{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2007-09-24", "page": 1, "text": "UNAPPROVED\nCOMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nSeptember 24, 2007\nTIME\nThe meeting was convened at 6:30 p.m.\nPRESENT Chair Lord-Hausman, Vice-Chair Moore and Commissioners Berger, Fort, Kirola,\nLongley-Cook, Hakanson, Robinson and Kreitz.\nABSENT\nNone\nMINUTES\nThe minutes of the August 27, 2007, meeting were approved with the following correction: New\nBusiness, Item #1, Brown Act Training, 3rd bullet- change \"In order to participate, people must\nreceive adequate' to \"In order to participate, people must receive adequate notice'.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nA local citizen sent a letter to the Commission in appreciation for the temporary disabled parking\nspaces provided at the Thursday afternoon farmer's market. They requested that temporary disabled\nparking spaces be provided at other events, as well. Commissioners requested that the October\nagenda include discussion and action on the provision of temporary disabled parking spaces at all\ncommunity events.\nNEW BUSINESS\n1. Paratransit Program:\nTransportation Coordinator Barry Bergman provided an overview of the City's expanded\nparatransit program, a taxi service that supplements East Bay Paratransit's ADA-mandated\nservice. Brochures were distributed to the Commissioners. Additional brochures were requested\nfor distribution by the Commission at upcoming events and facilities. Since all trips are\nprovided by taxi, trips may be scheduled the same day as they will be taken.\nCommissioners stated that East Bay Paratransit, not to be confused with the City's program,\nneeds to improve their dispatching as on numerous occasions a trip to Oakland from Alameda\ninvolves first picking up passengers in Hayward. Barry informed the Commission that,\ndepending upon the type of vehicle dispatched and the passengers' disabilities, or non-disability,\nup to four persons can share a ride to the same destination as one fare if they start from the same\npick-up location. For additional information contact Barry Bergman at 510-749-5916 or the\nCity's website at alamedaparatransit.com. Informational brochures about the program can be\nobtained from Mastick Senior Center, 510-747-7506.\n2. AC Transit Access Issues:\nAC Transit Board member Elsa Ortiz informed the Commission on its services for the disabled\ncommunity. The AC Transit Board meets the second Tuesday of the month in the afternoon. In", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-09-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2007-09-24", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nSeptember 24, 2007\nMinutes\nPage 2 of 3\naddition to the board there are four committees, one of which is an accessory advisory\ncommittee. Ms. Ortiz also meets quarterly with Alameda City Mayor Johnson and\nCouncilmember Matarrese.\nAC Transit participates in the County paratransit program. Reduced fares are provided for\nseniors, persons with disabilities and Medicare cardholders. Free flashcard kits are available\nalerting the driver prior to boarding as follow: a \"lift' card if a lift is needed, a \"kneeler' card to\nreduce step height or a \"wait' card if additional time is required to be seated. Bus identification\nkits in Braille or large print identify the bus line to be taken to the driver are available for\npersons who have difficulty communicating\nMs. Ortiz informed the Commission that the new buses being constructed will be more\naccessible for the disabled community. The Commissioners voiced their concerns particularly;\na) insufficient isle widths for persons with walkers; b) insufficient air circulation; c) newsstand\nracks and recycling bins blocking access; d) reserved senior seats at floor level (not one step up);\nand, e) designated senior seats also for use by pregnant women.\nThe Commission and Ms. Ortiz shared information on other AC Transit services and\nrecommendations for future site improvements. Translink, a real-time computerized schedule,\nbetween AC Transit and Bart, is currently not available in Alameda. The Commission informed\nMs. Ortiz that bus platforms (e.g. Webster Street) should be wider where steps are located\ndirectly across from the platform as a wheelchair or walker user could accidentally go off the\nedge. Any concerns should be directed to Ms. Mallory Nestor-Brush, AC Transit Accessible\nService Manager, at AC Transit's hotline number (510) 891-7213 after 9am.\n3. October Commission Meeting:\nThe Commission moved to change October's meeting from the 22nd to the 15th\nOLD BUSINESS\n1. Disability Awareness Month (Vice Chair Moore):\nVice-Chair Jody Moore updated the Commission on her coordination with the Recreation and\nParks Department for a tree and plaque dedication ceremony October 6, 2007, at Lincoln Park to\ncommemorate October as Disability Awareness Month. Chair Audrey Lord-Hausman urged\nCommissioners to attend the October 2, 2007, City Council meeting to receive the October\nDisability Awareness Month Proclamation.\n2. Commission on Disability Internet Link (Chair ord-Hausman/Secretary Akil):\nChair Lord-Hausman stated that the web designers are still working on the site and will get back\nto her.\n3. Commissioner Duties (Chair Lord-Hausman):\nG:\\pubworks\\LTMMDDD Disability Committee/2007/924min.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-09-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2007-09-24", "page": 3, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nSeptember 24, 2007\nMinutes\nPage 3 of 3\nChair Lord-Hausman encouraged the members to be attentive to the meeting agendas of other\nBoards and Commissions that may be of interest to the Commission.\n4. Alameda Hospital Health Fair:\nThe Alameda Hospital Health Fair will be held on October 20'2007, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 pm.\nThe Commission will have a table at the event.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nTransportation Coordinator Barry Bergman and the secretary updated the Commission on the\nrecently installed audible/countdown traffic signals. Of the twenty-three intersection locations\nwhere signals have been modified to include audible and pedestrian time countdowns, six locations\nhave had the audible portion deactivated due to adjacent neighborhood noise concerns. City staff is\ninvestigating the installation of push button activators at these locations to reduce the frequency of\noperation. Staff requested that the Commission agendize a future meeting for discussion on\nadditional audible/countdown locations and priority.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS\n1. Chair Lord-Hausman informed the Commission that: a) Mastick Senior Center will be having a\ncarfit training presentation by the American Society on Aging on October 24, 2007, from 10:00 a.m.\nto 2:00 p.m.; and, b) a planning staff person has been contacted to make a presentation at the\nNovember Commission meeting on the Alameda Landing development.\n2. The bus stop at Eighth Street and Central Avenue adjacent to Washington Park is not\naccessible. The Secretary will forward the Commissions concern. Commissioner Fort would like to\nknow what bus line(s) stops at that location.\n3.\nThe Alameda Special Olympics will have a fundraiser in October.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThe meeting adjourned at 8:20p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, October 15, 2007, 6:30\np.m. in Room 360 at City Hall.\nRespectfully submitted,\nEd Sommerauer,\nInterim Commission Secretary\nG:\\pubworks\\LTMCD Disability Committee/2007/924min.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-09-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-09-24", "page": 1, "text": "DRAFT\nMinutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, September 24, 2007\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:06 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nVice President Kohlstrand\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Ezzy Ashcraft,\nLynch, Mariani and McNamara.\nBoard member Cunningham was absent.\nAlso present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney\nDonna Mooney, Obaid Khan, Public Works.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of September 10, 2007.\nPresident Cook noted that page 2, paragraph 6, should be changed to read, \"President Cook\nnoted that she was concerned about delaying with the October 22 Measure A subcommittee\nreport until October 22.\"\nPresident Cook noted that page 5, paragraph 2, should be changed to read, \"President Cook\nrecommended that the Planning Board make bringing the City's plans and ordinances take\naction to bring into compliance with into State law as the top priority. She suggested that, if\nnecessary, additional resources could be requested from City Council to fulfill that priority.'\nPresident Cook noted that page 8, third paragraph from the bottom, should be changed to\nread, \"President Cook noted that the Board members only had three dots, and that did not\nindicate lack of interest in other planning projects.\"\nPresident Cook noted that page 9, paragraph 2, should be changed to read, \"She requested\ncopies of the quarterly reports, and recalled that there were many important concepts in the\nVision Plan that are probably still relevant.'\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Minutes for September 10, 2007, as\namended.\nBoard member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.\nAbsent: 1 (Cunningham). The motion passed.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nPage 1 of 18", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-09-24", "page": 2, "text": "President Cook proposed hearing Item 9-B before Item 9-A in the interest of the applicant's\npriorities.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\na. Future Agendas\nMr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.\nMember Lynch noted that within the last six months, the Board has met with the City\nCouncil in a joint meeting, and had numerous discussions regarding the efforts that the\nindividual members bring to bear, as well as the intent of the Planning Board. He noted that\nAlameda Point was the largest land use issue within the Planning Board's purview, and\ninquired why the development team would not discuss their philosophies before the Board.\nHe noted that a number of people have commented on the parking garage, and noted that it\nwas interesting to hear the reactions on the visual aspect of the parking garage although they\nwere in support of the concept. He noted that it had become a point of contention over the\npast few years. It appeared to him that with respect to Alameda Point, that a bifurcated\nsystem had been developed. He believed the land use issue should be discussed with the\nPlanning Board as well.\nMr. Thomas noted that staff wanted the developers to come before the Board to lay out their\nproposed schedule and approach to the planning for Alameda Point, in order to review it\nwith the Planning Board first. He noted that they had signed an agreement with City Council\naffirming that they would have the entire process completed in two years, meaning that the\nbulk of the planning effort must be done in the next eight months. He believed the primary\nquestion was how the Planning Board wanted to participate in this process.\nMember Lynch believed there were some inconsistencies between what he had heard, and\nthe scheduled meetings on October 8, November 14, and December 12. He identified the\ninconsistencies between a heightened appeal from the community that they want to weigh\nin earlier in the process, and that they prefer to approach the project in small bites.\nMr. Thomas noted that Member Lynch's comments were well taken, and would pass\nthem on to the developers.\nPresident Cook requested that they hold the October 23 meeting during the October 22\nPlanning Board meeting, so that it would be televised for greater public exposure.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft supported President Cook's suggestion.\nb.\nZoning Administrator Report\nMr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nNone.\nPage 2 of 18", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-09-24", "page": 3, "text": "8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nNone.\n8-A\nDevelopment Agreement DA89-1 -- Harbor Bay Business Park Association,\nHarbor Bay Isle Associates and Harbor Bay Entities -- Bay Farm Island\n(Primarily Harbor Bay Isle). A request for a Periodic Review of Development\nAgreement DA89-01, for the period through April 4, 2007, as required under\nZoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft moved to adopt the Planning Board Resolution to accept the\nPeriodic Review of Development Agreement DA89-01, for the period through April 4,\n2007, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1.\nMember McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Absent: 1\n(Cunningham). The motion passed.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-B.\nAlameda Landing Waterfront Promenade, Master Landscape Plan and\nDevelopment Agreement Amendment, Project Applicant: Catellus\nDevelopment Group, an affiliate of Palmtree Acquisitions Corporation. The\napplicant requests a Waterfront Development Plan amendment, a Master\nLandscape Plan amendment, and a Development Agreement amendment to revise\nthe design of the proposed waterfront promenade and open space proposed as part\nof the Alameda Landing Project. The site is located along the western end of the\nformer FISC Site (Tract 7884) within the M-X Mixed Use Planned Development\nZoning District. (AT)\nMr. Thomas presented the staff report. and recommended approval of this item.\nMr. Aidan Berry, applicant, introduced the project team and concept.\nMs. Altschuler, SMWM, displayed a PowerPoint presentation and described the details of\nthe approach and solutions of the project. She described the landscape plan in detail, as\nwell as shoreline access and planting.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that in pulling back the promenade, one of the office\nbuildings was being cut off. She inquired whether the square footage of office was being\nreduced, or whether stories would be added to the office building.\nMr. Thomas stated that the entitlement for office use was 400,000 square feet per the\nMaster Plan, and added that the changes in the promenade would not change the amount\nof square footage of allowed office use. The old plan anticipated that the second\nwarehouse would be retained; under the new plan, it would not be retained, and a new\noffice building would be included, with half the footprint of the old building. The\nadditional square footage would be gained by going up. He clarified that the approval of\nthe development plan for the promenade was an approval of the open space concept, but\nPage 3 of 18", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-09-24", "page": 4, "text": "was not an endorsement of a particular footprint. Both buildings will be subject to a\nfuture development plan and design review application to be reviewed by the Planning\nBoard.\nPresident Cook noted that the siting of the buildings were originally set in place because\nthe City wanted to retain the warehouse structures. She inquired whether the Planning\nBoard would have the ability to review the two westernmost new buildings and\nreconsider their siting.\nMr. Thomas replied that it would be possible, and noted that the Clif Bar building and\nshed were both already approved, and the location was set. The location of every other\nbuilding on this site plan was still subject to the Planning Board's review and approval\nthrough the development plan and design review.\nMs. Altschuler added that the revised plan showed a continuous access along the area,\nwhich allowed the Bay Trail to come straight into the site, eliminating the previous jog\naround several buildings.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding keeping pedestrians\nsafe from the bicyclists, Ms. Altschuler replied that a 12-foot minimum area was required\non\nmost of the Bay Trail, and that there would be sufficient room with 44 feet to\naccommodate both uses safely. She added that benches would be added to invite\npedestrians to stop and rest on the trail.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Christopher Buckley noted that he submitted a letter to the Planning Board, and\nspoke in support of retaining the second warehouse. He believed one of the more\ncompelling features of the original project was maintaining the look of a working\nwaterfront; he believed that the generous length of the two warehouse structures provided\nthat look. He believed that removing the second warehouse reduced the original visual\ncontext for the working waterfront, and he did not believe it would provide the sense of\nplace provided by the original concept. He requested clarification of the statement in the\nstaff report that suggested the possibility that the remaining warehouse may need to be\nremoved, that the proposed amendments will define and clarify where a new building\nwould need to be placed if a decision is made in the future to demolish the existing\nwaterfront would have as currently planned for Clif Bar. He inquired whether the\nPlanning Board would be asked to preliminarily endorse the idea of removing the Clif\nBar warehouse, and replacing it with a new structure. He suggested using a lighter-\nweight, more cost-effective planking for the section of wharf over the pilings, such as the\nwood plankings shown in the illustrations on top of the existing pilings. He believed it\nwas necessary to resolve these issues so that Clif Bar may move ahead on schedule, and\nsuggested that if the City would like to study the options concerning the second\nwarehouse, that the Clif Bar phase to move ahead at the same time.\nPage 4 of 18", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-09-24", "page": 5, "text": "Mr. Gary Erickson, owner, Clif Bar, noted that he co-owned the company with his wife,\nKit Crawford, and added that they were very excited to move to Alameda. He\ncomplimented the quality of the plans, and noted that they had been set back when they\ndiscovered the wharf issue. He noted that they had been working closely with Catellus\nand Prologis, and were very pleased with the redesign. He requested that the Planning\nBoard approve this item as soon as possible.\nMr. Bill Smith expressed concern about air quality on this site, and would like to see a\ndiversion of the airflow at the turnaround basin.\nMr. Richard Rutter believed the previous plan was very good, and retained the\nmonumental scale of the warehouses and pier structure. He believed that the site was\ndiminished with the removal of one of the warehouses. He noted that the piers were very\nheavily built, and recommended that the issue of the piers be reviewed, including cost\nestimates, to determine consensus on their retention.\nMs. Ann Rockwell, Alameda East Bay Miracle League, described the Miracle League's\nmission and noted that they hoped to be a part of this development. She hoped the field\nwould be built within two to three years, and urged the Planning Board to support the\nproject.\nMs. Karen Bey spoke in support of retaining the wharf. She agreed with Mr. Buckley'\nassessment that the Clif Bar component of the project move forward. She believed that\nthe issue of cost-effectiveness should be a primary discussion with respect to keeping the\nwharf. She inquired whether the possibility of creating a community facility district had\nbeen explored to fund this part of the infrastructure.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMr. Thomas noted that the promenade would be improved and built by Catellus, and the\nmaintenance of the public portions of the promenade would be maintained by the City;\nhowever, the cost for the maintenance would be generated by a Municipal Services\nDistrict. He noted that all of Fifth Street, Mitchell Mosely Street and the basic public\nroads, the landscaping on the public roads and the promenade will be maintained through\nthe District.\nMr. Thomas noted that with respect to the issue of demolishing the Clif Bar warehouse,\nthe City originally understood that the wharf extended from the edge of the water back to\njust behind the Clif Bar building. Any new structures must be built at the back of the\nwharf. He noted that the entire embankment must be reinforced, which would slide\nhorizontally in the event of an earthquake. He noted that the City had peer reviewed the\nstudies, and that the City was in total agreement that there was a real problem with the\nembankment, which must be stabilized for the earthquake risk.\nPage 5 of 18", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-09-24", "page": 6, "text": "President Cook inquired whether different kinds of engineering solutions had been\nexplored, such as a seismic joint to allow part of the pier to be free in an earthquake\nevent.\nMr. Thomas noted that staff was continuing to look at a number of different ways to\nstabilize the situation, including different technologies. They were confident, based on\nthe work done so far, that major changes will need to be made to the promenade plan to\naddress those two issues. He noted that Clif Bar's issues should be addressed\nimmediately, and a condition on Clif Bar is that everything would be built to the east of\nClif Bar immediately.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft believed the Board concurred on moving the Clif Bar project\nforward. She believed Catellus must have an idea of the cost to do the seismic retrofit and\nreinforcement under the Clif Bar warehouse. She believed that would be useful if the\nsecond warehouse were to be preserved. If the equipment would be brought in to do the\nwork on Clif Bar, it might be cost-effective to do both at the same time.\nMember Lynch inquired what the City's role was in terms of providing peer review. Mr.\nThomas replied that the City would peer review the studies and cost estimates, if they\nwished to share them. Ultimately, Catellus would decide whether it would move forward\nwith the project.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was surprised when she read the report because the\nBoard had heard so many positive things about the project. She had assumed that they\nknew what was beneath the wharf. She inquired whether Catellus/Prologis was still\nwaiting for any other test results or analyses of any of the other three phases of the\nproject, or whether they anticipate that there will be others. She was very concerned\nabout maintaining the relationship with Clif Bar, and believed that Alameda was very\nfortunate that Clif Bar wanted to do business in the City. She noted that the first\namendment to the development agreement on page 5 (paragraph b), read, \"In the event\nthat the wharf building is demolished after creation of a reuse parcel. She felt\nvery\nstrongly that that wharf building must be preserved for Clif Bar as long as Clif Bar is\ninterested in being a player in this project. She suggested amending the language to read:\n\"In the event that Clif Bar elects not to occupy the wharf building, and the building is\ndemolished after creation of a reuse parcel. She wanted to make it clear that that was\nnot an option as long as Clif Bar was a part of this project.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the neighborhood LEED certification was still\nbeing pursued. She inquired whether the green space closer to the water would be grass\nor Bay-friendly landscaping. Ms. Altschuler replied that it would be a natural landscape\nelement, and that grass would not be put in that location. She noted that it was called a\ntransitional marsh area, and added that one of the slides displayed the mix of natural\nlandscaping found around the Bay.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft commented on the possibility that the Miracle League portion of the\nproject could take until the year 2016 to complete, and requested that if there was any way\nPage 6 of 18", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-09-24", "page": 7, "text": "to move that portion of the project done ahead of time so that the children could use it as\nsoon as possible. She added that she was encouraged by the letter of September 12, which\ndescribed the benefits of the revised plan, and included the biologist's observation that\n\"overall, the project revisions will result in a net benefit to biological resources and waters\nof the San Francisco Bay because of existing hardscape at and over the edge of the Bay\nwould be removed and replaced with a restored tidal marsh area, establishing a more natural\nlandscape to the shoreline of the inner Oakland Harbor.\"\nMember McNamara noted that Catellus was investigating the financial impact of these\nrevisions, and believed that to split up the shoring up of the wharf, and possibly delaying the\nrenovation of the area to the west, would not be a cost-effective solution for a developer.\nShe did not see that as a feasible solution, and believed that the project should be examined\nin its entirety. She supported the changes proposed by Catellus, given the structural issues.\nShe also liked the change that flattened the waterfront plaza, which enhances the use of the\nspace. She liked the idea of a floating dock, which was a creative solution. She was\nconcerned about maintenance of the water level landscaping, particularly with respect to\naccumulation of litter as the tide comes in.\nMr. Thomas noted that the maintenance would be performed by the City, but paid for by the\nproject.\nPresident Cook echoed Member McNamara's concern about the maintenance at the\nwaterfront, and wanted to ensure that the responsibilities were clear.\nMember Lynch was confident that the design elements had been vetted, and that he was\ncomfortable with that. He believed it was an attractive project, and was not concerned with\nthe viability of maintaining and shoring up the wharf area. He was confident that was vetted\nwith the City as well. He was comfortable with the EIR, and he did not believe the case had\nbeen made to warrant recirculating the EIR. He noted that he was disappointed about the\nplacement of the Miracle League field in the third phase, to be completed in 2016, which he\nbelieved was an excessively long time, given its purpose and the need for the field. He\nbelieved the 2016 date was inconsistent with the pace and amount of energy put into the\nplans thus far.\nVice President Kohlstrand agreed with Member Lynch's comments regarding the ball field.\nShe wanted to maintain the relationship with Clif Bar and keep that project moving ahead;\nshe also wanted the City to maintain its relationship with Catellus and Prologis. She did not\nhave any issues with the revised promenade, but would like further information about how\nthe project related to the water's edge. She believed that the loss of the warehouse was an\nunfortunate occurrence, and acknowledged that many people were concerned about that.\nPresident Cook inquired whether the Board was at the point of making a decision about\nremoving that part of the pier, as well as that part of the warehouse. She suggested that the\napproval be phased if that were the case. Mr. Thomas replied that the plan may be approved\nwith direction that when the later phase was presented, that the future of the wharf be re-\nevaluated. He understood that demolition of wharf west of Clif Bar would not start until\nPage 7 of 18", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-09-24", "page": 8, "text": "Phase 3. He noted that this item would come back to the Board before demolition of that\npart of the wharf is planned, and added that it may be five or six years before that phase\nreturns to the Planning Board.\nMr. Berry noted that the Board question had several pieces. First, has Catellus adequately\nanalyzed the cost of the impacts from the wharf; he noted the answer was \"yes.\" They had\nshared their technical studies with the City, from the structural and geotechnical standpoints.\nThey would be happy to share their construction cost estimates, and he added that they were\nworking with Public Works and their outside consultant. They determined that the wharf\ndeck should be pulled back. He added that with respect to the loss the warehouse, the\nexisting DDA and DA gave them the ability to remove that warehouse, subject to further\ndesign review. He noted that they need to be able to move forward on a promenade plan at\nthis meeting.\nMr. Berry noted that the Planning Board's wishes regarding the Miracle League ball field\nhad been made very clear, and that they had a Letter of Agreement with the Miracle League.\nHe added that the Miracle League loved this site, and that they want them to use that site. He\nadded that there was a carve-out in the development agreement that identified, in the event\nthat interim utilities were available, that they could move forward in starting that project in\nthat location without triggering the takedown of Phase 3. He noted that he met with their full\nBoard three weeks ago, and he agreed that within 90 days of that meeting, he would return\nto their Board, if he received a determination from the City and utilities companies that there\nwas existing infrastructure, with a proposal that they could provide adequate access. He then\nwould approach the City to address how they could get the Miracle League to the site as\nearly as possible. Within that 90-day window, he will have a full feasibility analysis\nperformed by Catellus that would examine the opportunities on that site. If the first plan is\nnot feasible, they also had a separate agreement that identifies the contribution of dollars to\nfind another site for them. This site was the first choice for Miracle League, as well as\nCatellus; he assured the Board that Catellus had an ongoing commitment to work with\nMiracle League and City staff to find them a site as soon as possible.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cook regarding handicapped accessibility, Ms.\nAltschuler replied that was part of the design and the reason for the long ramps.\nBoard member Mariani inquired whether the required demolition of the second warehouse\nwas actually spelled out in the conditions. She noted that she was very disappointed in that\nrequirement, and could not approve this item if it meant demolishing the second warehouse.\nHer enthusiasm for this project was rooted in the historic content and nature of this project,\nand the manner in which it embraced Alameda's working waterfront, as well as the addition\nof Clif Bar and their intentions to preserve the area. She believed that language should be\nclearly outlined.\nPresident Cook inquired whether a condition could be added SO that before the demolition\ndecision is made, or before the new office building was approved, that the situation be\nrevisited. Mr. Thomas confirmed that this could be approved with the condition that when\nthe Phase 3 buildings come back to the Board for development plan and design review,\nPage 8 of 18", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-09-24", "page": 9, "text": "before the warehouse is demolished and before the wharf is modified, that the plan provide\nthe Board with additional and updated analysis of the feasibility of maintaining the\nwarehouse, and retrofitting the wharf for the second warehouse. He noted that was a less\nexpensive option than trying to do a retrofit.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Lynch why that course should be taken, Mr. Thomas\nreplied that it put into the record for the future date so that Catellus and City staff would be\nreminded that the community and the Planning Board wanted to save the warehouse.\nMember Lynch wanted to ensure the wording was very precise so that the Board's\nintentions and expectations were clear to future staff and Board members. Mr. Thomas\nnoted that Phase 3 contained a similar condition having to do with housing on the\nwaterfront. He noted that if there was a way to return with a development plan for Phase\n3 that included the second warehouse and extended the wharf for the second warehouse,\nit would be looked at favorably.\nPresident Cook inquired whether the rail lines and movable benches in front of Clif Bar\nwere still retained in the plan. Mr. Thomas replied that they most likely would have to be\nremoved. President Cook added that she liked them, and was sorry to see them go.\nPresident Cook was concerned about retaining the historic building, and believed that\nmade the project richer historically. She was looking forward to seeing Clif Bar move\ninto the site, and wanted to ensure the project continued to move forward. She was\nconcerned about understanding the year-round usability of a floating dock of this size, as\nwell as the cost of maintaining it. She noted that there was a shortage of docking\ncapability in the Bay Area, and added that Chevy's in Alameda was now gone. She was\nconcerned about what kind of plantings could be sustained on the rip-rap, as well as\nwhether it could withstand the occasional tide coming over it.\nPresident Cook expressed concern about the corner around Clif Bar, and whether bicycle\nriders would be safe from injury making that hard left turn. She inquired about fill credits\nfrom BCDC that could be gained when fill was removed. She would like the motion to\ninclude these considerations and concerns, if that was the will of the Board.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Mariani whether the second warehouse would\nbe torn down even if the Planning Board did not approve the item, Member Lynch\nconfirmed that was correct.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the recommendation page of the staff report had four\nbullet points, and inquired whether one resolution would approve all four bullet points. She\nfurther inquired how the language discussed by Mr. Thomas and Mr. Lynch relating to the\npotential demolition of the second warehouse would be incorporated into the resolution.\nMr. Thomas noted that page 3 of the resolution read, \"Now therefore be it resolved that the\nPlanning Board (a) adopts the first addendum; (b) approves the revised waterfront\npromenade. Condition 1: The prior construction of any portion of the waterfront promenade,\nPage 9 of 18", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-09-24", "page": 10, "text": "the applicant shall submit a design review application\n\" He suggested the addition of a\nsecond condition, reading, \"Prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the Phase 3\ndevelopment plan for the office buildings or the waterfront promenade design review for the\nPhase 3 buildings, the applicant will provide an assessment of the feasibility of retaining all\nor a portion of the existing waterfront warehouse for an adaptive reuse.'\nThe Planning Board generally concurred with that additional condition.\nMr. Thomas added that the later language read, \"Now therefore be it further resolved that\nthe Planning Board recommends the City Council approve the development agreement\nwith the following revision: 4.9.2(b)\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft would like that sentence to begin, \"In the event that Clif Bar elects\nnot to occupy the wharf building, and the building is demolished after creation of a reuse\nparcel\n\"\nBoard member Mariani thanked the applicants for being creative with this project, and\nencouraged them to retain the historical character of this site.\nBoard member Mariani moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 07- to approve\na Waterfront Development Plan amendment, a Master Landscape Plan amendment, and a\nDevelopment Agreement amendment to revise the design of the proposed waterfront\npromenade and open space proposed as part of the Alameda Landing Project. The\nfollowing condition will be added: \"Prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the Phase 3\ndevelopment plan for the office buildings or the waterfront promenade design review for the\nPhase 3 buildings, the applicant will provide an assessment of the feasibility of retaining all\nor a portion of the existing waterfront warehouse for an adaptive reuse.\"\nMr. Berry wished to emphasize that the buildings were not historic. They were fully\nanalyzed under the EIR, and the DDA allowed for the demolition. He believed the\nadditional language would be acceptable, if language similar to that used in the retail\ncenter having to do with substantially similar requirements, or inconsistencies contained\nin the conditions of the approval on one hand, and for mitigation monitoring on the other\nhand, the development agreement and the DDA shall rule. He did not want to be put in a\nposition of doing a feasibility analysis, where a DDA amendment would be required. He\nwished to clarify that the DDA was the controlling document, and requested assurances\nthat the condition was not meant to conflict with the DDA.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft was concerned by the preface to Mr. Berry's remarks with respect\nto the historical nature of the buildings. She understood that there was a specific\ndefinition of historical, and added that from the beginning of this project, the Planning\nBoard had heard of adaptive reuse of the site. She noted that the Planning Board would\nlike the developer to take their concerns into consideration moving forward.\nMember Lynch inquired whether the DDA was the controlling document when there\nwere conflicting conditions throughout the resolutions. Ms. Mooney replied that would\nPage 10 of 18", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-09-24", "page": 11, "text": "be the argument made by the developer. If there was a situation with a contract that has\nalready been agreed to, two different parts of the same city would say different things,\ncreating a conflict. At that point, the developer's argument will be that the provision in\nthe development agreement was what they would be bound to, rather than the condition\nimposed by the Planning Board.\nMr. Thomas noted that staff understood Mr. Berry's statement that the development\nagreement would rule in this case, and that the City has allowed it. He added that an EIR\nwas performed, and that these were not historic buildings. The City was essentially asking\nthe applicant to think about this issue one more time upon their return, which may be up\nto 10 years.\nMr. Berry understood what the City was asking for, and he believed that would be\npossible.\nMr. Thomas noted that a third condition would be added, reading, \"Where there are\nsubstantially similar requirements or inconsistencies containing the conditions of this\napproval, on the one hand, or the development agreement or disposition development\nagreement on the other hand, the provisions of the development agreement and\ndisposition agreement and mitigation monitoring reporting program as applicable shall\ngovern.'\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Mariani why that condition should be added, Mr.\nThomas replied that it was for clarity. Member Mariani responded that she could not\nmake the motion if it included that condition.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that she would be able to make the motion.\nPresident Cook noted that the original motion should be withdrawn before a substitute\nmotion may be made.\nVice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 07-\nto\napprove a Waterfront Development Plan amendment, a Master Landscape Plan\namendment, and a Development Agreement amendment to revise the design of the\nproposed waterfront promenade and open space proposed as part of the Alameda Landing\nProject. The following conditions will be added:\n1. \"Prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the Phase 3 development plan for\nthe office buildings or the waterfront promenade design review for the Phase\n3\nbuildings, the applicant will provide an assessment of the feasibility of retaining\nall or a portion of the existing waterfront warehouse for an adaptive reuse.\"\n2. \"Where there are substantially similar requirements or inconsistencies\ncontaining the conditions of this approval, on the one hand, or the\ndevelopment agreement or disposition development agreement on the other\nhand, the provisions of the development agreement and disposition agreement\nand mitigation monitoring reporting program as applicable shall govern.'\nPage 11 of 18", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-09-24", "page": 12, "text": "Member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 1\n(Mariani) Absent: 1 (Cunningham). The motion passed.\nPresident Cook called for a recess.\n9-A.\nAlameda Landing Retail Project Applicant: Catellus Development Group, an\naffiliate of Palmtree Acquisitions Corporation. The applicant requests Design\nReview approval for eight new retail buildings totaling approximately 250,000\nsquare feet, off-street parking, and landscaping located south of Mitchell Avenue\nExtension and east of Fifth Street. The site is located along the western end of the\nformer FISC Site (Tract 7884) within the M-X Mixed Use Planned Development\nZoning District. (AT)\nMr. Thomas summarized the staff report. He noted that the June 25, 2007 resolution of\napproval for the shopping center, including all of the site plans conditions. He noted that\nstaff only added conditions to the design review draft resolution that would be necessary\nrelative to architecture and landscape. He noted that the draft resolution supplemented the\napproval of June 25, 2007 Planning Board resolution.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Chris Monahan, attorney for Mariner Square, Morgan Miller Blair, noted that they\nsubmitted a letter on September 21, 2007, stating their concerns regarding Catellus's\ndesign review application. The letter expressed the concern that the approval would\nadversely affect access to and from their site. They requested that the Planning Board\ndelay the decision until they have had an opportunity to meet with Catellus and the City\nto discuss the access issues associated with Tinker Avenue. He noted that would be\nimpacted by any decision at this time regarding the access and configuration of the\nCatellus. He requested that this item be continued to allow sufficient time to resolve these\nissues.\nPresident Cook noted that five speaker slips had been received, and invited Board\ncomment regarding speaker time.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the previous speaker had not taken the entire five\nminutes, and would like to allow the five-minute speaking time.\nMr. Christopher Buckley noted that he had submitted a letter to the Board. With respect\nto Building A, which he noted was a very large building at 55 feet tall and 660 feet wide,\nhe suggested that on the parking lot side, an opportunity for additional differentiation on\nthe upper level may help mitigate the overall size of the building. On the pedestrian level,\nhe noted that there was a lot of blank wall areas between the entries to the storefront. He\nacknowledged that the rolling doors were necessary, and suggested that more glazing and\ndisplay windows be added. He noted that the tiling was not called out on the plans, and\nbelieved that would add more pedestrian interest. He believed Building B was much more\nsuccessful with the garden in the parking lot, breaking up the massing. He noted that the\nPage 12 of 18", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-09-24", "page": 13, "text": "backsides of the buildings facing Stargell and Mariner Square Loop, it was critical to\navoid the \"back of the building\" look. When he looked at the plans, he had not been\naware of the glazing plans, which seemed to be a promising solution to him. He believed\nthat storefronts on the backside would add to the building's presence, but may create\nfunctionality problems by the major arterials. He would like to see more glazing at the\nback, particularly on Building A. He noted that this was a very important project, and\nwould like the colors and materials to be presented to the Planning Board at the final\ndesign review stage. He displayed images of a streetscape at the Victoria Plaza shopping\ncenter in Rancho Cucamonga, which was following a similar design scheme.\nMr. Richard Rutter submitted a speaker slip, but did not need to speak. He agreed with\nMr. Buckley's comments.\nMr. Bill Smith noted that sufficient earthquake standards in the site were very important,\nparticularly on the landfill by the waterfront.\nMs. Karen Bay expressed concern about the large format of this site, and did not want it\nto become a big box development, rather than a lifestyle development. She envisioned\nmostly smaller specialty stores and one or two-format stores. She would like to see\nwording to define a lifestyle center.\nPresident Cook noted that during the community process for this project, considerable\nwork was done with the Webster Street businesses. They voiced their concerns about\npotential negative impacts of this project on Webster Street, and it was decided that this\nproject should focus more on larger format stores so it did not compete directly with\nWebster Street. She shared Ms. Bay's concern about the large format, but noted that this\nwas the result of the community process in this case.\nMember Mariani suggested that a continuance of this item based on the lateness of the\nhour and the potential extensiveness of the discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cook regarding the size of the businesses in the\ncenter, Mr. Thomas replied that there was a limit on the number of small-footprint stores,\nin order to limit the competition with Webster Street.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she generally agreed with the staff's findings, but was\nnot persuaded by some of the arguments regarding the sidewalk design. She noted that\nthe staff report identified a detriment of moving the sidewalk to the other side of the street\nwould result in the reduction of some parking spaces, and might encourage cut-through\ntraffic between Stargell and Mitchell at higher speeds. She realized that while shoppers\nneeded their cars to take their purchases home, she did not want to see people driving\nfrom one building to another within the center. She believed that several retailers could\nshare the four spaces per 1,000 square feet that they were relying on. She would like to\nget away from the tendency to create asphalt jungles. She believed that with ground-up\nconstruction such as with this project, that the pedestrians, bicyclists and automobiles\nneeded to be accommodated. She did not agree with the argument under \"Design\" on\nPage 13 of 18", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-09-24", "page": 14, "text": "page 8, that the proposed alternative of the second sidewalk created a physical and visual\nseparation between Building A and the rest of the retail center. She noted that it was a\nsidewalk, not a wall. She noted that the sidewalk in front of the building did not create a\nvisual separation. She was not willing to let go of the north/south sidewalk.\nMember McNamara believed the different types of texture, particularly mixing metal with\nwood, would provide good variation. She encouraged more use of canvas or softer\nmaterials to soften the maritime effect. She believed there was an excessive amount of\ntrees in the landscaping plan, and that when they matured, it would create a problem. She\nappreciated the use of the trees to create a neighborhood atmosphere in front of the\nBuilding A. She did not see where the ventilation units would be placed, and would like\nthat to be addressed, because that would definitely affect the design of the building.\nRegarding the north/south sidewalk, she did not like the recommendation that was made\nto the Board. She noted that it was important to acknowledge the parking spot issue, and\nnoted that some of the constraints and logistical issues at Towne Centre may warrant\nincreased pedestrian traffic. She believed that without the use of sidewalks and the\nparking spots, pedestrian safety was placed at risk. She believed there should be an\nalternative traffic pattern to help with the overflow of traffic, and she did not see the\ntraffic flow on Fifth Street as a detriment. She did not have a solution to the north/south\nsidewalk, and did not like the current recommendation.\nMember Lynch noted that he had recently walked along the rear area of Santana Row,\nand noted that the subject site's back parking configuration was extremely similar. He\nnoted that the configuration worked, and noted that if this site were to be as successful as\nSantana Row, it would attract enough people to make a significant difference to the\nGeneral Fund. He complimented the applicant for listening to the Board's comments and\nintegrating them into the design. He added that he had reservations regarding the\nconfiguration and sizing for the retail, but that decision has been made.\nPresident Cook invited a motion to extend the meeting because of the lateness of the\nhour, and would like sufficient time to address the questions.\nVice President Kohlstrand moved to extend the meeting until 11:15 p.m.\nBoard member Lynch seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Absent: 2\n(Cunningham, Mariani). The motion passed.\nVice President Kohlstrand expressed concern about the 67-foot height for a one-story\nbuilding and the massing of the building for a non-functional reason. She would like the\nheights to be reduced considerably throughout the complex. She was also concerned\nabout the frontage on Stargell and along Mariner Square Loop, and believed the proposed\ntreatments along the large blank walls were very creative. She liked the historic scenes, as\nwell as the vegetative walls and backlit glass. She noted that would be a very long\nfrontage along Stargell with no doors or windows. She liked the pedestrian orientation of\nFifth Street. She believed that one or two light towers would be sufficient, but that five\nwould be too many. She believed there was additional site improvements to be done on\nPage 14 of 18", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-09-24", "page": 15, "text": "Stargell, which appeared to be one of the concerns raised by the Mariner Square\nmanagement. She believed that the issues regarding the Stargell intersection and the\nnorth/south roadway needed to be resolved. She agreed with Members Ezzy Ashcraft and\nMcNamara regarding the north/south roadway, and respectfully but strongly disagreed with\nstaff's position and the findings that were made. She noted that most shopping centers were\nbuilt with autos in mind, and were not built to accommodate pedestrians. She believed that\nsomething better could be done in that regard, and she was not willing to give that\npossibility up. She liked the design study, and believed it should be adopted and\nimplemented.\nPresident Cook shared the comments on the circulation system and liked the alternative\nplan, which she believed solved a lot of problems that have occurred at South Shore. She\nbelieved it was unsafe to cross the parking lot at South Shore, and would like to avoid that\nproblem at this center. She appreciated the work that had been done to increase the variation\nof the fa\u00e7ades, but was concerned with two of the large blank walls. She believed that the\napplicants could make Building A more visually interesting on the fa\u00e7ade. She noted that the\nfa\u00e7ade on Buildings B, E and G look quite large and blank, and suggested a landscaping\nsolution. She was very concerned about the entrance roadways that are the entrance to\nAlameda Point. She was concerned that Building H on the corner had become very squared,\nwhich would not give people the impression of arriving in Alameda Point. She would like\nmore attention to be given to all the entrances, including the Loop. She would like\nvegetation to be placed in front of the screens for the mechanical equipment. She wanted to\nensure the historic billboards retained that historic character.\nMr. Thomas noted that the condition placed on the site plan in June was that the\nconsolidated sign program would come back for City approval.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cook whether Building A could accommodate two\nstories, Mr. Thomas replied that technically, it was feasible, but that Alameda Point was\nlimited by the Master Plan cap of 300,000 square feet of retail.\nThe applicant's architect noted that in order to minimize all of the mechanical equipment,\nthey raised the sides of the building and the parapets so they incorporate the mechanical\nscreen, which would become part of the mass of the building. He believed that would be a\nnicer look, as opposed to having \"hats\" on top of the buildings. He noted that the tower\nelement reached the 67-foot height, and that could be brought down. He noted that the\nlighting towers provided illumination for the parking lots, and reduction of the five towers to\ntwo towers would require the incorporation of parking lot standards, which would give the\nshopping center a more typical look instead of the more iconic towers.\nPresident Cook noted that it was 11:15, and inquired where the Planning Board should go\nwith respect to the rest of this item.\nMr. Thomas noted that the applicant would be going to City Council with the DDA and\nthe DA amendments. He suggested passing a motion with the condition that they did the\nsidewalk, and inquired whether the Board would be comfortable conditioning some of the\nPage 15 of 18", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-09-24", "page": 16, "text": "design elements on the project, or to send the item back to staff for the final design\nreview, taking the comments into consideration. He noted that continuing the item until\nOctober 22 was another option.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she liked the color palette, and supported breaking up\nthe unarticulated side of Building B. She inquired whether the lighting fixtures on the\nbuildings would come back to the Board. Mr. Thomas replied that it would not.\nVice President Kohlstrand moved to extend the meeting until 11:30 p.m.\nMember McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4. Abstain - 1\n(Lynch). Absent: 2 (Cunningham, Mariani). The motion passed.\nMr. Thomas noted that the extension of Stargell was a mitigation measure imposed upon\nthis project, and that the Stargell project was approved by the City Council in 2001. He\nnoted that it may not happen if the land from the College could not be acquired.\nVice President Kohlstrand believed the issues dealt more with the intersections at Mariner\nSquare, as well as the alignment of the roadway and its entrance into the north/south\nroadway. She wanted to ensure that the Board would still have the opportunity to\ncomment on and resolve the larger issues. Mr. Thomas noted that the issue before the\nBoard at this meeting was the architecture at the retail center.\nPresident Cook noted that she was comfortable with Fifth Street, and inquired whether\nthe outstanding issues could come back while the resolved issues go forward. Mr.\nThomas replied that it would be an option to approve the design review, with the\ncondition that either specific elevations or specific buildings come back for design\nreview. He added that staff would take the comments, and the Planning Director would\nwork with the applicants to develop a revised plan for the elevation based on the\ncomments. Another option was to bring the revisions back to the Planning Board for final\napproval.\nIn response to President Cook's concerns about the entrance to Alameda Point, Mr.\nThomas replied that a condition could be added to bring back a street elevation for\nStargell, Mitchell Moseley and Mariner Square Loop.\nVice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 07-\nto\napprove a Design Review for eight new retail buildings totaling approximately 250,000\nsquare feet, off-street parking, and landscaping located south of Mitchell Avenue\nExtension and east of Fifth Street. The following conditions would be added:\n1. The condition of approval that the north-south driveway be amended to reflect\nthe alternative study;\n2.\nThe condition about final design will be modified to state that the final\nelevations for the Mitchell Moseley, Stargell and Mariner Square Loop\nelevations will come back for the Planning Board's final approval;\n3. Staff will work with the applicant to reduce the overall height of Building A.\nPage 16 of 18", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-09-24", "page": 17, "text": "Mr. Thomas noted that staff was concerned about the driveway and the access to Kathy\nWagner's property, and that the condition should be modified to state that there should be\nmutual agreement on all the cross easements, indemnification, liabilities and the standard\nlegal language, to be worked out to the mutual consent of the parties.\nMr. Thomas noted that Obaid Khan from the Public Works Department was in\nattendance, and would like to insert a reference to the MDIP.\nObaid Khan, Public Works Department, wished to address Condition 2 on page 3, which\nrelated to substantially similar requirements and inconsistencies. He noted that Public\nWorks recommended including a reference to the Master Demolition, Infrastructure,\nGrading and Phasing Plan (MDIP). This plan would define the infrastructure grading and\ninfrastructure plan.\nMr. Barry noted that they would probably go to Council on the sidewalk and north/south\naccess. He believed the DDA already had the provisions for the protection of the MDIP;\nit contained a dispute resolution and opportunities for modification. He noted that if that\ncondition was added, they would probably take that one to Council as well. He noted that\nthey had come a long way on the design, and should be able to accommodate the Board's\ndesign comments, as well as bringing the elevations of the public streets back as well.\nMr. Thomas reviewed the proposed changes:\n1.\nReference to the MDIP, per Public Works;\n2.\nApprove the alternative site plan (Page L-1-01)\n3.\nThe final design elevations for Mitchell Mosely, Stargell and Mariner\nSquare Loop will return to the Planning Board for final approval once they\nhave been worked out with the applicants;\n4.\nBuilding A height and variation in the height will be included in the\ndesign returned to the Planning Board;\n5.\nStrike the phrase in Condition 3 \"provided that the property owner may\nelect to close the driveway\";\n6.\nCondition 4 will be modified with respect to the driveway and mutually\nagreeable insurance and cross-easements.\nMr. Thomas added that the vegetation on all screens would be double-checked.\nMember McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 1. Noes - 1\n(Lynch). Absent: 2 (Cunningham, Mariani). The motion passed.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft wanted to ensure that the complete packets, including\ndrawings, were being delivered to the main library and the two branch libraries.\nPage 17 of 18", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-09-24", "page": 18, "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 (Vice President\nKohlstrand).\nVice President Kohlstrand advised that there had been no meetings since her last report.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board\nMember Cunningham).\nBoard member Cunningham was not in attendance to present this report.\n12. ADJOURNMENT:\n11:35 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThis meeting was audio and video taped.\nPage 18 of 18", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf"}