pages: PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-10-08 | 4 | The public hearing was opened. Ms. Sally Fallhobber noted that she was speaking as an individual on this item. She believed it was time for the City to closely examine the effects of Measure A, as well as what has and has not been built. She had voted for Measure a in 1973, hoping it would fail by a narrow margin in favor of a better way to control growth and preserve the City's architecture and small-town atmosphere. She still supports those goals, and at that time, there were units that were more affordable to single-family homes. She cited Bayport, Marina Cove and Heritage Bay as not filling that niche, which she did not believe met the intent of the original supporters. She believed that after 34 years, the people of Alameda should revisit this issue based on current information. She hoped that a forum to address the issues would be made available. Mr. John Knox-White was pleased that all six members of the ad hoc subcommittee supported this forum. He also supported the Planning Board's recommended format as described in the packet, which expanded upon the staff recommendation. Ms. Kate Quick, representing League of Women Voters of Alameda, noted that they were in general agreement with the recommended format for the forum. They believed that such a discussion should not be on the merits, or lack thereof, of Measure A, but how it impacted the community, as well as current and future planning decisions. They would like the following issues to be addressed: 1. Does it limit choices? 2. Does it provide the necessary protection to ensure appropriate density, building and community design and growth control? 3. Could these be achieved with additional measures, or different measures? 4. How has it limited the choices? She believed the residents of Alameda would be able to gain a more comprehensive knowledge of this part of the City charter, and decide for themselves how they wish to proceed, whether it be kept in its current forum, or amending it from the vote of the people. They believed the forum should be professionally facilitated, and that the speakers who were expert in the field of planning and community development and design, as well as those who could address the history and local perspective. They believed that even- handedness in the design of this forum would be key to its outcome. She believed it was time to put aside the argument that Measure A, as part of the City Charter, could not be reviewed, discussed, and possibly amended. Ms. Susan Decker believed that it was important to have a discussion of the ways that the City can guide development and preserve the City's character. She appreciated the input from the community and noted that the list of potential speakers looked good. She had attended one of the ad hoc committee meetings, and noted that there were difficulties in agreeing how the public input should be formatted. She noted that the proposal incorporated both major suggestions, which should encourage public input. Mr. Michael Krueger spoke in support of the community's recognition of the need of a forum. He was glad that the community had moved beyond the debate about whether it 4 | PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf |