{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2007-11-26", "page": 1, "text": "OF\nCity of Alameda\nCalifornia\n$\nUNAPPROVED\nCOMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nRATER\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nNovember 26, 2007\nTIME\nThe meeting was convened at 6:40 p.m.\nPRESENT\nChair Lord-Hausman, Vice-Chair Moore, Commissioners Berger, Longley-\nCook, Fort, Hakanson, Kirola, Kreitz, and Robinson\nEXCUSED\nABSENT\nnone\nGUESTS\nAndrew Thomas (Planning Services Manager), Aidan Barry (Catellus), Steve Buster\n(Catellus), and Kory Johnson (Catellus)\nMINUTES\nThe minutes of the October 15, 2007 meeting were approved as submitted with the following\ncorrection: New Business, Item #2, change 2nd sentence to \"January's meeting date will be\ndetermined at the November meeting and is tentatively scheduled for January 14th or January 28th.\"\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS- None\nNEW BUSINESS\n1. Alameda Landing Development:\nMr. Andrew Thomas, City's Planning Services Manager, Aidan Barry, Steve Buster and Cory\nJohnson of Catellus, provided an overview of the Alameda Landing project. They will meet with\nthe Commission at a future date, possibly February, to discuss the residential phase of the\ndevelopment.\n2. Election of Officers:\nChair Audrey Lord-Hausman and Vice-Chair Jody Moore were re-elected as officers for 2008.\nNays - 0.\nOLD BUSINESS\n1. Commission on Disability Internet Link (CDI):\nChair Lord-Hausman informed the Commission that the web designer's offices were flooded and\ntherefore have been temporarily delayed on developing the CDI website.\nPublic Works Department\n950 West Mall Square, Room 110\nAlameda, California 94501-7575\n510.749.5840\nFax 510.749.5867\nTDD 510.522.7538\nPrinted on Recycled Paper", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-11-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2007-11-26", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nNovember 26,2007\nMinutes\nPage 2 of 3\n2. Alameda Hospital Health Fair:\nCommissioners Roberta Kreitz and Adrienne Longley-Cook informed the Commission that there\nwere a lot of citizen inquiries at their table at the Alameda Hospital Health Fair. The\nCommission agreed to start planning in July for next year's Fair and for October's Disability\nAwareness Month activities. At the suggestion of Vice-Chair Jody Moore the Commission will\ncompile a yearly event calendar.\n3. Bus Stop Accessibility at Eighth Street and Central Avenue:\nChair Audrey Lord-Hausman informed the Commission that the Public Works Department is\ninvestigating this bus stop including the one across the street.\n4. East Bay Regional Park Crown Beach Path:\nChair Audrey Lord-Hausman reported that she spoke with Ms. Anne Rockwell of the Regional\nPark District regarding the gap that exists in the existing path behind Washington Park. The\nDistrict has been in contact with the City's Recreation & Park Department on the matter and\nAudrey is waiting for a response from Ms. Rockwell.\n5. Temporary Disabled Parking at Community Events (Chair Lord-Hausman)\nChair Audrey Lord-Hausman reported that she obtained a blank event permit application form\nfrom the permits office and will discuss with Mr. Obaid Khan, City's Public Works Supervising\nCivil Engineer, on his return, a means to providing temporary disabled parking at community\nevents.\n6. December/January Commission Meeting Dates:\nThe Commission moved that there would not be a December meeting and that the January\nmeeting will be held on the 28th.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS- -None\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS\n1.\nCommissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook informed the Commission that the bus stop at the\nnorthwest corner on Broadway at Tilden Way is not accessible.\n2.\nCommissioner Roberta Kreitz offered to create an annual events calendar and asked\nCommission members to send her any appropriate event names and dates.\n3. Chair Audrey Lord-Hausman informed the Commission that Towne Centre may be developing\na parking garage and that she, not representing the Commission, but as a Pedestrian Friendly\nAlameda representative, will be discussing pedestrian circulation and parking throughout the\nG:\\pubworks\\LTMCD Disability Committee/2007/1126min.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-11-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2007-11-26", "page": 3, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nNovember 26,2007\nMinutes\nPage 3 of 3\nCentre. She also reported that the City has increased fines for illegal parking in disabled\nparking spaces to $275. Audrey distributed a 1/2 page notice that United Cerebral Palsy has\nreleased a State of Disability in America report, an evaluation of the disability experience in\nAmerica. The 65-page document is available on the web at www.ucp.org/uploads/Stateof\nDisability.pdf.\n4.\nCommissioner Toby Berger stated that the City Hall doors are hard to open.\n5. Commissioner Robbie Kreitz announced that the date of the Special Olympics Bowling\nTournament is January 26, 2008. Chair Lord-Hausman stated she would attend.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThe meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, January 28, 2008, 6:30\np.m. in Room 360 at City Hall.\nRespectfully submitted,\nEd someresanes\nEd Sommerauer, by dA\nInterim Commission Secretary\nG:\\LucretialCommDisability\\Minutes(2007\\Minutes_112607.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-11-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-11-26", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, November 26, 2007\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:04 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMember Lynch.\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Board\nMembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Cunningham, Lynch, Mariani and\nMcNamara.\nAlso present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney\nFarimah Faiz.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of September 24, 2007.\nMember Cunningham noted that although he was not in attendance at the meeting, he had\nnoticed that the attached resolution stated that he voted \"Aye\" as well as being absent. He\nnoted that the vote in the minutes was correct.\nPresident Cook noted that page 4, paragraph 2, should be changed to read, \"President\nCook noted that the siting siding of the buildings were originally set in place because the\nCity wanted to retain the warehouse structures. She inquired whether the Planning Board\nwould have the ability to review the two westernmost new buildings and reconsider their\nlocation siding.\nPresident Cook noted that the spelling of the speaker on page 5, paragraph 5, should be\nchanged to Karen Bey Bay.\"\nVice President Kohlstrand moved to approve the minutes of September 24, 2007, as\namended.\nMember Mariani seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Abstain: 1\n(Cunningham). The motion passed.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\na. Future Agendas\nMr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.\nPage 1 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-11-26", "page": 2, "text": "b.\nZoning Administrator Report\nMr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.\nc.\nMiscellaneous\nMember Cunningham noted that he had received an acknowledgement of six years of\ntenure on the Planning Board from the APA.\nPresident Cook noted that she had received APA communications addressed to former\nPresident John Piziali.\nMr. Thomas noted that he would update the Board membership information.\nVice President Kohlstrand inquired about the status of the parking study, which she\nbelieved would be presented by the end of the year. Mr. Thomas noted that there had\nbeen concerns about the work, much of which had to be redone. He believed that it was\nclose to being ready, perhaps by January or February 2008. He added that the Economic\nDevelopment Strategic Plan would be presented in December.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cook regarding the status of the Paru Street\nsubdivision, Mr. Thomas replied that was still in process.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nNone.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8-A\n2008 Meeting Calendar.\nMember McNamara inquired whether a meeting would be held on Columbus Day\n(October 13).\nPresident Cook recalled that the Columbus Day meeting had been moved for 2007. Mr.\nThomas noted that he would confirm that date.\nMember McNamara noted that the meetings scheduled for November 24 and December\n22 occurred during the Thanksgiving and Christmas weeks.\nPresident Cook believed that there was typically one meeting held during December.\nThe Planning Board concurred that the December 22 meeting would be cancelled.\nPage 2 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-11-26", "page": 3, "text": "Vice President Kohlstrand suggested that the meeting the week of Thanksgiving be\nretained, and that it be reconsidered if the agenda was a light one.\nMember Lynch inquired why the meeting was noticed from 7:00 to 11:00 p.m. President\nCook believed it was noticed as such to avoid additional motions to extend the meeting.\nMr. Thomas confirmed that staff would check on the October 13 meeting and report back\nto the Board.\nMember Cunningham moved to approve the 2008 Meeting Calendar as amended,\nincluding the cancellation of the December 22 meeting.\nMember McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 7. The motion\npassed.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A.\nDP07-0003 - Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project - Applicant:\nCatellus Development Group, a ProLogis Company. The applicant requests an\namendment to a Design Review approval for a retail center and associated\nimprovements located south of Mitchell Avenue Extension and east of Fifth Street\nExtension. The site is located along the eastern end of the former FISC Site (Tract\n7884) within the M-X Mixed Use Planned Development Zoning District\n(AT/DV).\nMr. Thomas presented the staff report, and described the background and scope of the\nproposed project, including the conditions required by the Planning Board in previous\nhearings.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Kevin Sullivan, LPA Design, applicant, presented the plan approved on September 24\non the overhead screen. He described in detail the features and changes to the plans and the\nproposed circulation plan. He noted that their target retailers would not accept the land plan\nand the inconvenience for the user, both from an auto and pedestrian standpoint. He added\nthat the plan would also decrease the parking capacity by 120-plus spaces.\nMr. Greg Moore, Vice President of Development, Catellus, noted that he led the leasing\nefforts at Alameda Landing. He noted that the first phase of that process was the leasing of\nthe large format Building A users, and added that they had conducted numerous\nconversations with brokers representing large format tenants, as well as large format tenants\nthemselves. They were able to discuss the plan approved by the Planning Board, as well as\nthe concerns surrounding that plan. He noted that the retailer opinion was unanimous in their\nconcern over this plan; they did not see the plan as being workable for any of the large\nformat users. He cited opinions by a commercial broker, stating their belief that this plan\ncreated a barrier between the retailer and the customer, and that the drive aisle would be an\nPage 3 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-11-26", "page": 4, "text": "impediment to the shopping experience. He added that this kind of factor was important in\nthe site being evaluated by the major retailers, which has become very competitive recently.\nHe noted that most customers would arrive by car, and that the retailers were cognizant of\nthat fact.\nMr. Steve Kendrick, LPA, described the main drive aisle in front of Building A and noted\nthat it would be important to take some of the north-south pressure off of the drive aisle\nbehind the Fifth Street retail area. He displayed the analysis of opening up one of the bays in\nthe center to take some of the traffic off the drive aisle onto the parking field. He believed\nthe proposed layout would be detrimental to the retail environment in the center.\nMr. Sullivan described the compromise plan, which they believed addressed the Planning\nBoard's concerns heard on September 24, and which they believed would work well for the\nretailers, the site, the users of the site, and would accomplish the Planning Board's goals of\nhaving a pedestrian-friendly streetlike feeling within the center. He noted that they\nunderstood the Planning Board's concerns clearly, particularly with respect to wanting\nsidewalks on the west side. He believed that the sidewalk can be accomplished on the west\nside of the north-south street, and noted that was not the issue with the design team. He\nnoted that the issue was blocking off the parking pods. He noted that landscaping had been\nadded for a tree-lined feel as a pedestrian would walk the circulation patterns. He noted that\nthey wanted to enhance the pedestrian movement along the north-south street at the\nstorefronts. He added that they incorporated Member Cunningham's suggestion about\nenhancing the experience by widening the circulation along the front of the large format\nretail. He noted that they also straightened out some of the kinks in the circulation patterns,\nand that straight 90-degree angles replaced the kinks. They also increased the circulation\nalong the east sides of all of the Fifth Street retail sites. He believed they accomplished all of\nthe goals requested by the Planning Board. They felt strongly that the drive aisles must stay\nopen for the convenient circulation to and from the large format. He noted that it would be\ndifficult to maintain the landscaping along the parkways when they block the circulation to\nthe storefronts.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMs. Kim Nicholls, P.O. 1105, expressed concern about conflicts between commercial and\nresidential developments.\nPresident Cook noted that for future purposes, she would be able to discuss general issues\nduring Oral Communications.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that she had contacted Mr. Thomas about meeting with the\napplicant in order to explore a compromise, using the applicant's compromise plan as a\nstarting point. She noted that her issues with Catellus's compromise plan were that there was\nno raised sidewalk or standard curbs, and that the number of curb cuts along the north-south\ndriveway had not been reduced. She believed they were trying to maximize the amount of\nPage 4 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-11-26", "page": 5, "text": "parking on the site, and to use a standard approach towards shopping centers, which was\ndifferent than what the Planning Board was trying to achieve.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that she still had issues with the 26 spaces that would be\nbacking out directly into the aisles. She was uncomfortable with Catellus's compromise\nposition, and would like to see something in between the Planning Board's and the\napplicant's proposal. She noted that the standard parking requirements for a shopping center\nof this size, which indicated that 3.6 spaces per thousand was reasonable for a weekday, and\n4 spaces per thousand for a weekend. She believed that if the curb cuts were reduced, that\nrequirement could be met. She noted that there were parking lots all over the country that\nrequire people to circulate on-site, and did not find that to be a compelling argument.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she perceived Catellus's presentation of the\ncompromise plan to City Council as an \"end run\" around the Planning Board, and was\nsurprised to find that it was staff initiated. She inquired whether the Planning Board was\nintended to look at the compromise plan.\nMr. Thomas described the background of the compromise plan. He noted that the City\nCouncil was also informed that it could remand the item back to the Planning Board.\nMember Lynch noted that he was somewhat disturbed by the comments, and believed the\nPlanning Department acted correctly. He did not see any procedural issues, and did not\nbelieve they had done an \"end run\" around the Planning Board. He noted it was the\ndepartment's responsibility to bring a project to a governing body so that they may make a\ndetermination in upholding the Planning Board's decision, remanding it back to the\nPlanning Board, or in creating another plan.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that letters dated October 23 and November 2 had been\ndistributed to the Planning Board during the meeting, and added that she would have liked\nto have received them sooner. She recalled the recent status update of Alameda Towne\nCentre, and that their general manager asked the Planning Board to allow them to reduce the\nparking ratio. She believed that was a good idea, and would be more in keeping with current\nenvironmental concerns. She wanted quality retail to come to Alameda, and was also\nconcerned about the local air quality because of high levels of particulate matter in the air on\nSpare the Air days. She agreed with the goal to make the center pedestrian-friendly, and did\nnot believe the traditional parking ratio needed to apply in this case. She noted that the\nPlanning Board concurred that the applicant's plan, which she saw as a strip of retail\nsurrounded by a sea of parking, was not what they wanted for Alameda. She would like to\nsee a shared parking concept, and a lower parking space to retail square footage ratio.\nMember McNamara noted that she had hoped that a similar solution to reduce some of the\ncurrent cutouts could be included in the compromise plan. She had similar concerns and\nissues with the applicant's arguments regarding the creation of a pedestrian-friendly\nenvironment. She believed that the retail brokers were exerting pressure on the applicant to\nhave more of a car-oriented center. She was concerned about pedestrian safety throughout\nthe entire center, and assumed that there would be a raised curb cutout on the sidewalk with\nPage 5 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-11-26", "page": 6, "text": "the 20-foot-wide sidewalk in front of the large format. Mr. Sullivan confirmed that would\noccur, and that access ramps would be included where the crosswalks were located. He\nadded that the sidewalks would be at the asphalt level, and the planters would be raised\nadjacent to them.\nMember McNamara inquired why that plan would be more challenging from a car\nperspective than all the current cutouts included in the plan. Mr. Sullivan replied that any\nvehicle circulating in this parking lot must decide whether to keep circulating in the parking\nlot looking for a space, or to leave the parking field. He displayed the circulation plan and a\ndiscussion of driving and pedestrian circulation options ensued. He noted that from the\nretailers' point of view, a compromise must be reached between the cars and the pedestrians.\nHe added that the retailers like 4.5 spaces per 1000, and that they were already pushing the\nlimits. He noted that the goal of the plan was to make finding parking space easier for the\nshopper. They hoped that people parked once and circulated on foot, and he emphasized that\nthey needed to create the safest possible environment for pedestrians.\nMember Lynch believed the Planning Board and the applicants had a difference of opinion\nabout the retail environment. He noted that they were trying to mix different types of\nshopping styles, and wished to commend the Planning Department and the applicant for\nreturning with a compromise plan. He believed that while the compromise plan was not\nperfect, it was better than the previous plan.\nMember Mariani noted that she shared the concerns previously expressed, and that she\nconcurred with Member Lynch's comments.\nMember Cunningham inquired about the primary points of access to the site. Mr. Sullivan\nreplied that the major points of access were off of Fifth, and displayed the three\nintersections. He added that secondary points of access were off of Mitchell, as well as\nStargell.\nMember Cunningham expressed concerns about the traffic movement off the west road\nalong Blocks B, C and D, and that the width of road going into the parking stalls were the\nsame width as featured in the compromise plan. He believed that was a safety issue, and\nbelieved that the 90-degree parking along the faces of D, E and F could be a potential\nproblem. He did not believe the users of the handicapped stalls would be able to get out\neasily with the traffic flows. He would wholeheartedly support the compromise plan, and\nthat having open islands at the end would work well. He suggested using the solution for\nthat quadrant in the approved plan of September 24th, which would have a net loss of 52\nspaces and featured an enhanced pedestrian configuration. Mr. Sullivan believed that could\nbe achieved with a loss of only 26 spaces.\nMember Cunningham inquired about the stated flexibility within the agreement for the\nDepartment to allow a variation of 20% of floor area. He inquired what would trigger a\nreturn to the Planning Board. Mr. Thomas replied that the discussion of parking in the\noriginal Master Plan called for a minimum of 5:1000, followed by months of extensive\ndiscussion and negotiation. The discussion of parking then became a discussion of\nPage 6 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-11-26", "page": 7, "text": "maximums, not minimums. The Master Plan now states that with shared parking for\nmultiple uses, the maximum shall be 4.5 spaces per thousand square feet of commercial\nspace including restaurants. He noted that minor adjustments to building footprints of less\nthan 10% can be approved at the staff level. If the Board wished to lower the parking ratio\nby increasing the square footage in that area of the retail center, that would not trigger any\nparking problems for staff. He added that a Master Plan Amendment would allow other\nchanges to be made.\nPresident Cook expressed concern about all the entrances into the parking field that will\nconflict with a strong east-west drive. She noted that the September plan did not include the\naccess into the east-west roadway. She inquired whether the parking field serving Building\nB could be retained from the September plan. She added that the compromise plan had\nmany more parking spaces and fewer trees. She liked the more heavily landscaped plans.\nMr. Aidan Berry, Catellus Development Group, preferred to hear all the comments from the\nPlanning Board, and requested a break to meet with the team to address the consolidated\ncomments.\nPresident Cook noted that she liked the widened sidewalk in front of Building A. She\ninquired whether there were porticos that reach out in that area, or whether it was a free and\nclear walkway. She would like to see the walkway at Building B to act as a public walkway,\nand not part of the retail area. She liked the squared-off crossings in the compromise plan.\nShe was not convinced that anyone would use the crosswalks at Building A, unless they\ncame from Fifth Street. She believed the project had a split personality, because the\nPlanning Board stated that it wanted a traditional, grid-pattern, neighborhood-oriented\nproject, and that many compromises had been made. She believed that a considerable\nnumber of compromises had been made outside of the realm of the Planning Board. She did\nnot believe it was a true mixed use project, and found it annoying at the Master Plan level\nthat when there was buy-in for a mixed use project, that a suburban retail shopping center\nwas the result.\nPresident Cook stated that this item would be suspended while the applicants conferred\noutside of chambers, and that the remainder of the agenda would be addressed.\nMember Cunningham moved to continue this item until after the remainder of the agenda\nhas been heard.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 7. The\nmotion passed.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nMr. Thomas noted that when the Planning Board approved 626 Buena Vista Avenue, they\nrequested notification of volunteer opportunities such as Habitat for Humanity. Member\nLynch noted that had been received by the Board.\nPage 7 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-11-26", "page": 8, "text": "11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force (Board\nMembers Cook/Kohlstrand)\nPresident Cook noted that there had been no further meetings.\nMr. Thomas advised that the next meeting would be held December 13, 2007, at the O Club.\nHe noted that practical multiple scenarios would be presented.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember Mariani).\nMember Mariani noted that the November meeting had been cancelled. She added that\nduring the October meeting, there had been some discussion about the focus of the\nCommittee, and whether it should address Chinatown alone, or Chinatown and the\nextended surrounding areas.\nMr. Thomas noted that the City of Alameda had taken the lead for seven years on\nattempting to get the County and Oakland to examine different scenarios on improving\nthe connection between the Webster and Posey Tubes, and the I-880 freeway. He noted\nthat the area was built-up, and that a 2000 study concluded that there was no good\nsolution. He displayed and described the proposed transition from the Tube to I-880 and\nto Fifth Street. He noted that traffic and speed control issues had been discussed.\nMember Lynch inquired how many doors and roofs the City of Oakland had approved in\nthe last 10 to 15 years, and how many were currently working their way through the City\nof Oakland's Planning Department. He would not want to allocate or spend any more\nfunds on further studies on this particular issue. He believed the issue was being talked\naround, and that the core of the issue was not being addressed; he believed that was a\nwaste of public funds.\nMr. Thomas suggested that this item be agendized.\nHe recalled the origins of the traffic study in the Oakland Chinatown area, and noted that\nbecause the 880 freeway was constrained other options such as pedestrian and transit\nmust be studied. He believed it was important to bring in other regions to the study as\nwell.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Vice President\nKohlstrand).\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that a meeting for the Pedestrian Task Force had been held\ntwo weeks earlier, and added that Gail Payne, who joined the City as the bicycle and\npedestrian coordinator, presented her first draft to the subcommittee. She identified the\nmissing links in the pedestrian network, and would establish a criteria system to make an\nPage 8 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-11-26", "page": 9, "text": "evaluation to invest future funds. Potential funding sources would also be identified. The\nplan would come back to the Planning Board for review.\nc..\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board\nMember Cunningham).\nMember Cunningham noted that the next meeting would be held on December 19, 2007,\nand that they would review the contents of the report at that time.\nPresident Cook invited a motion to reopen Oral Communications.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft moved to reopen Oral Communications.\nMember Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 7. The\nmotion passed.\nMs. Kim Nicholls, P.O. 1105, expressed concern about care for the environment within\ndevelopments, as well as the use of office spaces and housing developments. She expressed\nconcern about partial or total vacancies in buildings. She urged consistency in housing\nstandards that were independent of personality.\nPresident Cook reopened item 9-A. DP07-0003 - Alameda Landing Mixed Use\nDevelopment Project - Applicant: Catellus Development Group, a ProLogic\nCompany.\nMr. Kevin Sullivan, LPA Design, applicant, described the consensus plan the team had\narrived at while the meeting had continued.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cook whether they considered closing the other\nentries to the parking field in front of Building B, Mr. Sullivan replied that they did, which\nwould require another 32 spaces of additional drop; they were able to reduce the parking by\n26 with this reconfiguration, but could not create the separate drive aisle. He pointed out the\nconnection that had been created, which created circulation on either side.\nMember Lynch moved to accept the consensus plan and direct the Planning Department to\nincorporate the new language into the resolutions, referencing the compromise plans,\nincluding the latest changes seen in this document.\nMember Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 3. Noes - 4\n(Cook, Kohlstrand, Mariani, McNamara). The motion failed.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested discussing the remaining deficiencies.\nPresident Cook stated that she would like to see the east/west sidewalk as featured in the\nSeptember plan.\nPage 9 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-11-26", "page": 10, "text": "Mr. Thomas noted that an alternative motion may be made.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested continuing the discussion.\nMember Lynch believed the Board members were clear in their opinions, but would like to\nhear from the applicant further.\nMember Mariani agreed with Member Lynch.\nMr. Berry noted that they needed a positive decision at this meeting, and noted that they had\na very tight schedule. They had one more approval with City Council on December 4, 2007.\nHe noted that they were extremely sensitive to the parking ratios, and that they were trying\nto enliven the edge along Fifth Street; he added that they would try to get the maximum\nnumber of restaurants along the end caps. He noted that restaurants had a higher demand for\nparking than other retailers. He added that they would do everything they could to make this\nproject work.\nMr. Steve Kendrick, LPA, displayed the changes, and noted that they retained the concept of\nthe continuous island along the east/west drive aisle, but to provide head-in parking, moving\nthe drive aisle back to keep the circulation within the parking pod.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that she would probably not support this application, but\nshe believed it was important to the applicant to make a decision.\nMember Cunningham moved to approve the consensus plan as currently captured on the\noverhead screen, with the parking field in front of Building A modified with a sidewalk as\nproposed by Catellus in the Compromise Plan and with the parking field in front of Building\nth\nB modified with continuous sidewalks as shown in the Planning Board's September 24\napproved plan.\nMember Lynch seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes - 2\n(Kohlstrand, McNamara). The motion passed.\n12. ADJOURNMENT:\n9:38 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThese minutes were approved at the January 28, 2008, Planning Board meeting. This\nmeeting was audio and video taped.\nPage 10 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf"}