{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-10", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, July 10, 2006\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:03 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMember Lynch\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft,\nKohlstrand, Lynch, and McNamara.\nMember Mariani was absent.\nAlso present were Assistant City Attorney Donna Mooney, Planning Services Manager Andrew\nThomas, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of May 22, 2006\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft advised that page 7 should be changed to read, \"She noted that every house on\nWashington Court was a two one story house, so there was a difference in scale.\"\nVice President Cook advised that page 9 should be changed to read, \"In response to an inquiry by\nVice President Cook why there was no landscaping on the trellises, but also on the faces of some of\nthe buildings\n\"\nM/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Cook to approve the minutes for the meeting of May 22, 2006, as amended.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nPresident Cunningham noted that more than five speaker slips had been received for this item.\nM/S Lynch/McNamara and unanimous to reduce the speakers' time to three minutes.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - - 0\nMs. Susan Decker, 2145 Santa Clara Avenue, Apt. E, wished to address the recent controversy\nregarding Measure A. She believed it was important to have a public discussion of the unintended\nnegative consequences of Measure A. She noted that Measure A addressed one type of undesirable\ndevelopment, but did not address other, more desirable development. She cited the City of FPetaluma's\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nJuly 10, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-10", "page": 2, "text": "Smart Codes as an example of addressing and simplifying redevelopment that met the functional and\naesthetic goals of that city. She suggested a similar approach in Alameda.\nMr. Doug Biggs, 608 Haight Avenue, requested that the Planning Board take up the issue of Measure\nA and exempting Alameda Point, and to recommend the City Council put it on the November ballot.\nHe realized that Measure A was an emotional issue, and believed that it constrained the diversity of\nthe community by constraining development. He believed changing Measure A would encourage the\nuse of public transit in Alameda.\nMr. Scott Brady, 1812 Encinal Avenue, noted that Measure A has done a good job in keeping\ndevelopment in check, and noted that increased development increased traffic. He expressed concern\nthat an exemption of Measure A at Alameda Point would create an undesirable precedent for other\ndevelopment elsewhere in the City.\nMs. Helen Sause, 816 Grand Street, submitted a letter to the Board and read it into the record. She\nnoted that Measure A was initiated to preserve Victorian homes, not to prohibit living in\ncondominiums and other multiple units. She believed that neighborhood vitality would be a result of\nthis exemption of Measure A. She would like the City Council to place this issue on the ballot in\nNovember.\nMs. Joan Konrad, 42 Invincible Court, noted that there was a disconnect between what was\nenvisioned for Alameda Point and the FISC property, and how it is being developed under Measure\nA. She noted that because of Measure A's constraints, development at Bayport has been built as a\nmonoculture of large homes, which was different than the transit-oriented, mixed-use environment\nthat de-emphasized the automobile as called for in the General Plan. She believed that Measure A was\nan untouchable policy in Alameda, but it has resulted in nondiverse neighborhoods. She encouraged\nthis issue to be put on the November ballot.\nMs. Gretchen Lipow, 2242 San Antonio, noted that if the City Council put Measure A regarding\nAlameda Point on the ballot, it would be a Council initiative, not a voter initiative. She noted that\nMeasure A was initially put on the ballot by a massive grassroots effort, and believed that changing it\nshould be a similar effort. She noted that Oakland's Oak-to-Ninth project should be watched\ncarefully, which would put 3,100 units across the Estuary from Alameda. She opposed putting\nMeasure A on the ballot.\nMr. Tom Mathews, president, Renewed Hope, noted that there would be problems at Alameda Point\nif Measure A is not modified to allow multiple family dwelling of four to five stories, and densities not\nto exceed 40 units per acre. He noted that transportation and traffic would be a major problem\nwithout having more density to support public transit. He requested that the Planning Board\nrecommend that the City Council place this issue on the ballot.\nMs. Diane Lichtenstein, 633 Sand Hook Isle, spoke in support of placing the Measure A issue on the\nballot. She believed it would create a more diverse neighborhood mix, and would support public\ntransit. She believed that a higher density, mixed use and attractive development would help replace\nthe jobs lost by the closure of the Navy base.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nJuly 10, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-10", "page": 3, "text": "Ms. Allegra O'Donoghue noted that as an Alameda native, her college-age peers will not be able to\nafford to live in Alameda. She believed that careful planning at Alameda Point would create the City's\nown growth and enable more people to live in the city. She noted that there were no Victorian homes\non Alameda Point, and believed that Measure A did not apply to Alameda Point in practice.\nMs. Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope, believed that Alameda should be committed to provide for future\ngenerations in Alameda. She believed that exempting Measure A on Alameda Point would enable\nAlameda to continue to thrive, and to allow the next generation to live in Alameda. She believed that\nMeasure A should be vetted again with the development of Alameda Point in mind, and believed that\nMeasure A kept the City in a virtual development lockdown.\nMr. David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, spoke in opposition to the City Council putting Measure A\non the ballot, rather than by public initiative. He noted that Measure A was not just to save Victorians, but\nto prevent overdevelopment and high density in Alameda. He noted that Alameda Point development has\nbeen in development for ten years, and inquired why Measure A was being revisited at this late date. He\nnoted that traffic should be limited, and did not believe that density was needed to support transit. He\nbelieved that transit supported existing neighborhoods.\nMs. Dorothy Reid, 2101 Shoreline, did not believe all the facts of this issue were known yet. She noted\nthat the staff report pointed out a downturn in retail activity, which may not support the labor and transit\nfrom Alameda Point. She noted that existing rents in Alameda were already out of reach for moderate- and\nlow-income households. She noted that Alameda already has sufficient high density and multifamily\nhousing, and that there were constraints on Alameda Point. She did not believe it was within the purview of\nthe City Council or the Planning Board to change Measure A.\nMr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, strongly supported public transit and bicycling within\nAlameda, using high density and mass transit to keep the lowest possible impacts at Alameda Point. He\nsupported as many green measures as possible for development on Alameda Point. He noted that his own\nlife has changed and has been re-examined in the last 33 years, and believed that Measure A should receive\nthe same consideration.\nMs. Janet Gibson expressed concern that a ballot initiative would become a political issue where monies\nwould be spent on behalf of public and private interests. She noted that her own children have been unable\nto afford to live in Alameda, but believed that other affordable housing measures have been unexplored.\nShe believed that multifamily dwellings may still be very expensive per unit.\nPresident Cunningham believed this issue should be addressed by the Planning Board members, and\nnoted that the Board was required to act within the City Charter. He did not believe that it was within\nthe Planning Board's purview to act directly on Measure A.\nVice President Cook noted the Board discussed Measure A many times in relationship to projects\nbefore us, and believed that the issue was being brought forth by the citizens because City leadership\nwas not discussing it at this time. Vice President Cook noted that the Board has dealt with Measure\nA many times, and believed that this issue was too controversial for City leadership to touch at this\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nJuly 10, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-10", "page": 4, "text": "time. She would like to find a way to discuss Measure A. She believed that Alameda Point presented\na good opportunity to weave itself into the grid of the rest of the City. As a Victorian owner, she\nsupports Measure A wholeheartedly, but believed that matters were different on Alameda Point. She\nwould like to have a thorough discussion of the pros and cons of Measure A, as well as the meaning\nof density.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft Kohlstrand noted that the City Charter stated that the Planning Board may\nshall have power to investigate and recommend plans for future development, location of public\nbuildings and works, and subdivision of land. She inquired when this dialogue could take place, and\ndid not believe that any topic germane to the City's current and future development should be off-\nlimits.\nMs. Mooney noted that for public comments regarded off-agenda topics, the Board may not have\ndiscussion beyond brief responses by Board members and staff, references to further information,\nand/or direction to staff to agendize the topic.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that the Catellus item would address Measure A, and that August 11 was\nthe date to place an item on the November ballot.\nMember Lynch was neither an opponent nor proponent of Measure A, but was troubled by the sense\nthat the question may not be raised. He believed that in order for the City to look forward, a\ndiscussion of such issues must be held.\nPresident Cunningham requested that a discussion of Measure A be agendized.\nMember Lynch stated that he would prefer that the discussion focus on the merits of the current City\nCharter as it related to the planning process and possible buildout of Alameda Point, rather than\nvarious infill issues that may cloud the discussion.\nPresident Cunningham believed that a special meeting may be warranted to hear the public's input.\nVice President Cook was concerned about the timing of this discussion, and would like to hear the\npros and cons of this item being placed on the ballot sooner rather than later.\nBoard member McNamara expressed the need for a forum for a healthy discussion on Measure A\nsince it has not happened yet. She was not aware of any planned events by the City Council to\nprovide an opportunity for an open discussion on Measure A, but she felt there should be one. She\nnoted this would give the community an opportunity to voice their opinions on Measure A.\nMr. Thomas stated that he would work with the President of the Board to identify options for Board\nconsideration at the next regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nJuly 10, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-10", "page": 5, "text": "7.\n2006-2007 ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS\nPresident Cunningham advised that it was customary to hold the elections with a full Board, and\nthe item would be continued until that time.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8-A.\nDA89-1 -- Harbor Bay Business Park Association, Harbor Bay Isle Associates and\nHarbor Bay Entities -- Bay Farm Island (Primarily Harbor Bay Isle) (CE). A request for\na Periodic Review of Development Agreement DA89-01, for the period through April 4,\n2006, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1. The properties are zoned R-1-\nPD, One Family Residence/Planned Development Zoning District; C-M-PD, Commercial\nManufacturing Planned Development Zoning District; O, Open Space Zoning District and R-\n1-A-H, One Family Residence with Special Agricultural and Height Limit Combining Zoning\nDistrict.\nM/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-22 to\napprove a request for a Periodic Review of Development Agreement DA89-01, for the period\nthrough April 4, 2006, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -\n0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nJuly 10, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-10", "page": 6, "text": "9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A.\nZA06-000X Zoning Text Amendment - Citywide (CE). Zoning Text Amendment to\namend Subsection 30-4.9Ag.8. Off-street Parking and Loading Space of the C-C Community\nCommercial Zone of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to add a process for parking\nexceptions.\nMs. Eliason summarized the staff report, and recommended adoption of this amendment.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Michael Krueger, 2145 Santa Clara Avenue, Apt. E, spoke in support of this item. He believed\nthat many of the City's parking requirements were developed in suburban areas with no public transit,\ndeveloped to handle a worst-case scenario. He believed that other cities copied those standards, and\nsuggested that they be changed to reflect the use and location of a retail establishment. He noted that\nPortland, Oregon, had exceptions for sites well-served by public transit (within 500 feet of the site).\nHe noted that both Park and Webster Streets met those criteria. He added that the parking structure\nwould also merit reexamination of the off-street parking requirements.\nMr. David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, noted that one bus pullout has been lost on Park Street,\nleading to auto and delivery truck congestion. He noted that uses may change and that auto-\ndependence related to that business may change.\nMr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, agreed with Mr. Krueger's comments. He noted that he\nshopped on Park Street by bike frequently. He strongly supported using alternative methods of\ntransportation, and was very concerned about the environmental effects of driving cars.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nVice President Cook believed the parking requirements should be applied intelligently, taking the\nretail use into account.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member McNamara on whether the parking exemptions would be\ndefined by the applicant or the traffic study, Ms. Eliason replied that detailed guidelines from Public\nWorks and Development Services would be sought by staff. She noted that a mixed-use office\n(office/residential), assisted care and hotel facilities would be likely candidates for this policy.\nMember Lynch noted that parking in lieu fees are a way for communities to generate fees to develop a\nnexus for that project. He added that government is also reticent to relinquish a revenue source, and\nnoted that a balance between a revenue stream and such a parking policy must be struck. He was\nreluctant to require each applicant to produce a costly parking demand study, especially in a C-C\ndistrict that was already described in a City map.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about the timing of this issue, and noted that she had\nattended the EDC meeting where the parking and traffic study was introduced. She was reluctant\nto\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nJuly 10, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-10", "page": 7, "text": "take further steps before the results were present, and she believed that some of the information may\nbe very useful for new businesses. She inquired whether there were certain businesses that staff was\nimminently concerned with.\nMs. Eliason confirmed that there were specific businesses that were very interested.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft was concerned about losing the revenue from the lost parking in-lieu fees. She\nalso supported use of alternate transportation, but was dismayed at the paucity of bicycle parking in\nAlameda.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that because of the mix of uses, it was not reasonable to expect each\nbusiness to provide independent parking spaces, which would provide too much parking. She\nsupported looking at shared parking opportunities, which she believed was a more rational approach\nto downtown parking.\nM/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-23 to\napprove a Zoning Text Amendment to amend Subsection 30-4.9Ag.8 Off-street Parking and Loading\nSpace of the C-C Community Commercial Zone of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to add\na process for parking exceptions.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPresident Cunningham called for a five-minute recess.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nJuly 10, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-10", "page": 8, "text": "9-B.\nStudy Session - Master Plan Amendment - Catellus Mixed Use Development (AT). The\nproposed revisions to the Catellus Mixed Use Development would allow the project sponsor\nto replace approximately 900,000 square feet of planned commercial office and R&D space\nwith a mix of office, research and development, retail and residential uses. The propose\nrevision includes two variants of the proposed land use plan in order to provide the flexibility\nto respond to future market conditions. Both variations would provide 400,000 square feet of\npreviously entitled office spaces with supporting retail in the northwest portion of the site\n(north of Mitchell Avenue); approximately 50,000 square feet of waterfront retail; and a\n20,000 square foot health club on the waterfront north of Mitchell Avenue. Approximately\n21.3 acres west of 5th Street and approximately 4.3 acres of land north of Mitchell Avenue\nwould be re-designated in the General Plan for approximately 300 housing units. East of 5th\nStreet between Mitchell Avenue and Tinker Avenue, Variant A envisions an approximately\n250,000 square foot shopping center on the 21 acres; and Variant B envisions 370,000 square\nfeet of currently entitled R&D space. The project would require a General Plan Amendment.\nMr. Thomas presented the staff report, and displayed a PowerPoint presentation to illustrate the\nproject.\nMs. Karen Auschler, SMWM, design consultant, continued the PowerPoint presentation and\ndiscussed the amendments to the Master Plan.\nPresident Cunningham noted that more than five speaker slips had been received.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Jim McPhee, Cushman & Wakefield, 560 S. Winchester Blvd., Ste. 200, San Jose, noted that\nthey had worked with Clif Bar & Company to relocate that company to Alameda from Berkeley. He\nnoted that there were many potential lessors for this company, and urged the Board to approve this\nitem.\nMr. Richard Lyons, attorney, Clif Bar/Wendel Rosen Black LLP, 1111 Broadway, 24th floor,\nOakland, noted that Clif Bar was a quality company that would be an asset to Alameda. He noted that\nClif Bar managed to the \"triple bottom line,\" to the benefit of the shareholders, the employees and the\ncommunity. He noted that the company was very profitable, and that the employees were highly\ninvolved in the community. He noted that ClifBar was also a green-oriented business that would be a\nmagnet to other nationally known businesses.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nJuly 10, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-10", "page": 9, "text": "Ms. Sandy Berry, Cornish & Carey, 2804 Mission College Blvd., #20, Santa Clara, spoke in support\nof this item.\nMs. Susan Decker, 2145 Santa Clara Avenue, Apt. E, noted that the pedestrian routes should be\npleasant and safe. She supported direct walkways located near the waterfront.\nMr. Jon Spangler, Bike Alameda, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, noted that Bike Alameda president\nLucy Gigli submitted a letter to the Planning Board, which expressed support for the Alameda\nLanding development project. He noted that Catellus has gone overboard to solicit community input\nat its own expense and on its own time. Ms. Gigli wished to state that Bike Alameda did not want any\nchanges or mitigations to this development that will in any way impinge on current or future bike,\npedestrian or handicapped access, or put more automobile traffic on the streets of Alameda,\nregardless of the presence of bike lanes.\nMs. Helen Sause, 816 Grand Street, spoke in support of this item as a private citizen. She believed\nthis project was a significant example of a seriously constrained site. The change in market conditions\nhas enabled Alameda to have a different project than originally envisioned. She believed this project\ntook true advantage of the Alameda waterfront. She applauded Dan Marcus and the architectural team\nin making the most of such a constrained site and in working with the community.\nMr. David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, believed this was a beautiful plan and had concerns about\nthe mixed use taking the final plan and design decision away from the City. He did not want this\nproject to change the way Alameda thinks about development.\nMr. Hadi Monsef, PO Box 1353, spoke in support of this item. He believed that the best use of the\nwaterfront is for a mixed-use development.\nMr. Michael Krueger, 2145 Santa Clara Ave., Apt. E, noted that he was impressed with the continual\nimprovement of this plan. He agreed with the mixed-use concept for this project. He would like to see\nmore detail with respect to the residential section. He did not want to see any walls near the\nresidential developments, which is forced by high-speed traffic on adjacent streets. He did not support\nprivate streets, and would like them to be accessible to everyone.\nMr. Michael Sullivan, 1842 Nason Street, spoke in support of this item, with the added condition that\nthere be a bike ferry to Oakland. He noted that a ferry would not be impacted by traffic or Tube\nmaintenance issues, and that it would be more scenic.\nMs. Roberta Rockwell, President, Miracle League Baseball, 1322 Sherman Street, spoke in support\nof this item. She noted that Dan Marcus and Catellus had donated land and initial funding for the first\nMiracle League baseball in Northern California.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nJuly 10, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-10", "page": 10, "text": "Ms. Gretchen Lipow, 2242 San Antonio, noted that she was also a Special Olympics mother, and\nhoped to see the park used for their organization as well. She inquired what would be done differently\non this site without Measure A.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPresident Cunningham noted that the first section of the report would be addressed (General/Land\nUse).\nVice President Cook noted that she was very pleased with the progress of this project since it was last\nbefore the Board. She would like to see the level of progress and detail spread out across the site. She\nwas very excited about the presence of Clif Bar on this site, and especially about a recreation-oriented\nwaterfront. She believed it was important to have a first user that was a significant presence.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft complimented staff and the designers for being so responsive to the Board's\ncomments and concerns.\nMember Kohlstrand commended staff and Catellus for their work, and believed the project was\ngetting to the point where it was close to being a fairly good Measure A-compliant project for this\nsite. This would be one of the best Measure A-compliant proposals Alameda had seen. She\nappreciated the public's input over the years that was incorporated into the final design. She believed\nthis plan did not reflect reflected what the citizens of Alameda desired because it did not address the\nland use and density issues. She continued to advocate that an alternative for the purposes of\nadvancing the land use and parking discussion with respect to Measure A, especially as it relates to a\nmore transit-oriented density.\nPresident Cunningham believed that pulling the density of the business uses in would create more\nrecreation fields and parking. He believed it would be beneficial to the public discussion to understand\nwhat Measure A restricts at this time.\nMember Lynch echoed the other Board members' comments in thanking staff and the development\nteam for their responsiveness to the Board's and the public's comments. He believed that the number\nof units was not necessarily the issue with respect to Measure A, but the design of the units was very\nimportant.\nPresident Cunningham noted that on page 8, relative to the TDM, he believed it would be useful to be\ncognizant of park-and-ride facilities, and that it should be stated in the document. He added that there\nwas a lot of comment with respect to the size of parks, and noted that the Board has had many\ndiscussions about parks that were too small to be used. He would like to see language on active and\npassive recreational parks. He noted there was a mention of sustainability, and cited a newspaper\narticle about sustainability guidelines being adopted in Vallejo. Since Alameda did not have a\nsustainability ordinance, he would like to see Catellus make a commitment to a minimum of a Bronze\nLEED rating. He requested more information from staff regarding the storm water retention ponds.\nHe would like to see a phasing diagram.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nJuly 10, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-10", "page": 11, "text": "Vice President Cook agreed with President Cunningham's request for a phasing plan, especially in\nrelation to other uses. She noted that on page 9, the language should be changed to specifically state a\ncertain amount of retail that must be included. She also believed there should be more mixed use on\nthe waterfront, and that the requirements should have more teeth. She noted that the last paragraph\non page 15 stated that variations in the project would go to the Planning Director and the Public\nWorks Director; she would like to understand more about that statement. Mr. Thomas noted that\nstaff could provide more information to the Board.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding parking on Fifth Street, Mr. Thomas\nreplied that would be a good idea, particularly north of Tinker. They have required the tenant spaces\nto have public entries onto Fifth Street, and a guideline in the current Master Plan was deleted that\nstated there would be no parking at all on Fifth Street and Tinker.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that the specific dimensions regarding the width of sidewalks and travel\nlanes do not add to up to the width of the right of way, and were not consistent in all cases. In\naddition, a continuous turn lane on Fifth Street was proposed as the center lane, with a three-lane\nstreet and two five-foot bicycle lanes and no parking. With the change in concept providing access at\nlimited points, she did not believe that turn lane made particular sense. Also, she believed it was\nadvisable to consider parking at that location, which would add character to the street rather than\ndetracting from it. She did not agree with the concept of public streets with no street parking, with\nrequirements for off-street parking, though she understands that there was a maintenance benefit to\nprivate streets, she still preferred the public streets. She agreed with Mr. Krueger's comment about\nstandards for public versus private streets.\nMr. Thomas agreed, and noted that every street should have at least a five-foot wide sidewalk.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that she preferred public streets, and that there was a maintenance benefit.\nMr. Thomas noted that this project would have a municipal services agreement.\nM/S McNamara/Cook to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nVice President Cook expressed that the wrong kind of screening would create a visual barrier to the\nwater.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member McNamara whether a parking structure could be built that could\nbe shared between residential and office uses, Mr. Marcus replied that density was the major issue\nwith respect to a parking structure. He noted that approximate 15-20% of the 77 acres was open\nspace, between the waterfront park, the village green and the smaller pocket parks.\nMember McNamara noted that the paved parking lots were potential open areas.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nJuly 10, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-10", "page": 12, "text": "In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham, Mr. Thomas replied that the current work/live\nordinance did not apply to this area, and that a new ordinance would have to be written to allow\nwork/live, but \"shop homes\" with only two units could be done under Measure A and without a\nwork/live ordinance.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nJuly 10, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-10", "page": 13, "text": "Vice President Cook inquired whether the agreement with WABA was a separate agreement. She\nvery supportive of the progress on Webster Street. She was unsure whether the waterfront should be\nsold short because of the agreement with WABA.\nMr. Thomas replied that staff could provide the Retail Impact Analysis performed for this project.\nVice President Cook would like to push the envelope further on the waterfront parcel, and would like\nto get a finer grain of retail and residential pushed out into that area. She would also like to have a\ndiscussion about building heights, as well as the size of parking structures and buildings.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Lynch regarding the possibility of forming a subcommittee to\ndiscuss the issues, Mr. Thomas replied that could be considered if the Board so wished.\nMember Lynch suggested that since the meeting of July 24 has been noticed, that at that meeting, the\ndocument incorporate some of the items heard during this meeting. He believed there would be a few\nremaining items, at which time the subcommittee could be formed to get to the end of the process, if\nnecessary.\nNo action was taken.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nThis item was continued to the next meeting.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice President Cook).\nThis item was continued to the next meeting.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember Mariani).\nThis item was continued to the next meeting.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member\nKohlstrand).\nThis item was continued to the next meeting.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nJuly 10, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-07-10", "page": 14, "text": "12.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nThis item was continued to the next meeting.\n13.\nADJOURNMENT:\n11:38 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nCathy Woodbusy\n- Cathy Woodbury, Secretary\nPlanning & Building Department\nThese minutes were approved at the July 24, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio\nand video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nJuly 10, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf"}