{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-12", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, March 12, 2007\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:39 p.m.\nPresident Lynch advised that prior to this meeting, a tour and meeting had been held at\nAlameda Town Centre. He noted that the Board members would speak to that session,\nfollowing by the closing of that session, and the opening of the regular session of the\nPlanning Board.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMember Mariani\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Lynch, Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy\nAshcraft, Kohlstrand, Mariani and McNamara.\nAlso present were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Planning Services\nManager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney Donna Mooney, Supervising Planner\nDouglas Garrison, Planner I Simone Walter.\nPresident Lynch invited comments from the Board regarding the tour at Alameda Town\nCentre.\nMember McNamara excused herself from this discussion.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft thanked Harsch Investments, Target and the Safeway gas station\nfor participating in the public dialogue. She had heard concerns about shopping cart\ncontrols within the center and off premises. She noted that Walgreen's had installed\nsecurity strips that lock the cart wheels if they were to be taken off the lot. The applicants\nindicated those strips could be installed at Safeway. She believed that more cart bays\nshould be installed within the parking lot.\nMember Kohlstrand wished to thank Harsch Development Corporation and the\nrepresentatives from the other developments that coordinated the tour. She believed it\nwas very useful, and wished to reiterate the comments about the work involved in\nresolving the circulation issues at the site, particularly those related to bike and pedestrian\naccess. She believed there should be more focus on trucks at this time. She acknowledged\nthat there would be challenges, and she looked forward to seeing some resolution on\nthose items. She believed a sidewalk on the east-west roadway was important. She\nbelieved the Safeway Gas design would create conflicts in including the sidewalks, and\nhoped that would be kept in mind. She would like to see more focus on the area by the\nwaterfront.\nVice President Cook was sorry that they did not get to the waterfront, and did not believe\nthe water orientation of this project had been properly addressed. She expressed concern\nabout the improvements taking place to the east of McDonald's. She believed that the\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nMarch 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-12", "page": 2, "text": "four separate stand-alone buildings felt to her like restaurant destinations. She hoped to\nsee a mix of building scales so a shopper could get a cup of coffee quickly without going\ninto one of the sit-down restaurants. She would like to see a safer way for people to cross\nthe street. She expressed concern about the pedestrian and bicycle issues, and was also\nconcerned about the gas station at such a busy corner. She noted that they had not\ndiscussed the parking garage at Mervyn's, and would like to hear more public discussion\non that subject, especially regarding the circulation dynamics.\nMember Cunningham expressed concern about the threshold for the development, as well\nas the reasoning behind it and the economic model. With respect to the proposed site plan\nat Building 800, there was a service yard at right angles to the main road going past\nTarget. He would like to know how the traffic flow would work by the service dock at\nBuilding 800.\nMember Mariani noted that the visual was very important in being able to take the\nfeatures in, and added that many people attended the tour. She was uncomfortable about\npart of the tour referring to proposed projects as \"done deals.\" She wanted to be\nextremely mindful of the residents of the Willows, and hoped they could be\naccommodated.\nMember Kohlstrand expressed concern about the massing of the proposed Target\nbuilding, because of the traffic generated and the size of the store. She added that it\nwould be surrounded by residential property.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft wished to echo Member Cunningham's comments on green\nbuilding design, and noted that the Target in Davis would be LEED certified. She noted\nthat the Climate Protection Task Force was becoming very active in the City, and that\nboth Peet's Coffee and Clif Bar had decided to build LEED certified buildings. She was\nanxious to see what Target could develop along those lines.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook about the truck route, Mr. Thomas\nnoted that the truck route would run down Park Street. He explained that there were a\nvery limited number of roads that could be used as truck routes in Alameda.\nMember Mariani noted that the arches, vines and the wildlife expressed a small-town\ncharm in the center, which was more comfortable than a big Target. She was very\nconcerned about the massing of the Target in the center.\nPresident Lynch suggested that the Target team provide a matrix to the Board in terms of\nthe Targets around the Bay Area, with a visual of the store and a description of the store's\ndimensions.\nThe public hearing was closed.\nMember McNamara returned to the dais.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nMarch 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-12", "page": 3, "text": "4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the special meeting of January 31, 2007.\nMember Cunningham motioned to continue the minutes for the special meeting of\nJanuary 31, 2007, to March 26, 2007\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 7.\nb.\nMinutes for the meeting of February 12, 2007.\nMember Cunningham motioned to continue the minutes for the meeting of February 12,\n2007, to March 26, 2007\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 7.\nC.\nMinutes for the meeting of February 26, 2007.\nMember Cunningham moved to continue the minutes for the meeting of February 26,\n2007, to March 26, 2007\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 7.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nMr. David Howard expressed concern that the Target traffic studies did not do enough\nanalysis regarding traffic coming across the bridges and in the Tubes en route to Target,\nparticularly down Constitution Way, past Washington School and Park, and down\nShoreline or Otis, and then back on the way out. He had not seen any studies that\nanalyzed that traffic pattern. He noted that during the walking tour, people asked\nquestions during and after the tour, and that there were no speaker's slips available. He\nnoted that President Lynch closed the public hearing for that item, and noted that Item 8-\nC changed the rules and procedures, possibly pushing Oral Communications after Staff\nCommunications. He hoped this would not mean that this would make it more difficult\nfor the public to speak in the future.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was there for the entire tour, and while there were\nno speaker slips, there were many speakers. She noted that their names and comments\nwere taken down, and that Mr. Thomas had stated clearly that the comments would be\nincorporated into the final record. She estimated that there were over six speakers, and\nthat some spoke more than once. She did not want the public to be left with the\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nMarch 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-12", "page": 4, "text": "misimpression that public comment was not welcome, and noted that over 50 people\nwere there.\nPresident Lynch noted that it was never the desire of the Board or staff to curtail any\npublic comment, and that comments were encouraged.\n7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nNone.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nMarch 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-12", "page": 5, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A. Green Building and Bay-Friendly Landscape Presentation (AT). A\npresentation by StopWaste.org regarding Green Building and Bay-Friendly\nLandscaping Ordinance. Representatives from StopWaste.org will present\ninformation on the benefits of adopting an ordinance, the areas addressed by the\nordinance, who has adopted and implemented similar ordinances, and technical\nresources available from StopWaste.org to help with adoption and\nimplementation.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Karen Kho, StopWaste.org, introduced herself and noted that their presentation\nwould address an integrated approach to design, construction and maintenance of\nbuildings and landscapes. She noted that benefits of green building included more\nefficient use of natural resources, greenhouse gas reductions, and social benefits to\nresidents of buildings, including increased productivity in schools and businesses. These\npractices were intended to reduce the level of exposure of both construction and\nmaintenance workers in terms of toxic materials. The financial benefits of these practices\nwould include lower energy and water bills, as well as the reduced need for replacement\nof materials over the long term because they were more durable and designed better. She\ndisplayed the green building standards on the overhead screen, and provided an overview\nof the green building-rating program. She displayed building and commercial and\nresidential landscaping practices within the green building program. She provided an\noverview of the practices involved in the three sets of sustainable programs, including the\nsite and community, and how well the landscaping connected with its community.\nPractices during construction included protecting topsoil and recycling construction\nwaste to minimize impacts on the community, particularly protecting healthy topsoil,\navoiding the introduction of invasive plant species and maintaining a diverse plant\npalette. This would lead to greater plant health and resiliency. Water energy efficiency\nwould be encouraged by reducing the amounts of wood being used in a building with\nmore efficient design. Bioswales help increase water efficiency on-site, and help the\nproject achieve a LEED Gold rating. Plants that tolerate the summer dry climate are\nencouraged, and high efficiency irrigation systems are encouraged. More efficient\nappliances are available on the market.\nMs. Kho noted that the operations and maintenance aspect of the program would ensure\nthat the green building practices incorporated into a building or landscape would continue\nover the life of the building and landscape. Over-watering and over-fertilizing of plants\nwould be unhealthy for the plants, and would waste resources. Toxic fertilizers and pest\ncontrol would be discouraged in favor of healthier materials. She noted that the following\npolicies would be included:\n1. Lead by example. A model green building ordinance would apply to public\nprojects and public/private partnerships.\n2. Adopt an environmentally preferable purchasing policy for all City operations\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nMarch 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-12", "page": 6, "text": "and maintenance.\n3. For private projects with no public money involved, the City would take a role\nin educating, motivating and providing incentives to private developers.\n4. All applicants would submit a green building checklist appropriate to the type\nof project proposed to apply for their entitlements. There was no requirement\nfor a score, but it was a required part of the submission. A green building\nconsultation for developers would be encouraged.\n5. Staff review and comment on green building and landscaping aspects of the\nproject.\n6. In some communities, completion of the green building checklist was\nincluded as a condition of approval.\nShe displayed a summary of green building policies of different cities around the Bay\nArea. She noted that they would be available for assistance and education to staff and\nCity officials.\nPresident Lynch requested a copy of the PowerPoint presentation to the Board members,\nand inquired whether StopWaste.org served only Alameda County. Ms. Kho confirmed\nthat they served Alameda County. While other counties have green building assistance,\nother programs do not have the extensive training provided by StopWaste.org. President\nLynch thanked Ms. Kho for her thorough presentation.\nPresident Lynch noted that he would be leaving the meeting and turned the meeting over\nto Vice President Cook.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Stan Schiffman, Chairman, Alameda Task Force on Climate Protection, noted that he\nwas delighted that the Planning Board was discussing this topic. He was sure that one of\nthe Task Force's recommendations would be to encourage the City to adopt a green\nbuilding ordinance.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the details of green building certification. Ms. Kho\nnoted that she did not have that information on hand, but would provide it to the Board\nmembers.\nMember McNamara noted that this was a huge effort, and looked forward to\nincorporating these policies into City efforts.\nMember Kohlstrand inquired whether there was a similar set of guidelines for\ncommercial development. Ms. Kho noted that they recommended the use of the LEED\nrating system, which had an extensive set of guidelines for commercial developments.\nShe could provide that to the City at a later date, and that they were available online.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nMarch 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-12", "page": 7, "text": "Member Cunningham noted that he was very supportive of this effort. He inquired\nwhether the demolition ordinance would be separate from the green ordinance or\nsustainable ordinance. Ms. Kho noted that they were typically separate ordinances. Ms.\nWoodbury noted that the City already had a demolition ordinance, which already had a\nRecycling and Waste Reduction requirement.\nMember Mariani noted that she supported green building practices, and added that while\nit may be more expensive at the front end, the savings had been worth it in her own\nhome.\nMember Cunningham noted that when green practices were designed into a building\ndesign, it saved costs from the beginning as compared with retrofitting the building.\nMs. Kho noted that much of the costs were associated with the learning curve. She noted\nthat there was a directory of green building professionals at www.apBuildItGreen.org\nMember Cunningham suggested using architects that were LEED-certified.\nActing President Cook suggested adding this item to the Work Program discussion for\nItem 8-B.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nMarch 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-12", "page": 8, "text": "8-B. Workshop Program Discussion (CW). A presentation and discussion of\nPlanning and Building Department work program priorities, resources and items\nfor future Planning Board Consideration.\nMs. Woodbury summarized the staff report and identified the members of Planning staff.\nShe displayed a PowerPoint presentation, and described the elements of the Strategic\nWork Program in detail.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThere were no speakers.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMember Mariani thanked Ms. Woodbury for the organized outline, and inquired whether\nthe density bonus plan had a deadline with respect to the Housing Element. Mr. Thomas\nreplied that State law required that the City adopt certain ordinances and keep them up to\ndate, including the density bonus and the secondary unit. He noted that the City identified\nthose as two high-priority actions in the 2003 Housing Element, and that the State\nrequired that they be included in the Housing Element. He noted that those items had\nbeen placed on the back burner even though a lot of work had been accomplished, and\ndid not want to make the same promises to the State during the next Housing Element\ncycle that had not been fulfilled from the last time. Staff had renewed concern about\nthose outstanding items, and that much of the work had already been performed.\nMember Mariani expressed concern about the default position, and added that Alameda's\nneeds were different than the statewide guidelines.\nMember Cunningham noted that it would be beneficial for the City to be mindful of what\nother cities were doing with respect to Work/Live and Land Use. He believed there had\nbeen many good discussions with respect to the density bonus, which related to Measure\nA.\nActing President Cook inquired how the City could have a Density Bonus without having\ndensity under Measure A. Ms. Woodbury replied that there were many ways to have\ndensity without multiple family units, and believed that a workshop would enable the\nBoard to explore those possibilities.\nMr. Thomas noted that the City was in the process of developing a Secondary Unit\nOrdinance that would be in compliance with State law, because the current ordinance was\nnot in compliance with State law. State law also required adoption of an ordinance that\nexplained how the required Density Bonus ordinances would be implemented with\nrespect to affordable housing.\nA discussion of priority-setting ensued.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nMarch 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-12", "page": 9, "text": "Member McNamara inquired what would happen after a consultant is hired for State-\nmandated items. Ms. Woodbury noted that they would come to the Planning Board for\ntheir recommendation to City Council. She added that there would be a number of\nworkshops and other opportunities for the Planning Board to become involved before\nthey were asked to make a recommendation to Council.\nMember Cunningham noted that the many members of the public had requested\na\ncomprehensive island traffic study, which would involve an understanding of trip\ngeneration and traffic flows within the Island.\nMr. Thomas noted that the Transportation Commission has spent considerable time\nworking through a set of Citywide policies, which would be packaged into a\nTransportation Element update. As part of that, an environmental consultant and traffic\nconsultant will be hired to do an EIR for that process. The policies would come through\nthe Planning Board for recommendation to the Council. One task was to examine the\ntransportation policies in conjunction with the City's land use plans, and to provide\ninformation with respect to how the transportation network would work with the\nCitywide development plan, including the major ones on the West End. He noted that the\nTransportation Commission has finished a global set of policies for the General Plan, and\nthat they have begun to tackle more specific policies. The pedestrian policy is completed,\nand they have moved to the transportation demand management policies. They have set\nup a series of routes throughout the City based on their understanding of transportation\nneeds and flows throughout the City, and where it was needed to enhance transportation\neffectiveness to accommodate those flows. He added that they would test those\nassumptions as part of the Transportation Element Update.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that she had participated in some of the early workshops, and\nadded that the Transportation Commission had put a lot of effort into the activity, which\nthey also initiated. She noted that the Public Works Department had taken over from\nthere, and she would like to see information following that transition. She believed it was\nimportant to ensure that State-mandated compliance items were met, and noticed that\nstaff had not mentioned the Land Use Element, as well as compliance with the\nSubdivision Map Act. She inquired when those two items would be brought to the\nPlanning Board.\nMs. Woodbury noted that the Subdivision Map Act should have been listed, because that\naddressed housing as well. She noted that it was not at the level of the Density Bonus\nOrdinance and the Secondary Unit Ordinance, and that staff would need to bring it up to\nspeed with the State law. She understood that was in the works. She endeavored to put\nrelated projects together to streamline the information flow.\nMember McNamara believed that it would be very beneficial to have a flow chart of the\npending permit process, for residents who wished to do a remodel or other modification\nto their home. Ms. Woodbury noted that the kind of flow chart would depend on the kind\nof process, which was not as simple as it seemed.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nMarch 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-12", "page": 10, "text": "Member McNamara noted that Line 12 addressed providing articles from the local\nnewspaper, and noted that had been done several weeks before regarding Alameda\nTowne Centre, which she believed was educational for the public.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft believed the Chamber of Commerce would welcome a\npresentation of green building ordinances. She believed the introduction of green building\npractices was easier to introduce than had it been when the library was being designed\nand built. She noted that with the increasing opening of the waterfront to the public, it\nwould be important to have increased awareness of green-friendly design and landscape\narchitecture. She believed it was good for the City, and that it should be implemented as\nsoon as possible. She requested that any photocopies be double-sided to minimize the\namount of paper consumed.\nActing President Cook agreed with the previous comments, and thanked Ms. Woodbury\nfor her work. She would like to see a waterfront design and access element, which\naddressed gateway treatments in Alameda. She believed it should be broader than the\nNorthern Waterfront, and should also include Alameda Point. She would like to revisit\nthe downtown visioning plan, and follow-up steps to include in the work program going\nforward, which she believed was an important step forward in Alameda's planning\nprocess.\nMember Cunningham noted that he sat on that task force, and when the outgoing City\nManager, Jim Flint, left, he disbanded that group.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft would like to see a drawing of what was happening with Long's\nMs. Woodbury noted that she had just provided that to City Council, and would be happy\nto provide it to the Planning Board as well.\nActing President Cook would like a better understanding of the Planning Board's role in\nAlameda Point. She noted that she was the Planning Board representative for some of the\nBase Reuse Advisory Group's meetings, and when it was disbanded, she understood that\noccurred because the work needed to be brought back into the purview of the Planning\nBoard. She was surprised that there was no presentation by the developers before the\nBoard, and wanted to understand the Planning Department's and Planning Board's roles\nin that project.\nMr. Thomas noted that the City Council, acting as the ARRA, was looking for\na\ndeveloper to replace APCP in order to step in where they stepped out. He described the\nprocess of the Conditional Acquisition Agreement, and that they chose not to proceed. If\nthey had chosen to proceed, they would have begun to fund the process. The new\ndevelopment team would begin the entitlement process for a Master Plan for Alameda\nPoint, and they would develop their own proposal for Alameda Point. He described the\ntwo-year entitlement process.\nActing President Cook noted that she did not want to see that process rushed, and that she\nwould like to ask the developers whether they would agree to the [PDC] or change it. She\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nMarch 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-12", "page": 11, "text": "believed it was given more weight than it otherwise would have been.\nMr. Thomas noted that in order to achieve all the goals in the Alameda Point General\nPlan would take some compromise. He added that everyone would not be able to get\neverything they wanted, and that tradeoffs were necessary.\nNo action was taken.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nMarch 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-12", "page": 12, "text": "8-C. Planning Board Rules and Procedures. Resolution amending the Planning\nBoard Rules and Procedures.\nMs. Mooney noted that the section on page 5 (Deliberations and Decisions) that\ndiscussed a Board member who abstains was outdated, and was at least 17 to 20 years\nold. She noted that the rules presently state that the Board member was not required to\nindicate a reason, and suggested removing that section altogether. She suggested\nsubstituting language similar to, \"Conflict of interest shall be according to State law.\"\nActing President Cook wished to revise the Conflict of Interest section, and did not want\nthe removal of an outdated section to be misconstrued. She would like it to read that the\npolicy would be governed by State law.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was uncomfortable voting for something that she\nhas not seen in writing.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that her intent in recommending that the Staff\nCommunications be moved forward was to allow time to hear a report from staff, but did\nnot have a preference where it was schedule in relation to Oral Communications. She\nbelieved the public felt more comfortable in having it come after Oral Communications.\nMember Cunningham believed it made more sense to keep it where it was scheduled.\nMember Mariani noted that City Council held their Oral Communications at the end of\ntheir calendar, which required members of the public to wait many hours to speak. She\npreferred to hold it at the beginning of the meeting.\nBoard member Kohlstrand moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-07 to\namend the Planning Board Rules and Procedures.\nBoard member Mariani seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n6\n(Lynch absent).\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nMarch 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-12", "page": 13, "text": "9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATION:\nActing President Cook noted that a letter had been received from Helen Sause regarding\nsome possible items for discussion for a Measure A forum. It reminded her that they had\ndiscussed forming a small committee for a Measure A forum; she would like to start that\nprocess soon.\nMs. Woodbury inquired whether the Board would like that item to be placed on the next\nagenda in order to appoint an ad hoc committee.\nBoard member Kohlstrand moved to place discussion of an ad hoc committee for a\nMeasure A forum on the next agenda.\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 6 (Lynch absent).\nMs. Woodbury noted that an agenda item would be placed, allowing the Board to appoint\nan ad hoc committee to work with staff on the Measure A forum/workshop.\nIn response to Member Kohlstrand's inquiry regarding the allowed number of members\nto be in compliance with the Brown Act, Mr. Thomas confirmed that there could be three\nmembers.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nMarch 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-12", "page": 14, "text": "10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee\n(Board Member Mariani).\nMr. Thomas noted that the next meeting would be held the following Thursday, March 15,\n2007. A status report would be received from ACTIA on the Broadway-Jackson Project\nStudy Report (PSR). Staff had invited the Chair of the Alameda Transportation\nCommission, John Knox-White, to attend the meeting, because the Transportation\nCommission had taken the lead for the City of Alameda in pressing for a second look at the\nCEQA thresholds for transportation impact analysis. He noted that the mitigations needed to\nbe examined more closely. They would be looking for consultant teams who could provide\ngood ideas and advice on the CEQA threshold issue. He noted that Chinatown was very\nexcited about that as well.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board\nMember Kohlstrand).\nMember Kohlstrand advised that there was nothing new to report.\nMr. Thomas noted that the subcommittee might not exist any more, and added that the\nNorthern Waterfront item had been removed from Board Communications. He noted that\nhe would check with Public Works and the Transportation Commission to find out\nwhether this item should be retained on the agenda.\nC.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force\n(Board Member Cunningham).\nMember Cunningham advised that a meeting had been held two weeks before, and that\nanother one would be held on March 21, 2007. He noted that their packets contained\na\nlost of goals and actions to identify the top priorities.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nMarch 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-12", "page": 15, "text": "11.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATION:\na.\nFuture Agendas and work program\nMr. Thomas distributed the list of 106 applications that were currently on file in the\nPlanning & Building Department to the Board members. He noted that many projects did\nnot come to the Planning Board. In terms of upcoming agendas, he noted that they\nintended to limit the agendas to only one major item, plus other less challenging items.\nOn March 26, the Northern Waterfront EIR and General Plan Amendment would be\nheard. A design review on Haight Avenue would also be heard.\nMr. Thomas noted that the workshop would be held on March 29, which was designed to\ngenerate a lot of good information and would focus on two alternatives to the PDC. One\nalternative would be relieved of the Measure A constraint, and one would not be relieved\nof the Measure A constraint but would address changing the plan to be more supportive\nof transportation.\nMr. Thomas noted that April 18 would be a special meeting held in lieu of the April 9\nmeeting cancelled due to vacation schedules. He noted that would conflict with the\n[ICLEI] Task Force meeting. The major item on that agenda was the EIR public hearing\non Harbor Bay Village VI General Plan Amendment, and that a decision would not be\nmade at that meeting. A very large turnout was expected at that meeting. The other three\nitems were expected to be fairly easy, and may be placed on Consent Calendar, with the\npossible exception of the Hawthorne Suites parking exception.\nMr. Thomas noted that the Safeway gas proposal would be held on April 23, 2007, and\nstaff anticipated being ready for the Alameda Landing Phase I development plan. Site\nplanning issues would be discussed, but architectural issues would not be discussed. The\nshopping center may be discussed.\nMr. Thomas noted that the May 29 meeting may contain the Transportation Element\nupdate, and that a joint meeting may be held with the Transportation Commission for that\nitem.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a Zoning Administrator would be hired. Ms.\nWoodbury noted that the role of Zoning Administrator was fulfilled by the Planning and\nBuilding Director, or someone designated by the Planning and Building Director.\nMember McNamara inquired about the status of Long's Ms. Woodbury noted that it was\na fa\u00e7ade renovation, and that an Art Deco theme to the exterior had been developed. She\nnoted that all the design review letters would be sent to the Planning Board members, and\nnoted that several parking spaces would be lost.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the street trees in front of the library. Ms.\nWoodbury believed there had been a delay in getting the planter boxes.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nMarch 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-03-12", "page": 16, "text": "12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n10:09 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThese minutes were approved at the Planning Board meeting of March 26, 2007. This\nmeeting was audio and videotaped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 16\nMarch 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-03-12.pdf"}