body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2008-01-14,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, January 14, 2008
1.
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft.
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Board
Members Ezzy Ashcraft, Lynch and McNamara.
Board Member Cunningham was absent from roll call.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Farimah Faiz.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Meeting of November 13, 2007 (Not available)
b.
Meeting of November 26, 2007.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that on page 3, under the description of 9-A, the
spelling of ProLogis was misspelled as ProLogic.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 6, paragraph 2, should be changed to read,
""He noted that the goal of the plan was to make finding a parking easier for the shopper.'
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the second to last paragraph on page 6 should be
changed to read, ""He did not believe the users of the handicapped stalls would be being
able to get out easily with the traffic flows.""
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 7, paragraph 1, read, ""The Master Plan now
states that for a particular use, the maximum should be 4.5, but shared parking for
multiple uses, the maximum shall be 4.5 per 1000."" She did not believe this sentence was
explanatory, and requested that some clarification be added.
Member McNamara noted that on page 10, the approval date for the minutes were listed
as December 10, 2007, and should be January 14, 2008.
President Cook noted that the summary paragraph after Mr. Berry spoke read, ""Mr. Steve
Kendrick displayed the changes and noted that they retained the concept of the
continuous island along the east-west drive aisle, but to provide head-in parking, moving
the drive aisle back to keep the circulation within the parking pod."" She had difficulty
picturing what had been approved, and requested that a smaller version of that section be
attached so the Board could visualize it before the final approval was made.
Page 1 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-01-14,2,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft agreed, and noted that the approval was based on what was
projected on the overhead screen. She inquired whether the visual could be included.
Mr. Thomas noted that the new drawing was created the next day and attached to the
final resolution.
The minutes of November 26, 2007, will be considered at the meeting of January 28,
2008.
c.
Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Not available)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Future Agendas
Mr. Thomas noted that staff had received a letter of resignation from Board member
Mariani, effective immediately.
Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.
b.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.
c.
Miscellaneous
Vice President Kohlstrand noted there had been some discussion at the Fernside
homeowners association meeting recently, and inquired about the Council's stance and
possible action on the Harbor Bay Isle GPA/EIR. Mr. Thomas replied that the Council had
not taken any action at all on the proposal for the rezoning and the General Plan
Amendment. They did settle a legal dispute about a technical issue regarding the existing
development agreement. He added that the City had been challenged by one of the
opponents on the validity of the legal settlement.
Vice President Kohlstrand inquired when the theater would open.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the committee was waiting for a date certain, but
anticipated it would be in February or March.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
Page 2 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-01-14,3,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
City of Alameda General Plan Retail Policy Amendments - Applicant - City
of Alameda. The Planning Board will consider a General Plan Amendment to
amend Section 2.5 Retail Business and Services, to add and modify policies as
recommended by the Alameda Citywide Retail Policy Report. The proposed
amendments would affect all properties in non-residential zoning districts and
mixed use zoning districts.
Mr. Thomas presented the staff report.
President Cook noted that page 1 identified community centers as being planned for
Alameda Landing, Alameda Point and the Del Monte Building in the Northern Waterfront
area. She inquired who planned the Del Monte Building, and noted that it connoted approval
of a concept that the Planning Board had not yet seen. Mr. Thomas replied that was a valid
concern.
Vice President Kohlstrand inquired whether the City wanted any more community shopping
centers such as South Shore and Marina Village. She believed that while the uses were
desired, the configuration would be more appropriate as a main street type of development.
She did not believe that shopping centers full of private streets and big blocks were very
friendly to pedestrians, and that the City should move away from them as much as possible.
Board Member Lynch noted that the last sentence in the third paragraph, ""Types of Retail
Districts: Main Street Business Districts,"" read: ""These districts are pedestrian-oriented
districts with historical patterns of development that limit building form, and the ability of
individual businesses to provide on-site parking."" He did not understand the last section
about parking, and while that may be the City's desire, he inquired which businesses
contained within the Main Street business district provided on-street parking. Mr. Thomas
noted that it should read, ..and limit the ability of individual businesses to provide on-
street parking.""
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that outlets such as Pottery Barn could be offered in an
urban setting, rather than the traditional suburban setting.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that there was a potential for retail at the three areas
that were mentioned, and suggested adding a paragraph at the end of the section stating
that ""additional retail districts may be located at Alameda Landing and Alameda Point.'
President Cook believed that terminology was important, and that a community shopping
center connoted a suburban shopping malls that are normally reached by car.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that it was important to keep the guiding nature of the
General Plan Amendment in mind throughout the process.
Page 3 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-01-14,4,"President Cook expressed concern that another shopping center was being brought forth
where the pedestrian was not being put first. She did not believe the name ""lifestyle center""
should be used, but suggested that a new style of community shopping might be included.
Board Member Lynch believed the document should be clear.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft re the meaning of ""competitively
priced foods,"" Board Member Lynch responded that competitively priced foods are created
by competition, created by competition and more than one source of foods.
In response to a comment by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding Section 2.5, Mr.
Thomas replied that until 2004, there had been a concern that a great deal of sales tax had
been leaked to neighboring communities. This affected the ability to fund services, and also
affected the transportation situation as people drove off the island to go shopping. Board
member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether that should be included in the document.
Board member McNamara suggested expanding 2.5(a) to read, ""Services [space] to enable
Alameda to realize its full retail sales potential by minimizing the amount of sales leakage to
neighboring community.""
Mr. Thomas suggested providing explanatory text to state that this section addressed sales
leakage. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft agreed.
Regarding 2.5(c), ""discourage offices from ground floor occupancy,"" Board member
McNamara inquired whether mortgage companies and banks were retail uses. Mr. Thomas
noted that the City did permit offices, provided they obtain a use permit. He added that real
estates offices, etc., provided an interesting view from the sidewalk, and that they did not
raise the concern raised by this policy.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she had been disappointed to see the Comerica
Bank use go into the building with many beautiful windows, which would have invited a
restaurant.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that with respect to 2.5(e), ""Maintain full-service
community shopping centers serving all sectors of the City,"" she suggested substituting the
phrase ""community service opportunities."" She noted that the community benefited from
and enjoyed the uses within the districts.
Regarding 2.5(d), Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed there should be a way to prevent
Safeway from continuing to park the large trailer trucks in the parking lot where the cars are
supposed to park. She understood that supermarket needed to receive large deliveries several
times per day, but did not believe the trucks should take up eight parking spaces each,
especially during the construction period.
Mr. Thomas suggested that that issue be addressed in the development plan approvals for
Alameda Towne Centre, but not in this document.
Page 4 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-01-14,5,"Board member McNamara noted that regarding 2.5(k), she would like clarification of the
relevance of the wording ""to minimize automobile trips associated with the redevelopment
of Alameda Point.'
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that 2.5(g) read, ""To encourage retention and addition
of housing in the Main Street business districts.. and inquired how the policy would be
followed.
Board Member Lynch liked the wording as it stood because it was clear and precise.
President Cook suggested removing the word ""new"" and replace ""community shopping
centers"" with the updated language to be determined.
Mr. Thomas noted that this policy could be rewritten to say, ""encourage retention and
addition of housing in retail areas,"" and strike the references to the different types of centers.
He noted that the 1990 General Plan made a point of not saying ""in community shopping
centers,"" and believed that reflected how community attitudes about mixed use development
have changed in the last 15 years.
President Cook agreed, particularly in getting people out of their cars.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that 2.5(j) read, ""Support, encourage and foster new
retail development to serve the west end of Alameda."" She noted that since the studies had
been done in 2003, there had been a lot of growth in the number of residences, and inquired
whether a survey had been done to hear from the residents of that area. She inquired what
the need was for grocery uses in Bayport, and what other shopping needs they had.
Board member McNamara noted that she had been approached by several people, inquiring
about what was happening in the West End. She inquired about the plan, and noted that it
was not on the same levels as Park Street, and did not believe it was receiving the same City
attention as Park Street. She questioned why (h) and (i) should be distinguished from each
other.
Vice President Kohlstrand believed that Park Street was more of a downtown for Alameda,
which was not to diminish Webster Steet, which served more of a neighborhood base; Park
Street drew more people from around the City.
Board Member Lynch noted that as he read 2.5(h), he was encouraged and enlightened, and
valued the property in its current state, as well as what it could become.
Board Member Lynch noted that 2.5(i), he felt limited in his thought because of the
wording, and suggested that 2.5(i) could be bolstered by the kind of language in 2.5(h)
regarding vacated spaces.
President Cook suggested receiving input from WABA.
Page 5 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-01-14,6,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that with respect to 2.5(s), ""Amend Alameda Municipal
Code to reduce off-street parking requirements,"" she wrote ""Yes!""
Vice President Kohlstrand agreed with Board member Ezzy Ashcraft's comments.
Mr. Thomas noted that the use ""consider amending"" acknowledged that nothing could be
amended until the public hearings were held on the specific amendment.
President Cook noted that the parking garage is close to opening, and she believed that the
City should be able to give some relief to allow more restaurant uses downtown.
Board member McNamara inquired about the language ""which exceeds recommendation of
Metropolitan Transportation. and whether the specifics of those recommendations was 5
per 1,000. Mr. Thomas replied that it was closer to 3 or 4 per 1,000. Board member
McNamara inquired whether that should be included. Mr. Thomas replied that the
explanatory text detailed the need and reason for it; staff would return with specific parking
recommendations as part of the ongoing study. He noted that the General Plan policy stated
that it was the City's goal to reduce the parking requirements, and that the decision-marking
of the reductions should be left to the actual Zoning Amendment, which will be brought
back in the future.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that the second sentence of the last item of page 4 should
introduce the idea of shared parking, in addition to multimodal parking.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that in 2.5(m), ""Improve Public Transit Service to
Shopping Areas,"" the next sentence read, ""Transit use can be encouraged by providing bus
shelters "" She believed those were two different things, and that unless it referred to City
transportation, the City did not have much influence over AC Transit funding decisions. She
noted that AC Transit has been cutting services. She believed that a possible use of the
increased parking meter fees on Park Street should go not only into the General Fund, but
uses that support the shopping on Park and Webster Street such as a shopper shuttle.
Regarding 2.5(n)(v), Board member McNamara noted that the second sentence read, ""If
large quantities of off-street parking are necessary to serve the development should be
provided in structures located behind or beside the retail mix,"" which seemed to apply to
Alameda Landing. She inquired whether in future design developments, what happened in
Alameda Landing would not happen with respect to parking behind the use. Mr. Thomas
noted that was his effort to verbalize the Board members' wishes, and that it would not
affect Alameda Landing. He noted that it would affect new construction and new retail
facilities. He noted that the word ""discourage"" was used because Alameda Point was big,
with a lot of land on the site, with large and difficult financial constraints. Staff wished to
convey the intent that the City did not want large parking fields, which should be screened
from view if they did exist.
Page 6 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-01-14,7,"Vice President Kohlstrand noted that when there was a lot of land with low density
development, it was a fact of economics that there would not be a lot of structured parking.
She noted that because of that tradeoff, some of the City's lofty goals may not be realized.
Mr. Thomas noted that it would not be wise to include policies that were not possible to
achieve, but it would be desirable to include policies as goals to move toward.
President Cook noted that the proposed goal stated that if it cannot be achieved, it should be
provided in structures located behind or beside the retail or mixed use buildings, and would
like to further discourage ""beside,"" which she believed interfered with the streetscape and
pedestrian streetscape. She suggested the wording read, .located behind, or if there
is
no
alternative, beside the retail or mixed use building"" to identify a hierarchy of preferences as
a goal, rather than a prescriptive.
Board Member Lynch noted that University Village in Seattle was an outstanding shopping
experience that had very small stores. He noted that the parking was woven through the
development, with some parking beside or behind the stores, with walking paths and paths
throughout. He noted that could not be possible if President Cook's wording was included.
Board member McNamara suggested the following change to the sentence she previously
referenced: ""discourage construction of new large parking areas in order to facilitate
pedestrian, bicycle and other modes..
""
Mr. Thomas noted that he would reword the entire policy.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that 2.5(x) contained some key issues, and acknowledged
Mr. Thomas' effort to distill the Board's concerns. She suggested specifically stating that
there should be sidewalks on both sides of the streets, that the number of curb cuts should be
limited, and that the existing block pattern in Alameda should be replicated. She suggested
limiting the block length to 150 to 250 feet might be too small. She recalled that the Board
had grappled with the public versus private streets, which was a financial issue as well as a
design issue. She believed it was very important to keep streets in the public realm. She
suggested limiting the number of curb cuts and parking area so the uses must provide all the
circulation on-site. She wished to avoid using the blocks as a circulation aisle for the parking
lot.
Board Member Lynch noted that Santana Row in San Jose has become a promenade, and
that parking is no longer allowed on the street.
Mr. Thomas noted that there were two different kinds of streets: Park Street, which had a lot
of through traffic and acted as a buffer for pedestrians; and Santana Row, which was more
of a cul de sac. He cited the portion of Fifth Street north of Mitchell as a similar situation.
Vice President Kohlstrand suggested that on-street parking be provided unless there were
certain small-scale pedestrian retail environments where it may not be appropriate.
Page 7 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-01-14,8,"Board Member Lynch cautioned against creating a policy that would constrain the creativity
of a future use. Mr. Thomas believed that staff could fine-tune the language to acknowledge
the different circumstances.
Vice President Kohlstrand suggested going up to 400 feet for the block lengths.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that Santana Row had a lot of sidewalk dining, and that
was not compatible with a lot of auto traffic.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that with respect to 2.5(x)(d), ""Street Trees and
Landscaping,"" she would like to insert wording from the Landscaping Guidelines. She
would like to include a reference to new construction and design that is energy efficient.
President Cook noted that with respect to 2.5(y), the same language referring to parking
being located behind or beside the building appeared, and suggested that the previous
changes be applied to this section as well; she would like the new language about sidewalk
dining and curb cuts to be included as well.
Board Member Lynch noted that Bay Street in Emeryville had changed; where cars could
drive through near the Elephant Bar, that street had been blocked off to allow more
pedestrian activity and sidewalk dining.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Karen Bey thanked staff for the document, and believed it was good City policy to have
a clear vision on what the community desired in terms of retail. She noted that cities have
been taking the lead in terms of development goals. She strongly believed that in the effort
to encourage development, cities should be flexible but should also have written policy. She
cited the Cities of Ojai and San Francisco as upholding new ordinances regulating new retail
establishments.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
No action was taken.
9-B.
Approve a Change in the Format for a Future Public Forum Regarding the
Housing Element and Measure A.
Mr. Thomas presented the staff report. Staff recommended that the Planning Board
approve a change to the format which would allow staff to expand the time available for
the panel discussions and eliminate the small group discussions.
Mr. Thomas noted that several letters had been received on this item.
The public hearing was opened.
Page 8 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-01-14,9,"Mr. Joseph Woodard submitted a speaker slip but was not longer in attendance to speak.
Ms. Diane Lichtenstein, Homes, noted that she had sent an email to the Board. She had
thought the purpose of the forum was an evaluation by experts and professionals as to the
impact of Measure A over the past 35 years. In reading the staff report, she believed that
was what was intended, and believed this should be a very objective analysis. Homes
supported the recommendation that there be no small groups at this time due to the
informational and analytical nature of the forum. She did not believe there would be
enough time to process the information at one time. She hoped this forum would not
become a pro-and-con discussion of whether Measure A should exist. She believed there
should be a discussion of the impact of Measure A on education under ""Diversity of
Housing/Housing Mix.'
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Cook inquired about the professional speakers that had committed to the forum.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff was working towards a February 2 meeting date, and that
should be published in the next few days.
Board Member Lynch inquired why there were as many as six people to a panel, as he
had seen in some workshops in the past.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft recalled that consultant David Early recommended that
small breakout groups be used to maximize the opportunity for public participation,
because not everyone feels comfortable speaking before a large group. She recalled that
the SunCal Alameda Point workshop was a good example of that format working
extremely well. She believed the forum should be held in a place where it could be
televised.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she spoke with Cathy Woodbury the previous week,
and understood that more time was needed for the forum. She had inquired about the
confirmed panel members, and was noted that there was a reason for setting the deadline
in the first place. She noted that this had been planned since Summer 2007, and the
panels had not been confirmed. She was concerned that the Planning Director had not
made more progress at this point. She would like the forum to be a good one, and was
reluctant to extend the time, and believed it was unrealistic to confirm February 2 at this
point. She was frustrated by the fact that it had taken so long to see so little progress.
Board member McNamara believed that the initial timeframe should be adhered to, and
to move forward with it as best as they can. She suggested contacting alternative
panelists. She believed the breakout sessions were secondary to the panel discussions,
and emphasize that community education was the primary objective.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether more time would provide a better
opportunities for obtaining a better venue and more panelists.
Page 9 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-01-14,10,"Mr. Thomas noted that Board member McNamara's description was in line with the
Planning Director's goals, which included retaining the original date. He noted that it was
crucial for the panelists to be familiar with Measure A. He believed that a panel on land
use could be pulled together to address land use.
President Cook would like to include a discussion of the connection between housing and
transportation.
President Cook recalled a discussion during the summer during which Ms. Woodbury
believed there would be some resources available for this forum and the panelists, as long
as it was in the context of the Housing Element. She noted that these were busy people
whose expertise would be in demand, and she believed it would be good to offer them at
least a stipend. She was concerned that this forum had been placed on the back burner,
and while she supported a February 2 date, she would rather have the forum be strong
and well-organized.
Mr. Thomas replied that the other option was to pick an alternate date, and to request the
full panel to be named for the January 28 Planning Board meeting; following that, the
forum could be advertised.
Board Member Lynch tended to come down on the side of an organized and well-planned
event, given the amount of energy and time. He believed that would yield a more positive
event, and would like to give the organization process more time. He suggested thinking
about the site in a more positive way as it related to people's experience from the event.
He noted that two of the speakers had been keynote speakers at national conferences, and
believed that it would best to offer the speakers at least a stipend. He would not object to
delaying the forum if it was consistent with what the panel thinks it should produce.
Vice President Kohlstrand did not want another delay, which she found frustrating, and
would like the Planning Director to speak to the Planning Board about this forum.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed it would be important to have a high-quality
forum, given the amount of time it had taken to get to this point. By the January 28
meeting, she would like to know the moderator and four panelists for the first panel, as
well as a facility. She would be comfortable with four speakers instead of six.
President Cook agreed with the level of frustration expressed by the Board members,
particularly in being asked to make a decision without all the facts. She was ambivalent
about the small groups, and noted that the public comment period could be moved to the
next Planning Board meeting.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the breakout sessions were scheduled to be 45
minutes long, and that the open forum would be an hour and a half. She suggested
incorporating the breakout groups into the public session, summarizing them, and then
going into public comment. Her main concern was having solid, informed speakers and
an adequate place to have the gathering.
Page 10 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-01-14,11,"In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft whether the forum would be
televised, Mr. Thomas replied that it would be videotaped. He was unsure whether it
could be televised live unless it was held in Council Chambers. He believed that taping
the forum for later broadcast would be the best course.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to continue this item to the meeting of January 28,
2008, with the following conditions:
1. Staff will provide a list of between four to six panelists for each panel, and
that each panel will include professionals from the various disciplines
described in the proposed speaker list;
2. A date and a venue for the forum will have been determined, with sufficient
time to publicly notice the meeting;
3. A decision will be made as to whether or not the breakout sessions will occur;
4. The Planning Director is requested to attend the meeting; and
5. The subject of speaker stipends will be addressed.
Mr. Thomas noted that because February 16 was a long weekend, that February 23 may
be the best alternative date.
Vice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5.
Absent: 1 (Cunningham). The motion passed.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Thomas noted that he had responded to a citizen email sent through the City website
regarding Measure A.
President Cook noted that she had received a full packet about a national planning
conference, and the League of California Cities conference in March 2008. She inquired
about APA membership for the Planning Board members, which were available for $60
per Planning Board member. She noted that membership in the California chapter was
required, and was $30 annually. She believed it was important for the Planning Board
members to have access to this information.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she was already a member of APA.
Board Member Lynch noted that he was already a member of APA, and subscribed to the
journals as well.
Mr. Thomas noted that he would check into the Board memberships.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force (Board
Members Cook/Kohlstrand)
Page 11 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-01-14,12,"Mr. Thomas noted that he would insert the PowerPoint presentation in the packet at the
next meeting, and that the next meeting would be held January 30, 2008.
President Cook noted that it was a well-attended session, and that the general issues for
the community were identified.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Mr. Thomas noted that there was not been a recent meeting, and added that Board
member McNamara was the alternative Planning Board member; Ms. Mariani had
resigned.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Vice President
Kohlstrand).
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that there had been no meetings since the last report.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board
Member Cunningham).
Board member Cunningham was not in attendance to present the report.
Mr. Thomas reported that the Task Force approved the plan with some relatively minor
amendments, and that it would go to the City Council on February 5, 2008, for final report.
The Task Force also recommended that the City Council establish a standing commission to
address these issues.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand whether a green building ordinance
would follow, Mr. Thomas believed that was a strong possibility.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the January 28, 2008, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 12 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf