{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-10-08", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, October 8, 2007\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:10 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Cunningham.\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Ezzy Ashcraft,\nCunningham, Lynch, Mariani and McNamara.\nMember Lynch was absent from roll call.\nAlso present were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Assistant City\nAttorney Donna Mooney, Planner III Dennis Brighton, Obaid Khan, Public Works.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of September 24, 2007.\nThe minutes will be considered at the meeting of October 22, 2007.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nPresident Cook understood that several people wished to speak about Item 8-A. She noted\nthat item was proposed to be continued, and inquired whether the Board should hear the\npublic comments at this time.\nMember Cunningham believed it would be better to take comment after receiving and\nreviewing further information.\nMember McNamara agreed with Board member Cunningham.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that public comments be taken at this time, and that the\nBoard members may take notes and address the matter when it would be heard again.\nMember McNamara believed the item had been noticed as being continued.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether any speaker slips had been\nreceived, Ms. Woodbury replied that staff was still working with the applicant on their\nproposal, and that it was not yet ready to come to a hearing. She added that more\ninformation was required, and that it would be renoticed because it was not continued to a\ndate certain. She noted that if the members of the public who had come to speak on Item 8-\nA would leave their contact information, staff would notify them of the hearing date.\n1", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-10-08", "page": 2, "text": "President Cook noted that no speaker slips had been received for Item 8-A, but that the\nmembers of the public may speak during Oral Communications. She apologized for the\nmiscommunication.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nFuture Agendas\nMs. Woodbury provided an update on future agenda items.\nb.\nZoning Administrator Report\nMs. Woodbury provided the Zoning Administrator report.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nCouncil member Doug DeHaan noted that he spoke as a private citizen, and wished to\naddress Alameda Landing and the issues and opportunities in developing that site. He\nnoted that it was a unique site, and reviewed the background of that project. He expressed\nconcern about the waterfront and the vistas, as well as the scale, size and massing of the\ndevelopment. He noted that it had been reduced from its former 600,000 square feet to\n250,000 square feet. He expressed concern about the billboards placed on easel mounts\nand the massive walls in the form of art. He noted that this was a single-story building,\nand that the interior space of the retail was approximately 16 to 20 feet. He did not\nbelieve that building should be 65 feet tall, and noted that the Board had expressed\nconcern about that height. He did not think that given the green building focus of the\nCity, that the building should be that tall. He noted that the master tree review would be\ncoming forward soon, and noted that the pear tree species was not desired and should not\nbe accepted within the City.\nMs. Karen Miller noted that she was not pleased that the applicant for Item 8-A was not\nin attendance, while she and other members of the public attended to speak on the item.\nShe noted that she lived across the street from the subject house, and noted that many\ntrees and a pond had been removed from the property, purportedly because they were\ninstalling a pool. She noted that did not occur, and recently heard that they intended to\nsubdivide the property. She noted that the owner lived in Los Angeles, and had bought\nthe property as an investment; she did not believe he had the same concerns for Alameda\nas she and her neighbors did. She noted that he bought and sold another house across the\nstreet. She noted that this property was unique in Alameda, and she was disappointed that\nit has been sitting vacant. She noted that because the applicant had received a notice that\nthe item was continued; she and her neighbors should have been notified as well.\nMs. Sara Chavez, SunCal Companies, noted that their first public meeting would be held\nOctober 24, 2007, 6:30 p.m. at the Mastick Senior Center. They planned to introduce the\nteam and give an overview of the constraints at Alameda Point.\n2", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-10-08", "page": 3, "text": "Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that at the last Planning Board meeting, the meeting date\nhad been October 23, and noted that there must have been a date change.\nMs. Chavez noted that it had always been scheduled for October 24.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8-A\nParcel Map PM07-0003 - Applicant: Jack Cooley, 717 Paru Street. The\napplicant is requesting a parcel map to divide a 92,053.03-square foot parcel into\ntwo parcels. One parcel with an existing single-family residence would be\n17,051.13-square feet and the remaining parcel would be 75,001.9-square feet.\nThe 75,001.9-square foot parcel would contain an existing cabana, with the\nmajority of the parcel located within the lagoon. The site is located within an R-1,\nSingle-Family Residential Zoning District (DB).\nMember Cunningham moved to continue this item.\nVice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.\nAbsent: 1 (Lynch). The motion passed.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A. Approval of the format for a future public forum regarding the Housing Element\nand Measure A and dissolution of the Expanded Housing Element/Measure A Ad\nHoc Committee\nMs. Woodbury presented the staff report, and provided a brief background of Measure A.\nShe noted that in July, the ad hoc Housing Element/Measure A Workshop Committee\nagreed to disband before they reached an agreement on the workshop format, and before\ndiscussing potential speakers. The last meeting ended with direction to the appellant\nmembers and the Board members to provide their preferred workshop format to the\nPlanning Board for consideration, along with one prepared by the City's consultant. She\nnoted that she expanded upon the consultant's comments, which was included in the packet.\nOnce the Planning Board's comments have been received, staff would work with the\nconsultant on the administrative details, including the invitations to speakers, the venue,\ndate, notices and documentation of the workshop. The Planning Board was asked to approve\na format for the public forum, and to dissolve the ad hoc committee because its work has\nbeen completed.\nPresident Cook noted that seven speaker slips had been received.\nMember McNamara moved to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.\nMember Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Absent: 1\n(Lynch). The motion passed.\n3", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-10-08", "page": 4, "text": "The public hearing was opened.\nMs. Sally Fallhobber noted that she was speaking as an individual on this item. She believed\nit was time for the City to closely examine the effects of Measure A, as well as what has and\nhas not been built. She had voted for Measure a in 1973, hoping it would fail by a narrow\nmargin in favor of a better way to control growth and preserve the City's architecture and\nsmall-town atmosphere. She still supports those goals, and at that time, there were units that\nwere more affordable to single-family homes. She cited Bayport, Marina Cove and Heritage\nBay as not filling that niche, which she did not believe met the intent of the original\nsupporters. She believed that after 34 years, the people of Alameda should revisit this issue\nbased on current information. She hoped that a forum to address the issues would be made\navailable.\nMr. John Knox-White was pleased that all six members of the ad hoc subcommittee\nsupported this forum. He also supported the Planning Board's recommended format as\ndescribed in the packet, which expanded upon the staff recommendation.\nMs. Kate Quick, representing League of Women Voters of Alameda, noted that they were in\ngeneral agreement with the recommended format for the forum. They believed that such a\ndiscussion should not be on the merits, or lack thereof, of Measure A, but how it impacted\nthe community, as well as current and future planning decisions. They would like the\nfollowing issues to be addressed:\n1.\nDoes it limit choices?\n2.\nDoes it provide the necessary protection to ensure appropriate density,\nbuilding and community design and growth control?\n3.\nCould these be achieved with additional measures, or different measures?\n4.\nHow has it limited the choices?\nShe believed the residents of Alameda would be able to gain a more comprehensive\nknowledge of this part of the City charter, and decide for themselves how they wish to\nproceed, whether it be kept in its current forum, or amending it from the vote of the people.\nThey believed the forum should be professionally facilitated, and that the speakers who\nwere expert in the field of planning and community development and design, as well as\nthose who could address the history and local perspective. They believed that even-\nhandedness in the design of this forum would be key to its outcome. She believed it was\ntime to put aside the argument that Measure A, as part of the City Charter, could not be\nreviewed, discussed, and possibly amended.\nMs. Susan Decker believed that it was important to have a discussion of the ways that the\nCity can guide development and preserve the City's character. She appreciated the input\nfrom the community and noted that the list of potential speakers looked good. She had\nattended one of the ad hoc committee meetings, and noted that there were difficulties in\nagreeing how the public input should be formatted. She noted that the proposal incorporated\nboth major suggestions, which should encourage public input.\nMr. Michael Krueger spoke in support of the community's recognition of the need of a\nforum. He was glad that the community had moved beyond the debate about whether it\n4", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-10-08", "page": 5, "text": "should be discussed or not. He believed the recommended format was very well thought-\nout, and urged the Planning Board to adopt it. He was pleased to see so many Alameda\nresidents, and liked the idea of using small groups and speaking before the general audience.\nMs. Helen Sause, President of Homes, thanked everyone involved in bringing the forum\nforward. She supported adoption of the Measure A forum, as well as holding the forum as\nsoon as possible. She supported putting a deadline on when the forum would be held, and\nbelieved that time was of the essence. She believed the results of the forum were essential to\nthe development of Alameda Point by SunCal.\nMs. Diane Lichtenstein, Homes, recalled the background of the proposed forum, and\nthanked the parties involved in moving ahead. She supported the proposed format, as well as\nthe employment of a thorough, professional, objective discussion of Measure A and how it\nhas impacted the City. She believed the speakers should be limited to the professionals who\nwere able to provide that information. She did not want the forum to become a debate on the\nmerits of Measure A.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMs. Woodbury noted that the consultant, David Earley, prepared a summary of the two ad\nhoc committee meetings to develop the basis for a format as discussed. She then added\nfurther detail to the summary.\nA discussion of the process preceding the development of the various formats ensued.\nMs. Woodbury noted that after reading the letter submitted by the other ad hoc committee\nmembers, the one difference she saw was that the appellant members did not like the idea of\nbreakout groups. She noted that was the only major difference.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that the packet contained a written proposal outlining the\nrecommendation by the Planning Board members of the ad hoc committee, and the response\nto Mr. Earley's report and the staff report. She noted that while a broad consensus was not\nreached, there were items where they reached a consensus. She believed there was common\nagreement that Woody Minor would be asked to make a presentation on the historic\nbackground of Measure A. They also felt it was important to provide an opportunity for\ncitizens of Alameda to ask questions, and to make their opinions known. As directed by City\nCouncil, a written record of the proceeding should be made available, and the forum should\nbe videotaped and televised. They agreed that it would be important to have a mix of\nviewpoints on the panels, and that it should not be biased towards one perspective or\nanother. The Planning Board members of the ad hoc committee generally agreed with the\nschedule and the format recommended by Mr. Earley and staff; a general background\npresentation would be made, followed by panel discussions, and then small breakout groups.\nVice President Kohlstrand added that there were points regarding the staff proposal that they\nfelt were slightly mischaracterized, or that the Planning Board members of the ad hoc\ncommittee had a difference perspective on. Because they were not able to reach a consensus,\n5", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-10-08", "page": 6, "text": "she wished to share those points with the Planning Board for consideration. They believed it\nwould be important to supplement the presentation made by Woody Minor with an objective\npresentation on both the legislative history and a summary of how Measure A had been\nimplemented in the City. The Planning Board members advocated that those presentations\nbe provided by current or former City staff, particularly the City Attorney for the legislative\nhistory and how it had been implemented by City staff. The first part of the sessions would\nbe an hour-long session broken into three parts, providing an overview of the events leading\nup to Measure A, the language of Measure A, and some perspective on how that has\naffected the City's historic structures.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that for the second part of the forum, the Planning Board\nmembers felt that it was very important not to frame this discussion as advocating for or\nagainst Measure A. They believed it would be more important to focus on issues that related\nto Measure A for the City, as well as having a mix of viewpoints on the panel. They\nrecommended that two different sessions be held, one dealing with housing and general\nhousing issues, and a second session dealing with general issues related to transportation.\nThey recommended that each panel consist of six members, and made recommendations\nfrom the broad list of speaker recommendations to represent a mix of Alameda residents and\ndifferent perspectives on Measure A. They also suggested a series of questions that might be\nposed by a moderator to this panel, and responded to with a unique perspective on the topic.\nThey recommended that the session last for 40 minutes, followed by an open session to take\nquestions from the public. After a break, that would be repeated with the transportation\nforum. The afternoon schedule was similar to that recommended by staff, that the\nparticipants break out into small groups. She noted that the difference was that a working\nlunch was not included in the City budget. She believed that if people were expected to\nspend their entire day discussing Measure A, that it would be nice to provide lunch, at the\ndiscretion of the City Council. She believed the questions should be available beforehand to\nthe people being asked to address them in order to give them sufficient time to research\nthem.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft believed that with respect to the speakers, there was a wealth of\nresources available, from professional planners to those who can speak to the history of\nliving in this community.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Cunningham whether staff would formulate the list of\nspeakers, Ms. Woodbury replied that staff could do that if it was the Board's direction. Staff\nwould hire the Housing Element consultant, which would put the list together. Staff would\nbe glad to ask people if they were interested and willing, and then work on the details.\nMember Cunningham noted that an update of the Housing Element was a lengthy and very\ninvolved process, and did not believe this would be the correct forum to discuss the Housing\nElement. He believed that the impact of Measure A on the Housing Element was a critical\nitem to discuss, but wished to clarify that the intention of this forum was not to address the\nHousing Element.\n6", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-10-08", "page": 7, "text": "A discussion of the selection of speakers by the appellants and other parties ensued.\nMember Cunningham noted that he was not as concerned about who the speakers were as\nlong as they represented the interest groups and their points of view that give the Planning\nBoard a broad perspective and the information they need to find. He believed that would be\nthe most productive direction to staff. He inquired why six people had been chosen.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it was more important to her to have quality speakers than\na larger number of speakers, particularly so across-the-representation could be achieved.\nMember Cunningham noted that the timeline was finite, and he believed those involved\nshould be respectful of that. He believed that having a set agenda would be important to\nstructure the forum.\nPresident Cook noted that they considered the idea of having one session relation to\nhousing, and one related to transportation. She added that that idea was not very popular\nwith many people.\nMember Cunningham believed it would be helpful to pose questions with answers, in\nresponse to the City Council's request of having something definable as an outcome of the\nmeeting.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft did not disagree with Member Cunningham's comments, but would\nlike to retain the small breakout sessions in the forum. She noted that they should be\nvoluntary, and added that a different kind of communication resulted from small group\ndiscussions. She added that it would be provide a different mix of communication\nopportunities.\nMember Cunningham suggested that the Housing Element consultant facilitate the meeting.\n7", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-10-08", "page": 8, "text": "Ms. Woodbury noted that while staff has interviewed consultants, they had not selected a\nconsultant yet.\nMember McNamara thanked the Planning Board members and the appellants for spending\nso much time on getting the forum discussion to this point. She inquired whether there was a\nbudget to pay for the panelists and mediators, and added that the budget could become\nsignificant. She supported the format that Ms. Woodbury refined from David Earley's forum\nbecause she liked non-working breaks; the suggested format had two significant breaks\nduring the day. She noted that the Housing Element and the transportation component were\ncombined into one 90-minute session, instead of two one-hour sessions, which she believed\nwould be easier to absorb and follow. She liked the idea of seeking professional input\noutside of Alameda.\nPresident Cook noted that they felt very uncomfortable being labeled as one side, and the\nappellants as the other side. She believed the City Council and Planning Board wished to set\nup a very objective workshop where people represented a variety of different interests.\nConsequently, they resisted an adversarial approach throughout the six hours of meetings\nthat were held.\nMember McNamara agreed with President Cook's comments, and was more interested in\nhearing their perspective, which may supplement or complement the Planning Board's\nperspective.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the difference between a 90-minute session and two one-\nhour sessions to discuss the Housing Element and transportation was 30 minutes. She\nbelieved strongly that it had taken considerable effort to be able to hold this kind of forum.\nShe believed there were many serious-minded members of the community who have\nthought long and hard about this issue, and who wanted in-depth information. She believed\nanother 30 minutes of substance would be valuable. She noted that both versions would end\nat 4 p.m. and believed that a working lunch would be valuable. She hoped that the session\nwould also be televised.\nMember McNamara noted that the morning session was designed to be very structured, with\nspeakers and an educational and informational approach. She supported that format, and\nbelieved that after the lunch break, she supported the small group breakout sessions as well,\nwhich would give the citizens of Alameda an opportunity to have input and to summarize\nadditional issues. She noted that the small group members could select a facilitator amongst\nthemselves, who would report the results of their meeting back to the group. She noted that\nBarbara Kerr had expressed concern that the small groups' input would not be reported back\nto City Council, but that would be reported and recorded in the public record and brought\nback to City Council. She did not believe that would be a concern. She suggested that for\neither format option, allowing an hour at the end of the day for more questions by the public\nwould be valuable. If there were more than 20 speakers, she suggested randomly selecting\nspeaker slips to fit into the time allotted.\n8", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-10-08", "page": 9, "text": "Ashcraft noted that people going out for lunch would also support local businesses. She also\nsuggested that the transit session be shorter than the housing session. She did not want to cut\nthe public comment period short.\n9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-10-08", "page": 10, "text": "President Cook invited comment on how to handle the question of the public speakers, and\nwhether the appellants had provided their full list.\nMember Cunningham believed it would be imperative to focus on the topics they wished to\ndiscuss, and then find the right people to address those topics.\nMs. Woodbury noted that if she were the consultant hired by the City, she would want some\nflexibility. She suggested that staff work with the consultant with respect to appropriate\nspeakers that have not been included on the list.\nPresident Cook requested that the Planning Board be kept abreast of the progress through\nStaff Communications, and believed it would be important for the full Board to hear the\ninformation going forward. Ms. Woodbury replied that would be possible, and that\nmilestone dates could be included in the scope of work for the consultant. She noted that\nemails could be sent, in addition to reporting to the Board during Staff Communications.\nMember Cunningham noted that it would be very important for the public to hear the\nprogress, and inquired about potential timelines. Ms. Woodbury replied that consultants\nhave been interviewed, and staff intended to determine whether the preferred consultant\nwould be willing and able to take the responsibility for this forum. The contract would then\nbe taken to City Council because it exceeded the limit for funding on a staff level. She\nanticipated that late January would be a reasonable timeframe for the forum, depending\nupon availability.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that they envisioned having a moderator that would field\nand read a question, giving the panelists an opportunity to respond from their own\nperspective, rather than give a formal presentation. They believed it would be easier for\nresidents of Alameda to provide their own personal experience, and someone outside\nAlameda may need time to consider questions about Alameda in particular.\nMember Mariani liked the idea of asking each group appointed by the City Council for\nsuggestions, and utilizing the equal suggestions. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she\nwas very comfortable with the idea.\nPresident Cook requested that staff send a letter to the appellants for additional names that\nthe consultant should examine. She noted that the moderator must be able to call on the\nvarious panelists in an equal manner.\nMember Cunningham suggested that a 45-minute lunch would be appropriate, and would\nlike to see a priority list of topics. He believed that two hours for a small group breakout\nplus reporting back would be a long time, and suggested that time for lunch be borrowed\nfrom that time. He noted that if there were eight groups with three minutes to report back,\nthat would leave enough time for Catellus to make their report.\nVice President Kohlstrand suggested using the timeframe recommended in the staff report\nfor the small group discussion; Ms. Woodbury recommended 45 minutes for the small\n10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-10-08", "page": 11, "text": "group exercise, 30 minutes for the reports, and an open forum of 90 minutes. President Cook\nagreed with that allocation, from 12:15 to 4:00 p.m. She noted that the committee's\nschedule included a morning break.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft believed that the location would be important, and suggested that it\nbe held in Council Chambers so that it may be televised. Vice President Kohlstrand believed\nit would be difficult to use Chambers for small group breakouts. Member Ezzy Ashcraft\nsuggested using the library conference room for the small groups. She believed that it would\nbe difficult to manage a 45-minute lunch break at Alameda Point.\nMs. Woodbury noted that staff would examine venues that would lend themselves to this\nkind of forum, and would work with the consultant on that issue; she noted that it would be\nimportant to have food close by.\nPresident Cook inquired whether the Board favored the subcommittee's report before lunch,\nand Ms. Woodbury's recommended format for lunch and after lunch.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Cunningham whether the report would come back to\nthe Planning Board regarding the format of the forum, Ms. Woodbury replied that a progress\nreport of the forum's status would be made to the Planning Board.\nPresident Cook believed it would be very important to work towards a date certain for the\nforum. She concurred that everything would not be completed by the holidays, but would\nlike the consultants to work towards a date in January 2008. she noted that many members\nof the public had expressed a desire to hold the forum before the SunCap proposal moves\nahead much more.\nMember Mariani agreed that this forum should be taken care of and completed as quickly as\npossible. She believed that late January or early February would be a great time to hold the\nforum.\nMember Cunningham moved to dissolve the Expanded Housing Element/Measure A ad\nhoc committee.\nMember McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Absent:\n1\n(Lynch). The motion passed.\nMember Cunningham moved to accept the format as proposed by the Planning Board ad\nhoc committee for the session from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., followed by a 45-minute lunch\nbreak. The forum would reconvene at 1:15 p.m., and the proposed program as suggested by\nthe staff report per Attachment 4, including small group exercises, reconvening to listen to\nreports and an open forum. Further explanation of the small group exercise topics will be\ndescribed, and clarity regarding the selection of the panelists would be needed. Panel\nmembers would again be solicited from the appellants, and the consultant would consider\nthose along with the individuals selected by the Planning Board ad hoc committee. The\nresultant names would be circulated through the staff report at future Planning Board\n11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-10-08", "page": 12, "text": "meetings; a hierarchy of first, second and third choices would be identified. A date certain\nfor the end of January 2008 would be set, pending availability of location.\nMember McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Absent: 1\n(Lynch). The motion passed.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nMs. Woodbury noted that the League of Women Voters submitted a written statement.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Dakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember Mariani).\nThere was no report.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Vice President\nKohlstrand).\nThere was no report.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board\nMember Cunningham).\nThere was no report.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n9:00 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nCathy Woodbury, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThese minutes were approved at the November 13, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This\nmeeting was audio and video taped.\n12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf"}