body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2007-10-22,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, October 22, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:05 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Mariani.
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft, Cunningham, Lynch,
Mariani and McNamara.
Board member Kohlstrand was absent from roll call.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Donna Mooney, Obaid Khan, Public Works.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of September 24, 2007.
b.
Minutes for the meeting of October 8, 2007.
Staff requests a continuation of September 24, 2007 Minutes and October 8, 2007
Minutes.
The minutes will be considered at the meeting of November 13, 2007.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Future Agendas
Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.
Vice President Cook noted that the Planning Board had requested status reports on the
Measure A hearings, and suggested that they be a line item during Staff Communications.
Mr. Thomas noted that would be placed after Item 6-B.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the Board requested that the workshop occur before the
end of January, but on a Saturday. Mr. Thomas noted that they had identified the
preferred consultant, and hoped to bring that contract to the City Council in November.
He noted that January would be a good time to hold that workshop.
b.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None.
Page 1 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-22,2,"8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
Alameda Point Master Plan
An update on recent City actions related to the redevelopment of Alameda Point
and introduction to the SunCal/Calthorpe Planning Team. No action will be taken
by the Planning Board at this meeting to approve or deny any specific projects.
Mr. Thomas introduced the new master developer for Alameda Point as SunCal
Companies, represented by Patrick Kelleher, Peter Calthorpe and Phil Tagami. He noted
that they would discuss their approaches to Alameda Point. He summarized the staff
report and provided a brief background of this project. He noted that the City Council
signed on to an exclusive negotiating agreement, which laid out a very aggressive
schedule for the planning for Alameda Point. He briefly described the two-year schedule
to move from selection to an approved Master Plan for Alameda Point, followed by an
EIR process on the draft document. He noted that the series of community meetings was
described in the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Patrick Kelleher, SunCal Companies, provided an overview of the company and
described the company's ownership and mission as a true master developer. He emphasized
that SunCal did not leave until the last house has been sold.
Mr. Peter Calthorpe, Calthorpe, provided some background of his company, and noted that
he had been involved in sustainability for 30 years, using a whole systems approach. He
discussed the elements of sustainable development, and noted that from the transportation
standpoint, it was important to break away from complete usage of the car, and to create
walkable communities. He noted that the community should be big enough to internalize its
own retail, schools and parks, as well as many destinations and jobs. He added that a good,
healthy mixed use community, even if it is walkable, still needs transit connections to the
region. He noted that the design standards described in LEED have been at the forefront of
their designs, and noted that they should be able to build the best possible building
envelopes that are also energy conserving structures. He described the water systems,
including recycling of gray water as well as the recapture of the nutrient cycle from the
waste material.
Mr. Calthorpe noted that using the economies of scale was very important. He added that the
nature of this community is a political phenomenon, and believed that the community
should be diverse, walkable and should use the best practices of sustainability. In order to be
diverse, there should offer housing and job opportunities for a broad range of people. He did
not believe the Big Whites should be torn down, and that they contained local history that he
would like to see preserved.
Page 2 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-22,3,"Mr. Phil Tagami, Managing Partner, California Capital Group, summarized his involvement
with the site and the team, as well as their plans for this process.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Member Mariani noted that she was impressed with the presentation, and hoped that the
idealistic nature of the presentation materialized.
Mr. Kelleher wished to clarify that as a team, they walk down a path that they know they
can deliver.
Member Lynch noted that their presentation was laudable, but that the numbers still had to
be resolved at the end of the day. He noted that it was important to define the planning terms
so they may be understood by the public. He noted that the end product must be
economically viable.
Mr. Kelleher agreed with Member Lynch, and noted that in community planning, they
present various scenarios that identify various levels of participation by the public sector. He
believed there were different scenarios for this site, with different levels of density with
different attributes such as transit, sustainability elements, community scale and walkability.
He believed it was valuable to offer a broad range of choices.
Member Cunningham believed that it was important for the community to understand what
the developer is trying to achieve, and that it was not just about money. He believed there
were larger community issues to consider as well, and encouraged the developer to continue
to be open with the Planning Board. He noted that they will find polarized opinions at both
ends, and hoped that the City would not have to settle for mediocrity in the process of
striking a balance. He believed the new ideas sounded very exciting, and that a more holistic
approach is being used.
In response to an inquiry by Member Cunningham whether the PDC was being discarded,
Mr. Kelleher replied that they were not doing so, and that they would not be able to execute
their plans without the previous site work being done. Their challenge was to qualify the
assumptions that were made in the PDC, mainly geotechnical, flood plain and hydraulic
work that was assumed in the PDC, but have proven to be not viable. He acknowledged that
they needed to characterize the site better. He noted that it was very important to educate the
public in this project so they can understand the project better.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that SunCal stated that it did not do much vertical
development, and requested further detail of that concept. Mr. Kelleher noted that they
prepared the ground and the infrastructure, and delivered a finished pad to a builder, who
will come in and build the structure.
Member McNamara noted that she had expected more detail of the developer's vision, and
that it was very abstract, conceptual and idealistic. She inquired whether the project was
Page 3 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-22,4,"being started with a blank sheet, and whether the PDC would be discarded or retained in
some form. Mr. Kelleher replied that they were working on the site characteristics, and that
the current information available for the site was not the most accurate. For example, the
PDC used a 25-year-old topo, which must be reordered; he noted that process would take
several months. Without an accurate topo, it would not be possible to proceed with the
hydraulics and flood plain mapping.
Mr. Calthorpe added that they would use the existing armature (framework of access points,
streets and circulation), and would build upon that. He noted that SunCal would find the best
builder for each component, and that they did not carry any bias towards one builder or
another. He noted that where there is no vested interest in one kind of development or
another, the appropriate kind of development can happen. He noted that critical base data
and analysis has not been completed. He noted that with respect to the idealism contained in
their presentation, if people did not agree on principles at the outset, they would not agree
throughout the process. They intended to discuss principles at the public meeting, and to be
very honest and transparent when discussing the project and their planning philosophies.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she attended the California Chapter of the American
Planning Association Annual Conference in San Jose, which Mr. Thomas also attended.
They both attended a workshop entitled ""Transforming Military Bases into Sustainable
Spaces."" She noted that at Fort Ord, the developer was aiming for a Platinum level LEED
certification. She was pleased with the presentation, and agreed that it was important to start
with a vision. She noted that it was important to offer a broad range of housing choices. She
added that she had attended the Solar Power Decathlon in Washington, D.C., which offered
a great variety of practical solar-powered applications.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft appreciated that SunCal offered a blank slate, and inquired how the
toxic cleanup being negotiated with the Navy impacted their plans. Mr. Calthorpe replied
that they will affect the development, which would be a phased development; the
environment cleanup must be phased with the project. He noted that it had an impact at both
the local and federal level.
President Cook thanked SunCal for performing their own due diligence, which may produce
different results than before. She expected that they would also clarify what elements were
different, and why. Mr. Calthorpe confirmed that was part of their project.
President Cook liked the idea of a sustainable community, and would like assurances that it
would be feasible. She noted that it was important to explore what densities were needed to
sustain community schools, retail and new transit system. She would like further
clarification of what the Planning Board's role would be vis-à-vis the task force.
Mr. Thomas noted that the accelerated community process, taking eight months to get to a
Master Plan, would include the Planning Board and a Council appointed Task Force.
Page 4 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-22,5,"Member Mariani believed that this item should be reviewed at every Planning Board
meeting. She believed that it was critically important that the Task Force's roles be defined
in order for its participation to make sense.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft did not have a problem with the Task Force, but it did not address
the repeated concern that the Board must be kept apprised of the developments so that their
input is relevant. She recalled the Bridgeside development as an example of that
involvement not working as well as it could have.
Member Lynch noted that this seemed to be a red herring, and did not see the viability of a
task force because he believed the structure will ill to begin with. He believed that City staff
erred in their suggestion and position that this project should move forward on a particular
timeline, and that certain deliverables be made with respect to that timeline. He noted that in
the end, the developer would need to determine whether to move forward with the project if
it made economic sense. He believed the City should be very careful in approaching this
project to ensure that there were no major disappointments.
Member Mariani wanted to ensure the task force performed effectively so the Planning
Board could make an informed decision at the end of the process.
President Cook noted that the Planning Board would like regular updates and
communication from the developer.
Mr. Thomas noted that the first community workshop would be held on October 24, and
suggested that at the next Planning Board meeting, he and President Cook would report
back on the proceedings.
Member Lynch wished to make it clear that he thought a great deal of Mr. Thomas and the
Planning staff. He also trusted the other Commissions, and believed the vetting should take
place with the Economic Development Commission with respect to the economic uses on
site, and the Transportation Commission. He believed their input was very important as it
applied to the development concepts and overall land use. If the consideration of the land
use were to vary from the schedule, he hoped that the City Council would adhere to its
stated and documented timeline, and then make a decision with respect to moving forward
or not.
Mr. Thomas advised that there would be tradeoffs and compromises throughout the process.
Member Cunningham suggested that the developer not aim for complete buy-in from
everyone, and that strong plans often were the result of compromises.
Member McNamara suggested that an additional Board member be assigned to the Task
Force, citing heavy time commitments which could be shared.
President Cook noted that was the original proposal from staff, and that she had discussed
the possibility with Mr. Thomas. She would try to be at every meeting if possible, but
Page 5 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-22,6,"understood that other responsibilities may intrude; she would not be opposed to having the
attendance move from one person to anything. However, she did not know how that would
serve the needs of the City Council.
Member Mariani suggested that Member McNamara may be a good choice to attend the
meetings, and that her input was always valuable.
A discussion of the details of the Task Force ensued.
Mr. Thomas noted that he would report back to the Planning Commission at the next
meeting, and he would get clarification at the November 7 ARRA meeting with respect to
what would be reported back to the Planning Board.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it was very important to hear the perspectives and ideas
from the other Commissions, which would help inform the Planning Board's decisions more
effectively.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Bill Smith noted that the feedback was valuable, and that it followed the feedback given
at City Council.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Cook noted that she was excited about the proposed work and the team, especially
the emphasis placed on historic preservation and sustainability.
No action was taken.
9-B. Large Format Retail Store Workshop - Applicant - City of Alameda. The
City of Alameda is considering the unique land use, transportation, urban design,
and economic development challenges posed by large-scale retail (big box) stores.
No action will be taken by the Planning Board at this meeting to approve or deny
any specific projects. However, the Planning Board may make recommendations
to the City Council that could result in changes to the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance that would potentially affect all properties in non-residential zoning
districts.
Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report, and requested Planning Board comment on this
proposal. He noted that because retail was a permitted use, the Planning Department
could require a design review, which did not address the appropriateness of the use. Staff
recommended adopting the retail policies into the General Plan, amend the Zoning Code
to include a definition of large format stores, which is proposed in the staff report as a
""single stand-alone store or collection of stores developed and managed as a single project
which includes over 60,000 square feet of retail sales floor area."" The Zoning Code would
be amended to require a use permit for a large format retail store, which is the same as a
Page 6 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-22,7,"""big box"" store. The Zoning Code would be further amended to require that the use permit
be amended for a large format retail store, in addition to the standard use permit conditions.
In that case, the key issues could be addressed in terms of its design, operations and the issue
of sale leakage. He noted that this was a new presentation, and that there had not been any
community feedback at this point.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Karen Bay noted that she was speaking as an Alameda resident, and was looking
forward to the workshop, which she believed was very timely. She supported amending the
Zoning Code to define and address large format retail stores, and supported the requirement
of a use permit for all large format retail store. She believed the City's retail policy needed
some updating because so much had changed since 2004. She believed that the City had
more clarity and understanding about the retail development process since then. She had
reviewed the DDA as it related to the Alameda Landing project as approved, and believed
that the City had approved a lifestyle center, not a hybrid center, and believed the wording
should be changed to reflect that. She suggested that the term ""lifestyle center"" be defined.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Thomas requested the Planning Board's thoughts on the definition, as well as the
idea of requiring a conditional use permit. He noted that there were many people who
would be interested in looking at a prohibition on stores over a certain size. He noted that
the issues of stopping sales leakage and historic buildings were of concern to the
community; he noted that the Del Monte building had been a centerpiece of that debate.
Mr. Thomas noted that care should be taken in the definitions and prohibitions, and added
that there were many in the community who would like a ""big box"" prohibition. He noted
that it would not be possible to write a zoning ordinance that prohibited a particular
retailer, and that naming certain retailers as acceptable, and others as unacceptable, would
not be appropriate.
Member Lynch complimented staff on tackling this complex issue very well. He
cautioned against reinventing the wheel, and did not want any legal troubles to result. He
noted that different ordinances did not need to be created, and that the Planning Board
had the authority to deny a permit. He believed this issue had been over-complicated, and
that the use of the conditional use permit process would generally be adequate. He
preferred to defer to the Economic Development Commission and the previous Boards,
which already had an excellent strategic plan for Alameda.
Member McNamara did not have enough information to move forward on this issue, and
had read information about the model used by Fort Collins, Colorado, with respect to
their very specific and stringent big box retail policy.
Mr. Thomas thanked Doug Garrison for pulling a large amount of information together
for this staff report.
Page 7 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-22,8,"In response to an inquiry by Member McNamara regarding the process envisioned by
staff, Mr. Thomas explained the design review process regarding retail in a commercial
zone. He noted that when retail was permitted by right, a use permit did not apply to
whether a retailer should be located on that particular site; in a conditional use permit, the
requirements would be more restrictive and specific. Traffic at the location would also be
a factor, and the City would have the ability to address traffic impacts as well as design
for larger retail stores.
Member McNamara encouraged a more specific and stringent definition process.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would support the notion of allowing the Board to
be more selective through the conditional use permit process. She believed that Alameda
has long had the attitude that it was fortunate to have any retail at all; she added that
Alamedans deserved to have quality retail in the City.
In response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft, Mr. Thomas described the DA and
DDA processes. He noted that changes to Zoning Ordinances will not affect major
projects that already have a signed development agreement. He noted that Alameda
Landing or the commercial developments at Harbor Bay Business Park would not be
affected. He noted that Alameda Point, South Shore and Del Monte would be affected,
because development agreements have not been signed with those projects.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that Building A at Alameda Landing has been entitled for
over 100,000 square feet, suggested that in addition to square footage, that a height and
limitation should be explored, especially as it related to pedestrian scale. She believed the
wording of the second policy on page 6 could be reworked for clarity: ""The primary
focus of a proposed sizing of tenant space is appropriate to current retailing practice, and
is intended to fill a documented aspect of retail sales leakage for the geographic area to be
served.""
Mr. Thomas responded that staff would bring back all the retail policies, and will go
through them all for the Planning Board's review.
Member Mariani appreciated the comments, especially from the public, and
complimented staff on the staff report.
Member Cunningham agreed with the concept of using a conditional use permit for the
large format retail stores. He believed that the Planning Board needed to control design,
and that development should be functional for its purpose. He was wary of putting so
many restrictions that it restricted the function for potential retail operators. He believed
that there should be options to allow projects and designs to be brought to the table, while
reserving the right to say no. He would like the Board to be able to pass judgment on
each application and evaluate it on its own merits. He did not want the City to miss
opportunities, and suggested keeping the approach balanced between too prescriptive and
too nebulous would be avoid jeopardizing any potential development in Alameda.
Page 8 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-22,9,"President Cook agreed that the conditional use permit should be used, and would consider
a smaller square footage than 60,000 s.f. She cited the newest Whole Foods stores,
particularly the Cupertino store, which is approximately 68,000 s.f. She would like to
strengthen the analysis of the impacts of big box stores on local businesses.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff would go through the document and return with a redlined
version for further review by the Planning Board. He noted that customized findings for
conditional use permit will be developed, and wanted to ensure that a well-designed
building that made sense for its location and context could be achieved. He noted that
addressing retail leakage was very important, and added that a study may be a valuable
tool when developers approach the City for a large retail project.
In response to an inquiry by Member Lynch whether a traffic study was a requirement,
Mr. Thomas replied that it was not, but it was recommended. Member Lynch believed
that could be a slippery slope, and noted that the addition of a business could encourage
healthy competition and diversity of retail choices. He noted that generally, a business
will go out of business because their product was not as good, and the public chose
something else. He did not wish to see a competition restriction in place.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft recalled that when Starbucks and Peet's Coffee opened, the local
coffee shops did not go out of business.
Ms. Mooney noted that it was important to examine what appellate courts have upheld.
She noted that the City of Turlock was sued by WalMart in 2004 because it had
prohibited superstores. She noted that there were shades of that in Livermore's policy that
prohibited ""retail stores greater than 100,000 square feet that devote more than 5% of
floor area to non-taxable items such as groceries."" It also required a conditional use
permit for discount stores and clubs, which was challenged by WalMart on the grounds
that the city was acting in excess of its police power. The court found in favor of the City;
the standard was that the policy must be reasonably related to the ends it was trying to
achieve. The City was concerned about increasing traffic and decreasing air quality, as
well as urban and suburban decay, which was sufficient for the court.
No action was taken.
9-C. Appeal of Use Permit UP07-0015 - Jennifer Raner - 1716 Park Street, for the
installation and operation of a portable outdoor car wash for used and new cars for
the existing car dealership. Pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code, AMC 30-4.10,
a Use Permit is required for car washing establishments in the C-M, Commercial-
Manufacturing District.
(Appeal has been withdrawn)
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
Page 9 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-22,10,"10-A. Appointment of a Planning Board Member to assist in the selection of a
consultant for the North of Lincoln Strategic Plan for the Park Street Business
District.
Member Mariani suggested that Member McNamara be involved in the selection. Member
McNamara replied that she would not be able to perform this duty during the day.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft volunteered to assist in the selection of the consultant.
Member Cunningham moved to nominate Member Ezzy Ashcraft to assist in the selection
of a consultant for the North of Lincoln Strategic Plan for the Park Street Business
District.
Member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Absent: 1
(Kohlstrand). The motion passed.
Mr. Thomas noted that the Planning Board had a plan at the dais that Catellus wanted the
Planning Board to approve on September 24, and noted that Attachment 3 had been
approved. He described the drawings on the document and stated that as part of
Catellus's appeals included a compromise plan. That plan included a sidewalk running
along the edge of the parking lot; he displayed that proposal to the Board.
Member Mariani did not care for that at first look, and did not want Catellus to sidestep
the Planning Board.
Mr. Thomas described the tree well, surrounded by the curb, and bisected by the sidewalk
at the same level.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether the City had a definition for a
sidewalk, Mr. Thomas replied that it did not, but that a sidewalk must be five feet wide.
The City Council may uphold the Planning Board's decision, overturn that decision, or
remand it back to the Planning Board.
Member Mariani was concerned that Catellus was not honoring the Planning Board's
process, and had noted a difference in how the new person handled the interaction.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Page 10 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-22,11,"Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the November 13, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 11 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf