{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-12-10", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, December 10, 2007\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:07 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member McNamara.\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Board\nMembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Lynch, and McNamara.\nBoard members Cunningham, Mariani were absent from roll call.\nAlso present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney\nFarimah Faz, Planner III Doug Garrison, Planner I Simone Wolter, Dorene Soto,\nEconomic Development, Miriam Delagrange, Economic Development. Eric Fonstein,\nEconomic Development.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of November 13, 2007.\nb.\nMinutes for the meeting of November 26, 2007.\nStaff requests a continuation of November 13, 2007 Minutes and November 26, 2007\nMinutes.\nThe minutes will be considered at the meeting of January 14, 2008.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Cook requested that Item 8-A be moved to the Regular Agenda.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\na. Future Agendas\nMr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft when staff estimated a green\nbuilding ordinance may be put on the books in Alameda, Mr. Thomas replied that in\nFebruary or March 2008, the Planning Board would hear a presentation by the\nconsultants and staff, outlining alternative approaches to tackling it. One approach would\nbe to include everything in one package, which would take longer; the second approach\nwould be to implement green building ordinances step by step, such as establishing green\nbuilding standards for City-owned buildings and City projects first. The next step would\nbe all major commercial projects over a certain size, and finally, residential projects\nPage 1 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-12-10", "page": 2, "text": "would take longer to define. He noted that such changes to the Building Code could take\na long time, following a lot of community discussion.\nBoard member Lynch suggested that there were avenues available to the leadership of the\nCity that may be explored in addition to this effort. He noted that some cities that have\nadopted green principles and policies without having a green building ordinance. He\nsuggested that the City leaders explore executive orders, in light of ordinances being\npassed, that while moving forward with public buildings, that they shall meet a certain\nthreshold. He noted that department heads can issue policy papers that as new permits\ncome forward, that define what they would be looking for that would be consistent with\nthe Uniform Building Code as the process moves forward.\nb.\nZoning Administrator Report\nMr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATION: None.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nNone.\n8-A.\nPLN07-0059 (Use Permit) - BurgerMeister 2315 Central Avenue. The\napplicant requests a Use Permit for extended hours of operations from 11 am - 2\nam Monday through Sunday pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A(c)(1)(a), and use of an\noutdoor patio for up to 24 seats pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A(c)(1)(b). The site is\nlocated within a C-C-T, Community Commercial Theater Zoning District. (SW)\nThe Zoning Administrator has referred this item to the Planning Board.\nThis item was moved to the Regular Agenda.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was enthusiastic about the theater project in\ngeneral, and believed that this restaurant would be a positive addition. She was concerned\nabout extending the hours of operation to 2:00 a.m. She noted that the restaurant's\nwebsite identified three other San Francisco/Daly City locations, all of which closed by\n10 or 11 p.m. She understood the late closing was related to the theater, but was not sure\nthat families would be out that late; she also inquired how late AC Transit operated in\nthat area. She suggested that a closing time of 11:00 p.m. or midnight would be more\nappropriate for the Park Street district.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand regarding the closing time for La\nPinata, Board Member Lynch replied that it was open until 3:00 a.m.\nMs. Wolter noted that the applicant requested the closing time.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nPage 2 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-12-10", "page": 3, "text": "Mr. Paul McGann, applicant, noted that they would like to have the option to be open\nuntil 2:00 a.m., which did not mean they would be open that late. He would like to see\nwhat the foot traffic would be like, and what the neighborhood reaction would be. He\nnoted that if there was no business after 11:00, they would close at that time.\nMr. Eric Reese, applicant, noted that if people came out of the theater after 11:30 or\nmidnight, that would give them the option to get something to eat. He noted that the other\nlocations did not dictate a later hour, and added that they had never had any trouble at\nthose locations.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara whether they planned to apply to\na liquor license, Mr. Reese replied that they planned to apply for a liquor license.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara regarding the time of the end of\nthe last movie, Doreen Soto, Development Services, replied that the last showing of the\ntheater must start by 11:30 p.m. They had the ability to show a midnight show for\nblockbuster movies, such as Harry Potter; they must also report to the Planning Board\nannually to report on the queuing. She noted that the last people would be out of the\ntheater by 12:30 - 1:00 a.m.\nMr. Thomas noted that the wine bar use permit allowed them to stay open until midnight.\nBoard Member Lynch noted that he liked having a choice for late-night eating, and noted\nthat this was a commercial district that should have a balance of opportunities for\nrestaurant consumers.\nBoard member McNamara inquired whether the outdoor seating would be open during\nthe late hours, which she believed would create a noise issue for the neighborhood. She\ninquired whether the outdoor seating could be brought inside for the late-night hours. Mr.\nThomas replied that the use permit could be structured that way, and did not know what\nthe applicants thought of that option.\nMr. McGann replied that would entail bringing the tables and chairs inside, which may\ninterfere with the operation of the business because there was no inside storage.\nMr. Reese noted that they could ask the patrons to dine inside, and added that at that late\nhour, it would probably be too cold to eat outside.\nVice President Kohlstrand agreed with Board Member Lynch, and did not have an issue\nwith the extended hours. She noted that this use was in a commercial district, and was not\nadjacent to a residential neighborhood, and that the nearest homes were half a block\ndown.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand whether they planned to use\noutdoor heaters, Mr. McGann replied that they did not plan to use them. He added that\nthey planned to store the tables and chairs inside when the restaurant was closed, and that\nPage 3 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-12-10", "page": 4, "text": "they would probably close by 10 or 11 Sunday through Thursday. They would like to\noffer late-night dining on Friday or Saturday nights after the theater.\nPresident Cook inquired whether the use permit would be subject to revocation if it\nbecame a public nuisance. Mr. Thomas replied that Condition 1 could be left as is, with a\n2:00 a.m. closing time, and add that a review be performed after six to 12 months, such as\nwith the coffee house. He noted that the other approach would be to modify the closing\nhours by day or time, with the understanding that the applicant could request a\nmodification.\nBoard Member Lynch suggested that the Board consider a one-year review to allow the\nBoard and community to learn about the use and see the cycle through; he believed that a\nsix-month cycle would be too short a cycle. He was not in favor of restricting the hours at\nthis time, because the business model was tied to the number of people who attend the\ntheater.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft expressed some concern that the San Francisco locations\ndid not warrant a later closing time, and did not want to see other problems created on\nPark Street. Mr. Reese noted that he was involved with 15 other restaurants, and noted\nthat weather would keep people inside; they would like to help Alamedans enjoy their\npost-theater dining experience.\nMr. McGann noted that their other locations did not experience any problems with the\nneighborhood, and that they would be happy to adjust their hours as required. He noted\nthat the business volume would dictate the operating hours, and added that his track\nrecord indicated that they operated a family-friend restaurant.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 07-\nto\napprove a Use Permit for extended hours of operations from 11 am - 2 am Monday\nthrough Sunday pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A(c)(1)(a). and use of an outdoor patio for up to\n24 seats pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A(c)(1)(b), with the following modification: The one-\nyear review will commence on the date of opening.\nBoard Member Lynch seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0\nAbsent: 2 (Cunningham, Mariani). The motion passed.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A. Large Format Retail Store Workshop - Applicant - City of Alameda. The\nCity of Alameda will consider proposed zoning text amendments to the Alameda\nMunicipal Code related to large format retail stores and the location of retail uses\nthroughout Alameda. The proposed text amendments include a definition of large\nformat retail store and proposed provisions requiring a use permit for different\ntypes of retail uses in certain zoning districts. The proposed amendments would\nPage 4 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-12-10", "page": 5, "text": "affect all properties in non-residential zoning districts and mixed use zoning\ndistricts. (DG)\nMr. Garrison presented the staff report.\nBoard Member Lynch noted that with respect to the language: \"Ensure that adverse\neffects on the economic vitality of existing commercial districts are minimized,\" he\nwould like staff's definition of \"vitality.\" He suggested using the word \"viable,\" because\nwhat is vital to one individual may not be to another, nor to the tax rolls.\nMr. Garrison noted that these questions were encountered while writing the General Plan\npolicies, and that the findings were based on the policies.\nBoard Member Lynch requested clarification on the terms \"fair\" and \"equitable\" as they\nrelated to existing businesses and their desire to modify, upgrade and expand, and their\ndesire to say \"noncoforming.\" He requested that staff include insurability and financing\nof the projects.\nMr. Garrison noted that the businesses became nonconforming because they did not have\na use permit, not in the more traditional sense of not meeting a setback, or a healthy and\nsafety issue. He noted that they would like to gain the business community's knowledge\nso as to not penalize good businesses that have been in business for a long time.\nBoard Member Lynch noted that he was comfortable with that, and suggested that as staff\nmoved through the facilitated process of engaging the business community, that someone\naddress where the community should go, and what it should look like legally 20 to 30\nyears in the future. Another question would be addressing what the relationship would be\nfor a viable business to continue with their viability in the community, so that a legal\ndistinction can be reached for the entire community. He noted that people will patronize a\nstore if they enjoy the projects, and he believed the City should encourage that. He noted\nthat business owners should also remain current with the City's guidelines. He suggested\nthat staff insert those concepts in the conversation.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the Use Permit Requirements at the top of\npage 4: \"A single large format retail use permit would be required for shopping centers\nconsisting of multiple buildings with 30,000 or more square feet of cumulative floor\narea.\" She inquired whether only one use permit would be required if there were\nnumerous 30,000 square foot uses. Mr. Garrison replied that they discussed the\npossibility of numerous stores of 29,000 square feet that would be exempt, and they\nwanted to ensure there would not be a loophole. The idea was to link it to the shopping\ncenter as one large entity, not a specific building in the shopping center.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft believed that the language, \"The proposed use will be\nserved by adequate transportation and service facilities, including pedestrian, bicycle and\ntransit facilities,\" could include more detail such as bike racks, bus stops and pedestrian\nPage 5 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-12-10", "page": 6, "text": "walkways.\" Mr. Garrison replied that was in the nature of findings, which summarized all\nof the review that had been performed; the finding would be summarized in that way.\nBoard Member Lynch suggested that specific items were tangible, operational items that\nshould be included to flesh out the macro findings.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft wanted to ensure there were adequate safeguards to reflect\nthe work that had been done.\nMr. Garrison noted that the Design Review Manual would be more appropriate to\nincorporate that level of detail, including recommended minimum width sidewalks and so\non.\nVice President Kohlstrand believed that staff's work on the guidelines was very positive,\nand she was encouraged to see the people from EDC in attendance as well. She believed\nthat the bigger issues should be addressed first, such as the appropriateness of more\nshopping centers. She believed that public opinion seemed to be moving away from the\ndevelopment of shopping centers.\nVice President Kohlstrand supported staff's plan to go back to the business community, and\ninquired whether a month would be adequate, given the upcoming holidays. Mr. Thomas\nreplied that would not be adequate, but staff and the EDC wanted to move this item forward.\nThey would like to get the Zoning Amendment and General Plan policies to City Council as\na complete package.\nPresident Cook noted that she had been concerned about the large buildings at South Shore\nbeing changed piece by piece, and would like that level of change to come back to the\nPlanning Board at one time. She inquired whether there were any instances where a\nnonconforming use would be desirable in a neighborhood commercial district.\nMr. Garrison noted that when the City was looking at 60,000 square foot stores, they were\nnot going to include the C-1 neighborhood districts, because there were already policies in\nplace requiring the businesses to serve the neighborhoods, as well as other restrictions. He\nnoted that the 30,000 square foot stores would still have to meet the other policies and\nrequirements; if they did not, the City had the grounds to deny the use permit, which was a\nstronger permit than trying to deny it because of the design review when they were not\nchanging the building.\nMr. Thomas noted that there were a number of existing nonconforming businesses that did\nnot have use permits, particularly if they were initiated before the use permit requirement\ncame into place.\nVice President Kohlstrand believed this would be a good conversation to have with the\nbusinesses.\nPage 6 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-12-10", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Lynch believed that in this case, the quandary was to either bring the\nbusiness into a legal status, or allow the business to continue as is.\nMr. Thomas noted that, for instance, Bridgeside Shopping Center would be a legal,\nnonconforming use.\nBoard Member Lynch believed there should be one policy from the City that would be\nconsistently applied. He agreed that staff was heading in the right direction with this\ndocument.\nMr. Thomas invited Board comment on whether staff was in the right ballpark with respect\nto the 30,000 square foot policy, and whether that made sense.\nThe Planning Board generally agreed that staff was headed in the right direction.\nBoard Member Lynch suggested that when staff brought the nonconforming item back to\nthe Planning Board, that three or four examples be provided and walked through to provide\nmore detail for the Board and the public.\nBoard Member Lynch left the meeting following Item 9-A.\n9-B. Review and comment on the proposed Economic Development Strategic Plan\n- Citywide - Applicant - City of Alameda.\nMr. Eric Fonstein, Economic Development Coordinator, Development Services\nDepartment, presented the staff report.\nPresident Cook complimented the EDC on a well-crafted document. She suggested\naddressing each point in order. Mr. Fonstein noted that staff would incorporate the\nBoard's comments in a document to be presented to City Council.\nStrategy 1: Create Industrial and Office Jobs\nPresident Cook noted that there was not much discussion of maritime businesses, which\nwas a rich part of Alameda's history and a significant part of Alameda's attraction to\nvisitors. She would like to see those businesses retained.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that the stated goal for business parks to attract more\nrestaurants and transit facilities was good, but that they were built as single-use\ndevelopments, and were not very conducive to people walking around because the uses\nwere spread out. She noted that the land use patterns were significant to how the uses\nwere integrated to begin with, to help generate pedestrian uses.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 5 discussed business retention forums, and\nadded that Mr. Fonstein contributed a significant amount of time and effort to those\nforums and meetings. She had read that the City's vacancy rates were higher than others\nPage 7 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-12-10", "page": 8, "text": "along the 880 corridor, which may have to do with freeway access. She noted that Harbor\nBay Business Park was experiencing higher vacancy rates, perhaps because of the lack of\namenities. She believed that the business park employees want places to eat for lunch or\ndinner, or do some shopping. She believed that those amenities should be considered, and\nsuggested surveying the employees at the business parks and large companies such as\nWind River regarding those amenities. Regarding historical rail options for transit\ncorridors (page 8, initiative 3), she would like bicycles and pedestrians, but not cars, to be\naddressed. Regarding a brochure/press kit identifying greenhouse gas reduction impacts,\nshe suggested that rather than using paper brochures, that the City's web site be used\ninstead to reduce the use of resources.\nPresident Cook noted that the end of page 7 read, \"Develop and implement a smart\ngrowth ordinance that promotes new transit development.\" She inquired whether that\nshould read \"transit-oriented development.\" Mr. Fonstein agreed.\nStrategy 2 - Increase the Availability and Quality of Retail Goods and Services\nPresident Cook reflected Vice President Kohlstrand's comments on the need to\ncoordinate the objectives of the citizens, EDC and the Planning Board. She noted that A-\n3 (page 9) read, \"Limiting mall-scale retail to Harbor Bay Landing, Marina Village and\nSouth Shore Center, and other potential sites of appropriate scale.\" She added that the\nBoard struggled with Alameda Landing, and that this item reflected that struggle, and that\nthe South Shore process had been an example of the Board's focus on staying away from\nmall-scale developments.\nVice President Kohlstrand agreed with President Cook's comments, and did not see the\nsurvey reflect people wanting more malls. She inquired whether more traditional business\ndistricts, such as Park Street or 4th Street in Berkeley, would be appropriate in terms of\ndevelopment patterns, not just specific retail stores. She noted that updated thinking may\nwork better, leading to a more compact, pedestrian- and transit-friendly mixed use\ndevelopment.\nBoard member McNamara supported Vice President Kohlstrand's comments.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Vice President Kohlstrand's comments.\nShe inquired about the notation of the bottom of page 13, which read \"Promote Retail\nDistricts at the International Council of Shopping Centers Annual Convention in\nMonterey.\"\nDoreen Soto, Economic Development, replied that the International Council of Shopping\nCenters was an organization that followed retail developments and trends, and examined\nsmart growth and green growth alternatives. The conferences contained training sessions,\nand retailers throughout the country attend the convention. Cities also send\nrepresentatives to recruit new businesses, and to learn about new trends in retail.\nPage 8 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-12-10", "page": 9, "text": "Mr. Fonstein noted that at the last several conferences, the City has specifically promoted\nWebster Street and Park Street with marketing materials and demographic information.\nMr. Thomas noted that Bay Street in Emeryville was not a mall, but had the same acres\nof parking, although they were stacked up and generated as many car trips per square foot\nas Alameda Landing. He believed they did a better job of hiding the parking from a\ndesign standpoint.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that housing had been added to the top of some retail\nuses on Bay Street.\nMr. Thomas added that retail tenants demand parking.\nVice President Kohlstrand believed the parking requirements were changing the face of\nthe urban area.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft would like to see the bar set higher in Alameda, and noted\nthat a laudable job had been done on Park Street; she would like to see further progress\non Webster Street. She noted that older districts such as Burlingame and Monterey were\nviable. She took exception to the theme of tenant mix including \"larger format chain\nrestaurants, such as those oriented to the shopper so as to avoid diluting the main street\nbusiness district's emphasis on entertainment, and independent and fine dining\nrestaurants.' She believed that even in the retail centers, Alameda could do better than\nlarge-format chain restaurants, and that quality dining in a shopping center would not\ndetract from quality dining on Webster Street.\nPresident Cook cited that the new Comerica building, which seemed to be ideal for a\nrestaurant, but did not have the required parking. She believed it was important to include\nthe Board's desire to reduce parking in business districts. She did not want to lose the\npedestrian orientation in Alameda Landing.\nStrategy 3 - Business Travel, Market and Limited Impact Tourist Attractions\nPresident Cook noted that it would be important to go further than marketing existing\nmeeting spaces in Alameda, and believed that Alameda needed new meeting spaces. She\nwas concerned that the large civic events like the annual fundraiser for the boys and girls\nclub have to meet in Oakland because there were not large enough facilities to\naccommodate them in Alameda.\nStrategy 4 - Create Recreational Entertainment Facilities\nPresident Cook reflected the Planning Board's stated desire to have better public access\nand commercial and recreational uses on the water so that the waterfront is active and\nsafe. She would like to go further and discuss the need for waterfront design and access\nplans in Alameda, which had been supported by the Planning Board and City Council.\nPage 9 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-12-10", "page": 10, "text": "Strategy 5 - Provide for Internal and External Traffic Circulation\nVice President Kohlstrand believed the strategies and accomplishments were multimodal\nin orientation, and believed the strategy should be renamed so it did not focus solely on\ntraffic. She believed it should be identified as a multimodal transportation strategy that\nlooked at emphasizing pedestrian, transit and bicycle access.\nVice President Kohlstrand believed that it was important to avoid \"mega-blocks,\" and to\nkeep the scale of city at a more reasonable 400-500 feet in length so that pedestrians can\nget from one place to another comfortably.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 21, Item 1, read, \"Develop an action item\nlist that targets how to spend the collected commercial in-lieu parking fees.\" She\nsupported a proposal that had been accepted to increase the parking meter fees in\nAlameda to be more in line with surrounding communities. She noted that the in-lieu fees\nwere not meant for the general fund, but should be fed back into transit and pedestrian\nimprovements, which would bring the business owners online with respect to district\nimprovements.\nStrategy 6 - Foster New Enterprises\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the Alameda Beauty College had been in place\nfor a long time, and believed that Alameda College would be an ideal location for it. She\nbelieved that the Beauty College students might want to take other courses at Alameda\nCollege, and noted that there were day care facilities as well. She added that space would\nbe freed up on that block for a more appropriate retail/restaurant use.\nPresident Cook would like to see a way to foster new green uses in Alameda, and to find\na market for that goal.\nBoard member McNamara noted that was listed in the staff report, \"Attracting green\nbusinesses into the City.\" President Cook would like that goal to be incorporated into the\nplan update.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it was also at the bottom of page 8, \"Develop\nfast-tracking or reduced fee permitting for sustainable and green businesses and project to\nencourage their relocation of green businesses to Alameda, and the development of\nsustainable buildings,\"\nMr. Fonstein noted that they would strengthen the presence of green building\nopportunities in the document.\nStrategy 7 - Promote Affordable Housing\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft recalled a recent report on NPR, which discussed recent\nforeclosures. It stated that as developers got into building bigger houses, prospective\nPage 10 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-12-10", "page": 11, "text": "buyers stretched to buy bigger houses. She noted that there was a shortage of reasonably-\nsized affordable housing that would allow people to become homeowners without\ndestroying them financially.\nMs. Soto noted that the City was working with several developers on projects, and that\nthe current Codes require like-kind affordable homes. For instance, a 2,500-square-foot\nhome development would require the affordable units to be like-kind.\nPresident Cook noted that if people wanted mixed use and an active waterfront, they need\nto be able to look at different housing products and types. She believed it was important\nfor housing or office above retail uses for a true mixed use to be available.\nVice President Kohlstrand inquired whether the parking strategy was intended to attract\nnew office uses into the Webster Street business area. She believed that commercial\ndistricts should have on-street parking.\nMr. Fonstein noted that he and Mr. Garrison had taken a walking tour of Park Street\nbefore beginning the process of hiring a consultant. They noted that there were changing\nuses of the structures off Park Street, which were becoming more office building uses.\nVice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 07-\nto\nendorse the Economic Development Strategic Plan, with the stated modifications.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4.\nNoes: 0 Absent: 2 (Cunningham, Lynch, Mariani). The motion passed.\n9-C. City of Alameda General Plan Retail Policy Amendments - Applicant - City\nof Alameda. The Planning Board will consider a General Plan Amendment to\namend Section 2.5 Retail Business and Services, to add and modify policies as\nrecommended by the Alameda Citywide Retail Policy Report. The proposed\namendments would affect all properties in non-residential zoning districts and\nmixed use zoning districts. (AT) (Staff requests continuation to the meeting of\nJanuary 14, 2008.)\nMr. Thomas noted that this item has begun to be circulated publicly, and noted that if the\nBoard did not wish to have mall-style development, the General Plan was the appropriate\nplace to articulate that wish.\nThis item was continued to January 14, 2008.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nPage 11 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-12-10", "page": 12, "text": "a.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force (Board\nMembers Cook/Kohlstrand).\nPresident Cook advised that there had been no meeting since the last report, and that the\nnext meeting would be held December 13, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. at the Officer's Club.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember Mariani).\nBoard member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report, and no meetings had\nbeen held.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Vice President\nKohlstrand).\nVice President Kohlstrand advised that no meetings had been held since the last report.\nd.\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.\nADJOURNMENT:\n9:51 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThese minutes were approved at the January 28, 2008, Planning Board meeting. This\nmeeting was audio and video taped.\nPage 12 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf"}