
Vice President Kohlstrand suggested using the timeframe recommended in the staff report
for the small group discussion; Ms. Woodbury recommended 45 minutes for the small
10",PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-08,11,"group exercise, 30 minutes for the reports, and an open forum of 90 minutes. President Cook
agreed with that allocation, from 12:15 to 4:00 p.m. She noted that the committee's
schedule included a morning break.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed that the location would be important, and suggested that it
be held in Council Chambers so that it may be televised. Vice President Kohlstrand believed
it would be difficult to use Chambers for small group breakouts. Member Ezzy Ashcraft
suggested using the library conference room for the small groups. She believed that it would
be difficult to manage a 45-minute lunch break at Alameda Point.
Ms. Woodbury noted that staff would examine venues that would lend themselves to this
kind of forum, and would work with the consultant on that issue; she noted that it would be
important to have food close by.
President Cook inquired whether the Board favored the subcommittee's report before lunch,
and Ms. Woodbury's recommended format for lunch and after lunch.
In response to an inquiry by Member Cunningham whether the report would come back to
the Planning Board regarding the format of the forum, Ms. Woodbury replied that a progress
report of the forum's status would be made to the Planning Board.
President Cook believed it would be very important to work towards a date certain for the
forum. She concurred that everything would not be completed by the holidays, but would
like the consultants to work towards a date in January 2008. she noted that many members
of the public had expressed a desire to hold the forum before the SunCap proposal moves
ahead much more.
Member Mariani agreed that this forum should be taken care of and completed as quickly as
possible. She believed that late January or early February would be a great time to hold the
forum.
Member Cunningham moved to dissolve the Expanded Housing Element/Measure A ad
hoc committee.
Member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Absent:
1
(Lynch). The motion passed.
Member Cunningham moved to accept the format as proposed by the Planning Board ad
hoc committee for the session from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., followed by a 45-minute lunch
break. The forum would reconvene at 1:15 p.m., and the proposed program as suggested by
the staff report per Attachment 4, including small group exercises, reconvening to listen to
reports and an open forum. Further explanation of the small group exercise topics will be
described, and clarity regarding the selection of the panelists would be needed. Panel
members would again be solicited from the appellants, and the consultant would consider
those along with the individuals selected by the Planning Board ad hoc committee. The
resultant names would be circulated through the staff report at future Planning Board
11",PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-08,12,"meetings; a hierarchy of first, second and third choices would be identified. A date certain
for the end of January 2008 would be set, pending availability of location.
Member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Absent: 1
(Lynch). The motion passed.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Woodbury noted that the League of Women Voters submitted a written statement.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Dakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
There was no report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Vice President
Kohlstrand).
There was no report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board
Member Cunningham).
There was no report.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy Woodbury, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the November 13, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
12",PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf