{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-01-08", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, January 8, 2007\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:05 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMember Kohlstrand\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Lynch, Vice President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft, Cunningham,\nKohlstrand, Mariani, McNamara.\nAlso present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney Donna\nMooney, Planner III Dennis Brighton, Planner Brian Stanke.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of December 11, 2006.\nMember Cunningham inquired about the finalized calendar for 2007 meetings. Mr. Thomas noted\nthat the approved calendar had been modified from the calendar in the packet. The packet had\nsuggested canceling the first meeting in November, and it was decided not to cancel that meeting.\nVice President Cook noted that page 2, paragraph 1, should be changed to read, \" to make sure that\ntree wells, benches and bus shelters, and other items did not encroach on the sidewalk that was meant\nto be walked on.\"\nVice President Cook noted that page 7, paragraph 4, should be changed to read, \"Vice President\nCook agreed with much of Member Kohlstrand's comments, but also and understood the need for\nthis project to have a specific front function. She challenged the applicant to treat the waterfront\ndifferently with future projects and attract future tenants that do not require parking in front of the\nbuildings, and that can conform to the design challenge.\"\nVice President Cook noted that page 8, paragraph 3, should be changed to read, \"Vice President\nCook noted that the minutes did not discussed concerns raised about the status of the conditions of\nthe 2003 PDA.\"\nVice President Cook noted that page 9, paragraph 1, should be changed to read, \"She believed the real\nissue was how much square footage could be supported on this site without sacrificing the pedestrian\nbicycle access, d number of trees, landscaping and other amenities -the Board desired. She believed that\nthe developers did not get approval for most of the center in the 2003 much of what they wanted from the\nPDA, and noted that because the Board wanted the evelopers to improve the project 's the Board'sdesire\nfor waterfront orientation. would force the developers to return and show increased waterfront orientation.\nShe noted that the developers did not appeal the 2003 Planning Board decision that direction to the City\nCouncil, and returned with the project. She believed that at this point, the Board was being asked to\napprove buildings on a piecemeal basis without regard for the overall site and water orientation of the\nproject. design, with some buildings having been approved, and some buildings that have been all but\ndemolished except for their shells.-Sh believed the intent of the Planning Board had been extremely clear,\nand she was concerned that their intent had not been carried out forward.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nJanuary 8, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-01-08", "page": 2, "text": "Vice President Cook noted that page 9, paragraph 3, should be changed to read, \"Vice President\nCook expressed concern that this approach would weaken the City's leverage with the developer. She\nasked whether the Planning Board could look at the overall site plan as it was allowed to examined in\n2003, including the intentions stated at that time.\nVice President Cook noted that page 9, paragraph 6, should be changed to read, \"In response to\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft's request for the specific examples, Vice President Cook replied that she was\nconcerned about the status of they were:\nVice President Cook noted that page 10, paragraph 5, should be changed to read, \"She also expressed\nher concern that the Planning Board had approved a PDA for this site with conditions, and that a at\nleast one major condition had not been met. She inquired what the Board's options were at this point.\nShe inquired how the developer could proceed in this way by first building under the PDA, and-but\nthen-returning on a building-by-building basis for approval outside of the PDA; she would appreciate a\nresponse from staff that addressed her concerns.\"\nVice President Cook noted that page 11, paragraph 7, should be changed to read, \"Vice President\nCook was disappointed that a waterfront site would have only \"peekaboo\" views of the Bay from a\nsecond floor deck.\"\nVice President Cook noted that page 13, paragraph 1, should be changed to read, \"Vice President\nCook complimented the applicant on their design details for the part of the project approved and\nbuilt pursuant to the 2003 PDA work, especially the fine details.\nShe believed to date the center\nwas well-done and greatly improved, but and added that it could be much better from a waterfront\nplanning perspective.\"\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 2, paragraph 5, should be changed to read, \"AYES - 4\n(Mariani, Cunningham McNamara-absent)\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that on page 6, she believed the Board had been addressed by the owner\nof the Zephyr company.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 8, paragraph 4, should be changed to read, \"He believed it was\na moot point, because once the Planned Development Amendment application was acted upon,\neveryone including the applicant acknowledged that everything was back on the table.\"\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 10, paragraph 1, should be changed to read, \"Member Ezzy\nAshcraft noted that she was passionate about the issue of the sidewalk, and disclosed that she did a\nwalkthrough of the property with Harsch, and also with Field Paoli, and representatives from the\nAlameda Transportation Commission, Bike Alameda and Pedestrian Friendly Alameda.\"\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 12, paragraph 3, should be changed to read, \"She liked the\ncut-throughs, and did not want to see the issues swept under the rug, and inquired whether the Board\ncould request a date certain for completion of incomplete items once the questions have been\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nJanuary 8, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-01-08", "page": 3, "text": "clarified.\"\nVice President Cook moved approval of the minutes.\nBoard member McNamara seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Board\nmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Kohlstrand and President Lynch - 5. Abstentions: Board members\nCunningham and Mariani - 2.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Lynch noted that no speaker slips had been received for Item 8-B.\nBoard member Cunningham motioned to move Item 8-B from the Regular Agenda to the Consent\nCalendar.\nBoard member McNamara seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nMr. David Howard noted that he had spoken with a woman circulating a petition for a deepwater port\nat Alameda Point for a cruise ship terminal. He believed that would be worth exploring, and was\nshocked and dismayed at what he believed to be City staff's lack of imagination for anything that did\nnot involve building higher density homes and building upward on Alameda Point. He believed that\nthe effort to build a cruise ship terminal could be married to an effort to bring more wineries to\nAlameda, and replicate the success that Rosenblum Wineries enjoys at Alameda Point. He believed\nthat water taxis to Jack London Square and San Francisco could be added to the services, and that\nmore tax dollars could be spent in Alameda.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nJanuary 8, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-01-08", "page": 4, "text": "7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8-B.\nVariance - V06-0010/Minor Design Review MDR06-0237 - Applicant/Appellant:\nCarrie Blanche 1821 Grand Street (BS). The property owner is requesting a Variance and\nMinor Design Review for a 4 foot side yard setback where either a zero or a 12 foot setback\nis required to add a 60 square foot addition to an existing single-family house. The site is\nlocated within a C-] M, Commercial - Manufacturing Zoning District.\nBoard member Cunningham motioned to move Item 8-B from the Regular Agenda to the Consent\nCalendar.\nBoard member McNamara seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-01 to approve a\nVariance and Minor Design Review for a 4 foot side yard setback where either a zero or a 12 foot\nsetback is required to add a 60 square foot addition to an existing single-family house.\nBoard member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nJanuary 8, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-01-08", "page": 5, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\nOakland Chinatown Advisory Committee (AT). A presentation by representatives of the\nOakland Chinatown Advisory Committee describing efforts between Alameda and Oakland to\nimprove existing transportation systems serving Chinatown and Alameda and reduce\ntransportation impacts on pedestrians and the quality of life in Oakland's Chinatown and\nAlameda.\nMr. Thomas presented the staff report. He introduced the presenting members of the Oakland\nChinatown Advisory Committee.\nMr. Alan Yee, Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee, thanked City staff and the Board for hosting\nthis presentation and Board Member Mariani for her invaluable input on the Committee.\nMs. Lynette Lee recognized Oakland Planning Commission Suzy Lee, who served on the Committee\nand was in attendance. She provided a brief history of Oakland Chinatown and described the\ntransportation and traffic challenges faced by both Oakland Chinatown and Alameda. She noted that\nthe one-way street system was a particular traffic and pedestrian safety challenge.\nJenny Ong - Executive Director, Chinatown Chamber of Commerce, noted that Oakland Chinatown\nhad grown tremendously during its history, and added that the 600 small businesses contributed\nsignificantly to the City's tax base. She noted that regional transportation connections converged in\nChinatown, creating significant traffic congestion. She noted that there were many senior centers,\nschools and community centers in Chinatown, which made pedestrian safety a particular concern. She\nnoted that Chinatown had the highest rate of vehicle and pedestrian collisions, and most of the victims\nwere seniors; one-third of Chinatown's population consists of seniors. She described the efforts to\nimprove transportation systems and pedestrian safety.\nJulia Liao, staff, Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee, noted that one of their goals was to\nenhance pedestrian safety in an area that was near a major junction of freeways. They also hoped to\nenhance mobility for the seniors and disabled, as well as to improve the attractiveness of the shopping\ndistrict. They also hoped to involve the community in the process, and to unify the diverse groups to\nseek the long-term solutions.\nMr. Yee described the Committee's involvement in the regional perspective, and noted that they\nwould develop proposals to supplement the CEQA and EIR process currently in place. They would\nstudy alternatives and would work on the proposal made to both Alameda and Oakland for alternative\nanalysis and guidelines to address the issues. They intended to explore the issue of impact fees, and\nhoped that Oakland would be able to follow Alameda's example of using impact fees to address\nChinatown. They intended to revive the planning studies and implementation of the proposals,\nespecially as the Webster and Posey Tubes affect traffic in and out of Alameda. They hoped to bring\nthose recommendations to the Planning Board going forward.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the proposed Oak to Ninth Street project impacted the\nCommittee's plans. Mr. Yee replied that Oak to Ninth would impact the Jackson Street on-ramp.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nJanuary 8, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-01-08", "page": 6, "text": "Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there would be any response on the state or federal level\nregarding funding for the Broadway/Jackson proposal. Mr. Yee replied that they had worked with the\nState and made recommendations; he hoped they would help seek funds and implement one of the\nrecommendations\nIn response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether they were working with MTC and ABAG to\nprioritize some of their goals for access via the Tube and 880, Ms. Ong replied that they had spoken\nwith the developer of the Oak to Ninth property, and they had signed an agreement with the\nChinatown Chamber and Asian Health Services to contribute funds to improve traffic congestion in\nChinatown.\nMr. Thomas noted that the Alameda/Oakland subregion should be better at advocating for state and\nfederal money. He noted that other cities have joined together to get priority for transportation funds\nfor regional improvements. He noted that they were working with ACTIA and CalTrans to prepare a\nProject Study Report (PSR), and that the Chinatown Committee was very effective in getting the\nOakland City Councilmembers to attend the meeting with the City of Alameda and ACTIA so that the\nOakland Councilmembers would emphasize the need to make the ramp system the priority in the\nstudy.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that Ron Dellums, Oakland's new mayor, had significant experience in\nWashington, D.C., and she hoped that would assist in getting federal funds.\nMember Kohlstrand complimented the Committee on their cooperative efforts, and believed that\ntraffic improvements would be part of the solution. She would like a briefing on the\nBroadway/Jackson proposal. She believed that transit in both cities would also be part of the solution,\nbecause of the constraint at the Tube. She noted that the development in Jack London Square and\nwest of the freeway would place increasing demand on the road network; she added that area was\nsomewhat isolated from the transit service. She inquired whether the City of Oakland had looked at\nother traffic inbound into Oakland; she noted that many of the broad, wide Oakland streets have not\nused their capacity. She encouraged creative ways of lessening the impact on Chinatown, and would\nencourage traffic calming methods on the most impacted streets.\nMember Kohlstrand inquired whether the City was working with a consultant. Ms. Ong replied that\nthey were, and that they had received an MTC grant for Chinatown improvements; bulbouts were\npart of that plan.\nVice President Cook stated that she viewed the Estuary as a positive and unifying element between\nOakland and Alameda, rather than a dividing force. She shared the concerns about Oak to Ninth, and\nnoted that it was a huge project. She noted that the larger projects were connected with the Port,\nwhich did not always see eye-to-eye with the City of Oakland from a planning perspective. She would\nrecommend some planning and real estate representation from the Port on the committee.\nMember Cunningham believed it was interesting how two communities could work to affect the\nother. He believed it would be beneficial to discover the lessons that would be learned from this study\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nJanuary 8, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-01-08", "page": 7, "text": "as some potentially larger developments are examined. He thought the analysis of the CEQA\nshortcomings was interesting, and that developers coming into Alameda would be asked to do similar\nstudies.\nMr. Thomas noted that the City's thresholds for analyzing projects focused on the car, which was\ndiscussed by the Chinatown representatives in 2002-3 when discussing some of Alameda's and\nOakland's EIRs. He noted that many felt that the impact on pedestrians, transit and bicyclists needed\nto be addressed more thoroughly. He noted that the Transportation Commission and then the\nPlanning Board had also been raising the same concerns that the analysis had been centered on cars.\nHe noted that the two cities could work together in developing a common methodology to benefit\nboth cities.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that as a transportation planner, she knew that many cities were grappling\nwith that issue, and that it was intended for applications in suburban environments where lanes could\nbe added. She noted that the resulting wide streets became very difficult for pedestrians to cross. She\nnoted that San Francisco was still struggling with that issue, and believed it would be beneficial to\nexamine the measures being implemented by San Francisco.\nPresident Lynch inquired whether there was any response provided to the Oakland Mayor's office or\nCity Council when they suspended the cumulative impact analysis for developments in Oakland.\nMr. Thomas replied that that legislation was passed just before this committee was established.\nPresident Lynch noted that the Mayor requested a waiver from the cumulative impact analysis within\nthe documents for the City of Oakland and their projects; that was approved by the State legislature.\nHe believed that creative thinking would be necessary in the design aspects of streets and questions\nraised about the social impacts, social interaction, air quality and quality of life.\nMember Mariani noted that it had been a pleasure serving on this committee, and that she would\ncontinue to do SO.\nNo action was taken.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nJanuary 8, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-01-08", "page": 8, "text": "8-C.\nAppeal of Major Design Review Approval - DR06-0064 - Applicant/Appellant: Grace\nVilla 1811 Eighth Street (DB). The property owner is appealing a condition of Design\nReview approval that requires the removal of a driveway gate that reduces access to required\nparking in a detached two-car garage. The site is located within an R-2, Two-Family\nResidential Zoning District.\nMr. Brighton summarized the staff report, and noted that he had distributed a letter from a neighbor\nwho opposed any proposal that would inhibit off street parking.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nItalo Calpestri, project architect, noted that the applicant believed the gate was a necessity because of\na\nnumber of security breaches that had occurred. The plan shown had more bedrooms added to the\nlower floor, and the security of those bedrooms was paramount to the applicant. Mr. Brighton had\nrecommended that the gate be placed at the back of the building, which would make access to\nunauthorized people along the driveway very easy. The applicant filed the appeal because having the\ngate at the rear did not meet their security needs.\nPresident Lynch suggested that this item be suspended to allow a sidebar conversation to take place\nbetween staff and the applicant to discuss gate alternatives.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to continue the item until later in the meeting.\nBoard member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nJanuary 8, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-01-08", "page": 9, "text": "9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATION\nNone.\n10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that no further meetings had been held since her last report.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember Mariani).\nThere was no additional information following the agenda item.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member\nKohlstrand).\nMember Kohlstrand advised that there was nothing new to report. She had been invited to participate\nin a meeting with Planning staff and a representative from the Transportation Commission to discuss\ntransportation issues as they relate to Alameda Point and Catellus.\nd.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board\nMember Cunningham).\nMember Cunningham noted that their first meeting would be held January 10, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. in\nthe new library.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would like to see the City adopt some green building\nordinances to add to the building codes. She had conducted some research at the Waste Management\nAuthority for Alameda County on other municipalities that already had green building ordinances. She\nmet with Karen Smith, the Executive Director of WMA, who attended the ribbon cutting ceremony\nfor the LEED-certified library. She noted that the new Zephyr building would have some green\nbuilding elements, as would the Habitat for Humanity homes. She applauded those entities for their\nvoluntary application of green building elements, but believed the City had a responsibility to the\ncommunity and the environment to have these ordinances on the books. There were only two cities in\nAlameda County without some sort of green building ordinance on the books: Alameda and\nPiedmont. She would like the Planning Board to make a recommendation to the City Council to\nadopt green building requirements.\nMr. Thomas noted that staff was working on these issues, and believed the green building initiative\ncould be brought to the Climate Protection Committee, and the Planning Board for consideration.\nMember Cunningham noted that previous discussions of a green building ordinance had been\nsidelined due to funding and staffing constraints.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nJanuary 8, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-01-08", "page": 10, "text": "A discussion of building codes and building practices ensued as it related to applying a green building\nordinance.\nMr. Thomas noted that his tour of the Peet's Coffee building during the inspection was enlightening,\nand added that the Clif Bar building was attempting to achieve a LEED platinum certification.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to reopen Item 8-C.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nJanuary 8, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-01-08", "page": 11, "text": "8-C. Appeal of Major Design Review Approval - DR06-0064 - Applicant/Appellant: Grace\nVilla 1811 Eighth Street (DB). The property owner is appealing a condition of Design\nReview approval that requires the removal of a driveway gate that reduces access to required\nparking in a detached two-car garage. The site is located within an R-2, Two-Family\nResidential Zoning District.\nThe public hearing was reopened.\nMr. Calpestri noted that he and Mr. Brighton had agreed to disagree, and that the sticking point was\nthe need for an automatic opener or operator on the gate. He resisted the idea of an operator due to\nits expense, which could approach $2,500, and another $1,000 for installation. He requested that the\nBoard support the first alternative given in the staff report, without providing an operator.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Lynch regarding the necessity of an operator, Mr. Brighton\nreplied that it encouraged the use of the on-site parking.\nMs. Susan Villa, noted that she was representing her mother Grace Villa (the applicant). She noted\nthat her mother was 82 years old, and has become increasingly frail. She had lived in this home since\n1947, and it was her hope to stay there. She and her eight siblings would like this expansion to be\napproved SO that caregivers and other family members may be accommodated there in order to care\nfor their mother. Her mother had experienced several frightening incidents when people came up the\ndriveway. This, combined with her age and decreasing sight, had made her quite fearful, and she was\nadamant that she would like a gate. She noted that her mother did not own a vehicle, and noted that\nthere would be one vehicle at the house from either a caregiver or a family member. She did not\nbelieve it would be a problem to use the gate and gain access to the garage. She understood\nthe\nconcern about offstreet parking, and believed this would not contribute to the problem.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether she would agree to the alternative which called\nfor a five-foot-high iron/steel fence, Ms. Villa replied that she would not be opposed to that\nalternative.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the public policy or rationale requiring the gate to be see-\nthrough She believed that it would be a common-sense solution to have the gate swing toward the\nfront of the house, rather toward the side of the house, which would impede the driveway. She\nbelieved that people should be encouraged to improve their homes, especially the older homes. She\nalso wanted to support older residents in being able to stay in their homes as long as possible.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Lynch regarding the idea that having an operator was an\nonerous condition, Mr. Brighton replied that the floor area was being doubled with more bedrooms\nand bathrooms. He believed the additional $2,500-$3,000 in light of the major construction\ninvestment was a minor consideration for the long-term use of the property, and the long-term benefit\nof the community to have offstreet parking.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nJanuary 8, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-01-08", "page": 12, "text": "Member Mariani thanked staff for the additional information, and noted that the Board had been\nconcerned about offstreet parking. She noted that with the increase in square footage, up to six\npeople could potentially live in this house. She believed that an additional $2,500 when compared\nwith the cost of the construction was relatively minor, and she agreed with staff's assessment.\nVice President Cook agreed with the staff report She understood the security concerns, but had also\nseen a thief jump a neighbor's fence when a gate had been installed. She believed the number of\nbedrooms, number of cars, and accessibility to the garage were the Board's main concerns.\nMember Kohlstrand believed it was an onerous requirement to have the automatic gate opener, and\nshe did not know whether it had been required before for a residential property. She agreed with\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft's assessment, and would support the condition of a new gate, but without the\nopener on it.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City would continue to require mechanical gate\noperators on all driveways that were less than stated in the Code. She noted that a neighbor had such\nan operator, and added that it was very noisy when it worked; it was also expensive to repair the\nmotor. She appreciated the thoroughness of staff's report, as well as the addition of the Code\nsections. She did not see any reference to mechanical openers in the Code.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Cunningham regarding the definition of \"see-through,\" Mr.\nBrighton replied that 50% of the volume must be unobscured.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to uphold the appeal, and to suggest the installation of a five-foot\nsee-through fence on the southeast corner without an electric operator.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which failed by the following voice vote: Board\nmember Kohlstrand - 3. Noes: Vice President Cook, President Lynch, Board member Mariani - 3.\n(Absent: Board member McNamara - 1.)\nPresident Lynch suggested that this item be suspended for further discussion between staff and the\napplicant.\nBoard member Mariani moved to suspend discussion of this item in order to resolve the outstanding\nissue of the mechanical gate.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by a unanimous voice vote - 6.\n(Absent: Board member McNamara - 1.)\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nJanuary 8, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-01-08", "page": 13, "text": "11.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATION:\na.\nStatus Report on upcoming Public Forum related to Measure A and Alameda Point.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Jean Sweeney noted that she was dismayed at the amount of support she has seen for overturning\nMeasure A. She believed that issue should go to the voters, and she would not like to see further\npublic sessions in pursuit of that goal. She believed that overturning Measure A would increase the\ndensity in Alameda, which she opposed. She did not want Atlantic Avenue widened to eight lanes,\nwhich would greatly impact entrances to the Tube.\nMs. Diane Lichtenstein, representing Homes, believed the recommendation was to fold the forum into\nthe station area plan that would come before the public soon. She believed that would not be the best\nway to approach this issue. She noted that Ms. Woodbury's memo based the station area plan on\ntransportation and transit orientation. She believed the conceptual development plans with and\nwithout Measure A would be discussed as well. She believed that if Measure A was folded into the\ncommunity forums as a discussion point, it would dominate the purpose of what the station area plan\nwas, which was to discuss transportation and transit, not Measure A. She requested that the Board go\nforward with the proposal to hold a forum, and noted that it had been three years since the last forum\nat Kaufman Auditorium. She believed it would be fair to hear the public's views on such a hot issue,\nespecially since many things had changed since then.\nMr. David Howard objected to the use of MTC funds to explore non-Measure A-compliant\nalternatives. He also objected to the Measure A forums being combined with the station area plan\ndiscussion, and also objected to the existence of the Measure A forums in general. He was concerned\nthat a study of a non-Measure A-compliant alternative as proposed may eventually undermine\nMeasure A. He did not believe that was a good use of funds, and did not want it to become a\nbackdoor way to undermine Measure A.\nMs. Helen Sause, representing Homes, complimented the Board's plans to schedule a hearing on the\nimpacts of Measure A across the City, not just Alameda Point. She believed it was important to\nseparate this hearing from the work that will be done by WRT in analyzing the transportation\ndevelopment alternative for Alameda Point. She noted that it was encouraging to allow people to\nspeak about the impacts of Measure A. She was concerned that linking it with the transportation\nstudy, that polarized positions would result, and added that no one was suggesting eliminating it. She\nbelieved that citywide, people deserved to have the chance to speak their minds about the possibility\nof modifying Measure A. She hoped the issue could be discussed civilly.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMember Mariani believed that while the speakers had opposite points of view, they did agree that the\ndiscussions should not be held together in a combined forum.\nMember Cunningham did not believe the issues could be examined effectively without considering\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nJanuary 8, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-01-08", "page": 14, "text": "both options. He agreed that whether the MTC funds were used to study Measure A, it would take\nmore money than that to complete the study. He suggested doing a noncompliant Measure A scheme\nto see the implications, and believed that would be prudent planning.\nMr. Thomas provided background information regarding the settlement agreement that led to this\nstudy, as well as the Oakland-Chinatown Advisory Committee and the MTC grant money.\nMember Mariani thanked Mr. Thomas for the clarification, because the memo distributed to the\nPlanning Board did not contain that information.\nVice President Cook believed that the study should go forward, and that the Measure A study forum\nshould also occur. She was also interested in other aspects of the Measure A debate besides only\ntransportation. She was very concerned about ensuring that there was a middle ground between\nhousing for the very rich and the very poor. She inquired whether the ferry would be viable when it is\nmoved. She supported looking at a policy such as Measure A objectively, and would like to hear all\nthe perspectives on the issue. She was concerned about urban design issues that flowed from urban\ndesign and density. She had felt that there were places in the City where Measure A should be\ntightened up, and other places where it did not make sense. She supported an informational forum\nwith a skilled facilitator.\nMember Kohlstrand agreed with Vice President Cook's comments, and supported having the MTC\nstudy, as well as an independent forum on Measure A.\nPresident Lynch appreciated the public comments, but was somewhat disappointed in the\ncharacterization of some of the comments that he had heard during his time on the Planning Board in\nthat Measure A is not just about density. He noted that it was also about design, and when some\npeople become demonized for wanting to have a public discussion, that does not mean the next step\nwould be to overturn Measure A. He believed a discussion about an existing ordinance was entirely\nwithin the public purview.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand, Mr. Thomas replied that the intent of the MTC\nscope of work was to gather resources and information that the City could use to inform the work\nthat would be done by the master developer.\nPresident Lynch noted that part of the discussion was how to design the 1800 new residences, and\nwhat kind of homes they would be. He noted that the impacts on open space must also be examined\nwith respect to placement of the homes, bike paths and transportation schemes. He noted that the\nanswer would not be known until the possible scenarios could be laid out. He did not believe that\nexamining these questions would necessarily lead to overturning Measure A.\nMember Kohlstrand believed that the standards for block sizes should be followed regardless of\nMeasure A compliance, and that obtaining more information would be helpful. She suggested using\nthe AC Transit guide that addressed transit-oriented design. She also met with the general manager of\nthe Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton last week, who noted that 93% of their users arrived by\ncar. He noted that they built the development with four parking spaces per thousand square feet, and\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nJanuary 8, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-01-08", "page": 15, "text": "he added that they had \"way too much parking.\"\nMember Kohlstrand noted that the MTC study, undertaken through the Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Agency, stated that the Planning Board members could participate as Alamedans.\nWhile she believed that was positive that all Alamedans had an opportunity to participate in this\nprocess, it seemed strange that a fundamental planning issue would not come before the Planning\nBoard, nor was there a mention of the Planning Board having a special presentation on this issue.\nMr. Thomas apologized for that information not being included in the memo. He noted that the\nproducts of the MTC scope of work included the recommendation for new designs for parking\nstandards, block sizes and other public improvement standards and parking standards. He noted that\nthese findings would be implemented as zoning text amendments, which would come to the Planning\nBoard for recommendation to the City Council. He noted that the parking studies and other tasks\nwere designed to inform the Planning Board and the City Council.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft agreed that the City needed additional expertise from people who have\nworked on outside projects in different communities. She noted that she recently spent five days in\nVancouver, British Columbia, which was a vibrant water-oriented community.\nVice President Cook agreed with Member Ezzy Ashcraft that this should not be viewed as strictly a\nMeasure A forum.\nPresident Lynch noted that it would be one of the vehicles where the public could speak about\nMeasure A as it applied to a particular area and different design concepts.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the workshops could be televised. Mr. Thomas noted that\nthe venue had not been selected yet.\nVice President Cook noted that some people cannot watch the telecast because they already had\nschedule conflicts.\nMr. Thomas noted that it may be videotaped and reshown on the cable channel.\nPresident Lynch requested an update on Item 8-C. Mr. Thomas advised that staff and applicants had\nmet, and the applicant understood that the appeal failed. The applicant would live with the current\nrequirement, which was to remove the gate. They would work with staff to examine some of the\noptions in the staff report, which can be approved without coming back to the Planning Board.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nJanuary 8, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-01-08", "page": 16, "text": "12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n9:55 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nCathy Woodbury\nFCathy Woodbury, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThese minutes were approved at the February 12, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was\naudio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 16\nJanuary 8, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf"}