{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-14", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, May 14, 2007\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:08 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nVice President Cook\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Lynch, Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy\nAshcraft, Kohlstrand, Mariani and McNamara.\nAlso present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney\nDonna Mooney, Planner I Simone Wolter.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the Alameda Towne Centre Workshop of March 12, 2007.\nBoard member McNamara noted that she was absent from the 4:30 p.m. March 12\nmeeting because she recused herself.\nBoard member Cunningham moved approval of the minutes as presented.\nVice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote - 6.\nAbstain: 1 (McNamara).\nb.\nMinutes for the meeting of April 23, 2007.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 4, paragraph 2, read, \"He did not believe the east-\nwest roadway was necessary when the north-south roadways were already available She\ndid not believe that was the substance of Mr. Krueger's comments, because it contradicted\nhis previous sentence.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 4, paragraph 7, read, \"In response to an inquiry by\nBoard member McNamara regarding Ms. Reid's suggestion of split sidewalks, Mr. Corbitt\nreplied that they had examined that possibility. He noted that there were 23 driveways \"\nShe noted that the previous references on page 3 refer to there being 13 driveways, and\ninquired whether that was a typo. Mr. Thomas noted that he was referring to putting the\nsidewalk on the south side of that road, where there were 23 parking aisles.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 5, the last sentence of paragraph 3, read, \"Once the\nroad is placed on that parcel, a bike-pedestrian path would be placed there, and the area\nwould be added to the beachfront area for buildings and parking.\" She noted that her notes\ndid not reflect that information, and was concerned about whether it would be temporary.\nShe would like the record to reflect that Mike Corbitt stated it was a temporary parking lot,\nand that it was not to be a beachfront area for buildings and parking because that was not the\nidea of enlivening the waterfront with parking lots.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nMay 14, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-14", "page": 2, "text": "Board member Kohlstrand moved approval of the minutes as amended.\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote - 4. Abstain: 3 (Cook, Lynch, Mariani).\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Lynch noted that speaker cards had been received for Item 8-A of the Consent\nCalendar.\nBoard member Kohlstrand moved to remove Item 8-A from the Consent Calendar, and to\nplace it on the Regular Agenda.\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n-7. -\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nFuture Agendas\nMr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nNone.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nMay 14, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-14", "page": 3, "text": "8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8-A.\nUse Permit UP07-0005- Applicant: Bryan Gower for Crosstown Coffee\nHouse - 1303 High Street (SW). The applicant requests Use Permit approval to\nhave (acoustic and amplified) live music performances within the coffee shop.\nPursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.8(c)(7), a Use Permit is required for live\nperformances that are in combination with other allowed uses. The site is located\nwithin the C-1 Neighborhood Business District.\nBoard member Kohlstrand moved to remove Item 8-A from the Consent Calendar, and to\nplace it on the Regular Agenda.\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 7.\nMr. Wolter summarized the staff report and recommended approval of this item.\nPresident Lynch noted that eight speaker slips had been received.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 7.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Carol Dutra spoke in support of this item as well as live musical performances, and\nnoted that her son was learning to play the piano.\nMr. Dave Netherhood noted that he was the founder of the Crosstown Coffee House, and\nnoted that Mr. Gower was unable to attend due to a family medical emergency. He\nwished to discuss the hours that music would be allowed, as well as the acoustic study\nrequirement. He got the impression that staff wanted no sound at all to be emitted from\nthe building. He did not believe that would be realistic.\nMr. Jack Hickman noted that he volunteered at the coffeehouse, and noted that their\nbusiness had dropped significantly since live music was discontinued. He was unsure\nhow long they could continue serving coffee without live music.\nTimothy Runberger distributed a copy of his comments and noted that he was eager to\nsee this permit granted, and objected to some of the conditions, particularly the condition\nstating that prior to any live entertainment being able to play, that a consultant be hired to\nmake engineering recommendations to reduce noise levels. He noted that would be\nexpensive and burdensome for the coffeehouse, and would cause a significant delay. He\nbelieved it was inconsistent with the standards set for in the Alameda Municipal Code.\nHe noted that no one in the City had to comply with the established standard of having no\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nMay 14, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-14", "page": 4, "text": "believed that Condition 10, requiring a six-month report to the Planning Board, would\ncover the noise issues. She did not believe it would be necessary to hire an engineer to\nmeasure the noise levels.\nMs. Amy Wheat noted that the owners of the coffeehouse had canvassed the\nneighborhood to solve the noise problems, and that many of the residents' ideas were\nincorporated by the applicant. She believed that hiring a sound consultant would be far\nbeyond the budget of the applicant, and noted that it was not suggested by the residents.\nShe believed it was an unreasonable condition, and that no one else in the City has had to\ncomply with that condition.\nLouanne Zankey noted that she understood music could only be played until 8 p.m., and\nnoted that her son could play music in her dining room until 10 without disturbing the\nneighbors. She added that if a neighbor complained, that the police would come to the\ndoor. She noted that the coffeehouse did a good job of presenting family-appropriate\nmusic, and thought that 9 p.m. might be a good time to stop the music during the week,\nand 10 p.m. during the weekends.\nMs. Anise Jenkins spoke in support of this project, and noted that it was a positive situation\nfor the neighborhood. She noted that traffic, buses and planes were noticeable in the\nneighborhood, and did not believe the music would be a detriment to the neighborhood.\nMr. Jim McWorley noted that his grandmother used to live across the street from the\nbuilding occupied by the coffeehouse, and noted that the applicants had vastly improved\nthe noise situation from the days when the building was occupied by the 19th Hole. He\nnoted that this was the only place in Alameda that he could bring his kids to hear live\nmusic in the evening.\nA speaker spoke on behalf of the kids who played music, and noted that she and her\nhusband were youth leaders. She noted that a place like Coffeehouse was a positive\ninfluence for kids who perform there.\nMr. David May noted that he was the host of Open Mike Night at the coffeehouse, and\nthat Open Mike Night was as structured as possible, and was held between 7:00-9:30\np.m. He noted that they wanted to follow the guidelines, would monitor the sound better\nand would police themselves in order to be a good neighbor.\nA speaker believed that Crosstown Coffeehouse embodied all the positive aspects of\nAlameda, and noted that they sponsored a middle school arts night.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nMay 14, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-14", "page": 5, "text": "The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPresident Lynch described the conditional use permit process, and noted that there was a\ndifference between a residential use and a commercial use.\nBoard member Mariani noted that she used to live kitty-corner to the old 19th Hole, and\nnoted that she used to live above the liquor store. She noted that the current use could not\ncompare with that use. She believed this was a positive use, and suggested giving the\napplicant a chance before requiring the use of a noise consultant. She would not be opposed\nto a 9 p.m. cutoff, especially during the summertime, because dance studios and other\nbusinesses that play music were often open until 9 p.m.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft commended Kelly Day for her part in repairing the\ncommunication. She believed that the process could have been simplified if the correct\nprocedures had been followed. She believed that the rights of the neighbors had to be\nbalanced with the needs of the coffeehouse, and may not object to 9 p.m. for music\nperformance.\nBoard member Kohlstrand was pleased to see the support for this proposal, and was\nconcerned about the neighbors who lived nearby. She did not want to place untenable\nconditions on the coffeehouse.\nVice President Cook suggested that a limit or cap on the number of performances be placed\nso a burden would not be placed on the neighborhood. She did not want to put constraints\nlike requiring closed windows on the use.\nBoard member McNamara supported the previous comments by the Board members. She\ndid not believe that keeping the doors and windows closed would be a realistic condition.\nShe believed it would be reasonable to measure the noise over time, rather than prior to the\nfirst live performance. She was concerned about respecting the time for the music to stop to\naccommodate the neighbors. She would support an 8 p.m. time limit during the week. She\nquestioned whether the live music was necessary to play every night.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that the use permit rode with the property, and noted that\nthe Planning Board had always been concerned about uses that may follow this particular\nuse. He requested that a condition be crafted that state that the use permit may require\ncertain mitigations should there be neighborhood concern in the future.\nMr. Thomas noted that the Planning Board may modify or add conditions, but there should\nbe a clear set of conditions that clearly articulate the City's expectations in working with the\nneighbors.\nPresident Lynch noted that he was not quite convinced after hearing the testimony, and did\nnot see this item as a complicated issue. He did not believe the applicant should be required\nto submit an acoustical study prior to the action taken. He believed that with respect to\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nMay 14, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-14", "page": 6, "text": "Condition 3, it would be appropriate to have extend the hours past 8 p.m. given the time of\nyear. He suggested that the time of year, the type of activity and the individuals participating\nin the activity be taken into account.\nVice President Cook suggested deleting Condition 2 (requiring an immediate sound study);\nchanging Condition 10 from a six-month report to a three-month report; Condition 12 to\nstate that the use permit approval would expire in one year rather than two years after the\ndate of approval, unless the above conditions have been met. She would be willing to agree\nto limit the number of events during the week.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft believed it may be too onerous to limit the number of events\nper week. She was more concerned about events falling into the amplified music category,\nand that the performances did not disturb the neighbors. She believed it would be reasonable\nto request a review in three months. She suggested that the requirement for the acoustic\nstudy be removed, and noted that it could be examined at the three-month review period.\nShe suggested allowing amplified music to end at 9 p.m. on weeknights, and 10 p.m. on\nweekends, with a report after three months of operation.\nPresident Lynch cautioned that if the doors were required to be closed, that someone may\nalso lock them, which would be an unsafe violation of the fire code.\nBoard member Kohlstrand moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-13 to\napprove a Use Permit to have (acoustic and amplified) live music performances within\nthe coffee shop. Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.8(c)(7), a Use Permit is required for\nlive performances that are in combination with other allowed uses. The following\nmodifications were added:\n1.\nCondition 2 was deleted;\n2.\nCondition 3: 8 p.m. should be changed to 9 p.m.;\n3.\nCondition 10: the six-month review should be changed to a three-month\nreview; and\n4.\nCondition 12: the two-year vesting period should be changed to one year.\nVice President Cook seconded the motion, with carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nMay 14, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-14", "page": 7, "text": "8-B.\nDesign Review DR06-0066, Use Permit UP07-0009 and Parking Exception -\nApplicant: Sandip Jariwala - 1628 Webster Street (Hawthorne Suites) (ZS).\nThe project involves adding a 16-room 8,990 square foot structure to an existing\n50-room 30,500 square foot hotel; and a Parking Exception to provide fewer\nparking spaces than the number required by City code.\nBoard member Kohlstrand moved to continue this item to a future date.\nVice President Cook seconded the motion, with carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.\n8-C.\nInitial Study IS05-0001; Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0001;\nMajor Design Review DR05-0010; Use Permits UP06-0003, UP06-0010,\nUP06-012 and UP06-0013; - Applicant: Safeway, Inc. 2234 Otis Drive\n(adjacent Alameda Towne Centre) (AT). The applicant requests approval of\nPlanned Development Amendment, Major Design Review and Use Permits\nallowing the demolition of an existing bank building and redevelopment of the\nproperty with a gas station. The project includes three covered pump islands, each\ncontaining three pumps, for a total of eighteen pumping stations. Fuel will be\nstored in three 20,0000 gallon underground storage tanks. In addition to the\napproximately 7,500 square-foot canopy covering the gasoline pumping facilities,\nthe project includes an approximately 625 square-foot building, housing the\ncashier's desk, restrooms and retail sales of convenience items. The applicant is\nproposing twenty-four hour operations and the sale of beer and wine. An Initial\nStudy / Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project.\nMitigation measures have been identified that will reduce potentially significant\nimpacts to a less than significant level. The site is located within a, Central\nBusiness District with Planned Development overlay Zoning District (C-2-PD).\n(Continued from the meeting of April 23, 2007. Staff requests continuance to\nthe meeting of June 11, 2007.)\nBoard member Kohlstrand moved to continue this item to June 11, 2007.\nVice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nMay 14, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-14", "page": 8, "text": "9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A.\nDP07-0001 - Catellus/Prologis - Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development\n(AT). The applicant requests Development Plan approval for the waterfront\npromenade, streetscape cross-sections for Fifth Street and Mitchell Mosley\nAvenue, and the Alameda Landing Transportation Demand Management\nProgram. The project area is located south of the Oakland Alameda Estuary, north\nof the College of Alameda and the Bayport Residential District, east of Coast\nGuard Housing, and west of Webster Street. The site is in the M-X (Mixed Use)\nZoning District.\nMr. Thomas presented the staff report, and recommended approval of the Transportation\nDemand Management plan for the project, the Mitchell Avenue and 5th Street roadway\ndesign, and the Site-wide Landscaping Development Plan amendment.\nMr. David Tirman, Senior Vice President (California), Catellus Development Group,\nnoted that he was an architect by training, and detailed his professional background. He\nnoted that he was an active member of the AIA and was a LEED-accredited professional.\nHe introduced the design and architecture team, and described their efforts with respect to\nsustainable development.\nMs. Karen Alschuler displayed a PowerPoint presentation on the overhead screen, and\ndescribed the background, scope and layout of this project.\nMr. Rene Behan, Managing Principal, SWA San Francisco, detailed the components to\nthe master plan with respect to the landscaping plan, the open space network, public use\nspaces and the bioswales.\nMr. Tirman noted that the Clif Bar design documents and the adjacent parking shed\nwould be brought forward at the May 29 meeting, along with the waterfront promenade\ndevelopment plan. He noted that at the June 11 meeting, they would return with the retail\nplans developed by LPA. The design review for 5th Street, Mitchell Avenue and the\nwaterfront plaza would be presented.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPresident Lynch called for a five-minute recess.\nPresident Lynch noted that the first topic of discussion would be the TDM.\nBoard member Kohlstrand believed the outline for the TDM program was good, but she\nwas concerned that it did not have a lot of teeth to it. She noted that seven to eight hours\nof shuttles per day was the only guarantee. She noted that there were no transit services to\nthe site, and no disincentives for single-occupancy auto trips. She noted that there was no\nlink to reducing the parking on-site to create any disincentive. She noted there was a lot\nof work to provide pedestrian circulation through the site, but much of it was through\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nMay 14, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-14", "page": 9, "text": "parking areas rather than public streets, which was a concern for her. She noted that the\nguaranteed ride home was only for businesses with more than 100 employees, which may\nnot be the majority of the businesses on this site. She was concerned that the pieces were\nthere, but there were no guarantees that they would be provided, or that they would be\neffective.\nBoard member Mariani agreed that the transportation piece was very important, but that\npeople could not be forced to use them. She supported the use of incentives.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft commended the Transportation Commission for their work\nin creating a very comprehensive report. She expressed concern about the water shuttle\nservice, and she would like a stronger commitment to the water taxi, as well as stronger\nlanguage. She noted this was a waterfront-oriented project, and believed there should be\nbetter alternatives to get bikes from Alameda to Oakland rather than riding through the\nTube. She strongly believed that public transportation should be subsidized, and that the\ndollars should be found to do that. She noted that she would continue to work toward a\nstronger commitment to the water taxi.\nVice President Cook shared the concerns about the transportation plan, and noted that she\nwas underwhelmed by it. She shared Board member Kohlstrand's concerns. Under\n\"Duties and Deliverables,\" the report never discussed evaluating the landside\nrequirements for successful operations of a water taxi, which should include links to other\npublic transportation. She expressed general concern about the funding for the\ntransportation plan, and noted that it did not seem to be particularly well funded. She\nrequested further clarification on the developer role, and any funding contingencies if it\nfailed. She noted that some of the evaluation points were somewhat confusing.\nBoard member Mariani would like further clarification of the $425,000, which only\nseemed to be available at full development.\nBoard member Cunningham would like more information on how the dollar amounts\nwere arrived at, and noted that 300 homes were referred to, while there were only 225\nhomes. He asked whether that would affect the dollar amounts. He noted that with respect\nto the onsite amenities, one goal was to reduce traffic trips. He suggested adding daycare\ncenters to accompany the residential and business uses. He would like more information\nabout the water shuttle. Page 17 referenced the ride share program, which he would like\nmore information on.\nMr. Thomas described the background of the TDM program as it developed from the\nAlameda transportation strategy, where each project in the West End must contribute\nmoney on an annual basis to transportation. He believed this was the best TDM program\nseen by the City so far, but that future TDM programs could be better.\nMr. Thomas noted that the City Council included the five-year evaluation late in their\ndeliberations of the development agreement. After five years of TDM operations, an\nevaluation of the TDM program would take place. If the project is doing very well\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nMay 14, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-14", "page": 10, "text": "financially, and the TDM program is not doing very well, and if additional funds could\nhelp the TDM program do better, there would be an increase in the annual allocations to\nthe TDM program.\nBoard member Kohlstrand would like more assurance for other kinds of service to\ncompensate for the water taxi if needed, and the level of parking needed given the mix of\nuses on the site as a whole.\nMr. Thomas noted that any developer would like to have certainty with respect to\nparking. He noted that there were no commercial office developments in Alameda that\ncharged for parking, and that it was very tough to compete in that arena.\nBoard member Kohlstrand did not believe it would be feasible to charge for parking, and\nsuggested that limiting parking would force users into using alternative modes of\ntransportation; she emphasized that the alternative mode must be available to serve the\nproject.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a positive incentive for a business could\nbe created, rather than using a punitive approach. She hoped that some realistic efforts\nwould be made for a realistic solution. She noted that it took time for new transportation\nhabits to be formed, and did not want to see more traffic put through the Tube. She would\nlike to see more emphasis on water transportation, and would like to see a best effort in\ndeveloping a workable solution.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the financial aspect of the\nproject, Mr. Thomas replied that the entitlements were already in place. He recommended\nthat the Planning Board could consider the annual report on the success of the program,\nand if it wanted the parking issue to be addressed in each of the annual reports, it would\nprovide the opportunity to discuss the TDM plan, the parking strategy, use of parking,\nand whether it should be changed.\nPresident Lynch suggested that the areas of the TDM to be addressed in the annual report\nbe discussed prior to the annual report in a scoping session.\nBoard member Kohlstrand suggested that the annual report include a parking\nmanagement report that assesses the occupancy of the spaces and how they relate to the\nachievement of goals of reduction of peak hour uses and there should be another strategy\nto pick up the slack if the water shuttle has not proven to be feasible.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the water shuttle pilot period could be\nchanged from one year to two.\nPresident Lynch noted that was contained in the DA.\nMr. Thomas noted that the City Council wanted to see it run for a year, and that it would\nbe problematic to change it, because the DA would need to be amended.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nMay 14, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-14", "page": 11, "text": "Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to reopen the public hearing.\nVice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.\nThe public hearing was reopened.\nMr. Bruce Knopf, Catellus, noted that they were very committed to the TDM program,\nand saw the TMA program as establishing the beginning of their program, and for other\ndevelopments to use in the future. They were committed to the water shuttle, which had a\nminimum funding level in the budget. The operation of the water shuttle will require gap\nfunding from the developer, and he noted that it needed a sufficient level of ridership in\norder to succeed. They were working with Bike Alameda to develop a constituency. They\nhad also spoken with Transportation Commission Chair John Knox White and members\nof the TMA about including the TMA itself as an entity within CMA to qualify for\nguaranteed ride home programs for smaller employers. They had worked closely with AC\nTransit in the last three months to discuss car share programs, and a program like\nEcoPass would become a component of their program.\nBoard member Kohlstrand expressed concern that the information presented by Mr.\nKnopf was not included in the TDM report, and that the language should have been less\ntentative.\nPresident Lynch did not want to circumvent the authority of the TMA Board, which\nshould be the body that fleshed out the ideals of the program.\nMr. Knopf noted that the language was accurate, and that he could not guarantee the\ncontinued operation of the water shuttle.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-14 to\napprove the Alameda Landing Transportation Demand Management Program, with the\nfollowing modifications as noted by staff would be included and;\n1.\nParking management strategies would be included in the annual report;\n2.\nIf any part of the water shuttle is started and then de-funded, that decision\nand other options would be reviewed by the Transportation Commission\nand the City Council.\nBoard member McNamara seconded the motion, with carried by the following voice vote\n- 6. Abstain - 1 (Cook).\nVice President Cook did not believe that the planning issues were addressed adequately,\nand did not believe it should be before the Planning Board if it was predetermined, and if\nthe Board could not make meaningful input.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nMay 14, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-14", "page": 12, "text": "Mr. Thomas described the overall rights-of-way dedicated to the recommended 5th Street\nand Mitchell Cross Sections.\nMs. Alschuler noted that the requirements were given specific scale and size in\nrelationship to the Master Plan.\nPresident Lynch invited comment about 5th Street; there were no comments.\nVice President Cook expressed concern about the narrowness of the sidewalk on the west\nside of 5th Street, given that the right of way had been set. She hoped there could be a true\nmixed use project on this site.\nMr. Knopf noted that the strategy for that side of the street was to have an 11-foot\nsection, with a six-foot continuous hardscape and five feet of planting. That planting\ncould be in a more urbanized condition, with trees being placed in tree grates.\nVice President Cook inquired whether there would be room for caf\u00e9 tables. Mr. Knopf\nreplied that there would be room for the tables.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the narrow townhomes and shop homes.\nMr. Thomas described the homes as a Measure A-compliant duplex sitting on top of a\nretail space.\nBoard member Kohlstrand inquired whether the Board would have an opportunity to\ncomment on the entire street plan. Mr. Thomas replied that the entire internal street\nnetwork would be presented as part of the development plan, including each phase of the\ndevelopment. The retail center, from Mitchell to Stargell, would be presented on June 11,\n2007, as well as building footprints and design review.\nBoard member Kohlstrand expressed concern that the Board was being asked to approve\nsections of 5th Street, and that there did not seem to be city blocks in the plan. It appeared\nto be a big shopping center to her, rather than city blocks.\nBoard member Kohlstrand did not believe there was a street network that connected with\nAlameda.\nVice President Cook shared Board member Kohlstrand's concerns, and was also\nconcerned about the apparent privatizing of the streets.\nBoard member Kohlstrand noted that the roads in South Shore Center were similar, and\nbelieved this project replicated the problems in South Shore Center, with a roadway in a\nmall. She was concerned that all of the traffic was put on one or two main roads.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-15 to\napprove the Mitchell Moseley/5th Street.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nMay 14, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-14", "page": 13, "text": "Board member Mariani seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote -\n4. Noes- 3 (Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft, Kohlstrand).\nPresident Lynch suggested that action on the landscape development plan be continued to\nthe meeting of May 29, 2007.\nMr. Thomas noted that at the next meeting, staff would present landscape, waterfront\npromenade and Clif Bar, in that order.\nBoard member Mariani moved to continue the landscape development plan to the\nmeeting of May 29, 2007.\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 7.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nMay 14, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-05-14", "page": 14, "text": "10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee\n(Board Member Mariani).\nBoard member Mariani noted that they would hold the next meeting at 3:30 p.m. on May\n17, 2007, at the Asian Health Center in Chinatown.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board\nMember Kohlstrand).\nBoard member Kohlstrand noted that there was nothing further to report.\nC.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force\n(Board Member Cunningham).\nBoard member Cunningham advised that the next meeting would be held on Wednesday,\nMay 16, at 7 p.m. at the Library.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that many mail notifications of project had been\nreceived, and he would be happy to access the notifications on line o save mailing\nexpenses.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested printing materials on both sides of the page to\nsave paper.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n10:56 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAnderson\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThese minutes were approved at the May 29, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This\nmeeting was audio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nMay 14, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf"}