body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, July 10, 2006
1.
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member Lynch
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft,
Kohlstrand, Lynch, and McNamara.
Member Mariani was absent.
Also present were Assistant City Attorney Donna Mooney, Planning Services Manager Andrew
Thomas, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of May 22, 2006
Member Ezzy Ashcraft advised that page 7 should be changed to read, ""She noted that every house on
Washington Court was a two one story house, so there was a difference in scale.""
Vice President Cook advised that page 9 should be changed to read, ""In response to an inquiry by
Vice President Cook why there was no landscaping on the trellises, but also on the faces of some of
the buildings
""
M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Cook to approve the minutes for the meeting of May 22, 2006, as amended.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
President Cunningham noted that more than five speaker slips had been received for this item.
M/S Lynch/McNamara and unanimous to reduce the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - - 0
Ms. Susan Decker, 2145 Santa Clara Avenue, Apt. E, wished to address the recent controversy
regarding Measure A. She believed it was important to have a public discussion of the unintended
negative consequences of Measure A. She noted that Measure A addressed one type of undesirable
development, but did not address other, more desirable development. She cited the City of FPetaluma's
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,2,"Smart Codes as an example of addressing and simplifying redevelopment that met the functional and
aesthetic goals of that city. She suggested a similar approach in Alameda.
Mr. Doug Biggs, 608 Haight Avenue, requested that the Planning Board take up the issue of Measure
A and exempting Alameda Point, and to recommend the City Council put it on the November ballot.
He realized that Measure A was an emotional issue, and believed that it constrained the diversity of
the community by constraining development. He believed changing Measure A would encourage the
use of public transit in Alameda.
Mr. Scott Brady, 1812 Encinal Avenue, noted that Measure A has done a good job in keeping
development in check, and noted that increased development increased traffic. He expressed concern
that an exemption of Measure A at Alameda Point would create an undesirable precedent for other
development elsewhere in the City.
Ms. Helen Sause, 816 Grand Street, submitted a letter to the Board and read it into the record. She
noted that Measure A was initiated to preserve Victorian homes, not to prohibit living in
condominiums and other multiple units. She believed that neighborhood vitality would be a result of
this exemption of Measure A. She would like the City Council to place this issue on the ballot in
November.
Ms. Joan Konrad, 42 Invincible Court, noted that there was a disconnect between what was
envisioned for Alameda Point and the FISC property, and how it is being developed under Measure
A. She noted that because of Measure A's constraints, development at Bayport has been built as a
monoculture of large homes, which was different than the transit-oriented, mixed-use environment
that de-emphasized the automobile as called for in the General Plan. She believed that Measure A was
an untouchable policy in Alameda, but it has resulted in nondiverse neighborhoods. She encouraged
this issue to be put on the November ballot.
Ms. Gretchen Lipow, 2242 San Antonio, noted that if the City Council put Measure A regarding
Alameda Point on the ballot, it would be a Council initiative, not a voter initiative. She noted that
Measure A was initially put on the ballot by a massive grassroots effort, and believed that changing it
should be a similar effort. She noted that Oakland's Oak-to-Ninth project should be watched
carefully, which would put 3,100 units across the Estuary from Alameda. She opposed putting
Measure A on the ballot.
Mr. Tom Mathews, president, Renewed Hope, noted that there would be problems at Alameda Point
if Measure A is not modified to allow multiple family dwelling of four to five stories, and densities not
to exceed 40 units per acre. He noted that transportation and traffic would be a major problem
without having more density to support public transit. He requested that the Planning Board
recommend that the City Council place this issue on the ballot.
Ms. Diane Lichtenstein, 633 Sand Hook Isle, spoke in support of placing the Measure A issue on the
ballot. She believed it would create a more diverse neighborhood mix, and would support public
transit. She believed that a higher density, mixed use and attractive development would help replace
the jobs lost by the closure of the Navy base.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,3,"Ms. Allegra O'Donoghue noted that as an Alameda native, her college-age peers will not be able to
afford to live in Alameda. She believed that careful planning at Alameda Point would create the City's
own growth and enable more people to live in the city. She noted that there were no Victorian homes
on Alameda Point, and believed that Measure A did not apply to Alameda Point in practice.
Ms. Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope, believed that Alameda should be committed to provide for future
generations in Alameda. She believed that exempting Measure A on Alameda Point would enable
Alameda to continue to thrive, and to allow the next generation to live in Alameda. She believed that
Measure A should be vetted again with the development of Alameda Point in mind, and believed that
Measure A kept the City in a virtual development lockdown.
Mr. David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, spoke in opposition to the City Council putting Measure A
on the ballot, rather than by public initiative. He noted that Measure A was not just to save Victorians, but
to prevent overdevelopment and high density in Alameda. He noted that Alameda Point development has
been in development for ten years, and inquired why Measure A was being revisited at this late date. He
noted that traffic should be limited, and did not believe that density was needed to support transit. He
believed that transit supported existing neighborhoods.
Ms. Dorothy Reid, 2101 Shoreline, did not believe all the facts of this issue were known yet. She noted
that the staff report pointed out a downturn in retail activity, which may not support the labor and transit
from Alameda Point. She noted that existing rents in Alameda were already out of reach for moderate- and
low-income households. She noted that Alameda already has sufficient high density and multifamily
housing, and that there were constraints on Alameda Point. She did not believe it was within the purview of
the City Council or the Planning Board to change Measure A.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, strongly supported public transit and bicycling within
Alameda, using high density and mass transit to keep the lowest possible impacts at Alameda Point. He
supported as many green measures as possible for development on Alameda Point. He noted that his own
life has changed and has been re-examined in the last 33 years, and believed that Measure A should receive
the same consideration.
Ms. Janet Gibson expressed concern that a ballot initiative would become a political issue where monies
would be spent on behalf of public and private interests. She noted that her own children have been unable
to afford to live in Alameda, but believed that other affordable housing measures have been unexplored.
She believed that multifamily dwellings may still be very expensive per unit.
President Cunningham believed this issue should be addressed by the Planning Board members, and
noted that the Board was required to act within the City Charter. He did not believe that it was within
the Planning Board's purview to act directly on Measure A.
Vice President Cook noted the Board discussed Measure A many times in relationship to projects
before us, and believed that the issue was being brought forth by the citizens because City leadership
was not discussing it at this time. Vice President Cook noted that the Board has dealt with Measure
A many times, and believed that this issue was too controversial for City leadership to touch at this
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,4,"time. She would like to find a way to discuss Measure A. She believed that Alameda Point presented
a good opportunity to weave itself into the grid of the rest of the City. As a Victorian owner, she
supports Measure A wholeheartedly, but believed that matters were different on Alameda Point. She
would like to have a thorough discussion of the pros and cons of Measure A, as well as the meaning
of density.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft Kohlstrand noted that the City Charter stated that the Planning Board may
shall have power to investigate and recommend plans for future development, location of public
buildings and works, and subdivision of land. She inquired when this dialogue could take place, and
did not believe that any topic germane to the City's current and future development should be off-
limits.
Ms. Mooney noted that for public comments regarded off-agenda topics, the Board may not have
discussion beyond brief responses by Board members and staff, references to further information,
and/or direction to staff to agendize the topic.
Member Kohlstrand noted that the Catellus item would address Measure A, and that August 11 was
the date to place an item on the November ballot.
Member Lynch was neither an opponent nor proponent of Measure A, but was troubled by the sense
that the question may not be raised. He believed that in order for the City to look forward, a
discussion of such issues must be held.
President Cunningham requested that a discussion of Measure A be agendized.
Member Lynch stated that he would prefer that the discussion focus on the merits of the current City
Charter as it related to the planning process and possible buildout of Alameda Point, rather than
various infill issues that may cloud the discussion.
President Cunningham believed that a special meeting may be warranted to hear the public's input.
Vice President Cook was concerned about the timing of this discussion, and would like to hear the
pros and cons of this item being placed on the ballot sooner rather than later.
Board member McNamara expressed the need for a forum for a healthy discussion on Measure A
since it has not happened yet. She was not aware of any planned events by the City Council to
provide an opportunity for an open discussion on Measure A, but she felt there should be one. She
noted this would give the community an opportunity to voice their opinions on Measure A.
Mr. Thomas stated that he would work with the President of the Board to identify options for Board
consideration at the next regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,5,"7.
2006-2007 ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS
President Cunningham advised that it was customary to hold the elections with a full Board, and
the item would be continued until that time.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A.
DA89-1 -- Harbor Bay Business Park Association, Harbor Bay Isle Associates and
Harbor Bay Entities -- Bay Farm Island (Primarily Harbor Bay Isle) (CE). A request for
a Periodic Review of Development Agreement DA89-01, for the period through April 4,
2006, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1. The properties are zoned R-1-
PD, One Family Residence/Planned Development Zoning District; C-M-PD, Commercial
Manufacturing Planned Development Zoning District; O, Open Space Zoning District and R-
1-A-H, One Family Residence with Special Agricultural and Height Limit Combining Zoning
District.
M/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-22 to
approve a request for a Periodic Review of Development Agreement DA89-01, for the period
through April 4, 2006, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,6,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
ZA06-000X Zoning Text Amendment - Citywide (CE). Zoning Text Amendment to
amend Subsection 30-4.9Ag.8. Off-street Parking and Loading Space of the C-C Community
Commercial Zone of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to add a process for parking
exceptions.
Ms. Eliason summarized the staff report, and recommended adoption of this amendment.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Michael Krueger, 2145 Santa Clara Avenue, Apt. E, spoke in support of this item. He believed
that many of the City's parking requirements were developed in suburban areas with no public transit,
developed to handle a worst-case scenario. He believed that other cities copied those standards, and
suggested that they be changed to reflect the use and location of a retail establishment. He noted that
Portland, Oregon, had exceptions for sites well-served by public transit (within 500 feet of the site).
He noted that both Park and Webster Streets met those criteria. He added that the parking structure
would also merit reexamination of the off-street parking requirements.
Mr. David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, noted that one bus pullout has been lost on Park Street,
leading to auto and delivery truck congestion. He noted that uses may change and that auto-
dependence related to that business may change.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, agreed with Mr. Krueger's comments. He noted that he
shopped on Park Street by bike frequently. He strongly supported using alternative methods of
transportation, and was very concerned about the environmental effects of driving cars.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Vice President Cook believed the parking requirements should be applied intelligently, taking the
retail use into account.
In response to an inquiry by Member McNamara on whether the parking exemptions would be
defined by the applicant or the traffic study, Ms. Eliason replied that detailed guidelines from Public
Works and Development Services would be sought by staff. She noted that a mixed-use office
(office/residential), assisted care and hotel facilities would be likely candidates for this policy.
Member Lynch noted that parking in lieu fees are a way for communities to generate fees to develop a
nexus for that project. He added that government is also reticent to relinquish a revenue source, and
noted that a balance between a revenue stream and such a parking policy must be struck. He was
reluctant to require each applicant to produce a costly parking demand study, especially in a C-C
district that was already described in a City map.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about the timing of this issue, and noted that she had
attended the EDC meeting where the parking and traffic study was introduced. She was reluctant
to
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,7,"take further steps before the results were present, and she believed that some of the information may
be very useful for new businesses. She inquired whether there were certain businesses that staff was
imminently concerned with.
Ms. Eliason confirmed that there were specific businesses that were very interested.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft was concerned about losing the revenue from the lost parking in-lieu fees. She
also supported use of alternate transportation, but was dismayed at the paucity of bicycle parking in
Alameda.
Member Kohlstrand noted that because of the mix of uses, it was not reasonable to expect each
business to provide independent parking spaces, which would provide too much parking. She
supported looking at shared parking opportunities, which she believed was a more rational approach
to downtown parking.
M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-23 to
approve a Zoning Text Amendment to amend Subsection 30-4.9Ag.8 Off-street Parking and Loading
Space of the C-C Community Commercial Zone of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to add
a process for parking exceptions.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
President Cunningham called for a five-minute recess.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,8,"9-B.
Study Session - Master Plan Amendment - Catellus Mixed Use Development (AT). The
proposed revisions to the Catellus Mixed Use Development would allow the project sponsor
to replace approximately 900,000 square feet of planned commercial office and R&D space
with a mix of office, research and development, retail and residential uses. The propose
revision includes two variants of the proposed land use plan in order to provide the flexibility
to respond to future market conditions. Both variations would provide 400,000 square feet of
previously entitled office spaces with supporting retail in the northwest portion of the site
(north of Mitchell Avenue); approximately 50,000 square feet of waterfront retail; and a
20,000 square foot health club on the waterfront north of Mitchell Avenue. Approximately
21.3 acres west of 5th Street and approximately 4.3 acres of land north of Mitchell Avenue
would be re-designated in the General Plan for approximately 300 housing units. East of 5th
Street between Mitchell Avenue and Tinker Avenue, Variant A envisions an approximately
250,000 square foot shopping center on the 21 acres; and Variant B envisions 370,000 square
feet of currently entitled R&D space. The project would require a General Plan Amendment.
Mr. Thomas presented the staff report, and displayed a PowerPoint presentation to illustrate the
project.
Ms. Karen Auschler, SMWM, design consultant, continued the PowerPoint presentation and
discussed the amendments to the Master Plan.
President Cunningham noted that more than five speaker slips had been received.
M/S Kohlstrand/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Jim McPhee, Cushman & Wakefield, 560 S. Winchester Blvd., Ste. 200, San Jose, noted that
they had worked with Clif Bar & Company to relocate that company to Alameda from Berkeley. He
noted that there were many potential lessors for this company, and urged the Board to approve this
item.
Mr. Richard Lyons, attorney, Clif Bar/Wendel Rosen Black LLP, 1111 Broadway, 24th floor,
Oakland, noted that Clif Bar was a quality company that would be an asset to Alameda. He noted that
Clif Bar managed to the ""triple bottom line,"" to the benefit of the shareholders, the employees and the
community. He noted that the company was very profitable, and that the employees were highly
involved in the community. He noted that ClifBar was also a green-oriented business that would be a
magnet to other nationally known businesses.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,9,"Ms. Sandy Berry, Cornish & Carey, 2804 Mission College Blvd., #20, Santa Clara, spoke in support
of this item.
Ms. Susan Decker, 2145 Santa Clara Avenue, Apt. E, noted that the pedestrian routes should be
pleasant and safe. She supported direct walkways located near the waterfront.
Mr. Jon Spangler, Bike Alameda, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, noted that Bike Alameda president
Lucy Gigli submitted a letter to the Planning Board, which expressed support for the Alameda
Landing development project. He noted that Catellus has gone overboard to solicit community input
at its own expense and on its own time. Ms. Gigli wished to state that Bike Alameda did not want any
changes or mitigations to this development that will in any way impinge on current or future bike,
pedestrian or handicapped access, or put more automobile traffic on the streets of Alameda,
regardless of the presence of bike lanes.
Ms. Helen Sause, 816 Grand Street, spoke in support of this item as a private citizen. She believed
this project was a significant example of a seriously constrained site. The change in market conditions
has enabled Alameda to have a different project than originally envisioned. She believed this project
took true advantage of the Alameda waterfront. She applauded Dan Marcus and the architectural team
in making the most of such a constrained site and in working with the community.
Mr. David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, believed this was a beautiful plan and had concerns about
the mixed use taking the final plan and design decision away from the City. He did not want this
project to change the way Alameda thinks about development.
Mr. Hadi Monsef, PO Box 1353, spoke in support of this item. He believed that the best use of the
waterfront is for a mixed-use development.
Mr. Michael Krueger, 2145 Santa Clara Ave., Apt. E, noted that he was impressed with the continual
improvement of this plan. He agreed with the mixed-use concept for this project. He would like to see
more detail with respect to the residential section. He did not want to see any walls near the
residential developments, which is forced by high-speed traffic on adjacent streets. He did not support
private streets, and would like them to be accessible to everyone.
Mr. Michael Sullivan, 1842 Nason Street, spoke in support of this item, with the added condition that
there be a bike ferry to Oakland. He noted that a ferry would not be impacted by traffic or Tube
maintenance issues, and that it would be more scenic.
Ms. Roberta Rockwell, President, Miracle League Baseball, 1322 Sherman Street, spoke in support
of this item. She noted that Dan Marcus and Catellus had donated land and initial funding for the first
Miracle League baseball in Northern California.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,10,"Ms. Gretchen Lipow, 2242 San Antonio, noted that she was also a Special Olympics mother, and
hoped to see the park used for their organization as well. She inquired what would be done differently
on this site without Measure A.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Cunningham noted that the first section of the report would be addressed (General/Land
Use).
Vice President Cook noted that she was very pleased with the progress of this project since it was last
before the Board. She would like to see the level of progress and detail spread out across the site. She
was very excited about the presence of Clif Bar on this site, and especially about a recreation-oriented
waterfront. She believed it was important to have a first user that was a significant presence.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft complimented staff and the designers for being so responsive to the Board's
comments and concerns.
Member Kohlstrand commended staff and Catellus for their work, and believed the project was
getting to the point where it was close to being a fairly good Measure A-compliant project for this
site. This would be one of the best Measure A-compliant proposals Alameda had seen. She
appreciated the public's input over the years that was incorporated into the final design. She believed
this plan did not reflect reflected what the citizens of Alameda desired because it did not address the
land use and density issues. She continued to advocate that an alternative for the purposes of
advancing the land use and parking discussion with respect to Measure A, especially as it relates to a
more transit-oriented density.
President Cunningham believed that pulling the density of the business uses in would create more
recreation fields and parking. He believed it would be beneficial to the public discussion to understand
what Measure A restricts at this time.
Member Lynch echoed the other Board members' comments in thanking staff and the development
team for their responsiveness to the Board's and the public's comments. He believed that the number
of units was not necessarily the issue with respect to Measure A, but the design of the units was very
important.
President Cunningham noted that on page 8, relative to the TDM, he believed it would be useful to be
cognizant of park-and-ride facilities, and that it should be stated in the document. He added that there
was a lot of comment with respect to the size of parks, and noted that the Board has had many
discussions about parks that were too small to be used. He would like to see language on active and
passive recreational parks. He noted there was a mention of sustainability, and cited a newspaper
article about sustainability guidelines being adopted in Vallejo. Since Alameda did not have a
sustainability ordinance, he would like to see Catellus make a commitment to a minimum of a Bronze
LEED rating. He requested more information from staff regarding the storm water retention ponds.
He would like to see a phasing diagram.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,11,"Vice President Cook agreed with President Cunningham's request for a phasing plan, especially in
relation to other uses. She noted that on page 9, the language should be changed to specifically state a
certain amount of retail that must be included. She also believed there should be more mixed use on
the waterfront, and that the requirements should have more teeth. She noted that the last paragraph
on page 15 stated that variations in the project would go to the Planning Director and the Public
Works Director; she would like to understand more about that statement. Mr. Thomas noted that
staff could provide more information to the Board.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding parking on Fifth Street, Mr. Thomas
replied that would be a good idea, particularly north of Tinker. They have required the tenant spaces
to have public entries onto Fifth Street, and a guideline in the current Master Plan was deleted that
stated there would be no parking at all on Fifth Street and Tinker.
Member Kohlstrand noted that the specific dimensions regarding the width of sidewalks and travel
lanes do not add to up to the width of the right of way, and were not consistent in all cases. In
addition, a continuous turn lane on Fifth Street was proposed as the center lane, with a three-lane
street and two five-foot bicycle lanes and no parking. With the change in concept providing access at
limited points, she did not believe that turn lane made particular sense. Also, she believed it was
advisable to consider parking at that location, which would add character to the street rather than
detracting from it. She did not agree with the concept of public streets with no street parking, with
requirements for off-street parking, though she understands that there was a maintenance benefit to
private streets, she still preferred the public streets. She agreed with Mr. Krueger's comment about
standards for public versus private streets.
Mr. Thomas agreed, and noted that every street should have at least a five-foot wide sidewalk.
Member Kohlstrand noted that she preferred public streets, and that there was a maintenance benefit.
Mr. Thomas noted that this project would have a municipal services agreement.
M/S McNamara/Cook to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Vice President Cook expressed that the wrong kind of screening would create a visual barrier to the
water.
In response to an inquiry by Member McNamara whether a parking structure could be built that could
be shared between residential and office uses, Mr. Marcus replied that density was the major issue
with respect to a parking structure. He noted that approximate 15-20% of the 77 acres was open
space, between the waterfront park, the village green and the smaller pocket parks.
Member McNamara noted that the paved parking lots were potential open areas.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,12,"In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham, Mr. Thomas replied that the current work/live
ordinance did not apply to this area, and that a new ordinance would have to be written to allow
work/live, but ""shop homes"" with only two units could be done under Measure A and without a
work/live ordinance.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,13,"Vice President Cook inquired whether the agreement with WABA was a separate agreement. She
very supportive of the progress on Webster Street. She was unsure whether the waterfront should be
sold short because of the agreement with WABA.
Mr. Thomas replied that staff could provide the Retail Impact Analysis performed for this project.
Vice President Cook would like to push the envelope further on the waterfront parcel, and would like
to get a finer grain of retail and residential pushed out into that area. She would also like to have a
discussion about building heights, as well as the size of parking structures and buildings.
In response to an inquiry by Member Lynch regarding the possibility of forming a subcommittee to
discuss the issues, Mr. Thomas replied that could be considered if the Board so wished.
Member Lynch suggested that since the meeting of July 24 has been noticed, that at that meeting, the
document incorporate some of the items heard during this meeting. He believed there would be a few
remaining items, at which time the subcommittee could be formed to get to the end of the process, if
necessary.
No action was taken.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
This item was continued to the next meeting.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice President Cook).
This item was continued to the next meeting.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
This item was continued to the next meeting.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
This item was continued to the next meeting.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,14,"12.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
This item was continued to the next meeting.
13.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy Woodbusy
- Cathy Woodbury, Secretary
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the July 24, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio
and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf