body,date,page,text,path
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2007-11-26,1,"OF
City of Alameda
California
$
UNAPPROVED
COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
RATER
MEETING MINUTES OF
November 26, 2007
TIME
The meeting was convened at 6:40 p.m.
PRESENT
Chair Lord-Hausman, Vice-Chair Moore, Commissioners Berger, Longley-
Cook, Fort, Hakanson, Kirola, Kreitz, and Robinson
EXCUSED
ABSENT
none
GUESTS
Andrew Thomas (Planning Services Manager), Aidan Barry (Catellus), Steve Buster
(Catellus), and Kory Johnson (Catellus)
MINUTES
The minutes of the October 15, 2007 meeting were approved as submitted with the following
correction: New Business, Item #2, change 2nd sentence to ""January's meeting date will be
determined at the November meeting and is tentatively scheduled for January 14th or January 28th.""
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS- None
NEW BUSINESS
1. Alameda Landing Development:
Mr. Andrew Thomas, City's Planning Services Manager, Aidan Barry, Steve Buster and Cory
Johnson of Catellus, provided an overview of the Alameda Landing project. They will meet with
the Commission at a future date, possibly February, to discuss the residential phase of the
development.
2. Election of Officers:
Chair Audrey Lord-Hausman and Vice-Chair Jody Moore were re-elected as officers for 2008.
Nays - 0.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Commission on Disability Internet Link (CDI):
Chair Lord-Hausman informed the Commission that the web designer's offices were flooded and
therefore have been temporarily delayed on developing the CDI website.
Public Works Department
950 West Mall Square, Room 110
Alameda, California 94501-7575
510.749.5840
Fax 510.749.5867
TDD 510.522.7538
Printed on Recycled Paper",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-11-26.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2007-11-26,2,"Commission on Disability Issues
November 26,2007
Minutes
Page 2 of 3
2. Alameda Hospital Health Fair:
Commissioners Roberta Kreitz and Adrienne Longley-Cook informed the Commission that there
were a lot of citizen inquiries at their table at the Alameda Hospital Health Fair. The
Commission agreed to start planning in July for next year's Fair and for October's Disability
Awareness Month activities. At the suggestion of Vice-Chair Jody Moore the Commission will
compile a yearly event calendar.
3. Bus Stop Accessibility at Eighth Street and Central Avenue:
Chair Audrey Lord-Hausman informed the Commission that the Public Works Department is
investigating this bus stop including the one across the street.
4. East Bay Regional Park Crown Beach Path:
Chair Audrey Lord-Hausman reported that she spoke with Ms. Anne Rockwell of the Regional
Park District regarding the gap that exists in the existing path behind Washington Park. The
District has been in contact with the City's Recreation & Park Department on the matter and
Audrey is waiting for a response from Ms. Rockwell.
5. Temporary Disabled Parking at Community Events (Chair Lord-Hausman)
Chair Audrey Lord-Hausman reported that she obtained a blank event permit application form
from the permits office and will discuss with Mr. Obaid Khan, City's Public Works Supervising
Civil Engineer, on his return, a means to providing temporary disabled parking at community
events.
6. December/January Commission Meeting Dates:
The Commission moved that there would not be a December meeting and that the January
meeting will be held on the 28th.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS- -None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS
1.
Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook informed the Commission that the bus stop at the
northwest corner on Broadway at Tilden Way is not accessible.
2.
Commissioner Roberta Kreitz offered to create an annual events calendar and asked
Commission members to send her any appropriate event names and dates.
3. Chair Audrey Lord-Hausman informed the Commission that Towne Centre may be developing
a parking garage and that she, not representing the Commission, but as a Pedestrian Friendly
Alameda representative, will be discussing pedestrian circulation and parking throughout the
G:\pubworks\LTMCD Disability Committee/2007/1126min.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-11-26.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2007-11-26,3,"Commission on Disability Issues
November 26,2007
Minutes
Page 3 of 3
Centre. She also reported that the City has increased fines for illegal parking in disabled
parking spaces to $275. Audrey distributed a 1/2 page notice that United Cerebral Palsy has
released a State of Disability in America report, an evaluation of the disability experience in
America. The 65-page document is available on the web at www.ucp.org/uploads/Stateof
Disability.pdf.
4.
Commissioner Toby Berger stated that the City Hall doors are hard to open.
5. Commissioner Robbie Kreitz announced that the date of the Special Olympics Bowling
Tournament is January 26, 2008. Chair Lord-Hausman stated she would attend.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, January 28, 2008, 6:30
p.m. in Room 360 at City Hall.
Respectfully submitted,
Ed someresanes
Ed Sommerauer, by dA
Interim Commission Secretary
G:\LucretialCommDisability\Minutes(2007\Minutes_112607.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-11-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-26,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, November 26, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:04 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member Lynch.
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Board
Members Ezzy Ashcraft, Cunningham, Lynch, Mariani and
McNamara.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Farimah Faiz.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of September 24, 2007.
Member Cunningham noted that although he was not in attendance at the meeting, he had
noticed that the attached resolution stated that he voted ""Aye"" as well as being absent. He
noted that the vote in the minutes was correct.
President Cook noted that page 4, paragraph 2, should be changed to read, ""President
Cook noted that the siting siding of the buildings were originally set in place because the
City wanted to retain the warehouse structures. She inquired whether the Planning Board
would have the ability to review the two westernmost new buildings and reconsider their
location siding.
President Cook noted that the spelling of the speaker on page 5, paragraph 5, should be
changed to Karen Bey Bay.""
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to approve the minutes of September 24, 2007, as
amended.
Member Mariani seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Abstain: 1
(Cunningham). The motion passed.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Future Agendas
Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.
Page 1 of 10",PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-26,2,"b.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.
c.
Miscellaneous
Member Cunningham noted that he had received an acknowledgement of six years of
tenure on the Planning Board from the APA.
President Cook noted that she had received APA communications addressed to former
President John Piziali.
Mr. Thomas noted that he would update the Board membership information.
Vice President Kohlstrand inquired about the status of the parking study, which she
believed would be presented by the end of the year. Mr. Thomas noted that there had
been concerns about the work, much of which had to be redone. He believed that it was
close to being ready, perhaps by January or February 2008. He added that the Economic
Development Strategic Plan would be presented in December.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook regarding the status of the Paru Street
subdivision, Mr. Thomas replied that was still in process.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A
2008 Meeting Calendar.
Member McNamara inquired whether a meeting would be held on Columbus Day
(October 13).
President Cook recalled that the Columbus Day meeting had been moved for 2007. Mr.
Thomas noted that he would confirm that date.
Member McNamara noted that the meetings scheduled for November 24 and December
22 occurred during the Thanksgiving and Christmas weeks.
President Cook believed that there was typically one meeting held during December.
The Planning Board concurred that the December 22 meeting would be cancelled.
Page 2 of 10",PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-26,3,"Vice President Kohlstrand suggested that the meeting the week of Thanksgiving be
retained, and that it be reconsidered if the agenda was a light one.
Member Lynch inquired why the meeting was noticed from 7:00 to 11:00 p.m. President
Cook believed it was noticed as such to avoid additional motions to extend the meeting.
Mr. Thomas confirmed that staff would check on the October 13 meeting and report back
to the Board.
Member Cunningham moved to approve the 2008 Meeting Calendar as amended,
including the cancellation of the December 22 meeting.
Member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 7. The motion
passed.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
DP07-0003 - Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project - Applicant:
Catellus Development Group, a ProLogis Company. The applicant requests an
amendment to a Design Review approval for a retail center and associated
improvements located south of Mitchell Avenue Extension and east of Fifth Street
Extension. The site is located along the eastern end of the former FISC Site (Tract
7884) within the M-X Mixed Use Planned Development Zoning District
(AT/DV).
Mr. Thomas presented the staff report, and described the background and scope of the
proposed project, including the conditions required by the Planning Board in previous
hearings.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Kevin Sullivan, LPA Design, applicant, presented the plan approved on September 24
on the overhead screen. He described in detail the features and changes to the plans and the
proposed circulation plan. He noted that their target retailers would not accept the land plan
and the inconvenience for the user, both from an auto and pedestrian standpoint. He added
that the plan would also decrease the parking capacity by 120-plus spaces.
Mr. Greg Moore, Vice President of Development, Catellus, noted that he led the leasing
efforts at Alameda Landing. He noted that the first phase of that process was the leasing of
the large format Building A users, and added that they had conducted numerous
conversations with brokers representing large format tenants, as well as large format tenants
themselves. They were able to discuss the plan approved by the Planning Board, as well as
the concerns surrounding that plan. He noted that the retailer opinion was unanimous in their
concern over this plan; they did not see the plan as being workable for any of the large
format users. He cited opinions by a commercial broker, stating their belief that this plan
created a barrier between the retailer and the customer, and that the drive aisle would be an
Page 3 of 10",PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-26,4,"impediment to the shopping experience. He added that this kind of factor was important in
the site being evaluated by the major retailers, which has become very competitive recently.
He noted that most customers would arrive by car, and that the retailers were cognizant of
that fact.
Mr. Steve Kendrick, LPA, described the main drive aisle in front of Building A and noted
that it would be important to take some of the north-south pressure off of the drive aisle
behind the Fifth Street retail area. He displayed the analysis of opening up one of the bays in
the center to take some of the traffic off the drive aisle onto the parking field. He believed
the proposed layout would be detrimental to the retail environment in the center.
Mr. Sullivan described the compromise plan, which they believed addressed the Planning
Board's concerns heard on September 24, and which they believed would work well for the
retailers, the site, the users of the site, and would accomplish the Planning Board's goals of
having a pedestrian-friendly streetlike feeling within the center. He noted that they
understood the Planning Board's concerns clearly, particularly with respect to wanting
sidewalks on the west side. He believed that the sidewalk can be accomplished on the west
side of the north-south street, and noted that was not the issue with the design team. He
noted that the issue was blocking off the parking pods. He noted that landscaping had been
added for a tree-lined feel as a pedestrian would walk the circulation patterns. He noted that
they wanted to enhance the pedestrian movement along the north-south street at the
storefronts. He added that they incorporated Member Cunningham's suggestion about
enhancing the experience by widening the circulation along the front of the large format
retail. He noted that they also straightened out some of the kinks in the circulation patterns,
and that straight 90-degree angles replaced the kinks. They also increased the circulation
along the east sides of all of the Fifth Street retail sites. He believed they accomplished all of
the goals requested by the Planning Board. They felt strongly that the drive aisles must stay
open for the convenient circulation to and from the large format. He noted that it would be
difficult to maintain the landscaping along the parkways when they block the circulation to
the storefronts.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Kim Nicholls, P.O. 1105, expressed concern about conflicts between commercial and
residential developments.
President Cook noted that for future purposes, she would be able to discuss general issues
during Oral Communications.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she had contacted Mr. Thomas about meeting with the
applicant in order to explore a compromise, using the applicant's compromise plan as a
starting point. She noted that her issues with Catellus's compromise plan were that there was
no raised sidewalk or standard curbs, and that the number of curb cuts along the north-south
driveway had not been reduced. She believed they were trying to maximize the amount of
Page 4 of 10",PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-26,5,"parking on the site, and to use a standard approach towards shopping centers, which was
different than what the Planning Board was trying to achieve.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she still had issues with the 26 spaces that would be
backing out directly into the aisles. She was uncomfortable with Catellus's compromise
position, and would like to see something in between the Planning Board's and the
applicant's proposal. She noted that the standard parking requirements for a shopping center
of this size, which indicated that 3.6 spaces per thousand was reasonable for a weekday, and
4 spaces per thousand for a weekend. She believed that if the curb cuts were reduced, that
requirement could be met. She noted that there were parking lots all over the country that
require people to circulate on-site, and did not find that to be a compelling argument.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she perceived Catellus's presentation of the
compromise plan to City Council as an ""end run"" around the Planning Board, and was
surprised to find that it was staff initiated. She inquired whether the Planning Board was
intended to look at the compromise plan.
Mr. Thomas described the background of the compromise plan. He noted that the City
Council was also informed that it could remand the item back to the Planning Board.
Member Lynch noted that he was somewhat disturbed by the comments, and believed the
Planning Department acted correctly. He did not see any procedural issues, and did not
believe they had done an ""end run"" around the Planning Board. He noted it was the
department's responsibility to bring a project to a governing body so that they may make a
determination in upholding the Planning Board's decision, remanding it back to the
Planning Board, or in creating another plan.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that letters dated October 23 and November 2 had been
distributed to the Planning Board during the meeting, and added that she would have liked
to have received them sooner. She recalled the recent status update of Alameda Towne
Centre, and that their general manager asked the Planning Board to allow them to reduce the
parking ratio. She believed that was a good idea, and would be more in keeping with current
environmental concerns. She wanted quality retail to come to Alameda, and was also
concerned about the local air quality because of high levels of particulate matter in the air on
Spare the Air days. She agreed with the goal to make the center pedestrian-friendly, and did
not believe the traditional parking ratio needed to apply in this case. She noted that the
Planning Board concurred that the applicant's plan, which she saw as a strip of retail
surrounded by a sea of parking, was not what they wanted for Alameda. She would like to
see a shared parking concept, and a lower parking space to retail square footage ratio.
Member McNamara noted that she had hoped that a similar solution to reduce some of the
current cutouts could be included in the compromise plan. She had similar concerns and
issues with the applicant's arguments regarding the creation of a pedestrian-friendly
environment. She believed that the retail brokers were exerting pressure on the applicant to
have more of a car-oriented center. She was concerned about pedestrian safety throughout
the entire center, and assumed that there would be a raised curb cutout on the sidewalk with
Page 5 of 10",PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-26,6,"the 20-foot-wide sidewalk in front of the large format. Mr. Sullivan confirmed that would
occur, and that access ramps would be included where the crosswalks were located. He
added that the sidewalks would be at the asphalt level, and the planters would be raised
adjacent to them.
Member McNamara inquired why that plan would be more challenging from a car
perspective than all the current cutouts included in the plan. Mr. Sullivan replied that any
vehicle circulating in this parking lot must decide whether to keep circulating in the parking
lot looking for a space, or to leave the parking field. He displayed the circulation plan and a
discussion of driving and pedestrian circulation options ensued. He noted that from the
retailers' point of view, a compromise must be reached between the cars and the pedestrians.
He added that the retailers like 4.5 spaces per 1000, and that they were already pushing the
limits. He noted that the goal of the plan was to make finding parking space easier for the
shopper. They hoped that people parked once and circulated on foot, and he emphasized that
they needed to create the safest possible environment for pedestrians.
Member Lynch believed the Planning Board and the applicants had a difference of opinion
about the retail environment. He noted that they were trying to mix different types of
shopping styles, and wished to commend the Planning Department and the applicant for
returning with a compromise plan. He believed that while the compromise plan was not
perfect, it was better than the previous plan.
Member Mariani noted that she shared the concerns previously expressed, and that she
concurred with Member Lynch's comments.
Member Cunningham inquired about the primary points of access to the site. Mr. Sullivan
replied that the major points of access were off of Fifth, and displayed the three
intersections. He added that secondary points of access were off of Mitchell, as well as
Stargell.
Member Cunningham expressed concerns about the traffic movement off the west road
along Blocks B, C and D, and that the width of road going into the parking stalls were the
same width as featured in the compromise plan. He believed that was a safety issue, and
believed that the 90-degree parking along the faces of D, E and F could be a potential
problem. He did not believe the users of the handicapped stalls would be able to get out
easily with the traffic flows. He would wholeheartedly support the compromise plan, and
that having open islands at the end would work well. He suggested using the solution for
that quadrant in the approved plan of September 24th, which would have a net loss of 52
spaces and featured an enhanced pedestrian configuration. Mr. Sullivan believed that could
be achieved with a loss of only 26 spaces.
Member Cunningham inquired about the stated flexibility within the agreement for the
Department to allow a variation of 20% of floor area. He inquired what would trigger a
return to the Planning Board. Mr. Thomas replied that the discussion of parking in the
original Master Plan called for a minimum of 5:1000, followed by months of extensive
discussion and negotiation. The discussion of parking then became a discussion of
Page 6 of 10",PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-26,7,"maximums, not minimums. The Master Plan now states that with shared parking for
multiple uses, the maximum shall be 4.5 spaces per thousand square feet of commercial
space including restaurants. He noted that minor adjustments to building footprints of less
than 10% can be approved at the staff level. If the Board wished to lower the parking ratio
by increasing the square footage in that area of the retail center, that would not trigger any
parking problems for staff. He added that a Master Plan Amendment would allow other
changes to be made.
President Cook expressed concern about all the entrances into the parking field that will
conflict with a strong east-west drive. She noted that the September plan did not include the
access into the east-west roadway. She inquired whether the parking field serving Building
B could be retained from the September plan. She added that the compromise plan had
many more parking spaces and fewer trees. She liked the more heavily landscaped plans.
Mr. Aidan Berry, Catellus Development Group, preferred to hear all the comments from the
Planning Board, and requested a break to meet with the team to address the consolidated
comments.
President Cook noted that she liked the widened sidewalk in front of Building A. She
inquired whether there were porticos that reach out in that area, or whether it was a free and
clear walkway. She would like to see the walkway at Building B to act as a public walkway,
and not part of the retail area. She liked the squared-off crossings in the compromise plan.
She was not convinced that anyone would use the crosswalks at Building A, unless they
came from Fifth Street. She believed the project had a split personality, because the
Planning Board stated that it wanted a traditional, grid-pattern, neighborhood-oriented
project, and that many compromises had been made. She believed that a considerable
number of compromises had been made outside of the realm of the Planning Board. She did
not believe it was a true mixed use project, and found it annoying at the Master Plan level
that when there was buy-in for a mixed use project, that a suburban retail shopping center
was the result.
President Cook stated that this item would be suspended while the applicants conferred
outside of chambers, and that the remainder of the agenda would be addressed.
Member Cunningham moved to continue this item until after the remainder of the agenda
has been heard.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 7. The
motion passed.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Thomas noted that when the Planning Board approved 626 Buena Vista Avenue, they
requested notification of volunteer opportunities such as Habitat for Humanity. Member
Lynch noted that had been received by the Board.
Page 7 of 10",PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-26,8,"11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force (Board
Members Cook/Kohlstrand)
President Cook noted that there had been no further meetings.
Mr. Thomas advised that the next meeting would be held December 13, 2007, at the O Club.
He noted that practical multiple scenarios would be presented.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Member Mariani noted that the November meeting had been cancelled. She added that
during the October meeting, there had been some discussion about the focus of the
Committee, and whether it should address Chinatown alone, or Chinatown and the
extended surrounding areas.
Mr. Thomas noted that the City of Alameda had taken the lead for seven years on
attempting to get the County and Oakland to examine different scenarios on improving
the connection between the Webster and Posey Tubes, and the I-880 freeway. He noted
that the area was built-up, and that a 2000 study concluded that there was no good
solution. He displayed and described the proposed transition from the Tube to I-880 and
to Fifth Street. He noted that traffic and speed control issues had been discussed.
Member Lynch inquired how many doors and roofs the City of Oakland had approved in
the last 10 to 15 years, and how many were currently working their way through the City
of Oakland's Planning Department. He would not want to allocate or spend any more
funds on further studies on this particular issue. He believed the issue was being talked
around, and that the core of the issue was not being addressed; he believed that was a
waste of public funds.
Mr. Thomas suggested that this item be agendized.
He recalled the origins of the traffic study in the Oakland Chinatown area, and noted that
because the 880 freeway was constrained other options such as pedestrian and transit
must be studied. He believed it was important to bring in other regions to the study as
well.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Vice President
Kohlstrand).
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that a meeting for the Pedestrian Task Force had been held
two weeks earlier, and added that Gail Payne, who joined the City as the bicycle and
pedestrian coordinator, presented her first draft to the subcommittee. She identified the
missing links in the pedestrian network, and would establish a criteria system to make an
Page 8 of 10",PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-26,9,"evaluation to invest future funds. Potential funding sources would also be identified. The
plan would come back to the Planning Board for review.
c..
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board
Member Cunningham).
Member Cunningham noted that the next meeting would be held on December 19, 2007,
and that they would review the contents of the report at that time.
President Cook invited a motion to reopen Oral Communications.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to reopen Oral Communications.
Member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 7. The
motion passed.
Ms. Kim Nicholls, P.O. 1105, expressed concern about care for the environment within
developments, as well as the use of office spaces and housing developments. She expressed
concern about partial or total vacancies in buildings. She urged consistency in housing
standards that were independent of personality.
President Cook reopened item 9-A. DP07-0003 - Alameda Landing Mixed Use
Development Project - Applicant: Catellus Development Group, a ProLogic
Company.
Mr. Kevin Sullivan, LPA Design, applicant, described the consensus plan the team had
arrived at while the meeting had continued.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether they considered closing the other
entries to the parking field in front of Building B, Mr. Sullivan replied that they did, which
would require another 32 spaces of additional drop; they were able to reduce the parking by
26 with this reconfiguration, but could not create the separate drive aisle. He pointed out the
connection that had been created, which created circulation on either side.
Member Lynch moved to accept the consensus plan and direct the Planning Department to
incorporate the new language into the resolutions, referencing the compromise plans,
including the latest changes seen in this document.
Member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 3. Noes - 4
(Cook, Kohlstrand, Mariani, McNamara). The motion failed.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested discussing the remaining deficiencies.
President Cook stated that she would like to see the east/west sidewalk as featured in the
September plan.
Page 9 of 10",PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-26,10,"Mr. Thomas noted that an alternative motion may be made.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested continuing the discussion.
Member Lynch believed the Board members were clear in their opinions, but would like to
hear from the applicant further.
Member Mariani agreed with Member Lynch.
Mr. Berry noted that they needed a positive decision at this meeting, and noted that they had
a very tight schedule. They had one more approval with City Council on December 4, 2007.
He noted that they were extremely sensitive to the parking ratios, and that they were trying
to enliven the edge along Fifth Street; he added that they would try to get the maximum
number of restaurants along the end caps. He noted that restaurants had a higher demand for
parking than other retailers. He added that they would do everything they could to make this
project work.
Mr. Steve Kendrick, LPA, displayed the changes, and noted that they retained the concept of
the continuous island along the east/west drive aisle, but to provide head-in parking, moving
the drive aisle back to keep the circulation within the parking pod.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she would probably not support this application, but
she believed it was important to the applicant to make a decision.
Member Cunningham moved to approve the consensus plan as currently captured on the
overhead screen, with the parking field in front of Building A modified with a sidewalk as
proposed by Catellus in the Compromise Plan and with the parking field in front of Building
th
B modified with continuous sidewalks as shown in the Planning Board's September 24
approved plan.
Member Lynch seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes - 2
(Kohlstrand, McNamara). The motion passed.
12. ADJOURNMENT:
9:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the January 28, 2008, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 10 of 10",PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf