{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-10-22", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, October 22, 2007\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:05 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Mariani.\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft, Cunningham, Lynch,\nMariani and McNamara.\nBoard member Kohlstrand was absent from roll call.\nAlso present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney\nDonna Mooney, Obaid Khan, Public Works.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of September 24, 2007.\nb.\nMinutes for the meeting of October 8, 2007.\nStaff requests a continuation of September 24, 2007 Minutes and October 8, 2007\nMinutes.\nThe minutes will be considered at the meeting of November 13, 2007.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nFuture Agendas\nMr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.\nVice President Cook noted that the Planning Board had requested status reports on the\nMeasure A hearings, and suggested that they be a line item during Staff Communications.\nMr. Thomas noted that would be placed after Item 6-B.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the Board requested that the workshop occur before the\nend of January, but on a Saturday. Mr. Thomas noted that they had identified the\npreferred consultant, and hoped to bring that contract to the City Council in November.\nHe noted that January would be a good time to hold that workshop.\nb.\nZoning Administrator Report\nMr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATION: None.\nPage 1 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-10-22", "page": 2, "text": "8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nNone.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A.\nAlameda Point Master Plan\nAn update on recent City actions related to the redevelopment of Alameda Point\nand introduction to the SunCal/Calthorpe Planning Team. No action will be taken\nby the Planning Board at this meeting to approve or deny any specific projects.\nMr. Thomas introduced the new master developer for Alameda Point as SunCal\nCompanies, represented by Patrick Kelleher, Peter Calthorpe and Phil Tagami. He noted\nthat they would discuss their approaches to Alameda Point. He summarized the staff\nreport and provided a brief background of this project. He noted that the City Council\nsigned on to an exclusive negotiating agreement, which laid out a very aggressive\nschedule for the planning for Alameda Point. He briefly described the two-year schedule\nto move from selection to an approved Master Plan for Alameda Point, followed by an\nEIR process on the draft document. He noted that the series of community meetings was\ndescribed in the staff report.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Patrick Kelleher, SunCal Companies, provided an overview of the company and\ndescribed the company's ownership and mission as a true master developer. He emphasized\nthat SunCal did not leave until the last house has been sold.\nMr. Peter Calthorpe, Calthorpe, provided some background of his company, and noted that\nhe had been involved in sustainability for 30 years, using a whole systems approach. He\ndiscussed the elements of sustainable development, and noted that from the transportation\nstandpoint, it was important to break away from complete usage of the car, and to create\nwalkable communities. He noted that the community should be big enough to internalize its\nown retail, schools and parks, as well as many destinations and jobs. He added that a good,\nhealthy mixed use community, even if it is walkable, still needs transit connections to the\nregion. He noted that the design standards described in LEED have been at the forefront of\ntheir designs, and noted that they should be able to build the best possible building\nenvelopes that are also energy conserving structures. He described the water systems,\nincluding recycling of gray water as well as the recapture of the nutrient cycle from the\nwaste material.\nMr. Calthorpe noted that using the economies of scale was very important. He added that the\nnature of this community is a political phenomenon, and believed that the community\nshould be diverse, walkable and should use the best practices of sustainability. In order to be\ndiverse, there should offer housing and job opportunities for a broad range of people. He did\nnot believe the Big Whites should be torn down, and that they contained local history that he\nwould like to see preserved.\nPage 2 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-10-22", "page": 3, "text": "Mr. Phil Tagami, Managing Partner, California Capital Group, summarized his involvement\nwith the site and the team, as well as their plans for this process.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMember Mariani noted that she was impressed with the presentation, and hoped that the\nidealistic nature of the presentation materialized.\nMr. Kelleher wished to clarify that as a team, they walk down a path that they know they\ncan deliver.\nMember Lynch noted that their presentation was laudable, but that the numbers still had to\nbe resolved at the end of the day. He noted that it was important to define the planning terms\nso they may be understood by the public. He noted that the end product must be\neconomically viable.\nMr. Kelleher agreed with Member Lynch, and noted that in community planning, they\npresent various scenarios that identify various levels of participation by the public sector. He\nbelieved there were different scenarios for this site, with different levels of density with\ndifferent attributes such as transit, sustainability elements, community scale and walkability.\nHe believed it was valuable to offer a broad range of choices.\nMember Cunningham believed that it was important for the community to understand what\nthe developer is trying to achieve, and that it was not just about money. He believed there\nwere larger community issues to consider as well, and encouraged the developer to continue\nto be open with the Planning Board. He noted that they will find polarized opinions at both\nends, and hoped that the City would not have to settle for mediocrity in the process of\nstriking a balance. He believed the new ideas sounded very exciting, and that a more holistic\napproach is being used.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Cunningham whether the PDC was being discarded,\nMr. Kelleher replied that they were not doing so, and that they would not be able to execute\ntheir plans without the previous site work being done. Their challenge was to qualify the\nassumptions that were made in the PDC, mainly geotechnical, flood plain and hydraulic\nwork that was assumed in the PDC, but have proven to be not viable. He acknowledged that\nthey needed to characterize the site better. He noted that it was very important to educate the\npublic in this project so they can understand the project better.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that SunCal stated that it did not do much vertical\ndevelopment, and requested further detail of that concept. Mr. Kelleher noted that they\nprepared the ground and the infrastructure, and delivered a finished pad to a builder, who\nwill come in and build the structure.\nMember McNamara noted that she had expected more detail of the developer's vision, and\nthat it was very abstract, conceptual and idealistic. She inquired whether the project was\nPage 3 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-10-22", "page": 4, "text": "being started with a blank sheet, and whether the PDC would be discarded or retained in\nsome form. Mr. Kelleher replied that they were working on the site characteristics, and that\nthe current information available for the site was not the most accurate. For example, the\nPDC used a 25-year-old topo, which must be reordered; he noted that process would take\nseveral months. Without an accurate topo, it would not be possible to proceed with the\nhydraulics and flood plain mapping.\nMr. Calthorpe added that they would use the existing armature (framework of access points,\nstreets and circulation), and would build upon that. He noted that SunCal would find the best\nbuilder for each component, and that they did not carry any bias towards one builder or\nanother. He noted that where there is no vested interest in one kind of development or\nanother, the appropriate kind of development can happen. He noted that critical base data\nand analysis has not been completed. He noted that with respect to the idealism contained in\ntheir presentation, if people did not agree on principles at the outset, they would not agree\nthroughout the process. They intended to discuss principles at the public meeting, and to be\nvery honest and transparent when discussing the project and their planning philosophies.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she attended the California Chapter of the American\nPlanning Association Annual Conference in San Jose, which Mr. Thomas also attended.\nThey both attended a workshop entitled \"Transforming Military Bases into Sustainable\nSpaces.\" She noted that at Fort Ord, the developer was aiming for a Platinum level LEED\ncertification. She was pleased with the presentation, and agreed that it was important to start\nwith a vision. She noted that it was important to offer a broad range of housing choices. She\nadded that she had attended the Solar Power Decathlon in Washington, D.C., which offered\na great variety of practical solar-powered applications.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft appreciated that SunCal offered a blank slate, and inquired how the\ntoxic cleanup being negotiated with the Navy impacted their plans. Mr. Calthorpe replied\nthat they will affect the development, which would be a phased development; the\nenvironment cleanup must be phased with the project. He noted that it had an impact at both\nthe local and federal level.\nPresident Cook thanked SunCal for performing their own due diligence, which may produce\ndifferent results than before. She expected that they would also clarify what elements were\ndifferent, and why. Mr. Calthorpe confirmed that was part of their project.\nPresident Cook liked the idea of a sustainable community, and would like assurances that it\nwould be feasible. She noted that it was important to explore what densities were needed to\nsustain community schools, retail and new transit system. She would like further\nclarification of what the Planning Board's role would be vis-\u00e0-vis the task force.\nMr. Thomas noted that the accelerated community process, taking eight months to get to a\nMaster Plan, would include the Planning Board and a Council appointed Task Force.\nPage 4 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-10-22", "page": 5, "text": "Member Mariani believed that this item should be reviewed at every Planning Board\nmeeting. She believed that it was critically important that the Task Force's roles be defined\nin order for its participation to make sense.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft did not have a problem with the Task Force, but it did not address\nthe repeated concern that the Board must be kept apprised of the developments so that their\ninput is relevant. She recalled the Bridgeside development as an example of that\ninvolvement not working as well as it could have.\nMember Lynch noted that this seemed to be a red herring, and did not see the viability of a\ntask force because he believed the structure will ill to begin with. He believed that City staff\nerred in their suggestion and position that this project should move forward on a particular\ntimeline, and that certain deliverables be made with respect to that timeline. He noted that in\nthe end, the developer would need to determine whether to move forward with the project if\nit made economic sense. He believed the City should be very careful in approaching this\nproject to ensure that there were no major disappointments.\nMember Mariani wanted to ensure the task force performed effectively so the Planning\nBoard could make an informed decision at the end of the process.\nPresident Cook noted that the Planning Board would like regular updates and\ncommunication from the developer.\nMr. Thomas noted that the first community workshop would be held on October 24, and\nsuggested that at the next Planning Board meeting, he and President Cook would report\nback on the proceedings.\nMember Lynch wished to make it clear that he thought a great deal of Mr. Thomas and the\nPlanning staff. He also trusted the other Commissions, and believed the vetting should take\nplace with the Economic Development Commission with respect to the economic uses on\nsite, and the Transportation Commission. He believed their input was very important as it\napplied to the development concepts and overall land use. If the consideration of the land\nuse were to vary from the schedule, he hoped that the City Council would adhere to its\nstated and documented timeline, and then make a decision with respect to moving forward\nor not.\nMr. Thomas advised that there would be tradeoffs and compromises throughout the process.\nMember Cunningham suggested that the developer not aim for complete buy-in from\neveryone, and that strong plans often were the result of compromises.\nMember McNamara suggested that an additional Board member be assigned to the Task\nForce, citing heavy time commitments which could be shared.\nPresident Cook noted that was the original proposal from staff, and that she had discussed\nthe possibility with Mr. Thomas. She would try to be at every meeting if possible, but\nPage 5 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-10-22", "page": 6, "text": "understood that other responsibilities may intrude; she would not be opposed to having the\nattendance move from one person to anything. However, she did not know how that would\nserve the needs of the City Council.\nMember Mariani suggested that Member McNamara may be a good choice to attend the\nmeetings, and that her input was always valuable.\nA discussion of the details of the Task Force ensued.\nMr. Thomas noted that he would report back to the Planning Commission at the next\nmeeting, and he would get clarification at the November 7 ARRA meeting with respect to\nwhat would be reported back to the Planning Board.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it was very important to hear the perspectives and ideas\nfrom the other Commissions, which would help inform the Planning Board's decisions more\neffectively.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Bill Smith noted that the feedback was valuable, and that it followed the feedback given\nat City Council.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPresident Cook noted that she was excited about the proposed work and the team, especially\nthe emphasis placed on historic preservation and sustainability.\nNo action was taken.\n9-B. Large Format Retail Store Workshop - Applicant - City of Alameda. The\nCity of Alameda is considering the unique land use, transportation, urban design,\nand economic development challenges posed by large-scale retail (big box) stores.\nNo action will be taken by the Planning Board at this meeting to approve or deny\nany specific projects. However, the Planning Board may make recommendations\nto the City Council that could result in changes to the General Plan and Zoning\nOrdinance that would potentially affect all properties in non-residential zoning\ndistricts.\nMr. Thomas summarized the staff report, and requested Planning Board comment on this\nproposal. He noted that because retail was a permitted use, the Planning Department\ncould require a design review, which did not address the appropriateness of the use. Staff\nrecommended adopting the retail policies into the General Plan, amend the Zoning Code\nto include a definition of large format stores, which is proposed in the staff report as a\n\"single stand-alone store or collection of stores developed and managed as a single project\nwhich includes over 60,000 square feet of retail sales floor area.\" The Zoning Code would\nbe amended to require a use permit for a large format retail store, which is the same as a\nPage 6 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-10-22", "page": 7, "text": "\"big box\" store. The Zoning Code would be further amended to require that the use permit\nbe amended for a large format retail store, in addition to the standard use permit conditions.\nIn that case, the key issues could be addressed in terms of its design, operations and the issue\nof sale leakage. He noted that this was a new presentation, and that there had not been any\ncommunity feedback at this point.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Karen Bay noted that she was speaking as an Alameda resident, and was looking\nforward to the workshop, which she believed was very timely. She supported amending the\nZoning Code to define and address large format retail stores, and supported the requirement\nof a use permit for all large format retail store. She believed the City's retail policy needed\nsome updating because so much had changed since 2004. She believed that the City had\nmore clarity and understanding about the retail development process since then. She had\nreviewed the DDA as it related to the Alameda Landing project as approved, and believed\nthat the City had approved a lifestyle center, not a hybrid center, and believed the wording\nshould be changed to reflect that. She suggested that the term \"lifestyle center\" be defined.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMr. Thomas requested the Planning Board's thoughts on the definition, as well as the\nidea of requiring a conditional use permit. He noted that there were many people who\nwould be interested in looking at a prohibition on stores over a certain size. He noted that\nthe issues of stopping sales leakage and historic buildings were of concern to the\ncommunity; he noted that the Del Monte building had been a centerpiece of that debate.\nMr. Thomas noted that care should be taken in the definitions and prohibitions, and added\nthat there were many in the community who would like a \"big box\" prohibition. He noted\nthat it would not be possible to write a zoning ordinance that prohibited a particular\nretailer, and that naming certain retailers as acceptable, and others as unacceptable, would\nnot be appropriate.\nMember Lynch complimented staff on tackling this complex issue very well. He\ncautioned against reinventing the wheel, and did not want any legal troubles to result. He\nnoted that different ordinances did not need to be created, and that the Planning Board\nhad the authority to deny a permit. He believed this issue had been over-complicated, and\nthat the use of the conditional use permit process would generally be adequate. He\npreferred to defer to the Economic Development Commission and the previous Boards,\nwhich already had an excellent strategic plan for Alameda.\nMember McNamara did not have enough information to move forward on this issue, and\nhad read information about the model used by Fort Collins, Colorado, with respect to\ntheir very specific and stringent big box retail policy.\nMr. Thomas thanked Doug Garrison for pulling a large amount of information together\nfor this staff report.\nPage 7 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-10-22", "page": 8, "text": "In response to an inquiry by Member McNamara regarding the process envisioned by\nstaff, Mr. Thomas explained the design review process regarding retail in a commercial\nzone. He noted that when retail was permitted by right, a use permit did not apply to\nwhether a retailer should be located on that particular site; in a conditional use permit, the\nrequirements would be more restrictive and specific. Traffic at the location would also be\na factor, and the City would have the ability to address traffic impacts as well as design\nfor larger retail stores.\nMember McNamara encouraged a more specific and stringent definition process.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would support the notion of allowing the Board to\nbe more selective through the conditional use permit process. She believed that Alameda\nhas long had the attitude that it was fortunate to have any retail at all; she added that\nAlamedans deserved to have quality retail in the City.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft, Mr. Thomas described the DA and\nDDA processes. He noted that changes to Zoning Ordinances will not affect major\nprojects that already have a signed development agreement. He noted that Alameda\nLanding or the commercial developments at Harbor Bay Business Park would not be\naffected. He noted that Alameda Point, South Shore and Del Monte would be affected,\nbecause development agreements have not been signed with those projects.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that Building A at Alameda Landing has been entitled for\nover 100,000 square feet, suggested that in addition to square footage, that a height and\nlimitation should be explored, especially as it related to pedestrian scale. She believed the\nwording of the second policy on page 6 could be reworked for clarity: \"The primary\nfocus of a proposed sizing of tenant space is appropriate to current retailing practice, and\nis intended to fill a documented aspect of retail sales leakage for the geographic area to be\nserved.\"\nMr. Thomas responded that staff would bring back all the retail policies, and will go\nthrough them all for the Planning Board's review.\nMember Mariani appreciated the comments, especially from the public, and\ncomplimented staff on the staff report.\nMember Cunningham agreed with the concept of using a conditional use permit for the\nlarge format retail stores. He believed that the Planning Board needed to control design,\nand that development should be functional for its purpose. He was wary of putting so\nmany restrictions that it restricted the function for potential retail operators. He believed\nthat there should be options to allow projects and designs to be brought to the table, while\nreserving the right to say no. He would like the Board to be able to pass judgment on\neach application and evaluate it on its own merits. He did not want the City to miss\nopportunities, and suggested keeping the approach balanced between too prescriptive and\ntoo nebulous would be avoid jeopardizing any potential development in Alameda.\nPage 8 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-10-22", "page": 9, "text": "President Cook agreed that the conditional use permit should be used, and would consider\na smaller square footage than 60,000 s.f. She cited the newest Whole Foods stores,\nparticularly the Cupertino store, which is approximately 68,000 s.f. She would like to\nstrengthen the analysis of the impacts of big box stores on local businesses.\nMr. Thomas noted that staff would go through the document and return with a redlined\nversion for further review by the Planning Board. He noted that customized findings for\nconditional use permit will be developed, and wanted to ensure that a well-designed\nbuilding that made sense for its location and context could be achieved. He noted that\naddressing retail leakage was very important, and added that a study may be a valuable\ntool when developers approach the City for a large retail project.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Lynch whether a traffic study was a requirement,\nMr. Thomas replied that it was not, but it was recommended. Member Lynch believed\nthat could be a slippery slope, and noted that the addition of a business could encourage\nhealthy competition and diversity of retail choices. He noted that generally, a business\nwill go out of business because their product was not as good, and the public chose\nsomething else. He did not wish to see a competition restriction in place.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft recalled that when Starbucks and Peet's Coffee opened, the local\ncoffee shops did not go out of business.\nMs. Mooney noted that it was important to examine what appellate courts have upheld.\nShe noted that the City of Turlock was sued by WalMart in 2004 because it had\nprohibited superstores. She noted that there were shades of that in Livermore's policy that\nprohibited \"retail stores greater than 100,000 square feet that devote more than 5% of\nfloor area to non-taxable items such as groceries.\" It also required a conditional use\npermit for discount stores and clubs, which was challenged by WalMart on the grounds\nthat the city was acting in excess of its police power. The court found in favor of the City;\nthe standard was that the policy must be reasonably related to the ends it was trying to\nachieve. The City was concerned about increasing traffic and decreasing air quality, as\nwell as urban and suburban decay, which was sufficient for the court.\nNo action was taken.\n9-C. Appeal of Use Permit UP07-0015 - Jennifer Raner - 1716 Park Street, for the\ninstallation and operation of a portable outdoor car wash for used and new cars for\nthe existing car dealership. Pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code, AMC 30-4.10,\na Use Permit is required for car washing establishments in the C-M, Commercial-\nManufacturing District.\n(Appeal has been withdrawn)\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\nPage 9 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-10-22", "page": 10, "text": "10-A. Appointment of a Planning Board Member to assist in the selection of a\nconsultant for the North of Lincoln Strategic Plan for the Park Street Business\nDistrict.\nMember Mariani suggested that Member McNamara be involved in the selection. Member\nMcNamara replied that she would not be able to perform this duty during the day.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft volunteered to assist in the selection of the consultant.\nMember Cunningham moved to nominate Member Ezzy Ashcraft to assist in the selection\nof a consultant for the North of Lincoln Strategic Plan for the Park Street Business\nDistrict.\nMember McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Absent: 1\n(Kohlstrand). The motion passed.\nMr. Thomas noted that the Planning Board had a plan at the dais that Catellus wanted the\nPlanning Board to approve on September 24, and noted that Attachment 3 had been\napproved. He described the drawings on the document and stated that as part of\nCatellus's appeals included a compromise plan. That plan included a sidewalk running\nalong the edge of the parking lot; he displayed that proposal to the Board.\nMember Mariani did not care for that at first look, and did not want Catellus to sidestep\nthe Planning Board.\nMr. Thomas described the tree well, surrounded by the curb, and bisected by the sidewalk\nat the same level.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cook whether the City had a definition for a\nsidewalk, Mr. Thomas replied that it did not, but that a sidewalk must be five feet wide.\nThe City Council may uphold the Planning Board's decision, overturn that decision, or\nremand it back to the Planning Board.\nMember Mariani was concerned that Catellus was not honoring the Planning Board's\nprocess, and had noted a difference in how the new person handled the interaction.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n10:00 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nPage 10 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-10-22", "page": 11, "text": "Andrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThese minutes were approved at the November 13, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This\nmeeting was audio and video taped.\nPage 11 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf"}