{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-06-25", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, June 25, 2007\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:09 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Lynch, Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy\nAshcraft, Kohlstrand, and McNamara.\nBoard member Mariani was absent from roll call.\nAlso present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney\nDonna Mooney, Supervising Planner Doug Garrison.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the Special meeting of May 29, 2007.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that page 16, Resolution No. 2 should read, \"The\naddition of one more tree is required.\" Mr. Thomas noted that was being appealed.\nVice President Cook noted that paragraph 6, page 7, read, \"Acting President Cook\nsuggested using interpretive signage to help people make their way into the site.\" She\nsuggested interpretive signage to help people understand the history of the site, and what\nwas previously at the site.\nBoard member Cunningham moved approval of the minutes as amended.\nVice President Cook seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Abstain - 1\n(Lynch). Absent: 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.\nb.\nMinutes for the meeting of June 11, 2007.\nMs. Mooney wished to clarify that on page 5, she was suggesting that the Board had a\nnumber of wording options, including adding the phrase \"take equivalent measures.\"\nBoard member Cunningham moved approval of the minutes as amended.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote -\n5.\nAbstain - 1 (McNamara). Absent: 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.\nBoard member Cunningham inquired whether minutes for the Joint City Council/Planning\nBoard meeting would be available. Mr. Thomas noted that there should be minutes, and\nthat he would follow up on that request.\nPage 1 of 13", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-06-25", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nFuture Agendas\nb. Zoning Administrator Report\nMr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items and the Zoning Administrator\nactions.\nBoard member Kohlstrand noted that the Measure A subcommittee recommendation to\nthe Planning Board may come back to the Planning Board on July 23, 2007, if a decision\nwas reached on July 13, 2007.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nMs. Debra Banks, 2137 Otis Drive, noted that she was very concerned about the tipping\npoint regarding the MND Submission for Safeway Gas Station and Convenience Store.\nShe read her written statement into the record:\n\"We have reached the tipping point for what is needed and what is right\nfor Alameda. The tipping point is that do we sacrifice our fragile\nenvironment and critical care facilities for a few more dollars to operate\nthis town.\n\"I believe that something is not right in the CEQA guideline compliance,\nand have great concerns about the ramifications of the traffic congestion\nalong with the potential hazards impacting the quality of our air, soils and\nwaters. On April 23, 2007, the Planning staff submitted to the Planning\nBoard a list of potentially significant impacts of this project on the air, soil\nand water with mitigations.\n\"Air Quality: construction-related dust has a potentially significant quality\nimpact. The BAAMQD CEQA Guidelines consider potentially significant\nconstruction-related dust impacts to be adequately mitigated with the\nimplementation of recommended control measures.\n\"Geology and Soils: construction-related erosion has a potentially\nsignificant impact on water quality the applicant is to submit an erosion\nand sediment control plan to the City prior to the issuance of the Building\nPermits and the implementation of best management practices during the\nconstruction phase.\nPage 2 of 13", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-06-25", "page": 3, "text": "\"Hydrology and Water Quality: contaminated storm water runoffs can\nhave a potentially significant impact due to the potential for petroleum\nproduct spills and other debris. The applicant is to prepare and implement\na Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.\n\"Fact: To date there has been no formal study of air quality regarding\nasbestos, carbon monoxide and gas emissions along the Otis Drive\ncorridor, as well as soil erosion with stormwater runoffs impacting water\nquality, particularly that of the lagoon opposite of the proposed fuel\nstation. (The lagoon opposite of the Towne Center is already 400% over\nthe upper limit for expected fecal coliform.)\n\"Fact: There was critical facilities (two respite care homes and a hospital)\nthat will be affected by environmental conditions involving air and water\nquality.\n\"Fact: Alameda is approaching the tipping point of endangering its natural\nand healthy environment at its south shore for trying to recoup revenue\nleakages.\n\"Is this best planning practice for a town in such a fragile environment?'\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8-A. Use Permit UP07-0010; Minor Design Review MDR 07-0058; Parking In-lieu\nFees - Applicant: Gary Parker - 2437 Lincoln (ZS). The applicant is\nrequesting a Use Permit and Design Review approval to establish a dental office\nand laboratory on the ground floor of an existing building; reconfigure the parking\nlot to increase the number of parking spaces from seven to thirteen; and pay\nparking in-lieu fees for five parking spaces. The property is located within a C-C-\nT (Community Commercial Theater Combining) zoning district.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-23 to\napprove a Use Permit and Design Review approval to establish a dental office and\nlaboratory on the ground floor of an existing building; reconfigure the parking lot to\nincrease the number of parking spaces from seven to thirteen; and pay parking in-lieu\nfees for five parking spaces.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6\nAbsent: 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.\nPage 3 of 13", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-06-25", "page": 4, "text": "8-B.\nUP07-0004 - Jason Chan - 1707 Lincoln Ave (SW). The applicant requests\napproval of a Use Permit to modify an existing retail space into a new restaurant\nwith a take-out counter and a total of 40 seats. The property is located within a C-\n1 Neighborhood Business Zoning District.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-24 to\napprove a Use Permit to modify an existing retail space into a new restaurant with a take-\nout counter and a total of 24 seats.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6\nAbsent: 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A.\nInitial Study IS05-0001; Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0001;\nMajor Design Review DR05-0010; Use Permits UP06-0003, UP06-0010, UP06-\n012 and UP06-0013; - Applicant: Safeway, Inc. 2234 Otis Drive (adjacent\nAlameda Towne Centre) (DG). The applicant requests approval of Planned\nDevelopment Amendment, Major Design Review and Use Permits allowing the\ndemolition of an existing bank building and redevelopment of the property with a\ngas station. The project includes three covered pump islands, each containing three\npumps, for a total of eighteen pumping stations. Fuel will be stored in three 20,0000\ngallon underground storage tanks. In addition to the approximately 7,500 square-foot\ncanopy covering the gasoline pumping facilities, the project includes an\napproximately 625 square-foot building, housing the cashier's desk, restrooms and\nretail sales of convenience items. The applicant is proposing twenty-four hour\noperations and the sale of beer and wine. An Initial Study / Mitigated Negative\nDeclaration has been prepared for this project. Mitigation measures have been\nidentified that will reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant\nlevel. The site is located within a, Central Business District with Planned\nDevelopment overlay Zoning District (C-2-PD). (Continued from the meeting of\nJune 11, 2007.)\nPresident Lynch noted that staff had prepared a set of documents for the Planning Board,\nand members of the public had wanted to look at those plans the previous week; for a\nvariety of reasons, they were unable to do SO.\nMr. Thomas advised that the Planning Board packet contained the staff report, the April\n23 staff report, the reduced April 23 plans, and the large set of plans. The website had all\nof those documents with the exception of the large plans. The public binders contained all\nof the plan sets.\nPresident Lynch invited Board comment with respect to considering this item at this time,\nwhen all members of the public did not have the opportunity to see all of the documents\nPage 4 of 13", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-06-25", "page": 5, "text": "seen by the Planning Board. He noted that the item could be continued to the next\nPlanning Board meeting since all of the documents were available.\nBoard member Kohlstrand suggested that it may be a benefit if the applicant made a\npresentation to enable the Board to choose whether or not to continue the item.\nBoard member McNamara supported continuing the item until the next meeting, out of\nrespect for full opportunity for the public to review the documents. She noted the\napplicant presentation would need to be made again at that point.\nBoard member Cunningham concurred with Board member McNamara's assessment.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft, Mr. Thomas confirmed that\nthis item was appropriately noticed, and that there was no issue about the availability of\nthe material for the public. He understood that Clare Risley had been handed the public\nbinder, and that there was a miscommunication at that point, resulting in her leaving with\nthe staff report, the old plans, but without a copy of the new plans. He noted that the new,\nlarger plans should have been posted on the website. Staff believed that the Board may\nmove forward if so desired this evening, or continue the item to the next meeting.\nBoard member Kohlstrand moved to continue this item to the meeting of July 9, 2007.\nBoard member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - Aye: 5\nAbstain: 1 (Ezzy Ashcraft). Absent: 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.\n9-B.\nDP07-0003 - Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project - Applicant:\nCatellus Development Group, a ProLogis Company (AT/DV). The applicant\nrequests Development Plan and Design Review approval for Phase 1A and 2A\nretail buildings, off-street parking, landscaping, and associated improvements\nsouth of Mitchell Mosely Extension and east of Fifth Street. The site is located\nalong the western end of the former FISC Site (Tract 7884) within the M-X\nMixed Use Planned Development Zoning District.\nMr. Thomas summarized the staff report.\nMr. David Tiernan, Senior Vice President, Catellus, Development Group, applicant,\nintroduced the LPA architectural team and described the firm's experience. He believed the\nplan was consistent with the approved Master Plan in terms of its layout and building\nplacement. He noted that it was a pedestrian- and bike-friendly layout that discouraged the\nuse of the automobile inside the development.\nMr. Rick Damato, Principal design architect, displayed and described the specifics of the\nplan. He emphasized that the project was designed to respect the environment and Alameda,\nand that it could begin to teach the community about smart and sustainable design.\nPage 5 of 13", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-06-25", "page": 6, "text": "safe place.\nPage 6 of 13", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-06-25", "page": 7, "text": "Board member Cunningham noted that the light towers were an interesting concept that\ncould be a signature element. He wanted to ensure that all of the site was sufficiently\nlighted, and would like further photometric information.\nMr. Tiernan noted the light towers covered the site, with the exception of the two side\nparking lots where they would introduce supplemental parking lot light standards. He noted\nthat they provided better lighting coverage than the pools of light typically produced by\nparking lot lighting. He noted that the standard parking lot lighting would be provided at the\nedges.\nMr. Sullivan noted that the landscape island adjacent to the ride share program would\ninclude the public waiting space.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that the activation of Fifth Street had been executed very\nwell. He noted that on the public parking side, the main service corridor included trash\nreceptacles and questioned the option to increase total GLA to include retail frontage onto\nthe parking lot. Mr. Thomas replied that the Master Plan limited the amount of retail at\nAlameda Landing as a whole to 300,000 square feet; the idea of limiting the amount of retail\nat Alameda Landing was because they wanted to minimize the competition with Webster\nStreet and to maintain some retail capacity at Alameda Point. After many retail studies, the\nCity came to 300,000 square feet as the right amount of retail for Alameda Landing.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Lynch regarding the consistency of the amount of\nleeway allowed versus what had been approved at Alameda Landing, Mr. Thomas replied\nthat in terms of the changes of the footprint of the buildings, the design substantially\nconformed with what the Planning Board had approved. Staff added a condition of approval\nstating that if the footprint varied by more than 20% in terms of the size of the building, it\nwould be brought back to the Board.\nPresident Lynch noted that he would be open to incorporating the suggestion, and did not\nthink it would substantially damage the retail at Alameda Point or Webster Street if this\ndesign element were to be picked up.\nBoard member Cunningham reflected on past experience of the Bridgeside Center, and\ndid not believe that the goals of the Bridgeside Center were able to be achieved in terms\nof the tenant spaces. He noted that the pizza restaurant painted their windows white, and the\npet shop had placed posters over the windows. He did not believe it had worked out at all as\nenvisioned by the Planning Board, and hoped the Board could learn from trying to be too\nstringent in trying to strive for a goal with respect to tenant leasing.\nBoard member McNamara noted that the Planning Board had pushed for a high-end\nshopping center, which was not the objective of the Bridgeside developers. She wanted to\nensure that a solid foundation of office, retail and residential uses would be established in\norder to support the high-end uses envisioned at the waterfront plaza.\nPage 7 of 13", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-06-25", "page": 8, "text": "Mr. Sulivan noted that they had developed millions of square feet of retail, and they learned\nthat smaller retail tenants tend to feed off each other.. He noted that there were no paseos or\npedestrian paths focused on the back of the retail blocks. He noted that the paseos would be\nvery activated, with entries and dining on them, which would naturally drawn people to\nthose spaces. He described the circulation patterns as they envisioned them, and noted that it\nwould much like a typical downtown.\nBoard member Kohlstrand mentioned Tucker's on Park Street, which also had a courtyard\nwhich served as a secondary entrance; she would like that to be an example of the retail use.\nVice President Cook noted that Fourth Street was also a good example, as it had many\nsmaller parking lots in back of the buildings.\nBoard member Cunningham believed the Planning Board should ensure that the plan\nsupported a strong landscape plan. He would like the detailed planting plan to define how\nthe area would be activated.\nVice President Cook wanted to ensure there would be understoried foliage, and she wanted\nto ensure there would be sufficient landscaping.\nMr. Sullivan noted that it would be incorporated into the site plans; for every fourth palm,\nthere would be a canopy tree along Fifth Street, as well as in all of the pedestrian plazas and\nparking lot trees.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft wanted to ensure that the college students who may work at\nthe restaurants and the shops were able to get there from the college. She noted that she was\nconcerned with the retail tenanting, as cited on page 3 of the staff report: \"The retail centers\nprovides an important market foundation for the future development of the second phase of\nretail referred to in the Master Plan as the waterfront plaza retail to attract the quality\nrestaurants and specialty retail uses that would make the waterfront plaza a truly unique\nAlameda location. Alameda Landing needs to first establish a solid foundation of office,\nretail and residential uses that can support the future \"high end\" uses envisioned at the\nwaterfront plaza.\" She believed there was a distinction between high-end and other retail\nuses in the staff report, and inquired about other high-end retail establishments that may be\nsupported by lower-end establishments. She cited Santana Row in San Jose and Fourth\nStreet in Berkeley were two other retail areas.\nMr. Tiernan noted that their strategy was to create a critical mass of retail as a first phase,\nand would not characterize it as high-end or low-end. He believed there would be a broad\nspectrum of retail uses, either local, regional or national. He believed it would increase the\nvalue of the retail frontage on the site, and that when the successful flagship tenant (Clif\nBar) was established, it would be easier to bring in quality establishments to the site.\nPage 8 of 13", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-06-25", "page": 9, "text": "President Lynch cautioned against using terms such as high-end and low-end retail\nestablishments, and cited the success of Panda Express, and the fact that Yan Can Cook\nrestaurants are no longer open. He clarified that some individuals would refer to Panda\nExpress as high-end, and that some individuals would refer to Panda Express food as\nlow-end.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding other examples of this\nkind of retail mix, Mr. Sullivan noted that the hybrid center was a new concept. Typically,\nthe large format will bring the entertainment to the center of the development, and building\nout. In this case, Fifth Street would be the entertainment district with the larger format\nbehind it. He cited the Irvine Spectrum Center, as well as downtown Walnut Creek and\nPleasant Hill.\nPresident Lynch believed it was important to be flexible, and that it was a slippery slope\nwhen referring to \"high-end\" or \"low-end.\" Mr. Thomas noted that the phrase \"high end\"\nwas in the staff report and inappropriate. He noted that City Council required a retail leasing\nstrategy before moving forward, which was the plan brought to the EDC for their review\nand approval. They also had to meet regularly with the Executive Director of the\nCommunity Improvement Commission to ensure that when they move through with their\nleasing, they would be in compliance with that plan and the City's goals.\nVice President Cook expressed concern that there were no midblock crossings to the\nCollege of Alameda, and to the future residential area along the north side, on Mitchell.\nMr. Sulivan noted that there were pedestrian crossings in six locations along Fifth Street. He\nnoted that there were three opportunities for pedestrian crossings along Mitchell.\nVice President Cook believed that the east-west entry along the south side of Building A\nshould remain a street, which should feel like something besides a service entry.\nVice President Cook believed that Building D seemed to be significantly longer than the\nother buildings, and inquired why it was designed that way.\nMr. Sulivan noted that they were considering splitting that building, depending on the\nleasing situation; he noted that square footages would be increased in other areas to\naccommodate that change.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the north-south road option, Mr.\nThomas replied that they were in good shape regarding the road between Buildings G and F,\nthe sidewalks on both sides of E and D. He believed that the applicants were willing to add a\nsidewalk on the southern side of that third east-west road between C and D. Regarding the\nnorth-south road in front of Building A, he suggested that the Board ask the team to make\nthe statement regarding the Board's concerns about the design.\nBoard member Cunningham suggested that the pedestrian pathway on the side of Building\nA be given more width to make it a inviting space.\nPage 9 of 13", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-06-25", "page": 10, "text": "Board member Cunningham wanted to ensure the highest and best use was being addressed,\nand that the potential 50 feet of asphalt would not interfere with that.\nVice President Cook would like the public right of way to include the sidewalks, and\nbelieved it would be good to connect the waterfront residential uses with the College of\nAlameda at some point in the future.\nBoard member Kohlstrand resisted the notion of creating more pavement, and noted that\nwas it already paved; she was arguing for a different use of the paved space.\nMr. Thomas suggested that the Board may continue this item with the request that the\napplicant present three alternative ways to deal with the north-south sidewalk.\nPresident Lynch suggested that the Board members' thoughts be taken and incorporated in\norder to make a determination.\nMr. Thomas reviewed the conditions of approval to be included. An appropriate place for\nthe pick-up and drop-off being covered and lighted next to the ride share area should be\nadded. The rear sidewalk behind Buildings C and D may have an minimum of five feet of\nunobstructed space in all places. The landscape plan shall come to the Planning Board for\nfinal review and approval. A condition already existed to address the transformers, and that\nthe \"big green boxes\" and utilities be placed behind the buildings, not in front on Fifth\nStreet. The sidewalk on the south side of Building A should be straightened out for\npedestrian use, and a sidewalk would be added on the south side of the road, from Mariners\nSquare to Fifth Street. The north-south sidewalk would be included down the length of the\nproject.\nBoard member Kohlstrand expressed concern about Condition 7 of the new Draft\nResolution and would like to have a representative from Department of Public Works to\nrespond to the concerns.\nMr. Thomas noted that the Department of Public Works was concerned about a potential\nscenario where they may determine at a future date that the situation was dangerous, which\nwas the reason for the condition as it existed. He noted that any decision to modify this\nproject in the future would have to come back to the Planning Board for review and\napproval. He suggested following Vice President Cook's suggestion to approve the site plan\nwith the exception of the north-south roadway and the sidewalks, which could be addressed\nat a future date with Public Works.\nMr. Tiernan noted that they would return with specific plans for Building A, which was\n80% of the frontage on the street. Those specific plans could be coupled with various\noptions explored for how to handle the north-south street, and could take place later in the\nsummer.\nPage 10 of 13", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-06-25", "page": 11, "text": "Vice President Cook moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 07- to approve\nthe development plan with the condition outlined by staff and the condition that:\nBuildings A through H must return for design review;\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.\nAbsent: 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.\nBoard member Cunningham believed the building heights should be defined, and some\nsection profiles should be presented. He expressed concern about the buildings with the\nbillboards on the roof, and would like the design elements to be further articulated and\nplaced on the blank walls on the lower levels, where the pedestrians may see them. He\nwould like to understand more about the significance of the tilt-up elevations from a\nmaterial point of view, and would like to see a material boards to see relief to the expanse\nof concrete.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham regarding the recycling of\nformed concrete, Mr. Sulivan replied that they may cut the concrete into four-foot-wide\nsections, and bury 2.5 feet of it for 18-inch seat walls. They may also create bases to\nwood benches, as well as wheel stops.\nBoard member Cunningham believed the wood trusses were a good idea, and suggested\nburying them halfway into the ground to allow them to stand up.\" He noted that he had\ntried to reference the point that the Board should look at how they worked structurally, so\nthey could stand up without having to bury them halfway into the ground.\nVice President Cook expressed concern about the color boards, and perceived them as\nhaving a very cool palette. She noted that the paseos shown in the slides had brick and a\nmore warm, California theme. She would like to see a warmer, more vibrant color\nscheme.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the modern signage, Mr.\nSulivan replied that employed techniques to highlight the more nostalgic treatments. He\nnoted that they did not reflect the actual content.\nVice President Cook expressed concern that the water towers looked like a power plant to\nher, and that the fa\u00e7ade and the water towers seemed somewhat uncomfortable and\nominous.\nBoard member McNamara agreed with Vice President Cook's comments about the water\ntowers, and noted that it reminded her of a nuclear reactor.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft recalled that there had been a water tower at the Base. She\nnoted that in agricultural areas, water towers were prominent features.\nPage 11 of 13", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-06-25", "page": 12, "text": "President Lynch noted that he liked the water tower as well, and noted that while the\ncolors could be warmed up, this was an industrial reuse.\nBoard member McNamara liked the proposal, which showed more detail and dimension,\nand would support staff's recommendation to continue to work on the design of\nBuildings A and B.\nBoard member Kohlstrand complimented the applicants on the amount of research they\nhad done, and noted that they made a real effort to be responsive to the community. She\nbelieved the acknowledgement of Alameda's history and future was very positive. She\nagreed with Vice President Cook's comments about the color scheme, and would like to\nsee it warmed up.\nBoard member Kohlstrand liked the gateway treatment at Stargell and Fifth Street.\nA discussion of the site circulation, paseos and the gateway entrance ensued. The\ndiscussion addressed the establishment of public streets in this development, as opposed\nto just having driveways as well as public versus private streets and the tradeoffs between\nparking and establishing public roads with sidewalks on both sides. The Planning Board\nasked for the developer to return with one to three options for the sidewalks including an\noption examining a full public street on the north-south roadway, and another redoing it\nslightly and establishing sidewalks on both sides.\nThe Board members generally liked the maritime sense and whimsical feel of the\nlighthouse element.\nPresident Lynch noted that in summary, a discussion was held about the preliminary\nconcepts, with a strong affirmation in some parts, and strong suggestions to do something\ndifferent in other parts. He suggested that the Board entertain a motion to incorporate the\nconcepts shared during the meeting, and bring back to the Board a design concept that\nincorporates those ideas as much as possible. He suggested that the Planning Board check\nto ensure their incorporation.\nMr. Thomas noted that the original condition of approval would be amended to require\nthat all eight buildings come back to the Board for Design Review approval.\nNo further action was taken.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nAlameda Towne Center (South Shore) Sidewalk Quarterly Report\nMr. Thomas noted that the applicant submitted letters of preliminary agreement to the\nPlanning and Building Department. The FEIR is not anticipated to be available until\nAugust.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nPage 12 of 13", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-06-25", "page": 13, "text": "a.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember Mariani).\nBoard member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member\nKohlstrand).\nBoard member Kohlstrand advised that the next meeting of the Pedestrian Task Force\nwould be held June 26, 2007, from 6:00 - 7:30 p.m.\nc..\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board\nMember Cunningham).\nBoard member Cunningham noted that a meeting would be held on Wednesday, June 27,\n2007, at the library for two hours.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n11:02 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThese minutes were approved at the July 9, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This meeting\nwas audio and video taped.\nPage 13 of 13", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf"}