{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-07-09", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, July 9, 2007\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:07 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Mariani\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Lynch, Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy\nAshcraft, Kohlstrand, Mariani and McNamara.\nAlso present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney\nDonna Mooney, Supervising Planner Doug Garrison, Public Works Obeid Khan.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of June 25, 2007.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that page 7, paragraph 4, should be changed to read,\n\"Board member Cunningham noted that the activation of the Fifth Street and both sides of\nthe waterfront-had been executed very well. He noted that on the public parking side, the\nmain service corridor included trash receptacles and questioned the option to increase\ntotal GLA to include retail frontage onto the parking lot.\"\nBoard member Cunningham noted that page 7, paragraph 7, should be changed to read,\n\"Board 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.\"\nBoard member Cunningham noted that page 11, paragraph 5, read, \"Board member\nCunningham believed the wood trusses were a good idea, and suggested burying them\nhalfway into the ground to allow them to stand up.\" He noted that he had tried to\nreference the point that the Board should look at how they worked structurally, so they\ncould stand up without having to bury them halfway into the ground.\nVice President Cook noted that page 10, paragraph 2, should be changed to read, \"Vice\nPresident Cook would like the public right of way to include ise-the sidewalks.\n\"\nBoard member Kohlstrand noted that page 12, paragraph 4, read, \"A discussion of the\nsite circulation, paseos and the gateway entrance ensued.\" She believed that lengthy\ndiscussion addressed the establishment of public streets in this development, as opposed\nto just having driveways. She requested that the minutes reflect the discussion addressing\npublic versus private streets, as well as the tradeoffs between parking and establishing\npublic roads with sidewalks on both sides. She also believed that the Planning Board had\nspecifically asked for the developer to return with one to three options for the sidewalks.\nShe believed that one option was examining a full public street on the north-south\nroadway, and that another one was redoing it slightly and establishing sidewalks on both\nsides.\nPage 1 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-07-09", "page": 2, "text": "President Lynch noted that page 9, paragraph 1, read, \"President Lynch cautioned against\nusing terms such as high-end and low-end retail establishments, and cited the success of\nPanda Express, and the fact that Yan Can Cook restaurants are no longer open.\" He noted\nthat the point of his comment was not that Panda Express has been successful, but that\nsome individuals would refer to Panda Express as high-end, and that some individuals\nwould refer to Panda Express food as low-end. He emphasized that was why he\nrecommended caution regarding terms of \"high-end\" or \"low-end\" as it related to food\nestablishments.\nBoard member Cunningham moved approval of the minutes as amended.\nBoard member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.\nAbstain - 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\na. Future Agendas\nMr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nMr. Kirk Knight, 1316 Regent Street, Gallagher & Lindsey, noted that he was a Realtor,\nand noted that he had communicated with Ms. Woodbury and Mr. Thomas, as well as\nMr. Garrison and other Planning staff. He requested clarification whether the City wanted\nto attract and retain professional practices in Alameda, such as doctors, dentists, lawyers,\nCPAs and other licensed professionals. He expressed concern about a professional\nbuilding that was built seven years ago, which he and several other individuals would like\nto purchase. He noted that he would like to own only a portion of that building, in the\nform of condominium ownership. He noted that he was told this would require a Use\nPermit; he added that the building has been solely used for medical, dental and\nprofessional uses for 55 years, and that no aspect of the use would be changed. He noted\nthat there would be a costly four-month delay in order to find out whether he could\npurchase the building in that manner. He noted that his appraiser informed him the\nbuilding may be worth several hundred thousand dollars less by that time, and that he\nwould not know for months whether he would need additional parking or pay in lieu fees.\nHe did not believe this was an appropriate way to do business. He noted that the City's\ntransfer tax revenue was greater than property tax, and would like to convert classic\noffice buildings into office condos.\nPresident Lynch noted that further discussion of this issue could be agendized, and added\nthat the Board could not have the authority to render a decision as it related to an item\nunder Oral Communication.\nPage 2 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-07-09", "page": 3, "text": "Ms. Mooney advised that the Board may ask a brief question, direct staff to take further\naction, or request that an item be agendized for discussion.\nMr. Thomas noted that the building was in a residential zone (R-5), but the City had no\nrecord of any commercial Use Permits for the uses. Staff has advised the applicant that\nhe should submit for the Use Permit and the commercial condominium at the same time.\nBefore a commercial condominium may be approved in a residential zone, the Use Permit\nwould be the mechanism to ensure that a commercial use would be possible and\nacceptable.\nBoard member Cunningham recalled an earlier Use Permit application for a dentist office\nin a house, which was denied due to strong opposition from the neighbors.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the four-month time period referred to by\nMr. Knight. Mr. Thomas noted that there were internal actions that needed to be taken,\nas well as 20-day noticing requirements.\nPresident Lynch noted that when this kind of project is taken on, he encouraged the\nspeaker to be mindful of the various Building Codes. He wished the speaker success in\nthis project.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nNone.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A.\n2007-2008 Election of Planning Board Officers\nBoard member Kohlstrand moved to nominate Vice President Cook as President of the\nPlanning Board.\nBoard member Mariani nominated Board member Cunningham as Vice Chair of the\nPlanning Board.\nBoard member Cunningham thanked Board member Mariani for the nomination, and\nrespectfully declined.\nBoard member McNamara nominated Board member Kohlstrand as Vice Chair of the\nPlanning Board.\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motions, with the following voice vote - 7. The\nmotions passed.\n9-B.\nInitial Study IS05-0001; Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0001;\nMajor Design Review DR05-0010; Use Permits UP06-0003, UP06-0010, UP06-\nPage 3 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-07-09", "page": 4, "text": "012 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 25, 2007.)\nMr. Garrison presented the staff report and recommended approval of this item.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nDan Goldwin, project architect, noted that on June 23, 2007, the Board requested that the\nnumber of pumps be reduced. He noted that they accomplished their goal of keeping the\ndriveway openings to less than 70 feet, and that they were now 62 feet.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Mariani regarding peak hours, Mr. Thomas\nreplied that Condition 14 stated that they would be 7:00-9:00 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m. on\nweekdays. On weekends, peak hours would be 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. No fuel trucks\nwould be allowed to make deliveries between those hours.\nDorothy Reid spoke in opposition to this project, and noted that from the beginning of the\nproject, she believed this would be the worst possible location for this gas station. She\nnoted that it backed up into a very narrow roadway, and that traffic jams were already\noccurring with the center being 50% leased. She believed the gas station would be better\nlocated in the corner of the center. She inquired how much room for error there was in the\ntruck turning space, and noted that she was very concerned about the two second left\nturns. She inquired how the tanker truck could leave the center without if couldn't turn\ninto the gas station to get onto Otis Drive. She was also concerned about where the\nSafeway.com trucks would be parked. She expressed concern about Mitigation 6 on page\n8, which stated that the traffic light would be installed in 10 years. She realized that the\nstoplight was included in the CIP, and that the 10-year period would give the City some\nleeway, but she did not understand why a mitigation would take 10 years to install.\nShe requested clarification of Mitigation #7, which stated that the applicant will have Otis\nDrive go right in and out if a traffic signal is installed. She understood that a traffic signal\nmust be installed, and inquired when that would occur. She believed that the five-year\nmonitoring period in Mitigation #8 was too short a period of time, and believed the\nPage 4 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-07-09", "page": 5, "text": "impacts should be monitored for 10 years. She noted that Condition #13 allowed the\napplicant 30 days to notify that there biodiesel pump would not be installed, and believed\nthat should be a longer notice period. She noted that Condition 14 addressed gas station\npeak hours, not the shopping center peak hours. She believed there should be\nconsideration for the shopping center peak hours, and believed that the fuel delivery\nshould be made in the early morning hours to avoid peak hours. She was concerned about\nthe turning radius in Condition #19. She noted that Condition #25 reflected the\nrecommendation from the Police Department, and noted that the police did not state that\n24-hour operation would deter crime. She was concerned that it may attract crime, and\nwould like the 24-hour operation to be reconsidered.\nMs. Claire Risley, 2202 Grand Street, requested that the Planning Board not approve this\nproject until the ingress and egress to the Safeway fuel station could be designed in a\nmanner that does not violate the truck route ordinance. Alternatively, she requested that\nthe approval be condition in order to minimize deviation from established truck routes.\nShe noted that the entrance and exit were on a part of Otis that was not a truck route, and\ndisplayed a map of the truck routes. She believed the nearest and shortest deviation\nwould be from the intersection of Otis Drive and Park Street, and requested that any\napproval be conditioned to require trucks to follow that route.\nMr. Matt Francois, Cassidy, Shimko, Dawson and Kawakami, land use counsel for\nSafeway, noted that the truck routes had been thoroughly reviewed by the City's\nengineering staff and determined to meet the requirements of the City Code regulations.\nHe noted that City Code allowed for minor deviations where it may be impracticable to\nuse the truck routes. He noted that the Alameda Towne Centre had been the site of two\nformer gas stations, which likely use the same routes as proposed by Safeway. In order to\nminimize the potential for traffic, Condition 14 was imposed; as agreed to by Safeway, it\nwould limit deliveries to non-peak hours. He noted that Safeway was committed to\nproviding biodiesel fuel. The applicant requested the flexibility to determine whether or\nnot there was a demand for this product in the market. He did not believe there would be\na nexus to impose a condition limiting the time limit on that requirement, because no\nimpacts were indicated that would need to be mitigated through such a condition. He\nnoted that the queuing impacts had been thoroughly analyzed by an independent traffic\nconsultant retained by the City to review those impacts, and determine there would be no\nadverse impacts. They believed the monitoring conditions were adequate, and did not\nbelieve that 10 years would be reasonable.\nThe public hearing was closed.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara regarding the truck routes, Mr.\nThomas noted that the truck route map showed the designated truck routes. He noted that,\ntrucks clearly needed to leave truck routes, and cited moving trucks as an example. He\nnoted that trucks making deliveries to each retailer needed to leave the truck route.\nBoard member McNamara requested further clarification regarding truck turning radii.\nPage 5 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-07-09", "page": 6, "text": "In response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand about the hours and access points\nfor the trucks, Obeid Khan, Public Works, replied that Condition 19 required that the\nfinal design should incorporate adequate turning radii.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Mariani regarding the peak hours, and the\nperiod of time between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. She noted that Lum School, Wood School and\nAlameda High School were very close to this center; she was very concerned about the\nsafety of children being transported after school. She did not believe that any tanker truck\nshould be allowed in that area between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. She added that the senior homes\nand convalescent hospital were also in close proximity to the center.\nBoard member Cunningham inquired about the number of deliveries per day. Mr.\nGarrison replied that the applicant had stated it would be approximately once per day.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand whether one delivery a day would\npose a hardship to Safeway, Mr. Golwin replied that it would be an inconvenience to\nthem, and that it would take more planning to get the fuel to the site. He noted that\nbecause Alameda was an island, any delay in allowing the delivery to be made may result\nin the gas station running out of fuel. He noted that a fuel truck must deliver an entire\nload, and that if the station has not sold enough gas to accommodate a full fuel load, that\nentire delivery will have been lost. He was concerned about the impact to consumers if\nthe gas station were to run out of gas. He noted that there were no better trained drivers\nthan fuel tanker drivers, and noted that the current hour restrictions were probably\nappropriate. He suggested that some flexibility would allow the tankers to make\ndeliveries while accommodating events such as a parade.\nPresident Lynch was reluctant to impose an all-day restriction on fuel delivery.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand about the increase in size of the\nkiosk, Mr. Golwin noted that there was originally a front entrance to the kiosk, allowing\ngoods to be stacked on either side. He noted that the new design allowed customers to\nenter from the side from the pump islands. He noted that the 650 square-foot kiosk has\nbeen reduced to 604 square feet.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the Board recently heard a proposal the Alameda\nLanding development, which included various green elements. She added that Clif Bar\nwould transport its baked goods from Southern California on trucks fueled by biodiesel.\nShe noted that Safeway's use of B-10 could be run in current diesel engines. She\nsuggested that Condition 13 be removed altogether, and inquired why Safeway would\nwant to be associated with biodiesel if it wanted the exit clause within 30 days. She noted\nthat while there had been news articles about the viability of green fuels in the Pacific\nNorthwest, she believed that the Bay Area and California in general were equally\nenvironmentally conscious. She noted that Safeway was a California-based corporation,\nand that protection of the environment was an important issue to her.\nPage 6 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-07-09", "page": 7, "text": "Vice President Cook wished to address Mitigation Measure 8, which addressed accidents\nand queues. She was concerned about the area around Wells Fargo, and did not feel\ncomfortable making Findings 4 and 10, which addressed whether the project would have\nnegative impacts on the adjacent uses.\nBoard member Mariani noted that she agreed with Vice President Cook's comments. Her\nobjections deal with the non-peak hours, which include times when children are just\ngetting out of school, walking around, or riding bikes; parents were driving children to\nTowne Centre for after-school activities during those times. She stated that the gas\nstation was in close proximity to the hospital and many convalescent homes with patients\nwalking around the area. She felt this was a major safety concern.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that he did not want to see the uses in Alameda\nintensified so much that traffic would come to a stop; however, he was willing to accept\nthe fact that there would be some impacts as the Island developed in certain ways. He\nnoted that he was careful to assess when the impacts would become too severe and\nunacceptable. He noted that the City and applicants had come a long way in mitigating\nthe potential impacts of this development on the area. He noted that a drive-through\nrestaurant would like to create more traffic through the area than this use. He believed it\nwould be unrealistic to prohibit gas tankers from driving through the Island.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that Conditions 22 and 23 relating to stormwater\nrunoff, recommended runoff into a swale \"if possible.\" He inquired whether the Planning\nBoard could determine at this time whether it was possible rather than leaving the item\nopen. He would like to tighten the wording up to state that surface drainage would go into\nthe grassy swale. He would like to filter the contaminants and hydrocarbons from the gas\nstation.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Lynch, Mr. Khan confirmed that these Regional\nWater Quality Act regulates storm water run off operations.\nVice President Cook wished to commend the applicant on their responsiveness to the\nBoard's comments, and believed this was a very nice-looking gas station. She noted that\nher site concerns precluded her from voting for this resolution, but she appreciated the\namount of work the Board has done on this item, and how well the applicant has\nresponded.\nBoard member Kohlstrand agreed with Board member Cunningham's comments, and\nthanked the applicant the revisions to the project, as well as their patience while the\nhearing was rescheduled. She believed that Mitigation 7 should be amended to read, \"The\napplicant shall limit the Otis Drive driveway to right-in, right-turn-out when the traffic\nsignal is installed.\"\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the staff report stated that \"Condition 13 was\nincluded in the Draft Resolution to reflect the applicant's commitment to install and\nadvertise a biodiesel product.\" She inquired whether biodiesel would be sold, and noted\nthat the language in Condition 13 did not reflect much of a commitment to install,\nPage 7 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-07-09", "page": 8, "text": "advertise or sell biodiesel. She would like further information from Safeway; otherwise,\nthis did not seem to be much of a condition at all to her.\nPresident Lynch noted that he was hesitant to mandate a particular item for sale, as the\ncommunity evolved, especially with respect to alternative fuels. He believed that\nSafeway would sell as much biodiesel as the market is willing to bear. He hoped that a lot\nof biodiesel would be sold.\nMr. Thomas advised that the April 23 resolution had no mention of biodiesel, and that it\nwas initiated by the Board. Safeway had agreed to include it, and it was discussed by\nSafeway Gas. Staff initiated the conversation to define and gauge Safeway's commitment\nto biodiesel.\nBoard member Mariani said that she would like to modify the delivery hours to reflect\nher safety concerns.\nBoard member Kohlstrand noted that this was a big shopping center that would have\nother truck traffic, and would be more comfortable leaving the restrictions as proposed by\nstaff.\nBoard member Ashcraft believed that Condition 13 should be retained as a reminder that\nSafeway as a California corporation has a commitment to the Bay Area environment.\nBoard member Kohlstrand moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 07- to adopt\na Planned Development Amendment, Major Design Review and Use Permits allowing the\ndemolition of an existing bank building and redevelopment of the property with a gas\nstation. The project includes three covered pump islands, each containing three pumps, for a\ntotal of twelve pumping stations. Fuel will be stored in three 20,000 gallon underground\nstorage tanks. In addition to the approximately 7,500 square-foot canopy covering the\ngasoline pumping facilities, the project includes an approximately 625 square-foot building,\nhousing the cashier's desk, restrooms and retail sales of convenience items. The applicant is\nproposing twenty-four hour operations. An Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration\nhas been prepared for this project. Mitigation measures have been identified that will reduce\npotentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. The following modifications\nwill be added:\n1. Condition 7 regarding the traffic light will be changed to replace the words \"if\npossible\" with the word \"when possible\"; and\n2. Condition 22 and 23 will be modified to delete \"where possible\" regarding\nswale drainage.\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. No:\n2 (Cook, Mariani). The motion passed.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nBoard member McNamara noted that she had submitted an email to staff, expressing her\nconcern and frustration, in that the Bridgeside Center had been frequently referenced in\nPage 8 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-07-09", "page": 9, "text": "negative terms as it relates to current items under review with the Alameda Landing\nproject.\nBoard member Mariani thanks Board member McNamara for writing this email, which\nreflected her own concerns about the Bridgeside Center.\nPresident Lynch believed this was a compliance issue, and would like staff to respond to\nthese concerns. He suggested that the staff response be agendized.\nVice President Cook would like the staff report to include the final approval for the\nBoard's review and reference. She noted that the Planning Board was very painstaking in\nthe details of this approval. She would like to have a site tour, and believed it was\nimportant to have the facts in order when further addressing the issue.\nBoard member Cunningham would like to know if the developer had a reason for the\nempty spaces in the center.\nBoard member Ashcraft noted that she had visited the gaming store and met the owner,\nand that it was very attractive inside. She recommended that when discussing how the\nBridgeside Center could be made nicer, the Board should emphasize that it is not\ncriticizing the hard-working individual business owners.\nPresident Lynch believed that it was important for the Board to recognize the public\nprocess, and it was difficult to keep the larger issues in sight while focusing on the\nindividual issues. He believed it was important to take a step back and lay out the guiding\nprincipals of what the Board would like to see. He would be open to setting up a\nsubcommittee to allow people to work on this issue. He believed the applicant should\npresent the plan to the Board, and allot the appropriate time to examine the issues without\nbeing rushed.\nBoard member McNamara understood that the Board's role did not cover which retailers\nwent into a center.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that he was part of the subcommittee formed for the\nBridgeside issues.\nVice President Cook inquired how the Board would be capable of designing the space to\nachieve a planning goal, when it would not be allowed to dictate use. She noted that the\nBoard worked very hard to design the space to have two front doors, with the notion of\nplacing the Starbucks there. She noted there was some movement in land use planning to\nbe more specific with respect to the type of use and size. She would like further\nclarification on the Board's ability in that regard. She noted that the development\nagreement had a list of nonpermissible uses.\nMr. Thomas noted that was an issue staff could explore with future developments. He\nnoted that the City could zone a site MX, which would require a Master Plan, such as\nPage 9 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-07-09", "page": 10, "text": "Grand Marina or Catellus. He noted the Master Plan could allow more specificity with\nrespect to uses.\nBoard member Mariani noted that she enjoyed shopping at Nob Hill Foods, and that\nBridgeside was a good center, but she was very concerned about the size and location of\nthe transformers.\nVice President Cook would like to initiate a conversation between the Planning Board\nand the Alameda Bureau of Electricity with respect to the size of transformers and\nutilities placed in visible aesthetic locations.\nPresident Lynch believed the City needed to consider structural changes to the process,\nand that the City may want to consider a committee to be empowered to do something\noutside a Board's normal scope of work. He believed that would be a large undertaking\nthat would take make years. He did not believe that all authority could be vested with one\nbody.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Dakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember Mariani).\nMr. Thomas noted that the meeting scheduled for the previous week had been cancelled.\nIt has been rescheduled for August.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member\nKohlstrand).\nBoard member Kohlstrand noted that a meeting had been held on June 26. The\nsubcommittee reviewed the work scope for the Pedestrian Task Force, and they intended\nto take the policies related to pedestrians from the Transportation Element to develop an\nimplementation plan that could be passed on to the Capital Improvements Program.\nVice President Cook noted that there was still time to submit the Pedestrian/Bicycle\nsurvey on the City's website.\nPresident Lynch noted that he had recently attended a workshop with respect to bus\nshelters, and believed that Alameda could take the lead in that regard.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board\nMember Cunningham).\nBoard member Cunningham noted that they would meet on July 10, 2007, at 6:15 p.m. in\nRoom 360. They would examine transportation and land use elements of the General\nPlan. They intended to categorize and prioritize items within those two categories. The\nnext meeting would be July 18, 2007, to discuss the energy, waste and outreach items.\nPage 10 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-07-09", "page": 11, "text": "Vice President Cook wished to thank President Lynch for his tenure as Planning Board\npresident, and particularly liked his welcoming demeanor and effort to educate the public\nduring the public.\nPresident Lynch believed that Alameda was a very special place in a positive way, and\nthat it was his desire to elevate the Planning Board from the mundane.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n9:27 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThese minutes were approved at the July 25, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This\nmeeting was audio and video taped.\nPage 11 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf"}